Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLUA98-122 r .I g \ .ems, as , ! I °el AleLL r* s • e� » w l»o E»»» °` i Ili* =� JII . ,i1 SQ1s EM �� ii"/ 2 ' t /�= 1, 1 .1 IJJiiil I1 1 iiII1! j I 10 1 iIIihId a ii;� CI 4-." r!.=0.1), ...L. 11. . NI. 1 .ii 1 II 01. , 1 ;. . .1 .!,..,!:! -A II i 2 " I 13wIl ii 1 i 1 LE e I I i !Illiiiiiililliiii i ;ill 11, JIM! 1 f 1 i i anaaexU2XNUOISSID=b it lie \ p i a th .. L ... + ✓�% \\\\\ 4.-,( il qq $a \y16 1 nM» ` IV " Gil b \ I `,� \ ail I € 2,, , as LS m a i `\ . 1� .kg /..t ;M a®R tc,l i i; . ifr , ; ,,,t4t iqll° /h \\a §l5 �, F lii 83 ,St.6 dial" .:* /:\' - I/ u8.; 4 -"'ll;..13 \ C'T\ g,11\\,/ •.•-•‘f § g NV • ZtV ` ��+''Y8Y •Y tS dl 'FAR I!1 \ `mil S o 11 ' c.\ -, ♦ 4-4 1 Sri gi i_o_js_AClR(' -y"R • i s1 .,r 6 Cr) LUJ Y 11 r .' r r fist • la \ '* \ ' \ ' dr e.. \ \ in_.L - l� 1< arm i.12 ill 51 g 10111%!>*&1% eg=',,ii Ili aom : • I.\\\ \*.' Ili Pig _.‘11/.. -• lul — . - - 7,7 - t//,' :—., ,/, 7*- ' ' \ g /*/— NiNe g1R1Rg iaap `v t� J'\ ;g d_d \ Q ", C 4111 \ \-.; 4*,„ ill ¢ a_\ i ; zlrW �o \''-'-iff‘'/ ttitqwil ilOgagq l iic 2 11147100 IM ilii1 g I • I • Iii"ii"__ gnill R5 x:xixix ;% *3a � Cfe$ LS W FROM : POE ENGINEERING, INC. FAX NO. : 206 859 5207 Nov. 23 1999 01:43PM P2 SITE DATA: IT ins s rrF p N SITE AREA 3.22 AC, 140,440 SF ZONING IM OCCUPANCY B, S1, Fl CONSTRUCTION 5N SPRINKLERED SETBACKS (REQUIRED): FRONT 20' ARTERIAL, 15' OTHER SIDE NONE SIDE STREET 20' ARTERIAL, 15' OTHER REAR NONE SETBACKS (PROVIDED): NORTH.. 60' (+) + R.O.W. SOUTH 25' + R.O.W. EAST 60' (+) + R.O.W. WEST 60' (+) + R.O.W. BUILDING AREA: EXISTING, 10,329 SF + 1,448 SF 2ND FLR EXPANSION 31,554 SF + 4,t87- SF 2ND FLR ALLOWABLE BUILDING AREA: BASIC 8,000 SF SPRINKLER INCREASE. . . 300% (1) STORY SETBACK INCREASE 100% ALLOWABLE AREA 48,000 SF (1) STORY 64,000 SF (2) STORY PERCENT SITE COVERAGE 29.0% PARKING REQUIRED: EXISTING EXPANSION OFFICE 2,260 SF/300 6,300 SF/300 WHSE/STORAGE 3,517 SF/1,500 17,436 SF/1,500 MEG, .. .6,000 SF/1,000 12,000 SF/1,000 TOTAL 61 SPACES PARKING PROVIDED 66 SPACES (4-H/C, 10 COMPACT) EXIST. PAVED AREA 18,200 SF TOTAL PAVING / WALKS 58,681 SF TOTAL IMPERVIOUS . 100,564 SF UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: LOCATED IN SECTION 24, T23N, R4E, W.M. LEGEND t CAUTION: RENTON, WASHINGTON DE.Pna I. DEW RENTON THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION,OYENSION,AND DEPTH mE xmRAx1 A Il A ALL EASING WIPES WHETHER SHOWN A THEY PLANS OR NOT BY POIHOIING THE UTILITIES AND SURMYNG DIE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTG4. [� AC PM. �` THIS EXISTING INCLUDE CALLING L ATIITY LOCALE 0 1-800C CROSSINGS AND THEN ROMPING VERIFY ILL 6 , �� THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS A NEW UTILITY CROSSNCS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY N04�6'F$ Ex EDGE WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EAST LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS I'`: '•{ ARE NOT GUARANTEED AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR,THE CONT pAgKk, ASPHALT G.9"""'" 1 CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT Pa ENGINEERING,INC.i0 RESOLVE ALL PROPLENS PRIOR TO CONRta EX CURB qY LNA6CIPIxc IC I �\;;_ �w --Ai!ACCEDING NTH CONSTRUCTION O% \ 1`,,L0 Iw/ AYP P L%IRII[f6 axe ` `ji g s'CONC. 3F / / PM'. /WALK , 2 IF SWTHCQITER E%IST E%RISER hhry6 �-®' j'� GUARDRAIL �� 5`� wv �4' VICINITY MAP 1 mile�s PLMER J �s2\ LANDSCAPING PROVIDED: SITE DATA: 5sw 1• �1�5 \\ INTERIOR 5,300 SF SITE AREA 122 AC, 140,440 SF ww 8 \ O418'03'E PERIMETER 18,803 SF ZONING lu \ ' R. 121 70RY OFF1O' \ l,j U69' ,� I • \ 42'X62 A L NATURAL(0 POND) 3,600 SF OCCUPANCY B,SI,f1 ,`�( 4.H TR 'EI'., \\ S 665358'E 9 CONSTRUCTION 5N S%NNKLERED 0� v u.1o' �4 SETBACKS(REQUIRED). c30, , `L„--'-' (METRO PARCEL) 111 Lf=O56'D o BUILDING HEIGHT: FRONT 20'ARTERIAL,15'OTHER R=1134.00' 4P 32'-0'(-) SIDE NONE ___ SIDE STREET 20'ARTERIAL,IS'OTHER p(✓� .._ 4rP LANOTNR -- a L=21.83' ''.E RELOCATE E%SIGNS /i $1 �'_ REM NOTE 321.59' AS REWIRED y�' Spe42 TO"E LIFT 0 SETBACKS (FRONDED) 60'(+)+R.O.W. S' / - - o SOUTH 25'+R.O.W. (PARCEL C) -10' PLATEAU o NEW EXPANSION ' EAST 60'(+)+R.O.W. S II55'32'E C ':POWER FF.=30.00 71,675 SF SFRINKLERED 3'/7'� 1�' WEST 45'(+)+R.O.W 19464' _ WITCH FF F.F.30.0 \�' yL BUILDING AREA. / 12'/iC-<+ E% SnED TO 10 4 27 0 ,„; ,'. OR REMOVED EASING 10,329 SF+1,448 SF 2ND RR \ti YA A �' o — = i,\\:‘,.... 31,675 5F+5,100 SF 2ND FLR J, / AAB k �I.YDMGR \ i I COdC ALLOWABLE BUILONG MEA BLOWES ,IILIA B) r� Y \\ FlRE LIMESPRINKLER HCREASE3DOR( STAYS 6971'W'E 5� O ( NEW 5 1' \\ SETBACK INCREASE1 Wt�° SPA ED I' (PARCEL B) 5 AuowME AREA 4aaoo s(1 s Ar 1112' �/ R - �\ EAST.TREES TO PERCENT SITE COVERAGE 0% 2 STAY )-A14/. ��, I WALK : (2l STAY \ p, `—'l :� Ex EX GAC \\ BE REMOVED PARKING REWIRED ET057RG EXPANSION f CANOPY& ft 7SAB X OFFICE 2,260 SF/3A 5,208 SF/300 TO -Al �41-' , / VASE/STORAGE 3,51]4/1,500 e.567 SF/Tsoo / WNCr ARta uFG 6,000 SF/1,000 25,000 SF/1,000 } (PARCEL A) I eo S 6653'OB'W TOTAL 64 SPACES ' F 1v4/Jy � PARKING PROADEDit I �. j �, 20' 03' 64 SPACES(7 H/C) EDING MATCH + EAST.PAVED AREA18200 SF TOTAL PAVINGPAO/NATURAL1 FF 300 F.F. OM Sf - _ iMAS91ENAREAx _ II� (')SIQP E ! 0'/10. / TOTAL IMPERVIOUS95.&54 SF -11/C( �uMITs A PARCEL NUMBER: 'h r e• EX 25 w coat To 11����� 2ND RR� / DCO Ail 0' 0 s .4. ` A 0 W TRAFFIC IC CON 2423-M-9037 - - 5(29.75')- RELOCATE- ' 0 m ,� (VE'%S0 WALL REMOVE AS ~' V �X w C E%POWER '/ ` ;� NECESSMY DATUM: AAE J $ 6 • ./- ELEVATIONS REFER TO qTY OF REN7A DAIUY(NAM 1988)MD ME � 1. ' "a"• EPCy ��iBASED A ELEVATION 19.65.7A OF MONUMENT IN CASE Ai THE y`s_ `-:� EPJ INTERSECTION OF OAKESDALE AVENUE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST)I1 \ ' �IABTSOR EX 4 PVC (Sq✓EO✓ED - C=04'JO'49'8 / `� / 2308 A, STREET AND LISTED AS SITE UCHMARK N0.1854 [X=21'IDYO' 1 '' / CAPPED - E%EP R '/' PA 70 ff tA'1F RAMP, BENCHMARK AT FOR 517E USE AS MEOWS =88'49'46' J• REMgy p STAIR k VS /ET' l` L-18182' R=15' R=35211' W 7j v f J �.. // BENCHMARK NO.1 L=23.26 L 17010 76Y ki • Ex CANOPY ' * TOP A CHISELED SQUARE IN SOUTHWEST CORNER OR TRAFFIC SIGNAL EX EP-� c '� UAi CONCRETE PAD MUTING LIGHT POE PAD,ON NEST SIDE OF C T> > \ •�� S'�(i RELOCATED MASTER ROAD,175 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION WITH THE FRONTAGE ROAD,ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 405.ELEV 25.02 E TT P E o„n: 0 TFR APO ,.Ex p w 'Ed* ��i'► Vbt* M NS L EVYUPNIHOR ,4 "= 5�'S34D0'3YE 7.D'' SCHOBER, INC. EXPANSION ,'0 EX u11un POLE 1400 MONSTER ROAD WITH 4'EC DROP RENTON,WA ----------_- DC.USUAL SIDE POE Engineering. Inc. a.515ro OWNER INFORMATION: o"W w°� ao BEST coif SIREiTGIEZE 3IOASULING L=181.84' 0 NOTE: SAO�R Rq ' KENT,WASHNGTON 9A032 EXISTING BUILDING IS REQUIRED ATT1/-MR.DENNIS SCHOBER (251)859-5121/FAX(253)859-5207 TO BE SPRINKLERED AS PART 1400 MASTER ROAD E%UTILITY POLE" OF THE EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION RENTCN,WA 98055 3 +F�E*,91 CITY OF RENTON PH(425)255-4000 'ANAL CA' DEPARTMENT OP PUR11C WORM FAX(425)277-1872 I ° SITE PLAN - °'�"'"°" SITE PLAN (PLAN NORTH) DESIGN•: A.F.P. DATE'JULY 1998 FILE NO 96-559 DRAWN 1(� CHECKED: AF P. SCALE: 1'=30' rim Kat_prq;� DESORPTION BY REV DATE WPROVED: RE. LI 8F OWR111R OF HAIC WCWItS 7 6 5 4 O O C• (awe n �MA2 0 ) 0 o owowNr_ _ I-____ R..? icrr Bar Nw Eb�yy xg Ip� �pI n Grp T I �� Ix1' .w) ►•1 ® 1 ( ll a I ` 1 I I b b .r••1 z PIEOASf a1C 1 171 Y114.M'. f § nJb .7 Ir,,� / e/g"EEO (2A a WUCu x9AA1gN. /•1 F R ---- ! PS i'�f A NM 11/(A)ire wNEE rw�i i/s2 ��rorti vm a Q) i c — ®�I■� i� ■N11i� = —� YkNr �b p n EAST ELEVATION A: l'""cwr:I RECEOCD CUSS mu L. b O FLASHING DETAIL leart°:°� A2 Yir. W m '0 a_ 2'-0'AFr. W E I � I 1 0 C 0 0 y a. i§x xr-0' / x•a z•-c a•a m'c ro. RI RASING POI nr-W rn r,.lao1 e2NE.r,. � (ffi-� I a--, RI ""'u+Au ./ OEM 2/A2 WALL PMls .(m'-2') T..' / T➢. CD. MOOR ENST.MUMS MA aatirw MCEPSED as-xW LAMPS aearz AAu © ; Z SOMA i aroo) © Q a d /p b\ `a•ISVOUr. ( e 2/' R W MICA mot 1 Yi ) U Z �. L 00 MIIIM E. § O ENTRY SECTION O REVEAL DETAIL •J A2 Mr-0' A2 NTS w 3 WEST ELEVATION (COW 2) M'•fd N Q 26 WAQ.H', 3 MA/Yx FA01 FNO H � O 42..0. O �._ O O rN O .Nx 0 1UfR5O0r(AO W PT ID.Mr CV/ / / /Ra TICEr, gyryp R0r Krim BOLTS 1 4-0'0/0,1. (CQW I) /.1>s•_2] R1Wr1G 12 DAD g_2[CM 527 AW DO En b . //// / itl.H'On./ Q §-'^ '� r I / / / WX G OO Y Sat W p¢O0 J (cnWs2) »REAL 1, / /19Abc j W §§ I (CMS �) / / O SOFFIT DETAIL o �— laJC / / / x rg: ` TV: NORTH ELEVATION �� W 9aW11 Y« IMP POP g CMS O O SSW ROOMmoos PER figfg Mt-. 101/ Wxuerz I ".g src�°1 la(al n ` SPASECM w BA.a NAM .rASE ci i '//////////'r9�N \N\NN\\N\N\N\\\\\`N\\\NON\NN\\\\N\NIN\\NNNN\NNN\N\\N NN\\�\NNNN \\N\ NNN\`NNN\\N\NN\NN " Irk NAM a." , T2BOBO xnro. ExcmArt As rt ) • § O OFFICE FRONT DETAIL ME § Ax NIS MAY 1998 • 1B to•§ OeAM.i' '-�DoexmaurLa PIE, / j0 GYO PANDgl a — (aEae 1) — (�alA° — aA M. § § MOM BY 050' rr(-) r nr11 • ~ i' �� 96-058 b�\ [fl°°N WADE \i-- J'//'r1RCN �l eel. Pr[ BY OL M. 9e11 M J/T,I II (WEW 2) 11D�4�0t1 SOUTH ELEVATION A2 Ex DRAINAGE DITCH LOCATED IN SECTION 24, T23N, R4E, W.M. UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: CAUTION: IEEx 1961 RENTON, WASHINGTON LEGEND Ex 28 LF180��o EX 69 LF18.0 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING DIE LOCATION,DIMENSION,AND DEPTH ADS W 10% \ [RCP W 1 71% 6'W OF ALL EXISTING DRUMS WEINER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS CR NOT BY POTHOLING THE OBLATES $ Ex W ENO 8 RCP AND SURVEONG THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION Ex CB RIM EL=2364 •• STORY%� —m- THIS SNAIL INCLUDE CAWNG WITTY LOCATE 0 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL O IE(EX 18'PVC N)=1994 .fD� �0 EL 21 72 wMIMI Y+rA THE EXISTING BODIES AT LOCATKNS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY IE(LA 18'PVC E)=1989 ^Y-Ex I8' hri,4 ARE NOT GUARANTEED IN%NETHER OR NOT CDSAAEST SUBJECT OONS Of SAID VAA VARIATION IFLMES AS SHOWN ON THEa CONNCTS SHOULD OCCUR,THENS LAMP(CONIROLCP W)=2054 Cx T IE`21.10 Cgfs Pqq I EX EDGE �m NNNni ASPHALT CONTRACTON SHALL CONSULT POE ENGINEERING.INC TO RESOLVE ALL PROPLEMS PRIOR TO BOX CURBS' / ,:" ,4y FFE IMMO • PROCEEDING MTH CONSTRUCTION. Ex LAMP J'R'/J �•. IE 21.72 9A1FR VNW POLE i , ....,.b.. C.A.USN VAULT ,'/ PEDE AN NE END 8'-- EX i • I Ex CB RAN EL 2520 , WALI( PVC EL 21 80 c A[RAR,'c IE(Ex 18 PVC N)1994\ IVY 'V IE(Ex 18'PVC E)1989 `� l5 �� Mt SON. 1, I IEIE%18'PVC E 21 40 �, Ex RISER '[05 " EX GUAR may. RAIL I-4 II 2401F RO.SOt '� ,'. '�4. `�l. p11A0FD PNW 22 j S\ rA• ��; ' SPoT ELEVATION �� 51 E%VAULi� 5'PUNTER ,1f, I 25� C�,. Ex Cl RIM EL 26.13 \ G@ 5 5/W ',p, rF \Y N. IE(E%18 PVC N)=21 28 "'�IV 2 -1t' 5 Y IE(EA 18"PVC S)=21 O8 \ Y:* 4 Y 5 5 041803*E 013 /� / \V J21 STORY OFCF ; 14.69' Y" �A ON �S.`QE�a�ax ,_,/ W.-._,_.__ \ 42'X6P// S{�SJ•ON'E �n 22.60\o, (METRO PARCEL) S' 1 R:01Npp• n Ex EDGE OF ASPHALT L`�5 `�_ a W/i • P,, CONC STAIR _ -- L=21.83 ... V RELOCATE EX SIGNS \ 1P , /;/ _ d LNRONB_ _— & AS REWIRED `�' 12'%9' RECESS SLAB dTS W. 1'� 5� ,6 -Iv,- 'T2t Y -allIVIA�, UE�PRaEVID SE LIFT S. O r (pARCEI C m �' J nA FORM o NEW EXPANSION 'at f ou R YJ 9 OSA Ex POWER w-�� FF.=3000 31,675 SF SPRINNLERED 3' S 4155'J2'E ,''' NEW CB SNITCH FF �.,,+ • Ex SHED TO FF 30.0 1 I S 41'5 ' \ x nix LANE 9L :WI= 270 BE REMOVED YA APEA S D E r E=2279 Ex Gout XTI UGET SOUND /' �� o- 22.84 1^ AR k ¢ ?�. CONC.STAIR N FILfD J` I 4 • t LANDING..., \'' MBER 5861254 '4' i -WER7UONI r \\ sf U S 69'SI'O9'E /� `A, h41.� II y [i NEW 5' _ '' (PARCEL B) Y / L J L1 W L (2)STORE Y Y 1 EMST.TREES TO EX CB �L' 85 LF ♦� a Mk ANOPY t R% SLAB CoNc % BE REMOVED RIN=2551 I / i 1��A IE-2231 y ' oast (PARCEL A �- z---I LUNCH AREA L ,,, Ex 18' / 'IE ,4'V� DETENTION POND }I I F 1 (EOILER) f/' /i \ S 66'53�=W 1 ET TOP 2100 EX. BUILDING RATON x Ex FP 2zn ®1D , Yx C3kP' , / /4 \ BOTTEENMO2 ATT'BH ® __ IS 10.329 SF FF 300 F.F. OS V66 1- \ �YY""''% �. .� E 26.00 d 2}.82 . 1-' (2)STORY Ex OND 3 HT 70 _ ` III (CLOCK R1GWy 1 10-- ~- f �23.82 STORAGE VOLUME :11 SD -Hit I^I1NTS OF 1 EX DOCK M1�B g ,/�,' ,t EX WI TTN CONC♦} I \� •D.SOx =16.150 O 1 2ND FIAT DOORS g• p _'.3 TRAFFIC CONTROL EX WN J i . .\ N, - �a� - 7J0 # I 5(29.7s'l' RELOCATE--1 r' a �' WALL.RalOVE AS i0P 2582 CCC TOP/PIPE-20.321 ' �� _ _ ^i 1 .SpIRiI1P1iIT'f'" Ex.POWERay"._, .5, NECESSARY EX WMN TOP 26 01 J F _� I __ C+�. I •,rr , IE-2406 -, ` ~� -� V''9' s i% �/ A-0470'49- ,S�. • _ xS 7R.:71`. / Ex EP R-2318.00' EX 12" p=2110'10' \\ \ `�21 � / L-181b2' CONC R=151 ,6' R 352.11' Ex SSMH J .. L=IJ0.10' • STAIR d f L=23.26' RIM=2601 1187' \T LIMITS O IX ', - ' AF IE=1951 I EX EP - \�`� P M GDTO BE E7{ l. , �(�� CONTRa�ANHOE E%8'PVC LEXEUPidWJ /�ONSTFRRN= RQgo �` y`�` 1,SR ✓ �. Sw`6�534W'3YE WY ANCHOR Sly 7.03' SCHOBER, INC. EXPANSION ` - 1� EX'M.IH rOP-or IT EX UTILITY POLE 1400 MONSTER ROAD P' '�' NI1N i EC DROP RENTON,WA EX SSMH `t_ DOWN NORTH SIDE RIM=27/6 J POE Engineering, Inc. IE=20.42 7¢ 0W f. G DNA t SR GONE RAL E SUIT MG/CWWLTNG `� H F 400 NEST GOOK STREET,SUITE 310 EX 6'PVC R-17599' .0.. H '�•/A - IO IT.WASXNGTOH 98032 L=183.84' x)(i('��j (ENT 85S11141/FAA(253)B59-s207 EX unutt POLE"' I R „ CITY OF RENTON 4WgN Ex0` DBPABTMBNr OP PUDUC WORKS STORM DRAINAGE & GRADING PLAN ----- .1 14Ae J"""N ISTORM DRAINAGE & GRADING PLAN 1'=30' (PLAN NORTH) 0E901: All DATE:,NAY 1998 FIE NOS_ DRAM: C.M0 t SEE IESC PLAN.SLEET C4,FOR DEWTOPOGRAPHY of cep AFP. SCALE: 1=70 MO KOLA___PACE_ I DESCRIPTION BY REV.JATE Al IRDKD: .,ygT.-C6-6..1_ UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: Ix DRAINAGE DITCH----------N., LOCATED IN SECTION 24, T23N, R4E, W.M. IE Ex 19 fi1 CAUTION: RENTON, WASHINGTON LEGEND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERASING THE LOCATION,DIMENSION,AND DEPTH Ex 28I ----- s EC 69 LF In CP ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT Al POTHOLING THE UTILITIES ADS•ION \p. [4, RCP NIPS 18 R.END S1 MI ,41 pYtNG AND SURVEYING THE HC/8LO1TAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. Ex CB RIM El=2364 \ IB'R[P IRIS VIAL INCLUDE CALLING U1UTY LOCATE•1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL O 1E(E1 18'PVC N)=1994 ^, EL 21 72 ��YER `U -`41 THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS CA NEW UTILItt CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY IE(E1 II'PVC E)=1989 Ex 18'S'� ON`%R SwLMtY YEN —g— - '.-- YMEIHER OR HOT CONFLICTS EXIST LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN W THESE PLANS LAMP BRORCP 11)2054 LEX Clf�l`s.p Ex EDGE WATER —W— - ARE NOT GUARANTEED AND ARE SUBECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR,THE SOO MN. • A CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT Pot ENGINEERING.INC.TO RESOLVE ALL PROPLEMS PRIOR TO BOX CURB. / gR*wwr NNE HYDRANT J PROCEEDING ETH CONSTRUCTION Ex TAMP %W /c`/ '' POLL WATER YAE N I. EX a RN EL=2520 // • , 5'cox.\ - DARN 8A91 • TELEX 18'PVC N)=1994' EX.LALOI .1 PEOFSiRIAN NC 8 IL(Ex 18'PVC 031989 - At PA IMO IE(EX 18'PVC E)=2140 '�t\ 1--NEW TAPS fOR EX RISER / /j,V6b EX GUARDHYDRANT!BUILDINGr /.C `` RAIL u10Ywxc I. �lWATER SUPPLY .3.,, V 8. ammo Rve A— i per.*A/,00 , iT ^'�Wl A- ,� mar BEYATIN 5 PLANTER L51 ..3, ' o . .. t) \\\ µ S 01'16OY E 3R ���.���o� ��.• vv ty sro'X OFFMf v 11.6s' cr^ 12'%62' �St .� .'• A S 66SYOB'E 4. NEW TIMER 11.10' FA �50, ` SERWE cWC.`suB (METRO PARCEL) s ,AiZ.! R,WWII' Ir kX 04 Oc...-: cSIGNS 1pS`Q' SG" !h ; TWO EL C t4r' / NN S 415532E Fi3p0019/6/ - ' RFYDW/ OW MIII FF.- EX <y,;.To . .p.SEPTIC FEUD F 270 DOCV IT' FTRE vat \ / F' DX TINE CONC BE REMOVED RISERI(d1ER a:Ia . UJp, d TAWS SLAB$ &LANDING STAIR RISER 0 1 BLOWER UNIT' FF 270 - s 693r09'E i j iTp 511ALL ti�r �\ (PARCEL B) ur LI ,-C� , OTO NEW SIX L U STo Ex CB I. mri)PIAC ExIii \\ BE REYOVID 1 of ._I CANOPYk �A : LUNCH AREA 1 RM 551 N' 2'.3' (PARCEL A) SM L (BOILER) S 66m'oe'W L S /� II' YAIW ::,- N 15.09' \ `+T 1i7 " _'ELATION POND 6 R }5. r SERER EX. BUILDING Fr. k--'y��� t•\\j r---D �t , i2.W . 10329 SF FF 2)STORr�0 Ex.990 �) �� ;-.'W- (3 Pftff �-xx I �Ex.DOCN .. EX 25'MGH CONE T/ _ 77p NP•SSEN E FnP TRAFFIC CONTROL RELoa E= TW/DICE42032 - T, ,, WAY. ial - ) TR!>;' Ex.P01[R:!" i WALL,AEY0IE AS EX NMH �--�_ _ _ � E IF HB ,,,yyy LOP=2601 /, - _....I..� ,,,rN i n s RYA A=045U9' . Ex 1Y A=21'IOIO' "�_ 1,95 - SS SO�my. Ex E R-118 100. conc A=ee'49'46' �J R.15' R.35211' Ex.2601 `? L=15' L.17Q10' EX SS O1 •F �j16R, (p�$ NEW 6Y SOLE Ex 1, ' IE-1951 EX EP - \ FA OF OLE r,',tl70-F 0.'„ ��'.w Ex 8'PVC Ex 12'W w�sT bj �C"�� NQ;% FIP 1 :�Ex 9t4i C EX UP d AQ :Ex p� _,xL` GUY ANCHOR ' } 3Y E x NMH 70J' SCHOBER, INC. EXPANSION �.,P OP ,-25 m Ex 1 8 D POLE 1400 MONSTER ROAD EX SSW �' 68 4'EC DROP RIM=2146 DOWN NORTH TIDE RENTON,WA E(6'E}30.52 ¢ POE Engineering, Inc. • Ex 6'RYE A•5451'00' VW f A OWL d STRLICIURAL ENGMEIWC/CONSULTNG TO BE REVOLVED, R.17599' ``�O` x q F WO VEST GORE STREET,4111E 310 REPAQ W/ L•18181' 0.. ` [+� VENT,WASNNCIYN 96032 72 B 8'N * % (253)859-5121/FAX(253)859-5207 PVC Sp1-35•0.40% EA UTILITY I' i CITY OF RENTON 44 moML CA' DEPARTNINT OF PUBLIC TOW • SEWER & WATER PLAN - - D"`T 3nn141 I SEWER & WATER PLAN 1'•30' (PLAN NORTH) DE4W AFP DATE: T 1T�19§ FILE NOj'y8_ \OR#SEE TEE:PLAN.SHEET C4,FOR EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY HECK ONEOD: GRO C D: AF.P. SCALE:�_' NO Nac_ me_ OESG8110N BY REY.DATE YIPWIOE1k WWIF:_G1-6:7J_ �00 ri H\TO\ SITE Po� ( <4 S�vey�ENr FR ' g��JO 405 SOUTHCENTER o U Z � 4 410 VICINITY MAP 1"=2400(±) UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: CAUTION: TIE COCRACTLR NOLL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERFTSG TIE LOCATION Dream AID DEPTH R ALL E MI G!MUTIES 51ETIER SACW ON TIESE FLANS OR NOT BY PONCLNG TIE noes ARD S RS£YNG WE I1434141CAL ANA VERTICAL LOCATON PRIOR TO CONITRGr1011 RENTON THIS NALL ICL DE CALLN AND G MITT LOCATE a I-000-/I{-555S NEN PO NOLFG ALL CF LEGEND TIE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS O/SII UTILITY CRONIES TO PNINCALLT*EFT /T.I/�� IUELER OR NOT COWEN EXIST.LOCATIONS CP SAID UTILITIES AS SNOW ON NESE PLANS Es orTFs ~V n`Q4--- ARE NOT C ARANTEED NV ARE BISECT TO VARIATION F OEFLETS SHOULD OCCUR TIE NTLRart A u \P,�q r�°4 y S CCNIRADING sNALL COE1li POE EIGIIgpYa,ND i0 RES0.VE ALL FRORETB PRIOR TO KW.,Y ' �.� PROCEEDING YE1N CCNNRICTDN EL I �• 1i\.. /—J___— MER f` ATARN MR DBNIs 5Gg8ER III., ,` /%SITE DATA: S cac `\ �Nira SIT AD ' SITE AREA 307 AO,NOAW Sr :, Ir ii EX=-ERAGE> EXPANNONO WO SFBCO ,0 6361 9FA,50000 15000WACO e, o r� \8 VICINITY MAP TOTAL i1: TO P4ROFG BONDED b (31LC/ / `m EX16T.PAVED 4REA B SSPLdNTER \pC�TOTAL PdVeG 53 •TOTAL PPER/ICUS 91olSle/00 ,� LANEIMDSCAPING PROVIDED:S 5��40 b° 9 PERIMETER w.boDsfAD EP `, o PLANTING AND INSTALLATION NOTES MERE R PODI E O SF S�' " (METRO PARCEL) 0 (Gy` CCNC.STAR - .£ SHEET TREYS SILL BE PROVIDED ALCM ALL ROADWAYS AT 30-0'OC. FE1Q:d1E Ex _ �p A L�AW�+_ --—- AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION WILL 8E FRONDED FOR ALL PLANT6G AW LAW AREAS PARCEL NUMBER: As REdIIF¢D ,�. • 'G0 STREET TREES SILL Be MN I N•CALIPER AFD MN 6'ET. f• nNn1l17PER:ENT O TIE LANDSCAPE AREA ELL NAVE NATIVE PLANTS I473-0 4 5031 A' _ Q SUGGESTED STREET TREES ELUDE SNEFTGLE RED MAPLE.AFC reord AS RR AL / (PARCEL C) - — V NEW EXPANSION L SETBACK FERRETER FLANTMGS MY NIECE o�aCNGRAPE.vELFaAeM.JAPANESE NOLLT �/ 3 GROUD COVER PLANTS INCLUDE KFENGNIOC LAW,COTOEASTBS RD IVY O �� 31615 9F�3PIPINCLEFED 10 \�8 BANKS CP THE DETENTION POD FIAT HAVE NATIVE REDTSIG 43004.30 PLANED / A•DENN O TO SOIL ELL BE NSTALLED N ALL PLANT ART LAW AREAS _ E I'DEPTH R BANK MLGH ELL BE NSTALLEp N ALL PLANT BEDS TREES SILL BE STAKED PER WAIL ON iN8 SIEfT / / c r1 TCOIC.STAIR \£ LAW SILL BE MUnad9eE0ED O¢90DDED DEFBDFNG ON 11E SEASON OF NSTALLATKy! E X - , , ` 4. I (PARCEL B) / .(.• WLLK fL STORY-'� EAR IRO to • !r V E R IRO / f // / / --I' RB7W• .-/ • (PARCEL A) /( r3 lr---N EX BUILDING /' ��+- .OF 811E APEX WC i /M / Li IINWIIERAYR 00 .v-.- e IA""' `_ ` a}L� '� ( M1N119! N&I BAIT, Ex uva Ge ,0411 _ •T -Zi\L9 EL}w.rTP. braes L.D 1 / r J THIS AREA StIEUECT TO Ex G `` e c ER 410' EASEMENT GRANTED TO Nat UNDER IIGOT RECORDING COMPANY,FILED 58D605dD EX yONsrF A _ v ,�S GIiT�AaIcuOR SirH 040 __ --�"=- `�-633Proor31•E `Ex r �U� EX UTILITY ROLE EN d'EC CROP _ HORN DOW NOR SIDE SATE vstsiocro!! CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ND.E< 30 (PLAN RAM W.3n MN X.... SYr i-ldbANN . jr✓I-1015 R, INC. NANA 1.•• P.•3O dip/Blue Sky Landscape Services, Inc. eaw DAL 6016 Valley Avenue Cast, Puyallup,RAInglon WWI 1400M0 OM ROAD.ANON W WOW yeeere6 en Phone: (253)ee5-2222 yu(253)no-eepl 1 m..r \ o P-1 _.- 1_ 'Cr,,,,---, .... -.. /-- ., .- - - 'X.-- , \ \ 1 M +If ) __- „,...-- A. ,----- 4.- c............7.- ,-- ,7-- fie. 11. A* N........ A* C 0 Pi CITY OF RENTON PLANNING/BUILDING/PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 3, 2003 TO: City Clerk's Office FROM: Holly SUBJECT: Land Use File Close-Out Please complete the following information to facilitate project close-out and indexing by the City Clerk's Office. Project Name: Schober Inc. Expansion LUA(File) Number: LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF Cross References: AKA's: Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Acceptance Date: August 5, 1998 Applicant:. Schober Enterprises Owner: Schober Enterprises Contact: Alan Poe / Poe Engineering Inc PID #: 242304-9037 ERC\6pprova)Denial (circle one) & Date: September 15, 1998 ERC Appeal Date: Administrative Approval: Public Hearing Date: N/A Appeal Period Ends: N/A Date Appealed to HE & By Whom: N/A HEX Decision & Date: N/A Date Appealed to Council & By Whom: N/A Council Decision & Date: N/A Mylar Recording #: Project Description: 36,775 SQ FT ADDITION TO EXISTING 11,777 SQ FT WAREHOUSE/ MANUFACTURING FACILITY ON A 3.22 ACRE SITE. THE EXISTING FACILITY IS USED TO MANUFACTURE DECORATIVE LAMINATES FOR THE AVIATION, RECREATION AND TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRIES. LAMINATES ARE MADE FROM PLASTIC FILMS AND SHEETS, WHICH ARE SCREEN PRINTED AND LAMINATED TOGETHER. THE NEW ADDITION WILL ACCOMODATE PRODUCTION EQUIP MENT AND RAW MATERIAL INVENTORY FROM THE SCHOBER FACILITY IN KENT. NEW RESTROOMS, A LUNCHROOM AND EXPANDED OFFICE FACILITIES WILL ALSO BE PROVIDED. *2 YEAR EXTENSION GRANTED 8/15/00* Location: 1400 Monster Road SW Comments: « / °"4cr hw...r-srziiiiioa;s:>r-rriiii..r s,r.izczii.►s..<- - - Setup © CITY OF RENTON Permit Conditions Permit Number: 13000717 Item 1: AWNING MIMIMUM HEIGHT ABOVE SIDEWALK IS 8'. MINIMUM HEIGHT UNDER MARQUEE SIGNS IS ALSO 8', SO NO SUCH SIGNS WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS AWNING AS SHOWN. 2: STREET ADDRESS SHALL BE POSTED ON BUILDING. CONTRASTING COLOR MINIMUM 12-INCHES. 3: ALL CONSTRUCTION,DEMOLITION AND LAND CLEARING WASTE MUST BE RECYCLED AT A KING COUNTY LICENSED OR APPROVED FACILITY, OR TAKEN TO REGIONAL DISPOSAL FACILITIES. 4: APPROVAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT ONLY-SEPARATE APPROVAL AND PERMITS REQUIRED FOR ANY MECHANICAL, PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL, FIRE SUPPRESSION OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SYSTEM. 5: GROUND ELECTRODE SYSTEM: AN ELECTRODE ENCASED BY AT LEAST 2 INCHES OF CONCRETE,LOCATED WITHIN AND NEAR THE BOTTOM OF A CONCRETE FOOTING THAT IS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, CONSISTING OF AT LEAST 20 FEET OF BARE COPPER, SIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TABLE 250-94, 1996 NEC, SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION. 6: MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL PLANS AND NREC CHECKLIST TO BE SUBMITTED FOR PLAN REVIEW PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. 7: PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS REQUIRED, 2A1OBC MINIMUM RATING. 8: FIRE LANES/FIRE ZONES SHALL BE MARKED PER CITY ORDINANCE. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS SHALL BE PAVED A MINIMUM OF 20-FEET WIDE AND SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM HEIGHT CLEARANCE OF 13.5-FEET. APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE AN 8.5 X 11-INCH SITE PLAN SHOWING PLACEMENT OF REQUIRED FIRE LANES FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT PERMANENT RECORD PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 9: SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS REQUIRED. PLANS SHALL BE STAMPED BY A STATE CERTIFIED SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR. PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED TO RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU FOR REVIEW AND PERMITTING (425)430-7024. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE EXTENDED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EXISTING AND PROPOSED NEW BUILDINGS. 10: FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION LOCATION TO BE APPROVED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. 11: SYSTEM TO BE MONITORED BY A UL LISTED CENTRAL STATION. 12: AN ANNUAL HIGH-PILED COMBUSTIBLE STOCK PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU. CALL(425)430-7024. 13: SMALL(1.5-INCH)HOSE STATIONS ARE REQUIRED PER ARTICLE 81, NFPA 231 AND 231C. SEPARATE PLANS AND PERMITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND OBTAINED FROM THE RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 14: FIRE ALARM SYSTEM REQUIRED. PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED TO RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU FOR APPROVAL(425)430-7024. BOTH AN ELECTRICAL AND FIRE ALARM PERMIT ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS INSTALLATION. SYSTEM SHALL BE MONITORED BY A LOCAL UL-LISTED CENTRAL STATION. 15: SEPARATE PLANS AND PERMITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND OBTAINED FROM THE RENTON FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS AND TANK MONITORING SYSTEMS. CONTACT CHRISTOPHER POPE,HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SPECIALIST AT(425)430-7081 IF QUESTIONS ARISE. 16: REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 3,500 GPM. PROPOSED HYDRANT LAYOUT IS ACCEPTABLE. 17: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT.(CONS,OLID,ITION OF,UNDERLYING LOTS)MUST BE RECORDED PRIOR TO ,ISSUANCE OF CEg:ITW'ICATE,OF,OCCUPANCY. SEE LESLEY NISHIHIRA/PLANNING. conditions 1/01 bh OP CITY O'r" RENTON y e,LL Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor August 10, 2000 Alan Poe Poe Engineering, Inc. 1314 8th Street NE, Suite 102 Auburn, WA 98002 Subject: Schober Inc. Expansion File No. LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF, Dear Mr. Poe: This letter is written in response to your request for an extension for the SEPA and Site Plan Approval for the above referenced project. The extension has been granted with a new expiration date of September 15, 2002. Pursuant to RMC section 4-9-200.K, this will be the only extension granted for the project proposal. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (425)430-7270. Sincerely, 41((/ Lesley Nish' ' a Project Manager Cc: Dennis Schober, owner Jennifer Henning, Principal Planner 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 This paper contains 50%recycled materiel,20%post consumer FROM : POE ENGINEERING, INC. FAX NO. : 253 833 4053 Aug. 03 2000 09:56AM P1 . POE Engineering, Inc. . pievls f,a CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING/CONSULTING ��� ° �, 1314 8TH STREET N.E.,SUITE 102 14'21 " ,.'t�.�Y1��ed AUBURN,WASHINGTON 98002 (253)833-4052 • FAX(253)833-4053 August 3 , 2000 UFVFtO Ci�yo Pi N City of Renton ,4G, NroNNiN� U Development Planning Section 0 1055 S . Grady Way CC 3?�W0 �Renton, Wa 98055 C nip" Attn: Ms . Lesley Nishihira Re: Schober Inc Expansion Project No. LLA-98-122, SA-A, ECF Dear Ms . Nishihira: This letter is written pursuant to your courtesy letter of June 21, 2000 regarding the September 15, 2000 expiration date for the Site Plan / SEPA Approval . We would like to request an extension period of six months in order to finish the building permit submittal plans . As you know, the project has undergone several minor site plan revisions . The latest revision involves acquiring a sliver of property from Burlington Northern Railroad at the southeast corner of the site . The inclusion of the this small parcel in the project is of great benefit to Schober, Inc. , and of little use to the Railroad. Unfortunately it is anticipated we will need the extension to complete the title transfer and work out the details with the Railroad. Sincerely, POE Engineering, Inc. Alan F. Poe cc Mr. Dennis Schober 0 ,T� CIT% zJF RENTON siaa. ►i Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator July 17, 2000 Alan Poe POE Engineering, Inc. 400 West Gowe Street, Suite 310 Kent, WA 98032 Subject: Modification of Approved Site Plan for Schober, Inc. Expansion File No. LUA-98-122,SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Poe: This letter supercedes the previous approval of a minor modification (dated November 30, 1999) for the above referenced project. The following revisions, including those requested last November and those requested this June, have been determined to be modifications of less than 10% to the approved site plan: • A 121 square foot decrease to the building area, • A 2,200 square foot addition to the south side of the structure (31,675 square feet approved/33,754quare feet proposed), • One additional loading dock door, • A 10 foot width increase for the approved driveway on SW Jackson Street, • One additional driveway entrance to be located on Longacres Parkway, and • Redesign of the parking area on the north side of the site. The proposal provides 68 parking spaces, which satisfies the parking requirements for the revised building area (60-83 stalls required). In addition, the proposed increased driveway width and additional driveway proposed on Longacres Parkway appear to satisfy the minimum and maximum code requirements pertaining to driveway width and location. The back out distance for the proposed dock door also appears to comply with minimum code requirements. Therefore, the proposed minor modification to the approved site plan for the Schober, Inc. Expansion, File No. LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF is approved subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall record a lot line adjustment in order to consolidate the underlying parcels. The lot line adjustment shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. The revised site plan does not alter the September 15, 2000 expiration date for the approved land use application. This decision is subject to a two-week appeal period. Sincerely, ,,,--------.xn - I ' Jana,Wanson ,.......:.------------------- u/6evelopment Services Director Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM July 31, 2000. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. cc: Dennis Schober, Owner Lesley Nishihira, Project Manager Jennifer Henning, Land Use Review Supervisor 1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055 i ,,\,, . II e r � :� �ri II avi 1k! 111 (!14:::"\-). ‘. . 1 " EB "111 b l ;, ill 1� R.: alli 1D la 41 3 7 4 e N Ip; uI � ..'--6-72- 114112-21°111."'"'I !hi 1111111111 1111111 illidglilli 11 Ili1111:111 liji f:d _ f a 1 i 1,•Y `. .-Akk 1 1 ji I gig: 411; I lin. ! - l3 ii :1 1 lid Boa eII 1 W��` 1E1611111 HP" I I'ig hi1R1 p oaose>>rarwr�t��an7 j \ ! 7 14i lea 103 66 rOAalli4.\ Ilu hi vP ." g1 `t . `'*''s 5z0 00 I\ an\------- . "A, '' Ph °44* r. , . • gad Q�rj I!!! © �.r,-- Ili . N. A n .6 \ - •Viirl , gl le allh II o. 6 b / a.• /i i \I IIIII r _ a 8 fl s° _± ._ F 8 `1 51 +• 4A(11 It '4\ 0 a 1 II \ I H' :1-Iii A . 444 / 6 u tl i y 14 I f■s V E`'' ro V�. YET tiff'm a-` .. 1 i i in 1A 1 �� 12 4 ..;>. ,. 1 �r, i I: : .,,wig 'i. 47 ,`: IIL ■ in s *'''I' 1 tl ,\ '• ��; ,✓ � , . . . ._ -' 4 1.111117 iti �•�p • O. ; 7 'iii N \,,,,,\N lilt iiii I/101/ ::: j \''. ' \ -‘"Alf ili m 1......1. ,_t.. g a .. : "I' 0 . z i i ii \ '''' .. ,74f, xi�il Y ;404 � 1edit . \ v' 10111 1"---‘-v- 3 lis*:, ,, :," 1" inlilill »e 4.1, s ‘ ''''1',, V 9;1 tz1V‘klit ' .,)' - 114 c"5 11 1111lag 191141i C✓r., i ii i' z n8 1 FROM : POE ENGINEERING, INC. FAX NO. : 253 833 4053 Jun. 23 2000 12:44PM P1 i/ 4 DEVELOPNIE POE Engineering, Inc. c"%'oFRE,P-oNN/NG 0 ` " L ERING/CONSULTING ,/ N i i 1314CIVI 8T&M STREETSTRUCTURAL N.E.ENGINE,SUITE 102� �����" AUBURN,WASHINGTON 98002 ' 2000 i (253)833 4052 I FAX(253)833-4053 r� n. eil June 23 , 2000 City of Renton Development Planning Section 1055 S . Grady Way Renton, Wa 98055 Attn: Ms . Lesley Nishihira Re: Schober Inc Expansion Project No. LLA-98-122 , SA-A, ECF Dear Ms . Nishihira: Attached is a partial site plan showing a proposed revision. The adjacent property at the east side of the south property line has become available and Schober, Inc . would like to take advantage of this . The strip of land is 20 feet wide and would eliminate the jog in the property & building on the south side of the project . The increase in building square footage is 2, 800 sf (or 8 . 90) . This partial plan is submitted to verify that the SEPA Determination and site plan approvals are still valid for the current proposal . You will recall that we went thru this exercise in September of 1999 as well where the building size decreased slightly. Please call to discuss . Sincerely, POE Engineering, Inc. Alan F. Poe cc Mr. Dennis Schober FROM : POE ENGINEERING. INC. FAX NO. : 253 833 4053 Jun. 23 2000 12:45PM P2 '1/4.11V p: ... . . ,, •t. • ,9 / . •••d )?-04/' • /.4 .., .sc,, •4,0 4... ,.,.. ::\ . .:. ...:.-c.). , • - 4t),, //".•4 o „ 0 • • ,4,1„40 .,./41' .,•s• 1 iv 4 v - .co,07, ---/ .,..., . '-‘••• ... .- \ k.,.) •'....'• -.( e •• . .„ , • \ •• ..--A /Pep. 69 /F. r:90,e i 04 ,...,,,,,'' `'4-1, . . ..A .. -----v-- ,- . '''' • ct,,ic. .....--, • ii - \ ?i -. .-....e, ,..., \,I, ,• (). . --\ .. . •-,-,,,.. ,• /1/6.1 ‹4 --- I 7::::::::---------- • ---..•-,..;,.?,.,. ..., __------------. ,77.''.. • • ' ,4 N..'''. ' ....i':gr‘g,M..1. IC.. •.- o‘n,,•'• .r- .4, ! •. •'-:A.2Y'•• /Ps/. .ro4.. • '-%:--t-N c .-4. ,...:. ......... ... -..4,• . . • --,•••• \ -, ,...14,..- -,,,, ,p • --41-- ' •" ''" 5' S\- • -::4444-,..,„..... ..... -stik,'.147. . . .1 •,-... t D CONIN ' ..\ • ' . :';''\ /9,4 \ .•-•.-.=-.:1>'"--. • . • .' ,--, 1 ., 1-. k• ''....t.....e'' .. .•,;,-_•.-ri-•, A .,, -to. w‘-• s.".‘\ -_,..6gy .,.- ";,• .-Y,14/, \ : •_,....,/-'1' b(1- '' ilr I. F44(ir -N IN‘,, 1 ':' -`,:t vr-4, \-.... \ -,-,..-•-•-•,•._ • ........--,--- 1. • • . , .,-,„ c.., „:„.„ --,,,„,_,, ".1,.....1..:,. 1 ) C.1. .27(9()08'Pk'..,. .._,... .....,„'..- -,'''•<'....4,**,, , . ,,,, ..,, W.El",V. ,.• '''''''' ....1/1°. N.)< ' . i• ,• .. ..../j. V55 ..„?... .. ......„". p. = .„......„.. - ........-•,•.„,,,,,,„,..„,,,,,,,u,„„,....,,,„...„......„,..,....„..„....,..„. . ... . . 5, .-- • fp--Stis---.. '-...tyakiirolfpl,A;:fo v,.._!;...!:',;.'.kl'i: ,,1:4;:,:::,(:1,:imoAvk.-5-&..c.: -:-.•,,i..-?--..s.w.,,,,, S,'i..Tiltfilt *' . .; .‘ • ..-,,,,;`44%4.4, .0,..00,1,,mmit Ai ..:Iiio.,fr:.,g:,;.,,'t:,RI:i...' -'.... .,:i'''''':',..,f4yLt.'4.-fi,ri.it-•i..-•7 ,':•z•-".'''''''',Ar J.-''' '. ••' •1.'"•'..q.',,P,Pfliii:..0..r.:ipegoihilie),,;:li,.„irti,i,,,..;;I.:1:Hi!,;7,,..,.. ,„.. ..N. ... , ..]: . .....,.;:i:!;?i,„-A,hit ,r.,64.,.. -.. .....,. . ...,-a„,-.0q1Ofitt,411tAii:,; .;.4.00011:T,14,Atin:NIMVP.!;:.;,',,',•': " ;,. . w,:.l' .:,.'..:::1: ..'',i'Aft:plAgre.)4,',..14,--g.1:,'i l' ''' .A.00.tio.tio,4 -7.1001, MikaRttel:NO.rov'if,!4:il, .1.. .,1,.. L4-411.1.:Ii,'q .i,,,gi1,;!•;.wit... :3%;;;1 . :b. N ....4.1 fitooKNoi.1:11N;oofkii--..dia,y,•?:1-!,A4i:v.-::- 4...int..3,!,,;`.'?'',";.',':•:..''r ..,..,N,,' . I ".... ik''X.- PV:1::!.1.1nt141V...4e'.41t`.'“*I.:.%:1! i.:'i.:';4'.n,41;:1:3 ''''w.'6:'?•.'.:.,"1 :1',''.% :1;'.!!;•• .:;ei\HI...!.. '' iti ,''. .9 • .. NJ I, .':. .,''.'.X.d: ,_ „, ,, .A' gkialiii1W4Ff7,4;;Oirli';:'.' I C;.'!.!'el,''-:Vj,1;',1'.4...:t:' •..,..• l',.:.::.i . ';.?i;:ii:s.'.7:*:'.1:;rs '''..... i 1 a :1m,!:,,..1 1, -,,i : ..:.1.!.....,...:,•,.4.„ .., ,1 •4:; ,.,..ix.,..4.,4:01;m4,11ftikt,*,..: ,..„-.?. 40 Sh-, .,./) *.t..113.- r.;••.:i;::: ::, ..Y,:4,:i.r,:iizti.il = )1''..... .t! ,..',. • ..1.:.,...1../ ...%1.44.-,:• :•: ::',:tioiie,..xlir:htp,,iis4,.4 I' -- - ..• , , ...-mt. ...::,r,. i • '- '170'sc -r--- *:01t, 10,mi,- • • i r L_ __1 , ..w.:=...v.:,-,,•4 ," 1 377' 1T/14" :t":1-,.. .\.) N .0. s726.69'j 1 (2) ,---. 1 . . ,...,...,.., c, ,....., . .... ,, 03 ._.,t, .„,,,.....,. , . 2,3'06,5 1 ,rol/Y 0 Pio ...,--*. • , •,..1.s,ft4,-,,‘,..„, ,. 2. 1 60' I to, I<1 ^,-, -,i, - -,.•.'"-.,--', , 00 ATICti „. t v) ....,:,--_, t-, _,_ ,ft _s_..,._ ..elz-,.6-A, ( ./ - ,0) g", f;-,-,..*. --.- . • litilisiiik 17/6yy ,... 1 ' cri t:,-,-4.•,..,••:.!--,...,..,•-•.1c,1 , 4. 041.4-r, Avis, - - --- Se L°I 1/ ---, Reiti Ale <-,.i. c) 1.4,.. 0. „,.., 5 S rift. '-fr hi /.....A14 ----, ,_,,, Oil- T, --- 0 , co sp.-- - -,, - 11)1004, -•?-1;•-.***(4 , - ,--..-. 1, •''.'•F-TA - ' -2... ---.s - ..t... ,-....„,..,-- ,,, - CaliC 4‘ `: CO , „.„.„....... s A 1 , , s• ay., ..„..,4c,,.. ,, 9 4 :-t_-,*-::, AV- .0., % ts..1 be • I(1 c 7 2 6R ,, —.-.• •,Is.t, .---- CI ,... 4-,-:"-, .• ...r --.7 ik.hio • Ate* ' -9 s FR ,, ,,ivir, • .-A --:1: , Ile° 31 s (A/D /9 ,:--:,c....:17-1,,)•.::.A 11111 2' A, ,,,..