HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-181-82 - SCHNEIDER NILSEN DEVELOPMENT - SOUTHCENTER PLAZA IISCH \EIDER NILSEN
DEVELOPMENT
SOUTHCENTER PLAZA II
S 147 ST & INTERURBAN AV S
EPIC- 181 -82
CITY OF TUKWILA
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FINAL
DECLARATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal 63,000 sq ft Office Bldg.
Proponent Schneider /Nilsen Dev. Co.
Location of Proposal Interurban Ave. @ S. 147th St.
Lead Agency City of Tukwila File No. EPIC- 181 -82
This proposal has been determined to MEOW/not have).. a significant
adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS (1 /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 Brad Collins
Position /Title it Planning Director
Date
COMMENTS:
Signature . �.
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
Schneider /Nilsen Office Plaza I:I
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is .a three -story office building of 63,000 sq. ft. with .
related parking on the west side of Interurban Avenue at approximately S. 147th
Street. The project will be built in a single phase and will incorporate a
portion of Tukwila Recreational Trail #1.
DISCUSSION
A- pr- eliminary.environmental assessment for this project was conducted in the
context of an application for rezoning of the westerly portion of the site. After
review of the agency, conimentst - received, .a Declaration of .Non- Significance for
the legislative act of.rezone was granted on 22 January 1981. The checklist
and the project description under review at .this .tinie are identical to that which
was received earlier_.- We have also received since then a detailed structural,
hydraulic and utility. evaluation via the Public Works Department and %Building
Division indicating' that no unusual technical impacts are anticipated in the
construction of this project.
The project site was rezoned in its entirety to a C -2 classification upon passage
of the new zoning code.text and .map. :The project may be seen, then, as one of
an "infilling" nature, consistent with the emerging pattern of redevelopment in
the Interurban Corridor Area. We conclude, therefore, that the project will not
produce adverse impacts not already anticipated and addressed in the Comprehen-
sive Land Use Plan, and that a Declaration of Non - Significance is justified.
•
•
litA? "Ma 10 3 .:1T0 3y Two 51 44s, ARRows
.1300\1 B4RA ?Litts.D ALJC Te:, .3.(pric2c0)
ccrY oF IL oe 14PFRoof.L._
ts• t
'11.
fi 1
7! I II I 1111
/ 4
•
1 '
• :
• I
°
r La:
• ***---
ti 0(4y/
/ /..-_,..
,---„,--_-
\,....,,,,,
.._:_,...
4,
t 1'
MO 06 118e.
1 1 I 111 1 1 I 111
i•
• ;
TJA2 E.
- wea.41•4:, !R-Ei •
,r1
'J1 1 1
— .. 1
0" w
f.
TPA? TRAIL
. •-). I • 6 1••••'
r-
•
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
Frank Todd, Mayor
MEMORANDUM
To: Mark Caughey, Associate Planner
F ROM: Phillip R. Fraser, Senior Engineer
DATE: 5/26/82
SUBJECT: Southcenter Plaza I I
Per the attached plan L -1, the Public Works Department has the following
comment: we request atithis time a resubmittal of the plan via the
Planning Department in such a manner as that the sidewalk fronting
Interurban Avenue South conforms to the Standard Plan for sidewalk
construction and that the sidewalk is provided and shown to be pro-
vided in the public right -of -way or on easements to be given to the
City at the completion of its construction.
It is anticipated that the final configuration of the sidewalk fronting
Interurban Avenue South will be provided in your utility site plans
which we anticipate submittal of in the near future.
I understand your office will transmit this information back to the
developer and his representatives.
xc: Tukwila Maintenance Shops
Attachment (1)
cc.. A 1 ?I�pcv-, cuutto[r�A�Jzi1�
City of Tukwi ..
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL-' ':;IA / Jai /
TO: ;...,` BUILDING 'DEPT.'
❑ POLICE DEPT.
❑ RECREATION DEPT. '
PUBLIC: WORKS. DEPT.
�t1.1F_1 DE(L
,et]RT ,i•( ,smE.
