The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA EPIC-279-85 - SOUTHGATE ASSOCIATES - 51ST AVENUE / SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARDSOUTHGATE ASSOCIATES 51ST AVE. & SOUTHCENTER BLVD. EPIC 279 -85 King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director August 12, 1985 Mr. Bradley J. Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 ist:A10—W/U AUG 1 4 117.185 CiTY OF TUKW)LA PLANNING DEPT. RE: Mitigated etermination of Non - Significance (DNS), Southgate Associates Dear . o 1n : Department staff have reviewed the environmental checklist for the referenced DNS and have the following comments to make. 1) Clearing and grading activities should be timed so as to not occur during seasons of heavy rain (if possible) to avoid erosion and sedimentation impacts to the nearby stream. 2) Cursory examination indicates that the on -site detention facility may be undersized for the amount of impervious area and projected rainfall on site. Consideration should be given to designing additional detention capacity. Detention facility design should include provision for regular maintenance. The ponding areas mentioned in the Environmental Checklist (page 8) do not appear on the drainage plan. While these features may provide the needed detention capability, it was not possible to determine if this was so from the information provided. 3) The failure of the drainage plan to incorporate any oil /grease separators is a serious shortcoming. It is not appropriate to rely on the adjacent property owner's facilities to deal with problems generated on -site. All surface water leaving the site should pass through at least one on -site oil /grease separator. The easiest way to achieve this would probably be to install a large capacity separator at the Catch Basin #2 location. No traffic or land use issues were identified during the review process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Si r - rely, OL Y MILLER Director HM:DM:al DM012 cc: Steve Miller, Deputy Director, Planning and Community Development ATTN: Meredith Getches, SEPA Coordinator Harold Robertson, Manager, Planning Division ATTN: Bill Jolly, Chief, Resource Planning Section David Masters, Resource Planner 811 Alaska Building 618 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344-7503 • • King County Executive Randy Revelle Department of Planning and Community Development Holly Miller, Director August 6, 1985 Mr. Bradley J. Collins Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Mitigated DNS for Four Story Office Building Proposed by Kidder, Mathews and Steiner File o. EPIC 279 -85 AUG 7 1985 CITY OF TU;WILA PLANMNG Dear M ollins. The Department of Planning and Community Development intends to comment on the above referenced matter. However, the packet of materials sent to us was incom- plete (i.e, page 7 of DNS was missing and the copy of the drainage plan was illegible). On Thursday, July 29, 1985, a member of our staff contacted Rick Beeler who indicated these items would be provided as soon as possible. Because these materials haven't arrived yet, it is clear we cannot complete our review and submit comments by your August 7, 1985 deadline. This correspondence is a formal request for an extension of the deadline. It will only take a few days to prepare and submit comments once the necessary information has reached us. Sincerely, ve Miller Deputy Director SM:MG:me cc: Holly Miller, Director, Department of Planning and Community Development Meredith Getches, SEPA Coordinator Harold Robertson, Manager, Planning Division Dave Masters, Planner 811 Alaska Building 618 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104 (206) 344 -7503 TO david kehle,aitect 1932 first ave. s 302 seattle, washington 98101 [206] 624 -9495 Are-d-gA) • -i1,1 ,E . / »/ . 97) 'f WE ARE SENDING YOU ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via LE F • 0IF UMMSRIO1T1ad DATE y/_3 / ATTENTION JOB NO. ?441S ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples the following items: ❑ Specifications ❑ Copy of letter ❑ Change order ❑ THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ For review and comment ❑ ❑ FOR BIDS DUE 19 ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO PRODUCT 240-7 News/ Int, &ROA Mast 01471. SI If enclosures are not as noted. kindly notify us at once. AFF11110AVI''T 0. D 1 S'T R ill U T 10 N • 14ee:L.,- • ' hereby declare that ILI Not,i:aeO.Publi.C.Hearing • . -Ncticefof Application forShorellne Management n Notice of Public Meeting • Substan“al Development Permit 4O Pr`V& mailed to each of the following addresses on ITAL.. -was 1 Declaration of Significance.and Scoping Notice. 1985. 1 V0186 VM call4eaS 6upLog uopej;s0popy Aluno0.64N 006 'Alj sbune.041 Aunoo 64N HJ 170186 VM 'alas 6upLog -4wpy Aun00 614N "Et -ojuI Vd3S - matnall lelmawuo.1pu3 puel outpumg ii4uno0 64N 170986 VM ILeN UOL4DaS mapaN inuawOufAu3 6oLoo3 to *1.dac auqs uo46L4Lisem -• • - • • • - . • • • , • • ■ Name of Project 64203f2.67 File Number caot,e_. -a5 • 80186 VM 'a1.44paS ue61.434'J 'S OSS ,Jau6as / smataew 'aappqN smainew awoJap 10186 VM 20£ ald.ns -any 4s..4d ZE6I aigaN pppa . Washington State Dept. of Ecology: 6 bnnyironcmentallReiew Section P Y. Olympia, WA 98504 King County Building & Land Devt. Environmental Review - SEPA Info. 11 431 King County Admin. Building Seattle, WA 98104 King County Hydraulics Civ. 900 King County Administration Building Seattle, WA 98104 T David Kehle 1932 First Ave. $ Suite 302 Seattle, WA 98101 Jerome Mathews Kidder, Mathews & Segner 40 550 S. Michigan Seattle, WA 98108 WAC 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal construction of a 4 story office building Proponent Kidder, Mathews & Steiner, Inc. Location of Proposal, including street address, if any southeast corner of the intersection of Southcenter Boulevard and 51st Ave. S. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC - 279-85 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 LJ This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by August 7, 1985 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days.from the date below. This determination is subject to compliance with the recommendations of the soil engineer report. Responsible Official Brad Collins Position /Title Planning Director Phone 433 -1845 Address 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Date i- 2 -'1 Signature You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Tfall, 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the above date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for specific factual objections. You may be required to bear some of the expenses for an appeal. Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City Clerk and Planning Department. FM.DNS CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUT LNG FORM TO: BLDG PLNG P.W. ( FIRE PROJECT if)U,/i(I(J, e, o '`lei },b CN EPIC FILE 55-157 770 -y5 POLICE 1 I P & R LOCATION /-)6.7 r,o d-3(-)Uti - fi(1Ii, 4'' • DATE TRANSMITTED &-.2-6) RESPONSE STAFF COORDINATOR 0J FILE NO. ek2-J; -v5 REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT DATE 2 c5/5- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • CN EPIC FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: n BLDG • n PLNG P.W. FIRE n POLICE n P & R PROJECT ?nU '2/7(l/li?i 0 56(A J LOCATION Jl -#- at7 13,0;(.1. FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 0-2D -g5- RESPONSE REQUESTED BY STAFF COORDINATOR 45,taLA 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. p(04?