HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-277-85 - RYERSON / GROUP 5 - APARTMENT AND CLUBHOUSERYERSON- GROUP 5-
APARTMENT COMPLEX
WITH CLUB HOUSE
INTERURBAN AVE. S0.
BETWEEN 137T" &
139T" AVE. S0.
EPIC 277 -85
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
13240 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 9
Bellevue, WA 98005
(206) 747 -5618
(206) 343 -7959
The Ryerson Group
1830 - 130th N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98005
Subject:
Gentlemen:
February 27, 1986
JN 8633
Geotechnical Engineering Study, Tukwila Apartment
Complex, 13700 Block of Interurban Avenue, Tukwila,
Washington.
We are pleased to transmit our geotechnical engineering
report for the proposed Tukwila apartment complex to be
constructed in the 13700 block of Interurban Avenue in Tukwila,
Washington. Previously, Earth Consultants Inc. studied the site
and presented the results in their report E -817 dated April 17,
1979. The purpose of our work was to study site conditions
within the lower building areas after the building corners were
located by survey and to provide recommendations for foundation
design considering the current building plans.
Our exploration found highly variable soil conditions in
the lower building areas. The eastern two buildings are
essentially on bedrock while the front portion of the next three
buildings are on soft silts. Because of the potential for
differental settlement, we recommend that b- uildings on soft
soils be supported on deep foundations.
If you have any questions regarding this report or if we
can be of further service, please contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,
e 4:41
ames R. Finley, Jr. P.E.
JRF /baf
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Tukwila Apartment Complex
13700 Block of Interurban Avenue
Tulwila, Washington
This report present the result of our geotechnical
engineering report for an apartment complex in Tukwila,
Washington. The scope of our work included the logging of test
pits in the lower tier of buildings, reviewing current grading
plans and providing recommendations for foundation design and
earthwork construction. The site had been studied by Earth
Consultants Inc. in 1979. However, the site development plans
have changed since that time. Our field exploration was
conducted after the lower buildings were staked. We had
recommended that these additional pits be excavated due to the
variable soil conditions at the transition of the bedrock based
hillside and the alluvial valley soils.
The ' project site location is shown on Plate 1, Vicinity Map,
and the pryoposed site plan is shown on Plate 2, Site Plan. We
understand that the project . involves the construction of ten
apartment buildings plus a recreation building. The buildings
will be two stories in height. The lower buildings will also
have parking beneath the two floors of living space. We antici-
pate that the parking garage will be concrete and that the
apartment units above will be of wood frame construction.
Proposed pad grades are shown on Plate 2. As shown on the
grading plans prepared by George J. Lindsay, P.E., a considerable
amount of site grading will be required.
Along the 57th Street right -of -way on the south side of the
project, cuts of up to fourteen (14) feet will be made. The
upper tier buildings appear to have a daylight basement
requiring eight (8) to ten (10) feet of cut on the uphill side.
Fill will be placed in the low area along Interurban Avenue
South. A further dicussion of site grading is included in the
Conclusions and Recommendations section of this report.
Site Conditions
Surface
The site topography is shown on Plate 2. The site is
located at the contact between the Duwamish River vally and the
bedrock -cored hills to the west. Four of the lower tier of
buildings are partially located on the former floodplain soils.
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
JN 8633
Page 2
This area of the site is relatively flat with some standing
water. Buildings 1 and 2 are located in an area of the hillside
that has been mined as a borrow source. The upper tier of
buildings are located on a sloping plateau at the top of a 30 to
35 foot high slope. This steep slope has an angle of about 1:1
to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The cut slope in the mined
area is about at an angle of 1:1 (horizontal to vertical). The
upper plateau is covered with evergreen and decidious trees, the
slope with mostly alder trees and the lower area with blackberry
vines..
Subsurface
Geotech Consultants observed the excavation of twelve test
pits on the lower tier of the site. The pits were excavated by
T & T Construction with a tractor mounted backhoe on February
11, 1986. The corners of the buildings had been staked for
reference. This information was used to supplement the data
obtained by Earth Consultants Inc. Test Pit logs from our
exploration are attached as Plates 5 through 10.
The upper tier or south part of the site has glacial till
soils. The slope appears to have a siltstone or sandstone
bedrock core. This bedrock core is mantled by weathered soils.
There is a significant accumulation of colluvial or slope -wash
soils at its base.
The rock is highly weathered and appears to be rippable
with a large dozer or backhoe. The rock becomes less weathered
with depth. Rock has been exposed by the mining operations in
the vicinity of Building 2. The rock surface dips steeply and
is mantled by alluvial or flood plain soils along Interurban
Avenue. These soils consist of soft silts to a depth of up to
fifteen (15) feet. Based on the exploration results available,
we expect that dense sands are to be found below this, however,
this should be confirmed at the time of construction.'
In the recreation building area highly weathered soils
derived from the bedrock were encountered. These soils
consisted of reddish brown to dark black clayey silts and silty
clays. These soils were soft to medium stiff.
Groundwater was found near the ground surface in the lower
portion of the site. Heavy flows originated from cleaner sand
layers, thus, causing caving of the test pit.
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
Conclusions and Recommendations
Site Grading and Slope Stability
JN 8633
Page 3
It is our opinion that the slopes on the site are stable
with the exception of the near surface soils that have
weathered. These near surface soils overlying denser soils and
rock can become unstable if the vegetation is disturbed or if
concentrated surface water is allowed to flow across the slope.
,Many of the slides in the greater Seattle area that occurred
during the heavy rainfall in January of this year were shallow
mudflows of weathered soils flowing over harder; unweathered
soils. Because there will be apartment units placed against the
toe of the slope, particular care must be taken to reduce the
risks of slope failure.
Fill,must not be placed on the slope. To do so would
decrease the stability of the slope and increase the risk of
slope failure. Plates 3 and 4 shows the fills that would be
made based on our interpetation of the current grading plans.
We recommend that either the natural vegetation be left in place
without disturbance or that the grading remove all soft weathered
soils exposing soils that are hard and competent. The minimum
cut slope angle in the weathered rock or glacial till is 1.5:1
(horizontal to vertical). Grading is complicated by the
presence of the building sites on the upper portions of the
slope. Some adjustments in building locations and elevations
will probably be required, depending on the final slope
configuration.
The final grading configuration should be such that surface
water is directed away from the top of the slope and away from
buildings and retaining walls unless the walls are designed to
resist hydrostatic forces. An area at the base of the slope
should be provided away from the building walls to allow water
to flow around the buildings. If space is limited, a half -round
culvert can be used to carry water away from the buildings.
Soil from the upper portion of the site can be used as
general fill in the lower portion of the site. Utilizing these
soils for structural fill under buildings would be restricted to
completely dry weather due to the large percentage of silt in
the on -site soils. Fill in the low area should be placed in
lifts and compacted to the maximum extent possible utilizing
the available soils. Prior to placing the fills, the standing
water should be removed. The working surface and the pavement
subgrade must be stable. Stabilization can be achieved by
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
JN 8633
Page 4
utilizing a geotextile fabric and imported Class A gravel or
cruched rock. The amount of gravel required will be a function
of the site and weather conditions at the time of construction.
Some settlement of the fills and the underlying soils can be
expected but this can be reduced by delaying final paving until
most of the settlement has been achieved. A period of at least
three months should be allowed between fill placement and final
paving.
All structural fill, including fill under slabs and
foundations, should be compacted in lifts to at least 95 percent
of maximum density as determined by the ASTM, D -1557 (Modified
Proctor) test procedures. The top foot of subgrade under
pavements should also be compacted to 95 percent of maximum
density. Below this layer, a compaction criteria of 90 percent
minimum should be met. The first lift in wet areas should be
two feet in loose thickness. Additional lifts should not exceed
twelve inches in thickness.
Foundations
All buildings on the upper tier may be supported on
conventional foundations founded on weathered to unweathered
glacial till soils. Buildings 1 and 2 on the lower tier will be
founded on siltstone or sandstone bedrock. The foundations for
these should be designed for an allowable load of 3000 pounds
per square foot.
Buildings 8 through 11, located on the upper tier are
presently sited close to the edge of the slope, according to the
topographic map and grading plan. Fill would be required on the
north edge of these buildings to reach grade. Sections A and B,
Plates 3 and 4, show the proposed cross - sections through
Buildings 9 and 10. It is our opinion that this fill and the
weight of the building will not substantially affect the
stability of the slope provided the fill is retained by the
footing wall which will act as a retaining wall; and the footings
are founded at least three feet into dense soils. The wall
height, including the footing, may be as much as ten(10) feet in
some places.
The south footing line of Building 3 will also be founded
on bedrock. However, as illustrated by Test Pit 864 and 865,
soils on the north footing line are soft and compressible. To
prevent excessive differential settlement, footings in the
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
JN 8633
Page 5
northern portion of the building should be founded on piles or
augercast piers. The bedrock surface plunges sharply. Rock is
at the toe of the bluff which is 20 to 25 feet south of the
north footing line but at the north footing line, bedrock was
not present at a depth of more than twelve (12) feet below the
existing ground surface.
Buildings 4, 5, 6, and 7 are also located against the toe
of the bluff. Test Pit 868, located between Buildings 4 and 5
at the toe of the bluff, encountered seven (7) feet of colluvial
soils (slope wash). It appears that the western portion of the
south footing line of Building 4 can be supported on spread
footings while the, remainder of the building should be supported
on piers . or piles. The western portion of the south foundation
line of Building 6 may also be at or near weathered bedrock if
cuts are made as anticipated. The remainder of this building
and Buildings 5 and 7 appear to require deep foundations. A
field detSrmination will be required as to the exact demarcation
of the allowable footing line. The following sections give
design criteria for piers and piles.
Augercast Concrete Piers
Augercast piers should be installed with continous flight,
hollow stem auger equipment. For a twelve (12) inch diameter
pier with ten feet of penetration into the medium dense to dense
sand strata, an allowable capacity of 20 tons may be assumed.
For wind or seismic loads the allowable load can be increased by
one - third. Based on the test boring and test pit information,
we expect that the piers will be varible in depth with the
deeper piers requiring up to thirty (30) feet of penetration
below the existing surface. Piles encountering bedrock should
penetrate into the bedrock a distance of three feet. The pier
capacity can be increased by additional penetration into the
bearing layer or by increasing the pier diameter. These design
considerations can be addressed if required.
Lateral pile capacity is generally governed by deflections
at the top of the pier which depend on the pier stiffness with
respect to the surrounding soil near the upper portion of the
pier, the length of the pier, and the degree of fixity at the
pier cap. For lateral pile capacity, design, a value of one ton
per pier should be used. Passive earth pressure on the grade
beams and friction between the slab and subgrade will also
provide some lateral resistance. A coefficient of friction of
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
JN 8633
Page 6
0.40 may be used between the floating concrete slab and
subgrade. Passive earth pressures on the grade beams can be
assumed to be equal to that exerted by a fluid having a density
of 375 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If additional lateral load
capacity is required, the piers can be battered. The batter
should not exceed 1:5 (horizontal to vertical).
As the completed pier below ground cannot be observed,
judgement and experience must be used as the basis for determin-
ing the acceptability of a pier. Therefore, we recommend that
the installation of all piers be observed by a qualified
geotechnical engineer who can fully evaluate the contractor's
operation, collect and interpret installation data, verify
beaing stratum elevations, and who would understand the
implications of variations from'normal procedures with respect
to the design criteria. We suggest the contractor's equipment
and proced'hres be reviewed by Geotech Consultants prior to the
start of construction.
Driven Timber Piles
The proposed structure may be supported on sound pressure -
treated Class B timber piles driven into the underlying medium
dense sand or bedrock. The piles should conform to the
specifications as outlined in the Uniform Building Code Standard
25 -12 for piles. Timber piles should have a minimum butt
diameter of eleven (11) inches and a minimum tip diameter of
eight (8) inches. Timber piles should be placed no closer than
three pile diameters, center to center.
A pile design bearing capacity of 20 tons can be used. The
piles should be driven to refusal or penetration into the sands
a maximum of ten (10) feet. We recommend thatthe piles be
driven with a hammer having a rated energy of at least 7500 foot -
pounds. Refusal is defined as thirty (30) blows per foot for
the last one foot of driving. The piles should be marked in one
foot increments to facilitate the recording of blow counts
during the driving process. The pile number should be clearly
marked on the location stake.
Because soil conditions can vary, we recommend that at
least six (6) test piles be driven prior to the ordering of
production piles to obtain a more accurate estimate of pile
lengths and to determine driving characteristics. The piles and
hammer used should be the same type as to be used in production
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
JN 8633
Page 7
driving. Geotech Consultants should observe the installation of
both the test piles and the production piles on a full -time
basis.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted
by the piles and by passive pressure on the grade beams. We
anticipate piles will have an allowable lateral capacity of 0.5
tons per pile. Additional lateral loads can be resisted by
battered piles, friction between the slab and the subgrade, and
passive earth.pressures on the grade beams. A coefficient of
friction of 0.40 may be used between the floating concrete slab
and subgrade. Passive earth pressures on the grade beams can be
assumed to be equal to that exerted by a fluid having .a density
of 375 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Battered piles may also be
used to resist lateral loads.
•
Retaining' Walls
Retaining walls with essentially level backfill for a
distance equal to the height of the wall may be designed to
resist active earth pressures equal to that exerted by an
equalivent fluid having a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot.
Where the backfill slopes at a 2 :1 (horizontal to vertical) to
1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) the pressure coefficient should
be increased to 45 and 70 pounds per cubic foot, respectively.
These pressures are for cantilevered walls free to deflect at
least 0.005 times the wall height to develop the active
pressures. Where the walls are rigid, an additional force equal
to 100 psf acting on the entire wall face should be added. This
will result in a trapazoidal pressure distribution.
Paticular care should be taken in the design and layout of
the wall to allow for sufficient wall height. A small error on
a topographic map on a slope can result in a significant chage
in wall heights.
To resist the active earth pressures, passive earth
pressure and friction forces act on the wall base. A
coefficient of friction of 0.4 can be assumed between the wall
base and the underlying soil. The passive earth pressure can be
assumed to be equal that exerted by a fluid having a density of
375 pounds per cubic foot.
Drainage.must be provided behind the wall. A geofabric
drainage material such as Enkadrain may be utilized or a minimum
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
JN 8633
Page 8
thickness of eighteen (18) inches of free draining Class A sandy
gravel may be placed against the wall. The surface should be
sealed with topsoil or paving to prevent surface water
infiltration into the backfill.
Utility Construction
The utility contractor must be aware of the potential for
trench caving which is very high in the soft saturated soils in
the low area along Interurban Avenue South. In no case should
the trench excavation slopes or heights exceed allowable safety
standards without shoring. Considerable water may also be
anticipated, thus, dewatering will be required. We recommend
that a short section of perforated pipe be installed in the
manhole an'd catch basins to allow water that accumulates in the
imported free draining bedding and padding materials to drain.
We also recommend tht the excavated silts not be used as
backfill as the excavation operation will essentially liquify
these soils. Even on the upper tier it may prove advantageous
to import clean backfill as the on -site soils may be difficult
to compact in trenches unless the moisture content is near
optimum. The backfill should be compacted to 90 percent of the
maximum density in pavement areas.
