Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit L94-0011 - MUELLER & ASSOCIATES - GT DEVELOPMENT SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
L94 -00011 G.T. DEVELOPMENT 1 IM i a A B B O C 1 A T TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES Traffic signals control the majority of intersections within the Tukwila Urban Cente: Those intersections not signalized are controlled with stop signs. Figure 2 shows th location of the stop signs and of the signalized intersections. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Trips to the Tukwila Urban Center At present (2002), approximately 113 000 ersons arriv Bail • the Tukwila Urban Center for various activities during- '24-thour period. eai y a of those coming to 1 Tukwila Urban Center use private vehicles (99.3 percent), such that the lican.sit.shart the T Urbana er is ve . minor3(0.7. ptercerit iCo u,ters,ca npr sgAbau.1 erce the:tota1 persons asking trips to the Tukwila Urban Center, while more 1 f the trips to the Tukwila Urban Center are shopping, recreational, commercial and business trips. Figure 3 shows an imaginary cordon around the Tukwila Urban Center and access points used as the threshold for measuring trips in and out of the Tukwila Urban 0 Figure 4 shows the growth trend of inbound Tukwila Urban Center traffic from 198 through 2000. Inbound traffic to Tukwila's Urban Center increased by 16.8 percent during this period, from 72,806 in 1990 to 85,033 in 2000. Additional findings are nc below: • The total traffic volume approaching the Tukwila Urban Center stayed at a constant level (about 79LooLvehicles.per,day) during the years between 198E 1993. r,..4; t.%..LV.. . _.. ;; .- �v Since 1994, the total Tukwila Urban Center bound traffic volume has increaf. by 15,000 vehicles per day, which is an increase of 21 percent over the 7 -yeas period. The average rate of the traffic growth for the last 7 -year period is 3 percent year. Table 1 shows traffic counts for 1990 and 2000 at each of the nine inbound access p4 into the Tukwila Urban Center. Figure 5 displays this information on a map of the Tukwila Urban Center. 5 Tukwila Urban s Existing Transportation Con, Draft CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED.-.cTERMINATION OF NONSIGNIF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: 1NCE (MDNS) A 50,000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 16,500 SQ FT INDUSTRIAL AND OFFICE BUILDING, WITH 135 PARKIN G STALLS AND LANDSCAPING. REQUIRES DEMOLITION OF TREES IN SHORELINE ZONE, VACATION OF 250 FT OF MAULE AVENUE, AND REVISED ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROP- ERTY. ASSOCIATED PERMITS ARE SHORELINE PERMIT AND VACATION OF MAULE AVE. MAY INCLUDE RIVERBANK STABILIZATION AND REHABILITATION. PROPONENT: GT DEVELOPMENT LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, ADDRESS: 6437 S 144 ST PARCEL NO: 336590 -1570 SEC /TWN /RNG: NE23/23N/4E LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: L94= 0011, The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW;43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This,informatio'n is available to the public on request. The conditions to this SEPA are attached. This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by 4192# . The lead agency will not act on this proposa for 15 days from the date below. L. R-1;" : - er, Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431 -3680 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 You may appeal this determination to? the :::City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Department of Community Development. Address: 6437 S 144 ST Applicant: FADDEN, ROBERT Permit No: L94 -0011 Type: P -SEPA Location: NE23/23N/4E Parcel #: 336590 -1570 Zoning: M1 CITY TUKWILA CONDITIONS Status: PENDING Applied: 02/25/1994 Approved: ********,************************************ * **4 * * * * * *4* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1. TRAFFIC: MITIGATION--BASED ON" 1 "6' PEAK HOUR,,TRIPS THROUGH THE INTERURBAN AVE. S. &`SOUTHCENTER BLVD.:..& 1-405 ' INTERCHANGE. MITIGATION COSTS ; ARE $l'6,, 00v("16 TRIPS @ ",:$1`,`000 A TRIP) 2. A:RIVERFRONT STABILIZATION STUDY WILL BE REQUIRED' AND: RIVERFRONT REHABILITATION MAY BE REQUIRED IN, CONJUNCTION, 'WITH '.THE FLOOD HAZARD CONTROL" PERMIT, IN ACCORDANCE,: WITH -:!:" •.KING .COUNTY.' SURFACE WATER :DESIGN, MANUAL CORE REQUIREMENT, °;; COMPENSATORY FL00D.J;STORAGE',-WILL BE REQUIRED `IN.`'ACCORD;- :AN :W CE ITH' KING .,COUNTY FLOOD HAZARD°°REDUCTION PLAN :POLICY'`TY- 4 • A F F I D A V I T 1, Sylvia A. Osby ONotice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting OBoard of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet flPlanning Commission Agenda Packet j Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O F D I S T I C I B I J T I O N • hereby declare that: Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit O Shoreline Management Permit [Determination of Non- significance X® Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance D Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice. fl Notice of Action 0 Officia? Notice. 0 Other -1 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses FAXED TO SEATTLE TIMES - Published May 13, 1994 MAILED TO DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY - SEPA MAILED TO APPLICANT MAILED TO ATTORNEY GENERAL VIA ECOLOGY MAILED TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS SENT TO MAYOR, CITY CLERK, PUBLIC WORKS Name of Project G.T. DEVELOPMENT File Number L94 -0011 on May 11, 1994 • • MAILED TO THE MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE MAILED TO THE FRIENDS OF THE ' DUWAMISH Signature To: Diana Painter, Planning Davis on From: Ron Cameron, via Phi rase , Senior Engineer Date: May 11, 1994 Subject: GT Development 6437 S 144 St Project No. PRE93 -022 SEPA Review Comments The above project was reviewed fo meeting of the Public Works plan are our specific comments: I. TRAFFIC: Interurban /I405. The location total over $13,000,00 traffic would result in prorat $5,000 /trip. It has been prey a "fair share" of $1,000 /trip location. GT Development's 16 is $16,000. III. PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS: A. Land Altering - earthwork excavation, fill /backfill indicated on the developm B. Flood Control Zone 1.] Riverbank stabilizati 2.] Use NGV datum; show 1 3.] All lowest floor elev 2 feet higher than st levee /dike system doe if a levee /dike syste minimum lowest floor standard project floo 4.] Provide trail /riverba with agreement with D Recreation. SEPA at a special 5/10/94 eview meeting. The following improvement costs at this and complexity of weaving d shares exceeding ously determined to use ith increase traffic at this peak hour trips mitigation quantities for cut/ and haul need to be nt plans. n study required' west floor elevations tions to be minimum of ndard project flood if not protect the property; does protect the property levation is one foot above elevation.. k /dike easement in accordance partment of Parks and Page 2 C. Drainage (Analysis) The May 5, 1994 faxed GT Development revised storm drainage narrative (attached), Page 1, "Proposed Drainage System ", last sentence - identifies "storage" based on 100 yr /24 hour storm event. Request drainage design applies criteria identified in King County Surface Water Design Manual under CORE REQUIREMENT #3 (Section 1.2.3 - Peak Rate Runoff Control Performance) and includes consideration of 100 yr /7 day event for all new impervious surfaces (roofs as well as vehicular) - for river storage calculations. Also, compensatory storage to be provided as part of the GT development design in accordance with King County's Flood Hazard Reduction Plan Policy FP -4 which states: "For structures and fill placed in the floodplain should be compensated for by excavation of equivalent volumes at'equivalent elevations" (See Figure 10 attached). D. Utilities - 1.] Water - Improvements will need to be in compliance with the city's adopted Comprehensive Water Plan (1993) & will require installation of a new 10" main in Interurban /Maule Ave S R /W's replacing the existing 2" main. 2.] Sewer - Improvements will need to be in compliance with the city's adopted Comprehensive Sewer Plan (1993). 3.] Street Use - o Channelization required on Interurban Ave S. in accordinance with the Interurban Ave Plan. o Frontal improvements required on both Interurban Ave S and S 144 St in accordinance with the Ordinance #1516 and the Interurban Ave Plan (Entranco). o Private driveways (25' - 35'maximum) E. Landscape Irrigation - drought tolerant plantings are encouraged. If permanent irrigation plumbing is installed, a conservation system shall be utilized. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the above. cf: Ron Cameron, City Engineer John Pierog, PW Development Engineer. Brian Shelton, PW Transportation Engineer Pat Broden, PW Sewer and Water Engineer Development File PF /prf 4 .0 es. eaw 00 00 • • 041:44.;t" .457.44. Vk.g..tdq, Previous 100•year Floodplain edge B' AA' • S. % • • / //e/e/f11/ • • % • • % • • 6, • • • ' ¼ % ¼ % ¼ ¼ • % • • e o.o.ro• 1 0001101 % % % ¼ • • % ¼ ¼ % ¼ • ¼ • O 000, o .00000.6,0e • % • % % • % % 10101101 1 01 00001 /Vs % • •,• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • O 0/0000/ /0•00000/00. 