HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit 90-13-BLA - LOWE LEROY - HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT90-13-bla BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
slade way at south 160th street
lowe leroy
June 7, 1994 HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
Leroy Lowe
A.I.A. Architects
P.O. Box 1241
Seattle, WA. 98111
Subject: Hillcrest 90- 13- BLA /91 -3 -APRD
Dear Mr. Lowe:
incerely,
jack P'
S4nior Planner
cc:Phil Fraser
Gary Schulz
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
John W. Rants, Mayor
Rick Beeler, Director
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.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
January 5, 1994
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
Mr. Dan Clayton
Shannon & Wilson
400 North 34th Street, Suite 100
P.O. Box 300303
Seattle, WA 98103
Subject: Deep Seated Slide Evaluation
Dear Dan:
Please provide a Scope of Work to provide information of the Deep
Seated Slide Area in the Hillcrest - Slade Way - Klickitat area.
The area is marked on Figure 1 of the October 1992 Shannon &
Wilson 1960 Landslide Location and Remediation drawing and the
Cross Section through Hillcrest, Slade Wav & Klickitat simplified
sketch (both attached) .
The information is to be used in recommending approval or denial
of the Hillcrest development. The recommendation information
needs to assess safety and risk to the development affected by
the Deep Seated Slide.
The scope may best be in phases to reach a recommendation
decision. The recommendation would need to consider safety
factors and the Sensitive Areas Ordinance requirements.
Sincerely,
Ron Cameron, P.E.
City Engineer
RC:ad
Attachments
(10:76)
John W. Rants, Mayor
,Ross A. Eamst, P. E., Director.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 •• Tukwila, Washington 48188 • " Phone: (2061433.0179 Faz(206) 3665
This is the slope which Shannon
and Wilson state is the head -
, scarp of a prehistoric landslide.
ZSci•-
This is the 'deep - seated'
26 slide studied by Cascade
Gootochnical.
l.Sa-
H'LLLcR.`'ST_ OE EL_
The steep slope in the dry sand
unit on the Hilicrest property is
being . continually undermined by
emerging groundwater. As soil
Is carried off, the slope retreats,
all the while maintaining the .
angle of repose of the sand which
comprises it. •
This is the area in which the
drainage measures wore placed
. to control the slide on tho
•hillside between Slade Way and
Klickitat Drive. This area and
the drainage measures within it
are believed to be publicly owned
(by the State of Washington ?)
This is the approximate
location of the 'deep - seated"
slides which occurred in .
1960 -61.
7 ., wre
i!/BL /CLY
'This is the area from which
material was removed in 1960,
and which resulted in the loss of
lateral support of the hillside
between Klickitat Drive and Slade;
Way. . •
—
: I" - I op'
HILLCREST •
..
•
....,Approximate Extent .
Geotechnical Review
LeRoy Lowe Development
' Tukwila, Washington
1960 LANDSLIDE LOCATION
AND REMEDIATION
October 1 y . W-6367-01
•
qt... ?
•• •• •• •:SZ?.... : ■ • • • •
•- "
*.•-•
••••.
•■ er"
• ---••
............ .... :!: . ••••••:* . •••••
1960-1968 SLOPE IMPROVEMENTS
o Original.Test Drains •
0----- Recommended Drain (Grade: 1-3%)
= Cylinder Pile Wall
Existing or Proposed Right of Way
. Additional Vertical Drains (6-9-in. dia.)
1 •
Large Diameter (5') Deep Well
Final Excavated Slope (horizontal:vertical)
Piezometer Installed During 1966 Investigation
FS Slope Indicator
Profile Location
■• ..
N \
•%. t_ • •N .
\ 'N.K:
s., N
f I \
( R \ •
.......1
• \ • .. „ ...• ...• •
.. • ...--
tat Drive -----". . • - ....
...:- - ',. ... ...• \'--" y
..— \
r • - , 4 \ .• ....
•-• •••-
_
\ .
..._ .
\./..• : \
---...........----: --.
....—, \ •
.• . .
/ "...::‘•
.. -\*.
...A \
s • •
• i 0 "
• 0) •
i •
I
2 0
•
....,•••••. •
•• •<
S .
■
0 100 200 400
Scale in Feet
NOTE
Modified from Shannon & Wilson, Inc., 1966.
SHANNON & WILSON, INC. I Pr!
P.O. BOX 1241 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98111
JACK PACE
2 4 :1994
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
P.O. BOX 1241 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 99111
JACK PACE PLANNER
CITY OF TUKWILA
6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD
TUKWILA, WA. 98188
RFCFWED
JAN i ;9'1
CUMMUNi"t Y
DEVELOPMENT
DEAR MR . PACE : DEC . 21, 1993
THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION YOU SHARED WITH ME DURING
YOUR PHONE CALL OF DEC. 14, 1993.
YOU STATED THAT YOUR SUBMITTAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL. WILL BE COMPLETED ON DEC. 27, 1993 AND TFIAT YOUR
DOCUMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE
S .A.O. -(SENSATIVE AREA ORDINANCE), AS IT APPLIES TO MY
PROJECT.
YOU OFFERED TO INCLUDE MY RESPONSE TO YOUR APPEAL AT
THAT TIME. I WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO PROVIDE A REBUTTAL TO
YOUR APPEAL, BUT FIRST I MUST READ, REVIEW, AND ANALYSE
YOUR PAPER TO PROPERLY PREPARE A RESPONSE TO SAME.
MY REBUTTAL , WHEN CO
CITY CLERK FOR DISTRIBU
VERY TRULY YOURS : \ LEROY
ET 1 ILL BE DELIVERED TO THE
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
P.O. BOX 124! SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 20111
LYNDA COHEN ATTORNEY
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA. 98188
RECEIVED
.:JAS 0 3 MA
COMMUNITY
`t
DEVELOPMENT
DEAR Ms COHEN : DEC. 29, 1993
ON DEC . 14TH 1993 JACK PACE CITY PLANNER AND I DISCUSSED
THE HEARING WHICH IS TO BE HELD IN YOUR CHAMBERS ON JAN.
10 , 1994. IN THE COURSE OF THIS DISCUSSION HE STATED THAT
HE WOULD BE SUBMITTING A WRITTEN ARGUMENT TO THE TRIERS,
AND THAT I WOULD BE PERMITTED TO RESPOND WITH A WRITTEN
REBUTTAL. HE STATED THAT BOTH SUBMITTALS SHOULD BE MADE,
BY DECEMBER 27ni 1993.
I STATED THAT MY REBUTTAL WOULD BE SUBMITTED PROMPTLY,
WHEN HIS ARGUMENTS WERE MADE'KNOWN TO ME; I THEN
COMMENCED A DRAFT OF MY REBUTTAL, BASED ON WHAT I
ANTICIPATED HIS ARGUMENTS WOULD BE, SO THAT I WOULD BE
IN A POSITION TO AMEND IT AS NECESSARY, AND COMPLETE MY
SUBMITTAL WITHOUT DELAY. MR. PACE HAS NOT PROVIDED ME
WITH A COPY OF HIS ARGUMENT, AND NOW CLAIMS THAT HE
NEVER INTENDED TO MAKE HIS ARGUMENTS KNOWN TO ME.
MR. PACE HAS INFORMED ME BY TELEPHONE CONVERSATION, ON
DEC . 27TH THAT BECAUSE MY REBUTTAL WAS NOT RECEIVED BY
DEC , 27TH , I AM NOT TO BE ALLOWED SUBMIT A WRITTEN
REBUTTAL
. LOW A.I.A.
iH SHANNON , INC.
September 10, 1993
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attn: Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner
RE: SOILS AND GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PROPOSED
HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
SEATTLE
HANFORD
FAIRBANKS
ANCHORAGE
SAINT LOUIS
BOSTON
At your request, we have reviewed a letter and attachments from Mr. LeRoy Lowe dated July
20, 1993. We understand that the purpose of Mr. Lowe's letter was to appeal our interpretation
of the Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO) as it applies to a Boundary Line Adjustment
for the proposed Hillcrest Development. The attachments to Mr. Lowe's letter include working
drawings of three foundation design options and letters from Bredberg and Associates, Inc. and
from Neil Twelker and Associates, Inc.
In his letter, Mr. Lowe disagrees with our evaluation of the adequacy of the slope stability
analysis performed by Cascade Geotechnical Consultants and offers the following opinions as
additional basis for his appeal:
• Three professional engineers have advised him that, "there will be no adverse impact
to the project or surrounding properties ";
• "Construction would have a stabilizing effect in controlling on -site water and thus, add
a dimension of slope stability ";
• "Mr. Lamb of Cascade has stated that the site is stable and the potential for landsliding
on this property has been addressed "; and
► Various foundation designs are available that "will eliminate any impact to the project
as a result of geologic instability."
In reviewing Mr. Lowe's letter and attachments, we find no basis for revising the conclusions
presented in our peer review and summarized in our letter of June 28, 1993 to the City of
Tukwila. With the exception of the last point listed above, the opinions that Mr. Lowe has
RECD n'ft...:.
400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100
P.O. BOX 300303
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103
206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777
SEP 'I 01993 W- 6367 -03
C(JIVii:;l3 �7
DEVELOPMEN I
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner
September 10, 1993
Page 2
SHANNON 6WILSON, INC.
offered in his appeal were previously discussed with Mr. Lowe and were considered in our letter
of June 28, 1993.
To reiterate our position, both shallow and deep - seated slope stability analyses are necessary
to evaluate the geologic stability of the proposed project. As of this time, no deep - seated
analysis has been performed for the project, although the applicant has been advised repeatedly
of the importance we place on this analysis in evaluating the geologic stability of the property.
In our opinion, a deep - seated analysis is critical to this evaluation because:
• The proposed development is situated on an old landslide deposit, with the 'scarp of
that slide crossing the property immediately west of the proposed residences.
• Surficial soils in several areas downslope from the site appear to be unstable, including
an area which is affecting Slade Way to the south of the proposed development.
• Slope indicator data from the vicinity of Slade Way immediately downslope of the
property provide questionable evidence of minor, relatively deep - seated slope move-
ment since the 1960 landslide.
• A large deep - seated slope failure occurred in 1960 on an adjoining property a short
distance downslope. Recurrent movement on this landslide, if it were to occur, might
threaten the stability of the site.
• Three static and dynamic slope stability analyses conducted during the 1980s indicate
that the deep - seated slope stability of the area immediately downslope from the
proposed Hillcrest Development is marginal, at best, and likely to diminish over time
if the hillside dewatering system operated by WSDOT continues to deteriorate.
The slope stability analysis report prepared by Cascade Geotechnical does not address these
issues nor does it provide rationale why these considerations were not addressed. Considering
the evidence that deep - seated sliding could potentially affect the project, we do not believe that
the requirements or intent of the SAO have been met. Lacking documentable evidence to the
contrary, it would appear prudent to assume that the site is at risk from a deep - seated slope
failure and that such a failure could pose a considerable risk to the proposed development and
its occupants.
With respect to Mr. Lowe's opinion that the foundation design options presented in his appeal
could be used to eliminate any impact to the project resulting from geologic instability, we
believe that he has not provided an adequate basis for this conclusion. It is our opinion that a
W- 6367 -03
City of Tukwila
Attn: Mr. Jack Pace, Senior Planner
September 10, 1993
Page 3
meaningful evaluation of foundation feasibility and design for this site would require a deep -
seated slope stability analysis along with an understanding of the depth of potential movement
that could result from sliding. This information has not been provided by the applicant, nor has
it been developed to our knowledge. Consequently, there does not appear to be any basis to
conclude that foundations could be designed to eliminate the risk of irreparable damage to
structures or possible risk to human health or safety.
Along with Mr. Lowe's appeal for a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA), his consultants have
provided information about a proposed relocation of the wetlands currently on site to a location
on the lower part of the hillside. Although we have concerns about the effect of such a wetland
on the overall slope stability, this aspect of the project has not been considered in our review
because it is our understanding that the placement and design of wetlands is not relevant to the
requirements for a BLA.
We will be pleased to discuss any questions regarding this letter or our review of the proposed
project.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Daniel N. Clayton, C.E.G.
Senior Associate
DNC:WPG /dnc
W6367 -03.LTR/W6367- Ikd /eet
SHANNON FIWILSON, INC.
W- 6367 -03
PugetWestern•Inc.
19515 North Creek Parkway,
Suite 310
Bothell, WA 98011
TEL (206) 487-6550
FAX (206) 487-6565
January 4, 1993
Mr. Leroy Lowe, A.I.A.
P.O. Box 3972
Bellevue, WA 98009
To Whom It May Concern:
Mr. Leroy Lowe has the option to purchase the property at South 160th and Slade Way, Tukwila,
Washington, known as Hillcrest.
S' i cer
C. R. CA SEY
President
CRC /kwb
December 21, 1992
LeRoy Lowe
P.O.Box 1241
Seattle, WA 98111
RE: L92 -0057, HILLCREST BLA, APRD
Dear Mr. Lowe,
This letter is a follow up to our meeting on December 10, 1992. In
response to your concerns, Public Works will direct our consultant
to develop a more specific scope of work where further studies are
recommended in the conclusions of his report. In addition, Public
Works will schedule a meeting between your consultant and ours to
discuss the conclusions and recommendations.
A separate issue has come to my attention. Our records indicate
that Puget Western is shown as the owner of the property. I need an
updated document showing you either own the property or have
permission of the property owner.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Phil
Fraser (433 -0179) or myself.
Sincerely,
ack Pace
Senior Planner
cc: Phil Fraser
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
September 9, 1992
Mr. W. Paul Grant, P.E.
Vice President
Shannon & Wilson
P.O. Box 300303
Seattle, Washington 98103
Dear Mr. Grant:
RE: Leroy Lowe Development Geo Evaluation
Thank you for the 41 Ave. S. study. Enclosed is a similar scope of work
outline for a proposed plat. It is located on the hill west of I -5 and south
of SR -518. The work includes reviewing several other studies, calculating and
recommending the following:
- what to do with existing runoff and with development runoff;
- affects on the hillside and Slade Way of the development and
determining existing stability;
- suggestions of site development considering the wetland and our
sensitive area ordinance and
- runoff cannot be increased
The budgeted amount for this work is $7,500 and a draft report is requested for
October 9. Could a contract be prepared using the enclosed City contract and
work supplement? This is the work we discussed on the phone.
We look forward to getting this underway. Please call me at 433 -0179 if more
information would be helpful.
Sincerely,
.:off
Ron Cameron, P.E.
City Engineer
RMC /kjp
Enclosures
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
CF: Jack Pace, Senior Planner
Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer
File: Leroy Lowe Shortplat
John W. Rants, Mayor
Ross A. Earnst, P. E., Director
RECEIVED
SEP 1 0 1992
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
5,044' 10141.-
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: (206) 433.0179 • Fax. (206) 4313665
Leroy Lowe Shortplat
Soils and Geo Evaluation
Scope of Work Items
I. Review site, vicinity, and existing area soils and geo reports
Cascade (3) for Leroy Lowe (City copy)
GeoEngineers Valley View Estates (City copy)
Dames & Moore Valley View Estates (City copy)
Soils /Geo reports from 53 Ave S, S 160 St, and Crystal Springs (City copy)
King County Soils information (as available)
WSDOT I -5 or other S &W reports (as available)
II. Provide professional opinion and recommendations
1. Identify existing stability of Slade Way
2. Recommendations for existing Slade Way
- immediate actions to take
- long term actions to take
3. Quantify Lowe development runoff
September 9, 1992
amount of runoff:
- existing drainage ( "normal" and storm maximums)
- increased by dewatering ( "normal" and storm maximums)
impervious surface increase
what affects on the slope and hillside?
what affects on Slade Way? what seismic affects?
6. What is safety factor of Slade Way and the hillside and what affect
could the development have on it?
7. What considerations should be made for dewatering the site relative
to hillside? What recommendations are there for the dewatering
runoff and impervious surface runoff to maximize stability and
meet runoff requirements?
8. The City cannot increase the drainage from the hill through the
I -5 interchange drainage system. What measures and recommended
action to control dewatering and impervious runoff should be made
to approve the development to meet this condition? .
9. Considering Tukwila's Sensitive Area Ordinance:
- can 5 lots be developed on this site?
- what wetland mitigations could be suggested?
August 19, 1992
LeRoy Lowe
P.O. Box 1241
Seattle, WA 98111
RE: L92 - 0057, HILLCREST BLA, APRD .
Dear Mr. Lowe,
This letter follow up our meeting on. August 5, 1992. As soon as
Public Works complete the scope of work for the peer review and
selects a consultant, I will pass on that information to you. Ron
Cameron mention that the review would be completed by the second
week in November.
Under the Sensitive Area Ordinance, you can submit a new request
for Reasonable Use Exception at any time. The criteria for
approval would be same as the first request. I have asked Darren
Wilson to look into your request as to the status of the refund for
a`SEPA. If you should have any further questions, please feel free
to call or write.
Sincerely,
JAck Pace
Senior Planner
cc: Ron Cameron
City Engineer
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
John W. Rants, Mayor •
Rick Beeler, Director
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100' o Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431.3670 • Fax: (206) 431 -3665
TO:
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Rants
City Council Members
Rick Beeler, DCD Director
FROM: Gary Schulz, DCD - Urban Environmentalist
DATE: July 20, 1992
RE: CURRENT SENSITIVE AREAS ISSUES
The following was prepared as an "update" report on current
Sensitive Areas issues. I have attempted to list the issues in an
order associated with the age of the project. The project list
provided in this memo hopefully includes enough detailed
information. Sensitive area slope alterations, administered by the
LAO Permit Process, are not included in this report. Most of these
projects have been minor such as brush removal and constructing
residential rockeries. Please contact me if there are any
questions regarding these issues and projects.
Project:
Hillcrest - Lowe Boundary Adjustment/
Admin. PRD.
(Slade Way S. & S.160th Street)
Type:
Residential
John W. Rants, Mayor
Status:
Wetland Study completed. Scheduled for Reasonable Use Exception
hearing before the Planning Commission on 7/30/92. Wetland
mitigation has been requested. The applicant's position is that
the mitigation requirement is unjustified because the site needs to
be dewatered to stabilize Slade Way and protect the public.
Administrative Position:
Retain the northern'half of the on -site wetland area for natural
habitat and water flow. On -site mitigation of the entire wetland
area would be impossible to complete. Staff is concerned that
draining entire site will strain DOT water system along Interstate
5.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431 -3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
July 17, 1992
Leroy Lowe
A.I.A. Architects
P.O. Box 1241
Seattle, WA 98111
Dear Mr. Lowe:
WETLANDS:
City of Tukwila
Subject: Hillcrest 90- 13- BLA/91 -3 -APRD
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Rick Beeler, Director
This letter is to recap the two meetings we have 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:
* 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.
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.
PUBLIC FACILITIES:
SETBACKS:
* 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).)
* 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:
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.
RESPONSE TO JUNE 29, 1992 LETTER:
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. T. 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 •
S' erel
Jac ' ace
Senior Planner
cc: Phil. Fraser
Gary Schulz
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 staff's 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.
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
P.O. 80X 1241 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98111
JACK PACE
EARLIEST DATE POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF
THE S.A.O. MORATORIUM EXTENSIONS.
•
PAGE TWO
ti LERO , C ./LOWE A.I. ' .
(._
CC ; RICK BEELER
AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING MAR. 26, 1992
ON MY APPEAL TO YOUR DEMAND FOR A WETLAND STUDY; YOU
PLEADED WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REQUIRE ME TO
PROVIDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH A WETLAND STUDY
BECAUSE MY ENGINEERS HAD RECOMMENDED THE SITE MUST
BE DEWATERED TO STOP FURTHER DETERIORATION OF SLADE
WAY AND THE DOWN SLOPE PROPERTY AND YOU, MR. PACE,
WANTED AN INVENTORY OF WHAT WAS THERE .
MY POSSITION WAS THAT IT WAS FOLLY TO SPEND MONEY
STUDYING A WETLAND THAT WAS SOON TO DISAPPEAR, BY
RECOMMENDATION, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
THIS WETLAND STUDY WAS COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED TO
THE TUKWILA PLANNING STAFF ON APRIL 20, 1992 IN RESPONSE
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS REQUEST FOR SAME
YOU ASKED FOR A MEETING WITH ME FOR JUNE 24, 1992 IN
RESPONSE TO MY PETITION FOR A REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION
AS PROVIDED FOR IN YOUR S.A.O. ORDINANCE AND A SUBMITTAL
OF THE WETLAND STUDY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS
THEY HAD SO REQUESTED.
MR. PACE YOU HAVE HAD OVER 2 MONTHS TO REVIEW THE
WETLAND STUDY AND 8 MONTHS TO REVIEW MY B.L.A. APP.
AT THAT JUNE 24 MEETING YOU STATED THAT YOU WOULD NOT
SUBMIT MY REASONABLE USE PETITION WITH THE WETLAND
STUDY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
MR . PACE YOU ARE DENYING ME MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
PETITION MY GOVERNMENT; I THEREFORE HIGHLY RECOMMEND
THAT YOU SUBMIT MY PETITION IMMEDIATELY.
Attached (Draft 6/12/92 letter)
xc. Development file: Hillcrest
Read file
PRF:pf
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jack Pace /Darren Wilson
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: 6/16/92
SUBJECT: Draft 6/12/92 Letter to LeRoy Lowe - HILLCREST 90- 13 -BLA
Reflecting the 6/3/92 meeting attended by myself, the
following comments need be inserted into this letter:
1. After the final property lines have been proposed based on the
delineation study, Public Works will conduct a peer review of your
geotechnical /hydrological reports. As part of your submittal will
be a letter indicating your geotech has reviewed the revised
submittal and his reports either are modified or not modified
as appropriate.
2. 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 flows
to original off -site discharge rates.
3. The existing water system provides limited capacity to serve your
development. A looped system is necessary to provide a reliable
fire /domestic flows for the intended use. The developer
will work with Highline Water District to obtain any joint
funding for the required public water main in 53rd. Ave. S.
tieing existing sytems at Slade Way and S. 160th Street together.
At the meeting the Highline Water representative was agreeable
to presenting the joing funding concept to his Commissioners.
4. Water & Sewer availability letters to be included in your submittal
and be based on the final lot configuration.
5. If any utilities, access or wetlands /springs preservation requires
easements across lot lines in the new reconfigured lot line
proposal, these easements will be shown now as part of the
submittal.
RAFT
June 12, 1992
LeRoy Lowe
P.O. Box 3972
Bellevue, Wa. 98009
RE: HILLCREST 90 - BLA
Dear Mr. Lowe:
DRAFT
8 9 0 14.
ADMINISTRATIVE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION
The purpose of this letter is to explain the sequence of events in
order to complete your Administrative Planned Residential
Development /Boundary Line Adjustment and Sensitive Area Ordinance.
Please excuse the delay in producing this letter. I have accepted
a new position with the City. The comments listed below are based
on our meeting of Wednesday, June 3, 1992.
The conditions are divided into requirements that need to be met
prior to final approval of your Administrative Planned Residential
Development, Boundary Line Adjustment and Sensitive Area Ordinance.
After reviewing your property DCD Staff believes that a Type 3
wetland exists on the subject property.
* The wetland delineation work with your wetland consultant has
determined total sizes and confirguations of the wetland
areas. Specific wetland boundary revisions i n c 1 u d e
additional flagging for Wetland A.
* 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.
* Because all on -site wetlands are less than 1..0 acres in area
size 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.
LEROY LOWE PAGE TWO
'90- 13 -BLA
* Any proposed alternation to 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 on site plan setbacks, all . setbacks under APRD may be
reduced with DCD Director's approval.
* The Sensitive Areas Ordinance allows Type 1 and 2 wetlands to
be altered under (TMC 18.45.080 A,B & H) certain conditions
i.e. maintenance, repair of existing uses and facilities
construction of new essential streets, right -of -way, and
utilities. If the SAO would deny all reasonable use of the
property or development may be allowed (Section 18.45.115 C.
3) wetland mitigation are required in all wetlands.
If wish to or not to proceed with the Boundary Line Adjustment, you
must revise your application and provide the following information.
* Identify on map page water line locations
* Provide a stormwater plan_ which complies to City Standards.
Mr. Lowe, if this does not accurately reflect the understanding
reached at our meeting or should you have additional questions
regarding these matters, please contact Jack Pace at 431 -3686.
Thank You
Darren Wilson, Assistant Planner
RC, IJ
MI
cc: John McFarland, City Administrator
Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
J ack Pace, Senior Planner
Phil Fraser410ffir Engineer
5 b- t IbfL
cA LmN
•
qedberg Associates, Inc.
Dear Leroy:
Post Office Box 1337 (206) 858 -7055
Gig Harbor, WA 98335 FAX (206) 858 -2534
May 15, 1992
Leroy Lowe, A.I.A.
410 Bellevue Way SE.
Bellevue, WA 98004
RE: Slade Way and S. 160th St.
Tukwila
Please find accompanying the revised wetland map.
• Wetlands B & C are now contiguous with the addition on wetland flag 7A.
Sincerely,
A. redberg
Bredberg & Assoc., Inc.
cc: Mr. Gary Schultz
- -Flags 39A, 39B, & 39C
The following changes have been made:
• Wetland D has been located and is less than 400 sf.
• Wetland flags 27A and 27 B have been located so Wetland A runs more contiguous.
• Extensions to Wetland A have been located. - -Flags 45A, 45B, 45C, 47C, 47B, & 47A
A site visit by our office, 5- 14 -92, confirmed the above information. If there are any questions or
concerns, please feel free to give me a call at 858 -7055.
MAY 151992
CITY OF DEPT. A
PLANNING
Sn
ZOACHMENT
• HEM
•
EMLOCK
H 0.11_00;
4*
fit
Vt
0'
MLOCK
C
17'
40
41
L4
L44 . W
L46
0.
L37
U,
WL38 wE-tuvob
L39 L36
-WL49
4/P ES L 48
4". 4F" L47
1-IEMLOC
►Ad,
i
30' HEMLOCK
L3 5-
34
L33
31
I
50
A
u,1ETr.At
A
u.JE1LA Nb
6 +c
/C
WL2
L 2 L24
15 HEMLO K
L.3
56
WL21 WL2
ETLANDS
•
40" MAPLE
WL11
WL
WL25
9
WL
00 S
WL
16
WL1
'L18
t ►,
L
6.5
WL6
LS'
L4
L3
WL
76
8
L75
4
AP LE
PLE
Abe<
S88' 03'22" E
UMP
.2
20" CEDAR
SHED
0 656
" H EMLO C 1:
: O :
15" HE
EMLOCK
0
to
0
Revised Wetlan
d I✓ocation Map
Slade Way & S. 160th St.
Bredberg & Associates, Inc.
Gig Harbor, Washington
•
5c'o F EET
t
I .
rlr60fr-l•
L7
i t '
RI
B'
e '
e
HEMLOCK
IAPLE
P LE
....
Oa r
e
•
o .
L-
C
vt
t�► •
Y
HEML
.0
CK
12
50
- vIL49
L48
ES
[47
w
vet
EMLOCK
o
1
5
5" HE
•
L
2
H EM LO
L 3
L54
LOCK
L5
LC.3
WL2
56
LC
NAI
z'
4.
\ii-L)&' L6
2
L
111
WL
76
L67 L71
WL
WL.9
►Ad
Alp:*
L�
L75
4
8
7
WL1
22" MAPLE
.0' II
:ASEMENT 0 --
20" CEDAR
•
UMP
.2
17 '
Ht� L H
L44 W
4P"
L46
OT FOUND
0
0
N88' 03'22 334.00'
vIL24
WL
WL25
WL
WL21 WL2
k
P
MH 26 -18
RIM EL. 248.60
PIPE 8' STEEL tJ
PIPE 8' STEEL V
PIPE 8' STEEL S
aJ� 240.70
I.E.
240.
240.
240.
R= 355.62'
T= 141.19
L= 268 ' 81
43.
P.O. SOX 1241 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 05111
WETLANDS STUDY
CITY OF TUKWILA
HILLCREST
LEROY C. LOWE, A.LA.
ARCHITECT
410 BELLEVUE WAY S.E.
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004
454 -4423
SITE LOCATION:
SLADE WAY AND SOUTH 160TH STREET
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
PREPARED BY:
BREDBERG AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
POST OFFICE BOX 1337
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON 98335
(206)858 -7055
JOB # 1112
APRIL 16,1992
APR 2 0 1992
CITY TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
WETLAND B
WETLAND C
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
SITE DESCRIPTION 1
METHODOLOGY 4
WETLAND A
VEGETATIO N 5
SOILS 5
HYDROLOGY 6
WILDLIFE 6
VALUES & FUNCTIONS 7
VEGETATION 10
SOILS 10
HYDROLOGY 11
WILDLIFE 11
VALUES & FUNCTIONS 11
VEGETATION 10
SOILS 10
HYDROLOGY 11
WILDLIFE 11
VALUES & FUNCTIONS 11
UPLANDS 12.
IMPACTS 15
RECOMMENDATIONS 16
TABLE OF CONTENTS, CON'T.
FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 2: WETLAND LOCATION & TOPOGRAPHY MAP
FIGURE 3: WETLAND AREAS
FIGURE 4: CITY OF TUKWILA,WETLAND MAP
FIGURE 5: KING COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
APPENDIX A: TUKWILA WETLAND RATING FORMS
APPENDIX B: TUKWILA WETLAND DATA FORMS
TABLE 1: VEGETATION LIST
SITE DESCRIPTION
TUKWILA WETLAND REPORT
HILLCREST
The following report is prepared in an objective manner to
describe the wetland and its values and functions. The
wetland report follows the format as shown in the outline
and discusses the values and functions according the wetland
rating field form for the City of Tukwila (Appendix A).
The site consists of lots 25 through 29 on South 160th
Street and Slade Way, tax lots #0226, #0230, #0224, #0220,
and #0215.
The site is located in the northwest quarter of Section 26,
T23N, R4W. The property owner is Leroy C. Lowe, 410
Bellevue Way SE, Bellevue, Washington 98004. The subject
parcel consists of 53,830.8 square feet in the subject
parcel, and 10,176 square feet in a separate tract to the
.south and east. The project consists of 5 separate tax
parcels, with residences to the south of the parcel. The
entire parcel is surrounded by either streets or single
family residence lots.
The parcel is bordered on the east by Slade Way and
separated from Slade Way by a deep man -made ditch. There is
a single family residence lot cut out of the northeast
corner of the parcel, which is mowed and maintained with a
fence around the perimeter. Additional homes are located to
the northwest of the parcel and to the west across the
level. Along the southern edge of the parcel is a 10 foot
sewer easement.
The topography is level to steeply sloping. The far western
edge of the property is the highest elevation and is level
uplands. Moving eastward, a steep slope drops down to the
major portion of the site that includes the wetlands. The
parcel slopes from the highest points at the western
property boundary, east to Slade Way and northeast to 160th
Street.
The parcel shows evidence of considerable site disturbance.
It appears that the site was used as a borrow pit at one
time, as the site is terraced and the soil shows signs of
excavation and re- grading. The dense tree and shrub growth
indicate that excavation occurred several decades ago.
Within the past few years there has been some grading and,
most recently, clearing to facilitate placement of the test
well.
