HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-FD-38 - SCHNEIDER GERALD - SCHNEIDER APARTMENTSCHNEIDER APT
65 ' AVE S
EPIGFD -38
•
CITY of TUKW LA
OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
19 October 1977
Gerald E. Schneider
665 Strander Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX ON 65TH AVENUE SOUTH
Dear Mr. Schneider:
On 19 September 1977, the Tukwila City Council passed the
Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan and a companion ordinance,
No. 1035. The Comprehensive Plan Map designates your pro-
posed apartment site as "medium-density" residential. Medium -
density is defined in the Plan as 6 - 16 units per gross acre
and is characterized by duplex, triplex, or four -plex develop-
ment. Ordinance 1035 requires a waiver for any land use action
which is not consistent with the Land Use Plan Map.
The density of your proposed apartment complex at 15200 -.65th
Avenue South is approximately 21.8 units per acre (48 units
2.2 acres = 21.8 units per gross acre). This density exceeds
that generally indicated on the Land Use Plan Map. In addition,
the structures proposed are bulkier than the duplex, triplex,
and four -plex guidelines suggested by the Land Use Plan Map.
Therefore, a waiver from Ordinance 1035 is required before we .
can process your building permit any further. You may obtain
a copy of the waiver form from this office or you may call and
we will send one to you.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not
hesitate to call.
ctfully,
Mit
ed ' Satterstr'om
Planning Supervisor
FNS /ch
cc: Frank Todd
6230 Southcenter Boulevard i Tukwila, Washington 98188 a (206) 242 -2177
CITY OF TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
-PRoroacD /FINAL
DECLARATION OF CICNIFICAffeE /NON- SIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal • Apartment Complex (Schneider)
Proponent Gerald Schneider
Location. of Proposal. Approximately 15200 - 65th Avenue South
Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC -FD -38
This proposal has been determined to (here/not have) a significant adverse im-
pact upon the environment. An EIS (4 /is not) required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)
(c). This decision was made after review by the lead agency of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Responsible Official Kjell Stoknes
Position /Title Director, OCD
Date 19 October 1977 Signature
COMMENTS:
1. Asphalt parking lot to be setback from side property lines and buffer
installed per Tukwila Municipal Code.
2. Location of garbage recepticles to be shown on site plan and method of screening.
3. Landscape plan must be submitted with building permit.
4. No earth or other debris shall be pushed over the easterly bank.
5. Waiver to Ordinance 1035 is required.
6. This does not relieve the applicant of all other city codes.
ME O RANDLJM
CITY of b UK. \A3 ,.
CFFICE o` COMN.•UNITY C' V= ICPPl.NT
20 October 1977
TO: FILE .
FROM: Fred
SUBJECT: Schneider Apartment Complex /65th Avenue
The following is a recapitulation of the events surrounding Gerald
Schneider's application for building permit for apartment complex
on 65th Avenue. Some of the information below is from a daily record
I have kept (sometimes not so religiously) and some (most) from
memory.
30 June 1977 G. Schneider applies for building permit for
apartment complex. F. Todd fills out environmental
questionnaire and submits fee. -
6 July 1977 I called Schneider and informed him that Al Pieper
and.I had visited the site and we were requiring
him to submit drawings depicting how the building
would be supported on the east side. Also mentioned
that Resolution #489 might. have to be complied with
here. Schneider said he would be in next week with
revised drawings.
18 - 22 July 1977 Approximately during this time, Schneider came in
and submitted drawing showing how building sat on
concrete pilings on east side. Informed him at-
this time that-waiver from #489 was required.
Schneider gave no indication that he wished to.pur-
sue a waiver.
25 July - 31 Au- Schneider in and out of office on another matter at
gust 1977 65th Avenue and Southcenter Boulevard. Finally,
wrote letter to him (31 August 1977) putting into
writing what we had discussed at several junctures
either over phone or in person.
19 September 1977
19 October 1977
Comprehensive Plan adopted and Ordinance 1035 adopted,
same night.
After F. Todd urged that action be taken on building
permit application of Schneider, I informed the latter
that a waiver from 1035 was in order. (Schneider had
not himself called the department to urge that we do
anything with his permit!) I had talked this day with
Memorandum
File
Page 2
20 October 1977
Larry Hard and he informed that Schneider had no
"vested rights" under Resolution #489 by virtue of
his inaction.
20 October 1977 Talked with Schneider on phone informing him of
1035 waiver necessity.