Rockeries
Rockeries should not be considered as a retaining wall but
primarily as an erosion control device. Rockeries should not be
placed against any slope that would not stand on its own for a
long period of time with only surficial sloughing. On this
project that is limited to slopes of glacial till,.dense sands
or bedrock. Rockeries over four feet in height should not be
relied upon to support fill slopes or colluvial (slope wash)
soils such as found at the base of the steep slope unless the
slope base consists entirely of rock. Acceptable substitues are
reinforced concrete walls, gabions, soldier pile walls, or
timber or metal crib walls.
Rockeries should be constructed in accordance with King
County Standards. We recommend that rockeries not exceed eight
feet in height. Tiered rockeries should be located at a
distance apart at least equal to the height of the rockery and
the ground between the tiers should have a.slope not exceeding
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
JN 8633
Page 9
2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The owner should be aware that
rockeries may require maintenance and their use involves some
risks of instability because rockeries cannot be engineered.
Limitations
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site
materials observed, and engineering analyses. The conclusions
and recommendations are professional opinions derived in
accordance with current standards of practice. No warranty is
expressed or implied. We recommend that this report, in its
entirety, be included in the contract documents for the
information of the contractors.
Soils conditions are expected to vary significantly in
short distances, so the contractor should be prepared to modify
construction procedures at the direction of the owner. We will
advise the owner or his representative when it is, in our
opinion, that a change in warranted.
Additional Services
We understand that Geotech Consultants will be retained to
provide consultation and testing services during construction.
We should observe all foundation excavations, instrallation of
drilled piers or driven piles, and placement of structural fill.
As the project is complex, this will involve nearly full time
observation, depending, of course, on the contractor progress
and weather conditions.
The following plates are attached and complete this report:
Plate 1 Vicinity Map
Plate 2 Site Plan
Ryerson Group
February 27, 1986
JRF /baf
Plate 3 and 4
Plates 5 through 10
Attachment'
JN 8633
Page 10
Cross - Sections
Test Pit Logs
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,
ipe,
James R. Finley, Jr. P.E.
s RO
s
BURT 3/
:S BOND
n
Tat
VOR F OL H
GAZEL
N
r
Lake
{"t
ashingtoa
S'RJGGLES ST
S
ICRESiON ST
BANGOR
HAZEL
Sala .
S RYAN
PRENTICE
N
113141
ST
IVIh n
Y
1167"
IIST"
15T
ST
_a
w.4.ct
SII8T "PL
MOIST
122 "0
123RO PL
!ST
,r 1
PLINGi-
I.R[
U;
5 130*"
L.NGSTO
AR
P.RR.ISITEI
S T7(i
Iw 13. r, PL- N
Q �
S 12T• n e
- - - -13-
S6T
.7
%^' BUEAYI
air
sr ____1
JR NS I
B124-C1,-4 ST flw Z`
• RIVER j�' s 1 ▪ •
`1±3.0 ST
51.1.3.0
$ 1461H ST ..
GOLF (OBESE
x
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
VICINITY MAP
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. JN 8633 PLATE 1
r
•
INTERURBAN AVENUE SOUTH
ETP -3.
.ATP -10..
TP86 -2".
P.E. =23.0.
.61TP.8- -6
•30
-- --. ••.'
•
- - _TE86 -8" TR— - !TP86 -10
'\19-
-_ _ - - - - -� TP86 -II`: 7-
- -- _ '`,- \ •
- \
55 N \ -, ..�,
TP- 12'.'. ..' _ . 25.
\ •35
\ .� X40
\ X45
-65 — ! . \ \P.E.= 58.0
\ X50 s •
\ -.55': -
/..
\ \ — X60 •
— 70t \.
\
�..\ \N \ _ --65
ITP =18.
P. E.. 54:0' • •
TP -14.
7( SOUTH
APPROXIMATE .SCALE; 1 o' 100.
LEGEND:
P.E. =30
'TP86 -2
PROPOSED BUILDING- FOOTPRINT •
AND PAD - ELEVATION (FEET) ' -
5'. CONTOUR •LINES ,(EXISTING)
-APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PITS. •
LOGGED BY GEOTECH,CONSULTANTS,..1986
APPROXIMATE- LOCATION-OF EARTH CONSULTANT
TEST PITS
•8 =1. APPROXIMATE. BORING LOCATION, 'EARTH CONSULTANTS
BUILDING NUMBER
CROSS-SECTION LOCATION
SITE PLAN
TUKWI LA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA,. WASHINGTON
-' DATE :, FEB. '86 IJOB NO.::JN 86331 PLATE
1-
w
w
w
ELEVATION
65
55
45
35
25 - PAD GRADE = 22.0'
15
PROPOSED
GRADE
Fl NISHED
EXISTING GRADE
1 1 1
AD GRADE = 54.0'
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
DISTANCE (FEET)
t
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
CROSS - SECTION A -A'
TUKW I L A APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
DATE: 2/ 19861 JOB NO.: JN 8633 I PLATE: 3
PAD GRADE =
22.5'
0
I0
PROPOSED FINISH
GRADE
PAD GRADE = 50.0'
EXISTING GRADE
20
30
40
50
DISTANCE (FEET)
60
70
80
90
A.
-kr%0
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
I CROSS- SECTION B -B'
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
DATE: FEB. '86 JOB NO.: JN 8633 PLATE : 4
DEPTH MOIST.
(FT.)
0
5
(0/) USCS
TEST PIT 86 -1
LOGGED BY: JRF
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
10 -
15
DEPTH
(0 )
10
15
SM
Brown Very Silty SAND, Moist, Loose (Fill)
SM
MOIST.
(%) USCS
Rust to Gray Very Silty SAND, Fine to Medium Grained,
Moist, Medium Dence
Test Pit terminated at 4 feet on 2/11/86.
No groundwater encountered.
TEST PIT 86 -2
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
BX
Gray Weathered SANDSTONE, Fine to Medium - Grained
Test Pit terminated at 3. feet on 2/11/86.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. JN 8633 l PLATE 5
DEPTH MOIST.
(FT.) ( %)
0
10
15
DEPTH
(0• )
10
15
USCS
ML:
SM
SM
TEST PIT 86-3
LOGGED BY:
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
MOIST.
USCS
Sandy SILT to Silty Sand, Moist to Wet, Loose (Fill)
Tan. Silty... SAND, Fine.to- Medium Grained, Moist, Medium
Dense -_(highly WeatheLdS.andstone)
Gray Silty SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Moist, Dense
(Weathered Sandstone)
Test Pit terminated at 4 feet on 2/11/86.
TEST PIT 86-4
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
SM
Gravelly Silty SAND, Moist, Dense (Fill)
SM
Gravelly Silty SAND, Wet, Loose
Dark Gray SILT with some organics and fine sand, Wet;
Non - plastic, loose to soft.
Test Pit terminated at 12 feet on 2/11/86.
Seepage at 7 feet and Test Pit caved at 7 feet.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. JN 8633 I PLATE 6
DEPTH MOIST.
(F T.)
0
0
I5
DEPTH
(0 )
10
I5
( %) USCS'
TEST PIT 86-5
LOGGED BY: JRF
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION =
SM
Brown Very Silty SAND, Wet, Loose (Fill)
Gray SILT with organics, Wet, Loose
SM
Gray Silty SAND, Fine to medium Grained, Wet, Loose to
Medium Dense.
MOIST.
(%) USCS
Test Pit terminated at 11 feet on 2/11/86.
Heavy seepage at 8 feet. Test Pit caving at '6 feet.
TEST PIT 86 -6
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
SM
BX
Brown Very Silty SAND, Wet, Loose (Fill)
Thickness varies from 0 to 4' from edge of bluff to 11'
south of north building line.
Gray Weathered SANDSTONE, Fine to Medium - Grained
Test Pit terminated at 11 feet on 2/11/86
Heavy seepage at 7 feet. Test Pit caving at 7 feet.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. JN 8633 I PLATE 7
DEPTH MOIST
(FT.)
0
IO
15
DEPTH
(0 )
I0
15
( %) USCS •
TEST PIT 86-7
LOGGED BY: JRF
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
SM
Brown Silty Gravelly SAND, Moist, Loose (Fill)
SM
ML
Gray Silty Gravelly SAND and Rock Chunks (Fill)
Gray SILT with Wood and Debris in upper 3', Soft, Wet
SM
MOIST.
( %) USCS
Gray Silty.SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Wet, Loose
Test Pit terminated at 9 feet on 2/11/86.
TEST PIT 86-8
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION:
SM
Brown to Gray Silty SAND to Sandy Silt with occasional
wood debris, Moist to Wet, Loose (Fill and Colluvium)
SM
Brown Silty SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Wet, Loose to
Medium Dense.
Test Pit terminated at 10 feet on 2/11/86.
Seepage at 8 feet and slight caving at 8 feet.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. JN 8633
PLATE 8
DEPTH MOIST,
(F T.)
0
I0
( %) USCS
TEST PIT 86 -9
LOGGED BY: JRF
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
15-
DEPTH
(0 )
10
1 5 -
Brown SILT with some Sand and trace Organics, Moist,
Medium Stiff
SM
Gray Silty SAND with some Gravel, Fine to Medium Grained,
Moist, Loose to Medium Dense
MOIST.
( %) USCS
Test Pit terminated at 9 feet on 2/11/86.
TEST PIT 86 -10
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
SM
Brwon Silty SAND to Sandy Silt with Organics, Moist,
Loose (Colluvium)
SM
Tan to Gray Silty SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Moist,
Dense (Highly Weathered Rock)
Test Pit terminated at 9 feet on 2/11/86.
No groundwater or caving was encountered.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
• TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. JN 8633 I PLATE 9
4
•
DEPTH MOIST.
(F T.)
• 0
I0
15
( %) USCS
TEST PIT 86 -11
LOGGED BY: JRF
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
DEPTH
(0 )
10
15
Brown SILT with organics, Moist to Wet, Loose (Fill or
Colluvium)
SM
MOIST.
( %) USCS
Gray Silty SAND, Fine to Medium Grained, Wet, Loose
Test Pit terminated at 7 feet on 2/11/86.
Heavy seepage and caving at .5 feet.
TEST PIT 86-12
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION=
Brown SILT with Gravel and Debris, Moist, Slightly
Plastic, Soft (Fill)
Yellowish Red to Yellow - Orange Clayey SILT to Silty
Clay, Soft, Wet
Black SILT, Loose, Wet,
,Yellow-Orange to Orange Yellow SILT, Slightly Plastic,
\___Wet,_Med ium Dense
Test Pit terminated at 10 feet on 2/11/86.
Seepage and caving at 7 feet.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. JN 8633 I PLATE 10
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
433 -1800
Gary L VanDusen, Mayor
August 22, 1985
Rick A. Ryerson
Group 5
13939 S.E. 47th
Bellevue, WA 98006
Re: Tukwila Apartment Complex - EPIC 277 -85.
Dear Mr. Ryerson:
This letter is confirmation that this proposal is hereby modified by you
to include the following:
1. Compliance with the recommendations of the soils engineer.
2. If any coal mine shafts are uncovered the soils engineer will
determine the appropriate measures of excavation and land filling
prior to completion of excavation of the site. These measures will
be submitted to the city for approval.
3. Completion of off -site improvements per the requirements of the
Public Works Department.
4. Compliance with the decision of the Planning Commission and Board
of Architecture Review.
Associate Planner
Confirmed b
gust 22, 1985
Rick A. Ryerson
WAC 197 -11 -970
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of Proposal construction of a 103 unit apartment complex with club
house and recreation area in two phases
Proponent Group 5
Location of Proposal, including street address, if any west side of Interurban Ave. S.
between what would be the extension of 137th and 139th Streets and extending to
56th Ave. S.
Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC-27.7-85F
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.
Q There is no comment period for this DNS
Q This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by
. The lead agency will not act on this
proposal for 15 days from the date below.
Responsible Official Brad Collins
Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845
Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188
Date August 22, 1985 - Signature Pri -e-iji C o
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
8
�-� ‘(--\( (1 Av` j 1 v 1, ` t \N
tkS
fttc) p PAS
Q\AWI -WE esi° s L IONS
. ISSN
d)Nlfu ice `iq l -J- ttEcc Y1 tl s
sNLz J,z(ivz ,
Z' 1F esioNi c mi aiegsM c'
kfr..Ktwev_k_esr.
LPs 3O ? LL1O e('z --f t z
oc .t(c_eNrccls. 114€3E
V,RMKSCL '17S Dc1".C- C-!/ fait eseettswesL
cfNWll�'SlLM or CFf-'Sk1- (M-191W-J3
ka-N& eiE4--k(LaNZWAS 1dE'
eut5u.c___ \ze\nreAgs cOieazIYI/WT.
MmeuWC vr-11 s zS( k)
c lee 116 eacicccnKies.
IMUcc<W__
gs
ADDENDUM "To ENV N31 MENTAL. CH uc r.
THE AD P t'Prr 1 oNS flow CoRRtcrtc ARC -to 8T- IsLogPoRArIoNc.t
1 N b -THE tNY I IzbN M NTA►- coectsusr P ?cU ou)
StaT to14:
A . 8K.+s6tzou140
(c. 1 . Mfosr.P TIMIrl6 of, ec.HE.aULam.: Rio.* HAYIr- $tell
REY► SED; PLAN -TO 6TM -Mt L oW ER 5&o O N irS 'Tip is PAJ-
Aso e orem& 45 Orre NEXT `MAR.
11. c NANG- Ipv i rr - 101- urI rrs
8 . ttd Nei t-4 mETrTAI_. E 1tf 1£.NTS
8. L J o SHoitt.Ll ts1 USE
�) cuRR. N-r zoN trt6 : C - -2 amp 1Z -4
1'4 - 7g,P. lsPoRT ICTI oN
56�.�. TRAPtcrL SrvpT PREPt.R1ED er` T outspozilcT1oN
Pl�aluttit� E viewErulkiNcv 1 we . S cc 19 85
CIE. BAYL C c*tTPC1tD 'rHE_ So►t s UNG%N E.EiLl 3111 IWN L_E.Y Oy
to 1 CC9MSUlTA•'t5 INC . CGONCtILNINE fl-heeNe 74E C NSTRUCTT t J
ANC, NE. f -E-L -Tip ► s W t LL. No T CRF ATE AST PR/Jell/AS
W rtN KIL- UPNRDb 70 so IL. SmA rTY.
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DPPT.
ADDEJ4DUM TO ENY1 RCN MENTAL CK u sr.
TN£ 'POUF ADDrr r oNS Voik C4RRtcrtgNs AID -ro 8TH INc_ORroRAMor•I
Hip "TNE t:NYtRO 4 MwpAL C4-L& As Fou...o t.
