The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA E96-0019 - BRICKLAYERS UNION - HALL BUILDINGBRICKLAYER'S BUILDING 15208 - 52 AVE S E96-001 9 • Cizy of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Bricklayers' Union Hall File E02-019 (SEPA) 52nd Avenue South Bldg. File E96-0019 (SEPA) FROM: Deb Ritter DATE: November 25, 2002 RE: Addendum to Existing DNS (E96-0019) A Determination of Non -Significance was issued on August 22, 1996 for the 52nd Avenue South Building under E96-0019. The proposed building was to be a three story 22,358 square foot commercial office building with associated parking and landscaping. The building described in the 1996 DNS was never built. A new proposal for a smaller office building has been submitted for the same site (under Design Review (L02-039). The building will be a two-story 10,000 square foot office building with associated parking and landscaping. The upper floor will serve as the Bricklayers' Union administrative office as well as commercial lease space. The lower floor will serve as a meeting hall. It has been determined that the Bricklayers proposal does not create any new significant environmental impacts from those previously considered under the 1996 DNS (E96- 0019). Per Barbara Ritchie of the Department of Ecology SEPA Division on November 21, 2002, public notice and public comment are not required and no additional documentation is necessary. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 • rrGrrer, (t) VICINITY PL -AN NO 5GALE Oath VI !fa -rap, ±. L re 'ANN, ••4-1. trgl, ,MX,ICup4 WhX-IPAY 44, --Elf•ste. .,.....4aft-D •••.[1.1 0.0 -,1Errr 7, . r----- ,,, ----- .------ — -- r.w. Awe... t 1,,,, ,.., van.11-tricr _., _. ri,,g>Tf aCt•PCao —___ - - --ai . s :at '''.-. a rorar:11•1::::'' 7-77 - . k.. --.-2t Vet, Les, r--__crweriet c. 'mil orne...,Y74?..i.---.......s.......• . . 52.nd AVENJE SOUTH ca.rer.4 !PAT P,11/1/M TPA, 0.0•VALit G &&&&& ,PAE.Tf. ,CC6.1.1)1, IYE fLAT AAAAA o r, ...ILL ',LI,. 1,, OF PL.". • 4, la T. tI rtlty Am!, t,IPT 'NAT V.PplIn0 tutPlYI. IN Ci.Vwfl :11 A P,A ATE AAAAAAA I TO. ,,,CEL XIIRIptp - OCiA 11 Ir.. Pi rt.. Cora Iro7Inrat - rbItin• AAA A 4t, •Pt• •"'".' 1,11.tI•C “.3, f.f.161 If ,Ikt,ar '•:1;;. IP 1.7,(1, 1,TAL: NORM RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA Nov 1 2002 PERMIT CENTER NEWTON AY7OCAATE5 ARCD 47.1. rat VCalt araIar..11. WTI A - 1.1 L s.e w arrtt � / 1 o.r 7®ckL —Tj Wel i BASEMENT FLOOR PL -AN RECEIVE crry OF TUKWILA N O V 1 4 2002 PERMIT CENTER Ise rrON A5hOCAATEy ARCHTEGTS Nris* TIT A - 1.2 t=1 OFFGel.r.A7G trAGC ROOF GeGX • i I 11 • Ar II I ant 1ZEYde I ! Air& . I i i • i . 441519ka _ • •*---1 •1Gl -^g& ca • 4 .1. • ;1-1Lrri• •- LGCOY • • • . . f FEST FL-OOR PLAN WA— RECEIVED CITY OF TUKW/LA NOV 1 4 2002 PERMIT CENTER NEWTON Ah5OCAATE-5 ARCHTECTS Ulna. VA " DAM OfSGA. itt. SINCIPM1411121 4.1001 Of VC/A0•Af rA200•00,1 /00f net/ A- 1.3 ,„, 11111 11111111Eir 01, ifteitt1 10 L4,11 ARAM tato 0 Ar.Z.MtVt="T.';:r:rgtril"- 'reverie - t • • I At. tete.. aTadiel-TiMis;- •- 4 II • : e T T 4 4 71 I • t WEST ELEVATION SCA, Vir • I- • te ALTIA,V1•Agilr AT 'AITKEN tAt :AA AAATT5 A7 tr1O• 111111111111111111111111111111111 41111 7.- A t ATX CON7 retcrtIrT t PC NORTH ELEVATION Ottr.A AAA, •• CatAtTACL: EAST ELEVATION rereLegtt•Ter' tnatT MAC Mee Tett.. ATT7tct VATTe At1,- roccr44,,,, tetta•TT VITATT 1 •1 IL IC, C. tecett7 - t.."1:44.1r.rol •T T0eTi Lett tatt!ttte eto.14N TAAV et TOO — SOUTH ELEVATION %ALE u'e -1 • 0 Age . PIECEIVED CITY OF TUKWIIA OV 1.k 2002 PERMIT CENTER F'fWTON A550CIATE-5 ARCHTEGT5 ffr 7077 A - 2.1 • la . F.41111111L ,.... ''-',.,?:...1';::.:Ilijr•;./.7411111,2biart,i,'?";11;741.1...9"4,,,, , r,•=• • =3;4 WEST ELEVATION v.,...) • ,11.4 Ct.: • rl • 71'1 dtoi.•• NORTH ELEVATION -0.0411 .x.,77;n1f, • mg'-'1"'r—t,1-7---- - 77.--.7:7"7,:•-'':',"7:: -."-='!7::', ---z:=PiNii.41F1114K21:1111111411 • ...0474 riErPetzmalgreli N", t 4•21_1..FIRN RIO_ AIN Ii /111111111md., II 7. I'....11m,:1.,,• i1a-t,-,,•,1._.-..1,. t1)41,7014 •Ji • EAST LEVATION ki4•!'.; 1 r.v.• .•••,4,t • .1,ii t....,=4.= • ,e SOUTH ELEVATION I .1111, :WI .P1:2 krr, • 'RECEIVED MY OF TUKWILA Nov 1 4 2002 PERMIT CENTER • • 2 MWTON A'DSOGIATE4, APCHTECT5 A - 2.1 • • • .• \ • 4 1'10 "‘ • - •• • , • P. "t„.,,, •''/• ft( I /1••• ••‘,1.16( 17, kr y fa St • .)- W '„,' -, , , ,- .. ‘,. ,i,,,,, r i .,,-7. - a0:1 .• t./,'-. ri i 4, ' 011 . • • ,,',.... -1,1‘,L, i.),/ , .;.:. l , - -, ! i ,L,...„.0_1-14, s.• ' ie7.,...„..1111")11.•t• • • •••.,:' :44:•41.11:v ,,,,,,604 I:— HA'''' . ' n • 1, , ,,,, : -, ,,„„ •,,,,41,, • - it '44P...,,,,sp V.:?•;...11. ?,;', ii..y.,7., .41 4.'' ...., tit,;iii,:..•,k::. .„,;.„ • :0,... 'Sy•it l ' '' .."-• ' '..oly:' . !: 11.11Prioille'..7111:;$- Irk. ti .t.,--',:,,,-.24110.': -4 1••• .--..,.7-4'.__,$'• ___ . .. _ ..!'.43"tilli... _IcIlitiriv , , . ., „ , . . ....- . _ _ _ . ... __V._ to•:-._ , . . . .4.1 dylp='...,:z z.hzark 'rt ...._. • • • • • 1 \ PAA ri 1 111/41=111* ail.111111111111.711 o . gliklaiki 'IlillINIMMI .r t ..111111Mili .....11aClith_Qt, Aplf, ir. °Tr 1 ; `t:.1.41.1rsi .. • ROIL ,-,____,..,..,.:.:‘,,,...,..._ ...„,„:„::: ... ,, .,.......,!,..?„......7.77-4 .7TTO 1..,Y•••E.•1 ,..A,......6....- 4 Yuarfl., aty,a• '-' • . ..... . ..-ao .'.. ::. ''‘.1' N!ii''1;4%tl../i.i;;'kWrA;51itta 11:.:..t.44;4.41//ii ‘41611rli4T;' :'?...” ''' ''-.17;7: V''.57d1-1.:;7-.A.tr:Mictli.i'7 ..4;t:Ititt7t'•44$4-:;1,6: 4„.14ift.f......:,i . .• ... -.. _- • - - _ I) ...1r, IF P :out i No 6 04,1 OgriArig NT", OglArigL4 gS, ktg, NAPE" OEDPA ta. UArekr,V-,e,' YiS4 _ i 'I , I I pa. w 000 .. _ - ' ''..1. a i • \ WET ELEVATION (Kr 1, MAO' 94-446 YCH D.4•41•LF putt.; NE. Did* RECEIVED PITY OF TUKWILA Nnv 1 it 2002 ..... ;`I TER Reed Schedule 1 A40Yri 4ndonM 11wW in. iq Ot �' Ina 1 °01:7211...........„.....- i4 T p F Ni .•TQi SSN Id• it a "(57162 c_- ,..,01-----; oil-'' -wtom } t,,,„ . r (�----....-_7 --- -- i-7reti fr- .11 Y▪ an ran r _ .._ I N.. TW.O. • I r 'T y��1�o..yaT.T.•Z ------- N_.....i 1wha.. ___ Il•4 _I_ 4- fla4 K vp �N =Y4 itY -' -j Toad T+••Nb:____....._.. --_ TY.rI•nlr � 7 I-- --- fa:�y--.•a.--....._ Ie: se • .5 }.so 1-•3 130--9ja'j5,, 1,55 !bso 1... )4 iu 1.13 • }5. it SC ADO=7 T2 Sp 4se 1sx 1 x2 Ib do �2an_Ss, r., N 1,, a. l.ti j b ae- :1 -.+s --or C... E 5'T 9 C.. 7.2T I IbNeb.L4 _ , 1-,0 boa boa 1-,a by bvo 1-s. ia.--bxf---1-u 1-27 11-.x _AAAA__-._. La oso.. 1-w be 1-..e.-'bxs!\\» 1-s.5y 7IQn ox 1-.a. /b ax b. b 3 L» \k 1„. 7 e yl � Iie i�: }e0 S. 1,4 beb >e :)a bse bsx IbS. bex ac i.n S.1 • I. xa :ax .. ,.0 ` 1.0-0-* 91-i Se I Se. bu See brx bee b., boa bem I. .s. :xx .n .ee .xo ..c }, be. b So. 1,E ,40 be, br 1-a, bp 099 1 2 S , 122 10. ).. ) • 01.0 134 SOS boa to . i• 9 104 ej. :e, : 132 1 e0 901, 1 39 EL I F�e 115, 7.23 IN 99-1-=6 c . 7.56 AIT—_.7331. b 4 bo -1 4.DIYP11 loot • -:r. .ri �*I 56 (R- RECEIVED CITY OF TUP(WILA NOV 1 4 2002 PERMrr CENTER .mart. Sclw.. Symbol 012 06.4130.' Lummox c.m&. ole -1-4X1-400111-.. -NS • 25' ,9000 se 0NP.. C1e-1-3XL-400140 • 25' ,5000 -♦) 00x0 011-1-200-400324 • 25' 25000 x N.Io.ax Cw=C➢W GRADE- Se' . a/• \ ears POI -CONDUIT FAM< ' _— Colt* • 305( PLAITS POLE BASE DETAIL NOT 10 SCALE 100411513011444 51459 i44 Full OWN. LVCIED VANDER NICs 1g1A4 CVO'-- 114*0 *4 M ACCORDANCE NIM 014 eros stwers05SOD IN WAS. ASPNALI IN PAVED .PEAS — 1000115-151 C.V*CTE01 EXCAVATED *NORM Cao OATEN CPWl11-FRE AS SPECIFIED SECONDARY SERVICE TRENCH DETAIL Not 10 SCALE IP/014 400UU3NO 1O TRAIN DIST. SAr(l ---� 11 -- O1NE* 4VAILVL( 4041.10140 1504511 4,1400.440 AIN .POOLE 250-111 00 1NE NEC. 0' (reI .3,002 (1») (1) 10 2/4 434[54/0 STEEL GROUND ROD DETAIL w, TO SCALE r 17,wiL o_ Z U p Z 5 m z c., W 0 c Z W 04 Ko W < 713 Y r O IA I- _z I- M Q < K Q U O O Q J Q 0 Z Q Z v F 04 W L.L3 Lai 5 U Z 04 15208 52nd Avenue Soutn NEWTON ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS laxu 4"54`1u AIT .A p (xra0.x awe.} -Mop 0AX I N...w„5.....e.rn wP NOTE: EARTHWORK OUANTITIES ARE PREMOrtARY AND APPROKMATE 4640 SHALL WI BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE Of BIDDING. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPSONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPS% DOER OWN ESTIMATES Of EARTHY/MN QUANTITIES ON WHICH THEIR BID WILL BE BASED. NO ADDITION& PAYTIENT WILL BE IMDE FOR EARTHWORK 44 Exass Of CONTRACTOR'S BID AMOUNT. AA101.1441 Of STRUCIURK TILL NEEDED IS APPROX. 640 c1In2 mow OF STRUCTURAL 4.51 TO BE PLACED RI fill AREA IS APPROx. 140 CUM AMOUNT Of STRUCTURAL FEL 10 BE PLACED IN CUT AREA IS APPROx, 200 CU% FRI MATCH PATTERN: APPROXIMATE FILL 1.371 CUYD (APPROA. FILL AREA •• 23,400 SF) 0 CIDRITIG UMIT c1.11 HATCH PATIFRN APPROxIMATE CUT - 1.122 CU% (APPROX. CUT AREA = 20.000 SF) 0 V ; •'• • , ; RECEIVED CITY OF TUMILA NOV 1 40O2 PERMIT CE ! ROBERT FOLEY &ASSOCIATES INC. BRICKLAYERS UNION HALL num.. ..s“Nocgi. Eartwork Plan ,C, 5' ILS(. • +0.2 C1.3 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA Nov 12. PERMIT CENTER CLEARING UMT VERIFY E% CB DOES— NOT COLLECT SURFACE RUNOFF. 0(8 ABANDON CB AND REMOVE CPEP FROM UNDER PROPOSED PARKING LOT 0- .A .. 9CRET.(1 CB FEN BE MOVED SOUTH S3C_ Icy.: TijsfE);'— TC- 75, 8C 74.5 5L MIN JUNCTION C1081 P1 PRNDE 25 MN IF SD PVC 02 5L MN E% MN RASE RIM TO 75.50 ROBERT FOLEY ASSOCIATES INC. C84.111.1111{• W OLI N MISIEwa BRICKLAYERS UNION HALL RIM 77.0134 room., WASMIWT9N ® IIIIii MINI am. •• ® _ .ae,�.us rahwit11I.i TC 76.28 CO RMI 75 88 0 71.56 18 If DIP SLEEVE FOR 6" PVC O 2X SL MIN 46 LF SO 6" PVC O 25 SL MIN 7718' Ff I CO RIM 91.08 C 8852 JE. 911 - . 91.21 'Li SD 6- PMC 02551019 � �ILI 1 i1 illiil�1111I '110 NW! ! 10144111 7.67*, 77.5 r IA'ATE .ai ETER. 2.71 E 88 . E% 3252 SL PRESERVE E%. GRADES N THIS ' N ORDER TO ' SAVE E%. TREES (SEE 1a(NDSCA#E PIANS) CO RIM 78.21 R 77.00 18 11 S5 6- PVC 02 X SL MIN IT SMEARY SEWER INC SS STUB AND CLEANOUT (VERIFY P1 MU. ALLOW FOR,SLOPE 1691080 FOR!P# POSED SWAM SEWER TINES)., +,BOOOEE0. .\ i ... ;mEDE E. !IN ORDER TO RVE E%S, ` .0 . • .. TREES NEAR' . BC, 81.77 7.7t Sl to', 5� o • 0 I• C: �- TAP E%: 8' WATER: MAIN cMMM.zM, sr.pe r -• ,o^. arN .MM Mo mug MN: 0..:SR plume Grading, Drainage and Utility Plan C2.0 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 29, 1996 Robert Josephson, PE WSDOT N.W. Region Offices P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Re: 52nd Ave., S Office Building Traffic Analysis, Geotechnical Report and Conceptual Grading and Utility Plan Dear Mr. Josephson: Thank you for your letter of October 22, 1996 outlining WSDOT's review of the subject property. I wanted to specifically respond to your issue on the biofiltration swale and. associated rockery retaining wall. As presented in the Conceptual Grading and Utility Plan, the rockery wall was called out, including heights of the wall that were referenced to the legend for the plan. As this plan was conceptual in nature, specifics about the solutions were not called out. I would imagine that during your review of the project for the WSDOT drainage permit, these solutions will be explained in greater detail. The rockery/bioswale will require a separate building permit review from the application for the office building. This review will also require details about the rockery/bioswale posed in your letter that are not yet available. We will require that the applicants present a copy of the WSDOT permit when they apply for their building permit for the rockery/bioswale. I will forward your October 22 letter, along with this response, to the applicant. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins cc: Greg Diener, Pacific Engineering Design, Inc. Rolf Preuss JoAnna Spencer, Tukwila Public Works Don HurterNickie Erickson, WSDOT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 RECEIVED OCT 2 9 1996 Washington State COMMUNITY Department of Transportation DEVELOPMENT Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Northwest Region October 22, 1996 Michael Jenkins City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila WA 98188 Subject: SR 518 MP 3.28 CS 1758 52nd Avenue South Building Traffic Analysis, Geotechnical Report, Conceptual Grading & Utility Plan Review Dear Michael Jenkins: The proposed project is a two story building with a 22,162 square foot floor area. This project will generate 35 PM and 41 AM peak hour trips when completed and occupied. The proposed project is located north of SR 518 between I-5 and 52nd Avenue South in Tukwila. Approximately 400 feet south of the site, 52nd Avenue South intersects with Southcenter Boulevard is a major 4 lane facility connecting the site with major access points onto SR 5, SR 405, SR 518 and local arterials. We have reviewed the project and have the following comments. HYDRAULICS We will require a utility permit and review and approval of the drainage calculation and detail connection into the WSDOT drainage system. GEOTECHNICAL The geotech report and its recommendation appear to be appropriate for the construction of this building and the parking lot areas. The proposed recommendations are that no slopes should be left steeper than 2:1. This is fine, based on their comments relative to overbuilding the slopes and trimming back to insure adequate compaction at the face. Our main concern is the biofiltration swale and its associated rockery retaining walls. There is no clear mention of the height of these walls nor are there any construction details such as embedment depths or options to keep the fines from behind the rocks. What type of materials will these rockeries be set on and what type of material will they retain? Will water ever get up to the base of the rocks? What type of a batter will they be set at? Please have these concerns addressed. Page 2, October 22, 1996 SR 518 MP 3.28 CS 1758 52nd Avenue South Building Traffic Analysis, Geothechnical Report, Conceptual Grading & Utility Plan Review TRAFFIC Since the trips to and from this project would be distributed in equal percentages to all directions, the impact of this project on State facilities would be insignificant. Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of Developer Service section will continue to work directly with'you on this matter. If I can be of any other assistance feel free to call me at 440-4711. Sin iel e,„ OBERT SEPHSON, PE Manage of Planning & Local Coordi ation VEE:vee tw52ave.Doc Attachment cc: City of Tukwila Z Ia John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 23, 1996 Robert Josephson, P.E. WSDOT, N.W. Region P.O. Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 Re: 52nd Ave., S. Building DNS Dear Mr. Josephson: To assist in your department's review of the referenced project, I am enclosing the following: • Traffic Analysis • Geotechnical Report • Conceptual Grading and Utilities Plan Hopefully, this material will answer the questions you posed in your September 19, 1996 letter. Approximately 3 weeks ago I spoke with Don Wills. I sent him a copy of the DNS and the staff report, in which we informed the applicant that a WSDOT permit would be required in regard to the surface water management issues pertaining to this project. Feel free to contact me at 433-7142 if you have any further questions or concerns. Sincerely, (i&e.2-44 Michael Jenkins 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • Ink Washington State Department of Transportation . Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation Michael Jenkins City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Michael Jenkins: Northwest Region September 19, 1996 SR 518 MP 3.28 CS 1758 Determination of Nonsignificance &. 'Environmental Checklist Review - Fifty -Second Avenue South Building File No. E96-0019 The proposed project is to construct a two story office building with 22,162 square feet of space. • A lower level of parking will accommodate 69 parking spaces. The building use will be general office. Access will be from two driveways on 52nd Avenue South. The project site is located at 15208 52nd Avenue South. We have reviewed the Determination of Nonsignificance and Environmental Checklist and have the following comments: Hydraulics: 1. We will need the hydraulic calculations for this project submitted to use for review. The calculations must indicate predevelopment runoff rates and show how detention and treatment match predevelopment flows and satisfy DOE and lo local ordinances. 2. Show whereit will enter the WSDOT system. 3. Please show piping details, etc.. Traffic: The State recommends that a traffic study be prepared to analyze the state intersections that are impacted by ten or more of the project's generated peak hour trips and also determine what mitigation measures, if any, would be required. RECEIVED SEP 2 3 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Page 2, September 19, 1996 SR 518 MP 3.28 CS 1758 Determination of Nonsignificance & Environmental Checklist Review - Fifty -Second Avenue South Building File No. E96-0019 If you have questions contact Don Hurter at 440-4664 or Vickie Erickson at 440-4915 of my Developer Service section. incerely, ROBERT A. JOSEPHSON, PE Manager of Planning & Local Coordination VEE:vee File Name tk52bldg.Doc AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, pA 'V\IAhereby declare that: Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting O Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet ❑ Board of Appeals Agenda Packet fPlanning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet LI Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit %Determination of Non- significance 0 Mitigated Determination -of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice llNotice of Action fl Official Notice 0 Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on q-23-9(0 Prc'AcjA� Name of Project 2Zfj91 Avu_ BLIASignature File Number ..--..q(6.-c019 AFFIDAVIT I, SyLVIA McMu Et Notice of Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Public Meeting ElBoard of Packet OBoard of Packet Planning Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda fl Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit 0 Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: li( Determination of Non- significance f Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance flDetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice ONotice of Action Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on 5-22,--9(0 (-m ATrAOk - 5-1 Name of Project�5:43h ACJW P)Lbe] SignatureS Mcnittat- File Number e-9(0- r)o►9 41i CITY OF TLu:WILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCT A 2 STORY OFFICE OVER 1 STORY GARAGE PROPONENT: HONG TAN LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 15208 52 AV S PARCEL NO: 115720-0010 SEC/TWN/RNG: LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUK::WILA FILE 0NO: E96-0019 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EI'S) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c) . This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency, This information is available to the public on request. **:k*4: **:k* t••k•k•k:k:k:a:k:k:k:k:k:k****•k•k•k•k•k****•k•k•k•k•k•k•k•k•k•k•N•k•k•k•k•k•b**k•k•k•i•k***•k**•*•k•b•k•kk•k*•k* This determination is final and signed this 22.-4 day of Aocys.T 199 Steve Lancaster Responsible Official City of Tukwila. (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Copies of the procedures for '.SPP, appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. RESIDENT 15230 51ST AVENUE SOU_:., TUKWILA, WA 98188" RESIDENT 15005 51ST AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98188 RESIDENT 15151 52ND AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98188 PARKRIDGE TENANT 15215 52ND AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98188 SPEEA PROPERTIES 15205 52ND AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98188 RESIDENT 15171 52ND AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WA 98188 A840÷0015706. ST CORPORATION .15200 52N0•AVES': SEATTLE:WA: • , 984.440-0035-02 ' DEL'AY.MARY`E. 15356:.164TH AVE _ NE . WOODINVILLE WA 9844.40-0036-01: POWERS;RICHARD D+ANNABELLE 949999 16442. 51ST.` AVE S . TUKWILA"WA 119999 98072 98118 9.84440-.0037-00 • MASSOUO MAHMOUD+AZAII 6.046,:MAURY AVE- WOODLAND • HILLS` CA 1N0463 91367 3OWEN EROY 7311 , SW, SEATTL, WA 115720-0012-01: SOLLY:BRUCE:W+NANCY.:J, 8901S.180TH ST.: KENT WA 3N1072 98136 3.69999 98032: 115720-0013-00 .AERO -SPACE PORT; IVTERNATION549999 512 STRANDER BLVD' TUKWILA WA'. 98188 115720-0016-07:. SPEEA•PRQPERTIES: 15205.,52N0.AVE..S: SEATTLE.WV. 0481 98188 ,115720-0017-06: MANUFACTURERS LIFE'INS CO. 502963 C/O;COLLIERS REALEST:.SERV 800. 5TH AVE ;3930 SEATTLE WA 98104 11572070019-04:.' .„ SOLLY.>,BRUCE W C.NANCY;J:.. 8009 S. 180TH: ST ;0104 KENT.WA 361192 98032 115710-0021-00- I CHENEY DELBERT J 15005 51ST:AVE.S SEATTLEWA" 98188 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY SEPA REVIEW SECTION PO BOX' 47703 OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7703 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION REG. ENVIR. PROG. MANAGER 15700 Dayton Avenue N M/S-138 Seattle, WA 98133 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599 (206) 433-1800 TO: METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DEPT 821 2nd Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 P.S.A.P.C. 110 UNION ST - STE 500 SEATTLE,WA 98101-2038 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard ►8 Tukwila, WA 98188-2599 • L:t��w.t.w ...aAd:U:�Ltc...`iari.::•;n::t:.ti:�::d....:..:tr:.u:�.,,:ti.yaerlw�''.