FS /ch
MEMORANDUM
CITY Of TUK Vir
of COMMUNITY C°_vcLCPr ✓._NT
19 October 1977
TO: FILE
FROM: Fr I
SU3JECT:
Conversation with Larry Hard, City Attorney
I called Larry this afternoon and inquired as to whether
Gerald Schneider had "vested rights" under Resolution 489
to file a waiver under the provisions of that resolution
even though Ordinance 1035 is now in effect. (Mr. Schneider
had filed for building permit prior to adoption of Ordinance
1035).. Larry's feeling was that Schneider did not have
vested rights by virtue of his inaction following notifica-
tion that a waiver of 489 was required.
As a result, I have contacted Mr. Schneider's office and
informed his secretary of this opinion. I will .try again
(by letter) to inform Mr. Schneider himself.
FS /ch
PARKS
REEL PEAT ICI4
•
CITY of TUKW LA
OFFICE of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
31 August 1977
Gerald E. Schneider
665 Strander Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX ON 65TH AVENUE SOUTH
Dear Mr. Schneider:
The purpose of this letter is to, put into writing what I have
told you in telephone and personal conversations.
Your plans which were submitted for the apartment complex on
65th Avenue South indicate the location of an elongated build-
ing along the top of the bank on the rear portion of the lot.
Construction of such a building would necessarily disturb the
edge of that bank and some of the vegetation to boot. As a
result,.this, office would require a waiver of Resolution #489
pursuant to Section 4.D.1. and 4.D.2. of that resolution.
If said structure was to be moved back sufficiently far enough
so as not to influence the character or condition of the top
of the bank, and if there is no other proposal for excavating
or clearing on the bank or below, then a waiver would not be
required.
Please notify this office as to the course of action you intend
to take.
erel
A a.
red atterstrom
Planning Supervisor
FNS /ch
6230 Southc•enter Boulevard o Tukwila, Washington 98188 ® (206) 242 -2177
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
40e $r of Wt 01fQi 1�1� 0
(bGn.4 e4cu) 7-(o -17
This questionnaire must be completed and submitted with the application for
permit. This questionnaire must be completed by all persons applying for a
permit from the City of Tukwila, unless it is determined by the Responsible
Official that the permit is exempt or unless the applicant and Responsible
Official previously agree an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be completed.
A fee of $50.00 must accompany the filling of the Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent:
Se N ieile 1 64r4.
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: ` gr s rocam a 4f ✓10
1-13 • si'7f L 4,4e ✓. /A a . , ►
3. Date Checklist Submitted: ( • 30. 1n, " �' % • �qOd
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 144.440• 4011 j___
.I "'
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable:
6. Nature and Brief Description of the Proposal (including but not limited
to its size, general design elements, and other factors that will give
an accurate understanding of its scope and nature):
s, user iPr
7. Location of Proposal (describe the physical setting of the proposal, as
well as the extent of the land area affected by any environmental im-
pacts, including any other information needed to give an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
,(/3 0 - i( Co
Af! y••• x roe
i q v') reocer CorcreA9
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: /lie
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc.
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit
(c) Building permit
YES NO i1
YES NO %6
YES.- NO
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO A
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES x NO
(f) Sign permit YES. NO
(g) Water hook up permit YESA NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES A NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES NO at
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES)/ NO
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES & NO
(1) Other:
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
140
12. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is expected to be filed at some future
date, describe the nature of such application form:
8146- fcIiii,r Off t'��
// •
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic
substructures?
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil? X
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures?
(d). The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
-2-
L
• •
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
(f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or
changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which
may modify the channel of a river or stream or the
bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
Explanation:
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air
quality?
(b) The creation of objectionable odors?
(c) Alteration of air movement, moisture
or temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Explanation:
ftr e'1[ *IAA r pt e*. 4 11 lig SO O.
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
(b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
(c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters?
(d) Change in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
(e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
(g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations?
-3-
YES MAYBE NO
4
s,
• •
(h) Deterioration in ground water quality, either
through direct injection, or through the seepage
of leachate, phosphates, detergents, waterborne
virus or bacteria, or other substances into the
ground waters?
(i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise avail-
able for public water supplies?
Explanation:
TJ*'r CONS we r`i.441
. Flora. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of flora (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of flora?
(c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
(
) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
Explanation:
5. Fauna. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of fauna (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms, insects or microfauna)?
(b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of fauna?
(c) Introduction of new species of fauna into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of fauna?
(d) Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
X.
A
• •
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
YES MAYBE NO
Explanation:
room Tom`' A-eor Ti olsomtr,m•,
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
Explanation:
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation:
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources?
