Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E95-0036 - NEILSEN FARM HOTEL & WAREHOUSENEILSEN FARM HOTEL & WAREHOUSE 15031 GRADY WY S. E95-0036 ApPLIcitriotki , )002E0 P µ /1/61.VOLO -- fro- of G SE of r7:0----(� 1/ th ii1ro-00 f oft5 Alco t 1 August 5, 1996 • Cityof Tukwila `a John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Thomas M. Lee O'Keefe LLC 7900 SE 28th Street #400 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: Nielsen Site Hotel and Warehouse Proposal L95-0068 (Design Review) L95-0069 (Shoreline Permit) E95-0036 (Environmental Review) Dear Mr. Lee: This is to follow up on my letter of July 22, 1996,•informing,you of a pending expiration date of the above referenced application. This is to inform you that the above referenced applications have now expired. If you wish to proceed with the project, you will be required to submit a new application, fees and comply with current regulations. If you wish to appeal this determination you must do so in writing no later than 5:00 P.M., August 19, 1996. If you have any questions on this action or on appeal procedures, you can contact John Jimerson at 431-3663. r Sincerely, teve Lancaster DCD Director cc: Edi Linardic, LDG Architects SL:JJ C:\sepa\2nieexp.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 July 22, 1996 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Thomas M. Lee O'Keefe LLC 7900 SE 28th Street #400 Mercer Island, WA 98040 RE: Nielsen Site Hotel and Warehouse Proposal L95-0068 (Design Review) L95-0069 (Shoreline Permit) E95-0036'(Environmental Review) Dear Mr. Lee: As you know, the above referenced applications were submitted for approval last December. In January we sent Edi Linardic, acting as the applicant for your project, a letter which identified several items that needed to be submitted or addressed before the project could be advanced. Two subsequent letters, one in February and one in March, .were sent requesting that you clarify the disposition of the application. It has been almost six months since the original letter was mailed and we still have not received response to any of the three letters. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that if we do not receive the items identified in the January 26, 1996, letter by August 4, 1996, all of the above referenced applications will expire and become void. If you wish to keep the process moving, then you need to provide the requested information by August 2nd. I understand that Homestead Village is no longer pursuing that site. If this results in significant changes to the project, a new application will be required. Don't hesitate to call John Jimerson at 431-3670 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster DCD Director cc: Edi Linardic, LDG Architects SL:JJ C:\sepa\nieexp.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 To: From: Date: Subject: • • RECEIVED Homestead Residence (Nelsen Farm) SEPA Comments Ron Cameron, City Engineer February 12, 1996 SEPA comments on the plans dated December 8, 1995 SEPA E95-0036 (See January 21 memo for additional development comments.) FEB 13 1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WATER The Water Utilities Plan (Comp Plan) identifies the need to loop the Interurban system in order to provide service for development of the Nelsen Farm site. The current site has been a farm with low water use, the looped system is required to provide water flows for development. The Homestead Residence frontal is the remaining section of 12 inch line to complete the looping and provide this service. It is a mitigation requirement to provide this segment of waterline to provide water service to the Nelsen site and not impact other users. SEWER Sewer service to this area must be provide for any development as none exists. A sewer design will require City approval for the development to be approved. Three alternatives are: 1. constructing a system to the north and the Fort Dent Way lift station. This will require a pump for the development, upsizing the Ft Dent Wy lift station and intervening lines. This is the City's preferred alternative, 2. constructing a line to the south under I405 to the Nelsen P1 system, 3. constructing a line to the east under the BNRR and the UPRR tracks, through Renton, and connecting to the Renton system. Previously, Renton has asked Tukwila for a franchise to provide service for Tukwila customers to Renton. Agreements with the railroads (UPRR & BNRR), Renton, and permits (Renton, UPRR, BNRR, etc.) will be needed prior to approval of plans for this alternative. Legal descriptions, drawings, designs, and similar materials such as permits that have been approved and identify the sewer connection to the east will be required prior to Tukwila approving the design. DRAINAGE Access to the dike will be needed to provide King County Flood Control access for inspection and maintenance. A title report showing ownership from the north property line to toe of the river is needed to ascertain the ability to provide this protection. Homestead may choose to provide "in river" detention by excavating some portionof the bank/dike. The title report is required for this work. Similarly, the existing drain location and ownership needs to be identified. If the ownership is different than Homestead for the drain system outfall, an easement for the outfall with legal description and drawing is required before any permits including land altering can be issued. The outfall design is to be in accord with the King County Design Manual and must have King County SWM and the HPA permit approval prior to Tukwila issuing approval. The existing riverbank provides the dike protection for the farm. A riverbank stabilization study that assures the dike is structurally adequate to protect the development is required prior to issuing any land altering or other permits. Any riverbank stability deficiencies must have the corrective actions identified and be the first action prior to issuing any permits including land altering. The study needs to identify the 100 year and SPF flood elevations on the plans. A riverbank maintenance easement (standard 20 foot) is required for King County flood control maintenance of the levee. The stabilization study is required by Ord 1499. The development will increase impervious surface and associated runoff. Calculations of flood storage, bioswale, and drain system capacity are needed for approval of the drain system. 100 year 7 day 24 hour storm flood detention storage design is required. The WSDOT drain system on the westerly side of the site needs to be. specifically located in the field and on the plans by survey; in order to ascertain that it will not be affected by Homestead construction. TRANSPORTATION The access to this development is limited to right turn only. Left turns to or from either W Valley or Grady are not allowed. The site is restricted to right turn only traffic on Interurban and on Grady Way. This is a safety and capacity mitigation restriction previously determined by WSDOT and the City. Homestead's initial mitigation is to provide right turn only signing. Future traffic control mitigations will be required to physically prohibit left turn access if traffic violates the left turn prohibition. An agreement that rides with the development to provide for the funding of potential future traffic control must be provided. The future control may be installation of "C" curb channelization in the street, at the driveway, or both. The TP&E December 14, 1995 Homested development traffic study identifes peak hour traffic. Traffic counts need to be made of the access to • • ascertain the existing volumes in determining the traffic mitigations for the development's increased traffic. Intersections affected by the Homestead increased peak hour traffic are and mitigations are: SouthcenterPkWy/Strander increase to 2010 is 954 trips and improvement cost is $134,000. The prorated share is $140/trip. 13 peak hour trips mitgation is $1,820 SouthcenterPkWy/S 168 St increase to 2010 is 899 trips and improvement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is $278/trip. 13 peak hour trips mitgation is $3,614. Andover Park E/Baker increase to 2010 is 663 trips and im- provement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is $377/trip. 6 peak hour trips mitgation is $2,262. (Note: the 20% to north and east is assumed that 5% will use Andover Park E/S'Cntr Blvd/Grady and 15% W Valley/I405) Andover Park E/Strander increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $94,000. The prorated share is $135/trip. 25 peak hour trips mitgation is $3,375. SouthcenterPkWy/Minkler increase to 2010 is 907 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $122,903. The prorated share is $136/trip. 13 peak hour trips mitgation is $1,768. 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. S 180 St/SR181. The increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips and improvement cost is $1,520,000. The prorated share is $475. 25 peak hour trips mitgation is $11,875. Interurban Bridge widening. The increase to 2010 is 1,114 trips and improvement cost is $1,250,000. The prorated share is $1,122/trip. 7 peak hour trips mitgation would be $7,854. (Note: this is not included in mitigations as the trip distribution indicates that the traffic bypasses the bridge). Total traffic mitigations are $33,102 for the intersections and estimated to be $25,000 for the design and construction of raised channelization preventing left turns at the access points - $58,102 Date: 9 -Feb -96 10:22:31 From: DIANA -P (DIANA PAINS R) To: JOHN -J Copies -to: DIANA-P,ANN,JACK Subject: Call from Architectural Historian Message -id: 67201B3101000000 I talked to Shirley Cortois, who did the research on Nielsen Farm. She said that David Hanson, who I talked to at SHPO, is the deputy director. He has reviewed the site in the past, although he wouldn't necessarily remember that from the information I gave him. She is going to meet with him on February 23rd, and will show him photos of the site again, and see if he has more detailed guidance. She said that the decision that was made at the time was that the site as a whole - the whole farm complex - is compromised. The decision was made at the state level that the value of the site lay in the information potential of the barn. And that it would be a reasonable mitigation if the barn was documented. There are different levels of documentation. The State would review the documentation to determine whether it was adequate. Because they would be routed the SEPA checklist anyway (we have to remember to put them on distribution list), they would either review documentation that would provide mitigation beforehand, so that a DNS could be issued; or review documentation afterwards, if the documentation was required as a mitigation on a DNS with conditions, and would delay the project. CON'T Her recommendation, and this would be mine as well, is that we inform the developer that the site is significant, and that the state will be reviewing it. And ask them if they would like to proceed with documentation now. Her other recommendation, and I agree, is that we ask them to pay for it, but make the arrangements ourselves. That way we can have control of the quality of the project. She said that in addition to photographs, text should accompany the documentation. This is because analysis needs to be done on the significance of the structure of the barn. It is a transitional type of barn, in that it's a type that occurred when the use of timbers was fading (?) out, and the use of milled lumber was getting more common. It is significant in how the structure was organized for the functions it had as a dairy barn. She said that the only person she knows of who has the expertise to do this is a woman named Kate Craft, who specializes in dairy barns in Washington State. She also said that we need a professional architectural photographer to document the barn, because it's such a big, dark building, and you need the proper sort of correcting lenses, etc. The best situation is if we could talk the developer into proceeding now (we have plenty of information that documents that it will be a SEPA issue), get the money from him to hire Kate Kraft with a sole source contract, and then leave the hiring of an architectural photographer to her. She said that we need to give explicit direction to the developer if we don't handle this in the way suggested above. There are two formats at the state for documentation. One form - they're called an Historic Structure Report - is to document buildings that are going to be rehabilitated and used for something new. It is quite detailed. The other form is to document buildings that are going to be demolished. She will get us thiese forms. My recommendation would be to write the developer now and see if he wants to proceed. If he doesn't, then at least he will be forewarned that he will have to spend the time mitigating after the SEPA is issued, and this may cause delays. If you want me o write a letter for your s gnature, or whatever, I will. Date: 9 -Feb -96 08:02:42• • From: DIANA -P (DIANA PAINTER) To: ANN Copies -to: JOHN -J Subject: Nielsen Farm Message -id: A2FF1A3101000000 I talked to the SHPO and got some guidance about what we call in to the architectural historian who did the work. could take on the documentation of Niesen Farm ourselves lot of creative thinking we could do about it though . . can do. I've got a It sounds like we I think there's a . I will give Hans the packet of information today to pass on, to see if someone at the U. would be interested in having a studio address it. Or maybe I'll just call the U myself, as a more official thing . . . If John agrees, since he's the project person. I contacted a friend of mine who restores historic barns and builds them in the historic manner to see if he has any ideas. Yesturday I addressed the question to Jack about using SEPA and the comp. plan to require something of the applicant (before we apparently got it straightened out). He, in his inimitable fashion, says he's taken care of it by asking John to contact the historic committee, which is a good idea, and to talk to Don, which is also a good idea and one that John and I discussed. Date: 8 -Feb -96 11:14 • • From: DON (DON WILLIAMS) To: JOHN -J Copies -to: DON Subject: RE: Nielsen Farms/Green River Trail... Message -id: OCDB193101DEDEDE In -reply -to: 4C7A183101DEDEDE >Date: 7 -Feb -96 10:09 >From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSON) >To: DON (DON WILLIAMS) >Subject: Nielsen Farms/Green River Trail... >Don- > >We are considering options for mitigating loss of historical structures >on Nielsen Farm site. One idea is for the developer to pay for an >interpretive sign with text and photos to be located along the trail. We >are also considering architectural changes to the building to reflect the >historical use of the property. Any input you may have on these ideas is >welcome. >John Great idea for tail. Where4 are we on the trail? Ours or the one I suggested we have them put in behind their buildings. Please call me and we can talk. Don 1843 Date: 7 -Feb -96 13:06 • From: ANN (ANN SIEGENTHALER) To: JOHN -J Copies -to: DIANA -P, GARY-SCHULZ,JACK, STEVE Subject: NielsenFarm public access requirem't Importance: HIGH Message -id: DDA3183101DEDEDE John: Just a reminder that Comp Plan directs us to "require" Nielsen Farm development to "provide public access or private natural area in lieu of physical public access" (5.5.6). Council defined private natural area as area "adjacent to OHWM that is not developed and has no structures for human use, but where vegetation is maintained for the primary purpose of wildlife habitat. Native vegetation dominates, but non-native plantings that enhance habitat are allowed." Date: 6 -Feb -96 17:08 • • From: ANN (ANN SIEGENTHALER) To: DIANA -P Copies -to: ALEXA,JACK,JOHN-J,MOIRA,STEVE,VERNON Subject: RE: pictures of cows Importance: HIGH Message -id: FB8A173101DEDEDE In -reply -to: C185173101000000 >Date: 6 -Feb -96 16:45: >From: DIANA -P (DIANA PAINTER) >To: ANN (ANN SIEGENTHALER) >Subject: pictures of cows >There are pictures of the cow mural at Fratelli's in Hans' office. >took them because we're thinking of mitigations for the planned >destruction of the Fred Nelson homestead, which is an historic property, >although there is some question of what we can get from a private >developer. Anyway, take a look at the photos if you're interested. DIANA: Thanks. Also, please try to get developer to volunteer to salvage the WEATHERVANE from the barn. It can be incorporated as public art for that project or for new Community Center, or donated to Tukwila Historical Society or something similar. Note that the Comp Plan contains several policies related to protection of historic resources a) city-wide and b) along river, e.g. "Include consideration of features that reflect characteristics �f Tukwila's history in the design review of commercial...." (1.2.4); "Ensure that...development reflects river's important role in Tukwila history...by providing for the identification, protection and interpretation of unique historic...features" (5.8.1). I assume that when the Council directs us to "include" something in design review, or "ensure" that something occurs, they're serious about it. These policies should be factors in staff's recommendations. Date: 5 -Feb -96 10:11 • • From: DON (DON WILLIAMS) To: STEVE Copies -to: ANN,JOHN-J Subject: RE: Oxbow river trail Message -id: DCD7153101DEDEDE In -reply -to: 260A123101000000 >Date: 2 -Feb -96 12:57: >From: STEVE (STEVEN J. LANCASTER) >To: DON (DON WILLIAMS) >Subject: RE: Oxbow river trail >Date: 1 -Feb -96 17:58 >From: DON (DON WILLIAMS) >Subject: RE: Oxbow river trail »Date: 1 -Feb -96 15:38 »From: ANN (ANN SIEGENTHALER) »To: DON (DON WILLIAMS) »Subject: Oxbow river trail »Don: »I am reviewing Comp Plan shoreline policies and what these require of >new »shoreline developments. This raised a question in my mind regarding a »specific site: the Oxbow. As you probably know, DCD has an >application »from US Postal Service for development there. »Council clearly desired public access along river, and REQUIRED it »wherever it was identified as part of Green River Trail. Your recent »"Facilities Guide" shows "future" GRT at Oxbow site along West Marginal »Way, not river. Was this route officially adopted in GRT Master Plan? >I »understood that the reason it was located there was that in earlier • »negotiations Desimone Trust did not want it along river. Now that >there »is new owner, new tenant, can't we get a true river trail there? Do we »need to/can we amend the GRT Master Plan? This issue should also be »reviewed relative to the Duwamish Corridor properties. Was the >decision »to locate future trail along West Marginal Way vs. river due to >Boeing's »proposal in programmatic EIS, or did Council independently decide to »located it there? I'm concerned that other documents are establishing »shoreline policy independent of what community has stated in new »Comprehensive Plan. Can we review this issue together w/Steve? >Thanks. >I appreciate your thoughts and concure that we need to talk. I think we >need to look at the sequencing of these plans, you'll see we adopted >the KC Green River Master Plan [no trail along the river] before we >adopted our Master P & R Plan. The Boeing plans and other plans have >come along after the above mentioned plan. The question is how do we >get a trail and coordinate the various adopted plans. As they say - >let's talk. Give me a call to set a time. This IS important. Don >ANN and DON: To further complicate matters with specific regard to >the Oxbow property: The latest I heard was that the US Postal Service >has excercised its option to purchase two of the buidings and take a ong >term lease on (a portion of) the Oxbow property. Sabey Corp and Postal >Service say this takes the entire Postal Service project out of our >jurisdiction. Informal41,onsultations with MSRC an ob Johns seem to >confirm this. >When you meet, I would suggest you check with Jack on issues related to >Boeing Programmatic EIS and any implications/committments made. You may >also wish to talk to John J. re: status of Postal facility. STEVE. Thanks Steve for info, I'm going to leave is up to Ann to set a meeting for us to talk. Ann call me to check when I can meet. Don Date: 5 -Feb -96 11:50:39• From: DIANA -P (DIANA PAINTER) To: JACK,STEVE Copies -td: JOHN -J Subject: Neilsen Farm site Message -id: OFEF153101000000 • For your information, the Nielsen Farm site is an identified historic site. It's been surveyed, and the recommendation made that it be documented for the National Register, at which point it could be destroyed. It is potentially significant for the architecture of the barn, as the homestead of an early settler and important person in the community and region, and the site itself. The immediate homestead site IVictorian farmhouse, barn and landscaping) is intact. The larger site, which was bordered by Renton Junction station of the Interurban and contained Maple Grove Park,.a regional destination, is no longer intact. I gave John my information on the site. We should ask for mitigation for the destruction of a locally significant historic site. Date: 5 -Feb -96 13:03:13 From: DIANA -P (DIANA PAINTER) To: JOHN -J Subject: RE: Neilsen Farm site Message -id: 1100163101000000 >Date: 5 -Feb -96 11:55 >From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSON) >To: DIANA -P >Subject: RE: Neilsen Farm site >Application -name: MHS >Message -id: 3DF0153101DEDEDE >In -reply -to: OFEF153101000000. »Date: 5 -Feb -96 11:50: »From: DIANA -P (DIANA PAINTER) »To: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSON) »Subject: Neilsen Farm site »For your information, the Nielsen Farm site is an identified historic »site. It's been surveyed, and the recommendation made that it be »documented for the National Register, at which point it could be »destroyed. It is potentially significant for the architecture of the »barn, as the homestead of an early settler and important person in the »community and region, and the site itself. The immediate homestead site »IVictorian farmhouse, barn and landscaping) is intact. The larger site, »which was bordered by Renton Junction station of the Interurban and »contained Maple Grove Park, a regional destination, is no longer intact. »I gave John my information on the site. We should ask for mitigation for »the destruction of a locally significant historic site. >Dianna - do you recommend any specific mitigation? Cows on the warehouse. Maybe I'll go take pictures of the cows today. I'll give other mitigation some thought . . . an interpretative area is a possibility, possibly included in the public right-of-way of the trail (ie that way we could control design, they could just contribute money). I'll show you some slides of an industrial park in Colorado that addresses history of site, Date: 1 -Feb -96 15:38 • • From: ANN (ANN SIEGENTHALER) To: DON Copies -to: JACK, JOHN -J, STEVE Subject: Oxbow river trail Importance: HIGH Message -id: 7CDE103101DEDEDE Don: I am reviewing Comp Plan shoreline policies and what these require of new shoreline developments. This raised a question in my mind regarding a specific site: the Oxbow. As you probably know, DCD has an application from US Postal Service for development there. Council clearly desired public access along river, and REQUIRED it wherever it was identified as part of Green River Trail. Your recent "Facilities Guide" shows "future" GRT at Oxbow site along West Marginal Way, not river. Was this route officially adopted in GRT Master Plan? I understood that the reason it was located there was that in earlier negotiations Desimone Trust did not want it along river. Now that there is new owner, new tenant, can't we get a true river trail there? Do we need to/can we amend the GRT Master Plan? This issue should also be reviewed relative to the Duwamish Corridor properties. Was the decision to locate future trail along West Marginal Way vs. river due to Boeing's proposal in programmatic EIS, or did Council independently decide to located it there? I'm concerned that other documents are establishing shoreline policy independent of what community has stated in new Comprehensive Plan. Can we review this issue together w/Steve? Thanks. To: From: Date: Subject: John Jinierson Ron Cameron, City Engineer January 23, 1996 Homestead Residence (Nelsen on the plans dated December 8, 1995 SEPA E95-0036 • RECEOVED JAN 2 3 '1996 ®E ®LOPME T Farm) SEPA Comments WATER The Water Utilities Plan (Comp Plan) identifies the need to loop the Interurban system in order to provide service for future development of the Nelsen Farm site. Homestead Residence frontal is the remaining section of 12 inch line to complete the looping. It is a requirement to provide water to in order to develop this area with proportional fair share of the bridge crossing and connection. Look at location of hydrants in the lot relative to the water system. Double detector check valves should be relocated to inside the Riser room to provide protection for both the fire and the domestic water systems. Backflow prevention is required. SEWER Sewer service to this area must be provide for any development as none exists. The three alternatives are: 1. constructing a system to the north and the Fort Dent Way lift station. This will require a pump for the development, upsizing the Ft Dent Wy lift station and intervening lines. This is the City's preferred alternative, 2. constructing a line to the south under I405 to the Nelsen P1 system, 3. constructing a line to the east under the BNRR and the UPRR tracks, through Renton, and connecting to the Renton system. Previously, Renton has asked Tukwila for a franchise to provide service for Tukwila customers to Renton. Agreements with the railroads (UPRR & BNRR), Renton, and permits (Renton, UPRR, BNRR, etc.) will be needed prior to approval of plans for this alternative. Legal descriptions, drawings, designs, and similar materials such as permits that have been approved and identify the sewer connection to the east will be required prior to Tukwila approving the design. Grease interceptor is required if there is to be food service. DRAINGAGE 1 a• • • Homestead SEPA review comments A title report showing ownershipfrom the north property line to toe of the river where detention may be provided and the dike is located. If the ownership is different than Homestead for the drain system outfall, an easement for the outfall with legal description and drawing is required before any permits including land altering can be issued. The outfall design is to be in accord with the King County Design Manual and must have King County SWM and the HPA permit approval prior to Tukwila issuing approval. A riverbank stabilization study is required prior to issuing any land altering or other permits. Any riverbank stability deficiencies must have the corrective actions identified and be the first action prior to issuing any permits including land altering. The study needs to identify the 100 year and SPF flood elevations on the plans. A riverbank maintenance easement (standard 20 foot) is required for -King County flood control maintenance of the levee. The stabilization study is required by Ord 1499. Calculations of flood storage, bioswale, and drain system capacity are needed for approval.of the drain system. 100 year 7 day 24 hour storm flood detention storage design will require Green River Flood Zone Control District concurrence in our approval (including the riverbank title report and ownership establishment).. The GRFCZD concurrence is praovided by the King County Surface Water Management Division. The WSDOT drain system on the westerly side of the site needs to be specifically located in the field and on the plans by survey; in order to ascertain that it will not be affected by Homestead construction.-, Roof drains and parking lot drains may be separated and biofiltration provided for the parking lot drainage; roof drains may enter the system downstream of the biofiltration treatment. TRANSPORTATION The access to this development is limited to right turn only. Left turns to or from either W Valley or Grady are not allowed. The Traffic Study states that trucks serving the warehousing can be expected to be WB50 or smaller; geometric design - particularly the right turn acces will need to address this. Future traffic controls may be required to physically limit the site left access should traffic violate the traffic control signs. Bonding or some other mechanism to provide for the funding of potential future traffic control must be provided. Traffic counts will be made of the access to ascertain the existing volumes in determining the traffic mitigations for the development's increased traffic. Homested development affects the following intersections and proportionate mitigations are: 2 % • • Homestead SEPA review comments SouthcenterPkWy/Strander increase to 2010 is 954 trips and improvement cost is $134,000. The prorated share is $140/trip. 1 peak hour Warehouse trip mitgation is $140 SouthcenterPkWy/S 168 St increase to 2010 is 899 trips and improvement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is $278/trip. 1 peak hour trip mitgation is $278 Andover Park E/Baker increase to 2010 is 663 trips and im- provement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is $377/trip. 1 peak hour trip for each the Warehouse and the Hotel is mitgation is $756 Andover Park E/Strander increase to 2010 is 694 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $94,000. The prorated share is $135/trip. 2 Warehouse and 1 Hotel peak hour trips mitgation is $405. Andover Pk W/Strander increase to 2010 is 934 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $296,000. The prorated share is $317/trip. 1 Warehouse and 1 Hotel peak hour trip mitgation is $634. W Valley/Strander increase to 2010 is 883 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $250,000. The prorated share is $283/trip. 6 Warehouse and 2 Hotel peak hour trips mitgation is $2,264. SouthcenterPkWy/Minkler increase to 2010 is 907 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $122,903. The prorated share is $136/trip. 0 peak hour trips are tabulated. Andover Pk W/Minkler increase to 2010 is 1360 peak hour trips and improvement cost is $121,500. The prorated share is $89/trip. 0 peak hour trips mitgation is $0. S 180 St/SR181. The increase to 2010 is 3,200 trips and improvement cost is $1,520,000. The prorated share is $475. 5 Warehouse and 2 Hotel peak hour trips mitgation is $3,325. Interurban Bridge widening. The increase to 2010 is 1,114 trips and improvement cost is $1,250,000. The prorated share is $1,122/trip. 12 Warehouse and 6 hotel peak hour trips mitgation is $20,196. Sidewalk, curb, and gutter required by ordinance will mitigate pe- destrian safety issues and are normally treated as a permit re- quirement and required on Interurban Ave S. Final traffic mitigations for the SEPA cannot be determined until: 1. The Traffic Study trip distribution map is submitted and reviewed. 2. A driveway count to determine the existing traffic is needed. 3 • • Homestead SEPA review comments The Traffic Mitigations may need to be adjusted depending these findings; they would be minor and not need to hold up the approval as long as there is clear understanding that these two items could result in adjustments to the Traffic Mitigations. LAND ALTERING/TANK REMOVAL/DEMOLITIONS The 1989 Geotechnology Inc Environmental Audit and Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation report recommends monitoring wells, methane mitigations, preloading constraints/requirements and additional investigations for metals. A land altering permit, demolition permit, or other related permits will require that these Geotechnical recommendations are met. DOE approval may be required if contaminants are incurred. Any Geotechnical peer review of land altering, demolition, preloading or other permit application(s) must be funded by the applicant. Peer review of land altering activities will be necessary. 4 Date: 5 -Jan -96 15:52 411 From: JOHN -J (JOHN JIMERSON) To: JOANNA,RON-C Subject: traffic study -Nielsen Farms Message -id: 2149ED3001DEDEDE Esteemed Engineers: I noticed in the Nielsen Farms traffic report they are saying there are five occupied housing units on the Nielsen Farm site. The SEPA checklist appears to indicate there are no occupied houses on the site. If the houses are in fact not occupied, does that change the mitigation requirements vis a vis the difference between existing and proposed traffic levels? Do you know if they are occupied? John FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 0954 NO. 1 P. r2 V V I� d)ID SPE VICTOI1 H. BISHOP F'.E. President DAVID H. ENCER P.E. Vice President TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Mr. Tom Lee O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT c/o Mr. Ed Linardic, AIA LDG ARCHITECTS 1319 Dexter Ave., Suite 260 Seattle, WA 98106 Re: Nielsen Farm Development Project Traffic Impact Study Dear Mr. Lee: 2101 - 11201 AVENUE N.E.. SUITE 110 - BELLEVUE. WASI IINGTON 90004 TELEPHONE (206) 455-5320 FACSIMILE (206) 453-7180 December 14, 1995 We are pleased to present this traffic impact study for the proposed Nielsen Farm Development project consisting of a 148 unit businesshotel and a 145,000 square foot warehouse. The project site is located in the northeast quadrant of the Interurban Ave. S./S.W. Grady Way intersection in the City of Tukwila. We have visited the project site and surrounding street network, and have discussed the scope of this study with Ron Cameron, P.E., City of Tukwila City Engineer. Per the City's requirements this study presents the following: 1. Net new vehicular trip generation for the project. 2. Assignment of the net new business hotel and warehouse project trips to the street network. 3. Calculation of pro -rata share developer contributions to planned City street improvement projects for the business hotel and warehouse. 4. Comparison of the proposed project's trip generation to that of the multimodal facility which was studied for this site. The conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 1 5 1995 PERMIT CENTER T1OR27.rpg FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 09:55 Mr. Tom Lee O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT December 14, 1995 Page -2- PROJECT DESCRIPTION NO. 1 P. 3 • Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and the surrounding street network. Figure 2 shows a preliminary site plan. The plan consists of a 148 unit business (extended stay) hotel and a 145,000 sq. ft. warehouse with one vehicle access point onto the existing street network. The vehicle access is onto the old S.W. Grady Way alignment which connects to both the new S.W. Grady Way alignment and Interurban Ave. south. The primary function of the Old Grady Way alignment is to provide access to this project site. This short public street is not currently named. It is currently limited to right -in -right -out traffic movements at both S.W. Grady Way and Interurban Ave.S. due to raised curbs installed on both of those streets. Currently, there is no "right turn only" traffic signing at S.W. Grady Way or Interurban Ave. S. for exiting traffic. The proposed 148 unit business hotel is an extended stay hotel called the Homestead Village which will cater to the business traveler. This hotel will be the first of its type in the greater Seattle area. The hotel will not have a restaurant, lounge, meeting rooms, pool, weight room or other common hotel amenities. Patrons are charged for accommodations on a weekly basis. There are other hotels located in the Seattle area (including Homewood Suites in Tukwila) which are also geared toward the business traveler. However, none of these hotels charge only a weekly rate. In addition, these hotels typically have lounges, breakfast bars, meeting rooms, pools, weight rooms and other amenities. The proposed 145,000 sq. ft. warehouse will consist of some office space (typically 3-7% of the gross floor area) and the remainder will be storage and related space. Although specific tenants for the proposed warehouse are not known at this time, it is expected that trucks using the site would be WB -50, or smaller. Full development of the Nielsen Farm Development project is expected to occur by 1997. T0827.rpt FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 09:55 Mr. Tom Lee O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT December 14, 1995 Page -3- EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS NO. 1 P. 4 • The project site is bounded by the Green River to the north, railroad tracks to the east, S.W. Grady Way to the south and Interurban Ave. S. and the project site access street to the west. The site presently consists of five occupied single family houses, a topsoil sales operation, a drilling contractor business and a horse boarding business. One of the houses is also the site of an at-home automobile repair business. The primary streets within the study area are.I-405, W. Valley Hwy. (SR 181), Interurban Ave. S., S.W. Grady Way, Southcenter Blvd. and the project site access street. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The Nielsen Farm Development project is expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown in Table 1. The total project is expected to generate 104 noon peak hour .and 153 PM peak hour driveway trips. The projects PM peak hour trips are approximately 31% of the 501 PM peak hour trips estimated for the mulitmodal facility studied for this site and documented in the interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening Traffic Analysis Report (draft), dated April 4, 1995. The trip generation for the proposed warehouse and the existing houses is calculated using the average trip rates found in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Fifth Edition, 1991 for Warehousing (ITE land use code 150) and Single -Family Detached Housing (ITE land use code 210). Since the Homestead Village hotel will be so unique in its services and Ida Generation has only limited data (three studies) for business hotels, TP&E obtained trip generation data collected for other Homestead Village hotels by Barton-Aschman Associates, a transportation consulting firm. Table 2 shows a summary of the Barton- Aschman data which was collected over a seven day period at five Homestead Village hotels in Texas. Trip Generation recommends using the number of occupied rooms as the independent variable to take into account local occupancy rates. Therefore, Table 2 shows the calculated trip rate per occupied room. Table 1 assumes an occupancy rate of 80% (148 X 0.80 = 118 units). T0827.rpt FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 09:56 Mr. Tom Lee O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT December 14, 1995 Page -4- NO. 1 P. 5 TpE The City has indicated that they would like to see some local trip generation data collected to compare to the Barton-Aschman data collected in Texas. Unfortunately, the Homestead Village hotel will be the first of its kind in this region so this approach is not feasible. As discussed earlier, there are other similar hotels located in the Seattle area that are called business hotels, but offer many other services that the Homestead Village hotels do not offer. These additional services would likely increase trip generation. Trip generation for the existing topsoil sales operation, drilling contractor, horse boarding, and at-home automobile repair business was estimated using engineering judgement based on the scale and nature of the observed operations. The estimates which are expected to be conservative are shown on Table 1. None of the operations fit well into any of the Trip Generation land use categories. A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. These trip generation values account for all site trips made by alt vehicles for all purposes, including patron, visitor, service and delivery vehicle trips. A pass -by trip is an existing trip that comes directly from the traffic flow on a street adjacent to the project site, and does not require a diversion from another roadway. Because the business traveler's primary origin or destination will be the hotel for most trips taken, no reduction was taken for pass -by trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated net new warehouse traffic volumes. Figure 4 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated net new business hotel traffic volumes. In order to develop separate net new trip assignments for the business hotel and warehouse, the existing trips were split between the two land uses based on the proportion of their primary trips. The distributions are based on the characteristics of the street network, existing traffic volume patterns, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities) and expected travel times. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City is currently collecting pro -rata share contributions for nine street improvement projects on their six year transportation improvement program. Fee T0827.rpt FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 09:57 Mr. Tom' Lee O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT December 14, 1995 Page -5- NO. 1 P. 6 rates have been developed for each of the nine projects. The rates are based on the street traffic noon peak hour. Table 3 shows the net new noon peak hour project trips, fee rate and pro -rata share contribution at each location for the business hotel and warehouse separately. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Nielsen Farm Development project be constructed with the following comments and traffic impact mitigation measures: 1. The City should determine the street name of the project site access street which connects to S.W. Grady Way and Interurban Ave. S. and install street name signs. 2. "RIGHT TURN ONLY" traffic signs should be installed on the project site access street approaches to S.W. Grady Way and Interurban Ave. South. 3. Thewarehouse developer wishes to reserve the right to recalculate the warehouse trip generation and subsequent pro -rata share contributions based on the number of employees once the tenant or tenants are known. 4. The business hotel developer agrees to work closely with the City to validate the trip generation data for the Homestead Village hotels presented in this report. As mentioned earlier, it will not be possible to collect local trip generation data for a similar hotel, as none exist. 5. The warehouse developer should offer to pay a total pro -rata share contribution of $18,919 for various street improvement projects. 6. The business hotel developer should offer to pay a total pro -rata share contribution of $9,077 for various street improvement projects. 7. The proposed project Is expected to impact the existing street network far less than the multimodal facility previously proposed for this site for two reasons: a. The proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 31% of the PM peak hour trips estimated for the multimodal facility studied for this T0827.rpt FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 09:58 Mr. Tom Lee O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT December 14, 1995 Page -6- NO. 1 P. 7 site and documented in the Interurban Avenue South Bridge Widening Traffic Analysis Report (draft), dated April 4, 1995. b. The multimodal facility had assumed installation of'a traffic signal on S.W. Grady Way at the project site access street. The proposed project is not proposing any traffic signals. The impact to the S.W. Grady Way traffic volumes will be considerably less without a traffic signal. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions please call Mr. Bob Herman, P.E. or me at (206) 455-5320. RMH:es Very truly yours, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING & ENGINEERING, INC. Rarat 144-tow44.... Robert M. Herman, P.E. Transportation Engineer [EXPIRES: 1-31- 97 1 TOR27.rpt FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 09:59 NO. 1 P. 8 TABLE 1 VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION NIELSEN FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT TIME PERIOD TRIP RATE ENTER EXIT TOTAL Warehousing (ITE Land Use Code 150), 145,000 Sq. Ft. Average Weekday 4.88 354 (50%) 354 (50%) 708 AM Peak Hour 0.57 60 (72%) 23 (28%) 83 Noon Peak Hour 0.50' 36 (50%) 37 (50%) 73 PM Peak Hour 0.74 37 (35%) 70 (65%) 107 Business Hotel (ITE Land Use Code 312), 118 occupied rooms' Average Weekday 4.96' 292 (50%) 293 (50%) 585 AM Peak Hour 0.35' 24 (59%) 17 (41%) 41 Noon Peak Hour 0.26' 16 (50%) 15 (50%) 31 PM Peak Hour 0.39' 28 (60%) 18 (40%) 46 Total Driveway Trips Average Weekday -- 646 (50%) 647 (50%) 1,293 AM Peak Hour -- 84 (68%) 40 (32%) 124 Noon Peak Hour -- 52 (50%) 52 (50%) 104 PM Peak Hour -- 65 (42%) 88, (58%) 153 Existing Single Family Dwellings (ITE Land Use Code 210), 5 Average Weekday 9.55 24 (50%) 24 (50%) 48 AM Peak Hour 0.74 1 (26%) 3 (74%) 4 Noon Peak Hour 0.502 2 (50%) 1 (50%) 3 PM Peak Hour 1.01 3 (65%) 2 (35%) 5 Other Existing Land Uses (Topsoil Operation, Automobile Repair, Drilling Contractor & Horse Boarding) Average Weekday -- 15 (50%) 15 (50%) 302 AM Peak Hour -- 2 (50%) 2 (50%) 42 Noon Peak Hour -- 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 62 PM Peak Hour -- 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 62 Net New Trips (Total Driveway Trips minus Existing Trips) Average Weekday -- 607 (50%) 608 (50%) 1,215 AM Peak Hour -- 81 (70%) 35 (30%) 116 Noon Peak Hour -- 47 (50%) 48 (50%) 95 PM Peak Hour-- 59 (42%) 83 (58%) 142 2. 3. 4. Estimated based on a traffic volume hourly variation assumption. Estimate based on scale and nature of the existing land uses. Assuming 80% occupancy. Using Barton-Aschman trip generation rates (trips per occupied room). See Table 2. FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 09:59 NO. 1 P. 9 TABLE 2 9 BARTON-ASCHMAN HOMESTEAD VILLAGE TRIP GENERATION STUDY RESULTS Location Units Occupancy Trips Trip Rate (Per occupied room) Weekday Dallas* 189 56% ' Fort Worth 133 94% 634 5.07 Stafford 133 79% 487 4.64 N. Arlington 152 69% 546 5.21 Houston 133 77% 503 4.91 Average 138 80% 543 4.96 AM Peak Hour Dallas' 189 56% Fort Worth 133 94% 47 0.38 Stafford 133 79% 31 0.30 N. Arlington 152 69% 33 0.31 Houston 133 77% 43 ` 0.42 Average 138 80% 39 0.35 Noon Peak Hour Dallas' 189 56% Fort Worth 133 94% 12 0.10 Stafford 133 79% 33 0.31 N. Arlington 152 69% 32 0.31 Houston 133 77% 31 0.30 Average 138 80% 27 0.26 PM Peak Hour Dallas' 189 56% 42 0.39 Fort Worth 133 94% 45 0.36 Stafford 133 79% 41 0.39 N. Arlington 152 69% 42 0.40 Houston 133 , 77% 41 0.40 Average 138 80% 42 0.39 'Trip data not available at this time for this location and time period. FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 10:00 NO. 1 P.10 TpE TABLE 3 PRO -RATA SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CITY STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NEILSEN FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATION NET NEW NOON PEAK HOUR TRIPS COST PER NET NEW NOON PEAK HOUR TRIP PRO -RATA SHARE CONTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE HOTEL WAREHOUSE HOTEL Southcenter Pkwy./ Strander Blvd. 1 0 $140 $140 $0 Southcenter Pkwy./ S. 168th St. 1 0 278 278 0 Andover Park E./ Strander Blvd. 2 1 135 270 135 Andover Park W./ Strander Blvd. 1 1 317 317 317 Andover Park W./ Minkler Blvd. 0 0 392 0 , 0 Andover Park E./ Baker Blvd. 1 1 377 377 377 , W. Valley Hwy./ Strander Blvd. 6 2 283 1,698 566 I W. Valley Hwy./ S. 180th St. 5 2 475 2,375 950 Interurban Bridge over Green River 12 6 1,122 13,464 6,732 TOTAL $18,919 _ $9,077 I T0827A.Rpt 'FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 10:01 NO. 1 P.11 3P0 Sr /4 R0 p 5 44n St1 fiRoJecr GTON ENTON 101144CM rRAcK STRANDER 27 ;cap! HEI161;ITS S 16/TN ST ST NTON C-21-5ION 172ND ST IA — Sin i72Iln P1. .sr 4.p -. --1 ST II 1 #71017(fir -- i , 4-AX4 4 xiL7IgH 8 ' 1 •.i' 33RD ST PARKWAY HAI4 VICINITY MAP NIELSEN FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT / / ,\ \ \\\03� S,*F ILO z 0 N NIELSEN FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FROM TP&E, INC. 12.15.1995 10:03 N0, 1 P.13 WAREHOUSE NET NEW NOON PEAK HOUR TRIPS N 33 Enter o not to scole 34 Exit 67 TotalCD LEGEND X—� Net New Noon Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction X% Trip Distribution Percentoge Southcenter Blvd. 1 13% 2 8—i tJ J RNer Green To Hotel 39,E 10 — Project Site To warehouse SW Grady__Woy 15% S 156th St. NET NEW NOON PEAK HOUR WAREHOUSE TRAFFIC VOLUMES NIELSEN FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECT �pE FIGURE 3 FROM TP&E, INC, 12.15.1995 10:04 NO, 1 P.14 BUSINESS HOTEL NET NEW NOON PEAK HOUR TRIPS 14 Enter 14 Exit 28 Total S; N o not to scale 0 x. ca y Z. CO LEGEND v1 Fpf X Net New Noon Peak Hour Traffic Volume & Direction X% Trip Distribution O°I° R;\/2C Percentage Green Southcenter stvd1 21% To Hotel , 2 r6 6 J Project Site To Worehou se SW Grady ! 11% J 405 -- (MN 4attoA }sa S 156th St. NET NEW NOON PEAK HOUR BUSINESS HOTEL TRAFFIC VOLUMES NIELSEN FARM DEVELOPMENT PROJECF E C-FIGURE� 4 /\ City of Tukwila Department of Community Development • File Number 06 S - 0O3(' ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ROUTING FORM TO: ❑ Building ❑ Planning ❑ Public Works ❑ Police ❑ Parks/Rec Project Name: N'►_k 1'ARM (001-E-- L- \I\ mz- Address: 160 I G bel V11Al S. Date Transmitted: Response Due by: Staff Coordinator: Date Response Received: Instructions The attached environmental checklist was received for this project. Please review and provide the following information: a) Potential environmental impacts, b) how each should be mitigated (i.e. SEPA condition, ordinance requirement, permit requirement etc.), c) recommended specific language as to how the mitigation measure should read, d) the policy basis for the recommended mitigation (i.e. adopted policy), e) the nexus between the recommended mitigation and the impact, and f) corrections to the checklist and supporting documentation. THIS INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT IN PROVIDING TIMELY AND ACCURATE SERVICE TO THS PUBLIC. Attach additional sheets if necessary. If you find the submittal incomplete and would like to request additional information, please inform the staff planner within five working days! Comments Prepared by: Date: • row.) callaor Control No. Epic File No. — Fee $325 Recipt No. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Proposed hotel and warehouse for Neilsen site. 2. Name of applicant: LDG/ Architects 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 1319 Dexter Ave. N, Suite 260 Seattle, WA: 98109 Contact Person: Edi Linardic 4. Date checklist prepared: 12-14-95 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Finish construction by December 1,1995. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, of further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Not at this time 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Soils report Traffic report Level I analysis Wetland Study 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for govemmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 1 5 1995 PERMIT CENTER TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 10) List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. SEPA, BAR, Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, building permit and occupancy permit. 11) Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. This project -will involve 14 acres. Currently, three homes and a -barn are located on the -site: -The site is generally flat and a large stockpile of dirt is located on the eastern portion of the site used as a top soil operation. We are proposing a 145,000 square foot concrete tilt -up warehouse and a 148 unit two story extended -stay. hotel.. 12) Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information fora person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range if know. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. North East corner of Interurban Ave S. and S.W. Grady Way see attached legal description. 13) Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive ? The subject property abuts the Green River along the north side of it's property line. 3 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one); flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope?) Most of the site is Tess than 5%. The stockpiles used -for - the topsoil operation exceed 5% slopes. c. What general_types of soils are found on the. site (forexample, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Soft, loose alluvial soils that eventually grade coarser and denser with dept. See attached soils report. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no surface indications of any unstable•soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. 10,000 c.y. of new fill that will be imported to the site and 18,000 c.y will be relocated on the site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. 9. No. Proposed construction will stabilize the surface with either a hard surface or landscaping, thus reducing long- term erosion potential. A silt fence will be constructed along all sides of the site to contain any erosion during construction. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? 70% 4 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control measures will be consistent with the requirements of City of Tukwila engineering Department, which in general requires earth check dams, strawbale erosion control dams and/or siltation fencing to control off-site siltation during grading phases of 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. The only type of emissions that could be emitted would be from automobile/trucks use during and after construction. b. Are there any off-site sources of emission or odor that may effect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: There are no measures proposed at this time to mitigate automobile emissions, due to the minimal emission generated by this project.. 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 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. Yes . Green River 5 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 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. Yes. Wet ponds, new landscaping, parking and building are proposed within 200 feet. 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface.water.. or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Yes, on site storm drainage will divert present run-off and then will discharge it at predevelopment rates to the Green River.. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year. floodplain?-.. If so, note location on the site plan. Yes, see attached drawings. 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 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only b. Ground Water: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. 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 project will increase the impervious area of the site which will create a higher rate of runoff. Stormwater runoff will be collected via catch basins and underground drainage pipe and discharge to the wet pond. The stormwater from the site will continue to discharge at its natural locations to Green River 2) Could waste material enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No waste materials generated. d) Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: None. 7 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other X shrubs X grass pasture crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing trees along westerly property will be removed, as well as existing brush along the bank of Green River and within the proposed property. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will be provided according to the zoning requirements. A landscape plan will be submitted as part of this package. 8 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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, songbirds, other Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species known -. to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain No d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Because of the proposed site plan, this development will not disturb the existing vegetation along the river bank; therefore, it should not have any effect on wild life along or in the Green River. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity will be used for cooling and lighting while gas will be used for heating. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No 9 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 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: Provide energy efficient lighting for hotel and warehouse. Use of energy efficient HVAC and building that meets the requirements of Washington Energy Code. 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. Police, fire department is case of emergency. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None. b. Noise 1) What types of noise existin the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? General traffic noise generated by cars and trucks. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a Tong -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short time noise would be construction related, expected hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ST. Long term noise would be general car and truck traffic noise during business hours. 10 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The noise impacts generated by this project are not unlike other uses in this area. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a) What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is mostly undeveloped. And has been used as the site to stockpile dirt. To the North is Green River, to the East is railroad tracks, to the South is SR 405 and to the West is Interurban Ave S. b) Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. Not in recent history. c) Describe any structures on the site. There are few abandoned houses and a barn located on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, all existing structures will be removed or demolished. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? C.L.-I f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. Commercial If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban Shoreline 11 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. J• No Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 188 people will reside or be employed at this site. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The site is zoned for commercial use. To the north there is an existing hotel similar in size and height and to the east there are buildings similar in size and shape as proposed warehouse. Thus the proposal is compatible with existing land uses in the area. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. None. 12 xv,` r TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. ' Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None. 10) AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed. The warehouse building height is 35ft.+/-, hotel is 28 ft. =1-. The warehouse building is built of concrete tilt -up with storefront glass at the office area. The hotel building will have asphalt shingles roof with dry-vit exterior finish. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Landscape the site to reduce the bulk of the buildings. Provide relief by use of hip roofs for the hotel and provide feature stripes to break up the bulk of the warehouse building. 11) LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Parking lot lighting will be downward focused and will not have any spill over to adjacent properties. b. Could Tight or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. 13 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Nona. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control Tight and glare impacts, if any: None. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park and Green River. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. 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 14 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposed site is located along Interurban Ave. S. And S.W. Grady Way. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes c. How may parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? 295 parking stalls will be provided. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private)? 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. See attached traffic report by the traffic engineer. 15 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. No additional fire service would be required except in case of emergency. There should not be any additional requirements for police or.health care. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site. electricity, natural qas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. All of the above circled utilities will be utilized by the proposed facility. Gas/electricity for HVAC; light, water for fire protection, domestic water service, garbage, telephone and sanitary sewers. 16 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT Evaluation for Agency Use Only C. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, state that to the best of my knowledge the above information is true and complete. It is understood that the lead agency may withdraw any declaration of non -significance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation willful lack of full disclosure on my part. Proponent: Name Printed: -.19L //-3A-g-0/ Date: /7-((-1 l- 17 Ec-0031 Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists December 14, 1995 E-7090-1 O'Keefe Development Corporation 7900 Southeast • 28th Street, Suite 400 Mercer Island, Washington 98040 Attention: Mr. Tom Lee Subject: Reference: Dear Mr. Lee: Shoreline Bank Stability Proposed Warehouse, Parcels B and C Southwest Grady Way and Chicago Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Tukwila, Washington Site Plan, Sheet A-1 by Linardic Design Group Dated October 24, 1995 As you requested, we have reviewed subsurface information in the vicinity of the site and made a site visit to observe existing conditions of the Green River bank for the purpose of providing recommendations for erosion protection and riverbank stability enhancement. Currently, the river bank is covered with a thick vegetative cover consisting predominantly of blackberry vines. The bank appears to have a slope of about 1.5:1 to 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical); however, the actual slope inclination was difficult to ascertain due to the heavy vegetative cover. At this time, it is our opinion that erosional protection of the riverbank is not necessary unless the existing vegetative cover on the slope is disturbed. If construction disturbance encroaches on the top of the bank, then normal erosion control measures, such as a silt fence, would be adequate. The riverbank appears stable in its current condition and configuration. Unless the vegetative cover is disturbed, stability enhancement measures should not be required. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 1 5 1995 PERMIT CENTER 1805 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (206) 746-0860 Tacoma (206) 272-6608 O'Keefe Development Corporation December 14, 1995 E-7090-1 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If there are any questions, please call us. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. 901.42 sa Douglas S. Lynne Staff Engineer Kyle R. Campbell, Manager of Geotec DSL/KRC/kml 'EXPIRES Itit 91A 1 Earth Consultants, Inc. October 7, 1994 Ms. Katherine Donely Work Order Manager King County Department of Metropolitan Services,(Metro) 821 Second Avenue Seattle, Washington 98104-1598 Re: Wetland Delineation for the Proposed Tukwila Park -and -Ride (#6945076) Dear Ms. Donely: At the request of Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Shapiro and Associates, Inc. (SHAPIRO) conducted a wetland delineation of the proposed Tukwila Park -and -Ride site located northeast of the intersection of Southwest Grady Way and Interurban Avenue in Tukwila, Washington (Section 24, Township 23 N, Range 4 E). The purpose of this study was to delineate wetlands previously identified by SHAPIRO during the September. 15, 1994 site reconnaissance (SHAPIRO, 1994). Upon further investigation of site soils, it was determined that previously identified wetland areas do not satisfy all three wetland parameters as required by the 1989 Unified Federal Methodology (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). No wetlands were delineated during the October 4, 1994, site visit. This letter report documents our methods and findings. Site Description The property is a 13 -acre parcel located northeast of the intersection of Southwest Grady Way and Interurban Avenue in Tukwila. The site is bordered by the Green River to the north and the Union Pacific Railroad to the east. Previously, SHAPIRO identified potential wetland areas based on a reconnaissance evaluation of the site. Three areas in the southern portion of the site along Southwest Grady Way were subject to further investigation. These areas have been subject to varying degrees of disturbance, and vegetation is primarily limited to weedy herbaceous species. Wetland Definition and Authority The 1991 City of Tukwila Sensitive Areas Ordinance grants the City the responsibility and authority to regulate environmentally sensitive areas, including wetlands and streams. The City defines wetlands as follows: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (TMC 18.06). Methods The evaluation of wetlands at this site was based on methods developed by the Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, which are identified in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. This methodology requires an evaluation of three parameters, hydrology, vegetation, and soils, and the presence of positive indicators for these three parameters for an area to be delineated as wetland. An Intermediate -level Onsite Determination Method, as described in the 1989 manual, was used to determine the presence of wetlands. Using this method, vegetation, soils, and hydrology parameters were examined for wetland characteristics. • Ms. Katherine Donely Page 2 October 7, 1994 .— Nine representative sampling plots were established in potential wetland areas. At each sample plot, vegetation, soils, and hydrology data were collected and recorded on data forms (see Appendix). Vegetation Wetland plants are specifically adapted for life in saturated or anaerobic conditions. Such plants are described as hydrophytic. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (CORPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have determined the frequency of various plant species' occurrence in wetlands and have assigned an "indicator status" to each species. Accordingly, plants may be categorized as obligate (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), or upland (UPL). Species with an indicator status of OBL, FACW, or FAC are considered adapted for life in saturated or anaerobic soil conditions. Definitions for each indicator status are listed in Table 1. • Table 1: CATEGORIES OF INDICATOR STATUS FOR VEGETATION SPECIES Indicator Symbol Definition OBL Obligate. Species that almost always occur (estimated probability >99%) in wetlands under natural conditions. FACW Facultative wetland. Species that usually occur in wetlands (estimated, frequency 67 to 99%), but occasionally are found in nonwetlands. FAC Facultative. Species that are equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (estimated probability 34 to 66%). FACU Facultative upland. Species that usually occur in nonwetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%), but occasionally are found in wetlands. UPL Upland. Species that almost always occur in nonwetlands under normal conditions (estimated probability >99%). NI No indicator. Species for which insufficient information was available to determine an indicator status. Sources: Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989; Reed, 1988. At each sample plot, vegetation was described by estimating the cover of each plant species occurring within the herb, shrub, and tree layers. Trees and shrubs within a 30 -foot radius and herbaceous plants within a 5 -foot radius of the center of the plot were identified and recorded on the data form. All species within the plot were recorded in descending order of abundance, and dominant species were determined. Dominant species are those that, when cumulatively totaled in descending order of abundance, immediately exceed 50% of the areal cover for each vegetative layer. Species considered to be dominant also include those individually representing 20% or more of the total areal cover for each vegetative layer. The indicator statuses of dominant species within . each vegetation layer were used to determine the presence of wetland vegetation. Ms. Katherine Donely Page 3 October 7, 1994 A sample plot was considered to have wetland vegetation if more than 50% of dominant species had an indicator status of FAC, FACW, or OBL. Soils One characteristic of wetlands is hydric soils. Hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil profile (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1987). The growing season in the Puget Sound lowlands is generally recognized as the period between March 1 and October 31 when soil temperatures are usually above biological zero (5° C). The Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, has compiled a list of hydric soils in the United States. The list identifies soil series mapped by the SCS that meet hydric soil criteria. A map unit of upland (nonwetland) soil may have inclusions of hydric soil, and vice versa. These inclusions may not be delineated on the SCS maps; therefore, field examination of soil conditions is important to determine if inclusions of hydric soil exist. Because of wet, anaerobic conditions, hydric soils exhibit certain characteristics that can be observed in the field. Such characteristics or indicators include the following: high organic content, accumulation of sulfidic material, greenish or bluish gray color (gley formation), spots or blotches of orange color (mottling), and/or dark soil colors (low soil chroma). Hydric soil indicators are summarized in Table 2. Table 2: HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Hydric Indicator Diagnostic Criteria Organic content Sulfidic material Soil color Water saturation >50% by volume "Rotten egg" odor Mottling; dark soil matrix color, gleyed colors In poorly drained soils or very poorly drained soils with low permeability, groundwater table is less than 1.5 feet from the surface for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing season. Sources: Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989; U.S. Soil Survey Staff, 1975. Soil samples were obtained at each representative sampling plot by digging a soil pit to a depth of at least 20 inches. Soil samples were then examined for hydric indicators. Organic content was estimated visually and.texturally; sulfidic material was determined by the presence of sulfide gases ("rotten egg" odor); and soil colors were determined by using a Munsell soil color chart (Munsell Color, 1988). Munsell soil color charts standardize soil color by using three color components: hue, value, and chroma. Soil colors are assigned both common names (e.g., dark grayish brown) and standardized Munsell color notations for hue, value, and chroma (e.g., 10YR 4/2). Additionally, if soils were observed to be saturated within 18 inches of the surface during the growing season, they may have been identified as hydric, depending on other hydric soil indicators. Ms. Katherine Donely Page 4 October 7, 1994 Hydrology Water must be present for wetlands to exist; however, it need not be present throughout the entire year. Wetland hydrology is considered to be present when there is permanent or periodic inundation or soil saturation for a significant period (usually a week or more) during the growing season (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989). Indicators of wetland hydrology were examined at each sampling plot. Such indicators include areas of ponding or soil saturation, drainage patterns, and evidence of previous water inundation or saturation, such as dry algae on bare soil or soil mottling along live root channels. Where positive indicators of wetland hydrology were observed, wetland hydrology was assumed to occur for a significant period of the growing season. Table 3 summarizes some of the hydrologic regimes that can be encountered and their wetland characteristics. Table 3: HYDROLOGIC REGIMES AND WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS Degree of Inundation Duration of Inundation (a) Wetland or Saturation Characteristics Permanently inundated (b) 100% present Semipermanently to nearly >75% - <100% present permanently inundated or saturated (c) Regularly inundated or saturated >25% - <75% usually present Seasonally inundated or saturated >12.5% - <25% often present Irregularly inundated or saturated >5% - <12.5% often absent Intermittently or never inundated <5% absent or saturated (a) percent of growing season (b) inundation > 6.6 feet mean water depth . • (c) inundation < or = 6.6 feet mean water depth Sources: Clark.and Benforado, 1981. Wetland Determination Vegetation, soil, and hydrology data for each sampling plot were examined to determine the presence or absence of wetlands. According to the 1989 Manual, if all three parameters exhibited wetland characteristics, or normally would have exhibited wetland characteristics for a significant period (usually one week or more) during the growing season, then a positive wetland determination was made for that area of homogeneous vegetation cover represented by the sampling plot. If any one of the parameters did not exhibit positive wetland indicators, the area was determined to be upland (nonwetland), unless disturbed or problem areas were encountered. Ms. Katherine Donely Page 5 October 7, 1994 In disturbed areas, field indicators of one or more of the three wetland parameters are significantly disturbed or absent because of some recent change. Disturbed areas include both wetlands and nonwetlands that have been modified to varying degrees by human activity (e.g., clearing of original vegetation, filling, or excavation) or natural events (e.g., avalanches, mudslides, fire, volcanic deposition, and beaver dams). In determining if a disturbed area is a wetland, both onsite observations and offsite research can be used. Historical records, aerial photographs, and preexisting soil surveys and wetland or vegetation inventories can reveal previous undisturbed conditions. Recent onsite observations may reveal remnants of parameters (vegetation, soils, and the presence or absence of hydrologic indicators) that were later lost to disturbance. In addition, undisturbed areas adjacent or nearby may be used as reference sites to determine the former undisturbed conditions of the project site. Results A detailed wetland investigation to delineate wetlands on the site was conducted on October 4, 1994. Nine sample plots were established in potential wetland areas (Figure 1). Site soils were investigated to a depth of 20 inches in most plots. Plots 1 through 5 were established in the area previously described as Wetland 3 in the September 1994 Wetland Reconnaissance Report (SHAPIRO, 1994). Plot 6 data was collected in Wetland 2. Plots 7 and 8 were established in a depressional swale in the southern portion of the site. Plot 9 was taken in the ditch located