Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-33-89 - ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS - HARTUNG - TEMPERLINEHARTUNG- TEMPERLINE CONSTRUCT WAREHOUSE & RETAIL BUILDING 17830 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY EPIC -33 -89 AFFoDAVIT OF 0ISTRIeUTION 1, DIANN MARTINEZ hereby declare that: O Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet O Planning Commission Agenda Packet C1 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action O Official Notice O Notice of Application for 0-Other AmmArgET) IFTT R Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on MARCH 19,..!r! SEE ATTACHED Name of Project HART'UNG- TFMPFRT;INFE RT,DG, File Number 8e -1R -DR 199n. CIF TUKWILA FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: • Nick Sciola DATE: March 1.6 ,1990 TITLE: FROM: . Vernon Umetsu COMPANY: Hartung Glass TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: planning (OCT)) u � : w quo. .�M •� :;.�z :a :..: ••; FAX NO. h5h -2ti01 .:4.U.vFO0M00K!4,YM ro0 W Y. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: 3 SENT BY (INITIALS) : SUBJECT: Remaining Planning Premi +s . COMMENTS /MESSAGE: s 1 T, • IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT 1�,�� CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: ^ • Wi O�% r0i00006n }y}Ti�NWON�1d6iJw�OJ�1C0 4k AJR)J.••: } }. :nh nA: n• %•: 4� .nWk nJC.. \U x ` }::. '.:i: ^: ^:4 }:4 } } } }:4 } }:4: •:::::1A".: k'4.W:.v :\\Y.•.... ::..n... -} - ::. >:(::.:.::::t •:..::G4:•:ihviG•Nh•. TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24/89 CITY OF TUKWILA 62011 SOUTNCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, l4'ASIIINCTON 9818 March 16, 1990 Nick Sciola Hartung Glass 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Remaining Planning Permits. I'IIUNE # (206) 433.1800 Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor Dear Nick, The remaining Planning Division permit process for your project is for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. City issuance of a shoreline permit is usually done immediately after B.A.R: review. However, your accelerated B.A.R. review does not allow for this immediate issuance. The schedule to complete the shoreline permit process is as follows: March 21st: April 25th: Tukwila to issue a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. This is the State's required minimum 30 day comment period after the last public notice was published. State shoreline permit 30 day appeal period ends. This assumes 4 days are required for the mail to reach State Ecology offices; with the appeal period beginning on the date of receipt. In general, 1. no construction activities may be authorized until completion of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit appeal period and all conditions of approval (i.e. SEPA mitigation and B.A.R. conditions) must be satisfied prior to building permit approval. The Public Works Department has agreed to begin its review during the shoreline permit appeal period. Once the shoreline permit appeal period ends, Public Works has also agreed to issue a grade and fill permit prior to issuing a building permit. The Building Division will also accept a building permit application for review during the shoreline permit appeal period. I have reviewed the State regulations for provisions for an abbreviated review period in cases such as yours, but can find no such exceptions and my calls to the State Dept. of Ecology have not been returned. At this time I conclude that the schedule shown above is required in all cases. Please feel free to contact me at 433 -1858 if you have any further questions. Sincerel Vernon Umetsu, Assoc. Planner Attachments: A. Permit Process C. SEPA Mitigation B. B.A.R. Conditions cc: Beeler /Pace /Fraser /file. • MEMORANDUM From: Vernon Umetsu To: Phil Fraser RE: Hartung Area Storm Drainage Study Date: February 28, 1990 The City of Renton has sent us storm drainage related comments for the Hartung Bldg. SEPA review (EPIC- 33 -89) as attached. They are also very interested in coordinating your area -wide study with their study. Please contact Ron Straka, Renton Storm Drainage at 235 -2631 to start this coordination as appropriate. cc: Beeler /Pace /Cameron /SEPA file. Mitigating Measures for EPIC -PS-89: Hartung - Temperline Building Revised February 28, 1990 7'0 K�efcffT G -2-h2 1TCO(� i- A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is finalized for t"i,o, the subject project as proposed with nine SEPA conditions. Conditions 2, 4, 5, and 7 have been slightly modified based on comments received. The proposed project is as described in the attached checklist including, but not limited to the following characteristics: Per Sheet 1 of 3 (2/1/90) A. The northern driveway of the existing Hartung building (Hartung 1) shall be removed and relocated as a joint access driveway with the new Hartung building (Hartung 2). B. The proposed northern driveway shall be located in a coordinated manner with the existing Howard Cooper driveway to form a joint access driveway. C. A parking easement shall be established on the adjacent southern lot to provide for the proposed parking. The following impact mitigating conditions must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. All subsequent City actions including, but not limited to, approval by the Board of Architectural Review. Traffic Mitigation 1. A minimum 20 ft. wide emergency fire access easement shall be established to provide adequate apparatus access to all sides of the building. The City will accept the applicant's proposed easement on the Howard Cooper property which loops around the eastern end of the Hartung 1 and Hartung 2 buildings and thence to the southern Hartung 1 driveway. 2. The southerly driveway shall be allowed to have a maximum 45 foot width. Its location can be adjusted to the north to avoid power transformers. The specific location shall be approved by the Public Works Director and parking requirements must continue to be met. The northerly joint access driveway shall be designed for a maximum width of 45 feet with one in -bound and two out- bound lanes. The specific location shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. The property's fair share cost of the W. Valley Hwy. (SR- 181)/So. 180th Street intersection improvement shall be deposited with the City of Tukwila prior to issuance of a building permit. This fair share amount is $22,269, based on the proportion of new project traffic entering the intersection. The 47 P.M. peak hr. trips generated from the project (per TPE traffic appendix to the environmental checklist) divided by the increased traffic between 1989 and 2010 which is 3,208 trips ( = 8,222 - 5014) (per CH2M Hill), and multiplying this percentage by the improvement cost of $1,520,000. This intersection improvement is necessary in order to allow the proposed project to proceed per the Tukwila Public Works Dept. since the highway segment is now at LOS F. This payment is in lieu of charging the property for frontage improvements which would normally be required were the highway segment designs completed at this time. The Public Works Dept. anticipates $22,269 to be well below the minimum cost of road improvements to the project site. The owner shall not be responsible for the cost of frontage improvements associated with the SR181 /So. 180th St. intersection improvement (84 -RW40) other than this one time cash payment. Improvements are anticipated to include a retaining wall, sidewalk, and actual road construction. 4. The owner shall work with the City on the design and construction of West Valley Hwy. widening. This shall include modifying the existing utility, sidewalk, and road slope easement to allow its use for future road widening at no cost to the City for this easement change, prior to issuing a building permit. Surface Water Drainage 5. Biofiltration shall be provided for storm runoff from vehicular parking and circulation areas prior to discharge to the wetlands located east of the Renton sewer main to satisfy Federal Clean Water Act and RCW 90.48 requirements as approved by the Public Works Director. 6. The easement necessary from the Howard Cooper or Ryder property to accommodate the proposed biofiltration swale shall be established prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. The applicant shall fund $7,500 in a letter of credit or interest bearing account, of a $30,000 drainage study to establish the long -term design solution for drainage and agree to participate in a local improvement district (LID) to provide surface water capacity for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events to connect to the P -1 drainage channel. This funding shall be credited against the future LID if, and only if, the LID includes the study costs. This is to provide long -term mitigation for the cumulative impacts of developments discharging into a very marginal storm drainage system. This system is anticipated to become overloaded in the mid -term future due to the cumulative impacts of other developments in Renton and is in lieu of the Renton requirement for detention of seven days of the 100 year storm, for projects discharging into their storm drainage facility. The $7,500 payment shall release the property from any further monetary obligation to support a basin drainage study. However, property owner shall continue to be responsible for fair share participation in the long -term solution for drainage. This participation shall include PS & E, right of way acquisition, environmental mitigation (for the system), and construction /engineering /administrative costs. This money shall be returned to the property owner if not contractually obligated within five years of assignment or deposit with the City. A bond will not be an acceptable substitute. Sewer and Water Availability 8. Certificates of sewer and water service from the City of Renton shall be submitted to the Public Works Dept. prior to issuance of a building permit. Easements 9. All easements and joint access drives shall be legally established in documents to be recorded with the King County Records and Elections Office as part of the property description and may not be altered without the written consent of the City of Tukwila. file: Hartung.mit Earl Clymer, Mayor • CITY OF RENTON Community Development Department Kenneth E. Nyberg, Director Rick Beeler, Planning Director City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 33 Re: EPIC' -89 Hartung - Temperline Building Dear Mr. Beeler, FEB 23 1990 CITY O Jhi A vvi PLANT � !Nc DEPT. We have reviewed the notice of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance for the Hartung - Temperline Building. The site is close to the Renton City Limits and the environmental issues are of concern to us, as we share the wetland, floodplain and drainage systems with Tukwila. We agree with the determination of nonsignificance, but request that you consider additional mitigation to address the drainage issues. At least 200 feet of biofiltration should be required for the site. The detention requirements should include a.100 year /7 day storage, and 2 year release rate. The volume should be calculated by the SCS hydrograph method. The detention requirements would be the same as for a closed depression,as the proposed detention area, will actually be a wetland. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please call Mary Lynne Myer, our senior environmental planner at 235 -2550, if you have any que ns. = ely y Don Erickson, AICP Chief, Current Planning Community Development Department 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 33 EPIC-4889: k__gV csel) • 2/-az /To Mitigating Measures for Hartung- Temperline Building A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is issued for the subject project as proposed with nine SEPA conditions. The proposed project is as described in the attached checklist including, but not limited to the following characteristics: Per Sheet 1 of 3 (2/1/90) A. The northern driveway of the existing Hartung building (Hartung 1) shall be removed and relocated as a joint access driveway with the new Hartung building (Hartung 2). B. The proposed northern driveway shall be located in a coordinated manner with the existing Howard Cooper driveway to form a joint access driveway. C. A parking easement shall be established on the adjacent southern lot to provide for the proposed parking. The following impact mitigating conditions must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. All subsequent City actions including, but not limited to, approval by the Board of Architectural Review. Traffic Mitigation 1. A minimum 20 ft. wide emergency fire access easement shall be established to provide adequate apparatus access to all sides of the building. The City will accept the applicant's proposed easement on the Howard Cooper property which loops around the eastern end of the Hartung 1 and Hartung 2 buildings and thence to the southern Hartung 1 driveway. 2.� The southerly joint access driveway shall be designed for a maximum total width of 35 feet per Tukwila Public Works Department "Standard Plans." The northerly joint access driveway shall be designed for a maximum width Q A 55 f - et with on in- bound ,an d. two out -bound lanes. The .• - all be The Public Works �. 3. The property's fair share cost of the W. Valley Hwy. (SR- 181) /So. 180th Street intersection improvement shall be deposited with the City of Tukwila prior to issuance of a • building permit. This fair share amount is $22,269, based on the proportion of new project traffic entering the intersection. The 47 P.M. peak hr. trips generated from the project (per TPE traffic appendix to the environmental checklist) divided by the increased traffic between 1989 and 2010 which is 3,208 trips ( = 8,222 - 5014) (per CH2M Hill), and multiplying this percentage by the improvement cost of $1,520,000. This intersection improvement is necessary in order to allow the proposed project to proceed per the Tukwila Public Works Dept. since the highway segment is now at LOS F. This payment is in lieu of charging the property for frontage improvements which would normally be required were the highway segment designs completed at this time. The Public Works Dept. anticipates $22,269 to be well below the minimum cost of road improvements to the project site. The owner shall not be responsible for the cost of frontage improvements associated with the SR181 /So. 180th St. intersection improvement (84 -RW40) other than this one time cash payment. Improvements are anticipated to include a retaining wall, sidewalk, and actual road construction. tVi 4. The owner shall '"k with the City on the design and construction of West Valley Hwy. widening. This shall include, .ate, modifying the existing utility, sidewalk, and road slope easement to allow its use for future road widening at no cost to the CA r. or prior to issuing a building permit. So 1n road widening along this property frontage maybe necessa - n conjunction with the SR181 /So. -180th St. intersection improvement necessaryto-support the proposed project. Modification of the easement to -allow City use of an existing roadways.l-o a easement for roadway construction, is in lieu of he actual dedication oflrg t of way necessy —fr the intersection improvement in Card -i. ion No. 3 re highway se ent designs c•u. - ' Surface Water Drainage 5. Biofiltration shall be provided to all storm runoff prior to discharge to the wetland areas east of the Renton sewer main to satisfy Federal Clean Water Act requirements. (Biofiltration shall be designed to remove 95 percent of all contaminants prior to discharge into the wetland. Biofiltration design shall be subject to Public Works Dept. approval. 6. The easement necessary from the Howard Cooper or Ryder property to accommodate the proposed biofiltration swale shall be established prior to issuance of a building permit. • Ott, \N ‘#XiL 7. The applicant shall fund $7,500 of a $30,000A drainage study to establish the long -term design solution for draira�a and agree to participate in a local improvement district„Eo provide surface water capacity for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events to connect to title P -1 drainage channel.4►is- foat,4* b� cte�Qi4e9 ut t 1 the-fulso ti Lt(0 1-F(a o4(i i�, < Llp ;h (-I uA•es +&+.e- sf•.rwt7 cosh's. This is to provide long -term mitigation for the cumulative impacts of developments discharging into a very marginal storm drainage system. This system is anticipated to become overloaded in the mid -term future due to the cumulative impacts of other developments in Renton and is in lieu of the Renton requirement for detention of seven days of the 100 year storm, for projects discharging into their storm drainage facility. The $7,500 payment shall release the property from any further monetary obligation to support a basin drainage study. However, property owner shall continue to be responsible for fair share participation in the long -term solution for drainage. This participation shall include PS & E, right of way acquisition, environmental mitigation (for the system), and construction /engineering /administrative costs. This money shall be returned to the property owner if not contractually obligated within five years of assignment or deposit with the City. A bond will not be an acceptable substitute. Sewer and Water Availability 8. Certificates of sewer and water service from the City of Renton shall be submitted to the Public Works Dept. prior to issuance of a building permit. Easements 9. All easements and joint access drives shall be legally established in documents to be recorded with the King County Records and Elections Office as part of the property description and may not be altered without the written consent of the City of Tukwila. file: Harmit.2 •• -1••••••••;-",,,,••■••^.1.• A y- Q -S • vt-i. cky ur CA— 1-Ls 10 con • 1 -•. .)a) kkLarc..:• )letc-JZ gct Lid C\ ir -Cdr-11.37‘ ? • T (f2_ [0 Ck� yirlot-19 1-07 r(A) a L-ek r e • w a.cvet- e x k5"1"4-5 ey-teN:1-7. 0 auf ec se c_o_ck u-fol t/Nere_ )S Ko co st r_Vo N4P\dAt2r. . ea_5fe iryNe ', H 0 Pa)--Arki, 'Ds 22_7190 /0gr Mitigating Measures for EPIC- 18 -89: Hartung - Temperline Building A Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is issued for the subject project as proposed with nine SEPA conditions. The proposed project is as described in the attached checklist including, but not limited to the following characteristics: Per Sheet 1 of 3 (2/1/90) A. The northern driveway of the existing Hartung building (Hartung 1) shall be removed and relocated as a joint access driveway with the new Hartung building (Hartung 2). B. The proposed northern driveway shall be located in a coordinated manner with the existing Howard Cooper driveway to form a joint access driveway. C. A parking easement shall be established on the adjacent southern lot to provide for the proposed parking. The following impact mitigating conditions must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. All subsequent City actions including, but not limited to, approval by the Board of Architectural Review. Traffic Mitigation 1. A minimum 20 ft. wide emergency fire access easement shall be established to provide adequate apparatus access to all sides of the building. The City will accept the applicant's proposed easement on the Howard Cooper property which loops around the eastern end of the Hartung 1 and Hartung 2 build'ngs and thence to the southern Hartung 1 driveway. VA .-Z-20,e N'� shall be designed for a total maximum idt 3. sa of -et 4.37 - The property's fair share c st of the W. Valley Hwy. (SR- o PN 181) /So. 180th Street intersection improvement shall be D� deposited with the City of Tukwila prior to issuance of a building permit. This fair share amount is $22,269, based on the proportion of new project traffic entering the intersection. The 47 P.M. peak hr. trips generated from the project (per TPE traffic appendix to the environmental checklist) divided by the increased traffic between 1989 and 2010 which is 3,208 trips ( = 8,222 - 5014) (per CH2M Hill), and multiplying this percentage by the improvement cost of $1,520,000. 9 T7 ro stc,c 156 This intersection improvement is necessary in order to allow the proposed project to proceed per the Tukwila Public Works Dept. since the highway segment is now at LOS F. This payment is in lieu of charging the property for frontage improvements which would normally be required were the highway segment designs completed at this time. The Public Works Dept. antipicates $22,269 to be well below the minimum cost of road improvements to the project site. The owner shall not be responsible for the cost of frontage improvements associated with the SR181 /So. 180th St. intersection improvement (84 -RW40) other than this one time cash payment. Improvements are anticipated to include a retaining wall, sidewalk, and actual road construction. 4. The owner shall with the City on the design and construction of West Valley Hwy. widening. This shall include, but not be limited to, modifying the existing utility, sidewalk, and road slope easement to allow its use for future road widening at no cost to the City, prior to issuing a building permit...` Some road widening along this property frontage may be necessary in conjunction with the SR181 /So. 180th St. intersection improvement neces:ar•, to_ support the proposed project. , This agreement to Cityluse of an existing X roadway slope easement for roadway construction is in lieu of the actual dedication of right of way necessary for the intersection improvement were highway segment designs completed at this time. Surface Water Drainage 5. Biofiltration shall be provided to all storm runoff prior to discharge to the wetland areas ast of the Renton sewer main to satisfy Federal Clean Water Act requirements . - • _ Biofiltration design shall be subject to Public Works Dept. approval. d,. dQ�✓' 4 pr 6. The easement necessary from the Howard Cooperoperty to accommodate the proposed biofiltration swale shall be established prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. The applicant shall fund $7,500 of a $30,000 drainage study to establish the long -term design solution for drainage and agree to participate in a local improvement district to provide surface water capacity for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events to connect to the P -1 drainage channel.' This is to provide long -term mitigation for the cumulative impacts of developments discharging into a very marginal storm drainage system. This system is anticipated to become overloaded in the mid -term future due to the cumulative impacts of other developments in Renton and is in lieu of the Renton requirement for detention of seven days of the 100 year storm, for projects discharging into their storm drainage facility. Viewer and Water Availability 8. Certificates of sewer and water service from the City of Renton shall be submitted to the Public Works Dept. prior to issuance of a building permit. Easements 9. All easements and joint, access drives shall be legally established in documents to be recorded with the King County Records and Elections Office as part of the property description and may not be altered without the written consent of the City of Tukwila. file: Hartung.mit 2. The southerly joint access driveway shall be designed for a maximum total width of 35 feet per Tukwila Public Works Department "Standard Plans." The northerly joint access driveway shall be designed for a maximum width of 45 feet with one in -bound and two out- bound lanes. The in -bound land shall be a minimum 18 feet wide. The Public Works Director has authorize- at -61V' deviation from "Standard Plans" designs in order to minimize the impacts of in -bound large truck turns from a 50 mph facility. 