HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E95-0016 - CITY OF TUKWILA - FIRE STATION 53NEW FIRE STATION 53
4202 S. 115T" ST.
E95-0016
•
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COIINTY R �.�+. ;C?t VE
OCT Z71995
In re:
Appeal of the issuance of
the following: Determination
of Non -Significance, a
Shoreline Substantial Deve-
lopment Permit & Conditional
use permit by either Staff
of the Planning Commission
Appellant.
CM' CLERK
Case No.
Notice of AppealSSCE��;
1 r_a!P ICi'
y +N I c:
103 GO+,}t�
OCA
MJF
NK--,,;iEy
�.At i�C�y111�u•-
�+,n1.�
Appellant, Jackie Dempere has brought her concerns
regarding location of a fire station to the Tukwila's
Planning Commission Public Hearing and again in front
of the Tukwila City Council.
Appellant feels that she has raised many important
issues such as: safety, feasibility because of poor
location, loss of affordable housing and the historical
assets of the Allentown neighborhood among others.
Appellant feels that these issues has not been
adequately addressed and comes to you for help.
Dated this 5th day of October, 1995.
By
Jackie L. Dempere
4033 S. 128th St.
Tukwila WA 98168
(206) 433 8539
�Dm o'
r n 5 f j'u Des s
1
llant, Jackie L. Dempere
1
RECEIVE®
OCT 2 71995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
VS.
•
IN THE SUPERIOR COUR OF -.T
;erior (ours Clerk's
- 19\61..
ORDER S . TTING CASE SCHEDULE
Cushier SeMminist
I. b1 thk
Curt Clerk
-..-
•
TE OF WASHINGTON
KING
The King County Superior Court issues an Order Setting Case Schedule (Administrative Appeal) when a decision
of an administrative agency or appeal board is appealed to the King County Superior Court. It is ORDERED that
all parties involved in this action shall comply with the schedule listed below and that failure to meet these event
dates will result in the dismissal of the appeal. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the party filing this action must
serve this Order Setting Case Schedule '(Administrative Appeal) on all other parties.
DATED: 10/06/95
II. CASE SCHEDULE
CASE EVENT
Notice of Appeal/Petition for Review Filed and Schedule Issued
JUDGE
DEADLINE, or.:EVENT .:DATE
.::
✓ Affidavit of Service or Confirmation of Service
/ Filing of Notice of Appearance (if applicable)
Fri 10/06/95
Fri 11/03/95
/ Filing of Administrative Agency Record
✓ Filing of Jury Demand (if applicable)
/ Filing of Petitioner's Trial Brief
/ Filing of Respondent's Trial Brief
Fri 11/03/95.
Fri 12/08/95
Fri 12/29/95
Mon 3/18/96
✓ Filing of Petitioner's Reply Brief
Review Hearing or Trial Date [8:45 a.m., Room E-942, Courthouse]
Mon 4/08/96
Mon 4/22/96
/ Indicates a document that must be filed with the Superior Court Clerk's Office Mon 5/06/96
„�`� (Rm. E-609 by the date shown.
"I understand that I am required to give a copy of this document to all parties in this case."
IMPORTANT! Carefully READ ALL
NOTICES
on the back of this
rev: 2/27/95
Docket Code: *ORSCS
. .+_,..�,...
•
CASE SCHEDULE — ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
III NOTICES
THE PERSON APPEALING A DECISION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY/APPEAL
BOARD MUST:
A. File a Notice of Appeal with the administrative agency/appeal board within the time frames
as instructed by applicable statutes.
B. Serve a copy of the Notice of Appeal and this Order Setting Case Schedule (Administrative
Appeal) (Schedule) (including these Notices) on all other parties to this action. You, as the
person who started this appeal, must make sure the other person and/or agency is notified
of your action and gets a copy of the .Schedule. You may choose certified mail, personal
delivery by someone other than you, or a "process serving service" (see telephone directory).
Your signature must appear on the other side of this form showing that you understand that
you must make sure the other person and/or agency geis a copy of this form.
C. Pay the statutory filing fee to the Clerk of the Superior Court in which the Notice of Appeal
is filed, unless the party filing the Notice first secures an "Order of In Forma Pauperis" from
the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, or is exempt from paying fees by statute.
D. On the date of your Review Hearing or Trial (as shown on the Schedule), you must appear
at 8:45 a.m. in the Presiding Department, Room E-942, King County Courthouse, unless
your appeal has already been assigned to a particular judge or the appeal has been
previously dismissed.
NOTICE TO AIL PARTIES:
All attorneys and parties should make themselves familiar with the rules of the court -- especially
those referred to in this Schedule. In order to comply with the Schedule, it;will be necessary for
attorneys and parties to pursue their appeals vigorously from the day they are filed. All events must
occur promptly. If they are late, the Superior Court Clerk is authorized by the King County Superior
Court Local Rules to schedule the appeal for a dismissal hearing.
PENDING DUE DATES CANCELED BY FILING PAPERS THAT RESOLVE THE CASE:
When a final decree, judgment, or' order of dismissal of all claims is filed with the Superior Court
Clerk's Office [Rm. E-609], all pending due dates are auornatically cancelled, including the
scheduled Trial Date. It is the responsibility of the parties to file such dispositive documents within
45 days of resolution of the case.
THE CASE MAY BE DISMISSED BY THE COURT IF:
A dispositive document is NOT filed: If a document that completes the case, such as a judgment,
decree, final order, or settlement, is not filed by 45 days after the case is resolved, the case may be
dismissed without prejudice.
Scheduled Hearing or Trial Date is missed: The Superior Court Clerk is authorized by King County
Local Rule 41(b) (2) (A) to present an Order of Dismissal, without notice, for failure to appear at the
scheduled Hearing or Trial Date.
rev.: 2/27/95
--tum page over to read Order Setting Case Schedule---'
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
September 18, 1995
TO:
Mayor Rants and Members of the City Council
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
SUBJECT: Revised Staff Report for Fire Station Appeal
Apparently some of the copies of the Revised Staff Report for the Fire Station Appeal,
distributed on Thursday, September 14, were missing page 5. A copy of page 5 is
attached.
Please note there were no changes to page 5 from the original staff report circulated on
Monday, September 11.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
vehicle access. The new fire station, at full capacity, will result in an increase of 16 trips
being generated at this site. Emergency vehicle traffic is dependent on the number of
emergency calls received. However, because the existing fire station will be eliminated
and the present access is directed to S. 115th Street, the impact to the existing
transportation system is negligible. These issues were discussed under CUP Criteria C.
South 115th Street is not formally designated as a scenic drive or road.
The proposed fire station will be improving S. 115th Street with a public sidewalk along a
short distance between two proposed access drives. The project does not encroach on
the right-of-way of S 115th Street. Concerns for sight distance from the driveway access
points were also discussed and analyzed during review and again at the public hearing
with the Planning Commission members. The applicant provided to planning; staff, a
photo montage of the sight view from the driveway location which demonstrated
adequate sight distance for exiting trucks. Fire truck exiting was specifically located at
the southeastern driveway which will have adequate sight distance to view traffic moving
either direction along S. 115th Street, and allow safe entrance onto the street. This was
discussed under Criteria 2 of the BAR report.
On-site circulation was also addressed to insure that the pedestrian, auto and emergency
vehicle traffic did not conflict. See Conclusions, Criteria C. of the CUP.
2.b. The location of a fire station in a site where the access may be cut off and equipment
locked in the case of natural disaster.
The proposed fire station site is not unusually susceptible to the potential effects of
earthquake or other natural disaster. This site, and all of western Washington, is
classified by chapter 16-2 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC), as Seismic zone 3
(with zone 4 being highest hazard) for earthquake hazard area. It is not located within a
flood hazard area; nor is the access.
Emergency buildings, such as fire stations are built to meet certain earthquake and other
natural disaster standards to insure that the facility will function when it is needed most,
during an emergency. The architect is designing the building, stormwater facilities and
access routes to meet the standards for this type of emergency facility.
3. Inadequate application of the existing Tukwila's Tree Ordinance. Plus cumulative
adverse impacts on the wetland habitat from excessive noise and light.
Compliance with the Tukwila Municipal Code was evaluated during the CUP and BAR
review of the proposed fire station. The proposed project meets the requirements of the
Tukwila Tree Ordinance (TMC 18.54) and Sensitive Areas Overlay (TMC 18.45). A tree
permit has not yet been issued for this proposal and the requirements of the Sensitive
Areas Overlay Zone will be specifically applied during the final building review process.
5
CO UNCIL AGENDA SYNOPSIS
Initials
Meeting Date
Prepared by
Mayor's review
Council review
9/18/95
S.L.
Fire Station #53 appeal of the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) decisions
dated July 27, 1995, and the SEPA MDNS dated June 11, 1995.
Original Sponsor:
Council Admin. P.C., SEPA Official
Timeline:
City Council Public Hearing on Sept. 18, 1995.
Sponsor's Summary:
Appeal of SEPA MDNS, Shoreline Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review approval
for Tukwila Fire Station #53 at 4202 S. 115th Street.
Recommendations:
Sponsor:.
Committee:
Administration:
P.C., BAR and SEPA Official
G. SEPA Environmental Review Documentation (Checklist, Evaluation, MDNS, etc.)
Cost Impact (if known):
Fund Source (if known):
ITEM NO.
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting Date
9/18/95
Action
APPENDICES
ITEM INFORMATION
CAS Number:
9/18/95
Original Agenda Date Sept. 18, 1995
Agenda Item Title:
Fire Station #53 appeal of the Design Review and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) decisions
dated July 27, 1995, and the SEPA MDNS dated June 11, 1995.
Original Sponsor:
Council Admin. P.C., SEPA Official
Timeline:
City Council Public Hearing on Sept. 18, 1995.
Sponsor's Summary:
Appeal of SEPA MDNS, Shoreline Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review approval
for Tukwila Fire Station #53 at 4202 S. 115th Street.
Recommendations:
Sponsor:.
Committee:
Administration:
P.C., BAR and SEPA Official
G. SEPA Environmental Review Documentation (Checklist, Evaluation, MDNS, etc.)
Cost Impact (if known):
Fund Source (if known):
RECORD OF COUNCIL ACTION
Meeting Date
9/18/95
Action
APPENDICES
Meeting Date
Attachments
9/18/95
A. Revised memo to Mayor Rants from Steve Lancaster, September 14, 1995
B. Notice of Appeal, August 7, 1995
C. Summary of the Planning Commission & Board of Architectural Review minutes, July 27, 1995
D. Staff report to the Planning Commission & Board of Architectural Review dated July 27, 1995
E. Letter from Landscape Architect, Dale Dennis, to applicant, Randy Berg, June 30, 1995
F. Memo from Steve Lancaster, June 15, 1995
G. SEPA Environmental Review Documentation (Checklist, Evaluation, MDNS, etc.)
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Departm nat of ComcmunityDevelopment Steve Lancaster, Director
September 14, 1995
TO: Mayor Rants and Members of the City Council
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of the decision of the Director of DCD to issue a DNS for proposed
Fire Station No. 53 (File # E95-0016).
As stated in my memorandum dated September 18, 1995, the appeal of the Fire Station
No. 53 Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was not filed within the time
period allowed for such appeals under the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 21.04.280(b)).
However, we have learned that recent amendments to the State Environmental Policy Act
have revised state law regarding the timing of SEPA appeals. This change arguably
supersedes the appeal deadline requirements of the Tukwila Municipal Code, by providing
that: " Appeals of environmental determinations made (or lacking) under this chapter shall
be commenced within the time required to appeal the governmental action which is subject
to environmental review" (Section 204(2)(b), ESHB 1724). In other words, an appeal of a
DNS now must be filed within the same time period as the related project decision; in this
case the time period allowed for appeal of the Conditional Use Permit and BAR Design
approval.
In light of this, and to ensure full Council consideration of all the issues relevant to this
appeal, we are now recommending that the City Council not dismiss the appeal of the DCD
Director's Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance. We are instead recommending that
the City Council hear and consider the appeal, and deny the appeal based on the evidence.
Attached is a REVISED version of my September 18, 1995 memo, incorporating an analysis
of the DNS appeal. Changes to the original memo are shown by strike-throughs (deletions)
and underlining (additions). Also attached is a new Attachment G, comprising the key
environmental documents upon which the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance was
based.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 ° Tukwila, Washington 98188 ° (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665
•
ilso
/ Cityof Tukwila ly1% ila John W. Rants, Mayor
S
Ti!Department of Community i evelopment
1908 REVISED
MEMORANDUM
Steve Lancaster, Director
To: Mayor Rants and Members of the City Council
From: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
Date: September 18, 1995 September 14, 1995
Subject: Appeal of the decisions of the Planning Commission, Board of
Architectural Review, and the Director of the Department of Community
Development Director, relating to proposed Fire Station No. 53.
HEARING DATE: September 18, 1995
FILE NUMBER: #L95-0046
APPELLANT: Jackie Dempere
REQUEST: Appeal of SEPA Determination of Non -Significance
File # E95-0016
Appeal of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
File # L95-0027
Appeal of BAR Design Approval File # L95-0030
Appeal of Conditional Use Permit File # L95-0031
LOCATION: 4202 South 115th Street
STAFF: Steve Lancaster, Director of Community Development
6300 Southcenter BoulevarrL Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665
FINDINGS
Background
On June 11, 1995, the Director of Community Development issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) for the proposal to build a new fire station
(Fire Station #53) at 4202 South 115th Street. This MDNS was issued under the
provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and includes five (5) mitigating
conditions, as follows:
1. In order to preserve and protect the existing 80" Sequoia
giganteum/Giant Sequoia tree, a porous pavement system shall be
included as part of the road on the west side of the existing 80"
Sequoia tree to allow moisture and air penetration to the feeder
roots of the tree. The reinforced plastic product Geoblock shall be
installed for a width of 5 feet and a length of 35 feet under the
canopy of the tree.
2. Landscaping and development within the right-of-way of 42nd
Avenue S. shall be designed so that future development of a bike
path can be readily accommodated.
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) , as defined in Tree Regulations
[TMC 18.54.040(2)], shall be employed in protecting all existing trees
to be retained.
4. The delineated wetland and the buffer areas shall be protected with
temporary fencing during all construction processes.
5. The Fire Department will be required to pay a proportionate fair
share of sewer improvements for the S. 116th/42nd Ave. S. 8 inch
sewer line.
Subsequently, on July 27, 1995 the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) and the Board of Architectural Review(BAR) conditionally approved the
project design for the proposed fire station. Conditions imposed by the BAR are as
follows:
1. A bike rack shall be placed near the entrance to the fire station.
2. Relocate and screen the transformer shown in the front yard area.
3. The applicant shall contact the Tukwila Arts Commission requesting
design and location recommendations for a commemorative sign of
the "Battle of the North and South Wind", a Duwamish Indian
legend, and identifying the fire station as Beaver Bend.
2
• •
4. The fire station sign shall be approved by the Board of Architectural
Review.
Review Process
This is a quasi-judicial process. All information for the City Council's decision must be
submitted at the public hearing. The City Council shall affirm, deny or modify the
decision's being appealed. No information source carries more weight than another,
whether it be the Planning Commission, BAR, applicant, appellant, or staff.
Appeal
On August 7, 1995, Ms. Jackie Dempere filed an appeal of the issuance of the
Determination of Non -Significance; of the issuance of a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit; of the approval of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP); and of the
Design Review approval for the proposed fire station.
The appeal of the Determination of Non -Significance was not filed within the time
period allowed for such appeals by the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). TMC
21.04.280(b) requires that all such appeals be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the
date of the decision. In this case, the appeal was not filed until fifty-seven (57) days after
the decision (MDNS) was issued.
. However, recent amendments to the State Environmental
Policy Act provide that appeals such as this are to be commenced within the same time
period required to appeal the related government decision (Sec. 204(2)(b), ESHB 1724).
Arguably, this new provision supersedes the appeal period stated in TMC 21.04.280(b)t
and would allow the appeal of a DNS to be filed any time prior to the expiration of the
CUP or BAR approval appeal period. In light of this, the City Council should hear and
decide the appeal of the DNS for the fire station proposal. In doing so, the City Council
must accord the determination of the City's SEPA Responsible Official (the DCD
Director) "substantial weight" as required by state law (43.21C.075 RCW) and by City
Code (TMC 21.04.280(d)).
The appeal of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit was not properly filed.
Appeals of such permits must be filed with the Washington State Shorelines Hearing
Board, RCW 90.58.140 (6). The City Council has no authority to hear such appeals.
The appeals of both the Conditional Use Permit and the BAR design approval were filed
within ten (10) days of the Planning Commission and BAR decisions. Under the
provisions of TMC 18.90.020, the City Council must review and either affirm, deny
(overturn) or modify these decisions. In doing so, the Council must consider the BAR
and CUP decisions according to the criteria upon which those decisions must be based,
as set forth by TMC 18.64.050 (CUP) and TMC 18.60.050 (BAR).
The following provides a detailed analysis of the grounds for appeal as submitted by Ms.
Dempere (see page 2 of the Notice of Appeal, Appendix B.). Specific grounds cited in
the appeal are listed in italics, with an analysis of each point immediately following.
3
Analysis
1. The inadequate disclosure and lack of disclosure of the adverse impacts associated
with the proposal.
The potential for adverse environmental impacts was thoroughly disclosed and evaluated
through preparation and critical review of the following documents (see appendix G).
Environmental Checklist, dated May 31, 1995.
2,1 Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Fire Station No. 53, dated
February 15, 1995.
Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, dated February 20, 1995.
A) Fire Station No. 53 - Wetland Summary Report, dated March 15, 1995.
Addendum to report, Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services, dated
June 21, 1995.
Environmental Checklist Review, dated June 30, 1995.
1) Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance, dated July 6, 1995.
Environmental documents were reviewed by the Planning and Building Divisions and by
the Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and Fire Departments. The comments of these
departments and divisions were reviewed prior to issuance of the Mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance. Following issuance of the MDNS, public notice was
published and copies of environmental documents were sent to the Department of
Ecology. No negative comments were received.
State law clearly requires that procedural determinations by the SEPA Responsible
Official, such as issuance of an MDNS, "shall be entitled to substantial weight"
(43.21C.075(3)(d) RCW). Similarly, the Tukwila Municipal Code states that issuance of a
MDNS or other procedural determination by the City's Responsible Official "shall carry
substantial weight in any appeal proceeding" (TMC 21.04.280(d)). This means that an
appellant carries a heavy burden of proof. In this case, the appellant has offered no
substantial evidence to support her assertion that the disclosure of adverse impacts was
inadequate. On the contrary, the record shows a thorough disclosure and evaluation of
impacts.
2. Inadequate conditions and lack of conditions imposed upon the project to mitigate
adverse impacts, including but not limited to:
a. The failure to require a traffic study where this project will encroach a Scenic
Drive Road and protect the safety of Tukwila residents and non-residents who
use the roadway for work or pleasure.
Traffic issues were addressed during the SEPA review and review of the conditional use
permit and design review. The new fire station will be replacing an existing fire station
which is located a few blocks south and uses the same road for existing emergency
4
• •
Prior to the public hearing on the CUP and BAR, the Director of Community
Development authorized use of the "20% canopy coverage method" of tree replacement,
as permitted under TMC 18.54.120(b). (See Appendix F.)
Factors supporting use of the 20% canopy method include the large number of trees on
the site, and the fact that half of the existing significant trees are actually a hedge of
overgrown ornamental holly trees. The landscape plan meets the 20% canopy
replacement requirement as discussed in CUP Criteria B., by providing 38 replacement
trees, 14 wetland enhancement trees and 22 trees which are required by shoreline
regulations.
The subject property was chosen for the Allentown fire station site partly because the
existing Type 2 wetland would then be placed under public ownership. Wetland impacts
were addressed in CUP Criteria B. No development is proposed within the delineated
wetland boundary or buffer area. The Type 2 Wetland normally requires a 50 foot
buffer and commercial structures are required to be setback from buffer areas a
minimum of 15 feet. Wetland buffer may, however, be reduced if no adverse impact to
the wetland will result, TMC 18.45.040(c)(4)(A). The Director permitted the applicant to
reduce the buffer to 35 feet only in the area where the hose tower and condensing pads
are located (see Appendix F). The result is still a 50 foot distance between the wetland
and the proposed structure because of the 15 foot building setback from the buffer.
The buffer reductions reduces the buffer by only 600 square feet in area. In addition, the
reduced buffer area, is enhanced with riparian vegetation as indicated in the landscape
plan (Appendix D). With these mitigations, the impact of noise and light on wetland
habitat will not be significant.
4. The loss of five low income housing units and inadequate compensation of its
displaced low income tenants.
The subject property has four, not five existing houses. Three of the four existing houses
were occupied prior to the City purchase of the property. No specific criteria of the
CUP or BAR require compensation to displaced tenants, and therefore this issue is not a
valid point of appeal. However, to off -set the impact of displacement, the City provided
these residents financial assistance for relocation through the YMCA.
S. Disregard for previous citizen input and of the recommendation for single family
zoning of the Tukwila Tomorrow Citizens Committee and Planning Commission for
the property.
The property is currently zoned CM, Commercial Manufacturing. Land use applications
such as those associated with the proposed fire station must be considered under the
zoning in effect at the time of application and decision. Fire stations are allowed through
a conditional use permit in the CM zoning district. For that matter, even if the property
were zoned single family, a fire station could still be allowed as a conditional use [TMC
18.12.050(5)]. This issue does not apply to any of the decision making criteria for the
BAR or CUP and therefore is not a valid point of appeal.
6
w •
6. The lack of protection of architectural and historical significant buildings of a
neighborhood as mandated by the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines.
Four houses, a garage, a barn and four out -buildings exist on the property. These are
proposed to be demolished to develop the proposed fire station. None of the structures
have been named to an official list of architectural or historical significant structures.
Therefore there is no requirement to preserve the buildings.
7. The impossibility of providing proper buffers of surrounding single family homes from
a fire station activity.
Fire stations are required to obtain a conditional use permit to locate within any zoning
district, primarily due to the noise and transportation issues associated with such facilities.
These issues are looked at closely, especially when a station is located close to single
family residences. The subject site is 3 acres is size. The proposed building is setback
from the street and located in the center of the property, lessening the noise impacts to
both the street and neighboring properties. Many of the existing trees will be retained
on the site and additional trees will be planted to provide adequate vegetative buffers on
all sides of the property. Buffering issues are discussed under the BAR criteria (3).
After considering these issues, the BAR required that the transformer proposed for the
front yard be relocated and screened.
Conclusion
4)
). The record of the environmental review conducted under SEPA File # E95-0016
clearly demonstrates that the potential environmental impacts of proposed Fire
Station No. 53 have been adequately disclosed and evaluated.
2.) The appeal of Shoreline Substantial Development Permit File # L95-0027 cannot
be heard and decided by the Tukwila City Council. Such appeals must be filed
with the Washington Shoreline Hearing Board.
3.) The record of BAR Design Approval File # L95-0030 clearly demonstrates that
the BAR properly applied the decision criteria applicable to design approval for
the proposed fire station.
4.) The appeal of Conditional Use Permit File # L95-0031 was properly filed within
the appropriate time period.
5.) The record of Conditional Use Permit File # L95-0031 clearly demonstrates that
the BAR properly applied the decision criteria applicable to design approval for
the proposed fire station.
7
Staff Recommendation
1.) Support the Board of Architectural Review's decision and deny the appeal of the
BAR design approval, File # L95-0030.
2.) Support the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal of Conditional
Use Permit File # L95-0031.
Support the DCD Director's issuance of the Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance and deny the appeal of SEPA File # E95-0016.
8
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, Washington 98188
September 7, 1995
Mr. John Neller
Chairperson
Renton Non -Motorized Transportation Committee
1300 S. Eagle Ridge #1069
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Mr. Neller:
John W Rants, Mayor
Mayor Rants has referred your letter to me regarding the proposed siting of Fire Station #53 in the
vicinity of South 115th and 42nd Avenue South in Tukwila.
To address your inquiry pertaining to establishing a park and trail on the site, we have developed a
site plan that respects the wetland areas and historical flora found on the site. The site itself is not
well suited for a park. Much of the area is wetland and therefore possesses limited recreational
value. Our Sensitive Areas Ordinance will guide the development adjacent to this natural amenity.
In conferring with our staff architect, I am advised that the site plan will accommodate the
establishment of a wallcing and biking trail as part of a later phase of the project.
