HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-27-88 - RADOVICH JOHN - FORT DENT II OFFICE BUILDINGSFORT DENT TWO & THREE
TWO OFFICE BUILDING
DEVELOPMENTS WITH PAVING
& LANDSCAPING
6840 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. ( #2)
6860 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. ( #3)
EPIC 27 -88
June 13, 1989
Moira Bradshaw
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Subject: FORT -- -DENT TWO & THREE
Amendment to Environmental Checklist Filed 8/25/88
RECEIVED
CITY OF UKWI ,A
JUN 13 198
BUILDING tSEFvF.
Dear Moira:
The following is updated information applicable to the
environmental checklist previously filed on this project.
Page 3, 11, Project Description; Development consisting of two
class A, multi- tenant buildings. Building. Two will be 60,000
sf, Building Three will be 40,000 sf.
Page 16, f, Trips Generated; As the buildings have decreased
slightly in size, so does the parking generated. Building Two
will generate approximately 1,062 daily trips. Building Three
will generate approximately 708 daily trips. The peak
percentages will not change.
Page 12, i, Number of People; The proposed buildings are
slightly smaller in size, therefore completed Building Two will
be occupied by approximately 510 people, Building Three; 340
people.
Page 13, Aesthetics a; Building height for both buildings, Two
and Three, has been reduced to 39'6 ".
Page 15, Transportation c; The basement parking at Building Two
has -been eliminated. The total project parking is now 409
stalls which is one stall per 244 sf.
Page 4, g, Impervious Surface; 152,556 sf /69%. (Both Buildings)
Please contact me if you have any questions.
_ o
Cord ally,
Katie Greif
Development Manager
301111CeRadlOVith Development Company
2000 -124th Ave. N.E. B -103 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 454 - 6060`•
•
November 10, 1988
•
f
T.9
VV
/
if. '%1\1
�T /
j � f
11
Mr. Ross Earnst /� 2 1 `
Public Works Department ea v
City of f T k 1 a
�} / �1*
6300 Southcenter Blvd. 'C
Tukwila, WA 98188 � ���
3 �iv� Ba�r�' �� /- �
Subject: Fort Dent
Dear Ross:
Enclosed you -/w�1
ort Dent Burin
eport fuller r
regarding
stability.
o
2/ �L � U Z
vises rr dSantud
sJ�99c.nior
t � s
grns
and\.
�"the re
p Two /and rem
s to ail e th� depa
.t? and
Please cont
Cordially,
CP"ri
imti�e�i ely i jyoi�l ave' ai
6(
Katie Greif
Development
enclosure
cfss "
'>6 („
°/,c(c
<>0..e9°6
1�
r
r
2000 - 124th Ave. N.E. B
yMopment Company
Bellevue, WA 98005 i . 454 -6060
0 Vol
1//r)/
PREPARED BY:
Keith Litchfie
Staff Engineer
u-k
Charles L. Vita, Ph.D., P. E.
Senior Project Manager
A REPORT PREPARED FOR
JOHN C. RADOVICH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
SUPPLEMENTAL
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
FORT DENT 2
SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
E- 3007 -4
November 8, 1988
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast
Suite 101
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643 -3780
4 Ltttye. ,WC ia's
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists
& Environmental Scientists
November 8, 1988 E- 3007 -4
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
2000 - 124th Northeast
#B -103
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Attention: Ms. Katie Greif - Kulczyk
Subject:
Reference:
Consultation
River Bank Stabilization
Fort Dent Phase II
Tukwila, Washington
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Study
E- 3007 -2, November 2, 1987
Dear Ms. Greif - Kulczyk:
We are pleased to submit herewith our report titled "Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering
Study, River Bank Proposed Fort Dent -2 Office Building, Tukwila, Washington." This report
presents the results of our field exploration, laboratory tests, and engineering analysis for the
property located on Plate 1. The purpose and scope of our study is outlined in our
September 13, 1988 proposal. We previously submitted a general geotechnical study for this
site in the report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Melin Parcel 2," dated November
2, 1987, and a preliminary report titled "Fort Dent Phase II," dated October 5, 1988. This
report supercedes the later reports.
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005
Bellevue (206) 643 -3780 Seattle (206) 464 -1584
222 E. 26th Street, Suite 103, P.O. Box 111744, Tacoma, Washington 98411 -9998 Tacoma (206) 272 -6608
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
November 8, 1988.
E- 3007 -4
Page 2
The results of our study indicate that the existing river bank is at least marginally stable
under present site conditions. The river adjacent to the site is in an active depositional
mode. Up to two feet of loose sand has been deposited on the banks adjacent to the site.
These deposits overlie a riprap armor previously placed to inhibit erosion. Higher stream
flows during rainy . periods will result in erosion of these recent sand deposits. Earth
Consultants, Inc. (ECI) recommends that the existing vegetation covering the lower bank be
retained to help minimize the erodability of these loose surficial sands.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface -
The lower river bank has slopes of 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) to 1H:1V. A cover of grasses,
blackberry bushes, and vines blanket much of the river bank and reduce accessbility as well
as obscure the riprap which protects the slope. At the time of our study, the river was at
low flow and approximately twenty -five (25) feet (vertically) of the river bank was exposed.
Subsurface
The river bank was explored by hand - excavating six bore holes at two locations (HA -1, 2)
shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the test hole logs, Table A, for a detailed description of
the conditions encountered at each location explored. The following is a description of the
subsurface conditions encountered:
(1) the bank has had up to two feet of loose fine to medium sands deposited over
the spalls during periods of high river flow;
(2) the river bank has an apparently continuous cover of quarry spalls four to ten
inches in size and larger; and
(3) the quarry spalls are underlain by fine silty sands.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
November 8, 1988
E- 3007 -4
Page 3
Groundwater
Previous groundwater measurements (by others) indicate that the groundwater level
corresponds roughly with the elevation of the river. Clearly, the groundwater level is not
static. Thus one should expect fluctuations depending on the river level, season, rainfall, and
other factors. Generally, the water level is higher in the wetter winter months. Changes in
groundwater levels probably lag changes in river level by a significant time interval. This
characteristic has been accounted for in the slope stability evaluation.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Bank Slope Stability
A slope cross section (Mithun Partners dated 9- 12 -88) and soil information from borings
(ECI report E- 3007 -2) were used to assess the riverbank stability. Two slope configurations
(Plate 4) were evaluated:
1) Existing Configuration: The riverbank unchanged at about 1H:1V.
2) Proposed Configuration: The riverbank is reshaped with a
fourteen (14) foot wide bench excavated at Elevation 18.4, then
sloped back at 2H:1V to the existing graound surface, as shown
on Plate 4.
Conventional analytical methods and computer program PCSTABL4 (Purdue University,
1975) were used to calculate a slope stability factor of safety (FS). The estimated factor
of safety of the proposed design was estimated as follows:
1. The effective angle of internal friction for the silty sands was conservatively estimated
to be 30 degrees, based on SPT blow counts and soil texture.
2. The minimum value of effective cohesion required . to just maintain stability of the
existing slope configuration (FS =1) was back - calculated. An estimated cohesion of
100 psf was obtained.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
November 8, 1988
E- 3007 -4
Page 4
3. FS for the proposed slope configuration (Plate 4) was calculated using an effective
angle of internal friction of 30 degrees and an effective cohesion of 100 psf.
Using the above design constraints and soil parameters, three slope configurations were
assessed for slope stability. The letters (A,. B, C, D) correspond to points or the slope (Plate
4). The slope sections and estimated factor of safety are as follows:
o Existing ground surface (ABD): FS =1.0 (selected reference value).
o Slope below Elevation 18.4 (AB): FS =1.1
o Proposed bench and slope below Elevation 18.4 (ABC): FS = 1.3
o Proposed cut below Elevation 24.0 (A, B, C, D): FS = 1.7
These factors of safety are approximations of actual conditions. Under extreme drawdown
conditions, local instabilities will occur; these may require remedial repair from time to time.
Bank Slope Stabilization
We believe, after interpreting our slope stability analyses and field observations, and based
on apparent past performance and current conditions, that the river bank below the proposed
bench is currently stable under normal river flow conditions. An average flow velocity of
five feet per second (fps) was reported by the Corp of Engineers (telephone conversation
with J. Lenconie, April, 1986 regarding ECI report 2720 -1). ECI then assumed a maximum
high flow velocity of ten fps (twice the average flow velocity) for this reach of the river in
evaluating stability and estimating a riprap size of approximately six inches by the tractive
force method. The ten (10) fps flow velocity and resulting erosion potential was also
evaluated by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Method (also Tractive Force Method).
Riprap sizes were slightly larger.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
November 8, 1988
E- 3007 -4
Page 5
Extreme flows in excess of ten (10) fps (up to fifteen [15] fps) would require riprap sizes to
sixteen (16) inches. However, these extreme flow conditions are considered to be unlikely,
infrequent events. Properly placed six to eight inch sized riprap is expected to provide
adequate protection, though with a lower margin, of safety.
Modifications to the river bank will be made by the John C. Radovich Development
Company. These alterations will take the form of a fourteen (14) foot wide bench
constructed at Elevation 18.4. Above this bench, a 2H:1V slope will be constructed to the
top of the bank.
The bank cuts made during the proposed development will be armored with riprap. ECI
recommends that the proposed river bank improvements include the following:
1. The erosion control for high velocity flow should consist of a basal blanket of
three -inch rock underlying six to eight -inch (minimum dimension) riprap. The
riprap cover will secure the smaller rock and help further stabilize the river
bank against erosion (see Figure 1A). Emplacement of a geotextile blanket
between the silty bank and riprap is optional, but not required on the low
energy side = of the river.
Riprap placed on any river bank excavations should be hard, sound, durable,
free of seams and cracks and should be broken into near - cubical shapes. The
three -inch rock to be used as a wearing course and a filter material and the
riprap rock should have a minimum density of one hundred sixty -five (165)
pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The size distribution for the riprap should consist
of particles no less than six inches in least dimension, 45 to 60 percent should
be eight inches, and 35 percent or more should exceed eight inches in least
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
November 8, 1988
E- 3007 -4
Page 6
dimension. The average size (D50) for the total riprap gradation should equal
or exceed eight inches. Riprap should be placed in a single lift and nested for
maximum resistance to stream action.
2. A combined wearing surface . and erosion surface control for vehicular traffic
where necessary. The wear surface may be achieved by providing a cover of
up to . four inches of three -inch rock (minimum dimension) over the riprap (see
Figure 1B).
Usual, seasonal fluctuation of the river will result in sporadic deposition and erosion of the
loose surficial sands. As long as these surface deposits are underlain by bank armor, damage
should not occur to the banks.
The previous owner has been reported to have placed riprap on the existing river bank in
accordance with King County rquirements. If bank maintenance and aesthetics require
removal of vegetation, care must be taken to replace disturbed riprap to maintain bank
protection. In order to decrease development costs, the earthwork contractor may want to
screen the river bank material excavated to construct the bench to retrieve the existing
riprap. The screen should have the necessary dimensions to ensure that the material meets
the specifications stated above.
After the modifications are made to the river bank, the bank should be monitored. If areas
of erosion are observed, additional riprap should be selectively placed in these areas.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
November 8, 1988
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
E- 3007 -4
Page 7
Our field exploration was performed in September, 1988. Subsurface conditions at the site
were explored by hand- excavating six borings to a maximum depth of one and one -half feet
below the existing grade. The borings were hand - excavated due to access problems and to
minimize the potential for erosion on the slope. The locations of the bore holes were
determined approximately by- pacing from assumed property corners. Elevations of bore
holes were determined by hand level measurements. The locations and elevations of the
bore holes should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used.
The locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was performed by a soils engineer from our firm who classified the
soils encountered, logged each test hole, obtained representative samples, and observed
pertinent site features. Due to the proximity of the riprap to the surface, relatively shallow
bore holes were achieved with the hand equipment. All samples were visually classified in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 3, Legend.
Logs of the bore holes are presented on Table A.
Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory
for further examination and testing. Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests
such as sieve analyses on representative samples.
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective
laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in accordance with that level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions
in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
November 8, 1988
E- 3007 -4
Page 8
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the
explorations. Soil and groundwater conditions between explorations may vary from those
encountered by the explorations. The nature and extent of variations between explorations
may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear, ECI should be
requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report prior to proceeding with the
construction.