C'toN:
A • $PC.1'S6ROtJN0
G. "ilrl _ M 'Os D T1 MIhte of, c..H 1=.pU 1..: Pi. HaY 8W-4
REYt SW.O PLAN 70 6TM-T ?H£ O'Y'J R 64o UN rrS TH1S tzm !-
AND -tHe_ UrrE_R. 45 oR rrs H ` e.AR. #
11. c 1.kwet.. 1 w Ipb UN rrb -TO 1Oet 01.4 rrs
8. tN•t1 tit f$ AL ELEr£NTS
8, LAND ANO SHOitt.t_1Nc USE
e) CUR-kr- 1T zoN IPt6 C.-2. amo 4
-TsfoFZT,n or1
5EZ.'. TkArr ic. sry trr P REMIkE D gY• -r ti a4spOtzTA -ri ON
PL»tMtgc, Ei %rtGt WE.RINC, , INC . LY 19 85
B Y. crn,rrptcrup T E- SOt1..S v_KGIN e.i.., 3 t"1 TIN LEY OI`
tAtt 1 Cpt-1�JLTAN'T5 INC . CONCtRNIt* CI-Melt-1e M4E- COt•ISTRoCTI(*J
AND N t_ f L.s TN 1 S W t t_.L HOT CRTiPTE ANT PRO6 t.WI S
W rt fZ11:GONt.!'b iD SOIL. Steal .
G 5 1985
CITY OF UKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
.
TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL R IEW ROUTIN FORM-N
TO:. BLDG PLNG [�P.W. FIRE POLICE ( P & R .
PROJECT G,g 2>LY7 S •c•kS)
LOCATION (00-t*s0 oNE; ,
DATE TRANSMITTED 7 -50-85 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 2'1557
STAFF COORDINATOR K[ 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 l� 0 s \ u._
CN
EPIC 277'
FILE
FILE NO.
DATE V-/;(7 ///
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11.
*CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL R IE ROUTI ORM
CN
EPIC 2.77 �1s
FILE
TO:. $ BLDG ,�/ P NG P.W. [ FIRE j 1 POLICE r--1 P & R .
PROJECT 6 (?*(3;ae..S.:
LOCATION 1 &Yk ' O'tA,,, r
FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED � -5et - t 5 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 8-- 2-&5""
STAFF COORDINATOR `CI . In 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 erz - 'P - s Vito... �.
DATE • �' 3/ COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
CN
EPIC ZY? - 8j
FILE
TO: n BLDG E[ PLNG P.W. [ [FIRE [l POLICE n P & R
PROJECT , `5 QGr _____
LOCATION ( ' 01( PNVZ., S, FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED -7 - 2.-C --05.-- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY -7-=.3t .
RESPONSE RECEIVED ( _)I
STAFF COORDINATOR
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
DATE •
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
o-t6 o
ERRED
JUL 241985
CITY OF TUKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
0-0
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
for the
PROPOSED TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
Prepared for
Mr. Rick Ryerson
Prepared by
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
2101- 112th Ave. N.E., Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98004
July, 1985
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC.
VICTOR H. BISHOP P.E.
President
Mr. Rick Ryerson
1830 - 130th Ave. N.E.
Bellevue, Washington 98005
Re: Tukwila Apartment Complex
Traffic Analysis
Dear Rick:
2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E, SUITE 110 — BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004
TELEPHONE 455 -5320 — AREA CODE 206
July 24, 1985
Per your request I have reviewed the existing traffic condi-
tions and projected traffic volume for the referenced apartment
complex.
It is my opinion that the very low estimated traffic volumes
for the project will have a minor effect on traffic conditions in
and around the site. , I have recommended that the northern drive-
way on Interurban Ave. S. be relocated approximately 120' to the
south and that the Interurban Ave. S. driveways be widened to
thirty feet. I see no other significant traffic issues relating
to this proposed project.
VHB/mb
Enclosure
Very truly yours,
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
&ENGINEERING, INC.
Victor H. Bishop, P.E.,
President
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
TRIP GENERATION 4
TRAFFIC IMPACTS 7
Interurban Avenue S. 7
56th Avenue S. 10
Sidewalks and Street Improvements 11
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURE 1 VICINITY MAP 2
FIGURE 2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 3
FIGURE 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PM PEAK HOUR 5
FIGURE 4 SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC 8
FIGURE 5 COMBINED EXISTING PLUS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
PM PEAK HOUR 9
TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION 6
INTRODUCTION
This analysis is to identify the traffic impacts of the pro-
posed Tukwila Apartment Complex by Rick A. Ryerson in Tukwila,
Washington. The site fronts on Interurban Ave. S. and 56th Ave.
S., bounded by approximately S. 139th Street on the south and S.
137th Street on the north (Figure 1).
Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan which includes 48
apartment units with exclusive access to 56th Avenue S. and 55
apartment units with exclusive access to Interurban Ave. S. for a
total of 103 units.
Interurban Ave. S. is a major arterial with five lanes of
pavement in good condition with four foot shoulders on the west
side and partial open and partial enclosed drainage. Interurban
Ave. S. has approximately twenty thousand (20,000) vehicles per
day travelling on the arterial street. (June 1983 data from the
City.)
56th Ave. S. is an asphalt paved ( r -oad in good condition. It
is a local residential street approximately 32' wide. There are
no sidewalks or curbs adjacent to the site. 56th Ave. S. is
straight with minor grades of less than five percent and no site
distance restrictions over crest vertical curves.
There is a three way stop control intersection at 56th Ave.
S. and S. 139th Street, and a right angle turn at 56th Ave. S.
and S. 137th Street. 56th Ave. S. between S. 139th and S.137th
Streets is fronted on the west by the Terrace Apartments and on
the east by an existing six -plex and two single family res-
idences. The proposed apartment complex will front on the east
side with two driveways to serve forty five units. A sample PM
4
1
VICINITY MAP
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
INTERURBAN AVE. S.
T •Nt, (- • row)
....•••cv,
L
1.1.42.111••••
...
- --7,.1;••:•7••••_.,
I I I :11Ctit,,,,,k44,
• !
1•14.0.16,e
24.1 t
?Uri,
1.4•••
re
• • I ; • .
Ira.1 .1.•••■■•■
- cunt,. •••■"C
•••
.4 • EL,.
•
Th
• • ,
•
•
.N,4,014.•
- •
-
4•-•
.! •
1! !
MN Ural •
rft.
----- •
1111
I.
90 ••
SO
•
s'
,‘
*At
an •
OW •
•
•••• 1
1.1.17
' I M,1-1 1.17700
,,,,
..••■•■
• CoMMID7.7.
WC. WU7I-1
— —
- — —
..".../:••••••1 46`
04.6 744••
t
GCNC4A1_ Nr...14•1A-TION
VCINV•r• =1•Pos Im•
TIMM, ••■•• yr.
:Or •1C1. • we .r.a.•
•42.0tat. • ._••••• Cohmoo•N •.S1 ,41,
.nuro... • ■••••• .0* 6..30
024CD •••••••.. rlte•,1 7.4.
•".. •••••• ,r• ,•••04,10
Jall ANDEISON AND ASSOCIATES /S. INC.
MIN 11.1. • Nam= ••••■•• NM • 11•1166=1.
Ps1C7.t.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX TRAFFIC ANALYSIS - INTERURBAN AVE. S.
cIGuR
IR 2
peak period traffic count on July 22, 1985 indicates that the ap-
proximate traffic volume on 56th Ave. S. is between 240 and 340
vehicles per day.
Figure 3 identifies the existing traffic volume during the
PM peak hour on the streets in the area, based upon data from the
City of Tukwila and the sample traffic volume count on 56th Ave.
S.
56th Ave. S. connects to Interurban Ave. S. via S. 137th
Street, 52nd P1. S. and 52nd Ave. S., to the north. To the
south, there are two connections to Interurban Ave. S. via contin-
uing on 56th Ave. S. or S. 139th Street to S. 144th Street and
58th Ave. S. In addition, one can go to the west on S. 144th St.
crossing I -5 and intersecting with Highway 99.
Metro transit is currently developing plans for a
Park - and -Ride lot in the northwest quadrant of the intersection
of Interurban Ave. and 52nd Ave. S. As a part of the development
of this Park - and -Ride lot, Metro will be installing a traffic sig-
nal at the intersection of 52nd Ave. S. and Interurban Ave. S.
As a part of this traffic signal construction 52nd Ave. S. will
be improved by the addition of the eastbound to northbound left
turn lane plus pavement widening and an overlay of the pavement
from Interurban Ave. S. to 52nd Place S.
TRIP GENERATION
Table 1 identifies the estimated trip generation for the pro-
ject segregated by the Lower and Upper segments of the property
with access to Interurban Ave. S. and 56th Ave. S. respectively.
The total trip generation on a daily basis is estimated to be six
hundred twenty eight (628) vehicle trips. In the PM peak hour,
the total trips are estimated to be 73 vehicle trips, with 49 en-
tering and 24 leaving the site.
4
4.•
1156
950
022/83
6
..............
3. I37" 5T.
d
not to scale
4 :30 -3:50
7/22/85-
•
•
4444
•
•
•
•
sirE
•
29
5. 159•4‘5T.
IDoo ESTIMATED
• .............................
1
\3o
1268\
GRAbY wAY
3:45 - 4 :95 M. PK.
6,/20//35
1067
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PM PEAK HOUR
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
INTERURBAN AVE. S.
It 3
J J
•
TABLE 1
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX
TRIP GENERATION
Daily Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Rate/ In Out In Out
Location Units Unit ADT Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips
LOWER (Access to 55 6.1 335 .1 5 .4 22 .47 26 .23 13
Interurban Ave.)
UPPER (Access to
56th Ave. S.)
Total Project
48 6.1 293 .1 5 .4 19 .47 23 .23 11
103 628
10 41 49 24
Total AM PK Hr. = 51 Total PM PK Hr. = 73
All Trip Generation rates from: Trip Generation, An Informational Report
(Third Edition, 1982), Institute of Transportation Engineers
6
It is assumed that approximately half of each segment will
use each of the two driveways for the respective segments. In ad-
dition, it is assumed that sixty percent of the trips generated
by the site will desire to go to and from the north and forty per-
cent will desire to go to and from the south. Figure 4 shows the
traffic assignment for the PM peak hour for site generated traf-
fic. Figure 5 shows the combined existing traffic volume plus
the site generated traffic for the PM peak hour. It is important
to note that on Interurban Ave. S. the site traffic represents
less than 1 percent of the existing traffic whereas on 56th Ave.
S. the site traffic will represent an increase of from 42 to 62
percent.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Interurban Ave. S.
The driveway volumes identified on Figure 4 into Interurban
Ave. S. are very minor volumes. The AM peak period driveway vol-
umes will be approximately the same only reversed in direction.
With this extremely low level of traffic volume entering
Interurban Ave. S., and on -site storage for vehicles leaving the
site, there are only two significant issues:
A) Adequate sight distance
The south driveway is located on the straight section
of Interurban Ave. S. with unrestricted sight distance
to the north and south. The northern driveway, howev-
er, is south of a very slight curve on Interurban Ave.
S. and an area retained by a rock retaining wall. The
rock retaining wall becomes a sight restriction to the
north for vehicles leaving the driveway to see south-
3. 137" 5r.
nol 10 scole
J
SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
INTERURBAN AVE. S.
1NE
J
FIGURE
4
J
not 113 scale
COMBINED EXISTING PLUS SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC
PM PEAK HOUR
TUKWILA APARTMENT COMPLEX TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
INTERURBAN AVE. S.
ficuR�
J J
bound Interurban Ave. S. vehicles in the right hand
lane. The Washington State Department of Transporta-
tion Design Manual indicates that adequate sight dis-
tance for a left turning vehicle on a 40 MPH highway
would be approximately four hundred feet to the left.
The relocation of the northern driveway approximately
one hundred twenty feet to the south, which would place
it between the second and third building from the
north, would provide the four hundred feet of sight
distance required.
B) Driveway width
It is important that the driveway be adequately wide to
accommodate the combination of a vehicle waiting to ex-
it from the site and at the same time a vehicle enter-
ing the site from the southbound direction without
having to come to a stop in the southbound lane. A
driveway width of 30' would be wide enough to accommo-
date this combined maneuver and result in a safe
operation.
56th Avenue. S.
The discussion of levels of traffic volumes on residential
streets such as 56th Ave. S. is much more subjective than is the
case with arterial streets and intersections. The actual capac-
ity of a residential street is significantly larger than the com-
fort level of residents living on the street are willing to
accept. The typical residential street will carry from 200 to
500 vehicles per day, with a cul -de -sac carrying approximately 50
to 100 vehicles per day. A residential street that is a neighbor-
hood collector arterial will carry approximately 1000 to 2000 ve-
hicles per day. A higher volume two lane minor arterial street
with residences fronting on it can carry upwards of 6 -8000 vehi-
10
cles per day. 56th Ave. S. presently carries approximately 240
to 340 vehicles per day as identified above. When a residential
street that is not identified as a neighborhood collector street
reaches approximately 1000 vehicles per day, residents start
noticing that there is a lot of traffic on their street.
Figure 5 shows that during the PM peak period there will be
thirty four and fifty five vehicles per hour on 56th Ave. S. near
the site. This translates into approximately 340 and 550 vehi-
cles per day on this street (assuming that the PM peak hour traf-
fic is about 10% of the Average Daily Traffic volume). Thus,
with 56th Ave. S. fully developed on both sides from S. 139th St.
to S. 137th St., the projected traffic volume will be at the high
end of the typical residential street traffic volume. The normal
"Level of Service" concept utilized by traffic engineers for arte-
rial streets does not have practical application to residential
streets. (i.e. Level of Service A usually represents about 60 per-
cent of the maximum capacity or in this case 3600 to 4800
vehicles per day assuming the 6 -8000 capacity range.)
The southern driveway will exit the site at the intersection
of S. 139th Street with adequate sight distance in all directions
at this three way stop controlled intersection. The northern
driveway will be mid block with adequate sight distance in both
directions, for this 25 MPH residential street.
The new traffic signal being installed at 52nd Ave. S. and
the existing traffic signal at 58th Ave. S. are adequate to han-
dle the very small additional traffic generated by this the pro-
posed project.
Sidewalks and Street Improvements
The project proposal includes installation of sidewalks,
curb, gutter and drainage improvements as required by City ordi-
nances on Interurban Ave. S. and on 56th Ave. S. fronting the pro-
ject site.
11
p -$1 (?- - -1 NN 1 - CC QS(S"_
-fir L \Couvn. . es(Ss
- - (13(L- .srJ_ UkSc4 - _
*s'cw4Rr_ wavi-
H c.L6LF-
5,
C� �
�s5n,� wt.��o -Tb'� � _ t�1'%
cavc�a_ � Yes
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
CN � 5'737
1 • nviu 4 EPIC ;77715-
ENVIRONMENTAL. REVIEW ROUTING FORM
FILE
TO: [7 BLDG n PLNG n P.W. pi FIRE POLICE [] P & R
PROJECT %L '� ./J.!"?J,,J - ?,Q,,, -LZJ
LOCATION / .7 7 u- 4L 4 .�-' ' FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED (p- (p RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVA ILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. ;COMAENTS 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 (D/((/ COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA CN g 5---73- 7
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM dj,40 ceimuitAL EPIC ;177 45-
FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO:
PROJECT
BLDG (n PLNG [ P.W. FIRE n POLICE (n P & R
4g-1)
LOCATION e_.G' _„,,L.,, FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED 6p- (p RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
Q. ALL ► �J:. .'_. fx T c o t 6 ca® E
11) ` ' - V 0 L la-`M it\Gv 11-"NS IS Z l )U 9 RE-1) .