' The '_'above;menti.one&applicant has 'submitted
for: the. above -reference- project:
v.yi a'r
vironmental Checkl
State -
Yent
Site /Development Plans U Rezone Request
horeline Permit Appl.ication0 Variance Request'' •
Conditional Use Permit ❑Other: = "
• Applicaiiion
the, following Plans or materials
Preliminary Pia
❑ Final Plat
The attached materials are sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet. -
Requested response date: 2f / 3L /
Review Department comments:'
Rv• /-(,/
Date: /5, /9//
City of.Tuk
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
i
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 14 / J1 / S I
TO:. ❑ BUILDING DEPT:`
vi ronmental-
`Checklist -;
EnV:ironmental Impact. State-
•ment°':-' -`
Site /Development Plans U Rezone Request
Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
El Conditional _ Use Permit ❑ Other:
Appl,icati:on
The attached materials are sent to you for your review, and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file. -
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: 21 / LPN / 5
Review Department comments:
f es.7; o.: / /
ii n r1I--e K Jr .te ..�./� f� l f'Ps eJt � yf hCir P ✓ -e .-. ca-- / —f.�
6�l/-7< 1l[e rrC:L�% Si 7c Jw/ �� �rnJ. f: � �//1
A•
, /L�s'�- 7/ -`�2/ ��-�.l i / t.f jy, �!-7 r- w i
/ 1//-!=›- t■ c -
1-fl l ot-t S c c 1 rr 4X ..i
�' �!' C j 7' ate- — cj i 4 .r� i •"-e C- c-+ -
✓ c% L--'—
By: �� —�%�� .--�- Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
RANSMI- TTAL"
T0:" U BUILDING DEPT. ZPOLICE DEPT-
❑ FIRE DEPT. . ❑ RECREATION DEPT.'
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
PROJECT:
LOCATION:
The above mentioned applicant has submitted
for the above reference project:_'.
environmental Checklist . ❑Preliminary Plat
Impact State- ❑Final Plat::
ment
Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
Shoreline Permit Applicationo Variance Request
Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
The attached materials ire sent to you for your review and comment. The
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project file.'
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach `a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: - Z / JJ / si
Review Department comments: (� P ����S S unity 4-u-n)
1
1 Y I
Pyi-u
tD r 17 K..&. J SQjn A-5, 4-o V'{-d. CeCDw�w.t:t�XP1� ; �t •►</��k 'b
, o.: ra A\ ..,. ce s s 4-0
rYlpf+r��a ts' 4 �-�e! 15 �vevA� hu.r•.%re.� �rr-� Snut D
l 5.o tti� o-
■ 6
the following plans or materials
- -�- -�I
5 w -.cA\ in s iJ r
R v•
Date: /-t/-8/
c.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSM1.,T;T_AL::
fir. -r�z•- .
i.
;.•
POLICE D
FIRE v!EPT 'F- ,
LR
UBhC. WOKS,DEPT:
r,-
e "aboverTmenti oned _-appl i cant has submi tte
rF-the.jabo,e...refer,-ence ; pro ect-
• •+: .:..n`_'. F, M1:•,�� =i; sir • _'cl,"ti}�:t•.:�i:`:`.<'
nvironmenta
r .L;
Environmental
mentw' x .
Site /DevelopmentrPlan
.St ore7. ine Permit _•Appli Ceti on
Conditi onal'`Use 'fermi
App]icai,ipn :
The attached materials are ,sent: t0;you;for'your' review and - comment:".' The'
Planning Dept. needs your comments to satisfy review procedures and to
complete the project- file.
Please use the space provided below for your comments or attach a separate
sheet.
Requested response date: 2.1 /- JAM X11
Review Department comments:
f) - u o c). 2003 0 Ft au F+zo u i7 s
• (1) Sill -i Er2i-1-r'r • OfJ 00 kJ'K.iSTL r1' o G2. elv,
l,� fJ �'c��fz,- 1 � pF t r ► rill)!J o':i -SITE tZ6•2rz.L)
Bv:
Date:
010"10E MEMO
CITY of TUKWILA
TO: 5G I Nit DER NI tisEN Ptv,
FROM:
DATE: if., /A.6.`1-
SUBJECT:
Gµ -141IST sv 6µT p 'fits Q . t S
Mkt✓ rciA.t∎,U 106
t U eoNt - j rt e,<SC- f.rsol -vE
n2oVtpr 460- FR"
Z) tt7 A{J4100 or &,:-cis5' M)P t.tts
PAS s-,u� p ot�t p 2 .
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
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 Environment `+ 4m@ma
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
I. Name of Proponent: Schneider Nilsen Develo•ment
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
_ •1I
Tukwila, Washington 98168 Telephone: 243 -9960
3. Date Checklist Submitted: May 5, 1982
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Planning
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable: p_.
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):
SPP Arta-hod
za II)
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):
See attached
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: October 1982
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 x
YES NO x
YES x NO
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit
Sewer hook up permit
Sign permit,
Water hook up permit
Storm water system permit
Curb cut permit-
Electrical permit (State of Washington)
Plumbing permit (King County)
Other: 210115a11T101.1 ,, F -11x. ‘ALA TRAIL #1
YES NQ
YES X NO
YES X NO
YES X NO
y6)( NO
YES X NO
,YES %_ NO
YES %( NO
10. Do you have any plans: for future additions, expansion', or futh,eractivity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explaini;f:``?
