Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-240-84 - QESTAR DEVELOPMENT - OFFICE BUILDINGQESTAR DEVELOPMNET EPIC - 240 -84 WAC 197 -11 -1350 DECLARATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal Four story office huilding height deviation Proponent Qestar Development Corp. Location of proposalSoutheast corner of 51st Ave. S. and Southcenter Boulevard. Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 240 -84 This proposal has been determined not to 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 by the lead agency of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. Responsible official Brad Collins Position /title Planning Director Address and phone 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA. 433 -1846 Date July 26., 1984 Signature eFF'L41 4.01;hr0 This declaration is only ,for the four story office building . height deviation. ❑ - - • From 0 Subject 19 34" I/ L,� Date 1141C Lai r C� rd DsonJori s GRAYLINE FORM 44 -900 2 -PART 01983 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. AffirAMV sTo eeL • Subject imS41111 From • Speed Message V1K- • • tLCetd Date (XI k >I CX`o cie1S loM - 19 It %ilCV L rft i AARifaNL, VC /2 GRAYLINE FORM 44 -900 2 -PART VI983 • PRINTED IN U.S.A. 'I. Transportation Engineering & Planning Consultants March 31, 1981 I �°j i`,�i�''�' tr: i111 kl !� � 4'' j a/ Mr. Alan 0. Fure, P.E. 1 c) Triad Associates, Inc. 11415 NE 128th Street Kirkland, WA 98033 TRANSPO TRANSPO Job No. 5310 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS REPORT FOR QESTAR OFFICE BLDG., TUKWILA Dear Al: We have completed a traffic analysis study for the proposed Qestar Office Building in Tukwila, Washington. As requested by Mr. Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer, City of Tukwila Public Works Department, in his. March 17, 1981 letter to you, we have estimated the total traffic generation potential of the developments served by 53rd Avenue S and the private drive leading to the proposed office site, and we have examined the adequacy of the public street and the private driveway to serve this demand. This letter presents the results of our investigations. 53rd Avenue S is a two lane, 40 -foot wide city street which connects the Qestar Commerce Center with the arterial street system, and provides access to the Colonial II apparel store and Foster's furniture store. It inter- sects Southcenter Boulevard at the northeast corner of the Qestar site; the intersection is controlled by a traffic - actuated traffic signal which is maintained by the Washington State Department of Transportation. 53rd Avenue S has curbs, sidewalks and enclosed drainage, and the pavement is in good condition. The private drive in question was constructed by Qestar to provide access to their buildings, and it forms the southern boundary of their site. The roadway is 26 feet wide and has several driveways on the north side leading to parking lots for Qestar's Buildings One and Two. The roadway is relatively steep with grades of 12.72 percent as it rises uphill from 53rd Avenue S; the private drive is about 500 feet long. The roadway was designed and constructed to Tukwila City standards for private roads. The proposed project consists of a three - story, 35,600 SF office building on Lot .4 of the Qestar Commerce Center. This project would complete the development of the Qestar site, and would likely be the last commercial building to be served by the private drive and 53rd Avenue S. Trip generation for the existing buildings in the site vicinity and the proposed Qestar Office Building is summarized in Exhibit 1. Traffic generation rates were taken from the Arizona DOT publication Trip Genera- tion Intensity Factors for offices and small, free - standing retail commercial buildings. Furniture stores have a significantly lower traffic generation rate than other retail commercial uses; the source for the rate used is Highway Research Record 453 on Capacity, Delay and Level of Twenty-three 148th Avenue Southeast • Bellevue, Washington 98007 • (206) 641 -3881 Mr. Alan D. Fure March 31, 1981 Page 2 17tANSP0 Service. These trip generation rates are probably higher than would actually be experienced by these retail buildings, since they are rather remotely located from the remainder of the commercial areas in the Southcenter vicinity. As shown in Exhibit 1, the total traffic generation of the develop- ments served by 53rd Avenue S and the private drive is 4,000 vehicle trips per day. This estimate assumes full occupancy of the Qestar retail commercial buildings and the proposed office building. The 4,000 ADT counts both entering and exiting traffic as separate trips; thus, the total area would generate about 2,000 round trips per day (i.e. 2,000 vehicles entering and 2,000 vehicles exiting the area via 53rd Avenue S). The proposed Qestar Office Building accounts for about 11 percent of the total traffic generation potential of the development. Exhibit 2 illustrates the estimated average daily traffic (ADT) generated by each portion of the development, and the cumulative traffic volumes on 53rd Avenue S and the private drive. At its maximum point, the private drive would be carrying up to 1,950 ADT and 53rd Avenue S would carry up to 4,000 ADT at the entrance to the commercial area from Southcenter Boulevard. Based on a review of design standards for local access streets and cul- de -sacs, the private drive appears adequate to serve the needs of the proposed Qestar Office Building and the adjoining retail commercial buildings. Although the terrain dictates a steep grade on this road- way, it is still less than the 15 percent maximum allowed by, for in- stance, King County for access streets. There does not appear to be any need (or desire) for on- street parking, and the 26 -foot pavement width is more than adequate for two traffic lanes; the anticipated 2,000 ADT maximum on the private drive can easily be served by two lanes. 53rd Avenue S has sufficient width (40 feet) for four traffic lanes, but the estimated 4,000 ADT at full development is well below the capacity of a typical two lane street. The geometrics and width are more than ade- quate to accommodate the projected demand with or without the proposed . office building. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of 53rd Avenue S and Southcenter Boulevard appears to function well, and no im- provements appear necessary to handle the increased traffic from the Qestar development. In the future, the City may wish to consider striping the 53rd Avenue approach for separate left -turn and right -turn lanes to faci- litate turning movements, but this is certainly not necessary today.. In summary, we have reviewed the traffic access needs of the proposed Qestar Office Building and have concluded that both 53rd Avenue S and the Mr. Alan D. Fure March 31, 1981 Page 3 rRANSPO private drive are adequate to serve the project site and the surrounding commercial development. We do not recommend any improvements to the street system as a result of the proposed project. I trust that this letter answers Mr. Fraser's questions. If I can be of . further assistance, please call me. Yours truly, The TRANSPO Group, Inc. Joseph P. Savage, Jr. Principal JPS /jk Attachments EXHIBIT 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY QESTAR OFFICE BUILDING Daily Traffic Average Daily Category Generation Rate Traffic Existing Buildings 19,700 SF Furniture Store (Foster's) 15,100 SF Apparel Store (Colonial II) 3- 10,000 SF Retail - Commercial Bldgs. Subtotal Existing 5.6 ADT per 1,000 SF 75.2 ADT per 1,000 SF 75.2 ADT per 1,000 SF Proposed Building 31,600 SF Office Bldg. 13.8 ADT (Qestar) per 1,000 SF 150 vehicle trips per day (vpd) 1,150 vpd 2,250 vpd 3,500 vpd (89 %) 450 vpd (11 %). GRAND TOTAL TRAFFIC GENERATION 4,000 vehicle trips* per day *Includes both incoming ingress trip and outgoing egress trip as separate trips; thus 4,000 vpd equals 2,000 round trips. • SI' +A -e • r } 1 l .T I • - - f --- T-. r . • i i- Pro Posed 31 goo -5F r i -c5fC c •I3 11j. - -- ....,,_� -r- T • o ADY) • • 1t .. r r' - 10,000 .SF.... _ t - • Ave S. 10,000 5F Re+q;l • - _ -715'0 A2.0 -r ' ' "-7 •_ -� - -. - 4- • • — } -- tea- ._rt .. 750 ADr7 - t -r -r- ; r : . y ; .i ' , r r r 1_ 4 - -i- ---• -'' -- - -•- on PooJ,�y + . + --=--. — `- - r--• • t Y .; Y r r i t- , ; t-+ • 4 r r r ~ - ( -� 1 .- +- t-i- ,- I - -._-.- . T-4.--4--,, Y i fi-r �;-- -rj I i . f�DT'Gerier1 ed- ._.1 i -1 Y H-1- <-r- 1 r... I • IT,BV Por +ien of ..._`"� j j --- + F-- 4- .v J 1... _k_ 1. .. ..J- t —r- _..,�_t_ • '- - t . + _i 4 1 ,— j,De�ib hest _` P 2,loo 53.1 Ave S. _.: -. r ::: _ t4, ooO I; ISo AbT • Q r,i' Ei:o 1-- S +rer-t- • QESTAR 0 FFICE $LLG. ESfrnigfed Tra (1 c Geh etc, -fio^ The 'P12AIeISPO Grove • STATE OF WASHINGTON Dixy Lee Ray Governor September 19, 1980 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of District Engineer, D -1, 6431 Corson Ave. So., C-81410, Seattle, Washington 98108 The Mithun Associates P.S. 2000 112th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: H. Andresen SR 518 CS 1758 SR 5 to SR 509 F -518 Qestar Dev. Permit KENT 4503 Gentlemen: RECE "'r ) 'SEP 22 1950 rtE wn r t$ TES Your request for access to 51st Avenue South is denied. In 1962 and 1963 the State aquired all access rights, from your properties, to 51st Avenue South to prevent road approaches being constructed in this area. Contact Mr. Tim Wicks, 764 -4247, if additional information is needed. TCW:ss Very truly yours, J. D. ZIRKLE, P.E. District Administrator SEMENOCK, P.E. trict Utilities Engineer 7213 Perimeter Road South, Suite 201 Seattle, Washington 98108 TO to R O SUBJECT MESSAGE L %P! c' - a yo - r)L DATE ! . 61=6)t-drcese c,<c.¢ C .v� col/ Angie/4' Shv a y ,etsd1 r.to �s • �i -.v'! -.1f, 7 »' iet--,•€401451-t) -.ed .P, 4g144 Ai r9 -c7 Airih / t/G'DL vg- 3L e oEs- 4.- Jos E ,nl ��-, i��•� �, -I s- "r7isAr 9N 4)/ c=7E , 7 19- ,�.� -�- Lu 8, 7 /lhaie 7-14/ r•e -7-i REPLY .Oc� �D�IS L.Q! , Jr— REDTFORM ® 45 472 SIGNED DATE SEND PARTS 1 AND 3 WITH CARBON INTACT - PART 3 WILL BE RETURNED WITH REPLY. POLY PAK (50 SETS) 4P472 • • • Subject, c) 8 O From • • Speed Message Date Tic L� 19 r_PsL K \ 4kSLA ( W1,1 �s((y0 vv kL) a - Air Aor I //:41111/ Signed WilsonJones GRAYLINE FORM 44 -900 2 -PART .1983• PRINTED IN U.S.A. 483 TO MITHUN • BOWMAN • EMRICH OROUP•PS ARCHITECTURE PLANNING AND INTERIOR DESIGN 2000 112TH AVE NE BELLEVUE. WASH 98004 (200)454.3344 !JUL. 2 19P,1 CITY • Ufa or U-(QIL. zoo 9P) 1 g8 WE ARE SENDING YOU 74Attached ❑ ❑ Shop drawings SCopy of ‘e4ter COPIES DATE ❑ Prints ❑ Change order dIM* OF 4MbZEIT4G1d DATE 7.8 ^ JOB NO./y J _ 7g ATTER N rL/ 5• FyVRJ` /'f,( `Ty'�,/ ZIC , 'mac RE: c'a Under separate cover ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications 0 via the following items: NO. DESCRIPTION I �o•Zq,gc _k r. "GA Stt1o/. THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked ❑ For approval ❑ For your use 7(As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE below: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints 0 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS Irk.: Pelz. o t • 8� nuVrnt « 1 - f4 mod[ 'ro'3 • COPY TO % (r7: SIGNED: Ear Geotechnical Engineering and Geology 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: (206) 643 -3780 / Seattle (206) 464 -1584 October 29, 1980 E -1389 Qestar Development Ltd. 2019 - 3rd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. George Kropinski Subject: Gentlemen: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Office Building 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington ''-:`' JUL 2 4188' Cif `f O I e t_ri PLANNING, DEP . In accordance with your request and within the scope of our proposal dated August 11, 1980 this report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the subject project. We have submitted our preliminary geotechnical recommendations in our letter of October 6, 1980. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface soil conditions in order to provide recommendations for site preparation, foundation and retaining wall design. The scope of our study included the excavation of test pits, laboratory tests, geotechnical engineering analyses and the preparation of this report.. Our study indicates that the building area is partially un- derlain by loose fills of varying thicknesses overlying firm com- petent soils. The proposed building excavation should extend through the loose soils and be based in soils having adequate foundaton bearing capacity. The following sections describe the study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed,., the site and proposed building location:; were as shown schematically on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate; 1.