The site contains evidence of man's recent activities.
Garbage cans and other assorted debris are present
throughout the site. The ditch along Slade Way takes
drainage from the lower portion of the site. Several
footpaths are present throughout the site. A test well is
located in the southern portion of the site. Two culverts
are present on the woods road. Lawn and fruit tree encroach
at the northeast corner of the property. A 40" Maple tree
is just west of the lawn and fruit trees on a large mound of
earth with signs of excavation around it. A culvert has
also been placed at Wetland Flag #A to pipe the water to the
roadside ditch. The northwest corner of the site also has
evidence of landscaped encroachment.
2
The dominant feature of the site is the steep and relatively
unstable bank of soil bisecting the property from north to
south. The instability of the slope is evident as tree
roots and bare soil have slid down the steep slope. It is
this consultant's opinion that the site was a borrow pit to
provide sand for construction at some time in the past. As
the pit was abandoned, the steep slopes /vertical faces of
the cuts lost their stability. The comments in this report
on the slope stability are based on the surface layers of
the soil and no inferences or recommendations as to slope
stability with regard to geotechnical or foundations are
made.
SOILS:
The following sections on wetlands and uplands give general
descriptions of the soils within each. The site, especially
in the area of the proposed development at the base of the
slope, presents a complex soil situation. There are small
areas of peat up to 3 -1/2 feet deep and within 25 feet there
are sandy areas with no peat. The geotechnical soil logs
describe a mixture of black to tan fine grained organic
silty sand to depths of 5 feet. The description indicates
that the site was likely a borrow pit. Deep organic
deposits probably occur where the top soil and other
organics have been placed and localized. The mixture of the
silty sand and organics is likely to be where the bank has
sloughed off and where machinery, as long as several decades
ago, mixed the organics with the sandy material. At this
time the definitive description of the soils can do little
more than identify the site as a disturbed area with several
seeps. The depth of the organic matter is not necessarily
an indicator of the permanence or duration of the wetness.
3
METHODOLOGY
The site was evaluated using the Federal Manual for
Delineation of Jurisdictional Wetlands(1989). The routine
methodology and data forms are provided in Appendix B. The
Soil Survey, King County Area of Washington (1973), was
utilized to make a general soil determination. A Registered
Professional Soil Scientist prepared the section on soils.
The wetlands were flagged and sequentially numbered and
located by survey (Figure 2) Survey Professionals of 21436
SE 266nd Street, Maple Valley, Washington 98038, (206)251-
0189, performed a professional survey in locating the
wetland flags. Additional information used in preparing the
report include the geotechnical studies prepared by Cascade
Geotechnical, Inc. of 12919 NE 126th Place, Kirkland,
Washington 98034, (206)821 -5080.
WETLANDS
WETLAND A:
Wetland A is the largest wetland on the
covers 11,647 square feet. The wetland
Scrub/Shrub vegetation with an overhang
growing in the uplands. Figure 2 shows
locations and the wetland configuration
4
parcel and
is'vegetated by:
of trees
the flag
VEGETATION:
Wetland A is dominated by emergent vegetation.
Five Alder trees are growing in the vicinity of
wetland Flags 1 through 3. The overstory of the
trees growing in the wetlands is less than 25% for
the entire wetland. Please note that the tree
species as shown on the Wetland Survey Plan were
located and identified by the surveyor. Some of
the Red Alder trees are listed as Hemlocks.
Table 1 lists the dominant vegetation present in
Wetland A and in the uplands, respectively. The
dominant vegetation in the wetland consists of a
Scrub /Shrub layer of Salmonberry with an overstory
of Himalayan Blackberry rooted in the uplands.
Stinging Nettle and Skunk Cabbage are plentiful in
the wetter areas, as are grass species and Water
Parsley.
SOILS:
The soils of Wetland A are dominated by an organic
layer over a B horizon of gray sand. The organic
layer varies from 2 inches to up to 14 inches
thick. The muck areas appear to be accumulations
of top soil and organic matter that have eroded in
the adjoining areas as the slope has broken off.
Other areas of deep organics and mucks, appear to
be a result of deposition by the placement of
WILDLIFE:
rotting leaves or the movement of soil with
equipment. The wetland soils are classified as a
Norma series when the organic layer is less than 6
inches thick. The Norma series is a poorly
drained soil on the hydric soils list. Where the
organic layer is greater than 6 inches thick the
soils are poorly drained and of the Dupont Muck
series.
HYDROLOGY:
The hydrology of wetland A is dominated by the
seeps coming from the hillside to the west. Four
main seep areas are located in the vicinity of
Flag #39, 44 and 56. The seeps support the
hydrology as they have running water throughout
much of the year. In the dry times of the summer
the seep may stop running. The water seeps out of
the hills to the west, flows through the site and
into the roadside ditch along Slade Way. One
culvert and several seeps transport the water from
Wetland A into the roadside ditch. Two culverts
are present on the site allowing the woods roads
to access the site and the test well.
The wetlands offer a diverse habitat for wildlife.
Primary wildlife present on the site were songbirds. No
sign of other mammals or large birds was noted. The
trees in the uplands around the wetland offer nesting
habitat, while the wetland themselves provide food and
water source for the wildlife. The major function of
6
the wetlands are the seeps providing surface water for
wildlife.
The greatest factor affecting this wetland is the urban
encroachment around the outside edge of the wetlands
and the lack of a corridor for wildlife. For this
reason these wetlands have a limited value for
wildlife.
VALUES AND FUNCTIONS:
Food Chain Support: Wetland A is given a high
rating for food chain support as 75 to 100% of the
wetland is covered with emergent vegetation. Skunk
Cabbage, Water Parsley, Stinging Nettle and grassy
species support the food chain.
Nutrient Transport: This wetland is given a
moderate rating for nutrient transport as there is
a seasonal stream leaving the wetland. The
wetland is not given a high rating as the
discharge from the wetland is collected in the
roadside ditch and is transported into the storm
sewer system at 160th Street and Slade Way.
Buffer /Barrier Function: The wetland is given a
low score for this function. Much of the area
around the wetland has been disturbed and is
either part of Slade Way, maintained lawn, or
vegetated with invasive species such as Himalayan
Blackberry. Much of the western portion of the
wetlands buffer is part of the unstable slope that
sloughs off, providing little protection for
wildlife. Prime consideration in providing the
7
low score for the buffer function is the relative
ease with which people have access to the wetland.
Several paths enter the site. A road bisects the
property that permits access to the test well and
Slade Way has little buffer between the wetlands
and Slade Way.
Habitat: The wetland has 2 classes of wetlands
without open water. The scrub shrub and emergent
wetland class. Less than 20 % of the wetland' is
forested, therefore, it is not given a forested
class. The size of the wetland is 11,640 square
feet, is less than 1 acre, therefore it is small
and low in value.
Forested Wetlands: The site is less than 30%
forested wetland, therefore, is given a low value
in this function. There is forest around the
wetlands, but these consist of primarily of big
leaf maple and alder trees growing in the uplands.
As the wetland has less than 30% aerial coverage
by trees, it is classified as a Scrub /Shrub
wetland (Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water
Habitats of the United States, 1979. Cowardin)
Habitat Buffer: The habitat buffer is diverse in
that it encompasses a forested urban and scrub
shrub areas. Approximately 10 to 25 percent of
the area is a diverse forest or scrub shrub, while
25 to 50 percent is open forest with grass and
occasional shrubbery. Approximately 50 % of the
buffer is given a pasture or herbaceous category
as the buffer includes Slade Way and several
lawns.
8
Surrounding Land Use: Surrounding Land use is
urban residential with maintained lawns.
Unique Features: There are no unique features on
this site other than the presence of the springs
or seeps. The seeps would be given more value if
the water was channeled into a stream. However,
as the water is collected in the roadside ditch
immediately upon leaving the wetland, and shortly
thereafter tight line into the storm sewer system,
there is little benefit from this as a unique
feature.
Presence of Water: Water flows from the seeps of
the site much of the year, however, in the dry
season there is the possibility that these
wetlands dry up. Therefore this wetland is given
a seasonal rating.
WATER STORAGE FUNCTIONS:
Location Water Shed: This wetland is located at the
headwaters, or the springs or seeps of a watershed,
therefore, is given the upper third score.
Storage Functions: Little to no water is stored in
the wetland.
Size: The size of the wetland is less than 1 acre.
9
WATER QUALITY:
Residence Time: The residence time of water in the
wetland is short as it is a small wetland on a
relatively steep slope for a wetland. A value of one
is given for this score due to the small size and lack
of residence time.
Vegetation Density: Vegetation Density is
approximately 70 to 100% coverage of the wetland with
emergent vegetation, therefore, there is a high score
for this value. Referring to Appendix A containing the
data sheets for wetland A, the total score for the
wetland is 20.
WETLANDS B AND C:
VEGETATION:
The vegetation of wetlands B and C is similar and
consists primarily of stinging nettle, skunk cabbage,
and grass species. The wetlands are small and have an
overhang of Salmon Berry and Himalayan Blackberry
rooted in the uplands.
S OILS:
The soils of wetland B and C are similar in the,; they
are on the unstable steep slope. The soils coix Ist of
a gray loamy sand to sand, with an organic surface 2 to
10 inches in thickness . The soils are classified as
belonging to the Norma series, except where the organic
1 0
layer is deeper than 6 inches, in which case it would
be classified as a Dupont Muck series.
HYDROLOGY:
Wetlands B and C are hydrologically isolated and can be
classified as hillside seeps. Water seeps out of the
hillside, and re- infiltrates making the wetlands
isolated.
WILDLIFE:
Wetlands B and C offer little wildlife habitat due
their small size and lack of surface water.
VALUES AND FUNCTIONS:
Values and functions of wetland B and C follow the
analysis on the wetland rating field form for wetlands
B and C in Appendix A. The two wetlands are located
adjacent to each other and are similar in their wetland
rating.
Food Chain Support: The wetlands have a 50% cover of
emergent vegetation are given a moderate score.
Nutrient Transport: These wetlands are isolated closed
depressions and receive a low score.
Buffer: The buffer around these wetlands is not
effective in reducing human encroachment. There are
1 1
footpaths adjacent to the wetlands, and garbage cans
and other debris within the wetlands, showing that the
buffer is no working. The test well is located between
the two wetlands and it is possible that the drilling
of the test well has created some of the wetlands. For
this reason the level of human encroachment is very
high, therefore, the buffer functions is low.
Habitat: The wetlands have 2 wetland classes without
open water,as emergent vegetation with some Salmon
Berry are present.
SIZE OF WETLAND:
Wetland B is 518 square feet and wetland C is 1,011
square feet. Both wetlands receive a low score for
wetland size.
Percentage of Forested Wetland: Neither wetland is
forested and is given a low score.
Buffer Habitat: Between 10 and 25% of the habitat
within 100 feet is a diverse forested shrub, while 25
to 50% is open forest with grass and 50 to 75% is
pasture, herbaceous. The pasture, herbaceous is based
on the close proximity of the grassed lawns to the
wetland.
Surrounding Land Use: The surrounding land use is
urban residential and this provides a negative land
value.
Unique Features: There are no unique features in
either wetland B or C.
12
UPLANDS:
WATER STORAGE FUNCTIONS:
WATER QUALITY:
13
Presence of Water: There is the presence of water in
these two wetlands is intermittent even during the wet
times of the year. On this basis it is given a low
rating.
Location of Water Shed: As these are isolated wetlands
they are given an upper third or two score in the water
storage function.
Storage: The wetlands are small, less than 1 acre and
are given a low value for this function.
Residence Time: The low flow into these wetlands and
lack of any surface water provides for a low value for
this function.
Vegetation Density: These wetlands are given a
moderate value for vegetation density as they are 50 to
75% emergent vegetation.
The total score for the wetland rating field form for
the City of Tukwila is 14 based on the totals of the
three sheets.
The uplands of the property dominate the site and are
present in three separate plant communities. The
western upper levels of the parcel are a mixed forest
of Big Leaf Maple and Red Alder, and an understory of
Salmon Berry is present. Table 1 lists the dominant
vegetation in the uplands.
The second of the three upland vegetation communities
consists of the steep slope breaking from the higher
elevations to the lower elevations. The steep slope is
vegetated with Red Alder and Big Leaf Maple trees and
has an under story of Salmon Berry. The slope is
breaking off and eroding down to the lower levels, with
bare areas.
The third community of the upland area consists of the
lower elevation site around the wetland areas. This
upland area consists of a transition community from the
upland to the wetland species. Some of the higher
organic matter upland areas contain some wetland
vegetation that are remnants of the wetland plant
community prior to the site disturbance or erosion.
The upland tends to lack the wetland hydrology due to
the landscape position. The vegetation surrounding the
wetland areas has an overstory of Red Alder, Big Leaf
Maple and an understory of Red Elderberry, Himalayan
Blackberry, and Vine Maple.
SOILS:
The soil survey of King County lists the entire area as
of the Alderwood series. An on -site inspection by a
Registered Professional Soil Scientist determined that
the area is not of the Alderwood series, but an
inclusion of Indianola into the Alderwood map unit.
Indianola soils range from loamy sand to sand; this
explains why this site was probably used as a borrow
14
IMPACTS:
pit. Indianola soils, if they are of good sand
quality, are useful as construction material. Once the
site was used as a barrow pit, vertical slopes were
left and the Indianola soils tend to erode down the
steep slopes.
Indianola soils are well drained soils, and not on the
hydric soils list.
The proposed use of the site is to construct five
single family residences. Presently the residences are
to be constructed, four along Slade Way, and one house
having access off South 160th Street.
Several factors need to be taken into account in
assessing the potential impacts of development . The
proposed construction of houses, regardless of
location, will require the filling of some of the
wetlands. Houses constructed in the western uplands
will need an access road, which will impact the
wetlands. Furthermore, the geotechnical reports
recommend dewatering the hillside to maintain slope
stability for the houses and the roads. The dewatering
will likely drain the wetlands.
Geotechnical reports reference slope stability and
slides in the area are documented by Dames and Moore in
1961. Dewatering of this site may be required
regardless of house construction.
15
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The following recommendation s are offered as an
alternative that will allow construction of the five
homes, dewatering of the site and maintain the values
and functions. of the wetland area. It is understood
that the wetlands will be impacted but the
enhancement recommendationbs should stabalize the area
and provide for the long term wildlife habitat
potential of the site.
The main function of the wetlands is for song birds,
recreation and supplying surface water. Dewatering of
the area and construction of the houses could be
performed with no significant loss in these functions.
The construction of a small open water pond fed by
water from the dewatering system or the municipal
supply would provide perennial water for wildlife.
Dewatering would pipe the groundwater directly to the
storm sewer. The water source for downstream water
quality would be unimpacted. There would be a loss in
food production from the wetland, but the small size of
the wetlands provides minimal food production.
Enhancement plantings could be made to provide habitat.
The invasive non - native species, Himalayan Blackberry,
would be removed.
The present hydric soils, especially the organic, would
support a wide variety of vegetation including the
present wetland plants. Over time, the obligate
wetland species would be replaced by facultative
species. The facultative species would be planted as
16
part of the enhancement planting and provide a greater
source of food than is present today.
The present situation has invasive species taking over
the site. Human intrusion, garbage and debris are
common, and much of the wetlands are disturbed by the
woods road. The overall habitat could be improved
through an enhancement plan.
It is recommended that the house sites be located along
Slade Way and 160th St. to minimize the impact to the
wetlands. A conceptual enhancement /mitigation plan
will provide for plantings and a perennial surface
water supply. A conceptual drawing can be provided
should the city recommend this venue.
17
IT
fL
I IL •••,• 7.-- ---
n-2I re.1-7.2
• • •
..•
,
11• LL
• 7-71
.) 18 l i •."
• .1 i i! •
....• L
1 I I :
. i • • ; ; ' ' 3
1 I .1R-1-7.2, ; L 11
.1-1-7:2 "
.1 1 1 i;,1 ,.11[ L,
:! r i 1 1 ; .: F.
TF
1
I 1.R-1•7.2,
1/1171-7.2
1 1 '
I ' E l.. i .....! .1....... I .—..,.,..,!. _ 1.......L.t_..1_
RMH
RMH
I. ;
j
414. • I
yl 7 11 I • •• •
A
C.
8-1-
7.2
I 1 St
R-1-7.2
R-1-12
-1-
12.0 -
-I-
O 8-4
rorn DENT
PAnK
,1R-1
11
%O-
.%
•
• N
• •
•
TIJKW11 It' rn
"Vt
• rk..
, - ''..
1 I I /1 ! ' '
R-1-7.2'
...1 • , ' 1 - 114:
.:1'..
-7-•!'7) • 8-1
• i I 1 HI .8-1-7.2....i• 1
, 12.0 -.1: (12.0
yi, 1 i ! I ) ! 1 1 1 1
,„1 ..J ......„...
, , , „ .
.1r., •:-.: 4,,, ,,
.. ,
-I "i LPL-. ',(-" I 1 ‘ 7 • : i . • T
,i! ,,, I: , ?.. • I , , --1
H. .... I H 1: 1` i I 1 1 t....."..'.'
h 11 4 1
7: , R-1-7.2." , . l• i • 1 . .t. ., 12 al . !"
1 . .1. • • - . A
. ' '1 '. • th, ,.d "al • 7 1 . .:, 4. i .
i • : • ',.., .... ., ...I 1 I i 1111.1.
\
1 " 1,k.o... po • , '7: R-1-7.2 ... • , •,. i „, ...,.. . i s... , ... i.. .. • , ..., ci
• :
. ,I...,. ., .. .......)•
: •
,..4411..:1 1 .••• ; L: Ii 1 1 1 .;....,„..8-1-11;w; I i , .. •
A !....:,... Fe,..,:,•.i..-i4.47.qTrfl1N4,-sst:Ii! .,T .., ,:,'"; ;;.11:.•;. ' rir i II
0 . I . . t .„., I./. ,• '• • •■ ■•••■• st, ... , 7 , i . • , , '
•
1C, •-t . .''i ' s •• ; i
i
.■ LE .1 i i il l
I"
!s
I 7
I 1::
1 , P4.,1 41
\‘' -•• • .
.r• - ;'23••
F•:, --
\,‘ IIILLCIZe57 /
q if H I
. ...
Is)
\ \
\ „
•I •
- 1
1 1 I
I I
If ii
3 1?I:••4 .1, 4..... —... J
' 1 1 iil i i i .,., .
..., :
-.; ,••• • i • ,,,.. , •
\ v.,
\\.),„
I • i , •
.......__________, \..._-__LILe1-...-.
A . 1 dii 4
1 " L o;Ixtt
...
\\ r I
_......_.:1 ... , ..:; • ii ,J
.
............,...-":.............,_.,.....\ \,___, [...._ _ ____ __di__ "Lt. . •,...j4i./ 1 4.,
6 It //
\\ -.
....
-....... ..
• r .
1 ! I I
3.• i
I - 1 /11P0 . Iv •
_ \ \
i
-- \ 1 I : 11 1
,
:1
0
.. . ..
•
" Pa
P
CM ;11
SOUTIICENTER -"--
StIOPPING CENTER
I - 1 I
•••1
CP
•
; r
•H 1
f J
CP
CM --
JOB # 111Z
rtt.
•
f MPrt KJ;
m i
RAI! CI_ • .
ti. CM
"1_....1
C-2
. . I
11
C M
If
FIGURE 1, VICINITY MAP MAP
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES,INC.
Gig Harbor, Washington
.....
• I,
1.1
n
LANDSCAPED
ENCROACHMENT
co
•
0" MAPLE
" HEMLOCK
S88` 03'22 "E
v
20" CEDAR
24" JIEMLOCK
17' MAPLE
18" l EWILOCK
15" HE LOCK
2.0" IIELOK
•
L38
IL39
^P W L
11E,
WL1
}JL8 •
WL6
J
L5•
/L4
1.3
SHEo
WL46
at ..
0
1
W
ID
In
O
z
L37
S69\ _
s? 'ss"
FENC
.ENCROACHMENT
H EMLOCK
20" HEMLOC
�
\3
• 30 HEMLOCK
L36
L35/
34
L33
I�r�2
9',
HEMLOCK 15" HE
12 " HEMLOCK
S
P/C
HLMLO
L�3
St
FD 1/2 RB /CAP LS# 601'
et Zilq 0.17N X. 0.06W
WL
WL21 WI-
'1.54
LOCK WETLANDS
i
•
'V56
ED 1/7 RIi /CAP
LS. 60 �j 26U
r'
- IAWN k FRUIT TREE ,l
9L18
•\ ENCROACHMENr
L67 •
.413E
ICK
W
rb
7 el
0
a L
z
330.0
30" MAPLE
18" HEMLOCK
?2" MAPLE
' 14" FIR
O '
— 4'NlIItEFENCE 1.0'N �
1 10' SEWER EASEME=NT l O
20" CEDAR
10T FouNt
HLMLO
L 3
!L4
l_3
.15" HEML
N4 26-
I
+R1H EL. P.55.10 lE
PIPE O'STEEL N 40.0 •
PIPE 0' STEEL 5910.2
PIPE O'SILLL V
• RIM 240.1
FD 1/2" REBAR W /CAP
1/ 15639 SO--
0.10N X 0.06E
FIGURE 2: WETLAND FLAGGING/
TOPOGRAPHY
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gig Harbor, Washington _
NH 26 -18
RIM EL. 248.60
PIPE 8' STEEL N
pirE I' STEEL V
PIPE 8' STEEL S
P ��24a70
I.E.
240.55
240.75
240.72
R= 355.61'
f T= 141.19
• �? 43 '31"
8 1 B��
‘1:1
tri
12,025 S.F.
378 S.F.
11,647 S.F.
518 S.F.
1,011 S.F.
13,176 S.F.
BEARING DATUM: KING COUNTY ENGINEERS
WEST LINE OF NW 1/A, SEC.26, T.23N.R4E, WM.
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 4'. BENCH MARK:
MH 26-19, N. INV. ELEV. = 248.00'.
STRAOCAT PARCEL HUNGERS ARE OLD PARCEL NUMBERS.
ITALCZED PARCEL MAO:RS ARE NON PARCEL AMBERS.
WETLANDS BIOLOGIST:
ANTHONY J. BREDBERG
P.O. BOX 1337
GIG HARBOR, WA. 98335
•
. C. jr -11
! 131./51' 1-'•e5
.
• •
• E
w
> U3
EC
0
Locations of Inventoried Wetlands
in the City of Tukwila
•-■
JOB# 1112
FIGURE 4:CITY OF TUKWILA
WETLAND MAP
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC
Gig harbor, Washington
a
•
i
131i
i u
•
low,..L TTLE
All
•
. II 1 ' •
1%
r
0
_J
A �
•
1 AkF
•
y
•
• •Driscoe
2
Ur
1 111 114
FIGURE 5: KING COUNTY SOIL INVENTORY
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gig Harbor, Washington
11.
Wetland # A
Food Chain Support
Figure 2.
WETLAND RATING FIELD FORM
FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA
Date y /
75 -100% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score = 3
50-75% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score =2
25 -50% of WL covered
emergent vegetation
Score =1 Score _3
Nutrient Transport
WL associated w/
perennial watercourse
Score = 3
WL associated w/
ephemeral watercourse
Score = 2
Isolated WL
(closed depression)
Score =1 Score vZ
Buffer (barrier function) (consider area w /iri 50 feet of wetand edge)
Dense forest or shrub
= 75 -100% Score = 3
Dense forest or shrub
= 50-75% Score = 2
Dense forest or shrub
= 25 -50% Score =1
' p &%$ Score!
Habitat
3 or more WL classes,
one of which is Open Water
Score =4
1 WL class
Score =1
Siz- of wetland:
>7 acres
Score = 5
>5 to 7 acres
Score = 4
3 WL classes w/ no Open Water or
2 WL classes w/ Open Water
Score = 3
>3 to 5 acres
Score = 3
2 WL classes w /out Open Water
Score = 2
Sub -Score a.
1 to 3 acres
Score = 2
0 to 1 acre
Score =1 i Sub -Score 1
For total score, multiply sub -score for diversity by sub -score for size. Total Score aZ
APPENDIX A: TUKWILA WETLAND A
RATING FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
Habitat (cont.)
Percentaee of Forested Wetland:
75- 100% of WL is forested
Score =4
50- 75% of WL is forested
Score = 3
25 -50% of WL is forested
Score =2
Score
Duffer Habitat (consider area within 100 feet of wetland edge)
Total of all relevant scores (check those that apply):
A. Diverse forest or shrub
=75 -100% score =4
= 50-75% score = 3
V= 25-50% score = 2
= 10-25% scare =1
B. Open forest or grass with occ. shrub
= 75 -100%
= 50-75%
= 25 -50%
score = 3
score = 2
score = 1
C. Pasture/herbaceous
= 75 -100% score = 2
✓= 50 -75% score = 1
Score y
7
Surrounding land use: (outside of WL buffer, w/in 100' fat. Multiply percentage of area in each category.)
a. forested b. shrub or utunaintained grassland c. active agriculture/grass
Score = 3 Score = 2 Score =1
d. urban: residential/maintained Iawns e. urban: industrial/commcrcial
Score = -1 Score = -2
a and or b tota190% a and orb total 50-90%
Score = 3 Score = 2
Score 1
a and or b total 25- 50%
Score =1 O
Score
unique features (ta weuana): (check 'nose appropriate)
raptor nest structures Snags >= 10 inches dbh, >20 feet tall
or beaver or muskrat lodges
Score =3 for each
Presence of water.
Permanent Seasonal
Scare =3 Score =2
Score = 2 if present
If permanent water is greater than 2 feet deep during driest season, add 2 points
Snags <10 inches dbh
Fallen logs
Perches
Score =1 for each
Score
Score a
O
6
APPENDIX A: TUKWILA WETLAND A
RATING FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
p9.2
Water Storage Functions
,size of wetland:
>7 acres
Score = 5
0 to 1 acre
Score =1
Water Quality
>5 to 7 acres
Score = 4
Location in watershed: (If wetland has no inlet or outlet, Score = 0)
middle third upper third
Score = 3 Score = 2
lower third A Score =1 Score
,Storage: Is surface water stored in this wetland?
yes no
Score = 3 Score = 0
>3 to 5 acres
Score = 3
For total score, multiply sub -score for storage by sub -score for size.
1+ ` "'ICS
. Score = 2
Sub -Score 0
Sub -Score -Z
Total Score 0
Residence Time
No outlet
Score = 3
movement in outlet but no
movement evident in wetland
Score = 2
Score 1
Vegan Density:
75 -100% of WL covered w/
S�coce� - 3���
50-75% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score = 2
25 -50% of WL covered
emergent vegetation 3
Score =1 Score
WETLAND A TOTAL SCORE 19
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
pg.3
Wetland # B
Food Chain Support
Nutrient Transport
Habitat
Figure 2.
WETLAND RATING FIELD FORM
FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA
Date ' - / (o - 92
75 -100% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score = 3
50-75% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score = 2
25 -50% of WL covered
emergent vegetation ,2
Score =1 Score
WL associated w/
perennial watercourse
Score = 3
WL associated w/
ephemeral watercourse
Score = 2
Isolated WL
(closed depression)
Score = I Score
Buffer (barrier function) (consider area w /iri 50 feet of wetand
Total Score
APPENDIX A: TUKWILA WETLAND B
RATING FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
Habitat (cont.)
pes+ccntaee of Forested Wetland:
75- 100% of WL is forested
Score =4
50 75% of WL is forested
Score = 3
25 -50% of WL is forested
Score =2 O
Score
Duffer Habitat (consider area within 100 feet of wetland edge)
Total of all relevant scores (check those that apply):
A. Diverse forest or shrub
=75 -100% score = 4
= 50-75% score = 3
. = 25-50% score = 2
t/= 10-25% score =1
B. Open forest or grass with occ. shrub
= 75 -100%
= 50-75%
✓= 25 -50%
score = 3
score = 2
score = 1
C. Pasture/herbaceous
= 75 -100% score = 2
'= 50 -75% score =1
Score 3
5u rounding land use: (outside of WL buffer, w/in 100' feet. Multiply percentage of area in each category.)
a. forested b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agriculture/grass
Score = 3 Score = 2 Score =1
d. urban: residential/maintained lawns e. urban: industrial/commercial
Score = -1
land orb total 90%
Score = 3
Score = -2
a and or b total 50-90%
Score =2
Score — 2
a and or b total 25- 50%
Score =1 O
Score
umque teatures on weuana): tcnectc those appropriate)
raptor nest structures Snags >= 10 inches dbh, >20 feet tall
or beaver or muskrat lodges
Score= 3 for each
Score = 2 if present
Snags <10 inches dbh
Fallen logs
Perches
Score =1 for each
Score
O
Presence of water:
Permanent Seasonal
Score = 3 Score = 2
If permanent water is greater than 2 feet deep during driest season, add 2 points
Score
APPENDIX A: TUKWILA WETLAND 8
RATING FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
pg.2
Water Storage Functions
Location in watershed: (If wetland has no inlet or outlet, Score = 0)
middle third upper third
Score =3 Score =2
lower third
Score =1 Score a
Slgm: Is surface water stored in this wetland?
yes no
Score = 3 Score = 0
Size of wetland:
>7 acres
Score = 5
0 to 1 acre
Score =1
Water Quality
>5 to 7 acres
Score = 4
>3 to 5 acres
Score = 3
For total score, multiply sub -score for storage by sub -score for size.
I tc 3 . cres
. Score = 2
Sub -Score 0
WETLAND B TOTAL SCORE 14
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
Sub -Score 1
Total Score O t
Residence Time;
No outlet
Score = 3
movement in outlet but no
movement evident in wetland
Score = 2
Score 1
Vegetation Density
75 -100% of WL covered w/
emergent Score 3 vcSQ � i°
50-75% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score =2
25 -50% of WL covered
emergent vegetation
Score =1 Score
pg.3
Wetland # C
Food Chain Support
Figure 2.
WETLAND RATING FIELD FORM
FOR THE CITY OF TUKWILA
Date 11- - 9g
75 -100% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score = 3
50-75% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score = 2
25 -50% of WL covered
emergent vegetation a
Score =1 Score
Nutrient Transport
WL associated w/
perennial watercourse
Score = 3
WL associated w/
ephemeral watercourse
Score = 2
Isolated WL
(closed depression)
Score =1 Score
1
Buffer (barrier function) (consider area w /iri 50 feet of wetand edge)
Habitat
Dense forest or shrub
= 75 -100% Score = 3
Dense forest or shrub
= 50-75% Score = 2
rvvo.Vn
Dense forest or shrub
= 25 -50% Score =1
Score 1
Div1x:
3 or more WL classes,
one of which is Open Water
Score =4
1 WI. class
Score =1
Silt of wets:
>7 acres
Score = 5
>5 to 7 acres
Score = 4
3 WI. classes w/ no Open Water or
2 WL classes w/ Open Water
Score = 3
>3 to 5 acres
Score = 3
0 to 1 acre
Score =1
For total score, multiply sub -score for diversity by sub -score for size.
2 WL classes w /out Open Water
Score =2
Sub -Score a
1 to 3 acres
Score = 2
Sub -Score
Total Score
APPENDIX A: TUKWILA WETLAND C.