Additional Services
It is recommended that ECI provide a general review of the final design and specifications
to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted
and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications.
It is also recommended that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during
construction. Because of the nature of this project, we do not accept responsibility for the
performance of the earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings
and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. This is to
observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations, and to allow
design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the
start of construction.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Corporation
November 8, 1988
The following table and plates are attached and complete this report:
Table A Hand Auger Hole Logs
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Exploration Location Map
Plate 3 Unified Soil Classification
Plate 4 Slope Stability Cross Section
Appendix Slope Stabilization and Erosion Control
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Keith Litchfield
Geotechnical Engineer
Charles L. Vita, Ph.D., P.E.
Senior Project Manager
KAL /RJB /CLV /kml
Earth Consultants, Inc.
E- 3007 -4
Page 9
TABLE A
HAND AUGER HOLES
E- 3007 -4
BORE HOLE DEPTH
NUMBER (FEET) DESCRIPTION
HA -1 (slope top) 0 -1.0 Very " stiff silt
(slope middle) 0 -0.25. Loose silty sand
0.25 Spalls
(slope toe) 0 -0.25 " Loose silty sand
0.25 -1.5 Dense sand
HA -2 (slope top) 0 -1.5 Very dense silt
with gravel
slope middle)_ 0 -1.0 Medium dense silty
sand
1.0 Spalls
(slope toe) 0 -0.75 Loose silty sand
0.75 -1.5 Loose sandy silt
1.5 Spalls
Earth Consultants, Inc.
••'-' •:',•-■rN,Ttc2 • p•v„,t_azoo, .T I
''•!'-'" '1. .1,P
kt • Te
vams,
.;•;•,•.•:;IM.::.; ' • 'I t i
51P---
ago
5 R
ST
517
VAIllY
GH0ENtliApett
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Geoteritnical Engineering and Geology -
41 MTN RV
Reference
King County / Mcp 41
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 1988
Vicinity Map
Fort Dent 2
Tukwila, Washington
Pro'. No. 3007-4 I Date Oct. '88 I Plate 1
Not - To - Scale
LEGEND
♦ HA-1 Approximate Location of
ECI Hand Auger Hole, Proj. No.
E-3007-4, Sept. 1988.
S B-1 Approximate Location of
ECI Boring , Proj. No.
E-3007-2 , Oct. 1987
7P-I Approximate Location of
ECI Test Pit, Proj. Na
E- 3007 -2 , Oct. 1987
Approximate Limits of
!� Fi I I
Approximate Area of
Proposed Building
Reference :
Plat Map
Received From Client
Undated
Earth
Consultant Inc.
GMtectuaieal Engineering ad Geology
Boring and Test Pit Location Plan
Fort Dent 2
Tukwila, Washington
3007-4 Oct. [Date 138 'Plate 2
•
•
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPH
SYMBOL
LETTER
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Coarse
Grained
Soils
More Than
50% Material
Larger Than
No. 200 Sieve
Size
Gravel
And
Gravelly
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Fraction
Retained On
No. 4 Sieve
Clean Gravels
(little or no fines)
a 'o °a : o °; °
o vv. o••o•
° '......... •o,o
GW
gw
Well- Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
. :0: :•: :•::
• •
IF • • •
GP
gp
Poorly - Graded Gravels,Gravel -
Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Gravels With
Fines ( appreciable
amount of fines)
b,
I
GM
gm
Silty Gravels, Gravel -Sand-
Silt Mixtures
,
r/
GC
gC
Clayey Gravels, Gravel- Sand -
Clay Mixtures
Sand
And
Sandy
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Fraction
Passing No.4
Sieve
Clean Sand
(little or no fines)
*0°00 ; o o °OO °o
o °o° o p0 0
SW
SW
Well- Graded Sands, Gravelly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
,;! 9.....•t.
:':
' •'- :' ::
SP
Sp
Poorly- Graded Sands, Gravelly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Sands With
Fines (appreciablery
amount of fines)
/t e:1,
!
.:j;1:j: {;
;; •
ij�
•�;i:;l
SM Sn1
•
Silty Sands, Sand Silt Mixtures
SC
SC
Clayey Sands; Sand Clay Mixtures
Fine
Grained
Soils
More Than
50°/ Material
Smaller Than
No. 200 Sieve
Size
Silts Liquid Limit
And Less Than 50
Clays
I
ML
ml
Very , .r,y-
Clayey Inorganic Fine Silts Sands: 8 Clayey Fine Silts Sands w/ Rock Slight FloltPlasticitySilt
CL
CI
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean'
OL
Organic Silts And Organic
Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
Silts
And Liquid Limit
Clays Greater Than 50
;x:
MH
mh
Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or 'Diatomaceous Fine
Sand Or Silty Soils
CH
C
Inorganic Clays Of High
Plasticity, Fat Clays.
oh
Organic Clays Of Medium To High
Plasticity, Organic Silts
Highly Organic Soils
y == -<
- ` '
PT
pt
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
With High Organic Contents
Topsoil
Fill
Humus And Duff Layer .
Highly Variable Constituents
The Discussion In The Text Of This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding
Of The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached Logs
Notes :
Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper
case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab-
oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not
verified by laboratory testing.
I • 2 "0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
TT 2.4" I.D. RING SAMPLER OR
11 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
2 WATER LEVEL (DATE)
aWATER OBSERVATION WELL
C TORVANE READING, tsf
qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf
W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight
pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft.
LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent
PI PLASTIC INDEX
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Geottechnlcal Engineering and Geology
LEGEND
Proj. No. 300'7 -4
Date Oct' 88' IP1te .3
BORING B-I
E- 3007-2
9/15/87
ML
ML /SM
SM
SM /SP
20 —
0—
-10 —
-20
SILT
SILTY SAND
WATER TABLE
Horizontal Scale
0 5 10 20ft.
Vertical Scale
0
5
10
20ft.
PROPOSED CUT
—` Elev. 22//2000
CFS
WATER TABLE
EXISTING GROUND
SURFACE
Elev. 18.4/9000 CFS
1
GREEN RIVER
0
30
—20
— 10
0 °
w
- -10
— -20
Earth
Consultants Inc.
G.ot.chnical Engineering and G.oiogy
Slope Stability Cross Section
'Fort Dent 2
Tukwila, Washington
Proj. No. 3007-4 I Date Nov 88 ,Plate
F.IC -aVRC 1: PrioPOSED
faro e O s \0 N
5TAB1 L 1ZATION
C01-4'CROL_
(.NOT To SLAL E�
EROSIt.a
C01,1-1- Rv 1_.
O
= zz.L\ -}aTT•
APPROsIMIN -T -
Loc- AcctoN of
j�R0 L-T ExiS-1NNCa GROUND
4 S‘..eceace.•
—�'— —
EL. ZZ /z000 CFS
2:1
wAL_E TRA1`. �o�� �r
F-q-S. H R FASS _ G 2 Av
■44n1U CovNiTY
MA►ts+TaN ANVC 'Cg
W y k e■l &'1 Su
E cz os t v N . C'o nn r., 0 L.
2/o
■
A \
rl A
0 tfl
Su
va
MAW
I fa
el
dy
7 F�
o;�
0
m
0
}
Imo
0
c-
m
0
-4
z
0
W
0
0
fi
A8 83)IJ3H3
A8 831f1d104O3
r
m
v
k I
3 Copies
Technical and Quality Review by:
R. J. Bielefeld
Project Manager
DISTRIBUTION
E- 3007 -4
John C. Radovich Development Corp.
2000 - 124th Northeast, #B -103
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Attention: Ms. Katie Greif - Kulczyk
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Christine Gregoire
NROMMAWK4XXxx
Director
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY •
Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000. _
October 27, 1988
Mr. Rick Beeler
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
Dear Mr. Beeler:
OCT 2,j 1988
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination
of nonsignificance for the construction of two office build-
ings by Mr. John Radovitch (EPIC- 27 -88). We reviewed the en-
vironmental checklist and have the following comments.
The proposed project must be consistent with all applicable
policies and other provisions of the Shoreline Management
Act, its rules, and the city shoreline master program. This
includes, but is not limited to, those provisions pertaining
to commercial development, landfill, parking, utilities, con-
servation, and public access.
We would encourage the city to insure that there will be ad-
equate storm water control, landscaping, and public access
trail facilities along the shoreline. The area excavated for
additional flood water capacity along the top of the bank
should be revegetated with native riparian plant species that
will protect against erosion and enhance fish and wildlife
habitat.
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Bruce Smith of the
Shorelands Program at (206) 459 -6762.
Sincerely,
Barbara J. 12itchie
Environmental Review Section
BJR:
cc: Linda Rankin, Shorelands
*METRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Exchange Building • 821 Second Ave. • Seattle, WA 98104 -1598
October 24, 1988
Rick Beeler, Planning Director
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Determination of Non-Significance
File No.: EPIC- 27 -8g John C. Radovich
Dear Mr. Beeler:
179 f
I °CT 26 1988
Metro staff has reviewed this proposal and anticipates no
significant impacts to its wastewater facilities.
Public Transportation
Metro recommends that a transportation management plan be
developed for this site. The plan should identify the following:
o A performance standard (% trip reduction or mode split
goals).
o Site design considerations, such as, pedestrian amenities,
placement of parking.
o Distribution of transit /rideshare information. f------
4e-
o Commuter Information Center.
o Assignment of an employee transportation coordinator.
o Preferential parking for High Occupancy Vehicles.
o Flexible working hours program.
o Transit or vanpool subsidies for employees.
o Guaranteed ride home program.
o Conduct of surveys /monitoring in cooperation with the
jurisdiction and Metro.
The developer should contact Bob Flor, Metro market Development
Planner at 684 -1611 about the TMP.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment.
Sincerely,
Gregory M. Bush, Manager
Environmental Planning Division
GMB:pig>
cc: Bob Flor
AFFI•AVIT OF DISTRIOJTION
1, JOANNE JOHNSON
hereby declare that:
O Notice of Public Hearing 0 Determination of Nonsignificance
[[ Notice of Public Meeting
[[ Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet
[[ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet
[[ Planning Commission Agenda Packet
[[ Short Subdivision Agenda Packet
X X1 X Mitigated Determination of Non -
significance
O Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
O Notice of Action
[[ Official Notice
[[ Notice of Application for [[ Other
Shoreline Management Permit
[[ Shoreline Management Permit
Other
AA
was mailed to each of the following addresses on TUESDAY. OCTOBFR 11, 19RR
(SEE ATTACHED)
Name of Project FT DENT TWO
File Number EPIC� 27 ='88
WASH ST OFF OF ARCHAEOLOGY • DNS (MITIGATED)
AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION FT DENT TWO
111 WEST 21ST STREET, KL -11 10/11/88
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT FISHERIES JOHN C RADOVICH
115 GENERAL ADMIN BUILDING
OLYMPIA, WA 98504 2000 -124TH AVENUE NE
#B -103
BELLEVUE, WA 98005
WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
ATTN: WILLIAM FRY
P.O. BOX 1869
SEATTLE, WA 98111
GROUP W CABLE (TCI)
P.O. BOX C96029
BELLEVUE, WA 98009
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SHORELANDS DIVISION
MAIL STOP PV -11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
ATTN: KAREN BEATTY
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
MAIL STOP PV -11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
ATTN: KAREN BEATTY
PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT CO
ATTN: RENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
10608 N.E. 4TH STREET
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
METRO
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIVISION
ATTN: MANAGER
MS 92 - 821 SECOND AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98104
DUWAMISH TRIBE
15616 - 1ST AVENUE S.
SEATTLE, WA 98148
ATTN: CECILE MAXWELL, CHAIR.
VALLEY DAILY NEWS
212 WELLS AVENUE
RENTON, WA 98055
•
CHECKLIST: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW MAILINGS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
) Federal Highway Administration
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( )U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
( )U.S. Department of H.U.D. (Region X)
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( Office of Archaeology
( ) Transportation Department
) Department of Fisheries
( ) Office of the Governor
( ) Planning & Community Affairs Agency
( )Dept. of Social and Health Services
(!><1Dept. of Ecology, Shorelands Division
)Dept. of Ecology, SEPA Division *
( )Department of Game
( )Office of Attorney General
* Send checklist with all determinations
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
) Dept. of Planning & Community Devel.
