HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA EPIC-167-81 - WESTLUND EARL - BEL CREST HEIGHT SUBDIVISIONBEL CREST HEIGHT
SUBDIVISION
EARL WESTLUND
PRELMINARY PLAT
EPIC- 167 -81
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 Environmental Questionnaire
to cover costs of the threshold determination.
I. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent: Earl Westlund
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 12431, Kingsgate Way N.E.
Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 823 -4663
3. Date Checklist Submitted: June 8, 1981
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: City of Tukwila, Washington
5. Name of Proposal, if._applicable: Preliminary Plat - Bel -Crest Heights
Tukwila, Washington
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):
See 'Attachment A.
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 dive an accurate under-
standing of the environmental setting of the proposal):
See Attachment A.
8. Estimated Date for Completion of the Proposal: Development completion
approximately 6 months after final plat approval.
9. List of all Permits, Licenses or Government Approvals Required for the
Proposal (federal, state and local):
(a) Rezone, conditional use, shoreline permit, etc. YES NO X
(b) King County Hydraulics Permit YES NO X
(c) Building permit YES X NO
• •
(d) Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Permit YES NO x
(e) Sewer hook up permit YES X NO
(f) Sign permit YES NO X
(g) Water hook up permit YES .X NO
(h) Storm water system permit YES X NO
(i) Curb cut permit YES X NO
(j) Electrical permit (State of Washington) YES NO X
(k) Plumbing permit (King County) YES X NO
(1) Other:
Environment Approval — City of Tukwila
10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or futher activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No.
11. Do you know of any plans by others which may affect the property.covered by
your proposal? If yes, explain:
No.
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:
The preliminary plat was originally submitted and approved by the City of
Tukwila Planning Commission at their meeting on July 26, 1979, subject to
11 conditions. See letter in Attachment C.
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? X
(b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcover-
ing of the soil?
(c) Change in topography or ground surface relief fea-
tures?
(d) The destruction, covering or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
X
X
X
YES MAYBE NO
(e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site? X
(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? X
Explanation:
See Attached.
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:
See Attachment A.
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?
X
X
X
X
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:
See Attachment A.
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? X
Explanation:
::See Attachment A.
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
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: See Attachment A.
X
•
6. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise
levels?
Explanation: See Attachment A.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
Explanation:
See Attachment A.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the altera-
tion of the present or planned land use
of an area?
Explanation: See Attachment A.
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:
See Attachment A.
10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an
Explanation:
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?
See Attachment A.
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
11. Population.
Explanation:
• •
Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
See Attachment A.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional housing?
Explanation: See Attachment A.
13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Generation of additional vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
Impact upon existing transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of circulation
or movement of people and /or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic?
Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
Explanation: See Attachment A.
in:
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:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks or other recreational facilities?
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads?
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(f) Other governmental services?
Explanation: See Attachment A.-
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: See Attachment A.
YES MAYBE NO
X
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for
new systems, or alterations to the
following utilities:
(a) Power or natural gas? _ X
(b) Communications systems? X
(c) Water? -X
(d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
(e) Storm water drainage? X
(f) Solid waste and disposal? X
Explanation:
See Attachment A.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in the crea-
tion of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
Explanation: See Attachment A.
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: See Attachment A.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact
upon the quality or quantity of exist-
ing recreational opportunities?
Explanation: See Attachment A.
20. Archeological /Histroical. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of a signifi-
cant archeological or his -
torical site, structure,
object or building?
Explanation: See Attachment A.
CERTIFICATION BY APPLICANT:
YES MAYBE NO
X
X
X
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.
Signature and Title
t4.1C_ 9, (47/
Date
ATTACHMENT A
ANSWERS TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, Washington
I. BACKGROUND
6. Brief Description of Proposal - The developers are seeking
preliminary plat approval for a 19 -lot single - family sub-
division on 5.5 acres of land. The minimum lot size will
be 9600 square feet, based on existing R -1 -9.6 zoning on
90 percent of the site. The remaining 10 percent is
zoned R -1 -12. All lots will be provided with public
streets, water and sanitary sewers, improved to City
of Tukwila public works standards. All lots will front
on a cul -de -sac, designated as South 165th Street.
7. Location of Proposal - Located in a developing suburban
residential area, the project is located . on the west side
of 54th Avenue South, between South 164th Street and South
166th Street in the City of Tukwila. The property sits on
a high bluff overlooking Southcenter Shopping Center and
Interstate 5, which defines the Center's western limits.
The bluff, which begins at the eastern edge of 54th Avenue
South, is part of the Interstate 5 right -of -way. The site
is located adjacent to the McMicken Heights residential
subdivision to the south. The site is located in Section
26, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in King County,
Washington.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. EARTH
Existing Conditions. The wooded upland site slopes moderately
(13 to 21 percent) to the east, dropping abruptly at its eastern
boundary where it meets the semi - improved 54th Avenue South
• •
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Two
right -of -way. The roadway is located at the top of a steep
bluff overlooking Interstate 5 (immediately to the east) and
Southcenter Shopping Center, 700 feet to the east.
Mixed Arents and Alderwood soils (AmC) dominate the site.
The western 220 feet of the site slopes at a uniform 13
percent; the eastern 360 feet slopes at a uniform 21
percent. These soils have the following characteristics:
- Surface soils are moderately permeable -- 2.0 to 6.3
inches per hour.
- They are underlain by weakly to strongly consolidated
glacial till at a depth of 27 inches. Till has very
slow permeability -- under .06 inches per hour.
- Because of the slow permeability of the underlying
till, seasonal water tables are high in surface soils.
- During winter, water drains through the soil at the
interface between surface soils and the less perm-
eable substratum, increasing the likelihood of slides.
- The soils are ideally suited for urban development,
but have severe limitations for septic tank drain -
fields; therefore public sewers are required.
The existing right -of -way of 54th Avenue South deserves mention
because it will provide exclusive access to the proposed plat
and its existing condition is extremely relevant to soil issues.
The street has a 60 foot right -of -way, but the existing roadway
is only 15 or 16 feet wide, and most of the roadway is in the
eastern half of the right -of -way. A steep hillside occupies
the eastern half of the right -of -way. An examination of the
existing roadway indicates that two major slides have occurred
in front of the plat in recent years.
-2-
• •
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Three
Expected Impacts. Approval of the preliminary plat will
produce no direct impact, but the resulting development will
create significant soil disruptions and topographic changes,
particularly at the eastern end of the site. Major excava-
tions will occur in the following area:
- Extensive cut and fill will occur in the western 360
feet of the site for building foundations and streets.
- The improvements of the 54th Avenue South roadway will
require some excavation.
- Minor excavations will occur throughout the site for
utility installations.
Mitigation Measures.
1. During construction, temporary ponds will be created to
control erosion.
2. The developer will prepare a stormwater plan for the
development acceptable to the City of Tukwila.