WASHINGTON
Habitat (cont.)
percentage of Forested Wetland:
75- 100% of WL is forested
Score =4
50- 75% of WL is forested
Score =3
25 -50% of WL is forested
Score = 2
Score O
Duffer Habitat (consider area within 100 feet of wetland edge)
Total of all relevant scores (check those that apply):
A. Diverse forest or shrub
75 -100% score =4
= 50-75% score = 3
. = 25-50% score = 2
= 10-25% score =1
B. Open forest or grass with occ. shrub
= 75 -100%
= 50-75%
= 25 -50%
score = 3
score = 2
score = 1
C. Pasture/herbaceous
= 75 -100%
= 50 -75%
score = 2
score = 1
Score i
Surrounding land use: (outside of WL buffer, wfn 100' feet. Multiply percentage of area in each category.)
a. forested b. shrub or unmaintained grassland c. active agriculture /grass
Score = 3 Score = 2 Score =1
d. urban: residential/maintained lawns e. urban: industrial/commercial
Score = -1
a and orb total 90%
Score = 3
Score = -2
a and orb total 50-90%
Score = 2
Score — 1
a and or b total 25- 50%
Score =1 0
Score
unrqUe features on weuana): (chcctc those appropriate)
raptor nest smicurres Snags >= 10 inches dbh, >20 feet tall
or beaver or muskrat lodges
Score = 3 for each
Score = 2 if present
Snags <10 inches dbh
Fallen logs
Perches
Score =1 for each
Score
O
Presence of water.
Permanent Seasonal
Score =3 Score =2
If permanent water is greater than 2 feet deep during driest season, add 2 points
Score a
APPENDIX A: TUKWILA WETLAND C.
RATING FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
WASHINGTON
P9.2
Water Storage Functions
Size of wetland:
>7 acres
Score = 5
0 to 1 acre
Score =1
Water Quality
>5 to 7 acres
Score = 4
Location in watershed: (If wetland has no inlet or outlet, Score = 0)
middle third upper third
Score =3 Score =2
lower third a
Score =1 Score
,: Is surface water stored in this wetland?
yes no
Score =3 Score =0
>3 to 5 acres
Score = 3
For total score, multiply sub -score for storage by sub -score for size.
I tc, .rres
Score = 2
Residence Time:
No outlet
Score = 3
movement in outlet but no
movement evident in wetland
Score = 2
Score a
Ve$tadcm Density:
75 -100% of WL covered w/
anergent vegetation 3 .
Score =
50-75% of WL covered w/
emergent vegetation
Score = 2
25 -50% of WL covered
emergent vegetation a
Score=1 Score
WETLAND C TOTAL SCORE 17
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
Sub -Score O
Sub -Score
Total Score
pg.3
B -2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
Field Investigatq cal: J ��'!'� Date
5 --/ g
Prolect/Site• t . rc t .19!!i<� c ry e• 4l �.,��.,�.,. l � v v
ApplicanVOwner. Le gl- k C) Art:-' Plant Community N/Name. Vei-/a4/ci 4. rit.ect 144..its
Note: N a more detailed sttedescription is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environm ental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No ✓ (If no, explain on back) ea ra e( p. t
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been sigflificantiy disturbed?
Yes V No (If yes, explain on back) Id r a „e I p
VEGETATION
Indicator
Status Stratum Dcminant Plant Species
Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
I. sku,a k G 4 it) i e — (511 — — 7 — 11 •
2. . 5 e . . . . . " / 4 . . 0 A/A "/r c k/ 12
3 RQcI /) - r rliC T 13
4 5 !.►,.e.. a ir r� pod. s/5 14 � r •
5. /AA ter" ,•r<f l (ESL /f 18.
6. 18.
7. 1 .
8. 1 .
9.
10. 2
Series/phase AL P^ A f 404
Is the soil on the hydric soils tir Yos
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No
Matrix Color:
Other hydric soil Indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes
Rationale:
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or - AC /p d
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes c/ N
Rationale.
SOIL
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes 17 No
Rationale:
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessme
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
Subgroup•
✓ No Undetermined
Histic epiped• n pres nt? Yes No
Gleyed? Y s r/ No
1.4pttle co ors•
n c C
No
HYDROL•GY „
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes L7 No Surface water depth
Is the soil saturated? Yes ✓ No
Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole.
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil satura ion.
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMI ATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes (V No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision
t Procedure and the Plant Community
APPENDIX B: TUKWILA WETLAND A
DATA FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
B -2
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODI
Field Invsstlgat fs . l �'C ��. t � '!'.s e Prolect/Site• k c r
'.1 Date: Note: N a more detailed sitedescription is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
State: County. /
Applicant/Owner LP 1 L-' 4 . ‘4,1 Plant Community Mame. 4/0/4 4 — 4
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant gg mmunity? 1.
✓
Yes No (If no, explain on back) Old / a d ( `
Has the veegqe�tation, soils, and/or hydrology been significant► disturbed ? P,
Yes r-'No (If yes, explain on back) v td ra v e/ � o,`
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. .�y / a /�U f e� / '7a, /e FAc U. 1—r' 11.
2,PrY F�c 12.
3. Re_ 8 Elder -k .err ,4c u 6 �S 13.
4. Ur',✓4 ,4 ia, /.r 1 PA C- S 4 f 14.
5. �.✓ d o.✓ P I4 P4 e f S� - 15.
6. / (4. y a.0 66 lc 6e/0 ieC 4t U `. ✓ - 16.
7. d 17.
8. 18.
9. 19.
10. 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC /I?
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No L
Rationale.
Series/phase: J C1"` 4 "'
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes
is the soil a Histosol? Yes No _
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes ,
Matrix Color: /o$4C (o y
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes _
Rationale:
SOILS
Subgroup•
No Undetermined
Histic epipedon present? Yes No
Gleyed? Yes No
Mottle Colors:
No
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No ✓ Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole.
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No 1/
Rationale:
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
No 1/
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
APPENDIX B: TUKWILA WETLAND A
DATA FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHODI
Field Investigatbrss): I. J• g t e d t ei. Date "I ./4—/9 2
Project/Site.-1-1 t(c res t Tc� K�.,: L L State: 104 County. l
Applicant/Owner Le Lc' 4, 1 7 . - Plant Community #/Name• L.Jrf /a.ad A - lr4f/.e.4.d
Note: If a more detailed sit./ description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plagt community?
Yes No t/ (If no, explain on back) &'J r a �e ( J9/.
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes ✓ No (If yes, explain on back) D ifewei n, / l
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
1. Srr'u .dk Ca ,46G y .e 0051- 11
2. 12.
3 13.
4. 14.
5. 15.
8. 16.
7. 17
8. 18.
9. 19.
10. 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC "b 9
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes 1" No
Rationale.
,/, �J/iJ� SOILS
Series/phase: /0v r,»., / 6 k�0�'' /' /U vk Subgroup•2
Is the soil on the hydric soils lisp Yes No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No Histic epipedon present? Yes No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yap v No Gleyed? Yes y No
Matrix Color: 2 ' 5 r 7 Mottle Colors
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ✓ No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes Nov Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes k./ No
Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole 3
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes t/ No
Rationale:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes '--"- No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
APPENDIX B: TUKWILA WETLAND B
DATA FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
Field Investlgatqrss): ' 2 . • • 1.3 Pe LI it "!'z` Date:
Project/Sltr 1f, I c Tc s r Tk 1< :I J« State: 0 • Coup� tryy
Applicant/Owner Le 1: "° ' '' ' Plant Community #/Name• We f■■ i3 C 'P aA'd
Note: If a more detailed sitW description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
SOILS
/5
9 2
Do normal envirojr mental conditions exist at the plant community?
Yes No (If no, explain on back) oa / 4 Q- p y �
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significant1' disturbed?
Yes 1, No (If yes, explain on back) 0 4 4 e
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species ` j Status Stratum Dominant Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum
2. 4A'N'r'.✓ `' NP e 4/ 12
3. e4442,4 -•� ,' /e Pip .14- 13. -
4 14
5. 15.
6. 16.
7. 17.
8. 18.
9. 19.
10. 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 3 3
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes No t/
Rationale.
Series/phase: l c ,`"" - /a Subgroup:
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes No z/
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No V
Matrix Color: laf'R
Other hydric soil Indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes No r✓
Rationale:
No v Undetermined
Histic epipedon present? Yes - No
Gleyed? Yes No
Mottle Colors:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes No
Depth to free- standing water in pit/soil probe hole.
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes No t/
Rationale:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
APPENDIX B: TUKWILA WETLAND BtC
DATA FORMS I
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
DATA FORM
ROUTINE ONSITE DETERMINATION METHOD
Field Investigat r(s): •. • . . 13d'C 4 Kai i �� f q Date. 7 1/5/9 2
Project/Site• if,1 c: rc� _ t" T tit State 104 County' "
Applicant/Owner LP R.' °` (a a.�' Plant Community #/Name• 1Je 1 ...Ai C we H4..id
Note: If a more detailed sitb'description is necessary, use the back of data form or a field notebook.
Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant cgmmunity?
Yes No ✓ (If no, explain on back) e /d
Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed?
Yes V No (If yes, explain on back) ( 8,,
VEGETATION
Indicator Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Status Stratum Dominant Plant Species Statue Stratum
5Y
1. JCu 4,441 /e / C4' Al 11.
2. 5 kM Id 1 f7' 12.
3. 13.
4. 14
5. 15.
6. 16.
7. 17.
8. 18.
9. 19. -
10. 20.
Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC 4° o
Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes L."' No
Rationale:
SOI S
Series/phase: " O r l ' 4 4 90 i Subgroup :
Is the soil on the hydric soils list? Yes y No Undetermined
Is the soil a Histosol? Yes V No Histic epipedon present? Yes y No
Is the soil: Mottled? Yes No Gleyed? Yes No
Matrix Color: . 'Cr .5 2 Mottle Colors:
Other hydric soil indicators:
Is the hydric soil criterion met? Yes ' No
Rationale:
HYDROLOGY
Is the ground surface inundated? Yes 2 No Surface water depth:
Is the soil saturated? Yes I No r
Depth to free - standing water in pit/soil probe hole. '
List other field evidence of surface inundation or soil saturation.
Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? Yes t,i No
Rationale:
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND RATIONALE
Is the plant community a wetland? Yes y / No
Rationale for jurisdictional decision:
1 This data form can be used for the Hydric Soil Assessment Procedure and the Plant Community
Assessment Procedure.
2 Classification according to "Soil Taxonomy."
APPENDIX B: TUKWILA WETLAND C
DATA FORMS
BREDBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GIG HARBOR, WASHINGTON
Genus species (Common Name)
NWI
TABLE 1. Vegetation listed by genus species, common name, and
National Wetland Indicator (NWI) status for the wetlands . and
uplands.
WETLAND PLANTS
TREES:
Alnus rubra (Red Alder) FAC 25%
SAPLINGS:
NONE
SHRUBS:
Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry) FAC ' 15
HERBACIOUS:
Lysichitum americanum (Skunk Cabbage) OBL 10
Urtica dioica (Stinging Nettle) FAC 10
Oenanthe sarmentosa (Water Parsley) OBL 5
Equisetum arvense (Field Horsetail) FAC 5
TABLE 1(CON) Vegetation listed by genus species, common name,
and National Wetland Indicator (NWI) status for the wetlands and
uplands.
Genus species (Common Name)
NWI RA
UPLAND PLANTS
TREES:
Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf Maple) FACU 25
Alnus rubra (Red Alder) FAC 35
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir) UPL 20
Tsuga heterophylla (Western Hemlock) FACU 15
SAPLINGS:
Acer circinatum (Vine Maple) FACU 5
SHRUBS:
Osmaronia cerasiformis (Indian Plum) FACU 10
Sambucus racemosa (Red Elder) FACU 10
Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry) FAC 10
VINE /LIANA
Rubus discolor (Himalayan Blackberry) FACU 20
HERBACIOUS:
Polystichum munitum (Sword Fern) FACU 5
Hedera helix (English Ivy) FACU 5
Urtica dioica (Stinging Nettle) FAC 10
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Darren Wilson
FROM: Rick Beeler, DC
DATE: March 25, 1992
SUBJECT: Leroy Lowe
Yesterday I twice spoke to Mr. Lowe about his complaints
about the City's processing of his BLA. His claims related
to utilities, wetlands and employee attitude.
He objected to Fire requiring a looped hydrant system with
an additional hydrant. He objected to Fire wanting
driveways long enough to hold fire trucks. He disliked
extending water from the south - considerable distance.
He objected to doing a wetland study beyond the letter and
map on file. His reason is that he wants to drain the
property in order to stabilize it and Slade Way. He assets
that Public Works stated that Slade Way is endangered by the
water from his site. I said that per the SAO the wetland
study is required before any decision can be made on
draining the wetland. Even after so draining the property,
on -site or off -site mitigation is required by the SAO.
Because the wetlands are very likely Type 2, off -site
mitigation is probable.
He claims that every staff member is jerking him around and
obstructing his project for the past two years. I assured
him that would be very unusual, if true, and that I had only
personally witnessed staff trying to solve his problems in
an expeditious way and never heard or saw any
obstructionism.
Regarding the upcoming appeal hearing, I suggested he focus
on the specific issue before the PC in this specific quasi -
judicial setting. His intent to drain the wetland is not
relevant. The only issue that can be decided is whether or
not the SAO requires him to do a wetland study. To that end
I suggested that he submit the wetland information and map
on file and asset that complies with the SAO. I also said
that staff, in rebuttal, will likely state that this is not
a wetland study that documents the type of wetland and is
not an accurate map that reflects all of the streams on his
most recent site plan. Aside from the SAO requirement, we
need the wetland study to document all of the wetlands and
streams on the site.
Paget
Mr. Lowe claims he has support in the neighborhood and will
bring that "very vocal" support Thursday.
He will submit an RCW that allegedly states that the public
safety concerns of stability of Slade Way supercede the SAO,
therefore the wetland study is not required. I said that if
the PC feels uncomfortable with this legal issue they may
continue the hearing. I was uncomfortable . with any delay,
but he did not mind the delay.
We ended our conversations with my intent to get back to him
if I discover any other approach to solving his problems.
But I did tell him that he chose a very difficult site to
develop and that the SAO requires more documentation and
mitigation that prior to its adoption.
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
P.O. BOX 1241 SEATTLE. WA•HINOTON 05111
41 11/4
'%
DARREN WILSON
ASSISTANT PLANNER
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA. 98166
DEAR
ATTEMPTED TO DISCUSS THE "REAL AND PRESENT
DANGER" OF THE SLADE WAY SLIPPAGE PROBLEM WITH YOU
ON SEVERAL OCCATIONS.
YOUR LETTER OF•JAN. 30, 1992 WAS RECIEVED BY ME THE
EVENING OF FEB. 8, 1992, NEARLY A HALF YEAR AFTER WE
HAD FILED OUR BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION.
( SEPT. 9, 1992 )
I APPEAL YOUR LETTER DIRECTING ME TO PRESERVE AND
PROTECT THE SEEPS ON MY PROPERTY FOR THAT ACTION
WOULD PERPETUATE A DANGEROUS SITUATION PLACING
SLADE WAY IN PERIL.
THE EXPENDITURE FOR WET LAND DELINIATION IS UNREASON-
ABLE IN LIGHT OF THE CITYS DEFICIENCY IN HANDLEING THE
SLADE WAY CONCERNS.
PAGE 2
WE APPEAL TO YOU THE STAFF AND TO THE CITY TO WORK
WITH US TO PROVIDE FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT OF
OUR PROPERTY AND THE CITYS PROTECTION OF SLADE WAY,
THE SANITARY SEWER, AND THE UTILITIES THEREIN.
AS DISCUSSED IN THE ATTACHED LETTERS FROM : RESCO ,
BREDBERG, AND JOULE, YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION TO
SLADE WAY AND CONTRIBUTING OFF SITE CONDITIONS IS
CRITICAL TO AVOID A REAL AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE
HEALTH , WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS OF
TUKWILA AND KING CO.
ATTACHED IS AN INTERNAL MEMO FROM PHIL FRASER TO
DARREN WILSON CITING THE SLADE WAY SLIPPAGE PROBLEM.
I ALSO HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH RALPH HEITT AN
INSPECTOR FOR ENTRANCO WHO HAS A CONTRACT WITH THE
CITY OF TUKWILA TO SUPERVISE THE CONSTRUCTION OF
KLICKITAT DRIVE & S. 160TH ST. MR. HEITT HAS INDICATED
THAT SLADE WAY HAS REAL STABILITY PROBLEMS AND HAS
SETTLED SOME TEN INCHES IN THE RECENT PAST.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT IT IS YOU WANT TO DO ON
MY PROPERTY TO RESOLVE- TH PROBLEM.
SINCERELY YOURS
C
LEROY C. LOWE A .I.A. AR HITECT
CC : MAYER, CITY COUNCIL
TUKWILA BLDG. STAFF
101 E
FEB 21 1992
GIr`i OF TUKUV "LIB►
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
MEMORANDUM
DARREN WILSON
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
•
PHIL FRASE
SEPTEMBER 16, 1991
MO 01
F E B 2 1992
CITY OF TUKWILA
I :.I dI' 1443 4J4T I.
PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS FOR HILLCREST (LEROY LOWE)
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (CHECKLIST DATED SEPT. 16,
1991)
1. #9 - Name the two soils reports by author and date produced (Include
reports in documentation) - Add: "City to conduct peer review of
geotech /hydrological studies via independent consultant in order to
determine final impacts /mitigations."
Earth, d. - Add: "Slippage of Slade Way has also occurred at least twice
over past 10 years."
3. Under Item No. 2 Water - Comments are written in such a manner as to not
address proposed use of lots, but rather treat the proposal as the act
of changing lot lines only. Question: Is this environmental document for
proposed 5 lot configuration for single family use or not? Impacts and
mitigations for intended use need to be fully defined in responses based
on intended construction for 5 single family dwellings, not just status
quo undeveloped use.
I request this portion of environmental checklist be redone to include
impacts /mitigations with any proposed 5 unit single family development,
not just under assumption that only lot line boundaries are being
relocated.
Second, I request that the assumptions made by the preparer of the
environmental checklist identify which soils report they are relying upon
in the preparation of the checklist responses so it is clear by what
authority the impacts /mitigations have been determined.
4. No. 7 - Utilities - Water Utility requires "loop system" be developed.
Noted is that WD #75 states in availability letter, "Water system must be
looped to...." indicating that impacts of this development require
mitigations for a water main extension looping the system. Public Works
requests this loop be in public R /W. How it is located needs to be shown
in order to determine if easements are required on plan to mitigate
utilities across private lots.
5. No. 7 - Utilities - Storm drainage availability is also identified under
Checklist Response No. 7. This is not the case. A storm main extension
will be needed to S. 160th Street for the proposed use of property and so
.needs to be identified to mitigate impacts of said lot line configuration
at time of first single family lot construction. Also, detention will be
required in the new public line constructed in Slade Way prior to discharge
into new 53rd Ave. S. storm line (now under construction).
6. No. 15 Transportation - a. This answer to be changed from n/a to Slade
Way /53rd Ave. S. for four single family lots and S. 160th Street for the
fifth lot.
D
P'"': ,a,0Z,ZCti/ W/4404)
No% 2 . /99/
_
C 4. �w�
MEMORANDUM
Darren. Wilson
Sept. 16, 1991
page two
No. 15 Transportation - a. - Applicant to identify nearest METRO bus stop
No. 15 Transportation - e. through g. - Applicant to
(n /a incorrect).
7. No. 16. Public Services - a. Identify water main loop required and
extension of public storm drainage system. Also, identify extension of
ped path and sidewalk systems linking Slade way to S. 160th Street.
8. On plan submittal identify how utilities services including storm side
drains, water services and sanitary side sewers will be located relative
to need to provide any utility easements serving one property across
other properties. Do same for franchised utilities (power, telephone, TV
cable, WNG).
9. On plan identify maximum slopes of private drives to allow Public Works
to verify accesses demonstrate 15% max. requirement can mitigated under
proposed lot configurations.
Also, on plan identify proposed realignment of South 160th and how proposed
access could configured /mitigated to open access (contact Brian Shelton,
433 -0179 for copy of South 160th Street plans).
PRE /cd
xc: Brian Shelton
file: Hillcrest Development
provide. responses
CD.D18.LEROY.PRP
DENNIS JOULE, P.E.
CIVIL ENGINEER
32729 S.E. 44th Street Ground & Surface Water Hydraulics
Fall City, WA 98024 Geotechnical Engineering
Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A.
P.O. Box 3972
Bellevue, Washington 98009
January 15, 1992
Project 1442
Re: Hillcrest Dewatering / Stability of Slade Way
At your request I have reviewed the geotechnical reports regarding Hillcrest
Subdivision in Tukwila, Washington. The reports reviewed included; Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation for Hillcrest Slade Way, dated May 30, 1990, prepared by
Cascade Geotechnical, and a follow -up report titled Hillcrest Way, dated August 27,
1990, also prepared by Cascade Geotechnical. I have also performed a surface
inspection of the site. You have informed me that Slad way, adjacent to the proposed
Hillside development, has slope stability problems and as undergone land movement.
This report discusses the relationship between dewatering the Hillcrest site and the
slope stability of Slade Way.
Soil logs from the geotechnical reports show the site
sands with some interbedded lenses of silt. The
relatively flat bench, with a steep slope to the west.
observed at the toe of the steep slope. Soil logs sho
within the benched area.
Slade Way is downslope and just east of the site. The
slope by cutting upslope and filling downslope.
Slope stability is simply the ratio of the magnitude of
place (shear strength) divided by magnitude of forces a
(soil weight). When water is added to soil, the shear st
goes up. From this, it can be seen that adding water
dewatering a slope improves slope stability.
Since the Hillcrest site is adjacent to, and upslope, •
lower portion of the Hillside site will improve the stabs
Slade Way. The degree to which the slope stability is
to which the slope is de- watered. This depends on
depth of the dewatering facilities.
Page 1
le
o be underlain by slightly silty
'llcrest site involves a lower,
Four springs (or seeps) were
a perched groundwater table
oad bed was constructed cross-
forces acting to hold the soil in
ting to drive the soil downslope
ength goes down and the weight
o a slope lowers slope stability,
om Slade Way, dewatering the
ity of both the Hillcrest site, and
mproved depends on the degree
he location, configuration, and
i
1.111.1 I
L F 21 1992
— --- --..� T
If Slade Way fails (is involved in a slope failure) the utilities within the road will likely
fail also. These utilities involve gas, water, power, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer.
The environmental damage downslope from Slade Way that would be caused by the
failure of the utility pipes within Slade Way would certainly overshadow the loss of any
small wetland that may be present within the Hillcrest site. If Slade Way is currently
moving downslope, then Slade Way is involved in a slope failure.
As stated above, this report simply discusses the relationship between dewatering the
Hillcrest site and the slope stability of Slade Way. It must be the decision of the
governing agency as to whether the site should be de- watered, improving the slope
stability, or not.
ts J p
erg'
U .r� 16173 p i0 � •
.� GISTE a s1
s ioNAL fi fi
MCA± M
32729 S.E. 44th Street Fall City, WA 98024 (206) 392 -1108
January 15, 1992
Project 1442
FEB 2 11992
CITY Or TUKWNILA
PLANNING DEPT.
Post Office Box 1337
Gig Harbor, WA 98335,
(206) 858 -7055
January 8, 1992
Dear Leroy:
_•edberg Associates, Inc.
Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A. Architect
P.O. Box 3972
Bellevue, WA 98009
RE: Hillcrest Boundary Line Adjustment •
Tukwila, WA
This letter is in reference to the wetlands on the above
referenced site. A level 1 site walk was performed in August
of 1991. The accompanying map shows the approximate edge of
wetlands as defined in the three parameter unified
methodology. This delineation is based on the topography and
spring locations.
Additional facts to be considered are:
1) The wetland is not on the City of Tukwila wetland
inventory.
2) The wetland is estimated at 7,500 square feet, it is
isolated with no connection to any other wetland or
stream, it is surrounded by urban area, developed land,
and roads.
3) The wetland source is from a series of springs at the
base of a the slope.
4) The runoff from the springs and area is collected in
the storm water system of Slade Way and tightlined to
the, presently under construction, Klickitat stormwater
system.
5) A sewer line serving McMicken Heights runs under Slade
Way.
6) Slade Way is the eastern border of the property.
7) The geotechnical report and information from several
engineers (ENTRANCO, RESCO, Professional Surveyors Inc.,
Cascade Geotechnical) indicates that Slade Way and the
sewer are slipping at the rate of inches per year.
8) The water originating on the subject property
saturates the soils under Slade Way and contributes
substantially to the slippage problem.
9) If Slade Way has a major slip, then the sanitary sewer
is likely to break, creating a major environmental health
hazard, and denying sewer service to a large- pgpu`�
nlit- n
i 'a �!�� LUJ
ILIt'
LE
T�: O ' TUK:\JILA
�I� , �I:
PLANNNG DEPT. 1
page 2
10) If the road slips greatly this could be an immediate
hazard to traffic and passersby.
11) Recommended remedial action is to intercept the ground
water, dewatering the hillside, and pipe the water into the
stormwater system.
12) The dewatering process will drain the wetland. Several
scenarios of recreating the wetland have been considered, but
there is no practical way of maintaining a wetland and
dewatering the hill. The two activities are contradictory.
13) Deep excavations, 10 + feet in depth, have been considered
for placing water tight barriers to redirect the water and
save the wetland. This is hazardous as the stratified soils
would allow the water to go to a greater depth and continually
destabilize the hill; the stability problem of the road would
not be solved.
14) Any attempt to preserve the wetland will jeopardize Slade
Way and the sewer.
15) The City of Tukwila has provisions in its ordinance for
dealing with emergencies and public safety.
16) Exempting this area from the wetland ordinance on the
basis of the public safety issue is valid and recommend.
17) A wetland•study is unnecessary as the dewatering of the
hill is the only reasonable alternative and will result in
lowering the water table of the area such that a wetland can
not be supported.
In summary, a wetland is present and the primary cause of
slippage and lack of stability of Slade Way. Slade Way is slipping
and it is a matter of time before the road and sewer cause a major
environmental mishap. The remedial action for preventing further
slippage involves dewatering the hill by lowering the water table.
Lowering the water table will drain the wetland. There is no
practical solution to the. loss of the wetland.
It is recommended, in the interest of public safety and to
save time, that the wetland be exempted from further study and
remedial action undertaken. It is safe to say that Slade Way will
go, someday. Further study and delay enhances the probability that
an expensive cleanup will ensue. I hope that common sense
prevails to prevent an environmental disaster.
If I can be of further assistance, Please contact me.
L2
92 J
cl t"Y cF TUSK ILA
PLANNING DEPT. •
- _......,.._.r_
Mechanical & Civil Engineering
17815 S.E. 146th
Renton, WA 98059
(206) 228-4244
FAX (206) 228 -4292
Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A.
P.O. Box 3972
Bellevue, Wa. 98009
RE: Hillcrest Boundary Line Adjustment
Dewatering and stability
Dear Leroy:
February 17, 1992
Sincerely,
Richar• E. Stu h, P.E.
Washington State registered mechanical and civil engineers corporation
At your request I once again reviewed your proposed above
referenced project. My review included a site visit and review
of the information supplied by other consultants.
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that Slade Way is
threatened by a potential landslide downslope of your property if
the present conditions are not corrected. Your property and that
portion of Slade Way East of it are saturated by seeps. The
saturated soil is very heavy and viscous and hence, at present,
lead to a very unstable situation. Slade Way is presently serving
as an earthen dam holding the heavy saturated soil in place. Slade
Way was clearly not built or designed to withstand the potential
lateral loads due to the upland saturated soils. The most
elementary Geotechnical calculations would demonstrate that Slade
Way is not stable within reasonable safety limits.
The other consideration is the presence of a wetland on your
property. While I am not a sensitive areas or wetlands expert, it
is clear from Mr. Bredberg's report and my observations, that there
are some wetlands on the property. It appears to me that there is
clearly a question of balancing the stability of Slade Way and
the utilities in it along with the corresponding public health and
safety against the value of the wetland.
It would seem obvious to me that the logical and most
expedient solution to the Slade Way stability problem would be the
"controlled responsible" development of your • property. This would
include street frontage, and stormdrain improvements to Slade Way
along with on -site drainage, dewatering and stability measures that
would assure stability over the entire affected area.
While I realize that I have not said anything here that you
do not already know, I hope that my comments will be of some help
to you.
Please call me if you have any questions or need additional.
information.
101C1.-A
0
• FEB 21 1992
Cl r v OF TUKWILA
_ PLANNING DEPT.
DATE: February 10, 1992
TO: Public Works
FROM: Darren Wilson, DCD
RE: LeRoy Lowe APRD /BLA
Gentlemen, .
I understand that a meeting has been scheduled with LeRoy Lowe to
discuss his proposed project. We wrote a collective letter from
DCD with all interdepartment concerns on January 30, 1992. Mr Lowe
has received our letter and has until Tuesday, February 18, 1992 to
decide if he will continue with APRD /BLA. There are some major
issues pertaining to the slope stability and the wetland/
watercourse boundaries. Type Two wetlands exist on the site and
the applicant wishes to pipe /fill the wetlands end.
DCD has indicated in the letter that no further action shall be
taken until a wetland delineation plan has been submitted and a
peer review completed and approved by. DCD. No department shall
schedule any meetings on the above project. In the event a meeting
must be scheduled all point of contact shall be made in writing to
Darren in DCD.
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
P.O. BOX 1241 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98111
L. RICK BEELER
DIRECTOR, DEPT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. SUITE 100
TUKWILA , WA. 98166
GE@ETEJ
FEB 11 1992
CITY oF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
DEAR MR . BEELER FEB. 10 , 1992
WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATION AND STUDIES
FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY ADJACENT
TO AND WEST OF SLADE WAY. OUR WORK HAS, IN PART,
RESULTED IN BECOMING AWARE OF CONCERNS OVER SLADE
WAY .
APPARENTLY THE CITY'S DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
SLADE WAY HAS NOT RESULTED IN A STABLE SITUATION.
AS THE CITY IS AWARE, THERE HAS BEEN SINKING OF THE
ROADWAY AND ASSOCIATED DOWN HILL SLIDES. AND AS THE
CITY IS AWARE THIS SITUATION HAS LIKELY RESULTED FROM
INADEQUATE CONTROL OF SUBTERRANEAN WATER FLOW .
APPARENTLY YOUR STAFF AND /OR CONSULTANTS RECOGNIZE
THAT THE INSTALLATION OF A FRENCH DRAIN SYSTEM IS AT
LEAST ONE THING THAT CAN BE DONE TO STOP THIS PROBLEM.
OUR CONSULTANTS WOULD SUPPORT YOUR EFFORT IN THIS
REGARD.
THE APPROPRIATE PERMISSION.
