HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E95-0034 - EXTENDED STAY INN AMERICAEXTENDED STAY
INN AMERICA
HOTEL CONSTRUCTION
15451 53RD AVE. SO.
E95-0034
• •
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
``December 1 -December 5 1996
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Comprehensive Plan. Work continued in the preparation of the final (adopted) version of the
Comprehensive Plan for publication. We anticipate having copies available for distribution by mid- to
late January.
Development Regulations. Printing of the adopted version of the Zoning Code was completed this week.
Copies will be distributed internally and available for purchase by the public the week of January 8.
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
`;.Econolodge. A pre -application meeting was held with Mr. Wen Lin and his architect for a proposal to
�demolish-the Airport Motel and build a new motel at that site.
Uncle Stuart's Golf Driving Range. A Determination of Significance was issued for the proposal to build
a driving range adjacent to the Lewis and Clark Theaters. This means that an EIS will have to be
prepared before further action can be taken on the proposal.
Postal Service Facility at Oxbow. Representatives of the Sabey Corporation have informed us that the
Postal Service may have exercised an option to purchase the building, which may result in our loss of
land use authority over the entire project. We are awaiting further word on this matter.
Steve Lancaster, Director
Department of Community Development
DCD Executive Summary 01/08/96 Page 1
Date: 11 -Mar -96 17:06 •
From: RON-C (RON CAMERON)
To: ALEXA
Copies -to: JOANNA
Subject: ESA SEPA
Message -id: 925D443101DEDEDE
Three SEPA items are complete for PW for ESA:
1.
Use the Mar 1 submittal for revised traffic
mitigations, it is calculated correctly for
the increased traffic.
2. Landscaping in the right-of-way is approved with
the condition that it is at owner's risk for
removal or revision that may be required.
3. The drainage is approved in concept and details
of the liner and maintenance schedule will be
detailed with the permit and specific plans.
Architecture and Planning, Inc
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 583-8030 Fax (206) 583-0708
12 February 1996
29 February 1996 Revision
Alexa Berlow
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Extended Stay America Inn - Tukwila
BAR L-95-0063
SEPA E-95-0034
Dear Alexa,
Following is a list of SEPA checklist items modified and added per review with owner.
Amended SEPA Checklist Items - 13 Nov 9s3 *29 Feb 96 Revisions
1. Item B -1-e / page 4 - Modify - Cuts to 8-12 feet.
2. Item B -3-c / page 7 - Modify - No water will run into creek. Water will tight line
down private drive to 53rd Ave. S. to city storm drain after detention and
biofiltration.
3. Item 14-a / page 15 - Modify - Site is serviced by Southcenter Blvd. and 53rd
Ave. S. via a private road with access, egress, and utility easements already
provided in private road for city utilities.
4. Add Item 17 - Water - A 10 inch main will be installed to complete looping the
system along 51st Ave. S. frontage and an upgrade of system on site will be paid
and installed by developer.
5. Add Item 18 - Sewer - $3,679.26 LID assessment for proportionate fair share of
the sewer construction will be paid by developer.
*6. Add Item 19 - Transportation - Traffic fees for trip generation -distribution of
*$5,895.00 will be paid by developer.
•
12 February 1996
Alexa Berlow
Extended Stay America Inn - Tukwila - SEPA
Page Two of Two
7 Add Item 20 - Sidewalk - Sidewalk will be added down the private road for
access to 53rd Ave. S. by developer.
Royce A. Berg, A.I.
President
LPN Architects and Planners
Dan Sterns
Construction .Manager. of Northwest Region
ESA Development, Inc.
1611 116th Ave. NE, Suite 224
Bellevue, WA 98004-3094
RAB:djp
cc: Joanna Spencer, City of Tukwila
LPN Architecture & Planning Inc., Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 4th Ave. So., Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98134 (206)583-8030
•
•
City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
STAFF REPORT
TO THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
Prepared February 16-20, 1996
HEARING DATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
ACREAGE:
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN DESIGNATION:
ZONING DISTRICT:
SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF:
February 22, 1996
EXTENDED STAY INN AMERICA
SEPA - E95-0034
Design Review
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A.
LPN Architects
1201 Fourth Avenue South
Suite 102
Seattle, Washington 98134
To construct a 30,000 square foot 3 -story
hotel consisting of 96 units.
15451 53rd Avenue South
(at Southcenter Boulevard and Highway 518)
Approximately 2.01 acres
Residential Commercial Mixed -Use
RCM - Regional Commercial Mixed -Use
Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS)issued on 2/15/96
Alexa Berlow
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
4'
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan, Drainage, and Parking
B. Exterior elevations, Entry treatment
C. Site Section -Looking North and Entry treatment
D. Site Section -Looking West and Grading
E. Landscape Plan
F. Civil Plan
G. Title #96007
H. Floor Plan (1st Floor)
I. Lighting Plan
J. Mitigated Sidewalk
K. Lighting Design Specifications
L. Signs - Site Plan
M. Signs - Elevations
N. Signs - Elevations
0. Signs - Size
P. Signs - Size
Q. Signs - Size
R. Signs - Color and Size Specs
S. Signs - Color and Size Specs
T. Signs - Color and Size Specs
U. Color Board*
V. Base Stucco Finish*
* To be presented at hearing.
BAR Staff Report
Extended Stay Inn America
Page 2
BAR Staff Report
Extended Stay Inn America
Page 3
VICINITY/SITE INFORMATION
A. Surrounding Land Uses
The site is bordered by Southcenter Boulevard to the north and Highway 518 to the south.
Foster's furniture and other small retail businesses border the east side of the site and west of
the site are single family residences.
B. Existing Development
The site is vacant. It is hilly and slopes from a high of 65% on the north side to 45% and
40% on the south and west sides, with the exception of the far southeast corner of the site
which drops at a slope of 73%.
A creek currently exists on the north side of the site (along Southcenter Boulevard). It is
identified by the city as a Type II watercourse. The current proposal would grade the site
between 8-12 feet.
C. Vegetation
The site is currently covered with deciduous and evergreen trees, grass, and fruit bushes.
Songbirds have been observed near the site. The proposal would remove 12-14 trees along
with grass and weeds. New trees will be added and significant trees and buffer vegetation will
be preserved along the slope bank only.
D. Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct a 30,000 square foot 3 -story hotel consisting of 96 units
and including a 97 -stall parking lot, landscaping, drainage pond and biofiltration swale, 10"
water main, 8' sidewalk, and recreational amenities.
BACKGROUND
Project History
This Proposal has undergone several informal reviews between Planning and Public Works
staff, the project architect, and local contractors. Delays during the SEPA process
(determination required before BAR review) and inconsistent design revision submittals has
delayed the staff report in order to present a clear document of findings and to outline, for the
Board, outstanding issues of concern that will need to be addressed. These issues are
discussed throughout the staff report where appropriate to the multi -family design review
guidelines.
BAR Staff Report
Extended Stay Inn America
Page 4
SEPA Determination
A Determination of non -significance was granted to the project. Concerns for safety along
51st Avenue South drove a decision by the City Engineer to not require the construction of a
sidewalk along 51st Avenue South. The lack of attractions for pedestrian traffic, high speed
automobile traffic from Highway 518, and no foreseeable (20 years or more) pedestrian
facilities planned due to estimated high costs for improvements supported this decision. In lieu
of a sidewalk along 51st Avenue, a sidewalk connecting the site and 53rd Avenue South,
along the east side of the site and main entry point, was recommended.
DECISION CRITERIA
Design approval by the Board of Architectural Review is required and should be reviewed in
coordination with the guidelines, codes, and permits discussed below.
Board of Architectural Review
This project is subject to BAR review as required under TMC 18.26.070 for commercial
structures 5,000 square feet or larger in the Residential Commercial Mixed -Use (RCMU)
zone. Multi -family review guidelines are applicable as provided by TMC 18.60.055.
Residential Commercial Mixed-Use(RCMU)
The Residential Commercial Mixed -Use zone is intended to provide for areas characterized by
commercial services, offices, lodges, entertainment, and retail activities with associated
warehousing, and accessory light industrial uses, along a transportation corridor and intended
for high intensity regional uses. The zone standards are intended to promote attractive
development, an open and pleasant street appearance, and compatibility with adjacent
residential areas.
The proposed hotel meets RCMU basic development standards for lot area per unit, setbacks
from property lines, height, landscaping, recreational space. All parking will remain on site.
Multi -Family Design Guidelines
The new zoning code for the City of Tukwila (adopted December 4, 1995) stipulates that the
Board of Architectural Review shall use the multi -family review guideline section in its
decision making on hotels and motels (See Tukwila Municipal Code 18.60.053-55). This
project is also subject to Board review as a multi -family development under TMC
18.60.030(2)(b).
Due to the length of both criteria, the attached BAR review guidelines for multi -family (TMC
18.60.053) as a reference to design criteria.
FINDINGS
(1) Site Planning
BAR Staff Report
Extended Stay Inn America
Page 5
(a) Site planning, building design, landscape/site treatment, and miscellaneous structures are
identified as key features of an overall multi -family design plan and are therefore intended to
be reviewed together as a site planning system.
The proposed development of the site is at odds with the existing topographic features of the
site. The site slopes from the northwest to the southeast, yet drainage is proposed to be piped
to the northeast corner. The City Engineer approved a detention pond and bioswale
modification to the original proposal to direct drainage to the south (refer to comments in
SEPA file E-95-0034).
(b) The proposal would remove 12-14 trees along with grass and weeds. Some new trees will
be added and buffer vegetation will be preserved along the slope bank only Located on the
east side the site. (See items 3b -d for discussion of proposed landscaping.)
(c) Some provisions have been made to use landscaping and building shapes in a manner that
facilitates pedestrian circulation. The Parks and Recreation Director advised that a picnic
bench appropriately located would offset employee and guest demands on local recreational
facilities and be an advantage for the site. It could be incorporated into the natural features of
the site.
(d) There has been concern about the lack of ways in which the entry facade and building
orientation do not take full advantage of the site's views. Following several informal review
and negotiation periods between the architect and planning staff, the proposed plans have been
changed to provide a stronger entry: The building entry portal now relates to the entry and the
building behind as well; the office window and entry are no longer hidden behind the
structural pile as was proposed in early phases of this plan; and, an entry plaza with
coordinated landscaping now works to create a more defined entrance to the site and building.
As per SEPA determination comments, a sidewalk will be constructed along the south side of
the driveway entry to the site. The sidewalk is the only pedestrian pathway that links the site
to surrounding land uses.
(e) Vehicular entry points and interior circulation design are contained within the site and are
clear of possible intersection with nearby streets.
(f) Landscaping treatment is planned for the entire perimeter of the site. Focal areas include
the northeast and southeast corners of the site, where site geography is heavily sloped.
(g) Addressed in items (2) (a -e).
BAR Staff Report
Extended Stay Inn America
Page 6
(h) Parking does not include features that interrupt or reduce the visual impact of large paved
areas. There are no service areas proposed on this site.
(i) See following item (2) (a -e).
(2) Building Design
(a) See item (e).
(b) See item (e).
(c) See item (e).
(d) The proposed color scheme succeeds in minimizing the building's prominence. It also
succeeds in helping to blend the structure into the natural environment through the application
of different shades of beige and green.
(e) The hotel proposal meets basic development standards for multi -family design. However,
there has been question as to whether the proposed site design succeeds in meeting the intent
of the multi -family development policy, specifically in relation to measures to reduce
"monotonous design in single or multiple building projects."
(3) Landscape and Site Treatment
(a -b) The proposed landscape plan will incorporate existing features of the natural landscape,
particularly on the east side of the site.
(c -d) The proposal currently allocates over 75% of surface space to parking. Landscape or
structural treatments have not been provided to help separate public from private spaces,
strengthen vistas and important views, provide shade, nor to break up visual mass. Instead,
walkways remain adjacent to the building as primary pathways to guest rooms and to parking
along the periphery of the building.
(4) Miscellaneous Structures
(a) Seating at the entry of the building and a picnic bench at the south end of the site are
designed as an integral part of the site plan. Materials are compatible with building scale and
color scheme.
(b) Trash and recycling receptacles have been appropriately screened.
(c) N/A. Mechanical equipment will not be used on the site.
BAR Staff Report
Extended Stay Inn America
Page 7
(d) An exterior lighting site plan and lighting design specifications have been submitted.
However, illustrative guidelines showing the impact of glare on adjacent land uses has not
been submitted. Current site plans do not demonstrate their function as an integral part of
building architecture.
(e) Hotels are allowed one sign per side (four (4) total). This hotel's classification as a
highway business also allows one free-standing sign and one temporary sign, for a total of six
(6) signs per site.
The applicant proposes to install eight (8) signs: five (5) building signs, two (2) free-standing
signs and one (1) temporary sign.
Sign Code guidelines were reviewed with the applicant. However, changes were not
incorporated into the plans and specifications submitted for review by the Board.
CONCLUSIONS
Site Planning:
Design and maintenance of the detention pond and bioswale will need to comply with
the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual. Final approval by the Department
of Public Works will be necessary.
High quality focal points are lacking in the overall plan, i.e., sidewalk and connections
to small commercial developments east of the site, and augmenting planting along the
west end of the site.
Building Design:
Several informal reviews were held to discuss the proposed design with the architect
and contractor to modify the building design. It was agreed that revisions would
include lowering the height of awnings at the front entrance and modulating the
roofline, particularly on the north and south sides of the building, as measures to
reduce the impact of the building's bulk and scale. Revisions only met modifications
to the entry (as exhibited in section drawings). Revisions to the roofline were not
submitted by the agreed-upon deadline (February 15th).
Landscape and Site Treatment:
The west side of the site could be augmented to create a stronger buffer between the
hotel and adjacent single family structures, particularly since the decision not to
require the construction of a sidewalk along 51st Avenue South.
BAR Staff Report
Extended Stay Inn America
Page 8
Landscaping and structural elements could be added to help strengthen pedestrian
circulation and create links between private and public spaces.
Miscellaneous Structures:
Despite several requests by planning staff for day and night-time illustrative plans
showing the impact of glare on surrounding land uses, no materials have been
submitted to sufficiently evaluate exterior lighting standards.
The proposed signage does not meet Sign Code requirements.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed project with conditions. If
the Board wishes to review the revisions, they should say so in their motion, otherwise the
revisions will be subject to approval by the DCD Director.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. Building Mass and Scale
The following revisions will need to be made:
a. Modification of roofline as a measure to reduce building bulk and better
integrate the architectural design into the character and scale of the
surrounding area.
b. Modification of north and south facades by lowering awnings or pediment
features to the same or comparable level as revised entry.
2. Landscape and Site Treatment
It is recommended that the applicant modify the proposed site scheme to include features that
encourage and facilitate pedestrian circulation to, from, and within the site. The following
improvements will need to be made:
a. Create additional high quality focus areas along the sidewalk, including
connections to existing small commercial development to the east of the site.
b. Create additional landscape areas on the west side of the site along
51st Avenue South to create a stronger buffer between the hotel and single
family land uses.
BAR Staff Report
Extended Stay Inn America
Page 9
3. Miscellaneous Structures
a. An illustrative exterior lighting scheme that includes measures for evaluating
the impact of glare on adjacent properties.
b. The building signs are currently proposed for two on two sides and one on the
south facing facade, and four of the five signs are proposed to be mounted on
the roof of the building. These roof signs and one freestanding sign are not
allowable and will need to be revised prior to approval of any sign permits.
AFFIDAVIT
I, 6')i -V A M9J1A�LL pj
Notice of
n Notice of
Board of
Packet
O Board of
Packet
Planning
Packet
Public Hearing
Public Meeting
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
Commission Agenda
0 Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
O Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
0 Shoreline Management Permit
OF DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
Determination of Non-
significance
Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
Notice of Action
Official Notice
Other
Other
was mailed to each of the following addresses on 2-' 1(p -ci(0 .
PL�J 5"e>E_ A ACi-E' 90E7r
Name of Project�be-b0`� NOSignature
File Number E.61GE - Oa34
• •
City of Tukwila Determination of Nonsignificance has been mailed to the following
addresses on 2-16-96.