3. Raw slopes will be revegetated as soon as possible after
construction (see discussion under Flora).
-3-
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Four
2. AIR QUALITY
Existing Conditions. Air quality in the McMicken Heights
area is good, according to data provided by an Air Quality
Station 19, located one -half mile away at Southcenter.
From 1977 to 1979, the station recorded suspended particulate
levels between 48 and 50 micrograms per cubic meter (annual
geometric mean). Considering that the project site is at a
much higher elevation (better wind velocity) and is removed
from the high vehicle density of Southcenter, it seems likely
that the site has considerably better air quality than record-
ed at Station 19. Everything considered, we estimate the
suspended particulate level at the project site to be about
40 ug /m3 -- very good air quality. Recent sulphur dioxide
readings at Air Quality Station 19 range between .006 and
.009 ppm -- far below the national air quality standard of
.03 ppm (annual average).
(Source: Air Quality Data Books for 1977, 1978 and 1979)
Expected Impacts. The only direct impacts on air quality will
be construction related dust and odors. They will temporarily
increase particulate levels by 5 to 10 micrograms per cubic
meter. Most of the air -borne dust will occur during excavation
for foundations and road construction.
The long -term (indirect) impact of the project will be the
waste heat from 19 homes and the exhaust emissions from 38
additional autos. Given a residential density of 4 HU per
acre, these pollutants will have almost no impact on ambient
air quality.
-4-
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Five
Mitigation Measures.
1. If construction occurs during dry months, dust will
be controlled by watering down construction sites.
2. Flush down all streets affected by construction
vehicles daily.
3. WATER
Existing Conditions. There are no surface streams on the
site. The Tukwila Public Works Department speculated that
there may be underground springs on the site, but this has
not been confirmed. The moderate permeability of the soils,
combined with abundant ground cover and a cover of organic
material, suggest that the existing storm runoff will be
negligible.
Based on information in the 1975 King County Soil Survey,
the seasonal water table in these soils tends to be high, '
usually within 1 to 2 feet of grade. The high water table
unquestionably contributes to the slide problems character-
istic of these soils.
Expected Impacts. The approval of the plat will have no direct
impact on water resources. The indirect impact -- construction
of 19 dwellings -- will increase the impervious surfaces on the
site. by 110,000 square feet, based on an assumed 40 percent
coverage on each residential lot and 100 percent coverage in
-5-
• •
Attachment A
Earl Westlund.Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Six
the street right -of -way. Without mitigation measures, both the
volume and rate of storm runoff will increase, limiting the amount
of water available for aquifer recharge.
Additionally, typical household pollutants (herbicides, petroleum
wastes, chemicals) may contaminate runoff waters.
The residences will also increase demand for public water supplies.
Mitigation Measures.
1. During construction, temporary retention ponds will be con-
structed to prevent storm runoff.
2. A storm drainage system with permanent detention facilities
will be designed for the site. The system, which will con-
nect with City's storm system, will be acceptable to the
City's Public Works Department.
3. Pollution control devices will be installed on the storm
water system to prevent pollutants from entering the City's
storm system.
4. FLORA
Existing Conditions. The wooded site has a fairly dense cover
of mature Bigleaf Maples, with understory plantings of Scrub
Alder, and a variety of ground covers, including ferns, ivy,
and blackberry vines. A layer of forest duff blankets
the site.
-6-
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Seven
Expected Impacts. During the development of residential lots,
virtually all of the natural ground cover and 50 percent of the
trees on most lots will be removed. Additionally, 100 percent
of both the ground cover and trees will be .removed in the
street right -of -way and along the eastern edge of the property
where extensive regrading will occur to widen the collector
street (54th Avenue South).
All the lots will be landscaped privately, introducing a wide
range of horticultural specimens to the site in the future.
The site soils have little value for agricultural crops,
hence no reduction in agricultural crop is involved.
Mitigation Measures.
1. A tree preservation plan will be incorporated into the
landscape plan. Where ever possible, all evergreen trees
4 inches in diameter and all deciduous trees 8 inches
in diameter will be saved. All trees along the perimeter
of the site will be preserved if possible.
2. All raw banks will be seeded immediately.
3. A landscape plan will be prepared for all public areas,
and submitted to the City for approval.
5. FAUNA
Existing Conditions. The continuity of forested land both
on the project site and on adjacent parcels suggests that
1
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Eight
the site provides good habitat conditions for small upland
game and a variety of small rodents. It is probable that
racoons inhabit the area.
Expected Impacts. The approval of the plat will have no direct
impact on the fauna; the long -term development of residential
lots will impact wildlife resources significantly. During con-
struction, the site will be unattractive for most wildlife.
When the lots are landscaped, the site will again attract birds
and certain smaller mammals which are tolerant of human activities.
The development will reduce both the numbers and diversity of
species, and will reduce the wildlife habitat.
Mitigation Measures. None.
6. NOISE
Existing Conditions. We estimate the background (L -90) noise
levels on this site to be between 40 and 45 decibels (A- range),
a level typical of undeveloped sites in semi -rural settings.
Expected Impacts. Approval of the plat will have no direct
impact on noise levels. The indirect impact will be develop-
ment of the lots. Construction work will temporarily increase
noise levels to 85 to 90 dB(A). Although these levels are
annoying, the noise will be attenuated by the distance (in
some cases over 200 feet) between the noise source and nearby
residents.
When all lots are fully developed (at a density of 3.5 HU per
acre) the expected noise level, as a function of population
• •
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Nine
density will be about 60 dB(A), a level typically found in
suburban residential areas.
Mitigation Measures.
1. All trucks will have operating mufflers.
2. Work will be permitted only between the hours of
7:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE
Existing Conditions. There are no lights on the site at present.
Expected Impacts. Plat approval will produce no direct impact.
The indirect impact of the proposal -- residential construction
-- will produce light and glare from three sources: street
lights, vehicle lights, and light from dwellings.
Mitigation Measures.
1. Effective landscape screening will eliminate unwanted
glare from vehicles on and off the site
2. All street luminaires will use down - lighting- fixtures
with glare shields.
-9-
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel - Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Ten
8. LAND USE
Existing Conditions. The site is now completely undeveloped.
The entire site is zoned R- 1 -9.6, except for a small 80 x 200
foot area at the northern end of the site which is zoned R -1 -12.
These zones permit the following uses:
- R -1 -9.6 Single - family lots - 9,600 Sq. Ft.
minimum lot size
- R -1 -12 Single- family lot - 12,000 Sq. Ft.
minimum lot size.
The City of Tukwila's Comprehensive Land Use Map (1975) des-
ignates the entire project site for low- density residential
uses; low density here means 0 to 5 units per gross acre.
The City also designated a portion of the site for special
development considerations, probably because of the slide
problems on slopes.
Expected Impacts. The proposal will convert the site to a
19 -lot single - family subdivision. All the lots in the R -1 -9.6
zone have at least 9,600 square feet. The lots range between
9,613 s.f. to 14,054 s.f., with a mean lot size of 11,076 s.f.