No
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No
1'2. Attach any other application form that has been completed regarding the pro-
posal; if none has been completed, but is gxpected to be filed at some futur,
date, describe the nature of such application form:
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? iC
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures?
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
-2-
(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:
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?
YES MAYBE NO
X
x
-3-
_x_
X
(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:
4; 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?
(d) 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
6. Noise.. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
Explanation:
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:
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:
YES MAYBE NO
_x_
11. Population.
Explanation:
• •
Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation:
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 ail'' traffic?
(f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Explanation:
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon,
1 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
x
(f) Other governmental services?
Explanation:
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:
-7-
YES MAYBE NO
x
X
X
• •
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:
YES MAYBE NO
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
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 wi ck of full disclosure on my part.
/l�r, -� 6//0/82,
Z
Signature and Title Date
X
CITY OF TUKWILA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Attachment
I. BACKGROUND
6 An office building with 63,012 gross square feet, ap-
proximately 57,346 net leasable area. 212 parking spaces
are provided. The building is 38.4 feet high. 226.0
feet in length and 100 feet wide at the widest point on
two floors. The exterior of the building is steel fram-
ed waterproof gypsum board with 3 constucco, painted a
light earthen tone and solar bronze insulated,.anolize`d,
aluminum ribbon glass.
7. The building will be located with the long access fronting on
Interurban Ave. S. The minimum setback from the centerline of
the street will be 50 feet with the majority of the building
setback 62 feet from the centerline of Interurban Ave. S. The
building sideyard and rearyard separations to the nearest R -Zone
not including the subject parcel is 80 feet. The site is approxi-
mately 3.8 acres of which approximately 90% will be affected by
this proposal. The site is bisected by S. 147th St. (Tukwila
Trail #1)
The site is essentially flat sloping northeast to southwest from
an elevation of 20.00 to 30.00' in approximately 250' (Approx. 4 %).
From the 30.00' elevation to the parcel bolandaries a uniform slope
of approximately 25% is encountered. This steep slope area represents
only 16% of the total site area.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.(b) There will be an approximate cut of 1900 cu. yards of material.
most of which will be suitable for fill on other portions of the site.
Approximately, 4,000 yards of material will be imported to•the site.
Compactions under building footings will be likely.
1.(c) Cuts and fills over the site will result in a parking lot surface of
approximately 6% slope, compared to 4% existing slope. Some cuts
will be required at the southwest parking lot borders. The soils report
prepared by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Oct. 1978 revealed that unstable
slope conditions exist on the slopes on either side of an existing
drainage course at the west end of the site. It is the owner's
intention to have additional field . explorations in this area for
the purpose of evaluating existing'slope conditions and developing
stabilization schemes.
•
2.(a') Additional vehicular traffic will occur on Interurban Ave. as a
result of this project. However, office uses normally result in
just over two trips per day per vehicle; and the pollutants emitted
into the air as a result of this project probably would have an
unmeasurable effect on therm bient air quality in this area, where
there is not a highly intensive retail or office use.
2.(b) Automobile exhaust should have little effect on exhaust odors which
may presently exist as a result of traffic on Interurban Ave.
3.(b) An existing drainage course exists entering at the West Property
Line and eventually finding its way to Interurban Ave. Some of this
runoff purculates into the site saturating the soil where parking
is planned in this proposal.. We propose to provide an improved sub -
grade drainage course to Interurban Ave., thus improving the soil
stability and unavoidably increasing the amount of surface water
runoff to Interurban Ave. See 3.(13) below.
3.(d) See 3(b) above. The additional water runoff would seem not to be
significant.
3.(e) The water entering the existing system is at times heavily silt laden
due to erosion to the west of the subject property and also across'the
site. The top two to five feet is a mixture of organics and clay.
(See attached soils reports).. We would propose a manhole structure-
which would intercept water runoff from adjacent properties to the
west and by means of a subgrade CMP deliver that runoff to Interurban
Ave. The quality of water entering the system in Interurban would
thus be improved, due to the beneficial settling which would normally
occur at the manhole structure. A storm detention facility will be •
provided for pervious and impervious surfaces on the site. Water
entering the storm system from this facility would be of a higher
temp. than normal due to the effect of warm asphalt.
3.(g) The groundwater table on the site may be affected. By intercepting
water runoff entering the site from the west it is expected that the
site will "dry out" from its present state.