VERY TRULY YOURS
LER
.I.A. ARCHITECT
cFARLANb; ADMINISTRATOR
SCHULZ , URBAN ENVIRONMENTALIST
JACK PACE, SENIOR PLANNER
PHIL FRASER, CITY ENGINEER
DARREN WILSON, ASSISTANT PLANNER
t11LLCP 71
•
, City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
1908
TO: Jack Pace /Darren Wilson
FROM: Phil Fraser
DATE: February 3, 1992
SUBJECT: Hillcrest (Leroy Lowe), Plans Received by Planning on
September 9, 1991
Public Water Main Extensions:
A looped waterline along Slade Way /53rd Avenue South and South 160th
Street is to be built and turned over as public as condition of this
permit. Highline Water District agrees with Tukwila Public Works
this loop system will be located in the public right -of -way. This
system is reflected in subject plans. Per plans, Lots 1 through 5
will obtain water service for domestic and fire flows without need
for easements across other properties.
Fire Hydrant Location:
Fire hydrant location for Lot 1 is provided and is within 150 feet of
nearst edge of house. The hydrant is well within the 150 feet
maximum distance from the house and could be placed closer to the
public right -of -way with the Fire Marshall's approval. The reason
Public Works staff suggests a shorter hydrant extension is for a more
maintainable hydrant.
Meter /Service Lines:
Water meter and domestic service locations coming off fire lines
needs to be identified on plans. City requires meters be in the
public right -of -way and at the property line.
Transportation /Access:
M E M O R A N D U M
Identify the nearest METRO bus stop. Possibility of combining
driveway access points needs some further discussion to clarify with
applicant. Ron Cameron has met with applicant and considered four
access points.
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
Driveway Grades:
Sanitary Side Sewers:
Show final grades of all access drives so Public Works may verify
access grades meet 15% maximum requirement.
Also on plan, identify proposed realignment of South 160th. Show how
proposed access for Lot 5 will be reconfigured to meet new South
160th Street alignment (contact Brian Shelton, 433 -0179, for copy of
South 160th Street plans).
Rockeries /Retaining Walls:
Identify any structural retaining walls and /or rockeries (4' maximum
height) construction /reconstruction. Brian Shelton's project on
South 160th had some rockeries facing development, which may have to
be tied into, and need to be reflected on plan.
Per attached September 16, 1991 environmental comments, under Item 1,
to be added - City to conduct peer review of
geotechnical /hydrological studies from an independent consultant in
order to determine final impact /mitigations. This peer review has
not been conducted to date and City Engineer wishes to review this
further to make final determination on scope and whether the City
will carry this out at its own expense.
Water District and Sewer District Availability Letters:
Provide water availability along with water analysis for 5 units for
1000 gpm /20 psi residual pressure.
Provide sewer availability letter from Val Vue Sewer District, which
operates and maintains City owned lines. Public Works current files
do not have this information.
Val Vue Sewer Easements:
Provide copy of sewer easement through property under Lot 5 to assure
appropriate easements for Val Vue sewer main is in place.
Side sewer for Lot 1: The City's sewer standards require a minimum 2%
grade, a maximum of 150 feet in length. Lot 1 side sewer will be
over 200 feet. A private main extension will be required to serve Lot
1 with manhole. Also required is your engineer's analysis to assure
minimum 2 foot /second flushing velocity. Finally, private side sewer
main shall come into manhole # 26 on sheet 1. Identify public main
invert elevation your private main will be coming into.
Storm Drainage:
Identify new storm system in South 160th, now being constructed and
include invert elevation at proposed connection point. Detention into
this system may also be required (check with Brian Shelton).
Provide your hydraulic analysis. Provide plan and profile of proposed
PF /amc:10:hilcrst
public storm main, include diameter of pipe, type of backfill,
bedding and location relative to right -of -way and existing roadway.
City standards require new 24" public storm line shall be reinforced
concrete pipe. Identify straight sections of pipe between catch
basins. Catch basins are required at bends or junctions. Show edge
of existing and proposed roadways.
Frontal Improvements /Sidewalk /Pedestrian Path to S. 160th Street:
Identify new curb and gutter, which will be provided by the applicant
down to Silverview Development. Provide storm drainage easements per .
french drain configuration. Question: Has your Soils Engineer of
Record reviewed this plan?
A ped path and sidewalk system linking Slade Way to South 160th
Street will be part of this development. Identify continuous,
curb /gutter, frontal improvements, utility relocations and concrete
aprons on Slade Way. Also concrete apron, which should already be
built, on South 160th Street.
Carry plan on to the additional triangular lot (Lot 6) and show
connection of ped sidewalk frontal improvements to Silverview
sidewalk.
C
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
TO: Phil Fraser
FROM: John A. Pierog C pp
'
M E M O R A N D U M
John W. Rants, Mayor
DATE: January 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Hillcrest Subdivision, Documentation Contained
in the Development File
Per your request, I have gone through the subject files checking
correspondence as well as other submittals; i.e., plans, etc. The
following will serve as an index for the files.
With regard to correspondence, we have the following:
1. Land Use Permit Routing Form (Permit No. 90- 13 -BLA),
transmitted 10/29/90, requesting comments on attach-
ments:
A. Boundary Line Adjustment Application
B. Original Legal Descriptions
C. New Legal Descriptions
D. Signed Declaration of Architect w/
1) Boundary Line Adjustment Illustration
2) Land Surveyor's Certification
3) Reduced Sanitary Sewer System Plan
4) Reduced Site Plan
2. Land Use Permit Routing Form (Permit No. 90- 13 -BLA),
w /comments from Phil Fraser, dated 11/8/90.
3. Land Use Permit Routing Form (Permit No. 90- 13 -BLA),
transmitted 12/10/90, requesting comments on the
11/26/90 submittal. (Nothing was attached. I believe
the submittal consisted of full size plans).
Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
4. Letter, dated 12/18/90, from Nick Olivas to Leroy Lowe,
with review comments.
5. Memo, dated 12/28/90, from Phil Fraser to Darren Wilson,
with review comments.
6. Letter, dated 2/11/91, from Darren Wilson to Leroy Lowe,
with comments on boundary line adjustment.
7. Letter, dated 3/4/91, from Phil Fraser to Leroy Lowe,
subject: Footprint Drawings (review comments).
8. Letter, dated 3/27/91, from Richard Stuth to Phil Fraser,
subject: Storm Drainage System, etc. w /attached reduced
plan.
9. April 2, 1991 Plan Review Agenda notes.
10. Letter, dated 4/18/91, from Phil Fraser to Richard
Stuth, subject: Storm Drainage System (review comments).
11. Submittal, dated 4/25/91, from Leroy Lowe to Phil Fraser,
which includes revised drawings and a letter from the soil
engineer.
12. Memo, dated 9/16/91, from Phil Fraser to Darren Wilson,
subject: Environmental Comments.
13. December 24, 1991 Plan Review Agenda notes.
14. Two 8 1/2" x 11" drawings (undated) showing retaining wall
and french drain sections.
With regard to submittals, we have the following:
1. Boundary Line Adjustment Plan Sheets (2 ea.), received
by Planning on 10/16/90.
2. Project Plan Sheets, received by Planning on 11/26/90.
3. Project Plan Sheets, received by PW on 2/1/91.
4. Project Plan Sheets, received by PW on 4/25/91.
5. Project Plan Sheets, received by PW on 9/9/91.
6. A bound booklet, submitted 9/6/91 by Leroy Lowe to
Rick Beeler, which contains support documentation for
boundary line adjustment. Documents include:
A. Cover Letter
B. Check List
C. Application Form
JP /amc:10:Lowe
D. Administrative PRO Application
E. Environmental Check List
F. Soils Report
G. Zoning Map
H. Vicinity Map
I. Utilities Information and Availability
J. Suggested Structural Details
K. Address Labels for Property Owners
L. King County Assessors Map
If you have any questions concerning this index, please let me know.
xc: Development File: Hillcrest Subdivision (Leroy Lowe)
Read File
C
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 John W. Rants, Mayor
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Phil Fraser
FROM: John A. Pierog2(o
C
DATE: January 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Hillcrest Subdivision, Documentation Contained
in the Development File
Per your request, I have gone through the subject files checking
correspondence as well as other submittals; i.e., plans, etc. The
following will serve as an index for the files.
With regard to correspondence, we have the following:
1. Land Use Permit Routing Form (Permit No. 90- 13 -BLA),
transmitted 10/29/90, requesting comments on attach-
ments:
A. Boundary Line Adjustment Application
B. Original Legal Descriptions
C. New Legal Descriptions
D. Signed Declaration of Architect w/
i) Boundary Line Adjustment Illustration
•2) Land Surveyor's Certification
3) Reduced Sanitary Sewer System Plan
4) Reduced Site Plan
2. Land Use Permit Routing Form (Permit No. 90- 13 -BLA),
w /comments from Phil Fraser, dated 11/8/90.
3. Land Use Permit Routing Form (Permit No. 90- 13 -BLA),
transmitted 12/10/90, requesting comments on the
11/26/90 submittal. (Nothing was attached. I believe
the submittal consisted of full•size plans).
Phone: (206) 433 -1800 • City Hall Fax (206) 433 -1833
4. Letter, dated 12/18/90, from Nick Olivas to Leroy Lowe,
with review comments. '
5. Memo, dated 12/28/90, from Phil Fraser to Darren Wilson,
with review comments.
6. Letter, dated 2/11/91, from Darren Wilson to Leroy Lowe,
with comments on boundary line adjustment.
7. Letter, dated 3/4/91, from Phil Fraser to Leroy Lowe,
subject: Footprint Drawings (review comments).
8. Letter, dated 3/27/91, from Richard Stuth to Phil Fraser,
subject: Storm Drainage System, etc. w /attached reduced
plan.
9. April 2, 1991 Plan Review Agenda notes.
10. Letter, dated 4/18/91, .from Phil Fraser to Richard
Stuth, subject: Storm Drainage System (review comments).
11. Submittal, dated 4/25/91, from Leroy Lowe to Phil Fraser,
which includes revised drawings • and a letter from the soil
engineer
12. Memo, dated 9/16/91, from Phil Fraser to Darren Wilson,
subject: Environmental Comments.
13. December 24, 1991 Plan Review Agenda notes.
14. Two 8 1/2" x 11" drawings (undated) showing retaining wall
and french drain sections.
With regard to submittals, we have the following:
1. Boundary Line Adjustment Plan Sheets (2 ea.), received
by Planning on 10/16/90.
2. Project Plan Sheets, received by Planning on 11/26/90.
3. Project Plan Sheets, received by PW on 2/1/91.
4. Project Plan Sheets, received by PW on 4/25/91.
5. Project Plan Sheets, received by PW on 9/9/91.
6. A bound booklet, submitted 9/6/91 by Leroy Lowe to
Rick Beeler, which contains support documentation for
boundary line adjustment. Documents include:'
A. Cover Letter
B. Check List
C. Application Form
JP /amc:l0:Lowe
D. Administrative PRD Application
E. Environmental Check List
F. Soils Report
G. Zoning Map
H. Vicinity Map
. I. Utilities Information and Availability
J. Suggested Structural Details
K.' Address Labels for Property Owners
L. King. County Assessors Map
If you have any questions concerning this index, please let me know.
xc: Development File: Hillcrest Subdivision (Leroy Lowe)
Read File
Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A.
P.O. Box 3972
Bellevue, Washington 98009
DENNIS JOULE, P.E.
CIVIL ENGINEER
32729 S.E. 44th Street Ground & Surface Water Hydraulics
Fall City, WA 98024 Geotechnical Engineering
January 15, 1992
Project 1442
Re: Hillcrest Dewatering / Stability of Slade Way
Page 1
At your request I have reviewed the geotechnical reports regarding Hillcrest
Subdivision in Tukwila, Washington. The reports reviewed included; Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation for Hillcrest Slade Way, dated May 30, 1990, prepared by
Cascade Geotechnical, and a follow -up report titled Hillcrest Way, dated August 27,
1990, also prepared by Cascade Geotechnical. I have also performed a surface
inspection of the site. You have informed me that Slade way, adjacent to the proposed
Hillside development, has slope stability problems and has undergone land movement.
This report discusses the relationship between dewatering the Hillcrest site and the
slope stability of Slade Way.
Soil logs from the geotechnical reports show the site to be underlain by slightly silty
sands with some interbedded lenses of silt. The Hillcrest site involves a lower,
relatively flat bench, with a steep slope to the west. Four springs (or seeps) were
observed at the toe of the steep slope. Soil logs show a perched groundwater table
within the benched area.
Slade Way is downslope and just east of the site. The road bed was constructed cross -
slope by cutting upslope and filling downslope.
Slope stability is simply the ratio of the magnitude of forces acting to hold the soil in
place (shear strength) divided by magnitude of forces acting to drive the soil downslope
(soil weight). When water is added to soil, the shear strength goes down and the weight
goes up. From this, it can be seen that adding water to a slope lowers slope stability,
dewatering a slope improves slope stability.
Since the Hillcrest site is adjacent to, and upslope, from Slade Way, dewatering the
lower portion of the Hillside site will improve the stability of both the Hillcrest site, and
Slade Way. The degree to which the slope stability is improved depends on the degree
to which the slope is de- watered. This depends on the location, configuration, and
depth of the dewatering facilities.
If Slade Way fails (is involved in a slope failure) the utilities within the road will likely
fail also. These utilities involve gas, water, power, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer.
The environmental damage downslope from Slade Way that would be caused by the
failure of the utility pipes within Slade Way would certainly overshadow the loss of any
small wetland that may be present within the Hillcrest site. If Slade Way is currently
moving downslope, then Slade Way is involved in a slope failure.
As stated above, this report simply discusses the relationship between dewatering the
Hillcrest site and the slope stability of Slade Way. It must be the decision of the
governing agency as to whether the site should be de- watered, improving the slope
stability, or not.
32729 S.E. 44th Street Fall City, WA 98024 (206) 392 -1108
January 15, 1992
Project 1442
Post Office Box 1337
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
(206) 858 -7055
Dear Leroy:
-i•edberg Associates, Inc.
January 8, 1992
Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A. Architect
P.O. Box 3972
Bellevue, WA 98009
RE: Hillcrest Boundary Line Adjustment
Tukwila, WA
This letter is in reference to the wetlands on the above
referenced site. A level 1 site walk was performed in August
of 1991. The accompanying map shows the approximate edge of
wetlands as defined in the three parameter unified
methodology. This delineation is based on the topography and
spring locations.
Additional facts to be considered are:
1) The wetland is not on the City of Tukwila wetland
inventory.
2) The wetland is estimated at 7,500 square feet, it is
isolated with no connection to any other wetland or
stream, it is surrounded by urban area, developed land,
and roads.
3) The wetland source is from a series of springs at the
base of a the slope.
4) The runoff from the springs and area is collected in
the storm water system of Slade Way and tightlined to
the, presently under construction, Klickitat stormwater
system.
5) A sewer line serving McMicken Heights runs under Slade
Way.
6) Slade Way is the eastern border of the property.
7) The geotechnical report and information from several
engineers (ENTRANCO, RESCO, Professional Surveyors Inc.,
Cascade Geotechnical) indicates that Slade Way and the
sewer are slipping at the rate of inches per year.
8) The water originating on the subject property
saturates the soils under Slade Way and contributes
substantially to the slippage problem.
9) If Slade Way has a major slip, then the sanitary sewer
is likely to break, creating a major environmental health
hazard, and denying sewer service to a large population.
page 2
10) If the road slips greatly this could be an immediate
hazard to traffic and passersby.
11) Recommended remedial action is to intercept the ground
water, dewatering the hillside, and pipe the water into the
stormwater system.
12) The dewatering process will drain the wetland. Several
scenarios of recreating the wetland have been considered, but
there is no practical way of maintaining a wetland and
dewatering the hill. The two activities are contradictory.
13) Deep excavations, 10 + feet in depth, have been considered
for placing water tight barriers to redirect the water and
save the wetland. This is hazardous as the stratified soils
would allow the water to go to a greater depth and continually
destabilize the hill; the stability problem of the road would
not be solved.
14) Any attempt to preserve the wetland will jeopardize Slade
Way and the sewer.
15) The City of Tukwila has provisions in its ordinance for
dealing with emergencies and public safety.
16) Exempting this area from the wetland ordinance on the
basis of the public safety issue is valid and recommend.
17) A wetland study is unnecessary as the dewatering of the
hill is the only reasonable alternative and will result in
lowering the water table of the area such that a wetland can
not be supported.
In summary, a wetland is present and the primary cause of
slippage and lack of stability of Slade Way. Slade Way is slipping
and it is a matter of time before the road and sewer cause a major
environmental mishap. The remedial action for preventing further
slippage involves dewatering the hill by lowering the water table.
Lowering the water table will drain the wetland. There is no
practical solution to the loss of the wetland.
It is recommended, in the interest of public safety and to
save time, that the wetland be exempted from further study and
remedial action undertaken. It is safe to say that Slade Way will
go, someday. Further study and delay enhances the probability that
an expensive cleanup will ensue. I hope that common sense
prevails to prevent an environmental disaster.
If I can be of further assistance, Please contact me.
•
- Az* -493
iv/ ez*:.2441. ape,
8 '57 e4te , 76
er4/77C,4/vct
,35 x (WN)
_Sgp:WA/,
7 75: • • itr_eNc,
ez 255, /0
e445. 0
• • Z
EX /ST
Aed Ai
- ./40 00 l
k //O. /.1 .
25 • .?4' ..57 L C
Ar.a . _4/ /W
'T ,
•
•
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
MEMORANDUM
DARREN WILSON
PHIL FRASE
SEPTEMBER 16, 1991
P1/ONE U (2061433.1800 Gary I,. VanPosen, Mayor
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS FOR HILLCREST (LEROY LOWE)
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (CHECKLIST DATED SEPT. 16,
1991)
1. #9 - Name the two soils reports by author and date produced (Include
reports in documentation) - Add: "City to conduct peer review of
geotech /hydrological studies via independent consultant in order to
determine final impacts /mitigations."
2. Earth, d. - Add: "Slippage of Slade Way has also occurred at least twice
over past 10 years."
3. Under Item No. 2 Water - Comments are written in such a manner as to not
address proposed use of lots, but rather treat the proposal as the act
of changing lot lines only. Question: Is this environmental document for
proposed 5 lot configuration for single family use or not? Impacts and
mitigations for intended use need to be fully defined in responses based
on intended construction for 5 single family dwellings, not just status
quo undeveloped use.
I request this portion of environmental checklist be redone to include
impacts /mitigations with any proposed 5 unit single family development,
not just under assumption that only lot line boundaries are being
relocated.
Second, I request that the assumptions made by the preparer of the
environmental checklist identify which soils report they are relying upon
in the preparation of the checklist responses so it is clear by what
authority the impacts /mitigations have been determined.
4. No. 7 - Utilities - Water Utility requires "loop system" be developed.
Noted is that WD #75 states in availability letter, "Water system must be
looped to...." indicating that impacts of this development require
mitigations for a water main extension looping the system. Public Works
requests this loop be in public R /W. How it is located needs to be shown
in order to determine if easements are required on plan to mitigate
utilities across private lots.
5. No. 7 - Utilities - Storm drainage availability is also identified under
Checklist Response No. 7. This is not the case. A storm main extension
will be needed to S. 160th Street for the proposed use of property and so
needs to be identified to mitigate impacts of said lot line configuration
at time of first single family lot construction. Also, detention will be
required in the new public line constructed in Slade Way prior to discharge
into new 53rd Ave. S. storm line (now under construction).
6. No. 15 Transportation - a. This answer to be changed from n/a to Slade
Way /53rd Ave. S. for four single family lots and S. 160th Street for the
fifth lot.
MEMORANDUM
Darren Wilson
Sept. 16, 1991
page two
PRF /cd
xc: Brian Shelton
file: Hillcrest Development
No. 15 Transportation - a. - Applicant to identify nearest METRO bus stop
No. 15 Transportation - e. through g. - Applicant to provide responses
(n /a incorrect).
7. No. 16. Public Services - a. Identify water main loop required and
extension of public storm drainage system. Also, identify extension of
ped path and sidewalk systems linking Slade way to S. 160th Street.
8. On plan submittal identify how utilities services including storm side
drains, water services and sanitary side sewers will be located relative
to need to provide any utility easements serving one property across
other properties. Do same for franchised utilities (power, telephone, TV
cable, WNG).
9. On plan identify maximum slopes of private drives to allow Public Works
to verify accesses demonstrate 15% max. requirement can mitigated under
proposed lot configurations.
Also, on plan identify proposed realignment of South 160th and how proposed
access could configured /mitigated to open access (contact Brian Shelton,
433 -0179 for copy of South 160th Street plans).
CD.D18.LEROY.PRF
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 PHONE q (206) 933.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
PRF /cd
DARREN WILSON
TO:
FROM: PHIL FRASER
DATE:
SUBJECT: LAND USE COMMENTS FOR LEROY LOWE BOUNDARY LINE
ADJUSTMENT
SEPTEMBER 16, 1991
1. Identify any easements required for storm, water and sewer
service lines serving one property but crossing other
properties. The same for proposed franchised utilities (show
on plan).
2. Sidewalk with associated curb /gutter, pavement, and utility
relocations along Slade Way to be provided from Lot #6
connecting into existing sidewalk ( "Silverview Development ")
to north end of property along Slade Way /53rd Avenue South.
3. Identify any SAO wetlands /creeks that require buffer or
property set asides. Show these right of ways separate from
single family lots so Public Works may see how utilities,
access and drainage accomodate these sensitive areas through
lot reconfigurations.
xc: file: Hillcrest Development
CD.D18.LEROYTWO.PRF
P.O. SOX 1241 SLATTLg. WASHINGTON SSIII
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
HILLOZe5T
fIILLCIZST
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.
LEROY
LEROY C. LOWE
A.IA. ARCHITECT
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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
GENERAL HILL CQ
Application Form
Administrative PRD Application ,4
Environmental Checklist
Environmental Checklist Fee — $225 00
PLANS
II
II
II
ADMINISTRATIVE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION CHECKLIST
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA
Telephone: (206) 4,3
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.
D. Existing and finished grades at 2' contours with the precise slope of any area
in excess of 15 %.
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.
G. Proposed landscaping, size, species, location and spacing, for downslope and
sideyard buffers for geologic hazard areas.
98188
-3680
PUBLIC NOTICE
and setbacks.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRD APPLICATION CHECKLIST
n H. Location of watercourse and /or wetland boundaries with required buffers
n I. Location and size of proposed utility lines and a description of by whom and
how water and sewer is available.
n J. Location, dimensions and nature of any proposed easements or dedications,
including those for the sensitive area and buffer.
K. Perspective drawings, photographs, color renderings or other graphics which
accurately represent your proposed project.
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.
Page 2
f
r
O 1991
N • in/ TUKW/LA v i 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
EPARTMENT OF COMMUN Telephone: (206) 431 -3680
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Planner: File Number:
Cross - Reference Files: Receipt Number:
1. TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT LOTS: 5 (' /v )
2. ZONING OF SUBJECT SITE: �- / - /Z- O
I 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, 2 7, Z G , Z.
6.,/‘,0 c_5 1 SL.4 wAy - 7;+x Lois : coZ24,, 0230, 0224, 0220, 02/5
I /WE,[signature(s)] �- .-
swear that Ylwe~ e o er(s) or contra purchaser(s) of the property involved
I in this application an t at the foregoing st tements and answers contained in this
application are true a d correct to the of my /our knowledge and belief.
Quarter- /V 4' Section: 2Co Township- 23 Range: 4
(This information may be found on your tax statement)
Address:
AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP
p &B'X 3,7 Z 1: 1 4c1/UC I►s/A ,25c
ADMINIST4.+►TIVE
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
APPLICATION
alts^ -¢¢ (Zo 747. 29 70
Date: 5, /97/
nILLcZsT
ADMINIS RATIVE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
INFORMATION
CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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.
CRITERIA
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.
PROCEDURE
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.
Single Family Residential
Environmental Checklist
eReeer
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
w.;.�kt^ n::>:•`iC.,.K,MX;•��,:`.;:� y;,�, •,'.•,i.,ttK'�'tKCb:.`CKRC�Q
�So�`.�.L<'i e:ti'r:&•r. \,2••.tiici�:'�::; r�; xfiiw) is2aw "i�a�vSi''',�;3io�::�;i'is3'it
When a Checklist is Required:
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.
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.
1. Description of proposal:
For completion by staff:
L. Rick Beeler, Responsible Official
DETERMINATION OF
iIILLCREeST
,emu v ey 2./A./6 .4.(:%/4_4s - A -r/v
4PpL/G L 7 ,(.,/
r PM (4
SEP 0 199
C►1 01- Tutswn A
PLANNING DEPT.
2. Name of applicant: L oy .4. / , , 4 , zc. /TAN
3. Location of site (use address, lot & block number, and tax account number(s) if
applicable): Po%Tionis of S TS: °P.1717, Z. 27, / '
` SL�oE w4y 7.4 Go-77.5 o z , 0 2 2 4, aZZo, 02/5.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC
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.
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 ?
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You ma
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available from the City Clerk an
Department of Community Development.
hrcLcIZsT
1 4. Date checklist prepared:
I 6. Phone number of applicant: r zo�, q - - 4123
ed starting date (including phasing, if a
7. a. Propos g g p g, applicable):
�9.
cf'EOT. .- /77/
Address of applicant: "rep. 45 5,72 Rte/ C
W+4 • 98ao
d
b. Proposed completion date: N ..4
Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further
activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No
Are there any soils reports or topographic (contour) maps that have
been prepared relating to the property?
I
10. List the government approvals or permits that will be needed for
your proposal. C /7V o)= 7?-6KW/L 4 ; ,$cx /,4d 4, /
L
//,'M 4 4.457i'7 /T , o�,r2pvo4L .
[11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal:
Site size: / 98 O 50 SEE T
House size: N. d
Accessory structures: N. A .
Proposed uses: S /rvG! ,4M /Ly LOTS
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
I _.
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly,
steep slopes, other: GOM,5./N4 o,C ,L4
/24,G1—/wG .4/VG' Sr.'F� SG.oF'
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent
slope)? .37 7o
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. _
5 1 4 - /N.e. 7 GOV.e6.� .S4iv4 S
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the
immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Lots.voSG/oa s
# 1./.44/ E 4ccciAz:L) 7 7746 e..45 7 AGreoSS
S440E WA y .
< i11LLCIZFSC
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any
filling or grading proposed: Z90o Cu.. 7 pede. Gc r
fcv2 4 Frzedv .D 4 /N.
g.
2. Water
Where is the source of fill obtained: Al, c,‹ acovee y ¢`
c o 2 A v E L , 'T
f. Could erosion occur as a result f clearing, construction, or use?
If so, generally describe. /V/p ec /ivod L aves
4o%J. 5OM5 E./Z A- 4y GYrGU,e
G,eZ400/1 G C TONS L/M /Tzo 7 #/O S
O,c ,aRy WS47=✓e
Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other
impacts to the earth, if any: /N 572144 5/.7477a/ ,845 /ivS
0/24/^/Acc.0 Vet. o /ss /vases, Re-PGA//r, TEMP L iti
Ga�v 6'77ZL.G77.. s
h. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious
surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or
buildings)? N/A /t 4' y „loL/u577'1 JT
.P•/cr/ r/c N oN y .
a. Surface:
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. 6/7
/c,c77- L./.STEO C. / 77J 'L4' .5 WeTGdNO /N✓5/1 .
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. N/4 u"v1),d'
pUG.ci
0A/L-4/
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would
be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and
indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material: 290e)
,rc'ac Q u,g eQ Y ¢ G e.A VE!. P/ 7
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description purpose, and
approximate quantities, if known. Y L°'S .
4.7e' iN W /LG. /N T cel -J' �e.G..4 G45
_N AGow /N To zX /577,/4
S7o�NI 1>i I :4 /i./
5) Does th;• roposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? -Yes-
If so, note location on your site plan.
2
< IIrLCCZsT
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. /Uo
N/A 5 ..../a. �2)/ L/NC
4OLJUSTi f V T Flo /'L /c.47 ' IV c^vLy
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. F,c✓ve,
Q.Q.A /N W /LL /A/7"C'7 C- ouNp Wei T�.�
04A/O 4)/✓F2T IN 77f) EX /S 7 G S
GYZ<NN
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 system(s) are expected to serve._
Nc GYS 2G E 2o/ .4,vy 7;4,i/iv c.
,80lJNO,A-zy 4/A/c 04.0../IJS Ti T A/ 7
4oi'L,/ Cq 77 on/ o ni _/
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). S 45, " 4 moo/"! SP/Z /NG s coLGE►c.To
, /��2✓vCfJ L;k2,4/N D 0/.2 TS0 /NTC)
Where will this water flow? &X /STitiG
LEA //V
Will this water flow into other waters? Cv /L 4 S
M4 y 1:7 /A CGTy,O Cy &>(/..57 ? ' i
If so, describe. G�'4 /A/4GS S'y5 7"=/-7
2) Could waste materials entey ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe. / ZEcirlivOARY L/Na
AOcJ -' rt-i A/ T ,49:::F•4/ c..4 77 Q'y cWL.. /
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water impacts, if any: ,,2Eivc,41
�SyS7 A4 W /LL GOL1-L°GG7 G,E'c e-iti.0
D/' T FL 0 w /A/ X/ 5 T /A/G S7ZYzAi
,L'. /N
‘$�l1R •4Cc V/i r P.2S6SivTGy /S cc:V_L 2
By A vn
/A/ TO 4N ,:.5X/'5 //%!G 570,<J'Al
l'S/ -4 TC'WEi C,
.. Check and then circle types of
vegetation found on the site:
deciduous tree:
other:
MATURE LEAF
RESINOUS BUD
A rough•b•rked tree reaching SO or 60w (160.2001 in height, Black Cottonwood
Is often found standing above the surrounding woods. They occur on stream
anks and lakeshor•s, and in forested wetlands. Young trees have smooth
ir••n bark which forms hard dark gray ridges as the tree matures. The winter
.uds are large, long pointed and distinctly resinous.
shrubs: wiliew, saim'enberry, Irtel
other: BLACK ,SEAR}/
PURPLE FLOWER
ORANGE.RED
BERRIES
PETIOL
FRUIT
(UNOPENED)
4 — YOUNG LEAF
BLACK
COTTONWOOD
4-- THORNY
.STEMS
SALMONBERRY
lIILLC2E6T
I (his deciduous tree or shrub Is often lound growing with Red Alders along the
banks of ponds and streams and in wetlands. It is dillicult to Identify willows to
enact species because of the tendency of many species to hybridize.
❑ evergreen tree:
other: WES
FUZZY NEW LEAVES
STIPULES LOST
ON OLDER GROWTH
NEEDLE
NEEDLES OF VARYING LENGTHS
WESTERN HEMLOCK
A forest 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.
2•WHITE STRIPES
WILLOW
The tangles of curving, thorny stems formed by this perennial shrub provide
shelter for nesting virds and small rodents. It Is found growing 1.4w (7.12')
high in moist woods, and along stream banks.
grass
sedge Is a grass-like herb with triangular solid stems and liberous roots or
SHEATHING LEAF BASE
LIGULE
'T`,
i BLAB
1',
CLOSED FLOWER OPEN FLOWER WC
REED CANARY GRASS
' J
K FLOWER CLUSTER
rF
i•
BRACT - '
A TRIANGULAR STEMS
��.' FLOWER CLUSTER \'
is
h /LLCZ6T
�i LIGULE
BLADE
/ /
vx
SEDGES
BASAL SHEATHS
STAMEN
4
•- SCALE
SPIKE -RUSH
These annual or perennial grasslike herbs have round to flattened stems and
tend to grow In clumps in areas with wet soli.