The two lots in the R -1 -12 zone (lots 16 and 17) are both
11,500 s.f., hence do not conform completely with the R -1 -12
zoning. A zoning variance will probably be required.
Tract A has been included to provide access to lots 16 and 17.
A summary of proposed land uses is as follows on the next
page.
-10-
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Eleven
Summary of Proposed Land Uses
Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)
1 10,625 11 9,601
2 11,215 12 9,651
3 13,493 13 10,407
4 12,819 14 9,848
5 9,839 15 11,772
6 9,839 16 12,000
7 9,613 17 12,000
3 11,942 18 13,054
9 10,313 19 11,530
10 10,885 Tract A. 3,280
Street 25,837
TOTAL: 239,563 (5.5 Ac)
Mitigation Measures. None
9. NATURAL RESOURCES
Existing Conditions. The site has two major natural resources:
the land and the vegetation. Many of the mature maples have
both senic and commercial value.
Expected Impacts. Plat approval will have no direct impact on
natural resources. The indirect impact on natural resources will
occur during construction and after. During construction, about
50 percent of the trees on the lots will be harvested. Residen-
ial construction will use a number of natural resources -- lumber,
concrete, metal, and petroleum by- products. The use of petroleum
by- products will deplete non - renewable sources.
Mitigation Measures. None.
• •
Attachment A
Earl Wes.tlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Twelve
10. RISK OF UPSET
Existing Conditions. There are no explosive or hazardous
substances on the site at present.
Expected Impacts. There are no direct impacts. When con-
struction occurs, the likelihood of petroleum - related
explosions and accidents will increase.
Mitigation Measures.
1. Construction workers will be apprised of all safety
regulations related to handling of hazardous liquids.
11. & 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Existing Conditions. The site is uninhabited.
Expected Impacts. Plat approval will have no direct impact
on population; however the indirect impact will be a net
population increase of approximately 60 residents in 19 new
dwellings. (Based on Census tract norm of 3.2 persons per
HU).
Mitigation Measures. None.
-12-
•
Attachment A.
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Thirteen
13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION
Existing Conditions. At present the site has excellent access
to freeways and major shopping centers. However, the collector
street serving the. site -- 54th Avenue South -- is substandard
by City of Tukwila standards. The existing street with an es-
timated volume of 20 to 30 vehicles per hour has a 16 -foot wide
roadway with a ditch on the west side line with corrugated metal
pipes. It appears that two major slides have occurred within the
past 10 years, resulting in extensive damage to the roadway. The
City Engineer indicated that the State (which owns the property
downslope of the road) had attempted to stabilize the roadway by
installing gabions just below the road.
Expected Impacts. The indirect impact of development is that
the residential tract will generate 190 additional vehicle trips
daily, and this traffic will increase parking demand and traffic
hazards slightly.
Mitigation Measures.
1. A 560 -foot long cul -de -sac street, with curbs, gutters, and
side walks on both sides, will be constructed to service
the lots.
2. The collector street, 54th Avenue South, will be reconstructed
to meet City of Tukwila Street Standards.
3. A stop sign will be installed at the intersection of the new
street and 54th Avenue South.
-13-
•
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Fourteen
14. PUBLIC SERVICES
Existing Conditions. No public services are provided on
site at present.
Expected Impacts. The proposed development will place
demands on the City and utility districts for the following
services:
- Police and fire protection and street maintenance will
be provided by the City of Tukwila.
- South Central School District No.406 serves the project
area. The site will be served by Tukwila Elementary,
Showalter Middle School, and Foster High Schools. All
schools are below capacity.
- McMicken Heights Park is located one -half mile from the
project site on 53rd Avenue South. When fully developed,
it will provide 11 acres of recreational area.
Mitigation Measures. None.
15. ENERGY
Existing Conditions. No energy is being used on the site at
present.
Expected Impacts. Assuming all dwellings are electrically
heated, the total development will consume approximately
475,000 kwh of energy annually, based on an annual consumption
rate of 10 kwh per square foot of floor area. All homes were
assumed to have approximately 2,500 square feet.
-14-
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Fifteen
Mitigation Measures.
1. All dwellings will be adequately insulated -- minimum
R -11 in walls, R -19 in ceilings.
2. Storm windows should be installed on all homes.
3.. Plant deciduous shade trees on the south side of all
dwellings.
16. UTILITIES
Existing Conditions. No utilities exist on the site at
present.
Expected Impacts. The proposed development will require
alterations to the following utility systems:
- Natural Gas will be provided by Washington Natural
Gas Company.
- Telephone service will be provided by Pacific Northwest Bell.
- Electrical power will be provided by Puget Sound Power and
Light Company.
- The water service will be provided by King County Water
District No. 75.
- Sewer service will be provided by the Val Vue Sewer District.
A Certificate of Sewer Availability is forthcoming.
- A storm system will be installed by the developer and connect-
ed to the City's storm system.
Mitigation Measures. None.
-15-
1
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Sixteen
17. HUMAN HEALTH
Existing Conditions. Not applicable.
Expected Impacts. None.
Mitigation Measures. None.
18. AESTHETICS
Existing Conditions. In its present wooded condition, the
site is a scenic resource.
Expected Impacts. The proposal is a tradeoff involving the
loss of a scenic resource for the gain of an attractive new
residential tract.
Mitigation Measures. None.
19. RECREATION
Existing Conditions.. There is no demand for recreation at
present.
Expected Impacts. The proposed development will create a
small demand for recreational resources. See discussion
under public services.
Mitigation Measures. None.
-16-
•
Attachment A
Earl Westlund Preliminary Plat
Bel -Crest Heights, Tukwila, WA.
Page Seventeen
20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL
Existing Conditions. There are no known or suspected
cultural resources at present.
Expected Impacts. A letter has been sent to the State Office
of Archaeology and. Historical Preservation to determine whether
there are any cultural resources of Statewide significance.
Mitigation Measures. None.
�Ll
_
br�s
y /r--.. . -- 1
/ / I
1
•
10 rMM
- r
I
_ 11
1� I
-IJ
(-,4 C=1�-
1
•
IC
13
SOO co
e
I
14Self.1 e• Wt.
•D w.1 af
VC
—rt
Milli"Arajw*
• -1"°1111111111VPIalir
wrelewswid
;111IrriatiZI
e I aN -�� poem
M
J
11 --
10 1
1
1
1
1/ [
52nd AVENUE SO.
L.
1 14
1-
1
164m STREET
x• • •. off I
e
L_
I
iLEASryteT ColOI®HT$_ _
ata
ri tj
RAc CK J 6050 ZITS DIV
It ••n,1. ro•Irn .• .
N
M 2 i • LJ O
N $
v.
L_ L
v r ® j • 9' 5300 AVENUE SO.