1`I\.Ni - Q c_G -SS 57a R" quc Er) TO Sb AVE' S
SZ - 1 s31 T D isl\AJt (4c -R)) h 0 v.M-y
o )A,UL5 (1)-0 10 ' 1 LJ.(�- S1 STU�,1�•
1)1 'N \1 \c Lug 11-\ i s rrL
12 -.fi==t u, a r) i I N CL u-D I N(4- "11).( -1-1_ 1(w ANT a i N
s w VY\ IVvs , Pcs PtcP P P\O P R,1 V -E.
1 C.-4z. C_Z MI) WJTV... 14\4 Lut*ICA-c_. P-00 kr. ,MnIKit„--
W- 's-ro , wPrTkS. Sr uN Su -PP tulLN.JATI
sNI9D10 WV) wkArAii s171 PRAT � -+t A -ICk tLML %.
-77 '1 t61 ._ I NCw D- tee i 0V°
DATE LoI 1 I /GS COMMENTS PREPARED BY
C.P.S. Form 11
DIY OF;TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
CN 5'15-1
s//Z� aw,vittit EPIC 77-85--
FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: Li BLDG j PLNG n P.W. n FIRE n POLICE El P & R
PROJECT , 4 e L77k)
J _
LOCATION /31'7v- 4' a .et ,Gw,.�' y(___, FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED 6_(,p RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ,
STAFF COORDINATOR Otekt--- .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.
DATE "1/ - COMMENTS PREPARED B
C.P.S. Form 11
CITY OF TUKWILA CN Q S /�
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
z % 4 2 i ez)imuit EPIC L 77 85
FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: 0 BLDG (n PLNG n P.W. FIRE n POLICE n P & R
PROJECT Ayr,/2/77.4J g-L1J '; z .)
LOCATION j 7'`' 4L �i .G'LC,II,/7 7 � FILE N0.
DATE TRANSMITTED (0- �p
STAFF COORDINATOR
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY ‘VO
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 SH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY C 1 ,6I 75.111E
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
ITEM COMMENT
,, ..............�►� ... FIRE DEPARiME���
Tl}4(�N
4h a l /1/2 kum 6117-4-1- CO/VC RNs -- f UT- pk4s-e_
. (),opn /nu h 1 e 7)io f; ("0/46/e-4_5 -All ;;
/174 X r /1161 he\ / 5° ._I Ira.cL2... 41- -pl� et epa
FP/E-- /3 Cc VJ ei D i-v l ;let
'1 Ge ,
515 -44 7
DATE
Wio/g(
COMMENTS PREPARED BY
CITY OF TUKWILA
CN gS/57
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM �D p(� czoinuiti_t_ EPIC o? % % --ej-
FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: ( I BLDG n PLNG P.W. FIRE POLICE [i P & R
PROJECT .Ld _�P�,.2�`J) !�Pxi -' t) Jo!/
L 0 CAT I ON / 4'`' S+� �?iL1.G'�G' jf� FILE NO.
DATE TRANSMITTED (n- (p RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 6)7/0
STAFF. COORDINATOR 62/491---s`
THE ATTACHED. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE. RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. .COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
RESPONSE RECEIVED
ITEM COMMENT
1A EARTH: CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ON A SITE WHOSE AVERAGE SLOPE IS
20 -25% IS CONCERN OF THIS PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCY.
4D LANDSCAPING: THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN SHOULD INCLUDE THE ENHANCING OF THE SECURITY
PERCEPTION THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN.
11A LIGHT & GLARE: WHILE LIGHT SPILLAGE ONTO ADJACENT OR NEARBY PROPERTIES IS A
CONCERN...:ONSIGHT LIGHTING TO PROVIDE A SECURE ENVIRONMENT IS A MAJOR PRIORITY.
X14 TRANSPORTATION:
a. HOW FAR WILL NORTHERN SITE EXIT BE FROM PLANNED PARK & RIDE..BRIDGE TO
FOSTER POINT .INTERSECTION TO BE LOCATED AT 52/56 AVES AND INTERURBAN AVE.
b. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO LOCATE ONE OF THE SITE ENTRANCES OPPOSITE THAT
OF FOSTER GOLF COURSE. AT SOME FUTURE DATE TRAFFIC VOLUMES AT EITHER OR
BOTH LOCATIONS MIGHT REQUIRE SOME TRAFFIC CONTROL; SIGNAL LIGHT, CHANNEL -
IZATION, CROSSWALK, ETC. A
15 PUBLIC SERVICES: 4(44 "' 4I4 /I77,th (1 �4 "O /9 /,�O1W,
IMPACT UPON PUBLIC SERVICES WILL BE SIMILAR TO THAT EXPERIENCED AT OTHER
HOUSING SITES AROUND THE CITY. IN ADDITION TO THE USUAL RESPONSE TO CALLS FOR
SERVICE THIS SITE WILL REQUIRE THE EXPANSION OF PATROL PARAMETERS TO INCLUDE
THE TWO PARKING AREAS.
DATE
6 -10 -85 p_
6 -10 -85
- COMMENTS PREPARED BY lowery
C.P.S. Form 1I
i //Pl'7.c
711111Y OF TUKWILA PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER f5.)5/
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUTING FORM
TO: Li BLDG. [J PLNG. ❑ P.W. [I FIRE
PROJECT igC 14
ADDRESS / ,?7 t` L�t.l
DATE TRANSMITTED 0-0
C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR
POLICE . & R.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY
o-/o
RESPONSE RECEIVED
PLEASE REVIEW THE ATTACHED PROJECT PLANS AND RESPOND WITH APPROPRIATE COMMENTS IN THE
SPACE BELOW. INDICATE CRUCIAL CONCERNS BY CHECKING THE BOX NEXT TO THE LINE(S) ON WHICH
THAT CONCERN IS NOTED:
❑
D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED 2
PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED C3
PLAN APPROVED Ci
•
PLAN CHECK ,DATE
COMMENTS PREPARED
C.P.S. FORM 2
CITY OF TUKWILA
CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM
CN g
5.6/96( cLbdam EPIC 4777 45-
- FILE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM
TO: C] BLDG PLNG [j P.W. [] FIRE - POLICE r/ P & R
PROJECT ;V ∎f -jj'» ) ,�/- ,oL,�C -L1) ,j4/ijJJ
LOCATION FILE N0.
DATE TRANSMITTED 6-6,
STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE RECEIVED
THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE
REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD
DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART-
MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH
CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE
MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM.
RESPONSE REQUESTED BY d"-A9
ITEM COMMENT
i'". -Gs._J' ee • C 04%e€--- L:G e".1 / est. G--4?-- Jam . �/,JlJ -�� '[7`i�C� r _ J`E-
c G. C .a r° n.f la,
11 j6.12 a.1-
74, S Q 45 > -/ >4
'—e
DATE c�� �� COMMENTS PREPARED BY 19;3,-
C.P.S. Form 11
Pl[kaWir[-0
JUN 6 i885 I
CITY OF~TUKNr;LA
PLANNING DEPT.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
2. Name of applicant: FlIC. % . f\nzik.so-.1
Control No. 85 j/Jr1
Epic File No. 127;7—g5"
Fee 5100.00 Receipt No. 8717/
(206) (ii-1 - 63 t o
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 13°13°1 511.114'6
6FS 1 sYUE. VA. °18006
4. Date checklist prepared: JUNE 541 n 5E5'
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) : rt.i4.tS
p6cumpl, I 41103V r AS i'API0L -X AS Passl&L . C(3,(5 .X.71Ict•I ,SHovLD
Ept tS 'ice AFB 14 rti4 CDM r L5m1 CN SpN -n M IN ,
7. Do yo`yy have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related\to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. 1,40Nr_ .
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other
proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain. No.
10 . List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
CrrY oo 60II.DIt,1& Pr.Mrre (43Ut PLuM(INC? fit`. cr. LTC)
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need t6 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.
CI�N 5tZ.UCrI loa oNR ArrkTM T- C1ArhP1X Ct pr- CSF t0 r'L LL_
cl.U1lD1H6 W/ A i" 11X r O•NE._ ANC) M) -OR om UNI-TS /$.LD A C1�>g HCUS�
w - S3 I. - +• _ • G .R. . 0 i• wfZ? T{-4fiz u,)u_,t. 1 E.
'2 6 pAR 11`i G SPAC.ES FFP•AV iDa)
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.
LocA A Grt- csF T 1t_A CIN tI<TERUF AI4 AVT 12)rru3 h€.
��xT l�tS►o1.t5 0� l 13°► A.Vt S. P�CRoss FRoM osrE.9- GCLF Coogse,
CROP FLT( Luc o S f�p►�. tNT{ 02BAN Am E_
13. Does the proposal lie ► dithin an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
No
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
Earth
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, hilly, slopes, mountainous, other
b.. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)? bO- 90%
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. A 3cIL.S
REPORT IA-PS P PI` Z.FMRED izArrl -1 r'ANf-)NTS,
INC . SDtI. V NRZIMS INc.L.00INE, Loost - ALL.vVIAI_
SILTS ,CiA`CS. SAi411) SZ'ot&l£ brARoc.K ,
�i r -km-{F Ch-t DRGOrr- Pa►lD C-,RgUir-LS
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
-11- .U.. IS A LARGE. L.Ob. or F.S.IAI_ NiiAK-rt+t cgtEc'E -
cyF " 1£ StiE. -T k4 r r A ?PARS M_ _ PEE A S LU NP OtL SLof f, ..
WAS . !T'f_ ILL .- G D ice.► •ILA
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fi11. 'TH .- IS AN ExIS IN6 LOU) SPOT
AT "T)iF:,. SN>u rH BAST COP�N � � SCT m 4A-r
\ ILL.. ?IL FILL .D N. i'AIZKIN& ARZTA A LoN6 I
uDtL L St. RP�ISfirc a D 8�3 1�D. Uff &. RDA W(IL
C-UT 1=IU.... -'H - w L L AL_So
5DM - & irt6 RQCIR=, Pots, soi` p t ,IZP1"iloN.
f. C �k-�er`ossiionFl occurR°assla result 01 c earing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Y1=S DLL -to ST'S &LOPE_ OF PArrS of Srrr._ •
A So t1_ E.NS(N NAS BL E.1-4 Ih1YO1_Vf.C) ii•4D
AND \n/ u- ADVtS% POR.ttt6 ExcAY'A11c»i
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)? 54:/o
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any: gO1L 461NEV:
bAS A1-Rt0.,> rRt 14AN D (k .CDMrtp4 ATIvNS PNNO
WILL- PME. ACV I Sli- OUQIWn CSR TICS AND
CDtJSTGWC 10/.0 .
2. Air
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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.
-r-._ LOLL 1,47- P44 INCRt -ASL 114 AUTO X1 SSt tTiS
AND WON) SMr t- BROW -\ T'1RX-TL AC€ S A >Z c1iNr nc.J.
OU21146 c r N eT cucn oN T-i _ �Jlu, Pte. r-ri t S I ONS .
FkDr\ EQUIP ME.NT thjST FIZOrt Tx�AVIIONS
b. Are there any.off -site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe. 1'40.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or
other impacts to air, if any: NONE.. .
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year -
round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what
stream or river it flows into. No.
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.
. 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. Nc €. .
4) Will the proposal require surface water
withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. 1•(D,
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year
floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.1to.
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. 1,,b,
b. Ground:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
'discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. W
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
j 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. H az
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. RuNOFccT
ruL emutFmsE_ AND 50,1E_ RDNOPF fRon
LrI'M 9019 4 96 u3 K..1- 8rz s rrt. G N BRAT .
A WILL EX.. EES104510
�D C{NTC.H AN O - r D -NtS ?UNO'FF. St WILL
DISCHACarL,o 11Nr-1D 1ST11-&€ ( ,H
t�.SIN `71-Ar kiNNDLE__ RON OFF
bN _ Th1S 3 rr A? o )T 1-1-1O OF S&TT- -1
-7
EvalJation for
Agency Use Only
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface
waters? If so, generally describe. o .
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,
ground, and runoff water impacts, if any:
STn21,1 iZtJ1U-C n c N Scs -rtm
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
grass
pasture
crop or grain
.—wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered? Do lb rr S"r�Sz f1-m,t of '1NTL srnc Mc&
a tS M VTISUATIO 4 w►U. 8_ _t+�toyrJ . M4T
$M. 9CED. Extsrn-►c. ER s h e €c ' fofripsCIE, w►w
6L ckni -p tdtD W yss 40L - s.sf. -M OS plow
56 *`' (\V W- S.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. N01-1E_
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
ensures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
s i f any: L sosc.APv*t6 PLR 4 NRS Ste_ PRr -fAt;. 0.
5 I'M it_t_ 6t. i L.P‘t -" Y—APE,p, ALL_ AREAS NOT -
csxJ
\04711-k ['�JtLr%INC� Of, fP'ciZ�t � !tt_1. b�
LAHQSLAPF_P OfC ft.AN"fg.D tt4 C- ,RA.5 6R.cQNO
UJVff�,
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, other:
'*Ohl
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other: '*Ohl
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to
be on or near the site. i ot4
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,
explain. No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
i f any: N oN� CSjF +F . 1 - -4 1..NNaSLA1_4f —, .
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natura gas, oil,
wood stove, solor) will be used meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
El_Ex TP.1CI7 TV: 446.3c1-11-16 NO LI6HTIN6 'SUDS.
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: 1, N .
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. w rM ANY CoN srUCr IOrI ?i t 3-. IS "[Ht� --
INC a i- As ED f$IS> - O' 1=1(x- • tortk pU2A146 AVITLL
cal0`n t .
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. MF p tC.AL PIRA P. ND fbL(CE.
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: $tiLL.D1r1C, c�►t,>t,.
Com E'C (.0/ LcaCP.0 COPE.b UPte, aNO WILL
f3F Sf RI1%16 (i..R.L0 I KU? 01 P.E.D .
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)? HONE_____r
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.,og..* G
Cot,1STg_Oc 61E. 1ZQUWmr..rT
(-i01-1TR,uCTIOt -1 'NOISE. 0Of.1146 Hcok OF CosSTRI)Cr10,1
krruk CDt,ISrRoCtort t,1A1N SOURLt. ON 1 cSt`_ UXXJ D
•P.Crt -TRAFFIC. C-AD4f RATRD Si DENTS AND
' 1S nof.S .
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: MC6r - ricArrto Lau_
ti- a1I.tCTLAC CN T It A- d11.1 Mri -...
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties? SITE lS C t)fZR1�NTl.'( 0>`IUSfi0.11}FL9-
IS L— 1 ODIC Tom- - A RT TtiE_ 511V- ONCE cONTf;1Nr..P
rtqTrtg. 094444 --
Av;_ is A 6OC_.F Coot:L. = . f P..oPrR_`(- SOLTfh ALON6
OR-64,N IS (J - _ .IAL _StST CSi= ADJOtN I1- 6 �Rt�P�KT`C
VNa�I ...OPFD co. Rmstom.rcrIW -L
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe._
c. Describe any structures on the site. Conk STILL
TPet..1o1 -NG
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Nob 4u1' NO T'ocn lo'moria,_ LJtt cw.movurp,
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? f.M 4-}
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation
of the site? ■r14 -i
Q.
If applicable, what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? -( /p, .