-' /�:t�+:s+►n.. HONG TAN CAPput A J 1200 South 192nd Street - Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98148 0,11N OF. 11,0:10 LA Ptiv e)oc WOeKS ,, AFFIDAVIT I, SILVIA McN1IALLQ Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting fl Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet O Board of Appeals Agenda Packet fJPlanning Commission Agenda Packet 0 Short Subdivision Agenda Packet O Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit LJ Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Non- significance LI Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance O Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice O Notice of Action ❑ Official' Notice Other LI Other was -mailed to each of the following FPkxEb 91N - 2582 Name of Project S20 AvelAkA.� File Number IS Ito DOIct addresses on .-22-9(49 Signature TRANSMISSION RESULT REPORT TUKW (AUG 22 '96 09:47AM) DCD/PW THE FOLLOWING FILE(S) ERASED FILE FILE TYPE OPTION. 007 TRANSMISSION (AUTO) TEL NO. PAGE RESULT 9* -4642582 03 OK ERRORS 1) HANG UP OR LINE FAIL 2) 13USY 3) NO ANSWER 4) NO FACSIMILE CONNECTION CHECKLIST: EARONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELIN ERMIT MAILINGS () U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS () FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION () DEPT OF FISH & WILDLIFE () OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY () TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT () DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES () OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR () DEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT () DEPT OF FISHERIES & WILDUFE () KC. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV. () BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD () FIRE DISTRICT #11 () FIRE DISTRICT #2 () S CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT () TUKWILA LIBRARIES () RENTON LIBRARY () KENT UBRARY () CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY ()USWEST () SEATTLE CITY UGHT () WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS () HIGHLINE WATER DISTRICT () SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT ( ) TCI CABLEVISION () OLYMPIC PIPEUNE () KENT PLANNING DEPT () TUKWILA CITY DEPTMENTS: PUBUC WORK () FIRE () POUCE () FINANCE () PLANNING ( ) BUILDING () PARKS & REC. () MAYOR () PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL (Or P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC () SW K C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE () MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE () DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE () DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE () VALLEY DAILY NEWS 7/12/95 C:WP51 DATA\CHKUST FEDERAL AGENCIES () U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY () U.S. DEPT OF H.U.D. WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES () DEPT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERV. () DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIV (ay DEPT OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DNISIO * () OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL * SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS * SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION KING COUNTY AGENCIES WLJp rrr env , rAcVlc .) () KC. DEPT OF PARKS () HEALTH DEPT () PORT OF SEATTLE ( ) BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV -SEPA INFO CENTER SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES ()HIGHUNE SCHOOL DISTRICT () K C PUBUC UBRARY () SEATTLE MUNI REF UBRARY () SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT () RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT UTILITIES () PUGET SOUND POWER & UGI -IT () VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT () WATER DISTRICT #20 () WATER DISTRICT #125 () CITY OF RENTON PUBUC WORKS () RAINIER VISTA () SKYWAY CITY AGENCIES () RENTON PLANNING DEPT () CITY OF SEA TAC () CITY OF BURIEN ( ) TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS () TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES j/( METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING D OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE MEDIA () HIGHUNE TIMES J/J SEATTLE TIME • • PUBLIC NOTICE MAILINGS FOR PERMITS SEPA MAILINGS Mail to: (comment period starts on date of mailing) Dept. of Ecology Environmental Review Section Applicant Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list) Include these documents: SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Affidavit of Dlstribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper). SHORELINE MAILINGS Notice of Application: Notice of application for a substantial development Permit must be mailed to owners and to property owners within 300 feet of subject property, prepare an affidavit of publication, and publish two consecutive weeks with deadline for comments due 30 days after last newspaper publication date. Shoreline Permit: Mail to: (within 8 days of decision; 30 -day appeal period begins date received by DOE) Department of Ecology Shorelands Section State Attorney General Applicant Indian Tribes Other agencies as necessary (checked off on attached list). Include these documents: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, if applicable) Shoreline Application Form (filled out by applicant) Drawings/Plans of project (site plan, elevations, etc. from PMT's) Site plan, with mean high water mark & improvements _ Cross-sections of site w/structures & shoreline Grading plan Vicinity map SEPA Determination (3 -part form from Sierra) Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS) SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant) Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline Notice of Application Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper) Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper). crr* DEPARTMENT OTUKWILA F C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FAX NUMBER: (206) 431-3665 TO: 21 ?vc.t.A4-- DATE: '2-2- ce-u.et (c TITLE: FROM: kric.-Lem ( COMPANY: TITLE: DEPARTMENT: DEPARTMENT: -1)C.-1 FAX NO. NUMBER OF PAGES TRANSMITTED. INCL. THIS COVER SHEET: SENT BY (INITIALS): Aitcr kA car' I -el cze-Al 4') e -c -Air- ( oin TeL IF THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT CLEARLY RECEIVED, PLEASE CALL: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUMTY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 Office: (206) 431-3670 08/15/90 MEMORANDUM TO: Project File e96-0019, 52nd Ave., S. Building, 15208 - 52nd Ave., S. FROM: Michael Jenkins, DCD RE: SEPA review - staff evaluation of Environmental Checklist received July 26, 1996 DATE: August 22, 1996 Project Description: Site is located at 15208 - 52nd Ave., S. Project involves the demolition of an existing Single Family Home, with detached garage, and the construction of a three story commercial office building. The project includes 2 floors for office space totaling 22,162 square feet, ground floor parking totaling 9,248 square feet and parking for 69 cars. Agencies with jurisdiction: None. Comments to SEPA checklist: Pg. 3: 67% of project will be in impervious surfaces. Pg. 7, section 3(c): Runoff to be collected in catchbasins and gathered to onsite detention, with release into onsite bioswale. Pg. 8, section 4(a): 80-90% of site vegetation to be removed with some significant trees retained. Pg. 11, section 8(c): Single family house with detached garage to be demolished. Project located in Office zone. Pg. 15, section 14: Traffic mitigation, including proportionate fair share agreement, may be required. 111) SEPA review - E96-0019 • 52nd Ave., S. Office Building - 15208 - 52nd Ave., S. August 22, 1996 Summary of interdepartmental comments: • PW: The applicant will need WSDOT to review and approve stormwater discharge. A permit from Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) will also be required. A possible fair share agreement may also be required for traffic signal upgrades, based on a review of the traffic study submitted by applicant. Grading permits may also be required. • Planning: A demolition permit for existing single family house will be required. A BLA may also be required. Review by Tukwila's. Board of Architectural Review (BAR) is required. Summary of Primary Impacts: • Earth Generally, slopes are between 5%-15%, with some greater than or equal to 20%. Steepest slope found is equivalent to 50%. Soils are loose to medium density, beneath 1 to 3 feet of topsoil Site grading may occur at levels requiring export. Soils may be exposed during excavation. Approximately 67% of site to be impervious surfaces. Silt fencing on downhill slope, along with rocked site entrance, will be used for erosion control. Development must comply with TMC section 18.45, Sensitive Areas Overlay. • Air Dust and exhaust emissions will occur during construction, with increases in exhaust emissions expected as a result of project. Auto emissions already present, as project is adjacent to Interstate Highway. Site will be watered during excavation and mud and dust from trucks will be controlled to minimize effect on paved streets. A permit from PSAPCA may be required for demolition of existing single family house and detached garage. • Water No surface or ground water on site. Stormwater runoff from parking areas will be collected in catchbasins and rooftop runoff from downspouts. Runoff collected to onsite detention and released to onsite bioswale. Project must comply with WSDOT requirements concerning surfacewater discharge. Plants Deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs are found at project. 80-90% of site vegetation to be removed, with some significant trees at property edge to be retained. Project must comply with TMC section 18.54 concerning tree replacement, as well as with specific requirements in TMC section 18.45. 2 SEPA review - E96-0019 • 52nd Ave., S. Office Building - 15208 - 52nd Ave., S. August 22, 1996 • Animals Site provides no known habitat for mammals or birds. No known candidate or endangered species found on site. • Energy/Natural Resources Electricity is needed to run HVAC systems and lighting. Applicant will meet state energy code requirements. • Environmental Health No known health hazards are associated with this project. Freeway noise generated adjacent to site. Construction noise to last approximately 6 months. Project must comply with Tukwila Noise Ordinance, TMC section 8.22. • Land/Shoreline Use Site is a parcel with a vacant single family house, zoned Office. Properties immediately south of the project are zoned Regional Commercial Mixed -Use (RCM). The single family house and detached garage will be demolished, after obtaining permits from the Department of Community Development and PSAPCA. Portions of the site are classified as environmentally sensitive, requiring compliance with TMC section 18.45. • Housing One vacant single family house with detached garage will be demolished. • Aesthetics 35 feet from grade to the top of the structure is the maximum height allowed. Development request will be reviewed before Tukwila's Board of Architectural. Review, per TMC 18.18.070. • Light and Glare Headlight glare from adjacent freeway. On site security lighting will be included. • Recreation No known impacts. • Historic/Cultural Preservation No known places, landmarks or objects. 