Loading...
93-103258CITY OF 4 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH April 26, 1996 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 FILE (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 48003-6210 RE: EMERGENCY DETERMINATION FOR RETAINING WALL REPAIR IN STEEP SLOPE AREA 704 SOUTH 288TH LANE, FEDERAL WAY (Reference SEP 93-0031) Dear Mr. Noyes: I am in receipt of an April 26, 1996 letter from Glen Mann, P.E. with Creative Engineering Options, Inc., regarding proposed emergency repairs to your property. The letter states that "the proposed repairs is due to an emergency condition created by the partial and ongoing failure of a portion of the bluff slope along the western side of the property. " Mr. Mann also indicates that this ongoing failure will "result in a failure and loss of material in the immediate future." The property is located within a steep slope geologically hazardous areas as defined by city code. City staff has inspected the site and I concur with the opinion regarding emergency conditions at the site. In consideration of the issues outlined in the letter, and pursuant to authority granted to me under WAC 197-11-880 and FWCC section 22-1248, I have made the following decision: 1, The work, associated with slope stabilization and wall repair, and outlined in Glen Mann March 26, 1996 letter is 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 proposed by Glen Mann, the underpinning of the wall system with driven in place steel pin -piles, driven "to refusal" and structurally attached to the timber wall is approved. This letter serves as a formal written exemption of this specific emergency work. However, before you start any emergency work, a plan or diagram must be approved by city staff. No other city permit or fees will be required for this specific work. 2. All other work proposed in conjunction 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 any emergency work, a plan or diagram must be approved by city staff. I have instructed Deb Barker, Associate Planner, to place priority status on our review of the plan because of the emergency conditions. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact Deb Barker at 661- 4103. Sincerely, ZS&y&� ox- 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 Garth Leverentz, Dochnahl Construction, Inc., 16442 SE Renton Issaquah Rd., Renton, WA 98059 file Creative Engineering Options nvC. r rr1► A firm practicing in the geosciences June 10, 1996 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Geotechnical Design Recommendations Pin -Pile Wall Installation Slope Repair 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington (Reference SEP 93-0031) Dear Mr. Noyes: Introduction 96-1701 This letter is to provide you with geotechnical design parameters for a pin -pile foundation system to support the western perimeter of your yard and to help stabilize the upper portion of the slope beyond the yard area at the subject site. The timber wall currently forming the western edge of your property was underpinned on an emergency basis in early May 1996. We proceeded with our services on the basis of your May 6, 1996 written authorization. Our work on this project does not in any way address any of the environmental, wetland or biological aspects of this project, such as the potential presence of toxic or hazardous materials. Should these issues need to be addressed, it should be done under a separate contract. 5418 1 59th Place NE . Redmond, WA 98052 - (206) 883-6889 ■ 1206i 953-1 173 - FAX 867-9664 Geotechnical Engineering Services Page 2 96-1701 Timber Wall - Remedial Underpinning June 10, 1996 Project Description Based on the information made available to us we understand that a timber wall protecting the western edge of the subject property was undermined by the heavy rainfall during February and April of 1996. The undermining developed as the precipitation "washed" soil from beneath the base of the timber wall and exposed the wall foundations. This "washing" -out of material also led to removal (by sloughing) of a moderate amount of soil which previously formed the crest of the slope which extends down from the wall. The overall result has been a destabilization of the timber wall which has created a threat of failure to the western approximately ten (10) feet of your property. The current desire is to provide both vertical and lateral support to the undermined timber wall, and to develop some degree of stabilization along this damaged portion of the western slope. The area of wall requiring remedial underpinning treatment is approximately twenty- five (25) feet in length, measured from the southern end. The timber wall is approximately nine feet high, and the timbers are founded about three feet into the ground. The "foundation" for the wall comprises a concrete poured around the bottom three feet of the timbers. Based on the information available to us we estimate that the maximum combined wall dead and live load is likely to be on the order of the following: ■ Wall load = 1 kip per linear foot Some limited excavation is currently anticipated along the base of the timber wall to expose the existing foundations so that the underpinning work can be performed. Site Soil Conditions Based on the observed conditions in front of, and below, the existing timber wall, and as supported by our