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
'N0
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project ?" 200 Ri stogy rrs
j. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? Tlp.m_
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: 1�4/[1, .
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any: is co-keA1i LE.
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? IO, UN ITS MIDDLE- NccII1L
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low -
income housing. Nort.11✓
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: —
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?
1-11E..I6-T FROM LOc4E457 C -,RPO "01) -(DP of
PD i\OQF =`' 40 MIT. BULDINEn EXTFILIOR,
TO 6E. VIN`CL SID t 4 , AND PAIN1TD WOOD
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? UrPILR ON CTS MAY LI,SJC.Y.
SOOT- V 1 ..) OF CALF c.oUQS Foci APAR�'t-1 n
ON 1564h Av . S . PR06164 -- 4NlY t.Ot3r2. uN fTS
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any: L,UIL.DNA lulu P Sf:r DOWN cN1f..
•.1
ca - SCAPrD.
-x1 -rIN6 "TRTLZ.s Sew P4SS 1f3L.
E - tvkiO& Will. P. IN1V-FSTri16 ANY PL ,SI 66
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?
5}toutO gT-- MIN/ MAL k.0 U I SonE
L 64-rn'N6 O -Pf°04,1N6b. 4N2EA .NUT I? -
Dl a i�CT
lt4 ANC) DOS 4 .Tp A\J O
1...1en wr ON P ILOrnl6 -R• • 41.,&L
1 b
pF 411.1V4IINt INL— ai.%A . SHOD® bm: N16HT TIME cricf
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? totgi_
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any: L16i -rr IZ LL 6 £*QX0517
crt-ro srm, 1- O cxcorl u A&D .
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity? Gam Coups .
NOLOSS .712311111T , �►�.FJ'� -i�1ti YJArnA FAST o1
64,S11-1,044 RNA JOE MN Tb5Tu.. Mr.mcwIPL f'A
= `I'C`O' Pp p.1 5 tT .� 4 It. Cr mrrr flab L. gr r0 . z
‘c-'s H SCHOOL.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe. 4b
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on
recreation, including recreation opportunities to be
provided by the project or applicant, if any: &(T..
'plier_uc rJJT 1Z (4(..L D> — GLUES ( -bust- u ITN
P_A . 1;5:23 Ez ARIA J r-x QC...1St_ Rcc r 1 t1Nt) b twq: pi)s
OWN _ St-'IL p,1..Sp -D 44440L SLRI MN Ir46 'rz LI tmas
CIU(Ct' I CH ILDMt -IS PLAY i .A 2 306SUN6 ?PITHS.
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. $40
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.NONE.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: 'orilt_
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. g Sr•
't_ m.1 . S fllL PC.C%SS U.)/ ii ST AC CE S -ro . - s 5 Z. ICS
(A.M RE
UPP PAST co'F SCit. F zorr 56 Ayr_ S. 7rb ktgl -t A10,,N1
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? yEc 1.40 n S xrn-1 oN IM"t' xUeM 1.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?
t,9 Ell.. }-IAVL 2DCo ) �L.J� M IN Ate_ .
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). RD .
e.. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so,-generally describe. t• o
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known. .indicate when
peak volumes would occur. ne 200-712W5 ot-r sr•r
m4 c) nr 200 tRi4, ON -rb
W o UL O PO-A A44 O 6.00 P M
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:140*4
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.`(. s LOW.
20p PAD f L W H IC.H t.Ol lL INC. L OQ .- &i4 : c p
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any. r(oNE,
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently ay.ilable at the site:
electric y natural as (refuse service)
telephone, sanitary sewer sep.ic 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.
�LL�7 tr1 c IT ( U \c tS R'J N L-NQ tL i r S CM- W r iii
uJ'tc.l , Ric o1 - VAPPt%46 IN-io s s77). -t , StCWRR.
vg R Q.1)14S M- MOUG11 SITS o 'TC I Att t 14j W
1s t4!4,, C2t uNQ 1±/3 0 0 .€ AN PAV 1Y_ . S ..
t'Litct.4
C. Signature
Tne above answers are true and complete to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is
relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
TO'BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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? - rT2OV.DE.
PcoOSN6 Fog. = 24O0 f rLc ( \OO UNfl
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these
objectives? 'RAZ_ Cxvc..-t AL.- WOULD fLx -so eRtrltoE-
"ia-1� HoOSIN ON ITS' bN Po4csn -kE! . 5! _ 6_TTttra-
tN OR noT.S1OF_ CITY OF iUKWtVi
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the
preferred course of action:CrTY of TuKUJILA wrn-1 rrs
Lnlu3 t'ortILATI O'W cAN USA AND SOffOK
M O R 1 r - R . fi C S ID? rS . ri- - OML tg CLOS€r -IO MAtt-1 i1100`G5
M-..O T1.1r -Vkg- AM P W -.POQ. (.0 IT1A oN P4 ut .
S m.- 15 SfiiYrtO 1 ( M1C11,0 . ZTS .LOS rL PARteS
eoLP Coot)RSe- t 8C.i -c 1_56, S Hob rrn46, 1...U5Ka2'C FIiZL SC t014
AN c) o AL co et rAo Y SPRY I GES . TEFL s rm._ IS e6l {'
Atar7 GCY )L.0 NcT PL 0.5J1 c4) FcoL 1431cuLTURAL uStS .
►Hti. z - PR/0v1O PtERSANT \'ItL.UJ PGRnss Eli14.f cooRSE.
IT 5rX PN vwsku>47 Locicnor 4 roR, 'THIS
TY PF OF rffldkpfT.
'CITY OF TUKWILA Ole 6o 0-0
Central Permit System
MASTER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM
G3C��ECR
juN G t985�
CITY -Uf TUKVVILP
PLANNING DEPT.
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION -- INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL
ACCEPTED FOR PROCESSING.
NOT BE
SECTION 1:
GENERAL DATA
TYPE
OF
APPLICATION: D estP
DSHORT
PLAT
SUBDIVISION - _DSHORELINE
PERMIT
DCONDITIONAL DUNCLASS.
USE USE
0 PRD DPMUD:
0 VARIANCE D CHG. OF
ZONING
1) APPLICANT: NAME L 11Ct' P . NYEIY50•1
ADDRESS 1 .�9 V-1 SL. I L,L .Y(J
2) PROP. OWNER: NAME & RQOP S
`,
TELEPHONE
LEPONE
WA■ •
TELEPHONE
•
ADDRESS tc2. l 1 1ico - p /"4%\/ S) 1 AC.01''i A WA
BAR
OINTERURBAN
COMP. PLAN
AMENDMENT
) 141 -6to
0
ZIP I OOto
-1.41- 6310
ZIP 9102.
3) PROJECT LOCAT 1 ON :. (STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPH 1 C , LOT/ BLOCK) 1 NRIE J fr4.I AYY,., S e tl} •
)(r ATI c* S 13-1 ' 13`0/14,\/E, S . iscaceES nem 1Y.. eou= couastz.
SECTION I1 :, PROJECT INFORMATION
4) DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE. C STRUC.rtCi1 fit=.. IO3 Ck1Nt ITT ATh ZtP P4T
Cpt-if LAC Cpt l S(ST It-'6 OF 10 A IkKi-MENT LDC N40 Q CJ-U b Hu U St2--
5) ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM MIO 19 P S To LAW_ 115(0
6) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED ,IN PHASES? DYES ONO IF YES, DESCRIBE:
e)
PROJECT STATISTICS:
A) ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET j'1-,55
B)
GROSS 4455 EASEMENTS t• .It_ EXIStTIWE:2
FLOORS OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL# FLOORS 3
TOTAL GROSS V2075(4
FLOOR AREA
C)' SITE UTILIZATION:
INCLUDES: BASEMENT D MEZZANINE
INCLUDES BASEMENT OMEZZANINE
AU_ t'SUUDIN
EXISTING PROPOSED - 'NOTES
ZONING DESIGNATION 111 1H INMH
COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION
BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA O 39 °0145 0
LANDSCAPE AREA r 0 Ego 2.00 0 IN[LocEs LAtc)N ARIA
PAVING AREA 0 721000 0
TOTAL PARKING STALLS.:
- STANDARD SIZE: ..- l6.9
COMPACT SIZE - 3O
- HANDICAPPED SIZE - 7
TOTAL
AVER.
AVER.
LOADING SPACES
SLOPE OF PARKING AREA
SLOPE OF SITE-
p%
25 7o 25% mAx SLOPE •-90%
IS THIS SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE
MAP ? DYES cam SI . -.
SECTION 1I1: APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT
'‘Z.7--?.N.PSZA411116_3
CONTRACT PURCHASER OR OWN OF'THE PROPERTY 1NVOLVED
, BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT 1 AM THE
GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND TH
IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT THE FORE-
ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT T}O THE BEST OF My KNO: EDGE
DATE 3U. 0` ( 8 _
(S1GNA.` -E OF CON -.CT -y ER OR OWNER)
TI
• :1. 1:
SUBMITTED ARE IN
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN
THIS
BEFORE ME
DAY OF '- v�
`,/•.c.,
19
NOTARY / 1 IN AND FOR THE .'STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESIDFNG AT
t0 —
./
P rrmw - lvr _ OamH (Id....)
a+arne•ac ,elrlt.or�
oa
_1e {A'p9CMtvfr_
ti-n' INPOPtlicrION
VMS tiLDI.E.
.LJ1ttn 0• I+I.D[P 4
- f QD.D•TO NNE /pR�u. -.'
_ - -.COL NTT.l
- eh b. 0.--A
_ 11:41.0•0 W O U1 D
� OWN.. w D wrr5
N n CYp , Olflw • • fD
.. Nun CC. .M Or , n tiG 7
COWL NRtGf 1./..b>
CO —
h
U PP—
11 11 1111111
.l? f
_ Olt" 011 MO #14240# 1 I 1 I I I I+.��� __1_ I i °� I +'1��1 I I I j
vi
I I_ Irr 07$.+r I I I I I
OLIM
It
. SOUTH -(nd row) /
- - - -1 - o.,---- - -� - --
n
Sgt. rLA•N r rze c.• w T aO mu. e.+. s,
xye r_ no
_.._..
\TM
;_
RAY OKA
c-r.Na .1 a m�rv-rI N
. erryne r •.s
d rM
1.1.•00eD 2CNM4 .11
4.
PC1 OPC • urn., (•0 ,,$2 15 o -.,
•KIU•L • .NII> lab 0,,
rLla wcO W.rr++. eitxr) 'ml.
KrWL fMN.b PC. (,emltl[0)
PLATY nwL c:..or.16
"TUN -JILA PPMTMP. fl Q2-1rLt>c .,.e'es
1O hccr2 A. rif reON
JOHN A11000801 AN0 ASSOCIATES PS. INC.
IW, BIN. • Comm N. Ow. . QOq a L..
5203
IN- rthUhM'V AVL. 50.1114
w r�rN..rr �I
Ism
■
•
rat. l lk
IT5
hl
i lil1,! I ;, Iiil�i
6
'MI' MG
a Ra
a
*WIN,
4‘44,
•
°.fit °r.'�
L.
11 MR
- 1 0 ` 1 1 , 4 1 L 4 , 57,46
A °A°7 r1 i
hICI'r G, rlY°•SCoI-,
JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC.
aacaairtcir
.e .,.... • Cm ..s
2
r'i
JUN 6 19851
CITY OF tiiKWILA
PLANNING DEPT.
f.;171. eria-
,9
MIVJ It-A A FAPir mar-47 come"(
h-rth4
0.
JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC. ,'"•;*
C ar0 0 C
1 ON It • Yam Malmo MN • In gegas
ITCPSTRID
4N s •n,1
MR OP OPSPOINtell
r-r
7
o-
1,7\71,\I
DATH
R
[M.-010MT
infl 6 19851
C$TY OF TUK"vviLA
PLANNING DEPT
rIN57 r1.cr7f-, r IcAL
UP r!-
TJhL 12..?,APTI-f r:NT CCM rLt....x
NCh A. N!7.
OKfl
Juie. GS
JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC. *"."
ANCHFTEC7 \)
VIONO • MIRO.
Ina n a • MIR akaa• Ma • gm emu .4
L
-
f
6.
''0
ISIZHC.144
L
ext.TH
p 0
'-,
7.
9
r
L•Pt.'qMtNI CON1rLjtX
G020
OATS
M-REA\MI
JUN G 1985]
CITY OF TUKWU.A
PLANNING r..)EFT.
JONI ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC %Iv]
A C HI 0 C
• INIIma MONO. MIN '44."
G..198E1
CITY OF Ttir.VvIt.A
PLANNING DEP1'.
-7Yrt.AL
UrrEn
•
TUN4IL. Me-4T Come
Sr
15., 1
JONI 111101111011 ANO ASSOCIATES PS. INC.
ARCHOVECTS-41424‘17
ISIN IL a • Mon ••••••• MI • Oil WINN
1
ral
sinumuunff-.fignommi
nnii■ ituann■ sunt...111
IIME mom isismml
„...,:iiiimi liMI[ , Rimy
.1. 'Ilit mull
N. ,w E.
m .1.1 mil,
N. =I mi.
\. mi. I No k
IT,
11 /
aiiiiIIIIiiii
11 !"-±:INIAm.
i=j:–.- I __.-i.:‘-i /1
17-that t OM T1-fill
Ilkil all MI
]
ilmIll EIII MB,
111111110M 1 011111 1111111111k
itiltii INN'
111 1E-11
Imogmm plimm il-giuhu4
I,="1 70..1.. tin.'
I11
111111111 IMIIIII
1105 it
_
19E711 10111111— -ffia111,1 hill
- - ull • ,
= 1— =pa
... mu 1--1 F 0
=I I imm il m oil I
nung■ nom ..10111E11-■ T
elil IMO MID 4
JUN G i985
CITY OF TLIKWICA
PLANNING DPI.
GLL`,(P,TIONF
LIPP.= CUit-DINe5
71.1hkIlLA /,•PP4-7M.ChiT CONFLGX
hiC" hYtt-15:71,4 _
CIATI
eve
JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS.
• • ...
I •
ij
1
111101PF
1
JUN G 1985
CITY UP TUKVvicA
PLANNING DEPT.
hr r cr TYP ICAL
Lastr) WIT!:
5
TI-J NJ I Ld6;., /4,41- MCN'T CCTIPLZ>
P-ifth5f7.4
ATI
JONN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS.
ARCHOUIECT
INC.'
INN IL II • Yam Irullwa MI • On Mill
Val .1.41119,1
STAII OF OPSVVO%
.z1
a
g
H
z
1
R_
f;CCC1-4D 'TYPICAL.
...0kEth 12"11-7J
TU hW LA, APAriTMCNT cor.w
hICt., A. NJ--.1
JOHN ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES PS. INC.
^
ANCHOUECU
lots te. • 0000.. sumo. Nes • ow esae •••..,•11
111
MarrINE
I G 19-5
Cifir OF TL1SWH.A
PLANNING' DEPT.
T14- 11Cr-t-, -TY P ICAL
I...01-4C P-1 UNITS
TUP-)14ILA AfAtirmcN-T corinzx
NC . PiTr-P15CN
OATS
JONN MUMS ANC ASSOCIATES H. INC.
ANCHOTEC784-1")......,-
....... • Wow 111.1••• UM •
1_1
41.