-I 1- %5 In - .27 -7 ITEM COMMENT SITTE (-I m (- /ye 4,trs lrtI 1 u NT`1 -gb .. °G TD, /, TIN Iam IBS 17 ) 1I € S . i 0 Mg - Y Ti) C3 - la 33) 6ti / 1v 3 1. nu c / q-sg o u n r on AaN Ty oftAP1) P L o no , ia3 514-M.1 2kR)uIAE7)1t C 11-� /1P 1 PILI6�,r' (V Glt y rS C'vN+P � t sczki P24'17 1l9/JLN S 1 LI A j1 Ste- tYP f-I ')/Th 12, 7i t i 16 57&1 Th [Lt 3 - )\13T 1 ND 1)) DATE (b(" �,'vT� COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM CN EPIC FILE TO: n BLDG PLNG P.W. 1 FIRE 4OLICE n P & R PROJECT Jnl;ln790:6 0 C.i. t-' 5 LOCATION 511t-- i'U71, 5 L j' (j.17 '7, /- 4, diiii�� FILE NO. DATE TRANSMITTED 0-1015 '5 STAFF COORDINATOR 4 V,!J THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED. ITEM COMMENT TT' Tur cnTTS REPORT SATISFIES HR CITY ENGINEERS THAN MY CONCERNS AS EXPRESSED TN REPORT DATED 6 -)4 -85 HAVE BEEN RESPONDED TO. . (r P V PJL 627 -85 DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUN 26 1985 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. TO: 1 (BLDG j PLNG P.W. - ] FIRE PROJECT i1 n/lo(l): ?i ow io �C-f' • • • J LOCATION //11:7. i ?d. !,(iH/I (I.i /, ./. /3 U») • CN EPIC '5-157 FILE jam? POLICE P &R DATE TRANSMITTED & -%J 15 STAFF COORDINATOR 43Q acj THE'ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. FILE NO. il} 7 -J5 RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED ITEM COMMENT DATE `_ 2 6 -1r- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM • TO: BLDG PLNG P.W. - PROJE CT i111,1,-'902i O ,Y? A' LOCATION 1/11:- 1(L 5%1l .4-fri ,11,!--(A) FIRE • CN EPIC FILE POLICE R 7), DATE TRANSMITTED &-20 � '5 STAFF COORDINATOR L1 OUJ THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED ITEM COMMENT LANyq- DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM !wj5-j5 7 n - EPIC ,3 7 - ?� FILE a1Z'/ /`25- ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: [D BLDG PLNG Q P.W. fl FIRE n POLICE PROJECT 6h[.t19a.M 0,-512D( /_ 5/J-6" 411 .kus/4/ait-e,u .6Gwd LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR P & R FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY k- -%7-�S 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 PX-)5 DATE C l r '" U COMMENTS PREPARED BY • ,Z€40" C.P.S. Form 11 CITI`• O TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: ( ( BLDG [ J PLNG 0 P.W. 0 FIRE L POLICE P & R LOCATION 51 -0z - f'I,(t .e/✓ i i-"d . DATE TRANSMITTED f -lQ ' �� RESPONSE REQUESTED BY - STAFF COORDINATOR 6W/(N 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. gfr 5--15 7 EPIC L- 111/11) -c FILE 4!L'#15- PROJECT FILE NO. J7'-//-35 - RESPONSE RECEIVED ITEM COMMENT ELEMENTS 1B and 3A1..'.NORTHSIDE GRADE SLOPE 68% AND FLOWING CREEK QITFSTT(ThI of HILL STABILITY. ELEMENT 4C COUPLED IN WITH ELEMENT 15 PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT 10C AND 11D ASETHETICS AND LIGHT.. AND GLARE MAY POSE TRAFFIC HAZARD_. ELEMENTS 14 C & F...TRAFFIC DENSITY AND PARKING CAPABILITY /LOCATION ELEMENT 15 A & B PATROL. PARAMETERS & BASIC SECURITY CONCERNS • • A MORE DETAILED NARRATIVE OF THESE CONCERNS MAY BE FOUND ON ATTACHED CPS- ROUTING FORM. 6/14/85 pjl DATE COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form -;1T , ■OF TUKWILA FLKM11 NUMbtK 414/ LON KUL NUM5ER }r) / CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM - ROUT• FORM TO: 0 BLDG. ❑ PLNG. LI P.W. FIRE 0 POLICE Q P. & R. PROJECT t 6/ L%' ' -G Q l ADDRESS 57..i" ' fOU iM c �U 'd DATE TRANSMITTED b---/0-35-' -'/a - 25' RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 4-47-85- C.P.S. STAFF COORDINATOR a. • 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 ELEMENTS 1B AND 3A1...RAISE SOME PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERNS: EITHER ELEMENT BY ITSELF. WOULD N9T POSE A HIGH PRIORITY PROBLEM GIVEN THE PAST HISTORY OF STABILITY AT THIS D= :� r, 1-I �- . 1 . - - '1 - 1` P ❑ OF NATURAL PRESSURE POINTS TO THAT OF PROJECTED BUILDING ON SITE ARE A MATTER OF CONCERN. ❑ ELEMENTS 10C and 11D...ASI:THETICS /LIGHT AND GLARE....THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BUILDING. UTILIZING GLASS AND PANELS MAYBE ASETHETICALLY PLEASING•BUr COULD POSE SOME PUBLIC 0 SAFETY CONCERNS. NORTHBOUND TuArrIC ON 51 AVE SOUTH IS UNUSUALLY IIIGH BECAUSE dP THE ❑ WEST BOUND ENTRANCE -TO SR 518 LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THIS PROPOSED BUILDING ❑ SITE. THE MAJOR CONCERN IS THE REFLECTED HEADLIGHT IMAGE AND /OR GLARE CAUSING NORTHBOUND MOTORISTS ON 51 AVE. SOUTH TO RESPOND AS TO A PANIC SITUATION. O FT RI TENTS 1 C. C K F Tc1TTH THE 1 CTTPANCY nF TOTS RTTTT]- TNC THE C )MPT.RTT(1N AND ncruPANcY ❑ OF THE SOLLY BUILDING COUPLED WITH THE EXISITING TRAFFIC EXITING SOUTHBOUND I5 MAY NECESSITATE A TRAFFIC STUDY TO DETERMINE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNALIZATION AND VI 1` - 1_ - - - - - -1- V 1 ❑ SOUTHBOUND EXIT OF I5. PARKING ACCOMMODATIONS AS PROPOSED IN 14 C WILL BE DISCUSSED. ALONG WITH OTHER CONCERNS IN ELEMENT 15...PUBLIC SERVICES. ELEMENT 15...PUBLIC SAFETY..'.IF NO OTHER IMPACT THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL NECESSITATE D T >IO�i OF TIII; .3IU7 ❑ UNDERGROUND PARKING. ANY INGKEASE IN POPULATIOPI WHETHER RESIDENTIAL OF BUSINESS IMMEDIATELS Q IMPACTS THE CALLS FOR SERVICE IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. THIS BUILDING, BECAUSE OF ITS ISOLATED LOCATION,:OFF A CUL -DE -SAC, OFF 53 AVE. SOUTH WILL BE A PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE O TARGET_ IT IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT LANDSCAPINC, LICIfTINC, HilDERCROUND PARKP C AND l:ENERAL O OFFICE SECURITY BE DISCUSSED WITH THE CRIME PREVENTION PRACTIONEER. 1, ei3%ARLY ❑ ❑ 6 -14 -85 pjl D.R.C. REVIEW REQUESTED Q PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUESTED [I PLAN APPROVED fl PLAN CHECK DATE - COMMENTS PREPARED BY C_P_S_ FfRM 2 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM • IPc -J57 EPIC e ifyipas FILE -// -25 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: (j BLDG n PLNG P.W. n FIRE in POLICE n] P & R PROJECT LOCATION 5/ .ku u ) ewe/ DATE TRANSMITTED j -l0 15- FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY 01//'3:5- /a- J7 "F.5- STAFF COORDINATOR el')y . 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 C- Vm9LT -l- c / N-'1 D2.I) 1-0 &t can_ 5m1D R-1) LL \S YA c. T i t ■.O`4 1 b 1.31 uri -1 + W.. C_AwP sawt / wt/ATek_ - U L_L D 1) Ll_()0VYI Og • \--U ZrJ - Pr14)U • V lI I -f- C T ikt 1_ NT-S FL A_ vi-DA- ICIg"S. 5I17iu,s I6",RE1J(�IA� 1 h }Sh. • Q-- k)Y1r) w `-/c • c tit OtA14 -f �- cvs.1 LE s■ U A-tXk 01;.ItNTia MO kr4S u , DATE L.,/ /,Q /as' COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM n EPIC a''n J- ' FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: (l BLDG fl PLNG P.W. [ IFIRE (l POLICE 171rP & R PROJECT LOCATION 61 t047 9(.1. e5 ay-}eon./.e/ 5/5 ,k - l'e't? d eA) vc/ DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR �// FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED /247-85 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 i'� golt‘ .4111 - Pt 7 49 7 Are' 40 do / r 1 1 / .