(b) Depletion of any nonrenewable natural
resource?
Explanation:
neVrA. fWA�1-
QreL,g gaiehr.
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited
to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radi-
ation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
Explanation:
11. Population.
Explanation:
• •
Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
rif4. v� OF ‘111 " ors QP F.»1 "-at
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
FrOelber 1'rE'te0 ir.st,r✓♦ To
AlLe*
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Generation of additional vehicular movement?
(b) Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
(c) Impact upon existing transportation systems?
(d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
(e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Explanation:
POI lrl r Polk
14 Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
following areas:
(a) Fire protection?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks or other recreational facilities?
(e) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
-6-
YES MAYBE NO
A
X
(f) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
'Mose e'gA1set tuft..
4014.& mow Awae74414,
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
(a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
(b) Demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of
energy?
Explanation:
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas?
(b) Communications systems?
(c) Water?
(d) Sewer or septic tanks?
(e) Storm water drainage?
(f) Solid waste and disposal?
Explanation:
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation:
YES MAYBE NO
x
A
•
• •
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruc-
tion of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result
in the creation of an aesthetically of-
fensive site open to public view?
Explanation:
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation:
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his -
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation:
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
YES MAYBE NO
I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above
information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency
may withdraw any declaration of non - significance that it might issue in
reliance upon'this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation
or willful lack of full disclosure on my part.
`- 3• • 77
Signature and Title / Date
C�
r
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
TESTING S INSPECTION - ENGINEERS
14120 N.E. 21st STREET
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98007
March 17, 1978
Certificate No. 782 -49
Building Department
City of Tukwila
Tukwila, Washington
Attn: Mr. Hal Pieper
Re:
Soils Investigation
Tukwila Apartments
65th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington
PHONE:
Bellevue — 206/641-2573
Seattle — 206/525 -6700
Gentlemen:.
As. requested by you, we have completed a subsurface soil in-
vestigation at'the above referenced site and are pleased to
submit the following report and recommendations.,
INTRODUCTION:
The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate subsurface
soil conditions and pertinent engineering geologic problems
related to slope stability and soil bearing strengths. Five
apartment complexes are to be constructed along the crest of
the site overlooking the Green River Valley.
The scope of the testing included four (4) test borings placed
and tested to depths considered adequate for recommendations
presented herein.
Tacoma
(206) 474.7337
Silverdale
(206) 892.5020
Everett
(2061 259.0817
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC.
Certificate No. 782 -49
March 17, 1978
Building Department - Tukwila
Page 2
ELEVATIONS:
All elevations mentioned in this report refer to existing grade.
DESCRIPTION OF DRILLING EQUIPMENT:
Mobile B -61 Heavy Duty Drill.
3 -3/8" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger.
Standard Penetration Equipment (ASTM -D -1586)
140 lb. hammer
30 inch fall
'A' Rod
Standard Spoon Sampler.
LOCATION AND. SITE DESCRIPTION:
The investigated site is located East of 65th Avenue South at
. about South 152nd Street, Tukwila, Washington. It IS. bounded
on the North and South by existing apartment complexes and on
the East by Interurban Avenue South. The site gently slopes
up from 6Sth Avenue South to a crest overlooking the Green
River Valley, then dips steeply East with a maximum relief of
about 140 feet.
Situated on the Southern one -third of the property near the
crest is a small single family dwelling. The family wastewater
enters a septic tank on the houses' North side with the liquid
effluent leaching into the ground near the tank. The addition
of water over the years has increased the soil moisture content
near the source of discharge, but decreases laterally Away from
the tank. With the removal of the house and septic tank, a
CASCAOE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Certificate No. 782 -49
March 17, 1978
Building Department - Tukwila
Page 3
more stable soil condition will develop within the area
affected by effluent discharge.
STRATIGRAPHY AND HYDROLOGY:
The enclosed test boring logs best represent the subsurface
stratigraphy encountered.
In general, the site is underlain by an undetermined thickness
of friable, dense, grey, fine to medium sand. This unit con-
sists of Upper. Eocene non - marine micaceous arkosic sandstones
of the Puget Group. This material occurs along Interurban
Avenue South at the toe 'of the slope and indicates the great
extent of this unit. Migration of surface water through the
Puget Group has weathered the upper zone substantially in
many areas (TB -1) . This,weathered material has the same composition
as the basal grey unit; but, unlike the basal material, it is
less dense. Unconformably overlying the weathered sandstone is
Pleistocene,glacial, alluvial deposits. These alluvial soils
were deposited by runoff from a stagnef ice block left in the
Green River Vally by the Puget Lobe. The meltwaters rapidly
deposited their soil load along the crest of the slope between
TB -1 and TB -2 with the water slowing to. the West. Test pits
performed by others show a silt -clay unit to the West, thus
indicating a very low energy flow.