review of geotechnical data available in our library and files regarding soil conditions in this vicinity, it is evident that the in -place conditions are Geotechnical Engineering Services 96-1701 Timber Wall - Remedial Underpinning June 10, 1996 Page 3 reasonably uniform. The soils consist predominantly of a medium dense to dense, silty fine to coarse sand containing varying amounts of gravel. These materials are typically classified by the Unified Soil Classification System as an SM. The in -situ density increases with depth. From our experience with similar conditions, and from our geotechnical analyses, we consider these soils to be firm and competent at relatively shallow depth. The soils found at a depth of about ten (10) feet are capable of providing an allowable soil bearing capacity in excess of four thousand (4,000) psf. Loads transferred to these soils (as by pin -piles) are unlikely to be susceptible to any significant degree of settlement. What little settlement that does occur should be well within the underpinned timber walls' structural tolerance. While the shallow soils can be subject to surficial erosion and sloughing, primarily due to surface or shallow water flow, they can be stabilized by installation of drainage control measures. The in -place soils are sufficiently firm and dense that, in combination with the deep local water level which cannot surge to saturate the soils, they are unlikely to be subject to liquefaction during an earthquake of significant magnitude. 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. Pin -Pile Design General: Based on the nature of the timber wall and its location along the crest of a relatively steep slope, it is our professional opinion that the most practical and economical means of providing support is by installation of a series of driven -in -place steel pin -piles. These pin -piles consist of two inch diameter Schedule 80 "strong" black iron pipe. The pipe is typically installed in segments of about ten (10) feet in length. Each segment is driven to refusal (described below) with an air compressor operated ninety (90) pound jackhammer. As a segment is driven to ground level an additional segment is field welded by a Washington certified welder and driving is continued until refusal is achieved. The pile is then cut off at the appropriate elevation and is then attached to the wall. Geotechnical Engineering Services 96-1701 Timber Wall - Remedial Underpinning June 10, 1996 Page 4 Pin -Pile Design Parameters: For this project we recommend the following geotechnical parameters be used in design: ■ Maximum axial capacity of pin -pile = 6 kips a Maximum lateral capacity of pin -pile = 0.75 kips ■ Minimum estimated depth of pin -pile = 20 feet ■ Maximum recommended center -to -center 3.5 feet pin -pile spacing E Maximum estimated settlement of pin -pile = 1/4-inch, or less Because of the location of this wall, immediately above a relatively steep slope, there is likely to be little lateral support near the pile to slope interface. As a result, we recommend that additional pin -piles be installed at an inclination to provide additional lateral support. We recommend these "batter" piles be designed and installed in accordance with the following geotechnical parameters: ■ Maximum pin -pile inclination = 1 H:4V ■ Maximum axial capacity of inclined pile - 6.2 kips N Maximum lateral capacity of inclined pile = 1.5 kips ■ Maximum recommended center -to -center = 3.5 feet pin -pile spacing Geotechnical Engineering Services Page 5 96-1701 Timber Wall - Remedial Underpinning June 10, 1996 ■ 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 operated ninety (90) pound jackhammer. The jackhammer should be attached to the pin -piles by means of a shaped mandrel. Each pile should be driven to refusal 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 -Pile Monitoring: We recommend that all of the pin -piles be driven in -place to refusal at the appropriate locations. Then each pile should be "proof tested" to verify that refusal has been achieved and that the individual pile has the capacities indicated above. If an individual pin -pile does not meet the refusal criterion, driving will be continued until such time as refusal is achieved. A record of the pile penetrations achieved during proof testing will be kept and provided as an attachment to our final monitoring report. Pile to Wall Connection: As with the recently installed "emergency" wall underpinning we recommend that the pin -pile system be firmly connected to the existing wall by means of a series of steel "waler" plates and/or brackets. The upper end of each pin -pile should be connected by two steel brackets welded one to each side of the pile and welded to the existing steel waler plate. If no waler plate exists, then the brackets should be connected to the timber wall by two six inch long lag bolts. Similarly, the piles should also be attached to the base of the timber wall by means of welded steel brackets and lag bolts. This combination should be sufficient to create a "fixed" pile -to -wall connection capable of structurally supporting the wall. Geotechnical Engineering Services Page 6 96-1701 Timber Wall - Remedial Underpinning June 10, 1996 Wall Drainaqe As part of this remedial treatment operation we also recommend that the area along the southern end of the timber