ON MINIM 1 11 II .S MUNN NM m.
mumummoummilm
-10D—Lla-TE1 DJJJ -111_111
trn
Crfr)- -ca_rn-it4=5r eLL'w.rtat-t_ (-mr..2g) _
-M
tIJ 11 741
uni 1/ so re EDI 11 111
El TD
I m mrn
r
1 ing .hillril
a REMO
1 air um
I iftiloomm
--„-0.,
siml1P1,--
F,c[:::11:1 m !pal gni
IllH1ll
ff. damming-
fipi
NOM H rA5T CLEYA:T1ON erffet)
. Vb. 147•
-WrChVN ntrer.,5
Iv Z
•-11 mta MOM Ng
mpg
mmHg. ill Lliallifiiiiirlim'
In-ENPTC7N (Tit)
It4TV,41, COL.015.
DVIC are", tsaeb see SZTY
_VGNLZ ..
STOPICIC WIL
II
111,4101
161,111
11
Eto
T ""') •
ffifivir
corvnicen I n tow precasess assocsaus Pt et
0:85
CITY OF ItiKWii A
PLANNING DEPT.
•
4
MOST MO
203
10
11
5
7
9.
IEUIOVIIER
1JUN G 19851
cifv. OF TU$YviLA
PLANNING DEPT.
LOOP-1
CW HG
TUhWILA At ANTMeNT ccmputx
fc)^, nich Mrth'bON
OATS
ap.e
JOHN A10E11801 AND ASSOCIATES ES. INC.
WILI
ARCHOTIECT3'°
pm ,40.11311
LL • WNW 'UMW MIN • en am.gig
ANVIca
I JUN 6 1985
6F-fiLvvit_A
PLANNING DEPT.
cLub POUSt.-.
o
CP
TLY.11.-PLA APAMTMENT COMII_GX
ru, NIC*, Ps. NT'C'eC7N
,- •
DATII
mrynro JONI /111191101 IMO ASSOCIATE. PI. INC.
ANC043071ECT 8411147 11
no
111 la • Yoga ROOM INN •
3•KORIN TIEUO\CRCLOU•
SS
SS- LAURIL ZAMI11
AD-
3-A[IR 05 0700315(
1F<ONREALTFR
MRw1V
_
7 v1W AAP,.
-'
WT[ 7Uhd.'� Ate`.. 90JTH
PtRTINOI5E3
—1 r1
0
f i iasirO�,` aiff1illair 11fl �O��#si '..:ilia gR�Xi1e11r TA!�_ i a
►h ��� }p.r�1'.}(� ---,� I w..orxr[:)`� 1 1 I IC•yi w�..pKir[�
!&!:-1
\ \\ \ \t- AtAIFR ra 31S•LAUREL EABILLIANA 1- ■00ot\!M\BP�`v�131!114[
\ tl- aMBO \B \Rq Jf ww YRN !' OM C�[i1Tl0. 10- ALAL[R'IIFSCOU\ \ OR !01[1433107 31.130000 \[NpROB 1N
[YI 3.1 ^'•gib 0•M •••R•
NJ ft
WIM oft. t:11 .0111110'
1tyaaiG2:►J�-� _ \` til►`wi• r:N:�.si.�. :... -� = - �I1t..,_
M•- AtwNART [woos r nA _ . -_._� .� �� �v -a.... ✓'�aiL..� . _ !
o V MESE 5.5.1 E. B3 -ael r r rn ��F/ j
7 -� '— ��
Gam... r.
IF
o�ai� '(*yri'' ,,
��= /30!311 Ate. • C'�c�`
/ -c 303300 to IISIE
57- AZAIff cute.
1.1133 aunt
411ft Ask Carl Ell[wM��r.wEr Bn [[t.[rERIRM�E111M1rIMR�t[
eA6�+. LrwF�� ►.�ii.:�►�/SM.!rFj('A�i�ti�N���
IN F7RVUA sRAxal
SIM CENTER
Z5LAVKI ZADEt1ANA
L'OA GENTE0.
VRNUN AVID1 I 1 711 I ' SD r"'""• 3, 1',LAUREL LAOE14Y *AI .O I t(ntJ /�� ///
1 7- 0110033 T0UNDERCIOUD / / "131314 TNUNOCRr LOU=
AIL- -- {( {r-i•
` `3� -130143 C301007R / SE. I.YC. �LITH � 3 -VIRUS C ONTORTA
U.VC ALL M3/.`TMT TTCL°
1/0.030& IN 17�`+G
07513'.4.0.16 DV^ AVG 5
(3. VISA/PRIM
3E AZALE• DOSIBUD
10•0UDD05f050(0
JEAN *5•11
OA GROSS -Lf 131.3 RR (LR3T 150 ARCA.
.105•4'34 FTIBLIC iT
]CAL• • ••O.
-PL ONTING NOTE9
1. PLANTING 401E5 T5 SE 6- 5505E0. AND OLE•CR
THAN THE 0515 OF TM PLANT.
2. 1511T IMO 0161E3 10 PP. RACREILLED 301331
TIERCE - WAV -MI1 TOPSOIL
3 CERTILRRR. TO OE RCRO -PLANT TAOS ORLUUEAL
APPLIED AS PER M1ANUFACTURCR f RECOMMCRORTION,
4. (5031104 AREAS 15 FEE EI4E •RARLD AN5 TR(ATED
W ITN (RE•EMCRSA4 FE WCCe [307305 MATERIAL
6 5(0 AREAS TO ESE MULCHED 13I1N 1. 173C5RADL
FIR DRRR - 503145 LVENLV AND HAND ERASED
1 LR001 AREAS ARE 76 OE 50DOLD On A 1 DASE
03 IUE- WAV-M11 TOPSOIL_.
7 1RE[3 .0ER V TAU TO REIaUVED OR STARED
LIwD 51117E MST eri FUN,:
3- PRIMUS TOUNOEICIDUD
1 LAP•_ J �f�
�z�ra�1�T'�
I
l/
Nom^
AN 3[A
4111- C art
0NCV1
P 00
'P �, l
. raj � ��
`r
• i \-35(5 PLAIINOIDE3
1•11113(5 11003001*
34131011 [13
130 1
IETER
43
m EOT•103 I1
•• O.C. U \ \111
...i7
MEN., 001(14005 10105+
L' ow 1E01ra 3O Lt F•1C
TC
3B AZALI• 003[010.
/ 0• R00S*S50130U AAA M5R1!
V.5.3 TUUNDEACLOwD
\7Sr
LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN
PERIMETER 4 CENTER PLANTINt, PLESN
J'S.JILA PF*.w: t-1!-- NIT 117'?..
r1Cn .. NTT .1ooI,,
-JOHN ANDERSON AND NSSOCIA1ES PS. INC.
&PcCEI[lifLC�t'
m0 111 O • .45 A.ABII. Nml • Vls4P,
; POW
1.10•11i1111
I-1Ra 0101
II- cola LLLLLL wawa v■
3- R11•12•InesSION• Vrell•s.•
0. •110.1•111% flAssa
• - 0•1011•11f. ASPS%
S RIaltbObINIMNI•
Jim& !NW ta
flRSMIbALIS
• -11•0001:41lbRON
.111.0.1 Rt
• q••••
•
qualms& ws•t •
I Id
•
.1.01,1r1) DULDINC7lasetp LANIMICAPE PLAN
. MALE )13.• r-GO
ECENSIMIT (c) 11 Ammon No mow=
owenn • IOW.
M. CAMELLIA
JAPAN,( A
•
LAWN
DS AKE 015 L 010E SO 6/LA0E MILE ALLOW
• 4500105 ASPEN
3- A EIMER 51 000
3-NANAINA
0- AZALEA NIAGARA
VINE •APES
• ANON/NM MORON VA I qui
IttIARI•G 050.0
5-0004104
1114 000tt
ID-AIALEA 1110411114
maID areit.4.)
L AWN
/A MAUL
I /WI
CAMELLIA
a
1.10W. IRS
SPEN
QUAAINt•
ASPEN
tencr.,
SMPASONC.
ASPEN
E-INAIMmum
DAVNII
1.17Er'c,iti:9LDII--IG _Tyr ICAL LAND5CArt„
flN
1,10.11C1
EWE,'
MEET ND.
I C,
. f70•1fL
OMR
LAUREL 0.0.0[011.030.
L Y1OOOO000500R JE0R I•R11u
A0011 PLATINOI 1M1
8030 u0
Ew6L1SM 133
1• Ox G[N1i1!`
1- 03■1401*
w- GOT100A O Nlf
NYlRLf1
2
OPP
t[w EE
014031010. GRR5ER1
L AWN
VIAL OuVI
rON
51 men
R10003E11011010
unique
•010.3031004 A -YE EERIER
3.1310b bERPRON 3111QUE
5 -RE ALE /a NI ARRRA
VDxE MROLE
Mt1L11R111111,
DRUIDS
INtICEIC /1712.
•
t
11 -w RR01wR
0013150 13O 1' ON 000100.
1111101111W •
a
•.,,, �
1,,,- ....out MRKO 4
10.- VIEVRAU1 0RV u
CL1Jb Hou5c LAN p CA.? W0.;
2-I'c*
LAWN
QS
Q
MOLCT rD
000130
I(r
Dirt (g/111 JON 006001 IJD 000000 Rd 0.c
George J. Lindsay, P.E.
f
Group 5
1929 Tacoma Avenue South
Tacoma, WA 98402
Consulting • Eng ;::, ering • Planning
2527 2; = II-1 AVE. EAST
SL's : ER, WA 98390
206/863 -6850
August 11, 1983
REF: Cedarwood - Tukwila Square
13700 Block Interurban Avenue
• Tukwila, WA.
ATTN: Joseph Devish
Dear Joe:
Under separate cover I am forwarding you copies or the
grading and utility plans for the above referenced project.
I am also enclosing a copy of the Soils Report prepare: by
Earth Consultants, Inc. As you know, the findings contained
in their report were used in preparing the grading and 6tility
plans.
After our review of the site, we concurred with tht -ir rec-
ommendations as they relate to the existing soils. In addition
to their recommendations, you may wish to consider- excavation and
removal of those loose alluvial soils along the southea::tern edge
of the property. These unsuitable soils could then be replaced
with a structural fill to provide proper bearing capaci :_ies. We
feel this alternative would also permit building construction in
this area. We feel this alternatiVII. would be much more economical
than those previously addressed.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
/.
Respectful
George
ENC.
cc: Robert Levinson, P.E.
GJL:tm
s
ay, PjE.
GPORM
si;L33 1985
C---� U K∎N! LA
CITY OF '
PLANNING DEPT.
Ear
'onsu
Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering and Geology
12893 N.E. 15th Place, Bellevue, Washington 98005 / t':.:;ne: (206) 435.2018
April 17, 1979 E -817
Campanella Murakami Brummitt, Inc.
2900 Eastlake Avenue East
Suite 200
Seattle, Washington 98102
Attention: Mr. Felix Campanella
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Soil and Foundation Investigation
Cedarwood Habitat Condominiums
13700 Block Interurban Avenue
Tukwila, Washington
In accordance with your request, we have conducted a. soil and
foundation investigation at the subject site. This report
r
sents a description of our investigatiop. and the encountered site
conditions, including recommendations for the various soil engineer -
ing aspects of site development.
• Our investigation indicates that the southeastern edge of the
Property is underlain by up to 14 feet of loose alluvial deposits.
Buildings in this area will be partly in cut that could resat in
large differential settlements.
the loose deposits may have to beTsurcharged with ha preload gfilleor
supported on piles extending into firm underlying soils, whichever
is more feasible.
The upper
pper western areas are underlain by firm soils that will
Support structures on conventional footings. More detailed recom-
mendations are presented in the following sections.
•1
•
•
• • ' ! ▪ ' 'il • •• • •. • • •, • 4 . . • • •
1:,f.• ' • ' • ;;' •�'''� '� �. • -, •t,, /•T.. ,,, .. / r .. 1. 1. •••'1 1 i '•. 1, ,• '.. �. 1'. }� `) 1 i'11 •• i ` • %
•, •ICEDARIIOO IATITTAT CONDOMINIUMS 1 . •
:. ;`' ;t,1370b BLOCK INTERURBAN AVENUE .• ;,` •
�',''•;'• : /'''' •. ;s'''.T�UKWILA WAS 1,..••�.,. ':'.1 r. •
1 1:1 .. 11.1.' 111�1 /IIf111� i,:.t; .11:1.• •'•'• 1i•
'! • ▪ •lilrill.'•.!I �•��i .1 ..,. • r ,.1 ',' ':j,. h{'..•.1�• 1't
•
• • t• 1 ' •, 11 r •• 1,, ••., ,lll1� 1• • j�ljl/l'ri • I r'S '. E 01I' : 1 '�1� .• �t la .! •i, / .
. • • ( r 1 • , 1 1 , , r•11 l.! • ►T %••'-•t. 41 I • '
•
• T .. /;,!,i 1 • 1 .11 • •
• , rl ,'t a • r , .
• ' . • :, / ' :,. t ' •• /, ,'.'' 11 1 FOR : • 1 •' ',•�• .. •.
• CAOPANEL .MURAKAr1 f . • • • • ;; I BRU��l1ITT INC'1 •
1
:, ..)*',.1.-.... , ill.1 f,,ir(r,11'i11(T 4' /::,:• 1' !. t. .., • �' ; _1 {1 '.., .
r I.:i i•' l.•'` /t it Si••i /1 ;l "1°
••
• • ', 1 i1 •T ' 1 . • I f T �, i l• :'' 1 ,' '..1.•• '• , • '!
Campanella Murakami Brummitt,Inc.
April 17, 1979
B -817
F -age two
SCOPE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of our investigation was to obtain adeq.,ate sub-
surface information necessary to prepare recommendations for site
preparation and foundation design. At the time our investigation
was undertaken, the site boundaries, building locations, .;nd
slopes were located as shown on the Site Sketch, Plate 1. This
layout is based on a survey worksheet, and Campanella Mu;..ikami
Brummitt, Inc. Site Plans, dated February 12, 1979.
The project will involve the construction of seven ?evel,
wood frame structures with parking on the second level along the
top of'the slope. The lower portion will contain six 4- story
buildings with parking on the lower level. The recreatie;: build-
ing will be in the center of the lower buildings.
The grading plan had not been finalized at the time of this
report. However, we anticipate, based on our review of site
sections, that the upper buildings will require cuts on the order
of 5 to 6 feet. The lower buildings will require cuts on the
order of 12 to 14 feet, with fills of 2 to 4 feet. The lower and
upper buildings will require retaining walls.
Our recommendations are based on estimated structural loads
on the order of 3 to 4 kips per lineal foot for dead plus live
loads.
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
To explore the subsurface conditions for this phase of our
work, we excavated a series of twenty test p is across the site on
December 14 and 15, 1979. The test pits were excavated with a
rubber -tired backhoe. Two ad.dit,ion.al_bprAngs were drilled on
February 26 and 27, 1979 to explore the southeastern lower area to
deeper depths. The locations of the test pits and borin n are
shown on the Site Sketch, Plate 1. The excavation of the test pits
and the borings was. continuously monitored by engineering geologists
from our firm who identified the soils encountered, maintained a
log of each test pit and boring, obtained representative soil
samples and made pertinent observations of the slopes and.site.