3 SEPA review - E96-0019 111, 52nd Ave., S. Office Building - 15208 - 52nd Ave., S. August 22, 1996 • Transportation • Project is located approximately 500 feet from Interstate Highway offramp, near the intersection of 52nd Ave., S. and S. 154th St. Project includes the elimination of 2 parking spaces near vacant house and the creation of 69 spaces in conjunction with project. New sidewalk and street curbing to be included, to match existing conditions of neighboring lots. Approximately 200 trips per day to be generated, with peak volume of 30 trips between 4:00 - 6:00 p.m. Applicant submitted traffic study, reviewed by Public Works. Traffic mitigation, including proportionate fair share agreements, may be required at the time of submittal for Building Permits. • Public Services No known impact, as the equipment is alarmed and 24-hour monitoring equipment is included for additional security. • Utilities Electricity and telephone services will be extended through existing service provided to the apartment complex. A separate meter will be established for the project. Recommendations: DNS a:\SEPA\e96-0027 4 City of Tula 1 John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director August 20, 1996 Rolf Preuss Rolf Preuss and Associates 1809 - 7th Ave., Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98104 Re: E96-0019, L96-0029 - 52nd Avenue S. project Dear Rolf: Prior to the issuance of a land use permit to begin construction on this project, a demolition permit will have to be obtained from the Department of Public Works to demolish the existing house and detached garage at the subject property. I am enclosing a copy of the application and related information that will be needed to obtain this permit. If you have any questions about this process, feel free to contact me at 433-7142 or JoAnna Spencer, the Development Engineer for Public,Works, who reviews applications for Demolition Permits. Her number is 433-0179. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 /205) 431-.3670 o r.1'-12nr,) Z1 1-UAs City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director August 7, 1996 Rolf Preuss 1807 - 7th Ave., Suite 1000 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: 52nd Ave., S. project, File No. L96-0029, SEPA E96-0019 Dear Mr. Preuss: I enjoyed meeting with you today concerning your proposed design revisions on the above referenced project. As both Kelcie and I indicated, a revised set of elevations will have to be filed to keep this application complete. I will also be looking forward to receiving the changes pursuant to your SEPA application, previously described by Joanna Spencer and Alexa Berlow. To keep on calendar for the new hearing date of September 26, 1996, all SEPA related material needs to be received by August 12 in order to complete the review and to allow for potential comment and/or appeals on the SEPA determination. In regard to any further revisions to the BAR application, please keep me posted if you anticipate any further changes. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 • • URBAN REGIONAL RESEARCH Planning Consulting Services ST Corporation Hong Tan 1200 South 122nd Street Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98148 August 5, 1996 RE: Traffic Analysis - 52nd Avenue South Office Building: #E96-0019 Dear Mr. Tan THE PROPOSED ACTION RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA AUG 1 2 1996 PERMIT CENTER The proposed action is to construct a two story office building 22,162 gross square feet of space. A lower level of parking will accommodate 69 parking spaces. The building use will be general office. Access will be from two driveways off of 52nd Avenue South. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at 15208 52nd Avenue South in Tukwila. There is a vacant single family house on the property. Street System Access to the site is from 52nd Avenue S. which has a 60 foot right of way. Currently 52nd is a two lane facility with approximately 24 feet of pavement. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street. No parking is allowed on either side of the street. Approximately 400 feet south of the site, 52nd Avenue S. intersects with Southcenter Boulevard. Southcenter Boulevard is major 4 lane facility connecting the site with major access points onto SR 5, SR 405, SR 518 and local arterials. No channelization exists at the intersection of 52nd Avenue S. and Southcenter Boulevard. A stop sign controls traffic entering Southcenter Boulevard. Trip Distribution The site is served by numerous access points in all directions of desired travel, including the major State Routes of SR 5, SR 405 and SR 518. Suite 1000 1809 Seventh Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 624-1669 FAX (206) 626-5324 email 74227.2652@compuserve.com b! , �. 0 , ;J$TfR4 •:c sd !�%°0411 FNG\�� 1 6)C°2 45 9-/5. 771 IMPACTS Trip Generation Vehicular generation was determined by applying the Institute of Transportation Engineers (rt) Trip Generation Report, 1991, Fifth Edition. The ITE land use code (750) for Office Park facilities was assumed to best fit the proposed use of this office building. The generation rate of 11.5 vehicles per 1000 sf is used in this analysis. This has been applied to the proposed 22,162 sf of gross office space, resulting in 255 Average Weekday Trip Ends. During the afternoon peak hour, it is estimated that 35 vehicles will enter and exit the site. About 5 of these vehicles will enter and 30 will exit the site during the PM peak hour. Trip Distribution The distribution of traffic generated from this proposal appears to be distributed in an equal percentage in all directions. This is due to the various access points serving the proposed site. The employees will have numerous options of travel to and from their place of employment. MITIGATING MEASURES Frontal sidewalks will be provided as required by the City's standards. !f s [� *:108G01, SCHEME FOOTPRINT OF BUILDING J -UL -18-1996 10:18 FROM .41AN REGIONAL RESEARCH TO 07-18-1996 09:30AM FROM tech Consultants Inc TO GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Memo • bb.S44 P.02 r.bi 13256 NE 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 FAX 747-8561 ` the William Van Geekertcen Coupon% ST Corporation Adder 1200 South 192nd St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98148 JN: 95267 Rene Marc R, McGinnis 1 Data July 18, 1946 FAX: (206) Phan: (206) 741 • 56.1 S S. Rt= Geotechnical Considerations for Revised Bung Layout Proposed Office Busting 15208 - 52nd Avenue South Tukwila, WA We have been provided with the revised site layout, which has changed slightly since we developed our geotechnical engineering report on August 10, 1995. The parking garage will underlie most of the building and have a finish floor elevation of 76 feet. On the attached copy of the revised site plant have sketched the approximate outline of the building that was planned at the time of our original report and the locations of our subsurface explorations. The location of the building is substantiatty the same as what was originally planned_. The northwest comer of the building has been pulled in, creating more on -grade parking. The garage floor elevation is about 5 feet higher than originally planned. The small changes in the site layout and building footprint are not substantial from a geotechnical engineering standpoint The recommendations presented in our report are stilt appropriate. It will be necessary to fill beneath the southeastern portion of the garage, as the existing site grades are about 3 feet lower than the planned garage floor grade here. The building foundations and site retaining walls must bear directly on native, medium -dense sods, or on granular structural flit placed above these competent soils. This will require overexcavation to extend through the topsoil and thin existing fill, and the looser native soils. We should observe alt foundation and retaining wall excavations to verify that suitable soils are exposed. The planned development should not adversely affect the stability of the slopes located on, or adjaosnt to, the site. The new grading and building walls will actually improve the slope stability on the site by retaining. or decreasing the inclination of the existing slopes. The only steep slop on the site is the short slope that was artificially created southeast of the existing house by previous site grading. This slope wwdi be stabilized by the planned building walls and filling for the northwestern parking area. ooe Rolf Preuss Associates 82E35324(FA)q Post -it° Fax Note 7671 1DEde pageS TOTAL P.02 • • MEMORANDUM TO: Alexa Berlow, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: July 18, 1996 RE: Environmental Review for 52nd Ave. S. Office Building - #E96-0019. Listed below are comments related to SEPA and City regulations. Please let me know if you have any questions. GEOTECHNICAL: The report completed by Geotech Consultants, Inc. (8/10/95) identifies the subject site as having moderate slopes with mostly dry and stable soil conditions. Because the slope cuts needed are extensive to develop garage parking, groundwater seepage may require special techniques during construction. Construction during the wet season may also affect the use of native soils. In general, the report indicates this project site does not have a stability problem. It also appears there will not be any grade changes along WSDOT's I-5 ROW boundary. SEPA CHECKLIST: Section 3. Surface - There is a mapped watercourse #23-11 directly north of the property; however, the 15 -foot buffer does not affect the site. Section 3. Water Runoff - Assuming discharge will enter the drainage to the north of the site, WSDOT approval may be needed. This drainage flows under I-5 and is part of their system. TREE REGULATIONS: Based on the 20% slope gradient mapping and tree locations, the proposed tree replacement is appropriate. The final landscape plan should include tree protection measures for those saved trees in perimeter areas. I believe "tree regulation" replacement trees should be kept separate from other landscaping requirements. I have not evaluated the proposed plan for this detail. Cont. No. Epic File No. 1 iG-00 1 Fee '$.325 Receipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: rlFF( 5ECAD1410 AYE, SoL7I-H 2. Name of applicant: I-4oF- c, T A► -J 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:i24100 5 . 