HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-215-84 - WINDMARK HOMES - SUNWOOD DEVELOPMENT PHASE IISUNWOOD PH II
62 AVE S & SUNWOOD BLVD
EPIC-2 15-84
3
.4trzt,-- •
/
/90 c)-- Gs
Ps
ti(t,/.34-
4
,41
-tom 6,w —1 TR &, 8-24 8448
r
OFFICE MEMO
CITY or TUKWILA
TO: S-1745I 1
FROM: FsLCA.
DATE: 3 11185
SUBJECT : 'a_33\ V J c ^� -^ 2 ( 5-84-
4.
15 LP SV ( s( a LS . f;b a
X t2 .
T S 1 J3 is ' Q, \i l suci i { L t
cz.r D s' 81LS UJ(' -S
1 0013'T t-\' -1.E A N
. ►� '3.
15NK' sci-yeaLEfo \2cs \tcy3e
CokA v it rs 3l 13 . I A c Lc. I LE pts►2
its Stintzt lotzncE
\i(X)R etzt 012. C.SSVvt esM?s(.2e0 1eoL) .
...................
.................... •
levy '
rat 01100
e+e Mrsvt
IPIK Mgt
FERMI al.e. 61e1!R Ala IIINDO
[HIM r rr SUNWO ^PC
(DWELT TV a.e'aA
fAYD Valf7 wet I
"MIL 1•e sfrOM
aftwerr -feu
Aernrrl -- arts ----
111111 =_
511110
�IIIIII�I _-
a
Afl'4Ptd'4 0%
*? ?7 U gl 014 rets-e.M1, .
7D� IEn ea titre maw em
star na n , o�amt
AVM .
cue Boom fik
rm.IMW
�:
r cwt_ CE��111t=
111.1ilkiwie A IIIIIIIMINHEM%
Nii
Ina
•
H1111111Ir�'�_
a•n nn
ftf IM07
rtwr Eu s
Ra
*WMM/ MDEt a.ae
•
�eM
mum
AVOW W
• �� 'r� eEf
Price meter rr
oaR.M wove marl
if 1680
str. rot
M e71AA1Q.A
NO QAIER NM
/let PM AMR
rrir1
I-RM mow
R
Mr. MOW
PM 0119.0.111.1
LUC. WOWS
e,m1
E •
!AN 6 19 84
CITY jr .TUKWJILA
PLANNING DEPT. •
WIZ
r • m RIR
i y
T
NE. 1 S.1 (Puede) /
qt
o rAg n,,a3
pajoid RAM
IOW r JAS
Mo ja w+w
rve
0
e• e
tit
COMPOSITE GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE. 8 UTILITY PLAN
SUNWOOD
PHASE III
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
T. ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
114 IS N E. 126T SI. • Kffkland Wi10e00.1 •1706167144441
KIVISIONS
Wan
5UNWOOD P14A5E Z
I.1 1'. I , mi
kiiI.. �_ �i��.� •.
. 4
*1
to J1 ro.
Van
.1 hi it.
jfr°r'9.. • I • f1
P ���G � ..
61,7■
t,Ati�1 ►v i.•• ;.� i = ,III — uTf�i ' _ !b woo,„ _
�Ee« i�1 �a �'a�1 �j�
il-
1 • • ... may • .� -- ;13 F�. �A••.
IIIIIIVAIIIIIIIL
Q� 11111 Illlll �' v., 4i. —
op YAW
°I;i1/011111
kg! 0A aSt. Ask
J6g0 , vim MOP' VIIII
rvas, :Car fis. a. •rte E�'.• vt • telj�� I��� - '"ti
el
Mg. ...d.�.
'4y
Ns�
! 0�O0i, �•s a AI�iii� e.�7
•
Igi'�IIIIII'�011111
111111 IIIII
SYH60L
HILLSIDE WALL 4 ruoits . WALK
s T ./'a' @ ( c' Ave. so
PLANT LEGEND,
0
Q9
QUAMT, SOTANICALCGOMMON NAME I RE -MARKS
VERIFY
17
92
1(4
196
593
197
vEKIFr
(9(FE .T '=Refs: SOME exlsf•
ADD MJ4JEKE NEEDED.)
GoKNUS NurrALLI OF F! -OKILr
NATIVE Cg EASTEIi;N Pc JcOD
Ac.eR CGIRC.INATUM
VINE MAPLE
TSUGA flETERoPHYLLA
n MER7ENSIANA
TNUJA PIIGATA
PIAlUS CoN1TOKTA
NIESTEP_J.1 HEMLoc .
MOVNTAIN H&MtocK.
WESTERN RED CEDAK
SHORE PINE
AC.buTUS UNEDO
VIBURNUM TINIn
STRAWL•Etcr`Y "TREE
LAURUSTINUS
RHO ooENDRoN HSKIPS
A'.ALE■ HYBICIDS
PseRls WtiE.TiEs
MAHONIA AAVIFOLIUM
VIBURNUM DAvIDI
HODODEND.ONS
AZALEAS (EVERGREEN
ANDROMEDA
Okr.sON GRAPE
pkvto'S V IBUCNUM
ERICA CARNEA`SPPIN4WU.D
SrFINGwooc HEATH
HE:ERA •IE.LICHAHNV oK
MAT EX5T'4 ivy
NOTES
MATCH e.x15TIA14.
t• WIN RAGA Ot•E
PREFEf CLUMPS
USE ASSORTED
TO SUIT AREA.
5I�E 9GREEN G
E. viKEAIENTS
ALT• w/ A?rIc:NAL
✓< L.A.; USE TO
SUIT IAN
KEEDS.
SUIT To SIZE,
F.:xroSt!RE,
VARIETY NEETf.
ALT. w/! A. APPRoJ.
ALT. Ac:T. U•UR'=
SINN IKINF11Gk
LSE C'Rc' NIX.VIE&
AS NEEDED F:.F
:.01.1T1.tL CR
VARIETY•
• EXISTING 7RE.E• wit-L. 6E EXAMINED FOR HEALTH AND
KEPT IF ro5•9 e,LE. ANY DEEmED UNSAFE oS eEYCND
REDEEMINu ' ALUE WILL BE REPLACED WITH ANOTHER: TREE
SUITABLE To T=IE SITUATIOIJ .
• Ex15TIN4 TOPSOIL 70 SE REMOvED STOCLPILED
FoK USG IN PLANTING AWD riNIS11 6‘KADII4G. $JrHECE CLAY
St.it- >uKFALE is rOVND IN PLANT BOLES, L.GCSEAl Co' IN BASE
or NoLE, MIX IN Tor-soli. '5UC.1 THAT •AGKr'LL IS YS• 'h Tor5014- •
G046LIC rOR DP.AINA4fi FROM HOLE. 6AGKfILI MUST CE AT
LEAST yt EXISTING SOIL TYPE, WELL -MIxEV WITH ADDED
Torsoa..
• REFSR JILL f'aUETIIONS TD LAN99CATE ARCHITECT.
NORTHWARD DEVELOPMENT
WORTH
Joe No. 6916
SY4141 1317" C.
RECEIVED
ern* OF
MAR 61985
Soils Investigation
Tukwila, Washington
February 1985
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology •
13424 Chain Lake Road • Monroe, Washington 98272 • 206/794 -4332
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
13424 Chain Lake Road
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Northward Development Company
1115 - 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Attention: Richard Gilroy
Reference: Soils Investigation
Tukwila, Washington
Gentlemen;
Monroe, Washington 98272 206/794 -4332
This is to serve as a report of a soils investigation performed at the
above referenced project site, per your request.
Introduction
The purpose of this investigation is to present preliminary soils infor-
mation for development within the project site area. Development is to
consist of eight multi -unit apartment complexes located approximately
as shown on the enclosed location map. Other development is to consist
of roadway and utility construction in and around the subject site area.
The scope of services included performance of fifteen backhoe test pits.
The first eight pits were performed on January 24, 1984 and the remaining
seven pits were performed on February 18, 1985 at your request. The
approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the enclosed location
map
All elevations mentioned in this report refer to existing grade and to
topographic information shown on a composite grading, storm drainage and
utility plan, dated 12/27/83 prepared by Triad Associates.
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page two
Location & Site Description
The investigated site area consists of approximately 31/2 acres lying
west of the intersection of Sunwood Boulevard and 62nd Avenue South,
in Tukwila, Washington.
Presently, the site is partially developed with an existing structure and
parking area within the northeastern portion of the site, and the existance
of Sunwood Boulevard which crosses from east to north across the site.
The area has been cleared in the past, with now primarily low growing
brush, grasses and backberries covering the majority of the site. The
site generally slopes toward the south in an undulating fashion. Slopes
range from slight to moderate, with some steep conditions just off -site
to the west.
Soils Conditions
The subsurface soils stratigraphy can.best be seen on the enclosed test
pit logs.
Test pits performed within the site area generally indicate the presence
of glacial soils overlying basal weathered sandstone bedrock, with some
local accumulations of slopewash and artificial fill surficially. The
artificial fill, consisting of intermixed silt, sand,.gravel, rubble,
bedrock chunks and organics was .generally found 2' to 4' thick in the
area of Building 1, Building 5 and Building 6. Areas of fill 1' to 4'
thick were found in the areas of Buildings 7 and 8. Slopewash material,
consisting of brown to orange- brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand.
with gravel and bedrock chunks was generally found in the area.east of .
Building 4, and within the areas of Building 5,6,7 and 8. Thickness of
this material was found to vary from a few feet within Buildings 7 and .8
to several feet within Buildings 5 and 6. Glacial soils, consisting of
medium dense to dense, poorly sorted silty sand with gravel (glacial drift)
and medium dense to dense well bedded silty sand and sand with gravel
were generally encountered in the areas of Buildings 2,3 and 4, and in
the western portion of Building 1. This material is expected to overly
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No.' 0584
Page three
the basal sandstone bedrock, as indicated by TP -4, and within the excava-
tion slope to the west of the site. The weathered sandstone bedrock was
found sporatically around the site, although it generally occurs within
the north, central to eastern portion of the site. This material consists
of orange- brown, dense, medium grained sand which increases in density
with depth. It appears to be the Renton Formation (Upper upper Eocene
non - marine arkosic sandstone), which is known to.occur within the area.
The weathered upper zone is quite thick and was not penetrated by our
exploration. Outcroppings of the Renton Formation sandstone can be seen
within the base of the excavation along the northeastern portion of the
site and within the base of excavation within the area off -site to the.west.
The surficial soils within the site generally were found to be quite loose
and highly organic, if not artificial.fill. Generally, the natural soils
of desireable density were found below approximately 3' below grade. The
desireable natural soils within the artificial fill areas ranged from 5'
to over 6' in depth below grade.
Hydrologic Conditions
The true ground water table was not encountered in any of the test pits
performed within the site area. We have determined that the majority of
wet to saturated zones within the subgrade soils occur within the more
permeable glacial soils overlying the sandstone. Seepage was noted oc-
curring above the denser sandstone, above the glacial drift and within
lenses of the coarser grained sands. It appears that the observed ground
water conditions consist of perched water derived'from surface water
infiltration from upslope, and percolation into the more permeable sub -
grade soils. Seepage then occurs along a less permeable /more permeable
interface.
Slope Stability
No indication of recent mass movement within the moderate-to steep slope
was observed. Some spalling and sloughing of the steep slope area off-
site to the west was observed, and appears to be on- going. Some soil
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC:
Consulting Engineering Geology -
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page four
creep was observed within the moderate slopes toward the south, although
was limited to minor surfical conditions. The artificial fill slope
faces were observed to be unstable, with considerable erosion, slumping
and tension cracking.
Conclusions
Based upon the investigation performed, and our knowledge of the proposed
development, we believe that the proposed development can be performed as
anticipated, provided recommendations for stabilization, development and
construction presented herein are utilized for development.
Recommendations
General Site Development
Due to the existance of the artificial fill and unsuitable surficial
soils, site preparation maybe required within the proposed building areas,
structural-fill areas, and retaining wall and rockery areas. The site
preparation should require removal of the surficial unsuitable artificial
fill and organic-surficial soils prior to placement of foundations, the
structural fill or retaining structures. The removed unsuitable soils
should not be used within structural areas, and either be utilized within
landscaped areas or removed from the site.
We understand that a change from the proposed plan shown on the enclosed -
location map will occur within the southwestern portion of the site.
Within this area, the proposed access driveway will be moved at least
20' further toward the east away from the steep slope area: In addition,
the proposed buildings within this area will move toward the east, and
the finish floor elevation is'to be lowered approximately 3'.
Foundations
Foundations for the proposed structures can be adequately founded within
the medium dense to dense natural soils found below the surficial organic
soils and the artificial fill. Foundations placed within these natural
soils should expect maximum allowable soil pressures of 3000 pounds per
square foot (psf) across the area. We suggest the use of either spread
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No.
Page five
or continuous type footings, placed a minimum of 12" into the natural
soils. Total and diffenential settlements of 1" and 'h" respectively
should be anticipated.
Alternately, foundations could be. placed upon structural fill. The
surficial organic soils and artificial fill should be removed down to
the natural soils, and the structural fill placed up to finish grade.
Foundations placed within the structural fill should anticipate maximum
allowable soil pressures of 2000 psf, with total and differential
settlements of 1'h" and 1" respectively. The areas of excavation where.
footings would be upon natural soils should have at least 2' of structural
fill'underlying the footings, to minimize differential settlements.
Slabs -on -grade
Slabs-on-grade should be placed upon a prepared base. We'suggest the
organic surficial soil and artificial fill be removed for best effectiveness
of slab operation, to minimize potential post- construction settlements.
The slab base should consist of structural fill, adequately placed and
compacted. Should the desire to leave the unsuitable soils within the
slab areas be anticipated, settlement should be expected. The organic
surficial soils and artificial fill is expected to settle with time,
and repair to the slab areas may be necessary in the future. We suggest
slabs -on -grade be constructed as shown on the enclosed Subdrain and
Backfill schemes.
Structural Fill
Structural fill intended for use within the area should consist of granular
'pit -run' type soils, generally approved for use within the area. The
structural fill should be placed upon organic free, compact subgrades
which have been proofrolled. The fill should be placed in 6" to 8"
maximum lifts and compacted to 95% of ASTM D -1557, at or within 2%
of optimum moisture.
Structural fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V within the site area,
be adequately compacted and protected from erosion with approved means.
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page six
Drainage
Adequate drainage should be provided throughout the site area and around
the structures. Interim storm drainage during development should be
anticipated, including detention systems. We do not suggest the use
of infiltration systems for detention. Interceptor drains installed
around the excavation areas should aid in maintaining suitable soils
for foundation placement, which are directed into the storm drainage
system. We suggest the use of foundation and roof drain systems, indepen-
dently directed into the main storm drainage system, or allowed to outfall
into an approved outfall area. Footing drains should be constructed
as shown on the enclosed Subdrain and Backfill schemes.
Retaining Walls .
Concrete retaining walls placed within the site area should be founded
within the dense natural soils as discussed for building foundations.
Maximum allowable soil pressures of 3000 psf should be anticipated.
Adequate drainage should be provided behind the retaining walls, consisting
of at least 18" of washed aggregate placed to within 18" of the finish
grade and connected to a basal perforated pipe drain which outfalls
into the storm drainage system. The surface 18" should be .native soils
compacted into place and sloped away from the wall. Using the above
recommendations and soils"inform'ation obtained, we suggest the use of
equivalent fluid pressures of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) against the
wall. An ultimate passive pressure of 350 pcf should be anticipated with
level backfill behind the wall, and a base friction coefficient of 0.4.
Burried Walls
Burried walls within the site area, expected within some building areas.,
should be performed as shown on the enclosed Subdrain and Backfill scheme.
Using the recommended techniques, an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pcf
should be anticipated, with an ultimate passive pressure of 350 pcf and
a base friction coefficient of 0.4, with level backfill behind the walls.
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page seven
Utilities
Several types of utility trenches and lines are proposed within the site
area. We suggest the utility trenches be backfilled using granular
native soils or import, and be mechanically compacted. A drain system
installed within the utility trench base, consisting of a perforated
pipe in washed aggregate, may aid in dewatering the downslope areas. The
connection or adequate outfall of the drain into.an approved outfall area
should be performed.
Pavements
Roadways and parking areas proposed within the site area should be devel-
oped through removal of the surficial organic ladden soils down to granular
compact soils. The subgrade should be proofrolled prior to placement of
at least 6" of structural fill as a subbase. The pavement base should
consist of at least 4" of crushed rock adequately compacted into place.
The surface treatment should consist of at least 2" of Class B asphaltic
concrete surfacing.
Additional Notes
Alternative foundation systems are available for support of the buildings
if desired. These consist of piling, piers or extended foundations
where the unsuitable surficial soils exceed 4'to5' below grade, or
where additional filling is expected downslope and deeper foundation
placement is anticipated. We would be available to provide recommendations
for these alternative foundation systems if desired.
Rockeries
We understand that rockeries are proposed within certain areas of the
site. Rockeries are not considered 'retaining walls' and should be used
with caution. The areas behind the rockeries should be stable natural
soils or stable structural fill adequately placed and compacted. The
rockeries should be thought of as erosion protection devices only, and
should be constructed to be stable. Protection of the stable excavation
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page eight
and /or structural fill slopes is expected to be suitably provided using
a properly constructed rockery if a skilled rockery contractor builds the
rockery in.ac.cordance with the following guidelines. A generally stable
installation could be expected for normal operating procedures if the
following guidelines are utilized:
1) Rockery face to be constructed using 3 to 4 man rock.
2) Base rock should extend into the slope at least 1/3 of the rockery
height, with 2' minimum width.
3) Base rock to be founded into dense base 12" below grade.
4) Rocks shoud be fresh, durable and free of defects.
5) Rocks to be placed with their long axis toward the slope with their
bases inclined downward toward the slope face.
6) Face batter should be no steeper than 6V to 1H.
7) A minimum 4" perforated pipe drain to be installed behind the base.
8) Drain pipe to be sloped to drain into an appropriate drain system.
9) Free draining backfill to be placed at least 18" wide above the pipe
behind the rocks to within 12" of the top of the rockery.
10) Rockery to be chinked to prevent backfill from ravelling through holes
between rocks.
11) The top 12" of backfill should consist of on -site soils.
12) The drain backfill and other backfill of on -site soils should be
brought up with the rock placement and be well compacted.
Inspection of the earthwork phase of development is recommended. This
includes foundation excavation and placement, structural filling, drainage
and retainage.
Limitations
The observations, opinions anu recommendations contained herein are based
on the interpretation of the bite conditions as they presently exist and
the present understanding of the proposed development. These interpreta-
tions assume that the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploration
test pits are representitive of the total site conditions. If, during
construction, subsurface conditions differ from those encountered are
observed or appear to be found, an immediate review of these conditions
and the recommendations provided should be conducted.
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page-nine
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Northward Development
Company, and their agents with reference to the subject site. The work*
performed in this study was limited to the scope of work previously
outlined and is believed to be in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical practice. No other warranty,. expressed or implied, is made.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions,
feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincerely,
David l�,Nelson & Associates, Inc.
David L. Nelson, PG
Professional Engineering Geologist
DLN:kmn
r 16, c.,41
J. Keith Cross, PE
Geotechnical Consultant
SLOPE OUTSIDE GRADE A WAY
FROM STRUCTURE FOR DRAINAG
zij / / ///
PAVEMENT OR 18 INCHES
MIN. TAMPED TOPSOIL
OR IMPERVIOUS SOIL
GENERAL FILL
18".
min.
WEEP HOLES
SUBDRAIN PIPE
MATERIALS
SU13DRAIN PIPE'
•
EXTERIOR RETAINING WALL
-DAMP PROOFING
VAPOR BARRIER
CONCRETE .SAND -�
FLOOR SLAB
•
;' • ;?
,•• 's :,;.c —
'a=
not to scat•
4" Minimum Dia. Perforated Or Slotted
Concrete, Metal, Asbestos - Cement Or Plastic Pipe. Tight Jointed, Sloped To
Drain (4 "/ 100' min. slope), 'With
Clean-Outs.
Slotted Pipe -- 1/8" Max. Width Slots
Perforated Pipe -- 3/16" to 3/8" Boles
Sluts Or Perforations Preferentially
In Lower Half Of Pipe With Lower
Quarter Segment Solid For Water Flow.
DRAINAGE SAND & GRAVEL
Tu Meet Washington State Specifications
Or The Following Gradation.
Sieve Size
— —1717-27
3/4"
1/4 ".
No. 8
No. 30
Nu. 50
No. 200
(by wet sieving)
Passing B LWeibht
100
70 -90
30 -60
20 -50
8-30
3 -12
0- 1. 2
(non - plastic)
DRAINAGE SAND a GRAVEL
NOTES
1. Drainage Sand & Gravel Beneath
Floor Slab Should Be Connected
Hydraulically To Subdrain Pipe.
Use Of 2" Dia. Weep holes Is
One Applicable Method.
2. Subdrain Pipe Should 13c Bedded
With A Minimum Of 6" Of Drainage
Sand & Gravel Surrounding The Pipe.
3. Backfill Within 18" Of Wall Should
13e Compacted With 11and- Operated
Equipment. Heavy Equipment Should
Not Be Used For Backfill, As Such
Operation Could Increase Lateral
Earth Pressures And Possibly
Damage The Wall.
4. All Backfill Should Be Placed In
Layers Not Exceeding 6" Loose
Thickness And Densely Compacted.
Beneath Paved Or Sidewalk Areas,
Compact Tu At Least 85% Modified
Proctor Maximum Density (ASTM:
D1557; Method C). Otherwise
Compact To 90% Minimum.