As mentioned previously, the only subsurface water encountered
was from the existing house septic tank drainfield, which is
primarily concentrated near the 15 foot level, above the dense
sand.
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Certificate No. 782 -49
March 17, 1978
Building Department- Tukwila
Page 4
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONNS:
Basically, the observed slopes are relatively stable, with
only few indications,of mass movement or wasting. .TFeKtpri-
mary mode consists of surface scarps due to erosion and toe
failure. However, the presence of the alluvium near the slope,
particularly as shown in TB-4, could produce a more unstable
condition along the slope if developed as planned. Recommenda-
tions as presented will'be.directed toward retaining the stability
as presently exists through proper placement of foundations and
drainage.
Initially, foundations placed within the influence of the weather-
ed sandstone (oxidized medium sand) should be set back from the
slope at least ten feet. Maximum allowabl.e soil pressure on
minimum 24 inch continuous type footings is 2,500'p.s:;f., five
feet below grade at the outboard portion. At 25 feet'back from
the.slope edge, the same soil pressure is available at approxi-
mately three. feet below grade. We suggest'the footings be stepped
in this area. Care should be taken prior to footing placement
to insure uniform foundation, soils. The footing soils should be
dry, relatively dense and free from organics and excessive fine
soils.
Foundations placed within the'inf.luence of the alluvial soils found
to exist within the site should be founded into. the oxidized sand,
if possible, where the above conditions would apply. If the founda-
tions are to be placed within the alluvium, we suggest the foot-
ings be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the slope edge. Maximum,
allowable soil'.pressure of 2,000 p.s_.f. is available at three feet
below grade utilizing minimum 24 inch continuous type foundations.
Footing bearing soils should be dry, compact and cleared of organic
material prior to placement of concrete.
CASCAOE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Certificate No. 782 -49
March 17, 1978
Building Department- Tukwila
Page 5
Slabs -on -grade should be placed on a prepared compact sub -base
free of organic soils and overlain by.at least 8 inches of suit -
able granular backfill conforming to Washington State Highway
Specification 9- 03.12, compaced.to 95% of ASTM D -1557. Vibra
tory or water settling compaction is not recommended r'Eo r this
project.
To aid in.maintairting existing 'stability, we suggest adequate
drainage be performed. throughout the site. This should include
the use of footing and roof, drainage systems routed in such a
manner as to direct all waters away from the slope edge. Roof
drainage should be within a tight line system independent from
foundation drainage. .Since the Western portion of the site is
somewhat lower than the portion near the slope, drainage :could
be.routed back toward this area. Additionally,'we suggest
allowances be made to insure all surface runoff be directed away
from the slope. This includes minimizing ponding near. the slope
and that water not be allowed to flow over the slope edge..
Artificial filling should not be performed or placed within 25
feet of the slope edge, except as noted herein. The increased
pressures of fill material could be detrimental to 'slope stability.
Natural vegetation should be allowed to remain as much as possible
along the slope and slope edge. Replanting of. disturbed areas
around the site should be performed to reduce possibilities of
slope surface failures due to erosion.
Due to limited testing performed across the site, exact location
and thickness of the alluvial soils throughout is not totally
known. We suggest, prior to placement of foundations within the
expected areas, the soils engineer be contacted to insure suita-
bility of foundation placement within these soils, as recommended
herein. 'We expect the site soil types, conditions and distri-
bution to basically reflect our findings; however, some variations
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Certificate No. 782 -49
March 17,1978
Building Department- Tukwila
Page 6
are expected. We suggest the soils engineer be contacted if
conditions other'than those discussed become evident, so that
additional, or alternative, recommendations can be made if
necessary. <,
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have
any questions, feel free to call on us at any time.
Sincerely,
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.
Charles C. May P.E.
Prep .Q� by
David L. Nelson
Chief Engineering Geologist
DLN:SL
cc: Schneider Homes
Ronald A. Parker
Engineering Geologist
•
toa.o */ c, St cpone !y-A
T'vxwic.4 Pa ermi itrs
TI wadi e el+S41/4/0 rON •
altgAg
lei t r .
r
I.
/
/
/
1
7- ca.