wall be provided with a drainage control system. It is in this area where the most severe "washing out" occurred during the recent storms. We recommend that, once the piles have been installed and attached to the wall, a shallow excavation be made along the southern end of the wall. A "residential" catch basin should be installed at yard grade about ten (10) feet to the east of the wall alignment and just inside the southern property line at the upgrade end of this shallow excavation. The site grade should be sloped by hand excavation to drain into this catch basin. A four inch diameter un-perforated pipe should then be installed in the base of the excavation and should be connected to the outfall side of the catch basin. This pipe should extend past the face of the timber wall and down the western slope to a point at least thirty (30) feet beyond the wall. To avoid the risk of eroding the face of the slope at the outfall we recommend that the ground surface at the outfall be protected by a layer of rock. This rock should consist of four to six inch sized coarse, crushed rock. The rock "apron" should be at least twelve (12) inches thick and should extend for a distance of at least two feet on either side of the pipe outfall, and five feet downgrade of the outfall. This "apron" should be expected to prevent surficial erosion of the soils in close proximity to the outfall. r1nQiirP We trust the above information is sufficient to allow your contractor, Dochnahl Construction, to proceed with this remedial treatment. We also appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this interesting and challenging project. This phase of our work has been performed, and our opinions, conclusions 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 Geotechnical Engineering Services 96-1701 Timber Wall - 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, r 'I CREATIVE ENGINEERING.JQ yrJ0 . r'SrO;NAL Glen Mann, P.E. EXPIRES �rl President Attachment: Plate 1; Typical Underpinning Detail c.c.: Mr. Garth Leverentz; Dochnahl Construction Ms. Deb Barker; City of Federal Way gm/NoyesPin. Pil/eb30 m (0 T a c2 2 Fa of (\ � LV) i '�G x G £ X "'i F— 3 U o 4 -+ �l V 4 � V � o- W 5 a p U cy N N Ll ITT^i Memorandum Department of Community Development Services To Julie Venn, Engineering Plans Reviewer K6n Cornwall, Plans Examiner Hap Watkins, Senior Building Inspector Dick Mumma, Building Official From: Deb Barker, Associate Planner Vb 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 retaining wall repair was authorized subject to review of the formal plans. The proposed emergency repair work was outlined in a March 26, 1996 letter from Glen Mann with Creative Engineering Options, Inc. (attached). Unfortunately, the repair work was performed before plans were submitted. A stop work order was placed at the site on April 26, 1996 because plans had not been provided. Attached please find a May 6, 1996 letter from Creative Engineering Options, Inc. reporting on the emergency work performed. Please let me know if this documentation adequately addresses the emergency repair work. Also, I have a few photos of the work performed, and Hap has been out to the site. Questions? Please ask; I'm at 4103. -TNrdr IS ILIA- 1=-kla i)&i l 1 Sul,-N CAM xre-p 4)01140 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 335301 st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 661-4118 MITIGATED EN VIRONNIENTAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE NOYES SOLDIER PILE WALL AND PLANTER FEDERAL WAY FILE NO: SEP 93-0031 RELATED FILE NO's: CAR 93-0277, BLD 93-1014 Description of Proposal: The proposal is to construct a soldier pile wall and planting structure in a steep slope hazard area with slopes of up to 80 percent. Proponent: Charles Noyes Location: 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98003 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way City Contact: Deb Barker Associate Planner, 661-4103 The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist; Application No. 93-0031" and Conclusions of Law based upon the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to R.C.W. 43.21C.060.' Findings of Fact: The proposal is to construct a treated wood soldier pile wall with associated planter at the top of a steep slope in the general vicinity of a two foot tall rock wall. The western most twenty-five (25) feet of the structure is controlled by a deadman anchoring system, from three to four -and -one-half feet deep and ten feet long. The planter will be flush with existing lawn elevation on the south side and approximately six feet tall on the north side. 2. The existing zoning for the subject site is RS-1500, Residential Single Family. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designation is LDR, Low Density Residential. 4. Access to the site is via South 288th Lane. 5. The subject parcel contains slopes of up to 80 percent. The northern portion of the lot is classified as a geologically hazardous area with slopes in excess of 40 percent. 6. Approximately 28 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. 7. The applicant proposes to fill approximately 16.6 cubic yards of material. 9. Any erosion related impacts during clearing and construction will be mitigated by implementing a Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control (TESC) plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Federal Way. 10. The reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated December 18, 1991; July 22, 1992; September 2, 1992; August 23, 1994 and March 29, 1995 are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 11. The final staff evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Federal Way Application number SEP 94-0031 is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Conclusions of Law: Federal Way 1990 Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. FWCP H-34 - Protect natural vegetation and limit clearing and grading in residential developments. , 2. FWCP NE-2 - Adopt special regulations limiting or preventing development within the most sensitive areas and require completion of special studies by qualified professionals when necessary prior to issuance of permits. 3. FWCP NE-6 - Enforce measures to be taken during construction to prevent erosion. 4. FWCP NE-9 - Require environmental impact assessment and mitigation of potential impacts to sensitive areas before development is permitted. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under R.C.W. 43.21C.032(2)(c), onnll if the following conditions are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Conditions: Recommendations of the geotechnicial reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated December 18, 1991; July 22, 1992; September 2, 1992, and March 29, 1995 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: a. The drainlines must be connected to a permanent tightline which continues to the toe of the slope. Rigid, solid piping that is staked in place with glued joints is recommended. b. The disturbed areas are to be revegetated with rapid deep rooted grass, followed with ivy or other rapid growing evergreen vegetation. Erosion control matting, pegged in place with steel stakes on a five foot grid pattern, should be installed until the vegetation is established. C. A monitoring program to record any movements in the section of the slope immediately west of the April 1991 failure should be established. 2. The drainage system recommended in the geotechnicial report shall be designed by a civil engineer licensed in Washington State and accepted by the city prior to commencement of construction related to the wall systems. 3. Because the project was constructed without permit authority, formal city inspections of the work have not occurred. To speed resolution of this issue, the applicant must update building permit BLD 93-1014 to reflect the project specific construction elements within seven (7) working days from the date of SEPA approval. In addition, the applicant must obtain the building permit within seven working days of from the time that the applicant is notified that the permit is available for issuance. Failure to address this issue will result in formal abatement action. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 1995. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Responsible Official: Gregory D. Moore, AICP Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services Address: 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date issued: August 8. 1995 Signature: vp" S27ITHSF �p� r/Y pL N 277THFLS a v' U) N a � S279TH ¢ w S279THST- \ CT 9GS1 S2i HPC 4 S 2815 ST > ST ¢ S 294TH ST S...... sr Q S281ST ST PL 8280ry i R� g rl S28W 04 S 282ND ST � H- S. S282N( J PEWNDD I 28PND N MARINA .� L y Q m a is >f PUBLfCBQ4TLAUNCH 'S.�\ Q� N ¢` S284T ST 592 PL 2t1O PL ST 5 2geTH 83R ST 5 28a ST S+ shy r S85T T� a D.. �' S 2 T PL `� S. SST wry a S • i 28 H IL S 285TPH = S 285TH ST a� g 286m 4 Qv r. �L pit l s ST S 2BfiTH ST 5 5T N a S287THST p� H Ty r n x S 287TH L 2 S� S 288TH ST + r x 51 20THPL5 S288T PL S288T� L T S 269TH N •$ 4 ' 289TH ST cn i�' Nx N r z❑ ppLL S 2990THS cc ^a ST S289THST r��p S2 Srp co w o-i5ra9r 5� w w 3 c P 291 N 9 szs 5+ 3'� a �iSa 529157P�a x t� issrm PK S TS F- S292NO ST o % a h SW 292ND ST LO S 293H� ST �tS w = S 243RD ST rah f a S S iD n ST sTHST v pL S �q{� { P L S 29SRDxtT-T1,14, Q 1 Q a ST S TH �SirIFG y 5293 cn S 294TH PL ¢> S29 TH P $Fw F 295TH PLH Pl ¢ 2 TFi PL v� S e F - SF `n S 296TH PL S2gyTH �A �� {� PL m 296TH ST S N i S 296TH PL cn � s � {N �p9 N S 297TH P 7TH cn S ' ry d 298TH a ST SW298TH PL a a ST 110 ¢ c `' x x o a > N n S�qg SAL i4 alvlj J.� S 299TH ST S 299TH S 29c aL ' 9 H gTH S H.S S300TH _ ¢ 5 ST 3007H > S 300TH ST S x PL a o S = 301 ST q S 301 ST ST ICDs147�D N ¢ N H N ¢ 300THST�`r F r+ a_ �RRKS301ST w PL S 301 ST ST m S 301 y ST ¢ S 302ND ST U PL 7a S301STPI. ¢ 302NDSI r QOIN 302ND LL 3pT S302 ❑ST S� n x S303RDST 0 a ¢ a M z Q y 3 n°LP x x cn cn a B ¢ A I 30 DST N 5 Cp S 304T H > ST l x 1 ✓` $ 304TH PL S r a N 305TH ST W5TH ^ N S 306TH-A ¢ S 305Ti ¢ x ST 0. ST s 306 H FEDERAL WY i s S 306TH ST x D. H. S. N I y4• i¢ SH PLI m> S a l I F4wJJ 51 S<AL E Ste RECENEDBY COMANNRY DEl'F10PY:M DEPMIIOM rIA w APR 18 1995 vi aw Ea,&� Co,%dM-t-!Ll- a.ru..- k1..d col. wo.zen-6 orwn. DSc. I om i /n/lY a..dna KRc I Date ia/p ry I Rl.te 1 Conditions: Recommendations of the geotechnicial reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated December 18, 1991; July 22, 1992; September 2, 1992, and March 29, 1995 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: a. The drainlines must be connected to a permanent tightline which continues to the toe of the slope. Rigid, solid piping that is staked in place with glued joints is recommended. b. The disturbed areas are to be revegetated with rapid deep rooted grass, followed with ivy or other rapid growing evergreen vegetation. Erosion control matting, pegged in place with steel stakes on a five foot grid pattern, should be installed until the vegetation is established. C. A monitoring program to record any movements in the section of the slope immediately west of the April 1991 failure should be established. 2. The drainage system recommended in the geotechnicial report shall be designed by a civil engineer licensed in Washington State and accepted by the city prior to commencement of construction related to the wall systems. 3. Because the project was constructed without permit authority, formal city inspections of the work have not occurred. To speed resolution of this issue, the applicant must update building permit BLD 93-1014 to reflect the project specific construction elements within seven (7) working days from the date of SEPA approval. In addition, the applicant must obtain the building permit within seven working days of from the time that the applicant is notified that the permit is available for issuance. Failure to address this issue will result in formal abatement action. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 23. 1995. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Responsible Official: Gregory D. Moore, AICP REVISION DATE Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services MAR 0 5 1996 Address: 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date issued: August 8, 1995 Signature: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33530 Ist Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 661-4118 MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNMCANCE NOYES SOLDIER PILE WALL AND PLANTER. FEDERAL WAY FILE NO: SEP 93-0031 RELATED FILE NO's: CAR 93-0277, BLD 93-1014 Description of Proposal: The proposal is to construct a soldier pile wall and planting structure in a steep slope hazard area with slopes of up to 80 percent. Proponent: Charles Noyes Location: 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98003 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way City Contact: Deb Barker Associate Planner, 661-4103 The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist; Application No. 93-0031" and Conclusions of Law based upon the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to R.C.W. 43.21C.060. Findings of Fact: 1. The proposal is to construct a treated wood soldier pile wall with associated planter at the top of a steep slope in the general vicinity of a two foot tall rock wall. The western most twenty-five (25) feet of the structure is controlled by a deadman anchoring system, from three to four -and -one-half feet deep and ten feet long. The planter will be flush with existing lawn elevation on the south side and approximately six feet tall on the north side. . FFh_,A VIA'-' OF DIS TWb OTION hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that: ❑ Notice of Application ❑ Notice of Action ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance ❑ Notice of Determination of Non - Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Non -Significance (SEPA) Notice of Environmental Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (SEPA) ❑ Notice of Proposed Land Use Action ❑ Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Notice of Public Land Use Hearing ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Official Notice ❑Other. ❑Other was mailed / faxed tr each of following addresses (see attached list) on 1995. Project Name Nd es _z_,o1e1,er J 1Jz_!/ File Number(s) _�5 E iD .3 -- Signature 4Date AmDAVI.Doc REVISED 1/4/95 The City Of Federal Way posted the attached proposal to the following locations: The Federal Way Regional Library 34200 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way Library 848 South 320th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way City Hall (Bulliten Board) 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 * Sew mk"k"l P(-0 Poste % CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 335301 st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 661-4118 AMIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE NOYES SOLDIER PILE WALL AND PLANTER FEDERAL WAY FILE NO: SEP 93-0031 RELATED FILE NO's: CAR 93-0277, BLD 93-1014 Description of Proposal: The proposal is to construct a soldier pile wall and planting structure in a steep slope hazard area with slopes of up to 80 percent. Proponent: Charles Noyes Location: 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98003 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way City Contact: Deb Barker Associate Planner, 661-4103 The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist; Application No. 93-0031" and Conclusions of Law based upon the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to R.C.W. 43.21C.060. Findings of Fact: 1. The proposal is to construct a treated wood soldier pile wall with associated planter at the top of a steep slope in the general vicinity of a two foot tall rock wall. The western most twenty-five (25) feet of the structure is controlled by a deadman anchoring system, from three to four -and -one-half feet deep and ten feet long. The planter will be flush with existing lawn elevation on the south side and approximately six feet tall on the north side. 2. The existing zoning for the subject site is RS-1500, Residential Single Family. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designation is LDR, Low Density Residential. 4. Access to the site is via South 288th Lane. 5. The subject parcel contains slopes of up to 80 percent. The northern portion of the lot is classified as a geologically hazardous area with slopes in excess of 40 percent. 6. Approximately 28 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. 7. The applicant proposes to fill approximately 16.6 cubic yards of material. 9. Any erosion related impacts during clearing and construction will be mitigated by implementing a Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Control (TESC) plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Federal Way. 10. The reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated December 18, 1991; July 22, 1992; September 2, 1992; August 23, 1994 and March 29, 1995 are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 11. The final staff evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Federal Way Application number SEP 94-0031 is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Conclusions of Law: Federal Way 1990 Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. FWCP H-34 - Protect natural vegetation and limit clearing and grading in residential developments. , 2. FWCP N1-2 - Adopt special regulations limiting or preventing development within the most sensitive areas and require completion of special studies by qualified professionals when necessary prior to issuance of permits. 3. FWCP N1-6 - Enforce measures to be taken during construction to prevent erosion. 4. FWCP N1-9 - Require environmental impact assessment and mitigation of potential impacts to sensitive areas before development is permitted. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under R.C.W. 43.21C.032(2)(c), only Lf the following conditions are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Conditions: Recommendations of the geotechnicial reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated December 18, 1991; July 22, 1992; September 2, 1992, and March 29, 1995 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: a. The drainlines must be connected to a permanent tightline which continues to the toe of the slope: Rigid, solid piping that is staked in place with glued joints is recommended. b. The disturbed areas are to be revegetated with rapid deep rooted grass, followed with ivy or other rapid growing evergreen vegetation. Erosion control matting, pegged in place with steel stakes on a five foot grid pattern, should be installed until the vegetation is established. C. A monitoring program to record any movements in the section of the slope immediately west of the April 1991 failure should be established. 2. The drainage system recommended in the geotechnicial report shall be designed by a civil engineer licensed in Washington State and accepted by the city prior to commencement of construction related to the wall systems. 3. Because the project was constructed without permit authority, formal city inspections of the work have not occurred. To speed resolution of this issue, the applicant must update building permit BLD 93-1014 to reflect the project specific construction elements within seven (7) working days from the date of SEPA approval. In addition, the applicant must obtain the building permit within seven working days of from the time that the applicant is notified that the permit is available for issuance. Failure to address this issue will result in formal abatement action. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 1995. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Responsible Official: Gregory D. Moore, AICP Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services Address: 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date issued: Au ust $ 1995 Signature: S277THST p( �N LL ,- 277THPL53. s279rH w s2r9r1isr o �r� ' sT Q s S�r9r++P q4 S 2815 ST F S 280TH ST S 280TH¢ Q 2 rs I S2AiST ST PL S2BDry JR. v� S 281ST P4 S 282AD STw r H.S. e S 282N( REDONDO I 282ND v) a MARINA L : ,x- z Y Pffn Say `' Na �' w N �g 78[1C803TLWNGt S 82PLas rq BS284T ST 3 R T ST 3 S7 284ry{ 264TH _ 5 ST s a�fr N ,� 1 585I T a S 2 THPL pry S. S285TH ¢ D 1 2 H w p F S 285TH ST a S 286TH y $ ST ¢_ R S 286TH ST �i S ST r x 'N�"��i i• i. .J.✓r S 7 F- A S287TH ST PL N 0 N N x r S 287TH L PL ,� 5�71 L S b f¢ ^ S 288TH ST N ; x ST ,N m 20TH PL S S 288T PL S 28BE S 289TH 289THST J n a ppLL 7 S 290T}i a� o s 4 ST S 289TH ST d�p S 2 0[1j N S U) ¢ -i S290f n s N �y�sr 2 S2 min S24I TPLO- sr M CpA rSl N p sr9ks PK S, Sa u, �sy r 6; V S292NDST ti ary SW 292ND ST N 293RD ST T.5 293R9 ST r,�j T iD a ST s 2 4TH ST y pl y�S (r t S 29SRD �YSt 9 rosz ST S rFi 9y�Hp, S�3 �1S294TH PL S2 `" `J' < C29 iH P 'a� 295TH PL '< Pp H PL ¢ 2 TH PL ti d '° ST QL S 296TH PL $29y11i f� fu 296TH ST S y ti S 296TH PL Lp x cn S 297TH A TrH > co y Q S N N 298TH a ST sw N m a - ST ¢ ¢ Q 5 U3 yp -r` T N S A R 8 ¢ S 299TH ST S y 299TH N cav S 29° °C 5 299 PL ¢ 99TH S300TH ST S H'S' S300TH = 2 d s N ST N 300TH a o S r x 301ST S301STSi 1LjDWO a p�N SW H N 300THS�y m y = K53015T w¢ PL` " S301STST� 53015 ua 57 S^ 302NDST U PO Pt a 302NO LL S301S7P�- _ ¢ �¢ 302ND 51 r 30t 5302 DST Slc x S303RDST 0 o ST Z v a r~i Q 1 Z Q 3 °Cp x^ x'n n C N N y '_� 0 V'1 ¢ r H �¢ , 30 DST S 304TH ST x A 5 30 TH C PL S sx a= . N 0 u~i I 305TH ST x NTH a En S 306THI a S 305TF z N a S7 S 306 H FEDERAL WY I I I � e• j e4 < S 306TH ST x cn z ST H. S. H Q¢ a a z¢ H PL! m> x a I A -A." A d or 6apqo35CALE wo� l uere gECENWVaW BY fAlalUl41Y OEYaOPIL�M OFFM71@q IPLA W APR 18 W5 N r ewEarth � „t. N.