Royce Berg, A.I.A.
LPN Architecture & Planning, Inc.
1201 Fourth Avenue South - Suite 102
Seattle, Wa 98134
Environmental Review Section
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Raymond Frey, Vice President
ESA Development, Inc.
1611 - 116th Avenue NE - Suite 224
Bellevue, WA 98004-3094
Dan Sterns, Construction Manager
Extended Stay America
1611 -.116th Avenue NE
Bellevue, WA 98004-3024
City of Tukwila
Public Works Department
(via interoffice mail)
•
AFFIDAVIT
I, Sy01 IN MCS U L t \
Notice of
Notice of
O Board of
Packet
Board of
Packet
[]Planning
Packet
fl Short Subdivision Agenda
Packet
[]Notice of Application for
Shoreline Management Permit
QShoreline Management Permit
Public Hearing
Public Meeting
Adjustment Agenda
Appeals Agenda
Commission Agenda
OF DISTRIBUTION
hereby declare that:
Xpetermination of Non-
significance
fl Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance
Determination of Significance
and Scoping Notice
Notice of Action
00f ficial Notice
Other
0 Other
was .xna e4 to each of the following
dab
A QU.E.►�1
-t'I AA -S
addresses on Z " 1L2 " .
Name of Project bTh. li) 4TM Signature f cl 1 1u
File Number E.-(Al7 ' CliCYLA
•
•
CITY OF TUKWILA
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
CONSTRUCTION OF A 90 UNIT EFFICIENCY HOTEL
PROPONENT: ROYCE BERG
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY:
ADDRESS:
PARCEL NO:
SEC/TWN/RNG:
LEAD AGENCY:
15451 53 AV S
115720-0031
23/23/24
CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E95-0034
The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable
significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental
impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c).
This decision was made after review of a completed environmental
checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information is available to thepublic on request.
**********************************.*****************************************
•
This determination is final and signed this
199{ .
C-)AWLIetcArervccr
Steve Lancaster, Responsib - official
City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3680
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
day of ,FE6 �y
You may appeal this determination to the City Clerk at City Hall, 6200
Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 no later than 10 days from the
above signature date by written appeal stating the basis of the appeal for
specific factual objections. You may be required 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: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/SHORELINE PERMIT MAILINGS
FEDERAL AGENCIES
( )U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
( )FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
( )DEPT. OF INTERIOR -FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
WASHINGTON
( )U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
( )U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.U.D. (REGION X)
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
N TUKWILA CITY DEPARTMENTS:
4.)PUBLIC WORKS ( ) FIRE
( )POLICE ( )FINANCE
( )PLANNING ( )BUILDING
( )PARKS AND ORECREATION
( )TUKWILA MAYOR
( )DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES
( )DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SHORELANDS DIVISION
)DEPT. OF ECOLOGY, SEPA DIVISION*
)DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
( )OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
*SEND CHECKLIST WITH DETERMINATIONS AND
*SEND SITE MAPS WITH DECISION
RING 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
UTILITIES
( )PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT
( )VAL-VUE SEWER DISTRICT
( )WATER DISTRICT #20
( )WATER DISTRICT #125
( )CITY OF RENTON PUBLIC WORKS
( )RAINIER VISTA
( )SKYWAY
CITY AGENCIES
( )RENTON PLANNING 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
( )MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
( )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 Determination (3 -part form from Sierra)
Findings (staff report, usu. with MDNS)
SEPA Checklist (filled out by applicant)
Any background studies related to impacts on shoreline
Notice of Application
Affidavit of Distribution (notice was mailed & sent to newspaper)
Affidavit of Publication (notice was published in newspaper).
CITY OF T U K W I L A
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
CONSTRUCTION OF A 90 !SNIT EFFICIENCY HOTEL
PROPONENT: ROYCE BERT=
LOCATION OF PRopu':,:L.,JAMOD"ING S.TREEi ADDRES' 'WAM-:
`
,0.:,,---1 n' ' I 1 / I 1
ADDRESS: 15451::=_,3 AV 14$•..ii \\ '�I G'`-'`, 1' ',
PARCEL NO: 5=?20003'1_., -- t . .
SEC., TWN/RNlz:./fi .,1 24, .!' o .. , o j
LEAD R ENC.Y C.I�i�Y OF'TIEf:'�'ILA� °� fi FILE NO:`s'E'9`y O3 ll
ff�� r
4 d / .
The
t ) \'
The City 3 , d,e"te?'iii i nee) that. tl .e p?'__,Do J'' doe not i ave a p,r„:bbas i e
iQnif irp A ad'(&.,�e't'' e ripac.t it the envifonment. An ei's'J!ii?`t ITta
impact ' #rear ¶ e'm.e 61_ , (E IIS 1 i ,i•i t r e cf uii li.,,�i.J Pfd a r RCW 4r _i . } 1 t.�. O 3 ±a( c
This decii-:1/ oii wa: rn de att'tl r,ev;' w of a1 completed envir'onmen'ta1
�, �Tc �Y.� ;
checl::1 i ltf/arbde-..u_t.f��e into,r na-t on on t i 1e---'�wit"h\,the lead agency-=-"Tir:i:S
informat,iiion i ava-i 1ahJre to tih•e l.i;ub1 i.c'.;oii/reaue•.t.
k' i it Nt' 'I 1;°.. h.' .:i>' ' °'/ ,, ,> tom-",,
45 r I y -•; g t 3:
;4 :4 •4 •4 •4 ;4 •A' 4l k 4 A :4 4 ; 4• :4 ;4 '4 4 ;r *4 4. 4-4. V- 4 ;h.A.-.h,*/,, 4 .4 ,i'-'4 4g.:4..4' 4 A\A. ' * 4 i 1 A;. A.-4 •4^4 A..4. L 4.:4 **kJ* - 4 :4 44
j�� j'�� -` , J •v T7e .i .rte ,\ yF
Thisde tei-ml1na;t ion` i 'f{'a.na41 tan`i ")24.1ned t=his
1990 . ' 1 ';', i ` - ." ',I. �' _, . �' !- %.(�' , ' .. "` `.
Steve Lanca. ter. Responsible Off icia11,
City of Tu4:.w :ia. ,X206))„431-3680 Hr
: �: ,.1
6. 0) Southce �tler Br�Ul•eva; d:, - 1. i::t
Tukwila, WA. 3
�91LY3. <_•
\'.. ,, - ." , -:(7_..:i,,.
You may appeal 411:S,determination to the i:.ity Clerk at i_:i:ty%;=Ha11.
`�Youthcenter• Boulevard Tukwi 1a. iWA= k ?C1 `,no late? than _10 day from the
above signature date-'iy.V; _wi' i tteri ;dL De'ail 3tat;inu the ba's:i.:'�L4
ut the appeal forfo
specific factual obi1ee tYoll `ma�v'.be ?'eciuir':.ec1" to'6rCar some of the
expenses for an appeal. �'`-:'7^--_..
6200
Copies 6f the procedures for SEPA arae+r41 s are available with the City
Clerk and Department of Community Development .
City of Tuk',vila John W. Rants, Mayor
Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE
February 13, 1996
SEPA APPLICATION #: E95-0034
Re: Extended Stay Inn
Decision: Determination of Non -Significance (DNS)
THIS SEPA APPLICATION IS NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSED.
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENTS
OF PLANNING, PUBLIC WORKS, FIRE, AND PARKS AND RECREATION. A
DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE WAS GRANTED TO THE PROJECT UPON
COMMENTS MADE BY PUBLIC WORKS TO THE APPLICANT ON FEBRUARY 12, 1996
FOLLOWING A MEETING AT THE CITY OF TUKWILA OFFICES. FOLLOWING IS A LIST
OF COMMENTS MADE BY PUBLIC WORKS FEBRUARY 12, 1996 FOLLOWING FINAL
REVIEW OF REVISED MATERIALS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR SEPA REVIEW:
WATER
A 10 inch main will complete looping the system along 51 Ave S between 51 Ave S &
Klickitat and 51 Ave S/S 144 St to serve these properties including Extended Stay.
Mitigation for the additional water system demand is for Extended Stay to construct this piece
(approximately 250 feet) along part of the Extended Stay frontage and be included with
upgrading the existing system on site that will be relocated with the building construction.
Easements will be needed for the new waterline location.
SEWER
$3,679.26 LID assessment for proportionate fair share of the sewer construction; same
requirement provided to American Med Tech and other previous developers of this parcel.
DRAINAGE
Drainage design details are being addressed with the Geotechnical Engineers soils report
(received February 8, 1996). The drainage design and detention construction details will
need to comply with King County SWM Design Manual, standards and Geotechnical
Engineering report recommendations. Additional geotechnical information may be required
as additional design and construction information is developed.
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431, 3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
TRANSPORTATION
Extended Stay affects the following intersections based on the peak hour distribution
(received Feb 5) and proportionate mitigations are as follows:
SouthcenterPkWy/Strander increase to 2010 is 954 trips and improvement cost is
$134,000. The prorated share is$140/trip. 9 peak hour trips mitigation is $1,260.
SouthcenterPkWy/S 168 St increase to 2010 is 899 trips and improvement cost is
$250,000. The prorated share is
$278/trip. 3 peak hour trips mitigation is $834.
Andover Park E/Baker increase to 2010 is 663 trips and improvement cost is
$250,000. The prorated share is
$377/trip. 2 peak hour trips mitigation is $754.
Andover Park E/Strander increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour trips and improvement
cost is $94,000. The prorated share is $135/trip. 5 peak hour trips mitigation is
$675.
SouthcenterPkWy/Minkler increase to 2010 is 907 peak hour trips and improvement
cost is $122,903. The prorated share is $136/trip. 3 peak hour trips mitigation is
$408.
Andover Pk W/Minkler increase to 2010 is 1360 peak hour
trips and improvement cost is $121,500. The prorated share is $89/trip. 6 peak
hour trips mitigation is $534.
* PM peak hours are used in the traffic study; noon peaks are used for the CBD
because they are typically 10% higher. The SouthcenterPkWy/Strander 8 trips was
increased to 9 and the AndoverPkE/Strander was increased to 6 by adding that
10% in the preceding calculations.
The total traffic mitigations are $4,465.
Sidewalk, curb, and putter required by ordinance on 51 Ave S is to be foregone: 51
Ave S connects to the SR518 freeway to the west and Klickitat where there are no
attractions for pedestrian traffic, there's high speed traffic, and no foreseeable (20
or more years) pedestrian facilities planned, 51 Ave S to the north is narrow, has
abrupt edges along the east side, and has no attractions for pedestrian traffic, and
extremely expensive street/pedestrian improvements are not foreseen in the next
20 years, so that encouraging pedestrian traffic along the Extended Stay frontage
would be a significant safety concern for their pedestrian traffic and other
pedestrian traffic. In lieu of the 51 Ave S sidewalk, curb, and gutter, a sidewalk
connecting the site and 53 Ave S along one side of the access street is
recommended as mitigation. It will serve pedestrian traffic between the site and
pedestrian attractions along Southcenter Blvd, bus service, and other destinations.
END
FEB 13 '96 12:19 LPN ARCHITECTS (206)583-0708
•
ARCHITECTURE. & PLANNING, INC.
ROYCE A. BERG, A.I,A, PRINCIPAL
Y. KEN CHIN, PRINCIPAL
1201 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 102
SEATTLE, WA 88134
•
P.1/3
RECEIVED
FEB 13 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
PHONE (206) 583-8030
FAX (206) 583-0708
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
k 660.10
DATE: a N
TIME: 9ce
�
FAX NUMBER: 43 k Ydt
COMPANY: car;``''1 (t
AMA
PROJECT NO: ,50a
NO. OF PAGES:
PROJECT:
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WILL/WILL NOT BE SENT BY MAIL
I go w PA)
piNtw ¥ieiq fr tA�
FROM: Pett(
SENT BY:
If you do not receive the indicated pages, please call (206) 583-8030.
4IL
•
•
RECEIVED
oir51./, -elit&130 Paf(AM55
—Ells 1 3 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
96. ET E33
RECEIVED
FEB.13 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
WATER
Extended Stay Inn SEPA Comments
Ron Cameron, City Engineer
February 12, 1996
SEPA comments
A 10 inch main will complete looping the system along 51
Ave S between 51 Ave S & Klickitat and 51 Ave S/S 144 St to
serve these properties including Extended Stay.
Mitigation for the additional water system demand is for
Extended Stay to construct this piece (approximately 250
feet) along part of the Extended Stay frontage and be
included with upgrading the existing system on site that
will be relocated with the building construction.
Easements will be needed for the new waterline location.
SEWER
$3,679.26 LID assessment for proportionate fair share of the
sewer construction; same requirement provided to American
Med Tech and other previous developers of this parcel.
DRAINGAGE
Drainage design details are being addressed with the Geo
Engineers soils report that was received February 8, 1996.
The drainage design and detention construction details will
need to comply with King County SWM Design Manual standards
and Geo Engineering report recommendations. Additional
geotechnical information may be required as additional
design and construction information is developed.
TRANSPORTATION
Extended Stay affects the following intersections based on
the peak hour distribution * (received Feb 5) and
proportionate mitigations are:
SouthcenterPkWy/Strander increase to 2010 is 954 trips
andimprovement cost is $134,000. The prorated share
is$140/trip. 9 peak hour trips mitgation is $1,260.
SouthcenterPkWy/S 168 St increase to 2010 is 899 trips
and improvement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is
$278/trip. 3 peak hour trips mitgation is $834.
Andover Park E/Baker increase to 2010 is 663 trips and
improvement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is
$377/trip. 2 peak hour trips mitgation is $754.
Andover Park E/Strander increase to 2010 is 694 peak
hour trips and improvement cost is $94,000. The
prorated share is $135/trip. 5 peak hour trips mitgation
is $675.
SouthcenterPkWy/Minkler increase to 2010 is 907 peak
hour trips and improvement cost is $122,903. The
prorated share is $136/trip. 3 peak hour trips mitgation
is $408.
Andover Pk W/Minkler increase to 2010 is 1360 peak hour
trips and improvement cost is $121,500. The prorated
share is $89/trip. 6 peak hour trips mitgation is $534.
* PM peak hours are used in the traffic study; noon
peaks are used for the CBD because they are typically
10% higher. The SouthcenterPkWy/Strander 8 trips was
increased to 9 and the AndoverPkE/Strander was increased
to 6 by adding that 10% in the preceding calculations.
The total traffic mitigations are $4,465.
Sidewalk, curb, and gutter required by ordinance on 51
Ave S is to be foregone: 51 Ave S connects to the SR518
freeway to the west and Klickitat where there are no
attractions for pedestrian traffic, there's high speed
traffic, and no foreseeable (20 or more years)
pedestrian facilities planned, 51 Ave S to the north is
narrow, has abrupt edges along the east side, and has no
attractions for pedestrian traffic, and extremely
expensive street/pedestrian improvements are not
foreseen in the next 20 years, so that encouraging ped
traffic along the Extended Stay frontage would be a
significant safety concern for their pedestrian traffic
and other pedestrian traffic. In lieu of the 51 Ave S
sidewalk, curb, and gutter, a sidewalk connecting the
site and 53 Ave S along one side of the access street is
recommended as mitigation. It will serve ped traffic
between the site and pedestrian attactions along
Southcenter Blvd, bus service, and other destinations.
Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 583-8030 Fax (206) 583-0708
12 February 1996
Alexa Berlow
Planning Department
City of Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Extended Stay America Inn - Tukwila
BAR L-95-0063
SEPA E-95-0034
Dear Alexa,
Following is a list of SEPA checklist items modified and added per review with owner.
Amended SEPA Checklist Items - 13 Nov 95
1. Item B -1-e / page 4 - Modify - Cuts to 8-12 feet.
2. Item B -3-c / page 7 - Modify - No water will run into creek. Water will tight line
down private drive to 53rd Ave. S. to city storm drainiafter detention and
biofiltration.