3*.(i) Office use will not have a high demand for water resources. Water usage
in the building will be limited to operation of toilet facilities,
irrigation for landscaping, and building fire protection systems.
4.(a) Landscaping is an integral part of the proposal. Decorative shrubs,
evergreen shrubs and trees are planned both as noise buffers to traffic
noise and as sight screening for parking lots. See Landscape Plan
attached.
Page Three
•
5.(a) The existing swampy area is a nesting bed for insects and aquatic
organisms. Presumably their numbers would decrease with the
development of the project. The site is not a significant habitat
for any species of birds or land animals. The addition of new
flora in the area would have a positive impact on the environment
in that it would attract species of birds which are attracted to
particular species of flora.
6. The addition of more automobiles will increase noise levels on
Interurban Ave., however, because the project is located in the
foreground of a steep slope. Residential areas to the west will
not be appreciably affected by this proposal.
7. Glare from parking lot lights will be minimized through the use of
parabolic lens equipped fixtures.
8. The west 150' of the . site is presently zoned C -2 with the remainder
of the site zoned c-1 We propose to locate the.building within the
existing C -2 zone meeting all setback requirements including rear -
yard to an C -1 zone.
9.(a) Additional water resources will be required to service the building.
11 It is difficult to ascertain whether population increases in an area
are the result of speculative office development or whether influxes
of population into an area creates a demand for such development.
12. Demands for additional housing in the area may be created due to the
trend to cut commuting time in the interest of conserving fuel.
13.(a) Additional traffic on Interurban Ave. will result from this project.
13.(c) The proposal may result in increased ridership on existing bus routes.
14.(a) The project will be sprinklered.
14.(b) The project may put some demands on existing police services although
office buildings would not normally require unusual security measures.
15.(a) The new building will be made to conform to the state energy code and
will have a hydronic heat recovery HNAC system.
16.(a) Additional power transformers may be required for the project.
16.(d) An existing 8" sanitary sewer is presumed to be adequate for this project.
16.(e) Alterations to the existing drainage course would have positive environmental
impacts. (See 3(b) and 3(e).)
TheRichalSmithCompany
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
600 Colman Building
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 6248150
May 10, 1982
1�
City of Tukwila
6230 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attention: Al Pieper
RE: PLAN REVIEW #82 -T -03
Gentlemen:
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
MAY 121982
BUILDING DEPT.
We have received plans for the proposed Plaza One Office Building and have
reviewed them for compliance with Chapters 23 - :'29of the Uniform Building Code.
.Our comments follow:
1. Provide a soils report.
2. Concrete cover as specified in structural notes is incorrect per : UBC Section
2607(0) . (Refer Detail 2/S -1.)
3. Special inspection is required for A -325 bolts per UBC Section 306(a) 5.
4. Indicate spacing, edge and end distances for all bolted connections.
5. Roof Plan on Sheet S -4 and Roof Plan on Sheet 7 appear to be in disagreement
over skylight locations between Grids 7 and 8. Clarify discrepancy.
6. Clarify wing wall construction at entries and indicate connection to concrete
retaining wall at Detail 5/S -1.
7. Stair fabrication drawings are to be submitted to the City of Tukwila for
approval prior to fabrication.
Provide lateral load path analysis and calculations verifying conformance with
UBC Section .2312.
Please return for our review when the above questions have been answered.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
THE RICHAL SMITH COMPANY.
By: Jay Taylor
cc: Schneider /Nilsen, Developers, 14900 Interurban Ave. S., Tukwila, Washington
W- 3471 -01
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
Geotechnical Consultants
1105 North 38th Street• Seattle, Washington 98103•Telephone: (206) 632 -8020 • Cable: GEOSAW
October 27, 1978
G.A.M. Construction
16625 Redmond Way
Court Building
Redmond, WA 98052
Attn: Mr. Gary Nilsen
•
CONSULTING SERVICES, PARCELS I & II, INTERURBAN AVENUE
& SOUTH 147TH STREET, TUKWILA, WA.
Gentlemen:
At your request on October 2, 1978, we have reviewed our
report titled "Soil Investigation, Proposed Industrial Site,
Interurban Ave. at South 146th Street, Tukwila, Washington,"
dated September 17, 1963, and a Cascade Testing Laboratory,
Inc.`s report, titled "Soils Investigation, Parcels I, II
& III, Interurban Ave. & South 147th Street, Tukwila, Wash-
ington," dated. August 18, 1978. The purpose of reviewing
these reports was to assist you in determining the feasibility
of the proposed development. This letter report presents
the results of our review of the reports along with our
recommendations.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is our understanding that you have an option for developing
the property into an office complex. The proposed structures
would consist of moderately loaded two (2) story buildings.