) Fire District 18
) Boundary Review Board
) Health Department
( ) South Central School District
( ) Tukwila Library
( ) Renton Library
( ) Kent Library
( ) Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone
( ) Seattle City Light
Washington Natural Gas
Water District 75
) Seattle Water Department
) Group W Cable
( ) Kent Planning Department
( ) Tukwila Board of Adjustment
( ) Tukwila Mayor
Tukwila City Departments:
( ) - Public Works
( ) - Parks and Recreation
( ) - Police
( ) - Fire
( ) - Finance
( ) - Planning /Building
( )Fire District 1
( )Fire District 24
( )Building & Land Development Division
SEPA Information Center
SCHOOLS /LIBRARIES
( )Highline School District
( )King County Public Library
( )Seattle Municipal Reference Library
UTILITIES
'44puget Sound Power & Light
( )Val -Vue Sewer District
( )Water District 20
( )Water District_ ).
( )Water
( )Union P, rt i Sr ±-`°1 -Nod
CITY AGENCIES
( )Renton Planning Department
( )Tukwila Planning Commission
Tukwila City Council Members:
( )- Edgar Bauch
( )- Marilyn Stoknes
( )- Joe Duffie
( )- Mabel Harris
( )- Charlie Simpson
( )- Jim McKenna
( )- Wendy Morgan
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
( ) Puget Sound Council of Government(PSCOG)
( ) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency
( ) Tukwila /Sea -Tac Chamber of Commerce
Daily Journal of Commerce
Renton Record Chronicle
)METRO Environmental Planning Division
Office/Industrial-10,000 gsf or more
Residential 50 units or more
Retail 100,000 gsf or more
MEDIA
( )Highline Times
( )Seattle Times
w . ° £.inc v- hers 0)--) C cc) Le
i S. Co I (p 1 Ave_ LM- 9 g/y? V \c ia.R_4P
WAC 197 -11 -970
• •
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 111,065 SQUARE FEET IN
TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS WITH ACCESSORY PAVING AND LANDSCAPING ALONG SHORELINE
OF THE GREEN RIVER.
Proponent JOHN C. RADOVICH
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any LOTS 1 AND 2 TUKWILA SHORT
PLAT 79 -7 -SS; 6840 AND 6860 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -27 -88
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.
There is no comment period for this DNS
This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
OCTOBER 25, 1988 . The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Rick Beeler
Position /Title
Address
Date
Planning Director
6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukw;
Signature
Phone 433 -1846
.A40/0/511,11
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200 Southcenter
Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written
appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be
required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and
Planning Department.
FM.DNS
City of Tukwila
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1849
MITIGATION MEASURES
DNS for
FORT DENT TWO
EPIC 27 -88
1. If artifacts are revealed during earthwork, all excavation,
grading, and fill must be stopped and the Department of
Community Development, Office of Archeology and Historic
Preservation contacted at 753 -4011, Robert Whitlam, State
Archaeologist. An historic marker or archeological display
will be required if documentation of historic note is
discovered or per substantive comments of Duwamish Tribe
during comment period, to be reviewed and approved by
Planning Department.
2. Construct recreational trail per City standards.
3. Dedicate any additional necessary area for public
recreational trail and riverbank maintenance easements.
4. Riverbank excavation shall be revegetated with native
materials to be reviewed and approved by Washington State
Department of Fisheries.
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
Sepember 30, 1988
Ms. Katie Greif
John C. Radovich Development Co.
2000 - 124th Avenue N.E., B -103
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Subject: FORT DENT 2 AND 3
Dear Katie:
We have reviewed your submittal for Fort Dent 2 and 3. Our comments and questions
follow. The two easements must be recorded prior to building permit issuance.
1. Recreational Trail Easement to Tukwila
The Tukwila Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the Fort Dent 2 cross
section dated 09/07/88, and requests a 20 -foot easement from the top of the
bank/dike or the 24 -foot elevation landward. The improvements to this area
should be to our standards. The easement form will be forwarded to you in the
near future; we are currently updating.
2. Riverbank Improvement/Maintenance Easement to Tukwila
The Tukwila Public Works Department agrees with the above cross section subject
to a riverbank stability study to verify the acceptability of the 2:1 slope. This
study must be completed prior to issuance of the Shoreline Permit.
3. The above maintenance easement.should cover the area from the landward edge of
the requested trail easement waterward to the edge of your property line (please
see enclosed easement form).
4. The need for additional detention on -site will depend on hydraulic calculations to be
determined by you, prior to issuance of utility permits.
5. The Planning Department notes six handicap stalls will be required per the
Washington Barrier -Free Code.
6. Where will the approximate 6,000 cubic feet of fill be disposed of from the Fort
Dent Two building? Please respond by October 5, 1988.
7. An engineering study addressing the methane gas and compliance with Seattle /King
County Department of Public Health standards will be required prior to issuance of
building permit (please see enclosed regulations).
Ms. Katie Greif
September 30, 1988
Page 2
8. The proposed boundary line adjustment must be reviewed and recorded prior to
building permit issuance.
9. The two -way aisle dimension between 90° stalls which are 8.5 feet in width is 25
feet, not 24 feet. Please make corrections to your site plan.
10. The Tukwila Fire Department notes that the cul -de -sac in front of Fort Dent Three
does not meet their turning radius requirement and that they will not allow a path
into oncoming traffic. Please contact Nick Olivas and make appropriate changes.
11. The elevation of the screen wall in Phase II is needed for both the shoreline and
BAR reviews.
12. Per our conversation, BAR approval is needed for issuance of a Shoreline Permit
for Phase II of your proposal.
Finally, I have not begun design review at this point, but will get back to you if any issues
arise.
Yours truly,
Moira Carr Bradshaw
Associate Planner
MB /sjn
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
(206) 433 -1800
Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
07424/774//?a/e4rS
//0/%QA- AWLS/MW.
9Q v 67)°7 --iii g
of4 )/f) Pfie f7 4eedx9 64J/ �A, / ),liy %i;� jeiv l
cJ
(10 /T2.MEMO)
g2P g �S
•
Nothing in this letter is meant or should be interpreted to establish final
Uniform Building Code requirements that will be addressed through the normal
plan check procedure when application is made for building permit.
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: BLDG PLNG /i1161/51 P.W.
PROJECT /),- f/ Th�ry
Iasi
CN
EPIC 27-83
FILE gg
PO -Jr-ff
FIRE n POLICE J P & R
LOCATION 5 • e.:i t. 6O FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED 9//i2!5ty'
STAFF COORDINATOR j bete _ /z c
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 9/2 2/25 `6
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
, A RokiL'ik._ 13t\--N IC/ID ► ICS `OILS si / 31�(T -f STufYi w I t
ez*. 1 t) L AS i\fl OF T 11E FL& o col :31 -0AmL.
P,3 I0
O IN pe2M C�' PRIJC IISS
PsPPN -ovtt ) ?No Po.S D
Acc Ss UTI l_iT`1 EA 'v1 )TS )' 30( 1.-IT A Ada
1.m u rti cR0s5.1 N 4rS o v L+!. LOTS r aTI(0. P61.'J P & ri
"1 v fLt_uw Fvll\-. A- (3CDUA1 -7 PCB S `fi I TI I_nh IS Co111140 n�S
F-()1 souTH III
• 01 rzc-y- INN► Oflea -u u c er -c..0 o rt mss,1 r t LJ
0‘-,1 FTc Mh ALs o hn tA■ (-I1h ins. 'i) 'Pitov I O . I �'
vaN MtKAT l.tK.A c &t STEINN CAN IT 1.) Ao0 -'tom D l(
y7. . Fu S . Pak-n-1 IS cr f- I C IL L_LT3
DATE q /2 /eg
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
ITY OF TUKWILA
1
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM — ROUTING FORM
TO: [[ BLDG. PLNG. [j P.W. [11 FIRE [[ POLICE J P. & R.
PROJECT tO .T DENT IWO -- cues
ADDRESS (oso OJf Lem t -61v'4
DATE TRANSMITTED �(� yy RESPONSE REQUESTED BY WI. kvAi q122-( 00
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR Re bec c& Fox RESPONSE RECEIVED
JAh
PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER
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,R• 0,2 04t,ve re,6�w
Q
Q
Q
0
Q
0
0
Q
Q
0
0
/ O '-- .›. --ga. � 4:2 --- v-... 5
�- - - -
�-
f
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 0 PLAN CHECK DATE
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED J`r, COMMENTS PREPARED BY /�0►1_— �_--
PLAN APPROVED 0
C.P.S. FORM 2
23% Var1.42.4ion rn Pro re.
L: n t IOC ":o ri
1
os 4
'C6�F -°
El- lxa• 1 y. 4.
�,� � ��� ��� r' Q`0
I ti
026 1 ,,, a
f .v t‘.
ail . lope
4. e
• -`
C°. A ll'
7 M,6-/C-b
g 7' get / /8 7€7
ASbgavNED
•1: r S lope
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: n BLDG n PLNG P.W. [j FIRE n POLICE [ P & R
EPIC 27-88
FILE gg -7/-4e
9Q -3 -✓yam
PROJECT F',-f 2 'nf- 7i-
c11.; eV %yam
LOCATION f'�)ix�r,.,k% /./.',11 q'"46O ""gam'-FILE NO.
.Si�l
DATE TRANSMITTED
Vg
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY V. /2 2-
STAFF COORDINATOR - bec.-". 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 �� -3�� COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: [BLDG jn PLNG P.W. n FIRE n POLICE n P & R
PROJECT T Fu'-/- 2 '� � ? 4/777/t.,2-
• CN
EPIC 27-88
FILE Sg - / / -Le
PO - 3 -j>yp
LOCATION 6 l`1k0 / /g/i V4.10 e'`'/Si'/�'`'•L`�-FILE NO.
��
DATE TRANSMITTED //1361
STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 9/2.2-/.`
ect'- fin 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
16;s eyo jecl robed; ?y falIN (uilLi Ica lo(,L /I awl- 0 / a/a4r,
4 c 3 t 1 e g u e m , fi y lie Di ke. _ 0 1 f / r /MD 44710 TO S ?fig igrn
QrO CA:rn e T 1CPLit. -we-Slated 44. L koke CVe, ( oyi iiC w yociS
i) OCc: fen? 6U7' 1 9')eiiee iicaykp 'S 240 40e41 1(15.4 of
eykiL)iya, v 41 0.4pr
/4-
?roxle 4 el/ PeYir/ f a.11,ro4 y kce pt,ied ; ce gzy
I)Ike oacf 46 5-de � wh; woulct So115 e Otte y 01411
pin,416 Sht ®c4 1 le%pcDrcoty t toe! o fkdot. Irak
Q
DATE 7-4-
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
'OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
i
TO: F-71 BLDG n PLNG 1 P.W. ET FIRE n POLICE n P & R
PROJECT Fo✓& ?'✓i /- T «T4.r,a--
•
CN
EPIC
FILE
27 -88
89 -g-4e
Re- 3 -syt
LOCATION 6$ #O soa/ c' f3/ve f G /6o 0.4',,cer FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED 04,03i? RESPONSE REQUESTED BY- 9 /2z-l$ e
STAFF COORDINATOR , ztecea. 7 x 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
,4 hoo4G q(o t°!Ir1574Vl OUJQ /(. yS e. 7
le NAM g46
11 /V d�s.� d ha,��,r_ C'tJ'Y1,5fric , ,ors /►.kd
/OA. p •i 3
000-r.
-ekt/afibn .+vm,tir1044
Aug Qink.v(vic .foxl
(ad..us rn,�
4. DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
• •
•
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Conal No.
Epic—File No. �'1- '
Fee $100.00 Receipt No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Fort Dent Two and Three
2. Name of applicant: John C. Radovich
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: John Radovich /Katie Greif
2000 124th Ave. NE, B -103, Bellevue, WA, 98005
4. Date checklist prepared: August25, 1988
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Obtain all
necessary permits for Fort Dent Two and start construction March 1989. Fort
Dent Three to be constructed in approximately three years.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Once buildings
Two and Three are constructed the project will be completed.
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A geotechnical study was per-
formed in November of 1987 . by Earth Consultants.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. To the best of our knowledge there are no government actinns pending
that will affect the proposal.
• •
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Board of Architectural Review approval, Shoreline Use Permits, Flood Zone
Control Permits, all City Utility Permits, Building Permits and Occupancy Permits,
for building shell, building permits and occupancy permits for tenant spaces,
Fisheries Permit.