� % DATE 1�,3---- COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM CN EPIC �� FILE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: [✓j BLDG El PLNG Q P.W. Q FIRE n POLICE (l P & R PROJECT LOCATION 5& l v , FILE NO. a(i /i //'3,- 3ii(,1 Mq( r a rim DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED THE ATTACHED ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WAS RECEIVED REGARDING THIS PROJECT. PLEASE REVIEW AND COMMENT BELOW TO ADVISE THE RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL REGARDING THE THRESHOLD DETERMINATION. THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FILE IS AVAILABLE IN THE PLANNING DEPART- MENT THROUGH THE ABOVE STAFF COORDINATOR. COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROJECT YOU WISH CARRIED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE MADE ON THE ATTACHED CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ROUTING FORM. ITEM COMMENT Ste, Peru- ogRogl Pate Pe6 N DATE CO /I( COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 CITY OF TUKkIL JUN 111985 CENTRAL PERMIgTy SYSTEM TUKWILA FIRE PREVENTIO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM III CN - nn �� EPIC �7Q- FILE �5 L% �z- J /`,�5 TO: n BLDG F] PLNG P.W. FIRE 5/ ,ku)1 u , !eti yOlvei . PROJECT LOCATION DATE TRANSMITTED STAFF COORDINATOR jy- /D 15 6,fiztt El POLICE n P & R FILE NO. RESPONSE REQUESTED BY RESPONSE RECEIVED Io- J 7- gS 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 DATE COMMENT itk 6011)/ ko, e441. / Co k G.ev/) S _ Qui - l � P( ;:--e--Th -q f . on') r 0. i rlq �) , EN lid ( -Fa be_ -i l (� ,S P �� h/c 1-e v-el Z) u,/14u C/ e_ • / s '0 3) 3S � tor,;/#1 ra,d1uS 4f 4efff. aPestrdQ1174 COMMENTS PREPARED BY C.P.S. Form 11 III david kehle, architect 1932 first ave., suite 302 seattle, washington 98101 [206] 624 -9495 June 12, 1985 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attn: Mr. Rick Beeler Mff@EIHM JUN 1 3 1985 CITY OF f6titml 6 aARINIWG DEPT. Re: Southgate Assoc. Project Dear Rick, Please consider this as an addenda to the Environmental Checklist, specifically concerning Earth, Pg. 4. Enclosed is a copy of the soils report previously prepared dated Oct. 29, 1980. By enlarge, the design parameters haven't changed much and building location is generally the same. With reference to recommendations found on Pages 4 -9, we intend to follow them. Essentially, the foundations are to extend through any existing fills and bear on firm native soil or compacted structural fill, and we will utilize conventional footings. Site prep and floor slab recommendations will be followed by removing fill or re- compacting. In general, the site will be in cut, Sub - surface drainage behind retaining walls will be utilized and tied separately to the on site drainage system. Should you have any questions, please call. David Kehle DK /mc cc: Jerry Mathews Steve Gwinn ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND . 1.• Name of proposed project, if applicable: _ 2. Name of applicant `6;051.4E Hkoktp,i, k 2 t 5W &, btu •. 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 4. Date checklist prepared: I 5. .Agency requesting Checklist: 6. Propos-• timing or• hedule (including •hasin., if applica .0-401111 • Control No. 57 Epic File No. Fee $100.00 Receipt No. 111-iCr1 City of Tukwila 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. 1•Io 8. List any environmental. information you know about that has been prepared, or will. be ■repared, dire tly related.to this •roposal 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. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal; including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions' later. in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects.of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your. proposal and should not 'be s mmari zed here. 1.1 Ail •,'r �r A 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 requiredrto duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted'with any permit applica- ions elated to this checklist. 5%410.. Iris/ • \"/"Ail 50 1 "i.;° At III: i 1!:� :►• -;9772111-111rellia A.P.^ If 11 /OAP' 1 r r, 1.11rja. , / 17irf. % , . • A* .al %,.0 .r ! twitescAliccr 13. Goes the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT a. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General d- ion of. the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hill steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the ite approximate . percent slope)? 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, s.ecify them and note any prim farmland. .a jU.. Row _ A 1.°1 . 'T' d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable • soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source oA fill. mg, i r , c (1. ; A {, , A. T Evaluation for Agency Use Only f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,, co struction, or use? If so, generally describe, 1 11.161 br*n C CU '. t e-u iN 9. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for e ample, asphal or buildings)? ' 44 4s marimmal,. • h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or • impac • to the earth, if any:- • P2 r -s &Mk, diUtiolillaWMOiirViiiITWEAMPlaInnie0Mart Immunirrorgamli,:wp 2. Air • a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the .proposal (i.e., dust,. automobile odors, • industrial wood smoke) during. construction and when •.the 'project is completed? If ' any, . generally d-scribe an, give approximat- quantiti-s- if known. P PegirMqrdere.,/,-1/"Mirg.:6777- • Evaluation for •Agency Use Only 1:1 07= rJil AN I I b. Are there any.off-site sources of emissions or odor . . that may affect your proposal? If so, generally .describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or er impa,4 s to air, if a y: 011P- 49-11 TTO OEM tail( MOIL4MWA1Wriaan 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 str am or riv-r it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, •lease describe and .ttach 'available pla 9 All . rirZit.! .i orirar 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 . I 4) .Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, ' and appro imate quan- tities, 'f known. '12 r r�_!'.• CIA 9 Evaluation for Agency.Use Only 5) Does .the. proposal lie within a 100 -year. floodplain? If so, note location on the site • plan. 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. Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, IV ' and approximate quan- tities, if known. 0 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. TI¢re he 4- % e e p1. i C. S 44-e vin . 7 i jo ova ld tad 1 54-..e• -1-i., S %V+4 r.,., k, i (/ b Q e l - ) p e a l 4 b- Ys +c.1•, 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. -1-1,1Q _26-4) lei.. g a e.a , cv i 11 loe rolled ti, 4." q re4 aAn �.c caul ySE,. f' igrge q ,,. ,� } 4-e 41-, i b k ±± 41_1,0 _0 _ 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface: waters'? .If so, generally describe. • d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, gr no, and r noff water impa ts, if any: . Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on site: ✓ deciduous tree: ,i evergreen tree: ,,► shrubs v 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 re Dyed or altered? ' 114 2 " ,t �► 65 ♦ '. Cer2 the Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to pres-rve .r enhance veg- .tion on the site, if any: :. Evaluation fir Agency Use Only. 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: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish:. bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:e List any threatened or endangered species known to be on r near the site WatitZGre- c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Evaluation for. .Agency Use. Only Energy and Natural Resources a What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, mood stove, solar) will be used to. meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether . i will be sed for heating, manufacturing,. etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this. proposal? List other proposed measures to ,reduce, or energy fi pads, 'f any: 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. 14O 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ -. mental health hazards, if any: . Noise .1) What types of noise exist in the area which may. 'affect your. project. (for example.: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Evaluation .for Agency Use Only. 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: tr.af- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate • w at hours noise would corre.from the site. 3) Proposed measures to .reduce or control noise 8. Land and. Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and. adjacent properties? or-J•71111 . �i. M. :�- 3A`! " �- _-1. ii.- O. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. , c. Describe any structure • the site. Evaluation for Agency Use Only . d. Will any structures b demolished? If so, what ?: ralsaLA0 e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? g. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? L. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. 1.. Approximately how many people ,. would- reside or work in the completed project? Sifall- j. Approximately how may people. would the .completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to void or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 1., Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: IM dalella :s1'�i1 ►.,� 'i�ei��iiliii 11.1 9. Housing • a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle,: or low- income housing? El b. Approximately . how many units, if any, •would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. 11 /k 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 princi•al exterior building materials) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be al -red or obstr cted? c. Proposed measures •to _educe or control aesthetic impact , if any: -_, • • e,.._ .. • •, ems, ►11.1/4 aa. .221.5.. `J1%�_% :rr��imill : %. s ■.1 7� ;rte 11ir ". �.. Ir _. " ,A "t Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time sf day would it mainly. occur?' _PATANC !raar: s . b.. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfer with views? c: What existing off -site sources of light or glare may , affect your proposal? ✓b_ Evaluation for Agency Us.e Only Proposed measures to reduce or control light and lare impacts, if any: _4111 -iU ' / 1 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are ink the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational If so, describe.. 7 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control .impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 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. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss. to the existing treet system. Show on site plans, if any. i/1 h a 1. '111- .:.� v► '11 ■re iir417.1r7;17.4allrF:WalliASMT5, or IF . .. 18PAG.r_ ?. 1. 41 ►� v Evaluation .for Agency Use Only b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit �stop? • c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How man would the project eliminate? !.a.. tJ :ar•1 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). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate 'vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. 14C7— f. How many vehicular trips per' day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Evaluation for Agency Use Only. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, f any: 0. l ! sr ..0/ WOe . 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire . protection, p.olice protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impa is on •ublic services, if any. WA. 16. Utilities a. Cir ilitie -. 1 b - . 4r- �- i+�' urr �•._!% te• refuse service to one,losani ary sewer septic system, 0 er. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the.service, and.the general construction activities on the site or the immediate vicinity which. might be .needed. Li- lL.rITar- • C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency relying on them t .r- iciv'o . ,- ell Signature: Date Submitted: . � CliP�. is Evaluation for Agency Use Only . TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT• Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTML SHEET'FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS: (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because. these questions are very general, it may be helpful. to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the.proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity • or at a faster rate than if. the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. • 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge. to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or. release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, .ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: Evaluation for Agency Use Unly 3.. How would the proposal be likely . to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4.. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection;. such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid.or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6.. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities ?. Proposed measures to. reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal. may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Evaluation for Agency Use Only . Does the proposal conflict with policiesof the Tukwila Comarehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what •poli- ties of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: INBM JUN 7198 I] CiTY-OF TUKWILA PLANNING DEPT. ;1 SITE PLAN *OUTUCENTER - (KENTON TH ICES 6LYv. TREE david kehle architect 1932 144 49 ton. 302 SITE PLAN a e.4r a••JMJ'Ja/ 5 /3T AVE t(t mf iewsrina ,r,af Qq1� .f.:11^•••••• KC.�. e �1I— • = r' r•r r'ma mar rI Prf3 a.i' t4rg a M. k� -- — .g1�vCer1•/.N7 I • • noes z k • r v • l ALSO • I r i 40 1 .ca • 7r/• d i air. • MIN Jl. • ••••• •!. Lc •xlrira. Call •C h! sr /!Z fr/! t CR•Meal % Cs•114.8. Le. •,0140 • u•11!• t Vie cavTT&J QrArrin .W (av ArAtemA7 avow .y /7 &WED S-10-03 !J.ca•/ f 1V S 1 &R. Jam ac•x.m if . •••Cr••a•••. -a •W Ie_ TppnT.. it •n _./••Qwa•.r. POOL vac g4c nom* : 6 h L a ooa�/1/ 111110 .4km111119111111111►1►U1►1rilo fo-. 111111 ►111 /li1111111►11q�iugty► r4u ►A aig qJ' 1?op1:69: X11 A QQ J L:'1 -fir t� • ,rte O? Je00000000a0000a000u000 po•1%{�r_ gt ,50 foal , 60, t(Bvt 6wtC ^'L. a ;f LA.144catfe• plan. f 'GVTHbfTG AFf- AZIATV0 u an 1./W07 u1® cumin 9t.. ammo re 9,11. • w■n r ••11• • ■A IMAM= •101•170•11 GI 11 Z i WtTN it li J .. 4rOUTN A AT E A5►4•".• davld kehle erchlteot 1032 flat eve. suite . 302 eeettle, weehington 98101 (200) 824.8495 ^ °`"°- '77,/r ^ "• .,...,.,,,,,, •" N SOLlTNAATI: - A9S06. davidkehie architect 4132 first ays, wits 302 asst t N, washlnpton 9e101 12061 624.949 AMII ;," v wwe «� by • - , CITY OF TUKWILA 1/A4014, �' Central Permit System • I OE STER LAND DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FORM EASE WRITE LEGIBLY OR TYPE ALL REQUESTED INFORMATION- -.INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT .BE CEPTED FOR PROCESSING. ECTION 1: GENERAL DATA YPE OF APPL 1 CAT 1 ON : Ej BS I P !.) SHORT PLAT SUED 1 V 1 S 1 ON °SHPOERRM'ITNE G PRD D PMUD XI ANCE MG. OF COMP. PLAN VAR1. 0 C ZONING DAMENDMENT CONDITIONAL QUNCLASS. • USE US RBAN ► / TELEPHONE (400(0,014'4144 1 ,te.. , APPLICANT :�QNAME L�. � /-�� . �"' d �� `� �Y/' ADDRESS .l ei 7>r i �_. • �_ /R- .• I-� 1I L ..1 ZIP ‘Igma Al` ,(. /.Il V:ll• %.