The soils were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System outlined on'plate 2, Legend. The logs of the
individual test pits are presented on Plates 3 through 12. The
dogs of the borings are presented on Plates 13 and 14.
The borings were drilled using a truck-mounted B -61 drill rig
with continuous flight, hollow stem augers which were used to
advance the bore holes and provide hole'support during sampling
Earth Constihnnh- ln.r
of the embankment which extends up to 56th Avenue and surrounding
residential areas.. Minor areas of surface seepage were nc:ted across
this upper section.
Earth. Consultants. Inc.
•
Campanella Murakami Brummitt, Inc.
April 17, 1979
Subsurface
E -817 •
rage four
The site is underlain by different soil profiles. The low
lying areas adjacent to the base of the slopes and Interurban
Avenue are immediately underlain by loose alluvial sands end
medium stiff silts and clays. Some of our test pits in t :.e
southern area did not penetrate these soft soils (Test Pits Nos.
1, 2, 4 and 6) .
Test Pits Nos. 2 and 5 were cut into the toe of the steep
slope in the area of proposed cuts for the buildings. The -se pits
penetrated silty slope wash and debris overlying a slopinr3 firmer
surface which we believe may be weathered bedrock. Groundwater
seepage was noted on the firmer weathered surface. We believe the
slope above is underlain by an undetermined amount of wea :r!ered
slope wash material.
The supplemental borings encountered a dense silty sand layer
found at 14 feet below existing grades that extended to the depths
explored. These river deposits are mantled against the sandstone
and siltstone bedrock observed in our test pits. The nort.t;east
low area i.s.underlain.by shallow fills over rock.
The test pits on the upper bench encountered medium dense to
very dense sands. and gravels with varying amounts of silt. These
firm till -like materials grade to very dense till towards the
northwest end of the project area. It should be expected that the
till overlies the bedrock at a relatively shallow depth across the
entire site as observed in Test Pit No. 17.
Moderate to heavy groundwater seepage was encountered at
shallow depths in the lower areas, with,,light seepage observed
perched on the till and bedrock. •
Cuts into the slope, espsecially in•the northern area could
encounter bedrock. Our experience with this bedrock indicates
that the weathered portion can be excavated with rippers and
large backhoes. The unweathered portion may require blasting.
The bedrock found beneath the project area is comprised of
siltstones and sandstones of the Renton Formation. Geologic
information on the area indicates that the unit dips to the south
and southwest at 12 to 15 degrees:. The bedding planes ben ath'
,the site•would dip into the slopes based on this data.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
The presence of the various soil profiles on the site will
require different foundation requirements. The upper buildings
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Campanella Murakami Brummitt, Inc.
April 17, 1979
-817
Page five
may be supported on conventional footings bearing on undisturbed
firm ground found at relatively shallow depths.. The footings
closest to the.. edgewill.have..to maintain a minimum setback of
at least l0 :feet from :'the edge. of. slopes. The lower buildings will
be founded partially on cut in the loose soils. The building on
the cut portion may be supported on conventional footings. The
lower portion of the buildings may be supported on piles or on
conventional footings bearing on a structural fill mat after a
surcharge fill has preloaded the loose soils. We understand that
the surcharge program appears most feasible at this time. Should
you decide to chose the pile method of support, we will be glad to
furnish you with more detailed recommendations.
We recommend.that we be allowed to review the final building
and grading plans to determine the extent and depth of this sur-
charge fill and the setback requirements for the upper building.
Also, the cut slopes should be examined by Earth Consultants, Inc.
to evaluate the short term stability. It may also be advisable to
probe the north slopes at the building locations to evaluate the
hardness of bedrock within excavation limits.
The following sections present our preliminary reconu:.+:nda-
tions in more detail.
Shallow Foundations
The proposed structures may be supported on conventional
continuous and /or spread footings supported on firm undisturbed
soils or on a minimum of 2 -1/2 feet of'compacted structural fill,
whichever is applicable. The structural fill should extend to
2 -1/2 feet beyond footing perimeters. Exterior footings should
be bottomed a minimum depth of 18 inches below the adjacent`. final
grade. The footings bearing on structural fill or the upper
medium dense, silty sands may be designed for an allowable bearing
pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads
and 4000 psf on undisturbed till or bedrock. Continuous footings
should have a minimum width of 16 inches. Interior footin =;s may
be at 12 inches below the top of slab. A one -third increa::e in
the bearing pressures may be used when considering wind or
seismic loads. Footings along. the' top of the slope should be set
back a minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet from the slope face.
For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total
postconstruction settlements in structural fill or medium tense
sands will be about 1 inch with differential settlements less than.
41/2 inch. Settlements will be minimal for footings supported
entirely on glacial till or bedrock. We estimate that settlements
on the order of 4 to 6 inches could be realized with the surcharge
program recommended in the following sections.
Earth Consukants, Inc
Campanella Murakami Brummitt, Inc.
April 17, 1979
E -817
Page six
Footing excavations should be examined by the Soil :ngineer
to verify that encountered conditions are as anticipate.:. Drains
should be placed along all perimeter.footings and connected to a
positive discharge system.
Retaining Walls
Cantilevered retaining walls may be designed for an active
lateral pressure induced by a fluid weight of 35 pcf. t:on-
yielding basement walls may be designed for the same value plus
an additional uniform pressure of 100 psf. These values assume .a
horizontal backfill, without surcharges due to hydrostatic pres-
sures, adjacent high footings, traffic or construction .Dads.
•
The backfill immediately against the wall should cc:::sist of
a free draining gravel or sand. The backfill should be :ompacted
to at least 95 percent of maximum density. All retaining walls
should be provided with a positive discharging drainage system.
Horizontal forces may be resisted by passive pressures equal
to a fluid with a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot. This
value assumes that all footing backfill is compacted in :accordance
with the site preparation recommendations of this report.. A
coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between conc::ete and
soil.
.Floor Slabs
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on structural fill
prepared in accordance with th'e site preparation recommendations
of this report. In cut areas, the upper 12 inches of su_grade
should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density to provide
uniform conditions beneath the slab. -.the slab should be provided
with a minimum of 4 inches of free draining sand or gravel. In
areas where moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a
plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of
sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construc-
tion and to aid in curing of the concrete.
Surcharge Program
The lower building areas over the loose alluvial scils may
be preloaded with a fill surcharge g prior to foundation construc-
tion.' We estimate at this time that the surcharge shouli consist
of at least 4 feet of fill for a minimum of 30 days. Please note
that this surcharge fill is in addition to the structural fill
required to bring the site to. grade.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
The site should be stripped and cleared of all struct:,.;res,
trees, existing, utilities, surface vegetation, all organic matter,
and any other deleterious material. It is anticipated a
stripping depth of approximately 1 foot will be required. Stripped
materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled fr later
use in landscaping, if desired. The stripped materials sc•uld not
be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Following the stripping operation, the remaining surface in
areas where structural fill is to be placed should be pro;;frolled
under the observation of the Soil Engineer to reveal soft or loose
areas, which if found, should be rerrioved and replaced with struc-
tural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base ber1 sth the
structural fill. The toe of all fills should be keyed int,3 firm
ground. The excavation should extend to a depth that will insure
2 -1/2 feet of structural fill beneath footings and 18 inches be-
neath floor slabs at the portion of .the lower buildings over the
loose soils.
•
Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not
exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. The fill should be
benched into slopes steeper than 4 to 1 (H :V) . The fill :should be
compacted to a minimum 95 percent'pf the maximum dry density in
Accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557 -70 (Modified Proctor).
"the site soils contain an excessive amount of fines that will• make
them difficult to compact or work when wet. An approved g::anular
imported fill may be require4 if gT-ading operations are performed
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Campanella Murakami Brummitt, Inc. E -817
April 17, 1979
Page eight
during wet weather. It should consist of a granular mate.ial with
no more than 5 percent fines, passing the No. 200 sieve.
The proofrolling, structural fill approval, placement and
compaction of structural fill processes should be monitored, tested
and approved by a qualified.Soil Engineer.
The excavations for the lower buildings may encounter- seepage
and slope wash. An existing slump may indicate some slope instabil-
ity. Temporary slopes should be provided with a gradient of 1 to 1
or latter, depending upon exposed soil and groundwater cditions.
We recommend that a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc.
examine the slopes as they are being excavated to evaluate their
stability, and periodically thereafter.
Groundwater Control
The subject site contains fine grained soils that will make
grading operations difficult during wet weather. For this reason,
it is important that groundwater be controlled wherever possible.
Seepage can be expected to be especially heavy during rainy weather.
Seepage should be.anticipated from most cuts. Surface interceptor
ditches shollld be placed along the top of all cuts. Subsurface'
.interceptor drains should be placed either along the toe or top of
cuts, whichever location appears to be more feasible. We suggest
the location of subsurface drains be made during grading operations
by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc., at which time the
seepage areas will be more clearly defined. The site should be
graded to drain at all times and all loose surfaces sealed at night
to prevent the infiltration of Lain into the soils. After a rain-
fall, equipment should remain off the soils until they have had a
chance to dry sufficiently. We will- be.available for consultation
about groundwater control, if you.so deire.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in
our investigation are believed representative of the total area;
however, soil conditions may vary in characteristics between test
pit and boring locations.
Since our investigation is.based on the site materials ob-
served, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the
ikonclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These
opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of
practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Should encount-
ered conditions or design parameters change, this firm should be
contacted to assess the significance of these changes to the,pro-
posed construction'prior to proceeding.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Campanella Murakami Brummitt, Inc.
April 17, 1979
E -817
Page nine
The following plates are included and complete p e this ;.-eport.
Plate 1 Site Plan
Plate 2 Legend
Plates 3 through 12 Test Pit Logs
Plates 13 and 14 Boring Logs
Plates 15, 16 and 17 Grain Size Analyses
We trust the information presented herein is adequatil: for
your requirments. If you need additional information or clarif-
ication, please call.
RSL /dw
Respectfully submitted,
E CONSULTANTS, NC.
Robert S. Levinson, P. E.
Chief Engineer
Earth Consultants, Inc.
AVE
f
. Tip-6 ® TP -4
•
•1,• • .
.4
M
N TP -3
NITP
Slope
t
TP-I
-2 I
-r 1�
Approx. top •
of slq)e
Fii
r
1
• Ref: CMS plan and survey worksheet
Earth + :
Consultants Inc.
OCOTCCMMICAL Cr+01MCCR+hG • OCOLOGY
Woe Order BIT
PLATE
SITE SF
Approl. Mope tot
i
II
-•1Hit) TP-9- Tp.8
•
•
INTE
�TP•IS TP
�TP -1
B-J
TP- O
PV
56 th
LEGEND
Approx, Test Pit Locatio
House *.rid Gorop• Debris
Approx . Boring Locaf 1o.
Scoic INK 60'
MAJOR DIVISIONS
'- GRAPH
SYMBOL
LETTek
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
CO.1fl
.
•••,[ •
•O,Lfjiril
[
•0. 1 1••a SO%
Co ••1(•.•. ,4
.•l(. 1...a 4
.100 14 •( 1.31
••••/l
•010
••••Cll,
fo.•
L
44044 Tr•• 10%
O► COa••( r••C•
1.00 411•,•10
o. .o• •<•l
CL(•• ••••(•I
4 • • ♦
•
• •••• f< •1
•6._6,•
I.
GVY
situ,.sa•O/O WIL1, 1...•1 L. s•a•
/•lPwtt, L/TT4.l 04 I.., 1.•(•
1•••• to •• 1.•••1
•
•..•.. ••
• • • •• ••
, .4 0'1
1 1
.
GP
roo•4.,•■■■•4• ••••(LI .•••tl•
/••• [•1T I.a( {, LITTLI •J1 •O I.a(•
•.•.(L/ •Ill ri•CJ
GM
O4. ►T 14••14.11, ••••:. - 1440.
•/(t YIn1..Ci
1.,.....•,. 0*•••1 •r
r.•.(
�N,
GC
tl••(T aa. ..,,...1•....- -
,,.•,
••
10
•40
f. •DI
fOnl
4011 1100 ►OZ
CO (0••1( I IyC•
T. I+/1..•
•O 4 1K•/
1
C L 1 •. 1140
(,•,..• 1.•••)
• .•
• • •.
• • ••
•' •
SW
.
•c r,CI
$1S *TT( 01 • •
•• .•
! • • •
:• �
•. . •
p
SP
P00•LT••a.at• N.Or_ c•••(ll•
4..••, LOU( CO - . •••({
r..r,}
t,`•��.'•f
r_
40.01 0110 /u(► •
a.r •4.40.1 •.�, Of
l.r
111 Nf
�.
SM
J
(.TI 11.01. {••D•MLI ,:.I fv(1
r
1,•••1 � %
/11ff�{ /,��
J/ �f!'
SC
C•.*TIT ws. 4,Mo -c4.:• r•T'VUt1
1••••10
f0•Lf
0,
•O•( ,r•• 40.1.
Or ••11•,•4. 11
•••1Lf■ 1.•• •O
700 1.1.1 1.11
•
I
ML
.........c TRT• ar• rr•T •••1
a•'..•• •Ott r4. 0v. .•_1T 0•
•••1• not 1•0104 111 CLAYS
Illt• •ITI ly'}.T ••• :-11I[ITT •
C •LT{
L10v.0 LJ•.( )
••• 1(•• T••• •O
cL•T4
��
CL
•••••••C CLAYS Or LC.I I •t0.v
H..•TIC,TT, ••••4•• • C••TI,
1.001 CLASS, OLTT C..•••• %l••
CLATI
OL
0ao••alt 111,1 •r: tia4••.0
IMO, 14.0.0 co l0« •1TICITY
-
.
MH
••O,•4.• ••t •1LT1, 41(11 :4, 4 00
1•• T •a•• C 10•11 1.•1 1••0 00 •
1114.7, I OI J -
1111•
1.04,10 LI•IT
Cl•o4 4.1•11• Tru PO
CL,J
X111
•••0•Y•C 0. •N•
♦L• /TICITT, /•I. :.•t1
OH
0••u,e 0/ .r,•.w To •,4n
14.• {T,O T7, O.•••t n4. Tf
r.4rL7 ,C SO./ •
.
_.l
. •
_ •
••l
PT
1
R•1, =vows. •• �, Tv�L!
',sin 11•0. •••.••C L:.•Ita ?$
TOPSOIL
- .. :.4
ti
_ _` -
Humus and Dull Layer
••••••
•••••
•••••••••••
••y 4e.
Uncontrolle with
Highly Variable Consiiiuents
•al
•OTI •4,.1 •T •11o.• •a v•to TO 1•OIC•TI 00.0U111O1 ■OIL C4.•411,•,c•TI000
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
K,0 a Tot TIP, 01 Tr,$ •(P041 IS • •44 PO4 • ••••(0 r •••••
OP Tr( ••,•••C 0/ 111 ••T14I•l 14(11•!10 w Tot •TT•CrtD 4.041
• 2"O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
Ring or Shelby Sample
P Sampler Pushed
Sample Not Recovered
Water Level (dole)
-Ts Torvone Rending
qu Penetrometer Readings
Water Observation Well
F. Proj.NO. E -817 'Dote Apr . 119 Plate 2
Earth
Consultants Inc.
