Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-09-87 - ST GEORGE PROPERTIES - APARTMENT ADDITION AND RECREATIONAL SPACE IMPROVEMENTSST. GEORGE PROPERTIES APARTMENT CONSTRUCTION NEXT TO EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING 14081 -14083 58T" AVE. S. EPIC -9 -87 AFF,•AV IT OF DISTRISTION Li Notice of Public Hearing EJ Notice of Public Meeting [[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet [( Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet [[ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet hereby declare that: Determination of Nonsignificance [[ Mitigated Determination of Non - significance [� Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice [� Notice of Action [[ Official Notice [[ Notice of Application for [[ Other Shoreline Management Permit [I Shoreline Management Permit Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on Washington. State Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Mail Stop PV -11 Olympia, WA 98405 Attn: Karen Beatty M. Leon Moore St. George Properties 2227 112th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98009 Name of Project 5/. File Number e-9'c 9 -r? e/12 Signature • • CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS ( ) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( ) Federal Highway Administration FEDERAL AGENCIES ( )U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X) WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) Office of Archaeology ( ) Transportation Department ( ) Department of Fisheries ( ) Office of the Governor ( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency ( ) Dept. of Planning & Community De ( ) Fire District 18 ( ) Boundary Review Board ( ) Health Department ( ) South Central School District ( ) Tukwila Library ( ) Renton Library ( ) Kent Library ( ) Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone ( ) Seattle City Light ( ) Washington Natural Gas ( ) Water District 75 ( ) Seattle Water Department ( ) Group W Cable ( ) Kent Planning Department ( ) Tukwila Board of Adjustment ( ) Tukwila Mayor Tukwila City Departments: ( ) - Public Works ( ) - Parks and Recreation ( ) - Police ( ) - Fire ( ) - Finance ( ) - Planning /Building ( )Dept. of Social and Health Services ( )Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division .4Qept. of Ecology, SEPA Division * ( )Department of Game ( )Office of Attorney General * Send checklist with all determinations KING COUNTY AGENCIES vel. ( )Fire District 1 ( )Fire District 24 ( )Building & Land Development Division - SEPA Information Center SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES ( )Highline School District ( )King County Public Library ( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library UTILITIES ( )Puget Sound Power & Light ( )Val -Vue Sewer District ( )Water District 20 ( )Water District 25 ( )Water District 125 ( )Union Pacific Railroad CITY AGENCIES ( )Renton Planning Department ( )Tukwila Planning Commission Tukwila City Council Members: ( )- Edgar Bauch ( )- Marilyn Stoknes ( )- Joe Duffie ( )- Mabel Harris ( ) -. Charlie Simpson ( )- Jim McKenna ( )- Wendy Morgan OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES ( ) Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG) ( )METRO Environmental Planning Division ( ) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency Office /Industrial 10,000 gsf or more ( ) Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce Residential 50 units or more Retail 100,000 gsf or more MEDIA ( ) Daily Journal of Commerce ( ) Renton Record Chronicle ( )Highline Times ( )Seattle Times WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal ST. GEORGE PROPERTIES Addition and Renovation Construct 3 unit structure and associated landscaping, parking, and recreation space improvements Proponent ST GEORGE PROPERTIES Location of Proposal, including street address, if any 14081 - 14083 58th Avenue S. Tukwila, WA 98188 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -9 -87 The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. ox There is no comment period for this DNS [[ This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Planning Director Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tuk a •1I� "/"�` !! Date l C� Signature ` /�� Phone 433 -1845 You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You 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 Planning Department. FM.DNS KERR /PENSIERO AND C PANY Architects And Landscape itects 124 East Edgar Stree SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98102 (206) 323 -4565 TO C rri of Ti3K"bes LA 0200 50uTHGis LA, WA 1'6,S8 LErrC_ OF `012LOSRE[nruz , DATE 3 J uf€ 6 7 JOB NO. ARTET: E\O cic... ?A ST f_o 2G16._ Pzo p ag-'f €S S 8-M A✓c. A ?Arrcrm DTs WE ARE SENDING YOU [ Attached ❑ Under separate cover via ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Prints ❑ Change order ❑ Plans ❑ Samples se_At • /, _ • the following items: ❑ Specifications COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use As requested For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO P0001101.240.2 (NE4.sj Inc, Winn, Man 01471. SIGNED: 0 enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 13240 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747 -5618 (206) 343 -7959 St. George Properties P. 0. Box 1001 Seattle, WA 98009 May 29, 1987 JN 87134 Attention: Leon Moore Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study, Apartment Building Project, 58th Avenue South, Tukwilla, Washington ..Gentlemen: We are pleased to present our geotechnical engineering report for an apartment building project to be constructed at the above referenced site in Tukwilla, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site conditions and provide earthwork and foundation design criteria. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with three test pits. We found the site to be underlain by as much as twelve to thirteen feet of fill in the upper area and eight or nine feet of residual silty sand with fractured, weathered rock in the lower portion. The entire site is underlain at depth, by weathered to hard intrusive bedrock. In our opinion conventional spread footings may be placed in the dense silty sands or hard bedrock underlying the fill soils and the highly fractured silt layer. However, in the downslope portion of the proposed building, we recommend that the structural loads be transferred into the competent hard bedrock using augered concrete piers. Drilling machinery, used to install the piers, must be able to core into the hard bedrock. The attached report contains a more detailed discussion of the study and recommendations. If you have any questions, or if we can be of any further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. /4/ ames R. Finley, Jr. P.E. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY APARTMENT BUILDING 58TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILLA, WASHINGTON This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering study of the site of a proposed apartment building project in Tukwilla. The site is located immediately west of 14081 - 58th Avenue South as indicated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Based on preliminary plans furnished to us, we anticipate that the building will consist of eight, three story units to be constructed west of an existing twelve unit apartment. Cuts of approximately eight feet are anticipated along portions of the south building line. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The property is a nearly triangular shaped tract located on a northeast facing slope overlooking the Duwamish River and the Foster Golf course in Tukwilla. Topographically, the site consists of two relatively flat areas separated by a six to eight foot bank. At the north end of both flat areas, the ground surface drops sharply twenty feet or more to the valley floor. An existing 12 -unit apartment occupies the eastern third of the property. The steep slope is heavily vegetated with underbrush and numerous deciduous trees, while the flat areas are in grass or are gravelled for parking. A visual inspection of the north side of the existing apartment building revealed downslope displacement of the surficial soil adjacent to the foundation elements. We also noted that this portion of the structure was constructed using concrete piers and grade beams.. The building line is within several feet of the edge of the steep slope. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC. • • St. George Properties May 29, 1987 SUBSURFACE JN 87134 Page 2 The subsurface conditions were explored by three test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The test pits were excavated on May 21, 1987 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Excavating. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 5. The uppermost soil unit is fill consisting of brown silt and sand with some root and organic matter and occasional concrete rubble and dimensioned lumber. The fill was found to extend to a depth of nearly thirteen feet in the northwest portion of the building site, six feet in the southern part, and only a foot or so at the northeast corner. A highly fractured tan -gray, medium dense silt, three and one -half to five feet thick, underlies the fill in the two up -slope test pits. The fractured silt and the thin layer of fill in the lowermost test pit are underlain by approximately six feet of residual soil consisting of medium dense to dense reddish tan silty sand with fragments of weathered bedrock. The lowermost unit encountered consists of weathered to hard intrusive bedrock identified as pyroxene andesite and basalt. The rock formation was found at an elevation of approximately eighty feet (using provided topographic information and elevations). The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was not encountered in the three test pits, however, it should be noted that groundwater levels vary with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found between the near surface weathered soil and the underlying bedrock formation. CI•:OTECH CONSULTANTS INC. St. George Properties May 29, 1987 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL JN 87134 Page 3 It is our professional opinion, from a geotechnical engineering standpoint, that the planned multi residential development is feasible for