€-QL
M2/-- I / / /iCV%\\ V17//`\
Yt7L
-7 //\\ 1(7L
171 \V /VOLLV2O7
mg >o cool
/
•
i
1
1
1
r 0...Aw,i! ,,..,,. �A�EPJI TcPV. IR3a.
t�sTINO Q ,da sc,,ar4 - 81 1/461!5551
Pkpgvhpip ri9TrNfri N,ASArA.TR N. der.
1111111111103 O 1m SGtI1 - tNO1W/t11i
14120 N.E. 21st. STREET
BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON 98007
PHONE: 206 / 641.2673
PROJECT T(Jk \v /LA A152.9127-A1/7 "5
6S '21 Aye-Alvg" urn
LOCATION
�> LOC.- A77GV i A \Ap.
TEST BORING LOG
DATE 2 Z3 '98
CERT. NO 7,3 Z - -19
TEST BORING NO.
PAGE 2- OF 7i
STRATA
RESISTANCE
SOIL DESCRIPTION
WATER
Grade
Elev.
BLOWS .
x
Er
w
0
AND
CLASSIFICATION
CONTENT
'PENE.
24-
RL)5 coWR6. -: � Alan-«', A\ 6-.7°/"\ 3j
•
•
::::::.
3Z
S
-
Zs -
- --t
ev
``o
7 '
6
S
TD. "
z8.5
-o
0
NOTES
s CAIOPA P 1.ALW4rwTCPVt
TESTING & INSPECTION - ENGINEERS
14120 N E. 21st STREET.
BELLEVUE. WASHINGTON 98007
PHONE: 208 / 641.4873
PROJECT Uk 11
66- 12' ,4ye--A V /
ET
Grade
Elev.'
STRATA
RESISTANCE
SOIL DESCRIPTION
WATER
BLOWS
x
Es
o
AND
CLASSIFICATION
CONTENT
PENE.
j /
RejTY- P o vAJ 4 V�-ZL 5 /Lr" y 517//.9
CoHeSivE, OAnv:
.
;i
1. • •.°'
• •
o
Z
/1
Z S,
.:0..•
to
(o
G
4.o"
/o
•
tet*ty - CO\vAi, S�LrY 4-/a v��Y
Gr7flG-�/U6: .4A/0 v&-x y �U?
•
•
_
.
/
3
9
86-
•
` 6
%
6
/0.O
As=
so�/o
�.�
".
•
� •
T2
S
Zo
o�vE, eus rY - Tel "0771.6-19 Lb� - �'e�e
G
G
\ve T '5°A16- le"--17.
2v
-�'•..
•
• .: •
.'..
/
8..5=
moo'
25=
b l s�� A'AJ 71) A\627/0A \ ���Y 3'1 JJ
/o
Zo
AS
4
G
I9
• :.. .- .
•
• •.
•
•(0ZSof
ro=art1
�
/6 26.0
_ 5
,S p.
Ears;
Con
Inc.
Schneider Homes
665 Strander Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attention:
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Geotechnical Engineering and Geology
12893 N.E. 15th Place, Bellevue, Washington 98005 /Phone (206) 455 -2018
September 12, 1977
Mr. Gerald E. Schneider
Soil and Foundation Investigation
65th Avenue South
Tukwila, Washington
E -356.
In accordance with your request, we have performed a soil and foundation
investigation for the subject project. Our study revealed that the site may
be developed utilizing conventional foundations.
SCOPE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of our investigation was to explore the subsurface conditions
at the site and provide recommendations for foundation design and site develop-
ment.
At the time of our investigation, the proposed apartment buildings and
parking locations were as outlined on the Site Plan, Plate 1. The project
involves the construction of two, 3-story apartment buildings composed of a
total of 54 units with parking spaces for 81 vehicles.
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
A total of five test pits were excavated to explore the subsurface condi-
tions at the site. The test pits extended to approximately 10 feet beneath the
. existing ground surface. The locations of the test pits are presented on the Site
Plan. The elevations of the test pits are based on hand level readings using
water stub in the driveway near 65th Avenue South as base elevation.
Our field investigation was continuously monitored by an engineering geolo-
gist from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of
Schneider Homes
September 12, 1977
E -356
Page two
each test pit, obtained representative samples for laboratory testing, and made
detailed observations of site conditions. The logs of the individual tests pits
are presented on Plates.2 through 4.
Samples recovered in the field were placed in airtight bags and returned
to our laboratory for further study. Moisture contents were determined for each
sample with four grain size analyses and an Atterberg limits tests performed on
representative samples. The moisture content determinations are shown on the
test pit logs at the appropriate depths with the grain size analyses and Atter-
berg limits presented on Plate 5, Grain Size Analysis.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site covers approximately 2.27 acres located east of 65th Ave-
nue South and about one block south of South 151st Street. The site is bounded
on the north and south by existing apartment buildings. To the east is a wood-
ed area west. of Interurban Avenue South. A steep slope (45 to 50 degrees) drops
down to the east. From the top of the slope, the land slopes gently to the west.
An existing house is located at the top of the slope at the south end of the
property.
A driveway to the house enters the site at the north property line at 65th
Avenue South. An old house may have existed near the location of Test Pit. No. 3.
Some old concrete debris was noted along with shrubs and trees in this area. The
driveway and the existing house are lined with trees and shrubs which also cover
the steep slope. Other areas are covered by tall grass.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGY
The site is immediately underlain by up to 1 -1/2 feet of silty, sandy topsoil
with some organics. In the area of Test Pit No. 1 we encountered 2 feet of silty,
sandy fill over the topsoil. Near Tests Pits No. 1 and 2, the topsoil is over a
yellow to reddish - brown, gravelly, silty sand. This strata appears to be residual
soils formed by Beverly weathered bedrock which was encountered in Test Pit No. 1.
Elsewhere, the topsoil is underlain by a gray, weathered, silty sand and inter-
bedded silts and clays underlain by 6 -1/2 to 9 -1/2 feet of hard, gray, silty clay
which we believe may be transported soils. This clay unit was only encountered
at the lower areas. Evidences of weathered rock was encountered in Test Pit No. 4.
Ground water was not encountered in any of the test pits; however, the inves-
tigation was conducted during an unusually dry period, and some seepage could be
anticipated during wet weather.
These soils are representative of the Renton formation of the upper Eocene
times. These soils are characterized by fine to medium grained arkosic and
feldspathic, micaeous sandstone. Much of these sandstones are not highly weath-
ered. The gray clay unit is representative of laucastrine deposits of recent age
formed in closed depressions, in isolated areas.
Schneider Homes
September 12, 1977
E -356
Page three
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the site may be
developed as planned. We can see no adverse geological impact resulting from the
proposed development. The slopes appear to be stable and the proposed building
may be sited as shown on the Site Plan. The buildings may be supported on conven-
tional shallow footings bearing in undisturbed, natural ground or structural fill,
whichever is applicable depending upon final grade.
Site Preparation
The building and pavement sites should be cleared of all trees, vegetation,
topsoil and deleterious material. In fill areas, the exposed surface should be
proofrolled to detect loose areas, which if encountered, should be removed and
replaced with compacted structural fill, or compacted in place, whichever is
feasible. Structural fill should then be placed in 8 to 10 inch thick, loose
lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density per ASTM D -1557-
70. In areas where the natural ground is steeper,than 4 to 1 (H to V), the fill
should be benched into the natural ground as it is being placed. The base of
fills along the slopes should be properly keyed into undisturbed firm natural
ground.
The site soils contain an excessive amount of fines that will make it
difficult to compact when wet. For this reason, we do not recommend using it
for structural fill during rainy weather. They may be used during dry weather
Import fill, if required, should consist of granular material, containing less
than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve.
If subsurface water is encountered during construction or suspected, we .
recommend placing a subsurface drain alongside uphill footings or along the toe
of cut, whichever is more feasible. The requirement for these drains should be
made by the Soils Engineer in the field during grading operations.
The grading operations should be under the supervision of the Soils Engin-
eer for approval of the subgrade prior to placing fill, testing of the structural
fills and inspection of fill placement.
Foundations
It is our opinion that the proposed buildings may be satisfactorily support-
ed on undisturbed silty sand, or on a combination of both,
We recommend using a design bearing value of 2500 psf, dead plus live loads,
for footings bottomed a minimum of 18 inches below final adjacent grade. Settle-
ments under the proposed loadings will be minimal, The edge of all downhill foot-
ings should be a minimum of 8 feet horizontally from the slope facet
Schneider Homes
September 12, 1977
E -356
Page four
We recommend that all footing excavations be inspected and approved by the
Soils Engineer to insure that encountered conditions are as anticipated.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our investiga-
tion are believed representative of the total area; however, soil conditions may
vary in characteristics between test pit locations.
Since our investigation is based on the site materials observed, selective
laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the conclusions and recommendations
are projessional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with
current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Should
encountered conditions or design parameters change, this firm should be contact-
ed for instructions prior to proceeding.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If
you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to call.