along ,the southeast portion of the site. Common and scientific names of plant species observed in plots are presented in Table 4. Scientific nomenclature follows Hitchcock and Cronquist (1976). As a result of a more detailed study of the soils and hydrology at the site, it was determined that previously identified wetlands did not satisfy the three required wetland parameters. Although these areas are dominated by wetland vegetation, the total vegetation cover is sparse and consists mostly of herbaceous weedy species. Weedy species are highly adaptive and can grow in a wide range of conditions, usually disturbed. We did not find evidence of reduced soils conditions or evidence of saturation and inundation for 1 week or more during the growing season in the observed plots. Vegetation in Plots 1 through 5 was observed to be growing in sawdust/gravel fill that appears to have been placed onsite as part of a plant nursery operation. A plastic tarp was encountered at varying depths. It is assumed that the sawdust fill retains sufficient water to support the weedy, herbaceous hydrophytes (wetland plants). However, the sawdust fill and plastic tarp are artificial conditions that would not be regulated by the City of Tukwila (TMC 18.06938). No wetland indicators (saturation or hydric soils) were observed below the nursery fill indicating that wetland parameters would not be satisfied if the fill material were removed. Vegetation, soils, and hydrology data collected at each plot are discussed below. A summary of the sample plot data is presented in Table 5. Ms. Katherine Donely Page 6 October 7, 1994 Table 4: LIST OF OBSERVED PLANT SPECIES Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status(a) Shrubs and Small Trees: Rubus discolor Populus trichocarpa Betula sp. Prunus sp. Salix sp. Grasses and Forbs: Agrostis sp. Agropyron repens Artium sp. Chenopodium sp. Convolvulus sepium Echinochloa crusgalli Epilobium watsonii Equisetum arvense Holcus lanatus Juncus effusus Kochia scoparia Panicum capillare Phalaris arundinacea Plantago major Plantago lanceolata Potentilla persicaria Potentilla sp. Ranunculus repens Rumex crispus Solanum dulcamara Sonchus sp. Tanacetum sp. Taraxacum officinale icinale Trifolium pratense Trifolium repens Typha latifolia Vicia sativa Himalayan blackberry black cottonwood birch cherry willow bentgrass quackgrass burdock goosefoot hedge bindweed large barnyard grass Watson's willow -herb field horsetail common velvet -grass soft rush kochia common witchgrass reed canarygrass common plantain English plantain lady's thumb cinquefoil creeping buttercup curly dock bittersweet nightshade sowthistle tansey common dandelion red clover white clover common cattail common vetch FACU FAC FAC-FACW FAC-FACU OBL-FACU FACW-FACU FAC- UPL FACW-FACU FAC FACW FACW FAC FAC FACW FAC , FACU+ FACW FACU+ FAC FACW OBL-FACU FACW FAC+ FAC+ FAC-UPL FACU FACU FACU FAC* OBL UPL (a) As defined in Table 1. • Ms. Katherine Donely Page 7 October 7, 1994 Table 5: SUMMARY OF PLOT DATA Wetland Indicator Status(a) Common Name U land Scientific Name Nonhydric Negative Upland 34 Hydrophytic Nonhydric Negative Upland 3 Hydrophytic Nonhydric Negative Upland 4 Hydrophytic Nonhydric Negative Upland 4 Hydrophytic Nonhydric Negative Upland 5 Hydrophytic Nonhydric Negative U land 6 Hydrophytic Nonhydric Negative P 7 Hydrophytic 8 Hydrophytic Nonhydric Negative Upland • 9 H dro • h tic Nonh dric Ne:ative Uland Plot 1 fiel This plot was established in a low area within Wet Area 3. Doomi na t vegetation getatwhite clover includes Burd horsetail (Equisetum arvense), common dandelion (Taraxacum repens)Watson's willow -herb (Epilobium watsonii), and common velvet-grass (Hol s wetland Although, total plant cover is only 16%, 80% of plant species ground surface, a dust plants. Investigation of the soil to a depth of 24 inches revealed has below the layer from 0 to 12 inches. Sandy gravel fill extended from 12 to 20`inches. robabl laid down as part of the plant nursery Y opera tarp was ocurred encountered. The fill and tarp P drp h tic vegetation herbaceous alien that occurred in this area in the recent past. mea thatthehy species are weedy herbaceous plants that were growing in the sawdust. being etched bythe Plastic tarp in isa result 20 the capacity of sawdust atura on was obseryed dd ter throughout the soiprofilfe. Very20 to 24 dark the upper inches. No water or gray (5Y 3/1) silty loam with dark yellowish brown is layertmay(be a r res4/6ult of water slowly seeping inches just belowathe plastic tarp. Mottling ammeters the tarp layer and is not a normal condition. ecause two of the three wetland p wthrough were not satisfied, this plot was not considered wetland. Plot 2 rah in this area is flat. Dominantot 2 was vegetation in the western common velvet -grass, ass, soft rush ( Wet Area 3. Juncus Topography Himalayan n bvegetatiod icolude and black cottonwood (Populus trichocarp) percent dominatef lackberry (Kobus discolor), species that are hydrophytic is 75%. Investigation of 10 inches. tsGravely sandy fill was adark ybrown encounteredut layer to a depth 14 inches. of 6 Below the byill sandom 14 to 20 iwa inches, very dark orgrayish brown soil from layer was encountered. Nohydricsoi indYR 3/2) loam occurred. No tarpoy indicators were observed throughout the soil provfi �andecause two of the three wetlandparameters were not satisfied, this plot was not considered Plot 3 en in a slight depression in the north portion of Wet Area 3. vegetation plt was occurring byPlot 3 was taken with othery P occasionally. c creeping buttercup Sawdust (Raoccurred from t 2n)n(1from4 to i7 inches. asionall .Sawdust occurred from 0 to inches. Dark re observedn (lOYR 3/3) silty loam occurredd from Y Mottling from 2 to 20 inches. Dark brown (7.5YR 4/4) molt in low chroma soils (chroma of 2 or less) is an indicator of a fluctuating water table and reduced soil conditions. Ms. Katherine Donely Page 8 October 7, 1994 Mottles in this plot occur in higher chroma soils (chroma of 3) and do not indicate reduced soils conditions for a significant portion of the growing season. No evidence of soil saturation below 7 inches was observed. Because two of the three wetland parameters were not satisfied, this plot was not considered wetland. Plot 4 Plot 4 was established in a staging area for road construction. The plot was dominated by common velvet -grass with common cattail (Typha latifolia) and soft rush commonly occurring. The percent of dominant species that are hydrophytic is 100%. Soils in this area were disturbed by the placement of nursery fill (sawdust and gravel) and by compaction from heavy machinery. Sawdust occurred from 0 to 6 inches. Gravel fill occurs from a depth of 6 to 10 inches. Because of compaction, soils below 10 inches could not be observed. Observed plant species were growing in the sawdust. It is assumed that the hydrophytic vegetation is a result of the capacity of sawdust to hold water and water being perched as a result soil compaction. No evidenced of reduced soil conditions or saturation were observed. Because two of the three wetland parameters were not satisfied, this plot was not considered wetland. Plot 5 Plot 5 is dominated by beatgrass (Agrostis sp.) and Watson's willow -herb. Other hydrophytic vegetation occurs occasionally. The percent of dominant species that are hydrophytic is 100%. Investigation of the soils to 12 inches reveal gravelly loam from 0 to 4 inches. A plastic tarp and irrigation pipe was encountered at 4 inches. Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silty loam with yellowish brown mottles (10YR 4/6) occurred from 4 to 6 inches just below the plastic tarp. Mottling in this layer may be a result of water slowly seeping through the tarp layer and is not a normal condition. Below the zone influenced by the plastic tarp (6 to 12 inches),dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) silt loam without mottles was observed. No evidence of reduced soil conditions or saturation were observed from 6 to 12 inches. Because hydric soil indicators and saturation were not observed, two of the three wetland parameters were not satisfied and this plot was not considered wetland. Plot 6 Plot 6 was established in Wet Area 2. Dominant vegetation in this plot included creeping buttercup, quackgrass (Agropyron repens), common dandelion, Himalayan blackberry, and cherry (Prunus sp). Sixty percent of the dominant species are hydrophytic. Soil was observed to a depth of 18 inches. The upper soil profile consists of dark brown (10YR 3/3) loam over very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam. No mottles were observed. No evidence of inundation or saturation was observed. Because two of the three wetland parameters were not satisfied, this plot was not considered wetland. Plot 7 Plot 7 was established in a depressional swale located in the southern portion of the site. Vegetation in this area consists of weedy herbaceous species dominated by large barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli) and burdock (Artium sp.). Fifty percent of the dominant species are hydrophytic. Soil was observed to a depth of 24 inches. The upper profile consisted of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam over dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam. From 12 to 24 inches the soil consisted of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam. No mottles were observed. No evidence of inundation or saturation was observed. Because two of the three wetland parameters were not satisfied, this plot was not considered wetland. Ms. Katherine Donely Page 9 October 7, 1994 Plot 8 ., Plot 8 is dominated by quackgrass, burdock (Artium sp.), common dandelion, hedge bindweed (Convolvulus sepium), field horsetail, cinquefoil (Potentilla sp.), white clover, common vetch (Vicia sativa), lady's thumb (Potentilla persicaria), and witchgrass (Panicum capillare). Seventy percent of the dominant species are hydrophytic. Soil was observed to a depth of 24 inches and was similar to soils observed in Plot 7. The upper profile consisted of very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) sandy loam over dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam. No mottles were observed. No indicators of saturation were observed. Because two of the three wetland parameters were not satisfied, this plot was not considered wetland. Plot 9 Plot 9 was established in the ditch along the southern portion of the site. The ditch is approximately 6 to 10 feet wide and flows offsite into the right-of-way for Southwest Grady Way. The ditch empties into a small depression and is not connected to other water bodies. Dominant vegetation observed in the ditch includes bentgrass, black cottonwood, and willow (Salix sp.) The percent of dominant hydrophytes is 100%. From 0 to 10 inches, the soil consists of fill material. A concrete slab was encountered at 10 inches. The slab appears to be a structure associated with the Southwest Grady Way overpass. The presenceof the concrete indicates that the ditch was artificially created and would not be subject to the City of Tukwila's. Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.06.935). Summary A detailed wetland investigation to delineate wetlands on the site was conducted on October 4, 1994. Upon further investigation of site soils, it was determined that previously identified wetland areas do not satisfy all three wetland parameters as required by the 1989 Unified Federal Methodology as noted in the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands, 1989. Although previously identified areas are dominated by wetland vegetation, no evidence of reduced soil conditions or saturation or inundation for 1 week or more during the growing season was observed. No wetlands were identified or delineated. Additionally, the ditch previously identified as a Type 3 watercourse was determined to be artificial and not subject to the City of Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.06.935). Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this material for you. If you have any questions, or if we can provide further information or assistance on this or another project, please do not hesitate to call me or Chris Wright. Sincerely, SHAPIRO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Lynn Schroder Wetland Biologist Attachments: Data Sheets, Figure 1 Not to Scale LEGEND: — — Property Boundary 0 Buildings Investigated Area Boundary FIGURE 1 SITE AND SAMPLE PLOT LOCATION MAP TUKWILA P&R 10/94 fkr—) WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS Herbs & Bryophytes Equisetum arvense Taraxacum ofcinal° Trifolium repens Epilobium watsonii Holcus lanatus Shrubs Indicator Status" Sample Plot #: 1 Date: 10/4/94 %Areal Cover FAC FACU FAC FACW FAC Ste$ Cover Class Midpoint Rank 4 1 3.0 1' 4 1 3.0 1' 4 1 3.0 1' 2 1 3.0 1' 2 1 3.0 1' Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold:. Indicator Status" %Areal Cover 15.0 7.5 Cover Class Midpoint Rank Saplings Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" %Areal Cover Cover Class .Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: w%{{{{d%-0l'{tY:{{YAi:{Li�1Vii�JCO%NCY.4%Q:4VOCLOP:'iMP%S{9^(VJN0:4:4J06]:�iCMOOJG{{JMC�FWOJ«v�r..• .nn9vCgVi{4VL • AN]i]OCAv+.viJ+ vP].+0v%3}' J}]Wh'Jh`tr •�� N v.W000iAKJP•AiOP)WP]])�. Trees Indicator Status" %Areal Cover Cover Class Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance. Threshold:. �; %; :.'^f'>'➢Ltimt.. X."."•."."•.M`��":'f^".?`Y: »Y:n.N,;�w;w:Rw..: D:•:!:'!•'e.Q°F..4', y�C• •.�;.:�o.�yy,•;••.,�Ss .,�.�- ,� +w>,. ro+cY•..u.....,-e_a.... �,,....,,yys. % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 80 Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Comments: Bare ground equals 84% of areal cover. Ta detemine dominants, first rank species by midpoints. Then am midpoints in order until 50% of total lor all species (dominance threshold) Is imnndiatety exceeded. Al species contributing to this cumulative total pus any others having 20% of the total midpoint wawa are marked with an ascetic. " Species that do not appear on the National Us (Reed. 1988) may have been assigned an Mimics status based on field observations and habitat irdarmation from the literature. C^•WETLAND DETERMINATION k—iw INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY • Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS SCS Mapping Unit: Urban Land Field Identification: Disturbed Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon Depth Texture SOILS Sample Plot #: 1 Date: 10/4/94 SHAPIRO& ANSI Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? Yes Is soil gleyed? No Matrix Color Mottle Color Occurrence Giey of Mottles - Color Organic Content 0-12" 2 12-20" 20-24+ 3,4 sawdust sandy gravel (fill) silty loam ' Landform/Topography:..flat 5Y3/1 10YR4/6 CFD Comments: Disturbed area previously used as plant nursery. Plastic tarp encountered at 20". Mottles occur just below tarp and are not considered a result of wetland hydrology. No mottles were observed in historic fill from 21 to 24". Hydric Soils? No Basis: No evidence of reduced soil conditions resulting from endosaturation. Is ground surface inundated? No Is soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in pit: None Comments: HYDROLOGY IEWSEMEESEWISZEMMESSEE2 Surface water depth: Depth to saturation: below 24" No Oxidized root zones No Water marks No Drift lines No Water -borne sediment deposits Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No indicators observed. No Water -stained leaves No Surface scoured areas No Wetland drainage patterns No Morphological plant adaptations Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes Disturbed area? Yes • Basis: Recent and historic fill placed onsite. Soil profile disturbed. Problem area? No Basis: Comments: Although the soil profile is disturbed, it does not appear that the hydric soil criteria is satisfied in soils below the recent fill. Artificial impermeable layer at 20". Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field. Investigator(s): LS, AS Herbs & Bryophytes Holcus lanatus Juncus effusus Equisetum arvense Phalaris arundinacea Convolvulus sepium Sample Plot #: 2 Date: 10/4/94 SHAPIRO& ASSODATESI Indicator % Meal Cover Status" Cover Class Midpoint Rank •FAC FACW FAC FACW FAC 55 5 63.0 1' 30 4 38.0 2' 5 1 3.0 3 5 1 3.0 3 3 1 3.0 3 Sum of Midpoints: 110.0 Dominance Threshold: 55.0 .. Sii'»,»,,i.;.»>..»imus.nJ:...»»;;onu•...:.:.•.:•:9i.,.•:.,:.,,..:•:.n..vv.v:.::.,•:n;.•:;:nn:..:....:,.,:..::.:r:.:}:.:n•::.:;v.;;c;;•:Ws>:•::.•.,:.n.:tc::;:c»sr..;»;;•>:...»»,,>.:qa,c>w},A"•:::;;::.xry:;>;;::;x<o;i::T'.:•:ai.n\i;c::;>r.:xa:»;•,::<,�.ws:.W Shrubs Rubus discolor Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover Class Midpoint Rank FACU 20 3 20.5 1' Saplings Populus trichocarpa Trees Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover Class 20.5 10.3 Midpoint Rank FAC 5 1 Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator % Areal Status" Cover 3.0 1' 3.0 1.5 Cover Class Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: Hydrophytic Vegetation'? Comments: To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints Then sum midpoints in order 'until 5O% of total for d species (dominance threshold) is irmiedately exceeded. Al species contributing to thus cumulative total plus any ethers having 20% of the total midpoiru vaiue are marked with an asterisk. 75 Yes " Species that do not appear on the National list (Reed. 1988) trey have been assigned an indicator status breed on field observations and habitat edomwion from the literature. ETLAND DETERMINATION tom:::'• INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS SCS Mapping Unit: Urban Land Field Identification: Disturbed Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon Depth Texture SOILS Sample Piot #: 2 Date: 10/4/94 AHAPIRO& SS MIA E Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? No Is soil gleyed? No Matrix Mottle Occurrence Gley Organic Color Color of Mottles Color Content 0-6" sawdust 6-10" sand 10-14" gravelly sand (fill) 14-20"+ loam 10YR3/2 none Landform/Topography: flat Comments: Some streaking was observed in sand from 6 to 10". Streaking appears to be a result of organic material (sawdust) moving downward through profile. Hydric Soils? No Basis: No evidence of reduced soil conditions. •HYDROLOGY Is ground surface inundated? No Is soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in pit: None No • Oxidized root zones No Water marks No Drift lines No Water -borne sediment 'deposits Comments: Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No indicators observed. SUMMARY Surface water depth: Depth to saturation: below 20" No Water -stained leaves No Surface scoured areas No Wetland. drainage patterns No Morphological plant adaptations Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes Disturbed area? Yes • Basis: Recent and historic fill placed onsite. Soil profile disturbed. Problem area? No Basis: Comments: Although soil profile is disturbed by recent fill, no indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology were observed. Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS Herbs & Bryophytes Ranunculus repens Phalaris arundinacea Convolvulus sepium Equisetum arvense Holcus lanatus Taraxacum officinale Trifolium pratense Epilobium. watsonil Sample Plot #: 3 Date: 10/4/94 Ste$ Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover Class Midpoint Rank FACW 60 5 63.0 1' FACW 8 2 10.5 2 FAC 5 1 3.0 3 FAC 5 1 3.0 3 FAC 3 1 3.0 3 FACU 2 - 1 3.0 . 3 FACU 2 1 3.0 3 FACW 2 1 3.0 3 Sum of Midpoints: 91.5 Dominance Threshold: 45.8 40~.}Y10004]00?6?4''O�}�OCO]P:4(4Y M' py;9000(dW'M}'• . Indicator %Areal Shrubs Saplings Cover Status" Cover pass Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" % Areal Cover Cover Class Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: ". •:.:5 *'x,_.6!{lJn Yf+ •.V(!!OJJU!•NPfP:e.Y? »,,.-Q»,x.WJO}?OUf•:NCh`X YtiMf�F!A.yYY.+f. +•'C�'�•�*�T4Y+'�•+biM}:•%^:•'. ..}%n. Trees Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover Class Midpoint Rank :mow;-,:akwo4:wwSe•,;,:o.- •- Comments: Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints Then sum midpoints In order until 509E of total for ad species (dominance threshold) Is immediately exceeded. All species contributing t0 this aautative total OW any others having 20% of the total midpoint value are marked with an asterisk. " Species that do not appear on the National list (Reed. 1988) may have been assigned an indicator status based on field observations and habitat irdormation from the literature. C WETLAND DETERMINATION '- INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS SCS Mapping Unit Urban Land Feld Identification: Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon Depth Texture SOILS Sample Plot #: 3 Date: 10/4/94 SHAPIRO& ASS EIATESk Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? Yes Is soil gleyed? No Matrix Color Mottle Color Occurrence of Mottles Gey Organic Color Content Oj 0-2• 2 A .... 2-4- i 3l 4.r Z 3 7-20• sawdust silty loam silty loam silty loam Landforrn/Topography: slight depression Comments: Hydric Soils? No 10YR3/3 10YR3/3 7.5YR4/4 10YR3/3 Basis: No indicators observed. Is ground surface inundated? No Is soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in pit None No No No No Comments: Wetland Hydrology? No HYDROLOGY Oxidized root zones Water marks Drift lines Water -borne sediment deposits Basis: No indicators observed. SUMMARY Surface water depth: Depth to saturation: below 20° No No No No Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No Disturbed area? No Problem area? No Comments: Basis: Basis: Water -stained leaves Surface scoured areas Wetland drainage pattems Morphological plant adaptations Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. 4r) WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Sample Plot #: 4 Field Investigator(s): LS, AS Date: 10/4/94 Herbs & Bryophytes Holcus lanatus Typha latifolla Juncus effusus betula sp. Trifolium repens Phalaris arundinacea nwrr.•• SHAPIRO& ASSEIAIESI Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover pass Midpoint Rank FAC . 40 4 . 38.0 1' OBL 10 2 10.5 2 FACW 10 2 10.5 2 FAC-FACW 3 1 3.0 3 FAC 2 1 3.0 3 FACW 2 1 3.0 3 Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: 68.0 34.0 »»:•;:nw:xn�.+r.,.rwx?aa:c.�,;::?•:•.r•:.,rr.•c?.,:.+:c.m.r.+arty:w;r::?o:?«•,»:•,•••?•,r.,,:.Taco:o:{?.»c.r:.�?+rrr:�;o:cx+:a,.?,.,>,rco:o:<+:{+w,;,..:,v??.c.,;•.^•.:aw....:.r:.»:{� :..n•o:nr:�»c?.+:<a?arc.,»:.rrrr.•.,?.:cr.+:rycca:???ccca,:. Shrubs Saplings Indicator Status" /O A eal Cover Cover Class Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" •ii:.rivii:.i ri,�•iiii}r»i,{•:,r' •n..w{{.riJX4r:JY:'^:vr+:4l:{i{,iv %Areal Cover Cover Class Midpoint Rank Trees Sum of Midpoints:, Dominance Threshold: ^^ •rr"�» `� .. YX.»! <.> . x.,vnxrb}%+,KY.+..iark WC(??h %MYMtt+!!h+xxv+. .xxv+•vxx•,y.x+• MY•A:. H'?+.•?:1 : / »wY : rf.w(MrriaaYf.!-0C.. .... +KKYJN+�^+YJ.NK Indicator Status" %Areal Cover Cover. Class Midpoint Rank Comments: Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: 9R4v4a4:YApCtty',{c:3+ eE. . :,.a ecyo: ..{SCd6'hkk 6.'......rX r>X.iKd:{ 45 ?.4,66 ,.6 :6'" .r . % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or : FAC: Hydrophytic Vegetation? To determine dominants, first rank species by midpoints. Then sum midpoints in order until 80% of total for ail specie (dor inacse timraMld) is immediately exceeded. AI species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total nidpoirs value ere marked with an asterisk. 100 Yes • Species that do not appear on the Nadonal List (Reed. 1988) may have teen assigned an indicator status based on field observations end habitat Information from the literature. �- WETLAND DETERMINATION C— INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS 3cii a� auzc as xew "ate :x o- S OIL S SCS Mapping Unit Urban Land Feld Identification: Disturbed Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon. Depth Texture Sample Plot #: 4 Date: 10/4/94 SHAPIRO& ASSQEIATESE Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? No Is soil gleyed? No Matrix Color Mottle Color Occurrence day Organic of Mottles Color Content O; 0-6" 2L 6-10' sawdust gravel fill LandformlTopography: flat Comments: Plot taken in staging area for road construction. Soil compacted. Hydric Soils? No Basis: No indicators observed. Is ground surface inundated? No Is soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in pit None No No No No Comments: Wetland Hydrology? No HYDROLOGY Oxidized root zones Water marks Drift lines Water -borne sediment deposits. Basis: No indicators observed. SUMMARY Surface water depth: Depth to saturation: below 10" No No No No Water -stained leaves Surface scoured areas Wetland drainage patterns Morphological plant adaptations Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes Disturbed area? Yes Basis: Soil compacted as a result of heavy machinery. Minimal vegetation present. Problem area? No Basis: Comments: Although wetland vegetation is present, no indicators of wetland soils or hydrology were observed. Presence of wetland vegetation is probably a result of compacted soils and not a result of saturation or inundation. Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. • • 4 I r WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING •PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS Herbs & Bryophytes Agrostis sp. Epilobium watsonii Juncus effusus Trifolium pratense Trifolium repens Plantago major Potentilla sp. Solanum dulcamara Sample Plot #: 5 Date: 10/4/94 SHAPIRO& ASSGEIATFSX Indicator % Areal Cover Status~ Cover Class Midpoint Rank FACW-FACU FACW FACW FACU FAC FACU+ OBL-FACU FAC+ 50 4 38.0 1' 20 3 20.5 2' 12 2 10.5 3 7 2 10.5 3 6 2 10.5 3 2 1 3.0 4 1 1 3.0 4 1 1 3.0 4 Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: 99.0 49.5 x<a:ounv:.r.?�.u:>: �:•+,•••x�at�a»xax.+ry+cawawaawccco»e:cox?u?oo:?ao>:ova»oao-nuao:xaw:xv.�..,..u.»:•x•x:;xr>a:xr.:.w� r..:w.+n:?�naacamcmccorsxnw.c?as;o>,...nwAomcvnawao:coaacaoaawxcwaxvrcw•m»: % Areal Cover Cover Class Shrubs indicator Status" Midpoint Rank Saplings Trees Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: :>:?[?JW>iiivi:v»:v:.>:lw?.[.::[i>.w\ Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover Class Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: •+:•??•?:+.axr.?ss;s�::au+ca:a?:.xcx.r.??c:?.>+:n»r;a>:?aa�wa>:axo;:a.,utcx?. .:•N•}00>'. vowo...•... "xu e.+o»oo+:»?ace?: .au v. •• "-04% Indicator ata Areal Cover Statue' Cover Class`. Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: ::•.,v,' Xaa .?K,ri}^i+sPO$s�.73:?:ti:'Sia?z�{?+<.+c.'.ia'S.:�fiv.�.A?:.Ys?imL2v�iN$�zcax.m45Sas,4xf• xotsm•AtAx ��: % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: Hydrophytic Vegetation? Comments: To determine dominants. first rank species by midpoints Then sum midpoints N order until 50% of total for all spades (dominance threshold) is immediately exceeded. A2 species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total mdponrt value aro marked with an asterek. 100 Yes Species that do not appear an the National List (Reed. 1988) may have been assigned an indicator status based on geld observations and habitat kdormatlon from the literature. •WETLAND DETERMINATION -- INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS SCS Mapping Unit: Urban Land Field Identification: Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon Depth Texture SOILS Sample Plot #: 5 Date: 10/4/94 SHAPIRO &. ASSMAAT Es Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? Yes Is soil gleyed? No Matrix Mottle Occurrence Gley Organic Color Color of Mottles Color Content A 0-4" &z. 6-12" gravelly loam silty loam 10YR4/2 10YR5/6 FFF silty loam 10YR4/2 none Landform/Topography: flat Comments: Plastic tarp layer encountered at 4". Observed mottles occur just below tarp. Irrigation pipe encountered at 4". Hydric Soils? No Basis: No evidence of reducing soil conditions. Is ground surface inundated? No Is soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in pit:. None Comments: HYDROLOGY No Oxidized root zones No Water marks No Drift lines No Water -borne sediment deposits Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No indicators observed. SUMMARY Surface water depth: Depth to saturation: below 12" No Water -stained leaves No Surface scoured areas No Wetland drainage patterns No Morphological plant adaptations Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No Disturbed area? No Basis: Problem area? No Basis: Comments: Underground irrigation system. Artificial impermeable layer at 4" (tarp) Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. 'WETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPUNG PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS Herbs & Bryophytes Ranunculus repens Agropyron repens Taraxacum officinale Holcus lanatus Equisetum arvense Shrubs Rubus discolor Indicator Status" Sample Plot #: 6 Date: 10/4/94 % Areal Cover SHAPIRO& ASSZEIATES$ Cover Class Midpoint Rank FACW FAG FACU FAC FAC Li:::x+n{•:Ali:•:.v.:::.%::.L.ii::tri4ri{i»•+:ihvc•i:vi.{4.J.•.v: n,4 : y5 . nriri5.i•}:.S Saplings 60 5 .63.0 60 5 63.0 35 4 38.0 15 2 10.5 15 2 10.5 Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" FACU %Areal Cover 10 Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Cover Class 2 Indicator % Arai Cover Status" Cover . Class 185.0 92.5 1' 1' 2' 3 3 Midpoint Rank 10.5 1' 10.5 5.3 Midpoint Rank Trees Prunus sp. Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" FAC-FACU % Aral Cover 20 Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Cover Class 3 Midpoint 20.5 20.5 ,10.3 % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: Hydrophytic Vegetation? Comments: To determine dominants. first rankSpecies by midpoints. Then sum nidpoirds in cher until 509: of total for all species (dominance threshold) Is irrrrecliately exceeded AI status based on Held observations and habitat iNartnation from the literature. species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 20% of the total . midpoint value we marked with an asterisk. Rank 1' 60 Yes " Species that do not appear an the National List (Reed. 1988) may have been assigned an indicator CAETLAND DETERMINATION '• INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS SCS Mapping Unit:, Urban Land Field Identification: Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon Depth Texture SOILS Sample Plot #: 6 Date: 10/4/94 SHAPIRO& ASSMIATESI w.•n+oc.+co W�,isc.'.#ic�t`�•i,6�+G'.�A�>a�'.'�r�ai�c���;.�i: Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? No Is soil gleyed? No Matrix Mottle Occurrence Gley Organic Color Color of Mottles Color Content Di 0-6" loam 10YR3/3 none S 6-18" sandy loam 10YR3/2 none ` Landform/Topography: depression Comments: • Hydric Soils? No Basis: No indicators observed. HYDROLOGY Is ground surface inundated? No Surface water depth: Is soil saturated? No Depth to saturation: below 18" Depth to free-standing water in pit None No Oxidized root zones No Water marks No Drift lines No Water -borne sediment deposits Comments: Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No indicators observed. SUMMARY No Water -stained leaves No Surface scoured areas No Wetland drainage patterns No Morphological plant adaptations Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No Disturbed area? No Problem area? No Comments: Basis: Basis: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. —'-r.ETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Sample Plot #: 7 Field Investigator(s): LS, AS Date: 10/4/94 Herbs & Bryophytes Echinochloa crusgalli Arctium sp. Potentilla persicaria Convolvulus sepium Sonchus sp. Agropyron repens Holcus lanatus Equisetum arvense Rumex crispus Epilobium watsonii SHAPIRO& ASSQEIATES$ Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover Pass Midpoint Rank FACW 35 4 38.0 1' UPL 30 4 38.0 1' FACW 7 2 10.5 2 FAC 7 2 10.5 2 FAG UPL 5 1 3.0 3 FAC- 2 1 3.0 3 FAC 1 1 3.0 3 FAC 1 1 3.0 3 FAC+ 1 1 3.0 3 FACW 1 1 3.0 3 Sum of Midpoints:. 115.0 Dominance Threshold: 57.5 .. .. ......... . rt acaaYo:mros+000m <.»», ?mx errsv>x•;:ro:..w+x000axn:+.•>:r. �a.K•xaa:,a: »;::aw+wwa:a:six^x r.,+:•x»otmt+.:•.•. • .m: r:•..::+,r,:.�a«ottc.....: Shrubs Indicator Status" % Areal Cover Cover Pass Mid oint Rank Saplings Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator % Areal Cover Cover . Class Status" Midpoint Rank Trees Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" Areal Cover Cover Class Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: 2'#6cftkL'2A"f R7c02R �FfL 'S6SiMiF3d3..CL'r •• ScR4'�F't2 '�A+.QY `R ,::'-.::L"e'. »,.=-- 45$. ..." % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: Hydrophytic Vegetation? 50 Yes Comments: Other species observed within this plot with an areal cover of 1% include: Kochia scoparia, Chenopodium sp., and Tanacetum sp. Te determine dominants. Orsi rank species by midpoints Then am midpoints in order until 50% of total for all species (dominance threshold) Is Immediately exceeded AO species contributing to this *mutative tow site any others having Mica the total nidpobd value we marked with an asterisk. " Species that do not appear on the National List (Reed. 1989) may have been assigned an indicator status based on field observations and habitat Wannatlon born the literature. ' IlkETLAND DETERMINATION C. INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS • SCS Mapping Unit Urban Land Feld Identification: Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon Depth Texture SOILS Sample Plot #: 7 Date: 10/4/94 Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? No Is soil gleyed? No SASSC�IIATTESS Matrix Mottle Occurrence Gley Organic Color Color of Mottles Color Content A 0-6" sandy loam 10YR3/2 6-12" silty loam 10YR3/3 G 12-24" sandy loam 10YR3/2 ' Landforrn/Topography: depression Comments: Hydric Soils? No +.4.:44.3a454.4...e.r:ru0 Basis: No indicators observed. Is ground surface inundated? No Is soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in pit None Comments:. HYDROLOGY No Oxidized root zones No Water marks No Drift lines No Water -borne sediment deposits Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No indicators observed. SUMMARY Surface water depth: Depth to saturation: below 24" No Water -stained leaves No Surface scoured areas No Wetland drainage patterns No Morphological plant adaptations Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No Disturbed area? No Problem area? No Comments: Basis: Basis: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for Jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. 0 - v✓ETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPLING PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Sample Plot #: 8 Field Investigator(s): LS, AS Date: 10/4/94 Herbs & Bryophytes Agropyron repens Arctium sp. Taraxacum officinale Convolvulus sepium Equisetum arvense Potentilla sp. Trifolium repens Vicia sativa Potentilla persicaria Plantago lanceolata SHAPIRO& ASS @IATES$ Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover Class Midpoint Rank AGUPLFAC- UPL FACU FAC FAC OBL-FACU FAC' UPL FACW FAC 15 2 10.5 1' 10 2 10.5 1' 5 1 3.0 2' 5 1 3.0 2' 5 1 3.0 2' 3 1 3.0 2' 3 1 3.0 2' 2 ' 1' 3.0 2' 2 1 3.0 2' 1 , 1 3.0 2'. Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: 45.0 22.5 9D'A:{MYNJO�C40JN}JOWNbOtVNi�l(4:CJ:.%C4lMH:K•:VOOCtiOX!+W:J\+:f.iO:OJS:O]J»}'AOOaK900:�Mn'4i»i00Yi'MSOJJ}tiJC'JJCit?RR+JJYJPJTWY20�v.vi•�WCtiO>T'C9P:IXOM�i0C90000DNYiJO>OS%M%P'?NV /+CV%4WRJ> >i4:90.0iJAM.00Y44:44' • Shrubs Indicator Status" % Arezi Cover Cover Class Midpoint Rank Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: ;• TTN. •Av TV T: •' ;}W .t0.. .i0..X0X4.v3/.00i\0'X0..+0..'..5. 00.040' ,.' X2!•::5441*T4:4 .".' Saplings Indicator Status" }900}0'. ' 4.4O.' • 4i40 J:44C0' % Areal Cover Cover Class Midpoint Rank Trees Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" %Areal Cover Cover Class Midpoint Rank »sxs sm+s ocawzi% • Comments: Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: fey. % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 70 Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes To determine dominants. first rank species by midpoints Then sum midpoints in order until 50% of total for d species (dominance threshold) is bmndlately exceeded AS species oorsnbutkq to this wnulative total plus any others having 10% of the total midpoint value are marked vritit an asterisk. " Species that do not appear on the National List (Reed,1988) may have been assigned an indicator status based on field observations and habitat irdonnation from the literature. ETLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY ,& -SUMMARY • Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s):. LS, AS SCS Mapping Unit: Urban Land FieId Identification: Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon Depth Texture SOILS Sample Plot #: 8 Date: 10/4/94 0 Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? No Is soil gleyed? No Matrix Color Mottle Color Occurrence of Mottles Gley Organic Color Content A 0-6' sandy loam 3 6-24" silty loam Landform/Topography: depression Comments: Hydric Soils? No 10YR3/2 10YR3/3 Basis: No indicators observed. ZowFW 'tom' Is ground surface inundated? No Is soil saturated? No Depth to free-standirig water in pit None Comments: HYDROLOGY No Oxidized root zones No Water marks No Drift lines .. No Water -borne sediment deposits Wetland Hydrology? No Basis: No indicators observed. SUMMARY Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? No ik.'<tTJ0A2dOC..