---... --;., - — ---•-•, ,-54 1-A A 1 —— -7,:',:;,:e,*.;, ' SF c. 'llySif, 124 a':,•';,t1-.,- --ti',.. $11.4, 1. ''.... .1,14,;i: . ,c•1.. WDRINI,,,, LIN 4' „-.... -:_tx..... It N-s--Jig .,.------ '''-', -',7-•S;ft ' .* 61/ yr Sep4R4 3°.0 eReD spRI 4 ,3, , .- 0-..,,&:„,:t11,- -..11 ,,,. ..:-...v•,-,,-.....,,,-..-_,.-: , -.• -..--,-- - - -.., ..,......4:,„ Rls Alif(z- -----.., iik,..*',".7 .,. -::,,,'-'14, . i ' ''''- ,_•t_-,--,;.,-,.-zt.?:--:-_ :•••1.,----:,. , *4z/ 1/04, ei? iii' im...f.,,,...::::,--x, --.,-..-:,--,-•-,..,, , cn • '':••.5:-4,"‘•7•. ---.=•,.-•-* ..'i i 4.1f. 4, -,--. ,-,-.,,--',.-. -- -.4 r---- -,.-•,,v•--_,-.:.--,• 4 Cr) 4- '-'41X_,- .=,-;.- -,. (46) 2°,,-.." .,.. tii ° (1)4 f ..,-.-,..;.....-..-.--*,.v..,..,,,,- - ,--,. 0 ',-,4 -,,,, ,,-•-• -•-:-. .,-.„..W..: .-..b...-..--, I -0 rt'el ----- tk..,-.-- - f• ‘,..fr.. ..-.....?.....-„--A.„. . ...,...,, , ,A..'el • (T25 - 8) -.,,,,,,..:„..:------.?„ 1 L (80/ - ''. --;f • ...,- ..„-, (SCY 06,6? () gr -: ,--.,;-; tl' ,,,..* /Al Opt, ' ic•1.- `'' 41 4,„," ,,,-) c 1 , 86,,,, ,,,,,. A ..,„.„,.,.., I Po S To/i • Jo 0 4 Joy I ?ND Az I )' • i(I- , •6.-- ...... N,5,.. 11•3 > I• O.S. •..... V:1,0,.., •0,2' • A 'r ,... .. e,11.: ,..., 4.1 •',. ‘'eg5 4 '''', ..P,. , LIAO r,..1 ..., e i AP ':"---1:k9.!;.'"-:.-:'-'1.1!, / 4-'t 0 -14 . • e-- ,..,...:•..-.....„.„„. ...... Do OCk - • , 30#i -•- — :.'°RS . co • • DOCK-Vt, „, ..__- .-------.„.....--ww. : ---.W '-'-'-- ---. t 0 42. (2) 9./1° - •".;?-ts _...-- - _ • ..„.-..----. .:...--.V4--.7,--2.. ..,..f, -.--" *ex 04 re _ _ -...,.... •,.c ..,„ ..., , ..,,••„,,.., ---..-.,•••,,t-.-4: , ... ........,..,44,..-„*.-_,,,,, •.A..r4- . ,•-• ' ' • POSE- ''',' 1,''''\----;'''-'' .4 ' ,r: -... 'A"t•4,f,.!Afil,witti r_,.....,„.„,,,,... !•,: R ' • fr- ,,,. , -... .,. t w,,,,,,*.t.,,,..4., , . ,.04(440;•,,41,. . ,14.,:Ai*-V.,z.:,...,, .,. P '"7-4, :k C = L-406. '. ..w,H: _, .10-<%,,,,, ilt?. irsi , ,.. ..:; :e--,,C-Wv":.1k.'i.--- -0-e-,, :)t'' - Pits"ogvviqz.,,,s.,-,;,,... ..:Pr,. :-..;z,----,w,....c›;e0Z,:z1,,, , **'3;;J 1:.----'-': 14 tr. ,-41ft..7 s' .' '44.'1' '''''e 1 keft4%1,-=SOTtA* et4i,a,,..6'. .,_,•* ,-k,Z4..-,:.# .-? ,,`:,;) ,.,27 .-4,477'7. e ..... ..,.,..-74:',1%-,... •=:--i- :... li, .„.,,,.........., ::„...:..,.......,„e..,.,,,,,,,,,,..,,,,, ,,---%-q.,- ,----,: . ....1 ''''.'t'• -'-• ,. c6, _,..,-,22..."... i',.;.t•&:Oipl . .' .,Ms. ..Ws.,.. ._.„.i, _.r.,.. .,,..- ;:-..,,%..,.;...-,.• CIT' )F RENTON , Planning/Building/Public Works Department Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator Jesse Tanner,Mayor June 21, 2000 Mr. Dennis Schober Schober, Inc. 1400 Monster Road Renton, WA 98055 SUBJECT: Schober, Inc. Expansion Project No. LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Schober: This letter is sent as a courtesy to remind you of the expiration period for the above referenced project. The City of Renton approved your project on September 15, 1998. This approval is normally good for two years only. Once you have Site Plan Approval, you must submit for a building permit or request an extension prior to September 15, 2000. Pursuant to RMC Section 4-9-200K.1, a single two (2)year extension may be granted for good cause by the approval body, which approved the original Site Plan. Requests must be submitted in writing. Please contact me, at (425)430-7270, if you have any questions. Sincerely, * // 1-4412 Lesley Nishihira Project Manager QA-129 In 1055 South Grady Way- Renton, Washington 98055 - - - - - CITY OF RENTON Planning/Building/Public Works MEMORANDUM DATE: January 20, 2000 TO: Rebecca Lind, Strategic Planning FROM: Jennifer Henning, Development Planning 6111 SUBJECT: City Initiated Rezone for Schober Property 1400 Monster Road/PID No. 242304-9037 &242304-9134 The property referenced above is currently split zoned with Medium Industrial (IM)zoning on the western two-thirds of the site and Public Use (P-1)on the eastern third. In September of 1998, the property owners completed SEPA Environmental Review and obtained Administrative Site Plan approval for the expansion of their existing facility. The Site Plan Approval is still valid. Recently, a variance application was made requesting a reduced landscaped setback for the expansion on the site's south street frontage (elevated Grady Way). Through the review of the requested variance, it was discovered that a portion of the proposed building would intrude into the portion of the property designated P-1. Initially, the P-1 zoning designation was assigned to the entire Metro Parcel. Subsequently, a portion of Monster Road was dedicated to public right-of-way and the Metro parcel was segregated. The portion of the parcel located south of Monster Road is now owned by Schober, Inc., as is the adjacent parcel (see attached map). The split zoning designation on the property significantly restricts the use of the site as intended by the current property owners. Staff has determined that the P-1 designation for the parcel is no longer applicable to the property. Circumstances surrounding the subject site have changed and the property is no longer necessary for public use. Therefore, a rezone of the property to the Medium Industrial (IM) designation would be justified and appropriate. We are also of the opinion that it would not be appropriate to assign the"P-suffix"designation to the property as it would not accomplish the intent of the (P)and would further hinder the property owner. We are requesting that the City initiate the rezone of the parcel from P-1 to IM. cc: Jana Hanson Peter Rosen Lesley Nishihira F2 - 13 T23N R4E W \-,- } CO L/1 . i .a • i • .fi P-1 i 1 . IM ;�a� w St r 4 � ..: : ' . ./. . / C El ./"../ • \‘'' \ \ . • ii . w 1 . i i __________________ __J ,.. (-7. /$-. °' \ t S: 1 \ 1 H2 - 25 T23N R4E W 1/2 ��T o Q G2 ZONING 114800 .IA.N "°`" ��° 24 T23N R4E W 1/2 0 ,.} CITY kfiF RENTON `. `c Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator November 30, 1999 Alan Poe POE Engineering, Inc. 400 West Gowe Street, Suite 310 Kent, WA 98032 Subject: Modification of Approved Site Plan for Schober, Inc. Expansion File No. LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF Dear Mr. Poe: This letter is in response to your request for modifications of less than 10% to the approved site plan for the Schober, Inc. Expansion project(file no. LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF). The proposed modifications include: • A 121 square foot decrease to the building area (31,675 square feet approved/31,554 square feet proposed), • One additional loading dock door, • A 10 foot width increase for the approved driveway on SW Jackson Street, • One additional driveway entrance to be located on Longacres Parkway, and • Redesign of the parking area on the north side of the site. The proposal provides 64 parking spaces,which satisfies the parking requirements for the revised building area (54-81 stalls required). In addition, the proposed increased driveway width and additional driveway proposed on Longacres Parkway appear to satisfy the minimum and maximum code requirements pertaining to driveway width and location. The back out distance for the proposed dock door also appears to comply with minimum code requirements. Therefore, the proposed minor modification to the approved site plan for the Schober, Inc. Expansion, File No. LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF is approved. The revised site plan does not alter the September 15, 2000 expiration date for the approved land use application. This decision is subject to a two-week appeal period. Sincerely, Jan -Man De elopm nt Services Director Appeals of the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM December 14, 1999. If no appeals are filed by this date, the action will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. cc: Dennis Schober, Owner Lesley Nishihira, Project Manager Jennifer Henning, Land Use Review Supervisor 1055 South Grady Way-Renton, Washington 98055 POE Engineering, Inc. 1, CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING/CONSULTING I ti 400 WEST GOWE STREET,SUITE 310 irrt � = = KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 (253)060 64E? • FAX(253)859-5207 September 23, 1999 City of Renton Development Planning Section 1055 S . Grady Way O�j , Renton, Wa 98055 _. :40,0M Attn: Ms . Lesley Nishihira �O��rA $Fp 2 RF•v7.,✓iQV �yc Re : Schober Inc Expansion ��`1 ` /999 Project No. LLA-98-122 , SA-A, ECF Dear Ms . Nishihira: �`FO Attached are (2) copies of the revised site plan. These plans are submitted to verify that the SEPA Determination and site plan approvals are still valid for the current proposal . The building area has reduced slightly. There are now (4) dock-high doors versus (3) , and the building will be multi- tenant with entries at both ends . Also, an additional driveway is sought onto Long Acres Parkway. Sincerely, POE Engineering, Inc. Alan F. Poe cc Mr. Dennis Schober (1IOL+1 BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS 8:30 a.m. Renton Municipal Building Wednesday, October 7, 1998 6th Floor Conference Room IN ATTENDANCE: Jim Hanson,Chairman Larry Meckling,Building Official Dave Christensen, Utilities System Chuck Duffy,Fire Prevention Paul Lumbert,Plan Review Dennis Gerber,Police Mickie Flanagan,Recording Secretary VISITORS: Robert E. Hankins,Poe Engineering Inc. MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hanson at 8:30 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOVED BY MECKLING,SECONDED BY CHRISTENSEN,to approve meeting minutes dated, September 16, 1998. MOTION CARRIED. 3. REQUESTED ACTION: None 4. OLD BUSINESS: • OFF-SITE DEFERRAL, SCHOBER AIRCRAFT EXPANSION, LUA 98-122, SW 16th Street, Monster Road SW, Jackson Place SW and Longacres Drive SW - applicant requests a waiver for the installation of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paving, street lighting and storm drainage. Continued from April 30, 1997, meeting. Action: Following brief discussion MOVED BY CHRISTENSEN, SECONDED BY MECKLING to waive frontage improvements on SW 16th Street and Monster Road SW;and to deny a waiver for improvements on Jackson Place SW and Longacres Drive. Said improvements to include curbs, gutters, sidewalk,paving, street lighting and continuation of the pedestrian/bike trail(as specified in the City's Master Trails Plan)along Jackson Place SW,and over to and along Longacres Drive. The improvements must be installed prior to Final Occupancy. MOTION CARRIED. 5. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 a.m. CIT' OF RENTON U. ( \ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator October 6, 1998 • Mr. Alan Poe Poe Engineering, Inc. 400 West Gowe Street,#310 Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: Schober, Inc. Expansion Project No. LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Poe: This letter is to inform you that the comment and appeal periods have ended for the Environmental Review Committee's (ERC) Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the above-referenced project. No appeals were filed on the ERC determination. This decision is final and application for the appropriately required permits may proceed. The applicant must comply with all ERC Mitigation Measures and Site Plan Conditions of Approval. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (425) 430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: Schober, Inc./Owners FIIVAL.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 C 7 Thic nanar rnntainc 5n%rwcvrlwri matnrial 9n%nnct cnncumwr CITY;OF.RENTONi CURRENT PLANNING DIVISION AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 184' day of Se...Fehnber , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing _ _ Re ays,d Qectster documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing (Zicvw\ s Sc66e Sc A06.cr t 1rtc. . \\aan roe. Fbe. Sv+A theert l , vac.. (Signature of Sender) S-avv:60l K.•STATE OF OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) l I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that. /9nib c, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act foil the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: )0 - - $ �7 aJ" ryie/4_0. Notary Public in nd for the State of Wa I ington Notary (Print) MARII YN KAMCHEFF My appointment exel Project Name: Schoixe 1.hc . 6l pav‘stuU1 Project Number: LUPc •-lb ^ 12.2 SA-A+ 11G1 NOTARY.DOC REPORT City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works DECISION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW & ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION DECISION DATE: September 15, 1998 Project Name: Schober, Inc. Expansion Applicant: Poe Engineering, Inc. Owner: Schober, Inc. File Number: LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Description: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. Project Location: 1400 Monster Road Exist. Bldg. Area SF.' 11,777 sf Proposed New Bldg. Area SF: 36,775 sf Site Area: 3.22 acres Total Building Area SF: 48,552 sf , \. IM 'c�• .�� II� 14 # / S \ I \ C o �I City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 2 of 11 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND Schober, Inc. is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for the expansion of their existing warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. The expansion will add 36,775 square feet (31,675 square feet on the ground floor and 5,100 square feet on the second floor) to an existing 11,777 square foot building (10,329 ground floor square footage with 1,448 square feet on the second floor). The proposal includes revised parking, landscaping improvements, and a stormwater detention facility on the surrounding undeveloped portion of the property. New access is proposed off of Jackson Place Southwest. PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240, the following project environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing development standards and environmental regulations. A. Environmental Impacts The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: (1) Earth Impacts: The site is relatively flat with gentle slopes of less than 5%. The geotechnical study, prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., indicate the site is immediately underlain by a two-inch thick layer of topsoil in some areas. This soil layer is not considered suitable for use in support of foundations, slabs- on-grade, or pavements and should not be used or mixed for structural fill. Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of fill will be brought in from local pits. The grading plan estimates approximately 3 feet of structural fill will be placed over the undeveloped portions of the site as necessary to prepare the site for construction. Erosion impacts appear to be minimal and will be mitigated by the applicants temporary erosion control plan. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measures recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton P/B/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC. EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15, 1998 Page 3 of 11 (2) Air Impacts: Minor emissions from construction equipment can be expected for the duration of the project. Construction impacts will be short term in nature and will be mitigated through the temporary erosion control plan and the construction mitigation plan. Emissions from construction equipment exhaust will have a minor impact on local air quality. Exhaust from construction vehicles is regulated by State and City codes. After construction the impacts will be associated primarily with vehicle exhaust from visitor and employee traffic. Overall, air impacts will be relatively minor and not considered significant to warrant further mitigation. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measures are recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A (3) Water Impacts: There are no wetlands or surface waters identified on the subject site. The Green River is located approximately 800 feet to the west of the site. The proposal will not impact the Green River. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed with the project. There is no discharge of waste material to the ground. Currently storm water runoff flows off of the developed areas and disperses into the surrounding undeveloped property. The proposed storm system will collect and convey surface water to a detention pond facility and will be discharged through a bioswale to the public storm system. The storm drainage detention pond with biofiltration swale will be designed per City requirements and the standards of the King County Surface Water Design Manual as adopted by the City of Renton. Mitigation Measures: No further mitigation measures are recommended. Policy Nexus: N/A (4) Fire Protection Impacts: The proposal will add new construction to the City which will potentially impact the City's Fire Department. A Fire Mitigation Fee, based on a rate of $0.52 per square foot of new structure, applies to all new construction in the City. The mitigation fee for this proposal is estimated at $19,123.00. The fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is estimated at $19,123.00 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Ordinance (SEPA), Fire Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting ordinance. SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 4 of 11 (5) Transportation Impacts: The proposal will result in an increase in traffic trips and is therefore subject to the City's Transportation Mitigation Fee. The proposal will generate approximately 141.58 new average daily trips. The Transportation Mitigation Fee is calculated at $75 per each new average daily trip. The fee is estimated to be $10,618.50 (141.58 trips x $75 = $10,618.50). The fee is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. Mitigation Measures: The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $10,618.50 and is payable prior to the issuance to building permits. Policy Nexus: Environmental Ordinance (SEPA), Transportation Mitigation Fee Resolution and adopting ordinance. B. Recommendation Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommend that the Responsible Officials make the following Environmental Determination: DETERMINATION OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE NON- SIGNIFICANCE- MITIGATED. Issue DNS with 14 day Appeal Period. XX Issue DNS-M with 14 day Appeal Period. Issue DNS with 14 day Comment and Issue DNS-M with 14 day Comment Appeal Period. Period followed by a 14 day Appeal Period. C. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of $0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is estimated at $19,123.00 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of $75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $10,618.50 and is payable prior to the issuance to building permits. SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC. EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 5 of11 Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. Building is over allowed area without area separation walls per current UBC--1997 edition. Transportation 2. The project will require street improvements on all sides adjacent to public rights-of-way. The improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, street paving and street lighting per current City Codes/Standards. Surface/Wastewater 3. The drainage plans and erosion/sedimentation control plans shall meet the requirements of the 1990 KCSWDM, as adopted by the City of Renton. 4. A surface water development charge of$0.129/square feet of new impervious surface constructed on the site is required. 5. The new building will be required to connect to the main sewer line via side sewer at a permit cost of$100/connection. 6. Manufacturing activities may require special facilities (grease interceptor, oil/water separator, etc.). 7. A wastewater (SDC) fee of $0.078/square feet of gross site area will be required. Water 8. New water main, fire hydrants and DDCV assembly must meet current Fire Code/Regulations per Renton Fire Department required fir flow is 4,000 GPM which will require a looped system around the building. 9. Water meters for domestic service and irrigation must meet current UBC Codes/Standards as per size and backflow protection needs. 10. A water (SDC) fee of$0.113 per square feet of gross site area will be required. Fire 11. The preliminary fire low is 4,000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. 12. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 13. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemicals to be used or stored on site. Parks 14. All landscape improvements are to be maintained by the property owner. Adopted Trails Plan specifies a pedestrian/bike trail on SW 16th Street over to Monster Road. A minimum width of 5 feet is required at grade. SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton P/B/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC. EXPANSION L UA-98-122, SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 6of11 PART THREE: ADMINISTRATIVE LAND USE ACTION - REPORT & DECISION This decision on the administrative land use action is made concurrently with the environmental determination. A. Type of Land Use Action xx Administrative Site Plan Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Conditional Use Binding Site Plan Special Permit for Grade & Fill Administrative Code Determination B. Exhibits The following exhibits were entered into the record: Exhibit No. 1: Yellow file containing: application, proof of posting and publication, environmental review and other documentation pertinent to this request. Exhibit No. 2: Drawing No. 1, Site Plan (Received August 5, 1998). Exhibit No. 3: Drawing No. 2, Landscape Plan (Received August 5, 1998). Exhibit No. 4 Drawing No. 3, Neighborhood Detail Map (Received August 5, 1998). Exhibit No. 5 Drawing No. 4, Exterior Elevation (Received August 5, 1998). Exhibit No. 6, Drawing No. 5, Storm Drainage and Grading Plan (Received August 5, 1998). Exhibit No. 7, Drawing No. 6, Sewer and Water Plan (Received August 5, 1998). C. Consistency with Site Plan Criteria IN REVIEWING THE PROPOSAL WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 4-31-33(D) OF THE SITE PLAN ORDINANCE, THE FOLLOWING ISSUES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY CITY DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWERS AND DIVISIONAL REVIEWERS: SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 7 of 11 GENERAL CRITERIA: a. Conformance with the comprehensive plan, its elements and policies; The site is designated Employment Area - Valley (EAV) on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The EAV designation is intended to provide for a mixture of commercial, office and industrial uses. The proposed expansion is consistent with this designation. The proposal is consistent with the following Employment Area - Valley policies: Policy LU-144 The City should endeavor to keep its present economic base, including the heavy industrial development, light and medium industrial users, supporting commercial and office land uses. Policy LU-212.1 Develop the Renton Valley and the Black River Valley areas as a place for a range and variety of commercial, office, and industrial uses. Policy LU-212.2 Compatible and related land uses should be encouraged to locate in proximity to one another. Policy LU-212.3 Development standards should promote an increased intensity and quality of development. b. Conformance with existing land use regulations; The subject property is located in the Medium Industrial (IM) Zone. The IM Zone allows for the manufacturing of products and for printing and similar uses. The existing use is an appropriate use for this zone. The proposed expansion will have a height of 26 feet and a 29% lot coverage by buildings. The IM development standards do not require specific height or lot coverage limits. The IM Zone requires a 20 foot setback from all arterials and a 15 foot setback from all other streets. The Schober site is surrounded on all sides by streets including arterials on the southern and eastern boundaries. The proposal includes a 20 foot setback from both SW Grady Way on the south and Monster Road on the east as well as 15 foot setbacks from the north and west boundaries of the property. All portions of the site not covered by buildings or parking areas must be landscaped, including the required street setbacks. SW Grady Way is an elevated roadway and is classified as an arterial requiring a landscape strip equal to either 10% of the lot depth or 20 feet. A previous land use application for a variance from this landscape requirement was approved allowing it to be reduced to 5 feet. The IM Zone also requires all development in the Green River Valley provide an additional 2% of the site as natural landscaping suitable for wildlife habitat. The landscape plan provided by the applicant discusses the total area to be landscaped and the general types of landscaping to be used but does not specify the locations where the specific types of landscaping is to be installed. Staff will recommend as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a revised landscape plan detailing the locations of proposed landscaping including species types and sizes. The applicant will need to specifically address the area to be landscaped for wildlife habitat so that it can be verified that the 2% wildlife habitat requirement has been satisfied. The revised landscape plan will be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 8 of 1I The parking requirement for the site includes 3 to 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area dedicated to office space, 1 to 1.5 spaces per square foot of manufacturing floor area, and 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area dedicated to warehouse use. The existing building, in addition to the proposed expansion, will require a minimum of 60 to a maximum of 86 parking spaces for the site. The applicant is proposing a total of 64 parking spaces, 19% of which are compact and 3 are ADA accessible. The parking area proposed meets the landscaping, stalls sizes, and aisle widths required by the parking code. c. Mitigation of impacts to surrounding properties and uses; The proposal will not adversely impact surrounding properties and uses. The subject property is surrounded by streets on all sides and is located in an area that is presently developed with uses of similar intensities. The applicant will be required to provide a more detailed landscape plan which demonstrates all street frontages are adequately landscaped. d. Mitigation of impacts of the proposed site plan to the site; The proposal is not expected to adversely impact the site. There are no significant natural features which would be impacted by the development. The subject site is located east of the Green River (approximately 800 feet) and will not impact the river. Construction activities related to the proposed development will be required to utilize best management practices which would reduce potential construction impacts on the site. The dividing property line that extends across the area of expansion will need to be addressed. Either a lot line adjustment or a restrictive covenant will need to be recorded in order to prevent the future sale of property containing parking and landscaping required for the site. Staff is recommending a restrictive covenant that will run with the property be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. If the applicant/owner chooses, a lot line adjustment may be recorded in order to convert the site to a single parcel of land in lieu of the covenant. e. Conservation of area-wide property values; The proposed expansion will allow an existing business to remain at its present location. Development of the site is anticipated to conserve property values in the vicinity. f. Safety and efficiency of vehicle and pedestrian circulation; New access is proposed off of Jackson Place Southwest. The existing entrances on Monster Road SW and SW 16th Street will remain. Plan Review staff have approved of the proposed location of the driveway. The proposed parking lot includes adequate aisle widths and back out distances as required by code. g. Provision of adequate light and air; The proposed expansion is sufficiently setback from property boundaries to allow for adequate light and air circulation to the building. h. Mitigation of noise, odors and other harmful or unhealthy conditions; The proposal is not expected to create any harmful or unhealthy conditions. Noise, dust, and odors which may result from the construction will be mitigated by the construction mitigation plan and the temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan. SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton PB/PW Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC. EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 9 of 11 i. Availability of public services and facilities to accommodate the proposed use; and The project site is adequately served by public services and facilities. j. Prevention of neighborhood deterioration and blight. No deterioration or blight is expected to occur as a result of the proposal. X Copies of all Review Comments are contained in the Official File. Copies of all Review Comments are attached to this report. D. Findings, Conclusions & Decision Having reviewed the written record in the matter, the City now enters the following: 1) Request: The Applicant has requested Environmental Review and Site Plan Approval for the expansion of an existing warehouse/manufacturing facility. The Schober, Inc. expansion will add an additional 36,775 square feet to the facility in order to accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent in addition to new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. 2) Environmental Review: The applicant's file containing the application, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) documentation, the comments from various City departments, the public notices requesting citizen comment, and other pertinent documents was entered as Exhibit No. 1. 3) Site Plan Review: The applicant's site plan application complies with the requirements for information for site plan review. The applicant's site plan is entered as Exhibit No. 2. 4) Comprehensive Plan: The subject proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area - Valley. 5) Zoning: The site plan as presented, complies with the zoning requirements and development standards of the Medium Industrial Zoning designation. 6) Existing Land Use: Land uses surrounding the subject site include: North: developed industrial property, East: developed industrial property, Metro treatment plant; South: developed industrial property, Boeing Corporate Headquarters West: industrial property, Green River. SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton PB/P W Department Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC. EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 10of11 E. Conclusions 1) The subject proposal complies with the policies and codes of the City of Renton. 2) The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation of Employment Area - Valley; and the Zoning designation of Medium Industrial. 3) Specific Land Use (e.g., Site Plan Approval) issues were raised by various City departments. These issues are addressed in the body of this report. F. Decision The Site Plan for the Schober, Inc. Expansion, File No. LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to provide more detail addressing specific locations of landscaping including species types and sizes, specifically addressing the street frontages and the wildlife habitat area. The revised landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant/owner shall record a restrictive covenant to run with the property that prevents the sale of the parcels separately. This is to ensure that the required parking or landscaping for the buildings is not sold at a future date. The restrictive covenant is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. EFFECTIVE DATE OF DECISION ON LAND USE ACTION: SIGNATURES: ames C. Hanson, Zoning Administrator date TRANSMITTED this 21st day of September, 1998 to the applicant and owner: Schober,Inc. do Dennis Schober 1400 Monster Road Renton,WA 98055 Poe Engineering,Inc. Alan F.Poe SITERC.DOC\ City of Renton PB/PWDepartment Administrative Site Plan Approval&Environmental Review Committee Staff Report SCHOBER,INC EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF REPORT AND DECISION OF September 15,1998 Page 11 of11 TRANSMITTED this 21st day of September, 1998 to the following: Larry Meckling, Building Official C.Duffy,Fire Prevention Neil Watts, Public Works Division Lawrence J.Warren,City Attorney South County Journal Environmental Determination and Land Use Decision Appeal Process Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 5, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. SITERC.DOC\ ,CITY'OF RENTON CURRENT PLANNING b1VISION; • AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAILING On the 1$ day of Seplew4ser , 1998, I deposited in the mails of the United States, a sealed envelope containing ERG c c o t documents. This information was sent to: Name Representing Department of Ecology Don Hurter WSDOT KC Wastewater Treatment Division • Larry Fisher Washington Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman Department of Natural Resources Shirley Lukhang Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Indian Tribe Rod Malcom Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Joe Jainga Puget Sound Energy (Signature of Sender) Sa.t‘clva.. V.-. Se:cne*-- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) SS COUNTY OF KING ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that �(",-n�cy` `k. signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be his/her/their free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes • mentioned in the instrument. Dated: 10 - S K 77 C2-}-t-ce �/o Notary Public in nd for the State of Was gton Notary(Print) MARILYN KAMCHEFF My appointment ex65fI{MISSION EXPIRES s/29/g9 Project Name: Sc1406-er , the-. Project Number: LVA•9$• 1-2.2. V'+ — ECt° NOTARY.DOC 4'0 CITY OF RENTON :.LL �`,\ Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 17, 1998 Washington State Department of Ecology Environmental Review Section PO Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Subject: Environmental Determinations Transmitted herewith is a copy of the Environmental Determination for the following project reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) on September 15, 1998: DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED SCHOBER, INC. EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. Location: 1400 Monster Road. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 5, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. If you have questions, please call me at (425) 430-7270. For the Environmental Review Committee, Lesley Nishihira Project Manager cc: King County Wastewater Treatment Division Larry Fisher, Department of Fisheries David F. Dietzman, Department of Natural Resources Don Hurter, Department of Transportation Shirley Lukhang, Seattle Public Utilities Duwamish Tribal Office Rod Malcom, Fisheries, Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (Ordinance) Joe Jainga, Puget Sound Energy AGNCYLTR.DOC\ 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 CIT' OF RENTON ..u. Planning/Building/Public Works Department Jesse Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator September 17, 1998 Mr. Alan Poe Poe Engineering, Inc. 400 West Gowe Street,#310 Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: Schober, Inc. Expansion Project No. LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Poe: This letter is written on behalf of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) and is to advise you that they have completed their review of the subject project. The ERC, on September 15, 1998, issued a threshold Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated with Mitigation Measures. See the enclosed Mitigation Measures document. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 5, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. The preceding information will assist you in planning for implementation of your project and enable you to exercise your appeal rights more fully, if you choose to do so. If you have any questions or desire clarification of the above, please call me at (425) 430- For the Environmental Review Committee, P Lesley Nishi ira Project Manager cc: Schober, Inc./Owners DNSMI TR Doc 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 RI This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Schober, Inc. Expansion DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1400 Monster Road MITIGATION MEASURES; 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is estimated at $19,123.00 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of$75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $10,618.50 and is payable prior to the issuance to building permits. The Site Plan for the Schober, Inc. Expansion, File No. LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to provide more detail addressing specific locations of landscaping including species types and sizes, specifically addressing the street frontages and the wildlife habitat area. The revised landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant/owner shall record a restrictive covenant to run with the property that prevents the sale of the parcels separately. This is to ensure that the required parking or landscaping for the buildings is not sold at a future date. The restrictive covenant is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Schober, Inc. Expansion DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1400 Monster Road Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. Building is over allowed area without area separation walls per current UBC--1997 edition. Transportation 2. The project will require street improvements on all sides adjacent to public rights-of-way. The improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, street paving and street lighting per current City Codes/Standards. Surface/Wastewater 3. The drainage plans and erosion/sedimentation control plans shall meet the requirements of the 1990 KCSWDM, as adopted by the City of Renton. 4. A surface water development charge of$0.129/square feet of new impervious surface constructed on the site is required. 5. The new building will be required to connect to the main sewer line via side sewer at a permit cost of$100/connection. 6. Manufacturing activities may require special facilities (grease interceptor, oil/water separator, etc.). 7. A wastewater(SDC) fee of$0.078/square feet of gross site area will be required. Water 8. New water main, fire hydrants and DDCV assembly must meet current Fire Code/Regulations per Renton Fire Department required fir flow is 4,000 GPM which will require a looped system around the building. 9. Water meters for domestic service and irrigation must meet current UBC Codes/Standards as per size and backflow protection needs. 10. A water(SDC) fee of$0.113 per square feet of gross site area will be required. Fire 11. The preliminary fire low is 4,000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. 12. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 13. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemicals to be used or stored on site. Parks 14. All landscape improvements are to be maintained by the property owner. Adopted Trails Plan specifies a pedestrian/bike trail on SW 16th Street over to Monster Road. A minimum width of 5 feet is required at grade. • CITY OF RENTON • DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Schober, Inc. Expansion DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1400 Monster Road LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works Development Planning Section The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-6-6 Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 5, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: September 21, 1998 DATE OF DECISION: September 15, 1998 SIGNATURES: / D� c_ ! i'lryjll-1 ( (, 't- 1 •-gg` Zimmerman, Ad inistrator DATE Department of Planning/Building/Public Works r � 7 �9 � P dh�im She herd A .c�inistrator DATE Community Services C' / Y// '' // ,' ", 7. ,/,r.,... 7- .,i ,51 - Lee eeler,'Fire Chief `� DATE Renton Fire Department DNSMSIG.DOC CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Schober, Inc. Expansion DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1400 Monster Road MITIGATION MEASURES; 1. The applicant shall pay the applicable Fire Mitigation Fee at the rate of$0.52 per square foot of new construction. The Fire Mitigation Fee is estimated at $19,123.00 and is payable prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant shall pay the applicable Traffic Mitigation Fee at a rate of$75 per each new average daily trip attributable to the project. The Traffic Mitigation Fee is estimated at $10,618.50 and is payable prior to the issuance to building permits. The Site Plan for the Schober, Inc. Expansion, File No. LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF, is approved subject to the following conditions. CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to provide more detail addressing specific locations of landscaping including species types and sizes, specifically addressing the street frontages and the wildlife habitat area. The revised landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. The applicant/owner shall record a restrictive covenant to run with the property that prevents the sale of the parcels separately. This is to ensure that the required parking or landscaping for the buildings is not sold at a future date. The restrictive covenant is subject to the review and approval of the Development Services Division and shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. CITY OF RENTON DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE (MITIGATED) ADVISORY NOTES APPLICATION NO(S): LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NAME: Schober, Inc. Expansion DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1400 Monster Road Advisory Notes to Applicant: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the environmental determination. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for environmental determinations. Building 1. Building is over allowed area without area separation walls per current UBC--1997 edition. Transportation 2. The project will require street improvements on all sides adjacent to public rights-of-way. The improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveways, street paving and street lighting per current City Codes/Standards. Surface/Wastewater 3. The drainage plans and erosion/sedimentation control plans shall meet the requirements of the 1990 KCSWDM, as adopted by the City of Renton. 4. A surface water development charge of$0.129/square feet of new impervious surface constructed on the site is required. 5. The new building will be required to connect to the main sewer line via side sewer at a permit cost of$100/connection. 6. Manufacturing activities may require special facilities (grease interceptor, oil/water separator, etc.). 7. A wastewater(SDC) fee of$0.078/square feet of gross site area will be required. Water 8. New water main, fire hydrants and DDCV assembly must meet current Fire Code/Regulations per Renton Fire Department required fir flow is 4,000 GPM which will require a looped system around the building. 9. Water meters for domestic service and irrigation must meet current UBC Codes/Standards as per size and backflow protection needs. 10. A water(SDC) fee of$0.113 per square feet of gross site area will be required. Fire 11. The preliminary fire low is 4,000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 300 feet of the structure. 12. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 13. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemicals to be used or stored on site. Parks 14. All landscape improvements are to be maintained by the property owner. Adopted Trails Plan specifies a pedestrian/bike trail on SW 16th Street over to Monster Road. A minimum width of 5 feet is required at grade. • N.OTICE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SCHOBER,INC.EXPANSION PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-9e-122,SA-A,ECF The applicant Is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review fora 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation,recreation and transportation industries.The new addition will accommodate production equipment end raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent,along with new restrooms,an employee lunch room,and expanded office facilities.Location:1400 Monster Road. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of either the environmental determination[RCW 43.21.0075(3),WAC 197.11-680]and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 5,1998. If no appeals are filed by this date,both actions will become final.Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner,City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430- 6510. • cy P-1 CN • S' \ , . �t FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, LE SE SOON AC THE CIT OF425) RENTON,DEVELOPMENT SERVDO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. CERTIFICATION • I, savlotfr Y II►�� , hereby certify that copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on apt. i`b ATIB • • Signed: k\ Subcribed and sworn before me, a Norta ATTEST: rY Public,in and'for the State of Washington residing in - 0-,-1 , on the 5 i- day of COcA, /5 5 k) • • ' MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 • NO111110E ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION POSTED TO NOTIFY INTERESTED PERSONS OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION PROJECT NAME: SCHOBER,INC.EXPANSION PROJECT NUMBER: LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF The applicant is requesting Administrative Site Plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation,recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent,along with new restrooms,an employee lunch room,and expanded office facilities. Location: 1400 Monster Road. THE CITY OF RENTON ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC) HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 5, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date,both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required$75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430- 6510. e� P-1 • IM ' ,44,4 #00 S \ I 4r FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE CITY OF RENTON, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION AT(425)430-7200. DO NOT REMOVE THIS NOTICE WITHOUT PROPER AUTHORIZATION Please include the project NUMBER when calling for proper file identification. r AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Charlotte Ann Kassens first duly sworn on oath states that he/she is the Legal Clerk of the SOUTH COUNTY JOURNAL 600 S. Washington Avenue, Kent, Washington 98032 — NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION a daily newspaper published seven (7)times a week. Said newspaper is a legal ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON,WASHINGTON newspaper of general publication and is now and has been for more than six months The Environmental Review Committee prior to the date of publication, referred to, printed and published in the English language (ERC)has issued a Determination of Non- continually as a daily newspaper in Kent, King County, Washington. The South County Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Journal has been approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of the Municipal Code. State of Washington for King County. SCHOBER EXPANSION The notice in the exact form attached, was published in the South County LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF Environmental review for addition to Journal (and not in supplemental form)which was regularly distributed to the subscribers existing warehouse facility. Location: 1400 during the below stated period. The annexed notice, a Monster Rd. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC Schofer Expansion 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 5, 1998. If no appeals are as published on: 9/21/98 filed by this date,both actions will become ;final. Appeals must be filed in writing The full amount of the fee charged for said foregoing publication is the sum of$= .together with the required$75.00 applica- r9 9 9 PI 'tion fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Legal Number 5184 Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are �/ governed by City of Renton Municipal `// Code Section 4-8-11 B. Additional inforrna tion regarding the appeal process may be Legal Clerk, Sou County Journal obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office,(425)-430-6510. Published in the South County Journal /�l � / September2l,1998.5184 Subscribed and swom before me on this day of l J0 - , 19 <0_2 L—\‘:(- t , ----P JAU19 `' 4:::;;;•./e/1 Notary Public of the State of Washington Q:�, • . �? residing in Renton ' '`a"Y y= King County, Washington ---o— 's/,/,///?l11 I ILLS ,v0\`e NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE RENTON, WASHINGTON The Environmental Review Committee (ERC) has issued a Determination of Non-Significance - Mitigated for the following project under the authority of the Renton Municipal Code. SCHOBER EXPANSION LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF Environmental review for addition to existing warehouse facility. Location: 1400 Monster Rd. Appeals of either the environmental determination [RCW 43.21.0075(3), WAC 197-11-680] and/or the land use decision must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 PM October 5, 1998. If no appeals are filed by this date, both actions will become final. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required $75.00 application fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4- 8-11B. Additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)-430-6510. Publication Date: September 21, 1998 Account No. 51067 dnsmpub.dot City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: IDA COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 31, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 14, 1998 APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. (Alan Poe) PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Schober, Inc. Expansion WORK ORDER NO: 78419 LOCATION: 1400 Monster Road SITE AREA: 3.22 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): 11,777 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 38,223 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting administrative site plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 sq.ft. addition to an existing 11,777 sq.ft. warehouse/manufacturing facility. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. /f.C) A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shorelinenimals Use U—Transportation 10 Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet Estimate 6.08 police calls for service annually, based on the size of the building addition. This area of Renton is victimized by Commercial Burglary crimes , and thefts from construction sites. REcommend that all building materials and tools be secured when not in use, and the site will need to be well-lit with security lighting. After construction, the business will need security lighting in the parking lots and around the building, including lighting over exterior doors. REcommend an alarm system for the business , due to the high burglary rate. B. 'POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signnatureector r Au orized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public vv'orks ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Ple..5 COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 31, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 14, 1998 APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. (Alan Poe) PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Schober, Inc. Expansion WORK ORDER NO: 78419 LOCATION: 1400 Monster Road SITE AREA: 3.22 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): 11,777 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 38,223 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting administrative site plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 sq.ft. addition to an existing 11,777 sq.ft. warehouse/manufacturing facility. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet 4:7et Z B. POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS q/ sc �q ' /D D/a�r21172X 9te/rW2e?-- s r -Lcae c? tines 7 . /9/7 Gam) c/: ,Nhep- C. ODE-RELATED COMMENTSA �G�h O/d dp ( t/^`� We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additionaljplbrmation is needed to properly assess this proposal. ignature of Director or Autho ed Representative Dat 9 P DEVAPP.DOC Rev 10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT:gi(,OV1pyy,,L ev,�j,,,� �''COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 31, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF ""`�' DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 14, 1998 APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. (Alan Poe) PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Schober, Inc. Expansion WORK ORDER NO: 78419 LOCATION: 1400 Monster Road SITE AREA: 3.22 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): 11,777 sq.ft. BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 38,223 sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting administrative site plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 sq.ft. addition to an existing 11,777 sq.ft. warehouse/manufacturing facility. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare _Plants Recreation —Animals Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. 'POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS frUo egn>,riti-dty C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where addition eded to properly assess this proposal. 8//7/9g Signature of Dire r or Author' d Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Go -t- ` COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 31, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 14, 1998 CC> APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. (Alan Poe) PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira ,�Q-0 O,� 4. PROJECT TITLE: Schober, Inc. Expansion WORK ORDER NO: 78419 G` ��G'J -,<iA� LOCATION: 1400 Monster Road �'i,,c L, '�� SITE AREA: 3.22 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): 11,777 sq.ft. % BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 38,223 s* SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting administrative site plan approval and environmental review for a',775 sq.ft. addition to an existing 11,777 sq.ft.warehouse/manufacturing facility. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g.Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major information Impacts impacts Necessary Impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Housing Air Aesthetics Water LighVGlare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet 14,000 Feet B. `POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS to 1 Z---ID i ti I S O v K -- C. C- v w to RE4 C 1 1 I'-I OVT A- 12EA - S PA 12 TIa S c-ci/4L L.S. We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. - ../E---e-6--IL,. 2----\ 8/3 V a Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL &DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Reviewing Department: Transportation Comments Due: AUGUST 31, 1998 Application No.: LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF Date Circulated: August 14, 1998 Applicant: Poe Engineering, Inc. (Alan Poe) Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Title: Schober, Inc. Expansion Work Order No: 78419 Location: 1400 Monster Road Site Area: 3.22 Acres Building Area(gross): 11,777 sq. ft. Building Area(new expansion gross): 38,223 sq.ft. A. Environmental Impact(e.g. Non-Code) Comments No Comment. B. Policy-Related Comments No Comment. C. Code-Related Comments The project will require street improvements on all sides adjacent to public rights-of-way. The improvements include but are not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk driveways, street paving and street lighting per current City Codes/Standards. Traffic mitigation fee of$75/additional trips in/out of the site will be required(see attached). 8- Z5 " 98 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date schober2 3 ,0 • n J- tik >�+»»�»e:qy v»w►rre•-a.7...w%aq?lewso..»v�-.r ,.yaatx.;,q..cd.•.....,.,..,a,. d ` vL T RJ AN P Q RT.A TI x 1\10/i I7TGL° T I 0 F �3 M.Z?r �7<77,.M.ro . �w+.►....H is .1•MP> ,APT.R..w e .:.. ••NA•,. =mow o :_ •:-• Project Name 5c,kobcv E-x/oAHsioh Project Address 140 0 Mowacv Eo4J 5 ► , Contact Person A Iuh Poe. Poe Etilmeevii Address 400 (,t> GoW.oe ;f -44 310 } Kcpi7 R8032.. Phone Number 2 5 3 - 9 5'1- 5 I Z 1 . Permit Number L OA - 1$- 12.2 Project Description 36,775 s.-{. e 4' ttah to a4,1 .k,5 t?t4 11) 777 s.1• u1a✓ei+Du•Lt /vNawct4 Act jViw.1 Tact fy . Land Use Type: Method of Calculation: MuHu{actu✓►. (140 ❑ Residential �TE Trip Generation Manual Pile /(LI.. ❑ Retail 0 Traffic Study C"Non-retail 0 Other IZktc: 3.85 01411y t viyl (.t.4 • I0005 Calculation: -- N Ke�, avcv d iI t . S : P ( 3 $5) (34.775� - ILI s duly t105 At 175 (3-44 -tv1p - ( 3,5) ( ►41. 5 %) = 10) 63 . 60) Transportation Mitigation Fee: 10) (018, 60 Calculated by: W l Date: % 17//q t Account Number: )05. 5Qq. 3)80, 70. 00. Date of Payment • • . City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Reviewing Department: Surface/Wastewater Comments Due: AUGUST 31, 1998 Application No.: LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF Date Circulated: August 14, 1998 Applicant: Poe Engineering, Inc. (Alan Poe) Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Title: Schober, Inc. Expansion Work Order No: 78419 Location: 1400 Monster Road Site Area: 3.22 Acres Building Area(gross): 11,777 sq. ft. Building Area(new expansion gross): 38,223 sq.ft. A. Environmental Impact(e.g.Non-Code) Comments No Comment. B. Policy-Related Comments No Comment. C. Code-Related Comments Surface Water: The drainage plans & erosion/sedimentation control plans shall meet the requirements of the 1990 KCSWDM, as adopted by the City of Renton. Surface water (SDC) fees of$0.129/sq. ft. of new impervious surface constructed on the site. Waste Water: The new building will be required to connect to the main sewer line via (side sewer) at a permit cost of $100/connection. Manufacturing activities may require special facilities (grease interceptor, oil/water separator, etc.) depending on the type and control of the waste generated from the manufacturing process. Wastewater(SDC) fees of$0.078/sq. ft. of gross site area will be required. 4.01„/A417---- 8._z s_ 78 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date schober • • City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET Reviewing Department: Water Comments Due: AUGUST 31, 1998 Application No.: LUA-98-122, SA-A, ECF Date Circulated: August 14, 1998 Applicant: Poe Engineering, Inc. (Alan Poe) Project Manager: Lesley Nishihira Project Title: Schober, Inc. Expansion Work Order No: 78419 Location: 1400 Monster Road Site Area: 3.22 Acres Building Area(gross): 11,777 sq. ft. Building Area(new expansion gross): 38,223 sq.ft. A. Environmental Impact(e.g. Non-Code) Comments No Comment. B. Policy-Related Comments No Comment. C. Code-Related Comments New water main, fire hydrants and DDCV assembly must meet current Fire Code/Regulations per Renton Fire Dept. required fire flow is 4,000 G.P.M. which will require a looped system around the building. Water meters for domestic service and irrigation must meet current UPC Codes/Standards as per size and backflow protection needs. Water (SDC) fees of$0.113 per/sq. ft. of gross site area will be required. /gier—e,0-0-71Ar>f 8--Z5--73 Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date schoberl i City of Renton Department of Planning/Building/Public Works ENVIRONMENTAL & DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW SHEET REVIEWING DEPARTMENT: Z ye Pv L e-tnhuvn COMMENTS DUE: AUGUST 31, 1998 APPLICATION NO: LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF DATE CIRCULATED: AUGUST 14, 1998 APPLICANT: Poe Engineering, Inc. (Alan Poe) PROJECT MANAGER: Lesley Nishihira PROJECT TITLE: Schober, Inc. Expansion WORK ORDER NO: 78419 LOCATION: 1400 Monster Road SITE AREA: 3.22 acres BUILDING AREA(gross): 11,777 sq.ft. 7998 BUILDING AREA(new expansion gross): 38, ?,3,sq.ft. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting administrative site plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 sq.ft. addition to an existing 11,777 sq.ft. warehouse/manufacturing facility. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent, along with new restrooms, employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities. A. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT(e.g. Non-Code) COMMENTS Element of the Probable Probable More Element of the Probable Probable More Environment Minor Major Information Environment Minor Major Information Impacts Impacts Necessary impacts Impacts Necessary Earth Houses Air Aesthetics Water Light/Glare Plants Recreation Land/Shoreline Use Utilities Animals Transportation Environmental Health Public Services Energy/ Historic/Cultural Natural Resources Preservation Airport Environment 10,000 Feet I 14,000 Feet , l) /11 o Jj,.� a 5 /dare B. 'POLICY-RELATED COMMENTS /0/1 C. CODE-RELATED COMMENTS � -� `1 eL d� �/ f Ce; i/tikf We have reviewed this application with particular attention to those areas in which we have expertise and have identified areas of probable impact or areas where additional information is needed to properly assess this proposal. Signature of Director or Authorized Representative Date DEVAPP.DOC Rev.10/93 C.S O CITY OF RENTON ��NTo� FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU MEMORANDUM DATE: August 19, 1998 TO: Lesley Nisihira, Planner FROM: Jim Gray, Assistant Fire Marshal k SUBJECT: Schober Expansion Project, 1400 nster Rd. SW Fire Department Comments: 1. The preliminary fire flow is 4000 GPM, one hydrant is required within 150 feet of the structure and three additional hydrants are required within 300 feet of the structure. 2. A fire mitigation fee of$19,123.00 is required based on $.52 per square footage of the new structure.. 3. Separate plans and permit are required for the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems. 4. Provide a list of the flammable, combustible liquids and any hazardous chemical to be used or stored on site. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. CITY''OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject site PROJECT NAME: SCHOBER, TNC_ EXPANSION APPLICATION NO: LUA •98• 12.2, SW -1A ,EC. The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER King County Department of Natural 506 2nd AVE #708 M/S 7st 242304-9010-00 Resources Seattle Wa 98104 Burlington Northern 1700 E Golf RD #400 242304-9028-00 Santa Fe Schaumburg IL 60173 Union Pacific Corp PO Box 2500 242304-.9032-04 Broomfield CO 80020 / Huish Family Fun 33208 Paseo Cerveza #C 242304-9063-961 Centers San Juan Capistrano CA 92675 Puget Sound Energy PO Box 90868 242304-9086-09 Electric Bellevue WA 98009 Manufacturers Mineral 1215 Monster RD SW 242304-9106-05 CO Renton WA 98055 King County 506 2nd Ave #708 M/S 7ST 242304-9127-00 Dept of Natural Seattle WA 98104 Resources Burlington Northern 1700 E Golf RD #400 242304-9027-01 Santa Fe Schaumburg IL 60173 AUG 05 1998 (Attach additional sheets, if necessary) f;, e—i, 4 '"'a ? i ," '4YJ1P 2 ` 41 Z! 1 11P (Continued) NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER OWRR & NAVCO PO Box 2500 242304-9029-09 % Union Pacific RR Corp Broomfield CO 80020 Tukwila City of 6300 Southcenter Blvd 242304-9034-02 # 100 Tukwila' WA 98188 Manufacturers Mineral CO 1215 Monster RD 242304-9100-01 Renton WA 98005 cam..-�- -. Applicant Certification I, p.,t_A. F" Qe , hereby certify that the above list(s) of adjacent property (Print Name) owners and their addresses were obtained from: 0 City of Renton Technical Services Records 0 Title Company Records "Z King Countynt Assessors Records Signe,i / sr� Date 1 (Z.�' ("Vt. 1 NOTARY ATTESTED: S N scribed and sworn before me, a otaf y Public, in and for the State of Washin on, residing at L Zija� on the.-,Fi day of , 19 9 Signed (Notary Public) ****For City of Renton Use**** CERTIFICATION OF MAILING I at, ,yk„t. ,,,, C ';'hereby certify that notices of the proposed application were mailed to (City Employee) each listed property owner on 2'• 1'1' n Signed or.uut al. - i " Date :�' ' NOTARY ATTEST: Subscribed and sworn before me, a Notary Public, Ingrid for the State of Washington residing a'i- l - 1 on the g day of ,,'"2 y, 19_ Signed w i T listprop.doc REV 07/95 MARILYN KAMCHEFF 2 COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 CITY OF RENTON DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION LIST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS within 300 feet of the subject,site PROJECT NAME: SCHOBER INC. EXPANSION APPLICATION NO: The following is a list of property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. The Development Services Division will notify these individuals of the proposed development. NAME ADDRESS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER Manufacturers 1215 Monster RD SW 242304-9075-02 Mineral CO Renton Wa 98055 King County Dept 506 2nd Ave #708 M/S 7st 242304-9117-02 of Natural Resources Seattle WA 98104 • U,cy ,n Proposed Mitigator Measures: �A�� The following Mitigation Munsufes will likely bo hutosed on Ihf proposal pailful Those leLOMMO xtud Mltlgulien • '-:7r 4 Measures address projod Impacts nut cuvurod by oxislibg codes and mutilations as dint above. 11�����? •NI. 1.Fire Mitigation Fee-$0.52 per square foot of new construction. NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON- SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED Comments en the above application must be submitted In writing to Lesley NlshihIra,Project Manager,Development Services Division,1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,by 5:00 PM on August 31,1998. If you have questions about this proposal,or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail,contact Lesley Nishihira at(425)430-7270.Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will DATE: AUGUST 17,1998 be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA;(425)430-7270 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-98-121,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: SCHOBER,INC.,EXPANSION PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting administrative site plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility.The existing facility Is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation,recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Sctlober facility in Kent,along with new restroums.an employee punch room,and expanded office facilities. PROJECT LOCATION: 1400 Monster Road OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M):As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental Impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be Issued.Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period.There will be no comment period following the Issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated(ONS-M).A 14 day appeal period will follow the Issuance of the DNS-M. W� , PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: August 05,1998 O' P-1 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 17,1988 PermiWReview Requested: SOFA,Site Plan,Building Other Permits which may be required: N/A ' i �,. Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report,Drainage Report .j CrN'+ . � • Location where application may @ �ehtVI4 � :� be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 M 'Gta PUBLIC HEARING: The review will be conducted administratively.There is no public hearing ' :4 �„.., , required. /l CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: %�/- \,\1�I• �� C , Analytical process / =v I,I Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in I I their absence,comprehensive plan policies.RCW 38.700.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice o1 Application(NOA) i include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development,infra Irudure,and character of development it one has been made at the time of notice.At a minimum, I C QI Pl every NOA shall include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and ! development regulations. Land Use: The proposal is consistent with the Medium Industrial(IM)Zone,as well as the Employment Area-Valley Comprehensive Plan Map Designation. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal is subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Public Works Standard's,USG,and UFC.These adopted codes and standards will function to mitigate project impacts. I 1 GENMALOT.DOC GENNALOT.DOC ' • CERTIFICATION I, / krr f 11,v,/, r a , hereby certify that 3 copies of the above document were posted by me in 3 conspicuous places on or nearby the described property on frwiici- a5/1'f • Signed: ATTEST: Subcribed an. worn before me, a Nortary Public,in and fo the State of Washington residing in , on the oZV`? day of ,-e-J;,,i¢ /c 4� . • • MARILYN KAMCHEFF COMMISSION EXPIRES 6/29/99 `5Y �s + NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND PROPOSED DETERMINATION OF NON— SIGNIFICANCE—MITIGATED DATE: AUGUST 17,1998 LAND USE NUMBER: LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF APPLICATION NAME: SCHOBER,INC.,EXPANSION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting administrative site plan approval and environmental review for a 36,775 square foot addition to an existing 11,777 square foot warehouse/manufacturing facility. The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries. The new addition will accommodate production equipment and raw material inventory from the Schober facility in Kent,along with new restrooms,an employee lunch room,and expanded office facilities. PROJECT LOCATION: 1400 Monster Road OPTIONAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED(DNS-M): As the Lead Agency,the City of Renton has determined that significant environmental impacts are unlikely to result from the proposed project. Therefore,as permitted under the RCW 43.21C.110,the City of Renton is using the Optional DNS(M)process to give notice that a DNS-M is likely to be issued. Comment periods for the project and the proposed DNS-M are integrated into a single comment period. There will be no comment period following the issuance of the Threshold Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated(DNS-M). A 14 day appeal period will follow the issuance of the DNS-M. PERMIT APPLICATION DATE: August 05, 1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: August 17, 1998 Permits/Review Requested: SEPA,Site Plan,Building Other Permits which may be required: N/A J Requested Studies: Geotechnical Report,Drainage Report Location where application may be reviewed: Planning/Building/Public Works Division,Development Services Department, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055 PUBLIC HEARING: The review will be conducted administratively. There is no public hearing required. CONSISTENCY OVERVIEW: Analytical process Project consistency refers to whether a project is consistent with adopted and applicable development regulations,or in their absence,comprehensive plan policies. RCW 36.70B.110(2)(g)provides that the Notice of Application(NOA) include a statement of the preliminary determination of a project's consistency with the type of land use,level of development,infrastructure,and character of development if one has been made at the time of notice. At a minimum, every NOA shall include a determination of the project's consistency with the zoning,comprehensive plan and development regulations. Land Use: The proposal is consistent with the Medium Industrial(IM)Zone,as well as the Employment Area-Valley Comprehensive Plan Map Designation. Environmental Documents that Evaluate the Proposed Project: None known. Development Regulations Used For Project Mitigation: The proposal is subject to the City's SEPA Ordinance,Zoning Code,Public Works Standard's,UBC,and UFC. These adopted codes and standards will function to mitigate project impacts. GENMALOT.DOC Proposed Mitigation Measures: The following Mitigation Measures will likely be imposed on the proposed project. These recommended Mitigation Measures address project impacts not covered by existing codes and regulations as cited above. 1. Fire Mitigation Fee-$0.52 per square foot of new construction. Comments on the above application must be submitted in writing to Lesley Nishihira, Project Manager, Development Services Division, 1055 South Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055, by 5:00 PM on August 31, 1998. If you have questions about this proposal, or wish to be made a party of record and receive additional notification by mail, contact Lesley Nishihira at(425)430-7270. Anyone who submits written comments will automatically become a party of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. CONTACT PERSON: LESLEY NISHIHIRA;(425)430-7270 PLEASE INCLUDE THE PROJECT NUMBER WHEN CALLING FOR PROPER FILE IDENTIFICATION e~. ofi� P_1 / '` I a. .yi \.5,s . 