The following Plates are included and complete this report:
Plate 1 Site Plan
Plates 2 through 4
Plate 5
RSL /dw
Test Pit Logs
Grain Size Analysis
Respectfully submitted,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Robert S. Levinson,
Chief Engineer
N-
O
•
TP -3
•
LEGEND:
TP -4
SITE PLAN
TP -I
TOP OF SLOPE'
TP -5
•
PROPOSED
APARTMENT
BUILDINGS
TP -5
• TEST PIT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION
-- PROPERTY LINE
•
•
•■•••\
SCALE: I" = 40'—'011
Genlechnicnl Engineering and Geology
PLATE
1
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
10
15
0
10
15
USCS
TEST PIT LOGS
Log of Test Pit I
S of I Description
Elev. +13.3'
w Lab Data
Log of Test Pit 2
Elev. +13.4
—
—
.
:ISM
Tan - yellow, silty SAND, medium dense, moist.
(Fill)
11
8
:1
::jSM
Reddish brown to brown, weathered, gravelly, sandy
SILT to gravelly, sandy clay, very stiff to hard,
moist.
Dark brown, silty, sandy TOPSOIL with roots,
loose, moist.
..
••
:`;
SM
Yellow- brown y, silty SAND, medium
, gravelly,
dense, moist.
White - yellow, weathered sandstone, medium dense,
mniet
Test Pit terminated on 7/26/77.
Ground water not encountered.
Log of Test Pit 2
Elev. +13.4
—
—
1L
Dark brown, fine, sandy, silty TOPSOIL, loose,
moist.
15
18
�
ML
L
CL
Reddish brown to brown, weathered, gravelly, sandy
SILT to gravelly, sandy clay, very stiff to hard,
moist.
_
Test pit terminated at 10 feet on 7/26/77.
Ground water not encountered.
Earth Consultonts, Inc.
Job No. E -356
Plate 2
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
10
15
0
5
10
15
USCS
TEST PIT LOGS
Log of Test Pit 3
S of I Description
Elev. -1.9
w Lab Data
Log of Test Pit 4
Elev. -5.3
IsssSM
SM
CL
Dark brown, silty, fine, sandy TOPSOIL, loose,
dry. I
7
18
15
Dark brown, silty, fine, sandy TOPSOIL, loose,
\ dry.
Gray, mottled, highly weathered interbedded fine
sand, silt and clay, very stiff, moist.
::
CL
Blue-gray, silt
silty CLAY, hard, moist.
.
:
-•
::
:;
Test pit terminated at 9 -1/2 feet on 7/26/77.
Ground water not encountered.
I
Gray, mottled, weathered, silty SAND, dense, moist.
(Evidence of weathered rock in laminated sand with
feldspars and mica in sand at 5 feet.)
Log of Test Pit 4
Elev. -5.3
Earth. Consultants, Inc.
Job No E -356
Plate 3
.•
SM
Dark brown, silty, fine, sandy TOPSOIL, loose,
\ dry.
::
III
::
.
:
-•
::
:;
SM
Gray, mottled, weathered, silty SAND, dense, moist.
(Evidence of weathered rock in laminated sand with
feldspars and mica in sand at 5 feet.)
Test pit terminated at 9 -1/2 feet on 7/26/77.
Ground water not encountered.
Earth. Consultants, Inc.
Job No E -356
Plate 3
Depth
(ft.)
0
5
10
15
USCS
TEST PIT LOGS
Log of Test Pit 5
Soil Description
Elev. +8.6
w Lob Data
—
—::
ML
Dark brown, fine, sandy, silty TOPSOIL, loose, dry.
14
•
;
;
SM
Gray, mottled, weathered, silty, fine SAND,
dense, moist.
(Some gravel in silty sand with depth.)
—
—
Test pit terminated at 10 feet on 7/26/77.
Groundwater not encountered.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Job No. E -356
Plate 4
•
-u
r
m
S.Nd.lfSN0J HJ JV
z
G7
Z
NJ
rn
SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES
100
!0
m so
0
m ;o
Z
-4
Z
m
CD
SO
40
10
20
10
M
• • 0 n 4.
SIEVE ANALYSIS
I
MUMRER OF MESH •ER INCH, U.S. STANDARD
O
1
88 0
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS
A
or
O
•
•
aw
•
•
•
•
Og 88 8 V R
0 • •
788
GRAIN SIZE IN MM
O 8
8
8
•
0 0
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS • •
N
O
1
8
'0
1
0 8 8 8 8 8
COBBLES
COARSE
FINE
GRAVEL
COARSE
MEDIUM
PINE
SAND
FINES
• -
BORING
NO.