��f+iV54' Surface water depth: Depth to saturation: below 24" No No No No Disturbed area? No Problem area? No Comments: Basis: Basis: Water -stained leaves Surface scoured areas Wetland drainage patterns Morphological plant adaptations Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. TLAND DETERMINATION INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD VEGETATION UNIT SAMPUNG PROCEDURE Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Sample Plot #: 9 Field Investigator(s): LS, AS Date: 10/4/94 Herbs & Bryophytes Agrostis sp. Holcus lanatus Epilobium watsonii Ranunculus repens Indicator % Areal Cover Status" Cover Class FACW-FACU 85 6. FAC FACW FACW Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: SHAPIRO& ASSGEIATFS$ Midpoint Rank 85.5 1' 3.0 2 3.0 2 3.0 2 94.5 47.3 Shrubs Indicator Status" % Areal Cover• Cover Class Midpoint Rank Saplings Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" %Areal Cover Cover Class Populus trichocarpa Salix sp. Trees FAC 3 1 OBL-FACU 1 1 Sum of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: Indicator Status" %Areal Cover Cover • Class Midpoint 3.0 1' 3.0 1` 6.0 3.0 Midpoint Rank Rank Sum .of Midpoints: Dominance Threshold: .::..::. % of Dominants that are OBL, FACW, and/or FAC: 100 Hydrophytic Vegetation? Yes Comments: To detemine damit ed% first rank species by midpoints. Then sum midpoints in order until SO% of total far all species (dominance threshold) is imrediat&y exceeded. Al species contributing to this cumulative total plus any others having 2D% of the total midpoint value ars marked with an asterisk. Species that do nal appear on the National List (Reed. 1988) may have bean assigned an indicator status based on field observations and habitat Information from the literature. •OETLAND DETERMINATION 1 • INTERMEDIATE -LEVEL ONSITE METHOD SOILS, HYDROLOGY & SUMMARY Project/Site: Tukwila Park -and -Ride Field Investigator(s): LS, AS ... " "0:01* .... 4.W. ...h �� ..yam ... ...0.: SCS Mapping Unit: Urban Land Feld Identification: Disturbed Is soil on hydric soils list? No Horizon Horizon Depth Texture SOILS Sample Plot #: 9 Date: 10/4/94 SHAPIRo i ASSCIEIA?IX Is soil a histosol? No Histic epipedon present? No Is soil mottled? No Is soil gleyed? No Matrix Color Mottle Color Occurrence of Mottles Gley Organic Color Content A 0-2' G g 2-6" G. 6-10' loam sand sandy gravelly loam (fill) Landform/Topography: ditch Comments: Concrete slab encountered at 10'. Hydric Soils? No 10YR3/1 2.5Y4/4 5Y3/2 Basis: No indicators observed. Is ground surface inundated? No Is soil saturated? No Depth to free-standing water in pit None No Yes Yes Yes HYDROLOGY Oxidized root zones Water marks Drift lines Water -borne sediment deposits Comments: Crack soil surface and algal mats observed on surface. impermeable layer (concrete slab) at 10". Wetland Hydrology? No Surface water depth: Depth to saturation: No •No Yes No Water -stained leaves Surface scoured areas Wetland drainage patterns Morphological plant adaptations Positive hydrologic indicators result from artificial Basis: No evidence of natural hydrologic indicators. it;:.::.::.:ri:.:: g:::. <:.:..::.:'..::.. .:, •.:'..::.;.:..:,..:.;.:::..:.v.,:;' .:.... SUMMARY Do normal environmental conditions exist at the plant community? Yes Has the vegetation, soils, and/or hydrology been significantly disturbed? Yes Disturbed area? Yes Basis: Artificial impermeable layer at 10". Problem area? No • Basis: Comments: Is the hydrophytic vegetation criterion met? Yes Is the hydric soil criterion met? No Is the wetland hydrology criterion met? No Is the vegetation unit or plot wetland? No Rationale for jurisdictional decision: Two of the three wetland parameters not satisfied. • A report prepared for Hillman Properties Northwest 900 North Tomahawk Island Drive Portland, Oregon 97217-7999 ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT AND PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION NIELSON AND HOMEWOOD PROPERTIES TUKWILA, WASHINGTON AGI Project No. 15,339.002.01 by Susan J. Penoyar Project Engineer B. Harakas, P.E. sociate Engineer APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY INC. 300 120th Avenue N.E., Building 4, Suite 215 Post Office Box 3885 Bellevue, Washington 98009 206/453-8383 2501 East "D" Street, Suite 215 Tacoma, Washington 98421 206/383-4380 2510 S.W. First Avenue Portland, Oregon 97201 503/222-2820 April 26, 1989 61`3 - floes Applied Geotechnology Inc. CITY OF TIUKWILq DEC 1 5 1995 PERMIT CENTER Applied Geotechnology Inc. TABLE OF CONTENT' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION 1 A. General 1 B. Project Description 1 C. Scope of Services 1 II. SITE CONDITIONS 5 A. Data Sources 5 B. Surface Conditions 5 C. Site History 7 D. Subsurface Conditions 9 E. Potential Contamination Sources 13 F. Surrounding Properties 17 III. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 19 A. General 19 B. Asbestos 19 C. Fuel Tanks 19 D. Site Fill Soils 19 E. Adjacent Landfill 20 IV. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . 22 A. General 22 B. Definitions 22 C. Site Preparation and Earthwork 23 D. Methane Mitigation 23 E. Foundations 24 F. Levee 26 G. Seismic Setting 27 Applied Geotechnology Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued V. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL STUDY 28 A. General 28 B. Asbestos 28 C. Metals 28 D. Landfill 28 E. Geotechnical Investigation 28 APPENDICES 29 Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: DISTRIBUTION f: Field Exploration Physical Laboratory Testing Asbestos Survey Analytical Testing [_1 • • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 Site Plan 2 Figure 2 Existing Structures on Nielson Property 8 Figure 3 Cross Section A -A' 10 Applied Geotechnology Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Applied Geotechnology Inc. (AGI) was retained by Hillman Properties North- west to conduct an Environmental Audit and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study of the Nielson and Homewood properties in Tukwila, Washington. Conceptual plans indicate the two properties, which are separated by the Green River, will be connected by a bridge. The develop- ment will include a three-story office building, 20,000 square feet (sq. ft.) in plan area; two six -story office buildings, each 16,000 sq. ft. in plan; a parking structure; a one -to two-story hotel/restaurant; and associated access roads and parking. The Environmental Audit was conducted as a basis for assessing potential contamination of soil and groundwater underlying the project area. The scope of study included acquisition of information developed by others, review of our files, aerial photographs, site reconnaissance, interviews, and exploration, sample acquisition, and analytical testing. A survey of the existing structures was also conducted to assess possible presence of building materials that contain asbestos. The scope of this Environmental Audit was necessarily limited to a general evaluation of conditions, with the provision that subsequent investigation might be necessary depending on results of our initial efforts. Three potential sources of contamination were identified during the environ- mental audit. They include fill soils present in the north portion of the Nielson property, possible asbestos in certain building materials on the Nielson property, and methane or other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that could potentially migrate from an abandoned landfill east of the project area. Analytical tests conducted on samples of fill and slag encountered on the Nielson property revealed somewhat elevated levels of chromium, copper, and lead. The source of the metals is not known, although slag present in the fill is suspected. A limited number of tests do not provide sufficient basis for statistical evaluation or an indication of possible extent of metals beneath the project area: It is unlikely these concentrations will trigger remediation under current regulations. However, planning for supplemental exploration and testing is in progress to further evaluate concentration and extent of possible contamination. It is probable that some building materials and existing structures contain asbestos. This is not unusual for structures of the age and type of con- struction prevalent on the Nielson property. No structures are present on the .Homewood property. Some further study will be required to establish quantity and locations of asbestos -containing material so that a certified contractor can remove and properly dispose such materials before or during demolition. • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. Migration of methane gas or volatile organic compounds from the abandoned King County landfill east of the Nielson property is possible. Some further study will be required to better quantify the risk, identify appropriate methods to reduce migration, and to assess the need for and type of ventila- tion beneath proposed buildings on the Nielson property. Additional study will also be appropriate to assess the need for such measures on the Homewood property. However, it is our preliminary assessment that methane mitigation on that parcel would not be required in view of the natural barrier provided by the Green River. Based on results of our preliminary geotechnical engineering study, we conclude that the Nielson and Homewood properties are suitable for develop- ment as currently envisioned. However, because certain soils underlying the project area will consolidate when subjected to fill and building load, it will be necessary to undertake careful site preparation operations before construction proceeds. Such operations would include preloading and overexcavation/recompaction/replacement of existing native and fill soils. Single -story, lightly loaded, and non -settlement sensitive structures can be supported on shallow foundations assuming proper preloading. More heavily loaded structures, including the bridge that would connect the Homewood and Nielson properties, should be supported on pile foundations. Preliminarily, it appears that auger -cast or timber piles would be appropri- ate for all but the bridge structure. Prestressed, precast concrete or steel pipe piles appear to be appropriate for the proposed bridge. Further study is recommended, and certainly warranted, to better define design and construction constraints unique to these properties. Such a study should be undertaken when the type, number and location of structures are established, and preliminary architectural and structural engineering af: data is available. This study should include site specific exploration, a comprehensive P program of laboratory testing to assess physical characteris- tics of the site soils, and engineering analyses as a basis for final recommendations. I. IHZRODQCTIOH A. General Appli.d G•ot.chnology Inc. This report presents the results of our environmental audit and preliminary geotechnical engineering study of the Nielson and Homewood properties in Tukwila, Washington. The properties are located north and east of the intersection of Interstate 405 and Interurban Avenue South, as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. This study was initiated with verbal authorization provided by Hr. David Lintz of Hillman Properties Northwest (HPN) on March 22. 1989. Services were completed in accordance with our proposals dated December 13, 1988, and March 24, 1989. We understand that HPN has an option to purchase the subject properties, and must demonstrate due diligence in evaluating the risk of site contamination by Hay 15, 1989. Accordingly, Applied Geotechnology Inc. (AGI) was retained to assess possible presence of contamination and to provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations. B. Project Description Conceptual plans indicate that the Nielson and Homewood properties would be connected by a bridge across the Green River. The main entrance to the development will be from Southcenter Boulevard onto the Homewood property. It is presently envisioned that the project will include a 3 -story office building, 20,000 square feet (sq. ft.) in plan area; two 6 -story office buildings, each 18,000 sq. ft. in plan; a possible parking structure; a I- to 2 -story hotel; a restaurant; and associated access roads and parking. It appears that the Nielson property site grades will be raised on the order of two feet, except on the north portion where fill on the order of 3 to 5 feet would be required to construct a levee along the Green River Bank. We expect some minor filling would be required to achieve final grades on the Homewood site. C. Scope of Services This study was separated into two general tasks, including the environ- mental audit and a preliminary geotechnical evaluation. The environmental audit involved acquisition of information pertaining to past history and uses of the properties, development of additional data, compilation and evaluation of data, and formulation of conclusions regarding potential contamination of soil and groundwater beneath the site. k Bi TP -2 TP -1 Holnewood Property '.illpproatmate • . ,.giver tank \ Property line TP -4 51s � 9��s 'h, 4 N �\. • N/ 0' too 200 Scale In feet Nielsen Property J 0 o Q • LEGEND STP -1 Approximate teat pit location and number ,sa-e Approximate boring location and. number 1 1 Existing structures 4, 4, Geologic cross section Reference: Drawing entltl.d 'Site Parcel Map'. by David Evans and As.00lat... Inc.. dated AprII brie. Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Site Plan Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development FIGURE 1 JOB NUMBER 15,339.002.01 DRAWN K LC APPROVED DATE REVISED DATE 24 April 89 • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. The purpose of our preliminary geotechnical engineering study is to provide general recommendations regarding site preparation, foundation support, and levee stability based on exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. These recommendations are intended to be sufficient for prelimi- nary design and cost estimating, although subsequent site specific explora- tion and supplemental analyses will be essential before final design. Specifically, our scope of services includes: Task 1: Environmental Audit o Study of historic stereo aerial photographs from 1936 to 1985. o A review of relevant published and unpublished geological and groundwater studies that encompass these properties or were com- pleted at nearby sites. o Discussions with public agencies that may have been responsible for dredging and placement of dredged material on the properties. o Research for information regarding the possible extent and types of waste in an adjacent landfill. o Discussions with representatives of local, state, and federal agencies for records related to site operations and any on-site or nearby enforcement action pertaining to hazardous material releases. 0 0 0 0 Task 2: 0 Evaluation of other current and historic ownership activities on adjacent properties. Exploration of site fill soils by backhoe test pits, of representative soil samples and analytical testing. Reconnaissance of both properties, interviews with site and a photographic record of current conditions. collection occupants, Reconnaissance of the structures to assess possible presence and extent of asbestos material and the potential costs associated with removal of such materials. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions underlying the Nielson and Homewood properties by five borings. Information developed during excavation of backhoe test pits was also used during our geotechnical evaluations. Applied Geotechnology Inc. o Laboratory testing to assess certain physical characteristics of the soils encountered. o Preliminary recommendations for site preparation. o Preliminary recommendations for foundation support of proposed structures. o Reconnaissance of the river bank and evaluation of proposed levee. o Recommendations for additional study. o Preparation of this report containing our findings, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations. r • • II. SITE CONDITIONS A. Data Sources Applied Geotechnology Inc. Local agencies contacted during our environmental audit include the City of Tukwila Fire Department and Building Department, the City of Renton Fire Department and the King County Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Division. State agencies contacted include the Washington State Department of Ecology, the Washington State Department of Transportation, Departments of Highways and Photogrammetry, and the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Federal agencies contacted include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A 30 -year chainof title document list for the Homewood property was provided by Chicago Title Insurance Company. Ticor Title Insurance pro- vided the Commitment for Title Insurance for the Nielson property.- We reviewed information in our library and files regarding subsurface condi- tions near the subject properties. An asbestos survey of existing structures on the Nielson property was performed by Centrac Associates Inc., under subcontract to AGI. Our site reconnaissance included interviews with present property occupants and property owners. Adjacent property owners were also contacted. Subsurface exploration was accomplished by drilled borings and backhoe test pits. B. Surface Conditions 1. Nielson Property The Nielson property is located immediately north of I-405 and South Grady Way and east of Interurban'Avenue South, as illustrated on Figure 1. It is bordered on the north by the Green River and on the east by the BNSF Burlington Northern Railroad (BNRR) tracks. Present uses of the property are residential and commercial. Riverview Farms operates a milk bottling plant in the southeast portion of the site. Five houses on the southern half of the site are occupied. J.G. Nursery operates a retail nursery with two plastic -covered greenhouses in the southwest. The barn on the west is used to stable several horses. The field on the north portion of the property is used to pasture the horses. Property residents report that "sinkholes" often appear in the pasture after rains. r • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. The property, in general, appears to be approximately 7 to 10 feet lower than the elevation of Interurban Avenue South, and generally level with the exception of a 10 to 15 -foot high soil stockpile in the northeast portion of the site. Renton Sand and Gravel maintains and uses the stockpile to mix topsoil and other soils. We understand the stockpile has occupied this general area for about three years. A road is aligned through the property, extending from the southwest and then north through the central portion of the site. It then traverses west to east approximately through the center of the site, as shown on Figure 1. Residential structures and other buildings are located south of the central east -west road, with the exception of a small shed associated with the barn. The structures are numbered on Figure 2, Existing Structures on the Nielson Property. Descriptions that correspond to numbered structures are as follows: 1. One-story, wood -frame garage. 2. Riverview Farms milk processing facility; one-story. 3. Residential home, two-story brick and wood construction. 4. One-story, open -sided metal shed for parking and storage. 5. Metal -sided gas pump shed, reportedly located over 500 -gallon gasoline underground storage tank (UST). 6. and 7. House and garage, one-story wood -frame, composition roof. 8. House, two-story, wood -frame, composition roof. 9. Garage, one-story, wood -frame, composition roof, used for car and engine storage. 10. Shop building, one and one-half stories, presently used for engine, car, and boat repair. Concrete and wood frame structure, metal roof. 11. and 12. Greenhouses, wood -frame, plastic -sided. 13. Two-story barn, wood frame, composition roof, with attached metal shed with metal roof. 14. Metal shed, one-story metal shed used for horse stalls. • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. 15. High-tension tower, metal structure. 16. Residential home, one-story, wood -frame. 17. Residential home, one-story, wood -frame, concrete block foundation, composition roof. 18. One-story wood -frame garage. 19. Plywood nursery office building. 2. Homewood Property The Homewood property is roughly 5 to 10 feet above the elevation of the Nielson site based on observations during site reconnaissance and explora- tion. The property is situated within an oxbow of the Green River; the river borders the property on the south and east as shown on Figure 1. Property to the north and west is undeveloped. The property is generally level, with several mounds of fill that extend on the order of 10 feet above surrounding site grade. Fill appears to have been end -dumped, although portions were apparently spread or graded after dumping. Vegetation generally consists of grasses and weeds, with some deciduous trees. Thick blackberry vines along the river bank restrict river access except at cleared paths. Water was ponded in low areas during our site reconnaissance. An apparent drainage ditch was noted near the approximate north boundary of the site. C. Site History !I 1. General The railroad apparently rerouted the Green River in approximately 1904 to establish the present rail alignment. The rerouting involved dredging a new, straight channel and filling in portions of the original channel. The west side of the straightened channel now forms the east boundary of the Homewood property. Dredged materials were probably placed on the Nielson, Homewood, and other properties. Rechannelization of the river apparently disrupted the natural flow pattern and began a process of erosion and deposition between the Nielson and Homewood properties. The inside, southeast corner of the oxbow, occupied by the Homewood property, was eroded to a smoother curve over several decades. In turn, the north portion of the Nielson property slowly filled, with a progression from river channel, to swamp, to occasionally -flooded lowland. LEGEND 12 Structure number (see list in report) Reference: Drawing entitled 'Site Parcel Map', by David Evans and Associates. Inc., dated AprII 1989. 0 50 100 150 200 I Structures on Nielson Property FIGUFE Hillman Properties NW 2 Tukwila Development Scale In feet DATE REVISED 24 Aril 89 DATE • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. Historic aerial photographs were reviewed for the following years; 1936, 1946, 1956, 1961, 1970, 1981, and 1985. Results of our photo review and compilation of other information obtained during our study, for each site, are summarized in following sections. 2. Nielson Property The original barn on the Nielson property was reportedly constructed in 1904 and is still used. The property was apparently used as farmland with cultivation in the southwest and grazing land or farm structures on the remainder. Riverview Farms, a milk bottling business owned by the Nielsons, has operated since the 1950's, although raw milk is now brought in for processing and bottling. Several single-family residences, constructed over the history of the property, are still occupied. Mr. Marion Price, a property resident, has operated an auto and boat repair shop as a hobby for the last 8 to 9 years. This hobby shop is in the shop building (Structure 10) adjacent to the two story house (Structure 8). There was little apparent or reported land modification up to the 1950's. The southern portion of the property, approximately south of the east -west road, was reportedly never significantly filled. However, the northern portion (possibly initially filled with dredge material from the Green River) was apparently filled over a period of 20 to 30 years with various materials including soil, steel slag (reportedly from Jorgensen Steel), and construction debris including concrete, asphalt concrete and wood. 3. Homewood Property The Homewood property appeared as cultivated fields in the 1936 aerial photographs. An apparent barn and residence were located on adjacent prop- erty to the west. The area remained in cultivation until some time in the 1960's; the property appeared graded and possibly filled in the 1970 aerial photographs. In 1981 and 1985, paths to the river were apparent and some end -dumping was in progress. Several fill piles, consisting of materials varying from silt to rock, as well as some construction debris, were evident during our site visit in March, 1989. D. Subsurface Conditions 1. Evaluation Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling five widely -spaced borings and excavating eight test pits at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. Soils encountered were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System illustrated on Plate 1 in Appendix A. Individual logs, Plates 2 through 12, along with a description of field exploration and sampling procedures, are also presented in Appendix A. Physical laboratory testing is described and results are included in Appendix B. Figure 3 illustrates a generalized cross section across both properties, and Table 1 describes the soil units encountered. 771 Approximate Elevation In Feet A North 20- 0- 10 - 10- 0 - 0- -10 -10- -20- -30 - TP -1 Homewood Property B-1 !a:••1�_„11:ti:Yr'rY7:F.Wf-:�i iw •.•.• �''ri'•.vIT':+. Green River B-3 TP -5 Nelsen Property TP -7 TP -8 B-5 ��%/.; Sandy slit ' et ,++'.= ••1Hr'l•J..T.� ‘40414--: •a:T .+.y..1 WfeF A.ws.:l.".. 1r'I}ehte:+a..K+'1".• h.`.' r+ -r +.•MIFIIII�=� ': 4 1"r•YMM. T.. . T•'t•'r.•M.f4T^ rr,JT Y+' nyaYe.. • Mv+• • ;t+tL+.r:4 :n y ��;rq,y.....; yei4+ifuN .fi+' 4:+.1.,!�'M.r�•�i .,wpc.%r4' • v'i•4217.644 .+ rir:-'Cc:.:.x+•4;�+w+.:r:'s1':-M•r•w�'=Ry-K';+'.n�uM.�^fir.+Y�fM"' �•.•.'• !W•+rrim"y•f•.t-'t '.• : � +.r•r>?81M�v �tty sand, .2r.4411%....474:1••• _ .; t -41 . :::` .:;'t+,,•r"1, y+ +2t'`�""i� ,.,,.-...tet• .. - �_-.� inrvw+w•.r•w:,.�a^. .'i,: .:+n.�'"°.•«'"' -------Silt_= •• ;Nt4.w4'riY. ss�ri +"'+;r,:: ."-'-y`....'.'.•.'.'-.'. ::�:'.. ..-..__... :i;:i-?.. Elevations and horizontal dimensions are estimates only. Explanation: ibis cross section Is • diagrwvnatio Interpretation of subwufsw condi. dons based on Interpolation sed extrapolation of data from borings. Actual conditions are substantially more complex than depleted and will very between borings. AGI dose not represent the conditions Illustrated as exaot, but reooprsze that vs/ladon exist. 0 SO 100 200 Approximate Scale in Feet Datum: Bee 1985 plan of north property by David Evans and Assoalatse, Ino. A' South — 20 -10 -0 - 10 - 20 - -30 3Bed up nomiAel3 etawlxojddy Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Cross Section A -A' Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development FIGURE 3 J08 NUMBER 15,339.002.01 DRAWN ECR DATE 12 April 89 REVISED DATE Applied Geotechnology Inc. TABLE 1s SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL UNITS 773 Density/Consistency Suitability as a Suitability Approximate and Suitability Pavement Subgrade for Descriptive Depth to Top; Soil Moisture Condition Moisture as an When Not Subject Foundation Name Thickness (Feet) Description of Soil Sensitivity On -Site Fill to Frost Action Support Fill 0; 0 to 21 Silty Sand, Sandy Loose, soft to medium High Silt, Silt. with stiff; wet to saturated zones of some concrete, steel slag. wood, and plant debris Loose Alluvial 0 to 21; Silt. Sandy Silt, and Soft. loose; wet Deposits 9 to 23 Silty Sand. fine- to saturated grained, interbedded, with zones of some decayed plant debris Not Suitable Variable; may be suitable if prop- erly moisture conditioned High Not Suitable Suitable if properly moisture conditioned Sand 17 to 28; Sand. fine to coarse Medium dense to N/A N/A > 53 dense; saturated Weathered 73.5; Sandy Silt Hard. moist N/A. N/A Siltstone(?) Unknown Not Suitable Not Suitable Suitable Suitable r • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. 2. Nielson Property Four borings and five test pits were excavated on the Nielson property. Subsurface conditions encountered were variable, but generally consistent with those anticipated after review of site history. Fill was encountered overlying Loose Alluvial deposits, that in turn, overlie medium dense to dense Sand. In general, the south portion is underlain by a sequence of soft, loose alluvial soils that eventually grade coarser and denser with depth. Loose Alluvial deposits extend to approximately 22 to 25 feet below site grade at our exploration locations, and include interbedded fine-grained sand, silty sand, sandy silt and silt, with some organic matter. The Loose Alluvial sequence has generally low strength and moderate compressibility. Fine-grained Sand, grading to fine to coarse with depth, underlies the Loose Alluvial unit and extends to depths of at least 73.5 feet. The Sand is medium dense, grading to dense below 40 to 50 -foot depths. It is characterized by moderate to high strength and low compressibility. Hard sandy silt was encountered in the last 6 inches of Boring 3 and may represent Weathered Siltstone. This unit was not encountered in other exploratory borings. The upper portion of the soil profile in the north portion of the Nielson property is characterized by a variable thickness of Fill that overlies the Loose Alluvial Sand units. The Fill consists of silty sand and sandy silt with variable percentages of debris including abundant organic matter, wood, concrete, and steel slag. The debris seemed to be concentrated in the upper 5 to 6 feet of Fill at our exploration locations. The Fill is soft or loose, with low strength and moderate compressibility. The depth of Fill appears quite variable, extending to 21 feet on the east portion of the site. The "sinkholes" that reportedly appear after rains in the north portion of the property are probably due to soils washing down into voids between larger pieces of debris. 3. Homewood Property One boring and three test pits were excavated to explore subsurface condi- tions on the Homewood property. Generally similar conditions were encoun- tered. Fill ranging from about 1/2 to 8-1/2 feet deep was encountered in the explorations. The Fill consists of fine-grained sandy silt with trace to some gravel, cobbles, boulders and concrete chunks. It is soft to medium stiff and has low strength and moderate compressibility. Loose Alluvial soils beneath the Fill are similar to those described beneath the Nielson property, with more organic matter present. Loose Alluvial soils extend to a depth of 18. feet in Boring 1, and are underlain by Sand similar to that described for the Nielson property. C r C • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. 4. Groundwater Saturated soils were encountered at depths ranging from 9 to 21 feet in our explorations. Seepage was noted in zones above these depths. Groundwater depth will vary seasonally, and seepage levels will vary with duration and intensity of seasonal precipitation. The north side of the Nielson proper- ty reportedly floods at high river flow volumes, usually after extended precipitation or warm periods in the spring and summer as a result of high snowmelt. E. Potential Contamination Sources The environmental audit focused on several potential sources for contami- nants on the Nielson and Homewood properties. These are outlined below: 1. Asbestos Due to the age of many structureson the Nielson property, asbestos was considered a likely component in siding, roofing, pipe insulation, and other parts of existing structures. Centrac Associates, Inc. surveyed the site for asbestos; 24 samples of building materials were obtained for possible future analysis. Appendix C contains the Asbestos Survey dated April 18, 1989. The survey results indicate asbestos may be present in several of the older structures on the Nielson property. The potential asbestos -containing materials include exterior shingles from three buildings, floor material from six buildings, roof materials from nine buildings, and insulation board and ducting tape from one basement. Based on Centrac's estimate of. about 11,300 square feet of asbestos - containing materials, they preliminarily estimate removal and disposal cost in the range of $20,000 to $60,000. 2. Fuel Tanks Underground storage tanks (USTs) and above -ground tanks (ASTs) could be the source of contamination if leaks or overfill spills occur. The Homewood property has no reported tanks. The Nielson property reportedly has 3 USTs and 2 ASTs. Approximate 300 -gallon USTs are present on the north side of Structures Nos. 3 and 8. Mr. Price, occupant at Structure No. 8, reported that he installed an AST to replace the still existing UST in the last several years. Structure No. 7 is reported to utilize a 200 -gallon AST, stored in Structure No. 6, for heating fuel. Riverview Farms uses a 500 - gallon gasoline tank, buried near Structure No. 5, to fuel trucks. This UST has been in use for approximately 20 years. r • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. Test pits were excavated adjacent to two USTs that were accessible to equipment. Analytical tests on soil samples acquired from the test pits were accomplished to assess possible total petroleum hydrocarbons. Analytical tests summarized on Table 2 are included in Appendix D. A maxi- mum concentration of 110 mg/kg was detected. This level is approximately half of the normally accepted limit of 200 mg/kg used by DOE. 3. Site Fill Soils The northern portion of the Nielson property was reportedly filled in part by Jorgensen Steel slag. Jorgensen Steel operates a foundry in Seattle, where scrap metal is melted for reuse. The slag from this process may include trace metals depending on the content of the scrap metal. Some metals from steel slag are regulated in the environment by various state and federal laws. Metals in Fill containing slag were investigated by chemical testing on several samples obtained during our field investigation. Results are summarized in Table 3 and included in Appendix D. One piece of what is believed to be steel slag from Jorgensen Steel was tested for total chromium, copper, lead, manganese, nickel, zinc, and arsenic. In addition, two samples of soil adjacent to slag were tested for total chromium, copper, lead, and zinc concentrations. Concentrations of most metals in soils from Test Pits 4 and 5 are within normal limits. Chromium and lead are at slightly elevated concentrations in soil from Test Pit 4 soil relative to average background values for King and Pierce Coun- ties; copper is higher than median concentration based on results of tests on slag from Test Pit 4. Three samples of Fill were tested for Total Oil and Grease as a general indicator of contamination of the Fill. Results are summarized in Table 2 and included in Appendix D. The highest concentration (55 mg/kg) was found in Test Pit 4, and is below the regulatory action limit. Three Fill samples were also tested for Target Compound List Volatile Organic Compounds using EPA Method 8240. The complete list of compounds is given in Appendix D. No volatile organic compounds were detected; detec- tion limits ranged from 0.05 to 1.0 mg/kg. 4. Adjacent Landfill King County operated a municipal landfill between 1946 and 1961 on the property east of the railroad tracks and east of the Green River. The landfill includes the original river channel that was cut off after construction of the Railroad. Based on our review of historic aerial photographs, we believe the bottom of the landfill is probably at or near the present elevation of the bottom of the Green River. TABLE 2 Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Oil and Grease, and Volatile Organics in Soil Homewood and Nielsen Properties, Tukwila Applied Geotechnology Inc. Detection Sample Location TP -3 TP -4 TP -5 TP -7 TP -8 Test (EPA Method) Limits Sample Depth 4.0' 2.5' 3.0' 3.0' 5.0' ** Petroleum Hydrocarbons 1 110 6.0 (EPA 418.1) mg/kg, dry wt. un Oil and Grease (EPA 413.2) mg/kg, dry wt. Volatile Organic Compounds (EPA 8240) mg/kg, dry wt. 1 * <1.0 55 9.1 ND ND ND * See Appendix D. ** Only sample from Homewood Property ND indicates that no volatile organic compounds were detected at the detection limit listed. The complete list of compounds is given in Appendix D. Test (EPA Method) Chromium (7190) Copper (7210) Lead (7420) Manganese (7450) Nickel (7520) Zinc (7950) Arsenic (7060) TABLE 3 Total Metals in Soil Homewood and Nielsen Properties, Tukwila Detection Sample Location Limits Sample Depth (mg/kg) 2 2 10 1 3 1 0.5 Note: All values are in mg/kg. Natural Metal Ranges in Soil (mg/kg)* 1 - 1,000 2 - 100 2 - 200 20 - 3,000 5 - 500 10 - 300 1-50 * Chemical Equilibria in Soils, Willard Lindsey (1979). ** Geochemistry in Mineral Exploration, Rose et.al. (1979). Median Metal Value in Soil (mg/kg)** Applied Geotechnology Inc. TP -4 TP -4S TP -6 2.5' 2.0' 3.0' Slag 43 220 39 35 15 44 130 32 17 50 <10 <10 320 '370 17 30 36 75 3.5 46 7.5 - 8.3 r • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. The King County Abandoned Landfill Study, dated April 30, 1985, reports methane levels up to 33 percent in probes in the northern part of the landfill. Methane levels were about 3 to 5 percent in the southern part, adjacent to the Nielson property. An MSA 361 Explosimeter was used to monitor for presence of explosive gases in the headspace above Boring 4 and samples obtained during drilling. No explosive gases were detected. Re- sults are included on the Boring 4 log. 5. Dredge Fill The only known dredging in the area was reported early in the century. Based on our understanding of historic practices in the site area, the properties and surrounding area were used for agricultural purposes. No industry that could cause contamination of water or sediments was located in the vicinity, to our knowledge. Therefore, we found no reason to suspect that dredge fill as a source of contamination on either property. 