SUBDRAIN BACKFILL SCHEME
BASEMENT WALLS WITH INTERIOR SLAB ON GRADE
SLOPE OUTSIDE GRADE
AWAY FROM STRUCTURE
FOR DRAINAGE - -/7
i
PAVEMENT OR
10 INCHES MIN.
OF TAMPED TOPSOI
OR IMPERVIOUS SOIL
//// j "� '
CONCRETE SAND •
FLOOR SLAB
. •
•
SUBDRAIN PIPE
MATERIALS
SPRE AD OR
CONTINUOUS
FOOTING
not to scale
SUBDRAIN PIPE_
4'r Minimum Dia. Perforated Or Slotted
t'c.'I►crete, Metal, Asbestos - Cement Or
Plastic Pipe. Tight Jointed, Sloped To
Drain (4 '/ 100' thin. slope), With
t'ii .iu -Uut�.
:-;Jotted Pipe-- 1/8" Max. Width.Iut:-i
I'e'rlur•ated Pipe-3/16" to 3/8" Holes
Slots Or Per lorations Preferentially
l.n Lower Half Of Pipe With Lower
Quarter Segment Solid For Water Flow.
DRAINAGE SAND & GRAVEL
To Meet Washington State Specifications
Or The Following, Gradation.
Sieve Size
i -1r2'r
3/4"
1/4"
No. 8
No. 30
Nu. 50
Nu. 200
(by wet sieving)
Passinii By Weight
100
70 -90
30 -60.
20 -50
8 -30
3 -12
0 -1.2
(non- plastic)
?.
•c.
e •. e
e
VAPOR BARRIER
DRAINAGE
SAND & GRAVEL
WEEP HOLES
NOTES
Drainage Sated & Gravel Beneath
Floor .Slab Should Be Connected.
Hydraulically 1'o Subdr.ain Pipe.
Use Of 2" 1)ia. Weep Holes Is ,
One :Applicable Method.
Subdrain Pipe Should Be Bedded
W,Ih :\ Minimum Of 2" Of Drainage
.-.tud & Graved Surrounding The
Pipe.
3. Backfill
Within 18" Of Wall Should
lie Compacted With Hand - Operated
Equipment. Heavy Equipment Should
Not Be Used For Backfill, As Such
Operation Could•Increase Lateral
Furth Pressures And Possibly
L):image The Wall.
4. All Backfill Should Be Placed In
Layers Not Exceeding 6" Loose
Thickness And Densely Compacted.
Beneath Paved Or Sidewalk Areas,
Compact To At Least 95% Modified
Proctor Maximum Density (ASTM:
D1557, Method C). Otherwise
Compact To 90% Minimum.
SUBDRAIN & BACKFILL SCHEME
SHALLOW FOOTINGS WITH INTERIOR SLAB ON GRADE
SLOPE OUTSIDE GRADE
AWAY FROM STRUCTURE
FOR OAAINAO[
PAVEMENT OR
10 INCHES MIN.
OF TAMPED TOPSOIL
OR IMPERVIOUS SOIL
• . ••
SUSORAIN PIPE
MATERIALS
•
• • ,•
r --c
•
CAPILLARY BREAK
I6° MIN. OF PEA GRAVEL I .
VAPOR BARRIER
10.9. PLASTIC SHEETING'
0•
SPREAD OR
CONTINUOUS
FOOTING
x ∎. /11
SUBDRAIN _
AINPIP_E
—r _ Minimum Dia. Perforated Or Slotted
Concrete, Metal, Asbestos - Cement Or
Plastic Pipe. Tight Jointed, Sloped To
Drain (4" / 100' min. slope), With
Clean -Outs.
Slotted Pipe -- 1/8" Max. Width Slots
Perforated Pipe -- 3/16" to 3/8" Holes
Slots Or Perforations Preferientially
• -.L i Lower Half Of Pipe With Lower -
Quarter Segment Solid For Water Flow.
DRAINAGE SAND & GRAVEL
To Meet Washington State Specifications
Or The Following Gradation.
Sieve Size
i-1r2'r
3/4"
1/4"
No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
(by wet sieving)
Passing Weight
100
70 -90
30 -60
20 -50
8 -30
3 -12
0-1.2
(non- plastic)
SUBDRAIN &
1.
SLOPED TO DRAIN
DRAINAGE
SAND i GRAVEL
WEEP HOLES
NOTES
Drainage Sand & Gravel Inside
Stem Walls Should Be Connected
Hydraulically To Subdrain Pipe.
Use Of 2" Dia, Weep Holes Is.
One Applicable Method.
2. Subdrain Pipe Should Be Bedded
With A Minimum Of 2" Of Drainage
Sand & Gravel Surrounding The
Pipe.
3. Backfill Within 18" Of V�a1T 5'Fi'ouTd�
Be Compacted With Hand - Operated
Equipment. Heavy Equipment Should
Not Be Used For Backfill. As Such
Operation Could Increase Lateral
Earth Pressures And Possibly
Damage The Wall.
4. All Backfill Should Be Placed In
Layers Not Exceeding ti" Loose
Thickness And Densely Compacted.
Beneath Paved Or Sidewalk Areas,
Compact To At Least 95% Modified
Proctor Maximum Density (ASTM:
D1557, Method C). Otherwise
Compact To 90% Minimum.
BACKFILL SCHEME
SHALLOW FOOTINGS & STEM WALLS
• MO.7:7 .p t, JAY; •••pf ... 4' '
70'14554 II.A.6 J. :fel A: r• i ' ?46 Mel
Ca'R ^f e:..u:
wfl.,: • ,4 .aref.,.) .Y.
:›As./.r _
4•] y
5052.
: 7•,'. 1 •ST. r,.
c • 1•S
• .. 1
T 7.1.41 !Of F,•fa..'[ ff.11C!
:WK,u: :011 4.0 3J ^t (• ` F
0' VOW M.7 0,177
t4 •AU. ,+ •
RA MN, AO tH SOO •
t— [3115!:: m n
O.P. At.a :18D71.01 —�•
•
f
• i ,
i X0.171 i e:z4586 {-/
6.- 'vfa :' ' 0 e1•).• 413
A. ,V:• 4.414..• /
.. .. • d•••!•• - CB /!j_K :C ',\�
— •.11.40:' N ex..'f. :C•! 1.,.:!•Jf
01!•,•1,•741 :t.1.:'r .
Y •.,. :1 575 _ + 1
.1 5 =
lt4: .Yr•t - .
INN -.r: 1
�,
:7....
SO.±!..fe
foe 4oso
rtor 41140
e••1• /1• N
I
Invevo•5J L
pA: xx. r
ti
Cq!// . I L1•
tOr+ „5I
0,..439
— N •••.: 197'.
'C• nr ^tf.A•1 :• :.
::•4•: 1•1•1'.4 ? 'a'!•JN
'7,71' • a „11, •Wan
v, _ •« ti 1
k. I
I 1•,r •,1 •CJ.!:
I ° 5 ,r9u,r.f3r
Co4 e:JCA1f
T P.R.D.YJ
• 1•115,^ 011,4
•
.741 0L*'A)a
•irDUVr..r•w
ice. • •e•• -. •
1 BENCH MARK
a,..S 07: f Ja 1 .1 '_.ryrarr
' 1.0. :5 +V9
Da;,S f "0, /O••// a 31.140/5,4/C,
C8016
SCAIEI I °• 60'
LOCATION mAP
J,rs morvlrc
Sc.LS ,uufsEILATID.4l
SPN..saoO PHASE 1Q
rukw IA, WAS/SloG, R11J
13A11D L•N6LLe/J 1f Nr,rlAoa,f1f1 -,
,1141. ins.,. LACE LOAD
10.0.1 LAE, WAM.IwJ.tOi, •SL?L
41.r.11•••••111 L - Oat 741 .1•12
ta„rwl1.L 44.11.1.1644.,40 6L•LO4Y
PA7.01 117D QSC't
OAT[ •J/1/gf
PALE •, -I
,S.B•i r
:r.rr TA He-3
5•5r IY.r
•
l�
A. N.R,
.0
5 P:1• - .x:5.1 _
N F, ,JS0 1 45'•11 ]'0.A?) •1
1 1•'+10544 4 *. .).110
61101(D•14 brr
401,!•1•
•••• ']7N
• wf I•J
A f. Sao •_
',: •Jalff
•1•f• r•
441•..1•1•1 t1
.nNU
• •• • • :l•.
,Ct r'Ja, 3I•• 4 POND
. -A•l .4/0-1.
V. 77•17• -
•
C8.6 I ,
...i't
010 •
1
5aa14:5.5
fN •]75
4'•Y0]N f.
. ,5x,t AJ AfeNO i' •54.'g
65'CM to C4
• . _,,, v2u
x 01'4::.•4.
j1• /- rJr,fs.r.ta5
/ A•17r5D
. „-I, NN,. i
,1'* 0610
• ••«r 91011 ra0N
0 Cwr X21
:MAC'S(6AO, ' 1-J44a
C•41 (D •7IM71' OrSI(7347(7 ''- rs,r8
AaODY0111/f Nr6 •IAL!1 DrD4r OV 1 11'•1•x115(•
SWAM 00555'5 CMf14001+0J 1 ^.,l rv5 l
1. • . tlMHI
rsCeti%
sos:!
to '0'e,7• • I _ CB•F IrK IC
Ceee lee . -. 49 t'r„•lmmr 11.0 .401•1•!
•trararf!!ar.� •...ice
1010144 CAUTION! D,O[r6RYrp
ommart, MAYA frilita ARM
, AMY 11100
0••I MOD
7-12:11S0'61
LEGEND
MOESS.'S Atf.••O Wit
CMGS llpWJt maw 11011 row)
T . Armco p MAJ5 OWI• IMIC
(1•1557
iO3 11VOJ4D MOW ]IO1 t[FRA/a
AU5100 AflMfrr AIM/
—00.. AVOfm OIDA. D4••
— .0 .. A6/Uft0 6A AA/o MA S
�}'T'�I'` . AIO.OJFO 4'Mf1FA CAM
• p AM1loit0,,Af AI•r_f ASS
!, •M M /I1• .1119
TEST PIT LOGS
•
TP -1 0 -3.0 Brown and black, loose, intermixed silty sand
with organics FILL
3.0 -5.5 Oxidized grey- brown, loose- medium dense, silty
sand with roots
5.5 -9.0 Grey- brown, dense, poorly sorted silty sand with
some gravel (glacial drift)
9.0 -11.0 Brown dense silty sand with gravel
11.0 -12.0 Brown dense poorly sorted silty sand with gravel
and sandstone chunks
TP -2 0 -2.0 Black loose intermixed silty gravelly sand with
organics and rubble FILL
2.0 -4.0 Orange- brown, loose, silty sand with roots
4.0 -8.0 Orange- brown, loose - medium dense, silty sand with
some sandstone chunks and organics
8.0 -10.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, poorly sorted
sorted silty sand with some gravel (glacial drift)
10.0 -12.5 Grey, medium dense, 'clean' poorly sorted sand
with much gravel Seepage
12.5 -14.0 Grey- brown, dense, well bedded fine sand, silty sand
TP -3 0 -1.0 Black organic topsoil
1.0 -2.5 Grey -brown loose- medium silty •sand with roots
2.5 -5.0 Grey -brown medium dense poorly sorted silty sand with
gravel, some roots
5.0 -10.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, poorly sorted slightly
silty sand with much gravel; clean sand lenses
10.0 -11.0 Grey, dense, well bedded poorly sorted slightly silty
sand' with much gravel
TP -4 0 -1.0 Black loose organic topsoil
1.0 -3.0 Grey -brown loose- medium silty sand with roots
3.0 -5.0 Grey -brown medium dense poorly sorted silty sand with
gravel Seepage
5.0 -6.5 .Orange -brown medium dense poorly sorted silty sand
with gravel and sandstone chunks Seepage
6.5 -9.0 Grey - brown, dense, poorly sorted slightly silty
to silty sand with gravel and sand lenses Seepage
9.0 -11.0 Orange- brown, dense, poorly sorted and medium
sand (weathered sandstone ?) .
DAVID L. NELSOR•AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consult ingrEosIon rky- eolo6Y •
13434 OHM Lata Rand • •11onno. •A 96277 • 7011/794 -4132
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
SCALE PIIOJ. NO 0584
DATE 1/24/84
SHEET
1 of 4
TEST PIT LOGS
TP -5 0 -4.0 Grey and borwn, loose to medium, intermixed silty
sand with gravel and bedrock_ chunks. FILL
4.0 -9.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, poorly sorted
silty sand with gravel (glacial drift).
9.0 -13.0 Grey medium dense poorly sorted sand with some
gravel; some clean sand lenses
13.0 -14.0 Oxidized -brown weathered sandstone bedrock
TP -6 0 -1.0 Black organic topsoil
1.0 -3.0 Brown loose silty sand with gravel and roots
3.0 -5.0 Grey- brown, dense, well bedded fine silty sand
5.0 -8.5 Grey- brown, medium dense, poorly sorted silty
sand with much gravel
8.5 -11.0 Grey- brown, medium dense, medium grained to
poorly sorted sand, some gravel
TP -7 0 -3.0 . Brown & black intermixed silty sand with gravel
and organics FILL
3.0 -5.0 Orange -brown loose silty sand with roots
5.0 -10.0 Orange- brown, medium dense, mixed silty sand with
some gravel
10.0 -11.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, well bedded
poorly sorted sand, silty sand, gravelly sand
and sandy gravel
11.0 -12.0. Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, bedded medium
sand and fine sand
TP -8 0 -4.5 Brown and black intermixed silty sand with gravel
organics, some rubble FILL
4.5 -6.0 Brown loose silty sand with roots
6.0 -11.0 Orange -brown to grey brown, medium dense, mixed
silty sand with some gravel; medium sand with
silty lenses
11.0 -14.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, bedded medium
sand and fine sand
Seepage
Wet
DAVID L. NELSOWAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Geology
1342 Oran Lisa Add • iftarNI, VA 98272 201/794-4332
Sunwood; Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
SCALE -
PROD. NO 0584
TEST PIT LOGS
TP -9 0 -1.0 Black loose organic topsoil
1.0 -6.5 Brown, loose to medium dense, mixed gravelly
silty sand with sandstone chunks, many
roots to 4'; appears as fill or slopewash
6.5 -11.0 Grey -brown to grey, dense, poorly sorted silty
sand with gravel (galcial drift)
TP -10 0 -2.0 Black loose organic silty sand FILL
2.0 -3.0 Orange -brown loose silty sand with organics FILL
3.0 -6.0 Dark -brown to brown, medium dense, mixed silty
sand with some organics and sandstone chunks;
appears as fill or slopewash
6.0 -11.0 Grey -brown to grey, dense, poorly sorted silty
sand with gravel, some sandstone chunks (glacial drift) .
TP -11 0 -1.0 Black loose organic silty sand FILL
1.0 -3.0 Brown and dark brown, loose mixed silty sand.
with organics and gravel FILL
3.0 -6.0 Brown, medium dense, mixed silty gravelly sand with
sandstone chunks; appears as fill or slopewash
6.0 -11.0 Grey -brown to grey, dense, poorly sorted silty
sand with gravel (glacial drift)
TP -12 0 -4.0 Black and brown, loose, intermixed silty sand
with many organics •
4.0 -7.0 Brown medium dense, mixed silty gravelly sand
with sandstone chunks; appears as slopewash
7.0 -10.0 Brown to grey - brown, dense, poorly sorted slightly
silty sand with gravel
TP -13 0 -1.0 Black loose organic toposil and FILL
1.0 -3.5 Brown and dark brown, loose to medium dense,
mixed silty gravelly sand with. cobbles
3.5 -6.0 Grey- brown, medium dense, slightly silty sand
with gravel ,
6.0 -10.0 Grey -brown to grey, dense, poorly sorted slightly
silty sand with gravel
DAVID L. NELSONAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consult in/ 11ogAK Geology
13424 Chain Lake Road • _bieseek VA 111272 • 104/29 4-4312
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
SCALE PgOJ. NO nSR4
DATE 2/18/85
SHEET 3 of 4
TEST PIT LOGS
TP -14 0 -1.0 Black organic topsoil
1.0 -2.0 Brown loose silty sand with roots
2.0 -3.0 Grey -brown loose to medium dense mixed silty
gravelly sand
3.0 -5.0 Grey -brown dense, poorly sorted slightly silty
to silty gravelly sand
5.0 -10.0 Grey dense, poorly sorted silty sand with
gravel )glacial drift)
TP -15 0 -1.0 Black organic topsoil
1.0 -3.0 Dark brown - black, loose silty sand with.roots
3.0 -7.0 Grey & brown, medium dense, poorly sorted slightly
silty gravelly sand
7.0 -11.0 Grey medium dense, poorly sorted sand, some oxid.
lenses Seepage @ 8'*
DAVID L. NELSOK AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ConaultinOnNo.ekti Geolgy
13424 Oran Late Rod • limat<•A sem • 70/0/44132
2
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
SCALE rnOJ. NO 4
CITY OF TUKWILA
PERMIT NUMBER2- (5-84" SuNTROL NUMBER 44--0 ---
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: F BLDG, 1 PLNG, P, W, 1 FIRE 11 POLICE 11 p.& R.
PROJECT, )(l \I(rY-E
ADDRESS 42.u° (Z- , So, 4) SULS\r.Gc p a)
DATE TRANSMITTED (- (I _ &+ RESPONSE REQUESTED' BY - f t c 4"
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR F1('--= - RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE.
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE.
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED ::
4- L L LLT1 Li 7- (LT 77) 1 114 (■-..\, f i) I VA -P37 E�C�
M�T.s 4 iY ouS .7_3 Pivz)v ( 0 c�
)- -nc, t l pf\J 1 - Pua i [ J0 11(C c S . r-k;
mpg IN rAr\ti /Pui trzA /ic_196c in Pi i'
7-(y01 - >..5 (.< 1.17 / /WA" .ff/U 7
2 0 VtT 5.1-0-1.-t_ l? S (f /J 17772 • L1(c11 �T/?r! i•�
0sr) 61._kNA7- 1c i N/
PL k -GN S6C'
v itzsT7ITi
•
LW-c S 72v1) 12z N I 2 7-?g c_x)
1 N P.I ra'( L- (rV9 �'rL T1-J S C4,./ l TTP TJ y\1
No Ls-Moo-IAA/L._ RLO G -I tk uJ i � 1.
'" A PPP1 o V n u,
D, R, C, REVIEW fEttfftffItr
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED
r-i
PrW) U / ;7 T S MJ PLim
5-4 r.-5 r \ 7Tot .
PLAN CHECK DATE / 17 l
COMMENTS PREPARED B M
r P C Pram 9
CITY OF TUKWILA .:: I8 ( 8 _
PERMIT NUMBER2 -(5 CuNTROL NUMBER A-7
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: 17j BLDG, r--1 PLNG, 1 1 P, W, 1 FIRE r--1 POLICE 1J P, & R.
PROJECT, )(\_) ∎t\t
ADDRESS 4Z5-4° ' Sc::,
DATE TRANSMITTED (- I I , 84- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED I -0l -8¢
( - S�
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
1), ,V e, 69 6 „7" oa 7o `-mss 'p,Qo ) Szus.TrTo
1-1 1 2) f GV /6 w ,J c-, ti. ,c/A,„- Z /.v/ U S
i°.�/9/
4) '
❑ 5)
6)
Ej 7)
r--1 8)
R
u
9)
10)
1111)
a
12)
f--1 13)
[� 14)
1 i 15)
-62L)L
D , R, C, REVIEW itEflifrEir PLAN CHECK DATE 1- //-
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED COMMENTS PREPARED EN , /'.
r_P.S_ Fmm 2
CITY OF TUKWILA��-
PERMIT NUMBERt 5-$'f LNTROL NUMBER $ +-0-1--"
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: L BLDG, 1 PLNG, III P, W,
•
FIRE
POLICE R
PROJECT )_0 \t( R-tjE dlac-
ADDRESS K72-1-)D SU(`SW p .
DATE TRANSMITTED, 1 - (l set- , RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1--
C,P,S, STAFF COORDINATOR ?l(4- . RESPONSE RECEIVED
Imo' s)
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
1) 72:e-- .ten, . ;-ter
2) �.- C4p7 ..- s , 0 _60 .
,i -
4)J i-� �
5) /
6)
7) r.e_c..�..,�
Prime a •11 -
f
9)Z -1-12.— .�� �- ..e_ eP
ri 1• 2)
J 13) 1
{-1 1• 4) ��,�f�•
1• 5)
U
D. R , C. REVIEW � ► PLAN- CHER-DAT E 1 - /z — Y
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED III COMMENTS PREPARED
CITY OF TUKWILA
-8+ �--'
� PERMIT NUMBERZ5 C� TROL NU!'I13ER
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: E BLDG, E PLNG, III P,W, FIRE
PROJECT, )(0 \ (`1 ettp,E
ADDRESS 2 ' ) So, 5;(,..5\6.G t')
DATE TRANSMITTED, ( - ( - 8+ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY , 1-- (C. - 84
C,P,S, STAFF COORDINATOR `ate 6:.„, RESPONSE RECEIVED
(� ' SF
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE.
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
El 1)
[1 2)
3)
POLICE I I P,& R.