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in thi .
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do no .
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
To develop two Class A, multi- tenant office buildings on approximateljfive acres
of land within the City of Tukwila. Building Two will be_05,065' sq. ft. Building
Three: 46,000 sq. ft.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
Lots 1 and 2 of Short Plat No. 79 -7 -55 according to the Short Plat Surve recorded
under King County recording No. 7908210370; City of Tukwila. Keg County.,
Washington. The y roperty is located at the entrance to Fort Den. Park northeast_
of Interurban. The address for building two is: 6840 SouthcenLer BIvd., and
building three is: 6860 Southcenter Blvd.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Yes, the Green River borders the property,on the northwest, m rth -and northeast..
TOL'BE COMPLETED BY APPL ICI
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one):
rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous,
•Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? Parcel 1; 50 %, Parcel 2: 08%
c. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If
you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland. Gray and
brownish silt of loose to medium density. For addi-
tional information, see attached soils report.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
No, however preloading of the building site on Fort
Dent One to the south was required to insure minimal
building settlement.
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill. Approximately 2,200 cubic yards of
structural fill will be used under the building area.
All other grading will be to balance the site and
to facilitate a planned building elevation.
f.. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
;Minimal erosion could occur during clearing and
grading, however, erosion control methods in accordance
with City of Tukwila standards will be observed.
g.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)? 68% impervious
surface
•
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any: All appropriate
erosion control measures will be taken to minimize
runoff.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors,
industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally
describe and give approximate quantities if known.
Dust from earthwork and vehicle emissions during
construction, vehicle emissions only after completion.
b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any: None
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into. The Green River
borders the property to the north and west.
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans. Portions of the building, land-
scaping and parking will be constructed within
200 feet of the Green River. In addition, the
river bank adjacent to the project site will be
excavated to create a 2:1 slope and 1.6 foot bench
area to allow for additional storm water runoff.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material
that would be placed in or removed from surface
water or wetlands and indicate the area of the
site that would be affected. Indicate the
source of fill material. An estimated 1800 cubic
yards of earth material will be removed from the
river bank along the entire river frontage.
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. No withdrawals are required.
Surface storm water will be channeled and
collected by means of a storm water drainage
system.
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan. No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of
waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated
volume of discharge. Only normal passenger automobile
related pollutants should enter surface waters from
the parking areas. Runoff from basement parking
will enter the sanitary sewer system and runoff
from on grade parking will pass through grass
lined swales before entering the river.
•
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. No
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve.
Not Applicable
c. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm
water) and method of collection and disposal, if
any (include quantities, if known). Where will
this water flow? Will this water flow into
other waters? If so, describe. Storm water will be
collected by an approved drainage collection system
including catch basins, pipes and grass linedLzales.
Water will then be outleted into a c4.tch basin _at
Southcenter Blvd. and channeled to the Green River.
Expected storm quantity will. be'approximattlx 9
cubic feet per second.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe. Some auto-
mobile related pollutants may enter the storm
system from the parking areas. Oil /water separators
will be installed as well as the implementation
of grassy swales within the landscaped area.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
See above, page six — 6 and page eight — 2
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
site:
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
x grass
pasture
_ crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
x other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? All existing vegetation will be removed.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. None
Aft Evaluation for
ler Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: A much improved landscape environment
will result from the comp[eted project.
Shrubs: Otto - Luyken Laurel, New Zealand Flax Rhododendron
Snow Lady, White Flowering Potentilla. Trees: Norway Maple,
Sweet Gum, Washington Thorn, Kousa Dogwood. Groundcover: Sod.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds,
crows, finches, sparrows, robins
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
None
fish: bass, salmon trout, herring, shellfish,
other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site. None
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain. The Green River may be a migration route
for salmon and trout.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any: None
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electric heating and air conditioning units will
be installed.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar
energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally
describe. No
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are
included in the plans of this proposal? List other
proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any: Construction will include insulated
roof, foundation, walls and windows. The rooftop air
conditioning equipment will feature a variable speed
controller and an economizer to utilize fresh outdoor
air when temperatures are at acceptable levels.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe. No
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. Not Applicable
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any:
Not Applicable
.1 •
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)? Some traffic noise
exists but will not affect the project.
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short -
term or a long -term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
Short term construction noise resulting from
excavation equipment and trucks may occur during
some parts of construction.
• 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: Construction will be limited to
daylight hours only.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? The project site is currently vacant land.
The Green River and Fort Dent Park lie to the north and
west. Fort Dent One Office Building is located to the
south. State Farm Insurance Co. plans to develop an
office building on property which is currently vacant
to the east.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe. Yes, more than 25 years ago the property
was used for farming. It is not know what type of
crops were planted.
c. Describe any structures on the site. None
•Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? C -2
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Commercial
g.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? Urban
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
The Shoreline Master Program has designated a por-
tion of the site as environmentally sensitive due
to the close proximity of the Green River.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? Using the building_depart-
ments ratio of 1 employee _per 100 sq. ft., the project will include 550 people at
Building Two and 390 people at Building Three. These numbers are based upon net
j. Approximately how many people would the completed useable area and in reality
project displace? None are quite high.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: None
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: The property will be developed in
accordance witfiTukwila C -2 zoning and other applirahle
laws.
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income
housing? None
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: None
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
Building height for Building Two is approx. 43 feet
exclusive of air conditioning equipment and parapet.
- uil.ding Three will be near the same height. The
principal building materials include painted concrete
panels, glass, and metal panel accents.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: Attractive architectural and landscape
designs are planned which will require review by and
approval of the Architectural Review Board.
ilo Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
The site will be "illuminated by low glare lights on
10 -20 foot standards throughout the parking area
and landscaping. The exterior glass selection wi1T
be of a type not to exceed the reflectivity standards
for the City of Tukwila.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a
safety hazard or interfere with views? No
c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal? None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any: By use of low glare perimeter
lighting and meeting reflectivity requirements.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park
and in the near future, the Green River Recreational
Trail will be developed within the River Bend area.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing .
recreational uses? If so, describe. No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any:
The Green River Recreation Trail borders both phases
of the proposed development.
. Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe. Historic Fort Dent Park is
located across the river northwest of the site.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
Fort Dent Park
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: None
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any. Interurban
Avenue South and Southcenter Boulevard serve the sub-
ject property. Access to these streets is from a
20 foot ingress /egress easement on the southeasterly
property line.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Not directly, although there is a bus
route along Interurban Avenue South.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate? The
completed project will include approx. 48 basement
parking stalls at Building Two, 49 under cover sur-
face stalls at Building Three and 271 regular surface
stalls. Total parking will be approximately 365
stalls. None will be eliminated.
•
•Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,
or improvements to existing roads or streets, not
including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private). Sidewalks,
curb.. and gutter will be installed along the street
frontage.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe. No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur. According to the International
Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, general office —
type uses generate approx. 17.7 trips per 1000 sq. ft.
of gross building area. Building Two will generate
approx. 1,150 daily trips and Building Three will generate approx. 814 daily trips.
Approx. 12% of these trips will occur during the a.m. peak hour and 13.6% during
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- the p.m. peak hour.
tation impacts, if any: The buildings are being
constructed in phases. Use of public transportation
and flexible working hours will be suggested to
tenants.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for
public services (for example: fire protection,
police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe. The completed projects
could marginally add to the need for police and
fire protection.
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any. None other than
payment of City taxes.
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently av lable at the site:
electricity, natural gall_ water refuse service,
telephone, sane ary ewer septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the
project, the utility providing the service, and the
general construction activities on the site or in
the immediate vicinity which might be needed.
Presently, sewer and water are available to the site and are serviced by the
City of Tukwila. Electricity and phone service will be required and provided
by Puget Power and Pacific Northwest Bell. Actual construction requirements
to connect to utilities are not known at this time.
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to m4g it decision.
r
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
G
�.�,TQ,. .BE COMPLETED BY APPL IC•
0 Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT
PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the
objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the
aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This
information provides a general overall perspective of the
proposed action in the context of the environmental infor-
mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor-
tive information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? To develop an
office project of quality design and construction which
will promote future business growth in the City of
Tukwila and to fulfill a need for office space in an
easily accessible location.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? None
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action: Number One
• •
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila
Comprehensive land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli-
cies of the Plan? No
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s)
are: Not Applicable
-23-
Af*
00
tooZ7c9
0
GEOTECIEIN I CAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PLIEL1N PARCEL 2
• SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD
TUKWILA , WASHINGTON •
E-3007-2
FOR
JOHN C RADOVI CH •
DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
0.00..4k
•=.
.•■0136,1.w.,
r
N,tr.k
. "t"'*--•,•r
•
• •••• • • •,'•;-.V. ksft-0,1_
•3=-JA•t•4te
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists
t! Environmental Scientists
November 2, 1987 E- 3007 -2
John C. Radovich Development Company
2000 - 124th Avenue Northeast, B -103
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Attention: Ms. Katie Greif Kulczyk
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to submit herewith our report entitled "Geotechnical
Engineering Study, Melin Parcel 2, Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila,
Washington ". This report presents the results of our field explora-
tion, laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and
scope of our study was outlined in our proposal dated July 28, 1987.
The site is underlain by non - plastic silt and sand to the maximum
depth explored, forty -nine (49) feet. The existing fill pile south
of the proposed building area consists of wet, non - plastic to low
plasticity, silt and construction debris. This material may be used
as structural fill provided that the construction debris is removed
and the soil can be adequately dried or stabilized for proper
compaction. The use of this material as structural fill will be
difficult if construction is done during wet weather. The proposed
building can be supported on conventional footings bearing on at
least two feet of structural fill.
This report has been prepared for specific application to this
project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineer-
ing practices for the exclusive use of John C. Radovich Development
Company and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made. We recommend that this report, in its entirety,
be included in the project contract documents. The following
sections of this report describe our study and contain recommenda-
tions regarding foundation design criteria, earthwork considera-
tions, and site drainage.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The site is located north of the cul -de -sac at the terminus of
Southcenter Boulevard. This four -acre, nearly rectangular site is
bordered on the northwest and northeast by the Green River, by the
Fort Dent access road on the southwest, and undeveloped land to the
southeast. The site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1.
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005
222 E. 26th Street, Suite 103, P.O. Box 111744, Tacoma, Washington 98411 -9998
Bellevue (206) 643 -3780
Seattle (206) 464 -1584
Tacoma (206) 272 -6608
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
E- 3007 -2
Page 2
We understand the proposed structure is to be similar to the
building under construction southwest of this site. The building is
anticipated to be two -story masonry with the bottom floor slab -on-
grade. Centered on the property, the building footprint is an-
ticipated to be rectangular and cover . approximately twenty -five
thousand (25,000) square feet. The approximate building location is
shown on the Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2.
The maximum column loads are anticipated to be one hundred twenty -
five (125) kips with perimeter wall loads of two kips per lineal
foot (kif). Slab loads are expected not to exceed one hundred
fifty (150) pounds per square foot (psf). We anticipate that
finished surface and floor elevations will be approximately equal to
the existing surface elevations.
If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted
to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any
case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) provide a
general review of the final design.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The northeastern two - thirds of the site is covered with up to five
feet of fill. Topographic relief at the edge of the fill is
approximately three feet. A large fill pile approximately twenty
(20) feet high exists from the cul -de -sac to approximately fifty
(50) feet south of the proposed building footprint. The edge of
fill and the large fill pile are depicted on Plate 2.
Where the property is bordered by the Green River, the land slopes
to the river's edge at an approximate inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizon -
tal:Vertical). The elevation drop from the top of the slope to the
river's edge is approximately twenty (20) feet.
Vegetation consisting of a thick covering of grasses exists along
the riverbank and on the southwestern third of the property. Trees,
approximately twenty (20) feet high and eight (8) inches in diamet-
er, exist along the riverbank and within fifteen (15) feet of the
northern edge of the fill pile.
Subsurface
The site is overlain by as much as five feet of uncontrolled fill.
This fill was excavated from the property immediately southwest of
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
E- 3007 -2
Page 3
this site and consists of fine - grained soils. A loose to medium
dense silt exists below the fill and extends to approximately ten
feet below the surface. Underlying the silt, a silty sand exists to
the maximum depth explored of forty -nine (49) feet. This silty sand
is medium dense and becomes dense to very dense at approximately
forty -two (42) feet below the surface.