-. This-is based' on, a. Site Plan prepared by . The. Mithun Associates -and: dated September-:.:4, 1980. • It is . planned . to construct- a three-story ; "wood -frame office,' uilding with: a, partial basement lobby .at Elevr 109. Exterior • ' ... , • . • • Oestar Development: Ltd'. October 29, 1980 column loads for this of 35 to 60 kips with dead plus live loads. feet will be required • E-1389 Page 2 structure are expected to be on the order maximum interior column loads of 170 kips, A maximum excavation on the order of 16 to prepare the site for construction. A grade difference of about 12 feet will result along the east property line. The subject parking lot will be established at Elev. 105, requiring up to about 5 feet of fill in this area. A rockery may be used along the east property line. If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our'field investigation was initially performed on Septem- ber 19, 1980. The subsurface conditions in the building area were explored by excavating nine test pits to a maximum depth of 16 feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations as shown on Plate 1. Three more test pits were excavated on October. 6, 1980 to explore conditions along the eastern property line. The locations of the test pits were approximately determin- ed by tape and compass measurements from property lines. Eleva- tions of test pits are approximately determined by interpolation between plan contours. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method.. used. The field investigation was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soils en- countered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained represen- tative bulk soil samples and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field according to the Unified Soil - Classification System which is presented on Plate 2, Legend... Logs of the individual test pits are presented on • Plates -3 through 8, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the labora- tory. examination and tests of field' samples. - , Representative soil 'samples from ,the test pits were placed in closed containers and-;returned to our laboratory for further'_. examination and testing, Visual' classifications were supplement-. ed by:indikztestsisuch=as: sieve. and Atterberg Limits on represen- taqvitWingles:- Eqela-Onolgture2deierikinations were performed,on- nsu n Oestar Development Ltd.. October 29, 1980, E -1389 Page 3 each bulk sample. Results of moisture determinations and Atter- berg Limits, together with classifications, are shown on the test pit logs included in this report. The results of the sieve analyses are illustrated on Plate 9, Grain Size Analyses. SITE CONDITIONS Surface_ The subject site is located on the east side of 51st Avenue South just south of Southcenter Boulevard in Tukwila, Washing- ton. The property, which measures about 220 by 330 feet in plan is nearly level in the southwest and central sections. Scatter- ed light vegetation and an abandoned residence with a basement are located in this area. The property slopes downward sharply toward the eastern and northern property lines. Many of these slopes, predominantly along the north section, are composed of fill materials which have been pushed out over the native slope. The northern slope has a gradient of about 30 degrees which drops approximately 50 vertical feet towards a creek which flows eastward along the north property line. A new office building is currently being constructed immedi- ately east of the property. The parking lot grade along the di- viding property line will have an approximate finished grade of Elev. 93. Light surficial seepage was noted emanating from the slope in this area. Subsurface Our subsurface investigation was conducted on September 19 and October 6, 1980 and consisted of excavating nine test pits using a backhoe. The test pits indicate that the north half of the site is underlain by 5 to 11 feet of loose to medium dense silty sand fill. The fill appears to be thickest near the north- east corner of the building. Underlying the south half of the site and the fills on the north, the test pits encountered medi- um dense gravelly silty sands and silty sands ranging in thick - ness from 4 to 8 feet thick. Test Pits TP -1, TP -2 and TP -6 were terminated in this material. Underlying this second unit, we encountered.a hard clayey silt with fine sand in Test Pits TP -3, TP -4 and'TP -5.. This overconsolidated basal unit is also exposed in acut along the eastern property line and in our test pits along the eastern rockery alignment (Test Pits TP -7 through Groundwater seepage was ::. not noted in any of our test pits the time of our rstudy. _Surface_ seepage was noted near the, toe of 'the.- slope at they center of the eastern property. line. Qestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 4 The contractor for the adjacent parcel indicated he had install- ed a french drain paralleling the eastern property line about 5 feet east of the line. An examination of a nearby catch -basin indicated that constant seepage was being picked up by the drain system. We feel that most of the groundwater on the site will be "perched" over the relatively impervious silt unit and flow down - slope in a northeasterly direction. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General As described earlier in this report, the site is basically underlain by fills of varying thickness overlying firm soils. The hard silt or medium dense to dense silty sands should pro- vide adequate bearing for the proposed structure. Footings will have to be extended through existing fills and bearing in compe- tent materials with spread or continuous footings or drilled piers. It appears that up to about 6 feet of overexcavation will be required from finished grades. Lobby floor slabs may be supported on recompacted natural grade or structural fill. How- ever, we would suggest using a wood floor system for the entire first floor to eliminate a high retaining wall and extensive backfill at the basement level. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations for various geotechnical engineering aspects of the project which should be incorporated into the project design and construction. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accept- ed geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of Qestar Development Ltd. and their representatives. No other war- ranty, expressed or implied, is made. Foundations. The proposed structures may be supported on conventional continuous and/or spread footings supported on firm native undis- turbed soils or on structural fill, depending on final grades. Exterior footings should be bottomed a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below the adjacent final grade. The footings extend- ing into competent undisturbed bearing material may be designed for an allowable, bearing pressure of four thousand (4000) pounds per square- foot, for dead plus live loads. A. bearing capacity . of three thousand , (3000) psf may be used for footings placed on structural fill prepared, in accordance with the Site Preparation; sectionrof this report.. The 'maximums thickness of structural • Qestar. Development October 29, 1980 • .' • - - E1389_ , Page fill beneath footings should be limited to five (5) feet. Con- tinuous footings should have a minimum width of sixteen (16) inches. Interior footings may be based at twelve (12). inches below the top of slab. A one-third increase in the bearing pres- sures may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. Based on our test pits, it is our opinion that the •footings may have to be extended up to 6 feet from finished grade. It appears that conventional type footings would be feasible. How- ever, should drilled piers be used, we would be available to pro- vide detailed criteria for this type of foundation. As an alter- nate, the overexcavation could be filled with structural fill, rock or gravel, and base footings at normal levels. The overex- cavation should extend laterally beyond footings, a distance equal to the depth of excavation for structural fill, and a dis- tance equal to half the overexcavated depth for rock or gravel. For the above design criteria, it:is anticipated that total , • settlements of footings on the native soils or structural fill will be about three-fourths (3/4) inch, with differential'settle- ments of about half this amount. Almost all settlements will be realized during construction.. • The building excavations should be examined by a representa- tive of Earth Consultants, Inc. to verify that encountered condi- tions are as anticipated and that all footings; including the ex- terior column footings will be based on either firm native soils or on a structural fill. Drains should be placed along. all pe- rimeter: and wall footings and connected to a positive discharge system. Lateral Forces .. • QestarDevelopment Lt October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 6 weight of thirty -five (35) pounds per cubic foot. If walls are restrained from free movement at the top, they should be design- ed for an additional uniform pressure of one hundred (100) pounds per square foot. The above pressures assume a maximum wall height of eight (8) feet and that no surcharge slopes, construction or traffic loads or adjacent high footings will occur above the walls. If deviations from these criteria are expected, we should be con- tacted for the appropriate design parameters. All walls should be provided with adequate provisions for subsurface drainage. Floor Slabs. Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on recompacted native subgrade or on a structural fill, depending on final grades. In cut areas the upper twelve (12). inches of subgrade should be com- pacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density to provide uniform conditions beneath the slab. Building section plans indicate that sections of the lobby floor slab will be based on existing fill materials. We recommend that the fill materials be removed to a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches and replaced with structural fill in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The slab should be provided with a minimum of 4 inches of free draining sand or gravel. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a'vapor barrier such as a plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of . the concrete. Site Preparation. The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all structures including pavements, slabs, trees, existing utilities, surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in landscap- ing, if desired. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Following the . stripping- operation, the remaining surface in areas where structural fill: is.:to be placed, or in cut areas at finished grades,; should be proofrolled under the observation of -a: representative= of Earth Consultants, Inc.:: to reveal loose areas ; which,. if ='found•,;= shoul&,be. removed and replaced with struc- tural :;. f ill' .or> rock;° tb a, depth that will provide a stable base be- neath-the . structural fill, r The toe,`:of all fills should be keyed into firm ground. pestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980. Structural fill, if used, should be placed i'n horizontal:. lifts not exceeding eight (8) inches in uncompacted thickness. The fill should be benched'into slopes steeper than 4 to 1 (hori zontal to vertical). The fill should be compacted`to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -70 (Modified Proctor).-?, The- site soils contain an excessive amount of fines that will; °make them diffi cult to compact or work when wet. An approved `granular imported fill may be required if grading operations are;performed during wet weather. It should consist of a granular material with no, more than 5 percent fines, passing the No. 200rsieve. The proofrolling, structural fill approval', placement a compaction of structural fill processes. should be monitore4 . tested and approved by a representative of Earth- Consultants; Inc. The maximum depth of cut is anticipated to be about twelve. (12 ). to sixteen :::(16) feet. The majority of then building will be in cut with the maximum excavation being in the northeast corner of the building.- We recommend all temporary slopes in the'firm: native silts be cut at 1H:1V All other soils,. including . fill, will require.: slopes of 3H:2V.?: Permanent slopes in the har-d:,.'silt, and other soils should be:. ~sloped at 1.5H:1V and 2H:1V, respectively. We, recommend that all excavated slopes be examined }bya representa- tive of Earth Consultants, Inc. during excavation,and intermit. tently thereafter. We did not encounter any groundwater in our test pits which were excavated during a relatively dry period. Although we did not encounter any groundwater, we believe that a perched condi- tion could be encountered during wet weather.;- If present, Y' .:: ` groundwater should be controlled as outlined in, the. followin section. `M,: ;;a• Groundwater Control- The. subject} site contains fine grained soils that' `will ma, grading operations difficult during . wet<weither..,a, For. thi-.rea son, it is important that, groundwater be; controlled= wherever. p sible. Seepage; should be•s =anticipated from cutso during rain ;_weather Surface interceptor ditches mays have to; be placed along the tops, ofd all cuts•. Subsurface drai`ns1°may= have° to; L. placed either :along; the' top.; or top= of-. a. Gutsy, ,wh]chever -Ali ion°..