4) '
Q S)
ri 6)
[RI 7)
ri 8>
,d A b ' _.I o ,d A
1.t,/ ) 4, L BF
L l GU 1-l•d4-
r✓ F c h r2 % e
Hof C DV trAArD f
13F ^F-p
,4
.4k 4
r)4
A gar
Vtw.c(r,
■
9)
10)
El 11>
a
12)
13)
L,(Pon/ OCCv.PA,dt
VLHI!'.-tLAR/ R1 C�/C
14) butt.n/c Co,d.rva..t -r
Rf .r,a,✓ F +4 /'c Lice'
e PR et c,,;- ?c cr Jam- avid":
y t 3 p' e L C L( iJ) T N r�C F 4/ 1 L L gF
#4.„/ 1 ✓< l f /JE' / /.✓
1 F 1 irb J70,, ,j )44 FriC % Pe &tI o4r .�eJC�'FArr [•�101��G h'AZ(tZ
.a✓ PN t, f AP7 .-t Ct•, /LF7' ✓ Ad INCA €cft6
/eo- is „o,✓ dam-- krWO44 ze rr XL-Ci- r- /c 2- ZV
Lilt
El 15)
D . R , C , REVIEW `RE(H ESTER
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED
•
PLAN CHECK DATE ) —) 7 -,I
COMMENTS PREPARED BY �• X,,�
r D C _ 'n2M %
CITY OF TUKWILA r�_�� 8
PERM IT NUMBER2(5 • NUMBER -'--
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: 1 BLDG. 1 PLNG. J1 P.W. F IRE ri POLICE 1 p.& R.
PROJECT )( \t pt-k E
ADDRESS C Zki° fr - S, .
DATE TRANSMITTED (- (I 8+ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY, 1- ( --84
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR ? RESPONSE RECEIVED
Cle si
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
•
1) 070 0 . CoM iy e., 71s
[1:1 El �) e v G %oP �r
0 4)
0 5)
[1 6)
7)
ri 8)
❑ 9>
10)
11)
�
12)
f--1 1 j13)
14)
Eli 15>
— Fir &- 9ep2 Co y c e' 1 S
D.R.C. REVIEW fatESTEr PLAN CHECK DATE /'f 7-g4.
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED El COMMENTS PREPARED BY 7
i.� nnnnn,rrn F-1 C,P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM
TO: Q BLDG. Q PLNG. P.W. Q FIRE Q POLICE Q P. & R.
PROJECT w6On =Jr::
u rt
CONTROL NUMBER tic 2./.i -c3'f
ADDRESS
DATE TRANSMITTED
RESPONSE REQUESTED I - _S -8 -
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR 2k( 1 RESPONSE RECETBITT411124,
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
0 \r\ii j ,\( F 1 N 0 ]1�, (c- -111(7
0
a
0. "C2-- N S w p Es cu-r-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
Q
9 \ :'►\N T tA F \ ?t6 -r-
2cP uK.0 C 3. LA5T Prtil h.b.M c(rwm4 ►WS
�S
Kb
\ t- ri�fZ_ . w 1 i ( I fy111 l.72 iZ ; c�
vs O\ (,c-) L /_1�—f 1 I A FL L
i's ce�v�7Ll� . •
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 0
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0
PLAN APPROVED [�
PLAN CHECK DATE I
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
r D c rnoM
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
13424 Chain Lake Road
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Northward Construction Co.
1115 - 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue.,. Washington 98004
Monroe, Washington 98272 206/794-4332
Attention:. Richard A. Gilroy
MEIWR
JAN 2 51984
CITY. OF TUKvvILA
• PLANNING DEPT.
Reference: Preliminary Soils Assessment
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
Gentlemen;
This is to serve as a letter of preliminary soils assessment
at the above referenced project site, per your request.
On January_ :24, 1984 we performed a series of "eight backhoe, tes1
pitswithin.the area of the proposed Sunwood Phase III develop -
;ment Placement and extent of the= backhoe investigation was
determined by accessibility and proposed building locations.
Test pits-1: and 2 were performed in the general area of Buildiz
test pit '775: in the area of Building .2 test pit 4 in,.the .,area of
Building 3;, test-pit :5 in the area between Building :4 and 5,
test 'pit 6 in the ' area if Building 4, test pit 7 in the area,
of " Building 5.: and test pit 8 in the area of Building 6 Test
pits were not performed in the area ' of Building 7 or 8. due to
the limited access.presently available. Visual observation wa:
performed throughout the site -area, including downslope along
Southcenter Boulevard, where exposures of bedrock and soils
occur. Observation was also performed in the area of Building
and 8 to'aid in preparation of this assessment.
r. DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, I'
Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Page two
General Soils Conditions
Test pits performed within the site area generally indicate
the presence of 'glacial soils overlying-basal weathered sandsto:
bedrock; -with :.local accumulations of sianewash and artificial
fill isurficially. Artificial-. fill, consisting of. intermixed
silt, sand, gravel, bedrock chunks, - -organics -and some rubble,
was . found generally - 2' to 4' ,thick. in _ tFie _area . if Building. l
Building 5. and Building 6 - and is, expected. to occur in: the: area
of. Building 7 and 8,. Slopewash materia)Lg consisting of. brown.
orange- brown,...loose Ito .medium. dense, :.silty sand with gravel:
and bedrock - chunks was generally found in- the area of east of
Building 4 . and within Building.:,5 and 6.7. Thickness of this.: -
material .generally was found to be full depth of the test, .pit:.: -
in Building 5 and partially within Building-6 :`Glacial- soils.,
- consisting :of: :medium s dense glacial' driftw. and "poorly sorted sand
;:and sand /gravel mixtures were generally'sncountered in the area
°;of Buildings 2., 3 and 4•, and in the western:. portion of Building
This.material is expected to overly the basal andstone bedrock
material, as-indicated by test pit 4, within .Building.3. ' . The
weatered sandstone material was found sporatically within the
site area, - although generally occurs . within -:,the central to
eastern portion.of -the site. This material consists of orange -
brown, dense medium grained sand which.Encreases density with
depth.- It appears to be the Renton Formaation(IIpper upper'Eocen
non- marine.arkosic sandstone), which is known to occur within
the area. The weathered upper zone of the Renton Formation is
'quite thick and was not penetrated by our investigation.
Hydrologic Conditions
The general hydrologic conditions encountered in the test pit
investigation indicates that ground water. occurs within the
more permeable glacial soils, as indicated by considerable
.seepage. This seepage generally occurs above-the glacial -drift
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES''C.
Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Page three
..soils, within the glacial :Outwash .soils and just:above <..the.
:weathered sandstone material where near surface. This ground
water appears to be derived from surface water accumulation and
percolation into the underlying soils*
Comments
Based upon our preliminary soils assessment investigation we
believe the area can be developed as anticipated and that
construction as proposed can be performed, provided additional
Specific investigation of the proposed construction areas be may
determinefoundatibn and earthwork stabilization procedures of
the building areas.
The soils and hydrological conditions encountered within the sk
area during this investigation indicate that development can be
adequately performed, provided certain construction operations
and precautions be anticipated. The exact extent of these is._
not readily available, due to the limited . nature of this inves-
tigation and the findings.
We 'auggest "that a soils -investigation -and- report, ` including
recommendations -:for `foundation placement,..:e.arthwork and slope
stabilization be performed when . building locations are finalize
and site development outlined. The preliminary soils informati
.indicates the development to be feasible; however, additional
information will be necessary to best present foundation and
stabilization recommendations.,of the specific building areas...
We trust the above information is of use. We will be available
for consultation and ability to perform the additional soils
investigation and report when required. If you have any questi
feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincere
Davi L.N = `� • ssociates, Inc. 4.44iL6-
David L. Nelson, PG J. Keith Cross, PE
Consulting Engineering Geologist Geotechnical Consu
DLN:lcnn
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal 66 Unit Multiple Family Development on a 3.85 acre site
Proponent Windmark Homes
Location of Proposal", including street address, if any
62nd Ave. S. and Sunwood Blvd.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -2 -15 -84
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.
[XT There is no comment period for this DNS
0 This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2); the lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted
by
Responsible Official Brad Collins
Position /Title Planning Director
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwi1 , 98
Date March 22, 1985 Signatur- .4"/"."4/0- ,„AA, i,
Phone 433 -1845
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
CN
EPIC
FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: (—j BLDG PLNG P.W. ri FIRE n POLICE P & R
PROJECT ar,rrVoCV Pha6. L
LOCATION jiol( (ri (j(, FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED 3 -I1ii RESPONSE REQUESTED BY -/ 5'55
STAFF COORDINATOR £�C' RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
No T243 cv.E11 bvt5 3 fi- -4T- l N
1-4 .OEX T tA(L ., [rti:owvD . f D A)Pr66''r'
''b 1 1 NY1rt , 1'r' Q Li r ' %U' -
T AcIoN c- m .,
1`k1.a (A.W∎ 1 N.) DC w
-2S-* 11. -T \.fr .3 S111:a T415
S' 1014 Li L NOT' 4'n�ti.
DATE 74;
814? COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
_CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG n PLNG n P.W.
PROJECT :,,I)4/14.)060 Pha1,& L
LOCATION juriwc B{v�
DATE TRANSMITTED 3'%115
OCN.
EPIC
FILE
n FIRE n POLICE n P & R'
STAFF COORDINATOR
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
RESPONSE RECEIVED
/-15-55
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
lLc q
DATE , ,-/o?- �5� COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
CNU-b'D5
EPIC
FILE DP-I 'FY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUT NG FORM
TO: n BLDG PLNG n P.W. n FIRE n POLICE n P & R.
PROJECT AWn(to( PhQL',& J3I
LOCATION iLtu') Want) 2{1v 3( , FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED 5-/115-
STAFF COORDINATOR
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT, PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED'TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
RESPONSE RECEIVED
. -545
ITEM COMMENT
DATE
_ !/
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
.o rJ s uO cssuQ40
4..Sc C71.0 ,
Z • NOn CAN _ a)l°iPLI �D - IS
I63tosn (�P3 morass SLs 030 ssI L L SS LIES ,
/3. (._Lk3c. 2 c\iczii2 3esc>e /546-1=_.
a
s _ c iris.
PRIN. �' - -r� Pkps 1-b
-(LE I Ksi ,
4. sut3surFtsc azak.w.c. Przs - -
S..
PIMPOstO "-
C.CrJ Nur2 0 �>
CITY OF TUKWILA
•
CN
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC
FILE.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
.TO: n BLDG El PLNG n P.W. /'FIRE n POLICE n P & R
PROJECT A/),;11, 00(X) Pha, ?&
LOCATION Juiumrl am. FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED .5"/1 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED'TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
W A- Q-t.. ' l� st h�A -�.. N ikAsNaLArtvtib
j11.16 pl-454-e
DATE 3 - vb. 8 6
COMMENTS PREPARED BY 1N
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
CN 5W-r05
EPIC
FILE DP- /
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: a BLDG El PLNG n P. fl FIRE F<POLICE fl P & R
PROJECT Al,vmoond rho 6
LOCATION ifA41 W0-7A !:'. FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED .5"/11C'
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 3-15-Y5
STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT WAS ONLY A SOILS REPORT FOR SUNWOOD PHASE III. THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS RELATIVE TO THE ENTIRE SUN1OOD COMPLEX WERE
SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL EIS.
It should be noted the engineering firm submitting the report has some concerns
caused by the unsuitable soils within the slab areas. To mitigate these concerns
they have submitted and strongly recommend a particular course of construction.
Due to the location of Tukwila in a medium to high earthquake impact area
any indication of soil instability is a matter of public safety concern.
Close supervision of construction techniques on this pr -ject are a must.
3/14/85 PP'l/
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
•
.N
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM EPIC
FILE.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
DP- / - ?y
TO: (l BLDG n PLNG P.W. n FIRE (---7 POLICE P & R
PROJECT &OA/V X/ PhQ,26111
LOCATION w(0 „avd
DATE TRANSMITTED .5"/11 5. 5
STAFF COORDINATOR
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 3'45'35
RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
PL�c�� mod-• -� G+�- -�
�-- ✓emu '
DATE 3
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
9
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: r$BLDG ` G F f'.W. FIRE r' OLICE P & R
CN ?t1D5
EPIC
FILE DID -/ X07 •
PROJECT �,(,{niijQcd Pha & IZ
LOCATION jun wax)
DATE TRANSMITTED 5'105
FILE NO.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY g4'�5
STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
OFIE MEMO
CITY or TUKWILA
TO: 2 c._StA
FROM: ZKK ,
DATE: *11185
SUBJECT: 34\4QJ PK 215--84
PATgcktio 15 LMt V so1Ls ftz 'r2 gc,t464.
'ice 5l' etzo tS 15EIrs L cookNoccio
-11*. csNeiweR Pre
jzEC NNtiM i J OP .ON . 1 Dc& T I -PSV.E ■t= T
rAK v_itiesi.t IS S( YJL 1*2 3`Z 8 5• \(r i2
CoVl x•tk 1i�iT'S -rc- L DQD 4"i 3113. 1 A .-�Ltt Lf ?ale
Sictat
w
.•. I* I
/MT , OM/
d USW
Mt Rrllr
WI WI COM. RIEIN MO
W "/„* fME%M sLIfV rr 0
MOW m a.raWt
fitYD V6HI) after 10
mmtt I•ra45'efWl
-•�.� �rovexr
r ' REC'17T7�► — 7�S�F�- -_
�i�--
wow Ir a.ace rtoc
111. *.:4‘1*
Nei-* @MOW
DOME Awl
11a-rowel •
•
CAD
tannorf a ne.bt elan
FR IMO
x•r
Er w1
f27rtRAI3
rat' 61/B
M • — =
1:11�lt
r' ■ - . , •. _•�- mpg
NV'S
4110. I
%MPife
Iffft MOUNT A s.
spIrrer
OM S W ��iii�
r M8eo
!Art
CDC ettxxns ^a rar.e+rre,
rstMAMA I\ /�i it
RtR MAIM. R1
MO QRIffi MIR
s\
•
swine
roc
• 44E.
lei NOM
ICI
IEEE 111117 __ • •.
NUS
MP In
trm adz
en we
It
111" °,.u.
11111 �`�
ow• _Ng MINI
aw....Ae N.
RANI
COMPOSITE GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE. 8 UTILITY PLAN
106411 JONI,
Prolog -
SUNWOOD
,+-AT
CIATES
PHASE III
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
ENGINEERING SURVEYING PLANNING
11418 N E. 128th SI. • K•hland MN 0000.9 • I20EI 021 .84Y
J
SUNW000 P,A5 I
..
„,...;,.....,.......„....................,....„..._.........„....
_._...
it,
„....._,...T,
—r----r --r frr.177,14 1
LYIST IK6 1 1 I
f l AWTS TV 1 1 1
Df REI.o'A W I ..1-"
LEKI5TING ILAUTE��
I tC •
C
L-
�_
;
i
luI
�IWII' IIIIII'��Iil11
i nan nnu_ nm
[M61984t
CITY OF TUKWI-A
IY
;
4YMISOL
HILLSIDE WALL
!'o2ND AYE. Sc._
PLANT LEGEND.
• I51.
159
151
-Ile
-14*
Ix
OFFICE LJ ?�
+ss
IVY
QuANT.
VERIFY
17
92
162
196
593
197
VERIFr
DoTANICACONMO14 NAME-
('/iREEr TREES: SOME EX19r
ADD
1,444E ur£DED.) .
CORNUS NuTTALLI oR fL.oKiDA
NATIVE cX EASTER.N DcovsoD
AGER CIRLINATUM
VINE MAPLE
TSU■A 4-IETECof9YLLA
MER TEN91AN,>A
p4UJA PLILATA
PINUS cutTDICrA
WESTE,N HEMLOCK
MOIA.ITAIN +1E41LDC.g.
WESTEK 4 KED cEDAK
SHORE PINE
AzEuTUS ONEDO
VIBURNUM T INUS
STRAW RCY -TREE
L%u rusr wus
KHOGtODENDRON M5RI>,5
AZALEA HYEK125
PIER15 wTIETIES
MAHONIA AOUIFOLIUM
V16UKNUI.4 .P viDI
P. }toDODENDCONS
AZALEAS (EYERGICEEN)
ANDROMEDA
OMCZ I GRAPE
PA'HD'S Y 18UCNUM
6RIU. CARNEA'5F IN4W.:D
SfrIN4WcOD HEATH
HEDERA NEUx'11AMN, O.
MAT44 EXSTc IVY
REMARKS
MATCH Ex157I444.
td ANT'OR.AGNO',-E
PKEFER CLUIrt
USE A55oRTED
TO SUIT AREA
'size 1 SLREENG
REQU 1 R E MENTS
ALT. W/ AfrCOVAL
7 L.A.; 05E 710
SUIT 912E 4sewn
kEEDS.
SUIT TO 512E,
F:xPOSURE,
VAKIETY NEEti5.
ALT. w /L. A. APr DJ.
ALT. Arsf.T.
INIJIKINIJIGk
l'SE GFCJNDC YEI:
!S NEEDED FLR
:GI..TRCL cIL
VARIETY.
NoTEs
• EXISTING TREES WILL BE EXA/AINE.D FOR HEALTH AND
kEfT IF rossle,LE. AMY DEEmen UNSAFE OK 6EYCND
REDEEIJIING VALUE WILL ISE REPL.AGED WITH ANOTHER: TREE
SUITA6LE To THE 5IT VAT 10/.1.
• EXISTING Tor501L To 154 REti1OVED 'SHALL DE STOcePIL£D
FOR USG IN •LAIJTING ALID FINISff GtrAD II.LG• WHEKE CLAY
SUr.- URFAGE IS foUND IN PLANT BOLES, L.CCSEN Co" IN BASE
Of HOLE, MIX IN 1O1."5011. DUW 111AT f.AC.Y.fILL. IS OS. Ys TorSoIL.
CHECIc roe DRAINA4E FRDM HOLE- 'ACKFILL MUST ISE AT
LEAST YE EXISTING SOIL Tiff, WELL - MIlED wiTH ADDED
Torsi(..
• REEXR ALL GUDVTION5 To LA0.I •DxATE AKc441TECT.
NORTNWA2D DEVELOPMENT
NORTH
Jos No. 8916
t. 8tr - G
Soils Investigation
Tukwila, Washington
February 1985
gav (13
MAR 6
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
13424 Chain Lake Road • Monroe, Washington 98272 • 206/794 -4332
• •
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
13424 Chain Lake Road
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Northward Development Company
1115 - 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Attention: Richard Gilroy
Reference: Soils Investigation
Tukwila, Washington
Gentlemen;
Monroe, Washington 98272 206/794 -4332
This is to serve as a report of a soils investigation performed at the
above referenced project site, per your request.
Introduction
The purpose of this investigation is to present preliminary soils infor-
mation for development within the project site area. Development is to
consist of eight multi -unit apartment complexes located approximately
as shown on the enclosed location map. Other development is to consist
of roadway and utility construction in and around the subject site area.
The scope of services included performance of fifteen backhoe test pits.
The first eight pits were performed on January 24, 1984 and the remaining
seven pits were performed on Februaryl8, 1985 at your request. The*
approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the enclosed location
map.
All elevations mentioned in this report refer to existing grade and to
topographic information shown on a composite grading, storm drainage and
utility plan, dated 12/27/83 prepared by Triad Associates.
• - •
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page two
Location & Site Description
The investigated site area consists of approximately 3V2 acres lying
west of the intersection of Sunwood Boulevard and 62nd Avenue South,
in Tukwila, Washington.
Presently, the site is partially developed with an existing structure and
parking area within the northeastern portion of the site, and the existance
of Sunwood Boulevard which crosses from east to north across the site.
The area has been cleared in the past, with now primarily low growing
brush, grasses and backberries covering the majority of the site. The
site generally slopes toward the south in an undulating fashion. Slopes
range from slight to moderate, with some steep conditions just off -site
to the west.
Soils Conditions
The subsurface soils stratigraphy can best be seen on the enclosed test
pit logs.
Test pits performed within the site area generally indicate the presence
of- glacial soils overlying basal weathered sandstone bedrock, with some
local accumulations of slopewash and artificial fill surficially. The'
artificial fill, consisting of intermixed silt, sand, gravel, rubble,
bedrock chunks and organics was generally found 2' to 4' thick in the
area of Building 1, Building 5 and Building 6. Areas of fill 1' to 4'
thick were found in the areas of Buildings 7 and 8. Slopewash material,
consisting of brown to orange- brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand
with gravel and bedrock chunks was generally found in the area east of
Building 4, and within the areas of Building 5,6,7 and 8. Thickness of
this material was found to vary from a few feet within Buildings.7 and .8
to several feet within Buildings 5 and 6. Glacial soils, consisting of
medium dense to dense, poorly sorted silty sand with gravel (glacial drift)
and medium dense to dense well bedded silty sand and sand with gravel
were generally encountered in the areas of Buildings 2,3 and 4, and in
the western portion of Building 1. This material is expected to overly
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page three
the basal sandstone bedrock, as indicated by TP -4, and within the excava-
tion slope to the west of the site. The weathered sandstone bedrock was
found sporatically around the site, although it generally occurs within
the north, central to eastern portion of the site. This material consists
of orange- brown, dense, medium grained sand which increases in density
with depth. It appears to be the Renton Formation (Upper upper Eocene
non - marine arkosic sandstone), which is known to occur within the area.
The weathered upper zone is quite thick and was not penetrated by our
exploration. Outcroppings of the Renton Formation sandstone can be seen
within the base of the excavation along the northeastern portion of the
site and within the base of excavation within the area off -site to the west.
The surficial soils within the site generally were found to be quite loose
and highly organic; if not artificial fill. Generally, the natural soils
of desireable density were found below approximately 3' below grade. The
desireable natural soils within the artificial fill areas ranged from 5'
to over 6' in depth below grade.