7. The applicant shall fund $7,500 of a $30,000 drainage study to establish the long -term design solution for drainage and agree to participate in a local improvement district to provide surface water capacity for the 2, 10 and 100 year storm events to connect to the P -1 drainage channel. This is to provide long -term mitigation for the cumulative impacts of developments discharging into a very marginal storm drainage system. This system is anticipated to become overloaded in the mid -term future due to the cumulative impacts of other developments in Renton and is in lieu of the Renton requirement for detention of seven days of the 100 year storm, for projects discharging into their storm drainage facility. jjQQ The $7,500 payment shall release the property from any r1 4 monetary obligation to support a basin drainage study. However, property owner shall continue to be responsible for fair share participation in the long -term solution for drainage. This participation shall include PS & E, right of way acquisition, environmental mitigation (for the system), and construction /engineering /administrative costs. The $7,500 payment shall be provided as a cash assignment or funds to be deposited into Tukwila accounts. This money shall be returned to the property owner if not contractually obligated within five years of assignment or deposit with the City. A bond will not be an acceptable substitute. • sTer • STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 -6000 February 21, 1990 Mr. Rick Beeler, Director City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: We have received further comments on the determination of nonsignificance for the construction of a retail and indus- trial building by Alfred Croonquist (file EPIC 18 -89). 1) The proposed project must be consistent with all appli- cable policies and other provisions of the Shoreline Manage- ment Act, its rules, and the local shoreline master program (SMP). This includes, but is not limited to, those SMP pro- visions pertaining to commercial /industrial, landfill, utilities (including drainage facilities), the Urban shore- line environment, and shorelines of state wide significance. 2) We would like the opportunity to review the data sheets and any reports prepared by Mr. Thomas Deming to verify there are no wetlands on the site. Such a conclusion appears to conflict with the information provided regarding the soils and hydrology of the site. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Bruce Smith of the Shorelands Program at (206) 459 -6762. Sincerely, Donald J. Bales Environmental Review Section DJB: cc: Bruce Smith Linda Rankin STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY t)IS�� V j�� r ., Mail Stop PV -11 • Olympia, Washington 98504 -8711 • (206) 459 - 6000!.1 LE: , O ! ,1_1\71510 February 20, 1990 Mr. Rick Beeler, Director City of Tukwila Planning Dept. 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Beeler: FEB 221990 PLAi Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the determination of nonsignificance for the construction of a retail and in- dustrial building by Alfred Croonquist (file EPIC 18 -89). We reviewed the environmental checklist and have the following comments. The Washington State Clean Air Act requires the use of all known, available, and reasonable means of controlling air pollution, including dust. Dust generated during construc- tion activities can be controlled by wetting those dust sources such as areas of exposed soils, washing truck wheels ' before they leave the site, and installing and maintaining gravel construction entrances. Construction vehicle track -out is also a major dust source. Any evidence of track -out can trigger violations and fines from Ecology or the local air agency. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Jay Willenberg of Ecology's Northwest Region at (206) 867 -7117. Sincerely, ,D,nota Donald J. Bales Environmental Review Section DJB: cc: Jay Willenberg, NWRO Rusty Moore, NWRO Conditions to Board of Architectural Review Approval for 89 DR: Hartung- Temperline Building 1. The Staff Report dated February 15, 1990 is adopted except for Staff Recommendation No.1 regarding building architectural quality and those associated findings and conclusions. The Board concludes that the design for the building's western face, as represented in the Architect's model presented at the Board's February 22nd meeting, satisfies building architectural criteria. 2. Landscaping is adopted as modified and presented at the B.A.R. public meeting of February 22, 1990. Modifications were agreed to by both staff and applicant representative. These modifications are shown on the attached landscape plan. 3. Color and materials selection shall be finalized at or after an on -site evaluation of materials by the B.A.R. per the applicant's request. Planning Staff requires that this be accomplished prior to approval of the building shell since shell approval requires that all windows be installed and water - tight. It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that B.A.R. approval is done in a timely manner to minimize construction schedule impacts. 4. Glare diagrams shall demonstrate no light spill over prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. All roof -top equipment must be screened with architectural materials which are visually harmonious with building walls and proportions. oir AFF,AV I T 1, JOANNE JOHNSON, Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting Q Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet Q Short Subdivision Agenda Packet OF D I STR I•UT I ON hereby declare that: Q Determination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination of Non - significance Q Oetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice [I Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Notice of Application for [] Other Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit Q Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on MO DAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1990 , 19 . (SEE ATTACHED) Name of Project HARTUNG 33 File Number EPIC -1-89 {MME "NTS :r r�ryvpPV*vvry • • CC20.;0.006= 0i TIEDE 6L`T 7209 S',18 TN, S T Kf,A w4 4 ■0020- 0008 -08 CENTERPOINTE 980782 C/0 MANAGEMENT NORTHWEST INC PO BOX 6309 LYNNWC00 WA 9b'67.36 98036 )002(170012 -02 gNTEnt OIM E l `' °ti E Li C/0' Hq ii� q , Tk 0 T�f Pb+ e"QX 0¢10 jy W. i I L Y NN WD9002 WA') 12304 - 9007 -01 ijq P0' 0 2304- 9009 -09 W ITZEL RANDALL 7210 5 180TH ST TUK,ILA AA 7b'/S'S Tjl .NG'7r 9 98/036 743305 )2304- 9035 -07 PUGET SOUND POWER 6 LIGHT CO PUGET POWER BUILDING BELLEVUE WA c �-4)vc/ 2304 - 9037 -05 CHU CHI •fAI 4431 NE 23R0 CT RENTON NA S3' 05-r- 82304- 9,43 -07 C.MutH- I 4431 N 2 R CT REM."' .W ,J 62304-- 9Q59 -Q3 CULLEN 3613!61.5 i SE,AT,Tt,E j 98188 98004 20377 98055 454\9 98116 62304 - 9060.47 SCIULA NICK 6 PATRICIA ANN 919800 17'BRIOLEWCCO CIRCLE K I RKLAND NA 3 3 ''8033 BATC)1 NUMBER: CF 4GUSIOMER NAME A.H. CR•NGUIST A !wrAf1AA►t'►A4A# AI► .ww 1A1' +t'q•'''A e )00020•0003•03 SON ENTERPRISES INC 799999. 7227 5 180TH KENT WA 9‘463 98032 )00020•0007-09 TIEOE KEITH J 7209 S 180TH ST KENT WA )00020•0009•07 A 6 H COMPANY PO BOX 2547 KIRKLAND WA elf 633 )00020•0017•07 UNION OIL CO CF CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TAX PO BOX 7600 LOS ANGELES CA ?c ' ' 162304■9008 -00 G000WIN DAVID PO BOX 497 WRANGELL AK q 'jT1.2 /n • n •62304•9034•08 OREGON•WASHINGTON RR 6 NAV C/O UNION PACIFIC CORP PO 80X 2500 BROOMF I ELD CO c'002.,- 62304•9036•.06 BNSF BURLINGTON NORTHERN RR PRCPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT 777 MAIN ST C2680 FORT WORTH TX r7G /02 362304•9038•04 BLU SKY ASSOCIATES 8009 5 180TH 0103 KENT WA Qi03 2N2137 98032 963C25 98033 891449 90051 454355. 99929 310821 80020 850005 76102 751254 98032 0. 162304•9059•08 CULLEN ALLEN C JOAN 3613 615T SW SEATTLE WA Q'S'//6 459999 98116 COMMENTS • 000029•0:006•00/ ;7209 $' ,1.8 7TH - S 000020- 0048 -08 CENTERPOINTE C/0 MANAGEMENT PO BOX; 6109 LYNNWOOD CIA 000020'70012 •07 q'NTf2 OI E PO B.Q Q9 LYNNWU D } 36204- 9007 -01'\ ',2142 371 - 98032 980782 NORTHWEST INC 98036 " ! 9,706.9 THW T:.I,NC,.0 ; 1, 98036 9/4 362304•9009•09 WEITZEL RANDALL, 7210 Si 180TH . ST' T'UKNILA AA 36304•9035-0• PPUGET SOUND ,'POWER NIGHT !PUGET.;POWER. BUILDIN IBELLEYUE WA 3•• CHU CHI -TAI 14431 NE 23R0 CT !RENTON WA 304 -9 WU rtH 43/)!N NTU 743305 . 98188 ca 98004 :20377 :98055 3623O4•,9Q59 CWL40N.IA 13613101s SEAT fl 362304 •9066747 SCIULA NICK, E PA?RICIA ANN 919800 17 'BRIOLEWCOL,CIRCLE KIRKLAND WA `— -- 98033 9'8116 3CS•9961•04 MGM AALIEL C 40. 00X 3595 ;TATTLE *A ' STAR NACHINEil32272 981/4 cf 98124 ri • r -•• •.•, N. .4. Ir...., , - . u."":( (.--\',. ,, ,' I \.....,,,„..e ...;,.t. -41. ,,, I.; \,...?4,,,,, - .,. , :• v.•,,,;a... 'i.....\•-•-•• -,...- ••, ', - • , . 0 ' - I • - • • ■ e, f'-',•-•1•r`i. --' :..),. ••f• ',.1 ft 1.'• .: ^," 10 .74 • ' •''' /* 2s T.?.., A • o., r •.' •-• 1 ''' • '''-' • s.•:: ‘,. r ■ i • •- .. F-'.-- ..• .-;: • 0.- %. • ,:.,x,..‘.1. r .1. •-• •_\- J. / • .• .......n.::,..^-• '' e. ,,,,A• s-,....•-• ■ f"'":7:ix.• r: . • '::,,, -a':.,:-•-• -., ",•-i: • • .' 4,, ,•• . ! ...!. '-':;:a•-•,...- „ L vr ..--t.,.i: -.. ..,:p • ,,, .,- , -•A%, j r. 1.•• •' "Pe • ( ). 1""vi \I • • . • 362304•9062•524ft • RYDER TRUCK NONTAL INC 900692 PO 80X 58128 TUKWILA WA • 98138 • • BIGFOOT OUTDOOR Attn: Mike Alquist P. 0. Box 5849 Kent, WA 98064 JANTZEN Attn: Betty Trusk P. 0. Box 3001 Portland, OR 97208 WINMAR COMPANY P. 0. Box.21545 Seattle, WA 98111 SOUND SAFETY PRODUCTS, INC. Attn: Don VanTrey P. 0. Box 5496 Everett, WA 98206 V & S I REAL ESTATE LTD. 3605 132nd Ave S.E. Suite 300 Bellevue, WA 98006 -r" ► AFF•DAVIT OF OISTR OUTION I, JOANNE JOHNSON. hereby declare that: Q Notice of Public Hearing Q Notice of Public Meeting [j Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Q Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Q Planning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Q Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Q Shoreline Management Permit Oetermination of Nonsignificance 0 Mitigated Determination'of Non - significance Q Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Q Notice of Action Q Official Notice Q Other [] Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1990 CITY OF RENTON DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 200 MILL AVENUE S. RENTON WA 98055 ATTN: D. ERICKSON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION CENTRAL OPERATIONS PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY CAMPUS MAIL STOP PV -11 OLYMPIA, WA 98504 -8711 Name of Project HARTUNG File Number EPIC -89 , 19 . City of Tukwila PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6200 Southcenter Boulevdkd Tukwila, Washington 98188 (206) 433 -1849 1 04D0s tiw FAX TRANSMISSION DATE /TIME c2 p / ?O TO : AL Sc to c_ /L-rua G Cc-ASS C 5- 6 - .2 G O ( (Name) (Company Name) (FAX #) FROM: I/2eAlCW UMe-TS'C)) PGn!G. PHONE NO. 4"33 / 8S8 FAX #: 433 -1833 SUBJECT: /1r7 —C1/VG _7�M Pe z C- i'c-2 G /(-4 7 A/S' PAGE(s):4- (+ Cover Sheet) COMMENTS: P 2 0 e5S .' 6 %re c / s A- / S .7)A Y Co M Nt. ext 7 pe?2 Cy-o 4- F r 7 c-3 ff/ c ref 7f-(d- M17) ccM eS r / /N/ A c, (-E/iicizta G S,Gw<F( c4n(7- caMMeu T ) ONCe" FtnCAL j Ant /l 1bivS iS APPErL ¢t13 Ce- Poi_ (O r4 ).)/ <o L DAYS• /,w /C.C.. ()012K /A( G &)7 A, CR_d OA( QUfST v• 'I, Gf /S5 2eS FOR- EA IQ_ R,ev(e-cJ - 77 -se- / S S v eS AR_C Gov Ott G c y S cf./ - i► zE" Fe..0 "-t `rW v � R 0A/ M G) f1 C., ke'v (Ew C C C12oo ' ,'s -r WAC 197 -11 -970 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of Proposal CONSTRUCT AN 85,00n'cQIIARF.F60T RFTATI /.TNDUSTRIA[ BUILDING WITH 136 PARKING SPACES ON 3 ACRES OF LAND. Proponent ALFRED CROONQUIST, ARCHITECT Location of Proposal, including street address, if any IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF 17830 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY IN THE NW 4 OF SEC. 36, TWN.23 N, RGE. 4E, TUKWILA WA. Lead Agency: City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -14-89 HARTUNG - TEMPERLINE BUILDING 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. [I There is no comment period for this DNS kal This DNS is issued under 197 -11- 340(2). Comments must be submitted by FFRRIIARY 22, 1990 . The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Responsible Official Rick Beeler Position /Title Address Date Planning Director 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, /PO Signature Phone 433 -1846 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 • MEMORANDUM From: Vernon Umetsu To: EPIC- 33 -89: Hartung - Temperline Building RE: Wetland Analysis Date: February 7, 1989 A wetland analysis by Thomas Deming was submitted to the SEPA Official pursuant to City requirements (see SEPA Checklist Wetland Appendix). The wetland biologist concluded that there was no wetland on the project site. Deming did not investigate the 10 ft. wide strip along the south between property line and Renton sewer main where a project sewer line and biofiltration swale is proposed to be located. I revisted the site and concluded that the vegetation and ground condition between the project property line and the Renton sewer main as exactly as found on the project site. Therefore, I concluded that the proposed improvements would not be located on a wetland. I do conclude that the area to the immediate east of the sewer line is a wetland as is indicated by the Tukwila wetland inventory and the project geotechnical engineer. This area is characterized by a 10 ft. wide ditch which is overgrown with grasses and moisture tolerant overhanging scrub trees; an 8 ft. wide berm, and a second 15 ft. wide ditch which is overgrown with grasses. Runoff discharged into this area will have to satisfy the 95% pure clean water standard. A biofiltration swale designed with the aid of a wetland biologist, or equivalent, shall be used to treat storm runoff. Runoff from clean areas such as roof tops need not be biofiltered. ut�p AGALITE 1 ----17E,TW4V6d Glass Company, Inc. 17830 West Valley Hwy., Tukwila, WA 98188 Mr. Vernon Umetsu Planners, City of Tukwila Tukwila, Wa. 98188 Dear Mr. Umetsu: FEB 5 1990 February '5, '11990 (206) 656 -2626 This letter and the supporting documentation attached will serve as our formal notice and response to you that we have complied completely with your request to determine that our proposed building site property bordering West Valley Highway is not a wetlands property. In a DRC meeting of the City of Tukwila on February 1, 1990 at 4:15 PM you stated in front of myself and several other witnesses that if I provided a statement certified by a wetlands biologist after an on site visit that my property was not wetlands then you would accept this as "unequivocal" compliance with the City's request to determine that my property is not wetlands. As the attached original letter signed by Mr. Thomas Deming, wetlands biologist, states this is not wetlands property. I am immediately requesting that the City of Tukwila, recognize this fact and continue on the review process for the February 22, 1990 B.A.R meeting. I have relied at great economic expense in money and emotional concern on your representations. This wetland issue is now satisfied and I have complied completely with your demands. As further information, I am enclosing a report prepared for the City of Tukwila by Jones and Stokes and dated October 1989. This report identifies 17 wetlands areas in the City of Tukwila.. These 17 areas are noted in the map on Figure 1 of the report. As can be plainly seen, my property site is not included in the areas so noted. Also attached is a City of Tukwila map labelled as map 25 which clearly shows my property as not wetlands and . some surrounding areas as not wetlands. I am also enclosing a letter dated February .1, 1990 from Geo Tech, which you requested, stating that their original soils report remains appropriate. Please contact me immediately if you have any questions. Very Truly Yours, 2LZ Nick Sciola NS /ks Geo kip Engineers F. L. Hartung 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Nick Sciola FEB 5 1990 February 4, 1990 l .Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists Report of Wetlands Evaluation Proposed Hartung Glass Facility 17800 Block West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington File No. 1396- 002 -B02 In response to your request, we have evaluated your proposed building site in Tukwila for the existence of wetlands. Our report to you dated September 2, 1988 addresses geotechnical conditions at this site. To assist us with the wetlands evaluation we retained Mr. Thomas D. Deming of Watershed Dynamics of Auburn, Washington. Mr. Deming's resume is attached to document his credentials. Mr. Deming and the undersigned performed a reconnaissance of the site on February 3, 1990. We used a site plan you provided to locate the property lines and existing features on and adjacent to the site. We observed shallow soil and ground water conditions in numerous hand -dug explorations. We also noted surface water distribution and recorded the species and distribution of plants on the property. A record of our observations is retained in our files. Based on our joint observations, it is our opinion that no wetlands exist on the property. GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 0 0 0 Geo„V Engineers F. L. Hartung February 4, 1990 Page 2 have FEB 51990 We trust this letter will satisfy your present requirements: - If- you -,�. any questions please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Jon W. Koloski Principal and Watershed Dynamics Thomas D. Deming Consultant to GeoEn neers JWK:sd Attachment: (Deming Resume) THOMAS D. DEMING BIOLOGIST EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science - Oregon State University 1978 - Fisheries Science 1978 - Wildlife Science University of Puget Sound, School of Law 1987 - Juris Doctor EXPERIENCE: National Marine Fisheries Service, summer 1977 Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, summer 1978 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, spring 1979 U.S. Forest Service, summer 1979 Puyallup Tribe of Indians, 1979 - 1989 Habitat Technologies, 1989 to present QUALIFICATIONS: *Responsible for development, implementation, and management of field studies, research projects, and habitat enhancement programs targeting several species of Pacific salmon. * *Utilization and residence studies of estuarine and freshwater habitats by salmonids. * *Estuarine and freshwater habitat production assessments. * *Wetland & riparian delineation and assessments. * *Establishment of estuarine, wetland, and freshwater habitat enhancement /mitigation standards and evaluation goals. *Formulate technical analysis and policy recommendations centered on natural resource management and protection. * *Prepare and organize environmental documents for federal, state, and local permitting actions within the NEPA and SEPA processes. * *Negoiations, analysis, and settlement of natural resource interests within activities which include the Puyallup Tribal Land Claims Settlement; Timber, Fish and Wildlife; Superfund Sites; Port development; and private developments. * *Review and develope oral and written responses to Environmental Impact Statements, environmental checklists, Determination of Significance and Non - Significance, local zoning proposals, and land use planning issues. *Management and evaluation of commercial fisheries. *Developed and implemented hatchery components and practices for Chinook, coho, and chum salmon, and steelhead trout culture. * *Facility renovation for multi- species site. * *Physical and chemical hatchery disease control. * *Testing and disease control programs for hatchery and wild brood stock capture and early egg incubation. February 2, 1990 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Attention: L. Rick Beeler ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3404 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 • (206) 682 -2690 Attention: Hartung - Temperline B.A.R. Hearing 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Beeler: With reference to our letter of January 31, 1990, we are transmitting the following information due by 2:00 PM today in your offices. Items 1 & 2 Submitted January 30, 1990. Items 3 thru 7 and 9 thru 12 Being submitted directly to Public Works by PAC TECH Engineers, Mr.Brion Herron. Items 8 Showing Driveway Revisions and 19 Corrected Mail List Being submitted to Mr. Vernon Umetsu. Item "X" - Completed Application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Plan Other items required by February 5, 6, 8 and 9 will be submitted on those dates. Please advise if you require further information or clarification. fred Croonquist, A.I cc: Mr. Nick Sciol Mr. Brion He on Mr. Frank Dennis Mr. Vernon Umetsu 1 • CITY OF TUKWILA b2nn.5nl. THCENTER Rc)ULEVARD, TUKWILA. IV 15HI:\(TON 98I8x February 2, 1990 Nick Sciola Hartung Glass Inc. 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Hartung - Temperline Building. Dear Nick, PHihvE a (116) 4aa ixnu r;nry I. Pail rrcrn. Mayor This letter is to inform you that I have received all of the Planning Division's required data scheduled for submission on February 2, 1990; and to summarize our telephone conversation this morning when we discussed access, wetland, and storm drainage issues. Access 1. Moving the existing Hartung northern driveway to center on the joint property line and provide a joint driveway between project site, and existing Hartung building seems to be acceptable to you. This would seem to provide adequate access and satisfy the Public Works Dept. position of not allowing additional driveways. I brought up this option in an informal discussion outside the DRC meeting. I have not discussed this option with Ron Cameron, but will do so today, so that he will be familiar with your submittal. Please note that additional Public Works access comments such as elevating the driveway apron to W. Valley Hwy. grade and designing for highway widening should be incorporated into the submitted design. Wetlands 2. Using a principal of Geo Engineers is acceptable to address wetland issues as long as the individual doing the field investigation and analysis is qualified to satisfy the City's data requirements. Note: I later discussed Tukwila's data needs with John Koloski of Geo Engineers, referred him to the Public Works Dept. for bio- filtration requirements, and faxed him our inventory and analysis requirements. 40 Mr. Koloski indicated that he was attempting to contact two biologists that they use, but would also be doing a field analysis in case they could not meet the City's deadline. Storm Water 3. All storm runoff must be biofiltered if drainage is to a wetland. This requirement should be checked with the Public Works Dept. Note: I had a brief discussion with Al Croonquist as he submitted the required data today. I asked whether the engineer had been coordinating with Renton for use of the Springbrook Creek drainage facility. I stated that the City Public Works Dept. must certify that this coordination had been done, that all applicable Renton approvals were assured; and that this could include satisfying a Renton requirement for 100 yr flood detention. Croonquist stated that he understood that all actions were being fully coordinated with Renton, but would double check with the engineers. 4. The underground detention pipes are not biofiltration facilities. They are solely to maintain runoff rates to predevelopment conditions up to the 10 year event. 5. Biofiltration is usually accomplished by running water through a grass swale. Specific design requirements should be reviewed with the Public Works Department. Your civil engineer is aware of this. He mentioned that establishing a swale was proving difficult, but that he would be proposing a solution which was hoped to satisfy City requirements. Phil Fraser stated that he would review this solution. Please contact me immediately at 433 -1858 if I have misunderstood anything or you have further questions. Since ernon Umetsu, Assoc. Planne cc: Croonquist/Fraser/Cameron/Beeler/file. Koc -os< Addendum Regarding Wetlands on Site I discussed the presence of wetlands with John Koloski of Geo Engineers at 4:55 P.M. today. He did provide the City with a verbal analysis per City requirements and anticipates providing a report from a wetland biologist on Monday. Koloski is experienced in dealing with wetland issues, but is not formally trained as a wetland biologist. His preliminary findings are discussed below. Koloski states that the primary wetland area is to the immediate east of a 10 foot high ridge of fill. This ridge separates the main wetland from an isolated shallow pond with voluntary reed canary grass, willows and scotch broom in approximately an 800 sq. ft. area of the eastern project site. He does not feel that this area should be regulated as a wetland based on its small and isolated character and the conflicting nature of vegetation (i.e. canary grass and willows indicating wetlands, and scotch broom indicating dry, well drained soils). As we discussed earlier, should there be a wetland on site a Council moratorium waiver would have to be issued in order to continue processing this application. If the wetland biologist confirms Koloski's preliminary findings, then the City will be required to establish a moratorium on development unless a moratorium waiver is issued by the City Council. If the wetland biologist determines that this is not a wetland, then project review may continue. However, no swale could be established in the primary wetland east of the fill ridge, as seems to be now proposed, without replacement of displaced wetland as a minimum mitigating measure. The wetland analysis in a written report is required by 2:00 P.M. on Monday February 5, 1990. This analysis is essential in order to establish the validity of the proposed storm drainage and biofiltration system at the Public Works Dept. design analysis meeting at 2:00 P.M. and the joint Planning /Public Works department SEPA meeting at 4:00 P.M. Failure to satisfy this deadline will result in a SEPA delay which will then delay the B.A.R. hearing date. I emphasize that City staff is committed to working with you to help realize your project within the bounds of Tukwila's ordinances. I look forward to reviewing your development options. Vernon Umetsu. cI'IlOe TUKWILA FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: N ic(. Sc(oLG4 DATE: az/a_ /iso TITLE: FROM: COMPANY: TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: bc • FAX NO. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMI'1'1'ED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): isii: W.4 - :.....:v.: tiR•': •: •:':: ^kiShiisii3:kN .n.:n... mn.n.........wAJFi:.:6:wvmvn3: IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: tiriiihAV V000N004ATYhY• Ari] Oh•••:: V: i•: yia`k :r:isvrr.:ih`C } %lrii?a0v: i %:V:4G0.'4lCM: ;; SOON: OChiF:. 0Y00W00S%G4000040N90pa000ph]4.. :CKCDNI TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/14/88 0 CITY•F TUKWILA • FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433-1833 TO: i-70 EIA[ K 0 C On< ( DATE: TITLE: A FROM: Veg-A( 0 bkr (4,/-r--7-..s- o COMPANY: Go-0 6NG, TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: FAX NO. 7-46-s0‘8 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMI'l 1ED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): 1/(,_ ' SUBJECT: ffig-e ruiv e TC7c COMMENTS/MESSAGE: p col A(c) (( yg (S A_ CC co py Nx*WWASZ7..5WWR44.0$,*:...' IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: tcaoAormorocomsxgooxIcax-. rmowx.xoxocsaxo.vccaraSte TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433-1800 03/24/89 cITIODe TUKWILA • FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: C� CtooArav Ls-7- DATE: .2.1a /?0 TITLE: FROM: Veto / vM6- 7SU COMPANY: TITLE: DEPARTMENT: . DEPARTMENT: CL FAX NO. G?32 -30(6 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMI'1'1'ED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): SUBJECT: I4-/2 rut ( G C_ G COMMENTS /MESSAGE: CC c 7 v'c Y 1)(s-- re(Po7 -Ea ) ::.:kik:x's: Rein, . ..sr.¢ct:aa.:.: r: - s».a:•arw.•syaeverazF.:-, -- :, IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: :6bS:00�JOv >:000O?74: TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24/89 CITIODF TUKWILA • FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433-1833 TO: ivcr COCA- DATE: ,Z 427? 0 TITLE: FROM: .6-1Xe\Ko i_i (% 6-7-S u COMPANY: TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: M C. FAX NO. SG2Gf ..WWW4WW. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMIT1E,D, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): l/c-t SUBJECT: 1-(71-72, -ruiv G R_61/(euu COMMENTS/MESSAGE: PC -a9-,1- k_6PCC- " 7XA-/\c- icivl r c„ ( .5.165$9,RW,47.WZMF XR*242,4,557.4534,W.X.M. ...i57466,A3C*, . IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: 40.)0440,4, 3w10. .0.0}XL, }MLO.VXCI1/4XIMWN...4{441(MCOVAMICIONW, .{0014XIONvoNCIOC410 y. TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433-1800 03/24/89 1 CI7'IO7F TUKWILA FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: 0 60\‘ /t-0 COS < ( DATE: c2 1-2/pc9 TITLE: .., FROM: Vede-AedA( ()MC-TS v COMPANY: TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: Tv <, tc b FAX NO. TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMI'1"1'ED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): 1/ SUBJECT: wA e 7-64.^(6S-' che ve--y COMMENTS /MESSAGE: Ac. cYvaph4G 0.• 5:': 4: S�PR :BRA•YNi:b:i'.�RS�:LCS. ?.S�iTWd i.�:�bbs.4:i::# tQ+i�C �.RS %v.+S'..�22 ^A.:`.6}.�9 .'. ...::.�x'7.�i5;::•h•.::.. •: -; . JOE. '..... iRC�ac' K:: v;??{•:. YSY' A? S9`#+.iYY>C3:R?2C0??aR'�1.C.•:i 782JO:.RT'•'.:.:.�'.. �G6Rd.F: c.:d•. IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: • TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24/89 0 • DRAFT SENS•VE AREAS ORDINANCE Section 6. Section 21.04.130 Amended. Section 21.04.130 is hereby amended to read as follows: (4) Special studies as described in 21.04.140 for sensitive areas. Page 11 Section 7. Section 21.04.140 Amended. Section 21.04.140(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) If the site is a sensitive area, then the following special study will be required. The DCD Director and Public Works Director may waive specific submittal requirements determined to be unnecessary for review of a use or application. The following exceptions shall generally apply: • Single- family residential permits for lots created by subdivision after 1985. • No alteration of a sensitive area or its buffer is proposed. Special studies shall have three components: a site analysis, an impact analysis, and proposed mitigation measures. More or less detail may be required for each component depending on the size of the project, severity of potential impacts, and availability of information. Funding for a qualified professional, selected and retained by the City, to review the special study and to be present on site during all land surface modifications may be required of the applicant. All studies shall contain the following information unless it is already available in the permit application: (a) Map of the project at a 1:50 or larger scale, including: i. reference streets and property lines. ii. existing and proposed easements, rights -of -way, and structures. iii. contour intervals not to exceed 5 feet; 2 feet may be required for sites with varied topography. iv. hydrology — show surface water features both on and adjacent to the site; show any water movement into, through, and off of the project area; show stream and wetlands; show seeps, springs, saturated zones. (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) v. field location of tops and toes of 40% slopes and embankments (NOTE: these should be located and flagged in the field and will be subject to DCD field review.) vi. location of buffer, proposed building(s) location, and other paved areas. vii. location of trees and description of vegetation on site. (b) Written report detailing i. how, when, and by whom the study was performed (including methodology and techniques). ii. description of the project site and its existing condition and artificial features such as utilities, paving, cuts and fills. iii. the total acreage of the site in sensitive areas and their associated buffers. iv. the proposed action and potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to the sensitive area features (see definitions). v. the mitigation measures proposed to avoid or lessen the projects' impacts during construction and permanently. When alterations to the sensitive area or its buffer are .proposed, include a mitigation plan. vi. weather conditions during and prior to study if relevant to condusions and recommendations, including seasonal factors which could reduce stability of site before, during or after construction. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25, 1989 DRAFT SEOTIVE AREAS ORDINA Page (2) Sensitive Area Study - Wetlands: In addition, for wetland studies, include the following: (a) On the map i. the edge of the wetland as flagged and surveyed in the field using the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. January 10, 1989 ii. the edge of the 100 -year flood plain. iii. the location of any proposed utility easements or trail corridors. iv. when alteration of wetland is proposed, the vegetation of the wetland according to the Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Interior (b) In the report i. description of the wetland and the general condition of the wetland using the Fish and Wildlife Service Classification System. ii. determination of actual use of the wetland by any endangered, threatened, rare, sensitive or monitored species of plants or wildlife as listed by the federal government or the State of Washington using both scientific and common names and their relative abundance. iii. a list of potential plant or animal species based on signs or other observations. iv. description of the soil types within the wetland using the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. v. description of the proposed buffers. (3) Sensitive Area Study - Watercourses. In addition, for watercourse studies, indude the following information: (a) On the map i. the location of the ordinary high water mark and the top of channel bank. ii. the toe of any slope 15% or greater within 25 feet of the ordinary high water mark. iii. the location of any proposed stream crossing, utility easements, or trails. iv. the edge of the existing 100 -year flood plain. (b) In the report i. characterization of watercourse (riparian) vegetation ii. description of the soil types adjacent to and underlying the stream, using the Soil Conservation Service soil classification system. iii. determination of the presence or absence of salmonids. Reference sources including the State Department of Fisheries Catalog of Streams and Salmon Utilizations, Metro Stream Resource Inventories, or State Wildlife Department Game Fish Distribution in Selected Streams. Electrofishing on site or the equivalent may be necessary if no existing documentation is available. iv. When a stream alteration is proposed, include existing stream width and flow, stability of the channel, type of substratum, estimate of infiltration capacity and biofiltration function, presence of hydrologically linked wetlands, and analysis of fish and wildlife habitat, and proposed flood plain limits. (4) Mitigation Plans for Alternations to Wetlands and Streams. The scope and content of a mitigation plan shall be decided on a case -by -case basis. As the impacts to the sensitive area increase, the mitigation measures to offset these impacts will increase in number and complexity. The seven components of a complete mitigation plan are as follows: DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 • DRAFT SEIBMVE AREAS ORDINANCE Page 13 (a) Baseline information: This is quantitive data collection or a review and synthesis of existing data for both the project impact zone and the proposed mitigation site. (b) i. For wetlands, the information should define habitat values (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation Procedures), functional values (e.g., wetland value assessment procedures of Adams and Stockwell, 1983), or document pertinent resource characteristics such as habitat area or species counts or density (e.g;, mean number of eelgrass shoots per square meter). ii. For streams, habitat value, functional value and habitat evaluation are also necessary. At a minimum the following levels of analysis should be included: • Reconnaissance and evaluation - information required for the special studies, additional visual survey of the stream system and /or other pertinent information. • Habitat Trend Analysis - in some cases a more detailed analysis may be required. For this type of analysis current reference is Platts, W.S. et. al. 1987, Methods for Evaluating Riparian Habitats with Applications to Management, General Technical Report INT -221, U.S.F.S., Intermountain Research Stations. • Extended monitoring - in an abnormal rainfall year pre - development monitoring may be necessary to provide adequate baseline data. Environmental Goals and Objectives: These are written goals and objectives that describe the purposes of the mitigation measures. This should include a description of site selection criteria, identification of target evaluation species and resource functions. (c) Performance Standards: These are the specific criteria for fulfilling environmental goals, and for beginning remedial action or contingency measures. They may indude water quality standards, species richness and diversity targets, habitat diversity indices, or other ecological, geological or hydrological criteria. The following shall be considered the minimum performance standards for approved stream alterations: i. maintain stream channel dimensions, including identical depth, length, and gradient ii. restore native vegetation unless expressly waived by DCD; iii. create an equivalent channel bed; iv. create equivalent biofiltration; v. replace habitat value unless expressly waived by DCD; vi. replace horizontal alignment (meander length). (d) Detailed Construction Plan: These are the written specifications and descriptions of mitigation techniques. This plan should include the proposed construction sequence, accompanied by detailed site diagrams and blueprints that are an integral requirement of any development proposal. (e) Monitoring and /or Evaluation Program: This component outlines the approach for assessing a completed project. It also describes the experimental and control site survey or sampling methods. A protocol shall be included that spells out how the monitoring data will be evaluated by agencies that are tracking the mitigation project's progress. (f) Contingency Plan: This section identifies potential courses of action, and any corrective measures to be taken when monitoring or evaluation indicates project performance standards have not been met. DRAFT NO. 1 October 25,1989 CI1'IOOF TUKWILA FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433 -1833 TO: Cre0CMQ CitsT DATE: 170 //?'0 TITLE: FROM: _ vek/`<0 0� �pc.( 7� v COMPANY: TITLE: Assoc. 9c, DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: FAX NO. 82-1016 Jia�Al:�OC TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): 1 C vvi:�v. . .:. : : :: - . .:...::_.. :. -: n:.:::J:aii }Si }:vi}S ]. .n.n3:... . r.. :. :: - - m...X:...�x:a SUBJECT: C-S71/44P M (c ToN) COMMENTS /MESSAGE: le6-- (/PAWS- HcSS(dtit a� QGI c 7' (s I /71U° EV:isSeQ Q67— AnlfOpttSS(onl No 7" ACcOEP7i AT Oe6CG vi ,G S( Tr" (Pkanrf r(oT aK.rw e't)). R6 T2anusM (ssto,v 260v1,e" 6S-CA o"/ (/e-v -1 U6' To' v,e6(02Ra2 • IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: .swab:.xoraabuo3w>a�rx r.vmo xox•xoN %rw).\\*. 0000wau:auw:v :oriwx:.: ::,: }:a } }} •.:, :m }n:•}}xy) ::,:ox.xom mv. ..:+mmo »warnmod000cxbcmo-:ke000v xo-:o-yowxmmox000hx.x,: aormtko } mono. TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98I88 - (206) 433 -1800 03/24/89 0 CIT*OF TUKWILA FAX TRANSMITTAL FAX NUMBER: (206) 433-1833 TO: A A (. eg.00/1162c) c5 7 - DATE: 0../ ( 7?e, ) TITLE: FROM: \-rieekle)/ti UM 6" 7S c) COMPANY: TITLE: A55 0 . 19,,,,k kr3-783-6) DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: C-.b FAX NO. 682-30/6 TOTAL NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTED, INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): VC* SUBJECT: COMMENTS/MESSAGE: (v ()FS r4/V-77/1 C penp(r-r A-top, 0 /az Fog_pt 1111 4Pg. fiieLf- H 7-622- (11. c3 uc ,s-Pg-c(F/erb 0 Iv I 70 /k-4 gik-t o (R-5"7-1,AaS'xt(s- (0/v PA r et> Cw Q or.c-r S-04 ys- ye- 164 A - 0 2 - 0 1 - 1 > ` r - G o e v i P r e" Aw 4-f (boac 2,/ /90 IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: ver400.s.W.C.}.MAXMOW.0}X{{,~e,C.C. ‘YeNNOCLO.X... Ve}:040:40i. oc40:?,m.g.MMMMUW, TUKWILA CITY HALL - 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 - (206) 433-1800 03/24/89 0 Wit% Geo q� Engineers F. L. Hartung 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Nick Sciola • FEB 5 1990 1 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists February 1, 1990 Geotechnical Considerations Proposed Hartung Glass Facility 17800 Block West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington File No. 1396- 002 -BO2 This letter is in response to geotechnical issues raised by the City of Tukwila regarding the above - referenced project. We presented geotech- nical recommendations for the project in our "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services and Preliminary Site Assessment, 17800 Block West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington." We have not reviewed plans or specifications for the project. However, based on conversations with the owner, architect and civil engineer, it appears that the project is similar to that assumed during preparation of our referenced report. Under these circumstances, the design conclusions and recommendations presented in our report are still appropriate for the project. As stated in our report, we recommend that we provide construction monitoring services during the geotechnical related aspects of construction. In this regard, we recommend that we perform the following scope of services: 1. Evaluate all building and parking lot subgrades prior to placing structural fill. GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 r1. af1 Geoff Engineers F. L. Hartung February 1, 1990 Page 2 2. Monitor and test structural fill placement in the building and parking areas. Depending upon weather, type of material used for structural fill, contractor's procedures and other factors, part - time or full -time monitoring may be appropriate. 3. Perform laboratory maximum density /moisture tests (ASTM D -1557) as necessary. 4. Confirm that the recommended preload height, areal distribution and settlement monitoring plates have been installed per our recommendations. It is our opinion that full -time monitoring of placement of the surcharge fill is not necessary since because this is not a structural element. 5. Review fill /surcharge settlement data provided by the surveyor or contractor so that we can advise the contractor as to when the surcharge may be removed. 6. Evaluate all footing subgrades prior to pouring concrete. 7. Evaluate the slab subgrade prior to placing the capillary break material. 8. Provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated. 9. Prepare a summary report at the conclusion of our services. We can provide you with a cost estimate for these services once the construction schedule and contractor have been determined. 0 0 0 Wit% Geoff Engineers F. L. Hartung February 1, 1990 Page 3 We trust this letter serves your current needs. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. J. Robert Gordon Senior Engineer ,JRG:JWK:cs cc: Croonquist Architects Attn: Mr. Al Croonquist PAC -TECH Attn: Mr. Brian Harron Jon W. Koloski Principal O FEB- 1-90 T H U 15 :5 4 GE I B E L L E V U E 144 SRA, eqfp F. L. Hartung 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Nick Sciola February 1, 1990 FEB 5 Ina % 2 • [)RAPT Geotechnical Consideratiors Proposed Hartung Glass Facility 17800 Block West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington File No. 1396- 002 -B02 This letter is in response to geotechnical issues raised '5y the City of Tukwila regarding the above - referenced project. We presented geotech- nical recommendations for the project in our "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services and Preliminary Site Assessment, 17800 Block West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington." We have not reviewed plans or specifications for the project:, However, based on conversations with the owner, architect and civil engineer, it appears that the project is similar to that assumed during preparation of our referenced report. Under these circumstances, the design conclusions and recommendations presented in our report are still appropriate: for the project. The "site" as discussed in our report comprises 43 acres, including a westerly 3 -acre parcel and an easterly 13 -acre parcel. It should be noted that the area evaluated in the report with respect to potential wetlands impacts is restricted to the eastern boundary of the easterly 13 -acre parcel. The 13 -acre parcel is not a part of this project. Wetlands issues F. L. Hartung February 1, 1990 Page 2 DRAFT ill FEB 51990 were not a concern on the 3 -acre parcel at the time of our report. During our study, we found the 3 -acre parcel: to be several feet higher than the easterly 13 -acre parcel and mantled by several feet of non - organic fill. We noted no shallow water table, and no hydric soils or plant species on that parcel. It is our opinion that wetlands are not an issue on the 3 -acre_ parcel. As stated in our report, we recommend that we provide construction monitoring services during the geotechnical related aspects of construction. In this regard, we recommend that we perform the following scope of services: 1. Evaluate all building and parking lot subgrades prior to placing structural fill. 2. Monitor and test structural fill placement in the building and parking areas. Depending upon weather, type of material used for structural fill, contractor's procedures and other factors, part - time or full -time monitoring may be appropriate. 3, Perform laboratory maximum density /moisture tests (ASTM D -1557) as necessary. 4. Confirm that the recommended preload height, areal distribution and settlement monitoring plates have been installed per our recommendations. It is our opinion that full -time monitoring of placement of the surcharge fill is not necessary since because this is not a structural element. 5, Review fill /surcharge settlement data provided by the surveyor or contractor so' that we can advise the contractor as to when the surcharge may be removed. 6. Evaluate all footing subgrades prior to pouring concrete. 7. Evaluate the slab subgrade prior to placing the capillary break material. 8. Provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during construction differ from those antickpared. 9. Prepare a summary report at the conclusion of our services. • �s— '�.�"r.Yitn'.�.1)� • •'1... 1''Is •'•(p.@.> C i'� '!M fn�'1' 'v:!£y7,'�` +'Pi w :�'.:,�,i -r ��i.�.:iSei�i'14s:ids'LA::id �yW`� .4^� -�.5 -90 T H U 1 5 : 5 5 G a r B E L L E V U E WA P.04 F. L. Hartung February 1, 1990 Page 3 FEB 5 1990 DRAFT We can provide you with a cost estimate for these services once the construction schedule and contractor have been determined. 0 0 0 We trust this letter serves your current needs. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. J. Robert Cordon Senior Engineer Jon W. Koloskt Principal JRG :JWK:cs cc: Croonquist Architects Attn: Mr. Al Croonquist PAC-TECH Attn: Mr, Brian Herron • S;/ / ep r+ 061,4-0 Geo ,Engineers reduce postconstruction settlements to acceptable limits. We also recommend that the :floor slab be underlain by a minimum thickness of 2 feet of structural fill. Most of the site grade is slightly lower than that of the F.L. Hartung site to the south. We understand the finished floor level of the F.L. Hartung building is approximately Elevation 26 feet. Finished site grades could be established near the existing grades; however, the existing conditions offer poor foundation support and the existing soils will be difficult to rework. Alternatively, raising site grades by importing select fill will substantially improve foundation conditions. The fill imported for the surcharge program could be graded across the building and parking areas to raise the grade. Otherwise, excess surcharge fill would need to be exported after the surcharge program. Raising the site grade will minimize overexcavation of the existing silty site soils in the building area and will allow placing a nominal thickness of granular subbase in the parking area. The quantity of import could be reduced by surcharging a portion of the building footprint to begin with and then moving the surcharge fill to the remaining portions of the footprint once monitoring indicates the desired settlement response has been achieved. The lowlying drainage area located along the east margin of the property is not currently classified as a wetlands area. There is some typical wetland vegetation that appears to be east of the Hartung property line. We found no significant depth of organic soils and the area was dry at the time of our field exploration. It appears that development on this property would not encroach on the wetlands. SITE PREPARATION AND FILL PLACEMENT The site soils include a relatively high content of silt and clay fines. Therefore, they are water sensitive and difficult if not impos- sible to properly compact when wet. We recommend that the earthwork portions of the project be completed during the drier summer months in order to use portions of the on -site soils for structural fill and minimize grading costs. If wet weather construction is necessary, all wet 7 FEB 5 1990 CITY OF TL__�VVILA 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington .98188 (206) 433 -1800 MEMORANDUM TO: \iLt.,i FROM: p,c(‘ DATE: 0,0 0 SUBJECT: -21\& CLLPSSS •i1 r'L Air . L F4k\- `R ee CSC AC' _ _ �:�� • • Fay ► /31/0 0.44.14. r/s �O stmt A 2/2 /9O v4 C17'1" ()F TL'fi WILA I'Hic1: \i`1;1i krrr /F1-tklr. TI hit 7 /. -I tt (,7U\ January 31, 1990 Alfred Croonquist Alfred Croonquist Architects One Union Square Building Suite 3404 Seattle, WA 98101 M1/) \T = t'r6.r -r : -/,vr, arrl.. tuulrrr"n..il,n,r RE: Hartung - Temperline Building Permit Review. Dear Mr. Croonquist, This letter is to summarize the information in our telephone conversation of January 31, 1990. I have reviewed the following applications and information submitted to date for the completeness necessary for Planning Division review: EPIC- 33 -89: Environmental Review 89- 18 -DR: Design Review and 89- 9 -SMP: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. I have found that the following information must still be submitted: By 2:00 P.M., Friday, February 2, 1990 1. Complete the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. 2. A corrected legal description which reflects the construction of 33 parking spaces and landscaping on the southerly abutting property. Identification of this area on the site plan as the subject of a parking easement will be acceptable for design review purposes. .However, a legal description and agreement must be recorded prior to issuing a permit. 3. Correct legal notice information including that necessary to incorporate the entire southerly abutting property as part of the project site. The data on file is for a property 340 feet to the south of the project site you identified on January 29, 1990. Legal notice information of all property /easement of both parcels (see No. map which identifies the and tenant listed. shall include (a) a. mailing matrix owners, and tenants within 300 feet 1) and (b) a King County Assessor's location of each property ownership 4. A map of all existing and proposed property lines, easements, and dedications. This information should be shown on both the 30 scale and 20 scale site plans. The information should include permission from the owners of affected easements for the proposed use as necessary. Permission may be submitted by February 9, 1990. 5. Resolve all traffic /circulation and storm drainage issues with the Public Works Department. By 2:00 P.M., Monday February 5, 1990 5. A report from a wetland biologist to establish how the proposed project may affect a wetland in the area. The report shall establish (a) whether there is a wetland on the property, (b) how the proposed action could affect the wetland in the area, and (c) mitigating actions. 6. Existing and finished grades with 2 ft. contours from the West Valley.Hwy. curb to encompass the full site and 10 feet onto adjacent properties to demonstrate adequate transition. By 2:00 P.M., Monday, February 12, 1998 7. Shoreline profiles with mean high water line (per Tukwila Public Works Dept.), 40 ft. river environment, 100 ft. low impact environment, and 200 ft. shoreline environment relative to existing and proposed improvements; and the location of profile lines on the site plan. Information to be provided is listed in Shoreline Permit Application Checklist items Q and. R. The requirement for a tree survey is waived. Providing the above information by the respective deadlines is essential for Board of Architectural Review action at their meeting on February 22,1990. Please note that additional information will be required by other City departments. You are responsible for ensuring that all significant issues are resolved in time for the D.C.D. Director to make a SEPA.threshold determination on February 7, 1990. • • I am available at 433 -1858 if I can be of further help. Sincerely, ernon Umetsu, Assoc. P anner • • .1/t / ?0 -- • January 31, 1990 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA .98188 Attention: L. Rick Beeler FEB 21990 P; ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3404 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 • (206) 682 -2690 Reference: Hartung - Temperline B.A.R. Hearing 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Beeler: Based on a meeting for the above project on January 26, 1990, it was agreed that a February 22nd B.A.R. review meeting could be set provided the following is delivered to the City of Tukwila. DATE DESCRIPTION JAN 2 1. A legal description of the property. A JAN 2 2. A color board showing proposed exterior colors of the building. (A colored elevation had been submitted earlier.) O FEB 2 3. A boundary and topographical survey (a copy of the survey shown at the meeting.) A & E FEB 2 4. Letters from soils engineers: a) Stating that information in soils report will be complied with. b) Soils engineer will provide full -time site inspection during pre -load. .. /2 • • City of Tukwila January 31, 1990 Page Two DATE E FEB 2 DESCRIPTION 5. Fire Marshal: 'coordination letters - City of Renton. E FEB 2. 6. Hire a wetlands ecology consultant to report on wetlands area. A FEB 2 7. Access ramp to south loading dock (trucks A FEB 2 E FEB 2 E FEB 2 E FEB 2 E FEB 2 to dock -hi require 65' recess). 8. A revised plan including those changes requested by Mr. Umetsu. 9. Pre -load Plan. 10. Erosion Control Plan. 11. Conceptual Storm Drainage Plan. 12. Topog section from Green River, across West Valley Highway and to West building, then from East end of building to property line. E FEB 5 13. Easement description, access, parking and storm design. City of Tukwila January 31, 1990 Page Three DATE DESCRIPTION E FEB 5 14. Sanitary water letters from Renton. FEB 6 15. Mutual access (driveway) easements. O FEB 6 16. Mutual storm easements. E FEB 8 17. Downstream analysis to determine extent of storm impact on January 9, 1990. E FEB 9 18. Permission from City of Renton on 15' water easement in driveway. A FEB 6 19. Correct mailing list information to include Lot 1 property owners and tenants. A PERM APP 20. Site Plan - Show site plan extending to river - include river - show mean high water mark per public works. Please call if you have any questions, additions or corrections to the above listing. ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS Al red H. Croonquist ' A.I.A. cc: Nick Sciola Brian Herr Frank Dennis NOTE: Designations - A -- Architect E -- Engineer O -- Owner CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD,' TUKWILA. WASHINGTON 98188 Nick Sciola Hartung Glass, Inc. 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Hartung Glass Building. Dear Nick: PIIONE # (2061433-1809 January 30, 1990 This letter is to summarize our January 26, 1990 meeting regarding the emergency schedule for this project. Because you need to start construction on June 1, every attempt is being made by everyone for the February 22 Board of Architecture Review meeting. This will place a great deal of pressure on your design team as well as on City staff. The time we now have will require staff environmental and design review decisions to be made quickly. Normally staff would review those decisions with you before final decisions are made. It will now be possible only for staff's final decisions to be made at the last possible moment. We agreed to the January 29: February 1: February 2: February 7: February 15: Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor following schedule: You will provide an updated property map and legal description, color and building material samples. DRC meeting to go over your application and information. By noon you will resolve traffic and storm drainage issues and supply us with the information. Staff will make the SEPA threshold determination. Staff report will be mailed to the Board of Architecture Review. We also agreed that failure on anyone's part to meet this schedule will postpone the Board of Architecture Review hearing on this application. You have two critical decisions yet to make that will effect your schedule. The first is whether or not the Page 2 preload will be done in phases. The second is whether or not the building permit will be submitted prior to issuance of the shoreline permit. Commitments should be now made to the shortest timeline in order to meet your ultimate deadline. If you have any questions call Vernon Umetsu (433 -1858) as soon as possible. Vern will now be handling your application. All questions and information should hereafter be given to him. We'll continue to give our questions and information to Al Croonquist, unless and until you notify us otherwise. cc: Mayor Vern Umetsu Al Croonquist Frank Dennis Ross Earnst ENVIROMIENTAL REVIEW ROUMG FORM CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT EPIC: Building Tanning Pub Wks Fire -, --iDR C - ? - sMQ Parks/Rec PROJECT Kilk7'u T1M WORL / ■'C (IVCCA) CONS-77) ADDRESS Wo, o F (7830 �u. VA -L.CY (h,,)y DATE TRANSMITTED l 72 . %-) STAFF COORDINATOR Vci zo�i ._MG TT (J RESPONSE REQUESTED BY DATE RESPONSE RECEIVED ,2/2 /y0 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 Department through the above staff coordinator. Comments regarding the project you wish carried to the Planning Commission, Board of Adjustment and City Council should be submitted in the comment section below. ITEM COMMENT Date: Comments prepared by: , 09/14/89 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 26, 1990 TO: Rick Beeler, DCD Director FROM: Jack Pace, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Hartung Glass BACKGROUND 7 -6 -89 Pre - application reviewed at DRC. No indication on plans as to containing wetlands on site. 12 -8 -89 Application submitted for Design Review, Shoreline and Environmental Checklist. At the time of submittal, there were 11 applications ahead of this application. The application was filed and stored. 1 -24 -89 Application was reviewed. Soils Report note: "The low - lying drainage area located along the east margin of the property is not currently classified as a wetlands area. There is some typical wetland vegetation that appears to be east of the Hartung property ". Staff then reviewed the Wetlands Inventory parepared by Jones & Stokes Associates (Oct - 1989) which indicated a portion of the property has wetlands located on the northeast corner. 1 -25 -89 Set up meeting with the applicant for 1 -26 -90 at 2:00 pm. 0 0 1'1iie ° ; tt5 1 J 2. 1 ? 0 Mc‘Lia -el fn�„sloa.1,. Wil s,Kastner &Gibbs (` Cyril E.B. Juanitas, Jr. Attorney at Law (206) 462 -4700 Gz$ 2000 Skyline Tower 10900 N.E. Fourth Street Bellevue, Washington 98004-5841 FAX (206) 451 -0714— Seattle Bellevue Tacoma Vancouver Portland DATE: TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM January 26, 1990 Rick Beeler, DCD Director Jack Pace, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Hartung Glass BACKGROUND 7 -6 -89 Pre - application reviewed at DRC. No indication on plans as to containing wetlands on site. 12 -8 -89 Application submitted for Design Review, Environmental Checklist. At the time of there were 11 applications ahead of this The application was filed and stored. 1 -24 -89 Application was reviewed. Soils Report note: "The low - lying drainage area located along the east margin of the property is not currently classified as a wetlands area. There is some typical wetland vegetation that appears to be east of the Hartung property ". Staff then reviewed the Wetlands Inventory parepared by Jones & Stokes Associates (Oct - 1989) which indicated a portion of the property has wetlands located on the northeast corner. Shoreline and submittal, application. 1 -25 -89 Set up meeting with the applicant for 1 -26 -90 at 2:00 pm. 0 (AA, • • Subject APSM li vN `.t (- 4 5S Speea message From • • Date 24 19 76 - lt_ <1- (i' - ` 2 it9 0- A Gtr. ^Tt 0 Cu 1 *1 S 5 ` !St -s�s,t S fm_%- -r \Nti zs- 'unto ZY uVtvvz_A-rorz LVWt �.1 . ts-- - - •frrji 1-0 �u��.�" U i P2:.4iT -C ASS°, {-t-E` L1._ �6 �t 5uv . Rai L ► 1V commtSSmiK1 M oP r , &Sr k Set2(tQs • JeiCAL WilsonJones GRAYLINE FORM 44 -900 2 -PART C1983 • PRINTED IN U.SA. Signed • • CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of this 24th day of January, 1990, is by and between the City of Tukwila, a Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and C. Michael Aippersbach, hereinafter referred to as the "Consultant." WHEREAS, the City desires to retain the services of a consultant to conduct a development permit review; and WHEREAS, the Consultant is qualified, willing and able to provide and perform said services described in this agreement; and WHEREAS, the said services to be performed by the Consultant are temporary in nature. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, to be kept, performed and fulfilled by the respective parties thereto, and other good consideration, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. The Consultant shall assist the Community Development Department by conducting a SEPA review and preparing the required determination notice; conducting shoreline review and preparing necessary documentation and notice; and preparing a Design Review staff report for -1- the Hartung - Temperline application. 2. The City agrees to pay the Consultant at the rate of $ 55 per hour for his services and $ 35 per hour for the services of a research assistant performed under this contract in the amount not to exceed $ 4,800.00. Such payments shall constitute the consultant's sole compensation for the contract services performed for the City. The Consultant shall submit invoices to the City not more often than once a month, which shall be based upon actual time as verified by submittal on invoice. The payment to the Consultant shall be payable to and mailed to following address: C. Michael Aippersbach PO Box 95429 Seattle WA 98145 -2429 3. The term of this agreement shall be through June 30, 1990 unless terminated earlier or extended for an additional period as provided under the following section hereof. 4. This agreement may be extended for an additional period upon the written consent of both parties hereto. This agreement may be terminated at will by either Party on -2- • • ten (10) days written notice to the other, except that if either Party fails to perform or observe any of the provisions, terms, or conditions herein, either Party may terminate this agreement immediately, so long as written notice is thereafter communicated to the other. 5. The City shall provide graphic support, word processing of final drafts, and timely staff review. 6. Said services, and all duties incidental or necessary thereto shall be conducted and performed diligently and competently and in accordance with professional standards of conduct and performance. 7. All records or papers of any sort relating to the City and the project will at all times be the property of the City and shall be surrendered to the City upon demand. All information concerning the City and said project, which is not otherwise a matter of public record or required by law to be made public, is confidential and the Consultant will not, in whole or in part, now or at any time disclose that information without the express consent of the City. 8. This agreement may not be assigned or otherwise transferred by either party hereto. The Consultant may hire a portion of the work to be done by others provided the Consultant receives written consent of the -3- City. 9. No change, alteration, modification or addition to this agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and properly signed by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this agreement on the day and year first above written. C. Michael Aippersbach Community Development Director Approved as to form: City Attorney City Administrator a 1 M , • ., WINO i - 1 • •.... 1 11 11 4, 1 VII 11.1 11 6.1 \L.11 IL. • L. HARTUNG GLASS CO. INC. 17830 West Valley Hwy., Tukwila, WA 98188 Wholesale Flat Glass Distributors • Mfg. of insulating Glass Units • Glass Tempering FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION To: Company: \ t�IlOtitiv{;sf kee— ''' Date: From: Dept:u Number of pages (INCLUDING COVER SHEET) IN THE EVENT YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES IN THIS TRANSMISSION PLEASE CONTACT OUR OFFICE. Office Phone Number: (206) 656 -2626 I- 800 -552 -2227 FAX NUMBER - 206- 656 -2601 • Tukwila 206.656.2626 1-800-652-2227 FAX: 206.656.2601 Tacoma 206.383.4700 or 272.1999 1- 800 - 622 -2215 FAX: 206-383-4700 Ballard 206.283.8230 FAX: 206484 -6033 • i JAN 15 '90 17:25 HARTUNG/TEMPFRLINL 411 411 Nick Sciola 17 Bridlewood Circle Kirkland, Washington 98033 January 10, 1990 Mr. John McFarland City Administrator City of Tukwila Dear Mr. McFarland The purpose of this letter is to express my extreme concern and distress at having the hearing for my application for a building permit delayed until April instead of This represents a three m onth application within the required 45 days prior tJanuaryt25. Further, Mr Rich Beeler, Planning Department, states will, result in a delay until at least August 1990 for actual ispu nce of a building permit. As prior Jackcorrespondence the supts, we were told in November wc8submA�tted our application Tukwila Planning Department, that 1990 hearing. by December 8, 1989 we would make the January 25, We concurred with this requirement. We even submitted a pre .,application permit form in July 1989. This delay cannot be construed in any manner as responsive city governmentukservice. We employ over 100 people and extensively supph base. This proposed ninety day delay is especially onerous due to the difficult nature of our building project. The seven need due to the low grade of the project (7) process. If en en are foot pre load base requires a long setting p delayed an extra three months, we will not be able to a pre then load the land n a manner of 50% coverage on the property transfer that 50% all to the other one half of the - property. The general contractor, Foushee, has increased his contract bid :by' $130,000, if a dill pre load process 'versus a 50% process is used. We simply would not have adequate time to one halt pre load load with a ninety (90) day delay. Further, congestionhonf the West process reduces significantly any traffic Valley Highway and related clean up due to the pre loading process. Additional costs due to a ninety (90) day delay are as follows, • Our loan committment from U.S Bank will expire before we can begin construction. • Our lease on our Ballard warehouse will terminate prior to completion of the landlord inoBallard. This will = am at will the mercy of surely the m coat me a pound of flesh or more. - We have ordered new automated insulating equipment from Austria at a cost of over $1,000,000. This equipment will be delayed and 1 am at risk on the value of the American dollar against the German mark. A 5% decline in the value of the dollar costs me $50,000. The dollar continues to weaken. My contract for marks will expire prematurely with a 90 day delay. - We have very extensive electrical requirements for our various, equipment items. A delay will disrupt our entire production process. - We require overhead cranes to transport goods in the new building. These cranes require extensive work to install. Any delay will also disrupt our entire production and transportation process. In Conclusion, 1 am requesting that our application for a building permit be heard on January 25, 1990. As 1 have presented above, any delay will cause undue hardship on my 0 Company and to our employees. The City of Tukwila must act in a responsive and effecient manner to support their City members. Whatever must be done such as special sessions or longer agendas should be implemented immediately. ?lease immediately call me at 656 -2626 with your response. Very truly yours, Nick Sciola 11 • CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKIVILA, IVAS1I1N( TON (18188 January 4, 1990 Mr. Howard Kinney, A.I.A. Alfred Croonquist Architects One Union Square Building, Suite 3404 Seattle, WA 98101 Re: Hartung Glass Company Dear Mr. Kinney: MOAT # ('206) 433.1800 (3j I.. Vran/lusen. Mayor This letter is to clarify our situation which led to your perception of delay of your project. Be assured that any delay was not intentional. My delay in returning your call was caused by Jack Pace's and my scheduled holiday vacations. The change in scheduling your application, as you will recall from our conversation, was primarily caused by the City Council declaring an emergency and imposing a moratorium on development in sensitive areas. That moratorium was imposed between the time Jack Pace advised you of the schedule and the advice given when you applied on December 8, 1989. Your property was not affected by the moratorium. However the moratorium caused other applications to be filed in November. This created a backlog of applications awaiting hearing by the Planning Commission. Jack was not aware of the full impact of the moratorium until December. When we last spoke you asked for a firm date for appearing before the Planning Commission. At that time my estimate was April 26, 1990. We continue to do our best to improve that schedule but are unable to guarantee hearing dates. I spoke with Nick Sciola on January 4, 1990 about this issue and was hopeful that you had conveyed the substance of our previous conversation and correspondence. Mr. Sciola was unaware of the above, but now knows what you and I understood in December. Mr. Sciola and I also discussed the State Shoreline Permit schedule which you have not raised to date. This delays issuance of the building permit until the State Shoreline Permit is final, perhaps as late as mid -July. This was understandably a serious concern to the Mr. Sciola, and I think he now understands the total process for this application. Regrettably your application must be processed through Tukwila as well as the State. Normally that process takes at least four months, including the Planning Commission hearing. • • Howard Kinney January 4, 1990 Page 2 Unfortunately, the current backlog of applications adds to that time. Once the process is complete we can act on a building permit applications. If you have any further questions please call Jack Pace at 433 -1847. Respect . Rick Bee er, i ector Department of Community Development cc: Mayor City Administrator Jack Pace rb /wb • ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION• SQUARE- BUILDING.:_SUITE.3404.- SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 • (206) 682,-2690 1 i + + January 2, 1989 JAN 21990 Mr. Rick Beeler, Director City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Hartung Glass Company, West Valley Highway Dear Mr. Beeler: Please recall our telephone conversation of Thursday, December 28, with which your call finally responded to my daily and repeated attempts to reach your office since receipt of your December 19th letter which arrived on December 21st. Your letter was in response to my letter of December 11th which inquired into hearing schedules with the City of Tukwila. The above dates are mentioned because they establish a pattern of delay. Delay of one week to respond to a letter, then delay of another week to respond to phone calls. The delays become months when we are advised that our project submitted on December 8th shall not be heard until April 19, 1990. Mr. Beeler, the City of Tukwila is causing delay to construction of a very simple tilt -up concrete warehouse /office building similar to dozens of neighboring structures along the West Valley Highway. Our client would appreciate a letter from your office explaining this further delay. Very truly yours, ALFREQ CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS Howard A. Kinne HAK /jh cc: Nick Sciola Bruce McCann • CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 OUTNCENTERfiOLLh.'l�akf�, December 19, 1989 Mr. Howard A. Kinney, A.I.A. ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS One Union Square Building Suite 3404 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Hartung Glass Company Dear Mr. Kenny: Your concern expressed in your December 11, 1989 letter about the uncertainty of a hearing date is understandable. As Jack Pace no doubt explained, we share that concern but the number of applications already filed has filled the available Planning Commission hearing agendas through March. Many of those applications have already been waiting for a few months for a hearing. To be fair to all the applicants, we can only schedule applications in order of receipt for tentative hearing dates. As the situation changes, adjustments are made in the schedule on an order of receipt basis. More applications are being filed so I recommend that you file your applications as soon as possible. I know this does not satisfy your need for a firm hearing date. It is impossible for me to now set any dates for anyone. We are making every effort to ease the situation and will notify applicants of any changes in the schedule. At this time we can not make any commitments other than to do our best to reduce the hearing lead time. Sine L. Rick Beeler, Director Department of Community Development VICTOR H BISHOP P E PresKient' • • TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2101 - 112th AVENUE N.E., SUITE 110 — BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98004 TELEPHONE 455 -5320 — AREA CODE 206 December 13, 1989 Mr. Howard Kinney, AIA ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS 600 University Street One Union Square Building, Suite 3404 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: West Valley Highway Warehouse Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Kinney: I am pleased to submit this traffic impact study for the proposed West Valley Highway Warehouse project to be located in the City of Tukwila, Washington. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed West Valley Highway warehouse /retail project site is located approximately 800 feet north of S. 180th St. on the east side of West Valley Highway (SR 181) in the City of Tukwila,, WA. The project is expected to reach full occupancy by mid 1990. Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street network. Figure 2 is a revised site plan, dated December 5, 1989. The three land uses planned for the building are retail, warehouse and office space associated with the warehouse, consisting of 15,976, 54,000 and 15,520 sq. ft., respectively. The warehouse offices will be located above the retail section in the second story of the building. The warehouse section will be one story only. The total site area is about three acres. The site will have two driveways along its frontage on West Valley Highway. Please refer to figures 3, 4 or 5 for the driveway (D /W) designations used throughout the remainder of this report. D/W #5, which abuts the north property line of the site, will serve both the new site and the adjacent property to the north (Howard Cooper). The new site driveway will widen the existing Howard Cooper driveway by 25 feet to the south. D/W #4, which abuts the south property line, will serve only the new site. Mr. Howard Kinney, AIA ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS December 13, 1989 Page -2- EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed site is a mostly open parcel of land with a fairly flat terrain. West Valley Hwy., which provides access to the site, is a five -lane principal arterial, with two lanes in each direction and a two -way left turn lane. There is curb, gutter and sidewalk on the east side, and curb, gutter and guardrail on the west side along the Green River. The existing Hartung - Temperline building on the property just south of the proposed project site is nearly identical to the proposed land use for the new building. The basic difference is a smaller space dedicated to offices than the new proposal, and a Ryder used vehicle sales operation located on the east side of the existing warehouse structure. The existing warehouse and Ryder sales are served by two driveways on West Valley Highway. D/W #2, serving the majority of the truck traffic (about 12% of vehicles using this driveway are trucks), is within 15 feet of D/W #1 serving a rental equipment company just south of there. The area between these driveways is paved and is able to accommodate the turning radius requirement of the trucks using these driveways. The trucks associated with the Hartung - Temperline warehouse are mostly articulated and their wheelbase does not exceed forty feet. The percentages of passenger cars, single units and larger trucks currently using D /W's 2, 3 and.5 are 83 %, 5% and 12 %, respectively. D/W #3 does not provide adequate turning radius (without restricting entering /exiting vehicle access) for the trucks larger than single units for all possible turning movements. Figure 3 shows 1989 PM peak hour traffic volumes for D /W's 2, 3 and 5. TP &E performed a two -hour manual turning movement count on Wednesday, November 29, 1989 at D /W's #2, 3 and 5 including classification of vehicle type. The southbound left turn queue at the signalized intersection of West Valley Hwy. and S. 180th St. becomes so long during the PM peak hour that left turns out of even Howard Cooper's driveway (D /W #5) can be difficult. TP &E observed queues extending past D/W #3 for about 50 minutes during the PM peak hour on November 29, 1989, and on November 30, 1989 observed queues obstructing left -turns out of D/W #5 for about 55 minutes during the PM peak hour. This queuing of vehicles in the two -way left turn lane causes a problem for employees and business patrons who desire to turn left out of D /W's #1 -5. Naturally, the motorist will seek the accessible O 1PE TPE Mr. Howard Kinney, AIA ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS December 13, 1989 Page -3- driveway that is far enough north that it outdistances the long traffic signal queue. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Since the proposed project will be similar to the existing Hartung - Temperline warehouse /retail facility, trip generation of the existing land uses was used in conjunction with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation, Fourth Edition, 1987 to estimate trip generation for the proposed project site. Table 1 shows trip generation for the existing and proposed sites. For the new warehouse and retail, trip generation. was calculated using a trip rate derived from the manual count and square footage information on the existing building. For the new office space, ITE's Trip Generation was used to calculate the site - generated trips. Figure 4 shows the site - generated trips distributed to the various driveways which will serve the proposed site. The north /south directional split to /from the driveways is estimated at 56 %/44 %, based on the TP &E manual count mentioned above. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 5 shows 1990 PM peak traffic volumes with the project. A background growth rate of 2.6% per six months was assumed based on historical traffic counts on West Valley Hwy. north of S. 180th Street. Good truck circulation is imperative to any warehouse operation, and should be evaluated carefully to identify problem areas and solutions to those. problems. Figure 2 shows the proposed design of D /W's #4 and 5. D/W #4 geometrically restricts truck access except that westbound left turns can be made out of the driveway without imposing on vehicles attempting to enter the driveway at the same time. This driveway's design could be improved to facilitate better truck access to the site through widening of the throat and /or flares of the driveway. D/W #5 would accommodate larger trucks fairly well due to its wide throat, but it is not desired to have trucks using this driveway because they would be circulating through the retail parking area. Even if trucks were allowed and were able to use D/W #5, circulation to the south and east sides of the warehouse is not possible because a protruding parking island causes the radius on the southwest corner • Mr. Howard Kinney, AIA ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS December 13, 1989 Page -4- of the building to be too tight. One solution is move the parking island north, deleting one parking stall. Referring to Figure 4, note that six in -trips have been assigned to D/W #2. D/W #2 could serve as an access to the new warehouse for trucks. The circulation would be east along the south side of the existing warehouse, then north along the east side of that building, to either loading bays on the east side, or the south side, of the new building. D/W #2 is geometrically accessible by trucks as described previously, however the queueing problem in the two -way left turn lane on West Valley Hwy. prevents left turns out during most of the PM peak period. TP &E conducted a gap study on November 30, 1989 between 5:15 and 6:00 PM as shown in Table 2. The traffic signal at the intersection of West Valley Hwy. and S. 180th St. produces frequent and numerous gaps in the northbound traffic flow. On the average there was 1.76 usable gaps per minute. A usable gap of seven seconds was used based on Highway Capacity Manual procedures for unsignalized intersections for right turns out, left turns out and left turns in. It is estimated that 180 vehicles could find usable gaps in the 45 minute observation period, compared to only 120 vehicles that are expected to make those movements to /from D /W's #2 -5 in the PM peak 45 minute period. Only 75 of those vehicles are expected to use the new site driveways in that period. It is clear that the adjacent traffic signal is maximizing its green time allowances on all phases and creating large and frequent gaps in the northbound traffic flow in the PM peak. Therefore, all driveway turning movements should experience very little delay with the exception of left turns out of a driveway and left turns in due to the traffic signal left turn queue. The conflict with the southbound left turn traffic signal queue is unavoidable. A level of service analysis for the driveways did not seem reasonable since the Highway Capacity Manual procedures for LOS do not account for a nearby traffic signal, which, at capacity, can cause extremely long queues on the approaches and abundant usable gaps on legs leaving the intersection. • • Mr. Howard Kinney, AIA ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS December 13, 1989 Page -5- CONCLUSIONS After a thorough evaluation of truck circulation into, out of and inside the project site, the following comments are offered: Truck usage of D/W #5 is not desired due to interference with retail activity and restricted access to the south and east sides of the proposed warehouse. The parking configuration could be changed to improve this access if this type of circulation became necessary. D/W #4 requires a wider throat and /or larger flares to accommodate the truck turning radius requirements. Truck access to the loading bays on the south side of the proposed warehouse is restrictive in that trucks will have difficulty backing up to and leaving the building, especially at the east bay, unless seven to eight parking stalls directly opposite the east bay are moved to the east side of the building where they will not hamper truck circulation, namely, in the south center of that parking area. The proposed design is an inconvenience to the truck drivers and to motorists circulating through that parking area on the south side of the building. Sufficient usable gaps are present in the northbound traffic flow on West Valley Hwy. to accommodate all expected turning movements from /to D /W.'s #2 -5; however, the southbound left turn queue at the intersection of West Valley Highway and S. 180th St. traffic signal creates difficulty for left turns out and left turns in. Very. truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. v Victor H. Bishop, P.E. President RMH:ba enc. TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION HARTUNG- TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE EXISTING* TOTAL ENTER EXIT PROPOSED TOTAL ENTER EXIT Warehouse 51900 Sq. Ft. Existing 28 .9 19 292 9 20 54000 Sq. Ft. Proposed 1,1 . Warehouse Office 3000 Sq. Ft. Existing 15520 Sq. Ft. Proposed 11 2 9 421 7 35 Retail 17088 Sq. Ft. Existing 40 22 18 373 20 17 15976 Sq. Ft. Proposed 3 TOTALS 79 , 33 46 108 36 72 Existing Hartung - Temperline warehouse and retail located just south of the proposed site. Based on ITE land use code 710 (general offices). Based on Trip Generation rate calculated from existing warehouse. Based on Trip Generation rate calculated from existing retail. TABLE 2 GAP STUDY GAPS IN NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC STREAM WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY (SR 181) AT PROPOSED HARTUNG - TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE SITE (Performed by TP &E on November 30, 1989, 5:15 -6:00 PM) Number of Gaps Gap Duration Turn (Seconds) 5:15-5:30 5:30 -5:45 5:45 -6:00 TOTAL Capacity 4 6 4 5 151 39 gaps 5 13 7 1 21] 0 veh. /gap 6 5 5 2 12 = 0 veh. 7 3 3 5 11- 8 4 3 1 8 40 gaps 9 3 0 2 5 x 10 1 3 1 5 1 veh. /gap 11 0 4 0 4 = 48 veh. 12 1 3 0 4 13 2 0 1 3 14 2 3 0 5- 15 2 1 0 3- 16 2 0 0 2 17 1 0 0 1 14 gaps 18 1 0 2 3 x 19 0 2 0 2 2 veh. /gap 20 2 2 1 5 = 28 veh. 21 0 0 1 1- 22 6 6 5 17 104 veh. or longer TOTALS 54 46 27 127 180 veh. Conditions: wet pavement, rainy, dark • VICINITY MAP HARTUNG - TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 444 4r7 NcC•• M-GV . ;•410._. .51,5;11. 31 3 -Ty r .333. 'i ETC C<VIT 4v • •n 7.V •...tw:.. ♦ - ,: 5•aw •. ui s; _ILL,..' . �r�'iwi l�_ aICaL+'.y ' ,r.,.L ..f `'-jI� IN'w. =wsr» ae• srmc, ?ILTUp 131 D& +�rsi.•16- Tet+e�� e J // VICSAITTYM MEI NO I•"a • ALRQEO CROONOUIST ARCHITECTS oral 1.144 SOWS1 aaoa,m WITS 3a0* 4.4.1 NATTIA. WA }w?CTON M49, Iaia -uO SITE PLAN HARTUNG - TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 9PE 0 o 41 0 0 oo 11 4 A— 4 t 0� 0 ¥_0 A— 0 EXISTING BUILDING (HOWARD COOPER) Driveway #5 Shared driveway t 00 0 10 '-10 PROPOSED WAREHOUSE AND RETAIL BUILDING Driveway #4 Driveway #3 EXISTING HARTUNG— TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE AND RETAIL BUILDING Driveway #2 Driveway #1 EXISTING BUILDING N not to scale EXISTING VEHICLE SALES 1989 PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HARTUNG- TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY co West Valley Highway (SR •-17 A-20 EXISTING BUILDING (HOWARD COOPER) Driveway #5 Shared driveway PROPOSED WAREHOUSE AND RETAIL BUILDING N.-24 A-11 Driveway #4 Driveway #3 EXISTING HARTUNG— TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE AND RETAIL BUILDING Driveway #2 Driveway #1 EXISTING BUILDING SITE GENERATED PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES HARTUNG - TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY N not to scale EXISTING VEHICLE SALES 1 IFIGURE� 4 0 ( 0 —0 0 M r T 1 x-24 A-11 fr 00 "--14 A-5 EXISTING BUILDING (HOWARD COOPER) Driveway #5 Shared driveway PROPOSED WAREHOUSE AND RETAIL BUILDING Driveway #4 Driveway #3 EXISTING HARTUNG "TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE AND RETAIL BUILDING Driveway #2 Driveway #1 EXISTING BUILDING N not to scale EXISTING VEHICLE SALES 1990 PM PEAK -HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT HARTUNG - TEMPERLINE WAREHOUSE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY GREEN RIVER .............. • NOON PEAK HOUR Time Period 11:30-12:30 Date MAR H 19 ...... .......... Indicate North With Arrow .. i :18 0TH ST. • ............ �-- �• _ _ ............. ............ ............ ..... :...... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... .......... col P.M. PEAK HOUR Time Period Date AR H 198 LOCATION CITY OF TUKWILA PRQJECT. SR 181 / S. 180TH STREET Compiled By MW Date 4/89 Job No. AGAin,n. INTERSECTION MOVEM COUNTS •r NOON PEAK HOUR Time Period 11:30-12:30 Date YEAR 2010 •......... ......... •......... .......... .......... —t— Indicate North With Arrow GREEN RAVER 1 ........ .4180TH ST. COI r1 • P.M. PEAK HOUR Time Perl 4:305;$0 date YEAR 2Q10 INCA LOCATION CITY OF TUKWILA INTERSECTION $R 181 TURNING PROJECT 81 / S. 180TH STREET MOVEMENT Compiled B MW Date 4/89 Job No. 89610101 Sheet or • • DEC 13 1989 , ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS ONE UNION SQUARE BUILDING • SUITE 3404 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 • (206) 682 -2690 December 11, 1989 Mr. Rick Beeler, Director City of Tukwila Planning Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Hartung Glass Company, West Valley Highway Dear Mr. Beeler: This office represents as Architects, the Hartung -Glass Company interests in the proposed contruction of a new warehouse /retail/ office facility, 70,000 sq.ft. in area, to be located on the West Valley Highway. During the pre - application meeting with the City in July, we were advised the building would be subject to the following: 1. Design Review 2. Environmental (SEPA) 3. Shoreline Management Permit 4. Submittal of a complete Landscape Site Plan 5. Fire Department Checklist In another meeting on October 30, 1989 with Jack Pace, Senior Planner, we reviewed the proposed site plan in regard to driveways and were advised that a soils report and a "minor" traffic study would also be required. At this same meeting Mr. Pace indicated that January 25th would be the most likely hearing date, providing all required submittal materials were turned in 45 days prior to that date. Mr. Rick Beeler: December 11, 1989 Page 2 of 2 Upon receipt of these materials on Friday, December 8, 1989, the planning department was unable to determine a hearing date for the project. They advised that some thirteen projects had been filed recently and also that three people who were under contract shall be leaving the department. We were then told that our project could be reviewed in January, February, or March, depending upon results of a council meeting to be held on December 18th. This situation puts the Architect in an untenable position where he cannot establish a scheduled program for the development. Without a schedule, the Owner cannot predetermine a move -in date for a very intense, construction - related, fabrication process affecting some seventy employees and numerous contractural commitments for their products. Clearly this situation seriously impacts our work schedule and our ability to keep our commitments of responsible professional service to our clients. Mr. Beeler, what do you need from us to be able to determine a hearing date for this project? We will assist you in every way we can. We need to keep this project on schedule, and the January 25th hearing date is a critical part of the timing for us. If written concern will serve as an indication of your department's needs for additional staff and /or space, please feel free to use this letter toward resolution of the problem. We shall look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITE►TS Howard A. Kinn cc: Nick Sciola Bruce McCann /�rG Caaue1/4t6K�S Contrl`No. q lJ Epic File No. ,'3 °i3. Fee $100.00 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: HARTUNG - TEMPERLINE 2. Name of applicant: ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: HOWARD KINNEY ALFRED CROONQUIST ARCHITECTS 600 University St., Suite 3404, Seattle, WA 98101 4. Date checklist prepared: December 8, 1989 5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): RFGTN CONSTRIICTTnN MARCH 1, 1990 COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION JULY 1, 1990 7. Do you 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. NONE 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. NONE PENDING 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT F Coo b e° KT2o n'- Pc t c T v Tic.rr��S G/ C +Frc.0 CST: OF sezQ 7t - c i, 7:& . Avf}1C,A11? .1? (fro Rcnrnone -- 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 summarized here. TO CONSTRUCTION 85,496 SQ.FT. WAREHOUSE /RETAIL BUILDING. RETAIL: MAIN FLOOR 15976 SQ.FT. OFFICES: SECOND FLOOR 15,520 SQ.FT. WAREHOUSE: 54,000 SQ.FT. SITE: 130,800 SQ.FT. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. LOCATED ON THE EASTSIDE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY, NORTH OF SOUTH 180th STREET IN SOUTHEAST TUKWILA. THE STREET ADDRESS IS 17830 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY. __LEGAL DFS.CRIPIIQN, VTCTNTTY MAP ARE ATTACHED_ 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? YES, PART OF THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE SHORELINE ZONE. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI•T B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one) __ rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, o er • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? TWO PERCENT (2 %) 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. PRIMARILY SILTY SANDS d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. NO e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. THE LOADING DOCK AREA REQUIRES THAT THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION BY 4 FEET ABOVE EXISTING GRADE (APPROX 9,000 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL). f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. NO. NOT EXPECTED g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? NINETY -FIVE PERCENT (95 %) SGT Goo_ 7 CKRrCA(- RPPaR1A 411 411 Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: NONE 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION DUST b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NfNF 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. GREEN RIVER IS ADJACENT TO THE SITE ACROSS WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY P °SS.I nib Q.70 FY �fkS7 a(= S f Ter (S ea w�TGdvodb 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. YES, PART OF BUILDING AND PART OF PARKING LOT WILL BE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE RIVER. 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. NONE 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. NONE 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. YES 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. NO Evaluation for Agency Use Only 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. NO 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NONE 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. STORMWATER RUNOFF WILL BE COLLECTED INTO AN ENGINEERED STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Nn d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: NONF 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: XX deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other xx shrubs XX grass pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other Chive/May" C —€Ass _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other _ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? SOME TREES AND GRASS WILL BE REMOVED QOM SfIE. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONF B to r i c TA A7" /of•C 5 ?VIA To 1(61P1 o v� 7 0P Co/cc 7m-4 / a . sr (0 f-(c.1Z T(on! v1\r_a2E(2ovI (r7 r c1?0 ( Od Cc0 -r e eUE T� • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation.on the site, if any: LANDSCAPING WILL INCLUDE TREES AND SHRUBS 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, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver FIELD MICE fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NONE c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. THE SITE IS WITHIN THE GREEN RIVER VALLEY-- WHICH IS PART OF A NATURAL HABITAT FOR MIGRATING BIRDS. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NONF Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. GAS HEATING WILL BE. UTILIZED _ ___DFELCE LED RETA1L_SEACE WILL BE AIR CONDITIONED 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: ENERGY EFFICIENT AIR - CONDITIONING UNITS WILL BE SELECTED. INSULATION IN OFFICE AND RETAIL AREAS. 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. NONE 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. NONE 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any: NONE . 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)? NONE 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. TEMPORARY NOISE FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER CAR AND SOME TRUCK TRAFFIC NOISE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS ON A LONG -TERM BASIS. • 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NONE 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? PARKtNG LOT ON PORTIQ LQF SITE. ADJACENT USFS INCLUDE WAREHOUSES. OFFICE AND RETAIL, ASSOCIATED PARKING. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. YES. THE SITE IS IN THE GREEN RIVER VALLEY WHICH HAS BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURE IN THE PAST. c. Describe any structures on the site. NONE d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M -1 -- (.-( Gt4-r fr17)Us7 -(z- L f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? LIGHT INDUSTRIAL g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? URBAN Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. I `\(- 0 THE STTF IS ADJACENT TO THE GREEN RIVER i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? APEROXIMATELIL9Q j• Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? APPROXIMATELY NONE k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NONE 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: NONE • 9. Housing • Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing? NNE b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NONE 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? BUILDING HEIGHT IS TO BE 28 FEET. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIAL TO BE PRECAST CONCRETE, PAINTED. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NONE c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: LANDSCAPING WILL BE PROVIDED. • i 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? PARKING LOT LIGHTING WILL BE PROVIDED. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NO c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? NONE d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: WEST WINDOW WALL SHALL BE LOW - REFLECTIVE AND TINTED GLASS. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? NATURAL RECREATION RELATED TO THE GREEN RIVER. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. NO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NONE • 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. NO 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: NONE 14. Transportation Evaluation for Agency Use Only a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing 5g-6.- 72 -04FF'C street system. Show on site plans, if any. THE SITE IS WITHIN TWO BLOCKS OF SOUTH 180th f%P P 2).1 K, STREET ADJACENT TO WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY (ON EAST SIDE). b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? YES METRO STOPS ON WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? THIRTY (30) NON- REQUIRED PARKING STALLS WILL BE ELIMINATED. 139 NEW STALLS WTLL BE ADDED, 133 OF WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY CODE. -15- 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). NO e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. NO f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 850 TRIPS PEAK VOLUMES WOULD OCCUR BETWEEN 4:00 and 5:00 PM. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: NONE 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. NO b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NONE Evaluation for Agency Use Only S T2AFFl C P -I) 11c 16. Utilities • Evaluation for Agency Use Only available at the site: fuse service is system, otTf'�r C Yt r1 F(CA? 5 0C= Sei..0E9t i- cJ.- 7G�Q Ai/k! -fa -lTY t- ucR. Lb Nezel 20,croaff 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. ELECTRICITY: PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT. GAS: WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPL • T D. SUPPLEMENTAL 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? NO CHANGE Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: NONE 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? NO EFFECT Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: NONE Evaluation for Agency Use Only • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? NO DEPLETION Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resourses are: ENERGY EFFICIENT AIR - CONDITIONING UNITS. INSULATION IN OFFICE AND RETAIL AREAS. 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? NO IMPACT Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: NONE 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? NO EFFECT Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: NONE How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? WILL MEET ZONING CODE CRITERIA. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? NO EFFECT Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: NONE 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. NO CONFLICT • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 8. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? NO Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: NONE TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLI•T E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? TO CONSTRUCT A 70,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE/ RETAIL /OFFICE BUILDING. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? NO SUITABLE ALTERNATIVES HAVE BEEN FOUND. 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: N.A. -22- Evaluation for Agency Use Only S oa -30 ec-rc ) S7c,€f6S F 17 s °Aces 7° • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? NO CONFLICT Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: NONE -23- E>C*711.4e, Age LOW,. IN..26, (424:Erk (17700 Wiwi Yews*/ rM?) 4/tirC ArK,L. W/ FrR..ET • Po- 6,* reP,i T0V.L.. *JAI 111' .4AF-ea, 4G1I7L/1 .rw•J Wyt/7700-.9Te Terri- Both, km": '1*0(2,0 rwr..o.rr -7 0,po f>1...) 07b4, wow lowy 1+,1) iiJ •r• 0. 44' n PK, MINIM 211111..ti 1=71 I ITITTIFTIF`' sipmy —TILT :IF El.i.l>6! plelzT.P.46 n p 3iE o'ukexurret.e er,,,trwr iNkt.up.46, surirwt:r .i.mcim2 mq!,-,x. i30. gee' 61, pi..Lx, • IN:J,, rtmg Fir. 1 CPft UFPERNe. -PTA.- 9 Al& ar INAW..e& 94,700 4.1. Tops. E!ux. ,'4E" : asAl.., • 7 (r'-rit..rr . 61,410 6,rt ) _r_ist. mix_ I/ sr".,4 w44e wl. 417.u... I I -MN, yrrA.4 I "f"44.5r 1,C, •Or"u.4. One a7/13P0/09. . w*.yx i 7=1 , - — — 'Th ^ 1-, ■ n .-) ■ I \ , \ \ 1 \ \ \ EX1s11N6 Ate-51-4k-i 4-ft, 1.040 ..1/171 1. WeST et4ii= ALFRED CROONISUIST ARCHITECTS ores UNION BOIUARB BUILDING! BUITB 3404 seArn..e. %11/4814INOTON 110101 BROSIBBE-GBIGIO Of r.A",-.Sr LLAY.42,8M • TTFlehl.. iEMT:ATS:3 6“••••-,. -rrp minummT1P-1!"-'11111 1111' laliniAsal1111111 1111 la' 111111 1 1111111111111111111 I MIN iiIIIUuluuuiI 1 !,« i 1714--urrws.4. 444• V.P188...T •{v •-tAli LA1 8A-1 arlAru. —41 1; 114,LALASG, A.00 , •w• -.ZALPrIN- - = 1 MAAS. 0A1 biL•C0 Eiesi"-noN tpu,- I'd • r -41 -1- it 7-7-"s-c eu-=v,,-noki ; i I 0 72171C-ti .11L-pu-16 Sr--T1.01■1 lithi-.• 1 i DEC - 3 1989 }- ; , m-r--=---2 .'"i .. , ici-:.--., u.,,,- --,..,..ii•.,,:.:_...L.,, i . D*2.ael MTLINr= -TerIFEM-18ff. ii toz! Wail Vfrue'y 111WPri 104541 11.4cyvit." wrs-A41,,era,1 ALFRED CROCINGIUSIT ARCHITECTS OEM UNION SOIUARS 01.1110040 SUITE 2404 SEATTLE. WA•ENOTON 08101 E20188112-0800 • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that. will be needed for your proposal. SHORELINE DEVEL fMENT PERMIT U(LD/ r .. L IN-1 rr F 7C i-'(lA— retie, vvv � � 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 summarized here. TO CONSTRUCTION 85,496 SQ.FT. WAREHOUSE /RETAIL BUILDING. RETAIL: MAIN FLOOR 15976 SQ.FT. OFFICES: SECOND FLOOR 15,520 SQ.FT. WAREHOUSE: 54,000 SQ.FT. SITE: 130,800 SQ.FT. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. LOCATED ON THE EASTSIDE OF WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY, NORTH OF SOUTH 180th STREET IN SOUTHEAST TUKWILA. THE STREET ADDRESS IS 17830 WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY. IFGAL fFSC2..I2ITON, VTCTKJTY MAP AR _. ATTACHED. 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? YFS, PART OF THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE S.KORELINE ZONE. 16. Utilities a. C. 'liti- available - si 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. ELECTRICITY: PUGET SOUND POWER AND LIGHT. GAS: WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS. C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. Evaluation for Agency Use Only T .',....a. S n..1 - N 9 P& ctn, r r� tr1u , 5nts y Tl►a► AM Itvc .4-y dzurifT 9� TU'nv 4v 7v d�T won, L . sty. L 6Lt)"Cov.A.01 C/44** L. fit-0 k-aabik..4 i° sr C I) n► (' ► vv *1 pM rc Liming ti? i c i A&. u7•) (`rf1 .4-39L 11,4 pit Ajb,. H-tt "- S'TSa rte, g=un 'F4, n�f'. cAin txts Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? NO CONFLICT Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: NONE -23- `_110'" o_ o•.' o_' o•. 000000 _oo_'o_o_o'000_o_o•.'o_000_'o_o IC/ Symbol Quantity Botanical Nama'Commo. Name Sim/Remarks a Ater Pl.taa.des Perim ,/ Perim.), Maple 7.141. .el: Rea: W.n bee.ed (Pete a ye. ealler>.a. Cb.m;.l...'i Cluelieleer Peer l -vr ..1 MD: Well breathed .48 .aaaee Seek • easel heels EXISTING HARTUNG TEMPERLINE BUILDING ' Kl je67'44c€7, c,�f ben Se- jHgc; P9( - G CcJe' "G4 O 0 e 0 a Pe.Uai. n...../ Maraca 4s Pee. 4ewwe.44 'Otte Leye.e'/ Otte trod., Lee..l N Rh.dedeeMo 'De. A.....1 Dee Amem. Rhededeadree • Vie.eoes d.eidiW Dead Vitamin Mater. Nola 'N.4..3 Nee.. ley Rebe...y..44../ NCN 8.4 I... • ....seed..•. tr.lr: gas: Pell teed ..0 breathed tsar: 868; Pan .m well breached tr -a•. Bas: rm. m 64416146646 tray. s•ts•.t Pell wed .ell bedded 4 Minima 4 mem gm Om: Plata •M 170 indeed.. . ewe trompeter Ream. 4- ..t: Mamma 4 Pleat • (..30.644 1741 CM= 4. dam. tna-pW pons• • Wew..etude tee tie...... is the 31.3 .e.a.l.. a b 1h. Ceasrte. remaaibilar a dM.ro.. 1'C 20 -O' PIKIJICI IMO( 414111101111. — CcT`i CtfEGK(" -Tff (S OPT, OO Y) —Peg.( ery se- _ G26 7 -CR— A- T W eS T 6774 a 0 CO g_p_ (1)0R_ O N 6s CAN 7-7 S, Dick&Bard/Se tittle Is10a7�Meiraw gasp UDMtpayt 1000 LENORA STREET. SUITE 516 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 682-2439 DATE. FRED L BEES :9 OCTOtE .. N6- NE Wee-T V� r4V tWA TU1<wIL..A wr.��+7e r44 ALFRED CRDONGQLIIHT aeC1Jtrwr.e Melt Np 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ' 10 11 12 'n n' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 1 2 3 4 Prepared By Approved By Initials Date 5 r AE VI e„) fI oc€ S F. g; 1) 19 c? C7 CrMc 21,©4) I5 17AY • • u E V(Ew 3 /►d, /?o M M ft( ( OF Pc- A-NNI/■G b1 v, Sl On1 PEoce- S F012 If/I-A:runt G Rot 4.,1) /NG Re- TA-4 L • l� c c.J P2 /8.C© G. ceSS J 10 11 12 13 S 0 LE DEVELOP Pik© ce-sS su ENT PE2M(T ((.JA c 1.73 -14) c Pei o b F AG EN PUEc.(C1 l t=om, 1ST l /?O v 1 cH Z f Qa 3 10 'PAY P. ( o A S EPA P A HA-CH I S 1990 I • iC �1 M a • aril - " o C 7-0 , N■1 /1??o_ A-P K/ L 1 J i? ?0 P A • /SS C./ ED. i11111 11■1• Q Y MAIL S L 00 one T r�- L ©G APPRr)Y.. 4 ? : Sfla e,/N2' F/4/'. Y- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2.9 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 - IO - .102- lo% /7�w: _16A ./f. C6J.-Cee 4tiere 4-6te c..e„,62 • 47,?0, io % ?) 1- )) .,.c.A4-‘64-ftee _ Yc; -- t P-4 -�-- -. i0 / i ._ /go ) -) Pre-4-1-- 6 L:), Cie ye_e_X 5 " m >vs AM. 4 0272 ( 4&441_,;„ 4 4 si).--2-4-7t41-4,01"42_ J'' tat" ,91-t. - th_2. j • ' ft V AL .0 -..,;C 6:-ts-A) 4 C c.zee,t, eauLe1z_L___ Mg. .,,„e,a_ It-f,-,,,_, ---- - . 4 / ' ) f: 2-L7 A 4_0 / 0 .044_ r---e;4,. G,:--e- ,5"( A C 4- WE, - A-C (.0a,_ c.ea.t.„_____It-c, _e,,.,et.&, i ,Aco--_____„ft_ti-t_ 4 0 CLL, 6E4 ..._ %/'" , - ._ 4 ___,__ 2/ • rAielkbAes- 9422ZZ t, osade.4.46. .0z,,t_. ,.(„1-sc e•A, 4/ ee____k-e t3,cn..-- Pc--e--. - 4- .4 ELL 04.J1_, _44 - u_!-, , Jeit-t,_ 4/4,-.0-c_44.4. j__ ,C4-4-CA-S2Z--, ,,,b-a-td- _•_".e..4.1_-__, _ _ _ _ z ) -r _.fiQmpeisE- • 4-L2 LjZ A z"---4017v2) z_0_(., o C L • }- rt- 1+ 7 - — -� ---- v- 275/F0 „2,/,c z(ol ?01 0 I 1 1-IAllemo4 --•147://111111116 „AIM". (7 4. 45') .4-aeAd C2/2_me„ I I 4. t ai_ ce.,_c.,..12&.) ,,,,__O 4 .ato., , , , ! 1 ! ! t,- I. ! - 4- ---- LL 41Z.-ee dgak. 4„52_,Q1L_ .AJ24f_ae„,_ RL , ik-(3 6i2A, ."1/1-1) 4-ertA( Q<2 L & • -2 7g- (?0 rc-ae, Sc(ocA 2.(2/cro 7L 442 2, 5" AL .ej 4-51 --cc,foc.A.I___c_400,c.d_c_c-7- I- go/440/v - cet: Is 0 17r • c usga 6.) e---rcAtv___,s- - _ FAK 1/2_ (Aiog) c /yo (ruzs- () V.it-c;t 2) 4) M c2' S2Le co-/ " 02, I _(.? (7 "•so , ce07_,,4t4 7: TMI W�rAN `; APPEN I::/K FEB 5 1990 WETLANDS INVENTORY Gary Van Dusen, Mayor Rick Beeler, DCD Director Moira Carr Bradshaw, Project Manager Prepared by: Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1808-136th PI, N.E. Bellevue, Wa. 98005 October 1989.. CITY OF TUKWILA Community/ D.evelo ment Departrnent Planning Division ATTACHMENT E TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 METHODOLOGY 1 RESULTS 1 Habitat Types 2 Size 2 Percent 1000 Feet Vegetated 2 Percent Edge Buffered 2 Education /Recreation Potential 2 Disturbance Rating 4 Overall Wetland Rating 4 (Available by site upon request) TUKWILA WETLAND INVENTORIES LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Summary Matrix of Tukwila Wetlands 3 2 Overall Ratings for Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila 5 LIST OF FIGURES Following Figure Page 1 Locations of Inventoried Wetlands in the City of Tukwila 1 INTRODUCTION Wetlands are considered to be valuable resources due to their functions in water pollution control, wildlife habitat, flood control, and as aesthetically pleasing open space. For these and other reasons, federal, state, and many local governments have developed regulations and policies aimed at protecting wetlands. The City of Tukwila has recently become interested in identifying wetland resources within the City, and arranged to have this wetland inventory conducted. The wetland inventory was conducted in order to determine the presence of wetlands; no attempt was made to identify exact wetland boundaries. METHODOLOGY The wetland inventory for the City of Tukwila involved two stages; review of literature, and field investigation. The literature review was conducted by reviewing . available resources, including: ▪ Aerial photographs (1986, 1" =200') • King County Wetlands Inventory (King County, 1981) ▪ U.S. Soil Conservation Service soils maps (SCS, 1970) • U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps (Renton, Des Moines, and Seattle South Quadrangles, 1973, 1:24,000) • National Wetland Inventory-Maps (Renton, 1988; Des Moines, 1987; and Seattle South, 1987, 1:24,000) . 0 All potential wetlands identified using these sources were visited to determine actual site conditions. In addition, Ci staff were interviewed to de : ••■ • : _ • .ti. _ • _ • th r potential sites rat i • entifiesLusing—thr.saurces liste • above. In the field, a wetland determination was made by examining soils, vegetation, and any obvious hydrologic features. If the site was determined to be wetland, a data form was completed. The form is based on the Black Lake Wetland Inventory Field Form, and is reproduced in Appendix A of this document. The form was reproduced from A Guide to Conducting Wetland Inventories (Washington State Department of Ecology 1989). Due to the level of detail of the study, wetland boundaries were not determined in the field. Exact wetland boundaries should be determined at the time of a permit application. A • • roximate wetland boundaries were determined based on aerial interpretation; t ese approximate • oun• cries were trans erre • to assessors maps. Because landmarks that are obvious on aerial photographs are generally not present on assessors maps, the wetland locations shown on the assessors maps are very approximate. RESULTS Fifteen wetlands were identified during the inventory. The locations of these wetlands are shown in Figure 1. Although Tukwila is, for the most part, highly urbanized, wetlands in the City exhibit a diversity of habitat types, including open water, emergent marsh, shrub swamp, and forested swamp. Based on aerial photographs, many wetlands •. • within the City have already been filled and converted to other land uses. Completed data forms for each of the 15 inventoried wetlands are presented in the following pages. Table 1 summarizes information about each wetland. In addition to the 15 inventoried wetlands, additional wetland habitat likely exists along the banks of the Duwamish Waterway /Green River. Due to limited access to private property along the river, and the small size of these areas, the entire river was not surveyed. The river has been dredged, and banks along the majority of the river are steeply sloping and vegetated with upland species, such as blackberry. However, there may be areas along the river where banks are not as steep; in these areas, emergent marsh or scrub shrub communities may be present. Information in Table 1 allows for comparison between the different wetlands in Tukwila. The following section describes information presented in each of the columns in Table 1. Habitat Types Open water, unconsolidated bottom (mud or exposed, unvegetated ground), emergent marsh, scrub shrub, and forested swamp are wetland habitat types. These habitat types are based on the U.S.F.W.S. classification scheme (Cowardin et.al. 1979'). A dot in one of these columns indicates that the particular habitat type is present in the wetlarui. Size The approximate' acreage (0 -5 acres, 6 -10 acres, or greater than 10 acres) of each wetland is listed in this column. Acreage figures are very approximate, since they are based on transfer of information from field visits and review of aerial photographs to assessors maps. No flagging or survey work was conducted in the field. It is possible that wetlands that fall close to the edge of a size class have been placed in the wrong size class. Percent 1000 Feet Vegetated This column gives an estimate of the percentage of land within 1000 feet of the wetland edge that is vegetated. This information is based on review of aerial photographs, and can be used to get an idea of the amount of urbanization in the vicinity of a particular wetland. Percent Edge Buffered This column presents an estimate, based on aerial photographs, of the percentage of the wetland edge (within 20 feet of the wetland) that is vegetated with .tree or shrub species. Studies have shown that buffers surrounding wetlands protect the wetland and provide additional habitat and protection to wildlife species using the wetland. Education /Recreation Potential A wetland with a "yes" in this column indicates that educational or recreational opportunities may exist at the site. Education potential includes opportunities for 2 TABLE 1. SUMMARY MATRIX OF TUKWILA WETLANDS 'WL OW HABITAT UB EM TYPE SS FSw Size (Ac.) % 1000 ft. veg. % Edge Buf. Ed. /Rec. Potential Disturb. , Rating ,# 1 • 6 -10 20 50 3 2 • 0 -5 25 80 3 3 • 0 -5 40 40 3 4 • • 0 -5 20 . 20 3 5 • 0 -5 . 50 20 3 6 • 0 -5 30 100 3 7 • • 0 -5 25 100 YES 1 8 • • • 0 -5 75 15 YES 2 9 • • • > 10 0 60 YES 1 10 • • 0 -5 50 80 YES 1 11 • • 6 -10 20 • 60 2 1 2 • • • >10 " 0 0 3 _ 13 • • • . 5 -10 45 70 YES 2 14 • 0 -5 30 80 1 1 5_ • • 0 -5 50 75 3 16 • • • 0 -5 30 100 3 17 • • • 0 -5 80 100 3 OW = Open Water UB = Unconsolidated Bottom EM = Emergent Marsh SS = Scrub Shrub FSw = Forested Swamp LEGEND 1000 ft. veg. = percentage of area within 1,000 feet of wetland edge that is vegetated % edge buf. = approx. percentage of area within 20' of wetland edge vegetated with trees or shrubs Ed. /Rec Potential = potential for wetland to be used recreationally or educationally (see text) Disturb. Rating Relative amount of disturbance in and around wetland (see text) • • interpretive trails or viewing points; recreation potential includes opportunities for trails or passive recreation such as bird watching. The potential for these activities was determined based on potential for safe access to the site and character of the wetland. No attempt was made to evaluate other aspects of feasibility of developing these resources. Disturbance Rating Wetlands within the City of Tukwila were assigned a "disturbance rating" based on the relative amount of disturbance in and adjacent to wetlands. The scale is from 1 (least disturbed) to 3 (most disturbed). A wetland with a rating of 1 is relatively undisturbed, and has undeveloped buffers surrounding at least portions of the site; disturbances do not extend into the wetland. A wetland with a rating of three (3) is bounded on all sides by developed areas, fill, transportation corridors, or displays evidence of other disturbances such as garbage dumping. Wetlands with a rating of two contain a combination of disturbed and undisturbed areas. This system of rating is a relative scale, comparing Tukwila's inventoried wetlands with each other. It is important to note that, on the whole, all wetlands in Tukwila are subject to relatively high degrees of urbanization and associated disturbance. These ratings are also very subjective, and are based on visual observation of sites and review of aerial photographs. It is likely that unseen disturbances (such as polluted water runoff) affect the wetlands; these unseen disturbances are not reflected in this rating. Overall Wetland Rating Wetlands were assigned ratings (1 = highest wetland value 3 = 1 nd ..yallu.e4 based on degree of disturbance, diversity, buffer, potentia or other uses, and wildli e habitat; an overall wetland rating based on a summary these separate elements was also assigned. Again, these ratings were assigned based on a comparison of inventoried wetlands in Tukwila with each other. Table 2 presents a summary of this information. These ratings are very subjective, and should be used for general evaluation purposes only. It is possible that, with more detailed information, ratings could change. 4 TABLE 2. OVERALL RATINGS FOR INVENTORIED WETLANDS IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA* Wetland # Disturb. Rating Diversity Buffer Habitat Ed./ Rec. Overall Rating 1 3 1 3 2 3 3 . 