I hope the foregoing adequately addresses your concerns. Please feel free to contact me if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
John McFarland
City Administrator
JM/so
cf: Mayor Rants
City Council
Phone: (206) 433-1800 • City Hall Fax (20W 433-1833
September 1, 1995
Mayor Wally Rants
Council Members:
Pam Carter
Joe Duffie
Jim Haggerton
Joan Hernandez
Allen Ekberg
Dennis Robertson
City Hall
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Dear Mayor Rants and Members of the Tukwila City Council:
[ECE1VED
i `fig 1995
CITY OF i ;`,.1 LA
MAYOR'S 01- r
We, the Non -Motorized Transportation Advisory Committee for the City of Renton,
continue to follow with interest the proposal to connect our neighboring cities to Seattle
via a ped/bicycle trail along Airport Way. The trail route includes a section from Allentown
to Airport Way, bypassing the dangerous Boeing Access Road. The trail would head north
to Hanford Street/Martin Luther King, Jr. Way (the only level connection to Rainier Valley),
and continue connecting to the proposed Chief Sealth Trail, the 1-90 ped/bicycle trail and
into downtown Seattle.
We understand a key piece of property along the route in north Allentown is under
consideration to be used to locate a fire station. Community interests have brought to our
attention an alternative proposal for development of "Beaver Ben" park on the site in a
manner more compatible with the proposed trail. The Renton Trails Committee requests
you review the proposed land use in view of its compatibility with safe passage for
pedestrians and cyclists along with your community values under historical,. shorelines and
quality of life norms.
Our goal is to achieve a Burke Gilman type trail providing safe passage for the children and
adults who walk, ; og and cycle in and between our communities.
Sincere)
John N Iler, Chairperson
Renton Non -Motorized Transportation Committee
cc: Phil Miller - King County Trails Transportation
Stewart Goldsmith - Seattle Bicycle Coordinator
Jackie Dempere
Dan L. Taylor being duly sworn, says that he/she is the Principal
Clerk of Seattle Times Company, publisher of The Seattle Times and representing the Seattle
Post-Intelligencer, separate daily newspapers, printed and published in Seattle, King County, State of
Washington; that they are newspapers of general circulation in said County and State; that they have been
approved as legal newspapers by order of the Superior Court of King County, that the annexed, being a
® classif ed advertisement 0 display advertisement 0 preprint advertisement*, was published in:
® The Seattle Times 0 Seattle Post-Intelligencer 0 and
not in a supplement thereof and is a true copy of the notice as it was printed and/or distributed in the
regular and entire issue of said paper or papers on the following day or days July 10, 1995
and that said newspaper or newspapers were regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said
period.
4
N
".' • CITYOFTUKWILA
'MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF
' NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS)
DESCRIPTION OF t. '
PROPOSAL:
CONSTRUCTION OFA6,200 SQ.
FT. FIRE STATION. PROJECT
INCLUDES STREET VACA-
TION --OF TWO PUBLIC
STREETS 114 AND 115, CONDI-
TIONAL USE, BOARD OF AR-
CHITECTURE REVIEW, .LOT
CONSOLIDATION, • - AND
BUILDINGPERMITS.`, `-�'','
PROPONENT: CITY OF TUK-
WILA, FIRE DEPARTMENT of
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:''
ADDRESS: 42025 115ST.
PARCEL NO: 335140-1005 r-
SEC/TWN/RNG: ... SEC
10,T23,R4E, WM. _
LEAD 'AGENCY:'•CITY OF
TUKWILA -- --•'
FILE NO: E95-0016'
The Citi has determined that the
proposal does not have probable
significant: adverse'' Impact- on
the envlronment.:•An environ-
mental Impact statement (EIS)
Is not required' under--RCW
43.21c.030(2)(c)'.:This decision
was made after review of a com-
pleted, environmental 'checklist
and other` information on file
with the lead agency. -This infor-
mation is available to the public
on request. The conditions to this
SE PA-.Determinatlon•••are':
attached. • ,:'c:?
��w hI.-y, •n -e
This DNS•is lssued-inider 197.11-
340(2). Comments must be sub-
mitted by July 21, 1995. The lead
agency will not act on.th(s pro -
P0501 for 15'days from the date
below:_ .-c -"zC :S"i=1.1 ,•A •
Steve,Lancaster, Responsible
Official, City of Tukwila; -(206)
431-3680, 6300 Southcenter Boule-
vard, Tukwila, WA 98188,,,i?
DATED: July 6,1995-1
You may'appeal thlsdetermina-,
Bon to the City' Clerk at City'
Hall," 6200 Southcenter. Soule
yard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later. •
than 10 days from•the above sig
nature date by, written appeal,
stating the basis of the appea I fon
specific factual'oblections.-You
may be required to bear some of /��RM81..�IIII}I
the expenses for an appeal:eh10
Copies:of -the :procedures"for;
SE PA'appeals, are available
with the•City Clerk and Depart-,
ment,•�-`Community,
Deve lopment.'1'V,.14=::'
Subscribed and sworn to before
received
Julv
e ttu Sixteenth day
,19 95
aibt/2.3C
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
tie Seattle
REcp7'`,ED
AUG 161995
DEVELOPMENT
•
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Rants
From: Jack Pace, Acting Community Development Director
Date: August 9, 1995
Subject: Fire Station Appeal
On August 7, 1995, Ms. Jackie Dempere filed an appeal of the SEPA,
BAR and CUP decisions for the proposed fire station at 4202 South
115th Street.
On July 27, 1995, after conducting a public hearing, the Planning
Commission/Board of Architectural Review (BAR) granted approval for
the project. In addition, a Mitigated Determination of Non -
Significance (MDNS) was issued on July 6, 1995 and a shoreline
permit was issued on August 3, 1995.
The appeal of the SEPA decision was not filed in a timely manner as
the appeal period of the MDNS expired on July 31, 1995. The
appeals of the BAR and CUP decisions are subject to the procedures
outlined in Chapter 18.90 TMC.
The City Council must affirm, deny or modify the Planning
Commission/BAR decisions within 90 days from when the appeal was
filed. The City Council may hold a public hearing on the appeal.,
On Monday, August 14th, the Council should decide whether to hold
a public hearing and set a date to consider the appeal.
Ms. Dempere's written appeal is attached, including the specific
grounds for appeal that she has identified (Labeled 1 through 9).
As discussed below, not all of the items identified can be appealed
to the City Council:
Number 1 applies solely to the SEPA decision and therefore is not
valid.
Numbers 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are within the purview of the City when
reviewing projects for compliance with standards for the BAR and
CUP and therefore may be subject to appeal.
Numbers 4 and 7 do not apply to any of the decision making criteria
for the BAR and CUP and therefore are not subject to appeal.
r
A tree permit has yet to be issued, therefore, appeal of the
application of the tree ordinance is premature.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
BEFORE THE COUNCIL, CITY OF TUKWILA
IN THE MATTER OF: )
4,
RECEIVED
AUG 4 '1995
w 1 Y OF TUKvvw-,
CITY CLERK
THE APPEAL OF JACKIE DEMPERE )
OF THE DECISION OF THE )
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT ) Case No. L95-0027,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ) L95 -0031,L95-0030,
THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON A )
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT )
APPLICATION, ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
Appellant. )
)
TO: THE TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL;
AND TO: STEVE LANCASTER, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
Pursuant to TUKWILA'S MUNICIPAL CODES (TMC), SEPA
and the KING COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM and other
Laws, appellant, Jackie Dempere, hereby appeals the
Analysis and Decision of the Director of the Department
of Community Development and the Planning Commission
Case No. L95-0027, L95-0031, L95-0030. The decision
consists of the issuance of a Determination of Non -
Significance (DNS), approval of a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) and Design Review approval by the Planning
Commission, for the construction of a new fire station
at the Northeast corner of 4202 S 115th Street, and on
the East side of the Duwamish river, Tukwila,
Washington.
1. Appellant :
Jackie L. Dempere
4033 S.128th Street
Tukwila, WA 98168
Phone:(206) 433-8539
NOTICE OF APPEAL 1
•
Grounds or Appeal
The issuance of a Determination of Non -
Significance and the approval of a Conditional Use
Permit, including Design Review;
The inadequate disclosure and lack of disclosure
of the adverse impacts associated with the proposal;
Ci)The inadequate conditions and lack of conditions
imposed upon the project to mitigate adverse impacts,
including but not limited to:
The failure to require a traffic study where this
project will encroach a Scenic Drive Road and protect
the safety of Tukwila residents and non-residents who
use roadway for work or pleasure.
The location of a Fire station in a site where the
access may be cut off and equipment locked in the case
of natural disaster.
The inadequate application of the existing
Tukwila's Tree Ordinance. Plus cumulative adverse
impacts on the Wetland Habitat from Excessive Noise and
Light.
The loss of five low income housing units and
inadequate compensation of its displaced low income'
tenants.`
Disregard for previous citizen in put and of the
recommendation for Single Family zoning of the Tukwila
Tomorrow Citizens Committee and Planning Commission for
the property.
The lack of protection of architectural and
historical significant buildings of a neighborhood as
mandate by the Comprehensive Plan Guidelines.
The impossibility of providing proper buffers of
surrounding Single Family homes from a fire station
activity.
NOTICE OF APPEAL -2
Relief Requested
Appellant respectfully requests that the
Director's DCD decision and Determination of Non -
Significance be reversed and that the applicant.be
required to prepare an EIS and a Traffic Study.
Appellant further request that the Conditional Use
Permit and Design Review approval be rescinded.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 7 day of August, 1995.
NOTICE OF APPEAL -3
Jackie L. Demp;- re
Appellant
Date: 18 -Jul -95 08:53:11
From: RANDY (RANDY BERG)
To: MO?IRA-LIBBY
Subject: Fire Station 53 Development
Message -id: 77760B3001000000
Libby,
I recieved a call from Jackie Dempere on this project. She has requested
mailings on all land use actions concerning this project. Her phone number is
433-8539. AddressJackie Dempere
4033 S. 128th St.
Tukwila, WA 98168
Could you be sure to send her information on the coming BAR hearing.
Thanks,
Randy
Libby,
RECEIVED
JUL31995
COMMViuNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Here is a copy of the letter from Dale Dennis of Nakano Dennis, landscape Architects. I
hope this is what you need for your files. I assume that the 15 foot driveway with the 5
foot strip of geogrid will meet the Fire Departments requirements for a 20 foot driveway.
I hope this also meets the SEPA requirements for preservation of the tree, or I should say
"The Tree"
I am also sending you a copy of the proposed bio-swale detail. I have already talked to
the consultant abaout this detail, and the lack of information. This does not tell us the
depth, the slope of the side walls, or the proposed seed mix for the grass.
I,
*AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION
�c�P�'� Zdob Y75
�J
fl Notice of Public Hearing
hereby declare that:
fl Determination of Non-
- significance
O Notice of Public Meeting 0 Mitigated Determination o
Nonsignificance
LJBoard of Adjustment Agenda
Packet
OBoard of Appeals Agenda
Packet
flPlanning Commission Agenda
Packet
0Short Subdivision Agenda Other
—'
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
flShoreline Management Permit
Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on 7 J7/.75
TO0(ea Secd+k l s - t bj 1C,�-�i
Tut. .
I(Y UeV-le511.00)- .: iain Tr i
��w .a► s h ►` Tr ► low
e ceI ° c)Lar cA ; re PC( ,r,
S /4,deP iAo T o Ion,
Name of Project Pi re *-ICbym SignatureI )•
File Number EA5 - OO �o
1908
it , „
iisthtif'A
1908
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulev
Tukwila, WA 98188-259
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599
(206) 433-1800
DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
212 S WELLS
RENTON WA 98055
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188-2599
ROD MALCOM
MUCKLE SHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
39015 172ND AVENUE S.E.
AUBURN, WA 98002 •
City of Tukwila
CITY OF TUKWILA
6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD.
TUKWILA, WA 98188-2599
(206) 433-1800
TO: SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION
DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
P 0 BOX 47703
OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188-2599
Shoreline Permit Review
Department of Ecology
3190 - 160th Avenue.SE
Bellevue, WA 98008-5452
CITY OF TUKWILA
MITIGATE IETERMINATION OF NONSIGNII IANCE (MDNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,200 SO. FT, FIRE STATION.
PROJECT INCLUDES STREET VACATION OF TWO PUBLIC
STREETS S 114 AND S 115, CONDITIONAL USE, BOARD OF
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, LOT CONSOLIDATION, AND
BUILDING PERMITS.
PROPONENT: CITY OF TUKWILA- FIRE>DEPARTMENT
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL —I -INCLUDING STREET ;ADDRESS, I:F�;Y
,.AN:
,,,:.1.,,,- 1 1 1 ,li N \ 1 \ _ J4 '
ADDRESS: .42`02 S ,1115 'ST , L__-_:,
PARCEL NO: ,.' {-335140,-1;005. \! (, �I ,.
SEC/TWN/RNG,:`(SEC-10`, T23, R4E,,'WM�:
: ;
LEAD AGENC)Y: CITY OF-TUKWILA'
The City..has determined thhat"the prroposa1 does not have a
signifiean,t adverse;, impact on then,environment. An envrro
statementfj"(EIS) is =not required under RCW' 43.21c.030(2) (;c
decision,;was made ,afterre'view of a compryl,et'ed-apnvironmen
and other information =on_ i'114 with thea,l.ead . agency, Th i
i s available tol thes-pub l i s ,,on request,°r ,The y connd`•i t ions to
Determin'action-arecatltached:�
;,'tt :- ter•°' ✓ --' j' - i....,, --
,s\
, --�'"'
.r� <yv ---- This DNS i s issued un�d ,19.7 :1`1-340 (,2 )1 Cornmen,ts must b
�',a .4214_'1. -,42M -_-.The leaii agency.. -will not a'c
pro osa'�1 orY5dalys from the date 0e1-64
FILE NO, -:',E95-0046
at
• pr t bab�1,e�
nmenta 1 ,\:i;nmpact
to1-check',i ist
S, in:formatan
tli i s SEPIA�1
•
` r
r, r�
e isubm;i teed by
t 'an th isr 1
Steve Lancaster,
City of Tuks41 a ,
6300 Southceiite,r
Tukwila, WA ' .984
•_,
Responsible Officfiaa;1
(2116) 431-3680
Bou'l'evard
88 -�
You may appeal this;de:terminati;on•-to the':G,ity Clerk-- at City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevarii .:;-;Tukw,i la, WA `-98188 no,,l,ater- than 10 days from the
above signature date by 44tterr appea-1-,stat i ng the basis of the appeal
for specific factual object red to bear some of
the expenses for an appeal.
Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development.
CHECKLIST: ENVI�NMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE WIT MAILINGS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X)
WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
( )OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
( )TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
( )DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES
( )OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
( )DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
( )DEPT. OF FISHERIES
( )K.C. PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEV.
( )BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
( )FIRE DISTRICT #11
( )FIRE DISTRICT #2
( )SOUTH CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
( )TUKWILA LIBRARIES
( )RENTON LIBRARY
( )KENT LIBRARY
( )CITY OF SEATTLE LIBRARY
( )US WEST
( )SEATTLE CITY LIGHT
( )WASHINGTON NATURAL GAS
( )WATER DISTRICT.#75
( )SEATTLE WATER DEPARTMENT
( )GROUP W CABLE
( )OLYMPIA PIPELINE
( )KENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( )TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
( )PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE
( )POLICE ( )FINANCE
( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING
( )PARKS AND ORECREATION
( )TUKWILA MAYOR
( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES
DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISJON ✓
(ADEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*
( )DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
*SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND
*SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
KING COUNTY AGENCIES
( )KING COUNTY DEPT. OF PARKS
( )HEALTH DEPARTMENT
( )PORT OF SEATTLE
( )BUILDING & LAND DEV. DIV.-
SEPA INFORMATION CENTER
SCHOOLS/LIBRARIES
( )HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT
( )KING COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY
( )SEATTLE MUNICIPAL REFERENCE LIBRARY
( )SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS
( )RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT
)PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
)VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT
)WATER DISTRICT #20
)WATER DISTRICT #125
)CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
)RAINIER VISTA
)SKYWAY
CITY AGENCIES
( )RENTON PLANNING DEPARTMENT
( )CITY OF SEA -TAC
( )CITY OF SEATTLE
( )CITY OF BURIEN
( )TUKWILA PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
( )TUKWILA CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
OTHER LOCAL AGENCIES
( )PUGET SOUND REGIONAL COUNCIL
( )P.S. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
( )SW K.COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
(➢C)MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
(‘4)DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE
MEDIA
( )DAILY JOURNAL OF COMMERCE
( )VALLEY DAILY NEWS
(
)METRO ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING DIV.
OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL 5,000 GSF OR MORE
RESIDENTIAL 50 UNITS OR MORE
RETAIL 30,000 GSF OR MORE
( ) HIGHLINE TIMES
( ) SEATTLE • TIMES
• •
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 De- termination (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).
ONAKANO.DENNA
30 June 1995
Mr. Randy Berg
City of Tukwila
6300 South Center Blvd.
Tukwila, Washington 98188
RE: Tukwila Fire Station/Sequoia Tree
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS
RECEIVED
JUN 3 0 1995
PUBLICW RKS
Dear .Randy:
We recommend that a porous pavement system be included as part of the road on the north side of the
existing 80" Sequoia tree to allow moisture and air penetration to the feeder roots of the tree. We
suggest the reinforced plastic product Geoblock be installed for a width of 5 feet and a length of 35 feet
under the canopy of the tree. The tree appears to be healthy and has received years of vehicular
traffic and soil compaction on the north side. Me addition of Geoblock should help the longevity of the
tree.
Sincerely,
Dale A. Dennis
cc: Ron Thomas, Merritt+Pardinl
Post•Itu brand fax transmittal memo
7671 le oI pao.. ► /
1bR�n/vY`
Promc404,a.O'er//S
t o.c.cry op 'r wid-r
CoNAsGpNc) I Nwrt
Daps,
Phone N
Fee.43/ — 3 CrV�i
Foie
300 East Pike Seattle WA 98122-3610 ■ phone 206-292-9392 fax 206-292-9640
t '30Vd 0i796Z6Z 90Z
9INN2C*ONV)tVN 9Z:9t (IM.) 56 . of nlnr
Ron,
Here is how the area between the large sequoia and the bank measures out. I doubt if we
can cut into the bank without some kind of retaining system. The 5 feet between the
existing driveway and the tree is where it may be appropriate to use reinforced grass. Call
if I can provide any further information.
+y o p -I1 IG DR! ✓
JUL 03 '95
o_
N
206-448-7167
Post -It' Fax Note 7671
ROL SIDE SLOPE
1. SEE TABLE 1 FOR 'OETAMLED OF DITCH
INFORMATION ON : BIOSWALE.
2. SFE X02 FOR 810SWALES
AT. LESS THAN 2X .GRADE.
RECEIVED
JUL - 3 1995
PUBLIC WORKS
r
•
•
•
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW
FILE: #E95-0016
DATE: June 30, 1995
PROPOSAL: Fire Station #53
APPLICANT: City of Tukwila; Fire Department
GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the construction of 6,200 square foot fire station, a 15 stall parking area, and
landscaping. The fire station will be sited on a 3 acre site, located at the southeast comer of 42nd
Avenue S. and S. 115th Street. The property is zoned C -M, Industrial Park, and contains an
environmentally sensitive area, Type 2 wetland. The proposed building includes two apparatus bays
with doors on two sides, a 28 foot tall hose tower, an office, kitchen, day room, exercise room, and
sleeping quarters for 8 fire fighters.
A number of permit applications are required to develop this project. A public hearing for a street
vacation request to vacate a the portion of S. 114th Street and S. 115th Street, which run through the
site, was conducted by the City Council June 19, 1995. The street vacation is pending adoption of an
approved ordinance by the City Council. Applications for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
Conditional Use Permit and Board of Architectural approval are also pending.
The following is an environmental analysis based on the environmental checklist and additional
information provided.
Earth
The site is relatively flat with existing soils composed of sandy silt. According to the Environmental
Checklist, construction of the building at this site will require approximately 700 - 1,000 yards of
structural fill material.
A geotechnical report was conducted for the property ('Addendum to Report, Supplemental
Geotechnical Engineering Services, Fire Station No. 53' by GeoEngineers, June 21, 1995). The report
is an addendum to the 'Phase I Environmental Site Assessment' report by GeoEngineers, February
20, 1995.
According to the geotechnical report the existing soils consist of an 8 inch layer of medium density
sitty gravel and sand fill over an approximate 8 foot layer of loose sand and soft silt. Below that is an
approximate 17 foot layer of soft silt, with a layer of loose sandy silt under this. At 22 feet to 35 feet
the is a layer of medium dense fine to medium sand, supported by a layer of hard sandy silt (siltstone
bedrock). According to the geotechnical report the layer of medium dense fine to medium sand can
support the proposed augercast pile foundation system proposed for the fire station.
The geotechnical report recommends that the piles extend a minimum of 5 feet into the medium
dense sand unit and that structural elements of the building be supported on pile groups consisting of
two or more piles. In addition, it is recommended that the piles be reinforced with a single reinforcing
bar, installed the entire length of the augercast pile.
Erosion control measures will be employed during construction to prevent soils from reaching the river
or the on-site wetland. Re -vegetation of all disturbed areas will be completed after construction.
AIR
Development of subject property is resulting in the demolition of a number os structures existing on
the property. Removal of any existing asbestos is required prior to demolition of these structures per
Washington State Department of Air Quality standards, No significant adverse impacts to air quality
are expected as a result of this development.
WATER
A 1.5 acre, Class 2 wetland is located on the property. The wetland has been delineated by the City
Urban Environmentalist. This wetland is regulated by the Sensitive Areas Overlay zone of the Zoning
Code (TMC 18.45). All development is proposed to be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the
delineated wetland. The 50 foot buffer will be reduced at the northeast end of the building where the
hose tower is located. The buffer will be reduced to 35 feet in width and enhancement vegetation will
be provided in this area of the buffer. No development will occur within the wetland or buffer areas.
Water runoff and Stormwater
Approximately 14% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces upon completion of the
development. This has a potential to increase storm water runoff. Runoff from the driveways, parking
areas and walkways will be directed to oil/water separators and then directed to either a settlement
pond or bio-fittration swale before it is release to the existing on-site wetland. Detention of storm water
will be required to insure that the storm water run-off is released off site at the same rate as previously
occurred prior to site development. No increase in the volume of storm water to the wetland will be
permitted, per the regulation of the Sensitive Ares Overlay Zone. The proposed storm water drainage
system is will meet the standards of the IGng County Storm Water Design Manual.
• PLANTS
The project includes removal of trees, shrubs, and ground cover to construct the new fire station. A
number of significant trees exist on the site. Approximately 29 of these trees will be removed (20 of
which are resulting from an overgrown holly hedge). Tree replacement is required per the Tree
Regulations and Requirements (TMC 18.54). The applicant will be using the 20% canopy coverage
method (TMC 18.54.140(b), which will require approximately 30 replacement trees to be planted on
the property.
•
Trees to be retained shall be protected during the construction process as required under TMC
18.54.130 (2), with protective fencing.
Of particular concem is the retention and protection of the existing 80' Sequoia giganteum/Giant
Sequoia tree, located near the norther access driveway. A 20 foot wide paved driveway located
between this tree and the toe_of the slope to the north, would adversely impact this significant tree.
The driveway should be reduced and/or alternative methods of vehicular support ( such as 'grass
crete") should be employed to allow moisture and air to reach the soil in the root zone of this tree.
Compaction of the soil in the root zone can also have an adverse effect on the tree. Measures to
assure that this tree is not adversely effected by development of the site should be proposed by the
landscape architect and implemented during the development and construction phases of the project.
Extensive landscaping, consisting of trees, shrubs and ground cover is proposed at the property
boundaries and around the parking and building.
ANIMALS
Much of the site will remain undeveloped. Existing wetlands, trees and shrubs will continue to provide
wildlife habitat for the number of birds and small animals that currently use the site.
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed structure will meet the Washington State Energy code, and energy efficient appliances
will be used. No adverse impact to energy and natural resources is expected.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH/NOISE
The fires station is proposed to be build to earthquake standards for a structure of this type, resulting
in the ability of the emergency vehicles being able to function during such a disaster.
Noise from the fire trucks and sirens will increase the noise level of the area slightly, but not be
significant.