Hydrologic Conditions
The true ground water table was not encountered in any of the test pits
performed within the site area. We have determined that the majority of
wet to saturated zones within the subgrade soils occur within the more
permeable glacial soils overlying the sandstone. Seepage was noted oc-
curring above the denser sandstone, above the glacial drift and within
lenses of the coarser grained sands. It appears that the observed ground
water conditions consist of perched water derived from surface water
infiltration from upslope, and percolation into the more permeable sub -
grade soils. Seepage then occurs along a less permeable /more permeable
interface.
Slope Stability
No indication of recent mass movement within the moderate to steep slope
was observed. Some spalling and sloughing of the steep slope area off-
site to the west was observed, and appears to be on- going. Some soil
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page four
creep was observed within the moderate slopes toward the south, although
was limited to minor surfical conditions. The artificial fill slope
faces were observed to be unstable, with considerable erosion, slumping
and tension cracking.
Conclusions
Based upon the investigation performed, and our knowledge of the proposed
development, we believe that the proposed development can be performed as
anticipated, provided recommendations for stabilization, development and
construction presented herein are utilized for development.
Recommendations
General Site Development
Due to the existance of the artificial fill and unsuitable surficial
soils, site preparation may be required within the proposed building areas,
structural fill areas, and retaining wall and rockery areas. The site
preparation should require removal of the surficial unsuitable artificial
fill and organic surficial soils prior to placement of foundations, the
structural fill or retaining structures. The removed unsuitable soils
should not be used within structural areas, and either be utilized within
landscaped areas or removed from'the site.
We understand that a change from the proposed plan shown on the enclosed
location map will occur within the southwestern portion of the site.
Within this area, the proposed access driveway will be moved at least
20' further toward the east away from the steep slope area: In addition,
the proposed buildings within this area will move toward the east, and
the finish floor elevation is'to be lowered approximately 3'.
Foundations
Foundations for the proposed structures can be adequately founded within
the medium dense to dense natural soils found below the surficial organic
soils and the artificial fill. Foundations placed within these natural
soils should expect maximum allowable soil pressures of 3000 pounds per
square foot (psf) across the area. We suggest the use of either spread
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No.
Page five
or continuous type footings, placed a minimum of 12" into. the natural'
soils. Total and diffenential settlements of 1" and 1/2" respectively
should be anticipated.
Alternately, foundations could be. placed upon structural fill. The
surficial organic soils and artificial fill should be removed down to
the natural soils, and the structural fill placed up to finish grade.
Foundations placed within the structural fill should anticipate maximum
allowable soil pressures of 2000 psf, with total and differential
settlements of 1'/2" and 1" respectively. The areas of excavation where
footings would be upon natural soils should have at least 2' of structural
fill underlying the footings, to minimize differential settlements.
Slabs -on -grade
Slabs -on -grade should be placed upon a prepared base. We'suggest the
organic surficial soil and artificial fill be removed for best effectiveness
of slab operation, to minimize potential post- construction settlements.
The slab base should consist of structural fill, adequately placed and
compacted. Should the desire to leave the unsuitable soils within the'
slab areas be anticipated, settlement should be expected. The organic
surficial soils and artificial fill is expected to settle with time,
and repair to the slab areas may be necessary in the future. We suggest
slabs -on -grade be constructed as shown on the enclosed Subdrain and
Backfill schemes.
Structural Fill
Structural fill intended for use within the area should consist of granular
'pit -run' type soils, generally approved for use within the area. The
structural fill should be placed upon organic free, compact subgrades
which have been proofrolled. The fill should be placed in 6" to 8"
maximum lifts and compacted to 95% of ASTM D -1557, at or within 2%
of optimum moisture.
Structural fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V within the site area,
be adequately compacted and protected from erosion with approved means.
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page six
Drainage
Adequate drainage should be provided throughout the site area and around
the structures. Interim storm drainage during development should be
anticipated, including detention systems. We do not suggest the use
of infiltration systems for detention. Interceptor drains installed
around the excavation areas should aid in maintaining suitable soils
for foundation placement, which are directed into the storm drainage
system. We suggest the use of foundation and roof drain systems, indepen-
dantly directed into the main storm drainage system, or allowed to outfall
into an approved outfall area. Footing drains should be constructed
as shown on the enclosed Subdrain and Backfill schemes.
Retaining Walls
Concrete retaining walls placed within the site area should be founded
within the dense natural soils as discussed for building foundations.
Maximum allowable soil pressures of 3000 psf should be anticipated.
Adequate drainage should be provided behind the retaining walls, consisting
of at least 18" of washed aggregate placed to within 18" of the finish
grade and connected to a basal perforated pipe drain which outfalls
into the storm drainage system. The surface 18" should be .native soils
compacted into place and sloped away from the wall. Using the above
recommendations and soils information obtained, we suggest the use of
equivalent fluid pressures of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) against the
wall. An ultimate passive pressure of 350 pcf should be anticipated with
level backfill behind the wall, and a base friction coefficient of 0.4.
Burried Walls
Burried walls within the site area, expected within some building areas.,
should be performed as shown on the enclosed Subdrain and Backfill scheme.
Using the recommended techniques, an equivalent fluid pressure of 50 pcf
should be anticipated, with an ultimate passive pressure of 350 pcf and
a base friction coefficient of 0.4, with level backfill behind the walls.
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page seven
Utilities
Several types of utility trenches and lines are proposed within the site
area. We suggest the utility trenches be backfilled using granular
native soils or import, and be mechanically compacted. A drain system
installed within the utility trench base, consisting of a perforated
pipe in washed aggregate, may aid in dewatering the downslope areas. The
connection or adequate outfall of the drain into an approved outfall area
should be performed.
Pavements
Roadways and parking areas proposed within the site area should be devel-
oped through removal of the surficial organic ladden soils down to granular
compact soils. The subgrade should be proofrolled prior to placement of
at least 6" of structural fill as a subbase. The pavement base should
consist of at least 4" of crushed rock adequately compacted into place.
The surface treatment should consist of at least 2" of Class B asphaltic
concrete surfacing.
Additional Notes
Alternative foundation systems are available for support of the buildings
if desired. These consist of piling, piers or extended foundations
where the unsuitable surficial soils exceed 4'to5' below grade, or
where additional filling is expected downslope and deeper foundation
placement is anticipated. We would be available to provide recommendations
for these alternative foundation systems if desired.
Rockeries
We understand that rockeries are proposed within certain areas of the
site. Rockeries are not considered 'retaining walls' and should be used
with caution. The areas behind the rockeries should be stable natural
soils or stable structural fill adequately placed and compacted. The
rockeries should be thought of as erosion protection devices only, and
should be constructed to be stable. Protection of the stable excavation
•
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page eight '
and /or structural fill slopes is expected to be suitably provided using
a properly constructed rockery if a skilled rockery contractor builds the
rockery in, accordance with the following guidelines. A generally stable
installation could be expected for normal operating procedures if the
following guidelines are utilized:
1) Rockery face to be constructed using 3 to 4 man rock.
2) Base rock should extend into the slope at least 1/3 of the rockery
height, with 2' minimum width.
3) Base rock to be founded into dense base 12" below grade.
4) Rocks shoud be fresh, durable and free of defects.
5) Rocks to be placed with their long axis toward the slope with their
bases inclined downward toward the slope face.
6) Face batter should be no steeper than 6V to 1H.
7) A minimum 4" perforated pipe drain to be installed behind the base.
8) Drain pipe to be sloped to drain into an appropriate drain system.
9) Free draining backfill to be placed at least 18" wide above the pipe
behind the rocks to within 12" of the top of the rockery.
10) Rockery to be chinked to prevent backfill from ravelling through holes
between rocks.
11) The top 12" of backfill should consist of on -site soils.
12) The drain backfill and other backfill of on -site soils should be
brought up with the rock placement and be well compacted.
Inspection of the earthwork phase of development is recommended. This
includes foundation excavation and placement, structural filling, drainage
and retainage.
Limitations
The observations,•opinions anu recommendations contained herein are based
on the interpretation of the bite conditions as they presently exist and
the present understanding of the proposed development. These interpreta-
tions assume that the subsurface conditions encountered in the exploration
test pits are representitive of the total site conditions. If, during
construction, subsurface conditions differ from those encountered are
observed or appear to be found, an immediate review of these conditions
and the recommendations provided should be conducted.
• •
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
February 28, 1985
Project No. 0584
Page nine
This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Northward Development
Company, and their agents with reference to the subject site. The work
performed in this study was limited to the scope of work previously
outlined and is believed to be in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical practice. No other warranty, ,expressed or implied, is made.
Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions,
feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincerely,
David Nelson & Associates, Inc.
David L. Nelson, PG
Professional Engineering Geologist
DLN:kmn
J. Keith Cross, PE
Geotechnical Consultant
SLOPE OUTSIDE R ADE A WAY
FROM STRUCTURE FOR DRAINA
PAVEMENT OR 18 INCHES
IN. TAMPED TOPSOIL
OR IMPERVIOUS SOIL
GENERAL FILL
•
1e„
m I n'
WEEP HOLES
EXTERIOR RETAINING WALL
DAMP PROOFING
VAPOR BARRIER
CONCRETE SAND -1
FLOOR SLAB
e'°
• .'i•
SUBDRAIN PIPE
MATERIALS
SUI3DRAIN PIPIT
not to scab
4" Minimum Dia. Perforated Or Slotted
Concrete, Metal, Asbestos - Cement Or
Plas;ic Pipe. Tight Jointed, Sloped To
Drain (4 "/ 100' min. slope), 'With
Clean -Outs.
Slotted Pipe -- 1/8" Max. Width Slots
Perforated Pipe -- 3/16" to 3/8" holes
Sluts Or Perforations Preferentially
In Lower Half Of Pipe With Lower
Quarter Segment Solid For Water Flow.
DRAINAGE SAND & GRAVEL
To Meet Washington State Specifications
Or The Following Gradation.
Sieve Size
— 1-_1r2I
3/4"
1/4".
• No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
(by wet sieving)
Passing By. Weight
100
70 -90
30 -60
20 -50
8-30
3 -12
0 -1.2
(non - plastic)
DRAINAGE SAND i GRAVEL
NOTES
1. Drainage Sand & Gravel Beneath
Floor Slab Should Be Connected
Hydraulically To Subdrain Pipe.
Use Of 2" Dia. Weep Mules is
One Applicable Method.
2. Subdrain Pipe Should He Bedded
With A Minimum Of 6" Of Drainage
Sand & Gravel Surrounding The Pipe.
3. Backfill Within 18" Of Wall Should
Be Compacted With Iland- Operated
Equipment. Heavy Equipment Should
Not Be Used For Backfill, As Such
Operation Could Increase Lateral
Earth Pressures And Possibly
Damage The Wall.
4. All Backfill Should Be Placed In
Layers Not Exceeding 6" Loose
Thickness And Densely Compacted.
Beneath Paved Or Sidewalk Areas,
Compact To At Least 95% Modified
Proctor Maxim.im Density (ASTM:
D1557; Method C). Otherwise
Compact To 90%o Minimum.
SUBDRAIN BACKFILL SCHEME
BASEMENT WALLS WITH INTERIOR SLAB ON GRADE
•
SLOPE OUTSIDE GRADE
AWAY FROM STRUCTURE
FOR DRAINAGE —7
PAVEMENT ()R
10 INCHES MIN.
OF TAMPED TOPSOI
OR IMPERVIOUS SOIL.
•
CONCRETE SAND. -1
FLOOR SLAB
. � c
.-
SUBDRAIN PIPE
MATERIALS
SPRE AD OR
CONTINUOUS
FOOTING
not •to scale
SUBDRAIN PIPE
4'r Minimum Dia. Perforated Or Slotted
l' unc rete, Metal, Asbestos - Cement. Or
Plastic Pipe. Tight Jointed, Sloped 'Fu
Drain (4 '/ 100' min. slope), With
l'1L'.0 Outs.
:-;totted Pipe -- 1/8" IVIax. Width Slut:,
Perforated Pipe--3/16" to 3/8" Ilitles
Sluts Or Per 1oratiorrs Preferentially
In Lower Half Of Pipe With Lower
Quarter Segment Solid For Water Flow.
DRAINAGE SAND & GRAVEL
To Meet Washington State Specifications
or The Following Gradation.
Breve Size
1 -1r'r
3/4"
1/4"
No. 8
Nu. 30
No. 50
No. 200
Passing By Weight
100
70 -90
30 -60
20 -50
8 -30
3 -12
0 -1.2
(by wet sieving) (non - plastic)
.0
•
VAPOR BARRIER—
'DRAINAGE
SAND 8 GRAVEL
• WEEP HOLES
NOTES
Drainage Sand & Gravel Beneath
Flour Slab Should. Be Connected
Hydraulically To Subdr.ain Pipe.
Use Of 2" Dia. Weep Holes Is
One .Applicably Method.
2. Subdr•ain Pipe Should Be Bedded
With .\ Minimum Of 2'' ()f Drainage.'
S.uul & Gravel Surrounding The
Pipe.
3. Backfill Within
Be Compacted With Hand - Operated
h'yurprnent. Heavy Equipment Should
Not Be Used For Backfill, As Such
Operation Could Increase Lateral
Varth Pressures And Possibly
Damage The Wall.
18" Of Wall Should
4. All Backfill Should Be Placed In
Layers Not Exceeding 6" Loose
Thickness And Densely Compacted.
Beneath Paved Or Sidewalk Areas,
Compact To At Least 95% Modified
Proctor Maximum Density (ASTM:
D1557, Method C). Otherwise
Compact To 90% Minimum.
SUBDRAIN & BACKF IL L SCHEME
SHALLOW FOOTINGS WITH INTERIOR SLAB ON GRADE
SLOP OUTSIDE GRADE
AWAY FROM ggTRUCTURE
FOR OAAINAO`
PAVEMENT OR
10 1 CHES MIN.
OF TAMPED TOPSOIL
OR IMPERVIOUS SOIL
• • ',•
.
'•e';'o•;' , .
SPREAD OR
CAPILLARY BREAK
16~ MIN. OF PEA GRAVEL I .
VAPOR BARRIER
le.g. PLASTIC SHEETINGI
0•
SLOPED TO DRAIN
•V. •?7- 1'elr77,
• .•
• • W:''
•
,•-
SUSDRAIN PIPE
MATERIALS
CONTINUOUS
FOOTING
SUBDRAIN PIPE
4'rMinimum Dia. Perforated Or Slotted
Concrete, Metal, Asbestos - Cement Or
Plastic Pipe. Tight Jointed, Sloped To
Drain (4" / 100' min. slope), With
Clean -Outs.
Slotted Pipe -- 1/8" Max. Width Slots
Perforated Pipe -- 3/16" to 3/8" Holes
Slots Or Perforations Preferientially
- Lower' Half 01 Pipe With tower- •
Quarter Segment Solid For Water Flow.
DRAINAGE SAND & • GRAVE L_
To Meet Washington State Specifications
Or The Following Gradation.
Sieve Size
i-1 %2'r
3/4"
1/4"
No. 8
No. 30
No. 50
No. 200
(by wet sieving)
Passin B Wei ht
100
70 -90
30 -60
20 -50
8 -30
3 -12
0-1.2
(non - plastic)
1/f '\
DRAINAGE
SAND l GRAVEL
WEEP HOLES
NOTES
1. Drainage Sand & Gravel Inside
Stem Walls Should Be Connected
Hydraulically To Subdrain Pipe.
Use Of 2" Dia. Weep Holes Is
One Applicable Method.
2. Subdrain Pipe Should Be Bedded
With A Minimum Of 2" Of Drainage
Sand & Gravel Surrounding The
Pipe.
3. Backfill Within 18" Of Wall SFi'oul8 — •
Be Compacted With Hand- Operated
Equipment. Heavy Equipment Should
Not Be Used For Backfill, As Such
Operation Could Increase Lateral
Earth Pressures And Possibly
Damage The Wall.
4. AU Backfill Should Be Placed In
Layers Not Exceeding ti" Loose
Thickness And Densely Compacted.
Beneath Paved Or Sidewalk Areas,
Compact To At Least 95% Modified
Proctor Maximum Density (ASTM:
D1557, Method C). Otherwise
Compact To 90% Minimum.
SUBDRAI N & B ACKFIL L SCHEME
SHALLOW FOOTINGS & STEM WALLS
• 312.337 :12 frsrmr, 8,-1575 5.15.5 r" !
55t556 2:115.• 516. T5•••••,5
tOvnvere. L10:556,0
1-5/55 oyDroor 4225,352.,
•••
-.•••
."••;-?L:
• •7••■• 7.6 O. Ofkg• '0 go,
;6:44 '1'7; '.'56.5'16;1•X
• ,:aviia
• •.°Thr .055
■• 0" 40.••"f v v. • •":
,--•••2-15,69 .14+2' f •,•-••.•
I • •'4.45 otifVf.•
513.70,5
!
0 O' - -----:•-tP•
'•IM ..4-.,... ...-- i.
---- r I
1
7'1 .
•
. ,
. -
1 - '
7; '
" '''''. "
''' 1, M_
AI,*
T_ -
,,
..-- .
-- „- ._ ....,..,, 7011 8, .5•5• SW. )
• • • r; - - - . - _ - - „,. 2a,v
roea.33Z 2[f O f 0
ICVif OI ,
- __ f• 895C 113 :•0 fRe, ,- _
Lel:.
65 . 4 4* I;
...,,,...C.. I,.
.- .
•
•••..
- - - -- -C8.6 Lt;i"
•• ',,..w373 -
. ,1, Al
e.h.- 6547 ....
I I ' !TA . .-"•••,' , ? • •' 2'.."3,.
,,, , . . ,.,„. . r.:°•-%.17•.1-- , 1 j ' C8#157••31_ r(
kin ' •,.-..--,.-,-7-.;;
i .
1 . , ":10o7O 3,05
044/ API ,VO Ova op 127, • ' ' '
_ . . ....
' • -..-
A .. ' - .
.6.64,..*.f
.1, •• •se 6-, y47
ragg•g•
M3C.
- -
4
1•••:., Po, I
▪ •
C.8#
(6060
6311 ,3566 0.
'cm Isom V
treOlzto
Car loc,•2
63.595507
12710.6515
137.0 65213
11
,- .-..-.
,ire-a-W.3%1 r.".!... 4 ''''',.,,,,' ' .
1,1Af. Y474,4,4:5 • .. rx...f r 7 .11 Wo'ff "55.'16.,...
Itace75 &coo; --..- I dama Sit.4440.7_,A,E ‘•-,=6
ra,n4r1•51.,..,ra , , ,
•
mret0% ,.... , t
,.-- -1.0' . _ .-.---__.
4r . ....-Irrt.44:11.74«:...............444.4.4.4.4., 4 4 4..........• .4.4.44•17-S:P 2
.• 4517.): • „ f
•
e•••••;:3 22_
'cr
4441.1:,
C\J
‘0
• .1,23
/-!...]. -....-.4' -•....--.-_
..-- ... .., i • - - -
• e '7,. e I • -' w• f -1.- ce.,fr, ro if r i
•,......•:.rfo-ra.m.hriE i .24terIV/ .
`....
''''' '..• • 1 4•44.44, 4 •4•-• - •,.
.....= --7--, - - 44/ '' , r•••& 'Mar tun • ' .." 'a-414:'.
..,
, • •!"--,Q,..... . - ' 1 /I Catty o ezannosi,.. .-
- - - T.',.. ri..;IP N ri i'.2,,,l- - ---- . • --v." lir ." 11 '''' ., if ,.." - • - 4•'• 4.:
5,"•••,.1:-,.•
, -......._ "r•."..7 44r.-.: 7 4744S-74- - 1-' - ' '
Pa,
f.rt,tio- \
-',■. \' \ ,
\
\\\
--
4 , .• , `, , •
\ \\.------.-- '-- -- -__
I 2,s_a
.1.77
Tr..31341"'
C8'9 7„,„r-,".
10113710 ••■ 5.55
9575• 159'
•••• 3_221.
• •72.1.10•135843 •
.a317 311.2 4, •
„
•
(26E9=1:1=13±51SZkl
"77H-L.
154 •
- '-r• i',..., , rawrooto n,
, . .
•fnor.■ ro
t t
1 ,7••• ..3(17'
2 , t ottro5. 1_ 0.7562
.
1 --51i
taw", 4■ ,
• 655%, •P'. 154Z0 ''' ...., ./.....-..- TO,G7d, •27."'
•• - :1, ' ....lt•vaf 11 IX,. os wawa 1
•lOi5- a t MCP! --
4:'\\- errs. .35vve 3.0eto , . „" ..*--.1&" "" '1'42.6' .„,f1-kit.e".,C.,fr i.052) •• 0, 0•30 • .t.' (,.• , , I- •:,......><-178v4,fal, 54....-' ,.....-- ..---e-
- _
• • , r . ., 1 690 '11.34
(-,:,*:;)- ,y,;..gz, _.-- ,.z
..., -7
5
111,141g,;:._
91 135 0 ;24
% BENCH MARK
5027 ,V "-dr: -'5.94.555
.75 /1075
3.13335. .•:•• 1001"5" 55655 0/1551(1
LT*16
••-•,',1•50
scai.E- 6.0'
LOCATION IMP
_4f "rtsr''
60I L15 //JUESP‘AT/C4A,
SO/WOOD P6465f
17A- 66AS16666-11,1,1
-ow* L. saca..0 I Asoonc-s ,
43421 o4,44.1 (.Ar.E. "DAD
IVIDolgoE , 15695155.15511 582.75.