6. Auto Repair Shop Mr. Price has operated an auto and mechanical shop in Structure No. 10 for the past 8 to 9 years. He reportedly does this as a hobby rather than a as business. A shop such as this could be the source of contamination in the form of spilled oil, leaking batteries, and paint or solvent spills. No evidence of significant contamination was noted during our investigation; no analytical testing was performed. F. Surrounding Properties The following table lists occupants of neighboring properties and their business category. Type of Name Address Business/Products Manufacturers Mineral Co. 1215 Monster Rd. SW Decorative rocks and filter gravels Schober Enterprises Inc. 1800 Monster Rd. SW Manufacture of lami- nates and plastics Renton Sewer Plant 1200 Monster Rd. SW Sewage Treatment Plant Longacres Racetrack SW of I-405 and West Thoroughbred Racing Valley Highway Industrial Crating and Packing Co. Mueller Brass Co. John's Furniture Rawson (RDR Corp.) Northwest Landscape Industries Service America Corp. Management Daniel Boone Paints Southcenter Escrow/ Cascade Pacific Mortgage Easy Rider Fiberglass Canoes and Kayaks Gull Gas Station Vacant Land 15450 Nelson P1. S. 15470 Nelson P1. S. 15660 Nelson P1. S. 15700 Nelson P1. S. 15616 West Valley Hwy 15665 Nelson P1. S. 15701 Nelson PL. S. 15668 West Valley Hwy 15666 West. Valley Hwy 156?? West Valley Hwy SW of I-405 and West Valley Hwy Fort Dent One 6720 Southcenter Blvd. There are no records of hazardous or toxic releases cent to or within several blocks of the Nielson and L[ DOE files. We therefore conclude that there is a low . from releases on nearby sites. Applied Geotechnology Inc. Manufacture crates and boxes Brass pipe distribution center Furniture Not determined Landscapers Food Service Paint Sales Financial Services Fiberglass Canoes and Kayaks Closed. for lease possible Old 'Residential Buildings Office Building from businesses adja- Homewood propertiesin risk of contamination r • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. III. ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS A. General Although the subject properties have no presently evident major contamina- tion that would encourage us to recommend that you not purchase and develop these properties, you should be aware of certain sources of contamination and methods that might be required to mitigate such contamination. The following sections discuss contamination sources and mitigation measures. B. Asbestos The survey conducted by Centrac indicates that several structures probably contain asbestos. EPA and Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) regulations require removal of asbestos -containing materials prior to building demolition, with some exceptions. Testing samples will identi- fy those materials that contain asbestos and, in turn, allow more accurate estimation of cost for demolition and removal. Demolition and proper disposal must be accomplished by a certified contractor. C. Fuel Tanks No visual or olfactory evidence of fuel spills or leaks were detected during our investigation. Analytical results indicate hydrocarbon levels are below the typical regulatory limit for remediation. However, based on experience with fuel tanks of similar age, it is possible that undetected soil contamination due to small releases may have occurred:, Assuming the tanks will be removed as a part of the site development,' we recommend monitoring the tank removal to identify contaminated soils. Removal and disposal of the USTs is expected to cost approximately $2,500 to $3,000. We recommend disposal of ASTs at the same time, and anticipate minimal additional cost. The cost of removing and properly disposing contaminated soil during tank excavation is expected to range between $35 and $65 per. cubic yard. D. Site Fill Soils i. General Analytical testing performed on samples from the Homewood and Nielson properties was limited, and intended to allow general characterization. The analytical testing program was based on our understanding of historical practices, observations during field investigation, and experience with similar sites. The following conclusions are based on the results of the testing program and observations during exploration. • 2. Volatile Organic Compounds, Analytical results from VOC and are generally free of organic petroleum products and solvents. show that no such contamination of widespread contamination. 3. Metals Applied.Geotechnology Inc. Oil and Grease Oil and Grease tests indicate soils tested contamination from common sources such as Although these results do not necessarily exists, they do indicate a low probability Concentrations of metals in Fill soil and slag, based on test results, are within the range of background concentrations of metals in native soils in the site area with the exception of chromium and lead in the soil sample and copper in the slag sample. These metal concentrations are elevated relative to the median background values. The limited number of samples tested preclude definite conclusions regarding presence of these metals. Furthermore, the source of the metals is unknown since test results for the slag sample differed from test data for the soils. Under present laws, the lead concentration of 50 mg/kg is not a cause for action. However, DOE is presently revising the regulations governing lead in soil and groundwater. DOE has not yet stipulated which test procedure will apply to lead; however, allowable concentrations in soil and/or groundwater may be substantially reduced. In order to better understand the source metals and the significance of the presence, we recommendadditional investigation. Additional sampling and analytical testing should reduce uncertainty regarding apparent contamina- tion concentrations and extent. E. Adjacent Landfill Investigation of Nielson property soil adjacent to the abandoned King County landfill (now occupied by Manufacturer's Minerals) was hampered by Renton Sand and Gravel topsoil piles. The singular access close to the railroad tracks separating the Nielson and abandoned landfill properties was on a small road cut between topsoil piles. On the basis of observa- tions and explosive' gas monitoring in Boring 4 (on the small road), there was no indication of methane migration or other contamination from the landfill. No groundwater monitoring well was installed in Boring 4 because topsoil mixing operations would have buried it almost immediately. There- fore, we recommend installation of a monitoring well during future site investigation, to monitor for presence of methane or other organic vapors. -20- • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. King County Board of Health Rules and Regulations No. 8 (Solid Waste Regulations) states that any construction within 1000 feet of a landfill generating greater than 5 percent methane must include methane mitigation measures. The methane mitigation systems acceptable to King County (and permitting municipality) are dependent on the specific site, measured methane levels, landfill and stratigraphic characteristics, and engineering recommendations. Ventilation systems are routinely incorporated beneath structures near or at sites where methane generation is significant. A passive ventilation system, consisting of perforated PVC pipe vented to the building exterior, is probably appropriate, as well as relatively economical for a site where methane has not been detected. If methane is detected, active systems can be utilized. An active system includes a blower to create negative pres- sures with which to vent the space beneath the building. Crawl -space construction may be used to satisfy methane mitigation require- ments. The crawl -space must be ventilated to perform like a passive ventilation system. Methane mitigation may not be required on the Homewood property if it can be demonstrated that the Green River acts as a barrier between the property and the landfill. Further investigation, including additional characterization of the geologic sequence, river depth, and landfill depth, is recommended. r • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. IV. GEOTECHNICAL CONCLUSIONS AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS A. General Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, we conclude the Homewood and Nielson properties are suitable for development as currently proposed. The variable Fill, in combination with compressible alluvial soils, results in a soil profile with more than 20 feet of moder- ately compressible material. This material is susceptible to consolidation under increased load imposed by new fill and buildings. Due to .the poten- tial for significant differential settlement beneath buildings, these soils are considered unsuitable for direct support of all but light, non - settlement sensitive structures. Pile support of multi -story buildings is recommended, and we believe concrete auger -cast or timber piles will be appropriate. Single story structures may be satisfactorily supported on shallow foundations with proper site preparation. This may include preloading and/or overexcavation and recompaction or replacement of existing soils. Driven precast concrete or steel piles should be appropriate for support of the proposed bridge. The construction debris within Fill, noteably on the Nielson property, may impede pile installation without spudding or predrilling. Excavation and removal of large concrete and other debris may be necessary for pile installation in some areas, and should be considered in cost estimating. B. Definitions Terms used in the following sections are defined as follows: Percent Compaction is the required in-place dry density of the material, expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density of the same material as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-78 (Modified Proctor). Optimum Moisture Content is the moisture content (percent by dry weight) corresponding to the maximum dry density of the same material as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557-78. Select Fill is imported soil consisting of clean, free -draining sand and gravel containing less than 3 percent fine material (passing No. 200 sieve) based on the fraction passing the No. 4 mesh sieve. Moisture Sensitive Soil is on-site soil containing more than 3 percent silt or clay (passing No. 200 sieve). Foundation Bearing is the soil on which conventional spread footings are cast. It shall consist Select Fill compacted in accordance with the specifications. r Applied Geotechnology Inc. C. Site Preparation and Earthwork Site preparation and earthwork associated with development will include demolition, initial grading, Select Fill placement, and preloading. Demolition will include removal of asbestos -containing materials from some structures, removal of ASTs, USTs, and any contaminated soils, removal of some existing utilities, and demolition of existing structures. After demolition, we recommend the site be initially graded in preparation for Select Fill placement. The surficial soils, exposed during demolition and initial grading, are highly moisture -sensitive and subject to significant degradation during construction if not carefully treated. We emphasize that these moisture -sensitive soils will quickly become unworkable if exposed to precipitation and runoff or flooding. Therefore, we recommend that initial grading be performed in dry weather, or significant additional costs may be incurred. We recommend a minimum 2 -foot thick cap of Select Fill be placed over the entire site after .initial grading. This should provide a working surface over loose, moisture -sensitive native and Fill soils. Select Fill should be compacted to 95 Percent Compaction according to ASTM D-1557, Modified Proctor. Fill placed in landscape areas and to within two feet below pavement should be compacted to 90 Percent Compaction. Fill for the pro- posed levee should be compacted to 95 Percent Compaction. Due to the moderately compressible nature of the upper 20 to 25 feet of soil, settlement under additional load is expected to occur as soft, compressible soils consolidate. Post -construction settlement can be minimized in areas where it would be detrimental to the development by preloading those areas. This may be appropriate for one-story structures, bridge approach fills, and other development. Preliminarily, we anticipate 3 to 5 feet of preload fill will be appropriate. Six to ten weeks may be required to properly preload building areas. D. Methane Mitigation In order to satisfy King County Rules and Regulations No. 8, we preliminarily recommend slab -on -grade structures on the Nielson property include a passive methane mitigation piping system that could be converted to an active system if necessary. This system includes installation of perforated PVC pipe at regular intervals, surrounded by at least 6 inches of clean, free -draining Structural Fill. The pipes should extend through building walls for ventilation. Alternatively, structures may be designed with crawl -space construction. Floors should be constructed over a crawl space, supported on beams span- ning between pilecaps or footings. This should also reduce differential floor slab settlement potential. • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. E. Foundations 1. Shallow Foundations Shallow spread footings are appropriate only for one-story, lightly -loaded structures, and only if the building area has been properly preloaded. The building areas should be preloaded, as described above, before construc- tion, and after the placement of a minimum of 2 feet of Select Fill. The footings should be stiffened with additional steel reinforcing; stiffening footings should enhance distribution of structural loads. After preloading, the following preliminary values may be used for initial design of the shallow footings: Bearing Material: Compacted Select Fill Minimum Depth of Embedment: 18 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade Minimum Lateral Dimension: Continuous footings Individual footings Footing Excavation Protection: 16 inches 24 inches Footing subgrades open during wet weather conditions should be protected with several inches of lean concrete. Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure: 2500 pounds per square foot(psf) This value applies to the total of all dead and Bearing Pressure may be increased by one-third including wind and seismic. Lateral Load Resistance: Coefficient of Friction: Passive Resistance: live loads. Allowable for short term loads, 0.35 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) equivalent fluid weight These values are based on the assumption that footing backfill has been placed and compacted as recommended above. The upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected in design computations unless protected by pavement. Settlement: Total Settlement Differential Settlement Time Rate: 1-1/2 inches 1/2 inch over Approximately tion and the the structure. 50 feet 50 percent during construc- remainder over the life of Applied Geotechnology Inc. 2. Deep Foundations for Two- to Six -Story Structures Preliminary design recommendations are included below for concrete auger - cast and treated timber piles. The allowable capacities are based on soil strength and estimated dead plus live loads imposed on single piles. The design values are approximations based on preliminary information regarding planned structures. These values should be confirmed or revised based on additional investigation, as recommended in a subsequent section. Auger -cast Concrete Piles: Minimum Allowable Allowable Diameter Penetration (Feet) Downward Lateral (Inches) Below Pile Cap Capacity (Tons) Capacity (Tons) 12 -55 to 60 40 3 14 60 to 65 55 4 16 65 to 70 75 6 Pressure -treated Timber Piles: Minimum Allowable Allowable Minimum Penetration (Feet) Downward Lateral Tip Diameter Below Pile Cap Capacity (Tons) Capacity (Tons) 8 Inches 45 to 50 30 2 3. Deep Foundations for Proposed Bridge Precast concrete or steel piles should be suitable for foundation support of the proposed bridge foundations. The design information provided below is preliminary and should be confirmed after the bridge location and type are finalized and after supplemental investigation. Precast, Prestressed Concrete Piles: Minimum Allowable Allowable Pile Penetration (Feet) Downward Lateral Type Below Pile Cap Capacity (Tons) Capacity (Tons) 12 -inch square 45 to 50 80 6 16 -1/2 -inch octagonal 45 to 50 120 10 Applied Geotechnology Inc. Steel Piles: Minimum Allowable Allowable Pile Penetration (Feet) Downward Lateral Type Below Pile Cap Capacity (Tons) Capacity (Tons) 12-3/4 45 to 50 80 6 16 45 to 50 120 10 Steel piles are assumed to have concrete in -fill with fc' = 3,000 pounds per square inch. Axial pile capacities are based on soil strength and approximate structural capacity of the suggested pile type. The structural engineer should verify allowable structural loads based on actual loading conditions. Reduction of allowable downward capacities might be required to account for possible downdrag loads on piles. Allowable lateral capacity accounts for pile spacing and soil strength reduction due to cyclic loading. Pile Settlement Estimates Single Pile: 3 -pile Group: 1/2 inch or less 1/2 inch or less Differential between individual piles: 1/4 inch Differential between pile groups: 1/4 inch F. Levee Minimal design information was available at the 'time of this investigation. We did not have a topographic survey of the existing site conditions and had only verbal information regarding the probable levee dimensions. However, we understand that the levee fill will extend to roughly up to 3 to 5 feet above existing site grades on the Nielson property. Based on this limited information, we recommend the following: Select Fill should be used to construct the levee. Levee sides should be sloped at a maximum of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). The outside toe of the levee slope should be set back from the top of existing bank at least 10 feet. The existing bank and levee should be protected from further erosion. Applied Geotechnology Inc. B. Decontamination Procedures Sampling equipment that would potentially be in contact with soil was decontaminated before the start of excavation, and between each test pit location. This includes the backhoe bucket. The following describes the decontamination procedures used on soil sam- pling equipment. Step 1: Rinse and preclean in potable water. Step 2: Wash in solution of laboratory grade non -phosphate based soap (Liquinox) and potable water. Step 3: Dip rinse in potable water. • Step 4: Rinse with methanol. Step 5: Rinse with distilled water. Solutions were renewed frequently. Sponges and nylon scrubbers were used during Steps 1 through 5. All equipment was air dried, when possible, and held in clean plastic bags between samples. C. Sample Containers Pre -cleaned sample containers were provided by the analytical laboratory. Containers were glass with Teflon -lined caps. Sample containers were filled to the extent possible to eliminate headspace. D. Sample Sealing and Labeling Each sample container was provided with an affixed label identifying the contents. The label contained the following information: o project name o project number o sample identification number o date and time of collection o . initials of person collecting the sample E. Sample Shipment Following proper sealing and labeling, sample containers were placed on ice in a cooler. The cooler was sealed and a custody seal affixed across the box. Samples were transported by car to the analytic laboratory after completion of sampling within 24 hours of collection. F. Sample Custody A Chain -of -Custody record for each set of samples was maintained throughout sampling activities. AGI Chain -of -Custody records were completed and accompanied each sample to the laboratory. r UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 2 0 W J • w SAMPLE "Undisturbed" Bulk/Grab Not Recovered CONTACT BETWEEN UNITS Well Defined Change Gradational Change Obscure Change End of Exploration BLOWS/FOOT Hammer is 300 pounds with 30 inch drop, unless otherwise noted S - SPT Sarnpler (2.0 Inch O.D.) T - Thin Wall Sampler (2.8 Inch Sample) H• Split Barrel Sarnpler (2.4 Inch Sample) MOISTURE DESCRIPTION Dry • Considerably less than optimum for compaction Moist - Near optimum moisture content Wet • Over optimum moisture content Saturated - Below water table. in capillary zone. or in perched groundwater LABORATORY TESTS Consol - Consolidation LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Gs - Specific Gravity SA - Size Analysis TxS • Triaxial Shear TxP -Triaxial Permeability Perm • Permeability Po - Porosity MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear VS - Vane Shear Comp - Compaction UU - Unconsolidated • Undrained CU - Consolidated • Undrained CD • Consolidated • Drained Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology 8 Hydrology .108 NUMBER 15.339.00 2.01 Soil Classification/Legend Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 1 DRAWN EC R .PPROVED '54.9 DATE 12 April 89 REVISED DATE MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAMES ./..dn GW• 4.Q WELL GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL•SANO - MIXTURES GRAVELS CLEANGRAVELSrrH W tj�. : ••. FINES LESS THAN 5%�:; GP "•�,0 :: POORLY GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVELSANO 0) n MORE THAN HALF 4:1C*MIXTURES - COARSE FRACTION 4 • u) z IS LARGER THAN 3~= SILTY GRAVELS. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL -SAND - NO.4 SIEVE SIZE GRAVELS WITH OVER GM -S SILT MIXTURES a 12%FINES r er- W Z ¢ GC i•-•40.•CLAYEY GRAVELS. POORLY GRADED GRAVEL Vow- ti SAND CLAY • MIXTURES W a CLEAN SANDS WRH SW :•• . • WEU. GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS _ SANDS LESS THAN 5%FINES -w Q SP POORLY GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS o F. MORE THAN HALF :.. U W o COARSE FRACTION IS LARGER THAN.. -�.--.-, te �' SILTY SANDS. POORLY GRADED SANG - SILT NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE SANDS WITH OVER SIN•r� MIXTURES 12% FINES xi`'i.`.• CLAYEY SANDS. POORLY GRADED SAND • CLAY SC .'� •. MIXTURES FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALF IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS. ROCK ML —' FLOUR. SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS. OR CLAYEY _—_-- SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS AND CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM LIOUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 CL PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS OL '=': ORGANIC CLAYS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY .y v-ssv _ 1 _ MH _ — INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR DIATOMA• •SILTS :- CIOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS. ELASTIC SILTS AND CLAYS - LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY. FAT L. --...-.- ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY. OH ..•..-.- ORGANIC SIDS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS... -..--Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS • w SAMPLE "Undisturbed" Bulk/Grab Not Recovered CONTACT BETWEEN UNITS Well Defined Change Gradational Change Obscure Change End of Exploration BLOWS/FOOT Hammer is 300 pounds with 30 inch drop, unless otherwise noted S - SPT Sarnpler (2.0 Inch O.D.) T - Thin Wall Sampler (2.8 Inch Sample) H• Split Barrel Sarnpler (2.4 Inch Sample) MOISTURE DESCRIPTION Dry • Considerably less than optimum for compaction Moist - Near optimum moisture content Wet • Over optimum moisture content Saturated - Below water table. in capillary zone. or in perched groundwater LABORATORY TESTS Consol - Consolidation LL - Liquid Limit PL - Plastic Limit Gs - Specific Gravity SA - Size Analysis TxS • Triaxial Shear TxP -Triaxial Permeability Perm • Permeability Po - Porosity MD - Moisture/Density DS - Direct Shear VS - Vane Shear Comp - Compaction UU - Unconsolidated • Undrained CU - Consolidated • Undrained CD • Consolidated • Drained Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology 8 Hydrology .108 NUMBER 15.339.00 2.01 Soil Classification/Legend Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 1 DRAWN EC R .PPROVED '54.9 DATE 12 April 89 REVISED DATE Laboratory Tests c SA B o a • m co n Equipment Mobile B-61 00 c - a E m U 2.2 0 CO Elevation 0 13 24.5 88 2 47.3 71 4 3 44.5 77 11 25.3 95 21 22.2 102 34 24 23.0 103 25 45 22.4 101 ii—Ei Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Not measured Date 3/30/89 BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense, moist to wet; fine grained (Fill). GRAY SANDY SILT (ML) medium stiff, moist to wet; fine grained, with trace gravel (Fill). GRAY -BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) medium dense, wet; fine grained with trace black charcoal (Fill). BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) soft, wet;with some organics. ' BROWN SAND (SP) loose, wet; fine grained, with trace silt. GRAY AND BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) soft, wet: DARK BROWN SAND (SP) loose, saturated; fine grained, with some silt. Becomes dark`. gray, medium dense, fine to medium grained, with trace silt. Becomes dark gray, dense. Log of Boring B-1 (0-40') Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 2 JOB NUMBER 15,339.002.01 ORA'1 APPROVE; OATS ECR • i 12 A•riI 89 REVISED GATE Laboratory Tests o o a o '-' y L X o 0 0 2'o. iii % m mu co O V) 40 ' :f:5 :j . .37 ` 39 38 28 33 45- 50-7 5- 50— 55- 60- - 5- 60— 657 egg 28 14.0 114: 39 75— . 80 Equipment Mobile B-61 Elevation Not measured Date 3/30/89 Becomes fine to coarse grained. Becomes medium dense, with trace fine gravel. Some gravel, with trace shells and organics. Groundwater encountered at approximately 17 -foot depth during drilling. iiiiApplied Geotechno ogy Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology JOB NUMBER 15,339.002.01 Log of Boring B-1 (40-74') Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 3 DRAWN ECR APPROVED •I. DATE REVISED GATE 12 A•riI 89 r ! • Laboratory Tests SA DS o • c y C o 0 o co Mo t o Equipment Mobile B-61 E cn • Elevation Not measured Date 3/31/89 5- 4 — 4 14.7 82 3 31.3 72 10- 9 5 38.1 76 15 - 95 :416B 20 — 8 25.1 14 GNI 25- • 30 — a5- - 4•1 • 40 5- 40 — Sod. BROWN SAND (SP) very loose to loose, moist; fine to medium grained. Becomes wet, fine grained, with trace silt. With some silt. Becomes saturated. Becomes medium to coarse grained. Groundwater encountered at approx= imately 12 -foot depth during drilling. iiiiApplied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology JOB NUMBER DRAWN 15,339.002.01 ECR Log of Boring B-2 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 4 APPROVE DATE - REVISED 12 Aril 89 DATE F 1 Laboratory Tests 6 o G) • - a ? Gci H C o 0 0 E �U � ✓ 0 a .c 0. c i E Oct ct a) 6 7 35.9 74 l0 23.7 102 18 25.8 96 7 36.1 80 6 7 26.6 87 9 26.6 97 16 18 33 25.1 101 lii-L; Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology JOB NUMBER DRAWN 15,339.002.01 ECR Equipment Mobile B-61 Elevation Not measured Date 3/31/89 BROWN AND GRAY MOTTLED SILTY SAND (SM) loose, moist to wet; fine to medium grained, with some gravel, and trace burned wood and brick fragments (Fill). With some slag fragments and wood debris. With some concrete pieces. BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) loose, moist to wet; fine to medium grained, with trace to some fine gravel. Becomes gray, wet, with trace decayed organics. GRAY SAND (SP) loose, saturated; fine to medium grained, with occasional silt interlayering. Becomes dark gray. Becomes medium dense. Log of Boring B-3 (0-40') Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 5 APPROVED DATE REVISED DATE s - 12 April 89 Laboratory Tests c O oe _00. e • a-ci v °' Equipment Mobile B-61 • .c a m �U cc O w Elevation co Not measured Date 3/31/89 40 - 23 45- 17 40 38 50- 55- ,.• • 60 7. -_; 37 16.2 113 65 50 60 707 is y' 75- - 80 - With some organics, trace fine gravel. LIGHT BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) hard, moist; very fine to fine grained, with trace to some clay (Weathered Si1tstone?). Groundwater encountered at approxi - Mately 18 -foot depth during drilling. 16) Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B-3 (40-74') Allman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 6 JOB NUMBER 15,339.002.01 DRAWN ECR APPROVED OATE - REVISED 12 A•rHI 89 OATE Laboratory Tests c U W \O m a t m —J z �' c c a E co 2 U o a !j co -. 5 ' =�,;r 0 5 22.3 98 .i=, 4 < 5 7 30.8 90 l:M-: 11:7+•+,1 0 7 _= Equipment Mobile B-61 Elevation Not measured Date 3/31/89 0 14 9.9 118 0 8 15- 20— 0 7 65.3 60 le'== 25 - _ 36 30 35 — • * % Lower explosive limit, measured using MSA 361 Explosimeter. • 40 - MOTTLED GRAY AND BROWN SILTY SAND (SM) loose to medium dense, moist; fine to medium grained, with some gravel and trace burned wood chips (Fill). GRAY AND BROWN MOTTLED SANDY SILT (till medium stiff, wet; with trace organics (Fill). With some organics. GRAY SILT (ML) medium stiff, wet; with layers of saturated gray fine sand. DARK GRAY SAND (SP) medium dense, saturated; fine grained. Groundwater encountered at approxi- mately 21 -foot depth during drilling. Iii—li Applled Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B-4 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 7 JOB NUMBER 15,339.002.01 DRAWN ECR APPROVED DATE 12 Aril 89 REVISED DATE C • • Laboratory Tests o a 0 a� t a yc c E co mo co 0 cn 7 3 7 3 51.2 72 18 31.6 95 50/6 21 26 0 Equipment Mobile B-61 Elevation Not measured Date 3/30/89 Sod. BROWN SANDY SILT (ML) medium stiff, wet; with some silty sand layers (Fill?). Becomes soft, wet to saturated, some _ organics: GRAY -BROWN SILT (ML) very soft, saturated. 10 15 20 25 35 40 GRAY SAND (SP) loose, fine to medium grained. GRAY AND BROWN SILT (ML) soft, saturated. DARK GRAY SAND (SP) medium dense, saturated; fine to medium grained. With trace fine gravel. Becomes fine grained. Iliiii Appiled Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B-5 (0-40') liiliman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 8 JOB NUMBER DRAWN 15,339.002.01 ECR APPROVED DATE REVISED 12 A ril 89 GATE Laboratory Tests U 0 it) t ' Equipment Mobile B-61 Z m aai cEv m co O co • 40 47* 17.5 115 31 45* 29 21.4 105 44* 74* 23 Elevation Not measured Date 3/30/89 Becomes medium dense to dense, medium to coarse grained, with some gravel. With trace silt. Becomes fine to coarse grained, with some gravel. .With occasional shell fragments. Becomes fine grained. Groundwater encountered atapprox'i- mately' 9 -foot depth duping drilling. *Blow counts may not be representative due to sand heave in auger. Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Log of Boring B-5 (40-74') Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 9 J08 NUMBER DRAWN 15 339.002.01 ECR APPROVED � r DATE 12 A•riI 89 REVISED DATE LOG OF TEST PITS TEST PIT 1 Depth (Feet) Classification Description 0 to 4.5 ML Gray and Brown Sandy Silt (ML); soft, moist to wet; with some gravel, cobbles, boulders and concrete chunks (Fill). 4.5 to 8.5 ML/OL Brown and Gray Silt (ML); soft, wet; with some peat and decayed organic interbeds (OL). 8.5 to 13 TEST PIT 2 0 to .5 .5 to 5 5 to 8 TEST PIT 3 SM Brown Silty Sand (SM); loose, moist; fine-grained. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. Seepage noted at approximately 4 -1/2 - foot depth during excavation. ML Gray Sandy Silt (ML); soft, moist; fine- grained (Fill) ML/SP Brown Sandy Silt (ML); soft, moist to wet; with Dark Brown to Black Sand (SP) interbeds. SP Dark Brown to Black Sand (SP); loose, moist; fine-grained. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. No groundwater encountered during excavation. 0 to 4.5 ML Gray Sandy Silt (ML); soft, moist to wet; with some gravel (Fill). 4.5 to 8 ML/OL 8 to 14 Brown Silt (ML); soft, moist to wet; with some sand, peat and decayed organic interbeds (OL). SM Brown Silty Sand (SM); soft, moist; fine-grained. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. Slight seepage at approximately 7 -1/2 - foot depth during excavation. Bulk sample obtained at 4 -foot depth. ii -E;) Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geological Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Test Pits 1-3 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 10 JOB NUMBER 15,339.002 DRAWN APPROVEp DATE 4/25/89 REVISED ATE LOG OF TEST PITS (Continued) TEST PIT 4 Depth (Feet) Classification Description 0 to 5 ML Brown Sandy Silt (ML); soft, moist to wet; fine to medium -grained, with some slag to 2 -foot diameter, concrete to 5 - foot diameter; bricks and wood debris (Fill). 5 to 9 SM/SP Gray Silty Sand (SM); interlayered with Dark Brown Sand (SP); loose, wet; fine to medium -grained. 9 to 11 SP Dark Brown Sand (SP); loose, wet; fine to medium -grained, with some silt. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. Seepage noted at approximately 9 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk samples obtained at 2- and 2 -1/2 - foot depths. TEST PIT 5 0 to 5 SM/ML Brown and Gray Sandy Silt, and Silty Sand (SM/ML); soft, loose, wet;\ fine-grained, with trace gravel, concrete and slag to 6 -inch diameter (Fill). 5 to 9 SM Brown Silty Sand (SM); loose, saturated, fine to coarse-grained, with some gravel (Fill). 9 to 11 SM Gray Silty Sand (SM); loose, saturated; with some gravel and concrete (Fill). Test Pit terminated due to caving April 3, 1989. Groundwater encountered at approximately 5 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk sample obtained at 3 -foot depth. Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geological Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Test Pits 4-5 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 11 JOB NUMBER 15,339.002 ORAWN APPROVED DATE ' S 4/25/89 REVISED DATE LOG OF TEST PITS (Continued) TEST PIT 6 Depth (Feet) Classification Description 0 to 4.5 SM Brown Silty Sand (SM); loose, moist to wet; fine to medium -grained, with some gravel, railroad ties, slag, and concrete (Fill). 4.5 to 9 SM Gray Silty Sand (SM); loose, saturated; fine to medium -grained. 9 to 14 SP Dark Gray to Black Sand (SP); loose, saturated; medium to coarse-grained. TEST PIT 7 0 to 4.5 4.5 to 8 SM SP Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. Slight seepage noted at approximately 4- 1/2 -foot depth during excavation. Bulk sample obtained at 3 -foot depth.. Brown Silty Sand (SM); loose, moist; fine-grained, with some organics. Brown Sand (SP); loose, moist; fine to medium -grained. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bulk sample obtained at 3 -foot depth. TEST PIT 8 0 to '4.5 ML Brown Sandy Silt (ML); soft, moist to wet; with some organics. 4.5 to 7 SM Brown Silty Sand (SM); loose, moist to wet; fine-grained. 7 to 9 SP Dark Brown Sand (SP); loose, moist to wet; fine to medium -grained, with some silt. Test Pit completed April 3, 1989. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bulk sample obtained at 5 -foot depth. i;)Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geological Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Test Pits 6-8 Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 12 JOB NUMBER 15,339.002 ORAWN APPROVED OATE REVISED DATE • ST 6' 4/25/89 • c [i 1 • APPENDIX B Physical Laboratory Testing Applied Geotechnology Inc. APPENDIX B Physical Laboratory Testing A. General Applied Geotechnology Inc. We conducted laboratory tests on several representative soil samples to better determine the soil classification of the units encountered and to evaluate the material's general physical properties and engineering charac- teristics. A brief description of the tests performed for this study is provided below. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring log. In general accordance with our General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of 30 days following comple- tion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. B. Soil Classification As noted in Appendix A, soil samples are visually examined in the field by our representative at the time they were obtained. Samples not submitted for analytical tests were subsequently packaged and returned to our labora- tory where they were reexamined and the original description checked and verified or modified. The resulting descriptions are provided at the appropriate sample location on the individual boring log and are qualita- tive only. C. Particle Size Analysis A detailed grain size analysis was conducted on several of the soil samples to determine the size distribution of the sampled soil. The information gained from this analysis allows us to provide a detailed description and classification of the in-place materials. In turn, this information helps us to understand how the in-place materials will react to conditions such as heavy seepage, traffic action, loading and seismic loading. The results are presented on Plates 13 and 14, and classification symbols are provided as part of the appropriate individual sample descriptions on the boring logs. r • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. D. Direct Shear Test We performed direct shear tests on 2 of the relatively undisturbed samples to estimate the shear strength of the in-place soils. The tests were per- formed, in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-3080-72(79), on saturated samples. A normal load, appropriate to the anticipated founda- tion conditions, was applied to the test sample and the sample was then sheared under a constant strain control. The results of these tests are presented on Plates 15 and 16, Direct Shear Test. E. One Dimensional Consolidation Test To estimate compressibility of the soft soils underlying the site, we performed a one dimensional consolidation tests on a relatively undisturbed sample. The test, which was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D-2435-80, was conducted on a fully saturated sample. The results obtained provide an indication of the degree of plastic deformation of the soil with time and aid in making an approximation of the magnitude and rate of settlement of the compressible soils under the design loads with time. The results are presented on Plate 17, Consolidation Test, which also forms part of this Appendix. F. Moisture -Density Moisture content and dry density tests were performed on several samples obtained from each boring. The purpose of these tests is to approximately ascertain the in-place moisture content and the associated dry unit weight (dry density) of the soil sample tested. The moisture content is estimated in general accordance with the ASTM Test Method D-2216-80 and the dry unit weight is computed on the basis of this result and the volume of the sample container. Results are indicated on the boring Logs. U.S. Standard Sieve Size (in.) U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers Hydrometer 3 11/2 3/4 3/e 4 8 16 30 40 50 100 200 100 90 80 70 S 60 w 50 Z LL Z 40 cc W a 30 20 10 0 100 50 Reference: ASTM D 422 COBBLES 10 5 COARSE I FINE 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 COARSE GRAVEL MEDIUM 1 FINE SAND SILT OR CLAY Symbol Sample Source Classification Boring 1 at 21 feet 1 I I�i.!!''I'I iTi'i11►►i 1 4 V i I , i i 1, , I E ' II I l i I I •I , I I I V 1 'i 11 1 11 N• 1- 11 11 I if I i. , fi III1IiI III1 l it 1.! .11 1 I 1 r 11111 1 11 le 11 il! 1 J 1 Ili 1 Ii ! i !i 0 1 II Ili jIH11 Ilfl1 i I I hili l I 1111 i 1 u11 '1111 1 ill1 itII 11111 1 1 '_ 111 1 Ijjl!i 1 I ET !� i! ' iii 1 I . 1! i 1( i! Ili 1 , i I I i i i • . it 1 1 111,. 1 i! II!II�,1111' ! �I'l� I 'l'' is ! nii ii Hi i1 1 Ij, • ► TiIII i 11 1 'Ii'fI I lil} ij 111 iII 1 'I ! 1 il. COBBLES 10 5 COARSE I FINE 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 COARSE GRAVEL MEDIUM 1 FINE SAND SILT OR CLAY Symbol Sample Source Classification Boring 1 at 21 feet SAND (SP) fine to medium grained, trace to some silt. iiii;1 Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology JOB NUMBER 15 339.002.01 Particle Size Analysis Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 13 DRAWN EC R APPROVED DATE 18 Aril 89 REVISED GATE U.S. Standard Sieve Size (in.) ---0}4 U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers 4 Hydrometer 3 1'/2 3/4 3/e 14 8 16 30 40 50 100 200 100 90 80 70 60 m w 50 w 40. crw a 30 20 10 0 100 50 Reference: ASTM 0 422 illin11i Sample Source Classification ! ! I 1 SILTY SAND (SM) fine _to medium grained with some gravel. I!'1 I� 1 IiI 1 1 1` . ; t 1 ii it i 1 1111 }ilkI; I' 1 1 ; ; I i1 i ilii (1 1' i ; . i 1 i 1111 , il, I i , •I •_ ' th, l I Ii II.j 1 , Il 1 I IIII. ' '. `.' I Il u I 1; 1i ll i 101 Hi ig IL 1 ,,,,,' , I i ! 11.,i,! Ill i =. I ' 111 1 I . ' � I 1 : II '1 I Ili ' I ! .1 SII ;1 II 1 II I it 1 H(, 1 ;; I1, I I 1:1 ;;� !I I1 1 f ii 1 1! 1I1 I I l l I 1 'F '1 11.• 11 1 1 II 1 I!'1 11 I:i i:` ,1 II 1 , ,1 1 i}. I 1 •ll i I Il 1 11 I I! I .11 1 1 1 1I I1 1 1 I±I,i i 1 I1� 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 COBBLES COARSE FINE COARSE GRAVEL MEDIUM 1 FINE SAND SILT OR CLAY Symbol Sample Source Classification Boring 2 @ 3f feet • SILTY SAND (SM) fine _to medium grained with some gravel. iiii Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Particle Size Analysis Hillman. Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 14 J08 NUMBER 15,339.002.01 DRAWN ECR APPROVED DATE 18 Aril 89 REVISED DATE r p0 0 3.0 X rn w 2.0 CCw N 1.0 0 • • 3.0 Reference: ASTM 0 3080 • +1.0- 01 02 03 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (n.) C a is c) 0.0- - z 0 1 0 2 0.3 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (in.) = 34° C'= 200 psf 0 A 1.0 20 30 NORMAL STRESS (psf x 1000) TEST TYPE: Consolidated/Drained Controlled PHYSICAL CONDITIONS TEST NO. A B C INITIAL Height (in) 1.002 1.00 0.990 Water Content (%) 15.1 15.1 15.1 Void Ratio .639 .717 628 Saturation (%) 91.5 91.4 93.8 Dry Density (pcf) 104.7 100.0 105.4 BEFORE TEST' Time for 50% Consolidation (min) Time for 95% Consolidation (min.) Void Ratio after Dry Density (pcf) FINAL Water Content (%) 24.7 27.3 23.6 Void Ratio .664 .723 .615 Saturation (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 Normal Stress (psf) 484.8 969.5 1973.7 Maximum Shear (psf) 983.0 1241.0 2377.0 Time to Failure (min) Sample Source B-1 @ 3.0' Classification SANDY SILT (ML) Gs 2.75 est Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Direct Shear Test Report Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development DRAWN KLC JOB NUMBER 15.339.002.01 APPA VED DATE 4/21/89 REVISED DATE PLATE 15 3.0 X rn CC2.0 v7 cc w 1.0 +0.1 w C7 z U o.o v7 w z U =0.1 f 0 1 0 2 0 3 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (in.) Pr 0 1 0 2 0.3 HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (in.) 01= 36° CI= 0 psf 3.0 Reference: ASTM 0 3080 0 1.0 20 3.0 NORMAL STRESS (psf x 1000) TEST TYPE: Consolidated/Drained Controlled PHYSICAL CONDITIONS TEST NO. A B C Q E ? Height (in) 1.001 0.993 0.995 Water Content (%) 29.9 29.9 29.9 Void Ratio 1.292 1.364 1.094 Saturation (%) 91.4 90.7 88.6 DryyDensity(pcf) 73.0 70.8 79.9 BEFORE TEST Time for 50% Consolidation (min) Time for 95% Consolidation (min.) Void Ratio after Dry Density (pcf) FINAL Water Content (%) 46.2 48.3 38.1 Void Ratio 1.277 1.350 1.028 Saturation (%) 97.0 95.8 99.2 Normal Stress (psf) 484.8 969.5 1973.7 Maximum Shear (psf) 466.0 889.0 1532.0 Time to Failure (min) Sample Source B-2 @ 13.5' Classification GS FINE SAND 2.68 Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Direct Shear Test Report Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development PLATE 16 DRAWN K LC .108 NUMBER 15,339.002.01 APonr`VE DATE 4/21/89 REV SED LATE • PRESSURE (psf x 1000) 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 2 4. 10 1.32 1.28 1.24 1.20 1.16 20 Reference: ASTM 0 2435 40 100 1 I 1 I I I I • i 1.04 1.00 0.96 0.92 1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1 2 4 10 20 VOID RATIO - PRESSURE CURVE 40 100 Type of Specimen Undsi sturbed Condition Before Test After Test Diameter (in.) 2.42 Height (in.) 0.79 Water Content wo 43.4 Wf 37.3 cyo Overburden Press., Po 1650 psf Void Ratio eo 1.2231 of 1.0308 Preconsol. Press., Pc 1650 psf Compression Index, Cc 0.23 LL Saturation So 95.8 Sf 97.7 Dry Density yd 75.8 pcf yd 83.0 pcf Classification PL PI Gs 2.70 (est) SANDY SILT (ML) Source 8-1 16.0' DRAWN K LC Applied Geotechnology Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Geology & Hydrogeology Consolidation Test Report Hillman Properties NW Tukwila Development o:ATE 17 JOB NUMBER 15.339.002.01 AFP° VEC 4/21/89 =EPSE0 ;DAIS . • ,• Applied Geotechnology Inc. APPENDIX C Asbestos Survey (' CENTRAL 18804 NORTH CREEK PARKWAY, BOTHTIL. WA 98011 (206) 486-6600 ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS April 18, 1989 Applied Geotechnology Inc. P.O. Box 3885 Bellevue, WA 98009 ATTN: Susan Penoyar SUBJECT: Asbestos Survey Tukwilla Demolition Project (9011-003) Ms. Penoyar: In response to your request, CENTRAC has completed an asbestos survey of the Ray Nielsen Property located in Tukwilla, Washington. This brief report summarizes our approach to the project, along with our findings. The report was prepared for the use of Applied. Geotechnology Inc. and should be studied, interpreted, and implemented by personnel having technical expertise in asbestos abatement techniques and terminology. Since this is a "technical report" for use in an environmental assessment for property transfer correction program, it is not intended for use or interpretation by the general public who could misinterpret the contents. If unfamiliar words or terminology are encountered, a Glossary, is located in this report. The contents of this report shall be kept confidential by CENTRAC unless directed or allowed to do otherwise by the Owner. CENTRAC, headquartered at 18804 North Creek Parkway, Bothell, Washington, is an engineering and science organization providing complete professional engineering services as well as environmental, industrial hygiene, and hazardous materials consulting services. Project teams for asbestos work include industrial hygienists, Washington State professional engineers, Washington State Certified Asbestos Workers, and EPA Accredited asbestos personnel. Sincerely, CENTRAC Donna L Hewitt Environmental Scientist Nielsen Property April 18, 1989 CENTRAC was retained by Applied Geotechnology Inc. to provide asbestos consulting services for the Ray Nielsen property. The purpose of the survey was to locate and identify the potential presence of asbestos -containing materials (ACM) in the structures located on the subject site. We were further informed that some or all of the structures will be demolished at a later date. On April 5, 1989, Donna Hewitt, Washington State Certified Asbestos Inspector, of CENTRAC, conducted an asbestos survey of the Riverview Farm, J.G. Nursery, five residential homes, and adjacent garages, barns, and out buildings. FINDINGS Nineteen structures are located on the 11.4 -acre property. The five residential homes were the main concern of this project. We were asked to briefly look at the additional structures on site. The attached site plan locates by number each of the 19 structures. The following is a brief summary of the structures and a description of the samples of materials which were suspected to contain asbestos, and which were obtained for future asbestos analysis: 1. Riverview Farm Office. Converted from a garage, the structure is partially dilapidated. Samples of floor tile, ceiling tile, and composition roof tile were obtained for analysis. 2. Riverview Farm. Concrete and brick building with ceramic tile and'/or concrete floors. Boiler and adjoining pipe system is insulated with gray, rubber tubing, and partially uninsulated. No building materials were obtained. 3. Residential Home, 7160 South Grady Way. Brick- and wood -framed house with cedar shake roofing. Forced -air heater ducts located under the house are wrapped with fiberglass insulation; there is blown -in ceiling insulation. Samples of vinyl floor tile and blown -in ceiling insulation were obtained for analysis. 4. Metal Shed adjacent to Riverview Farm. Wood -framed with corrugated metal roof. Used as garage and storage. No samples obtained. 5. Gas Pump Shed. Metal -sided; no suspect ACM noted. 6. Garage. Poor condition, falling apart; wood -framed; composition roof; roofing material similar to building #7. No samples obtained. 7. Residential Home, 7150 South Grady Way. Wood -framed house with interior plaster walls and ceilings, diesel oil heat, no insulated pipe systems. Samples of ceiling plaster, vinyl kitchen floor tile, and composition roof obtained for analysis. 9011-003-2 2 AC • Nielsen Property April 18, 1989 8. Residential Home, 7140 South Grady Way. Two-story, wood -framed house with suspected asbestos siding. Boiler located in basement; blown -in ceiling insulation. Samples of metal ducting tape, boiler insulation panel, miscellaneous vinyl floor tile, exterior siding, composition roof, and blown -in ceiling insulation were obtained. 9. Garage. Wood -framed, composition roof. Identical exterior siding shingleson adjacent house (see No. 8). Samples, however, were not obtained. 10. Shop Garage. Large, open barn converted to shop building, wood -framed with metal roof. Samples of acoustical ceiling tile stored in barn were obtained. 11.& 12. Greenhouse. Wood -framed with plastic siding; temporary greenhouse shelters. No samples obtained. 13. Barn. Large, two-story barn (wood with composition roof), storage area, and horse stalls. Metal sheet attached to barn. No samples obtained 14. Metal Shed. Metal roof and sides; horse stalls. No samples obtained. 15. High Tension Tower. Not inspected. 16. Residential Home, 7100 South Grady Way. Wood -framed, composition roof, constructed identical to bldg in Item No. 7). Access to house not available. No inspection, but obtained sample of composition roof. 17. Residential Home, 7120 South Grady Way. Used as office for J&G land design. Wood -framed, with plaster walls and ceilings. Suspected asbestos exterior siding. Samples of exterior siding, composition roof, and vinyl floor tile were obtained. 18. Garage. Wood -framed, dilapidated composition roof. No samples were obtained. 19. Nursery Office, 7120 South Grade Way. Plywood office building; no insulation. No samples obtained. A total of 24 samples of building materials were obtained for future analysis. 9011-003-3 3 CENTRAC r PROJECT INFORMATION Project Name: Project //: Lab Name: Lab Number. Sampling Period: SAMPLE INFORMATION Hillman/Tukwila 15339.002 ATI - Renton 8904-004 4/3/89 QA/QC REPORT Sample Numbers: 1 (TP -3), 2 (TP -4), 3 (TP -5), 4 (TP -6), 5 (TP -4-S), 6 (IP -7), 7 (TP -8) Matrix: Soil QA/QC SUMMMARY All results are of known and acceptable quality. TEST METHODS Analysis Technique VOC Petroleum Hydrocarbons OII & Grease Metals TIMEUNESS Analysis VOC Metals GC/MS IR IR AA/F • Reference Method EPA 8240 EPA 418.1 EPA 413.2 EPA 7000 series Date Date , Date Time 1111 Sampled Extracted Analyzed Extraction 04/03/89 04/05/89 04/03/89 04/05/89 04/03/89 04/05/89 04/03/89 •• 04/05/89 04/06/89 04/11/89 04/14/89 2 (7). 2 2 • Number in () is the recommended holding time requirement for water samples. • • Not reported by lab. Applied Geotechnology Inc. Page 1 of 4 Time Till Analysis Comments: All samples were extracted and analyzed within required holding times. REAGENT BLANKS Methylene chloride was detected at a concentration of 0.4 mg/kg in the reagent blank . No methylene chloride was detected in the soil samples. • • Project Name: Hillman/Tukwila Project #: 15339.002 Lab Name: ATI - Renton MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERY SUMMARY: VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS EPA Method: 8240 Matrix Soil Units: mg/kg, dry wt. Applied Geotechnology Inc. Page 2 of 4 Dup Dup ATI Sample Spike Spiked % Spiked % Advisory Compounds Result Added Sample Rec Sample Rec RPD % Rec Benzene <0.05 2.5 2.4 96 2.5 100 4 43-139 Chlorobenzene <0.05 2.5 2.6 104 2.9 116 11 59-132 1,1-Dlchloroethene <0.05 2.5 2.4 96 2.7 108 12 37-148 Toluene <0.05 2.5 2.4 96 2.6 104 8 57-134 Trichloroethene <0.05 2.5 2.8 112 3.0 120 7 51-130 Comments: Matrix spike results met QA criteria. %Rec. _ [(Spiked Sample - Sample ResultySpike Conc.] * 100 RPD a ((Spiked Sample Result - Duplicate Spike ResultyAverage Spike Result] ' 100 r • • Project Name: Hillman/Tukwila Project #: 15339.002 Lab Name: ATI - Renton MATRIX SPIKE RECOVERY SUMMARY: METALS Applied Geotechnology Inc. Page 3 of 4 Matrix: Soil Units: mg/kg, dry wt. ATI Water Sample Dup Spiked Spike Advisory Metal MUD Result Result RPD Sample Conc. %R % Rec Chromium 8904-004-5 39 38 3 155 130 89 61-126 Copper 8903-143-8 11 11 0 123 100 112 78-114 Lead 8903-124-1 <10 <10 •• 89 100 89 61-137 Manganese 8904-004-5 370 370 0 •• •• •• 80-110 Nickel 8903-127-8 <3 <3 •• 486 500 97 69-126 Zinc 8903-127-8 <1 <1 • • 4.5 5 90 68-120 Comments: Matrix spike results met OA criteria. %R = [(Spiked Sample - Sample Result)/Spike Conc.] • 100 RPD - [(Sample Result - Duplicate Result)/Average Result)] • 100 • Applied Geotechnology Inc. Protect Name: Hillman/Tukwila Project #: 15339.002 Lab Name: ATI - Renton SURROGATE RECOVERY SUMMARY Matrix: Soil Page 4 of 4 Volatile Organic Compounds by EPA Method 8240 All Average Advisory COMPOUND GROUP Recovery Minimum Maximum % Rec. 1,2-Dichloroethane-D4 93 • 78 109 54-148 Toluene -D8 94 78 111 59-135 Bromofluorobenzene 93 78 110 52-133 VALUES OUTSIDE REQUIRED QC UMITS VOC: None Comments: Surrogate results met QA criteria. AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. 560 Noches Avenue. S.W., Suite'101, Renton, WA 98055. (206) 228-8335 °Pf P'/ED APR 1 71989 APPUcu ,,,,,,i.„iA ARMY INC April 14, 1989 Applied Geotechnology, Inc. P.O. Box 3885 Bellevue, WA 98009 Attention : Robert Reuter Project Number : 15,339.002 Project Name : Hillman/Tukwila ATI I.D. # 8904-004 On April 3, 1989 Analytical Technologies, Inc. received seven soil samples for analyses. The samples were 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. Richard J. Forrester Frederick W. Grothkopp GCMS Operator Technical Manager FWG/hbb AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc•. ATI I.D. # 8904-004 SAMPLE CROSS REFERENCE SHEET CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA ATI # CLIENT DESCRIPTION MATRIX DATE SAMPLED 8904-004-1 TP -3 SOIL 04/03/89 8904-004-2 TP -4 SOIL 04/03/89 8904-004-3 TP -5 SOIL 04/03/89 8904-004-4 TP -6 SOIL 04/03/89 8904-004-5 TP -4-S SOIL 04/03/89 8904-004-6 TP -7 SOIL 04/03/89 8904-004-7 TP -8 SOIL 04/03/89 MATRIX # SAMPLES SOIL 7 TOTALS ATI STANDARD DISPOSAL PRACTICE The samples from this project will be disposed of in thirty (30) days from the date of this report. If an extended storage period is required, please contact our sample control department before the scheduled disposal date. 11 • • l ; AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. ATI I.D. # 8904-004 ANALYTICAL SCHEDULE CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUE REFERENCE/METHOD VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS GCMS EPA 8240 CHROMIUM AA/F EPA 7190 COPPER AA/F EPA 7210 LEAD AA/F EPA 7420 ( MANGANESE AA/F EPA 7450 NICKEL AA/F EPA 7520 ZINC AA/F EPA 7950 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS IR EPA 418.1 OIL & GREASE IR EPA 413.2 r-• ( • AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA CLIENT I.D. : REAGENT BLANK SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL EPA METHOD : 8240 RESULTS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT ATI I.D. # 8904-004 INC.DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED DATE EXTRACTED DATE ANALYZED UNITS DILUTION FACTOR N/A N/A 04/05/89 04/11/89 mg/Kg 1 COMPOUNDS RESULTS. ACETONE BENZENE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE 2-BUTANONE (MEK) CARBON DISULFIDE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROETHANE CHLOROFORM CHLOROMETHANE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE ETHYLBENZENE 2-HEXANONE (MBK) 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIRK) METHYLENE CHLORIDE STYRENE 1,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE TETRACHLOROETHENE TOLUENE 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHANE TRICHLOROETHENE VINYL ACETATE VINYL CHLORIDE TOTAL XYLENES SURROGATE PERCENT RECOVERIES 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE-D4 TOLUENE -D8 BROMOFLUOROBENZENE <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.3 <0.50 <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05. <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.50 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 95 92 93 (� v• A AnalyticaITechnologies,ln• CLIENT PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CLIENT I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX EPA METHOD • ATI I.D. # 8904-004 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, : 15,339.002 : HILLMAN/TUKWILA : REAGENT BLANK :SOIL : 8240 RESULTS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT INC.DATE SAMPLED : N/A DATE RECEIVED : N/A DATE EXTRACTED : 04/05/89 DATE ANALYZED : 04/11/89 UNITS : mg/Kg DILUTION FACTOR : 1 COMPOUND NAME SCAN NUMBER ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NO NON -HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > 10% OF NEAREST INTERNAL STANDARD. J c4b• AnalyticalTechnologies,lnc. CLIENT PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA CLIENT I.D. : REAGENT BLANK SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL EPA METHOD : 8240 RESULTS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. ATI I.D. # 8904-004 DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED DATE EXTRACTED DATE ANALYZED UNITS DILUTION FACTOR : N/A : N/A : 04/05/89 : 04/06/89 : mg/Kg : 1 COMPOUNDS RESULTS ACETONE BENZENE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE 2-BUTANONE (MEK) CARBON DISULFIDE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROETHANE CHLOROFORM CHLOROMETHANE DI BROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE ETHYLBENZENE 2-HEXANONE (MBK) 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIRK) METHYLENE CHLORIDE STYRENE 1,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE TETRACHLOROETHENE TOLUENE 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHANE TRICHLOROETHENE VINYL ACETATE VINYL CHLORIDE TOTAL XYLENES SURROGATE PERCENT RECOVERIES 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE-D4 TOLUENE -D8 BROMOFLUOROBENZENE <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.3 <0.50 <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.50 <0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 109 111 110 AnalyticalTechnologies,In• CLIENT PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CLIENT I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX EPA METHOD • ATI I.D. # 8904-004 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, : 15,339.002 : HILLMAN/TUKWILA : REAGENT BLANK : SOIL : 8240 RESULTS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT INC.DATE SAMPLED : N/A DATE RECEIVED : N/A DATE EXTRACTED : 04/05/89 DATE ANALYZED : 04/06/89 UNITS : mg/Kg DILUTION FACTOR : 1 COMPOUND NAME SCAN NUMBER ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NO NON -HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > 10% OF NEAREST INTERNAL STANDARD. J! r / AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. r --- CLIENT PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CLIENT I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX EPA METHOD RESULTS BASED VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, : 15,339.002 : HILLMAN/TUKWILA : REAGENT BLANK : SOIL : 8240 ON DRY WEIGHT ATI I.D. # 8904-004 INC.DATE SAMPLED : N/A DATE RECEIVED : N/A DATE EXTRACTED : 04/05/89 DATE ANALYZED : 04/05/89 UNITS : mg/Kg DILUTION FACTOR : 1 COMPOUNDS RESULTS ACETONE BENZENE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE 2-BUTANONE (MEK) CARBON DISULFIDE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROETHANE CHLOROFORM CHLOROMETHANE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE ETHYLBENZENE 2-HEXANONE (MBK) 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIRK) METHYLENE CHLORIDE STYRENE 1,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE TETRACHLOROETHENE TOLUENE 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHANE TRICHLOROETHENE VINYL ACETATE VINYL CHLORIDE TOTAL XYLENES SURROGATE PERCENT RECOVERIES 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE-D4 TOLUENE -D8 BROMOFLUOROBENZENE <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.3 <0.50 <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.50 0.40 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 92 99 94 • r / \ AnalyticalTechnologies,inc. CLIENT PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CLIENT I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX EPA METHOD ATI I.D. # 8904-004 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, : 15,339.002 : HILLMAN/TUKWILA : REAGENT BLANK : SOIL : 8240 RESULTS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT INC.DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED DATE EXTRACTED DATE ANALYZED UNITS DILUTION FACTOR : N/A : N/A : 04/05/89 : 04/05/89 : mg/Kg : 1 COMPOUND NAME SCAN NUMBER ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NO NON -HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > 10% OF NEAREST INTERNAL STANDARD. NiT j \ AnalyticalTechnologies,l• CLIENT PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CLIENT I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX EPA METHOD RESULTS BASED ATI I.D. # 8904-004-1 VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, : 15,339.002 : HILLMAN/TUKWILA : TP -3 : SOIL : 8240 ON DRY WEIGHT INC.DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED DATE EXTRACTED DATE ANALYZED UNITS DILUTION FACTOR : 04/03/89 : 04/03/89 : 04/05/89 : 04/11/89 : mg/Kg 1 COMPOUNDS RESULTS ACETONE BENZENE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE 2-BUTANONE (MEK) CARBON DISULFIDE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROETHANE CHLOROFORM CHLOROMETHANE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE . TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE ETHYLBENZENE 2-HEXANONE (MBK) 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK) METHYLENE CHLORIDE STYRENE 1,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE TETRACHLOROETHENE TOLUENE 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHANE TRICHLOROETHENE VINYL ACETATE VINYL CHLORIDE TOTAL XYLENES SURROGATE PERCENT RECOVERIES 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE-D4 TOLUENE -D8 BROMOFLUOROBENZENE <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.3 <0.50 <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.50 <0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 78 78 78 4., Ana lyticalTechnologies,l• CLIENT : PROJECT # : PROJECT NAME : CLIENT I.D. : SAMPLE MATRIX : EPA METHOD : ATI I.D. # 8904-004-1 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC 15,339.002 HILLMAN/TUKWILA TP -3 SOIL 8240 RESULTS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT .DATE SAMPLED : DATE RECEIVED : DATE EXTRACTED : DATE ANALYZED : UNITS : DILUTION FACTOR : 04/03/89 04/03/89 04/05/89 04/11/89 mg/Kg 1 COMPOUND NAME SCAN NUMBER ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NO NON—HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > 10% OF NEAREST INTERNAL STANDARD. AnalyricaITechnologies,ln• CLIENT PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CLIENT I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX EPA METHOD RESULTS BASED ATI I.D. # 8904-004-2 VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, : 15,339.002 : HILLMAN/TUKWILA : TP -4 : SOIL : 8240 ON DRY WEIGHT INC.DATE SAMPLED DATE RECEIVED : DATE EXTRACTED : DATE ANALYZED : UNITS . DILUTION FACTOR : 04/03/89 04/03/89 04/05/89 04/06/89 mg/Kg 1 COMPOUNDS RESULTS ACETONE BENZENE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE 2-BUTANONE (MEK) CARBON DISULFIDE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROETHANE CHLOROFORM CHLOROMETHANE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE ETHYLBENZENE '2-HEXANONE (MBK) 4-METHYL-2-PENTANONE (MIBK) METHYLENE CHLORIDE STYRENE 1,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE TETRACHLOROETHENE TOLUENE 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHANE TRICHLOROETHENE VINYL ACETATE VINYL CHLORIDE TOTAL XYLENES SURROGATE PERCENT RECOVERIES 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE-D4 TOLUENE -D8 BROMOFLUOROBENZENE <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.3 <0.50 <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.50 <0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 97 98 97 AnalyticalTechnologies,I• ATI I.D. # 8904-004-2 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC.DATE SAMPLED : PROJECT # : 15,339.002 DATE RECEIVED : PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA CLIENT I.D. : TP -4 SAMPLE MATRIX ; SOIL EPA METHOD : 8240 RESULTS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT DATE EXTRACTED : DATE ANALYZED : UNITS DILUTION FACTOR : 04/03/89 04/03/89 04/05/89 04/06/89 mg/Kg 1 COMPOUND NAME SCAN NUMBER ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NO NON -HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > 10% OF NEAREST INTERNAL STANDARD. AnaiyticolTechnologies,Inc. CLIENT PROJECT # PROJECT NAME CLIENT I.D. SAMPLE MATRIX EPA METHOD RESULTS BASED ATI I.D. # 8904-004-3 VOLATILE ORGANICS ANALYSIS DATA SUMMARY : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, : 15,339.002 : HILLMAN/TUKWILA : TP -5 : SOIL : 8240 ON DRY WEIGHT INC.DATE SAMPLED : DATE RECEIVED : DATE EXTRACTED : DATE ANALYZED . UNITS DILUTION FACTOR : 04/03/89 04/03/89 04/05/89 04/05/89 mg/Kg 1 COMPOUNDS RESULTS ACETONE BENZENE BROMODICHLOROMETHANE BROMOFORM BROMOMETHANE 2-BUTANONE (MEK) CARBON DISULFIDE CARBON TETRACHLORIDE CHLOROBENZENE CHLOROETHANE CHLOROFORM CHLOROMETHANE DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHANE 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE 1,2-DICHLOROETHENE (TOTAL) 1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE CIS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE TRANS-1,3-DICHLOROPROPENE ETHYLBENZENE 2-HEXANONE (MBK) 4 -METHYL -2-PENTANONE (MIBK) METHYLENE CHLORIDE STYRENE 1,1,2,2 -TETRACHLOROETHANE TETRACHLOROETHENE TOLUENE 1,1,1 -TRICHLOROETHANE 1,1,2 -TRICHLOROETHANE TRICHLOROETHENE VINYL ACETATE VINYL CHLORIDE TOTAL XYLENES SURROGATE PERCENT RECOVERIES 1,2-DICHLOROETHANE-D4 TOLUENE -D8 BROMOFLUOROBENZENE <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.3 <0.50 <1.0 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.50 <0.3 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.50 <0.05 <0.05 86 88 84 AnalyticalTechnologies,l• l_av CLIENT PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA CLIENT I.D. : TP -5 SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL EPA METHOD : 8240 ATI I.D. # 8904-004-3 TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED COMPOUNDS APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, RESULTS BASED ON DRY WEIGHT INC.DATE SAMPLED : DATE RECEIVED : DATE EXTRACTED : DATE ANALYZED : UNITS DILUTION FACTOR : 04/03/89 04/03/89 04/05/89 04/05/89 mg/Kg 1 COMPOUND NAME SCAN NUMBER ESTIMATED CONCENTRATION NO NON -HSL COMPOUNDS FOUND > 10% OF NEAREST INTERNAL STANDARD. r • AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. VOLATILE ORGANICS QUALITY CONTROL DATA CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : H_ILLMAN/TUKWILA EPA METHOD : 8240 COMPOUND SAMPLE SPIKE RESULT ADDED ATI I.D. # 8904-004 SAMPLE I.D. : REAGENT BK DATE ANALYZED : 04/05/89 SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL UNITS : mg/Kg DUP SPIKED % SPIKED SAMPLE REC SAMPLE DUP REC RPD BENZENE CHLOROBENZENE 1,1-DICHLOROETHENE TOLUENE TRICHLOROETHENE <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.8 96 104 96 96 112 % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result) 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.6 3.0 X 700 100 116 108 104 120 Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Sample Result - Duplicate Result) Average Result 4 11 12 8 7 X 100 GAnalyticalTechnologies,lnc. ATI I.D.# 8904-004 METALS RESULTS CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA UNITS : mg/Kg PARAMETER -2 -4 -5 CHROMIUM 220 35 39 COPPER 44 32 130 LEAD 50 <10 <10 MANGANESE - - 370 NICKEL - - 30 ZINC 75 46 3.5 G r • AnolyticalTechnologies,Inc. METALS QUALITY CONTROL CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA ATI I.D. # 8904-004 SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL UNITS : mg/Kg PARAMETER ATI I.D. SAMPLE RESULT DUP SPIKED SPIKE % RESULT RPD SAMPLE CONC REC CHROMIUM COPPER LEAD MANGANESE NICKEL ZINC 8904-004-5 39 8903-143-8 11 8903-124-1 <10 8904-004-5 370 8903-127-8 <3 8903-127-8 <1 38 11 <10 370 <3 <1 3 0 0 0 0 0 155 123 89 ** 486 4.5 130 100 100 ** 500 5.0 ** Due to the necessary dilution of the sample, result was not attainable. % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result) Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Sample Result x 100 - Duplicate Result) Average Result 89 112 89 ** 97 90 x 100 r • • AnalyticalTechnologies,Inc. GENERAL CHEMISTRY RESULTS ATI I.D. # 8904-004 CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA PARAMETER UNITS —2 —3 —4 —5 —6 —7 OIL & GREASE mg/Kg <1.0 55 9.1 PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS mg/Kg — — — — — 110 6.0 MOISTURE 22 13 15 14 0.2 — r ) AnalyticalTechnologies,ln• ATI I.D. # 8904-004 GENERAL CHEMISTRY QUALITY CONTROL CLIENT : APPLIED GEOTECHNOLOGY, INC. PROJECT # : 15,339.002 PROJECT NAME : HILLMAN/TUKWILA SAMPLE MATRIX : SOIL PARAMETER ATI UNITS I.D. SAMPLE DUP SPIKED SPIKE % RESULT RESULT RPD CONC ADDED REC OIL & GREASE OIL & GREASE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS MOISTURE MOISTURE MOISTURE mg/Kg 8904-004-3 9.1 5.4 mg/Kg SRB SPIKE N/A N/A 51 N/A N/A N/A N/A 64.6 64.1 101 mg/Kg 8903-133-12 <1.0 <1.0 0 90404804 20 20 0 % 8904-004-3 16 15 6 % 8904-005-3 38 42 10 % Recovery = (Spike Sample Result - Sample Result) 67.7 63.5 107 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X 100 Spike Concentration RPD (Relative % Difference) = (Sample Result - Duplicate Result) Average Result X 100 4 Copies • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. DISTRIBUTION Hillman Properties Northwest 900 North Tomahawk Island Drive Portland, Oregon 97217-7999 Quality Assurance/Technical Review by: SJP/JBH/tag r • • Applied Geotechnology Inc. G. Seismic Setting The site sand soils may be susceptible to liquifaction during earthquakes due to the loose, fine-grained, saturated Sand encountered in our borings. The depth and extent of liquefaction could influence pile capacity and should be considered during final design. • • V. RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL STUDY A. General Applied Geotechnology Inc. The environmental audit preformed as a portion of this investigation was intended to identify sources of potential contamination on the Nielson and Homewood properties. Analytical testing provided quantitative data to augment review of site history and uses. The results of the audit indicate three sources of potential environmental concern that should be further investigated: asbestos in existing structures, metals in Fill and methane or other vapor migration from the adjacent abandoned King County landfill. Recommended additional investigation pertaining to these concerns is dis- cussed below. The geotechnical study for this report was intended to be preliminary. Additional geotechnical investigation should be performed after specific 'building and bridge types, sizes and locations are designed. B. Asbestos The asbestos survey indicates several structures may contain asbestos in building materials. Further study, including testing samples already collected, will be required to establish the quantity and locations of asbestos -containing materials so that a certified contractor can remove and properly dispose of such materials before or during demolition. C. Metals Planning for additional investigation of metals in Fill on the Nielson property is currently in progress. Such investigation will include excava- tion of six test pits, acquisition of about 20 to 30 soil samples, installation of a monitoring well and extraction of groundwater. D. Landfill The 1985 landfill study by King County did not include tests for volatile organic compounds. We recommend installation of a groundwater monitoring well adjacent to the abandoned landfill property to monitor for VOCs and methane. Information developed from such monitoring could be used as a basis for recommendations pertaining to methane mitigation. E. Geotechnical Investigation We recommend additional site specific investigation at locations of proposed structures as a basis for engineering analyses and design and construction recommendations. Additional study should include drilled borings, a comprehensive laboratory testing program, and supplemental analysis. It is our further recommendation that such a study be conducted only after buildings are sited and initial architectural and structural information is available. r r • • APPENDICES -29- Applied Geotechnology Inc. APPENDIX A Field Exploration 0 n Applied Geotechnology Inc. • • APPENDIX A Field Exploration A. General Applied Geotechnology Inc. We explored subsurface conditions at the site. We drilled a total of five borings on March 30 and 31, 1989, to a maximum depth of 74 feet below the existing site grade at the approximate locations indicated on Figure 1. In addition, we excavated a total of eight test pits to a maximum depth of 14 feet below existing site grade on April 3, 1989, at the approximate loca- tions indicated on Figure 1. The test pits were excavated using a Case 580 E Extendahoe. The borings were drilled using a truck -mounted, Mobile B-61 hollow -stem auger drill. For this project, to obtain better quality soil samples for laboratory testing purposes, we used a split barrel sampler with a larger diameter than the standard SPT split spoon. For engineering analyses, it is necessary to correct the number of blows per foot obtained with the modified sampler to obtain an equivalent "N -value". The number of blows per foot actually recorded with the modified assembly, however, are the values shown at the appropriate sample depth on the boring logs. Their locations are indicated on the initial boring logs. Borings and test pits were locatedin the field by pacing from existing buildings. Exploration elevations were not estimated. The locations should only be considered accurate to the degree implied by the method used. The borings and test pits excavations were monitored by our engineer who maintained a log of each exploration, examined and classified the materials encountered, and noted groundwater occurrence. Representative soil samples were obtained and classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented, with a key to the boring logs, on the Soil Classification/Legend, Plate 1. Samples from borings were sealed to limit moisture loss, labeled, and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The boring logs, modified to reflect the results of laboratory examination and testing, are presented on Plates 2 through 9. The stratification lines, shown on the individual logs, represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be either more gradual or more severe. The conditions depicted are for the date and locations indicated only, and it should not necessarily be expected that they are representative of conditions at other locations and times. Test Pit Logs are included in tabular form as Plates 10 through 12. • • Nielsen Property April 18, 1989 SUMMARY The following materials were noted during the visual survey as building materials which may contain asbestos: 1) Exterior shingles - three buildings. 2) Flooring materials - all five residential homes and farm office. 3) Roofing materials - compositional roofing on buildings, 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 18. 