Groundwater
The groundwater levels observed while drilling were at twenty -two
and one -half (22 -1/2) and twenty -seven and one -half (27 -1/2) feet
below the surface. Slotted standpipes were installed in the borings
to allow subsequent measurement of the groundwater level. Readings
taken two days after completion of the borings are shown on the
boring logs. The groundwater seepage level is not static and
fluctuations in the level will occur depending on the amount of
rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the
water level is higher during the wetter winter months.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Relatively recent fills cover most of the surface area of this site.
These fills are anticipated to consolidate under the loads imposed
by the proposed structure. On the adjacent site, native soils
similar to those below the recent fills have demonstrated settle-
ments of up to thirteen (13) inches under soil fill depths of about
seven (7) to eight (8) feet. Settlement magnitudes will not be
uniform across the site and differential settlements are expected to
exceed tolerable limits for the structure. Based on these con-
siderations, it is prudent in our opinion to surcharge the building
area to reduce potential settlement magnitudes.
In lieu of surcharging, structural loads can be supported on deep
foundations extending below the compressible soil layers. This
latter alternative does not provide for support of the floor slabs,
entry way slabs or utilities. Further, we believe that deep
foundations will be a more costly procedure if project scheduling
can accommodate the time required for surcharge loading.
The existing site soils are fine grained and will be difficult to
properly compact if their moisture content is above optimum at the
time of construction. These soils may be used as structural fill
provided that they can be compacted to the specified percent
density. The material in the large fill pile south of the site is
wet and contains construction debris consisting of lumber, filter
fabric and metal. Mineral soils in the fill pile must be cleaned of
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
E- 3007 -2
Page 4
construction debris and dried to near optimum moisture before being
used as structural fill.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of
trees, existing utilities, surface vegetation, organic matter and
other deleterious material. It is anticipated that a stripping
depth of four inches or more will be required. Stripped materials
should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural
fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buil-
dings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or any other load bearing areas.
Following the stripping operation, the ground surface where struc-
tural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be
proofrolled. All proofrolling should be performed under the
observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft
areas should be removed and replaced with structural fill to a depth
that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill.
Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in
horizontal lifts and compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the
maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D -1557-
78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or
near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks
should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90
percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches
which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density.
On -site soils at the time of our exploration were above the optimum
moisture content. These soils may be used as structural fill
provided that they can be compacted to the appropriate density
designated above and are free of organic matter and construction
debris. The on -site soils have a significant amount of fines.
Thus, compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture
is above the optimum moisture content at the time of construction.
To compact the site soils to the proper density, the moisture
content needs to be reduced to near the optimum moisture content.
Unless the moisture content can be reduced, it may be necessary to
use imported granular soil as structural fill. The moisture content
can be reduced by aeration in dry weather, or by using lime or
cement stabilization. Ideally, structural fill which is to be
placed in wet weather should consist of a granular material with a
maximum size of three inches and no more than 5 percent fines
passing the No. 200 sieve. During dry weather, any compactible non -
organic soil can be used as structural fill.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
Surcharge Program
E- 3007 -2
Page 5
We recommend that the building area be pre- loaded with a minimum of
three feet of surcharge fill. The purpose of the surcharge fill is
to induce as much settlement in the building area as possible prior
to construction. This fill is in addition to any structural fill
materials required to achieve design finish grades; thus, the top of
the surcharge should be three feet above finish grade and should
extend a minimum of five feet beyond the building perimeter or
exterior footing line. If future expansion is anticipated, the
surcharge should extend at least fifteen (15) feet in the direction
of the future addition. The extra surcharge area is to reduce the
possibility of differential settlement from future building or
surcharge loads. Also, no fill for landscaping purposes should be
placed near the building since any additional fill could induce
further settlement. The side slopes of the surcharge fill should be
inclined no steeper than 1H:1V. We estimate that the surcharge fill
will need to remain in place approximately two to three weeks to
permit primary settlements to be completed, after which building
construction may be started.
Before placing the surcharge fill, structural fill should be placed
six inches above finish grade to allow for anticipated settlement.
Depending on site grades, it may be necessary to overexcavate soil
to provide the required thickness of structural fill below footings
and slabs. Alternatively, footing excavations can be done after
removal of the surcharge fill.
The surcharge fill does not have to meet any specific requirements
except that it should have a minimum in -place total density of one
hundred twenty (120) pounds per cubic feet (pcf). However, if the
surcharge fill is to be used later as fill on another part of the
site, we recommend it meet the requirements for structural fill.
Structural fill to be placed in wet weather should contain no more
than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve.
Prior to placement of the surcharge fill, we recommend installation
of at least four settlement markers within the surcharge area.
These markers should be protected from disturbance by construction
equipment. In addition, these markers should be surveyed by ECI
personnel or a licensed surveyor daily during fill and surcharge
placement and at intervals of 2, 4, 8, 16 (so forth) days after
completion of the surcharge fill placement. The initial reading
should show the natural ground elevation, and readings taken during
surcharge placement should show surcharge thickness. The surcharge
may be removed when the required settlement has been reached. The
subgrade should be proofrolled and any unstable pockets should be
overexcavated and replaced by structural fill.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
•
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
Foundations
E- 3007 -2
Page 6
After removal of the surcharge loads, the proposed structure may be
supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on
at least two feet of structural fill. Overexcavation of soil below
the footing will be required. Fill placed under footings should
extend outward from the edge of the footings for a distance equal to
its depth. Exterior footings may be bottomed at a minimum depth of
twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish grade.
Interior footings may be at a depth of twelve (12) inches below the
top of the slab. Footings bearing on structural fill should be
designed for a bearing pressure of twenty -five hundred (2500) psf.
Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths
of twelve (12) and eighteen (18) inches, respectively. A one -third
increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering
short term wind or seismic loads.
For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -
construction settlement of footings will be about one inch with
differential settlements of about one -half inch. If any continuous
footings are located partially in cut and partially in fill, we
recommend that consideration be given to additional reinforcement in
the footings and footing walls near the cut -fill transition line to
reduce the possibility of structural damage due to differential
settlement.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by
friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill
subgrade or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the
latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing
soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of
structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used
between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting
subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed natural soils and
well- compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid
having a density of two hundred fifty (250) pcf.
We''recommend that drains be placed around all perimeter footings.
The drains should be constructed with a four -inch diameter per-
forated pipe bedded and covered with free - draining gravel. The
drains should have a positive gradient towards suitable discharge
facilities. The roof drainage system should not be tied into the
footing drainage system. The footing excavation should be back -
filled with granular soil except for the top foot which should be
backfilled with a relatively impermeable soil such as silt, clay or
topsoil. Alternatively, the surface can be sealed with asphalt or
concrete pavements.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
• •
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
Slab -on -Grade Floors
E- 3007 -2
Page 7
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on the compacted site soils or
on imported structural fill. Any disturbed site soils must be
recompacted or replaced with structural fill. A minimum of four
inches of free - draining sand or gravel should be placed between the
slab and subgrade as a capillary break. We also recommend that a
vapor barrier such as a 6 mil plastic membrane be placed between the
slab and capillary break to reduce water vapor transmission through
the slab. Two inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for
protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete.
Excavations and Slopes
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits
specified in local, state and national government safety regula-
tions. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should have
an inclination no steeper than 1.5H:1V. As an alternate to open
cuts, temporary shoring can be used in conjunction with vertical
cuts. Detailed criteria for shoring systems can be developed, if
needed.
All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than
2H:1V. We recommend that all excavations be examined by ECI to
verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommen-
dations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
including flattening of slopes and installation of surface and
subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow
uncontrolled over the top of any excavation slopes.
All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate
species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the
surficial layer of soil.
Site Drainage
Groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths of twenty -two
and one -half (22 -1/2) and twenty -seven and one -half (27 -1/2) feet.
However, it has been our experience that groundwater levels change
significantly due to changes in rainfall amounts, surface drainage
or other factors. If seepage is encountered in the excavation, the
water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage
-ditches, perforated pipes or French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the
excavation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
E- 3007 -2
Page 8
We suggest that appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if
needed, be established during grading operations by a representative
of ECI, at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more
clearly defined.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is
directed off the site. Water should be not allowed to stand in any
area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed.
During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by
compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into
the soils. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from
the building foundations. We suggest that the ground be sloped 3
percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings
except in areas that are to be paved.
Pavement Areas
All parking and roadway areas may be supported on the existing soils
provided that those soils can be compacted to 95 percent density and
are stable at the time of construction. Structural fill and /or
fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet or unstable areas. In
most instances twelve (12) inches of granular fill will stabilize
the subgrade except for very soft areas where greater thicknesses
may be required. The upper twelve (12) inches of pavement subgrade
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum density.
Below this level, a compactive effort of 90 percent would be ade-
quate. The pavement section for lightly loaded traffic and parking
areas should consist of two inches of Asphalt Concrete (AC) over
four inches of Crushed Rock Base (CRB) or three inches of Asphalt
Treated Base (ATB). Heavier loaded areas will require thicker
sections. We will be pleased to assist you in developing ap-
propriate pavement sections or specifications for heavy traffic
zones, if needed.
Methane Concentrations
Methane gas concentrations were measured in the soil samples taken
from the borings and test pits. The concentrations were measured
using a "Gastechtor" device calibrated for toluene gas. The
appropriate conversion factor was then used to convert the actual
readings to parts per million (ppm) methane which is reported on the
boring logs at the appropriate sample locations.
The readings taken in the field indicated concentrations of methane
gas between 40 and 450 ppm. These concentrations are less than one
percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) of 50,000 ppm for methane
Earth Consultants, Inc.
• •
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
E- 3007 -2
Page 9
and are not considered to be an environmental or safety hazard at
the measured concentration. The concentrations of methane gas are
probably a result of decaying organic matter in the soils.
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field exploration was performed on September 15, 16 and 17,
1987. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling
two borings to a maximum depth of forty -nine (49) feet below the
existing grade and by excavating seven test pits to a maximum depth
of eleven (11) feet. The borings were drilled by Associated
Drilling, Inc. using a truck - mounted drill rig. Continuous flight,
hollow stem augers were used to advance and support the boreholes
during sampling. The approximate locations of the borings and test
pits were determined using a nylon tape. Approximate elevations of
borings were determined using a hand level. The locations and
elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the
degree implied by the method used. These locations are shown on the
Boring and Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by an engineering
geologist from our firm who classified the soils encountered and
maintained a log of each boring and test pit, obtained representa-
tive samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent
site features. Slotted standpipes were installed in Borings B -1 and
B -2 to monitor groundwater levels. All samples were visually
classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
which is presented on Plate 3, Legend. Logs of the borings and test
pits are presented on Plates 4 through 9. The final logs represent
our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the
laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratifica-
tion lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between
soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual.
In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at
selected intervals in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D -1586.
The split spoon sampler was driven with a one hundred forty (140)
pound hammer falling thirty (30) inches.
The consistency of the soil in the test pits was estimated based on
the effort required to excavate the soil, the stability of the
trench walls and other factors.
Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and
returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing.
Visual classifications were supplemented by index tests such as
sieve analyses and Atterberg Limits on representative samples.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
E- 3007 -2
Page 10
Moisture determinations were performed on all samples. Results of
moisture determinations, together with classifications, are shown on
the boring and test pit logs included in this report.
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials
observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses.
The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions
derived in accordance with current standards of practice. No
warranty is expressed or implied.
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data
obtained from the borings and test pits. Soil and groundwater
conditions between borings and test pits may vary from those
encountered by the borings and test pits. The nature and extent of
variations between borings and test pits may not become evident
until construction. If variations then appear, ECI should be
allowed to reevaluate the recommendations of this report prior to
proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services
It is recommended that ECI provide a general review of the final
design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and founda-
tion recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented
in the design and in the construction specifications.
It is also recommended that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical
services during construction. Because of the nature of this
project, we do not accept responsibility for the performance of the
foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide bonstruc-
tion observation and testing services. This is to observe com-
pliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations
and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions
differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
John C. Radovich Development Company
November 2, 1987
E- 3007 -2
Page 11
The following plates are attached and complete this report:
Plate 1
Plate 2
Vicinity Map
Boring and Test Pit Location
Plan
Plate 3 Legend
Plates 4 through 9 Boring and Test Pit Logs
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
f/d4-
Sheldon T. Lynne
Staff Engineer
ohn J. Moran
roject Manager
STL /JJM /cac /kml
Earth Consultants, Inc.