192.0 5171z.C—Et SutTE Boo S&ATTCk,It 'I Gtat42 24t—C24t ccvt®ct ; ScoiT Oiavl5 4. S(`ao9 1fv,'NG; so l00o s6ATTLe,u G.24 •t(o '9 te checklist prepared: 301,)e t to c o 5. Agency'requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): S i �4iQ A co-nsALUcnan rkt,`'l ComwLec-6 c \5-nzoakm rest k, or✓ (ci. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. WO 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Sail_ INvG-S�tC-,A.0c_S7010k1 BLI n670Tecta Goo O Tq ..J t��. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. . O -2 REC MIVED JUN 0 7 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • • 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. Lo Boo `� 1OB 11Y1EA.'f� - (2,AK t (Jt,- PE-, PC' Sc� c.,o 106- Pe t2,Vvt, �T S C� tN W 6rL,VV\ lT 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. CC�ts� 2� (,?-) TL�Cz & �TC�i� Bo_t_up 3b - F t,.;oQ 2 S _EL� �g� S e c,o►.b A130 TAAILD _ ► 2__ . ci,_244?) . PA1214,1Q1r- Fol itaadeA - �'� �? G� I WI GS F12 z 3 'at Cc, -i °(d' 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica- tions related to this checklist. PR.IJP O PrLolA AT (520) A+\ln1e___ SQU'Cbl Ti2k-W�� , w 13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? N( ST'S- P C..Q'P c 0121 dna TO O(L &fL Tea- *-1-4-1/ ao ?-40---)- -3- '`TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLIC• • Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General de tion of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hill steep slopes, mountainous, other c� t `54..oPEiJ BE;T(.0 3 Otto (STD 5e), GQUai... To 0112. GrLEATEAL TikoNt,3 ao°ja b. What is•the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? G'p°jz, 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. SAF OI C..S t e.)UEr"CIE�AATLOY\ Locr , Tb v vet tom DE;e,3`7 NAl' `oAK)M SiL'C g61•-Ea41 kl 1 m 3 PEIG aP Tn LL. AJOD FELL. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti- ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. SlT6 1g011Lb- Wim Qg{jOU6e e c R (P,V141r.11t jS Tb Put C2e:2T612..v t p..) t C:,QJ:lz:,\L (,-4 f. Could erosion occur construction, or use? ‘MS , t=,cAAJ xvc WY \ i4Av E : GSC Po O CAN SITLocX1,OYY as a result of clearing, If so, generally describe. o P xu CLOY\ C4001.0 5oLcn QOR,Lei --- g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? ef_12.01GAt(YbqV-A..21, LH PFrLU taus . • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: papyLOC SI Ur F—., L) Gk) OL) - ©oijJv { VLL. Cits -rwCx A r oG IG ESO 11? -1__ __ 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. DQrLNb- C S32Li zai,»n . T) T AIJ© �T��(L e13Y1� Y L ([TYl : iR UTO G W\ `S`a isyn_s b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. tiES 3 A UTO C tM- lSSU3fl S �(L0 \ F L L &T o T TO. TA S tT6r c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: IF gjg.-,GG-SSA( W m77(1. S 176 tDor2 L &) C 4\ ?crit T) OP6RAV4oS CL�YY 2n1- Tt2U6k_ w1�trC . tion to vnLa.)itn%"Le b()sa- o&) PrAUEO ST�L66 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. T.10 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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. ti1O 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. (QC)06. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. 100 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. (JO 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. WO • • , Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quan- tities, if known. f•.1D 2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sour- ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NOL) c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters?, If so, describe. SoQQt F (2.MDCWIP StO UPJ\O�<J. STO&Wv Bns uoEF C(tum III CAI -CA PASU3 1 Y QE TOPS SPDQ _' EF. es.s 6ATKtd11411) LCL A CrI c k__SiDI:13 Yl,arl ScaY_,M nis)0 TM Er N R...EI 11 LOt1.2!„4 -t 0_10 On S svt �1OEkLT2ATl�_ S ?6( — C QTc.` 0 r To tuJoitA (?,64) VtYnEfo-CS • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 11 U d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: IDhu..3i,60't Y1 PtLt (L SSIZ , PS 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: 1/ deciduous tree: v/ evergreen tree: ./ shrubs t/ grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of^ve� etation will be removed or altered? QSp°!D �n"_k-) Oa= vv%GATADY1 W (4Q, EV9 2,,vv o 4) _'(LOP-1LzL G-066 W L & c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. 00106 -8- • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: _5C.aaNAsGA 96- jesAID 5. Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered -species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. NO d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 1,4,O1J -9 • . Evaluation for Agency Use Only 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solor) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. — R-6(,� b (ply 61,)O LAG b41-1,011— b. 1TUJZ — b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. 1,10 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: NLEg S-17411 p;1 wASL-lll.x-One1 c -AL,L Go OSE-Jn oATtori C 9Oti 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 propos-al? If so, describe. ).J1) 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. tJ01.36 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ- mental health hazards, if any:_jsiA • Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?.u.3q1, Fazrr 1 1 mT6tiL.STAT- E q w_E c. Y To Tb4en s 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short- term or a long-term basis (for example: traf- fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. V;(02 -L- T(JIY\ : COTIG 'I_UC,tfI_.LOQ oMOW * ) Jer)& Tom `: T RAFFtc. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: LlmmmtT COy1sTr? JGf.all Roo Aroo carr, P _ ti-ct-k._ C c'ClA O TL) I4-,W1L AA _Lo t ORO _L A 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? 5.;t176: khq 040.1. EAtlY1IW\ H[011 A Get- T r 4; 0011110ICAAL.. 12112l llufs OCEELGCT� . b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. '._O c. Describe any structures on the site. 2compOLAA 6(0 At 3O S)Tfl6646O 6AQpi E • • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (.oT %•t 16 06- ✓Y\s).1,A5HlEnael_ e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? p (0PP tC.6 DIS712-ICja f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? i r t -7 aS ,1 g• If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. �C't S , Por:R.010S OF 3Q °la i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? ACTCL ytuNlq`'E, rrO PGDPC.b P62. U. Pbl, c,c_JuPA1NL A LoA-p FALia2, j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Q k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: 16.101,1 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com- patible with existing and projected land uses and p1 ans, if any: VYWne-C Alm. REC,uC WL .1\n5 CO- •PuAAJNt 1J& 0 AiQO Carl r,6t2, c) Qexa (LO OF A 2G -t t LC- U2FJC.� . Evaluation for Agency Use Only 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? N- b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli- minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income ow- incoma housing. dY1, b yyl, L O lu,i,, l l•� C.Z31� t;: c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 1,40w-71 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? S `- O"_T O —TOP OF iJ L &Mea 9CLAT0Y1 o P 20U F -, FY Ca nn _P1to teaA-1 (two c.) b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NSQ1 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: olryykKAA Lok -TAA C,Ot -t1O,OS OTr it-lf-� tvDr f1) c)E= ARArkk 1, 4C-0031?J3L._,. gAEAJ 1. • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? HeAOI.tGrtt- G Aak, C)CX2 0A CO °Tea_ vrovms, i;OO—d:CX) 401 Ate( 4 : oo - c oo ew\ b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? N O c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Elea l,16vATS ERAcon C1Af t rJ A Od A (6-1•7. P (4 4-0.36 - LdT iZ) k) (N PRINr. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: pOti)6D t t,Gb TINS- tpT Z3Y1 i t-6 t LIC��l'L4_IJLr 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational oppor- tunities are in the immediate vicinity? 0016 b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. WO c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 1.)0t..36 • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro- posed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. OC) b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. 1JOt6 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N A 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed accss to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. S Sa6 PUAK) V1,CtL) T4 MAP, b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? tJ o c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? f'RU TE WOOLO Q(2Al) LOt CD9 PQ�d6G-G wvUUU eu,uYlle0M—G 2 SZAl1,S • Evaluation for Agency Use Only d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Tl6tAD , . A ort6- PalwtT fem e6itty LtioG C2So Le t) a#30 cornPC.6Z'6 STQEJT rnarCA4 EXl5z eib- c lTl �iSo LF ) e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. }Q_ f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated, by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 200 TILIPS 106g. DAL( (.000 L.O B6 6 �1J G 23�� T K 6 C1j(YI.P I..C:. CGJD f72415'ef_Jr . KE P6AK UO OM N OP SO tYLLPS W O uL DP,(,T u t� S 4- — CD eYn g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor- tation impacts, if any: pQovtS cy (')F so Ftcle&ir io 12aL,11,311--- 1D SiATLs€ p(2_or6" Dernat4)) 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. t -i/5:,5-6 t4.2KILE/ IBJ Ft21, AN0 PoL,IC,E, f'(2 -23.T zcit1 lb2LL L. r1/4-36F-_)060cAl CYE WWF I Q1dJ1 - SnaltAr b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any._0,U Lt � fl-4tLI C R-rt1,.)Z, a_pc, KS I s66urtAVA ALTA xr� r w a Ppx•vi,ID.6 carriloc6r, Fta s pCLtbJILL6(L SLS . E'CJUS F.(Qk A 4Z - \ -16- 16. Utilities 0 Evaluation for Agency Use Only tilities - tly availablg at ie 'te: ity natur.l water 6:)fuse service, sep is 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. ec aiuC1-4 — c.rmrrtka cc,tc.k -;-6-,c.kt:=t-tott3 — v5 --`5V c-,qS_ wIASWte36- A L.IltalTRAL [SAS t.'o' € T12,60CI ll,0J19- ?ecQui L6A tavio S`ZNo M)6,5. E06L- MOo14.VP C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand the lead agency is relying on them to make its d Signature: Date Submitted: Jt J i PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE. -17- . ¶o BE COMPLETED BY APPLICAM • Evaluation for Agency Use Only D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not imple- mented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, ani- mals, fish, or marine life are: • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3. How would the proposal be likely to •deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural recourses are: 4. How wouldthe proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, inclduing whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts area: How does the proposal conform to the Tukwila Shoreline Master Plan? 