4) Insulation board and ducting tape located in the basement of building 8. Twenty-four samples of suspect materials were collected and are being held for future laboratory analysis. These samples will be archived for fifteen (15) days at which time they will be disposed of unless CEN RAC is otherwise notified by Applied Geotechnology DISCUSSION Without laboratory analysis we can only assume that a majority of the materials sampled are asbestos -containing. This is based on our considerable experience with 'similar materials. Federal and State regulation require the removal of any asbestos -containing material prior to building demolition. Asbestos -containing vinyl floor tile (VAT) and roofing materials fall under the same regulation with a few exceptions. US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) require the following: VAT and asbestos -containing roofing materials may be left in place during demolition if: 1) material is in good condition and is non -friable 2) binder is petroleum based and asbestos fibers are suspended in that base 3) VAT does not have friable backing or matrix and neither material has friable layers of ACM. 9011-003-4 4 AC --2 Nielsen Property April 18, 1989 RECOMMENDATIONS Because of the strict federal, state and local regulations for asbestos fiber release during demolition projects, CENTRAC recommends that the following steps be taken prior to demolition: 1) Complete the laboratory analysis of samples to verify asbestos content of building materials. 2) Determine the quantity of ACM and the cost of removing and disposing of the ACM in accordance with applicable regulations. 3) If the analysis confirms the existence of ACM, which must be removed prior to demolition, CENTRAC can provide a list of three to five contractors qualified to conduct the removal. 4) Bid documents may or may not be necessary for this project depending on the complexity of the removaL Should they be necessary, they should be developed by a professional consulting firm such as CENTRAC, who has specific expertise in asbestos consulting. 5) During demolition, if asbestos -containing materials are involved, a specialist in asbestos should monitor the demolition project and removal of ACM. COST ESTIMATES Upon request by Jim Harakas on April 17, 1989 we have been ask to cost estimate the removal of the asbestos containing materials. In order to provide an accurate cost estimate for asbestos removal, the bulk samples of suspect ACM must be analyzed by polarized light microscopy. Once lab results are obtained, quantities can be field verified and a cost estimate be calculated. We will, for the purpose of an approximate estimate, assume that all roofing, flooring and exterior tile siding, is asbestos containing. In addition, we can only guess the dimensions of the buildings and therefore, only approximate the total square footage of asbestos containing materials. Based on our estimate of 11,331 square feet of ACM, removal cost may be on the order of $20,000 to $60,000. If we may be of further service, or if you have any questions regarding our findings please do not hesitate to call us. 9011-003-5 5 AC • • SULK SAMPLE ♦ 9011 -45R -q -n4 PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7160 S.GRADY WAY RF:STfPATrTAI xr �4'ITID BLDG 3 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS ATTIC INSULATION ON WOOD BEAMS GOOD F.ERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.•Cond.+friab.+Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: 9011-4589-05 PICTURE BULK SAMPLE BLDG 3 SAMPLE LOCATION: 7160 S.GRADY WAY RESIDENT) L HOM1- upstairs ba_throcxn SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: VTNvr. FM -1R TILE MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG LAB RESULTS: POS LLJJ • GOOD FERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+Friab.+Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK bAMPLE ♦ 9011-4589-06 PICTURE I SAMPLE LOCATION: 7160 S.GRADY WAY RESIDENTTAi. ROMP SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS VINYL FLOOR TILE UPSTAIRS BLDG 3 FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+FrIab.+Loc.) * P • fl OBSERVATIONS: SULK SAMPLE • • . • 9011-4589-07 SAMPLE LOCATION: 7140 S.GRADY WAY RESIDFNTT4T H(MF' SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: BLOWN—IN CEILING INSULATION MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG LAB RESULTS: POS GOOD PICTURE • Rtrr F..ERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: P•FI OBSERVATIONS: (Acess.•Cond.+Frlab.+Loc.) 9011-4589-08 _ PICTURE • . BULK SAMPLE + SAMPLE LOCATION: 7140 S. GRADY WAY TW NTT BLDG 8 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: VINYL FLOOR TILE MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG . LAB RESULTS: POS FERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Coad.+Friab.+Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE • 9011-4589-08A PICTURE • SAME AS ABOVE SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG L AB RESULTS: POS VINYL FLOOR TILT WORN FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+Frlab.+Loc.) a P • FI OBSERVATIONS: • III ♦ULK SAMPLE ♦ 9011-4589-08B PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION:. 7140 S. GRADY WAY .RRSTMF MITT AT W'M1' RT nn R (iDctai rc) SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:. VINYL FLOOR TILE MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS WORN FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess..Cond. I Friab.+Loc.) i P • F1 OBSERVATIONS: 08C BULK SAMPLE f 9011-4589- _ PICTURE i SAMPLE LOCATION: SAME AS AAOVF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG Q LAB. RESULTS: POS U VINYL FLOOR TILE FERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.*Cond.+Frub.+Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE ♦ 9011-4589-09 PICTURE f SAME AS ABOVE SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS FERRIS INDEX: EXTFRTOR H(1T1.RF TTT F FAIR (Acess.•Cond.+frlab.+Loc.) P•fl OBSERVATIONS: similar tile located on th SAMPLER: 4 • - 1 • • • • r 9011-4589-09A • SULK SAMPLE • PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7140 S,GRADY WAY RESIDENTIAL HOME BLDG 8 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: EXTERIOR SIDING FELT MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS GOOD F..ERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.•Cond.*Friab.+Loc.) x P • F1 OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE • 9011-4589-10 _ PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: SAME AS ABOVE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: TAPE LOCATED ON METAL DUCTING IN BASEMENT MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LA8 RESULTS: POS UU • FAIR FERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+friab.♦Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE • 9011-4589=11 PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: SAME AS ABOVE BOILER DOOR INSULATION—BA$PENT FRIABLE NEG131.A13 RESULTS: POS FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.4FrIab.+Loc.) x. P • F1 OBSERVATIONS: • • SULK SAMPLE ♦ 9011-4589-12 PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: BUILDING 1 GARAGE/OFFICE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: OLD NEG LAB RESULTS: POS F.ERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: CEILING TILE (Acess.•Cond.+Frisb.+Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE t 9011-4589-13 SAMPLE LOCATION: BUILDING 1 PICTURE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: VIS''OR TILE MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG LAB. RESULTS: POS WORN .AND OLD F.ERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+Frisb.♦Loc.) x P • F1 OBSERVATIONS: BULK 6AMPLE # 9011-4589-14 PICTURE # SAMPLE LOCATION: 7120 S. GRADY WAY RESIDENTIAL HOME SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: EXTERIOE SIDING FAIR MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG LAB RESULTS: POS )FERRIS INDEX: OBSERVATIONS: (Acess.+Cond.+Frlsb.+Loc.) • P • FI SAMPLER: { SULK SAMPLE • SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: VINYL FLOOR TILE 9011-4589-01 • PICTURE • 7160 S . GRADY WAY RES T DENTIAL _HOW- rsncpr BIM 3 MATERIAL CONDITION: FAIR NEG LAB .RESULTS: POS F.ERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.*Coad.+Friab.+Loc.) • P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE • 9011-4589-02 _ PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7160 S . GRADY WAY -RESIDENTIAL HOME KT'TYRtFN BLDG 3 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS �LJJ VINYL FLOOR TILE F.ERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.*Cond.+Friab.+Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK tAMPLE • , 9011-4589-03 PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7160 S. GRADY WAY -RESIDENTIAL HOME- ATTIC BLDG 3 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: CEILING INSULATION (blown -in) MATERIAL CONDITION: GOOD NEG LAB RESULTS: POS FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+FrIab.*Loc.) x P • fl OBSERVATIONS: • SULK SAMPLE • 9011-4589-14A PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7120 S.GRADY WAY RESIDENTIAL HOME SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:. FXTF.RTOR STTITNG FFLT MATERIAL CONDITION: FAIR NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+Fri$b.+Loc.) • P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE • 9011-4589-15 SAMPLE LOCATION: SAME AS ABOVE PICTURE • SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: VTNYT. FtnnR TIT .F MATERIAL CONDITION: GOOD NEG LAB. RESULTS: POS FERRIS. INDEX' SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+Friab.+Loc.) x P • Fl OBSERVATIONS: BULK AMPLE • 9011-4589-15A SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: SAME AS ABOVE MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS PICTURE • VINYL FLOOR TILE GOOD FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+Frlsb.+Loc.) s P • FI OBSERVATIONS: SULK SAMPLE • 90.4589-16 • PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7150 S. GRADY,WAY RESIDENTIAL HOME BLDG 7 KITCHEN VINYL FLOOR TILE SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG LAB RESULTS: POS GOOD FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Aces:.*Cond.+frlab.+Loc.) x P • fl OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE # 9011-4589-17 _ SAMPLE LOCATION: SAME AS ABOVE CEILING PLASTER BEDROOM SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: • MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG (� IAB. RESULTS: POS PICTURE • POOR FERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+friab.+Loc.) s P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE IP PICTURE PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7120 S.QJ ADY WAY RF:TINTITTAT. Hour BLDG 17 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: COMPOSITION ROOF TILE MATERIAL CONDITION: OLD NEG LAB RESULTS: POS FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Gond.+frlab.+Loc.) a P • fl OBSERVATIONS: 90-4589-19 •• SULK SAMPLE • PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7140 S. GRADY WAY RESIDE TIAL ROW BLDG 8 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: OOhPOSI�PN ROOF TILE MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG LAB RESULTS: POS FAIR F.ERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.*Coed.*Friab.+Loc.) P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE i 9011-4589-20 PICTURE # BLDG 16 SAMPLE LOCATION: 7100 S. GRADY WAY usTnRsirruir. WNW SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG .LAB. RESULTS: POS COMPOSITION ROOF TILE FAIR F.ERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Cond.+Friab.+Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK IAMPLE • 9011-4589-21 PICTURE I SAMPLE LOCATION: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: MATERIAL CONDITION: NEG LAB RESULTS: POS 7150 S. GRADY WAY RS T DENTT AT . H(1MP RT IY; 7 COMPOSITION ROOF TILE POOR LERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.*Cond.*Frlab.+Loc.) s P • Fl OBSERVATIONS: r SULK SAMPLE • • 9011-458922 • PICTURE • SAMPLE LOCATION: 7140 S. GRADY WAY RESIDEYTIAL HOMF BI.tI 8 SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: OONIPOSITION R000F TILE MATERIAL CONDITION: POOR NEG .LAB RESULTS: POS FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Coed.+Frisb.+loc.) x P • fl OBSERVATIONS: BULK SAMPLE f 9011-45RA-2 PICTURE * SAMPLE LOCATION: BUILDING 1 GARAGE/OFFTCF. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: COMPOSITION ROOF TILE MATERIAL CONDITION. POOR NEG LAB. RESULTS: POS FERRIS. INDEX: SAMPLER: (Aces•.+Coed.+FrLb.+Loc.) x P • FI OBSERVATIONS: BULK tAMPLE • 9011-4589-24 PICTURE SAMPLE LOCATION: BUILDING 10 BARN/SHOP SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: ACCOUSTICAI. CFTT,TNG TTLF MATERIAL CONDITION: GOOD NEG LAB RESULTS: POS FERRIS INDEX: SAMPLER: (Acess.+Conti.+Frlsb.+Loc.) x P • fl OBSERVATIONS: MATERIAL IS STORED IN SHOP NOT IN-SITU__ • • APPENDIX D Analytical Testing Applied Geotechnology Inc. r Applied Geotechnology Inc. APPENDIX D Analytical Testing Soil samples for analytical testing were obtained from the eight explorato- ry test pits excavated on April 3, 1989, at the locations shown on Figure 1. Appendix B provides a description of excavation, sampling and decontamination procedures. Soil samples were submitted for analytical testing based on observations during excavation and results of our site history analysis. Two samples, from test pits adjacent to reported UST's, were analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons in accordance with EPA 418.1 test procedures. Three samples were analyzed for total oil and grease by EPA test method 413.2, as a screening test for Fill on both properties. One slag fill sample was tested for metals (chromium, EPA Method 7190; copper, EPA 7210; lead, EPA 7420; manganese, EPA 7450; nickel, EPA 7520; zinc, EPA 7950; and arsenic, EPA 7060). Two soil samples, collected adjacent to slag in Fill, were analyzed for chromium, copper, lead and zinc by the same methods. These metals were chosen because they are common trace compounds in steel alloys and are regulated in the environment by various state and federal laws. Three samples were tested for volatile organics using EPA method 8240 as a general screening test. Laboratory data and quality assurance/quality control are included in this Appendix. DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER O NOTES 11 SURCEASES. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN 0100 FOOT PROVIDED 50 GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHESWISE NOTED 21 SUSGRADE SHALL 55 SCARIFIED 0R ROTOTILLED IF CONDITIONS REQUIRE. " SI (' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. 4) E' DEPTH PINE GRADE RMF MULCH DI ALL RANTING REDS '5) ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL 5E HEALTHY. FULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION. !) PLANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR FIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY RE SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 11 ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL NAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. 5) ALL TREE PITS SHALL DE INSPECTED TO INS= PROPER DRAINAGE. 0) 4051TM DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM 11. 101 SNRUR5 AND TREES MINIMUM 42 PROM CURS FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WNEELSTOPS NOTED, R1 S' WIDE BARN MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO !WILDING 01 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. nN0 PR Ir Now 0000gulr 502040 Rus am* MI tea. 0.00Not 10SW0� .. Mao Lobo OROUNOCOVER SPACING DETAIL 000 LDG 4 architects WARW. a.RMun vo.o . eraMleote SJtY Oommtwr wow. n 0wWw IIe0 awn.. WA. 00100 (3001203-4004 consitents vAnr 41.4100 ard wow Ann.= CepMCMa AWSA pow sews*. warp .111110/01 0005 0.RMa A* 001011 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL PLANT LIST 01.111 PR 000 M1 eMea Nb Raa-N0 am 00.•11. SYM Maven. E0/-,rw/ ACG,- O50 7 n ' RCA,renwot' / .:e.r ,re.rcr rnip'G L' aefarr 136.9. Nvntd Co00Arra• ' MewarT' FW.rm 2' co/pr er'9 r/ZFA6 YCAaeagc / 6/'e/ry' 2 0' SAI- W! 9 .5.4Grar2/ruh4m/ yinG 07.40c 8; S Gfn6 rn. VP 9 Ce1+dr ,Irpyr/Fart'6UrrV'/ Crump WT.Z,r C%r+h. T/107 r7,07. /1l zg . 4D0 1q MGnzoci/ / u FOP U'-6' P'02i4 A/ya / A[urn/n 834044 1:2/lc e." -t,' 91'9 ' 0)M . //4fr0 'CJ•c..aR- / 66w GCAwr ✓''B 9!9 ® ,n.• rngz,- / pMnnWv o ,voterN A220.F0/¢rr, G) -a> Erop r r//cn O 2,4142'2IL'/2✓r vsY•2•ry mir1 0:4-44..I o Avr4x L. 'arrat o oz,' / Orra krurzr, 2/' ruin Grertab '6orrTRsctte / cimprer L,Gpairca r. y ,'13/4.4. O ezereei mur A/Atw ' Gcrnp rrw' ,en, r 6umvy PO4h Cyn//m B''/rw Come" ' 4:PrevJNM9s/ per'/ ir.Fnxi- / jeer? 7 24.0.c. HeA6 - /-1ezo m 0AP'r*' / rN/ns ivy 4 `pr* 24'JG ✓ ,zop u5 N. ' anroe of Aa/c15' / ✓Gviryrr ./ J./lcri e -'OG E.71 :raided cr /v ldcs/ /rrnrl Vero Palor / Peraurdaa y fro15 0e' O.h. . 7 I r Urfrio//w Gcr,/rrt�n Gwrrwr s roers. @Q TREE PLANTING DETAIL 0V011Mn552 uT eNa IR aaAM Mom., N.ee project title PROPOSED 99OTEL & WAREHOUSE AT9IULSEN WE DEVELOPEDDY: O'KE FE OEVELOPNDff 7UN9e.A, WA • sheet title WAREHOUSE LANDSCAPING PLAN o revIMwo IOD no `\ LANDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED CITY OF TIJKWII A DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER asp 1G, taNe' GYPSUMS sheet PCs L DG. architects e..rOle d.rpn grow ..=dil.al. 1:110 venter . m 200 wnl.. WA. 00100 uc0na2-470.1 'W.7.171t,17';' ;[/ Protect title< PWOPOSFI) HOTEL & WAREHOUSE AT HELSEH W TE DEVELOPED DT: O'KEEFFE DEVELOPMENT TUiWILWA • cRECEIVED °" U I Y QF TUKWILA DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CEN; gn NNW tn. b` TO III LM' N .Ni 9S NOTES 11 SU*GRADE9. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN 74100 PWT PROVIDED eV GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 21 5U8GRAD[ SHALL BE SCARIFIED OR R0T0TILL[D IP CONDITIONS RE001RE. 51 .' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. PTH F MULCH IN ALL PLANTING e .1 r IN[ RADE ARK G 8 ULC ODS 51 ALL PWANT MATERIAL SHALL N, LATESTHEALTHY. FULL AND CONPORN TO USA STANDARD FOR ORRERY STOCK. LATEST [DATION RI PLANT MATERIAL OR WITH OR KIND x0T AVAILABLE MAYARC IBE I OWNER. ONLY WITH APPIIOVAL M LANDSCAPE MCXR[CT OR OWNER. 51 ALL PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR PPG fl ALL TREE PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED 10 INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE 01 'POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL 571 MAINTAINED MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM 15'. rol UNLESS AND TREES NOTED. 55' FROM CURD FOR CAA OVERHANG UNWISE BARK STOPSMORIN NOTED. pl B' WIDE BARK MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN 19 ADJACENT TO BUILDING. 721 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER DGarchitects ..2-.6.04. %MO e�Ne.r .n sun. Geo 53412. NM.. 00100 22007203-.704 IG s..N/ GROUNDCOVER SPACING DETAIL Trlanpular Spacing elimmed end BOHN Ow.. conn ionto la gamma MILM via Rause,* AM loft Wow lind Pnee Mei. M� 0317.0:101 - mow R.gO+r.In... as NNW* vNa.Rp nwmW sissalreNbal $NRUe PLANTING DETAIL PLANT LIST TREE PLANTING DETAIL manly amyl. Puny D.. Bawl. WrIwY. Nxftna trA10 prom rn. Now RWUNRW. N.Yn A:er /h457.55 ' Pis slurs r' / ?44 4 4rror 0P9Pe L' Motor %.9 Grunut ce,aRTPiSa' ' NeiNFti r / Per, N-4-- Pvn r C.4/Err ®P.9 /7rh6 YGda6G / Y.-yo,ao o 000 , z'z' ✓ /,pr' 9 t 9 .NcerarrerJwfam/ {one nzrp4e b, ri' 44/7e r7wn 90 9 P.TUN . ApenFerd '0%1,1 '' j /umr. w/,I fC tGren, +7 : r✓Xe n0r1, .icuaoh'r 0q Monzar/ / tiTei5ct fa" //•b' l3f9 Porus Aiew / Aexitron 94.6.4 pre e." -e• 9T l 0 7n'Jw P/gofd. / zN-G((Cr Gts Ledo- v -B9(13 .• %ronnu lrwtc,^, / Prbnns G. n./Spa Q 7nL•bderaar'cr7 i.Ogrg 241 m/r4 (Frew,* o PZnGK L. '' a !-46,417' / arra L_d'r7' Low -0/ 2' min o //CX CrerNrt 'eamaso,*' / eaiiooxr N%'paieco rz-gy /b'ri5.12 o ECGre nr t A/4fn 'C*1574p•v?•.'// ic7+ E; r i744"""'4 Ergo flour ' 4i'r'rrJwwa' yr -A'/ /S'+14rler z4' c'4. riegx ' boon.' / /-twrY4- ivy 4' Av7 ✓unper:mg H. 'Pnrxe cr. woes'/ ✓iridKr ./ „oo/Ln av'OG Se7Ode4 v /zfrovreco i/ /41.17 Nh:w Prior / Feenvo,wc 4'' Prns 7:OdLr Lott/Po//q 4' Cavirlbvi e..ri70/5 raer"15, ,v5- 4,9 wcoanaaN MDSLAK proleci tO1e PROPOSED NOVEL 5 WAREHOUSE AT NUELSEN SIVE DEVELOPED BY: O'DEEFE DEVELOPMENT TU OLA. WA ill sheet title WAREHOUSE LANDSCAPING PLAN LANDSCAPING PLAN no ...mono IOD nd blLs (L, t41VP,y RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER ChM:Eel aRor 1.1,3-05 NEW PG DEC 2 0 1995 KRkUT CEATER 0 tOkA 13,31. I`3lag 110 Ikab ART a1" 1i 0 cm, Lov °d\ sr PA0 .D NOTES 11 SUBGRADES. INCLUDING PERMS. TO WITHIN VI. FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 21 SUDGRADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED OR ROTOTILLED IP CONDITIONS REQUIRE. SI R' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. 44 S' DEPTH FINE GRADE PARR MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS '51 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL DE HEALTHY. PULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION CI PLANT MATERIAL OR SIZE 0R KIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY BE SUPSTITUTEO ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 74 ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. al ALL TRE! PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. Ol 'POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL DE MAINTAINED. MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM G'. U)1 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM 42' FROM CURD FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WHEELSTOPS NOTED. 111 W WIDE PARK MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN 19 ADJACENT TO BUILDING. 151 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SIT! UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. Panora sae mlrn Marco GROONDCOVER SPA LINO DETAIL Triangular Spacing Rua dans. ea enian banana 205••00 m0 wan •men.I.l.,. •• anima aur ma hue anRoane. ad $NRU0 PLANTING DETAIL PLANT LIST TREE PLANTING DETAIL Pam amend And Wolunbanows ina 54 -bon Inlow .a. MM, Sat nano slam n.aay damn a•• V/aorlysin sal LDG n architoota ae KYa•Mr, vow . avwl.oe. too dont••. 480. n SA12 200 2331.. WA. 06100 (106)20.1-4764 conadtents aaland "Ma ,a aeon ,a*4 50 Isar e••P6NN. HWM. emr✓24f/0/ / n 1Y:,3F� 4 er nuervn 'RCA burs—,r'/ ?GA Jur2zr rnop''e c' u/Fo - are A'Li7GY CCrAL7Forw "NCN*gT' / : eruct- Mon r U/fern B..e r/ 41* - Ye5od6c / 7,,k7,20 ••Weary Z 2' Ga.," H r'9 Q:aGL!-Grua ru0T/ yir'c ,nF'/c b; GI00 awe 0i A O.. P072.4, r Fr/A ,.1/amp A^7ife birch, 07 rruAA: /747. .newafaxru7F Menzeri/ / arostt Fir d-8' S f N3 f5/2 Nye / Aturian 14R44 prnc 7nu,/w .%irwti '.o'-' / F. •-C,([x PGAGectwr ✓'-g vt A O wt'//A A2 fde F' , iYf4q' boo' o env ower2ar0Fv ✓. -av :41 min, (00204./ O prunu0 L. 'Orso Gcyl 1 ' / Orr1 lwurzr, ?r' min 0 //ix Grano, '*os'/ ,,ponp,.rr L,l4p2,7cre /:nor 49/7.7 O &cry/7uf A/AfA'Garnp�'r•F'� ri;»vAYr Cyw/r!n • E'7ew 43nn4 ',1:P147pK,12/ pv,RL'/ /L'A1r7C- / o/d7 ZA'OL, ��—�;,rt HGA8 /-1(404 '1-Wr8' / rwrru / y 4'FIs r4'✓G- �1tE,✓unperave i, 'Puree rJF SW/es'/ ✓w/yrr ./.7'T/.6n ar/OL. L. •11 ,SLt/dAe 0 /Y,�67XCU/es/ /Axn two M.ncr / yerau 70C'G y Pals 7:fre24, LArproh6 /' ,.a'.,rrbn 71, Pr0laet title PROPOSED MOTEL WARE/SOUSE AT0 LSPN SDE DEVELOPED BT: 010EEEE DEVELOPMENT TRRU9EA WA sheet title, WAWEDOUSE LANDSCANNO PLAN •) LANDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED CITY ,OF hE(Mr 4 D:EIC 2 1995 amfuerr=w4 no re5hbo Job no yowl akao Lanier docked 6.. 15_1J P, GREEN R/VBR / LDG architects .».� °W64,120261. . ar.ar.e,. 10,0 4,.r _w. n maE_ 200 .aa1,1.. WA. 6000 (200)203_4764 1•3 383 Prutect>i PROPOSED HOTEL & WAREHOUSE AT TEISEN SHE DEVELOPED OV: °KEEFE DEVELOPVpi► TUtWL.. WA • DEC 2 0 9995 Ord w L=1 ads (Lnr 8i � �. LSD �q._a9i �51f NOTES 11 SUSGRADES. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN 01010 FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 21 S000RAD! SHALL SE SCARIFIED OR ROTOTILLED IF CONDITIONS REQUIRE. ' 31 4' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL RANTING AREAS I) I DEPTH PINE GRADE SARK MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS •SI ALL RANT MATERIAL SHALL 5! HEALTHY. FULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, LATEST EDITION. 81 PLANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR KIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 71 ALL MASS RANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. e1 ALL TREE PITS SHALL SE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. S) 'POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. MOUND RANTING AREAS MINIwM 11. 101 SHRUBS ANO TREES MINIMUM IT FROM CURB POR CAR OVERHANG NLE02 BARK NOTED. WIDE 111 S' BARK MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO BUILDING. 121 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL PINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. Wwre Wawa OROUNOCO1/00 SPACING DETAIL Triangular 50202474 Pnw awes* and ben hra).R re wrw.0 caw pawl aMl row wow. wow architects anom0 wren vow ...wl.ol. la 10 OertM n wall. BOO .MU1.. WA. WINOS (200)203-4704 oonomante WW dn. al�)i. Cnion born*. New.. atm taw we mat war Rieiee(rW. NNIS e ndidl IVAN tub war el sod WI SHRUB PUNTING DETAIL PLANT LIST tua TREE PLANTING DETAIL M in* One ere* doe 2e p.M 9.In hew,. Wan main E eras. Wawa PYWN) b5ee0 m.5 in WIN .Lee Wine liPPreNtr.7_,/_Go'—"—'rr7 NCI>r Acer Oe.Cl7wn ' f2GAkrrnio r' / ,?ci Sen -ref 'WOG L' CA/cvr at. e. fl7//r 4 cerir0A a ' Newp107.'/ : L*o '* J P0,'o 2' CA/prr ®! g reread YCAxrSC / Ycy7.n: L/7 U j10» 445W H19 AGe-e—Or rsr/P77 / YAW /rlep/c b'. ri Grua warn e g Pcru4r r FG'A 'Gtrnp• / C/ump n^'24-2- b/fU2, 1l rrlrK mr.. /o'nf. ttcr ioer/ r ivirrizetra / o4Rr Fig d-8' /3 i B rtr7.,6 Nye / s1/,urrNn 9/AGK pine d-8' 45.9 p7/0o/*» P//CAfA ' EACLA.A'' / E I-C.LG: P .I Les/Ar O .pnormor /f,KLTi / P/brrn r a M//Cr) o ,LLvav r Aa.mrolo r • GT22.JLn yAkr s ri/en p 246%40refA31 07 v.47Gry J4/ merit s*0-C•P.l o m'z z- 'afro !- J/Yi7' / arra L_., ,,t417 /Auz/ Z' r77,7 O //CK 'her 077 /aarrp,cr K,lrpavcre !«lSS! .'t/04*) o EGA,rrynAT A/Atf 'LcmprtA' ‘;',:trcc.t r burro? T * Ce.//m Er*44 Ca-ve."/ pot./ mrifte- / , s tri z4, oa. 6/.1.0)1 r/e/00 • Here' / /'W/Y4r/Vy a'ppm 74' ✓'!i. ✓a"peral5 H. '1%n/7ee at=sw/es' / ✓L.7‘,Per ./ syr/La7 ve./ep.AI save.> a /Y ed/ f /A/07 VVYA MASA, / pretiL(rJK/e ?r,rta5/D' OG• ett 7ju2n L/tpPOIA / G io, GAr7305 an. taw Protect ttt PROPOS® IIOTEI. • WA1121IO098 AT NEI.SEN ME DEVELOPED ST: O'!(DIFE DEVELOPMENT MA VILA, WA Sestina WARDIOUSE LANDSCAPING PIAN no LANDSCAPING PLAN revisions os a.e/LtaNCY ducted RECEIVED OF a urcwuuA DEC 201995 PERMIT CENTER Oats pD L-2 DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER a*JIIIII.I-1IPI11L111I-U:�l1dIJ1lt:`_1! 11/11111111100111111 i;;i±1lif!Illin DINT . f d I 1± Is is VICINITY MAP LDG = architects PROPOSED MOI. A WARRIORS! AT I S4JRI fit 0 STATISTICS SITE PLAN SON: 0-1 WE AREA' 14 ACID Bloc AREA: HOTEL - 40.200 V W111WY: 14%000 ST TOTAL AREA 140.200 4 40.411.314 _WSW 401EL 1/IABr - 140 WONOUR: 1/1000 ST - IAS FARIUNC 0110410122 HOTEL 140 W41101RE'. 149 INNSCA1.10 AE*NOD 12 SF/ sm.!. (200) I400SCws1C PROMO: 401211001.5 AR rEM+1oUARG 3.500 v 1.200 sA 1».000 S! 415.000 5E 2611 r' \ ) SECTION RIVER DN. 25.0 Ir -- YLW WRI 11 SECTION LOM wACT MOI IMPACT /- 5r A -U 20• - Cr Rt. Ir ICA/1 1001 NATER AG)SECTION / Ir -- YEN! 1.W WATER (:;'`)- SECTION d1 Ir 1 IRAN 1001 MATER 5. 25.0 P0Y0 . SECTION EA -2A IE WI 001 TER SECTION 22' 1• /--BOOR 55• Er25 "-NOON 53 LDG R ear =Meet s r..rao 121.00. croon ..rdMPa. 1010 de*1or ew. n s.rtP 000 .PN110. WA. trot (200)2n -M21111 ELM consultants • proiect Otto - PROPOSED HOTEL 1 MAIrJ10E SE AT N4IELSEN SITE DLV5OR® Dr: O'K EFE CEVELOPUBST 1ULMLAIWA sleet nee etre SECTIONS ro EMNWb111 •11101 ro PoM01 DA.. 25.0 r 25.0 LOM OPACT d, MON IMPACTd, 7—e00i 5r 1r WW1 MW MAICM ®SECTION 1• . 20 - lr rr 27 _ - ROOF 51 YEAH IOW MATER SECTION E: A1• W WW1 MCR SECTION _sr - I.. I25.0 WIER r "— -_.- ___ �- -- _ R 27 - SROM 5r 2A 1• . �D e- 511 - IT I250 r _-__ --_- 27 Boor W. MEW I03I1 MAIER CzA\ SECTION 1 1..w 11. Ir -r 2'10/ -- 'Er -V- - WAR NICU MA \ ) SECTION RIVER DN. 25.0 Ir -- YLW WRI 11 SECTION LOM wACT MOI IMPACT /- 5r A -U 20• - Cr Rt. Ir ICA/1 1001 NATER AG)SECTION / Ir -- YEN! 1.W WATER (:;'`)- SECTION d1 Ir 1 IRAN 1001 MATER 5. 25.0 P0Y0 . SECTION EA -2A IE WI 001 TER SECTION 22' 1• /--BOOR 55• Er25 "-NOON 53 LDG R ear =Meet s r..rao 121.00. croon ..rdMPa. 1010 de*1or ew. n s.rtP 000 .PN110. WA. trot (200)2n -M21111 ELM consultants • proiect Otto - PROPOSED HOTEL 1 MAIrJ10E SE AT N4IELSEN SITE DLV5OR® Dr: O'K EFE CEVELOPUBST 1ULMLAIWA sleet nee etre SECTIONS ro EMNWb111 •11101 ro fl 11. ,r — --- AVER ENV LOM INPACT -- NOM IMPACT f -__._____. WANNIGHrA - ___ __. \--POND I '„1 SECTION Ate..... e - Nr -Mr WAH \ ,`--POND SECTION IL ,r — MUN Na ,-- SECTION b' RIVER ENV 60' 100' LOM NPACT MEAN NOM WARN SECTIO! 11 „ SECTION A-fr , - ]r -C .11 ,r YEAN MO RA a SECTION 0-� 1• - ]0•-O' NOM NPACT \-POND POND L©G . architects r.�rm 4.0In pram... 00.0000 1310 00.10e 0 n 0011. Yeo m0100. Wt 0000 (00e# x-4704 constants • prefect tNs PROPOSED MOTEL a WAREHOUSE AT NELSEN UTE Oeve►APID BY: MEM INVIELOPEENT TUlts A, NA sheet DUs SITE SWOONS no reveler date W no trry declaim* 200110 • 0 NMI Mai 0 0 0 0 RIM 0 0 STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD arSaaz S1AgARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANAro SIAUARD ♦DQS9&L �,, of WLIa af_lL1LZa_,- r f �_n�r� STANDARD -••- 14 !ow :611M.411b. Tap arm t LOAMY PROFOSED HOTELJk _NEREHOV-E. _A L'QEN_SZTR .. _. DEVELOPED. O'i[cerTN_DEVPWPYENT • nRsT_naap__PLta_____ AAlhcrl>:•Nnl .u1 - - - To••Tn & &mlth, Inc. ToaMuJn C6. mITM• ARCHITECTS 14 1A• s1 %,r- n 0e Oli Pn ,i -nn. ('. 9110 4.,.4149/419 14. 0 FAX _6_12_14_951595 0_ Dle_ . 12/1395 .... Sheet Rc7. . • STANDARD OMR STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD y . irumAno aaz ADss s 1 STANDARD STANDARD :_: 510,,r4 pi, uDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD STANDAR, STANDARD STANDARD STANDARD ACAS.. 7 MA MIS RNA ii, 0 111110 i il, As Epp ladi gp t 1 1.1- NOOR STTnADC W'org::: • I•\ SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION .PAOPO3 ._UUTte. r •AB!<80U9R .AT 19195771 sea WWAalgA WA i DEVE1DP®_BY:....._ _ _�O'10aT DRVelCP IT__'_ SEYAflONS - -- -. Authorized Agent o Tope k smith, Inc. i00111111 ARCS�llElllia 44 West Green Street Old Pasadena, CA 91105 818.449.4449/449.4440 FAX TF" go. '081695 _ Date 12/13/95 Sheet No. A-5 FLOOR PIAN Ipr-r 7 4 'ier"i'i;I° rAiea Tiro [-R-?..".1. 4 4REVEALS A IEEIEI1; lei••I scum ELEVA,_(IIORIm OPPOSUEL w=urwwas Ipr-r 4 111111' Ill •1 11 1 1 11 EAST ELEVATION (WEST OPPOSITEL___ Val -r { YE A -I MR CaI PLAN SECTION TiezTi aTt �• Tivu LTi / /Tier (5440 114 MON (srwl COOi TO m 0 Tie anTO MCP wm) CAW OLT me PR Calf 1/Ir O,Larz.0WO. • OM O. 00 Tia FRONT ELEVEVATION Ti 00 (snr, ncq SIDE ELEVATION ®DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE LDGarchitects aurae aPTT oao . a.ta•I.0I0 sene de* 0v.. n m/E0 s00 «Ia. WA O01O0 (300,210-4704 10..E AIM Or..11.131. consultants Project title PROPOSED HOTEL a WAlleauea AT WELKIN ell! DEVELOPED w: OtRl7E DIVE OPIENT TUKWILA. WA sheet tele FLOOR PLAN ELEVATIONS jab re, bM docked NOTES II SODGRADES. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN IDORI FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLl55 OTHERWISE NOTED II SUSGRAD! SHALL BE SCARIFIED 0R 600041LLED IF CONDITIONS REQUIRE. ' 41 R. DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. 41 S DEPTH FIN! GRADE DARK MULCH IN ALL PLANTING 5!D5. .4) ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE HEALTHY. FULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION. 61 PLANT MATERIAL OR 512! OR KIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 11 ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. SI ALL TREE PITS SHALL Be INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 01 -POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL B! MAINTAINED MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM 92'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM 42' PROM CURD FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WHE4L5TOPS NOTED. ILI 5 WIDE BARK MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO OUILDINO. 124 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE DT OWNER OROUNDCOVER SPACING DETAIL TrIsnpWMr e0ROm0 Puna Om* and 4— .00 —4—. -OF r N.. AAA, Aso AA row SHRUB PLANTINO DETAIL RANT LIST TREE PLANTING DETAIL bolts • mega w dAnnWR re pm. s.we P. poop MNW.r m•1be pro... Prem. Wr ReRHs. UnPAm LraO 142 pm., e tion W,Ixrr Co2maz Name Acer /knb7.n 'Pew L(*WS?'/ 90.0fri'c L'CA/tiff 9F.9. HTi/X.s Ceara,ors Mauptar/ : Lwe�"vJ' Py Pi 2 6•114010/ 8..9 rr1/u6 Yedoer.sc / YGyhno e'nU/y 2'z' 4GTT' 9.9 O A;cr-CYVren.wz00 / pnc fi34p/c b', sGtnG wn 9. 9 OPet 0 : s //FCrA 'e4,7117' / G/amp M7/tA• Ore/7. -Pr/,nu. nun. )1C'401. ,RC:4100 q Mooz"ar'// / F/r ".9' 0! 6 P/nuf AJJw / Atufrrsn 9/wU� p/nc prev" f'//sof. ' e. o&rcr' / L_G(Ur '7-44 LCAwr ; Mti140 Fre eri / P/bnniA eI/kr, o ,Hwr>-nar Aoufav J ; crr5+, ErOpe S 1044,7 O 1.40 9Aereena7 44.0 9 Z4Y IM/2 C4*0.PA o PrLnG[ L. 'aro L[. J/0i' / arra L_i�ti'r. J swuzi 177//1 0 //ISNG/6w,n"r '6enpurw'/ c'mpxr ‘.1401,7lcc :z:✓/f ; 'mn. o e.mj'nur wwrn '6cmprrwl :Crz*o' 6crnpy DA(h Caw/ra, Ener asenew 'JA'vsl/HAW pv447 Acv, 6/ / J+.bi 74'0.11. 1 S H6/i/A Han, ' FpNrb' / F4rMAr re 4' prom a9'G'* ✓unPe/ecr H. "',twee ca /ries' / ✓[.v7 / ./ iyr/k 7 av'dG. L+ •.I Saida( a r .co//if /?N7 044T Mnor / t7wnluc 4' pa0 Y 7 s4*v Lorj/Fo//A /" 4:awntan CA Prd/K r(/erts, LANDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED CITY OF TURvviLA DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER L DG architects trurm n.rrn >o -o . ooMt.et. loco w • 200 «LLL.. WA. 0000 (20E1303 -470A amsrarmo I consuitante NEN NEY project MID PNOPOSED HOTEL B WARE1IOUSE AT /WELDER EETE DEVELOPED BY: O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT TDR(WLA, WA sheet END WARETWUSE LAMSCANNO PLAN 0_ LMR minion* date lob no aSr /I, tGNOY arcked 1J-13.11, IRtest nes LDG archttacte r%.rao d.+o.. vow ...a .202220 1310 0..e... . 000 rnr. WA. astoa C20e062-4704 sun 0 nwn4 WA pied title PROPOSED MOTEL a WAAE]IOUBE AT NIELSEN Sin DEVELOPED NT: O DOT DEYELONSOW 1R(WLA. WA sheet tine • NDTEL LANDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED Cli r Ur I UKVVILA DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT r!PAITFP frost no LL=9 NOTES II BUBGRADES. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN MOM P00T PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 21 5UBGRADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED OR 00000111ED IP CONDITIONS REQUIRE. 'B1 4' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. AI 0 DEPTH FINE GRADE BARK MULCH IN ALL RANTING BIDS. .51 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE HEALTHY. POLL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDAR0 FOR NURSERY STOOL LATEST EDITION 01 PLANT MATERIAL 011 SIZE OR 0100 NOT AVAILABLE MAY Be BUSSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 71 ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. SI ALL TRE! PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. al POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL B! MAINTAINED. MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM IS'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINMUM AD' FROM CURB FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WHEEL5TOP5 NOTED 111 a WIDE SAAR MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO BUILDING. 101 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 60 OWNER PW050.7* ufleoPPLZ Ammo OROUNDCOVER SPACING DETAIL Tr.000ler Spacing PtWegpm an. Hua aa.a LAN Axe anal Nunn barent Am, CPapt.a sw.aapR.. WON se H.a.a -*5—on. we PAP Au. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL PLANT UST 4,71/4.1 / CCm�47 NLa'/J A;er an'ru m 'RCA o2.o oar' / ,?al wearer 0112(c L' CA/.f H/ Or'9. Pr nus CersinA•r.. ' Ne uFa7" / :.ewe-,�, iVwr. 2' Gep r- 9..g p11,46 YC.1odsc / Y yi neLw1V J Z's' Unto' 00, 00 ACrC/run 7%097 / ion* azwpic b' G Gina • V!' 9 t.YuN ropynFerd Ltao' / CYemp wYA'r0 GyreY, 9 rrirae Mez ne7.440ref M97z0C// / r P/r //-b* 0!.0 r7/744 Ai t / Aarr1Pn %A'.RGe pine d -Pi" si%9 0 ;n/Uw P//Cara 'CALL/Law– / E.s-elOr PGA LCsrwr ✓-g 91'9 O .'I1707mo Priarr7/ P7enn.4 s �sSP/.ICrJ o ;NA/L'P7rw Aa.P3Ye.7/ 47GJc' ester S r/kn O 1.** rff r4/ /nin. 4(pzwd O mint.[ L. 'arra !.o in ' / Orra /wear/ Z/ /nin o f/6x Ccen*rw / carp4cr N,l4ps7era aacs/a :®'mn, O Eap30'/7e4- A/47:ff 'L<f7/perw'/ Co 1 0,1 r brw rJ, '0(hC.Jw//Grf E,• -icor Carve., ' 4(f 1/7, 401 pia*'/ /YA/r1Cr / jeti7 24' OG. �—� rf2wL A r1Li/k ' F{MB' / i-twws Ay 4' poAo 74 /✓G. Jen17G-2Z,C H. 'Pewee OF NN/e5' / I/Lrl /- .l g.q//Gs7 Sasdaf er /v 3reG5731 hertn Vero Por5 er' UG. 71j1.P (Arf/F0/fw ailom71,1 4w1770rete.*, ,733I000»4 TREE PLANTINO DETAIL H ua dimmed N bow, orancAn *3 PAP.. B..P air WN1 ANA pup. 101.1.11 sun/Apm. a.w.• P..LL S.n.r. War e....a. r AAA PAPAW NAP. ,H MONA. re .eL00 e•.OTT tiVb �i�t \ `- LANDSCAPING PLAN 1 I JD J I✓ RECEIVED f :ITV npTI tI(A/II A DEC 201995 PL:li; C;? LDDC. architects R...rmo a.ron wows, . Aro... TA 1310 n•.t•r n 200 .oath.. WA. MOOD (200)21.3-4704 ItA.oPraorl consultants project Utb PROPOSED WW1 • WAREIWUSE AT NEI.8 I UTE DEVELOPED BT: OSQEFE DEVELOPMENT TURWLA. WA • sheet title WAREHOUSE LANDSCAPING PLAN no Est u dab Job nix claw /� tGNry checked Gat. 12. „ -OS opebmsfalild5015 _ 6160 PP J�7itra ry Vis01• DEC 2©1995 PSRMITCENTEB T-LJb�A��i53'M NOTES 11 SU5GRADE9. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN VIOIR FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 21 SU0GRADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED OR R000TILLED IF CONDITIONS REQUIR!. ' SI (' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS 9I 2 DEPTH FINE GRADE BARN MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS /91 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL DC HEALTHY. PULL ANO CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION U RANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR RIND NOT AVAILABLE MAT BE SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. TI ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL MANE TRIANGULAR SPACING. SI ALL TREE PITS SHALL BE IN9P[CTTO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 01 'POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM IG'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM A3' FROM NRB FOR CAR OVERHANG OJ 9NLESS WHEELSTOPS NOTED. ' WIDE BARR MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO BUILDING 121 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BT OWNER. Pisnonp lad OROUNDCOVER SPACING DETAIL 00iOpVMN Saupcaw ctp 40i 2i;9l•�' • iR.M 4 hi! L PPP Amens dlpN Cow.. wepulna POWeW.-9 PtM.LaNy�W W to. s. t WILL sews PLAIRMO DETAIL PLANT UST TREE PLAM*NO DETAIL ANA srd belon we. IeOWPP. .1W MIN Wow DGa architects a.I.Fmo d.r.W vow ..cRMMt.ae tato A•.tw . n •.W 200 wate1e. WA. 0.100 (2001003-4704 CAIReuttents ..AWdY 6A• Inn Osm. Ran Man. LYbd r M0O M M:d .We PP «WAN iirly/JAyr/ ,' �pmma-, NCAFL Acer /hrGrrwn 'FCA 1ra/07- / ,7?A IJ!'>r1f n4p'a L'CA/2vr H/9. Ali ks GeerFora, ' Neo*r' / Fernley icon r G..Fi 1 9: g rrtrx5 YeoteTH / >,:y9/n0 C 0**-,- Z's' Gi/a:Or 9, 9 0 cicar-1. r040+tim/ y/ne n2Fy'/a b: GGine /YAP". K,?.9 C01VL* rApvnFeed 'GVrin' / L/temp MNyre 'n.7. ,o'nr .'rrEAPVI GPSE MmZer// /?Fin d -b' (3 r Er FIENAd Al / Aulfr✓n *444 qne 4/73' .9?'g p;weep. P//:..Wit 'CACLRA-' /GG/nr ,%R9rnor rrr,(er.0 / f/bfusyl o :NA/!77,A A.2sf1R'ew ; G-7OJaP b'wGE'' S r/kit O :-no.P7sena zr7vnr xrs, Z4' men, o r.11d o Moms[ G 'afro Guyueri' / arra L -_lie -, lwarei Zi' m/F7 O //6x Gre.z+ra 'der i'*cf*' / cao7pw:r U4Ax76re ,1af, /e,'rnn. O Etg7)-r7tr A/Afw '6o701.rw'/ Ca- p.iur /JLrneyo burlen//m • Ee74,0 4fr-74A ',fp-vapours?' pnx.7iA'Afntr / .�rrp7 04'OG. • HOAerw f-/(./ik ' 1-m rb' / ,-tor.-Ar /Vf 4'prIs 144* .1;i peiac H. ',/"V/Ge of wrm5' / vYn per .! yr/er, WOG. acted. a "23.4.creed. f Vrs0r Mr7or / fee -awake 4' pat /O' oa. C;no i Lorpra/,q /' Cp v7bn utiZs91 ruCris,'rsYyrrr�? ,6'.�c. 1.34 KOMI TO. Ire. Urged title PROPOSED HOTEL • WAREHOUSE ATNIELSE? SDE DEVELOPED BY: O'KEEFE DEVELOPED?? TUXWLA. WA - sheet Ut WAREHOUSE LMEDscAPINO PLAN no revewn pe 210: LANDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED CITY OF TI IKWII jr dram (G, t J ' checked DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER aro Meet no L©G ° architects Snore. d.+on roup ..rawl.0l 1310 Oexlar a n rlte 200 mou1h.. WA. 00100(200)20-4704 :Nast title PROPOSED FI TTEI L WABEIOUSE AT MELS3N WT DEVELOPED BY: =WE DEVELOPMENT TUKWILA. WA • RFe Iv r --- OF TUKWILA DEC 2 0 1995 deen0 L=9 009701E / . NOTES 1 / 11 SUSGRADES. INCLUDING SIRMS. TO WITHIN 1100 POOT PROVIDED 11✓_ ST OIN0RLL CONTRACTOR UNLESS 014060ISE NOTED. 2) SUSGRAD! SHALL BE SCARIFIED OR ROT011LLED IF CONDITIONS REQUIRE ' S1 A' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. R) 1' DEPTH FIN! GRAD! SARK MULCH IN ALL RANTING BEDS. '5) ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE HEALTHT. FULL ANO CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR 741R4ERT STOCK. LATEST EDITION. el RANT MATERIAL OR 512! OR KIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY BE SUSST1TUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 11 ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING RI ALL TRE! PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 01 'POS0TIV! DRAINAGE SHALL B! MAINTAINED. 4101610 RANTING AREAS MINIMUM t1'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM AY FROM NRB POR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WHERSTOPS NOTED. 61 S' WIDE BARK MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO WILDING. WI LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 61 OWNER. W WAWA! GROUNDCOVER SPACING DETAIL Triangular Wrong W oken brawn. On.M2. W 1 mew PorerrA. WWW . n0rb n oterpW Ato el ma •6ru SHRUB PLANTOID DETAIL RANT LIST TREE PLANTING DETAIL Prune Ana. ond trolun Wong Al pup sloonAl CAW Lor worn staim seamy often 5Awrant. 4000 016.929 19 OWN 6H• tft n0.•9460// 2.20N. MOW A�Af,744f _{._Com�cn Nyr� Ytr L ierT.rn 'IOeA1lw1? '1 ?CA Jtn"er n1'15 a L' u/g0si 9P 9 AT.rAw CeSiriPorw ' eoop Fr' / F *o -. y PAI, r u/PM- P!•9 l/z#Jcs. Yedoerzx / >.3ri. 0. eArr.y U/wr 9 r'9 -aLei-Lrur4Prl;rn/ ! 'na ntlp/a b: Sura nAn lJ%9 PeTT/N r FCro 'Ctinp' / amp wn4t4- boo- . : i/wo¢ Mr?. r0'nr.. f rado/rr 0.v M* T oo7/ / 20 770( Fr U' -b' )529 pro/4 Nya / Ar4ftrNn pone nu,/w P//4.t.1 ' 211* & -' / E'_* v- P<ALCrfwr ,7=g' S.'9 pJn4r rt-ArerT / PMt/niA �r//LYJ o /*0/1924r AsoPa'e n GYr7P 629.05%0 r//p0 A 2n8AlVArere crr kw:ref 241 /77th 4%A'A45 o pruck r L. 'O/To 1-re,k17' / arra /e lieHJ /Awry ?r" min O r/a.N crrr0rra Ccf r�wacrA' / :timpxr 1,4ponere riay8 rb'mn, o Eaq nu( A/ATA 'Garnpern'/ LcnryD,rr r7GW'n.P� p*o', Cgi//107 5,740 44,e774 -of f'7r//J,s i.0.* prat'/ la.nnar He/6// HL1ik ' 1-iP'r40 / MF/YRr it 4' Fr" Janperzrlr H. 'Pert dpwues' / JGr7ar ./ yr/kn 04/0..4 -`� 4127AlA Cr / ryLC�Cti/rs! /AGT17 Vero Meier/ fr/Tiorgac # fT4P /O' dL• 7l LwrtiRAI / 4F17705 1C is, �ry�s LD�a ..architects .h6K012 96/46 0-022 . 6.0.22.. 1310 0.N1... n mN200 �.D.w W.K. 9.100 (. 2001061-470A Con9J)lants project .Ola PROPOSED HOTEL a WAREHOUSE AT NELSEOSITE DEVELOPED BV: OTOgFE DEVEIAPYB95f TURNLA WA • sheat tits WAREHOUSE LANDSCAPING PLAN LANDSCAPING PLAN ro IDD no as. g., LOW RECEIVED — CITY OF TUKWILr:-1J DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER 0169 R6 deep _DG. architects Owe. nanion prat.. wwWWWW .10 0.Wn =Ana 200 mat.. WA- 90102(200(293-4704 project lite PROPOSED ROTEL WARERCAISE AT PIELSESI DEVELOPED EY: O'KEEFE DEVELOPSIENT TURVELA, WA • LANDSCAPING PLAN . 30 Moot no, L DEC 2 i0 lag IRERMITietEVirS0 NOTES II SUDGRADES. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN 1I1041, FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 21 SUDGRAOE SHALL 55 SCARIFIED OR ROTOTILLEO IP CONDITIONS REQUIRE • SI A' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL RANTING AREAS. 41 2' DEPTH PINE GRADE SARK MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS '5) ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL Be HEALTHY. PULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK LATEST EDITION. 61 RANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR KIND NOT AVAILASL! MAT BE SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 0R OWNER. 11 ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. 61 ALL TREE PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 0) POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. *04,10 PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM 12'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM 42' FROM CURD FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WH!!ISTOPS 00110. 111 0 SID! DARK MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO B UILDING 121 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE ST OWNER s..N. GROUNDCOVER SPACING DETAIL 100T91140 son.; Away V.VW taw Pane dusaal belga dm Wien twons w, Cabbed IePot AAA thanualy. WOW .pawed pumpewN.w PNRUR PLANTING DETAIL PLANT LIST PROPOSED WAREHOUSE dry41k 111Q L. TREE PLANNNO DETAIL limo Ova. sn1 balm band. nAnywiwnAI row ww now 22 Awn AP. m.Y abed Rw W etw1.04 .01207. 4211.11n. albt IR now edk.Ow Aso*.• Mum. 4'W/ /_----- Acer thebru55 'RCA 1furair' / ,^u/ 4ra-of na+p'K: L' G/per F>03. FYLnfx CCr.%'2FAraf 'Nei prxr'/ P,h1•we-,ry 'tan z'Cf/p✓r 9.'g PnAz6 YuOlowc / 1y7.no Lnrrr� Z'z' Wan' 9 r 9 ® .>LLe-Oran 11170/ One /?4 7A0 EL; 6 G/nC 90 9 O. P.72.4? rApp,Got 1p, / G-umy ,✓2/71:, birU1, 1 frer,1. 04107 f,TCuolarCylr Mri7t047/ / QgsJ'su F/r d-8' ii' 9 p1n4 Nye / Aurrraan X•Kce prase prnyp4 P/f40fer ' f0GGL2r' / F'-i(L'� Pe1164lwr <�=8' 9fA .000147 rnfter7 / PirrmsP O ,WA4141I Atoro/vrn L.7JLri * 12*;0 S 5.9e4,7 A Zn0.twer*ar4r, V.Y/Grf, 04/ /0444 (0040. o frtnt r L. 'Otto 14.431,u7' / arra l=ed. , /nuz/ 2e' min O 1/6x Gresota 'Ca a:tR it ypvmre /Z'T/1 .D'mre O Eucrynuf A/AtA 'Letmpwro'/ c -o pnro.-nna) fjs4' Ceo//Ar, 24' az,. 7�.��p • Er7u aAr„CA ' J sr -e /*40* prat'/ mfff Li / , 1/Cr, r—�1 r-/t/L/A r,U/x '/o4 / /-DP/YAr /Vy ^% Ft7lc ✓unptranc /. 'PnneG of 'wets' / ✓.r,yri ./ yr/A:r, WOG. L. •_1 SaadaV ted /23,al04 r e'ai /A/W, t'e M.7or / 'un/u6 c-✓ i [.Prr,Fao r / ua,.27577 GPYrfiK rr�rr5, JArzryrr i8`.�c LANDSCAPING PLAN L DG 0 architects envmo wrap vOQ • wWWoa. 1210 aat.lr Ans.. n mull. 200 «1N.. WA.. *4070 (200)252-4704 �u oma wr�gv consultants / PO Protect title PROPOSED HOTEL. a WAtiE1LDUEE AT &NE SEN EOE DEVELOPED DY: O'KEEFE DEVELOPMENT =MIA. . WA sheet title • WAREHOUSE LANDSCAPING PLAN rMr rerltian Kb la en5st Iw tt.. w. LaieY chocked RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 201995 PERMIT CENTER DEC 2 0 1005 PERMIT r4EIRES PROPOSED WAREHOUSE O 0 4110 RIP ©i JR 140 44 � S 'ib ITIVP ■r at\. di. 11" Lar APP ak sir sr ❑a w 'ra YP' nn NOTES II SUBGRADES. INCLUDING 52505. TO WITHIN 111010 FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ]I SUBGRADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED OR ROTOTILLED IP CONDITIONS REQUIRE. " SI 4 DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL RANTING AREAS 4) 2 DEPTH rue GRADE 5ARR MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS. '51 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL Be HEALTHY. FALL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION. 6) PLANT MATERIAL OR 512E OR RIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY De SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 71 ALL MA55 RANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. 51 ALL TREE PITS SHALL Be INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 5) 'POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM O'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM .S' FROM CURB FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS mP5 NOTED. 5022 0 UI 5' WIDE BARK MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN 15 ADJACENT TO BUILDING. O1 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SIT[ UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. Rantsp Ind with lrs e.v,'Ml�l• . [Wants ------,I,, 00009000VER SPACING DETAIL TUISn91001 spacing Rotting a nal Prisr. Magma broken _ bMeW ab Qaa.O.R R,aeupt4. Mae. as rum VANN hels N.. NH. mar scailaS SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL PLANT LIST DUMPSTER AREA M9 TREE PLANTING DETAIL Pnal• erased and beaten be.nch.. 18 S.up.r vas Itocupli d tee..1 laba cloth wa.moan m*. Raul Sun...as Wale/ Wain tarilh a.wte.RN.a5RR aolou rs aHA neilve .A%SW paper.. M.nAN. Acer >7T:/Gf-407 'ACA du/sof '/ ?CA ITrr0"cr Flap'* G' ao/1 r FSr 9 17,145 GeX7Pin' Newpa'r' / Peruerwy Mow 2' a/f✓r 9.'e P 1400 Yedcw4cII Y3y7.n0 Gi'VrJ ) 0 .71407 9!.9 AGGr•Cirr.inezon Pix MMep/G b: y' Grua m 97 9 et -240 tifpri,Ferd 'Gtiop' / GrumpIL+'1/: G Eyreh �l >rux 77010 /C fl1 ,3t0000ruM M<nzer/i / Fr' 4,-8' 0%9 rnrd Rya / Aa rr`An 0A0 p;na d'0' 9%9 ; nq/w fWeota ' CRGG/L 1 ' / F.•_G(Lr PGA LCAwr ✓'-g' 9{9 F7,07*/n40 /-4tre i / /ioi,,, a5rr/G^i o ,NA/L'n/A AZPia'vw+i GA -2:A., grope S 550/c 7 A Zr2o t2.41-4:0212 Hwzry Z4i rn/7 •(?'GAae O ,'minus L. "Giro Luy/Yr7' / owe, /Vurz/ ZI' m/n O //6x Grerarsr 'LerpalMio'/ ..enrsxr */4p0nere pea ,8' "An. O EuaoymAr Not/ 'Gai?lp er.4 :Lr'ywr 01..*1220 pArh 5r740 Come,' 'o"a'u rwW p• / /00lff / ,5•1077 z4' oG. �—�"d - eAe s fri '!!e✓YA' / ,'-b'/o /vy 4' pt, 24 201. rig I Jumper-rsH. 'PnneG of /HA/LTi' / ✓4.47ar r •ge/(a'i avFOG, Saldeq Gr 1 2i>%reeded /nnr7 L' oo Molor / Fer7un/UG 4' orii5 re' UL• GArTifo//A /' amwen Grrr.A.s LANDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER DG. architects SMRdb a.RIDH Gr -up. 0..0.5.0+. 1010 dextm, Rpm. n 0AI. 200 40.552* WA. 08100 2200)253 4704 COnsuitanto '1T' project titer PROPOSED HOTEL a WAN'FDIOUSE AT H EIDEN SITE DEVELOPED DT: O'KEEFEDEVE1DwDNT TUW(W\A WA III sheet lite• WAREHOUSE LAPDSCAPIHO PLAN lob ro tram /� tgrcy CRIACHIG Oat* RMRR GR r,$) LANDSCAPING PLAN CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 2 0 1995 NOTES 11 5UBGRAD!S. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN UIOUT FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS 02006015! NOTED 11 SUSGRADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED OR 601011LLE0 IF CONDITIONS REQUIRE. 'SI DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS 41 1' DEPTH FINE GRADE SMR MULCH IN ALL PLANTING 5205 '91 ALL RANT MATERIAL SHALL BE HEALTHY. FULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION. 61 PLANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR KIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY S! SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 71 ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. 51 ALL TREE PITS SHALL S! INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 01 -POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL DE MAINTAINED. MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM II'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM RI' FROM CURS FOR CM OVERHANG uNLESS WHEIISTOPS NOTED. 111 5' WIDE DMR MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO BUILDING. 121 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL PINLL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER. Nowa SRS on NectgLe bums OROUNOCOVER SPACING DETAIL 845 9N4 525CRq Woe ado ind Wan wwws s'i o architects Rrwmo •aWOn Pao . •rO WWW x510 ...Know Nye.n ROO •eet., WA. seo> (20002e3-4704 con000tante RwMRna/MRI how win.. POT r tesbain bard.* 2G wenn WYtl soy* Own m SMrn!. ROW Oman mn••Rtl MRe- SMnWM.YW WMA* PWR•IRY tl+. MAa cd 00 ;URNS PLANTING DETAIL PLANT UST orn 44,41 C4�x ? NCAFe -- - AGA- rk bro7R 'Reif 4::2Z?' *740 L' ar/¢vr Of 9. A'Lnr6 GearrPirW ' A/eA/F0'T'/ :.�60005,yy Man r U/fir B.'g r/T/+rs Ye/xryt z'z' 0/pr 9 r 9 acerGrr./ryrsrm/ one n1_."74 6: 6 r"na r0An 9: 9 Pe2N 5r/Fera 'L4,47' / C/rrmp n0*20t Ci Ul, non. '0'47 flzkaiotry Mmzr m'/ / Fir r/-8' O s A5 PrnuS Nye / Auvron ;34.64 pine ✓-g' 9.9 777, F//4Wra 'ExGe4127' / �'_C((r Kew 2144q r=g'9!9 .dna lr9 0r8 / P7 07U%*r 9..i,Lm O MAM7/A A6c0Po+'41.7/ . 6Yr/f''/ eli S ?4//p7. O i1OA7"er4%rLPi 014'77rJ 54' min f%rewd o AvnGC L. 'GYro G/wj/t07' / Orra /w/rrz/ ?a' min o r/e. C%renero 'Lcrlclecra' / : a7*-ner \*Frawr* '770/!1 /6'/41'1, O eu ryno t A/wrw '6rmpkrw'/' Gil" Zutr 6umayj bah c,w/rm • Er7ew Came" 477' ,//1 Q,rx.'/ MA/77er / j4/G7/ 4' /74 tt—a ,Hewer/ rein • /tr x' / ,-Grn-4- / y 41 fbrc JunQer-ac r. 'Pnrec 49F rwieS' / Vehl, rr .r yr/,lcn 11,771 Sa7"e4 cr / e.fal /4447 _` Ior7A Mv7or / %Y//Nw4 QO 4'' Qat CZ" i/ N Lw rtri0/iof / r=a/,/7 v, Cwrrods ruetris,.rgpres TREE PLANTING DETAIL (-a;".?..177". �.1 / ' project Old PROPOSED HOTEL S WARflpUSE AT PEEWEE SRI DEVELOPED BY: OSCE DEVELOPMENT TVRWLA. WA • sheet Otte WAAEJIOUS2 LANDSCAPES PLAZA • LA..NDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED r;ITY nF TUKWII A DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER Iw ion01 a.: /4, tat", ONeFA50 Old Il425, L DG architects •wao a.ron a•ow ...a+(...y. u» aware . ....n• 200 moat... WA. IN.00 (200)2.3-4704 conadtants NEN LONEY oject title, PROPOSED HOTEL• WAREHOUSE AT NELSEN SHE DEVELOPED BY: O'KEiEFE DEVELOPED!, TUKWLI. WA • awl to L DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER NOTES 11 SUDGRADES. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN 1/10m FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLE43 OTHERWISE NOTED 21 SUBGRA0E SHALL 62 SCARIFIED 0R 200001LLE0 IP CONDITIONS REQUIRE. 's) A DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS Al 2 DEPTH FINE GRADE DARK MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS •!I ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL 124 HEALTHY. FULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION. SI PLANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR RIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 11 ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. !I ALL TREE PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 01 POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE WINTAINED. MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM 12'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM 41' FROM CURB FOR CAR OVERHANG 1,4,254 WHEELSTOPS NOTED. 111 S WIDE BARK MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN 1! ADJACENT TO BUILDING. 121 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY OWNER Riming ORS mN 21 Num IZR...yf, down OPOUNDCOVER SPACING DETAIL Triangular Sp.CKID Pa min Pm. Pmeminl LP•S Wen Isom Mw RMP AR OOMPSTER AREA mmeriteitammftwinOM.MP. Lyes r npYRa PaR.g R.LHAy 616•61 CAI 946Ue PLANTING DETAIL PLANT UST TREE PLANTING DETAIL 44 4Cor (A.4,7/1'RCA LL410..r / 2Ci oXcr nlpee c' G/2ur 2O9 Rums CC.R7.417/ Nc.L4Fla7' / . kiPoen 1101 y i1`ai0 2' co/for 9. 9 C.iaa c / '•.�90 ' CnU f Z's' SAF' 9 r OO lr,d44 Y r-CirCirsrfcim/ {.nc nzn'/c b gGnC WD 9. Pen.H ,: '115 *1 't11'" / C'0 'p M,Yr1 brrU,, 0 fru-. rri,17, Off `1ra,/ciae4 MA73z31c7/ /q3resar F,r er-6 0t8 ftouS New / /ALUIo'Nn V1'ALA prnc d-6' s✓it9 0 ;,74,34, F74:FfA ' Exl& 191 ' / E.,_C.(L�r r<A CCAer Li' -g' q!'A p .91971nu 1'r1Sen / %nn*F S yf o ,wn070, AGIAfOV1'Nr, 0-9940 dews' s }•,i/cn. O Znc.OACradrZF7 min ea -44,0I D m17.nuc L C%TD Guj,Y7' / Orra L�..,'ff}17 /.turf/ ?r' ruin O act', I:rC'oIf11 'Corr;loc,A'/ ac -#07"r ‘,14pz7ere /' <7 3'6',00.. o Eua-syn',,Ah9YR 'Grmp01? '/ .'GR'„FyeP '.0114* UKh C,..//eri • E,14,1eettriCA ',1;%/33..013.1 P,0111 %rwrne,” / • y./LTi Z4' aG. MI ,F Neer/ N(./,x "FfP'Yb' / /-00-A-23-, y 4' fres Tia°J'.G. lig L'unpprcuc H. 'pnrrG c* stoic -6 ' j )40O* / S.27de4 a - /Y3 ..or1G/CY1 /4A1.Y7 V"i:;r Me7or/ 0 ,41,74/40 #'' pc:05 T ur7,ne44, kn abr, Cory r,.5 rros, ymyy,2 S' 6 "A LANDSCAPING PLAN v RECEIVED OF TUKWILA DEC 2 0 1995 D la � o archltacta Rr...dw R1.Al0n 01040 ...wl«,. 1310 do.lar . .A ., .1. 000 60*42.. WA. DITIOD(2000283-4704 PROPOSED NOIEL a WAREHOUSE AT IaELBEH 811E sheat liths WAREHOUSE LAND:CANDO1 PlAH 1mro tra.(� ta/P,y DAL. „_13.51 PERMIT CENTER G0 architects r..rac *Ian sow ..r.sa..l. 1310 e0.10*. ay. n .un. 200 ...00. 0*. 9004 (400)299-4704 ccnalRlento WV! l'1711if cject t do PROPOSED HOTEL / WAREHOUSE AT WELBER SITE D EVELOP® BY: • DEVELOPMENT TRIVIA. WA • ants 4ro.i no. L-9 PERM ITCEN NOTES 11 SUE/GRADES. INCLUDING GERMS. TO WITHIN V10111 FOOT PROVIDED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 71 SUBORADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED 0R P07071LLED IP CONDITIONS REQUIRE. ' 31 4 DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS. 41 0 DEPTH PINE GRACIE SMR MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS al ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL Be HEALTHY. FULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOC, LATEST EDITION. 01 RANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR RIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY Be SUBSTITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 71 ALL MASS RANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING SI ALL TREE PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 21 POSRIVE DRAINAGE SHALL Be MAINTAINED. MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM 1Y. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM RY FROM CURB FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WHe0LSTDP8 NOTED. Dl B woe BAR[ MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO BUILDING. 01 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 57 OWNER soss.s... 41146/1. P.m bee W Wows ewe. DGn archittYcta .w*lo *We. 12WWW . aralOtecR. aa» .M.ne ay. n MA.neo .... WA. 00100 C30e/2e3-47e. ccnaatants Tnengre, Wachs to pup ow we own 05005000VER SPACING DETAILAwe wow. PN.. Mewee.W town warm 0ne..n PA -W gm. Golikry ea ..1.e Pu.e s•.. NRA $44805 PLANTING DETAIL PLANT LIST ity EbrM,/ei Cam a'rle Acer r* 774n 'RCA Ifu.2-or'/ 241,1,:erer pl#p'c G' ao/. r !Pia. R7rJGs GerioFins 'MLw r:XT. / Fe terra' Men 2'U/p4Fr ®,'9 rror0:K YL+✓od7G / �yh no Gr/rrr� 2'L' A07 ,0 Q.aCar-Grr/n7um / fine rrHpfe b: ri' afro m//2 9 O CrIzA, r Fero 'GZenp' / Clump 0,'O're &Ire" a rre.rxe mrez /0' in: 3ruubXtreo MGnz,Gri/ /exe4cr Fr' d-6' 0!•6 rY7/4 k/ 607 / Aufrrsn 91.64 pnc p7 ,�/DK/ir P/,:Ar, ' CxGC/L2r' / E.'_<.(L^r• PrALG./.n- ✓-8, 9<A ® ,?Mrinu rr.1,rC,^i / Prbr7n*1 e ,,41/M0 Aanidan, . GYaJu7 L+ALo S /fr//GD A Znoonor Yr/L. i5Y.2rre %4 min, ,rp-n4.1 o przerX -, "G%'roGu!'Rln' / OrraL-! J r,r /Au/r7 ?J' min O //ex Grers rr '4,e pxsa' / Ccmprxr Lppinere: ,*r, ,e'rnn O Eller} 7*I A/4t9 '✓rn7p.V?.F'/ ,:"a�3,.F-r epArnre Er7LA Came, '4:p-vrw.af plot"/ Ironer / 54/t'! z4'OG. ,HLAL HUix' /101.e7 /*/ror /Ly .0 'pros z4'00- T�� � � Junpe/ccc H. ',twee el= w/es' / Vteppe/- ./ yo/647 av'OG L. •-1 sGta4e4, c0' /v,*szreu701 /4nn Limo Mew- / FY+7wr7,wc /-' pals T XYF Urt,Fo/4 /' Cc0,/r/bn 4,0-r,05 ruins,2 TREE PLANTING DETAIL 222 moan dabs NAddr Own. groat. mn,aw WM.er..., WAWA, Ions. di R.u°�°.W.aAWN LANDSCAPING PLAN RECEIVED crry or t • IDE.0 2 1995 EWWIT CE .TER Project two PROPOSED HOTEL a WAREHOUSE AT HELM! SITE DEVELOPED DT: O'KEEPE DErELOPOSBO TUCWILA. WA • sheet 51110 WAREHOUSE LAIOSCAP220 PLAN revisions OD Do/ &0L4.1GNdy decker OA* 11-13-n DGarchitects n..rew a..b. orw,c ..r...... 1010 O010e0- ave. n X10 200 meanie. W4 00100 (2001201-.)041 u m�e gv m��ue�s cas wa e 1/10 corr.' .e.traTe on Ma project title PROPOSED HOTEL A WAREHOUSE AT NSELSEN SHE D EVELOPED ST: =WIFE DEVELOPWERI flOWEA, WA sleet title • H OTEL LANDSCAPING PLAN DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER Leg 0 Oti. rr� •S Fir �{ae •P 1P gAtiC ftp 'f COO WSW ala SIR SP 41 NOTES 11 SUSGRAOES. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN NIM. FOOT PROVIDED 51 GENERAL CONTRACTOR 1.00LE55 OTHERWISE NOTED 21 SUSGRADE SHALL SE SCARIFIED OR ROTOTILLED IF CONDITIONS REQUIRE. • S1 (' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL RANTING AREAS. 0) )' DEPTH FINE GRADE SARK MULCH IN ALL RANTING 5205 .51 ALL. RANT MATERIAL SHALL Be HEALTHY. FULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION el RANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR KIND NOT AVAILABLE MAT BE SU55TITUTED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. 71 ALL MASS RANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. 51 ALL TREE PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. 01 POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED. MOUND RANTING AREAS MINIMUM G'. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM RI' FROM CURB FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WHEEL0D. NOTE O1 r WIDE BARK MOWING G STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO BUILDING. 111 LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SMALL MAINTAIN 51TE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE 51 OWNER. sawn 05000000VER SPACING DETAIL Thansular Swing WainnIn mown ennow• Rbn.aae 00*2 non para0A, a n..AS P0a9 Ata me al nm• 02RU9 PLAITING DETAIL PLANT LIST TREE PLANTING DETAIL r/ / canw0a7 /14aPe- iSCer )92. 7.992 ' *r 41e310'' / ,?ar/ ,i- oror nnp'e L' GF/poo- 00 3. ATNIGL !.e/AnFirA' ' Noe, o 7 ' / FifJPR0/oYy ft rn 2' Cl/pr ®.'3 PruZS Yea:ru .ms / 7.:m'JinO en0/f' Vt• 4$40r 9 r 9 A:er-GrUixtsen/ Vine 2 '/c 6; r G1/70 irvn V!. 9 C*TuN toprinFerde 'Leroy/ C,u/mp )u7, b//!h. % tn✓Ae n*Pf `S'e✓ekxri F Menz,u'// / Qv's/cc Fir //-6' 13 f 0 f117,4 Neje / Auffr7sn %V.*. prase : nq/w P//4ffa. ' C.9*&* r' / E'-e4(or PedGls/wr ,%wren* rr41-C1^/ / ribnnoq o ,Ne/01749 Aa.Far W / ea." ?.r Erma O 2,4-,trAerr//2rs v.4e-ry Z4' ma, cps -.4A o mo -90c L. 'orra Lt JAfr7' / afro 1.--41,417 heurz/ ?J' min O r/C9 vrer407A17 'ecp,pwc,i'/ Lcn'pxr \4pooc're /levy /0'n,.07 O E-Zr 7)uf AVMA ' Lemp rr4 • ,:G o o2 r bGma7, f fJ.4fi Gym//L» �-p ere alene.0 ',fa-e3,,442J prAL•/ /xw>re� / %1/ 7 Z4'a— le,r sd Hew,'/ -Ms 'Afo'o ' / -ogYAr ay 4'Frac 24rac- rr'1Jumpezur H. 'Prr�e op Awes' / ✓en.Fxr ./ y./,(a-i S ar/dG� [zc-�� lda4 cr /Y�LCeedaf /40)7 / E%" -i 11/019 Mncr / Perix.4714re y pn'D 4e., OL• y i°yc 1w L/ff/Folin La'//ne.7 GorPfK niers, .7rAopr3 LANDSCAPING PLAN LDG o architects S ward. aa+On r200 ..TWIN. 1310 w0tar ono n meta 200 N AND.. WA- IMOD (200)2205-4704 consultants project 101a PROVO!® HOTEL A WAREHOUSE AT RELISH STI DEVELOPED SV: =UWE DEVElOP1IH► SAWS& WA sheet Slo WAREHOUSE LUMDSCAPERS PLAN 992 r0RltlOrD db IDDdrawn Otlery ,r5 cheat*" RECEIVED d.» I) CITY CR -i UKMiII DEC 2 0 1995 PERMIT CENTER no RERMircpgnr:Fp NOTES 11 5100RADE5. INCLUDING BERMS. TO WITHIN In07 FOOT PROVIDED BT GENERAL CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 21 SUE/GRADE SHALL BE SCARIFIED OR 500003LLEU IP CONDITIONS REWIRE. 71 4' DEPTH TOPSOIL IN ALL PLANTING AREAS 41 S' DEPTH PINE GRADE BARK MULCH IN ALL RANTING CEOs. '11 ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE HEALTHY. PULL AND CONFORM TO USA STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK. LATEST EDITION 61 PLANT MATERIAL OR SIZE OR KIND NOT AVAILABLE MAY SE SUBSTITUTED NWT WITH APPROVAL OP LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER. ,) ALL MASS PLANTING SHALL HAVE TRIANGULAR SPACING. III ALL TREE PITS SHALL BE INSPECTED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE. of TOSITNE DRAINAGE SHALL CE MAINTAINED. MOUND PLANTING AREAS MINIMUM D•. 101 SHRUBS AND TREES MINIMUM No' FROM CURB FOR CAR OVERHANG UNLESS WNEELSTOPS NOTED. 01 -6 WIDE PARC MOWING STRIP WHERE LAWN IS ADJACENT TO CILDING. OI LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN SITE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BT OWNER. OROUNOCOVER SPACING DETAIL Triangular a7a0M9 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL RANT LIST PR. Mora ma to Sup RMN.Yt 0.00.010 uM 000 •001•0 00•• raw* Imo R.M40 n6l IT�T�I PWM. Mao bum. w mom 1-1-1 Wbrraw.0 mws7 1NRK10N Ora., I 00100 1. 10 A2R.L..R M.20. Mean TREE PLANTING DETAIL 4Ger OuCrrr ' FiAlfuaif' / Tu/ 1f o - r r71,90e C a4/1,4,7- 197,94.5 *400P9'U/.95 Gtar,Jrrr.P Moot r' / re#7.7 2' Griper a,'9 P ze9,5 Yerdoenyc/ 7.;y5in0 Gneniy 29' ap/ioVF - ® ,oeer-Co-apoWe..ro/ y'r/0 ntrp/a b; ri •few nAyo PJ: 9 mt'r7rr4 P Fen ' t 'et/op' / L'✓mp .1-49r t9,en, 9 rhes: oorJ. /O'M. ALJ' P3tuobNuAII Mmzerr/ / t 00O[u F/r //-b' i3 .9* FMS NJj / Aulrrisn +NoeK pne d -O' 9%9 +Q 77 4 f7/4071,/'2AGatCr' / .'-e•(G9r PLAGesewr U=8'9%9 o !Immo, r/AS'er / P/brrnA/ oyr/,Cm o ,NA/19744 AZPFdn91 .yam S gF*." o env oorrwe or, va-1ry ?d /nin. CAR-C4d o ,92n4t: L. 'G%YOU 55300/' / Orr*' W' min O //eX Grengrior p 044' / (tirno&r 4,4pinece 1) le /799. O EKpy-nru A/Atr 'Gomp er0V /' LPT'P'rtF 4,1499.-y PK/,Ce.//a7 E„u GPr/tw 'U"a''n,JHuii praE'/ mi,o er / ,yotn �11r HeAer0 r1G//x '/fP7b / /'61/o /t5 Arm 2¢'ae,. IiLI�-1 Jun12eral5 H. 'Pn/rtG cf�we/e57 / ./ iyr/e+7ev'dL' 1(Gtrday Gr /13irrsr brio, ✓erer MJ7cr / pr,74.unke Pas /D' G'�• LAtpPohr / Gawerew 41rT015/ raers, LANDSCAPING PLAN LDG. architeots RO.rmo w.aan vpo ..10.6..0!. .10 Ra.Ntr eve, n 20110 200 10.451.. WA. 06100 (200)303-4704 177-- consultants • COM/ KATI 00 36.1 alert 03)9* PIOPCOED HOTEL a WAREHOUSE AT IEL8E90 SITE DEVELOPED BY: O'KEEFE DEVELOPER n9 wu.A. WA al sheet Wb WAREHOUSE IAPmSCAPEIO PIAN eats traaP w, L J y ACNE'1VPD chocked CITY orInixv)44.4 DEC 2 iV �.a aI1 ERMIT&-goT R L -rS • • CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 434763 Your No.: NEILSEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT (Paragraph 4 of Schedule A continuation) THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, (BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 8 AND 10; PORTION OF VACATED BLOCKS 12 THROUGH 15, INCLUSIVE, AND THE STREETS ADJOINING, GUNDAKER'S INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 46, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WHICH WAS VACATED BY THE CITY OF TUKWILA IN VOLUME 21 OF THE KING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 203, AND RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 1310397; THAT PORTION OF NELSON PLACE AND BOND ISSUE ROAD NO. 8 (ALSO KNOWN AS CHARLES MONSTER ROAD NO. 2 AND STEELE HILL ROAD) AS VACATED BY VOLUME 21 OF THE KING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 148, AND INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8702100641; THAT PORTION OF SOUTH 153RD STREET (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RENTON-RENTON JUNCTION ROAD NO. 673, BOND ISSUE NO. 10, KING COUNTY ROAD NO. 1139 AND JAMES A. NELSON ROAD) AS VACATED BY VOLUME 41 OF THE KING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, PAGE 195, AND INSTRUMENT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8702100641; AND PORTION OF THE FORMER BED OF THE WHITE -GREEN RIVER; ALL LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE NORTHEAST MARGIN OF THE PUGET SOUND POWER & LIGHT COMPANY PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 6284739; AND LYING NORTHERLY OF THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHERLY MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1, GREEN RIVER INTERCHANGE, ALL AS CONVEYED TO OR CONDEMNED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5490612, 5507291, 5510773, 5503778, 5536582 AND PROCEEDINGS UNDER KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 596089; AND LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF THE NORTHWEST MARGIN OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY 1-L (FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE BLACK RIVER JUNCTION-RENTON ROAD NO. 1193) AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2919485; AND LYING SOUTHERLY OF THAT "BOUNDARY LINE" DESCRIBED IN BOUNDARY AGREEMENT DATED MAY 22, 1973 AND FILED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 725392; AND ALSO CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.T.A. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 434763 Your No.: NEILSEN LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT (Paragraph 4 of Schedule A continuation) LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF THE 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY CONVEYED TO CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 453942 AND 995370 AND SAID WEST MARGIN EXTENDED NORTHWESTERLY PARALLEL TO THE CENTERLINE OF SAID RAILROAD TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 31 OF INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CHICAGO TILE INSURANCE COMPANY CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA COMMTI MENT SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 443188 Your No.: DUNNE GOLD FARB PARCELS LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT (Paragraph 4 of Schedule A continuation) PARCEL A: ALL THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 10, SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF THE RIGHT OF WAY OF PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY AS SAME EXISTED ON JANUARY 30, 1962, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 100 FEET NORTHEASTERLY, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY, LYING NORTHWESTERLY OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 60 FEET NORTHWESTERLY, WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES AND/OR RADIALLY, FROM THE A -LINE SURVEY OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NUMBER 1 (SR 405), GREEN RIVER INTERCHANGE, AND LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE GREEN RIVER. PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF VACATED BLOCKS 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 AND 17, GUNDAKER'S INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 46, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND OF VACATED STREETS ADJOINING AND OF PORTIONS OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT ON THE NEW NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY MARGIN OF THE FORMER SEATTLE AND TACOMA PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILROAD, AS DESCRIBED IN DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 6284739, WHICH POINT IS NORTH 0°27.09" EAST 2525.96 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE SOUTH 59°32'54" EAST ALONG SAID MARGIN TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, SAID POINT BEING THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 3 OF SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7908210370; THENCE SOUTH 59°32'54" EAST ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL 3 AND TRACT A OF SAID SHORT PLAT A DISTANCE OF 152.45 FEET TO THE BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER, AS SHOWN ON SAID SHORT PLAT, BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE BOUNDARY OF SAID SHORT PLAT THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 47°20'51" EAST 271.21 FEET; THENCE NORTH 58°26'46" EAST 115.38 FEET; THENCE NORTH 64°02'45" EAST 111.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72°18'44" EAST 93.66 FEET; THENCE NORTH 72°08'52" EAST 389.92 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°32'38" EAST 32.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05°14'06" WEST 39.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°56'05" WEST 42.65 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35°10'59" WEST 102.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34°32'34" WEST 106.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°08'34" WEST 99.98 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36°57'02" WEST 121.20 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33°29'18" WEST 143.48 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49°00'11" WEST 126.60 FEET; CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY A.L.TA. COMMITMENT SCHEDULE A (Continued) Order No.: 443188 Your No.: DUNNE GOLD FARB PARCELS LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT (Paragraph 4 of Schedule A continuation) THENCE NORTH 88°17'01" WEST TO THE WEST LINE OF VACATED BESSIE STREET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SHORT PLAT AND RUNNING NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF VACATED BESSIE STREET, AND ITS PROJECTION TO THE BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE BANK OF THE GREEN RIVER TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH A LINE THAT LIES 200 FEET SOUTHWESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, SAID CENTERLINE HAVING A BEARING OF NORTH 34°35'32" WEST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY TERMINUS OF THE BOUNDARY LINE ESTABLISHED BY AGREEMENT ENTERED MAY 30, 1973 IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 725392; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES AND DISTANCES: SOUTH 48°09'33" WEST 35.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72°31'53" WEST 467.78 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64°46'33" WEST 374.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 46°56'53" WEST 105.89 FEET TO.THE 'WESTERN TERMINUS OF SAID BOUNDARY LINE, SAID POINT BEING NORTH 0°27'09" EAST 2,525.96 FEET, AND SOUTH 59°32'54" EAST 521.40 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE NORTH 59°32'54" WEST ALONG THE NEW NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE FORMER SEATTLE AND TACOMA PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILROAD TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT ALL THAT PORTION OF BLOCKS_ 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 AND 16, GUNDAKER'S INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 14 OF PLATS, PAGE 46, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AND THE VACATED STREETS ADJOINING, LYING BETWEEN THE THREAD OF THE GREEN RIVER AND THE SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY LINES OF SHORT PLAT NUMBER 79 -7 -SS, ACCORDING TO THE SHORT PLAT RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7908210370. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF LOT 31 OF THE INTERURBAN ADDITION TO SEATTLE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN VOLUME 10 OF PLATS, PAGE 55, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE "BOUNDARY LINE" AS ESTABLISHED BY KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 725392 AND THE EXTENSION OF SAID LINE NORTH 48°09'33" EAST TO A POINT ON THE WEST MARGIN OF THE CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY'S 100 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY; AND LYING WESTERLY OF SAID WEST MARGIN. /"tTT',. ,- rrrT D TATCT 11) A Toro r."11 #242304-9034 Stuart McLeod 213 Lake Street South Kirkland, WA 98033 #242304-9027 BNRR Property Tax Dept #777 Main Street, #1206 Ft Worth, TX 76102 #242304-9100 Eva Miller 738 Mayfield Avenue Stanford, CA 94305 #295490-0430 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 #245490-0460 Horizon Hotel c/o Marvin F. Poer & Co. 500 108th Avenue N.E., #780 Bellevue, WA 98004 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 1 5 1995 PERMIT CENTER #242304-9028 BNRR Property Tax Dept #777 Main Street, #1206 Ft Worth, TX 76102 #242304-9032 Union Pacific Corp. P.O. Box 2500 Broomfield, CO 80020 #242304-9106 Manufacturer's Mineral Co. 1215 Monster Road S.W. Renton, WA 98055 #295490-0450 City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 #295490-0421 Duane Western 26252 142nd Avenue S.E. Kent, WA 98042 #242304-9118 BNRR Property Tax Dept #777 Main Street, #1206 Ft Worth, TX 76102 #242304-9037 Schober Inc. 1400 Monster Road S.W. Renton, WA 98055 #242304-9075 Manufacturer's Mineral Co. 1215 Monster Road S.W. Renton, WA 98055 #245490-0445 State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance One State Farm Plaza Att: Corporate Tax Department Bloomington, IL 61710 M.517 SE 23-23 No-a�.E% 33 ) e�qi �� �4 y:. . LsLO � 9 TACOIAA P S E Pi .1R/W ,vr .FORMED SEATTLE �. w Tu sr +� o u s uasTi < 'I 'lal°., ,:"':,!'.7'.' lkt�l Oft o C. ;� Q 1 O4i R .n ,. . . . C... SSP. R P. 8 UNION PACIFIC RR. ' THIS MAP IS POR THE PWIPOSE Of, ASS13104 01 LOCATING TOUR • 03001003 ANO M O01 GUARANTEED TOVONACCURATE' MEI3UNEMENTS 3:8" \i:'"02 ,•' SCALE':I"=1001 1340 �." ...It..A - . s188°° 0,.. WASHINGTON .TECHNICAL CENTER Na.. r r\ 11,rN� TU SP 79'7 -Ss \� \..• \' 32 �\ �. ~\\ .� .. 1 PCL\• '0. 79°821°37 Oji'" \ .//'/ T. =q� .. \ 4o F �r,+? GUNDAKER 5. IN x9a,90 °A r'.` TFRUi' '~ +4\ \.. \. \_ ® .\N xE4Pa,_pg11919~ birlloay\ b�\\\cS4'4 it"' ,.1tI.•• ... \.‘,,,. \.Y.;<I,C,..:''.‹..., -..t .;) :;''.<' / 1,()\,.\. . :. " /........ '‘ . \ ' 1(4,. \i {i _\ .�°pry\°/! . �� \ m/ c fid Iz ;F 339jo0,. -i� \ •\: //ee,\//\\ `�V! P fsf. may �„+d \,\ I. .. Ft IfrF \ \\... y Wi .Q v/•<vii/ 0. 'P=\\\ \' „� ,�\gf�N ,ITeF"ERSIY '� jj+ �O* '\ • // 33 .30 1 _ L �T Ix n ). -sy,M Y \. - \ ♦ \ \ / •\ /\ \ /.,. \.n� ort. �r-'•stir i / \\ }• yr SW 24 23 4 Q - ...TL:,,o. wn