�.. R.aJ.... kJ...7 M.ga1uf6 o— DJ4 toe. i IIf> mKRc W w.5'jf-', CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST NOYES SOLDIER PILE WALL AND PLANTER FEDERAL WAY FILE NO: SEP 93-0031 RELATED FILE NO's: CAR 93-0277, BLD 93-1014 SECTION PAGE I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION 1 n. GENERAL T , FORMATION M. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST V. CONCLUSION EIS Exhibit A Reduced Scale Partial Survey dated May 21, 1992. Exhibit B Vicinity Map. Exhibit C Amended SEPA checklist dated April. 22, 1995. Exhibit D Plan view of deadman anchor design. Exhibit E Landscape Design I• SUMMARV OF PROPOSED ACTION 2 2 3 8 The proposal is to construct a soldier pile wall and planting structure in a steep slope hazard area with slopes of up to 80 percent. H. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Noyes Soldier Pile Wall and Planter Applicant: Charles Noyes Contact: Charles Noyes, 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946-0770 Location: 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98003 S-T-R: SW 32-22-04 Parcel Size: 19,022 square feet Zoning: RS-15.0 (Residential Single Family) Comprehensive Plan Designation: LDR (Low Density Residential) NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced below may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting the Department of Community Development Services, 33530 1st Way South, Federal Way, Washington, 98003, phone (206) 661-4118. The following information was submitted as part of the application for development: 1. SEPA checklist dated September 16, 1993. 2. Revised SEPA checklist dated April 22, 1995. (Exhibit C) 3. Earth Consultants Inc. (ECI) letter dated December 18, 1991, which was a site consultation addressing slope failure recommendations. 4. ECI letter dated July 22, 1992 regarding design recommendations for soldier pile wall. 5. ECI letter dated September 2, 1992 is an addendum to soldier pile wall extension. 6. ECI letter dated August 23, 1994 addresses the planter box design. 7. October 10, 1994 letter from applicant regarding design modification. 8. October 31, 1994 letter from applicant containing ECI designs. 9 ECI letter dated March 29, 1995 contains deadman design parameters. 10. Site survey by Anders Land Surveying dated May 21, 1992. (Exhibit A) 11. Landscape plan by Federal Way Landscape Service, Inc, received Sept 20, 1993. (Exhibit E) M. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND In 1991, the applicant, concerned with adjacent properties' slope failures and slope beautification, hired Earth Consultants, Inc. (ECI) to provide recommendations and designs for site stabilization. ECI prepared designs for a soldier pile wall and steel deadman anchor retention system for the northern portion of the applicant's site, which contained 80 percent slopes. The applicant later installed an abbreviated soldier wall and planter (not part of the ECI design) in this area. Federal Way Citizen Action Request (CAR 9370277) was filed on August 11, 1993 because the structure was built on top of slopes defined as geologically hazardous without benefit of city building permit approval. In addition, SEPA review was required. A site plan review application and SEPA checklist for the abbreviated soldier wall and planter were submitted on December 28, 1993. The Community Development Review Committee (CDRC) reviewed the proposal on Jan. 20, 1994. Project specific information was requested on February 25, 1994. On March 14, 1994, the applicant requested an extension of submittal deadlines, which was granted to June 25, 1994. On October 10, 1994, applicant notified staff that the original ECI soldier wall and deadman anchor design would be implemented. Those plans were received on November 3, 1994. (Exhibit D) A revised SEPA checklist was received on April 26, 1995 (Exhibit Q. The checklist was determined complete on June 16, 1995. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements of the Environmental Checklist and the amendment to the checklist (Exhibit C), and a response to each: 1. Whether city staff concurs or does not concur with the applicant response to the SEPA checklist item, or 2. City staff's additional comments or clarification to each checklist item. A. BACKGROUND 1.2. 3. 4. 5. 6. & 7. Concur with Checklist. 8. The following environmental information has been prepared or provided for this proposal: 1. SEPA checklist dated September 16, 1993. 2. Revised SEPA checklist dated April 22, 1995. (Exhibit C) 3. Partial site survey prepared by Anders Land Surveying dated May 21, 1992. (Exhibit A) 4. Earth Consultants Inc. (ECI) letter dated December 18, 1991(Consultation- slope failure recommendations). 5. ECI letter dated July 22, 1992 (Design recommendations for soldier pile wall). 6. ECI letter dated September 2, 1992 (addendum to soldier pile wall extension). 7. ECI letter dated August 23, 1994 (Planter box design). 8. ECI letter dated March 29, 1995 (Deadman design parameter). 