The building location is restricted to an area within 150 feet
from Interurban Avenue as indicated on Figure 1.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
We understand that the major portion of each parcel is relatively
flat and covered with grass, but the portions adjoining the
west property lines slope uphill at estimated inclinations
between about 1V on 5H and 1V on 1.2H, as shown on Figure 2.
Some apartment complex has been constructed upslope from the
William L. Shannon, P.E. • Stanley D. Wilson, P.E. (consultant)
Earl A. Sibley, P.E. • Walter L. Wright, P.E. • Raymond P. Miller, P.E. • Sigmund D. Schwarz, P.G. • David E. Hilts, P.E. • Derek H. Corntorlh, P.E.
M. Mike Allzadeh, P.E. • Rohn D. Abbott, P.E. • Robert J. Deacon, P.G. • George Yamane, P.E. • Maurice D. Veatch, P.G.
Seattle • Spokane • Portland • San Francisco • Fairbanks • St. Louis
G.A.M. Construction
Attn: Mr. Gary Nilsen
October 27, 1978
Page 2
W- 3471 -01.
property. Several landslides have occurred at some distances
west of the west property lines.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Two borings, designated DH -1 and DH -2, were accomplished in 1963.
They were located on the sloping ground in the western portion
of Parcel I as shown on Figure 2. Logs of these borings are
. presented on Figure 3.
In the upper five feet of DH -1 and DH -2, a medium .stiff, silty
CLAY and clayey SILT with sand and gravel was encountered. This
material was believed to be partly a highly weathered residual
soil, similar to the weathered rock and soil encountered at higher
elevation along the slopes. It is also possible that some of the
material was'slope wash and fill. This upper material was under-
lain by another medium stiff clayey SILT and silty CLAY with some
zones of silty sand and gravel. This material may have been
formed from siltstones, sandstones and shales by the process of
weathering.
•
In DH -1, yellow oxidized zones were encountered between the depths
of 5 and 9.5 feet. Below 9.5 feet the material was primarily a
glacially- overridden, hard, slightly clayey SILT with unconfined
compressive strengths in excess of 4.5 tsf. In DH -2, the soils
encountered in the entire boring depth of 28.5 feet were more
deeply weathered. Oxidized yellow zones occurred within the
silty CLAY, SAND and GRAVEL to a depth of about 17 feet. Most
of these materials were classified as medium to stiff. .
.In 1978, two borings, designated TB -1 and TB -2, were drilled by
others in the eastern portion of Parcels I and II, as shown on
Figure 1. Logs of these two borings are presented on Figures
4 an4 5.
Fill or Slope Debris, consisting of medium dense, sandy, gravelly,
decomposed CLAYSTONE with charcoal fragments and organics, was
encountered in the upper 7 feet of TB -1 and TB -2. In TB -1, the
upper debris was underlain by medium stiff SILT with scattered
roots and organics to a depth of about 23 feet. A loose, silty
SAND layer with organics was encountered between the depths of
13 and'14 feet. Below 23 feet medium stiff to stiff CLAY and
weathered CLAYSTONE with organics and wood fragments were
encountered. These materials were underlain by stiff, weathered
SILTSTONE and CLAYSTONE to the bottom of boring at 34.5 feet.
G.A.M. Construction
Attn: Mr. Gary Nilsen
October- 27, 1978
Page 3
W- 3471 -01
In TB -2, the upper 7 -foot debris was underlain by a one -foot
layer of very soft organic SILT, followed by a soft SILT with
roots to a depth of 12 feet. A medium stiff, organic SILT and
silty PEAT with a large piece of wood was encountered between
the depths of 12 and 18 feet. Underlying the organic and peaty
soils was loose to medium dense, silty SAND with scattered
organics to a depth of 26 feet. Below this depth was a very
dense fine SAND (Weathered Sandstone).
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
During the field exploration period in 1963, groundwater was not
encountered in either Boring DH -1 or DH -2, although there were a
few local wet zones in DH -2. The slopes and exposures to the
north and south of Parcel I were also dry. However, the 1978
explorations indicated that the site appeared'to be wet much of
the year. Shrinkage cracks of one inch was observed over much
of the site. Where a ravine entered the center of Parcel I,
water flowed from beneath the slope debris at a.point approximately
3.0 feet east of the west property line. Samples became wet at
about 8 feet below the ground in Borings TB -1 and TB -2, but ground-
water levels were not measured.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Slope Stability
The 1963 soils report recommended that the excavation slopes
to the north and south of Parcel I be not greater than 1V on 1H
and the excavation slope to the rear or.wezt of..the:.site be no
steeper than 1V on 1.5H provided an asphalt lined drainage ditch
was properly installed to intercept surface water and prevent
erosion of the cut slopes. The 1978 soils report revealed that
evidence of unstable slope conditions was observed along the
western excavation slope. We, therefore, recommend that additional
field explorations and stability analyses be performed for the
purpose of evaluating the existing slope conditions and developing
stabilization schemes, if desired.