0.„,�. —
S au
1~
cili
O 4101•!/ 004400Y ' WS 1 A••°0 u fY•11.1.10
I1111 •IMI••f• My • •
arnwo, Y.wrla+ 91100•
nae'
(104.1 011• r•/
0
O
O
O
0
O
0
.0•1•&4,41. •Y•IY••••
wrro.. Mod.. .rm.n•
+♦ v.• . .1•.T+
n..s.. —._.— ..
t1.41.40.0 , Y. 11.1 •M•r.
1140w..w40w 4•4• • •-••01
-fw.L Mw *. 111.•••• n (1 M &CM)
VP,. ...WI co 1o1• Ir9...•.rl• r7
M•..Mr L.r ounwono • f••. SO T
M.•fV W. • 0-1-••
••••■• r.•lw — e w
.—••■ •.r.1' r••IY140
+1.•..v �Iw . Y.1. ....,
1&0.14 41w_ • • T
..c
LEBAI P 4 IPnt28
YfL!
r 11, t•_Y1r 11 x.1•....9. I In1. wane. 41
la r.▪ � iru. lay �n� 0011.0
Ylr•••• .1 co cc •.. t.._ c cc &119.; Yn.. cc. Yr was 11_ •I nn
�w•n•u- .0 w q 1.01•1 M Y11wlY.I IN. w... •pr.
I . 0.14•11• .
Woa n. Veil '11' .h1 p1 Yr1wl r. 1oa _.I•.1 1 .. •1 YY I_r loath.
t__ •I H 4. 11-1' nN 19..11 Iwl ulW IY 411 ruiiww•.
I.r. e Y w vY CO ,0 ht .I L.111• •. •I.1. 1 •I hwr•w oar•.,. • r I. r cr9.N•• 01.41.
!.'Ur
y» w _.1 •.rY 1.1...1 Mfr_ 1•. l.w••Ir 11 •..Y. 4.•r • lac. . •
..•1.•11• _. 1>0�_
u wvi �i1 riri�olil�w ru�lY •i r• .r
---
...
.001e. latota 140
r,n • . mast r r of Y• .9.1,
sovaa 110.14
r••tl'11 f Il r t 9. 1 y h•tl Y YLlwl•L,
IM• roa I
■
■ as 14411 11. 8. •01101.0 w. .• ► .1.4. • «
•..1. 110&..1 t• roa r.._•n
tan I/ c 141 140 Im Nolo u 9..t I9. In. 41..1.1
Wt.
WI. 14 , 14,11 1 Y 4. 0.0111, 4 04,WY r / M .I°.r
Ma.. «•t. a 0.441 1.4. (1 •• IW0 WIN ■
O 414{•[00 •YNM.
Ilorrur Df NcN it Cr Arror iurr•, tar.
EARL A. WESTLUND
•-14r
/•. r.•
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
BEL CREST HEIGHTS
•N!.0
REPORT
SOILS AND FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED BEL CREST HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
RLAI PROJECT NO. 549 -01
ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES INC.
August 1, 1979
Mr. Mel Hogsett and
Mr. Earl Westland
c/o Westpack Development Corporation
12431 Kingsgate Way NE
•Kirkland, Washington 98033
Report
Soils and Foundation Investigation
Proposed Bel Crest Heights Subdivision
Tukwila, Washington
RLAI Project No. 549 -01
Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our foundation investigation for the
proposed Bel Crest Heights Subdivision in Tukwila, Washington. The site is west
of 54th Avenue South, approximately midway between Slade Way and South 166th Street.
You provided to us preliminary drawings of the site showing the layout of the proposed
subdivision. Our work was performed by a written authorization dated July 13, 1979.
This report was preceeded by a preliminary report to you dated July 25, 1979.
The proposed subdivision consists of 20 lots for the development of single -
family residences. A proposed road which will dead -end on the site is also planned.
The proposed configuration of the lots and streets is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1.
The purpose of our investigation is to assess the effects of prevailing soil
and ground water conditions on the proposed development. Specifically, our work
includes:
1. An assessment of overall slope stability within the proposed
development area.
2. Recommendations for site development, including guidelines for earth -
work,•_such as cut and fill slopes, and erosion protection during
construction.
3. General recommendations for foundation support of the proposed residences.
Foundation recommendations for specific building sites are not part of
this study.
4. Recommendations for drainage control which can be provided to your
engineers for design of a storm run -off system.
MAIL: P.O. BOX 3885, BELLEVUE. WA. 98009 - 1ELEPHONE (206) 453 -8383
LOCATION: BENAROYA BUSINESS PARK. BLDG. 4. SUITE 219 - 300 120th AVE. N.E.. BELLEVUE, WA.
Mr. Mel Hogsett
August 1, 1979 Page 2
5. General comments concerning construction guidelines for the proposed
project which pertain to soil and groundwater conditions.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed subdivision is located on a presently undeveloped parcel of
land about six acres in area.. The property slopes moderately downward to the east;
the overall slope averages5about 10 -12 percent. East of 54th Ave. S., which forms
the east boundary of the project, the ground slope steepens sharply and slopes to the
alignment of Interstate Highway 5.
The site is characterized by three gently sloping bench areas which are
separated from each other by areas of somewhat steeper slopes. Our interpretation of
these steepened slopes, as seen on aerial photographs provided to us by the Washington
State Highway Department, is that the interrupted slope profile is evidence of an
ancient landslide. In conversations with Washington State Highway Department personnel
familiar with the area, no large scale movement of the slide has taken place in the
area of this study that they have recorded or observed. A relatively small slide,
occurred in 1972 east of 54th Ave. S. adjacent to the subject property. This slide
damaged 54th Ave. S., but apparently extended to only a shallow depth into the fill
and /or native soils.
Vegetation on the site consists of medium size trees and dense brush. The
brush and trees on Lots 3 -16 is very dense and required the use of a small bulldozer
to provide access for the backhoe and drilling equipment.
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavation of 9 test pits
with a tractor - mounted backhoe, and drilling 2 test borings with a truck - mounted
hollow -stem auger. The boring and test pit locations are shown on the Site Plan,..
Figure 1. The borings were drilled to a depth of 25 feet each. Test pit and,boring
logs are presented in the Appendix, along with an explanation of the field work done.
Due to the complex geology typ ically'associated with'slide areas, the soil
conditions are highly variable. The site is blanketed by loose topsoil which is gener-
ally underlain by fine sand and silt to the depth of our explorations. On the west
end of the site, approximately on Lots 8 -14, the upper 6 -8 feet of soil is silty fine
sand. This sand formation is extensively fractured, probably as a result of past
landslide disturbance. The fractures have been subsequently filled with sandy silt
and silt.
Mr. Mel Hoggsett
August 1, 1979 Page 3
On the eastern part of the site, the top 6 -8 feet of soil is sandy silt and
silt. Fissures were also present, showing evidence of past movement. These fissures
were filled with fine grained soils as were the fissures in the sands described on the
western portion of the site. In both borings, similar materials were found to a depth
of about 17 feet. Below 17 feet, very dense glacial deposits were encountered in both
borings. These very dense soils range from silty sand to gravelly sandy silt and silt.