•
•
Reference :
King County / Map 41
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 1988
Earth
Consultants Inc.
Vicinity Map
Melin Parcel 2
Tukwila, Washington
Prof. No. 3007-2 I Date Oct. '87 I Plate I
Property Line 7P-3
PARCEL 2
tIC
B 2
B-1 b,1 f5i
,#1P4
.'--4
PARCEL /
A
7P-2
PARCEL 3
_ — TP-7 \49-14P-6
Large Fill Pile .
. • ,
•
c''‘N
Not - To - Soole
LEGEND
S B-1 Approximate Location of
ECI Boring, Proj. No.
E-3007-2, Oct. 1987
1P-I Approximate Location of
ECI Test Pit, Proj. No.
E30072, Oct. 1987
•y"-- Approximate Limits of
Fill
r Approximate Area of
Proposed Building
Reference :
Plat Map
Received From Client
Undated
Boring and Test Pit Location Plan
Melin Parcel 2
Tukwib, Washington
Proj. No. 3007-2 'Date Oct. '87 'Plate 2
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPH
SYMBOL
LETTER
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
Coarse
Grained
Soils
More Than
50% Material
Larger Than
No. 200 Sieve
Size
Gravel
And
Gravelly
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Fraction
Retained On
No.4 Sieve
Clean Gravels
(little or no fines)
..t .a.• .:: ;�Gw
•
r..� >•: =Y:O••
• •
gw
Well- Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
�- -
:0::0::0 ::
.. • .. • ' .. 0.
GP
gp
Poorly-Graded Gravels, Gravel -
Sand Mixtures. Little Or No Fines.
Gravels With
Fines( appreciable
amount of fines)
GM
gm
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand-
Silt Mixtures
4
GC
gc
Clayey Gravels. Gravel - Sand -
Clay Mixtures
And
Sandy
Soils
More Than
5004 Coarse
Fraction
Passing No. 4
Clean Sand
( little or no fines)
'00 °00 00 0°
000 0 O 0
000• 0°00°0
°000•
SWj
j SW
Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
•••.-.;..•••-•#.
•. :•.:•.;:•:•
SP
Sp
Poorly-Graded Sands, Gravelly
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Sands With
Fines (appreciable
amount of lined
• : ::!•1•::
`'''''''''
, : l : , i
S(N
Sm
Silty Sands. Sand - Silt Mixtures
y
yyyy
prSC
Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures
Fine
Grained
Soils
•
More Than
50% Material
Smaller Than
No. 200 Sieve
Size
Silts Liquid Limit
And Less Than 50
Clays
ML
ml
Inorganic Silts 8 Very Fine Sands, Rock Flour,Silty-
Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity
/%�
/
/
CL /
__ CI
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Gravelly Clays Sandy Clays. Silty Clays. Lean
I I
<,
I I
r
QL i
/� OI
Organic Sdts And Organs
Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity
Silts Liquid Limit
And Greater Than 50
Clays
MH
mh
Inorganic Sills Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fine
Sand Or Silty Soils
CH
Ch
Inorganic Clays Of High
Plasticity. Fat Clays
/ j'oH
--- Oh
Organic Clays Ot Medum To High
Plasticity, Organic Silts
Highly Organic Soils
— `
PT
pt
Peat, Humus. Swamp Sods
With High Organic Contents
Topsoil
Fill
Humus And Duff Layer
Highly Variable Constituents
The Discussion In The Text Of This Report Is Necessary For A Proper Understanding
Of The Nature Of The Material Presented In The Attached Logs
Notes :
Dual symbols are used to indicate borderline soil classification. Upper
case letter symbols designate sample classifications based upon lab-
oratory testing; lower case letter symbols designate classifications not
verified by laboratory testing.
I 2 "0.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
Tr 2.4" I.D. RING SAMPLER OR
11 SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER
P SAMPLER PUSHED
* SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
Si WATER LEVEL (DATE)
aWATER OBSERVATION WELL
C TORVANE READING, tsf
qu PENETROMETER READING, tsf
W MOISTURE, percent of dry weight
pcf DRY DENSITY, pounds per cubic ft.
LL LIQUID LIMIT, percent
P1 PLASTIC INDEX
Earth
Consultants Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
LEGEND
Proj. No. 3007 -1 Date Oct' 87 11'iate 3
Logged
Date
w
BORING
By STL •
NO.
-4.7'±
ELEV.
9/15/87
Graph
CS
Soil Description
I (efptlh
Sample
(N)
Blows
Ft.
(W)
-
1
16
15
ML
Tan SILT, damp, medium dense
-
I
6
23
100 ppm*
i
ml/
sm
Brown interlayered silty SAND and
sandy SILT, moist, medium dense
- 5
-
15
37
300 ppm
<'
t
___
=
I
13
6
,Z;
:,
•;;
;
sm
Brown silty fine SAND, moist, medium
dense
10
-
I
9
9
50 ppm
-
1
9
5
50 ppm
,:
15
�
.�.
# <f
Z
13
6
• •'
Wet below 22.5'
—20
Q
;.�;•;
`
sm/
9 -17 -87
Dark brown, 22.5 to 32.5'
:
-
11
28
200 ppm
i.�,
::...�
sp
—25
`
17
Dark gray /black, 32.5 to 49'
13
32
••;
•_
35
=
16
29
—40
•
Very dense at 42.5'
�
55
12
:•
-45
•.;::
Dense at 47.5'
-
f
''.
-
T
40
22
*ppm = parts per million methane
Boring terminated at 49 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered
at 22.5 feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to bottom of
boring. Lower 10 feet slotted. Boring backfilled with cuttings.
Subsurface ca ndMbrr depicted represent our obeawiar at the time and location of dr..Rploreary hole. modified by engineering tests, anayde, end
judgement. They are not necessarily npn.awrite d other times and Imams Not centl weep responsibly kw the use or iMapwlaion by others of
information presented w this lag.
BORING LOG
(i
�
Earth
Consultants Inc.
- MELIN PARCEL 2
.TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
•
Geotechnical Engineering and Geology
,
Proj. No.3007 -2 1
Date oct' 87
(Plate 4
Logged
Date
BORING
By STL
w
NO. ____2____
ELEV.
-1.7'±
9/15/87
Graph
CS
Soil Description
Defpt)h
Sample
(N)
Blows
Ft.
( %)
•�H�•�o•
�
(1/2" topsoil)
-
15
19
'''°'°".
ml
Fill: Tan SILT, damp, medium dense r-
200 ppm
ML
Gray SILT, moist, medium dense
I
10
27
300 ppm
—
— 5
LL -36
—
ml
Brown SILT with rootlets, moist, loose
-
I
9
PI =9 '
With scattered organic matter at 7'
6
450 ppm
�':•:
sm
Brown silty SAND, moist, medium dense
- 10
I
12
10
350 ppm
y
:.,
:•
-
I
9
5
120 ppm
—15
•
=
I
6
6
:,.
20
I
9
7
420 ppm
'∎
sm /.
sp
Wet below 27.5'
— 24Z
9/17/87
I
14
--30
Dark gray/black silty fine to coarse
=
9
26
SAND, wet, loose to dense
35
250 ppm
I24
.
27
250 ppm
.::
— 40
Dense below 42.5'
150 ppm
With gravel at 42.5'
_
31
27
— 45
4
T
37
17
Boring terminated at 49 feet below existing grade. Groundwater encountered
at 27.5 feet during drilling. 3/4" PVC standpipe installed to bottom of
boring. Lower 10 feet slotted. Boring backfilled with cuttings.
Subnrleas condidar depicted represent our ob.arvalwe ■ the time and location at this .rplonlory hole. moaned by engineering test.. map., and
payment. They an na necessarily representative oh other dross and locat ion.. We cannot accept rwpono iIy ex the use or inewpretation by others of
inhorm.tion presented on We lop.
BORING LOG
11
MELIN PARCEL 2
.
Earth
;'' Consultants Inc.
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Geeteehnical Engineering and Geology
Proj. No. 3007 -2
I Date oct' 87
IPlate 5
Logged By
Date 9/16/87
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
MEI
r
ml
•
TEST PIT NO. A.
Soil Description
Elev. =
W
1961
Fill: Tan SILT, damp, loose, with concrete rubble
sm/
ml
Tan silty SAND and sandy SILT, moist, loose
7
2
40 ppm
Test pit terminated at 7 feet below existing grade. No
groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
Logged
Dace 9/16/87
STL_ TEST PIT
E lev. -1-71
Fill: Brown sandy GRAVEL, moist,, loose
S sm/
ml
Brown silty SAND to sandy SILT, damp, loose
Corregated plastic pipe at 4.5'
Test pit terminated at 5 feet below existing grade. No
groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15 srarrroe cmdwoes depicted rpr..ea our m.wv.tbns r the dine and location or dee ea lanaory hole. modified by engineering Maac analysis. end
ludgrn.m. Thai age not n.a..ray represents** oI other time and locaio e. W. cannot scow reeporu'bility for the use as inierpreielion by other. of
Yrlor.etion presorted on this b►
Earth
Consultants Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
TEST PIT LOGS
MELIN.PARCEL 2
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 3007 -2' Dsa Oct' 87 1PM* 6
By STL
D 9/16/87
Depth
(h,) USCS
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
.,
owl
TEST PIT NO. L.3
Soil Description
Elev._
W
(96)
12" crushed rock ballast
ml
Fill: Tan SILT with gravel and a boulder, moist,
medium dense
ml
Brown sandy SILT, moist, loose to medium dense
13
12
Test pit terminated at 6 feet below existing grade.
'No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
Logged By STL
DaW 9/16/87
TEST PIT NO.
Elev.
-2.0±
Fill: Tan SILT, moist, loose, with tree limbs and
other organic debris
Old topsoil
r
ml
Gray SILT, moist, loose
ml
mai
Light and dark brown SILT with scattered organic
matter
ml
Brown sandy SILT, moist, loose
15
33
18
Test pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. No
groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
15 8ub.urtscs conditions depicted Pigment our obw.etiera r the time and location of this av orslory hole, modified ty •naM«ww tests, sn.yeis, and
judgement. Thaw ass not noe«orily rspnasrtaYve of other times and locations. Ws cannot accept responsibility for the um «intermission bothers d
Information mssertsd on Ws log.
Earth
Consultants Ins.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY
TEST PIT LOGS
MELIN PARCEL 2
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 3007 -2' D>di Oct' 87 Fate 7
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
Loggod By STL
Dab 9/16/87
USCS
TEST PIT NO. _..5.
Soil Description
EIev.
w
(%)
r
INN
MEI
OWN
ml
Tan sandy SILT, damp, loose
14
Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet below existing grade. No
groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
Looped By STL_
Date 9/16/87
TEST PIT NO. S_
E lev. -1'71
Fill: Tan sandy GRAVEL, damp, loose to medium
dense
4
4
150 ppm
200 ppm
Test pit terminated at 4 feet below existing grade. No
groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
Subsurface conditions depicted we're our obeervrions st the time and location of this aippallory Hob, moaMd by prpireerinp lets, anaemia, and
jtrdpernaa. They are no necessarily representable al other times and locations. Ws cannot accept responsibility ter the use or ir1nprutaYon by others al
information preesrrsd an this los.
Earth 410 4) Ori
Consultants Inc.
GCOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • GEOLOGY
TEST PIT LOGS
MELIN PARCEL 2
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.3007 -2 I Date oct r 87 ,Prate 8
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
Logged By
Date 9/17/R7
uscs
TEST PIT NO. .Z_
Soil Description
Elev. -4.71
W
(96)
ml
Fill: tan sandy GRAVEL, damp, loose to medium
dense
Gray clayey SILT, moist, soft
24
25
320 ppm
,350 ppm
Test pit terminated at 4 feet below existing grade. No
groundwater seepage encountered during excavation.