�appears to be: more feasible: We sugge t a�that�appropr-a Oestar.,Development Ltd, October .29, 1980. ;locations of subsurface drains be established during grading . operations by a. representative of Earth Consultants, Inc.,. at which time the seepage areas, which if present, will be niore -clearly defined. The site should be graded to drain at all times and all loose surfaces sealed at night to prevent the "infiltration of rain into the soils. After a rain-fall,- :equip- ment should remain off the soils until they have had:, a; chance- to dry sufficiently. ockeries It.-is presently planned to place a rockery along the,'-east- ern: and western property lines. The difference :. in grade: -. at -. the eastern line will be about twelve (12) feet. We do not recom mend the placement of rockeries this high, especially when the' upper five (5) feet will be fill. We recommend the rockery be limited to eight (8) feet in height. The upper four (4) feet . can be sloped back at 2H:1V. AlI cuts should be smoothly graded to prevent overhangs or abrupt changes in the slope. Permanent cuts should be made at a slope of 1H:to4V in cut areas. The exposed cuts should be exam- Irmd by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. The fill above- the, rockery should be placed on horizontal benches: The construction of rockeries is to some extent an art not ,entirely controllable by engineering methods and standard:S. The ;rockery 'construction should be performed by competent experienc- ed contractors with demonstrated proven ability and utmost care. :The base course should be set on firm undisturbed native soils. , -:at a minimum of twelve (12) inches below final adiacent grade. The rockery should have a base course of six=Man roCk- All other'courses should consist of four-man rock. 'In all cdsesr 11 rock size should decrease from bottom to top.- The.Jrock - should be hard, sound, durable, free,of seams ands. cracks' and, cut in cubical shapes.''' . The rock density should be :at least 165 pounds per cubic foot. Six -man rock' should weigh least 4000 pounds. Each; row of rocks should' be well seated `and, thoroughly -tam .and„-driven into place. against the .. slope to make' : -a tight. wall- contai }ning, as few' voids as possible. The . rockery rder-ives71- its; ;mss support, partially from friction". between. individual rocks,�there fore, ,point contact of rocks should be avoided wherever,- possi Vin: M.s y� ti s7 ri 1 T „� s b :%r> ,� ,� tile. k S .. Yr limos, x: Earth _Consultan - Qestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 Succeeding layers of rock should be placed so that rocks overlap each other. The filter rock behind the wall should con- sist of crushed angular rock with a three (3) -inch maximum size. The filter layer should not be less than twelve (12) inches in thickness. A minimum four..(4) -inch diameter perforated pipe should be placed along the- :bottom of the filter _layer to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic.. pressures. The drain- should :, b et con- nected to a positive discharge system. We suggest that the placement of all rockeries be performed under the observation of a representative of this firm. We will be available to meet with_ you and your rockery contractor to • discuss these matters in more detail. Pavements Based on the Site Plan, prepared by Mithun and Associates, it appears that the majority of pavement areas will be in cut. However, localized "wedges "' of fill will be needed to meet final grades along the eastern property line above the rockery and along part of the top of the northern slope. Due to the loose nature of the existing lobe of fill, we recommend that pavements in fill areas be overexcavated two (2) :• feet below finished subgrade and replaced with structural fill prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. We suggest that the upper one (1) foot be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D -1557, and. to 90 percent below that level. ;.In cut areas with native soils expos- ed at subgrade, we recommend that the upper one (1) foot also be compacted to 95 percent. We recommend that all.`subgrades be proofrolled prior tos pav- ing in order to detect soft areas which,'if found, should be re -. moved and replaced with structural fill.; We anticipate that 'pavements will be utilized by lightly loaded vehicles. We • suggest that four (4) inches of Crushed: Rock Base or three . (3) inches of Asphalt- Treated Base- beneath two (2) inches of A. C. be'''used as a pavement section. Heavier loaded sections may require :. thicker. sections. Additional Services: It is recommended' tha„Earth:'.Consultants, I_nc'.' be provide_ he opportunity*`for a general review of? thek_f'inal design? and specifications= in= order t ali earthwork ands foundation reCommenda- tions may be properly mate r etedj and :implemented in : they :desgnL and; ..cons,truction. ; .tom. `: `irx _<s..�.,; The analyses and recommendations "submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. The nature and extent of variations between test pits may not become evi- .-.d'ent until construction. If variations then appear evident, Earth Consultants, Inc should be allowed to reevaluate the rec- ominendations= of this report prior to proceeding with the con - ;; wsu ct i tL; on. ^`..Lt -is also recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. =Thyis; is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifi- ;C,5t ions. or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior :- :to:the start of construction. ' The following plates are included and complete this report: We trust the information presented herein is adequate for your:" requirements. If you need additional information or clari ':fication, please call. Consultants, Inc.., : • • ' ; . • ••-• • ,:*••• • —1 n2 JIQ • • • ••:‘:.4 • "" ,• '• ,..• -4.e • -.. \. • 0. en c ... a 2 . 8 • — as 41•11... ••• • .• MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH SYMBOL LETTER SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS ; _ - - • COARSE GRUMED . SOILS - • , THAN f0'x• OF MATt1IAL if LARGER TRAM N0. 