LEGEND
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
1
111
II;i!
USCS
SM occasional organics. (Fill)
TEST F I T O G S
Log of Test Pif 1
$.0 I Description
Brown, gravelly silty SAND, loose, moist with
MH
ML
Brown and gray, clayey SILTwith organics, medium
stiff, moist to wet.
Blue -gray, clayey SILT with silty CLAY lenses,
medium stiff, wet.
Elev. 16
SM
Test Pit terminated at 12 feet on 12/14/78.
Log of Test-Pit 2
Brown to gray, clayey silty SAND with organics,
loose, moist to wet. •
(slope wash)-
Lob Doh)
1
!qu = .5
tsf
ILL = 60
I=L 31
1
'au = .5
tsf
49
Eler. l4
Rock
Tan, weathered siltstone, firm,
moist.
Job No. E -817
Test Pit terminated at 11 feet on 12/14/78.
Heavy seepage 4 to 7 feet east side of pit.
Moderate seepage below 5 fget on top of rock on
west side of pit. •
i
22=
14
Earth Consuttunts, Inc.
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
iI
it
USCS
IEST PIT LOGS
Log of Test Pit-3
Soil Description
Brown -Black silty TOPSOIL, wet. soft.
,11L
Gray, mottled clayey SILT, medium stiff, wet.
SM
Black -gray, silty fine SAND, loose,
saturated.
Test Pit terminated at 7 feet on 12/14/78.
Heavy seepage below 2 feet.
Log of Test Pit 4
Job No. E -817
;i.
1
ML
Brown, organic SILT with topsoil, soft,
moist.
Cu= .5
tsf
50 IL = 50
PL = 33
_
-4L
.— �1
1
11
MH
ML
Mottled gray, clayey SILT with silty CLAY with
organic pockets in upper 5 feet,'medium stiff,
moist. -
1ii
:01
ML
SM
Tan sandy SILT and silty SAND with thin clay
lens, loose, saturated.
Test Pit terminated at 11.5 feet on 12/14/78.
Moderate seepage below 3.:feet.
-'
Job No. E -817
Depth
(ft.)
0
USCS .
10
15
0
5
ML
TS_I PIT LOGS
Log of Test Pit 5
S of I Description
Brown to black -gray, clayey SILT to SILT with
some topsoil and charcoal fragments, medium
stiff, moist. (debris)
Elev. 21
Lob Doto
ML
Tan - brown, clayey sP.ndy SILT with occasional
organics grading with rock fragments, medium
dense, wet.
Tan, highly weathered rock with fragmented areas,
medium dense. moist_
Test Pit terminated at 11 feet on 12/14/78.
Moderate seepage 7 to 9 feet.
Log of Test Pit 6
;.,
Elev.
SM
Brown -tan, silty gravelly SAND, loose,
moist. (Fill) .
1••'-
10 --�
c
• .. • 1
GP
Broken rock fragments with sand, medium dense,
moist. (Fill)
•
ML
SM
Brown -gray, clayey SILT to silty SAND, grades
sandier with gravel and charcoal fragments below
9 feet, wet, medium stiff. (Fill ?)
JobNo..E -.17
Test Pit terminated at 11 feet on 12/14/78.
No seepage observed.
Lift station nearby.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Depth
(ft.)
0
10
15
0
5
10
1S
ONO
GENII
-,
".
!"I
1.
I.
USCS
TEST PT LOGS
Log of Test Pit 7
S oil Description
Elev. 21
ML
GSM
Tan - brown, silty SAND to sandy SILT with clay
and rock fragments, loose, moist.
SM
Tan, clayey silty SAND, loose to medium dense,
moist.
Tan, weathered siltstone, firm, moist. (Contact
dins fn P c r l
Test Pit terminated at 10.5 feet on 12/14/78.
Moderate to heavy seepage over rock below 8 feet.
Log of Test Pit 8
SMITan - brown, silty gravelly SAND, moist, loose.
(Fill)
SM
Blue -gray, gravelly silty SAND with rock
fragments and wire, loose, moist. (Fill)
Lab Data
Elev. ] 9
ML
Blue -gray SILT with sand to clayey SILT,
saturated, wet, grades sandier below 9 feet.
Test Pit terminated at 10.5 feet on 12/14/78.
Moderate seepage below 3 feet.
35
Job No. E -817
Earth Consultants, Inc.
i
Depth
(ft.)
0
10
15
0
5
10
15
c
• USCS
TEST P T LOGS
Log of Test Pit . 9
Elev. 'J
Soil Description Lb Data
Brown topsoil and Forest Du , oose, moist.
Mottled tan, weathered sandstone, fractured,
grading firmer with depth, moist.
ML
Log of Test .Pit 10
Elev. < - -S
Brown -tan, clayey sandy SILT with organics,
loose, moist to wet.
(possible fill)
Whitish gray, weathered sandstone, hard, moist;
- grades firmer. • .
Test Pit terminated at 5 feet on 12/14/78.
No seepage observed.
Job No. E -817
Earth Consultor r j Inc.
i
Depth
(ft.) USCS
10
15
SST _ LOGS
Log of Test Pit
Soil Description
Elev. 2C,
w .ob Data
Brown -tan SILT to claye
saturated, grades sandiie SILT, medium stiff,
r
with depth.
Red -tan, silty SAND with rock
W '•' ragments, me��um
• •a *_h r d Rock
Test Pit terminated at
Heavy seepage 8 to 10 feetfeet on 12/14/78.
Caving of sides - 7 to 11 feetght seepage 3 to 8 ft
Log
f Test Pit 12
Mottled tan, s)ightl
SAND, roots to y silty to silty, gravelly
gradin 2.5 feet, moist to wet, loose
g to dense.
Test Pit terminated at
Light seepage 4 to 11 feet on 12/15/78.
Moderate seepate 9
5 f 11
11 feet.
ob No. E -817
Eorfh Consultants Inc.
Depth
(ft.)
0
10
15
10
15,
uses
IST PIT LOG$
Log of Test Pit- 13
S
oil Description
Elev. 64
Tan -gray, silty gravelly SAND and silty sandy
GRAVEL, loose grading to dense, moist.
Test Pit terminated at 10.5 feet on 12/15/78.
SM
SP
SM
SP
Job trio E-817
Log of Test . Pit 14
Brown Topsoil and roots, loose, moist.
Tan, slightly silty gravelly SAND, loose grading
to medium dense, moist. '
'. Lob Dote
Elev, f�6
Tan, silty gravelly SAND, dense to very dense,
moist. (Till -like)
Blue -gray, mixture of rock fragments, clean SAND and
weathered sandstone, medium dense to dense.
Test Pit terminated at 11.5 feet on 12/15/78.
No seepage observed.
Earth. Consultants, Inc.
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
10
15
0
10
15:
USCS
TEST PIT LOGS
Log of Test Pit 15
S
oil Description
Elev.
w Lob
Log of Test Pit 16
Elev.
-in
^......
_ ••
'
Brown Topsoil with roots, loose, moist.
22
i
6
s}i;
:11';,
-
-11t,
71;11t1
with roots, loose, moist..
Tan, silty gravelly SAND with rock fragments and
-.
-rii
1,�
4
��
SM
SM
gravel to silty sandy gravel, loose to dense,
.'.
Test Pit terminated at 10.5 feet on 12/15/78.
No seepage observed.
moist.
18:
(becomes cemented and Till -like below 5 feet)
-11.
"l
i-19 11;.
Test Pit terminated at 11 feet on 12/15/78.
No seepage observed.
Log of Test Pit 16
Elev.
-in
^......
Topsoil
22
i
6
s}i;
:11';,
ii
lnI
L
i::.
ML
SM
with roots, loose, moist..
Tan, sandy SILT with clay and silty SAND lenses,
medium dense to dense, moist, cemented.
-.
-rii
1,�
4
��
SM
Tan, cemented, silty gravelly SAND with rock
fragments and a pea gravel lens at 7 feet, Till-
like, dense, moist.
Test Pit terminated at 10.5 feet on 12/15/78.
No seepage observed.
Job No E -817
Earth Consul!znts, Inc.
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
10
15
USCS
s.11
SM
TEST PIT LOGS
Log of Test Pi t .19
SoiI Description
+ -\ Brown Topsoil, loose_, moist.
Elev. :49
'Tan to gray, silty gravelly SAND, medium dense to
dense, moist, grades cemented. (Weathered Till)
Blue-gray, gravelly silty SAND with clay,
very dense, moist. (Till)
Test Pit terminated at 8 feet on 12/15/78.
Light seepage at 4 feet.
Moderate seepage pocket at '6 feet.
w Lob Data
10
Log of Test Pit. 20 •
Elev. 60
Brown Topsoil, loose, moist.
SM
Tan, silty gravelly SAND with clean sand lenses,
loose grading to cemented and dense, moist.
•
SM
Blue-gray, gravelly silty SAND (Till), very
dense, moist.
15
Test Pit terminated at 10 feet on 12/15/78.
Light seepage 4 to 5 feet.
Moderate seepage 6 to 8 feet occasionally.
Job p. E-.817
Earth Consult° 0,1, Inc.
BORING NO. 8 -1
ELEVATION 15
N
Blows/ LW
W
Ft X)
Gray - brown, silty CLAY to clayey SILT
becoming gray, wet, medium stiff to
stiff, with thin layers of silty fine
SAND.
8 `:3
9 : 3
9 Ho' LL =46
PI = 31
qu = 1.0
tsf
17 41 qu = .75
ydg
Black, silty to slightly silty SAND,
wet, medium dense grading dense and
very dense.
48 j I
Boring terminated at 24 feet on 2/26/79.
1. Driving Energy: 1401b. Weight Dropping 30 inches
W. 0. No. E -817
50 /5" 19
Earth CO 0. sultants
BORING NO. B•
Driving Energy: •2
ELEVATI.-N 15
Dr
Blc:ws/ Wn Density
F^ (%) (pcf) •
Brown, silty gravelly SAND to sandy
SILT, wet, loose with areas of broken
rocks and clayey SILT, wet, medium
stiff.
it
20
83
441 71
41
40 23
Boring terminated at 19 feet on 2%27079.
No distinct groundwater level noted at time of drillin,.
140 lb. Weight Dropping 30
1d. 0. No. E -817
inches
• 77
Ezt z th .Consultas
-
ISA1VNV 3ZIS NMI
0
CO
tttt OF O►t%INO IN INCNtt
Ioo' tr■t■ —■s ■■
111101111W11111111111_ -2
■■■■.t■■� C
al :::_ a
MI W•110111111. e.
WM Ellp111111 mug 1111111011
.rr
SIEVE ANALYSIS
- -1 NW /t0 or NISN ►t0 INCN, U.�. �T�NDAIID
PO
rn
rn
.O
z
-1
m
x
rn
CO t0
rnn SO
0
HYDROMETER A?4ALYSIS
Oa *I• kit 111 W
8 ' 8, 8 8, 8 8 8
R >? �E o 0 0 0
r■� �■■•
3111111111111111 •
■.�1..■■. HI
NOW
�.....t�.... ■ ■■I
=:S'��..�.�■ "_1111:
i 1111. ■■.
rn
: 11111111111011 PO
li ~ :1111:ii
CCNE■. ...■ ■. rn
�I OWIEW.■ INM=1112222 - >Io
■_■. IMAM ■_
.0
lr I ill
1 1
:1 ! 1IiII
III II 11111
1,
DCI.��
.■. . ...
mwaisrrommil
1111-11
1%ii■I
a.■uu■
so Nhlil
Milli
,0
Iligi
-----nran- ■ ■■ �■� ■. .■■■.
0 It>•1�� ■�� .1■1 M�/tus u tt.�UIt■ ■. ...■ ■t!
11111 I
it 88 8 8 R A o.. . 1• �a E 0 0 0 8 8 8, 8
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS •
FINES
10
70
LEG 1D IeOR!kG TE
uscs
OESCR;PT!O
r 8 113$8Y.
LL PL.
TP -1 3.5 MH
TP -3 6.5 SM
TP -4 4.5 ML /MH
clayey SILT with organics
silty SAND
clayey SILT with some sand
82 60
33
. 50 50
31
.33
ISA 1VNV 3ZI NI •
100
-loo
0
{
? 7 } Q F p •T•T- ? •;
0
C 1
po
Po r
3
A
w
10
SIEVE AMALYSJS
.
MYDR064ETER A14ALYSIS
111( OP OP(dINO IN INCNII
• • h
•
14%/1•114 I 0. 1•11■ •111 1•CN,V.1. 1141/04110
•
O
R 8 8 R
COBBLES
COARIC
GRAVEL
1114
• • •
8
q
O O
044114 I I( IN W
.��� rr.a1.u.�.1`...r INNIEWMINIIVIRIO Wm!
rrr= ��r� r�rr rri....w.r .r moilii vim.
o Cr� =:iC:�
=m21 on _ , a..
E
C C'�non=
. ■'"C
P iw.rlr■r _1111111111
_
rrrIU0aW l■■r.
el ra iiw.IIIII: rr■r�r r
.r.> . r �s..�.1•1r1r.r �
C: Ca g::g_:
i Ii-_____ i i.�ir °AM 1i 16 11 I�
ii III i -n
H C �. C 1C:� g:.1�:C.'� .r.>. ■■ ....... rrrr
��� .r.rr.. r►� ■.:.1.rrrr�
1�rr == r�rr� ii.miresso ieiiiliiar..�r+
rl�r ow imp II iomiwNI==NiZ his !sim �II :•ism
r.. ...a r■rl..�.rr�r■■�r
w — ■ • • w N
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
C0A•St
Set 4/
3
AMO
• a s o 0 0
•IN[
• 8 8 8 8
FINES
LEGEND
`x
BORING I. DKr"
TP -13 8.5
TP -16 3.0
TP -18 7.0
USCS4
GM
ML
SM
DESCRIPTION
SILT r /;t.h Some S1)n4
silty sandy GRAVEL
sandy SILT with some clay
silty SAND with gravel and clay
10
0
D
N
m
m.
2
-t
}IAT.W.C.%J LL I Pl
11
22
11
ISA1VNV, 321S NItiel .
NJI3M A8 a3NI3 1N338 •
11111 0► or I MIM• 1M IMC MI I
• • • PO
SIEVE ANALYSJS
aS3 S
•
•
MUNSIM p► rts' ►I• INCHJ V. II, It*MOaotO
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I
0••■• P111 1M
08
10
88 8
R
• • 111 • • A h
■NrSIMMINI 111111.•sr.r>i
isss- J1C!E■ =E
IINE 0111111111 �:: E �IIE s-: M
on II:OM
locommilimmOwiliolonlisimmos
inimippris : =
MOM Ihhi.isa ---m::::--
-__l - -. -r_.
idiom
iiE._....iniss_
11111__11111111
!Hum=
ErslE Eaiu
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
8
1•.
b
COBBLES I
co•llst 1 ►IM1
GRAVEL
3co•AIt I
wt OI U04
SAND
PI 041
1
FINES
J
I�. e�IT�:kTI
0
V1
m
o
m
-,
LEGENDDBORING
B -2
DEPTH luscs
2.5
ML
DESCRIPTION
SILT with sand and clay
AT. W.C. %
83
LL
PL