Foundation Su•port
Because of the existence of organic and peaty soils and the
low consistency of the rather thick compressible subsoils, con-
ventional footings would-not be suitable for supporting moderately
loaded structures unless the site is properly preloaded. If time
G.A.M. Construction
Attn: Mr. Gary Nilsen
October 27, 1978
Page 4
W- 3471 -01
is allowed, the scheme of preloading the site may be considered.
This scheme would require additional field explorations and
laboratory testing in order to assist in determining the amount
of organic and peaty soils present and estimating the amount of
preloading fill and the duration of preloading.
In addition to the preloading scheme, pile foundations may
also be used for:supporting the proposed structures. We under-
stand that you are concerned about the vibration caused by pile
driving, because it may reduce the stability of the existing slopes.
Thus, auger cast -in -place concrete piles are under consideration.
For your preliminary planning purposes, a 14 -inch diameter pile
with a minimum penetration of 40 feet in Parcel I and 30 feet in
Parcel II was considered. For these piles, a maximum allowable
design load of 35 to 40 tons per pile may be used for your
preliminary cost estimating purposes. For final design, it will
be necessary to drill more borings to better determine the sub-
surface conditions so that recommendations for pile design could
be developed. Additional borings are particularly necessary for
auger -cast piles, because it is difficult to determine the pile
lengths fi~am drilling action during auger -cast pile installation..
Floor slabs could be placed on properly prepared subgrade
or pile supported, depending upon the loading condition, the grade
level, and the results of additional test borings.
It is recommended that the settlement of the existing fill
be monitored. If settlement of the fill is still occurring, it
would have an impact not only on the floor design but also on
the design of. piles. Since the project may not start until next
spring, this monitoring should be initiated as soon as possible.
Drainage System
Depending on the final grade elevations, footing drains and
under the floor slab drains may be required. Also, all surface
water should be properly collected and directed away from the site..
G.A.M. Construction
Attn: Mr. Gary Nilsen
October 27, 1978
Page 5
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you.
Sincerely,
SHANNON & WILSON, INC.
George /-man =/, P.E.
Vice Pr-side t
JW:ln
Encls: Figures 1 thru 5
W- 3471 -01
e io /Z ,5 %V VQ5/7/1 VA/
/AYr7rA/. A i97 T~ (Sr
-77)/e\v&/4 \y/216///4
4-
/47 =V'
ra �r
\\ pARCfL
\`
•.f r
•
•
CASCADE TESTING
LABORATORY
ENGINEERS
11123 N.E. 21 STREET - BELLEVUE_ WASHINGTON • 98007
GEOLOC
206 • 641
{{CEE�R T. NO I SCALE • ! / =Zcv •u
D2/••NN .T
• • A
DATE
/1 *- •.e - ii! t
REV. NO.
NOt ES
PAGE
•
00,
ocs
0 •
0
0,
U
(J
Is
N
• A. t ..* ••• ii%rTJ+ir► -:•-,
4 1
I
I
1 1
I.1
i
t1
■
interurban Ave.