At present, no controlled drainage exists on the site. However, a storm
drain system does exit from the site onto the existing drainage ditch along 54th Ave. S.
The origin of the storm drain system leaving the site is unknown at this time.
The drainage facility along 54th Ave. S., consists of an open half -round
section of corrugated drain pipe. Some of the joints are not connected and a few
sections of the pipe are missing altogether. Water was flowing in the pipe during
our field visits.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
Based on our interpretation of aerial photographs of the site and on the
data from our field investigation, we feel that the site is suitable for the proposed
development. As noted above, we observed evidence which we interpret to mean the
. site lies at least partially within an ancient landslide zone. We also noted that
the slide which occurred in 1972 on, and east of, 54th Ave. S. appears to be unrelated
to the larger ancient slide. In our opinion, the stability of the ancient landslide
will not be adversely affected by the proposed development provided that certain pre-
cautions are followed in the design of the project. .Basically, the precautions are
for care in the design of cut slopes and the drainage of.ground and surface water.
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING
The majority of the on-site soils include significant silt; these soils are
moisture sensitive and very easily disturbed when wet. Therefore, we recommend that
the site preparation and grading be carried out only during times of dry weather.
We recommend that no fill be placed on any slope steeper than 3H to 1V.
The finished slope of any fill embankment should be 3H to 1V, or flatter. Fill
areas should be prepared by removing vegetation, by excavation of bench "keys" on
sloping areas, and by thorough recompaction of.the exposed soil. All fill soils
should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and should be installed in lifts
•
Mr. Mel Hogsett
August 1, 1979, Page 4
not more than 8" to 12" loose thickness. Each lift should be compacted to at least
90% of the maximum attainable dry density except that the upper 2 feet of fill under
paved areas should be compacted to at least 95 %. In this report "maximum dry density"
refers t� the density attained in the ASTM D -1557 Compaction Test Procedure. We
recommend that the completed grading plan be reviewed by a qualified soils engineer.
Due to occasional summer rains and the possibility of high ground water
levels, the planned access road and adjacent cut slopes should be protected from
erosion as soon as possible during and after grading. The road subgrade will not
be able to support construction traffic during wet weather. Protection and stability
may be achieved by placing a blanket of clean, compacted granular fill over the
roadway, or by installing the design pavement. On nearly level portions of the
road, the granular fill can consist of pitrun sand and gravel containing less than
5% by weight, of silt and clay (fines passing a No. 200 sieve). On the steeper
grades, it may be more desirable to use crushed rock or crushed gravel. The pro-
tective blanket should be at least 12 inches thick. This material will also aid in
stabilizing the native soil subgrade to enhance the lifetime of the permanent
pavement.
Unprotected slopes at the site should be kept to a maximum of about 3 feet
in height and should be excavated at a slope no steeper than 3 horizontal to 1
vertical. For slopes that will be protected by rockeries, a slope of 12 horizontal
to 1 vertical should be cut and the rockery built as soon as possible, preferably
immediately following excavation. Our recommendations for rockery construction are
presented below.
Erosion protection can be accomplished. by covering exposed slopes with
straw mulch and jute mesh, or with quarry spalls. The appropriate method depends
on slope height, slope orientation and exposed soils. Permanent erosion protection
can''be achieved by hydroseeding. .Your-landscape architect should be consulted for
the proper mixture of grass seed and fertilizer.:--Surface water should not be-
permitted to concentrate and flow over slope crests in significant streams unless
contained .in protective culverts or lined ditches. Ditches adjacent to roadways':
should be lined with crushed rock (1" to 4" quarry spalls), open culverts, or asphalt
paving where the ditch invert slope is steeper than 10;x..
Mr. Mel Hogsett
• •
August 1, 1979 Page 5
FOUNDATION AND SLAB SUPPORT
In our opinion, existing soils will provide adequate support for conventional
residential foundations and floor slabs. However, due to possible soft areas present
at the site and to the potential disturbance caused during site preparation and
grading, we recommend that each individual building site be inspected by a qualified
soils engineer prior to construction. The site should be inspected for soft soils
in the footing areas. Slab and pavement areas should be proofrolled with heavy equip-
ment to assure the proper performance of the slab on grade and design pavements.
Where soft or loose soils are encountered, they should be removed or replaced with
compacted pit run as described in the section on site preparation and grading.
DRAINAGE DESIGN
We recommend that all storm water runoff be channeled into a storm water
drain system and routed off the site. Water from roof tops, patios and driveways,
as well as the on -site roads, should drain into the storm sewer system.
In our opinion, the existing storm drain system along 54th Avenue South
adjacent to this site is inadequate. The water allowed to escape from this
system is the probable cause for the sliding that has taken place along 54th Ave. S.
This system should be replaced with a properly designed enclosed storm drain system.
As noted previously, shallow groundwater occurs in places on the site.
Where these wet zones are encountered during site grading or building construction,
we recommend that interceptor drains be installed to collect the water. This
runoff should be diverted to the storm sewer system. Footing drains or wall drains
should also be discharged to the storm sewer system. The interceptor drains should
consist of a perforated pipe installed in a trench about 3 to 4 feet deep.- The
trench should be.backfilled with pea gravel or sand and gravel containing less than.
3% silt or clay fines. Coarse "washed drain rock" should- not'be used for backfill'-'
of subdrains. We recommend that perforated rigid metal or plastic (PVC) pipe be
used where the drains are more than 3 feet deep or where 666ylight - vehicle traffic
will cross the drain. Soft, flexible, corrugated drain pipe crushes easily and is
generally unsuitable except in special application.
Mr. Mel Hogsett
Rockeries
August 1, 1979 Page 6
Rockeries are not retaining walls. In general, rockeries are used as
facing to prevent erosion and local sloughing on otherwise stable slopes. A
properly constructed rockery does offer some resistance to the lateral forces;
however, the magnitude of resistance is impossible to predict. Where slope
retention is necessary, a retaining structure should be provided.
the construction of rockeries is an art, not entirely controllable by
engineering methods or standards. Therefore, rockery construction should be done
by personnel with proven skill in rockery construction. Even with careful
construction occasional failures should be expected. The face of the rockery wall
should be sloped no steeper than 1:5 (horizontal to vertical).
The rocks should be clean, sound, unweathered ledge rock material with
a density of at least 155 lbs. per cubic foot. The lowest course of rocks should
be keyed into firm foundation material at least 1'2 feet below adjacent grade. The
rocks should be placed to minimize void space between rocks. To the greatest
degree possible, rocks should be placed with faces in contact and with each rock
keyed to two or more rocks below it. Point contact should be avoided. The
interface between courses of rocks should slope downward into the slope behind the
rockery.
