Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E99-0003 - SEGALE BUSINESS PARK - NEW BUILDING 981SEGALE BUSINESS PARK BUILDING 981 NEW WAREHOUSE & OFFICE BUILDING 5801 SEGALE PARK DRIVE #C E99-0003 Dept. Of Community Development City of Tukwila AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I,nlC�6Lkil lklHEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Project Name k2G L ,dam . Determination of Non -Significance Mailer's Signature: aarj h,i ) 0L LLQA. Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Board of Adjustment Agenda Pkt Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Pkt Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Pkt Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit __FAX __Mail: To Seattle Times Classifieds Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box. 70 - Seattle WA 98111 Other YY'li 'yip,, .: cile,oduA41 qb :791.-.604,3 Was mailed to each of the addresses listed on this gaitolday o b in the • year 2000 P: GINA W YNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL01 /24/0011:44 Project Name k2G L ,dam . Project Number: g740--090,5 Mailer's Signature: aarj h,i ) 0L LLQA. P: GINA W YNETTA/FORMS/AFFIDAVIT-MAIL01 /24/0011:44 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM February 23, 2000 TO: Interested Parties FM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director and SEPA Responsible Official RE: Addendum to E99-0003: Segale Warehouse, Building 981 SEPA; Design Review. File L99-0007, Segale Building No. 981; and L99-0006 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit: Minor Modification to Project Design The developer of the Segale Warehouse Building #981, a 313,735 square foot warehouse located in the shoreline, has made several revisions to the building plans for the warehouse. The revisions are as follows: 1) construction of a retaining wall on Building # 734 as part of reconfiguring the entrance to the new warehouse site and the adjacent property; and 2) the addition of a 20' x 28' covered fuel island on the west side of the warehouse site. The fuel island would be supplied by two underground tanks, one 18,000 gallon underground diesel tank, and one 6,000 gallon underground gasoline tank. This Addendum is provided for three purposes. First, to provide additional information to the SEPA staff report prepared for E99-0003, environmental review for a proposed warehouse; second, to review the proposed development addition against the design approved by the Board of Architectural Review; and third, to amend the shoreline permit issued for the construction of the warehouse. L99-0006: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit The underground tanks and fuel island are outside the 200 foot shoreline environment, as illustrated on the attached site plan. The zoning on the site is Heavy Industrial, which permits automotive services such as gasoline pumps. This use would also be permitted in the High Impact portion of the Shoreline environment. The retaining wall on Building 734 is outside the Low Impact Environment and inside the High Impact Environment (see attached site plan). An area in the Low Impact Environment has been paved adjacent to the levee. According to information provided by the applicant, the 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Interested Parties Segale Warehouse Revisions February 23, 2000 • • retaining wall is 88 feet and was installed to maintain the raised grade elevation from the river levy to the existing building at 18338 Andover Park West and south to 5801 Segale Park Drive C, the location of the warehouse. Backfill material against the landward side of the levy consists of quarry spalls. Parking/loading facilities are permitted in the Low Impact Environment if adequately screened or landscaped. The levy is benched on the waterward side of the levy adjacent to the Building 734 site. To address the requirement for screening, landscaping will be added to a bench area on the waterward side of the levee. The landscape plantings will be coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The revisions to the project are consistent with the policies of the Shoreline Master Plan, the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan and the Tukwila Zoning Code. E99-0003 Environmental Review A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued on the warehouse when it was initially reviewed by this Department. These revisions to the proposed project fall within the impacts analyzed in the original SEPA Checklist and do not represent a substantial change to the Determination of Nonsignificance issued by this Department. L99-0007 Design Review TMC 18.60.030 D. authorizes the Director to approve a change in project design if the change represents "minor, insignificant modifications which have no impact on the project design." I have reviewed the project plans for D2000-043, the building permit for the fuel island and believe that the change represented is a minor, insignificant modification that will have no impact on the project design. As a result the revision does not need to be re -reviewed by the Board of Architectural Review. cc: Files: E99-0003, L99-0006 and L99-0007 q:\carol\Segale\SEPA-Addendum.doc 2 • SEGALE BUSINESS PARK A LA PIANTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRADE NAME A LA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP NAME February 16, 2000 Mr. Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: RE: Determination of non -significance File No: E99-0003 The following information is provided for an amendment to the SEPA permit for the property located at 5801 Segale Park Drive "C". REC EIV'ED :r Y OF TUKWILA FEB 1 8 2000 PERMIT CENTER A retaining wall, of 88 feet in length, was installed to maintain the raised grade elevation from the river levy to the existing building at 18338 Andover Park West, and south to 5801 Segale Park Drive "C", the project site. Backfill material against the landward side of the levy consists of quarry spalls, which is not suitable for landscape plants. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Steven R. Nelson Project Manager ban PO Box 88028 • Tukwila,WA 98138-2028 18000 Andover Park W • Suite 200 • Tukwila, WA 98188-4798 Telephone 206 575-2000 • Fax 206 575-1837 • 0 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK A LA PIANTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TRADE NAME RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 9 2000 PERMIT CENTER February 7, 2000 Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Determination of non -significance File No: E99-0003 Dear Mr. Lancaster: Segale Business Park requests that a minor modification be made to the SEPA checklist dated January 6, 1999 for the Building 981 project. The modification involves the addition of a 20' x 28' covered fuel island on the west end of the site. Both the underground tanks and the fuel island are outside of the 200 foot Shoreline Management Urban Environment. A brief description of the fuel island construction is as follows: • Two steel columns support the overhead canopy. • The canopy is constructed of steel with a sheetmetal fascia. • Three fuel dispensers. • One 18,000 gallon underground diesel tank. • One 6,000 gallon underground gasoline tank. • Associated underground piping and electrical. Enclosed is a site plan showing the location of the fuel island and tanks. Your review and findings of this minor modification to the project would be appreciated. If you have any questions, please all me at (206) 575-2558. Very truly yours, Steven R. Nelson Project Manager enclosure PO Box 88028 • Tukwila,WA 98138-2028 18000 Andover Park W • Suite 200 • Tukwila, WA 98188-4798 Telephone 206 575-2000 • Fax 206 575-1837 CHECKLIST:• ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MAi.+INGS :i�'��• Pawn Ycmo sKe .E• FEDERAL AGENCIES`w bINEERS )J ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (V) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ( ) DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE Q .0 , bob 45-5- UAW- Sear LJ 4 `l Ta it- LZ''t OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE • ( ) J.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. pAZAZi.4-4 #1,064.42.4 c3' WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES ( ) K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. ( ) BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #11 ( ) FIRE DISTRICT #2 ( ) K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT TUKWILA LIBRARIES RENTON LIBRARY KENT LIBRARY CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY U S WEST SEATTLE CITY LIGHT PUGET SOUND ENERGY HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT TCI CABLEVISION OLYMPIC PIPELINE KENT PLANNING DEPT TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: ( ) PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE ' •.4 ( ) POLICE ( ) FINANCE ( ) PLANNING ( ) BUILDING ( ) PARKS & REC. ( ) MAYOR ( ) CITY CLERK ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (�w SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE yr, MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE VieDUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WP51DATA\CHKLIST ( ) D T OF OCIAL & HEALTH SERV. (r/S D T OF CO OG LIND DIV ✓ �on-"�, /dO (� DE DIVISION* (� Liuf/1I1. 1.4.04-Z' (1) _OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL / ag,u4,441 e(.pvr, *-SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS- * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY KGENCIES IG. C . DEPT OF. PARKS HEALTH DEPT PORT OF SEATTLE K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT K C PUBLIC LIBRARY SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 • CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES RENTON PLANNING DEPT CITY OF SEA -TAC CITY OF BURIEN TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT &•PLANNING• * NOTICE OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES' ' ( ) METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE Please Mail Notice of Decision to: Keith E. Moxon Buck & Gordon 902 Waterfront Place 1011 Western Avenue Seattle, WA 98104-1097 Mark Tierney Crown Cork & Seal \li 18340 Segale Park Dr. B Tukwila,•WA 98188 M.A. Segale, Inc. P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 Steve Nelson Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 Alice Kelly 6-1 Shorelands & E ironmental Assistance Program 61XY Department o cology 3190 160th venue SE BellevuefWA 98008-5452 Andy Levesque King County Water and Land Resources Division v., 700 - 4th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104-5022 Dave Clark King County Water and Land Resources Division 700 - 4th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104-5022 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director To: Applicant Parties of Record Notice of Decision May 28, 1999 This notice is to confirm the decision reached by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review on Thursday, May 27, 1999. The Board of Architectural Review voted to approve the design of a 313,735 square foot warehouse and related offices and the landscaping plan based on the findings and conclusion in the staff report dated May 14, 1999. This letter is issued pursuant to the Permit Application Types and Procedures, Tukwila Municipal Code Zoning Chapter, (18.104.170) on the following project and permit approvals. Proiect File Number: L99-0007, Design Review Application Associated Files: L99-0006 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) & E99-0003 (SEPA determination) Applicant: Steve Nelson for Segale Business Park Request: Construct a 313,735 sq. ft. concrete tilt -up warehouse with associated office space within 200 feet of the shoreline. The project is subject to design review. Location: 5801-6199 Segale Park Drive "C" SEPA Determination: DNS Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Bl., Suite 100; Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday; 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. The planner managing the project is Carol Lumb, who may be contacted at 431-3661 for further information. This decision may be appealed to the Tukwila City Council pursuant to TMC 18.104.010 E. by filing a Notice of Appeal within 14 calendar days from the date of the issuance of this Notice of Decision (TMC 18.116.010). Information on the content of the Notice of Appeal may be obtained from the Department of Community Development at the address noted above. c:\carol\Segale\notdec.doc t'i3(() .Snuthcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 4313665 • • City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW HEARING DATE: NOTIFICATION: FILE NUMBER: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DISTRICT: SEPA DETERMINATION: RECOMMENDATION: Prepared May 21, 1999 May 27, 1999 Notice of Application posted and mailed to surrounding properties March 19, 1999 Notice of Public Hearing published, mailed to surrounding properties and posted on site May 13, 1999 L99-0007 E99-0003 Environmental File L99-0006 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Steve Nelson, for Segale Business Park To approve the design of Segale Building 981, a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse with associated office and maintenance facilities adjacent to the Green River. 5801 Segale Park Drive "C" Heavy Industrial Heavy Industrial Determination of Nonsignificance Approval 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • T.ukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Staff Report to the BAR L99-0007 Segale Building 981 STAFF CONTACT: Carol Lumb, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt. doc A. Site Plan B. Building Elevations C. Landscaping Plan D. Lighting Plan E. 1/25/99 Letter from Ken Large, Landscape Architect F. Design Review Criteria Response G. Shoreline Decision and Staff Report H. SEPA Determination and Staff Report I. Typical Cross Section of Shoreline J. Color Board (to be provided at hearing) 2 Staff Report to the BAR L99-0007 Segale Building 981 FINDINGS Vicinity/Site Information A. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse with associated office and maintenance facilities on a 16.54 parcel. The Green River borders the parcel on the east and south sides and as a result, the project is subject to the Shoreline Management Act. B. Existing Development: The site was used as a storage yard for Seattle Tractor Company and a stockpile area for excess pitrun material. The stockpiled soils, which at one time comprised a mound approximately 60 feet high on the western one-third of the site, have been used to preload the building site. A carpenter's shop currently exists on the site and will be demolished prior to constructing the warehouse. C. Surrounding Land Use: The parcel is located on the Green River in an industrial park. The surrounding area on the north and west is designated Heavy Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan map and zoned Heavy Ind2xstrial. On the west is an asphalt plant, on the north a street and then other industrial buildings and on the south and east, the Green River. Across the river is an office park, a City of Kent park and the Green River Trail. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 205 levee runs the length of the parcel along the river. D. Terrain: The site is generally flat, with soils that are comprised of silty sands and gravels. A 60 -foot soil stockpile, which was located on the western one-third of the site, has been spread across the proposed building footprint area for the purpose of preloading the site in preparation of constructing the building. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 205 levee forms the southern and eastern boundary for the site. c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt. doc 3 Staff Report to the BAR L99-0007 Segale Building 981 E. Vegetation: The site currently contains no vegetation as it has been graded and soil placed to preload to building site. A landscaping plan has been provided and will be discussed below. F. Access: Access is provided to the site via Segale Park Drive "C," which is one of several roads that is part of the internal private road system in the Segale Business Park. The Business Park may be accessed either via Southcenter Parkway or South 180th Street. BACKGROUND An EIS was prepared in 1974 prior to the construction of the original buildings in the Segale Business Park. In subsequent years, additional buildings have been added to the site. SEPA for this proposed building was issued on April 23, 1999. The Shoreline Substantial Development permit was issued on May 10, 1999 (see Attachment G). One condition was applied to the Shoreline Permit, that additional landscaping be provided in the Low Impact Environment of the shoreline. That additional landscaping has been added to the landscaping plan (Attachment A). The 21 -day appeal period for the Shoreline permit closes on June 1, 1999. BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CRITERIA Design review is required for all projects in the Heavy Industrial zone that are located within 200 feet of the Green River. In the following discussion, the BAR criteria are shown below in bold, followed by staff's comments. The applicant's responses to the BAR criteria are found in Attachment E. 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. A. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with the streetscape. B. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; C. The height and scale of each building should be considered in relation to the site. c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt.doc 4 Staff Report to the BAR L99-0007 Segale Building 981 Response: The site is located in an industrial park on the Green River. The height of the building, 33 feet, is less than the maximum height permitted within the shoreline — 35 feet maximum. Attachment H "Typical Cross Section of the Shoreline" illustrates the location of the existing grade on the site and the location of the finished grade. Currently the building site is below the levee. The added fill to raise the grade will have the effect of reinforcing the levee. Twelve and one-half feet of landscaping have been provided at the front, as required by the Heavy Industrial zone. Additional landscaping has been provided at the entrances to the office areas, to enhance the appearance of the entrances. The front of the building includes a number of truck delivery bays — these are exposed to the street, although the character of the industrial park is similar, with other buildings having loading docks in the front or visible from the front. Parking is located in various locations around the building as needed for the warehouse employees. Additional landscaping is provided in the Low Impact shoreline environment, as required by TMC 18.44.130 B.3. 2. Relationship of structure and site to adjoining area. A. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged; B. Appropriate landscape transition to adjoining properties should be provided; C. Public buildings and structures should be consistent with established neighborhood character; D. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms o safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged. Response: Consistent building elements have been used throughout the site. The proposed warehouse is a very large structure, 313,735 square feet, with 61 truck delivery loading docks or bays. The southern portion of the site is shaped by the Green River, and the building shape somewhat mimics the undulating motion of the riverbank. The warehouse itself is over 1000 feet in length. The size of the building is similar to other buildings in the business park. The proposed landscaping provides an appropriate transition to adjacent properties. The circulation pattern on-site has been designed to provide safe movements for the trucks serving the building. The loading facilities are primarily located in the front and the back of the building, with a few loading docks or truck bays located on the west side. Parking is located away from the loading docks to avoid conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Vehicular access to the site c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt.doc Staff Report to the BAR L99-0007 Segale Building 981 may be obtained either via South 180th Street and then Segale Park Drive "C, " or via Southcenter Parkway to Segale Park Drive "C." 3. Landscaping and Site Treatment. A. Where existing topographic patterns contribute to the beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved and enhanced; B. Grades of walks, parking spaces, terraces and other paved areas should promote safety and provide an inviting and stable appearance; C. Landscape treatment should enhance architectural features, strengthen vistas and important axis, and provide shade; D. In locations where plants will be susceptible to injury by pedestrian or motor traffic, mitigating steps should be taken; E. Where building sites limit planting, the placement of trees or shrubs in paved areas is encouraged; F. Screening of service yards, and other places which tend to be unsightly should be accomplished by use of walls, fencing, planting or combination; G. In areas where general planting will not prosper, other materials such as fences, walls and pavings of wood, brick, stone or gravel may be used; H. Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. Lighting standards and fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent area. Lighting should be shielded, and restrained in design. Excessive brightness and brilliant colors should be avoided. Response: The landscaping plan, Attachment C, illustrates the proposed landscaping for the site. The Heavy Industrial zone requires 12.5 feet of landscaping at the front of the site. No other landscaping is required by the zone except for landscape islands in the parking areas. The applicant has added landscaping to the areas around the entrances to each of the office spaces to enhance these areas. Landscaping is also provided in the parking areas. Landscaping is required in the River and Low Impact Environments of the shoreline. As a result, Honey Locust trees will be provided on the landward side of the levee, just outside the 30 -foot easement granted to King County for maintenance of the levee. Native grass will be planted as a ground cover. This area will not be irrigated, as there is concern about the impact of irrigation on the stability of the levee. Sixty trees will be planted just outside the 30 -foot easement area, as the code requires that the trees be spaced every 30 feet, on center, at a minimum. Through the approval of the shoreline permit, additional landscaping is required in the Low Impact environment, as illustrated on Attachment A. For the additional landscaping area on the southwestern portion of the site, after the first row of honey locust trees, evergreen trees will be used to provide year-round c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt.doc 6 Staff Report to the BAR L99-0007 Segale Building 981 green vegetation. The requirement for evergreen trees will be added as a condition of the design review approval. A fence will run along the western side of the site to the landward side of the levee and then turn east, running approximately 420 feet. This will screen an area utilized for truck deliveries as well as a proposed storage area for heavy equipment. The dumpsters will be screened with concrete enclosures. Several types of lighting are provided on the site and discussed in more detail under #4 below. The proposed lighting is shielded to avoid spillage onto adjacent properties. 4. Building Design. A. Architectural style is not restricted, evaluation of a project should be based on quality of its design and relationship to its surroundings; B. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments; C. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportion and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure; D. Colors should be harmonious with bright or brilliant colors used only for accent; E. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on roof, ground or buildings should be screened from view; F. Exterior lighti ig should be part of the architectural concept. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories should be harmonious with building design; G. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest; Response: The scale of the proposed building is similar to other industrial warehouse type facilities in the Industrial Park. The architectural style is concrete tilt -up, with visual interest added by several features. First, since the original submittal, the color scheme has been revised to add a third color to the building color palette. The main color of the building has been lightened to a creamy beige color, with a slightly darker shade ("Lulled Beige") used at the base of the building. The metal canopies, which overhang the truck docking areas, will be painted "Spice." The concrete pilasters will be "Crisp Khaki" while the diamond accents and reveal lines will be the same color as the pilasters, "Spice." Second, reveal lines and medallions are used to add architectural detail to the building facade along with pilasters and windows in some of the warehouse wall c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt.doc 7 Staff Report to the BAR Segale Building 981 L99-0007 panels. The windows will be tinted bronze, with the frames a complementing bronze shade. Third, the office portions of the building will be configured differently from the warehouse, with two rows of windows to vary the building appearance. Landscaping will be used in the front of the offices to also enhance the building's appearance and differentiate the office areas from the warehouse areas. The lighting plan is attached as Attachment D. Two different types of lighting are shown on the building exterior. On the rear of the building, facing the Green River, the building elevations show a wall mounted light that will illuminate the rear building area but not spill outside the building site, which is prohibited by the Shoreline code. The light is covered on the top with the light directed down (see Fixture Type A, Attachment D2). The front of the building is illuminated by a different type of wall mounted light, which is a fixture that distributes light in a more widespread manner (see Fixture Type C, Attachment D3). The parking areas will use the same light standard as used on the rear of the building only it will be a pole mounted light. Rooftop fixtures will be setback from 14 to over 120 feet from the edge of the building. TMC 18.50.080 requires that mechanical equipment be setback at least 10 feet from the edge of the roof and not exceed 20 feet in height. The HVAC units range in height from 8 to 12 feet in height. S. Miscellaneous structures and Street Furniture. A. Miscellaneous structures and street furniture should be designed to be part of the architectural concept of design and landscape; B. Lighting in connection with miscellaneous structures and street furniture should meet the guidelines applicable to site, landscape and buildings. Response: A picnic table will be provided for warehouse employee use at the southeastern portion of the building. c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt.doc 8 Staff Report to the BAR L99-0007 Segale Building 981 CONCLUSIONS 1. Relationship of Structure to Site: The southern side of the building is located along the Green River. The building facade in the rear has been modulated to shape it somewhat to the shape of the riverbank. The site is flat and the building will be within the height limitation of the shoreline environment. 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area: The site is located in an area zoned for heavy industrial use. Other structures in the area are similar in character, with truck loading docks and associated offices. The proposed warehouse facility fits the character of the area. 3. Landscape and Site Treatment: The landscape plan, as revised, provides the required landscaping at the front of the site as well as landscaping at the entrances to the offices on site. Landscaping is provided in the parking areas on the east and west sides of the site. In addition, landscaping is provided in the Low Impact Environment, as required by TMC 18.44.140. Honey locust trees and native grass will be planted in the areas adjacent to the river, as noted on the landscaping plan. The applicant will be required to include evergreen trees in the southwestern Low Impact Environment area. The lighting standards and fixtures appear to be compatible with the building and adjacent area and complement the building design. 4. Building Design: The building design is typical of combination office/warehouse buildings. The majority of the construction materials will be concrete. Visual interest has been added through the use of pilasters, reveal lines, diamond symbols, windows and the different colors used for the building itself. Lighting is provided in the parking lot and on the building itself as illustrated on the Illumination Plan (Attachment F). The color scheme is harmonious with no brilliant or garish colors used. c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt. doc 9 Staff Report to the BAR Segale Building 981 5. Miscellaneous Structures and Street Furniture: L99-0007 A picnic table will be provided for staff use at the southeast corner of the building. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the design of Segale Building 981 with the following condition: 1. Evergreen trees will be required in the southwestern landscape area within the Low Impact Environment in the area beyond the first row of Honey Locust trees. c:\carol\Segale\DRstaffrpt. doc 10 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community,Development Steve Lancaster, Director MAY 13, 1999 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT INFORMATION Steve Nelson, for Segale Business Park has filed an application for Design Review, File Number L99-0007, to construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse with associated office and maintenance facilities at 5801 — 6199 Segale Park Drive "C". The proposed warehouse is located adjacent to the Green River. You are invited to comment on the project at a public hearing scheduled for May 27, 1999 at 7:00 p.m. before the Board of Architectural Review. The hearing will take place at City Hall in the City Council Chambers, 6200 Southcenter Blvd. To confirm the time and date before the hearing, call the Department of Community Development at 431-3670. For further information on this proposal, contact Carol Lumb at 431-3661 or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Permits applied for include: • Design Review (L99-0007) • Shoreline Substantial Development (L99-0006) • SEPA Checklist (E99-0003) Other known required permits include: • Land Altering Permit FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The project files are available at the City of Tukwila. To view the files, you may request them at the permit counter of the Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard #100. c:\carol\Segale\pubnot.doc • Shoreline : Management Act of 1971 ----- --PERMIT FOR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT SUBSTANTIAL File Number: ----Status Applied: Approved: Erpira-ti-on: L99-0006 • APPROVED -._ 02:05/1999 05/10/1999 05/091200.1 - DEVELOPMENT Pursuant to RCW 90.58, a permit is hereby granted to: SEG .LE BIISIP'NES'S PARK 498: to undertake the following development: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 3131735 'S .FT. WAREHOUSE TO BE USED -FOR WAREHOUSE AND +=r upon the to l l owi n.g .pr Address : 5301 S Parcel No: 3523 Sec/ Tern/Rnae: THE PSE , R`Q,JEC.T,WF!'L' BE WITH` WTHE R A r R; .g'fi3O.F, TH R:EEN RIVER L• ? AND A' ,ODC AiTED wETLAND•5,,. q.WHICH IS . )SHOREL%p4E O.T F ATE�WIDE SI+ii'�i�LF'ICANCEAND l DE. 1Gi 4TEDL P AN URBAN , E3 I: cINMEP�;T''.i, The fo11ow 1i�,�,:'nra'sterl,prug.r ;,mt Dra i io,r are Hipp1 icatvle -i-57 eve1opment. - . ' URBAN _ r ,,:: f � t �i A yawyv g i kS�'ill )- f .q! t dJ Development p arr st anti .,o thi :J,�paimM i t Shall" b.e. tmdertaken dpurtz_ uai'ntj to the atta.ched'-i te:r ni' ani cond.it -on:>,:` , _ �'�' ±, This per n01 i.i t `i� granted O�tir�^°erant to .the Sh-i.- 1 i; -e Managemer Act i&1 1971 an nothina�,vi=n th;ls. pern►it _.hall e: Kc use\th.a_ap.p1'ic'a`' :.._.from'co•nl '1• anc-,e`,with any other Fc'"ti,efa ri State or local titut:e'=n u; tc i� .• r. : L r"d"l'rY 3 n L.g :> '� � r ?'�. ¢ l''a t iy'C�}r1:5 appl icabl-e'•.tui th�ts aroiect, but net i�ncdns ist:ent, withe th Shore'l�s.1ne 3 � Managemen.0 Act `(Chap+ eer 90.58 RCW) f r `� '"1/ This permit:, Wray b&.,res.c •nded purstra'n+t to PCW691Y. 51. 140(8) in the permittee t a.i is to c:-ainp l v with the terms or coni i t i o:n hereat' _S •;r r, t,f• `i . � P -� .3 ' 7; yea i . e, _. t the CONSTRUCTIO i?I1RSUANT TO THIS PERMIT WILL NOT BEGIN pfe4te NOT AUTHORIZED UNTIL TWENTY -ONS (21) DAY'=S FROM -THE DATE: OF FILING 4r.i--fl > THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AS DEFINE.1 RCC 90.53.440“3.Y -i. -AND . WAC 1 7. ;-i 090. (R UNTIL ALL - REvIEW PRC'CEEDING--".ZfY�LTTIATED `WITrfIN«IWENTY ' NE : ( 1 -)-'DAYS; FROM THC DATE OF SUCH FILING HAVE re—'u'T:' •r'.. n�� r, 1 5 .• e, ' rct:„ ,EXCEPT S FRQVIDEG•`'IN RCW 90.58. 140(.;) (a) r.b) (c . Date:6- 10 - 59_ Steve Lancaster• • Director, Planning Department Construction or substantial pr-ovres_, toward construction must be. in within two years from date of issuance, per WAC 173-14-300. --- -CITY OF TUKWILA Address: 5301 SEGALE PARK -DR ----0---- - Suite: Tenant: Tp: P -SHORE Parcel 4: 352304-9013 4*44**9*94***:4**94****4*4**9.4,*4949.9.4k*******14**444*k*.***499**44.4*** t Conditions: ADDITIONAL LANDSCAP ENVIRONMENT IN THE SUCH THAT EMERGENCY NOT IMPEDED. Pern4t No: Status: Issued.: L99-0006 APPROVED Q2/05/1999 05/10/1990 ING SHALL GENERAL BE PROVIDED—IN-THE-LOW IMPACT. EL.CATED ON ATACHMENT C K OPERATIONS APE N "Ter•-::: :6, '=.!.T..