D pasture
MALE FLOWERS y�
i,
SI FEMALE FLOWER
The classic plants associated with marshy areas, Cattails, form large, almost
pure strands 1.3m (3.9') tall In shallow quiet water. They provide cover and
nesting area, for many birds, and • food source for many •nlmals. The roots.
stem base, and very young flower stalks are edible.
r
•
• .
WHITE FLOWERS
BRACT...'`"
e j
3
SHEATHING
LEAF_BASES - . .
_CATTAIL
G la~ BRACT
PURPLE RIBBED STEMS
WATER PARSLEY
Other types of vegetation
Please list
/vy
.4')/5 t .0,4 s
,0,4N.c. /o/v
ZS WORRO /c...• A/
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
!/EGS7 4 77 W .4 T , EA./CA/ e //ti/ PV/Z-.L. L
tiEO .4iY0
c. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to
preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: NA77 V.
T,zes, 5/../.445 5 , tic/5
W /•�L 6.1.5 IJS.O /iV L�avc.SC�O /A/G .46
A5 ,45 cc /B' S 0, 22%c/.dME/A/TAL
V44.2/O T /5
4. Animals
hlLLC1Z6T
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, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
,eo a /n/S SpA S
mammals: deer, beer, €44 other:
fish: beat-sai 1, trettt, ether:
Biel M /GS
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site. N,,4 /c%N6
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?
S /7' .47 p SE/V T /5 Z/.4G,4. G4A/
.4 J.ZIC...=/vT fP .Cc,oeT/ 5 C zA/
ioe L.. 5 , A 4, 7/L y
S
b. Describe any structures on the site. /�/l5A/
c. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? N/A,
NoN6
d. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R - /Z.0
g.
6. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not
including antennas? N/4 Zo /'vc' )/
..4OJGJSr/ 7 C:"/ Oi/G)/
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
8. Air
f1ILLC12MT
e. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
I -, /z.- V i6s/,ne..rvc.�v► .
f. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site? Urban �V /,
Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally
sensitive' area? If so, specify. yrs , Slc;tc:is
sys4em, other: S'a / i vveA" SyC TE..I
..48LC' 77 V. R/,ec./c 7z'4ni5 - Tim
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._
N / ociiv. y L✓A/ 7•7 T
4,4=ovc4 cM,oavy/A/
s/ >7s pt.4 /vs P?-1
774../
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
9
9. Energy and Natural Resources
10. Environmental Health
11. Housing
< HILL 1Ze57
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used
to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used
for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe. N/A
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if
any: N/A
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur
as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. N/A
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if
any: N/A
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether
high, middle, or low- income housing? One S vuj7►5 M /001 /nIGoMz
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
‘.'hether high, middle, or low- income housing. N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None
13. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would
it mainly occur? N/A
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere
with views? N/A
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
N/A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
N/A
13. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity? N/A
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe. N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
N/A
10
14. Historic and Cultural Preservation
li1GLClZe5T
a. Arc 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: NIA
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? N/A
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). N/A
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally describe. N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
N/A
g.
16. Public Services
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 dead agency is relying on them to
make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
c1'6PT. /G / 9 ?/
11
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12911 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821-5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
April 24, 991
Job No. 9005 -13G
Leroy Lowe
P.O. Box 1241
Seattle, Washington 98111
Reference: Plan Review
Hillcrest
Slade Way
Tukwila, Washington
Dear Mr. Lowe:
4o13- �LA •
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 O.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 Drain
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 that 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
development. 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
the acceptable levels of safety. We recommend 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
)
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR HILLCREST
SLADE WAY, SOUTH OF SOUTH 160TH STREET
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. 9005 -13G
•ty seP, 1,07t,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scope
Project Description
Site Description
Subsurface Soil Conditions
Laboratory Results
Conclusions
Recommendations
Foundation Design Parameters
Drainage
General
(
Page 1
Page 2
Page 2
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 8
Page 9
Apppendix A Test Pit Locatin Map
Appendix B Test Pit. Logs
Appendix C Unified Soils Classification System
Appendix D Laboratory Results
May 30, 1990
Job No. 9005 -13G
C�.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821.5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
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
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.
SITE DESCRIPTION
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 I -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
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 01 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 5
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.
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 11. 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) proposed residences to be
located near or on the slope. We observed evidence of soil creep
on the lower portions of the slope. Foundations for these two
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 7
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
houses will need to be deep. We anticipate that a pile foundation
will be required at these locations.
The plans we were provided show a driveway that angles directly up
the thirty (30) foot high slope. The slope is steeper than
2(H):1(V) in the proposed roadway location. The proposed driveway
does not appear feasible due to the steepness of the slope.
The proposed residences that will be located in the lower portions
of the site will require special foundations and /or site
preparation due to the presence of ground water and the abundance
of organic rich soil.
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 drains or other resources may be recommended
as additional subsurface information becomes available.
Additional subsurface information from the site will be required
to determine specific factor of safety parameters and specific
foundation design parameters.
RECOMMENDATIONS
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. We recommend
performing site preparation and excavation work during an extended
period of dry weather to avoid excess costs and construction
problems associated with soil deterioration. Very specific
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 8
additional recommendations are essential if work must proceed in
wet weather.
Foundation Design Parameters
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 option would be to leave
the organic soils and use a pile foundation - timber piles, or
auger cast piles. A second option would be to strip the organic
soils, add structural fill, and use 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.
Drainage
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
Extensive drainage will be required at this site. To allow
drilling access to the site, we recommend that a drainage system
be installed along the base of the slope to capture the water from
the springs. The drain should follow the base of the slope, at
about an elevation 268' feet above sea level, as shown on the site
plan we were provided.
We anticipate that extensive additional drainage will be required
prior to development of the site.
May 30, 1990
Leroy C. Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 9
General,
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
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.
Sincerely,
CASCADE GEOTECHNI
P.
Principal En•inee
orge
E. George Ehlers
Engineering Geologist
EGE:pg
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
• 0 ?' C„0 :
•
• • t yuq •
A • • (T.:
fr . rsTC
h oNAL Et---
HILLCREST
TEST PIT & HAND AUGER LOCATION MAP
T.P.1
fo
® TEST PITS (05/15/10)
-�- HANO AUGERS (05/23/90)
H.A.10
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 14.6 116111 RACE U0616/1.5090
!OAKLAND. WASIIINGION 99034 fAl: 1106) 913.1103
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS & FROM SITE PLAN BY LEROY C. LOWE
Job Ns ' l SCALE s 1' 5a
905.130
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
t1.1• �W.. By I YJ l.w - Q +�
05/29190 HLA
HILLCREST
TEST. PIT & HAND AUGER LOCATION MAP
SETH 280N STRFBT
® TEST PITS (05/15/10)
-�- HAND AUGERS (05/23/90)
$
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS 8 FROM SITE PLAN BY LEROY C. LOWE
Jib 90s N.. '13G l SCALE 1' .• 50'
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 NI. I26THPLACE (206) 821.5080 LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
KIRKIAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX:1206) 823.2203
"1• 5/29190 (Dwe. Lp Fi I1M -
0A ,y.7
T.P. 1
Notes:
Date 05/23/90
Soil Description & Classification
1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, WET. (PT)
1'- 2.5'SAND; WITH TRACE SILT,
GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
WET, PROMINENT ORANGE MOT -
(SP)TLES, FINE TO MED.GRAINED.
2.5L 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'
TEST PIT LOG
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
[Job No. 905 - 13G
T.P.- 2
-15
Notes:
Soil Description & Classification
0 - 1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, WET TO SATURATED. (PT)
-2.5'SAND; WITH MINOR 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)
`"'"'•`t 7'- 12' SAND; WITH SOME SILT, BLUE
GRAY, DENSE, WET. (SP)
Dwn. By HLA
12'- 13'SAND; WITH MINOR GRAVEL,
GRAY BROWN, DENSE, WET,
FAINT ORANGE MOTTLES. (SP)
T.D. = 13.0
HILLCREST
Geo /Eng. T
RA- 1
Soil Descriptio( . Classification
HA.- 2
Soil Description & Classification
"TOPSOIL;
0 "TOPSOIL;
0
—
— 6 SILTY SAND WITH
TRACE GRAVEL, BLACK, LOOSE,
MOIST.
'6 "— 2'SAND,; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, BROWN,
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST,
FINE GRAINED. (SP)
2'— 5' SAND; 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)
..
�.,.;;:;;,
••i
'':'
is '':
•:•.•..::;:.
SILT, GRAY BROWN MEDIUM
�
DENSE MOIST, FINE
� I N GRAINED.
(SP)
T.D. = 5.0'
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes •
Notes •
H.A. - 3
Soil Description & Classification
HA.-4
Soil Description & Classification
0
—
—S
'
0 — 3.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
0
—
—
0 — 2.5' 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'
—S
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
.Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
(C17
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DIVISION OF
C ASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 — 13G
Own. By HLA
Goo/ Eng.
HA.- 5
Soil Description ( :lassification
HA.- 6
` :oil Description & Classification
0
—
_
`R0 - 4 "DUFF
—
_
~0
3.5'PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
4 "- 1'TOPSOIL; SILTY SAND WITH
SATURATED. (PT)
3,5' 4.5'SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANIC
TRACE GRAVEL, DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, MOIST,
1' 3'SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS &
TRACE GRAVEL, DARK GRAY - BROWN
LOOSE, WET. (SM -OL)
—
_
T.D. = 3.0'
•
DARK GRAY TO BLACK, LOOSE, SA1
ORATED, 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
HA.- 7
Soil Description & Classification
HA- 8
Soil Description & Classification
0 -
_
- � 0
- 6 "PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
0— '
—
_
—
..-�
0 - 6 "DUFF
6'L 1' 3 "SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS,
' "'
-
-
; 6'- 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-
ICS, LIGHT BROWN TO TAN, SOFT
-.
. �
I -
DARK GRAY, SOFT, SATURATED.
(ML - OL)
4 ' - 5' SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
II
SATURATED, FINE GRAINED.(ML - OL)
4 - 5'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGANICS
- 5
—
■ 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
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Dwn•By HLA
Geo /Eng. 9../C
HA. - g
Soil Description's.. Classification
HA.- 10
I S oil Description & Classification
"DUFF
0-
r;,.
h= 11,4
. +_
-- - �..
" •,.=�
- 2'PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
0-
-
")
—5—
—
-7.70 - 6
' 6 "- 1' SANDYSILT; WITH ORGANICS &
5'PEAT INTERLAYERED WITH SILTY
MINOR SAND, TAN, MOIST TO WET.
(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,
—
- _4;
=_:
=-
•.
;: =.
...
- -
_
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)
(ML— SM —OL)
—S
T.D. = 5.0'
T.D. = 5.0
Notes:
Notes:
HA. - 11
Soil Description & Classification
HA.- 12
Soil Description & Classification
0
`' ' ,;
— 6 "DUFF
o
7,..,.
..r;;
—
0 — 6 "DUFF
6 " — 3' SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
7..• ^"—
5' SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
-,Y:
—%t::
' �{
`_; : r
'��'�
t,• ;:s
•.
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, LIGHT
BROWN TO RED BROWN, LOOSE
TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST, FINE
GRAINED. (SP)
3 ' — 5' SAND; TRACE TO MINOR SILT,
.
—•'
:::':::: ?_:
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, RED
BROWN, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST, FINE GRAINED. ( SP )
LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY, MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST, COARSE GRAINED
(SP)
T.D. = 5.0'
—S
T.D. = 5.0'
: ,
Notes:.
•Notes
HAND AUGER LOGS
C-n---"Nbp
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DMSION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 — 13G
Own. By HLA
Geo /Eng. )E
HA_- 13
Soil Description (:Iassification
HA.-
C ,oil Description & Classification
Notes:
0 --�0
...�
-
6
6 "DUFF
3'`SAND;
WITH MINOR SILT, LIGHT
TO RED BROWN, LOOSE TO
DENSE, MOIST. (SP)
'`' '
0
—
—
—
:
gl_
• `.`'''''""
BROWN
MEDIUM
-5--
T.D. = 3.0'
-5—
Notes
HA-
Soil Description & Classification
H{A.-
Soil Description & Classification
Notes:
0
-S —
0
-S—
.Notes:
HAND
AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DMSION Of
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC.
mi
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Dwn•Ely HLA
Geo/ Eng. �
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL
LETTER
DESCRIPTION
•
'
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
'
GRAVEL &
GRAVELLY
SOILS
. • • 0"
CLEAN 14,.•is.
�. o. • .
GW
Well- graded gravels or gravel - sand mixtures.
little or no tines
GRAVELS .•.XX** 1
* V
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 &
SANDY
SOILS
• ��
• • ��s •
CLEAN :; • :: ;
CLEAN
SW
._
sands or gravelly sands, little or
no fines
SANDS ' 'ti
i ':_:
SP
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little
or no fines
SANDS
. '
: . • :i ' • .
SM
Silty sends or sand -silt mixtures
WITH FINES
SC
Clayey sands or sand -clay mixtures
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS & CLAYS
ML
inorganic silts a very fine 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 1 �
�►�I
I i i !
it
OL
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, fat clays
Liquid Limit Greater Than 50 ' ,/,',
, . GH
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
organic silts
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS • --.
♦ n, 4 -
PT
Peat or other highly organic soils •
SYM
BOL
DATUM
NOTE
SZ Water
Level
Date Recorded
T S
Torvans Reading
Sample Interval
qU
Penetrometer Reading
Sample Interval
i Water
Observation Well
Tip Elevation
SO L
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
i
UNIFIED SEALS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
i
Humus i duff layer
Uncontrolled, with highly variable constituents
TOPSOIL
FILL
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
KEY CHART
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Scope
Subsurface Conditions
Conclusions
Recommendations
Site Preparation
Erosion Control
Drainage
Horizontal Wells
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Aas 7, X7
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
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
Test Pit Logs
Hand Auger Logs
Test Boring Logs
Laboratory Results
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919 N.E. 126TH RACE (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 -13G
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
C
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 GEOTECHN1CAL
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
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.
Drainage
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.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 7
Horizontal Wells
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
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.
Access Drive
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
att\ \
•
Tio
H.A.12
N
\ )
H.A.4
H.A.3
TP.2
A.6
_ J
t ,
tt
T.P.1
TEST PITS (05/15/10)
+ HAND AUGERS (05/23/90)
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12919N E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821.5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
e a
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS & FROM SITE
Job No.
905 -13G
LOCATIOP
dal•
05/29/90
T.P. 1
- 10
- 15
•
Date 05/23/90
Soil Description' & Classification
0 - 1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, WET. (PT)
1'- 2.5'SAND; 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'
Notes:
TEST PIT LOG
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING IAOORATORY, INC.
I Job No. 905 - 13G
T.P.- 2
0
- 5
-10
- 15
Notes:
Dwn. By HLA
Soil Description & Classification
0 - 1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, WET TO SATURATED.(PT)
1 - 2.5' A D; WITH MINOR 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)
7 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'
HILLCREST
Goo /Eng. 49/-*4
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOL LETTER
DESCRIPTION
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
•
GRAVEL i
GRAVELLY
SOILS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
.14% GW
:•: .
.•.
Well - graded gravels or gravel - sand mixtures,
little or no Ones
.• . '_ .
, V G P
�*
.,
Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures,
little or no fines
GRAVELS
WITH FINES
Sample Interval
•
; GM
Silty gravels or gravel - sand-silt mixtures
GC
Clayey gravels or gravel- sand -clay mixtures
SAND i
SANDY
SOILS
•• ��
••
CLEAN ,• ;• :•; • . sW
Well- graded sands or gravelly sands, little or
no fines
SANDS : kt= ' • : �••�•' •• �=•
i ti { ' t ? ?''•' S P
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little
or no fines
i SM
SANDS
Silty sands or sand -silt mixtures
WITH FINES SC
Clayey sands or sand -clay mixtures
A
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS i CLAYS
MI.
Inorganic silts • very fine sands, rock flour, silty
or clayey fine sands, or clayey silts with slight
plasticity
C`
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays or lean clays
Liquid Limit Less Than SO 1
1111j1
11
1 1 1
I 1
1 1 1
OL
Organic silts & organic silty clays of low
plasticity
SILTS i CLAYS
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 SO
OH
7
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
organic silts
"_� 4„--_:-
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS !_ ..:z . PT
.,a. - •
Peat or other highly organic soils •
SYN
DATUM
NOTE
2
Water Level
Date Recorded
TS
Torvane Reading
Sample interval
qU
Penetrometer Reading
Sample Interval
j Water
Observation Well
Tip Elevation
So
DATUM
NOTE
1 2"
0.0. Split Spoon Sampler
Sample Interval
It Ring
or Shelby Sampler
Sample interval
P
Sampler Pushed
Sample Interval
Other Sample Type
Sample Interval
UNIFIED &)ILS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
TOPSOIL
—
a
a M
/\ r, -
FILL
-s
••``
Humus i duff layer
Uncontrolled, with highly variable constituents
C
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
KEY CHART
HA- 1
Soil Descripti ..6 Classification
f
HA . - 2
9
Soil Description & Classification
"TOPSOIL;
0
0 6 "TOPSOIL; SAND WITH
_
(113111
t(
. ••$.74.;:,747
- SILTY
TRACE GRAVEL, BLACK, LOOSE,
MOIST.
6 "- 2'Q; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
0
—
• •
.41( 4 ils;;;;;;1.141.4%•:-:17".:W.::•::•:;-,:•;:-;;;•:..-.-.....
• • . • • • • -
▪ • -- ••1..-•say.-:
0 - 8 SILTY SAND WITH
TRACE GRAVEL, BLACK, ORGANIC,
LOOSE, MOIST.
8 - 5'SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, BROWN,
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST,
FINE GRAINED. (SP)
2'- 5' SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL &
TRACE TO MINOR SILT, LIGHT
BROWN, LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST FINE GRAINED. (SP)
•
-...
;-_
't:''°
�;; : .
17;
..
SILT, GRAY BROM , MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST, FINE GRAINED.
(SP)
- S
T.D. = 5.0'
•S,
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
Notes:
HA. - 3
Soil Description & Classification
HA-4
Soil Description & Classification
—
—
- 2.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
0
—
—
--
0 - 3.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
• • 4S 1' 1 4: I,.
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)
1i
T.D. = 5.0'
-S
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
.Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LASOIUTORV, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
I 0. sy HLA
Geoff Ens. 1 '
HA.- 5
Soil Description Llassification
HA.- 6
t..oil Description & Classification
D
-
0 - 4191Z FF
D
- s
0 - 3.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
11
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)
_
_
T.D. = 3.0'
DARK GRAY TO BLACK, LOOSE, SA
URATED, FINE GRAINED.(SM -OL)
4.5'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGAN
ICS, TAN, LOOSE, SATURATED,
1 FINE GRAINED. (ML -OL)
T.D. = 5.0
Notes •
Notes:
HA- 7
l Soil Description & Classification
HA.- 8
Soil Description & Classification
c
0 7.7 14 —
—
^ 1,
—
1Y
;;
;l
I'
"
11
'I
II
;
;
i
0 - POE'
6'L 3.5'ORGANIC SANDY SILT; DARK
0 - 6 "PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
°
—
'�
--
6.- 1' 3" SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS,
BLUE GRAY, LOOSE, SATURATED,
FINE GRAINED. (SM -OL)
1' 3'L 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-
ICS, LIGHT BROWN TO TAN, SOFT
SATURATED, FINE GRAINED.(ML -OL)
4'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGANICS
DARK GRAY, SOFT, SATURATED.
(ML -OL)
4'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
;
LT. BROWN TO TAN, SOFT, SATURA-
TED, FINE GRAINED. (ML -OL)
- s
� TAN, SOFT, SATURATED.(ML -OL)
- S•'
—
T.D. = 5.0
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
.Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A OMSION OF
CASCADE TESTING LASO ATO*Y, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. By HLA 1 G .o/En q .
9C
HA.- 9
Soil Description & Classification
HA.- 10
Soil Description & Classification
0 ' 0
- 6 "DUFF
1' SANDYSILT; WITH ORGANICS &
0
7'
- "
�" -
�-.-
; ? `;
0 - 2'PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
5'PEAT INTERLAYERED WITH SILTY
.
' MINOR SAND, TAN, MOIST TO WET
-S
�.`• ''
~
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,
---
-. �_±
- _
}_
-
..
♦ " "'''
:•2'-
` '
'• '-
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)
(ML- SM -OL)
-S
T.D. = 5.0'
T.D. = 5.0
Notes:
Notes:
HA.- 11
Soil Description & Classification
H.A.- 12
• Soil Description & Classification
0 "O
�►;;.
- 6 "DUFF
0 '!'
.-finFil
-"""'
-..::
0 - 6 "DUFF
(74:71:
6 "- 5' SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
6 "- 3' SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
`-
`:'__
• : _:
:-
';:f=
.;
0t
'` i ' : ; .•
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
(3
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DIVISION Of
CASCADE TESTING LASOIUTOIIY, INC,
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
loyme HLA
Goo/ Eng. )E.
Soil Description & Classification
Soil Description & Classification
- 6 "DUFF
• " 6 - 3 SAND; WITH MINOR SILT, LIGHT
BROWN TO RED BROWN, LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. (SP)
3.0'
Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A OMSION OF
CASCADE TESTING LASOMTORY, INC.
-5
.Notes:
0
0
Notes:
Soil Description & Classification
Soil Description & Classification
HILLCREST
Proi.ct
Driller
G.o /Eng. R ILOMOUIST
HILLCREST
Boring No. 1
Sod Description & Classification
, LOOSE, DRY, TRACE SILT, TRACE
ORGANICS (ROOT FRAGMENTS). (SP)
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP. (SP)
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP. 0)
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP. 00)
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. (SP)
ILT; BROWN, DENSE, WET, TRACE SAND. (ML)
Date 07/24/90
Drill Typo SKID MOUNTED HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Fluid NONE
Notes
07/24/90
2
I
0 Pi s:
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
(( A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LAIIOMTOQY. INC
TEST BORING LOG
Project HILLCREST
Job No. 905 -13G 1
Boring No. 1
Sample Interval
I f d 'a
Penetration
Soil Description & ClassiFication
Notes
, 9 /sMO19
'1 /s"010 l
'IOaUS
—
35
BE
28
56
Of
SAND; BROWN, VERY DENSE, SATURATED. (SP)
6" HEAVE
L
•
T.D. = 31.5'
—
-
-
Not ";
SLOTTED
WATER TABLE AT 26.5' UPON WITHDRAWL OF SAMPLER. PIEZOMEJER INSTALLED. 15' OF
PIPE, MONUMENT PLACED.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A OMSION OF
TEST BORING LOG
Project
HILLCREST
Job No. 905 -13G
Date 07/25/90
Boring No. 3
Own. By AEM
Driller DRUNG utivrrED
Drill Type SKID MOUNTED HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Geo /Eng. 13..
Hole 0 4" ID.
Fluid NONE
Sample Interval
yta•a
Penetration
otails
•
Soil Description & Classification
Notes
„9 /smolt,
'y/ smolt!
I
I
—
—
5
P
1' 'N SNP; GRAY
TO BLACK, COARSE GRAINED
GRAY, SATURATED, MEDIUM DENSE_
IN TIP. (SP)
COARSE GRAINED, INCLUDING
MEDIUM DENSE, MEDIUM TOr'
(SP)
07/25/90
2
-
SAND, WET. (PT)
SAND; WITH SOME SILT,
COARSE GRAINED, 8" WATER
SAND; GRAY, SATURATED,
SILT IN TIP. (SP)
SAND; AS ABOVE. (SP)
—
10
7
9
8
17
—
r
15
6
9
6
15
—
4_6
7
13
SAND; LIGHT BROWN, MOTTLED,
_
—
25
P
3
8
12
FINE GRAINED, SATURATED.
NO RECOVERY
_
30 —
5
9
14
23
T.D. = 26.5'
Notes:
I
--
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TEST BORING
Pane ___1,__
LOG
of 1
i
i
1
i
PROJECT,
BORING
HILL CREST
DATE 05/2190
JOB NO. 9005 -13G
NO.
Sample or Specimen No.
Tare No.
Tare plus wet soil
Tare plus dry soil
.
Weight in 1
Water
; I
Tare
Dry soil
Water content
M ,
%1 •/.
• •/.
•/.
•/.
•I.
Sample or Specimen No.
Tare No.
Weight In grams
Tare plus wet soil
Tan plus dry soil
Water
[W w
1
Tare
Dry soil
W
s
Water content
w
•/.
•t.
%
•Q.
%
%
ORGANIC CONTENT
Sample or Specimen No.
4
6
8
1(1
Tare No.
I Weight in grams
WEIGHT BEFORE BURN
100
i0
96
32
WEIGHT AFTER gum
98
49
94
26
,
% ORGANICS BY WEIGHT
2%
2%
2%
23%
1 -
% ORGANICS By ' OLINNE
w
7 %
7 %
8 9fi
53 %
'/.
%
Remarks
W% (tare plus wet sane- (tare plus dry soil)
100 s —1100
a
x
(tare plus dry soil) • (tare)
Technician
Computed by Checked by •ar.7
r
T
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC
T & 'NSPCC TION ENGINEEPS' GEOLOGIST S
lads N c Ias.•• 1ACC
1 .. d.*L ^ND. waSma74,70** ,SO •
Isoal saa•asoo
ORGANIC CONTENT - WATER CONTENT
SC
cv
Iaoss sas•sleso
120•12310.011 I 7
I
RESIDENCE
-� 1
H.A.13
HILLCREST
TEST PIT & HAND AUGER LOCATION MAP
\ S OUTH f60 S
7H
\` "E'er
111
� ; H (
TEST PITS (05/15/60)
HAND AUGERS (05/23/90)
X TEST BORNGS (07/24/90 6 07/25/90)
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS 6 FROM SITE PLAN BY LEROY C. LOWE
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1291 126111R A(1 120611111 SOW
I
j 1.INr,I AND. WASIONG ION 98034 IM I7U61 B2J 7703
/ell N.. 905 -13G I SCALE 1 I• n 50'
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
Dote 08 /03 /90 I Dr11.HL A (Ily -p`6
R-2: ,6-1!-7,2fi :.J R-1-7 .21 t
R.3
r-i • •-•-• ri-,
!..1.J L.L.i......1.11.LL:.............. LI : I i - : 1
- 1 0---.I.■•-••••■,. •••••••■......—... ,...... •......... —
T7 ■ 7
"1" : 1 . ! : ; • ; i 7 .1.. i
I R-1-7.2 i : :R-1-7.2
.
' • i
• . --.--- --i-1.- --1, 1 1 i ...
i r , • E I ..1 1
. ' I
.1 ft 1 7 A
• • - .2. i . ;!. . I -1-7.2, 11-3 1
IX; ! ; ! • ! ! i.._rd Il. i i 1 - ..1
[
, ! ,
i. •: :! ... i ..! i ,.. .
R.
R-1-9.6
R-1-
7.2
1t3 T
R-3
-1-7.2
1 .:_.! : , P-1-7.2 : : R-1-7.2,
_., F ." "''!-•
' .: ■ r11.1-7.2 ! • CO 7 R-41
0-i ....
, C42
J __ L.
• . 1 " ,
IlAti; t /\ RFAW
l • l\-
1-7 ...,-,:,.s.
c- •
R-..2 •,
: • ,N..
-• 1
. , .. 4 •,,,, ,,
! ' i - • . !-J-7..i R-1-7.2'
1 I •! :1 : - ! . ,
• 1 R-1-
`• ' I ! 12.0
•
;
RMFI
Mt
- il ■', '. ',
.-_-- I . ''.■ , );-- 1
ii \.;• ', r: ii
I . .7: •-• ' ! t ! ' ' ' ' ■ ' i - ' ' ' - • .. , . .11
--.:.(-- i i' , '.- .j ds• i. - ' Ir. •
• ,: - •
R.1-7.2 , • , :1;• .., .1 ; .. • , :-.. Z., \
P0
., -; ' 12.3 !'.• !' !* • ''.0
Ltrti ' '
, .
c, • ,....--- r 7 . ; • ! • - :: ..... . , ; 1:.''
: . ; R-1-7.2
i :" • , .'.....1 --..
TIJKWII A If-m HANOI:
,
I. • ' ‘,..... „...:, . .L ,;:, 1 L . , 4 , ..H.11-11-12.0
:1
l• :if
---- • ;-•;••,•••: - •••:, i•;!*•. • ••-r- 1....1111111111 MTH
• t i 7 ._ _I 1 i . ?• .' I
'',,, ''.., C.1 I , ' . • — Y L.. )
1140 • ' • ' R-1-9.67V,. . /
...,...±.i...i
. t
I
• ; 6
R-1-9.6 tE•1 !r
I I
.\\!\ CIZ:
• -•1 ,
• A.
' • I s 4 • a
• til f /
LEROY C. 1...OWIC /
• t 'd 1 .
ARCHITECT
! • , •', • '
s 014 t 5 • .1,2
r
PP
SOUTHCENTER
SHOPPING CENTER
■;•
• ••
CP
CP
CM
. •
i ,..,41•wi
T1
F
I •
i
CM
rORT DENT
PARK
R-A
R-1-
20.0
CM.
r wire; KI ACK
s. KAI( AR 2r,y1,__,.
-c-
i I
It
I
I !
I I
c2]
fIILLC1Zc5T
aN
1S3 PL
SCALE i : Roo"
VICINITY MAP
Er
ST
PT
f
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.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
P OOP Ia•l •i•RLE. W *•MIMOTOM •a1t1
•
•
This c Citicate provides the
Depart .t of Health and Please r eturn for
eulldtny i Land Development BUILDING d LANG DEVELOPMENT
with information necessary to
evaluate development proposals. �50Adminn�ra�.onsuild�ni
St.nle. Weshmpon 55104
206 344 7500
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY
• F27,
no wri e n a x
APPL R ANT'S NAME
number name
❑ Building Permit
❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD
❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other
PROPOSED USE Rtj i t. es s ai TI IrL
LOCATION /6z ~° a SLADE. tAJ
(Attach map a legal description if necessary)
SEWER AGENCY WFORRATION
1 . a. ® Sewer service wp be provided by side sever connection only to
an existing size sewer ON feet from the site
and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use.
OR
b. 0 Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system ofs
❑ (1) feet of sewer trunk or latteral to reach the situ
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. 0 The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive
plan amendment.
3. a.ig The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district,
or has been granted Boundary Review Hoard approval for extension
of service outside the district or city.
OR
b. 0 Annexation or ERB approval will be necessary to provide service.
4. Service is subject to the followings
a. Connection charges
b. Easement(s):
c. Others
I hereby certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This
certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature.
'.•,.,. i,'L':. �..';;I =" DI T1
Agency Name
Title
•
T J MATE L.1 ;:Ii
Signatory Name
/0/ `/ /
tuse Date
•
PO 001 ••063
SIMILE *A 9816!