To support the native soil, and to limit washing of soil through the
rockery, a zone extending to 12 inches behind the rockery should be filled, as
the rockery is raised, with uniformly graded 4 inch to 1 inch quarry spalls. The
space between the quarry spalls and the adjacent soil face should be filled , also,
as the rockery is raised, with clean sand and gravel. The wall backfill should
be tamped with light weight hand operated compaction equipment to assure uniform
.compaction. We advise against .compaction , of. this zone;, about 90 (ASTMD- 155.7)
is: appropriate.. e
USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY
We have prepared this report for your use and by your design representatives
for this project. The data and report should also be provided to the contractors
for their bidding or estimating but not as a warranty of the subsurface conditions.
Mr. Mel Hogsett
August 1, 1979
Page 7
When you have finalized the design, we recommend that the final design
and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations
have been properly interpreted.
Within the limitations of the schedule and budget for our work, we
warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted practice
in this area. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
The scope of our work did not include services related to construction
safety precautions and is not intended to recommend or direct construction means,
methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described
and then only for consideration in design, not for construction guidance.
There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the
explorations and also with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions
should be included in the budget and schedule. Inspection and testing by a qualified
soils engineer should be included during construction to confirm the conditions
indicated by the explorations, or to provide corrective recommendations adapted
to the conditions revealed during the work.
The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in
their entirety. We are available to review the final design and specifications
to see that our recommendations are properly interpreted. If there are any questions
concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call.
Yours very truly;
ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES INC.
Jon W. Koloski, Associate
CPC /JWK /pc /cg
-Attachments
3 copies submitted
Bel Crest Heinn:s
Figure 1
SLADE WAY
50 0 100
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
4-1 BORING NUMBER AND LOCATION
• 1' TEST PIT NUMBER AND LOCATION
ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES INC. I
SITE PLAN
• •
APPENDIX
FIELD EXPLORATION
BEL CREST HEIGHTS
RENTON, WASHINGTON
Subsurface conditions were explored at the site by drilling two
borings to a depth of 25 feet and by digging 9 test pits. The borings were
drilled using a truck mounted hollow stem auger drill rig. The test pits
were dug using a tractor mounted back hoe. Location of the borings and test
pits are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1.
The explorations were observed and continuously logged by one of our
representatives who examined and classified the material encountered and obtained
representative samples for further examination in our laboratory. The samples
were classified in accordance with the Unified System which is described on
Plate A -1. The exploration logs modified by laboratory examination of the samples
are presented on Plates A -2 through A -7.
• . - •
IFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SY-STE—MAP
MAJOR DIVISIONS
LETTER
SYMBOL
DESCRIPTIONS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
.OPE )WP O%
OF PATERIe. Is
tlear.E. PON M.
200 SIEVE SIZE
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
PEPE 4 SC:
OT ":""...A*SZ i';'■Ar.-
TIch, 5.211.:
Cil M. 4 SIC./
CLEAN GRAVELS
(LITTIE 14 se TI■ts)
GW
.;:.:.."•Ra. ... 7 ',RA'. i LI. ;a4...1..,..,...;:k
.:,-,,..•;• Lill:, .,P Ncl rI•E",
GP
P-n+L'■
We PI.CL4S. LITT;.E r.P st" ,::•F',
GRAVELS
WITH FINES
I Ae-PRECI sal Amxt(r
CF FINES)
GM
S!:.••• ''.-PA,ELS. c.P;.•.TL.E.,:tr.,-s:L-
mi r:Las
GC
CLAYEY ,cAv't.;. C:AiEl.cAr.:,.LaT
SAND
AND
SANDY SOILS
KFT THAN SO%
cr :::.A.RsE ,"RA:-
T104 t'Sall...
v. 4 S!EA:
CLEAN SANDS
/urn' oR No TINES)
SW
PELL rAiMf.: SAMS. L'PAVELLY SAMS.
LITT,F '14 ze ;VIES
SP
PIA (LY-...RA.-A.3 WC,. :PAALLY SAreS.
LI,TLE OR !0-1 ,I,ES
SANDS
WITH FINES
(AP.PECIABLE AmLINT
CF TIMS)
SM
so:rf %Arcs. -Art.-sal NICLKS
SC •
CLAYEY SAMS. SAM-CLAY 4IXTLRES
' FINE
GRAINED
SOILS .
KIP( MAN SO%
CF wATERIAL IS
51112 'NAN NO.
20C SIEVE SIZE
.
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
.
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS
THAN 50
ML
IMIPC.AN!C SILTS. AM vSPY FINE SATS.
:,-:cr. E...cuR. A ',TY .P CLAyry r:*i
SAMS :A CI.ATFT SIL75 CM SLIi4T
oLASTICITY
CL
r.r2r,"tc. CLAYS 1
Fl....:7,:.:1-,...:,RAvELL/ -.um. suer
coes. SP.", cuws. LEAH CLAYS
OL
r.i.A•S 5 talg
SILTS
AND
CLAYS •
LIQUID LIMIT
GREATER
THAN 50
MH
;r1Pr.31.1r SIL IrS.
4.:r..-..5 r ot At: -)P SILTY WAS
. CH
IMPGANIC CLAYS CF NMI+ PtASTICTTY
F AT f:, Ar5 -
OH
.../...ac CLAY': ,T mE,..1010 TC 01:44
PLAS:V.,:n., r.44su1tc. SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
pE.r. ,.......s. sway> SCILS *ITH -1'1H
IREANIE r.q.ltrITS
ran. nuAt. v"tor, :::.:CATT. EICKIEPtItt snit. cLAsyruxia4
KEY TO SAMPLE DATA
—
—
SAMPLE
25.2 1
91.7
35 BLOWS REQUIRED TO DRIVE
...
I
DRY DENSITY, (PCF) SAMPLER 12 I NCHES WITH
140 LB . HANWER : MAX I MUM
STROKE 30 INCHES.
MOISTLRE CONTENT, (X OF DRY DENSITY)
( P INDICATES PUSt-ED ) ..
\---- DEPTH OR ELEVATION ( FEET ) .: ..
• .
•
. .
. :. •
RECOVERY • SAMPLER TYPE GRAPHIC LOG ; : :
• .,1:2:•:-: ,. .
1R,
;.I'i'.::••‘:%
k,..z4i;:.,i,
UND I STURBED 1-1) - — 3 INCH SPLIT •
TLBE SAWLER'
DISTURBED 'TV — 3 INCH THIN WALL
SAMPLER
NO RECOVERY SPT — 2 INCH SPLIT
TUBE SAMPLER
C —• ROCK CORE •
B — BU_K 0 I STURBED
SM
TTER SYMB
LE OL FOR .