0-4.3 VOL - 04461 751•54155
c•go,Sucrood. 65,6,4,oLEF_XIIAL 6Eo•1
- /
Divr6
g'01.6
•.6a:-•26"6" • •
•
C8'3 r,ff
;7..601
0001713741
• ..,
• AWOL, CO
_ ovvo IN
, AUL( CO
*Ca 7:155 •
„■•..! :s.
•••• .33::
,•;?•,... :re
e rem
/fag 101.10
I o 60
'' coo
120W v ; •4105 -'•• M. CONTM7OR 5.4331e91/55 6for
•
• itg.7C.5.10, cakf 55me2.• fornorsoce ItroS:5
.•
NC 8 ...5.•21,:5e• AMMO 011.571015 lIffES,J0gov/Orl • gar rOsirt
ROM DOING tDoSIRO171011 1. I 1 ego mom"
•• ; in; • i WO
COL' Me 11 St
or•&S•ftf 77431.
172519300 CAUTION! UNDERGRXMO
gavot& PONCA /415115 A/W
„Miff IPPCO •
6.1.) 51 65-111551
f• SPo 5'.
7. 0347
...to loan, Our- as suar)
moo Sart atm vv
(956o152111 WWI
CP*/ Fr!! re
755 lorava to It)
f, 2111/8S0( (5/110(15597)
LEGEND
_.(13515tT7 firnevaa
Cala .. PROPOS One/ Wan •Ntirtir)
T firtriprOF Mau DoorsTERS
.- _HIM* MIDOR
Pfernto 935515375511114/85
- . /1114/0910 AMMO 95450
-440 _ MOW° =MOM(
- .. lRtOtPOoS= terrAl MAT
. •ItoSED &Ow& MM.
. PED
MI MIMI MD
10 08 OMR MUM
04
COMPOSITE GRADING, STORM DRAINAGE 9 UTILITY PLAN
TEST PIT LOGS
TP -1 0 -3.0 Brown and black, loose, intermixed silty sand
with organics FILL
3.0 -5.5 Oxidized grey- brown, loose- medium dense, silty
sand with roots
5.5 -9.0 Grey- brown, dense, poorly sorted silty sand with
some gravel (glacial drift)
9.0 -11.0 Brown dense silty sand with gravel
11.0 -12.0 Brown dense poorly sorted silty sand with gravel
and sandstone chunks
TP -2 0 -2.0 Black loose intermixed silty gravelly sand with
organics and rubble FILL
2.0 -4.0 Orange- brown, loose, silty sand with roots
4.0 -8.0 Orange- brown, loose - medium dense, silty sand with
some sandstone chunks and organics
8.0 -10.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense., poorly sorted
sorted silty sand with some gravel (glacial drift)
10.0 -12.5 Grey, medium dense, 'clean' poorly sorted sand
with much gravel Seepage
12.5 -14.0 Grey- brown, dense, well bedded fine sand, silty sand
TP -3 0 -1.0 Black organic topsoil
1.0 -2.5 Grey -brown loose- medium silty sand with roots
2.5 -5.0 Grey -brown medium dense poorly sorted silty sand with
gravel, some roots
5.0 -10.0 Grey - brown, medium dense to dense, poorly sorted slightly
silty sand with much gravel; clean sand lenses
10.0 -11.0 Grey, dense, well bedded poorly sorted slightly silty
sand with much gravel
TP -4 0 -1.0 Black loose organic topsoil
1.0 -3.0 Grey -brown loose- medium silty sand with roots
3.0 -5.0 Grey -brown medium dense poorly sorted silty sand with
gravel Seepage
5.0 -6.5 Orange -brown medium dense poorly sorted silty sand
with gravel and sandstone chunks Seepage
6.5 -9.0 Grey - brown, dense, poorly sorted slightly silty
to silty sand with gravel and sand lenses Seepage
9.0 -11.0 Orange - brown, dense, poorly sorted and medium
sand (weathered sandstone ?) .
DAVID L. NELSOWAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consult inglinglemleg Geology.
13424 Chain Lake Rood • ihrrtR MA 99272 • 20147944732
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
-
SCALE PIIOJ. NO 0584
DATE 1/24/84 SHEET 1 of 4
TEST PIT LOGS
TP -5 0 -4.0 Grey and borwn, loose to medium, intermixed silty
sand with gravel and bedrock chunks. FILL
4.0 -9.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, poorly sorted
silty sand with gravel (glacial drift)
9.0 -13.0 Grey medium dense poorly sorted sand with some
gravel; some clean sand lenses
13.0 -14.0 Oxidized -brown weathered sandstone bedrock •
TP -6 0 -1.0 Black organic topsoil
1.0 -3.0 Brown loose silty sand with gravel and roots
3.0 -5.0 Grey- brown, dense, well bedded fine silty sand
5.0 -8.5 Grey- brown, medium dense, poorly sorted silty
sand with much gravel
8.5 -11.0 Grey- brown, medium dense, medium grained to
poorly sorted sand, some gravel
TP -7 0 -3.0 Brown & black intermixed silty sand with gravel
and organics FILL
3.0 -5.0 Orange -brown loose silty sand with roots
5.0 -10.0 Orange- brown, medium dense, mixed silty sand with
some gravel
10.0 -11.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, well bedded
poorly sorted sand, silty sand, gravelly sand
and sandy gravel
11.0 -12.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, bedded medium
sand and fine sand
TP -8 0 -4.5 Brown and black intermixed silty sand with gravel
organics, some rubble FILL
4.5 -6.0 Brown loose silty sand with roots
6.0 -11.0 Orange -brown to grey brown, medium dense, mixed
silty sand with some gravel; medium sand with
silty lenses
11.0 -14.0 Grey- brown, medium dense to dense, bedded medium
sand and fine sand
Seepage
Wet
DAVID L. NELSOWAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consultin tggie,slpyGeology
13424 Man Lake Rood • •A 91272 • 201/7944332
Sunwood; Phase III
Tukwila, Washington G
SCALE - PROJ. NO 0584
DATE 1/24/84 SHEET 2 of 4
TEST PIT LOGS
TP -9 0 -1.0 Black loose organic topsoil
1.0 -6.5 Brown, loose to medium dense, mixed gravelly
silty sand with sandstone chunks, many
roots to 4'; appears as fill or slopewash
6.5 -11.0 Grey -brown to grey, dense, poorly sorted silty
sand with gravel (galcial drift)
TP -10 0 -2.0 Black loose organic silty sand FILL
2.0 -3.0 Orange -brown loose silty sand with organics FILL
3.0 -6.0 Dark -brown to brown, medium dense, mixed silty
sand with some organics and sandstone chunks;
appears as fill or slopewash
6.0 -11.0 Grey -brown to grey, dense, poorly sorted silty
sand with gravel, some sandstone chunks (glacial drift)
TP -11 0 -1.0 Black loose organic silty sand FILL
1.0 -3.0 Brown and dark brown, loose mixed silty sand'
with organics and gravel FILL
3.0 -6.0 Brown, medium dense, mixed silty gravelly sand with
sandstone chunks; appears as fill or slopewash
6.0 -11.0 Grey -brown to grey, dense, poorly sorted silty
sand with gravel (glacial drift)
TP -12 0 -4.0 Black and brown, loose, intermixed silty sand
with many organics
4.0 -7.0 Brown medium dense, mixed silty gravelly sand
with sandstone chunks; appears as slopewash
7.0 -10.0 Brown to grey- brown, dense, poorly sorted slightly
silty sand with gravel
TP -13 0 -1.0 Black loose organic toposil and FILL
1.0 -3.5 Brown and dark brown, loose to medium dense,
mixed silty gravelly sand with. cobbles
3.5 -6.0 Grey- brown, medium dense, slightly silty sand
with gravel ;
6.0 -10.0 Grey -brown to grey, dense, poorly sorted slightly
silty sand with gravel
DAVID L. NELSOWAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consultio Geology
13424 OWo Late Reed • ifteM. WA 9•272 2O 7f443)2
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
SCALE - PROJ. NO (1584
DATE 2/18/85 SHEET 3 of 4
TEST PIT LOGS
TP -14 0 -1.0 Black organic topsoil
1.0 -2.0 Brown loose silty sand with roots
2.0 -3.0 Grey -brown loose to medium dense mixed silty
gravelly sand
3.0 -5.0 Grey -brown dense, poorly sorted slightly silty
to silty gravelly sand
5.0 -10.0 Grey dense, poorly sorted silty sand with
gravel )glacial drift)
TP -15 0 -1.0 Black organic topsoil
1.0 -3.0 Dark brown - black, loose silty sand with.roots
3.0 -7.0 Grey & brown, medium dense, poorly sorted slightly
silty gravelly sand
7.0 -11.0 Grey medium dense, poorly sorted sand, some oxid.
lenses Seepage @ 8'
DAVID L. NELSOVANDASSOCIATES, INC.
Consultineli.igghogrigg Geology
13424 Chain Lain Road • MINIM NA lS272 • X6/704.1332
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
SCALE -
DATE 2/18/R'
PROJ. NOQ
SHEET 4 Of 4_
CITY OF TUKWILA ( 1-:eI_L LNTROL • PERMIT NUMBER2 -(5 ¢ NUMBER 494-"CO-<-7
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: E BLDG, ri PLNG, 1 ;w'1 J 1 FIRE � J POLICE J J P.& R.
PROJECT)(.)' c ' �E
ADDRESS CZkAA so, 4) SUf��.(,p �� .
DATE • TRANSMITTED (- n- & + RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
C,P,S, STAFF COORDINATOR - RESPONSE RECEIVED
P e s)
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE.
COMMENTS' IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE.
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED::
jC —S4
■
2) fl L S �}1 � .sq n LL. g n en ciu/
►-`�1 �. rn +-ter, ski c ,, Cio il.(c c s 7Z;
'm►�!ry rA; N; lint 6 )(L TU191►rn, ro---P ,P7 /i ( —
OF r-7)01-4N
1� ( il-d,S C..r A-V (1 .N .-e 7*
72- 0M L l?1 srr73ni !SLf " ((H 7
■
■
■
PL Gt'J S(7-6' ;7 `1nit 7)7t -L\ 1%•G
I N0 r11 1V9 ( -71-1- o (77(2f�,vUCy
r U II 14 Pe (ate) 2 > > (r (70 ' ()TV L1 b.) LS
1--■ c r\N 'il) o (h'._�!l: �✓(f,
so t mu PCw k /) S ,P A,10-- '07
GOO
D, R, C, REVIEW ' Eat:ESTED
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED
•
PLAN CHECK -DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED B 14,
r.p.s_ Frpm 7
CITY OF TUKWILA ( ( • r
PERMIT NUMBER2_5 Cu ROL NUMBER 44- _ ‹
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG, 1---1 PLNG, ri P,W, F--] FIRE r--1 POLICE P.& R.
PROJECT )t" W(sni'J 1- '4E
ADDRESS 2.-,u9 Sd, S Nk3\16 GC() a) .
DATE TRANSMITTED ( - n- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1- iC -S4
C, P, S, STAFF COORDINATOR t.( RESPONSE RECEIVED I -11-8*
(1,2_)(2-13 Egmezei.J0 g..e5m-S)
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS' IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
n
Fl
a
1), We m 70 `T is P,QO,d`a-cT
2) f
S ze.,6 T o
Lc) P4/572'S /9-/&67
'3) vra 3 4 /7-7-p F ' X2.9) /y/ €`' /?t /LTA L(f/( /9E,--A4‘,
4)
5)
6),
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
QOLL
D, R, C, REVIEW tfidiftltIr hL PLAN CHECK 'DATE i- /7-
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED C COMMENTS PREPARED E�`Y /.��
ri n1,1 nooDnvrr, I X i4s ygre- f} -Bovb s C.P.S. FORM 2
GI,TY OF TUKWILA
PERMIT NUMBERZ -15 _ LuNTROL NUMBER -8 _ C
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: 1 BLDG, [1:: PLNG, 1 P, W, [1:: FIRE r--1 POLICE P, & R.
PROJECT)()\z■k(f RE d
ADDRESS (Z"° (1 ' so, 4 AO.
DATE TRANSMITTED, t - (1 8. 4 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY I- -84
C,P,S, STAFF COORDINATOR - RESPONSE RECEIVED
C ic, • . S)
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS' IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
J1) Teo — .0--00-1J
2)
f--1 '3)
/ • - - - -
4) 2 -
E] 5) /, ./( ;- 2 _ a ✓ r~.7 �7 . t�!/7�p
LI' 6) r9 / c 00 4 s- Cit .� et ;f c e e. ddoQ
[� 7) -c ,. e .,� �.—.. 2■■• a •1 f , t Am- 6 s a•e
El8) Nt.t4- 42. , I cvffr`.2 � ` 1
ri 9) Sze-
10) .oi/
11 11) /r/--k...
11 12)
Ej 13) __
1 14) /
El 15 )
BDVLeo
D.R.C. REVIEW PLAN CHECX 'DATE 1_ /02 — J
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED III COMMENTS PREPARED BY- 1�.�:�
.�.
API wnr.rrtrrr.
C.P.S. FORM 2.
CITY OF TUKWILA 10 •
k, PERMIT NUMBER215-8¢ C( TROL NUMBER 84- '�-
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: E BLDG., C PLNG, III P.W. 1 FIRE POLICE U JP.&R,
PROJECT - FEE
ADDRESS e21-0 kz - Sa, SUkS\GOr
DATE TRANSMITTED (- (I , 84- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1-- i6. -- a4
C,P,S, STAFF COORDINATOR &1. (.--= RESPONSE RECEIVED
tgaiezkiRO pt.e5tYs)
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS/IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
•
1)
2)
'3)
Ej LI)
D 5)
1:3 6)
1 7) AAD7- ' /oNAL /� Cove-Ail-0 F'r{^/GCVCCED /�A.e�i✓4 A g�tr
W 1 BF t/ECnc1 / o .PuCH <t,�,. r Ar THrF�� c?en, 1/ew'cfrf
11 8)
■
9).
10)
11)
13) LAP., O C c . P A d c y or ) "' C 64 L n/, _ f l /, rL F ',JILL gE Rd 1 c< �A,ie "
1/<N /CvLAA) .g, C VC 1. rr F eirh,i"_f7.4IAA, )t4 Fri { f N /tfFn4, .T,JC1FAtF 1•R.I'Fr /C //Ar4,Q
14) Du2,n/6 CoiJfpps4�c� /a✓ FXdlF Av7 -e Cvn/cvT A' �N<pLF.o -r6 A.- L,t,
RE .i F +4 f eL F 1kp - ie .,p„/ /ixr 4'NOU l il go- JYR.JTLrfs J F Fie , ,JTi-
Q GY OR Ftv,✓i dc,,cF ,f.-A, ,crf
15)
.5 80ULeD
D, R, CI REVIEW E tESTED F L PLAN CHECK DATE ) — J 7-1�
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED
•
COMMENTS PREPARED BY T• ,Q,L
fl M 9
CITY OF TUKWILA - 1 1
PERMIT NUMBER2i5.84 &ATROL NUMBER, e4 -'00-44-
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: E BLDG, r--1 PLNG, 1 P, W, FIRE r--1 POLICE 1. p,& R.
PROJECT, nr) E
ADDRESS 62.1'° N� ' 5.;vti5() N4t) .
DATE .TRANSMITTED (- I I ^ 8 + , RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1-(C-- a4
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR .Ft(--= $ . RESPONSE RECEIVED
S )
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED. PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS/ IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
1) I) Q Cent) hyen 71s Fleg— e� Coif LC/7
Gtv4F--- Cooc.) ;44 )--e it- y e--
4) '
❑ 5)
❑ 6)
LJn
0 8)
11] 9>
•
10)
12)
1113)
[] 14)
15)
D.R.C. REVIEW'REQttESTED7
PLAN RESUBMITTAL. REQUESTED
PLAN CHECK DATE •/ -/
COMMENTS PREPARED BY. � •�
C ITY -OF -TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER - CONTROL NUMBER SIC, ZIS-d'(-
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTIr6 FORM
TO: C1 BLDG. Q. PLNG. P.W. Q FIRE Q POLICE Q P. & R.
PROJECT )3\ivin-y)
,ADDRESS
DATE TRANSMITTED
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE REQUESTED J ' LS -8-
RESPONSE REC
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE .
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
Q 1 _ ?AI V 11 io( FIND ]■N4-1, 111 r,
GkT-- Liv--r fi Arc4--) hiNJ co'rn./0\t-hriTs
a
Q
0
a
T�1�2 t f\Q N1 s Lo 0 Es i C4 TS 1 FI 1 LS t (',O Cry
\ik L LAX 1 Ni() t n4 < TC . 16 PrL) :)- -?-
ISTt • w 1 t ( 1 I'lt\ 1/17 I c ;
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
iS C QL z L )
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED Q
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED (�
PLAN APPROVED [r
PLAN CHECK DATE 1
6.8.
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
r D C cnOM 7
•
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
13424 Chain Lake Road Monroe, Washington 98272 206/794 -4332
January 25, 1984
.Project No. 0584
Northward Construction Co.
1115 - 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue.,. Washington 98004
Attention:.
Richard A. Gilroy
-81TEIW1D
JAN 2 5.1984]
CITY OF TUKWILA
• PLANNING DEPT.
Reference: Preliminary Soils Assessment
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
Gentlemen;
This is to serve as a letter of preliminary soils assessment
at the above referenced project site, per your request.
On January24,' 1984 we performed a series of -eight backhoe.itest
pits within the area of the proposed Sunwood Phase III develop-
"ment•-: Placement and "extent of the backhoe investigation.was
determined by accessibility and proposed building locations.
Test pits :l and'2 were performed in the general area of Buildin
test pit-4 in the area of Building .2; test pit 4 in_ the area of
Building 3', test pit `5 in the area between Building .4. and 5,
test 'pit 6 in the area if Building 4, test pit 7 in the area
of Building 5 :. and test pit' 8 in the area of Building 6. Test
pits were not performed in the area of Building -7 or..8 due to
the .limited: access :presently available.- Visual: observation• was
performed throughout the site. area, including downslope along
Southcenter Boulevard, where exposutes of bedrock and soils
°occur': Observation was also performed in the area of Building
and 8 to' aid in preparation of this assessment.
AVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES,
Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Page two
General Soils Conditions
Test pits performed within the site area_ generally indicate -.
the presence of glacial soils overlying basal. weathered sandstor
bedrock;'with local accumulations of slopewash and artificial
fill surficially. Artificial fill, consisting of intermixed`
silt,. sand, -gravel, bedrock chunks, orgaxiics arnd some rubble,
was :found generally 2' to 4' ; ..thick in .the area if Building.. I;,
Building., . ..and Building .647. and is., expected .`to ' occur in the: area •
:;.of Building and ` 8 :. Slopewash material_, . consisting of brown.
to. orange- brown,, loose to .medium dense , _-.silty sand with gravel
and .bedrock "chunks was ' generally found. in the area of east of
Building 4-and-within Building 5 and 6.` Thickness of.this-
material .generally was found to be full depth of the test pit;.;
in Building 5 and partially within Building 6. ' Glacial: soils.,
• consisting. of medium dense glacial drift and poorly sorted sand
.and sand /gravel mixtures were generally encountered in the area
.of :.Buildings 2., 3 and 4, and in the western portion of Building
.This .material is expected to overly the basal sandstone bedrock
material, as indicated by test pit 4, within Building 3. The
weatered sandstone material was found sporatically within the
site area, .although generally occurs within the central: to
eastern portion of the site. This material consists of orange
brown, dense medium grained sand which increases density with
depth. It appears to be the Renton Formation(Upper upper Eocene
non-marine arkosic sandstone), which is laiown to occur within
the area. The weathered upper zone of the Renton Formation is
*quite thick and was not penetrated by our investigation.
Hydrologic Conditions
The general hydrologic conditions encountered in the test pit
investigation indicates that ground water occurs within the .
more permeable glacial soils, as indicated by considerable
seepage. This seepage generally occurs above the glacial drift
0 DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES,* (: Consulting Engineering Geology C
January 254 1984
Project No. 0584
Page three
soils, within the glacial.outwash soils and just above the
.weathered sandstone material where near surface. This ground
water appears to be derived from surface water accumulation and
percolation into the underlying soils*
Comments
Based upon our preliminary soils assessment investigation we
believe the area can be developed as anticipated and that
construction as proposed can be performed, provided additional
specific investigation of the.propoged construction areas be mai
determine foundation and earthwork stabilization procedures of
the building areas.
The soils and hydrological conditions encountered within the sk
area during this investigation indicate that development can be
adequately performed, provided certain construction operations
and precautions be anticipated. The exact extent of these is
not readily available, due to the limited . nature of this inves-
tigation and the findings.
We suggest that ' a soils investigation ° °and-report, : including
recommendat:ions..for foundation placement;:: earthwork and slope
stabilization be performed when . building locations are finalize,
and site development outlined. The preliminary soils informati
indicates the development to be feasible; however, additional
information will be necessary to best present foundation and
stabilization recommendations ,of the specific building areas...
We trust the above information is of use. We will be available
for consultation and ability to perform the additional soils
investigation and report when required. If you have any questi
feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincere
D ay.i
ssociates, Inc.
David L. Nelson, PG
Consulting Engineering Geologist
DLN: kmn
4:et/La_
J. Keith Cross, PE
Geotechnical Consu
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Public Works Department 433 -1850
.March 20, 1984
Mr. D i c k G i l r oy
Pacific Townhouse Bui l # 1 1nifi � u�
- 1115 -108th Avenue N. _...