„.„. ., • 4, ry .4 7-34 .",:-,t.„ ..'.-, ...., • ffi , .• As,., \-...k....\3:-._ ..) •v4..;'-:.,. • ..,,,,0 \:'-a -,.. ) ' Q :sik . ‘'.,y• .4., .../ 1,)•.17 ........., . •••+. :2 $..4.-- ....:: .,4,-,i4;r-0.1 • — ..„ - ,71. 4 . .; '...:! ‘-`.,:-.,1'-• ' \-4.... ,,, .',-, ......... » tl ,..,•,, - '2 • ' '21 .4 i.:J( 1 '..-...' 4 4) ...-.., " --,.. . \ i ..„------;..:' _., i.; 1 14, , .\'\ ..... .‘\ ',, ,17.1 ----,........„?.7 0 . ‘-1). ..) r'ir.. `..„„,...."..--- ‘'N \ / -,-, „..._.1. ,'- '.) 0.;--.74%,,., a ."•• i' • ‘,..,,. .i.--- \ J' '. ' ..• "- ". '71 --414ifl 9 , ,_ ...„,•-•22 '21 4-- ''' • .+11 •• '1-''''. ' .r' 3 e''..,,.:,;.;,,,, I . I 1 , • • i ) .., ., . 7:- • : f", • •,..• , 2 ' ,v--, '. ,, -1' ''''' ... 1 ,1.-4':0 1 -.1,11iNi - 1' .41 • -7, ';* • aty �,� Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Cwt prem Steve Lancaster, Director pril 23, 1999 To: Steve Lancaster, Director c04..... Fm: Carol Lumb, Associate anner Re: Project File No. E99-0003: Segale Business Park Warehouse/Office Building Project Description: Construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up building within 200 feet of the Green River. An Army Corps of Engineers Section 205 levee runs along the riverward side of the site. Proponent: LaPianta Limited Partnership dba Segale Business Park Location: 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" Date prepared: April, 1999 Lead Agency: City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development Challenges to Document: None Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: Department of Ecology Recommendation: Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 ° (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 SEPA Review - E99-0003 Segale Warehouse/Office Building April 23, 1999 Existing Environmental Information: • EIS for Segale Business Park, 1974 • Geotechnical Report (12/22/98, 4/15/99) and Levee Seepage Evaluation (3/10/99): Geo Engineers, Inc. • Traffic Study (1/99): David I. Hamlin and Associates, Inc. • Drainage Control Report: Layton & Sell, Inc. 4/15/99 Comments on SEPA Checklist: Page 5, #5b. Since the time the SEPA checklist was prepared, the Puget Sound Chinook salmon has been listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service as a threatened species. This species is found in the Green River. Summary of Primary Impacts: Earth The soils at the proposed building site are silty sands and gravels. Prior to preloading of the building footprint, the existing ground surface ranged from approximately 24 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the east end of the site to about 60 feet above MSL at the top of a soil stockpile on the west end. The top of the levee is at an approximate elevation of 33 feet above MSL. The 60 -foot soil stockpile has been spread across the proposed building footprint area for the purpose of preloading the site in preparation of constructing the building. The finished grades of the site are expected to be: the landward side of the levee will be graded to a 2:1 slope with the toe of the slope at elevation 29 feet above MSL; from the top of the slope, the area will be graded to a finish elevation of 27 feet above MSL in the parking area. The site will gently rise to a finish elevation of 28 feet above MSL at the building foundation. As part of the shoreline permit process, the applicant was required to submit a geotechnical analysis showing that the integrity of the levee was not going to be compromised by the proposed project. The analysis was to focus on the possibility of seepage and piping. The March 10, 1999 Levee Seepage Evaluation prepared by GeoEngineers determined that a small amount of seepage from the levee would likely occur during the 100 -year storm event. However, the evaluation states that the seepage would likely be small and normal site drainage would adequately remove the water. Further, the Levee 2 c:\carol/Segale/sepa-rpt SEPA Review - E99-0003 Segale Warehouse/Office Building April 23, 1999 Seepage Evaluation indicated that for the soil conditions encountered at the building site, foundation seepage and uplift pressures would not pose a risk to the stability of the levee and would not cause soil piping. These issues were addressed during an April 16, 1999 meeting with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, King County Water and Land Resources Division, City of Tukwila and the applicant present. Based upon this meeting, the Corps of Engineers stated in an April 20, 1999 letter that the project is acceptable as designed. The County's letter, dated April 16, 1999 commenting on the project requests that: • Sufficient site area be preserved to permit establishing an overall slope gradient of 2:1 on the riverward side of the levee should there be an opportunity to reconstruct the levee in the future; and • Sufficient area be preserved to provide for establishment of a 15 -foot wide levee maintenance access roadway along the top crest of the levee slope. Based on the information presented by the applicant and the most recent comments provided by the COE, it appears that the stability of the levee is not an issue for this project and that sufficient area exists currently to access the levee for maintenance. Building, parking lot, driveways and sidewalks will cover approximately 85% of the site. Silt fences and siltation control ponds will be installed to control storm water prior to discharge into existing drainage structures. New catch basins will be installed as a requirement of the construction. Air Normal emissions and dust associated with use of construction equipment will occur during construction of the project. After construction, normal exhaust associated with vehicular traffic will occur. Water trucks will be used during construction. All equipment will meet local, state, and federal emission standards. Water The Green River abuts the site on the south and east sides of the project site. The project is subject to the State Shoreline Management Act since landscaping 3 c:\carol/Segale/sepa-rpt SEPA Review - E99-0003 Segale Warehouse/Office Building April 23, 1999 and portions of the building, driveways and parking areas will be within 200 feet of the shoreline. No fill or dredge material will be placed in or removed from surface water, nor will there be any surface water or ground water withdrawals or diversions. The project site does not lie within a 100 -year floodplain. No discharges of waste materials to surface waters will occur. The office/warehouse will be connected to the City of Tukwila's sewage system. Runoff from the parking areas and building roof will be collected in onsite catch basins and flow by gravity to the existing City of Tukwila storm water system. The site is within the P-17 basin. Oil/water separators will be installed on site to minimize water quality impacts from parking areas. Plants No vegetation currently exists on the site as the site has been used for a large soil stockpile. Landscaping will be provided at the front of the site and around portions of the building. Landscaping will be planted landward of the levee within the Low Impact Environment of the Shoreline, as required by the Tukwila Shoreline Overlay District. The King County Water and Land Resources Division provided the following comment on landscaping of the site: • All landscaping plantings should be consistent with cross section dimensions and construction details and policies set forth in Corps of Engineers' Publication EM 1110-2-301, dated February 28, 1999. In the meeting held on April 16, 1999, the COE stated that grass should be planted on the riverward side of the levee and that at some future time, willows or other trees would be planted on the riverward side, should there be a need to reconstruct the levee. Currently, no room exists for a landscape bench on the riverward side of the levee. The COE expressed concerns about the type of tree proposed for the landscape area at the landward toe of the levee; as a result, the tree type has been revised from a cedar to a locust tree. This type of tree has been approved by the COE. Animals The SEPA Checklist notes that songbirds, ducks, crows and Canadian geese have been observed on or near the site. The site is located along the Pacific Flyway migration route. The only mammals observed on the site have been 4 c:\carol/Segale/sepa-rpt SEPA Review - E99-0003 Segale Warehouse/Office Building April 23, 1999 • rodents. While the Checklist states that no fish have been observed, the National Marine Fisheries Service has recently listed the Puget Sound Chinook salmon as a threatened species. This species is known to inhabit the Green River. The King County Water and Land Resources Division provided the following comment: • To the extent that construction, excavation, and/or landscape plantings may be proposed within the existing River Protection Easement for the levee, it would appear the project proposal is clearly subject to the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act. Federal agencies are required to consult for any action that "will likely affect" a listed species. Currently, there are no local, State or Federal regulations that require revisions to this project related to the ESA. Energy/Natural Resources Electricity and natural gas will be used in the building for heating, manufacturing and other uses normal for warehousing and offices. Diesel fuel will be used in construction equipment during construction. The project will not affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties. The building will be designed to meet the Washington State Energy Code to save energy in heating and cooling the structure. Environmental Health No special emergency services will be required as a result of the proposed project. Noise is generated by traffic along the street in front of the site and the close proximity of an asphalt plant to the west. Construction noise will occur during regular hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Noise from vehicles and trucks once the building is open for business, approximately 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. All equipment will be operated with required local, state, and federal noise suppression devices. Land/Shoreline Uses The site has been used as a storage yard for Seattle Tractor Company and stockpile area for excess pitrun material. To the west is an asphalt plant, north is a street and various warehouses and office buildings. The Green River and COE Section 205 levee border the site on the south and east. A carpenter's shop, 5 c:\carol/Segale/sepa-rpt SEPA Review - E99-0003 Segale Warehouse/Office Building April 23, 1999 • which currently exists on the site, will be demolished prior to construction of the warehouse/office building. The site is designated Heavy Industrial on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and is zoned Heavy Industrial. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning designation. The Shoreline Master Program designation is Urban and the proposal must obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. Approximately 40-75 people will work on the site when the project is constructed. Housing No housing exists on the site. Aesthetics The type of construction proposed for the building is tilt up concrete. The project is subject to design review and will be considered by the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review. The maximum height of the building in the shoreline area is 35 feet. The building is proposed to be 33 feet. Light/Glare The building will have exterior lighting, which will occur from dusk to dawn. No anticipated glare from the building is anticipated. Recreation A pedestrian/bike trail system exists on the opposite side of the Green River. Sidewalks will be provided along the street frontage of the building to link it with the sidewalks in the Business Park to provide safe access to the Green River trail system. As part of the project, an outside picnic area will be provided for employees of the warehouse/office building. Historic/Cultural Preservation There are no places or objects listed on or proposed for national state or local preservation registers. 6 c:\caroUSegale/sepa-rpt SEPA Review - E99-0003 Segale Warehouse/Office Building April 23, 1999 Transportation • A Traffic Impact Analysis was provided as part of the project submittal. Direct access to the site is via Segale Park Drive "C", which is part of the private, internal road system within the Segale Business Park. Transit service is available on South 180th Street, approximately one-half mile from the project site. Sidewalks will be provided along the frontage of the project, which will connect with the existing sidewalks throughout the business park. Bicycle and vehicle parking will be provided on site as required by the Tukwila Municipal Code. The Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this project indicates that approximately 20% of the trips generated by the development will occur during the AM and PM peak hours. Many of the trips generated by the project will be trucks, because the project is a warehouse with related office uses. The Traffic Impact Analysis notes that the Trip Generation Manual does not provide data as to percentage of total trips that will be heavy vehicles. It notes, however, that the percentage of trucks is probably higher during the non -peak hours when deliveries typically occur and when fewer employees would be travelling. A comment letter was received from a business in the Segale Business Park concerned about the additional truck traffic on Segale Park Drive "C" and the ability of employees, customers etc. to access the arterial highways that serve Tukwila. The new traffic generated by the development of the property will be distributed onto the adjacent roadway system and then onto the regional transportation system — SR -518, I-5, I-405 and towards the major arterials such as West Valley Highway or South 180th Street. The trip distribution information indicates that trips will be fairly evenly distributed on the surrounding streets. The applicant's Traffic Impact Analysis identifies ten locations in the vicinity of the project that are scheduled for capital improvements and the estimated number of trips from the site that would be traveling through these locations during the PM peak hour. The trip mitigation fees required by City code for trips through these locations have been estimated by the Traffic Impact Analysis as approximately $74,447. Public Services The development of this site as a warehouse/office building will generate an increased need for public services such as police and fire. 7 c:\carol/Segale/sepa-rpt SEPA Review - E99-0003 Segale Warehouse/Office Building April 23, 1999 Utilities Utilities currently available at the site include electric, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, storm water and sanitary sewer. No additional utilities are anticipated to be needed as a result of the building construction. Recommendation Determination of Nonsignificance 8 c:\carol/Segale/cepa-rpt CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INF'ORVIATION SIGN(S) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila I C_ f4 CO ( LUJ (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on `l --Z3— '6I the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 6e30---1.__5 . `s _go _ so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number E q,a _ 0003 giant (W ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of , 19 NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires on AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, kal Fuil hereby declare that: ONotice of Public Hearing_ Determination of Non- significance O Notice of Public Meeting []Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet []Planning Commission Agenda Packet Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice 0 Short Subdivision Agenda [lather Packet Notice of Application for fl Other Shoreline Management Permit LIShoreline Management Permit was mailed to each of the following addresses on PC If Name of Project &tS-P/ D Signature File Number�� CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MA Gs a s•y. at n�, Paul t(orroeos :e ( 4 ?•E ` m J 1 ittetrvizovijEAERAL'AGENCIES. 9) U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 6r044 ( ) FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ,( ) DEPT -9F FISH & WILDLIFE • ( Deer. o(-�inMN�L, ( ) OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY ( )"TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ( ) DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES ( ) OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR ( ) DEPT OF COMM. TRADE & ECONOMIC DEV. ( yY DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDLIFE ( ( ( ( ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ( ) U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. �� Wa' - `"'t. F)sb1ey .es SeViItc l �i. /�G.nN+Gtt� WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FIRE DISTRICT#11 FIRE DISTRICT #2 K.C. WATER POLLUTION CNTRL SEPA OFFCL ( ) TUKWILA SCHOOL DISTRICT (',A TUKWILA LIBRARIES ( ) RENTON LIBRARY ( ) KENT LIBRARY ( ) CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ( ) U S WEST ( ) SEATTLE CITY LIGHT (' ) PUGET SOUND ENERGY (14 HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT ( ) SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) TCI CABLEVISION ( ) OLYMPIC PIPELINE (V KENT PLANNING DEPT ( ) TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS POLICE PLANNING ) PARKS'.& REC. CITY CLERK ( ) FIRE ( ) FINANCE ( ) BUILDING ( ) MAYOR. ( ) PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL ( ) P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ( ) SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE,,, (14 MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE,3r'-•" (y/f DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE ( ) SEATTLE TIMES 07/09/98 C:WP51DATA\CHKLIST ( ) DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. (VI DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELIND DIV Aft -V14 AlKms( (VT DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION" ( ) OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHKLIST W/ DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES ( ) K.C. DEPT OF PARKS ( ) HEALTH DEPT ( ) PORT OF SEATTLE (\K.C.DEV & ENVIR SERVICES-SEPA INFO CNTR ( ) K.C. TRANSIT DIVISION - SEPA OFFICIAL V %4G • WWI ),kviwa( aeoa,✓cto oc.nsio e‘, l✓ .SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES 1 O° Ft i bC U 5a,:f4•l(. Lki 4- °I 8l0`t — 5-0L2. ( ) HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) K C PUBLIC LIBRARY A. *r\ Dcu12 Clew (c_ ( ) SEATTLE MUNI REF LIBRARY ( ) SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT ( ) RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT WATER DISTRICT #20 WATER DISTRICT #125 CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS RAINIER VISTA SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES Seto se.cc SO,n-te, add , cele - Q a {1 (-v. anvil (.Heti 1Je. ( ) RENTON PLANNING DEPT ( ) CITY OF SEA -TAC ( ) CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS ( ) TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ( ) CITY OF..SEATTLE - SEPA INFO CENTER - DCLU ( ;) SEATTLE OFFICE OF MGMNT & PLANNING* * NOTICE.OF ALL SEATTLE RELATED PLNG PROJ. : OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES VI/METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV. OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE. AP,.fk V\9A4&v Ia(uc,:20 M. A. Segale, Inc. PO Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 Cadillac Plastic 18292 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Familian NW 18323 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Crown Cork & Seal 18340 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA_98188 ikn'.Mtci' i i�evneu? p(UNC? po-✓ United Stationers 18300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Gaco Western PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 Crate Tech, Inc. 6206 South 190th Street Kent, WA 98032 Keyston of rs 18301 And er Park West Tukwila, W 8188 Columbia Packaging 18296 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle Tractor Parts 18349 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 A. America 18255 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 Rock -Tenn 18340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Reid Plastics, Inc. 6545 South Glacier Place Tukwila, WA 98188 Family Life Insurance 18285 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Fletcher's Fine Foods 18338 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Alpak Food Equipment 18298 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Viking Office Products 18300 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 General Medical Corp. 18325 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 The Bo M • er 6230 So ,' 190th Street Kent, 98 2 Materials, Inc. 6214 South 190th Street Kent, WA 98042 La Pianta Limited Partnership PO Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138-2028 Schoenb- ler 13256 North Bellevue, 'fA • TBI Building LLC 6412 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 Gaco Western, Inc. PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 rprises Lic City of Kent ay # 11 220 4th Ave. South 005 Kent, WA 98032 Bruce & Elizabeth Mitchell P.O. Box 99151 Seattle, WA 98199 James Campbell Estate 1001 Kamokila Blvd Kapolei, HI 96707 Schoenbachler Enterprises 6728 - 134th Ct. NE Redmond, WA 98052 Keyston 18303 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Br & Eliz. h Mitchell 19000 L NE Se. • e, 98155 Meteor Building Assoc. 120 W. Dayton St. #C1 Edmonds, WA 98020 The Box Maker 6412 S. 190th St. Kent, WA 98032 • City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 Andy Levesque King Co. SWM 700 5th Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104-5022 M. A. Segale, Inc. PO Box 88050 Tukwila, WA 98138 Cadillac Plastic 18292 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Familian NW 18323 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Crown Cork & Seal 18340 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 United Stationers 18300 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Gaco Western PO Box 88698 Seattle, WA 98138 Crate Tech, Inc. 6206 South 190`h Street Kent, WA 98032 Keyston Brothers 18301 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Columbia Packaging 18296 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Seattle Tractor Parts 18349 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 A. America 18255 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 Rock -Tenn 18340 Southcenter Parkway Tukwila, WA 98188 Reid Plastics, Inc. 6545 South Glacier Place Tukwila, WA 98188 Family Life Insurance 18285 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Fletcher's Fine Foods 18338 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Alpak Food Equipment 18298 Andover Park West Tukwila, WA 98188 Viking Office Products 18300 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 General Medical Corp. 18325 Segale Park Dr "B" Tukwila, WA 98188 The Box Maker 6230 South 190`h Street Kent, WA 98032 Materials, Inc. 6214 South 190`h Street Kent, WA 98042 • • CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANtE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 300,000 SO FT BUILDING. TO BE USED FOR WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE. PROPONENT: LA PIANTA LTD PARTNERSHIP— LOCATION ARTNERSHIP.. Lt CATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS :F ANY: ADDRESS: 5301 -.SEGALEPARK DR C PARCEL NO: 352.304-9+0.13 SEC/TWN/RNG:3-04- LEAD AGENCY:' CITY OF"TUKWILA The City ,Was determined that the proposal does nOthav#,a ur4able significant' a,dver e Impact t n .t,he envi=ronment. An ersvir Onmentel impact ;tatenien;t.._ (EIS) is hot reg uired under RCW 43 21c`..0:•30(?)''(e) . This dec i;s: i on WaS made atter revi:ew ot �a completed enJ_i runrentai; ,, checklist, and other informat'ion:it-In t i le'Wi•th the lead egenCy; This ir�torma't' on i _.'_ avi 1able-_tu, the �publ isri-'o't>egt.test. FILE ::N0:' E'_?9—Ck003 :4 :4 k * ,4 :4 :l• k 4 * ;k :4 A A:_** •A A -`k ^.k - :4- A:, k k •k k -•k,'k k 4 4 *.k 'k •k.• :4* 'k *;* *'k, 4-'k •A..4 •k 1k 'k A• '4 'A::4 '4 :4 :4 'k 'k :4 `•k 4 4 '4 ;4 •k' }A ;{ :k *44444* I This. d�eterminatiOn i^ i i,na°t;and `�ign d this2.3.E daV sof 19gj' Steve Lancaster, Responsi b l e 0f f i c i;a3;1 City of TiWWila, (206) 431-3670 6300 Southce'n.ter Boulevard Tukwila, WA.9818:13 y•, Copies of the procedures for SEPVi ppe:a.l>:. Department of Conitmnity Development are avai 1ab.i;e-mIth the • r VICINITY MAP Nrs RECVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER SEGALE BUSINESS PARK Ma BUII.DING 981 11 EXISTING BUILDING • 4.,; ••1 • ; • " •-• ;4 ••••,, 0 D REVISOR& 100' HIGH IMPACT ENVIRONMENT 60' LOW IMPACT ENVIRONMENT. 4 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON (goo) w5-2006 :;BUILDING ki,1 ,i1REVISED'Slir Iti 4) J FUEL TANKS 200' SETBACK LIMITS .•44444., 4." FUEL ISLAND MEAN HIGHWATER LINE SEGALE BUSINESS PARK BUILDING 981 SITE PLAN NORTH ELEVATION NEM n 0 r I PtMI COG .a ..AMI nv.mlt0 METAL CC/.a n 0 EAST ELEVATION r RETURN ELEVATION fID II I WEST ELEVATION ¶ i RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB — 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER l n n IWIC. .AM, n S' RieNIM n • n iIInn11111111IIIjITII 1111111111111y 1T 1111111111 uIo.T I I I I I I I I 111111111111111117 111111111111111➢m11m1 111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 n 11111 5011TH ELEVATION f 981 PROJECT A4 CO ■ • .•. . ., -.A,E...AM 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111; 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 l l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111IIIIIIIII1111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • ' _ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 _ 11111.1'.111111111111j1.1111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 n - q q. q_ ( . a R a llF.R R P g Q 1 g R q B B r - E 11111 ■■O■■■1 — [ META Cr■A.F3D .—.. _ L 11111 11111 11111 ■ME■■ ■■ME■ 11111 MEMO r i III11 ■E■E■ n n ■■M■■ MUM NEM n 0 r I PtMI COG .a ..AMI nv.mlt0 METAL CC/.a n 0 EAST ELEVATION r RETURN ELEVATION fID II I WEST ELEVATION ¶ i RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB — 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER l n n IWIC. .AM, n S' RieNIM n • n iIInn11111111IIIjITII 1111111111111y 1T 1111111111 uIo.T I I I I I I I I 111111111111111117 111111111111111➢m11m1 111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 n 11111 5011TH ELEVATION f 981 PROJECT A4 CO Notes from 4/22/99 GRBTC by Phil Fraser Andy Levesque: Segale Shannon & Wilson Report: - Applicants seepage analysis - corps in agrement not adversly affect property - landowner does not wish to do slope stability analysis, KC is pursuing w/ S & W - KC's request: slolpe stability which translates to 2:1 slope w/15' mid bench f - KC's position: plans should be consistent w/ corps guidlines - There is a nexus to a future acrtion which must be addressed by Corps as part of this development process" Phil: - The City is in receipt of the letter and memorandum from the CORPS and letter from KC - The levee on Segale Property is a certified CORPS levee with an existing (30') easement - The developmeent has be reviewed by both CORPS & KC. - PW Director has reviewed information and fords a case for levee instability has not been made to date. (letter alludes to "may be") - The PW Director and DCD Director have discussed this matter. The DCD Director is now pursuing the environemntal and land use processes. - We understand that KC is conducting further S & W riverbank stability analysis due out in the next couple of weeks and invite KC, if they see cause, to provide input during the appeals period (for environmental) (Andy said after meetng to Phil that KC will not respond. Andy feels original S & W report makes this case (also sent to CORPS) Noel Gilbrow: - CORPS has discussed this w/Andy and does not agree on riverbank instability position Andy's taken - Corps believes the development project improves the stability of levee - Corps will repair levee, but expects City (via. KC) to carry out "normal maintenance" of levee. In response to "What is considered "normal maintenance" Noel said, cutting of the grass, and the like, but not repair. C_ ; pS Gum S Lti I'-c?l / /14"\,i 1 c-611_ ➢ T '- r`l 12n ‘71)14(1- ( - 04/20/99 15:37 FAX 206 764 3319 EMERG MGM'f ZO/ZO 'd DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. Sox 3795 SCATTLE. WASHINGTON 0e124-2200 NORM TO ATTeNTbN OP Emergency Management Branch Mr. Dave Clark Manager, Rivers Section King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98104-5022 Dear Mr. Clark: awn , c APR 2 0 (949 \il Thank you for attending the meeting on April 6, 1999, regarding the prior determination for the proposed warehouse building development to be located immediately adjacent to the authorized levee at the Segale Business Park in Tukwila, Washington. After initial review of the proposed project we sent you a letter,' dated. March 29, 1999, which stated our concerns about features that could impact the integrity of the existing structure. Upon further review and discussions 'at the meeting we find the project -to be acceptable as designed. Acceptable vegetation for the landward toe of the levee includes the locust trees that were proposed. If you have any questions please contact Bill Garrott at (206) 764-3406, or Monte Kaiser at (206) 764-3712. Sincerely, aul E. Koctforoeke , P. Chief, Emergency Management Branch LS8I9L990Z '0N Xb3 YNVd ss3Nisne 31V03S WV Lt:OI 1331 66-2-3dl pPk-16-99 FRI 03:34 Ph USiii SEATTLE DISTRICT FAX NO. 2.764 4470 P. 02/03 CENPS=PM-CP April 16, 1999 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD SUI3JECT: Segale Business Park (SBP) Proposed Development, Corps, Tukwila, King County SBP Meeting. 1. The subject meeting was attended by those on the attached list. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss issues dealing with the subject proposal. 2. The two major issues that were discussed were: a. Concerns dealing with the ability of the existing structure to keep flood waters out of the rest of the project area and the stability of the existing levee prism. and b. concerns dealing with the planting of large trees in or adjacent to thc levee prism. 3. In discussions dealing with the ability of the existing project to contain flood waters we determined that if there where a levee failure in the vicinity of the loading dock the high ground both up and downstream of the possible break would contain the floodwaters within the development arca. We discussed the current 1.7 to 1 front slope on the existing levee and the recommendation of the County's consultant that the slope be 2 to 1. Corps staff said that they were aware that it would be better if the slope were 2 to 1 but we would continue to repair flood damage to this structure with the steeper slope. 4. In the discussions of large trees corps staff said that we could live with the proposed trees at this site in the location specified but we might have a. problem with trees being proposed for a project just upstream of this site. SBP personnel said that they would propose to the corps another tree. 5. Actions following this meeting will be for SBP staff to provide a tree proposal to the Corps by Monday morning and the Corps action is to provide a letter to Segale approving the business park design. 6. Just after the end of this meeting Corps personnel were told that there might be a Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act issue dealing with this project. District Council was not available for consultation to dcternline if we are. As soon as we get a reading on this we will let thc attendees know. N el G' brow roje Manager cc: Attendees Soule/PM-CP Scuderi/EC-TB-ER APR -16-99 FRI 03:35 PM USACE-SEATTLE DISTRICT FAX NO. 20464 4470 010L. C...-r-c3g.