�,/ . L /•i' y�ILi =}v� E lQ� f0/, ADDRESS PROJECT LOCAT1ON: _(STREET ADDRESS, GEOGRAPHIC, LOT /BLOCK) IUI4uILAA �41 pekote 40 4+ &t.tiocartva e7on 2 X&e.. ‘tV74462. SECTION 11: PROJECT INFORMATION DESCRIBE BRIEFLY THE PROJECT YOU PROPOSE V 5)- ANTICIPATED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION: FROM 6) WILL PROJECT BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES? OYES NO IF YES, DESCRIBE: mmi fizartoo TO 146115 ) PROJECT STATISTICS: A! ACREAGE OF PROJECT SITE: NET GROSSlaf I2# EASEMENTS 7`!i to B) FLOORS OF INCLUDES: BASEMENT. D MEZZAN I NE INCLUDES: O BASEMENT O MEZZAN 1 NE PROPOSED NOTES CONSTRUCTION: SITE UTILIZATION: TOTAL !k FLOORS 'TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA ZONING DESIGNATION COMP. PLAN DESIGNATION BUILDING FOOTPRINT AREA LANDSCAPE AREA PAVING AREA TOTAL PARKING STALLS: - STANDARD SIZE - COMPACT SIZE -HANDICAPPED SIZE TOTAL LOADING SPACES AVER. SLOPE OF PARKING AREA AVER. SLOPE OF SITE IS THIS'SITE DESIGNATED FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ON THE CITY'S ENVIRONMENTAL BASE MAP? 0 YES NO EXISTING IIY•l. t �7 SECTION 111: APPLICANT'S A7F ! DAV I T BEING DULY SWORN, DECLARE THAT I AM THE CONTRACT PU MASER _ OF THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS APPLICATION AND THAT MAE FORE- GOING STATEMENTS AND ANSWERS HEREIN CONTAINED AND THE.1NFORMATION HEREWITH SUBMITTED ARE IN ALL RESPECTS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE ZEST QF MY KNOWL . E D BELIEF. SUBSCRIBED 1ti� THIS 0'44 DAY OF NOTARY PURL I': Ic AND ,FOR THE t"TATE OF WASH NGTON 0-e-r DATE SWORN BEFORE ME 442 OWNER) • Inc. Geotechnical Engineering and Geology 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: (206) 643 -3780 / Seattle (206) 464 -1584 October 29, 1980 E -1389 Qestar Development Ltd. 2019 - 3rd Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. George Kropinski Subject: 'Gentlemen: Geotechnical Engineering Study. Proposed Office Building 51st Avenue South Tukwila, Washington In accordance with your request and within the scope of our proposal dated August 11, 1980 this report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the subject project. We have submitted our preliminary geotechnical recommendations in our letter of October 6, 1980. The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface soil conditions in order to provide recommendations for site preparation, foundation and retaining wall design. The scope of our study included the excavation of test pits, laboratory tests, geotechnical engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. Our study indicates that the building area is partially un- derlain by loose fills of varying thicknesses overlying firm com- petent soils. The proposed building excavation should extend .through the loose soils and be based in soils having adequate foundaton bearing capacity. The following sections describe the study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed building location were as shown schematically on the Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 1. This is based on a Site Plan prepared by The Mithun Associates and dated September 4, 1980. It is planned to construct a three -story wood -frame office building with a partial basement lobby at Elev. 109. Exterior pestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 2 column loads for this structure are expected to be on the order of 35 to 60 kips with maximum interior column loads of 170 kips, dead plus live loads. A maximum excavation on the order of 16 feet will be required to prepare the site for construction. A grade difference of about 12 feet will result along the east property line. The subject parking lot will be established at Elev. 105, requiring up to about 5 feet of fill in this area. A -rockery may be used along the east property line. If any of the above design criteria change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants,. Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design. FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field investigation was initially performed on Septem- ber 19, 1980. The subsurface conditions in the building area were explored by excavating nine test pits to a maximum depth of 16 feet below the existing surface at the approximate locations as shown on Plate 1. Three more test pits were excavated on October 6, 1980 to explore conditions along the eastern property line. The locations of the test pits were approximately determin- ed by tape and compass measurements from property lines. .Eleva- tions of test pits are approximately determined by interpolation between plan contours. The locations and elevations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. The field investigation was continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soils en- countered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained represen- tative bulk soil samples and observed pertinent site features. Soils were classified visually in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate 2, Legend. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates 3 through 8, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the labora- tory examination and tests of field samples. Representative soil samples from the test pits were placed . in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Visual classifications were supplement- ed by index tests such as sieve and Atterberg Limits on represen- tative samples. Field moisture determinations were performed on Earth Consultants; Inc, Oestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 3 each bulk sample. Results of moisture determinations-and Atter- berg Limits, together with classifications, are shown on the test pit logs included in this report. The results of the sieve analyses are illustrated on Plate 9, Grain Size Analyses. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located on the east side of 51st Avenue South just south of Southcenter Boulevard in Tukwila, Washing- ton. The property, which measures about 220 by 330 feet in plan is nearly level in the southwest and central sections. Scatter- ed light vegetation and an abandoned residence with a basement are located in this area. The property slopes downward sharply toward the eastern and northern property lines. Many of these slopes, predominantly along the north section, are composed of fill materials which have been pushed out over the native slope. The northern slope has a gradient of about 30 degrees which drops approximately 50 vertical feet towards a creek which flows eastward along the north property line. A new office building is currently being constructed immedi- ately east of the property. The parking lot grade along the di- viding property line will have an approximate finished grade of ' Elev. 93. Light surficial seepage was noted emanating from the slope in this area. Subsurface Our subsurface investigation was conducted on September 19 '*and October 6, 1980 and consisted.of excavating nine test pits using a backhoe. The test pits indicate that the north half of the site is underlain by 5 to 11 feet of loose to medium dense silty sand fill. The fill appears to be thickest near the north- east corner of the building. Underlying the south half of the site and the fills on the north, the test pits encountered�medi- um dense gravelly silty sands and silty sands ranging in thick- ness from 4 to 8 feet thick. Test Pits TP- 1, .TP -2 and TP -6 were terminated in this material. Underlying this 'second unit, we encountered a hard clayey silt with fine sand in Test Pits TP -3, TP -4 and TP -5. This overconsolidated basal unit is also exposed ,in a cut along the eastern property line and in our test pits along the eastern rockery alignment (Test Pits TP -7 through TP -9).' Groundwater seepage was not noted in any of our test pits at the time of our study. Surface seepage was noted near the toe of the slope at the center of the eastern property line. Earth Consultants, Inc. pestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 4 The contractor for the adjacent parcel indicated he had install- ed a french drain paralleling the eastern property line about 5 feet east of the line. An examination of a nearby catch -basin indicated that constant seepage was being picked up by the drain system. We feel that most of the groundwater on the site will be "perched" over the relatively impervious silt unit and flow down - slope in a northeasterly direction. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General As described earlier in this report, the site is basically - underlain by fills of varying thickness overlying firm soils. The hard silt or medium dense to dense silty sands should pro- vide adequate bearing for the proposed structure. Footings will have to be extended through existing fills and bearing in compe- tent materials with spread or continuous footings or drilled piers. It appears that up to about 6 feet of overexcavation will be required from finished grades. Lobby floor slabs may be supported on recompacted natural grade or structural fill. How - ever, we would suggest using a wood floor system for the entire first floor to eliminate a high retaining wall and extensive backfill at the basement level. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations for various geotechnical engineering aspects of the project which should be incorporated into the project design and construction. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accept- ed geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of Oestar Development Ltd. and their representatives. No other war- ranty, expressed or implied, is made. Foundations The proposed structures may be supported on conventional continuous and /or spread footings supported on firm native undis- turbed soils or on structural fill, depending'on final grades. Exterior footings should be bottomed a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below the adjacent final grade. The footings extend- ing into competent undisturbed bearing material may be designed' for an allowable bearing pressure of four thousand (4000) pounds per square foot, for dead plus live loads. A bearing capacity of three thousand (3000) psf may be used for footings placed on structural fill prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The maximum thickness of structural Earth Consultants, Inc. Pester Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 5 fill beneath footings should be limited to five (5) feet. Con- tinuous footings should have a minimum width of sixteen (16) inches. Interior footings may be based at twelve (12) inches below the top of slab. A one -third increase in the bearing pres- sures may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. Based on our test pits, it is our opinion that the footings may have to be extended up to 6 feet from finished grade. It appears that conventional type footings would be feasible. How - ever, should drilled piers be used, we would be available to pro- vide detailed criteria for this type of foundation. As an alter- nate, the overexcavation could be filled with structural fill, rock or gravel, and base footings at normal levels. The overex- cavation should extend laterally beyond footings, a distance equal to the depth of excavation for structural fill, and a dis- tance equal to half the overexcavated depth for rock or gravel. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total settlements of footings on the native soils or structural fill will be about three - fourths (3/4) inch, with differential settle- ments of about half this amount. Almost all settlements will be realized during construction. The building excavations should be examined by a representa- tive of Earth Consultants, Inc. to verify that encountered condi- tions are as anticipated and that all footings, including the ex- terior column footings will be based on either firm native soils or on a structural fill. Drains should be placed along all pe- rimeter and wall footings and connected to a positive discharge system. *Lateral Forces Horizontal forces may be resisted by passive pressures and friction between concrete and supporting subgrades. The passive pressures will be equal to a fluid with a density of three hun- dred (300) pounds per cubic foot. This value assumes that all footing backfill is compacted in accordance.with the Site Prepar- ation recommendations of this report or poured neat against un- disturbed soils. A coefficient of friction of thirty -five hun- dredths (0.35) may be used between concrete and soil. ,Basement and Retaining Walls Basement and retaining walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls that are free to rotate one - thousandth of their height at the top should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit Earth Consultants, Inc. Qestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 6 weight of thirty -five (35) pounds per cubic foot. If-walls are restrained from free movement at the top, they should be design- ed for an additional uniform pressure of one hundred (100) pounds per square foot. • The above pressures assume a. maximum wall height of eight (8) feet and that no surcharge slopes, construction or traffic loads or adjacent high footings will occur above the walls. If deviations from these criteria are expected, we should be con- tacted for the appropriate design parameters. All walls should be provided with adequate provisions for subsurface drainage. Floor Slabs Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on recompacted native subgrade or on a structural fill, depending on final grades. In cut areas the upper twelve (12) inches of subgrade should be com- pacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density to provide uniform conditions beneath the slab. Building section plans indicate that sections of the lobby floor slab will be based on existing fill materials. We recommend that the fill materials be removed to a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches and replaced with structural fill in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. The slab should be provided with a minimum of 4 inches of free draining sand or gravel. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier 'such as a plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and ' to aid in curing of the concrete. Site Preparation The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all structures including pavements, slabs, trees, existing utilities, surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use in landscap- ing, if desired. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.. Following the stripping operation, the remaining surface in areas where structural fill is to be placed, or in cut areas at finished grades, should be proofrolled under the observation of a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. to reveal loose areas which, if found, should be removed and replaced with struc- tural fill or rock to a depth that will provide a stable base be- neath the structural fill. The toe of all fills should be keyed into firm ground. Earth Consultants, Inc. Qestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980- E -1389 Page 7 Structural fill, if used, should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding eight (8) inches in uncompacted thickness. The fill should be benched into slopes steeper than 4 to 1 (hori- zontal to vertical). The•fill•should be compacted to a minimum • 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1557 -70 (Modified Proctor). The site soils contain an excessive amount of fines that will make them diffi- cult to compact or work when wet. An approved granular imported fill may be required if grading operations are performed during wet weather. It should consist of a granular material with no more than 5 percent fines, passing the No. 200 sieve. The proofrolling, structural fill approval, placement and compaction of structural fill processes should be monitored, tested and approved by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. Slopes The maximum depth of cut is anticipated to be about twelve (12) to sixteen (16) feet. The majority of the building will be in cut with the maximum excavation being