Bellevue, WA 980 4 ,MAR 22 1984
CITY OF
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Mr. Gilroy:
Byron G. Sneva, Director
Re: Sunwood Phase III - Refer
Pacific Townhouse Builders
Letter of 3/15/84 and Horton
Dennis Report of 2/23/84
Per the attached documents it appears that a maximum safe fire flow of
3,300 gallons per minute is available at the Sunwood III= site which
will at the same time maintain a positive water pressure of a to 9 psi at
the top of the north hill. Per Alan Meyers report this allows for the
minimum conditions set by the State for an adequate water system.
Therefore, a development on this site which meet the.Tukwila :Fire Marshal's
requirements will be acceptable to Public Works.
If you have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to
call me at 433 -1856.
Sincerely,
Phillip R. Fraser,
Senior Engineer
xc: Jim Hoel, Fire Marshal
Ping. Director
A. Meyers, Horton Dennis
D.-Grage, T.M.S.
Bldg. Inspector
file
Enclosures (2)
• •
Pacific Townhouse Builders
e4tic vli�� c. h1a. wu Buil�n6, 1370 .91cwm t `3t1 cct, .Swtc 100, .9catt)c,
Bellevue office: 1115 108th Avenue NE, Bellevue, WA 98004 (206) 455 -1726
March 15, 1.984
Phil Fraiser -
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, =Wash. 98188
Re: Sunwood Phase III
Dear 'Phil:
> :I .have enclosed a copy of the report from 'Horton .
Dennis &.Associates on the Computer Fire Flow Analysis.
After-reviewing it with Triad and comparing it with
actual field tests done by the Fire Department,we
confirm-that . there :.'is no adverse affect on your" water
system:.:,.
After you have reviewed the attached, would you
please ;.,confirm : in.writing your conclusion. ;-
RAG•val
encl.
Cordially,
PACIF� T•WN•
tie
...-
Dick
z
USE. BUILDERS
& {
!orton & Dennis ,Associates, Inc.
Constr%tinq I.ngin(crs
February 23, 1984
Mr. Dick Gilroy
Pacific Townhouse Builders
Mariner Building
1370 Stewart Street
Suite 100
Seattle, Washington 98109
SUBJECT: COMPUTER FIRE FLOW ANALYSIS
FOR SUNWOOD III
Dear Mr. Gilroy:
Per your notice to proceed dated February 14, 1984 we have completed the
fire flow analysis for the Sunwood III Project.
We analyzed the available fire flow at Unit No. 1 of Stanwood 11I-, since
it is the highest unit in the development. Three hydrants were. used to test -
for available fire flow at Unit No. 1. The minimum required residual pressure -
of 20 -psi at the highest hydrant used for the test was used as the controlling
factor in determining available fire flow. During each fire flow simulation, a.
maximum instantaneous background demand flow of 4,600 gpm in the Tukwila Water
System was also simulated.
As shown in the test results listed below, afire flow, of 3,1300 gpm is
available at Unit No. 1 with a residual pressure of 20 psi at th-e highest hy-
drant used. Under these conditions, the pressure on top of North Hill would
drop to 2.3 psi. A second simulation yielded a fire flow of 3,6:00 gpm @ 25 psi
at Sunwood III with a residual pressure on top of North Hill of '4.5 psi.
RESULTS OF COMPUTER SIMULATED FIRE FLOWS ON TUKWIELA WATER? SYSTEM
Test Condition Flow and Residual Pressures
1. Peak flow condition for
Tukwila Water System plus
fire flow at Sunwood III of
3,800 gpm.
2. Peak flow condition for
Tukwila Water System plus
fire -flow at Sunwood III of
3,600 gpm.
At Unit No. 1 of Sunwood: III At Top of North Hill.
(NODE 46)
= 3,800 gpm..
= 20 psi.
Q = 30 gpm.
P = 2.3 psi.
Q = 3,600 gpm. Q = 30 gpm.
P = 25 psi. . P = 4.5 psi.
6133 Seth Ave. South, Seattle, WaAington 03108, • F�'i':. :we 767-.3456
• •
According to current. Washington State Standards, *the following pressures
shall be provided in all water distribution systems.
New public water systems or additions to existing systems shall provide a
design quantity of water at a positive pressure of at least 30 psi (200 KPA)
under maximum instantaneous demand flow conditions measured at the water meter
or at the property line of the premises when meters are not used. When a
system is being designed to provide fire flows, a positive pressure shall be
maintained throughout the system under fire flow conditions at the water meter
or at the property line."
Based on this and previous test results, and the above minimum State
Standards, the existing Tukwila Water System is adequate to serve the proposed
development while providing the minimum required 30 psi during maximum instan —.
taneous demand flow conditions, and positive pressures throughout the system
during a fire flow of 3,600 gpm at Sunwood III.
Based on these test results and our experience, it is our opinion that a.
maximum safe fire flow of 3,300 gpm is available at the Sunwood III site while
maintaining positive water pressures of 8 to 9 psi at the top of North Hill. -
Actual fire flow requirements for the proposed development must be determined
by the Tukwila Fire Marshall.
If you desire additional-tests or information, please. call us.
Sincerely,
HORTON DENNIS & ASSOCIATES.,. INC.
Alan E. Meyers, P.
AEM:gjn
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Ed Jones
*Rules and Regulations of the State Board of Health regarding Public Water
Systems, Revised, August, 1983. .
Horton Dennis & Associates, Inc. • Consulting Engineers • S,:c:Alle, W' shingion
•
To
•
•
Subject —C L \\NOC )
Speed Message
From
Date
�L AIL
• �
19.
331— lid l�
V( L� L -ia'\ lfU ksLc Pa les 11s�1c� 4
Sign
WilsonJones
GRAYLINE FORM 44 -900 2 -PART
0983 • PRINTED IN U.S.A.
*VILA.
• City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
1909
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Ri'ck.Reeler, Associate Planner
Sunwood Phase, I'I;I'' - DR -1 -84
As you recall from the previous- meeting of January 26, 1984,
this item was tabled to your February 23, 1984, meeting.
Pe.r discussions w.ith:0 the Applicant, i:defi'nite tabling of.
consideration is requested. A letter to this effect. was not
avail abl e at the. time of .-mail i;ng of your meeting packets, but
w:i 11 be- submitted at the :beginning nni ng of the meeting.
WAC 197 -11 -1360
• •
DECLARATION OF SIGNIFIANCE'
AND SCOPING NOTICE
Description of proposal 66 Multiple Family Units on 3.85 acre site
Proponent Pacific Townhouse Builders
Location of Proposal 62nd Ave. S. and Sunwood Boulevard
Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 215 -84
EIS Required. This proposal has been determined to be likely to have a
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact
statement (EIS) is required under RCW 42.21C.020(c) and is now being pre-
pared. An environmental checklist or other materials indicating likely
impacts can be reviewed at our offices.
Scoping. Agencies and members of the public are invited to comment on the
scope of the EIS. The method and deadline for giving us your comments is:
February , 1984, in writing to the responsible official
Responsible Official Brad Collins
Position /Title Planning Director
Address and Phone 6200 Southcenter Blvd., Tukwila, WA 98188
Date February 3, 1984 Signature
Published: Record Chronicle, February , 1984
•
j F F B 2 1984
vgsr 7/ 9 -7 7-"//e7. C2 ,'7y -o F 7 e /ecwe, •
7771-e d/` c"if c1 i� vriov .
°A/D vM /4/r Ate//ti - - 7v
r -
S _ � / //wa 7 'I<v , vksi /ec-WA A' �l�
Z. / /9CT . i
7 , T/U 7i"G 7 - envS /77 vC
/1741.6 - - /7L /G Cvti7.(iv vG�s ii9C - /�/I of ` 77 $ .
A y - / c ce577-- is - Uti 7/f
. f=vG C-e) 7V x// /vyl ?iv7�L. ,mac) (/Na.S
75 /S /-l4 ' - ac3%' D /2/- 1.SW
/9--1-t72//2,e7 $L/ 0 eS
NP7 4 .D/
e- - MW-77 -/t _c6 6 J i /75 6uiL� - 4
flier AY14 G!/�G
MO' rJ
-227
pV %ZUP of -.
/JUT 4 lfi Lv
x /S77 v /fi,iLS' Es E, r�l
S 'Z /tfJ S ,"64/// C49 /7_ v(4/42 G/���1
? i` -7LG / % ` C 7wt
A-u7,1/7.- pc/,==ys 45-zy2
2) //'✓ 777z-;-- � /14
M / $ 5 l c1/1/S — .c1f�%- 31-r
N , �-6 - /1 f /' s /d ;,' pc_.
T
M'S ly /00-5 e-j %
_Cott) _ ?1Ad _ D X ( S / %G> /e&Z6:7,7 e/t/rt‘.._
_ 1/17U 47 ,--ff—r-c7--
ED, �E //v4 / l /77),J) -Z '
op- iliA/e-<./c.» ce)(u .Bd/1-//A-/
6-/77 itJS 1 /L-Co C -? d 7/14,76-Grrd(./
,,;0 ^ 6 v/v' e.S' r'o `ri-d POD 7/1-5
daeecA/ArC //t-
62c4.9--/ / v C.7iVS / /�-uG 7C 042 / a
%j1 (zNc7
(97741 -z-a#_,L, c2r),y/ s-2-26/ifh/l
_ /A/ _ c726/-2-E
-v 6/5 5
-vim r\<Y jN/ //
_/z fri" W DWI, n
P// 7 -2-27,7/ a7-2 -/13 C/
7/ / ? 1,0„6/j Z 2 -7/r=1? 6'X2 (0-0
i '?' S'/ I/' G cry )/5,
/ /c ,31/g1---d-7_-3
n1
, 2.2 _/ o 02 2 ry%
] kfre7/ d- 1-7.07/ / 5rvar
CM' 7 (2S� /s W s�� /V7 gs
/c2 S.? /t/l/ V-2-7----70 o-' 7-' 72 g'_ 'J,-/
S /VP ,12',Z Sn, --(x/71 -6"
�yO -o ;SNOB- W
S/ 2 e e /2�1/ ft, - - r'' i/i.
Xe� 1 �S r1(W., /t7 7j�/ �/v /2 �/
/y 7? t},95
c:a 1/ /L. CA/6 /A. NI - S •
/Er /L �n/y�r✓cc= /Z_
SO ficlL vav2 � Cv�latv� /T1i
G/! -/✓.✓ c,�''�
f c-L /i ,f-7% 04.1 /Fe/t4 (4i -ST,1 /17? v /1/
3 0 �e�tiS z,cc /6 -"/4c- /iv cew S ?/t -vCT,, ,
rz,„--„,/,-, .�-,,, / ,,,/tZ" r 4.4 e, / Jf/,t -STA/,, ,l.4/
N ��`-C /2e ,P 4/K ,14 c-rt.Ts
_
7;.°1-'"
/5/ de./ 514,7 e.A.0 0 ei '
4)
'7'4
L-firm-Pi /riff 1
FEB 2 1984
TUKvni..A
PLANNING DEPT.
//1,/fit-P//9 7E- '77-ex./AA)
5 i rd,,z/
c fry
1
) 1 'c)�� Sm.)
•
U21d � vu Sd IC19CIOS
'
N
Sd�d �d /._L— Za-s 1,vc \Nc)
ON" G )0/\—W1�
/ )\,c) StJ7Cyc -�
sin ss 1 ISM Ocw aotv-)s ss?.s?)crcP c f , QsdC`pl
O ndors VQU�dwN cvl S`�1 -WMZ.. -1004 "Z
�+ s3
` 7 % S�d+�1S ��a S)Z ?JbK� 1_ -AO ..1 -SVN '
-539
ns,s1 pr- 1cyr 1S -C? C1
( 2..(VICPWRa3.1 a Oncm -=3-olL - c 000 \ •C-)S -321
T
DON \t tLUPic.
F
o NAP
SUBJECT aKM30 '41(
MESSAGE
DATE I /If /8
10 I(2 stZMe ) e-t o Lavviwtet S o&
ro5a i
fa_M LON ( C;r7Ps(4322_1., ID ES 1 NU / \- C5/
Oit.-1.X.) w.c. face° M. btzl OF-n-te. Stre
L. .. 198'•/
• «°:� «ia" 1 Naii 1`: if
SENO PARTS 1 A ' 3. wnN CARtiUN:INTACT = POLY PAK CH SETS) 4P472
PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
E.1\\_11F-2:[0_
FEB 2 1984
Cm 46/ 7h7-Sk .A1
PLANG DFFT.
-757/0
cr-zyciesr.- 77-47r- 77#e7 (7`Y ° 7
_Tee _ 0/4_
- - - - 0/vi m"( __/97v
ffri _
$7-'1 re-7,0 _ _
S /47 r.. - 0/C- :_c4.7,7377tt-,-6-6,74/4.
- - •
• - 777
vi///6z/iv_41__c!--4,-7-."-e__ '
(5 /Ve
/772/v/..e? 5440 _ _
7-4-t --Ve--z-r)fi 04.4
4 • e_=_ _
_
rTT.
ni71377A-P--x -aNfri3 _
Z-761V -7(17/14
• ei •
•
d-oPoix70
4AL 7
— _
/-.5-5 t-cd/t/s ci/6
--------- 777e-F. 1,451"-Gt, -es Or-7'
ZTe
etti) 44 eit/r
Av,D ,E-A7(S 7-7•4'g. (40"k./-
vg7u Ay 4e7
- 3/1L-P9 e47et
-3.19A./
2e)/11/A,
/7■P:-4) - 77,7-
7 vu s-rieze c •7 SAJ
„ortA) ire- 7- 7-774-6-
s,teecitzrxY
/2" C .ter. �z.�j�' ... �, jam.. e-7VG rif,4 - -... - - .. .
/ —w fi5t/JJ .. Cam, �u/���-/r�r .f d7 Wit: 1-47vS
S 777-
4//73-- r A/7 AP
_
fir-`- -- - _-
Gl - l/ o T7rS 0. - . 7" /fig - -
/71 7S
-rdr, crvx_ /,mss ////
&y) Tip- . _.
/ SS' v /57---&"" "!/i __ ._ /,f/_
/s
x//76/ //49S'/'f / /✓
/ty 7/t„Js
C/ L/ /c CA/6 e s •
A2E Is T C/ 4i /4_ �.-✓c /�L_
//cam vau/L j CO/LlAiv//T1i
/ /f7. cJti (tisl''ir- 7 v ter/
30 4/ CEJNS 7-71- 4JG77 c>ti
L//✓/►/ / by / /t/C ls. C /rt- S 771_.,`
0 N L///t'4-'44
•
1-.:;Q CAL I k) 13.
"Tu(uvic,A,
JAN
2C 1984
_•.
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
DNk3 S 44E. E.`L.?_U (e.,0
(1"-.1■37; C4-1-E.C(.,LIS-7 702:14\
e(-1 oci 004_
eoikArtz-c-Ax..
16 • .
\A/A-T-E,e_
(b)
qoa
(-14\-1 \/.1 ((A, E__
f-os K.V\IE-g-S • DA, _ _ _
et-IJA s
CCAA-E- _
\/.1 tQG 7_,Lk 1-)C5F.17-7-
112-Er-S
0-,(42,E.V.A■3777__
T 0
•
• IP
I b, oP .uPscr
04
-70 u-a-A-L-7--- ..14.4k3D
EA.) Ac,20s r*L- "10.-00 44-1c.c.
oq7_17 4P;b oF--
L 4 .0* -712pk-
• L G4S 4 cD t L vv
5;)4 L CE • _ • _ .
' • '.
_13.__TpArPor-r-.4„-riot-)/CIE.C.JAcile-rioss3
714-EzE- 4-401237-itksG-it. oP e-PAZic.113
2,e,i-D-TLA 1)3 r-P14ASTt._. OIL)K-eFt.0„0-
V4 ILL rPeCZALLI
?1 LL 0 VIsk2- TO
'.4icte< "aZ -)G eP9-00\-b132-b
. p4p&E _I _
•__ ITTE;NA , lc_ OF
(d)
ou c
sTizzrw... • OF 'D IS r.-PC•re).c _
LITI.ES \A/ LL -i UE- To_ - Lt5E] .
161, ?.C-C Tior0
rrEm )4
'AG u i -s_- -- __ oC Ti - 4 THIE. Tom. Kra.-"4 i s
W 4 - 70 Vic,, ex. -1-14 l AzzA 5o
sNel ALL C44-) Wt C,c. NUT' _
AZL -r� �- L. L 1'N) T) 7"-4 -_.. _ S, Gc -cam ► - -
�T \G _ 7LOW
/ce cri
E.4- (Thi; t.c_ Fl Eq_olv■ _
'T+?e. :Poo
169,3 a s4 uufob___ _'3c,uD
TU K,v l
c9(.//— / v 3_ N o m
74 3 - 5 57 8 wOz�c.
CITY OF TUKWILA - PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NW9NBER€(L ZIS V
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUT FORM
TO: [I BLDG. PLNG. 511. P.W. a FIRE a POLICE a P. & R.
PROJECT - 5)
ADDRESS
DATE TRANSMITTED
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR
2q-
40.1c__ 4
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
RESPONSE RECEIVED
8*
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(5) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED [[ PLAN CHECK DATE -
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0 COMMENTS PREPARED BY
PLAN APPROVED 0
C.P.S. FORM 2
•
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
"°'°"' `'�' 13424 Chain Lake Road
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Northward Construction Co.
1115 - 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Monroe, Washington 98272 206/794 -4332
Attention:. Richard A. Gilroy
MEM
JAN 2 5.1984
CITY OF TuKwiLA
PLANNING DEPT.
Reference: Preliminary Soils Assessment
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
Gentlemen;
This is to serve as a letter of preliminary soils assessment
at the above referenced project site, per your request.. On January 24, 1984 we performed a series of eight backhoe test
pits within the area of the proposed Sunwood Phase III develop-
ment. Placement and extent of the backhoe investigation was
determined by accessibility and proposed building locations.
Test pits 1 and 2 were performed in the general area of Building
test pit 3 in the area of Building 2, test pit 4 in the area of
Building 3, test pit 5 in the area between Building. 4 and 5,
test pit '6 in the area if Building 4, test pit 7 in the area
of Building 5 and test pit 8 in the area of Building 6. Test
pits were not performed in the area of Building 7- or 8.due to
the limited access.presently available. Visual observation was
performed throughout the site area, including downslope along
Southcenter Boulevard, where exposures of bedrock and soils
occur. Observation was also performed in the area of-Building'7
and 8 to'aid in preparation of this assessment.
• DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, II
Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Page two
General Soils Conditions
Test pits performed within the site area generally indicate
the presence of glacial soils overlying basal weathered sandston
bedrock, with local accumulations of slopewash and artificial
fill surficially. Artificial fill, consisting of intermixed .
silt, sand, gravel, bedrock chunks, organics and, some rubble.,
was found generally 2° to 4' thick in the area if Building 1,.
Building 3 and Building 6, and is expected to occur in the area
of Building 7 and 8. Slopewash material,: consisting of brown
to orange-brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand with gravel
and bedrock chunks was generally found in the area of east of
Building 4 and within Building 5 and 6. Thickness of this
material generally was found to be full depth of the test pit::
in Building 5 and partially within Building 6. Glacial soils,
consisting of medium dense glacial drift and poorly sorted sand
and sand /gravel mixtures were generally encountered in the areas
of Buildings 2, 3 and 4, and in the western portion of Building
This material is expected to overly the basal sandstone bedrock
material, as indicated by test pit 4,•within Building 3. The
weatered sandstone.material.was found sporatically within the
site area, although generally occurs within the central to
eastern portion of the site. This material consists of orange -
brown, dense medium grained sand which increases density with
depth. It appears to be the Renton Formation(Upper upper Eocene .
non-marine arkosic sandstone), which is known to occur within .
the area. The weathered upper zone of the Renton Formation is
'quite thick and was not penetrated by our investigation.
Hydrologic Conditions
The general hydrologic conditions encountered in the test pit
investigation indicates that ground water occurs within the
more permeable glacial soils, as indicated by considerable
• seepage. This seepage generally occurs above the glacial drift
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES,.
• Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25,1984
Project No. 0584
Page three
soils, within the glacial outwash soils and just above the
weathered sandstone material where near surface. This ground
water appears to be derived from surface water accumulation and
percolation into the underlying soils
Comments
Based upon our preliminary soils assessment investigation we
believe the area can be developed as anticipated and that
construction as proposed can be performed, provided additional..
Specific investigation of the .proposed construction areas be math
determine foundat.itin and earthwork stabilization procedures of
the building areas.
The soils and hydrological conditions encountered within the sits
area during this investigation indicate that development can be
adequately performed, provided certain construction operations
and precautions be anticipated. The exact extent of these is
not readily available, due to the limited nature of this inves-
tigation and the findings.
We suggest that a soils investigation and report, including
recommendations for foundation placement,_earthwork and slope
stabilization be performed when building locations are finalized
and site development outlined. The preliminary soils informatic
indicates the development to be feasible; however, additional
information will be necessary to best present foundation and.
stabilization recommendations of the specific building areas.
We trust the above information is of use. We will be available
for consultation and ability to perform the additional soils
investigation and report when required. If you have any questio:
feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincere
Da
vi • L o� �% `�
•
David L. Nelson, PG
Consulting Engineering Geologist
ssociates, Inc.
DLN: kmn
4:41‘kaa--
J. Keith Cross, PE
Gectechnical Consul
•
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
13424 Chain Lake Road Monroe, Washington 98272 206/794 -4332
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Northward Construction Co.
1115 - 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue.,, Washington 98004
Attention: Richard A. Gilroy
JLC31_W[o
JAN 2 5 1984
CITY OF rUKWiLA
PLANNING DEPT.