--OLA 6-7 Coxps- e SISO -S- (11,44-1q>-- h) h Cz- e-ro-tr PA1-; 6P P. 03/03 7;F:4J- 62,Cq r.Nq ;' 75---ZO00 .01 \ 25 3. -30 • .2L57 -E 3 f3- 5,4 iz? • 04/13/1999 16:00 206-205-5134 Icing County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98104-5022 (208) 296-6519 (208) 298-0192 FAX April 16, 1999 KC WLRD RIVERS 0. PAGE 02 Mr. Steve Lancaster Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Review of Application: La Planta Limited Partnership d.b.a. Seeale Business Park Tukwila File Nos. L99-0006; L99-0007; E99-0003 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject application for construction of Building No. 981, proposed for construction within the Segate Business Park in the City of Tukwila. King County has a significant interest in this application, as the proposed site development plan may potentially affect the county's maintenance and repair obligations regarding the existing flood containment levee along the Green River at the project site. King County is party to a June 30, 1992 Green River Basin Program Interlocal Agreement with the City of Tukwila and other Green River Valley Cities in which King County has agreed to maintain levees, riverbanks, and revetments within the Green River Flood Control Zone District (GRFCZD). To this end, King County in 1991 assigned its River Protection Easement rights to the City of Tukwila as a tenant in common, in order to facilitate Tukwila's completion of the federally authorized Lower Green River Flood Control Project with the Corps of Engineers. This easement encumbers portions of the project site within thirty feet of the top -of -bank along the riverward edge of the existing levee crest. This easement width was established in 1964, and may not be adequate to today's continuing flood protection needs. In addition to completion of their Section 205 levee -raising initiative at the site, the Corps has also accomplished a Public Law 84-99 levee repair to 700 feet of the levee system within the Segate Business Park in 1990, with King County as the Local Sponsor. In 1991, King County and the Corps cooperated in an Emergency Flood Fight along 2000 feet of the landward levee toe. In 1993, King County and the City of Tukwila signed a further interlocal agreement to cost share the local sponsors' portion of funding for completion of a federal Hazard Mitigation Grant Program project to stabilize 900 feet of the riverward levee scopes and relieve seepage hazards along 1200 feet of the landward levee toe within the Segate Business Park. This work was completed in 1997. An additional 80 feet of emergency seepage control work was performed by King County in 1995, within the downstream portions of the project site which is the subject of the present application. Much of the seepage control work and emergency response efforts accomplished at the Segate Business Park has required work outside the width provided in the 1964 easements. A Permanent Right of Access, extending some twenty feet landward of the historic easements, was needed to allow for this work. This additional interest in the affected property has been obtained by agreement with the landowner. No such agreement has yet been reached within the site area now subject to this present application. X4/191-1999 16:00 April 16, 1999 Steve Lancaster Page Two 206-205-5134 KC WLRD RIVERS,C. The total cost for construction of these levee repairs within the Segale Business Park over the last ten years has easily exceeded $2 Million. King County has significant concerns with this level of continuing expense and respectfully requests the City of Tukwila's careful consideration of the site plan review to include reasonably prudent measures assuring the future integrity and stability of the levee system within the project site. Specific measures reasonably necessary to this end are requested as follows: PAGE 03 1. Sufficient site area needs to be preserved free from excavation, grading, landscape plantings, and other site improvements so as to facilitate King County's continuing abilities to accomplish future levee repairs designed at stable angles of repose for the affected levee slopes along the riverbank. Based on discussions with the property owner to date, no independent analyses of riverbank stability have been performed. King County has contracted for geotechnical consultant studies utilizing soils information provided by the applicant to address this concern. Results of these analyses should be forthcoming with detailed site recommendations within the next few weeks. Relying for the moment on findings developed by these same county consultants for downstream portions of the levee system within the Segale Business Park, and also for levee reaches immediately across the river from the project site, it is my recommendation this allowance be predicated on establishing an overall slope gradient of 2H:1V, or two horizontal feet to each vertical foot of levee slope elevation above the river bed. 2. Sufficient site area needs be preserved free from site grading, site improvements, and landscape plantings to provide for establishment of a 15 -foot -wide levee maintenance access roadway along the top crest of the levee slope, consistent with a top -of -bank location predicated on stable slope angles determined pursuant to (1), above. 3, All landscape plantings should be consistent with cross section dimensions and construction details and policies set forth in Corps of Engineers' Publication EM 1110=2.301, dated February 28, 1999. This is especially important with regard to King County's continuing ability to maintain the levee system in accordance with applicable regulatory standards affecting levees. See also (4), below. 4. To the extent that construction, excavation, and/or,landscape plantings may be proposed within the existing River Protection Easement for the levee, it would appear the project proposal is clearly subject to the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) with respect to recent listing of Puget Sound Chinook salmon as a threatened species. The City of Tukwila may need to consider if site review is consistent with its recent statements concerning programmatic certification under the ESA's required 4(d) Rule. Similarly, the City may need to request that the Corps consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to ensure compliance with requirements established in Section 7 of the ESA. 04/191999 16:00 206-205-5134 • April 16, 1999 • Steve Lancaster Page Three KC WLRD RIVERS EC. PAGE 04 Based on review of the site plans and cross section drawings submitted to date, it is my sincere belief that difficult decisions will need to be made by the City to accomplish the forgoing recommendations. At an absolute minimum, it appears that an additional fifteen feet of site area along the river frontage will need to be dedicated as an easement for the purposes of providing for adequate levee stability. This may also address both site level and reach level impacts related to ESA concerns with levees as they may affect the listed species. It is my belief such measures are reasonably necessary as conditions of approval for issuance of the subject permits. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Please call me 206-296-8388 if you have any concerns or questions with this letter. Dave Clark, Manager Rivers Section Cc: Debbie Arima, Assistant Manager, WLR Division Sarah Ogler, . Program Coordinator, Green River Basin Program Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer Carol Lumb, Planner, City of Tukwila Phil Frasier, Senior Engineer Noel Gilbrough, Project Manager, Corps of Engineers Paul Komoroske, Emergency Operations Branch Monte Kaiser, Geotechnical. Branch SEGALE BUSINESS PARK BUILDING 981 April 15, 1999 L&S Project No. 321-03 Prepared By: LAYTON &SELL, INC., P.S. Consulting Coastal & Civil. Engineers 15600 Redmond Way, Suite 302 Redmond, Washington 98052 RECEIVED CITy of TUKWILA APR 1 6 1999 PERMIT CENTER L99- oOcG t1S-000 E1'1-0 003 SBP BUILDING 981 DRAINAGE CONTROL REPORT April 15, 1999 Proponent: SEGALE BUSINESS PARK P.O. BOX 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138-2028 (206) 575-2000 Contact: Mr. Steve Nelson Engineer: LAYTON & SELL, INC., P.S. 15600 Redmond Way, Suite 302 Redmond, Washington 98052 (425) 881-8151 Contacts: John D. Sell, P.E., Project Engineer Jeanette A. Stephenson, P.E., Project Engineer I EXPIRES 11/18/00 EXPIRES 1/27/01 SBP BUILDING 981 PART I - Existing vs. Developed Conditions JAS SBP Building 981 Existing vs. Developed Conditions CaIc's 321-03 GENERAL NOTES The calc's below are for comparing existing conditions with proposed developed conditions. The geotechnical report says the site soils generally consist of dense sand and gravel fill with varying amounts of silt and cobbles overlying native alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded fine to medium sand, sandy silt and silt in a loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff condition. Therefore, assume that the Hydrologic Soil Type is type B. Rainfall from KC Drainage Manual 6 month - 24 hr 2yr-24hr 5yr-24hr 10 yr-24hr 25 yr-24hr 100 yr-24hr 1.27 inches 1.98 inches 2.38 inches 2.88 inches 3.35 inches 3.55 inches Curve Numbers: CN Water Surfaces 100 Pavement & Roofs 98 Gravel Roads & Parking Areas 85 Landscaping (grass cover > 75% of area) 80 DRAINAGE BASIN RUNOFF CALCULATIONS The project site can be divided into two basins. A majority of the site will drain to the storm drainage system in Segale Drive "B". This basin will be called Basin B. The remainder of the site (southeast portion) will be discharged to the storm drain system in Segale Drive "A". This drainage basin will be called Basin A. All of the site drainage will eventually end up in a regional drainage facility to the north which was constructed as part of the City of Tukwila Andover Industrial Park Comprehensive Drainage Plan. Compute hydrographs for each basin under existing and developed conditions. BASIN A Area = 4.648 acres Under existing conditions, this basin is essentially a gravel area. Under developed conditions, this basin will consist of a portion of the proposed Building 981 site which discharges to Segale Drive "A". It will include building roof, pavement and landscaping. Existing Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 0.000 98 Building Roof 0.000 98 Gravel 4.648 Landscaping 0.000 80 Totals 0.000 80.0 0.000 98.0 Developed Curve Numbers: Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 1 of 4 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Existing vs. Developed Conditions Calc's 321-03 Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 2.195 98 Building Roof 2.079 98 Landscaping 0.374 80 Totals 0.374 80.0 4.274 98.0 Time of Concentration: From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Sheet Flow Travel Time, Tt = (0.42 x (ns x L)^0.8)y((P2)^0.527 x (s)A0.4), where Tt = travel time (minutes) ns = sheet flow Manning's effective roughness coeff from DoE Table III -1.4 L = flow length (feet) P2 = 2 year, 24 hour rainfall (inches) = s = slope of hydraulic grade line (land slope, ft/ft) Flow with measurable depth Travel Time, Tt = L-1-(60 x k x s^0.5), where k = time of concentration velocity factor, from DoE Table III -1.4 1.98 inches Existing Time of Concentration for Basin A : Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) gravel Sheet 105 0.01 0.011 2.07 gravel Sheet 71 0.085 0.011 0.65 gravel Sheet 157 0.013 0.011 2.60 gravel Shallow 137 0.015 13 1.45 gravel Shallow 22 0.270 13 0.05 gravel Shallow 20 0.100 13 0.08 gravel Shallow 183 0.010 13 2.35 Totals 512 9.26 Time of Concentration, Tc = 9.26 minutes Developed Time of Concentration for Basin A to Ex MH 7: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 50 0.020 0.011 0.87 pvmt Sheet 40 0.007 0.011 1.08 pipe channel 116 0.009 42 0.50 pipe channel 187 0.009 42 0.80 pipe channel 203 0.009 42 0.87 pipe channel 158 0.009 42 0.68 pipe channel 112 0.005 42 0.63 Totals 866 5.44 BASIN B Time of Concentration, Tc = 5.44 minutes Area = 11.73 acres Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 2 of 4 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Existing vs. Developed Conditions CaIc's 321-03 This basin consists of a portion of the proposed Building 981 site which will discharge to the storm drainage system in Segale Drive "B". It includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Existing Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 0.000 98 Building Roof 0.000 98 Rock & Gravel 11.727 85 Landscaping 0.000 80 Totals 11.727 85.0 0.000 98.0 11.727 Developed Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 4.624 98 Building Roof 6.435 98 Rock & Gravel 0.000 85 Landscaping 0.667 80 Totals 0.667 80.0 11.059 98.0 11.727 Time of Concentration: From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Sheet Flow Travel Time, Tt = (0.42 x (ns x L)^0.8)+((P2)^0.527 x (s)^0.4), where Tt = travel time (minutes) ns = sheet flow Manning's effective roughness coeff from DoE Table III -1.4 L = flow length (feet) P2 = 2 year, 24 hour rainfall (inches) = s = slope of hydraulic grade line (land slope, ft/ft) Flow with measurable depth Travel Time, Tt = L+(60 x k x s^0.5), where k = time of concentration velocity factor, from DoE Table III -1.4 1.98 inches Existing Time of Concentration for Basin B: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) gravel Sheet 108 0.01 0.011 2.12 gravel Sheet 43 0.047 0.011 0.55 gravel Sheet 38 0.053 0.011 0.47 gravel Sheet 132 0.015 0.011 2.12 gravel Shallow 100 0.015 13 1.06 gravel Shallow 127 0.016 13 1.29 gravel Shallow 32 0.010 13 0.41 pipe channel 27 0.010 42 0.11 Totals 607 8.13 Time of Concentration, Tc = 8.13 minutes Developed Time of Concentration for Basin B to ex MH 17: Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 3 of 4 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Existing vs. Developed Conditions CaIc's 321-03 Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 0.150 1.94 pvmt Sheet 124 0.010 0.011 2.34 pipe channel 185 0.009 42 0.77 pipe channel 157 0.010 42 0.62 pipe channel 146 0.010 42 0.58 pipe channel 134 0.010 42 0.53 pipe channel 138 0.010 42 0.55 pipe channel 123 0.010 42 0.49 pipe channel 149 0.010 42 0.59 pipe channel 36 0.010 42 0.14 pipe channel 107 0.003 42 0.78 pipe channel 13 0.005 42 0.07 pipe channel 224 0.001 42 2.81 Totals 1,546 12.22 Time of Concentration, Tc = 12.22 minutes Hydrograph Results: Hydrographs were generated using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (DoE Spreadsheet Version). A summary of the results for a 25 yr, 24 hour and 100 yr, 24 hour storms are shown below. See Appendix A for the 10 minute interval hydrograph results for the 25 yr , 24 hour storm. Summary Table: Basin Qpeak, 25yr Vol, 25 yr Qpeak, 100yr Vol, 100 yr cfs cf cfs cf A (existing) 2.17 31,812 2.39 34,741 A (developed) 3.80 50,403 4.04 53,709 B (existing) 5.57 80,284 6.14 87,675 B (developed) 8.59 128,807 9.14 137,193 A+B (exist) 7.74 112,096 8.53 122,416 A+B (dev) 12.39 179,210 13.18 190,902 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 4 of 4 4/15/99 SBP BUILDING 981 PART II - Coalescing Plate Oil/Water Separator Design JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 GENERAL NOTES The calc's below are for sizing the coalescing plate oil/water separators (CPS's) for the proposed project. The geotechnical report says the site soils generally consist of dense sand and gravel fill with varying amounts of silt and cobbles overlying native alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded fine to medium sand, sandy silt and silt in a loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff condition. Therefore, assume that the Hydrologic Soil Type is type B. Rainfall from KC Drainage Manual 6 month - 24 hr 2yr-24hr 5yr-24hr 10 yr-24hr 25 yr-24hr 100 yr-24hr 1.27 inches 1.98 inches 2.38 inches 2.88 inches 3.35 inches 3.55 inches FROM DOE TECHNICAL MANUAL: • Fleet vehicle lots and repair areas require API or CPS oil/water separators. Use CPS type. •Area served should be all impervious. •Roof drains should bypass the separator, •No pumping upstream of the CPS. •Size for 6 month, 24 hour storm. •Larger storms should be bypassed around the CPS. • CPS should be sized to remove oil droplets 60 microns and larger. Curve Numbers: CN Water Surfaces 100 Pavement & Roofs 98 Gravel Roads & Parking Areas 85 Landscaping (grass cover > 75% of area) 80 DRAINAGE BASIN RUNOFF CALCULATIONS (For sizing CPS systems) NW CPS BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: Total Basin Area= 4.679 acres Basin CPS NW: This basin consists of the western portion of the proposed Building 981 site which includes building roof (sw quarter of the roof), pavement and landscaping. Curve Numbers: Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 1 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 2.406 98 Building Roof 1.877 98 Rock & Gravel 0.000 85 Landscaping 0.397 80 Totals 0.397 80.0 4.283 98.0 Time of Concentration: From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Sheet Flow Travel Time, Tt = (0.42 x (ns x L)^0.8)=((P2)^0.527 x (s)^0.4), where Tt = travel time (minutes) ns = sheet flow Manning's effective roughness coeff from DoE Table III -1.4 L = flow length (feet) P2 = 2 year, 24 hour rainfall (inches) = 1.98 inches s = slope of hydraulic grade line (land slope, ft/ft) Flow with measurable depth Travel Time, Tt = L=(60 x k x s^0.5), where k = time of concentration velocity factor, from DoE Table III -1.4 Time of Concentration for CPS NW: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 0.150 1.94 pvmt Sheet 124 0.010 0.011 2.34 pipe channel 185 0.009 42 0.77 pipe channel 157 0.010 42 0.62 pipe channel 146 0.010 42 0.58 pipe channel 134 0.010 42 0.53 pipe channel 138 0.010 42 0.55 pipe channel 123 0.010 42 0.49 pipe channel 149 0.010 42 0.59 pipe channel 36 0.010 42 0.14 Totals 1,202 8.56 Time of Concentration, Tc = 8.56 minutes West Central CPS BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: Total Basin Area= 0.838 acres Basin CPS -WC: This basin consists of mostly paved driveway and parking area on the SBP 981 site with a small amount of landscaping area. It was assumed that Building 981 roof drainage will bypass this CPS. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 2 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 0.764 98 Building Roof 0.000 98 Rock & Gravel 0.000 85 Landscaping 0.074 80 Totals 0.074 80.0 0.764 98.0 Time of Concentration for CPS -WC: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 50 0.020 0.011 0.87 pvmt Sheet 68 0.021 0.011 1.10 pipe channel 87 0.010 42 0.35 pipe channel 77 0.010 42 0.31 pipe channel 39 0.088 42 0.05 Totals 321 2.67 Time of Concentration, Tc = 2.67 minutes East Central CPS BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: Total Basin Area= 1.652 acres Basin CPS -EC: 1.652 acres This basin consists of mostly paved driveway and parking area on the SBP 981 site with a small amount of landscaping area. It was assumed that Building 981 roof drainage will bypass this CPS. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 1.455 98 Building Roof 0.000 98 Rock & Gravel 0.000 85 Landscaping 0.197 80 Totals 0.197 80.0 1.455 98.0 Time of Concentration for CPS -EC: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 3 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 pvmt Sheet 50 0.020 0.011 0.87 pvmt Sheet 60 0.017 0.011 1.08 pipe channel 134 0.010 42 0.53 pipe channel 101 0.010 42 0.40 pipe channel 100 0.015 42 0.33 pipe channel 101 0.014 42 0.33 pipe channel 11 0.020 42 0.03 Totals 557 3.58 Time of Concentration, Tc = 3.58 minutes NE CPS BASIN CHARACTERISTICS: Total Basin Area= 4.254 acres Basin CPS -NE: 4.254 acres This basin consists of mostly paved driveway and parking area on the SBP 981 site with a small amount of landscaping area. Some paved off-site area northeast of the site was also included as part of the basin. It was assumed that the northern half of the Building 981 roof drainage will bypass this CPS, but that the southern quarter of the building roof will drain to this CPS. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 1.801 98 Building Roof 2.079 98 Rock & Gravel 0.000 85 Landscaping 0.374 80 Totals 0.374 80.0 3.880 98.0 Time of Concentration for CPS -NE: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 180 0.030 0.011 2.07 pipe channel 66 0.005 42 0.37 pipe channel 68 0.005 42 0.38 pipe channel 116 0.009 42 0.50 pipe channel 187 0.009 42 0.80 pipe channel 203 0.009 42 0.87 pipe channel 158 0.009 42 0.68 pipe channel 67 0.007 42 0.32 Totals 1,045 6.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 6.00 minutes Hydrograph Results: Hydrographs were generated using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (DoE Spreadsheet Version) A summary of the results for a 6 month, 24 hour storm as well as the 2 year, 10 year, 25 year and 100 year 24 hour storms are shown below. The 10 minute interval hydrograph results have not been included in this report but can Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 4 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 be provided upon request. RUNOFF HYDROGRAPH RESULTS: CPS -NW CPS -WC CPS -EC CPS -NE Return Period Q peak, cfs Time to Peak, Hours Runoff Volume, cu ft 6 Month 2 Year 10 Year 25 Year 100 Year 1.19 1.99 3.01 3.55 3.77 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 16,641 28,055 42,830 50,620 53,945 Return Period 6 Month 2 Year 10 Year 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 0.26 0.43 0.65 0.77 0.82 Time to Peak, Hours 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 Runoff Volume, cu ft 2,970 5,009 7,651 9,045 9,639 Return Period 6 Month 2 Year 10 Year 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 0.47 0.79 1.21 1.43 1.52 Time to Peak, Hours 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 Runoff Volume, cu ft 5,695 9,657 14,815 17,543 18,708 Return Period 6 Month 2 Year 10 Year 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 1.13 1.89 2.87 3.39 3.60 Time to Peak, Hours 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 7.83 Runoff Volume, cu ft 15,088 25,450 38,869 45,946 48,968 CPS SIZING The CPS should be sized to remove oil droplets 60 microns and larger. Therefore the rise rate = 0.033 ft/min. Sizing formula, Ap = Q/Rise Rate Ap = Projected Area = Actual Area x Cosine H, all in sq ft Q = cfm PIPE, Inc. sizes their CPS by sq ft of effective separation at a capacity of either 0.25 gpm/sq ft or 0.50 gpm/sq ft (their cutsheet says 0.025 gpm/sq ft & 0.050 gpm/sq ft but is in error according to Mike Brown at PIPE). Their Model 577 -SA has 300 sq ft of effective separation and is rated at 75 gpm at the 0.25 loading rate and 150 gpm at the 0.50 loading rate. Rise Rate = Q/A = 75 gpm = 300 sq ft = 0.033 ft per min Therefore use the 0.25 gpm/sq ft loading rate capacities. The following is a table of standard PIPE, Inc. CPS models: Vault Model Effective Capacity Capacity Width Length Depth Area, sq ft gpm cfs ft ft ft 25 -SA 33 8 0.018 2.3 5.2 2.5 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 5 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 466 -SA 200 50 0.111 4.0 6.0 5.5 577 -SA 300 75 0.167 4.7 7.0 6.0 577 -6 -SA 600 150 0.334 4.7 7.0 6.0 612 -SA 1,200 300 0.668 6.8 12.8 7.4 712 -SA 2,400 600 1.337 7.7 12.7 8.2 814 -10 -SA 3,200 800 1.782 9.6 15.6 10.7 E -29 -SA 4,600 1,150 2.562 11.5 15.5 10.8 Summary: Vault CPS Q(6mo) CPS Model Capacity Width Length Depth cfs Required cfs ft ft ft NW CPS 1.190 712 -SA 1.337. 7.7 12.7 8.2 W Central 0.260 577 -6 -SA 0.334 4.7 7.0 6.0 E Central 0.470 612 -SA 0.668 6.8 12.8 7.4 NE CPS 1.170 712 -SA 1.337 7.7 12.7 8.2 FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE DESIGN The flow to each CPS oil/water separator will be restricted by a notch weir, designed for the 6 month, 24 hour storm event. Larger storms will bypass the notch weir and discharge directly to the downstream drainage system. Size the notch weir for the 6 month, 24 hour storm event and the overflow tee structure for the 100 year, 24 hour storm event: Assumptions: Control Structure will be a WSDOT/APWA Type II Catch Basin. Size Notch Weir for 6 -Month, 24 -Hour Storm Event From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Q, cfs = C(L - 0.2H)H^3/2 Where, C, ft = 3.27 + 0.4H/P (discharge coefficient, in feet) L, ft = notch weir width (circumference of pipe cut out). H, ft = Height of water surface above weir crest P, ft = Height of weir crest above pipe invert NW CPS Flow control structure located in CB 2: Notch Weir: Q (6 mo) = 1.19 cfs Flow Rate (Q) Head (H) (L) P Pipe Dia. Notch Width Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 6 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 cu ft/s ft ft ft inch inch 1.15 0.83 0.60 1.67 8.0 7.25 Overflow Tee: Q (100yr) = 3.77 cfs Assumptions: Overflow tee will be a 18" in diameter CMP with its top open to the atmosphere. Size Overflow Tee for 100 -Year, 24 -Hour Storm Event From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Q = C(L - 0.2H)H^3/2 Where, C, ft = 3.27 + 0.4H/P (discharge coefficient, in feet) L, ft = notch weir width (circumference of pipe cut out). H, ft = Height of water surface above weir crest P, ft = Height of weir crest above pipe invert Flow Rate Head (H) (L) P Pipe Dia Notch Width* (Q) cu ft/s ft ft ft inch inch 3.78 0.391 4.71 2.50 18.00 56.55 *Notch width equals pipe circumference (pipe open to atmosphere). Overflow crest elevation will be 0.90' (head produced from 6 -month storm event) above notch weir crest discharging to CPS separator. Size Bypass Pipe: (For flows from larger than 6 mo, 24 hr storm) The bypass pipe will be sized to pass a 100 year peak storm.. Contributing Basin = CPS -NW From above: Q peak, 100 yr = 3.77 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 18 Conc/DIP 0.013 0.002 4.70 12 Conc/DIP 0.013 0.029 6.07 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": Q/Q full = 0.80 VN full = 0.99 (from chart) V = 2.63 ft/s ok WEST CENTRAL CPS Flow control structure in CB 17: Notch Weir: Q (6 mo) = 0.26 cfs ok ok Flow Rate (Q) Head (H) (L) P Pipe Dia. Notch Width cu ft/s ft ft ft inch inch Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 7 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 0.28 0.50 0.33 1.50 6.0 4.00 Overflow Tee: Q (100yr) = 0.82 Assumptions: Overflow tee will be a 12" in diameter CMP with its top open to the atmosphere. Size Overflow Tee for 100 -Year, 24 -Hour Storm Event From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Q = C(L - 0.2H)H^3/2 Where, C, ft = 3.27 + 0.4H/P (discharge coefficient, in feet) L, ft = notch weir width (circumference of pipe cut out). H, ft = Height of water surface above weir crest P, ft = Height of weir crest above pipe invert Flow Rate Head (H) (L) P Pipe Dia Notch Width* (Q) cu ft/s ft ft ft inch inch 0.85 0.190 3.14 2.00 12.00 37.70 *Notch width equals pipe circumference (pipe open to atmosphere). Overflow crest elevation will be 0.28' (head produced from 6 -month storm event) above notch weir crest discharging to CPS separator. Size Bypass Pipe: (For flows from larger than 6 mo, 24 hr storm) The bypass pipe will be sized to pass a 100 year peak storm.. Contributing Basin = CPS -WC From above: Q peak, 100 yr = 0.82 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/DIP 0.013 0.005 2.52 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": Q/Q full = 0.33 VN full = 0.73 (from chart) V = 2.34 ft/s ok EAST CENTRAL CPS Flow control structure in CB 21: Notch Weir: Q (6 mo) = 0.47 cfs Flow Rate (Q) Head (H) (L) P Pipe Dia. Notch Width cu ft/s ft ft ft inch inch 0.48 0.50 0.50 1.50 8.0 6.00 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 8 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 Overflow Tee: Q (100yr) = 1.52 cfs Assumptions: Overflow tee will be a 12" in diameter CMP with its top open to the atmosphere. Size Overflow Tee for 100 -Year, 24 -Hour Storm Event From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Q = C(L - 0.2H)H^3/2 Where, C, ft = 3.27 + 0.4H/P (discharge coefficient, in feet) L, ft = notch weir width (circumference of pipe cut out). H, ft = Height of water surface above weir crest P, ft = Height of weir crest above pipe invert Flow Rate Head (H) (L) P Pipe Dia Notch Width* (Q) cu ft/s ft ft ft inch inch 1.52 0.280 3.14 2.00 12.00 37.70 *Notch width equals pipe circumference (pipe open to atmosphere). Overflow crest elevation will be 0.43' (head produced from 6 -month storm event) above notch weir crest discharging to CPS separator. Size Bvpass Pipe: (For flows from larger than 6 mo, 24 hr storm) The bypass pipe will be sized to pass a 100 year peak storm.. Contributing Basin = CPS -WC From above: Q peak, 100 yr = 1.52 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/DIP 0.013 0.005 2.52 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": Q/Q full = 0.60 VN full = 0.9 (from chart) V = 2.89 ft/s ok NE CPS Flow control structure in CB 26: Notch Weir: Q (6 mo) = 1.13 cfs Flow Rate (Q) Head (H) (L) P Pipe Dia. Notch Width cu ft/s ft ft ft inch inch 1.15 0.83 0.60 1.67 8.0 7.25 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 9 of 10 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 CPS CaIc's 321-03 Overflow Tee: Q (100yr) = 3.60 cfs Assumptions: Overflow tee will be a 12" in diameter CMP with its top open to the atmosphere. Size Overflow Tee for 100 -Year, 24 -Hour Storm Event From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Q = C(L - 0.2H)H^3/2 Where, C, ft = 3.27 + 0.4H/P (discharge coefficient, in feet) L, ft = notch weir width (circumference of pipe cut out). H, ft = Height of water surface above weir crest P, ft = Height of weir crest above pipe invert Flow Rate Head (H) (L) P Pipe Dia Notch Width* (Q) cu ft/s ft ft ft inch inch 3.60 0.379 4.71 2.50 18.00 56.55 *Notch width equals pipe circumference (pipe open to atmosphere). Overflow crest elevation will be 0.90' (head produced from 6 -month storm event) above notch weir crest discharging to CPS separator. Size Bypass Pipe: (For flows from larger than 6 mo, 24 hr storm) The bypass pipe will be sized to pass a 100 year peak storm.. Contributing Basin = CPS -NE From above: Q peak, 100 yr = 3.60 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/DIP 0.013 0.011 3.74 18 Conc/DIP 0.013 0.002 4.70 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" Q/Q full = 0.77 VN full = 0.97 (from chart) V 4.61 ft/s ok ok ok Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 10 of 10 4/15/99 SBP BUILDING 981 PART III - On -Site Storm Drain Collector Sizing JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 STORM DRAIN COLLECTOR SYSTEM SIZING Use Rational Method to size on-site storm drain conveyance system per KCSWM Manual (1998). Equations: i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Q=C*I(R)*A From KCSWM 1998, Table 3.2.1.A, page 3-13 General Land Cover Runoff Coefficient, C Lawn 0.25 Gravel 0.80 Pavement & Roofs 0.90 From KCSWM 1998, Table 3.2.1.B, page 3-13 Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) 2 year 1.58 0.58 10 year 2.44 0.64 25 year 2.66 0.65 100 year 2.61 0.63 From KCSWM 1998, Table 3.2.1.C, page 3-13 General Land Cover k(R) Lawn 7.0 Nearly bare ground 10.1 Pavem't & shallow gutter flow 20.0 CHECK CAPACITY OF EX 24" SD DOWNSTREAM OF CB 1: Contributing Drainage Areas: This basin consists of 1) the proposed and future Building 982 site which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping; 2) portions of the Oldcastle property which now includes pavement and gravel but the calculations below will assume that the area will eventually be completely paved; and 3) Basin CPS -NW which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) CONTRIBUTING ON-SITE AREA Building 981 Site Building Roof 1.877 Pavement 2.406 Landscaping 0.397 CONTRIBUTING OFF-SITE AREA Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 1 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Building 982 Site Building Roof Pavement Rock Bed Landscaping Oldcastle Property Pavement TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 0.397 1.587 0.048 0.185 2.210 9.107 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 6.203 0.90 Building Roof 2.274 0.90 Rock Bed 0.048 0.80 Landscaping 0.582 0.25 Totals 0.630 0.29 8.477 0.90 0.858 Total Basin Area = 9.107 acres Time of Concentration Starting at the SW corner of the Building 982 site, then running east to approx SE corner of site, then NE to NE corner of site, then north along Oldcastle's east property line. From KCSWM 1998, Tt = U(60"V) V=k(R)"s^0.5 Off-site Basin Type of Type of Length, L s k(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 52 0.02 20 2.83 0.31 pipe channel 27 0.005 20 1.41 0.32 pipe channel 92 0.003 20 1.10 1.40 pipe channel 199 0.004 20 1.26 2.62 pipe channel 160 0.006 20 1.55 1.72 pipe channel 100 0.003 20 1.10 1.52 pipe channel 410 0.003 20 1.10 6.24 Totals 1,040 14.13 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 19.13 minutes Basin CPS -NW Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 2 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 7.0 0.99 0.17 pvmt Sheet 124 0.010 20.0 2.03 1.02 pipe channel 185 0.009 20.0 1.90 1.63 pipe channel 157 0.010 20.0 2.00 1.31 pipe channel 146 0.010 20.0 2.00 1.22 pipe channel 134 0.010 20.0 2.00 1.12 pipe channel 138 0.010 20.0 2.00 1.15 pipe channel 123 0.010 20.0 2.00 1.03 pipe channel 149 0.010 20.0 2.00 1.24 pipe channel 36 0.010 20.0 2.00 0.30 Totals 1,202 10.17 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 15.17 minutes < 19.13 Therefore use Tc = 19.13 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.285 1.98 0.565 4.414 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.369 2.88 1.063 8.306 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.391 3.35 1.309 10.226 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.407 3.55 1.444 11.279 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 10.226 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 24 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.005 17.32 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": Q/Q full = 0.590 VN full = 0.9 (from chart) V = 4.96 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 1 & CB 2: Contributing Drainage Basin: Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 3 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Basin CPS -NW which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) BASIN CPS -NW Building Roof 1.877 Pavement 2.406 Landscaping 0.397 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 4.680 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 2.406 0.90 Building Roof 1.877 0.90 Landscaping 0.397 0.25 Totals 0.397 0.25 4.283 0.90 0.845 Total Basin Area = 4.680 acres Time of Concentration Basin CPS -NW Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 7.0 0.99 0.17 r: mt Sheet 124 0.010 20.0 2.03 1.02 pipe channel 185 0.005 20.0 1.41 2.18 pipe channel 157 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.85 pipe channel 146 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.72 pipe channel 134 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.58 pipe channel 138 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.63 pipe channel 123 0.008 20.0 1.79 1.15 pipe channel 119 0.010 20.0 2.00 0.99 pipe channel 11 0.010 20.0 2.00 0.09 Totals 1,147 12.37 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 17.37 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.302 1.98 0.597 2.362 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.393 2.88 1.130 4.470 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 4 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.416 3.35 1.393 5.509 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.432 3.55 1.534 6.064 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 5.509 n cfs Slope Q (cfs) 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.01 11.38 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.005 8.04 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For slope = 0.005 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.685 VN full = 0.94 (from chart) V = 4.28 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 2 & CB 3: Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NW which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof 1.877 Pavement 1.626 Landscaping 0.196 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 3.699 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 1.626 0.90 Building Roof 1.877 0.90 Landscaping 0.196 0.25 Totals 0.196 0.25 3.503 0.90 0.866 Total Basin Area = 3.699 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 5 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 7.0 0.99 0.17 pvmt Sheet 124 0.010 20.0 2.03 1.02 pipe channel 185 0.005 20.0 1.41 2.18 pipe channel 157 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.85 pipe channel 146 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.72 pipe channel 134 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.58 pipe channel 138 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.63 pipe channel 123 0.008 20.0 1.79 1.15 Totals 1,017 11.29 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 16.29 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.313 1.98 0.620 1.985 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.409 2.88 1.178 3.772 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.434 3.35 1.453 4.651 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.450 3.55 1.597 5.114 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 4.651 Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n cfs Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.015 4.73 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.005 8.04 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.01 11.38 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" at slope = 0.005 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.578 VN full = 0.88 (from chart) V = 4.01 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 3 & CB 4: Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NW which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 6 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Building Roof 1.877 Pavement 1.524 Landscaping 0.182 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 3.583 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 1.524 0.90 Building Roof 1.877 0.90 Landscaping 0.182 0.25 Totals 0.182 0.25 3.401 0.90 0.867 Total Basin Area = 3.583 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 7.0 0.99 0.17 pvmt Sheet 124 0.010 20.0 2.03 1.02 pipe channel 185 0.005 20.0 1.41 2.18 pipe channel 157 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.85 pipe channel 146 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.72 pipe channel 134 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.58 pipe channel 138 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.63 Totals 894 10.14 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 15.14 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.327 1.98 0.647 2.009 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.429 2.88 1.234 3.834 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.455 3.35 1.523 4.732 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.471 3.55 1.672 5.195 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 4.732 n cfs Slope Q (cfs) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 7 of 28 4/15/99 JAS 12 18 18 Conc/PVC Conc/PVC Conc/PVC Check velocity, using "Elements For 18" at slope = 0.005 ft/ft Q/Q full = VN full = V 0.012 0.012 0.012 SBP On-site Collector Sizing 0.0155 0.005 0.01 of Circular Sections": 0.588 0.89 (from chart) 4.05 ft/s 4.80 8.04 11.38 ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 4 & CB 5: ok ok ok Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NW which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof Pavement Landscaping TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Area (acres) Pervious C 1.451 1.024 0.182 2.657 Impervious Area (acres) Impervious Composite C=0.90 C Pavement Building Roof Landscaping 0.182 Totals 0.182 1.024 1.451 0.25 0.90 0.90 Total Basin Area = Time of Concentration 0.25 2.475 2.657 acres Type of Type of Length, L Surface Flow (feet) landscaping Sheet 10 pvmt Sheet 124 pipe channel 185 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. 