LAND AND SHOREUNE USE
The property is zoned CM, Industrial Park. Fire stations require a conditional use permit within this
zoning district. Design Review is also required for development of this project. Because the project is
commercial in nature, and the development lies within property located within a designated shoreline
area, the project is subject to the review guidelines of the Board of Architectural Review (TMC 18.60).
This application, along with the Conditional Use permit application, are set for a public hearing on July
27, 1995.
The property lies within the 200 foot shoreline of the Green/Duwamish River, which is designated a
shoreline of statewide significance through the State of Washington Shoreline Management Act.
Development of the fire station requires a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. Although the .
property is located within the City of Tukwila, the site lies within a shoreline area regulated by the King
County Shoreline Program. The City of Tukwila administers the King County regulations in recently
annexed areas until the City of Tukwila Shoreline Program is amended to include these annexed
areas. An administrative shoreline permit will be processed for this project.
HOUSING
•Four existing houses, a garage, a barn and four out -buildings will be demolished to develop the
proposed fire station. Three of the structures were occupied prior to the City purchase of the
property. To off -set the impact of displacement, these residents were offered financial assistance for
relocation.
•
AESTHETICS
The proposed structure will have a maximum height of 38 feet for the hose tower, located at the rear
of the building. Building material will consist of wood or wood -like siding with a metal roof. No views
will be obstructed with development of the site.
Further review of the aesthetics of the structure will be analyzed through the Design Review
application which goes before the Board of Architectural Review.
UGHT AND GLARE
On-site lighting is proposed to be located along the walkways and driveways, and within the parking
area for safety purposes. The light standards will be approximately 12 feet tall for the pedestrian
areas, and 16 feet tall for the vehicular areas. Measures to insure that the lighting is directed toward
the subject site will eliminate any off-site impacts resulting from the proposed lighting. The material of
the building are intended to be non -reflective, therefore no adverse impacts are expected.
RECREATION
The site is located across the road from the Duwamish/Green River, which provides passive
recreational opportunities. The Green River Trail and Duwamish Park are within 1/4 mile from the site.
The unimproved right-of-way for 42nd Avenue S. is designated as a bicycle route, in the adopted
Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), which was adopted by the City of Tukwila Council on June 19,
1995. Future development of this bike path should be considered when developing the 42nd Avenue
S. right-of-way, to insure that the bike path can be accommodated in the future.
• HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION
There is no evidence that the site is of cultural or historic significance. None of the structures existing
on the site are listed as being of historic significance. No significant adverse impacts are expected as
a result of demolition of these structures.
•
•
TRANSPORTATION
The property fronts on two public streets, S. 115th Street, which is paved, and unimproved 42nd
Avenue S. Primary access will be by way of S. 115th Street. A secondary access, used by fire trucks
to return to the station, will be located within the right-of-way of unimproved 42nd Avenue S.
Parking for a total of 15 vehicles is proposed. Approximately 16 trips per day will be generated by the
completed fire station proposal.
Proposed improvements to the existing public streets include the construction of a sidewalk along a
short distance of S. 115th Street, between the two access driveways. Proposed improvements to
42nd Avenue S. are limited to paving a 20 wide driveway.
To insure that the significant Sequoia tree is retained as discussed earlier, and to insure that the
future bicycle path can be accommodated, the secondary driveway access proposed for the right-of-
way of 42nd Avenue S. should be reduced from 20 feet in width to 12 feet in width, providing one-way
access for the returning fire trucks. Reducing this access still leaves the other 24 foot access
driveway available for parking and exiting fire trucks.
PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposal will increase fire suppression service for the service area Two apparatus bays will be
initially provided, with the future potential for four. No adverse impacts to public services is expected.
UTIUTIES
Connection to a new 16 inch water main located in S. 115th Street is required. The property is
currently served by public services for water. To provide adequate sewer service, the construction of
an 8 inch sewer line to S 116th Sheet/44th Avenue S., with five (5) manholes is needed. The
applicant is required to participate in their share of the cost, $30,000. The applicant will also required
to show the existing 18 inch storm drain on the plans to avoid future conflicts with site development.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis in this report, it is recommended that this project be issued a Mitigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) with the following conditions:
1. In order to preserve and protect the existing 80' Sequoia gioanteum/Giant Sequoia
tree, a porous pavement system shall be included as part of the road on the north
side of the existing 80' Sequoia tree to allow moisture and air penetration to the feeder
roots of the tree. The reinforced plastic product Geoblock shall be installed for a width
of 5 feet and a length of 35 feet under the canopy of the tree.
2. Landscaping and development within the right-of-way of 42nd Avenue S. shall be
designed so that future development of a bike path can be readily accommodated.
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) , as defined in Tree Regulations [TMC
18.54.040(2)], shall be employed in protecting all existing trees to be retained.
4. The delineated wetland and the buffer areas shall be protected with temporary fencing
during all construction processes.
5. The City Public Works Department with Fire Station #53 will be required to pay a
proportionate fair share of sewer improvements for the S. 116th/44th Avenue S. 8 inch
sewer line and five (5) manhole design and construction costs. The fair share will be -
$30,000.00.
• •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Lancaster
FROM: Randy Berg
DATE: June 22, 1995
RE: Replacement Tree Size for Fire Station 53 Site
RECEIVr-
aii3 2 21995
COtviiviL,,
DEVELOPMEN r
I have talked to Libby about replacement tree size requirements for the Fires Station 53
project. She suggested that the 2-1/2 inch required caliper of tree could be reduced to 2
inch. This requires approval by the DCD Director. Gary has no objections to reducing
the required tree size, and the project budget is already stretched to the limits.
This memo therefore represents a formal request to reduce the required replacement tree
caliper from 2-1/2 inch to 2 inch. Please let me know if this is acceptable. We are quickly
coming up on deadline to make decisions on the site plan. All of the site and exterior
architectural drawings are due to planning on Monday, June 26.
cc Libby Hudson
Gary Schulz
GeoEnginecrs File No. 0259-037-r01
Addendum to Report
Supplemental Geotechnical
Engineering Services
Proposed Fire Station No. 53
Tukwila, Washington
City of Tukwila P.O. No. 38790
June 21, 1995
For
City of Tukwila
174,
Geo �Engineers
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attention: Mr. Randy Berg
June 21, 1995
Consulting Engineers
and Geoscientists
Offices in Washington,
Oregon, and Alaska
Addendum to Report
Supplemental Geotechnical Engineering Services
Proposed Fire Station No. 53
Tukwila, Washington
City of Tukwila P.O. No. 38790
File No. 0259-037-RO1
INTRODUCTION
The results of our supplemental geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Fire
Station No. 53 are presented in this addendum to our report dated February 15, 1995. The
project site is located near the intersection of South 115th Street and 42nd Avenue South in
Tukwila, Washington. The project site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.
Figure 2 shows the site in relation to existing site features.
Our services were accomplished under city of Tukwila Purchase Order No. 38790 and were
authorized by Mr. Randy Berg on June 5, 1995. The scope of our services is described in our
proposal dated May 23, 1995 and in an addendum to the proposal dated June 6, 1995. These
supplemental services represent a continuation of our design phase geotechnical study summarized
in our report dated February 15, 1995.
We understand that design of the fire station is in progress. Augercast pile foundation
support of the building frame and floor slabs is planned because of the potential for liquefaction
of loose sands encountered in our previous test pits. The piles will be 16 inches in diameter and
will, support design downward loads of up to 45 kips. Uplift loads on the piles will be minor.
Maximum lateral loads on the piles will be about 7 kips.
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone (206) 861-6000
Fax (206) 861.6050
Printed on recycled paper.
City of Tukwila
June 21, 1995
Page 2
SCOPE
The purpose of our supplemental services is to explore deeper subsurface conditions at the
fire station site as a basis for developing geotechnical design information for pile foundation
support. Our specific scope of services includes the following tasks:
1. Drill, sample and log one boring to a depth of 48 feet to identify the presence of competent
'supporting soils for the piles.
2. Accomplish a limited geotechnical laboratory testing program on soil samples obtained from
the boring to evaluate pertinent physical characteristics including moisture -density and direct
shear tests.
3. Provide recommendations for augercast pile foundation support of the planned fire station
including capacity -penetration relationships for downward and uplift loading, settlement
estimates, lateral pile capacities and installation criteria. _
4. Estimate the effects of liquefaction on piles and on -grade elements of the fire station, as
appropriate.
5. Provide recommendations for the coefficient of friction and passive soil resistance which
will act on grade beams, floor slabs and other building elements.
6. Prepare an addendum to our February 15, 1995 report, presenting the new data developed
and our conclusions and recommendations for the scope items listed above.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Deep subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling one boring at the location
shown in Figure 2. The boring was drilled to a depth of 48 feet using truck -mounted, mud rotary
drilling equipment. The mud rotary equipment was necessary because of the potential for heave
of loose sand during drilling and sampling.
An engineering geologist from our staff observed the drilling operations, assisted in
obtaining samples of the subsurface soils, classified the soils encountered, and prepared a detailed
log of the boring. It was not`ppssible to measure the depth_to ground water due to the use of
drilling mud in the boring. The soils encountered were classified in general accordance with the
system described in Figure 3. A key to the boring log is included as Figure 4. The log of the
boring is presented in Figure 5.
The boring location was determined by taping from existing structures. The approximate
ground surface elevation at the boring location was determined by interpolation from a site plan
developed by Irwin Engineering dated February 7, 1995.
Soil samples were obtained using a heavy-duty, split -barrel sampler with an inside diameter
of 2.5 inches. The sampler was driven with a 300 -pound hanuner falling a distance of
approximately 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches
or other specified distance is indicated above the sample notations in the boring log. The boring
G e o Eng in e e r s File No. 0259-037-RO1
City of Tukwila
June 21, 1995
Page 3
log is based on our interpretation of field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of
soils encountered. They also indicate the depth at which the soils or their characteristics change,
although the change may actually be gradual.
Each of the soil samples obtained from the boring was reexamined in our laboratory.
Moisture and dry density tests were accomplished on representative samples. Results of the
moisture and dry density determinations are included on the boring log. Direct shear tests were
accomplished on selected samples. The results of the direct shear tests are summarized in
Figure 6.
The soils encountered in boring B-1 consist of a surficial layer of fill fora driveway
overlying loose sand and soft silt, medium dense sand and dense silty sand. The fill consists of
about 8 inches of medium dense silty gravel with .sand. A layer of loose silty sand was
encountered below the fill and extends to a depth of about 8 feet. Below this depth, a unit of soft
silt extending down to a depth of about 17 feet was encountered. The silt is underlain by a layer
of loose silty sand. A unit of medium dense fine to medium sand was encountered between
depths of 22 and 35 feet. This sand unit will provide support for the augercast piles. Below a
depth of 35 feet, a unit of hard sandy silt (siltstone bedrock) extending to the bottom of the
boring was encountered.
.No ground water information was obtained from the boring due to the drilling method used.
Based on our previous test pits, the ground water level at the site was at about 4.5 to 7 feet below
the ground surface in winter of 1995.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
The proposed building can be satisfactorily supported on augercast piles as planned. The
piles will need to extend through the upper loose sand and soft silflayers into theunderlying
medium dense sand thathas a low potential for liquefaction. Based on our recent boring, the
medium dense sand begins at a depth of abo t 22 feet elow the existing ground surface. The
depth to this supporting layer and to the un ng bedrock may vary across the building
location, depending on the configuration of the older geologic strata which extend beneath the
site from the hillside immediately to the west.
Based on our discussions with the structural engineer, we understand that column loads will
be such that downward capacities of 45 kips per pile will be required. The piles will be 16 -inch -
diameter augercast concrete piles.
We recommend that the piles extend a minimum of 5 feet into the medium dense sand unit
encountered at a depth of 22 feet in our boring to achieve the design downward capacity. This
capacity is based on a factor of safety of about 2.5 on soil strength parameters. The capacity
Geo Engineers File No. 0259-037-RO1
City of Tukwila
June 21, 1995
Page 4
applies to single piles; if piles within groups are spaced at least three pile diameters on -center
no reduction for pile group action need be made. The above capacity is for the total of dead and
long-term live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering live loads of short'
duration such as wind or seismic forces.
Pile downdrag forces resulting from liquefaction should be considered, as discussed in a
subsequent section.
The structural characteristics of pile materials and structural connections might impose
limitations on pile capacities and should be evaluated by your structural engineer. For example,
steel reinforcing will be needed for augercast piles subjected to uplift, as appropriate. We
recommend that a single reinforcing bar be installed the entire length of the augercast pile to
develop uplift capacity. There is some risk associated with supporting structural elements on
single piles. Ther efore we recommend that all major structural elements be supported on pile
groups consistin of tw r files.
Provisions should be made in the project contract documents and budget to adjust pile
lengths as variations in the depth of the supporting medium dense sand layer are likely within the
limits of the building.
Pile settlements are expected to be essentially elastic in nature and occur as loads are
applied. Total settlement of piles constructed as recommended is not expected to exceed 1/2
inch, while differential settlements between comparably loaded pile groups are not expected to
exceed about 50 percent of this value.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces can be resisted by uplift or lateral loading on
the piles. The manner in which these loads are transferred into the piles will be a function of the
design of the foundation system. An owable uplift capacity of 10 kips for a 16 -inch -diameter
augercast pile may be used provided that a single reinforcin bar is installed the entire length of
the augercast pile. This bar should be centered in the pile.
The allowable lateral load for 16 -inch -diameter augercast piles may be taken as 7 kips,
assuming a center -to -center pile spacing of at least three pile diameters, adequate steel
reinforcement and pile -head fixity against rotation. This capacity is based on a maximum pile -
head deflection of about 1/2 inch at the ground surface. We recommend that reinforcing be
installed to a minimum depth of 18 feet in the piles to resist bending moments associated with
lateral loading. — — -----------_-_--_—�
--1 esistance to lateral loads can also be developed by passive pressure on the face of pile
caps, grade beams, tie beams and other buried foundation elements. Allowable passive resistance
values are presented below under "Lateral Resistance." Sliding friction on the base of pile -
supported foundation elements should be ignored.
0eoEng 1neers File No. 0259-037-R01
City of Tukwila
June 21, 1995
Page 5
PILE INSTALLATION •
Augercast (cast -in-place) concrete piles should be installed to the recommended penetration
using a continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger. As is common practice, the pile grout is pumped
under pressure through the hollow stem as the auger is withdrawn. Reinforcing steel for bending
and uplift is placed in the fresh grout column immediately after withdrawal of the auger.
We recommend that the augercast piles be installed by a contractor experienced in their
placement and using suitable equipment. Grout pumps should be fitted with a volume -measuring
device and pressure gauge so that the volume of grout placed in each pile and the pressure head
can be easily determined. While grouting, the rate of auger withdrawal should be uniform and
controlled such that the volume of grout pumped is equivalent to at least 115 percent of the
theoretical hole volume. A minimum grout line pressure of 100 psi should be maintained while
grouting, and a minimum grout head of 10 feet (depth of auger_in ground when grout return is
observed) should also be maintained. We recommend that there be a waiting period of at least
eight hours between installation of piles spaced closer than 10 feet center -to -center in order to
avoid disturbance of concrete undergoing curing in a previously cast pile.
There may be unexpected variations in the depth to and characteristics of the supporting
soils across the site. In addition, no direct information regarding the capacity of augercast piles
(e.g., driving resistance data) is obtained while this type of pile is being installed. Accordingly,
we strongly recommend that we be retained to monitor drilling operations, record indicated
penetrations into supporting soils, monitor grout injection pressures, record the volume of grout
placed in each pile relative to the calculated volume of the hole, and evaluate the adequacy of
each pile installation.
LATERAL RESISTANCE
. The soil resistance available to resist lateral foundation loads is a function of the frictional
resistance which can develop on the base and the passive resistance which can develop on the face
of the below -grade elements of the structure as they tend to move into the soil. The allowable
passive resistance on the face of embedded foundation elements can be computed using an
equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (triangular distribution) provided foundation
elements are surrounded by structural fill or compacted in-situ soil extending laterally a distance
of at least twice the depth of the element. This passive equivalent value includes a factor of
safety of about 1.5.
Sliding friction on the base of pile -supported foundation elements should be ignored, as
noted above.
G e o Eng in e e r s File No. 0259-037-ROl
City of Tukwila
June 21, 1995
Page 6
LIQUEFACTION EFFECTS
Based on the results of our boring and previous test pits, we conclude that there is a
moderate to high potential for liquefaction under a moderate to large earthquake in the loose sand
layers encountered between the ground water level (about 4.5 to 7 feet in the test pits) and a
depth of about 22 feet. This liquefaction might result in about 2 to 4 inches of settlement. This
settlement could induce downdrag loads on the piles. We estimate that the downdrag loads under
such circumstances might range up to about 24 kips. The additional load on the piles could result
in additional settlements of up to 1/4 inch.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for use by the city of Tukwila, AHBL, Inc. and other
members of the project team for use in the design of a portio] of the project. The data and
report should be provided to prospective contractors for bidding or estimating purposes; but our
report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface
conditions.
If there are any changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or types of facilities
to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report might not be
fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our
conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification of these
recommendations. When the design is finalized, we recommend that we be given the opportunity
to review those portions of the specifications and drawings which relate to geotechnical considera-
tionssle_that our recommendations have been intermeted andimplemented as intended.
There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of the
explorations and also with time. Some contingency for unanticipated conditions should be
included in the project budget and schedule. We recommend that our firm be retained to provide
sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction to confirm that the conditions
encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations
for design changes should the conditions revealed during_the work differ from those anticipated,
and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with the
contract plans and specifications.
Within the (imitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No
warranty or other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood.
O ►
GeoEng ineers File No. 0259-037-R01
City of Tukwila
June 21, 1995
Page 7
It has been our pleasure to be of service to you on this project. If there are any questions
concerning the report or if we can provide additional services, please contact us.
HRP:JKT:wd
Document ID: 0259037.R
Attachments
Two copies submitted
cc: AHBL, Inc.
2215 North 30th Street, Ste. 210
Tacoma, Washington 98403
Attn: Mr. Mark Heinzig
GeoEngineers
Respectfully submitted,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
Herbert R. Pschunder, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Jack K. Tuttle, P.E.
Principal
File No. 0259-037-R01
0
2000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
Reference: USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle maps 'Des Moines,
Wash.' and 'Seattle South, Wash.,' both photorevised 1973.
I
Geo 10 Engineers
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
CEI 85-85 Rev. 05/93
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
SYMBOL
GROUP NAME
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
More Than 50%
Retained on
No. 200 Sieve
GRAVEL
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
Retained
on No. 4 Sieve
CLEAN
GRAVEL
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAVEL
WITH FINES
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL •
SAND
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
Passes
No. 4 Sieve
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
SAND
WITH FINES
SM _
—,
SILTY SAND
SC
CLAYEY SAND
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
More Than 50%
Passes
No. 200 Sieve
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
CL
CLAY
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid Limit
50 or More
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
• HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90.
Moist - Damp, but no visible water
2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on
ASTM D2487-90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is
obtained from below water table
3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on
interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of
soils, and/or test data.
GeokrIjp•
Engineers
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
~�— FIGURE 3
GEI 86-88 Rev. V94
LABORATORY TESTS:
AL
CP
CS
DS
GS
%F
HA
SK
SM
MD
SP
TX
UC
CA
Atterberg limits
Compaction
Consolidation
Direct shear
Grain -size
Percent fines
Hydrometer analysis
Permeability
Moisture content
Moisture and density
Swelling pressure
Triaxial compression
Unconfined compression
Chemical analysis
BLOW COUNT/SAMPLE DATA:
Blows required to drive a 2.4 -inch I.D.
split -barrel sampler 12 inches or
other indicated distances using a
300 -pound hammer falling 30 inches.
Blows required to drive a 1.5 -inch I.D.
(SPT) split -barrel sampler 12 inches
or other indicated distances using a
140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches.
"P" indicates sampler pushed with
weight of hammer or against weight
of drill rig.
NOTES:
SOIL GRAPH:
4.0
SM Soil Group Symbol
(See Note 2)
Distinct Contact Between
Soil Strata
Gradual or Approximate
Location of Change
Between Soil Strata
S7 Water Level
Bottom of Boring
22 1 Location of relatively
undisturbed sample
12 (S) of disturbed sample
17 ❑ Location of sampling attempt
with no recovery
10 3 Location of sample obtained
in general accordance with
Standard Penetration Test
(ASTM D 1586) procedures
26 m Location of SPT sampling
attempt with no recovery
® Location of grab sample
1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Boring Log Symbols and the
exploration Togs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions.
2. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure 3.
Geo Engineers
KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS
FIGURE 4
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol
0
BORING B-1
DESCRIPTION
Surface Elevation (ft.): 18.0
10-
15—
25 —
30-
35-
40—
SM 43
MD 43 78
MD 41 78
MD
29 91
MD, 21 106
DS
SM 25
MD, 23 102
DS
MD 15 113
6
4
2
6
27
29
33
40
GM
SM
Brownish gray silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (medium
dense, moist) (fill)
Dark brown silty fine sand with occasional organic matter
(loose, moist to wet)
ML Gray sandy silt (soft, wet)
SM Dark gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional organic
matter (loose, wet)
SP Dark gray fine to medium sand (medium dense to dense, wet)
ML Gray sandy silt (hard, moist) (bedrock)
1
Note: Sec Figure 4 for explanation of symbols
—0
—5
—10
—15
— 20
— 25
— 30
—35
— 40
Geo\Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE 5
:KAP:CMS 0/20/96
TEST DATA
Moisture Dry
Content Density Blow Group
Lab Tesu (%) (pct) Count Samples Symbol
40
45—
SM 25
MD 23 104
50/5.5' ■
50/4.5' 11
BORING B-1
(Continued)
DESCRIPTION
Boring completed at 48.0 feet on 06/14/95
No ground water observed due to use of drilling mud
40
—45
50^ ^ 50
55 — — 55
w
w
w -
z
H
p 60—
— 60
65— — 65
70— —70
75— —75
80— —80
Note: See Figure 4 for explanation of symbols
Geo \� Engineers
LOG OF BORING
FIGURE 5
GE! S3•85 Rev. 03/93
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
Boring
Sample
Depth
Sample
Moisture
Content
Dry .
Density
Normal
Pressure
Yield
Strength*
Number
(feet)
Description
(%)
(pcf)
(Pcf)
(pcf)
1
23
SP
21
106
3,000
2,200
1 '
33
SP
23
102
6,000
4,200
amp es sheared at a strain rate of 0.04 inches/minute
Document ID: 25937DS.WK1
Geo Engineers
DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA
FIGURE 6
•
Fd l/2 R & C, LS/ 19622
0.05 S and 0.04E f Cor
72/28/94
Fd 1/2' R & C
NC Cor. Lot 21. Blk.
CX, LS/ 19622
0.44 W of Lb.
N 751275_9
20.11
,-Top of 46' Conorot.
(Pipe. Cl.v. 11.4.3'
42nd Avef� .
—a
26' C.dar \ITP \4
\ 1 1,
1 1
1\ 1 \ \
` \r
Concrete Perking Lot\ ` 12 Ch.rr
\ \ r
\
\. \\�1\
H
TP -7_
,-
12 Hyodrt
6110. •, �+
10 °TP—V` \\ \ t\ 26 raw
066 .1)QOy \ \t t\
:\\\\t/ `— r~\
TP -3 16 -Tr.. `
E/20' owl Rood) /\
wires 0
TP -8J -T..,0
\N
1E 15' Gravel Rood-''
b
rintos
6' "Tr..
7 6'Tr..a
+TP -1
i
0
4'Tr..
1 16'Coltonwood
TP -2 \ l •_,\
\ ,
\ - \ /
.. p
\ L\ ,
\\ 't, 0 20 Trot . ..11✓7
SHE
GARAGE
24'Cot
\\_ _\4
\
\ '• 0 ML.1
3/Coltonwood0
\ . ` . \
\ ,1.,.
/ \
2 20'Cotton\rood
\_ *0.00 9
J\ \ \
16" \ v-Eoat End of
\ \ Conceb Pip
J I4'4lognolla Tr... \ Could Not Fi
\ MLO \
QYoynollo r..a \ \ \
z \ 1 /
-1 \
3.85' Encroovhnl \l••
From fence to '
Plot Line �` \. v
on. env. 1
3.65' Encroochm.nl
>d in 1992.
ice track, which sends sat -
Che Off Track in Tukwila,
had that support,
Auburn businessd
ett said.
kers reciprocated.
the toughest things" tee achieved in the
state.
ew fire station
soon will grace
Allentown area
By IRENE SVETE
Valley Daily News
TUKWILA - Allentown's revi-
talization will get another boost next
week with the unveiling of plans for
a new fire station.