14416 doolliktd.. •,.4.." S' \ I II i CO' iN 1 GENMALOT.DOC 4► CIT' DF RENTON ..IL Planning/Building/Public Works Department J e Tanner,Mayor Gregg Zimmerman P.E.,Administrator • August 14, 1998 Mr. Alan Poe Poe Engineering, Inc. 400 West Gowe Street, #310 Kent, WA 98032 SUBJECT: Schober, Inc. Expansion Project No. LUA-98-122,SA-A,ECF Dear Mr. Poe: The Development Planning Section of the City of Renton has determined that the subject application is complete according to submittal requirements and, therefore, is accepted for review. It is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Environmental Review Committee on September 15, 1998. Prior to that review, you will be notified if any additional information is required to continue processing your application. Please contact me, at (425) 430-7270, if you have any questions. Sincerely, fi 7-4-b Lesley Nishi ira Project Manager cc: Schober, Inc./Owners ACCPTLTR.DOC 200 Mill Avenue South - Renton, Washington 98055 ®This paper contains 50%recycled material,20%post consumer CITY OF RENTON DEVELO PM SERVICES DIVISION ON MASTER APPLICATION PROPERTY OWNER(S) PROJECT INFORMATION Note: If there is more than one legal owner, please attach an additional notarized Master Application for each owner. PROJECT OR DEVELOPMENT NAME: NAME: SC_Mc=>%'rZ..SL--J % )( . . . ��c.P A•�S 1aa`� PROPERTY/PROJECT ADDRESS(S)/LOCATION: ADDRESS: « !'C �S- — R-pia 4'ca=, STGV..r T1--c)ASS CITY: ZIP: KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S ACCOUNT NUMBER(S): — Koko TELEPHONE NUMBER: EXISTING LAND USE(S): . . ...................... APPLICANT (if other their. wner) �. .x_.,,� PROPOSED LAND USES: NAME: l�lA V Fp.�TV R.L+ r ' . !e,R-A.<CaE COMPANY(if applicable): EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION: _ '?Ke_A--DT ADDRESS: PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION (if applicable): 4k--cc_ ��, 4 ST ' k(7 N j A.. Wit:• , CITY: ZIP: EXISTING ZONING: TELEPHONE NUMBER: /1 ry�v & - ,o/�D PROPOSED ZONING (if applicable): + % 9,g CONTACT PERSON .�© SITE AREA (SQ. FT. OR ACREAGE): NAME: a...� V-7 FbE� C k 44-c) S F COMPANY (if applicable): PROJECT VALUE: C ADDRESS: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN THE AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA? t4rt7 1,—.2. C.-ae"X►›cL ST. ) 4 3`C., CITY: ZIP: IS THE SITE LOCATED IN ANY OTHER TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA? TELEPHONE NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTIuN OF PROPERTY (Attach separate_ _ ieet if necessary) (ANT"�r�e�u•c..�� r TYPE OF APPLICATION & FEES Check all application types that apply--City staff will determine fees. _ ANNEXATION S SUBDIVISION: _ COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT S _ REZONE S _ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT S SPECIAL PERMIT S _ SHORT PLAT S _TEMPORARY PERMIT S _TENTATIVE PLAT S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT S PRELIMINARY PLAT S SITE PLAN APPROVAL $ / _ FINAL PLAT S _ GRADE & FILL PERMIT S (NO. CU. YDS: } PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: S _ VARIANCE S (FROM SECTION: } _ PRELIMINARY _WAIVER S _ FINAL _WETLAND PERMIT S _ ROUTINE VEGETATION MOBILE HOME PARKS: S MANAGEMENT PERMIT S _ BINDING SITE PLAN S SHORELINE REVIEWS: SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT $ CONDITIONAL USE S VARIANCE S _ EXEMPTION $No Charge y ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW S � ( REVISION S AFFIDAVIT OF O .:...: I, (Print Name) A.P _) , declare that I am (please check one)_the owner of the property involved in this application,the authorized representative to act for the property owner (please attach proof of authorization), and that the foregoing statements and answers herein contained and the information herewith submitted are in all respects true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ATTEST: Subscribe and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, in and Az--> . fo he State of t2 1. residing at (Name of Owner/Representative) , on the,2/Jay of / 3 (Signature of Owner/Representative) (Signature of Notary Public) (This section to be completed by City Staff.) City File Number: I A AAD BSP CAP-S CAP-U CPA CU-A CU-H EC!: LLA MHP FPUD FP PP R RVMP SA-A SA-H SHPL-A SHPL-H SP SM SME TP V-A V-B V-H W TOTAL FEES: $_ TOTAL POSTAGE PROVIDED: $ MASTL HAP.DOC REVISED 8/97 poe 42•41A A . r.. ME IMIl ,n J== r) DECORATIVE LAMINATES FAX TRANSMITTAL July 21, 1998 1 of 1 Alan Poe Poe Engineering Inc. Tel: 253-859-5121 400 West Gowe Street, Suite 3'10 Fax: 253-859-5207 Kent, WA 98032 To Whom It May Concern: Mr, Alan Poe is authorized to act as a representaive of Schober, inc. for the SEPA and site plan approval application. Please contact the undersigned, if futher information is rec aired, -rBest Rega�••, Dennis Schober President Schober, Inc. • 1400 Monster Rood S.W. • Ren on,WA 98055 U.S A. Tel: (425) 255-4000 • Fox; (425) 21 7-1872 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6 IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6 WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 8, SAID POINT BEING 700 FEET, MORE OR LESS, WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID ROAD LINE TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY'S SPUR RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6; THENCE WEST TO BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY FOR 72ND AVENUE SOUTH (STEEL HILL ROAD) BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 720107 302 AND AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDER OF ESTABLISHMENT RECORDED IN KING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, VOLUME 31, ON PAGE 392; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 8903290812. PARCEL B: A TRACT OF LAND IN GOVERNMENT LOT 8 IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A STONE MONUMENT ON THE CENTERLINE OF PERMANENT HIGHWAY NO. 3D, SAID STONE MONUMENT BEING AT A POINT OF CURVE DESIGNATED AS STATION 138-16.98 IN SURVEY NO. 1143-G; AND THENCE ALONG THE PRODUCTION OF THE TANGENT BEARING SOUTHEASTERLY FROM THIS POINT NORTH 8'52'10" WEST 284.25 FEET; THENCE NORTH 81'07'50" EAST 1178.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 33'06'50" WEST 109.19 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY; THENCE NORTH 80'40'20" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 1.3 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE MAIN LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; AND THENCE FROM THE SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING NORTH 80'40'20" EAST ALONG SAID FIRST MENTIONED RIGHT-OF-WAY 157 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY USED FOR A WYE; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAID MENTIONED RIGHT-OF-WAY 356 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST AND WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID CENTERLINE 390 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE MAIN LINE OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SAID LAST MENTIONED RIGHT-OF-WAY 466 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING ALL THAT TRACT OF LAND LYING NORTH OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE PUGET SOUND ELECTRIC RAILWAY SOUTH OF THE EAST AND WEST CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 24 AND BETWEEN THE MAIN LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF NORTHERN PACIFIC AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID RAILWAY USED FOR A WYE; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF DEEDED TO KING COUNTY FOR BLACK RIVER JUNCTION-RENTON ROAD, UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2919484; AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID PREMISES LYING WESTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF SOUTHWEST 16TH STREET AS CONVEYED TO KING COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 7201070302 AND AS ESTABLISHED BY ORDER OF ESTABLISHMENT RECORDED IN KING COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S RECORDS, VOLUME 31, ON PAGE 392; EXCEPT THAT PORTION THEREOF CONDEMNED IN KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE NUMBER 594806 FOR PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 8, SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, NORTH 87'26'22" WEST 2693.05 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND LOT 5, SOUTH 00'26'19" WEST 2299.77 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'33'41' EAST 1909.89 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY MARGIN OF MONSTER ROAD PER THE CITY OF RENTON'S ALIGNMENT OF AUGUST 3, 1988, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE WEST, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 63'48'41' WEST 367.11 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 55.20 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 08'36'55" TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WESTERLY METRO (FORMERLY BURLINGTON NORTHERN) BOUNDARY AS SURVEYED AND SHOWN IN BOOK 40 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 180, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 57'10'13" WEST 1134.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID METRO BOUNDARY AND ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 250.14 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12'38'19" TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF THE REALIGNED PORTION OF MONSTER ROAD AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN SOUTH 41'55'32" EAST 68.65 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID MARGIN SOUTH 06'22'10" EAST 321.59 FEET ALONG AN EXISTING STEEL POST AND WOVEN WIRE FENCE LINE AND ITS NORTHERLY EXTENSION; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID FENCE LINE SOUTH 04'18'03" EAST 14.69 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 70.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF WASHINGTON STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1-L; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE SOUTH 66'53'08" WEST 14.10 FEET TO SAID WESTERLY METRO BOUNDARY AT A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 89'58'23" WEST 1134.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 399.09 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20'09'51" TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF S .W. 16TH STREET AND MONSTER ROAD S .W. VACATED BY THE CITY OF RENTON BY ORDINANCE NO . 4721 AS RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 9805201074 TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY (METRO SITE) : THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 8, OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, HAVING BEEN SEGREGATED BY THE REALIGNMENT OF MONSTER ROAD LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE REALIGNED ROADWAY SHOWN BY RECORD OF SURVEY IN BOOK 71 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 11, FILED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9002279011, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: I . COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24; THENCE ALONG .THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER' OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND THE NORTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, N 8726'22"W 2693.05 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT1 AND GOVERNMENT LOT 5, S 00'26'19"W 2299.77 FEET; THENCE S 89'33'41"E 1909.89 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY MARGIN OF MONSTER ROAD PER THE CITY OF RENTON'S ALIGNMENT OF AUGUST 3, 1988, BEING A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS S 63'48'40" W 367. 11 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 182.73 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'31'04" TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID REALIGNMENT OF MONSTER ROAD; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN S 69'31'09"E 11.12 FEET, AND S 41'55'32"E 194.64 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID MARGIN S 41'55.32"E 270.82 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY MARGIN OF HIGHWAY 1-L AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 40 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 180, SAID POINT OF INTERSECTION BEING A POINT ON A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS S 68'18'28"E 905.37 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHWESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY MARGIN AND ALONG SAID CURVE AN ARC DISTANCE OF 88.21 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05'34'57" TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 70.00 FEET NORTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID HIGHWAY; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE S 66'53'08"W 125.69 FEET; THENCE N 04'18'03"W 14.69 FEET; THENCE N 06'22'10"W 321.59 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO THE EXPRESS RESERVATION BY KING COUNTY (AS GRANTOR HEREIN) OF A PERMANENT EASEMENT TO INVADE OR OTHERWISE INTERFERE WITH ANY AND ALL PORTIONS OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE FOR SUCH ODORS, FUMES, DUST, VIBRATION, NOISE OR OTHER DISTURBANCE AS MAY RESULT FROM, OR BE RELATED TO, KING COUNTY'S OPERATION, USE, CONSTRUCTION, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE OR MODIFICATION TO THE EAST DIVISION WATER RECLAMATION PLANT LOCATED AT 1200 MONSTER ROAD S.W, RENTON, WASHINGTON. THE FOREGOING EASEMENT SHALL BE PERPETUAL, SHALL RUN WITH THE LAND AND SHALL BE AND CONTINUE FOR THE BENEFIT OF KING COUNTY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION THAT AT NO TIME WILL ANY RETAIL SALES ACTIVITY BE CONDUCTED ON THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE. THIS RESTRICTION RUNS WITH THE LAND AND SHALL BE BINDING UPOI'I THE GRANTEE, ITS SUCCESSORS, HEIRS AND ASSIGNS IN PERPETUITY. POE Engineering, Inc. is $` CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING/CONSULTING iqg g 400 WEST GOWE STREET,SUITE 310 � iiiii KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 (206)859-5121 • FAX(206)859-5207 PROJECT NARRATIVE The Schober, Inc . Expansion is proposed at 1400 Monster Road in Renton on a partially developed 3 . 22 acre site . This property is bounded by public roads on all sides (S .W. Jackson Street, Longacres Parkway, elevated Grady Way, S .E. 16th Street and Monster Road) . Previous applications for this project include a variance application for landscape requirements along elevated Grady Way (reduced to 5 feet) , vacation of 15 feet of the S .W. 16th Street R.O.W. , and application for a waiver from frontage improvements . Approximately 0 . 83 acres of the site is currently developed with the existing Schober, Inc . building (10, 329 sf + 1, 448 sf second floor) and has access off of Monster Road & S .W. 16th Street . The current proposal involves a 36, 775 sf addition (31, 675 s . f . footprint + 5, 100 s . f . second floor) to the South and East of the existing building. Also proposed are paved parking & maneuvering areas, landscaping, and a stormwater detention facility on the surrounding undeveloped portions of the property. Access is proposed to S .W. Jackson Street as well as maintaining the existing access to Monster Road and S .W. 16th Street . The existing facility is used to manufacture decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation and transportation industries . These laminates are made from plastic films and sheets which are screen printed and laminated together. The laminates are primarily used as decorative wall coverings . In the new facility, Schober Inc . plans to relocate production equipment and raw material inventory from their Kent facility, along with new restrooms, an employee lunch room, and expanded office facilities . Storage proposed is primarily fire retardant plastic materials . Please refer to the Site Plan provided for other project specific data. Lo C C,-v ',v(..;Flr ci. 11011 GI I ( 1..'' Fa;..1 AO 05 1999 RECr VED POE Engineering, Inc. 10 CIVIL&STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING/CONSULTING 400 WEST GOWE STREET,SUITE 310 KENT,WASHINGTON 98032 I (206)859-5121 • FAX(206)859-5207 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION DESCRIPTION Proposed Construction dates : Start - As soon as permits are issued, Winter 1998 or spring 1999 . Completion - Approximately (4) months from starting date . Hours of Operation: 7 : 00 AM to 6 : 00 PM Proposed Hauling / Transportation Route: Not known at this time . Source of fill will be from local pits with haul route pre-approved by the City of Renton. Other construction materials will probably be delivered via Grady Way. Measures to be Implemented to Minimize Dust, Traffic and Transportation Impacts, Mud, Noise, and other Noxious Characteristics : As typically required by the City of Renton for commercial construction activities of this nature (gravel construction entrance, erosion control measures, water site during construction, etc . ) CI T y Cf=F,- . .'' AUG 05 1998 f !' 1�D • DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION WAIVER OF SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LAND USE APPLICATIONS • LAND USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL WAIVED MODIFIED COMMENTS REQUIREMENTS: BY:. BY Calculations, Survey, Drainage Control Plan 2 Drainage Report 2 Elevations,Architectural s AND a Elevations, Grading 2 Existing Covenants (Recorded Copy)4 Existing Easements (Recorded Copy) 4 Flood Plain Map, if applicable 4 Floor Plans 3AND4 Geotechnical Report 2ANOs Grading Plan, Conceptual 2 Grading P:.lan, Detailed z King County Assessor's Map Indicating Site 4 Landscaping Plan, Conceptual., Legal Description 4 List of Surrounding Property Owners 4 Mailing Labels for Property Owners 4 Map of Existing Site Conditions 4 Master Application Form 4 Monument Cards (one per monument) 1 Parking, Lot Coverage & Landscaping Analysis 4 Plan Reductions (PMTs) 4 Postage 4 Public Works Approval`Letter 2 Title Report or Plat Certificate 4 Topography Map (5' contours)s Traffic Study 247 Tree CuttingNegetation Clearing Plan 4 Utilities Plan, Generalized 2 Wetlands Delineation Map 4 Wetlands Planting Plan 4 Wetlands Study 4 This requirement may be waived by: 1. Property Services Section PROJECT NAME: 0, 1Z(y66e-,i S;7_,rt.;-7j41,1,—_ 2. Public Works Plan Review Section y l, / pd 3. Building Section DATE: 4. Development Planning Section h:\division.s\develop.ser\dev.Dlan.ina\waiver.xls Environmental Checklist APPLICATION NO. : APPLICATION FEE: DATE FILED: T.R. RECEIPT: TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Schober Incorporated Expansion AUG 0 5 1998 2 . Name of applicant: kr^ice/ Schober, Inc . 3 . Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Agent (if applicable) : Schober, Inc. Poe Engineering, Inc . Attn: Mr. Dennis Schober Attn: Mr. Alan F. Poe 1400 Monster Road 400 W. Gowe St, Suite 310 Renton, Wa 98055 Kent, WA 98032 (425) 255-4000 (253) 859-5121 4 . Date checklist prepared: July 1998 5 . Agency requesting checklist: City of Renton, Washington. 6 . Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable) : Construction is anticipated to start Spring of 1999 with completion desired in Summer of 1999 . 7 . Do you have any plan for future additions, expansion, or 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 . None specifically known. 9 . Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None are known. 10 . List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Building, grading & utility Permits, SEPA DNS Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal . You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. A 31, 675 sf addition is proposed to an existing 10 , 329 sf facility located on a partially developed 3 . 01 acre site . Parking, landscaping and maneuvering areas will be reconstructed. Schober, Inc . manufacturers decorative laminates for the aviation, recreation & transportation industries from plastic sheets which are screen printed and laminated together. 12 . Location of the proposal . Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site (s) . Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The site is located at 1400 Monster Road in Section 24 , T23N, R5E, W.M. The property is bounded by Long Acres Parkway, S .W. Jackson Street, Monster Road, and elevated S .W. Grady Way. 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) ? General site slopes are less than 50 . C. What general type of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck) ? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Silty fine sand with gravel (SM) . D. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None are known in the immediate area, piled foundation structures are known to exist in the vicinity. A soils report is proposed to investigate . E. Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill . Approximately 3 feet of structural fill (5 , 000 cy) will be placed over the undeveloped portions of the site as necessary to prepare for building slab and paving. Source will be local pits . F. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction or use? If so, generally describe. A chance for erosion exists any time a site is cleared. Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT G. About what percent of site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings) ? Approximately 85% . H. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Erosion control measures as/if required by the City of Renton will be installed prior to commencing construction activities . 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. During construction dust and exhaust emissions associated with the construction equipment is expected. Vehicle emissions after construction. B. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Metro sewer facility to East . No affect on this proposal is anticipated. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None proposed. 3 . Water: A. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands) : If yes, describe type and provide names . If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Green River to the West . 2) Will the project require any work over, in or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans . No . 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material . None . 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities, if known. No . 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. Not according to Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps . 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 . Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose and approximate quantities, if known. No . 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing any toxic 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) is (are) expected to serve. No waste materials are anticipated to be discharged into the ground as a result of this project . 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. Currently storm water runoff sheet flows off of the developed areas and disperses into the surrounding undeveloped property. The proposed storm system will collect and convey surface water to a detention pond facility and be discharged thru a bioswale to the public storm system. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No unusual waste material is anticipated. D. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground and runoff water impacts, if any: Project storm system will be designed to the adopted City of Renton Standards . 4 . Plants : A. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: xx deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other xx shrubs xx grasses pasture crop or grain wet soil plants : cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants : water lily, eel grass, milfoil, other xx other types of vegetation (landscaping) B. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The undeveloped portions of the site will be cleared prior to construction. C. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None are known. • Environmental Checklist (continued) TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT D. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will be per adopted City of Renton Standards . 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: starling, crow 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 are known. C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not to my knowledge . D. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None proposed. 6 . Energy and Natural Resources : A. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project' s energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity for lighting and general use, and natural gas for heating . B. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. Not to my knowledge 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: Construction will be per the Washington State 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 unusual hazards are anticipated. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required: No special services anticipated. Normal services (i . e . , fire, security and police) are already available to the site and surrounding area . Environmental Checklist (continued) - TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed. B. Noise: 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other) ? The site is bounded by public roads and railroad. No affect on this proposal is anticipated. 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other) ? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Operation noise will be consistent with the zone & type of use proposed. Temporary noise will result from the construction of the proposed building during 7 am to 5 pm. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None proposed. 8 . Land and Shoreline Use: A. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is partially developed, Metro Sewer to East, railroad and river to West, public roads to North & South. B. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe: Not in recent past . C. Describe any structures on the site: The existing 10, 329 sf manufacturing facility. D. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. E. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning of the site is IM. F. What is the current comprehensive plan description of the site? Employment Area - Valley. G. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Not known. H. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Not to my knowledge . I. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 40 people are anticipated. Lnvironmental Checklist (continued) • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT J. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None . K. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable . L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The use is existing and compatible with the zoning ordinance . 9 . Housing: A. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle or low-income housing. Not applicable . B. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle or low-income housing. Not applicable . C. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None proposed. 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 buildings are anticipated to be 30 feet (-) in height with painted tilt-up concrete walls and built-up roofing. B. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No alteration of views are anticipated. C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None proposed other than professional design. 11. Light and Glare: A. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Security lighting at night placed on the perimeter of the buildings . B. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Not to my knowledge. C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None are known that will affect the proposal . Lnvironmental Checklist (continued) . TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT D. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Security lighting will be directed on-site. 12 . Recreation: A. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Fort Dent Park, Foster Golf Course, 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, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None proposed. 13 . Historical and Cultural Preservation: A. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe: None known. B. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None are known in the vicinity of the site . C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None proposed. 14 . Transportation: A. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Access to the site will be via S .W. Grady Way to Monster Road. B. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Bus stops are believed to exist along S .W. Jackson Street . C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Parking will be reworked to result in 64 spaces . D. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private) . Improvements are anticipated along S .W. Jackson Street . Anvironmental Checklist (continued) - TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT E. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail or air transportation? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private) : Rail exists to West, but is not proposed to be used. F. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volummes would occur. Trip generation data is currently not available . G. Proposed measure to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: No impacts anticipated other than frontage improvements required. 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 significant increase is anticipated. B. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None proposed other than paying taxes and designing the project according to City of Renton Ordinance . 16 . Utilities : A. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. B. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electrical - Puget Sound Energy Natural gas - Washington Natural Gas Water - City of Renton Refuse - Local Disposal Company Sanitary Sewer - Metro / City of Renton Telephone - US West 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 nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this checklist should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of disclosure on my part. PROPONENT: .40001k. (Ac.�N-r) NAME PRINTED: DATE: `'l `t45 **************************************************************** City of Renton WA Receipt **************************************************************** Receipt Number: R9804776 Amount : 1, 504 . 16 08/05/98 17 : 03 Payment Method: CHECK Notation: #213784 SCHOBER Init : LN Project # : LUA98-122 Type : LUA Land Use Actions Parcel No: 242304-9037 Site Address : 1400 MONSTER RD SW Total Fees : 1, 504 . 16 This Payment 1, 504 . 16 Total ALL Pmts : 1, 504 . 16 Balance: . 00 **************************************************************** Account Code Description Amount 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0007 Environmental Review 500 . 00 000 . 345 . 81 . 00 . 0017 Site Plan Approval 1, 000 . 00 000 . 05 . 519 . 90 . 42 . 1 Postage 4 . 16 a►E3- tZZ 51A -A ISCP r , A i-- STORM 'DRAINAGE' LEVEL 1 TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT For t Schober , Inc . Expansion 400 Monster Road Renton, Washington 1 Date : JULY 29 , 1998 iiYO .". gljG1. /I sA F. p 4 Wks, , Prepared for: /I/ + . Schober, Inc . "� � 4 o 4X` t'' - /� it 14 .3:4.`.,, .,r;f,.. > ,, '4 Prepared by: ROBERT E . HANKINS 'I' ' w. RE 3 •8 • 2t t I ( 3� (1.g POE Engineering, Inc . CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING/CONSULTING 400 West Gowe Street, Suite 310 Kent, Washington 98032 (253) 859-5121 JOB NO. 96-058 TABLE OF CONTENTS I . INTRODUCTION II . OFFSITE ANALYSIS A. UPSTREAM B. DOWNSTREAM III . ONSITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS A. EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY IV. RESOURCE REVIEW CONCLUSION EXHIBITS A. VICINITY MAP B. DRAINAGE BASIN MAP C. DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE MAP D . ASSESSOR' S MAP E . SOILS MAP F . SOILS LEGEND G. SOILS HYDROLOGIC GROUP H. SENSITIVE AREA FOLIO MAPS a. WETLANDS b. STREAMS AND 100YR FLOODPLAIN C . EROSION HAZARD AREAS d. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS e . SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS f . COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS I . FEMA FLOOD PLAIN MAP SPECIAL REPORTS 1 . GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PREPARED BY: EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC . APRIL 10, 1997 I . INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION: THE FOLLOWING LEVEL ONE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS IS FOR THE SCHOBER, INC . EXPANSION PROJECT LOCATED AT 1400 MONSTER ROAD RENTON, WASHINGTON. THE PROJECT IS ALSO LOCATED IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 23N. , RANGE 4E. , KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. THE KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER IS 242304-9037 . THE CENTRAL 0 . 83 ACRES OF THE 3 .22 AC SITE IS OCCUPIED BY THE EXISTING SCHOBER MANUFACTURING FACILITY. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT A 31, 675 SF BUILDING EXPANSION LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. AS PART OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THE OWNER PROPOSES TO RECONSTRUCT DRIVEWAYS, INSTALL NEW ASPHALT PAVED SURFACES, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS AND NEW LANDSCAPING AREAS . A STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION POND WITH BIOFILTRATION SWALE DESIGNED TO MEET CITY OF RENTON STORM WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY STANDARDS IS PROPOSED. II . OFFSITE ANALYSIS : a. UP-STREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC ROADS : S .W. JACKSON STREET TO THE EAST, MONSTER ROAD S .W. TO THE NORTHWEST, S .W. 16TH STREET TO THE SOUTHWEST, ELEVATED S .W. GRADY WAY TO THE SOUTH, AND LONGACRES PARKWAY TO THE SOUTHEAST. BASED ON THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND PRELIMINARY FIELD INVESTIGATION, DRAINAGE FROM THE ROADWAYS STAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. NO VISIBLE SIGNS OF RUNOFF INTO THE SITE FROM OFFSITE AREAS WERE OBSERVED IN THE FIELD DURING SITE VISITS CONDUCTED. PLEASE SEE SITE TOPOGRAPHY ON EXHIBIT "E" . b. DOWN-STREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS THE PROPOSED ONSITE STORM WATER WILL BE TIGHTLINED TO THE NEW DETENTION FACILITY WERE IT WILL BE RELEASED TO THE BIOFILTRATION SWALE . THE OUTLET OF THE BIOFILTRATION SWALE WILL BE TIGHTLINED TO THE EXISTING STORM SYSTEM AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF S .W. JACKSON STREET AND LONGACRES PARKWAY. DRAINAGE CONTINUES EASTERLY UNDER S .W. JACKSON STREET VIA AN EXISTING 18" RCP AND DAYLIGHTS TO A STORM WATER TREATMENT/STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF LONGACRES PARKWAY. WE BELIEVED THIS POND WAS INSTALLED TO PROVIDE DETENTION FOR THE MONSTER ROAD (RENAMED S .W. JACKSON STREET) IMPROVEMENTS . DRAINAGE CONTINUES APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET WITHIN THIS SYSTEM AND EXITS VIA STORMWATER CONTROL STRUCTURE TOWARDS THE NORTHEAST. DRAINAGE CONTINUES IN A TIGHTLINED CONVEYANCE SYSTEM APPROXIMATELY 1, 100 FEET AND DISCHARGES TO THE CITY OF RENTON' S P-1 CHANNEL (SEE EXHIBIT C) . THE CONDITION OF THE DOWNSTREAM CONVEYANCE SYSTEM AFTER THE POND IS UNKNOWN. HOWEVER, THE POND AND THE 18 CONVEYANCE PIPE UPSTREAM OF THE POND IS IN GOOD CONDITION. III . ON-SITE DRAINAGE ANALYSIS : EXISTING SITE HYDROLOGY: THE PROJECT SITE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE PAST LEAVING THE GROUND SLOPING APPROXIMATELY 1 . 0 PERCENT FROM THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY TOWARDS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AT ALL SIDES . THE SOIL TYPE IS Ur (URBAN) PER THE SCS SOIL MAP. THE TYPE- D SOIL DOES NOT TYPICALLY INFILTRATE INTO THE SURROUNDING SOILS BUT RATHER IS TRAPPED ON THE SURFACE IN SMALL DEPRESSION WERE IT EITHER SHEET FLOWS OR EVAPORATES . THE EXISTING SITE IS OCCUPIED WITH A 10, 329 SF BUILDING, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE PAVEMENT, AND LANDSCAPED AREAS . THE UNDEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE SITE IS MOSTLY GRAVEL AND DIRT WITH LITTLE OR NO VEGETATION. THE DOWNSPOUTS DISCHARGE ROOF RUNOFF ONTO THE EXISTING PAVING WHICH IS SLOPED DOWN AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. THE RUNOFF SHEET FLOWS TO THE UNDEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE SITE TOWARDS THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS AT THE PROPERTY LINES . NO OTHER STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM WAS CONSTRUCTED WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE NORTHERLY PORTION OF THE SITE TRAVELS IN A SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY DIRECTION SHEET FLOWING TO THE EXISTING SMALL DITCH SECTION ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF S .W. JACKSON STREET. DRAINAGE CONTINUES SOUTHEASTERLY AND ENTERS THE EXISTING TIGHTLINED CONVEYANCE SYSTEM AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE LONGACRES PARKWAY AND S .W. JACKSON STREET INTERSECTION. 