Pa 415cVe - 397Z •
B5vu6 WQ 98 ?
Rkwc: *54- 4.003
hILL CQE&
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portioned the Northwest + of the Northwest I of Section 36,
Township 3) North, Menge 4 last, V.M., to King County, Mahn/ten,
described es follower
Commencing et the West I corner of Geld section; thence elan/ the
Westerly line of said section, North 0 West 1000 feet; thence
S outh Sl'31')1' Sept 664 feet; thence North 0.11'1)" West 110 feat.
to the Tres Point of Noglneing; thence North 00 Vest 3)1 lest;
North 0•11•1)' West 314.03 feet; thence Borth 00 last
116 feet; thence North 0 Vest 113.06 feet to the Southwesterly
line of South 160th Str..t Southeeeti th long said Southwesterly
lie., South 76.10'60" east 143.41 lief; thence South 711•67'40" Soot
61.10 lest to a pint which beers North 6•11'l3" Nest from the Tree
Point of Beginning; thence Booth 0.11'13' last 110.00 feet to the Tree
Paint of segienl.'5l
;ALSO SOON AS portions of Lots 37, 311 and 39, Stock 3, Nceickea ;eights, i
Dlvis /ee Neuter I, senorita, to the unrecorded plot thereof;!
T006TIIS 111TN that portion of vacated South 160th Street adjoining
which attached by operation of law;
1ICIPT that potion thereof conveyed to the City of ?skulls for Slade
Vey, by deed dad under ascending Nueber 1311660;
AID tCCMP? that portion thereof eonde.ned In United Ststos District
Court, teeters District of Washington, Norther.' Division, Civil Case
Number 10101
AND BUMPY that portion thereof described as fellow;
Commencing st the Vest I corner of said Section 30 thence North 0'11'13"
lest along the Inlet line of said section 3014.13 feet, thence South
O 0 tact 330.111 feet to the true Point of Beginning; thence South
01 act 140 feet; thence North 0•11'1)' last 153.06 lost to the
S outh lime of South 166th Street) thence North 70•31'01' West along
said South line 116.34 feet to a point which is North 0 lest free
the Tres Point of Sellnniegi themes South 0.11'13' post 300 feet to the
Tree Point of Segineintl
AND SICBP/ that portico thereof described as follows •
Cos...acing st the Vest I corner of said Section 3f; thence North 0
Nut along the Meet section line 1740 feat; thence South 01 last
S20 feet' thence North 6'14'13 Vest 301.24 feet to the Tree Point of
Pe inning; thence continuing North 6.11'13` Nest 110 feet to the South.
. Ply merlin of South 110th Street) thence South 76 last along
said margin 06.13 feet; thence South 76'07'10' last 11.34 lest to the
i ntersection of said ..rgin with the Westerly margin of Sled. Way; these*
South 13'11'37' West along sold Westerly esrgin 146.31 feet; thence North
61.11'17' Vest 110.10 feet to the Tree Point of Ne$iaaiag.
LEROY. C. LOWE
ARCHITECT
our
It
6V
•
I6
7504160565
E A S E M E N T
This Indenture made this ' day of f Uek'7u. ' -G t,.�, 1974, between PUGET WESTERN,
INC., a Washington corporation, herein called "Grantor' and the VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT,
King County, Washington, a municipal corporation, herein called "Grantee'•';
WITNESSETII:
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:
The south 10 feet of:
* Lot 27 Block 2
McNicken 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
Lot 29; thence south 200 feet; thence east 140 feet; thence
line of Lot 28; thence northwesterly to beginning; less the
south 301.24 feet of Lot 28;
northwest corner of
north to the northerly
east 70 feet; Except
* 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).
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:
BEGINNING AT THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION AND
RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION,
j NORTH 0 ° 14'13" WEST 1600 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 °21'31" EAST
43 874 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT OF
•t LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 89 ° 21'31" WEST
7 210 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 ° " 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„Ok' 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.
•
O
( 7. Grantor reserve. he right to grant' ess right. co others along or across
lands encumbered by this easement and td.,,. :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.
lt7
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 )
On this day ofit / /ff//l , 1974, before me, the undersigned, personally
appeared HALL, tome mown to the President of PUGET WESTERN, INC :, the
corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the. said,.Instrumtent
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.
' `. v hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
} �,tten� �� O
•:u �•.. y�.
hr'f u 1
h. `'• O
>r'
PUGET WESTERN, INC.
Notary ' 'lie in
residing at
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
On this 1 day of NOUEVACE,e.__ , 1974, before me the undersigned,'
personally appeared T. :a . MAr�t.1C 8L- — ----f
to me known to be the wRNAI&FP Amdm. _ — , 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 NW HAND and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above
written.
the State of Was gton,
an or a tate o as ington,
DF> MotesEF:
1.611310E WORMS SIMINT.
•21
240 •
12111111E111111111
• •
••::.: •
::::::::•
• : ::::::
YOBN7D.A. INC.
C••••111..•1•10•••■•
::::: WA1•10;CTON/
•
• • .
sssl • o• • it •
— S .
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
sr sm. IN 1101%11
• •It.M11 • "M. ••■••
S. 1.1.*•6 ft% •••• • • IR
!W.A.. • a •• anon am*,
•
AS BUILT
Jvss. fro
to••■••
This ( :tificate provides the
Department of Health and
Building i Land Development
with information necessary to
evaluate development proposals.
❑ Building Permit
PROPOSED USE S /■✓CLE
LOCAT ION 4 S /40 S :.
1. a.
❑ (3)
F 278 Title
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY
Do not wrate in this box
number
name
❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD
❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other
APPLICANT'S NAME/ LE fo o C. Lo.'L KrIe - feY2J
. C s 4.r s. ,c
.-s & vit. s.
Please return to:
BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT
Parks, Planning i Resources Dept.
3600 - 136th PLACE Southeast
Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400
(206) 296 -6600
?LA~
MAY 1G1390
Qcz
_J
(Attach map 6 legal description if necessary)
1 1 1 1 N 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 / 4 1 1
WATER PURVEYOR INFORMATION
H ater will be provided by service connection only to an existing
water main Z.7 feet from the site.
OR
b. Water service will require an improvement to the water system of
.L
3 0 o feet of water main to reach the site: and /or
the construction of a distribution system on the site; and/or
other (describe)
size
2. a. 0 The water system is in conformance with a County approved water comprehensive plan.
OR
The water system improvement will require a water comprehensive plan amendment.
3. a. ]�� he proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been
(E 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 BRB approval will be necessary to provide service.
4. a. 1 ieOlo will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at
lJ no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant .300 feet from the
building/ mi. (or as marked on the attached map):
Rate of Flow Duration
❑ less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ less than 1 hour
❑ 500 to 999 gpm ❑ 1 hour to 2 hours
W1000 gpm or more FOR 9 or more
❑ flow test of gpm ❑ other
❑ calculation of gpm (Commercial Building Permits require flow
test or calculation)
providing fire flow.
OR
b. Crater system is not capable of
COMMENTS /CONDITIONS u1.4 ;cc J y "144.: 7 L.O. Pa
7 fr..S o:.
T /NMMT.N.J A
I hereby certify that the above water purveyor information is true.
certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature.
•
KING COMFY WATER DISTRICT I) 75
Agency Name
Supervisor of Engineering 6 Administration C /4/ o
gnel•urn Date
any E. Gibsop
Signatory Name
✓[Lo •Fr o
This
Hydrant
No.
2
0
Scale A
Scale 13_
Scale C
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
•0
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
I0
5
100 200 300
200 400 600
400 800 1200
400
800
1600
i FLOW TEST SUMMARY SHEET
1
Outlet I.D.
inches
Pitot Press. Flow
psi gpm
0
JS.VB
Residual
psi
C i e L.
Date:1 I Time: 000 MoiCont. N o.
Cont. Name: 1,...fil.0 G. LovAL A.t• •
Address: 5 t,t Nibk4 lEe0 "ToloALA
psil Flow ® 20 psi 2/ (03 gpm
111111 1 111.1 111111
k aisuic
11111111MITREMEMIll diall11111
I 111 5.1-241111111111111111
MO .-
1111111FMINETIOIMISWZINEKM17!111
11111 1
13c -9
11111111111111111111111111111111111111.111
Static Press: 130
500
1000
2000
600
1200
2400
700
1 400
2800
Water Flow gpm
1500
800
1600
3200
1111111M1111
900
1800
3600 The Viking
Hastings.
Litho in U.S.A.
1000
2000
coqx 4000
Michigan
Form No. 3016
gTW IP Z N of DLKTP
190.0 -J-I901
t.S
1 _
a
6
N✓
i i± t ' PE d m l�■k.
a � � F 17'5
2-7.44( -- 2-' 7 S
HAi : :: ;.`.1,• r -: 4 ;..,. • ,_ _
, w- ,?i:iNG tA
1 (iiS 010',ViN i � r:
i.2
r.:,'.-.7 1 rxT \`+-
.;:EFOP.E,Y(.)' - w,,iy ,,.,I ..iiON L
l ...:. ) . 7 Fr if 4f): .ti 1 4 \
Lit; ^ . ..c• '' .P 1
._ _ T`E ;•.,:::';7
},•. (_ 0 ` 4. \L
v. I'; ......, w
c•
,.. "pr3v n.entt Ser.t: !
.J
S
. :lF
•
SLUr ;F' 7i5 sr T
:ON.
. - 7 1 i47 :::E..l 1 •),?
" — .. ilk
WASHiNOrON NA
P.:011c
nJt AUG 3 o 199
2M
6 4 S•
e e'L L So.
, ON
ca iT JR
SIN .W
W
a
a
d
7 A
1 +
043•401 I
,f; ..l;
0
. � r
271
.I. 1/11 Rew•rw
•
. ,
S , r �� \ \\
6o Ty ST \
IIILLC6T
\ \
-\ \
` `w3
m ar ....... --- -- •_r.. ________�•__�_ ..�
0w
0
•
0
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
w.. 5101_ aM r.a.m.e 1 r IY Y1ta.. I r a.*l. t1.
••••••• II w. ....t• • Set. 5.1.. Y V.4 1055 ►. _r1.F_.
•555.1 .. t•Il5•
e..ray .. M 5w -•rr r ..Y ...I. eery .1.. sae
• wlf11.. If r *551 • f •f I•...l.15.1115 t...
555. 50 Ma I. (Si. .f r• e . 11 awl •.. I I 5.
• •• TSS weal .t • .at es N•lf•I.• •••• 15• h+.f
1.515 5 $ 5 • •.1..SSE 515. .1 11.. 5 rt alt•. ••••• 15•..•1 e•a
• 1105 U.r• .141. 5'.5 •. I• SS5a .t1.. r ••••....••••...... ..
ea Y ••••...... u ec .5w. _...a 5..1.1.1. Yee. Yeee •■• ralSS..r+r
Iwo 5 a.a 1•5.15 r.•a J•5* 01 ■•y a.
1..11 510 r • SSa•t . t • . .5al •s .ra Cy .Y e•.
t .rI..SS• art• 1515 ••.5•+I• _Y .r.. Irl r lY h.
145. or EY.I.E
I•• f.•• Y.... of W I5. 1* ••• Iv. wow /. a... 144..
5 .. 55....1.1 Y tan ...••••w µ.t t1rSS111
1.117.• sett IMt 1153. r ...mar Y.Y 5151* R1rt .A.IYr
atw (5 515. et •E
0 17 a l 1 lr5rt . 5115• a. 5M Clef N Nw1. no.
▪ .c rt •.....•5• Yaw _•Ili .•r..
I. =At arl 5v15. SCSSI ••••••• .1.1•111 Yee. _rot.
Yrs. Yee. Y.t.1w 14 eW1.e...55a... Y•Ut.. ant d.
lyyr
•01.•• Ye ...a 1.5.. 5.5555 . Yll..5
OSSsl. •t Ye Nast 1 mono.. 14 ••t• ••.11. *le 1wem• area ....•.r
▪ •15. 10.5..1 LESS 14 .I• Y *.. 1•116.53 1.15 err Yr.
•••11•11" a.. I A.. Ye Is tY Tw MMt r 1.011.0 a...•
15 +'1 Yoe t.* CMl *M Y 0•t• l ait EII.Y 115.1 to
5wa* ltr mt Mme. .114* (1555*. Om. Y a • 11'11 amt ml.•
145• Y•U 15• Y.. Col Y ..1.t .1. Em 505 5 .•55 r.* is
IM f15. 5.55* 511 5515..3 1555 t.0 . .r* M f.w Y a•
TM* rl.e 14 .tai.,
M 0571 .Y. ta*l. 15..5.1 Y55E5.• a tell...
0.614• E.5 5* U. .w5 / .f •■• Y.t1. Cu 1 .1555 •.m** 1
545 5155 EM y1 rmle. li..1.• t.t5 aa.••. eel 1111•..•.. a.l
115 oral t.r...o5e5 *••••.l• M1 1•+... 5•55 55 lM 155
5yl_ISSI 1!555 ._0111. MY * 5.5 E. It .5 W ••••■
.I• r..0 •t am. w 55155 ar.w Me5 11•15••• ••• *loo
✓ Y rrtu 15.411 .•545 a s...5• /V(1.' a.5 l+ 1. Ye 11 M
1..l r.• rltU 5515 aM .5 SSnu .f u••• Mel SY•.
* 15. 111 .5.t sly .I• ...el, SS• l. •.15 Yes
5.•15 0.5 IY.I* It 0 15. T. Yoe
•.Y.* •1115 55.1 MAT •am0a
ell? 55 Vow 1/4. NG.L 1.1.•.L .
0
1101 151! ..1
5/ ilyttlEY NO Nowt5
.15* • S 121•0 Sr a•/e•IV 1.L51(1
•.•. ._.5•/a•I.k
•; r w acr_ r
LEGEND
UC.R POST 0 COWS
(0704 MIN /�
SS lfi ■04 E joaalous
CuLvEwr
KW Y7 1.i INN
51 -
5 mu! MN am
ji ** * * * * * ** * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** .. * * * * * * * * * * * * *1 ***********4- * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *** ** * ***
* BATCH NUMBER: AF
* CUSTOMER NAME LEROY C LOWE
+t4.44v4r.ev+r4e444.404.441-- 4i- 44wtv+-irYv4
537920- 0005 -03
SCHMID ALFRED C0480
1525 TAYLOR AVE N 4101
SEATTLE WA 98109
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
1LAt.A C1CT AUG C
C0480
98109
98109
98109
443606
98188
98188
0775
98188
0775
98188
849999
98188
537920 - 0070 -03
ERICKSON ELDON D +JULIE C 889999
COMMENTS
537920- 0005 -03
SCHMID ALFRED C0480
1525 TAYLOR AVE N 4101
SEATTLE WA 98109
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
98109
98109
443606
98188
98188
0775
98188
0775
98188
849999
98188
537920- 0070 -03
ERICKSON ELDON D ♦JULIE C 889999
1lnLn C.i CT AVG C
*
1537920- 0071 -02
SOWINSKI HELEN C +$T V/T
16050 51ST AVE SO
TUKWILA WA
537920 - 0072 -01
KNIGHT ALICE 0
16044 51ST AVE S
SEATTLE WA
--
681840- 0010 -09
MCLESTER R
-- 5118 S 164TH ST
SEATTLE WA
681840- 0020 -07
SARGENT MARGARET G
PO BOX 924
SEAHURST WA
I J81840..0030..05
HAGEN MARVIN L
I 5134 S 164TH ST
SEATTLE WA
I ►81840- 0040 -03
HERBEL JAMES 0
16243 52ND AVE S
I TUKWILA WA
81840- 0050 -00
SCHWARZMANN JOHN E
16251 52ND AVE S
� • T -• ••■
009999
98188
98188
C0781
98188
059999
98188
98188
702284
98146
0175
98188
859999
98062
98188
119999
98188
CO579
ww� ww
537920-0071 -
SOWINSKI HELEN C +$T 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 S 164TH ST
SEATTLE WA
681840 - 0040-03
HERBEL JAMES 0
16243 52ND AVE S
TUKWILA WA
681840- 0050 -00
SCHWARZMANN JOHN E
16251 52ND AVE S
98188
C0781
98188
059999
98188
98188
702284
98146
0175
98188
859999
98062
98188
119999
98168
CO579
w w 1 an
'661840- 0060 -08
REARICK III WILLIAM D +L D RA079999
16244 52ND AVE S
TUKWILA WA
661840- 0070 -06
' ^ PHELAN HERBERT W
16250 52ND AVE S
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0010 -03
ONORATI ERNEST C
5102 S 163RD PL
SFATTI F WA
98188
98188
889999
98188
910035
98188
980824
98188
969999
98188
032633
98188
032633
98188
I 002726
98188
98188
681840-0060
REARICK WILLIAM D +L0RRA079999
16244 52ND AVE S
TUKWILA WA 98188
681840- 0070 -06
PHELAN HERBERT W
16250 52ND AVE S
SEATTLE WA
779640- 0010 -03
STEWARD RONNIE L +BRENDA A 889999
16351 53RD PL SOUTH
TUKWILA WA
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- 0200-03
KRAKOWSKI ROBERT
ST CLAIR SUSAN
16406 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA
779640- 0200-03
KRAKOWSKI ROBERT
ST CLAIR SUSAN
16406 53RD PL S
SEATTLE WA
779640- 0210-01
KENT RONALD R E
16372 53RD PL S
TUKWILA 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
SEATTLE WA
98188
98188
910035
98188
980824
98188
969999
98188
E 032633
98188
E 032633
98188
TAMARA I 002726
98188
999999
98188
98188
1 .870050- 0020 -01
WATANABE S
5104 SOUTH 163RD PLACE
SEATTLE WA
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 163RD PL
0775
98188
98188
C0480
98188
3N0757
98188
0577
98188
C0777
98188
C0779
98188
98188
870050 -0020<
WATANABE S
5104 SOUTH 163RD PLACE
SEATTLE WA
870050- 0030 -09
MUMMERT JAMES E +VIRGINIA R 609999
5106 SO 163RD PLACE
TUKWILA WA 98188
870050 - 0040 -07
NIELSEN RAYMOND
5108 S 163RD 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 S 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 5 163RD PL
0775
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 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
262304- 9138 -05
PUGET WESTERN INC
19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY 0310
BOTHELL WA
98188
98188
ON0897
98011
870050- 0120 -00
HOLL CARL E
5103 5 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
870050 - 0130 -08
CROWLEY WILLIAM J
5101 S 163RD PL
SEATTLE WA
98188
98188
262304 - 9138 -05
PUGET WESTERN INC ON0897
19515 NORTH CREEK PKWY 0310
BOTHELL WA 98011
1 w
a I•r
1 3 143110. PL.
V 1
"770 7rrrara
.
1 .s •
.c •
• • • • Pt I •I Sill I :.
•••• 4
• •. •.•. •
N
A
VY Gb " 1 65 " 4 KING COUNTY ASSESSOR
,
. • .. u. au V✓ T .•.a nr
v.
1
L— .bra
•
1" 9 , ;.
we
•
•
•
•
10
I• •• •••
w'a.•..
••111111.01 lisf•
E
•
r•' 'S S �' 7•. 0 •
.�.vr ' 1
G ri p t
S y..
i
14 c-\
e t i „• •
Pd ,
...r�
s• I
(•1• !!
•
a•.
mo t•••••
•
— ras: ••
•..
_ ( �•:. _ . . �
��'• • ! _LC`-
1
„vole
WI
••■• . ••••••■••.•• ••••• i • \
g • : tlT "O.
A:,t•
it t•T L • rm. , ;Sr 21
TU.SP01- 20 45 - 4107020714 ,
J'• • • .. 9 19 :1 .
....•••... ...De •
.r•..;
SW 23
air 0' (es
ll
• I , , /I
S
9r;. •J 1
W L 1f•
I"6 NM ,
r•. .
9 O J.
Na SGALG
I
I I
J . , .l'd, o
0
'
•
h*
h „ „
3 /2 G.
+ Lth
9 N
m
' l�
3
�� ,N
/4, "o, C.
x /2 G c..
.s /2 z
v
U
\”) j N . .r''GOF 7LJS S • N ! k , (3 24 " 0, G,
_____,;(___ L dr SZ.48 0/V
�- -V - fi7Z-L
al
N - , G - Z &"
3 � X /Z C - -!
/2 * GL
.l U
� ha,
h
* �
I,
3/ /2 c =
J
'N b
h 7- u5 -LJS
rk G 24 C.
4�
1x /2G,/..
3")( /Z L .
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
- -_ B ,x /2 CONG, MID' S /LL
G.,e4z,z. ,,a/M/,0 CA E
}
KroOp P /Les /O ¢ £V4, M /.v.
/5' //V AST / vE SO /L S
FOIJNO.4? /ON F,�,4M /NE "="LfIN / _ /O �
HILL CPEeST
N4e. v z c 'GA/
Z4::;14.0 /7 Zao Las
our:2 51=
4li Ftpr,
EACKF C.O_LICZ5E. ,
77
Asc :›a
25(4=3:zzo-mr
LIK1015TUTZI5r...1:3 rAFZ..71
Zic4 \NO:DC) )
/ -
/
R,,V411101
LEROY C. LOWE
STATE Of WASHINGTON
.51PIPSC>r.1 itE,Atyl.144,t■ic,z
‘ Ii3 1 27 5 ;10K_EXPL-7.
LIE-112E7112MMOTE-- SjETR.
Ple.E1r4C,44 DRAIN Vs/111-1 LITILITICS
Mr..E.:SL/M.IP_GNINLPOR...1..CCATI1:71.4
///
TL•IMAI
20:411..,VISG31-1
IM;I:=14E
agWEE.:1f5ACKeILL
N
r1;4;;Fe.g.F.:
R ARCHITECT
LEROY C. LOWE
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ZY7rIES11:5=S11=EaN
ECUOT___SIMLASID:L=.
ACIZCIESA=7:132&1_
o.0 -w/. LA '7TC
•rao • — I.
T
PLANA
('-'---..----"-----
L
REGISTERED
ARCHITECT
LEEOY C. LOWE
STATE Of WASHINGTON
CITY OF T UKWILA
6200 SOUTIICENTEI2 UlfULEV.RU, TUKII'ILA, WA 98188
April 18, 1991
Richard E. Stuth, P.E.
Resco Mechanical and Civil Engineering
17815 S.E. 146th
Renton, Wa. 98056
RE: Storm Drainage System for Hill Crest
Leroy Lowe Lot Line Revision Project 90- 13 -BLA
Dear Sir:
PHONE" (2061433.1800 Gory L. VunDuscn, Mayor
Public Works Department has reviewed your March 27, 1991 letter with
respect to the subject project storm drainage proposal and provides
the following comments:
1. Per your previously submitted drainage system for the
development including horizontal drains along with your March 21,
1991 letter (attached) it is my understanding that for "life
of the project" storm events (100 year /24 hour storm) your
engineers consider this proposed storm drainage system will meet
all needs of the development, will provide a water purification
system prior to discharge to the public system and will provide
an adequate detention facility (per King County 1/1/90 Design
Manual requirements).
2. For the proposed common detention system and biofiltration
swale system, it is understood that a Maintenance Agreement
between the private property owners for the development will
be provided along with final plans for the maintenance, repair
and replacement of said system and this will be agreed to by
recorded easement document.
3. The public drainage system identified in Slade Way /53rd Avenue
South will be needed as part of the development and be
constructed to a defined drainage system. In prior
discussions you were requested to contact Brian Shelton,
Senior Traffic Engineer, to identify any proposed public City
drainage system in South 160th /53rd Avenue South that will be
built by public contract and determine connection to said system
and scheduling of the contract verses your own.
Also you were requested to review the WSDOT storm drainage system
downstream in which your proposal depends upon and identify
conditions of the WSDOT drain system and needs for the system
upgrade if any. This information was not reflected in your March
27, 1991 proposal. Therefore, it is not completely understood as
to the timing or need for upgrades of the downstream systems
Sincerely,
PF /amc:B6:lowe
Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer
Public Works Department
your proposal depends on. This coordination and research needs
to be completed prior to signoff of any proposed development plan
or concept proposal.
Requested is your confirmation of above Item's 1 and 2 and addressing
of Item 3 so Public Works staff can continue our review and
determine the appropriateness of the drainage proposal as reflected
in your letter of March 27, 1991. I look forward to your response.
If you have any questions regarding this matter do not hesitate to
call me at 433 -0179.
xc: Brian Shelton
Permit Coordinator
Read File
Development File: Hill Crest (Lowe Lot Line)
^� 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: --
DATE:
PROJECT:
SUBJECT:
1I
Lip(i!_
MAR 0 8 1991
(,I { i OF r r.r+ILA
PLANNING DEPT.
L /Z/2 W/Lso ,QssT�cd/U• f ,Z
��1 d /99/
eecebv.O•4ey .4d.
LdT s ' 2G y COA-7. 3 /A/ 7
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
PO. 1SOK 1241 •CATTLE. WA•NINOTON ea111
Northwest Escrows
of Bellevue, Inc.
(206) 4542007
FAX 454 -3165
RALPH RICHARDSON 12453 Bel -Red Rd., Suite C
Owner BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98005
. A2 5/M ;
/A1‘,/ c,4 ?CZ y7 ,4 so/(7
�Q / 7 7 o N i i / 4 7 7 - i cr 2 L E T S Z G Z c W
=,3 A /vz'vV
ccwPoeM /Nv4. !ow
___4zt4c . __,4, .sec w. - 6 - "c5. - / 7 .:.. o4a
!N cSU�° ✓ZT 4 7.-"ae_2 18/.41 -7.y- -72) CrW)� /A/
cowTicVoris .Zco7.5 - :7 > ,Z ,&-7 N
:_o __T" /'/Ze›PGe y /vvaz.v�,o /A/ 77-/'
=,�Yo 7y_ _L /Nc - -- - .__.wAs___/1/2cc/.4sve
1/62/iy M
=Nl� /C1a4- .o ,�c� J''Z/o
CG 77z.4c.73..._. 472
- = %z4c =I‹ : j'C,s, - - . b:. =107 = 7»'
MEMORANDUM
-n
' Nil 1
1 ( MAR 0 8 . 1991
LITY OF Tur
PLANNING DEPT.
tz .5//Z
/2/Cm4/ A/c7S7A/14/45 e..../E3ViA1Z
/AO /,‘.49/ 4 7 Yet> 17/
.11cPVZ. 1 774/ '7.S Z ,d Cceizz,
- eZ: 7 /MW-Al A
MPV4.
__,. e ,ciA./ 75a: / 7.• 04c
- 7 - y - x_cr:c. - 5z/F;zayier_ --- CewidvA/
LW: COA/, FlZA7
. _
7)/ vc5Z-vzi /A/
L./A/c 5 __172/24/../.45
t?e"
‘54/y4°. 3 y 774 C77/V5z
71.Y1C pwlo
•Y7 .._ NZ, /%72
__V=WicriTcre47: 71)V.067:070 77-1
v/y ,
,Z14/Z/ZE/s/ OA/ 45577,E.LINiVelZ
DATE: 1 /1.40.• eg /
PROJECT: ,41/4-L-C/Zr...1 7 ecedA/474Zy 4=-4
SUBJECT: 4075 #24. ye ot Cc3A-7,45/A/L7
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
0 SOX 1241 •g•771.. WASHINGTON ••111
4
58.17.030 BOUNDARIES AND PLATS
Historical and Statutory Notes
Laws 1974, Ex.Sess., ch. 134, § 1, in
the second sentence, following "regula-
tion" deleted "as may be".
Library References
Municipal Corporations g=.43. C.1.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83,
WESTLAW Topic No. 268. 84.
Notes of Decisions
In general t lion and in which no lots or tracts are
smaller than five acres in size on, enact-
ment of ordinance, notwithstanding the
1. In general ordinance was not enacted prior to this
Application of this chapter to subdivi- chapter's effective date. Op.Atty.Gen.
sion of land which contains no dedica- 1970, No. 14.
58.17.033. Proposed division of land— Consideration of appli-
cation for preliminary plat or short plat approv-
al— Requirements defined by local ordinance
(1) A proposed division of land, as defined in RCW 58.17.020,
shall be considered under the subdivision or short subdivision
ordinance, and zoning or other land use control ordinances, in
effect on the land at the time a fully completed application for
preliminary plat approval of the subdivision, or short plat approval
of the short subdivision, has been submitted to the appropriate
county, city, or town official.
(2) The requirements for a fully completed application shall be
defined by local ordinance.
(3) The limitations imposed by this section shall not restrict
conditions imposed under chapter 43.21C RCW. -
Enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 104, § 2.
58.17.035. Alternative method of land division — Binding site
plans
A city, town, or county may adopt by ordinance procedures for
the divisions of land by use of a binding site plan as an alternative
to the procedures required by this chapter. The ordinance shall be
limited and only apply to one or mbre of the following: (1) The use
of a binding site plan to divisions for sale or lease of commercially
or industrially zoned property as provided in RCW 58.17.040(4); (2)
divisions of property for lease as provided for in RCW 58.17.040(5);
and (3) divisions of property as provided for in RCW 58.17.040(7).
Such ordinance may apply the same or different requirements and
,- -,. ,.r•,rnc ,. f•'^'' r ,f rf rlit'i4i.•rc , rri ch741 n
rm•i' k
PLATS—SUBDIVISIONS—DEDICATIONS 38.17.00
for the alteration or vacation of the binding site plan, and may
provide for the administrative approval of the binding site plan.
The ordinance shall provide that after approval of the general
binding site plan for industrial or commercial divisions subject to a
binding site plan, the approval for improvements and finalization of
specific individual commercial or industrial lots shall be done by
administrative approval.
The binding site plan, after approval, and/or when specific lots
are administratively approved, shall be filed with the county auditor
with a record of survey. Lots, parcels, or tracts created through the
binding site plan procedure shall be legal lots of record. The
number of lots, tracts, parcels, sites, or divisions shall not exceed
the number of lots allowed by the local zoning ordinances.
All provisions, conditions, and requirements of the binding site
plan shall be legally enforceable on the purchaser or any other
person acquiring a lease or other ownership interest of any lot,
parcel, or-tract created pursuant to the binding site plan.
Any sale, transfer, or lease of any lot, tract, or parcel created
pursuant to the binding site plan, that does not conform to the
requirements of the binding site plan or without binding site plan
approval, shall be considered a violation of chapter 58.17 RCW and
shall be restrained by injunctive action and be illegal as provided in
chapter 58.17 RCW.
Enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 354, § 2.
58.17.040. Chapter inapplicable, when
Text of section effective until July 1, 1990
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Cemeteries and other burial plots while used for that purpose;
(2) Divisions of land into lots or tracts each of which is one -one
hundred twenty - eighth of a section of lantor larger, or five acres or
Iarger if the land is not capable of description as a fraction of a
section of land, unless the governing authority of the city, town, or
county in which the land is situated shall have adopted a subdivi-
sion ordinance requiring plat approval of such divisions: Provided,
That for purposes of computing the size of any lot under this item
which borders on a street or road, the lot size shalt be expanded to
include that area which would be bounded by the center line of the
road or street and the side lot lines of the lot running perpendicular
to such center line;
(3) Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or the laws of
descent;
S
5
58.17.040
BOUNDARIES AND PLATS
(4) Divisions of land into lots or tracts classified for industrial or
commercial use when the city, town, or county has approved a
binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with local
regulations;
(5) A division for the purpose of lease when no residential struc-
ture other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be
placed upon the land when the city, town, or county has approved a
binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with local
regulations;
(6) A division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting
boundary lines, between platted or unplatted Iots or both, which
does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or division nor
create any lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which contains insuffi-
cient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for width
and arca for a building site; and
In •
�' (7) A division which is made by subjecting a portion of a parcel -
za
or tract of Iand to chapter 64.32 RCW if a city, town, or county has
approved a binding site plan for all of such land.
43 ''I
� Enacted by Laws 1969. Ex.Scss., ch. 271, § 4. Amended by Laws 1974,
Ex.Sess., ch. 134, § 2, eff. July 1, 1.974; Laws 198I, ch. 292, § 2; Laws 1981,
-"' ch. 293, § 3. Reenacted by Laws 1983, ch. 121, § 2. Amended by Laws
I 1987, ch. 108, § 1; Laws 1987, ch. 354, § 1.
I For text of section effective July 1, 1990, see § 58.1 i 040,
post
. = 58.17.040. Chapter Inapplicable, when ;
Text of section effective July 1, 1990
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
(1) Cemeteries and other burial plots while used for that purpose;
(2) Divisions of land into lots or tracts each of which is one -one
hundred twenty - eighth of a section of land or larger, or five acres or
larger if the land is not capable of description as a fraction of a
NI section of land, unless the governing authority of the city, town, or
county in which the land is situated shall have adopted a subdivi-
sion ordinance requiring plat approval of such divisions: Providec4
That for purposes of computing the size of any lot under this item
-- which borders on a street or road, the lot size shall be expanded to
include that area which would be bounded by the center line of the
road or street and the side lot lines of the lot running perpendicular
n to such center line;
(3) Divisions made by testamentary provisions, or the laws of
descent;
4t;
(4) Divisions of land into lots or tracts classified for industrial or
commercial use when the city, town, or county has approved a
binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with local
regulations;
(5) A division for the purpose of lease when no residential struc-
ture other than mobile homes or travel trailers are permitted to be
placed upon the land when the city, town, or county has approved a
binding site plan for the use of the land in accordance with local
�..,� :..
fr (6) A division made for the purpose of alteration by adjusting •
boundary lines, between platted or unplatted lots or both, vh
does not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site, or divisioi, r •
create any lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which contains insuffi-
cient area and dimension to meet minimum requirements for width
and area fora building site; and_.
PLATS - SUBDIVISIONS - DEDICATIONS
58.17.0
(7) of la into lots or tracts (a)-The improvements
constructed or to be constructed thereon will be included in one or
more condominiums or owned by an association or other legal
entity in which the owners of units therein or their owners' associa-
tions have a membership or other legal or beneficial interest; (b) a
city, town, or county has approved a binding site plan for all such
Iand; and (c) the binding site plan contains thereon the following
statement: "All development of the land described herein shall be in
accordance with the binding site plan, as it may be amended. Upon
completion, the improvements on the land shall be included in one
or more condominiums or owned by an association or other legal
entity in which the owners of units therein or their owners' asso4
lions have a membership or other legal or beneficial interest.
Enacted by Laws 1969, Ex.Sess., ch. 271, § 4. Amended by Laws 1974,
Ex.Sess., ch. 134, § 2. eff. July 1, 1974; Laws 1981, clt. 292, § 2; Laws 1981,
clt. 293, § 3. Reenacted by Laws 1983, ch. 121, § 2. Amended by Laws
1987, ch. 108, § 1; Laws 1987, ch. 354, § 1. Reenacted and amended by
Laws 1989, ch. 43, § 4 -123, eff. July 1, 1990.
For text of section effective until July 1, 1990, see
§ 58.17.040, ante
historical and
laws 1974, Ex.Sess., ch. 134, § 2, re-
wrote the section, which had read:
'The provisions of this act shall not
apply to:
"(1) Cemeteries and other burial plots
while used for that purpose;
"(2) Divisions of land into lots or
Irartc lut,,.r. 13,E c...o18".4 f... :- .... -�...
Statutory Notes
acres or more and not containing a dedi-
cation of a public right -of -way;
'(3) Divisions of land into lots or
tracts none of which are smaller than
five acres and not containing a dedica-
tion unless the governing authority of
the city, town or county in which the
land is situated shall have by ordinance
Boundaries and Descriptions
Page 62
B.1.17
(1/88)
7 al-e9
chapter 354 of the Laws of 1987 provides that the
platting laws do not apply to a division made for the
purpose of alteration by adjusting kioundary lines
between platted or unplatted lots or both which does
not create any additional lot, tract, parcel, site or
division which contains insufficient area and
dimension to meet minimum requirements for area of a
building site..
Section 6 of Chapter 354 of the Laws of 1987 provides
that whenever a survey of a proposed subdivision or
short subdivision reveals a discrepancy, the
discrepancy shall be noted on the face of the final
plat or short plat. Any discrepancy shall be
disclosed in the title report prepared by a title
insurer and issued after the filing of the final plat
or short plat. The term "discrepancy" is defined to
mean:
G
(MAR 08 1991
an' aF TUKv, ii.A
PLANNING DEPT.
B.3.
TOTAL 9.04
•
March 4, 1991
CI TY ()/ 71 W1111...1
77h 1. vim: 1, " 1 1. 1 I o 1'1 1.11 11..1. II.I',lll.v,; l',,.', ;IN l n.,
Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A. Architects
410 Bellevue Way S.E. Suite 201
Bellevue, Wa. 98004
RE: Hillcrest Single- Family Lots - Footprint Drawings
Dear Sir:
DEVELOPMENT
FILE
1. Refer to Public Works check sheet comments of 11/8/90 and
12/28/90 (enclosed) which represents Public Works Department
comments responding to the BLA circulation.
2. The additional continents are provided for your information only
and intended to assist you in a final plan submittal.
However, before any other processing occurs, the Development
needs to go through the BLA process and SAO process (if con-
sidered appropriate by Department of Community Development).
,..,n I. I'u0 1111.1
Your development is now in for a boundary line adjustment process
per the Department of Community Development:
A. Identify sewer, water and storm, proposed easements to
private properties.
B. Identify private driveway easements for ingress /egress.
C. Provide utility availability letters from Val Vue Sewer
District and Water District # 75. At this time it
is anticipated any public sewer main extension, if
appropriate, will be owned (turned over to) by Tukwila but
operated and maintained by Val Vue Sewer District.
D. Provide typical cross sections of hill relative to proposed
development from Slade Way to crest of hill.
E. Identify downstream WSDOT system this development proposes to
discharge into. Provide inventory and analysis of existing
downstream WSDOT system this development will depend on.
Identify deficiencies and upgrades to WSDOT system needed.
(Recognize WSDOT system to the north is deteriorating and
needs rehabilitation.)
Provide calculations of drainage system. Identify how
drainage system will be constructed and maintained relative
to overall construction schedule including any extension to
WSDOT system.
F. As part of plan development hydrological /geotechnical study,
seismic calculations shall be included.
G. Coordinate with Brian Shelton, Senior. Transportation
Engineer, (433 -0179) with regards to City storm drainage
project under design at South 160th and 53rd Avenue
South and identify how your storm drain extension on Slade
Way from your system to proposed City drain will serve
your property. When the system is built, will this new City
system relieve your Development from reliance on WSDOT
system?
H. Include in your Hydrological /Geotechnical analysis, Slade Way
in terms of past /potential future settlement.
I. Identify specific slopes of all proposed driveways and
utilities (maximum slopes 15% driveways; parking pads to be
maximum slope 5% any direction).
J. Provide triangulation study to check site distance for
stopping and posted speed for access points onto Slade Way
South 160th.
K. Through Brian Shelton, Senior Transportation Engineer,
(433 -0179) identify South 160th Street improvements relative
to your proposed South 160th Street access.
L. Coordinate with Brian Shelton for need for hydrant on Slade
Way on south of east corner of property.
M. Public Works requests a minimum of 20' wide roadways for
private driveways (refer to 12/18/90 letter from Nick
Olivas).
N. Identify pedestrian access to South 160th and 51st.
Identify maximum height for rockeries (4' maximum height)
on your typical standard.
0. Identify maximum slope of ground behind and before rockeries
(2 horizontal: 1 vertical.)
P. Per review of your Sections A, B, and U -7: Utilities cannot
be combined into one trench - Note: Minimum of 10'separation
between sewer and water; 10' separation of water and
storm; no franchised utilities will be placed above
sewer, water and storm line. (Refer to Section U -7)
Q. Your architectural plan shows sidewalk on Slade Way fronting
your property and needs to be reflected on site plans.
Public Works requests sidewalk and typical section on Slade
Way be identified on plans.
Attachments (3)
R. A guardrail is requested for pedestrian ways located above
rockeries /retaining walls.
Once you have successfully completed both SAO and BLA, please address
the above issues and provide a completed site plan submittal (six
sets) with the Utility Permit Application for our review or approval
with your resubmittal. If you have any questions regarding this
matter please call me at 433 -0179.
Sincerely,
Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer
xc: Read File
Development File: Hillcrest Single Family
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
February 6, 1991
LeRoy Lowe
410 Bellevue Way S.E.
Bellevue, Wa. 98004
RE: BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (90- 13 -BLA)
Dear Mr. Lowe:
Thank You
Darren" son
Assistant Planner
cc: J. Pace, Senior Planner
PHONE # (206) 433.1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
This letter is to inform you that your Boundary Line Adjustment
(90- 13 -BLA) proposal would be appropriate. Our research indicates
through RCW 58.17.040 item number 6 defines a lot line, however,
you will still need to provide legal documentation for lots 5 and
6 which compiled to King County requirements at the time of Slade
Way development. If the information submitted is satisfactory to
the City, then your proposal for a Boundary Line Adjustment would
then have to comply with the Sensitive Area Ordinance guidelines.
The agreement for the S.A.O. Waiver has been signed with
additional changes made by the City Attorney and yourself as of
January 31, 1991. These terms are acceptable. I have enclosed
this signed statement. As a condition of the waiver we cannot
official approve this proposal until the Sensitive Area Ordinance
becomes effective. If you have any additional questions regarding
this project, please contact me at 431 -3670.
February 3, 1991
L. Rick Beeler
Director, Planning Dept.
City of Tukwila, WA
Dear Rick,
UR VEY PROFESSIOA
LS
6632 S. 191st PI. • Suite E -109 • Kent, WA. 98032 • (206) 251 -0189
There seems to be some question as to the appropriate process for
development of the proposed Lot Line Adjustment of Hillcrest single
family development in McMicken Heights for Leroy Lowe.
I have surveyed the property and can assure you that the entire
parcel is contiguous per our map with detail. My survey meets the
professional standards of the American Land Title Association and
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping. Our commission was to
survey these six (6) legal lots. We then rearranged these lots to
best conform to and protect environmental and engineering concerns.
We are eager to work with the planning, engineering, and public
works departments to mitigate any and all potential concerns over
the proposed development.
We appeal to your sense of professionalism and ethical fairness to
assist us in the successful conclusion of this worthwhile project.
I recommend that we address any concerns with conditional approval
citing any matters which may be in doubt in letter form to be
addressed by further engineering to insure total compliance with
all regulations of public works, planning and engineering.
We look forward to working with you through this process.
Sincerely,
aid
hn E. Cramer, P.L.S.
cc: Leroy C. Lowe, A.I.A. Architect
Jack Pace, Planner, Tukwila
[ FEB 0 5 1991
..r
(,1 I y' o f .' "' '' �'. • , (i_�1
[JILL Ci37
MEMORANDUM
TO:
DATE:
PROJECT:
SUBJECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of the Northwest } of the Northwest } of Section 26,
Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., in King County, Washington,
described as follows:
Commencing at the West } corner of said section; thence along the
Westerly line of said section, North 0 ° 14'13" West 1600 feet; thence
South 89 ° 21'31" East 664 feet; thence North 0 °14'13" West 140 feet,
to the True Point of Beginning; thence 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 Southwesterly
line, South 70'55'05" East 142.41 feet; thence South 76 °07'40" East
61.45 feet to a point which bears North 0 ° 14'13" West from the True
Point of Beginning; thence South 0 ° 14'13" East 448.88 feet to the True
Point of Beginning;
(ALSO KNOW AS portions of Lots 27, 28 and 29, Block 2, McMicken Heights,
Division Number 1, according to the unrecorded plat thereof);
TOGETHER WITH that portion of vacated South 160th Street adjoining
which attached by operation of law;
EXCEPT that portion thereof conveyed to the City of Tukwila for Slade
Way, by deed recorded under Recording Number 5344869;
AND EXCEPT that portion thereof condemned in United States District
Court, Western District of Washington, Northern Division, Civil Case
Number 6010;
AND EXCEPT that portion thereof described as follows:
Commencing at the West . corner of said Section 26; Thence North 0 ° 14'13"
West along the West line of said section 2094.92 feet; thence South
89 °21'31" East 330.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South
89 ° 21'31" East 140 feet; thence North 0 ° 14'13" East 153.08 feet to the
South line of South 160th Street; thence North 70 ° 55'05" West along
said South line 148.34 feet to a point which is North 0 ° 14'13" West from
the True Point of Beginning; thence South 0 °14'13" East 200 feet to the
True Point of Beginning;
AND EXCEPT that portion thereof described as follows:
Commencing at the West * corner of said Section 26; thence North 0 ° 14'13"
West along the West section line 1740 feet; thence South 89 ° 21'31" East
520 feet; thence North 0 °14'13" West 301.24 feet to the True Point of
Beginning; thence continuing North 0 ° 14'13" West 190 feet to the South-
erly margin of South 160th Street; thence South 70'55'05" East along
said margin 89.43 feet; thence South 76 °07'40" East 71.24 feet to the
intersection of said margin with the Westerly margin of Slade Way; thence
South 13 °31'57" West along said Westerly margin 148.29 feet; thence North
89 ° 45'47" West 118.19 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
LEROY C. LOWE
A.I.A. ARCHITECT
P 0 .•OK 1341 °[ *TTL[. WPOPINOTON ••111
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary 1. VanDusen, Mayor
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Mike Kenyon, City Attorney
FROM: Jack Pace, Senior Planner
RE: Sensitive Areas Moratorium Lot Consolidation Exemption
DATE: January 10, 1991
Under the Sensitive Areas Moratorium, land use applications for
properties with "sensitive areas" may not be accepted or reviewed.
However, the Moratorium is not clear as to whether a Lot
Consolidation is considered exempt. Staff has reviewed the
Moratorium ordinances and draft Sensitive Areas Ordinance regarding
this issue.
The Moratorium applies to "applications for development," and
specifically includes applications for rezones, plats (Ord. 1550),
and new permits, including clearing, grading /filling and building
permits, and "any similar or related land use activity whether or not
any permit or prior approval is required" (Ord. 1544).
The Moratorium would not apply to a Lot Consolidation for the
following reasons:
1. No permit or approval is required under the Zoning Code or
Subdivision Code. The review process is an administrative
review only, which allows us to maintain current maps and
property information.
2. No development or land - altering activity is associated with a
Lot Consolidation. It is exempt from SEPA review. Since Lot
Consolidation is essentially the recording of property line
removal, it does not result in any action which might
conflict with or subvert the intent of the Moratorium.
Similarly, the action is unlikely to have any impact on the
future implementation of the Sensitive Areas Ordinance.
For these reasons, staff considers a Lot Consolidation exempt from
the Moratorium, and we will continue accepting and processing these
documents. If you feel that this interpretation of the Ordinances is
in error, please let me know by 1/11/91.
cc: R. Beeler
p
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188
DARREN WILSON
PHIL FRASER
M E M O R A N D U M
December 28, 1990
PHONE a (2061 433.1800
Boundary Line Adjustment for Leroy C. Lowe
(file 90- 13 -BLA)
Gary 1.. Vaal)usrn, Mayor
Per Public Works review on 12/20/90 of the latest submittal and in
review of our original request, I provide the following per the
current submittal submitted information:
1. Per the 11/18/90 Public Works input the application was
requested to provide (refer to item No. 2) a
geotechnical /hydrological analysis of the area. Although it
appears that portions of the soils work had been carried out,
the hydrological /geotechnical analysis was not provided. To
expand on information I anticipated receiving, the report
should include the following:
A. Analysis of existing drainage within the sub basin
impacted by or affected by property development.
B. Identify springs /streams has been shown on plan but also
needs to be analyzed relative how it will be accommodated
both in construction and permanent facilities.
C. ,Provide 2 foot contours as originally requested (it
appears that the existing 2 foot contours are provided
but not 2 foot of proposed development).
D. Review existing impacts to Slade Way (roadway slippage
at least two times in recent years.)
E. Review past slide conditions (including Slade Way ;;and
downstream property).
F. Identify and review condition of downstream drainage .
system built and maintained) and modification if
appropriate.
G. Identify existing problems /impacts by proposed
development /mitigations (for drainage and access) - and
provide your findings /conclusions /recommendations.
MEMO
TO: Darren Wilson
FROM: Phil Fraser
page two
2. Because this area is in such a steep hillside where drainage
problems have occurred to Slade Way and potential for steep
utility and access grades and possible need for additional
structures (i.e., retaining walls) to maintain site for
proposed development. Typical cross sections need to be
provided from Slade Way to the crest of the hill.
3. Again, request easements for roadways, drives and utilities
be shown on plans (prior request referred to 11/18/90 land use
form Item No. 1, line 1).
4. Again per 11/18/90 Land Use Form, Item No. 1, line 3 request
- the development is to provide their (calculated) proposed
grades for access of roadways to demonstrate 15% grade can be
achieved to potential building sites for ingress /egress.
5. Per the proposed development plan in your latest submittal it
appears that a private driveway for lots 1 and 2 will exceed
200' maximum allowed under the subdivision road. Requested is
the developer identify the length of the private driveway for
common use for lots 1 and 2.
6. Per paragraph 4 of the 11/8/90 land use routing form again we
request that the developer provide a review by the water and
sewer water franchise districts (Val Vue Sewer District and
Water District 75), and also provide letters of availability
and their review comments so that the City may continue our
review with regard to these utilities.
Also, to repeat the last paragraph of the 11/18/90 Public Works
requests, again I wish to note that the site contains very steep
hillsides with the drainage above occurring at above property
occurring at Slade Way. It is also noted that there have been
drainage problems and the history of earth slides below the
property and will need to be addressed per future building
submittals.
xc: Development file: Lowe Boundary Line Adjustment
PF:CD.D18.WILSON.MEM
CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Punn ing
PROJECT 2 ,04eitt,
PF /amc:7:lowe
ADDRESS J l- ` €, .1, Gi , `6� 66
DATE TRANSMITTED 4, 9/5
STAFF COORDINATOR
LAND'• PERMIT
ROUTING FORM
leap ::t`eview th .r c .rsi e cts::: Inns <:ancl:.res and wi tt:: r < .
:.::v . ...::.. ....::. •. 4:i: <r ?4; :•;ti i ?: tiY,•; y, {.y,:C):•'.•'.•f�.•.:.......... .. ....... ....:.... :
cate crucial,gohcer....n c hecki n the next t�1 she li :£:crt w Ic > ;I z ::.i
`:: "•.::•::.: :::::..:n:�v:.a. ..:..:: ,.a .. r. .f. ». Yi f :: / . . .. 4..r. ..• . : ...:..•...... .... • ..::::::::: :........ •.... L�Yl"�"
. ;.: •: ..:Y� ?: :: n... <n... r .::. a,r.. i, .f. 3. ..'4 >.,: r .: a ........: ; ?:,.... .......,..... ................ a� ?•:• r: f.::ff:'r 'i:rss....?.. Y•.•..s. a'•s:
❑
DRO review requested ❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Pla a proves
Plan check date: I I /.8 / 9 t) Comments prepared by:
PERMIT NO.: 9e' , 3- z •
x �i 6
a.4vff, L.
•f,
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY // e/V
r fsCyr7 DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED /U
Y
note
'k: #:sir: "S " .....
Igress /Egress and Utilities
1. Identify easements for ingress /egress utilities to south 160th
Street and Slade Way. Provide 2' topo contour of the entire develop-
ment site. Proposed grades of access roadways to demonstrate that
maximum 15% grade can be achieved to potential building sites for
ingress /egress.
Reference: SAO Moritorium
2. Provide geotechnical /hydrological analysis of area to determine
what portions of lots are in fact buildable or prone to slides.
Utilities: Provide all utility easements proposed for water, sewer,
storm, franchise utilities and provide review for sewer and water
availabilities from Val Vue Sewer District and Water District # 7 12-5 --s
It is noted the site contains very steep hillsides with drainage
above path occurring at Slade Way. It is also noted there have been
drainage problems and a history of earth slides below property and
will need to be addressed for future building submittals.
a
0
0
•
.CITY OF TUKWILA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ct:? tft }. f:s:: l ..,..^ . •:c;: :;; •':i: \.':.:.. <: :'::.;.*:<.:.:; ;;;f:,.k;;
e
.:.. :<:f • >' ltlks f r patfca�
PROJECT4U8 tIILLCPc'$T 40,a C. Loww 4/4. 4,2444mer
ADDRESS 720 94 1 11 f
DATE TRANSMITTED RESPONSE REQUESTED BY . ..
": iS•.': ;::)k }�:;fai • .i•�' ?:`i �rti.`.•
e::
a..
STAFF COORDINATOR
ed
.... } "c'' }t`:Rii�. ::;. : -. , � aii: A.<`.•::• �<?3 i22S+ 3'•'. ai?• i::.'.,..........., yv�;...:: }.iyxf fi:s �?is: ? ;rtS:iYS`S:
/.5 ya Ayri Z / egAe» A ieM
❑
ETA eieiy, L eF lots / 51 y Art-
P,40194& Ai/ mss 4) I t&, * //14
Yhed.e f.,tc my .r, z4• ede, sr
❑' / 0 .5‘211,,,i74 A / d ih y akz1e /ate, ii • �
S
❑
44aad5 eihedipi e dee.td ism gene yr. v 77re 7 -s
• Aked5 ?r> I /i'e4.0., -r.` 4 s', 1 ,10 .
' f!i4I lam) i/s ; Lf
Al Q4a.1/ e// JJJ
• 8)5VW40e..
G)47/ 9 1 fr.om Roe:
❑ DRC review requested
HILR 7PT P
LAND • "SSE ( �RMIT y
ROUTING FORM
PERMIT NO.: gyp /,3 Bl
DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED
8. .
❑ Plan submittal requested ❑ Plan approved
Plan check date: /.7�y /1( Comments prepared by :L, n,: !0
•
N59- Z / -31 W tB4.gg
4/7o-ss --ovi
T9 -43 — AF 8002260429
S ,
W I
�
M ' PcL, e
L. A $ d ! : v i s
,
SO . O 0 I . b . 0 fi
r;Ara0107icai. = 0
1 et...,-
12
\fit'• s�
1 3 Sc).
3
-
A
s .
`N' tai >,Y
pizume, DexavrwydAtisiwv et9 "•..tA .2:0± .f.e6
• /-V i fri l4 jng4v / 709-7/��
/ 7-06, es 934
4 . Ig. ow. Wei
JQ 5e41011 iii/! - kc. ,z 2i/tie
/Yel ri" A9Pedei 5
016 nv
cascade geotechnical
HILLCREST
SLADE WAY
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. 9005 -13G
90-1 3 --MA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scope
Subsurface Conditions
Conclusions
Recommendations
Site Preparation
Erosion Control
Drainage
Horizontal Wells
French Drains
Foundation Design Parameters
Access Drive
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 7
Page 8
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
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 -13G
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
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.
Erosion Control
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
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.
Drainage
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
French Drains
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.
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
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.
Access Drive
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
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.
Construction Monitoring
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
August 27, 1990
Leroy Lowe
Job No. 9005 -13G
Page 11
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
that may be necessary.
General
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.
Thank you for this opportunity to work with you on this project.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact us at any time.
Sincerely,
..; •,:ter :z�
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL; gg*` C ,�1 r s
/ T
•
E. Ea /P.E�� F 40N ALE t 1C5 - 1
Principal Engineer
a �. „�
Peter J- ett
Engin ring Geologist
PJ:Pg
HILLCREST
TEST PIT & HAND AUGER LOCATION MAP
H.A.10
LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
H.A.11+) \\
p 4 p
TEST PITS (05I15/10)
+ HAND AUGERS (05/23/90)
FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY SURVEY PROFESSIONALS d&' FROM SITE PLAN BY LEROY
M
Dole [Own. dy 1
08/03/90 I t N_A
HA- 1
Soil Description & Classification
HA.- 2
Soil Description & Classification
0 6 "TOPSOIL;
0
_
—"'°'''"-
—
_`
- SILTY SAND WITH
TRACE GRAVEL, BLACK, LOOSE,
MOIST.
6 "- 2'SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
TRACE TO MIrIOR SILT, BROWN,
LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST,
FINE GRAINED. (SP)
'- 5' SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL &
0
_
—
_
_
.5
0 - 8 "TOPSOIL; 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
H.A. -4
Soil Description & Classification
0
0 - 3.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
0 `
'0
- 2.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
—
—
—
5
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 .
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DVtSION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Dwn.By HLA
Geo /Eng.
T.P.- 1
Soil Description & Classification
T.P.- 2
Soil Description & Classification
Notes:
-
1'-
(SP)TLES,
2.5'
1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
- 1'ORGANIC SAND; DARK BROWN,
0
1177
„ r
-5 -ti)'.,'`°
- io — :
J.44
4..
0
- -,-
= =;;
LOOSE, WET. (PT)
2.5' SAND; WITH TRACE SILT,
GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE,
WET, PROMINENT ORANGE MOT-
FINE TO MED.GRAINED.
12' SAND,; WITH TRACE SILT
LOOSE,
1 _ 2.5' SAND;
WET TO SATURATED. (PT)
WITH P•1INOR SILT, CRAY,
DENSE TO DENSE, WET,
ORANGE MOTTLES. (SP)
WITH TRACE SILT,
:.l'• <t
'I
t'
"'''''`"''
• •.......•
�,''``'`• "'
�`
-5 -
:•
'�'''
MEDIUM
FAINT
7' SAND;
772.5=
r:
"`''''
BLUE
SATURATED.
= 12 SAND;
CRAY, DENSE, WET TO
(SP)
WITH SOME SILT, BLUE
DENSE, WET. (SP)
WITH MINOR GRAVEL,
BROWN, DENSE, WET,
ORANGE MOTTLES. (SP)
BLUE GRAY, DENSE, WET TO
SATURATED, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED. (SP)
MODERATE TO HEAVY CAVING
FROM 4'- 12'
MINOR SEEPAGE AT 11'
-10
GRAY,
13' SAND;
-
T.D. = 12.0'
- "M:'•':12
: :da
GRAY
FAINT
T.D. = 13.0'
-15
-15
Notes:
• TEST
PIT LOG
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
1 Job No• 905 - 13G
+ Dwn.By HLA
, Geo /Eng. �Z
•
•
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL
LETTER
DESCRIPTION
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
GRAVEL lE
GRAVELLY
SOILS
°'. A'c'v •
. , •
.. • o ; Aa.q.40 0
4p �
CLEAN " °
a °o o
GW
Well- graded gravels or gravel - sand mixtures,
little or no fines
ii r.:
GRAVELS • '
sit
GP
Poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand mixtures,
little or no fines
GRAVELS
i Water
GM
Silty gravels or gravel - sand -silt mixtures
WITH FINES
� , jj
GC
Clayey gravels or gravel -sand -clay mixtures
SAND &
SANDY
SOILS
CLEAN
SANDS
•••• •• •
• ;; • ;;•
SW
Well- graded sands or gravelly sands, little or
no fines
":
c * ' � '•i
: v;,:;
SP
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little
or no fines
SANDS
` �
SM
Silty sends 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 fine sands, or clayey silts with slight
plasticity
C L
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays or lean clays
Liquid Limit Less Than 50 + ►
i
0 L
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, fat clays
Liquid Limit Greater Than 50 � ,',.,
� . . , � , �
.,. ,
OH
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
organic silts
:=_t om: ` .
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS :: ry
PT
Peat or other highly organic soils .
so
DATUM
NOTE
SZ Water
Level
Date Recorded
T S
Torvane Reading
Sample Interval
qu
Penetrometer Reading
Sample Interval
i Water
Observation Well
Tip Elevation
B
BO
DATUM
NOTE
I 2"
0.1). Split Spoon Sampler
Sample Interval
E Ring
or Shelby Sampler
Sample Interval
P Sampler
Pushed
Sample Interval
*
Other Sample Type
Sample Interval
1
UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
TOPSOIL
.- r .Y... y
FILL
Humus & duff layer
Uncontrolled, with highly variable constituents
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
KEY CHART
HA.- 5
Soil Description & Classification
RA.- 6
Soil Description & Classification
•
0
—
—
—
_
5
—
;0 - 3.5' PEAT; BLACK, VERY SOFT,
0
—
_
•' A - -0
- 4 "DUFF
4 "- 1'TOPSOIL; SILTY SAND WITH
SATURATED. (PT)
3.5'- 4.5' SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS
TRACE GRAVEL, DARK BROWN,
LOOSE, MOIST.
1'- 3'SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS &
TRACE GRAVEL, DARK GRAY - BROWN,
LOOSE, WET. (SM -OL)
_
5—
_
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:
HA.- 7
Soil Description & Classification
HA,- 8
Soil Description & Classification
0
^0
- 6 "PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
0 7"....0
- 6 "DUFF
—
6 "- 1'3 "SILTY SAND; WITH ORGANICS,
'
1 6'L 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,
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 -
11
H
II
ICS,
.......„..u.,
'
(ML DARK
OL)AY, SOFT, SATURATED.
4'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH ORGANICS,
-5
ii
_ SATURATED, F NEWGRAIPJEDr(ML -OL)
4'- 5'SANDY SILT; WITH SOME ORGANICS
5
\ 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 DIVISION OF
mi CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. By HLA
Geo/ Eng. C
HA-9
Soil Description & Classification
HA.- 10
Soil Description & Classification
"DUFF
a
_
_
_
- ,
0 - 2' PEAT; BLACK, SOFT, WET. (PT)
D
, ;� ;,,
. '
fl - 6
"- 1'SANDYSILT; WITH ORGANICS &
4'1:14:4 F,,
0 4= 110 '4
2'- 5'PEAT INTERLAYERED WITH SILTY
,
MINOR SAND, TAN, MOIST TO WET.
-
ii
11
(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,
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)
(ML- SM -OL)
- s
T.D. = 5.0'
T .D. = 5.0'
Notes
Notes:
HA- 11
Soil Description & Classification
HA 12
Soil Description & Classification
D
""'n
0- 6 "DUFF
0
1:;:;;;::;
- W'
-
`.�-
0- 6 "DUFF
"-
"- 3'SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
6 5'SAND; WITH TRACE GRAVEL,
:"+6
` '�°
'ti
"
v;'`:•
�`
• "'
..-
"
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)
-S
T.D. = 5.0'
T.D. = 5.0'
Notes:
•
Notes:
HAND AUGER LOGS
IC:7;
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. By HLA
Geo /Eng. ).E
H.A.- 13
Soil Description & Classification
HA.-
Soil Description & Classification
Notes
0
6 "-
- 6 "DUFF
WITH MINOR SILT, LIGHT
TO RED BROWN, LOOSE TO
DENSE, MOIST. (SP)
0
;.;;
0.
3' SAND;
..
'ii _ 't''
:: °•:•:
- ._
BROWN
MEDIUM
-5—
T.D. = 3.0'
-5—
•
Notes:
HA-
Soil Description & Classification
HA.-
Soil Description & Classification
Notes:.
0
-5 _
-
0
-5—
.Notes:
HAND
AUGER LOGS
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL HILLCREST
A DIVISION Of
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
mi
Date 05/23/90
Job No. 905 - 13G
Own. By HLA
Geo /Eng.
Project
HILLCREST
Job No. 905 -13G
Dote 07/24/90
Boring No. 1
Dwn.By AEM
Driller DRLLNG uNumrrED
Drill Type SKID MOUNTED HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Geo /Eng. R. BLUMQUIST
Hole 0 4" LD.
Fluid NONE
Sample Interval
Depth
Penetration.
=
.',. Strata
Soil Description & Classification
CIGHT TRACE SILT, TRACE
Notes
_
r
-
_
_
�.
- 07/24/90
_ 7
”9 /SMOl9
•tj/ cMO
I
I _
I
I -
I
I _
_
3
3
3
6
(SPj
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP. (SP)
_
10
3
5
8
13
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP. (SP)
• fii9
�; }; ;
-
15
7
14
15
29
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP.(SP)
5
10
13
23
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST. (SP)
-
25 _
8
12
1E
28
a'
; BROWN, DENSE, WET, SAND.
SILT BROWN DENSE WET TRACE SAND (ML)
�
t:,e
"'F
_111E1733
30 _
Notes:
TEST T p O D I
G J D 1[
Page 1
w
1 �I
of
t �± LOG
V
2
MI CASCADE
GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
I Project HILLCREST
I Job No. 905 -13G
Boring No. 1
Sample Interval I
Depth
Penetration
D t DJI S
Soil Description & Classification
Notes
,.9 /small!
11 /SMOM
I
—
—
15
28
28
56
fl . =f
ti .• —
0:::::::::
SAND; BROWN, VERY DENSE,
SATURATED. (SP)
- 6" HEAVE
-
_
•
T.D. = 31.5'
Notes:
_ SLOTTED
WATER TABLE AT 26.5' UPON WITHDRAWL 1 F SAM' ER ' S ; k t 5 5
PIPE, MONUMENT PLACED.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OP
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TEST BORING LOG
Pay 2 o f 2
Project
HILLCREST
Job No. 905 -13G
Date 07/25/90
Boring No. 2
Dwn. By AEM
Driller DRLLNG UFIMTED
Drill Type SKD MOUNTED HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Geo /Eng. P. JEWETT
Hole Q 4" ID.
Fluid NONE
I Sample Interval
ytdea
Penetration
a
o
Soil Description & Classification
Notes
;
M
3
O
ZS
N
1
_
m
I
I
I _
I —
I
I
5
.: `.......
;::
_
SAND; (Sp)
_
_ 07/25/90
!
_ 10" HEAVE
— 5" HEAVE
_
_
-
—
-
_POSSIBLE
HYDROSTATIC
"WITHIN THINSAND
-LAYER
SAND; GRAY, MEDIUM DENSE, SATURATED, MEDIUM TO
_
10 �`:
2
4
7
II
COARSE GRAINED. ( SP)
SAND; WITH MINOR SILT, GRAY TO MOTTLED, FINE
_
15
5
8
12
20
``•':'
GRAINED, WET, MEDIUM DENSE, (SP)
SAND; WITH SOME SILT, MOTTLED, LAYERS OF WET TO
_
—
—
20
9
12
15
27
`
I :I
;;�_:ti:
: :.•
=.
4-
;;..
SATURATED SOIL IN SAMPLER, FINE GRAINED, GRAY SILT
IN TIP. (SP -SM)
SAND; LIGHT BROWN, VERY FINE GRAINED, DENSE. (SP)
37
_12
_
-'
—
25
17
20
SILT; 12" IN SAMPLER, GRAY, DENSE, NON PLASTIC,
DAMP. (ML)
SAND; GRAY, COARSE GRAINED, SATURATED. (SP)
SILT; WITH SOME SAND, GRAY, DENSE, DAMP. (ML)
_
30
5
13
19
32
T.D. - 26.5'
Notes:
TEST BORING LOG
Page 1 of 1
Mil
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
r
r
Project
HILLCREST
Job No. 905-13G
Date 07/25/90
Boring No. 3
Dwn. By AEM
Driller DAL NLIMITED
Drill Type SKI) MOUNTED HOLLOW STEM AUGER
Geo/Eng. P. JEWETT
Hole 0 4"1.0.
Fluid NONE
Sample Interval I
ytdea
Penetration
otoJIS
Soil Description 8 Classification
Notes
„9 /5MO19
'IV sMOi9
I
I
I
I
T
I —
_
—
5
,
PEAT/ORGANIC SAND; GRAY
TO BLACK, COARSE GRAINED
GRAY, SATURATED, MEDIUM DENSE
IN TIP. (SP)
COARSE GRAINED, INCLUDING
MEDIUM DENSE, MEDIUM TO'
(SP)
- 07/25/90
-
—
-
.
-
-
.
-
-
SAND, WET. (PT)
SAND; WITH SOME SILT,
—
_
10
7
9
8
17
COARSE GRAINED, 8" WATER
SAND; GRAY, SATURATED,
•
—
_
_
—
15
6
9
6
15
SILT IN TIP. (SP)
SAND; AS ABOVE. (SP)
,.
_
_
20
4
6
7
13
SAND; LIGHT BROWN, MOTTLED,
—
_
—
25
P
3
8
12
FINE GRAINED, SATURATED.
NO RECOVERY
.
—
5
9
14
23
T.D. = 26.5'
Notes:
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION OF
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TEST BORING
Page 1
LOG
___/--
MI
Zoning
District
Existing
Use
Proposed
Use
•
Proposed -
Lot Size
PARCELS:
(29 /BLA.APP)
lei p+- 2575
BOIL( LINE AD,.JSTMENT OR
LOT CONSOLIDATION APPLICATION
LOCATION Street
Address:
DATE OF LAST PLAT:
AVM
APPLICANT Name: LeZ y C. Lows A. f-> G - E4 , -
Address: 410 ESL -Levu v./Ay S . C5 ,
City: ' je.LLEWV _ Zip: 4 1000 t Phone: 6
454.442
Signature: Date: QG7 10990
c WA./ S . 16013 �7
- 'TVKW ILA /A
If vacant, indicate lot(s), block, and subdivision; or
tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection.
NW
i
QTR SECTION
-A-
SECTION
-B-
23 N
TOWNSHIP
-C-
4E
RANGE
-D-
L OCI 16 1990
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
LOT 2
LOT 3
PAGE 1
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
ORIGINAL
LOT 1
THAT PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 23 N,
RANGE 4 E, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG THE
WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 00 ° 14'13" W 1600 kEhll THENCE
S 89 ° 21'31" E 664 /EM THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W 140 rL r; THENCE
S 89 ° 21'31" W FOR 114.00 Jia i; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W FOR 301.45 FIaT;
THENCE N 89 ° 45'47" W FOR 30.00 khba TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING N 89 ° 45'47" W FOR 40.00 YErW; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W
FOR 203.69 r TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF S. 160TH STREET; THENCE
S 70 ° 55'05" E ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN FOR 42.39 iii'; THENCE
S 00 FOR 190.00 EEar TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO KNOWN AS A PART OF LOT 28, BLOCK 2, McMICKEN HEIGHTS,
DIVISION NO. 1 ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
THAT PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG
THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 00 ° 14'13" W 1600.00 FEET;
THENCE S 89 ° 21'31" E 664.00 FEET; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W
140.00 FEET; THENCE N 89 ° 21'31" W FOR 114.00 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N 89 ° 21'31" W FOR
110.00 FEET; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W FOR 354.92 FEET; THENCE
S 89 ° 21'31" E FOR 30.00 FEET; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W FOR 153.08
FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF S. 160TH STREET; THENCE
S 70 ° 55'05" E ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN FOR 10.58 FEET;
THENCE S 00 ° 14'13" E FOR 203.69 FEET; THENCE S 89 ° 45'47" E
FOR 70.00 FEET; THENCE S 00 ° 14'13" E FOR 301.45 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO KNOWN AS A PART OF LOT 28, BLOCK 2, McMICKEN HEIGHTS,
DIVISION NO. 1 ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
THAT PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG
THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 00 ° 14'13" W 1600.00 FEET;
THENCE S 89 ° 21'31" E 664.00 FEET; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" E
140.00 FEET; THENCE N 89 ° 21'31" W FOR 334.00 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W FOR 354.92 FEET;
THENCE S 89 ° 21'31" E FOR 110.00 FEET; THENCE S 00 ° 14'13"
FOR 354.92 FEET; THENCE N 89 ° 21'31" W FOR 110.00 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO KNOWN AS A PART OF LOT 29, BLOCK 2, McMICKEN HEIGHTS,
DIVISION NO. 1 ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
ORIGINAL
LOT 4
PAGE 2
THAT PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTIONS THENCE ALONG
THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 00 ° 14'13" W 1600.00 FEET;
THENCE S 89 ° 21'31" E 664.00 FEET; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W
140.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 89 ° 21'31" W
FOR 114.00 FEET; THENCE N 00 ° 14'13" W FOR 301.45 FEET; THENCE
S 89 ° 45'47" E FOR 87.89 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SLADE WAY
AND A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH
BEARS S 75 ° 09'53" E 355.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID
WESTERLY MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT; THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43 ° 18'31" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 268.81 FEET TO
A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS OF THE
NEW CURVE BEARING N 61 ° 31'36" E 285.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY
ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 00 ° 00'29" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 0.04 FEET; THENCE
S 00 ° 14'13" E FOR 1.99 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO KNOWN AS A PART OF LOT 27, BLOCK 2, McMICKEN HEIGHTS,
DIVISION NO. 1 ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
LOT 5
THAT PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG
THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 00 ° 14'13" W 1600.00 FEET;
THENCE S 89 ° 21'31" E 664.00 FEET; TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE N 00 FOR 141.99 FEET TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SLADE WAY AND A POINT ON A CURVE TO
THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS N 61 ° 31'36" E
285.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY
MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
29 ° 10'48" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 145.15 FEET; THENCE S 00
FOR 40.48 FEET. TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO KNOWN AS A PART OF LOT 26, BLOCK 2, McMICKEN HEIGHTS,
DIVISION NO. 1 ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
LOT 6
THAT PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 N, RANGE 4 E, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE ALONG
THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 00 ° 14'13" W 1600.00 FEET;
THENCE S 89 ° 21'31" E 874 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE N 89 ° 21'31" W FOR 110.00 FEET; THENCE N 00 FOR
40.48 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SLADE WAY AND A POINT
ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS
N 32 ° 20'19" E 285.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID
MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 23 ° 37'07" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 117.48 FEET; THENCE S 00 ° 14'13" E
FOR 3.30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO KNOWN AS A PART OF LOT 25, BLOCK 2, McMICKEN HEIGHTS,
DIVISION NO. 1 ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEREOF.
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
NEW
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 3
PAGE 3
THAT PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 01 ° 03'56" E
(N 00 ° 14'13" W, RECORD) FOR 1740.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E
FOR 330.00 FEET; THENCE N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR 170.00 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR
184.92 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E FOR 110.00 FEET; THENCE
S 01 ° 03'56" W FOR 184.92 FEET; THENCE N 88 ° 03'22" W FOR
110.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES
OVER THE WESTERLY PORTION OF LOT 3 AS DESCRIBED HEREIN.
THAT PORTION OF THE NW i OF THE NW i OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 01 ° 03'56" E
(N 00 ° 14'13" W, RECORD) FOR 1740.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22 "E
FOR 330.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR 170.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E FOR
110.00 FEET; THENCE S 01 ° 03'56" W FOR 170.00 FEET; THENCE
N 88 ° 03'22" W FOR 110.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES
OVER THE WESTERLY PORTION OF LOT 3 DESCRIBED HEREIN.
THAT PORTION OF THE NW ' OF THE NW - OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W I CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 01 ° 03'56" E
(N 00 ° 14'13" W, RECORD) FOR 1740.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E
FOR 440.00 FEET; THENCE N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR 200.00 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR
154.92 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 403'22" E FOR 30.00 FEET; THENCE
N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR 153.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF
SO. 160TH STREET; THENCE S 69 ° 36'55" E ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY
MARGIN FOR 52.97 FEET; THENCE S 01 ° 03'56" W FOR 190.00 FEET;
THENCE S 88 ° 27'33" E FOR 118.89 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN
OF SLADE WAY; THENCE S 14 ° 50'07" W ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN
FOR 41.67 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS
OF 355.62 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND ALONG
SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 ° 00'22"
AN ARC LENGTH OF 62.11 FEET; THENCE N 88 ° 03'22" W FOR 178.52
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITIES
OVER THE WESTERLY PORTION THEREOF FOR LOTS 1 AND 2 AS DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
NEW
LOT 4
THAT PORTION OF THE NW i OF THE NW - OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W - CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 01 ° 03' 56" E
(N 00 ° 14'13" W, RECORD) FOR 1740.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E
FOR 440.00 FEET; THENCE N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR 100.00 FEET TO THE
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR
100.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E FOR 178.52 FEET TO THE WESTERLY
MARGIN OF SLADE WAY AND A POINT ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE
RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS S 85 ° 10'15" E 355.62 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE TO THE
LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16 ° 13'52" AN ARC DISTANCE OF
100.74 FEET; THENCE N 88 ° 03'22" W FOR 212.65 FEET TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
LOT .5
THAT PORTION OF THE NW i OF THE NW i OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PAGE 4
COMMENCING AT THE W - CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 01 ° 03'56" E
(N 00 ° 14'13" W, RECORD) FOR 1740.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E
FOR 440.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR 100.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E FOR 212.65
FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SLADE WAY AND A POINT ON A CURVE
TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS N 78 ° 35'52" E
355.62 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID MARGIN AND ALONG
SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17 ° 04'16" AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 105.96 FEET TO A POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE
THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS N 61 ° 31'36" E 285.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 00 ° 28'27" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 2.36 FEET; THENCE N 88 ° 03'22" W
FOR 225.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LOT 6
THAT PORTION OF THE NW i OF THE NW i OF SECTION 26,
TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE W i CORNER OF SAID SECTION; THENCE
ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION, N 01 ° 03'56" E
(N 00 ° 14'13" W, RECORD) FOR 1740.00 FEET; THENCE S 88 ° 03'22" E
FOR 664.00 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING S 88 ° 03'22" E FOR 2.15 FEET
TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SLADE WAY AND A POINT ON A CURVE
TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS N 61 ° 03'09" E
285.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE TO
THE LEFT, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 52 ° 19'58" AN ARC DISTANCE
OF 260.31 FEET; THENCE S 01 ° 03'56" W FOR 3.30 FEET; THENCE
N 88 ° 03'22" W FOR 210.00 FEET; THENCE N 01 ° 03'56" E FOR 140.00
FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
DECLARATION:
Know all men by these presents that we, the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple
and /or contract purchaser(s) of the land herein described do hereby make an
application for a boundary line adjustment /lot consolidation thereof. The
undersigned further declare that the attached map is the graphic representation
of said boundary line adjustment /lot consolidation and the same is made with the
free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s).
In W*tn whe eof a have set our hands and seals.
Name - � C� o e Name
Name Name
Name Name
Name Name
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of King
On this day personally appeared before me L e Qo V C. Low.-
to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that }} E signed
the same as 01=5> free and voluntary act and deed, for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this /69 day of 00 , 19 lam.
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of King
On this day personally appeared before me
Notar Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at
to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that signed
the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for
the uses and purposes therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of , 19
Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington, residing at:
(29 /BLA.DECLAR) Page of
NORTH
SCALE: 1" = 100 ft.
DATE: 101 i7...190
f 1
22 3
2
2 2e
n
in
n
a
2t
330.
27 26
110.00'
0 0 2
N.
• WWII 111.1
0' SEWER EASEMENT
w M1t•
,/40..r
cc: Engineering
Building
Copy to
applicant on
(29 /BLA.ILLUS)
..r a stt
Imo.
1
20, 339S. F.
2
18, 6985. F.
ILLUSTRATION OF
PROPOSED BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
s
a,nl s aa.
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
1.&r M/W
u lb011 at.lcart
,>t
3 I
30,541.5.F.
566'03'22"E I
176.52'
3 I 4
I
41
17, 9924'.F.
IOW 0312 n..w
212.65'
5 1
20266)S.F.
[[ Approval is hereby granted subject to:
(l Disapproved because:
IV 1/I WlXV'
,..sW
CUM ■O M
Date:
W
w
e.c
4515'e 5'
,
>
R1 L,S'
S8S03
6
8■263.00'
T ..0.03'
6.26200.31'
6.57111'58 .
OCTAL N.i.S.
g 5 6
10,176S.F.
210.00' J 6
N66'03'22'w
NOTE: APPROVAL, IF GRANTED, WILL REQUIRE A SURVEY BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR.
(Do not write below this line.)
*************************************************** * * * * *>* *>k** * * * * * * ** * * * * * *** * **
Original to File Planner:
1 a.
This 'tificate provides the
Depar..ent of Health and
Building i Land Development
with information necessary to
evaluate development proposals.
❑ Building Permit
KING COUNTY CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY
Do not wzlte in this box
number
name
❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD
❑ short Subdivision ❑ Rezone or other
APPL (CANT' S NAME/ 4,64'a Y C Lo.✓E f4 ff! - frlr •
PROPOSED USE,__S /n/CLE /= r 4.Mt /( .p (.f LET S•V..ti
LOCAT ION,/ S. /C o ' S i 1- 3 9 ie ✓47 S .
W ater will be provided by service connection only to an existing
water main Z.7 feet from the site.
Please return to;
BUILDING & LAND DEVELOPMENT
Parks. Planning & Resources Dept.
3600 - 136th PLACE Southeast
Bellevue, Washington 98006 -1400
(206) 296 -6600
Jay E. Gibson
Signatory Name
MAY 1 G 1090
(Attach map & legal description if necessary)
A r r r r N r r r r r. r r r r r
WATER PURVEYOR INFORMATION
OR
b. Water service will require an improvement to the water system oft
01 1) S 3 o o feet of water main to reach the site and /or
L 1) the construction of a distribution system on the site, and /or
❑ (3) other (describe)
2. a. Ei 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.
3. a. (The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the district, or has been
u granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the distri
or city, or is within the County approved service area of a private water purveyor
OR
b. 0 Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service.
4. a. �']�ater i.,e. will be available at the rate of flow and duration indicated below at
l� no less than 20 psi measured at the nearest fire hydrant JO feet from the
building / -- y (or as marked on the attached map s
Rate of Flow Duration
❑ less than 500 gpm (approx. gpm) ❑ less than 1 hour
❑ 500 to 999 gpm ❑ 1 hour to 2 hours
Wf000 gpm or mire FOR 9-2 or more
❑ flow test of gpm ()other
❑ calculation of • gpm (Commercial Building Permits require flow
oR test or calculation)
b. Crater system is not capable of providing fire flow.
COMMENTS /CONDITIONS ,,..4471C.e .51( M w Ji 3(_ Loo P4N T - /NT A ✓LLo Ce7r
, ip.S oA Lzsr,
I hereby certify that the above water purveyor information is true. This
certification shall be valid for one year from date of signature.
•
KING COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 1
Agency Name
Supervisor of Engineering & Aaninistration Q L. _ r/45/40
F 27!< Title 1gnature Date
size
Name .ti.. .h C.>L z)
Date:
Certificate No. 1 9 8
MAP
Land Surveyor's Certificate: Map on File in Vault
This Boundary Line Adjustment /Lot Consolida-
tion correctly represents a survey* made by Direction:
me or under my direction in conformance with
the requirements of appropriate State statute.
Scale: I = i 00
Stamp:
* A lot consolidation does not require a survey
of the perimeter unless the lines are adjusted.
(29 /BLA.MAP) Page
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
Before the adjustment:
After the adjustment
Name
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT /LOT CONSOLIDATION
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FILE NO.
Filed for record at
the request of:
Return to: Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(29 /BLA.LEGAL)
APPROVAL
Department of Planning: Examined
and approved this day of
, 19
Director, Department of Planning
Dept. of Public Works: Examined
and approved this day of
, 19
Director, Dept. of Public Works
Page of.
•
J93.0 ovt:
fief r ..
It. C.Qt .. ..
nfa ik
• fs.rovr
Inc :act: rt :
Arr
YOSHIDA. INC.
C....ul.f •S.f1.....
.Sl &TTIf. WAiMINGTOM
.102/11451n
Vr
amces 3 A0411111
c.1
. e,
,JAIP.00
2
t a
w
ira;
• -
n _ %11 /l
� G /� r .
14 EL :246 - rov e
8 ' 57L:: ZOO. 75
35-: -[:, . Z w.x /O OM /N)
Zy 2
DIA
?F i_cf/N.4Tr , rc,4
M._ eL 25. /0
45!..1704Z. N, 2¢,a 01
F
18" . HEMLOCK
EMLOC
FD` 1/2. REBAR
#'. .15639; SSA
0.10N'. X - . 0.06E
�;;. RIM; E6,' 248b0'::�.• IE. r '
''.:'PIPEi85 STEEL` Ni•.:24D.6S..'.
PIPE? W )STEEL= V .;110.73.:.
, ..'PIPEV:STEEL S :• 210.72
21.70
P 4
IS .
WETLANDS MAIN AREA
LESS .UPLAND "A
WETLAND
WETLAND
TOTAL WETLAND
WETLANDS •WERE DELINEATED. BY A.J.. BREDBE'RG,
WETLANDS BIOLOGIST, ON APRIL . 1992 .AND
LOCATED `'BY JOHN E.' CRAMER, P.L.S. ON • APRIL 7, 1992. .
1 2,025 S.F.
378 S:F.
WETLANDS BIOLOGIST:
ANTHONY J. BREDBERG
P.O. BOX 1337
GIG HARBOR, WA. 98335
BEARING DATUM: KING COUNTY. ENGINEERS
WEST:, ,LINE. OF . NW 1/4, SEC.26, T.23N, R4E, WM.
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 4'. BENCH MARK:
MH 26 =19, N. INV. ELEV. = 248.00
.
STRAIGHT,: PARCEL NUMBERS ARE OLD PARCEL NUMBERS.
ITALICIZED. PARCEL NUMBERS ARE NEW PARCEL NUMBERS.
site plan
site plan landscape plan
boundary line adjustment legal description
bearing datum
sanitary sewer system
yoshida
lid 26
hillcrest drawing
site plan
landscape plan
S TRAIGHT PARCEL NUMBERS ARE OLD PARCEL NUMBERS
ITALICIZED PARCEL NUMBERS ARE NEW .PARCEL NUMBER
BEARING DATUM: KING COUNTY ENGINEERS
WEST LINE OF NW 1/4, SEC.26, T.23N, R4E, WM
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 4'. BENCH MARK:
MH 26-19, N. INV. ELEV. - 248.00'.
NOTES:
1 THIS SURVEY' WAS BASED ON LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FROM. STEWART TITLE co/,
ORDER NO.1 18088 DATED MAY 1, 1990.
0 :THERE MAY , BE ADDITIONAL U/G UTILITIES WHICH COULD ,, NOT BE LOCATED
AT THIS TIME THERE IS A GAS LINE ON S. 1 60TH ST.. AND WATER LINES
(67 - STEELY. ON S 1 60TH ST AND ON SLADE WAY.
- •
AN EASEMENT • EXISTS OVER THE SOUTH 10. , FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROP.EF4Y;.
rOk',VA14 'DISTRICT .. FOR CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENAN:cE, REPLACfMENT: • ',:•: ';
AND OPERATION OF SEWER LINE PER ITEM 5 • IN SCHEDULE B AND
NO :7#1•4504.29. • • . - • ••••
• •
• . •
••
JEt
• „ .
• ••
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
0 Irma INCH
• •
O€ 6Z 9 L 9 S 3 7Z
iiii iiiiiiii l i ii ii I ii 11111111111111111111IIIII
3 „ 5 6 7
'.IF THIS MICRoFILtigb .DOCUMENT IS LES
CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO ,
cz1 i ; THE. U LITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT
ihin u iniTiTiiiiTiii,1itii1iiiihitilitii 9104m! rr mi iiii 140
•
9 10 11 " ile. " 41..ff 12
IIIIIIIIIIIII
•
9S.7C
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIpIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
7 - ; • ' 3;7
.- •
• • • ,:•
. 1 •
6 .
;7; ; ,e ?.3 af,
N138*: 03
11 1740.00'
26
FND 1 /2' REBAR IN S5SQ.
CONC' MON. IN M.C. .
g' 1-IEMLOC
2 @,40.00'
,' :.'''.:��_�, 2 THERE '• MAY BE.ADDITIO L 'U
w cnP.'.:.:: , • '' , , _ ; .: , `• ,,....� ;. Y.; �. NA /.G UTILITIES': WHICH,: COULD' NOT" BE LOCATED
15 s ' ' A T :THIS TIME: THERE': A GAS • GAS, ON
Si . •� . . ,,, 4�3 •S . ;. < , ' . NE:. ' 1 60TH ' ST: AND . WATER LINES
` K r r STEEL) ON S ` 160TH ST • AND 'ON 'BLADE' WAY:
�thSflc lop th 19!21C. at' Luet'to tha TRU!POINT Of BEGINNING •
o f'+tba'tract a land h.dasac ;ba47
mtehL.g"1f 3 410 tact
t v4drtA 0 "Y4.17 t.�40 £Nt)
s S thane, natth 6�!2VIi wilt 314 CNi) .
tlj. u .ibutb ➢!21 "�•ut X40 feat
,': flc. orth q`1415 " t�'1,53 00 feet. to .tha aouthvu.tavly lint oL:
••' uth ,�60¢b'SLx.t• wrti
t > • th ilon{lxwd' outiv iin. ;sout 10�55'OS" iat 142.41 . '
,
' ',thane..oeth 06 :eoet.l4s 40 feet,
the . death' 46 "'50 nit'10 14 f to a point whleh .oath
' 0'14" ;7�' I RUE•PO lat 0Eo zi*inwf-
baar
thlnae'puth 0l14' 13 . •.pt, 44.2O . fait to • the TRIOS; I'OINf Or
- i+ (AL441,E1)0)nl AS Pots 25 2e , •27 and portions or. Pots 2O. sod 29.' Block'
,. .11eNlokah' Naighta., Division Nuebs 1, according to.th. unreeordad
;,pLYt tblracLJ,
TOCLT8IJC:w1Y'N,Lha!'. poetlon af'vatatad South 160th dtrsat adjoining •
whielirattactiid by+.opLration: of •Iav)' +, •° • -
c'EECElT'that portion :thereof to the City:•o Tukwila for
glade :, Way'; :..,by'; dsed;t'ieordsd`uni er,-Raeordinq, 5344869s • ' . •
• AND. dXCEPT-.that condemned• in Uhitad "States •Distriet
Courts K4tasli >.Otatrigt•,of, ■Naahingtou.,:Notthern Division„ Civil' Case
AND`BEctp?i that.; portion :tharaof dasefibid_as follow.,.
Comaencinq a0 the, wsb.quatter. eornsrof said "Saciion 26;
thenor north O °14•23" ){ast atone tha�weat tine of •aid section ,
• :t)ieiidi;•south 89!21!.31 "'i t.3
ie30.00 Lest to the TRUE PINT O or.
..I • BCOitlNINOt..•;- .:: • „ .•
•. + �Cth .BOdth-09•21'31” seat loo, fiat; ;. :`-
• ►•north 0!14'13 "- .acst'153.00 feet to • the copth; line ot. South .
';, ':.thSOCirriotth 7O OS"'. vent- alonq..eiid'. mouth line, 140.34• feet' to a
poinit;.i,hieh.;ia{ north O!413" ,' reet'.from:,the:TRUE. POINT` OF BEC11M1NO:. •
''Cths cu.aouth' Last` 200:. rest to.the'TRUE'. POINT or BECINNNING;
' "
that ;f,or. itto „thetaof'dasetibed as ,• f,ollovit' • ' a'
, j.�• tapir iPnlpq at: t`eiwsiC goartat .eornar of acid Sectin 26;
.sheelcfnbrth0014,13 'wa.t; clang the vest. sactian{ o Ins, 1740 'fast,.
xl 3 S e tegnth 8! "ii st'820. fact)
'{� in .; rth•'0o 4 301�24'fao t 0 t ta TRO�tPOI OC
rr "t cyn C })0.34;33" vast I 90 fe to th. erly
” Shy!' /G!SS'OS yis "•long said atargin 0943 faet)
�F;t]rf 6 O1" 7.6''-''007 40K east' 71'24 {ailt: tote 1ft$taaetion of said
ydir4iWvlT.� thI istir2y`msrgin.ot- Sled.,Wayi t:.'*�• -r' '': `�
than .:son 13f3} seat along acid vstarly ruin 1/6 39 Lest;
; r +,tltail r_I'ia .�@9ta3�;1� - °12e 19 rata ' �._- P02HQ� •
B DATUM: KING COUNTY ENGINEERS
WEST 'LINE Of 'NW 1/4, SEC.26,. 7.23N, R4E, WM.
C ONTOUR INTERVAL = 4'. BENCH MARK:
MH 26 -1 9. N. INV. ELEV. 248.00'.
1 THIS S URVEY -: WAS BASED ON LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FROM. ,STEWART. TITLE CO
ORDER : N0.;1.18088 . DATED.. M .1, ;_ 1990 `
RAIGUT PARCEL NUMBERS ARE OLD,, PARCEL NUMBERS
�UGIZED;,PA RCEL:;lNUMBERS ;ARE NEW PARCEL, NUMBERS:
;AN EASEMENT: '.EXISTS OVER' SOUTH 10': FEET: OF. THE SUBJECT PROPER;IY
FOR :VALVUE°, ..CONSTRUCTION,, •MAINTENANCE;- REPLACEMENT
"SAND OPERATION `OF' SEWER LINE 'PER ".:ITEM. 5' IN °.SCHEDULE B AND : RECORDI N G • .NO 7412050429.
•
i�en -. ' •
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIlllppil lttai III ulILI1pIIiwiliqIuililllllllllllf IIiiJi1I. tpolIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIll
0 +•TM•+NC. 1 7 3 -4.. .. 5. 6 7 . 8. 9 10 11 """ 12
IF THIS MICROFILMED;DOCUMENT.IS LESS
CLEAR THAN THIS IT IS DUE T0;
THE'QU'LITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT 'I a e 9 S 7 E z )ww0
Ili 11111111 I II II I 11f11II lil . ,41 mini �i � �Il��ulllnlll��l�� } II��I IUUlullliilllijIiililii nllulll ullWllullluullull
-----""