2 3 2 3 2 ' 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 5 3 3 2 2 3 3 6 3 3 1 3 3 3 7 1 1 1 ,1 1 1 8 2 2 2 2 1 2 9 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 >',- 1 1, 1 11 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 2 13- 2 1 2 1 1 1 14 1 2 1 1 -2 2 15 3 3 2 2 3 3 16 3 2 2 3 3 3 17 3 3 2 3 3 ' 3 * Wetland ratings are discussed in text "BEACH uNI `� \\ lob wriAwirbii ganablirrennmprq3 Fa MI Mt t a. n Irk= immumn yr 1 • fly. 29 M N oY lr ✓ 1 SEATTLE ;AfOrIA • INTERNATIONAL ▪ �'c AIRPORT -, NIOei.:: Figure 1. Locations of Inventoried Wetlands - • • • - -1 • _ • • • • _ • • • c th'; •.? o_ 1 ot 57T8 • • ..0.3■MA ACI.4,101 -.1.611r ..1•••,8 ••• '•••••••■• • 00 KLE-Nt$E- - --t • .40 1— i I: •t : . • 11Z _ au en v in 2 . .. 132100 7 ' r 1 1111 DI oils 1.. 8 .., .., -4 a • 11' .7 - . ..• - j 0 -• -.. 14%2 INk,. 4 ". / l k 1 r°11116 614"16 7 1 ...r , 1... :4 lk...) ::., 10. 1, 6( .. f.....f ' ik i gm ,E.: I,. . •11, f !, • ) ql f I ■ I ,-f ' T4. r * • 1'8 , . ...1, ,,p. !. I • 1 .ki L J. • /' .11 t ; • • . CI rr ,r-/Af/T, • - 4‘7"t04,■;',,,s IJ341.4, • 1.1.. • .0 .1.4 kV.; 81e •.• .•-a 7e IJ (6 CO CD i L. Geo-recogN(cA pippextboc EC 9 -3 ill\.::).:il REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AND PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT 17800 BLOCK WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR F.L. HARTUNG GeojoEngineers September 2, 1988 F. L. Hartung 17830 West Valley Highway Tukwila, Washington 98188 Attention: Mr. Nick Sciola Gentlemen: Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists We are pleased to submit three copies of our "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services and Preliminary Site Assessment, 17800 Block West Valley Highway, Tukwila, Washington." The scope of our services is described in our proposal dated July 29, 1988 with modifications discussed with Mr. Rick Jamisson with your company on July 29. Portions of the results of this study have been discussed with Mr. Sciola as information became available during our report preparation. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these services to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or other aspects of the project. JRG:JWK:wd File No. 1396 -01 -2 GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405 140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746 -5068 Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, oIncc�.nn� . 0 ; Jon W. Koloski "s' M 6 Principal •r Geo krj Engineers T A B L E O F CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 2 PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 3 SITE CONDITIONS 3 GENERAL 3 HISTORICAL REVIEW 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 GENERAL 6 SITE PREPARATION AND FILL PLACEMENT 7 SURCHARGE FILL 9 FOUNDATION SUPPORT 10 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 11 PAVEMENT SUPPORT 12 General 12 Truck Storage Pavement 12 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS 12 SITE CONTAMINATION 12 USE OF THIS REPORT 13 SITE PLAN SETTLEMENT PLATE DETAIL CHAIN OF FEE TITLE List of Figures APPEMDLX A Figure No. 1 2 Page No. A -1 Geo Engineers TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) APPENDIX B Page No. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES B -1 List of Appendix B Figures Figure No. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM B -1 KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS B -2 LOGS OF BORINGS B -3 thru B -6 LOGS OF TEST PITS B -7 thru B -8 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS B -9 ii Geo M�Engineers REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AND PRELIMINARY SITE ASSESSMENT 17800 BLOCK WEST VALLEY HIGHWAY TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR F.L. HARTUNG INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services and preliminary site assessment for light industrial development of the site located north of the existing Hartung facility at 17830 West Valley Highway in Tukwila, Washington. The location of the project site and proposed building are shown in the Vicinity Map and Site Plan, Figure 1. We understand F.L. Hartung is considering purchase of the four and one — quarter acre site. A one -story concrete tilt —up building similar to the existing Hartung building three acres of the site. The 70,000 square feet. The floor is proposed on the western approximately building floor area will be approximately loads associated with the glass production and handling are between 200 and 300 pounds per square foot (psf). The building floor level will be similar to surrounding grades. We understand the eastern approximately one and one — quarter acres may be developed as an asphalt concrete paved truck parking area. SCOPE The purpose of our services is twofold. A geotechnical evaluation of the property was performed to provide recommendations for construction of a new building similar to your existing facility on the site as well as a paved truck storage area on the east portion of the site. A preliminary environmental site assessment was done to evaluate the potential environ- mental liabilities associated with subsurface contamination that may exist on the property due to past on —site and off —site activities. The specific scope of our services for these tasks is outlined below. GeoliEngineers GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 1. Perform research to determine if the topographic low area adjacent to the railroad embankment is classified as a wetlands area, and if so what development restrictions are appropriate to this area. 2. Explore shallow subsurface soil and ground water conditions on the east end of the site by monitoring several test pits excavated in this area. 3. Provide recommendations for pavement subgrade support and pavement section design for the proposed area of truck storage and parking. 4. Explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions in the building area by drilling two hollow -stem auger borings to maximum depths of 50 feet. 5. Evaluate pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the foundation soils from the results of laboratory tests performed on samples obtained from the explorations, and correlate with previous experience in this area. 6. Provide preload recommendations for the building footprint to reduce post construction settlements to within tolerable limits in light of the building type and floor loads. 7. Provide recommendations for site grading, compaction and backfill recommendations for support of structures and pave- ments. Also included will be effects of weather and /or construction equipment on site soils. 8. Provide recommendations for foundation design including allowable soil bearing pressures and performance estimates for shallow- spread footings for the proposed structure. 9. Provide slab -on -grade subgrade recommendations and performance estimates. 10. Provide recommendations for drainage systems in light of the ground water conditions encountered or expected. 2 Geo4-Engineers 11. Provide recommendations for pavement subgrade support and pavement section design in the driving and parking areas around the building. PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 1. Perform a title history search to identify past owners of the property. 2. Review aerial photographs to verify past site development history relative to potential generation, storage or disposal of hazardous materials. 3. Evaluate the samples from the borings for evidence of soil contamination. 4. Contact the Northwest Regional Office of the Washington State Department of Ecology for indications of potential cleanup studies or actions on this property or adjacent properties. 5. Provide a written opinion regarding the potential environmental liabilities associated with the site based on the results of our studies. SITE CONDITIONS GENERAL The site is bordered by the West Valley Highway and the Green River to the west, a construction equipment company to the north, the F.L. Hartung glass and other vendors in a building to the south, and a drainage ditch and railroad tracks to the east. HISTORICAL REVIEW We reviewed the title history of the properties to identify the past owners of the properties. A title history was compiled by Transamerica Title Insurance Services. A copy of their "Chain of Fee Title" report is included in Appendix A. The Northwest Regional Office of the State of Washington Department of Ecology indicates that their records show no cleanup studies or actions on this site. Review of the records at the regional headquarters for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicates no file exists for this site. 3 ONDigii&Oneers We reviewed aerial photographs taken of the site in 1935, 1946, 1960, 1974,:1977, 1980, and 1985. The photographs from 1935 through 1960 show the area to be farmland with a farmhouse and a building that appears to be a barn occupying the southwest corner of the site. The 1974 photograph shows the site to be vacant with an area of ponded water at the northeast corner, most of which is on the adjacent property to the north. Thick vegetation appears on the margins of the pond. The surcharge fill on the site to the south for the existing F.L. Hartung building is shown on the 1977 photograph. No change was observed on the subject site. The north and west sides of the pond may be surrounded by small earth berms. Buildings have been constructed on the adjacent lots to the north and south of this site in the 1980 photograph. The vegetation across the site is more sparse, which may be indicative of filling or grading of the site. We understand the site was occasionally used as an equipment test area for the construction equipment company located on the property north of the site. The 1985 photograph shows the site still vacant, but with the vegetation much thicker, including several trees, essentially the same conditions which exist at the time of our current study. EXISTING CONDITIONS The west three acres of the site is relatively flat. The ground surface is generally about Elevation 24 feet. The site is about 2 feet lower than the finished floor level of the existing Hartung building, and about 6 feet lower than the West Valley Highway. The Howard Cooper Corporation property to the north is about 2 feet lower than the investi- gated site. The ground surface of the subject site is locally irregular and rutted, with scattered asphalt and concrete debris. Vegetation consists of grass and sparse brush. A fill mound about 20 cubic yards in volume is located toward the southeast corner of the three acre parcel. The east one and one — quarter acres of the site is slightly lower than the western portion, and slopes slightly downward to the east. An earth berm approximately 5 feet high is located immediately west of the east property line. The area to the east of the earth berm is a lower drainage area which appears to be seasonally wet. A north — south — trending drainage 4 7 '_ .- ,_r.�.- •urea -: t..r.�,:.+:i.` ".:'1, T�f^w.-i. Geo 4-0 Engineers ditch is located in the right -of -way east of the property. Most of the east one and one - quarter acres is covered with thick grass, tall black- berries and other brush, and scattered deciduous trees. The thick brush prevented a detailed reconnaissance of the topography in this area, which may have been subject to grading from the construction equipment company to the north. Several localized low spots and soil stockpiles were observed that could be the result of on site grading or earth moving. A primitive gravel driveway exists between the south property line of this site and the north side of the F.L. Hartung building. A relatively shallow drainage ditch is located along the north side of this road that routes collected water to the east along the south property line of this site. A 4- inch - diameter drainpipe was noted entering this ditch north of the F.L. Hartung building. At the time of our field work, the ditch in this immediate area and a very localized portion of the eastern drainage area mentioned above was covered with a very thin surficial coating of a black single (MSDS) rubber -like substance. F.L. Hartung indicated this resulted from a occurrence. We were provided with the Material Safety Data Sheet on this substance which is Opaci -Coat Water Based Elastomer (I.C.D. X73 -0070 Charcoal Suede). The MSDS indicates this material is not hazardous to the environment and it is our opinion that it does not represent a potential environmental liability for future remedial actions. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located on the floor of the Green River Valley. The valley was scoured by glacial ice to a depth of more than 100 feet below modern sea level more than 10,000 years ago. Subsequent to disappearance of the ice, the valley was occupied by an arm of Puget Sound. Marine sediment and alluvium deposited directly by the river fill the valley to its present level. Subsurface conditions on the property were explored by excavating backhoe on August 3, 1988, and seven test pits with a rubber tired drilling two hollow -stem auger borings with a August 4, 1988. The approximate locations of on Figure 1. Details regarding the field procedures as well as the exploration logs are 5 truck mounted drill rig on the explorations are shown exploration and laboratory . presented in Appendix B. Geo koEngineers Four of the test pits and the two borings were located in the vicinity of the proposed building.. Two to four feet of imported fill was encountered in the explorations. The fill grades from fine sandy silt to fine to medium sand with gravel, cobbles and occasional boulders. The native soils encountered below the fill include clayey silt, fine sandy silt, and fine to medium sand with a variable silt content. Interbedded layers of these alluvial materials were encountered to the bottom of the borings at approximately 50 feet. Some of these strata contain abundant organics, and the samples recovered at approximately 19 and 24 feet of depth in Borings 1 and 2, respectively, may contain a significant quantity of volcanic ash. The alluvial soils possess relatively low shear strength and moderate compressibility characteristics. Three test pits were excavated in the eastern 1.25 acres where a paved parking area is intended. Test Pit 5, located toward the west end of this area and on relatively higher ground, encountered loose to medium dense sand and silty sand. Test Pit 4 encountered approximately 2.5 feet of sand over clayey silt and fine sandy silt, while Test Pit 3 encountered the clayey silt and fine sandy silt for the full depth. Ground water was generally encountered between 5 and 10 feet of depth in the explorations. The water table level should be at or near its seasonal low and can be expected to be higher after prolonged periods of wet weather and during the wetter seasons. The vegetation toward the east end of the site indicates a seasonally wet ground surface, which could be associated with ponded surface water or seasonally high ground water. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL The site is underlain by significant depth of alluvial soils that are significantly compressible under new loading conditions. We conclude that the site may be satisfactorily developed as proposed using shallow spread footing support of the structure provided that the site preparation work includes placement of a minimum 3 feet of structural fill on which to support the footings and provided that a surcharge program is conducted to 6 1 9 -I j Geo 0Engineers reduce postconstruction settlements to, acceptable limits. We also recommend that the floor slab be underlain by a minimum thickness of 2 feet of structural fill. Most of the site grade is slightly lower than that of the F.L. Hartung site to the south. We understand the finished floor level of the F.L. Hartung building is approximately Elevation 26 feet. Finished site grades could be established near the existing grades; however, the existing conditions offer poor foundation support and the existing soils will be difficult to rework. Alternatively, raising site grades by importing select fill will substantially improve foundation conditions. The fill imported for the surcharge program could be graded across the building and parking areas to raise the grade. Otherwise, excess surcharge fill would need to be exported after the surcharge program. Raising the site grade will minimize overexcavation of the existing silty site soils in the building area and will allow placing a nominal thickness of granular subbase in the parking area. The quantity of import could be reduced by surcharging a portion of the building footprint to begin with and then moving the surcharge fill to the remaining portions of the footprint once monitoring indicates the desired settlement response has been achieved. The lowlying drainage area located along the east margin of the property is not currently classified as a wetlands area. There is some typical wetland vegetation that appears to be east of the Hartung property line. We found no significant depth of organic soils and the area was dry at the time of our field exploration. It appears that development on this property would not encroach on the wetlands. SITE PREPARATION AND FILL PLACEMENT The site soils include a relatively high content of silt and clay fines. Therefore, they are water sensitive and difficult if not impos- sible to properly compact when wet. We recommend that the earthwork portions of the project be completed during the drier summer months in order to use portions of the on -site soils for structural fill and minimize grading costs. If wet weather construction is necessary, all wet 7 Geo wijEngineers loose soils will need to be removed and replaced with imported material. This will substantially increase grading costs. If the site grades are raised with select import soils as suggested above, the earthwork may proceed during the wetter seasons with less detrimental impacts. All brush and significant vegetation should be removed from the building and pavement areas. The surficial sod and organics should be stripped from all building and pavement areas where finished grades will be less than 2 feet above the existing ground surface. The depth of stripping is generally expected to be less than 6 inches in grassy areas and somewhat more where there is heavier vegetation. In other areas, we recommend that the grass be cut as short as possible, cuttings removed and large roots grubbed. If site preparation is performed during wet weather, stripping should be done using lightweight construction equipment. All other equipment should be kept off the exposed subgrade to avoid disturbance. The subgrade surface should be visually evaluated to determine if there are localized soft spots that should be removed. Temporary roads will likely be needed to access work areas during wet weather. Eighteen inches or more of clean sand and gravel, crushed rock or quarry spalls may be needed to maintain stable haul roads. We recommend that all fill placed in the building and pavement areas be placed as structural fill. We recommend that all footings and the floor slab bear on at least two feet of structural fill as subsequently described. If the site grades are not raised, at least 1 foot of overexcavation and fill will be necessary below the floor grade and at lest 3 -1/2 feet at the footing locations. However, if the site grades are raised, the floor excavation could be avoided and the footing excavation depth will be decreased equivalent to the increase in grade. It is generally preferable to excavate and replace soils beneath footings in advance of the surcharge program. All structural fill material should be free of organics, debris and other deleterious material with no individual particles larger than 5 inches in diameter. As the amount of fines (that portion passing the No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small r- 8 L64 li.k- t. Geo No Engineers changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve during wet weather. Generally, soils containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight cannot be properly compacted when the moisture content is more than a few percentage points above or below optimum. Since the site soils possess a high fines content, use of these soils as structural fill should be limited to extended periods of dry weather. We recommend that import fill used during wet weather consist of well - graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent fines. If earthwork is accomplished during favorable weather conditions, the maximum fines content may be increased realizing that the material would be more easily disturbed and difficult to compact. Structural fill placed within the foundation, slab or pavement area. - -- should be placed in horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in loose thickness. The initial lift may need to be somewhat thicker and may require compaction without vibration in order to reduce the chance of causing pumping or weaving in the subgrade soils. Each subsequent lift should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined in accordance with the ASTM D -1557 test procedure. The structural fill should extend laterally beyond the edge of footings equal to the depth of excavation below the footings. SURCHARGE FILL We recommend that a surcharge program be used in the building area to preinduce most of the settlement which would otherwise occur when structural and floor loads are applied. We recommend that surcharge fill material consist of well - graded, free - draining sand or sand and gravel, as described above for structural fill so that it can subsequently be used in other aspects of site grading. Use of clean pit run for the surcharge will also minimize problems in rehandling and compaction if the surcharge must be removed during inclement weather. Based on our understanding of the proposed warehouse loading and our previous experience in the area, we recommend the design drawings and earthwork budget be based on a surcharge of about 7 feet in thickness. We expect 12 to 16 inches of settlement of the surcharge and building pad 9 • Geo kteEngineers fill. Therefore, we expect about 6 feet of material to be removed when the surcharge period is completed. The surcharge crest should extend full height at least 5 feet outside the proposed building liens. Due to the expected settlement, the bottom 18 inches of the surcharge should be compacted as structural fill. The remaining surcharge fill need be compacted only to the extend necessary to support construction equipment. The surcharge surface should be crowned slightly to promote drainage of surface water. In order to reduce the quantity of material imported for the surcharge and thereafter used to increase site grades, one —third to one — half of the building footprint could be surcharged and then the material "rolled over" to the remaining portion(s) of the building footprint as previously mentioned. A 20 —foot overlap should be used for the rolling surcharge. We recommend that several settlement monitoring plates be installed prior to placing any fill in the building area. An example of a suitable settlement plate and a description of monitoring procedures are presented in Figure 2. We could provide recommended settlement plate locations once the building footprint is established. Initial elevation readings of the settlement plates must be obtained when they are placed and before any fill is placed. If this is not done, the initial settlement behavior of the fill pad will not be recorded and the value of the observation diminished in that the total magnitude of settlement will be unknown. The elevation of each of the plates should be determined twice each week during filling so that settlement progress in relation to the amount of fill in place can be defined. We recommend that readings be obtained weekly after completion of filling. The results should be forwarded to our office promptly after each reading for evaluation. If the thickness of compressible soils varies significantly from that expected, the actual preload period may have to be adjusted. It is difficult to establish the time period due to the variability of the subsurface conditions, but we expect that the majority of the settlement will occur within six to eight weeks after fill placement. 10 • 1 Geo �0Engineers The presence of the measurement rods which extend from the settlement plates through the fill will inhibit the mobility of earthmoving equipment to some extent. The contractor will have to exercise care to avoid damaging the rods. The construction documents should emphasize the importance of protecting the settlement plates and measuring rods from disturbance. Once the majority of the settlement has occurred, the surcharge fill can be removed from the site or used for other site grading. FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend all building footings be founded on at least 3 feet of structural fill compacted to not less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D -1557 test procedure. This fill should extend 2 feet horizontally beyond each side of the footing. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Individual column footings should have a minimum width of 3 feet. Continuous strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. For footings founded as outlined, we recommend an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot for dead plus long -term loads. This value may be increased by one -third when considering earthquake or wind loads. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction on the base and passive resistance on the sides of the footings. Frictional resistance can be determined using 0.4 for the coefficient of base friction. Passive resis- tance can be determined using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming that the soils around the footings for a distance of twice the footing depth consist of structural fill compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. This value should be applied from one foot below the ground surface in areas which are not paved. In paved areas or beneath floor slabs, passive resistance can be calculated from the bottom of the slab. The above values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. We estimate that postconstruction settlement of interior column and perimeter wall footings will be on the order of 1/2 to 1 inch. We recommend that the structure be designed to tolerate at least 1/2 inch of 11 • • Geo 1 Engineers differential settlement between adjacent column footings due to the variable subsurface conditions. Differential settlements up to 1/4 inch in 25 feet may be experienced along continuous wall footings. Approxi- mately 50 percent of the settlement should occur within about two weeks of load application. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT The structural fill pad for the building should be recompacted after removal of the surcharge to redensify any areas disturbed during fill removal. We recommend that floor slabs be supported on a 4- inch -thick base course of crushed rock or sand and gravel which includes less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. It is our opinion that a vapor barrier is not needed beneath the slab if the base course is sufficiently coarse to act as a capillary break. We estimate that postconstruction settlements should not exceed about 1 inch if floor loads are less than 400 psf. Differential settlements across the floor area should be less than 1/4 inch in 25 feet if relatively uniform areal loading conditions are maintained. PAVEMENT SUPPORT General: Pavement subgrade areas should be prepared in accordance with the SITE PREPARATION AND FILL PLACEMENT section of this report. The .A subgrade should be proofrolled such that the surface exhibits no "weaving" or "pumping" and a minimum density of 95 percent of the ASTM D -1557 standard is achieved. If the subgrade is prepared during dry weather, we recommend a minimum 8 -inch thickness of subbase material consisting of sand and gravel with less than 5 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve). During wet weather preparation, a 12 -inch thickness or more may be required. As previously mentioned, this procedure would be facilitated by raising site grades and using the surcharge fill as structural fill f,, across the site. The subbase layer should be compacted to the same Y� minimum density. We recommend 3 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) and GMr 6 inches of compacted crushed rock in roadway and drive areas. We recommend 2 inches of AC and 4 inches of crushed rock in car parking areas. 12 • Geo r Engineers Truck Storage Pavement: We were provided the specifications used to prepare the existing Ryder truck storage area east of the existing F.L. Hartung We understand this area has performed satisfactorily. It is our opinion that a pavement area prepared in accordance referenced specifications will provide adequate support. It is opinion that the roadway pavement section recommended above areas would provide adequate support and may provide better performance with the granular subbase material. with the also our for drive long -term DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS We recommend the roads and parking areas be sloped to drain away from the buildings such that surface runoff is collected and carried off site. A perimeter footing drain is not considered necessary if grades are raised. Any footing or wall drains should be connected to the storm drain system. Roof drains should also be connected directly to the storm drain system and not be intertied with any other subdrains. SITE CONTAMINATION Our findings indicate that past activities on the site have not caused significant contamination of the property from hazardous material. our site the black No evidence of significant contamination was detected during reconnaissance and field explorations, with the exception of substance which was discussed above. Therefore, we conclude that there is low risk of environmental liability for future remedial actions relating to potential on -site contamination. The conclusions presented here are based on the above - described data and available history of ownership records. While it is possible that areas with contamination exist that were not detected during 'this investigation, we have found no evidence to suggest that further more detailed investigation is appropriate at this time. 13 • • _ �j Geo�Engineers USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by F.L. Hartung and their design team in design and construction of a portion of this project. The data and report should be utilized for bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are changes in the loads, grades, location, configuration, VI-t) type, or schedule of construction for the project, the conclusions and 9 recommendations presented may not be applicable. If design changes are made, we should be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide a written modification or verification. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied __. in their entirety. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the final design and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The subsurface conditions are expected to vary across the site. A _ contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract - plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. 14 1, Geo Engineers We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions concerning this report or additional services, please call. JRG:JWK:cs till • if we can provide Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc. 4.-'117714214111111.0. r . Robert Gordon Project Engineer c%. J; ,4G Jon W. Koloski Principal 15 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE MEASUREMENT ROD, 1/2" 0 PIPE OR REBAR CASING, 2" 0 PIPE (SET ON PLATE, NOT FASTENED) COUPLING WELDED TO PLATE SETTLEMENT PLATE, 16" X 16" X 1/4" W 1\ SAND PAD IF NECESSARY NOTES: (NOT TO SCALE) 1. INSTALL MARKERS ON FIRM GROUND OR ON SAND PADS IF NEEDED FOR STABILITY. TAKE INITIAL READING ON TOP OF ROD AND AT ADJACENT GROUND LEVEL PRIOR TO PLACE- MENT OF ANY FILL. 2. FOR EASE IN HANDLING, ROD AND CASING ARE USUALLY INSTALLED IN 5 -FOOT SECTIONS. AS FILL PROGRESSES, COUPLINGS ARE USED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL LENGTHS. CONTINUITY IS MAINTAINED BY READING THE TOP OF THE MEASUREMENT ROD, THEN IMMEDIATELY ADDING THE NEW SECTION AND READING THE TOP OF THE ADDED ROD. BOTH READINGS ARE RECORDED. 3. RECORD THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE MEASUREMENT ROD IN EACH MARKER AT THE RECOMMENDED TIME INTERVALS. EACH TIME, NOTE THE ELEVATION OF THE ADJACENT FILL SURFACE. 4. READ THE MARKER TO THE NEAREST 0.01 FOOT, OR 0.005 FOOT IF POSSIBLE. NOTE THE FILL ELEVATION TO THE NEAREST 0.1 FOOT. 5. THE ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE REFERENCED TO A TEMPORARY BENCHMARK LOCATED ON STABLE GROUND AT LEAST 100 FEET FROM THE EMBANKMENT. Geo Engineers SETTLEMENT PLATE DETAIL FIGURE 2 I el ) D >. .a 0, 7F !tes 0 1 13..1± , � 4,1 \ , e61 is Existing Howard Cooper Corporation Building REFERENCE: 0 TP -71 u to gazo T ?o. I � I III x x x TP -4 . TP -5\ TP -3-{ / Property Line T TP -2 0 TP -14 100 Existing F.L. Hartung Building 17830 W. Valley Highway 200 1 1 1 SCALE IN FEET 1 24 Ryder Truck Storage Area EXPLANATION: B-14 BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER TP -1 TEST PIT LOCATION AND NUMBER DRAWING ENTITLED "BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR WINMAR COMPANY, INC., HOWARD COOPER SITE ", DATED 5/28/87, BY BUSH, ROED & HITCHINGS, INC. APPENDIX A Transamerica 40 Title Insurance Services di!I Transamerica Title Insurance Company • 320 108th Avenue Northeast Box 1493 Bellevue, Washington 98009 (206) 451 -7301 Project No. 1396 -01 -2 August 23, 1988 Instrument Grantor CHAIN OF FEE TITLE Grantee Anderson, Niels Deed Schwabacher, Louis Q.C. Deed Schwabacher, Louis Ad. Deed Mac Kay, Geo (Estate of Niels Anderson) -- Deed Cudihee, Edward (Sheriff) Deed Nelson, Herman — Deed Nelsen, Alice (Estate of Marcus Nelsen) R.E. Cont. Lotto, M.W. & Laviolette, Donald J. Deed & Assig Howco Investment Corp and T & W Equipment Company Deed Lotto, M.W. & Laviolette, Donald J. — Lease Lease Deed Deed Deed Deed Deed Hudcor, Inc. Roberts, William E. & Roberts, Richard H. Hudcor, Inc. Hudcor, Inc. Roberts, Aileen V. Roberts, William E. Roberts, Richard H. Roberts, William E. Roberts, Richard H. Anderson, Niels Nelson, Herman A P P END I X A GeoEngineers I'.IJ G 2 6 1988 Routing Y,�� Filed Document No. 05 -10 -82 04 -19 -92 12 -02 -00 Nelson, Herman 03 -06 -14 Nelsen, Marcus Oliver 05 -24 -48 Lotto, M.W. & Laviolette,06 -14 -79 Donald J. T & W Equipment and Howco Investments Co. Hudcor, Inc. Vol 22 pg 587 95724 200814 918856 3805201 7906140733 07 -05 -78 7807050961 06 -08 -79 7906080772 T & W Equipment Company & Howco Investment Corp 06 -14 -79 7906140739 Roberts, William E & Roberts, Richard H. Howard- Cooper Corp Roberts, William E. (1 /4th Int.) Roberts, Richard H. (1/2 Int.) Roberts, William E (1 /4th Int.) Morgan Park, Inc. Morgan Park, Inc. 09 -10 -79 09 -10 -79 09 -19 -80 01 -05 -84 01 -05 -84 01 -05 -84 10 -06 -86 7909100469 7909100470 8009190837 8401050554 8401050555 8401050556 8610061213 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating seven test pits and drilling two hollow —stem auger borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The exploration locations were determined relative to the site features shown in Figure 1. The elevations are based on the topographic data presented on the Site Plan and should be considered approximate. The test pits were excavated by a tractor mounted backhoe on August 3, 1988. An engineering geologist from our office observed the test pits on a full time basis, maintained detailed logs, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered for further examination and laboratory testing. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the classification system shown in Figure B -1. The logs of the test pits are presented in Figures B -7 and B -8. The borings were drilled with a truck mounted hollow —stem auger drill rig on August 4, 1988. The borings were continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm. The soils were classified in general . accordance with the classification system described in Figure B -1. A key to the boring log symbols is presented in Figure B -2. Representative samples of the soils were obtained using a 3 —inch- outside— diameter split — barrel sampler driven with a 300 —pound hammer free — falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or other indicated distance is recorded on the boring logs. The logs of the borings are presented in the Figures B -3 through B -6. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which the soils or other characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. All soil samples were brought to our laboratory for further exami- nation. Selected samples were tested to determine their moisture contents and dry densities. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs. A one - dimensional consolidation test was performed on a selected sample from Boring 2 to provide data for developing settlement estimates. Porous stones were placed on both the top and bottom of the sample to allow drainage. Vertical loads were then applied to the sample incrementally in such a way that the sample was allowed to consolidate under each load increment. The rebound of the sample during unloading was also measured. The results of the consolidation test are presented in this appendix ass a plot of consolidation (strain) versus applied load (stress). SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE GRAVEL MORE THAN 60% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL - GRADED GRAVEL. FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY- GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND MORE THAN 60% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN SAND SW WELL- GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY- GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE SILT AND CLAY LIOUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC . OL ORGANIC SILT. ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY LIOUID LIMIT 50 OR MORE INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY. ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY. FAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY. ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1. Field classification Is based on visual examination of soil In general accordance with ASTM D2488 -83.. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487 -83. 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on Interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and /or test data. SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: Dry — Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist — Damp, but no visible water Wet — Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table Geo Engineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE B -1 LABORATORY TESTS: AL CP CS DS GS HA K M MD SP TX UC CA Atterberg limits Compaction Consolidation Direct shear Grain- size analysis Hydrometer analysis Permeability Moisture content Moisture and density Swelling pressure Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Chemical Analysis BLOW- COUNT /SAMPLE DATA:' Blows required to drive Dames & Moore sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using pound hammer falling inches. "P" indicates sampler pushed with weight of hammer or hydraulics of drill rig. NOTES: SOIL GRAPH: • Soil Group Symbpl (See Note 1) Distinct contact between Soil Strata Gradual Change between Soil Strata Water Level viii % Bottom of Boring 22 ■ Location of relatively undisturbed sample 12 ® Location of disturbed sample P ❑ Location of sampling attempt with no recovery 10 0 Location of sample attempt using Standard Penetration Test procedures 40 O Location of relatively undisturbed sample using 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. 1. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure B -1 2. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Geo Engineers KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE B -2 TEST DATA .. m N o z" c r. I 4, 4 m « 0 ; s DESCRIPTION a N 0 - w o' E Group JF 20 00 mU co Symbol Approximate Surface Elevation: 25 feet BORING NO. 1 6— 10— 15— 26— 30— 35— 40— MD 13.1 82 MD 45.7 74 MD 117.3 39 MD 58.9 64+ MD 41.1 80 R • 12 • ML BROWN FINE SANDY SILT WITH A TRACE OF ROOTS AND ORGANICS (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) GRADES TO GRAY (SOFT, WET) ML GRAY CLAYEY SILT WITH ABUNDANT ORGANICS AND WOOD (VERY SOFT, WET) ML GRAY CLAYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) SP ML SP DARK GRAY TO BLACK FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) GRAY CLAYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) DARK GRAY TO BLACK FINE SAND (DENSE, WET) Note: See Figure B -2 for Explanation of Symbols Geo k Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE B -3 40 .00 00 -I I- TEST DATA co is 0 E' g y.c ' L. 0 0 , g 30 Group 2c.) OD coo co Symbol BORING NO. 1 (Continued) DESCRIPTION 45— 50— DEPTH IN FEET 41 15 • SP SP- SM DARK GRAY TO BLACK FINE SAND (DENSE, WET) DARK GRAY FINE SAND WITH SILT ( MEDIUM DENSE, WET) BORING COMPLETED AT 49 FEET ON 8/4/88 Note: See Figure B-2 for Explanation of Symbols Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE B-4 TEST DATA 1« >. c « 04- N .83 to " im J~ iU 00 1— 3c o0 0 coo BORING NO. 2 H m Group co Symbol DESCRIPTION Approximate Surface Elevation: 24 feet 6— 10— 15 26-- 30-1 35— 40 — MD 26.1 94 C MD 48.6 72.4 MD 142.4 33 22 • 14 6g 24 • SP- SM SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH COARSE SAND AND A TRACE OF FINE GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST) ML DARK GRAY CLAYEY SILT WITH FINE SAND, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (VERY SOFT, MOIST TO WET) GRADES TO FINE SANDY SILT (VERY STIFF, WET) SM DARK GRAY SILTY FINE. SAND (VERY LOOSE, MOIST) ML GARY CLAYEY SILT WITH ABUNDANT ORGANICS AND ROOT FRAGMENTS (SOFT, WET) SP- SM GRAY FINE SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) M L DARK GRAY SILT WITH FINE SAND AND ORGANICS (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) SP GRAY FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) 23 ■ GRADES TO DARK GRAY TO BLACK Note: See Figure B -2 for Explanation of Symbols Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE B -5 Ne 0 0 , a a Iti 40 4 50 DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA o- .o co c 00 i0 co o .J 00 BORING NO. 2 (Continued) Group Symbol DESCRIPTION Note: See Figure B-2 for Explanation of Symbols Geo kl.Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE B-6 . • • _ _ 35 _ SP INTERLAYERED DARK GPAY SILT AND FINE SAND (MEDIUM STIFF, LOOSE, WET) - _ BORING COMPLETED AT 50 FEET ON 8/4/88 -- Note: See Figure B-2 for Explanation of Symbols Geo kl.Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE B-6 • • LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION: 24 FEET 0 - 0.3 SOD AND FINE ROOT MAT 0.3 - 4.0 ML BROWN FINE SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND BOULDERS (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, DRY) (FILL) 4.0 - 8.0 ML CRAY FINE SANDY SILT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET) 8.0 - 10.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 8/3/88 NO CAVING OBSERVED SLOW GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED FROM 7.0 TO 8.0 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 2.0, 6.0 AND 9.0 FEET TEST PIT 2 APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 FEET 0 - 2.0 ML BROWN FINE SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLE'S (STIFF, DRY) (FILL) FINE ROOTS FROM 0 TO 0.3 FOOT 2.0 - 4.0 SP -SM GRAY FINE SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL LENSES OF SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 4.0 - 6.0 SP CRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 8/3/88 MODERATE CAVING FROM 4.0 TO 6.0 FEET MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 5.0 FEET SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 3.0 FEET TEST PIT 3 APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION: 22 FEET 0 - 3.5 ML BROWNISH -GRAY MOTTLED SILT AND FINE SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ORGANICS (MEDIUM STIFF, DRY TO MOIST) (FINE ROOTS FROM 0 TO 0.3 FOOT) 3.5 - 7.0 ML GRAY CLAYEY SILT AND FINE SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ORGANICS WITH OCCASIONAL LENSES OF SILTY FINE SAND (SOFT, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 8/3/88 NO CAVING OBSERVED MODERATE TO RAPID GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED FROM 5.0 TO 7.0 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5 AND 6.0 FEET THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FEET, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FEET. Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE B -7 • LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 4 APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION: 20 FEET 0 - 2.5 SP /SM BROWN LAYERED FINE SAND AND SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST) 2.5 - 6.0 ML GRAY LAYERED CLAYEY SILT AND FINE SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ORGANICS (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST TO WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 8/3/88 0 - 3.5 3.5 - 6.0 SLIGHT CAVING TO 6.0 FEET MODERATE GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED FROM 4.0 TO 6.0 FEET SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5 AND 4.0 FEET TEST PIT 5 APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION: 22 FEET SM /SP -SM BROWN LAYERED SILTY SAND AND FINE SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FINE ROOTS FROM 0 TO 0.3 FOOT) SP BROWN FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 8/3/88 NO CAVING OBSERVED NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 4.5 FEET TEST PIT 6 APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION: 23 FEET 0 - 4.0 SM /SP -SM BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND TO SAND WITH SILT, GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 4.0 - 12.0 ML DARK GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WIT11 OCCASIONAL ORGANICS (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 12.0 FEET ON 8/3/88 NO CAVING OBSERVED NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.5 AND 10.0 FEET TEST PIT 7 APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION: 25 FEET 0 - 3.0 SP -SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WIT11 SILT, GRAVEL, COBBLES AND RUBBLE (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 3.0 - 12.0 SM /SP -SM GRAYISH -BROWN MOTTLED, LAYERED FINE SAND AND FINE SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL LENSES OF SILT WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST TO WET) • TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 12.0 FEET ON 3/8/88 SEVERE CAVING OBSERVED FROM 6.0 TO 12.0 FEET SLOW GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 10.0 FEET SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 10.0 FEET Geo \� Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE B -8 1396 -01 -2 CONSOLIDATION (INCHES /INCH) 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 • .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 PRESSURE (LBS /FT2 x 10.3) 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 50 J 1 KEY BORING NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) SOIL CLASSIFICATION MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY (LBS /FT3) 2 8 CLAYEY SILT WITH FINE SAND AND ORGANICS 45.1 75.0 -.-- Geoff Engineers CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE B -9