"It's a community that could use a
shot in the arm," said Randy Berg,
Tukwila project manager.
The design for the new Allentown
station will be on display 7-8 p.m.
Monday in the lobby of the Tukwila
City Council Chambers and will be
presented formally at the City Coun-
cil meeting immediately afterward.
"We want to do it early enough
we can respond to the public on their
comments, " Berg said.
The Duwamish River community
has been the object of a number of
public improvement projects recent-
ly, including new Metro sewer
lines, he said.
At the end of June, the city of
Tukwila will begin taking bids on an
$8.1 million community center. The
new Allentown center, due to open
in 1996, will feature a gymnasium
and fitness center, banquet rooms, a
senior center, and day-care facili-
ties, as well as headquarters for the
city's Recreation Department.
City and fire officials say the new
fire station is needed to serve a day-
time population of 150,000 people,
almost entirely working at the indus-
trial complexes surrounding Allen -
town's residential community.
The new station, budgeted at $1.2
million, will be built about five
blocks from Tukwila Fire Station
53, located at 12026 42nd Ave. S.,
Berg said.
"The old building has a lot of sto-
ries it could tell," said Lt. Ted Fchr
of the Tukwila Fire Department.
Built in the late 1920s, the station
was once the headquarters of King
County Fire District 1 - the first fire
district in the county.
Right now, 12 firefighters and one
engine work out of the station.
Construction of the new station is
scheduled to begin this fall.
CknBot®00 a ki 11410% !Pisa meet^
MEMORANDUM
DATE: JUNE 15, 1995
TO: RANDY BERG
FROM: STEVE LANCASTER
RE: FIRE STATION #53 TREE CLEARING, STORM DRAINAGE, AND WETLAND BUFFER
This memo is in response to your June 9 memo regarding application of the Sensitive Area Overlay
Zone and Tree Regulations to the Fire Station #53 project.
TREE REPLACEMENT
Due to the large number of trees on the site and the fact that half of the significant trees are a result
of an overgrown holly hedge, the tree replacement requirement may be calculated using the 20%
canopy coverage method, as outlined in TMC 18.54.140(b).
In addition, the replacement trees may be used in landscaping anywhere on the property, but must be
in addition to those trees specifically required by the zoning code for street trees or required buffer
areas, or trees required for wetland enhancement.
STORM DRAINAGE
A review of the site plan and proposed preliminary storm water management plan indicates that
directing the storm water to the wetland after being treated is possible without adversely impacting the
wetland and maintaining pre -development rate of flow through detention. A hydrology study is
needed to determine the storm event flows. This can be accomplished at a later date when the
project is in final design. Stormwater may be directed to the wetland per TMC 18.45.080(b)(3), with
the following condition, which will be applied through SEPA:
1 All stormwater collected from impervious surfaces and directed to the existing Class 2
Wetland shall be first treated through an oil/water separator and either a bio-swale or
wet pond, capable of meeting Washington State clean water standards (RCW 90.48
and WAC 173.200-201). The storm water shall be detained if necessary, and released
to the wetland at the pre -developed rate of flow.
WETLAND BUFFER AND SETBACK
The Type 2 wetland requires a 50' buffer and a 15' setback from the buffer edge for the foundation of
the fire station. I realize that the 15' setback cannot be met in one small area, where the condensing
equipment and the hose tower are located. Because the condensing equipment pad requires some
disturbance within the 50' buffer, I cannot waive the 15' setback requirement. Discussing the matter
with Gary Schulz, it is apparent that the wetland will not be adversely impacted by reducing the buffer
area where the hose tower and condensing pads are located. Therefore, per TMC 18.45.040(c)(4)(A),
I grant a waiver from the 50' buffer in this area only, and allow the buffer to be reduced to 35 feet in
width, with the condition that buffer enhancement is required within the reduced buffer area.
Notice of Petition
for Vacation of Street
REVIEW
REQUESTED OF:
❑, Mayor's Office
G{Planning Dept.
❑ Public Works Dept.
❑ Parks/Recreation Dept.
❑ Fire Department
❑ Police Department
❑ Puget Power
❑ Seattle City Light
❑ WA Natural Gas
❑ U.S. West
❑ Water District
❑ Sewer District
❑ Metro
❑ TCI
Street name
or number S. 114th Street and S. 115th Street
Description of , S .. 114th and S. 155th Sts. east of 42nd Ave. S .
property
to be vacated
Kroll Map
Page # 315 E
Qtr:
Sec:
Twn:
Rge:
Name of City of Tukwila
Petitioner:
Please respond by: June 12, 1995
Public Hearing date:
June 19, 1995
RESPONSE
Your comments may be limited to the
following, if applicable:
Address :your comments to:
:City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila; VVA 98188.
Attx
City:Cl.erk
RECEDVIboo
�z
3itrig moo'
CorviA:4 ivU rY Q
IOEVEL.OPMENT
`y
irk
O We have no objection to the vacation.
O We have utilities in the right-of-way.
O We require easement prior to vacation.
Signature
Title:
z
0
:0
0
-•Q
w
0
z
N•
_K
Z..P
;
moo_ .�•:�" ."L...`. /� cj R
\\6''
i
pp
0'
oob5
Z°
/D,e 14 R o%
o*o% • 3
i. 30.8
30
t�� ;ea
J.e_
2v vv -9 • .A., ^ 6 -
J
Pr14.
(t.f
1,3,/)3,2- c-1
m -I
'ArAehu
P -1
GrAn
c_____
A,- c- --. cls 5-+--2.. -
6
2� �-fri. / 22
24T`�-�,
O ! -\ : \
i \
wood ,� . . `,. \
\ •
.i WL`� \
\ / ,
0
•
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
CITY TUKWILA
CONDITIONS
John W Rants, Mayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
Address: 4202 S 115 ST
Applicant: � o --P l Zi kAkR lcL, ) Status: PENDING
Permit No: E95-0016 Applied: 0531/1995
Type: P-SEPA Approve
Location: SEC 10,T23,R4E, WM.
Parcel #: 335140-1005
Zoning:QOA
***************************************************************************
1. In order to preserve and protect the existing 80" Sequoia
giganteum/Giant Sequoia tree, the paved driveway located to
the north of the tree shall be reduced to 12 feet in width.
Alternative methods of vehicular support may be implemented
within the essential root zone [as defined in the Tree
Regulations, TMC 18.54.040(10)] if the result would not be
adverse to the health of the tree, according to a certified
arborist or landscape architect.
A certified arborist or landscape architect shall be
consulted regarding the best method to protect this tree.
Protection measures, including construction barriers,
protective fencing, and/or tree wells, shall be used to
protect this tree from potential adverse impacts and
mortality associated with the proposed development, as
recommended by the certified arborist or landscape architect
2, -Landscaping and development within the right-of-way of 42nd
Ave. S. shall be designed so that future development of a
bike path can be readily accomodated.
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs), as defined in Tree Reg-
ulations [TMC 18.54.040(2)], shall be employed in protecting
all existing trees to be retained.
4. The delineated wetland and the buffer areas shall be
protected with temporary fencing during all construction
processes.
5. the Fire Station #53 will be
required to pay a proportionate fair share of sewer
improvements for the S 116th/44th Avenue S. 8 inch sewer
line _ - _�__ ts_.,P__�:_ _- _�..� .Eu-16cAl Ro
—
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
0141J
CITY TUKWILA
CONDITIONS
Address: 4202 S 115 ST
Applicant: CITY OF TUKWILA, FIRE DEPARTMENT Status: PENDING
Permit No: E95-0016 Applied: 05/31/1995
Type: P-SEPA DNSC Approved:
Location: SEC 10,T23,R4E, WM.
Parcel #: 335140-1005
Zoning: CM
***************************************************************************
1. In order to preserve and protect the existing 80" Sequoia
giganteum/Giant Sequoia tree, the paved driveway located to
the north of the tree shall be reduced to 12 feet in width.
Alternative methods of vehicular support may be implemented
within the essential root zone [as defined in the Tree
Regulations, TMC 18.54.040(10)] if the result would not be
adverse to the health of the tree, according to a certified
arborist or landscape architect.
A certified arborist or landscape architect shall be
consulted regarding the best method to protect this tree.
Protection measures, including construction barriers,
protective fencing, and/or tree wells, shall be used to
protect this tree from potential adverse impacts and
mortality associated with the proposed development, as
recommended by the certified arborist or landscape architect
2.Landscaping and development within the right-of-way of
42nd Ave. S. shall be designed so that future development of
bike path can be readily accomodated.
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs), as defined in Tree Reg-
ulations [TMC 18.54.040(2)], shall be employed in protecting
all existing trees to be retained.
4. The delineated wetland and the buffer areas shall be
protected with temporary fencing during all construction
processes.
5. The Fire Department will be required to pay a proportionate
fair share of sewer improvements for the S.116th/42nd Ave.S.
8 inch sewer line.
Address:
Applicant:
Permit No:
Type:
Location:
Parcel #:
Zoning:
**********
CITY TUKWILA
CONDITIONS
4202 S 115 ST
CITY OF TUKWILA, FIRE DEPARTMENT Status: PENDING
E95-0016 Applied: 05/31/1995
P-SEPA DNSC Approved:
SEC 10,T23,R4E, WM.
335140-1005
CM
*****************************************************************
1. In order to preserve and protect the existing 80" Sequoia
giganteum/Giant Sequoia tree, a porous p veient system shall
be included as part of the road on the n�side of the
existing 80" Sequoia tree to allow moisture and air
penetration to the feeder roots of the tree. The reinforced
plastic product Geoblock shall be installed for a width of 5
feet and a length of 35 feet under the canopy of the tree.
2. Landscaping and development within the right-of-way of
42nd Avenue S. shall be designed so that future development
of a bike path can be readily accommodated.
3. Best Management Practices (BMPs), as defined in Tree Reg-
ulations [TMC 18.54.040(2)], shall be employed in protecting
all existing trees to be retained.
4. The delineated wetland and the buffer areas shall be
protected with temporary fencing during all construction
processes.
5. The Fire Department will be required to pay a proportionate
fair share of sewer improvements for the S.116th/42nd Ave.S.
8 inch sewer line.
A. BACKGROUND
•
•ontrol No.
Epic File No.r.„ G(S — D%I (p
Fee: $325 Receipt No.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
New Fire Station 53
2. Name of applicant:
City of Tukwila
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100
Tukwila, WA 98188
433-0179; Randy Berg
Date checklist prepared:
May 12, 1995
5. Agency requesting checklist
City of Tukwila
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Construction is planned to begin October 1, 1995 and continue into. June 1996.
Do you have any plans for future additions,expansion, or further activity related to or
connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No.
List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Level one hazardous material site assessment,
Level one asbestos survey,
Wetland investigation and deliniation
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.
No.
Page 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEOIST
•
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Street Vacation, Lot Consolidation, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit,
Conditional Use Permit, Board of Architectural Review Approval, Building and
Construction Permits.
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
alternates of your proposal and should not be summarized here.
The proposal is to construct a new fire station to replace existing Station 53. The new
station will be approximately 6200 square feet. Site improvements will include parking
for 15 cars, and complete, landscaping around the staion.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the
precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and
section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of
area, provide the range .or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site
plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should
submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or
detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.
The project is located in the City of Tukwila, at the corner of 42nd Ave S. and S. 115th St.
The address is 4202 S. 115th St.; all laying within Section 10, Township 23 Range 4,
W.M., King County Washington.
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
The Site is not designated as environmentally sensitive, but it does include an onsite
wetland and adjoins a adesignated steep slope area, and is across 115th from the
Duwamish River.
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE LIST
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
•
a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other
The Site is flat.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The maximum slope is approximately about 2%
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.
The site soils are sandy silt common to the Duwamish Valley bottom land.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity?
If so, describe.
No
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Between 700 and 1000 yards of structural fill will be required under floor slabs and
driving surfaces.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction,or use? If so, generally
describe.
g.
No
About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after
project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? •
About 14.5% of the site will be covered with impervious surface.
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEOLIST •
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if
any:
Temporary erosion control will be employed during construction as required.
Following construction, the site will be either impervious or vegetated.
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.
There will be dust and exhaust emissions during construction.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal?
If so, generally describe.
No
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any:
Water trucks will be used as standard dust suppression during construction.
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site
(including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds,
wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state
what stream or river it flows into.
The Site contains about 1.5 acres of wetland and wetland buffer. The
Duwamish River passes within 200 feet of the Site.
Page 4
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE IST •
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the
described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
Yes, some work will be within 200 feet of the Duwamish River, but no work is
planned within 40 feet of the river bank. In addition work is planned just outside of
the 50 foot wetland buffer.
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be
affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
None
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.
No
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site
plan.
No.
6). Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If
so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No.
Page 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground
water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if
known.
No.
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic
tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the general
size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
None.
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
Storm Water will be gathered into catch basins, ran through an oil water
separator and bio -filtration swale and discharged into the wetland, where it
will eventually drain to the river.
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally
describe.
No
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts,
if any:
A storm -water drainage system that meets King County Design Standards is
proposed.
Page 6
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE IST
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
X
deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen; other
X
evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X
shrubs
X
grass
pasture
crop or grain
X
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
Trees, brush and grass will be removed to accommodate contruction of builing and
site improvements.
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
.d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or
enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
The Proposal seeks to preserveasmany onsite trees as possible. Property restoration
will include seeding and planting of trees and shrubs.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
Birds:.
hawk, songbirds, migratory water fowl, other:
Mammals:
raccoons, squirrels, small rodents, other:
Fish:
bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
Other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
None known.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Yes, the nearby Duwamish River is the site of annual salmon migrations.
Page 7
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC LIST
•
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None proposed.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to
meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
Electricity and natural gas.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so, generally describe.
No.
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
The proposed building will be heavily insulated, and the furnace, airconditioner
and appliances will be energy efficient.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals,
risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of
this proposal? If so, describe.
No.
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
None.
Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:
Not applicable.
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for
example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
Not applicable.
Page 8
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEILIST •
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the
project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction,
operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.
Noise generated by the construction equipment will occur on a short term
basis. Fire engines and sirens will cause some level of increased noise when
the project is completed.
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Restrict hours of construction to comply with the City's noise ordinance.
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
The site currently used as single family residences.
Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
The existing .buildings on site include 4 houses, one of which is derilict, a garage, a
barn and 4 sheds.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
Yes, all of the existing structures will be demolished.
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
g•
C -M
What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?,_._
Light Industrial
. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?
Not applicable.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If
so, specify.
No.
Page 9
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEOIST
•
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?
About 12 fire fighters will work at the proposed station.
1•
Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
3 residential units were occupied before the City purchased the subject site.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
Each displaced household has been offered $1,000 in relocation assistance.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected
land uses and plans, if any:
The proposed design is residential in scale and detailing.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high,
middle, or low-income housing?
None
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?' Indicate whether
high, middle, or low-income housing.
four low income units will be eliminated.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
None
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas;
what -is the principal exterior building -materials) proposed?
The proposed hose tower will be approximately 42 feet tall. Exterior materials will
be wood siding and metal roof.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
None.
c. Proposed ineasures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
None.
Page 10
ENVIRONMENTAL CHEOIST 1
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it
mainly occur?
None
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with
views?
No
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
None.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
None.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate
vicinity?
Duwamish Park and the Green River Trail are within 1/4 mile of the Site.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation
opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
None. _
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local
preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe.
None known.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific,
or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
None known.
Page 11
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE IST •
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
None.
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access
to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The proposal is a public street.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate
distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes, the nearest bus stop is about 1 /8th mile away.
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would
the project eliminate?
The project will include 15 parking spaces.
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).
Yes, the project will include inprovements to unimproved 42nd Ave S to provide
access to the site for a drive through apparatus bay.
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air
transportation? If so, generally. describe.
Yes, the BNSF Burlington Northern rail yard is directly east of the subject site.
g.
How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If
known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
.
This_projectwill generate 16 trips per day.
Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
None.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire
protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.
No increase is expected.
Page 12
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE IST
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.
None.
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse
service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the
service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Electricity from Seattle City Light
Gas from Washington natural Gas
Water and sewer from the City of Tukwila
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the
lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature:
Date Submitted:
Page 13
ENVIRONMENTAL CHE•IST
•
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR ALL PROJECT AND NON PROJECT PROPOSALS
The objectives and the alternative means of reaching the objectives for a proposal will be
helpful in reviewing the foregoing items of the Environmental Checklist. This information
provides a general overall perspective of the proposed action in the context of the
environmental information provided and the submitted plans, documents, supportive
information, studies, etc.
1. What are the objectives of the proposal?
Replace the existing Fire Station 53 which will result in enhanced emergency service.
2. What are the alternative means of accomplishing these objectives?
The existing station could be renovated and updated.
3. Please compare the alternative means and indicate the preferred course of action:
Due to the cost of renovating the existing station it is more economical to replace it.
The new station will also provide opportunity for future expansion.
4. Does the proposal conflict with policies of the Tukwila Comprehensive Land Use
Policy Plan?
No
5. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce the conflict(s) are:
None.
Page 14
r"
•
9•�
•
Sub$'t �n
'r1i1
.iI•
•
4
I\
283
0
Allentown
Badge
• I
EXPLANATION:
1 • ECOLOGY—LISTED SITE
0
Notes: 1. The locations of the sites
shown are approximate.
2. Site identification numbers correspond
to the site numbers discussed in the text.
2000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
Reference: USGS 7.5• topographic quadrangle maps Des Moines.
Wash.' and 'Seattle South. Wash.,' both photorevised 1973.
Geo keip, Engineers
VICINITY MAP AND
ECOLOGY—LISTED SITES
FIGURE 1
0257. o?a !oi #y.'4(f/7Jelf)
v
42nd
e. S. t'
,-req sr b" 7.44
- Residential -
111
e2.
t5
0
' 11520
Riverside ales)o 1\\\\\` \
\ \n (Carpet Sales)
ruckt \ 1p\ o•2...
4208 Shed Trailers,
`'\a/s rte.
Apartments \ �i�� jam
2 11•0•45
,,55/3�
r.
1.1
11
ci -
'n
r.
r4 1/r' R • C. 65/ 76522
0.05 5 ala 0.04 C of C.
12/2•/94 •
- Residential -
re 1/2' R • C
NC C. 0.1 21. e0. 25
GG SI 19122
0... • .11F.
Hillside
Reference: Drawing entitled 'Boundary & Topographic Survey of C.O. Hillman's MeadowGardens
Addition 613• for the City of Tukwila.' by Irwin Engineering. dated 02/07/95. •
Note: Details of adjacent properties
are not drawn to scale. '
1 / I /-,a 3/2"',
Car. AO 20 1116. 33
i son. 0.50 7 •1 Ca
-==-??-2••
o ._.
lag -`
Abandoned
Wedding
x / Chapel r
TP -8,•,,„.0.
ei4oaTP-6 1 1 \ 261.
3° \ \ \\ 1 \ N�r l ; \
\\ 25- Co.. \I \ \1 \ Rental • `\ \\ O4.\\
TP -4 \ House ,Q \ \ \ \
\ 1 l\ \ \ 1508 to r... \\ /\\
%1Z;18
y
SepticTP3
\ \
Rental
House
4200
15'0.,..22.
\\\`\`Tank £/20 w1 e.es j
4
24'1..
Rental
House
4210
BN1
-C.0 o4.
\
2.•C.1144.
-and Tires Is•c.u44...4
r IJ
\
TP -2
\ 0\
1 1 •4. 0 20T..1
•
3/441166..w •
Drums and
Abandoned
House
*TP -1
Debris s Oar "• =o C.Ilaa..ea
-1 es' t,.a..�«I
Mo
l2. n.. .
3 .O9n2214
. e'..v9nMb
C2.216..
YL9
sk
33•_,•
• .13 00
3-10.44 - -� la �. •20 .•�
as.wc.fp '- •_44:_4_4_:__° _.�_:bco fed: -
64, O6•C•Ila+.•.a _ -. -
f11/ eedyu/e..
11.,.••61
Cho •1111'
• \ C«a.l. PO.
C4..14 Net 4411.4.0.1122
1.v17 .. `1.11' Ga..Wn..l
• 163" G1.eNtn.nl
\ 0
2.',1144.444
2.)0' tna.en.64.61
1.61 C.o..nn..n1
CI
a 2V017'
R.171118.71J04
L. 601.0.
Legelyevbern
•
Lal. 1 1. 15. 6c1o.I.. Enoch 26:
4.1. 1 1. IZ FW.I... 8740215
1.1. 1 1. 16 Inch/s1.•9540 26 45 F CO, 7.61144: Meade..
Ce4.n. *40044 fe U. OIr .I 5'3114. ON..1..N...4..cc.14FF
1. U. Plot 1144.4.4 11....2164F Yoh.. 12 .1.1616 P. M.
Ring Cw,.12. •e.nh.glan.
•
TOCCMCR .nn U. Co. n.4, al 42,.4 4444.. 51.42. 2..e renew,
.11. 5..01 11401 50..t N.6 200011C8 .110 Swln 11544 Su..[
lying .IUF 4224 Plat.
Cyclone fence
-11•••--
SL4LE: r.-60.
0 L®o
EXPLANATION
• TP -1 -42 -TEST PR
PN..•..
o 444..,4 •44 Pq. a RN k C44. •. 4.1.4
• Sot Rea k Ca
17114 2.l. R(beel
P...1 P✓.
-111 Pe... 4422..415 4444.(4411.1
Anchor
.4444 101.1.1 0.144
ql� .'404442 n.g
J.. Gln eosin
I; 541 lap
Geo 14' Engineers
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2
City of Tukwila
John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Randy Berg, Project Manager
Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist
DATE: March 15, 1995
RE: Fire Station #53 - Wetland Summary Report.
This memo pertains to sensitive area review of the City of Tukwila Fire Station #53 project
site. The standards and regulations in Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC Chapter
18.45) will be applied to site design and .sensitive area. use. The Fire Station Project site
plan is preliminary with one building that includes offices, apparatus bays, and sleeping
quarters.
One wetland has been identified on the site. Wetland area impacts will be avoided through
site design features. Most of the upland portion of the site will be occupied by the
apparatus bays, a drive-through loop road, and associated parking. A wetland buffer will
remain with the potential to be enhanced with native trees and shrubs.
Project Site Description
The 2.5 -acre site is located at 4202 S. 115th Street near the Allentown area of Tukwila. The
Duwamish River is situated directly south of the site as it turns west in a river location
referred to as "Beaver Bend". Currently there are four, occupied residences existing on the
southwest portion of the subject property. Three public street rights-of-way exist on the
property and will be vacated during the development process.
The land area is relatively flat and extends from a steep slope on the west to the Burlington
Northern Intermodal Truck Yard directly east. The eastern side of the property is about
four feet lower and is affected by runoff, and possibly the interception of a shallow
groundwater table. Small lawn areas with ornamental and native trees and shrubs comprise
vegetative cover across most of the site's southern area.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Fire Station #53 Memo
March 15, 1995
Page 2
Wetland Determination/Description
On 1/3/95 a wetland area was delineated on the subject property. The wetland occupies the
lowland area on the north and east portions adjacent to the Intermodal Truck Yard. The
wetland boundary was determined in accordance with the Federal Manual for Delineating
Jurisdictional Wetlands (FICWD 1989). This boundary was marked using pink plastic
flagging. The wetland boundary was professionally surveyed by Irwin Engineering. Two
wetland data plots were installed to characterize vegetation, soil, and hydrology conditions.
• The collected data is attached to this memo.
The wetland is dominated by reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) with willow (Salix sp.),
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) shrubs along the
western edge. Scattered cover of red alder (Alnus rubra) saplings and several small groves
of mature red alder and black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera) also occur in the wetland.
Using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classification system, the wetland habitat is classified
as palustrine, emergent, forested, and seasonally flooded.
Because the wetland is greater than one acre in size, and also has a forested class that is at
least 20 percent cover, it is rated a Type 2 by Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (# 1599).