in the northeast corner of the building. We recommend all temporary slopes in the firm native silts be cut at 1H:1V. • All other soils, including fill, will require slopes of.3H:2V. Permanent slopes in the hard silt and other soils should be'sloped at 1.5H:1V and 2H:1V, respectively. We recommend that all excavated slopes be examined by a representa- tive of Earth Consultants, Inc. during excavation and intermit- • tently thereafter. We did not encounter any groundwater in our test pits which were excavated during a relatively dry period. Although we did not encounter any groundwater, we believe that a perched condi- tion .could be encountered during wet weather. If present, groundwater should be controlled as outlined in the following section. Groundwater Control The subject site contains fine grained soils that will make .grading operations difficult during wet weather. For this rea- son, it is important that groundwater be controlled wherever pos- sible. Seepage'should be anticipated from cuts during rainy weather. Surface interceptor ditches may have to be placed along the top of all cuts. Subsurface drains may have to be placed either along the toe or top of all cuts, whichever loca- tion appears to be more feasible. We suggest that appropriate Earth Consultants, Inc. • i• Oestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 8 locations of subsurface drains be established during grading operations by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc., at which time the seepage areas, which if present, will be 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 rain into the soils. After a rainfall, equip- ment should remain off the soils until they have had a chance to dry sufficiently. Rockeries It is presently planned to place a rockery along the east- ern and western property lines. The difference in grade at the eastern line will be about twelve (12) feet. We do not recom- mend the placement of rockeries this high, especially when the upper five (5) feet will be fill. We recommend the rockery be limited to eight (8) feet in height. The upper four (4) feet can be sloped back at 2H:1V. All cuts should be smoothly graded to prevent overhangs or abrupt changes in the slope. Permanent cuts should be made at a slope of 1H:to4V in cut areas. The exposed cuts should be exam- ined by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc. The fill above the rockery should be placed on horizontal benches. The construction of rockeries is to some extent an art not entirely controllable by engineering methods and standards. The rockery construction should be performed by competent experienc- ed contractors with demonstrated proven ability and utmost care. The base course should be set on firm undisturbed native soils • at a minimum of twelve (12) inches below final adjacent grade. The rockery should have a base course of six -man rock. All other courses should consist of four -man rock. In all cases, the rock size should decrease from bottom to top. The rock should be hard, sound, durable, free of seams and cracks, and cut in cubical shapes. The rock density should be at least 165 pounds per cubic foot. Six -man rock should weigh at least 4000 pounds. Each row of rocks should be well seated and thoroughly tamp- ed and driven into place against the slope to make a tight wall containing as few voids as possible. The rockery derives its support partially from friction between individual rocks, there- fore, point contact of rocks should be avoided wherever possi- ble. Earth Consultants, Inc. f 1 1 Oestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 9 Succeeding layers of rock should be placed so that rocks overlap each other. The filter-rock behind the wall should con- sist of crushed angular rock with a three (3) -inch maximum size. The filter layer should not be•less than twelve (12) inches in thickness. A minimum four (4) -inch diameter perforated pipe should be placed along the bottom of the filter layer to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures.. The drain should be con- nected to a positive discharge system. We suggest that the placement of all rockeries be performed under the observation of a representative of this firm. We will be available to meet with you and your rockery contractor to discuss these matters in more detail. Pavements Based on the Site Plan prepared by Mithun and Associates, it appears that the majority of pavement areas will be in cut. However, localized "wedges" of fill will be needed to meet final grades along the eastern property line above the rockery and along part of the top of the northern slope. Due to the loose nature of the existing lobe of fill, we recommend that pavements in fill areas be overexcavated two (2) feet below finished subgrade and replaced with structural fill prepared in accordance with the Site Preparation section of this report. We suggest that the upper one (1) foot be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density per ASTM D -1557, and to 90 percent below that level.- In cut areas with native soils expos- ed at subgrade, we recommend that the upper one (1) foot also be compacted to 95 percent. We recommend that all subgrades be proofrolled.prior to pav- ing in order to detect soft areas which, if found, should be re- moved and replaced with structural fill. We anticipate that pavements will be utilized by lightly loaded vehicles. We suggest that four (4) inches of Crushed Rock Base or three (3) inches of Asphalt Treated Base beneath two (2) inches of A. C. be used as a pavement' section. Heavier loaded sections may require thicker sections. .Additional Services It is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommenda- tions may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and construction. Earth Consultants, Inc. Oestar Development Ltd. October 29, 1980 E -1389 Page 10 The'analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the test pits. The nature and extent of variations between test pits may not become evi- dent until construction.. If variations then appear evident, Earth Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to reevaluate the rec- ommendations of this report prior to proceeding with the con- struction. It is also recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifi- cations or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. The following plates are included and complete this report: Plate 1 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 2 Legend Plates 3 through 8 Test Pit Logs Plate 9 Grain Size Analyses . We trust the information presented herein is adequate for your requirements. If you need additional information or clari- fication, please call. RSL /mg C� ; `�� Ro•e S. Levinson, P. E. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. President Earth Consultants, Inc. 51 st AVENUE MO TP-5 TP-I / Approximate Limits of Fill /1 /I/ Approximate Scab 0 O 20 40 601t. LEGEND ' TP1 Approximate Test Pit Location TP-7 L \ Approximate Limits of All Property Line Proposed Building Reference r Site Plan By The Mithun Associates Architects Dated 9/4/80 t1r • 410 ' Earth U ,) Consultants Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1 GEOLOGY Test Pit Location Plan Qestar Office Building Tukwila, Washington Proj. No. 1389 IDate OCt. 80 Flat° 1 MA.,10R •SIGNS GRAPH LETT SYMBOL SYMBOL COAIIC GRAINED 1104.1 NOR( THAN 50IL Of MATERIAL IS L•RS(R THAN NO ZOO SI(vt SlZ SOAVES.. A1D GRAVELLY 1011.2 ADORE THAN SO% O1 COARSE PR•C• TION RETAINED ON 10 • SKYE SAND AND /• NO7 SOILS . MORE 711•1 •O% CO, COARSE /RAC• TI04 PASSING N0. 