0••••••••0 0.0 JOU.Year Floodplain Elevation % • • 6.. 6. • % • % • % • • • % • • • •■■ • • • • • • • • 01.01..1 .01 roe e or 0111111 1 i1• 11 1 1 0 ...........•%6.%..%%%%%%•%%N.••••••%•• • • % f///000/0.//00000/0000000000/0/0..0 SI • • • • • ¼ % ¼ % • .• • • % • • % ¼ % % • % % • • • • • e o 0 010 1 1 o eo 111 o 01 0 e 100011 0 o 0.1.1 BB' 60010,I00000 • % % % • • % 1 % •0,000 I0/0/0. • % ¼. • • • %, • • % % % % • 1010/1//1/1/0. • % .4. • % ¼¼ • % • • O 00.0,000.10.001001 % % • ••• • % % %% •/0/0.00 • • • • • Cotopensatory • 000000000 • Storage • •/616 • • • • • • • • • • % % • % • % 61606,/./.. ••••• • • Excavation,0,0%•,/%/%0%/%0\/,./.../%/../..0%/%/../ • 001/ / • • • • • • • 0 • re••••••• •••• • • • % 1 % 1 1 • • % % • % % % • % % % % N • • • % • ''eee e'/ %%...•%•%%%•'%e•'%'%'%1•#%',#.0%#%%%'%1••%'%#•1%1'11 •0•110••••••••■••••••••/••••••••••••••0 • • 100-Year Floodplain Elevation FIGURE 10 ICING COUNTY'S COMPENSATORY STORAGE REQUIREMENT JUN 30 '94 09:03 LANCE LIELLER 206 326 -0554 Earth Consultants Inc. cky.„,c),„1„,,E,01,,,,ers.Ce4tegingi GnviroNnenwl >'tenlifri September 15, 1993 GT Davelopment 6437 .South 144th' Street . •' Tukwila, Washington 98188. '. Attention: Mr, Robert McGarvey Subject: Reference: Shoreline Bank Stability Lot 11 Office/Warehouse Addition Tukwila, Washington Geotechnical Engineering Study . Proposed Office/Warehouse Structure Tukwila, Washington E -3693, dated January 15, 1988 Deer Mr. McGarvey: E- 3693.2 In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced study and made a site visit to observe the existing condition of the Green River bank at the site, and for the.purpose of providing recommendations for erosion protection. At present, the river bank along Lot #11 is covered with a thick vegetation cover consisting predominantly of blackberry vines. The bank appears to have a slope greater than 1.5H:1 V (horizontal:vertical); however, the actual slope inclination was difficult to ascertain due to the heavy vegetative cover. Based .on our observations, it is our opinion that erosion protection of the riverbank Is not necessary unless the existing vegetation cover is disturbed. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions, please call us. EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Douglas S. Lynne Staff Engineer yle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services DSL /KRC /kml ECE VED xi., 9 71994 COMMUNITY ' :VELOPMENT 1805 136th Place N,E., Suite 201, Beiteiue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th greet, Suite 103, Tacoma, Washington 98421.9998 8etlevice (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 454.1584 FAX (206) 746.0860 Tacoma (206)272.6608 Con(..J1 No. CE N Epic File No. up -t-OD1 2 5 1994 Fee $ 325 Receipt No o � C ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 07 71 Name of proposed project, if applicable: Renovations & Additions -GT Devlopment 2. Name of applicant: Lance Mueller & Associates /Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Bob• Fadden 130 Lakeside, Suite 250 Seattle, 98122 325 -2553 4. Date checklist prepared: February 14, 1994 5. Agency requesting Checklist: • City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing:or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): As soon as all required permits are obtained, then allow approx. 6.months for construction. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Soils Report, Bank Stability Study and Level 1 Environmental 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Non maratirmftimargeiliamitwa:Inevik, 7, P.' '7 ' d " .1 d /i/ /�I %- Il WIINCITZr ��'jij"o _. . P'.- % ACC-66:5 4.SC -- is CD A.M1 0 Al v tl -J U -1 47i DN 141/TH 715 r°.IZCZeGT 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Buildin• buildin•, mechanical, demolition, slumbing, fire) Shoreline Permit conditional use, SEP Public Works (curb cuts, fire loop, storm & water extension) 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E =requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives..of your proposal and should not be summarized here. • A 100,000.sf. lot with an existing building of approx. 16,500 s.f. to be partially demolished and partially renovated and construct 2 additions (east & west side).` East side addition of approx. 17,000•sf of single story mostly for storage of inventory. West side addition is 2 story space. First floor of approx. 20,000 s.f, of office, production and support space. The second floor of approx. 13,000 s.f. of offices. Additional parking on an adjacent lot is planned and shown on attached site plan.. /3S 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street. address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. The southeast property of the intersection of South 144th Street and Interurban Avenue South, City of Tukwila, Washington. !v its7 /44.111. s7 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? Shoreline TO'BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC( B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat except where it abuts the Green River Bank. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 2% except at the bank. c. What general types of soils are found on', the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Typical soil of the Green River area. 3" topsoil and 10' of loose silts and silty sands, over glacieral soils. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No, see attached letter from Earth Consultants regarding the shoreline bank stability. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate • source of fill. Fill from an approved barrow for building pad and sub -base to creat slopes from drainage. Quanity not known at this time. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes until final 'avin' and landsca• ins is installed. g. • gill . SIM � ill ©a.;:, 114* - `(tx _,V, 7 ►--V A..2H About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 90% -4- a Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Provide temporary erosion control plan. L?c,I,4%coprpe5 pL �O AREA, 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and= when the project is completed? • If any, ;,generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Construction equipment and vehicle emissions during construction and possible dust. Vehicle emissions and gas heating equipment emissions atter compfe ion: b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Comply with dust and vehicle emissions standards. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year - round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If.yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.Yes, Green River. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes, half of the project is within 200 feet of the Green River. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from .surface water or wetlands and indicate the area =of .the site that would' be affected. Indicate" the source of fill material. None. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Yes, shown at southeast corner lot. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. No. 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other,sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of .animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. D.N.A. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Water from impervious surfaces will be collected into an underground system and biofiltrated and discharged into the City system. C. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. DNLt PLObp �oNj2i ?t ± S• d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Provide a City approved drainage plan. 4. Plants a. Che k' or circle types of vegetation found on the s e: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen; other' X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs XX grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? - All to be removed and re- landscaped per approved plan. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. Evaluation for Agency Use Only l d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site if any: New landscape plan to be approved by the City. Off n[ 12-r-19“ R-D 1►.4 f -'I N Is A /pc • 'DR DL-4 £9 KrT 1z 7 j h-4"T 1'1,64 --'TI N V 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed'on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, other: ("tr;_)-‘ut herring, shellfish, b. List any threatened or endangered species known to gun or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, Pxnlain. - Pacific Flyway d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: - Approved landscape plan. Will provide wildlife feature. Cd \ 1 •4 n29- FLAT— TI-4 kN atora ELIN- WIV4, vetA9 1 2 4 V W .(2- 14 Irar A2 s. Evaluation for Agency Use Only (...._. Evaluation for 6. En =rgy and Natural Resources a. b. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs ?. Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for lighting, cooling, con- venience and equipment outlets. Gas will be usee for heating. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, '.generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are ..included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control 'energy impacts, if any: '• Conform to Energy Code. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.' Fire, Police and Aid Car 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None. Dl 1.1200 �(p1. 0 0.04,500 rir0 _,. N. • L LOV A •. -10- Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short - term or a long -term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise. would come from the site. Construction and vehicle noise during construction vehicle noise after construction. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Comply with noise abatement regulations. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Industrial • U • IA-rep orelt,6 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not in recent times. c. Describe any structures on the site. Existing industrial building - part to be demolished, part to be renovated. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for • Agency Use Only . d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? See "c" above. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Ml V(�14-T I Nou6- f I s f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Industrial I,I& WT INp }ST2t g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation.of the site? Manufacturing M1 h. Has any part of .the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Bank of river. i . Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 150 +_ j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: D.N.A. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Comply to ordinayoce regulations and good design practices. (planning & zoning) 40D 1'12DPc o G4Arlpt2N;N V446W5 p1.44 pOI..(GPS. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if . any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing? D.N.A b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high°, middle, or low - income housing. D.N.A. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: D.N.A. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? 35' above finish floor. Painted and rusticated concrete and non - reflective glass are the principle exterior materials. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Well designed building and install .landscaping. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal ' produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Night lighting will be installed. . Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? o. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Use photometric to limit lighting effects on site. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Walking next to river, Fort Dent Park is across the river. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing . recreational uses? If so, describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control .impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The project will provide a walking trail next to the river and employee lunch area adjacent to the trail. 13. His a. `b. c. 14. Tra a. b. c. C_.. 1 • oric and Cultural Preservation Are there any places or objects posed for, national, state, registers known to be on or so, generally describe. listed on, or pro- or local preservation next to the site? If None. • Generally describe any landmarks historic, archaeological, scientific, importance known to be on or D.N.A. or evidence of or. cultural next to the site. • • Proposed measures to reduce any: . or control impacts, if None. • Isportation Identify public streets and site, and describe proposed street system. Show on site Project is on Interurban Avenue highways serving the accss to the existing plans, if any. South which is a major street north and south connecting 1-5 with I -40 Au44/1 14 1* 4. 141 s11 Is the site currently served not, what is the approximate transit stop? by public transit? If distance to the nearest Yes. • How many parking spaces would have? How many would the project ' 04- complete - number has ben the completed project eliminate? increased.over existing inadequate barking. ` in ✓ 1 h • -15- 5. Evaluation for Agency Use .Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private) .It will require the vacation of part of Maule Street and an add'i`tin of a 644-44.4.44. for circulation. Street frontage improvement will be done on Interurban and 144th. ?t?' Ac s' F.A.se_MF.ct -kT e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated • by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. See attached traffic study. g- Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: See attached traffic study. 4MD ono VtIDIZTA Of 4F 'ny< t L • ; / . LMBEMERIEREEPA 1T� -rw cows 15. Public Services i>,i s Te,�c 161e� /' �A ;.I 000` 40G • La ✓N a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Fire,•=Police, Aid Car for emergency use only b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities . a. C' 1- utilities currentl available at the site: electricity, natura gas, water t_ refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer septic system, o b. Describe the utilities that are proposed *for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site.or in the immediate vicinity which might be .needed. Electricity'for heat, light, production, gas for heat, and telephone, sanitary sewer, retuse service all trom. local agencies. Abbl^fi vN 0p LO" l4)4- pe P.4,40-1 • o' A r 51V wAT1- nosN. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to 'the best of my knowledge. . I understand that the lead agency is relying on thenytq make it decision. Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC(..IT Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To expand an, existing facility. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? None. oN I.P 12- opr42,-f'r 5 ,Ac>:11a.G�- +--�"i `co fl. iN GU oN. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: N/A figeretee0 G001265 or r oN IS To eot,4sou DAT- i 44- 400-1106 D GOMP �! b4-1 MOWN S-if-. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? No. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: N/A -23- Z0 : 39tid OUR JOB NO. 5035 PREPARED BY: BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. 15215 72nd Avenue South Rent, Washington 98032 (206) 251-6222 GENERAL 1Nr+0 MATION The proposed project lies in the northeast quarter of Section 23, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King County, Washington. The project consists of two parcels. Parcel No 1 is bounded to the north by South 144th Street, to the east by the Green River, to the south by existing undeveloped area and to the west by Maule Street. This parcel contains an existing building with asphalt parking and a storm drainage system. The drainage system front the existing paves area is connected w an wtd•due manhole *long South 144th Street. An axle ins 36Aneh concrete storm drainage system conveys the storm drainage runoff from this project and upstream tributary area and discharges to the Green River at the end of South 144th Street. The second parcel is bounded on the northeast by Maule Street, on the southwest by Interurban Avenue South, on the southeast by the existing right -of- -way, and on the northwest by South 144th Street. An existing storm drainage ditch along the west portion of this parcel conveys storm drainage from the upstream tributary area via a 36 -inch concrete storm drainage system along South 144th Street which discharges to the Green River. A pordon of this parcel is within the floodplain according to FEMA. The flood a evasion in this area has been determined by FEMA to have an elevation of B. The proposed development consists of two new building additions to the existing building along with proposed asphalt parking and drive area. PROPOSED $IORM DRAINAGE SYYSTTEM The proposed project consists of one drainage basin which discharges to the existing 36 -inch concrete pipe along South 144th Street and is tributary to the Green River. Due to the fact that storm drainage runoff for this project directly discharges to the Green River, in accordance with The /tang County Sutface Water Design Manual, a storm drainage detention system is not required (see King County Storm Drainage Manual 1.2.3). The total existing impervious area subject to vehicular use for this project has been calculated to be approximately 30,875 square feet. The total proposed impervious area subject to vehicular use for the project has been calculated to be 64,490 square feet. A net increase of 0.77 acre of impervious area, subject to vehicular use, has been proposed for this project. In accordance with Special Requirement No. 5 of The King County Drainage Manual which states that, if a proposed project contains more that 1 acre of new impervious surface that will be subject to vehicular use or the storage of chemicals and proposes direct discharge of the runoff to a regional facility receiving water, lake, wetland or closed depression, then a wet pond shall be required for treatment of the storm drain runoff prior to diaclarge. As shown, the project does not increase the impervious area subject to vehicular use by more than ,1 acre. Therefore, no wet pond treatment shall be required for this project. The project proposes to collect all of the storm drainage runoff via a storm drainage tighdine system and discharge to a proposed grasalined swats prior to discharge to die existing storm drainage system in South 144th Street. The project has been designed to provide flood storage on parking area. Grading for a new parkdng area has been designed not to displace any flood storage volume available at existing condidons. The proposed parking lot shall be graded to accoaunodatc storage volume of 10 feet over new impervious area for 104 yeuR4-hour storm event. CO 39ed Page 1 of 1 DNB SNOD NSSf1VH921tiS ( GEOTECHNIC.AL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-STORY OFFICE/WAREHOUSE STRUCTURE SOUTH 144TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON • E-3693 FOR GT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists January 15, 1988 E -3693 GT Development Corporation 6437 South 144th Street Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Robert McGarvey Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Single -Story Office /Warehouse Structure, South 144th Street, Tukwila, Washington ". This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was to explore the subsurface soil conditions within the proposed development area, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for foundation design, site preparation criteria and other geotechnical considerations. The results of our field study indicate that the subject site is underlain with a thin layer of topsoil overlying native soils. The native soils consist of very loose to loose silts and silty sands overlying loose to dense sands which extend to the maximum depth of our borings. The proposed structure may derive support from either conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill or on driven timber piles. Due to the consistency of the upper soils, structures supported by conventional footings may experience settlement, and bearing pressures should be low to reduce the magnitude of settlements. The native soils are moisture sensitive and will be difficult to work if the in -place moisture content exceeds the optimum moisture content. Consequently, special considerations should be given to design and construction practices relating to the prevention of moisture accumulation and construction disturbance of the exposed subgrade surfaces. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of GT Development Corporation and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract 1805 • 136th Place N.E.. Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 103, P.O. Box 111744, Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 Tacoma (206) 272-6608 1 C. GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 E -3693 Page 2 documents for the information of the contractor. The following sections of this report describe our study and contain geotechnical recommendations regarding foundation design criteria, earthwork considerations, and site drainage. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located approximately as shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building locations and our approximate exploratory locations were approxi- mately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. We understand that it is planned to construct a single -story office /warehouse structure at the subject site. Building plans were not available for the preparation of this report; however, prelimi- nary concepts for the proposed structure indicate that the building will be constructed of concrete tilt -wall design with a concrete slab -on- grade. The finish floor elevation will be at or near the existing site grade. The structure will be approximately twenty - five (25) feet high and will contain large areal loading bays. Preliminary design loads for the proposed structure are estimated not to exceed one hundred (100) kips for the column loads, twenty - five hundred (2500) pounds per lineal foot (plf) for the wall loads, and two hundred fifty (250) pounds per square foot (psf) for the slab loads. The remaining portions of the site will be developed with parking facilities and landscaping. If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is located northeast of the intersection of South 144th Street and Maule Avenue in Tukwila, Washington. It is bordered on the north by South 144th Street and on the west by an existing GT Commercial Development structure. The parcel is bounded by wooded undeveloped property to the south; the Green River borders adjoining property to the east. Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 E -3693 Page 3 The property is relatively level with a topographic relief of approximately two feet. The southeast corner of the property encompasses a portion of the steeply sloping embankment to the river. The top of the riverbank was approximately twenty (20) feet above the water level at the time of our field study. The upper portion of the bank slopes down at approximately 3:1 (Horizon - tal:Vertical) for a vertical distance of about eight feet, then a near - vertical drop of approximately twelve (12) feet to the water's edge. The upper slope area was covered with dense blackberry and other assorted bushes at the time of our study. Partially buried logs and other debris from earlier floods was exposed in the lower portion of the embankment. Two residences are located in the northeast and northwest corners of the subject site. The house in the northeast corner, adjacent to the river, is vacated and has two outbuildings. The home located in the northwest corner is currently occupied. Vegetation consists of large old- growth firs, fruit trees and thick hedges around the houses. The south end is covered with scattered fruit and other deciduous trees along with thick patches of blackberry brush. The top of the embankment adjacent to the river is cleared and covered with tall grass. An access road runs through this clearing from South 144th Street to the northeast property corner. The road ends on the bordering lot south of the study site. Subsurface The site was explored by drilling two borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. A more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each boring location is presented on the Boring Logs, Plates 4 and 5 of this submittal. A description of the field exploration methods and laboratory testing program is included in this report following the Discussion and Recommendations section. Our exploratory borings encountered a surficial mantle of topsoils and sod, consisting of loose sandy silt mixed with roots and organics. The topsoil and sod layer is about three inches thick. Beneath the topsoil layer are native soils consisting of very loose to loose silts and silty sands to depths of between about ten (10) and sixteen (16) feet below the existing grade. The silty soils were encountered predominantly in the northwest corner of the property with the more granular sand soils being encountered in the southeast corner of the site. Grain size distribution tests performed on selected near - surface samples indicate that these soils contain from 38 to 93 percent of fine - grained soils. Below the silts and silty sands, loose to dense, fine to medium grained sands extend to the maximum depth explored. Earth Consultants, Inc. GT Development Corporation. January 15, 1988 Groundwater E -3693 Page 4 The groundwater seepage levels observed while drilling varied from about sixteen (16) to nineteen and one -half (19 -1/2) feet below the existing grade in Borings B -1 and B -2, respectively. The ground- water levels are indicated on the boring logs. The groundwater seepage level is not static, and fluctuations in the level may occur depending on the amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher in the wetter winter months. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The site is underlain with native granular soils consisting of very loose to loose silts and fine - grained silty sands extending to about sixteen (16) feet below the existing grade. Beneath this stratum, loose to dense sands extend to the a depth of about forty (40) feet or more below the ground surface. The proposed structure may be supported by conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill placed over recompacted native soils. Footing pressures of twelve hundred (1200) psf will induce ap- proximately one and one -half inch of total settlement, and about one inches of differential settlement. Greater footing pressures will result in larger total and differential settlements. Most of the settlement will occur during construction. If the proposed struc- ture cannot tolerate the above settlements, foundation support can be attained from a deep foundation system of piles or piers bearing on the medium dense to dense sands beneath the upper loose layers. Total settlements for timber piles driven ten feet into the medium dense to dense sands and supporting an axial load of twenty (20) tons are estimated at one -half inch. The manageability of the upper soil layer during wet weather construction is also a concern for the proposed development. The silts and silty sands contain a high percentage of fines and are moisture sensitive. Moisture from rainfall combined with construc- tion disturbance could further weaken the loose subgrade soils and reduce their workability. Soils which cannot be recompacted to structural fill specifications will have to be removed from the building area and replaced with a suitable wet weather material. Therefore, we recommend that special considerations be given to design and construction practices relating to the prevention of moisture accumulation and to provide a working surface during wet weather construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 E -3693 Page 5 The following sections of this report present the results of our study in further detail. Our recommendations for various geotech- nical aspects of the development are based on the information from the field, limited laboratory testing, analyses, and our experience and engineering judgement. Riverbank Concerns We have discussed the issue of river bank stabilization with Mr. Andrew LeVesque of the King County Office of Surface Water Manage- ment and with Mr. Phil Fraser of the City of Tukwila. King County has a goal of improving riverbanks along the Green River in regard to both bank stability and erosion. We understand that the subject site will be governed by the requirements of the City of Tukwila. The City of Tukwila generally follows King County's goals for river- bank stabilization. For preliminary planning purposes, we anticipate that the following requirements may be made at the time you apply for a building permit: (1) Provide a thirty (30) foot wide easement along the top of the bank with a fifteen (15) foot wide gravel surfaced roadway; (2) Trim the oversteepened bank back to an inclination of 2H:1V and revegetate disturbed areas; and (3) Place coarse riprap, including several large rocks up to fifteen hundred (1500) pounds in weight, on the portion of the riverbank below the vegetation line. Included in these requirements will be a detailed on -site survey of the actual bank configuration, river bottom profile, and a riverbank stabilization report. Requirements for riverbank stabilization may change in the next few years and the goals of the regulating agencies - City of Tukwila, King County, Washington State Department of Fisheries, and the Army Corps of Engineers - are being applied on a case -by -case basis. It may also be necessary to provide an on -site storage facility for storage of a one - hundred -year rainstorm for seven days. Earth Consultants, Inc. GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 Foundations E -3693 Page 6 Conventional Footings The proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on at least two feet of structural fill placed over the native soils. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the exposed surface of the native soils should be densified in -place to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Fill placed under footings should extend outward from the edge of the footings for a lateral distance equal to or greater than the depth of fill placed beneath the footings. Exterior footings should be bottomed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish grade. Interior footings may be at a depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of the slab. Footings bearing on structural fill should be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of twelve hundred (1200) psf. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of fifteen (15) and twenty -four (24) inches, respectively. A one -third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering short term wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed natural soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend that drains be placed around all perimeter footings. The drains should be constructed using a four -inch diameter per- forated pipe bedded and covered with free - draining gravel. The drains should have a positive gtadient towards suitable discharge facilities. The footing drainage system should not be tied into the roof drainage system. The footing excavation should be backfilled with granular soil except for the top foot which should be back - filled with a relatively impermeable soil such as silt, clay or topsoil. Alternatively, the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete pavements. Earth Consultants, Inc. 1 GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 Driven Timber Piles E -3693 Page 7 Alternatively, the proposed structure may be supported on sound pressure- treated Class B timber piles driven into the medium dense to dense sands underlying the very loose to loose silts and silty sands at a depth of about sixteen (16) feet below existing ground surface. The piles should conform to the specifications outlined in the Uniform Building Code Standard 25 -12 for friction and end bearing piles. Timber piles should have a minimum butt diameter of twelve (12) inches and a minimum tip diameter of ten (10) inches. Timber piles should be placed no closer than three pile diameters, center -to- center. A maximum compression load capacity of twenty (20) tons can be used for piles driven to the recommended criteria. For a hammer having a rated energy of fifteen thousand (15,000) foot - pounds, the recom- mended driving criteria is twenty (20) blows per foot for the last one foot of driving, and a final set of one -half inch or less. Similar driving criteria can be developed for other hammer energies, if needed. A portion of the compression load capacity will be developed by side friction in the bearing stratum. However, virtually all of the tension (uplift) and lateral load capacity will be dependent upon embedment in the bearing stratum. A timber pile penetrating five feet into the bearing sands is estimated to have an allowable uplift capacity of four tons. Similarly, we estimate a one -ton lateral load applied at the ground surface will create less than one - eighth (1/8) inch deflection. Based on the boring information, we expect that pile lengths will vary between twenty -one (21) and twenty -seven (27) feet below existing grade. Because soil conditions can be variable, we recommend that at least two indicator test piles be driven prior to ordering the production piles to obtain a more accurate estimate of pile lengths and to better determine driving characteristics. The piles and hammer used should be of the same size and type as will be used in production driving. ECI's representative should observe the installation of both the 'indicator piles and production piles on a full -time basis. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by the piles and by passive pressure on the grade beams. Additional lateral loads can be resisted by battered piles and friction between the slab and the subgrade. A coefficient of 0.35 may be used between the concrete slab and subgrade. Passive earth pressures on the grade beams can be assumed to be equal to that exerted by a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pcf. Earth Consultants, Inc. GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 Slab -on -Grade Floors E -3693 Page 8 Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on the native soil subgrade after proofrolling or on structural fill. Any disturbed native soils which cannot be compacted to structural fill specifications should be replaced with structural fill. Four inches of free - draining sand or gravel should be placed over the subgrade as a capillary break. We also recommend that a vapor barrier, such as a 6 mil plastic membrane, be placed between the slab and the capillary break material to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab and the resultant moisture - related damage to interior furnishings. Two inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction, to aid in curing of the concrete, and to help prevent cement paste bleeding down into the underlying capillary break. Site Drainage Groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths ranging from approximately sixteen (16) to nineteen and one -half (19 -1/2) feet. However, it has been our experience that groundwater levels change significantly due to changes in rainfall amounts, surface drainage or other factors. If seepage is encountered during site prepara- tion, the water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipes or French drains. We suggest that appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, be established during grading operations by ECI's represen- tative, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. The site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings except in areas that are to be paved. Pavement Areas All parking and roadway areas may be supported on native soils provided those soils can be compacted to 95 percent density (ASTM D- 1557 -73) and are stable at the time of construction. Structural fill and/or geofabrics may be needed to stabilize soft, wet or Earth Consultants, Inc. GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 E -3693 Page 9 unstable areas. In most instances, twelve (12) inches of granular fill will stabilize the subgrade except for very soft areas where greater thicknesses may be required. The upper twelve (12) inches of pavement subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density. Below this level a compactive effort of 90 percent will be adequate. The pavement section for lightly - loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of two inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over four inches of Crushed Rock Base (CRB) or three inches of Asphalt Treated Base (ATB). Heavier loaded areas will require thicker sections. We will be pleased to assist you in developing appropriate pavement sections or specifications for heavy traffic zones, if needed. Site Preparation and General Earthwork The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all slabs, trees, existing utilities, surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. It is an- ticipated that a stripping depth of up to six inches will be required. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas. Ideally, but particularly in wet weather, structural fill should consist of a free - draining, organic -free granular material with a maximum size of three inches and no more than five percent fines (silt and clay -sized particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve). During dry weather, any compactible non - organic soil meeting the above maximum size criteria can be used as structural fill. Following the stripping operation, the ground surface where struc- tural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the full - time observation of ECI's representative. Soil in loose or soft areas should be either recompacted or removed and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in thin horizontal lifts of not more than ten inches loose thickness, and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in thin horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Earth Consultants, Inc. GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 E -3693 Page 10 On -site soils at the time of our exploration were near the optimum moisture content and may be used as structural fill provided the grading operations are conducted during dry weather. However, the on -site soils have a significant amount of fines. Thus, compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases above the optimum moisture content. The moisture content can be reduced by aeration in dry weather, or by intermixing lime or cement powder to absorb excess moisture. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on December 4, 1987. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling two borings to a maximum depth of thirty -nine (39) feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Drilling Unlimited, using a truck - mounted drill rig. Continuous flight, hollow stem augers'dere used to advance and support the boreholes during sampling. The locations of the borings were approximately determined by taping the distances to an assumed property corner. Elevations of borings were approximately determined by hand level methods. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend. Logs of the borings are presented on Plates 4 and 5. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and selective tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D -1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as sieve analyses on representative samples. Moisture contents were Earth Consultants, Inc. C GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 E -3693 Page 11 performed on all samples. Results of moisture determinations, together with classifications, are shown on the boring logs included in this report. The results of two sieve analyses are illustrated on Plate 6, Grain Size Analyses. LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, analyses, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between borings may not become evident until construc- tion. If variations then appear, ECI should be requested to reeval- uate the recommendations of this report and to verify or modify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services It is recommended that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. It is also recommended that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. Because of the nature of the soil conditions, we do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construc- tion observation and testing services. This is to observe com- pliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. GT Development Corporation January 15, 1988 E -3693 Page 12 The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Legend Plates 4 and 5 Boring Logs Plate 6 Grain Size Analyses Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. John J. Moran Project Manager Glen Mann, P. E. Vice - President RW /JJM /GM /kml Earth . Consultants, Inc.. Reference : King County / Mop 41 By Thomas Brothers Mops Dated 1988 Earth fli4olt Consultants Inc. a..t.ehnie t Engineering aad Q..i.ny Vicinity Mop GT Development / Lots 7-10 Tukwila, Washington Pro). No. 3693 1 .Date Dec. '87 I Plato LEGEND B- I Approximate Locution of ECI Boring , Proj. No. E-3693, Dec. 1987 t Lot Number Existing Building 0 Approximole Soule 50 100 200ft. Reference : Plat Mop Received From Client Undated Earth Consultants Inc. G..RKhaio l raigUwrtag sad Geology Boring Location Plan GT. Development / Lots 7-10 Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 3693 1 Date Dec. '87 J Plato MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SE SYMBOL SYMMTER BOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTION Coarse Soils More Than 50% Material Larger Than No. 200 Sieve Size Gravel And Gravelly Soils More Than 50% Coarse Fraction Retained On No. 4 Sieve Clean Gravels (little or no fines) •• •�� u °o: GW •. n •e • ° •; a = °•O'° '0'a'O' '• Well- Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines ' '0 ::0: :• :: ‘ • • 0 • gp • '• t• . Poorly - Graded Gravels, Gravel - Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravels With Fines ( appreciable amount of tines 1 • • d ■ GM • • 0 • ,1 gm I/ Silty Gravels, Gravel -Sand- Silt Mixtures / GaC � gC Clayey Gravels. Gravel- Sand- Clay Mixtures Sand And Sandy Soils More Then 50% Coarse Fraction Passing No. 4 Sieve Clean Sand (little or no fines) o ; °e 0 0 ° o°• SW o °•o o pa.•° SW WeII- Graded Sands, Gravelly • Sands, Little Or No Fines - Y • •r. : SP ,; "•'.': " ;� :' Sp • • Poorly- Graded Sands, Gravelly Sands. Little Or No Fines Sands With Fines (appreciable amount of fines) •�• 1 ) :;•: ;:;:.1 Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures pr p 011 Clayey Sands, Sand - Clay Mixtures Fine Grained Soils More Than 50% Material Smaller Than No. 200 Sieve Size Silts Liquid Limit And Less Than 50 Clays I Inorganic Silts 8 Very Fine Sands, Rock Flou.r,Silly- Clayey Fine Sands: Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity CI Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity. Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays. Lean I l i ' 11 1 : i I I I OL 1 D) Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays 01 Low Plasticity Silts And Liquid Limit Clays Greater Than 50 _ 1 I ( I MH Inorganic Silts. Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine Sand Or Silty Soils ' Ch Inorganic Clays Of High Plasticity, Fat Clays 2'1,-,/,', / /• // OH oh Organic Clays Of Medium To High Plasticity, Organic Silts Highly Organic Soils = — " .. ' • — ,, PT pt Peat. Humus. Swamp Soils With High Organic Contents Topsoil Humus And Duff Layer Fill e ra •• •••••••-••••• i b•�� • • •• •• • • Highly Variable Constituents The Discussion In The Text Of This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding Of The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached Logs Notes : Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab- oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not verified by laboratory testing. I 2 -0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER II SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER OR P SAMPLER PUSHED * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED WATER LEVEL (DATE) WATER OBSERVATION WELL C TORVANE READING, tsf qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent PI PLASTIC INDEX Earth Consultants Inc. Geotschnlcal )Engineering and Geology LEGEND Proj. No. 3693 IDateD'87 1 3 BORING NO. Lagged By DG 12/4/87 ELEV. 99. St Data Graph Graph CS Soil Description Sample (N) (N) Blows Ft. (W) :: .t.{;S; .1.1 r?:,... .?;: t: ' •:i. i1. .: 4' : ;: t: f. SM (3" sod) Brown silty fine SAND with trace gravel, very loose to loose to medium dense, moist - . — 5 —10 —15 1 4 5 9 10 9 10 15 20 50 40 17 8 16 30 22 32 30 32 28 : '�:��•'' •� '�•�': .' •� ': : : : :: * •; :;�: ; • • •� • :j tt:=•_•'•• sp Black fine SAND, medium dense to dense, saturated, poorly graded . Si —20 —25 —30 - —35 - n r9 n n r Boring terminated at 39.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 16.0 feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to 39.0 feet. Lower 10 feet slotted. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Capped with bentonite. Subsurface eondaimr degetse febeema our obser atlm. at In time and Swollen of itlis eapamrtory hole. MOW by alpNlameq Mb. saps. and tudpsmsM. They be not necessarily reoraemaa be of OW ernes and beams. We canna scab wsponsiblMY for Ile use or 1laefonaspon by caws of weerension beeraed On In lop. . . Eorth # lio A Consultants Inc. • WeI.ekalo.I igi...r,ws.ad o..rgy BORING LOG GT DEVELOPMENT /LOTS 7 - 10 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 3693 jDete Dec' 87 ,Plate 4 BORING NO. Logged By DG ELEV. 99.51 Date 12/4/87 Graph US CS Soil Description De p'h Sample (N) Blows Ft. (W) ML (3" sod) Brown SILT with some sand, loose, moist, trace roots — 5 - = ..t_ 4 7 9 12 8 17 29 11 27 41 12 22 34 13 5 30 32 28 ,�.•�;e!: ":•;':;:• '•�'• •: .;;. ;;;:• •�•: ;:• : :: ;: ••: _.y ' • :.... •' _.•::_ sp Gray-brown fine SAND, loose to medium dense, occasional silt lenses, dry to moist —10 - _ . 15 sp Black fine to medium SAND, medium dense, saturated x-20 - —25 —30 35 I T Boring terminated at 39.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered at 19.5 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. subsurha conditions tl.paed norosont our oe..watlons al the tim..nd location a aw.•Olorrory Ms. modified by onspnoonng eels, ~yew and tie They N not womanly roprosontobso a low ions and location.. Ws cannot accept responsiblity for the use «merpr.tation by omens a .wor.wuon pmanaw on this loo. 1040161, Earth Consultants Inc. G.«.cIc.I W Goellegy BORING LOG GT DEVELOPMENT /LOTS 7 - 10 TUKWILA. WASHINGTON Proj.No. 3693 ,Date Dec 87 1P1at. 5 N } J Z cc W 1- W 2 0 cc 0 } f z W N Q 4 2 4 I- N V1 z CC W o. S W LL 0 cc W 2 2 2 V 2 z 2 W a 0 u. 0 W N N O 100' Z00' £00' b00. 900' 800' Lo' Z0' CO' b0' 90' 00Z 001 08 09 OS OP 0 O PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT O O O O 0 Os 0 0 OZ 91 O1 8 9 ZL 0 r 1 Earth Consultants Inc. O co 0 PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY O 1 100' Z00' E00' 000' 900' 800' 10' Z0' CO' P0' 90' 80' 1' N 0: Lu Z W 2 9' Z 8' W 1 N 2 Z 0: 0 9 8 01 OL OE 00 09 08 001 00 00£ O N W 2 W 2 LL N W J m m 0 C) -I 0 N C 0 « o a it irs] y 0 } W 1� N �-1 N ,-i1t SAND H N f+1 U1 Li" N 1!1 1.1 N c4 04 GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES GT DEVELOPMENT /LOTS 7 - 10 TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 3693 I Date Dec' 87 I Plate 6 To: Diana Painter, Plannin•.Division From: Ron Cameron, via P Fraser, Senior Engineer Date: May 11, 1994 Subject: GT Development 6437 S 144 St Project No. PRE93 -022 SEPA Review Comments The above project was reviewed for SEPA at a special 5/10/94 meeting of the Public Works plan review meeting. The following are our specific comments: I. TRAFFIC: Interurban /I405. The improvement costs at this location total over $13,000,000 and complexity of weaving traffic would result in prorated shares exceeding $5,000 /trip. It has been previously determined to use a "fair share" of $1,000 /trip with increase traffic at this location. GT Development's 16 peak hour trips mitigation is $16,000. III. PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS: A. Land Altering - earthwork quantities for cut/ excavation, fill /backfill and haul need to be indicated on the development plans. B. Flood Control Zone 1.] Riverbank stabilization study required 2.] Use NGV datum; show lowest floor elevations 3.] All lowest floor elevations to be minimum of 2 feet higher than standard project flood if levee /dike system does not protect the property; if a levee /dike system does protect the property minimum lowest floor elevation is one foot above standard project flood elevation. 4.] Provide trail /riverbank /dike easement in accordance with agreement with Department of Parks and Recreation. Page 2 C. Drainage (Analysis) The May 5, 1994 faxed GT Development revised storm drainage narrative (attached), Page 1, "Proposed Drainage System ", last sentence - identifies "storage" based on 100 yr /24 hour storm event. Request drainage design applies criteria identified in King County Surface Water Design Manual under CORE REQUIREMENT #3 (Section 1.2.3 - Peak Rate Runoff Control Performance) and includes consideration of 100 yr /7 day event for all new . impervious surfaces (roofs as well as vehicular) - for river storage calculations. Also, compensatory storage to be provided as part of the GT development design in accordance with King County's Flood Hazard Reduction Plan Policy FP -4 which states: "For structures and fill placed in the floodplain should be compensated for by excavation of equivalent volumes at equivalent elevations" (See Figure 10 attached). D. Utilities - 1.] Water - Improvements will need to be in compliance with the city's adopted Comprehensive Water Plan (1993) & will require installation of a new 10" main in Interurban /Maule Ave S R /W's replacing the existing 2" main. 2.] Sewer - Improvements will need to be in compliance with the city's adopted Comprehensive Sewer Plan (1993). 3.] Street Use - o Channelization required on Interurban Ave S. in accordinance with the Interurban Ave Plan. o Frontal improvements required on both Interurban Ave S and S 144 St in accordinance with the Ordinance #1516 and the Interurban Ave Plan (Entranco). o Private driveways (25' - 35'maximum) E. Landscape Irrigation - drought tolerant plantings are encouraged. If permanent irrigation plumbing is installed, a conservation system shall be utilized. Please let me know if you have any questions concerning the above. cf: Ron Cameron, City Engineer John Pierog, PW Development Engineer Brian Shelton, PW Transportation Engineer Pat Broden, PW Sewer and Water Engineer Development File. PF /prf 4 Previous 100 -year. Floodplain cdgc AA' • ' •. '‚‚‚.4,,,,,, ,,. \.. ♦. /.4.4.4.4,,,, • , , , , , , , / , , , , . . . . , \ ••••••••••••• , . . •. • . . . . . . ... ♦ \ ♦♦ •.•..,:•.....• . ♦.\ „•.4.4•.4:.4:..,• ,'•/ ,'•/ / / / , / / / / , / •/ , , / , / , i / / / / / / / / •, ♦ ♦ • . • ♦ ♦ . • • • • • . \ • • • . . . . ♦ . • • • • ♦ • • 100. Year Floodplain Mcvation • BB' ..T,,,. ` /`,` / // \.. ♦. • • , r , , , . • • • • • • • • ,•`/`/`i /`/`/ Compensatory Storage e r .%/%/%0‘0%,0%,... 4�CnVi�tilin\ \,,,.,,,,..• .. \ , r r r r r r / r / r , / •/� / / /', ♦ . .. , ♦ . , .4 ♦, .4 • .• •. ,' •. •. .4.4.4.4. \ ... , , , •r , •r r „ / „ / / r / , / , / ,••i / r r , / , , , , / , r r ,. • • .4.4.4•.4 • :...,.•.,,.,.,,•. • ♦♦• • • • 100 -Ycar Floodplain EIevnliun FIGURE 10 • KING COUNTY',S COMPENSATORY STORAGE REQ CAM ENGINEERING. LANG PLANNING, SURVEYING• ENVIRONMENTAL 9ERvICE$ Date: Our Job No: 57)o/ qy 50,35" Facsimile No: (2 o 6 •) 43/ —3‘65 No. of Pages: (Inoluding Cover Shoot) To: D [ a Gi'f(7. or 7W' LJi /A RE: G. 7: QPVe Lap zo_eiir Comments: • Q_..4z2/2, .._ .a ' + m. _- •_- dac.p A/_x.:a.?L'! '/.e.. _.�.�..i/..�e c� , . /./a j ei • Signed: .Nets: , 41 yaw how •.cviwd Q.1 ew►....w.404o.. r.. vs oy o. if yw. do ..01 .cMiw .a(...n.nQel ol/t ps i.aLiolwr4 /im.w ..e1 . "' ....,..dLly !y. /.444i.w., 5 .r.'4 Y"'• 18215 72N0 AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 . (206 251.6222 (206) 2514762 FAX CHEC I15T: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW M ILINGS FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( )TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( )DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES ( )OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( )DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ( )DEPT. OF FISHERIES ( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( )FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( )FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT ( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( )KENT LIBRARY .( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( )US WEST ( )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ( )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS ( )WATER DISTRICT #75 ( )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( )GROUP W CABLE ( )OLYMPIA PIPELINE ( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( )PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ( )POLICE ( )FINANCE ( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING ( )PARKS AND ORECREATION ( )TUKWILA MAYOR ( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES ( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION ( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION* ( )DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE ( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL *SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND *SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION RING•COUNTY AGENCIES ( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS ( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT ( )PORT OF SEATTLE ( )BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.- SEPA INFORMATION CENTER SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL, DISTRICT ( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY ( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES ( )PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT ( )VAL -VUE SEWER DISTRICT ( )WATER DISTRICT #20 ( )WATER DISTRICT #125, ( )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS ( )RAINIER VISTA ( )SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( )CITY OF SEA -TAC ( )CITY OF SEATTLE ( )CITY OF BURIEN ( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ( )DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE MEDIA ( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE ( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS ( )METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING'DIV.. OFFICE /INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS, OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR ..MORE ( )HIGHLINE TIMES ( )SEATTLE TIMES PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Applicant Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Include these documents: SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings /plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper). SHORELINE MAILINGS Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE). Dept. of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General Applicant Indian Tribes Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Include these documents: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, if applicable) Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings /plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) - Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements - Cross - sections of site w /structures & shoreline - Grading plan - Vicinity map SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper) Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper). • L94 -00011 G.T. DEVELOPMENT SEPA .yr:i..r.,.:� .f... _.- :.(r:l'�..t" "' ':us�:r r -,� ..., " .L.,.� -,� 1.�.:aiv:ir :,..: 't. rwh�,t. ,fir.- ,;�;.;.. ;,.4F> :.e:1;,= �c.,•Se,. �.. &.r.. = .,,��mwra.:ml�c::L.�:+,�r ,�r.iiitl ._ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 _. 16 THS INCH / ,� 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 MADEIN GrRMANY 12 OE 6Z' SG GZ 9G SZ 17G" £Z GL LZ OZ 6L 81. LL 9L GL t'L £L' ZL LL \111111111111111 I\il Iid1111I111111111\1111111,L91�.,QI�� 11111\111111111 1111 II 1 1 111 � III 11111111 111 II I lin 1111 11111111 11 ��II11111 1 11111 II 1111 I �. a. .' /h:.',.F.:r..4 n .•5 3, sR.n .+rr 3... 1r2i.. .)._. .'5..� Ne_v.�x IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCtNENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT' OL 6 8 9 S +i £ Z L WW 0 1i ii I II 111 III iiii I iiiiii 1iiiiiiii1iiiiiiiil iii�iiiiliiii111li111 1111111 EX SS MH IE • ie /e �0�3b"1( VGA 250. \ \ �•\ • • \:.\• SEM�nrr�9Noj'..`� • 20.0 = : 20.0 a 40' EXISTING R.O,W 197'' ,r EXISTING FIRE of HYDRATE Ex. RIM •�20�3 I IE • 9.82 1 1 6 M L. APPROXIMATE VEGETATION LINE AND ORDINARY HIGH WATER ( EASTERN LIMITS OF OWNERSHIP ) TOP OF BANK ' ' MAULE STREET 36 .t ............................. EXISTING . PAVEMENT 39' U 0 w 20 EXISTING GRADE 0 SECTION • L 30' WESTERN LIMITS OF 100- `- XF,A R WOD ZONE A -1 B 20 F_)OSlW0 CURB AND CONCRETE WALK NEW CB #I TYPE 1 RIM = 18.3 IE = 15.62 3 20 PROPOSED GRADE D SECTION 15. 40' SETBACK FROM ORDINARY HIGH WATER Q•' 1 1 �ADDITIO \ �J 30' 14.3 30' SETBACK FROM TOP OF BANK 10 15' GRASSCRETE TO FIRE LANE NEW STORM DRAIN PIPE • ' • ' SECTION B -B G.T. DEVELOPMENT PARKING LOT TYPICAL. CROSS SECTItie CB *10 TYPE 1 SCALE:1'�1O' HORZ. R M •17.39 22 1' -5' VERT. •• .IE"•;15. M Ih EX. CB Fill+ ° 19.42 IE•16.9216'WI IE•16.9216'El EX. SD - = = =1J EX. CB RIM L. 18.92 IE • 17.22 1 4• W) IE•16.1214'N1 SCALE: 1" - 30' NE C: RIM = 17.0 IE = 14.68 EXIST. RIM •15,42 I.E • 9.82 412' Nl IE•9.92112'SI EXISTI\G BUILDI F.F. = 19.72 \G N 718 00 z NEW CB #8 TYPE 1 RIM • 16.8 IE =14.2 M • 19.30 IE =17.7518' El /l6 NEW CB #7 TYPE 1 RIM = 16.8 IE = 13.74 V EXISRNG TO 8E REMOVED 14 NEW CB #4 RIM =15.7 IE = 14.32 EX. SD _ EX. CB RIMP17: I.E. • 12.09110' S IE • 10.29136'E8 0 t- > 0 15.00 18.5 NEW ADDIT-0 17\--N) = IE • 13.31 16' EI IE • 13.01 IR' NI EX. CB •�+ •► I T RIM 13 2 2? 67kl BE VACATED 8 REPL WI UTILITY EASEMEN NEW CB # RIM = 16.8 IE •945 EX SS Mn IE•9.11 2' N) IE•9.11 02'S) RIM • 20.34 IE 14.29118'El IE117.1418'El IE•14.54112 "SI IE • 14.54 112' NI LANDSCAPING EW PARKING LOT GRADES DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FLOG STORAGE. NEW 6' CONCRETE WALK WITH CURBS AND GUTTERS 0 I v EXISTING FIRE I M HYDRANT Ix NEW CB 02 TYPE 1 RI = 1 .10 IE • 14.68 EX. SS MH RI • 2 IE •. 6.42 112' NI IE • 8.42 1 8' LEI EXISUIING ITCH TO BE TIGHTLINED f i R .19..s6 6 IE•16.061I5'141 IE•16.31112'S) RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUN 2 4 1994 z EW 6' CONCRETE WALK WITH CURBS AND GUTTERS PERMIT CENTER 1 \�re. • 42.703.51 Ie. El N IE•14.73118'WI S TBACK FROM TOP OF BANK PP 0 10 16' ' -- 8 TRAIL EASEMENT LEGEND: OF BANK RIM F 17.53 IE • 11.13 LANDSCAP AREA EXCAVATED TO PROVIDE FLOOD STOR AGE W CB #5 TYPE RIM • 17.5 OF.• 15.5 IE = 13.2 PROPOSED BLDG. F.F. = 19.72 12' MAINTENANC TRAIL EL. =22.4 PROPOSED ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED STORM LINE EX. CONC. STORM LINE POWER LINE S.P.F. EL. = 20.4 II BLDG. SIG _-- PP 180 LF 5' WIDE S A E 0 0.50% PP 40' SHORELINE SETBACK RI�N P.10 IE • 11.55 136' SI IE • 11.40 136' El EXIST. GRADE 8 SECTION 0.H. W.M. ELEV. • 7.0 VEGETATION) SECTION A -A SCALE. 1' = 10' HORIZ. I' = 5' VERT. GTON b ENTON File: Al Date /Time: 02 -17- 1994 09:23 Scale: 1 =30 jim "" "' "f ""1.'.'x:, ..vim v ,••e,.•�.^.••:rx:,v:.»••.,.,... fir.- 1.....- ..:.. ^. ° =.z.= -^''?7.^1 °. -._. __. • 1 1111111( 1111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111j 111111111II III( IIIIIIIIIII111I1111111111111111 111111111I111111111111111111111III11111III111I11IIIII1111IIIIIIIII1111IIIIII11111I O 1•TNSINCN 1 7_ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 '11 ,a0n.aro.a, 12 FLEXIBLE RULER - 302AW•.NN. ".- OE 6Z 96 Lz 9■ SZ VG CZ C6 l2 OZ 6L Bt Li. 9L Sl 91 El EL 11 01. 6 11Il u,�1 I(II� I i1�i�l IU ltIiil1u111ll1uliiliilii11llwl. iililluilaliuitodiu .ill(til.Ualul(Gli1!11 S , C �(,iilhl(!U��lllll JU�IUII� {ii1111! IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT VICINITY MAP -3 9•■ E SS MH IE EXISTING FIRE HYDRATE EX CB IE•9.82 I NEW: PROPOSED' PARKING APPROXIMATE VEGETATION LINE AND ORDINARY HIGH WATER ( EASTERN. LIMITS OF OWNERSHIP ) TOP OF BANK EXISTING GRADE 0•SECTION WESTERN LIMITS OF 100 - Y€AR F}B 0D ZONE A -1 -20 40' SETBACK FROM ORDINARY.. HIGH WATER RATIO: 30' SETBACK FROM TOP OF BANK NEW .STORM DRAIN PIPE i EXISTING CURB APO CONCRETE WALK NEW CB #I TYPE 1 IE • 15.62 EX SS 1.11-1 RIAM • 18.84 I.E. • 10.29 CB 1 1 1 1 GRASSCRETE TO FIRE LANE :: :DEVELOPMENT 20 EX. SD •F == RIM = 17.0 IE • 14.68 EX. CB RIM •18.92 IE•(7.2214'W) IE • 16.12 1 4' NI EXIST. RIM • 15.42 IE•9.92112'S1 La 1- 0) w . EXISTING BUILDI \G F.F. = 19.72 CB #8 TYPE 1 RIM • 16.: IE = 14.2 EXISTING TO BE REMOVED RI P I.E. • 12.09(10' S IE • 10.29(36'Ed ) 0 w 15:00 EX. SD. \EW.ADDITTON. X16 I - O " RDA . 15.3I 7 IE•13.31(6'E) IE • 13.01(8' NI w /-e; •k • MAULE ST. R.O.W. TO BE VACATED 8 REPL WI UTILITY EASEMEN RIM • 20.34 IE•14.291 8' E) IE•17.1418'El IE • 14.54 (12' S) IE•14.54112'N1 LANDSCAPING NEW 6' CONCRETE WALK WITH CURBS AND GUTTERS EW PARKING LOT GRADES DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FLOC) STORAGE. EXISTING •I 2 EXISTING FIRE • M HYDRANT 1 X 3w NEW CB #2 TYPE 1 RIM =I .10 IE = 14.68 10.40 NEW 6' CONCRETE WALK WITH CURBS AND GUTTERS 0' S B • CK RO TOP OF BANK RECEIVED MAY 1 91994 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROX. LOCATION OF BANK 8 TRAIL EASEMENT EX SS IE •, 8.42 (1248 IE • 8.42 ( 8' IE) 1 C • TIE -11.13 A� LANDSCAP'AREA EXCAVATED TO PROVIDE FLOOD STOR AE NEW CB *3 TYPE 1 RIM •16.60 CIE: 13.69 W CB *5 TYPE RIM = 17.5 OF.• 15.5 IE = 13.2 12' MAINTENANC TRAIL LEGEND: PROPOSED ASPHALT PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED STORM LINE EX. CONC. STORM LINE POWER LINE S -I�-95 1 EXPIRES:9 -Z„3- 95 PROPOSED BLDG. F.F. = 19.72 EL. •22.4 S.P.F. EL. • 20.4 180 LF 5' WIDE ID 0.50% 4 PP \\ 40' SHORELINE SETBACK EXIST. GRADE 0 SECTION 0.H. W.M. ELEV. • 7.0 VEGETATION) SECTION A -A SCALE. 1' .10' HORIZ. I' 5' VERT. • File: Al Date /Time: 02 -17 -1994 09:23 Scale: 1 =30 jim 1111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIII1 11111111111111 I111111111111111I1111111111111111 111111II 111'1'1' I IIII1' 11111II1111111I11Ili11I1111' 1II1111111I11II111I1111111I1111111II11111 '1 11111111111111111111111 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 uAUI'INGIPU.IIY 12 0 ,GTHSINCH 1 •� FLEXIBLE RULER -302 AW•.H..• OE; 6Z BL LZ 9, SZ vL CB cL LZ OZ 6l Bl Ll 91. GI. 4l El El ll OL 6 8 9 S i E Z L "' O IIIIIL m111 111111111�nn IJ�I11ii11i111pnlnilllminnluuhlnll lll�l)t �lll�ilhlllllJ l>ll!!I�Illllllll Llli1�11111�11fi1111t1 fll ILIIIlU �l Illll I II n I I I I I .:�MT .:. 1 dt4; 1h11�u1�ul� 111L�tu.luu��ul�a11�1,ulllu �.u1.lulll 0.11111 1111,1141.1.11,. VICINITY MAP IF THIS MICROFILMED DOCUMENT IS LESS! CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE, IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTI