The URL can be used to link to this page

93-102403a City of Federal Way APPLICATION FOR BUI LDING PERMIT PLEASE PR/NTCITY OF FEDEFIA- T TUt~ - r SITE LOCATION Address ?p1� APPL/CAT/ON #: Tenant (if known) S, 28St11 Lane Building Owner Name Lot # Assessor's Tax # 01, 16 Charles City W./1,,garyrisa Noyes Address 7 S Federal Stat' c� e ti9f . 288th Lane Nature of Work erected at Zip �$p q rear of rcert Phone ]z;6_0770 Name (F,M,L) iN Charles w. Noyes Address 704 S. 288th Lane city Fe d era 1 Day Phone ;'lav� Contact Person 'harles W- No es BUILDING CGNTRACT(liR IL Company Name Address Federal 'Nay Landscape Service, Inc. 1903 SvI 31,7th PL City Federal ;;=a Contact Person Matt Mangi o Contractor's # (card must be presented) On file ARCHITECT Name Plans e�rorted from ^lans submitted Address 1805 136th PL NE city ie e - contact Person Kyle Cam-bball, PE LEGAL DESCRIPTION Please Cam late Reverse Sids State ,111j Zip Other Phone �----4,-a. pp State A Zip 8 02 1 Phone Fax 661-2162 None Expiration Date Verified ❑ Yes ❑ No Earth Consultants, Inc. State Zip Phone 58Fax 4�64-1 4� CD0492 (Rev 4193) ing use Residential STRUCTURE ❑plumbing ,j Building Permit includes: ElRemodel Type of Work: ❑ Residential ❑ New ❑ Addition ❑ Garage ❑ Commercial sq ft 3rd Floor sq ft Enter 1 st Floor sq ft 2nd Floor Decks sq ft Garage sq ft Area Basement sq ft On -Site Septic System Availability Water Availability ❑ Sewer Availability ❑ Lot Size Zoning LENDER Name None City MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR Contractor Name None City Contact License # pLuMBING CONTRACTOR Contractor Name None City Contact License # ,,posed Use fleSidential Other ❑ Number of Units _ ❑ Deck ❑ Shed TA Other Existing Floor Area sq ft Proposed Total Area sq ft s l5 ao 0 Pra;ect Valuation , Existing Bldg Valuation S •�L[,{ rl'� Address State L on Data Address State Phone Expiration ate PLUMBING FMURE COUNT Urinals Sinks Water Closets kTone SinDrinking Fountains Dish Washers Bathtubs Sumps Electric Water Heaters Showers Drains Washing Machine Lavatories MECHANICAL UNTT COUNT < = 10,000 CFM Fuel Type (electriclother) None Gas Dryer Dry Air Handling Air Handling > = 10,000 CFM Length of Gas Piping Range Unit Heater Furn <100K BTUs Gas Log Miscellaneous Furn > 100 BTUs Fans Boilers Hood Gas Hwt 0-3 Tons Duct Work Conv Burner 3-15 Tons Wood Stoves BBQ's ' Zip Zip Fax Verified ❑ Yes ❑ No Zip Fax Verified ❑ Yes ❑ No Lawn Sprinklers Other Total Fixture Count 15-30 Tons 30-50 Tons 50+ Tons Fuel Tanks Above Ground Underground Total Unit Count E to the IMER: I certify under penalty of perjury that the into rmatio t nnmesmadsyme is 11110 l further ag aed save hannln sco rrdc°the City ° F dOagW y ° ut any C1aim nclud g costs, expan60 f)ISCIA iicn of the above premises to perform the work far which permit apP arson, including the undersigned, and Hied against the City of a d apa ra a and attorneys' feea incurred in investigation and daten$a a1 such Cis'rnl, which may t made by any p I whore such claim arises out of the ral'sanca of the City. including its o;ficars and employee:, upon the accuracy of the inSormation supplied to the City ae a pare o t but only application. Date: r 6 Owner/Agent: ' �'- Pe --'lit # LD 9g — CITY OF FEDERAL WAY OOMMUNIty DEVELOpME By BFAR BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION n tMENt — Please Print— MAC I? $�95 BOX 1 TENANT NAME: OWNER k',� OWNER'S ADDRESS o S yr, 'f o yes SITE LOCATION 7a s 2 DESCRIBE JOB !A- � -A-4G A, r� x• .6. rc n t r.¢r�Y — t9 ., III SIPHON G ca7 -70 THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY; SINGLE/MARRIED ,q ��- PARTNERSHIP BOX 2 CONTRACTOR'S NAME y rc �, CORPORATION C� c Yl CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS 1-3o z a CONTRACTOR'S REG. #.e5c;, Card MUST be presented EXPIRATION DATE _ A� Kgrt��.ClTY j:2 &-A,70... _ PHONE--s-_ OR I HAVE READ CHAPTER 18.27.010 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS AND SPECIALTY CHAPTER 18.27.110 WHICH PROHIBITS ISSUING PERMITS WITHOUT PROOF OF REGISTRATION. BOX 3 CONTACT PERSON CONTRACTORS AND BOX 4 SEWER DISTRICT - n .ra.�� ,. PHONE y' ca Rio _4��WATER DISTRICT .�� BOX 5 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST �f 5-2 a �- 4 r_ _ BOX 6 PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER EXISTING BUILDING VALUATION n. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (If necessary, please submit a separate page with the legal description.) � -tc�r„R,r e.= rw.r K.C. Plat Recording # BOX 7 BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: 3RD FLOOR (Existing/Proposed) 1ST FLOOR Al — /� BASEMENT�/ Dl� 2ND FLOOR BOX 8 (K) SINGLE FAMILY GARAGES ( )MULTIFAMILY (N0. OF UNITS = _ _ T )NEW CONSTRUCTION ( ) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL - (x) EXISTING STRUCTURE BOX 9 PLUMBING FIXTURES (including rough -ins) TOTAL AREA OF PROPERTY moo ---SO FT NO.000—WATERCLOSETS MECHANICAL APPLIANCES - BASIC FEE $ _BATHTUBS GAS PIPING, FEET �- SHOWERS 00. --FURNACE, ELEC.— � GAS LAVATORIES - GAS HOT WATER HEATER $ $ _SINKSCONVERSION BURNER $ _DISHWASHERS BOILER, SIZE � BTU _ELECTRIC HOT WATER HEATER �-4IR HANDLING UNITS $ LAUNDRY WASHER OUTLET HEAT PUMPS, SIZE $ $ URINALS UNIT HEATERS DRINKING FOUNTAINS —AIR COOLING UNITS, SIZE SUMPS, SPRINKLER VACUUM BREAKERS —COMMERCIAL HOOD $ DRAINS —OTHER $ OTHER __ _ --- - -- ----- - �- � —TOTAL FIXTURES FIXTURES - - -- - ---~ - - - $ - - CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION FURNISHED By MECHANICAL FEE-- aNDFURTHER THAT I AM AUTHORIZED BY THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE PREMISES TO PERFORM$ MADE. I FURTHER AGREE TO SAVE HARMLESS THE CITY F FEDERAL WAY Y ME IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST PERMIT MY KNOWLEDGE AAD:EES INCURRED IN INVESTIGATION AND DEFENSE I SUCH CLAIML WHICH MAY gE THE WORKFSR WHICH NSES,A DATT ATTORNEYS, IS AS TO ANY CLAIM (INCLUDING COSTS, EXPENSES, AND ATTORNEYS' iND FILED AGAINST THE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, BUT ONLY WHERE SUCH CLAIM ARISES OUT OF THE REBY ANY �ON, ANCE OF THE CITY, INCLUDING ITS FFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, UPON THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE CITY AS INCLUDING THE UNDERSIGNED, A PART OF THIS APPLICATION. WNER/AGENT; �- -----DATE:r- ANP-008 3/90 OFFICE USE ONLY (PLEASE DO NOT WRITE BELOW 1 HIS LINE) REARS HEIGHT LIMIT SETBACKS: FRONT- SIDES _- ZONE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL -- REMARKS: _ -- - - - SEP EXEAMPT _ NOT EXEMPTS - DATE -- FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL - - -- REMARKS:_ - -- - - - ----�---- DATE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT APPROVAL NEW iNOUSTRIA� IND. ADDWT� TYPE OF JOB: NEW RESIDEN COMM. A DD _ RES. ADD/ALTO JALT� NEW MULTIFAMILY jUNITS l NEW COMMERCIAL --TENANT IMP. OTHER STORES MULTIFAMILY ADDIALT� TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY @ BUILDING S0. FT. � = BUILDING SO. FT. @ - BUILDING SO. FT, @ - BUILDING SO. FT. @ - 13UILDING SO. FT. @ �� = BUILDING SO. FT- TOTAL VALUATION TOTAL SO. FT. f� BUILDING DEPARTMENT RED PERMIT FEE PLAN CHECK FEE PLUMBING FEE MECHANICAL FEE TOTAL BLDG. FEES PART P/C FEE SEPA REVIEW S.B.C.C. FEE OTHER FEES AMOUNT DUE ASSIGNED ADDRESS: PARTIAL PLAN CHECK FEE RECEIVED Amount Date Receipt # BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL DATE.- - -- - --- BY------------ ACCEPTED FOR FILING RECElV: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEL, Mr. Ken Nyberg October 17, 1997 City Manager- City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 Dear Mr. Nyberg, It is time that this matter came to the attention of your office. I will try to keep a very lengthy and frustrating ordeal with your Planning Department a5 concise as possible. During the Summer of 1993, in an attempt to beautify the backyard of my residence, I erected a series of 6"x6" vertical timbers on the face of an existing rock retaining wall. Because these timbers were intended to only enhance the aesthetics of an existing and previously permitted (by King County) wall, I mistakenly thought that another permit would not be required. I learned in the Spring of 1994, that because my wall abutted a geologically hazardous area (steep slope), I should have indeed had a permit before the timbers were laid. In an effort to rectify this mistake, I then filled out an application for a Building Permit, had a licensed geological engineer prepare a plan to modify construction to bring my wall into City Code compliance, and, completed the required Environmental Checklist for SEPA. It was suggested, understandably, that some changes be made to my applications. These changes were made and a Mitigated Environmental Statement of Non -Significance was issued listing conditions to be met to bring my wall into compliance. My efforts to meet these conditions have been in good faith since the onset. In an attempt to satisfy these demands in a timely, practical, and, cost effective manner, I have had to enlist the services of not less than three licensed geological engineering firms, a retaining wall contractor, and an attorney. However, after each and every attempt to comply, I have been turned away by the Planning Department with at least one more demand to be fulfilled. This ordeal has now taken more than four years and several thousand of dollars in professional fees. In the interim, I have been warned verbally and in writing that absolutely no new work, or repair shall be done either to the wall, or it's drainage system, even including re -vegetation, until the entire permitting process has been completed. I have now been given assurance, even though history makes me extremely doubtful, that we are very close to the issuance of a Building Permit that will allow the modification construction to begin. Evidently, the plans for the modifications to the wall itself have been approved by the City Engineering Department. A completely new design for it's drainage system was also submitted and approved. However, the route required for this drainage tightline would. by necessity, transverse my neighbor's property. At the time of plan development, my neighbor was agreeable to an easement. His home is now in the process of being sold, and he is now hesitant to grant this easement for fear of a cloud on his title. I have no doubt that the new owner would also be agreeable to granting an easement after closing, as this matter is in the best interest of all parties, but this is obviously a time concern beyond my control. Unfortunately, your Planning Department continues to take an all or nothing approach to any remedial construction on my wall. During these four years of bureaucratic papershuffling and indecision by your Planning Department, we have gone through several non -typical winter weather patterns which have resulted in much hiller than normal rainfall. As you know, the entire Puget Sound Region has been faced with emergency situations involving mudslides and destruction of entire homes and properties. I.ilcewise, my wall is now showing some signs of immanent failure. My Geological Engineer concurs, and has indeed conveyed his concern to the Planning Department in a letter dated October 7, 1997. His letter.is enclosed and I refer you to the statement that: "In our opinion it is critical to have the recommended pin -pile and manta ray anchorage system installed immediately to avoid the increasing risk of wall failure, pardvalarl-y as the wet winter weather is now upon us. In another enclosed letter, your Planning Department has stated to me that it wishes to ignore the advice of my Professional Engineer, denying one more time my efforts to make needed repairs in a timely manner. Now, because I have acted entirely in good faith, and because your Planning Department chooses to disregard the advice of a licensed Professional Engineer, the purpose of this letter and it's enclosures is two -fold. One, by far serving the best interest of all parties concerned, is to politely request that somebody with authority put an end to this nonsense, and grant to me the necessary letter of "Commencement of Work" by the City, so that I can make the necessary repairs. Two, is to put the City of Federal Way, yourself, and the Planning Department on notice that any further failure of the subject wall itself, or surrounding property, including, but not limited to, my home and contents, life and injury to any person, and to that of my neighbors', could be regarded as due to the direct result of negligence by the City of Federal Way, and that appropriate measures would have to be taken to recover damages. I will be looking forward to your timely response to my letter. If you, or someone else in authority require more mfon- ation please do not hesitate to call. I can be reached during busiaecs hours at (532) 946-0770. Thank you for both your time to hear my concerns and your response. Sincerely, 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 cc: Mahlon Priest, Mayor- City of Federal Way Julie Vern, Engineering Plans Reviewer Glenn Mann P.E., Creative Engineering MartinNordby, Code Enforcement Officer Steven CliBon, Development Services Manager Ken Cornwell, Senior Plans F.xauuner Greg Fewins, Principal Plainer John Matheson, Attorney -at -Law Deb Barker, Associate Planner Ron Meyers, Attorney -at -Law Mr. Greg Fewins January 3, 1995 Senior Environmental Planner City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way Federal Way, WA. 98003-6210 RE: Application Number SEP93-9931 Dear Mr. Fewins, I am writing to keep you up to date with the ongoing modification of the existing planter box on our property. To date, three construction firms have reviewed the plans submitted by Earth Consultants, Inc., with associated site visits. Two of these companies were unable to undertake the project due to the extremely limited access to the area. A third, Dochnahl Construction of Renton, expressed interest in the project and seemed to think access would not be a great problem with their equipment. Currently, their engineers are further reviewing ECI's plans to provide a workable cost estimate. I am sure that if it were not for the past holiday season, this estimate would be in my hands at this time. During this past week's heavy rainfall, I closely observed all areas surrounding the existing structure looking for any signs of failure. No drainage, seeping, or movement was observed in any area, either within or adjacent to the existing planter box. Again, thank you for your time and patience. Be assured that I am just as anxious as you to clear this matter up. Sincerely, Charles W. Noyes 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA. 98003 (206) 946-0770 JCITYOFf450000, 33530 1 ST WAY SOUTH October 10, -1997 Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98023 (253) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 Subject. Slope Stabilization Recommendation 704 So 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA; BLD 93-1014 Dear Mr. Noyes: This letter responds to the October 7, 1997 letter faxed from your geotechnical engineer regarding emergency repair of the unpermitted bulkhead wall at the above referenced site. Glen Mann, P.E. with Creative Engineering Options, Inc. stated in the letter faxed 10/07/97, that "In our opinion it is critical to have the recommended pin -pile and manta ray anchorage system installed immediately to avoid the increasing risk of wall failure, ... " Regarding storm drainage issues, he also stated "Whilst this may not be as critical as the need for wall support and anchorage, it makes practical sense to perform both elements of the emergency repair at the same time". The City is in agreement with your geotechnical engineer that the situation is critical. The City has maintained that the control of storm water drainage is integral to the project. However the plans submitted September 3, 1997 show a drainage system over land not owned by the applicant. Therefore, it is imperative to provide connection from the existing wall drain system, as referred to in the geotech letter, to the existing tightline storm drainage system. An easement from the adjacent property owner, Lot 20, must be obtained before the connection can be made. Before granting approval of the installation of the emergency work, pin -poles and manta ray anchorage system, the storm water from the existing wall drain system must be directed away from the top of the steep slope via an approved method. To accomplish this, one of the following must be provided to the City: A copy of the recorded easement granting access for installation of the storm pipe across Lot 20; OR ■ A plan to temporarily collect and route the storm water away from the steep slope. The interim improvements will be allowed for thirty (30) calendar days from date of receipt of this letter, at which time the easement from Lot 20 must be provided to the City. Once the easement is provided to the City, the building permit (BLD 93-1014), can be issued. YCOMMUNITL XT 14 aqt,, Please be advised that no work may be conducted at the site until you receive a letter of "Commencement of Work" by the City or the building permit has been approved and issued. Please contact me at 661-4125 or Deb Barker at 661-4103 if you have any questions. 5incer Julie Venn, Engineering Plans Reviewer II Jv:.lg cc: Stephen Clifton, Development Services Manger Greg Fewins, Principal Planner Deb Barker, Associate Planner Martin Nordby, Code Enforcement Officer Ken Cornwall, Senior Plans Examiner Project File Day File l: \pimsys\doeumeat\bid93 10.14\pw IOlO.doe MEMO To: _Step_hen_C-lifton for Julie Venn From: Deb Barker Subject: oyes revision Date: September 4, 1997 Revision submitted for the Chuck Noyes Building Permit BLD 93-1014, for the retaining wall. Attached please find: * Geotechnicial Engineering Report prepared by Creative Engineering Options dated August 11, 1997. Please provide comments as applicable. Deb Creative Engineering Options INC. AFMI A firm practicing in the geosclen ces PREPARED FOR MR. CHUCK NOYES GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ANCHORED WALL & SLOPE AND BULKHEAD INAGE CONTROL SLOPE AN 704 South 288'h Lane FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON n� l: , Glen. anti, P.E. 4; ; P President ` r6-r4A101 96-1701 �'�7�II August 11, 1997 10N I, A� S F P 0 19S7 Copyright Creative Engineering Options, Inc. August 11, 1997 5418 159th Place NE , Redmond, WA 98052 - i206i 883-6889 0 (206) 953-1 173 ■ FAX 867-9664 Creative Engineering options INCH `rIrm%of nces A firm practicing in the geoscle 96-1701 August 11, 1997 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 28Vh Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Geotechnical Design Criteria Anchored Bulkhead Wall & Slope and Wall Drainage Control 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: CEO, Inc., Letter for Slope and Wall Stabilization Options, dated September 12, 1996. Dear Mr. Noyes: Introduction This report is to supplement the previous geotechnical reports provided by Earth Consultants, Inc., (ECi) and Creative Engineering omtsbu c.,. (Chead wOall a d rdi d and ng the installation of lateral restraint measures for an existing timber wall drain system at the subject site. The primary purpose of thises letter vert calto updat battered theearlier recommendations regarding the the exalsanlon of a g timberbulkheadwall along the crest pin -piles to develop lateral supportns more of the slope at the western edge of the subject site. In addition, of a shallow drain thedetailed recommendations for the installation and protection southwestern end of the bulkhead wall out to an existing catch basinLot n the southern perimeter of your neighbor's property immediately to the 5418 1 59th Place NE • Redmond, WA 98052 e �206) 883-6889 • �206) 953-1 173 • FAX 867-9664 As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer, you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. ASFE/I'he Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences offers the following suggestions and observations to help you manage your risks. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS Your geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project -specific factors. These factors typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; other improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -of -service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask your geotechnical engineer to evaluate how factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the report's recommendations. Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, do not use your geotechnical engineering report: • when the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one; • when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed structure is altered; • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership; or • for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors considered in their report's development have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE A geotechnical engineering report is based on condi- tions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Do not base construction decisions on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with your geotechnical consult- ant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts.Note, too, that additional tests may be required when subsurface conditions are affected by construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or ground water fluctuations. Keep your geotechnical consultant apprised of any such events. MOST GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your geotechnical engineer who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your geotechnical engineer can work together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your geotechnical engineer to observe construction can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS CAN ONLY BE PRELIMINARY The construction recommendations included in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork, you should retain your geo- technical engineer to observe actual conditions and to finalize recommendations. Only the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by appli- cable recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommenda- tions if another party is retained to observe construction. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals, A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your geotechnical engineer prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated_ No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. GEOENVI RON MENTAL CONCERNS ARE NOT AT ISSUE Your geotechnical engineering report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the potential for hazardous materials existing at the site. The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental exploration differ substantially from those applied in geotechnical engineering. Contamination can create major risks. If you have no information about the potential for your site being contaminated, you are advised to speak with your geotechnical consultant for information relating to geoenvironmental issues. • A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costly problems can occur when other design profes- sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your geotechnical engineer to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechnical report. Have your geotech- nical engineer explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and then review those design professionals' plans and specifications to see how they have incorporated geotechnical factors. Although certain other design professionals may be fam- iliar with geotechnical concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent geotechnical engineer. BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT Geotechnical engineers develop final boring logs based upon their interpretation of the field logs (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Geotechnical engineers customarily include only final boring logs in their reports. Final boring logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation, When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are the all -too -frequent result. To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. (If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared and that developing construction cost esti- mates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. In other words, while a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor would be well-advised to discuss the report with your geotechnical engineer and to perform the additional or alternative work that the contractor believes may be needed to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes.) Some clients believe that it is unwise or unnecessary to give contractors access to their geo- technical engineering reports because they hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsi- bility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems_ It also helps reduce the adversarial attitudes that can aggravate problems to disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY 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 engineers. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. Responsi- bility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer geotechnical engineers' liabilities to other parties. Instead, they are definitive clauses that identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report. Read them closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to any questions. RELY ON THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Most ASFE-member consulting geotechnical engineer- ing firms are familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Speak with your geotechnical engineer not only about geotechnical issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. You may also wish to obtain certain ASFE publications. Contact a member of ASFE of ASFE for a complimentary directory of ASFE publications THE ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 COLESVILLE ROAD/SUITE G 106/SILVER SPRING, MD 20910 TELEPHONE: 301/565-2733 FACSIMILE- 301/589-2017 Copyright 1992 b_r ASFE. Inc Unless ASFE grants specific permission to do so.duplit'ation of this doCVment by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited Re -use of the wording n. this document in whole or in part, also is exptessly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes of feview or Scholarly research 13PC0592A13 5M Geotechnical Recommendations Page 2 96-1701 Bulkhead Wall Restraint and Slope Drainage August 11, 1997 Because of some changes in technology, and in the availability of new lateral anchorage systems, since the initial reports were written we recommend that all earlier reports be discarded and only the data presented in this report be used for design and construction purposes. Bulkhead Wall Restraint General: There is an existing timber bulkhead wall that was installed along a substantial portion of the western edge of your property, at the crest of a slope down to the west. Apparently when this wall was installed inadequate lateral support was provided and the wall has been exhibiting visible evidence of distortion and failure. We helped provide geotechnical recommendations and monitoring services for the installation of two steel pin -piles in 1996 to develop some emergency lateral restraint to prevent the walls' collapse which, at that time, was imminent. Since installation of the emergency support piles some new technology that has particular application to this project has reached the market. Consequently, instead of installing vertical and battered pin -piles we can now install a series of vertical piles with driven -in -place Manta Ray anchors to provide the lateral restraint. This anchorage allows us to develop some considerable lateral load capacity whilst still using hand installation methods for the anchors. The vertical pin -piles are to be installed immediately in front of the existing timber bulkhead wall. They are to be spaced such that they can be driven -in -place without damaging the wall structure during this installation process. Anchor Design: To develop an appropriate design for the proposed anchored pin -piles we reevaluated the general nature and condition of the in -situ native soils. Based on earlier exploration and site observation data developed in an earlier report by ECI (Letter, March 25, 1995) it is evident that beneath a thin surficial layer of looser soil the bulk of the material forming the slope within the area where the pin -piles and anchors will be located comprises a hard, brown, sandy silt to silty sand. A "typical" soil profile is presented for informational purposes as figure 2, Sheet G1 of 2, attached. This profile shows a drilled pier shoring system. This system is no longer under consideration for this project. For design purposes the following soil parameters have been selected: Geotechnical Recommendations 96-1701 Bulkhead Wall Restraint and Slope Drainage August 11, 1997 Parameter ------------ Value Unit Weight 130 pcf Angle of internal friction, phi 35 degrees Cohesion 0 psf Page 3 For design purposes we have also made some assumptions regarding the geometry of the proposed wall restraint system. The vertical pin -piles are to be driven at center -to - center spacings of no more than four feet. Thus, the applied wall load on a per -pile basis, using an equivalent fluid weight of thirty-five (35) pcf (page 2 of referenced report), is estimated to be approximately eleven hundred and twenty (1,120) pounds. We recommend that the following parameters be used for the design and installation of the vertical steel pin -piles and the Manta Ray anchorages: ■ Axial capacity of individual pin -pile = 4 kips ■ Maximum estimated free-standing - 8 feet height of wall ■ Minimum recommended depth of pile - 10 feet penetration below ground surface ■ Maximum estimated lateral capacity = 0.25 kips of individual pin -pile without lateral restraint ■ Minimum recommended depth to anchor = 3 feet (Measured from top of wall) ■ Maximum recommended anchor inclination = 15 degrees down from the horizontal ■ Minimum length of unloaded anchor rod = 7 feet Geotechnical Recommendations 96-1701 Bulkhead Wall Restraint and Slope Drainage August 11, 1997 ■ Minimum length of loaded anchor rod = 10 feet ■ Minimum length of anchor "pullback" = 1.25 feet ■ Total driven anchor length (pre loading) = 18.25 feet ■ Total post loaded anchor length = 17 feet ■ Minimum size of anchor to be used = MR-2 ■ Maximum allowable capacity of MR-2 anchor = 12 kips ■ Maximum estimated anchor load due to = 1.12 kips applied soil load (per pile) ■ Maximum center -to -center anchor spacing = 12 feet ■ Maximum applied anchor load (from 12 foot = 3.36 kips wall section) ■ Estimated factor of safety in lateral load - 3.57 capacity Page 4 Pin -Pile Installation: We recommend that all pin -piles consist of segments of Schedule 80 "strong" black iron pipe driven in -place with an air compressor operated ninety (90) pound jack hammer. The pipe is typically provided in eight to ten (10) foot long segments which will be driven from atop the existing timber bulkhead wall. Each segment is driven into the ground until it reaches the design tip elevation. If the initial segment is of insufficient length to achieve this then another segment should be added. We recommend that where more than one pipe segment is used the connection comprise a combination of a "force -fit' solid rod with a collar and a full circumference field weld. The force -fit connector consists of a section of solid steel of approximately the interior diameter of the pin -pile. A collar of the pipe pile diameter is spot welded around the center of the pin to act as a centralizing agent. The pin is inserted into the already driven segment of pipe and is hammered home until the top of the pile is abutting the lower edge of the collar. Next, the new pile segment is placed over the top of the protruding pin and is driven home to the collar, and the collar -to -pile connection is welded Geotechnical Recommendations Page 5 96-1701 Bulkhead Wall Restraint and Slope Drainage August 11, 1997 in -place. Pile driving is then continued until the tip of the pin -pile achieves the design tip elevation. Manta Ray Anchor Installation: Once the piles have been driven to the design tip elevation small holes may be cut through the existing timber bulkhead wall at the appropriate anchor locations. These holes should be of sufficient size to allow for passage of the MR-2 anchor. Each anchor is then driven with the air compressor operated jack hammer until the design anchor length is achieved. This should be expected to require more than one anchor rod to achieve. When the anchor reaches the desired location it is "tensioned" and pulled back so that the anchor "opens" within the soil mass and takes up the load. After the anchor is "opened" the loading is continued until the anchor is carrying at least 130 percent of the design load. This test load is kept in -place for a period of about one hour to verify that no creep is occurring. The load is then released to zero, and is retensioned back up to the design load and is locked off. The anchorage along the face of the existing timber bulkhead wall should comprise a steel whaler. We recommend this whaler comprise a A36 C12X30 steel channel. This whaler should be expected to transfer the load from the wall to the anchors. Pin -Pile and Anchor Monitoring: In our professional opinion it is critical that the installation of the vertical pin -piles, as well as the Manta Ray anchors, be monitored on a full time basis. This allows for verification of the achievement of the design pile tip elevation, and of the lengths of the installed anchors. Our representatives' presence on - site also allows for monitoring of the anchor loading process and verification of the anchors' design capacity. Bulkhead Wall Draina e General: As you are aware, a subsurface drain system was installed when the bulkhead wall was constructed. A typical detail of this drain is provided as figure 3 of sheet G1 of 2, attached. There are also several "finger" drains extending back beneath the reconstructed back yard of your residence which are attached to the basal wall drain shown on figure 6. It is the current intent to capture the "free" end of this drain near the southwestern corner of the existing bulkhead wall and to tightline it to a positive and permanent discharge. We understand that there is a storm drain catch basin located near the southern property line of your neighbors' property to the south, Lot 20. You have indicated that the neighbor is willing to allow you to extend this drainage tightline across this lot to connect Geotechnical Recommendations Page 6 96-1701 Bulkhead Wall Restraint and Slope Drainage August 11, 1997 to the catch basin. In this manner it should be possible to transport all collected wall seepage out to the existing storm drain system in South 71h Place below your properties to the west. Wall Drain Tightline: To collect any seepage from behind the existing bulkhead wall we recommend that the tightline be if sufficient size to meet, or exceed the existing wall drain pipe diameter. We recommend that the tightline have a minimum diameter of six inches and that it be of rigid, smooth -walled construction. To install this drain we recommend that a narrow ditch be dug from the southwestern corner of the existing wall out to the catch basin on Lot 20. This shallow ditch, approximately indicated on figure 9, sheet G2 of 2, extends across the undeveloped portion of the neighboring property. The ditch should be approximately twelve (12) inches deep and twelve (12) inches wide. A "lip" should also be dug along both the upgrade and downgrade edges of this ditch to provide space for the later installation of a protective cover material. The drain pipe, after being connected to the existing wall drain, should be bedded on about three inches of clean, granular, free -draining material. We recommend that a two inch minus washed or crushed rock or fines -free recycled crushed concrete be used for the free -draining material. The pipe should be set on the drainage medium, then surrounded and covered with the same material. The free draining material should be raised up to the edges of the perimeter lips where a layer of geotextile should be placed. We recommend that a Mirafi 140N, or an equivalent approved by the geotechnical engineer be used to cover the drain rock layer. The geotextile should be spread out "taut" across the drain rock surface and should be pinned or stapled in -place along the edges of the ditch. This material helps prevent any surficial soil fines or sediment from being flushed into the drain system and, potentially, from blocking the drain. The next step is to install a section of Presto GeoWeb cellular confinement material into the remaining excavated space. This GeoWeb cellular confinement material provides a competent and sound surfacing over the excavated ditch and drain rock backf ill. It is capable of supporting a considerable traffic load, though virtually no load whatsoever is anticipated in this drain ditch area in the foreseeable future. In addition, the system provides a means of reducing the potential for surface flow velocity over a disturbed area and, thus, the erosive impacts. However, the topsoil backfilling that allows for vegetative growth also allows for vertical drainage down through the geotextile layer into the drain ditch. Here, surface water can be captured and transported down to the catch basin Geotechnical Recommendations Page 7 96-1701 Bulkhead Wall Restraint and Slope Drainage August 11, 1997 structure. For this project we recommend that the GeoWeb material meet the following requirements: ■ Recommended GeoWeb type = GW-A3-30 (With perforated cell walls) ■ Minimum recommended GeoWeb thickness = 3 inches ■ Minimum recommended length of upgrade = 3 feet anchoring "T pins ■ Minimum recommended length of downgrade = 18 inches anchoring pins ■ Minimum width of GeoWeb layer 20 inches �. Maximum estimated length of GeoWeb = 95 feet ■ A pictorial depiction of this ditch, backfill and cover is provided as figure 13, Sheet G2 of 2, attached. We have also provided you, for informational purposes, a "typical' specification for this GeoWeb product, and a set of the manufacturers installation guidelines as Appendix A to this report. Slope Surface Reve etation General: Since performing the emergency repair work on the bulkhead wall the previously disturbed areas of the slope surface below the wall have been overgrown with grass, berry vines and other miscellaneous low ground cover. However, installation of the above -described drain ditch should be expected to disturb a relatively small area of the slope surface, estimated to be about two to three feet wife and about ninety-five (95) feet long. Similarly, the installation of the pin -piles and anchors should be expected to result in some minor vegetation disturbance along the immediate base of the existing bulkhead wall. Erosion Protection: In our professional opinion it is important that the proposed remedial work not cause damage to, or disturbance of, the slope surface downgrade of Geotechnical Recommendations Page 8 96-1701 Bulkhead Wall Restraint and Slope Drainage 7 August 11, 1997 the proposed construction areas. To help prevent such damage, we recommend that, - as a minimum measure, an erosion control fence be installed before any ditch excavation or backfilling is performed. The earthwork contractor should erect this silt fence along the downgrade perimeters of the proposed construction areas of the site. These fences should be set sufficiently far from the edge of any excavation to allow for free passage for the workmen. �j The silt fence should consist of a geoteAle fabric produced for this purpose and suitable J for erosion control, such as a Mirafi Envirofence or an approved equivalent. It should be supported on "Hog Wire" attached to steel or wooden stakes driven into the ground at relatively close center to center spacings. Approximately the bottom twelve (12) inches of the geotextile should be buried into the site subgrade to help avoid the risk of sediment laden water flowing out beneath the fence. A typical pictorial depiction of this filter fence is presented on Plate 1, attached. It is also shown in figure 11 on sheet G2 of 2, attached. Slope Revegetation: Where the site excavation process exposes the native soil they will be subject to all of the erosive forces of the elements, such as wind, rain, freeze, thaw and drying (by the sun). As a result they should be expected to deteriorate rapidly if not adequately protected. To achieve protection against the elements we recommend that all such areas be revegetated as quickly after construction as possible, preferably within about ten (10) days. We recommend that you seek input from your landscape architect regarding the most appropriate seed mixture. We have, however, provided you with what we believe is a suitable rapid growth, deep rooting seed mixture as figure 12 on sheet G2 of 2 that is regularly used by the Washington State Department of Transportation to revege#ate construction disturbed roadway slopes. We also presume that the seed will be placed and protected with some form of mulch, presumably by "hydroseeding". As mentioned in earlier reports, depending on the time of year when such revegetation occurs it might be helpful to use an erosion control blanket to help keep the seed and mulch in -place until the root mat has an opportunity to germinate and take hold. In this case we recommend the use of a North American Green C-125 Erosion Control Blanket, or an equivalent approved by the geotechnical engineer. This blanket not only helps keep the seed and mulch in -place but also provides a protective thermal blanket over the seed and mulch mixture. According to the manufacturer, this blanket also reduces the water flow velocity by up to 77%, and reduces the soil loss by up to about 98%. These values are dependant on the blanket being installed in strict adherence with the manufacturers specifications. This erosion control blanket is available from the following local distributor: Geotechnical Recommendations Page 9 96-1701 Bulkhead Wall Restraint and Slope Drainage -� August 11, 1997 i Charles R. Watts 4121 - 6`h Avenue N.W. Seattle, Washington 98107 (206) 783-8400 We have also provided you with some of the manufacturers literature regarding the placement, installation and anchoring of the erosion control blanket as Appendix B to this report. It is important that this blanket be installed in strict accordance with the manufacturers specification. Failure to do so can result in the voiding of any warranty or guarantee. We, therefore, recommend that this blanket be installed and anchored as recommended by the manufacturer and NOT as originally recommended by ECI. To help you we have included some of the manufacturers literature as Appendix B to this report. We trust this information is sufficiently detailed to allow you, or your contractor, to install the materials in an appropriate manner. Closure We trust these modified geotechnical recommendations are adequately detailed to allow your potential contractor to develop an appropriate scope and price for their installation. Our work on this portion of the project has been performed, and our recommendations and opinions have been derived, in a manner consistent with that level of skill, care and competence ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession in good standing currently practicing under similar conditions in this area only. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Should you have any questions regarding the proposed remedial treatment, or if we can be of any additional geotechnical assistance, please tali. gm/Noyes Anchored Bulkhead and Drainage Report/eW APPENDIX A 96-1701 ;V CIO rn U j v BIZ Z A a� o � to CD In -I � N 1. PRODUCT NAME GEOWEB® Cellular Confinement System 2. MANUFACTURER Presto Products Company Geosystems Products PO Box 2399 Appleton, WI 54913-2399 Phone: (800) 548-3424 (414) 738-1118 FAX: (414) 738-1418 3. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION GEOWEB sections are an assem- bly of either smooth, textured or perforated polyethylene sheet strips connected in a series of off -set, full - depth, ultrasonicseams aligned per- pendicular to the longitudinal axis of the strips. When expanded, the interconnected strips form the wal Is of aflexible, three-dimensional cel- lular confinement structure into which specified infill materials are placed. A complete system will include someorall ofthefollowing, depending on the application: • GEOWEB sections ■ Integral high -strength polymer tendons • Anchors and fasteners • Geotextiles • Geocomposite drainage mate- rials • Geogrids and geotextile rein- forcement • Cell infill materials • Geomembrane Basic Use: The GEOWEB Cellu- lar Confinement System allows use of common infill materials for de- manding load support and erosion control applications. The system can be utilized in a variety of appli- cations including the following: • Retaining Walls/Multi-layer Earth Retention Structures — Forms stable, reinforced soil gravity structures. The system The ten -point SPEC -DATA' format has been re- produced from publicalions copyrighted by 151, u 1964, 1965. 1966, 1967, and used by permission of The Conslruclion Speafical ions Insl itute, Alex- andria, VA 22314. can be configured to form grav- ity retaining walls, free-standing walls, embankments, dikes, levees, and cofferdams. Forms flexible fascias for rein- forced soil retaining wal Is and steep- ened slopes. The outer cells of other GEOWEB sections can be infilled with either a soil that sup- ports vegetative cover or with inert materials to suit aesthetic and func- tional requirements. • Foundation and Base Stabili- zation for Load Support — En- hances the long-term, load support/deformation perfor- mance of roads, railroads, run- ways, and intermodal yards. Enhances the performance of aggregate surfaces of roads and intermodal yards. Provides stiffened structural foun- dations and spread -footings for re- taining walls and prefabricated structures. ■ Surface Stabilization and Ero- sion Control — Mechanically restrains the near -surface soil of steep slopes which could other- wise slide due to self -weight or applied tractive loads. The sys- tem can be used for surface pro- ■ D This Spec -Data sheet conforms >0 to editorial style prescribed by The Construction Specifications Institute. The manufacturer is responsible for technical ac- curacy. Q tection of steep reinforced -soil slopes, maintenance of cover on geomembrane slopes, and rein- forcement of unstable surface soils. Contains, protects, and stabilizes a variety of materials providing per- manent, flexible surface protection for slopes, channels, revetments, and related hydraulic structures. Composition and Properties: Polymer — Polyethylene with 1.5% carbon black (min.) Sheet Thickness — 1.25 mm ± 5% (50 mil) before texturing Color: Black, other colors avail- able upon request. Coloring pig- ments contain no heavy metals and are Ultraviolet light stabilized with Hindered -Amine Light Stabilizers (HALS). Surface Treatment: • Textured Surface: The poly- ethylene strips which form the cell walls shall have textured surfaces. The surface texturing shall be a multitude of rhomboi- dal (diamond shape) indenta- tions. The diamond shapes shall have a surface density of 22 - 31 per cmz (140 - 200 per in ) and a typical amplitude of 0.38 mm 02200 GEOWEB Sections - Dimensions and Weights Product Code GW-A8-30 GW-A6-30 GW-A4-30 GW-A3-30 Cell Depths: 203 mm (8.0 in) 152 mm (6.0 in) 102 mm (4.0 in) 76 mm (3.0 in) Section Weight: 50 kg (I 10 lb) 37 kg (83 lb) 23 kg (55 lb) 19 kg (41 lb) Minimum Cell Seam Strength: 2000 N (450 IN 1420 N (320 IN 1000 N (225 IN 710 N (160 IN Large Cell Section - Erosion Control Applications Cell Dimensions - 488 mm x 406 mm (19.2 in x 16.0 in) (maximum) Section Dimensions - 2.44 m x 12.2 m (8 ft x 40 ft) - (expanded dimensions) Product Code GWLC-A8-30 GWLC-A6-30 GWLC-A4-30 GWLC-A3-30 Cell Depths: 203 mm (8.0 in) 152 mm (6.0 in) 102 mm (4.0 in) 76 mm (3.0 in) Section Weight: 50 kg (110 IN 37 kg (83 lb) 23 kg (55 lb) 19 kg (41 lb) Minimum Cell Seam Strength: 2000 N (450 lb) 1420 N (320 lb) 1000 N (225 lb) 710 N (160 lb) GEOWEB A & B Sections - Dimensions and Weights 1 Type GW-A8 - Fascia and Retaining Wall Sections l Cell Depth - 203 mm (8 in) Section Dimensions - _J Product Code Width Length Nominal Weight GW-A8-3 610 mm (24 in) 2.44 m (8 ft) 5 kg (11 lb) GW-A8-4 813 mm (32 in) 2.44 m (8 ft) 7 kg (15 lb) GW-A8-5 1016 mm (40 in) 2.44 m (8 ft) 8 kg (18 lb) GW-A8-6 1220 mm (48 in) 2.44 m (8 ft) 10 kg (22 lb) GW-A8-7 1422 mm (56 in) 2.44 m (8 ft) 12 kg (26 lb) Other Sizes are Available Type GW-B8 - Fascia and Footing Sections Cell Depth -203 mm (8 in) Section Dimensions - Product Code Width Length Nominal Weight GW-B8-3 730 mm (29 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 16 kg (35 lb) GW-B8-4 980 mm (39 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 21 kg (45 lb) GW-138-5 1220 mm (48 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 26 kg (56 lb) GW-B8-6 1460 mm (57 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 30 kg (67 lb) GW-B8-7 1700 mm (66 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 35 kg (78 lb) Other Sizes are Available Type GW-66 - Footing Sections Cell Depth - 152 mm (6 in) Section Dimensions - Product Code Width Length Nominal Weight GW-136-3 730 mm (29 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 12 kg (26 lb) GW-B6-4 980 mm (39 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 15 kg (34 lb) GW-B6-5 1220 mm (48 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 19 kg (42 IN GW-136-6 1460 mm (57 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 23 kg (50 lb) GW-136-7 1700 mm (66 in) 6.10 m (20 ft) 26 kg (58 lb) Other Sizes are Available minimum to 0.89 mm maximum (15 mil - 35 mil). The thickness of the textured sheet shal I be 1 .5 mm - 1.8 mm (60 mil - 70 mil). • Perforated Surface: The poly- ethylene strips shall be perfo- rated with horizontal rows of 10 mm (0.391 in) diameter holes. Perforations within each row shall be 19 mm (0.75 in) on - center. Horizontal rows shall be staggered and separated 12 mm (0.50 in) relative to the hole cen- ters. Outer perforation centers shall be 12 mm (0.50 in) from the strip edges and 25 mm (1.0 in) from the cell weld points. GEOWEB Sections - Dimensions and Weights: • GW-A8-30 -All Applications ■ GW-A6-30 - Foundation and Base Stabilization, Surface Sta- bilization and Erosion Control ■ GW-A4-30 -Surface Stabiliza- tion and Erosion Control • GW-A3-30 -Surface Stabiliza- tion and Erosion Control Cell Dimensions - 244 mm x 203 mm (9.6 in x 8.0 in) maxi- mum Section Dimension - 2.44 m x 6.10 m (8 ft x 20 ft) expanded dimensions Integral High -Strength Polymer Tendons for Use with GEOWEB Sections in Load Support and Ero- sion Control Applications: GEOWEB sections can be supplied with a series of aligned holes, pre- formed in the cell walls, to accom- modate i nsertion of polymertendons throughoutthe section length. Hole dimensions are matched to the re- quired tendon type. The strength and distribution of tendons are de- termined from project -specific sta- bility analysis. Standard tendons are a knitted multifilament high - strength polyester, some with poly- ethylene coating. Anchors and Fasteners: GEOWEB sections may beanchored with J-pins or other suitable anchor- ing devices depending on site con- ditions and applications. Tendoned GEOWEB sections maybe anchored with J-pins or other su itable anchor- ing devices to engage and hold the integral tendons against the subgrade. The size and distribution of anchors are varied to suit site conditions and geometry. Standard J-pins Material - Construction Rebar _J Polymer Tendons 4. TECHNICAL DATA Product Code TP-15 TP-23 TP-31 TP-37 TP-46 TP-55 TPC-71" Nominal Breaking 1558 N 2336 N 3115 N 3783 N 4673 N 5500 N 7120 N Strength (350lb) (525lb) (700IN (850IN (1050lb) 0250IN 0600lb) Coil 2377 m 1600 m 1189 m 914 m 640 m 2315 m 1524 m Length (7800 ft) (5250 ft) (3900 ft) 1 (3000 ft) (2100 ft) (7600 ft) (5000 ft) Coil 7.7 kg 7.7 kg 7.7 kg 7.7 kg 7.7 kg 24.5 kg 32.5 kg Weight (17IN (17lb) (171b) (17lb) (17lb) (54lb) (75IN Polyethylene Coated Polyester Tendons 1 Diameter— 10or 12 mm (0.375 in or 0.50 in) Length — 460 mm (18 in) Adjacent GEOWEB sections are interleafed or abutted together and I fastened with staples or other suit- able fastening units. Stapler — Stanley Bostitch P50- 10B Pneumatic Stapler Staples — 12.7 mm (0.50 in) SB103020 Geotextiles: Geotextile compo- nents of cellular confinement sys- tems are in accordance with AASHTO Specification M-288-92. Functions include: drainage, filtra- tion, separation and reinforcement. Design review and careful consid- eration of local conditions are rec- ommended. Geocomposite Drainage Mate- rials: Geocomposite drainage ma- J terials, including geotextile wrapped perforated subdrain pipes and sheet drainage cores, may be incorpo- rated as sub -drains and interceptor drains. Product selection and ap- plication shall be determined by the ' Project Engineer. Geogrid and Geotextile Rein- forcement: Reinforcement materi- als should meet appropriate durability, long-term strength, and soil interaction requirements. Cell Infill Materials (for various r applications): 1 • Retaining Walls/Multi-layer Earth Retention Structures — Recommended infill materialsfor ` 1 the interior cells of retaining 1 walls or multi -layer earth reten- tion structures include: sand, gravel and crushed stone with a maximum particle size of 50 mm (2 in). The gradation, quality and ease of placement and com- paction of the infill material in- fluences the design and stability of the structure. Use of consis- tent infills with high internal fric- tion angles will generally produce the most cost-effective structures. The exposed outer cells can be infilled, or dressed, with soil that supports vegetative cover, clear stone, or poured concrete to suit specific functional or aesthetic re- quirements. ■ Foundation and Base Stabili- zation for Load Support — Se- lection of infill materials is based primarily on the nature and mag- nitude of design loads and a range of performance require- ments. Standard infill materials include: • Sand • Gravel and crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 65 mm (2.5 in). • Concrete and soil -cement mixes (Clays, silts and organic soils are not acceptable infill material.) • Surface Stabilization and Ero- sion Control —Selection of infill materials is based on several fac- tors including: geometry, the nature, magnitude and duration of anticipated hydraulic and mechanical stresses; and local climatic conditions. Combina- tions of infill types can be speci- fied to meet a range of performance requirements. Standard infill materials include: • Screened topsoil, free of for- eign material to ensure complete, uniform infilling of the cells. ■ Sand, gravel and crushed rock w;th a maximum particle size of 75 mm (3 in). • Concrete and soil -cement mixes. Surface treatment of the infilled GEOWEB sections can include: ■ Vegetation • Degradable revegetative blan- kets • Sprayed emulsions and bind- ers • Surface grouts Infill and surface treatment se- lection is based on the Project Engineer's determination of suitable infill materials. Applicable Standards: (see Table 1) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Offi- cials: AASHTO M-218-87 and AASHTO M-288-92 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Technical Report GL-86-19,Appen- dix A 5. INSTALLATION Separate installation instructions are presented for each application type. Begin installation process by verifying that site conditions and layout of the proposed structure are as indicated on the Construction Drawings. Verify that all project materials required forthe work com- ply with contract specifications. • Retaining Walls/Multi-layer Earth Retention Structures Foundation Preparation: Exca- vate and shape the foundation soils to the elevations, grades and di- mensions shown on the Construc- tion Drawings. Through proof rolling or other conventional method, ensure that the foundation soil meets minimum strength re- quirements assumed for the design. Remove unacceptable materials and replace with approved compacted fill. In cut situations, the extent and scheduling of temporary excava- tions shall be approved by the Project Engineer. Base and Spread Footing Instal- lation: Place, shape, and compact granular base materials, complete with nonwoven geotextile if re- quired, to a minimum of 95% Stan- dard Proctor Dry Density (SPDD). Expand the specified GEOWEB sec- tions into the required position on the prepared base and temporarily anchor corners and edges. Overfill the cells with the selected granular infill and level surface approxi- mately 50 mm (2 in) above cell walls. Compact the infill to a mini- mum of 95% SPDD. Remove ex- cess so thatthe infill is level with the top of the cell. During the infilling process, place and compactfill along each side of the footing if construc- tion sequencing allows. Drainage System Installation: Install perforated subdrain pipe that is wrapped with nonwoven geotextile or backfill with specified clear stone adjacent to the footing as shown on the Construction Draw- ings. Ensure that a minimum longi- �? TABLE 1 Pro arty Unit Value Test Method Density g/cm' 0.935-0.96 ASTM D 1505-85 - Standard Test Method for (Ib/ft3) (58.4 - 60.2) Density of Plastics by the Density -Gradient Technique. Carbon Black % 1.5-2.0 By Wei ht Sheet mm 1.25 ASTM D 374-94 - Standard Test Thickness* (mil) (50 ± 5%) Methods for Teichness of Solid Electrical Insulation. Minimum ASTM D 1693-93 - Environmental Stress -Cracking ESCR' hr 2000 of Ethylene Plastics. Seam Peel N Strength (Ib) See TABLE 2 Seam Hang A 102 mm (4 in) wide seam shall support a 73 kg (160 lb) load for 7 days Strength (minimum) in a temperature controlled environment cycling every hour Test 1 from 23°C to 54°C (72°F to 130°F). Seam Hang A 102 mm (4 in) wide seam shall support a 73 kg (160 lb) load for 30 days Strength (minimum) at a temperature 23°C ± YC (74°F ± 6°F). Test 2 Cell cmz 248 Area (in 2) (38.4) — Large Cell cmz 991 Area (inz) (153.6) — * Before surface texturing t + ESCR - Environmental Stress Crack Resistance 1 TABLE 2 GEOWEB Product Code Cell Depth Minimum Cell Seam Strength GW-A8-30 203 mm (8 in) 2000 N (450 lb) GW-A6-30 152 mm (6 in) 1420 N (320 lb) GW-A4-30 102 mm (4 in) 1000 N (225 lb) GW-A3-30 76 mm (3 in) 710 N (160 lb) GWLC-A8-30 203 mm (8 in) 2000 N (450 IN GWLC-A6-30 152 mm (6 in) 1420 N (320 lb) GWLC-A4-30 102 mm (4 in) 1000 N (225 IN GWLC-A3-30 76 mm (3 in) 710 N (160 IN _ i tudinal gradientof 1 % is maintained. Connect the subdrain pipes to the 1 specified outlets with T-connectors. Wrap outlet pipes which pass -'through the footing or wall fascia with geotextile to prevent loss of 1 cell infill materials. Connect outlet )pipes to site drainage system if present. Ensure that discharge at the outlet will not cause localized isurface erosion. Compact fill sur- _i rounding the drainage system. If specified, place geotexti le over base ;i and extend up the face of the exca- vation and pin in position. Ensure that adequate overlaps are main- tained between sections of geotextile. Where geocomposite drainage materials are specified, `"ensure that each strip or sheet is continuous and fully encapsulated with geotextile, and that unrestricted _,outlet is provided. Installation of GEOWEB Gravity Structure and Flexible Fascia Sys- tem: Expand GEOWEB sections, -dimensioned according to the Con- struction Drawings, into position. Hold individual sections in their expanded positions with suitable "stretcher frames", steel J-pins or other suitable anchors positioned inside selected outer cells. Confirm that each GEOWEB section is ex- panded uniformly to the required dimensions and that the outer cells of each layer are correctly aligned. Interleaf or overlap the edges of adjacent sections in each layer, ac- cording to which side wall profiles abut (figure 1). In all cases, ensure that the upper surfaces of adjoining GEOWEB sections are flush at the joint and that adjoining cells are fully stapled. Overfill the cells with the selected granular infill, com- pact and remove excess so that the infill is level with top of the cell wall. Ensure that subsequent layers are set back to produce required front face slope. Ensure that side to side alignment is such that loss of infill materials is prevented. Select backfill material can be placed dur- ing the infilling of the GEOWEB sections. Backfillsoilistobeplaced behind the GEOWEB sections in maximum lifts of 254 mm (10 in) and compacted to a minimum of 95% SPDD. Limit the amount of compaction within 1 m Q ft) of the GEOWEB sections by using only walk -behind compaction equip- ment. Confirm that compaction procedures are not laterally displac- ing the GEOWEB sections. When special infill materials are specified for the exposed face cells of the GEOWEB sections, confirm the pro- posed filling procedures with the Project Engineer prior to construc- tion. These may include but are not limited to: • Temporarily covering the outer cells with a moveable board to prevent unwanted spillage dur- ing placement of the internal infill materials as each layer is installed. Special infillsarethen placed in the empty outer cells as each layer is completed. • Partial spillage of internal infill material into the outer cells may be permitted depending on the tolerance of the special outer cell infill material. Dressing of the outer cells can be a separate procedure following installation of several GEOWEB section lay- ers_ Installation of freestanding GEOWEB structures and vertical walls may require strips of non- woven geotextile along the outer edge of the infilled GEOWEB sec- tion prior to placing the next layer. Installation of Reinforcement and Backfill: When specified on the Construction Drawings, install the specified geosynthetic reinforce- ment (geogrid or woven geotextile) between the GEOWEB sections and extend horizontally into the com- pacted backfill zone. At the speci- fied elevations, place precut sections of reinforcement, dimensioned and oriented accord i ng to the Construc- tion Drawings. Place the reinforce- ment horizontally, with the high -strength axis, perpendicularto the wall face at the elevation indi- cated or as directed by the Project Engineer. Extend the outer edges of the reinforcementto within 150 mm (6 in) of the front face of the in -place GEOWEB section. Place and infill the next GEOWEB section on top of the reinforcement layer. Manually tension the reinforcement layer by FIGURE 1 pulling it away from the back of the GEOWEB sections so that it is taut. If necessary, pin the reinforcement to el iminate loose folds before place- ment of backfill over the reinforce- ment. The reinforcement layer has to lay flat when pulled perpendicu- lar to the back of the GEOWEB sections. Do no operate tracked equipment directly on top of the reinforcement layer until a mini- mum thickness of 150 mm (6 in) of backfill has been placed over the reinforcement layer. Rubber -tired equipment may drive on top of the reinforcement at slow speeds. Exer- cise care and avoid sudden stops and sharp turns. Place backfill within the reinforced zone in ap- proximate lifts of 254 mm (10 in) and compact to a minimum of 95% SPDD. Care shall be taken to en- sure that no excessive displacement of the reinforcement occurs during fill placement. Place backfill near the GEOWEB section and spread toward the back of the reinforced soil zone. Shape and compact the backfill level with the GEOWEB section prior to placing a subse- quent layer of reinforcement. For fill situations, place and compact retained soils behind the reinforced soil zone in approximate lifts of 254 mm (10 in), to a minimum of 95% SPDD. • Foundation and Base Stabili- zation Foundation Preparation: Exca- vate and shape the foundation soils rJ to the elevations, grades, and di- mensions shown on the Construc- tion Drawings. Through proof rolling or other conventional method, ensure that the foundation soil meets minimum strength re- quirements assumed for the design. Remove unacceptable materials and replace with approved compacted fill. Subbase and Base Installation: When separation between the subgrade soil and the infill is re- quired, place a geotextile over the subgrade according to the geotexti le manufacturer's recommendations. If separation is not required, place the GEOWEB section directly over the prepared subgrade. Expand the GEOWEB sections into position on topofthegeotextileor, ifageotextile is not specified, on top of the pre- pared subgrade. Hold individual sections intheirexpanded positions with suitable "stretcher frames", steel J-pins or other suitable anchors po- sitioned inside selected outer cell walls. Confirm that each GEOWEB section is expanded uniformly to the required dimensions and that the outer cel Is are correctly aligned. Interleaf or overlap the edges of the adjacentsection accordingto which side wall profiles abut (Figure 1). The edge cells should overlap by 50 mm (2 in) and the end cells should touch each other. In all cases, en- sure that the upper surfaces of ad- joining GEOWEB sections are flush at the joint and that adjoining cells are fully stapled. Overfill the cells with the selected granular infill and level the surface approximately 50 mm (2 in) above cell walls. Main- tain sufficient granular cover to en- sure that material handling equipment trafficking over the GEOWEB system does not damage the cell walls. Compactthe infill to a minimum of 95% Standard Proc- tor Dry Density (SPDD). Additional cover of fill material over the GEOWEB sections may be required as a wear course. Shape the com- pacted surface to the required el- evation and grade. Spread Footing Installation: Place, shape, and compactgranular base materials, complete with non- woven geotextile encapsulation if required, to a minimum of 95% SPDD. Expand the specified GEOWEB sections into the required position on the prepared base and temporarily anchor at corners and edges. Overfill the cells with the selected granular infill and level surface approximately 50 mm (2 in) above cell walls. Compactthe infill in the cells to a minimum of 95% SPDD. Shape the compacted sur- face to the required elevation and grade. During the infiIling process, place and compact fill along each side of the footing if construction sequencing allows. • Surface Stabilization and Ero- sion Control Subgrade Preparation: Follow- ing excavation and fill placement operations, shape and compact the subgrade surfaces to the elevations, I ines and grades shown on the Con- struction Drawings. Excavate the area so that when the GEOWEB sections are installed the top of the section isflushwith orslightly lower than the adjacent terrain or final grade. Remove unstable subgrade sails and when required, install the specified geotextile underlayer on the prepared surface, ensuring that required overtaps are maintained and that the outer edges of the geotextile are buried at least 150 mm (6 in) below grade to prevent uncontrolled flow of surface runoff below the geotextile. Placement and Anchoring of GEOWEB Sections: Anchor the GEOWEB sections at the crest of the slope. Expand and stretch the GEOWEB sections down the slope instead of across the slope. The type of anchor and frequency of anchoring will depend on site con- ditions. Typically, every other cell across the top of the section is an- chored with J-pins. This pattern is -� repeated approximately every 2 m (80 in) down the slope. Interleaf or overlap adjacent GEOWEB sections according to which sidewall pro- files abut (Figure 1). In all cases, ensure that the upper surface of adjoining GEOWEB sections are flush at the joint and that adjoining cells are fully stapled. } Placement and Anchoring of Tendoned GEOWEB Sections: In -� areas where the system is covering a membrane or cannot be anchored onto the slope, it is necessary to use tendoned GEOWEB sections. Feed 1 precut lengths of tendon material through the aligned holes in the cell walls of the GEOWEB section prior to expanding individual sections into position. Tie off the ends of the y tendons so that the knot cannot pass through the hole in the cell walls. The knots are to be tied so that they provide full tendon strength and 1 will not slip under tensioning of the tendon. Anchor the tendons and GEOWEB section at the crest and expand down the slope surface. ' Where intermediate anchoring of the slope surface is not permitted i due to the presence of an underly- ing geomembrane, attach restrain- ing clips to the tendons at predetermined intervals to achieve the necessary load transfer. In situ- ations where penetration of subgrade is permitted, anchor the tendoned GEOWEB section with J- pi ns or other suitable anchors in the - J prescribed pattern throughout the slope surface. At each internal an- chor location, form a loop in the tendon, insert the anchor, and drive into the subgrade. Interleaf or over- lap adjacent GEOWEB sections ac- cording to which sidewall profiles A abut (Figure 1). In all cases, ensure that the upper surfaces of adjoining i Jjoint GEOWEB sections are flush at the and that adjoining cells are fully stapled. Placement of/nfill: Place infiII in the expanded cells with suitable material handling equipment such as a backhoe, front-end loader, con- veyor, orcrane-mountedskip. Limit drop heightto a maximum of 1 m Q ft). On steep slopes, potential dis- placement of the GEOWEB system can be avoided by infillingfrom the cresttothetoe. Required overfilling and compaction of infill is depen- dent on the type and consistency of material and the cell depth. • Overfill screened topsoil be- tween 25 mm - 50 mm (1 in - 2 in) and lightly tamp or roll to leave the soil flush with the top edge of the cell walls. • Overfill loose granular materi- als approximately 25 mm (1 in) and compact with a plate tamper or backhoe bucket. Remove loose surface material so that the infill is flush with the top edge of the cell walls. • Manually compact or vibrate the concrete. Screed the surface of the poured concrete infill to ensure that the finished surface is flush with the top edge of the cell walls. Surface Treatments: Apply sur- face treatments following placement of infill in accordance with Con- struction Drawings. 6. AVAILABILITY AND COST Licensed Presto Geosystems Dis- tributors with current pricing infor- mation, installation guidelines and product data are located around the world. Please call (800) 548-3424 or (414) 738-1 1 18 for nearest loca- tion. 7. WARRANTY Presto Products Company ("Presto") warrants each Presto GEOWEB Cellular Confinement System Section which it ships to be free from defects in materials and workmanship at the time of manu- facture. Presto's exclusive liability under this warranty or otherwise will be to furnish without charge to Presto's customer at the original f.o.b. point a replacement for any section which proves to be defec- tive under normal use and service during the 10-year period which begins on the date of shipment by Presto. Presto reserves the right to inspect any allegedly defective sec- tion in order to verify the defect and ascertain its cause. This warranty does not cover defects attributable to causes or occurrences beyond Presto's con- trol and unrelated to the manufac- turing process, including, but not limited to, abuse, misuse, mishan- dling, neglect, improper storage, improper installation or improper application. PRESTO MAKES NO OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IM- PLIED, WRITTEN OR ORAL, IN- CLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OR MER- CHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE GEOWEB CELLULAR CONFINE- MENT SYSTEM. In no event shall Presto be liable for any special, in- direct, incidental or consequential damages for the breach of any ex- press or implied warranty or for any other reason, including negligence, in connection with the GEOWEB Cellular Confinement System. 8. MAINTENANCE Before Installation: Although GEOWEB sections are manufac- tu red with u Itraviolet stabi I izers and inhibitors, they should be covered by a tarp prior to use if exposed to direct sunlight for a period greater than three months. 9. TECHNICAL SERVICES Product manufacturer shall pro- vide certification of compliance to all applicabletesting procedures and related specifications upon written request. Please call (800) 548-3424 or (414) 738-1 1 18 for technical as- sistance. 10. FILING SYSTEMS • CSI's SPEC -SEARCH" IHS's SPEC -DATA' II ■ Sweet's Engineering & Retrofit Catalog File 02246/PRE • • 0 THE GEOWEB° SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION GUIDELINES Before Starting 1) Ensure that site conditions and the Geoweb slope protection system layout are as indicated on the construction drawings. 2) Check to see that all specified materials are delivered to the site. Site Preparation 1) Start site preparation for the Geoweb slope protection system by removing debris and vegetative cover from the embankment area. 2) Complete other earthworks, excavation and/or fills, according to the plans. 3) Remove unacceptable in -situ soils that are for the Geoweb slope protection system and replace with suitable materials. 4) Excavate the specified toe -in trenches where specified along the crest and at the bottom of the embankment area being protected. See Figure 1. Embankment Protection and Drainage 1) Install the specified nonwoven geotextile over the channel invert and channel side slope and secure in position according to the manufacturer's recommendations. When excessive ' ground water is present, a nonwoven geotextile is recommended. See Figure 2. 2) When specified, install the appropriate geocomposite drainage system. Ensure that the system is functional and connected to the suitable drainage outlet. Installation of Geoweb Slope Protection Sections 1) Drive specified straight stakes or J-Pins part way into the ground along the toe -in trench or along the top of the area to be protected at the following longitudinal centers... a) 244 mm (9.6 in) for standard -cell Geoweb sections or, b) 400 mm (19.2 in) for large -cell Geoweb sections 2) Expand the Geoweb section and pace each expanded end cell Figure 2 of the section over its corresponding pre -installed stake. See Figure 3. 3) Drive the stakes or J-Pins flush with the top of the Geoweb. If J-Pins are used, ensure that the bent hooks are over the cell walls. 4) Expand the Geoweb section down the channel side slopes (and, where applicable, across the invert) to the fully expanded length of the section. Figure 1 PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY, P.O. Box2399, APPLETON, WI 54913-2399 TELEPHONE: 414-738-1118 OR 800-548-3424 0 FAX: 414-738-1418 OR 800-535-8221 PAGE 1 OF 3 COPYRIGHT 1995 - PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY NOVEMBER 1995 THE GEOWEB° SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION GUIDELINES 5) Hold the fully expanded sections open using one of the following options. Other options are also acceptable. a) straight stakes or J-Pins (permanent or temporary) b) infill several of the peripheral cells c) attach U-Clips to adjoining section (Sketches of above construction tools are available from P re sto) 6) Check each Geoweb section to ensure that it is fully expanded. Full expansion of sections will result in a better fitting and looking slope protection. 7) Correctly align and interleaf edges of adjoining Geoweb sections and ensure that the upper surface of adjoining sections are flush. 8) Fasten Geoweb sections together with staples or as specified in contract documents. See Figure 4. Pneumatic staplers are available through Presto Products Company and their authorized distributors. 9) Drive additional straight stakes or J-Pins at the specified spacing within the cells of the expanded Geoweb section. 10) If the slope length 'is longer than one expanded Geoweb section, drive another row of stakes at the bottom end of the expanded section per item 1 above and continue with the new Geoweb section per item 2. Installing tendons in Geoweb sections 1) Precut tendons to specified lengths. If not specified, a good rule -of -thumb is to cut tendons equal to 1.15 times the slope length + 1 m (3 ft). This length provides the necessary excess for anchoring purposes. 2) Feed precut lengths of tendons through aligned holes in pre - drilled Geoweb sections prior to expanding sections. See Figure 5. 3) Tie off tendon ends with a knot that cannot pass through holes in the cell wall. Knots shall be tied to provide full tendon strength and not slip under tensioning of the tendon. 4) At the ends to be anchored, attach the tendons to the specified anchor system (i.e. stakes, earth anchors, dead -man, etc.) and proceed per item 2 in Installation of Geoweb Slope Protection Sections. 5) In some situations, depending on the design, anchor stakes, or J-Pins, are connected to the tendons and driven flush with the ground surface inside the cell to provide additional anchorage and to hide the stakes from view. See Figure 6. Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 PAGE 2 OF 3 COPYRIGHT 1995 - PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY NOVEMBER 1995 0 • 0 -i• THE GEOWEBO SLOPE PROTECTION SYSTEM INSTALLATION GUIDELINES 6) When a geomembrane is present under the Geoweb layer that cannot be penetrated with stakes, tie off tendons within specified cells using a restraining clip. Restraining clips will transfer the load from the Geoweb sections to the tendons. Placement of infill in Geoweb sections 1) After Geoweb sections have been secured to the slope, begin infilling with the specified materials. 2) Place infill in expanded cells with suitable material handling equipment such as a backhoe, front-end loader, conveyor, or crane -mounted skip. See Figure 7. 1 3) Limit drop height of infill material to 1 m (3 ft) maximum. 4) Avoid displacement of Geoweb sections by infilling from the embankment crest to the toe. 1 5) Overfill Geoweb sections and compact infill material as follows: Figure 6 a) Screened top soil, overfill between 25 mm and 50 mm (1 in - 2 in) and lightly tamp to leave soil flush with top edge of 1 cell walls. Apply specified surface treatment. b) Loose granular materials, overfill 25 mm (1 in) and compact with a plate tamper or backhoe bucket. Remove loose 1 surface material so infill is flush with top edges of cell walls. c) Concrete, fill to top edges of the cell walls and compact '0 manually or with vibratory equipment. Apply specified finish to r concrete surface. Warranty Presto Products Company ("Presto") warrants each Presto Geoweb° cellular confinement system section which it ships to be free from defects in materials and workmanship at the time of manufacture. Presto's exclusive liability under this warranty or otherwise will be to furnish without charge to Presto's customer at the original f.o.b. point a replacement for any section which proves to be defective under normal use and service during the 10-year period which begins on the date of ! shipment by Presto. Presto reserves the right to inspect any allegedly defective section in order to verify the defect and ascertain its cause. tA This warranty does not cover defects attributable to causes or occurrences beyond Presto's control and unrelated to the manufacturing process, including, but not limited to, abuse, misuse, mishandling, neglect, improper storage, improper installation or improper application. Presto makes no other warranties, express or implied, written or oral, including, but not limited to, any warranties or merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose, in connection with the Geoweb cellular confinement system. In no event shall Presto be liable for any special, indirect, incidental or consequential damages for the breach of any express or implied warranty or for any other reason, including negligence, in connection with the Geoweb cellular confinement system. PAGE 3 OF 3 COPYRIGHT 1995 - PRESTO PRODUCTS COMPANY Figure 7 NOVEMBER1995 APPENDIX B 96-1701 TEMPORARY LONG TERM PROTECTION Coconut } C125 1 The C125 blanket is composed of —T 100% coconut fiber encased in jl heavyweight, UV stabilized. top and bottom nets. The components are sewn together on 1.5 inch centers with black polypropylene thread to ensure long-lasting durability and performance. The strength and durability of the heavy-duty top and bottom nets and the coconut fiber i enable the C125 to provide superior erosion control on 1:1 and greater slopes (slopes greater than 100% or slopes greater than 45 degrees) and high discharge channels where permanent natural vegetation will i withstand design discharges. or sites i requiring protection for Up to 3 years. Consult North American Green software for specific recommendations: Roll specificat;r.r,_ Width Length V.S.0 l_,': ._ . .. Weight i 3[} 1h-, 1 Area C�0 - j .;•;. Coe oil it( hrtaterial composition 1. Top Net Heavyweight UV stabilized polypropylene 3 Ibs/1000 sq ft approx vvt 2. Coconut Fiber 0,5 Ibs/sq yd (0.27 kg/sq m) 3. Bottom Net Heavyweight UV stabilized polypropylene 3 Ibs/ 1000 sq ft appi ox vvt Thread UV stabilized polypropylene 7 3' 6' 3' A x 1 staple per sq. yd. 3' 6' X 3'— X B x x 1'/z staples per sq. yd. Staple Patterns Guide Staple patterns apply to all North American Green erosion control blankets. Staple patterns will vary depending upon slope length, slope grade, soil type and average annual rainfall. The following are general staple recommendations based on length of slope and slope grade. Specific pattern place- ment of staples are illustrated in illustrations A, B, C, and D. Increased staple rates may be necessary depending upon conditions. For site specific recommendations, con- tact your nearest authorized North American Green dis- tributor or call North American Green technical services. 300 275 250 225 8 200 t a,175 °-�' 150 0 125 B 100 75 A 50 25 A B 8 ft. 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1 Low Med/High Flow Flow Channel Channel Slope Gradient And Shoreline SureLock® Staple Gun For Easy Installation SureLock Staple Gun For Easy Installation Of Erosion Con trol Blankets, Geotextiles And Sod. The SureLock gun will reduce installation time and cost. SureLock is designed for trouble -free operation under the toughest conditions. SureLock's staple chamber is enclosed... that means protec- tion against dirt. Easy -to -load staple cartridges make SureLock the most cost-effective method for installing erosion control blankets, sod, and other materials that must be secured to the ground. f 2 staples per sq. yd. 3.5 staples per sq. yd. .......... a Easy top loading staple chamber holds 73 staples. (3 cartridges) 15 q- N OTHER STANDARD BLANKET FASTENI F"' AVAILABLE THROUGH NIORTF' A',lf=RICAN GREFN Contact North American Green !o; iL. ;her options i 6"and 12" Wooden Pegs SURELOCK STAPLE GUN SureLock Staple Gun for Easy Installation of Erosion Control Blankets, Geotextiles and Sod. The SureLock gun dramatically reduces installation time and cost. SureLock is designed for trouble -free operation under the toughest conditions. The SureLock's staple chamber is completely enclosed to guard against damaging dirt. And easy loading, cost-effective staple cartridges make SureLock the best method for installing erosion control blankets, sod, and other material that must be secured to the ground. i f 4" ' Plastic Pegs 21 8,. taples 2 3 I' Installation Guide Slopes Prepare soil before installing blankets, including application of lime, fertilizer and seed. NOTE: When using SCC225, do not seed prepared area. SCC225 must be installed with paper side down. Begin at the top of the slope by anchoring the blanket in a 6" deep x 6" wide trench. Backfill and compact the trench after stapling. Roll the blankets down the slope in the direction of the water flow. Pr 4. The edges of parallel blankets must be stapled with approximately 2" overlap. 5. When blankets must be spliced down the slope, place blankets end over end (shingle style) with approximately 6" over- lap. Staple through overlapped area. Approximately 12" apart. REFER TO GENERAL STAPLE PATTERN GUIDE ON PAGE 15 FOR CORRECT STAPLE PATTERN RECOMMENDA- TIONS FOR SLOPE INSTALLATIONS. ff CITY OF 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH November 5, 1996 Mr. Glen Mann, PE Creative Engineering Options, Inc. 5418 - 159th Place NE Redmond, WA 98052 RE: BLD 93-1014, NOYES SLOPE STABU17ATION 704 SOUTH 288TH LANE, FEDERAL WAY Dear Mr. Mann: (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 This letter is in response to your request to begin erosion control measures at the above referenced property. Erosion control measures were required as part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Mitigated Determination ofNonsignificance (MDNS) (enclosed) which reads in part: 1. Recommendations of the geotechnicial reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., dated 12118191, 7122192, 812192 and 3129195 shall be incorporated into the. design and construction plans for the project as required by the city. These recommendations include, but are not limited to: B. "The disturbed areas are to be revegetated with rapid deep rooted grass, followed with ivy or other rapidly growing evergreen vegetation. Erosion control matting, pegged in place with steel stakes on a five foot grid pattern, should be installed until vegetation is established " Please provide the following information about proposed erosion control measures: A written scope of work which includes type of vegetation to be planted in what quantity and location, erosion control matting type and quantities, staking methods and timing of installation. 2. A map of the project site depicting the to be covered by the erosion control methods and areas to be revegetated. Once this information is received and reviewed for completeness, written approval to proceed will be provided. No work within geologically hazardous areas is to begin without written approval. I researched your question on the potential for construction restrictions due to the time of the Mr. Glen Mann November 5, 1996 page 2 year. This issue was not raised in ECI, Inc. project reports, and the city has not placed limitations on construction based on time of year. A building permit must be issued before any construction work may occur, and development activity may not be conducted between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., Monday through Saturday per Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1006 (enclosed). No development activity may occur on Sunday or holidays which are observed by the city. Other than these limitations, we would look to your recommendations on construction timing or limitations. I can be reached at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, kdz;�t'4�� Deb Barker Associate Planner c: Chuck Noyes, 704 S. 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98003 Julie Venn file enc: MDNS for SEP 93-0031 FWCC section 22-1006 sglefaml\noyes\erodplan.ltr CITY OF ' 33530 1 ST WAY SOUTH May 4, 1999 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-62110 Glen Mann, P.E., President Creative Engineering GPtions, Inc. 5418 159th Place NE Redmond, WA 98052 RE: Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization at 704 South 280th Lan BLD 93-1014 (Plat of Marine Hills #17, Lot 19) e' Dear Mr. Mann: The Public Works Development Services division has reviewed our February 11, 1999 correspondence containing the conceptual Proposal to utilize a GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System for slope drainage control and surface protection for subject project. p P Sal Conceptually, the proposal appears to meet the intent of the slope stabilization project; however, the following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of the building permit: 1' Design drawings and specifications shall be submitted for City approval of the GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System application at subject site. details and specifications shall be stamped and All design drawings, an engineer licensed in the State Of Washington. 2. The roof drains serving the existin drainage fand rom other impervious areas on residence site shall be dye tested to determine their locations. In the event these drains discharge stoathe slope subject to this stabilization permit, they shall be re-routed to an appropriate tightlined gravity storm drainage system. 3. All disturbed areas, includin theinsta area, shall be re --vegetated with rP GeoWeapid deep b rootedllation followed with ivy or other ra id grass, vegetation; as determined necessar growing evergreen engineer. Y by the project 4. A drainage release covenant shall be executed in a form and content acceptable to the City Attorney's office. �ne�eiinnry RECEIVED B �YFpA��Arr,IT MAY 5 1999 To speed resolution of this issue, resubmit building permit BLD93-1014 the applicant must construction elements within 30 to reflect the update and days of the date of above letter. Upon receipt of the above information, we will complete our review of this project expeditiously. If Si 1 lY n A. Ward, P.E. elopment Services Manager TAW:ah n u have any questions, please call me at 253-661-413 2. cc: Mary Kate GaviglioBuilding Deb Barker,Associate 8 Official er Charles W. Noy . 704 South 288th Lane. Federal Way, Project File/TAWWA, 98023 Day File L:\PRMSYS\DOCUMENT\BLD93-10-14\PWO32599.DOC interoffice M E M O R A N D U M to: Julie Venn Ken Cornwall from: Deb Barker subject: Noyes Slope Stabilization for BLD 93-1014 date: June 11, 1996 Attached please find a June 10, 1996 recommendation from Glen Mann with Creative Engineering Options, Inc for the Chuck Noyes property at 704 South 288th Lane. This recommendation appears to propose slope stabilization and associated timber wall remedial underpinning though driving pin piles into the hillside, as required by the City in a May r , 1996 letter (copy also attached). Background: Please remember that the timber wall has never been permitted by a building permit. It was subject to SEPA review because it is within a steep slope area. During SEPA related geatechnical reviews, soldier wall systems were recommended in lieu of the timber wall. The property owner (Noyes) decided that proposal was too expensive. New engineers concluded that stable slope conditions had deteriorated. Subsequent spring rains washed out soil under portions of the timber wall. Noyes received permission to do emergency repair work at the site. Now, the stabilization of the slope must be resolved. Please review the attached proposal and let me know the following ( by July 1, 1996 if possible): 1. Does this address slope stabilization issue at hand? 2. Is it a substantial change to the initial proposal? 3. Is it likely to produce significant adverse impacts? I realize that this project has changed direction several times. Do you need more information? Please let me know. I have background files and other reports if you need them. Thanks- FE All"Ill"Mm% %Wt%bP Creative Engineering Options Nc. A firm practicing In the geosciences April 20, 1996 Me. Deb Barker City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South Federal Way, Washington 9W03 Subject. 06otechnical Opinion Emergency Repair Slope Instability 704 South 2881h Loris Federal Way, Washington Dear Ms. Barker: 96-1692 This letter is to inform you that the proposed repair at the Noyes residence is due to an emergency condition created by the partial and ongoing failure of a portion of the bluff slope along the westem side of the subject property. The failure of the soils along the bluff crest has resulted in a partial loss of support for the existing timbor retaining wall systorn. The soil mass currently in-pleoe immediately below this wall is In the process of ongoing downslope movement which will In our opinlon, result In a failure and loss of material In the immagiats future. In this event, the loss of material will result in undermining of the timber wall foundation. In turn the undermining is expected to remove support from beneath the wail which will result in a partial to complete collapse of the wall and the loss of a considerably larger portion of the yard area. Because of this condition we have reccrnmended that the wall systom be underpinned immediately with driven -in -place stool pin -piles. Theo piles, which are to be driven to refusal, will be structurally attached to the timber wall so that when the loll mass falls the wall will not lose Its vertical support, In addition, we are also working on an appropriate geotechnlcal design for protection of the upper portion of the bluff slope which has been E0,d 5418 1$9th Place NE -1 Redmond, WA 98052 ■ (206) 883-6889 - (206) 953-1 173 • FAX 867-9664 0£:60 966T-9Z-b0 Emvrggncy Gaotachnical Repair 06-1692 Noyes Realdenae April 20, 1996 Page 2 exposed by this failure. A more detailed report including the appropriate geotechnlcal design Criteria for this repair will be provided In the near future, We trust this information Is sufficient for you to allow for this emergency work to be completed Immediately. Should you have any qu"lons regarding this issue, please call. Very truly yours, CREATIVE ENGINEERI 4 I Y4 �� Glen Mann, P.E. IONAL President ....qj- bt — c.o.: Mr. Chuck Noyes Mr. Garth Leverantz; Dochnahl Construction, Inc. am/Noyes.Ltr/029 i:0'd 02:60 966T-9Z-tr0 July 22, 1992 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Soldier Pile Wall Extension Design Recommendations 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington References: Earth Consultants, Inc. Slope Failure Recommendations E-2867-1, dated December 18, 1991 Earth Consultants Inc. Slope Stability Assessment E-2867-1, dated April 13, 1987 Topographic Survey Dear Mr. Noyes: Earth Consultants Inc. Grotechn"I Engineers, GCol Wts & Environmental Scientists E-2867-3 In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced documents and topographic survey in consideration of extending the existing soldier pile wall along the north side of the subject site. It is our understanding that you wish to construct a new soldier pile wall to extend the existing wall across the property. Recent slope failures and the presence of tension cracks along the top of the slope adjacent to the rear yard indicate a potential for further slope movement. In our opinion, extending the existing soldier pile wall along the north side of the site would reduce the potential for movement along the top of the slope and provide additional protection to the rear yard and house. Site Description The subject site is located at 704 South 288th Lane in Federal Way. The slope, located adjacent to the north side of the property, has a history of instability. Several failures have occurred along the slope, the most recent was in April of 1991. In addition, the top of the slope, adjacent to the rear yard, has been experiencing movement as evidenced by several tension cracks extending parallel to the slope. The existing soldier pile wall, constructed after the 1986 failure, appears not to have been affected by the most recent slope failures and is generally in good condition. 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 101, Tacoma, Washington 98411.9998 Bellevue (206) 643.3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (206) 746.0860 Tacoma (206) 272.6608 Mr. Chuck Noyes July 22, 1992 Recommendations E-2867-3 Page 2 The proposed soldier pile wall should be of similar construction to the existing wall. The recommended location of the new wall is shown on the attached Plate 1, Site Sketch - Noyes Residence. Based on our analysis of the expected load on the soldier pile wall, we recommend a total soldier pile length of twenty two (22) feet measured from the rear yard grade, with a maximum pile spacing of eight (8) feet on center. Our analysis was based on the grade behind the wall being level, and that no surcharge loadings will apply. If this is not the case, we should be contacted to modify our recommendations. The steel section used in the soldier piles should consist of a wide flange W 12 x 53 section. The steel should be A36 grade. The design accounts for a maximum retained height of six (6) feet, to be supported by timber lagging. It should be noted that the current grades indicate a maximum retained height of three feet, with the majority being two feet or less. This will allow for some loss of soil in front of the wall without adversely affecting the stability of the wall. In our opinion, it is not necessary to place lagging to the full designed retained height as this would involve significant excavation in front of the wall. In general, should a slide occur subsequent to construction of the wall that exposes a portion of the soil below the installed lagging, additional lagging should be installed. Based on the spacing of the piles and a maximum six foot retained height, 4 x 12 inch Douglas Fir #1 timber lagging is required. Upon placement of the lagging, fill material between the lagging and the adjacent soil may be required. Any fill placed should be a clean, granular soil with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. It should be noted, however, that instability of the slope itself is not likely to be significantly reduced by the extension of the soldier pile wall. As referenced in our recommendations dated December 18, 1991, instability of the slope can be reduced through control of surface water drainage, and through revegetation of any exposed slide scars. Additional recommendations for slope maintenance are contained in the attached "Maintenance of Hillside Homesites for Slope Stability and Erosion'. Limitations Our recommendations are based on our knowledge of the site conditions and on information provided to us. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing in the area. No warranty is expressed or implied. Earth Consultants, Inc. Mr. Chuck Noyes July 22, 1992 E-2867-3 Page 3 We thank you for the opportunity to serve you on this project. If any additional information is required from you, or if you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. 9�� ' l� Raymond A. Coglas Senior Soils Technician _ y j4 YL ('-� Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Project Engineer pE Ft. CAI►rjp WASI A ff �V SjaNL A r EXPIRES III Q11 EZ Earth Consultants, Inc. 4 RECEIVED BY COMMUN" DEVELOPMENT DEPARTW-W Creative Engineering o bons ►NC. MAY 0 8 1996 %.ilcv A firm practicing in the geosciences May 6, 1996 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Dear Mr. Noyes: Progress Report Emergency Repair Slope Instability 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 96-1692 Bt.0 q 3 -1014 This letter summarizes the results of the recent emergency repair performed to provide temporary support for the timber wall along your property's western perimeter. Two pin - piles were driven immediately in front of the existing timber wall and its supportin concrete foundation. A typical detail sketch of the installed su g as Plate 1 for your information. Apart system is attached One pile was set about eighteen (18) inches from the southernmost corner of the timber wall. The second pile was set about forty-two (42) inches further to the north. After installation both piles were structurally attached to the existing steel waler plate which extends across the face of the timber wall. In addition, a steel bracket was attached to the lower portion of each pile, just above the concrete foundation, and this was also bolted to the timber wall. The two connections provide a reasonably com etent attachment between the timber wall and the steel pin -piles. p Both pin -piles were driven to refusal which is defined as follows: "Less than one inch of penetration after one minute of continuous driving with a 90 pound, air operated jackhammer." 5418 159th Place NE - Redmond, WA 98052 ■ (206) 883-G889 . (206) 953-1 173 ■ FAX 867-9664 Progress Report 96-1692 Noyes Residence May 6, 1996 Page 2 Both piles were driven to a depth of twenty (20) feet below the slope surface immediate) below the timber wall. y Based on the results of pin -pile driving, and given the integrity of the structural connection between piles and timber wall, it is our professional opinion that this emergency repair is adequate to support the timber wall as the soils forming the crest of the slope continue to slough and remove axial support from beneath the wall. These two pin -piles should be sufficient to maintain the timber wall in -place until a more comprehensive retention system can be designed and approved by the City of Federal Way. We trust this information is sufficient to develop an appreciation of the ade u temporary wall support. Our work on this emergency q acY of the has performed, and our opinions and recommendations have beenf derived,f int a m been consistent with that level of skill, care and competency ordinarily exercised by anner other members of the profession in good standing currently practicing under similar conditions in this area only. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Should you have an questions regarding this issue, please call. Y Very truly yours, CREATIVE ENGINEERAC'P)�' � ti x [Si S? 5Sr4NI %I- EEC' Glen Mann, P.E President EXPIRES �Cl►d1�1 c.c.: Ms. Deb Barker; City of Federal Way Mr. Garth Leverantz; Dochnahl Construction, Inc. g m/Noyes. Prg/eb29 i r a Z Q d it Ll � � •� J J W N_p� r 1 W L .r. P Z - V F- Q u' r = 4 ~ v J x 7 N �d N C� u1 t7 z_ V r0% Creative Engineering pptiorISiNC � LGV A Firm Practicing in the Geosci,,es VI W J J o= 4 z U Typical Repair Section Plate 1 inter office M E M O R A N D U M to: Julie Venn Ken Cornwall from: Deb Barker P)/ subject: date: Noyes Slope Stabilization for BLD 93-1 dl4 June 11, 1996 Attached please find a June 10, 1996 recommendation from******* Options, Inc for the Chuck Noyes property at 744 South 288th L Glen Mann with Creative Engineering appears i propose slope stabilization and associated timber wall remedial driving pin piles into the hillside, as required b the C' Lane. This recommendation attached). al underpinning though Y City m a May a,1996 Ietter (copy also Back round• Please remember that the timber wall has never been It was subject to SEPA review because it is within a steep slope arpetted b geotechnical reviews, soldier wall systems were recommended i Y a building permit p area. During SEPA related property owner (Noyes) decided that proposal was too expensive. New eng timber wall. The stable slope conditions had deteriorated. Subsequent spring rains of the timber wall. Noyes received permission to do emergency repair concluded that washed out soil under portions g Y work at the site. Now, the stabilization of the slope must be resolved. Please revie me know the following ( by July 1, 1996 if possible): w the attached proposal and let I- Does this address slope stabilization issue at hand? 2. Is it a substantial change to the initial proposal? I Is it likely to produce significant adverse iinpacts9 I realize that this project has changed direction several times. Do You need more informati Please let me know. I have background files and other reports if you need them. on ? Thanks- 16009 ON X4ZX.IJ TS=6 Clpm 1'E;C1 e 1-L 96/TT/90 Engineering t�v P ns inic. firm Practicing in the geosciences June 10, 1996 96-1701 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th bane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Gevtechnicai Design Roca pin-Pile Weil installation mmendations Slope Repair 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington (Reference SEP 93-0031) Dear Mr. Noyes: Introduction This letter is to provide foundation system to Supportyou with ge0technical design the upper portion of the slope the western 9 parameters for e beyond the Yard re of your yard and to helppin-pile Yard area at the subject site. stabilize The timber wali currently forming the western edge on an emergency basis in earl of your property basis of your May 6, Y May 1oriz We Proceeded with ourVservicesas roln the y 1996 written authorization. e Our work on this project does wetland ❑r biological not in any Way address or hazardous logic ails Should thess of thises Project, such any °i the environmental, as the potential presence of toxic under a separate contract. es need to be addressed, it should be done 5418 159th Place NE ■ Redmond.' 98052 ■ (2061 883-6889 • (201, Z0 ' d 1 953-1 1 73 ■ FAX 867-9664 [6COS og XU/Xzl T5=6, _,U 96/-[T/90 page 2 Geotechnical Engineering services inning gr,_1701 Timber Well - Remedial Underp June 10, 1996 _project Qescri tion ade available to us we under�de mtand �ned bytimber he hevaY ll e of the subject property was u the as the Based an the information The undermining develop protecting the Western edge d April of 1995. used the rainfafi during February sloughing} of "washed" soil from beneath the base lsotfed to bemoval (by exposed which precipitation wa "out of material a �� f.,nriations. This "washing � nr�..;nusly farmed the crest of the slope writi t scii a moderateamom the wall. - extends down been a destabilization of the timber etaof your propertycreated he The overall result has b approximately ten (10} both vertical and lateral Support to the undermined timber threat of failure to t b rn apP leralong this damaged portion of the current desire is to l provide some degree of stabilization waft, and to develop western slope.a roxim Itely twenty- af wall requiring remedial underpinning treatment is aPThe timber wall is n length' The aremeasured from the southern end. five (25} feet iand the timbers are founded about three feet into the approximately nine feet high rises a concrete poured around the bottom " for the wall comp ground. The "foundation three feet of the timbers. ilable to us we estimate that the Imaximum combined Based on the information ava to be on the order of the following: s �� P watl dead and live load is likely 1 p()o i kip per ■ Wall load linear foot ' currently anticipated along the base canthe be tpebormed• er wall to Some limited excavation is inning wo expose the existing foundations so that the underpinning Site Soil Cvnditlons ble in our library and files the existing timber wall. an Based on the Observed conditions nseotechn cnt al dataand ea� Ala _ lace conditions are as supported by our rev {I ° 9 it, is evident that the in -place regarding soil conditions in this vicinity, 0£:60 9661-11-90 16MO ON ya/XZ] T2=6r"�1Z 9611TI90 Geotechnica! Engineering Services 96-1701 Timber Wall - Remedlal Underpinning June 1 Q, 1996 Page 3 reasonably uniform. The soils consist predominant) silty fine to coarse sand containingvarying Y °f a media typically classified b t amounts of gravel. These dense to dense, Y he Unified Soil Classification S hese materials are density increases with depth System as an SM. The in -situ From our experience with similar conditions, and from our consider these soils to be firm and coin found at a depth of about ten {1 d ompeteet enta t relatively s hallowde I th analyses, we bearing capacity in excess ❑f four thousand(4,000) able f. P The sails Providing an allowable soil Loads transferred to these spits - Psf. significant degre® of settlement. (as little settlement h within the underpinned timber walls` }are unlikely to be susceptible to any that does occur should be well structure! tolerance. While the shallow soils can be subject to surficial erosion to surface or shallow water flow, the and sloughing, central measures. The Y carily due at) be stabiliZed by installation pomd ai�age combination with the deep local awater ce o)eve l which ls are sufficiently firm and dense that, in they are unlikely to be subject to liquefaction dui cannot surge to saturate the soils, magnitude. g an earthquake of significant We did not observe any visible evidence of a shallow groundwater level, or of any subsurface groundwater seepage at the time of our field visit. tstt. Pln-Pile �esl n General. Based on the nature of the timber wall and it a relatively steep slope, it is our professional opinions location l economical means of providing Support along the crest of 9 apart is by installation of the most practical and steel pin -piles. a series of driven-in_place These Pin -piles consist Of two inch diameter Schedule �� The pipe is typically installed in segments of about to ( strop segment is driven to refusal (described below) with an air c g len iron pipe n {7 Q} feet in length. Each (96) pound jackhammer. As a se °mPressor o segment is field welded b a Washington is driven to ground level operated ninety' refuse! is achieved Y ashington certified welder and driving is continuedruntil attached to the The pile is them cut off at the appropriate elevation an wall. d is then bO•d [6C05 ON XU/XZ] TG:60 'L 96/TT/90 page 4 Geotechnical Engineering Services 96-1701 Timber Wall - Remedial Underpinning June 10, 1996 Pin -Pile Design Parameters: For this project we recommend the following geotechnical parameters be used in design ! 6 kips Maximum axial capacity of pin -pile = 0.75 kips ■, Maximum lateral caPaci i of pin -pile 20 feet ■ Minimum estimated depth of Pin -Pile ■ Maximum recommended center -to -center = 3.5 feet pin -pile spacing g 1/4-inch, * Maximum estimated settlement of pin -pile or less slope, there pile to slope interface. As a result, he location of this wall, immediately above a relatively steep {t Because oft ❑rt near the p provide add is likely to be little lateral S, - nd that additional pin -plies be installed at an inclination o recomme mend these "batter" piles be designed and installed in lateral support. We recem accordance with the following geotechnical parameters: _ I H :4V ■ Maximum pin -pile inclination ■ Maximum axial capacity of inclined pile Maximum lateral capacity of inclined pile ■ Maximum recommended center -to -center pin -pile spacing 6.2 kips 1.5 kips 3.5 feet 1£:60 9661-TT-90 I6COS oN ya/yZ] TS _ 6r �,1Z 96/TT/9O Geotechnical Engineering Services 96-1701 Timber Wall - Remedial Underpinning June 10, 1996 Page 5 • Maximum estimated length of pin -pile feet ■ Maximum estimated settlement of pile 1/4-inch, or less Pile Driving: All pin -piles are to be driven with an air compressor (90) Pound jackhammer. The jackhammer should be attached essor operated ninety means of a shaped mandrel. Each pile should be driven to refusl o the pin -piles by as defined below, "Refusal is defined as less than one inch of pile Penetration after one full minute of continuous driving with a ninety (90) Pound jackhammer." Pin-Pfle Monitoring: We recommend that all of the Pin -piles refusal at the appropriate locations. Then each pile should be pr oo# tested driven in' place to to verify that refusal has been achieved and that the individual pile has the a capacities indicated If an individual pin -pile does not meet the refusal criterion driving until such time as refusal is achieved, A record of the pile en during proof testingivrng will be continued report will be kept and provided as an attachmenttoour afinal monittions oring f ng Pile to Wall Connection: As with the recently instal! underpinning we recommend that the pin -pile system be firms "emergency, existing wail by means Of a series of steel "wafer" plates and/or gency„ wall end of each Pin -pile r br connected to the side of the pile -pil welded teethe axiconnected by two steel brackets we welded on s. he upper existing steel walQr plate. one to each If no wafer plate exists, then the brackets should be connected to the timber wall by two six inch long lag bolts. Similarly, the piles should also b Of the timber wail by means of welded steel brackets and la ffs. This combination attached to the bass g o Should be sufficient to create a "fixed" pile -to -wall connection supporting the wall. capable of structurally 90'd [6COS ()K X2i/XZ] TS=6( 11 96/TT/90 Page 6 Geotechnical Engineering Services 96_17f71 Timber Udall - Remedial Underpinning .tune t 0, 1996 Wall Drains e area ' i treatment operation we also recamme e toha�oth �ystema It 9 As part of this remedial t Provided with a drainage most severe "washing out" occurred during the recent storms. the southern end of the timber wail be p in this area where the to th the Ties have been installed and lattA �retlidential"catch 1111e rE3t,Viii..,onri that, ante P L -. era tivaii excavation be made along r'r1e--uL't;larn end at the shallow exca and grade about ten (10) feet to the east V at Yro ert fine at the upgrade end of this shallow basin should ndest inside the southern p A y hand excavation to drain into this alignment �` The site grade should be sloped by excavation. catch basin. the _ arfvrated pipe should then be installed � basin base Thisfpipe A four inch diameter un p airtt excavation and should be connected imber wall and down the western slope to a p e Past the face of th should extend R at least thirty (3a) feet beyand the wall. he face of the slope at the outfallThis sock should that cons consist To avoid the risk of eroding t protected by a layer of rock. ground surface at the outtall be p of four to six inch sized coarse, crushed rock. thick and should extend for a "apron should be at least twelve (12) inches The rock either side of the pipe outfall, and five feet downgrade distance of at least two feet on either er expected to prevent surficial erosion of the soils of the oUtfiall• This "apron" she uldin close proximity to the ❑utfall. Clow our cantracto r, Doch nahl his remedial treatment. We also appreciate the We trust the above information is sufficient to allow challenging protect. Construction, to Proceed with unit to be of 5er"ice to you on this interesting and opportunity inlons, conclusions and This hale of our work has been performed, and our to that Th p derived, in a manner consistent with profession onl of good his Mmendations have been other members o P No other recocare and competence ordinarily exercised by tl racticing under similar conditions in this area only. standing currently R Z£:6O 9661-tit-90 BOOS; ON X2I/XZ] TS=6 �1Z 96/T1/90 Geotechnical Engineering Services 96-1701 Timber Wahl - Remedial Underpinning June 10, 1996 Page 7 warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Should you have any questions regarding any point raised in this letter, or about any other geotechnical aspect of the project, please call. Very truly yours, CREATIVE ENGINEER Glen Mann, P.E. rEE, j t President Attachment: Plate 1; Typical Underpinning Detail C.C.: Mr. Garth LeVerentz; Dochnahl Construction Ms. Deb Barker; City of Federal Way 9M/NoyesPin. Pil/eb30 eo-d 96/TT/90 I . 1 [6cos ODZ XU/Xl] TS:60 A, J LE lu i"A ZV I 'n i i E£:60 9661—TT-90 .q Q q a Irgal QdAk-,U )Ie}o 2iI,L II as°1(d lioi,y b'dS ,Copy] lalapa� Oi u,cja uisvg a�Eui�aQ — (IgrpuaddV panulluoD saaipuaddV A CITY OF 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH May 6, 1996 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WAq)$0Q3-6203-6200 ]❑ h k e RE: BLD93-1014 — RET,,NMG WALL TN STEEP SL4FE AREA 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way (.Reference: SEP93-0031) Dear Mr. Noyes: The purpose of this letter is to advise you about the status of your building ermit due to adverse conditions identified at the project site by Mike Visser, P.E., of Vise Engineering Co. and by Glen Mann, P.E. with Creative Engineeringg rrespective information was outlined in separate Ietters to you dated Aril 10, 1996, and April 26, 1996 On April 26, 1996, the Director of Community Development Services exempted specific emergency repair work at the site. The work, associated with slope stabilization and wall repair, and outlined in Glen Mann's March 26, 1996, letter was deemed necessary because of "...emergency conditions that imminently threaten public health, safety and welfare and requires action that must be undertaken immediately to avoid injury or serious environmental. degradation." As a condition of that exemption, a plan or diagram of.,the yvor ro osed was to be approved by city staff before the work commenced. To date, this plan has not been received. A site inspection on April 26, 1996, revealed that the work had been completed. In his April 10, 1996, letter, Mr. Visser indicates that stable slope conditions do not a ear submitted retaining wall ptp to exist, and that because of the unstable conditions, he "...considers his sub repair plans to no longer be valid." Mr. Visser suggests that the retaining wall repair plans be Put on hold until the slope is stabilized. These issues directly affect the status of the building required to approve the retaining wall currently constructed within steep Slope geologically ion. A building t is hazardous areas. A Mitigated Determination of Nan -Significance he retaining wall project on August 8, 1995, included a condition that a proje}.c'tIspec�zfic°building permit be submitted. The building permit has not been issued because required information s not been submitted. Mr. Visser was providing the engineering for the retaining wall components of the building permit. Mr. Charles Noyes May 6, 1996 Page 2 As stated in the emergency exemption letter, all other work proposed.in conjunction with building permit application BLD93-1014 is not hsthe�tandabred part oc fsthe �� emergency conditions, and as such must be approved through Mr. Vis er is recommending that slope stabilization measures must be immediately provided before the plans for the existing and proposed retaining structure can be finally designed and a g eotechnicial engineer licensed in the State approved. These measures must be designed by of Washington, and meet the all applicable code requirements of the Federal Way Cibecause (FWCC). Because the existing retaining wall was constructed without a valid permit, MDNS conditions have not been met, and because of potentially significant life and safety concerns, slope stabilization measures to address issues by both engineers must be submitted to the city no later than rune 7, 1996, to avoid formal enforcement action. Following resolution of the slope stabilization, the building permit issues must be resolved. rmation is Please be advised that if there are substantial changes adver a significant the plmpactsothe SEPA produced that shows that the project is likely to have determination will be withdrawn and the SEPA process must begin again pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(3)(i) and 197-11-340(3)(ii), based on the revised project. According to your engineers, this site needs immediate professional attention. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: WAC 197-11-340(3)(i) WAC 197-11-340(3)(ii) c: Martin Nordhy, Code Compliance Officer Julie Venn, Engineering Plans Reviewer file interoffice, M E M O R A N D U M to: Julie Venn W v' Ken Cornwall from: Deb Barker r subject: Noyes Slope - S abilization for BLD 9 date: June 11, 1996 3 1014 Attached please find a June 10, 1996 recommendation from Glen Mann with Cr Options, Inc for the Chuck Noyes property at 704 South 288th Lane. This recommendationeative Engineering appears to propose slope stabilization and associated timber wall remedial underpinning driving pin plies into the hillside, as required by the City in a May g though attached). Y it 1996 letter (copy py also B k r nd• Please remember that the timber wall has never been e It was subject to SEPA review because it is within a steep slope area. Durin S permitted by a building permit. geotechnical reviews, soldier wall systems were recommended in lieu of the timber wall. The g EPA related Property owner (Noyes) decided that proposal was too expensive. New engineers concluded stable slope conditions had deteriorated. Subsequent spring rains washed out soil of the timber wall. Noyes received permission to do emergencyrepair concluded that under portions p work at the site. Now, the stabilization of the slope must be resolved. Please review the attache me know the following ( by July 1, 1996 if possible):ddress slope d Proposal an ale 1. Does this a ��N; pe stabilization issue at hand?' }��,'�-{ t�R ZJ1'� 2. rM Is it a substantial change to the initial proposal? �V/IIs it likely to produce significant adverse impacts.? I realize tha this project has changed direction several times. Do you need or Please let a know. I have background files and other reports if you need t e Information? Thanks- m. �y�`jo oil N t,V,q Y F,7N1 T��i ' GLrfii L jja Ti115 i�i�'��5lX r?9F� /JJ�" drl/s� MGI/V T� A, TNT _r7F F� Memorandum Department of Community Development Services To: Julie Venn, Engineering Plans Reviewer Ken Cornwall, Plans Examiner Hap Watkins, Senior Building Inspector Dick Mumma, Building Ofacial From: Deb Barker, Associate Planner Date: June 4, 1996 RE: CHUCK NOYES EMERGENCY REPAIR DOCUMENTATION 704 South 288th Lane On April 26, 1996, emergency work associated with steep slope stabilization and repair was authorized u ' c to review of the formal plans. The Proposed emer en twining wall was outlined in a March 26, 1996 letter from Glen Mann with Creative Engineerin g cy repair work attached). g Options, Inc. Unfortunately, the repair work was performed before plans were submitted. A s was placed at the site on April 26, 1996 because plans had not been Provided. top work order Attached please find a May 6, 1996 letter from Creative Engineering Options Inc the emergency work performed. Please let me know if this documentation adequately. reporting on the emergency repair work, addresses Also, I have a few photos of the work performed, and Hap has been out to the site Questions? Please ask; I'm at 4I03. 0"'L'WC) Creative Engineering Options A firm practicing in the geosciences April 26, 1996 96-1692 Me. Deb Barker City of Federal Way 33530 First Way South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: (3eotechnical 4131nion Emergency Repair SlcFs Instability TOa South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Dear Ms. Barker: This €otter is to inform you that the pro emergency cv�7ditian created by the P� � and ongoingat ela lure of residence is due to an slope along trio western slcfe of the sub�ec{ property. portion of the bluff The failure of the soils along the bluff crest has resulted in a partial flXisting timber retaining wall system. lass of The soli mass currently in-pla'a imme this wall €s in the proces4 of tangoing downslope movement w�`1i-h will in our opinlpn, support for the result in a failure and lass of material In the irnm8Cliate tutor diately below ., e, In this event, the €ass of material will result in Undermining of the timb l foundation. In turn tine undermining is expc�ed to remove support from ben th vw whih result in a partial to complete collapse of the wall and the loss of at considerably which will Portion of the yard area. larger Because of this condition we have rer0mmandad that the wall s s;arn €mmediatOly with driven-in-plaoe steel iR- refuSe�I, will ba Structurally attached to the timber wall se thati be underpinned A piles. Theca piles, which are to be driven #o wall Will not lose Its vertical support In addition, we area o women a soil mass falls the geofechnical design for Protection of the upper portion of the bluff slope wan has been filch has been 54 f a 119th ploCc. rV : „ Reclmon(J WA 98052 • (206) 883-6899 • (206) 953-1 173 4 FAX 64 Page 2 Emargvnay�ataahnicai Repair 96.1692 Noyes R"'I'Onoo April 2e, 1996 b this failure. A more detailed report including tna appropriate geotechnical exposed y design criteria for this repair will be provided In ,he near tuiure, rgency work to i�Q mG We trust this, information Is sufrraient tar you to ate rer this th+i ssue, pie se call completed Imm$dlately. should you have any queat g Vary truly yours, CREATIVE ENGINEERI \V � Glen Mann, P.E. President FONAL Mr. Chuck Noyes Mr. Garth Leverantz; Dochnahl ConstruGtron, Inc. gm/Noyes.0/029 0Z,60 966Z-93-b0 Great ve Engineering A firm practicing in the geosciences May 6, 1996 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 00MMUNITY EVE 0 M NT0E ARrMFW Options INC. MAY 0 8 1996 Subject: Progress Report Emergency Repair Slope Instability 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Dear Mr. Noyes: 96-1692 h p cDg3-1olq, This letter summarizes the results of the recent emergency temporary support for the timber wall aeon g Y repair performed to provide piles were driven immediately in front of the existing proprttim astern perimeter. Two pin - concrete foundation. A typical detail sketch of the installed sup wall and its supporting as Plate 1 for your information. Ptached Apart system is attached One pile was set about eighteen (18) inches from the soot wall. The second pile was set about forty-two (42) inches installation both Piles Were structural! sofurther to the uthernmost corner of the timber extends across the face of the timber wall ached to the existing s eel wafer rth' After the lower Portion Of each pile, just above the concrete foundation Plate which In addition, a steel bracket was attached to bolted to the timber wall. The two connections provide attachment between the timber wall and the s undatrea and this was also P de a reasonably competent feel pin -piles. Both pin -piles were driven to refusal which is defined as fo llows: fl Less than one inch of penetration after one minute of con driving with a 90 pound, air operated jackhammer.' tenuous 5418 159th Place NE • Redmond, WA 98052 • (206) 883-6889 • (206).953-1 1 73 • FAX 867-9664 Progress Report 96-1692 Noyes Residence May 6, 1996 Page 2 Both piles were driven to a depth of twenty (20) feet below the s below the timber wall. lope surface immediately Based on the results of pin -pile driving, and given the integrity of the structural connection between piles and timber wall, it is our professional opinion that g adequate to support the timber wall as the soils forming the rthis emergency repair is to slough and remove axial support from beneath the wall. These be sufficient to maintain the timber wall in -place u crest of the slope continue until a more comp ehensipeeretentiold system can be designed and approved by the City of Federal Way. We trust this information is sufficient to develop an appreciation J temporary wall supportOur work on this emergencyp on of the adequacy of the performed, and our opinions and recommendations have been portion of the project has been consistent with that level of skill, care and competency ordinarily members of the profession in good standing Curren n derived, in a manner ily exercised by other in this area only. No other warranty, express or implied, istm practicing under similar conditions questions regarding this issue, please call. made. Should you have any Very truly yours, CREATIVE ENGINEER ��A y 20919 v�T Of 0. G Glen MAL ann, P.E. President C.C.: r tirrffv- LEXPIRES Ms. Deb Barker; City of Federal Way Mr. Garth Leverantz; Dochnahl Construction, Inc- gm/Noyes. Prg/eb29 I-2Lb fr. Creative Engineering Options,NC v Plate AFirm Practicngnthe Geosc�eyxes Typical Repair Section 1 From: To: Date: Time: Subject: Place: In working would like can do to JULIE VENN BillX, StephenC, Tuesday, April 9, 3:30 pm - 4:30 pm Failing slopes in CDconfrm GregF, JulieV, CDconfrm, 1996 Marine Hills g with the Noyes Retaining Wall permit I have uncovered failing slopes adjacent to the Noyes residence. I to meet to discuss what if anything the city should or improve the situation out there. CITY OF R�C�i 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH October 16, 1996 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY, WAq) 661-4000 3-6210 RE: SLOpE STABILTA'ION RECONIMCNDATION 704 SOUTH 288TFOR BLD 93-1014 $ LANE Dear Mr. Noyes: This letter is provided M response to the September 12, 1996, geotechnicial design recommendations for pill pile wall installation/slope repair at the above referenced site. SIope stabilization measures to address issues Of slope failure raised by your revious e were to be submitted to the city for review. Following resolution of the slope stabilization the P ngineer building permit issues According to Federal of the timber wall built without a permit were to be resolved. Way Public Works and Building department staff, the pro asal su Creative Engineering Options, Inc. still does not contain plans, details and specification bmitted by dealing with the storm drainage runofffrom the retaining wall and hillside areas. The s far Engineering Department disagrees with your (current) engineers recommended solution with the storm drainage issue because your property does not extend m the tad so ution in dealing the recommendations are not specific to enough for construction. (please refer to the a the slope and 1011196 memorandum from Julie Venn). Please contact Julie at 661-4125 to resolve t closed important design issue. his In summary, the following information must be provided for the building permit to be considered complete: 1 • Detailed construction plans which address storm drainage from the site must be submitted. (This should be coordinated with Julie Venn.) 2• A scaled section of the proposed wall improvement s must be submitted for t building permit. he 3. A narrative for the construction sequence must be submitted for the building g 4. A temporary erosion control plan must be submitted for the building permit. Mr. Chuck Noyes October 16, 1996 Page 2 that no work may be conducted at the site until the building permit has been pleas e be advised approved and issued. In addition, I have enclosed a September 5, 1996 letter (copy) which discusses 1997 will be nY mentall sensitive areas consultant review reimbursement. Yoe do no hesitate toble for any c any consultant review costs incurred after December 31, 1996. contact me at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, 101-� &11j� Deb Barker Associate Planner c: Julie Venn, Engincc ing Plans Reviewer Martin Nordby, Code Enforcemea Officer Ken Cornwall, Senior Plans Examiner file enc: Julie Venn 10/1/96 memorandum 10/5/96 ESA letter MMEMERM CITY OF MEOW 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH August 22, 1996 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98023 FEDERAL WAY, WA06) 661-640 00 ': SLOPE STABILIZATION RECOMMENDATION FOR BLD 93-1014 704 SOUTH 288TH LANE Dear Mr. Noyes: This letter is provided in response to the June 10, 1996, geotechnicial design recommen for pin pile wall installation/slope repair at the above referenced site. dations Slope stabilization measures to address issues of slope failure raised b were to be submitted to the city for review. Following Y Your previous engineer building permit issues of the timber wall built without arpermi i were to the Slope stabilization, the According to Public Works and Building department staff, the proposal submitted b Engineering Options, Inc. does not address the slope stabilization identified b Mike Creative former engineer) in his April t0, 1996 letter (enclosed). The proposal provides a fo Y Visser (your the timber wall, which was built without a permit, but does not stabilize the sfo eat th undation for timber wall. A solution to the overall soils/slop�e but issue must still be roe city for review. Have your engineers considered benching, p e toe of the provided to tl�e tiebacks? o, additional structural retaining walls or In addition, the following information must be provided with the slope stabilizationn ro p posal: I Creative Engineering Options, Inc. (your current engineer) needs to make a comparison between the original soldier wall submittal prepared by Earth Consultants Inc. (your first eng)-neer) which was approved through SEPA, and their submitted option. Tile two options should be similar in design parameters and in providing a permanent solution, or the SEPA would have to be redone. Please remember that the existing illegal timber wall was constructed without a building permit and has not been engineered. 2• The original SEPA review approved work that connected the drain lines to a Permanent tight line which continues to the toe of the slope, revegetation of the Engineering Odisturbed areas and erosion control matting pegged in place. Creative ptions proposes a catch basin at the base of the timber wall which would outlet 30 feet down slope from the wall with a riprap pad placed at the outlet. Tile full scope of work proposed in the steep slope area beyond the base of the wall must be provided to determine if there are substantial changes to the original SEPA approved proposal or if the Creative Engineering Options proposal will create adverse impacts. Provide a storm drainage plan to show the location of the proposed catch basin installation and other storm drainage apparatus with appropriate details including a topographic survey twenty (20) feet beyond the proposed outfall of in and riprap placement and control; and the storm drainage piping; catchbas details of the work in the steep througnclusion of tile h the Earth is required. Consultants Inc. mitigation measures approved the SEPA 3. All storm drainage from the area above the timber wall (existing lawn and landscaping area) and the roof drainage must be tied into the existing storm drainage system. Also any existing storm drainage piping along the entire timber wall must be controlled and directed into - the existing storm drainage system. Include the proposed connection layout and show existing facilities in the storm plans required in -Item 2. As the existing timber wall was constructed without a v l feparmit,fbeety concerns, seMDconditions have not been met and because of patentially signt ficant stabilization proposal must be submitted by September 13,1996, to avoid formal enforcement action. I would be glad to arrange a meeting with city staff and your engineers prior to that date. As stated in my May 6, 1996, letter, if there are substantial changes to the proposal, or new information is produced that shows that the project is likely to have adverse significant impacts, the SEPA determination will be withdrawn and the SEPA process must begin again pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(3)(I) and 197-11-340(3)(ii) based on the revised project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 661-4103 if you have any questions. ', i . ` Sincerely, 4W— &Ah'A� Deb Barker Associate Planner �. Julie Venn, Engineering Pl:uls Reviewer Martin Nordby. Code Enforcement onlicer file enc: Mike Visscr April 10- 1996 Ictuer September 2, 1992 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Addenda Oesi >rt to Soldier Pile Wall Extension Recommendations 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. E-2867-3, July 22, 1992 Dear Mr. Noyes: cEanrthtCOnsultan-ts In - ' Geologists & Environmental Scientists t• E-2867-3 In accordance with your re in the referenced letter. Quest, we have reviewed the soldier is our tin original design in that thetlimi ed a d e s andin pile wall exte soldier piles. g that the contractor extension das esign presented would not allow placement Dvf hehsteconcerns with the The redesigned section for the t i soldier pile consists of a reinforced concrete Yp'cal section. This design is of the pile is concrete and the stsimilar ion h pile member show" typical section. In addition, the diameter Previous design except that the above ground the attached recommendations contained in been replaced with hat ground meter of the i g steel as shownportion pi concrete has been reduced to eighteen (I8} inches.on the addendum remain a the referenced letter that are nat changed applicable. The Should ar modified by this You have any questions, or if we can be of forth Yours very truly, further assistance, please call. EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E Project Manager KRC/kc 1C`2867.1LD1,krc151 cc: DBM, Attention: Don Peterson J07'S R. CqM� W-'4 � fir i �a ',,Ze 'MWAk M60 �NAL E�G� EXPIRES 1805. 26th Place N.E.. Suite 101, BetleVue, Washington 98005 780 E. 26th Street, Suite 101. Tacoma, Washinglon 98421.9998 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (208) 484.I584 FA (206) (206) 746'0860 Taco ma (206) 272-6608 r IRQ �eip ept D 'AaTmr1fT �U11J111H1�`f . 3 1994 Mr. Greg Fewins October 31, 1994 Senior Environmental Planner City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way Federal Way, WA 98003-6210 RE: Application Number SEP93-9931 Dear Mr. Fewins, As indicated in our telephone conversation of October 28, please find inclosed the proposal submitted by Earth Consultants, Inc. regarding the modification to our existing landscape planter box. Meanwhile, I am soliciting estimates from contractors interested in performing this work. Again, thank you for your time. Please call if there are further questions. Sincerely, Charles W. Noyes 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA (206) 946-0770 Earth Consultants Inc. Cd-ote finical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental scientists �i December 18, 1991 E-2867-1 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Consultation Slope Failure Recommendations 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Slope Stability Assessment E-2867-1, dated April 13, 1987 Gentlemen: At your request, Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) representatives met with you at the subject site on December 12, 1991 to observe the April 1991 slope failure and general site conditions. The purpose of our visit was to observe site conditions and provide cursory recommendations for monitoring movement in the steep north slope and reducing the potential for future slope movements. Site Description The subject site is located at 704 South 288th Lane in Federal Way, Washington, at the crest of a steep slope overlooking Poverty Bay and Puget Sound. The site consists of a residential lot occupied by a single-family residence. The steep slope extends downward from the rear yard, and is approximately 100 feet in height, with an inclination of about 1.25H:1V to 111:1V. The lower one third of the slope is steeper than 1H:1V. During construction of the residence, we understand a sliver fill was placed at the crest of the steep slope. Based on the information in the referenced report, geologic maps and observations made during our site visit, it appears the site is immediately underlain by glacially consolidated sand and gravel. Underlying the sand and gravel about two-thirds down the slope is a glacially consolidated gravelly, sandy clay unit. 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 101, Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (206) 746-0860 Tacoma (206) 272-6608 Mr. Chuck Noyes E-2867-1 December 18, 1991 Page 2 Site History From our discussions with you and review of the referenced report, we understand the steep slope has a history of instability. Two slope failures occurred during construction in January 1986 and February 1987, one on your property and one to the east. We understand that in 1989, following an earthquake, tension cracks appeared along the crest of the slope, and the northwest corner of the rockery extending parallel to the crest of the slope was set down about 12 inches. The most recent failure occurred along the east property line in April, 1991 and another failure occurred on the neighboring property to the west. Site Observations Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) representatives met with you at the site on December 12, 1991 to observe the present site conditions. The failure which occurred last April is still visible. The slide is about 50 feet long and about 35 feet wide. The failure consisted of a mass of saturated soil which moved downslope. As part of an effort to repair the failure, the slide scar was "cleaned -up" by excavating a bench at the base of the slide and notches in the scarp. Two flexible drainlines were observed that have become disconnected and discharge at the top of the failure. Several tension cracks or small scarps extending parallel the slope were observed. We understand these appeared following an earthquake. in 1989, and that there has been no observed movement along these cracks since they formed. We also noted the soldier pile wall installed after the 1986 slide is in place and appears to be in good condition and the retaining wall on the neighboring property to the east is still in place, having been tied -back as part of the 1986 slide repairs. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of our review, observations and discussions, it is our opinion the east slope will continue to slough in the future. The crest of the slope consists of a series of arcuate features (head scarps) which represent historical failures. The scalloped pattern continues west and east of your property and is indicative of inherent instability in this slope. On your portion of the slope there have been at least two major failures in the past five years and tension cracks indicate potential future instability. Earth Consultants, Inc. I Mr. Chuck Noyes December 18, 1991 E-2867-1 Page 3 It is our opinion it would not be economically feasible to attempt to repair the existing failure. Based on our observations, the benefit derived from constructing a retaining wall on the slope would, in our opinion, be minimal. However the potential for future movement can be reduced through revegetation of the existing slide scar, and by control of surface water drainage. Additional protection for the rear yard and house can be provided by extending the existing soldier pile and wood lagging wall across the north side of the site. We do not recommend repairing the April 1991 slope failure. It is our opinion the weight of the material used to rebuild the slope would act as a driving force and increase the potential for future movement. We do recommend this area be revegetated with a rapid growing deep rooted grass. This should be followed with ivy or other rapid growing evergreen vegetation. Due to the inclination of the existing slope surface, it will be necessary to use some form of slope covering to protect the grass seed from slopewash erosion until it can become firmly rooted. There are several products which are available for this purpose. These include Excelsior erosion control blankets, Enkamat erosion control matting, and jute matting. Which ever product is chosen, it should be pegged in - place with steel stakes in a five-foot grid pattern. Information on erosion control products can be obtained from Contech Construction Products, Inc. at 453-2263. To enhance the long-term slope stability, it will be necessary to control surface water drainage. During a site visit on November 14, 1991, two flexible drainlines were observed discharging -from the neighboring property onto the crest of the slope immediately above the April 1991 failure. At the time of our second site visit an effort had been made to extend these drainlines beyond the north end of the failure; however, a perforated flexible pipe was used and strong winds appear to have blown the connections apart. It is imperative that this drainline be connected to a permanent tightline which continues to the toe of the slope. We recommend the use of a rigid, solid pipe, staked in -place, and with glued joints. A monitoring program should be established to record any movements in the section of slope immediately west of the April 1991 failure. This program would consist of installing two monitoring points on the crest of the slope north of the existing tension cracks. The monitoring points should consist of 1/2-inch steel reinforcing bars driven into the ground for a depth of at least three feet. The distance between the monitoring points and a benchmark established on the existing soldier pile wall should be periodically measured. To reduce the potential for measuring errors, we recommend using the same measuring device for all readings. If an increase in the distances between the monitoring points and the soldier pile wall is detected, you should contact ECI. If you decide to extend the existing soldier pile and lagging wall to the west, we can provide design recommendations upon request. Earth Consultants, Inc. Mr. Chuck Noyes December 18, 1991 LIMITATIONS E-2867-1 Page 4 Our recommendations and conclusions are based on visual observations of the existin site conditions, information provided us by you, and our experience and en ineerin g to conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that The Ievel of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently with th under similar conditions in this area. No warrantyis expressed or implied. practicing We hope this information meets your current needs. If you have Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. � I -- 4/�� Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Projec nager eodore I Sc pper, P.E. Director of Geotechnical Services SDD/KRC/TJS/kml [2867-2g.tir) Earth Consultants, Inc. any questions, please call. Creative Engineering Options INC. Apo Iff 0% A firm practicing in the geosciences 122C E 1i'L COMMI INKY DEVELOPMENT OEPAR MENT September 12, 1996 96-1701 $EP 16 1996 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Slope and Wall Stabilization Options Noyes Residence 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: CEO, Inc., letter regarding Pin -Pile Wall Installation, dated June 10, 1996. Dear Mr. Noyes, Introduction As requested, and in an effort to resolve some concerns raised by Ms. Deb Barker of the City of Federal Way, we have evaluated the information provided to you earlier by Earth Consultants, Inc., (ECI). We have also evaluated the differences between the recommendations provided by ECI and our recommendations presented in the above - referenced letter. The following paragraphs provide our response. Existing Wall Construction The existing timber tie wall was, we understand, built without a permit and is located along the approximate alignment of a proposed soldier pile and lagging wall (ECI letter 54 18 1 59th Place NF • Redmond, WA 98052 • i206' 883-6889 • (206) 953-1 173 • FAX 867-9664 Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization September 12, 1996 Page 2 dated July 22, 1992),It appears that this timber tie wall was built out over a sliver of fill placed at the time of the existing residences, construction. Whilst this timber tie wall appears to be stable, the slope immediately beneath the base of the wall has been subject to some surficial erosion and sloughing. As a result of this sloughing the bottom of the timber tie wall and parts of the concrete vertical Post foundations have partially been exposed. This resulted in the emergency installation of some pin -piles to provide additional support to the base of the south end of the wall. To the best of our knowledge this timber tie wall was anchored back into the stable site soils. ECI provided geotechnical recommendations for the installation of a series of "deadman" anchors in their March 25, 1995 letter. These anchors were assumed to carry all of the active loads now applied to the wall. The soil parameters used in the ECI design were as follows: ■ Active equivalent fluid weight _ - 35 pcf ■ Passive equivalent fluid weight _ - 400 pcf ■ Design factor of safety _ - 1.5 ■ Moist soil density = 130 pcf Soil angle of internal friction, phi = 350 We concur that these design parameters are appropriate for the anchor design. It is provide long term stability to the timber tie wall. also our opinion that the installation of these anchors is advantageous in helping to Additionally, these anchors will help reduce the loads applied to the pin -pile support system. Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization Page 3 September 12, 1996 Slv a Condi#ion A profile of the slope soil conditions was developed by ECI and presented in a letter (March 1987), A copy of this profile is attached to this letter for informational sandy silts and silty sands overlying a hard silt layer at a depth of about thipurposes. The observed soil conditions consist of a combination of shallow hard rty {30} feet below site grade. Beneath the silt is a dense gravelly sand and then very dense gravelly silty sand, a glacial till. As mentioned above, the existing timber tie wall is located approximately at the alignment of the soldier pile wall shown on the attached slope and soil profile. Because of the relatively steep slope gradients, and the presently uncontrolled surface water flow, the shallow surficial soils on the slope face are subject to regular periods of erosional damage and sloughing. When this occurs, soil sloughs downslope and exposes a "fresh" unvegetated soil face. The sloughing also develops the "arcuate" features discussed earlier by ECI (ECI letter dated December 18, 1991). ECI is also of the opinion that the primary cause of the surficial erosion and sloughing is due to surface water drainage. In the past, the erosional damage to the face of this slope has been referred to as "failure" rather than "damage" or surficial sloughing. Even the earlier recorded "failures", which covered relatively large areal portions of the slope face, comprise relatively thin layers of soil from the face of the slope. From our evaluation of their records we believe that all of these previous "failures" have been surficial sloughing of relatively shallow surface soils. It is important, therefore, to recognize that the bulk of the slope mass is not "unstable" but that the problem being dealt with is one of surficial degradation. Shorin /Pin -Pile Wail S stems As you are aware, the original ECI recommendations was for the installation of a conservatively designed soldier pile and lagging shoring system. This system incorporated drilled -in -place concrete piles with pressure treated timber lagging to restrain the soil between the piles. The primary purpose of this system was to protect the soils behind the wall and on your property. It was not to stabilize the slope. e-. Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization Page 4 September 12, 1996 In this respect ECI also pointed out that the installation of this wall would not reduce the instability of the site slope. in their opinion (ECI letter dated July 22, 1992), and drainage control and revegetation of exposed soils in old slide scars. one with which we wholeheartedly concur, this can only be reduced by surface water In our opinion there is nothing wrong with this design other than its conservatism and the extremely high expense of installation. Such shoring is also typically used to maintain an open excavation rather than to protect the crest of a slope and, in this case, the primary purpose was to prevent further sloughing back onto your property. Because the damage to the slope is predominantly that of surficial erosional damage and shallow soil sloughing, we were (and are) of the opinion that the most important element was to prevent this sloughing from penetrating beneath the timber tie wall. To this end we recommended the installation of a steel pin -pile and lagging wall system. While the pin -piles are of smaller size than the originally recommended concrete piles each pile, and include an inclined (batter) pile toProvide dditionale110 alad arepl they are spaced at significantly closer intervals,thereby ied to In our opinion they are more than capable of Providing adequate vertical and lateral support to the soils beneath the timber tie wall and behind the lagging. It is also important to note that the pin -pile wall system will also provide some vertical support along the base of the timber tie wall. In combination with the previously recommended deadman anchorages this is considered to be more than adequate to support the tie wall. In addition, the installation of the pin -pile system is significantly easier than the concrete pile system is less expensive. Providing the pin -pile and lagging system is installed in strict adherence to our earlier recommendations, referenced above, we see no geotechnical reason why this system will not prevent further erosion of the materials beneath the existing timber tie wall. Site Drainage The original ECI recommendation to control site drainage was to tightline all collected water down to the toe of the slope using a glued -seam rigid pipe, and to protect the surface of the slope with some form of revegetation and an erosion control blanket. We are in complete agreement with this recommendation. Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization Page 5 September 12, 1996 In our referenced letter we indicated that it would be helpful to install a "residential" catch basin at the toe of the timber wall. The and se of this catch basin was to provide another means of drainline cleanout. It is of a" necessary" element of the already approved site drainage system. Thus, in order to avoid complicating the design further, we recommend that all on -site drain pipes, either from beneath the timber tie wall or from elsewhere on the site, be connected to a tightline that extends down the face of the slope to discharge, under control, at the toe. This pipe should be an High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) pipe that can be field welded to create a "seamless" pipe. It should be "fixed" to the slope face by a series of anchorages which we recommend be spaced about ten 00) feet apart. These anchorages may consist of an approximately five foot long section of steel reinforcing bar (#5, or larger) that has one end bent into a "horseshoe" shape to fit around the pipe. In this manner the pipe can be prevented from slipping or moving on the slope face. This is, we believe, entirely in accordance with the already SEPA approved original ECI recommendations. So far as protection of the slope surface is concerned, we also concur that revegetation of all exposed soil areas be carried out as soon as is feasible. Clearly some areas, those downslope of any areas likely to be disturbed by construction activity, can be revegetated immediately. The areas subject to construction disturbance should be revegetated immediately on completion of the recommended remedial construction work. We also concur with SCI's recommendations regarding the use of a deep-rooted, broad -leafed, and rapid growing grass followed with ivy and evergreen vegetation. Because of the slope gradient or inclination from the vertical the seed and mulch typically used to revegetate exposed surfaces is likely to be "washed off" the slope during even relatively light rainfall. Because of this, and as a means of providing some additional protection to the slope face, we also strongly recommend the use of an erosion control blanket. ECI recommended in their December 18, 1991 letter the use of Enkamat, Excelsior or Jute matting for this purpose. In our opinion the Jute and Excelsior are of too lightweight construction for this slope and application. Enkamat is one suitable option, but we recommend the use of a North American Green C-125 erosion control blanket. This product is designed for steep slopes and high surface flow velocities. It is made of biodegradable materials which have an in -place lifetime of up to about five to seven Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization September 12, 1996 Page 6 years. According to the manufacturer this blanket reduces surface flow velocity by about 77%, and reduces soil loss by up to approximately 98%, Regardless which blanket is used, it is crucial that it be installed in strict adherence with the manufacturers specification. Failure to do so could void any warranty or guarantee. We also understand that ECI provided you with a copy of the recommendations for slope maintenance titled "Maintenance of Hillside Homesites for Slope stability and Erosion" in their July 22, 1992 letter. As one of the developers of this document we wholeheartedly concur with the recommendations regarding the do's and don'ts contained therein. We have attached another copy of this document to this letter as a reminder. Summary In summary, we are in agreement with ECI regarding the primary causes of the surticial "failure" of the site slope, and in the methodology for repair. Our recommended pin -pile and lagging system performs the same function as the original ECI recommended concrete augercast piles and lagging system, but is simpler to install and is less costly. The integrity of the timber tie wall has been considerably enhanced by the installation of the "deadman" anchors. Additional, though not necessarily needed, vertical and lateral support will be provided by the pin -pile system which, along with the additional timber lagging, should be capable of preventing further erosion and sloughing below the timber tie wall. The primary cause of the surficial erosion and sloughing can be reduced, if not eliminated, by the revegetation of the exposed areas of the upper part of the site , slope, and the installation of a fixed -in -place seamless" drain pipe. Additional protection, and thus a reduction is damage, can be achieved by the use of an erosion control blanket, such as the North American Green C-125 blanket. Providing all of the above measures are implemented in accordance with our recommendations we see no geotechnical reason why continued surticial damage should occur on this slope. Further, these remedial measures should also be sufficient to prevent future damage to the timber tie wall system. Geotechnical Evaluation Page 7 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization September 12, 1996 Closure We trust this information provides adequate clarification of our recommendations and, where appropriate, comparison to the original ECI recommendations. Our work on this evaluation has been performed, and our opinions and recommendations have been derived, in a manner consistent with that level of skill, care and competence ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession in good standing currently practicing under similar conditions in this area only. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please call. Very truly yours, CREATIVE ENGINEERING pF A,af�� ` I- 20919 1 Glen Mann, P.E. rsTaNAL�'° President EXPIRES. _ Attachment-. Plate 1; Hillside Cross Section (1) Maintenance of Homesites for Slope Stability and Erosion (1) c.c.: Ms. Deb Barker; City of Federal Way gm/NoyesRev.Ltr/eb31 ,-1 Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization September 12, 1996 Page 8 MALMVIE[ ZMCIE OF M LOUDS HOO M[ES0V[Ea [FOR SLOPE 37 ° 0 LOVY A D [EROO SHOO M During the wet season, homeowners living in houses placed on fill (man placed soil) or in the vicinity of excavated (cut) or fill slopes, become concerned about the condition of their building site. In general, modern design and construction practices minimize the likelihood of serious landsliding (slope failure). The grading codes of the local jurisdictions (cities and counties) concerning filled land, excavation, terracing and slope construction are written to assure proper grading procedures are followed. in addition, most hillside developments where a Geotechnical Engineer has been involved have been constructed according to critical professional standards. Therefore, the concern of the homeowner should be directed toward maintaining slopes, drainage provisions, and facilities so that they will perform as designed. The following general recommendations and simple precautions are presented to help the homeowner properly maintain a hillside homesite. Please refer to the attached diagram for an illustration of terms_ The general public often regards the natural terrain as stable. This is an erroneous concept. Nature is always at work altering the landscape. Hills and mountains are worn down by mass wasting (erosion, landsliding, creeping soil, etc.) and the valleys and lowland collect these products. Thus the natural process is toward leveling the terrain. Periodically (over millions of years) major land movements rebuild mountains and hills and these processes begin over again. In some areas these processes are at a very slow geological rate and in others they occur at a relatively rapid rate. Development procedures are directed toward slowing the processes. The development of hillsides for residential use is carried out, insofar as possible, to enhance the natural stability of the site and to minimize the probability of instability resulting from the grading necessary to provide homesites, streets, yards, etc. This has been done by the developer and designers on the basis of geologic and geotechnical engineering studies. However, in order to tie successful, the slope and drainage provisions and facilities must be maintained by the homeowner. Typically, a homeowner is accustomed to maintaining their home; that is, the homeowner expects to paint the house periodically, clean outclogged plumbing, repair roofs, and so on. Maintenance of a hillside homesite must be considered on an even more serious basis, because neglect can result in serious consequences. In most cases, lot and site maintenance can be provided along with normal care of the Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization Page 9 September 12, 1996 grounds and landscaping. Any costs of maintenance are far cheaper to the homeowner than repair after neglect. Most hillside lot problems are associated with water. Uncontrolled water from a broken pipe, septic tank, or during wet weather causes most damage. Wet weather is the principal time of slope problems in Washington, because the rainfall is quite variable and may be torrential or prolonged. Therefore, drainage and erosion control are important aspects of homesite stability and the provisions built into the developed lot must not be altered without competent professional advice. Maintenance of the Provisions must be carried out to assure their continued operation. Therefore, we offer the following list of DO's and DON'TS as a guide to the homeowner. 1000'0 DO check roof drainsgutter spouts to be sure they are clear. Depending on the location, if the building does not have roof gutters and down spouts, the owner may wish to install them, because roofs and their wide space can shed tremendous quantities of water. Without gutters or other adequate drainage provisions, water falling from the eaves collects against the foundation and basement walls. This is undesirable! 2. DO clear drainage ditches or swales and check them frequently during the rainy season. Ask neighbors to do likewise. 3. DO check interceptor (brow) ditches at the top of slopes to be sure that they are clear and that water will not overflow the slope, causing erosion. 4. DO be sure that all drain outlets and weep -holes are open and clear of debris, vegetation, and other material which could block them in a storm. If blockage is evident, have it cleared. 5. DO check for loose fill above and below the property if the homesite is on a slope or terrace. 6. DO watch for water backup inside the house at sump drains and toilets, since this indicates drain or sewer blockage. Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization September 12, 1996 Page 10 7. DO watch for wet spots on the property. These may be natural seeps or an indication of a broken water or sewer line. In either case, the owner should obtain competent advice regarding the problem and its correction. 8. DO exercise ordinary precaution. The house and building site were constructed to meet standards which should protect against most natural occurrences, provided the owner does his or her part in maintaining them. DONOTS 1 DON'T alter lot grading without competent advice. The man-made slopes on the lot were designed to carry away water runoff to a place where it can be safely distributed. 2. DON'T block or alter ditches which have been graded around the building or the lot pad. These shallow ditches have been put there for the purpose of quickly removing water toward the driveway, street, or other positive outlets. 3. DON'T block or alter ditches or drains. If several homes rely on the same facilities, it is a good idea to check with the neighbors. Water backed up on their property may eventually reach the subject site. Water backed up in surface drains will overflow and infiltrate slopes which leads to instability. Maintain the ground surface up slope of lined ditches to ensure that surface water is collected in the ditch and is not permitted to collect behind or flow under the lining. (See detail sketch on the attached diagram.) 4. DON'T permit water to collect or pond any where on the lot. Such water will either seep into the ground, causing unwanted saturation, or will overflow onto slopes and begin erosion. Once erosion is started, it is difficult to control and severe damage may result rather quickly. 5. DON'T direct water over slopes, even where this may seem a good way to Prevent ponding. This tends to cause erosion and slope instability. Dry wells, leach lines or tightlines are sometimes used to get rid of excess water when other means of disposing of water are not readily available. However, such facilities should be planned and located by a qualified engineer. Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization September 12, 1996 Page 11 6. DON'T let water pond against foundations, retaining walls a walls. These walls are built to withstand the ordinary moisture in thgrou basement and, where necessary, are accompanied by subdrains to carry off ex end subsurface water. However, excess surface water must be directed excess from these structures. away 7• DON'T connect roof drains , gutters, or drains which may not have been designedVforspouts rp existing subsurface collect the water in lined ditches, ❑r unperforated Pipes and condo t it to a storm drain,paved road or suitable area of nature ground. Where t to a channel flow is directed onto natural ground, it must be converted to such flow, unless a suitable natural channel exists. sheet 8. DON'T place loose soil or debris over the sides of slopes. Loose up water more readily than compacted fill. It is not compacted to the same strength as the slope itself, and will tend to slide when laden with water, may even affect the soil beneath it. The sliding may clog terrace drains below or may cause additional damage in weakening the slope. If the lot is below a slope, be sure that loose fill is not dumped above the property. 9. DON'T over -irrigate slopes or leave a h near a slope. Ground cover and other vegetation willse or require moirunning sttended nor the hot summer months, but during the wet season irrigation cure during an ground cover to pull loose, which not only destroys the cover, but also starts serious erosion. arts 10. DON'T try to compact earth in trenches by floodingwith water. flooding the least efficient way to compacting fine gained sv lbu this only is saturate and reduce the bearing capacityof supporting this could PPorting soils, 11. DON'T change surface grade behind retaining walls or against because this would increase the lateral loading on the walls, whi building walls, in damage to such walls, could result In conclusion, a neighbor's slope, above or below the subject ry e to you, as the slope that is within the subject site's property lines. F ' it s important is desirable to develop a cooperative attitude regarding hillside maintenance, and we Geotechnical Evaluation 96-1701 Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization Page 12 September 12, 1996 recommend developing a "good neighbor" policy. Should subject property which are undesirable from indications given above, n es develop off the should be taken by the owner to ensure that prompt remedial measures are t action are taken. § t$ }| |} g f / 2 ( I §}�f � \}} !e� § _ f¢ 2 2 f | CITY OF 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH May 6, 1996 Mr. Charles Noyes 704. South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 FEDERAL WAY, WA 9 03- 8003-6210 210 RE: BLD93-1014 — RETApaNG WALL IN STEEP SLOPE AREA 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way (Reference: SEP93-0031) Dear Mr. Noyes: The purpose of this letter is to advise you about the status of your building permit due to adverse conditions identified at the project site by Mike Visser, P.E., of Visser Engineering Co. and by Glen Mann, P.E. with Creative En ineerin g Options, Inc. Their respective information was outlined in separate letters to you dated April 10, 1996, and April 26, 1996. On April 26, 1996, the Director of Community Development Services exempted specific emergency repair work at the site. The work, associated with slope stabilization and wall repair, and outlined in Glen Mann's March 26, 1996, letter was deemed necessary because of "...emergency conditions that imminently threaten public health, safety and welfare and requires action that must be undertaken immediately to avoid injury or serious environmental., degradation. " As a condition of that exemption, a plan or diag iram of.1he,pork-proposed was to be approved by city staff before the work commenced. To date:, this plan has not been received. A site inspection on April 26, 1996, revealed that the work had been completed. In his April 10, 1996, letter, Mr. Visser indicates that stable slope conditions do not appear to exist, and that because of the unstable conditions, he "...considers his submitted retaining wall repair plans to no longer be valid." Mr. Visser suggests that the retaining wall repair plans be put on hold until the slope is stabilized. These issues directly affect the status of the building permit application. A building permit is required to approve the retaining wall currently constructed within stsloglogically hazardous areas. A Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (1vIDNS}, issued for the eep pe eo retaining wall project on August 8, -1995, included a condition that a project specific building Permit be submitted, The building permit has not been issued because required information has not been submitted. Mr. Visser was providing the engineering for the retaining wall components of the building permit. Mr. Charles Noyes May 6, 1996 Page 2 As stated in the emergency exemption letter, all other work proposed.in conjunction with building permit application BLD93-1014 is not assumed to be part of the emergency conditions, and as such must be approved through the standard processing procedures. 14 Mr. Vis' er is recommending that slope stabilization measures must be immediately provided be€ore'the plans for the existing and proposed retaining structure can be finally designed and approved. These measures must be designed by a geotechniciai engineer licensed in the State of Washington, and meet the all applicable code requirements of the Federal Way City Corte (FWCC). Because the existing retaining wail was constructed without a valid permit, because MDNS conditions have not been met, and because of potentially significant life and safety concerns, slope stabilization measures to address issues by bath engineers must be submitted to the city no later than June 7, 1996, to avoid formal enforcement action. Following resolution of the slope stabilization, the building permit issues must be resolved. Please be advised that if there are substantial changes to the proposal, or new information is produced that shows that the project is likely to have adverse significant impacts, the SEPA determination will be withdrawn and the SEPA process must begin again pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(3)(i) and 197-11-340(3)(ii), based on the revised project. According to your engineers, this site needs immediate professional attention. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 661-4103 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ;'ad aet'� Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: WAC 197-11-340(3)(i) WAC 197-11-340(3)(ii) c: Martin Nordby, Code Compliance officer Julie Venn, Engineering Plans Reviewer file %& f=I\aoyce\wparcvisiou.It r CITY OF 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH April 26, 1996 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 )(el�, � V C�Oo p� FEDERAL Wqy, (206) 661-4000 NA 98003-6210 RE: EMERGENCY DETER STEEP SLOPE AREARNATION FOR RETAINING WALL REPAIR IN 704 SOUTH 288TH I, (Reference SEP 93-0031) E FEDERAL WAY Dear Mr. Noyes: I am in receipt of an A Options P� 26, 1996 letter from Glen Mann, P.E. with Creative En ' Inc"' regarding proposed emergency repairs to your property. �eehat "the proposed repairs is due to an emergency condition created by the partial failure of a portion of the bluff slope along the western The letter states that indicates that this ongoing failure will "result in a failureP and ongoing rn side of the property." Mr. Mann also immediate future.,, The property is located within a steep o eons of material in the as defined by city code. P P geologically hazardous areas City staff has inspected the site and I concur with the opinion regardin e conditions at the site. In consideration of the issues outlined in the letter, meen authority granted to me under WAC 197-11-880 and FWCC section 22-124 pursuant to the following decision: 8, I have made de 1 The work, associated with slope stabilization and wall repair, and o Glen Mann March 26, 1996 letter is necessaryout in ed in conditions that imminently threaten public health safety and wellfare and requires action that must be undertaken immediately to avoid injury or serious environmental degradation. As propo the wall system sed by Glen Mann, the underpinning of with driven in place steel pin -piles, driven "to refusal" and structurally attached to the timber wall is approved. This le formal written exemption of this specific emergency work "to serves as a However, bef You start any emergency work, a plan or diagram must be approved , he e staff. No other city permit or fees will be required for this specific work. 2. All other work proposed in coyjunction with building permit application BLD 93-1014 is not assumed to be part of the emergency conditions, and as such must be approved through the standard processing procedures. I trust this information fully responds to the issues at hand. Again, before you start an emergency work, a plan or diagram must be approved by city staff. Barker, Associate Manner, to place priority status :[ have instructed Deb On our review of the plan because of t emergency conditions. he If you have any further questions - Barker at 66 regarding this matter, please contact Deb B 4103. 1 Sincerely, Gregory D. Moore, AICP Director of Community Development Services c: Dick Mumma, Building Official Stephen Clifton, Public Works Development Services Manager Glen Mann, Creative Engineering options, Inc., 5418 - 159th Place NE, Redmond, WA 98052 file Garth Y..everentx, 13ochnahl Construction, Tnc., 16442 SE Renton Issaquah Rd., Renton, WA 98059 vissru Escisur-UINU cc* 19062 SE 320th St. Kent, WA 98042 (206) 630-4530 April 10, 1996 Charles Noyes 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: Existing unpermitted retaining wall 704 S. 288th Lane, Federal Way Visser Engineering Project No. 95-90 Dear Mr. Noyes: APR 15 1996 FEDERAL WAY PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION DIVISION Per your request, earlier today I visited the above referenced site to verify current conditions at the slope behind the retaining wall. Since my earlier visit, the slope to the north of the existing retaining wall has continued to deteriorate, with the slope failure encroaching on the base of the wall. The repair submitted by my office on 12/15/95 was predicated on stable slope conditions, which now appear not to exist. As I stated when we met, my qualifications are as a structural engineer, and as such I can help repair the wall, but only where stable soil conditions exist. I strongly suggest you engage Earth Consultants to review the existing conditions, as the conditions represent a threat not just to the referenced retaining wall, but also to your home. Given the foregoing, I consider the submitted retaining wall repair to no longer be valid, and that any retaining wall repair project must be put on hold until the slope has been stabilized. I spoke with Julie Venn at the City of Federal Way and passed on these recommendations. The existing wall does not appear distressed or damaged, but I suggest you monitor its condition until such time as it can be safely repaired, and notify my office of any change. Y o, P.E. cc: Julie Venn, City of Federal Way 0MM U� ��r o��~-Dnrr��Pa MUWr MAR 5 1996 R-LEVISION TO BLT (DING pERMIT BLD 93-1014 I am submitting the enclosed document r Q u ' g thew opinion of the, des' prepared by Visser Engineering of Kent Wa. the opinion that the v � parameters of our existing planter box. They adequate as-b� -negating final design prepared �' are of by Federal Way Landscape Service is gng �e necessity to incorporate prior design modifications r by Earth Consultants. Prepared Additionally, I want to make m set forth in the y intentions known as to the satisfaction of the conditions M[7NS issued august 8, 1995. Although Prepared by Earth Consultants, their recommendations we did not utilize the design incorporated. are sound for all dcs• and will be Candr.tYon 1a: �e Visser vf'VLsser E in the State of Washin on Engineering or another professional e from the � will be preparing a designweer licensed Planter to the rr3wucipal storm nn to t'ghdffie the existini; drainiines will be submitted to the Ctty on or before March 31, system 96 �g the residence. This design Condition l b. The natural vegetation in the subject area north o affected in any way by the installation of the f the project was not vegetated with n tu-ralay b thePlani Planter. The area w Plus motor a maple �, including blackberry ,as ands Il is, rlrickIv P ple n•ees. ny and rapid growing evergreen growth Condition Ic. A monitoring pl.ogtatn ys,� be established to reco of the planter or the affected section of the slo benchmark established on a known stable � Pe � wiU basicd any possible movement fixed spat on the planter_ plug R fixed g o ,p tform, such as consist of a the side of the house, and a sod' These fixed pvint5 �viil. be measiu d with a transit on the 810PO pertmarby a metal rod placed in the sl>ifg pexidicaily to measure any FILE REVISION DAi� MAR 0 5 1996 V nNIElQ JENC ,NrE 19062 5E 320th St. �J�qc C4 Dent, wA 95042 (206) 630-4530 Dec. 15, 1995 Charles Noyes 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: Existing unpermitted retaining 704 S. 288th Lane, Federal Wy all Visser Engineering Project No. 95-90 Dear Mr. Noyes: Per your request Visser Engineering has reviewed o the above referenced Your documentation and conditions a project• The materials rev1ewed include the City of Fe Determination of Non -Significance [File No. Se 93_ t dated March 29, 1995 re P DU3I Federal Way's Landscape Service Inc. design drawings. an Design ), Earth Consultants Inc. letter gn P�•ametcrs, and the Federal Way It's our Opinion that, structurally, the wall is adequate than six feet. This opinion is based on the Parameters q e for a retained height of no used with the pole deli r rs provided b more Code. For re gn formulas given in the recent edition of he Uniform Consultants and retained heights in excess of six feet, the backfill must b partially filled with concrete, as ShownBuilding in the attached detail a excavated and It is also our opinion that the drainage from the fan storm drain system ru Planter should be tigh#lined to the existin documentation re nning across tlaeproperty. Since we have not been provided with g regarding the exact placement of the existing have to locate it with a shovel. This drainage scheme is in lieu of he existing , Your t, will running downhill, and in lieu Of the system proposed b Y Earth Consult outlet, Finally, it is our opinion that the work described here' ants. concepts proposed by Earth Consultants which Provided tin accordance with the design Non -Significance basis for the Cit ' Y s Ending of Please call if you have <inv questions regarding the fa Very trulyregoing. j, yours, �r �1V�/- Mike Visser, P.E. REVISION DATE MAR 0 5 1996 cf). /Calculation sheet Title: Pro, Client: Date 2- Page: Calculation Sheet Client - Title: Date: ti z �<< �5 Page: IE C�a Calculation Sheet Title: Pro_;: S _ Client: Date: Page: Calculation Sheet Title: Pro, - Client: Date: Z Page. GS qDS= �I CE I NC, :. f 9 , -PlLCKTLAsrIL CY161INv OnNcz�-� �10-V -.i 5 � , .SCi.y'rsti �2cgT�� aS`7',S' LICENSE BONDED INSURED X Z ��r.lAsaE yJr��, ��rrur�Lt�� ipE Z 1 August 2, 1995 Mr. Paul Noyes 34914 23rd Avenue SW Federal Way, WA 98023 : e SubjctFoundation Subj(Noyes} Drainage for Single Family Residence Permit Dear Mr. Noyes: Section 5-67 (7)of provisions be madthe Federal Way City foundations. for Control ling Y Code requires that e g drainage around building Per our conversation, we indicated t the ineer provide us with a design that You would need to h detention pond. The design 5n for draininghave Your type °f p gn would a the foundation to durin Pum which will need to apparently incorporate some duringof winter months. be sized to handle Peak flows If you have any questions, please contact me Sincerely, at 661-4132. Skip Tullock, PE Plan Review Engineer II CC: Mark Nelson, Building Inspector pp1*.doe . f CITY OF 31630 1ST WAY SOUTH I Februar � Y 23, 19951(CERTIFIED MAIL) Mr. Paul Noyes ' 34914 23rd Avenue Sw Federal Way, WA �8023 Subject: Drains� and Sediment Problem Permit #BLD94-049 (Noyes) Dear Mr. Noyes: We haVe received r letter yl:�tE'rt- C. G" 9'�FMERAL WAY. WASOW-6210 on Single Family Residence i I P overt y owners a {C°PY enclosed storm water runof*prBssing concern with re signed by two adjacent °� yourand sediment bean Bard to toe quantity of deposited intoProject nto 11th Place g diW.scharged at the south end subject into 14 h Place sW. since one oSediment 's also control permit reg Tres that proper the con�a being it P par storm drainage Fong of the address the he installed on the site ! an soil erosion protl�m as -soon ► o as possible, YOU will If you have any 9�estions, p1eage contact Sincerely, _II Lam' Skip Tullock, PE Plan Review Engine r II Attachment cc: Ms. Charleen] Ms. Ann Swa s 16141 - Pp\*.doc need to i me at 661-4132. 11, 31415 11th Place sW, 31409 11th Place sW, Federal Federal Wa y: WA 98023 W' Y, WA 98023 Mike and Ann Swanon 31409 11th Pl. SW Federal Way, WA 98 23 (206) 839-6563 February 22, 1995 Skip Tullock, I We would like to bi land to the north of Our main concern is Even the heaviest raj we are experiencing subdivision. Over th Dan and Charleen Nun 31415 11th Pl. SW Federal Way, WA 98023 (206) 839-5459 to your attention some concerns we have about the newly cleared r ProPerty- Currently a house is Under construction on this land. increased water run off we have seen over the past eight years have not this land w resultn the water aproblemsaced. V. The land is sloped sa most of the water now ru4s toward ow I e past weekend of heavy rains, water was running in streams and f + that were n�nning into he north side of Lot 20 The whole north side w ng lakes running across the bac of Lot 20 into the storm drain was and was also running to the street and into the storm drains there a It sf con nu l T ton o today, four days later. 'here are also arYas of standing water which are s 8 run We are not sure if the foe at�ng. P P rt3 owner is aware of these problems, but we f4l this situation needs to be addressed, Our storm drainage system is not additional water caused from cleared land. intended for the 1 We appreciate your help in this matter. Sincerely, f 1 Mike and Aj 011t t Dan and Charleen Null ' ApgTS lXG Is I ITIIG TOU$ PgOP TY ADD I� AOT GUARANTEU ` TD "HO® ACCUPATZ ' SU&E ors. I$ FOR THE PU'jtmBS pF y-e5s8TINO IN LOUTING. YOUR PROPIRTY AM >t8 �T GZARAW'i*EED 'S'D AMOW AOQUi4ATA Lt>IsABUREME� NW, 7--21-4 fFrc�oS Lc�yc �Pd No 5.88-5 _06E. 42- �9 B 80, Bs N �Z ❑En, ar 12 i g � o ��. •�z9. o/ � —� ��-ate � r�:6r . H. o o 1 r3. GG w 7 �8 -% 763 '9 W o D 0 4a 7p 1 o. 1.VT. TR 8 a oB�Z z�� I r f" 5� VIA " w !o h •89 C°�tih !! gr� p/DD n r. fin. � D� �•^ L S9• n pad 31. w la 411�15 .55 9 w % rl3.rB 95 Ab2 0 1 (.�° l !' /w� �,.� . �Q 4 37 way. 3.ze v+ a t��' � a v N 11dr..07pZv�ogj ' O�% 1 ' I 100. q N7g.37.3yE V V� W 14. 05 p,°> ,o �. //.34. oROD o `" 38 0 o a101 la N. B9. ZS• z3,E p, 1 4 CiIUJ Cb 27 zT rJ7re- 5� �. 9t3 { � 6.12 LJO ALle pc /sz e3 z% ., Rr y�5'FS h 7rjd . 9� $ t71 TR C `xs� 110 cn^vrbu OPeu � �H [ 4 ZB 28 7s.Sg 60 AJ89-�-2� Z 2 Q 1,? 05 83. 22 60 n 0' h 21 v" Naa-57°4e w 17 0 16 15 � � o 14 TR. 13 eo , cn ° 4 ,� , o O t<i m N u1 ry Q, Ish , o N P° �o $ IV AD ash 0 013 (�j ono 3 h I8210 �sy o o �D1 of Q' sa �100 afi0 10 0 N .,,D N �� 0 qy0 x �+� �'+�y., o 38 60 22�1 to ea.so 14,129 �1 b5 �,300 (o4.4 N ' ,v89- W � 4 t O 0� a N09-[YJ-Z6 P_-3ba I04, 216 N DO Z6 60 ; N st3 0` I 97.53 a ryas �.01 3r. 5 �� 8 � �;�1?kd � � 3 2 A� 3%. D 231_ "ryQ4.57 3z.bT 55.01 L ro.rz N d /3 2 97i✓ oSID '3 a Q ~ � �,� 26r�p :' o� N 29� 30 �� Lu rJ88-57- q.8 W °0 c[�L //0 m N98eg7_48 W 3 P' pZy` /0oo' f a 27 6(.91 Go TR. 8 ' 1 Page No. 1 CONDITIONS/CORRECTIONS FOR CASE NO.: BLD94-0491 PAUL C NOYES 03/08/95 31327 10TH PL SW 1) SPECIAL CONDITION - hammerhead -- HAMMER HEAD TURNOUT REQUIRED PER FIRE DEPARTMENT. 2) PLN - Driveway To Be Paved -- The Driveway shaLL be paved per section 22-1453 of the Federal Way City Code. 3) PLN - DRIVEWAY WIDTH, 20 FEET -- Maximum driveway width is 20 feet. 4) PLN - Maximum Building Height -- Maximum building height is 30 feet above the average building elevation as per Federal Way City Ordinance # 90-51. 5) PLN - Trees Required To Be Saved -- Retain and protect identified significant trees per section 22-1565 through 1569 of the Federal Way City Code. Bright protective fencing is required at the dripline of retained trees. 6) PLN - Building Encroachment -- No building shall encroach onto any building setback Line or easement shown or not shown. 7) PLN - Building Setbacks -- Building setbacks are: 20 feet front; 5 feet SOUTH side; 5 feet rear; 100 feet from wetland edge. 8) PLN - ROOF OVERHANG -- PER FEDERAL WAY CITY CODE SECTION 22-1133(4), EAVES, CHIMNEYS OR AWNINGS, BEYOND THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF A STRUCTURE MAY EXTEND UP TO 18 INCHES "MAXIMUM" INTO THE REQUIRED YARD SETBACK. 9) SPECIAL CONDITION - wetlnd bounds -- Before and during all phases of construction, the wetland edge and 100-foot wetland buffer must be delineated to the approval of the City of Federal Way. The 100-foot wetland buffer must be protected with a bright construction fence. 10) SPECIAL CONDITION - wetland -- Structures, filling/grading and obstructions (including, but not limited to decks, patios, outbuildings, or overhangs beyond I& inches) are prohibited in the wetland or 100-foot buffer line as depicted on the approved site plan. 11) PBW - Temporary Erosion Control -- Prior to any clearing or grading on a lot, the owner/builder shall install temporary erosion/sedimentation control facilities approved by the City. These facilities must insure that dirt or sediment Laden water does not enter the public drainage system, public streets, or wetlands. The owner/builder bears the responsibility to maintain the facilities in proper working order, replacing as necessary. The facilities may be removed only after such time as construction is complete and Landscaping is installed. 12) PBW - Undergrounding Svc Connects -- Service connections for electrical and communication facilities shall be placed underground per section 16-48 of the Federal Way City Code. 13) SPECIAL CONDITION -ROW DEDICATION -- Prior to final accepatance of the building permit, applicant will be required to dedicate 20 feet of additional right of way (by statutory warranty deed) along the south side of SW 312th Street adjacent to the property frontage. 14) SPECIAL CONDITION -DRAINAGE -- Applicant will be required to instaLL drainage system (consisting of small detention pond & control structure) in accordance with approved design included with permit. 15) PLN - DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS -- Padmount transformers owned and operated by Puget Power shall be installed with one of the folLowing clearances:;A) 3 ft from non-combustible walls (including brick, concrete, steel and stone) provided the side of the transformer facing the wall does not have doors. This dimension is measured from the edge of the transformer's cooling fins, if any.;B) 10 ft from combustible walls (including stucco), doors, windows, vents and other building openings.;D) 15 ft from the water's edge of a swimming pool or any other body of water.;E) 20 ft from fire escapes, fire sprinkler valves, standpipes and fire hydrants.; September 2, 1992 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Addendum to Soldier Pile Wall Extension Design Recommendations 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. E-2867-3, July 22, 1992 Dear Mr. Noyes: Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists �— r f � ��,-�-� f l r C Eli � Ci= I)_J,� V (A Y OF FEDEnAL WAY �.JII-.JING DEPT. E-2867-3 In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the soldier pile wall extension design presented in the referenced letter. It is our understanding that the contractor (DBM) has concerns with the original design in that the limited access would not allow placement of the steel section for the soldier piles. The redesigned soldier pile consists of a reinforced concrete pile member shown on the attached typical section. This design is similar to the previous design except that the above ground portion of the pile is concrete and the steel section has been replaced with reinforcing steel as shown on the typical section. In addition, the diameter of the pile has been reduced to eighteen (18) inches. The recommendations contained in the referenced letter that are not changed or modified by this addendum remain applicable. Should you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please call. Yours very truly, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Project Manager KRC/kc [G2867-3.L 01.krc15] cc: DBM, Attention: Don Peterson 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 101, Tacoma, Washington 98421-9998 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (206) 746-0860 Tacoma (206) 272-6608 �01 3 ias Mr. Greg Fewins October 31, 1994 Senior Environmental Planner City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way Federal Way, WA 98003-6210 RE: Application Number SEP93-9931 Dear Mr. Fewins, As indicated in our telephone conversation of October 28, please find inclosed the proposal submitted by Earth Consultants, Inc. regarding the modification to our existing landscape planter box. Meanwhile, I am soliciting estimates from contractors interested in performing this work. Again, thank you for your time. Please call if there are further questions. Sincerely, � �- - I'-- �15- - - Charles W. Noyes 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA (206) 946-0770 RECEIVED BY JMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ivir. . Li . C . Ellis Plans Review City of Federal Way 33530 lst Way South Federal Way, NA. 98003 Dear Mr. Ellis; SEP 2 0 1993 16 September 10,93 RECEIVE® SEP 2 01993 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 13UILDING DEPT. Please find enclosed all required documents as requested by Mr. Martin 11ordby, Code Compliance Officer with the City. These should be adaquate to initiate a study to grant a Building Permit to erect a planter box type structure wholly within my personal _property boundaries in the City of Federal Way. Included are the Application, a completed SEPA que9tionaire, comprehensive geological reports. including reccommendations, and a topogra-:-J.:..'l.cal survey of the affected property. We retained -Earth Consultants, Inc, a Bellevue 7A firm, to prepare a geological survey of our property directly north of our existing yard line. The purpose of the report was to ascertain the stability of my property, as compared to to properties immediately east and west, which have ei=per- ienced slide and earthquake damage in the past. Although the affected portion of my property is regarded. as steeply sloping, their report suggests that it is relatively stable. Earth Consultants, Inc. made recommendations including the erection of a. soldier pier wall for approximately 60' of the yard. line, as laell as hydroseeding and re -vegetating the neighbor's existing slide areas. Although I did re- vegatate the slide area to the east at my own expense as it appeared to immenantly affect my proj:)erty, the contractor's estimate of the soldier -pier :,aa.11 el-ceeded 000. iiurther- this wall would probably not _prevent more they indicated that a future slide. Our compromise was the included plans for an aesthetically pleasing planter bo_,- d_ef ining the perimeter of the yard and act as a barrier for small children from the slope area. This was erected utilizing the plans of the engineers proposal modified to utilize pressure treated wood instead of steel, and does not penetrate theearth as deep, all in the interest of cost. Adrain field �,aas included. `,:'bile this project in no way was intended to represent a struc- tural retaining wall, I do believe some ancillary benefit will be realized in the reduction of erosion of the existing topsoil. Every effort to expedite this study by the Agency will be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to call me at any time to discuss any +u;uestions you may have. Sincerely, 4v a 8a. a Jr 1 00.1 8, :mot :S C1T16 Cifi �� 8f11LL71Np DEPT. WA1 ZZ BILE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERMITNUMBER ADDRESS -70 PLANS FORS Tilt i.✓E'�' l✓`f� OWNER DATE SUBMITTED ZD °/3 DATE APPROVED APPROVED BY L- __- July 22, 1992 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Soldier Pile Wall Extension Design Recommendations 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington References: Earth Consultants, Inc. Slope Failure Recommendations E-2867-1, dated December 18, 1991 Earth Consultants Inc. Slope Stability Assessment E-2867-1, dated April 13, 1987 Topographic Survey Dear Mr. Noyes: Earth Consultants Inc. C,t Y.rlt•rYrrlu ril I.- r:F; i r rr•.•,•ti. (A -( 5lr)0 M S & Er)y 1rOAR7!-n,a1 �: rrttisls SEP 2 0199� CITY OF FEDERAL WAY E-2867-3 BUILDING DEPT. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced documents and topographic survey in consideration of extending the existing soldier pile wall along the north side of the subject site. It is our understanding that you wish to construct a new soldier pile wall to extend the existing wall across the property. Recent slope failures and the presence of tension cracks along the top of the slope adjacent to the rear yard indicate a potential for further slope movement. In our opinion, extending the existing soldier pile wall along the north side of the site would reduce the potential house. for movement along the top of the slope and provide additional protection to the rear yard and Site Descri tion The subject site is located at 704 South 288th Lane in Federal Way. The slope, located adjacent to the north side of the property, has a history of instability. Several failures have occurred along the slope, the most recent was in April of 1991. In addition, the top of the slope, adjacent to the rear yard, has been experiencing movement as evidenced by several tension cracks extending parallel to the slope. The existing soldier pile wall, constructed after the 1986 failure, appears not to have been affected by the most recent slope failures and is generally in good condition. 1805. 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Bellevue (206) 643-3780S Seattle (206)U464-1584aco FAX (206) 746 86011 9Tacoma (206) 272.6608 Mr. Chuck Noyes July 22, 1992 Recommendations E-2867-3 Page 2 The proposed soldier pile wall should be of similar construction to the existing wall. The recommended location of the new wall is shown on the attached Plate 1, Site Sketch - Noyes Residence. Based on our analysis of the expected load on the soldier pile wall, we recommend a total soldier pile length of twenty two (22) feet measured from the rear yard grade, with a maximum pile spacing of eight (8) feet on center. Our analysis was based on the grade behind the wall being level, and that no surcharge loadings will apply. If this is not the case, we should be contacted to modify our recommendations. The steel section used in the soldier piles should consist of a wide flange W 12 x 53 section. The steel should be A36 grade. The design accounts for a maximum retained height of six (6) feet, to be supported by timber lagging. It should be noted that the current grades indicate a maximum retained height of three feet, with the majority being two feet or less. This will allow for some loss of soil in front of the wall without adversely affecting the stability of the wall. In our opinion, it is not necessary to place lagging to the full designed retained height as this would involve significant excavation in front of the wall. In general, should a slide occur subsequent to construction of the wall that exposes a portion of the soil below the installed lagging, additional lagging should be installed. Based on the spacing of the piles and a maximum six foot retained height, 4 x 12 inch Douglas Fir # 1 timber lagging is required. Upon placement of the lagging, fill material between the lagging and the adjacent soil may be required. Any fill placed should be a clean, granular soil with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. It should be noted, however, that instability of the slope itself is not likely to be significantly reduced by the extension of the soldier pile wall. As referenced in our recommendations dated December 18, 1991, instability of the slope can be reduced through control of surface water drainage, and through revegetation of any exposed slide scars. Additional recommendations for slope maintenance are contained in the attached "Maintenance of Hillside Homesites for Slope Stability and Erosion". Limitations Our recommendations are based on our knowledge of the site conditions and on information provided to us. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing in the area. No warranty is expressed or implied. Earth Consultants, Inc. Mr. Chuck Noyes July 22, 1992 E-2867-3 Page 3 We thank you for the opportunity to serve you on this project. If any additional information is required from you, or if you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Raymond A. Coglas Senior Soils Technician _ Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Project Engineer EXPIRES III I b I fz Earth Consultants, Inc. December 18, 1991 Mr. Chuck Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Consultation Slope Failure Recommendations 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Slope Stability Assessment E-2867-1, dated April 13, 1987 Gentlemen: Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists CITY OF FEDE14AL WAY BUILDING DEPT. E-2867-1 At your request, Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) representatives met with you at the subject site on December 12, 1991 to observe the April 1991 slope failure and general site conditions. The purpose of our visit was to observe site conditions and provide cursory recommendations for monitoring movement in the steep north slope and reducing the potential for future slope movements. Site Description The subject site is located at 704 South 288th Lane in Federal Way, Washington, at the crest of a steep slope overlooking Poverty Bay and Puget Sound. The site consists of a residential lot occupied by a single-family residence. The steep slope extends downward from the rear yard, and is approximately 100 feet in height, with an inclination of about 1.25H:1V to 1H:1V. The lower one third of the slope is steeper than 111:1V. During construction of the residence, we understand a sliver fill was placed at the crest of the steep slope. Based on the information in the referenced report, geologic maps and observations made during our site visit, it appears the site is immediately underlain by glacially consolidated sand and gravel. Underlying the sand and gravel about two-thirds down the slope is a glacially consolidated gravelly, sandy clay unit. 1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 101, Bellevue, Washington 98005 222 E. 26th Street, Suite 101, Tacoma, Washington 98411-9998 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (206) 746-0860 Tacoma (206) 272-6608 Mr. Chuck Noyes E-2867-1 December 18, 1991 Page 2 Site History From our discussions with you and review of the referenced report, we understand the steep slope has a history of instability. Two slope failures occurred during construction in January 1986 and February 1987, one on your property and one to the east. We understand that in 1989, following an earthquake, tension cracks appeared along the crest of the slope, and the northwest corner of the rockery extending parallel to the crest of the slope was set down about 12 inches. The most recent failure occurred along the east property line in April, 1991 and another failure occurred on the neighboring property to the west. Site Observations Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) representatives met with you at the site on December 12, 1991 to observe the present site conditions. The failure which occurred last April is still visible. The slide is about 50 feet long and about 35 feet wide. The failure consisted of a mass of saturated soil which moved downslope. As part of an effort to repair the failure, the slide scar was "cleaned -up" by excavating a bench at the base of the slide and notches in the scarp. Two flexible drainlines were observed that have become disconnected and discharge at the top of the failure. Several tension cracks or small scarps extending parallel the slope were observed. We understand these appeared following an earthquake. in 1989, and that there has been no observed movement along these cracks since they formed. We also noted the soldier pile wall installed after the 1986 slide is in place and appears to be in good condition and the retaining wall on the neighboring property to the east is still in place, having been tied -back as part of the 1986 slide repairs. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the results of our review, observations and discussions, it is our opinion the east slope will continue to slough in the future. The crest of the slope consists of a series of arcuate features (head scarps) which represent historical failures. The scalloped pattern continues west and east of your property and is indicative of inherent instability in this slope. On your portion of the slope there have been at least two major failures in the past five years and tension cracks indicate potential future instability. Earth Consultants, Inc. Mr. Chuck Noyes E-2867-1 December 18, 1991 Page 3 It is our opinion it would not be economically feasible to attempt to repair the existing failure. Based on our observations, the benefit derived from constructing a retaining wall on the slope would, in our opinion, be minimal. However the potential for future movement can be reduced through revegetation of the existing slide scar, and by control of surface water drainage. Additional protection for the rear yard and house can be provided by extending the existing soldier pile and wood lagging wall across the north side of the site. We do not recommend repairing the April 1991 slope failure. It is our opinion the weight of the material used to rebuild the slope would act as a driving force and increase the potential for future movement. We do recommend this area be revegetated with a rapid growing deep rooted grass. This should be followed with ivy or other rapid growing evergreen vegetation. Due to the inclination of the existing slope surface, it will be necessary to use some form of slope covering to protect the grass seed from slopewash erosion until it can become firmly rooted. There are several products which are available for this purpose. These include Excelsior erosion control blankets, Enkamat erosion control matting, and jute matting. Which ever product is chosen, it should be pegged in - place with steel stakes in a five-foot grid pattern. Information on erosion control products can be obtained from Contech Construction Products, Inc. at 453-2263. To enhance the long-term slope stability, it will be necessary to control surface water drainage. During a site visit on November 14, 1991, two flexible drainlines were observed discharging from the neighboring property onto the crest of the slope immediately above the April 1991 failure. At the time of our second site visit an effort had been made to extend these drainlines beyond the north end of the failure; however, a perforated flexible pipe was used and strong winds appear to have blown the connections apart. It is imperative that this drainline be connected to a permanent tightline which continues to the toe of the slope. We recommend the use of a rigid, solid pipe, staked in -place, and with glued joints. A monitoring program should be established to record any movements in the section of slope immediately west of the April 1991 failure. This program would consist of installing two monitoring points on the crest of the slope north of the existing tension cracks. The monitoring points should consist of 1/2-inch steel reinforcing bars driven into the ground for a depth of at least three feet. The distance between the monitoring points and a benchmark established on the existing soldier pile wall should be periodically measured. To reduce the potential for measuring errors, we recommend using the same measuring device for all readings. If an increase in the distances between the monitoring points and the soldier pile wall is detected, you should contact ECI. If you decide to extend the existing soldier pile and lagging wall to the west, we can provide design recommendations upon request. Earth Consultants, Inc. Mr. Chuck Noyes December 18, 1991 LIMITATIONS E-2867-1 Page 4 Our recommendations and conclusions are based on visual observations of the existing site conditions, information provided us by you, 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. We hope this information meets your current needs. If you have any questions, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Projec ager eodore J. Sc pper, P.E. Director of Geotechnical Services SDD/KRC/TJS/kml [2867-2g.itr] Earth Consultants, Inc. MY OF PUBLIC W MEMORANDUM ORKS TO: Greg Fewins FROM: Jeffrey H. Sharp For Your Information DATE: January 24, 1994 SUBJECT: Noyes Planter Box File No.: BID 93-1014 After reviewing the materials submitted the following comments and findings address issues that need to be resolved. 1. The Public Works Department recommends the immediate removal of the structure and the posting of a bond for its removal. The applicant states the purpose is cosmetic, to provide perimeter definition and as a child barrier. A fence would provide a barrier for children and not impact the stability of the slope. 2. - In a letter to K.C. Ellis, dated 16 September 1993, the applicant says, "Although the affected portion of my property is regarded as steeply sloping, their report suggests that it is relatively stable." A review of Earth Consultants, Inc., December 18, 1991, Slope Failure Recommendations report does not identify the slope as being stable. The slope is identified as having a history of instability. Failures include: January 1986, February 1987, 1989 earthquake and April 1991. The conclusion section of the report states, "On your portion of the slope there have been at least two major failures in the past five years and tension cracks indicate potential future instability. " 3. If the applicant insists on keeping the planter box a new soils report and topographic map should be prepared and submitted to the city for review, within 60 days. The report should be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the State of Washington and describe how the planter has impacted each of the following on the subject property and nearby properties: 1. Slope stability, landslide hazard, and sloughing; 2. Seismic hazard; 3. Groundwater; 4. Seeps, springs, and other surface waters; 5. Existing vegetation; PP\.doc 6. Impact of oit-site storm water infiltration; 7. Recommended foundation design; 8. Potential hazards to downslope properties. Due to the steep slopes on the proposed building site a topographic map should be provided by the applicant. The topographic map should show the boundary of the lots, roof runoff storm water system, 2' contours, 40 percent breakline delineation, areas of previous slope failures, location of tension cracks and any physical features on the site or within 25 feet of the site. Vertical datum shall be K.C.A.S. The topographic map is to be prepared by a Professional Land Surveyor licensed in the State of Washington. PP\.doc CITY OF 10 TO: Greg Fewins 1 FROM: Jeffrey H. Sharp DATE: January 24, 1994 PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM For Your Information SUBJECT: Noyes Planter Box File No.: SEP 93-0031 After reviewing section A and B.1. through B.8. of the checklist submitted, the following comments and findings address SEPA related issues. 1. Section A: no comment. 2. Section B. Le.: approximate grading quantities have not been addressed on the "attached plans. to 3. Section B.l.f.: Yes, erosion could occur. Any time soil is exposed it is subject to wind and water erosion. 4. Section BA.: Section is applicable and should be addressed. 5. Section B.5.: Section is applicable and should be addressed. PP\.doc CITY OF FEDERAL WAY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 6, 1994 TO: Public Works/Engineering FROM: Department of Community Development PROJECT PLANNER: Greg Fewins, Senior Environmental Planner PLEASE RESPOND BY: January 20, 1994 TYPE OF PERMIT REQUIRED: SEPA review; building permit FILE NO.: SEP93-0031 PROJECT NAME: Noyes Planter Box PROJECT ADDRESS: 704 South 288th Lane PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct retaining structure in vicinity of 80 percent slope. APPLICANT: C.W. Noyes PHONE NO.: 946-0770 PROJECT BACKGROUND: Constructed retaining structure without city permits or approvals. Refer to September 28, 1993, letter from Deb Barker to Charles Noyes. SEPA: Required. COMMENTS Storm Retention System (if any): Parking Area: Turn -Around: Driveway: Right -of -Way Improvements: Traffic Impacts: Environmental (wetlands, slopes, streams, etc.): Other: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SIGNED: DATE: tech2.frm interoffice MEMORANDUM Federal Way De t. of Public Works Development Services Division To: Deb Barker From: Julie Venn Subject: Noyes Slope Stabilization/ BLD93-1014 704 S. 288th Lane Date: October 1, 1996 r,(3T)V I am responding to your memo dated September 13, 1996 in which you asked specific questions about the latest letter submitted September 12, 1996 written by Creative Engineering Options, Inc. 1. Yes, the geotech has addressed the comparison of the walls and has stated that the new option addresses the original intent of retaining the fill area at the top of the slope. 2. The scope of the work recommended in the September 12, 1996 CEO, Inc. letter appears to less intrusive. They have also addressed stabilizing the eroded slope area. However, I do not agree with the recommended solution in dealing with the storm drainage issue, which they stated was the primary cause of the surficial erosion and sloughing, page 3-paragraph 3 of their letter. The Noyes property does not extend to the toe or bottom of the slope and the recommendations are not specific enough for construction. Plans, details and specifications need to be provided to demonstrate how the storm drainage runoff facilities will be constructed. 3. Again I want to see some plans, details and specifications for dealing with the storm drainage runoff. So in conclusion, construction plans need to be submitted addressing the storm drainage from the site. The Public Works Department has already determined that a storm drainage system exists at the back of the neighbors' property to the south. Until plans have been submitted and approved, the Public Works Department can not approve the building permit. MEMO To: Julie Venn, Ken Cornwall From: Deb Barker W Subject: Noyes Slope Stabilization/ BLD 93-1014 Date: September 13, 1996 Attached please find a September 12, 1996 geotechnicial evaluation from Glen Mann with Creative Engineering Options, Inc for the Chuck Noyes property at 704 South 288th Lane. This evaluation was in response to my August 22, 1996 letter (attached) regarding slope stabilization measures at the location of the illegally placed retaining wall. I requested that Mr. Mann address the following: Compare the original soldier wall with the proposed pin wall fix. 2. Provide a scope of work in the steep slope area and state if it is different than that which was approved under SEPA. 3. Provide a storm drainage plan with proposed connections, layout and facilities. Mr. Mann has provided a 7 page letter concerning the Noyes project, a copy of a 5 page Maintenance of hillside homesites for slope stability and erosion memo and a cross section. Background: Please remember that the timber wall has never been permitted by a building permit. It was subject to SEPA review because it is within a steep slope area. During SEPA related geotechnical reviews, soldier wall systems were recommended in lieu of the timber wall. The property owner (Noyes) decided that proposal was too expensive. New engineers concluded that stable slope conditions had deteriorated. Subsequent spring rains washed out soil under portions of the timber wall. Noyes received permission to do emergency repair work at the site, but has never provided adequate information to complete a project specific building permit application. Creative Engineering Options has been working with Noyes to bring the project to completion. PLEASE RESPOND TO TIE- FOLLoWING QUESTIONS ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30, 1996: Have the above issues been addressed? 2. Has the slope instability been adequately resolved? 3. Do we have adequate information -to complete a project specific building permit application review and perhaps issue a building permit? Julie Venn, Ken Cornwall Page 2 September 13, 1996 4. Any conditions of approval at this time? I am providing the background files to Ken as he comes new to this project. Please let me know if you ahve any questions. Thanks much. interoffice MEMDRANDUl To: Deb Barke From: Julie Venn Subject: Noyes Slope Stabil 704 S. 288th Lane Date: August 1, 1996 -al Way Dept. of Public Works Development Services Division for BLD93-1014 The Public Works Department has reviewed the documents submitted Creative Engineering Options, Inc. and find the following items need to be addressed: 1. Creative Engineering Options, Inc. needs to make a comparison between the original soilder wall submittal/approved through SEPA and their submitted option. The two options should be similar in design parameters and in providing a permanent solution. 2. A storm drainage plan must be provided to show the location of the proposed catch basin installation and other storm drainage apparatus with appropriate details . A topography survey must be completed 20 feet beyond the proposed outfall of the storm drainage piping. Inspection of the construction would be required. 3. Permanent surface soil/slope stabilization must be provided and must be included as part of the construction of the underpinning installation. Inspection of the installation of all slope stabilizing methods would be inspected. 4. All storm drainage from the area above the wall (existing lawn and landscaping area) and the roof drainage must be tied into the existing storm drainage system. Also any existing storm drainage piping along the entire wall must be controlled and directed into the existing storm drainage system. Include the proposed connection layout and show existing facilities in the storm plans required in Item 2. 5. What will be the extent of the work done in the steep slope area beyond the base of the wall? Is that included in the original SEPA review? They are talking about putting a catch basin in at the base of the wall and outletting it 30 feet down slope from the wall with a riprap pad placed at the outlet. Placement and permanancy of the riprap pad must be addressed. RECEIVED Glen Mann, P.E. Creative Engineering Options 5418 — 159' Pl. NE Redmond, WA 98052 Dear Glen, NQV 4 1999 FF,DERAI, WAY PUBLIC iVD ADMUNISTRATICN DM,91 NN 5 October 1999 I have been trying to reach you by phone for some time now, with no luck. I just need to know the status of the drainage plan that we were going to submit to Trent Ward in Federal Way. If there is a problem, please let me know. Trent has indicated that the City is prepared to expedite your plan through the permit process so that Dochnahl can begin the repair on my wall. Needless to say, I am getting very anxious as we again get into the rainy season with an unfinished wall. Glen, please call me at your earliest convenience if you have questions on the drawings, or if you have any problems with continuing with our relationship. Please. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Chuck Noyes (253) 946-0770 CITY OF r PUBLIC WORKS �Q MEMORANDUM TO: Deb Barker FROM: Ronald Garrow For Your Information Date: June 9, 1995 SUBJECT: Noyes Retaining Wall, SEP93-0031 The submitted soils report has been reviewed along with the SEPA checklist. Staff has no comments regarding the design of the wall. However, the issue of hydrostatic build-up behind the wall has not been addressed and will need to be considered in the issuance of a building permit. The report indicates that brown sandy silt and silty sand are present in the top regions of the area which will allow infiltration of storm water. Any build-up of groundwater behind the wall will need to be released through the wall to avoid a future potential wall failure. CITY OF �^ 33530 1 ST WAY SOUTH May 4, 1999 Glen Mann, P.E., President Creative Engineering Options, Inc. 5418 159th Place NE Redmond, WA 98052 (253) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 RE: Noyes Residence Slope Stabilization at 704 South 280th Lane, BLD 93-1014 (Plat of Marine Hills #17, Lot 19) Dear Mr. Mann: The Public Works Development Services division has reviewed your February 11, 1999 correspondence containing the conceptual proposal to utilize a GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System for slope drainage control and surface protection for subject project. Conceptually, the proposal appears to meet the intent of the slope stabilization project; however, the following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of the building permit: 1. Design drawings and specifications shall be submitted for City approval of the GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System application at subject site. All design drawings, details and specifications shall be stamped and signed by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington. 2. The roof drains serving the existing residence and drainage from other impervious areas on subject site shall be dye tested to determine their discharge locations. In the event these drains discharge to the slope subject to this stabilization permit, they shall be re-routed to an appropriate tightlined gravity storm drainage system. 3. All disturbed areas, including the GeoWeb installation area, shall be re -vegetated with rapid deep rooted grass, followed with ivy or other rapid growing evergreen vegetation; as determined necessary by the project engineer. 4. A drainage release covenant shall be executed in a form and content acceptable to the City Attorney's office. To speed resolution of this issue, the applicant must update and resubmit building permit BLD93-1014 to reflect the above specific construction elements within 30 days of the date of this letter. Upon receipt of the above information, we will complete our review of this project expeditiously. If you have any questions, please call me at 253-661-4132. Sin ly, T n A. Ward, P.E. evelopment Services Manager TAW:ah cc: Mary Kate Gaviglio, Building Official Deb Barker, Associate Planner Charles W. Noyes, 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA, 98023 Project File/TAW Day File L:\PRMSYS\DOCUMENT\BLD93-10.14\PWO32599.DOC RF RECEIVED �• r r. 0 E 199111 FEDERAL WAY PijBLIC GVORKS ADMIiNTIVRATION I)iviSI()NI Ms. Kris O'Neal January 28, 1999 Association Manager Redondo Ridge Condominium Association RE: Slope Stabilization Dear Ms. O'Neal, Thank you for your letter dated January 15, 1999. Believe me, we share the same concern as you regarding the slope failure adjacent to both of our properties. I have forwarded your letter to Mr. Trent Ward, Acting Senior Development Engineer, with the City of Federal Way. I have seen the most recent failures from the toe of the hill, and it is my observation that this is a continuation of a severe failure that occurred in 1996. It was determined later between attorneys that this failure had its beginnings at the western portion of the property to my immediate west. The previous owner of that property had pretty much clear-cut the vegetation from the slope to the north of his home. It was my understanding that the Permit issued by the City to the previous owner included a provision to repair and re -vegetate the scar from that failure. I am not an attorney, so I would not pretend to be able to address blame in this matter, but I would find it hard to believe that either myself or the new owner of the property to my West could have possibly caused this Act of Nature. I am sure you are aware that this slope is classified as extremely unstable. It was unstable when I bought my home in 1988, and it was unstable when the Redondo Ridge Condominiums were built later on. To be truthful, I am surprised that the condominium developer did not make provisions for protection from possible earth movement from above. Perhaps this is something that the Association should investigate. Sincerely Charles W. Noyes 704 S. 288'h Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 Cc Trent Ward CM & M Company RECEIVED Community Association Managing Agents FIE" 6 1 1999 x'EDERAL WAy PUBLIC WORKS AI?MMISTRATION DIVISION ,January 15, 1999 Charles & Mary Noyes 7D4 S. 28e Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 - Re: Hillside Dear Mr. & Mrs. Noyes: Pursuant to our conversation, I am advising you that the hillside behind your property continues to slide down to►nrard the Redondo Ridge Condominium complex as well as other residences. We realize that you are working with the City of Federal Way on this issue- However, measures must be taken to prevent this area foam sliding, any further. People's homes are in the way of the slide. We are sure that you are aware that if any damage is caused to the properties below you from the slide of your property, you are responsible fbr any damage, We would urge you to increase your efforts to get Something done about this issue. If I can be of any assistance, please let me know. Sincere , Kris O'Neal Association Manager Redondo Ridge Condominium Association T !, v-% w h a n r I ors . a _ w i _ •.-. .+ r.. _ _ . _ _ _ _ CITY OF fC.-- aA 33530 1 ST WAY SOUTH January 19, 1999 Charles W. Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98023 Re: Slope stabilization @ 704 South 288th Lane BLD93-1014 (Plat of Marine Hills #17, Lot 19) Dear Mr. Noyes: (253) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 I have recently been assigned to the subject project to perform the Public Works review of the associated building permit application. On September 21, 1998 we met at City Hall and discussed the history and chronology of events regarding the project. Subsequent to our meeting, I discussed the project with Deb Barker, City planner, and Rich Marshall, Surface Water maintenance crew member involved in some field research for this project. Additionally, I researched the project file to ascertain the remaining Public Works issues surrounding the project. As a result, I have summarized (2) alternatives which may be used in order to comply with the drainage requirements of this project: Alternative #1 (Preferred alternative) A gravity tightline may be constructed from the subject retaining wall footing drain, across the adjacent parcel to the west (Lot 20), and connected to the existing storm drainage system on Lot 20, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering report prepared by Creative Engineering Options, Inc., dated August 11, 1997. In order to implement this alternative, an easement shall be obtained from the property owner of Lot 20 authorizing the construction and maintenance of the drain. A copy of the recorded easement bearing the stamp of the King County Auditors file number shall be submitted to the City of Federal Way. Additionally, a joint use and maintenance agreement shall be executed with all property owners across whose property the existing drainage system is constructed or demonstrate that the existing drainage system is provided for the benefit of Lot 19. RECEIVED 8YcoMMUNiry DEPARTMENT JAN 2 1 1999 Secondly, the drainage system shall be dye tested to verify its connection to the public storm system on 7th Place South or an as -built drawing of the drain shall be provided. In addition, the project engineer of record shall verify the conveyance capacity of the existing drainage system is adequate to handle the additional flows generated by the new drain. Lastly, a Drainage Release Covenant shall be executed in a form and content acceptable to the City Attorney's office (a copy of this covenant was sent to you with November 20, 1997 project correspondence from Cary Roe, P.E., Public Works Director). Alternative #2 1. A pumped storm water discharge system may be designed to discharge into the existing storm catch basin on adjacent Lot 20, near the common property line between Lots 19 and 20: In order to implement this alternative, the system shall be designed by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington and applicable drawings and specifications shall be submitted for review in accordance with the following conditions: a. The system shall be privately owned & maintained by the owners of Lot 19.- b. The system shall convey water from one location or elevation to another within the property boundaries of Lot 19 only and shall discharge to an acceptable gravity draining storm water system; c. The system shall have dual pumps (alternating) equipped with an external alarm system; d. The system shall receive and discharge subsurface drainage from the retaining wall footing drains only - no surface water may drain to this system; A Drainage Release Covenant, acceptable to the City of Federal Way Attorneys office, shall be executed by the owners of this property. Additionally, the owners of this property shall execute a joint use and maintenance agreement with all property owners across whose property the existing gravity drain system is installed or demonstrate that the existing gravity drain system was constructed for the benefit of Lot 19. The gravity drainage system shall be dye tested to verify its connection to the public storm system on 7th Place South or an as -built storm drain drawing of the drain shall be provided. In addition, the project engineer shall verify the conveyance capacity of the existing gravity drain is adequate to handle the additional flows generated by the pump system. Regardless of which alternative is chosen, the following item shall also be addressed: 1. The roof drains serving the existing residence on the subject lot shall be dye tested to determine their discharge location(s). In the event these drains discharge to the slope subject to this stabilization permit, they shall be tightlined to an appropriate gravity storm drainage system within the parameters set forth in the above alternatives. I trust this information clarifies the City's drainage requirements for this project and upon receipt of the required information, we will complete our review of this project expeditiously. If you have and questions, please call me at (253) 661-4132. Sin ere , Trent A. Ward Acting Senior Development Engineer TAW:kcm cc: Stephen Clifton, Development Services Manager M Kate, Building Official eb Barker iate Planner Men Mann, P.E., Creative Engineering Options, Inc., 5418 159th PI NE, Redmond, WA 98052 (fax 206-867-9664) project file/TW day file L:\PRM13YS\DOCUMENTBLD93 10,14\PWOi 1999.DOC RECEIVED Creative Engineering p bans INC. rE. B , 6 1999 A firm practicing in the geosciences February 11,1999 96-1701 Mr Trent Ward City of Federal Way 33530 - 1st Way South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Manufacturers Data GeoWeb Cellular Confinement System Slope Drainage Control and Surface Protection Noyes Residence Federal Way, Washington Dear Trent: As we discussed by `phone the other day this letter transmits some of the manufacturers' data regarding the GeoWeb cellular confinement system and materials. As mentioned, we have used this system on several projects where we have constructed landslide repairs to act as a drainage medium and erosion control device. We intend to use a layer of the GeoWeb over the upper surface of the slope at the Noyes residence. It will be installed along the base of the repaired and underpinned bulkhead wall and will extend downslope for a distance of about twenty-five (25) feet. We are recommending the use of the perforated cell wall material since this will allow for slow downslope seepage of any surface water of drain Pipe discharge, The confinement system is placed over a layer of geotextile and is firmly anchored intolular the slope surface with a series of driven -in -place steel anchor pins. The cells may be tilled with pea grave, small washed rock, crushed rock or topsoil, and may be landscaped or vegetated. Even shrubs and other "larger' plantings are acceptable. The intention is to use this material as a drainage discharge and/or surface water flow "retarder" that will significantly reduce the velocity of flow over the slope surface. In this manner it is possible to reduce, if not eliminate the potentially negative impacts of surface water flow on the soil slope. We have used this with some considerable success of emergency landslide repairs to preserve the integrity of native and reconstructed slopes. 5418 159th Place NE • Redmond, WA 98052 • (425) 883-6889 • FAX (425) 867-9664 • www.ceogeo.com Data Transmittal 96-1701 Noyes Bulkhead Repair February 11, 1999 Page 2 We have attached a copy of a detail of a "typical" installation to give you a better idea of how the system is intended to work. If you have any questions regarding the installation, intent or design of this proposed discharge and flow control system we are recommending for use on Mr. Noyes' property, please feel free to call. We trust the information is adequate to provide you with a clearer understanding of the materials and system installation. Please let us know if you feel this is an acceptable system for this project so we can move ahead with a more detailed and site specific design. Very truly yours, CREATIVE ENGINEERING OPTIONS, INC. Glen Mann, P.E. President Attachments; GeoWeb Manufacturers Data Typical Slope Drain System Detail gm/Noyes Slope Protection System Transmittal Letter/eb53 ,l :l l l I 1 1 1 1 1 I c ti Schematic Only - Not to Scale (for infomational purposes only) 2" nominal diameter schedule 80, black iron pipe Pressure treated 3" x 12" timber lagging - Geoweb GWLC-A3-30 Erosion Blanket (stapled -in -place) North American Green C-125 Erosion Control Blanket (stapled -in -place), , Competent Native Soil Topsoil, Lightweight Polystyrene Block Fill (optional compacted soil backfill) Miradrain (nail to lagging) Creative Engineering Options INC. WALL DRAIN DETAIL Plate 8 A Firm Practicing in the Geosciences I Ii JCIT�YOFAL— FT1000or 33530 1 ST WAY SOUTH November 20, 1997 Charles W. Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98023 Subject., Slope Stabilization at 704 South 288th Lane Dear Mr. Noyes: (253) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 This letter is in response to your letter to City Manager Ken Nyberg dated October 17, 1997, concerning your application for a building permit to repair a currently unpermitted retaining wall/bulkhead at the above -referenced property. Although the application calls for installation of a drainage system at the top of the slope above the wall, your letter requests that the City approve the building permit immediately, before you have obtained an easement necessary to allow construction of the drainage system, to avoid what you characterize as "the increasing risk of wall failure" during winter months. You have stated that the drainage system cannot yet be built because you must obtain an easement over your neighbor's property, and you cannot obtain the easement at present because the neighbor is in the process of selling his property. Your request is problematic. The City does not ordinarily permit the drainage portion of a project to be deferred pending the future grant of an easement. To do so would remove the incentive (permit issuance) to obtain the easement and construct the project as a complete whole. Although you maintain that the drainage system is not necessary because the existing wall drain system is functioning properly, the drainage system is crucial to the project because the existing wall drain system is already discharging water on the top of a steep slope at the base of the existing wall. The new wall may exacerbate this condition, which is presumably why your engineers have proposed construction of a new drainage system that collects and routes storm water away from the slope. Accordingly, as Julie Venn, the City's engineering plans reviewer assigned to this project, has advised you, the City can issue the permit as requested only if you meet the specific conditions designed to insure that the drainage system will be promptly built -- either by you or the City -- and to insure that the City will be protected from liability resulting from your request for expedited permit issuance. The conditions are authorized by Federal Way City Code 22-10. 22- 122, 22-147 - 22-159, 22-410, and 22-459, and are typical conditions imposed when, as here, drainage improvements are an important component of a project. The conditions are as follows: Charles Noyes November 20, 1997 Page 2 You must provide the City a bond and cash deposit sufficient to cover the amount of. (a) construction of the storm drainage system; (b) installation of permanent erosion and sedimentation control; and (c) condemnation or purchase of an easement to allow connection of the drainage system with the City's existing storm drainage system within the Plat of Marine Hill #17. We have conservatively estimated that this amount is $80,000 ($30,000 for construction of the system and erosion/sedimentation control, and $50,000 to cover purchase or (if necessary) condemnation of the easement area. You must execute a bond agreement (enclosed) providing that the easement will be submitted to the City and the storm drainage system constructed within three months of permit issuance and, if they are not, the City is authorized to execute upon the bond and undertake the improvements itself. 2. You must execute a maintenance and inspection agreement (enclosed), to be recorded against your property, in which you covenant to properly maintain the drainage system and which grants the City access to inspect the system to determine whether the system has been properly installed and is being properly maintained. As part of that agreement, you must also release and indemnify the City from all liability resulting from the retaining wall and drainage from your property. If you are able to provide the easement prior to the issuance of the building permit, the bond, at least, may not be required. We are willing to work with you in either case so that your permit can be issued as soon a practicably possible, but the City must have reasonable guarantees that the drainage system will be built and that the City will be protected from liability if it is not or if it fails. Please let me know if you have any questions. If not, we look forward to receiving the bond and signed documents back so that we can proceed with issuance of your permit. Sincerely, Cary M, oe, P.E. Public Works Director BS\CMR:jg cc: Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager Project File Day File L•\pmuysWocwnendbld93_10.14\pw112097.doe Recording Requested By and When Recorded Return to: City of Federal Way Attn: Julie Venn 33530 1st Way S. Federal Way, WA 98003 ACCESS EASEMENT AND DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE AND RELEASE COVENANT Grantors: Charles W. and Mary Lisa Noyes, husband and wife Grantee: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Property Legal Description (abbreviated): Lot 19 of the Plat of Marine Hill No. 17, Vol. 98 of Plats, pages 50-52, King County, Washington (Complete legal description on Exhibit "A" attached hereto) Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#: 515293-0190 A. Charles W. and Mary Lisa Noyes, husband and wife ("the Noyes"), are the owners in fee of property located at 704 South 288th Lane, legally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Property"). B. The Noyes have applied for approval from the City of Federal Way ("City"), Application No. BLD93-1014 to construct a pin -pile and manta -ray anchorage retaining wall system, along with a storm drainage collection and conveyance system to direct storm water away from the top of the slope above the retaining wall. The storm drainage collection and conveyance system involves the use of a collection system and tightline connection, across property not owned by the Noyes, to the City's storm drainage system within the plat of Marine Hill #17. The purpose of the storm drainage collection and conveyance system is to protect the viability of the proposed retaining wall as well as to protect the slope below the wall from infiltration. The proposed retaining wall and storm drainage conveyance system are shown on plans on file with the City of Federal Way under BLD 93-1014, which are hereby incorporated by reference. The City has reviewed the proposed plans, and is prepared to issue a permit allowing construction of the proposed work, after the Noyes submit proof that they have obtained an easement from their neighbor to allow installation of the tightline drainage connection. C. According to the Noyes' geotechnical engineer, Glen Mann, P.E., of Creative Engineering Options, Inc., the pin -pile and manta -ray anchorage system should be installed immediately to avoid increasing the risk that the existing wall will fail. According to the Noyes, however, the storm drainage collection and conveyance system cannot be installed, because the Noyes have not yet obtained an easement from a neighboring property owner necessary to allow the tightline connection of the proposed storm drainage system to the City's drainage system. The Noyes have stated that the neighboring property owner is in the process of selling, and that they wish to wait and obtain the easement from the new owner following the sale. D. The Noyes and the City wish to resolve issues pertaining to issuano-. of the Noyes' permit, city access to the Property for the purposes the Noyes' submission of an easement to the City, tY far costs of such maintenance and of inspection and maintenance, and the Noyes' responsibility es that ma arise out of issuance of the permit or the acceptance of liability for any damages Y torm drainage collection and conveyance system. existence of the retaining wall andlor s NCW, TfEREFoRE, in consideration of the Citys ' royal of the proposed pin -Pile and manta- rayanchorage system and associated storm manta - drainage collection o ha of which re hereby acknowledge, the Noyes other consideration, the sufficiency and receipt hereby willfully grant, acknowledge, agree' and consent as follows: 1. The Noyes covenant and agree to obtain an easement sufficient (ntangy ow system construction, oover, e' installation, and monitoring of their storm drainage in plans on file in BLD93-1014. Proof of said or under neighboring property as described in P of the King County Auditor's easement, in the form of a copy of the easement bearing the stamp er thanI20 days from the date file number, shall be submitted to the City of Federal WayociAa errant and agree to complete of issuance of the permit to the Noyes. The Noyes al so construction of the storm drainage collection and conveyances system within the easement no later than 120 days from the date of issuance of the permit to them. 2. The Noyes coVenant and agree to execute and submit to the City a bond, cash deposit, and bond agreement. The bond agreement shall provide that, in the event t e Nomes do n t obtain days of the easement and construct the storm drainage collection and conveyance permit issuance, the City may execute upon the bond and/or cash hirve�anit, purchase system itself - the easement, and construct the storm drainage collection 3. The Noyes grant the City an easement on, over and through any and all portions of the laced u n them, for ingress and egress necessary to allow inspection Property and any structures p Po and monitoring of the storm drainage collection and conveyance fects andystem for proper construction with the and installation, performance, operational flows, de requirements contained in Chapters 21 and 22 of the Federal Waryovenant and agree City Code and ithat the City th the City's Surface Water Management Division procedures. he Noyes covenant such inspections. The at any time for the purpose g may enter onto the Propertyand all portions of the Property Noyes also grant the City an easement an, over andthrough rof h any performing maintenance an the storm and any structures placed upon them, for the purposePe � perform drainage collection and conveyance system. The City may enter onto the Properly maintenance as provided in Paragraph 4 below. 2 4. If the City reasonably determines that maintenance or repair work on the storm drainage conveyance system is required, the Manager of the Surface Water Management Division of the Department of Public Works may give notice of the specific maintenance and/or repair required. The Manager may also set a reasonable time in which such work is to be completed by the Noyes, their heirs, successors or assigns. If the above required maintenance and/or repair is not completed within the time set by the Manager, the Noyes agree that the City may perform the required maintenance and/or repair. The City agrees to send written notice to the -Noyes stating the City's intention to perform such maintenance. Maintenance work will not commence until at least seven (7) days after such notice is mailed. If, within the sole discretion of the Surface Water Management Division Manager, there exists an imminent or present danger, said seven (7) day notice period is waived, and the Noyes covenant and agree that the City may begin maintenance and/or repair work immediately. Nothing in this paragaph shall be deemed to excuse Noyes from responsibility to maintain the storm drainage collection and conveyance system, regardless of whether the Noyes receive any notices from the City under this paragraph. 5. The Noyes covenant and agree to assume all responsibility for the cost of any maintenance or repairs to the storm drainage collection and conveyance system. The Noyes also covenant and agree to reimburse the City for the cost of any maintenance or repairs within thirty (30) days of receipt of the invoice for any such work performed, and agree that, if not paid within thirty days of receipt of the invoice, the costs of any maintenance shall become a lien against the Property. The Noyes further covenant and agree that the City may charge the Noyes for interest, at the then -maximum legal rate, for any amounts past due, and for any costs, interests or attorneys' fees the City may be required to pay to outside contractors as a result of any late payments by the Noyes. 6. The Noyes covenant and agree to the diversion of surface and storm waters onto and off of the Property as provided in their storm drainage collection and conveyance plan as approved or as subsequently modified, and covenant and agree to release, hold harmless, and indemnify the City from liability for any damages, claims, losses, liabilities, judgments, demands, fees, obligations, assessments, or expenses or costs, including without limitation reasonable legal, accounting, consulting, engineering or other expenses that may be incurred by or imposed on the City. This paragraph extends to, without limitation, claims for damage to the Property or structures thereon and claims for damage to any other person or property, that arise out of or are connected to in any way the pin -pile and manta -ray anchorage or storm drainage collection and conveyance system, as approved or as subsequently modified. 7. The Noyes covenant and agree to obtain written approval from the City's Surface Water Management Division Manager prior to performing any alterations or modifications to the storm drainage collection and conveyance system or any of its component parts or facilities. 8. Any notice or consent required to be given or otherwise provided for by the provisions of Acc ess cess Easement and Drainage Maintenance and Release Covenant shall be effective upon personal delivery, or three (3) days after mailing by Certified Mail, return receipt requested. 3 9. This Access Easement and Drainage Maintenance and Release Covenant is intended to protect the value of the Properly and surrounding properties, and the benefits and burdens inuring to the Property as a result of this Access Easement and Drainage Maintenance and Release Covenant shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Noyes, their heirs, successors and assigns forever. The Noyes shall, at their own expense, record this Access Easement and Drainage Maintenance and Release Covenant against the Property, with instructions that the original be returned to the City of Federal Way for filing. The Noyes also covenant and agree to include an explicit reference to this document (by date, title, and King County Auditor's File No.), and/or a copy of this document, in all instruments conveying future interests in the Parcels. 10. If any party commences legal action to enforce this Access Easement and Drainage Maintenance and Release Covenant, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in the matter. DATED this day of November, 1997. GRANTORS: By: Charles W. Noyes By: Mary Lisa Noyes GRANTEE: City of Federal Way By: Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager Approved as to form: By: . l� Londi K. Lindell, City Attorney 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ICING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of November, 1997, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared CHART S NOYES, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year certificate first above written. (Print Name) Residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ICING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this _ day of November, 1997, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared MARY LISA NOYES, and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be her free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year certificate first above written. (Print Name) Residing at My appointment expires STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) On this day, personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, Kenneth E. Nyberg, to me known to the City Manager of the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute the said instrument. Given under my hand and official seal this day of , 1997. k:lpubworklnoyes.dw (notary signature) (typed/printed name of notary) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: 6 EXHIBIT "A" Lot 19 ofthe Plat of Marine Dill No. 17, Vol. 98 of Plats, pages 50-52, King County, Washington. Commonly known as 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCEIMAWTENANCE BOND INSTRUCTIONS The Maintenance Bond package includes three separate components, each of which require signatures for completion. Please complete each component as follows: "AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE/MAINTENANCE BOND" 1. Complete bond # in upper right hand corner of page one. 2. Fill in date on page one. 3. Applicant and/or Principal signs page three in presence of notary. "EXHIBIT A - PERFORMANCE/MARgTENANCE BOND" 1 Surety fills in blanks on page one and signs page three. 2 Principal(s) date(s) and sign(s) page two. 3. Attached Exhibits "B" and "C" do not require signature but must be returned with bond package. Return completed package, cash deposit (check made out to City of Federal Way) and recording fee to the Public Works Department for processing. "LICENSE" 1. Complete the date. 2. Persons named sign in the presence of a Notary. 3. Notary completes lower applicable section. 4. Attach a check made payable to: "King County Records and Elections" in the amount of $8.00 for the first page plus $1.00 for each additional page, if any K: \DEVREV\BONDS\BONDINST.HND Applicant: Charles W. and Mary Lisa Noyes Project: Noyes Retaining Wall Property Address: 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 Bond #: Permit#: BLD93-1014 Bond Amount: $80,000.00 Cash Deposit Amount: $2,400.00 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE/MAINTENANCE BOND THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is dated effective this day of 1997. The parties ("Parties") to this Agreement are the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation ("City") and Charles W. and Mary Lisa Noyes, i.e., husband and wife ("Applicant"). A. The Applicant is required to perform certain work and/or complete certain improvements, including constructing a pin -pile and mata-ray anchorage system retaining wall and storm drainage collection and conveyance system at the above referenced address located in Federal Way, Washington in connection with Applicant's Land Use Application under the above -referenced permit number ("Permit"); B. The improvements will be constructed or the work performed in accordance with record drawings and approved plans on file with the City ("Plans"); C. The City has determined that the Applicant must post security with the City pursuant to Sections 22-146 through 22-159 of the Federal Way City Code ("FWCC") as now existing or hereafter adopted or amended, to guarantee Applicant's performance of the required construction of improvements or performance of work, maintenance or repair in accordance with the Plans as a condition of granting the Permit. NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Improvements. Applicant shall construct all improvements and perform all maintenance pursuant to the Plans, to the City's satisfaction ("Work"). The obligation to maintain the improvements shall continue for a period of two (2) years after issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final inspection, or such longer period as required by the FWCC or other applicable law, rule or regulation. 2. Completion of Work. The Applicant shall complete the Work to the City's satisfaction, within the time period prescribed by the City, and in full compliance with the Plans, including any approved amendments thereto, and in conformance with all applicable laws, rules or regulations. 3. Performance/Maintenance Qgnd. Applicant shall deliver the fully executed Performance/ Maintenance Bond to the City in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference ("Bond"), to guarantee Applicant's performance of the construction of the improvements and/or maintenance of the improvements pursuant to the Plans. 4. Release of Bernd. If the Principal constructs the improvements in accordance with the terms of the Bond, the Permit and all applicable law, the sum of the Bond shall be reduced by seventy percent (70%) after final inspection and approval of the improvements by the City and the City will deliver to Principal the fully executed Partial Release of Bond attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Except as set forth in the preceding sentence, the Bond shall remain in full force and effect. That portion of the Bond equal to thirty percent (30%) of the original penal sum shall remain in full force and effect for two (2) years after final inspection and approval, as a maintenance bond to guarantee against defective materials and workmanship in the construction of the improvements and to insure continued maintenance of the improvements. Two (2) years after final inspection and approval of the improvements and performance of the maintenance, the City will release the remaining portion of the Bond by executing and delivering to Principal the Full Release of Bond attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 5. Bight to Complete Work. In the event the Applicant fails to perform the Work, the City may, but in no event is it obligated to, request the disbursement of the Bond from the surety and perform any of the necessary Work. Upon demand, Applicant agrees to pay the City an amount equal to all of the City's costs and expenses in performing such Work in excess of the amount of the Bond. 6. Notice. The Community Development Department of the City shall be given forty-eight (48) hours notice prior to the commencement of the Work. 7. IndemnofiQation. Applicant agrees to indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from any and all claims, demands, losses, actions and liabilities (including costs and attorney fees) arising from, resulting, or connected with this Agreement and the Bond, including without limitation, the City's performance of the Work pursuant to Section 5 herein. 8. 8dwinistrative Cub Qpunsit. In addition to the amount of the Bond, Applicant agrees to pay a cash deposit to the City pursuant to Section 22-151 of the FWCC, upon the execution of this Agreement equal to the following percentages of the amount of the Bond: Up to $20,000 $20,001 - $50,000 $50,001 - $100,000 $100,001 and up 5% of Bond (minimum $100) 4% of Bond 3% of Bond 2-1/2% of Bond The cash deposit may be used by the City to cover its actual expenses in administering this Agreement and, if necessary, collecting and using the proceeds from the Bond. 9. RQm?,dies Cumulative. No remedy provided for by this Agreement shall be deemed exclusive, but shall be deemed cumulative and in addition to every other remedy available to the City at law, in equity or by statute. Applicant's liability under this Agreement is not limited to the amount of the Bond. 10. License. Applicant shall record a license in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference with the King County Department of Records, immediately upon the execution of this Agreement and at Applicant's cost. 11. General Proyisions. This Agreement may not be amended except by written agreement signed by the Parties. Any provision of this Agreement which is declared invalid, shall not invalidate the remaining provisions of this Agreement. The failure or delay of the City to declare any breach or default shall not waive such breach or default. This Agreement may not be assigned by any Party without the written consent of the other Party. This Agreement shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the Parties' successors in interest. Time is of the essence. -2- Charles W. and Mary Lisa Noyes By: Its: STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 946-0770 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of November, 1997, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Charles W. Noyes , and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year certificate first above written. (notary signature) (typed/printed name of notary) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: -3- r. . - . • �% . z nn.16 STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss. COUNTY OF KING ) THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on this day of November, 1997, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Mary Lisa Noyes , and acknowledged the foregoing instrument to be his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year certificate first above written. ATTEST: Christine Green, City Clerk APPRO AS TO FORM: 7ZA— Cary M. Rae blic Works Director LAPRMSYMOCUMBNIIBLD93 10.1 d1PIRFMAI ICAO Rev. 01-28-97 (notary signature) (gTedlprinted name of notary) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Kenneth E. Nyberg, City Manager 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 —4— EXHIBIT A Project: Noyes Retaining Wall Permit #:BLD93-1014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY PERFORMANCE/MAINTENANCE BOND KNOW ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRESENTS: We, the undersigned, Charles W. and Mary Lisa Noyes, as principal ("Principal"), and , the undersigned corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of _, and legally doing business in the State of Washington as a surety ("Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto the City of Federal Way, a Washington municipal corporation ("City") in the penal sum of Eighty Thousand and no/100 Dollars 080,000.00) for the payment of which they firmly bind themselves and their legal representatives, successors and assigns, jointly and severally. This obligation is entered into in pursuant to the statutes of the State of Washington and the ordinances, regulations, standards and policies of the City, as now existing or hereafter amended or adopted. The Principal has entered into an Agreement with the City of even date to construct a pin -pile and mata-ray anchorage system retaining wall and storm drainage collection and conveyance system. NOW, THEREFORE, if the Principal shall perform all the provisions of the Agreement in the manner and within the time period prescribed by the City, or within such extensions of time as may be granted under the Agreement, and shall pay all laborers, mechanics, subcontractors and material men or women, and all persons who shall supply the Principal or subcontractors with provisions and supplies for the carrying on of said work, and shall hold the City, their officials, agents, employees and volunteers harmless from any loss or damage occasioned to any person or property by reason of any carelessness or negligence on the part of the Principal, or any subcontractor in the performance of said work, and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any damage or expense by reason of failure of performance as specified in the Agreement, or from defects appearing or developing in the material or workmanship provided or performed under the Agreement within a period of two (2) years after its final acceptance thereof by the City, then and in the event this obligation shall be void; but otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. And the Surety, for value received, hereby further stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in any way affect its obligation on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any change, extension of time, alterations or additions to the terms of the Agreement or to the Work. The Surety hereby agrees that modifications and changes may be made in the terms and provisions of the Agreement without notice to Surety, and any such modifications or changes increasing the total amount to be paid the Principal shall automatically increase the obligation of the Surety on this Performance Bond in a like amount, such increase, however, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the original amount of this bond without the consent of the Surety. Within forty-five (45) days of receiving notice that the Principal has defaulted on all or part of the terms -of the Agreement, the Surety shall make a written commitment to the City that it will either: (a) cure the default itself within a reasonable time period, or (b) tender to the City, the amount necessary for the City to remedy the default, including legal fees incurred by the City, or (c) in the event that Surety's evaluation of the dispute is not complete or in the event the Surety disputes the City's claim of default, the Surety shall notify the City of its finding and its intent, if any, to interplead. The Surety shall then fulfill its obligations under this bond, according to the option it has elected. Should Surety elect option (a) to cure the default, the penal sum of the Bond shall be reduced in an amount equal to the costs actually incurred by the Surety in curing the default. If the Surety elects option (b), then upon completion of the necessary work, the City shall notify the Surety of its actual costs. The City shall return, without interest, any overpayment made by the Surety and the Surety shall pay to the City any actual costs which exceed the City estimate, limited to the bond amount. Should the Surety elect option (c), the Parties shall first complete participation in mediation, described in the below paragraph, prior to any interplead action. In the event a dispute should arise between the Parties to this Bond with respect to the City's declaration of default by the Principal, the Parties agree to participate in at least four hours of mediation in accordance with the mediation procedures of United States Arbitration and Mediation ("USA&M"). The Parties shall proportionately share in the cost of the mediation. The mediation shall be administered by the Seattle USA&M office, 4300 Two Union Square, 601 Union Street, Seattle, Washington 98101-2327. The Surety shall not interplead prior to completion of the mediation. DATED this day of , 199_. CORPORATE SEAL OF PRINCIPAL: CHUCK W. AND MARY LISA NOYES By: Name of Person Executing Bond Its: (Title) By: Name of Person Executing Bond Its: (Title) 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 (253) 946-0770 -2- CORPORATE SEAL OF SURETY: APPR VIED AS TO FOR CARY M. , DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS Surety By: Attorney -in -Fact (Attach Power of Attorney) Name of Person Executing Bond Address Phone BOND NUMBER: 1 hereby certify that I am the (Assistant) Secretary of the Corporation named as signed the said band on behalf ofrthepal in the within bond; that of the said Corporation; that l know his or her Principal, was signature thereto is genuine, and that said bond was duly signed sealed and attested for and in behalf of said Corporation by authority of its governing body. Secretary or Assistant Secretary L:\pRMSYs\DOCUMENT\B1D93_10.14\PERFMAIN.AGT -3- PARTIAL RELEASE OF BOND #l- ons of the The un9 dersi ned hereby acknowledges that a portion of te Waif Pe nditi o BL093 Agreement have and Performance/Maintenance bond for Noyes Retaining been sati sfied and hereby authorizes the release of Fifty i of the nd and no woo Dollars ($*56,000.00). The rem funds equaling fo thirty period of two (2) years as security for improvements shall be retained by the City ro ect and as a ❑r workmanship in the construction and maintenance Assignor's performance of all maintenance for the shave described p f guarantee against defective materials of such improvements. DATED this day of 199_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY By: (Name, Title) FULL RELEASE OF FOND # TERMINATION OF LICENSE undersigned hereby acknowledges that the he Agreement ) year aintenance period and Performance/ has The improvements covered by leted to expired, that the work or � es Retaining Wall, Permit #6LDg3-1014, have been completed Maintenance goad for Nay is not aware of any defect in workmanship housand the Gity's satisfaction and that the City sum of materials. Accordingly, the undersiThed hereundersigned leases furtherereleases all right, right, title and and not granted Dollars f e undersigned reason of a certain License Agreement recorded interest granted to the undersigned by {"License Agreement") under King County Recording No. Agreement are hereby acknowledges that all ❑bligations and rights contained in the License terminated. DATED this day of j 19_ CITY OF FEDERAL WAY By: (Name, Title) FILED FOR RECORD AT REQUEST OF: Charles W. and Mary Use Noyes MAIL TO: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 33530 1 ST WAY SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 ATTN-- Stephen Clifton LICENSE The undersigned owner of certain real property located in Federal Way, Washington and legally described as follows: TAX PARCEL NO: 515293-0190 Legal description: Lot 19 of the Plat of Marine Hill No. Washington . 17, VOL 98 of Plats, pages 5--52, King county Of Federal Way ('City') and the City's ("Property") hereby grants an irrevocable license to the City ny necessarY of work or to allow the City to perform aCe Bond of Property t❑ inspect the agents. employees. contractorst�ereei f°s mancees to enter upon the oaan�e,Maintena construction of improvements, p weep the City and the undersigned and incorporated herein by this reference. maintenance or work, all pursuant to that certain Agreement and er even date entered into bet 7 997. DATED this ---- day of Charles W. and Mary Lisa Noyes (Signature) (Signature) [Corporate Notary] STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF KING , to me known to be On this day personally appeared before me the corpora;ion that executed the of thement to e and voluntary art and deed foregoing license, and acknowledged the saiinstr mentionededeand the orn oa said corporation, for the usth stated that he/she was o es and purposes therein instrument and that the seal affixed, if anYr is the corporate seal of said authorized to execute said corporation. 9 GIVEN my hand and official seal this day of — (notary signature) (typediprinted name of notary) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires [Individual Notary] STATE OF WASHINGTON I ss. COUNTY OF KING On this day personally appeared before me,oing Licensed the to me known to be the individual(s) described in and rd who execut his/her/the�rfree and No unt ry act and swore that he/she/they executed the foregoing deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. 19 GIVEN my hand and official seal this day of — (notary signature) (typed/printed name of notary) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. My commission expires L:\PRM SY S\DOCU MENT\BLD 9 3_10.14\PERFMAI N. AGT 4. The Owners and Owner -Mortgagees covenant and agree to the diversion of surface and storm waters onto the Property as provided in its private storm drainage conveyance plan as approved or as subsequently modified, and covenant and agree to release the City from liability for any damage or claims for damage to the Parcels or structures thereon, to Owners, to Owner -Mortgagees or to any other person or property, that arise out of the private storm drainage conveyance system, as approved or as subsequently modified, including its use as part of the foundation for other structures on the Parcels. In addition, the Owners agree to indemnify, defend, and hold the City harmless against liability for any damage or claims for damage to the Parcels or structures thereon, to Owners, to Owner -Mortgagees or to any other person or property, that arise out of the private storm drainage conveyance system, as approved or as subsequently modified, including its use as part of the foundation for other structures on the Parcels. �3 From: Bob Sterbank To: JULIEV Date: 10/29/97 10:28am Subject: Noyes I spoke to the outside counsel we have used in the past for condemnations. He estimated about 35K for legal fees in condemning the drainage easement. I would add a cushion to that in the event we have to argue about whether it is for a public purpose or not. So, maybe $40K, which isn't that much from my 50K estimate yesterday, but it may make more palatable for Chuck. Do you have a FMV guessestimate from an appraiser? I will plan to attend the meeting today, but I will brief Doug Fortner so that he can be ready to prepare the indemnity agreement. If I get pressed, I may ask him to attend the meeting. Bob P.S. Did you bring your running gear? What time do you want to go? Deb Binion will be running as well, and maybe Londi. r Crean �e Engineering O.Aions INC. A firm practicing in the geosciences December 4, 1996 96-1701 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Geotechnical Recommendations Slope Erosion Control Measures Noyes Residence 704 - 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Dear Mr. Noyes: As we discussed recently during our meeting with Ms. Julie Venn at the City of Federal Way, this letter is to provide geotechnical recommendations for the immediate installation of site erosion control measures. These are to help protect the lower (western) sloping portion of the property below the face of the wall which is to be supported in the near future. These control measures are, in our professional opinion, required to help prevent the erosion and movement of soil fines downslope due to the exposure of several bare patches of slope soil to the elements. Such erosion is considered to be detrimental to the integrity of the slope surface and, if not treated in the immediate future, could lead to generation of some considerably more severe erosion on the lower portions of your site slope. It should be clearly understood that these erosion control measures do not involve excavation into, or grading of, any site soils. They are all surficial measures that reduce rain drop impact and surficial flow velocity. We recommend that the bare areas be covered with a coir matting which should be stapled in -place in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. Where bare soil exists it should be covered first with a layer of straw mulch. In our professional opinion this combination of erosion control systems should be sufficient to protect those bare and currently unprotected surface against the elements. The straw mulch should provide a thermal blanket which helps protect against the freeze and thaw cycle, whilst the combination of the mulch and coir mat should be adequate to prevent raindrop impact and surface water flow velocity from eroding and removing soils. These measures are not directly related to the recommended remedial repair of the bulkhead wall located along the crest of the slope. �crr-r r�^ -.•� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 54 18 1 59th Place NE • Redmond, WA 98057_ • (2061 883-6889 • (206) 953-1173 • F. '86 -9604 Geotechnical Recommendations 96-1701 Noyes Residence December 4, 1996 Page 2 The coir matting, a C-7 coir mat, is attainable from GREENFIX America. They can be reached at (800) 929-2184 or 888-GREENFIX. We trust this information is sufficient to allow you to proceed with these remedial erosion control measures in the immediate future. Should you, or City staff, have any questions regarding these recommendations, please call. Very truly yours, CREATIVE ENGINEERING IZ QW8 INC.'-" 1` 10919 —fin PS10 SG Glen Mann, P. President l EX�S c.c.: Ms. Deb Barker; City of Federal Way Ms. Julie Venn; City of Federal Way gm/Noyes Slope Erosion Control Ltr/eb34 rc� Creative Engineering Options INC. A firm practicing in the geosciences October 7, 1997 RECEIVED 96-1701 `'997 Mr. Chuck Noyes FEDERALWWAYFU1:LIC' WORKS 704 South 288th Lane ADMEn, I9(,,5, P-r,1 Y / ,y ON Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Geotechnical Opinion Emergency Repair Bulkhead Wall 704 South 288'h Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: Geotechnical report by CEO, Inc., dated 8/11 /97. Dear Mr. Noyes: This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of Monday October 6, 1997 regarding the recent movement of your timber bulkhead wall. We understand that a large portion of the existing timber bulkhead wall suffered about two inches of settlement during the recent weekend rainstorm. Given the essentially unsupported nature of this bulkhead wall this settlement, in our professional opinion, is indicative of a partial failure of the walls' ability to restrain the backfill loads. In our opinion it is critical to have the recommended pin -pile and manta ray anchorage system installed immediately to avoid the increasing risk of wall failure, particularly as the wet winter weather is now upon us. We believe this situation presents an "emerge ncy'that, if not immediately addressed, is likely to lead to failure and partial to complete collapse of this wall over the coming winter. There is no means of determining at what point this wall might completely fail, but this recent movement is of sufficient magnitude to indicate that the risk is increasing rapidly on a day to day basis. We also understand that a question has been raised about the operating efficiency of the existing wall drain system. There is, apparently, a feeling on the City staff's part that the basal wall drain is a non-functioning system. We believe this is incorrect and that the wall drain is operating essentially os intended. Since virtually the entire drain system is 5418 159th Place NE . Redmond, WA 98052 e i206i 883-6889 ■ 1206) 953-1 173 ■ FAX 867-9664 Geotechnical Opinion 96-1701 Noyes Residence Bulkhead Wall October 7, 1997 Page 2 located behind the timber bulkhead wall (and is presented in plan and detail on the drawings attached to the referenced letter) it is essentially impossible to visually observe the system. If the drain were not functioning it is our belief that the hydrostatic pressure buildup behind the bulkhead wall would almost certainly have led to visible evidence of wall failure since the wall is not designed to accommodate such loads. Further, if the drain were partially blocked or crushed, not only can seepage flow alongside the pipe in the free -draining backfill but, if it rises around the pipe it would be expected to drain out beneath the bottom of the timber wall, or possibly through the cracks between the individual timbers. Based on the recently observed wall settlement (discussed above) we also believe it is appropriate to install the previously recommended drain system, which is attached to the outflow end of the existing wall drain, to help enhance the drains ability to remove and dispose of the collected seepage under control. Whilst this may not be as critical as the need for wall support and anchorage, it makes practical sense to perform both elements of the emergency repair at the same time. In addition to helping stabilize the bulkhead wall, installation of the recommended drainage control system also helps to enhance the stability of the adjacent slope which we understood to be of concern to the City. We trust the opinions expressed in this letter adequately exhibit the level of our concern regarding the need for immediate emergency repair of the bulkhead wall. In our opinion, if these repairs are not implemented in the immediate future the risk of the wall failing is dramatically increased. We see no geotechnical reason why these repairs cannot be performed as soon as the contractor can be mobilized to the field. If you have any questions regarding the information presented herein, or if we can be of any additional geotechnical assistance, please call. Very truly .•^� .�^ CREATIVE Glen Mann, P.E. - President I EXPIRES APRIL 10, Itiw� INC. c.c.: Ms. Julie Venn; City of Federal Way gm/Noyes Opinion Letter/eb41 mwq 'z ; '%1 3 t s;fi l:s}>y�y k:'f•::I7tiitlili 'rh, r:Ki 3liii a 3an�1� IV—�l N 31VOS 9L89•-PW96 MOI:J E13:1VM C66—L Nnl� 31V0 u0j&M/som pVeivjlN NVId N011ba01dX3 19 311S --MQ NMVHO �B 001 4709 M B w qcv t �VN'JIM S301AWS W N31YN0MN3 4 Ony33N ON3 HOt°JNINSVM 'rIVM 7Vkl303f N�;sQ—nA 'onn 33NMIS3a lXSC)MV7HI-Ia VUE)V-VZa I N01103S SSOU 3NOZ 03ZJlVH3N30 d0 N0IlV00-1 3ord3as 31VY4DCOadcly CINV N011VNOISDU .bj4� b N 30 N01103a1a 31'dYVI}C0addV Ai3H39 NoIHi 3dOlS d0 N01103810 931V01aNl NOIIV ool 5 , 3iVWIX08ddV 4NV H30kim ONIa08 ON3931 NOIlVEID3A 3I111'1 AHRA '33v=iunS 3011s SIti83Q l BA110Y A11N3p3H XO(18 dwnls li ) 3dcns %00L-0 ' l< ' C,,:�33HSns XOp']8 4mis 9AlloY IM 319iSSod �XV3tdo XNVB d331S S3mni,3vHf N3do �7 dk1Vos fO dol Mo-138 713418 dYYn1S .t 3HOZ 30Vd3RS (BolH .£ % 03AUISSOON ~ iNa"HiYl3>:l vxz r �% 1- -nVM 0 Q35Qd%31fOS �db3NfVY _8 L J� f0 d0131VVIIXO!{ddY ` 3OVNiVtiUi Y1Q�g S3!lfl1OY✓lf N3do 110010 l� dLYnls Ol 11YM `3NINIV13U _f30Nnu 3'ie3lSSOd nlIM QUYA 03dV3S0NV1 - 3oVlAO N NO N33 Svm 7608 Z 3dp7S y Zl3Ao NOOII 03HSYM 031Fipddn 1 z1 dDUCI, !!IA V-4.1 3OYl1kl31 fO 3:1C7 7103Q �+ NISYS HO1V0 - ` 30N3QIS3a SHOGN913N 30NMISM 103ranS AH3X00H n. m SENDER: H Complete items 1 an for 2 for�d►�en� e m Complete items 3, s d 48 y ry, • ~\your name and ddre on t e s 7 re' its card to you '• ch this form to he Fro t p[ t [na[ee,+the b `' does not permit. !lLL1l]] • Write "Return Rece t Raq sled" on the mailpi aw [ The Return Receipt ill sh to whom the article was deliv Gdelivered. tr 3. Article Addr seed to: �'�WORKS ��to Q+vfSfply E [Np.x.00.�. !r G Q 5. Skg t r •Addressee) � r I— c 6, gnatur (Age 0 H PS Form 3811, December 1991 *U.S. GPO: 1993 - Sant 14 t $I+eend Nfl . Stlte anti 71P S:o u eN Postage Certified Fee Special Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee fh rA O1 Return Receipt Showing to Whom & Date Delivered L Return Receipt Showing to Whom, Date, and Addressee's Address r[[ C TOTAL Postage & Fees Postmark or Date M E 0 LL to a �l CI d Cl CI DO D [� DO 0f'i Q ❑ fi �' 0 ED o1 0 ao a Q ° 0 ® 0 • 13 E--Jc:�j t (�11''��1�V�1j 11JJWJJ ;L�tt 0h'� F �(''J(tf._tl �'�I f�( t0 T — CFO ❑ 15 14 13 p {0 W r� �j �7 EZ] Q o O c��t� ❑ L,J - Cl Ci I fl D 0 CD12:1 2 23 +26-25 24 � �� - 36— n n 0� 000 a ❑Q Q I--r-L INDEX VIA �0 NOTE; INDEX IS BASED ON SECTION NUMBERS Q o q��❑ ��d�a 'Dn _ Qm�D j ; IS � E)Q tit Cd,I ` [J � CIO ' clPUCET SOUND I f } F<F ��,�' � � `; °moo a � ❑ Ems--•' 4ED o �1�0-�7 (� LJ e`TJN - 13 o o = El 0 44 C9 El EY E�T �3 �s°ram u � C3 1't C7 U j Q U 40 %s �� % ' ' f ~ 091300� IV I r 1 1 El a D V 702 BASED ON MAPS PREPARED BY: NO. Date REVISION I SCALE+ 1' 400' LAST USER: FEDERAL WAY CONTOUR INTERVAL: S' LAST USER DATE: HIES b- llzrNG CROUP, INC. tI_ FEDERAL �Iit HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD-83/41 CAD FILE NAME: f95arl - r, WA Aft' N.E. j 86GASVItd, WA 98DI,1 - � STORM }/�# 7�--[� 1�{�y DRAINAGE T! lAiTI /p� Il�� IT MAP (A2 an-oa�A c,.J. i L/ iL L.! 11+L"ilt 7 r1 i9 l�� t-1.1 VERTICAL DATUM: N[iV D-29 PROJECT NO.� 92-425 t DATE or PHOTO: SEPTEMBER 1992 3353 1S7 WA?' SGUTv � 1 D too 2oD 300 F£vERAL WAY,. WA9$043 "- PHOTO SCALE 1' = 500' 1206> 1-4Wu TAX (206) 661-4129 SCALE IN FEET d <3 1-0 Qii I 1300 IJ [3Ful61 B a a,? aLi- - Q x `Il a Q 4 d n Q >� a , C-9 ! s} �`, \j t r✓ j o 1[J 0 E:j C�l EJ a C7 C3 Q TI CITY LIMITS �, EE;] LlRPI Q 90980 � _�. 0L ( Q ❑ a� (�' s � �� \ Q ' 671 D Q p CDp �� £ r 13 Q� cJd ❑ C' ©_ ❑ a aED z CDa% EP Q=� a 10 ..F ._�..ti ( _,._.., ! 5 1 ( �_ �.: �-, Q [ L-i L_._i AT ED06 1: c7 Qcy Li z 4 . ❑ �IED u 1 d _ _ [ G� Q Q - ' � _-� t Q 4�► p 4 �� ❑ �' 1 �r'"} Q El n DASH PplivT RD. Q � - Q E S j ' p - 41Q` # � Cr � p CSTAFST ORD EEN [ `' Q c , ] ICI VORD 1 ( `T�( ❑ �7 }� "� C�� C)Cfl Lr _ �� ! ❑ L CDEfl p V oo El Q t' S 304TH Si C} Li T TE BASED ON MAPS PREPARED BY: NO. Date REVISION `d`B Omar SCALD V 400' LAST USER: LEGEND 4 ._. SVAMR ❑ ._. CATCH DAS➢v Q NAAHQE .� ._. FIR£ RYDRMIT _. C(j,TQj1 _ __._. H{ggEN C➢NLDUR DF:PRESSIDN CqN rDtW r. _� _._. H1DDEx DEPRESSIOx 'o.IE t .-. CREEK UK wmp CAKE DIRT THIS NAP VAS CREATED DT RM]TDCFAMxETRM NCTNODS DASED CONTEMS INDICATE AREAS ViERE THE GRO.HDIS OBSCURED AND MAY MET MEET VERTICA. SPECITICATDINS, FIELD —ClSURVC,s ARE NECESSARY PRIOR TO DESIGN SECTION: 32 TOWNSHIP: 22 N RANGE: 04 E KROLL MAP # 365 n PUGET SOUArD R.lC RAf 6 G7 GLS el - 32 3' 33 34 S 4 3 2 10 2 - — 7 it 8 9 10 15 T\\ 14 17 16 15 +1 14 13 18 2 23 + 24 \ I 19 20 22 2: I 1 26 1530 36 28 27 2E 31 l 3 33 34 3= INDEX MAC-' NOTE: INDEX IS BASED ON SECTION NUMBERS LEGEND 4 — SVANR 0 _ CATCH BASIN Q HANHLE FIRE NY➢RANT LeNrnR _. HIDDEN CDNTDUR .. DEPRESSION CDN,OUR —r ..HIDDEN DEPRESSION cu-uR CREEK LINE SVANR LAME DIRT THIS NAR VAS CREATED BY PICTOGRANMETRIC HETHODS. DASHED CONTOURS INDICATE AREAS VKRE THE GR"DIS ODSCURED AND NAY NOT MEET VERTICAL SEC{F ICATID S. FIELD CP,PLETiDN SURVEYS ARE NECESSARY llq TU DESIGN. _.. I `�.:-s FEDERAL L* R F CONTOUR INTERVAL: 5' LAST USER DATE: SECTION: 015 HIES dfAPPING T ME. INCINC. , - r. WA AIZ K.E. D��RRTa •A 98DD4 KRIZONTAL DATUM: NAD-83/91 CAD FILE NAME: VERTICAL DATUM: NGVD-29 TOWNSHIP: 21 N PROJECT NO, 92-425 % STORE DRAINAGE P RANGE: 04 E DATE Dr PHOTO, SEPTEMBER 1992 1 33 s; ,.� R� VAY, WA. 98043 (206,,.. ¢ t¢4 240 3¢0 KROLL MAP PFiDiO SCALE= t' = 500' 7Ar (206) 661-4129 SCALE IN FEET # 702 -n (0 C CD 0 (,�D •i V CD Cr Ci O 8 CD 0 I n D D m m L- D z Z D 1 r r� O 7 D z C) O Ln t� FT1 K 'tJ -i J- :- CTl m m Z C) C O in r- O v m CD i m 4mim i o� m z Xga� z Z C7 ` :< (, C. -1 mvr'r ' „ i a 2 zm(j) l ,6 ifl,.-. w 0 i' o m z � + 0 m c O U r. 3 0 O -t U �i z 0' •. M 0 40 M Q a 3 _ a CD z (� z - m - v ti ' rn m g _ m z zzCD .} u) ` J O z a z z m <7 0 3111C1 - t � - 1\� f/ _-t C)et co z 0 I I l- fi Z t� z -C(Ii — F �y.. rn�-ii f0ri Z {_ tI�- V < { III r m o C) �2 z Cn 2 Z �' ;mR _ciNn ,).c} S \C•,tF„Y J0i►+ �! v fs «4 !*i! G! M ►•`b �two n aoLaiNrmQrn7r 'ca_az arxvf! f► A"_ M Eb.. xm a 0 a7- v, G C: " +QD_ ry 5- _s a 4,C7Oh S4A Doi A d p A 4 C !1 t +o c- a0. ��n� O A Med i+• w m►%w 4M0 o 6 CrCrm Ea 5� aCa ' uM CD Ci NZN a w X (° . C $1 A �O r3a m0_c C CC R {► vA -c�Qn n 2 04 iw W CD p5. - c CD U- 6 r R f f7 0► so me ,a mi xn a a- a om s--3-=-------- 4 "', (J• fo - � ro n rb to = m m c m m cr u o Q CD h 1+• o a s = a CrJ w 2 is d d CQ m a c c ate' cc - an i # ,`1j�( p ,.� C, f."J (D _% r=: a = tD r� tai, C- Or a ate-. vat -. w 0 9 0 - t �1 s S .. #4 as c re rya ac a- ma _ i o * hJ A tit Q to -' N g a c ro a a, oW IF n a o I C C C _ 0+• C � O m u CD-O � a o iv ,ao,o ;r• - s h to nK �' -0 a -_ __------ c' r1 is C) i t A N d it Ob h i+• N '- sv r' N c a N u� Q t [� p -3- . q . ,' • a `i s ce Qy ff G.. b to [' M +< ° � m � `� � rL x�: m � a `ma c i C c� 3 cc a N fl. : cn 0) as t pCD _ :. _ ,� $ +� fl—' �} as 3 m mac C� 3 C C C A� a a~ x - "C! # CD C a g /rpp M• C C M a ssi a sv o a o a s ,•'J a a •: `� " - �y} f� 9j w� P••r O V +t GSs CD a I10 D Ofl- < w N t fl off ` , _ M• A? iJ N t+t e-r ►t H Ci •-a = C m (D gym` cfl a a- ® 1 A P4 rr. f! P► @ a c CD x a rc a = P g (D k h CD � sv 3' 0) -. a N a m cc s F -t A a, Ot Q Q ►A. co sv LA LA_. o o- c a 3 su FCD @ 3 CD°�. t sQ+ yam.► Sv a @ 0 Z c a o a oa = 3° a - t •-+ y 3 b r+ Q' C — c Q 3 c c c m rn. a 0 -r - po ai Q- m sn 2 n n' m r a ` "6 O -• •.:',` N -O b... \ ' LJ }V..,, id. C' `O a C lV rn -- a i7 xx ° m l o cna am aCL #L a fl) rn. a v wR sv s f Oa 'D 3 ? O Rz 0 C n. rD a n M m a t C CD coQ 3 C'> M (D tD W C C tf a 3 0 a- c cx a-�a 3 X c CD CD Q C 3 z; a z P) Lr) C) N CD c^� tCi rC Q 0 0 o � 'n g, Cr F acr. �Np' X to n 0 0 4 � � z O r* Q C!? Nc Gi ^� m o x N CIO) N F. m O r0 ' < N' '•! 0) tJ t -P (A) R3 -� p 0 Cn -s X D t7 �17 -*' { — a p- "' Do 0 D 's -• CD _j _0 Cr CR � 0 —� < -0 —{ ''t r* > Cr _ ,,; r,, O ;-. -C3 CD iu @ cn cc3 @ C � @ : 1- 0 = p p n � n @ p � p -t C � CD . � to iD 0 -- U) a @ % � � S -, !-t � v ro CD C =; Sl CD (t @ sZ S}3 � N p -� —cc � {? p -p W 0 *z CD 0 :T C3 -- m I p � 0 CD W � S13 � CD CD @ -s 3 0 r-t '' p fn Q} - *, 0 0- M ni p * !"1 -� fl} Cn t1 r- C? i i �•* _ - - p -S _ _ _ n _ _ r- r=r @ .-t . p @ 0 3 .-+ "" �.. _ r p p r t e: = }u = %'+ ra-#+ r-i {7 O , .� .. V# ._i V# iv r•r a/t r-r v �L it VJ-.. v* . v. (� ryi 5 =) }� _ 3 p cD @ �• .-+, .g0 CD ry,�,�J p��i 0 = 3 r� _. ('� �}.V� .-,. r-t• Q_ p�� `+ ' 0 ry�•�i }i �/•� 0 @ -0 :0^� /=3 4d. @ p 1l Jl�� #�i }i�V � � �z � C x• {� �} �":p•�•F /L� ice• W � "�. � .s c W @ � p"•�^• '.t. p G) � p C: Tt - p ♦�, ?u � iJ 5D _• CV cc @ �' CD 0 �+. � CD' !1t .S m V:: Yi. 1'� � �. {�'} � ::r � Li m ,..T .� iV t� .� p 0 W Ay r'�' ram,.. '�. •'^� �•'J _[ � IY � � � 1�J � rvft• , � p _.. CD M C� r-r tCD = � � p p .p � 0 " W � _. p to -e � r1 � `@ CD � �) � � � X U � � � U) CD CD Cn ,� p_ CD CT -3_ Q_ Z3 @ C3 �- .-a --s � C: .-., 3 -', 't3 U-+, ;-i -� to C@ V k. C13 Q n (6 ® CD r. n W O co < @ *p O tn. 0 < C 0 CD ,z iU ,-� � @ 8 0) U W Cn _, CCU p Cr *p. -s ®, Cn {} ,-t, G) @ C_ �` @ it3' © — W 0 = ` . 'S � � N @ _ G � 0 '0 0 CD i �. CQ Ccl>tD � " C2 @ , � `� DS U) ,art. " �, Cn CD � '�" � � � fl) C* @ -� � � � � �' p =r @ Cr � CD _. � _ � � � _ � O p- � -` @ a 0 C L QJ 0) p = — '-� 'CS CD %..: n 0 Q Q _ CD p N Q. CI 0 'L3 < LU U�) A) CD CD � - Cn CD m { _ _ - +ter n�,+ p u _ "% -+s -•t:.. CD_ -s C3 C � -•t _ �3 C S3) Cta ? zf < Sl) @ = —` = @ @ = C? @ @ ; A CD � t LZ � O �D � � � r� rp @ @ ct5 C7 p ( "� @ t'3 @ t7 t1 0 % ` Cn C:0, iii °'* G r` S" 3 3 C3 @, .... ? ' .- € rrt iifl ..s .� �- { ,-e C} " CD .. , ` ,. �, ,^2 -s Ci @ @ = C3< --* -�+ : {b 3 ,.r' < £11 Ili ^i' :tD 0 �' 'm p C i p Cn p � iU p @ O tt? � @ p @ p C3 p @ S13 r+ iU -t �-* p Cn iv --' 0 Cp ' C :3 C!) 0 £ @ p O C) il} tL? f31 ,•� < Ci) {� _. -s �, p 3 r-h p 5 0 @: � a .-} CD C} C: r 3' p @ — Ch = Ct) �- C n p iv to N �'cl) C3 SU T p C r �. O -t• CD @ @ Cn �- ,-� �.* p Cp` 3 Q O 0. 3 �r - C!? CD' C) ,. � t = C > SD 3 (j i2 'p—t #1i Cep * r•* O :{?i (D 5, 0 O — CD { -i, - 't 3 _. W .. ,, O N @ p p @ _• CD -Z C3 C7 �" 'Cj 0 _ tQ Q 3 @ .- , �" ?cf) CD tQ p ,O — ¢nj S 73 �, -, @ fjy .-, W � � Q 3 @ CD @ , � _• p � =; p � Cn '-t < p- r=e c p @ `< CD -0 � �. � � �. CI3 @ �* � zs @ �- -� � � tr1 0 �- � < Qy m � C O 0-. WCD CD - @ - p � m to CA. p 0 3 < CL to •V F W Cb U) @ i -,, 0 0 -. f) 3 � • C 0 . cC G � Cr) � m -% * @ W < @ -R .-* .i @ p to = �' p =t a � Z3 Q. @ Cr < @ -p C@p �- tCD CD Q p _ , p to ,- p (D CD � @ � � CD @ @ CCD CD 0 g 0 CD D W p Cb n o CD 3 � a- 3 X p p , CD v cD �?. � _ D � n : @ m t' i tl t] O @ cr) Cn o '"' CD W : W @ � CA � Cn 5 C} O cn 0 —r p a CD � {D @ t� � C€3 '� ¢- � � � � � =� -*� � — cn � ?; — � n n Z n � Cz D -«• 0r? @ nC; @CD cgs `cv' .'CD �toQL C) p t _ f) ,,� p CD iv c A) o — p r* M C , @ Cr @ ^* a cn -. -. C3CD 3 CD O ? p _ t7 Ct3 C �" p Q `�; C U) p- < - { -� CD �-* CO 0 to CD to O = � -- -- 0 CD O SD @ Cn p (i) p CD - t ;- ; p � @ Cif `< a to CCU = r-. 0) CO tt) @ 3 � Q 3 r~. CND C2, T" .-+ .� # p* C 3 '_ Ci> N o = m ,-`, to @_ 0 C) a 0 0 -p Cn CD -t � Cl %U {] SU ti3 3 p O = �' _` @ @ C" C3' 07 CCDD C r (T Q C L CD n @ W i33 @ CD M CD to -i @ Ct ,< r CD @ t @ 4t3 ti)' i1 Q 0 @ S CCU fl Q. @ e V5fr. t r O 0) C m Cr 0 C0 m °� m t3 eS Residence .m < 7 4 South 88CA Lane, Fe era Wad 0 Cn a g WALL & SLOPE1 CONTROL Z < ;, ilo ak �w Sm ar v 17TH AV SW # rT " { # { # # # A SW +.wix[ vim 11TH AV IOTH V q Sk i2 10TH JAV SYi: ;w 8TN CTT AV *'SW 4TH AV S# V SW 7TH AV SM # P PL iM # # ( i #6THy # � 5T AY � Stl SQ -� STH AV SA �3 TH A :� JS Ar ae A v 3Rt3 A 4TH AY 9A 3RD Ft 54 # # # # # # 3R0 AV 5M' 8 zw Pe iv ,aY 21 g \ AV # Pt _S.�%R97008�w ZHD AV `y' S• ® :��1$^ � :~7�S. �l,v t # S .t19 AY 3fffi S Vl $� t i # T(T A a Pt S V �i s� g s .v l # STH O s.Y AY �,'* S +.�° 8TH AV # 9TH AV S g's Ntib g N10TH AV w xea S MO s S -.b P9 a .y's w R HL 13TN SAY Sg„� � S a fir` '3 13TH AY aY 14Txd `g"Y .• rA F r3 '^ S n„ 5 tsiR &5 S $ � ,- �� 3 HWY S - lay---� j H S z9 N w AY $�� 19TH AY S ` 20TH `. AV S Ar 5 19m ra xv un Tti A n rj Z a 01) t� @ 3;t tip sW Q — tit � " Ln -P r rill NA 70 X. p NJ f T i+ s - "441, — -- — -- — -- — -- -- - _ .� _ _ m Vl ¢% z z "X X1 a a tfi c � 1� 4 2 ? all at 8 A— X `_t z X Ab 2 Z w to .a co 0 0 Lp 61 + � N of r . N A { i I . # • -..,_.ems A , ( -j `•4 A • 1p t0# pt 1 _ x ( ( _ A # .0 # -.. T Y1i J > C7 , LA LA t LLA - t 1r1 N n m XXX�3 S ".7 fop-+ Zi ��j co 1j Q.m .Q X �� arZ s1 1't7 prm.7� lO D -e'II �0;0 s H•.}F H•. O Z 3 _ r C TO T*1 TO.y A a"jid t11 ;01 C ;0 zxmCq gc�M, o p s Z p nZp y{.., ' D p '37 O r U (.11 m U U ,t? JS -€ Z p O m m .Aa `9 N tT1 O p A N p 1 t t Z p '.N- '4 - i- y�e.m y <O �ZVA Q��Ve TF gF C •r `•`Q �.. ✓t L A rn ,n Z Yl. ,n C �.cn y � nw yo D� nt c,.x> rn ` \ P, a *- G r O d tip r r LA o- O o S3 i .. Noyes Residence 704 South 2881h Lane, Federal Way CA j ANCHOREDVZ ca � BULKHEAD WALL