SOIL TYPE
DISTINCT CONTACT
BETWEEN SO IL STRATA
GRADUAL CHANGE
BETWEEN SO IL STRATA
BOTTOM OF BORING
00000
............h
• SAMPLE
ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES INC. 1
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
AND KEY TO SAMPLE DATA
5e1 Crest -r2ignts III
Plate A
BORING ONE
DEPTH DRY BLOWS
IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER GRAPHIC
FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT LOG
0
SOIL DESCRIPTION
10-
15-
20-
25-
29 11111
44
SM BROWN SILTY SAND (LOOSE, DRY TO DAMP)
(TOPSOIL)
SM
22
11111
32 um
SM
75 uni
*62 11111
ML
LIGHT BROWN TO GRAY SILTY SAND WITH POCKETS
OF SILT AND OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM
DENSE, MOIST TO WET)(LOCALLY STAINED
REDDISH BROWN)
GRADES TO VERY DENSE AT 6.0 FEET
POCKET OR LENSE OT SAND AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM
DENSE, WET)
GRAY SILTY FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL
ORGANIC MATTER (DENSE. WET)
LENSES OR POCKETS OF ORGANIC MATTER 10.5
TO 14.0 FEET
GRAY LAMINATED CLAYEY SILT (HARD, MOIST)
LAMINATIONS HORIZONTAL TO SLIGHTLY DIS-
TORTED
ROCKS AT 22.0 FEET
BORING COMPLETED AT 24.0 FEET
ON 7/20/79
NOTE: SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 10.0 FEET
* NOT REPRESENTATIVE - DRIVEN ON A ROCK
ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES INC. 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION
Bei i Crest dci;hts
t 1,
Plate
DEPTH DRY BLOWS
IN MOISTURE DENSITY PER
FEET CONTENT (PCF) FOOT
0
10-
15-
20--
25 -
30 -
BORING TWO
GRAPHIC
LOG
SOIL DESCRIPTION
SM BROWN SILTY SAND WITH ROOTS (LOOSE, DRY)
4 3 M
ML BROWN SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL
(MEDIUM STIFF, DAMP)
70 11111
50/4" 1111
ML BROWN SILTY SAND AND SANDY SILT INTERLAYERI)
(DENSE OR HARD, MOIST)
ML
49 11111
GRAY VERY FINE SANDY SILT (MEDIUM DENSE,
WET)
SM GRAY SILTY SAND AND SANDY SILT (VERY HARD,
ML MOIST)(FILL)
SM GRAY SILTY MEDIUM SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL
(VERY DENSE, MOIST)
25 in
BORING COMPLETED AT 26.0 FEET
ON 7/20/79
NOTE: NO SEEPAGE OBSERVED
PIEZOMETER INSTALLED AT BOTTOM OF BORING
ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES INC.
LOG OF EXPLORATION
pct Cr € ;: S August 1, 1110
r': ate A-4
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE UNIFIED
(FEET) SYMBOL
TEST PIT ONE
SOIL DESCRIPTION
O - 3.5 ML GRAY SILTY SAND AND SANDY SILT WITH
OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND PIECES OF WOOD (MEDIUM
DENSE OR STIFF, MOIST)
3.5 - 9.0
ML GRAY TO GRAY BROWN INTERBEDDED CLAYEY SILT AND
SILT (HARD, MOIST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 FEET
ON 7/19/79
NO SEEPAGE NOTED
O - 1.0 ML
1.0 - 2.0 ML
2.0 - 8.5 ML
O - 1.0
1.0 - 2.0
2.0 - 5.5
5.5 6.5
6.5 7.5
TEST PIT TWO
LIGHT BROWN SILTY SAND WITH SOME ROOTS (VERY
LOOSE, DAMP)(TOPSOIL)
WEATHERED SILT WITH SOME CLAY (STIFF, DAMP)
GRAY BROWN INTERBEDDED CLAYEY SILT AND SILT
(HARD, MOIST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.5 FEET
ON 7/19/79
NO SEEPAGE NOTED
TEST PIT THREE
SM BROWN SILTY SAND WITH SOME ROOTS (DENSE, DRY)
(TOPSOIL)
SM. BROWN SILTY SAND AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY)
ML. GRAY SANDY SILT WITH SOME GRAVELLY LENSES
(STIFF, DAMP)
GRAY BROWN SILTY GRAVEL AND SAND (MEDIUM DENSE,
DAMP) •
ML GRAY SILT (VERY STIFF, DAMP)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.5 FEET
ON 7/19/79
NO SEEPAGE NOTED
ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES ' LOG OF TEST PITS
Bel Crest iei:•nts • August •1979
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE UNIFIED
(FEET) SYMBOL
TEST PIT FOUR
SOIL DESCRIPTION
0 — 1.0 SM BROWN SILTY SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL AND ROOTS
(MEDIUM STIFF. DAMP)
1.0 - 6.5 SM GRAY SILTY SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE.
DAMP) (LOCALLY STAINED REDDISH BROWN
6.5 - 8.0 SP GRAY BROWN FINE SAND WITH SOME SILTY SAND
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
8.0 -10.0 ML GRAY BROWN SILTY WITH SOME CLAY (VERY STIFF.
MOIST)
10.0 -10.5 ML GRAY SILT (STIFF, WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.5 FEET
ON 7/19/79
NO SEEPAGE NOTED
TEST PIT FIVE
0 — 1.0 SM BROWN SILTY SAND WITH SOME ROOTS (MEDIUM STIFF.
DRY)
1.0 - 5.0 SM . GRAY TO GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL
AND STINGERS OF SAND AND SILT
5.0 - 10.0 ML GRAY SILT AND SILTY SAND WITH TRACE OF GRAVEL
(STIFF OR DENSE, DAMP) REDDISH BROWN STAINS
PRESENT
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET
ON 7/19/79
NO SEEPAGE NOTED
ROGER LOWE RSSOCIRTES 1 LOG OF TEST PITS
Eel Crest Heights •
August •197'9
Plate A -c
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE UNIFIED
. (FEET) SYMBOL
0 - 1.0 SM
1.0 - 4.0 SM
4.0 - 8.0 SP
8.0 - 10.0 SM
0- 1.0
1.0 - 3.5.