200 SIEVE 512E - GRAVEL am GrnAvELLY faLf NO11[ THAN '10'% of COARSE( FRAC- TION R[TU NEO ON NO • SIEVE CLEAN GRAVEL$ fume « • f 1ee.R 0-'0..00. .O •00. O •O a•'O..0 w I/ELL•MADW •AVEL$, SRAKL-SAND MUITURII, UTTI( OR NO FIM(/ :ii i..0 • •• •• ~ • • • !..0 0: . :0 L -•• G P POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, •RAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES - GRAVELS M1TH P101f ov Ieweel.Me *Hel .1 1,...) r ! •I G GM V SILTY SNAFUS. SRAVEL -SAND- SILT MIXTURES � GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, MAV[L-SANO- CLAY MIXTURES w� SANDY SOILS 110R( THAN S0% OF COARSE lRAC- MR NffING N0. • SIEVE CLEAN SAND e'er : • ° ° • :: e • e• O a • • ° a • � , S W *HELL-00,1010 SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, TTL[ OR NO FINES IX/TLC •••••••••••• .• ; •1WR[ • • I •::•;:;.• • - SP ' •POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS SIITN SIN[/ IM/cAa•M. .e».AI at times) l- �- �- 1 '' -� SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT NIXTUR(S . SC CLAYEY !YIDS, . 1M0 -CLAY MIXTURES • FIN[ GRAINED SOILS- • . MORE, THAN SOX OF 0AT[RML IS SMALLER T0AN NO 200 SIEVE 512E ' .- - fILTi LIQUID UNIT AND CLAYS LESS TRAM SO I. ML INORSiMIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ~1O5. MOCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS 00 CLAYEY SILTS •ITN !LIMIT PLASTICITY `.L HpRGAauC CLAYS OF LOW/ TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAY! ORGANIC SILTS AND MG/AM GAMG/AM SILTY CLAYS OF 1.00 PLASTICITY SILTS UOUID LIMIT . AND THAN 50 (MATER CLAYS . , MH Sf0NGAIOt f1LTS, MICACEOUS OR - MATDoAC(ous FIRE SAND OR SILTY SOILS C CH S.ON R1 GANIC CLAYS OF GH ILAfTICITY, FAT CLAYS •, ' Y OH ORGANIC CLAYS Of WEDINI TO HIGH PLASTICITY,. ORGANIC SILTS ,. NgML7 ORSAMIC SO/LS 1 -• -•'.. PT _ . FKAT, MIAMI, 'W WP SOILS 05TH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS TOPSOIL _ `" _ • Humus and Dutf Layer ••••••••••• Uncontrolled with FILL €i• •• ••••••• Highly Variable Constituents OWL 570501-5 AR( USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE TOIL CLASSIFICATIONS • SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CHART TN( DISCUSSION IN THE TEXT OF THIS REPORT If NIECE 99999 FOR A PROPER UNDERSTANDING • Or THE- NATURE OF THE MATERIAL FRESS[NT(O IM THt ATTACHED LOGS O.D,.Split Spoon Sampler ' mg or Shelby. Sample:. • amplerfPushed , ompid,: Note. Recovered • o ter:: -: Levert .(date)= rvonef•-: °Reading':' 1 • trcmeter Readings: Observation• Well - Earth. Consultants Inc. LEGEND DJ- O 1389..1Date Oct. 180 'Plate: - 2 f- Dept . (n.► 0 x:i L n ' i�_ Date° :'9/19/8 USI r ;ST PIT NO. a -. Soil Description Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist._. r (Roots to 4...feet) Gray gravelly silty SAN!), medium dense to dense, moist.:;. -:Test pi;t terminated at 12.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. E Iev. 126± (%) Lab Data 10 12 Loomed ey : Dl4r!`.;R: Da .. 9/19/80 , : TEST PIT NO. _ Elev. 125± ?a rte• - roundwater--no.t encountered. - Consultants:Inc. �° `� '� ' k. GEO;TECHNJC-AL ENGINEERING.dr�GEOLOGY Ik • •. + Y.. an ra •:.�ti s� �. a. ..f rY, - r • .ty ��'r `r}a ''" ' .TEST PIT= LOGS ESTAR= OFFICE. BUILDING' KWILA,, WASHINGTON, . Prof YL' r(. o .13891 - DateOct ' .80 Plata- . ❖.� ... ;.;.'; ;.; ST PIT NO. Depth (ft.) 0 10. Soil Description • Elev. 119± W 196)" Lab Date TEST PI:T :.LOGS' - QESTAR.OF,FICE BUILDING TUKWILA,-.WASHINGTON ' eanstilt�urts.Inc. MP' .0 s X' 01 4 - GEOTEC 1,41 EMGINE�aRING A GEOcid! • of i+ Rrol No':: 9' Date Oct. .80 'Plate' 4 ;.4•• .... WA !. ❖.! ❖.o! ••••••• ••••:: GM SM' . Tan silty sandy GRAVEL to silty gravelly SAND, ( FILL) with:. roots.: wood and: sod; loose; .moist'. . • _: (;Layer.. of wood- roots, cobbles and boulders at 7 feet):.: - 10 25 :1M 4 }f Gray gravelly silty SAND, medium dense, moist. PL.' ..Tarv,clayey.SILT with sand, hard, moist. L. • ;,Test pit terminated at 16 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. TEST PI:T :.LOGS' - QESTAR.OF,FICE BUILDING TUKWILA,-.WASHINGTON ' eanstilt�urts.Inc. MP' .0 s X' 01 4 - GEOTEC 1,41 EMGINE�aRING A GEOcid! • of i+ Rrol No':: 9' Date Oct. .80 'Plate' 4 L. , » . ■ .._. e _ .:, , , . - Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist. (Occasional cobbles and boulders) 21 MI. Tan fine sandy clayey silt, hard, moist. - , - - Test pit tenninated at 10.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. GEO;:rEct4rateAt:;ktifatt4EFfelpiGsik:GeoLogye:,.1-7 • fW .131'01.` !" 0 -,. 5:.- f • '• . - , (6" TOPSOIL) Brown silty' SAND-with gravel, loose to medium dense,. moist. • (Bec' Ones. damp to wet below 6 feet) , . ' 7, . . . . . .. . . 1 'tn. " u" Gray-blue gray gravelly sandy SILT, very dense,- thoist. (TILL-LIKE) --. 1...,, . Test pit terminated at 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered. ., . ...„ „ _ _ _ Ety.124t.: — -•-*- ML. - SM Tan clayey SILT and brown silty SAND,. loose, moist,. (FILL) . ' 7, . . . . . .. . • , SM Brown silty fine- to medium SAND, medium dense, moist.:- - . - - 1...,, Gray gravelly silty SAND, mediuni dense to dense, ..._ .._ .„. . . „ . • . •-;,;:,..,-.:-,--: ,-. _ , Test:pit' terminated at 7.5 feet. :Groundwater not encountered; - ,.,,,..-.,- ' . '''' .'..,- .. • , .. . . ......., "... --..-• . "...-=-.- ... • , „ . `, ' : f•F`,-;-. " • 4:- . • .. , •.- • SM. 1- moist , • F. - • • ,'•-• - • • Loll By Date 9/19/80 TEST PIT NO: Depth: (nf 0 1. uscs Soil Description Elev. ML Blue -gray clayey SILT, hard, moist. W (%). Lab Data Test pit terminated at 2 feet. Logged By DKW Date 9/19/80 TEST PIT NO. Elev. ML Brown interbedded SILT with SAND and GRAVEL, some wood, loose, moist. (FILL) Gray -tan clayey SILT to SILT with CLAY, hard, moist. Test pit terminated. at 5 feet. Moderate seepage along east side of test pit. COnsultairts'; GEO, TECHNICAL ENGINEERING:& GEOLOGY Iat -; Oc - . o 2, P�ete��"' Depth (ft) ) 0 15 L� By DM. Date 10/6/80 USCS TEST PIT NO. Soil Descripti • _QESTAR :OFF�ICEBUILDING TUKWILA WASHINGTON �p:U Proj. No:" 1389; I Date Oc,t' r ' 80 Plate • % out acv V 4:11.0 ::::: ������ ML Gray -tan SILT, with -clay and .sand, :stiff, moist. (FILL) •' -" ML (8" TOPSOIL & WOOD at 3 feet) Tan -red SILT with sand and occasional roots, loose to medium dense,- moist_ �� Mottled gray -tan SILT with clay and sand with gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. — _ —'' Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet. r Groundwater not encountered. • _QESTAR :OFF�ICEBUILDING TUKWILA WASHINGTON �p:U Proj. No:" 1389; I Date Oc,t' r ' 80 Plate • :100 E114•1:11:114,711P.relIZIIIMMINIIII - IlliVI :T.T3 ►,I q.7I:1IIERMI; Z•lME1Z7111111•11•1111111RT:T•\L`F3EARIi M g) R $ CO 8 8 gg S 02525 4R 8 m 33 m 70 z ?1 60 -z° •m so .40 10- • 20 m 30 n m z 40 A • rte 70 11 1 1' 1 1 1 1.11 1 1 I 1 • 80$, o°o.gi .g .cps N . oD w O • N' GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 1 �i'COBBES�`; 'COARSE • FINE "- GRAVEL' ., 'COARSE 1., MEDIUM •) : FINE SAND FINES • ;;..KEY Boring or Test Pit No. DEPTH (ft.) USCS DESCRIPTION Moisture Content (%) LL • PL GM /SM ML AAP ,17•9 31vo OZXX? O OCC NOLV_-713.. 