this site. Three backhoe excavated test pits encountered at varying depths, residual soil underlain by the parent bedrock formation. The residual soil is overlain by fractured silt and uncontrolled fill. In our opinion, the residual soils and bedrock formation may be relied upon to support structural loads normally associated with this type of development. Spread footing foundations may-be placed directly on the medium dense to dense, residual soils except along the north building line where all structural loads should be transferred to the underlying bedrock formation. This may be accomplished by `augered concrete piers, however, machinery utilized for this purpose must be capable of coring at least five feet into the bedrock. Although the core of the hillside appears stable, we did note evidence of surficial creep in the soils immediately adjacent to the north wall of the existing apartment building. The concrete piers and the bottom of the grade beam have been exposed in several areas. Under no circumstances should surplus soil be loose dumped onto the steep slope_nor_should soil be stockpiled near the top of the slope. The- exi- s- ti -ng-- v-egetat.ive_ cover o.n.__ the 1 should,__as` -far as._.__possible, remain und,is�t_ux15-67d. Where he vegetation is removed, the surface should be protected from erosion by plastic until a new vegetative cover can be established. SPREAD FOUNDATIONS The southern portion of the proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on the dense residual soil underlying the fractured silt and uncontrolled fill or on structural fill placed above competent native soils.. Overexcavation of the fill soils below the footing will be required in some areas. Structural fill placed under footings should extend outwards from the edge of the footings at least an amount equal to the depth of fill underneath 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 CEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC. • • St. George Properties May 29, 1987 JN 87134 Page 4 founded on competent native soils may be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand (2000) pounds per square foot (psf). Footings bearing on structural fill may also be designed for a bearing pressure of two thousand (2000) psf. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of sixteen (16) 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 foundations and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. A coefficient of . friction of 0.40 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). DRILLED PIERS Drilled concrete piers should be used to support the north wall of the project and where it is not feasible to remove the fill and /or fractured silt to the underlying residual soils.. It is our opinion that the piers can be installed by relatively simple open -hole methods, although the machinery must be capable of coring five feet into the bedrock. Concrete should be placed immediately after each pier is completed. The piers should have a minimum diameter of sixteen inches and should extend at least five feet into the bedrock formation. Such piers may be assumed to have an allowable bearing capacity of 20 tons each. The piers should be reinforced to resist a lateral load equal to that exerted by a fluid having a density of one hundred (100) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting on the upper eight feet of the pier and on an effective width of two times the pier diameter. For structural design purposes, the pier may be assumed to have a "point -of- fixity" at a depth of ten feet. CEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC. • • St. George Properties May 29, 1987 SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS JN 87134 Page 5 If piers are to be used for structural support, a decision must be made on whether to transfer floor loads to the pier system. Construction of a slab -on -grade floor over the existing fill involves some degree of risk, in as much as the silt and sand fill is compressible. If floor loads are to low and some irregular settlement and cracking can be tolerated, the existing fill could be used in its present state. One precaution which could be employed would consist of proof - rolling the building area. Any soft areas encountered would then be excavated and replaced with select imported material. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four (4) inches of free draining sand or gravel. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6 mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. PERMANENT RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to at least 0.002 times the wall height can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty -five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) . If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, a uniform force of one hundred (100) pounds per square foot (psf) should be added to the equivalent fluid pressure force. For calculating the base resistance to sliding, we recommend using a passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pcf and a coefficient of friction of 0.40. It is assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the wall and that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls.. If surcharges are to be applied, they should be added to the above lateral pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free - draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. Alternatively, a geotextile drainage product such as Miradrain or Enkadrain may be used. The purpose of this is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build -up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. e Tllm77nl T rfl. fl T TY ms Alm[' T I.VI • • St. George Properties May 29, 1987 SITE DRAINAGE JN 87134 Page 6 We recommend the use of footing- drains at the-base of all footings and earth retaining walls. Raof�. d- .- s.ur_face, w tei Irwns mus,t:, ,be.. kept- sepa_ra-te -- from— the—foundation- drain system. The footing drains should be surrounded -by'at least six inches of one - inch -minus washed rock. The rock should be wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac, or similar materials). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and /or crawl space and it should be sloped for drainage. The excavation and 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 com- pacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into the soils. The slopes should be covered with plastic. No groundwater was observed in our test pits. However, some seepage is possible, and, if encountered in the excavation, the water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe or French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should excavation slopes be steeper or greater than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts greater than four (4) feet in height in fill or loose soil should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). All permanent cut slopes into native dense soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Fill slopes should not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. r”,rvrtr'U IV\UCTTT TA ATTC TAI!'' St. George Properties May 29, 1987 PAVEMENT AREAS JN 87134 Page 7 All parking and roadway areas may be supported on native _ soils or existing fills provided these soils can be compacted to 95 percent density and are stable at the time of construction. Structural fill and /or fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet or unstable areas. In most instances twelve (12) inches of granular fill will stabilize the subgrade except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc. after the site is stripped and cut to grade. 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 would be adequate. The pavement section for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of two (2) inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four (4) inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or three (3) inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). These guidelines are based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. We can provide recommendations based on expected traffic loads and R value tests, if requested. Some maintenance and repair of limited areas can be expected. To provide for a design without the need for any repair would be uneconomical. SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK Any structural fill under floor slabs and foundations should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with 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 horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. The moisture content of the on -site soils at the time of our exploration was generally above the optimum moisture content. On -site soils could be used as structural fill provided the grading operations are conducted during dry weather and where drying of the soils by aeration is possible. However, the on -site soils contain a significant amount of fines and thus are moisture sensitive. Compaction and grading operations will be difficult if the soil moisture exceeds the optimum moisture content. If grading activities take place during wet weather, rcnTrcru CnMCITT TANTC TN(' • • St. George Properties May 29, 1987 JN 87134 Page 8 site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import fill. Subgrades will be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment- traffic. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a maximum particle size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. LIMITATIONS Geological factors such as stratigraphic discontinuities that occur between test pits and soil exposures, or variations in groundwater conditions are not predictable with a limited exploration program or conventional engineering analysis. Such non - quantifiable risks must be borne by the owners. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of St. George Properties and their representatives. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendation have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and construction specifications. It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance 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. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC. St. George Properties May 29, 1987 The following plates Plate 1 Plate 2 JN 87134 Page 9 are attached and complete this report: Plates 3 through 5 Pl ate •'6 DBG /JRF /v tv Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Test Pit Logs Grain Size Analysis Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Dennis B. Green Geotechnical Engineer OV- James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC. � CONSULTANTS ANTS tea47..r- VICINITY MAP 58TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILLA, WASHINGTON JOB Na: 87134 PLATE: 1 -_ O N U! ' O 0 ' D r m APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS t Woo - • • GEOTECH ' CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN 58TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILLA, WASHINGTON JOB NO.: 87134 I DATE: JUNE, 1987 1 PLATE: 2 DEPTH (F T.) 0 I0 15 MOIST. ( %) USCS• • TEST PIT 1 LOGGED BYI DBG DESCRIPTION ELEVATION: SM Brown Silty Gravelly SAND with organic matter, Moist, Loose (Topsoil) Reddish Tan Silty Gravelly SAND, Moist, Medium Dense with • weathered rock throughout highly weathered fractured rock BED - ROCK ]Sark Brown /Black to Red -Brown ANDESITE Test Pit terminated on 5/21/87 at 10 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.., GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOGS 58TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILLA, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 87134 l PLATE 3 DEPT H MOIST. (FT.) ( %) 0 I0 15 20 USCS TEST PIT 2 LOGGED BY DBG DESCRIPTION ELEVATION= • SM- ML • • Brown SAND and SILT with organic material, Moist, Loose (Fill) becomes very moist to wet small piece of plywood at 6' concrete rubble at 7' and 8' dimensioned lumber at 11' ML Gray and Tan SILT, Highly Fractured, Moist to Wet, Medium Dense •,I /Hi ghly Fractured and Weathered ANDESITE OCR becomes harder with depth Test Pit terminated on 5/21/87 at 17 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. y-� r j GIGO rECI-I CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOGS 58TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILLA, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 87134 I PLATE DEPTH (F T.) 0 I0 15 20 MOIST. ( %) uSCS• SM- • TEST PIT 3 LOGGED BY: DBG DESCRIPTION ELEVATION' Brown SILT and SAND with organic matter and some concrete rubble, Moist, Loose (Fill) Tan -Gray Fractured SILT, Moist to Wet, Medium Dense Reddish -Brown Silty•SAND with weathered rock, Moist, Medium Dense becomes more dense and more weathered rock :� becomes hard Test,Pit terminated on 5/21/87 at 17.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. ,) G EOT JC I-I 4 CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOGS 58TH AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILLA, WASHINGTON JOB NO. 87134 I PLATE 5 9 :HZV'Id VEILS :'12041 uor NOZONIHSVM `V'I'IIM�IIIZ 'LIMOS Hf1NHAV HISS SISA'IVNV HZIS NIV2i9 N Id 1S31 9NI1d09 0 m m r m tfi m -c 0 0 . 0o£ 0 m 00Z co rn r cn 001 D m r z 0 0 0 c cn m 1 z m 0 0 c z m m 08 09 00 o£ OZ 01 8 9 0 D zZ N m z 8' 9. 1 z U) 1- 80' 90' 00' 80' Z0. 10' 800" 900' 000 £00' Z00. 100' O 0 n SNOB na' o 9 1HO13M A9 2:13NI3 1N3083d 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O 0 0 11""11111 II 111111101111111111111111111111 mmllliii�ii�lii�ii�iinn.Aimimn UM , !r�N m ►llllil1llll��ill IIiININi0lillll 1 Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiirdiiiiiii � 1 '1liD! i�I�� l�' I i iori !i" i 111111111 ! 11111111111111111111111111111111111 11111 1 I ZI 0/I 8 of 9I 0£ Ob 05 09 08 001 O 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 11-1013M A9 83S8V00 1N3083d O • 0 Purpose of Checklist: 131�45B1c. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST C(- p r,� The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of- this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instruction for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. The City uses this checklist to determine whether the environmental' impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring prepara- tion of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise infor- mation known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal,, write "do not know" or "does not apply ". Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shore- line, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the City staff can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts'of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The City may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Nonproject proposals refer to actions which are different or broader than a single site specific development project, such as plans, policies and programs. Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the •references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAN• • SEvaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. `General description'of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, ee' s o'e mountainous, other TIL4t- -E- t'41:1' -noN of SITE 1 S F_5.SeN"nALLY FAT b. What -is the steepest slope on -the site (approximate percent slope)? ■07o 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. SEE Sol` S KEPofzT d. Are there surface indications or histor soils in the immediate vicinity? If SEE SciL -S ealcNorlit7t7 e. Describe the purpose, type, ties of any filling or gradtn"' .sou rc e o f f i l l Fei LIJ KI !q r.�f i�i►I TEd� E. unstable ascribe. gp pri .t im ie quanti- . fj prosed. Indicate I' . S OF P'2OPoSEb U si rrS Tb PRt�Vi bf KacRurRAD. P r 64z ir..lC-t ANN PLAY A R E A .IN& = 'V• A((j SuPpLEMENTE 8Y f-fAULED -IN PILL AS. NEG, f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. • STEEP \VOObEb• SLOP No R-114 OF BU 1 L.1 4 4 srrG M A'( aE se N si -n v E -re ERi D ION . 0 g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? -4- ic?; 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. WKS 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. vs,c. • r(°o 1t'( F -r�cr c -► I.JA SYSTT -7- Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. available at the site: efuse service is sys em,— �r 4Ikaluation for Agency Use Only 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 th immediate vicinity which might, be. needed. — JL_�"iZl G1 of i L {-t e � C� h-T�2 `fir` C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: is- APR.tL i°re7 PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. CITY OF TUKWILA i CENTRAL,PERMIT,.SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: [] BLDG 0 PLNG Q P.W. FIRE ICE (i P & R 5t , 6L-C� c r- e.. e U e): Ch $76t//k-e'r ' 4 LOCATION vet 4-os I ) 4-os3 6-844. Avo.. FILE NO. 8-7-3- O2 DATE TRANSMITTED 4—/p..1 /87 . ,._. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4 etc] /5 7 RESPONSE RECEIVED •CN EPIC -1- 8-7 FILE 87- 3- cr PROJECT STAFF COORDINATOR L.'44. THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT him /40.c. 4- CPSS 414., Oatfr /s-o (/h /e,7 ►-S Cif /41? s4 C VI 1 - cc -v--o 14 140( 6g. — /tl i 1f tte 4;17i S ®rrrn /C /-e kd bu ' (Gere-c 2-0' 114 inTMk s'N) Se acfC heveer' 66014f,15 /Pin / iicfi Z- • ' -- 0i — F. o S p 2� 1�� ivy/ -Gk is-F/0 br t I /4 / kt li'lSo . ' r � 306 611rf /0 o e, 72 (711144- ) (&uf:ev a4,/4 d, /% "ea. 6.e 4'SCei- ;t/ (ASS; tie- s n Alacp- �� �.� �-� - - �rf nor 4Oa i / 4k) 3 (517)v-1 b tLId1� /west Cn7�r __ J DATE 14 i/ E COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • • CN EPIC -°)- 8-7 FILE 87- 3 - Lr. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: BLDG [ PLNG [ P.W. n FIRE 0 POLICE n P & R PROJECT LOCATION ) 4f-OE j - )41-0.83 61344- Are_ FILE NO. 8-7-3- J2 L� Qc DATE TRANSMITTED /�) /$7 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4 �a 41 �s -7 STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDI NG THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT Wie a -C. -• G-6fisrwcm-picyg ItwA,0 utirt(*Lo ftkitql"" 'R -'Rut (pr) h ft:CCU-kg S t ' cc STriZUS KAirz`n,ii..) ALL u-ftarid. kNONAltivola. sou c' i:NES N1---10 i I A 4L A- 1 (4 r n a.) c MIt4 Pk in •TIZAANA rn i rwn at:A t m■-1 '("U 'P U to la 6 I 0, FA_ 1gNi S t ¢O I13C ok. CAM__ tL_ tsiti 1? ja, Atf, 1Y11 A 1 LINVOI MVO a Stf.Z -r � / Eli -1 u4..) cz min iaatieloPx1-eNrr 1 ''fib UTILITIES . 3 tn-N,v4 �_ - C _ 1 ots A LS`T h \1,7: ,e DATE Pc? /[7 COMMENTS PREPARED BY , t r) C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • •CN EPIC -`7)- 8-7 FILE 87- 3 - rr_ ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: [D BLDG 0 PLNG n P.W. n FIRE 0 POLICE 1;00 & R PROJECT eec,e(De, LOCATION )g9--(DS) -- ) 41-054S S )4 1/4.., FILE NO. 8-7-3' 02_ DATE TRANSMITTED /1.t /87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 412'j "1 STAFF COORDINATOR LIaG5■ 642_, RESPONSE RECEIVED Sr- 00 THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • • CN EPIC -°)-8-7 FILE 87- 3- 4►Z ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM: TO: 0 BLDG Q PLNG (] P.W. Q FIRE OLICE n P & R PROJECT 5t. Fye‹,(e., tT2ec. LOCATION 14- -0E) -- 1 U 'it-o$3 6'841' Am, FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 4F;41..1 /87 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR c c ( RESPONSE RECEIVED 87-3-J2 oo 4/a1 / -7 THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU. WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT E i 2AA/C4C ,boo�,' . pcKl' m f rn��7 9 l,.) 2 E>,,► ,✓ 7- f f c, 2, —,-/ I l,/ x w/ G N DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 Conl1 No. Epic File No. ,1r'' L --ere Fee $100.00 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:__VA 2. Name of applicant: SIT Pre..CPE"iISS 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1■4, LEON MooRE 222.7 — 112111 AVE . N E I - 1.-EVUgi OVA I fi_oo1 Pi{. 453 - 2.100 4. Date checklist prepared: 10 /� F1 JL_ 1181 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 'F o.JEC.-r To 13E C MPLE'TEIb IN. 014E PHA f roMMENcJNCT ittr 15SUANC.E of ►L I )-4q- PERM 1T ANA C d '1?JU 1 NE£ 1 :lt0u H SUMMER I q 8'7. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 140 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. j.loME 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. NONE 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. 1-0C_ ►L LAND USE AND $uILAINCT pERMIrS. 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. 1 RcPo5E [—ON. S KYC -'t1oN of A74 goon E5 ur.4 T A06g:GE1E241 AllIACENT ib J5X1STiNEj It R4 S.P . i2 UNIIr A'PtsRTMENT t"3UI L1J I (-. 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. AAD'R>=SS : I4o f31 - 14o83 58TH AVE. S � Tuk-wIL A I(p8 L-.d"rS 30 1 AND 32, IN 8, _ pi-AT . aF 1 L.Lr ' S Sket yam-EM s 4ic ceAb i N Tt7 'TNE $L T R.EGe_ 6b IN V6LU M E --5= of ThrPA __2.4_,_ c.ofzt of KIN CT Co. \VA 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• • Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. `General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, mountainous, other D) L1 NA AA- 4, ni oht of SITE Is ,SS E TIAU-Y FL-AT b. What-is the steepest slope on the site (approximate - - -. . percent slope)? go % 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. SEE So' L S K€Pc T d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. Sae j R.-r e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. F'r J t.JCT L iMITEdb Tb �.1of Ti-f 1 E bF p2oPoSED UN rTS Tb PRovi KScRu i RF-� PA 4 CT ANN PLAY Aerz A 5 ,_bg caL. [�3TAi NFD PRDM ��U J1r � YCAVAT1O? .1 SUPpL.EMENTE 8( 14AULED -IN FIL.... AS. NEG, f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. • STEEP \VooDEb• SL PE P1caI -i1- of BU►t.i►N Er Srr-F MAY 13S 4S►1 6 ERLSI oN. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or. buildings)? /410U"1" 4{0. 8 • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: FILLED AREAS -rm STEEP \voo 4 SLOPE -no ZAL STAB I IJ ZED \V' 1 / i�ETAI14 i N(� WWALL S . Su grA CJE WATER -ry iaE • Got- t.Ecrab ► NJ ea-m.44 'F SIN S 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. GONE b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: N%A 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. NONE • • 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. NoKE 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. NoN E 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. RiumwArrEAt GoL419=1,o14 or,4t4( 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 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. NON'S 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. -, -ni- C:‘ 15 `V(t_..L_ (4STA l L /6-4-1(.2 Lr 411 410 Evaluation for. Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No . Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: gAlr.J\vn -iFtL -rd ittAL CoLL.E427.6 U}TCN wit S/N S fly D D I'tERTED 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: we deciduous tree: .lde mapl aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, we shrubs v 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? GoNST1ZUc.:11a �� . - ; ► N 1. t N4011E ro E)CI STI N Cr <igel SS - GoV E A1E14S. cedar; pine, other c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE. •. Evaluation for Agency Use,Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: L.gN17SCAPiNq L i Tb IPf1z V CaN1-Ty OF 14Ew____c. ST►auc -?7caN AND IUD -IAce rr ?Fc AToft,/ PLAY A 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,Congbir other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. 0.this-ru2aED S PArz-r of SON ‘ra 2'p M 1 & I fl "J Abboo eb 5 s-re S 1 N d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Ext1:5T1N-ICT YoozaD SLoPES \IIL( 8E PfSEJ:1452110 . IIIEvaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. 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 bf used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties ?. If so, generally describe. 7.10 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: 1 nC,4L I�ND 5T 7 1`1 1 €Z( Ce• REG? fzeMF rr5 ∎v, LL. tt,E. MET e EXc SebeD. 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. }.Io 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NONE 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: 1\1 /A b. Noise • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? MlE 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. C..0/%4 STRUC-1oNi No1S u— fNE J-1 m' -TAD To• bA•u au_S , 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? 51T11 1 S icU -T1-fE Sou Til A S T WEST ►3`( r LcrrS AM b G 4 - 11.4E- 1.0 grT?1 AhJ i`ASTf . b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. tiLO c. Describe any structures on the site. E) STiNGT uN.i7 APPoz-1 4 t rr r"ui 1--1s 1 N cT. •- Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? IZ 4 f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g--41- If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? }-/A g. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 50 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? haplAlg k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Nps, 1.. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- Oatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: GoNFoR_ MC..E. Wt-TN Zo1.11 N A %J N 'ESTO1RSl.-454 -f E Z USE of P .0 Peg-1Y AND SLX _ouN Da >v k {PETi S . . >. 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? 8 UNrTS '.v,u_ ESE ADDED 'To EXtS-r'i 6e f2 MiDix — E WC.of%E UN irS, b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. No N E c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 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? X 11�I UM i-I E► &tf : 3S PfaNCiPf}L MA-TE !co AL STucco b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? N eN S -- c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NE'v F i`.bst. - WILL 13E SrTI4 An1A c c›-1 ST12uL'n -To }-{f4QMoN12.a W1 TV( sr'NCT ,S�uctur . 11. Light and Glare a. What type of fright or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? N oNE b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere-with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal 14c2NE d. Proposed measures to redu a or control light and glare impacts, if any: NI/i% 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in th •immediate vicinity? at4 - SITE R 125A -Troll /PLAY AREA EARuN4lb ANA FoSTE.R L�EM r PAR-g- A\16 1_ c3NJErA IP-E PR AY. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. 1.40 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: PV azeA_rn cN / PLAY AREA -re) P2ov r DE N AEW Evaluation for Agency Use Only • 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation • Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. NO b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NdnIE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. .srr& ( S S-Ttt AN/ .. S . b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? 2cx YA1 - -rte Tvta-TRa i3L) STo P oN 1ZA.1ZIJ Avc. S . c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 4-6117.5_ • 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). ,4w4 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. APPRoXIMPrTSLY !moo -TN ■4 P S P wItY ( I NC.LVAi NC-r-7RA FP's c. FROM E.-1(Is71Niq lrlr"rS) \V019t PEAK. VowfE •ofzN"NCr AMT EV1 i%iI .6T. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: l4 /A 15. Public Services 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. ON 49r AS IZ€6ZU/R6D e)Y I Nc2 ?ASKED SrrE ex iJPANC -Y b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. I A Evaluation for Agency Use Only • • Evaluation for • Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities—currently available at the site: e ectrici Muse service eIephon sani'a sewed ep is sys , r. 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 th immediate vicinity which might, be. needed. ►� . - `T(�� —ruicW( 01" Lit te_ OJ -T1rz, ' ENen_ C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: IS APRiL. 1°l8'7 PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• • r' • Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the,elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity - or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed_ measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: 4. How would the . proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy.Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? — Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICI. • 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? -11-1E oe:‘.1EGTly OF "11-#E FRoPoSAL 1 S A1DA Ti oNl -r -THE rra of Maw RES•Ze..iTAt REPt L UN]rrs c.cmmektsuizeA7 \V 1 TN 'j1N�E a.-1 M rrA-n ot4S c hE AMIN -THE. REcRuI t.rIEN-rS OF LOCAL lF_ S . MULTi --UNT S -TRuCTuRES ARE pRpp o S E1D -re) MEar 'Tt t 1 S OFS..SEc.T1 VE. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? diVVFih4 —We SITE GoNSTRA I NITS 'fl -fF_gi ARE No AL -rERNIAmVE M EAAL S e)F MEE-11 N cr "7*fe_ 0 .1E c. , VE S . 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: N A 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? Mt) Proposed m asures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: NI A -23- .1 ,r • 4: f 8:y • r .a 1 S.; .+-•t 1 OTN• 1407N ST 4 19 • f4 : s.�fi1:fsi : — — 7ArA••.3 -A.I• of e.Mif •a10 4 .+t. f Af so . I.fs 16 e. sip" t9 • f • 1/'e01, 2C 0 21 • • S. - 142ND ST. • 6 `4 y•• IJ W 3 �•� "2.1 1 •1 1 N • 19� 1 '.M L,„,11-04. -�i` �f 1 psi 12 • a, ! •- z 1 ysi as • • • Kerr /Penaiero and Company At chi t act • and L•nd•e•p• Archit•at• • :am :Ana, in-at Saanta, nannacan 901.2 (206) 323.4565 ST. GEORGE PROPERTIES N O EXI57IN6r G01■017101.15 ST �OI�61: PrOfr -TI E-5 AV . , TUKWILLA. Herr /Panaiero and Company Arohit•ot• •nd L•nd•o•p• Arahit•at• 200 E4.1 Fdy. 30* Saattl•. Waa►ieatoe 98102 1206) 323.4565 data tau no. 01 •1•13 by SITE PLAt1 5T. 6t:0 f- sg"' ,4\v , 1 TUK.WILLA tars /Panaiaro and Company Arohit•ot• •nd L•nd Arohit.•t• 200 4w IOW Shoot Seattle, Wridagke.96102 1206) 323.1965 dnte iob no. d■••• btCAC. LA.WIDraAPt FLAW 5T 6zb 55th Ayr-. , Tu - WILLA Herr /Panaiaro and Company Arahlt d L•ad Arohlt•ot. 200 Loa 166tx 91,..1 9..111. W..hl.ato. 90102 (206) 323-4565 d.t.AjlC{ 14 -115 job no. de•w. br�ij x 00 0 o - Tfl (AL FLA1J LA-'ou'r ST Pt< T►s "— .tAVe, So 1iK \"/IL Herr /Pensiero and Company Architect. •nd L•ndaaap• A.ohit•ot• 700 Sast lava 8tr »1 Seattle. W■binatoo 98101 11081 3234468 d.t. lob no. draws bf s O w P 4 0 rnC 1 rn r O 11111111 5 3 /1V L. oa I UriA I LLl.A Hon /Poadoro and Company Arohlt.Ot. ••4 Laud Ar•hlt•ot• 900 W &..r lnr Oral, r/.dabylo. 9e102 (906) 9934568 d.t. ph .a. dr..a by c 1 Hon /Poadoro and Company Arohlt.Ot. ••4 Laud Ar•hlt•ot• 900 W &..r lnr Oral, r/.dabylo. 9e102 (906) 9934568 d.t. ph .a. dr..a by 0 0, rn 2 0 o, rn tr 1 rn rn rn -1 0 LE-VATI qJ ST b Z16 - I'RoP TI .s 55 A11�, ,TUKWILLA C Herr /Penaiero and Company Architect. and L•nd•c•p• Archit•nta 200 East Eck , Sore 9..111.. Wubup1o• 90102 12061 323-4565 d•• lob no. dia.n by ' / s ; i'11111"11111 Ohoetar. F....C.:CIA xi, .1141% 1 PAC, EG•I. DE5C12,7104.1: •an ••• • 1.12:::.L.10.0•1,. SCAT, • • ■•■•■■■ MAO% ..14. .pLoT PLAN 12 -IJKJIT APARTMENT DWI! 1, P RANK A. COOK tuLotek 7 emu" it.17,1112. ;