Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 77-01A-W - CHG INTERNATIONAL - SENSITIVE AREA WAIVER
77-1a-w chg international waiver ALBERTI PROPERTY F. A. LESOURD WOOLVIN PATTEN DONALD D. FLEMING GEORGE M. HARTUNG, JR. LEON C. MISTEREK DWAYNE E. COPPLE THOMAS 0. McLAUGHLIN PETER LESOURD JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING St HARTUNG Mr. Kjell Stoknes City of Tukwila Office of Community Development 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Kjell: Mr. Alberti has sent a copy of a topographic survey of the CHG International property purchased by the City earlier this year. This may be of some use to the City. Enclosures ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3900 SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98154 (2061 624-1040 LeSOURD, PA TEN, FLFM7NG & HARTUNG December 20, 1977 Very truly yours, awren E. Hard LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM BRUCE G. HANSON RICHARD P. MATTHEWS D. WILLIAM TOONE, JR. M. COLLEEN WEULE DANIEL D. WOO ROBERT L. PALMER COUNSEL •' SUSAN R.AGID PETER L. BUCK H RAYMOND CAIRNCROSS MARK S CLARK JEROME L. HILLIS GEORGE W. MARTIN, JR DAVID E. MYRE, JR LOUIS D PETERSON JOHN E PHILLIPS RICHARD S SWANSON RICHARD R. WILSON Mr. Lawrence E. Hard LeSourd, Patten, Fleming & Hartung 1300 Seattle Tower Seattle, Washington 98104 Dear Larry: RRW:kk Encl: LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, PHILLIPS, CAIRNCROSS, CLARK & MARTIN A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 403 COLUMBIA STREET SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104 December 14, 1977 Re: Sale of Property by Alberti, et al. to Tukwila Enclosed is a topographic survey for the property which the City of Tukwila purchased from my clients earlier this year. Frank Alberti has asked me to pass it on to the City. It may be of some help to the planning staff or Parks Department. Best wishes for the holidays. Very truly yours, HII. ,IS, PHILLIPS, CAIRNCROSS, C RK MARTIN P.S. lL mac Richard R. Wilson 623.1745 AREA CODE 206 ' TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL COMN',' OF THE WHOLE MEETING February 28, 1977 Page 5 DISCUSSION - Contd. awsuit filed by CHG International Decision Making Seminar for Dept. Heads and Council State Legislature - Sales Tax ADJOURNMENT 11:00 P.M. Councilman Traynor called attention to the fact that a lawsuit had been filed against the City and Council Members by CHG International as a result of the Council action on their request for a waiver . from a City resolution that stops development until the Comprehensive Plan is completed. John McFarland, Administrative Assistant, stated a seminar on Decision Making would be held on the 18th and 19th of March for Department Heads and the Council. He said the time would be announce Mayor Bauch said he had been invited to speak at the State Legislatur on Thursday, March 3, 1977 and present Tukwila's side of the story on sales tax. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED. BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ADJOURN. CARRIED. Norma Booher, Recording Secretary PARKS S RECREATION PLANU I NG 24 February 1977 Very truly yours, KS /cw CHG International 1906 - One Washington Plaza Tacoma, Washington 98402 CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ATTN: Mr. Tom Johnson RE: City Council denial of waiver to Resolution #489 Dear Mr. Johnson: On February 23, 1977, you asked what the City of Tukwila would do should CHG decide to apply for a building permit for their project on the apart- ment zoned land in the McMicken area. Since your waiver to Resolution #489 was denied by the City Council on January 3, 1977, I refer to the introductory portion of Section 4 in Resolution #489 for guidance. That Section states that the City Council directs that no application requesting any action which comes under the jurisdiction of Resolution #489, which has not been granted a waiver, shall be accepted or processed by the City until completion and adoption of a new land use policy plan. Based on this, should your firm come to the City with a building permit application on the subject property, the administration of the City is not authorized to accept the application. I hope this letter adequately addresses your request from our recent telephone conversation. k 4A, ell Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development cc: Mayor Bauch Al Pieper, Building Official 6230 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188 ■ (206) 242 -2177 January 17, 1977 7:00 P.M. FLAG SALUTE AND . CALL 10 ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN ATTENDANCE MINUTE APPROVAL VOUCHER APPROVAL TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tukwila City Hall M I N U T E S Council Chambers Council President Hill, presiding, led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the Tukwila City Council meeting to order. GARDNER, MS. HARRIS, HILL, MS. PESICKA, SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN Steve Hall, Public Works Director; Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director; Mabel Harris, City Treasurer; Lawrence Hard, Deputy City Attorney; Maxine . Anderson, City Clerk MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1977 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE BILLS BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. * Councilman Harris questioned whether the City should pay for the new City Directory cards since private service organizations are listed on the back of the cards. She questioned using City funds for the listinc_ of private agencies. She suggested that the City Boards and Commissions should have been listed. *MOTION CARRIED. FINAL 1976 EXPENDITURES: Current Street Water Sewer Vouchers No. 1409 - 1447 1409 - 1441 1442 1443 - 1445 1446 • 1447 .BEGINNING 1977 EXPENDITURES: Vouchers No. 1448 - 1573 Current 1448 - 1552 Street 1553 - 1560 Fed. Shared Rev. 1561'- 1562 Water 1563 - 1567 Sewer 1568 - 1573 8,471.24 96.59 93.72 98.90 8,760.45 $ 37,459.13 3,179.91 879.09 1,438.81 10,747.80 $ 53,704.74 G International, Council President Hill suggested that Council revise the agenda since Waiver Request, Diane Attleson, Court Reporter, is present to record the discussion Letter from . under Item 118 -b; requesting Council to reconsider their denial of Owners the waiver requested by CHG International. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, TO CONSIDER AGENDA ITEM 8 -b AT THIS TIME. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Hill stated that the item under consideration is a letter from Frank and Agnes Alberti, Elizabeth F. Holsinger and N.C. • and Cec Tingvall requesting consideration of denial of the request for. waiver by CHG International MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE LETTER UNDER CONSIDERATIF BE READ. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Pesicka read the letter explaining the background of the . purchase of the proposed development site and the owner's opinions on the Public Hearing and the Council's decision to deny the waiver request. TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING 'Page 2 , t_ January 17,• 19.77 c CHG'International, The letter concludes: Before proceeding with a law suit, we would Waiver Request, ask the Council to promptly reconsider a reversal of their decision Letter from and acknowledge that the soils report and the critique by their Owners, Cont. Planning Staff and Public Works Engineer justifies the waiver of 489 in its entirety. City Attorney Hard wanted it made clear that there was a Public Hearing held on January 3, 1977 and proper notice was given for that hearing. Adequate opportunity was given for people to present testimony both • for and against the proposal. The City Council acted on the basis of that hearing. Now, there are no procedures set forth in the Tukwila Municipal Code for a reconsideration by the Council of that decision. There are also no procedures set forth in the Washington State Laws for reconsideration of this matter. This is a peculiar incident, Mr. Alberti has asked the Council to reconsider its'earlier decision. City Attorney Hard advised the Council that if Mr. Alberti has additional testimony or new information or there are people in the audience with new information it should not be presented at this time. This was not posted as a Public Hearing and it would be defective for the Council to take new testimony and make a decision on the basis of that. In fairness to both the applicant and the people opposing this application this should not be a fact finding hearing. Since there are no set procedures, if the Council wishes to reconsider this matter and hear further testimony they should schedule another Public Hearing. It would be all'.right for the Council to describe the action that it took before and give the reasons for having taken that action and answer questions raised by that, but this is'not a fact finding hearing and he urged the Council not to take evidence this evening. Council President Hill stated that he does not feel the Council should have to sit and defend their decision. Councilman Saul stated that he felt this was on the agenda just to read the letter into the record.. By having another Public Hearing, • unless there is a lot of new evidence, what else can be gained? Councilman Van Dusen stated that he made the motion to have this on the agenda because he feels that people, no matter who they are, should have a chance to speak. He agreed with Councilman Saul that he does not want to rehear all of the old testimony. If there is some- thing significantly new that applies it should be heard.. He asked if anyone has anything new? Mr. Frank Alberti stated that it appears the Council does not have the machinery to handle this situation. Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, suggested taking consistent action and he recommended that the Council state that they will not reconsider any items unless the applicant starts over again by reapplying. This would be the same for subdivisions, rezone applications, etc. Councilman Harris stated concern about the understanding of the 'Council's action. In her mind it was not a denial of the right to ever build . multi units on the site. Resolution #489 was adopted to allow time for review of the Comprehensive Plan for future development. The . waiver request was to Resolution ;489, not a waiver to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. This denial of the waiver should not be intended as a denial to build, it is just a denial of a waiver for that period of time that the City is re- evaluating the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE COUNCIL ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF KJELL STOKNES, OCD DIRECTOR, AND ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO REAPPLY IF THEY SO DESIRE. Councilman Traynor stated that the waiver request was just to Resolution #489. The Council denied it once and it looks like all this motion is doing is allowing ti applicant to come back and apply for another waiver. ...: -: _ • _ ALA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR r `:TING j uary 17, 1977 / age 3 8:00 P.M. 8:05 P.M. ( CHG International,.Council President Hill stated that, since the City Attorney recommended Waiver Request, not hearing new testimony this evening, if the applicant has new Lettcr from information this gives them the chance to come back and present it. Owners, Cont. ROLL CALL VOTE: 4 YES - HILL, SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN 3 NO - GARDNER, MS. HARRIS, MS. PESICKA * MOTION CARRIED. Council President Hill expressed his opinion that Resolution #489 was not passed to down -grade any property, it was to slow down development until the review of the Comprehensive Plan is completed. Mr. Tom Johnson, CHG International, stated that since the Council is giving them the chance to reapply he is still unclear as to why the request was denied. The concept is apartments and land stability was discussed. Beyond this, he is not sure what it is the application should be directed to. City Attorney Hard stated that Mr. Johnson has a good point if they are going to make a meaningful re- application. If the Council has anything further as to why they have taken this action, now is the time to tell them. Mr. H. C. Tingvall stated that the Council is saying they are not • going to down -zone but won't let them apply until they have finished the Plan that says they may down -zone. They have the zoning and now the only question is stability. Mr. Tingvall questioned, "Are you listening to the comments of the people or our soils reports ?" Councilman Harris stated that the City Council is charged with the responsibility of the health, safety, and general welfare of the City. The decision of January 3rd was very difficult. There seems to be a misunderstanding on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, it does not zone property. She cautioned the Council in considering any waivers in terms of the emerging Land Use Plan, it is not an official Plan. The proposal may change before it is adopted. If there are changes, they still have to go through the process of scheduled Public Hearings. Mr. Frank Alberti explained that he feels the Council made the de- cision on the comments of people who do not know anything about soils stability. Councilman Van Dusen noted that a lot of people spoke and some did have documentation. The Council wants to do the right thing and now they have given the developer a vehicle to proceed again. Mr. Dennis Robertson, Tukwila - McMicken Action Committee, asked if there is'another Public Hearing would it be on Resolution 0489 in . its entirety or on just certain sections? Mr. Kjel.l Stoknes, OCD Director, stated that he could not accept the waiver request to include Section 4:C, it takes the building permit to trigger that part of it. City Attorney Hard stated that if they wish to reapply, they can re- quest a Public Hearing on which ever parts of Resolution 0489 they feel are appropriate. He cautioned the Council about not turning this into a Public Hearing. . MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE COUNCIL MOVE ON WITH THE AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Hill declared a five minute recess. Council President Hill called the meeting back to order with all- Council members present. . TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL January 17, 1977 AGENDA Ord. #1003 7:00 P.M. Res. # 564 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 3, 1977 4. APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS 5. BID OPENINGS AND AWARDS a. Bid Opening - Telemetering System b. Bid Award - 6" Double Check Valve Assemblies 6. APPOINTMENTS 7. CITIZEN'S COMMENTS S. PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS a. Letter from Steve Hall: W.U.T.C. Hearing, Crossing Closure (Monster Rd.) b. Letter from F. Alberti, E. Holsinger and H. Tingvall requesting consideration of denial of waiver request by CHG International. 9. OLD BUSINESS a. Presentation on the Water System Study by URS Company b. Discussion on purchase of Police Vehicles 10. NEW BUSINESS a. Discussion on management audit of City Departments 11. FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES a. An Ordinance providing for an interdepartmental loan between Water /Sewer Construction Fund and the LID #28 Construction Fund. 12. RESOLUTIONS a. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Health Services Agreement between the Seattle -King County Department of Public Health and the City of Tukwila. b. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to renew the 1976 agreement with King County Rape Relief. c. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to renew the 1976 agreement with the Renton Area Youth Services to provide certain social services. d. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a deferred compensation plan for the employees of the City of Tukwila. e. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Val Vue Sewer District for the purpose of establishing latecomer charges for connection to City of Tukwila sanitary sewer facilties constructed .under LID #24. 13. DEPARTMENT REPORTS a. Mayor's Report b. Treasurer's Monthly Report of Investments 14. MISCELLANEOUS AND FURTHER AUDIENCE COMMENTS 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Teamster and Police Contracts 16. ADJOURNMENT Seattle, Wash. January 10, 1977 Mayor and City Council of Tukwila Res CHG Internatial Waiver Request McMicken Heights January 3, 1977 Gentlemen: The Tukwila City Council, by its action, on Monday night, January 3, 1977, has not continued the spiritp of the Bicentennial nor shown a display of basic grass roots democracy. It has instead reverted to a pre 1776 autocratic government, that has abused its powers, twisted its laws, even ignored the advice of their own mayor, legal counsel, planning staff, director of public works, and last but not least, ignored the tests of an independent honored testing laboratory. It rendered a decision as preposterous as legally callimg white, black, and in so doing has destroyed, for all concerned, any integrity of zoning managment, Tukwila ever may have had. It furthermore rendered a decision that if not reversed, will cost us the life savings, we three families have put into our retirement fund. We believed it, when we bought the property as multiple density; also when we communicated with the City Council over the years. We believed the planning staff when they asked us to get a oils test in November, 1976; a test that was made by a firm approved by pie planning staff. That soils report cost us, the land owners, several thousand dollars. We believed we had a good soils report when we read it, and again when we read the planning staff's report and the Public Works director's critique which referred to the soils testing as extensive and adequate to provide safe foundations for the project. Mr. Alberti, as a registered Professional engineer, specializ- ing in hazard evaluation and retained by municipalaties as well as the private sector, can personally tell you, with the certified comprehensive study made by a reliable old firm and with the total lack of evidence to ,the contrary, this report is enough to justify any public official approval of stability. $ nd it has certainly con• • vinced the developer, who, when the project is built would stand to lose the most, if a failure occurred. We certainly believed we had multiple zoning, when we entered into our agreement with CHG, to sell the land to them, add we believed it, at least twice a year, when we paid taxed on multiple density zoning. The value of the land, even if single family development were allowed, would be less than the taxes and interest we have paid. As matters now stand, we, the owners of the land, stand to lose a considerable sum of money and our land is made useless for any sale or any development by denial of the waiver. Three families purchased this land over a period of 15 years, as a retirement annuity, This is a loss that we as common people cannot accept, since this sale represents what we will have to augment Social Security income, coming at our time of life would be an extreme financial hardship. We still h everybody will where everybody We cannot various members were made with We cannot low density apa in value to the change already were built and We believe we go to court make the projec Just as we preserved, we b to the west and of us can have Tukwila. We be for each of us, the rights of t ve the ingredients for solving this problem, so that ain -- or we have the ingredients of a messy lawsuit is going to lose. ccept the frivilous statements that were made by of the community, relative to soils stability which he intent of stopping the development. ccept the statement that the two and three story tments screened by a wooded area would cause a loss neighborhood. The character. of the neighborhood hanged when South enter and the freeway interchange ',hen this was zoned multiple. that the money that all of us would spend, should could go to providing certain amenities that would of minimum impact. believe that the integrity of our zoning should bz lieve that same thing about the single family zoning south of our project. As matters now stand none ny faith in present or future zoning management in ieve that some measure of integrity should be shown each preserving his own - neither encroaching on e other. We have al -eady shown that we are not greedy by reducing the number of units far below the number of units of its designated land use. We f el fortunate in having CBG as a buyer. All;of their submissions thu- far, according to the City planners, indicate a high sensitivity to the community. We feel reasonable requests from the community c still be incorporated into the plans. The developers are only saying "Let us get on with the application for building permit, so that we know we have a project." We are convinced this is the best offer the community will ever have for this property. Before pro eeding with a law suit, we would ask the Council to promptly reconsider-a reversal of their decision and acknowledge that the soils report and the critique by their planning staff and public works en'ineer justifies the waiver of 489 in its entirety. Frank & Agnes Alberti Elizabeth F. Holsinger H. C. & Cec Tin,gvall January 10, 1977 17:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVAL OF .' MINUTES DISCUSSION International Waiver Request - McMicken Heights BID OPENING: 6" Double Check Valve Assemblies Request to allow URS Co. to make presentation on the Water System Study Res. to enter into an agreement with Val Vue Sewer Dist. - Latecomer Agree- ment, LID 1124 TUKWILA CITY LUU IUIL r' COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINf MINUTES 1.1Zy mail Council Chambers Council President Hill called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order. GARDNER, TRAYNOR, HILL, SAUL, MS. PESICKA, VAN DUSEN. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE DECEMBER 13, 1976 MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. MOVED BY MS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE AGENDA BE AMENDED TO ALLOW MR. FRANK ALBERTI TO PRESENT A LETTER REQUESTING RECONSI- DERATION OF WAIVER TO RESOLUTION NO. 489. CARRIED. Mr. Alberti stated he was one of the land owners along with Mrs. Elizabeth F. Holsinger and Mr. and Mrs. H. C. Tingvall and he would like consideration given to the letter they had prepared requesting the City Council to consider a reversal of their decision to deny a waiver request to Resolution No. 489. Mrs. Holsinger read the letter requesting reconsideration of the waiver request to the Council and the audience. Council President Hill said he would like the Council to read and study the letter and think about it. He said there would be a meeting of the Committee of the Whole on January 24, 1977 and the matter could be discussed at that time. Councilman Van Dusen said he thought it should be discussed at the City Council fleeting on January 17, 1977. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE WAIVER REQUEST BE DISCUSSED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 17, 1977. CARRIED. Bids on the 6" Double Check Valve Assemblies were opened as follows: Familian Northwest, Inc. 2 Complete Units, including sales. tax ITT Grinnell Per Unit 2 Sets H. D. Fowler Company 2 Sets, including sales tax $ 3,574.11 $ 1,669 $ 3,338 $ 3,439.31 Hinds Supply Company 2 Sets, including sales tax •$ 4,061.78 Poison Supply Company 2 Sets, including sales tax $ 3,551.45 (Bid Bond did not accompany bid) MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE BIDS BE REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATI( THEN' BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL. CARRIED. MOVED BY MS. PESICKA, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE URS COMPANY MAKE A PRESENTATION ON THE WATER SYSTEM STUDY AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 17, 1977. CARRIED. Steve Hall, Public Works Director, read letter he had directed to the City Council requesting that the final study as prepared by URS Co. be on the regular City Council Meeting agenda for January 17, 1977. He requested that the City Council have a resolution drawn to enter into an agreement with Val Vue Sewer District._ . MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT A RESOLUTION BE. DRAWN UP AND BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE JANUARY 17, 1977 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. _CARRIED. . FLAG ;, AND CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS OFFICIALS IN I ATTENDANCE January 3, 1977 7:00 P.M. MINUTE APPROVAL • VOUCHER APPROVAL PUBLIC._HEARINGS G International Waiver Request : Tukwila School 7:15 P.M. • TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tukwila City Hall M I N U T E S Council Chambers Mayor Bauch, presiding, led the Pledge of Allegiance and called the Tukwila City Council meeting to order. GARDNER, MS. HARRIS, HILL, MS. PESICKA,.SAUL, TRAYNOR, VAN DUSEN John McFarland, Administrative Assistant; Steve Hall, Public Works Director; Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director; Hubert Crawley, Fire Chief; Lawrence Hard, Deputy City Attorney; Maxine Anderson, City Clerk. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 1976 BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE BILLS BE ACCEPTED AND WARRANTS BE DRAWN IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS. MOTION CARRIED. Vouchers No. 1323 - 1408 Current Street Water Sewer 1323 - 1384 1385 - 1396 1397 - 1400 1401 - 1408 $ 31,560.86 7,068.02 7,977.36 1,261.36 $ 47,867.60 Mayor Bauch announced that this item was of great interest to the ciitzen5 of the McMicken Heights area and that there was a group at the school waiting to be heard during the Public Hearing. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE MEETING BE RECESSED AND RECONVENED AT TUKWILA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Bauch announced that Diane Attleson, Court Reporter, is in attendance to record the Public Hearing. Verbatum transcripts.will be available through her office at 607 Central Building, Seattle, Wa. phone 622 -0111. He then called the Regular Meeting back to order and introduced City Attorney Larry Hard. Attorney Hard stated that this is a Public Hearing, it is important, it is required by the law that it be conducted in an objective and fair manner. The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine requires . .that the Council, as the finder of fact and as the legislators of the City must, at all times, be objective and fair in decision making. Attorney Hard stated that there are guide lines for each of the Council - members to consider. After they have had a chance to think about them, he.will ask if anyone of them feels it would be inappropriate for him to remain as a voting member of the Council for this hearing. The Doctrine requires that, if you have financial interest in the outcome of this hearing, either directly or indirectly, you should not be a finder of fact and should not vote on this matter. Second, you should consider whether you have conducted yourself, prior to this hearing, in a way that would render you not a disinterested person. Public Hearing Mayor Bauch opened the Public Hearing on the granting of a waiver to Opened, 7:22 P.M. Tukwila City Council Resolution #489 as requested by CHG International, Inc. He introduced Kjell Stokness, OCD Director, who gave a brief review on the background of the request for waiver. Mr. Stoknes explained that the property in question is North of South 160th Street and East of 51st Ave. South. It is presently zoned for apartments (RMH). The proposed development is for two or three story buildings. The waiver under discussion is to Resolution #489, adopted August' of 1975. The Resolution limits rezones or changes in the . Comprehensive Plan, unless they come before the Council first and be granted the right to actually make the application to the City Staff. In addition, it also requires a waiver through the City Council .for actions that are proposed in potentially unstable areas or areas where there is significant amounts of storm '. at3r run -off. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING ' January 3, 1977 Page 2 _. Public Hearing Continued This evening the Council is considering whether or not the proposed development is safe to build based on the geology and soils of the property as well as the standing water on the property. The applicants have submitted a site plan, soils analysis and a Geotechnica Evaluation Report. Mr. Stoknes noted Section 4:C of Resolution #489 which says that after the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, if one is done, the Council finds that whatever the action is can be precedent setting or contains significant environmental impacts which will not be solved they can again take action and deny the building permit. However, this is not an item to be considered this evening. Mayor Bauch introduced CHG International as the Developer of the . property and offered them time to make a to the Council. Mr. Thomas L. Fishburne, Attorney; 2200 One Washington Plaza, Tacoma; introduced himself as representing CHG International. He requested an answer to Attorney Hard's submittal to the Council on the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine before proceeding. Attorney Hard agreed, no one at the Council table volunteered they should abstain from voting. Mr. Fishburne stated that their submittal would address Sections 4:D.1 Garden.Court Style. The Developer, CHG International, is an experienced builder of both single and multiple family buildings. Mr. Fishburne introduced Dr. George R. Knight of Pacific Testing Laboratories whose Company prepared the soils testings report that was submitted to the City; Mr. Thomas Johnson, Architect and Planner from CHG International and Mr. Frank Alberti, one of the property owners. He explained that their approach is to establish the evidence by two objectives: 1. To establish that neither 4:D.1 nor 4:D.2 are applicable to the site. 2. To show they can meet all requirements for a waiver Mr. Fishburne introduced four exhibits: #1 - two Staff Reports, #2 - the Geophysical Report, #3 large plot plan, and #4 - cross section drawing. He asked if the opposition had exhibits to introduce. Mr. Dennis L. Robertson introduced himself as President of the Tukwila- McMicken Action Committee and stated that this is not a court hearing, and he did not feel it was necessary to mark exhibits nor have their Attorney present. Mr. Fishburne introduced Dr. Knight who explained his background in Soils Mechanics. He explained that they were contacted by Mr. Alberti to do a Geotechnical Appraisal of the site and explained how the study was accomplished. He concluded that the eleven acre site has been carefully appraised for all geotechnical aspects of the development as planned by CHG International, Inca From field evaluations and research of the site, no geotechnical conditions were found that would bar the development as planned at its current level. The subsoil conditions can be classified as excellent for the support of the surface facility planned. Mayor Bauch asked if anyone else wanted to speak in'favor of this development. Miss Helen Nelsen, former property owner, gave a brief history of the annexation and rezone of the site. This occurred in 1960. Mr. Glen Butler, adjacent property owner to the South, stated that his property was tested and approved for a four story building about seven years ago. Mr. Tom Carey,corner 53rd and Klickitat, purchased the property adjacent to the proposed development site as an investment because it was zoned RMH. Any change in zoning now will directly affect him. GIILA CITY COUNCIL REGULAPCEETING anuary 3, 1977 Page 3 Public Hearing Continued Mr. John L. Barnes, property owner and resident of the area, annexed his property and had it rezoned to RMH in 1961. He stated he is in favor of this development. Mrs. Warehime, property owner to the North, spoke in favor of this development. . Being no further comments in favor of granting the waiver, Mayor Bauch, recognized those opposed. Mr. Leo J. Sowinski, 16050 - 51st Ave. South, read the petition presented to the Council by the McMicken hill home owners to deny request for waiver to the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Plan by the CHG Internationa' Inc. of Tacoma, Washington. He stated that there are 282 signatures. Mr. Dennis L. Robertson read his letter to the Council dated December 30, 1976. His letter states that the residents of the McMicken Heights area would like the Council to turn down the request for waiver simply because they have petitioned the Council to do so but realize that this wouldn't be fair or legal. Therefore, they have attempted to learn and apply the correct laws, procedures and logic. The letter further states that it is their Attorney's opinion that 4:C.1, 4:C.2 and 4:D.3 can and should apply at this time. His letter raises several questions concerning the engineering reports provided by CHG. He concludes that the spirit of Resolution 0489 was to delay any significant new land usage until the people affected could state their desires. We " know our desires - no large apartments on our hill. Mr. Robertson asked the City Attorney if Sections 4:C and 4:D.3 apply at this time. City Attorney Hard stated that this request is not a major action and does not require an Environmental Impact Statement to apply for a building permit. If Council grants the waiver and an application for a building permit is received, then an environmental assessment will be required. After an environmental assessment has been filed then Section 4:C may apply. Mayor Bauch asked if there were further comments from the audience. Mr. Bill Street, 4617 So. 166th, stated that he had property on South 166th which was suppose to be stable but it wasn't. . Mrs. Darlene West, 5212. South 164th, asked about the triangle site marked Washington State in the middle of the development. She was told it belongs to the State Highway Department. She questioned the stability of this land, noting, that 53rd Ave.. South continues to have sliding problems. Mr. Bud Evans questioned the slide area 200 feet North of this site ' and noted that a significant earthquake could cause slides. Mr. Jim McKenna, home owner in the area, quoted from the Tukwila Data Inventory and noted that the area in question is marked as unstable on the map. Mrs. Lasher stated that they had tried to purchase property from the State that is adjacent to their property and the State says the land is unstable and will not sell it to them. Mrs. Cole, 51st Ave. South, noted that during the construction of the freeway there was a terrific slide and this showed that there is blue clay underneath. Blue clay is slippery. Mr. Robert Crain, South 163rd Place, noted that Klickitat is buckling in the vicinity of the South bound on-ramp to I -5. This has shown up just since the State started work on the bridge. Mrs. Joan Hoskin has been a resident of the area for 37 years: .It is suburban, residential and should remain so. She noted there has been drainage problems for many years. January Page 4 Public Hearing Continued , 1977 .. .'. S 1 h Mr. John Shone, corn 17 oi 46�h Dt Ave. South and So. 160th, noted that _when he was building has basement it filled with about 21/2 feet of water. There is a lot of water run -off under this ground. . Mr. Ernie Onorati, resident of the area for over 20 years, noted water run -off problems that had occurred in the past in this area. Mr. Steve Hall, 4305 South 158th, stated that the citizens from his area had signed petitions against a rezone in August of 1976. He quoted from a letter he had written the County at that time in opposition to rezoning any property to apartments in his area. Mr. Fred Shoemaker, 4900 South 151st, stated that he uses Klickitat Ave.I and has noted many street problems due to disturbances underground. Mr. McKenna stated that this is precedent setting and will not be mitigated, quality of air and noise will get worse. In his opinion, Resolution #489 is against granting this waiver. Mrs. McKay, So. 164th, we do not need any more traffic in this area. Mr. Harry Van Wyck asked about the availability of utilities and was told that water and sewer are available, storm drainage will be discussed further. • Mrs. Darlene West said•she wondered about this being precedent' setting. It seems more logical to have a dividing line between residential and apartments. It seem that the main highways should be the dividing F lines. The City Council is committed to do the best for the most - people in its City and these single family dwellers are the most. Other residents asked questions concerning drainage, lateral stability, slide possibilities, plot plan, exits, etc. Mr. Knight spoke again on these points and noted that they are included in his report. Mr. Fishbur reviewed the exhibits presented and stated that they can not solve the emotional problem, the issue is strictly engineering. He suggested to. the Council to grant the waiver subject to the provision that Pacific Testing Laboratories be retained, at the developers expense, to give official certified approval to the drawings before a building permit is issued. • They can deal with Section 4:C at a later date. Mr. Robert Crain asked if the Council does grant the waiver will the citizens have assurance it will come back to the Council later or will it go through the Planning, Staff and the local regional government agencies for their approval. , Mayor Bauch called a short recess to allow the Court, Reporter time to change tape in the recording machine. The meeting was called back to order and Mayor Bauch stated that he would recognize anyone fvho had something new to offer.. Mr. Dick Goe, resident, stated that the Comprehensive Plan that was in existance at the time of the original rezone has come under concern to the extent that a new Comprehensive Plan is being worked on. The problems of consideration here is engineering. He discussed Resolution #489, the soils report and engineering. He noted that he is not speakinc on behalf of nor for this development. He stated, since the discussion is purely on a technical level, it will have to rest with the technicals on this particular Section of Resolution #489. They will have to rest their case with the City Council that the other portions of 489 were put in there for the protection of the land owners and that they will be considered. There being no further comments Mayor Bauch declared the Public Hearing closed. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY uS. PESICKA, THAT THIS ITEM BE REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JANUARY 10, 1977. * / <WILA CITY COUNCIL REGUL( 1EETING January 3, 1977 Page 5 ,i lver request Councilman Traynor stated that the Council has the information here this CHG International evening and he feels there is no reason to delay another week, the Continued Council should act on this now. Councilman Harris suggested, since the agenda for the Committee of the Whole meeting is already full, that the Council go into a Committee of the Whole meeting now to discuss this. =; ': Foster Gol f Course Councilman Van Dusen stated he would like a chance to research some of the points that were brought out. Councilman Saul stated that the people have come here tonight to hear what the Council has to say. *ROLL CALL VOTE: 4 NOS - GARDNER, MS. HARRIS, SAUL, TRAYNOR; 3 AYES - HILL, MS. PESICKA, VAN DUSEN. MOTION FAILED. MOVED BY MS. HARRIS, SECONDED BY TRAYNOR, THAT THE COUNCIL CONVENE • INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THIS. MOTION CARRIED. Council President Hill presided at the Committee of the Whole Meeting. Councilman Traynor noted that Resolution #489 was passed to allow time to complete the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that his understanding is that you have to take the whole Resolution, not a piece at a time. If you are going to waive Resolution #489 you consider every item. Council continued to discuss items that had been raised during the Public Hearing. They asked for clarification from Kjell Stoknes, OCD Director, as to maximum units that could be built on the property, questioned the height requirements and asked if the City had been furnished material to back up the soils report. Councilman Harris stated concern that the Council has seen nothing that says this is unstable ground and this was causing a dilemma. Councilman Traynor asked where the data from the Data Inventory map came from and was told from USGS maps. There being no further discussion, MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE COUNCIL GO BACK INTO REGULAR SESSION. MOTION CARRIED. '9:50 P.M. Mayor Bauch declared a 5 minute recess. . CITIZEN'S COMMENTS • MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE WAIVER BE DENIED. MOTION CARRIED. Bill Aliment, Foster Golf Course, said that there are many people wondering the status on the purchase of the Golf Course as they have had no communication with the City. He offered help to the City in obtaining a professional committee to evaluate the facility. Mayor Bauch stated that the City's Financial Agent has a copy of the books and that Staff is compiling information. The City is attempting to put together enough information so they can make a reasonable • and intelligent assessment. He stated that he was hoping to have a rcpor back to the Council in about two weeks. Mr. K.jell Stoknes, OCD Director, stated that the City should be ready for financing by the first part of March and finalize the plans by June 1st. ,pETITIOos. CCM,NiCATIONS, APPEALS AND SIMILAR MATTERS _ Vnr O� Clty ? 5i '�r1 ... 1.1 : ;elp,, '`, r ead letter ,. to the t, t 4y Council was tiun number one i.i aniWe ed APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 20, 1976 APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS January 3, 197/7 7:00 P.M. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 2. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 3. 4. 5. APPOINTMENTS.' 6. - PUBLIC HEARINGS - ! CHG International Waiver request (McMicken Heights) CITIZENS' COMMENTS • PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS, APPEALS'AND SIMILAR MATTERS Letter from Mayor Bauch concerning'City Hall • • • OLD BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT 11. DEPARTMENT REPORTS a. Mayor's Report b. City Attorney's Report TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA • Ord. #1003 • Res. # 563 Annexation petition application: :: K. Bradley and Elmire N. Bradley 10. RESOLUTIONS Resolution authorising the'Mayor to extend the Defense . Agreement with King County, Washington. 12. MISCELLANEOUS AND FURTHER AUDIENCE COMMENTS • it Eivii ORAN D U �� Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor II` r , e OF ITIVOIVOL4 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 December 27, 1976 TO: City Council FROM: Kjell Stoknes SUBJECT: CHG International Waiver request (McMicken Heights Attached please find the information I have on the above subject. I am releasing it early to give you more time to review it for your decision on January 3, 1977. KS:nb Attachments: 1. Steve Hall's letter on soil report. 2. Soils report. 3. Letter from Fred Satterstrom regarding the State Environmental Policy Act. 4. Letter from City Attorney regarding City Council's decision rights 5. City Council Staff report dated 24 November 1976 6. Waiver request 7. Vicinity Maps PETITION BY MCMICK.t( :TILL HOME OWNERS TO DENY RECCST FOR WAIVER TO THE TUKWILA COMPP.EHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN BY THE CHG INTERNATIONAL INC.. OF TACOMA, WASHINGTON. CITY COUNCIL CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON SUBJECT: WAIVER REQUEST BY CHG INTERNATIONAL OF TACOMA ZONING EXCEPTION ON ELEVEN (11) ACRES OF LAND S0. 160th STREET AND EXTENDING FROM 48th AVE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A ONE HUNDRED UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AS OUTLINED BY THE CHG SITE PLAN. ' JAN. 3, 1977 WASHINGTON TO ALLOW SITUATED NORTH OF SO. TO 53rd AVE SO. AND FOURTY FIVE (i45) INTERNATIONAL INC': PETITION: WE THE UNDERSIGNED PROPERTY OWNERS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION DUE TO ABUTTMENT OR PROXIMITY OF SUBJECT COMPLEX, HEREBY REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUKWILA TO CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE AREA INVOLVED AND DENY SAID WAIVER TO THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. REASONS: HIGH DENSITY DWELLINGS WILL ADVERSLY AFFECT THE SOCIAL AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORMALLY TRANQUIL RESIDENTIAL AREA CONSISTING IN ITS ENTIRETY OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. TRAFFIC GENERATED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF PROPOSED COMPLEX WILL CREATE A HEAVY BURDEN ON S.. 160th. STREET WITH A HIGH POTENTIAL OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND SAFETY HAZARDS TO CHILDREN.. THE PROPOSED COMPLEX WILL BE PRECEDENT SETTING BY VIRTUE OF BEING' THE FIRST MULTIPLE DWELLING ALLOWED IN A TRADITIONALLY SINGLE FAMILY ' DWELLING RESIDENTIAL AREA. MASSIVE DEVELOPEMENT OF MULTIPLE DWELLING COMPLEX WILL DESTROY THE NATURAL VEGETATION THUS ALLOWING A GREATER NOISE PENETRATION FROM TRAFFIC ON INTERSTATE -5 AND HIGHWAY -518. INCREASED TRAFFIC AND PROBABLE SOIL EROSION WILL CONTRIBUTE TO UNDER- MINING OF So. 160th STREET AND 53rd. AVE SO. INFLUX OF TRANSIENT RESIDENTS WILL PLACE AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON' POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT ACTIVETIES. PRESENT OVERALL. NOISE AND AIR QUALITY IN THE AREA IS POOR, BEING CENTERED IN THE GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION BETWEEN INTERSTATE -5, HIGHWAY - 518 AND THE SEATTLE TACOMA AIRPORT AND WOULD BE SUBJECT TO UNMITIGATED NEGATIVE INPUTS IF SAID APARTMENT COMPLEX IS ALLOWED TO BE BUILT', SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS WITHIN THE AREA. CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Tukwila City Council will conduct a Public Hearing on the 3rd day of January 19 77 at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of Tukwila Published: Record - Chronicle - December 15 and 22, 1976. C City Hall, 14475 - 59th Avenue South, to consider the following: REQUEST: Waiver from Resolution #489, Section 4:D.1 and 4:D.2 (grading, cleaning, excavation or filling in potentially unstable areas) PETITIONER: CHG International, Inc. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: South 160th Street at 51st Ave. South (Micken Heights) Any and all interested persons are invited to be present to voice . approval, disapproval or opinions on same. CITY OF TUKWILA Maxine Anderson City ClerkXNMUNNIC Tukwila City Council Tukwila, Washington Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Dennis L. Robertson President, Tukwila - McMicken Action Committee Telephone 242 -6373 December 30, 1976 The residents of the McMicken Heights area in the vicinity of the intended CHG apartment complex would like to ask the Tukwila City Council for help. As you know we are opposed to the building of this, or any apartment or motel complex in our residential neighborhood. We would of course like you to turn down their application simply because we petitioned you to do so. We realize that this is neither fair to CHG and the property owners, or legal. Therefore we have attempted to learn and apply the correct laws, procedures and logic. We realized that this would be a challenging undertaking so we organized ourselves into the Tukwila- McMicken Action Committee. We also realized that the intended CHG apartment complex problem would only be one of many if the new comprehensive land use plan and the city zoning map do not down -zone our neighborhood to single family residential. So we intend to be active until our neighborhood is so down - zoned. While studying the situation we were puzzled by one point. When and how should the different parts of Resolution 489, Section 4 be applied? Apparently, CHG has only applied for a waiver to Section 4:D1 and 4:D2. We were puzzled as to why 4:C1, 4:C2, and 4:D3 are not being addressed at this time? Our attorney researched the applicable Tukwila and State laws and it is his opinion that 4:C1, 4:C2, and 4:D3 can and should apply at this time. There seemed to be some question as to whether 4:C could apply because of it's requirement for an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to state law. Our attorney feels that a waiver to Tukwila Resolution 489 should be considered "Action" under the State SEPA guidelines and as such, should trigger an environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact Statement. The Resolution states that 4:C1 and 4:C2 can then apply after the preparation of the Environmental Assessment or the Environmental Impact Statement. Our committee then feels that the facts of " precedent setting" and "unmitigated environmental impact" are so patently obvious that the waiver will be refused. Also, with regard to 4:D1, 4:D2, and 4:D3, we would like to question several points in the engineering reports provided by CHG. The first report, prepared by Paul R. Weber in December 1975, states that surface drainage "will have to be directed to Tukwila City Council December 30, 1976 Page 2 Sincerely, Dennis L. Robertson. President Tukwila - McMicken Action Committee • the existing drainage conduits." "If the total runoff from the developed site exceeds the capacity of the existing lines, additional drainage facilities will have to be prepared." The report prepared by Pacific Testing Laboratories, November 1976, only mentions "open ditch drainage with proper control to the periphery of the property." Our question with regard to drainage is how will it be handled once it leaves the property? Will CHG pay for increased capacity as 4:D3 states? We would like to point out that this November has been the driest in recorded history and perhaps the engineering report is based on abnormal data with regard to surface water drainage and the exact elevation of the "cohesionless aquifer area." In a sense, the same question with regard to transportation can be raised. This complex will obviously add at least 750 vehicular trips per day to our area. Can our roads handle this? There is no mention of this in their report! As I stated at the start of this letter, we are asking the City Council for help. Ultimately we want our neighborhood down- zoned, but we realize that we must follow the correct procedures so first we would like a statement and legal opinion regarding the application of 489. We believe that it took courage and foresight for the Tukwila City Council to pass Resolution 489. Perhaps it is a little late now, but we sincerely applaud the Council for their action. The spirit of 489 was to delay any significant new land usage until the people affected could state their desires. We know our desires -- no large apartments on our hill. This letter, our petition, and our participation in the Public Hearing are our plea for help. Cd,"4 k 4d';' ••ert Crain Vice President Tukwila - McMicken Action Committee KS:nb M EW ORANDUM Edgar D. Bauch, Mayor CITY DF TUKWILA 14475 - 59TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98067 December 27, 1976 TO: City Council FROM: Kjell Stoknes SUBJECT: CHG International Waiver request (McMicken Heights) Attached please find the information I have on the above subject. I am releasing it early to give you more time to review it for your decision on January 3, 1977. Attachments: 1. Steve Hall's letter on soil report. 2. Soils report. 3. Letter from Fred Satterstrom regarding the State Environmental Policy Act. 4. Letter from City Attorney regarding. City Council's decision rights 5. City Council Staff report dated 24 November 1976 6. Waiver request 7. Vicinity Maps PUBLI WORKS DEPARTMENT 2230 Southaenter Boulevard Tukwila, Washington 22027 telephone ( 120113 242 - 2177 December 17, 1976 0 Z Mr. Kjell Stoknes Director, Office of Community Development 6230 Southcenter Blvd. J _ Tukwila, Washington 98188 CI Dear Kjell: j CHG International Development he Soils Report (P.T.L.) CC As you have requested, I have reviewed the Pacific Testing Laboratory's 4 geotechnical evaluation report and find it to be quite thorough in its IL analysis of the existing and potential problems within the site develop- ii ment area. I have the following comments to make and feel that they W should be considered at the time that a building permit would be issued for any development. il W In the Abstract, P.T.L. notes that the "site is stable ", however, they 01 have several conditions attached to this within the report which qualify ii and make very specific recommendations as to these conditions. W Some of the specific items which should be addressed in any final report a attached to a building application would include the following: 3 1. Stratigraphy -- J, K Area, page 6. This refers to the • predominant water supply in springs immediately to the west of the area and the necessary precautions for drain- '. age control and foundation preparation. W W 2. In reference to the stratigraphy of the L and M areas on Cr page 6, paragraph 3 report refers to the loose density of i• the upper few feet which will require special considera- te tion in compaction or depth of foundation. 0 3. On page 7 in the upper paragraph, a reference is made to Z structural backfill in reference to this particular area iE and the compaction requirements. W 4. In paragraph 2, lines 4 thru 7, there is reference to the W steep bank sections and special consideration for same. Z (' 5. On page 8, notes 2 and 3 are of considerable importance Z and reference for future decisions. W 6. On page 8, paragraph 5, Slope Constraints -- D, E, G, H Area, they make reference to the indications of "minor ' evidences of surface creep." which should be taken into account during the final design and construction phases. Mr. Kjell Stoknes December 17, 1976 Page 2 SMH /dp cc: Mr. Richard K. Williams Sincerely yours, 7. On page 9, paragraph 2, reference is made to potential of major slope failure which could be critical and definite evaluation should be made in the final design phases of this proposed project. 8. On page 11 in reference to retaining walls, it refers to a 3 -on -12 slope for typical rock retaining walls with a maximum height of 12 feet. In the final design, if rock - eries are utilized, a thorough analysis of the natural angle of repose and recommendations as to maximum loadings should be included as to the potential of surcharging a toe of the slope at the base of any rock wall. 9. On page 11, Future Civil Considerations, this office strongly recommends that if this project is made viable and proceeds to the construction stage that this paragraph be carefully taken into account because of the known problems in the area.per this particular report of the Pacific Testing Laboratory and the attached supporting report prepared by Mr. Paul Weber. All in all, as a preliminary soils study, I feel it is quite adequate as it appears to address all the potential problems and hazards of this particular site and evaluates them in a realistic manner. As previously stated, it would be the strong recommendation of this office that at the time of building permit application, that further studies be made as to detailed items as out- lined in preliminary P.T.L. site study and that all recommendations of this report be adhered to as reasonably as possible. I hope that this report is satisfactory to you, however, if you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask me and I will attempt to answer them. • Steven M. Hall, P. E. Public Works Director PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS SOUTH CENTER COMPLEX. DEVELOPMENT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Prepared For: FRANK ALBERTI AND ASSOCIATES P.O. BOX 99155 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 Prepared By: PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES 3220 17TH AVENUE W. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 Chief Engineer: NOVEMBER 17, 1976 CERTIFICATE NO. 7610 -67 Engineering Geologistt Brian E. Christianson CONSULTING ENGINEERS CE ME SE. EE STRUCTURAL INSTRUMENTATION NOT - ISOTOPE X -RAY ULTRASONIC STRENGTH OF MATERIALS LAB November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Frank Alberti & Associates P.O. Box 99155 Seattle, WA 98119 Gentlemen: Very truly yours, PACIFIC STING LABORATO'IES Dr. GeoO R. Knight Chief Engineer DRK:sdp • A e PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES • EXECUTIVE OFFICES 3220- 17TH AVENUE WEST PHONE 282 -0666 SEATTLE 98119 WASHINGTON Attention: Mr. Frank Alberti Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Report South Center Complex, Tukwila, Washington We have completed the primary foundation evaluation and general geo- technical study for the South Center Complex. The report for this phase of the development anticipated is attached. As understood by all parties, this geotechnical study was to evaluate site suitability and provide primary guidelines for construction design of the various components of the South Center Complex. From conversations with Mr. Johnson, we have been able to provide the guidelines that he desires for the detailed planning without placing extreme constraint for the most economically engineered site development. Should any questions or clarification be required on the report, certainly feel free to contact us. As the project design develops we recommend that Pacific Testing Laboratories be commissioned to provide consultation during the final phases of design and the initiation of construction to ensure any specific site anomalies are properly corrected at the time of discovery. • CONSULTING GEOLOGISTS GEOLOGICAL SURVEYS SOIL TEST BORINGS SOIL MECHANICS APPLIED EARTH SCIENCES A Wnshlnntnn Corporation furnishinn FnnineerInn service% by and under the snnervkinn nt .nnktered nrnfes%innal engineers. C79 • November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 ABSTRACT PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATIONS SOUTH CENTER COMPLEX DEVELOPMENT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON As requested and authorized by Mr. Frank Alberti, Pacific Testing Labor- atories has completed the geotechnical evaluation of the South Center Complex located in Tukwila, Washington. The findings of this evaluation show that the preliminary development plans as prepared by CHG International 'are compatible with the South Center site geotechnical conditions. As herein detailed, the evidenced subsurface conditions show the site is stable and can be properly developed at the currently planned conservative level. The recommendations incorporated within this report for all aspects of the development are based on a completed development potential that should be free of problems related to geotechnical origin. SITE LOCATION AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The eleven acre site planned for development is located in South Seattle in the western foothills of the Green River Valley. The site is more specifically located to the south and west of the intersection of Interstate 5 and 405. As shown on the plot plan giving specific perimeter streets, the property is divided into two parcels of 8.4 and 2.6 acres. The planned development for the site as presented by Mr. Frank Alberti and prepared by CHG International calls for eleven structures containing 145 liv- ing units and an associated parking development of 250 spaces. In addition to the primary buildings planned other common occupancy facilities are indicated for development in the form of landscape areas, swimming pool, and tennis court. The preliminarily planned individual buildings can be stated as very similar in anticipated construction materials and loadings. Each of the buildings, incorporating eight to eighteen living units, are 2 -3 story units with the lower unit floor serving as a slab -on -grade or daylight basement construction. The schematically planned units are predominantly frame construction above all November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 2 PREDRILLING STUDIES AND INFORMATION PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES V"' concrete' construction necessary to achieve above grade elevations. Even though the current planning of individual buildings is schematic in nature, it is anticipated that the average loading created by the structures for the subsurface loadings is extremely light. The class of construction indicates that the physical magnitudes are equivalent to that of typical residential. The general site terrain with west to east ground slopes existing indicate each individual building will require siting design for proper exposure on the uphill and downhill sides, optimum earthwork balance and still maintain primary considerations of clearing, grubbing and the founding in'undisturbed materials. To compliment Pacific Testing Laboratories existing knowledge of the specific area the following client supplied information was made available: 1. The preliminary drawings showing the planned development as prepared by CHG International, Inc. These drawings are excellent for the purpose of the initial geotechnical evaluation of the entire site complex. However, it should be noted that these drawings are under- stood to be based on legal property descriptions and topography obtained from other sources believed to be aerial surveys of the greater'Seattle area. 2. The 21 October, 1976 letter prepared by Mr. Fred Satterstrom, Associate Planner for the City of Tukwila. This letter, in general, is the results of the environmental questionnaire review submitted by CHG International for the proposed South Center Complex. It expresses the justifiable concerns for more specific geotechnical information of the site to facilitate in the total planning. 3. The 1 December, 1975 report of the site evaluation by Mr. Paul R. Weber. This excellent surface geology site evaluation describes the site and recommends further evaluation of possible construction constraint for the development of the South Center Complex. PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES QV November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 3 4. A set of test borings prepared by Metropolitan Engineers showing the shallow subsurface conditions on the east and south perimeter of parcel A of the site. These drillings were presumed made for the buried utilities system that now exists in that area adjacent to the site. The above supplied information, after careful review and confirmation by Pacific Testing Laboratories surface geology appraisal of the site, led to the programming of a subsurface exploration program that would, in general, answer the subsurface geotechncial requirements for the project development. The planned subsurface exploration program broke the site into three areas that require individual addressment. These areas are classified in accord- ance with the CHG International building locations shown on the preliminary drawings and are as follows: 1. The southwest portion of Parcel B, which is in general the high west segment of the property. For the purpose of correlation, this area is 'defined as that containing buildings A,B,C,D,E,G and H. It is within this area that the swimming pool common facility complex indicated as area F is located. 2. The northeast portion of Parcel B. This area is the lower portion of Parcel B where surface geology indicated potential groundwater problems due to the existing springs. Within the zone are located buidlings J and K and the anticipated common facility tennis court. 3. The Parcel A portion of the site that is located to the east of Parcel B. In general, this is the lower portion of the development plan and that area with perimeter drilling performed by Metropolitan Engineers. With the agreed predrilling program, the field crews were mobilized for the subsurface operations. PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 4 FIELD DRILLING PROGRAM Following necessary site access clearing, a B -75 track mounted heavy duty rotary mobile drill was moved to the site. This unit was utilized to advance five deep test holes and obtain the necessary meaningful samples. The actual borings were advanced utilizing standard penetration techniques using a two inch OD split spoon sampler driven with a 130 lb. hammer having a 30 inch free fall. In all cases for this evaluation the sampler position was extended to ground surface with BW rod. During the entire field operation an engineering geologist supervised the drilling program, collected the sample, made the appropriate field classific- ations and returned the samples to the laboratory for additional testing. STRATIGRAPHY - A,B,C,D,E,G,H AREA To appraise the subsurface conditions of this area, two deep test borings (No. 4 and 5) were drilled in the general locations of buildings E and G. Naturally the attached drill logs show in detail the subsurface conditions encountered. However, the general stratigraphy as previously anticipated shows . that the subsurface materials are pre - Pleistocene deposit materials at depths in excess of five to ten feet. These pre- Pleistocene materials show extremely high blow counts and high relative density for their soil classification. The materials are of nature that due to precompression during the Pleistocene . period their strength properties are extremely high and illustrate the potential for all practical purposes of no deep seated settlement problems. In these test holes the deep basal very hard grey clayey silt was encountered at an elevation of approximately 225 feet. This dense material extending to an unknown depth functions as the basal hardpan layer for water table movement. The dense sands and gravels located above the hard grey clayey silt was encountered at an elevation of approximately 225 feet. This dense material extending to an unknown depth functions as the basal hardpan layer for water table movement. The dense sands and gravels located above the hard grey clay material showed an approximate water table elevation of elevation 260. This elevation indicates that the more cohesionless acquifer area, at the particular time of this subsurface exploration, existed between elevations 260 and 235. November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 5 Lltr PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES Above the pre - glacial materials approximately five to eight feet of post glacial medium dense sands were encountered. Overlying these sands were the typical organic mat of material that would be anticipated as typical of the native vegetated area. The surface geology and probing of the balance of this area indicate that the subsurface conditions of the area should be equivalent to those found in the two test holes. STRATIGRAPHY - J, K AREA Two test borings (Nos. 2 and 3) were advanced in the J, K area. These borings were placed in the vicinities of each of the buildings to ascertain as much information as possible about this area of the site. The attached bore logs show in detail the subsurface conditions encountered. However, it can be stated that the subsurface conditions, as evidenced in borings 4 and 5, are based on strong pre - glacial hard grey clayey silt. The encountered elevations of the top surface of this material were at elevation 230 in test boring No. 3 and at elevation 205 in test boring No. 2. The correlation of test boring No. 3 with test borings Nos. 4 and 5 indicate a relatively level subsurface hard clay zone. The deeper position of the hard clay silt of test boring ..No. 2 indicates a definite dipping to the north of this strata. It is conceivable that this dipping is the result of glacial period slumping or erosion of the pre - glacially deposited materials. Overlying the basal dense silty or clayey silt are the cohesionless sands and gravels typical of the area. The materials, in general, beyond a depth of ten feet can be classified as medium dense materials. With this condition it is anticipated that any surface development would not experience the constraints of deep seated settlement. The upper strata of potential bearing materials should be classified as loose to medium dense fine sands and silty sand type materials. Above these materials are the typical organic deposits to a depth of up to three feet as would be expected within this area of the site. The elevation of the water table encountered at both test borings was approx- imately elevation 235. This elevation is compatible with the subsurface PACIFIC 'TESTING LABORATORIES November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 6 conditions and the general known west to east drainage of the site. The predominant water supply is from the springs immediately to the west of this building area. Due to the greater depths of post glacial material and the groundwater conditions of this area of the site, special precautions as here- in later detailed will have to be taken for drainage control and foundation . preparation. STRATIGRAPHY - L, M AREA To establish the subsurface conditions of this area one test boring (No. 1) was placed in the area of building M. The test boring, confirmed by the attached drilling log of 1968 adjacent to the parcel, show the subsurface conditions to be underlain by pre - glacial very stiff grey clay. The elevation of the pre - glacial materials is in the vicinity of elevation 185 or approx- imately 15 feet beneath the existing ground surface. The general position- ing of this strata of undisclosed depth indicates.a general stratigraphy sloping from west to east of the pre - glacial grey clayey silt. The material of this nature of high precompression -loads shows that this area of the site should experience no design constraints to the potential of deep seated settlement. The overlying post glacial materials are primarily sands of medium density and low moisture content. The surface materials of this area are primary humus and organic loose mat- erials typical of a wet vegetated area. The upper few feet of the material shows loose densities that will require special compactive effort depending upon positioning of building foundation depths. It is important to note that this bore log discloses minimal moisture con- tents within the post glacial sands. This condition is apparently caused by groundwater discharge in the area loated between parcels A and B and possible flow from the K building area to the east and north. PRELIMINARY DESIGN BEARING CAPACITIES The bearing capacities for the specific design of each individual building are given within this section of the report. It is extremely important to November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 7 PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES note that these are given and should be utilized with the realization that final positioning of the structures may change due to the factors recommended within this report and other constraints of total site development. In general, these bearing capacities are given assuming that all footings extend into undisturbed material and that material is field verified for in -situ condition. In all cases it is assumed that the general design of the building will be a cut for the lower floor living area and the organic mat properly removed from beneath the building. In the construction of individual buildings it is recommended, of course, that all necessary over excavation be replaced . with clean granular structural backfill and compacted to 97 percent of maximum density as defined by ASTM D- 1557. Building Approximate Natural Anticipated Ground Surface Bearing Capacity A 330 3,000 B ' 312 3,000 ' C 310 3,000 D 300 3,000 El 292 3,000 G 298 3,000 H 300 3,000 J 244 2,000 K 220 2,000 L 222 2,000 M 196 2,000 1 The precise positioning of buildings as based upon the general aerial topography and preliminary constraints to show the site development and utilization. In the development of these particular sites, the actual positioning with regard to the steeper bank section immediately in front of each unit should be carefully established on . the site so that appropriate cut design can be made for the building. For each of these buildings it is • recommended that extreme care be taken, as herein later detailed, in prepara- tion of what could be classified as the front yard of the lower units. PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 8 SUBSURFACE FOOTING DRAINS 2 The building is situated in an area where the underlying material will be loose to medium dense, and careful constraints must be placed upon the footing pad compaction and field verification of in -situ materials. • Final siting may justify overexcavation and engineered backfill. 3 The building is located above the loose to medium dense materials and care should be taken for proof compaction of all bearing areas of material. Due to the terrain relief of the site, it . is recommended as good practice that all buildings should have subsurface footing drains on the uphill side. This is recommended so that during the period of year of heavy rainfall and downslope water movement, water does not accumulate under the slab of the lower living units of the buildings. In the case of buildings J and K there is extra care required because of the shallow groundwater position. For both of these buildings it is definitely recommended that full perimeter footing drains be planned to eliminate any future interior water problems. SLOPE CONSTRAINTS - D,E,G,H AREA Special care should be taken for the steeper slope that exists directly in front of these particular buildings. This slope in its native form does show some minor evidences of surface creep. This creep is considered to be measurable in fractions of an inch per decade but is of significant magni tude could cause long term longevity problems for these specific build- ings. In the final siting of the individual buildings, it is recommended that excavation material which is commonly removed and attempted as fill immediately in front of the unit on the downhill slope be held at a minimum of these build- ings. In general, it is recommended that what would be classified as the front yards for each of these buildings be held at not more than two to three feet of additional surcharge. In the placement of this fill, if found desir- able for the final development of the site, it is recommended that the surface PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 9 organic materials be removed so that a weakened downhill slip plane does not exist. The deeper materials that underly the slope and comprise the potential of a major slope failure, are predominantly the dense and /or stiff materials which have physical properties such that even if saturated the danger of liquifaction due to seismic shock can be considered as nonexistent. SPRING CONTROL - J AND K AREA The control of the springs creating the high groundwater table of the J, K and tennis court area has been carefully evaluated. The first important factor is that several techniques are possible for the development control from horizontal borings to concentrate the groundwater to permitting its natural occurrence and surface ditch collection. The primary factor in sel - ection of control relates to the fact that the groundwater seepage does not represent a stability problem for the steep slope rising to the west. For the purposes of preliminary planning it is fully conceivable that open ditch drainage with proper control to the periphery of the property may be the most satisfactory solution for controlling this spring water. If this solu- tion is not considered in the best interest of the development, it is recommend- ed that the typical french drain installation be considered with connection to underlying perforated pipe for disposal from the area. Also for this area, it is considered important to note that it appears the general site grading will require a waste design in terms of the earthwork. To accommodate this, it appears that the area immediately to the west of the parking for buildings J and K in the vicinity of the tennis courts to the toe of the slope would make an excellent location for the disposal of excess excava- tion. This material, if properly placed, should not hinder future surface development in the form of common tennant facility in this general area. BURIED UTILITIES In general, no subsurface conditions were encountered that should adversely affect buried utilities. It can be stated that the encountered materials November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 10 STREET AND PARKING CONSTRAINTS PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES are more than suitable as the bedding materials for all forms of storm drainage and sanitary disposal systems. In general, the only point of specific constraint that should be considered is the buried utilities in the J, K area where a very high water table can be anticipated during the construc- tion period. This high water table especially in the area of the K building • will necessitate special drainage control during construction and buried utility design for submergence below water table. The subsurface conditions encountered indicate that all of the areas, perhaps with the exception of the J, K area, are suitable for the standard class B pavement design as recommended by the Washington State Chapter of the American Public Works Association. It is anticipated that all of the existing subgrade materials are of the quality that once a 95 percent proof compaction can be achieved by ASTM D -1557 the subgrade would, be satisfactory for direct receival of sub -base materials. In the areas of paving associated with the J and K buildings, special care should be taken to ensure proper base course and sub -base course drainage so that saturation cannot occur beneath the pavement system. With this proper protection the area should be able to receive typical class B pavements. RETAINED SLOPES AND BASEMENT WALLS Due to the sloping terrain of the site, it is readily conceivable that there may be numerous minor retaining walls associated with the development. In general, at this time no constraints have been found that would indicate the retaining walls cannot be designed with at least 2,000 lbs per square foot for bearing capacity when subjected to lateral earth pressures equivalent to the code requirement of 30 lbs per cubic foot fluid equivalent pressure. In special areas when final grading is developed, for example a conceivable retaining wall close but downslope of building A, careful evaluation should be made to establish that actual earth pressures being applied to the retaining wall are typical earth pressures of grading retaining walls and no surcharge thrusts are being applied by the adjacent structure. In all November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 11 cases it is recommended the considered normal standards of practice of rear drainage and /or scuppers be contemplated for all walls if of the poured concrete variety. If the typical rock type retaining walls are anticipated for economic and /or architectural reasons, there is no reason why the greater King County constraints of a 12 foot height and 3 -on -12 batter should not be fully adequate for retaining the slopes.. For basement walls it is recommended that at this stage of development, a minimum fluid of pressure be utilized of 70 lbs per cubic foot to ensure stable foundation systems. At this magnitude the wall should have adequate • strength to safeguard against any potential of footing drain failure or immediate outside of the wall temporary or transietn surcharge loading that can occur in the typical apartment complex type development. SWIMMING POOL For the development of the swimming pool, which at this stage of planning is only an area allocation as F, the recommendations for geotechnical design are reserved. At this time, assuming a normal cut type swimming pool, there is no reason to assume that difficulties would be encountered. However, it is anticipated as significant that due to the proximity of the steep embank- ment to the east, expected leakage from the pool be subsurface drain collected and properly disposed of so that channeling cannot occur. FUTURE CIVIL CONSIDERATIONS Due to the preliminary status of development planning for this site and the somewhat uniqueness of the site, it is strongly recommended that Pacific Testing Laboratories be commissioned to assist the site planners and architects in any areas of geotechnical consideration. This should carry through the final completion of construction drawings so that the numerous foreseen tech- nicalities of design can be reviewed and established as within the subsoil constraints of the site. . CONCLUSIONS PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES As herein detailed, the eleven acre South Center site has been carefully appraised November 17, 1976 Certificate No. 7610 -67 Page 12 for all geotechnical aspects of the development as planned by CHG Inter- national, Inc. From field evaluations and research of the site, no geo- technical conditions were found that would bar the development as planned at its current level. In general, the subsoil conditions can be classified as excellent for the support of the surface facility planned. PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES APPENDIX MATERIAL 1. PTL Bore Log Location Plat 2. PTL Boring Logs. 3. CHG International Plot Plan 4. City of Tukwila, 21 October 1976 letter from Fred Satterstrom Surface site evaluation of December Weber 6. Boring Logs by Metropolitan Engineers, 1968 pacific testing labs test boring location map frank alberti PROJECT: Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex Date 10 -29 -76 S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. Cert. Ho. 7610 -67 Test Boring Ho. STRATA Grd.E1. 204 5 / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// // /Y // / / / /// / / / / / 8 1 21 / / / /// / / / / /// / / / / /// / / // //. / / / / //. / / / / //, / / / / //, "//) / / / / //. 4 7 11 � 6 6.---6-- / /,/ r / / / /// / / / / /// / / / / //, / / / / /// / / / / //: / / / / /r, / / / / //, / / / / / /, / / / / //, / / / / /// / / / / //, / / //7/7 8 13 13 / / /// / / / / //,,,,/ 6 _ 6 _. 6 C 35 40--- 4 5--- T.D. 392 1 Location See Location Map RC S I STAIICE' ' Clous Pen. At sg1 , - PACiFBC FLAS1 •'!AT©R 28 -292 33 -342 38 -392 Soil Classification F., Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Hard, gray clayey silt (massive) • Very stiff, gray clayey silt (massive) Elevation Water Tall Not encountered W = 20%, yradatinn attarhpd Medium dense, medium brown, fine sand with minor silt . (saturated) (first 3 "); very stiff, gray clayey silt (last 15 ") • i'RORCT : 0 10 15 20 Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. Test Goring No. 1 STRATA RESISTANCE' Clo►is flyd.L1. 204 P`n. At 21 0 13 10 12 6 6 PA.ir rra�c �v � rah >r��v�.. �► V Location See Location Map 0 -1 3 -42 8 -92 13-141/2 Soil Classification F, Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Top soil - humus, medium brown, fine sand. w = 6 %, gradation attached - silt (last 6 "). W = 5%, gradation attached. 6 "). Date 10 -29 -76 . , J Cert. No. 7610 -67 varying or beds). W = 7 %, gradation attached. 23 -242 Very stiff, gray clayey silt (massive) Elevation hater Id Not encountered Loose, light brown, fine sand with iron -oxide staining Medium dense, light brown, fine sand (first 12 "); medium dense, light brown, extra fine sand with minor Medium dense, light brown, fine sand (first 12 "); very stiff, light brown to gray clayey silt (last 18 -192 Very stiff, gray clayey silt (massive, no visible • _ Test Boring No. 2 ( 10 STRATA • RESISTANCE' ' Grd.E1.236± 0 �i•...... ._. . 15 20 3 Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. 6 Elms Pen. 10 6 10 6 7 ri 14 6 At 0 -3" 3 -42 8 -92 Location See location map Soil Classification P. Description (Tyne, Color, Consistency, etc.) Top soil - humus, medium brown fine sand. Loose, light brown, silty, fine sand W = 48 %, gradation attached. Date 10 -29 -76 Cert. Ho. 7610 -67 - I (saturated). Medium dense, light brown, fine sand (iron- stained) 13 -142 Medium dense, light brown, fine sand with wood material and organics (first 6 "); very stiff, light brown, silt with iron - stained lamina (second 6 "); medium dense, light brown fine sand (last 6"). 18 -192 Loose, light brown fine sand (first 6 "); stiff, light brown, extra fine,. sandy, silt (last 12 "). 6 23 -242 Medium dense, light brown fine sand with organics (first 6 "); very stiff, light brown, clayey silt (last 12 ") Elevation Water Td ; • 1 PROJECT: (-. lest Boring no. 2 Location See location map STRATA Crd.El. 2361 ////// ° ,///// 40--- •iiiiii //1/)/ 35 -.-T.D. 341/2' 45-- -- Proposed Tukwila Apt. Comples S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. RESISTANCE' Elms Pen. At 13 17 24 6 6 16 27 6 6 28 -291 33-341/2 PAUFBC'MTh N43 LA I; • Soil Classification & Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) hard gray, clayey silt.(last 12 "). Date 11 -1 -76 Cert. Ile. 7610 -67 Elevation (later Tatle 1 '+ Dense, light brown fine sand'''(saturatedY(first 6 "); hard light brown, clayey silt with organics (second 6 "); hard, gray silt with interbedded. gray find sand (last 6 "). Dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated) (first 6 "); . • 1 IA.CIruC'u'ti£SIrgi40 I�LAf:i�iuZ�au�.�tslt. Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. Test Boring no. 3 Location See location map ~= STRATA lC S I STN CE 245± rMot,s f'�rd.El. Pen. 0 J.- 10 15 20 2 Medium dense gray, silty, fine sand with minor gravel. Tip of sample shoe light brown fine sand. Very stiff, gray clayey silt (first 12 "); very stiff light brown clayey silt (iron oxide staining) (last 6 "). '/ / / /// ' / / / /// ' / / / /// /////, / / / /// / / / /// / / / / / / / /// / / / /// "f/f/i •/ / / // ' / / / /// • / / / /// ' / / / /// / / / /// •/ / / /// -- •////// • / / / // • / / / /// / / / /// ' / / / /// • / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// / / / /// / / / // / / / / / // / / / /// / / / /// Soil Classification & Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Dark to medium brown, sandy, silt with organics. Loose, medium brown fine sand (iron -oxide stained) (saturated) (first 12 "); stiff, gray, extra fine sandy, silt (last 6 "). W =.25 %, gradation included. Shelby (Top light brown fine sand) (Bottom gray silt) W = 25%, gradation attached. Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 21 %, gradation attached. Date 11 -1 -76 ' Cert. fJo. 7610 -67 Elevation !later Td 101± 40 45 I'ItiIJECT rest Goring tlo. STRATA flrd,E1, 245± 5- //////, ... .... .. ... .... .. . ... ....... ....... .. /.... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..../. ...'/... ....... ....... ....... / / / / //. / / / / /.. ....... / / / / //. ....... / / / / //. ....... / / / / //. / / / / //. • 35 T.D. 342' Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. 3 RCSISTAIICE' Claws Pen. At 7 13 6 6 16 Location 28 -291 33 -342 .CIF1C TIESTINo LAW .!ATO148 a' — See location map • Elevation Water Tall( Soil Classification & Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) 10'- Very stiff, gray, clayey silt Very stiff, gray, clayey silt Date 11 -1 -76 Cert. Ho. 7610 -67 .. PROJECT: L PAcrioc W IL Ai: s iteali .• 5. 10 15 20 J ' • Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. 4 Location See location map RESISTANCE Mous ----------- Soil Classification & Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Date 11-1-76 Cert. No. 7610-67 Test Boring No. STRATA •nrd.E1. 296 0 3-41/2 Medium dense, medium brown, fine sand with organics (first 6"); medium dense, light brown, fine sand (last 6"). Boulders encountered at 12 ft. Very dense, light brown, gravelly, silty, sand 13-141/2 Very dense, medium brown, medium sand (first 3"). • Very dense, light brown, fine sand with minor gravel. Elevation Water Td 351+ (glacial till) (last 12). W = 9%, gradation attached. Very dense, gray, silty, gravelly, sand (glacial till). Very dense, light brown fine sand (first 6"); grading to coarse sandy gravel at second 6"; very dense, light brown graMITTibe sand (Tast 6"). I'1(3ECT: Test Goring No. 4 • STRATA RESISTANCE' 296+ Clous flyd.El. Pen. At 5-- Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. Tr 'CI BC TrE T9 NV il.A9i Location See location map Soil Classification F< Description (Tyne, Color, Consistency, etc.) medium sand with gravel (saturated) W = 19%, gradation attached. W = 12%, gradation attached. Pate 11 -1 -76 Cert. Ho.. Very dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated). Elevation Water Tatle 35't Water encountered during drilling at 27 to 28 feet. Dense, light brown, extra fine sand with interbeds of Very dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated). Dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated) (6" heave) Very dense, light brown fine sand (saturated) (first'12 "); very dense, light brown, gravelly sand with minor silt (last 6" ' ,I RUOLl.l : .rawron. u a.sIitN tJ nwnf'tJri.aI'O MI. Proposed Tukwila - mot. Complex ( Date 11 -1 -76 • S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. Test boring Flo. 4 Location See location map STRATA RESISTANCE' 296 C l ous ��rcl,[ l . Pen. At 50 1 5 42 6 22 50 2 50 6 6 33 75 - 6 50 73 -742 Soil Classification & Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) W = 16 %, gradation attached. = 19 %, gradation attached. Cert. Ilo. 7610 -67 53 -542 Dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated) (heave - 6' - washed) W = 19 %, gradation attached. 58 -592 Very dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated). Elevation llater 35.'± 63 -642 Very dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated). 68 -69 Very dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated). Drilling stiff at 71 ft. . W = 19 %, gradation attached. Very dense, light brown, fine sand (first 6 "); hard gray, clayey, silt (last 12 "). W - 23%, gradation attached. -- Icl;n,t E CT : c ..st Boring No. 4 Location See location map STRATA REST STAIICE' Clogs Pen. At (ird.E1. 296 75 I,",,' --- iiiiii, /hill, /////// iiiiii„ 77////, //////r '„/7', '„7,', ,hill ////// ////// ////// /,,,,, 7,',' ///// ///// ///// ///// ////// "a',' ///// ///// hill hill hill ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// ///// iiiii/ ///// ////// ////// i/7/,' 7,,,,, 7/',', "7', '/7,', /„/i /,,,,, 'i7/', /////. /////r /////' /////. ////// "i 7, '7,,,' ////// ////// 7,,,', '//7// '/7/,,/ 7/',,' ////// '/7", 7/,,', / / / / //% /////// ////// /7/,,/ „7, ////// ////// ////// /4/ /// ////// ////// ////// ////// ////// ////// ////// ////// ////// 7/%/// ////// ////// • / / /7 // / T.D. 941/2' _ - 6'ACIIF'BC'e' s:'y N ii LAST +:, Proposed Tukwila t. Complex - p p Date 11 1 -76. S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. / 1 / 11 19 36 6 6 6 / i 28 5Q 6 16 22 40 6 6 6 16 29 40 65 16 25 48 78-791/2 83-841/2 88-891/2 93-941/2 Soil Classification & Descripticin (Tyne, Color, Consistency, etc.) Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 24%, gradation attached. Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 21 %, gradation attached. Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 20 %, gradation attached. Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 18 %, gradation attached. Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 21%, gradation attached. Cert. No. 7610 -67 Elevation (later Tal 3 it •-• • 1 C 1 PAll . 4 • tai. • ••• MAU: . ( ' Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex Date 11-3-76 Cert. Mo. 7610-67 ( Test Boring No. 5 STRATA .Drd.E1. 296t 0 • r C 10 15_ 20 r S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. Location See location map ' RESISTANCE' • Mous - Pen. At Very dense, light brown, fine sand. W = 11%, gradation attached. Soil Classification & Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Dark brown silty, fine sand with organics. Medium dense, light brown, fine sand. W = 4%, gradation attached. Elevation Water Approx. 15' Very dense, gray, gravelly silty sand (glacial till). With organics top of sample tube. W = 9%, gradation = 10%, gradation attached. attached. Very dense, gray, gravelly, silty sand with minor organics (glacial till). .w = 6%, gradation attached. Very dense, gray, gravelly, silty, sand (saturated). - Tl;ii,1ECT: Test Goring No. STRATA RESISTAIlCE I; l ow s • Grd.El. 296± p At 5- • • 30--- C 35 40 45 ---� 5 k .'AC!F1C'VIES - WANG LAS; • , t.Si.1rowwul.E s 1' Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. Location 48 -49 2 See location map D 11 - 3 - 76 ' Cert. Ho. 7610 - 2Q_ 3f_ 6 Dense, light brown fine sand (saturated) W = 25 %, gradation attached. W =.19 %, gradation attached. W = 19 %, gradation attached. Very dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated) Dense, light brown, fine sand (saturated). Soil Classification F, Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Elevation lla ter Tall Approx. 15' Very dense, light brown fine sand with interbedded light brown silt. (Heave 2' - washed) W = 16 %, gradation attached. Very dense, light brown fine sand (Heave 6" — washed) W = 19 %, gradation attached. a- 1'ICU : i Test Goring No. 5 Location See location map STRATA RESISTANCE' Mors rrd.E1. 296" Pen. At 50 • 55--- ( 60 rr wAcO Eyc z u o LAWO . N'OfaU,. Proposed Tukwi Apt. Complex . { . S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. / 7 24 50 53 -542 6 6 6 Soil Classification P. Description (Type, Color, Consistency, etc.) Very dense, light brown, fine sand (iron -oxide stained). .W = 19 %, gradation attached. 13 20 35 58 -592 Very dense, light brown, find sand (first 4 "); 6 6 6 hard light brown, extra -fine sandy, silt. W = 22 %, gradation attached. 63 -642 Very dense, light brown, silty, extra fine sand with interbedded fine sand (iron -oxide stained). W = 2n, 65 c •....., 7,,,,. •....., ' ...... .....� 9 21 43 - iiiiii 6 6 6 68 -692 Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 23% gradation attached. 70-- 7...... '...... ...... ....... - ...... ....a •..�... 12 24 40 .....; % - 73 -742 Hard, gray, clayey silt ...... /� 6 6^ 6 W = 23 %, gradation attached. 75 ...... gradation attached. Date 11 -3 -76 Cert. 1k'. 7610 -67 Elevation dater 1 Approx. 15' Io E'I;fjECT 75 Proposed Tukwila Apt. Complex S. 160th St. & 53rd Ave. S. ( ,.st Goring Ho. 5 • STRATA RESISTANCE' lyd . E l . 296i , / / /// ' /7 , ,,, '////// " "iii ,////// " "iii ,////// '/hill -////// /777// / 13 24 /7////,. iiiiii / 6 7,,',, /7/./..z ////// ////// ////7, i7/,, /7//// /7/',, 7/,,', //,/7/ i/1,/I iiiiii•� / / 10 19 /iiiiii� ' „7 / f //iiiii _, '/7/,,/ / / / / /// /iI,,,, dilly/ '„/7/ iiiiiii� 14 '„/7i✓ 6 '/7/,'� iii Blows Peri. At 35 25 _ 6 6. CI 1C T ETV' NO LLASI rMarogr : Location See location map 78 -79? 83-84k 88 -89' • Elevation Hater Tal Soil Classification P., Description (Tyne, Color, Consistency, etc.) Approx. 15' Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 22 %, gradation attached. Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 20 %, gradation attached. Hard, gray, clayey silt W = 21 %, gradation attached. Date 11 -3 -76 Cert. Ho. 7610 -67 ______ • SAMPLE NO. TES+ Q0r;n9 DEPTH ELEVATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION • I yvlots4v'- 4 LL P1 PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES SIEVE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD 100 90 80 70 I- w 3 60 C z 50 LL I— Z U 40 C U 0. 30. 20 10 0 O O N tD Q N N - •"t 0 a lD 0 Q M 0 N 0 0 O tD to Q co N co 0 N c d 0 t.D O) C c0 ") [t t0 ON tD N e O) N 00 0 0 0 0 O N '' O O O O O O GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS —CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATION ti Tc0N tD Ol C 000 0 0 0 0 0000 O 0 0 O CO la to a Cc) O O O O O 0 0 0 O 4;1 VF SIL t1 1 I I 1 I I I I II I I I I I I I _ O O 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 O COBBLES Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse Medium Fine SAND HYDROMETER ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MM. FINES SAMPLE NO. TCST DEPTH 1 • Per C er 1 ELEVATION • MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 6 %L LL P1 Plotted: R.j-? Checked: PROJECT Report No. A Transmittal No. Date of Test Specification v\ r Cetvf' Nn_ 7(eIO- (Date of Report) No_ 125 9 -2 -75 Rev. 1 PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES Report No. p` Transmittal No. Date of Test II- 15 -7(0 Specification .L. Penton, F. E. SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM. ^' ,Zt 7: e it O K n N N .+ .r t0 d ( © 0 0 .•1 Cl 0 0 0 O O O O NO O O O O O C 000 M Q In 1D 0 0 ON 0 0 C ('1 N 0 0 O O O O ' 0 100 ( 10 20 30 F C7 u 40 3 0 W 50 G 0 U 6 z U C to 70 80 90 100 - 1 - M MI - (1147/ 4111&9i,11A1111M1uIKAJ:. to / + O 90 �■ It. In 10 80 , . I INIIIIIIINNI • 70 , ~ S 0 u 60 0 rt Z 50- II I- z 40 U W 0. 