2 THE MAJORITY OF THE AREA SOUTH OF THE EXISTING BUILDING CURRENTLY DRAINS VIA SHEET FLOW TOWARDS THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE . DRAINAGE CONTINUES OFFSITE IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE EASTERLY EDGE OF S .W. 16TH STREET. 3 IV. RESOURCE REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE RESOURCES REVIEWED FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS LEVEL 1 DRAINAGE STUDY. a. BASIN RECOGNIZANCE SUMMARY REPORTS: ENCLOSED WITHIN THIS REPORT IS THE DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE MAP (EXHIBIT "Cu ) WHICH DEPICTS THE LENGTH AND FLOW DIRECTION OF THE STORM DRAINAGE AFTER LEAVING THE PROPOSED SITE . PLEASE REFERENCE THE 24"X36" TOPOGRAPHY MAP WHICH SHOWS THIS SITE IS NOT SUBJECT TO UPSTREAM DRAINAGE FLOWS . b . CRITICAL DRAINAGE AREA MAPS : THIS SITE DOES NOT LIE WITHIN A CRITICAL DRAINAGE AREA INDICATED BY THE KING COUNTY DRAINAGE MANUAL. c . FLOODPLAIN / FLOODWAY (FEMA MAPS) : THIS PROJECT DOES NOT LIE WITHIN ANY FLOODPLAIN AS DETERMINED BY THE FEMA MAP. PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "I" IN THIS REPORT. d. OTHER OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORTS: NO OTHER OFF-SITE ANALYSIS REPORTS WERE CONDUCTED FOR THIS PROJECT. e . SENSITIVE AREA FOLIO: EACH SENSITIVE AREA FOLIA ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED SITE WAS REVIEWED. PLEASE REFERENCE EXHIBIT "H" IN THIS REPORT. NO PORTIONS OF THE SITE HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED TO BE WITHIN THE FOLLOWING SENSITIVE AREAS : WETLANDS, STREAMS AND 100YR FLOODPLAIN, EROSION HAZARD, LANDSLIDE HAZARD, SEISMIC HAZARD, AND COAL MINE HAZARD. THIS SITE SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL SETBACKS AND OR BUFFERS WITH REGARDS TO THE ABOVE AREAS . f . SWM DIVISION DRAINAGE INVESTIGATION SECTION PROBLEMS MAPS : THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE KING COUNTY SWM RECORDS SHOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO COMPLAINTS FILED THAT ARE 1/4 MILE DOWNSTREAM FROM THE SUBJECT SITE PROPERTY. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOILS SURVEY ATTACHED WITHIN THIS REPORT IS A COPY OF THE SOILS MAP FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. PLEASE SEE EXHIBIT "E" IN THIS REPORT. WETLAND INVENTORY MAPS THERE ARE NO IDENTIFIED WETLANDS LOCATED ONSITE . CONCLUSION (STORM DRAINAGE ONLY) THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE ONSITE WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY CONTROL FACILITIES WILL NOT PRODUCE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO THE EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERNS OR CREATE ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE DOWNSTREAM CONVEYANCE SYSTEM ONCE THE SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED. A TESC PLAN WILL BE CREATED AT THE FINAL DESIGN STAGE TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT TO THE DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE FACILITIES . A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARE FOR THIS SITE AND REFERENCED IN THE "SPECIAL REPORT" SECTION OF THE REPORT. 53) rn Tyc� z z ��IN4IliG'� TO\ rn SITE "�r PoywP� ow \hh, rJ° S�vN 411 g0 sivirde 405 Q � � SOUTHCENTER o 4 : 5 VICINITY MAP 1"=2400(±) VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT ' A ' -_,.„ \<:_y_ ,,,...- - ,,,. - '4,-- , .1 , ' -- A' •- -Li _ .... . -.' ir• .\'• .‘\\''s: .i ... in : • 1,,s .. ._\ V4--;‘,.....". • ' y• ,. ' ., _ ._,_ INI•• ' liklika. • 1 � ` (L,y never STEINIOLN5ali �i i` = iT .. IS tuh De** ' t' i. • . ar ._ _ NI :1.,ys, • . I(.".. , . X. . '' , . k I 14 El Ili \ _, _! _ ., . , ,...., ! s 1 s •I I:.4., A .,:ill 141q1 . , - 1 01:: % . ' ° it -_ 11._ • _!___''''..4„r ' .. r 7 - ‘ ., 4....____:___, ,,;,. , a IJ.ti • r o,. .1 1Y ..0 , I a_.. ,s • ..,‘,.:— • : I • liqt,A. 1- 1 -.- - s .. \ L. i s it 1 • - 16645, *. ,,p,A-s. . ... c.t. r f, I . ., .1 I •, A t- " >, 1 ,..1, 4. 14,..... id a)iig ...I _A . il . ... Ir , ..); , r14173;'+i••. Soos RcNc - . Fioure E 7 • 4:_-.1,- - ,- 4 -, 4 • • • l • i: .' •• , '•.' 1 j r WHIMIIII• - 4 ' " r__. 1 ..: DRAINAGE BASINS i = , ' `I 10 il f ./E i! —� _ —� '�.• • ,._ ,....•.•'•., • King County .411 :1 Ic.-- e,,,71.---(-- :385 r t • Gr. I 1. 1' 4 6 r, I \ \Co�rk+ �«� ' Major ,. _ •. 1„;. -- mit •1. . j /X j � ���: �° jo Basin Boundary .14 AKA,IIc.i. ' ,�'� ;.` 77------'-' . k-� ,� 1, Y �.� i Sub-Basin Boundary :. :'‘ 1.....facsjilli i ',1 II f � . A- ,, J` - t-1 q Source: King County Sensitive Areas t"�! i y .._.,,_.• Map Folio Wetland ar 1 • ../, . .. .. +cL�. �+ s Supplement .,/ :, , .. ` � t ��• .: ;, : , -: DRAINAGE BASIN MAP \• i• •, .,,.. ,.1.,, E.4X H I B I T B ,` l .. • r . . ›•1,....3 E ,s 6 . . . 20.G1-11 241•13-W ..Tial.C.3l't MCA-1 / : I I Vielt44." n Ire°.t oent C:"s‘ , 1 120.G3-6 - • ne • 20.64-11 • 20.04-13 20.V:113 I, Q. ! I ! I2U 2463-5 .. "24 - •i20.144-1 ;! f • St .....--- ... ...,........... , .-. v'...--20.G4-2 20.ii4-2, ,................,''''"20.H1-3 .................., . .^ . t V .... .ti CV Te..•',.•% ti?rt...4:.:4- -"'- 1 1: . •-. •-2:74-7 .....-mwriii.4- -"ii:".:;:21.111-174' . ,....... .., ' 1)) „ \ .......•--. ,„.... ' . . --' . 20)44 .,...„......,› .. . % %. I. co ,2:1.114-2 2114-1 . .... .....' ›. -,............ - ' .... .. -"..." i .. ..*-' • ' %(., 'i N. E lilk, ..,.." • iolpt C e.$ _...• - . 4' K I I CC-".. .' -:' . . •••. ... „ .. .•... c i . • - - - . ....,..•• .......„- ......,--- . S G .",-.v.",--c•':;'*-1.ii::;:s ' • ::-...\ tr. ilk% ' • : I i ..,....„- • zt - ,- •. ... --•.•. .• • - ...,...--- :; cg : :.... •••• 2..5_4 . . . \: (5; I ,q. H A ' ' • ' ... . ,, ..., .:...,;..'"." ......,....,. 21.25-1 21.15_2 • :. V /4:I. 4 7/ ..... ' ,..,..e' ,..... ?nr,-. „..„................. . . ...., ...---- ,............. .... i ----•'‘, 1 } " . ..... . „.... ----."- • . . ..• • i t • •• .. s IP . ......—S.V.ALth. St ,,...,.: ..., - . ..... . . I. . SITE ...# . .' ................,''''.' . ,..... 1...........................,.."... .;•"." ' . . ...... ,........, . . 0 400 800 . • I. 4324 1 :4800 .- C mikp LTECHNICAL SERVICES DOWSTREAM DRAINAGE 4324 NE 1i4 EXHIBIT I C 1 T 32 s . i k eJ :�� /� 6a � /CC/4e oy \ . ' \N \\• \ e N. ' ���� o (" p�♦ \ s \ t.�� Q:/JJi Lf 9fL.i/ L. --.-_ 41 •••„...NN q a ` • O o \ \ \ 0. + ry C `\\;1.. P%% �J� �� ;�Jam ///��� I ' ' ' \ \ l� ` 1°• .... )�%s t�l►\\ 12 ``�. �f 3S9TO I o° S• '� ,1F� 4.• p 0.{: [f 01, ■ '` C) Q '' \i.., `�/_ NP RR I Spjoj1Q ' \ i� a° .6 PNto ` 1' A : . ^ i ,o ,w , y ! °/ \a v / r:Irp, � ' ,e s i an f f a i \ ` /� ' ci: ba *# ' 'v-1 Si tD 31 y a r / till I -mo �" \ G s' o i �7 DI Clirila ; �°« i� ' J J'' srt,`% \.t., d ' i'Cril , s H 4.i - +t"f+p,,-•'J _ i.i0 pp T. ', ;G y / iyc� ..d t ✓ Py e "3~ °1' ee✓ O ir WO yiR es c•'\.,tattilikaliii VOW. .,,,„,. Pj IA111114 . . ... :• '. U] 11111111 0 IIIIIII lid 0.6 MI. TO INTER:, TATE 5 \ J o r �, SEATTLE 11 MI. �' •'fitII4 .: R I�. 1 c \\\ o co �a/- _13 ��"1 li q 0 P. . t i g II • I .41_____L_• _--1•7±±i-Th-ti- 4 .; 13ii,, , .. 2 ,c "kw., 0 ,/, \ c III s I...___\ �� - ��4 ,_ . . , i. ,,,,,,, , . „.7 a, ''' • EFCnv // ' 1.\.) -1-x-:' 1'• -s-±-__.-=------_.:______ !•"V i iva ti (D,- ----;•-freLlatita — �, I aiva +` cn II �� (j�i- C cq n r i� , 0-1 W I MI k Crl '' c -_- -.7 \ I , , ' `.I.,\II6C. 2 cn Oct 111. M 0 a 1 � d i M C,- - -- f _ y N. 41/,>16 I atitli H _ _ �_ ttJ �I • • \ o ei .. )3 i ., H \ 1.. C IA •---.... 4411 0 t> tX C OS ?; J1 • yi •• ` • it • • • 1 _1�0 ea C • 1 IiiikOf 111 li / •% • A . . •• I 1 1 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE KING COUNTY AREA, Vti } SOIL LEGEND The first capital letter is the initial one of the soil none. A second cocrrcl letter, A, B,C, D, E, or F, indicates the class of slope. Symbols without a slo:e letter are those of nearly level soils. • SYMBOL NAME Ag8 Alderwood gravelly sandy loom,0 to 6 percent slopes AgC Alderwood gravelly sandy loom,6 to 15 percent slopes AgD Alderwood gravelly sandy loom, 15 to 30 percent slopes AkF Alderwood and Kitsop soils,very steep Am8 Arents,Alderwood material,0 to 6 percent slopes• AmC Arents, Alderwood material,6 to 15 percent slopes• An Arents, Everett material* F+.. 8eC •Beausite gravelly sandy learn,6 to 15 percent slopes Be0 8eousite gravelly sandy loom, 15 to 30 percent slopes- 8eF B--o.rt,te grave!!;ca.a.cr, love,"0:o 75 pc:coa clo„a� I" 8h 8ellinghorrt silt loam Br Briscot silt loom 8u Buckley silt loam 1..,.,,•_ Cb Coastal Beoches • Ea Eor'mont silt learn Ed Edgewick fine sandy loam !..,.,.. EvB Everett gravelly sandy loom,0 to 5 percent slopes EvC Everett gravelly sandy loom,5 to 15 percent slopes • ^` Ev0 Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes htr, EwC Everett-Alderwood gravelly sandy looms,6 to 15 percent slopes • InA Indianola loamy fine send,0 to 4 percent slopes . InC Indianola loamy fine sand,4 to 15 percent slopes In0 Indianola loamy fine sand, 15 to 30 percent slopes Kp8 Kitsap silt loom,2 to 8 percent slopes KpC Kitsop silt loom,8 to 15 percent slopes KpD Kitsop silt loom, 15 to 30 percent slopes j<h•... KsC Klaus gravelly loamy sand,6 to 15 percent slopes Ma Mixed alluvial land NeC Neilton very gravelly loony sand,2 to 15 percent slopes ..., Ng Newberg silt loom NI( Nooksock silt loam '••n No Norma sondy loam O< Crcas peat Os Oridia silt loom OvC Ovall gravelly loom,0 to 15 percent slopes OvD Oval'gravelly loom, 15 to 25 percent slopes OvF Ovall gravelly loam, 40 to 75 percent slopes Pc Pilchuck loamy fine sand ' Pk Pilchuck fine sandy loom Pu Puget silty cloy loam Py Puyallup fie sandy loam .. .• n RoC Rogner fine sandy loom,6 to 15 percent slopes RaD Roonor fine sandy loom, 15 to 25 percent slopes RdC Ragnor.lndionola association, sloping• RdE Rognor-Indianola association,moderately steep• Re Renton silt loom Rh Rive.wosh 1 ' . So Sala' silt loam Sh Sammomish silt loom 5C>IL,, Sk Seattle much Ste Shako, CL CA i Sn Si silt loamam $o Snohomish silt loom S< Snohomish s,lt loam, thick surface von ions $u Salton silt lo;m Tu Tukwila mac,. _...�, :: : EXHIBIT ' F • T I,n campos.,':r al • -se . s ,s ,,..rr. „ahl,• ,ha„ 'her..1 t.,r .., .. ,n,he a,rc• ,, he. , ,. , all,.,,wi l l,„"T1 ,'.'"n ry et I,, ted vse d ,hr s. II • KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL FIGURE 3.5.2A HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP OF THE SOILS IN KING COUNTY HYDROLOGIC HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP • GROUP* SOIL GROUP GROUP' Alderwood C Orcas Peat _ D Arents, Alderwood Material C Oridia D Arents, Everett Material B Oval! C Beausite C Piichuck C Bellingham D Puget D Briscot D Puyallup B Buckley 0 Ragnar B Coastal Beaches Variable Renton D Earimont Sat Loam 0 Riverwash Variable Edgewick C Salal C Everett A Sammamish D Indianola A Seattle 0 Kitsap C Shacar D Klaus C Si Sat C Mixed Alluvial Land Variable Snohomish 0 Newton A Sultan C Newberg B Nooksack C Urban Variable Normal Sandy Loam D 'F' -D.-- HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP CLASSIFICATIONS A. (Low runoff potential). Soils having high infiltration rates, even when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of deep, well-to-excessively drained sands or gravels. These sods have a high rate of water transmission. B. (Moderately low runoff potential). Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. C. (Moderately high runoff potential). Soils having slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine to fine textures. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. D. (High runoff potential). Soils having very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a hardpan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. From SCS, TR-55, Second Edition, June 1986, Exhibit A-1. Revisions made from SCS. Soil Interpretation r Record, Form #5, September 1988. EXHIBIT G z5.2.2 1 .,IZ . . SENSITIVE AREA FOLIO MAPS a . WETLANDS b . STREAMS AND 100YR FLOODPLAIN c . EROSION HAZARD AREAS d. LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS e . SEISMIC HAZARD AREAS (r f . COAL MINE HAZARD AREAS EXHIBIT ' H ' 13 I '74 i tfujil::• 1 I , I t t i 1-' "• F ft•' s '. •': ''ti,� t o: v3"�• 1 l l\ j I I� '='' ? '' , y�y♦ ( . .� 1 • ` �_�� FS) e ,4 "f�pt ♦ 0�ti! r l I I 1 ' -j'T •. L;� • } "se.,,, r �` ,x -,a j '" 1 fJ (� z� (,- a a [ i •rt- a' « t z , .r .EaatI ��' ..•y t a 1: e. I f F, 1 [ram-' •r 4 '�Fp ! _., 'e ` ill r • a :ram. . ,yt-� f w t?' "r> • ? ` >.O .1"1.\� �,� i t •..t:!I� um., i / ay.. w, f z 1 .4•l' 1 ,•� - z.A 1� J1 s , y; t , t. $` -i # �1 Mercer astand� ` 4:.. I. . , \- i .•'. r-r.:•Y-•_ l' ... ���: .0 • • 1 ram- t r n{ �k� • 1 r '' I-,' : _• r 1 � - ^l,:r •;��- `I t---.Y. `�' .. i I ' _y i. • 7= rrt ! • �( NuT.. t Ir` I ,. .mow '�'7..1 y• ♦ v4-"ii.,P a" ,. • ,.Wit'!_ •" � f ;,•C,. ';7 - _ YYYs�' 'I •r- .;{„ _ 1-4 , 1 • 7 1a v;'-'s s'i1 ;',-,;. r : rs`r ct"te^'0;+ - C P. r _\ V• � 1lwashrngton. ---R t . I- -•t • , „- ,, t .y v ,, 'r• �.-,-. I• vi ' 1� t3f5•Sn -/ .Z(. 1 '''N\ ....1\ --- r Nc. N- 715 j r x .. ? .r'. L -' 7'( • .ri i.'sF�'" \ ilr. ••'—':'s F'"'r. -,+t'' `4k a"'. *y„ ,r-. i� hr ,.. �• f,� `. sky creek • __. 0. t,t_a n 3.t- 1 7 *f,,,.v G:' i �a :,-:Al.I. .7% _ ° _,:. }I L .S t., • • • I .L _ ' 'D�wam 'IEiiver L � j ..._ ��i �: +r„4' �'` , ''ta'• .s�.�,�'�,'4r'��r ; � � -�....._ y'"��_ 6 �y '- _ ry=, ". `,�''`•S S 'F" •''� - �•.S`^. _ _ `` i v Yi 4 • •v, b= • s " 1 y>ti���y p Mom" i'1. r to €3� 1N i•' / �Z * \ r 'r ,h .K./_ .ac,. r4 � 1. 1t l ,11 -. �-,,',,,,('f „ °rt It. dl�L,f l I �: � 1 ' II • !.s - . - - i �A/8,7,---On it •r��v` :— c,4-,t -. ._sc` �I., r F•t`-• 1 �ti r -'• • ••. r • • '' .am F • 1' .'':: !,rl -+-T —� _ ,y ¢(r s: ! .`* ,//r ,,-ti F• ! 4` is_` I 1 _ 1 ( ,L� 2 ` _� ti �• ,- C ,.r > -r .--a L-WashingtOR TC 't O • 1 • E ,_�‘ t c �. .._ } �. i I ti 1‘,41` t it 1. 4 \7 _ yj l • «., • �14�' r�i 1 • f. ill i F, ivei L .I I � r i,I _- -- ----�r?4-"_ _ .l�It ,I I j--z �.-s// f••=- ' i. '.4 T. ! I A S ..y' 1 t l •� , �pY �' • ,�: ' ,/t,�•. ;,�14b> • _ R-R�'`E�B lH 1. ;s� a� /�`=� -• '� � t t 9 I N R/V t r : l"s _ P tom- x -:� fir{ k I r -.-sla ,.' Lower Cedar Ner / C / Yt I • •. "• `� � {• TIN ti1 .. to al 1 y T - t-� , i`• -;(r , re reek ' ( �I ;,}? e;' -i.�, ! • i `~ ti.V.,%.,..,., — 1 li Illbrr .,Nr,A„,.. , ‘7.-•—•-LI,'" �► ,__ •?�i it I tack iva m Iy , 5 -•t er IWOizt rt -3j ff .. Yr hIiiliffmmot ,� , l,l 1�(usii.emst % if itl )1/ r..' — eizj*Ai7e L" l'i----;Ii=iiIN I'l-`-'' ' •. 111111111AMINIM.• r . .., .:,.. • .,..th 4. . ‘11‘i. .W11"1"1-• .', -.--- - '. $ i'4 , i ' ���r.",fTlily^qg'"_yy�wtt111® U�! ` ^.s • ( I _r I.I.-ill/ y ' IEN li, `�L7�-�wy�T yet ig .� • ti..,..x. as dis- Numbered wetlands, except those with anWetlands �' Wands DUI'''. ;imate. "a" or "b" designation are included in the re not King County Wetlands Inventory. The • devel- locations of wetlands designated "a" have 3t'_�'' Open Water r 2 trences been verified on the site by a variety of I these sources. Wetlands designated 'b" are med— ial pre- ped in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sesmn Basin Boundaries " nsitive National Wetlands Inventory but their loca- I t Area tions have not been field verified. /d'S There may be gaps In the numbering se- . . H-"-.-, -., -. ..,...,,,_...._.. Sub•basin undaries ,. :a;_ e ,.. (.titc.k Iijer Saks 15Asio 1 o �v C�.. i3ASit.1 (lislicitoltP)cx..• ill QEEN t� � • 1'...,"\A 4 INT,...-L.-it s''1 .' — Fr-L"-S.V1-1 .t et k >ara `� r° , 3a33. r,, y5�-'�`•^.s ��-�`` C .cam ; 1 E. `.%--7 _ k r. '.f } i' �r ' li 1 1` { +`'1h -c sty/ \;._: '_1 33 r +i �/ 1 �� 1 S ' tit ' ` 1I.Y~ e_ -- .. . --,.-• v, -\-1, _ r�' (k '_�sY �i�L ! ,.1+�y -t / t F €11 I Ll ,' ^ it t _ H ` t,^ =- r- { - r f � I +-•�•t 1 i3 ..,..5 La ..�,t /.. ..t 1 '. �t. i,Y p i� I' ' _ .�Cp,311 i..,f i•.�t ,�,y't j \ �Z._ _ri, t in t t; �75-mot t`s11\,r,� r ,1 g- .4� 1 .! IvK '.' Vl' T1 7I. .e, ,.,,‘5 IV- , -.. -AI 1-..\,4-, ;-4 - FFtt "AMR' y .---ik . w- / i �. . _ PAIWittAlik '''--•';'''_.•,..-: i'',, glitati74 ...!:_k_-_-1; ,__•:,:ii!P.1 r_T.,•.-3„mip,,, - nolift...w __ Trinotemitm ,...t. a , ,... ANININYMM N.1.;. - 1 t ' !:-4 . v ftillaikip %kg .±,, ,;,' - 411‘ 4. 1:-:.------'._i--:,.:2-.Ar• IO lu11 26 "`�"` E 25 .30 - 29 i iallalr IC \ 3l ♦ - - MI ��rjr r, I - :i v)•1 i. ' 7N Ir floodplains extend be- Streams ream s and 1) ��_ .� class �+, en on maps. Flood In- 1 .--.--. ..__. Class 2(with salmonids) Duwiamish ,s do not always show the headwaters of streams. Year Flo odpiams Class 2(perennial; salmonid `a_ tsj C. -� 313 use undetermined) A L.H• f y to• J — — — cs Class 3 �,��to ar Floodplalns Unclafied -fie 12 is I' (' i a —_ ,' 'ql? �,TY` ..j-. ; -ty.,1!-f' �''} 6� i i 1 \f�'1'1''....% : f .! f ., ,, T..i 1 � ! z` aA•yJ -� Ua C -ys i.l.::;.. ~' �1 a�+;r� =a - , ,' ; > 'l=1 , �,�-fir .,i_a,. �,=t3 • • i . • - -1. (,t,- (., 1,,,k,,, i, ,,_.:-,--8 , .,, , ,,, „,. ,.--,..,. . . .., . , .. . [ Hb:: r• .'fi b <,... :*; : Tff-r-c., ./, • • . ''• #?-4'. ,` 1- • '• II _;:.a S-:_ - \ II�'t..^" `+.I s 4,.:: .L7 J%. Irmli ■`pr�II K I - 7 - -% ]S 4P ...•.•. f 1.,r.,- 111 El I •! rt� E 1� ki,}}' ' 41' ;MI;:ill • .. � • t: ' ' ! .'i`i w a. I a ,{. i '' • _ a ..sue ^t i' :{.•- 7'7 - - •f \�n I•a J _ • 4 r 1`' j is a �\ l - ti`_. 717—: t `vim, , — .. \\c-} I- 1 I __' f.... ..,...i...: 7-= •.=-- , _ __..4._\rs......k.\\ • ��4`\\•+. I t. .F;-_�t'-r-�, rt .fi I r �'1 � �t �-•. .•-�•. i '-'-tk ••n ,a' �.�I I' __ • \ - •L` 'I ,i �..1 � `� •` .---f ii�. f �r~I i, i i .-•— .d'a 1 r• !'j .�` .!`, �n ����'_c_,-�--..__— '{`. r i l' —may I' z • 1 ,i ,, "'^'t. II F ! { • t� `,a:. �.: �...,/i•.. ,� .�.�,, j 1 H t i s-. l i 1 r i l , ,'' ! t '4 , `t i''li'•'- • .'' a -' �� .141 , i, iI(" J4 TY S 1 I e` >`• "r • •r./ t'i l fit. I I �� t A. is ,, .j.a i �I.i , �"� 1 1\ 7' '_�-Y ` -4.-.7 a. L1 7 L-7':: .17 •r I f 1, r y,- •, E r� I �; 4 - \t. r '� r- a .,-1 1 !i 1. }`car.-f—I I l J (t� '1 { i..- 3 t i i ...• i • L� t i t � •f- f.(•i x' � -1 f�1rj t H � elM . OI /\ >undaries of the sensitive areas dis- •.,•' •• , .''' 1 '--A, i i)(i'tji 1 11114111111111ME '' .1.i e..,,' Via.1 I: • t c. on these maps are approximate. Erosion Hazard tnal sensitive areas that have not 71 11-1] lapped may be present on a devel- >etences ikreas weenowhatts ilustratede. Where tofnrthese -Id the site conditions,the actual pre- - absence on the site of the sensitive as defined in the Sensitive Area Ice-is the legal control. C 0 'Ls --E_.,, : : ..,:, ,, .....„:„.,,,,,___:-...--,„., . . - ,, -4. ,..--)%.7---f- i , lr 1 = _ { . rz:1 ""'"<y is •t .. - j , ' .I. I -I 1 I \ill�i------ .. ._ .' .. \,. '' ' - ILL---r: C'• s‘ i ,,,.":„.„..,...._,„ r.._......, ;.\.: m'''. rI I V>I .t, i [ t *p'lam', T\ \.:"..*:i,• - ' '. irri"...) ff.__j_ 1 i_. ... , ‘._ 1:::1 cz: I •..:7-'-.:::,:17.,-.;:.,.7.1,4:-_,Ii, ,:,,,,,,..., -, , '-,';-.-..elier,,,.. .;,.. ),,,.7..,:i,-..Ti...„...,.....,:z-, , ,;;;.,,:'.. iz-•:;..:,._; i.� �^ Ra,'il,J.,1.7:4.1,:,:::.1;i7..... �. 1 ` x' (_,�f 1 ' f l )}t/ ✓ ... t l. f 1 • I � � i / j*?�. • i { jr,�. I r `• t 1 r 4, ', 1• is 2-- - ra +ry JTTJ� if a �{�I I II111 1 a/�+> ;,I - �f f.. tires -� I � • .� .r ..)l"�r y_y) • • • . � •—r--•-F I L" > ' ue' •• �.- .r . • • c a— IttiL? . • gMllr.. �T !! I 'ti ry ,omA�o>''y^ar {�k ,� • r1 mod � ;L ,,a o"313 mY,= �: W M:i r"\ - J - 'I— -\ �i-'. ymu.ari� °:ar�. ~ "{. „'f.. .: .ail t ir ��. yi,I I 1�� - , 1 i. _ _.•... ', !.._. L m'° ;;u'C Y c _ i 2- , �J a te' I - \ "a Onv 0 ma . . `y ' o �C m y 7. `` .� .7C7 � - -�•\ lati - I ' �.._II r- iJo- _-1. q2.c mJ7CO %• ' —._F : � ,,i, . f� '_ .r---. . .. - .. ' I 7.7 �Y' 11m! T T WW y.. f� u` r i .-T jJ • t I yi i is 1 Ea0 1� I' _:-.- — _ Via w�'- - —�- s J • a F ,_,,1k,•__4,,.-,•0_',,,,,•-.\•..z..,•'.1r•t3.E-•i•,•.':.-,-...'....•1 .,:•,7.*:- -.•'-'.I 0--.•.I,:••1I•cL•_I.• ''i--;..„.::'r,:'.•.y,•-•.•,.-.•-.•.. .e---a.:,•-4,-•.......-j-.1..,=p-...,.,..1-.-a----v--i--•t':,•-..-••o:-.o.'--'.4-r•d.--?.1•r-l>"r:..';,\,,;'-•,t.a..`1 7,l.1i•+ef ilt- .i:4l 1rle!-X-.-',-.••--1t•:„"-V.„.'...•"','t,-'r,.,...\,.',.,.1.L.i"..•..,.'-•....'...,.4.i...,-...-•..-..,'.:•:-.,..'..,„..,3,,'':,:„'.•,----_:I_•1!•',.44-.-.,'.t•.'•''„:'.-'4,,:..'"-',.:...',1..•11.,...,.;--•".:.311".•1'.,-•,.- -i.-•;-.X.-''•.,'„"f,,:•4'-1•,'.i-:,...„,"...-...4,s,t,,._...-,.....-4„-.,-.t..!..7..0,._i4:..:.:4-.1.zt3-P..7..-.I-..,;.1,.i;.,:,:-..,!...0-'. "‹....-...'_,,1 _ IA 1 :• .... '-•..7.•.)t.',r •..4-.:r -4Lt:4 rI)1•`f „•..• -.' •,•-_: ,..._,-• , : .35 I sr - . •II • ''',... •.-I , . 1I.I I'....i t • .:.. •' .I.'. i / '-....;i ' ri• (77,.;-,--,..- .1: .....-. .,-. ..z.. • . ,. .. -c- -, , 1/4 \''''- '‘:•••:'''"\-'"',' :;;;-".. -i • ",'-' r - "r•T'' _,t, I,,s\s. \i' 't .-. .414_ ,-.13-0.- --:3,,,,, 7.-.---1, 4--,, ,,1- .. .. , 4 -... r••••'. ' '3.-1 3- - .• - '''. .,---;1 / I i =IIIII: I ::',i r ' .. 'M i; ' 'T. 1 l___1111___' ':-::'i$;;". . :''''''''''' '4 l':e'.'NA..'‘ ..._‘ •:f. .C-;t2. ,,:... ''''11.: :.... • b ''..'.'.--: , \.., '-' rt . (' _...4 \ ..,t- .. :.1 "f1• 1111111 -a,',::: a. . .." •ii: : • 7 t.,_ '"'"1 "'" 77 -....--,01-2;.:.7 ---. • ....y. TT:I- ..7.1.7 ... .. .: - EMI P.r '..! I I.ill ! . ' - . '••••• ;,. 1 -.: ....1i '•=•:.-' ':44 ••N''.'-'• '. -t.''..... ''' . ' --\::'`.A: - .. NJ,i ''.,,-....\ .-,', 1."4 ., --•\... /..;' -. '" •• idling -3 . • ' i I 11.4 •sf•-•-q ' •-; • r_.4-± -- 0,,, ,,,,,.4 .i --„, ...,..:. :: : ,r-,.,-- • ,..\,. ,„, . , ,-. . ...271... ••• -,r . v.-, 3-0 • -. tr2'. 1! it...i.. 1111111 '''iLl I I'I I I I ••IS-....^ 77-7“. -I 14.',t `. •-• •'''.• ' .-Z' ...7. 1 .IIIIII, I " •/ 111 ' 1 , •• I ••3• , - ,*, ----,--r-, .,,- • t- . ; /, ..;... 1, •-;. •773. .. c-,.....- • - •.r , ..,.....: -•-,..:- • .1. ,,,,31i•,,.0 k,---- „ ,,,..r- - t.i iv/ ,---.-- :: .•. .. : rs%g"tsj'• • • I - -4 .' . La. 1 lii.4'i- ' -'..1' •' • " * •- •.-Litz ''' •t- ' • •. .. , , .... LI i ti 1,...q1 . 4-. - - ......Cf.4 i . iil MM.. •: •,.1, ,... ,... , p_:- • !!• ...:1..% - •- j'r • ..- ..,\:?. • .-,.•.: it....1 t--i•••: ,• II ',- -I.1 1 1 '' '/ ", ' ;s1.""t .,„ 1 '" 7:-.\ -.i;:: '',... < ^t • s'.... ...,' ,, ',:. •f, •I or'',.• ' .-,.•• .• '.:•-; I; L•: I i 1-1 1 . ' ‘1- '1`5,:'•Pr:. -," -7- . .--`4-3'.M.'lif..,i:-•:•,. . ; •‘, ••-;_ ---•. ' ,--;,•4-3 .3: ..*\_:•••2.-".' • \ _ -1(.4•'- , • ,;.:_._7-; • f ( 1101 ff'-' ---4.--,VPA ' • ' t. • -; ' .,";',.' ''-.' , , ,r.:1 4:7,1.v..•,,-:'.: .,1 :.;,:. i' 1.4*- ...4.;....,,,,-'t: 7: :-.1.., - ' .: '-'--1 :;'X''''''•/..N1 .1 •••2: '"-..'-'•••-•• .3 . , ...V''' ;;ir' I ''''CI---.L.--7.-,• '•-•+' iii el 1 r ir'' 4::.. :';' .. • ''./i,.i't..\‘ .,f' 1.11-.`--4\ •-*.*•,..', L..-;`, . ''._.,.:-..1 r'.-''i'.,,,_.t- '', i'i-\'`-r:'77,277.'.-i-is :',1,1:4--'...,P4 . -_..r.•241 , ,i, , •I.I.1 • 1. • . ' .-2.1_, , 7._.1. ''•. .....;_,V ' ,,j*i." ' *:,:. '..i', y7-r-',... ,I•:,--1--,,r,‘ .I} *..71-.•:, _. :. -:-\._ F•I... ,,, ,,i 177 - ,..L ,i. -1-11.111:C.1.-CT-ii Li: A-":i.t e 17-1. -',,. 'e..! - - . •.-), _ • -7 ' . . , ' ' • -.,f,.- ' , • •-,--, ,E e r - ,La. If( ' -s\ :.s-- 5k :17--. • I LIT. .-44-lk . I.!--1'..t; . '-', .'::,c, 'f' .. ... .1- __-_-, ; ., .--. s. : ..,.'teri" ".:',..i:),>‘"\‘,/r.'.41-,:::-. ..1.-fr- .... ' '.., 0.1.:.'N'17:-'..,-..--..,-,- -' ''.' 11 ,-. ..q..f 1.\_:tt_ !e''. .:....11::,,"' '1:14.‘r.i'..1. 11.':17 ., ' r‘.7.. ....'.7.', 1''''l'es' rr,,"':. ..%,.,. ''.:'?..--..:,?7r;s.....r...'‘,-- "••. t ' . I: •- ' • .:.• , -•',-.:(' •, 1... "1_ .,,,,.. •J---1...I st-L.. qi , -4• ,. ... --r •---••••:Ii, 1 .1 1 .,.. .. ,,.1,.'• \'. ."::j 14...7.-'-:. "". .-1 : '1'1.. ,-‘"•\'•(.,::'... '',....". _ '--,,..-,-• .All I.--7-1---,____:. . -.. • .4.--LT,r . , ...., , ., • 4-1-1 I--- I - . . '-t- YIP'-'-`1. ' '''''''•••'•• ; ' •••••%1'•$ ' 1 '' 1... .\ - -7-1 .1-7-7---7-1- '''t,.. . •••/-.,.... ,.t"-,:i ') ',it:),, i-,.. ; 1,-"•-i:I,' •• - • ' if"--, -. i ,' II_S4_ .\. :•• • . •••••• : 1 • •,-,. .,;.3•Li:r.,:P.! ' =I, __,:. 3 :r.•., .,: ; IL.':,.....-:-.2:,-r7:. : ';'•...,, :,,, -:--- ' ,,I",_ -./-1, 1-..,_ I:fl.i ..;1,iLl • , '11 4; . .I.i:.1 rza.i. 4,., 1 : ...4--.:i‘ 7:k; •-',..-." ':'.!,. -,-,._..._t -,.'.. J-:. . .‘'--, s17-7-71 ___7-___.-. -.-2.-t-,;\ - . IL ` ' ' ' 4 • it: ''' " ' '1'1 li t-- '''f'- 1 • 7 1' it ' ''.:-'r " . ' !•• '...i.4 7.,i-,`:'', '..:". -, ..: • \ - ; ',' 1 f---:--'., -.,,-,,. • -9 .. .,, , , . . . ••; i.,':-.-.' '.. .1 I 51 -5 7 I' .:\ ti' ,'!!:f___,,.....'s •.'"I 7,,7l, --:-... - .1. - ' -,I.' ,.4 --- , , . ' i r , r - .e• r '' •! . '';.‘-'' ,V''/ .,•''' •• ' 1 ' C - ; - - -n'i--r- -' -----.+ 1 '\. . .2 't .'-',.-'___.7-7' --":' , ' '. ' f 12-'.1 .If Irn ;' ','-'-i, ..'...Si.c:•st"1:',.;•..,V.,, '''S.."----:•!.„,- \i- .-":1 .--<,' I's,'',.. .: -- ''.-• I\ ••;. .,:ti. ,,-',..„,.., __.4'-'. -\'.,...,2', _ • . - ',.Y1 ,! 1:-...;-...,14 ei ,,ii,,,-\ .....1',,,- -3,,, .,, --1 -3, " •,,,-.• ;.:4-."-::-..„--- \,...[-:-_, ,. _. .__,..._, :. 1: 3, - .-- L_4....,.. ; (----, ‘. . -11,,,I; :03-1-1.,,,.. -„<- • I.>,...:;,•33.,. :i\•\‹: \ •4 -, • ,-. ...1.41-1-•t•'',..-_-,... ...-..z; i .S.ec. „z.K.,. ., s.:.;,,,,,-.. ft • 1\---!.. H---, . ' ,'i •' ; . 7-----, - r -' ,; ,t ; '' '':,,r, /' . , • sr. .;:"..-------..,,, -----• 1.1"---- - - I---4--- • r ' ' ' , • '' r '..).i''''''''''.'" ';' ,f-t-'"77-r*.,_171 '••A 4='-''';', !:.,--•:--- • .-3:-..-'' ' --"-•-:-..... '---. ' 7f.- '--1 7 .. 7:,17.-- ---74.;,1,;!,„.0.7.7.. -_-__:_„__,,' 1:.i "1--.7.7 -: 'i,', i t i ,LThl:1 i-•k til ' . ''-.E.2t-I.,:••-al:•,--,74-7'. ??.',--',22,-.. • -.....„‘,.....'s / 71'1. ' / t' ' . 1: 't,':4,.:, k , )" ':."1 , I°E; .?.0$ - '1''..-"<1.-1,--1,-•. \ ...'"• \-2 I ..,, . ?..--) ..,e -f\--.-.,....-.--•,--,:I, -. / • , / - ,.--,• ,',-E-r- '.:--t--.. --4--,i,s_A .' ,‘,. ... ,A' r--r.\.;v---, i'•"•,,.. 4"-'-`:----\ ' 1 '-'`- ' ;-' ! i- i I -i I i . ' 1'; - ';',--fr; l' '4..4".nt. k,1..L1 I I.. I1H-•-'/ I'/It j• I I .55 . ' . .... . i• -s.I. ; • ,\711-",...i , "-I., , '-,;" . c.d. . , ,,'. , -., . -;•••1 l'\',..t rr-1 ..-- -4- A y:.„ 1-, t.„..--.-J. - . ...., / , '''•I' ' \1 .7:_:)..-7.--•'--- -fl-i i =74.: •;).(•' 'rIt r'. '. r.t. i 71 --:: ti; 1.:1•;•-' 1 .\\`‘.li :1 1--i ts 3.-"•.•,. • •:,.- --....„ '• • •:--,. - "0:--4.'") •• '-r".,-: .:---?,• ,-.7,4-,-. •-----, - ;•-• -7-.... • •f 4..s.__..,._,Z.. ,....'7- ,,...-i•-f..„ 1 I.1-1. - . I./n r ',i '-'-I O I.; ; ! ! ' / •-• I .., ",i,; i ! ,1 7: ' ,,,,,4.,-.K------r_tr ,;../ . ,.. i. i ` ' '11 I i.-. I .•, .I, li,, 1 , c...,, -`,..: - ' • V .(-1' -..14,...sk 1 1 3.'. . .2 ,I-!: • ! ' . -.-',, , •.:„-,,,,,..,.*.4... .2-4,. [,,. ',...2. ; [-: • ‘: ' I•.1 st. 7"'?"I-j,_7 . .I-7-7-- .• -----.. .1 f,, ' en ! r• -I,' 1, 1.„ r,•;" I I'--.-=,, '',....!,'' - •_.2-r------",-, ..,, ,.. ',,,...-_---.-----24--; ,,,' ' -1 /- . ... '.. • i . .,;•-f '7-'1 ,,, - • !' ' '-' --, _4''-'A '" . ----- (----_L.....---...-• r-• -!-,t3_... , .. ,,,-1.:-,....,.;;;_:31.-:-:]i .: • ._•-, -- .-...___t-._ :. • --t:;.r•r• ..,j•n. 2 22-:•-•_::. - r-:. .- ., -, „.....:-_,--.-:-..-__ 77.•.. Ili-..?•-•,-;?,,,•---, -,,..- .-.,1:3,-;•-•1 `• 1 '72. 1.ii 1 i .1 if. •1,/,,,.i.-.:-,,,-.,.;;..,-.,.....„---1 .it\--17,..,„„; ';. ,;',:,, _ •.2:„...._____•.• -4. ,, _ ''." •i:' firt.÷---17---ii,.....,,- •..., ." ..f; ..._ _.---. =... • -.:Y ./., ;••-. 4771/.\\":•••-•..„.:. • , ... .1 72,.....--••• '-C"'--,,--"0-7i,--,.„• : : ".-4 '-. ''• -, ... 41-,f-t'4-,', ' • ' ''--- •. ' 7 .. -...-'1 ••---4,. -r•r.,.__:__A--7'----, ; -'_,, l'f• . L :._. ' TAO, - •f )---...1..",.-.,•,‘,:-,„--t-..__.‘.,',,;;;_-.."--,.:_-:::.----_, ,.!! f, , -_-_, . -fl -1.' I i • ' I i , ! I :••••-:4-111\ : . f- - • ____. 1 -1\.‹.----- -ir::-_-- 1 - -., ; '-''A'.'f,L_.._.. 1....----6,. '','----ri• 7-.; ---,. , =7_ ' i • ....... ... . 1 . 1,f f•,,.tl-r-77 . •s, ,, - \ ;,l -" , Ili-4 .,..,‘, (-3 H-.1. . .„,37..r: ..„. •,--.-....LL__ =, • 3-----;- --- . -.-•• . .,„,;, 2._ 1 1.;,,..., -..,.1.;A, . - V.-i/ ...7. .- '....71•-•:`/,.. . . :t,f-1.-7---. •;. Y ' i:.• 1-. : _i_61,,„,••, t- r- .___L/ ,i i\ .:::..). ;_!.. - -,- 1. .-1 t. -f•,t / '- ....... t: - • -- 'i ...., ____).'t .-- , . ... , . 1 „ .. -; 12„\-!:-. .-.... . P;- ,,.c. . ;„ , „• , . . , 1. ,,.: • _ • , ,.• ,„ . .. • , . .._._ ..„ .... . . ... . • N d I 1,: „.• . • I - 1?5,1. ....., .. _ , 5 I.• II • Ill'S7./t I,- \f` . 1 . - •..•-• - • 7‘.. -' '',.-- . ._',:,;t:)- . 's. .' . , '...., j(,..i,A 5`e:•'1.,11..ts'..q t ' .\- -Lc.' .c.--- :;•ki. .hi:17r „ ,I.-% 1 I i ,..., 11/4 The boundaries of the sensitive areas dis- See wetlands and landslide hazard maps for Played on these maps are approximate, additional potential seismic hazard areas. Seirnic a 7ard Additional sensitive areas that have not Wetlands and landslide areas are susceptible been mapped may be present on a devel- to failure during earthquakes. Other seismic Ar as s'e Il ki opment proposal site. Where differences hazard areas not shown on this map are occur between what is illustrated on these shorelines underlain by lacustrine sediments; maps and the site conditions,the actual pre- these are susceptible to liquefaction. sence or absence on the site of the sensitive area - as defined in the Sensitive Area Ordinance•is the legal control. =7:a. = = =A = r,......1; ,..,,..„=... ,....=.....3 .......E-..... r---...: !NEM e • /v;. • , , z .• , ,.,• •v -- I_rT' . ` a— l•'cr.� _ is 1 4j'i ,,I _I ' • k (4,:: -.1-- --. L ti,:'.,- Ail - ..-:', ..'''-'..,,„•'.., `,,,:•i,..,. .,,;. Cl...41.11: ...fp • • - • �{l L r`I L ^�i1 - VI-. r� ' �e' '1 Lp .'�.l =� .__. r _�.j r l �L .A�C�, +•.� q f S L.r '..� I _ ti 'i � .' , ,, -,,,-- .• '` y -I � ...8 .1 " 1•, vL T' `may- ' : rt. T •� ,,,• � ICC '' }fib _ .. . , in. _ r.. Vie i �_ 1 a i` � '1_ ICj) t! ,,...\?...0 --7-;:-AV(4. 7,OTT., - - - — it. -; I ly • 7•r :;,,,:. L',.it Lititryil I I'Ir.-•'.' 1 .mv..,`•-,;'1-'': --- ‘, 1' . %S1 „ ._ . .. G4Vl_'' ' 'I' ''-i `i:::,4,---/ •t' ,- *--L'7_f"\-'.., , ;.,.. \I 1 �� 1.0 1- .. t . IIrr 1 fr ,-• ' .`! I } .i�.I. 44,''J.l:. v l-'- i �.;, �,� _ a,.� `• �.••S ^`/ rt 7d!!!i `.` • • t f t 'n N w r' �: 1 /✓C �r i l: �1 f s \ .1 +'. Yl. i '�` • r •1 •w-•r' Ii ,-,. !... -:. � rir, 3k 'r CL,.C.,�1m L'4 • aft. (•,•• _;Js �. -• '' - *'r`�.svL . 5/ V� _ N��WI la) ` '1 i ,' nl, «1' ( - i 1'.1 ss,ofw •rsdd fgj - um/ �AZ.�a�A ' J 3 _ iK I w 1 �:t �• �. 17 4,13 b• f rillindlit i -T -f w rt '-k ;3 �; .�s'i ' y�*� �g,71 I!n A E E Et o ' v .. r at I I [ay - -J,r' '.;�.. •�f �E} - j -•= 1 dM1l ��!!f! SI@'�R�! t a. N u.' lit r� _ } } r 0 f!.' � (� t n i- ‘141r....416;74V"...-' my °�«II n A r wk �,.. .' *v 1:, 1` 1t 1._ �- / r.�� N0 m�._ n r' ,.+• '�::. i 1 1 /1` .! `...� i``✓•.. ".?,) { ,( ClJ it.Fr '.,J --_;,; L. 0. ti ,, _ /I!/ 1 G'i O c.,in r• }. �yy} t. rnw r +•r •.'1 Iw . { �, M.I. / ... • 1 • • J _�.__,� AL C O O It '_1 II_ • ,� ' ,Ii a, . • l•' I' 7 , .3. _ --� ,r,.- "'--�f-ry�t 1. __J, plm O�T•X i 1 - ' I--.1�_ • y/'. -. / - tl_ k .r . -_ _ 1-__ :��I s- UI[�f�'' i -1 aL+N10Gm `V I. L� LF.i•i ' I �. "�. .J. J .l U.I'1/I` -' I r~ r -; _l .•._ ._:: .i- .f:.l k •,r r R. v A c> °,n;._ I n . . • . .... IIP .±(o.,;P.-...Et-03..) 'le' -mmo... „ 3R° sr ''. -3 ZONE) . 110.1" t,. ..°__-_11----- 7.c"4.'(.11-..:-•.-,.A.:1.4.,.. .rt ZONE'sX 4t fi FAL0im0n0.wu - ipNEAr.E.2.t' 777;\ . / .i NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM !LIP 1,,,c4,-E- \ NO....M .•.4-:suRuscroN Aiwa i . ,00,44k 329 .A...,:z..-4,,...r,-',... • ,.1:1 R..N 'VW;--,'- ' ,V41.,r.as (tA.)--...i tii,Villy ZONE AE ' A,,,t. . '',4• ,,,,k,141....:,„ itArtW' ..^,-.1.k....“1.4....4.44.h.- : tagg00."' ttanTArne3111.14A- ;.'il' 4ri'...4442.0.04%Ve+ _ - T - - - -; • FIRM •:, , "78ari!'-• .4 ',:;,,,k. \ Ivf. .r'. fi„4.1.:# 71ti _ 11.,14V.-Agi . VV.% (,sD ‘i'''1?- R M332 I' FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 1 : ockdttt v4i, .t.k., . i ,,,-,.-;•./4-.m. . .0.16.ro. : 4.-.. ;:'1.-.41.„tee, • ,,...'...I.--4 x•-,..1.1.: ‘‘ ,2 ti 8 ;54t.....44` -/t6914, .,,. ,..,q 0 .4.1 .,,-,0,....v...1..„. - E A.11.•rvj 5 I. WASIIINGIO\ \\I) ,. z v, fr. ......t...tt,64,:a,.'. ' ''''r''ft" , 411 A';',- -,-P' ' ---.44 • I\CORPORAFI-1) utr‘s 1 , ...- , ,, •.4 i.....A.tyme. .hlt,\.. 1.,,-- A. ,- 6:,., 04 R M332 .V In k:..,.‘4, . y,. ftt, r:.Ip;.:101fi.,-. LS PV 0 ' :i\ . - 1 ! , i • PANEL 328 OF 650 V-4•4'.1-1:::: -Vfli'-:'.j'',.' '(4 \ 4.4101V:irt/ 0-- ,,V 'It. V,E4"-":,1,/,t40 •0,4410f;'.: •i7'•V•;•:=\N.‘ • '.*:',1:4•••• .! ' g lu: - .11 04 ''grilt"' 1-1/4'•••%;":0":::;,• ••/$4k 14:.•41114," 0 IR II sosP".. .1•WIM..!-; ,e1:-;(e.---"S•4'...%. - zr" . ' , ‘,A\,14:,-.1,?.;-.F?.:;.-"i:,4ti.,'.•)!'f.''=.:';1;)Ar:fl,/ 41;14. ....,'41e \ ,. ,. . N \flo,•.--.47,-,%.%;,v-,...:77, 41/4.1.1...-4:41•••..a6; 1,1,r41 i' 15 t• ;,•,•'•:1' ••„., ....,4,•'. 11 ZONE X ; . \ VAN\ 't:.. *''',41.:4. 14Avet2*...9\• /./. ,•`; 0 6",.Z0 E • , 1100%\ ,, A ,..t.'?:- it..;tii „ .,4T;:•‘•"; I . E I I 1 ' 0 -4::...,-.41,,,,..,.,,,iplf...4.4.-.. FA .....11....eor,,,,NA,r;:‘,$.0.- ,..4, , \____. leo to;,. :,...:::g.,,,,:;..e,517,..,,e;t3;;.- ,e,,,,--i'4, . tril / RENTON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT i /----\. . / ---------'1 Cy 8 kle_,„ , st'fi•PC.. . c.}tit .'... *7'4 ° 01 'TN r••,..,, i , • 11: WILMS I.11.LOCAROX PA:' :::-.....:1:i.,'••iir(gA4.1i0j74? IH 'i I _.._,,, , ir11...,,i'r,. ,,..,•'..4:.:P1.0i41,,„*.tg' .Tt:, . 454 \i' ',We' ,1702,13.,.•.,,4•••377.1„.•:.: •. \ , i I / \-- •\ c:\ ti.'::', 40P' i I0 . 1 ....*, .{.. . rl -- I, comoviv_ \ 9 Vi -'' 0 4,4-.1;A/r4‘1' /"..,,ofrATtti • / \ 1 elki,' : ::-ilf.14:7•t+- .1"."'" , liO% ‘46'i'd./. • . '-::::---, ,--el --)'-)0- o 0 \ i W130', C3'el#N1 fo'r/ ''' Q_-.-() ..\,\0 ''' •-: ' : ` (-- --00 0 M . ird$$ ;.klt,)()- /', 4•44. go sN.'. . - -sr 3 •;‘,„i A + ,,e , ',,t p - _ - • , - 53033C0328 D I \-- 1'4% ‘ vt. -- 4,1t ---• „Iftw:lie EFFECTIVE DATE: H . te...:., .;tv.:(uvr.S., 4.4 ,,,,,,,... . ..0, RM330 \ tilith • ,y,t_.••7•s• x ' \ ‘/If410AL y AV- ---- 040' qp '4 \‘• -.7 \ ,. •..V.: •\6' - _______-.-,--•- .- ,-..40,004„,,,.' G tor p.v.p..-.,.$ ., . ., , SEPTEMBER 29. 1989 IiiIrj,70"kr . ' r ''• •' 0••'11' \ ( JP„;\ $04,. • ' I • . _••t,_.Itt ...10.,..41_,tp,..... `:•-1, CI ,-- orx,‘,........A.A.:. ......., e•iki til _________ TC•f4.. , ? / ,,'' '1' „.., eL..4'1* --'V 011540 ' • r 24. -- (<-- .....--_-_____ ....,..., ..,47377. Federal Emerteency Matugemenc ../- ..---,------,,,,„,...05..... -yk.(21.,$:-/.1,-.- f_7- •.„..,) - 1 , --- '' :Ar400/. ! l' .° f" ...'ev-' b • 4- ,,P1' ,-, „?.....<4' ,,-- .._ cT '•:!4?..v SI ,,,,,,,,,V sli LO-. (7 .„.----;,---<,------- /'' 7 ') 4.- ' I; (C,3-_, .... .0, , ./.4-. ,,., , ...... I3 R M33•1 -- ---;--- ,,.,.. - . --__--,•"" •-:( I I 1 \,, , - - , I ZONE X ' - . /1.4" A@ , t. i . • ,7." a , • \ 2 - _ 22 _ • .. . . . . .. . . .. .. , . . 1 ' ., ,z.,.... ... . . ,, , . - . , _. .;. . . . . • . ir-, --1 - H ........... ce„.„', , f',.' ,'., I'. -.. ., •. • '•" C•K‘C,'..,•',0:14t,,r,.,AZ.a..- •:.)" -' . . . . . ' .. •H '' . •••••*"!ii .+,'"'.• ..."-. i ;,:;,•'..,',,...' : •„:;. ,„.•..'",ltkii..,,:;r4,-/41':;, ,";'''''7•'-•• • .12es -ac . lieti:.'i 4 '-'1::'•;.., ' .''...' • '''..•:,-14; !..1•,.;,•,.....14.".itls‘r.,:.,-tV..;,• , .. 1 ,• , Ai,'.. ....4r,,,....„, •,.., •- : ,:,..:.‘:•••••...fi.....,:,.z...i"...4,.,',44,':i.'7••••,e ''t ',:;. '•:. ,:.• . . ' ' ''' ' ''.r,..-:..z., 'Al-.-:'•o.l.nt,.•..); V j '''' •A. '' ''ielf t" '7,0'1'•;1".'' .• * ,.'i-. •',:*ts,^.::- L's.'1 •,•.••.,t z• " . V,..e 1 • ...k. .t. ZONE X f:.:' '1-': •' - :. ....:,•(..y.„;:.,. :1,,....,,'L.,: '.• • • •• •%'...t, ri •...-:-.,....:..,....-,-. . . . . . --- % --- diefralS4'- 0 f' ':,.,-:-••,,,,. ,,..., • 101:,..i...,,.,,...7••• .'-...... t•.4,4.(4',,,•Z/.••• •,;?•.,,A. ,. ,. .- it . 1 • • .(1,9P•t" • •;".'12.."'''.. .. •' ." -• ••••.....,:'•111,titftl.1,...:::: / - ' ZONE AH !.. L.-- , ' . • j - . I':i ck.I d ,:-... 4,1,t....3',4. ..1'',... :•... r ... ' .;,7)}. .:•4.:6. .' . . . \ AO . . I , ,.., ,1 .STREET ,...442.., 4,.;.:V..4.,„r.,.';:•., I..,:. ,' ".,.'.:....;:.ik 41• s'W*40)14",!*:'.:1:%...,'...S.. P ZONE AH 1 J. LIOdI TIDdS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT za , GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED MANUFACTURING BUILDING 1400 MONSTER ROAD SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 PREPARED FOR SCHOBER, INC. _r? // Kristina M. Ellingson E. Staff Engin e�" r 1 4,'? - .4( . /0.: N.4...' 1- -' \- I: 7 6 7 ,V- 'rkt NAL 046 EZPIPE3 III LA4-ii ! Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 1MFUR IANI INI-UIKNIAI IUN F, ABOUT YOUR • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity. and appropriate founda- have been lessened considerably in recent years,due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist. The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how the Geosciences. qualified,and no subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive,can reveal what is hidden by The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays. earth, rock and time. The actual interface between mate- cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report occur during a construction project. indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances,conduct additional tests which may be OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS set of project-specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- access roads. parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo- which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and otherwise. your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground- be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions • •When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical changed, for example, if an office building will be report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept erected instead of a parking garage,or if a refriger- apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre- determine if additional tests are necessary. • frigerated one; •when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE structure is altered; PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES •when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS structure is modified; .when there is a change of ownership. or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet •for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor,or even some other ered in their report's development have changed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared expressly for the dient involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose.or by the dient ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose. may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken, when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING der the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming re- REPORT IS SUBJECT TO sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing MISINTERPRETATION the best available information to contractors helps pre- Costly problems can occur when other design proles- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid scale. these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be READ RESPONSIBILITY retained to work with other appropriate design profes- READ RESPONSIBILITY sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues. Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE consultants. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed model dauses for use in writ- SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals. These are not exculpatory dauses ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities neers based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved rec- (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro- of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are priate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely included in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs to appear in your geotechnical engineering report, and should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in you are encouraged to read them closely. Your geo- architectural or other design drawings. because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. answers to your questions. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara- tion. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit- tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical igate risk. In addition, ASFE has developed a variety of engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- complimentary copy of its publications directory • Published by ASFE THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733 0788/3M ! 7,, Earth Consultants Inc. � Grorrchnlcill P_nginrrrs.Groiogists&Environmental Scientists April 10, 1997 E-6715-1 Schober, Inc. 1400 Monster Road Southwest Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Dennis Schober Dear Mr. Schober: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Manufacturing Building, 1400 Monster Road Southwest, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our November 5, 1996 proposal. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the proposed manufacturing building can be constructed generally planned, provided the building area fill is allowed to act as a preload prior to construction. After successful completion of the preload, building support can be provided using a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on at least two feet of structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on at the structural fill used to raise building area grades. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Yis Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services KME/S00/KRC/kml 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201,Bellevue,Washington 98005 Bellevue(206)643-3780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206)74-608-60 Tacoma(206)272-6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-6715-1 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Project Description 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Surface 2 Subsurface 2 Groundwater 3 Laboratory Testing 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 General 4 Site Preparation and General Earthwork 5 Preload Program 6 Preload Fill 6 Preload Monitoring 7 Mitigation of Settlement in Existing Building 8 Foundations 8 Pipe Pile Foundations and Underpinning 9 Pile Installation Monitoring 10 Retaining and Foundation Walls 10 Slab-on-Grade Floors 11 Seismic Design Considerations 11 Ground Rupture 11 Liquefaction 11 Ground Motion Response 12 Excavations and Slopes 12 Site Drainage 13 Utility Support and Backfill 13 Pavement Areas 14 LIMITATIONS 15 Additional Services 15 Earth Consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued E-671 5-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Cross-Section A-A' Plate 4 Settlement Plate Detail Plate 5 Culvert Placement Detail Plate 6 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate 7 Utility Trench Backfill Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A7 Boring Logs Plate B1 Grain Size Analyses Plate B2 Atterberg Limits Tests Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED MANUFACTURING BUILDING 1400 MONSTER ROAD SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON E-671 5-1 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed Manufacturing Building, 1400 Monster Road Southwest, Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and based on the conditions encountered to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Project Description We understand it is planned to develop the site with a 27,680 square foot building. The proposed building will be one story in height with a two-story office area planned for the east portion of the building. At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building location, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up panel construction. Based on our experience with this type of construction, we anticipate wall loads will be in the range of three (3) to four (4) kips per lineal foot, column loads will be on the order of eighty (80) to one hundred (100) kips, and slab-on-grade loads will be about two hundred fifty (250) pounds per square foot (psf). The proposed building will contain a lamination press. The press will have an estimated dead load of ninety (90) tons and will be supported on four legs. The press will occupy a footprint of about nine (9) by thirteen (13) feet and will be set in a pit about eight (8) feet below the finished floor elevation. A dock-high floor is planned. In order to achieve floor subgrade elevations, four to six feet of structural fill will need to be placed. Parking and drive areas will be at or near existing grades. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY 'Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 2 The building will be surrounded by asphalt-paved parking and driveway areas. We anticipate vehicle traffic will consist of passenger vehicles and semi-truck traffic. If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located at 1400 Monster Road Southwest (see Plate 1 , Vicinity Map). The property is approximately triangular in shape, extending about 400 feet in the east-west direction and 520 feet in the north-south direction. The site is bordered on the northeast by Southwest Jackson Street, northwest by Monster Road Southwest, southwest by Southwest 16th Street and the south by a vacant lot and an elevated overpass for Grady Way. The site topography is near flat with elevations ranging from twenty-four (24) to twenty-six (26) feet. The east portion of the site is occupied by the existing Schober Manufacturing facility. The new building will connect to the existing building by way of two walkways. The site is lightly vegetated. Most of the building area is gravel or dirt with little or no vegetation. A few trees were located on the west side of the site but they have been removed. Subsurface Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling three borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A2 through A4, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Our borings indicate the site is immediately underlain by a two-inch thick layer of topsoil in some areas. This soil unit is characterized by its brown to black color and the presence of organic material. This soil layer is not considered suitable for use in support of foundations, slabs-on-grade, or pavements. In addition, it is not suitable for use as a structural fill, nor should it be mixed with any material to be used as structural fill. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 3 We encountered three to four feet of fill over most of the site. The fill consisted of brown silty fine sand with gravel (Unified Classification SM) and concrete rubble. This soil unit may be suitable for support of slab-on-grade floors and pavements, provided it is compacted in- place as discussed in a following section of this report. The native soil consisted of interbedded layers of loose to medium dense silty sand and soft silt in Borings B-1 and B-2 underlain by dense gray poorly-graded sand at approximately twenty-two (22) feet below the ground surface. The subsurface conditions in Boring B-3 consisted of medium dense silty sand underlain by dense gray poorly-graded sand at twenty-two (22) feet below the ground surface. Groundwater Groundwater levels observed while drilling range from approximately thirteen (13) to fifteen (15) feet below the existing ground surface and are shown on the boring logs. The contractor should be made aware that groundwater is not static. There will be fluctuations in the level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rate is greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory_Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual field classifications were supplemented by grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits tests on representative soil samples. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring logs or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY 'Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the site can be developed generally as planned. Building support can be provided using a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system provided the dock-high fill is allowed to act as a preload. The preload program should consist of placing fill within the building area to the finished floor elevation and then allowing the settlement caused by the weight of the fill to occur prior to construction. We estimate about six inches of settlement will be induced by the preload in a six to eight week period. The purpose of the preload program is to reduce the amount of estimated post-construction settlement from the static building loads. Based on our analysis, the estimated total post-construction building settlements will be about one and one-half inches. We understand a portion of the preload fill will extend up to the existing Schober building. This will induce settlement in the existing building. In order to minimize the settlement, it may be desirable to underpin the existing building with pin piles, or bury large diameter corrugated metal pipes in the dock-high fill near the existing building to reduce the fill weight. After successful completion of the preload program, building support can be provided using a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system. Foundation elements should be supported on a minimum of two feet of structural fill. This will require overexcavating the foundation bearing soils at least two feet below foundation subgrade elevations and replacing the overexcavated soil with structural fill. The concrete slab-on-grade floor should be supported on at least one foot of structural fill. The proposed building will contain relatively heavy equipment. Where this equipment cannot be supported on conventional foundations or the slab-on-grade floor, it may be necessary to use a pile foundation. We have included recommendations for four-inch diameter pipe piles. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Schober, Inc. and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork We understand earthwork operations will consist of raising grades about four to six feet, preloading the building area, overexcavating for foundations, installing underground utilities and grading pavement areas. The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter and other deleterious material. If more than two feet of fill will be used to raise site grades, the existing light vegetation and topsoil layer may be left in place. In areas where less than two feet of structural fill will be placed, the topsoil should be stripped and removed. Blackberries and other dense brush covering the site should be stripped and removed in all fill areas. The existing septic tank, drain fields and utility pipes to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems. Based on the thickness of the fill being used to achieve construction subgrade elevations, we do not anticipate stripping will be required over most of the site. However, localized areas of stripping may be necessary in parking and driveway areas where fills may be thinner. Based on the thickness of the topsoil layer encountered at our boring locations, we estimate a stripping depth of four to six inches. Stripped materials should not be mixed with materials to be used as structural fill. Current plans indicate that to achieve design floor subgrade elevations fills of four to six feet will be required. The ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI. Proofrolling may be necessary in order to identify soft or unstable areas. Proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 6 During dry weather, most soils which are compatible and non-organic can be used as structural fill. Based on the results of our laboratory tests, the on-site soils at the time of our exploration appear to over the optimum moisture content and would not be suitable for use in their present condition as structural fill. Laboratory testing indicates the native soils have between 44 and 99 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with fines in this range will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. It may be possible to use the native soil as structural fill, provided grading is performed during dry weather and the native soil moisture content can be reduced to near-optimum moisture conditions by aerating. If the native soil is exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be necessary to import a soil which can be compacted. During dry weather, any non-organic compactible soil with a maximum cobble size of six inches can be used. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum cobble size of six inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this possibility. Preload Program Our field exploration indicates the site is underlain by loose to medium dense fill overlying interbedded moderately compressible silt and silty sand. The placement of fill on the site will induce settlement in the existing fill and underlying compressible soil layers. Additional settlement will be induced by the building loads. Assuming grade modifications on the order of four to six feet, we estimate primary settlement will be on the order of four to six inches depending on the thickness and characteristics of the consolidating layers. In order to pre-induce this settlement, the building area should be preloaded. The preload program would consist of placing the building area fill to the finished floor elevation. The fill should then allowed to pre-induce the estimated settlement. During this period, the induced settlement would be monitored. When the settlement ceases or the remaining estimated settlement is considered to be within tolerable limits, the preload is removed and building construction can commence. We estimate the preload will need to be in-place six to eight weeks. We estimate the preload program should reduce the total post-construction settlements to about one and one-half inch. Preload Fill The preload fill material will be used for structural support of the slab and interior footings and should meet the requirements for structural fill. The definition for structural fill can be found in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. Earth Consultants, Inc. • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 7 The preload fill should extend at least five feet beyond the building footprint. The side slopes of the preload fill should be inclined at a 1 H:1 V or shallower gradient. Fill for landscaping purposes should not be placed near the building since the additional fill could induce further settlements after the building is constructed. If landscaping fill around the building is planned, the preload should be extended to five feet beyond the planned landscape fill, or a lightweight landscape fill should be used. Preload Monitoring Based on the settlement characteristics of the soils underlying the site, we estimate the preload will need to be in-place about six to eight weeks to induce the anticipated settlement. The actual preload period will be dependent upon settlement readings. If a shorter preload period is needed, a surcharge can be used. We are available to evaluate the surcharge depth and time variation, if necessary. In order to verify the actual amount of settlement, a monitoring program should be performed. The monitoring program should include setting settlement monitors on the existing site subgrade before fill is placed, monitoring them through completion of fill placement, continuing until settlements cease or the remaining estimated settlements are considered within the buildings tolerable limits. Details of this program are presented below: • Settlement monitors should be placed on the existing subgrade before any fill is placed. The settlement monitors should be placed at a rate of one for every 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of building area, with a minimum of four settlement monitors. ECI can supply and install these markers. (A typical detail is provided on Plate 4). • A baseline reading is obtained on each monitor and is referenced to a temporary benchmark located on a feature that will be unaffected by the fill-induced settlements. • The preload fill is then placed. Settlement readings are taken at relatively short intervals during this process, since this phase generates relatively large and rapid settlement. • Once the fill operation is complete, readings are obtained on a periodic basis, typically weekly, until the settlement ceases or the remaining estimated settlement is judged to be within tolerable limits. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY `Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 8 The settlement induced by the preload fill should be about four to six inches. A smaller settlement than estimated should be interpreted as that the soils have been pre-consolidated and soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely, a larger settlement than estimated could be interpreted that the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and that additional time and measurements should be taken to obtain satisfactory results. ECI should be retained to acquire the settlement readings. If another organization is used to obtain the readings, the measurements should be provided to ECI as quickly after their acquisition as possible for plotting and interpretation. This will help avoid any misinterpretation or misunderstanding regarding the success of the preload program. In order to ensure the accuracy of the settlement readings, the settlement monitors must be maintained. In our experience, earthwork equipment (dozers and trucks) often demolish markers. This adds to the project costs in that they need to be replaced and it makes the information obtained less reliable. To avoid this, the project specifications should include a requirement that the earthwork contractor is required to immediately replace damaged settlement markers and have the settlement readings re-obtained at his own cost. This requirement makes the earthwork contractor more conscious of the importance of the monitoring program and will aid in maintaining the integrity of the program. Mitigation of Settlement in Existing Building The new building will be connected to the existing building by way of two walkways. If grades in the walkways will be raised, the weight of the fill may induce some settlement in the existing structure. We anticipate this settlement will be on the order of one to three inches, and could result in damage to the existing structure. There are several options to mitigate the potential for damage to the existing structure. One option would be to underpin the existing building using pipe piles as discussed below. Another method would be to bury large diameter empty corrugated metal pipes (CMP) in the dock-high fill onto the existing structure. A standard detail indicating how the CMP pipes can be used is included as Plate 5. Foundations After the successful completion of the preload program, it is our opinion the proposed building can be supported on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation bearing on a minimum of two feet of structural fill after the preload and settlement program is complete. For frost protection considerations, exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY 'Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 9 With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf for structural fill can be used. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor- of-safety in excess of three against actual shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacities can be used. Provided the preload program is successfully completed, and with structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one and one-half inches is anticipated with differential movement of about one inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of (.35) can be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred fifty (350) pcf. These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor-of-safety of 1 .5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify conditions are as anticipated in this report. Pipe Pile Foundations and Underpinning We understand portions of the building will be subjected to heavy equipment loads. Where these loads cannot be adequately supported on the slab-on-grade floor or spread footings, it may be necessary to use a pile foundation. It may also be desired to underpin the existing Schober building to minimize settlement induced by the fill for the new building. For this application, four-inch diameter pipe piles may be used. The piles should consist of schedule 40 steel pipes driven to refusal. Refusal shall be defined as less than one inch of penetration in ten seconds of continuous driving at a rate of 1 ,000 blows per minute using an eight hundred fifty (850) pound hammer. Individual piles driven to refusal can be designed for an allowable axial capacity of twenty (20) kips. No lateral capacity should be assumed for vertical piles. Horizontal loads should be resisted by passive soil pressure acting on the face of bearing portions of the pile caps or grade beams. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY 'Schober, Inc. E-671 5-1 April 10, 1997 Page 10 Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at our test pit locations, we anticipate the piles will bear in the medium dense to dense sand at about twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) feet below grade. The piles are typically provided in manageable lengths of five to ten feet with straight cut ends. As each length is driven into the ground, additional lengths can be added using couplers. Pile Installation Monitoring As it is not possible to observe the completed pile below the ground, judgement and experience must be used as the basis for determining the acceptability of a pile. Therefore, all piles should be installed under the full-time observation of a representative of ECI. This will allow us to evaluate fully the contractor's operation, collect and interpreted the installation data, and verify bearing stratum elevations. Furthermore, we will also understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. The contractor's equipment and procedures should be reviewed by ECI before the start of construction. We suggest contacting Bill McDowell with McDowell Northwest for a pipe pile installation bid. Retaining and Foundation Walls Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill and that preloads due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other preload loads will not act on the wall. If such preloads are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. The passive pressure and friction coefficients previously provided in the foundation section are applicable to retaining walls. In order to reduce the potential for hydrostatic forces building up behind the walls, retaining walls should be backfilled with a suitable free-draining material extending at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. The free-draining backfill should conform to the WSDOT specification for gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with three-eighths inch pea gravel. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 11 Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on structural fill placed to achieve design grades. Disturbed subgrade soil must either be recompacted or replaced with structural fill. Slab-on- grade floors should be designed by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading and the subgrade support characteristics. A modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for design. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity; however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not detected without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.1 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area. There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture during a strong motion seismic event is negligible. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 12 It is our opinion the potential for widespread liquefaction over the site during a seismic event is moderate to low. Isolated areas may be subject to liquefaction; however, the effect on the planned development is anticipated to be minimal provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. We estimate liquefaction induced settlement would be in the range of the estimated post-construction settlements discussed earlier. Ground Motion Response The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that site coefficient of S3 = 1 .5 should be used for the static force procedure as outlined in Section 1 628 of the 1994 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in Section 1629 of the 1994 UBC, the curve for soft to medium stiff clays and sands (Soil Type 3) should be used for Figure 3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing, the native soils would be classified as Type C by OSHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1 .5H:1V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workers in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1 V. All cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Earth Consultants. Inc. • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 13 Site Drainage Groundwater seepage was observed in our borings at thirteen (13) to fifteen (15) feet below grade. Since building area grades are to be raised about four to six eight feet, we do not expect the site groundwater levels will present major construction-related problems. However, utility line excavations may encounter groundwater. If perched seepage is encountered in foundation or grade beam excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. The appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, should be established during grading operations by ECI's representative at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in paved areas, which can be sloped at a gradient of two percent. Footing drains should be installed around the building perimeter in areas where pavements will not abut the building edge, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 6. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill The site soils should generally provide adequate support for utilities. However, the loose condition of some of the soils and the potential for a relatively high groundwater table may result in de-stabilizing of the trench bottom as the trench is excavated. Where loose soils or heavy groundwater seepage is encountered, remedial measures such as overexcavating soft soils or tamping quarry spalls into the trench bottom may be required. In addition, caving of trench walls should be anticipated where the trenches encounter groundwater. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ' Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 14 Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on Plate 7. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1 557-78). It is possible that localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. The following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas can be used: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. As a general rule, the following sections can be considered for truck- trafficked areas: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. We will be pleased to assist in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. Pavement materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. The use of a Class B asphalt mix is suggested. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 15 LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. Earth Consultants, Inc. I • : : \ 5T I �\ =! < S r129TH !Pl"I,. 1.49"1 I ST <{ 2• r� �\ �C0 �, S tf !$ 'Ian �. .ti `' �\�` 9 �'� Q� u S `° LANGSTON '"' RO�l �a��©a S 133RD sT SW�� \� nvio Sr JP Sr:3tn R Acr HS I s� ' r n sour-- o ,�p,:5. �t "FTyF k ©1 T+ sr �a``fi r \\ N kbAac� 6 s TH sr , .,a■ 5 �4 `\ I — \ ' J� � S ft i)� � � +Ri+ra.'� •\\ ! N �. . 5 t �a . l,)FOSTER ��:� 1, b 11 • 4(1 ��_ 13 ., C la S t9Mst c�P GOLF �.ms l�� • S � <_N <:Lk,\�� • 4 j ��q cWRSE . • . `�\ S I It-r ___ teL R 1Jwtttitttw.r_ y _ P 1 I , , <i �� :�\\•�\ c -oa15•fL`BfAGC;RIYEIt ri =t. 142.1D ST ;t 5 H t.,+. SS .-41,-,r titi PARIAH FOcH m LIB `,_ $ < < : lag, t s *. f ,, ✓C- ,r :% 1 k* ,_ ' FOSTER MID ?r 1.3RD \\� ��� Y Tr {iFs.; HS r ="' \N > \ r' to 1, I44 H ■ ST <' 144T4 ` ST 'RO P V.!� ll ,I;-•, 7`'"'- ,..` \; a Ha r ur sr _ �' sr i-�'''. VARK .• -\\ 1�S ;t_ SIB s '•A.-•--- ^ °4cr r� Mail' � '� S 14 •L FS 1 `.: 'FORT\ \\ c p L�l ifI n 1,c ST 'Po \� .4- < < 11Ti SU911f a f6 ` P '` • �p � ST S 1 9TH sr aI I ,TM ►� s,'snt `� 14 F--,- L', ~,c..\�� tNTO N 6N S 150TH ST �'�, I S 1 ,� c0 r N sr . \ \\, 24 r 22 s Is n sr it:,�a Pl- 23 >< I tsr ST t . 7 ` \ ` ,, H cR DY f 12No Sr :I, S I52N0 $T ; t- a to y r-' �` ,n u5i \� i\h„...., < 5 152N0 PL etc ,a '., `N. ,, S'' SW . '� 9+ct 518� • . N IA.. 5 153R0 N / •Nsr 4) j�% Ia7i sr �/� `..11 WM '' l;�1—.>_ f .. \�< t 6400 TUaOiICA \ - � c S 156TH ST \ -.� ) \ p `• r^ _.. I • ��1 P�� \, �NT R i al I/ iJ 944 I. � a �� SITE 3 R, g" a crosra " 'r,,� ; / TUktiI KWY RI ^ $r '_• P ' k43? t SOUTHCEATER `� s \ tD :pr efe,ASsr . N y< F� 161n '$FAR s= 6.,t Q SP 1.4 V,.. BAKER BSyO, % r Y! • F >: \: = W F fir, r 1ii.I.,,..i,' _ © >uTM sr v9 s ;RANGER BLVD \,/ � . RiTO N EMtt667Nm N ,� 1 1 .. - M '' SDIR1dCEMER OSA'� CK INOIjJ4 • iNCT 0 ` a 8Y x4RR10 i>• 5 L. 0 Reference: hiKing County/ Map 655 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1997 VP: (ok. Ai\ Vicinity Map s `, Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building u/ hi \ Geoteetnleai Engineers. a Fmironmentai Scientists Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 I Drwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME !Date 3/10/97 I Plate 1 Reference: Preliminary Site Plan File No. 96-058 By POE Engineering, Inc. Dated Dec. 1996 I\.. CO. r v'9 QQ Detention 0 Pond Area Q� sO ��� s� / __� ---1 I ---- i I __I 1 I A' 1 r - L__ _ _I B-31 i� 6.1 CP -•B-2 i ........„..-- 1 r.....„............„,.....„.„„....- j 1 B-1 lir s. LEGEND B-1 -:- Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-6715-1, Feb. 1997 l--i Approximate Scale I Existing Building 0 50 100 200ft. ■ Proposed Building A A' Cross Section Line AL J (See Plate 3) di., p: dic Boring Location Plan s 1;41 Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building di igv�t Geotechnical Engineers.Geologists&EnvIr,,,ma,ral�� Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 I Drwn. GLS I Date Mar.'97 Checked KME [Date 3/10/97 I Plate 2 A A' 35— NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT —35 F.F.Elev.=30.0 - B_1 �—Existing Grade &2 8-3 25— 9 Brown Silty SAND(FILL) 8 —25 _ 2 3 21 ~ 7 I W 3 12 w W 1 LL 2 Brown SILT 3 Brown 12 LL z z 0 15 — 1 o Silty SAND 11 —15 _O Q F. w 6 ._— 13 9 W 111 Brown Silty SAND .7 w 4 Brown SILT with Lenses of Organic Silt 4 18 5 — - - - 5 23 20 Gray Poorly Graded 48 SAND,Medium Dense To Dense — - y� Water Bearing 34 5 — — — -5 NOTE. The stratification lines shown on this cross section represent the Horizontal Scale approximate boundaries between soil types.The actual transitions 0 10 20 40ft may be either more gradual or more severe.They are based on our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered at the Vertical Scale individual boring locations and our judgment and experience. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of this data. 0 5 10 20ft. Iw; 1 , Cross Section A-A' o ti Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building Renton,Washington I , Proj No. 6715-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 I Checked KME I Date 3/17/97 Plate 3 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING ><> Surcharge orPr Pr eload d Surcharge or Preload Fill Fill Iil -Ul _III_ ' �y �11_111=111= EJI\ STANDARD NOTES 1) Base consists of 3/4 inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled 5/8 inch diameter hole. 2) Bedding material, ft required, should consist of Traction Sand. 3) Marker rod is 1/2 inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. 4) Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. 5) Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is NOT attached to rod or base. 6) Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. 7) Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press-fit plastic couplings. 8) Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. 9) Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL ;� t� Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building vats/('' `1���) Geolmtrnical Engineers.GrobgLsu 6 Envircevrenral Scirnllsis Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 10r1T1 GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/17/97 I Plate 4 Extend Thickened Existing Structural Separation Slab Into Fill Slab Except At Wall Openings Proposed Slab Addition /.j I / e, e' 0 .� "a:e O. O•.e "o .f►' 'o �4;• .� • .4 ca •a_� 4" Minimum Base e Existing Dock-High Fill Proposed + 1 Dock-High 36' CMP 36" CMP 1 Fill Culvert Culvert / ... ...:...... Existing Grade 1l1 z-111=1t1 , 1117:-.--_111E-.1-111 -f)%1 ►11-Ill=lil- ill = v =111- 2' Sand Bed :71111,1 Fill All Voids With Sand Or Lightweight Material SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING ,pp• (:1 ,�� CULVERT PLACEMENT DETAIL • Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building !M (v �a cedechnlol EIVIWTS.CONOSISI5 a Envtrorrnrnrai sdrrvkscs Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME b Date 3/17/97 I Plate 5 I• O C P `V Slope To Drain ° 6 inch min. o o ° -o ° a 0 ° . e:o :a',: %-.e• .°.'6 0 ° 18 inch min. •- - o 4 inch min. • er - o '- . • Diameter ,'.. : ,• , - : . ° .o • ° o° '° . ° Perforated Pipe ° a Wrapped in Drainage - • . ' • ° ° '°° °- .•o .• •• o 0 0 0 °O ° o0 0 • 04 Fabric ° •s jT f 2 inch min. 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. - 12 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the WSDOT Specifications. ODrain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down; tight jointed;with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. IP; -p 111-A '� TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL t Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building VI, `J/ Geotechnlol Er,g,ne e s C'.++llgws i Envtrorvnenral Soenrsts Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 I Drwn. GLS 'Date Mar.'97 Checked KME I-Date 3/17/97 I Plate 6 Non Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas 'C ^ e4;r '��' `• fit- a ra ° Varies '-' a �o p' o o • 85 95 1 Foot Minimum .::.. .:. ..:.::„._:-...-..::.... .. . , . ....„..-....,::::.:..,:,:....,......„:..„,::.:„ ,.....:::...,.........:::„....„.:,.;„...,.....::•::.,,.::,,..-:....„,,,,:.,.:.:....:::.,:....„...,.. .::.... Backfill 80 90 Varies vo_O.:it ovool PIPE •o;Ov a•.0. o�Do 0 / o° o.o doo • j�,�, 0.0 Varies Bedding ��:o•o°•.°0•��°•. a°o;.°dQ...e 'o 0 p o•. o•'Q o°o ffR 0• • 6WO.D o O o• 0 .•g: .°O°oO.O'o°Oo o'Dovp 0000. oOo�Q�O0-°*-oC ;ctOnO°:°•�BQ.�nO. o°O .Qob ;O•�oo i LEGEND: tr „`' Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab ° o , °°° ^ Base Material or Base Rock Backfill; Compacted On Site Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text. �,°. �.o,;v.� Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and �a:aD p� Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected. ip 4 ,Iq TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL s� Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building tt �!) ''''''''''`'LE" dreimr�I EnRlrxrrS.GrobgK�s I.fnvimnmrt+N Scxn,ivs Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 IDr . GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/17/97 Iiate 7 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-6715-1 Our field exploration was performed on February 27, 1997. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling three borings to a maximum depth of thirty one and one half (31 .5) feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Associated Drilling subcontracted to ECI, using hollow stem auger drilling equipment. Approximate boring locations were determined by taping and pacing from existing features. Approximate boring elevations were determined by locating the boring on the site topography plan. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a engineer from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate Al , Legend. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Logs of the borings are presented on Plates A2 through A4. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. The borings were drilled using hollow stem augers. We attempted to control heave by maintaining a head of water in the augers. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. These results are recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Earth Consultants, Inc. • MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL fV: b O ( GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand AndGrave1 Clean Gravels (l O Aa Cl gw Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravelly (little or no fines) 1� a d Coarse Soils GP Poorly Graded Gravels,Gravel- Grained I •� I'�I � gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Soils More Than M Il�f ;)‘jwl m Silt Mixtures GM g Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With ■r r Fraction Fines(appreciable Retained On amount of fines 1 GC Clayey Gravels, Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve gc Clay Mixtures Sand , ,a , .,, SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand o Q o 0 SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines) d C ;� More Than Soils Q K*,p w SP Poorly Graded Sands, Gravelly 50% Material i... #..: .:. Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than More Than No. 200 Sieve 50% Coarse Sands With SM Sm Silty Sands, Sand Silt Mixtures Size Fraction = Fines • (appreciable �� Passing No.4 amount of fines) SC Sieve SC Clayey Sands, Sand Clay Mixtures ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty- ml Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Less Than 50 ���, CI Gravelly Clays. Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Soils Clays 1 I 1 1 1 1 I GL Organic Silts And Organic 11 I 1 1 I Ol Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts Liquid Limit Smaller Than And CH Inorgarkc Clays Of High No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 Ch Plasticity, Fat Days Size /�� OH Organic Clays Of Medium To High l /� Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts LI,Z �' `�' S PT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils }, w, .,LL ,.(r, lot With High Organic Contents Topsoil 4, y Humus And Duff Layer Fill �� • Highly Variable Constituents The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS ere used to Indicate borderline soil classification. C TORVANE READING,tsf I 2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf W MOISTURE, %dry weight IL 24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL pcf DRY DENSITY,lbs. per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, % 2 DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER PI PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION Y SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE *(1.1":', . \/IIr Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND 1 ,) (ir,,,lln,i,ii1:,,gIix,rs.(A3,Iu6Luy 6 ti,VII,.i,,.,II.il 5,v ilIuiS Proj. No.6715-4 Date Mar. '97 11' ate Al Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±26' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U _ W No. L o + N c Surface Conditions: • Blows a E a } E N E (%) Ft. L 3 (II IL n ) ° N rn v SM FILL: Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 1 •-- 2 45.2 g 3 -wood fibers 4 SM Gray silty SAND, loose, moist 5 38.0 2 6 ML Brown sandy SILT, soft, moist 7 52.7 1 8 ML Brown SILT, very soft, wet LL=45 PL=32 9 PI=13 10 50.0 2 -99%fines 11 12 13 14 15 33.9 6 _ 16 SM Gray silty SAND, loose,wet ML Gray SILT, medium stiff,wet 17 — SM Gray silty fine SAND, loose,wet 18 - r 19 — r Ea,,: 44 Boring Log Faith Consultants Inc. Schober Building hi Jo( ``°mh.hca' *Gmi°os"ag,,,,,t mmi Renton,Washington coProj.No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Bottng Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±26' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite W No. L } Blows 4 E a t E E l%1 It A ? LL I ? O N N N SM Gray silty fine SAND with lenses of gray silt and dark brown organic 80.5 4 silt, loose,wet 21 22 --- SP Gray poorly graded SAND, medium dense,water bearing — 00• a • c ac 23 c o . . c ' ,,: 24 0.• c a;o • o 25 27.4 o off° 23 .4' 26 Q_.0 0 G O OO 27 0 0` 28 o- Q R c a.. O O G 29 C ca 30 • O ad 23.8 44 -becomes dense • 31 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 15.0 feet during drilling. r c r_ 4411. Boring Log trig itte Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building Renton, Washington Proj.No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±26' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite u _ W No. . o -I- c Surface Conditions: • Blows a. E a + E CO E CD N CO N • SM FILL: Brown silty SAND with gravel, brick and concrete pieces, medium dense, moist i•�•�•' 1 S����� *&*' 2 .... 21.6 8 4 ML Brown SILT with fine sand, soft, moist 5 -94%fines 40.9 3 6 MH Brown elastic SILT, soft, moist 49.4 3 8 9 10 LL=52 PL=33 45.9 3 PI=19 11 12 38.3 13 7 14 _ SM Brown silty fine SAND, medium dense, wet 15 36.9 13 16 17 18 r 19 r u� fit� 44• Boring Log Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building CO °eO "'cal Er' i°'"1"""rgal Scienlisei Renton,Washington Proj.No. 6715-1 Own. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A4 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±26' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite u — _ No. — o L — to o W Blows a E a } E N E (%) Ft. L 9 LL M 7 3 C7 N N N SM Brown silty fine SAND, medium dense, wet 63.8 4 21 ML Brown SILT, soft, wet a�" SP Gray poorly graded SAND, medium dense, water bearing P .. • a 23 - 0 24 o• a G 25 a• ao 23.0 20 a ' 26 a a° c � 27 O oa• o2a a a.a 28 0: a.• .0!ia 'o o-a 29 - o-c o as d~ 30 -becomes dense dG 24.3 34 ;° o'0 o' 31 ar° Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 13.5 feet during drilling. n o• n kit. 14: 'Apt Boring Log a Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building be\IV/ WI oco1".*Al keels.Geologists+,Environmental sin Renton,Washington Proj.No. 6715-1 own. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-3 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±25' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U w No. - o ! o Surface Conditions: • Blows a E a } E N E (%) Ft. M 7 V_ / 0 ] N N SM ALL: Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 2 18.4 21 3 SM Brown silty fine SAND, medium dense, moist 4 5 15.2 7 6 7 20.8 12 8 -44%fines l s 10 17.7 12 € 11 12 — �_� 25.6 11 13 -II -becomes wet 14 --`- 15 31.0 g 16 17 SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, wet 18 N O 19 — � k �►' pt; ,i�, Boring Log 174 kids Earth, Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building gf ,kal ,ees&Ged00913 t Envittnmesval Scientists Renton,Washington • Proj.No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A6 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-3 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±25' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite o _ 0 _ No. o L — N o W Blows a a + E to E (%) Ft. u 71 m LL a f7 cn O ow SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist 26.2 18 21 — ' F PF SP Gray poorly graded SAND with trace of gravel, dense, moist 22 F G 23 .- 24 Q C 25 > d.c 12.2 48 ,(7 o a 26 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 13.0 feet during drilling. n a \ r G d4 Boring Log d Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building r its \% °`°'°a"'"°'Eniancers.Geologens•aMivrrrrmisus Renton,Washington m Proj.No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. • APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-671 5-1 Earth Consultants, Inc. ' PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT a 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p N M C In co n tp at L00C L00' -4 I I I J I 1 I 0 ZOO' ZOO' i o 5 �� C O G1 CO • £00. E00' 1 'p °: O 0 0 2 t00• _ b00' 2 c to v N ' 2 - U Z 900' . , - I 900' tn Lu N 800 - 1 800 Z (I L0• - . . L0' LL. Z Q Q Z0 , _ Zo• £0 ET I t O. 90 90• 00Z r4 r ,w- . so. — L o U \ , 00L • p i w 08 I w z 09 � L w LL a. 17-7 • • I I I E. w Os - I JCI 0 C] 0£ - 9 z Q Z cia 9Z 11 I I I _ 8 " , H z_ �a a 1 C -- c~n U) •w 0 _i _ 1 I 1 1 I i H I z (.0 Z c c — E Q cc 3 3 3 O O 01 O - q U 4 CO CG b I I 11 I 11 C9 en E r 11 1 — 0 L U. J /l W = t S I I --'< a. O to • ,_ — 0Z ¢ w w 0 0 I. - 0E cS 8 I r — 04 Q CC ° Z N M 0 0 C~ I I I . . _ . _ . . d CU Pa W - 09 c ," p� at 3 � 08 1— . . — 00 L cn I w .J } m W — 00Z O 0 Q CI 00£ ' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn co N co to cr N N .- PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building tl Geotechnical Engineers.Geologists&Environmental Sc enilsts B2 Renton, Washington 3715-1 1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate B1 100 80 x 60 0 } 40 '--A-Line J Q_ 20 • CL-ML 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Natural Key Boring/ Depth Soil Classification USCS L.L. PL. F I. Water Test Pit (ft) Content • B-1 7.5 Brown SILT ML 45 32 13 45.8 A B-2 10 Brown elastic SILT MH 52 33 19 52.3 Atterberg Limits Test Data jj) Earth Consultants Inc. Renton, Washington (( )( r Schober Building Geotecfinical Engineers.Geologists sts&Environmental Scientists Proj. No.6715-11 Date Mar. '97 IP1ate B2 DISTRIBUTION E-6715-1 4 Copies Poe Engineering 400 West Gowe Street, Suite 310 Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Alan Poe 2 Copies Schober, Inc. 1400 Monster Road Southwest Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Dennis Schober Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED MANUFACTURING-PUILDING 1400 MONSTER ROAD SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON -c, E-6715-1 0 , 4, 0 4+„ April 10, 1997 PREPARED FOR SCHOBER, INC. Kristina M. Ellingso/.E. Staff Engin e�" r R. CAMS` �yoF WASji ((\ .. o ;;: 9 h ` r Ai a� x ,t'Et:7StER� r/ONAL ENG r • EXPIRES It(IA 1 Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services Earth Consultants, Inc. 1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (206) 643-3780 IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT More construction problems are caused by site subsur- technical engineers who then render an opinion about face conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as overall subsurface conditions, their likely reaction to subsurface problems can be, their frequency and extent proposed construction activity,and appropriate founda- have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/ conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in because no geotechnical engineer, no matter how the Geosciences. qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays, earth, rock and time.The actual interface between mate- cost-overruns and other costly headaches that can rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report occur during a construction project. indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can be taken to help minimize their A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden- tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS needed, and to recommend solutions to problems encountered on site. A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur- face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS set of project-specific factors. These typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size and CAN CHANGE configuration; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; physical concomitants such as Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly- access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities, changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi- and the level of additional risk which the client assumed neering report is based on conditions which existed at by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory the time of subsurface exploration,construction decisions program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo which change subsequent to the date of the report may technical consultant to learn if additional tests are affect its recommendations. advisable before construction starts. Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not natural events such as floods, earthquakes or ground- be used: water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions •When the nature of the proposed structure is and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical changed, for example, if an office building will be report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to ated warehouse will be built instead of an unre determine if additional tests are necessary. frigerated one; •when the size or configuration of the proposed GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE structure is altered: PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES •when the location or orientation of the proposed AND PERSONS structure is modified; •when there is a change of ownership,or Geotechnical engineers' reports are prepared to meet •for application to an adjacent site. the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre- Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade- which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid- quate for a construction contractor, or even some other ered in their report's development have changed. consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, this report was prepared expressly for the client involved and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" by any other persons for any purpose,or by the client ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi- vidual other than the client should apply this report for its Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical only at those points where samples are taken, when engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose they are taken. Data derived through sampling and sub- other than that originally contemplated without first conferring sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- with the geotechnical engineer. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING der the mistaken impression that simply disdaiming re- REPORT IS SUBJECT TO sponsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing MISINTERPRETATION the best available information to contractors helps pre- Costly problems can occur when other design profes- vent costly construction problems and the adversarial sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations attitudes which aggravate them to disproportionate of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid scale. these problems, the geotechnical engineer should be READ RESPONSIBILITY retained to work with other appropriate design profes- READ RESPONSIBILITY sionals to explain relevant geotechnical findings and to CLAUSES CLOSELY review the adequacy of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical issues. Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted daims being lodged against geotechnical BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE consultants. To help prevent this problem,geotechnical engineers have developed model dauses for use in writ- SEPARATED FROM THE ten transmittals.These are not exculpatory dauses ENGINEERING REPORT designed to foist geotechnical engineers' liabilities onto someone else. Rather, they are definitive dauses which Final boring logs are developed by geotechnical engi- identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities neers based upon their interpretation of field logs begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved rec- (assembled by site personnel)and laboratory evaluation ognize their individual responsibilities and take appro- of field samples. Only final boring logs customarily are priate action. Some of these definitive dauses are likely induded in geotechnical engineering reports. These logs to appear in your geotechnical engineering report,and should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in you are encouraged to read them closely. Your geo- architectural or other design drawings, because drafters technical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. answers to your questions. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid prepara- tion. When this occurs, delays, disputes and unantici- REDUCE RISK pated costs are the all-too-frequent result. Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- discuss other techniques which can be employed to mit- tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical igate risk. In addition,ASFE has developed a variety of engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. materials which may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a Those who do not provide such access may proceed un- complimentary copy of its publications directory. Published by ASFE THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G 106/Silver Spring, Maryland 20910/(301) 565-2733 0788/3M ,r% 'Ear A 114 -: , Earth Consultants Inc. �% Geotechnical I nginenrs,Geologists&Environmental Scientists April 10, 1997 E-6715-1 Schober, Inc. 1400 Monster Road Southwest Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Dennis Schober Dear Mr. Schober: We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Manufacturing Building, 1400 Monster Road Southwest, Renton, Washington." This report presents the results of our field exploration, selective laboratory tests, and engineering analyses. The purpose and scope of our study was outlined in our November 5, 1996 proposal. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the proposed manufacturing building can be constructed generally planned, provided the building area fill is allowed to act as a preload prior to construction. After successful completion of the preload, building support can be provided using a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system bearing on at least two feet of structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on at the structural fill used to raise building area grades. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. *t\- t' Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services KME/SDD/KRC/kml 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201,Bellevue,Washington 98005 Bellevue(206)643-3780 Seattle(206)464-1584 FAX(206)74-608-60 Tacoma(206)272-6608 TABLE OF CONTENTS E-671 5-1 PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 General 1 Project Description 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Surface 2 Subsurface 2 Groundwater 3 Laboratory Testing 3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 General 4 Site Preparation and General Earthwork 5 Preload Program 6 Preload Fill 6 Preload Monitoring 7 Mitigation of Settlement in Existing Building 8 Foundations 8 Pipe Pile Foundations and Underpinning 9 Pile Installation Monitoring 10 Retaining and Foundation Walls 10 Slab-on-Grade Floors 11 Seismic Design Considerations 11 Ground Rupture 11 Liquefaction 11 Ground Motion Response 12 Excavations and Slopes 12 Site Drainage 13 Utility Support and Backfill 13 Pavement Areas 14 LIMITATIONS 15 Additional Services 15 Earth Consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS, Continued E-671 5-1 APPENDICES Appendix A Field Exploration Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Boring Location Plan Plate 3 Cross-Section A-A' Plate 4 Settlement Plate Detail Plate 5 Culvert Placement Detail Plate 6 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail Plate 7 Utility Trench Backfill Plate Al Legend Plates A2 through A7 Boring Logs Plate B1 Grain Size Analyses Plate B2 Atterberg Limits Tests Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED MANUFACTURING BUILDING 1400 MONSTER ROAD SOUTHWEST RENTON, WASHINGTON E-671 5-1 INTRODUCTION General This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering study completed by Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) for the proposed Manufacturing Building, 1400 Monster Road Southwest, Renton, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1 . The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface conditions at the site and based on the conditions encountered to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed site development. Project Description We understand it is planned to develop the site with a 27,680 square foot building. The proposed building will be one story in height with a two-story office area planned for the east portion of the building. At the time our study was performed, the site, proposed building location, and our exploratory locations were approximately as shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The proposed building will be of concrete tilt-up panel construction. Based on our experience with this type of construction, we anticipate wall loads will be in the range of three (3) to four (4) kips per lineal foot, column loads will be on the order of eighty (80) to one hundred (100) kips, and slab-on-grade loads will be about two hundred fifty (250) pounds per square foot (psf). The proposed building will contain a lamination press. The press will have an estimated dead load of ninety (90) tons and will be supported on four legs. The press will occupy a footprint of about nine (9) by thirteen (13) feet and will be set in a pit about eight (8) feet below the finished floor elevation. A dock-high floor is planned. In order to achieve floor subgrade elevations, four to six feet of structural fill will need to be placed. Parking and drive areas will be at or near existing grades. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 2 The building will be surrounded by asphalt-paved parking and driveway areas. We anticipate vehicle traffic will consist of passenger vehicles and semi-truck traffic. If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located at 1400 Monster Road Southwest (see Plate 1, Vicinity Map). The property is approximately triangular in shape, extending about 400 feet in the east-west direction and 520 feet in the north-south direction. The site is bordered on the northeast by Southwest Jackson Street, northwest by Monster Road Southwest, southwest by Southwest 16th Street and the south by a vacant lot and an elevated overpass for Grady Way. The site topography is near flat with elevations ranging from twenty-four (24) to twenty-six (26) feet. The east portion of the site is occupied by the existing Schober Manufacturing facility. The new building will connect to the existing building by way of two walkways. The site is lightly vegetated. Most of the building area is gravel or dirt with little or no vegetation. A few trees were located on the west side of the site but they have been removed. Subsurface Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling three borings at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. Please refer to the Boring Logs, Plates A2 through A4, for a more detailed description of the conditions encountered at each location explored. A description of the field exploration methods is included in Appendix A. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface conditions encountered. Our borings indicate the site is immediately underlain by a two-inch thick layer of topsoil in some areas. This soil unit is characterized by its brown to black color and the presence of organic material. This soil layer is not considered suitable for use in support of foundations, slabs-on-grade, or pavements. In addition, it is not suitable for use as a structural fill, nor should it be mixed with any material to be used as structural fill. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 3 We encountered three to four feet of fill over most of the site. The fill consisted of brown silty fine sand with gravel (Unified Classification SM) and concrete rubble. This soil unit may be suitable for support of slab-on-grade floors and pavements, provided it is compacted in- place as discussed in a following section of this report. The native soil consisted of interbedded layers of loose to medium dense silty sand and soft silt in Borings B-1 and B-2 underlain by dense gray poorly-graded sand at approximately twenty-two (22) feet below the ground surface. The subsurface conditions in Boring B-3 consisted of medium dense silty sand underlain by dense gray poorly-graded sand at twenty-two (22) feet below the ground surface. Groundwater Groundwater levels observed while drilling range from approximately thirteen (13) to fifteen (15) feet below the existing ground surface and are shown on the boring logs. The contractor should be made aware that groundwater is not static. There will be fluctuations in the level depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rate is greater in the wetter winter months (typically October through May). Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were conducted on several representative soil samples to verify or modify the field soil classification and to evaluate the general physical properties and engineering characteristics of the soil encountered. Visual field classifications were supplemented by grain size analyses and Atterberg Limits tests on representative soil samples. Moisture content tests were performed on all samples. The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided either at the appropriate sample depth on the individual boring logs or on a separate data sheet contained in Appendix B. It is important to note that these test results may not accurately represent the overall in-situ soil conditions. Our geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results and their use in guiding our engineering judgement. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others. In accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions, the soil samples for this project will be discarded after a period of fifteen days following completion of this report unless we are otherwise directed in writing. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion the site can be developed generally as planned. Building support can be provided using a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system provided the dock-high fill is allowed to act as a preload. The preload program should consist of placing fill within the building area to the finished floor elevation and then allowing the settlement caused by the weight of the fill to occur prior to construction. We estimate about six inches of settlement will be induced by the preload in a six to eight week period. The purpose of the preload program is to reduce the amount of estimated post-construction settlement from the static building loads. Based on our analysis, the estimated total post-construction building settlements will be about one and one-half inches. We understand a portion of the preload fill will extend up to the existing Schober building. This will induce settlement in the existing building. In order to minimize the settlement, it may be desirable to underpin the existing building with pin piles, or bury large diameter corrugated metal pipes in the dock-high fill near the existing building to reduce the fill weight. After successful completion of the preload program, building support can be provided using a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation system. Foundation elements should be supported on a minimum of two feet of structural fill. This will require overexcavating the foundation bearing soils at least two feet below foundation subgrade elevations and replacing the overexcavated soil with structural fill. The concrete slab-on-grade floor should be supported on at least one foot of structural fill. The proposed building will contain relatively heavy equipment. Where this equipment cannot be supported on conventional foundations or the slab-on-grade floor, it may be necessary to use a pile foundation. We have included recommendations for four-inch diameter pipe piles. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of Schober, Inc. and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 5 Site Preparation and General Earthwork We understand earthwork operations will consist of raising grades about four to six feet, preloading the building area, overexcavating for foundations, installing underground utilities and grading pavement areas. The building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation, organic matter and other deleterious material. If more than two feet of fill will be used to raise site grades, the existing light vegetation and topsoil layer may be left in place. In areas where less than two feet of structural fill will be placed, the topsoil should be stripped and removed. Blackberries and other dense brush covering the site should be stripped and removed in all fill areas. The existing septic tank, drain fields and utility pipes to be abandoned should be plugged or removed so that they do not provide a conduit for water and cause soil saturation and stability problems. Based on the thickness of the fill being used to achieve construction subgrade elevations, we do not anticipate stripping will be required over most of the site. However, localized areas of stripping may be necessary in parking and driveway areas where fills may be thinner. Based on the thickness of the topsoil layer encountered at our boring locations, we estimate a stripping depth of four to six inches. Stripped materials should not be mixed with materials to be used as structural fill. Current plans indicate that to achieve design floor subgrade elevations fills of four to six feet will be required. The ground surface where structural fill, foundations, or slabs are to be placed should be observed by a representative of ECI. Proofrolling may be necessary in order to identify soft or unstable areas. Proofrolling should be performed under the observation of a representative of ECI. Soil in loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable base beneath the general structural fill. The optional use of a geotextile fabric placed directly on the overexcavated surface may help to bridge unstable areas. Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, roadways, slabs, pavements, or other load-bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 6 During dry weather, most soils which are compatible and non-organic can be used as structural fill. Based on the results of our laboratory tests, the on-site soils at the time of our exploration appear to over the optimum moisture content and would not be suitable for use in their present condition as structural fill. Laboratory testing indicates the native soils have between 44 and 99 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with fines in this range will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum condition. It may be possible to use the native soil as structural fill, provided grading is performed during dry weather and the native soil moisture content can be reduced to near-optimum moisture conditions by aerating. If the native soil is exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be necessary to import a soil which can be compacted. During dry weather, any non-organic compactible soil with a maximum cobble size of six inches can be used. Fill for use during wet weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum cobble size of six inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus 3/4-inch fraction. A contingency in the earthwork budget should be included for this possibility. Preload Program Our field exploration indicates the site is underlain by loose to medium dense fill overlying interbedded moderately compressible silt and silty sand. The placement of fill on the site will induce settlement in the existing fill and underlying compressible soil layers. Additional settlement will be induced by the building loads. Assuming grade modifications on the order of four to six feet, we estimate primary settlement will be on the order of four to six inches depending on the thickness and characteristics of the consolidating layers. In order to pre-induce this settlement, the building area should be preloaded. The preload program would consist of placing the building area fill to the finished floor elevation. The fill should then allowed to pre-induce the estimated settlement. During this period, the induced settlement would be monitored. When the settlement ceases or the remaining estimated settlement is considered to be within tolerable limits, the preload is removed and building construction can commence. We estimate the preload will need to be in-place six to eight weeks. We estimate the preload program should reduce the total post-construction settlements to about one and one-half inch. Preload Fill The preload fill material will be used for structural support of the slab and interior footings and should meet the requirements for structural fill. The definition for structural fill can be found in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork section of this report. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 7 The preload fill should extend at least five feet beyond the building footprint. The side slopes of the preload fill should be inclined at a 1 H:1 V or shallower gradient. Fill for landscaping purposes should not be placed near the building since the additional fill could induce further settlements after the building is constructed. If landscaping fill around the building is planned, the preload should be extended to five feet beyond the planned landscape fill, or a lightweight landscape fill should be used. Preload Monitoring Based on the settlement characteristics of the soils underlying the site, we estimate the preload will need to be in-place about six to eight weeks to induce the anticipated settlement. The actual preload period will be dependent upon settlement readings. If a shorter preload period is needed, a surcharge can be used. We are available to evaluate the surcharge depth and time variation, if necessary. In order to verify the actual amount of settlement, a monitoring program should be performed. The monitoring program should include setting settlement monitors on the existing site subgrade before fill is placed, monitoring them through completion of fill placement, continuing until settlements cease or the remaining estimated settlements are considered within the buildings tolerable limits. Details of this program are presented below: • Settlement monitors should be placed on the existing subgrade before any fill is placed. The settlement monitors should be placed at a rate of one for every 5,000 to 10,000 square feet of building area, with a minimum of four settlement monitors. ECI can supply and install these markers. (A typical detail is provided on Plate 4). • A baseline reading is obtained on each monitor and is referenced to a temporary benchmark located on a feature that will be unaffected by the fill-induced settlements. • The preload fill is then placed. Settlement readings are taken at relatively short intervals during this process, since this phase generates relatively large and rapid settlement. • Once the fill operation is complete, readings are obtained on a periodic basis, typically weekly, until the settlement ceases or the remaining estimated settlement is judged to be within tolerable limits. Earth Consultants. Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 8 The settlement induced by the preload fill should be about four to six inches. A smaller settlement than estimated should be interpreted as that the soils have been pre-consolidated and soil conditions are better than anticipated. Conversely, a larger settlement than estimated could be interpreted that the soil conditions are worse than anticipated, and that additional time and measurements should be taken to obtain satisfactory results. ECI should be retained to acquire the settlement readings. If another organization is used to obtain the readings, the measurements should be provided to ECI as quickly after their acquisition as possible for plotting and interpretation. This will help avoid any misinterpretation or misunderstanding regarding the success of the preload program. In order to ensure the accuracy of the settlement readings, the settlement monitors must be maintained. In our experience, earthwork equipment (dozers and trucks) often demolish markers. This adds to the project costs in that they need to be replaced and it makes the information obtained less reliable. To avoid this, the project specifications should include a requirement that the earthwork contractor is required to immediately replace damaged settlement markers and have the settlement readings re-obtained at his own cost. This requirement makes the earthwork contractor more conscious of the importance of the monitoring program and will aid in maintaining the integrity of the program. Mitigation of Settlement in Existing Building The new building will be connected to the existing building by way of two walkways. If grades in the walkways will be raised, the weight of the fill may induce some settlement in the existing structure. We anticipate this settlement will be on the order of one to three inches, and could result in damage to the existing structure. There are several options to mitigate the potential for damage to the existing structure. One option would be to underpin the existing building using pipe piles as discussed below. Another method would be to bury large diameter empty corrugated metal pipes (CMP) in the dock-high fill onto the existing structure. A standard detail indicating how the CMP pipes can be used is included as Plate 5. Foundations After the successful completion of the preload program, it is our opinion the proposed building can be supported on a conventional spread and continuous footing foundation bearing on a minimum of two feet of structural fill after the preload and settlement program is complete. For frost protection considerations, exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18) inches. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 9 With foundation support obtained as described, for design, an allowable bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) psf for structural fill can be used. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. Loading of this magnitude would be provided with a theoretical factor- of-safety in excess of three against actual shear failure. For short-term dynamic loading conditions, a one-third increase in the above allowable bearing capacities can be used. Provided the preload program is successfully completed, and with structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one and one-half inches is anticipated with differential movement of about one inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should occur during construction as dead loads are applied. Horizontal loads can be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the supporting soil and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be poured "neat" against the competent native soils or backfilled with structural fill. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of (.35) can be used. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of three hundred fifty (350) pcf. These lateral resistance values are allowable values, a factor-of-safety of 1 .5 has been included. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI, prior to placing forms or rebar, to verify conditions are as anticipated in this report. Pipe Pile Foundations and Underpinning We understand portions of the building will be subjected to heavy equipment loads. Where these loads cannot be adequately supported on the slab-on-grade floor or spread footings, it may be necessary to use a pile foundation. It may also be desired to underpin the existing Schober building to minimize settlement induced by the fill for the new building. For this application, four-inch diameter pipe piles may be used. The piles should consist of schedule 40 steel pipes driven to refusal. Refusal shall be defined as less than one inch of penetration in ten seconds of continuous driving at a rate of 1 ,000 blows per minute using an eight hundred fifty (850) pound hammer. Individual piles driven to refusal can be designed for an allowable axial capacity of twenty (20) kips. No lateral capacity should be assumed for vertical piles. Horizontal loads should be resisted by passive soil pressure acting on the face of bearing portions of the pile caps or grade beams. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 10 Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at our test pit locations, we anticipate the piles will bear in the medium dense to dense sand at about twenty-five (25) to thirty (30) feet below grade. The piles are typically provided in manageable lengths of five to ten feet with straight cut ends. As each length is driven into the ground, additional lengths can be added using couplers. Pile Installation Monitoring As it is not possible to observe the completed pile below the ground, judgement and experience must be used as the basis for determining the acceptability of a pile. Therefore, all piles should be installed under the full-time observation of a representative of ECI. This will allow us to evaluate fully the contractor's operation, collect and interpreted the installation data, and verify bearing stratum elevations. Furthermore, we will also understand the implications of variations from normal procedures with respect to the design criteria. The contractor's equipment and procedures should be reviewed by ECI before the start of construction. We suggest contacting Bill McDowell with McDowell Northwest for a pipe pile installation bid. Retaining and Foundation Walls Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls that are designed to yield can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pcf. If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, the equivalent fluid weight should be increased to fifty (50) pcf. These values are based on horizontal backfill and that preloads due to backfill slopes, hydrostatic pressures, traffic, structural loads or other preload loads will not act on the wall. If such preloads are to apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressure. The passive pressure and friction coefficients previously provided in the foundation section are applicable to retaining walls. In order to reduce the potential for hydrostatic forces building up behind the walls, retaining walls should be backfilled with a suitable free-draining material extending at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill should consist of structural fill. The free-draining backfill should conform to the WSDOT specification for gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of one cubic foot per lineal foot with three-eighths inch pea gravel. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 11 Slab-on-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on structural fill placed to achieve design grades. Disturbed subgrade soil must either be recompacted or replaced with structural fill. Slab-on- grade floors should be designed by the structural engineer based on the anticipated loading and the subgrade support characteristics. A modulus of vertical subgrade reaction of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for design. The slab should be provided with a minimum of four inches of free-draining sand or gravel. In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane may be placed beneath the slab. Two inches of damp sand may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of the concrete. Seismic Design Considerations The Puget Lowland is classified as a Seismic Zone 3 in the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with regularity; however, the majority of these events are of such low magnitude they are not detected without instruments. Large earthquakes do occur, as indicated by the 1949, 7.1 magnitude earthquake in the Olympia area and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude earthquake in the Midway area. There are three potential geologic hazards associated with a strong motion seismic event at this site: ground rupture, liquefaction, and ground motion response. Ground Rupture The strongest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Surface faulting from these deep events has not been documented to date. Therefore, it is our opinion, that the risk of ground rupture during a strong motion seismic event is negligible. Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time during an earthquake. Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain to grain contact and rapid increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid. To have a potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium dense; it must be below the groundwater table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or differential settlement for structures founded in the liquefying soils. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 12 It is our opinion the potential for widespread liquefaction over the site during a seismic event is moderate to low. Isolated areas may be subject to liquefaction; however, the effect on the planned development is anticipated to be minimal provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed. We estimate liquefaction induced settlement would be in the range of the estimated post-construction settlements discussed earlier. Ground Motion Response The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is our opinion that site coefficient of S3 = 1 .5 should be used for the static force procedure as outlined in Section 1628 of the 1994 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in Section 1629 of the 1994 UBC, the curve for soft to medium stiff clays and sands (Soil Type 3) should be used for Figure 3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes. Excavations and Slopes The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility is not being implied and should not be inferred. In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and Federal safety regulations. Based on the information obtained from our field exploration and laboratory testing, the native soils would be classified as Type C by OSHA. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination of 1 .5H:1V. If slopes of this inclination, or flatter, cannot be constructed, temporary shoring may be necessary. Shoring will help protect against slope or excavation collapse, and will provide protection to workers in the excavation. If temporary shoring is required, we will be available to provide shoring design criteria. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2H:1 V. All cut slopes should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 13 Site Drainage Groundwater seepage was observed in our borings at thirteen (13) to fifteen (15) feet below grade. Since building area grades are to be raised about four to six eight feet, we do not expect the site groundwater levels will present major construction-related problems. However, utility line excavations may encounter groundwater. If perched seepage is encountered in foundation or grade beam excavations during construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches. The appropriate locations of subsurface drains, if needed, should be established during grading operations by ECI's representative at which time the seepage areas, if present, may be more clearly defined. During construction, the site must be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water must not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. Loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of three percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the buildings, except in paved areas, which can be sloped at a gradient of two percent. Footing drains should be installed around the building perimeter in areas where pavements will not abut the building edge, at or just below the invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on Plate 6. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems. Utility Support and Backfill The site soils should generally provide adequate support for utilities. However, the loose condition of some of the soils and the potential for a relatively high groundwater table may result in de-stabilizing of the trench bottom as the trench is excavated. Where loose soils or heavy groundwater seepage is encountered, remedial measures such as overexcavating soft soils or tamping quarry spalls into the trench bottom may be required. In addition, caving of trench walls should be anticipated where the trenches encounter groundwater. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 14 Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement along utility alignments, particularly in pavement areas. It is important that each section of utility line be adequately supported in the bedding material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the pipe haunches. Fill should be carefully placed and hand tamped to about twelve inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought into use. The remainder of the trench backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness of less than twelve inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction requirements for load supporting and non-load supporting areas is presented on Plate 7. Pavement Areas The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should be treated and prepared as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. This means at least the top twelve (12) inches of the subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557-78). It is possible that localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. Therefore, a greater thickness of structural fill or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. The following pavement section for lightly-loaded areas can be used: • Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB) material, or • Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material. Heavier truck-traffic areas will require thicker sections depending upon site usage, pavement life and site traffic. As a general rule, the following sections can be considered for truck- trafficked areas: • Three inches of AC over six inches of CRB, or • Three inches of AC over four and one-half inches of ATB. We will be pleased to assist in developing appropriate pavement sections for heavy traffic zones, if needed. Pavement materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. The use of a Class B asphalt mix is suggested. Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Schober, Inc. E-6715-1 April 10, 1997 Page 15 LIMITATIONS Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied. The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings. Soil and groundwater conditions between borings may vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. Additional Services As the geotechnical engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services. Earth Consultants, Inc. y... i ST �1 < S'129TN Pl'' intH ST <I(T•�* ,y Np .4 /"`4s, Oy 'Q� v 71si s1 _ S LANGSTON RD g7, t„Gr '� •599. N.''C /'TJ 'd,,..s. I s ND s BLACK RIPER ' S 133RD ST ‘ ' 0 Ti2ro sr Sr nisi R ST ALT HS i s� I tir n• \ �� Ty S 133RD S s DIM Sr ,-k^i' \\\\\\ N F1' I 13a SOUTKATE 'o �.,���~� � i�� .� K N� s 1 TN 771 sr Purx,;.�� ,(4" i i r1/4/ \\\G J ST 7Ju ! 'd / S J 'MK!"ff i \� 1 -n 15, :� 7. ; �4T •�, MjA FOSTER \‘ \g3 Lr1-, { �N 01? 13 S E ' sti^'L��S,v, C�,Q 60LF � �\� S_ 138"}i Ivy •�� ba M I' 1 a 54 G'Q� COARSE . \y..!`\ I ,�r ST \ S 139TH S'v11 R139-H � ca • ► I�►____ '�!7�n� iT 2 v t!+ `n ` y``5' ..$ -7L 5t�itFBUCJC°RIVER v P - S 142 D_ST s < "' 4290 Sr s 144^ S \�� 1°AG ° . , iZIPORIANvFOREST, o. LIB ` _ 'a < ,n 142 P s. - S t J' / l+' • .$ �... .I N ' FOSTER HID �^ v y�r 193 \\` ��/ tic 4 t ■ HS 144TH I ST m' ;. 1 `r \ t '.. ,n i '�< S `t' 144Ti < ST c•! !\N .��;g' t K: T�N "' - < Cr. HAZELNUT �` S ST £1`1� T pARxLIB ..}^\\ d �''; S 14TTi~L FS i� '`^. .\� o p , _(4200 • , Ir'1 CS ST �OT4' �A 4 ii `'\ . ;\ . NTON Pl. ST s 149TH ST ;� s TM s�9'nl sn t+• .. L' d- :..'\� �� '�„, S 150TH ST s t�,y m r sr T 22 ;< 151Srn `1� S �\ 24 H�(F DY K �� J.r' 1,.\, `n 23 < 15,1`_'T ST / \ \ - . 2eD S7 !J �`i S 152ND $T „ ` / � r ''k ~ ?N �''\ 5 152ND PL {� N �$' �oQ' - \. 4r -: —�..\. .n J' ca1� N ' ST 16rH 5T �/ AN. ��� S 153RD !+STE, �� i t a 518' 1 N I - �� 640o TUKNILA � �' _iik i/o S 15611 ST \, _ .c _. :' �\�- FNl $ clr << , 6 < < eR ■ s ST ` � ITE 158TH 4400 = f<t � � -' f \ ,m ,I I N S K cr _. 4RYSTAL rT �TUK Li-) FH +SPRI!d�.P g�� C ,, SOUTHCENl ER ST :LL , 1 i .i OMLLt Sr N S �IS'9rq < \ I/ al EVANS BUCK _ SUI S71,11'1 CRESTo117✓ 2 'a F 16IST 0 BAKER Bl 06 r Y' 163ROipl J " N / j 41 ST f: a 163RD 2L_ , g \ REV.,�7z� El. • ' 1 '1� ' STRANDER f BLVD °J' ' ' y 16~TM=;�%� "114 AC yL £ R NTO N ST < <166TH 511 8 N ,.., a \\ �$27 168TH �167TH ST ;" c SOUINCERTER aAaa cK tM(kj DR f, N CT I 0 N F 26 7 4 a 25 :l.T H [1 T S S 168T ' C� COURTYARD' r z Br ruRRrot• 5 -' 0 Reference: King County/Map 655 By Thomas Brothers Maps Dated 1997 JP; '0%., aii\ Vicinity Map $ Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building INIJJ `''� ` E Renton, Washington A Proj. No. 6715-t I Drwn. GLS jDate Mar.'97 Checked KME I Date 3/10/97 I Plate 1 Reference: Preliminary Site Plan File No. 96-058 By POE Engineering, Inc. Dated Dec. 1996 i\s, C, Vi DetentionPond Area C� eN ...... \ #%\ iO I ----- , 1 1 1 A' L__ _ _1 B-3� � 1 01, A / I B-2 i r..............„,,..„........„..........1 J ill_B1 s.,, 0 LEGEND B-1 -:- Approximate Location of ECI Boring, Proj. No. E-6715-1, Feb. 1997 f—i Approximate Scale 1 I Existing Building 0 50 100 200ft. El Proposed Building A A' Cross Section Line Ii_ J (See Plate 3) //0 'E*, 411\ Boring Location Plan $ Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building t 110`, Geo edtnkal Engineers.Geologists&Environmental Scientists Renton, Washington IProj. No. 6715-1 Drwn. GLS bate Mar.'97 Checked KME IDate 3/10/97 I Plate 2 I A A' 35 — NEW BUILDING FOOTPRINT a. — 35 F.F. Elev. = 30.0 - B-1 Existing Grade &2 B-3 25 — 9 Brown Silty SAND(FILL) 8 _1_ - 25 21 U.1 2 3 P 11J 1 3 12 W 2 Brown SILT 3 Brawn 12 - z z Q 15 - 1 o Silty SAND — 15 0 Q J 11 < Q w 6 13 9 W J J w - Brown Silty SAND - w 4 Brown SILT with Lenses of Organic Silt 4 18 5 — - - - - — 5 23 20 Gray Poorly Graded 48 - SAND, Medium Dense To Dense — - 44 Water Bearing 34 -5 — — — -5 NOTE: The stratification lines shown on this cross section represent the Horizontal Scale imiiii approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transitions may be either more gradual or more severe. They are based on 0 10 20 40ft. our interpretation of the subsurface conditions encountered at the Vertical Scale individual boring locations and our judgment and experience. ECI cannot be responsible for the interpretation of this data. 0 5 10 20ft. IIIIN ie; 'OA\ �i*‘ Cross Section A - A' �4 in Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building mirk '' , Ge toc nical Engineers.Geologists 8 Erm iry torntal Scientists Renton, Washington Proj No. 6715-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME I Date 3/17/97 I Plate 3 SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING rpr I o a oad surcharge orPrload Surcharge Preload Fill Fi ll =111 - =1)1= STANDARD NOTES 1) Base consists of 3/4 inch thick, 2 foot by 2 foot plywood with center drilled 5/8 inch diameter hole. 2) Bedding material, if required, should consist of Traction Sand. 3) Marker rod is 1/2 inch diameter steel rod threaded at both ends. 4) Marker rod is attached to base by nut and washer on each side of base. 5) Protective sleeve surrounding marker rod should consist of 2 inch diameter plastic tubing. Sleeve is NOT attached to rod or base. 6) Additional sections of steel rod can be connected with threaded couplings. 7) Additional sections of plastic sleeve can be connected with press-fit plastic couplings. 8) Steel marker rod should extend at least 6 inches above top of plastic sleeve. 9) Marker should extend at least 2 feet above top of fill surface. /Pk` - k. 441\ TYPICAL SETTLEMENT MARKER DETAIL II l\ Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building 1;',,, VI! 6 Geo rchnid Engineers.Geologists&Environmental Scientists Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 I Drwn. GLS [Date Mar.'97 Checked KME [Date 3/17/97 Plate 4 %u' Extend Thickened Existing Structural Separation Slab Into Fill Slab 0 Except At Wall Openings / Proposed Slab Addition n • .-;a. Q:a o.•_,►� .pp . . 'd..e..(,4 q' _ •� o ;p.: 'q- .•e- 4" Minimum Base Existing Dock-High .+ Proposed Fill Q 36" CMP /Ing Culvert:::: ::,::,::::;::::::: :::::::::::.,.:: ::::.:::.::::..::::;::. Grade lik—111=111 i/Ill=III=ll1=1�) )11,--xtElll 11 I _ �/� Il I= 2" Sand Bed III �'//� Fill All Voids With Sand Or Lightweight Material SCHEMATIC ONLY- NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING do p1-. 411 CULVERT PLACEMENT DETAIL t Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building ScirsasRenton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 I Drwn. GLS [Date Mar.'97 Checked KME (Date 3/17/97 I Plate 5 o e C .c e �__ Slope To Drain P o •eoo . n 6 inch min. -° .L _ .-• ;:,•.:::•••�- ^-'• -.f••C '•• •i. '�•• : o 0 -o'-.o•'oe4: •% :;:-•0.-6'" 18 inch min. 4 inch min. ,.•• ••`e o ° ° Diameter o: - -.L o -_ `a -o • • o . 0 1 Perforated Pipe _ . ▪ ::''.•-o;.' °o - o°oq o .° Wrapped in Drainage • .... . o° °. •; • • n : ova Fabric f 2 inch min. 2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING LEGEND „ : :r :''� Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material. - - •.. Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the o• WSDOT Specifications. ODrain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or slots facing down;tight jointed;with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent. ILA, •OV �A‘ TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL r •- • Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building `r % Geotedinecal Engineers.(' *L IJc 4 Environmental ScirrnLsts Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 11)1- In. GLS I Date Mar.'97 Checked KME I Date 3/17/97 I Plate 6 Non-Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas Roadway Areas `° o • Varies ° ° �oo 0 0 • 85 � 95 1 Foot Minimum y Backfill Varies A ,;o °(f° boo. PIPE 0 Q�;a6..d. .. ;!.° °..•d ..°•C Varies Bedding C) oQ ° •o o.°.. p'OOO•' ..00. 0. 000•. •O'0. 0: ° o. •.0009.•.0.0..0 0 6 •n rio°0 �' LEGEND: 3 ,,214.2 Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab o ° O oo°° ° o ° o . Base Material or Base Rock n :::::.,;:.; Backfill; Compacted On-Site Soil or Imported Select Fill Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General T. Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text. 95 Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-78 (Modified Proctor), Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text. ,.o,y°�� Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and ) O O` Recommendations' forBedding TypePipe the Should of Cnform to Selected.the Manufacture rs do • . \ TYPICAL UTILITY TRENCH FILL Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building FP `ig 11 Gearchni al Englnerrs.GcoiogLas 6 Fnvimninrnwl5cimtisIs Renton, Washington Proj. No. 6715-1 I Drwn. GLS 'Date Mar.'97 Checked KME 'Date 3/17/97 'Plate 7 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION E-6715-1 Our field exploration was performed on February 27, 1997. Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling three borings to a maximum depth of thirty one and one half (31 .5) feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled by Associated Drilling subcontracted to ECI, using hollow stem auger drilling equipment. Approximate boring locations were determined by taping and pacing from existing features. Approximate boring elevations were determined by locating the boring on the site topography plan. The locations and elevations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. These approximate locations are shown on the Boring Location Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a engineer from our firm who classified the soils encountered, maintained a log of each boring, obtained representative samples, measured groundwater levels, and observed pertinent site features. All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Plate Al , Legend. Representative soil samples were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Logs of the borings are presented on Plates A2 through A4. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. The borings were drilled using hollow stem augers. We attempted to control heave by maintaining a head of water in the augers. In each boring, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed at selected intervals in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D- 1586. The split spoon samples were driven with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer freely falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the last twelve (12) inches of penetration are called the "N-value". This value helps to characterize the site soils and is used in our engineering analyses. These results are recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Earth Consultants, Inc. MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER TYPICAL DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SYMBOL • d L] C GW Well-Graded Gravels, Gravel-Sand Gravel e e e g And Clean Gravels Q n Q • n Q Cl W Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Gravelly (little or no fines) r r 4 Gp Poorly-Graded Gravels,Gravel- Coarse Soils Grained gp Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines Soils More Than i I' Ili I GM Silty Gravels,Gravel-Sand- 50% Coarse Gravels With gm Silt Mixtures Fraction Fines(appreciable Retained On amount of fines) 1� le de GC Clayey Gravels,Gravel-Sand- No. 4 Sieve , ' • K gc Clay Mixtures •0 00 'a SW Well-Graded Sands, Gravelly And Clean Sand o a 0 0 0 SW Sands, Little Or No Fines Sandy (little or no fines) *:, ;:*:7,, SP Poorly Graded Sands, Gravelly More Than soils a:*: :s:R:ai*.. Sp Sands, Little Or No Fines 50% Material Larger Than More Than No.200 Sieve 50% Coarse Sands With SM Sm ::ey ::::s Sand- :a::t::es aio Passi , Sand ML Inorganic Silts&Very Fine Sands,Rock Flour,Silty- ml Clayey Fine Sands;Clayey Silts w/Slight Plasticity Fine Silts Liquid Limit Y CL Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity, Grained And Less Than 50 � CI Gravelly Clays, Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean Soils Clays I I��I Organic Silts And Organic I . I Il I I II OL OI Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity • MH Inorganic Silts, Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire More Than mh Sand Or Silty Soils 50% Material Silts Liquid Limit Smaller Than And CH Inorganic Clays Of High No.200 Sieve Clays Greater Than 50 ch Plasticity, Fat Clays. Size ///// OH Organic Clays O Medium To High / / / / /� Oh Plasticity, Organic Silts `'�. -II 1 pT Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils L ``+ `,r `,I pt With High Organic Contents Topsoil I 4, Humus And Duff Layer ���•�•�•�••♦♦♦♦♦♦• Highly Variable Constituents Fill ♦♦♦♦♦♦ The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. DUAL SYMBOLS ere used to Indicate borderline soil classification. C TORVANE READING,tsf I 2"O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER qu PENETROMETER READING,tsf �T W MOISTURE, %dry weight ll 24" I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER P SAMPLER PUSHED * SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED i WATER OBSERVATION WELL pcf DRY DENSITY,lbs.per cubic ft. LL LIQUID LIMIT, % 2 DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER P1 PLASTIC INDEX DURING EXCAVATION Y SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/DATE r��A, r 41�� LEGEND Ali I Earth Consultants Inc. ill J l,vu,YluihW I giuw•r..GOOMOSIS&iAI iriMuIr,u,d SixauWs Proj. No.6715-11 Date Mar. '97 'Plate Al Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±26' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite o No _ o • N — Surface Conditions: W Blows a E a + a U n (%) Ft. w a m v E 0 01. N 't 4 SM FILL Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist • • • • . 45.2 g ������ 3 • ��i -wood fibers SM Gray silty SAND, loose, moist 45 38.0 2 1111 6 ML Brown sandy SILT, soft, moist 7 52.7 1 s ML Brown SILT,very soft, wet LL=45 PL=32 9 PI=13 10 50.0 2 -99%fines 11 12 13 14 15 33.9 6 IMH 16 SM Gray silty SAND, loose, wet IIIIII1I ML Gray SILT, medium stiff,wet 17 SM Gray silty fine SAND, loose, wet • 18 r 19 r c•-' Boring Log N I �� rLtl Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building '�/ Off \ `eolec rical Enilkieers,Geoiogists`Environmentals Renton, Washington CO Proj.No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A2 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-1 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±26' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite o — � _ No. — o L — rn o W Blows a E a } E N (%) Ft. • a u_ / ? 7 0 O N N SM Gray silty fine SAND with lenses of gray silt and dark brown organic 80.5 4 silt, loose, wet 21 22 SP Gray poorly graded SAND, medium dense,water bearing o 0 0 0 a as 23 • 6 ° o O 00 a'" 24 `• j O ° 00 c 25 ° 27.4 23 o o ° 26 ` ° • 0 27 o �>o • 2$ r • a'I 29 6 O ' 30 • O Q<: 23.8 44 -becomes dense o „oo 31 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 15.0 feet during drilling. r N ,lid► 441, Boring Log 1-4 a Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building Geolectracal Engineers,Ceoiogists Environmental Scientists Renton, Washington coProj.No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 6-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±26' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U No — o L ! ti o Surface Conditions: W Blows a E o f E N E (%) Ft. O ] m lL • 7 7 CD N O N 0 SM HILL Brown silty SAND with gravel, brick and concrete pieces, medium dense, moist ��..4 2 21.6 8 ����j 3 — ML Brown SILT with fine sand, soft, moist 4 5 -94%fines 40.9 3 6 7 MH Brown elastic SILT, soft, moist • 49.4 3 8 9 10 LL=52 PL=33 45.9 3 11 PI=19 12 13 38.3 14 SM Brown silty fine SAND, medium dense,wet 15 36.9 13 16 • 17 • 18 r 19 r . �>i. Inc. oring Log `� Earth Consultants C Schober Building Ppof Geolechnical ""a`'`°'°gi'i° ScientistsRenton, Washington to Proj.No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A4 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-2 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±26' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ❑x Abandoned,sealed with bentonite o — O — W No. — o L — w o Blows a E a 4- E V7 E (%) Ft. L 7 p° V_ M 7 T 00 0 SM Brown silty fine SAND, medium dense, wet 63.8 4 21 ML Brown SILT, soft,wet SP Gray poorly graded SAND, medium dense, water bearing a 0, "0 22 p C v o c 23 O U >" 24 'o , 25 > a„ 23.0 20 ' off o ou 26 o ., o o ' 27 , oo ,, 0' 28 a ' ° Q' 29 -d oc -becomes dense 24.3 34 u ° • °P,. 31 Boring terminated at 31.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 13.5 feet during drilling. r o- ri f" Ml, ,,41, Boring Log i Atoll Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building Ike OfGeotec"`ca'E'gk""s,Geolo ` "`a' `° Renton, Washington o m Proj.No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A5 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 1 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-3 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±25' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abandoned,sealed with bentonite U _ o L ! N — Surface Conditions: W Blows a • .0 n +- a u d (%) Ft. " i m . E 0 31 otnVl C SM FILL: Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist 1 .. 2 18.4 21 3 SM Brown silty fine SAND, medium dense, moist 4 5 15.2 7 6 7 8 20.8 12 1 -44%fines 9 10 17.7 12 1 11 12 25.6 11 13 = -becomes wet i.4. 14 i 15 31.0 g i6 17 SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, wet 18 r cr- 19 r r O . W: 44. Boring Log 4_ d Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building r i►! a/\ CeorchNcal Engineer a(,ai,osis a Environmental Scientists Renton, Washington m Proj. No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A6 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Boring Log Project Name: Sheet of Schober Building 2 2 Job No. Logged by: Start Date: Completion Date: Boring No.: 6715-1 KME 2/27/97 2/27/97 B-3 Drilling Contactor: Drilling Method: Sampling Method: Associated HSA SPT Ground Surface Elevation: Hole Completion: ±25' ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer [] Abandoned,sealed with bentonite O — • No. — ur 0 W Blows a E Q } E ti E (%) Ft. L 2 0 r` A 7 O Vf VI V) • SM Brown silty SAND, medium dense, moist 26.2 18 21 SP Gray poorly graded SAND with trace of gravel, dense, moist 22 23 24 ° Q.:9 25 12.2 48 ' poc 26 Boring terminated at 26.5 feet below existing grade. Groundwater table encountered at 13.0 feet during drilling. r N a►,. pi; ,�*�, Boring Log s� r i Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building IP `d dNuir a°"a"'"a,'Engineers,`.e°`° °EnvIronninrialscientists Renton, Washington ccProj. No. 6715-1 Dwn. GLS Date Mar.'97 Checked KME Date 3/10/97 Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole,modified by engineering tests, analysis and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations.We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS E-6715-1 Earth Consultants, Inc. PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT —' I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o - N C 1 v to no N CO CO !' LOO• L0O' _1I I I J I I 1 2 ZOO' ZOO• �,o > > O o of E00.- E00' = a1 O O O 2 400'- v00' 0 1r, N U � 900'- 900' w N 800 - . . 800' z to LO - LO u z Q cc c7 Z0., _ ZO' CO'III co* b0' 40' 90' 90' OOZ % n —8- 0' I - L• ZO .. y oOL M' .{C7 . „ cc u, a 08i — Z•W z E 09Iu w LL 0 OS IP E' 2 Q Cry i - v• -1 La OE ;1 -- 9'z z z OZ —- 8' w j to U) L N 6 91 Sl w ?t z_ a a H H H •ri Q ^" U) U) U1 • ccN osu Z � cc 3 3 3 — E 0 0 0 0 — v U MI ( U) S.` —- 9 U — 8 z cf1 irot £ — OL LL N"". h w I it S > I-- a O o — C — OZ cc w I. w c� 0 1. — OE o rc 1E 3 - ov o oz cn t, H N C.-) — U C I I 1 — 09 8 .. 0.1 W W 5" 3 -- 08 C°I- — 00L en 1 w J > 1 m w I co • — o0Z 0 0 4 - - . OOE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn co t` U) to O Cl N .- - PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT 3 *' d1k GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES '/ i 1 Earth Consultants Inc. Schober Building — GeotccimiCal Engineers.Geologists&EnvironrnrntalScientists Renton, Washington 1 B2 )715-1 I Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '97 [Checked K;N1E I Date 3/10/97 Plate gl a 100 80 x 60 w 0 Z } 0" H 40 1 A-Line CD 20 • @ a 0 • CL-ML ®a OL I 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT Natural Key Boring/ Depth Soil Classification USCS L.L. P.L. P 1. Water Test Pit (ft) Content • B-1 7.5 Brown SILT ML 45 32 13 45.8 • B-2 10 Brown elastic SILT MH 52 33 19 52.3 Atterberg Limits Test Data /0" • Iv 4*\ Schober Building e� .1Earth Consultants Inc. Renton, Washington 1111/ iv Proj. No.6715-11 Date Mar. '97 1tate B2 DISTRIBUTION E-6715-1 4 Copies Poe Engineering 400 West Gowe Street, Suite 310 Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Mr. Alan Poe 2 Copies Schober, Inc. 1400 Monster Road Southwest Renton, Washington 98055 Attention: Mr. Dennis Schober Earth Consultants, Inc.