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or -respond to such.demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. -20- • . Evaluation for Agency Use Only . Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: -21- ,ITO BE COMPLETED BY ICiii • ' • Evaluation for Agency Use Only E. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS The .objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be helpful in reviewing the aforegoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the environmental infor- mation provided and the submitted plans, -documents, suppor- tive information, studies, etc. 1. What are the objective(s) of the proposal? 114,- O6SE611,.)6S OF T e12O`90 A L. kS Tb O VC -,L o ' P P P YL.caC 1. w144vG ti. 2:2-)000 5 P OP O _Ates S05: -F �4 o' L G& %' Al,.,e A DJAGEoV 1:0 •PfL,oPF1LVIA ' VS -Doc) 52. i b AVEC IS . `PA2t Off- v6'l..oP\ lA SU f. Lk) 0 AI JPAOAK-IN h,- Ft 2 114 AO 41CiC-,tJ-v boLGotie04.- C. tom?OQ b2." AV* s Lott -14 , STA�.(,S AuDeJC3- S06z•�T ck3 R.,Zbi P20P6fL. L4 , 2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives? Not.i6 3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action: prz,GFek.. C. DEAZNATLUE.:7 1 -22- • • Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. Doesthe proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan? If so, what poli- cies of the Plan? W O Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are: 0 A -23- • GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 FAX 747-8561 ST Corporation 1200 South 192nd Street, Suite 300 Seattle, Washington 98148 7`*'i4 Ccs ra►'j- taA Attention: William Van Geelkerken Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Office Building 15208 - 52nd Avenue South Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Van Geelkerken: August 10, 1995 JN 95267 �Ce �a vl's �v41 ASe- . ��- . l . l "i . We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the office building to be constructed at 15208 - 52nd Avenue South in Tukwila. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions and then developing this report to provide design criteria for foundations, retaining walls, and pavements and recommendations for general earthwork. You authorized our work by accepting our proposal, P-3637, dated July 19, 1995. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with seven test pits and one boring that generally encountered loose to medium -dense, native sands and silts beneath 1 to 3 feet of topsoil and fill. The native soils are suitable to support relatively conventional footings. The footing excavations encountering the native sands will need to be wetted and compacted with a hoe -pack prior to placing forms. Where the native silts are exposed in the foundation excavations, the subgrade should be protected with a layer of crushed rock. Some groundwater seepage could be encountered in the deeper excavations for the lower floor, particularly during the wet season. This would require some dewatering of the excavations. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Associate rRECEIV D JUN 01 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Office Building 15208 - 52nd Avenue South Tukwila, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed office building to be constructed at 15208 - 52nd Avenue South in Tukwila. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. We were provided with conceptual plans showing the proposed building footprint and finish floor elevations. Rolf Preuss Associates developed these plans. The property dimensions, the existing topography, and the locations of the existing structures on the site were indicated on the site plan. Based on these plans, we anticipate that the proposed building will consist of two floors over a basement parking garage that will daylight toward the east and south. The finish floor elevation for the parking garage is to be 70 feet, which will result in maximum cuts of approximately 18 feet below the existing grade for the foundation construction at the garage's northwestern corner. The footings for the first and second floors will step up toward the north and west from the parking garage wall. On -grade paved parking will be located east and north of the building. A drive ramp will slope up toward 52nd Avenue South along the southern side of the building for access to the garage and eastern parking. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The irregularly shaped site is located between an Interstate 5 right-of-way and 52nd Avenue South. An off -ramp for southbound Interstate 5 abuts the eastern property line. At the time of our field work, the site was developed on its northern half with a residence and a detached garage. With the exception of a gravelled driveway north of the house and a grass yard close to the residence, the remainder of the site was covered with blackberry vines. Shrubs and medium-sized trees were scattered around the property. An abandoned wooden shed was located on the southern portion of the site. The ground surface on the site and in the general vicinity is characterized by gentle slopes • dropping toward the southeast. The northern approximately one-third of the property is relatively level. Slopes on the southern portion of the site have inclinations of Tess than 20 percent. iNo€-jjindicationsaofrslopetinstabilitytlifmearisurfaceRs.oilk2ereeporaseepagelatcithe- groun rface=we a bserve lite ini'gY ruo ite_visits Development around the site is a mixture of commercial and residential buildings. Office buildings are located immediately to the north, west, and south of the property. Single- family and multifamily housing exists further to the north and northeast of the site. CPO1 CII CONSULTANTS, INC. ST Corporation August 10, 1995 Subsurface JN 95267 Page 2 The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven test pits and drilling one boring at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the proposed construction and required design criteria, the site topography and access, the subsurface conditions revealed during excavation, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and the time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on August 1, 1995 with a rubber -tired backhoe. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 6. The single boring was drilled on July 31, 1995, using a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill. Samples were taken at 5 -foot intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split - spoon sampler, which has a 2 -inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil with a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. The Test Boring Log is attached as Plate 7. In the explorations, we encountered a 1- to 3 -foot layer of loose, silty sand topsoil and fill below the surface vegetation. Below this surficial layer, the test pits and boring revealed loose to medium -dense sands with low silt contents. Thin layers of stiff silt were observed in these sands in several of the test pits. In the boring and Test Pit 1, we encountered dense, glacially consolidated sands and silty sands. These dense soils were found at a depth of 11 feet in Test Pit 1 and a depth of about 26 feet in Boring 1. The native sands that underlie the loose topsoil and fill appear to be recessional deposits resulting from streams flowing off glaciers and hillsides after the last glaciation. The silt layers found within the recessional sands resulted from small lakes or ponds that would allow these fine sediments to settle out. The glacially consolidated soils that underlie these recessional deposits slope down toward the east or southeast, based on the results of Test Pit 1 and Boring 1. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the Togs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. If a transition in soil type occurred GEOlTiCI I CONSULTANTS, INC • • ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 3 between samples in the boring, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation and drilling. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soils will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was observed in Boring 1 at a depth of about 20 feet and in Test Pit 6 at a depth of 11 feet. The explorations were left open for only a short time period and were conducted during summer months. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater levels could be higher during winter and spring months. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General (The=subsurface-explorations_conducted_focthis=study-indicate-that=the site is-underlain_by loose_to-medium-dense-sands-containing-occasional-layers-of-stiff-silt These=native-soils) eresuitable_to=support=the-proposed_buildrng_on_conventional-foundations: P_rior_to=placing concrete,_the=footing=subecades=comprised-of-native-sands-wil I -need -to -be -wetted -and' compacted--with-a h-oe=pack =We recommend accomplishing the footing excavation with a smooth backhoe bucket to limit disturbance. A layer of crushed rock can be laid in footing excavations that encounter silts in order to limit subgrade softening under worker foot traffic. The footings for the upper two floors will be located behind the foundation walls for the floors below them. To prevent the upper footings from surcharging the lower walls, the upper footings must be bottomed below a 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) imaginary zone extending up from the base of the lower walls. This will likely require lowering the footing elevations for the upper two floors in areas. Grade beams may be required for continuous footings to span the basement backfill. The temporary cuts should be possible without shoring. If excessive groundwater is encountered in the excavations, which is most likely to occur in the deep excavations for the parking garage's northwestern corner, it will be necessary to cut the temporary slopes at a flatter inclination. Additional temporary slope protection and temporary dewatering could be required where significant seepage is encountered. GEOTCCII CONSULTANTS, INC ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 4 The native sand soils should be suitable for structural fill and general wall backfill, if they are placed and compacted during dry weather. Wet weather placement will generally be unfeasible due to the fine-grained nature of the sands. It may not be possible to compact the sands to 95 percent of the maximum density without repeated compaction and moisture conditioning. We have encountered this problem with similar sands on other sites. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, develop- ment, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. Conventional Foundations The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, native sands, or on structural fill placed above these competent, native soils. The native sands must be compacted prior to placing concrete or structural fill. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recom- mendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. They should be bottomed at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for frost protection. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. The footing subgrade must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring compacting the subgrade. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand or simply excavating the footings using a smooth bucket on the backhoe. Some overexcavation may be required below the shallower footings to expose competent, native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 3 -foot -wide footing must be at. least 5 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing. An allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings constructed according to the above recommendations and placed directlyon competent, native soils or structural fill. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic Toads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on OFOTPCI I CONSULTANTS, INC ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 5 competent, native soils, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about 1 inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the founda- tion and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil, or surrounded by level, structural fill. We recommend the following design values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Parameter Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of the foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above design values. Seismic Considerations The site is located within Seismic Zone 3 as illustrated on Figure No. 23-2 of the 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 23-J of the 1991 UBC, the site soil profile is best represented by Profile Type S2. The native sands below the site have a low potential for liquefaction due to the absence of a near -surface water table. This is confirmed by our review of the geologic map entitled Liquefaction Susceptibility of the Des Moines Quadran /e (Palmer et al., 1994), which designates the site to have a low liquefaction susceptibility. Slabs -on -Grade The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sands. The subgrade soils must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. We recommend compacting the slab subgrade with a vibratory roller prior to placing concrete. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported, structural fill. Gi O11.CI I CONSULTANTS, INC ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 6 All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4 -inch thickness of coarse, free -draining, structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed later in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier, such as a 6 -mil plastic membrane, should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine -grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier, to provide uniform support under the slab, and to reduce shrinkage cracking by improving the concrete curing process. Permanent Foundation andRetaining.Wall Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils they retain. The following recommended design parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Parameter Des'gn Value Active Earth Pressure* 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid densities. * For restrained walls that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times their height, a uniform lateral pressure of 25H psf should be used for the active earth pressure. H is the effective design height of a wall. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level, structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above recommended values to design walls. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or Toads, such as vehicles, will be placed behind the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need GEOTIECI I CONSULTANTS, INC. • • ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 7 to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backfill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining, structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the native sand soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite similar to Miradrain 6000 should be placed against the backfilled retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. Where seepage is encountered in the excavations, the wall backfill should consist entirely of free -draining gravel. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. If moist conditions or some seepage through the walls are not acceptable, damp -proofing or waterproofing should be provided. This could include limiting cold joints and wall penetrations, and possibly using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but it will help to prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action, from seeping through the concrete. Excavations and Slopes Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national govern- ment safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted GEOT ECI I CONSULTANTS, INC ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 8 vertically in unsaturated soils. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the unsaturated, native soils at the subject site would be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated in these soils at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. Flatter cut slopes or shoring will be necessary where excessive groundwater seepage is encountered. The above recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsup- ported for a relatively short duration to allow for the constructionof foundations, retaining walls,or utilities. It will be important to protect the temporary cut slopes with plastic sheeting. This will prevent erosion during wet weather and reduce the drying of the near - surface sands during dry weather. The native sands will experience more ravelling, if they are allowed to loose their moisture. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sands can cave suddenly and without warning. Contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. We anticipate that some shallow ravelling of the cut slopes may occur. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be compacted to the face of these slopes. This could be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Drainage Considerations We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all foundation and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1 -inch -minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 8. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for the footing drains. OFOTECI I CONSULTANTS, INC • • ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 9 Groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in the excavations, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottoms of the excavations. The excavations and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the building should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Pavement Areas All pavement sections may be supported on competent, native soils provided these soils can be compacted to a 95 percent density and are in a stable, non -yielding condition at the time of paving. Structural fill or fabric may be needed to stabilize soft, wet, or unstable areas. We recommend using Supac 5NP, manufactured by Phillips Petroleum Company, or a non -woven fabric with equivalent strength and permeability characteristics. In most instances where unstable subgrade conditions are encountered, 12 inches of granular, structural fill will stabilize the subgrade, except for very soft areas where additional fill could be required. The subgrade should be evaluated by Geotech Consultants, Inc., after the site is stripped and cut to grade. Recommendations for the compaction of structural fill beneath pavements are given in a later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill. The performance of site pavements is directly related to the strength and stability of the underlying subgrade. The pavement for lightly loaded traffic and parking areas should consist of 2 inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over 4 inches of crushed rock base (CRB) or 3 inches of asphalt - treated base (ATB). We recommend providing heavily loaded areas with 3 inches of AC over 6 inches of CRB or 4 inches of ATB. Heavily loaded areas are typically main driveways, dumpster sites, or areas with truck traffic. The pavement section recommendations and guidelines presented in this report are based on our experience in the area and on what has been successful in similar situations. Some maintenance and repair of limited areas can be expected. To provide for a design without the need for any repair would be uneconomical. General Earthwork and Structural Fill All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soils, and other deleterious material. It is extremely important that the foundations and slabs GEOITCI I CONSULTANTS, INC. • • ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 10 for the existing structure also be removed. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils need to support Toads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compac- tion equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Minimum Relative Location of Fill Placement Compaction Beneath footings, slabs, or 95% walkways Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soils If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on-site soils are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential need to import granular fill. The on-site soils are generally silty and thus moisture -sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content. GEOThCI I CONSULTANTS, INC. • • ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 11 The moisture content of the siltier on-site soils must be at, or near, the optimum moisture content, as they cannot be consistently compacted to the required density when the moisture content is significantly greater than optimum. The moisture content of the on-site soils was generally near, or below, the estimated optimum moisture content at the time of our explorations. The on-site sand soils underlying the topsoil could be used as structural fill, if grading operations are conducted during hot, dry weather, when drying the wetter soils by aeration is possible. Due to the fine-grained nature of the on-site sands, adequate compaction could require repeated efforts and close monitoring of the moisture content. We have experienced problems in obtaining the required compaction with similar soils on other sites. Moisture -sensitive soils may also be susceptible to excessive softening and °pumping° from construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic. Ideally, structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three- quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soils encoun- tered in the test pits and boring are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits and borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of ST Corporation and its representa- tives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in GTOT1iC11 CONSULTANTS, INC ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 12 accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. 