Type 2 wetlands have a standard buffer setback distance of 50 feet. TMC 18.45.080 (b)(2)
allows use in wetlands or their buffers for the construction of new essential streets, roads,
rights-of-way, and utilities. However, mitigation measures are required and subject to the
standards of the Ordinance.
The preliminary site plan shows a portion of the wetland buffer to be reduced to 25 feet for
the location of the loop road through the fire station. The SAO allows this type of buffer
reduction if enhancement is appropriate and an approved wetland buffer enhancement plan
is provided as part of the project proposal. Native plant material should be planted in the
reduced setback areas to improve wetland buffer functions.
In summary, a Type 2 wetland has been identified on the fire station site and wetland
impacts will be avoided through site design. Stormwater runoff should be detained and
filtrated before discharge into the onsite wetland. Final review and approval can be
conducted after the complete plans and mitigation details are submitted. Please feel free
to contact me regarding the contents of this memo.
J
Report of . .
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Proposed Fire Station No. 53
Tukwila, Washington
February2O, 1995,
For
City of Tukwila
RECEIVED
FEB 2 2 1995
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
File No. 0259-030-R01/022095.
Geo Engineers
February 20, 1995
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, Washington 98118
Attention: Mr. Randy Berg
Geotechnical,
Geoenvironmental and
Geologic Services
GeoEngineers, Inc. is pleased to submit four copies of our "Report of Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed Fire Station No. -53, Tukwila, Washington." Our
services were accomplished in general accordance with our revised proposal dated December 5,
1994. Our services were accomplished in general accordance with the city of Tukwila Contract
Number 95-009 executed on January 6, 1995 for Project Number 93-BG07.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve you on this project. Please call if there are any
questions regarding this report.
TMK:LYC:JKT:cros
Document ID: 0259030.R
File No. 0259-030-R01
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone (206) 861-6000
Fax (206) 861-6050
Printed on recycled paper:
Yours very truly,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
K. Tuttle
rincipal
CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 1
SCOPE 1
SITE DESCRIPTION 2
SITE RECONNAISSANCE 3
SITE 3
ADJACENT PROPERTIES 4
•
HISTORICAL CONDITIONS 4
PREVIOUS REPORTS 4
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS 4.
CITY DIRECTORIES 5
HISTORICAL MAPS 6
CHAIN -OF -TITLE DOCUMENT 6
INTERVIEWS 6
Tenant 6
Owner 7 •
Adjacent Property Owners 7
City of Tukwila 8
Fire Department 8
REGULATORY REVIEW 8
EPA LISTS 8
• ECOLOGY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT LISTS 9
ECOLOGY FILES 10
CONCLUSIONS 10
LIMITATIONS 10
FIGURES Figure No.
Vicinity Map and Ecology -listed Sites 1
Site Plan 2
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Chain -of -Title Documents
Geo Engineers i File No. 0259-303-RO1/022095
•
REPORT OF
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED FIRE STATION NO. 53
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FOR
CITY OF TUKWILA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our Phase I ESA (environmental site assessment) of an
approximately 3 -acre triangular shaped property (referred to herein as the site) located
immediately northeast of the intersection between South 115th Street and 42nd Avenue South in
Tukwila, Washington. We understand that Mr. Pat Dillon currently owns the site. We further
understand that the city of Tukwila is considering purchasing the site for construction of proposed
fire station No. 53. The site location is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the
Vicinity Map, Figure 1. A general site plan is presented in Figure 2.
SCOPE
The purpose of our services is to conduct a Phase I ESA to identify the presence or likely
presence of hazardous substances, including petroleum products, that may have resulted or could
result in a release of hazardous substances into site structures or into the site surface or
subsurface. Our scope of services is in general accordance with the Phase I ESA scope of
services identified in ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) Standard E 1527-93,
Standard Practice for Phase I ESAs. Our specific scope of services for this study includes the
following tasks.
1.. Review available geotechnical and environmental reports for the subject site and adjacent
properties.
2. Review federal, state and local environmental databases for listings of known or suspected
environmental problems at the subject site or nearby properties. The specific databases and
minimum search distances we reviewed are as follows:
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Lists Minimum Search Distance
NPL (National Priorities List) 1 mile
CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information System) 0.5 mile
RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) List
TSD (treatment, storage and disposal) Facilities - - 1 mile
RCRA List, Generators and Transporters Site and Adjoining Properties
ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System) List Site
G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No. 0259-030-R01/022095
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology) and
Local Health Department Lists
Toxics Cleanup Program Confirmed and Suspected
Contaminated Sites List and MTCA Site Registers
Registered UST (underground storage tank) Sites
Leaking UST Sites List
Active and Abandoned Landfills or
Solid Waste Disposal Facilities
Minimum Search Distance
1 mile
Site and Adjoining Properties
0.5 mile
0.5 mile
3. Review selected regulatory agency files regarding listed sites of potential environmental
concern relative to the subject site.
4. Interview a representative of the local fire department, health department and/or Ecology
regarding the history of the subject site and surrounding properties relative to the likely
presence of hazardous substances.
5. Review historical aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, USGS (United States Geological
Survey) maps and city directories, as available and appropriate, to identify past
development history on and adjacent to the site relative to the possible use, generation,
storage, release or disposal of hazardous substances.
6. Review a property history report (chain -of -title documents) and interview current and past
property owners or others familiar with past and present uses of the site and its vicinity.
7. Review current USGS topographic map(s) to identify the physical setting of the property.
8. Identify the source(s) of potable water for the site and the type and age of the sewage
disposal system(s) and the type and age of heating systems used at the site.
9. Conduct a visual reconnaissance of the site and adjacent properties to identify any visible
signs of possible past or present use, storage, generation, release or disposal of hazardous
substances.
Our scope of services did not include an environmental compliance audit, an asbestos
survey, an evaluation of lead-based paint, urea formaldehyde insulation or an evaluation of
potential radon gas in site structures. Specific contamination evaluation procedures, such as soil
or ground water sampling and chemical analysis, also were not included in our scope of services.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed fire station No. 53 site is located in a primarily residential area in Tukwila,
Washington. The ground surface at the site is relatively flat and is at an elevation of
approximately 18 feet above mean sea level based on the city of Tukwila property survey. Site
topography is shown on Figure 2. The closest surface water body to the site, other than a
wetland located in the northern and eastern portions of the site, is the Duwamish River, located
approximately 30 feet southwest of the site.
0eo Eng i n e e r s 2 File No. 0259-030-RO1/022095
Soil beneath the site consists of fill and Holocene alluvium. The fill consists of loose silty
sand with gravel. The fill likely was placed on the site during area development in the early
1900s. The alluvium primarily consists of fine to silty fine sands and fine sandy silts. Ground
water seepage was observed at depths of 4.5 to 7.0 feet in our test pits. We estimate that the
general direction of shallow ground water flow is southwest toward the Duwamish River, based
on local topography. Ground water levels will vary in response to river levels and seasonal
precipitation.
SITE RECONNAISSANCE
SITE
A geologist from GeoEngineers performed a visual reconnaissance of the site and
surrounding properties on January 3 and February 6, 1995. Our representative walked through
accessible portions of the site and observed adjacent properties from the site and public rights-of-
way. Dense vegetation limited visual observation of the surface of the eastern portion of the site.
Additionally, we did not have access to the interior of two residential structures on the site.
The site contains three houses currently occupied by renters, one abandoned wedding chapel
and one abandoned house. Additionally the site contains two storage sheds, a barn, two garages
and at least four septic tanks. We observed various vehicle maintenance and domestic items in
the sheds, garages and barn including a gasoline can (less than 5 gallons), a grill, an engine and
other car parts, electrical wire, lube canisters, fans, sinks, bathtub, fluorescent lights and ballast,
sealed paint cans, tools, tires and wood building material.
Abandoned tires and wooden pallets were observed in portions of the site. The three rental
houses currently are heated with gas. Our interview with the current site owner indicates that
heating oil may have used in the past.
We did not observe any evidence of the possible past or present use, storage, generation,
release 'or disposal of hazardous substances on the.subject site during our reconnaissance with the
following exceptions.
• Two unlabelled, empty, 55 -gallon drums located in the central portion of the site.
• Three unlabelled 55 -gallon drums located in the southern portion of the site. Two of these
drums had lids and were empty and one appeared to be filled with rain water. However,
a petroleum odor was noted in the water. A thin film, possibly oil, was observed on the
surface of the rain water.
• Possible oil use and storage associated with the previously mentioned car parts.
We did not observe stains on the ground surface in the vicinity of the drums or the car parts
on site. The tenants on site indicated that they serviced their personal vehicles on site. The car
parts are associated with this service. They also indicated that they use a recycling service to
remove oil or other petroleum products generated during vehicle maintenance at the site.
GeoEngineers recently completed a geotechnical study of the site (report dated February 15,
GeoEngineers 3 File No. 0259-030-R01/022095
1995) that included the excavation of eight test pits to depths of approximately 5 to 9 feet below
ground surface. We did not detect any physical evidence, such as sheen on the ground water,
soil staining or incidental odors, of contamination by hazardous substances at the test pit
locations. The test pit locations, as surveyed by Irwin Engineering, are shown in Figure 2.
ADJACENT PROPERTIES
The property immediately north of the site is undeveloped. A hill borders the western site
boundary and contains several residences. The Duwamish River is located southwest of the site,
across South 115th Street. The properties immediately south of the site contain a retail carpet
store (Riverside Interiors) and two commercial truck trailers, two sheds used to store carpet, vinyl
flooring and blinds, an apartment complex, and two houses. Burlington Northern Railroad tracks
and scattered storage of commercial truck trailers along the tracks are located immediately east
of the site. It appears that all the unit structures located south of the site are currently heated
with gas. We did not observe any evidence of the possible past or present use, storage,
generation, release or disposal of hazardous substances on immediately adjacent properties.
HISTORICAL CONDITIONS
PREVIOUS REPORTS
We understand that the city of Tukwila is unaware of any previous environmental or
geotechnical reports pertaining to the site. No past environmental or geotechnical reports
pertaining to the site were discovered during our study.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Historical aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area dated 1936, 1946, 1956,
1960; 1969, 1974, 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1992 were reviewed by a GeoEngineers geologist at
the office of Walker & Associates of Tukwila, Washington.
Development on the site appears limited to approximately five houses, three sheds and a
barn in the western portion of the site in the 1936 photograph. The houses observed include the
two existing house in the_southwest corner of the site. Properties to the north and east of the site
appear undeveloped with the exception of the railroad tracks located east of the property. Several
houses and the structure currently used by Riverside Interiors are located south and southeast of
the site. Additional residential development is apparent on the hill west of the site.
One additional structure is apparent north of South 115th Street in the 1946 photograph.
Additionally, an elongated rectangular structure is located in the southeastern portion of the site
in the 1946 through 1974 photographs. No additional site development or other changes are
apparent in the 1956, 1960, 1969 and 1974 photographs. Additional residential development is
apparent on nearby properties in the 1946 through 1974 photographs. An addition to the
Riverside Interiors building was observed in the 1960 photograph.
Geo Eng i n e e r s 4 File No. 0259-030-RO1/022095
•
The site appears similar to the present-day layout except that South 115th Street extends
further to the east than it does today in the 1980 , 1985, 1990 and 1992 photographs. The semi-
trailers used at the carpet store were first observed in the 1985 photograph. The wetlands located
in the northern and eastern portions of the site are apparent in the 1980 through 1992
photographs.
No evidence of historical commercial development of the site and immediately adjacent
properties was observed in the aerial photographs we reviewed with the exception of the structure
used as a carpet store located south of the site, the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and the
commercial truck trailer storage area located east of the property.
CITY DIRECTORIES
We reviewed Cole city directories for the site area dated 1969, 1974, 1979, 1985-86,
1991-92. These directories indicate that land use at the site and in its site vicinity appears to have
been residential with the exception of structures located at 11-520 (currently Riverside Interiors)
and 11602 42nd Avenue South located immediately south of the site and approximately 40 feet
south of the site respectively. Businesses that have occupied these adjacent sites and the years
of occupancy are as follows:
Business Name Address Directory Years Listed
Draper Decker & Assoc. 11520 42nd Ave. S. 1969
ACS Air Cargo Sr 11520 42nd Ave. S. 1979
Imperial Air Freight 11520 42nd Ave. S. 1979
Profit By Air Inc. 11520 42nd Ave. S. 1979
Dean Decker & Assoc. 11520 42nd Ave. S. 1985=86, 1991-92
Riverside Interior 11520 42nd Ave. S. 1985-86, 1991-92
N.T.I.A. 11602 42nd Ave. S. 1969
Based on interviews with the property owner and observations, Riverside Interiors is a retail
carpet store that also sells vinyl flooring and window blinds. The Riverside Interiors building
was used for a grocery store beginning in the 1940s according to an adjacent property owner.
We were unable to identify the type of businesses that were identified as operating the 11520
42nd Avenue South address between 1969 and 1979 with one exception. Dean Decker & Assoc.
logo was used prior to 1989 for the same business as Riverside Interiors which was legally
transferred to this current logo in 1989, according to the secretary of Riverside Interiors. The
buildings located at these addresses do not appear to have been used for past industrial purposes.
GeoEngineers 5 File No. 0259-030-RO1/022095
HISTORICAL MAPS
We attempted to review Sanborn fire insurance maps for the subject site. However,
Sanborn fire insurance maps are not available for the city of Tukwila. We reviewed historical
Kroll maps covering the site area dated 1950, 1972 and 1987. The layout of the streets in the
site vicinity in the 1950 map appears similar to the present-day layout. Houses are present on
the subject site and on properties adjacent to the west, northwest, and south of the site in the
1950 map. The only nonresidential structures in the site vicinity appear to be two grocery stores
at the intersection of 42nd Avenue South and South 116th Street and the railroad tracks to the east
of the site.
The street layout in the 1972 Kroll map appears similar to that shown in the 1950 map.
Some of the structures present in the 1950 map have been replaced by different structures. The
two grocery stores that appear in the 1950 map do not appear in the 1972 map. Land use in the
site vicinity remains primarily residential.
Features in the 1987 Kroll map appear similar to those in the 1972 map. No evidence of
historical commercial development of the site and immediately adjacent properties was apparent
on the Kroll maps we reviewed with the exception of the structure used as a carpet store located
south of the site and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and commercial truck trailer storage
area located east of the property.
CHAIN -OF -TITLE DOCUMENT
We reviewed a property history report (chain -of -title document) prepared by Chicago Title
Insurance Company and provided by the city of Tukwila. The document provides ownership
information for the period from 1945 through 1988. Portions of the property have been deeded
to various private individuals since 1945. There were no indications that the site or any portions
thereof have been' used for commercial purposes, based on the names listed in the chain -of -title
document. The chain -of -title document is presented in Appendix A.
INTERVIEWS
Tenant
We interviewed Mr. Gary Mooney, a five-year tenant of the rental house located at 11508
115th Street, regarding the history of the site and surrounding properties. He stated that the
house in which he lives may have been built as early as 1908, but he is not certain of the age of
the structure or surrounding structures. It is Mr. Mooney's understanding that several years ago,
barracks or bungalows were located in the southeastern portion of the site. The area described
coincides with the elongated rectangular structure observed in the 1946 through 1974 aerial
photographs. The structures did not exist when he moved onto the site. Mr. Mooney indicated
that the rental houses on site are heated by gas and previously may have been heated with a
Geo Eng i n e e r s 6 File No. 0259-030-R01/022095
•
•
heating oil furnace. Mr. Mooney indicated that he is unaware of any past or present use, storage,
generation, release or disposal of hazardous substances on the subject site with the exception of
possible historical heating oil storage.
Owner
We interviewed Mr. Pat Dillon, owner of the site on February 6, 1995. According to
Mr. Dillon, the wetlands were previously used as a horse pasture. Mr. Dillon indicated that
before gas heating was installed on the property approximately 20 years ago, heating oil may
have been used. Mr. Dillon indicated that heating oil from previous heating systems may have
been placed in the 55 -gallon drums located in the southeast corner of the site. Mr. Dillon
claimed that the tenants used this oil for other purposes and that it was probably never moved
from the site. Mr. Dillon was not aware of any dumping of hazardous substances, petroleum or
other products into the septic tanks on site. The two drums located at the end of South 115th
Street are located on city property according to Mr. Dillon. - He did not know what previously
was stored in the drums. Mr. Dillon indicated that the tenants located at 1408 South 115th Street
collect scrap metal for recycling. He stated that they recycle everything they can. Mr. Dillon
also stated that police have reported drug use by previous renters on the property. However,
there are no reports of drug production on the site. The barracks/bungalow structure that was
located in the southeast portion of the site was a four-plex housing structure according to Mr.
Dillon. Mr. Dillon indicated that he is unaware of any possible past or present use, storage,
generation, release or disposal of hazardous substances on the site with the exception of the
possible past use and storage of heating oil.
Adjacent Property Owners
. We interviewed Mrs. Helen Dingle, owner of an adjacent home located west of the site on
Poverty Hill. Mrs. Dingle indicated that she has lived on the hill since 1942. She stated that a
grocery store previously occupied the Riverside Interiors building. She did not remember when
the store changed to a different business. Mrs. Dingle is unaware of any past or present use,
storage, generation, release or disposal of hazardous substances on her property or the subject
site.
We interviewed the secretary at Riverside Interiors on February 6, 1995 regarding their
property. She indicated that the store sells carpet, vinyl flooring and window blinds. No
cleaning of carpets or other materials take place on the property according to the secretary. The
two semi -trailers and the two sheds located east and north of the building, respectively, store a
backstock of flooring materials and blinds. The structure is heated by gas. She stated that the
structure used to be a grocery store but was unaware of previous businesses other than the store.
The secretary indicated that she is unaware of any past or present use, storage, generation,
release or disposal of hazardous substances on her property or the subject site.
Geo Engineers 7 File No. 0259-030-801/022095
City of Tukwila
We interviewed Mr. Randy Berg, Project Manager, of the city of Tukwila regarding the
history of the site. Mr. Berg has familiarized himself with the site through the property owner
and some research of his own. Mr. Berg indicated that in the late 1800s hops were raised in the
area. When the hops business declined the area was called "Poverty Hill." Mr. Berg indicated
that most of the structures on the site probably were built in the 1920s or earlier. Mr. Berg
indicated that the tenants in the house located at 4208 South 115th Street on the property used
drugs years ago and were arrested by the police. No production of drugs was reported according
to Mr. Berg. The new renters repair personal cars and store their engines, batteries, car parts
and other mechanical devices in the sheds north of their house. Mr. Berg indicated that he is
unaware of any past or present use, storage, generation, release or disposal of hazardous
substances on the site or immediately adjacent properties.
The city of Tukwila conducted a septic tank search on the property, according to Mr. Berg.
Mr. Berg indicated that the drainfield for septic tanks on site probably drains toward the east, in
the direction of the wetlands. Mr. Berg stated that potable drinking water at the site is supplied
by the city of Seattle.
Fire Department
We interviewed Ms. Norita Deckard, secretary of records for the Tukwila Fire Department,
regarding incidents of hazardous substance releases on the site or adjacent properties. Ms.
Deckard stated that they do not keep records for residential properties and if an occurrence did
arise, the information would be referenced by the date of occurrence.
REGULATORY REVIEW
EPA LISTS
We reviewed EPA lists for information on properties with environmental concerns located
within the minimum search distances identified in the "Scope of Services" section of this report.
The following is a summary of tale lists reviewed and their contents.
• NPL list dated August 22, 1994. This list includes sites that have been officially designated
as priority cleanup sites. No NPL sites are located within 1 mile of the subject site based
on the list of review.
• CERCLIS list dated December 1, 1994. This list includes sites where hazardous substances
are known or suspected to have been released and where assessment and remediation under
EPA's CERCLA program may be in progress. No CERCLIS sites are located within a
1;2 mile of the subject site based on the list we reviewed.
• RCRA notification system dated December 7, 1994. This list identifies facilities that are
classified by the EPA as hazardous waste generators or transporters or as TSD (treatment,
storage, or disposal) facilities. A facility appearing on this list does not imply that releases
of hazardous materials have occurred at the facility. No RCRA TSD facilities are located
0eo Eng i n e e r s 8 File No. 0259-030-R01/022095
•
within 1 mile of the subject site based on the list we reviewed. One listed RCRA generator
may be adjacent present in site vicinity. We were unable to locate the site on a map
because a specific address was not given:
- WDOE NRO Tukwila Oil Waste
N. side S. 115th St.
Conditionally exempt generator
• ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System) database dated October 1990 through
April 1994. The ERNS database contains a listing of releases of oil and hazardous
substances reported to various federal agencies since October 1990. The site address is not
listed in the ERNS database.
ECOLOGY AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT LISTS
We reviewed Ecology and Health Department lists for information on properties with
environmental concerns located within the minimum search distances identified in the "Scope of
Services" section of this report. The following is a summary of the lists reviewed and their
contents. The approximate location of listed sites within the specified search distances are shown
in Figure 1.
• Toxics Cleanup Program C&SCS (Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites) List dated
November 7, 1994. The C&SCS list identifies potentially contaminated sites for which
Ecology has conducted an initial investigation. If the investigation showed that further
action is needed, the site appears on this list. Four C&SCS listed sites are located within
1 mile of the subject site:
Metro South Base (identified as site 1 in Figure 1)
11911 E. Marginal Way South, Approximately 1/8 mile southwest from the subject
site.
Yellow Freight Terminal/Tkwil (identified as site 2 in Figure 1)
11231 E. Marginal Way South. Approximately 1/2 mile west from the subject site.
Duwamish Fill Site --DOT (identified as site 3 in Figure 1)
S. 124th St. and SR 99. Approximately 3/4 mile southwest from the subject site.
Northwest Auto Wrecking (identified as site 4 in Figure 1)
10230 E. Marginal Way S. Approximately 1 mile northeast from the subject site.
• MTCA. Site Registers dated October 25 through December 20, 1994. The Site Register
also identifies potentially contaminated sites recently brought to the attention of Ecology.
No sites listed in the MTCA Site Registers we reviewed are located within 1 mile of the
subject site.
• Registered UST Sites List dated March 21, 1994 of USTs registered with Ecology. The
subject site is not listed on the UST list; no sites with registered USTs are located adjacent
to the subject site based on the list we reviewed.
Geo Eng i n e e r s 9 File No. 0259-030-R01/022095
• Leaking UST Sites List dated October 3, 1994 of leaking USTs reported to Ecology. No
leaking UST sites are located within 1/2 mile of the subject site based on the list we
reviewed.
• The Northwest Environmental Compliance Report Quick Reference Guide date April 1993
and Abandoned Landfill Study in King County dated April 30, 1985. No active or
abandoned landfills are located within 1/2 mile of the subject site based on the records we
reviewed.
ECOLOGY FILES
The listed sites identified within the designated search distances are not considered an
environmental threat to the subject site based on our experience. Therefore, we did not review
EPA or Ecology files for the listed sites identified.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of our Phase I ESA indicate that the risk of contamination by hazardous
substances on. the subject site is low with one exception. There is a risk of petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination associated with the possible previous storage and use of heating oil
on the site near the existing structures and the 55 -gallon drums located on the southern property
boundary.
Further evaluation of potential contamination from this source on the subject site would
require soil and/or ground water sampling and chemical analysis. It is our opinion that the sites
identified during our regulatory list search do not represent potential sources for contamination
by hazardous materials on the subject site because of the significant distance between the listed
sites and the subject site.
LIMITATIONS
This Phase I ESA report has been prepared for use by the city of Tukwila. This report may
be made available to the site owner, prospective lenders and to regulatory agencies. However;
the report is not intended for use or reliance by others and the information contained herein is
not applicable to other sites.
The information presented in this report is based on the above-described research and two
recent site visits. GeoEngineers has relied upon information provided by others in our
description of historical conditions. The available data do not provide definitive information with
regard to all past uses, operations or incidents at the site. There is always a potential that areas
with contamination that were not identified during this Phase I ESA exist at the site. Further
evaluation of such potential would require subsurface exploration, sampling and testing. Our
interpretation of shallow ground water flow direction is based solely on surface topography. The
GeoEngineers 10 File No. 0259-030-R01/022095
•
•
actual direction of ground water flow may be different from the direction discussed in this report.
Ground water monitoring would be required to evaluate the actual direction of ground water flow
at the site.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with generally accepted environmental science practices for ESAs in this area at the
time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be
understood.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
JeA(a_Onp
Tina M. Kin&
Geologist
the
to ncipal
LYC:TMK:JKT:cms
Document ID: 0259030.R
GeoEngineers 11 File No. 0259-030-R01/022095
0251 0.30 • .PO/
, PROJECT SITE
Allentown
B edge
EXPLANATION:
1 • ECOLOGY—LISTED SITE
0
Notes: 1. The locations of the sites
shown are approximate.