Reference: Preliminary Soils Assessment
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
Gentlemen;
This is to serve as a letter of preliminary soils assessment
at the above referenced project site, per your request.
On January 24, 1984 we performed a series of eight backhoe test
pits within the area of the proposed Sunwood Phase III develop-
ment. Placement and extent of the backhoe investigation was
determined by accessibility and proposed building locations.
Test pits 1 and 2 were performed in the general area of Building 1
test pit 3 in the area of Building .2, test pit 4 in the area of
Building 3, test pit 5 in the area between Building 4 and 5,
test pit 6 in the area if Building 4, test pit 7 in the area
of Building 5 and test pit 8 in the area of Building 6. Test
pits were not performed in the area of Building 7 or 8 due to
the limited access.presently available. Visual observation was
performed throughout the site area, including downslope along
Southcenter Boulevard, where exposures of bedrock and soils
occur. Observation was also performed in the area of Building 7
and 8 to "aid in preparation of this assessment.
• DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, •
Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Page two
General Soils Conditions
Test pits performed within the site area generally indicate
the presence of glacial soils overlying basal weathered sandstone
bedrock, with local accumulations of slopewash and artificial
fill surficially. Artificial fill, consisting of intermixed
silt, sand, gravel, bedrock chunks, organics and some rubble,
was found generally 2° to 4° thick in the area if Building 1,
Building 5 and Building 6, and is expected to occur in the area
of Building 7 and 8. Slopewash material, consisting of brown
to orange - brown, loose to medium dense, silty sand with gravel
and bedrock chunks was generally found in the area of east of
Building 4 and within Building 5 and 6. Thickness of this
material generally was found to be full depth of the test pit::
in Building 5 and partially within Building 6. Glacial soils,
consisting of medium dense glacial drift and poorly sorted sand
and sand /gravel mixtures were generally encountered in the areas
of Buildings 2, 3 and 4, and in the western portion of Building 1..
This material is expected to overly the basal sandstone bedrock
material, as indicated by test pit 4, within Building 3. The
weatered sandstone material was found sporatically within the
site area, although generally occurs within the central to
eastern portion of the site. This material consists of orange-
brown, dense medium grained sand which increases density with
depth. It appears to be the Renton Formation(Upper upper Eocene
non- marine arkosic sandstone), which is known to occur within
the area. The weathered upper zone of the Renton Formation is
'quite thick and was not penetrated by our investigation.
Hydrologic Conditions
The general hydrologic conditions encountered in the test pit
investigation indicates that ground water occurs within the
more permeable glacial soils, as indicated by considerable
seepage. This seepage generally occurs above the glacial drift
• DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES,•.
Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Page three
soils, within the glacial outwash soils and just above the
weathered sandstone material where near surface. This ground
water appears to be derived from surface water accumulation and
percolation into the underlying soils
Comments
Based upon our preliminary soils assessment investigation we
believe the area can be developed as anticipated and that
construction as proposed can be performed, provided additional
specific investigation of the propoaed construction areas be made
determine foundatibn and earthwork stabilization procedures of
the building areas.
The soils and hydrological conditions encountered within the site
area during this investigation indicate that development can be
adequately performed, provided certain construction operations
and precautions be anticipated. The exact extent of these is
not readily available, due to the limited nature of this inves-
tigation and the findings.
We suggest that a soils investigation and report, including
recommendations for foundation placement,:e.arthwork and slope
stabilization be performed when building locations are finalized
and site development outlined. The preliminary soils information
indicates the development to be feasible; however, additional
information will be necessary to best present foundation and
stabilization recommendations.,of the specific building areas.
We trust the above information is of use. We will be available
for consultation and ability to perform the additional soils
investigation and report when required. If you have any questions
feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincere
Davi• L.�N�• `� • ssociates, Inc.
David L. Nelson, PG J. Keith Cross, PE
Consulting Engineering Geologist Gebtechnical Consulta
DLN: kmn
• •
#7=1:7 CIATES
January 24, 1984
Rick Beeler
Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: Sunwood Phase III
Dear Rick:
Project Management
Civil Engineering
Land Surveying
Land Use Planning
Environmental Analysis
11415 NE 128th Street
Kirkland, Washington 98033
(206) 821 -8448
!JAN 241984J
CITY DF TLKvziLA
PLANNING DEPT.
In line with our phone conversations last week, this letter will
address the issues not fully explored in the environmental check-
list prepared by the applicant for Sunwood Phase III.
Soils. David Nelson, who did the soils study for the two earlier
phases of Sunwood and whose information provided a basis for the
EIS analysis of that topic, is preparing a letter that will de-
scribe the soil and groundwater conditions on this site. That
letter will reach you under separate cover.
Slope Analysis. Enclosed with this letter you will find a copy
of the slope analysis prepared by Triad. It shows all the areas
of the site with slopes over 20%.
Noise. The EIS for the earlier phases of the Sunwood project
noted that the sites for those two phases receive a considerable
amount of noise from I -405 and the interchange of that highway
with I -5. That EIS estimated that noise levels in the vicinity
could exceed 70 dBA ten percent of the time. The site for Phase
III lies closer to I -405, and one would expect its current noise
levels to be somewhat higher. However, my personal observation
on the site at noon -time on January 24, 1984 indicated that traf-
fic noise on the site was barely audible and not approaching the
estimated levels, apparently due to the distance (both horizontal
and vertical) from the freeway.
The noise levels inside typical buildings with partially
open windows is reduced by 15 -20 dBA. Thus, noise levels in the
proposed buildings, which will be constructed with typical a-
mounts of insulation and double -pane windows, would be further
reduced. To attenuate night -time noise impacts, bedrooms in the
units proposed on this site have been oriented away from the
freeway side of the site.
Traffic. The proposed 66 units would generate up to 400 vehicle
trips each day onto Sunwood Boulevard, which runs through the
site, 62nd Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard. Of those
trips, approximately 10% would occur during each peak traffic pe-
riod. All the streets appear to have excess capacity to accom-
modate this volume of traffic, although even incremental changes
can increase peak -hour delays at key intersections, such as 62nd
• •
Page Two
Rick Beeler
January 24, 1984
and Southcenter. In the mornings, these delays would most affect
traffic on 62nd attempting to enter Southcenter, and in the
afternoon, they could affect traffic on Southcenter. Such delays
should not be significant.
Storm Water. When Sunwood Boulevard was built through the site,
a large detention system was installed under it to accommodate
all of Phases I and II as well as the road serving them. Because
a portion of Phase I by- passes the storm water collection system,
there is ample capacity in the existing detention system to de-
tain the runoff, from Phase III. An analysis prepared at the time
of approval for the first two phases shows that all the flow
through the storm water system can be easily accommodated down-
stream.
Water Supply. Water to the units in the proposed development
would be provided through a loop off the Main in Sunwood Boule-
vard. Triad Associates is working with the Fire Department to
obtain current fire flow data, but in a conversation with the
fire chief, he indicated that the theoretical flows through the
site are in excess of 4000 gpm.
Substantial Trees. There are a few trees near the south property
line on the site that measure over 8 inches in diameter. The
proposed site plan would retain these trees.
I trust the above information helps answer all the City's con-
cerns. If you have any further questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
TRIAD SSOC Ii1 ES
om Hsu
nviro
IC
enti Planner
Enclosure
TO rASS4
R •
O t(L`
M
+ SUBJECT ' 6LNU c494 •0
MESSAGE
DATE
Yx_w_. i h t �lgs4 cOfrinwt�s RazenScDo s�
ec_Pftv, r1-8 T3E7 (INzors. panov tvs(m)
REPLY
REOIFORM ® 4S 472
SIGNED
SKID PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBON. INTACT -
DADT 1 Will Ge OCTIIYIIen WIT/ oeav
DATE / /
POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472
•
• 4
City of Tukwi
•
• r7r /77, •
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 981881-;;;-,-
...
- • • • . • -
•••• • -7:-
• • - • • •
• ,
...• •
• . • DATE. OF ;,TRANSMITTAL --/,-‘J144. •
PLANNING DEPARTMEN11-:".),,,
• - •
. .
' T R A NSMI.TTAL
•
TO • - 0 BUILDING DEPT.
FIRE
• •
UBLICWORKSDEPT
y:.afte7a17•..
, -
-
• ^ '
-Theiabove-mentionedariilicantiiiiiSU6Mitted
for the" abov& reference project - :
Vironmental''Checklist
•
.
Environmental:Impact: State`::.
1.A--,7•,- t
-••••
:6". '14 i•••■ exk:.g.9
c4.
1.t.N.**4•••;:%''li..4.;';'',2
.v., , . . ..........4,1"."*;
:k, p 4 ,_,..:.s.
• `-i..._caile4.,,,,,,i0.:17.„., ,„,
-0;7•3,•:',,' CI *4...t!..Vtt: i..,.-''..:* 7r..:1•::-
-41-jitt i'a.. "--?..-.1-,,.....% -,,:tt:,---',',.:
::-;;f01.1 owing:.,,plansormater.i al s-L:
.,, .,.
.-.,..4,..,,..,,,N....1.e.,...g,,,,,,,,),-;,-4•4•,, ......,:q0"... - ..,..„ • -.1.*:67......+,:." ■Gt•
Rrelimina -.FAA.
....f.4,„,.,:..,-;,,,,,i,,,,..
Final,(-Pla.
-2:1--y,;-••:::•,•;'.•••, ::.;...‘,4::4-:•;e.,-;:',,. .;i:`,..g,r.., .;...!...: :-•: e. , - , • - • - • •,„
-ment.•44-.--,,,••-:,,,;--•-.:-°-,.......e•,•°""'""•:, 'L:. 'r . 'n -:•"'' *'' ..
'-',1‘..4.7-•:;-5A1.;',..*Ait-;:"5-.44.:rfbre:77.:...:Z..1. ,,,. ::1,4,t7 -5' -..1..4-'‘ c.,-, ' ..A `FC-
Site/DeVelopment:,,,PjanS.,,;;,:,": - Rezone7 equet,7..,q.•-:,,,
., ,--••.,:.zz-•4."-si,-7-.2,--:',;i•,:-..,•:,••-,'-..;?:-'4::::::.,::.::-."
Shoreline ,' Permit ',Appli cati on VarianceReqUes
.-.,..,f•,.:.,...:.:..:,,.. .--.-._ :,;;;Y:•.:,.., ,',-• 7-- ...".c. , ,..z, :, ..,,,'-'.•
Conditional....'Use:Periiit.!::-..- othq-,i,..:75:.x-,---N4i,:..1.:,;-,
.,,,.....
A 61 i Citi On' -:',•-•-•-•--':•:,'-:".•-•-••-: • ''.--4,'•:-•-e": '''' -.---ti•iii,s;.-4°:" '-1::•'•-*': ' '''',..-4••-•:;:;;'-.,i,•,..i.,.---:- `q-,,,]:,..•:: - • - • i
. .:;•<.;,:-■-71,'-.i•- P, .. __ ,••..-,-,:-..e..-.-.3.,-..,-2i..;.,.,-,,..,.:-.3.•,^.--...,,,,,A.1„7... ---, .°1:•,..,,,-1...-f . 4:::_t-,,,,_.,....
•!,--,:,4.1%,,..;...,:,..,A,..,.;,.:.,,,,,,......-k-,4-.:7,,,,,-,,,f-pr-,.7...tr,7,,,...;?..,-.....-,.,...:..;--..,z,-::::_a-,4,-,k,„. ,.p.;, , - --,;.,..,,,,: .-i.,.- „ ::,:tii--•-•;:,-:.:,---
1-kyi.:f...4.Z.44:ii.;;K:ifT',47,-v,,,,:tii.r.:::::-:-.:-..k.4s;?.-,,,,;-..- 4;t.....,..-..!..--,4,...,,z...,:- ,-...,,:.--7.;-.,..,-.: _ . . --,,,:•:,...;:i,,,,,•-. ,- - =z1,,-,1-13.;,-74-,,,,,,,,
.
e 'attached .,:materialst.•iare:,sent-to .--you..;._for,:yoUr..review -.-;and,:',,.comment:r.---,..,...The.,..&,:v
.. . .
1 ann i n g -:.Dept-',.':eneeds•:..yo-ur ' comments:,tt--satisfy.s,lite■f:feW:::,prOceduteS;ar)FI to. ;...i:,•,-;':.:•:',.;.-::1••
.
--compl ete•Ahe ." projectifi 1 e .- -..-,:.. !',.4;3',•-•,',•!,• ---,-,,,,Y- '•-•-7-',:ii•--,.i..*';:-.'-v,--„..3,7:7/...:1-.,,t.,$•.,-I'_:-,-,;•.•t-A4,!:.-.,-••,::.? -.--h• -7,..3, -,- -.
,.-...,:•.-s7.:-4fi....
". "."?.:..,^, -....;--E,74‘,..-•;z- =PA,' •.',' •,i.-;':■.:. . '-,1 .,,,,vt Wi A :.; ..... !•:;.7...;-.•*;•!..-■,..1/4,L..0,;,
,. • • - - - f-1.:. • ,.- -,t ;,,,-"--,••",t0 ...,:.",,,:'-.7:1.' . •:,""-,-,,,"›./•••:.....?"',_---,:rf .A.-- ,...• ,--,.---,,,zr,-.4..-.,--4,-- •-::--1_,....2•,;-,,..4„, ,-,----,-.4,.,-,7--er..-v ''-='':6‘...4
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
-* • -•'.• -,••• : : ' , ' •-"1" •
, • .•. -
•-•
• , -``.7'2.,"1t.- *•".- • • • r • . -•
•
77,7116-cilieted.rtesponseAate .2 • -.LP-
'
• gW:,„ 4rtrAnte.00iMieri.t. •
• ,
. 3 eks rior to submission of building permit-application: - -
Pro' de drainage routing and calculations indicating how drainage will -
b tran itted to retention facilities and public drainage.
. 3 weeks prior to submission of building permit application:
there
c-- sa-r rtluctures surface/subsurface
ide adequate footings .nd propose al contours in this hillside
Althoug
, ORNMENTAL IMPACTS I Q #1-c is marked "yes"
I,- 1 tIon of what type of foundation strictures will be provided
(i. .---major .„,a, or what mitigating measures will be taken
his pro.--rty-or---s-= ounding properties.
for impactrt
As of the site
r A lo
2c211
-Y(c
an_develepmen
raffic study to determine adequacy of the adjace t traffic' dioiridpr,
stems to the Phase IV Develop including fire acces
/ we/
0(p
613
TO
p J(LL(P 1S! F 0:
M
SUBJECT 5...y1\3\6630 .A 'III DATE
_ MESSAGE
ict 18+
10. 0 c E `o t2. (-°(' -8+ L wtc- a .
FA.NLoALI (y.24 , 7 SS4 N / r2-. S Y (M S�
i-Gia_tr_-) is ea.waco.o cuz-mic4. 11--.\-€-.
O -mks
SIGNED
REPLY
REDZFORM ® 4S 472
SIGNED
T T SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT = 4
PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY.
nFTer1.1 Akin FII C gnu Fni 1 (1W_I ID
DATE
- 'POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472
OFFIbE MEMO
CITY of TUKWILA
TO: k&K
FROM: tee-Re-CC/1
//7/®�
FyNG✓e
DATE:
SUBJECT:
e /$g ,i he) 1246175a; Ptia. ,!4
- 3 78 ,Park' nest. C.ondex
, g- - 6 - B 0 . k✓-,z ,C fla,.e a'
CITY OF TUKWILA � ►�-
PERMIT NUMBER215-8¢ 4IWTROL NUNfRER84-' "-
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: 1J BLDG. PLNG, Fl P, W, a FIRE 1-1 POLICE ■ P.& R.
PROJECT, (0 \./NV` pArsgE
ADDRESS .7Zu) (Z , So, 4 5.;U(`.5\INj () .
DATE TRANSMITTED (- (I 8 + , RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ti ' IC, --841-
C. R. S, STAFF COORDINATOR Fi - RESPONSE RECEIVED 1--f' �81
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE.
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
u
2)
3)r?,
4)
51- 5)
El
LI1n
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
11 13)
[� 14)
Q 15)
•
R
D, R, C, REVIEW fESTED-
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED
PLAN APPROVED
PLAN CHECK DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
30X6)
kar
/4'
Pirt
,(ee.J,"
CITY OF TU KW I LA • � $�
PERMIT NUMBER2 -(5 NTROL NUMIIER 8_ 6K
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: 1 BLDG, 1111 PLNG, P, W, III FIRE 1111 POLICE II P.& R
PROJECT, ) (.1 \mc`
ADDRESS 622'° frQ- So 4) Suf_5\11.6 p !p •
DATE TRANSMITTED (- (I 8+ RESPONSE REQUESTED` BY 1 is - s4
C. P, S. STAFF COORDINATOR 124(-4- g 1
. RESPONSE RECEIVED 1 f I -8
4: t E5 ,
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE.
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING' THE.
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED.::
iuTtL - 77) 77 L'Vi4i f R IVI r
2)
El 3).
4).
• Q 5)
. 7) 7-2. EP MT S1tz__ l 1} ,s(( /3!'3117 7J) L /(a-f 771 7
El f(Nal\i(cr- czmpRatarvsive.
9) u J m& PL )- ON S r7 ti yn /1.eaS7A7tc 1�'� j-1 l•G -- _
L14• t Cbvf Paoc,(c1U- ND-1- - 7 ou _ S t /
11) ( vim N (34 -- L( 1171-6 C i0 (716 ti f) (J y
II 12) 0 per. .- ^0 G . w 6
0 13) I-N ( -1 \t si [agJ u(Ua Woo
E l 14) T? \ -r-b& 72Lo ,1 %�4�1'Irt) V Iflj
so/Lg, Pnouroin /
544/31Y\T777L-
D. R. C. REVIEW REEtttESTElr PLAN CHECK DATE //0/
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED III COMMENTS PREPARED B,
PLAN APPROVED • C:=1
LTRTrn Fok -PLOWc, ck)okk.s sr rTh
ty) keioN TA \() /AAA (Tali ILO ( (ZyPLAce- MIT"
7Lfy0�,577 r( ( fir)
COMM_ AM( AR1LI
C.P.S. FORM. 2'
CITY OF TUKWIUI 1:=391 C
� PERMIT NUMBER2.15-8¢ . �TROL NUMBER 84-03-<-7
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG, PLNG. r--1 P.W.
•
FIRE ® POLICE U JP.&R,
PROJECT )(.) ■ivi(W)
ADDRESS eZ"° A,44L So. Svl.5\6.u,rQ aJ .
DATE TRANSMITTED (- 1 I 8 + RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1.-g.-44
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR FLQt= RESPONSE RECEIVED / -1 / -8¢
( le' )
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH: APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS; BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
Li1), i/o c v7 .c,rio.,' 7-0 `7"--44;_s- ) .SKGB•7- c-rTo
El2) e G V/ 6-L0 w ti .K7,u %ti / P. 09 /I/ /9-i2 C
L1 3) XL.L_� A4 f.-rF - TD 2 6-2/9-)iy/ e tc / ) z.(/ l
1.:� 4)
5)
6)
:=1 7)
Li 8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
1/4)
El 15)
8pUL
D.R.C. REVIEW _ PLAN CHECK DATE
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED El
PLAN APPROVED EPS /ve7-e-6 i9 -e6v17
1- /7-- 2->r
COMMENTS PREPARED Es`(
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA •� g�
PERMIT NUMBER?- TROL NUMBER 8 4
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: ,F1 BLDG. 111 PLNG, III P, W,
FIRE III POLICE
PROJECT )1' 13 etAricg ±
ADDRESS X21 -)c) s Se , 4) SU(`SWO(V)
DATE TRANSMITTED . - h--- - 8 4— , RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR F. g. RESPONSE RECEIVED
( S�•
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED. PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
P, & R.
•
a
1) 7Ze— 41
2)
3)
Q
■
u
5) /,; -- ./(; s- 4..r 6r- a� Q. 1
c a a• 400.6-
6) .t 1p G. 0104 £ -, sw d►-J at- .—ter✓
9)
10) ,mil
11) /r=-4,-,-".
Fj 12)
a✓: / %--- rte_
r
1J 15)
D.R.C. REVIEW 1EtEESTE r PLAN -CHECK TATE /— /02
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED El COMMENTS PREPARED BYE. 1t
PLAN APPROVED LJ c,P,S. Foss 2.
CITY OF TUKWILA 41/pERMIT NUMBER 2-6-8T �`�-
C�fROL NUhiEiER 0�--
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: JJ BLDG, E PLNG, 1 P.W.
•
FIRE
POLICE III P.& R.
PROJECTIaClE
ADDRESS e7-2,"9 64(- 1 Sot 4) SUI`S ,cnQ
DATE TRANSMITTED 1— lI 8+ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY, 1-- (6. — &11-
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR FiLLt= RESPONSE RECEIVED
(rave-IL) QS)
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS. BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(SY ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
•
1)
2)
L�
3)
❑
4)
❑ 5)
El 6)
f 4 vCoc,eCD AAR k -.✓ A,CgAJ'
�. (�u <N C v4, Twrr7.i Xiem V N�e�or
7)
8)
9)
10)
[] 11)
[1:j 12)
5E1 13)
FF1 14)
r--] 15)
AADl-rioAlAi 1,1641-1,114 /'n! Cova'Airp
W 1 i, L eF Al EFe ea i e toe T4.-.4
l.lPon1 C3 Cc t P i 6G t4 nl, -f
vtH/Cu[ aRI C C1 � f 14 ED r'.(7R�.t ).4/ ,c
DU2•n/6 CO ,J.4'7Quc7 /D I PN.r, "
At ,pi-DA, F =.e / OL,er
Qy P2Fte✓— /cLICF J•- /Iv'c.
ac7-
Q
—1-A4rAF NJILL Se AJ 1wc[Fefe /„/
�,,e eFArr 1 RAFT /e. NAt,(QOf
•S I Nt iif Fn4 F
ee Cvm /LPT /a / A.I 7. <<4',o.ree -v.a
NOUL6 te- HA,J1'LF ty
eOUQeD
D, R, C, REVIEW L;sl PLAN CHECK DATE
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED COMMENTS PREPARED BY d 1414c. �,..�,,
PLAN APPROVED
•
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TU KW I LA
• S� •TROL 8--
PERMIT NUMBER2 -t5 NUMBER. -
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: 1J BLDG, Ill PLNG, Fl P,W, ' FIRE ri POLICE
■
P.& R,
PROJECT * 1 v,.r tJ
ADDRESS G;21. ,6•4(Z. ' so, 4) SU■3\ING6nt) .
DATE TRANSMITTED (- (H S+ + RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 1--14. :4
C,P,S, STAFF COORDINATOR 11 . . RESPONSE RECEIVED
Cr S) •
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE.
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:.
El
El
1) II Q Coh•hye.i Arm 12ep7 Co* .L a ii S
hG1fL_ 42. e4 C°'o.- J;h4 ,Lle
�_ e v "4010 i 5e,ag1- ' J[� All a- 4e.. f i SS •
4)
5)
6)
7),
8)
9)
10)
11)
p 12)
j� 13>
14)
Ei 15)
D, R, C, REVIEW tENESTED- PLAN CHECK DATE /. -f 7 -g4
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED [1 COMMENTS PREPARED BY .
PLAN APPROVED III C.P.S. FORM. 2
CITY OF TUKWILA im , PERMIT NUMBER
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM
TO: 0 BLDG. Q PLNG. 14 P.W. Q FIRE
PROJECT )3\ivioOfer)
ADDRESS
CONTROL NUMBER . 2/ -a'-
Q POLICE Q P. & R.
DATE TRANSMITTED
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE REQUESTED
RESPONSE REC ED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON. WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
I PIA 1 N rl 1(�-\( F1 N 01M4- -> T11 G
D `Z eVuL� ( S. L-MT P fl -4
O (\C,Oi Nf s w P C-,n-s 1 Fl LLS J'4)CK1 ,y
[� sPA=d\ "h LD )11N)6, / frini ,1 nt.c FTC _ ` 16 Pk 114z ;7-'
Q trr1 � k-c-1 ' , � w i �c . 1
O 1 P fJ L So 11\R RAM--
0
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 0
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED 0
PLAN APPROVED 0
PLAN CHECK DATE I /� 6 yi,j
� v
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. FORM 2
•
-...0•11•11.111.110...■
•
DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineering Geology
13424 Chain Lake Road Monroe, Washington 98272 206/794-4332
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Northward Construction Co.
1115 - 108th Avenue NE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Attention: Richard A. Gilroy
• • ,
ATESWEJ
JAN 2
51984]
CITY OF TUKWILA _
- PLANNING DEPT.
Reference: Preliminary Soils Assessment
Sunwood, Phase III
Tukwila, Washington
• -
Gentlemen;
•
This is to serve as a letter of preliminary soils assessment
at the above referenced project site, per your request.
On cJainfary-24;-1984•) we performed a series of Ce-i-ght:b-a-ckhoe---t-e-sE,
ii) within the area of the proposed Sunwood-Phase
rnent-'1> Pla.-c-6-m-ent and extent of the kh-oe--investigation3was
nd proposed building -1.6cation.i:
Test cifift-S-11.a—nde_re-performed in theaneral_a_rea_of_BuildiFIE
test pit3T _in the area of Biiia-dihg-2 test pit Lirifithe- area Tof
Building 3, test pit c5-ih-tlie- area-b-etween- Buil-Cling 4 and
test qii.-t-16 in_ the area if Bifirding-ii, test pit 7_in.___the_area
C:OfBuirdirig-51 and test pit-8-in the areaof Building161 Test
gits-wer-6- hot performed- ithe area of -Building dile -to
the_limited_access .presintlY Visual-- observation was3
perforlied--tliroughout the site are-a-,11nc1tiding-downslope-along,
rite B-oul eva-rd-, w ee xposures of b_edrock_arid-t-O-irg
*1r_ Observation was also performed in the' area of Building
and 8 to' aid in preparation of this assessment.
•+a
•DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, 1e
Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Page two
General Soils Conditions
Test pits performed within the site area generally indicate
the presence of glacial soils. overlyin `g_basal_weather-ed- sandston-
bedro -o rith_local- accumulations of s1opewash and __artificial
fill_surfi_cially.i Artificial
silt, ; - droc k - o.giare aand i % s _Bomue il rubble!,
was -found - generally = °t4' thick_in_ t fill,_consisting,_of _ intermixe 1_s
Building-and_B \ding_ 6 and isexpec_d _to occur in_ the. aroma
of- Building -7-a and -8.,, Slopewash- materials.cons sting_of_br_owii
Ito _ orange= brown,, loose to ._medi_um de- se- -silty-sand with gravel)
and-be drock= chunks__was _gener-ally_found_ _the__area- -of- -east of ' -
13uilding__4- and- within_B_uilding 5 and_ _6 Thiekne.ss-- of- this-_
material generally was found to Mull 3epth of the test pit:.
in Building 5 and partially within Building 6-.- -Gl °aciaZ�sols>
cconsisting- of- mdiumiden es glacial =driftv_and__poorly sorted sand
Viand sand/ gravel r-
_mixtues - y - were- generall _encountered in- the areas
Cof :B.uildings 2_,__3- and?>�, and in the vu".e stern _portion _of-- Build_z g :'
This material is expected to overly the sa a1 sandstone - bedrock
mater-la-1,--as--indicated -by- test _pit =4,^ ;within_Building_:3_a The
r1
•
wester_ed= sandstone- mater-ia1_vi found_ s_pOratically within, the
Site _area, although generally occurithin ; the- central to,
eastern- portion -of- the - site :, This mater dal consists of orange-
brown, dense medium grained sand which. increases density with
depth.- It appears to be the Renton- For>ms - tion(Upper- upper__Eocene
Cnonmarine-arkosic- sandstone)-, which ia known to occur within
the area. The weathered upper zone of the Renton Formation is
• quite thick and was not penetrated by amt. investigation.
Hydrologic Conditions
The general hydrologic conditions encountered in the test pit
investigation indicates that (ground water__occurs-- within ,`-the
.
•
more_ _ permeable glacial soils- ,as�dicated" by- considerable.
• = sepeage_. This s age generally _ occurs above =the_glacia1Tdrift.
• DAVID L. NELSON AND ASSOCIATES.
Consulting Engineering Geology
January 25, 1984
Project No. 0584
Page three
oils, within the c -
g laa1- outwash- soils - and`-'ust -abov-
e the;
weathe_r-did- sandstone- -matera-l- where- near- -su -r -face This ground
water appears to be derived from surface water accumulation and
percolation into the underlying soils
Comments
Based upon our preliminary soils assessment investigation we
believe the area can be developed as anticipated and that
construction as proposed can be performed, provided additional
Specific investigation of the proposed construction areas be mad,
determine .foundatiOn and earthwork stabilization procedures of
the building areas.
The soils `and hydrological conditions encountered within the sit
area during this investigation indicate that development can be .
adequately performed, provided certain construction operations
and precautions be anticipated. The exact extent of theseis. -
not readily_ available, due to. the limited nature of this inves-
tigation and the findings..
W rg et t2that awAsoitls inv p ort includ dg
ivec omakenAINgigraf4TOT4IbilhagtUYY. placement earthwork annd'sl peg`
stabilization be performed when building locations
site development outlined ;o T preliminary ;soils informatioi
indicates _the development to be feasibles; however, additional
information will be necessary to best present foundation and
stabilization recommendations,of the specific building areas...
We trust the above information is of use. We will be available
for consultation and ability to perform the additional soils
investigation and report when required. If you have any questio:
feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincere
Davi• LotN ssociates, Inc. ,/ G
David L. Nelson, PG J. Keith Cross, 'PE'
Consulting Engineering Geologist . Gebtechnical Consul
DLN: kmn
CITY OF TUKWIIA 411 PERMIT NUMBER Z.6-&7 -84 L•TROL NUhIDER�`�'� --
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - PLAN CHECK ROUTING FORM
TO: I1 BLDG, PLNG, P, W, 111 FIRE J 1 POLICE P.& R.
PROJECT ,*l v,uC`
ADDRESS �Z , 4 Sa, 5U(5 icnp SID .
DATE TRANSMITTED, ( - ( I 8+ RESPONSE REQUESTED BY , 1 ~- !C - a4
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED
( s)r
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE
COMMENTS IN THE SPACE BELOW, INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE
BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
LJ1)
ED 2)
n3)
4)
❑ 5>
❑
6)
[18)
n 9)
10)
12)
13)
14)
[l 15)
D.R.C. REVIEW f-3TED L PLAN CHECK DATE
PLAN RESUBMITTAL REQUESTED El COMMENTS PREPARED BY,
PLAN APPROVED LJ c,P,S, FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA
• ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST • RM
JAN G 19 8 4
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with th a•R if��tt,��fcrA
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all perso s a MG''M.-
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined b
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
6
A fee of 40.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: Pacific Townhouse Builders
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1115 108th Ave. N.E.
Bellevue, Wash. (206) 455 -1726
3. Date Checklist. Prepared: January 3, 1984
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Sunwood Phase III
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
The proposal _is for 66 one and two bedroom condominium units with 66 covered and
66 uncovered parking spaces. The 66 units are located in 6 nine unii
and 2 six unit structures.' The structures are two_stories in height
with basements and will. be for sale.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
The proposal is located off 62nd Ave. South at Sunwood Blvd. and directly
,south of thQ first tun ha�G of S�int.rr T'ha site slopes moderately try
the south and is cover with berry bushes, with several significant trees
along its south property line.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the, Proposal: August 1985
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES NOX
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES X NO
(c) Building permit YES x NO
(d) Puget Sc 1 Air Pollution Control Permit•
(e) Sewer hook up permit
(f) Sign permit
(g) Water hook up permit
(h) Storm water system permit
(i) Curb cut permit
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington)
(k) Plumbing permit (King County)
(1) Other:
YES NO x
YES x NO
YES NO x
YES x NO
YES x NO
YES NO x
YES x NO
YES x NO
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro -
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required).
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground surface-relief fea-
tures?
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
-2-
YES MAYBE NO
x
•
• • YES MAYBE NO
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? x
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
x
Explanation: Typical grading and clearing for the proposal may result in
some temporary erosion during construction. The final grades will be
different than existing due to the placement'of structures and parking
on the sites.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
x
x
x
Explanation: Air emissions will increase at rates normaly associated with
the construction and occupation of a 66 unit condominium project.
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? x
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ x
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
-3-
x•
x
x
x
• •
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters?
YES MAYBE NO
x
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies? x
Explanation:. The vacant site will be partially covered with impervious
surfaces such as parking and structures.
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
. (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
x
x
x
Explanation:.Fcisting bushes and grasses will be removed and replaced
by a variety of shrubs, trees and ground covers.
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
x
x
x
x
Explanation: Most small mammals, birds and insects now living on the
site will be displaced.
• YES MAYBE NO
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels? g
x
Explanation: At levels typical of 'a 66 unit condominium project of this
density.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? x
Explanation: At levels typical of a 66 unit condominium project of this
density.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
' resources? •
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset.
Explanation:
Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
x
x
11. Population.
911 the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
:YES MAYBE NO
x
Explanation: The proposal will add approximately 100 new people to the
area.
12.' Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Generation of additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
Impact upon existing transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail.or air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians? x
Explanation: The proposal will generate traffic typical of a 66 unit
condominium project at this density.
in:
x
x
x
x
x
x
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
-6-
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other goSmental services? • x
Explanation:
15, Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
x
x
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas? * x
(b) Communications systems? * x
(c) Water? * x
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? x
(e) Storm water drainage? * x
(f) Solid waste and disposal? * _x
Explanation: *Other than extensions to existing utilities /systems.
17. -Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
x
18. Aesthetics. 4111 the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his-
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
YES MAYBE NO
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
ul lack of fyll dysclosur1e on my part.
Signature an itle Date
John B. Lane
Project Architect
-8-
x
x
x
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with th
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
6
A fee of 40.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
JAN 5 1984
CITY -OF TUKWILA
LAN ING ► •T,
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: Pacific Townhouse Builders
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1115 108th Ave. N.E.
Bellevue, Wash. (206) 455 -1726
3. Date Checklist Prepared: January 3, 1984
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 'City of Tukwila
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: Sunwood Phase III
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
The proposal is for 66 one and two bedroo i condominium units with 66 covered and
66 uncovered parking spaces. The 66 units are located in 6 nine unit
and 2 six' unit structures. The structures. are two stories in height
with .baserrients -and will be for. sale.
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as.
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
The proposal is located off 62nd Ave. South at Sunwood Blvd. and directly
south of the first twn phacec of S„nwmd The site slopes moderately to
the south and is covered with berry bushes, with several significant trees
along its south property line.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: August 1984
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES NO X
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES X NO
(c) Building permit YESx NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO x
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES x NO
(f) Sign permit YES NO x
(g) Water hook up permit YES x NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES x NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES NO x
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES x NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES x NO
(1) Other:
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
IN
YES MAYBE NO
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil? x
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures? x
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
-2-
x
x
YES MAYBE NO
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? x
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
x
Explanation: Typical grading and clearing for the proposal may result in
some temporary erosion during, construction. The final grades will be
different than existing due to the placement of structures and parking
on the sites:
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
x
x
x
Explanation: Air emissions will increase at rates normaly associated with
the construction and occupation of a 66 unit condominium project.
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? x
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? x
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body? x
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? x
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
-3-
x•
x
• •
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
YES MAYBE NO
x
x
Explanation: The vacant site will be partially covered with impervious
surfaces such as parking and structures.
4. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
. (a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
x
x
x
(d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? x
Explanation: Existing bushes and grasses will be removed and replaced
by a variety of shrubs, trees and ground covers.
5. 'Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
x
x
x
x
Explanation: Most small mammals, birds and insects now living on the
site will be displaced.
• •
YES MAYBE NO
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels? x
Explanation: At levels typical of a 66 unit condominium project of this
density.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare? x
Explanation: At levels typical of a 66 unit condominium project of this
density.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
x
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources? x
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource? x
Explanation:
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
x
• •
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
AYES MAYBE NO
x
Explanation: The proposal will add approximately 150 new people to the
area.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing? x
Explanation:
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
x
x
x
x
x
x
Explanation: The proposal will generate traffic typical of a 66 unit
condominium project at this density.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection? x
(b) Police protection? x
(c) Schools? x
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities? x
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
• •
YES MAYBE NO
(f) Other governmental services? x
Explanation:
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
x
x
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas? * x
(b) Communications systems? * x
(c) Water? * x
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? x
(e) Storm water drainage? * x
(f) Solid waste and disposal? * x
Explanation: Other than extensions to existing utilities /systems.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
x
• •
YES MAYBE NO
'18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his-
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or ul lack of f 1 di losure on my part.
•
Signature an•Witle
John B. Lane
Project Architect
-8-
.J/42
Date
x
x
x
SeCt3 MPl3No ProL4e. ,ffat
TAPE c ni Etlfille roue mot MN'
IMINN6 illiff niffm6 MY!
CONCRETE &DOOM
NM moor ASSEMBLY •
SIPIWOOD PHASE r
Marca IV Et.r °MOHO AM.
MD WV EMIT 10011M.
MIMIC .145•8ENO INA
CONCREIZAXAW______
hrxrree, au tn.
rAMPIM N.J. t
1-11•01.1119 Fume WIN TAP
PARE NIORANT ASSEMBLY
MIMI! SLOCKIII6
BENCH MARK
NE. FLANGE flOtI Of NAT NY
&UNION' 1707S
oave,Cilf Of IINNILA RIVEN OMR"'
- 111111
. ,
1111/' ■%:!A. 146. 1!Zitalt2
ca.. omomn
SCALE: II■L'O'
•••-• sr,4•Pre.orao%
4 Ire TIMM
.r,4
Cd,11 rim
I LP I5W7
Ora af15
117N156.16
6 MIR *17
.ca
TO°1094
ra Avg
•
.54N.Ma
117Pl416
MINA
NC 6117ER
lira POI MIR STORNI NO.5
Ale INOMMT A
c. 810aftM
Sri VrO610,6J.
0 Etta-MIMI
Ca 11, N1E4
WPCS Me lag (e)
TM MON M NOM la)
oval:moor
- Id NOW ($)
AS MT
CID a pa o.14.-.43 mar
.3 were lar nve
align Iti
10P14113 . MIMIC MI
8E10 -
11111111...
ovum! mescals)
MIER MILLS Md.
LEGEND
--CONCRETE RETAINNO SOUL
CeSN -MVOS! wow (rscumearr)
T num 020117AS
-Et1377N6 MOWN
-efropasEo PAN came
0" _Moose° RON S
EMIR _ mraroseo Amor, MMI:
••••■•••00 -IWO= Patti
_ ~NED oavinzer sense
orri -Amass 8•11111111 MAW
-Male EVE MIMI MO
M. Rat 11Alta WM.
1
.0. •
IVP
ea 1N1
• .7:- MOB
MINIMMIMA■
V144.11541"
W
I_
0
• •
SUNWOOD
NA 5E I
PE
S�'10�0�.���"O S±���t O: rr �•
1 ' t- .EXI4r M4 PLANTS �RELOUTE 6XriT0
-- -- r^ --'-T �T- TLTiNTe kLRE ' —�
1 1
ELKAI5NTTIS D 1 1 1 /.--
4 DE RELOGATW I 1 y -•'�"
�• 7by 1 L I
L "a
r - -
-156
159
152.
-ISo
119
- 144
14°
a
1':E
JAN 6 1984
CITY OF T UKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
/ " 1s
OFFICE UAE
ADJUST PLANTING
To WIT e.I471NG TR�N
Ix
134
1 L
Ito
-ILL
HILLSIDE WALL #A PLAIJIS _ WALK
SECTION ',A' �OZND AYE. So•
PLANT LEGEND
ZYN60L-
QUAMT.
E5OTANICALICOMMON NAME
KEMAR KS
ivy
VERIFY
17
92
162
593
147
VERIFY
( rREET TREES: SOME exist
ADD WJJEKE PIEEPED,)
CofNUS MUTT-ALLJ OK FLORIVA
NATIVE cg EASTERN Pa JoOD
AG£R GIRGINATUM
VINE MAPLE
TsU6A HETEKofHYLLA
11 MERTENSIANA
rHUJA PLIC.ATA
PIIJUS C.cNTOKTA
WESTET_N HEMLOCK
MOUNTAIN WESTERN RED CEDAR
SNORE PINE
AI:Surus UNEDO
VIBURNUM TINUS
STRAWI'SEKK_Y TREE
1�AURUSTINU5
KitO2DENDRON HI3RIDS
AZALEA HYERIDS
PIERIS VARIETIES
MAHONIA ADUIFOLIUM
VI'URNUM DAVIDI
PPHODODENDKONs
ALALEAS (EveRG(CEEN)
ANDROMEDA
OREGON GRAPE
PAVID'5 V I 'IJ NUM
ERICA CAKNEA 4SPP,IN4WGOD
SPKIN4WooD 1-IEAT+1
{4EDERA 4-IELIX•IiAI4 OR
MATCH EXST'C, IVY
MATCH EX15TIAJ4 .
NO ANTNKACNOSE
PREFER CLUMPS
USE ASsoKTED
TO 501T AREA
SIZE ENG
REQU 1 RE AtENTS
ALT• W/ APTKDVAL
OF L.A.; VSE TO
5u1r SI�E 151
NEEDS.
SUIT To SIZE,
EXPOSURE,
VARIETY NE.VS
LYNN MAGLARE N
10
LANDSCAPE ARU-I IT Ea . ASLA
ALT. w/ L. A. APPROJ.
ALT. ASCT. U•URc
KI NIJ I K I N►JI C.k
L E GFCiNDCoVEf,
AS NEEDED F.:F
'.GNT7.OL CK
VARIETY.
2
J
a
LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT
ca
O
N
NORTHWARD DEVELOPMENT
NORTH
NoTEs
• EXISTING TREES WILL BE EXAMINED FOR HEALTH AND
KEPT IF robs,e,LE. ANY DEEMED UNSAFE o2 6EYCND
REDEEMING VALUE WILL 15E REPLACED WITH ANOTHER TREE
SUITA ,LE To THE SITUATIO�.I.
• EXISTING TOPSOIL To 6E REMOVED SHALL SE STOCKPILED
FOR U56 IN PLANTING AND FINI$- GRADING. J 1ERE CLAY
5U6• 'UKFAG6 15 FOUND IN PLANT 44OLes, LOOSEN Co' IN BASE
of HOLE, MIX IN TorSOIL ISACKF1 LL Is Y5• 'k Top5oI1..
GHEuc FOR DRAINAGE FROM HOLE. 6ACKFILL MVST DE AT
LEAST Yt EXI5TIN4 SOIL TYPE, WELL -MIXED WITH ADDED
TofsolL.
• REFER ALL 61U63j101.15 TO LANPXArE ARGNITEGT.
O
O
Joe No. 8914
SW4tBIT- C.