10={
15
OEM
Subeurlaoa conditions depicted moment our abeervalions at the bine and location of this wobblier/ hole. meddled W engineering teal., anieele. and
judgement. They w not necessarily representative al other tines and locations. We cannot accept rs.ponsibiWY for dte use ar interpretation by of
irdormalion prsursed on this low
Earth 4) ;1°1
Consultants Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
TEST PIT LOGS
MELIN'PARCEL 2
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 3007 -21 Dmi Oct' 87 Fats 9
ABANDONED LANDFILL STUDY
IN
KING COUNTY
SEATTLE-KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
APRIL 30, 1985
RENTON JUNCTION
•
RENTON JUNCTION ABANDONED LANDFILL
• •
RENTON JUNCTION (MONSTER ROAD)
King County operated a refuse disposal site at the Renton Junction near
Longacres from approximately 1946 to about 1961. It operated on land leased from
the Northern Pacific Railway Company described as:
"Those portions of Lots 31 and 32 of Interurban Addition to Seattle, according
to the recorded plat thereof, lying northeasterly of a line parallel with and
distant 36 feet northeasterly, measured at right angles, from the center line
of the most northeasterly main track as now constructed across said lots;
together with the southwesterly one -half of the original channel of the White
River which attached thereto when the channel of said river was relocated and
constructed along the southwesterly side of the Railway Company's. tracks."
Additional land was obtained from Mr. Fred Nelson of Renton for the operation
described as: "that portion of government Lot 6, Section 24, Township 23N, Range
4EWM, lying between the westerly right of way line of the Steel Hill County road
No. 24- 23 -4 -1 and the centerline of the old channel of the Green River."
PAST AND PRESENT USE
As noted by the legal description, part of this property was once the old
river channel whicn became part of the Northern Pacific Railway right of way and
private rural property. After its operation as a sanitary landfill the land was
surplused and in 1979 purchased for commercial use. The site is currently used by
a decorative rock company and is used for storage of crushed rock and gravel
associated with that operation.
Across the Green River lies Fort Dent Park, southwest of the site is the
Riverview Nursery and to the east is the Metro Secondary Sewage Treatment Plant.
SITE /ENGINEERING INFORMATION AND WASTE DISPOSAL PRACTICES
No specific geological or hydrological information was found regarding the
site other than it was part of the old river channel. It may be surmised that the
• •
base soil is clay, sand and gravel overlain by fill forty to fifty feet deep and
topped off with a relatively impermeable layer and topsoil.
Once the landfill operation started there are records showing numerous
complaints regarding the site. Nuisance conditions prevailed in the warm weather.
Fire and smoke were reported night and day. Inadequate fill dirt for the cover of
the operation was noted, as were problems of dumping sewage and oils on site. The
County had a contract for the maintenance of this dump with a private concern in
effect until December 31, 1957. This contract called for bulldozing and compaction
twice weekly with the top side being covered with eighteen inches of dirt. It also
required that the garbage be deposited in lifts or layers not to exceed twelve feet
in depth after initial compaction. There was no earth available on the site and
all cover material had to be brought in by trucks. The only earth available within
hauling distance had been of a hardpan type with a heavy clay concentration.
The site was used not only by the County, but according to copies of
agreements, also by the City of Renton to dispose of a portion of their garbage and
refuse.
The seriousness of the fires at the south end'of the dump operations in 1950
prompted correspondence between the King County Fire Marshal and the Health and
Sanitation Department, who ran the landfill, to confine burning to the north area
of the landfill.
The landfill was closed effective December 27, 1957 with directions for refuse
to be taken instead to either the Bow Lake Fill at South 188th and Military or the
landfill at South 352nd Street about one -half mile east of the Puyallup cut off
highway, both still in operation at that time.
However, the Health Department was requested to continue filling operations as
plans to discontinue the fill were described as leaving the fill in an unusable
• •
condition. The fill waF reopened, using County equipment to conduct operations,
which continued for about two years.
SUSPECTED PROBLEMS
Due to the proximity of the old landfill site to the Green River, it is
conceivable that leachate may reach the river.
The site is recorded on the EPA 'RRIS list. The site's proximity to several
industries in South King County make it possible that some potentially hazardous
materials, including oil, were dumped at the site during its years of operation.
FIELD RESULTS
The Renton Junction Abandoned Landfill was tested for methane and trace gas
emissions on January 10, 1985. These data are presented in Table XXXVI. Methane
gas levels were observed ranging between 17% and 33% from test holes located at the
northerly half of the former fill. Lower levels of methane gas (3% to 5 %) were
observed within the southerly section.
Trace gas levels were observed ranging between -4.8 ppm to 0 ppm relative to
the ambient air.
A surface water sample was retrieved along the shoreline of the Green River
immediately adjacent to the former landfill. Leachate contamination was not
indicated (Table XXXVII).
• •
FIGURE 2C
RENTON JUNCTION ABA";DONEI LANDFILL
Ammar
Monster
Road
•
TABLE XXXVII
METHANE AND TRACE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
RENTON JUNCTION ABANDONED LANDFILL
Site Methane (° =) Trace Gas (ppm)
1 33 -2.7
2 30 -4.6
3 17 -4.8
4 4 0
5 3 0
6 3 0
7 5 0
(1) Trace•gas measurements made with 11.2 eV HNU probe
(2) Reading represents change from ambient air level
• •
TABLE XXXVIII
SURFACE WATER PARAMETERS
RENTON JUNCTION ABANDONED LANDFILL
Site (A) (1)
pH 5.6
Temperature 5.2
Dissolved 9.8
Oxygen
(PPm)
Electrolytic 0.2
Conductivity
my /cm
Turbidity 1
(PPm)
(1) Green River surface water
• •
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RENTON JUNCTION ABANDONED LANDFILL
This site demonstrated relatively high levels of methane off - gasing with five
of the seven test holes being within or above the explosive range. No evidence of
non - specific organic /inorganic gases were observed exceeding background levels.
It is recommended:
1. That all existing building construction be properly vented and
periodically monitored to insure that methane is not accumulating in any
substructures.
2. That no further building construction take place over the former landfill
site until it has been stabilized.
I -5
High
,17
BOY LAKE ABANDONED LANDFILL
Steep
Downhill
Embankment
Steep
Downhill
Embankmen'
-Not to scale
1985
1
I vi/C, Y 1 GEpri2AL 1 C. ATro I,
SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS.
A. APPLICABILITY. This construction restriction applies to all construction activities
on /or within one thousand feet of an active, closed or abandoned landfill that has been
documented by the health officer to be generating levels of methane gas on-site at the lower
explosive limits or greater levels. The distance shall be calculated from the location of the
proposed structure to the nearest property line of the active or former landfill site.
8. REQUIREMENTS. All enclosed structures to be built within the one - thousand foot landfill
zone must be protected from potential methane migration. The method for insuring a structure's
protection from methane shall be addressed in • report submitted by • licensed civil engineer to
the local building departarent for approval. Such a report shall contain a description of the
investigation end recommendation(s) for preventing the accumulation of explosive concentrations
of methane gas within or under enclosed portions of s building or structure. At the time of
final inspection, the civil engineer shall furnish a signed statement attesting that the building
or structure has been constructed in accordance with his /her recommendations for addressing
methane gas migration.
SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE. These Rules and Regulations shall take effect on
January 1, 1987.
Passed this , 19 , NAY of December . 1986.
RING COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH
RING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
Secretary
i°„ed., rldxli.
0 I
1
•f
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPT.
FIRE TRUCK
TURNING RADII
3
1
F
u
RIVER IMPROVEMENT EASEMENT
This indenture, made this day of
19 between Kaiser Gateway Associates, Grantors, and the City
of Tukwila, its successors or assigns, Grantee:
WITNESSETH, that first party in consideration of Mutual
Benefits and the benefits which will accrue to the land of Grantor
by the exercise of the rights herein granted to hereby remise,
release and forever quit -claim unto the Grantee, its assignee, an
easement and right -of -way for the purposes hereinafter stated
along the westerly bank of the Duwamish River.
A riverbank improvement easement over a 30.00 foot wide strip
in Lot 4 of Tukwila Short Plat No. 85- 32 -SS, recorded in Book 52
of Surveys at Page 113, under A.F. #8611179001, records of King
County Washington, and being more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the westerly line of said Lot 4,
distant thereon NO °41'14 "W 309.53 feet from an angle point in said
Lot 4 (said angle point being at the intersection of the two
courses shown as N60 °32'46 "E'g7.13 feet and N0 °41'14 "W 352.00
feet); thence from said POINT OF BEGINNING, along said westerly
line of Lot 4,'N0 °41'14 "W 30.85 feet; thence leaving said westerly
line N75 °48'04 "E 79.44 feet; thence 77'22'27" E 27.90 feet; thence
N74 °28'54" E 53.39 feet; thence N87 °57'42 "E 44.41 feet; thence
S79 °18'02 "E 46.43 feet; thence N77 °16' 11" E 34.14 feet; thence
N89 °14'54 "E 61.39 feet; thence S77 °00' 29 "E 143.53 feet; thence
S60 °59'45 "E 79.84 feet; thence S50 °18'13 "E 61.75 feet; thence
S47 °10'35 "E 69.43 feet; thence S42 °48'46 "E 74.82 feet; thence
S26 °36'41 "E 155.18 feet; thence S2 °11'55 "E 59.81 feet; thence
S5 °05'51 "W 158.78 feet; thence S5 °46'43 "E 91.24 feet; thence
S8 °01'36 "E 110.51 feet; thence S2 °14'21 "E 30.95 feet thence
S71 °21'58 "E 12.28 feet to a point on the southeasterly line of
said Lot 4;thence along said southeasterly line
S41 °46'16 "W 32.62 feet, thence leaving said southeasterly line
N71 °21'58:W 20.13 feet; thence N2 °14'21'W 50.10 feet; thence
N8 °01'36 "W 109.59 feet; thence N5 °46'43 "W 94.68 feet; thence
N5 °05'51 "E 159.72 feet; thence N2 °11'55 "W 51.41 feet; thence
N26 °36'41 "W 144.42 feet; thence N42 °48'46 "W 69.40 feet; thence
N47 °10'35 "W 67.47 feet; thence N50 °18'13 "W 58.12 feet; thence
N60 °59'45 "W 72.81 feet; thence N77 °00'29 "W 136.09 feet; thence
N89 °14'54 "W 54.63 feet; thence S77 °16'11 "W 36.82 feet; thence
N79 °18'02 "W 49.30 feet; thence S87 °57'42 "W.37.51 feet; thence
S74 °28'54 "W 57.36 feet; thence N77 °22'27 "W 28.26 feet; thence
S75 °48 04 "W 79.49 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing
41,588 square feet, more or less.
•
Said easement and right -of -way are for the following
purposes: The right to enter upon the above described land to
construct„ reconstruct, maintain and repair a river channel
and /or other flood control works, including all appurtenances
thereto, together with any enlargement or reconstruction thereof,
and to trim, cut, fell and remove all such trees, brush and other
natural growth and obstructions as are necessary to provide
adequate clearance and to eliminate interference with or hazards
to the structures; and included as an appurtenance to said
easement is a reasonable right to access thereto over any other
land owned by the Grantor.
The consideration above mentioned, is accepted as full
compensation to the exercise of the rights above granted.
To have and to hold, all and singular, the said easement and
right -of -way together with appurtenances, unto Grantee, its
successors and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Grantor hereunto set his hand, the day and
year above written.
KAISER GATEWAY ASSOCIATES
CAL F D E TERPRISES
By:
By:
General Partner
KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
By: / :•tic.± .( -� Jl �L s1 ,rn.�t.v7 k /
Qeneral Pattner
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
COUNTY OF San Francisco
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this 4th day of
April , 19 88 , before me, the undersigned, a
notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly
commissioned and sworn, personally appeared ROBERT M. KAGAN AND
RICHARD DEFABIO to me known to be the
Vice President's ofCAL FED ENTERPRISES, a General Partner of
Kaiser Gateway Associates, a California partnership, that executed
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
partnership for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and on
oath stated thatTheyeauthorized to execute said instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this
certificate first above written.
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
)
ss.
No ary Pfiblic in and for the
State of CALIFORNIA
residing at San Francisco
My commission expires 4/8/88
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON THIS day of
, 19 , before me, the undersigned, a
notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly
commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
to me know to be the
of , a General Partner of
Kaiser Gateway Associates, a California partnership, that executed
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
partnership for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year in this
certificate first above written.