30 - • .` 1 ' �1L U, 20 r 10 0 1111 11 I 11111 1 1 I I1I 1 11 L 1 _ 11I _1 0 O CO 0 0 0 4 7 N 0 O 0 I0 In Q M N •'( 0 t0 to N n co co to Q M N i•-1 03 t0 to .7 M N • O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O N .y . GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS —CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATION COBBLES Coarse I Fine Coarse , Medium I Fine FINES GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE NO. DEPTH ELEVATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PI PROJECT 7es7' El, -∎ .lint 3 ,o s(1Ly SaI,.3- ori *S 3-Li {t- Sovth Cev,tt+• A part w v*S C.e•r't' No ?1010 - (17 mots fv r! G0v0 .6,6 - Plotted: fiz 11 -/3-N( (Date of Report) Checked: No_ 125 9 -2 -75 Rev. 1 PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES Report No. p` Transmittal No. Date of Test II- 15 -7(0 Specification .L. Penton, F. E. PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES Report No. A Transmittal No. Date of Test Specification SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES I NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH, U.S. STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM, 100 o or. l0 in Tr OOIs. m _ O to O O 0 O O O O 00 O O O O 01 N O O 000 • to O M N N .� ..t M Q co . q -� N M V O O m •'� N_ 0 O C M N 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 10 20 30 _ 0 t7. i 40 0 c W 50 cn Q 0 U 6U _ W U CC W 70 a 80 90 100 90 f rf7.7 i 1 it PO 4'l'. - 80 't 'tic, QF• yF.'i[? 67.3 1F I(Y) i I dr) 70 I I - ib /5 S - (3 tTi 1 60 } tD W 50 Z LL I- Z ( 40 X U C. 30,. 20 10 I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1L I I I 1 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O co to O q t7 N 0 0 CO O In V .y M N , N 'y GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS rl m tD In O N N O O N et M N . - O O • O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 —CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNIFORM SOIL CLASSIFICATION N R t'1 N -. 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O COBBLES Coarse I Fine Coarse I Medium I Fine FINES GRAVEL SAND SAMPLE NO. DEPTH ELEVATION MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PI PROJECT Ts7' 60.4 -rirc Sated 4.1 8-07. -c+ Sou+ C,vi er Pt_pn.rtv,ei t$ Cerk ^ t" i,IO - 61 • Per' C er.-' wneis'1'vr•t s% Plotted: p',(-? ft— IS -•7(p (Date of Report) Checked: PACIFIC TESTING LABORATORIES Report No. A Transmittal No. Date of Test Specification ; • • • • • • . r.s.a • • :,:a• • • .$11. •12/02,,,,.....p 1$ • • on.g.16•007/ .11 an.j...11 • -Pt r.t• • • • • • [, >r nil ,tie ••.••• taw r ra• ». •4• �it r..Sr•4 r.. .:c MUM ibr. �. a�•' �+., �G .:i.,�2421�A�G+%��jt7�4i,Y4ie; pa acd • rTh • . .... _ .:#• 111 .. • IP 1 .1.___ - - --- i1 4f - - - -7 • I. • • • • • • 21 October 1976 Thomas A. Johnson c/o CHG International, Inc. 1906 One Washington Plaza Tacoma, Washington 98402 • Dear Mr. Johnson: CITY of T LJKW!LA OI FICE of COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENT Let me first explain that it is my function to help review and to recommend to the Responsible Official whether an EIS should be required after initial review of an Environmental Questionnaire. I have reviewed the Environmental Questionnaire submitted by CHG Interna- tional for the proposed Southcenter complex, walked both parcels "A" and "n ", and studied the site plans. It appears that the proposed apartment development responds to expected geologic conditions and respects the inte- grity of the steep ridge which runs diagonally across the property, Poten- tial open spaces appear to be ubiquitous. However, walking the site and reviewing the questionnaire did not satisfac- torily answer the potential drainage and slippage problems associated with the site. Therefore, I would like to request some additional geologic and hydrologic information from to augment that submitted with the questionnaire. Geologic Information: 1. At least two (2) borings should be in Area 01 on parcel "B ". Suggested locations for drilling are indicated on the en- . closed site plan map at Buildings E and G. These borings should he drilled deep enough to penetrate the sand and reach the clay contact. 2. At least two (2) borings should be drilled in Area 4 .`2 on parcel "B ". Suggested locations for drilling are at the tennis courts and Building J. These borings should be deep enough to delineate the depth of soft soils and should extend to the clay contact (i.e., 50'± deep). "2 ■ 242 -_1 Thomas A. Johnson CHG International, Inc 3. At least one (1) boring on parcel "A" near Building M. Hydrologic Information: 1. Please submit a preliminary drainage plan which adequately shows how surface and /or subsurface drainage will be dealt with. Par- ticular attention should be addressed to the area where the springs appear at approximately elevation 270. The above information should help us tremendously in understanding the environmental conditions of the site, and in determining if and how the . site plan can be revised. Respectfully, l s Fred Satterstrom Associate Planner FS /cw cc: OCD Director Enclosure Page' 21 October 1976 • • • • Messrs. Ploe, Alberti and Tingbal c/o Frank Alberti and Associates P. 0. Box 99155 Seattle, Washington Gentlemen: INTRODUCTION poul r. weber consulting engineer-earth sciences December 1, 1975 Site Evaluation Tukwila /Southcenter Property This letter presents my evaluation of ground conditions at'an eleven acre site above Southcenter in Tukwila, Washington. The property is bounded on the South by S. 160th Street, on the East by 53rd Avenue S., on the West by the right -of -way of 49th Avenue S., and on the North by the extension of S. 158th Street. The site occupies high ground above Southcenter and the intersection of I -5 and 1 -405. Basically, the site is a natural wooded slope rising • from Elevation 150 at•53rd Avenue S. to Elevation 350 at 49th Avenue S. The topography is irreg- ular, however, and can be divided into three areas, as.will be discussed subse- quently. The natural drainage of the site has been modified by the Highway 518 construction to the North of the property. This freeway construction was the primary cause of the Tukwila slide which did .considerable property damage in 1965. The upper limits of this slide extended just to•the North property bound- ary. Massive drainage works were installed to stabilize the slide; some of these extend into and improve the stability of the subject site. In particular, a 12 -inch GMP carries surface water down 51st Avenue S. and a 16 -inch pipe drains the North boundary of the site. 1200 westloke ove north /seottlo, wo.98109/(206) 283-0180 Mr. Frank Albert( November 28, 1975 Page 2 • SITE CONDITIONS As stated earlier, the site can be divided into three areas of basic- ally similar ground conditions. The first is a triangular- shaped area above Elevation 300. The second' is a triangular- shaped area below Elevation 300 and West of 51st Avenue S. The third is the 2.6 acre piece between 51st Avenue S. and 53rd Avenue S. These areas differ in accordance with the Geologic formation of the hillside. The geologic column here consists of stiff glacial clay and silt • from sea level to Elevation 150 to 200; glacial sand from Elevation 150/200 to Elevation 280/290; and glacial till and outwash gravel above Elevation 280/290. So, the Area 1 is underlain by outwash gravel and till - excellent foundation material. Area 2 is underlain by sand - ordinarily a fine founda- tion material, but in this case, diminished by an exceptionally heavy flow of groundwater. The sand unit is the primary aquifer on this site., The aquifer discharges to the surface in a continuous line of springs at about Elevation 270. All the ground in this sector is flooded and swampy from these springs. The aquifer discharges because there is an impermeable boundary below (the clay unit probably starts at about Elevation 200 or so). . This water will have to be drained from Area 2 before construction of build- ings.. Area 3 is underlain by sand of probably shallow depth and is well drained by the Freeway facilities. There is an area of sand fill below about Elevation 200.. 0 SITE DEVELOPMENT My recommendations and conclusions for site development by individual areas are as follows: pout r. weber Mr. Frank Alberti( November 28, 1975 Page 3 Area 1 penetrate the sand and reach the clay contact (i.e. 100! ± deep). Area 2 zontal drains. The estimated cost of horizontal drains i 1. Shallow fdundations of high bearing capacity are available. - .---.--- -- • -- • - 2. Surface and subsurface drainage requirements will be minimal. -• 3. Three borings should be drilled to provide data for details of foundation design. Two borings should be deep enough to will have to be provided. pout r. weber 1. Foundations will have to penetrate the swamp deposits which may be a few feet thick. Moderate foundation loads can be carried on undisturbed, dewatered sand. 2. Surface and subsurface drainage requirements will be substantial. The line of springs should be relieved by installation of hori- $5,000 to $7,500. .. • 3. Three borings should be drilled to delineate the depth of soft soils. These borings should extend to the clay contact (i.e. 50' ± deep). 4. .Surface drainage and the output of horizontal drains will have to be directed to the existing drainage conduits (the 12" and 16" lines). If the total runoff from the developed site exceeds the capacity of the existing lines, additional drainage facilities 1. The sand will support moderate foundation loads on shallow foot- ings. The fill on the lower part of this area may have to be removed or reworked to provide adequate support. Mr. Frank Albert(" November 28, 19 .,- Page 4 call. PRW:as paui r. weber 2. Surface and subsurface drainage requirements will be minimal. 3. Three shallow borings should be advanced to provide information for detailed foundation design. I trust this provides the information you need at the present time. will be pleased to submit a proposal for the subsurface investigations when development plans are finalized. If you have any further questions,, please .Respectfully submitted, Paul R. Weber, P.E. • . • lan 1 40 a /6,o C.• /.; IJ pc, I '/. /O/ 78 /v/ Ul, Tis [;`r L. L. 4 3 ;" 7 4 • C/a L. CULAV(N t,1 E TROPOL ITAN E N0IN L`.I: I;S SEATTLE , WASHINGTON / :72 • )•1/ /f;G /S74','/j c': Cc /.1 7' //V ' !;• i✓, V /),?: /N Pc i t: • I . 13 0 R /A/ (2 :C /z'VwT /ON : /./ D LO CAT / of/ : A.fGLS D/1 71: /.N' /. 6P: 6- lam- 68 'BROWN `/IIC- M sVL 1. /.04 5 SitTS r/NE 3,44'P .14; , .56,c,E Roars f ace. Pei- 5 (F /i. £ e) • Loose' s 7R . z . . 5 �a7 tali .., a/:c. Am7 / c �,' .� .CXee'i //. J:'•- !'.',;';' !/W .? 54(V 0 %.://,S Girt i ow re/ MN/N/'J'/e' /V OR 44 lea: ; - Aft , C.f.W P„<. . .e/vcov //7c c /$ A 7' A P.?.^. '. E. 430 Sn vrc 5/t i - CO Al C i TO Vr /: Y Cc H/'4 e r. C 2Az E 5 /. / V17 fi, .tV/✓ /-14/11 .5 //P •. c/ 54 A'. • ZAN /4 !!) 1/c //7 111.q0 VA' }'Er'Y / /ia Da /? /; !;/••':9 y 1 /6RY , / //E 44:✓0 V Sii j . /V0 765 ; /. € O2 //,'C C41 . 'O fir tolt/ i c. //7 /// .4 • ////O,:4 1•c'/41 !J/• f /�•f rr.'�. 2. a " /Oi` /(e P'ROOS SPA/ 1. P r� r r7r TA /. &' A F1. /19 G/ ;' "0/4 Pcl S 77 R1.C4- 2 Pi Pe 70 .f '.' • e. foe //N ,5%c %F /,c /!.-'i0 /: /Pee C;: i /5 , e... ' 1 p/fey 14'-///7- A' / /0./ i' •', Lil 41..1 :!5 / ?t'�•G� /,• E /7 �T /• , :>4. :,t -•r / i� r r ...., i �• 7 fry jn•r /t ,S:�r.;, � r l:.�,.. ✓, c'� . ; ,�'�° •. :.� , . ':/,.q/5r I S /E: /(s.` /r t° /•-zc G es* r l..C. /.••J %i S: 1� ✓L't .' :;i' 1t' 7i'I /.'/:N /7 "/ ''<_: ', .%:,.'.� xi) .5.9•i El 11 //() . ��4?p /. e= /c'f= Cr V!a "/: /° P • I . " (4•o 130 IOC) ar /Op < J s 8 r l /6 CALCULA HON • SHan METROPOLITANS ENGINEERS • SEATTLE , WASHINGTON 9 /O J J .f • • /3U/R, //V 7 5 2 I •- • rL • 4C (/1! /0N : /6'7 :1.: Ark* DP /44F. 0 : G -lam - G 9 BROI:' /' /Wis Joivp /:// a,'iF. �/i%:/e l ' S/1. i r c cc, . O/ ,tl /.' /L MAr7•F.k' -• (1.4 f / Lo S/: JD /'f.` 'can64 c 7 4Ra // / /NB SAND 1✓,.5o//9 TR /N .4/f/, ,4 /O /✓S �r CRA VEPY P //Jf.' SA /,'L'}' S /1.r , /(1ED. Ce 7PACj. C /'Ca aN r!•'rf, L) W/ 7 E: 2 A r 4PPm'x. f L /G6 1 4 - ,QADas TO / / //.s - 1 SAND - Cor//-' .46 r ( / /e4 vet) 5 -' 1 4 $/L r / /4RU . NO J6S ; /. 6''•10 v6 Alaq .is s/r'M Ple:Vog ' //1/5741-1.61 47 f.! /36 . 1/1// P /Pt ro r ? MCe , • • • • 2, 604? /NE'O 13, cH/ /t L ED 14/PF4 . 206 160 /1.9 /o,7 46,7 did p c� /o; 77 %It! _ it i /4 / / /g A I" • / r / q D /1'i G ..._ .._.__u���_(1.........._ LIU,IIlt) "' .._... ; L1: "___... ....._..r......_._...- ......... .....,_._........._ �_.. .�...... • C/!.l,.CUl_A'f° ION SHEE(,) METROPOLI1;:N ENGINEERS rtS H AT7 LG, WASHINGTON 2/ 46 1 ,fj 0 / N C% 3 • kucet //✓J'ERe1) P./.17/. 4/'/3/50.1' L. /80' 1/6 CA/f //✓AT /O/J; & 4P.iS To /: /Nl. TO /.:5D. SA //G - CLG4`Af (//6.41 /9 w Z.4 t IF 7U LA /.7iVi: ) "G' /7 . '4-' CYA“e. .5 L''/:"/ i / /'1 .:/.'il! 5/LT --//.1.4 L !'� //1 /� / ✓; ./97 x L:oCKT/o// Z.-7* (711/..) '4761 ' ' 4 7 6 1 , 2 _ / 1 1 E 0 6 - 3 4,C014/4/ .a A r/.%!/E/ BROW// To RR'i /S// BOW T / //; 5, %/JP, //,'o /{ •5741//fit.)- i . S /•1E To oc•c, L /+ /1iA4770A/S OF F/11 SAp.'L> .94T'/ V «RY PINE SAN!). A/07 /. &0..' / /Je j $4! / // /itEL /t / /•'F'.;" TO LT'L. /74• • • . 2. l " /C4✓6 pence/.r Sri::/ /72 /4/57.4u tss-0 (5 f/r/ ,? P:/ j.7 ,ru /•/; .sir:4: 3. B441, ✓G) si/1.?,.//.C. C :v/ pL:4 • • 6/2.41/4-71. _.._.. _.- _....__. __ -...__ .. -._ ___--------- •.• -_w.. _ - ••...__..._ ...__.........._ _..._..._ •••_ _.. •_•.._ •J.__ .. _. _._.•._•. 23o . . • 11•••■■••••• 16. 9,8 tre ()AY Ci d.c1 cr / 94 I - 9? q0.1 6 24 Al ...••■■; /9 9 (s> /0 /0 /0 ' CALCULATION SHEET METROPOLITAN E No INERPS . SEATTL( :, WASHING:TON a....1111•••••••••• /2 / 9 2/ do ••■ 44 .5 .•?. • ., ;•;, I ':;,. .1 ,... 4:...:.: ..;.;•.% ....h ,-., • .....7 • -.• t. 1 .. ..'i.':• . •'''.. ;•: . • 1 'I ‘. L: .•:••,.;•; •;;;•.: _ _ :•••••:•: — r — L.1 1 •:••.:-• 1 .• .... ..- • ...:,... .t......$ . •.,.:, -:•• •. --.•••;•••• LI:: • • f ..---....—..... 00.....1.1•■••■••••■••• •••■••••■••••••■•••••■•■•• ..5210'1/7/.)' . • • . • 3 OP,'/A/6 13 4 .; . 4%1E1/47/ON : 2 7 Zoc4rioN 2yt4 .4 (.2:3 • 404•16 DR/t ZED : 7- 6 QAUV/S1/ 8241 fall; 54/49 WIS/4 7, PreatES'e acC. N4 rie4. (.c.•/z1 ?' c" r Aicv/r (;/?Frawsli- 6R,1 4' 1 7c vffley,c/Ne. „s ki ,L17Ti E ...514T - Co /...i P4 c r 1 . . . re, 7.41./ FIAT ...... he/ aec. 7)//,, I o. .4yekl; ...I . . . I • 1 . . . 5'j'''4/ FAA/i - /k/4:0.,5 - 4//D C0/4 V.-7/?)" ceweri4c:: r Mir?" S);(7/.s/e.11.> • • I if'/ICOI/NTE el: W;476/.. (PAW/Wax, 'Ft 20z ,o 'exAy 44 iio si r 11,44 (30c oip) . I /V076S 130i. ?//t/Ci 1341:1,'/: 11.1g. P / 204 0 ty/ • • Pe4 aRAvert. • 2. p/serifrier4i? • ims /4 ti. oi iv/ "0/4 P t4.rie 2/ SF.? a Xci??/:44 • • O. I 4) 7 „Ii/l?..44 %JQII NO. • • 4.) • 1.1 2-25 • Le, , • 4:)‘:),...-/c/e/ • • • (7, • • • • • en • . • . ;' • •••• • ) 0 It t ) - DATE • �Co 170 . 146 0 I` • CALCULATION SI T METROPOL I T A N ENGINEERS SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 3DI?l!VC 55' •I ELC1/4 /,/ • /73 LOC4TID/✓ .<7/27 DAM D 'IU EL' : 6•- ?-66 . LA /4 / /.'ATL',D L r 2,'OI4'W Sh r ; S /c r - /90 /ST , d /P 6R / ZA N /NA7io / / - 1 ja A /P ; i ! i ' VERY ST /FF .BROWN fRNe -i f l2 se vv w/ So/% . - MEO. co/t/Ac-7 V6 'V FM'G $44/..0 COMP.GL F / //, S /4 /6T Q RADES c7RM' . 5/Z7 Ce.4 J / /&L r /3 Pi /Nq5 NVO7 S: 1. F a,^/ /,n; BAGA'r/LCF/ 1'/ /PM c7R4vv. • q NA7/VF /itL. 2. Na .0/35 :: 1/4BLij QRoem!O 1OT i? EN co l iTf ,,'E.7) Bar No/5 7• L; G OW EL. /44 ' 0. JOE) I:O, TITLE / If '2.25 0 40r o=' ,s .0, ;',v PL 7 PARKS RE.REATI PLA!CI I tIG BUILDING November 17, 1976 Thomas A. Johnson CHG International, Inc. 1906 One Washington Plaza Tacoma, Washington 98402 Dear Mr. Johnson: The purpose of this letter is to clarify the disposition of CHG International's application for waiver from Resolution #489 of the City of Tukwila. An environmental questionnaire or any other environmental data (including the soils investigations) is not required to process the waiver application. Environmental information per SEPA guidelines will be required when a building permit is applied for. When I requested additional soils information in my letter.of October 21st I was under the impression that a building permit had been applied for or would be applied for shortly. However, a building permit application has not been made and Isee no reason why one should . be made until a decision on the waiver has been reached. Therefore, please be informed that the Planning Division of OCD can process your waiver application without further environmental informa- tion, if you wish. It is your option, of course, to provide additional infor- mation if you believe this information will help substantiate the waiver request . and aid the decision- making process. I hope this has helped to clarify where you stand on the waiver request. Please let us know what course of action you intend to pursue. Sincerely, Fred Satterstrom Associate Planner FS /cw CITY of OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6230 Southsontor l wavv:rrd u Tukwila, Washington 931113 a (200 2,12-212i 7 . A. LcSOURD WOOLVIN PATTEN DONALD D. FLEMING GEORGE N. HARTUNG, JR. LEON C. MISTEREK OWAYNE E. COPPLE THOMAS O. McLAUGHLIN PETER LcSOURD JOHN F. COLGROVE C. DEAN LITTLE LESOURD, PATTEN, FLEMING & HARTUNG ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1300 SEATTLE TOWER SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 (206) 624 -1040 Re: Resolution No. "489 Dear Kjell: I have reviewed your letter of November 12, 1976 with its enclosures relating to the provisions of City of Tukwila Resolution No. 489. November 16, 1976 G'ly OF TUKwi LAWRENCE E. HARD RODNEY J. WALDBAUM RICHARD P. MATTHEWS WARREN T. CHAPMAN D. WILLIAM TOONE, JR. ROBERT L. PALMER COUNSEL STEPHEN F. CHADWICK 1894 -1978 P' Mr. Kjell Stoknes Director, Office of Community Development fCEIVE City of Tukwila 6230 Southcenter Boulevard "V1 71976 Tukwila, Washington 98188 I believe that the Resolution applies'to applica- tions for building permits regardless of the zoning classifi- cation of the land in question. Specifically, Section 4 D of the Resolution deals with "proposals for grading, clearing, excavation or filling ". Since a building permit may require any of the above actions, the Resolution is applicable. In my opinion, the City Council may deny a waiver based on the provisions of Section 4 D if there is any evidence brought before the City Council which demonstrates that the land upon which the buildings may be built is "naturally unstable, unstable when modified or in areas of known land- slides." It may be that the applicant for the waiver has evidence that the land is not unstable; however, if there is contradictory evidence presented to the City Council which demonstrates a real or potential problem, it would not be an abuse of the City Council's powers to deny the waiver. In other words, if there is evidence which would support the City Council's decision, that decision would be upheld. The fact that a court may review the evidence and decide in its mind that the land is not unstable would not be sufficient to reverse the legislative decision of the City Council. The law only requires that there be some evidence which supports the Council's decision. Mr. Kjell Stoknes November 16, 1976 Page Two I hope this letter is of assistance to you. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call or write. cc: Honorable Edgar D. Bauch Very truly yours, LeSOURD, :,ATTEN, FL •NG & HARTUNG Lawr - sL' - . Hard CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DIVISION CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: 24 November 1976 REQUEST: Waiver from Resolution #489, Section 4:D.1 and 4:D.2. PETITIONER: CHG International, Inc. LOCATION OF South 160th Street at 51st Avenue South (McMicken PROPERTY: Heights) The applicant proposes to construct 145 apartment units on approximately 11.0 acres presently zoned RMH (Multiple Residence High Density) on the northeastern face of the McMicken Heights hill. A proposed site plan by CHG International is attached to this Staff Report. Section 4:D.1 and D.2 which concern proposals for grading, clearing, excavation or filling in environmentally critical area sensitive areas require a waiver from Resolution #489. Because the proposed action requires a waiver based on Section 4:D.1 - D.2 and because the same action in an area not identified as environmentally sensitive would not require a waiver, Staff will consider only whether the waiver request addresses itself to environmental constraints outlined in Section 4:D.1 - D.2. 1. Is the proposed action consistent with the presently emerging Land Use Policy Plan? STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed action as depicted in the attached site plan seems to be consistent with the general intent of the Natural Environment element of the emerging Land Use Plan. Generally, the site plan promotes the quality of natural landform, constrains development to slopes under 20 percent, and maintains a portion of the site's wooded character, all thrusts of the Natural Environment element. The Planning Commission has studied and recommended land use in the McMicken Heights area on the as yet unadopted Comprehensive Land Use Map. According to their preliminary mapping, the Com- mission has proposed Single - Family Residential use for the subject property as well as for neighboring properties. While this fact gives the impression that the proposed action may be inconsistent with the emerging Land Use Plan, it should be restated here that the land use issue is irrelevent in the review of this waiver. City Council Staff Report Page 2 24 November 1976 2. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition which is insignificant in scale and to which no other apparent alterna- tives are reasonable? STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed action does represent a unique condition in that the present land use plan and existing zoning both designate the subject site for multiple - family residential use, but because the site is located in an environmentally sensi- tive area a waiver to Resolution #489 is required. Alternatives to the proposal are available and reasonable under current zoning, but these too would require a waiver. As far as the significance of the scale of the development is concerned, this may be more appropriately determined in conjunction with environmental review at the time of building permit application. 3. If the request for waiver involves grading, excavation, filling or development in geographical areas identified as having potential natural limitations for development, are mitigating measures provided? The proposed action does involve excavation, grading, and filling in conjunction with the building process in an area which has been identified as having natural limitations for development, i.e., steep slopes and possible slide problems. Mitigating measures in the form of site design and location of buildings has been proposed on the attached site plan. Subsurface soil and geologic investiga- tions have been completed for the subject site by Pacific Testing Laboratories which substantiate the ability of the ground to accom- modate the proposed structures without adverse impacts to ground stability. 4. Do the requirements contained in Resolution #489 impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the Land Use Policy Plan? STAFF COMMENTS: The policy commitment to be made by approval of this waiver is to permit large structures in an area identified as environmentally sensitive, i.e., steep slopes with possible slide problems. This may not be a major policy commitment since there is evidence which suggests the site will hold the proposed development if the final site layout is responsive to particular environmental constraints. Assurance that development will be responsive to these constraints is provided by environmental review pursuant to the City's SEPA guidelines. As such, the requirements contained in Resolution #489 may impose a special hardship. RECOMMENDATION: The environmental integrity of the subject site is ensured by the City's environmental review procedures pursuant to SEPA guidelines. Because the preliminary site plan appears to respond to environmental constraints and City Council Staff Report Page 3 24 November 1976 . further assurance that it will be guaranteed through SEPA, the environmental policy commitment which might be made by approval of this waiver would appear to be insignificant. The land use policy commitment to be made by approval of this waiver may be more significant but, again, it must be stated that this factor is not relevent to the waiver request. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the waiver request. • 1 1 1 1 Mc, of H(9 Iwhernati• a Waivtx rltxt t TUKWILA UYrt, WILA PLA ING D ' R1' MAY 1975 TUKWILA W RANGE • EAST RANGE S EAST CITY OF TUKWILA ZONING R•A 1.1.7.2 149.6 R•1.12.0 1.2.84 113 113.60 11.4 RMH PF C.1 C•2 CPR CM M•1 M•2 LEGEND RESIDENTIAL. AGRICULTURAL 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE 1 FAMILY RESIDENCE 2 FAMILY RESIDENCE 3 FAMILY RESIDENCE 3or4 FAMILY RESIDENCE LOW APARTMENTS MULT. RESIDENCE NIGH DENS. PUBLIC FACILITY NEIGHBORH00D RETAIL LOCAL RETAIL PLAN'D BUS. CENTER REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL PARK LIGHT INDUSTRY HEAVY INDUSTRY MI II uM 2m MOIL N'REVISIONS City: Tacoma Zip: 98402 CITY OF TUKWILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER From the Provisions of Resolution Number 489 RIR 12D0 Mailing Address: 1906 One Washington. Plaza, Tacoma, Washington Ownership Interest in Property: Earnest Money Agreement • • Legal Description of Property Affected: Attached. (Please type or print) Date of Application: October 14, 1976 Name of Applicant: CHG INTERNATIONAL, INC. Phone: General Location of Property: North of C_ 16nth Street on The East and West sides of 51st Avenue South. 1. .State specifically the action in Resolution No. 489, Section 4 to which you are requesting a waiver: Grading, Excavation, filling and development in a geographical area identified as having potential natural limitations for. development. 2. Describe specifically the action you are proposing, including dimensional infor— mation about the development, site maps, etc., if available: Construction of a 145 unit apartment project together with streets, parkins pool, tennis court and underground utilities. Dimensional information and site maps are attached. What is your justification for your request: (Please refer to items 1 -4 on the cover sheet and respond to them.) 1.) The proposed action is consistent with the existing zoning and land use plan. 9.) The prnpnced artinn rpprpcents a reasonable and appropriate use of land which is sensitive to the limitations of the site. 3.) Mitigating measures, such as retention of existing vegetation on severe slopes, interseptor drains, and interium drainage controls, will be utilized during and after construction. 4.) A waiver of the provisions . • contained in resolution No. 489 would not necessitate a major policy commitment prior to the adoption of the land use policy plan, as the proposal conforts to the requirements of the existing zoning and the Question is limited to the potential natural limitations of the site. . 4. What other factual evidence is relevant to your request for. waiver (such as exist- ing development in the vicinity of your property, soils and geologic investiga- tions, etc.): Date Received: Received by: Attached is the site evaluation prepared by Paul R. Weber, Consulting Engineer /Earth Sciences. (Attach_ any, other information available which substantiates your request) Date scheduled before City Council: Action of City Council: Date of City Council Action: (for office use only) Parcel A Tract 8 of Brookvale Garden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 47, records of King County, EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof, and EXCEPT that por— tion thereof conveyed for street purposes by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 4063864. Situate in the Town of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, LESS that por- tion of the aforementioned Parcel 'A' lying within a strip of land 100 feet in width being 50 feet wide on each side of the centerline of the V line of Primary State Highway No. 1, South 178th Street to South 126th Street, as surveyed over and across Tract of Brookvale Garden Tracts, granted to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5571095. Parcel contains 111,905.64 sq. ft. Parcel B Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M., EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof for roads and EXCEPT portion deeded to King County for Public Road and Highway by Auditor's File No, 4063864, plus vacated portion of tract of Brookvale Garden Tracts, and EXCEPT por— tion conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5661903, and EXCEPT roads, situate in the Town of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. Parcel contains 373,788.36 sq. ft. IL ' Parcel A Tract 8 of Brookvale Garden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, page 47, records of King County, EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof, and EXCEPT that por— tion thereof conveyed for street purposes by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 4063864. Situate in the Town of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, LESS' that por- tion of the aforementioned Parcel 'A' lying within a strip of land 100 feet in width being 50 feet wide on each side of the centerline of the V line of Primary State Highway No. 1, South 178th Street to South .126th Street, as surveyed over and across Tract of Brookvale Garden Tracts, granted to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5571095. Parcel contains 111,905.64 sq. ft. Parcel B Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter of Section 22, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, :-:.P1. , EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof for roads and EXCEPT portion deeded to King County for Public Road and Highway by Auditor's File No '4063864, plus vacated portion of tract of Brookvale Garden Tracts, and EXCEPT par- tion conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded. under Auditor's File No. 5661903, and EXCEPT roads, situate in the Town' of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington. Parcel contains 373,788.36 sq. ft. Gentle n: INTRODUCTIO Messrs. Ploe, Alberti and Tingbal c/o Frank Alberti and Associates P.. . Box 99155 Seat e, Washington quently. The natural drainage of pouf r. weber consulting engineer-earth sciences December 1, 1975 the Site Evaluation Tukwila /Southcenter Property • . Thislett-• presents my evaluation of ground conditions an eleven acre site above Southcenter in Tukwila, Washington. The property is'bounded on•the South by S. 1 Oth Street, on the East'by 53rd Avenue'S., on the West by the right -of -way of 9th Avenue.S., and on the North by the extension:of' S. 158th Street. The sit occupies high ground:.above Southcenter and the intersection of I -5 and I -4 Basically, the site is a tural wooded slope rising from Elevation 150 at•53rd Avenue S. to Elevation 35 at 49th Avenue S. The topography. is irreg - three ular, however, and can be divided in :areas, as.will.be discussed subse side has been modified .by the Highway 518: construction to the North of the property.\ freeway construction was the primary cause of the Tukwila slide which did,Sgnsiderable property damage in 1965. The upper limits of this slide extended j tto•the North property. bound ary. Massive drainage works were installed to stab lize the slide; some of • . these extend into and improve the stability of the sub3'ect site. In particular, a 12 -inch CMP carries surface water down 51st Avenue.S \a 16 -inch pipe•• drains the North boundary of the site. 1200 westlake ave. north /seattle,wa.'98109 /(206) 2e, S •LL tPI L * A 4 sA 1 € 1 - sr* 4 z A NOM 110111111 2 4 WO. 4 ate ONO 11/0 1110 L t .i A • { '1 :1 .1 .1 1 a ' LV. No 207 ( f McMicken gathers forces to battle hillside complex of l45apartm�nts By GREG ANDERSON Tukwila City Hall may see a crowd Jan. 3 the likes of which hasn't been observed there for a long tithe. More than 200 residents of McMicken Heights are expected to attend the city council meeting on that day to voice their concerns over a proposed apartment complex in their residential area. These citizens have organized and mean business: They have formed a group called the Tukwila - McMicken Action Committee. Officers have been named, an attorney has been hired and a fund drive has begun. At the core of the controversy is CHG International, Inc., a Tacoma development firm which hopes to build a 145 -unit apartment complex on 11 acres on the northeastern face of. McMicken Heights Hill, south of 160th Street at 51st Avenue South. Though single- family residences make up the area's housing, the property has been zoned for high- density residential use. Tukwila's emerging comprehensive land -use map, however, has identified the . property as being for single- family use. The new committee, consisting of about 35 members who live near the proposed apartment site, seeks to fight the problem on two levels, according to Dennis Robertson, newly - elected president. First, the group wants to stop CHG. It fears the impact an apartment complex might have on the surrounding residential area. Secondly, the group wants to make sure that the entire McMicken Heights area is zoned for single - family residential use only. But the first battle is with the , apartment complex. The city council already has received one petition with names of 92 area residents, protesting the proposed action. That petition was developed in two days, according to Robertson. 2-(2-41 The neighborhood committee is circulating another petition now, . reiterating the concerns voiced in the first petition. About 150 names are on the petition so far, and organizers expect to have about 300 names before the Jan. 3 meeting, when it will be presented. The group is focusing its attention on t?le Jan. 3 council meeting because that is when a rep- resentative of CHG is scheduled to offer the company's side in the con - troi'ersy. CHG is not seeking permission to apply for a rezone since its project already is an allowed use. The proposed site of the complex, howev- er, has been designated an environmentally sensitive,. area.. because of the potential for :land- slides.. A. city 'resolution exists that re quires prospective developers to get council approval to apply for build- ing permits in areas defined Jas environmentally sensitive: Along other things, such a build- . ing permit could be denied if it is decided that the proposed project would be precedent- setting or have an adverse impact on the environment. The McMicken committee is hop- ing to thwart CHG's plans by using these two exceptions in the resolu- tion. The action committee has designated persons to act as block captains to make sure area residents attend the January council meeting, and to get plenty of names on the new petition. "We are fighting this because we don't want a large apartmentcom- plex near a quiet residential area," Robertson said. "Such a complex would measurably increase traffic, noise and affect air quality. This area is made up of single - family homes, and we want it to stay that way." Other group officers include Bob Crane,. vice - president; Jim McKenna, treasurer; and McKenna's wife, Cindy, secretary. INUuINUNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIINNIIIIIINIIIIIIIIINIIul fIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIlhtIII 111IIIN PUMA YORKS ®EPA TME` T f 230 outlhcenter IBouleva rd Tukwila, Weehin ton 9E087 telephone C206 3 242-2°177 December 17, 1976 6. On page 8, paragraph 5, Slope Constraints -- D, E, G, H Area, they make reference to the indications of "minor evidences of surface creep." which should be taken into account during the final design and construction phases. CHG International Development Soils Report (P.T.L.) Mr. Kjell Stoknes ••� Director, Office of Community Development 6230 Southcenter Blvd. ..i Tukwila, Washington 98188 El El Dear Kjell: d h EC As you have requested, I have reviewed the Pacific Testing Laboratory's geotechnical evaluation report and find it to be quite thorough in its 1L analysis of the existing and potential problems within the site develop- ment area.. I have the following comments to make and feel that they Li should be considered at the time that a building permit would be issued Li for any development. . La In the Abstract, P.T.L. notes that the "site is stable ", however, they have several conditions attached to this within the report which qualify • and make very specific recommendations as to these conditions. 111 Some of the specific items which should be addressed in any final report attached to a building application would include the following: 1. Stratigraphy -- J, K Area, page 6. This refers to the • predominant water supply in springs immediately to the west of the area and the necessary precautions for drain- age control and foundation preparation. !,U 2. In reference to the stratigraphy of the L and M areas on E page 6, paragraph 3 report refers to the loose density of �- the upper few feet which will require special considera- (j tion in compaction or depth of foundation. . 6) 3. On page 7 in the upper paragraph, a reference is made to structural backfill in reference to this particular area E and the compaction requirements. 11 4. In paragraph 2, lines 4 thru 7, there is reference to the steep bank sections and special consideration for same. E5 5. On page 8, notes 2 and 3 are of considerable importance and reference for future decisions. Mr. Kjell Stoknes December 17, 1976 Page 2 7. On page 9, paragraph 2, reference is made to potential of major slope failure which could be critical and definite evaluation should be made in the final design phases of this proposed project. 8. On page 11 in reference to retaining walls, it refers to a 3 -on -12 slope for typical rock retaining walls with a maximum height of 12 feet. In the final design, if rock- eries are utilized, a thorough analysis of the natural angle of repose and recommendations as to maximum loadings should be included as to the potential of surcharging a toe of the slope at the base of any rock wall. 9. On page 11, Future Civil Considerations, this office strongly recommends that if this project is made viable and proceeds to the construction stage that this paragraph be carefully .taken into account because of the known problems in the area_per this particular report.of the Pacific.Testing Laboratory and the attached supporting report prepared by fir. Paul Weber; All in all, as a preliminary soils study, I feel it is quite adequate as it appears to address all the potential problems and hazards of this' particular site and evaluates them in a realistic manner. As previously stated, it . would be the strong recommendation of this office that at the.time of building permit application, that further studies be made as. to detailed items asout- lined in preliminary P.T.L. site study and that all recommendations of this report be adhered to as reasonably as possible. I hope that this report is satisfactory to you, however, if you have any further questions, do not hesitate to .ask me and I will attempt to answer them. SMH /dp cc: Mr. Richard K. Williams , Sincerely yours, Steven M. Hall, P. E. Public Works. Director 15 cents Tukwila - Riverton- McMickef Heights Edition Thursday, December 9, 1976 Vh91 Some residents • in McMicken. Heights are unhappy:'And they made sure Monday night that the Tukwila City Council knows it. Owners and prospective • ••• developers of four parcels of land in ,: .Tukwila' are seeking waivers to a ' city resolution. The resolution re- quires that applicants must seek permission from the city council before they can apply for rezones. Another facet of the resolution is that applicants must get council approval to apply for building permits in areas defined as :•'.. �..'es►viunumecLallvsensitiYr�� ..�� because of the potential for slides. -City planning staff have recommended that the waiver be granted because CHG's preliminary site plan "...appears to respond to environmental constraints... ". in the area. Waiver denial Improbable • City Attorney Larry Hard advised the council that it probably could not deny the waiver because CHG has fulfilled all requirements. • Councilman Dan Saul, who lives in McMicken made a motion to deny the waiver, bu it.died` for Three of the applications before the city council are not expected to be controversial.. One — involving 11 acres in McMicken Heights — already is. CHG International, Inc. of Tacoma hopes to build an apartment complex on 11 acres on the northeastern face of McMicken Heights Hill, south of 160th Street at 51st Avenue South. The complex would include 145 units. The proposed apartment complex is an allowed use because the property has been zoned for high density residential use, though the permit. He s aid an environmental city 's Still .unfinished com -. -- tmnactst atementlnight.berequired .prehensive land use reap - has 'from CHG. identified the property as being for • , . Impact statement possible single family residential use. • Mayor Ed Bauch said an Only single family residences are environmental impact statement in that area now, and the people who could show that an apartment com - Iive in those homes don't want an plex in the McMicken Heights area apartment complex near them. would be "precedent setting," Citizen protest evident something that is not allowed under That became evident when about the-resolution which requires the 25 persons showed up at a council waiver requests... meeting Monday night to voice their Three other waiver requests, all concerns. In addition, a petition with for permission to apply for rezones, 92 signatures of persons living in the were granted by the council. Bauch :area of the proposed complex site recommended that the waivers be was presented to the council. granted and referred.to the planning commission because the emerging The petition stated that the city land-use plan and map probably persons•who signed it were opposed , ow n t be adopted by the city councils :: = to the complex because it would be in until mid- summer: ; ° , . ,,: _ a residential area, would generate ?: . .Bruce: McCann . hasmade heavy ,;.traffic , and noise:: would ;ceques One is, for 3 :7 acres crease water demands and 3` Y promote.,,, ad to and north of South .178th : ', '4'sotl:erosion in the area : -.,r. •Street and :east of and adjacent. to` - CHG. " is not seeking permission'to .. Interstate; 5 'He.wants the property , "apply for a rezone since its project :;; from single - fam ily''. already . is an allowed use The residential to multiple family use. proposed siteof the complex, howev . His other request •.involves 2.9 has been designated an' acres located at the northwest corn -' environmentally sensitive area er•of South .180th Street and Southcenter Parkway. McCann ' wants this property rezoned from single family to light industrial use: ' it y :planning.. had -'recommended denial of both these. ;•.requests:; L: - A third request was made by Horst :Ehinke, prospective owner 4 developer of 2:5 acres located west of ,1 and adjacent to 62nd Avenue South;' •{ , about •300 feet north of Southcenter Boulevard.: >; •• s` X ; He wanti the property rezoned to construction of six- plexes in= ' .stead of ;the' allowed four - family units.: Planners had recommended .approval of this request. ' ":McCann: and Ehmke now will :be able to apply for rezones of their.? Instead, the council i to con= `'`'' °' duct a public. hearing Jan. 3 .nn CHG's- waiver request. The com- pany did not have a representative present during Monday's meeting, and the council wants to hear the other side. Hard emphasized that granting of a waiver only means that the ap- plicant Is allowed to apply for a rezone or building permit. In CHG's case, granting of the waiver would allow the firm to apply for a building permit. But Hard added that this doesn't mean the applicant will get the • December 8, 1976 CHG International, Inc. 1906 One Washington Plaza Tacoma, Washington 98402 ATTN: Thomas A. Johnson RE: Application for waiver to Resolution 489 Dear Mr. Johnson: The Tukwila City Council discussed your waiver request during their regular Council meeting of December 6, 1976, and decided to schedule a public hearing on the matter during their regular Council meeting of January 3, 1977. That meeting will start at 7:00 P.M. in Tukwila City Hall, 14475 - 59th Avenue South. They had originally intended to schedule this public hearing on December 20th of this year, however, it was determined that the publishing requirements of chapter 18.92 of the Tukwila Municipal Code could not be met by the 20th of December. Very truly yours, Kj ll Stoknes, Director Office of Community Development KS /cw cc: Thomas L. Fishburne 2200 One Washington Plaza Tacoma, WA 98402 City Clerk File CITY of TUKWILA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6230 Southcenter Boulevard Ca Tukwila, Washington 98188 Is (206) 242 =2177 /�Q \'•AILA CITY COUNCIL REGU MEETING ;,cei��ber 6, 1976 V. Page 3 NEW BUSINESS Request for Waiver to Res. #489 for rezone, Bruce McCann equest for Waiver to Res. #489, Sec. 4:D.1 & 4:D.2, CHG International 9 s6 yye Mayor Bauch gave a progress report on.the Comprehensive Plan. 1ho Planning Commission's work sessions will be completed by the ends or December and Staff will have the final maps available in January. 13 the 1st of March the review period on the Environmental Impact Statement will be up. It will be mid -year before the plan is submitted to the Council table and will take about two months for their review. Based on these facts, Mayor Bauch recommended that the Council grant the two waivers from Resolution #489 for rezones as requested by Bruce McCann and refer them to the Planning Commission for review. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE COUNCIL GRANT THE TWO WAIVERS FROM RESOLUTION #489 FOR REZONES AND REFER THEM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THEIR REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED WITH MS. HARRIS VOTING NO. Mayor Bauch called on Attorney Hard for an opinion on a waiver from /Resolution #489 as requested by CHG International, Inc. I Attorney Hard explained that the application for the waiver is from a developer who wishes to apply for a Building Permit to build an apartment complex in the McMicken Heights area. The property is now zoned RMH which is the proper zoning for the use they intend. Resolution #489 makes a waiver necessary in certain areas where grading. clearing, excavation or filling are in question. The question was raised, at the Committee of the Whole Meeting, as to whether the City can deny the applicant the right to file for a Building Permit in light of the fact that the Comprehensive Plan for the City. is in the process of being changed and there was indication that this area might be zoned something less than RMH. Attorney Hard stated that the way Resolution #489 is worded the Council probably can not deny CHG International the right to file for a Building Permit because they have met the requirements in showing that the land is probably stable. He further stated that he informed the lawyer for CHG International it was not necessary for him to be at this meeting. In the event the Council denies the waiver they have a right to request a Public Hearing. In light of the fact that the land is properly zoned for the use they want to put it, the Council can not deny their right to apply for Building Permit on the grounds that there may be a change of the zoning in that area at sometime in the future. Councilman Saul expressed concern about the traffic from the apartment complex exiting onto South 160th Street and asked if there was any way the Council could change this. Attorney Hard said that the Council can certainly make their wishes known to the Building Departren Attorney Hard explained further that once they apply for a Building Permit it just starts the process, the City could then determine that this project would adversely affect the quality of the environment in that area and require a full Environmental Impact Statement. Ba.;ed on the EIS it might be. determined that this project should not be completed. Attorney Hard stated that the area is properly zoned and they at least have a right to apply for a Building Permit. Mayor Bauch explained that after CHG International has applied for a Building Permit they still have to comply with Section C of Resolution #489. In reality,.if you grant the waiver to apply for a Building Permit, prior to the issuance of the permit, City Staff has to determine whether Section C of this Resolution will be violated. If in the EIS anything is being done that is "precedent setting" or it "contains significant environmental impacts which will not be mitigated" the Staff will have to send it back to the Council for another waiver to grant the Building Permit. Based on this, Mayor Bauch recommended that the City Council grant the waiver request. 