2. Site identification numbers correspond
to the site numbers discussed in the text.
2000 4000
SCALE IN FEET
Reference: USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle maps Des Moines,
Wash.' and 'Seattle South, Wash.,' both photorevised 1973.
Geoff Engineers
VICINITY MAP AND
ECOLOGY—LISTED SITES
FIGURE 1
,-- fop
/ Pb•.
2ndAve. e
N
- Residential -
1
I
O.
16
12'
n•
4 Plrl•
.s 1 1 \
/ 1
1 1 \
I": 1\ \ \
Abandoned 4. 1 +
Wedding T t \` t\ t
t
Chapel Pond \ 1 1
of 46' Conor•1• `
Cloy. 11..3'1 •7Y 1 \% \
ll? "'r
r \ 1 10 dl H \ 16•rr..
tilt0 TP -7 \ d
s° %/t \ l TP -5 0 {i 1. la i2Jr ia. r a rani " TP-8,-Tr.•0
' 1t. 611oltr 6tJfdfl• t 24 •
� to ra TP -6 t 1 1
1 1 1 26 Tee
��. tl2a' c.aar\1TP -4 Rental \% ; 1 \ 0w 1\
\ 1 t 11 a House \ ++ \
r ,+ 1 1 `1\ \ •} % 1508 ; 10 Tree `` 1yq� - J 0
1 r(�`
o \ -. - 1 \ t Septic :TP -3 : t Drums•
v1 ` t 11 \ Tank J \ and Tires ,a caltan.00a
/2o. over RoodShedI1 \\l2 Cherry :` TP -2 �`+
lin 11520 1 \ \ o -� '-- •••
Riverside Interiors ` \ �•._./ + `\
\ v\ (Carpet Sales) \ \ ` o �\
\ ` +IL
Truck
1 i •TP -1 + •'1. o zo Trot 7
T`ra le�rs% `'+%Os3/•erre., \ yl \
d
1 1 14,6 Tre• \ ...
l� 2 6'Trees 1 •O }s
'ilr \ J Iton.000 \ t
Drums and a 1\ 1.
16\
' _ �'•^"..-2.--6:- L•• - _ Debris 1 2 20 coltodwooe
` 1 .0 p0' I,
�� `'
m Abandoned \, \\.r-£a,l End of 1e •
House t • \ Conor•1• P.
\/. 1 Could Hol rine OvIlaa
11 0 \ I\
1 /
l
(4 l/2 R & C. 15/ 19622
0.055 end 0.04 E of Cor.
12/26/94
1, Spun
7.411•A ••••1
1 \
Residential -
rd l/2' R t C
HE Co'. lot 21. B1 . 25
CJC, 1.5/ 19621
Rental
House
4200
Hillside
I rd J/4 .•
HE Co.. lot 25. Brk. 25
• 1.11 5 and 0.30 E of Cor
n6
j6 1
L E 1s• orlveray
ere
24err.•
Rental
House
4210
s}/Ek
0
60• ollen. d
a`
•
i
■
24'Ca non.
4208 \ \Shed
Apartments
4210
-4
7.
-
J.65• rnaauchA,.nl •
from rent• to
Plot line.
. J 14.4ognollo Tr
0
6.Megnolla Treed
Codon• rent•
/
14
JY
•
Reference: Drawing entitled 'Boundary & Topographic Survey of C.D. Hillman's Meadow Gardens
Addilion #3• for the City of Tukwila.' by Irwin Engineering. dated 02/07/95.
Note: Details of adjacent properlias
are not drawn to scale.
H �; . = -`.•
x ±T
,...........:_::14
.,...--p!--.2 /I v , ����
F.:nd
S.
18_.__.s.:__ . .14. ""
i'• 12'Ald.r 6•Collonrood - -- --....Th- '- - - - .. _ j 12•Collon rood.
ML J
2•Coltonrood
11 'Alder ffon rood d A�dr
0•Md.r 6•Collonr Cl
(!V�'
I "Alder
-T6•Afd/ 10'Aldr
24•Co 1 .00e
24•Cot Ir -mood_.. 14 / o
6•Md•r
Yr'
l0•Mdr
rood!
s
Conrood
t
1
A'.0p0- %1
+
t...•• 1
t t
t U1
1 ._
o t
1 •I. u t
t •
o t
1 e ••' t
14> t
t l
t O \
t
l
1 i.
t
/ -011th
`J.11• Encroachment
- 3.65' Encroachm.nl
24-CollonrooQ !6 Coll•.l.aod
-2.70' Encroachment
1.67• Encrooc9n.nl
t`•
C1
G•• 2•00•12-
R-.17186.74 V0.12 -
R -17165.74
L- 601.04
laod_aaa =kW=
Lot. 1 to 15, Inclusive, Block 26;
Lola 1 to 12. Inclua/ver Block 27;
Lots 1 to 15. lochial.-., Block 25. MI 9, C.0. lu:mon•e 4eoloe•
Gord.na Addition to. th• City of Seattle. 01.4.1 Ho. J. Aclording
to the Plot thereat Recorded In Volum• 12 of Plots. Po5.166. k
Kh9 County Washington.
TOGETHER with 1A•. (OA hal of 42nd Arenu• South; Mao TOGETHER
.11h South 114th Sleet; Mao TOGETHER .119 South 11510 Str••t.
(Ong .Ilhln acid Plot.
•40.00
21.24
10
d•
Cyclone Fence
SCALE: 1. 60'
mei
0 15 30
60
EXPLANATION:
TP -1 --TEST PIT
kloiboo
0 found Lon Pb. or Roe Jr Cop. .. noted
• Sof Rod &Cop
oW Wotrrn•Ir
f r. Hydrant
-0- Poorer Pole
• Por•r Pa• rflh Tron•formr
Anchor
ii
Water Hater
let W.Uonda nag
cr Coldn Bork,
Sol Log
! ) Tree,
Geo atotO Engineers
SITE PLAN
FIGURE.2
APPENDIX A
•
Unit No.: 06
Phone No.: 628-5610
Fax No.: 628-9717
CHICAGO TITLE E INSURANCE COMPA
1800 COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 5TH AVi.
SEATTLE, WA 98104
Our No.: 425453
Your Nd.:
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
A MISSOURI CORPORATION, HEREIN CALLED LED THE COMPANY
GUARANTEES
the Assured named in Schedule A, against actual loss not exceeding the liability stated in Schedule A
which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A.
LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS
1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred
to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect, or priority of any matter shown therein.
2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the
Assured because of reliance upon the assurance herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's
liability exceed the liability amount set forth above.
CHICAGO INS CE COMPANY
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY THE LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS AND THE
SPECIFIC ASSURANCES AFFORDED BY THIS GUARANTEE. 1F YOU WISH ADDITIONAL
LIABILITY, OR ASSURANCES OTHER THAN AS CONTAINED HEREIN, PLEASE CONTACT
THE COMPANY FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AS TO THE AVAILABILITY AND COST.
Your Property History Guarantee is enclosed
PRPHGUAI.11 /26/404:LC
C.sUCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA,. •
1800 COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 5TH AVE
SEATTLE, WA 98104
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
Total Liability Limited to $25, 000.00
Fee: $270.00, PLUS $22.14 SALES TAX
Guarantee Date: DECEMBER 27, 1994
Order Number: 425453
A. ASSURED:
CITY OF TUKWILA
B. THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THIS GUARANTEE IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOTS.1 TO 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 26;
LOTS 1 TO 12, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 27;
LOTS 1 TO 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 28, ALL IN C.D. HILLMAN'S MEADOW GARDENS
ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SEATTLE, DIVISION NO. 3, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT
THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 12 OF PLATS, PAGE 86, IN KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON.
C. AT YOUR REQUEST, CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, A MISSOURI CORPORATION,
HAS SEARCHED THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WHICH
BY LAW IMPART CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE, FOR THE DOCUMENTS SHOWN BELOW
(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE INSTRUMENTS"):
DEEDS (EXCLUDING MONETARY ENCUMBRANCES), REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS AND LEASES
D. AT YOUR REQUEST, THE PERIOD OF TIME SEARCHED IS AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING DATE: DECEMBER 1, 1944 at 8:OOA.M.--
ENDING DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1994 at 8:OO A.M.
CHICAGO TTTLE INSURANCE COMPANY
PRPHGUA-11 /26/41NLC
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA,.'
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
Order Numbcr: 425453
E. THE FOLLOWING MATTERS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE SEARCH PROVIDED BY THIS
GUARANTEE:
1. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS, AND PATENTS
2. WATER RIGHTS, OR CLAIMS THEREOF
3. INSTRUMENTS, PROCEEDINGS OR OTHER MATTERS WHICH DO NOT SPECIFICALL'
DESCRIBE SAID LAND.
THIS GUARANTEE IS RESTRICTED TO THE USE OF THE ASSURED. THIS GUARANTEE IS NO'
A COMMITMENT NOR AN OBLIGATION BY THE COMPANY TO ISSUE ANY POLICY OR FOLIC
OF TITLE INSURANCE INSURING SAID LAND, AND IS NOT TO BE USED AS A BASIS FOR CLOS
ANY TRANSACTION AFFECTING 1111-E TO SAID PROPERTY.
F. THE INSTRUMENTS AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH "C" RECORDED DURING THE PERIOD
OF TIME SEARCHED ARE:
1. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
QUIT CLAIM DEED
MARCH 30, 1945
3459467
BERNARD D. ALLEN
CLARISSIA JANE ALLEN
AFFECTS: LOTS 10 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 26
2 DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
3. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
•- SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
4. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
WARRANTY DEED
NOVEMBER 19, 1945
3518062
BERNARD SCHWARTZ AND DONNA
SCHWARTZ, HUSBAND AND WIFE
JOSEPH A. KRENMAYR AND JANICE M.
KRENMAYR, HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 27
QUIT CLAIM DEED
DECEMBER 4, 1945
3522071
F. W. GOODALE
VIOLET M. GOODALE
LOTS 9 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 28
QUIT CLAIM DEED
DECEMBER 4, 1945
3522072
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
PRPM GUA2.11 /26/93- NIX
HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA.. •
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
5 DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
6. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
7. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
8. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
INSTRUMENTS (continued) •
Order Number: 42545 4.
F. W. GOODALE
VIOLET M. GOODALE
LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 27
WARRANTY DEED
JANUARY 9, 1946
3530404
JAMES W. LUPINACCI AND ALICE M.
LUPINACCI, HUSBAND AND WIFE
ROY R. JULIAN, A SINGLE MAN
LOTS 10 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26
WARRANTY DEED
JANUARY 9, 1946
3530405
VELMA M. SAUNDERS, A MARRIED WOMAN,
AS HER SEPARATE ESTATE
CLARISSIA JANE ALLEN, A MARRIED
WOMAN, AS HER SEPARATE ESTATE
•
LOTS 10 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26
WARRANTY DEED
JANUARY 9, 1946
3530406
CLARISSIA JANE ALLEN, A MARRIED
WOMAN, AS HER SEPARATE ESTATE
JAMES W. LUPINACCI AND ALICE H.
LUPINACCI, HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 10 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26
REAL ESTATE CONTRACT
FEBRUARY 1, 1946
3537087
LAURA E. ALLEN, AS HER SEPARATE
ESTATE
JOHN W. WENTZ AND BESSIE E. WENTZ
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 27
•
CHICAGO TTrLE INSURANCE COMPANY
•
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA,•• .
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
Order Number. 425453
9. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
10. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
.RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
11. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
12. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
13. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
INSTRUMENTS (continued)
ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT
FEBRUARY 1, 1946
3537088
LAURA E. ALLEN, AS HER SEPARATE
ESTATE
W. R. HAMILTON
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 27
QUIT CLAIM DEED
FEBRUARY 1, 1946
3537089
LAURA E. ALLEN
W. R. HAMILTON
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 27
QUIT CLAIM DEED
JANUARY 4, 1947
3644333
VIOLET M. GOODALE
LOREN FRANCIS COLEMAN AND CLARA
COLEMAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 9 THROUGH 15, BLOCK 28
QUIT CLAIM DEED
JANUARY 4, 1947
3644334
VIOLET M. GOODALE
LROEN FRANCIS COLEMAN AND CLARA
COLEMAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 27
QUIT CLAIM DEED
JANUARY 4, 1947
3644335
VIOLET M. GOODALE
LOREN FRANCIS COLEMAN AND CLARA
COLEMAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 26
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
•
'L.HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMM, -1
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
14. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
15. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
1.> . DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
17. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
18. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST- PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
INSTRUMENTS (continued)
Order Number: 425453 •
QUIT CLAIM DEED
OCTOBER 11, 1948
3845069
LOREN FRANCIS COLEMAN AND CLARA
COLEMAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE
VIOLET M. GOODALE
LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 26
QUIT CLAIM DEED
OCTOBER 11, 1948
3845070
LOREN FRANCIS COLEMAN AND CLARA
COLEMAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE
VIOLET M. GOODALE
LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 27
QUIT CLAIM DEED
OCTOBER 11, 1948
3845071
LOREN FRANCIS COLEMAN AND CLARA
COLEMAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE
VIOLET M. GOODALE
LOTS 9 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
28
WARRANTY DEED
OCTOBER 11, 1948
3845142
MAUDEA. MILLS
LAUREN F. COLEMAN
LOTS 3 THROUGH 9, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 26
ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACT AND DEED
MARCH 3, 1949
3881306
JOHN W. WENTZ AND BESSIE F. WENTZ,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
ALBERT C. DYER AND EVEYLN L. DYER,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
•
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA,
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
Order Number: 425453
AFFECTS:_
19. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
20. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMEER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
21. DOCUMENT TYPE:
• RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
22. DOCUMENT :.Ye':::
RECORDING DA7E:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
INSTRUMENTS (continucd)
• LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 27
TAX DEED
JANUARY 16, 1951
4099847
A. A. TREMPER, TREASURER KING COUNTY
K.C. SHYVERS
LOT 1, BLOCK 28
REAL ESTATE CONTRACT
JUNE "19, 1953
4355582
ROY R. JULIAN AND LOUISE JULIAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
L. F. COLEMAN AND CLARA M. COLEMAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 10 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26
QUIT CLAIM DEED
JANUARY 14, 1954
4411604
J. F. POWERS, ELIZABETH JANE POWERS,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
L. F. COLEMAN AND CLARA COLEMAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOT 5 AND THE SOUTH HALF OF LOT 6,
BLOCK. 28; LOTS 7 THROUGH 12,
INCLUSIVE, BLOCK ' 27
QUIT CLAIM DEED
JANUARY 20, 1954
4412977
J. F. POWERS AND ELIZABETH JANE
POWERS, HUSBAND AND WIFE
L. F. COLEMAN AND CLARA COLEMAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 6 AND ALL OF
LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 28
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
:iICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPti.
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
23. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
24. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS: •
25. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDIN;; DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PA?T'Y:
AFFECTS:
26. DOCUMENT TYPE:
)ECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NW!EER:
FIRST PAR"."'(
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
27. DOCUMENT 7Y':ti':
::ECORDING=':►1E:
INSTRUMENTS (continued)
Order Number: 425453
TREASURER'S TAX DEED
JANUARY 20, 1954
4412978
RALPH S. STACY, TREASURER OF KING
COUNTY
ELIZABETH JANE POWERS
THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 6 AND ALL OF
LOT 7, BLOCK 28
WARRANTY DEED
MAY 28, 1957
4801872
JOHN E. BERGESON AND LOLA ALICE
BERGESON, HUSBAND AND WIFE
L. J. ABRAHAM AND THELMA P. ABRAHAM,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 2 THROUGH 4, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 28
•
WARRANTY DEED
JULY 2, 1957
4811154
L. J. ABRAHAM AND THELMA P. ABRAHAM,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
L. F. COLEMAN AND CLARA A. COLEMAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 2 THROUGH 4, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 26
QUIT CLAIM DEED
DECEMBER 26, 1959
4979957
CLARA A. COLEMAN, A WIDOW
F. W. GOODALE AND VIOLET M. GOODALE,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 3 THROUGH 9, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26; LOTS 7 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 27; ALSO LOT 2 -THROUGH 8,
INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 28
QUIT CLAIM DEED
FEBRUARY 16, 1959
•
CL-UCAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
.
�:HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA:-•
1
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
Order Number: 425453
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
26. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
2g. DOCUMENT TYRE:
RECORDING ATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND ?i!RTY•:
AFFECTS:
2D. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING P?,iE:
PECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PWaY:
'AFFECTS:
_11. DOCUMENT TY?E:
RECORDING DATE:
'RECORDING X t MBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY;
INSTRUMENTS (continued)
4997890
L. F. COLEMAN AND CLARA M. COLEMAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
F. W. GOODALE AND VIOLET M. GOODALE,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 10 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
JULY 9, 1959
5054021
ROY R. JULIAN AND LOUISE JULIAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
L. F. COLEMAN AND CLARA M. COLEMAN,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 10 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
JUNE 29, 1960
5176315
JOSEPH A. KRENMAYR AND JANICE M.
KRENMAYR, HIS WIFE
LAURA E. ALLEN
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 27
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED•
JUNE 29, 1960
5176316
ALBERT C. DYER AND EVELYN L. DYER,
HIS WIFE
F. W. GOODALE AND VIOLET M. GOODALE,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 27
QUIT CLAIM DEED
JULY 29, 1960
5176788
W. R. HAMILTON AND AURAL A. HAMILTON,
HIS WIFE
ALBERT C. DYER AND EVELYN L. DYER,
CHICAGO TITLE IN'SU RAID CE COMPANY
HICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA.-
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
AFFECTS:
•32. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
33. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
34. DOCUMENT Ti:P
P.ECORDIN(:
RECORDING A:UMBER:
FIRST PAR':;::
SECOND PAP T :
AFFECTS:
35. DOCUMENT TY;T:
RECORDING 01,'.1E.:
RECORDING NUMLiER:
IRST PARTY:
Order Number: 425453.
INSTRUMENTS (continued)
HIS WIFE
LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK 27
TREASURER'S TAX DEED
DECEMBER 4, 1962
5514833
A. A. TREMPER, TREASURER OF KING
COUNTY
F. W. GOODALE
LOT 1, BLOCK 28
REAL ESTATE CONTRACT
SEPTEMBER 14, 1964
5785971
F. W. GOODALE AND VIOLET M. GOODALE,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
OSCAR L. HELLSTROM AND RALPH L.
DILLON
•
LOTS 1 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26; LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 27; AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 15,
INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 28; AND OTHER
PROPERTY
STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
JANUARY 10, 1978
7801100961
F. W. GOODALE AND VIOLET M. GOODALE,
HUSBAND AND WIFE
0:CAR L. HELLSTROM AND RALPH L.
IriLLON
LOTS 1 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26; LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 27; AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 15,
INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 28; AND OTHER
PROPERTY
`'TATUTORY WARRANTY DEED
'BRUARY 23, 1978
802230820
ADA DUNN, DELLA RUSSELL AND PEARL
CHI CAG0 TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
•
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPA,-
PROPERTY HISTORY GUARANTEE
Order Number. 425453
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
36. DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECORDING DATE:
RECORDING NUMBER:
FIRST PARTY:
SECOND PARTY:
AFFECTS:
INSTRUMENTS (continued)
GREEN
OSCAR L. HELLSTROM AND RALPH L.
DILLON
LOTS 1 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
26; LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 27; AND LOTS 1 THROUGH 15,
INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 28; AND OTHER
PROPERTY
QUIT CLAIM DEED
JUNE 3, 1988
8806030348
HILDUR HELLSTROM
OSCAR L. HELLSTROM
LOTS 1 THROUGH 12, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK
27; LOTS 1 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE,
BLOCK 28; AND OTHER PROPERTY
NOTE: ?.1IS PROPERTY HHISTORY GUARANTEE DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY UNRECORDED
DEEDS, REAL ESTATE CONTRACTS OR LEASES WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY OTHER
DOCUM` N'TS OF RECORD.
**********END OF REPORT
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
CHICAGO TIT 7) INSURANCE COMPANY
1800 COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 5TH AVE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 93104
IMPORTANT: This is not a Survey. It is furnished as a convenience to locate the land indicated hereon with II
reference to streets and other land. No liability is assumed by rcason of reliance hereon.
LO
C
k►
C. D. 1.1 i`v.tool's
IvMe&aoLu
Ca' S to I\1o_ '3
C
UNNUMBERED TR.
,,,0011*.
WO*
. 6o
.4
P•1
T J
1'Z J G
r
Proposed Fire Station No. 53 .
Tukwila, Washington
�... ! _ _ •i . �_ _. F .\ /
G'eoEngineers
RECEIVED
FEB 2 1 1995
TUKWILA
PUBLIC WORKS
File No. 0259-030-R04/021595
Geo1jr; Engineers
February 15, 1995
City of Tukwila
Department of Public Works
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188
Attention: Mr. Randy Berg
Geotechnical,
Geoenvironmental and
Geologic Services
GeoEngineers, Inc. is pleased to submit four copies of our "Report, Geotechnical
Engineering Services, Proposed Fire Station No. 53, Tukwila, Washington." Our services were
accomplished in general accordance with city of Tukwila Contract Number 95-009 executed on
January 6, 1995 for Project Number 93-BG07.
Preliminary results of our study have been discussed with Mr. Randy Berg of the city of
Tukwila as information was developed. Our services have also included completion of a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment, the results of which are being submitted in a separate report.
We appreciate the opportunity to serve you on this project. Please call if there are any
questions regarding this report.
IiRP:JKT:vvl
Document ID: 0259030.RGT
File No. 0259-030-R01
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone (206) 861-6000
Fax (206) 861-6050
Yours ery truly,
Geo eers, Inc.
K. Tuttle, P.E.
Principal
CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 1
SCOPE 1
SITE CONDITIONS 2
SITE DESCRIPTION 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3
GENERAL 3
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 3
Regional Seismicity 3
Liquefaction Potential 3
SITE PREPARATION 4
EARTHWORK 5
SLOPE STABILITY 6
FOUNDATION SUPPORT 6
LATERAL RESISTANCE 7
FLOOR SLABS 7
PAVEMENTS 8
PERMANENT DRAINAGE 8
LIMITATIONS 8
FIGURES Figure No.
Vicinity Map 1
Site Plan 2
APPENDICES Page No.
Appendix A - Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing A-1
Field Explorations A-1
Laboratory Testing A-1
Appendix A FIGURES Fiqure No.
Soil Classification System A-1
Logs of Test Pits A-2 ... A-5
Moisture Content Data A-6
Geo Engineers i File No. 0259-030-RO1/021595
REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
PROPOSED FIRE STATION NO. 53
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FOR
CITY OF TUKWILA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed
new fire station No. 53 to be located near the intersection of South 115th Street and 42nd Avenue
South in Tukwila, Washington. The project site location is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1.
The site consists of several parcels which have a combined area of about 3 acres. Figure 2 shows
the site in relation to existing site features.
We understand that the city is considering purchasing the site. The fire station layout and
the general design criteria have not yet been finalized. However, we expect that the design and
performance aspects of the new fire station will be similar to that of the existing fire station
No. 53, which is located about 1/4 mile south of the proposed site. The new building will likely
be located close to the bend where South 115th Street turns south and becomes 42nd Avenue
South. Minimal grade changes are planned for the site. Asphalt -paved driveways and parking
areas will surround the building. We understand that the new fire station is considered a critical
structure that must remain functional during and following a moderate to large earthquake in the
Puget Sound region.
SCOPE
The purpose of these services is to explore near -surface soil conditions at the site as a basis
for developing geotechnical design recommendations for the new fire station. Our specific scope
of services for this study includes the following tasks:
1. Excavate eight test pits around the proposed fire station building location and in
surrounding planned pavement areas with a rubber -tired backhoe provided by the city of
Tukwila. We also reviewed the logs of two borings accomplished by our firm for a nearby
project.
2. Accomplish a limited laboratory testing program on samples obtained from the test pits.
The tests we accomplished included moisture content determinations.