Notary Public in and for the
State of
residing at
My commission expires
STATE OF ;./')/`1V7
COUNTY OF i I i'-/
r
ss.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this // day of(,CJ�ii
, 19 , before me, the' undersigned,
a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly
- commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
!_-1 . 2 f;! 'C
) �11(/) ). ,� R___ ` to , me kngw to be the
1..'i l./ of t �:'.t'G /i7.4 f/�ci 1(C' , a General Partner of
Kaiser Gateway Associates, a California partnership, that executed
the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said
instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
partnership for the uses and purposes herein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he was authorized to execute said,instrument.
WITNESS my had and official seal the day and
certification first above written.
Nota Publi
State, of
in this
occi
Residing at Ate`, c /_
My commission e • ires ,i'-Z//,;9/
APPENDIX E
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98195
28 May, 1982
Institute for Environmental Studies
Office of Public Archaeology
Engineering Annex, FM -12
(206) 543 -8359
Thomas E. Moore, Project Manager
Construction Division
Evergreen Management Company
1721 132 Avenue N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98005
DEC 1 -_
%v• LS -AM. ii: C
Re: Archaeological reconnaissance of the 16 acre Tukwila Bend Project
Dear Mr. Moore:
The following report, in letter format, details the findings of the Office of
Public Archaeology's recent assessment of the proposed Tukwila Bend office
complex. Assessment procedures included archival research and field investi-
gation. Assessment activities were conducted by Mr. Guy F. Moura and Mr.
Stephen Elmore on 7, 10 and 11, May, 1982.
The Project Area
The project is located on the west bank of the Green River, just north of
the Interstate 405 and SR 181 junction, in the town of Tukwila, King County,
Washington. The project is more specifically located on the western boundary
of the NW and SW 1 /4s of Sec. 24, T23N, R4E (Figures 1 and 2).
The project area now forms a rectangular peninsula on the Green River. This
peninsula was created when a river bow was truncated by the Great Northern
Railroad some time prior to 1949 (U.S.G.S. 1949). Immediately west of the
site is a 150 foot bluff; to the north, east, and south lies the floodplain
of the Green River Valley. An isolated hill rises 150 feet above the flood -
plain, on the east side of the river, northeast of the proposed office com-
plex.
During on -site inspection, it was discovered that river sediments had been
removed from the site and /or bulldozed into several mounds. Except for a
narrow band of sands, retained by rip -rap around the periphery, the site is
now composed of pebble to boulder sized rocks in a fine grained matrix which
is presumably of glacial origin. When the river sediments were removed is
unknown; it could have occurred when the road to the Fort Dent Athletic Com-
plex was built (it now transects the site), or during railroad or highway
construction.
0 Recycled Paper
93
T. E. Moore
28 May, 1982
Page Two
Brush growth on the dozer mounds and a small, established marsh in the cen-
ter of the peninsula indicate that sediment removal occurred at least sev-
eral years prior to this survey. Vegetation on the site consist of a ring
of mature trees along the bank, with brambles, brush, grass and marsh vege-
tation over the remainder of the site.
Archival Research
Archival research revealed that the project area had good potential for cul-
tural resources because of:
1. its proximity to known prehistoric sites;
2. the ethnographic evidence. This area of the green river is known to
have been heavily utilized by the Duwamish Indians; and
3. the historic evidence. Some of the earliest EuroAmerican settlers in
what is now Washington State lived along the waters of the Green River;
and Fort Dent was erected just north of the project properties, on the
east side of the river, in 1856.
A more detailed cultural resource overview of the region is presented in
Dalan, et al. (1981).
Prehistorically, the Green River was part of a drainage complex which formed
a highway for canoe passage between Puget Sound and the interior prairies and
mountains. Besides temporary camps and fishing sites, major Indian villages
were located along the river courses. Prehistoric archaeological sites are
common in the vicinity. Three such sites, 45 -KI -6, 45 -KI -51 and 45- KI -59,
are located within a kilometer of the project, along existing and extinct
river banks.
Ethnographically, the area was within the territory controlled by the Duwamish
Indians (Haeberlin and Gunther 1930:10; Smith 1940:16; Spier 1936 :38 and 42).
Evidence of the Duwamish peoples' familiarity with the area is provided by
the following place -names excerpted from T. T. Waterman (ca. 1920). These
places are readily identified on modern topographic maps.
200. Where black river enters White river, Squoa'l -qo, "meeting
of the rivers," a village.
201. The level land below the mouth of Black river at Renton
Junction, on the E. bank, T3awe'dJtc, "river duck."
202. An isolated knoll. There were "piles" of snakes there
(apparently water- snakes). An informant found three piles,
each of them a yard high when he was a boy. This place
would not submit to transformation, so it is a part of the
"old" world, as it was before the Transformer came.
94
T. E. Moore
28 May, 1982
Page Three
203. A sandy point, now occupied by the picnic- grounds at Renton
Junction, Cuhu'dutugwEl, "burning each other;" (hud, "to
burn "). Snakes who land here after swimming across the
river, in the summer time, get burned by the sand and die.
203a. A place on the W. bank of the river, BIs /g3a'ka, "where
there are crows."
203b. Number not used.
203c. A bluff overhanging the river on its W. side, Bsts/ xEbe'dats,
"place of ironwood." People used to go there for ironwood,
tsE1x"b .Ld. (Waterman, ca. 1920:31 and 32).
Two historically documented villages (Dalan et al. 1981 and Hedlund 1981)
are within a kilometer downstream of the project. These villages are
distinct from the prehistoric sites mentioned earlier.
The green river was settled by EuroAmericans early in the history of the
Pacific Northwest. The property on which the cultural resource reconnais-
sance was conducted may have first been claimed by William H. Gilliam be-
tween 1850 and 1855. It is known that at the time of his claim, Gilliam
was a single man who had not been in the territory prior to 1850. Gilliam
claimed 160 acres in portions of Sections 23 and 24, for which he later re-
ceived title under the provisions of the Donation Claim Land Law. Although
residence and cultivation were required to receive title for the land,
General Land Office plat maps (1861 and 1863) do not depict structures or
farmed lands; nor do they even locate Gilliams' claim, which was patented
in 1866 (Shackleford 1940).
During the Indian Wars of 1855-56, the local settlers constructed Fort Dent
for protection against raids by the hostiles. It was built across the river
from the project area, and today an historic marker indicates the former
location (Dalan et al. 1981).
Field Reconnaissance
As stated earlier, upon arriving at the site it became apparent that consider-
able surface sediment removal had occurred several years ago. The entire site
was surveyed in 10 meter intervals and 14 core and 8 shovel test holes were
placed to determine the limits of disturbance and to look for cultural re-
sources. Because of this disturbance, and the small marsh, -core locations
and shovel tests were not systematically placed. Virtually all of the site,
except for a narrow strip along the bank, was disturbed. It appears the
site was bulldozed and several mounds of earth remain on the grounds to attest
to this theory. No cultural resources were located during this survey.
Recommendations
While archival research indicated a high potential for discovery of cultural
material, the disturbance to the site would have eradicated any such materials.
We therefore recommend that this project be allowed to proceed. However, in
95
T. E. Moore
28 May, 1982
Page Four
the event that cultural material is unearthed during construction, even in
the dozer mounds, work should stop immediately in that area and the Office
of Archaeology and Historic Preservation should be notified forthwith. A
professional archaeologist should then assess the significance of the find
prior to any further disturbance. The possibly intact peripheral strip of
sediments is, at this time, protected on the river side by riprap and on
the site by the. mandatory .40 foot from high water. setback.
This report should not be considered to be permission to proceed with the
project in question. It contains professional opinions on cultural resources
which might be affected by the project. This report should be submitted to
the appropriate review agencies for their comments prior to the commencement
of any ground disturbing activities.
Sincerely,
Guy F. Moura,
Staff Archaeologist
GFM:ALL
Encl.
96
•
•
FIGURE 2. Project location is circled and blacked out.
98
Additional mitigating measures should include continuing the existing street tree
landscaping concept throughout the site. This concept presently is in place through the
site on the north side of Southcenter Boulevard and into Fort Dent Park. Also,
driveways north of Southcenter Boulevard should be located to avoid the existing trees.
During design review for building permits, the city should consider limiting or requiring
screening of rooftop structures since residents in the apartments on the hillside west of
the site will be able to look down on the site.
ARCHAEOLOGY /HISTORY
The Green River Valley was one of the earliest areas in the Northwest to be settled by
Euro- Americans. The project site was first claimed between 1850 and 1855. During the
Indian Wars of 1855 -56, Fort Dent was constructed across the river from the site.
Railroads were first built through the valley in the 1880s. The site is adjacent to the
former right -of -way of the Interurban Railway, once an important transportation link
between Seattle and Tacoma.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The site was investigated by the University of Washington Office of Public Archaeology
to identify the potential for historical or archaeological resources on the site. (See
Appendix D.) Since the site was filled and graded many years ago, any potential
cultural remains have been covered by several feet of fill. Construction of the project
will occur entirely on previous fill, and will not cause any additional impact to
potential cultural resources on the site.
MITIGATING MEASURES
As a mitigating measure to the previous filling of the site, an interpretive display
describing local history could be constructed along the river trail.
RECREATION
The site is privately owned, and is not presently used for recreation. However, Fort
Dent Regional Park is adjacent, and its sole access is through the site. The publicly
owned riverbank along the site is lightly used for recreation.
The project would have no significant adverse impacts to recreation on the site. Access
to the publicly owned riverbank would be improved. The land for a trail and benches
along much of the riverfront would be deeded to the city as part of the project. The
53
C?'
_ ',-,PAC-TECH .
=m:
c m ENGINEERING, INC
�6 11170 BOOTH BTN OTREET, SUITE 20,1
N - reeore, weenlNOtoN BB•oe • (200/30S -44111.
p 3721 NITOA• WAY. SUITE •
1l' BRE0ERTON, WASHINGTON • 120111S77 ..2033
• 023 70736. .0)0 0AROOR :/B1 -2022
CLIENT io N 4 %2.400✓ /GA,
2000 /24TH A ✓E NE
B t'E
BG R ✓2jE;. WA'. SENT
CHEC D
SEC T z3 R -4E
FIELD BK DATE f:Z-8fr
SCALE J " =3O'
EOAL DESCRIPTION
PPOPO DtO CP.P o...
GREEN
MOH`IMFAGT
ENVIRONMENT
RIVER ENNRONMENT
b7LF DISPERSAL orod.
SEE 0ECTIoNC
SECTION B -B
Ex Mr/
/E 1&7r
/E /32'
*0PPO••••••••. 14• Cu7C •4..1.O14
0.•.o T • oOL ... e��.. Nc
0 •=, T1000 1T e
s*•r: ,_a 7tO
gO.TN vi OR TNC CrtC KP..7S.. T•.D •.C�.T 0010 T
+CG .. ••=0.0 ..
• Dt..IC• W. 40 O - d1<•�.000 Tw tic
on ScONC Du PPOnT
P.r_1.014 o—+ T•.eT•.l %,uoe••••00 L -ADD • DP. .Di
214• DO • . 4R.AVEt..'��
CONSTRUCTION ENTFV•NCE"---..
(&RAVEL WLL BE REPLENISetEO
A9 OFTEN A6 NEEDED To KEEP
GIRT :OFF OF ACOAC ENT R• .
N.In.
r
• .. a�nro .
a Ptar �r
T iMiQT7Eeutr mairrawasdo
V V V
iNTGRCEPTOR [SIGH
oLts• /ant •...
f.t•'.e. •∎
a .Rt. n.wei�
(sane ISA SUSS
00 V.1.-.4e •_.I O. .F V Oa R.
MIKA MD WS. p...M tm•• OP
OAS. OI vuoina• AS Slaws ••
t • mos. ••• v Nnu•.
ZEa 4E96W
n1
0I OPDRSAL TRENX
SECTION C
No OCA,e
LEGEND
twee 0010 a —•{
m 22S
�SI�TATNON FENCE
SILTATION FENCE DETAIL
— S— EX. SAN SEWER
EX SAN FORGE •A /N
—W— EX WATER "IA/"/
G0 CO. TOUP. L /NE
O: •■■O/e•OJ GO CCWTY7U/'N L./NE
N /GN
4 DCRM 6LEV 2140
Coun9E aaa0Car[ J
NOTE [0000 Paa TOEE .aIRTa01E0 ue 4 000304 TO
TO M 007 EXT 4OE91EE PERRKO. *001100 OF •
4OGREO47E .AT •• NECESSARY. .
I O
C7IGE
F
SHEET! oF.!
'JOB NO fO676