1 TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL REGUr MEETING ' Decc.mber 6, 1976 Page 4 NEW BUSINESS - CONT. Request for Waiver - Cont. Request for Waiver from Res. #489, for rezone, Horst Ehmke (62nd Ave. So.) RESOLUTIONS Resolution #562 - Designating Foster & Marshall Bonding Agents (Purchase of Foster Golf Course) Mr. Sowinski, 16050 - 51st Ave. So., noted that they have heard how the City Council's hands are tied in respect to Resolution No. 489 but would like an interpretation of what affect it has on the public response to this. This area is completely single family residential and they don't approve of an apartment house going in. Mayor Bauch stated that he can't say exactly how long the zoning has been on the property but it has been on a long time. Without Resolution No. 489 the Staff's hands would be completely tied and have to answer the developer in court if they did not issue the Building Permit. It wouldn't be a case of whether the citizens like it or not. Mr. Sowinski asked what the citizens can do now. Is there some action they can take to turn this around? Councilman Hill stated that the letters and petitions submitted by the residents should be turned over to the head of the Planning Department and to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sowinski stated that the petitions involve only about 70% of the people in the area, with a.little more time he could probably get 95 %. Councilman Saul noted that you have to live within a certain distance from the property in question. Councilman Traynor asked the City Attorney if they have 100% objection can the Council change the zoning back to R -1? Attorney Hard stated that he supposed you could after ample Public Hearing but, you have to look at the other side - at what the courts might say. The court would say this person bought that . property, it is zoned RMH which is a broader use and has a right. The City might go ahead an rezone then suffer some damages. Dennis Roberts4l6038 - 48th Ave. South, expressed concern and questioned that - 1. If you need to grant the waiver and an EIS is involved can the Citizens submit a negative EIS? and 2. What are the applicable laws or statutesand are they available to the public? Attorney Hard continued to explain procedures and courses of action that might happen. He did say the public could submit comments to the EIS. The law is very clear on whether developments are adversely affecting the environment. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE WAIVER FROM RESOLUTION NO. 489 BE DELAYED UNTIL DECEMBER 20, 1976 SO THAT CHG INTERNATIONAL CAN BE IN ATTENDANCE. * Gentleman from the audience suggested that December 20 could be a hardship on many people as it is in the middle of the holidays and suggested setting the date after the first of the year. Date changed to January 3, 1977. *MOTION CARRIED. MOVED BY HILL, SECONDED BY VAN DUSEN, THAT THE COUNCIL GRANT THE WAIVER FROM RESOLUTION NO. 489 FOR REZONE AND REFER IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW. MOTION CARRIED WITH MS. HARRIS AND TRAYNOR VOTING NO. 060 Mayor Bauch introduced a ResoTutiondesignating Foster & Marshall, Inc. as the Bonding Agent for the City of Tukwila and authorizing. the Mayor to execute an agreement. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT RESOLUTION NO. 562 BE ACCEPTED AS SUBMITTED. * Councilman Harris stated that she would like to have seen letters from other Bonding Agents.as well as Foster & Marshall. *MOTION CARRIED. JOSEPH H. GORDON CHARLES L. THOMAS WARREN R. PETERSON ALBERT R. MALANCA WARREN J. DAHEIM JAMES E.O HERN E.M. (SANDY) MURRAY RICHARD J.JENSEN W. WALLACE CAVANAGH,JR. JAMES A.FURSER L.R.GHILARDUCCI, JR. VALEN H. HONEYWELL JOHN E. SLOAN THOMAS L.FISHBURNE JOE GORDON,JR. DENNIS S. HARLOWE MARK G. HONEYWELL EUGENE R.NIELSON DALE L. CARLISLE WILLIAM E. HOLT Mr. Lawrence E. Hard Attorney at Law Seattle Tower Seattle, Washington 98111 Dear Mr. Hard: LAW OFFICES GORDON, THOMAS, HONEYWELL MALANCA, PETERSON 8 O'HB 2200 ONE WASHINGTON PLAZA TACOMA, WASHINGTON 98402 December 3, 1976 Re: Waiver from Resolution #489, Section 4:D.1 and 4:D.2 This will confirm my oral request on behalf of CHG International, Inc. that the hearing on the waiver request of my client be continued from the meeting of Monday, December 6 to the meeting of Monday, December 20. It is my hope that you will be able to schedule this first on the agenda for that date. I will be in touch with you next week in order to discuss the conditions question. Thank you for your cooperation. TLF:as cc:,ft'ity of Tukwila Planning Dept. City of Tukwila Clerk Mr. Thomas A. Johnson Very truly yours, Thomas L. Fishburne JEROME F. MCCARTHY GARY A. BURNS DANIEL P. PEPPLE JEFFREY A.SMYTH RONALD 8. LEIGHTON JOSEPH F.OUINN TELEPHONE AREA CODE 200 572 -5050 ECEIVE DEC 4 71976 WY OF TUKWILA November 29, 1976 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL OF COUNCIL MEMBERS APPROVAL OF MINUTES DISCUSSION Appointment to the Park Board - Introduction of Mrs. Mildred Heppenstall Proposed Ord. - re: Disorderly Conduct Waivers to Res. 489 a. Bruce McCann re: Adjacent to and No. of So. 178th St. &• East of and Adjacent to I -5 b. NW corner of So. 180th St. & South - center Pkway. G Intl. - cinity of So. 160th St. & 51st Ave. So. d. Ehmke Property (Todd) - 62nd Ave. So. CITY OF TUKWILA ;.' City Hall COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING } Council Chambers M I N U T E '.> Council President Hill called the Committee of the Whole Meeting to order at 7:45 P.M. GARDNER, TRAYNOR, HILL, SAUL, MS. PESICKA, VAN DUSEN, MS. HARRIS. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT THE NOVEMBER 8, 1976 MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING BE APPROVED AS PUBLISHED. CARRIED. Mayor Bauch introduced Mrs. Mildred Heppenstall to the City Council Members. Councilman Traynor asked Mrs. Heppenstall if she was interested in recreation and parks. She replied that she was. Council man Pesicka remarked that since one of the City Council priorities was a park area in McMicken Heights she wondered if Mrs. Heppenstall was interested in that project. Mrs. Heppenstall replied that she was interested in that priority as she lives in McMicken Heights. Larry Hard, Deputy City Attorney, explained the changes he had made in the proposed ordinance. Councilman Pesicka said it appeared to her the restrictions in the ordinance could be abused by some people. Deputy City Attorney Hard said the Police Department had asked for this ordinance. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE TABLED UNTIL A JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS LAW IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. CARRIED, WITH VAN DUSEN VOTING NO. Council President Hill stated since there were a number of the. audience present for the discussion on waivers to Resolution #489, Item 6 of the Agenda, that matter would be discussed next. Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development, pointed out the area on a wall map stating Mr. McCann had applied for a rezone to R -4. He stated the staff had recommended against this waiver. Councilman Traynor said we are so close to getting the Comprehensive Plan and the Public Hearing that he did not want to remove any more'waivers until he saw the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCann, owner of the property, stated he wanted to build multiple housing on his property. MOVED BY SAUL, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT ITEMS 6.a. and 6.b. BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE DECEMBER 6, 1976 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development pointed out the property involved on a wall map, stating it was located in McMicken Heights. He said the owner wished to construct apartment units. MOVED BY TRAYNOR, SECONDED BY SAUL, THAT ITEM 6.c. BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE DECEMBER 6, 1976 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. * Frank Alberti, representing the owner, stated there will be a very extensive report submitted showing in -depth deep soil tests. *CARRIED. Kjell Stoknes, Director of Community Development, said the applicant had requested a waiver to #489 allowing him to apply for a rezone on the referenced property from R -3 to R -4. The applicant was proposing to build 48 units on the site - the same number allowed under R -3 zoning - but desires to construct six- plexes instead of four -unit dwellings which require a rezoning to R -4. He said his staff recommended approval of the waiver request. MOVED BY VAN DUSEN, SECONDED BY MS. PESICKA, THAT ITEM 6.d. BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE DECEMBER 6, 1976 AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. CARRIED. TO: FROM: r.oba , SUBJECT: 6(ia4,64.e OF't -10E MEMO CITY of TUKWILA 7 rh TD 1,,,, ves 11144:-, r-20 pa-e+ 4 ;11 * 4 - At t•-a41-1 i/e4',41-5 , 414.4 - c - - f 4 .M . g , t At.i .P .- sli4t A I el t ovec444 -'i,t, w ar t l k ✓ °,r-t . "c.K 4_4 . TS- ) 1.04-r.{. fectiey s P-e toetc[c. 0 Ikea-, - tic aM. a. 4,44. tAA-a r-c -rye cc. .... , w¢, sti.ert.4iJ 34c rye . 0. a,,,. 11,,,400 gA4,4 Le. 4.) s TO: FROM: (CA SUBJECT: OF‘ irCE MEMO CITY oF TUKWILA / • 11 4"r 4he--e-t4-4-tti-vX ey e C CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a permit from the city of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible Official that an environmental assessment or full impact statement is required. Other forms have been developed for single- family home applications and legislation proposals. BACKGROUND DATA: • 1. Name of applicant: CHG Tntprnational, Ins 2. Address and phone of Applicant: 1906 One Washington Plaza,Tacoma,Wa.98402 Phone VE 8 •1200 . . 3. Project name: Columbian Apartment • 4. Project location: 51st Avenue & 161st Street 5. Nature and brief description of proposal: 145 Unit gpartnint vP Thpnin- • consisting of 11 two and thrPA stnry wnruifrane buildings 6. Estimated completion date: 'November, 1977 7. Do you have any plans for future expansion, if yes please explain: no 8. 'What other governmental permits are required prior to completion of this project? (a) Rezone, conditional use, substantial development, etc. YES NO' x (b) King County Hydrolics Permit 'YES- x. NO (c) Building permit .YE x .NO (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES. • NO x (e) Sewer hookup permit - YES x .NO (f) Sign permit YES x. NO • (g) Water hook up permit YES. .x NO (h) Storm water system permit YES x NO (i) Curb cut permit YES x NO . (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO • (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO (1) Other Waiver from the provisions.of resolution Number 489. 9. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: no 10. Agency requiring checklist: City of Tukwila, Department - Planning 11. Accepted by agency on: by: (to be filled in by city upon receipt of checklist) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required.) - - Yes Maybe No - Earth. Will the proposal result in: (a) Unstable earth conditions or in any changes in geologic sub - structures: (b) Disruptions, displacements or overcovering of the soils: • (c) Change in topography or ground__ surface relief features? (d) The destruction,.cover.ing, or - modification of any unique geologic or physical features ?' (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on - or off the site? ' (fr" Changes - in deposition or __erosion of_beach_sands, or • .in changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed. of :the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" . Air. Will the proposal result in: (a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient.air quality? (b) The creation of objectionable odors? (c) Alteration of air movement, moi sture temperature; - or — in._any_- _change.in .climate,..._ -_.. . either locally or regionally? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" X X X Yes Playbe 1:ater. Will the proposal result in:.,_' (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water ' • movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the amount of surface water run- . off? (c) Alterations to the course or • flow of flood waters? (d) Change in the amount of surface water in any watercourse? (e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of sur- face.'water quality, including temperature or turbidity? (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground.waters? . (g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an acquifer by cuts or excavations? (h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either through direct injection, or through the seep- • age of leachate, phosphates, . detergents, waterborne virus or bacteria, or other substances .into the ground waters? (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water_ supplies? • Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" -2- X X C Flora. Will the proposal result in: (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, micro -flora and aquatic plants)? (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a bar- rier to the normal replenishment of . • existing species? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" • Fauna.• Will the proposal result in: (a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of fauna (birds, land animals including rep- . tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, or micro - fauna)? (b Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? (c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an area, or result in a .barrier . to the or movement of fauna? (d) Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" Noise.- Will the proposal increase exist-' ing noise levels? Explanation:SEE ATTACHMENT "A" -3- Yes 'Maybe No X X C Light and Glare. Will the pro•osai produce new light or glare? Explanation: -SEE ATTACHMENT "A" Land Use. Will the proposal r-sult in the alteration of the present or •lanned land• use of an area? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT Natural Resources. Will the proposal re- sult in: • ,(a) Increase in the rate of se of any natural resource? . (b) Depletion of any nonrene able nat- ural resource? Explanation:. SEE ATTACHMENT " Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of a accident or upset conditions? Explanation: Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, dens ty, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT 'A" • -4- Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing availability, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" Transportation /Circulation. Will the pro- posal result in: (a) Generation of additional vehicular movement? (b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (c) Impact upon existing transportation • systems? • . (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne or air traffic? Explanation: S EE ATTACHMENT "A" Local Services. Will the have an ,effect upon, or result in a need for new services in any of the following areas: (a) Fire protection? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (f) Other'governmental services? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" _5_ • Yes Maybe No . Energy. Will the proposal result in: (a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel' or energy? (b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Explanation: Utilities. Will "the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the follow- ing utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) .Communications systems? (c) Water ?' (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: . SEE ATTACHMENT Human Health. Will the proposal result in the creation of any health hazard.or potential . health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Explanation: C -6- Yes • Maybe No Explanation: Explanation: Recreation. Will the proposal result in an . impact upon the quality or quantity of ex- isting recreational opportunities? Explanation Archeological /Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site? Revenue. Will the proposal cause a signifi- cant:increase in city revenues? Explanation: SEE ATTACHMENT "A" Employment. Will the create a significant amount of new jobs? CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT: I hereby certify that the information furnished in this environmental checklist sheet is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Thomas A Johnson, Vice President Vittb rkfige Si ature and Title Project Name: Columbian Apartments Project Address: 51st Avenue.& 161st Street BELOW THIS LINE FOR CITY USE ONLY ACTION.BY OTHER' DEPARTMENTS: CITY OF TUKWIL!1 June 24, 1975 . October 14, 1976 Date ' one 1. Date of Review: Building .by: ( +) or ( -) Planning by: ( +) or (--) Engineering by: ( +) or ( -) Police by: (4) or ( -) Fire by:: ( +) or ( -) 2. Agency review of environmental checklist determined that: ' ':.The project is exempt by definition. The project has no significant environmental impact and application should be processed without further consideration of environmental affects The project has significant environmental impact and a complete environ -,: mental impact statement must be prepared prior to further action for perini More specific information is needed to determine impact. Signature. and. Title .of Responsible Official 3. Applicant was notified of decision on: 'by • Date by Date Staff Person Letter, phone • • In accordance with Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tul::,iila Ordinance No. 759. (a) Means recommend a full environmental impact statement be 'done. ( -) . Means recommend a full environmental impact statement 'not• 'be 'done: . Air Water ATTACHMENT "A" BACKGROUND The proposed project will consist dwelling units, swimming pool, tennis court and rental office; situated on two parcels of land (11.15 acres) which are zoned multiple residence high density. There will be eleven two and three story wood frame buildings with eight to eighteen units per building. Vehicular access to the project will be from 51st Avenue and 160th Street which connect to 53rd Avenue providing direct access to Interstate 5 and Southcenter shopping. All utilities will be available and constructed underground. Pedestrian circulation will be provided by sidewalks and pathways. Offstreet parking will be provided . at a ratio of 1.75 parking spaces for each dwelling un ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Earth (A) No. As indicated in the site evaluation prepared by Mr. Paul Weber, P.E., a majority of the site is stable and suitable for building founda- tions. The portion of the site referred to as Area 2, which is less desirable for foundations, has been improved by drainage works installed during freeway construction and will be further improved by construction of additional drains per Mr. Weber's recommendations. (B) Yes - (C) Yes. Grading and clearing will be necessary to construct the buildings, parking, roadways and utilities within the site. Any grading will affect the existing topography. However, the proposal has been carefully planned to minimize excavations with stepped buildings day- light basements fitting the existing topography and preserving as much natural vegetation as possible. (A) - - -No. 145 dwelling units will -- create approximately 725 vehicular trips per day in the immediate vicinity. However, the contribution of emissions from these automobiles will not be significant in relation to ambient air quality as affected by Interstate 5, Highway 518 and the Southcenter Snupping Mall. (B) Yes. With the anticipated paved areas for parking spaces and roadways combined with the actual buildings, the absorption rate of rainfall will ;be reduced within the site. , The runoff, however, will not be increased . per the requirements the King County Department of Hydraulics. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Continued) Flora (A) Yes. Clearing of vegetation will be necessary to the extent needed for placement of buildings, parking, drives and utilities. However, with large areas being left undisturbed, the diversity or numbers of existing species should not be affected. (C) Yes. New species not native to the existing area will be introduced as a part of the landscaping. These new species will be compatible with the existing flora and will tend only to enhance the area. Fauna (A) and (D) Maybe. Some deterioration of wildlife. Habitat will occur in proportion to the amount of land cleared. The significant amount of open space will tend to minimize this effect and guarantee a suitable environment for most of the existing diversity. of species. (C) Yes. Residential use of the site will tend to attract new species of fauna into the area which are accustomed to residential uses. A barrier to migration or movement of fauna will not result. Noise Maybe. The short term construction noise is unavoidable to any conceivable future use, except open space. The impact due to this type of development will be equivalent to development for single family residents but will be accomplished over a shorter period of time. The long term noise impact will be due to increased automobile traffic in the area. However, consider- ing the ambient noise level in the area this increase will be negligible. Light and Glare Yes. The area will be lighted for safety and security reasons. This will be low level and will not produce glare. Land Use Yes. The land is presently undeveloped. Development as an apartment project would be consistent with the existing zoning and planned use for the site. Attachment "A "...Page 2 Water (cont.) (G) Maybe. It will be necessary to control the affect of groundwater which may be intercepted by cuts for building foundations. • Natural Resources (B) Yes. Construction of the proposed project will decrease the total amount of open space available in the area. Population Yes. The proposal will increase the population of the specific area from 0 to 145 family units. It will also affect the distribution, density and growth rate of the adjacent areas. The impact should not be detrimental to the general area because it is consistent with the population growth and considerably less dense than anticipated. Housing Maybe. The proposal may have an effect upon existing housing; however, this effect should not be significant. The proposal will not directly create a demand for additional housing but help to meet the demand for housing which has increased with the commercial level of Southcenter. The economic climate of the area has indicated a substantial need for housing units similar to those proposed. Transportation /Circulation. (A) Yes. Traffic will be increased as a result of this proposal.. Trips generated by this development will be work trips, shopping trips, recreation trips and service trips. However, since this site is situated with convenient access to Highway 518, Interstate 5 and Southcenter shopping, the impact . should be minimal. Local Services (A) thru (F) Additional housing units totalling 145 units could house between 290 and 435 people including school age children. The increase of area population of this magnitude will affect all government services as listed and ultimately when combined with other growth areas in the vicinity, will . result in additional governmental services being required. This growth is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and will provide increased tax revenue to offset the demand for increased governmental services. With the amount of open space and recreation facilities provided by the proposed development the impact on parks or other recreational facilities should be considerably reduced. Utilities (A) thru (F) Maybe. Fuel and energy sources will be consumed by the develop- ment during and after construction, but according to utility suppliers, sources are readily available. Existing supplies of energy indicate the energy demands of this development can be met under the present and projected conditions of energy supply. New systems within the site will have to be constructed to provide necessary . utilities to the development. All utilities abut or traverse the project and are of adequate capacity; therefore, offsite alterations to existing utilities will not be needed. Attachment "A" Page 3 Revenue No. In relation to the existing tax revenue from the subject site, the _proposal would greatly increase the value and therefore the revenue. However, in relation to the City's total revenue, this increase will not be significant. Attachment "A"...Page 4 EXHIBIT A Parcel A Tract 8 of Brookvale Garden Tracts, as per plat recorded in Volume 10 of Plats, pace 47, records of King County, EXCEPT the South 30 feet thereof, and EXCEPT that por— tion thereof conveyed for street purposes by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 4063864. Situate in the Town of Tukwila, County of King, State of Washington, LESS that por— tion of the aforementioned Parcel 'A' lying within a strip of land 100 feet in width being 50 feet wide on each side of the centerline of the V line of Primary State. Highway No. 1, South 178th Street to South 126th Street, as surveyed over and across Tract of Brookvale Garden Tracts, granted to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5571095. Parcel contains 111,905.64 sq. :ft. Parcel B Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter of Southeast quarter of Section 22, Tcwn hi;p 23 North, Range 4 East, W.ti., EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof for roads and EXCEPT portion deeded to King County for Public Road and Highway by Auditor's File No. 4063864, plus vacated portion of tract of Brookvale Garen Tracts, . and EXCEPT por— tion conveyed to the State of Washington by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 5661 903, and EXCEPT roads, situate in the Town of Tukwila, County of.