0.90 0.855 s K(R) Velocity Tt (ft/ft) (minutes) 0.02 7.0 0.99 0.17 0.010 20.0 2.03 1.02 0.005 20.0 1.41 2.18 Page 8 of 28 321-03 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 pipe channel 157 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.85 pipe channel 146 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.72 pipe channel 134 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.58 Totals 756 8.52 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 13.52 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.349 1.98 0.691 1.570 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.461 2.88 1.327 3.017 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.490 3.35 1.640 3.728 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.506 3.55 1.796 4.083 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 3.728 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.01 3.86 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.005 8.04 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" at slope = 0.005 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.463 VN full = 0.83 (from chart) V = 4.08 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 5 & CB 6: ok ok Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NW which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof Pavement 1.451 0.659 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 9 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Landscaping 0.151 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 2.261 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.659 0.90 Building Roof 1.451 0.90 Landscaping 0.151 0.25 Totals 0.151 0.25 2.110 0.90 0.857 Total Basin Area = 2.261 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 7.0 0.99 0.17 pvmt Sheet 124 0.010 20.0 2.03 1.02 pipe channel 185 0.005 20.0 1.41 2.18 pipe channel 157 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.85 pipe channel 146 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.72 Totals 622 6.94 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 11.94 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.375 1.98 0.743 1.438 0 year 2.44 0.64 0.499 2.88 1.437 2.784 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.531 3.35 1.778 3.444 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.547 3.55 1.943 3.763 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 3.444 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.008 3.45 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.005 8.04 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 ok Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 10 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 12" at slope = 0.008 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.998 VN full = 1.03 (from chart) V = 4.69 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEM CB 6 & CB 7: Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NW which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof 1.312 Pavement 0.545 Landscaping 0.120 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 1.977 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.545 0.90 Building Roof 1.312 0.90 Landscaping 0.120 0.25 Totals 0.120 0.25 1.857 0.90 0.861 Total Basin Area = 1.977 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 7.0 0.99 0.17 pvmt Sheet 124 0.010 20.0 2.03 1.02 pipe channel 185 0.005 20.0 1.41 2.18 pipe channel 157 0.005 20.0 1.41 1.85 Totals 476 5.22 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 11 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Time of Concentration, Tc = 10.22 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) 1(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) l(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.410 1.98 0.813 1.383 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.551 2.88 1.588 2.701 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.587 3.35 1.967 3.347 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.604 3.55 2.143 3.646 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 3.347 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.008 3.45 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.005 8.04 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 12" at slope = 0.008 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.970 VN full = 1.03 (from chart) V 4.69 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 7 & CB 8: Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NW which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof 1.104 Pavement 0.282 Landscaping 0.081 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 1.467 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 12 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.282 0.90 Building Roof 1.104 0.90 Landscaping 0.081 0.25 Totals 0.081 0.25 1.386 0.90 0.864 Total Basin Area = 1.467 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 7.0 0.99 0.17 Totals 319 3.37 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 8.37 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.461 1.98 0.913 1.157 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.627 2.88 1.804 2.287 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.669 3.35 2.240 2.840 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.685 3.55 2.430 3.081 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 2.840 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.006 2.99 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.005 8.04 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 12" at slope = 0.006 ft/ft Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 13 of 28 4/15/99 Time of Concentration, Tc = 6.19 minutes Minimum Tc = 6.3 minutes i(R)=a(R)" Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)"i(R) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 14 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) 2 year 1.58 10 year 2.44 25 year 2.66 100 year 2.61 b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 0.58 0.543 1.98 1.076 0.780 0.64 0.751 2.88 2.164 1.569 0.65 0.804 3.35 2.694 1.954 0.63 0.819 3.55 2.906 2.108 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Dia. (in) 12 18 18 Pipe Material Conc/PVC Conc/PVC Conc/PVC 1.954 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 0.012 0.012 0.012 0.003 0.005 0.003 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 12" at slope = 0.003 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.925 VN full = 1.02 (from chart) V 4.64 2.11 8.04 6.23 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 26 & CB 27: ok ok ok Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NE which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof Pavement Landscaping TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Area (acres) Pervious C 2.079 1.374 0.320 3.773 Impervious Area (acres) Impervious Composite C=0.90 C Pavement Building Roof Landscaping 0.320 0.25 1.374 0.90 2.079 0.90 Totals 0.320 0.25 Total Basin Area = Time of Concentration Type of Type of Surface Flow 3.453 0.90 3.773 acres Length, L (feet) s (ft/ft) K(R) 0.845 Velocity Tt (minutes) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 15 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 pvmt Sheet 180 0.030 20.0 3.44 0.87 pipe channel 67 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.79 pipe channel 68 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.80 pipe channel 116 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.05 pipe channel 187 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.69 pipe channel 203 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.83 pipe channel 158 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.43 pipe channel 67 0.007 20.0 1.67 0.67 Totals 1,046 9.13 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 14.13 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.340 1.98 0.673 2.146 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.448 2.88 1.290 4.112 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.476 3.35 1.593 5.078 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.492 3.55 1.747 5.568 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 5.078 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.018 5.18 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" at slope = 0.004 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.981 VN full = (from chart) V 0.00 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 27& CB 28: ok ok Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NE which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof Pavement 2.079 1.090 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 16 of 28 4/15/99 Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.350 1.98 0.692 2.017 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.462 2.88 1.331 3.877 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.491 3.35 1.644 4.790 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.507 3.55 1.801 5.246 ISize collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 4.790 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.0181 4.79 ok 18 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.003 5.75 ok illiLayton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 17 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" at slope = 0.004 ft/ft Q/Q full = 1.000 VN full = (from chart) V 0.00 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 28 & CB 29: Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NE which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof 1.567 Pavement 0.823 Landscaping 0.160 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 2.550 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.823 0.90 Building Roof 1.567 0.90 Landscaping 0.160 0.25 Totals 0.160 0.25 2.390 0.90 0.859 Total Basin Area = 2.550 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 180 0.030 20.0 3.44 0.87 pipe channel 67 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.79 pipe channel 68 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.80 pipe channel 116 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.05 pipe channel 187 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.69 pipe channel 203 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.83 Totals 821 7.04 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 12.04 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 18 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.373 1.98 0.739 1.619 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.496 2.88 1.430 3.132 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.528 3.35 1.768 3.874 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.544 3.55 1.933 4.234 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 3.874 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.011 4.05 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" at slope = 0.004 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.957 VN full = (from chart) V 0.00 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 29 & CB 30: ok ok Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NE which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof 1.354 Pavement 0.774 Landscaping 0.108 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 2.236 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.774 0.90 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 19 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Building Roof 1.354 0.90 Landscaping 0.108 0.25 Totals 0.108 0.25 2.128 0.90 0.869 Total Basin Area = 2.236 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 180 0.030 20.0 3.44 0.87 pipe channel 67 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.79 pipe channel 68 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.80 pipe channel 116 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.05 pipe channel 187 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.69 Totals 618 5.20 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 10.20 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.411 1.98 0.813 1.580 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.552 2.88 1.589 3.087 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.588 3.35 1.969 3.824 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.604 3.55 2.145 4.165 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 3.824 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.01 3.86 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" at slope = 0.004 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.991 VN full = (from chart) V = 0.00 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 30 & CB 31: Contributing Drainage Basin: ok ok Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 20 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Portion of Basin CPS -NE which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof 1.251 Pavement 0.422 Landscaping 0.059 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 1.732 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.422 0.90 Building Roof 1.251 0.90 Landscaping 0.059 0.25 Totals 0.059 0.25 1.673 0.90 0.878 Total Basin Area = 1.732 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 180 0.030 20.0 3.44 0.87 pipe channel 67 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.79 pipe channel 68 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.80 pipe channel 116 0.009 20.0 1.84 1.05 Totals 431 3.51 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 8.51 minutes i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.456 1.98 0.903 1.374 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.620 2.88 1.785 2.713 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.661 3.35 2.215 3.368 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.677 3.55 2.404 3.655 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 3.368 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.0077 3.39 ok Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 21 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" at slope = 0.004 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.995 VN full = (from chart) V = 0.00 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 31 & CB 32: Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NE which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof 1.000 Pavement 0.221 Landscaping 0.043 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 1.263 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.221 0.90 Building Roof 1.000 0.90 Landscaping 0.043 0.25 Totals 0.043 0.25 1.221 0.90 0.878 Total Basin Area = 1.263 acres Time of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 180 0.030 20.0 3.44 0.87 pipe channel 67 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.79 pipe channel 68 0.005 20.0 1.41 0.80 Totals 315 2.46 Assume 5 min wetting time: 5.00 Time of Concentration, Tc = 7.46 minutes Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 22 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.492 1.98 0.975 1.081 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.674 2.88 1.941 2.153 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.720 3.35 2.413 2.676 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.736 3.55 2.611 2.897 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 2.676 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.0049 2.70 18 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.003 6.23 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 18" at slope = 0.004 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.991 VN full = (from chart) V = 0.00 ft/s ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD BETWEEN CB 32 & Cleanout: ok ok Contributing Drainage Basin: Portion of Basin CPS -NE which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Area Description (acres) Building Roof 0.499 Pavement 0.000 Landscaping 0.030 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 0.529 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.000 0.90 Building Roof 0.499 0.90 Landscaping 0.030 0.25 Totals 0.030 0.25 0.499 0.90 0.863 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 23 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Total Basin Area = 0.529 acres ITime of Concentration Type of Type of Length, L s K(R) Velocity Tt Building Roof 0.120 Pavement 0.000 Landscaping 0.000 ITOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 0.120 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 24 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.000 0.90 Building Roof 0.120 0.90 Landscaping 0.000 0.25 Totals 0.000 0.25 0.120 0.90 0.900 Total Basin Area = 0.120 acres Time of Concentration Time of Concentration, Tc = i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) 6.30 minutes = min Tc req'd for Rational Method Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.543 1.98 1.076 0.116 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.751 2.88 2.164 0.234 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.804 3.35 2.694 0.291 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.819 3.55 2.906 0.314 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 0.291 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 4 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.02 0.29 6 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.01 0.61 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 4" at slope = 0.02 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.998 VN full = 1.03 (from chart) V = 3.19 ft/s ok ok ok Conclusion: Downspout collectors collecting runoff from roof areas less than 5,200 square feet can be 4" diameter. Downspout collectors collecting runoff from roof areas greater than 5,200 square feet shall be 6" diameter. Minimum slope on 4" downspout collectors shall be 2%. Minimum slope on 6" downspout collectors shall be 1%. CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD COLLECTING ROOF DRAINAGE & DISCHARGING TO EX SD MH7: Description (acres) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 25 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Building Roof 1.355 Pavement 0.000 Landscaping 0.000 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 1.355 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.000 0.90 Building Roof 1.355 0.90 Landscaping 0.000 0.25 Totals 0.000 0.25 1.355 0.90 0.900 Total Basin Area = 1.355 acres Time of Concentration Time of Concentration, Tc = i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) 6.30 minutes = min Tc req'd for Rational Method Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.543 1.98 1.076 1.312 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.751 2.88 2.164 2.639 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.804 3.35 2.694 3.285 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.819 3.55 2.906 3.544 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 3.285 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 8 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.064 3.31 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.0075 3.34 Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 8" at slope = 0.064 ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.992 VN full = 1.03 (from chart) V = 4.38 ft/s ok ok ok CHECK CAPACITY OF PROPOSED SD COLLECTING ROOF DRAINAGE & DISCHARGING TO CB 16: Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 26 of 28 4/15/99 JAS SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 Description (acres) Building Roof 1.879 Pavement 0.000 Landscaping 0.000 TOTAL CONTRIBUTING AREA 1.879 Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious Composite (acres) C (acres) C=0.90 C Pavement 0.000 0.90 Building Roof 1.879 0.90 Landscaping 0.000 0.25 Totals 0.000 0.25 1.879 0.90 0.900 Total Basin Area = 1.879 acres Time of Concentration Time of Concentration, Tc = i(R)=a(R)*Tc^(-b(R)) I(R)=P(R)*i(R) 6.30 minutes = min Tc req'd for Rational Method Design Storm Return Freq. a(R) b(R) i(R) P(R) I(R) Q=C*I(R)*A 2 year 1.58 0.58 0.543 1.98 1.076 1.819 10 year 2.44 0.64 0.751 2.88 2.164 3.658 25 year 2.66 0.65 0.804 3.35 2.694 4.554 100 year 2.61 0.63 0.819 3.55 2.906 4.913 Size collector for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 4.554 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 8 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.02 1.85 no good 12 Conc/PVC 0.012 0.014 4.57 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": For 12" at slope = 0.014ft/ft Q/Q full = 0.998 VN full = 1.03 (from chart) V = 5.99 ft/s ok Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 27 of 28 4/15/99 JAS Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. SBP On-site Collector Sizing 321-03 S Fi6t-b IS I NIT FOn dlf /{ZL`/ LAI L . Page 28 of 28 4/15/99 SBP BUILDING 981 PART IV - Downstream Drainage System Calculations JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 GENERAL NOTES The calc's below are for checking the capacity of the downstream drainage system. The geotechnical report says the site soils generally consist of dense sand and gravel fill with varying amounts of silt and cobbles overlying native alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded fine to medium sand, sandy silt and silt in a loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff condition. Therefore, assume that the Hydrologic Soil Type is type B. Rainfall from KC Drainage Manual 6 month - 24 hr 2 yr - 24 hr 5 yr - 24 hr 10 yr-24hr 25 yr - 24 hr 100 yr-24hr 1.27 inches 1.98 inches 2.38 inches 2.88 inches 3.35 inches 3.55 inches Curve Numbers: CN Water Surfaces 100 Pavement & Roofs 98 Gravel Roads & Parking Areas 85 Landscaping (grass cover > 75% of area) 80 BASIN 1 DRAINAGE BASIN RUNOFF CALCULATIONS Area = 4.43 acres This basin consists of the proposed and future Building 982 site which includes building roof, pavement and landscaping and portions of the Oldcastle property which now includes pavement and gravel but the calculations below will assume that the area will eventually be completely paved. Runoff Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 3.797 98 Building Roof 0.397 98 Rock Bed . 0.048 85 Landscaping 0.185 80 Totals 0.233 81.0 4.194 98 Total Basin Area = 4.427 acres Time of Concentration: From Dept of Ecology Stormwater Technical Manual: Sheet Flow Travel Time, Tt = (0.42 x (ns x L)^0.8)+((P2)^0.527 x (s)^0.4), where Tt = travel time (minutes) ns = sheet flow Manning's effective roughness coeff from DoE Table III -1.4 L = flow length (feet) P2 = 2 year, 24 hour rainfall (inches) = 1.98 inches Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 1 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System Calc's 321-03 s = slope of hydraulic grade line (land slope, ft/ft) Flow with measurable depth Travel Time, Tt = L=(60 x k x s^0.5), where k = time of concentration velocity factor, from DoE Table III -1.4 Time of Concentration Basin 1 to Ex MH 17: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 52 0.02 0.011 0.90 pipe channel 27 0.005 42 0.15 pipe channel 92 0.003 42 0.67 pipe channel 199 0.004 42 1.25 pipe channel 160 0.006 42 0.82 pipe channel 100 0.003 42 0.72 pipe channel 410 0.009 42 1.71 pipe channel 144 0.003 42 1.04 pipe channel 13 0.005 42 0.07 pipe channel 224 0.001 42 2.81 Totals 1,421 10.15 Time of Concentration, Tc = 10.15 minutes Basin 1 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 3.36 3.57 BASIN 2 Area = 7.17 acres This basin consists of a portion of the proposed Building 981 site which discharges to Ex MH 17. It includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 4.624 98 Building Roof 1.877 98 Rock & Gravel 0.000 85 Landscaping 0.667 80 Totals 0.667 80.0 6.501 98.0 Time of Concentration Basin 2 to ex MH 17: Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 2 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Type of Type of Length, L s Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) landscaping Sheet 10 0.02 pvmt Sheet 124 0.010 pipe channel 185 0.009 pipe channel 157 0.010 pipe channel 146 0.010 pipe channel 134 0.010 pipe channel 138 0.010 pipe channel 123 0.010 pipe channel 149 0.010 pipe channel 36 0.010 pipe channel 107 0.003 pipe _channel 13 0.005 pipe channel 224 0.001 Totals 1,546 ns 0.150 0.011 Time of Concentration, Tc = 12.22 minutes Basin 2 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 5.14 5.47 k Tt (minutes) 1.94 2.34 42 0.77 42 0.62 42 0.58 42 0.53 42 0.55 42 0.49 42 0.59 42 0.14 42 0.78 42 0.07 42 2.81 12.22 BASIN 3 Area = 3.610 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located north of Segale Drive "C" which could drain to the 24" sd between Ex MH 17 and Ex MH 16. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 3.430 98 Landscaping 0.181 80 Totals 0.181 80.0 3.430 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 16 (Basin 3): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 215 0.01 0.011 3.68 pipe channel 280 0.002 42 2.48 Totals 495 6.17 Time of Concentration, Tc = 6.17 minutes Basin 3 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 2.92 3.10 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 3 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 BASIN 4 Area = 3.859 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located north of Segale Drive "C" which may drain to the 24" sd between Ex MH 16 and Ex MH 15. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 3.666 98 Landscaping 0.193 80 Totals 0.193 80.0 3.666 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 15 (Basin 4): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 140 0.01 0.011 2.61 pipe channel 390 0.002 42 3.46 Totals 530 6.07 Time of Concentration, Tc = 6.07 minutes Basin 4 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 3.13 3.33 BASIN 5 Area = 1.947 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located north of Segale Drive "C" which may drain to the 30" sd between Ex MH 15 and Ex MH 14. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 1.850 98 Landscaping 0.097 80 Totals 0.097 80.0 1.850 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 14 (Basin 5): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 4 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 pvmt Sheet 180 0.01 0.011 pipe channel 130 0.002 Totals 310 Time of Concentration, Tc = 4.35 minutes 42 Basin 5 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 1.70 1.80 3.19 1.15 4.35 BASIN 6 Area = 2.243 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located north of Segale Drive "C" which may drain to the 30" sd between Ex MH 14 and Ex MH 13. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 2.131 98 Landscaping 0.112 80 Totals 0.112 80.0 2.131 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 13 (Basin 6): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 160 0.01 0.011 2.91 pipe channel 190 0.002 42 1.69 Totals 350 4.59 Time of Concentration, Tc = 4.59 minutes Basin 6 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 1.93 2.06 BASIN 7 Area = 3.310 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located north of Segale Drive "C" which may drain to the 30" sd between Ex MH 13 and Ex MH 12. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 3.145 98 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 5 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Landscaping 0.166 80 Totals 0.166 80.0 3.145 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 12 (Basin 7): Type of Type of Length, L s ns Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) pvmt Sheet 130 0.01 0.011 pipe channel 330 0.002 Totals 460 Time of Concentration, Tc = 5.39 minutes k 42 Basin 7 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 2.76 2.94 Tt (minutes) 2.46 2.93 5.39 BASIN 8 Area = 1.267 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located north of Segale Drive "C" which may drain to Ex MH 11. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 1.204 98 Landscaping 0.063 80 Totals 0.063 80.0 1.204 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 11 (Basin 8): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 190 0.01 0.011 3.33 pipe channel 40 0.002 42 0.35 Totals 230 3.69 Time of Concentration, Tc = 3.69 minutes Basin 8 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 1.14 1.21 BASIN 9 Area = 2.310 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located north of Segale Drive "C" which may drain to the 30" sd between Ex MH 11 and Ex MH 10 (between Segale Drive "C" and Segale Drive "A"). The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 6 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 2.195 98 Landscaping 0.116 80 Totals 0.116 80.0 2.195 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 10 (Basin 9): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 100 0.01 0.011 2.00 pipe channel 275 0.002 42 2.44 Totals 375 4.44 Time of Concentration, Tc = 4.44 minutes Basin 9 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 2.00 2.13 BASIN 10 Area = 1.978 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located north of Segale Drive "C" which may drain to the 30" sd between Ex MH 10 and Ex MH 2. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 1.879 98 Landscaping 0.099 80 Totals 0.099 80.0 1.879 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 2 (Basin 10): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 150 0.01 0.011 2.76 pipe channel 275 0.002 42 2.44 Totals 425 5.20 Time of Concentration, Tc = 5.20 minutes Basin 10 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 1.66 1.77 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 7 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 BASIN 11 Area = 4.648 acres This basin consists of a portion of the proposed Building 981 site which discharges to Ex MH 7. It includes building roof, pavement and landscaping. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pavement 2.195 98 Building Roof 2.079 98 Landscaping 0.374 80 Totals 0.374 80.0 4.274 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 7 (Basin 11): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 50 0.020 0.011 0.87 pvmt Sheet 40 0.007 0.011 1.08 pipe channel 116 0.009 42 0.50 pipe channel 187 0.009 42 0.80 pipe channel 203 0.009 42 0.87 pipe channel 158 0.009 42 0.68 pipe channel 112 0.005 42 0.63 Totals 866 5.44 Time of Concentration, Tc = 5.44 minutes Basin 11 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 3.80 4.04 BASIN 12 Area = 6.516 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located along Segale Drive "A" which may drain to the 21" sd between Ex MH 7 and Ex MH 6. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 8 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 6.190 98 Landscaping 0.326 80 Totals 0.326 80.0 6.190 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 6 (Basin 12): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 300 0.01 0.011 4.81 pipe channel 425 0.002 42 3.77 Totals 725 8.58 Time of Concentration, Tc = 8.58 minutes Basin 12 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 5.04 5.36 BASIN 13 Area = 6.062 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located along Segale Drive "A" which may drain to the 24" sd between Ex MH 6 and Ex MH 5. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 5.759 98 Landscaping 0.303 80 Totals 0.303 80.0 5.759 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 5 (Basin 13): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 290 0.01 0.011 4.68 pipe channel 350 0.002 42 3.11 Totals 640 7.78 Time of Concentration, Tc = 7.78 minutes Basin 13 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 4.72 5.02 BASIN 14 Area = 5.967 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located along Segale Drive "A" which may drain to the 30" sd between Ex MH 5 and Ex MH 4. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 9 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 5.669 98 Landscaping 0.298 80 Totals 0.298 80.0 5.669 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 4 (Basin 14): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 280 0.01 0.011 4.55 pipe channel 410 0.002 42 3.64 Totals 690 8.19 Time of Concentration, Tc = 8.19 minutes Basin 14 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 4.63 4.93 BASIN 15 Area = 6.987 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located along Segale Drive "A" which may drain to the 30" sd between Ex MH 4 and Ex MH 3. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 6.638 98 Landscaping 0.349 80 Totals 0.349 80.0 6.638 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 3 (Basin 15): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 300 0.01 0.011 4.81 pipe channel 420 0.002 42 3.73 Totals 720 8.53 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 10 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Time of Concentration, Tc = 8.53 minutes Basin 15 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 5.41 5.75 BASIN 16 Area = 4.976 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located along Segale Drive "A" which may drain to the 30" sd between Ex MH 3 and Ex MH 2. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 4.727 98 Landscaping 0.249 80 Totals 0.249 80.0 4.727 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 2 (Basin 16): Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pvmt Sheet 300 0.01 0.011 4.81 pipe channel 340 0.002 42 3.02 Totals 640 7.82 Time of Concentration, Tc = 7.82 minutes Basin 16 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 3.88 4.12 BASIN 17 Area = 3.663 acres This basin consists of building roof, pavement and landscaping located along Segale Drive "A" which may drain to the 48" sd between Ex MH 2 and Ex MH 1. The areas below are a conservative estimate. Assume 95% of total area is impervious. Curve Numbers: Pervious Impervious Area Pervious Area Impervious (acres) CN (acres) CN = 98 Pav't/Roof 3.480 98 Landscaping 0.183 80 Totals 0.183 80.0 3.480 98.0 Time of Concentration to Ex MH 1 (Basin 17): Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 11 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Type of Type of Length, L s ns Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) pvmt Sheet 300 0.01 0.011 pipe channel 360 0.002 Totals 660 Time of Concentration, Tc = 8.00 minutes k 42 Basin 17 Return Period 25 Year 100 Year Q peak, cfs 2.85 3.03 Tt (minutes) 4.81 3.19 8.00 Hydrograph Results: Hydrographs were generated using the Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (DoE Spreadsheet Version). A summary of the results for the 25 yr , 24 hour storm is shown below. The 10 minute interval hydrograph results are not included with this report but can be provided upon request. Summary: Location Basin Q(25 yr) Vol (25yr) cfs cf Ex MH 16 sum 1 thru 3 10.64 165,825 Ex MH 15 sum 1 thru 4 13.78 208,355 Ex MH 14 sum 1 thru 5 15.47 229,812 Ex MH 13 sum 1 thru 6 17.41 254,532 Ex MH 12 sum 1 thru 7 20.17 291,010 Ex MH 11 sum 1 thru 8 21.31 304,974 Ex MH 10 sum 1 thru 9 23.31 330,432 Ex MH 2 sum 1 thru 10 24.97 352,231 Ex MH 6 sum 11 thru 12 8.64 122,214 Ex MH 5 sum 11 thru 13 13.35 189,022 Ex MH 4 sum 11 thru 14 17.99 254,783 Ex MH 3 sum 11 thru 15 23.39 331,786 Ex MH 2 sum 11 thru 16 27.27 386,625 Ex MH 2 sum 1 thru 16 58.41 828,090 Ex MH 1 sum 1 thru 17 61.26 868,459 Basins 1, 2 and 3 at Ex MH 16: Basins 1 and 2 were computed to Ex MH 17. Basin 3 was computed to Ex MH 16. Between Ex MH 16 and Ex MH 17 is 483 If of 24" sd at s=0.002 ft/ft. Travel time: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pipe channel 483 0.002 42 4.29 Totals 483 4.29 Travel time = 4.29 minutes Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 12 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Since the hydrograph time step is 10 minutes, sum these hydrographs with no lag time. Basin 1,2&3 Return Period 25 Year Q peak, cfs 10.64 Basins 1, 2,3and4atExMH 15: Travel time between Ex MH 16 and Ex MH 15: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pipe channel 415 0.002 42 3.68 Totals 415 3.68 Travel time = 3.68 minutes Since the hydrograph time step is 10 minutes, sum these hydrographs with no lag time. Basins 1, 2, 3,4and5atExMH 14: Travel time between Ex MH 15 and Ex MH 14: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pipe channel 146 0.002 42 1.30 Totals 146 1.30 Travel time = 1.30 minutes Since the hydrograph time step is 10 minutes, sum these hydrographs with no lag time. Basins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at Ex MH 13: Travel time between Ex MH 14 and Ex MH 13: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pipe channel 207 0.002 42 1.84 Totals 207 1.84 Travel time = 1.84 minutes Since the hydrograph time step is 10 minutes, sum these hydrographs with no lag time. Basins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at Ex MH 13: Travel time between Ex MH 14 and Ex MH 13: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pipe channel 207 0.002 42 1.84 Totals 207 1.84 Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 13 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Travel time = 1.84 minutes Since the hydrograph time step is 10 minutes, sum these hydrographs with no lag time. Basins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 at Ex MH 12: Travel time between Ex MH 13 and Ex MH 12: Type of Type of Length, L s ns k Tt Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) (minutes) pipe channel 360 0.002 42 3.19 Totals 360 3.19 Travel time = 3.19 minutes Since the hydrograph time step is 10 minutes, sum these hydrographs with no lag time. Basins 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 at Ex MH 11: Travel time between Ex MH 12 and Ex MH 11: Type of Type of Length, L s Surface Flow (feet) (ft/ft) pipe channel 42 0.002 Totals 42 ns k Tt (minutes) 42 0.37 0.37 Travel time = 0.37 minutes Since the hydrograph time step is 10 minutes, sum these hydrographs with no lag time. CHECK FLOW CONDITIONS IN DOWNSTREAM COLLECTORS: COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH17 AND EX MH16 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Contributing Drainage Basins: 1, 2 and 3 Q peak, 25 yr = 10.64 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 24 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 10.11 surcharge 24 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.0023 10.85 ok Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 14 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH16 AND EX MH15 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 13.78 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 24 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 10.11 surcharge 24 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.0038 13.94 ok COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH15 AND EX MH14 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 15.47 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 30 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 18.34 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": Q/Q full = 0.844 VN full = 1 (from chart) V = 3.74 ft/s ok COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH14 AND EX MH13 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 17.41 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 30 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 18.34 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": Q/Q full VN full = 0.949 1.04 (from chart) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 15 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 V = 3.88 ft/s ok COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH13 AND EX MH12 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 20.17 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 30 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 18.34 surcharge 30 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.0025 20.50 ok COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH12 AND EX MH11 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 21.31 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 30 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 18.34 surcharge 30 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.0028 21.70 ok COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH11 AND EX MH10 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material 23.31 cfs n Slope Q (cfs) 42 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 44.98 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": Q/Q full = 0.518 VN full = 0.84 (from chart) D/D full = 0.57 V = 3.93 ft/s ok Depth = 1.995 feet The invert of the 42" sd at Ex MH10 = 12.06 Estimate the water surface elevation in pipe at Ex MH10 = 14.06 feet COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH10 AND EX MH2 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = Trial Pipe Pipe 24.97 cfs Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 16 of 18 4/15/99 tJAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System CaIc's 321-03 Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) I42 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 44.98 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": IQ/Q full = 0.555 VN full = 0.87 (from chart) Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 17 of 18 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Downstream Drainage System Calc's 321-03 COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH4 AND EX MH3 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 23.39 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 30 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 18.34 surcharge COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH3 AND EX MH2 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 27.27 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 30 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 18.34 surcharge COLLECTOR BETWEEN EX MH2 AND EX MH1 Size collectors for 25 year design storm: Q peak, 25 yr = 61.26 cfs Trial Pipe Pipe Dia. (in) Material n Slope Q (cfs) 48 Conc/PVC 0.013 0.002 64.22 ok Check velocity, using "Elements of Circular Sections": Q/Q full VN full V 0.954 D/D full = 0.9 1.03 (from chart) Depth = 3.6 feet = 5.26 ft/s ok The invert of the 48" sd at Ex MH1 = 11.75 Estimate the water surface elevation in pipe at Ex MH1 = 15.35 feet Since it appears from the above calculations that a portion of the downstream drainage system is surcharged, run backwater analysis to determine the slope of the HGL. Refer to Appendix B for the backwater calculations. Layton & Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 18 of 18 4/15/99 SBP BUILDING 981 APPENDIX A Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (DoE Spreadsheet Version) 25 year, 24 hour Hydrographs Basins A & B Existing and Developed Conditions JAS Appendix A: 25 Year, 24 Hr Hydrograph SBP Bldg 981 Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (DoE Spreadsheet Version) Project: SBP Building 981 Given: Basin: B (Existing Conditions) Area = 11.73 acres Pt = 3.35 inches (Total rainfall for a 25 yr, 24 Hr storm) dt = 10 min. Tc = 8.13 min. PERVIOUS Parcel IMPERVIOUS Parcel Area = 11.73 acres Area = 0 arces CN = 85 CN = 98 S = 1.76471 S = 0.20408 0.2S = 0.35294 0.2S = 0.04082 Routing Constant, 0.38081 Results: Qpeak = 5.57 cfs Runoff Volume = 80.2837 x 1000 cu ft Hydrograph: Time Q Time Q Time Q Time Q Time Q hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs 0.17 0.00 5.83 0.56 11.50 1.29 17.17 0.79 22.83 0.81 0.33 0.00 6.00 0.64 11.67 1.29 17.33 0.79 23.00 0.81 0.50 0.00 6.17 0.70 11.83 1.30 17.50 0.79 23.17 0.82 0.67 0.00 6.33 0.75 12.00 1.30 17.67 0.79 23.33 0.82 0.83 0.00 6.50 0.79 12.17 1.31 17.83 0.79 23.50 0.82 1.00 0.00 6.67 0.83 12.33 1.31 18.00 0.79 23.67 0.82 1.17 0.00 6.83 1.01 12.50 1.32 18.17 0.79 23.83 0.82 1.33 0.00 7.00 1.24 12.67 1.32 18.33 0.79 24.00 0.82 1.50 0.00 7.17 1.35 12.83 1.22 18.50 0.79 24.17 0.51 1.67 0.00 7.33 1.63 13.00 1.10 18.67 0.79 24.33 0.12 1.83 0.00 7.50 1.97 13.17 1.07 18.83 0.79 24.50 0.03 2.00 0.00 7.67 2.91 13.33 1.06 19.00 0.79 24.67 0.01 2.17 0.00 7.83 5.16 13.50 1.07 19.17 0.79 24.83 0.00 2.33 0.00 8.00 5.57 13.67 1.07 19.33 0.80 25.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 8.17 3.88 13.83 1.07 19.50 0.80 25.17 0.00 2.67 0.00 8.33 2.75 14.00 1.07 19.67 0.80 25.33 0.00 2.83 0.00 8.50 2.25 14.17 1.08 19.83 0.80 25.50 0.00 3.00 0.00 8.67 2.15 14.33 1.08 20.00 0.80 25.67 0.00 3.17 0.00 8.83 1.87 14.50 1.08 20.17 0.80 25.83 0.00 3.33 0.00 9.00 1.53 14.67 1.08 20.33 0.80 26.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 9.17 1.46 14.83 1.04 20.50 0.80 26.17 0.00 3.67 0.00 9.33 1.45 15.00 0.97 20.67 0.80 26.33 0.00 3.83 0.01 9.50 1.46 15.17 0.96 20.83 0.80 26.50 0.00 4.00 0.04 9.67 1.47 15.33 0.96 21.00 0.80 26.67 0.00 4.17 0.08 9.83 1.48 15.50 0.96 21.17 0.81 26.83 0.00 4.33 0.12 10.00 1.49 15.67 0.96 21.33 0.81 27.00 0.00 4.50 0.15 10.17 1.50 15.83 0.96 21.50 0.81 27.17 0.00 4.67 0.19 10.33 1.51 16.00 0.97 21.67 0.81 27.33 0.00 4.83 0.25 10.50 1.52 16.17 0.97 21.83 0.81 27.50 0.00 5.00 0.31 10.67 1.53 16.33 0.97 22.00 0.81 27.67 0.00 5.17 0.36 10.83 1.43 16.50 0.97 22.17 0.81 27.83 0.00 5.33 0.40 11.00 1.31 16.67 0.97 22.33 0.81 28.00 0.00 5.50 0.44 11.17 1.28 16.83 0.90 22.50 0.81 28.17 0.00 5.67 0.48 11.33 1.28 17.00 0.81 22.67 0.81 28.33 0.00 Layton & Sell 1 of 1 4/15/99 JAS Appendix A: 25 Year, 24 Hr Hydrograph SBP Bldg 981 Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (DoE Spreadsheet Version) Project: SBP Building 981 Given: Basin: B (Developed Conditions) Area = 11.73 acres Pt = 3.35 inches (Total rainfall for a 25 yr, 24 Hr storm) dt = 10 min. Tc = 12.22 min. PERVIOUS Parcel IMPERVIOUS Parcel Area = 0.667 acres Area = 11.063 • arces CN = 80 CN = 98 S = 2.5 S = 0.20408 0.2S = 0.5 0.2S = 0.04082 Routing Constant, 0.29036 Results: Qpeak = 8.59 cfs Runoff Volume = 128.807 x 1000 cu ft Hydrograph: Time Q Time Q Time Q Time Q Time Q hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs 0.17 0.00 5.83 1.81 11.50 1.67 17.17 0.96 22.83 0.94 0.33 0.00 6.00 1.94 11.67 1.67 17.33 0.94 23.00 0.94 0.50 0.00 6.17 1.99 11.83 1.67 17.50 0.94 23.17 0.94 0.67 0.01 6.33 2.03 12.00 1.67 17.67 0.93 23.33 0.94 0.83 0.06 6.50 2.04 12.17 1.67 17.83 0.93 23.50 0.94 1.00 0.14 6.67 2.06 12.33 1.67 18.00 0.93 23.67 0.94 1.17 0.21 6.83 2.31 12.50 1.67 18.17 0.93 23.83 0.94 1.33 0.28 7.00 2.66 12.67 1.67 18.33 0.93 24.00 0.94 1.50 0.34 7.17 2.82 12.83 1.57 18.50 0.93 24.17 0.66 1.67 0.39 7.33 3.19 13.00 1.42 18.67 0.93 24.33 0.28 1.83 0.48 7.50 3.66 13.17 1.36 18.83 0.93 24.50 0.12 2.00 0.58 7.67 4.91 13.33 1.34 19.00 0.93 24.67 0.05 2.17 0.64 7.83 7.81 13.50 1.33 19.17 0.93 24.83 0.02 2.33 0.70 8.00 8.59 13.67 1.33 19.33 0.93 25.00 0.01 2.50 0.74 8.17 6.57 13.83 1.32 19.50 0.93 25.17 0.00 2.67 0.77 8.33 4.83 14.00 1.32 19.67 0.93 25.33 0.00 2.83 0.85 8.50 3.80 14.17 1.32 19.83 0.93 25.50 0.00 3.00 0.95 8.67 3.37 14.33 1.32 20.00 0.93 25.67 0.00 3.17 1.01 8.83 2.89 14.50 1.32 20.17 0.93 25.83 0.00 3.33 1.05 9.00 2.38 14.67 1.32 20.33 0.93 26.00 0.00 3.50 1.08 9.17 2.17 14.83 1.28 20.50 0.93 26.17 0.00 3.67 1.10 9.33 2.08 15.00 1.21 20.67 0.93 26.33 0.00 3.83 1.18 9.50 2.05 15.17 1.18 20.83 0.93 26.50 0.00 4.00 1.28 9.67 2.03 15.33 1.17 21.00 0.93 26.67 0.00 4.17 1.33 9.83 2.03 15.50 1.17 21.17 0.93 26.83 0.00 4.33 1.36 10.00 2.02 15.67 1.16 21.33 0.93 27.00 0.00 4.50 1.38 10.17 2.02 15.83 1.16 21.50 0.93 27.17 0.00 4.67 1.40 10.33 2.03 16.00 1.16 21.67 0.93 27.33 0.00 4.83 1.48 10.50 2.03 16.17 1.16 21.83 0.93 27.50 0.00 5.00 1.60 10.67 2.03 16.33 1.16 22.00 0.93 27.67 0.00 5.17 1.65 10.83 1.92 16.50 1.16 22.17 0.94 27.83 0.00 5.33 1.68 11.00 1.77 16.67 1.16 22.33 0.94 28.00 0.00 5.50 1.70 11.17 1.71 16.83 1.10 22.50 0.94 28.17 0.00 5.67 1.72 11.33 1.68 17.00 1.00 22.67 0.94 28.33 0.00 Layton & Sell 1 of 1 4/15/99 JAS Appendix A: 25 Year, 24 Hr Hydrograph SBP Bldg 981 Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (DoE Spreadsheet Version) Project: SBP Building 981 - Downstream Drainage Analysis Given: Basin: A (Existing Conditions) Area = 4.648 acres Pt = 3.35 inches (Total rainfall for a 25 yr, 24 Hr storm) dt = 10 min. Tc = 9.26 min. PERVIOUS Parcel IMPERVIOUS Parcel Area = 4.648 acres Area = 0 arces CN = 85 CN = 98 S = 1.76471 S = 0.20408 0.2S = 0.35294 0.2S = 0.04082 Routing Constant, 0.35063 Results: Qpeak = 2.17 cfs Runoff Volume = 31.8123 x 1000 cu ft Hydrograph: Time Q Time Q Time Q Time Q Time Q hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs 0.17 0.00 5.83 0.22 11.50 0.51 17.17 0.31 22.83 0.32 0.33 0.00 6.00 0.25 11.67 0.51 17.33 0.31 23.00 0.32 0.50 0.00 6.17 0.27 11.83 0.51 17.50 0.31 23.17 0.32 0.67 0.00 6.33 0.29 12.00 0.52 17.67 0.31 23.33 0.32 0.83 0.00 6.50 0.31 12.17 0.52 17.83 0.31 23.50 0.32 1.00 0.00 6.67 0.33 12.33 0.52 18.00 0.31 23.67 0.32 1.17 0.00 6.83 0.40 12.50 0.52 18.17 0.31 23.83 0.32 1.33 0.00 7.00 0.48 12.67 0.52 18.33 0.31 24.00 0.32 1.50 0.00 7.17 0.53 12.83 0.49 18.50 0.31 24.17 0.21 1.67 0.00 7.33 0.63 13.00 0.44 18.67 0.31 24.33 0.06 1.83 0.00 7.50 0.77 13.17 0.43 18.83 0.31 24.50 0.02 2.00 0.00 7.67 1.12 13.33 0.42 19.00 0.31 24.67 0.01 2.17 0.00 7.83 1.96 13.50 0.42 19.17 0.31 24.83 0.00 2.33 0.00 8.00 2.17 13.67 0.42 19.33 0.32 25.00 0.00 2.50 0.00 8.17 1.58 13.83 0.42 19.50 0.32 25.17 0.00 2.67 0.00 8.33 1.14 14.00 0.43 19.67 0.32 25.33 0.00 2.83 0.00 8.50 0.92 14.17 0.43 19.83 0.32 25.50 0.00 3.00 0.00 8.67 0.86 14.33 0.43 20.00 0.32 25.67 0.00 3.17 0.00 8.83 0.75 14.50 0.43 20.17 0.32 25.83 0.00 3.33 0.00 9.00 0.62 14.67 0.43 20.33 0.32 26.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 9.17 0.59 14.83 0.41 20.50 0.32 26.17 0.00 3.67 0.00 9.33 0.58 15.00 0.39 20.67 0.32 26.33 0.00 3.83 0.00 9.50 0.58 15.17 0.38 20.83 0.32 26.50 0.00 4.00 0.01 9.67 0.58 15.33 0.38 21.00 0.32 26.67 0.00 4.17 0.03 9.83 0.59 15.50 0.38 21.17 0.32 26.83 0.00 4.33 0.04 10.00 0.59 15.67 0.38 21.33 0.32 27.00 0.00 4.50 0.06 10.17 0.59 15.83 0.38 21.50 0.32 27.17 0.00 4.67 0.07 10.33 0.60 16.00 0.38 21.67 0.32 27.33 0.00 4.83 0.10 10.50 0.60 16.17 0.38 21.83 0.32 27.50 0.00 5.00 0.12 10.67 0.61 16.33 0.38 22.00 0.32 27.67 0.00 5.17 0.14 10.83 0.57 16.50 0.39 22.17 0.32 27.83 0.00 5.33 0.16 11.00 0.52 16.67 0.39 22.33 0.32 28.00 0.00 5.50 0.17 11.17 0.51 16.83 0.36 22.50 0.32 28.17 0.00 5.67 0.19 11.33 0.51 17.00 0.32 22.67 0.32 28.33 0.00 Layton & Sell 1 of 1 4/15/99 JAS Appendix A: 25 Year, 24 Hr Hydrograph SBP Bldg 981 Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method (DoE Spreadsheet Version) Project: SBP Building 981 Given: Basin: A (Developed Conditions) Area = 4.648 acres Pt = 3.35 inches (Total rainfall for a 25 yr, 24 Hr storm) dt = 10 min. Tc = 5.44 min. PERVIOUS Parcel IMPERVIOUS Parcel Area = 0.374 acres Area = 4.274 arces CN = 80 CN = 98 S = 2.5 S = 0.20408 0.2S = 0.5 0.2S = 0.04082 Routing Constant, 0.47893 Results: Qpeak = 3.80 cfs Runoff Volume = 50.403 x 1000 cu ft Hydrograph: Time Q Time Q Time Q Time Q Time Q hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs hrs cfs 0.17 0.00 5.83 0.73 11.50 0.65 17.17 0.37 22.83 0.37 0.33 0.00 6.00 0.78 11.67 0.65 17.33 0.37 23.00 0.37 0.50 0.00 6.17 0.79 11.83 0.65 17.50 0.37 23.17 0.37 0.67 0.01 6.33 0.79 12.00 0.65 17.67 0.37 23.33 0.37 0.83 0.04 6.50 0.80 12.17 0.65 17.83 0.37 23.50 0.37 1.00 0.07 6.67 0.80 12.33 0.65 18.00 0.37 23.67 0.37 1.17 0.10 6.83 0.96 12.50 0.66 18.17 0.37 23.83 0.37 1.33 0.13 7.00 1.13 12.67 0.66 18.33 0.37 24.00 0.37 1.50 0.15 7.17 1.14 12.83 0.59 18.50 0.37 24.17 0.19 1.67 0.17 7.33 1.34 13.00 0.52 18.67 0.37 24.33 0.01 1.83 0.21 7.50 1.55 13.17 0.52 18.83 0.37 24.50 0.00 2.00 0.25 7.67 2.24 13.33 0.52 19.00 0.37 24.67 0.00 2.17 0.27 7.83 3.80 13.50 0.52 19.17 0.37 24.83 0.00 2.33 0.28 8.00 3.59 13.67 0.52 19.33 0.37 25.00 0.00 2.50 0.30 8.17 2.07 13.83 0.52 19.50 0.37 25.17 0.00 2.67 0.31 8.33 1.43 14.00 0.52 19.67 0.37 25.33 0.00 2.83 0.35 8.50 1.21 14.17 0.52 19.83 0.37 25.50 0.00 3.00 0.39 8.67 1.20 14.33 0.52 20.00 0.37 25.67 0.00 3.17 0.41 8.83 1.00 14.50 0.52 20.17 0.37 25.83 0.00 3.33 0.42 9.00 0.80 14.67 0.52 20.33 0.37 26.00 0.00 3.50 0.42 9.17 0.79 14.83 0.49 20.50 0.37 26.17 0.00 3.67 0.43 9.33 0.79 15.00 0.46 20.67 0.37 26.33 0.00 3.83 0.47 9.50 0.79 15.17 0.46 20.83 0.37 26.50 0.00 4.00 0.52 9.67 0.79 15.33 0.46 21.00 0.37 26.67 0.00 4.17 0.53 9.83 0.79 15.50 0.46 21.17 0.37 26.83 0.00 4.33 0.53 10.00 0.79 15.67 0.46 21.33 0.37 27.00 0.00 4.50 0.54 10.17 0.79 15.83 0.46 21.50 0.37 27.17 0.00 4.67 0.54 10.33 0.80 16.00 0.46 21.67 0.37 27.33 0.00 4.83 0.59 10.50 0.80 16.17 0.46 21.83 0.37 27.50 0.00 5.00 0.65 10.67 0.80 16.33 0.46 22.00 0.37 27.67 0.00 5.17 0.65 10.83 0.73 16.50 0.46 22.17 0.37 27.83 0.00 5.33 0.66 11.00 0.66 16.67 0.46 22.33 0.37 28.00 0.00 5.50 0.66 11.17 0.65 16.83 0.41 22.50 0.37 28.17 0.00 5.67 0.67 11.33 0.65 17.00 0.37 22.67 0.37 28.33 0.00 Layton & Sell 1 of 1 4/15/99 SBP BUILDING 981 APPENDIX B Backwater Calculations JAS SBP Building 981 Backwater Calculations Appendix B Location HG Elev Overflow Q peak Pipe 0 N Length HG Slope Elev ft Elev, ft cfs in ft ft/ft ft Notes: The slope of the hydraulic gradients (HG) are computed assuming full or surcharged pipe flow using Manning's equation and the backwater height for each segment of the system is computed by multiplying the slope of the hydraulic gradient times the segment length and adding 0.1' for losses through catch basins and manholes. 25 Year Storm Peak EX MH 10 14.06 23.20 23.3 42 0.013 365 0.0005 0.29 EX MH 11 14.35 20.70 21.3 30 0.013 42 0.0027 0.21 EX MH 12 14.57 20.70 20.2 30 0.013 360 0.0024 0.97 EX MH 13 15.53 21.70 17.4 30 0.013 207 0.0018 0.47 EX MH 14 16.00 20.70 15.5 30 0.013 146 0.0014 0.31 EX MH 15 16.31 20.70 13.8 24 0.013 415 0.0037 1.63 EX MH 16 17.13 20.70 10.6 24 0.013 483 0.0022 1.16 EX MH 17 18.29 23.33 8.5 36 0.013 224 0.0002 0.46 EX SD MH 18.75 24.42 8.5 24 0.013 13 0.0014 0.36 EX SD MH 19.11 24.30 8.5 24 0.010 107 0.0008 0.49 CB 1 19.60 24.21 6.1 18 0.010 35 0.0020 0.52 CB 2 20.11 23.85 4.7 18 0.010 119 0.0012 0.24 CB 3 20.35 27.90 4.7 18 0.010 123 0.0012 0.24 CB 4 20.60 28.80 3.7 18 0.010 138 0.0007 0.20 CB 5 20.80 30.30 3.2 12 0.010 134 0.0047 0.73 CB 6 21.53 30.95 2.4 12 0.010 146 0.0026 0.48 CB 7 22.01 30.70 1.6 12 0.010 157 0.0012 0.28 CB 8 22.29 30.80 0.8 12 0.010 185 0.0003 0.15 CB 9 22.45 30.72 EX MH 1 15.35 22.70 Layton & Sell B - 1 4/15/99 JAS SBP Building 981 Backwater Calculations Appendix B Location HG Elev Overflow Q peak Pipe 0 N Length HG Slope Elev ft Elev, ft cfs in ft ft/ft ft EX MH 2 15.90 23.35 EX MH 3 16.78 22.00 EX MH 4 17.58 22.75 EX MH 5 18.05 24.00 EX MH 6 18.79 22.00 EX MH 7 19.79 25.00 CB 26 20.46 26.38 CB 27 21.15 29.55 CB 28 21.77 30.50 CB 29 22.15 30.00 CB 30 22.30 26.70 CB 31 22.36 26.70 CB 32 22.40 26.70 61.3 48 0.010 384 0.0011 0.55 27.3 30 0.010 297 0.0026 0.88 23.4 30 0.010 384 0.0019 0.79 18.0 30 0.010 360 0.0011 0.47 13.4 24 0.010 350 0.0020 0.75 8.6 21 0.010 555 0.0017 1.00 3.5 12 0.010 112 0.0057 0.67 3.0 12 0.010 158 0.0042 0.69 2.5 12 0.010 203 0.0029 0.62 2.0 12 0.010 187 0.0019 0.38 1.5 12 0.010 116 0.0010 0.15 1.0 12 0.010 68 0.0005 0.06 0.5 12 0.010 66 0.0001 0.04 Layton & Sell B - 2 4/15/99 • • City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 7, 1999 Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 RE: Building 981, Segale Business Park (L99-0006, Design Review, L99-0007, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, E99-0003 SEPA) Dear Mr. Nelson: Staff from the Departments of Community Development and Public Works have reviewed the plans submitted for the new office/warehouse building in the Segale Business Park, Building 981. We have the following comments or questions about the project: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 1. TMC 18.44.130 B.3. provides suggested types of trees to use in the River Environment. However, based on comments we have receivc;d on other shoreline permits reviewed by the Department of Ecology, the landscaping between the building and the shoreline should be native plant materials. The landscape plan should be revised accordingly. 2. The Low Impact Environment in the shoreline area includes environmentally protected lands. Areas on the east and south sides of the building apparently are not needed for parking or circulation based on the site plan. Therefore these areas should be landscaped with appropriate native plant materials. Please see the attached plan for the areas in question. 3. Please identify on the site plan, shoreline substantial development permit survey, landscape plan and the utilities plan the 30 -foot easement area that has been granted to King County. 4. Please submit a Utility Permit Application in order to expedite storm drainae review. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Building 981 April 7, 1999 Design Review Criteria Landscape Plan 1. The landscape plan must be revised to provide a landscape island on the eastern side of the site in the parking area. For developments with more than 40 parking stalls, the required amount of interior landscape area is 12 square feet per parking stall with landscape islands sized at a minimum of 100 square feet. Building Design TMC 18.60.050 provides the criteria used by the Board of Architectural Review when it reviews projects. Comments 1-3 below are based on the following BAR guidelines: "18.60.050 1. Relationship of Structure to Site. a. The site should be planned to accomplish a desirable transition with streetscape and to provide for adequate landscaping and pedestrian movement; b. Parking and service areas should be located, designed and screened to moderate the visual impact of large paved areas; 2. Relationship of Structure and Site to Adjoining Area. a. Harmony on texture, lines and masses is encouraged... d. Compatibility of vehicular pedestrian circulation patterns and loading facilities in terms of safety, efficiency and convenience should be encouraged; 3. Building Design. b. Buildings should be to appropriate scale and in harmony with permanent neighboring developments; c. Building components such as windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good proportions and relationship to one another. Building components and ancillary parts shall be consistent with anticipated life of the structure... g. Monotony of design in single or multiple buildings projects should be avoided. Variety of detail, form and siting should be used to provide visual interest." Some aspects of the project's design may not fully meet these criteria. While there may be many alternative ways of meeting these criteria, comments 1-3 below provide several suggestions for improving the design of the proposed project. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss these comments and alternatives you may have to meeting the BAR criteria. c:\carol\segale\nelson- l .doc 2 Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Building 981 April 7, 1999 1. Awnings of the same material and color as on the rest of the building, should be applied to all building entrances to provide visual cues to pedestrians and vehicles. 2. The darker hue color used for the awnings, reveal lines and medallions should also be continued at the ground level of the building to anchor the building. 3. On the east and south elevations, the building modulations are not as symmetrical as the west and north elevations. Several walls have one row of reveal lines that appear incongruous when compared to the adjacent walls with windows and reveal lines above and below the window treatment. Please either add another row of reveal lines on the walls and medallions on the columns or provide some other consistent treatment such as adding window areas on all the walls. 4. There does not appear to be an area designated for collection of recyclable materials and garbage. TMC 18.52.080 and 18.52.090 (attached) establish the standards for amount of area to be set aside and the required screening. 5. The building elevations do not indicate whether any mechanical equipment will be installed on the roof. Any mechanical equipment on the roof must be screened from view, setback 10 feet from the edge of the roof and do not exceed 20 feet in height. 6. The plans do not indicate what signage is proposed for the building. Signage is reviewed and approved by the Board of Architectural Review along with the building design and landscaping plan. On -premises permanent signs located in the shoreline zone and specifically oriented to be visible from the "river environment" are not permitted. General Site Plan and Infrastructure 1. The submitted conceptual storm drainage plans do not include provisions for "storage, or detention." The schematic storm drainage plans may not comply with the City's drainage ordinance. The City's drainage ordinance requires compliance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual. These regulations will likely require modification of the proposed drainage improvements. Storm water detention and water quality treatment is required. Siting these storm water facilities may affect the proposed site plan. 2. A certificate of water availability from Highline Water District is required. A copy of the certificate is enclosed Miscellaneous 1. The notices sent to the following property owners were returned by the Post Office: The Box Maker (6230 South 190th Street, Kent, WA 98032); Schoenbachler Enterprises Lic (13256 Northup Way #11, Bellevue, WA 98005): Keyston Brothers (18301 Andover Park West, Tukwila, WA 98188); and Bruce & Elizabeth Mitchell (19000 57th Place NE, Seattle, WA 98155). Please provide corrected mailing labels for these addresses, as we want to make sure they receive subsequent mailings. c:\ carol\segale\nelson- t .doc 3 Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Building 981 April 7, 1999 • • You have been faxed a copy of the comments the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has provided to King County on the proposed excavation behind the levee. Given the issues raised by this letter as well as the Corps, the earliest this project can be scheduled for BAR review is May 27, 1999. Scheduling this project for BAR review will depend on how quickly the issues raised are responded to. These issues should be responded to no later than April 30, 1999 to ensure a May 24, 1999 public hearing in order to allow time for the issuance of the environmental determination, the shoreline permit, preparation of the BAR staff report and issuing the required public notice. We are expecting comments from Andy Levesque, from King County Surface Water Management, on this project on April 19, 1999. As soon as those comments are received, they will be faxed to you. I understand that he will be providing comments, in part, on the landscaping in the 30 -foot easement area granted to King County. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 206-431-3661. Sincerely, aegok&frivi Carol Lumb Associate Planner Enclosures cc: Steve Lancaster, Director, Planning and Community Development Department Jack Pace, Planning Manager Jim Morrow, Director, Public Works Department Joanna Spencer, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department c:\carol\segale\ne Ison- l .doc 4 �OJR PACK4G1/1/ Gi rn �� P� cc'Q� aJ Fg CROWN • • CROWN CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 SouthCenter Blvd. Suite 100 Tukwila, WA. 98188 Attn: Steve Lancaster, Director Dear Mr. Lancaster, P.O. BOX 58468 SEATTLE, WA 98138-1468 TEL. 206-575-4260 FAX 206-5750640 ..OPM ,iT April 6th, 1999 This letter is in reference to the proposal to construct a 313,735 square foot building at 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" Tukwila, WA. I note that the proposed building has 50 overhead shipping doors, that to me would indicate a large daily amounts of truck traffic. Our building is located directly North of the proposed building, at the junction of "B" and "C" streets. I am obviously concerned about this additional traffic. My area of concern is two fold. First is obviously safety. There are stop signs located on "C" street with one at the junction of "B" and "C." Very few people obey them! There will be a serious accident at this junction one day! The advent of numerous trucks daily now traversing this intersection from this new building scares me. My second concern is the ability of traffic (employees, customers, and suppliers) to gain access to the arterial highways. Currently there are 3 exit routes from the Segale Business Park. Directly North on Andover Park West to connect with I-5 North to Seattle or South to Federal Way and Tacoma. At peak time 3:30pm to 6:OOpm traffic is bottle -necked at South Center Parkway. Attempting to get on I-5. The SouthCenter hill is a gridlock during peak times. This is also the route taken for junction to 405 N to Renton and Bellevue, again it is gridlock. Now lets look at the traffic going Southbound I-5. With the current closure of 200 St. [till November 1999???) traffic now heads West on 180th and goes up the steep hill at 178th to Military road. Again this is no picnic but probably is the best of the 3 exit routes. Finally we have the traffic heading to Kent and Southbound on Highway 167. Believe it or not this is worse that the SouthCenter hill. Most day's traffic is backed up from West Valley Highway to Andover Park West. CANS • CROWNS • CLOSURES • MACHINERY For the afore mentioned reasons I feel the additional truck traffic is going to cause chaos around the South area of SouthCenter. It is my understanding that a traffic survey was completedin conjunction with the project perhaps I could receive a copy of it! Since ly ours, 411 0 (ifinu., Michael T' Plan er Cc: A. Nichols_ Segale Inc. _ '0,y01.:(99 99 13:54 FAX 206 764 3319 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF EMERG MGMT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS P.O. BOX. 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98i24-2255 Emergency Management Branch 29 March 1999 Mr. Dave Clark Manager, Rivers Section King County Water and Land Resources Division Department of Natural Resources 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98104-5022 Dear Mr. Clark: Thank you for affording us the opportunity to review the proposed warehouse building development to be located immediately adjacent to the authorized levee at the Segale Business Park in Tukwila, Washington. We have reviewed the proposed project and have concerns about features that could impact the integrity of the existing structure. The Segale levee is part of the Federally authorized flood control project that was mostly constructed by the Seattle District Corps of Engineers and turned over to the City of Tukwila on May 15, 1992, following a joint final inspection. The proposal to excavate below existing grade immediately landward of the levee toe has some serious ramifications associated with it. This work could cause piping or uplift pressures on the soils that could possibly lead to levee failures. The report written by GeoEngineers and dated March 1999 is not completely in agreement with a similar report written by Shannon and Wilson and dated June 1995. GeoEngineers' analysis indicates that foundation seepage and uplift pressures will not pose a risk to the stability of the levee and will not likely cause soil piping. Shannon and Wilson's conclusions indicated that while the -anticipated seepage rates are considered low to moderate, the high total head under the landward toe of the levee will cause the unit to virtually become "quick." The soils in the area for the proposed warehouse project and those in the vicinity of Shannon and Wilson'sstudy are similar enough to cause concerns that this same condition may well occur if the excavation at the toe of the levee is allowed. 0002 '04/01!99 13:54 FAX 206 764 3319 EMERG MGMT _ a003 003 There also appears to be a discrepancy between the 100 year flood level shown on the warehouse drawings and the 100 year flood stage calculated by the Corps of Engineers. Of more concern is the Standard Project Flood (SPF) level that determines our design and construction of these types of projects. Any work that impacts this levee should be based on the SPF level rather than the 100 year level. Based on data furnished by our Hydraulics and Hydrology Section, the SPF level at the upstream end of the proposed project is at elevation 31.65 feet MSL and 31.00 feet MSL at the downstream end. Based on these elevations, areas in the upstream end of the proposed project will be lower than the SPF and with the uncertainty of whether or not the levee and landward side toe will be stable during a flood event, the proposed grading plan is a serious concern to us. One possible solution to this problem would be to raise the overall grade of the warehouse about one and one half foot above the current proposed project. This would ensure that if the levee did fail during an SPF the flood waters would be contained within the project boundaries. If you have any questions please contact Bill Garrott at (206) 764-3406 or Monte Kaiser at (206) 764-3712. Sincerely, ul E. Kdmoroske, P.E. Chief, Emergency Management )AC it•o(o. (OO cikk Branch V 0i nAAL , k ¥M- row, oL 4.1 f'at kik0 .eA— pt tO 1, \X. AFFIDAVIT en cto 5-ut I I a Notice of Public Hearing fl Notice of Public Meeting Board of Packet LI Board of Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda []Planning Commission Agenda Packet .u. Short Subdivision Agenda Packet OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit. Determination -of Non- significance 0 Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice ONotice of Action 0 Official Notice Other I2-ZU i L L+t L 0 Other was mailed to each of the following addresses onI?LD ISI • LC "? Name of Project EXLs ar Signature File Number LSYt - 9 !LWo7 1 • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director *REVISION TO NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED March 19, 1999 The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: LOCATION: FILE NUMBERS: PROPOSAL: La Pianta Limited Partnership d.b.a. Segale Business Park 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C", Tukwila, WA L99-0006 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit); L99-0007 (Design Review); E-99-0003 (Environmental Review) To construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up building to be used for office, warehouse and maintenance space. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Land Altering, Building Permit The file may be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on , Monday, April 19, 1999. This date is being revised to due to an error in the original notice. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review on either April 22, 1999 or May 27, 1999. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the hearing is still scheduled for one of these dates. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Board of Architectural Review. You may also request notification of the final decision. If you have questions about this proposal contact Carol Lumb, the Planner in charge of this file at 431-3661. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Board of Architectural Review on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431-3670. A decision of the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review may be appealed to the Tukwila City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: c:carol/Segaldnotapp February 5, 1999 March 4, 1999 March 19, 1999, March 26, 1999 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director *REVISION TO NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED March 19, 1999 The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: La Pianta Limited Partnership d.b.a. Segale Business Park LOCATION: 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C", Tukwila, WA FILE NUMBERS: L99-0006 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit); L99-0007 (Design Review); E-99-0003 (Environmental Review) PROPOSAL: To construct a 313,735 square foot concrete tilt -up building to be used for office, warehouse and maintenance space. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Land Altering, Building Permit The file may be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on Fridayr ApFil4, Monday, April 19, 1999. This date is being revised to due to an error in the original notice. This matter is also tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the Board of Architectural Review on either April 22, 1999 or May 27, 1999. If you are interested in attending the hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the hearing is still scheduled for one of these dates. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Board of Architectural Review. You may also request notification of the final decision. If you have questions about this proposal contact Carol Lumb, the Planner in charge of this file at 431-3661. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Board of Architectural Review on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431-3670. A decision of the Tukwila Board of Architectural Review may be appealed to the Tukwila City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: c:carol/Segale/notapp February 5, 1999 March 4, 1999 March 19, 1999, March 26, 1999 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 4313665 , kepOrt . i - ,Geotechnical Engineering Services - -• Levee Seepage Evaluation', Proposed,Warehouse Building a Development Ci l , Tukwila, Washington i, - • =\Mardi 10, 1999 1 _ f / ,� 'i • 1-1 • ! N rr 1 i i \. • ij •,\ i \ t a4 . tVO For i Segale Business -Park L Geo 0 Engineers Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 18000 Andover Park West, Suite 200 Tukwila, Washington 98180 Attention: Steve Nelson March 10, 1999 Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Levee Seepage Evaluation Proposed Segale Business Park Tukwila, Washington File No. 0291-011-01 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our seepage evaluation of the existing levee located south of the proposed new Segale Business Park warehouse building in Tukwila, Washington. The project site is located south of Segale Park Drive C and east of Southcenter Parkway adjacent to the Green River as indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We understand that Segale Business Park intends to construct a dock -high warehouse at the site. The building will have an approximately 300,000 square -foot footprint and is to be located approximately as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. We understand that you plan to lower grades between the proposed building and levee by about 6 feet, to an approximate elevation of 27 feet above MSL. We also understand that King County has concerns regarding the removal of this material and the potential impacts to levee stability during a 100 -year storm event. We understand that during the calculated 100 -year storm event, the surface of the Green River will be at an elevation of about 29.7 feet MSL, approximately 3 feet above the proposed finish grade elevation of the warehouse. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our services is to explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the levee site and to develop an opinion regarding levee stability after the future development scheme and under the 100 -year flood event. Our specific scope of services for this project includes the following: GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 Fawcett Ave., Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone (253) 383-4940 Fax (253) 3834923 www.geoengineers.com Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 2 1. Review available records of nearby subsurface explorations previously conducted by GeoEngineers and others. 2. Complete one boring in the levee to a depth of 60 feet. 3. Complete three test pit explorations in the area of the proposed cuts to depths ranging from 13 to 15 feet. 4. Conduct grain -size analysis of selected soil samples from the boring and test pits to evaluate approximate hydraulic conductivities of soil types encountered. 5. Evaluate the potential for seepage through the levee and soil piping on the landward side of the levee during a 100 -year storm event in the Green River. 6. Preparing a written report containing our conclusions and recommendations along with our supporting data. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS. The site is located in the southeast corner of Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, as shown in Figure 1. The site is bounded on the north by Segale Drive C and on the south by the Green River. The Green River flows generally in a northerly direction in the site vicinity. The site is presently occupied by a vacant yard that was recently used to store crane parts. The western portion of the property is occupied by a large soil stockpile that is approximately 40 feet in height. The existing ground surface in the proposed building footprint area ranges from about 24 feet above MSL at the east end to about 60 feet above MSL at the top of a soil stockpile. The top of the levee is at about Elevation 33 feet above MSL. The property boundaries, topographic contours, and proposed buildinglocation are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. We understand that the portions of the area on the landward side of the levee will be excavated to an elevation of about 27 feet above MSL. The landward side of the levee will be graded to a 2 to 1 slope. We understand that the high water level in the Green River during a 100 -year storm event will be approximately 29.7 feet above MSL, based on information provided by Segale. The levee will be approximately 40 feet thick at this elevation according to information provided by Segale. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface explorations in the area of the levee were conducted by GeoEngineers Inc. on March 1, 1999 at the approximate locations indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Test pits were excavated using a rubber -tired backhoe and operator supplied by Segale Business Park. Representative bulk samples were obtained from the test pits. The boring was drilled using equipment owned and operated by Hokkaido Drilling and Developing Corporation. Driven samples were obtained at 5 -foot intervals in the boring. GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-01 Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 3 The explorations were located in the field by our personnel by taping or pacing from relevant site features. Test pit and boring locations should be considered approximate. Our representative collected samples of the soils encountered, observed ground water conditions and maintained a detailed log of the explorations. Soils were classified in general accordance with Figure 3. A key to boring log symbols is presented as Figure 4. Existing ground surface elevations shown on the logs were estimated from topographic data supplied by Segale Business Park. Summary test pit logs are presented in Figures 5 through 7. The boring log is presented in Figure 8. Laboratory testing wasconducted consisting of moisture content determination and grain size distribution of selected samples. Moisture content results are presented on the corresponding logs. The sieve analyses are presented in Figures 9 through 12. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS General Boring B-1 was drilled in the approximate center of the levee as shown in Figure 2. Test Pits 1 through 3 were excavated in the approximate area of the deepest proposed cuts on the landward side of the levee. Test Pits 4 and 5 were excavated on property west of the subject property. A cross section through the levee is presented as Figure 13. Fill soils comprising the levee in the area of the boring consist of dense coarse to fine sand with silt and gravel. The levee soils were encountered to a depth of about .8 feet below ground surface (approximate Elevation 25 feet MSL) in the boring. Alluvial soils were encountered below this depth to the full depth explored in the boring. Two types of alluvial soils were encountered as shown in the Cross Section, Figure 13. The upper alluvial soil layer consists of medium dense to soft sandy silt. The lower alluvial soil layer consists of dense sand with silt. A contact between the two alluvial soil types was encountered at an approximate depth of 32 feet below ground surface. Ground water in the boring was encountered at a depth of about 20 feet below ground surface (approximate Elevation 13 feet MSL) in the boring. This is approximately the level of water in the river. Similar soil conditions were encountered in the Test Pits 1 through 3 completed between the. proposed warehouse structure and the levee. Fill, consisting of a dense mixture of silt, sand and gravel was encountered to depths ranging from 4 to 6 feet below ground surface in the test pits. Alluvial soils, consisting of dense to medium dense silty sand, were encountered beneath the fill to the full depth explored in the test pits. A thin lens of perched ground water was encountered within the fill in Test Pits 1 and 3. The ground water table encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of 20 feet was not encountered in the test pits. In our opinion, the shallow ground water observed in these test pits is concentrated surface runoff infiltrating into the near surface soils. GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-01 Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 4 LEVEE ANALYSES General Our levee analysis is based on the cross sectional drawing through the levee included as Figure 13. The drawing is based on information provided by Segale Business Park, subsurface information from our boring and test pits, and our experience in the area. Slope inclinations on the riverside and landward side of the levee are 2H:1V. The crest of the levee was measured as approximately 20 feet in width, based on drawings provided by Segale Business Park. The height of the levee above landward ground surface will be about 7 feet according to drawings provided by Segale Business Park. The high water level associated with a 100 -year flood event will be about 29.7 feet according to information provided by Segale Business Park. We understand that the maximum duration of water levels at this height in the Green River is 10 days. Essentially three soil types were encountered in our boring drilled through the levee. These soils are as follows: • Levee Fill Soil (Elevation 33 MSL to 25MSL): Dense gravelly, silty coarse to fine sand. Approximately 27 percent fines (soil particles smaller than the No. 200 sieve). We have used a hydraulic conductivity of 0.0001 centimeters per second (cm/sec) for this material. • Upper Alluvial Soil Layer (Elevation 25 MSL to 1 MSL): Medium dense to soft fine sandy silt. Approximately 60 percent fines. We have used a hydraulic conductivity of 0.00001 cm/sec for this material. • Lower Alluvial Soil Layer (Elevation 1 MSL to unknown depth): Medium dense to dense medium fine sand with silt. Approximately 8 percent fines. We have used a hydraulic conductivity of 0.001 cm/sec for this material. Seepage Analysis Our seepage analyses were performed using Visual Modflow, a steady-state, three- dimensional aquifer simulation model and Flonet/Trans, a two dimensional steady state finite element flow net program. Both programs were developed by Waterloo Hydrogeologic of Ontario, Canada. Seepage paths, hydraulic gradients, flow rates and volumes within and. beneath the levee were analyzed by assuming the elevation of river surface was equivalent to the 100 -year flood for 10 days. The results_ ouranalyses-indicate-that,; for_the_soil _conditions within and beneath the levee cross section; = foundation seepage and uplift pressures *i =not pose a -risk to -the stability of= the_levee and:will_not likely cause -soil piping. Our simulations indicate that after 10 days, the rate of ground water seepage at the toe of the landward side of the levee slope will be approximately 2 cubic feet per day per 50 -foot segment of levee. Our simulations also indicate that the velocity of the water seeping from the levee will be approximately 0.96 meters per day (0.29 ft/day). G eoEngineers File No. 0291-011-01 Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 5 We estimated the critical hydraulic gradient necessary for piping of the type of soil encountered within and beneath the levee using methods presented in Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice by Terzaghi and Peck. We calculated a critical hydraulic gradient of 1 for the upper alluvial soil layer. The gradient predicted by Modflow for a steady-state flow simulation for a duration of 10 days is about 0.025. The maximum gradient predicted by Flonet/Trans is about 0.3. Based on these values, we have estimated a factor of safety against piping at the base of the landward slope of the levee after site grading is complete. Our results are as follows: Predicted Factor of Safety Case. Exit Gradient Against Piping 1 0.3 3 It appears that some seepage will occur on the landward side of the levee during the 100 - year storm event, based on our analysis. Our analysis indicates that for a section of the levee toe 50 feet long and one foot wide, approximately 2 cubic, feet per day (approximately 15 gallons per day) of water can be expected to seep from the levee during the 100 -year storm event. CONCLUSIONS It appears, based on our analysis, that a small amount of seepage from the levee area will likely occur during the 100 -year storm event, after the site is regraded according to specifications provided by Segale Business Park. The amount of seepage will likely be small and normal base course drainage will be adequate. In our opinion, soil piping will not likely occur, given the conditions outlined in this report. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for Segale Business Park and their agents for use in design and construction of the various components of this project. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. Our report,. conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are any changes in the grades, location, configuration or type of construction planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report will not be applicable. If changes are made, we should be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the design is finalized, we recommend that GeoEngineers be engaged to review those portions of the plans and specifications that relate to geotechnical considerations to check that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-01 Segale Business Park March 10, 1999 Page 6 The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The subsurface conditions are expected to vary across the site. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by GeoEngineers during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should be conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. 14► Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. SWH:GWH:vc Document ID: 029101101 R. DOC Attachments GeoEngineers Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Stephen . Helvey Project Hydrogeologist Gary W. Henderson Principal File No. 0291-011-01 o• E 0 r X p yxz. + yfeI J fle, 0, `11 .. €© }::,w 1 S '`rj •- 1 - / O O ..O IVNK ,. BAKER 8L . D .. __._. ` . 01 387' s r 4 I I L NTON 1 .I Gi•., A N f . '���J'i!c.-{: 181 <; d. sr �_ in S S7 Y� n� EL sr' 1 , 6 MALL ,N (( itj ,/.Ian F 9 . i � I:: 1,. r 1 • 1.: =t- 1:14 iai:d 1 �\ '� .-F, L t.r:.,. 8TH b I• F:: m ,... ., ..� 3 S � tea_ ST wigwam _ ■ ] BLVD =MVO1 I Ia�9y K_3.1067x f § . �STRaNDER _.,� Aa. . 1": ,n 1NM• 11 61g��� I-, '•" <� ,n g@ R: `Ca!f3ii 1^11' E: r S 27 .1 5 '' 1613TH jr NN� Ktilig S 167TH ST I ,I, N 8 SOK)I�N•LENIER P HW&,, ST Y 26 1 1-? - NTS 5 I6B jT _ COUNTY $ 9Y / ST 5100 & N� A CORPORIT! DR N • Imr1r •`` nm n N'' r. FS 3800 ' S 172ND ��, ', I� a ' �O 111 s . ri 173RD 5'^ 172ND PL 11 .. a .. JL ;1 < ST r NI . DRS .)STN •ST 9I _ c) g al •..`� R(Nd ♦ !ALT RED LION SEATTLE S ■! E■_ . .lig S MTH x 186TH ■ S. xi ST -S 9*T4f [ < 1�. [p s € s 18ATN< ST • ® 34 ,1�1, , 43s M pm sT '< nj, F 7i T ^ata ■ j ,�; .ii2a Ns R1RI . 700 N 7 I m �I 184TH ST 1735 <...• : j.. �� - //' �.i;rtEE ^ .v.� ,,. sl I T:.' 5100 5 1 m] 35 �I i 7 1 1 . ,.. I NPF ( S is ` NREyf�T J .,_,& - 181 _ a� 11700 ■ j a BLVD ` : i . .:.�Sws_is.?%'..1. ~ .. S 184TH sr 16TH:NI N L. o I., , , SI+I ��►' ST I i 119 "`''�+ , f,. 4 , .lo1,9�e /-' •Ea �! P� ...LS' - _ a'gr S =- iFi'r♦11y ,93RD . . 1) 1� ' a • . \ / - l— . • E . , ;,w ss .,�� ST a : SITE .1YL�:.r}JJrvl'' ''' - — - <)e:iy s,, ' • . I s 196800 T -T-22-N- - T- 5188TH ST 190TH ST - _ ND a J �S + 194TH 11tb9290 T / ST Ai 1911)1 Sr m $ � � -i1,' !AN - - HI 99 r t. ----'1 . �x 'I • / h �l = / N./ +� r3 �- ��q 56W , �' 49dF . 2 Ni 200TH ST •. / w �7600 � 1 -, s I%1H ST 1598TH ST ig 5 198TH ST ''^' < FsI.,. i 5 fil T - IDs = IS 1DdTH m ST ? _?colo GT � // v � 3 N 1, . [ 0 2400 4800 SCALE IN FEET Reference: This map reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for. personal use or resale, without permission. Geo �� Engineers VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 0 Reference: Base drawing provided by Segale Business Park. 0 120 240 SCALE IN FEET EXPLANATION: TP_1-! TEST PIT NUMBER AND LOCATION BORING NUMBER B-1-4 AND LOCATION A A' CROSS SECTION tik LOCATION NOTE: The locations of all features shown are approximate. SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM . MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS More Thitn 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve • GRAVEL More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND. FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit Less Than 50 INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY More Than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve SILT AND CLAY Liquid INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICRY, ELASTIC SILT • CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY Umit 50 or More ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count date, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Geo �� Engineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE 3 LABORATORY TESTS: AL CP CS DS GS %F HA SK SM MD SP TX UC CA Atterberg limits Compaction Consolidation Direct shear Grain -size Percent fines Hydrometer analysis Permeability Moisture content Moisture and density Swelling pressure Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Chemical analysis BLOW-COUNT/SAMPLE DATA: Blows required to drive a 2.4 -inch I.D. split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances, using a 300 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. _ Blows required to drive a 1.5 -inch I.D. (SPT) split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. _ "P" indicates sampler pushed with weight of hammer or against weight of drill rig. SOIL GRAPH: SM Soil Group Symbol (See Note 2) Distinct Contact. Between Soil Strata Gradual or Approximate Location of Change Between Soil Strata Q Water Level Bottom of Boring 22 ■ . Location of relatively undisturbed sample 12 ® Location of disturbed sample 17 0 Location of sampling attempt with no recovery 10 0 Location of sample obtained in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D-1586) procedures 26 m Location of SPT sampling attempt with no recovery ® Location of grab sample NOTES: 1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Boring Log Symbols and the exploration logs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Soil classification system is included. Geo 4,.�Engneers KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE 4 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 33.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 SP -SM Olive greenish brown sand with gravel, silt and asphalt (dense, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 4.0 SP -SM Reddish brown sand with gravel and silt (dense, moist) (fill) 4.0 - 6.0 SP Olive green to gray medium sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) (fill) 6.0 - 13.0 SM Grayish brown silty medium to fine sand with occasional gravel (loose to medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 13.0 feet on 03/01/99. Slow ground water seepage observed between 3.0 and 4.0 feet. Slow to moderate ground water seepage observed between 5.0 and 6.0 feet. Caving observed up to 4.0 feet below ground surface. TEST PIT 2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 33.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 SP -SM Olive green gravelly sand with silt (dense, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 4.5 SP -SM Reddish brown gravelly sand with silt (dense, moist) (fill) 4.5 - 6.0 GP Brown sandy gravel with cobbles (dense, moist) (fill) 6.0 - 15.0 SM Medium reddish brown silty fine sand (medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 15.0 feet on 03/01/99. No ground water seepage observed. Moderate caving observed between 0.0 and 6.0 feet. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291-011-01 Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 5 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 3 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 33.0 feet 0.0 - 3.0 SP -SM Olive green to brown sand with silt and gravel (dense, moist to wet) (fill) 3.0 - 4.5 SM Reddish brown silty sand and gravel (dense, wet) (fill) 4.5 - 15.0 SM Reddish brown silty fme sand (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 15.0 feet on 03/01/99. Slight ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 4.0 feet. No caving observed. 0.0 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.5 /5-1/0 SP SM TEST PIT 4 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 28.0 feet Asphalt fill Gray fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) (fill) Tannish brown silty fme sand (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 03/01/99. Moderate ground water seepage observed between 11.0 and 12.0 feet. General caving observed between 7.0 and 12.0 feet. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291-011-01 -gyp. Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 6 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 5 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 28 feet 0.0 - 1.0 Asphalt 1.0 - 3.0 SP Gravelly fine to coarse sand with occasional silt (dense, moist) (fill) 3.0 - 10.0 SM Brown silty fme to medium sand with occasional fme gravel (medium dense, moist) 10.0 - 11.75 ML Gray silt with sand (soft, moist to wet) 11.75 - 14.0 SM Gray silty fine to medium sand (medium dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 14.0 feet on 03/01/99. No ground water seepage observed. General caving observed between 12.0 to 14.0 feet. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291-011-01 Geo 'Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 7 0 5 10 15 25 30 35 40 TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow_Group Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count amples Symbol BORING B-1 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): 33.0 Note: See Figure 4 for explanation of symbols 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Geo �O Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE 8 0 0 ) p 0 � GM c Tan to brown silty angular gravel with occasional sand (dense, moist) (fill) _ SM Brown gravelly, silty coarse to fme sand (dense, moist to wet) (fill) 12% 85 • 37 ® ML Reddish brown fme to medium sandy silt (medium dense, moist) - ML Dark reddish brown fine sandy silt (soft, moist) 13.6% 14 11 38 29 ® - SP -SM Brown medium to.fine sand with silt (dense, wet) 21.4% 35 ® SP -SM Grayish red brown medium to fine sand with silt (dense, wet) _ 7 ® : — Note: See Figure 4 for explanation of symbols 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Geo �O Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE 8 40 — 45 — 50- 55— TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING B-1 (Continued) DESCRIPTION 12 17 20 29 Boring completed at a depth of 59.0 feet on 03/01/99. Ground water encountered at an approximate depth of 20.0 feet — 60 during drilling. — 40 — 45 — 50 — 55 65— —65 70— —70 75 — — 75 80— —80 Note: See Figure 4 for explanation of symbols Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE 8 0291-011-01 SWH:GWH:vc 03/03/99 (029101101.PRE) 4-) 0 t rt) S3A21f13 NOIlbaV D PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 J 1 J l 1,000 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAND B-1 #1 2.5-4.0 SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION • B-1 #1 2.5-4.0 Brown gravelly silty coarse to fine sand (SM) 0291-011-01 SWH:GWH:vc 03/03/99 (029101101.PRE) 1 0 C rn 0 S3Atino N011vavtIJ PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #80 #100 #200 1 1 1 1 1- -+ 1 I J 10 0 1,000 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAND B-1 #3 12.5-14.0 SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE - COARSE I MEDIUM I - FINE SYMBOL' EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION • B-1 #3 12.5-14.0 Dark reddish brown fine to medium sandy silt (medium dense, moist) 0291-011-01 SWH:GWH:vc 03/03/99 (029101101.PRE) ce 0 tri CE9 G) C m S3A If13 NOI1VaV2I0 PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 J 1 1 1 r 1,000 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION SAND B-1 #7 32.5 SILT OR CLAY COARSE 1 FINE COARSE I MEDIUM ( FINE SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION • B-1 #7 32.5 Grayish red brown medium to fine sand with silt (SP -SM) 0291-011-01 SWH:GWH:vc 03/03/99 (029101101.PRE) O (1) 50 rt, cA" CI 3211101d S3A2If13 NOIlvaV IO PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 40 30 20 10 0 3" 3/4" U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 1/2" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 1 1 1 1 \40-1 1,000 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION • SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE I MEDIUMDI FINE SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL DESCRIPTION • TP -1 #2 10-13 • Grayish brown silty medium to fine sand with occasional gravel (SP -SM) 0 0 ai u, A NORTH 6 Approximate Water Level During 100 Year Storm Event Proposed Ground Surface Existing Ground Surface m r A' NORTH -60 Fill, Silty, Gravelly, San Estimated K=1x10-4 CM/SEC Upper Alluvial Unit (Fine to Medium. Sand to Silty.. Fine .to Medium. Sand) Estimated K=1x10-5 CM/SEC) ? ? 1 _? Lower Alluvial Unit (Medium to Fine Sand with Silt) Estimated K=1x10-3 CM/SEC) —40 —20 —0 --20 --40 SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1"=20' VERTICAL: 1"=20' EXPLANATION: = APPROXIMATE GROUND WATER LEVEL _ INFERED GEOLOGIC CONTACT NOTE: GEOLOGIC CONTACT This cross section is a diagrammatic interpretation of subsurface conditions based on interpolation and extrapolation of data from widely spaced explorations. Actual conditions are substantially more complex than depicted. GeoEngineers does not represent the conditions illustrated as exact. Geo Engineers CROSS SECTION A -A' FIGURE 13 ,APPENDIX A ro- 0- I la 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 50 GeoErilaeers.Iuo — Redmoad.WA Projeot: Segeale Deeoriptioru Levee Evaluation Modeller. SWH 10 Mar 99 Visual MODFLOW x1.60. (o) 1995 Waterloo Hydrogeologio Software NC: 50 NR: 20 Nis 3 Current Row: 11 Hydraulic Heads and Stroam FILMWS (c). 1994 by WHS 8 WCGR Equipot Min 2.7E+00 Max : 3.0E+00 Inc : 1.4E-00 Stream Min : -3.2E-00 Max : 0.0E+00 Inc : 1.6E-00 V1 rt . Exa Units : [m] File : SEGALE2 Uelocity Distribution 13.42 — 1 1 5.28— > ' > / 1 f 1 1 / / / t t r ' t i t it 777 t -2.86 — -11.00 1 \ _� _.-• r _— �' ! / r �s --► r• �► - r 1 a 0.00 Scale uoctor 9.6E-0002 m,d 1 20.00 s 40.00 1 60.00 80.00 100.00 MTIMWS (c) 1994 by WHS 8 WCGR Vmin : 0.0E+00 Vmax : 9.6E-00 Vavg : -4.9E+00 Angle: 1.6E+00 V1 rt . Exa Units : [m] File SEGALE2 March 4, 1999 • City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MARCH 4, 1999 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Mr. Steve Nelson P.O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138-2028 RE: Segale Business Park. Building 981 Files: L99-0006 - Shoreline Substantial Development Permit L99-0007 - Design Review E99-0003 - Environmental Review Dear Mr. Nelson: Your application for a shoreline substantial development permit for an office building in the shoreline which is subject to design review and SEPA, located at 5801 through 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" has been found to be complete on March 4, 1999 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The project has been assigned to Carol Lumb and may be scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission in April or May. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to prepare and install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, you may obtain them at the Department of Community Development (DCD). Also, you must obtain a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. Please call me 3 days prior to installing the notice board to arrange the pick up of the laminated Notice of Application. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, please return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the City from requesting additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain any other necessary permits issued by other agencies. 6300 Southcenter Boulevarr4 Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Mr. Steve Nelson Segale Business Park March 4, 1999 I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 431-3661. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Associate Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments c:\caroflsegalekom plete. doc 2 CITY TUKWILA RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development FEB - 5 1999 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 PERMIT CENTER SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR STAFF USE.ONLY Planner::: File Number: E r -i o(: gip" Receipt; Number:.f Cross-reference files: 79 et •o l Applicant'notified`otincompleteAapplicationv •Applicantnotified:of`complete application:'. Notice of application issued:. A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Segale Business Park Building 981 B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel number(s)) 5801 thru 6199 Segale Park Drive "C" 35234-9018 c Quarter: SE Section: 35 Township: 23N Range: 4E (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Concrete tilt -up building, for which its primary.use will be warehousin: it will also include assocaited offices and maintenance space. D. APPLICANT: NAME: LaPianta Limited Partnership dba Segale Business Park ADDRESS: PO Box 88028 Tukwila, Washington 98138 (206) 575-2000 PHONE: SIGNATURE:_�1.%e—E-C vV )cA 13^ DATE: 2111/ SEPA checklist A. BACKGROUND I. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Segale Business Park Building 981 2. Name of applicant: La Pianta Limited Partnership d.b.a. Segale Business Park P. O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact persons: La Pianta Limited Partnership d.b.a. Segale Business Park P. O. Box 88028 Tukwila, WA 98138 Mr. Steve Nelson 4. Date checklist prepared: January 6, 1999 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER Proposed construction would commence upon issuance of necessary permits and approvals. The physical work would be completed in approximately eight (8) months. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansions, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. None are anticipated at this time. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. EIS for Segale Business Park - 1974 Geotechnical Report — Geo Engineers, Inc. Traffic study — David I. Hamlin and Associates, Inc. River bank stabilization study — Geo Engineers. Inc. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for government approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No. Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 1 of 11 -egei •c* Z7 • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. SEPA Bar Shoreline Substantial Development Grading & utility Building, mechanical, electrical, fire protection. plumbing & side sewer, signage 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on the page. Section e requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The project involves construction of a concrete tilt -up building, for which its primary use will be warehousing. It will also include associated offices and maintenance space. The building will be 313,735 square feet in size to be located on 16.54 acres of land. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The development area is shown on the attached site plan (attachment A). The project site is located on tax lot 352304-9018 (rev. per recent lot line revision). 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the city's comprehensive land use policy plan map as environmentally sensitive? Yes. A portion of the site lies within the Shoreline Management Urban Environment (within 200 feet of the Green River) B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one) rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other. Flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 2 percent c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Silty sands and gravels d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 2 of 1 l e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. There will be approximately 50,000 C.Y. of fill required to make the building pad and surrounding driving surfaces. There is material presently on site which will be utilized for the fill and preload. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. None is expected to occur as a result of this action. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Approximately 85 percent will be covered by building, parking lot, driveways, and sidewalks. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. Silt fences and siltation control ponds will be installed to control storm water prior to discharge into existing drainage structures. New catch basins will be installed as a requirement of this construction. g. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial, wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities, if known. Normal emissions and dust associated with use of construction equipment. After construction normal exhaust associated with vehicular traffic (cars, trucks, etc.) b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Use of water trucks will be employed during construction. All equipment will meet local, state, and federal emission standards. 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Green River abuts the site on the south and east sides. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. Yes. Landscaping, portions of the building, driveways and parking lots will be within 200 feet of the Green River. Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 3 of I 1 b. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. No. City of Tukwila sewage systems will be utilized. c. Water runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (including quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Runoff from the parking areas and building roof will be collected in onsite catch basins and flow by gravity to the existing City of Tukwila storm water system. The site is within the P-17 basin. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe: Oil/water separators will be installed on site to minimize water quality impacts from parking areas. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. All runoff from the site will go through oil/water separators before discharging into the City of Tukwila storm water system. Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 4 of 11 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: ❑ deciduous tree; alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ Evergreen tree; fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs • grass ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, inilfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Grasses in the construction area will be removed. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will utilize plants natural to the Pacific Northwest. 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawks, heron, eagle,Eingbirds Songbirds, ducks, crows, Canadian geese Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Rodents Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other. None observed b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Not aware of any. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Part of the Pacific Flyway d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. None Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 5 of 11 • • 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be used in the building for heating, manufacturing and other uses normal for warehousing and office. Diesel fuel will be used in construction equipment during construction. b. Would project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The building will be designed to meet the Washington State Energy Code to save energy in heating and cooling the structure. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No. 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic along the street in front of the site and the close proximity of an asphalt plant to the west. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short- term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would conte from the site. Construction noise during regular hours 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m.. Noise from vehicles and trucks once the building is open for business (approximately 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.). 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: All equipment will be operated with required local, state ,and federal noise suppression devices. Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila . Page 6 of 11 • • 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is used as a storage yard for Seattle Tractor Co. and stockpile area for excess pitrun material. To the west is an asphalt plant, north is a street and various warehouse and office buildings. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Not for at least twenty-five years. c. Describe any structure on the site. A carpenter's shop. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The carpenter's shop will be demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? HI — heavy industrial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Heavy industrial g. If applicable, what is the current Shoreline Master Program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Yes, the site is within 200 feet of the Green River. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? 40 - 75 people j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No displacement of people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. Proposal is consistent with current zoning and comprehensive plan designation. Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 7 of 11 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum building height within low impact Shoreline overlay will be 35' 0" Exterior material — concrete b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. Landscaping as required per code. 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? No anticipated glare from the building. Exterior building lighting will occur from dusk to dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off-site source of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. None 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The Green River pedestrian bike trail system. Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 8 of 11 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Sidewalks will be provided along the street frontage of the building to link it with the sidewalks in the Business Park to provide safe access to the Green River trail system. 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. None b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. None 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the site will be from Southcenter Parkway and Andover Park West to the private street system within Segale Business Park. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, Metro currently has bus service along South 180th Street to the north of the site approximately one half mile away. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Parking and bike spaces per code. None deleted d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to the existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Yes. Width of private streets will be modified. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 9 of 11 f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Traffic count per Institute of Traffic Engineer standards. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. None 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, fire protection and police protection by virtue of the fact that there will be an operating building and businesses on site. Health care only insofar as the tenants may require emergency services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Sanitary sewer — City of Tukwila Storm sewer — City of Tukwila Water — Highline Water District Telephone — U S West Service Electricity — Puget Sound Energy Natural Gas — Puget Sound Energy C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date submitted: Z/y/ff Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page l0 of l 1 • D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the environmental checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? The project involves construction of a tilt -up building, for which its primary use will be warehousing. It will also include associated offices and maintenance space. 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? None 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: Build warehouse including associated office space as planned. 4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what policies of the Plan? The proposal does not conflict with the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: Environmental Checklist City of Tukwila Page 11 of 11 Geo Engineers Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 18000 Andover Park West, Suite 200 Tukwila, Washington 98180 Attention: Steve Nelson January 22, 1999 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Geotechnical Engineering Services Green River Levee Proposed Warehouse Building Development Tukwila, Washington File No. 0291-011-00 INTRODUCTION This presents our assessment of the effects of site grading on the Green River levee adjacent to the proposed Segale Business Park warehouse. The proposed new dock -high warehouse is anticipated to have an approximately 300,000 square foot footprint. Finish floor elevation is anticipated to be about 32 feet. The proposed warehouse site is bounded on the south and east by the Green River. A Site Plan showing the proposed warehouse layout and sections showing existing and proposed site grades along the levee is attached. The plan and sections were prepared by Segale Business Park. We understand that there is a concern that site grading may adversely effect the Green River levee. We have previously prepared a geotechnical engineering report, dated December 22, 1998, for this site. Our report addresses site preparation, earthwork and other geotechnical issues associated with this project. Over the years a number of repair and stabilization measures have been conducted along the river side of the levee. In February 1996, during high water conditions, a quantity of gravel was placed along the inland side of the levee at the northeast corner of the site to slow seepage which surfaced from under the levee. GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 Fawcett Ave., Suite 200 Tacoma. WA 98402 Telephone (253) 383-4940 Fax (253) 383-4923 ww\v.geoengineers.com '�'r�' .dt fp4'-a,'1,, Printed on recycled paper Segale Business Park January 22, 1999 Page 2 CONCLUSIONS Proposed grading operations at the site will be limited to the inland side of the levee and will increase the top of levee width from a minimum of 13 feet to a minimum of 15 feet. All inland Levee slopes are to be graded no steeper than 2 to 1. Based on our review of the Site Plan and sections 0+00 through 17+25 provided, we understand that fmal grading at the east end of the site will increase site elevations. In the northeast corner, where gravel was placed to control seepage and stabilize the levee, an additional 2 feet of fill will be placed which will further improve stability. In our opinion, placement of fill at the east side of the site will add support to the existing levee and help reduce seepage under the levee during high water events. Grading operations at the west end of the site will include removing stockpiled soil and grading the site to elevations similar to the fill areas. In our opinion, removal of the stockpiled soil and site grading to the profiles provided will not adversely effect the levee. Based on information provided by Segale Business Park, levee slopes on the river side are flatter that 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). A portion of the site (outside the area of stockpiled soil) will be preloaded with fill. The preload will be about double the average weight of the building. This preload will not produce any settlement of the levee or reduce its stability. In our opinion, based on the information provided and our understanding of past improvements, the river side levee slopes are presently stable and adequately protected and do not require additional protection. If the site elevations or slopes are changed from those shown on the sections provided and discussed above, we should be consulted regarding potential effects on the levee. Ia► GeoEng ineers File No: 0291-011-00 Segale Business Park January 22, 1999 Page 3 We trust that this letter provides the information you require. If you have questions or need additional information, please call. DSP:GWH:vc Document ID: 029101100L1.DOC Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. David S. Phelps Geotechnical Engineer Gary W. Henderson Principal GeoEngineers File No: 0291-011-00 100 YEAR ITC00 EL 29.88 MEM 1Y.HRATER El. 28.21 FINER - Fro LOM IMPACT NCH TRACT fNAtG86M EINEG E1 7FF. Of tEDG. —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 15+75.00 rE.o• w• wER LOW IMPACT „,n. EMARONNENT 50 1 45 --- 40 40 — 9. w. 35--^ ?,. M. H00 YEAR now 30 FL 29.90 YEAH HMV/TER } EL 26.30' 25 He' HIGH TRACT ENVIRONMENT —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 17+25.00 o• GO' IO FIVER EOw TACT NCH IMPACT NW/ EMMONMENT ENVRONYEM 45 —50 0 50 100 50 200 250 300 16+50.00 65 60 55 — 50 — 45 40 35 100 YEAR ROOD 3 EL 29.85 YEW IOGIWATER EL 26.16 25 20 so. Low IPACT ENVRONIFJO —50 too. HIGH IMPACT EtMROW6M EI. of BIDG. 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 100 50 200 250 300 15+00 00 SEGALE BUSINESS•PARK nu+TIA Hr stI10TON CN..r. MM. NANO aro. ft ZV'_ IOW 0 vEww i: 1' . 100 YEAR 4E000 El. 29.83 MON 1•81461A6ER . EL 26.12 [-aw RNEp LOW IMPACTHIGH IMPACT EN'MT ENNRONENT ENVIRONMENT 65- 60 55 50 45 — 40 — 35 — Ff. OF BLDG. EYP. I. 1m, no —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 16166 IMPACT EM6FT ENV6i0ffelEl(T 100• 13+50.00 NCH WART EMVIRONMENT 35 7-91114X.L 1YP. 1 100 TEAR RDOG 30 EL 2990 MEAN H671WATER EL 26.05 25 20 Ff. OF BLDG. TM. —50 EMT. GRADE. DP. 1 1 1 1 1 1- 50 100 150 200 250 300 12+00.00 100 YEAR FLOOD EL 2391 MGw 411ZHN IER EL 2216 a•- 1i1ER .AMT 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 25 LOW WWI HIGH NA'ACT -] ENVROro(NT EN96ONMENT —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 I6 Lax SACT (66017 E/N1EONKN 40 — 14+25.00 100• H671 IMPACT DMRONMDR 20 —50 1 1 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 12+75.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK 1111001A 1,051014,01 ae..-... .44 MOT 1' 100' ERT: _ V 100 YEAR f1DOO EL 29.76 MEAN I9pNUliR EL 25.93 35 40• 60 RAO LOW BRACT EIRVT EIME76MNT ,00• NIGH 6/PACT ENVIRONMENT EEC( HDC. 20 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 100 MEAN FLOOD EL 29.75 MEAN NGIFWATER EL 25.90 40 35 C� LOW WALTINPACT 9+75.00 ,O. ENAROWENT Ff.0F BLDG. 100 YEAR 11000 EL 29.79 MEAN 19GHWAEER EL 26.01 100 YEAR ROOD EL 29.78 ILAN IV: WATER EL 25.97 35 30 KV &V RNER LOW.GIPACT ENwY ENWONMENT HCH IMPACT FNOfa1ENE 11.11" HOG. 25 20 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 - 300 35 11+25.00 itscr HW.71 IMPACT ENVENT 9.9.09 BLDG. 20 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 9+00.00 10+50.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK „.,WW„ W0.4O1C10•1 o...,._ MUD la.lat VERT: ,- _ 10 Fan 100 YEAR FLOOD EL 29.72 111NF wOfMAIER n 25.130 —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 6+75.00 —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 6+00.00 100 TEM FLOOD EL 29.74 REAM 1G2wAIE2 d 2597 • 100 TEAM ROOD 41 29.73 HWER 41 2E EL 2593 40 35 —50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 8+25.00 NDu„b• IMPACT ,9(„ 1012 FN✓ 11413A I FLOE O18. —50 0 50 100 150 200 7+50.00 250 .300 SEGALE BUS/NESS PARK ,ucwa.� vus,m,cla„ —.,..� 1116.11. 1.0•51 abaft o_. ,qRZ: ,- D 100 YEAR fLOOO EL 29.67 MEM HIGHWA1ER EL 25.65 Rhut LOWAL7 owl ENVR01A0M 35_ 30 25 HIGH BIPAC-7-1 ENYYtONYE)O 100' zz- rs. a Bun • -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 100 YEAR FLOOD EL 29.66 b �' AMR LOW AMU DANT EYW YI 35- 30 5- 30 LEAN HIGHWAIER 25 EL 25.62 20 3+75.00 100 HIGH DIRACI DMROMIENI /Fs. OF BLDG. -50 0 50 1 1 1 1 100 150 200 250 300 3+00.00 100 YEAR FLOOD EL 29.70111 YEN! EIQMAID1 EL 25.71 100 YEAR FLOOD it 29.68 60' IOW nI0 OPACI oho ER IROMEHr 40 11. OF BLDG. 35 I _ A I I 1 HIGH IMPACT EMWIOHIE97 30 MEM HO1WAIER EL 25.68 15 -50 0 50 100. 50 200 250 300 5+25.00 FNERJ 00 LOW 10G11 ORAGY 66(1 ENYROMERI EM9tf11YKN1 '.M 35 -- 1 F.F. OF BLDG. -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 4+50.00 IWO SEGALE BUSINESS PARK 1,AA„ WA51OCCI011 - a._ 10•243 Va WY. .0MM IVY 100, 110119. 1 00 10111: 1' 10• Mang amp 100 TAR FLOOD IT/ 29.61 MEAN IIG1N6ATER EL 2553 25 20 TOP OF LEVEE. Tm - 35 100 YEAR FLOOD EL 29.6 MEAN IOGI0ATFR EL 255 60' IDN IMPACT ENMRWEM -50 rNER IEONYPACT T tNVPw1sIF7rt 100' Nil DAV ° MIRORDENT NEW PGI GRADE. ITP. 1 CRADE, TTP. 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 0+75.00 I00' 19(91 WW1 EMRONIPNT 25 20 -50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0+00.00 100 YEAR FLOOD EL 29.64 MEAN 19046«610: 25 EL 2559 20 LOW PWRACT MI MIIPACI ENVIRONMENT - EA RONMENT ff. a BLDG. I I -50 0 50 100 150 200 100 RPACT [MR MMT DMR0011111 35 -1 2+25.00 w' 60' 100' . T 100 YEAR FLOOD 304 FL 29.62 MTAN NIGIR'AIER EL 2556 25 20 11471 PPACT DMR f6SNT 250 300 FI. OF T.DG. - 50 1 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 1+50.00 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK palmi. R 516006.1 ao sa .••• 14. . 1.062: I- . 100' vERI: I" 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BUILDING 981 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON January 1999 Prepared for: Segale Business Park RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB - 5 1999 PERMIT CENTER DAVID I. HAMLIN AND ASSOCIATES 1319 DEXTER AVENUE NORTH - SUITE 270 SEATTLE, W 28519 G NGTON 98109 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS BUILDING 981 SEGALE BUSINESS PARK TUKWILA, WASHINGTON A) INTRODUCTION The information which follows is intended to summarize the anticipated transportation impacts resulting from the development of a warehouse site in the Segale Business Park. The warehouse site is located on the south side of Segale Park Drive "C" at its intersection with Segale Park Drive ."A" in the City of Tukwila. The purpose of this report is to review and analyze current conditions in the vicinity of the site, review the proposed development and the impacts to the transportation system, and develop the appropriate mitigation as necessary. Discussions between the project proponent and the City Engineer in 1995 indicated that no specific intersection analysis would. be required for this project, however an assignment of project trips through key intersections where mitigation fees are being collected would be required. B) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for the development of approximately 16.54 acres into 313,735 square feet of warehouse space. The parcel is currently zoned "HI", Heavy Industrial. Access to the site is proposed from Segale Park Drive "C". The building parcel is bounded by Segale Park Drive "C" on the north, with the Green River bordering its east and south sides. The subject property is currently used for the storage of a variety of construction equipment which will be relocated in order to make room for the construction of the warehouse. A vicinity map of the area is shown on Figure 1. The remainder of this report will analyze the effects of the development of the subject property and the traffic -related impacts which can be expected on the adjacent intersections. A reduced copy of the site plan is shown in the Appendix. C) EXISTING CONDITIONS 1. Adjacent Transportation System Andover Park West is a four lane north -south arterial with curb, gutter, and street lights, and sidewalk along most 1 NORTH IFZ./.111.1Y ;EMERGENCY: CENTER . • SEAtE PAID( D S921 5 192t10 ST DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES - VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 BUILDING 981 PAGE 2 sections of the roadway. Left -turn storage lanes have been installed on Andover Park West at. Tukwila Parkway, Strander Boulevard, and Baker Boulevard. Andover Park West is fronted by a mix of retail, office and warehouse/light industrial uses. The posted speed is 35 mph. South of S. 180th Street, Andover Park West turns into Segale Park Drive "A", which is private. Segale Park Drive "A" is striped for 4 lanes for one block south of S. 180th Street and then as two lanes to its intersection with Segale Park Drive "C". Segale Park Drive "A" provides access to. the Segale Business Park. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks have been installed on both sides of Segale Park Drive "A" and the posted speed is 25 mph. No on -street parking is allowed. Segale Park Drive "C" is similar in its geometry to Segale Park Drive "A",. i.e., it is striped for 2 lanes but sufficient width exists to accommodate 4 lanes. Curb and gutter have been installed on both sides of the street, with sidewalk on the north side only. No on -street parking is allowed on Segale Park Drive"C". Segale Park Drive "C" extends westerly from Segale Park Drive "A" to Southcenter Parkway and is controlled by a stop sign at both of these intersections. Southcenter Parkway is a multi -lane arterial bordering the north and west sides of Southcenter Mall. The street is striped for four lanes and includes turn storage lanes along the mall frontage. Raised curb has also been installed in this area. Traffic signals control many of the mall entrances and the ramps to I-5. South of Strander Boulevard, Southcenter Parkway is striped for two southbound lanes, a center two-way left -turn lane and three northbound lanes along a portion of the street. S. 180th Street consists of two through lanes in each direction plus a two-way left -turn lane or a left -turn storage pocket. Curb, gutter, and street lights have been installed on both sides of the street, and many sections include sidewalk. S. 180th Street is fronted by a variety of commercial enterprises and has a posted speed of 35 mph. Recent widening has been completed at the intersection of S. 180th Street at West Valley Highway where additional turn storage lanes have been added. 2. Traffic Volumes Daily traffic counts in the vicinity of the proposed project were available from the City of Tukwila. The traffic volumes are for the years 1991, 1992, 1994, 1997, or 1998, and were the most. current values availableat the. writing of this report. Those volumes are shown on Figure 2. A comparison of the more recent counts with older 3 .NORTH vi w 1- 1n ui L'1695. > .o IgIr Q Ems' ' N 7740 ('97) \ CENtEa eLJ� Sa�tN �� 1695' ('92) TUKWILA PKWY. Gc aw.<111* SOURCE: CITY OF TUKWILA• O'� 15x155 ('92) 1991, 1992, 1994, 1997 OR 1998 COUNTSA C9 woo li 15940 16475 (' 92) 2 STRAN DER BLVD. 14: 85 ('97) ; a 3 < Y U. w 1L' y w x L Z Q W a 0 ( . = w 0 MINKLER o 0 1-5 29270 ('92) 18840 ('92) 3E ALE OR. O CURRENT AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 2 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES BUILDING 981 PAGE 4 counts indicated that the traffic volumes at some locations have increased by small amounts over the past couple of years while others have decreased slightly. 3. Transit/Pedestrian Facilities Transit service is readily available in the Southcenter area. Two METRO routes, #150 and #155, travel along S. 180th Street near the site. Route 150 serves Auburn, Kent, Southcenter, and downtown Seattle, while route 155 serves downtown Renton, Fairwood, and Southcenter. Service is provided daily on both routes throughout the day. Service on other routes is also available from Southcenter Mall and runs along streets to the north of the proposed. development. Pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) have been installed along many street sections in the vicinity of the site. The City of Tukwila is trying to encourage pedestrian activity in order to eliminate some of the automobile trips in the area. The site frontage of the proposed development currently has no sidewalk, although sidewalk has been installed across the street to the north. Pedestrian signals, push -buttons, and crosswalks are typically found at the signalized intersections. 4. Level of Service No level of service analyses were completed for this project per discussions between the project owner and the City Engineer in 1995. (Most of the major intersections that will be impacted by this project have improvements projects planned based on future traffic growth projections and analyses, so further analysis would be redundant. A mitigation fee will be assessed for these project improvements.) D) PROPOSED ACTION 1. Trip Generation The development of the site will generate additional traffic onto the adjacent transportation system. The ITE Trip Generation Manual (published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, 6th Edition, 1997) has been used to estimate the number of trips which can theoretically be expected to be generated by a development of this type. The average "trip rates for ITE Land Use Code 150, Warehousing, have been used to estimate the trip generation for the project. Table 1 shows the number of trips expected to be generated by the site using the average trip rates. 5 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION BUILDING 981 - SEGALE BUSINESS PARK (313,735 GSF) TOTAL TIME PERIOD TRIPS Daily 1556 AM Peak Enter 116 Exit 25 Total 141. PM Peak Enter 38 Exit 122 Total 160 The table above shows that the site will generate approximately 20% of its daily traffic during the AM and PM peak hours, much of which will be employee -related commuter trips. As with any warehouse development, many of the trips associated with the site will be trucks. The Trip Generation Manual does not provide any data as to the percentage of total trips which are heavy vehicles, and this value will be a factor of the type of tenant which may eventually occupy the building. However, the percentage of trucks is probably higher during the non -peak hours than the peak hours when moredeliveries typically occur, and fewer employees would be traveling during the non -peak hours. 2. Trip Distribution/Assignment The new traffic generated by the development of the property will be distributed onto the adjacent roadway system and then onto the regional transportation system. The trips from the site will be dispersed in all directions towards the regional transportation systems in the area, i.e., SR -518, I-5, I-405, and towards the major arterials such as West Valley Highway or S. 180th Street. It is also. expected that the joint King County/City of Kent S. 196th Street corridor project will attract some of the site traffic as a by-pass of the S. 180th Street/West Valley Highway intersection upon its completion. The distribution has been based on previous work in the area and an examination of the available transportation routes in the vicinity. 