3. Item 14-a / page 15 - Modify - Site is serviced by Southcenter Blvd. and 53rd
Ave. S. via a private road with access, egress, and utility easements already
provided in private road for city utilities.
4. Add Item 17 - Water - A 10 inch main will be installed to complete looping the
system along 51st Ave. S. frontage and an upgrade of system on site will be paid
and installed by developer.
5. Add Item 18 - Sewer - $3,679.26 LID assessment for proportionate fair share of
the sewer construction will be paid by developer.
6. Add Item 19 - Transportation - Traffic fees for trip generation -distribution of
$4,465.00 will be paid by developer.
12 February 1996
Alexa Berlow
Extended Stay America Inn - Tukwila - SEPA
Page Two of Two
7. Add Item 20 - Sidewalk - Sidewalk will be added down the private road for
access to 53rd Ave. S. by developer.
Royce A. Berr , A.I.A.
President
LPN Architects and Planners
Dan Sterns
Construction Manager of Northwest Region
ESA Development, Inc.
1611 116th Ave. NE, Suite 224
Bellevue, WA 98004-3094
RAB:djp
cc: Joanna Spencer, City of Tukwila
LPN Architecture & Planning Inc., Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 4th Ave. So., Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98134 (206)583-8030
1
Architecture and Planning, Inc..:..
�.r
Royce A. Berg; A.I.A., 1201 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 102 .Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 583-8030 Fax (206) 583-0708
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dan Sterns
ESA Development, Inc.
1611 116th Ave. NE, Ste. 224
Bellevue, WA 98004-3094
RE: ESA - TUKWILA DRAINAGE ISSUES
BAR L-95-0063
S E PA E-95-0034
VIA FAX: (206) 453-7655
DATE: 2/9/96
PROJECT: ESA - Tukwila
PROJECT NO: 95024
Per review with Alexa at the City of Tukwila, BAR will be moved to March to finalize
SEPA. SEPA comments and review have not been returned to Planning Dept. by
Public Works. Public Works SEPA issues relate to drainage, soils investigation and
trip generation distribution and their review of resubmitals. BAR cannot meet without
SEPA determination which requires fifteen (15) days notice of determination. SEPA
determination is expected to be nonsignificant with mitigation items.
We are attempting to process SEPA with amended check list to meet items of concern
so SEPA could be a clean declaration of nonsignificance. This would mean you would
accept mitigation items early in a check list, if we can determine the mitigation from
Public Works.
Royce A. Berg
RECEIVED
FEB 131996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Extended Stay Inn America
February 6, 1996
SEPA Review Meeting
Planning: Alexa Berlow, Gary Schulz
Public Works: Joanna Spencer, Phil Fraser
Items to be Discussed:
1. geotechnical report
2. grading and drainage plan
SEPA or under Stormwater Design Ordinance?
3. traffic study, easements, and sidewalks
4. 40% tree coverage requirements
5. recreational amenities
6. others?
Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 583-8030 Fax (206) 583-0708
6 February 1996
Alexa Berlow
City of Tukwila Planning Department
6200 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Extended Stay America Inn •
SEPA E-95-0034
BAR L-95-0063
Dear Alexa,
Revised plans were delivered with reductions and signing exhibits to City of Tukwila,
2/5/96.
Additional plan from ALTA survey p. 6 was also included which shows easements for
access, egress -and. utilities :down the private road to 53rd. Ave., which you mentioned
was a concern with Public Works and Joanna will want to review.
Additional traffic and distribution were forwarded to you and Joanna Spencer, as was
the soils investigation update.
,,,An updated colored presentation per your request will be provided before the BAR
meeting, color board has been submitted.
Per our conversation, items not being required by the city:
No sidewalk improvements at 51st Ave.
No 40% horizontal tree coverage.
Storm drainage on site is not contrary to slopes on site. Site slopes to north on 25% of
site, slopes to east on 40% of site and to southeast on 35% of site. Site drainage has
been placed in less conspicuous locations to adjacent parcels and water quality
incorporated into landscaping. Drainage to creek has been relocated per City of
Tukwila's request and is tight lined down the private access road to 53rd Ave.
RECEIVED
FEB 0 9 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
6 February 1996
Alexa Berlow
Extended Stay America Inn
Page Three of Four
—`r 6.
vuot °vi4. ) ewe 1014.t,tcA&rvi
Main entrance to building has been revised to a formal stair case with plaza
landings for seating and newspaper vending areas in a convenient location to
office.
Ca, 4
7. No sidewalk is required at 51st Ave., as it does not go anywhere and is a rural
type road. No access is provided to this area and no road access is allowed by
Washington State Department of Transportation.
8. Parking lot grades have been reduce to 5% or less and site access grades are
below 15% in grade (See sheets A-4, A-5).
Pedestrian transitions to building from parking have been added. Transition to
adjacent properties have not been installed because of remote location and no
access walks exist at adjacent facilities.
10. Vehicular entryway is off a private road at the end of a culdesac with landscaped
highlights at entryway.
11. On-site parking is evenly distributed around building to reduce large areas of
asphalt and distribute access points and parking allocation for units.
12. Perimeter landscaping allows visual access to site, yet maintains some buffer of
facility. Existing significant trees in R/W areas provide buffers of building in
relation to hillside from distant views. Significant trees removed on site are
replaced per city standards. Preserved trees are noted.
Architectural Design
04) t,tr .':0,, / •CAA. ph i"' •
1. Building design takes normal flat roof and adds sloped roofs to relate to
residential theme and sloped site. Additional modulation is provided by moving
stairs outside building frame and covering with sloped roofs with articulated
columns.
2. Height of building and scale do not impose on hillside and sloped roofs add
visual transition to cap or terminate roof lines. Multiple entry - stair access
points provide relief in massing and identity for access points.
v'e "4,,.a
X41
PVC
LPN Architecture & Planning Inc., Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 4th Ave. So., Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98134 (206)583-8030
• •
6 February 1996
Alexa Berlow
Extended Stay America Inn
Page Two of Four
Site Location
1. Site exists on sloped site west and north of freeway interchange of 1-5 and SR -
518. Site has a flat area running longitudinally north and south, most of the
length of the site.
❑ Property to the west is 51st Ave., (freeway off ramp and 51st Ave. bridge).
❑ Property to the North below the slope bank is Southcenter Boulevard and
existing office buildings. The creek is at the bottom of this bank.
❑ Property to the east, 1 -story retail office buildings, a private road and
Foster's Furniture retail building.
❑ Property to the south is SR -518.
2. No residential houses are directly adjacent this property.
3. Existing significant trees occur at perimeter of property in right of way areas
which substantially buffer project from SR -518 and Southcenter Boulevard.
4. Natural features at slope bank to north of property and creek are to be
maintained with significant vegetation preserved at steep slopes. Detention
basin is added at flatter section at the east of this area.
Site Plan
1.Building is sited parallel with main slope of site and set down from 51st Street to \,
reduce apparent height of building from uphill properties. e N-�"Iro,,`
2. Landscaped plaza has been provided with a picnic table at the southeast corner
of the building for guest and employee use per city request.—? ►.t,
() 3. Supplemental landscaping has been added to meet code requirements and
enhance the remaining property lines.
4. Loading area is provided, 10' X 30', on west side of building.
5. Trash and recycling areas are provided and enclosed on the north side of
building. Recycling area is 3 s.f. per 1000 s.f. building.
LPN Architecture & Planning Inc., Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 4th Ave. So., Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98134 (206)583-8030
• •
6 February 1996
Alexa Berlow
Extended Stay America Inn
Page Four of Four
3. Architectural design with sloped roofs and entrance canopy provides articulation
and interest to break up building. Patterned windows, open railings, and
patterned doors provide a residential scale and visual relief. Soft colors of beige
and green tones are natural and blend with hillside.
4. No mechanical equipment is located on roofs, satellite dish is integrated into
landscaping.
5. Exterior lighting highlights staircases, exterior access balconies and pole lights,
light entry drive and remote parking for security.
Royce A. Be
President
LPN Architects and Planners
RAB:djp
cc: Joanna Spencer, City of Tukwila
Dan Sterns, ESA Development
LPN Architecture & Planning Inc., Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 4th Ave. So., Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98134 (206)583-8030
Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 583-8030 Fax (206) 583-0708,
2 February 1996
Joanna Spencer
Associate Engineer
City of Tukwila
Public Works
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Extended Stay America Inn
SEPA E-95-0034
BAR L-95-0063
Dear Joanna,
Per your request, attached is traffic P.M. distribution report as part of your SEPA
review for this project.
Respectfully,
Royce A. Ber71/
g
President
LPN Architects and Planners
RAB:djp
Attachment
VIA FAX & MAIL
cc: Alexa Berlow/Moira Carr Bradshaw, City of Tukwila Planning Dept. I/
Dan Sterns, ESA Development
RECEIVED
FEB 0 5 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• •
381 - 129th Place- NE ** Bellevue, WA 98005 ** Phone/Fax (206) 454-6307
DATE: February 1, 1996
TO: Royce A. Berg, LPN
FROM: Jim Mac.Isaac pin
SUBJECT: Extended Stagy Inn -- Estimated PM Peak Hour Traffic Distribution
The proposed Extended Stay Inn is being planned as a place of ove:ni'?ht stay for business peo-
ple. It will provide 90 overnight guest rooms; and it is hoped to capture a 70° o overall annual
occupancy factor. The project can best be described as: ca Business I-Io?tel for purpose:; of traffic
generation estimates.
Trip generation estimates for a Business Hotel (Land Use 312) are found on pages 539-548 of
Trip Generation, 5th Edition. Institute of Transportation E ncJne i's. It is cautioned that Iinding
for a business hotel are based o'. a Very small member of caS , Studies. However, the findings
appear to be reasonably appropriate, compared to sii�?hay higher i'!i? `'�llclatiot rates for the
C
typical suburban Motel (Land Use 320). The Extended Stay Inn is estimated to generate trips
a rate of 7.27 vehicle trips per dav per occupied room, and 0.62 tips per ,,c:u'ie:! room during
the afternoon connuter peak hour. For 9(Vr:st rci?:, 70" Occupancy, estimated
annual average day trips would be 460 per day, and 40 trip during the P\l peak (lour.
An estimated distribution of the 40 PM Esc^h hour trips is shown on idle attachment hereto. :it is
estimated that some business guests will use the inn as a hub for business !i".ps in the four free-
way itas a base for local ilii] irless isitalicns in the greater
\cay directions. Othoars will use ..
Southcenter area. Some PM peak hour trips will be a sociat.ed with local e:1ii.'� and drinking
establishments, ai?d other support services in the Soutl;c:enter area. A peak hour trips will be
made by hotel employees, assumed to be inostly housed in the Cit; of Tukwila.
James W. Macisaac - 1196
j«n:\TCKHOTE2.DOC
1 f.
.
11
e is V r4I1
.1 •
•,(
Itr-• ••••
--- • • '•
. .. •
t .
f t;:.• '
t • • •
• •,:,.) ;t i
S I. 52,0)
North iS'il";.• !•".
---0.:-.)
--....__•..._•- • • : * ; ,.."4-;•, a
? . VI
...!
3c 1 , p• J .
s i ..,, :i ,.ey: k .„-. \
53ici _ .. )......
.' • ;\ r ` T
\ rl,k1— 1 - • • — 1 0 11 I A
Bo. °
LinFmnyvv,,3.?...;
; 1\
r'2,1
••••••-:••
s w•• 7, 5€71 S7
!
.f .
.7- _.•"JV.
•.r
,
I 1 •"` ...; -
1 11/4 7.'
:...... ...
- • 7, :
r . ...• , ... .
ST
:.•-•41;:,1 FAQ;
• kr •-..• 1,1
1
)
9
•
•••••• • •-4
r. • , "".
.3! • • .4: %,•-•
. .'/
t
• r: It
cif)
•
iwecarej •
revrisci
17;)
i . 1 1 ; 'A '4 ......,;..3.!•• ,
I : tillostso• • .
..• , .
.........M.N....
1
.:.... i.....'' ......,.....1.4“V ...!! ./1 I . ., \
'•
. , I ...; C7.
Q Sail frK:E- I: it -144 ! i .11.41. (-11. I iN 00 • • , 'r i
1 i---1. \`12.• ."'•7,. f lie
E1\11 'Jr
;
11
L., •
/
•••• ft,
Pr WI? lOtr
C'ef
a: e.
•
11. Cr.P.Cf/RATI nc.
U.A N •
• ;-1: cu
47, f Alf ' I
J.•
I
I
:01
•
• ..•
• it. • • r v;.*:
•
cs. • I.
wommemegpmmiy.ftamegammo•cirectera
•
. I
• •••••
• ;
• • -
MI WM MC MD a filla 5 was vel WA v IN raft Mai Vin DOW at GOO MMI WWI MO AI MO SOO OM fl a OINIO 1001 EMU IMO ISM IOINO WI ONO CM NZ5 WM
Extended Stay Inn - Design Review
Summary of Issues
January 30, 1996
BACKGROUND and COMPUANCE STANDARDS
Regional Commercial Mixed -Use
The zoning standards for RCM are intended to promote an attractive development, apan and
pleasant street appearance, and compatibility with adjacent residential areas. Under atcwion 22 of
_ permitted uses, hotels is allowable.
Design review is required for buildings 5,000 s.f. or larger (Extended Stay Inn Hotel isD,000 s.f.)
Building review should be based on design quality the relationship to the surrounding «; a
Multi -Family Design Guidelines
The purpose is to integrate a site proposal with neighborhood scale and with the naiuiai environment
as envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly if it is in the vicinity of a low-density residential
area
EFFECT ON DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EXTENDED STAY INN PROJECT
Natural features should be preserved to the extent possible and should enhance architectural features
and help strengthen vistas and important views. Where existing topography patterns contribute to the
beauty and utility of a development, they should be recognized, preserved, and enhanced.
Recreational space required under design review is 200 sf/units or 1,000 minimum
Site plans should use landscaping and building forms in an aesthetically pleasing way to contribute to
pedestrian scale and travel along and within the site. Attention to built form and their relationship to
circulation on the site should also be considered. Varying degrees of privacy should also be present
for individual residents, i.e. public right of ways—common, area—individual residence. - A
Special attention should be placed on modulation, clustering, and land forms by integrating plan into
the site and surrounding land uses, and by taking advantage and incorporating features that already
exist in the environment.
Entries should be considered as a high quality focus to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular
circulation.
The orientation of built forms on the site and their relationship to circulation on the site.
The site is currently designed for a large portion of solid parking. It would be preferable to provide for
a better mix with building configuration designs. Provisions for off-street parking and loading will also
need to be accommodated.
The location of public amenities on and adjacent to the site should be considered, and how to provide
links to them. Additional structures and street furniture should be designed as part of the concept.
Exterior lighting, considered as a major character element of the site design, should be part of the
architectural concept. Lighting should be shielded and restrained in design; excessive brightness
should be avoided.
Signs should not exceed a maximum 43.75' (35'maximum for buildings unless the site is adjacent to
the highway which allows an increase of 25%.
Service yards and similar places for receptacles and recycling should be screened using walls,
planting, and or a combination of the two.
•
STILI_ NEEDED BY APPUCANT
Design
1. Illustrative guidelines for better visualization of what the design will look like on the site.
2. A lighting plan that shows both day and night illumination impact.
3. Clarification on elevations to see additional views, particularly impact from the north and south;
north/south views are very different from a/w/ views.
Environmental (for SEPA)
1. 51 Avenue South watercourse and class Type two issue.
2. Performance standards to comply with
Puget Sound Air Pollution Control
TMC, Chapter 8, 'Noise'
State and Federal Standards for water quality and hazardous materials
29 January 1996
City of Tukwila
Department of Community Development
Royce Berg
LPN
1201 Fourth Av S., Suite 102
Seattle, WA 98134
Subject: Suites Motel in an RCM District
Dear Mr. Berg:
John W. Rants, frlayor
Steve Lancaster, Director
The zoning of the site for the Extended Stay America development is RCM - Regional C mmercial Mixed
Use Zone. The code specifically allows motels. The code's definition of motels includes the following
language, '... A motel is a building or buildings, detached or in connected units or desic:ricd as a single
structure, the units of which are used as individual sleeping or dwelling units having their own private toilet
facilities and may or may not have their own kitchen facilities and are designed p 1marily for the
accommodation of transient automobile travelers....' Therefore, your proposed use is permitted.
Sincerely,
Alexa Berlow / Moira Carr Bradshaw
Associate Planner/Associate Planner
cc: File
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665
Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 1201 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 583-8030 Fox (2.06) 583-0708
26 January 1996
Joanna Spencer
Associate Engineer
City of Tukwila
Public Works
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Extended Stay America Inn
SEPA E-95-0034
BAR L-95-0063
Dear Joanna
ie*A
Nb1/\
410", z
Per our field visit, ESA is proceeding with drainage of this site down the private
road versus to the creek. Conceptual drawings are attached for your review.
Use of. WSDOT RM/ for drainage will be reserved as a possible option, if
approvals are obtained.
Soils engineer has reviewed this concept and sees no problems with this
proposed development. The updated preliminary report, dated 25 Jan 95, is
attached.
Traffic engineer is adding distribution to his data. This will be completed next
week and forwarded to you for your review.
If there is any other item you need, please call.
spectfully,
Royce . Berg
President
LPN Architects
RAB:djp
Enclosure
nd Planners
cc: Alexa Berlow/Moira Carr Bradshaw, City of Tukwila Planning Dept.
Dan Sterns, ESA Development �� �� C n
0
Jim Maclsaac -
JAN 2 9 1996
CC.;mmuNITY
DEVELOPMENT
•
Geo '�_ Engineers
FAX TRANSMITTAL
5410 - 154th Avenue NE
Redmond, Washington 96052
Telephone: (206) 861-6000
Fax: (206) 861-6050
To: LPN Architecture and Planning
Seattle, Washington
Fax Number: 583-0703
Attention: Royce Berg
Regarding: ESA Development's Tukwila Site
Geotechnical Study
Date: J,an izry'
File: 4830-001-28
Pages
Date
Description
1
01/25/96
F;ox Transmittal
2
01/25196
Memorandum "Preliminary Geo:echr:icai Anz.i.ss;::Ent, ESA t) v !apinoat
Projet:t, Tukwila, Washington -
Total Pages: 3
Comments: cc DUI Sterps / E -SA Development
MEMORANDUM to:
January 25, 1996
Page 2
ESA Development
Based on the presence of fill soil in the detention pond area, we recominend that the detention pond
design include a liner to prevent seepage from adversely affecting the adjacent slope. A portion of the
fill forming the detention pond sidesiopes may need to be removed and replaced with structural fill to
provide adequate stability of the slopes.
We have also reviewe4 the preliminary drawings with regard to ether geotechnical considerations.
Tn our opinion, the design recommendations for the planned development will not be materially different
from those presented in our previous report which were for a similar project. Based on our understanding
of the proposed project we anticipate ro iia locant geotechnical consrrai.nts to developing the site as
proposed.
We trust this memorandum meets your current n :. ?<'ease can if you have ny question or need
further information at this time.
. •
Geo Engineers
MEMORANDUM
Redmond
TO: Dan Sterns / ESA Development
FROM: Bo McFadden / GeoEngineers
DATE: January 25, 1996
FILE: 4830-001-28
SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment
ESA Development Project
Tukwila, Washington
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum presents our preiiatin`ly conclusions regarding the proposed development of
your property located in Tukwila, Washington. This letter is in response to your request for
information to submit to the review board. We are completing our geotechnical report which will
contain detailed recommendations for the project. Our report will be available Febraary 2, 1996.
The site is bounded by S. R. 18 to the south, 51st Avenue South to the west, Southcenter
Boulevard to the north, and the Qestar Commerce Center to the east. We previously provided
geotechnical engineering services and a Phase 1 Environmental site assessment for the property. The
results of our previous studies are presented i:i Our report dates March 19. 1990.
We have reviewed preliminary playas titled "Extended Stay Inn, Tukwila, Washington for
Extended Stay America, Inc." (Sheets a-1 through A-5) by LPN Archi:ecture and Planning dated
November 13, 1995 and proposed detention. pond layout by Warner Engineering which we received
January 16. 1996. The detention pond will be located at the north end of the site above a slope. The
detention pond will be at the northeast corner of the parking lot. Bared on the elevations shown on
the plans, we expect that the detention pond will be excavated to about Elevation 98 and will have
sideslopes inclined at 3H:1 V (horizontal to vertical). The top of the berm which will form the side of
the detention pond above the adjacent slope will be at about Elevation 104 feet. •
As part of our current geotechnical study we have completed test pits excavations in the area of
the proposed detention pond. The test pits extended to between Elevation 95 and 98 feet.
CONCLUSIONS
In our opinion, it is feasible to locate and construct the detention pond as proposed. Based on the
test pits which were completed for our current study, we expect that the subsurface soil conditions in the
area of the detention pond will include fill extending to about Elevation 98 feet. Glacially consolidated
sediments consisting of dense silty sand and trod silt were encountered below the fill.
•
WARNER ENGINEERING
5122 Olympic Dr, NW
Suitc B204
Gig Harbor, WA 98335
•
Civil Engineering & Planning
Office (206) 858.8577
Fax (206) 858-8579
FAX TRANSMITTAL
Date: January 24, 1996
FAX No.: 1-206-583-0708
To: Royce Berg
Firm Name: LPN Architects & Planners
From: Carol M. Modjeski, P.E.
Subject: Extended Stay Inn in Tukwila
Total Number ot'Pages 3 (including this page)
File No.: 017003
Remarks: Royce - Here is the. r' vised plan showing the detention pond outfalling to the bioswale
and then the stoma system is pipe ► down to 53rd Ave. Please call me if you have any questions.
Please notify us as soon as possible if you do riot receive the correct number of pages
indicated Above.
Telephone: (206) 8584577 FAX: (206) 858-8579
STRMS3RD.SAM
1
•
N °54'34' E 6640'
l
\1 1_70
r
1
6
.10
•')
'11 'il
6
`\•\\\�� \ \\�\
\\N\\,,,., \
\
• `
\ \ \ \ \\.•\
\ \, \ • �•� \
•
�y \ +,• :1
•
•
C.,
mow- w.•••••.•••••••"'^••••
-- EMERGENCY
OVERFLOW
SPILLWAY
1 vv
--- 114 --
=42112
ST F.t
1
EXISTING\
VATERL1NE
`rSEP1ENT-
{ ,
i
EXIST !N SEWER CINE
13LG
EXISTING
PRIVATE DRi\E
,01
CONNECT TO EXISTING
CITY STORM SYSTEM IN
53RD AVENUE SO.
EXISTING BUILB.INri
f34' E 223.69'
90 - UNITS + 6 -- UNITS SERVICE / OFFICE
PARKING 4-97 STALLS
REGULAR
COMPACT
H.C.
LOADING
63 STALLS 9' X 19' (2FT. OVERHANGE)
28 STALLS 8' ;X 16'
5 STALLS 13' X 20'
1 STALL 10' X 32'
BUILDING AREA
1ST FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
9,724 S.F.
9,724 SF:
9,724 S.F.
TOTAL:
29,172 S.F.
JAN 16 '96 09 08 LPN ARCHITECTS. (206)583-0708 P.1'2
•
•
ARCHITECTURE.& PLANNING, INC. •
ROYCE A. BERG, A. LA., PRINCIPAL
Y. KEN CHIN, PRINCIPAL
1201 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 102 •
SEATTLE, WA 98134
PHONE (208) 583-8030
FAX (206) 583.0708
MEMORANDUM VIA FAX
TO: Moira Carr Bradshaw DATE:�-1-;/-1-6-/96
'_may--
City of Tukwila
Planning Department PROJECT: ESA Tukwila
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA: 98188 PROJECT NO: 9502.4
FAX: (206) 431-3665
RE: ESA Tukwila,
Zoning.
NO. OF PAGES:
(*eV Could we obtain a letter form the city noting the current zone, allowed hotel/motel use
and approve use of kitchenettes for this zone.
/I1f''//Pv
1, Please reference the attached memo.
We are completing revisions • - , = staff comments, including signage.
Drainageissue-is-bein• • ursued with state and city • • • m if site can drain to south.
nwe confirm scheduled date for BAR and time 22 Feb. 95?
Royce
RAB:djp
RECE VE��
JAN 16 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
tN
16 '96 09 09 LPN ARCHITECTS (206)583-0708 P.2/2
•
I n
ARCHITECTURE 8 PLANNING, INC.
ROYCE A. BERG, ALA, PRINCIPAL
Y. KEN CHIN, PRINCIPAL.
1201 FOURTH AVENUE SOUTH, SUITE 102
SEATTLE, WA 88134
PHONE (206) 683.8030
FAX (208) 583-0708
MEMORANDUM VIA FAX
TO: Dan Stems . DATE: 1/16/96
ESA Development, Inc.
1611 116th Ave NE PROJECT: ESA Tukwila
Bellevue WA 98004-3094
PROJECT NO: 95024
FAX: (206) 453-7655
RE: ESA Tukwila
Zoning
NO. OF PAGES: 1
Original zoning, C-2 District Regional Retail, allowed proposed use. Current zoning,
adopted with new ordinance 11 Dec: 95, is R -C-2 District Regional Commercial District
which allows hotel, motel use. Specific use of kitchenettes is allowed and documented
kation has been requested from city.
Royce A. Berg
RAB:djp
cc: Moira Carr Bradshaw, City of Tukwila
RECEWED
JAN 16 1996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
•
To: Royce Berg
From: Alexa Berlow / Moira Carr Bradshaw
Date: 16 January 1996
Subject: Suites Motel in an RCM District
The zoning of the site for the Extended Stay America development is zoned RCM - Regional Commercial
Mixed Use Zone. The code specifically allows motels. The City has always allowed kitchenettes within
hotel or motel units. Therefore, the proposed use is permitted.
Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A., 12.01 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 583-8030 Fax (206) 583-0708
1�OJanuary :1996
Ms. Moria Carr Bradshaw
Dept. of Community Development
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: ESA Project
BAR; Adjacent Property Owners
Dear Ms. Bradshaw,
RECEIVED
JAN 121996
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
Please include the following on the mailing list of the owners within 300 feet of the
proposed project:
Tax Account No. 222304-9089
Nakkerud Trygue
12435 Pacific HWY S
Seattle, WA 98168
Please contact me if there are any questions or concerns with the above.
Respectfully,
-6.,e144:141,
Y. Ken K. Chin
Principal
YKC:djp
cc: Dan Sterns, ESA
Corry Oakes ESA
Ray Frey, ESA
eitc to Mre,
Architecture and Planning, Inc.
Royce A. Berg, A.LA., 1201 Fourth'Ave: S., ,Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134 (206)583-8030 Fax (206) 583-0708
19 December 1995
Phil Fraser
Senior Development/Surface Water Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
RE: Extended Stay America Inn
Tukwila, Washington
SEPA E-95-0034
BAR L-95-0063
Dear Mr. Fraser,
Per our meeting, 12/19/95, with_staff_andyouurself. The owner will purse drainage
on this site to the south' (as it currently"_exiists))) onto W. D.O.T. property, if they will �
approve of this concept. Please review with W.D.O.T. to see if this concept is
feasible. It is our understanding release rates would be no greater than existing.
Respectfully,
Royce A. Ber
President
LPN Architects and Planners
cc: Joanne Spencer, City of Tukwila
Moira Carr Bradshaw, City of Tukwila
Carol M. Modjeski, Warner Engineering
Dan Sterns, ESA
Ray Frey,. ESA
Bob Hart, SGA
Post-Ir brand fax transmitta emo 7671
# of pages ►
Willfflr.111111111&44.. It!. (.4.
liiii
FIESIIISMIFill
■Dept.
Fax #6.-
— — 070
iiiiirna
To: Royce Berg
From: Moira Carr Bradshaw
Date: 18 December 19.951
Subject: EXTENDED STAY INN - BY ESA
The City has conducted its review of the materials submitted for the above proposal.
Below is the list of findings and deficiencies. Please respond and/or submit the
requested information. Thank you.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
The. proposal sits on two separate parcels: A lot consolidation application, approval
and recordation is necessary prior to building permit issuance.
Zoning: Regional Commercial Mixed Use
• . primary front yard (east side) - 20 feet
• all other sides are secondary fronts - 10 feet
General Landscaping requirements
• 10 feet all around
• 40 % horizontal tree coverage in ten years in non built areas - please provide
calculations.
• nonobstructed visibility into site from all streets, sidewalks and driveways - please
modify landscaping along west side, review/consider modification along east
side.
• recycling 3 sq. ft. per 1,000 gross sq. ft.
Height
'3 stories or 35 feet
}
Multi -family r ew_guidelines:
As I mentioned earlier, please submit a supplement to your application that responds the
Multi -family review guidelines.
The proposed development of the site is at odds with the existing topographic features.
The site slopes from northwest to southeast yet the drainage is being piped to the
northeast corner. We feel this is at odds with a logical site layout, please provide an
explanation.
Because of the site's advantages at the top of a knoll, offering excellent views of the
region's most stunning feature, site amenities and building design and layout should
orient itself accordingly. Building design must also be exemplary.
The Parks and Recreation Director has advised that a picnic bench appropriately located
would offset employee and guest demands on local recreation facilities and would also
be an advantage for the site and could be incorporated into the natural features of the
site.
Entry facade and building orientation do not take advantage of site's views or site entry
orientation, in addition, the review criteria discusses the need for a visual focal point
associated with the structure. The building's entry portal does not relate to the building
behind. The main entry,. actually highlights a blank wall and service corridor. The office
window and entry are hidden behind the piling. The "entry plaza" is nominal with
uncoordinated landscaping. Please show enhanced, coordinated, symmetrical
design for the entry portal and guest plaza, include details for pedestrian area.
Landscaping and building shapes must form an aesthetically pleasing pedestrian scale
streetscape; facilitating pedestrian travel along street.
An 8 foot sidewalk along 51st Avenue S. with a curb and gutter will be required.
Copies of plans for 51st Avenue Bridge are attached.
No transitions are provided from off site to building entrances.
Off -Street Parking and Loading
• loading space 10 x 30 14 foot clearance - please show,
• parking lot grades shall not exceed 5% - please show in preliminary grading.
plan:
• parking lot entrance shall not exceed 15% - please show inpreliminary-grading
plan.
• parking lot lighting standards limited to 20 feet.
•
Submit a preliminary grading plan and conceptual drainage analysis and design for
site. Calculations for storm drainage and retention needs should be included. 2
or 3 cross-sections are needed with submittal.
Submit a luminaire plan that shows location and nighttime light pattern on site and
building elevations. Elevations of standards are not very readable. Are they compatible
with the building's design and the overall project? The height of the standards are
limited, unclear what heights and locations are proposed for fixtures.
A materials and color board is necessary to do a complete assessment of the
building's design.
Public Works has requested a traffic study for trip generation distribution for AWDT, AM
noon and PM peaks. I have received your trip generation report. We will pass along a
City response when.
A geotechnical report is required. The March 1990 report has limitations and the
supplemental sheet submitted for the detention pond does not cover the other aspects
of the proposal. Please submit a complete analysis that either appropriately and
adequately supplements the stated limitations of the original report or submit a new
report.
If you would like to meet, please call me at 431-3651. I will be out of the office from
12/23/95 - 111/95.
cc: Joanna Spencer
Gary Schulz
Don Williams
Mike Alderson
File E95-0034
L95-0044
MEMORANDUM
TO: Moira Bradshaw, Associate Planner - DCD
Alexa
FROM::, ul T
;,Gary Schu14ban Environmentalist - DCD
DATE:
RE:
Preliminary Environmental Review for Extended Stay Inn, E95-0034, L95-0063.
My initial comments for SEPA and design/use aspects of this proposal are listed below. The subject property
has a sensitive area slope adjacent to a portion of Gilliam Creek also on the property. Please let me know
if you have questions.
L95-0063
General site plan comments include the following:
1) According to Conditional Use and Design Review applications, all existing trees at least 6" in diameter
need to be surveyed or identified. There may be trees along east and north property boundaries not
shown that would be affected by site grading.
2) Access to and from the site is restricted by WSDOT ROW. This may actually be a SEPA issue
because the alternative access is probably not improved to standards for the proposed development.
It seems possible to create a one-way entry into the site from 51st Avenue S. using a turn out
driveway into the site that utilizes the applicant's property on the east side of 51st Avenue.
Otherwise, there is no reasonable way to get to the hotel.
E95-0032 SEPA
BACKGROUND
1) Additional permits needed but not identified include Land Altering, Stormwater Permit, and State
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). Also, a Hauling Permit may be required for excess soil material.
EARTH
1) Per the Sensitive Areas Ordinance, TMC 18.45.080 (e), a geotechnical study will be required and
necessary for the 3-story'building. The proposed location of the detention pond will likely cause a
peer review because of its proximity to the steep slope.. The north slope has erosion problems along
its toe next to Gilliam Creek.
2) Geotechnical investigation should determine the buffer necessary to protect sensitive area slope.
Slope gradients are measured from the submitted topo map to be about 70% in steep areas.
Extended Stay Inn Memo
December 14, 1995
Page 2
WATER
c. Water Runoff
1) TMC 18.45.080 b.3 states that new surface water discharges to watercourses may be allowed with
appropriate design but are subject to the approval of the DCD Director. The majority of the subject
property's runoff flows to the south and is intercepted by the WSDOT SR -518 ROW swale. Diverting
more of the runoff to the north increases the volumes of that drainage system. All flows are
intercepted by the WSDOT drainage system but conveyed through different pipes.
It appears feasible and less expensive to construct a pond on the southeast corner which is the
"natural" discharge location for most of the runoff associated with this site.
PLANTS
b. Due to recent Zoning Code changes, a Tree Permit may not be needed if trees to be removed are
on slope areas less than 20% in gradient.
cc: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer
1inko't Fax comer sheet
To: 13, 4 QJ,qw,
Date DAG l 3 Urgent? O Yes O No
Phone #:
Fax#: '/31. 36/0G
Pages seat ('including cover sheet):
Company 1 Vk wita 1J
Depattmeot
Plage notify the redplent that ske has raeiredafax Ifany
pages me miss% or in aniplete please call tbie number below.
From: A Le,72-1-6w
Phone #: 5/11512)10 F#:
Department
% j.
Notes /1 4i Vt Gc
&la/. -e hank) Oft t —
Kmko's Downtown • 1335 Second Avenue • Seattle; Washington 98101
Tel. (206) 292-9255 • Fax (206) 622-5790
ckpuci0-0-4—
GSL COVED
DEC 13 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
• •
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
To: Moira Bradshaw
From: Alexa Berlow
Re: Site Report
Extended Stay Inn
L95-0065
Date: Decembe42,1�9r95
Following review of the newly adopted zoning codes, standards for multi-
family design, and the ordinance related to surface and storm water
management, the following items remain significant to the future
developmental review of the site:
The proposed building and landscape plan meet minimum setback, height,
parking, and landscaping requirements, except in the following areas:
1. Setback:
a. Primary buildings are less than 30 feet from minimum front property line
requirement.
(Refer to: Multi -Family Design Standards Update)
2. Height:
a. Maximum height requirements of 45 feet are met from ground to rooftop,
however, question still remains about height of "chimney" feature which
currently appears in drawings to surpass this measurement.
(Refer to: Multi -Family Design Standards Update)
3. Parking:
a. Parking areas entrances and driveway entrance and exit slopes may exceed
5% and 15 % maximum restrictions.
b. Wheel stops must be located along parking spaces located on the periphery
of the site.
c. There is no indication of handicapped accessible spaces.
[Note: It might also be good to designate the location of different sized parking
spaces (i.e. loading, H.C., compact) in order to insure proper movement in
and around the site.
(Refer to: Multi -Family Design Standards Update and 18.56.040, 18.56.050,
18.56.080, 18.56.090 in Zoning Code manual adopted December 4, 1995)
• •
Site Report
Extended Stay Inn
L95-0065
page 2
4. Landscaping:
a. When adjacent to sf residential property, landscaping must meet 15 feet
depth on the front of the lot and 5/7.5 on the sides and rear of the lot -
currently, the north side is just under these requirements. This problem
could be curtailed with item "b".
b. Landscape coverage standards must meet 90% live coverage and 40% tree
coverage within 3 to 10 years, respectively.
c. Outside storage areas must also be covered or screened with a minimum of
8 feet height. An automatic irrigation system is required. Sprinkler systems
must be marked on plans.
d. Low level lighting must be provided on parches, in alcoves, and along
pedestrian circulation walkways.
e. Trees may be cleared from site, unless in a sensitive area, in which case
only four trees allowed to be cleared. This minimum has been met, however,
tree protection measures must be included in plan (See: Tree Replacement
Ration chart, 12.54.133b)
f. The stamp of a registered landscape architect must be on the plans
(Refer to: Multi -Family Design Standards Update and 18.52.030, 18.52.034,
18.52.041, 18.52.042, 18.52.046a, 18.52.047, 18.52.065 18.52.080, 18.52.1336 in
Zoning Code manual adopted December 4, 1995)
For Consideration:
1. Horizontal Modulation: when adjacent to sf residential areas, modulation
widths must mirror widths of structures in immediate area. This must be
verified.
2. Common Recreation Area: 400 square feet per unit with a minimum of
1,000 sf minimum.
3. Site Planning/Site Design: refer to building, landscaping, modulation,
circulation, streetscape, and public amenities in Multi -Family Design
Standards Update.
[Note: Work on these features could be a method for making this site a model
for other motel franchise projects.]
• •
Site Report
Extended Stay Inn
L95-0065
page 3
Additional Items from discussion with M. Bradshaw on 12/12:
1. .Water flow orientation, why north instead of following the natural course
flowing south?
2. Clarification on elevations in order to see additional views and asses s
visual impact, especially from the north and south.
3. Additional cross-sections
4. Night time illuminations plan
5. Material and color specifications
6. New: _illustrative guidelines .for multi -family -design standards
Architecture' and Planning, Inc.
Royce A. Berg, A.I.A.. 1201 Fourth Ave. S., Suite 102 Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 583-8030 Fax (206) 583-0708
12 December 1995
Joanna Spencer
Associate Engineer
City of Tukwila
Public Works
6200 Southcenter Blvd.
Tukwila. WA 98188
RE: Extended Stay America Inn
SEPA E-95-0034
BAR L-95-0063 BAR
Dear Joanna,
Enclosed is a copy of trip generation data used in SEPA checklist for your information
and review. Data prepared by Jim Malssac, Transportation Engineer with Kato and
Warren, Inc.. Also enclosed, is a soils report update referring to cuts in slopes.
pectfully,
Royc_'�= - g
President
LPN ARCHITETS & PLANNERS
RAB:djp
Enclosure
cc: Moira Carr Bradshaw
Dan Sterns, ESA
Corry Oakes, ESA
Alexa -B t ow
Ray Frey,;ESA
i
REC Er)
DEG 1 3 1995
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Post -it® Fax Note •7671
Date 12,// gS paces /
To
From NO/%e/¢- Sd1-10
Co./Dept. 02/V
Co.
Phone #
Phone #
X31- �4,3,-/
Fax # 3 -O 708
8
Fax # J1 3 i • ;1# (S .
MEMORANDUM
Royce Berg
Moira Carr Bradshaw/Alexa Berlow
11 December 1995
Board of Architectural Review (BAR)
A new zoning code becomes effective today at 5 p.m. The new code stipulates that the BAR shall use
the/multi-family review guidelin_efsection in its decision making on hotels and motels. (See Tukwila
Municipal -Code (rMC) 1860.055, page 18-102.) You need to supplement your BAR application with
responses to the BAR multi -family review guidelines. These are listed in TMC 18.60.053.
If you have any questions, please call either of us at 431-3651 or 431-3673.
Thank you.
cc: File L95-00 03
KATO&•
BARREN ..SSS001hfarket Plac1a,est i enue
e Ortc
INCORPORATED ® Seattle, Washington 98121
MEMORANDUM
Tel: 2061448.4200
Fax: 2061728-5608
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 17, 1995
Royce Berg,
Jim MacIsaac ....�.
3rL
Extended Stay ITukwila - Traffic Generation Estimate
The proposed Extended Stay Inn is being planned as a place of overnight stay for business people.
I will provide 90 overnight guest rooms; and it is hoped to capture a 70% overall annual occupancy
factor. The project can best be described as a Business Hotel for purposes of traffic generation
estimates. Trip generation estimates for a Business Hotel (Land Use 312) are found on pages 539-
548 of Trip Generation, 5th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers. It is cautioned that
findings for a business hotel are based on a very small number of case studies. However, the find-
ings appear to be reasonably appropriate, compared to slightly higher trip generation rates for the
typical suburban Motel (Land Use 320).
Traffic generation for a business hotel is estimated at a rate of 7.27 vehicle trips per day per occu-
pied room, and 0.62 trips per occupied room during the afternoon commuter peak hour. For 90
guest rooms averaging 70% occupancy, estimated annual average days trips would be 460 trips per
day, and 40 trips during the PM peak hour.
Kato & Warren, Inc. - 11/17/95
\jwrn\tukhotel.doc
y
NOV 2 0 1996
6 /.i
C.C. c612i2`(
.V J
'A
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Contrlo.
Epic File No. 957 o03/
FeeTo0 Receipt No.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: EXTENDED STAY INN
2. Name of applicant: LPN Architects/Royce A. Berg
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:206-583-8030
/s13 . olaa .
1201 Fourth Avenue South, Suite 102, Seattle, WA 98131
4. Date checklist prepared: 13 November 1995'
5. Agency requesting Checklist: City of Tukwila
6. Proposedtiming or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
Spring 1996
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Nn
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will
be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None
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
-2-
RECEIVED
CITY OF TUKWILA
NOV 2 0 1995
PERMIT CENTER
•
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal.
Tukwila building permit, boundary line adjustment and Board of Architectural Review
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. 'There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page. Section E requires a complete
description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be
summarized here.
3 -story hotel --- approximately 30,000sq.ft.i 96 units
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location, of yourproposed project, including a street address, if
any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over
a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not
required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applica-
tions related to this checklist.
Location is in Tukwila, bordered by Southcenter Blvd. to the north, 51st Ave. So.
and- UUT right-of-way for Highway 518 to the west and south, Foster's Furniture
and as office_p_ark exist tathe Past
13. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive?
Slope bank to north and Gilliam Creek to north are classified as environmentally
sensitive.
-3-
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICA• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General descri•tion of the site (circle one): Flat,
rolling, 4 steep slopes, mountainous, other
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)?Approx. 65% on the north position of site
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.
Sand with variable silt and gravel over glacially
. consolidated silt
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
No recen PvidPnre of ernsion
e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quanti-
ties of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate
source of fill.
No new fill_requirPd, grading will require cuts of
up to R ft. and filling of low areas Export
be required.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,
construction, or use?. If so, generally. describe.
Temporary erosion
installed
g•
11
.11
.1 1.
About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for
example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 75%
-4-
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or
other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion
control and siltation fence during construction
per city standards and new landscaping after
construction.
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.
Auto. truck and equipment during constructinn---
none being significant. Auto emissions after
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:
During earthwork activity, dust control measures
will be implemented.
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.
Creek area exists to north a1Qug SQQthceater
Blvd --- Type II water course per city-
-5-
• Evaluation for
Agency Use .Only
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach
available plans. No ---Construction is beyond
set back area and buffer for creek --- storm
drainage may ultimately tie into cteek after
filtration per city standards.
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 quan-
tities, 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
-6-
411
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose, and approximate quan-
tities, if known. No
2) Describe waste materials that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sour-
ces, if any (for example: Domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following
chemicals...; agricultural; etc.) Describe the
general size of the system, the number of such
systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans
the system(s) are expected to serve. 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.
Proposed system to run into creek after detention
and biofiltration per city standards
-7-
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
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:
Potential impacts to be insignifican
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the
-site:
XX deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
XX evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
shrubs
XX grass
_ pasture
crop or grain
_ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed
or altered?
Approximately 12 to 14 significant trees will be
removed. Grasses and weeds will be removed
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site. None known
-8-
•
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the
site, if any: Landscaping will be Northwest native
plant materials . . . •.•. .•. Jergreen
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been
observed on or near the site or are known to be on
or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:
None
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other: None
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. No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,
if any:Addition of new treei_and_gres v tt n of
significant trees and buffers along slope
-9-
•
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil,"
wood stove, color) will be used to meet the
completed project's energy needs? Describe whether
it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
Natural gas for heat. Electric for power, heat
pumps and lighting.
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: Building would be designed to meet
state energy code requirements.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,
including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire
and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so,
describe. No
1) Describe special emergency services that might
be required. None
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environ-
mental health hazards, if any: N/A
-10-
b. Noise
SEvaluation for
Agency Use Only
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation, other)?
Traffic along Highway 518
2) What types and levels of noise would be created
by or associated with the project on a short-
term or a long-term basis (for example: traf-
fic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.
Construction noise from 7:00am to 6:OOpm
Auto and traffic after construction
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise
impacts, if any: Mufflers on construction vehicles
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent
properties?
Site is currently a vacant lot
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,
describe.
No know de ge of past agricultural use
c. Describe any structures on the site. None
-11-
III
Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
No
e. What is the current zoning classification of the
site? C-2
f. What is the current ,comprehensive plan designation
of the site? Regional retail business
g. If applicable, 'what is the current shoreline master
program designation of the site? N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
Type II watercourse at north end of site.
Development will be outside required buffer of
35 feet.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work
in the completed project? 96-100
J. Approximately how many people would the completed
project displace? None
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement
impacts, if any: None required
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is com-
patible with existing and projected land uses and
plans, if any:
Project will be in compiance with all applicable
codes and ordinances
-12-
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if
any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income
housing? None
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eli-
minated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-
income housing. None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any: N/A
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the
principal exterior building material(s) .proposed?
Height is apprnximateIy 28 feet to the
sloped ridge ---bight av_e.ages 35 feet at__s]nped__
roof
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be
altered or obstructed? None, existing trees higher
than proposed structure
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic
impacts, if any:
Landscaping ground areas will break up building
mass. Color and -architectural massing and detailing
provide visual relief and patterns --- slw.ed roof
provides visual interest from distant vista.
-13-
• Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal
produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?
Minimal lighting at p arking area
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?
Street lighting will not have a negative effect
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and
glare impacts, if any:
Light fixtures will be directed down to parking and
walkways.
12. Recreation
a. What designed and informal recreational oppor-
tunities are in the immediate vicinity?
None
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
-14-
• Evaluation for
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
Agency Use Only
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or pro-
posed for, national, state, or local preservation
registers known to be on or next to the site? If
so, generally describe. No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of
historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural
importance known to be on or next to the site.
None
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if
any: N/A
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the
site, and describe proposed accss to the. existing
street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Southcenter Blvd accessed through private existing
road.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If
not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest
transit stop? Transit stops occur on Southcenter
Blvd to east of I-5
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project
have? How many would the project eliminate?_____
Project would provide approximately 97 parking stalls
None would be eliminated
-15-
• • Evaluation for
Agency Use Only
. 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).
No
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If
so, generally describe.
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated
by the completed project? If known, indicate when
peak volumes would occur.
Approximately 490 trips a day would be generated per
I.T.E., trip generation manual using business hotel
use ---90 units with 75% occupancy ---(trip generation
is actually believed to be less than above). P.M.
peak is projected at 39 trips.
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transpor-
tation impacts, if any:
Shuttles and public transportation
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. Increased need is not expected
and facility will provide service
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct
impacts on public services, if any.
Design factors should minimize impaTTs on public
services, i.e. fuTTy spsprinklered buildings with
24 hour monitoring.
-16-
16. Utilities
IIIEvaluation for
Agency Use Only
a. Circle .tilitie urrently a ' able at the site:
lectricity. natural, g15]) refuse service,
telep on=; sane ary sewer) lc 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.
All utilities are available at the site
C. Signature
The above answers are true and complete to the best . of
my knowledge. I uns- stan tat the lead agency is
relying on them to m. its ,d c ion.
6,t *-(07r
Signature:
Date Submitted:
PLEASE CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PAGE.
-17-
Geo er Engineers
SGA Corporation
6414 204th Street Southwest, Suite 200
• Lynnwood, Washington 98036
Attention: Mr. Bob Hart
aUG 2 9 1995
SGA COAPQfATION
August 25, 1995.
Preliminary Evaluation
Detention Pond Location and Design
American MedTrans Project
Tukwila, Washington
File No. 3225-008-RO1
INTRODUCTION
This letter presents our conclusions from our preliminary evaluation of die location and
design of the bioswale and detention pond at the proposed American MedTrans project located
in Tukwila, Washington. This letter is in response to your request for information to accompany
the SEPA submittal.
The site is bounded by S. R. 18 to the south, 51st Avenue South to the west, Southcenter
Boulevard to the north, and the Qestar Commerce Center to the east. We previously provided
geotechnical engineering services and a Phase I Environmental site assessment for the property.
The results of cur previous studies are presented in our report dated March 19, 1990.
We have reviewed 4 -landscape plan prepared by LPN and a sketch showing the detention
pond and bioswale location which we received from you on August 18, 1995. The detention
pond and bioswale will be located at the north end of the site above a slope. The detention pond
will be at the northeast corner of the parking lot. The bioswale will drain into it from the west.
Based on the elevations shown on the plan, we expect that the detention pond will be
excavated to about Elevation 103 and will have sideslopes inclined at 3H:1V (horizontal to
vertical). The bioswale will slope from Elevation 108 at its west end to Elevation 107 at the edge
of the pond. The adjacent parking lot will be at about Elevation 111 near the pond and 115 at
the west end of the bioswale.
GeoEngineers, Inc.
8410 154th Avenue N.E.
Redmond, WA 98052
Telephone (206) 861-6000
Fax (206) 861-6050
SGA Corporation AK
August 25, 1995
Page 2
•
No- explorations were completed in the area of the •proposed -bioswale and detention pond
as part of our previous study. Three test pits were, however-, excavated about 50 to 80 feet to
the south These' test pits extended` to' about Elevation 100 .In the; east partof:the site and
• Elevation 110. in the west portion of the site.
CONCLUSIONS
•
In our opinion, it is feasible to locate and construct the bioswale and detention pond as
proposed. Based on the test pits which werecompleted for our previous study, we expect that
the subsurface soil conditions in the area of the bioswale and detention pond will likely consist
of fill overlying glacially consolidated sediments consisting of dense silty sand and hard silt.
These soils may contain permeable zones which could allow seepage from the detention pond
toward the face of the nearby slope. We expect that a perched ground water condition on the
glacial sediments likely occurs seasonally.
Depending on the actual soil conditions encountered in the bioswale and detention pond
excavations, it may be necessary to provide a liner to prevent seepage from adversely affecting .
the adjacent slope. The actual subsurface conditions in the area of the proposed bioswale and
detention pond should be evaluated by excavating test pits prior to design. As an alternative, soil
and ground water conditions can be' evaluated during initial site grading if the construction
schedule allows adequate time to acquire materials for lining the pond, should this be necessary.
4 O ►
We trust this letter meets your current needs. Please call if you have any question
regarding this letter.
Yours very truly,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
/76"--/- A/4 ./
Bo McFadden, P.E.
Project Engineer
Jack K. Tuttle, P.E.
Principal
JJM:JRT:cros
Document ID: 3225008.LT1
Two copies submitted
GeoEngineers
EXPIRES /o
84s�9
94 I
File No. 3225-008-R01
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ron Cameron, PW City Engineer
Ross Heller, PW Senior Engineer
FROM: Steve Lancaster, DCD Director
DATE: June 23, 1995
SUBJECT: 51st Avenue South Bridge Project - Watercourse Use.
This memo summarizes our recent meeting for determining allowable uses in Gilliam Creek
in order to construct a new bridge., As you are aware, the Creek is regulated under the
standards of the Sensitive Area Ordinance (TMC 18.45). Specifically, the "Watercourse"
Section 18.45.080 d. (1) states that diverting or rerouting a watercourse may occur with the
permission of the DCD Director and an approved mitigation plan. In addition, rerouting
can only occur in a manner that does not adversely impact downstream properties or
fisheries.
This watercourse segment has been rated a Type 2 and, therefore, piping should be avoided I
or limited to the shortest length possible. Section 18.45.080 d. (6) "Piping" includes most of
the standards for piping. Even though the proposed piping is considered temporary,
"construction shall be designed to have the least adverse impact on the watercourse, buffer I
and surrounding environment".
Piping a watercourse for access purposes appears to be an acceptable use. The most
significant part of the SAO code may be under Section 18.45.115 where permanent piping
in a Type 1_or Type 2 watercourse is only allowed where relocation or alteration of the
watercourse has been denied and would result in denial o f all reasonable use. It appears
thatpermanentpiping of a Type 1 or 2 watercourse would need to considered under the
Reasonable - Use Exception process involving a public hearing before the Planning
Commission.
The following recommendations apply to this bridge project:
* Any access road required to build the bridge pier foundation in the creek will be
removed and -restored with native plantings.
G
51st Bridge Memorandum
June 23, 1995
Page 2
Temporary piping of Gilliam Creek is appropriate for this project. Post project work
will include the restoration of disturbed areas including the original watercourse
channel.
If you ,have additional questions, please feel free to contact me or Gary Schulz.
REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
AND PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED HOTEL/OFFICE BUILDING SITE
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FOR.
BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC.
•
�t
Geo ��fEngineers
a
1
•
March 19, 1990
Bedford Properties, Inc.
12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 107
Seattle, Washington 98168
Attention: Mr. Robert A. Hart
Consulting Geotechnical
Engineers and Geologists
We are pleased to transmit four copies of our "Report, Geotechnical
Engineering Services and Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Proposed
Hotel/Office Building Site, Tukwila, Washington."
The original scope of our services for this work is described in our
proposal dated December 11, 1989. Authorization to proceed with the
original services was provided by Mr. Robert A. Hart of Bedford Properties
on December 29, 1989. Additional subsurface exploration and associated
chemical testing was verbally authorized by Mr. Hart on February 2, 1990.
Preliminary results have been discussed with Mr. Hart and Ms. Nancy•Krill
as our findings were developed.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of further service to Bedford
Properties. If you have any questions regarding the contents of this report
or if we may be of further service, please call.
Yours)very truly,
/ineers, I
ack' K. Tuttle
ncipal
JJM:JKT:wd
File No. 1199-012-BO1
GeoEngineers. Inc.
2405140th Ave. NE. Suite 105
Bellevue, WA 98005
Telephone (206) 746-5200
Fax. (206) 746-5068
1
f
t
1
1
2
1
1
Geo ;Engineers
TAB L E OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION 1
SCOPE 1
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 2
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT 2
SITE CONDITIONS 3
SITE DESCRIPTION 3
HISTORICAL REVIEW 4
REGULATORY REVIEW 4
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 5
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5
Underground Heating oil Tank 6
Ground Water Conditions 6
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
GENERAL 6
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 7
Structural Fill 8
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SLOPES 9
SHALLOW FOUNDATION SUPPORT 10
FLOOR SUPPORT 11
LATERAL RESISTANCE 12
RETAINING WALLS 12
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 13
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS 14
SITE CONTAMINATION 14
LIMITATIONS 15
List of Figures
Figure No.
SITE PLAN 1
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 2
LOGS OF TEST PITS 3 thru 7
SUMMARY OF MOISTURE CONTENT 8
ANALYTICAL CHEMICAL DATA
APPENDIX A
Page No.
A-1 thru A-6
Geo 10 Engineers
1 •
REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AND
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED HOTEL/OFFICE. BUILDING SITE
TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
FOR
BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC.
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering
services and Phase I environmental site assessment for your proposed
hotel/office building complex in Tukwila, Washington. The site consists.of
two adjoining properties. The location of the site is shown in the Vicinity
Map in Figure 1.
We understand that Bedford Properties intends to develop the two
properties by building a three-story office building or a hotel/motel.
Plans are only at the conceptual stage at this time and a proposed building
location has yet to be determined. The first floor, which will be a parking
garage, is preliminarily planned at about Elevation 110. This finished
floor elevation will require significant excavation over most of the site,
up to a maximum of about 15 feet along the western boundary. Depending on
the building location, some fill may be necessary as well.
A previous geotechnical engineering study was performed on the north
property for Qestar Development, Ltd. by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) in
1980. The report entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Office
Building, 51st Avenue South, Tukwila, Washington," dated October 29, 1980,
was made available to us by Bedford Properties..
SCOPE
The purpose of our services is twofold. A geotechnical evaluation of
the site was performed to determine general site development, design and
construction considerations for the proposed development. A: Phase I'
environmental site assessment was performed to research the potential for
subsurface contamination by hazardous materials that may exist on the
property due to past on-site and off-site activities. The specific scope
of our services for each of these tasks is outlined below.
Geo Engineers
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
• •
1. Explore the near -surface soil and ground water conditions by
excavating a series of test pits with a tractor -mounted backhoe.
2. Provide recommendations for earthwork including stripping and
grading, backfill compaction and subgrade requirements for support
of project elements of the development. This includes evaluation
of the effects of weather and/or construction equipment on the
workability of site soils.
3. Provide recommendations for surface and subsurface drainage
systems to control ground water conditions.
4. Develop foundation design requirements including allowable soil
bearing pressures and settlement estimates for shallow spread
footings for the proposed structure.
5. Provide subgrade recommendations for slab -on -grade floors and
paved areas.
6. Provide design parameters for retaining walls if they are required
for grade transitions.
7. Review the previous soils report prepared for the northern
property.
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
1. Interview the current and past property owners, as available,
regarding historical activities on the site.
2. Review historical aerial photographs to determine past development
history on and adjacent to the site relative to the potential for
generation, storage, leakage or disposal of hazardous materials.
3. Contact the Northwest Regional Office of the Washington Department
of Ecology and review the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FINDS list for indications of potential cleanup studies or actions
at this and adjacent sites.
4. Perform a reconnaissance of the site and.vicinity during the field
explorations and evaluate the test pits for evidence:of soil.
contamination.
5. Excavate one hand auger hole to a depth of about 6 feet in the
backfill for an underground heating oil tank.
2
1
1
Geo*:5Engineers
6. Submit one soil sample from the hand auger hole to an analytical
laboratory for chemical testing for the presence of total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH, EPA Method 418.1).
7. Evaluate the results of the chemical testing with regard to
existing regulatory concerns.
8. Provide a written opinion regarding the potential for environ-
mental liabilities associated with past and present activities
based on the results of our studies.
• •
SITE CONDITIONS
SITE DESCRIPTION
We performed a reconnaissance of the site and surrounding properties
during our field exploration program on January 11, 1990. The site, which
consists of two adjoining residential properties, is bounded by S.R. 518 to
the south, 51st Avenue South to the west, Southcenter Boulevard to the
north, and the Qestar Commerce Center to the east. The site is higher in
elevation than all adjacent properties.
Portions of the site are significantly overgrown with grass, brush and
blackberry vines. Considerable debris and trash are present on both
properties comprising the site. The north property is generally at a higher
elevation except toward the north margin where it slopes at an inclination
of about 30 to 35 degrees down to a creek adjacent to Southcenter Boulevard.
The south property slopes to the south and abuts S.R. 518 which is
considerably lower than the site.
A house on the south property is occupied. ,An.undergEound heating .oil
:tank..s located. near. the southwest corner. of the house.i We sounded the tank
and determined the base of the tank to be located approximately 4.3 feet
below the adjacent ground surface. A resident of the house indicated that
they have not noticed any loss of heating oil. The City of Tukwila did not
indicate a sanitary sewer connection for the residence. It is, therefore,
assumed that an :on-site septic system' is .present.. A water main was
identified by the City of Tukwila running east to west across the site, near -
the common boundary line between the two properties.
•
•
3
1
Geo Engineers411 411
The house has been removed from the north property and only the concrete
foundation remains. This property may also have an underground heating oil
tank, although we did not observe a filler neck in the vicinity of the house
because of the debris present. We assume a septic system is also present.
HISTORICAL REVIEW
Chain -of -title documentation was not made available to us for review
of historical ownership of the two properties that comprise the site. We
reviewed the history of the site and surrounding area based on aerial
photographs taken in 1936, 1946, 1960, 1969, 1974, and 1985. The 1936 and
1946 photographs show the site and surrounding properties as partially
forested and open grasslands. A residence is located on the northern
property and on several of the surrounding properties.
Residences are present on both properties in the 1960 photograph and
increased residential density is apparent on surrounding properties.
The 1969 and 1974 photographs show similar conditions along with the
addition of S.R. 518 to the south and southwest of the site.
The 1985 photograph shows similar conditions with the exception that
Qestar Commercial Center has been constructed on the former residential
properties to the east.
REGULATORY REVIEW
The Northwest Regional Office of the State of Washington Department of
Ecology indicated that they do not have any cleanup studies or actions at
or adjacent to the subject site. The following U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) records were searched for environmental problem
sites or activities at or near the site: National Priorities (Superfund)
List (NPL) dated November 15, 1989; Facilities. Index System (FINDS) dated
October 6,-1989; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Index System (CERCLIS) dated November 9, 1989; and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) notification system dated November 15,
1989. We found no indications of NPL sites, FINDS sites, CERCLIS sites, or
RCRA sites located in the vicinity of the site.
4
Geo 01 Engineers
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
The general subsurface conditions were explored at the site by
excavating nine test pits with a tractor -mounted backhoe on January 11,
1990. A hand auger hole was dug on February 2, 1990 by a hydrogeologist
from our firm within the backfill of the underground heating oil tank to
evaluate potential leakage from the tank. The approximate exploration
locations are shown in. the Site Plan, Figure 1. The exploration locations
were determined in the field by measuring from site features. Excavation
of the test pits was monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who
maintained detailed logs and obtained representative samples of the soils
encountered for further examination in our laboratory. The soil sample
collected from the hand auger hole was transferred to a glass sampling jar
and kept cool during transport to the analytical laboratory.
The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the
system shown in Figure 2. The logs of the explorations are presented in
Figures 3 through 7. The. densities noted on the logs are based on the
difficulty of digging and our experience and judgment. A summary of
moisture content tests for selected samples is presented in Figure 8.
• •
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurfacesconditions encountered in our test pits are in general
agreement with conditions described in the referenced 1980 report prepared
by ECI. The native subsurface conditions encountered generally consist
of sand with a variable silt and gravel content overlying glacially
consolidated silt. Fill consisting of silt, sand and gravel with varying
amounts of organic matter was encountered on the northern portion and the
southwestern margin of the site. The topsoil
typically about 0.3 to 0.5 feet thick.
Between 6 to 9.5 feet of fill was encountered in Test Pits 1, 2 and 8,
located in the north portion of the site. In addition, approximately 3 feet
of fill was encountered in Test Pits 5 and 6, located along the southwestern
margin of the site. The fill encountered generally consists of gray to.
brown, medium stiff silt and brown, loose to medium dense sand with silt and
and root
mass
encountered was
5
l
.
Geo^�Engineers
.gravel. Roots and wood debris were also noted in the fill. The fill is
similar to the on-site native soils and may have been placed during
construction of the houses.
The surficial native soils encountered where the fill was not present
generally consists of about 1 to 2 feet of dark brown, loose silty sand
with gravel containing variable amounts of organic matter and roots. Below
this unit or the fill, approximately 2 to 3 feet of gray to brown, medium
dense sand with a variable silt, gravel and cobbles content was encountered.
Brown to gray, very stiff to hard silt was encountered below the native
sand or fill to the bottom of all the test pits at a depth of from 11 to 16
feet. This unit was very difficult to excavate and most of the test pits
were terminated due to practical refusal.
Underground Heating Oil Tank:. Hand Auger Hole HA -1 was dug adjacent to
the heating oil tank. The hand auger hole was located between the tank and
the house basement foundation wall. This hand auger hole encountered
approximately 5 feet of. fill soils. The upper 2.5 feet consists of silty
sand; the lower 2.5 feet, silt with sand. Below the fill, native silty
gravel was encountered. Based on our sounding of the tank, it appears that
the base of the tank may be founded in the silt fill. No ground water was
• •
encountered in the exploration. No: petroleum odors were. detected. on the
.soil.
Ground Water Conditions: Ground water conditions encountered are
indicated on the individual exploration logs. Minor ground water seepage
was observed in most of the test pits and is indicative of a shallow perched
condition. While the ground water 'conditions should be expected to
fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation, and other factors, we do
not expect significant ground water to be encountered at the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
It is our opinion that the site may be satisfactorily developed as
proposed utilizing shallow foundations bearing on the very stiff, to hard•
silt or on structural fill over the silt. Depending upon the building
6
c
1
t
•
Geo4:1•
En
location, placement of fill may be required along the southern margin of the
site, while considerable excavation will be necessary over much of the site
to achieve the proposed parking garage design grade.
Most of the native soils and the fill soils we observed include a
relatively high percentage of silt (fines) and are consequently water -
sensitive Sair. l be diffacu-2ta if notimpossibleF Zto, pzoperl. comgact;
these*sor1sA7hen?�wet: or :during:.:per ods ,'of� wet weather } Thus, these
..mss...;..._._. .......�.�......_...._ ... .. ._
particular soils are not suitable for use as structural fill under wet
conditions. Trafficability on most portions of the site under wet
conditions will be difficult and may result in considerable surface soil
disturbance. If wet weather construction is necessary, disturbed wet silty
soils in building and pavement areas will need to be removed and replaced
with structural fill consisting of clean granular soil. We recommend that
the earthwork for the project be completed during the drier summer months
in order to minimize grading costs.
A limited perched ground water condition may develop during the wet
season, particularly within the surficial soils above the hard silt. Some
ditching to collection sumps and pumping or other means of controlling
ground water may be appropriate during wet weather. However, we expect that
this requirement will be relatively limited.
• •
SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK
The existing house on the south property and the existing foundation
walls on the north property will need to be demolished and removed prior to
project construction. An underground heating oil tank is' -present near the
southwest corner of the existing house on the south property and one may
be present near the foundation on the north property. Such heating oil
:tanks are exemptfrom current regulations and. reporting.. of the tanks is not P
"=necessary: We recommend that the tank(s) be removed, and that we provide
monitoring services during their removal. _Any contamination found in the
vicinity of the tanks should be cleaned up in accordance with regulatory
guidelines.
`We:recommend' that .the,'.building and. pavement. areas be stripped of any/
sod/topsoil.'and forest duff.; Based on our explorations, the stripping
7
41
Geo .,Engineers
necessary will generally be on the order of 6 inches, but areas with greater
stripping depths should be expected. This material should be wasted off
site or used for landscaping purposes.
We expect that all of the soils encountered across the site will be able
to be removed with conventional excavating equipment. It may be necessary
3 to rip the hard silt in localized areas to facilitate excavation.
Those areas which are stripped or excavated to design subgrade
11 elevations, or are to receive structural fill, should be evaluated by a
representative from our firm. It may be necessary to proofroll the subgrade
1 with a smooth -drum vibratory roller or loaded dump truck to identify zones
of loose, soft or otherwise unsuitable material. Depending on the building
location, existing fill soils may be present below the design grade under
portions of the building area. We recommend that the suitability of all
existing fill within the building and pavement area be evaluated by our
firm. It may be necessary to remove some or all of the fill from within the
building footprint and, to a more limited extent, below parking area
subgrade level. During dry weather, the excavated material may be
stockpiled and protected from moisture for reuse as structural fill,
provided it meets the requirements subsequently defined.
We recommend proofrolling not be performed if the subgrade soils are
very stiff silt, similar to that encountered in our test pits, or during wet-
weather
etweather if the subgrade soils are silty and susceptible to disturbance.
Under these conditions, probing may be utilized. If construction needs to
continue during wet weather, it may be necessary to overexcavate and replace
material disturbed in the construction process. A layer of sand and gravel
with less than 5 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve may be used to
replace disturbed areas and may be used to provide.a working surface.
Structural Fill: All new fill in the building and pavement areas should
be placed and compacted as structural fill subsequent to proofrolling and
remedial work as appropriate.
All structural fill material should be free of organics, debris and
other deleterious material with no individual particles larger than 6 inches
in diameter. As the amount of fines (that portion passing U.S. No. 200
sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes
in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to
• •
8
Geo s Engineers
achieve, particularly during wet weather. Generally, soils containing more
than about 5 percent fines by weight cannot be properly compacted when the
moisture content is more than a few percent from optimum.
Some of the surficial on-site soils have a fines content significantly
greater than 5 percent. Attempts to use. this material for structural fill
should not be made except during periods of extended dry weather. If the
site soils are stockpiled and significant drying occurs, it may be necessary
to moisture -condition the soil by adding water to achieve the necessary
compaction.
The fill should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 10 inches
in loose thickness and each lift thoroughly and uniformly compacted. Fill
placed in the building and pavement areas must be compacted to at least
95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). These procedures apply
to all utility trench backfill. Utility trenches outside of building or
pavement areas need only be compacted to a density similar to the native
soil adjacent to the trench.
TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SLOPES
For preliminary planning purposes, we expect that temporary cut slopes
of 1:1 could be used for construction of the project. Slickensides were
noted in the hard silt at one location. If extensive, this could result in
isolated areas of instability of cuts at this inclination. We recommend
that temporary cut slopes be the responsibility of the contractor who will
be on-site on a continuous basis and will be best able to observe site
conditions and monitor the performance of the excavations. Temporary slopes
should conform to all applicable local, state and federal safety regula-
tions.
Surface runoff should be prevented from entering the excavations by
installing curbs, berms, drainage ditches or swales at the crest of the
slopes where needed. Temporary cut slopes should be covered with plastic
sheeting or an equivalent protective covering during periods of wet weather
to reduce the potential for erosion.
We recommend a maximum permanent slope inclination of 2H:1V (horizontal
to vertical) in the native soils or in structural fill placed in accordance
9
Geo tip, --"Engineers
• •
with our recommendations. Permanent slopes should be hydroseeded or
otherwise protected from erosion. Temporary erosion control measures may
be necessary until permanent vegetation is established.
A_ --relatively- steep -slope—exists along _the __north margin _of _the site,.
Based on our explorations in this area and our visual reconnaissance, the
subsurface conditions consist of Mill over- a few feet --of medium idenge
weathered_till-_over hard silt with a trace of_sand_and-_gravel. We did _not
perform_ -any_ -slope_ stability__analyses of the conditions in this area.
However, based on our experience, together with our observations of the
subsurface conditions and our field reconnaissance, it is our opinion that
the slope in this area is stable. Some shallow sloughing could occur in
localized oversteepened areas. \%'e -recommend a minimum -building setback from
the__ slope., at foundation__ elevation, _ of. 25 -feet -from -where .-native soils
(daylight on the hill -Side.) Under these circumstances, it is our opinion that
the proposed development will not significantly affect the stability of this
slope. Any surface water --from the site development should be -routed -away;
,from__the -steep .slope.
SHALLOW FOUNDATION SUPPORT
Isolated or continuous spread footings founded on the very stiff to hard
native silt, medium dense native sand, or structural fill placed over either
of these native soil units, are suitable for support of the proposed
structure. The footings should not be founded on the existing fill soils.
Some overexcavation of fill and unsuitable soils may be necessary. If it
is necessary to place structural fill in footing areas, -the fill should
extend at least 1 foot beyond the edge of the footing for every foot of fill
placed below subgrade elevation. It may be necessary to limit the thickness
of fill/medium dense sand under any footings where adjacent foundation
members are founded on the hard silt to limit differential settlements.
Individual column footings and continuous wall footings should have
minimum widths of 24 and 18 inches, respectively. Exterior footings should
be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade, while'
interior footings should be founded a minimum of 12 inches below top of slab
or adjacent grade. Column footings founded on the native very stiff to hard
silt may be designed using an allowable soil bearing pressure of
10
_'lI,'.
Geo 1OEngineers
• 6,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Similarly founded perimeter footings
may be designed using 4,000 psf. An allowable bearing pressure of 3000 psf
may be used for footings founded on the medium dense native sand and/or
structural fill placed and compacted in accordance with the above recommen-
dations. The allowable soil bearing pressures presented above include dead
loads plus long-term live loads and may be increased by up to one-third for
wind or seismic loads.
We estimate that postconstruction settlements of footings founded on
the hard silt will be less than 1/4 inch. The settlement of footings
founded on structural fill or a combination of structural fill and medium
dense sand may range from. 1/2 to 1 inch, depending on actual foundation
loads and the thickness of fill and sand which underlies the footings.
Maximum differential settlements between adjacent comparably loaded columns
should be less than 1/2 inch where there is a gradual transition from column
footings supported on fill/medium dense sand and footings supported on hard
silt. We estimate that.the differential settlement between exterior column
footings or along continuous footings will be less than 1/2 inch in 40 feet
where footings are supported on hard silt and/or structural fill.
Loose or disturbed soils not removed from the footing excavations prior
to placing concrete will result in increased settlement. The silo is_ very
(susceptible to disturbance if allowed to becomewet. It may be necessary;
`to pour a lean concrete "mud mat" or place a layer of crushed rock in the,
bottom of the footings to protect the footing subgrade from disturbance if
• •
footings are constructed during wet weather..
Depending on the location and finished grade of the structure, the base
of the footings could be below the deepest level of our explorations on some
portions of the site. We recommend that all footing excavations be observed
by a representative from our firm immediately prior to mud mat or steel and
concrete placement to confirm that the bearing surface has been prepared in
a manner consistent with our recommendations and that the subsurface
conditions are as expected.
FLOOR SUPPORT
Subgrade for slab -on -grade floor support should be prepared in
accordance with the previously described site preparation and structural
11
Geo Engineers
• •
fill recommendations. The slab should be supported by either native soil
or structural fill placed over native soil* unless the condition of any
,existing fill below the slab level is determined to be -suitable to provide
;subgrade support. IA 4 -inch capillary break consisting of sand and gravel
;or crushed rock should be placed over the subgrade. The capillary break
material should contain less than 5 percent by weight passing a U.S. No. 200
sieve based on that portion passing the 3/4 -inch sieve. Any disturbed soil
`should be removed and reworked or replaced with structural fill.
The use of a vapor barrier is not necessary if the first floor will be
a parking garage. However, if a floor covering will be used in some areas
that is sensitive to moisture, we recommend that a vapor barrier be placed
between the floor slab and the base course. The vapor barrier should
consist of polyethylene sheeting with bonded seams. In order to maintain
the integrity of the vapor barrier, it should be placed on a leveling course
of sand (if the underlying base course consists of crushed rock) and be
covered with a layer of sand to protect against damage by workmen.
LATERAL RESISTANCE
Lateral loads on retaining walls and building footings may be resisted
by passive resistance on the sides of the footings and by friction on the
base of the footings and slab. Passive resistance may be evaluated using
an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), where
footings are placed neat (i.e., in direct contact) against the very stiff
native silt, medium dense sand or structural fill compacted to 95 percent
of maximum dry density. Passive pressure resistance should be calculated
from the bottom of adjacent floor slabs or paving or below a depth of 1 foot
where the adjacent area is unpaved, as appropriate. Frictional resistance
may be evaluated using 0.45 for the coefficient of base friction against
footings and the building slab. The above values incorporate a factor of
safety of about 1.5.
RETAINING WALLS
Portions of the building walls may serve as retaining walls. Retaining
walls that are allowed to rotate during backfill placement should be
designed for lateral pressures based on an .equivalent fluid density of
35 pcf. If the walls are restrained from movement during backfilling,
12
4
Geo :-.1,Engineels
• •
design pressures should be based on a fluid density of 50 pcf. These values
apply to fill placed and compacted as recommended above, with the exception
that fill within a distance equal to the wall height behind the wall should
be compacted to a maximum of 92 percent of maximum dry density. Care must
be taken by the contractor to avoid overcompaction.
The recommended equivalent fluid densities assume that the ground
surface behind the wall is level for a distance of two times the wall height
and maintenance of a free -draining condition behind the wall. The drainage
may be accomplished by placing a 12- to 18 -inch -wide zone of sand and gravel
containing less than 5 percent fines against the wall. A perforated
drainpipe sloped to a suitable discharge should be installed along the base
of the wall.
The values for soil bearing, frictional resistance and passive pressure
resistance presented for the foundation design are applicable to the
retaining wall design.
PAVEMENT SUBGRADE
We recommend the pavement subgrade be prepared in accordance with the
previously described site preparation and earthwork recommendations. In
order to minimize potential settlements of parking areas, it would be
necessary to excavate all the, existing fill soils and replace with
structural fill. However, since the fill was not observed to contain
significant deleterious material, this procedure appears unwarranted. We
recommend that the pavement subgrade be compacted such that the density of
the top 12 inches of the subgrade is not less than 95 percent of the maximum
dry density based on the ASTM D-1557 test procedure. In areas where
existing fill soils are exposed at the subgrade, it may be necessary to
overexcavate a portion of the existing fill, recompact and/or replace it
with structural fill in order to achieve the recommended subgrade density.
A 6- to 9 -inch -thick subbase layer of clean (less than 5 percent fines)
pit run sand and gravel may be required to protect the subgrade if grading
occurs during wet weather. We do not have specific information on the
frequency or loading of vehicles which will use the area. However, we
generally recommend a minimum pavement section consisting of 3 inches of
asphalt concrete (AC) over 6 inches of densely compacted crushed rock base
13
Geo 40 Engineers
course for access roads and in maneuvering and parking areas with truck
traffic. If some areas of the site will have traffic limited to passenger
automobiles only, the pavement section could be reduced to 2 inches of AC
over 4 inches of crushed rock.
• •
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
The_ site could experience seasonally shallow perched ground water
conditions due to the'relatively'impermeable soil which occurs at.shallo.w
depths. Therefore, we recommend the building be provided with a.systecn-of
perimeter footing drains. The footing drains should consist of at least
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. A perforated drain pipe should also be installed
at the base of all retaining walls. This perforated drainage system should
be sloped to drain into a tightline collection system, to a suitable
discharge, preferably connected to the storm sewer.
The pavement and surrounding landscaped areas should be sloped so that
surface water runoff is collected and routed away from the building to
suitable discharge points. We recommend all downspouts be tightlined away
from building foundations preferably to the storm sewer. Downspouts should
not be connected to footing drains.
SITE CONTAMINATION
Site reconnaissance
for evidence of hazardous
during the field exploration on January 11, 1990.
materials was performed
We found no evidence of
;contamination on any -portion -of the site. Some debris and uncontrolled fill
were observed on the site. In our opinion, none of the material observed
during our reconnaissance or explorations represents a potential source of
soil or ground water contamination. However, any undocumented fill
materials represent a potential source of contamination.
Inspection for the presence of asbestos or other hazardous materials
within the existing residence was
The existing residence on the
oil tank located ai the southwest
not included in our scope of services.
south property has an underground heating
corner of the structure. It is possible
that one is present on the north lot. We 'advanced a hand auger hole
14
J
1
1
1
i
1
j
Geo 0Engineers
adjacent to the fuel tank on the southern property as described previously.
No unusual soil odors, colors or textures were detected in soil from the
hand auger hole.
A soil sample obtained from below the base of the heating oil tank was
submitted to an analytical laboratory for chemical testing. The soil sample
was tested for the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in accordance with EPA
Method 418.1. The results provided by the analytical laboratory are
presented in Appendix A. In general, this petroleum hydrocarbon analysis
detects heating oil, diesel fuel and "heavier" petroleum products. A
ozic•
•entration "of.9 6t parts pe;r million. ('ppm) was detected in the soil sample
submrtted`- for --analysis..:; Thi's low :concentration sof petroleum hydrocarbons
is well below regulatory levelsand likely represents background' conditions.
' The=�,test ., res;f
ults ndicate . ri.-.elatively low risk:: of.: significant: petroleum
c•
• :hydocarboncontamination :from. this heating
As mentioned previously, historic development of the site and adjacent
properties is limited to single family residences and the adjacent Qestar
Commerce Center. There is no evidence to suspect that the property has been
used for commercial or industrial activity. Consequently, the presence of
hazardous or toxic material from any type of commercial or industrial usage
is, in our opinion, unlikely.
With the exception of a potential heating oil tanks located on the
northern property, based on our research, site reconnaissance and field
explorations,_ it is our opinion that there is low risk of environmental:
Viability;associated with this -site due to:any.existing.on-site contamina-�
:::tion by'hazardous or toxic materials.
• •
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for use by Bedford Properties, their
architects, engineers, and lenders for their use with respect to this
project. The data and report should be provided to 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 project was in the conceptual stage at this writing. Further
consultation regarding specific design elements may be appropriate. When
15
•
•
Ceo�Enwineers
the design has been finalized, we recommend that the final design and
specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have
been interpreted and implemented as intended.
( The scope of our services does not include services related to construc-
tion 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 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 antici-
pated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation
activities comply with contract plans and specifications.
The information relating to potential sources of subsurface contami-
nation presented herein is based on the above described data and a single
recent site visit. GeoEngineers has relied upon information available and
provided by others in our description of historical conditions on and
adjacent to the site. The available data do not provide definitive
information with regard to all past uses, operations,or incidents at or
around the site. : Limited • environmental~testing was' performe"d'>;for`.this:
study.. The.potential always exists for areas of contamination that were not
entified.`. Further evaluation of such potential would require additional
subsurface exploration and testing.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have
been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area
at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or
• •
7
1
A
1 implied, should be understood.
0 0 0
16
1
1
i
1
1
R
Geo 10 Engineers
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you. If
• •
you have any questions concerning this report or if we can provide
additional services, please call.
JJM:JRG:JKT:wd
Respectfully submitted,
GeoEngineers, Inc.
Je ome J. McFadde J r., P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
J. Robert Gordon, P.E.
Se o Engineer
lack K. Tuttle, P.E.
berincipal
17
119 012.1301 ✓J41 ./,1 1-19 90
REFERENCE:
SCALE IN FEET
_____A --v.
7 7
:05
/ 1—,_--- \T_°/-no
PropertyLine
\\\ / _te_
eS(�P-2,� —��
�—N7.:_________
�- /TP -34 ns
1 \
\ / (—_ .-------
\\MC (7* V
0/))))
/(1
51ST AVENUE SOUTH
DRAWINGS ENTITLED "PLAT MAP VOL.10, PG. 47, SP7910170915"
PROVIDED BY BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC., DATED 1/11/90 AND
"PEST PIT LOCATION PLAN QESTER OFFICE BUILDING, TUKWILA,
WA.", (FOR SITE TOPOGRAPHY ON NORTH LOT), DATED OCT '80
BY EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
19+
1J
EXPLANATION:
TP -1* TEST PIT LOCATION AND NUMBER
NA -1A HAND AUGER LOCATION AND NUMBER
1 `gyp
Geo e.Engineers
SITE PLAN
FIGURE 1
1
1
1
GEI 85-88
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 SANG, 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
LIOUID 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:
1. Field classification is based on
visual examination of soil in general
accordance with ASTM D2488-83.
2. Soil classification using laboratory
tests is based on ASTM D2487-83.
3. Descriptions of soil density or
consistency are based on
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
to the touch
Moist - Damp, but no visible water
Wet - Visible free water or saturated,
usually soil is obtained from
below water table
Geo .,:e0 Engineers
SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
FIGURE 2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
w
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEEI) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT •
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 1
0.0 - 0.3 ORGANIC MATTER AND ROOT MASS
0.3 - 1.5 M'., MOTTLED GRAY TO BROWN SILT WITH OCCASIONAL SAND AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM
STIFF, MOIST) WITH ROOTS TO APPROXIMATELY 0.5 INCH DIAMETER
SCATTERED THROUGHOUT (FILL)
1.5 - 7.0 S? -SM CRAY TO BROWN FINE TO MEEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE GRAVEL TO
SM SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE,
MOIST) WITH CHARRED WOOD, ROOTS AND DECOMPOSED WOOD SCATTERED
THROUGHOUT (FILL)
7.0 - 9.5 SP -SN LICHT BROWN TO FROWN FINE SAND WITH 5ILT GRADING TO SILT WITH.
MC • TRACE OF FINE SAND, AND TRACE OF COARSE SAND AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM
DENSE/STIFF, MOIST)
9.5 - 13.5 SP BROWN SILTY FINE SAND TO SILT GRADING TO GRAYISH BROWN 5ILT WITH
Mr TRACE OF SAND AND OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE/VERY STIFF, MOIST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 13.5 FEET ON 01/11/90 DUE TO PRACTICAL
REFUSAL
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
NO CAVING OBSERVED
0.0 - 0.3
0.3 - 2.0 M:
2.0 - 6.0 SM
6.0 - 9.0 SP
9.0 - 13.5 XL
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.0, 3.5, 7.5, 11.0 AND 13.0
FEET
TEST PIT 2
ORGANIC MATTER AND ROOT MASS
CRAY TO BROWN SILT TO SILT WITH FINE SAND (MEDIUM STIFF, HOIST)
WITH ROOTS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT (FILL)
FROWN FINE TO COARSE SILTY SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE.,
HOIST) WITH ROOTS SCATTERED THROUGHOUT (FILL)
GRAY TO FROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH SILT AND GRAVEL AND
OCCASIONAL COBBLE (TEDIUM DENSE, HOIST TO WET)
CRAY TO BROWN SILT WITH TRACE OF FINE SAND (HARD, MOIST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 13.5 FEET ON 01/11/90 DUE TO PRACTICAL
REFUSAL
MINOR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 6.0 FEET
MINOR CAVING OBSERVED
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 1.0, 3.0, 7.0 AND 12.0 FEET
TEE 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 3
7
.!t
7
4
1
DEPTH BELOW SOL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIF)CAT)ON
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT •
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 3
0.0 - 0.3 ORGANIC MATTER AND ROOT MASS
0.3 - 4.0 SH BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES
(MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOI5T TO WET)
4.0 - 12.0 ?C, BROWN SILT TO SILT WITH FINE SAND, GRADING TO CRAY SILT (VERY
STIFF GRADING TO HARD, MOIST)
0.0 - 0.3
0.3 - 2.0 SM
2.0 - 3.0 5?
3.0 - 13.5 M.
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 12.0 FEET ON 01/11/90 DUE TO PRACTICAL
REFUSAL
MINOR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 0.5 FEET
NO CAVING OBSERVED
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 5.0 AND 10.0 FEET
TEST PIT 4
ORGANIC MATTER AND ROOT MASS
DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE,
MOIST) WITH ROOTS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 1 INCH DIAMETER SCATTERED
THROUGHOUT
CRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND OCCASIONAL GRAVEL
(MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST 20 WET)
MOTTLED CRAY 20 BROWN SILT 20 SILT WITH FINE SAND, GRADING TO BROWN
SILT IO CRAY SILT (STIFF GRADING TO HARD, MOIST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 13.5 FEET ON 01/11/90 DUE TO PRACTICAL
REFUSAL
MINOR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 2.0 FEET
NO CAVING OBSERVED
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES 03TAINED AT 2.5, 4.0, 10.5 AND 13.5 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,Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 4
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
i
f
w
DEPTH BELOW SOL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT •
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 5
0.0 - 0.3 ORGANIC MATTER AND ROOT MASS
0.3 - 1.0
1.0 - 3.0
3.0 - 5.0
5.0 - 16.0
0.0 - 0.5
SH
SH
SP -SM
XL
0.5 - 3.0
3.0 - 5.5 5?
5.5 - 14.0 ML
DARK BROWN SILTY TINE 70 1'.EDIUM SAND WITS OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE,
MOIST) WITH ROOTS UP TO APPROXIMATELY 0.5 INCH DIAMETER
SCATTERED THROUGHOUT (FILL)
BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) WITH ROOTS AND ORGANICS SCATTERED
THROUGHOUI (FILL)
GRAY TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST
TO WET)
CRAY TO BROWN SILT 70 SILT WITH FINE SAND, GRADING TO CRAY SILT
(VERY STIFF GRADING TO HARD, MOIST) WITH SLICKENSIDES
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 16.0 FEET ON 01/11/90 DUE TO PRACTICAL
REFUSAL
MINOR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 3.0 FEET
MINOR CAVING OBSERVED BETWEEN 3.0 AND 5.0 FEET
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 2.0, 4.0, 9.5 AND 14.5 FEET
TEST PIT 6
SOD AND ROOT MASS
DARK BROWN TO CRAY SILT WITH SAND AND OCCASIONAL CRAVEL (MEDIUM
STIFF, MOIST) (FILL)
BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL
COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
GRAY TO BROWN SILT TO SILT WITH FINE SAND, GRADING 70 GRAY SILT
(VERY STIFF GRADING TO HARD, MO:ST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 14.0 FEET ON 01/11/90 DUE TO PRACTICAL
REFUSAL
MINOR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 5.5 FEET
NO CAVING OBSERVED
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 2.0, 3.5, 9.5 AND 12.5 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 CONSID_ERID'ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT.
Geo J Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 5
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEET) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT •
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 7
0.0 - 0.5 ORGANIC MATTER AND ROOT MASS
0.5 - 2.0 M. BROWN TO GRAY SILI WITH SAND AND GRAVEL (TEDIUM STIFF, HOIST TO
WEI) WITH ROOTS UP 70 APPROXIMATELY 0.3 INCH DIAMETER SCATTERED
THROUGHOUT (FILL)
2.0 - 13.0 TSI, BROWN SILT TO SILT WITH FINE SAND, GRADING 70 GRAY SILT (VERY
STIFF GRADING TO HARD, HOIST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 13.0 FEET ON 01/11/90 DUE TO PRACTICAL
REFUSAL
MINOR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 2.0 FEET
MINOR CAVING OBSERVED
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 10.5 FEET
TEST PIT 8
0.0 - 0.3 ORGANIC MATTER AND ROOT MASS
0.3 - 1.0 12. MOTTLED GRAY TO BROWN SILI WITH OCCASIONAL SAND AND GRAVEL (TEDIUM.
STIFF, MOIST) (FILL)
1.0 - 9.5 SM GRAY TO BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL
M. COBBLES TO SILT WITH OCCASIONAL SAND AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE/
TEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) (FILL)
9.5 - 12.5 SH BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITS OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (M=D11i1
DENSE, .MOIST)
12.5 - 15.5 1C.. BROWN SILT WITH TRACE OF SAND AND GRAVEL (VERY STIFF, HOIST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 15.5 FEET ON 01/11/90 DUE TO PRACTICAL
REFUSAL
MINOR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 3.0 FEET
MINOR CAVING OBSERVED
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 2.5, 11.0 AND 15.0 FEET
TEE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 F00T, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS
TEE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED'ACCURATE 70 0.5 FOOT.
Geo eEngineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE 6
.•
O
UJ
CD
DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP
GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION
(FEE) SYMBOL
LOG OF TEST PIT
DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT 9
0.0 - 0.3 ORGANIC HATTER AND ROOT MASS
0.3 - 1.5 SH DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO MIDIUM SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE,
HOIST)
1.5 - 5.0 SH CRAY TO BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL
COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, HOIST)
5.0 - 11.0 )4. BROWN SILT WITH TRACE OF SAND, GRADING TO GRAY SILT (VERY STIFF,
MOIST)
TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET ON 01/11/90
MINOR GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED AT 1.5 FEET
NO CAVING OBSERVED
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 6.0 FEET
HAND AUGER HOLE 1
0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL
0.2 - 2.5 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND ROOTS (ME. -.'IU.'!
DENSE, MOIST) (FILL)
2.5 - 5.0 BROWN SILT WITH SAND (STIFF, MOIST) (FILL)
5.0 - 5.5 GM BROWN SILTY GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOTS:)
:.AND AUGER HOLE COMPLETED TO 5.5 FEET ON 02/09/90
DISTURBED SOIL SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 5.3 FEET
NO GROUND WATER SEEPAGE OBSERVED
NO SHEEN OR ODOR DETECTED
NOTE: HEATING OIL TANK SOUNDED TO 4.3 FEET
TEE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF HEASUR Y. NTS ACROSS
THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT.
Geo ,°0;01 Engineers
LOG OF TEST PIT
FIGURE .7
•
r•
1
{
1
v
• •
SUMMARY OF MOISTURE CONTENT
Test
Pit
Number
Sample
Depth
(feet)
*Soil
Type
Moisture
Content
1
3.5
SP/SM
15.1
1
7.5
SP/SM
10.1
1
11.0
ML
16.0
1
13.0
ML
21.9
2
3.0
SM
17.9
2
7.0
SP
9.9
2
12.0
ML
23.0
3
5.0
ML
21.0
3
10.0
ML
22.1
4
4.0
ML
30.3
4
10.5
ML
30.0
4
13.5
ML
28.6
5
2.0
SM
40.4
5
4.0
SP/SM
17.5 .
5
9.5
ML
28.3
5
14.5
ML
25.3
6
3.5
SP
16.1
6
9.5
ML
21.7
6
12.5
ML
21.6
7
10.5
ML
20.7
8
2.5
ML
23.9
8
11.0
SM
16.6
8 15.0
ML
13.2
9 6.0
ML
15.2
Refer To Test Pit Logs For Complete. Soil Description
•
•
Geo��Engineers
SUMMARY OF MOISTURE. CONTENT
FIGURE 8
• •
APPENDIX A
A P P t.N DIA A
• i
•
•
AnalyticolTechnologies,inc. 560 Nocnes Avenue. S.W.. Su;re 101. Renton. WA 98055, (206) 22E•6335
1 • r,
ATI I.D. n 9002-042
Geo En i ,tiers
February 28, 1990
iio;:ong
11
GeoEngineers, Inc.
2405 140th Ave. N.E.
Bellevue, WA 98005
Attention : J. Gordon
Project Number : 1199-012
Project Name : Tukwila
On February 9, 1990 Analytical Technologies, Inc. received one soil
sample for analysis. The sample was analyzed with EPA methodology
or equivalent methods as specified in the attached analytical
schedule. The results, sample cross reference, and the quality
control data are enclosed.
6{,eC.4..lVl • /,!
Dcnna M. McKinney
Project Manager
FWG/hbb
• t
Frederick W. Grothkopp
Technical Manager
•
. Ancfrico:Technologies 2
.i
^ '., I v
7.7
• ATI I.D. = 9002-042
ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE
CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC.
PROJECT 4 : 1199-012
PROJECT NAME : TUKWILA
ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE REFERENCE' LAB
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IR EPA 418.1 R
R = ATI - Renton
SD = ATI - San Diego
T = ATI — Tempe
PNR = ATI - Pensacola
SUB = Subcontract
A-3
_t An0!y?icoiTechnoIo ies.
1
1
4
•
GENERAL CHEMISTRY QUALITY CONTROL
ATI I.D. = 9002-04:
CLIENT : GEOENGINEERS, INC. SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL
PROJECT # : 1199-012
PROJECT NAME : TUKWILA UNITS : mg/Kg
ATI SAMPLE DUP SPIKED SPIKE %
PARAMETER UNITS I.D. RESULT RESULT RPD CONC ADDED REC
PETROLEUM
I HYDROCARBONS mg/Kg 9002-034-39 <5.0 6.0 0 140 123 114
lir::
% Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result)
X 100
Spike Concentration
RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Sample Result - Duplicate Result)
x 100
A-5
Average Result