•King, State of Washington. Parcel contains 373,7E8.36 sq. ft. Messrs. Ploe, Alberti and Tingbal c/o Frank Alberti and Associates P. 0. Box 99155 Seattle, Washington Gentlemen: INTRODUCTION poul r. weber consulting engineer-earth sciences December 1, 1975 Site Evaluation Tukwila /Southcenter Property This letter presents my evaluation of ground conditions at an eleven acre site above Southcenter in Tukwila, Washington. The property is bounded on the South by S. 160th Street, on the East by 53rd Avenue S., on the West by the right -of -way of 49th Avenue S., and on the North by the extension of S. 158th Street. The site occupies high ground above Southcenter and the intersection of I -5 and 1 -405. Basically, the site is a natural wooded slope rising from Elevation 150 at 53rd Avenue S. to Elevation 350 at 49th Avenue S. The topography is irreg- ular, however, and can be divided into three areas, as.will be discussed subse- quently. The natural drainage of the site has been modified by the Highway 518 construction to the North of the property. This freeway construction was the primary cause of the Tukwila slide which did considerable property damage in 1965. The upper limits of this slide extended just to North property bound- ary. Massive drainage works were installed to stabilize the slide; some of these extend into and improve the stability of the subject site. In particular, a 12 -inch CMP carries surface water down 51st Avenue S. and a 16 -inch pipe drains ,the North boundary of the site. 1200 westioke ave. north /seattle.wo. 981091(206) 283-0180 • , Mr. Frank Alberti November 28, 1975 SITE CONDITIONS similar. ground_conditions. The first is a triangular- shaped area above - Elevation 300. The second is a triangular- shaped area below Elevation 300 As stated earlier, the site can be divided into three areas of basic- - Elevation 200. SITE DEVELOPMENT areas are as follows: Avenue S. and 53rd Avenue S. pout r. weber and West of 51st Avenue S. The third is the 2.6 acre piece between 5lst These areas differ in accordance _with- the_Geologic of the "hillside. The geologic column here consists of stiff glacial clay and silt from -sea level to.Elevation 150 -to =200; glacial -sand =from Elevation•150 /200 =-;=to Elevation 280/290; - and glacial -till and " outwash -graval = above.- Elevation • 280/290. So, the Area I underlain- by gravel =and till =R= excellent foundation material. Area 2'is underlain by sand - ordinarily'a: -fine founda- - tion material, but in this case, diminished -by - an - exceptionally="heavy flow - ▪ :of = groundwater: The sand unit is the primary aquifer on this site.. The aquifer discharges to the surface iii a continuous Iine of =springs =at= about :-. Elevation 270. All the ground in this sector is flooded and §wampy from -- =these springs. The aquifer discharges - because there is-an impermeable - =- boundary below (the -clay unit probably "starte - at about Elevation 200 or so). - This water will have" be drained from Aree 2 before construction of build - -- ings. Area 3 is underlain by probably - shallow depth - drained by the Freeway facilities. There is an area of sand ail about My recommendations and conclusions for site development by individual Mr. Frank Alberti November 28, 1975 Page 3 . Area l 1. Shallow foundations of high bearing capacity are available. 2. Surface and subsurface drainage requirements will be minimal. 3. Three borings should be drilled to provide data for details of foundation design. Two borings should be deep enough to Area 2 1. Foundations will have to penetrate the swamp deposits which may be a few feet thick. Moderate foundation loads can be carried on undisturbed, dewatered sand. 2. Surface and subsurface drainage requirements will be substantial. The line of springs should be relieved by installation of hori- zontal drains. The estimated cost of horizontal drains is $5,000 to $7,500. 3. Three borings should be drilled to delineate the depth of soft soils. These borings should extend to the clay contact (i.e. 4. Surface drainage and the output of horizontal drains will have to be directed to the existing drainage conduits (the 12" and 16" lines). If the total runoff from the developed site exceeds the capacity of the existing lines, additional drainage facilities will have to be provided. Area 3 1. The sand will support moderate foundation loads on shallow foot- ings. The fill on the lower part of this area may have to be removed or reworked to provide adequate support. penetrate the sand and reach the clay contact (i.e. 100' ± deep). • 50' ± deep). poul r. weber „;, Mr.. Frank Alberti November 28, 1975 Page 4 2. Surface and subsurface drainage requirements will be minimal. 3. Three shallow borings should'be advanced to provide information for detailed foundation design. I trust this provides the information you need,at the present time will be pleased to submit a proposal for the subsurface investigations when development plans are finalized. call. PRW:as • V �'' + � l 0 If you have any further questions,-,please poul r. weber .Respectfully submitted, ��EIYEA OCT is 2 6 1976 110 C1i1f OF TUKWILA C FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY of TUKWILA 1. Emergency vehicle access to buildings C,D, & E is less than desirable. Access depends on an assumed unobstructed path through three parking lots. 4. Fire hydrants will be required per requirements of this office. This will be specified upon submittal of final - layout plans. 444 ANDOVER PARK EAST TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 TELEPHONE: (206) 244-7221 Fire Prevention Bureau October 26, 1976 Comments Regarding the Proposed 145 Unit Apartment Complex. at So. 160 & 51 South: 2. Access to buildings G & E is also poor, regarding fire - fighting tactics. 3. The name "Southcenter" as shown, will result in problems of emergency response since there are already two apartment complexes in Tukwila with the name Southcenter (Southcenter Court and South - center Apartments). A different, non - confusing name is called for. 21 October 1976 Thomas A. Johnson c/o CHG International, Inc. 1906 One Washington Plaza Tacoma, Washington 98402 Dear Mr. Johnson: MTV of TUKW LA OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Let me first explain that it is my function to help review and to recommend to the Responsible Official whether an EIS should be required after initial review of an Environmental Questionnaire. I have reviewed the Environmental Questionnaire submitted by CHG Interna- tional for the proposed Southcenter complex, walked both parcels "A" and "B ", and studied the site plans. It appears that the proposed apartment development responds to expected geologic conditions and respects the inte- grity of the steep ridge which runs diagonally across the property. Poten- tial open spaces appear to be ubiquitous. 'However, walking the site and reviewing the questionnaire did not satisfac- torily answer the potential drainage and slippage problems associated with the site. Therefore, I would like to request some additional geologic and hydrologic information from you to augment that submitted with the questionnaire. Geologic Information: 1. At least two (2) borings should be drilled in Area #1 on parcel "8". Suggested locations for drilling are indicated on the en- closed site plan map at Buildings E and G. These borings should be drilled deep enough to penetrate the sand and reach the clay contact. 2. At least two (2) borings should be drilled in Area #2 on parcel "B ". Suggested locations for drilling are at the tennis courts and Building J. These borings should be deep enough to delineate the depth of soft soils and should extend to the clay contact (i.e., 50'± deep). 6230 Sou Lhc:nntc? Coz!Ic.'.;rd a T:i. r'i1 , :iashir.gLe'mn 9f: UM ti (206) 242-217? Tho,::�zs A. Johnson .. CHG (nternational, Inc. Hydrologic Information:• 1. Please submit a preliminary drainage plan which adequately shows how surface and /or subsurface drainage will be dealt with. Par- ticular attention should be addressed to the area where the springs appear at approximately elevation 270. . The above information should help us tremendously in understanding the environmental conditions of the site, and in determining if and how the site plan can be revised. Respectfully, 0 Fred Satterstrom Associate Planner FS /cw vc Director Enclosure 3. At least one (1) boring on parcel. "A" near Building M. Page 2 21 October 1976 • • ■7 • :x a • • - • • l a• 6C6O 44 4 rows ...v - 3 trISL9 s ; R 4 t A. Iooicci nv.i.n Vs ante • t WW1 ,a. A h u \\ . it % t%&t%3111 9ft, • I Ina Os c • .*I 't$4 . pofd t ) 4ri••s • • •ru . ,Y,.,vr� • $1n "+Pl:• Y f: -�f 7 — –:::- 71✓s q'! J��i;T frn �+wn. vs 7 7 •J.•J) 's�YO s abn '.l070 . 77-4r4E.I.1 /wig .. 31 s!ti. • ;-- mo_ I II, , • .. \ ``' _ I • • ' • - t • • 2 f d SOUTH CENTER 1.5 [NIT :,Fi1F04 >ZJi Y/L A, 1% 9-NGTON • • AS r • ! d n 577F PLAN . -s 3 . va • •Z• • �• s ' • / •• • i ► r reepi ,se i CHG lNTEPNA ;OVAL City of Tukwila Notice to Applicants for a Rezone, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Actions with significant negative environmental impacts, or development in areas of natural hazards. Resolution No. 489 Interim Land Use Council Directive: •a August 18, 1975 Summary: Resolution No. 489 of the City of Tukwila directs that no applications for a rezone or comprehensive plan amendment shall be accepted or processed by the City until a new Land Use Policy Plan is completed and adopted. This also applies to certain actions which are precedent setting, have signi- ficant negative environmental effects or in areas of natural limitations. Section 4 of the attached resolution specifies which actions are affected. Duration: This resolution will be effective until the first regular council meeting in-July, 1976, after which the City Council will consider the extension or repeal of its provisions. Should a new comprehensive plan be adopted prior to this date, the resolution will automatically be void. Waiver: Provisions are included in Section 5 of the resolution for an .applicant to request a waiver upon the showing of facts and other evidence as specified in forms available from the City. Procedure: Attached is an application form to request a waiver of the provisions of this resolution. The City Council will review your request pursuant to Section 5 of Resolution No. 489. Prior to being presented to the City Council,. the Planning Department will prepare a staff report with a recommendation based on an analysis of the following type . of criteria: 1. Is the proposed action consistent with the presently emerging Land Use Policy Plan? 2. Does the proposed action represent a unique condition • which is insignificant in scale and to which no other apparent alternatives are reasonable? 3. If the request for waiver involves grading, excavation, filling or development in geographical areas identified as having potential natural limitations for development, are mitigating measures provided? 4. Do the requirements contained in Resolution No. 489 impose a special hardship to a site for which a waiver of the provisions would not necessitate a major policy committnient prior to the adoption of the Land Use. Pol icy Plan? CITY. OF TUKWILA APPLICATION FOR WAIVER From the Provisions of Resod uti on Number 489 (Please type or print) Date of Application: Name of Applicant: Mailing Address: City: Zip:. Phone: Ownership Interest in Property: Legal Description of Property Affected: General Location of Property: 1. State specifically the action in Resolution No. 489, Section 4 to which you are requesting a waiver: 2. Describe specifically the action you are proposing, including dimensional infor- mation about the development, site maps, etc., if available: 3. What is your justification for your request: (Please refer to items 1 -4 on the cover sheet and respond to them.) (attach additional sheet, if necessary) 4. What other factual evidence is relevant to your request for waiver (such as exist- ing development in the vicinity of your property, soils and geologic investiga- tions, etc.): (Attach any.other information available which substantiates your request) Date Received.: Received by: Date scheduled before City Council: Action of City Council: Date of City Council Action: (for office use only) (Owner) S:iBSTITU E i E:SOLU T IO I NO. A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Tukwila acknowledging that the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Tukwila no longer reflects currently held values of the community in regard to planning and land use development; recognizing the necessity of establishing a new land use policy pian or comprehensive plan; and declaring a proposed interim policy. 1` WHEREAS, the comprehensive plan still in existence for the City of Tukwila vas adopted prior to the enactment of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act and City of Tukwila Ordinance No. ?59 relating to environmental policy, and; WHEREAS, it is clear that the comprehensive plan for the City of Tukwila r_o longer entirely reflects currently held values of the community, its legislative body or the currently recognized state of the art'of planning and community development, and; lrETERP.AS, it is necessary, as well as required, by the State Environmental Policy Act to review the land use plans and planning-processes of the City of Tukwila to assure that the land use plan, its goals and policies are consistent with the mandate of the Environmental Policy Act and the currently held values of the total community; NOW, Talk' ORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tukwila City Council as follows: Section 1:. The City Council finds that the present comprehensive plan which indicates public land use policy is no longer adequate to provide guidance for future decision making and land use management. . Section 2e The City Council further finds that such plan is not to clearly established goals and objectives for community development, nor is there present consensus or understanding about the consequences of development actions: based on such plan. • Section 3: The City Council directs that all segments of the city, includ— ing the City Council, its advisory bodies . and the administration work together toward the identification and establishment of goals and policies consistent with the envirorr mental mandate contained in the Environmental Policy Act, and with the currently held i values of the community in order that a new .land use plan m ;y be prepared and adopted for the City of Tukwila. Section 4:' The City Council further declares that until such time as a near land use policy plan can be prepared and adopted, the follo. ring actions are found to be those which current land use plans do not adequately address with standards and criteria. There is not sufficient understanding and consensus of the consequences of such actions upon present community values and future goals and resources. Therefore the City Council directs that no application requesting any of the following actions :hall be accepted or processed by the City unt81 completion and adoption of a new land use policy plan: A. Any rezone application, except a rezone from one single family residential classification to another single family residential classification. B. Comprehensive Land'Use Plan amendments. C. Those land use actions which, subsequent to the preparation of an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act are found by the City Council. to 1. ^ Precedent setting. 2. ConLain signif'icanC environmental impacts which will not be mitigated, Section 5: Any proponent sponsor for an action identified in Section 4 above may appeal the provisions of .this policy to the .City Council and present eviden or other materials or findings to request a waiver of the provisions of this policy. Upon appeal, the city Planning Department shall recommend, and the City Council shall decide whether to permit an, application to be filed and processed with, the appropriat city department or departments. The City Council will at such time consider only the question of whether or not there should be a waiver of•the policy herein adopted. Such action by the City Council shall in no tray prejudge the substantive merits of th proposed action. If it is determined necessary or advisable, the City Council may conduct a public hearing prior to reaching a decision on any waiver request as to the provisions of this resolution. Notice for a public hearing shall be given at the applicant's expense in a manner prescribed by Chapter 18.92 of the Tukwila. Municipal. Code, Ordinance 251, as amended. Section 6: The City Clerk is directed to file a cony of the resolution wit every department and advisory or administrative board for the City of Tukwila. • Section 7s This resolution 'and the policy herein adopted shall be brought. before the City Council for its review and reconsideration at the first regular counc neatizuz in July, 1976. Section 8s This resolution becomes effective thirty (30) days after passag Any application for a building permit on file with the City 30 days subsequent to passage of this resolution is exempt from the provisions of this policy. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUKTIILA, WASHINGTON, at a regular - • meeting thereof, this ' 4 day of C fr_Ji4 :i ` 1975. ATTEST: /' 7 - City/Clerk D. PropL.ls for grading, clearing , elc a tion or filling i•rhich are: 1. Located in an area with average .slopes in ex_cesq 25%. 2. Located in a geographical area identified by governmental or quasi -- governmental agencies as having: (a) Naturally unstable, unstable when modified, or in areas of known landslides. (b) Areas which serve to naturally detain significant a , of storm water run -off. 3. Served by inadequate water, sewer, storm drainage or trans - portation systems unless such action proposes the improve -. ment of any deficient system to minimum city standards and at the expense of the private sponsor. • • Mayor Date Approved (Not approved by the Mayor.) sv44-5 '3i y axY; • �J.. '3jory airvsP k is a.Js air sat i• • ,A 1 v SOUTH CENTER 4 /45 UN /T APARTMENTS • SITE PLAN • Tl*W /LA, W45/# /GTON TX V t t CHG INTERNATIONAL RIO{ • ONE WASHINGTON PLAZA TACOOSA • WASHINGTON • 711102 17011131 9•3414 •1201)1311200 r/I4pLIG c.r 40 • th.lir Nide , 6o - ah.t aeacao•ALIJr4s 55"-- -rya ataraaa ea- -r-kifto ,(4,r6 14.5 42rT2L. 6 /2.0644 15eat:LT roe.p %co :1 1 ./2 th.h.(41.Aeree. • • •.•• ..± C,&9 I MEMATIONIAL kONVelk ...,....,4 .......y.,........,., -,,,,-. •;............. — .' .' STAT5 65 . .. . ompri,le..7440.4 : . . cru44...11.0o.•- . . ,14.;••• Nhe , , - . • ice, tosJe.. . 4 ,arc cothe...■ 5ors eysq.141ttbnoJ 1 — lye seccarsi 0,r's. accJ4z,444/4e.4\ 01' r-' •I r r t ;r2 L j e jr1 "11.5 esses.1) .••••.)...) 4 , r..4 .....ce 13 .cu *. 41 •1 .1 0 OTFISINCH Oe Z se L2 9Z SZ VZ CZ ZZ t 07 61 131 a 91 111 -1.01401041,*0111111 qytillinl 'Till I .1414.1•1011./1(1/110/1.1,01i1PWli • •, St et • at • tt OL 11.401,1141.00,1j1111411.140.11fir • ; \t ,e \ • . . 4144. riles:41w (.2:70o 1:4 .1011103. WW1 0111010 61111XD 1 4 „ yr,:i.:14XiiV:it,"/'.;',V•.4k.L•k;:•-'e11.i. '7 • • •1 I ;•;Y1 • •:` IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS :I' CLEAR. THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO "THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAt DOCUMENT Prrym, >ts".:"".-3 • V.a..•:6•:i" „, ..:,.... • . ..,...;:24,- . .,...,:',..::,,...,',_::::: ..... c,..•. • _ ; ... •: • . , . ., ...',.• , . • . - - • - , .:=,; 1 , ,..,:viirlia144a*.iiii.te Ke- , -...r0=-,441, ,, , , ar , ": - TMR...*4 1 44Niu . ir 0 Hi ?NI INCH 1 2 6 1 J el LI c 91 • 11111111 - Oe 6Z 1:3G LZ 9Z SZ VZ CZ ZZ 1Z OZ . 61 p II li . . „ . . . A A AtAASA Aii,A I 4. ” A IAA II \ ‘ • ' \ •, m o w -„N ' 1 \ .! • \ \\, • - \„ •it • • • • \ ; • . 1 /1 'El Z1 40-10604 • IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS - :•‘; _CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT; Z • CHICSED •IRO • "Nlifp oilrde • Llarr • 60 ak./ semAGO 1.11.11, -rw,o *159t;oNi LlOrrs. - vafto gertzavki Nlirs Marrs x• Ili' it rri inirrr 1 0 -0-- i 11 OA; . 2 Vg oc se fle LZ 9e se ve cz zz te OE GI 01 /A 91 St VI 'El et 1 01: 1111111101110110111111111111111111011111111111,11101101111111ifillifillifill011111011011ifillifillifilillillifill01111M101110111ifillifillfilthinlifillfifillfilinfillfilifillilifill,10111 :JO parcel 1i 11--.1kt CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT • JOS NO. DRAWN CHECKED • ISSUED' 1 • • •••■•7 •••-• - -•• 4 Its t. ti tit% I, ViSt • \\ "\ 4, . ri 10 NO 1.$1 • 5 6 7 FLEXIBLE RULER -303 A ET.9.97= OE sz Be az ga sz vz ea az iz oz 61 at LI 91 SI VI 'CI 21 11 01 X IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT ii i;CV!M 4 . e lF*74.0 .6111:iircitI4A 44' 631 • r �7 &NYIiL�..w. nn a •i ',yq id�y� �srnvur• -: n et.Ffil'f ' . � Fr .' I r •� Y/ 14 . { IV , 7�� f : i .�yStI/ •. ,14 , 7 r 1 ' L{ 9' `\ 1 i 1 • • Y1i L �JN W r. tM. s». p 1 . S n .r t ' • tt t ^ „ A �HY,J'. ♦S'h1 1 •' j :nl' l�Yfi.'�j. ildc; . 7.44;::"••• `Gt c - - p : ISO ., oIIIIrII111IIVIhII1UI111I1111I21I111I11 (I1�II11II1UI1I1IIUI11'1101 U I 1 1 1 •iTtItIINIV 5 6 7 €r€xnT w...rr9 oe GZ GL LE 9Z SZ 4Z CZ ZZ IZ OZ GI 01 LI 91 SI 41 'El ZI Imdmi1imluu1uulmiluidmi1unluglnulnu1nnluii1uuluii1unlmi1uuluiilmdmi6uluii1uiduii1n111MIIuiilnilIiuduu1uuluu 24x IIF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS ;CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF TFIE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WAI' \ I •vJSJ WI T " I VAT' P. f , 1040..1,1 *w .r• VOW' i41 • At • 1 I � 1�1 III III III fri r r r f T i . . �f t Tr�f f (� I i 401\ 9 4 5 6 7 0c GL ad 12 sz Se az sz az tZ OZ Gt at a 91 si o� ' c� z� a 0L 1II6III6IIIIl1IdIIIIIIp 11106l14040IIII4p0II6IIIIUIIIII611111III66I611IpLI61II11111111IIIIIIIIIII1111WIIIWIIIlIp1111 IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS; CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO, THE QUALITY_OF_THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT