The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-20-91 - CITY OF TUKWILA / PARKS AND RECREATION - FOSTER PARK ADDITIONFOSTER PARK ADDITION ADDITIONAL FACILITIES & EXPANDED PARKING 53RD AVE. S. & S. 139T" ST. EPIC -20 -91 n F L U li V 1 1 SYLVIA A. OSBY • (] Notice of Public Hearing 0 Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet 0 Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet 0 Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit U F U1S1RLBurLON • herebyy declare that: lie Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Oetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Other O Other was mailed to each of t following addresses on 9D-3F ✓ Failed Cilea.15- 1►Js #o 1)0 E 51140 Name of Project FOSTER PARK ADDITION File Number EPIC -20 -91 May 22, 1991 WAC 197 -11 -970 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal To construct the Foster Park Addition, an approximately 4.5 acre community park. Park facilities will include one little league baseball field/ soj2cer field, children's play area, perimeter trail, picnic shelter, restrooms, and a 34 -car parking area, lighting and landscaping. Proponent City of Tukwila Department of and Recreation. Location of Proposal, including street address, if any South 139th & 53rd Avenue South; Twn. 14, Section 23, Rqe. 4; Tukwila, Washington. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -20 -91 '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. )RX 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 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukw; ,.yi;L 98188 Date —?,7p, f Signature i7t•.% Planning Director Phone 433 -1846 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 BRUCE DEES& ASSOCIATES May 21, 1991 Mr. Don Williams Director of Recreation City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Don, Job No. 42 -01 -02 RE: Geotechnical Report for Foster Park Here are two (2) copies of the Geotechnical Report completed by Creative Engineering Options, and two (2) copies of the Environmental Investigation Report by James P. Hurley Company. While the Environmental Report indicates presence of petroleum contaminates, Glen Mann feels that aeration by disking will solve the problem. There is no problem for building or wall foundations. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this information. Sincerely, BRUCE DEES & ASSOCIATES Bruce Dees, ASLA :tb Enclosures lEREIWIP [MAY 2 �1 1991 CITY OF TUKvvILA PLANNING DEPT. James P. Hurley Co. P.O. Box 88206 Kenmore, WA 98028 Telephone (206) 486 -6665 Environmental Risk Management Consultants FAX (206) 486 -7896 May 20, 1991 Mr. Bruce Dees 22 E. 26th Street Suite 202 Tacoma, WA 98421 Attention: Mr. Bruce Dees MEM MAY 21 1991 CITY OF TUKVViLA PLANNING DEPT. PRELIMINARY LEVEL II ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION REPORT JOSEPH FOSTER MEMORIAL PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON At the direction of Mr. Bruce Dees, (BD) James P. Hurley Company (JPHC), an environmental consulting firm, collected eight soil samples and one water sample from selected locations on the subject site (see attached Vicinity Map Sample Location Plan). The eight samples were submitted to the project analytical laboratory with instructions to screen for the presence of petroleum contamination. Additionally, two soil samples were submitted for metals content analysis. This letter provides documentation of the findings and opinions resulting from the site visit and subsequent investigation. BACKGROUND These services were requested by BD in anticipation of the development of the subject property into a public park by the City of Tukwila. Information gathered in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by JPHC indicates that up to seventy -five percent of the site has been covered with imported fill from undocumented locations since the early 1970's. SOIL SAMPLING The sampling technique consisted of advancing test pits with backhoe to depths within the reach capacity of the equipment (a maximum of twelve feet) and collecting surface samples using hand methods. Samples were collected in sterilized glass jars with teflon lids furnished by the project laboratory. In an effort to preserve sample integrity, samples were stored in ice - filled coolers at the site and taken to the lab in this condition. Each jar was clearly labeled as to pit number, sample number, date, time, and sample depth. EPA established protocols for sample management were observed at each stage of the project. The project analytical laboratory analyzed sample for (a) TPH using EPA 418.1; and (b) Metals using EPA SW -846. Foster Park Peliminary Level II Environmental Site Assessment Page 2, 5/20/91 LABORATORY ANALYSIS Petroleum Hydrocarbons - EPA Method 418.1 Analysis for petroleum hydrocarbons was conducted following EPA Method 418.1 using infrared spectrophotometry (IR) with supplemental silica gel separation for petroleum hydrocarbons ranging from C -4 to C -22. This method helps to differentiate between naturally occurring hydrocarbons from decaying vegetable and animal matter and petroleum- derived hydrocarbons. Current system detection limits are on the order of 5 parts per million (ppm) for hydrocarbons in soil and 1 ppm for water. Metals- EPA Method SW 846 Analysis for metals content was conducted following EPA Method SW 846 using an AA spectrofitometer for arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION The concentrations of petroleum contaminants in the soil surrounding test samples #1, #2, and #8 exceed current cleanup standard for gasoline and ,diesel of 100mg /kg and 200 mg /kg respectively promulgated by WDOE (173- 340 -740 WAC). The concentration of metals tested were within WSTDOE standards. REGULATORY IMPACTS Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) is responsible for administering the Model Toxics Control Act Cleanup Regulation (Chapter 173- 340 WAC). These regulations require detailed site investigations to determine the extent of petroleum and other contaminants in soil and groundwater as such discoveries are made. King County Health Department (KCHD) is responsible for administering the local solid waste regulations relating to disposal of oil contaminated soil. Since much of the site is covered with undocumented imported material, KCHD may require a detailed site investigation and remedial action to protect migration of hazardous substances into the local groundwater. CONCLUSIONS /RECOMMENDATIONS The results of this investigation give an indication that some soil the north quarter of the site are is contains petroleum contaminates in excess of the standards allowed in Chapter 173 -340 WAC. However, given the limited scope of sampling data collected, these preliminary results are inconclusive as to the exact constituents present and the quantities involved. JPHC P.O. Box 82206 Kenmore, Washington Phone (206) 486 -6665 FAX (206) 486 -7896 Foster Park Peliminary Level II Environmental Site Assessment Page 3, 5/20/91 The EPA Method 418.1 analysis indicates the presence of petroleum contaminants in the soil on the north quadrant of the site. Given those results, and the information on the imported fill material from several undocumented sources, JPHC recommends performing additional investigative work using hollow core auger drilling procedures to determine a more accurate assessment of the constituents and quantities of contaminated soil and /or groundwater. Further analysis should include EPA Modified Method 8015 for diesel and gasolene and BTX Method 8020 to determine the constituents of the petroleum contaminants present. STANDARD LIMITATIONS The findings and conclusions documented in this report have been prepared for specific application to this project and have been developed in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill normally exercised by members of the environmental science profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the area, and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in our proposal dated April 25, 1991. All conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions based on our interpretation of information currently available to us. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report is for the exclusive use of CDAC and their representatives. Conditions between test pits may vary. A potential always remains for the presence of unknown, or unidentified, or unexpected, or unforeseen subsurface contamination. Further evidence against such potential site contamination would require additional subsurface exploration, sampling, testing, and interpretation. If new information is discovered or developed in future work (which may include excavations, borings, or other studies, JPHC should be requested to reevaluate the conclusions of this report, and to provide amendments .as required. ■ If you have any questions regarding our scope, methods, findings, conclusions or recommendations, please contact us. Sincerely, JAMES P. HURLEY COMPANY James P. Hurley President JPHC PO. Box 822.06 Kenmore, Washington Phone (206) 486 -6665 FAX (206) 486 -7896 ,r ...'Irs. FINSnr ENDERSON T 1 , A7,.A,��,�JV i E R BOAT RAMP BEACH SAM(F 1': ; ,. h'�` j v.1 . ;11:11, .y , \ SI TJ 5` ✓ en' 50001 P0111 L. a k e OTT CPESIC,. �fp C AC51•7-0A(I BCACH PARA KENNYDAL 1 ■OJNIAIN vIEN AV COI IA s king ton t,A•,,,.-T _ 1157 t., v HAZEL �� ;:1 `� :ul G S - $ HAZEL ST' FOUNTAIN ST 17 451 wO0C IM42E r` S Do FOUNTAIN STS n, S a LEO 1 ST 4 1371 ST a 5116TH 17 S 115TH BOAT LAUNCH S BOEING 1 RENTON 12 PL•HT REI` S 118TH PL 119TH ST JUMP A T 5. 119T11 ST z 12 S 1 2N S 122N —6— '. BRYN MAWR 120TH "'PARK IN AY 124TH 1 12340 ST 12310 PL 126tH ST STDI S 13.1"' 7IA tsrr rt S 13360 ,• t-AIRPOitL 137ND ST James P. Hurley Co. Environmental Risk Management Consultants Vicinity Map ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LOCATION PLAN JAMES P HURLEY CO FOSTER PARK ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLE LABORATORY RESULTS EPA METHOD 418.1 SAMPLE # MEDIA DATE DEPTH TOTAL SAMPLED BENEATH PETROLEUM GROUND HYDROCARBONS SURFACE fMG /KG) 910502 -1 SOIL 5 -6 -91 10' 495 910502 -2 SOIL 5 -6 -91 8' 495 910502 -3 WATER 5 -6 -91 0' 6.8 910502 -4 SOIL 5 -6 -91 10' < 0.01 910502 -5 SOIL 5 -6 -91 10' < 0.01 910502 -6 SOIL 5 -6 -91 10' < 0.01 910502 -7 SOIL 5 -6 -91 10' < 0.01 910502 -8 SOIL 5 -6 -91 10' 739.8 = JPHC P.O. Box 82206 Kenmore, Washington Phone (206) 486 -6665 FAX (206) 486 -7896 • Creative Engineering Options INC. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists PREPARED FOR CITY OF TUKWILA PARKS DEPARTMENT Gle s ann, P.E. President GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING FOSTER PARK ADDITION 53RD AVENUE SOUTH & SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 91 -1162 May 17, 1991 STUDY 139TH STREET [MUM MAY 21 1991 CITY OF TUKVVILA PLANNING DEPT. Copyright Creative Engineering Options, Inc., May 17, 1991. 5418 159th Place NE • Redmond, WA 98052 • (206) 883 -6889 • (206) 953 -1173 • FAX 881 -3592 Creative Engineering Options INC. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists May 17, 1991 91 -1162 Mr. Don Williams City of Tukwila Parks Director c/o Bruce Dees & Associates 222 East 26th Street Suite 202 Tacoma, Washington 98421 Gentlemen: We are pleased to submit herewith our report entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Foster Park Addition,53rd Avenue South & South 139th Street, Tukwila, Washington ". This report presents the results of our field exploration and engineering analyses. We proceeded with our services on the basis of your May 5, 1991 written authorization. You propose to develop this site by constructing a new playfield occupying the majority of the southern part of the site, a public toilet, and landscaped areas. in addition, a new retaining wall is to be built along the southwestern side of the site. Based on the result of this study, it is our professional opinion that this property can be developed generally as planned. The site soils, though miscellaneous fills requiring some in -place treatment, are generally competent and capable of supporting the proposed building loads and playfield usage. However, based on the nature of the fills, it is likely that a subsurface drainage system will be required under the playfield area. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service and look forward to working with you during the construction phase of this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please call. Very truly yours, Glen Mann, P.E. President GM/fosterpk/b 10 5418 159th Place NE • Redmond, WA 98052 • (206) 883 -6889 • (206) 953 -1173 • FAX 881 -3592 TABLE OF CONTENTS 91 -1162 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Project Description 1 Scope of Services 2 SITE CONDITIONS 4 Surface 4 Subsurface 5 Groundwater 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 General 7 Site Preparation and General Earthwork 9 Stripping and Clearing 9 Overexcavation 10 Excavations and Slopes 10 Proofrolling 11 Structural Fill 11 Fill Placement and Compaction 12 Utility Trench Fill 12 Foundations 13 Settlement 13 Lateral Loads 14 Retaining Walls 14 Rockery Wall 15 Slab -on -Grade Floors 15 Site Drainage 16 Short Term Drainage Measures 16 Long Term Drainage Measures 17 Roof Drainage 18 Roadway Drainage 18 Playfield Drainage 19 Pavement Areas 19 Subgrades 19 CLOSURE 20 Limitations 20 Additional Services 20 APPENDIX A - Field Exploration Program 22 APPENDIX B - Laboratory Testing 23 Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 7 ]Plates 8 through 12. Plates 13 through 17 ILLUSTRATIONS 91 -1162 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location :Plan Original "Topography Utility Trench Fill Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Retaining Wall. Drainage and Backfill Legend Test Pit Logs Gradation Curves GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY FOSTER . PARK ADDITION 53RD AVENUE SOUTH & SOUTH 139TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 91 -1162 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering study of the subject site. The site is located approximately as .shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The general site layout, and the approximate location of the exploratory test pit excavations, are presented on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. The purpose of our study was primarily to evaluate the nature and condition of the in- place soils, which are predominantly fills imported to the site from various roadway projects in the general area. From the information generated by the study we were to provide geotechnical recommendations for development of the site. This study does not address any environmentally related aspects of the project. These aspects are being addressed separately in another report. Project Description From our discussions with your landscape architect, Bruce Dees, we understand current plans for this site include development of a new playfield. This field will occupy the majority of the southern part of the site. The southwest side of the field will be bounded by a new reinforced concrete retaining wall, and new bleachers will be installed around the southeast corner of the playfield. Paved access and parking will be constructed along the eastern side of the field, between it and the street. A public toilet is to be built in the northeast part of the site at a finish floor elevation of 123.5 feet. A picnic shelter building will be built in the northwest corner of the site at a finish floor elevation of 118.5 feet. Although no specific design data are currently available, based on our experience with similar construction we estimate that the maximum combined dead and live design loads for the buildings will be approximately as follows: 91.1192/May 19. 1991 Reference: Thomas Bros. Maps Creative Engineering Optionswc. Geateotr9cai Engineers. Geologists s rrnUormertal sdentats VICINITY MAP Foster Park Plate 1 91.1182/May 19. 1991 Concre Wall • I I I �! is w /d od r a ream e 9 . 9 Picnic 9 S. = er Iq /MI 1 nJ • f.1 I/ ra ? 7U .,. r rurwaN • �ram{ 1 -- erfae -e- . -.0 53rd Avenue S "'ii i-ri• 1.GV Creative Engineering Options INC. Geotechnkal Engineers, Geologists & Environmental SdentIsn TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN Foster Park Plate 2 Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster park Addition May 17, 1991 • Wall load = 1 kip per lineal foot • Floor load = 120 pounds per square foot Page 2 With the exception of the excavation for the new retaining wall, you do not intend to perform any significant excavation operations on the property. However, some filling will need to be performed simply to create a level site, particularly in the northwest corner of the property. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of this project are made, we should be consulted to review the recommendations presented in this report. In any case, we recommend that we be retained to perform a general review of the final design. Scope of Services The scope of our work included a limited exploration of the site's subsurface conditions by visually examining the soils exposed by exploratory test pit excavations at strategic locations across the site. From the generated data, we were to develop geotechnical recommendations for building and retaining wall foundation design criteria, lateral design loads for retaining walls, subsurface drainage recommendations and site preparation and earthwork placement criteria. More specifically, our report addresses the following: • Site soil and groundwater conditions, • Site preparation, grading and earthwork procedures including details of placement and compaction or structural fill, if required, • Geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of conventional spread footings, including allowable soil bearing pressure and resistance to lateral loads, Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 • Estimated total and differential settlement magnitudes and rates, Page 3 • Geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of retaining walls, and • Short and long term drainage and erosion control measures. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project for the exclusive use of the City of Tukwila Parks Department, and their other representatives and consultants, only. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor(s). The details and results of our field exploration and limited laboratory testing programs are presented in the appendices to this report. Our recommendations, based in part on site observations and engineering analyses, are presented following the discussion of site conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 SITE CONDITIONS. Surface Page 4 The rectangular shaped site is located on the west side of 53rd Avenue South and south of South 139th Street in Tukwila, Washington (see Plate 1). The site is bounded to the south, east and west by single family residential development. To the north, beyond the street, is the original Foster Park. The majority of the site is relatively level and approximately matches the elevation of 53rd Avenue South. The northwestern corner of the property is in the process of being filled and is currently several feet lower than the remainder of the property. A short, and relatively shallow, swale extend diagonally across part of the northwest corner of the site (see Plate 1) and discharges to the north through a corrugated steel culvert under South 139th Avenue. The southern and part of the western boundaries of the site slope up from the more level portions and exhibit a topographic change of about five to ten (10) feet. The southern and southwestern parts of the site are covered with grass and light shrubs. Most of the remainder of the site consists of exposed soil surfaces. There is also a graveled access roadway that extends across the south end of the site from 53rd Avenue South to the residences at the southwest corner of the property. Examination of the site's original topography indicates that there was apparently some overexcavation of material in the past. The original topography is presented on Plate 3. From this Plate it is clear that the northern end of the site was significantly lower than most of the surrounding area to the east, west and south. There is a topographical change of about twenty (20) feet between the extreme north end of the site and the higher "ledgelike" surrounding areas. There is also what appears to be either a narrow drainage ditch or a pathway extending down into the lower part of the site from the southeast corner of the property. This area has all been filled in the past several years to create the existing topography. As can be seen by comparison between the existing site topography and the original, there is a substantial amount of imported material covering the site, particularly over the north end. n a m 3 cD (D 1 3 0 ro 'D 0 3 ZN 1661'61 12 ruza 11.16 Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 5 At the time of our fieldwork, with the exception of a small amount of seepage in the drain swale at the north end of the site, the site was essentially dry. We did not observe any other visual evidence of standing water or groundwater seepage. Subsurface We explored the site's subsurface conditions by excavating a series of nine exploratory test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2, attached. In addition, we also visually examined the soils exposed along the edges of the drain swale in the north end of the site. More detailed information regarding the subsurface conditions is presented on the individual test pit logs contained in Appendix A to this report. With the exception of Test pits 5 and 6, all of our exploratory excavations encountered a surficial layer of fill over the site. The fill comprises of a mixture of loose to dense intermixed silty sands and sands. These materials contained varying amounts of rounded gravel of up to boulder size. The fill appears to us to range in depth between about three feet at Test Pit 1 to about seven feet at test pit 4. The fill also contains pieces of asphalt and concrete that range up to about two to three feet in size. Beneath the fill materials we encountered medium dense silty sands with gravel. In Test Pit 7 we did not .penetrate through the fill material after excavating to a depth of eleven (11) feet. The hole was halted at this depth due to caving of the sides. Furthermore, beneath an approximately one foot thick layer of surficial medium dense silty sand, the material encountered in this pit consisted primarily of an organic silty sand containing pockets of root matter and rounded gravel to cobble size. We also noted a strong organic odor. In Test Pits 5 and 6, dug along the approximate alignment of the proposed new retaining wall, we encountered a dense fine to coarse sand. This material, apparently the native soil, also contained varying amounts of rounded fine to coarse gravel and cobbles. In Test Pit 6 the soil became partially cemented in -place at a depth of about six feet. Groundwater No established groundwater level was observed at the time of our field study. However, we did observe some visual evidence of groundwater seepage in Test Pits. 2, Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 6 7 and 9. The seepage occurred at depths of between approximately five and eight feet. We also observed some seepage along the drain swale in the northern end of the site. At the time of our study, this seepage was about two to four inches deep, but flowed slowly. It appeared to us to emanate from beneath the recently placed fill soils and, conceivably, could simply be a result of water being squeezed out of the fills. Regardless, it has been our experience that groundwater and seepage levels should not be considered static; they tend to fluctuate seasonally, after periods of precipitation, and because of surface water flow. They are typically at their highest elevation during the wetter winter months (October through May), or after periods of sustained or heavy precipitation. Your contractor(s) should be prepared for this if construction is to take place in the winter. Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Page 7 Based on the results of our study, we believe the site can be developed generally as planned. The proposed buildings can, in our professional opinion, be supported on conventional spread footings bearing in the undisturbed or recompacted native soils, or in compacted in -place or structural fill, as appropriate. On the basis of the exploratory data, the in -place native and fill soils appear to be generally competent. After considering the apparent in -place density of these soils, we are of the opinion that they are unlikely to be susceptible to any significant degree of settlement under the proposed building loads, particularly after the recompaction program outlined later in the text. In our opinion any post - construction settlement will be within the proposed buildings' tolerable limits and will not result in discernable building damage. The majority of any building settlement should be expected to occur as the buildings are being constructed. It will probably be necessary to excavate several feet of native soils from along the southwestern side of the site to install the proposed retaining wall. Because these soils are dense and partially cemented in- place, it is likely that your earthwork contractor will need to use larger or more powerful equipment than might normally be needed for earthwork operations. Because of the proximity of the proposed retaining wall to the site perimeter, it is likely that the retaining wall will need to employ a shear key to achieve adequate resistance to lateral movement. The shear key must be dug down deeper into the dense and partially cemented in -place soils. This may involve additional effort on the earthwork contractor's part. In the light of these potential problems in earthwork operations, we recommend that you include a contingency in both your budget and schedule to accommodate potential problems with this part of the earthwork program. As an economical and practical altemative, given the competent soil conditions in the southwest comer of the site, there is no reason in our professional. opinion why a rockery cannot be used to replace the proposed concrete retaining wall. Not only will this look more aesthetically pleasing, but it will also require less space to build. Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 8 Providing the rockery is built by a competent contractor in general accordance with the ARC Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines a rockery should function as intended throughout the lifetime of the project. Although the in -place fill soils appeared to be generally competent, the materials in the northwest corner of the site and in the vicinity of Test Pit 7 were significantly less competent than elsewhere on the site. The fills in the northwest corner are the most recent and are still soft and wet in- place. They will likely require some re- excavation and aeration before being replaced and recompacted. The materials around Test Pit 7 are more organic in nature and, once earthwork operations get underway, may require some overexcavation and replacement. However, this is a decision that can only be made at the time of construction. Nevertheless, we recommend you include a contingency in your budget and schedule to allow for the possibility that such work may be necessary. It is also possible that there will be a need to install new utility trenches onto the property. This being the case, we believe it is important that you and your contractors, are aware of the recently enacted OSHA trench and excavation safety regulations. We strongly recommend you acquire a copy of these regulations because they are to be strictly enforced. The publication is "Part II, Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration 29 CFR Part 1926, Occupational Safety and Health Standards - Excavations; Final Rule, October 31, 1989 ". We understand that OSHA intends to enforce strict compliance with of these regulations. If your contractor does not closely comply with these regulations, you and he could be subject to some stiff financial penalties. In general, the in -place fill soils contain between about 20 and 30 percent fines (silt and clay sized particles passing the number 200 mesh sieve). Because of this, the permeability rating of the soil is relatively low, less than 0.12 feet per hour, and the potential for moisture to infiltrate through the soil reduced, or even eliminated. Given the intent to construct a playfield over much of the site, it will be necessary to include a subsurface playfield drainage system. This system will need to be connected to perimeter drains that will discharge into a positive and permanent system, such as a nearby ditch or catch basin. Although the site appears to be located above the local subsurface water level, groundwater and seepage fluctuation and surface water ponding are always of concern in construction. Although we do not perceive that the groundwater will pose a threat Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 9 to construction, as a prudent measure and to accommodate the potential for surface water flow, we recommend that in addition to the abovementioned playfield drainage system, you include long and short-term drainage control measures in both design and construction. This will help to avoid the potential risk of any possible groundwater related effects and will aid in reducing the potential for surface erosion. It is also critical that roof downspout drainage be collected in a tightline system that will discharge into a positive and permanent system. These and other geotechnical aspects of the project are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this report. Site Preparation and General Earthwork It appears to us that a moderate amount of earthwork is contemplated in development of this site. Excavation will be required to install the retaining wall along the southwest site perimeter. As mentioned above, there is also a possibility that some overexcavation and replacement or treatment of in -place fill soils may be necessary too. The following paragraphs describe the various elements of the site preparation and general earthwork phases of site development. Stripping and Clearing The building, playfield and pavement areas should be cleared of all existing utilities, topsoil and vegetation, and any other deleterious material that might impede foundation, drainage system or pavement installation. We estimate that stripping may extend to depths of up to about eight inches. However, this estimate is based on limited evaluation of the site conditions and there may well be areas where the topsoil or unsuitable and poor quality fill soils may be deeper. We recommend that you include a contingency in your budget and schedule to accommodate this possibility. Stripped materials should either be removed from the site and disposed, or they may be stockpiled for later use in landscaping, if desired. The stripped material should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. We also recommend that any on -site stockpiled topsoil be protected against the elements. This can be done by covering the stockpile(s) with a pegged or sandbagged in -place visqueen sheeting. Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Overexcavation Page 10 To accomplish your development plans, which includes the installation of a perimeter retaining wall, probably with a shear key, and the possible removal of unsuitable in- place materials, may require some overexcavation: We estimate that, in the area of the retaining wall, as much as approximately six to eight feet of material might need to be removed to expose the wall foundation subgrade. Keyway excavation may need to extend to a depth of three to four feet below that elevation. In the northwestern part of the site some of the in -place fill soils may also need to be overexcavated and either removed from the site and disposed, or be aerated in- place. Overexcavation in this area may need to extend to a depth of five or six feet, depending on the fill soils' condition at the time of construction. It might also be necessary to overexcavate and remove several feet of organic material in the vicinity of Test Pit 7. In this area overexcavation to a depth of about two to three feet will likely be adequate, providing the overexcavated material is replaced with a clean granular fill. Excavations and Slopes From the current development plans, it is clear that with the possible exception of the southwestern retaining wall little, if any, excavation is planned on this project. Nevertheless, in no case should constructed slope heights or excavation depths, including utility trenches, exceed those specified in local, state and federal government safety regulations, particularly the new OSHA Health and Safety Standards for excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, dated October 31, 1989. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in depth should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, or if excavations of greater than four feet in depth are required, temporary shoring may be necessary to help protect against slope or .excavation collapse. If . temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide geotechnical shoring design criteria, if requested. We also recommend that all excavations be observed by our representative to verify that conditions are as anticipated. If warranted, supplementary recommendations can then be developed to enhance the stability. Such recommendations should include, but Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 11 not necessarily be limited to, flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. Proofrolling The existing ground surface where structural fill, foundations, floor slabs, playfield surface or pavements are to be placed should be proofrolled under our representative's observation. The purpose of the proofrolling is to determine the presence and define the approximate areal extent of any soft or unstable areas. The proofrolling can be accomplished with a vibratory steel wheel roller in dry weather. When the site soils are damp, only the dead weight of a steel wheel roller should be used. Proofrolling should not be conducted in wet weather. Soil in any soft or unstable areas should be moisture conditioned, as appropriate, and recompacted. If after recompaction these areas remain soft or unstable, they should be overexcavated and the unsuitable materials removed and replaced with compacted structural fill or a crushed rock to a depth that provides a stable base. Typically, a depth of two to three feet is adequate for this purpose. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, playfield surfaces, pavement, or any other load - bearing areas. Ideally, but particularly for wet weather construction, structural fills should consist of a free - draining, organic -free, granular material with a maximum size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines (silt and clay sized particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve). During dry weather any organic -free, compactible material meeting the above maximum size criterion is acceptable for this purpose. The in -place fill soils primarily consist of intermixed silty sands and sandy silts, containing varying amounts of gravel, cobbles, boulders and pieces of asphalt and concrete debris. In our opinion, they are suitable for use as a structural fill on this project providing the moisture content in the finer material is within about two or three points of the optimum moisture content, and the debris and boulders are buried at a depth of more than three feet below the surface. If the in -situ moisture content is more than three points above the optimum, the siltier soils will become difficult, if not impossible, to work or compact. Under these circumstances, it may be necessary to Geotechnical Engineering Study 91=1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 12 import a. more granular material for use as a structural fill, and to dispose of the excavated in -place materials. Fill Placement and Compaction Structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding ten (10) inches in loose thickness for power - operated compaction equipment, and four inches for hand - operated compaction equipment. Each lift should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D -698 (Standard Proctor). Similarly, with the exception of the upper twelve (12) inches, fill in utility trenches should also be placed in thin horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density. The upper twelve (12) inches should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. It is possible that City compaction requirements may differ from those provided above. In this case, we recommend the most prohibitive of the two govern. To facilitate the earthwork and compaction process, the fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. If fill materials are on the wet side of optimum, they can be dried by aeration or by intermixing lime or cement powder to absorb excess moisture. Utility Trench Fill In our experience utility trench fill has been the source of the majority of post construction fill settlement problems, particularly in pavement areas. Many utility contractors do not expend any serious effort in placing trench backfill in thin layers, as described above, or in compacting each layer of backfill to the recommended degree. As a result, over a relatively short period the trench backfill has a tendency to settle, typically leaving a hollow or depression along its alignment. We strongly recommend that all utility trench backfill be placed and compacted in the same manner as described for structural fill above. You might consider including a section in the project specifications that requires the utility contractor to make good all trench backfill settlement at his cost. This should prove to be somewhat of an incentive to achieve a reasonable degree of trench backfill compaction. A pictorial representation of utility trench backfill requirements is presented on Plate 4, attached. 91-1162/May 19, 1991 LEGEND Non - Roadway Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas T Backfill Bedding varies 2 feet varies varies Asphalt/Concrete Pavement/Concrete Floor Slab Base Material /Slab Base Rock Backfill; compacted on -site soil or imported select fill material Bedding material; material type depends on type of pipe and laying conditions. Bedding should conform to the manufacturers recommendations for the type of pipe selected. Minimum percentage of maximum laboratory dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 -78 (Modified Proctor) Creative Engineering Options INC . %.GV Geotedmical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL Foster Park Plate 4 Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Foundations Page 13 In our opinion, the most practical and economical means of supporting the proposed buildings is with conventional spread footings. The footings should bear in the recompacted in -place fill soils or, if required, in at least two feet of compacted structural fill. Once the site has been suitably prepared, we recommend the following foundation design criteria be used: • Maximum allowable soil bearing pressure in recompacted in -place fill or in compacted structural fill = 2,500 psf • Minimum width of continuous footings = 18 inches • Minimum depth of embedment of perimeter footings below final site elevation = 18 inches A one -third increase in the above allowable soil bearing pressure may be used when considering short term transitory wind and seismic loads. In areas where footings will cross a cut -to -fill or a fill -to -fill transition we recommend that additional reinforcing steel be placed in the top of the footing. This additional reinforcement will help the footings act more like a beam than a foundation and will add a capability that will help span over a greater area should there be some localized settlement. As a typical guide, we recommend that in areas of transition the additional reinforcement extend for a distance of at least ten feet on either side of the cut /fill or fill/fill transition line. We recommend you have your structural engineer evaluate the specific size and amount of steel reinforcement necessary. Settlement From the subsurface conditions encountered, and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that provided the in -place fill soils are thoroughly recompacted, they should be expected to undergo little or no settlements under the proposed building loads. On the basis of the observed site soil conditions, and on the assumption that the recommendations to enhance the site soil conditions outlined in this report are closely followed, we estimate that the building may be subject to the following magnitudes of post construction settlement: of the project. Slab -on -Grade Floors ' Concrete slab -on -grade floors are appropriate for the proposed structures, and can be supported on the undisturbed or recompacted in -place fill soils or on a compacted structural fill pad, as appropriate. While at this elevation groundwater does not appear to be a problem, as a prudent measure and a means of avoiding capillary suction, we recommend you include a capillary break beneath the slab to provide space for moisture collection. This capillary break should consist of at least four inches of clean, free - draining granular material, such as sand or pea gravel. ' In areas where moisture vapor transmission through the slab is undesirable, we recommend you install an impermeable vapor barrier over the capillary break beneath Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 16 the slab. A 6 mil plastic membrane is adequate for this purpose. This membrane will help prevent moisture vapor transmission up through the slab and the associated moisture - related damage to interior furnishings. As an additional protective measure, you may also wish to consider placing two to four inches of damp sand over the membrane. This will help protect the membrane during construction and will help in curing of the concrete slab. It will also help to prevent cement paste bleeding down into the underlying capillary break through joints or tears in the visqueen barrier. Site Drainage We did not encounter an established groundwater level, or evidence of anything but light groundwater seepage, within the depth of exploration beneath the existing site grade during our field exploration. Because of the relatively fine grained nature of most of the site soils, groundwater or seepage could, under some circumstances, begin to pose a problem. Construction activity should include factors to account for the possibility that surface water or shallow seepage might occur during construction. It has been our experience that groundwater and seepage levels tend to fluctuate seasonally and vary significantly due to changes in rainfall amounts, surface drainage or other factors. Although groundwater is not likely to present a problem with the general construction program, we believe it will be prudent to install both short and long -term drainage control measures as part of project design and construction. Short Term Drainage Measures Over the short term, we recommend you be prepared construct a low earthen berm along the crest of any site slope to help intercept and collect any surface water flow. All water collected in this manner should be directed away from the face of the slope to discharge under control into a nearby permanent drainage facility. During construction, loose and unvegetated soil surfaces should, wherever possible, be roller sealed at night and at the beginning of a weekend to help reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the subgrade soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from building foundations or playfield areas. Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 17 We also recommend that your contractor determine what drainage control measures the City might require for this project. Typically, they will expect installation of a sediment control fence around the downgrade perimeter(s) of the site. This would usually consist of a geotechnical fabric, such as a Mirafi 100X envirofence (or approved equivalent) attached to wood or metal stakes driven firmly into the ground. The bottom edge of the fabric is typically buried to help prevent sediment escaping from beneath the fence. It is also preferable that the existing slope vegetation be disturbed as little as possible. This vegetative mat helps reduce the impact of precipitation of the soil surface, acts as a thermal blanket to reduce the potential for freezing, and the root mat helps maintain the surficial soil in- place. Long Term Drainage Measures Because of the amount of silt and clay size particles contained in the sampled site fill soils, we believe it is appropriate to include a foundation drain around the perimeter of the proposed new structures. This drain should consist of a rigid, perforated or slotted plastic pipe set at, or just below, the invert of the footing. It should be installed with sufficient gradient to initiate gravity flow. The line should be bedded on, surrounded by, and covered with a free - draining granular material. A typical detail of a perimeter footing subdrain is provided as Plate 5. Any seepage collected by this perimeter drain system should be directed by means of a tightline to discharge under control into a positive and permanent system. Such a system could include, but not .necessarily be limited to, a perimeter ditch or a storm system catch basin. It is also crucial to include an appropriate drainage system behind any retaining wall to avoid the potential for the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. This drainage system will include a drainline similar to that described above set at, or just below, the invert of the wall footing. The space between the excavated cut face and the rear of the retaining wall should be backfilled with a free - draining granular material. We recommend the backfill material meet the following requirements: Material and Percentage of Sieve Size Material Passing 3 inch 100 1 -1/2 inch 80 - 100 91- 1162/May 19. 1991 6 -inch min. Slope to Drain Schematic only - Not to Scale A NAA AAA. As AAA AA A :%4A ~ ~w ^, ▪ w • AAAAAAA • ~ A , A • • ~A AAAAAAA ~ M w A A ^A ~ ~A ,M A M ~w �+ ^w k ~~ A w A A.A A • A A A A A A A A A A A A AA 2 -inch min. 4 -inch max. LEGEND 18 -inch min. Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. Gravel backfill for walls; WDOT Standard Specifications, Section 9 -03.12 (2), or Fine Aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9- 03.1(2). 4 -inch diameter minimum, drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid O with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Impermeable visqeen barrier or other impermeable material approved by Geotechnical Engineer. 2 -inch min. Creative Engineering Options INC. 0^ 411" %..cv Geared nical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Foster Park Plate 5 Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Material and Sieve Size 3/4 inch 1/4 inch #10 mesh #50 mesh #100 mesh #200 mesh Percentage of Material Passing 60 - 90 50 - 80 35 - 65 25 - 45 10 - 15 0 -3 Page 18 As an alternative, you may also wish to consider the use of a wall drainage fabric. One typical fabric is "Miradrain ". It .consists of a dimpled plastic sheet wrapped in a geotechnical drainage fabric to allow for moisture movement but restrain of soil fines. This fabric, or an approved equivalent, is placed immediately against the rear face of the wall, is extended down to the bottom of the wall, and is wrapped around the basal drain line. A clean and generally free - draining backfill, such as that described above, is then placed and compacted to backfill the space between the excavation and the retaining wall. A typical detail is provided as Plate 6. Roof Drainage Under no circumstances should any building roof downspout lines be connected to any other drains. Downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge either into a nearby storm drainage facility, such as a catch basin, or they should be tightlined to discharge under control at the culvert in the center of the northern edge of the site. We also recommend you install sufficient cleanouts at strategic and accessible locations to allow for easy and periodic downspout drainline flushing and maintenance. Roadway Drainage In our opinion, it is appropriate to prevent surface water from the access road or paved parking areas flow onto the site. We recommend that once construction is complete, you install an extruded asphalt or concrete curb along the edges of the pavement area. This curb should be capable of preventing surface water from the pavement flowing onto the site. In combination with suitably designed surface grades, it should be capable of directing it to a positive and permanent storm drainage system. 91- 1162/May 19, 1991 4 1 ft. min. t 1 ft. min. Schematic Only - Not To Scale AA AAAA AAA AAA AAA Compacted Subgrade LEGEND �•ti•1.1.1• r•1•l•r•. ti•ti•ti•ti•ti. Sr•- i�L�t�ti 0 NOTES Free Draining Gravel Impervious Soil Unclassified Backfill 90% Relavtive Compaction 1" Minus Rock or Pea Gravel Perforated Pipe Excavated Slope Maximum slope depends on soil conditions. In no case should it be steeper than 0.5:1 (H to V) Wrap Rock with Filter Fabric Classified backfill should consist of granular soil having no more than 5 percent passing the 200 sieve and no particles greater than 4" in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the 4 sieve should be between 25 and 75 percent. • Unclassified backfill should be free of organics, clayey soils, debris, and other deleterious materials. It should be placed at or below the optimum moisture content. • For free - standing walls, weep holes may be used. Surround weep holes with 18" of 1" minus rock. `GV Creative Engineering Options INC. Geotedmical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE AND BACKFILL Foster Park Plate 6 Geotechnical Engineering Study Page 19 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Playfield Drainage Given the nature of the in -place fill soils covering the playfield area of this site, it is likely that surface water from the playfield will not easily infiltrate into the site soils. As mentioned above, the approximate permeability of the in -place fill soils is typically ' less than 0.12 feet per hour. In spite of the fact that surface water appears to be absorbed with relative ease, it is our opinion that a playfield subdrainage system will ' be necessary to maintain relatively dry playing conditions in the wetter part of the year. We understand that your landscape architect is to provide more specific details for just such a system. Pavement Areas There are several concerns relating to construction of a sound, competent and maintenance free site pavements. Principal of .these is the competency of the subgrade, which is discussed in the following paragraphs. Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 CLOSURE Limitations Page 20 Our recommendations and conclusions are based upon site materials and conditions observed at the time of our study, the preliminary design information you provided, the data obtained from our site exploration, our engineering analyses, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care, skill and competence ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession in good standing who are currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No other warranty is expressed or implied. We are not responsible for the ramifications due to interp- retation, modification or implementation of these conclusions and recommen- dations by others. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from our test pits and observations of exposed soils. Soil and groundwater conditions may vary from those encountered or observed during our study. The nature and extent of variations may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear, or if new or additional material or information comes to light, we should be requested to re- evaluate the recommendations contained in this report and to modify or verify them in writing before proceeding with the construction. Additional Services We recommend we be retained to perform a general review of the final design plans and specifications. This will allow us to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design plans and the construction specifications. For continuity, we also recommend we be retained to provide geotechnical observation and monitoring services during construction. These services are critical to the successful completion of this project. Because of the need for carefully controlled recompaction of the existing in -place fill soils, the need to verify that any new site fills are adequately compacted, that there is appropriate soil bearing beneath the south- Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Page 21 western retaining wall, and that the appropriate short and long term drainage controls have been installed, we cannot and do not accept any responsibility for any of the aspects of design or construction, geotechnical or otherwise, if not retained to provide and afforded the opportunity to perform these services. These services allow us to verify that our original recommendations are properly interpreted and included in construction, and to make any necessary modifications to those recommendations without hindering the construction schedule in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM Page 22 Our field exploration was performed on May 6, 1991. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating a series of nine exploratory test pits to a maximum depth of eleven (11) feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The test pits were dug with a tractor mounted Cat 580D extendahoe. The approximate test pit locations were determined by pacing from the northeast corner of the site. The approximate test pit elevations were determined by interpolation between contour lines shown on a site plan by Irwin Engineering, dated 4/1/91, Sheet 1 of 1 for job number 9829. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the methods used. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a field engineer from our firm who maintained a log of each test pit. Our representative classified the soil encountered in the test pits, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) which is summarized on Plate 7, Legend. Individual logs of the test pits are presented on Plates 8 through 12. The final logs represent our interpretation of the field logs and selective laboratory testing of representative soil samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be more gradual or more severe. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our Redmond office for further examination, review and selective laboratory testing. 91-1162/May 19. 1991 Unified Soil Classification System MAJOR OMs of s SOIL CLASSIFICATION - GENERALIZED GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Coarse ' Grained Soils More than 50% Material Larger than No. 200 Sieve Size Gravel And Gravely Soils More than 50% Coarse Fraction Retained en No. 4 Sieve a w novels (Idle ) .. GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel - Sand Mixtures, Lime or No Fines GP SaPoorly-Graded ixtures, Lint or No Fines Gravels with Fines (appreciable amount of final ` GM Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand - Silt Mocwres GC Clayey Mixtures O M Gravels. Gravel - Sand - Sand And Sandy Soils More than 5076 Coarse - Fraction Passing No. 4 Sieve Clean Sand (lime or no fines) - SW ; :;.:•'• Well - Graded Sands, Gravely .Sands, Little or No Fins f, f r. •%•%. 0....." Poorly - Graded Sands, Gravely Sands, Line or No Fins Sands with Fines (appreciable amount of finis) ,' %." ..n #i :i; +:?: :: : :: SM ''` . "' Slty.Sands, Sand -Silt Mixtures SC Oayty Sands. Sand - Clay Modures Fine Grained Soils More than 50% Material Smaller than No 200 Sieve Ste' Silts and Clays Ls than Limit ' ML Inorganic Silts 8 Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour, Silty- Clayey Fine Sands: Clayey Sills w/Slight Plasticity CL ' Inorganic Clays of Law to Medium Plasticity, GIN ' Y clays. Lean Organic Sias and Organic Silty Clays of Low Plasticry Sits and Liquid limn Clays Greater than 50 IIIIIIIIIIIMH Inorganic or Silty Silts, Micaceous or Diatomaceous Fine Inorganic of High tent' Fat ti t's Organic Clays of Medium ID High Plastkay, Organic Silts Hight' Organic Sods V.,.:' • • •••. .J Pf Peat, Humus, Swamp Sods with High Organic Contents Topsoil ♦ I 0 e e e ; r e e - Humus and Duff Layer Fill 40" Hight' Variable Constituents Notes: Dual symbols are used to indicate borderine sod classical ion. Upper rye lemer symbols designate sample ctassifications based upon laboratory testing lower case eau symbols designate classifications riot verified by laboratory testing. Relative Density or Consistency Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values COHESONLESS SOILS(a) COHESIVE SOIISIb) Density (c). N. blows/ft)c) Relative Density PO Consistency N. blows/1t1C) Undrained Shear Strengthld) (psf • Very loose Lorne Compact Dense Vey Dense 0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 over 50 0 - 15 15 - 35 35 - 65 65 - 85 >85 Very soft Soft Firm Stiff Vey Stiff Hard 0 to 2 2 to 4 • 4 to 6 8 to 15 15 to 30 over 30 <250 250 - 500 500 - 1000 1000 - 2000 2000 - 4000 x1000 (a) �Kc� drained sand, and silt, ether separatey or n combination. possessing no characreristiccs of plasticity: and (b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasrny, and exhibiting undramed behavar. (c) Refer to tea of ASTM D 1586 -84 for a definition of N: in normal y consolidated cohesionless soils Retasve Density terns are based on N values corrected for overburden pressures. (d) Undraned shear strength = 1/2 unconfined compression strength. Component Definitions by Gradation COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Boulders Above 12 in. Cobbles 3 in. to 12 in. Gravel 3 in. to No. 4 (4.76mm) Coarse gravel 3 in. to 3/4 in. Fine gravel 3/4 in. to No. 4 (4.76mm) Sand No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 10 (2.Omm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0mm) to No. 40 (0.42mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42mm) to No. 200 (0.07mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than 0. 200 (0.07rmm) Descriptive Terminology Denoting Component Proportions DESCRIPTIVE TERMS RANGE OF PROPORTION Trace 0 - 5% Lime 5 - 12% Some or Adjective (a) 12 - 30% Md 30 - 5076 Samples P SS HD SH PIT B c Sampler Pushed Sample Not Recovered SPT Sample 12.0' 00) Heavy Duty Split Spoon Shelby Tube Pitcher Sampler Bulk Cored Notes V WATER LEVEL (DATE) ■ WATER OBSERVATION WELL qc 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 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 Creative Engineering OptionsiNc. Geotechnical Engneers, Geologists & Envircomettal Scientists LEGEND Foster Park Plate 7 91- 1162/May 19. 1991 Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Depth (ft.) Symbols 0 5 10 15 0 10 15 Test Pit No. 1 Soil Description Elevation: 122.5 feet` W ( %) 'Test pit elevation determined by interpolation between contour lines shown on a Site Plan by Irwin Engineering, dated 4/1./91, sheet 1 of 1, job #9829. Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Test Pit No. 2 Elevation: 118.0 feet -`•■ftirtir' %%Sq. SM Brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense, little rounded gravel. (Fill) Gray to gray—brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense to dense with little rounded fine to coarse gravel, occasional pieces of small tree root. (Fill) -Warr, �rtirti SM — ; SM Brown silty fine to medium SAND, moist, dense, little rounded fine to medium gravel. Soo So 13.9 1.ti.ti: :PP; _ Gray -black SAND, wet, loose (Fill) BOH Test Pit terminated at 6 feet below existing grade. _. _ No groundwater seepage encountered. Gray -brown silty SAND, wet to saturated, loose to medium dense. (Fill) - 'Test pit elevation determined by interpolation between contour lines shown on a Site Plan by Irwin Engineering, dated 4/1./91, sheet 1 of 1, job #9829. Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Test Pit No. 2 Elevation: 118.0 feet -`•■ftirtir' %%Sq. Brown to gray -brown fine to coarse SAND, wet, loose to medium dense, little gravel, chunks of concrete asphalt to - 24 -inch size, pieces of brick, - 2 inch p -Warr, �rtirti , 1•ti•S• o r•r•r SP SM thick layer of leaves at 6 to 9 inch depth. (Fill) Soo So 1.ti.ti: :PP; SP Gray -black SAND, wet, loose (Fill) _. SM Gray -brown silty SAND, wet to saturated, loose to medium dense. (Fill) - _ BOH Test Pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade. Light groundwater seepage encountered at 6 ft. during excavation Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole. modified by engineering tests, analysis, and judgement. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsbility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. 0'10 4101 a.cv Creative Engineering Options INC. Gectechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists TEST PIT LOG Foster Park Plate 8 Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Depth (ft.) Symbols 0 10 15 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. 3 Soli Description Elevation: 127 feet W ( %) ��, `" '' , ?., SM Brown to gray-brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense, little rounded gravel, 9 Y tY 9 contains cobbles, asphalt chunks, and small boulders. (Fill) _ :µ'•' •i.: � i�tiyi. SM - — BOH Gray -blue silty SAND, moist to wet, medium dense, little rounded and angular -7. SM fine to coarse gravel. _ 130H Test Pit terminated at 8 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered. Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Test Pit No. 4 Elevation: 130.5 feet r'r'r {•ti•ti• "`tiitiftif 1fti?Sr -.IP:* ti•ti•ti• - tirtirtif •r• r r r•r•l ti•ti•Y f•r•l S•ti�ti• SP SM Dark gray, gray-brown silty g y, brown and ra -brown intermixed fine to coarse SAND and sil SAND, moist, medium dense, with asphalt pieces and concrete chunks to - 24 -inch size. (Fill) Yellow -brown silty fine to medium. SAND, wet, dense, little rounded fine to medium gravel. Test Pit terminated at 8.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. _ :µ'•' •i.: � i�tiyi. SM - — BOH ir le 01 Creative Engineering Options INC. Geotedvrical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists TEST PIT LOG Foster Park Plate 9 91- 1162/May 19, 1991 Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Depth (ft.) Symbols 0 5 10 15 0 10 15 Test Pit No. 5 Soli Description Elevation: 140 feet W ( %) —4•r•r•r --.•tiK•' - .I.r....r tif;r;r ti.5.010 r•r•f r•r•r r•r•r . .e.e. ~l~ltir ti.ti.ti.. r•r•r •r•r•r SP Brown fine to coarse SAND, moist, dense, little rounded fine to coarse gravel becomes very dense at - 4 feet Test Pit terminated at 9 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered. 11.1 8.5 - - — - BOH Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Test Pit No. 6 Elevation: 134 feet 10~06{. — tiftiftif' r•r•r •ti•ti•' r•r•r r•r•r, ti.ti.ti.. r•r•r -4. 1r•r•r 010~.. — "%r•r•r .%.~.. 1.10~0. Brown fine to coarse SAND, moist, medium dense, little silt, little rounded fine to coarse gravel and cobbles. becomes dense at - 2 feet Test Pit terminated at 7 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 9.8 - - BOH Creative Engineering Options INC. Geotedmical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Sdentists TEST PIT LOG Foster Park Plate 10 91- 1182/May 19, 1991 Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Depth (ft.) Symbols 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. 7 Soli Description Elevation: 131 feet W (%) Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Test Pit No. 8 Elevation: 127.5 feet - ...*:0 SM SP JIVI SM Brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense. (Fill) Gray-blue to black, organic silty fine to coarse SAND, moist, medium dense, intermixed pockets of root matter, little rounded fine to coarse gravel, cobbles - strong organic odor. (Fill) Hole halted due to caving. Test Pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. Ught groundwater seepage encountered at 8 feet during excavation 11.1 8.5 .4-..r.el Sololo. meofee ..7.11:47: .e.".p 06.100 -. — •-il. __.'6*. • We SM - - No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. BOH Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Test Pit No. 8 Elevation: 127.5 feet - ...*:0 SM SP JIVI Gray-brown silty fine to medium SAND, moist, dense, little rounded fine to coarse gravel and cobbles to - 18-inch size. (Fill) 1-inch diameter water line at 2-1/2 feet Ught gray to light brown fine to coarse SAND, moist, dense, little silt, little rounded fine to coarse gravel and cobbles to - 18-inch size. Test Pit terminated at 5feet below existing grade. .4-..r.el Sololo. meofee ..7.11:47: .e.".p 06.100 - BOH = No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. - . IP" aft Creative Engineering Options INC. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Sdentists TEST PIT LOG Foster Park Plate 11 91.1162/May 19, 1991 Logged by: GM Date: 5/6/91 Depth (ft•) Symbols 0 5 10 15 Test Pit No. 9 Soil Description Elevation: 116.5 feet W ( %) Creative Engineering Options INC. Geatedmical Engineers Geologists & Environmental Scientists TEST PIT LOG Foster Park Plate 12 F : : :0•. ' 4: n SM Brown to dark gray silty SAND, moist, loose, with broken concrete pieces to - 18-inch size, concrete post to - 2 -1/2 feet long, cobbles and vegetative matter - strong organic odor. (Fill) Yellow -brown fine to coarse SAND, moist to wet, medium dense, little silt, little rounded fine to coarse rounded gravel. Test Pit terminated at 7 feet below existing grade. Light groundwater seepage encountered at 5 feet during excavation. -ti -":::::41. r =r M1•ti•'L tiro{ .r.r•r ti•ti•ti• r•••r r•r•r tirtifti- r•r•r r•r.ti•r SP SM _ _ BOH Creative Engineering Options INC. Geatedmical Engineers Geologists & Environmental Scientists TEST PIT LOG Foster Park Plate 12 Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING General Page 23 We conducted selective laboratory tests on carefully selected representative soil samples. The results were used to help verify or modify the field classification of the soils encountered and to help evaluate the soil's geotechnical behavior. A brief description of each of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depth on the boring logs. Please understand that test results may not accurately represent the overall, in -situ soil conditions. Results must be interpreted. Our recommendations are based on our interpretation of test results, along with other information available to us. Test results help guide our engineering judgement. We are not responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. The soil samples for this project will be discarded within 15 days of completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Soil Classification All soil samples were visually examined in the field, by our engineer, at the time they were obtained. They were subsequently packaged in moisture-proof containers and returned to our Redmond office where they were reexamined and the original description was verified or modified, as necessary. With the help of the information obtained from classification tests, the samples were described in general accordance with the qualitative USCS, ASTM Test Method D- 2487 -83. The resulting descriptions were included at the appropriate sample location on the test pit log. The attached Legend, Plate 7, provides a brief summarization of the USCS system. Geotechnical Engineering Study 91 -1162 Foster Park Addition May 17, 1991 Moisture Page 24 Moisture content tests were performed on several representative samples obtained from the exploratory excavations. The purpose of this test is to approximately ascertain the materials' in -situ moisture content. The moisture content is determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D- 2216 -80. The information obtained assists us by providing a qualitative correlation with soil strength and compressibility. The results of these tests are included at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. Grain Size Distribution Detailed grain size analyses were conducted on five of the retrieved samples to determine the overall distribution of the soil's particles. The information gained from these analyses allows us to provide a detailed description and classification of the in- place materials. In turn, this information helps us to understand how the in -place materials will react to construction activity, groundwater seepage and foundation loading. The results are presented on Plates 13 through 17, Gradation Curves. Classification symbols are also provided as part of the appropriate individual sample descriptions on the test pit logs. 91.1182/May 19. 1991 0.Y a ? 7d� uj�T f ; tC$ ��(l� j�p� .{v�iv(�/�� e {S rr� o\ ,,,.� •: t } .;. s.,..4%,-' • a��vC S_ :t ..1.•,: :}w . . -. ?ti.. '.. Y � i � T: : '.:. . ?' t� P \ .. \ :.SV \ :6' \� a'��Y: �.. F at\ L1 �S` � \.' y � . • h� - s .\..:•' `.x•\ .� : . €`.i.2 v;•v?.Sy��a�V y� �\ � vn•.:• \yyr ... i ..n •.� 1 Qv�t ..h.; v^ Y- u\ \ .¢t ..$ : . n- .. Myn" • 40yyA . ... .. v•::..., n . .•v :• \h\ V:P !MV A g---r. ? .O n' a\ v 100 so a ao 1 0 70 W } 60 Z 50 t wZ 40 0 w 0_ 30 20 10 0 100 50 1 d 5- 1 0.5 0.1 0 05 i 0.01 0. GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0c COARSE ` FINE... .COARSE ' MEDIUM ...:::'FINE :: SILT;or CLAM GRAVEL . . SAND Sample Source Classification TP -1 1.5 ft. SILTY SAND (SM) WITH SOME GRAVEL acv Creative Engineering Options INC. Geatedvrcal Engneers. Geologists & Enviroranerkal scientists GRADATION CURVE Foster Park Plate 13 91- 1182/May 19, 1991 100 90 I- 070 W } 60 0] Z 50 1- z W U •. W d 30 a L IMINM 20 10 0 100 50 1 d 5 0.5 •0.1 0 05 0.01 0. GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS OC COARSE FINE COARSE . . MEDIUM % FINE..`: SILTar CLAD -- :•;....... :.GRAVEL • •:: :.. .SAND ?. ... Sample Source Classification TP -3 2.0 ft. SILTY SAND (SM) WITH SOME GRAVEL Creative Engineering Options INC . Aim Ir. Art. • cv, Geotednical Engineers Geologists & Emirarmerval scientists GRADATION CURVE Foster Park Plate 14 91.1192/Mey 19, 1991 100 1- c, W )- 60 m 0! Z 50 1-- z W U .w 0_ 30 • }Rf :v:.;� }�•+�,v�06 \i: ?v „•�`': Kv ji.M' `Y.� �p X.w }' �:Q,r, or;�-..'p; ��":�..: $� } -v vv i::4•<dATCi ... 4 #4 :'Q•'a {. �4 ,..'tii;' x.. .?QQ,�'.C:. `51 \:. tin •+,qqqqn��C,,,n'' :. : pp t v _ M .Z2 hv5:l i; T018 M;' t'k• 0...Mti-vi. .:.5 aTM.n 50,. �FV' �' -: c.ti CSC 4�. vX44 v� +�..o +.y�•�4 �%'S +X•t``t: e c 80 20 • 10 0 100 50 1 ( 1 0.5 0.1 0 05 0.01 0.0e1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COARSE FINE . :COARSE I ;,.> MEDIUM I .'FINE: • • } SILTor CL AY"....: ...... .:.."GRAVEL.? -.. '. .. ::.:;SAND > -.. Sample Source Classification TP -4 2.0 ft. SILTY SAND (SM) WITH SOME GRAVEL Creative Engineering Options INC. Geotedmkal G,g ieers. Geologists 6 Environmental Scientists GRADATION CURVE Foster Park Plate 15 91.1182JMay 19. 1991 :.: it .:.t :.. t: {. •::- Siatldat „ -v :.:,;3•0::4.:4',.% {L .: v: } e. •..�#!) .• �' -iR 4l h ,S. Sta(Idar -,{v -: \ }{v {. \ {\ - \S VV nvC \ • �� ) { wyYpriC }: ' o. -r : .. : X sv:. .} .ivv4:�7�,V.[ .. I, ;” `'. F^v,•,`,,,C •.. \ '�}4. A')S Ia Wiled ..,.•.- 1R•'`• $4.7 i` -\` tl:7;• }: t��.: 4: r+;•�2•,_'i•' 4•A`' •x� • 4.0--4::::::, 4 { � A.Z • F • i} V k h{ Cv •Ln.' , \\•)Y •,., ..< ,S • }%,} } 100 so so I- I 7o W x- 60 m re z 50 1- z W 4° U. W A_ 30 1 20 10 0 100 50 1 d 5 1 0.5 0.1 0 05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 o.oa'1 COARSE, ' . FINE ' , COARSE :: MEDIUM ;'• FINE :SILT or CLAY .:..: . - GRAVEL; SAND Sample Source Classification TP -7 1.5 tt. SILTY SAND (SM) WITH SOME GRAVEL Creative Engineering Optionswc. Geatedrical Engneers Geologists & & 4rcrene tal Scientists GRADATION CURVE Foster Park Plate 16 91.1182/May 19, 1991 �M,•k ? f>?.Ittd acti }� '''''.0. +:a : Ae& �.n � . x : a.,, ..,. : ; P U :5.• .,RR3 fah \'' :••‘• + e?Y ^ t +4 aAI•�+} e;xy��: ' : ,... t • � • ' n. - • . v , . , + +, � + {,,, nV • . .S�,S; < Y 4112:, zabpp 4*4 i . ' l�nda 44 a *`: j „n zon Y r.�.`.. 1MM1 40i�Y Ot �A� n , . "� p �\ 'J-,,, }.}� ti" ' A��. 100 90 80 i- 070 w 3 r 60 m Z 50 W I— Z40 U 0_ 30 20 10 O r100 50 1 d 5 1 0.5 0.1 005 0.01 0.0C1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COARSE FINE COARSE I EDIUM SILTY SAND (SM) WITH SOME GRAVEL FINE; ` , SILT or CLAY GRAVEL : SAND ;: Sample Source Classification TP -8 2.0 ft. SILTY SAND (SM) WITH SOME GRAVEL Creative Engineering Options INK. Geotedrnical Engineers. Geologists & E nvironme tal scientists GRADATION CURVE Foster Park Plate 17 4 Copies DISTRIBUTION 91 -1162 Mr. Don Williams City of Tukwila Parks Director c/o Bruce Dees & Associates 222 East 26th Street Suite 202 Tacoma, Washington 98421 Attention: Mr. Bruce Dees DATE: CONVERSATION RECORD 1/7 /7/ MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: A.M. P.M. TYPE: ❑ Visit KConference ❑ Telephone— OIncoming OOutgoing. Name of •erson(s) co tacted o in contact wit ice/ L, . %i✓. Organize on (office, • ept., bureau, etc. FOROFFlCE USE ONLY Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: 014 -#7-eed d-e7f a ici&ee 7ke C‘Z /2-te Aee zipZweep TTY wa-k e 1i1 ,tJ ,), P - eg '1 d A , 'U� 5. De's &c d()vtiedAi Dill D .)7N /Ale) 1;/ hh&ec .e/Afth ke&kw rzei Signature: Date: FOR DATE M �� ®��►�� 2V E SA I TIME /� A.M. c.G P M OF PHONE AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION MESSAG TOPS 9 FORM'3002S FOR DATE M OF IVIPORT MES AL4) A.M. TIME ,A4 PHONE AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOU ALL SPECIAL ATTENTION M ESSAG SIGNED UTHO IN U.S.A. -� r / &LaiOil u- biA 1 Uf S 141 Z, rw )I� 1(0 ai&t, i' fri «W, l' I,tn4A, �,�-7. TOPS 9 FORM 30025 DATE: • • CONVERSATION RECORD / 2 / AEON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: g,` J rz5ff TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference phone— Oincoming OOutgoing Name of per n(s) contacted r in ntact with you: Organization ice, ept., au, etc.) bee FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Telephone No.: Location of Visit/ 1 nference: SUBJECT: SUMMARY: /) /%.4�az � -e/o7t 9/ea,/4 41 Wzi s' GGrje, dee&rrne&fi 4 .0,s/ 7 fl 674 kc '7 ;f c7Z '' - c9-7. Signature: Title: Date: FOR OFFICE USE ONLY 4digCONVERSATION RECORD DATE: .1 / 2' 1/ MON TUE WED THU TIME: MI SAT SUN TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference [Telephone— 0Incoming A.M. P.M. 0 Outgoing Name of person(s) contacted or in contact with yoL. i f7 /mil is- 6Ji leitm Organization (office, dept., bureau, a cf ) Location of Visit/Conference: Telepre � / /' " / SUBJECT:c5�! SUMMARY: U -/ doree, is 7 -' em M � erret& ? (/i / -6,22/ J . /7 Ws, /de OdAtedie 624/'7 C# ai/'I #/09-er-, $5-07-ad-ted. aprzft rkz&/, 7-2 0 -0-7:e5/27.0091 77,/(i.5- 20-geze )9/220m, ai.ed_ez_ ,1-67-ye km/4w , ,e.fryned-ci-E- etteezna 4e Yil-l-‘64-- n"e7"e' ifofi,"/ oxi/ifon a t 1 r -' e I -/e€4 th,44)‘c2+74 ,P_.zebeu' i r tS �-# 274 -��j :S Ef7/i4 '� 4u7914 i% f/4 `// ,.ti Z 36 /P - /'5 r -�9, .�1. P 'e a) G b A 7e-5d-teal 6(#, k.4,2; la4 h-en ‘ieze /eXa7 toe hai Signature: Title: Date: CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: L 1 oc,. 117 MON TUE WED ' THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: A.M. P.M. TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— 0Incoming OOutgoing Name of person(s)dcontact ith you: Organization (office, dept., bureau, etc.) FOR OFFICE USE ONLY mss-, Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: II SUMMARY: 7' 77/7"-ie an;7,/ 1 iln� /76W / , 7 .:J /Wee A71,1 vp' /4 9t Date: CONVERSATION RECORD DATE: 44- / / MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN TIME: P.M. 0 Outgoing TYPE: ❑ Visit ❑ Conference ❑ Telephone— Olncoming Name riz tioQ Organ ( d ntactei pr +n ogntact w' o FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ept., oureau, etc...) Telephone No.: Location of Visit/Conference: SUBJECT: TAK " `?)-641fi SUMMARY: 1) Drri, ahvinr, vc511,5 i(VitAR FIZ5 LIZ 43e-e-c( 11. ;PS CUB awit mititt 1 Maw, D 01 t< 471A ►4 a) a 41+a4 orGs A5eri'. (no!' u‘01, u� SfF�" 6bt-Uw. Yvtid< a- 13 . •. I� 1 itc4oGrr.d, , ha 1/1/44/1 �. DPyi wiv( AL I&w��rz : Lal/J /.r .LI.i /.I (may tA4 SYi `tG CITY OF.TUKWILA ENVIROIMENTAL REVIEW ROU11I'IGFORM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT " 2e .",� 'p�N,�yP,,�cff �•» �,yo .r t�..•.n x n. - r- ,rtAc ,6. {�. re6tf,�,,,�,rx 4zt�tf¢t�� '" Y'°`" !1o'i.t�•••'mS� t � a Y_f ♦�..o. • ,TQ; *.., g 1 D Planning .Pub Wks EPIC: 14 —� PROJECT Fi1/217 APV TiON ADDRESS Gj 'At - X34 1 mot.''. DATE TRANSMITTED 4/ /1,011 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR A-km 4, DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED 4/76A1 ITEM COMMENT (DUI NIIPH \‘_s t\ .) I STY) h-Cf °� I O .N`TIF-1 5 (D ilw A ut' O (lsO ® iv e k cf 6.- 1 S IMA4.4ALtts 7:1• 1 Ivy) e (_g _S Atm a - A s. 1 x9 t A se -c. U.L . 1 D ihy-rn F '-/ ,.5-71/a az/ il, lea, 71 Li e - o Nkfritai- 14-/QYV, Irk mow- Fitt racy 1AD H' f)LA NZ" Lc) 7v1 & zan -nvbl Date: i-/ /3 o� q Comments prepared by:, C ' °wives ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM 4 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT anning Pub:Wks EPIC: 20 oit PROJECT FOG ^ serinoni ADDRESS �°i r'J?✓ ►i Ave. D DATE TRANSMITTED / 1//1 i RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4/76/11 STAFF COORDINATOR DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED c ed,.envi onmentat cheddisi was receive: regarding 'this proiec <> i?tease tevie ermtna ort:� �r i�nt efow ta:advise the: responsibie offic,at regarding the 2t7reShoisi ±det ti at i fiI i labi _ ` th PI D art t th th b taf. t�o w ITEM 14 C ronrnent re................ ew e, S avai a �n e : ann�ng . ep men _ roug. a as ov9e rd tlator.. Comments regarding the project you wish.:carriedto the Pianging ommss and 01 Adju and City Council .should be submitted In the comment section be% COMMENT The present Joseph Foster Park does not have an adequate number of parking spaces as can be observed on the evenings of softball and little league games - many vehicles have to park along the street. If additional parking were provided on the north end of the new Foster addition, these spaces could be used by the overflow of either field. NOTE: From a players standpoint, the baseball diamond is not located in the best !.' -�Ss age sA /P.f9 direction due to the sun setting directly in the batter's eyes. The diamond could possibly located in the northeast corner of the field so the sun would only effect a possible throw to third base from first or second or a throw to second base from right field. Also if the backstop and dugouts were located in the northeast corner it would be much easier and faster for the players to use the restrooms during a game (which small little leaguers always have to do). Lco (uo-4- 1 l'et Date: 4/23/91 Comments prepared by: ? Tom Kilburg (Crime Prevention) move. ENVIROAENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 130i n Pit EPIC: 1,0 PROJECT FOITFAz. FARK_Aceinos ADDRESS fk 4 Ave . DATE TRANSMITTED 44/ 1//61/ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 44 /76/1 I STAFF COORDINATOR DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED ...y. • .,• . . . . . e .7.ttchedenvirorupentai checkllst .Wasleceived:regar this project. . • reiew •,••••....s.., 00,9ttielOi0tto advise t e.respOnsibte.otticiarregardingAhethreshot eterminatio ....„ .. . „ ....„..„ aVatiable....i.n.• the :Planning..Departmentthrough.Aht above • • • • •• • • , st !!!!!s regd. ing'1t00 project you Wish •carned:to•theiptattotOg.gommisS„,.. .djUstmet* and CIty poupcil:shouldbe submitted in:. the .0OpiMEp iSectlOol • COMMENT ITEM edmithamoradate> 6)44.44 dk-et /yd■-/u/A fr/O7G7i-- arric 11LIOL APR 2 4 1991 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DErT Date: Comments prepared by: OW 14189 ASTER PARK ADDITMN PARKING April 22, 1991 PARKING TOTALS, The Master Plan for Foster ark Addition includes a total of 34 parking stalls, which would include 2 handicap (12.5'), standard (9'), and Xcompact (8.5') stalls. i%" 16 Z3n GU — h- ax ) These numbers are sufficient for one little league field and for other park users enjoying the park. The City of Bellevue's standard per ball field is 22 parking stalls. If one assumes 11 players per team or 22 players per game, one can assume 2 people per car, or 11 cars. The same number is calculated for spectators; 22 per game, 2 per car, which comes to 11 cars. Hence, the total stalls needed for one ball field is 22. Because this field is a little league field, this number of stalls is more than adequate for this use. The remaining stalls would be utilized by other park users using the play area, trail, or picnic shelter. SAFETY It is important to design the Foster Park Addition parking lot with the safety of the park users, primarily children and their parents, in mind. The parking for the Master Plan was designed as all off - street parking with 90 degree single - loading only located on the park side of the parking loop. As a result, children and other park users will not be forced to cross the parking lot, creating a potential conflict with the automobile traffic. In addition, a sidewalk has been placed adjacent to all parking stalls for direct access to the park grounds. All of these measures have been taken to reduce the conflict between pedestrian and automobile uses and to make the park experience a more pleasant and enjoyable one. EGRESS /INGRESS The location of the parking lot was designed to accommodate for a future sidewalk along 53rd Avenue South. The northern entrance was located with sufficient distance, approximately 170' from South 139th Street and 85' from South 140th Street, for adequate sight and deceleration distance. Each driveway entrance is. 30' wide with adequate turning radii. AirAamacr [APR 2 2 199 CITY OF TUK'NMLA PLANNING DEPT. BRUCE~ DEES& ASSOCIATES Landscape Architecture • Urban Design Site Planning • Recreation Facilities Design April 19, 1991 Ms. Ann Siegenthaler Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Ann, Job No. 42 -01 -01 RE: Foster Park Addition Enclosed is one (1) copy of the Environmental Checklist and seven (7) copies of the vicinity map, location map, legal description, existing topography map, site plan, and proposed topography map for the Foster Park Addition SEPA review process. For future reference, and so there is no misunderstanding, the site plan was originally developed from other information given to us prior to receiving the final topography map. If you will notice, the park boundaries on the site plan are slightly different than those on the existing topography map. As a result, we were forced to adjust the design layout and proposed topography map to correspond with the surveyor's information. In any event, I am submitting the site plan since the proposed topography map does not illustrate the entire design intent. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, BRI,JCE DEES & ASSOCIATES ane E. Newbold JN:tb Enclosure [APR 199;1 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 222 East 26th Street No. 202, Tacoma, WA 98421, (206) 627 -7947 FAX (206) 627 -6661 Control No. Epic File No. Fee - $981:$9 Receipt No. 42z-S :vo ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Foster Park Addition 2. Name of applicant: Tukwila Parks & Recreation Department 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6200 Southcenter Blvd„ Tukwila, WA 98188, (206) 433 -1843 Don Williams, 4. Date checklist prepared: April 18, 1991 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): 5/15/91 Construction documents completed. 11/30/91 Project completed. b/2b/91 Begin Advertisement, 7/15/91 Award construction contract. 7/31/91 Begin construction. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 8. List any environmental information you know.about that has been prepared, or will be prepared,.dir_ectly related to this proposal. In 1987 an Environmental -.. Checklist was performed for a fill and grading plan. 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. No. -2- DORM) _APR 1.9 _1T9y' cITY uF 1 univiLm PLANNING DEPT. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. _],. Building Permit 2. Landscape /Irrigation Permit pedal I y.ie_w fog Parking 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. The proposed project, Foster Park Addition, is an approximately 4 -acre neighborhood par comprised of active and passive park facilities. e taciTit'ies include one baseball field and one soccer field (overlapping), open space for informal— gatfierings, group picnic shelter and picnic tables, children s play area, loop tram restroom, and parking for 34 cars. 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 property is located at the southwest corner of 53rd Avenue South and South 139th Street in the City of Tukwila King County, Washington. The property is _ within Section 14, Township 23N Range 4E. See legal description, site plan, __Yicinity map . and t pographic man . 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. TO`BE COMPLETED BY APP •ANT ii. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, • b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 8% 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. Classified by U.S.D.A. as Urban Land (Ur) soil which has been modified with additions of fill material several feet thick. The soil found on the site is fill from various unknown sources - including roadway sweepings. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The total proposed cut and fill is 7544 c.y. for the park site and will be needed for grading and draining the park. Import fill will be a granular type for the plpyfield (sand) and topsoil fnr lawn areas_ A local sand, gravel, and topsoil supplier will be used. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. No. 9. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 20% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. The site is 3.93 acres and .M of an acre will be impervious surfaces - including asphalt, concrete, and buildings. Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: The existing silt fence at the existing culvert (which collects all site runoff) will be maintained during construction. 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. During construction there will be a minimal amount of emissions from machinery. 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: None. 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. No. • 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. No. 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 withdra.+als 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. 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 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. None. 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. Runoff from the parking lot will be caught in a catch basin that is tied into a 200' bioswale. The runoff is then directed to an existing 12" culvert storm sewer. Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. There will be no waste materials. There will likely be percolation of rain water and irrigation into the subgrade. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: See question C -1 Water Runoff. — -- 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder a le, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, pine, other shrubs 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? The only existing tree on the site, an 18" dia. cedar, will remain it its place. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None. 1 • d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native plants include Thuja plicata (Western Red Cedar) and will be planted throughout the park. Red Managjpgar Maple will also be planted for their illiant fall colors along with lawn areas for park activities. 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, song irb d)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. Do not know. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: It is likely that the park will enhance any wildlife in fife area with the introduction of grass and trees. Evaluation for Agency Use Only Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy alPr r�, 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. Electric will be used to illuminate the restroom acilities. - -- b. 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: The introduction of plant material including trees and lawn in a manner to minimize maintenance time and costs. 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. None. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: None. Evaluation for 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)? The immediate area is comprised of residential housing with minimal noise levels. Interstate 5 is approximately 500' due west of the site in which the traffic associated with I -5 is heard. 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 noises will be present on a short - term basis. while noise from the little league field will occur during scheduled ball games. Noise from games would occur durinpdaylight hours and be grade school children only. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:The little league field will not be illuminated; hence no games scheduled after dusk. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? City surplus soils and construction _fill has been placed on the site. The adjacent properties include a park and single- family residential housing. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Do not know. c. Describe any structures on the site. NnnP_ i Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? R -1 -12.0- Single - family residence with 12,000 s.f. minimum lot size. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Open space. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been. classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? amt.._ j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Does not apply. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: Community meeting meetings were held prior to and during the master planning process. The proposal is supported by the community. 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? Does not apply. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. Does not apply. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Does not apply. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the 0 principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The picnic shelter and restroom facilities are 12' _Ugh_ The ball field backstop is 16' high. Wood Ong is the rin p cipal exterior building material proposed. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The project will enhance the aesthetic impacts of the area creating more green open space for the community and neighbors • 11. light and Glare Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? None. 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? None. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: The proposal will reduce any street light glare impacts by providing lawn areas and vegetation on the site. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Joseph Foster Memorial Park is located north of South 139th Street adjacent to the northern boundary of Foster Park Addition. Foster Golf Links is six blocks away. 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 pro iect will provide more recreation opportunities for the community and neighbors. These opportunities _tpr,lnrip baseball, soccer. picnicking, fogging, moral ki ng4 bicycling; _,and a children's play area. -14- 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation 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. None. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None. 14. Transportation Aknifa}M,,j'(' a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.The public streets serving the site-are S. 139th Street and 53rd Avenue South. The two access points for the park are _proposed for 53rd Avenue S. land are .:located a safe distance from any intersections (S, 139th Street and South 140th Street). b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The closest public transit:.-route is along Tnterurban Ave. South and runs every 30 minutes. Another route occurs along Macadam Road every 1 -to 1 -1/2 hours. c. How many parking spaces would the completes project have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will have 34 parking spaces. 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). No. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Approximately 50 -55 vehicular trips per day will be generated. Peak volumes will occur during late afternoon hours and weekends during daylight hours only. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: We are providing two egress /ingress driveways. With no lights in the park, the evening use will be restricted. 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. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The park's parking lot is easily accessible from 53rd Ave. South: Two egress /ingress points have been provided while the park is visually accessible from the parking lot for safety reasons. A chainlink fence is Rroposed for the south and west property lines. -16- Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 16. Utilities a. tel p tilities currently available, at the site: natural gas, ater;> mouse-- - -S V1Ts7 ne, sanitary sew septic system, other. 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 will be required for the restroan facilities and_provided by Puget Power. Water will be required for the restroan facilities, drinking fountain, and irrigation gation and provided by the City of Tukwila. Sanitary sewer will be required for the restroan faci 1 i ties and drinking ng famtain drain and provided by the City of Tukwila. Refuse service is provided by SeaTac Disposal. 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: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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? -19- 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. 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: Evaluation for Agency Use Only TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL ANT 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? There are several objectives with the Foster Park Addition proposal. First and foremost, to provide the ca nunity with additional park far; 1ities. There is a great demand for little league and soccer fields in the area and this park would provide these services to the neighbors and the community. Secondly. other passive activities are needed such as play areas for children. picnicking. open space. and trails for bicycling or C.1 ' - . 0 . . f - • 7,.t for unwanted dirt. Trees and lawn will replace the existing dumping ground and the park would enhance the neighborhood by providing a pleasant place to go and to observe. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Does not apply. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Does not apply. 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 conflicts) are: Does not apply. -23- Joseph Foster Mem. Park PROJECT LOCATION FOSTER PARK ADDITION S. 140th St. 't BLACK RIVER JCTN RIVERTON Z HEIGHTS f;: 147th S . Ui c. S. 1S2od St. TUKWILA 11-47i ficr Southcenter LOCATION MAP Arrikatm APR 191 _ CITY OF —TUKWILA TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. 4 v F• TER PARK ADDYTI• PARKING April 22, 1991 PARKING TOTALS The Master Plan for Foster Park Addition includes a total of 34 parking stalls, which would include 2 handicap (12.5'), 20 standard (9'), and 12 compact (8.5') stalls. These numbers are sufficient for one little league field and for other park users enjoying the park. The City of Bellevue's standard per ball field is 22 parking stalls. If one assumes 11 players per team or 22 players per game, one can assume 2 people per car, or 11 cars. The same number is calculated for spectators; 22 per game, 2 per car, which comes to 11 cars. Hence, the total stalls needed for one ball field is 22. Because this field is a little league field, this number of stalls is more than adequate for this use. The remaining stalls would be utilized by other park users using the play area, trail, or picnic shelter. SAFETY It is important to design the Foster Park Addition parking lot with the safety of the park users, primarily children and their parents, in mind. The parking for the Master Plan was designed as all off - street parking with 90 degree single - loading only located on the park side of the parking loop. As a result, children and other park users will not be forced to cross the parking lot, creating a potential conflict with the automobile traffic. In addition, a sidewalk has been placed adjacent to all parking stalls for direct access to the park grounds. All of these measures have been taken to reduce the conflict between pedestrian and automobile uses and to make the park experience a more pleasant and enjoyable one. EGRESS /INGRESS The location of the parking lot was designed to accommodate for a future sidewalk along 53rd ,Avenue South. The northern entrance was located with sufficient distance, approximately 170' -' from South 139th Street and 85' from South 140th Street, for adequate sight and deceleration distance. Each driveway entrance is 30' wide with adequate turning radii. AiroMair f TERIMM [APR 2 2 1991 clTY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. • FOSTER PARK ADDITION PARKING May 10, 1991 PARKING TOTALS The Master Plan for Foster Park Addition includes a total of 34 parking stalls, which would include 2 handicap (12.5'), 22 standard (9'), and 10 compact (8.5') stalls. These numbers are sufficient for one little league field or soccer field, and for other park users enjoying the park. For example, the City of Bellevue's standard per ball field is 22 parking stalls. We based our numbers on this standard and added 2 additional stalls under the assumption that there would be more spectators since this is a little league field. If one assumes an average of 12 players per team or 24 players per game, one can assume 2 people per car, or 12 cars. The same number is calculated for spectators; 24 per game, 2 per car, which comes to 12 cars. Hence, the total stalls needed for one ball field is 24 (these numbers are also accurate for soccer games). In addition, the games played on the field will be scheduled and limited to only one game per evening, and there will be no back -to -back games on Saturdays. Because this field is a little league field (or soccer field), this number of stalls is more than adequate for this use. This is also consistent with the seating capacity designed for the field. The remaining stalls would be utilized by other park users using the play area, trail, or picnic shelter. $AFETY It is important to design the Foster Park Addition parking lot with the safety of the park users, primarily children and their parents, in mind. The parking for the Master Plan was designed as all off - street parking with 90 degree single - loading only located on the park side of the parking loop. As a result, children and other park users will not be forced to cross the parking lot, creating a potential conflict with the automobile traffic. In addition, a sidewalk has been placed adjacent to all parking stalls for direct access to the park grounds. All of these measures have been taken to reduce the conflict between pedestrian and automobile uses and to make the park experience a more pleasant and enjoyable one. EGRESS /INGRESS The location of the parking lot was designed to accommodate for a future sidewalk along 53rd Avenue South. The northern entrance was located with sufficient distance, approximately 170' from South 139th Street and 85' from South 140th Street, for adequate sight and deceleration distance. Each driveway entrance is 30' wide with adequate turning radii. .I 57 MAY 101991 1 CITY OF �TUKW;LA PLANNING DEPT. MI6 5118.31 rfiAttes JN6 STAUJ SITE PLAN Z elOrlIVOTICESIS Pao 9WALE NORTH SCALE: 1" a 20' 111111111111111 E1111 ngiii1 M11111111111111 111; SHF.ET n VICINITY MAP 1 0 1 5 10 1111 MO I MB MI MI Graphic Scale: Wales MN En 0 J APR 19 1991 CITY OF. TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. • • FOSTER PARK ADDITION THE EAST 74 FEET OF LOT 1; AND THE EAST HALF OF LOT 2 LESS THE WEST 55 FEET THEREOF; AND THE EAST 64 FEET OF LOT 3; AND THE EAST 74 FEET OF THE NORTH 77.4 FEET OF LOT 4; AND ALL OF LOT 9 EXCEPT THE SOUTH 70 FEET THEREOF; AND ALL OF LOT 10; AND ALL OF LOT 11 EXCEPT THE EAST 100 FEET OF THE NORTH 127.4 FEET THEREOF; AND ALL OF LOT 12; ALL IN BLOCK 1 OF THE PLAT OF COLEGROVE'S ACRE TRACTS, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 85, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. LEGAL DESCRIPTION -MEM APR 19 199d CITY OF -'UKWILA PLANNING DEPT. , 0TO [�'f•Rr1 /:may /O 7 50 it o0 VrDC I Sfvc It 171 Ir II } /OC /1 . ^/n 11111IR I E: MP* SC.N l)I(3T. 144 1 4 7 Ar. .S FUC ?RI t.c.tl fDC 1L.8 DONATidAf £[ Ne 00 2. /7103 MUNK WPM Iili -1 v ✓f UC T[!7 • JfbC tc e5, JFDC 11 13 5940 4. I -- 4 ALBERT E. DOwSIr 1tAc JFDC 1t 1d �! 19) 5.P.73-25 (2) 88-2-55 L ;t 7 14038 0:397o i x[1101 }. . a ,...2 SP.78.03 (21 '9l 1a 5 (A) `2L v i 40 e141 �I rs)e. %� F O l ICI- II (11 7/.9 45 6n y (CAL 4 NAN sr) S !o ` _5 T ::s 4 1 124.; :5'•) '/42ND NOT C7- ()Pen, 1'J , I I 141" G � 12 • 11 Joseph Foster Mem. Park PROJECT LOCATION FOSTER PARK ADDITION S. 140th St. 7, BLACK RIVER JCTN RIVERTON HEIGHTS 4v Southcenter LOCATION MAP -Mv11 APR 19 1991 CITY OFTUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. • To: City Council Mayor. Van Dusen From: Dennis Robertson Date: March 19, 1991 Re: Foster Park Soils 1. 2. 111 W1gETE APR 151991 CITY OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. Joe made a good point the other night when he pointed out the city has liability for Foster Park if we've been dumping different kinds of fill there over the years. If there is asphalt and chemicals from street sweepings at that site, we need to know that before we build a city park there. Parks are natural places for kids to fall, roll in the grass and otherwise come in contact with the soils. We should know if it's safe or not. I think it would be in the city's best interest to get a soils engineering firm to do some scientifically valid soil testings there. Both Public Works and Parks will be able to verify exactly what is under some of that dirt. Another issue is the water quality at Crystal Springs. When the park's all done, kids will probably be splashing around in and generally exploring like kids do in the springs and stream. I'm requesting information about the water quality at that site, and think if we haven't tested that we probably should. Is there any consensus on these two issues? I think they are important issues we should know about. I f -� ! < (CC- t r t. ?Li.lY L C. 1A) C (k-5 �iyZ>1 vt) 61 ...! .f •�. r co • NOOe00 29.E 521.97 O . 118 .. x116.59 .. 116 1LL15.08 Ix /14.' . 114J58 N 00 °00 29�G 1193 WA7ER -VALVE . E{. FTRE-HYDRANT OS SAN SEW MANHOLE 115 - -: SEWER- .. aq 8' yW _ n . – 1Z7 6 — _ rap— - =um/ -- —ea, — 1ER --- 28.03 –� .. p - . POKER POLE POKER., POLE WNGHT B- M.EV. .- -^ R SPIKE 19 11743 • . ' 119. •,, N CI OF UKWIL.A OTT. N040 DEC. EC .12, O. 19'99. BOUNDARY -SHOWN IS AS 'SHOWN • ON SURVEY By CHADWICK SURVEYING IN Vol. 12 "Or.SURVEYS PAGE '7$; KING . COUNTY -WA.,' )m. 3. SCALE 1'20' 53rd Avenue S. Mg llW11E) APR 191991 . I i Ct1Y GF 7UKWILA PLANNING DEPT. PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHYI 0 10 '20 -40 • IRON BAR N/LAP -FOUND NOTED OTMLRWIS!. DESIGNED - St»g1E - JOB NUMBER IRWIN ENGINEERING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DRAWING NUMBER DRAWN T.FlSHER Hon. t' m 20'; 9829 CIVb SNGDYEERING FOSTER PARK, 7UKWILA AND LAND SURVEYDJG D9829TP CHEC!(ED vETrL DATE _ 8E4 wog nu, maw FOR BRUCE DEES AND APPROVED ' 9 L1 4/1/91 , • _ . pTj� (808)292-7832 ► ASSOCIATES. SNEL7. 1 OF 7 , .111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111 i 1 i 11111111111111111111111111111Ii1i1ki SCALE: 1" = 20' N N 00` 00 29- E 521.9'7 x117.09 ' 117''• 1x116,59 134 70 .x134.30 x12839 x124.59 X128 ., x720 . x116.39 - x114.69 x13090 129.99 / .' x126 79 x123.6 • x116.58/ 01 1' 4131. SO x13140 .x130.60 x129.79 • x124.49 112' xt30.9 x130.9 .x130.50 • • x,29.19 x125.09 112.29 .*: x129.49. .x12859 x12549 x124.29 , x121 -89 x130.59 x12 x12777 \ - _ \ x12569 • COIIC SLAB - 866 69 • -8'OAN 3r9t! —xvlsL EDGE OF PAKIRNT' - -- -- SCALE: 1' ■20' v120.49 519.8 ' 121.0 B. IV1. - i 1.%e...e522..ii<A 19 y117.43 -� - N GI OF .�UKWILA -'��P QIIER— .. B. SAN— s'sw -11+ 6' SEWER B•15(19= —tea"°' .. — A1ER— - - YW — - —WAS - - — 6�a --- - Mt— - - - - - - .1 SSG - - 6.OJ - 4 .. :. 1F .. •Q •I ` �1�� a L°31%�Od[D \ _ EL 191991 -- a -1 - - -- --- ---- - - - - -- - - --- Fa�l: �:�'• � APR OTECT NO 040 DEC. 12, 1998. 53rd 'Avenue . 'S. BOUNDARY SNOWN IS AS SNOWN ON SURVEY By CNADWIGK SURVEYING IN -V01.. 12 OF SURVEYS,.' PAGE 75 KING COUNTY WA., MAR. 3 1978. t EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY DESIGNED DRAWN .LFIS HER CHECKED N. 1. 4/1/91 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOSTER PARK, TUKN1LA FOR BRUCE DEES AND - ASSOCIATES .. ' . DRAN*NG NUMBER D9829TP