'. i
NOTE
Contours deAfwnin ed by )and
/eye/1.)o. 29 AupsT, /363
SC `C ::ESCe'PT /ON, E-rpcsut-es / / 2 :
Yellow - brouwn weathered sandy , jointez
S /LTSTCWE - bec.'.n s1/72'y
si /ty CLAY
/i/, ec.t d rz ina y e di .'44:711
/NDIJSTR!AL S/ TE
l/li'TERUP, &4t/ AYE: ,e S_ /46 *_'
:..TUK,.-/. A,` WISH. •
FiCiF /C PROF L E ER , /M
SITE PLAN
•
`SHANNON & WILSON
SOIL MECHANICS 1 EOUNO AMON ENGINEERS
DH I
£/e v. 2/9
DEPTH DE5CF /PTIO/Y
0 •
Med. Stiff brn. e
scme'/? ed
rc Fire 5i4i . < ana u/a r
GP „9 �L teleg cryonics
5 Z1
Me�sfffQgr-7�� c /a�e� S/L
iv/ Some SAND 4 2hep J2 r
GRAYEZ. Sonic ye //oa, cr'i-
dIzed zones Some rid -:3I
ua /jointing r”; bedding •
Herd gray s /,�fr/i ��
c /ay yeti 5 /LT Iv/ zones
of or.vi- o /a:':r rre 1� im
r
5A/iD f fine GRAVEL. S
r1nG th %17 /2,7) a fi:`n
WATER
CONTENT
ex
/I
9.5
/85
35.5
STANDARD
PE/VI TR. A 1 ON
O
L/Y..*: :::NF /t /ED
CCl4PP, ESS / VE
5 T REN(.77g, s:
/ . 5 '
26.4 1.5
/2.0 4-3 _ >4.5
/3.5
71 /3.2
77
70
NOTE
Standard per : tr.c tion is shown as Me r u.n&f - . f t ldsc:: re ir_ed
to drive • a Z'O.G. s/it soon sa»f, /er one s4 o r 040 M. ham. >.e r, :=D dre/oj
LFLEND
fI
.c /: t spoor, s2:7pie
. Figure- to left i:.dica/cs so.rp/� 4unlber
11 2.•O.D. S1ieiby tube samplee
t
Unconfir7e.d rcn pressi /e srrs.;arh re_:t/ts
eS /;Mated by :use ?r e Poc•fe s4
Unconfined c rn/Ore.$irs stren7tn re;i/ts
bJ 1_tuczi test
.
Dh�
ELEV.. 2/8'
/ED DEPTH CESCR /PT /Oh'
S/ Vt.-
� fs;- 0
J
6
//
/6
26.5
A/e_i sriff ye //,;c. - to 1
J
S /,;,h; /r .S ;dy G /Q,,r y
5/i7'
Pled. stiff rf er;, D /tee -grad
1-\da ic:l.S7L Tw/so ve SAh�LT
Med. Miff 9ra q f ye / %a/
silk/ _AY -4 so" , ' $I/I/D
e :z a'ra r fine GRAVEL .
fra p; en Is
Oar 9ra% 00.7ri.e :o
m fcl.air: 54.•YLI u./ scm e.
SICici r:L,s:.rneCMY, y
5/Z 7 bi uJer. ;�.e: r
5r; he /1.91,l yieen,
big, e -yra yto darkQracy
Si, CZ A y w /i »J' e
meQ.rof,ie SAND
41 a. ;g'J /ar 6-PAVEL
fray ;r en is.
•
WATER STANDARD UNCONFINED
CONTENT PENETRATION COMPRESSIVE
eA STRENGTH, ts,
55.0
'5.5.
26.2
1 38.5
oT
7i
8T
/cT
/2.5
5..
37.5
37.7 ,/2
P ✓sn ed
-2o /O
6
/3
55.7 /2
/NvUSTR /AL 5/ TE
/NTERURBA/'/ AVE. ? 5. :'40
TUKWIL A) : WASH.
PAC /F /C PROPELLER , /NC.
80R /NG LOGS
0.7'�
/.2
0.
/. 36 f
{/.5 P
/.
15 *
10.3
W-63 -2S4 Sept.i5E3
SHANNON & WILSON - /P. C3
SOIL MECHANICS & FOUNDATION ENGINEERS Y
STRATA
ELEV. -
DEPTH
STANDARD
PENETRATION
C. I CORRECTED)
BLOWS/ FOOT
DESCRIPTION
NOTFS
Ott 6. /VAI OEA1..5�, • '6-0 An/0 640. m./A/,
t..›4/c10Y Y ('o ,STo - /C F7P1 'I EvTS),
08-C 041 P05E0 G L 4 Y . 3 7-0 4 6 : 7 - - \ V i n es G. A,t c a.
�, p gGr/1l W 73 (7c c o.P cS L oPE .DEfSR/5) .4,0/57-7
-/0
/IIEO /v ^l ‘577C F- 4QEY ,..5/4-7-- /'1/15_S /vr \v /rli
0 4G/15/o/c/AG /7A/b- Ara'7'6 / V6:1:
LoosE.4.re'7; ..s/.1Y Fin /&" 3.4i1/0 %wry occ-is/o v tc
v.(014 i/es ..YET.
• -zr
/IIEO /OA •5P'5; oxo.v'/ - 4 EY A/ti/04 ,qoc+/,J S /GT
\\/ /Tii
" o.4AA//G' LE't/SES, \vEr —
fjEco/(1 /n/4 e2.2 .4 ./ /G 5/4 7— ,!T /5- / \\/ /Tf/
c7 4 5/47"4 4/.. y " F //✓� ,�4/•/0 EDS ,
\ /el TE.0 R /VF•C 06.0:0S)7"..5
).