2
3
4
DEPTH
-FT
10
20
DD
m
n
m
2
--1
C')
40 0
V)
SO
X/
70
SO
so
m
G)
-4
U.S.C.
DESCRIPTION
NAT.
w.c.O/G
L L
PL
PI
5,5 SM
7,0 ML
4.5 CL
5,0 SM
Gravelly, silty SAND
Gravelly, sandy SILT
Sandy, silty CLAY
Silty SAND
17.6
18.1
14.9
45.5
24.3
21.2
• t
, --
raft '
• - •
g rer;
Q rrs
-
rIlI
„•••••,/
". •
t
,,..77. -.. • .
. .
. . .
::' T- - r ., E ;0,1, _ I".. •
:t - ,-,— '-' ''). '.,'•,,•.-'-‘17.q..c . .. 1.-1''''''''..:,R-34.. -.`.----i!"[,,51F :li,
'.J. .,•-•-t: -..,-..:1;:' v..•, 'i.4-Ar.,'-,`.Y.;,'t''-1;0-\;- '..‘4..4:i.f''1:t4 ,F-1,,s'-iiP":'_rt,7—(--i;"'-'V. .7;` r.1' ‘‘.„; !L
71 •-• ' ' 1_1 ',-.. : ■4 -: U i'''j '. ';: ' 5 -t`'.'-'''.>`4.-'`.:*
; , - . • .- ,• - I • •,:.,• -• IN , 'I. • . . (. C- sl --, ;."' - F . t..., ?T• • 4 1,1; A ..
. . • . ': •t, .1 ,..• ' • ,..,. ,...• s. ....' r''. _, ., c 1 ,t. • " T "': ? c.: ri -- t Y,'■ k C." • - • • it .4 •
- - ":-; -,. IV: F-: ' :- ...,'.....: . ',, ,...-: *, ...-.! • s cc' -
t.. ,
,nr c .; (') - ' _ i r; . . ■;.,1t. . ',..":: .
; • ' h. , , : • t-,
LN.:1' )% '" .'
rl
rii
.p..: .,1.: f,- ln'.."‘I‘ :3. ..' •-c. '
.`, __:::1
IY-
I M
!.! . t: • rf 1.1,,
. , iis, A ' *, r.• .-Ii.-'..,:,:::, '.. R.- tT i.; •:,:i ' :,;.•'-'
,.:-.'... . ---; ts. . .;• s,, cit;,, ,
lc.
4 v ,' = (.-. - •..,1 t";.; . r. ;
• ;•"*,,.3.. ;11; : .2 , ' I OA ''- (--
■., ::, ,p c .1 ,-- ) ,, •1, , .1, , , , s , . C4 '''
• . "\" g 0 ." "It .*; 71 ..
. " c • ' ''? .',. 1 ,. .::b „,g f.: •... . .. f . • ?
' • . .. rUkS.„ ••■ V, •
• tr ' I • : ` . . ' i)
.
•.: ,.,,, ,tt L .--,, .., •? . 4
• "71 , '
• -. h74
.•
',4*, (:... 1'.4
r: t • •,i, ',..,1 ) '
• ,-.-S
; 1z. t • z
• -* c
.t 0
.b.k • - : ..Z., - t).:a:...1... ,,,:. .-
qTt
,eL-., • • -- --J.” -r.- 'e t.
;,...4.c, ,-;').s: .1: - ..• tt r. 1
. , (3 . .. •
5; r
1, :....1
-I -.1 i •
. • - .
' • ...,.- , t ' ..-- • ..-...'• ■• 4,..':....:,, --z=1. • ' . :- ..' . '
,..._111111^.M111•110.11. 11117•11•111MIWIL1011■1ralzgliall!KWIMII=..S.1‘111111.:50.J._
tt..-,C"-11.14V11-411111)*PW.2.1-111111.411l■FINIIIIIIII .
IN VC Wi.7•41M /MOM
ROGER.. NEWELL
- lemone ■EN •
OAT! :
ORAWN
11021,4MMEIMI AvE NOG FAS, . GRECS f 0 • • '
SEATTIL•WASH1NGION: 081, 2 • ,
• .41"S
8K808 aoa,ffr»
1
RCPT Date ' '..__x`19 77 613. .7.0
Received From � ! / '
Addres
1/a 'Dollars $6-0, C/O
For. , �C
ACCOUNT
HO'P: PAID
AMT.
ACCOUNT
I
CASH -
v
,
Gj Y
AMT. PAID
I
CHECK
BALANCE
DUE
}'
MONEY
ORDER
1
8K808 aoa,ffr»