3. Develop geotechnical recommendations for site preparation and earthwork including
stripping, removal and replacement of soft or unsuitable soils, reuse of on-site soils as fill,
criteria for import fill, fill compaction, cut and fill slopes, and subgrade requirements for
support of slab -on -grade floors. This includes evaluation of the effects of weather and
construction traffic on exposed site soils.
G e o Eng i n e e r s 1 File No. 0259-030-R0I/021595
•
•
4. Provide recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage systems based on the ground
water conditions encountered in the test pits.
5. Evaluate the liquefaction potential at the site and provide options for mitigating the effects
of liquefaction, as appropriate.
6. Recommend the appropriate type and design criteria for foundations to support the building
frame and floor slab, including estimates of foundation and floor slab settlement.
7. Develop recommendations for subgrade preparation and pavement sections for access
driveways and parking areas.
8. Present the results of our study in a written report.
SITE CONDITIONS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed fire station No. 53 site is located in a residential area in Tukwila,
Washington, near the intersection of South 115th Street and 42nd Avenue South (Figure 2). The
ground surface at the site is relatively flat. The property is presently occupied by several
residences and related outbuildings. A steep hillside underlain by sedimentary and volcanic rock
is located immediately westof the site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Near -surface soil conditions at the site were explored by excavating eight test pits at the
approximate locations shown in Figure 2. In addition, we reviewed the logs of two borings
drilled for a previous GeoEngineers project located at 12065 - 44th Place South, about 1/3 mile
southeast of the site. Details of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs and the test
pit logs are presented in Appendix A.
• Near -surface soil and ground water conditions at this site are relatively uniform, based on
our findings from the eight test pits (TP -1 through TP -8) excavated in the proposed building and
pavement areas. Soils encountered in the test pits consist of loose to medium dense and medium
stiff alluvial soils overlain in places by a thin sod zone and a surficial layer of loose, silty fine
sand and sand with organic matter. The sod zone, where present, is about 0.2 to 0.3 feet thick.
A thin layer of loose silty sand with gravel that is probably fill was encountered below the sod
in test pit TP -6. Alluvial soils encountered belowthesod and surficial native and fill soil layers
include loose to medium dense sand, sand with silt, silty sand, and medium stiff silt. These soils
extend to the maximum depth explored, 9.0 feet. Caving was observed in several of the test pits
at depths ranging from 2 to 6.5 feet.
The Logs of the borings drilled 1/3 mile to the southeast indicate that the loose to medium
dense alluvial soils extend to depths of about 10 to 15 feet. Below this depth and extending to
the maximum depth explored by the two borings (19 feet), the alluvial soils consist of medium
dense sand. Similar soil conditions were encountered in two borings drilled by others to a depth
of 30 feet each at the existing city fire station located about 1/4 mile south of the site.
GeoEngineers 2 File No. 0259-030-R01/021595
Ground water seepage was observed at depths ranging from 4.5 to 7 feet in most of the test
pits. Ground water levels were measured at depths of 4.5 and 6.5 feet in November 1984 in our
two previous borings for the nearby site. Ground water was encountered at a depth of 12 feet
in two borings drilled at the existing fire station in September 1992. The ground water level at
the project site is expected to vary in response to the level of the Duwamish River and to seasonal
variations in precipitation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
The proposed building can be satisfactorily supported on conventional spread footings with
an on -grade floor slab under normal (static) loading conditions. However, there is a potential
for liquefaction of the near -surface soils during a major earthquake. The following section of this
report provides more detailed information about the potential for, and the possible consequences
of, liquefaction. Various options can be used to mitigate potential liquefaction -related damage.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Regional Seismicity
The project site is located within a seismically active area in which more than 100
earthquakes have been recorded. Of these, two were large events that resulted in significant
damage to structures. The first earthquake, which was centered in the Olympia area, occurred
in 1949 and had a Richter magnitude of 7.1. The second earthquake, which occurred in 1965,
was centered between. Seattle and Tacoma. It had a Richter magnitude of 6.5. On the basis of
past earthquake activity, the Puget Sound area is designated as Zone 3 in the UBC (Uniform
Building Code) with respect to expected ground accelerations and velocities. For Seismic
Zone 3, a seismic zone factor of 0.30 is applicable based the UBC Table 23-1. Based on the
results of our on-site and nearby explorations, it is our opinion that the soil profile may be
characterized using site coefficient S3, based on UBC Table 16-3.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually during
earthquakes, results in development of high pore water pressures and subsequent loss of strength,
or liquefaction, in a zone of soil. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include
loose to medium dense clean to silty sand below the ground water level.
Based on the regional seismicity of the site and on our recent and previous explorations in
the vicinity, we conclude that there is a moderate to high potential for liquefaction under a
moderate to large earthquake. This liquefaction could result in subsidence occurring between a
depth of about 5 to 15 feet below the ground surface. Structures supported on shallow
foundations bearing on or above soils that liquefy can experience significant differential settlement
and structural damage.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 3 File No. 0259-030-RO1/021595
Several options can be considered to address the liquefaction potential of the site. These
options include the following:
1. Support the building on piles that transfer the foundation loads through the upper liquefiable
soil into underlying soils that have a low potential for liquefaction. The soils at this site
that are potentially liquefiable extend to a depth greater than that explored in our test pits.
If pile support is selected, we recommend that at least two borings extending to depths of
about 40 feet each be drilled within the building area to obtain detailed information for pile
design.
2. Accomplish various types of soil improvement (e.g., vibroflotation, dynamic consolidation,
etc.) to densify the liquefiable soil zones to the extent required to make these zones non -
liquefiable. However, soil densification activities could induce unacceptable vibrations and
possibly damaging settlements in adjacent buildings and could be more costly compared to
other options. Therefore, we believe that this option is not feasible for this site.
3. Support the building on conventional shallow footings supported on a mat of compacted,
free -draining crushed rock or ballast that is a minimum of 2.5 feet thick. The mat would
help to bridge zones of liquefied soils and reduce differential movement of footings, as well
as allow dissipation of excess pore water pressure from the underlying liquefiable soils.
This option is a more cost-effective method than options 1 and 2, although it would not
eliminate the risk of structural damage if liquefaction occurs. Some consideration could be
given to supporting the building frame on piles and the floor slab -on -grade. However,
some settlement of the floor slab significant enough to cause cracking could occur.
SITE PREPARATION
The surficial soils consist of moisture -sensitive silt and sand on which equipment operation
will be difficult during wet weather. These soils will also become essentially impossible to
compact if allowed to become wet. We recommend that site preparation and earthwork be
accomplished during prolonged dry weather, if possible, when these soils will be less susceptible
to disturbance and will provide better support for construction equipment.
All vegetation and existing structures should be removed from new building and pavement
areas where the existing grade is within 2 feet of finished grade. The depth of stripping can be
expected to average about 2 to 4 inches, unless excessive disturbance is caused by demolition and
clearing equipment, in which case the depth of stripping might be greater. Disturbance to a
greater depth can be expected if site preparation is done in wet weather. Where finished grade
in pavement areas will be 2 feet or more above existing grade, the sod layer can be left in place.
In those areas, vegetation should be cut off as short as possible and the clippings removed prior
to fill placement.
Foundation elements and slabs for existing buildings should be removed since they could
interfere with pile installation. Existing foundation elements and slabs in new pavement areas
can generally be left in place; however, foundation walls or other elements that protrude to within
Geo Engineers 4 File No. 0259-030-R01/021595
2 feet of finished grade in new pavement areas should be removed. Any existing voids (i.e.,
manholes or vaults) or new depressions created or exposed during site preparation should be
cleaned of loose soil or debris and backfilled with structural fill.
We recommend that all building, slab and pavement subgrade areas be thoroughly
proofrolled with heavily loaded, rubber -tired construction equipment if site preparation is done
during extended dry weather conditions. Any areas that rut or weave during proofrolling should
be excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. If site preparation is done during wet
weather, it will be preferable not to proofroll the exposed surface, as this activity could damage
the subgrade. In this case, the subgrade soils should be examined by hand probing. Any areas
of soft soils should be excavated and replaced with structural fill. A representative of our firm
should observe proofrolling to advise on the extent and depth of any excavation and replacement
of softened subgrade soils.
Operation of construction equipment directly on the exposed subgrade soils should be
avoided to the fullest extent possible. We recommend that critical surfaces such as subgrades in
building areas and construction access roads be protected with ATB (asphalt treated base) or a
layer of gravel or crushed rock to minimize disturbance to the subgrade. We recommend that
all sod and soil stripped from the site either be wasted off site or used for landscaping.
EARTHWORK
Any new fill required to establish site and foundation grades and to replace unsuitable soil
should be placed as structural fill. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill will depend on
the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200
sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and
adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve.
• If the fill is placed during wet weather, we recommend that the soil consist of well -graded,
free -draining sand and gravel free of organic matter or debris. The maximum particle size should
be 3 inches. The soil should contain no more than 5 percent fines relative to the fraction passing
the 3/4 -inch sieve if earthwork is done in wet weather. If earthwork is done during generally dry
weather conditions, the fines content can be increased slightly. Up to about 10 percent fines is
usually acceptable for dry weather earthwork, provided that the fines are well mixed throughout
the soil and are not present as lumps or balls.
The on-site soils contain significantly more than 5 percent fines and should be used as
structural fill only during periods of prolonged dry weather and only after proper moisture
conditioning.
Structural fill should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined
in accordance with ASTM D-1557 in building areas and within 2 feet of final subgrade in
pavement areas. Below this depth in pavement areas, the fill should be compacted to at least
90 percent.
Geo Engineers 5 File No. 0259-030-R01/021595
We recommend that a representative of our firm observe the placement and compaction of
structural fill. A sufficient number of in-place density tests should be accomplished as the fill
is compacted to provide a representative evaluation of whether or not the specified compaction
criteria is being achieved.
If shallow foundation support for the building is selected, we recommend that all footings
be supported on a 2.5 -foot -thick mat of compacted granular fill. The footing mat fill should
consist of free -draining coarse (11A -inch -minus) crushed rock or railroad ballast with a maximum
size of 3 inches and containing less than 5 percent fines (percent by weight of soil passing the
No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4 -inch fraction). The crushed rock or railroad ballast
should consist of sound rock and be free of debris and organic matter. The base of the rock mat
should extend horizontally beyond the edges of the footings a distance of one-half the thickness
of rock that will underlie the footing.
Prior to placing the mat fill, the base of the footing trenches should be evaluated by hand
probes only. Any disturbed zones indicated by the probing should be excavated to the depth
recommended by a representative of our firm and- replaced with footing mat fill.
The mat fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness. The initial
lift should be compacted without vibratory effort to avoid pumping in the underlying soils. Each
successive lift should be compacted to a firm, unyielding state as determined by visual
observation using a vibratory roller or other suitable equipment.
SLOPE STABILITY
The hillside above the west margin of the site has experienced some instability in the past.
The instability is probably related to planes of weakness coinciding with the boundary between
the bedrock known to underlie the hill and the overlying soil overburden. We believe that
continued episodes of slope failure involving shallow slides will occur during the life of the
project. If a minimum setback of 50 feet is maintained from the toe of the hillside to the nearest
point on the building, the accumulated debris is unlikely to reach the building.
FOUNDATION SUPPORT
On a preliminary basis, we estimate that augercast concrete piles with diameters ranging
from 12 to 16 inches and lengths of 40 to 50 feet could support downward loads of 30 to 70 tons.
Pile penetrations must be such that all load -carrying capability is derived from the medium dense
sand below the potentially liquefiable zone. As recommended previously, at least two borings
should be drilled to sufficient depth to develop the necessary subsurface information for final
design of the piles.
If spread footings are used, we reconunend that they be founded at least 18 inches below
the lowest adjacent grade for exterior footings. The bottom of interior footings should be at least
12 inches below finished floor grade. Individual spread footings should have a minimum width
of 24 inches. Continuous strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. Isolated and
Geo E n g i n e e r s 6 File No. 0259-030-RO1/021595
•
•
continuous footings dimensioned as recommended above and bearing on a crushed rock or
railroad ballast fill mat constructed as recommended can be designed for an allowable bearing
pressure of 2,000 psf (pounds per square foot). This bearing pressure applies to the sum of all
dead plus long-term live loads, excluding the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill.
This value may be increased by one-third when earthquake or wind loads are considered.
We estimate that postconstruction settlements resulting from static loading for interior
column and perimeter wall footings will be about 1/2 to 1 inch, depending on variations in
subsurface soil conditions and structural loads. The maximum differential settlement between
adjacent, comparably loaded column footings is expected to be 1/2 inch or less. Similarly, we
expect that differential settlements along continuous wall footings should not exceed about
1/2 inch in 50 feet. Because of the granular nature of the soils underlying the site, we expect the
major portion of foundation settlements to occur rapidly upon application of structural loads.
Subsidence of several inches could result from liquefaction during a major seismic event. The
settlement could be irregular in magnitude and extent.
LATERAL RESISTANCE
Lateral loads such as base shear forces transmitted to the building footings by wind or
seismic events can be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of the footings or pile caps and
by friction on the base of the footings and slab. Passive resistance can be evaluated using an
equivalent fluid density of 250 pcf (pounds per cubic foot) provided foundation elements are
surrounded by structural fill or compacted in-situ soil extending laterally a distance of at least
twice the depth of the footing. The fill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum
dry density (ASTM D-1557). Passive pressure resistance should be calculated from the bottom
of adjacent floor slabs or paving or below a depth of 1 foot if the adjacent area is unpaved.
Frictional resistance of footings and the building slab may be evaluated using 0.4 for the
coefficient of base friction. Frictional resistance along the base of pile caps should be ignored.
The above values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5.
FLOOR SLABS
Floor slabs should be supported on a minimum of 18 inches of compacted, clean free -
draining sand and gravel containing no more than 3 percent fines by weight to provide uniform
support for the slab and adequate drainage. Vapor barriers may be placed between the slab and
free -draining sand and gravel if it is desired to reduce moisture migration into the floor slab. It
might be appropriate to place a 2 -inch -thick cushion layer of clean sand over the vapor barrier
to protect it during construction of the slab.
A subgrade modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch at the top of the 18 -inch structural fill
pad may be used to design a reinforced concrete slab to support the planned fire truck loads. We
recommend that a minimum slab thickness of 6 inches be used.
G e o E n g i n e e r s 7 File No. 0259-030-R01/021595
We estimate that settlement of floor slabs resulting from floor loads of 150 psf or less will
be less than 1/2 inch. During a moderate to large earthquake, some differential settlement of the
slab and related cracking could occur if the slab is supported on -grade.
PAVEMENTS
Pavement subgrade areas should be stripped and proofrolled or otherwise examined as
recommended above. Assuming that proper subgrade preparation is accomplished and that
pavement construction is done during a period of extended dry weather, we recommend that the
pavement section in automobile parking areas consist of 2 inches of class B asphalt concrete,
4 inches of clean crushed rock base course containing no more than 5 percent passing the No.
200 sieve, and a subbase consisting of at least 12 inches of compacted clean structural fill.
The driveways will be subjected to frequent braking and turning action by fire trucks. We
recommend that the pavement section in the driveways consist of 4 inches of asphalt concrete and
8 inches of crushed rock over the subbase.
If pavements are constructed during wet weather or if the subgrade is wet and cannot be
compacted satisfactorily, it will be necessary to excavate soft areas and to place an additional
thickness of granular subbase to provide adequate pavement support. The thickness of additional
sand and gravel fill required will depend on the firmness of the subgrade at specific locations and
should be evaluated during construction. In soft subgrade areas, we recommend that
consideration be given to placing a woven geotextile between the native soils and the granular fill
to separate these materials and strengthen the pavement -section.
The crushed rock base course and granular fill should both be compacted to at least
95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. It is very
important to pavement performance that backfill in utility trenches also be compacted as
recommended for structural fill. Drainage of the pavement base course is also very important.
We recommend that holes be provided in the catch basins to permit drainage of the base course
and underlying fill. .
PERMANENT DRAINAGE
We recommend that finished ground surfaces adjacent to the building be sloped so that
surface runoff flows away from the structure. Footing drains might be appropriate along portions
or all of the outside perimeter walls. These drains should consist of 4 -inch -diameter perforated
drainpipe embedded in a zone of sand and gravel containing less than 3 percent fines. This zone
of sand and gravel should be at least 2 feet wide. Roof drains should be connected to a tightline
that is independent from the footing drains and that discharges into the storm drain system.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for use by. the city of Tukwila and their architects and
engineers in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to
G e o Eng i n e e r s 8 File No. 0259-030-RO1/021595
prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and
interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions.
The design details are not known at the time of preparation of this report. As your design
develops, we expect that additional consultation will be necessary to provide for modification or
adaptation of our recommendations.
When the design has been finalized, we recommend that we be retained to review the final
design and specifications to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented
as intended.
The scope of our services does not include ,services related to construction safety
precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods,
techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for
consideration in design.
There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also that
may occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the
budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be
provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those
indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the
conditions revealed during the work differ from those knticipated, and to evaluate whether or not
earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in
accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No
warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood.
The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. We
are available to review the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations are
properly interpreted. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide
additional services, please call.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
Herbert R. Pschunder, P.E.
Senior Engineer
HRP:LYC:JKT:vvl
Document ID: 0259030.R
G•e o Eng i n e e r s
Jack K. Tuttle, P.E.
Principal
9 File No. 0259-030-R01/021595
DLS, • 030 • 00 /. 0 1/RP BYa/ 115/yS
... Ire._ -
•.r.�.
tt \1'!
•
96 r
0 2000
4000
SCALE IN FEET
Reference: USGS 7.5' topographic quadrangle maps Des Moines.
Wash.' and 'Seattle South, Wash..' both photorevised 1973.
Geo ff Engineers
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
N
I
Fd 1/2- R k C, LS/ 19622 I
0.05Sand 0.04 EofCor. Fd 1/2'R&C
C..G, LS/ 19622 I
12/28/94 NE Car. Lot 21, Wk.25
•:.
�u\_ 0.44 Wol Line Fd J/4' IP
22 \�:_ fe'-'-----1-1:17-------171.......,..„
I HE Cor. Lot 25, Blk. 25
�\'_ �- 1.11 S and 0.30 E el Cor
� ?_-2f •
$ 73 0
7727_ r
fats
24
20
2
Reference: Drawing entitled 'Boundary & Topographic Survey of C.D. Hillman's Meadow Gardens
Addition #3, for the City o. Tukwila.' by Irwin Engineering. dated 02/07/95.
H 0633:36' E �
530.44
/�- --- _ •
• •12.7) d give. S
�le's.qu� •- ° _'e :oco ted:
/- fop of 48' Conorot•
( Pipe,Eler. 11.43'
TP -7 Hol 11 \\\ 111. Hoe {)
eilcliyy'" 1/1 1 TP-81•rr••0
12 HoBye Y-6 °ilA tt�-
6.�1opW 6tHdly l 4 •
107fo TP -6 1 % 1 26 �roe
.Fa _fea,% % 1\ 24'Tro• - W 4' dei,
\ 1 \ 1 nW \
\ \ � \ \ HOUSE
\\ \ 1
10 Trois \`L 1~, (31
Y 18 -Tree
TP -3 \ 24'Cottonwoo
•11 \
// / 16 -Cottonwood C�20' aril Rood) \ I i� \ 6 ./
cn«ry (*TP -,2
\ 1 .....-A •
G 1
`• ; :�:, O1 4) \ \
.a, \ y 1 ' 1 d
1 . --• �\ \
\ \ v0 \
TP -1 'J o 20'(r:i \ o \
20'1. so \ t \ \k �' • _ \\ •r• 1
3 It -Trees \ is \ ....
•' \\
6' iris •• \\11' \\ •• N \
2 6'2rees \'' I O 1ry,\ 1 1
\ 1 r.
` 20-Cotlorilwood \
u
\
42nd Ave.
cr.
\\ 26' Cedar\1 TP ,4
\ 1 1 1 1 •y
\
1-
o ~ \ \ 1
`\
Conete Parking Lot •, \ \ 2
\ 1
` \ ,\ 1
1. \
1 1 1
\
1 \ 1
1 \
\ 1
C13' Gravel Rood-'
?0'Alder
12'A1der
06 -Cottonwood
2 -Cottonwood
14 -Alder
8 -Alder
Ifonw•ood 8 8-Alder6-Cott/o`n-.�
.l✓ Ad �/�•�)
d
_ 8'Ald r
24 Cottonwood Aldr , f0 Aldr
24'Cot—&eod__ 1(�
T("Cotton woo
6 CotfwlWood 6'AIdor
Iton.00d
a \
1
24'C tonwood‘
ik
i• 1
le''~
•--72.-6" Tre•
1.-- a0•p0� / \
1
X16 1 •1.• -East End of 18'
1' \ Concrete Pipe
3 leMagnollo Hose \ ML0 \ Could Not Find Oulloll
1 \
\ • 1
4 6'Mognolla roes 1 \
v\ 14.11
\ \--Ditch
-3.11' Encroachment
- J.65' Encroachment
-2.70' Encroachment
1.67' Encroachment
s
40.00
- - J_i2'Col ton wood
CI
A- 2'00'12'
R- 17188.74
L- 601.04
LeoaLBearrlollo0
Lots 1 to 15, Incluslve. Block 26;
Lots 1 to 12, Inclusive. Block 27;
Lots 1 to 15, inclusive. Block 28, All In C.O. IIAlman's Meodoo
Goldoni Addition to the City of Sealll•, Dl.i.on Ho. 3, According
to Ms Piot thereof, Recorded 1n Volume 12 of Plots, Pop. 86, In
King County Washington.
TOGETHER with the East hall of 42nd A".nu. South; Also TOGETHER
with South 114th, Street; Also TOGETHER will South 115th Street
Lying within sold Plot.
3.85' Encrooa enl••
From Fence to
Plot Una
*MOM Mad*
24
440
Cyclone Fence
SCALE. 1' &7'
0 15 30 60
EXPLANATION:
TP -1 --TEST PIT
P + Mailbox
O Found Iron Pip. or Rod A Cap, es noted
• Set Rod k Cap
OW Watermefer
trFH Fire Hydrant
Powr Pal.
Poor Pole with Tran,formr
Anchor
Wafer M•lr
Wetlands Flop
Catch Basks
Sol Log
Trees
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2
1
•
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
FIELD EXPLORATIONS
Subsurface conditions at the project site were explored by excavating eight test pits at the
site at the locations shown in Figure 2. The test pits were excavated on January 3, 1995 using
a tractor -mounted backhoe provided by the city of Tukwila to depths ranging from 5 to 9 feet
below the existing ground surface. These test pits were backfilled immediately after they were
logged.
Test pit locations were selected in the field by a geologist from our firm using a preliminary
site layout provided by the city. The test pit locations and surface elevations were surveyed by
Irwin Engineering. These locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the
degree implied by the methods used.
The test pits were excavated under the full-time monitoring of a member of our staff who
classified the soils encountered, obtained representative samples of the various soil strata,
observed ground water seepage conditions, and maintained a detailed log of each test pit. The
soils were visually classified in general accordance with the system described in Figure A-1.
Logs of the test pits are presented in Figures A-2 through A-5.
LABORATORY TESTING
Soil samples obtained from the test pits were examined in our laboratory to confirm field
classifications. Moisture contents were accomplished on representative samples. Results of these
tests are presented in Figure A-6.
G e o Eng i n e e r s
A - 1 File No. 0259-030-R01/011895
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
SYMBOL
GROUP NAME
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
More Than 50%
Retained on
No. 200 Sieve
GRAVEL
CLEAN
GRAVEL
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
Retained
on No. 4 Sieve
GRAVEL
WITH FINES
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
SAND
More Than 50%
of Coarse Fraction
Passes
No. 4 Sieve
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
SAND
WITH FINES
SM
SILTY SAND
SC
CLAYEY SAND
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
More Than 50%
Passes
No. 200 Sieve
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid Limit
Less Than 50
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
CL
CLAY
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid Limit
50 or More
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
• HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:.
1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90.