Alto/O,41 .577,50; 4�E'� \vN /r ; , ,e. 4NO 4dE eAt
Gi. AY wing RD' /.QA /E/t 7 5 oec. C4-47-
AAJO So,0 \`/000 (,Sio ' 0E,3e/5 ).
577if v,,cetE Oc 4Y.e0 47-47'Sra.../E So.0 .4' IAic .OrberS
TEST BORING LOG
Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc.
Engineers - Geologists
14120 N. E. 21st Street. Bellevue. Wash 98037
Phone 641.2573
- - �f, 'CERT. No.
•
Jo/G5 /// V 5 T /GAT/o/4
//NrC/�f>i/2 i t kg. I j. /47 a ,5
\\/ /L A / \V/•4L5f/ /' 7 AJ
BORING NO. /
IDWN BY
P � _.L OF Z
CHKD 5Y
,z/ 4
uJ
D
STRATA
ELEV. -
DEPTH
STANDARD
'PENETRATION
C„ (CORRECTED)
BLOWS/ FOOT
0 S0
. '
.
DESCRIPTION
Srhec, 0 ,f,e
/>ECAYe o
c v6=-- - - e6E.✓, O ‘VAl •r,/' 4-ee Y
ix r.7-1),•/&' A o C647',STaA/6::
•
4r
=
To. j!•S'
•
i
r- •
NOTFS
. ‘- 5 v /G
• TEST BORING LOG i,,irc,<,,),
Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc. -r().- \\//
Engineers - Geologists
14120 N E. 21st Street Bellevue. Wash 93007
Phone 641.2573
5 /A/VC 5 T /GAT /oA)
,4 Ay. / j. /4? r i7
/-1' \\//4c.5////1/1-0/4
BORING NO.
PAr,E OF
{
LTE - ~ - may. f CERT NC -�� . ?
- DWN sy .
JCKD
F.:
U
D
STRATA
ELEV. -
DEPTH
STANDARD
PENETRATION
C. (CORRECTED)
BLOWS/ FOOT
o so
• DESCRIPTION
•
IWATER I
TA fl1
•
• .1�_ •
• . • • •
•
.--
• -t
o
.
.5r /,�F AGO /vAI OE'/ Z. EN,SEO , 1..../4././7-4,r•
, /./a" ‘SAA/0 4.-.'EY An/O Apo tv../ C44 Y
e4,4y,5TdA/E. F.At44.4I[:it/T5 'WO 40.4"//e.5
A10437-. (F /[C o.4- ,56 ,0,0,&-- i.S) .
A
• '
•
Ff •o. ✓A/ 0RG,•.4.ViG ,/G T , 'tVE7
'
r
j
.50Ft, e' 6" •r' .S /e..T , i11A 5S/VC-5- ,\\//r//
OGG.f•5 /OA/AL F/ 6.- .PoOTS , ✓ET.
-i
AIE0 /0A1 c5T /FF , .4'E7' -A -sea % %JAI , 04044.3/ /G
.5 /GT "WO ,5/4 1-7' .FEAT tV/ ray 4 LA.Pa6'
. /� /eGg of \ '/OOO .4 7 - /9 �/ kvET. 1
�■■■�
•
si
���
le
•••.•
. •
•
u
/1160/041 O b N,SE , 4...1e/e. Fin// (.1.4,1/0 \vim/
y'N '1 — # 'e'0 ..4:1/.✓5 1Ve T;
-
. '
• :.:. • .:
• • •
_sf
,IN
Iii
Leo SC , 4QEY, .5 /GTY FiA/E . ,•,/ ■sir// '
Oee.f S /D.c/ -4 4 o.PG.I.�/ /CS , XV6 T Keer-45 -f7 - Z4 '
-�
,�
V/E•PY Ot N.SE, G /GHT 4-•'E Y; F /Aie- 6,1A/0
�.'
t) (w THE.PbD �.t/057A/E) •
Tp. yo. o'
NOTES
c.5O /G 3 /A/VC-5 77 6AT /off
TEST' BORING LOG /Aii& -,ev,. 4 Aye. / j. Af7T2 57
�lU, _ \�it�� , \VAL3 ///' ' ro-1
Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc.
Engineers - - Geologists BORING NO
14120 N. E. 21st Street Bellevue. Wash 98007
Phone 641.2573 P-s / Oc /
DATE e - - 76. ICERT. NO ` -_ .. ;,...- 4DwN :Y f .__ "•:
CHKD trf