3.5 - 7.5
7.5 - 9.5
0 - 1.0
1.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 11.0
TEST PIT SIX
SOIL DESCRIPTION
BROWN SILTY SAND WITH SOME ROOTS (LOOSE, DRY)
(TOPSOIL)
GRAY MOTTLED WITH RED STAINS OF SILTY SAND
WITH TRACE OF GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
GRAY BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILTY AND CLAYEY
SAND STRINGERS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
GRAY FINE SANDY SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET
ON 7/19/79
SEEPAGE OBSERVED IN TEST PIT AT 8.0 FEET
SM
.SP
SM
TEST PIT SEVEN
BROWN SILTY SAND (LOOSE, DRY)(TOPSOIL)
LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE OF GRAVEL
(DENSE, DRY TO DAMP)
GRAY BROWN FINE SILTY SAND WITH SILT STRINGERS
(MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
GRAY SILT WITH SAND LENSES (STIFF, WET)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.5 FEET
ON 7/19/79
NO SEEPAGE NOTED
TEST PIT EIGHT
SM BROWN SILTY SAND (LOOSE, DRY)(TOPSOIL)
SM BROWN'SILTY SAND WITH SOME GRAVEL (MEDIUM`. DENSE,
MOIST)
ML GRAY BROWN SILT (HARD, DAMP)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET
ON 7/19/79
NO SEEPAGE NOTED
ROGER Ltd "E RSSOCIRTES LOG OF TEST PITS
Bel Crest Heignts 411 Augus41/, 1979
?late
TEST PIT NINE
DEPTH BELOW
GROUND SURFACE UNIFIED
(FEET) SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION
0 - 4.0 SM BROWN SILTY SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, DAMP)
4.0 - 8.0 ML GRAY BROWN SILT (VERY STIFF, MOIST)
8.0 - 10.0 SM DARK BROWN GRAY BROWN SILTY SAND WITH SOME
GRAVEL (VERY DENSE. MOIST)(TILL)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET
ON 7/19/79
NO SEEPAGE NOTED
ROGER LOWE ASSOCIATES INC. 1 LOG OF TEST PITS
(..1 0 C.' (
Atm,ow
witLia. aux) tuttslud
iLa4-w 41,
( ( (
*cid %Attic
sc-frdfrcf1ow
.car6 Ave. s -A-fb
(.4 1144 J.
s. 5c4ovof4k,
oci-fiv I WA' 4& -'vtAxt-ctt■ ,tmilot /11,W •
,a1 IL, .1) w
evit,,,a4c,. &IAA, ,iS vel “4:ited Lt
— t Sail.1
v-oct GUN
totAmt, et4,t.k-
• .
Yet Ait • S. a 10
trux-fu-rit,1
1,1144( 41,1. • J- 0 kt; 11 0116
1!‘4<011.9 r (AA,
f1c 4 4,1.j-
f J
eawal
10 bic. (A-frt Jittikt. kt— veMetAN
0M4 a4tAA441).1
City of Tukwi...
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL IR . / JOM / e.t
TO:
PROJECT:
f�'�'F�i'?PPf'j��
GG
f.
'JUN f .1 1981
❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT.
❑ FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
sets c* sT spa vt V3 S J
LOCATION: AOMIGKEN H>✓t 6,H1 S
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Checklist ❑ Preliminary Plat
❑ Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑ Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request-
❑ Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
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: Z. / OUN / 81
Review Department comments:
Ii fP401),,. PP f-oU I'LL d117. N iNE-l-1 M) W i -`1 PLAT Sv 2m 1 rr n'L
Q. ,vsntsswJ TPA -41 -F / 'DAD )`?9 , WNY1IN ITS C oU1
i u STS NDC• m scc F 11E '.
"'")°t —22 —SU1 - c? sr i- ye1 , ^fZ ,�Ivs INT -1-171.0 TIME.
IS
c■
L
-�-
o k-% 1' 1 Lis p,0D S -PiL ot-
U U1 PLJ \UuLt \' As \-r a_t
1
B
Date: 4/1? / e /
'PLANNING DEPARTMENT
T R
ANSM I'TTAL
'DATE OF�,TRANSMITTAL 11 ` /'Jul / et
TO:
BUILDING DEPT. ,+POLICE DEPT.
FIRE DEPT. z.... - ❑ RECREATION DEPT.
PUBLIC WORKS
"DEPT... [�
PROJECT REI. c05/wj' wiscu lskoN
LOCATION Mc.MIGKS1 -1 1451614 S,
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
Environmental Checklist ` ❑Preliminary Plat
Q Environmental Impact State - ❑Final Plat
ment
[] Site /Development Plans ❑ Rezone Request
[]Shoreline Permit Application0 Variance Request
[Conditional Use Permit DOther:
Application
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: ZZ / Ju) / 61
Review Department comments: ,4 c.. is TeMA-.dras a/ A ..V4— A-c/ --
• LO . -;/ & 'I,'G •-eJ4re-n b e.. -h; ADO. Z" i)C . ° -�u.c er rne.jA-, /4-T
/�� / 0 iL N c s -. �rX't -7 so .�T
V rCS e.:/4- �c 37, a ici-cF��.S'c- /� / h......-De- �., n D.,.... r. •..s- i,- c /.iO. -r; - S CS'.a,/o avv,
' # -f A e r A-5 i2�u / L or S/er p 5 /l i -Q°-r A'--'O 1�-i f'LV BGi4�1at/4 j
/ r 2)O S ., .o��aeeVr- L .-.7 /err 4-,,, S -A? ,�� P,..�fs f ki.- i /3.,,' (Qu -.off
IPi-) ,f%rdve.� -Y b-- iv ex is-l---;--T S4 t` Ade_. 3-0. Gvc // 6e ,- ,74,oG.
pec,,,,.,-,� ,tee s r. Ks, , /es"') le, CV i 1,e, a ---a/ r r.. 1i--
- ..s -�-► -�c-F- 1' , -r/c/ 'Of, .0 SeDec -rt/ /cs - r ,i e r,v/.,
' 2.A ft-« 6e >A.G1� on N d fPo 7- Ia. .,,s a-F ..sr��f4er;�
,4c .ems v I V
By:
A:c• 67e. Art' /,lre.se..-1(-(7
Date: Z —« cYl
City of Tukwi,
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL (l / JU M / EA
TO: ❑ BUILDING DEPT. ❑ POLICE DEPT.
%FIRE DEPT. ❑ RECREATION DEPT.
❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑
PROJECT: BED GizESr suspmstoti
LOCATION: M6Mlc 4 0.16HTS
Th1e above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
environmental Checklist DPreliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- ❑Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request
❑Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
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.
Z.
Requested response date: al / JUNE //51
Review Department comments:
vriairTS STAL L. ADD Sik)tOr✓ (43 PQk° LAW vs A. Y peo0e7ci)
S)iouL D $a piaeicesseo Stuatc.
Ilureasorrino to 1S 'Ti ca.dv, 'pc S)
By:
Date:
4- 11-
City OT
6200 Southcenter Boulevaro
Tukwila Washington 98188
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRANSMITTAL
DATE OF TRANSMITTAL 11 /JUN / 81
TO:
❑ BUILDING DEPT. 0 POLICE DEPT.
❑ FIRE DEPT. RECREATION DEPT.
❑ PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ❑ •
PROJECT: BEL ozesr StiROIVIZ%ON
LOCATION:
The above mentioned applicant has submitted the following plans or materials
for the above reference project:
j"rEnvironmental Checklist ❑Preliminary Plat
❑Environmental Impact State- ['Final Plat
ment
❑Site /Development Plans ❑Rezone Request-
0 Shoreline Permit Application❑ Variance Request
❑Conditional Use Permit ❑Other:
Application
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: ZZ / J0I4 / 81
Review Department comments:
t`S s-cc
By:
Date: car'— a ,L- )l