11 _ I - _ • 1111i! hill: 011 1:11!1 111111111011 11114 MEI 1 1 _1 I 1 1 1- 11111111H 1111311111E11 1 111.II.A III *snp* 1 1 • 011: • IUI • 1111 111 i!1llIllIllI0hl 11111 I1t llIIIllllIOhII11lfflfllIDl IBMS 1111111111111111111 INN Z7I . . • 0 I., .6 1404VA TM ' RIME 111011111011011 PP 2000 112TH AVENUE N.E. LIEVUE. WASHINGTON � o -J tiW�:�,. W.�.e.r�.Na.70 ry 98001 ,454 • JJ� 01.1• 414 00u,l0 • 3 1TG 3CGTIvN 1-420,4040 • New ) ewta /4,=e' z 9 5 m w6 U 0E O 5 w N a • MITNVN • BOWMAN • OEROV 4 •N PL rEC " ^0E V\ANN, NG 0 NIE01O0 OISIGN 7000117M Ay/ M OE1lM)lW1S# E!7! i-tA 04 1121 J1) cs2 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; PROJECT. LOCATION BLDG � eJ PLNG P.W. FIRE CN EPIC FILE oe-q -Fi POLICE P &R 57 66 a0, DATE TRANSMITTED llfi/g / STAFF COORDINATOR a 764-11-)1)1) FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 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 486 a-2 I'd Al Ail DATE G COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P..S.. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; PROJECT. LOCATION BLDG Qetniir PLNG P.W. ( AFIRE •CN `�L-�LJ/ • , EPIC 0 2(../- q FILE 042-"a jBq POLICE P &R DATE TRANSMITTED 7/z/lgg STAFF COORDINATOR Q4'Lk' FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 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 12-0011S-1- AEL; S SILM`( (N GL I .�TI"f�� i�� .1�`I I N Ga-� f'Ci�► `i AlM Z 4 5 7Nts 0 Wai DATE 7/ -94' COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form it CLY'Y OF T.UKWI LA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; BLDG PLNG P.W. PROJECT . Q>°jfr LOCATION 5-736..7.- G OtiO • CN / • , EPIC ;2L/0-54 FILE 042'� FIRE OpipOLICE P & R DATE TRANSMITTED %f60/gy STAFF COORDINATOR a(*) 6.11)1)0 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. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED ITEM COMMENT 13 -14 There will not hP any aignifirant impart in this area The location has limited access which is controlled by traffic signal at Southcenter Blvd. and 52nd Ave. So. There are currently five businesses located in the area which include four retail sales outlets. The addition of an office complex of this nature would not increase the traffic flow to any great extent. DATE Pedestrian traffic could be a'problem'as there are no sidewalks in this area. The amount of vehicular would be afactor to consider relative to pedestrians. As previously stated stated, the limited access would be a safety factor in its own right. The existing buildings currently have adequate: lighting for hour hours of darkness. This'is a concern for safety as well as security. Lighting should be placed in accordance with existing City Ordinance and sufficient for adequate visibility. COMMENTS PREPARED BY 1/ C.F.S. Form 11 CITY OF T.UKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; 0-BLDG PROJECT. LOCATION 1 PLNG P.W. FIRE •CN , EPIC FILE POLICE P &R 57& .5G 61/v4. DATE TRANSMITTED ibigg STAFF COORDINATOR a(*) 0111)0 FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 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 7-7 . .COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 "CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO; n BLDG I PLNG P.W. PROJECT . �e—�7 j4i. /�� LOCATION d' /` J 61Na. DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR )34) 641Tht) FIRE CN 0-;21/1 EPIC A/0-'U`7 FILE oe"ci-?6/ POLICE &R FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DE.rTERMINATION. 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 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S -. Form 11 "-'CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM T0; BLDG F7fPLNG P.W. PROJECT. Q &Am/. LOCATION .57 c .V avat • DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR �.LLLJi)1) couiruo •CN q "c2c53 EPIC AO-et/ FILE Og"g4C/ FIRE (r POLICE r=11 & R FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 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 _$ ,UMU LR , _,,,„,,,,,,_,,i, ..„0,,,,,v_E,i,9_ JUN 2 8 19841 CITY OFrtTiJ;Kv:ILA This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with t .e�a.pp �i.'ca -ton "for= ---- -� .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. CITY OF TUKWILA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM A fee of $60.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire -to cover costs of the threshold determination. I BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: M1-1140) 5rIALAAA43. 'nkAZLC14 &Floe, E?15. 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: (i2-ft Ni.. e 03 VUt , uiA. 9bcC4- 3. Date Checklist Submitted: 6.2e. 64 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 471.44'01415v t7 A -jiA 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: ae:7(0451g_c2micrivaLL 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): -' I c) -DI G, WI-f 14 CROSS AtZrrA Q F- fre02.0A . 32,G =° .4 . 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): l • � ' � 2Duc-T• G-2. - -tAc' St,oM 1.0 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: MAAV4-14 1985 9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, et(15•A.R )YES�NO (b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO ✓ (c) Building permit YEW/NO • • (d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO ✓ (e) Sewer hook up permit YES ✓.NO (f) Sign permit YES ✓ NO (g) Water hook up permit YES ✓ NO (h) Storm water system permit YES ✓ NO (i) Curb cut permit YES NO ✓ (j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES ✓ NO (k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES V' 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: 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: N � 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? YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (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? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: r%1 F ,IONS N y �S i.leceeksy col kv47 rime $vlc -t�I �lC-y, PAgic4i3e, A00- CAzoe-tx.14VS 4:7141604 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? Explanation: 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? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (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 • (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: Ntgen.£p IMJ 5 AgeA.wili4 rul Brag / of oVsp toletA tzt-frvoilok\ ysf. 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? Explanation: 44(AM .f-A, ,�1.`,4� -� 4404)14 4 ulger& _ 1 5 P pp5A L. 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? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise - levels? Explanation: t.jb MAL, 'I 14%COL 4 f1G iO Mt5[.14M 1C,At, leGWIpMtr,0+4e 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: 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? x (b) Depletion -of any nonrenewable natural resource? Explanation: 1b1$L U1.1E; e* NA -f u eics5 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: 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 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? Explanation: )4b9 V L t„ik:(3VNrt„, Aw1 tsP (Ny o4tce- t LDS t.)G. YES MAYBE NO ``� 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? (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? • YES MAYBE NO (f) Other governmental services? 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: 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: • . • 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: 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 or willful lack' of full disclosure on my part. UGH I'f 4— �o • 2 • $�- Signature and Title Date H a Mr+Mtt4 - $cinl/ r•l - zl4-4+ - hoc , es ♦11VwV0 : 6R • P P P0088 6 .133100=13 Jd ° 631WDa0O SSr7 MiciON lab wwn0s 01.00 f VIVA MMS• , 111•C NOL7N FKz•'M r1 NOIONIHSVM '3f1A31 3 N 3f1N3AV H1Zit OOOZ 15L9C Ltil` UN 2 8 1984 AJf l I 1, F TUKW LA , :notD10. nrPT. • t'C1 osd'vot 311 N0131&W '3M311 0. StFTB S1Lll MINIM Ni 1 • I • • __ ■ • I MOM - - 1 ■uIIIIu /1 0 if g I fii :1;2.9 i JUi 1 2 8 1984 CITY OF TUK ILA PLANNING DEPT. r_ V-WYP':nt 30 Ain 17861. 8 [mr a iftEZADAR OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON '.1.d30 �Jftlrt3Cl!`� d 0 3; ;NIY.il1 dO h.1.0 Le6c 8 N (1(, ['SrS;4] , 3 8� -- -ui'►iceritt►K DLva 4 THE 0407 UN ASS ©©DATES A ©©KOT ©T 2000 112TH AVENUE N.E. BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 • 454 • 3344 QGe 1!'A R aw, 1y WTI, 1,4TOIy • RR t wrwR ruA 4 DONALD RO*Ma ROOM l ...Alf, n ; CITY OF TUKWILA r�C" IF ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM aL��'� 2 €i 1984 .1 CITY o it E•» ..A This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application -permit. This 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. A fee of $60.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire to cover costs of the threshold determination. I. BACKGROUND 1' 1. Name of Proponent: M1^ 0n) r)U0ARAt • &pops r15. • 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: (I2.4f we. • t5eu-eque , um. 9 b004-- 3 Date Checklist Submitted: 6 • es. 64 4 Agency Requiring Checklist: rtiAdJtjA9 tj -(1A 5 Name of Proposal, if applicable: 6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give an accurate understanding of its scope and nature): ' s Pf r i , W1-j -s4 Pr C RROSS M12 o ( . 32,4=o 51.0 . 7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im- pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under- standing of the environmental setting of the'proposal): I • (4 A ppo pest)/ QUO G•2 . t,-tom. s f o moo' Lot Gam. 41 As Sx11h06'. 8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: tiA X14 198$ 9. List.of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the Proposal (federal, state and local): (a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, et( .A.R )YESue/vNO (b) King County.Hydraulics Permit YES NO ✓ (c). Building permit YES ✓ NO • • (d) Puget Sound 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 V" YES 1' NO YES NO YES ✓ NO YES ✓ N0 YES N0 ✓ YES ✓ NO YES ✓ NO ,10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity • related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: 11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: 12. Attach any other 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? YES MAYBE NO (e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (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? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: C veetup +1o1�1S r —f oR: LPN y AS Po121(361MJ0 GIwW 45 (' PL A14). 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? Explanation: 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? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? (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 (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 Explanation: imeA6051Exio imtivtgqicos Age" (01144 126520% getP /r OVe.P 't IJ sys�. . 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 Explanation: c44(Ame-otAk., PLA jij 1, CcMpLY Wt- i uII INC0"s c- PfSAt1. 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? Explanation: _2‹ • • 6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels? Explanation: n1oP,t.. 0.1-11G01.Af, -IC... A410 MEGHAc )lCiAt.- t a IPM+"• 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? Explanation: 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? YES MAYBE NO Explanation: fb�IBLe U dF h1tisohu{ZooL C�4S 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: • 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Explanation: 12. Housing: Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO 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? Explanation: ADRIAN. V tAlcot P &.% — .t+ orftt - e wL43l bird. 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 ?. (b) Police protection? (c) Schools? (d) Parks or other recreational facilities? (e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? .g. (f) Other governmental services? 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: 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: (a) Power or natural gas? (b) Communications systems? (c) Water? (d) Sewer or septic tanks? (e) Storm water drainage? (f) Solid waste and disposal? Explanation: 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea- tion of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? Explanation: YES MAYBE NO • • 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 Wilful lack of full disclosure on my part. AP - - - G • 2-S • s4- Signature and Title Date Oft. ePt2=W14 o M 44014 - $ 1/i t• zlC--�+ t C42copi p.. S . -8-