6 Figure 3 shows the generalized estimated trip distribution by percent for the subject site. It should be noted that these values are approximate and may vary from day to day depending on the needs and desires of the future employees and deliveries to the development. Figures 4 and 5 show the trip assignment to the various streets during the AM and PM peak hours. It can be seen from these figures that the impacts from the project will be fairly evenly distributed throughout the area. 3. Traffic Volumes The projected year 2000 (which is the anticipated year of completion) average daily traffic volumes both with and without the warehouse are shown on Figures 6 and 7. The traffic volumes shown on Figure 2 were increased two percent per year to estimate the year 2000 volumes. 4. Transit Usage As noted earlier, some transit service is available along both S. 180th Street and Andover Park West. It is not likely that the development of this warehouse site would necessitate any new transit routes or re-routing of current routes. 5. Pedestrians The development of the warehouse site would include the construction of sidewalks along the frontage where no sidewalk currently exists. 6. Access The proposed warehouse site will take direct access from Segale Park Drive "C" which is a private street. Four driveways are proposed, one of which would be the at the intersection of Segale Park Drive "A" and Segale Park Drive "C" modifying it from a two-way to a three-way intersection. The second driveway would be located at the intersection of Segale Park Drive "B" and Segale Park Drive "C" modifying it from a three-way to a four-way intersection. The remaining two driveways would be located along Segale Park Drive "C" near the west property line. E) IMPACTS The proposed 981 warehouse will generate additional traffic that will impact the roadways in the area. Several capital improvement projects in the Southcenter area have been identified by the City of Tukwila. A proportionate share of the costs would apply to the subject development. No analyses were conducted for these locations since the City 7 NORTH ST AVE. S 20% 1 5% ESTIMATED TRIP DISTRIBUTION FIGURE 3 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES PROJECT SITE 1 5% BUILDING 981 PAGE 8 NORTH ST AVE. S. -5 3 11 3 5 23 1-405 12 12 18 w J J 1 - LJ w 1-5 23 35 7 PROJECT SITE ESTIMATED.AM PEAK HOUR TRIP ASSIGNMENT FIGURE 4 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES BUILDING 981 PAGE 9 NORTH 12 4 ST AVE. S. 12 1-5 13 11 / ,1 ESTIMATED PM PEAK HOUR T __..___ FIGURE 5 .10 a TUKWILA PKWY. 16 A STRANDER BLVD. Y 3 D. Y CC CC W Q W w O > 2 0 - MINKI FR z 20 BLVD. Q 27 6 \ S. 1 BOTH ST. 2 24 2 0 SEC LE DR D 62 11 NDOVER PARK E. GALE DRI EC DAVID I. HAMLIN Sc ASSOCIATES 24 8 I-405 WEST VALLEY H PROJECT SITE RIP ASSIGNMENT 19 BUILDING 981 PAGE 10 A NORTH ST AVE. S. 40050 77160 _ 1 co 32750 65 ' 4.1) } W 18680 18550 STRANDER BLVD. 1-405 17900 15 1-5 15380 3550 S. 180TH ST. 22075 36350 34290 SE SALE DR. 0 EGALE DR E C 40890 PROJECT SITE YEAR 2000 ESTIMATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT FIGURE 6 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES BUILDING 981 PAG E 11 NORTH w Q I— rn 40095 1-5 62ND AVE. e`tO. sO�tHCErtER , TUKW% PKWY. oc,-\ = OJ„c ,``x 17340 — 1994 18690 18560 STRANDER BLVD. 15.10 0 � 3 w Y z a w U cc MINKLER 0 • BLVD. 15150 15460 3825 12465 ANIDOVER PARK 18095 (if S 180TH ST. 36925 22110 W SE OLE OR. 0 EGALE DR E C (1) 1-405 32945 34520 41045 PROJECT SITE YEAR 2000 ESTIMATED DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT FIGURE 7 DAVID I. HAMLIN & ASSOCIATES BUILDING 981 PAG E 12 has already identified the necessary improvements. Site access to the warehouse will be from a private street, Segale Park Drive "C", which has plenty of capacity to handle the site traffic. The site is currently used for equipment storage. New driveways will be installed in order to serve the large truck and employee vehicle traffic which will enter and exit the site. Ten locations in the vicinity of the project which the City has identified for capital improvements are summarized below, along with the estimated number of trips from the site traveling through these locations during the PM peak hour. (The PM peak hour trips are higher than the AM. peak hour trips in all cases.) The City of Tukwila has developed a per trip mitigation fee at these locations for improvements. LOCATION Strander Boulevard/ Southcenter Parkway Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park East Strander Boulevard/ Andover Park West S. 180th Street/ West Valley Highway Andover Park West/. Minkler Blvd. Southcenter Parkway/ S. 168th Street Strander Boulevard/ West Valley Highway Interurban Bridge Southcenter Parkway/ Minkler Blvd. Andover Park East/ Minkler Blvd. PEAR HOUR TRIPS 26 PM trips 17 PM trips 35 PM trips 41 PM trips 35 PM trips 26 PM trips 25 PM trips 8 PM trips 26 PM trips 3 PM trips 13 F) MITIGATION The following are suggested as possible mitigation measures for the development. 1. Payment of $140 per trip through the intersection of Strander Boulevard/Southcenter Parkway for roadway improvements for a total of $3,640. 2. Payment of $135 per trip through the Strander Boulevard/Andover Park East improvements for a total of $2,295. 3. Payment of $317 per trip through the Strander Boulevard/Andover Park West improvements for a total of $11,095. 4. Payment of $475 per trip through the intersection of S. 180th Street/West Valley Highway for roadway improvements for a total of $19,475. 5. Payment of $392 per trip through the intersection of Andover Park West/Minkler Blvd. for roadway improvements for a total of $13,720. 6. Payment of $167 per trip through the intersection of Southcenter Parkway/S. 168th Street for roadway improvements for a total of $4,342. 7. Payment of $283 per trip through the intersection of Strander Blvd./West Valley Highway for roadway improvements for a total of $7,075. 8. Payment of $1122 per trip over the Interurban Bridge for roadway improvements for a total of $8,976. 9. Payment of $137 per trip through the intersection of Southcenter Parkway/Minkler Blvd. for roadway improvements for a total of.$3,562. 10. Payment of $89 per trip through theintersection of Andover Park East/Minkler Blvd. for roadway improvements for a total of $267. intersection of for roadway intersection of for roadway 14 to SEGALE BUSINESS PARK IriiiiMMIMOKOMMIMMEMM BUILDING 981 '9ZGg . Geoy� Engineers Segale Business Park P.O. Box 88028 18000 Andover Park West,Suite 200 Tukwila, Washington 98180 Attention: Steve Nelson December 22, 1998 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington. Oregon. and Alaska Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Warehouse Building Development Tukwila, Washington File No. 0291-011-00 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering services for design of a new Segale Business Park warehouse building in. Tukwila, Washington. The project site is located south of Segale Park Drive C and east of Southcenter Parkway adjacent to the Green River as indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. We understand that Segale Business Park intends to construct a dock -high warehouse at the site. The building will have an approximately 300,000 square -foot footprint and is to be located approximately as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. We understand that the future address of the building will be 5801 to 6199 Segale Park Drive C. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our geotechnical services is to explore subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the project site and to develop geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the proposed warehouse and associated improvements. Our specific scope of services for this project includes the following: 1. Collecting samples of the soils encountered in the exploratory test pits, observing soil and ground water conditions, and maintaining a log of the explorations. In addition, we have reviewed available records of nearby subsurface explorations previously conducted by GeoEngineers and others as a basis for our recommendations. 2. Based on our observations and review, providing recommendations for site preparation and building foundation design including preload requirements and appropriate foundation design parameters. GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 Fawcett Ave.. Suite 200 Tacoma. WA 98402 Telephone (253) 383-4940 Fax (253) 383-4923 www.geoengi neers.com ~'' ,: .�` Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 2 3. Preparing a written report containing our conclusions and recommendations along with our supporting data. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The proposed new warehouse site is bounded on the north by Segale Drive C and on the south by the Green River. The east half of the site is presently occupied by a crane dismantling yard. The west end of the site is covered with stockpiled soil. Based on topographic data supplied by Segale Business Park, existing ground surface elevation in the proposed building footprint ranges from about 24 feet at the east end to about 60 feet at the top of the stockpile. The property boundaries, topographic contours, and proposed building location are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface explorations were conducted by GeoEngineers Inc. on November 19, 1998 at the approximate locations indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Exploratory test pits were excavated using a rubber -tired backhoe and operator supplied by Segale Business Park. Representative bulk samples were obtained from the test pits. The explorations were located in the field by our personnel by taping or pacing from relevant site features. Test pit locations should be considered approximate. Our representative collected samples of the soils encountered, observed ground water conditions and maintained- a detailed log of the explorations. Soils were classified in general accordance with Figure 3. Existing ground surface elevations shown on the logs were estimated from topographic data supplied by Segale Business Park. Summary test pit logs are presented as Figure 4 through 7. Laboratory testing was conducted consisting of moisture content determination of selected bulk samples. Moisture content results are presented on the corresponding logs. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface soils encountered in the explorations generally consist dense sand and gravel fill with varying amounts of silt and cobbles overlying native alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded fine to medium sand, sandy silt and silt in a loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff condition. Fill soil was encountered in each of the explorations to depths ranging from 1 to 5.25 feet below existing ground surface. In test pit 1, approximately 2 feet of cobbles with silt, sand, gravel, and occasional wood debris were encountered at the ground surface. In test pit 2, from about 5.25 to 5.5 feet below existing ground surface, wood waste chips were encountered. Below the fill, to the full depth explored in each of the test pits, alluvial deposits consisting of fine to medium sand, sandy silt and silt were encountered. These soils were described as loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff and moist to wet. GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-00 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 3 Ground water was encountered in test pits 1 and 3 at approximately 2 feet and in test pit 2 at about 1.5 feet below existing ground surface. . In our opinion the shallow ground water observed in these test pits is concentrated surface runoff infiltrating into the near surface soils. Ground water seepage was also observed in test pit 7 at about 11 feet below existing ground surface. Caving was noted in test pits 1 and 7 below depths 11 and 9 feet respectively. Summary logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 4 through 7. Explorations from nearby sites concur with the recent observations. Previous explorations indicate that relatively shallow ground water (on the order of 10 feet below ground surface or less) can be expected in the area. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on our site explorations and observations, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations in this report are implemented. To help control post -construction settlement and allow the use of shallow spread foundations, we recommend that the site be developed by a combination of overexcavation and replacement with structural fill and preloading. This technique has been used for development in the immediate area. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK We recommend that shallow spread footings bear on a minimum of 2 feet of compacted structural fill overlying native soil. Structural fill should meet the requirements and be placed and compacted as described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. In areas where foundation loads are planned and unsuitable bearing soil exists, such as in the vicinity of test pit 2 where wood waste chips were encountered, we recommend removing the unsuitable material and replacing it with compacted structural fill. Where dense fill soil exists extending to underlying native sand and silt, such as was observed in test pits 1 and 3 through 8, it is our opinion that additional structural fill can be placed directly over the existing fill as required. To help control post -construction settlement, we recommend that a minimum of 4 feet (above finish floor elevation) of preload fill be placed in the building area. Based on our discussions with you, we understand that a 6 -foot preload fill is planned. The preload should extend over the entire building footprint. The top of the preload fill should extend 5 feet beyond the outside edge of footings and slope down at about 1 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter. In areas where the existing stockpile meets the preload requirements, additional preloading is not required. Settlernent of the preload fill should be monitored at 8 to 10 locations. This can be accomplished by setting survey hubs into the completed fill and taking survey elevation readings referenced to a benchmark well away from the influence of the fill. We recommend GeoEngineers File No.0291-011-00 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 4 that the surcharge fill be left in place until the maximum measured settlement is less than 0.01 feet per week. We expect that any required site grading can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment. The native site soils below the fill have significant silt contents and are moisture sensitive. These materials will be difficult to operate on or compact during wet weather. Operation of heavy equipment at the site under wet conditions can be expected to result in considerable disturbance to the exposed native soil subgrade. We recommend that earthwork be undertaken during periods of dry weather, if feasible, to minimize grading costs. STRUCTURAL FILL All fill beneath structures or pavements, and within utility trenches or other excavations beneath structures or pavements should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill material should be free of debris, organic contaminants, and rock fragments larger than about 6 inches. The workability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. If fill material is imported to the site for wet weather construction, we recommend that it be a sand and gravel mixture such as high quality pit run, with less than 5 percent fines. Structural fill should be uniformly compacted in horizontal lifts to at least 95 percent of the Maximum Dry Density (MDD) determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557 (modified Proctor). Pavement subgrade soils and utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the MDD up to within the upper 2 feet; the upper 2 feet should be compacted to at least 95 percent. The lift thickness used during placement and compaction will depend on the moisture and gradation characteristics of the soil and the type of equipment being used. If necessary, the material should be moisture conditioned to near -optimum moisture content prior to compaction. In our opinion, during dry weather construction, any nonorganic on-site soil may be considered for use as structural fill, provided it meets the criteria described above in the structural fill section and can be compacted as recommended. If the material is over optimum moisture content when excavated, it will be necessary to aerate or dry the soil prior to placement as structural fill. RETAINING WALLS GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-00 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 5 containing less than 3 percent fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) against the wall. The drainage zone should be at least 24 inches thick (measured horizontally). Smooth-walled PVC perforated drainpipe having a minimum diameter of 4 inches should be embedded within the free - draining material at the base of the wall along its entire length. This drainpipe should discharge into a tightline leading to an appropriate collection and disposal system. The lateral active soil pressures acting on reinforced concrete retaining walls depend on the nature, density, and configuration of the soil behind the'wall. The recommended design values are based on level backfill placed within 2 feet of the wall being compacted by hand -operated equipment to a density of 90 percent of the MDD and consisting of sand or sand and gravel and on walls being drained as recommended previously. For walls constructed as above, we recommend using an active lateral earth pressure corresponding to an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The above recommended soil pressure does not include the effects of surcharges such as floor loads, traffic loads, or other surface loading. Surcharge effects should be considered as appropriate. Retaining walls founded on 2 feet of compacted structural fill as recommended above may be designed using an average allowable bearing capacity recommended in the "Foundation Support" section of this report. Lateral loads on retaining structures as described above may be resisted by friction on the base of the wall footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings as recommended in the "Lateral Capacity" section of this report. FOUNDATION SUPPORT In general, foundation and retaining wall footings founded on compacted structural fill prepared as described above may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and long-term live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. This value may be increased by one-third when seismic or wind loads are considered. We recommend a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous footings and 2 feet for isolated footings. All footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent grade. LATERAL CAPACITY Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the foundation and retaining wall footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings, or where applicable, stem walls. We recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0.5 to calculate friction between the concrete and densely compacted native soil or structural fill. Passive pressure may be determined using an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pcf. This assumes that compacted structural fill is placed against the sides of the footings. An appropriate safety factor should be applied to these values. • Geo Engineers Fil e No. 0291-011-00 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 6 FOUNDATION SETTLEMENT We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch with differential settlements measured along 25 feet of continuous wall footings or between comparably loaded isolated footings of 1/2 inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However, loose or soft soil below the footings or disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. SLAB -ON -GRADE SUPPORT In our opinion, provided the site is prepared as recommended, estimated slab -on -grade floor areal loads of up to 400 psf could be supported on a minimum of 2 feet of compacted structural fill as previously recommended. We recommend that slabs -on -grade be directly underlain by a 4 to 6 -inch thickness of granular base course material consisting of crushed rock or well graded sand and gravel which contains less than 3 percent fines based on the minus 3/4 - inch fraction. If dry slabs are required (e.g., where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab), a waterproof liner, at least 6 mils thick, should be placed as a vapor barrier below the slab. A 2 -inch thickness of clean sand can be placed over the vapor barrier to protect the liner and serve as a leveling course. We estimate that settlement of a concrete slab supported as recommended above will be less than 1/2 inch over 50 feet. PAVEMENT DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that pavement sections be supported on a minimum of 2 feet of structural fill extending to underlying native sand and silt. Structural fill should be placed and compacted as recommended previously. In addition, the prepared subgrade should be thoroughly proofrolled prior to placing base course to identify any soft or loose soils. If soft or loose soils are encountered they should be recompacted if practical or overexcavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. We recommend the pavement in areas to be used exclusively for light vehicle traffic consist • of a minimum of 2 inches of Class B asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. For pavement in more heavily traveled areas or with significant truck traffic, we recommend providing a minimum of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1577). Crushed rock base course should comply with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction Section 9-03.9(3). These pavement sections may not be adequate for heavy construction traffic conditions such as imposed by concrete transit mixers, dump trucks, or crane loads. Additional pavement thickness may be necessary to prevent pavement damage during construction, and/or repair of damaged pavements should be anticipated. GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-00 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 7 Asphalt pavement surfacing should meet the specifications for Class B asphaltic concrete, as described in WSDOT Section 9-03.8. We recommend that it be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the theoretical maximum, as described by WSDOT Test Method 705. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS We recommend that pavement surfaces be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the buildings. Roof drains should be collected in tightlines for diversion into the storm drain system and should not discharge into wall drains. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for Segale Business Park and their agents for use in design and construction of the various components of this project. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. The data and report may be provided to prospective contractors for bidding or estimating purposes; but our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are any changes in the grades, location, configuration or type of construction planned, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report might not be fully applicable. If changes are made, we should be retained to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification, as appropriate. When the design is finalized, we recommend that GeoEngineers be engaged to review those portions of the plans and specifications that relate to geotechnical considerations to check that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The subsurface conditions are expected to vary across the site. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by GeoEngineers during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should be conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. 44► Geo Engineers Fil e No. 0291-011-00 Segale Business Park December 22, 1998 Page 8 Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. DSP:GWH:vc Document ID: 0291011 R. DOC Attachments Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. David S. Phelps Geotechnical Engineer b#4441(440, - Gary W. Henderson Principal GeoEngineers File No. 0291-011-00 029101100:120198 8X1 1 thom.dw /A t- 1 7200 5 161S S Sr 162510 5T til _ l�Q l 1. --s - '---I-16AiM 0 �v PI 3 N "OSICKEN (lens. • S 1662/1 • P ;. • 1771♦Ty s 1u I. IFE ig same AIRPORT NIIry( < 8TH 1 9260 Mntt YAW 1+1 cRESTYIDV !:� �I _x 161ii , 'MRK } SY 16 ST� 5 S 14_ c 1 1 ,,ss 111 PSI V (= 78a0 17250 n 5 < 17340 7 00 © 511E 5 175TH ±76TH 1771H ST: MARRIOTT ^: 1 S NIM ST SEATAC 4300 AIRPORT -'! eI'.< ;.1- S 1791 l7eTH ST M1I , I*5 5 St - -s- 1_IE00 sr i4^ �•, 5 14157 $ 9 1 : 32ND! SSI Lew = 5: Sr • ` re° - 34 4"441 rya ARK, • 4 12;71 sisioTh3RosTot. -7,401/ . . rte t is 37/15 " S 1817M 7 RED LION s AA * N Av AmseAr n' 5 0147711 186TH ST 7 NOIR ■ 6TH v ' tv/Appi MEL- r ,,r 'IAN -99 /)S 198TH�� 7200 AtA tz)' 4 J 3 STTL 1, s S1 45 9 TR El 1 9 8 f>. Si. • HALL 0 PO S 0ANOER ■ 1 ! nAs Pun >ti V,`•.._—., ! _ BAKER 3110 •! `-••� r- z1 NTON `n NC,. i I BLVD ! •' .CC 4 N G S1/T1C£NTER PLAZA' 26 c, ,,,,,AL TTI IR z Br MWRI07�f I:-' 73 CORPORATI li 1 OR CORPORA 5115111`51 OR 5 (VP MR9]45/ PLAEI 1 ntbLANO 0 F I TRT IMO • • PAVILION MALL H 5600 S 180TH t m1 35jI' 811 a` 8 TRECK OR IF V 0 Oft00 9 � ; - T23N T22N J 200TH ST 0 5600 194TH _ 19 5T -J 2 2400 4800 F - Lel W ST I E. 181 N i• PO, L 14 43RD mi; ST 18157 STt 11 18251011 ,7 wasaru 5 16451 57 Ialai I 5T 5 188TH Si 190511 57 ST S 05 196T1, ST $! tt' S 196156 ST 7611- 198TH 5T ! 5 20051 X1i m STI 20z60 14 4T 01 Reference: SCALE IN FEET This map reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Geo ,,Engineers VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 0291011A.DWC 029101100:120798 • SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAINED GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL SOILS More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL Retained on No. 4 Sieve GC CLAYEY GRAVEL More Thim 50% Retained on SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SANG, FINE TO COARSE SAND No. 200 Sieve SP POORLY -GRADED SANG Mora Than 50% of Coarse Fraction SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SANG Passes No. 4 Sieve SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SILT AND CLAY ML SILT SOILS INORGANIC CL CLAY Uquid Umit Less Than 50 ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY More Than 50% SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICJTY, ELASTIC SILT • Passes No. 200 Sieve INORGANIC CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY Uquid Umit 50 or More ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: - . SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water . 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Geo �, Engineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE 3 ' LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT I Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 26 feet 0.0 - 2.0 Cobbles with silt, sand, gravel and occasional wood debris (dense, wet) (fill) 2.0 - 5.5 SM Grayish brown silty fine sand (dense, moist) 5.5 - 11.0 ML Brown silt with sand (medium stiff, moist to wet) 11.0 - 12.0 SM Grayish brown silty fine sand (dense, wet) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 11/19/98. Major ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 2.0 feet. Minor caving observed at an approximate depth of 11.0 feet. Disturbed soil samples obtained at depths of 6.5 and 11.0 feet. Sample moisture contents are 55% and 37%, respectively. 0.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 5.25 5.25 - 5.75 5.75 - 12.0 SP SP -SM SM TEST PIT 2 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 30 feet Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with trace silt (dense, moist) (fill) Gray fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles (very dense, moist) (fill) Wood waste chips (medium dense, moist) (fill) Gray silty fine sand (dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 11/19/98. Major ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 1.5 feet. No caving observed. Disturbed soil samples obtained at depths of 1.5, 4.0, 5.25 and 11.5 feet. Sample moisture contents are 10%, 8%, 154% and 36%, respectively. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS. ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291-011-00 Geo �� Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 4 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PTT 3 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 28 feet 0.0 - 3.5 SP -SM Brown gravelly fine to medium sand with silt, occasional cobbles and boulders (very dense, moist) (fill) 3.5 - 12.5 SM Brownish gray silty fine sand (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.5 feet on 11/19/98. Minor ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 2.0 feet. No caving observed. Disturbed soil sample obtained at a depth of 9.0 feet. Sample moisture content is 18%. TEST PIT 4 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 31 feet 0.0 - 1.0 SM Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with silt (very dense, moist) (fill) 1.0 - 5.0 SP -SM Brownish gray gravelly fine to coarse sand with silt and occasional cobbles (very dense, moist) (fill) 5.0 - 11.5 SM Brown silty fine to medium sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 11.5 feet on 11/19/98. No ground water seepage observed. No caving observed. Disturbed soil samples obtained at depths of 2.5 and 10.0 feet. Sample moisture contents are 13% and 10%, respectively. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291-011-00 Geo Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 5 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL 0.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 12.0 SP -SM SM DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 5 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 32 feet Gray and brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with silt, occasional cobbles and wood fragments (very dense, moist) (fill) Brown silty fine sand with occasional gravel (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 11/19/98. No ground water seepage observed. No caving observed. TEST PIT 6 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 25 feet 0.0 - 1.0 SP Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with trace silt (very dense, moist) (fill) 1.0 - 12.0 SP -SM Brown fine sand with silt (dense, moist) Grades to gray fine sand at 10.0 feet (dense, moist) Test pit completed at a depth of 12.0 feet on 11/19/98. No ground water seepage observed. No caving observed. Disturbed soil sample obtained at a depth of 9.0 feet. Sample moisture content is 9%. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS WE TEST NT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291-011-00 Geo,Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 6 LOG OF TEST PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PTT 7 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 24 feet 0.0 - 1.0 SP Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with occasional cobbles (dense, moist) (fill) 1.0 - 4.5 SM Brown silty fine sand (medium dense to dense, moist) 4.5 - 7.0 ML Brown silt with fine sand (medium stiff, wet) 7.0 - 11.5 SP -SM Gray fine to medium sand with silt (loose to medium dense to dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at a depth of 11.5 feet on 11/19/98. Slight ground water seepage observed at an approximate depth of 11.0 feet. Minor caving observed below 9.0 feet. Disturbed soil samples obtained at depths of 6.0 and 11.0 feet. Sample moisture contents are 37% and,31%, respectively. TEST PIT 8 Approximate Ground Surface Elevation: 26 feet 0.0 - 2.0 SP Brown gravelly fine to coarse sand with occasional cobbles (dense, moist) (fill) 2.0 - 5.5 SM Gray fine sand with silt (dense, moist) Grades to silty and medium dense 5.5 - 11.0 ML Gray silt (medium stiff to stiff, wet) Test pit completed at a depth of 11.0 feet on 11/19/98. No ground water seepage observed. No caving observed. Disturbed soil sample obtained at a depth of 8.0 feet. Sample moisture content is 42%. THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PTT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PTT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. 0291-011-00 Geo�Engineers LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 7 1. PRIVATE OUTDOOR OPEN AREA Oacoame Lucite ; -` 'Erica Camel 7trarmers RM Eamrnua Melo'Csnaoala rata SOsalca 74rpueo Erauas Oiycarpa Ralwno( GosRhere Osaam 6e. Crenate Can+eo Jnyaus n. Sue Rua to .Lexathoe-eAaO Laricvo Siva Bomb' . ladldb Repms • 1 ad. . Notionli ras -Brame- - • . SO M. : -Poems 110.0100 Eie .. 18-21•. 1 ad. . aamlm Pir 18-20' ba. pussPeecinms. - Spioeo'Bus*ede'� .MVan]Mo1ww IJ Inop Prom:Safe . GLS Osdlsa Liarcmt os •9aderrmte" Mmes Loafs 2 I/2" -PLO Prunus Levecas>us 0t1a Lofton - 080 Lo22. Eatua15-18" B88 :R.odoC r WeOoMntrm 'Cana )alae' . 18-21" 8/0 Rns0o0oMm Shan Knasdae' ' 30-36- R140006.100661 0-36•Rlnodod 89 Oumeu Huireasoded Gess I'LW/200.d "Ueinrnuin DoeinG . . 12 .. 17 888 Melssltpnllm 11.a l8ti - . K'enm122 1 pesos em 0 2t• YL sp.. t. u 130 1 *ormml Plml . - : IJIL �yry 4824 LL\ b . 60 tree ewnen y' Lamm .lead IranPMLan a 60 LANDSCAPE PLAN