4 SKY( CL2•• •4•v(l/ Ilimo or • 11•••1 CAW/ELI WITH 114(1 1.1 •••srsl• •r•.rI ••■ he•Q CL(A4 SAND 11,111. •r so /i•••) SANDS MTN /14(3 Apr 'bamboo ammo of floes) GW c°._.D00 t: :ft :►':• NI:41 .11 YPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELL -MAD(D G+1•v((/, •4•v(L•SAND •17unt1, LITTLE 04 40 Pint/ GP POORLY- SR•D(D S4AV(LS, S4AVtl• 1.•0 W [TUNES, LIT TLC OR NO PONES j GM SALTY GRAVELS, •R•v1L -SAND- SILT MIXTURES GC CLAYEY GRAVEN, •R•4tl-S•4D- CLAY 4171(14(5 SW WELL- GRAIKD /•ROE, •4.7((1.7 SA40S, LITTLE OR 40 1111(3 SP SM POORLY••RAD(D SANDS, SANDS, LITTLE 011 40 11423 s4TY SARgs, SAND -SILT 411TI/4(3 SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAID -CLAY 111771.443 114E spumy) solo 1012 THAN 10% OP 1AT(RIAL 1S THAN NO 200 SIEVE 111E SILTS PAD CLAYS LIOUID UNIT LESS THAN SO ML CL ImO•t*IC SILTS AID VERT 1112 SA1•4, ROCK PLOW, 111.711 OR CLAYt7 FINE SAND/ DR CLAYEY MT; WITH SLISIIT PLASTICITY 1•0•16A•C CLAYS 01 (04 TO •101(14 R A1TICITY, 11111•V1I17 CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, %1LT7 CLAYS, u•4 CLATJ OL 00S•111C /11.73 AND ORGANIC 141TY CLAYS OF 1.04 PLASTICITY SILTS ••0 CLAYS UOUID 11417 GREATER THAN SO HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS MH ••ON1As•C GILTS, 4IC•CI OUS OR • MATO4AC00011 Ilat /AND OR 11111T• SOILS CH t•ON•ANIC CLAYS 01 HIGH ICITY, FAT CLAYS OH ORGANIC CLAYS 01 MEDIUM TO HIGH PL•/TICaTT, O4••NIC SILTS PT PEAT, 11IAR,7!, ••W► /0115 WITH HIGH OR t•RIC C TOPSOIL FILL Humus and Duff Layer Uncontrolled with Highly Variable Constituents NOTE: DUAL •YNIOL• • All USED TO INDICATE GORO(RIIN( SOIL CLASS111t•T1041 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART TH1 d /cussl0• 14 711( T(1T 01 71115 ICPDIT 11 NIC(s3ART POR • PIOPIN UNDERSTANDING OP THE NAT■HI( 01 71.( 4•T1RIA1. PRESENTED IN THE ATTACHED 1.061 • 1. 2 "0•D. Split Spoon Sampler jj Ring or Shelby Somple P Sampler Pushed Somple Not Recovered Water Level (date) Ts Torvane Rending qu Penetrometer Reodings Water Observation Well Depth (ft-) 0 5 10 15 0 10 15 Logged By DKW pffie 9/19/80 USCS TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev. 126± w (%) Lab Data SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist. (Roots to 4 feet) • SM Gray gravelly silty SAND), medium dense to dense, moist. Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. 10 12 Logged By DKW Date 9/19/80 TEST PIT NO. Elev. 125± GM SM SM Brown silty sandy GRAVEL with asphaltic concrete, clinker, concrete and wood, loose to medium dense, moist. (FILL) Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist. Gray silty fine to medium SAND with gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. Test pit terminated at 14 feet. 6.7 10 Groundwater not encountered. Earth Consultants Inc. •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS QESTAR OFFICE BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON IProj. No. 1389 J DateOct. .80 Plate 3 Depth In.) 0 5 10 15 20 Logged By DKW Date 9/19/80 uscs SFEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev. 119± w Ea rth Can nultants Inc. •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS QESTAR OFFICE BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 1389 Date Oct. .80 JPIate 4 ► ❖O.' ►•40.40•. ►40'••46' ►;40;.;40; .40.4040 ; .4040. ► ❖.•. .•40.40•. :4040❖ . ;40;40;40; :•40.40•. •••40•.. :•40.40•: .•40.40•: .•40.40•: .•40.40•: 40.40.40•: 40.40.40•• • . ❖•.: . ❖.•: ••.0 GM SM Tan silty sandy GRAVEL to silty .gravelly SAND, with roots.: wood and- sod, loose, .moist'.. (FILL) (fLayer of wood- roots, cobbles and boulders at. 7 feet • 10 25 341 iqf SM Gray gravelly silty SAND, medium dense, moist. ML Tan clayey SILT with sand, hard, moist. L. iii Test pit terminated at 16 feet. No groundwater seepage encountered. Ea rth Can nultants Inc. •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS QESTAR OFFICE BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 1389 Date Oct. .80 JPIate 4 Depth (ft) 0 5 10 15 Lowed By DKW Date 9/19/80 USCS • TEST PIT NO. Soil Description Elev. 120± W -�'- r • -, SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist. (Occasional cobbles and boulders) 21 — r ML Tan fine sandy clayey silt, hard, moist. • Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Earth Consultants Inc. •GEOTECMNICAL ENGINEERING 8 GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS QESTAR OFFICE BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1 Proj. No. 1389 I Date Oct. '80 1iate 5 Depth (ft) 0 5 10 15 0 10 15 Logged By DKW Date 9/19/80 USCS TEST PIT NO. 5 Soil Description Elev. 122+ W (%) Lab Data SM (6" TOPSOIL) Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist. • (Becomes damp to wet below 6 feet) ML Gray -blue gray gravelly sandy SILT, very dense, moist. (TILL -LIKE) donf meal Test pit terminated at 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Logged By DKW Date 9/19/80 TEST PIT NO. 6 Elev. 125± -i:j: ,1 :4:0 gNNI• 11L SM Tan clayey SILT and brown silty SAND, loose, moist. (FILL) j _#i ,, . #,.t SM silty fine to medium SAND, medium dense, moist. -n r t{ff ,_' SM Gray gravelly silty SAND, .medium dense to dense, moist.. Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Earth Consultants Inc. •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY • TEST PIT LOGS QESTAR OFFICE BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. No. 1389 I Date Oct. '80 !Plate 6 Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 5 10 15 Logged By DKW Date 9 /19/80 .'.III uscs TEST PIT NO. 7 Elev. Soil Description W ( %) Lab Data ML Blue -gray clayey SILT, hard, moist. Test pit terminated at 2 feet. IMO Logged By DKW Date 9/19/80 .TEST PIT NO. 8 Elev. ML Brown interbedded SILT with SAND and GRAVEL, some wood, loose, moist. (FILL) ML Gray -tan clayey SILT to SILT with CLAY, hard, moist. Test pit terminated at 5 feet. Moderate seepage along east side of test pit. Earth Consult2r><ts Inc. •GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING Q GEOLOGY TEST PIT LOGS QESTAR OFFICE BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Proj. N • 1389 Date Oct. '80 Plate 7 Logged By DKW Date 10/6/80 EST PIT NO, 9 USCS Soil Description IIL Gray -tan .SILT with "clay and .sand, :stiff, moist. (FILL) ML ML (8" TOPSOIL & WOOD at 3 feet) Tan -red SILT with sand and occasional roots, loose to medium dense, mnist_ Mottled gray -tan SILT with clay and sand with gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Elev. W (%) Lab Data Earth 1 Consultants Inc. 'GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY Proj. No. TEST PIT LOGS QESTAR OFFICE BUILDING TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1389 I Date Oct. '80 I Plate 8 1 "A D0tri • r• a z ,rt r ri z Z � A ▪ A • z 0 O m 0 r 0 n . :ET 'ON '.0.1., Co 0 OBNIMIO s u3 3SA1VNV 3ZIS NIV -o m 0 m —Zi 'T7 m cD m C) = 3 100 8 - SIEVE ANALYSIS 1 HYDROMETER ANALYSIS 1 NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U.S, STANDARD GRAIN SIZE IN MM O m yq v i5 r a �°D .- N g o o O 0 g r) 0 • 70 60 MIE WE N' /r■I NE —W. =: \\ E//A� EMMNE N 6N "I""'� =::::N ai�ss�t i INNEN mom Lmus,„. MN N I M irIMMUN immimmommillIN .A CN NNEN E NEN Nan NE INIIMINNEN lbasil INENIENIN I� N wzrz;lo ■ IINIMINIENNENINIENNEENNEI IIUU IIININIWOINNIEN / ��NEN IENININNINENNONENbEEIN ii WWWEN MN NUNN -c 1111~ iN�NilarINNEN - N��NEENNENN MIN A. INNEN MN -NINININAINNEN ININNEIENNLEINNENNIENNEN ti/IENININLIIENNINI8u■ss1■ 40 $0 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO m a n COBBLES KEY COARSE Boring or Test Pit No. IAN■ //1NEENN 0 CO fD • Nl N — 00 w Q 1-! N .- 0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS FINE COARSE MEDIUM 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 0 GRAVEL 1 SAND DEPTH Ift.) USCS O 0 - -- TP -2 TP -3 TP -4 1.5 2.0 7.5 GM GM/SA ML DESCRIPTION FINES Silty sandy GRAVEL Silty sandy GRAVEL to silty gravelly SAND r Sandy clayey SILT Moisture Content I %)— 6.7 10.0 20.7 LL m o; Co PL 31 25