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. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents so the contractor may be aware of our findings. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 6 Test Pit Logs Plate 7 Boring Log Plate 8 Footing Drain Detail GEE PCI1 CONSULTANTS, INC. EXMRES 10/25/9s 1 ST Corporation August 10, 1995 JN 95267 Page 13 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. MRM/JRF:jcv cc: Rolf Preuss Associates Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Marc R. McGinnis, P.E. Associate A4e James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. Principal GEOWCI I CONSULTANTS, INC ST ST S 133RD POY BAKER BL S 16711.1 ST ST 172ND S' 172ND PL VICINITY MAP 15208 - 52nd AVENUE SOUTH TUK W ILA, WASHINGTON sob Awl 95267 AUG 1996 I . • TEST PIT 1 (t.. .., .4, .4.=, .:,_ 49' , 4? • i f - . ,' uscs . • Description Elevation ±90' 10 15 _ 10 15 - • - Brown, slightly silty SAND with roots and trace gravel, fine-grained, dry to moist, medium -dense (topsoil) Brown SAND with trace silt, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium - dense ; ! Brown/gray, silty SAND with gravel, moist, dense (glacial till) tbe4)mes stained sandstone Test pit terminated at 13.5 feet below grade on 8-1-95. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving. TEST PIT •4's USCS Description Elevation ±82' Sod and roots (topsoil) Light brown SAND with occasional thin, silty sand layers, fine-grained, dry, loose to medium -dense Test pit terminated at 11 feet below grade on 8-1-95. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 15208 - 52nd AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No: 95267 • Date: AUG 1995 Logged by: DBG Plate: 3 • TEST PIT 3- 10 15 _ 1 Fill • . Description Elevation ±74' Slightly silty SAND with roots, fine-grained, dry, loose (fill) -clay pipe SP SM Light brown, slightly silty SAND, fine-grained, dry, loose to medium - dense Light brown SAND, fine-grained, dry, medium -dense L� ML Brown/gray, sandy, clayey SILT, moist, stiff CL it, 40 G°c uscs Test pit terminated at 12 feet below grade on 8-1-95. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving. TEST PIT 4 Description Elevation ±78' 15 _ Sand with roots and some gravel, dry, loose (topsoil) Tan SAND with occasional thin layers of silt, fine-grained, dry, loose to medium -dense SP SM Light brown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, dry to slightly moist, medium -dense Test.pit terminated at 11.5 feet below grade on 8-1-95. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving. -._44GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 15208 - 52nd AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No: 95267 Date: AUG 1995 Logged by: DBG Plate: 4 10 15 _ 10 15 • • TEST PIT 5. USCS Description Elevation ±84' Brown SAND with roots and some silt and gravel (topsoil) Light brown, gravelly SAND, fine- to medium -grained, dry, medium - dense ML Tan, sandy SILT, low plasticity, dry, stiff sP Gray rown SAND, fine- to medium -grained, dry, medium -dense ark, .';. G°c USCS Test pit terminated at 11 feet below grade on 8-1-95. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving. TEST PIT 6 Description Elevation ±68' 1 Topsoil Light brown SAND, fine-grained, dry, medium -dense. Gray and orange mottled SILT, low plasticity, moist, stiff Gray SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist to wet, medium -dense Test pit terminated at 12 feet below grade on 8-1-95. Minor groundwater encountered at 10.5 feet during excavation. No caving. - GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 15208 - 52nd AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No: 95267 Date: AUG 1995 Logged by: DBG Plate: 5 • TEST PIT 7_ 0 G° USCS Description Elevation ±76' 10 15 _ Brown, silty SAND with roots (topsoil) Light brown SAND with trace gravel, fine-grained, dry, loose to medium - dense Gray, sandy SILT, low plasticity, moist, stiff Brown/gray SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below grade on 8-1-95. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving. .�._ GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT. LOGS 15208 - 52nd AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No: 95267 Date: AUG 1995 Logged by: OBG Plate: e •'. .t 10 15 20 25 30 35 `�� `1 • �� \e �s �o +o G°� Sa <Vt USCS BORING 1 5 13 16 10 51 50/4" • SM :1:1:1:1: • Elevation ±86' Description Dark brown, slightly silty SAND with organics, moist, loose (topsoil and fill) Brown, slightly silty SAND, fine- to medium -grained, moist, loose -becomes grayish brown with iron stains and occasional gravel, medium -dense -becomes less silty, very moist -becomes wet and silty Black, silty SAND with occasional organics, fine- to inedium- .. grained, wet Grayish brown, silty SAND with gravel, moist, dense (glacial till) Brown, medium- to coarse-grained SAND with silt, wet, dense Test boring was terminated at 31 feet below grade on 7-31-95. Slight groundwater seepage was encountered at 20 feet during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST BORING LOG 15208 - 52nd AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No: 95267 Date: AUG 1995 Lo JHed S by: Plate: 7 • S/ope bockfi// owoy from foundation. WASHED ROCK 6/4 n. BACKF/LL See text for requirements. NONWOVEN GEOTEXT/LE F/LTER FABR/C T/GHTL INE ROOF DRA/N Do not connect to fooling drain. SLAB VAPOR BARR/ER .00 r \ '. 1" ', 4"min. FREE - DRA/N/NG SAND/GRAVEL 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC P/PE invert of /east as /ow as fooling and/or crow/ space. S/ope to drain. P/oce weepho/es downward. FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 15208 - 52nd AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Job No.+ oo►e: ' Scale; Pore: 95287 AUG 1995 N.T.S. 8 TP -2 0 r----� EXISTI G 1 1 GARAG \ L----1 Imo\ EXISING HOUSE -�-i TP -10 \ \ Q W-3 \ \ N EXISTING \ \ SHED - I \\ r-- i \\ I I \ I \ —- J \ \ \ 0 TP -4 \\ Q TP -6 PROPOSED BUILDING ---, s8-1 .---- -�- ---� LOWER PARKING ELEV ±70' fGROUND FLOOR I ELEV±90' LEGEND: IS APPROXIMATE TEST BORING LOCATION 0 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION u TP -5 TP -7 52nd AVENUE SOUTH GEOTECH CONSULTANTS SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 15208 - 52nd AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON deo No.: 95287 Gate 1 Seale, AUG 1995 N.T.S. !Plate: 2 SCALE: T-20' r=� GRAPHIC SCALE (Ern') 93A9 - 20 DETENTION STANDARD ro11011 FACILITY0UP90 VOE MUM MNI 0900 UPDATE/ LeSPIC VAUL LUU BASED ON R04.11190 DEVELOPED 2, 10 AND 100 TEAR STORY EW015 19101101 Oln mSR S*RUC111RE 9II3) 10 RELEASE ROMOT AT PIE-DE5ELDPED ROWS G. INT 9 1 95-64 DGS Pli•SSI BY 08-07-96 ISSUE DATE SHEET BENSION 8 e - o PACIFIC ENGINEERING DESIGN INC o CML ENGINEERING AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS rr 0 0 rnz 0 z r n 0 0 rn z0 0. A PI , . FIFTY—SECOND AVENUE SOUTH BUILDING crre cvev POPS. OT CORPORATION 1200 SOUTH 192NO OTT. SUITE 000 MATT. WA. . • 00148 • 130 ANOOVER PAFT, FAST. • SIJITE 300 . . • • - • AND isnurtme PLAN .."• •••• • . . . • •. • • • . • , • • • . • • .• • • SEATTI.E. A 98188 1?1-1011Ei. (206) 431-7979 FAX. 431-7975 - IMEWVIMMAIE l a - \ TA. 1.. 1T1 VIA r�(Lien' Mak tfilgi kit io-rt%v,zeia€gl"ms`s:.a.ta�L�.� p�usc,�'e.��s�a.L...,r o� rer nthTg N N BHEET TITLEt FIFTY - SECOND AVENUE SOUTH ' BUILDING. 18208 82N0 AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON. . OWNER: 8'T .CORPORATION-' • 1200 SOUTH- 182N0 STREET, SUOTE 300 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON . , ."-88148 ROLF PREUSS ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/ PLANNERS A.I.A , Burr 0 /nuroamn 1809 7TH AVENUE SUITE 1000 TOWER BUILDING 1.---7-7-7- SEATTLE, ,�7-7^SEATTLE, WASHI,YUOTDN 98101 .; 208 624_1669 ""' REG'STERED .°��R ECI, 6 m z. 0m -EAST" "Its, I.... m.. r. 1 1 111 WEST M.�:.:. : CATHI ECALEI pE V,S1ON,E1 +; ^t.,"., C ti: ,rM, xd:. . ,-r n . is _ :NY:t•[�a.. iy'?.r, . s n ,Ntr.0..1mt _$ N wee . 0.-'11. FIFTY. - SECOND AVENUE 15208 52N0 AVENUE SOUTH OWNER: 8 1200 SOUTH 182ND STREET, SEATTLE. WASHINGTON SOUTH B, HANG TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 1 T.00RPOR�AT1ON`. SUITE 300 88148 RC]LF PI 1EUSS ASS®CIATES ARCHITECTS/ PLANNERS A.I.A • 1B021 7TH AVENUE SUITE 1000 TOWER BUILDING SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ' 96101 • • • 206. 024-1669 REGISTERED' .OAT[ Of ISN,N4tON D O ATS: ' S CALEI RE V IBIONS: 1 11 x BNBBT TITLB� 1 1 1 Z /A L• • Q M 1� �Iisrurv.uTH'tl �'. FIFTY ='SECONDAVENUE SOUtH . BUILDING " 1 18208 521ND AVENUE SOUTH-'.-.TUICWILA. WASHINGTON N. 111 ROLE PREUSS ASSOCIATES., ARCHITECTS/ PLANNERS .. .. .154r LS Q.0 6HEBT TITLE, 111 . s..,.,v Ch,..:.'.:.>. '^+3A;A !CS3�f.,�_d.:: iz� n,S .3.r",�•7.,<... FIFTY - SECOND: AVENUE .SOUTH_ BUILDING 15208 62ND AVENUE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON I.. OWNER: ST CORPORATION 1200 SOUTH 182ND STREET, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON if 98148 ROLF _. PREUSS ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS/ PLANNERS1809 7TH AVENUE SUITE 1000 TOWER BUILDING._. SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101. . 206 624.1869' 1 FRP-SWAY `MAP 45'=.C' \aloe ME7Z0 SE 152..EASEMENT. am.. LIQ OF MIN,, bLOCiy, 6ET64CIL vet cORv.IDart IUIi►im111111 • PRob5E0 Lar Lt JE 4.0.,Juvri.jewT 8 STALLS TO 8E.. DOgcp (EASEMEW.T)Btuta 1-10241H OP'SITE • 5IT.E t FIRST FLOOp. PLA�,I=I 4.4..•94- .{'.10' GROSS -BUILDIlJC, AREA E2,055 SF. NET LEASEABLE AREA 41,150 SF PARKINb -PROVIDED - G9 STALLS . . . . C4 STALLS/ 4000 5F) \ \ �J 52 N° . VENUE - 50L171-9 :LEGE-tJO • SECURITY LIisMTIIJC+ C. o'. - ) ✓ SEGuo.trf L!C-+H19NC,( \VALE MdJNT). (" ' R095' S ITE AREA 41, 51C SF. EUILDIN6 FOOTPRINT `i1 oPja $F.-C2S%)' OTHER IM vloua' tis cco l S F C44%) ' , TOTAL_ IHPSFNIBR 142 5F_CC,1/q) A A -AT. Qlln (JT e. I ni C LI4 UT,/ L..., P RECEI VEpI. 'JUN 'E7 a. 1996 • RECEIVED 1 JUN 0 7J096 COMMUNITY . ' N•: 98081-11 Project: 90081 Gbll•d-y: TYn on 114: 29, 1990 al 11:09 a.m.•Sm1•: 1-20 Atlocn•d *rare FERGUSON, 0aaana alg=a (206)565-449"5eatue (206)824=1205 FAX:(26e}565-8563 "land Planning, 6: U9• . Erig(n4iiln9_ • Sdrv.yIn9 1910 .641h •Avnue Waal . Tacoma; WA 45466