Moist - Damp, but no visible water
2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on
ASTM D2487-90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is
obtained from below water table
3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on
interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of
soils, and/or test data.
i
i
IV)
Geo NO Engineers
3 \/ b
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FIGURE A-1
•
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF. TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP -1
Approximate surface elevation: 16.9 feet
0.0 - 0.3 Sod zone, 3 inches thick
0.3 - 5.5 SP -SM Brown fine to medium sand with a trace of silt and organic matter (loose, moist)
5.5 - 6.8 ML Brown sandy silt (medium stiff, moist)
6.8 - 9.0 SM Brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, wet)
Test pit completed at 9.0 feet on 01/03/95
Ground water seepage observed at 6.5 feet
Moderate caving observed at 6.5 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 2.0 and 7.0 feet
TEST PIT TP -2
Approximate surface elevation: 15.4 feet
0.0 - 0.3 Sod zone, 3 inches thick
0.3 - 6.5 SM Brown silty fine sand with a trace of organic matter (loose, moist)
Becomes wet at 5.0 feet
6.5 - 7.5 ML Light brown silt (medium stiff, wet)
7.5 - 8.0 SP Dark brown fine sand (loose, wet)
Test pit completed at 8.0 feet on 01/03/95
Ground water seepage observed at 4.5 feet
Moderate to severe caving observed below 4.5 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, 6.5 and 8.0 feet
THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF
MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT.
Geo ‘% Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A-2
•
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP -3
Approximate surface elevation: 17.7 feet
0.0 - 0.3 Sod zone, 3 inches thick
0.3 - 2.5 SM Brown silty fine sand with a trace of organic matter (loose, moist)
2.5 - 6.0 SP Dark brown fine sand (loose, moist)
Becomes wet at 5.0 feet
6.0 - 8.5 ML Light brown sandy silt (medium stiff, wet)
Test pit completed at 8.5 feet on 01/03/95
Ground water seepage observed at 5.0 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 1.5, 2.5, 5.0 and 6.0 feet
TEST PTT TP -4
Approximate surface elevation: 19.3 feet
0.0 - 1.5 SP -SM Brown fine sand with silt and a trace of organic matter (loose, moist)
1.5 - 3.0 SM Brown silty fine sand with a trace of organic matter (loose, moist)
3.0 - 4.7 SP Brown fine sand (loose, moist)
4.7 - 7.5 ML Light brown and orange silt (medium stiff, moist)
Test pit completed at 7.5 feet on 01/03/95
No ground water seepage observed during time test pit was open
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 0.5, 3.0 and 5.0 feet
THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF
MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT.
Geo �‘o, Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A-3
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP -5
Approximate surface elevation: 20.3 feet
0.0 - 0.2 Sod zone, 2 inches thick
0.2 - 1.0 SM Brown silty fine with organic matter (loose, moist)
1.0 - 5.0 SP Dark brown fine sand with wood fragments (loose, moist)
5.0 - 7.5 ML Light brown sandy silt with organic matter (medium stiff, wet)
Test pit completed at 7.5 feet on 01/03/95
Ground water seepage observed at 4.5 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 0.5, 1.0 and 5.0 feet
0.0 - 0.3
0.3 - 1.5
SM
TEST P11' TP -6
Approximate surface elevation: 19.1 feet
Sod zone, 3 inches thick
Brown silty fine sand witli organic matter and occasional gravel and cobbles (loose,
moist) (fill?)
1.5 - 2.5 SP -SM Brown fine sand with silt (loose, moist)
2.5 - 3.0 ML Light brown silt (medium stiff, wet)
3.0 - 5.5 SP Dark brown fine sand (loose, wet)
5.5 - 7.5 ML Orange and brown sandy silt (medium stiff, wet)
Test pit completed at 7.5 feet on 01/03/95
Ground water seepage observed at 4.5 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 1.5, 3.0, 4.0 and 5.5 feet
THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF
MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0:5 FOOT.
Geo
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A-4
•
•
•
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
0.0-03
0.3 - 1.5
L5-5.0
SM
SP
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT TP -7
Approximate surface elevation: 19.5 feet
Sod zone, 3 inches thick
Brown silty fine sand with organic matter (loose, moist)
• Dark brown fine to medium sand (loose, wet)
Test pit completed at 5.0 feet on 01/03/95
No ground water seepage observed during time test pit was open
Severe caving observed below 2.0 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 1.5 and 2.0 feet
TEST PIT TP -8
Approximate surface elevation: 16.1 feet
0.0 - 0.3 Sod zone, 4 inches thick
0.4 - 5.0 SM Brown silty fine sand with organic matter (loose, moist)
Becomes wet at 2.5 feet
5.0 - 7.5 ML Orange and brown silt (medium stiff, wet)
Test pit completed at 7.5 feet on 01/03/95
Ground water seepage observed at 4.5 and 7.0 feet
Disturbed soil samples obtained at 1.0, 2.5 and 5.0 feet
THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF
MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT.
Geo\ff Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE A-5
•
MOISTURE CONTENT DATA
Test
Pit
Number
Depth of
Sample
(feet)
Soil
Classification
Moisture
Content
(%)
TP -1
2
SP -SM
15
TP -1
7
SM
35
TP -2
1
SM
23
TP -3
1.5
SM
29
TP -4
3SM
29
TP -5
1
SM
7
TP -5
5
ML
34
TP -6
1.5 •
SM
28
TP -7
2
. SP
29 ..
TP -8
2.5
SM
30
liEngineersGeo �
MOISTURE CONTENT DATA
FIGURE A-6
•
-"UKWO
V O
;
LA
FII E STA-"OOU V NO. 53
CITY OF TUKVVIL.A, WASHINGTON
Merritt+Pudlnl
TUKWILA
FIRE
STATION
NO.53
ora.
MON
tuaaA
wvNPmd
SITE
S
BUILDING SECTION
0
0
Namommis
• Manta +Pardini
•
0 Plant Legend
• !rem r•..f•vrCd.
O
O
O
• C Tn. 1.34. Cal
• Amon T. 1./7 b T QI^y
Arae. Tr.. • 1L
• CO.. f Nl
T.011,
• 8r•.1 Pnm M 1.7 .. •• •_ •••,
• O4.,d Co. 1 p1, W wrel Iff
• •T. J• •.....
•
• \; • Edrp tl.aau. T. ro...Ent T.•1.3 • %/
•
N•
A K A H O
O E N N 1 S
(.o - •.o•ttcif
TUKWILA
FIRE
STATION
NO.53
TOW 1,111,
lANCSCAPE:
—.FLAN=
—14 fJ1=
'A//7‘j/ ,.%/
- }o/ ,;,; f
4
--- ---tiro/
1)10V''.
1 cik 34'1-
BOTTOM OF EAVE
A
14'—O"
V BOTTOM OF EAVE
A 8'—O"
V BOTTOM OF EAVE
1
It
JL
1
NORTH ELEVATIOI
SCALE 1/8* V—Cf
to- 13-ei
• •
'ECE VED
NJUt1U 3
aiD
rP
COMMMutvr 1 Y
DEVELOPMENT
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE 1/8" 1 '--Cr
GI • 13-41
39'-4 1/8"
PV TOP OF RIDGE
29'-4 3/8"
TOP OF RIDGE
20'-5 7/8"
TOP OF RIDGE
14'-2 7/8"
IV TOP OF RIDGE
n
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE 1 /8r = 1'—ale
n
VO/VO/VU 101V FAA.4V0 JOJ 01i0
nur,Mll ltrtlA1)I1 i -'''-' 1Ui%IIILtf
l(AJ VVO/ VVO
,
25.16.030.- 25.16.050 OppORELINE MANAGEMENT
•
C. All development shall be.required to provide adequate surface .rater
retention and sedimentation facilities during the construction period.
D. Development shall maintain the first fifty feet of property abutting a
natural environment as required open space.
. E. Parking, facilities except parking facilities associated with detached
single-family and agricultural development shall conform to the following
minimum conditions:
be
1. Parking areas serving a water. related or a nonwater related use must
located beneath or upland of the development which the parking area serves.
.Any outdoor parking area.perimeter, excluding entrances and exits,
must be maintained as a planting area with a minimum width of five feet. •
One live tree with a minimum height of four feet shall be required
for eat thirty linear feet of planting area.
One live shrub of one -gallon container size or larger for each sixty
linea ' f ches of planting area shall be required.
Additional perimeter and interior landscaping of parking areas may
be rered, at the discretion of the director, when it is necessary to screen
parking areas or when large parking areas are proposed.
F. Collection facilities to control and separate contaminants shall be
required where stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces would degrade or add
to the pollution of recipien-t waters or adjacent properties.
G. The regulations of this chapter have. been categorized in a number of
sections; regardless of the categorization of the various regulations, all
development -must -comply with all applicable regulations.
$. Development proposed in shorelines of the state shall maintain
setbacks, provide easements or otherwise develop the site to permit a trail to
be constructed or public access to continue where:
1. There is a proposed tr-ail in the Ring County trail system; or
2. Part of the site is presently being used and has historically been
used for public access.
a. Along shorelines of the state on Lake Sammmamish, no buildingshall
be•.placed on lands below thirty-two and one-half feet ;mean .sea level. (Ord.
3688S 403, 1978) .
r•25:1C:040--AgriCUItur.ah-.practices.:: .Agricultural practices may be
permitted .in the. urban environment, subject to the --general requirements
(Section .25.16.030) of this chapter, provided:.
A. The agricultural activity is permitted in the underlying zone
classification;
B. Any barn, shed or other structure constructed in conjunction with the
permitted agricultural activity shall not be constructed within the floodway;
C. Agricultural activity along shorelines of the state shall conform to
the best management practices -developed pursuant to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 and adopted by,the King County_ Soil Conservation
District.
D. Lagoons, ponds or other waste retention facilities shall be subject to
the same standard as described in subsection B. above. (Ord. 3688 S 404,
1978).:
euatic'resource practi'ces'.=.c:atic resource :actices may be
permitted in the urban environment subject to the general requirements
(Section 25.16.030) of this chapter, provided:
A. Any structureplaced waterward of the ordinary ..high water :nark shall
be placed so as not to:
25.16.060
25.16.070
25.16.080
25.16.090
25.16.100
25.16.110
25.16.120
25.16.130
25.16.140
25.16.150
25.16.160
25.16.170
25.16.180
25.16.190
25.16.200
URBAVIROAIMENT.
Forest management practices.
Commercial development.
Signs.'
Residential development -Multifamily.
Residential development -Single-family.
Residential development -Accessory structures.
Residential development -Piers, moorage, or' launching
facilities -Conditions.
Residential development -Piers, moorage, or launching
facilities -Accessory to multifamily development.
Residential development -Piers, moorage, and launching
facilities -Accessory to single-family residence.
Subdivisions.
Utilities.
Industrial development.
Shoreline protection.
Filling and excavation.
Recreation.
25.16.010 -.25.16.030
25.16410 Purpose. The purpose of designating the urban .environment is
to ensure optimum utilization of the shorelines of the State within urbanized
areas by permitting intensive use and by managing development so that it
enhances and maintains the shorelines of the state for a multiplicity'of.urban
uses. The urban environment is designed to reflect a policy of increasing
utilization and efficiency of urban areas, to promote a more intense level of
use through redevelopment of areas now. under-utilizedand to- encourage
mulitple use of the. shorelines of the state if the majoruse is water
dependent or water related while at the same time safeguarding the quality of._
the environment. (Ord. 3688 S 401, 1978).
25.16.020 Designation criteria. Designation .criteria for the urban
environment shall.be:
A. Shorelines of the state used or designated for high intensity
commercial, industrial; or recreational use;
B. Shorelines of the state of lower intensity use, where surrounding land
.use: is urban and urban services are available;
C. Shorelines of the state used or designated for multifamily residential
development;
D. Shorelines of the.state used for port activities';
E. Shorelines of the state developed for residential purposes and where
surrounding land use is urban and.urban'services are available;.
F. Shorelines -of the state to be designated, urban environment shall not
have biophysical limitations to development such as fl.00dplains,-steep slopes,
slide hazard areas and/or marshes, bogs or swamps. (Ord. 3688 S'402, 1978).
J".25:16:030: ;;.Generalrequirements.. A.,-- Nonwater related development -and'
water mark.
residential development shall not be permitted waterward of the ordinary high.
B. Except in those cases when the height requirements of the underlying
tones are more restrictive, no structure shall exceed a'height.of thirty-five
feet above average grade level. This requirement may be modified if the view
.of a substantial number of residences will not be obstructed, if permitted by
the applicable provisions of the underlying zoning, and if. the proposed
development is agricultural, water related or water dependent.
1023
URBAN ENVIRONMENT
25.16.050 - 25.16.070
1. Be a significant hazard to navigation;
2._ Cause significant damage to neighboring properties;
3.. Be a significant hazard to divers who mayfrequent the area.
B. Any byproducts of the aquatic resources facility which are discharged'
into the water shall not degrade the quality of the recipient waterbody.
C. Aquatic resource operations shall not be permitted on Class I beaches
except that such operations for the exclusive use and enjoyment of the
adjacent upland residential property owner or lessee may be permitted.
D. Aquatic resource facilities shall be installed with minimum
disturbance to banks and channels and shall not cause extensive erosion or
accretion along adjacent shorelines.
E. The commercial mechanical harvesting of shellfish may be permitted,
provided:
1. Such harvesting will not materially damage other commonly harvested
aquatic life;
2. The harvest site is rehabilitated within seven days of the harvest
operation;
3. The harvest operation will not materially damage any significant
wildlife habitat or recreation site. (Ord. 6511 S 2, 1983: Ord. 3688 S 405,
1978) .
25,46;46Q- Forest management:practices. Forest management practices are
not permitted in the urban environment. (Ord. -3688 S 406, 1978).
25,.1,6:070 :-Commercial.-development.. Commercial development may be
permitted in the urban environment subject to the general requirements
(Section 25.16.030) of this chapter, and provided:
A. The commercial activity is permitted in the underlying one
classification.
B. Uses which may be permitted. in, .a business or commercial zone
classification but which in fact primarily involve the ..manufacture or
remanufacture of products including but not limited to:
1. Boat building;
2. Electric or neon sign manufacturing;
3. Machine shops;
4. Tire rebuilding, recapping and retreading;
shall be governed by the industrial development sections of this title.
C. -Water dependent commercial development shall not be required to
maintain a shoreline setback.
1025 (King County 9-83)
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE •
Chapter 18.52
LANDSCAPE, RECREATION, RECYCLING/
SOLID WASTE SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Sections:
18.52.010
18.52.020
18.52.030
18.52.040
18.52.050
18.52.060
18.52.065
18.52.070
18.52.080
18.52.090
Purpose.
Landscaping requirements by zone district.
Special landscape requirements.
General landscaping and screening
requirements.
Landscape -plan requirements.
Recreation space requirements.
Lighting.
Recycling storage space for residential uses
Recycling storage space for non-residential
uses.
Design of collection points for garbage and
recycling containers.
18.52.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish mini-
mum requirements for landscaping to promote safety,
to provide screening between incompatible land uses,
to mitigate the adverse effects of development on the
environment, and to improve the visual environment
for resident and nonresident alike.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.52.020 Landscaping requirements by zone district.
In the various zone districts of the City,
landscaping in the front, rear and side yards shall be
provided as shown in Table 2. Minimum required
front yard landscaped areas in the R•2, R-3, R-4, and
RMH zones may have up to 20% of their required
landscape area developed for pedestrian and transit
facilities upon approval by the Board of Architectural
Review.
Table 2— Required Landscape Areas
Zone
District
Front Yard
Landscape
(In Feet)
Side Yard
Landscape
(In Feet)
Rear Yard
Landscape
(In Feet)
R-1
None
None
None
R-2
15
10
10
R-3
15
10
10
R-4
15
10
10
RMH
15
10
•- 10
P-0
15
5
5
C-1
10
5
None
C-2
10
5
None
C -P
15
15
15
C -M
15
5
None
M•1
15
None
None
M-2
15
None
None
M -2L
5
None
None
(Ord 1655 §2, 1993; Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.52.030 Special landscape requirements.
The required landscape areas, as shown in Table 2,
shall be increased by a minimum of 25% or 50% or by
construction of a decorative fence or solid planting
screen, to be approved by the Planning Director, along
the applicable front, side and/or rear property line(s) in
the following circumstances:
(1) 25% increase with a minimum of five feet
when:
(A) Office use district occurs across the
street from a single-family use district,
(B) Commercial use district occurs across
the street from a single-family use district,
(C) Industrial use district occurs adjacent
to an office use district;
(2) 50% increase with a minimum of five feet
when: .
(A) Commercial use district occurs adja-
cent to a multiple -family use district,
(B) Industrial use district occurs across the
street from a single-family or multiple -family use dis-
trict;
(3) Installation of a solid planting screen within
a ten -foot wide landscape strip with a height of five to
eight feet or the construction of a decorative fence, to be
approved by the Planning Department when:
(A) Commercial use district occurs adja-
cent to a single-family use district,
(B) Industrial use district occurs adjacent
to a single-family or multiple -family use district;
(4) Fifteen feet of landscaping shall be provided
when a nonresidential development in a C -M indus-
trial park district abuts residential uses. This landscap-
ing shall be outside of any fence used to prevent access
to the development in a C -M industrial park.
(Ord. 1655 §2, 1993; Ord 1481 §2(1), 1988;
Ord 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.52.040 General landscape and sa'eenins
requirements.
(1) Landscape Architect Required. In the R-2,
R-3, R-4 and RMH zones, a Washington State licensed
landscape architect shall prepare and stamp the
landscape plans in accordance with the standards
herein. -
(2) Coverage Standards. All landscaped areas �---
(including shrub beds) shall achieve 90% live ground
coverage in three years and all areas not occupied by a
building (including surface parking areas) shall achieve .
40% horizontal tree coverage in ten years.
(3) Visibility. The landscaping shall not ob-
struct view from or into the driveway, sidewalk or
street.
(4) Outside Storage Areas. Outdoor storage
shall be screened from abutting public streets and from
adjacent properties. Such screens shall be a minimum
of eight feet high and not less than 60% of the height of
the material stored. Said screens shall be specified on
the plot plan and approved by the Planning Director.
Except in the R-2, R-3, R-4 and RMH zones, where
outdoor storage shall be fully screened from all public
roadways and adjacent parcels with a sight obscuring
structure equal in height to the stored objects and with
exterior landscaping. A top screen cover may be
exempted if the item(s) has a finished top and an
equivalent design quality is maintained. The screening
structure shall reflect building architecture as
determined by the BAR to be appropriate.
(5) Parking Area Perimeter. In the R-2, R-3, R-
4 and RMH zones, all parking areas shall have a
perimeter landscape strip, This strip shall be a mini-
mum of 2 feet wide and have an average 5 -foot width.
(6) Interior landscaping for each distinctly
separate parking area. In the R-2, R-3, R-4 and RMH
zones, landscaping within parking areas shall be
provided as shown below:
(a) For areas with up to 20 parking stalls,
no interior landscaping is required.
(b) For areas with 21 - 40 parking stalls,
the required amount of 'interior landscape area is 7
square feet for each parking stall.
(c) For areas with more than 40 parking
stalls per parking area, the required amount of interior
.landscape area is 12 square feet for each parking stall
(see Multi -Family Design Guidelines, Site Planning
Section, No. 31 for the normal 15 square feet to be
provided).
(d) Planting Standards:
(i) interior planting areas to be
distributed to break up expanses of paving
(ii) minimum size of interior parking
lot planting islands is 100 square feet
(iii) planters to be a minimum of 6 feet
in any direction and generally the length of the adjacent
parking space
(iv) a landscaped area shall be placed at
the end of each interior row in the parking area with
no more than 10 stalls or 90 feet between the
landscape areas
(v) minimum of 1 evergreen or deci-
duous tree per planting area.
(7) Automatic irrigation. In the R-2, R-3, R-4
and RMH zones, all landscape areas shall be served by
an automatic irrigation system. Moisture sensors such
as in -ground sensors and rain check sensors shall. be
installed.
.(8) Utility, Easements. Utility easements and
other similar areas between property lines and curbing.-
shall
urbing.shall be landscaped and/or treated with dust and ero-
sion control planting or surfacing such as evergreens,
groundcover, shrubs, trees, sod or a combination of
similar materials. In areas of overhead transmission
lines, no shrubs or trees over 20 feet at maturity will
be allowed.
(Ord 1655 §2, 1993; Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
• TITLE 18 - ZONING
18.52.050 Landscape plan requirements.
Detailed plans for landscaping and screening shall
be submitted with plans for building and site
improvements. Included in the plans shall be type
and location of plants and materials and the location of
sprinkling systems. Installation of the landscaping and
screening shall be completed prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy or within a reasonable period of
time determined by the Planning Director and stated
on the building permit.
(Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.52.060 Recreation space requirements.
In all R-2, R-3, R-4 and RMH zoning districts, any
proposed multiple -family structure, complex or
development shall provide on the premises and for the
use of the occupants a minimum amount of recreation
space according to the following provisions:
(1) Required Area.
(A) For each proposed dwelling unit in the
multiple -family development, a minimum of 400
square feet of recreation space shall be provided. Any
multiple -family structure, complex or development
shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of total
recreation space;
(B) The front, side and rear yard setback
areas required by the applicable zoning district shall not..
qualify. as recreation space;
(2) -Indoor or Covered Space.
(A) No more than 50% of the required
recreation space may be indoor or covered space;
(B) The Board of Architectural Review
may grant a maximum of two square feet of recreation
space for each one square foot of extensively improved
indoor recreation space provided. Interior facility
improvements would include a full- range of weight
machines, sauna, hot tub, large screen televisionand
the like.
(3) Uncovered Space.
• (A) A minimum of 50% of the total
required recreation space shall be open or uncovered,
up to 100% of the total requirement may be in open or
uncovered recreation space;
(B) Recreation space shall not exceed a 4%
slope in any direction unless it is determined that the
proposed space design clearly facilitates and encourages
the anticipated use as endorsed by the Director.
(C) The Board of Architectural Review
may grant a maximum credit of two square feet of
recreation space for each one square foot of outdoor
pool and surrounding deck area.
(4) General Requirements.
(A) Multiple -family complexes which
provide dwelling units with two _or more bedrooms
shall provide adequate recreation spade for .children
with at least one space for the 5 -to -12 -year old group.
Such space shall be at least 25% but not more than 50%
of the total recreation space required under subsection
Printed December 12, 1994
Paae 18-63
TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE •
(1) above and shall be designated, located and
maintained in a safe condition;
(B) Adequate fencing, plant screening, or
other buffer shall separate the recreation space from
parking areas, driveways or public streets.
(C) The anticipated use of all required
recreation areas shall be specified and designed to
clearly accommodate that use.
(Ord. 1655 §2, 1993; Ord. 1247 §1(part), 1982)
18.52.065 Lighting
In the R-2, R-3, R-4 and RMH zones, porches,
alcoves and pedestrian circulation walkways shall be
provided with low level safety lighting.
(Ord. 1655 §2, 1993)
18.52.070 Recycling storage space for residential uses
Apartment and condominium developments over
six units shall provide 1-1/2 square feet of recycling
storage space per dwelling unit and located in collection
points as follows:
(1) No dwelling unit within the development
shall be more .than 200 feet from a collection point;
(2) Collection points shall be located so that
hauling trucks do not obstruct pedestrian or vehicle
traffic on-site, or project into any public right-of-way;
(3) Collection points shall not be located in any
required setback or landscape area. .
(Ord. 1647 §2, 1992)
18.52.080 Recycling storage space for non-residential
uses.
(a) Recycling storage space for non-residential uses
shall'be provided at. the rate of at least:
(1) Two square feet per every 1,000 square
feet of building gross floor area inoffice, medical,
professional, public facility, school and institutional
developments;
(2) Three square feet per every 1,000 square
feet of building gross floor area in manufacturing,
industrial and other non-residential uses not specifically
mentioned in these requirements;
(3) Five square feet per every 1,000 square
feet of building gross floor area in retail developments.
(b) Outdoor collection points shall not be located in
any required setback or landscape area;
(c) Collection points shall be located in a manner
so that hauling trucks do not obstruct pedestrian or
vehicle traffic on-site, -or project into any public right-of-
way.
(Ord 1647 §3, 1992)
18.52.090 Design of collection points for garbage and
recycling containers
Residential and non-residential collection points
shall be designed as follows:.
(1) An opaque wall or fence of sufficient size
and height to provide complete screening shall enclose
any outside collection point. Architectural design shall
be consistent with the design of the . primary
structure(s) on the site;
(2) Collection points shall be identified by
signs not to exceed two square feet;
(3) Weather protection of recyclables and
garbage shall be ensured by using weather-proof
containers or by providing a roof over the storage area.
(Ord 1647 §4, 1992)
PAnr 18-64
prlr,#m'l fl " mfIcr 11 fl0A