9. & 10. Concur with checklist. 11. Applicant proposes to construct a treated wood soldier pile wall with associated planter at the top of a steep slope in the general vicinity of a two foot tall rock wall. (Exhibit A). The western most twenty-five (25) feet of the structure is controlled by a deadman anchoring system, from three to four -and -one-half feet deep and ten feet long. (Exhibit D). The planter will be flush with existing lawn elevation on the south side and approximately six feet tall on the north side. 12. Concur with checklist. This is lot 19 of the plat of Marine Hills, No. 17. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth: Pursuant to WAC 197-11-340(2), the City of Federal Way is required to send any DNS which may result from this environmental review, along with the checklist, to DOE, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, other agencies with jurisdiction, affected tribes, and interested parties. Therefore, the city will not act on this proposal for 15 days after the MDNS issuance. a. The northern portion of the lot is classified as a geologically hazardous area with slopes in excess of 40 percent. b. Concur with checklist. The 80 percent slopes were identified in the December 18, 1991 Earth Consultants, Inc. letter. c. The 1973 USDA Soil Conservation Service's (SCS) "Soil Survey for the King County Area" classifies the soils as AkF, Alderwood and Kitsap. Slopes are 25 to 70 percent. This classification states that runoff is rapid to very rapid, and erosion hazards and slippage potential are severe. An erosion control plan that addresses this specific project shall be submitted for approval in accordance with the City's engineering standards in conjunction with all filling, grading and construction activities. d. Concur with checklist. In addition, slopes failures at adjacent sites have been identified in geotechnicial reports contained in SEPA 93-0023. e. The planter bed, approximately one (1) foot deep, three (3) feet wide and fifty (50) feet long, is to be filled with approximately 16.6 cubic yards of clean top soil. (Exhibit E) . f. Any time soils are exposed, they become subject to wind and water erosion potential. g. The total lot coverage is approximately twenty-eight (28) percent. The maximum allowed lot coverage in this zone is 50 percent pursuant to FWCC section 22-630. h. Federal Way Comprehensive Plan Policy (FWCP) NE-6 calls for "Enforcement measures during construction activities to prevent erosion". FWCP H-34 calls for "protection of natural vegetation and limited clearing and grading in residential developments". Erosion -related impacts created during clearing and construction activities will be addressed during the building permit process. 2. Air: a. Short term impacts to air quality occur during construction and paving operations. Construction activity, especially site preparation work, contribute to a short term increase in local suspended particulate levels. Construction activity also contributes to carbon monoxide levels through the operation of construction machinery, the use of trucks to deliver equipment and materials, and worker access to the site by automobile. b. & c. Concur with checklist 3. Water: a. 1. Puget Sound is approximately 600 feet north of the subject site. 2. 3. 4. 5. & 6. Concur with checklist. b. 1. & 2. Concur with checklist. c. 1. According to ECI reports, slope failures in which a mass of saturated soil moved downslope, occurred in April 1991. During a November 1991 site visit by ECI staff, two flexible drainlines were observed discharging from neighboring property to the crest of the slope immediately above previous slope failures. The report also states that the potential for future movement can be reduced through revegetation of the existing slide scar and by control of surface water drainage. c. 2. Concur with checklist. d. The applicant proposes in checklist section B.l.h that a drain field consisting of rock fill placed on thick mil plastic topped by landscape soil, with underlying perforated ABS type drain pipe would be used to remove water. The piping would extend down the face of the steep slope and to connect to an approved storm system. Landscaping designs by Federal Way Landscape Service, Inc. depict some of these drain field elements (Exhibit E). To control long term slope stability, the December 18, 1991 ECI letter states that it is imperitative that the drainlines be connected to a permanent tightline which continues to the toe of the slope. Rigid solid piping that is staked in place with glued joints is recommended. Staff concurs with these recommendations. FWCP NE-2 calls for "adoption of special regulations limiting or preventing development within the most sensitive areas and require completion of special studies by qualified professionals when necessary prior to issuance of permits". A drainage plan that addresses this specific project shall be submitted with the building permit application. 4. Plants: a. Concur with checklist. The south, north and east sides of the site are formally landscaped with trees, shrubs, flowers and grass. The steep slope on the north side of the site is covered with blackberries, grass and scrub alder trees. b. Previous slides have removed blackberry and grasses from the slope. The applicant does not propose any clearing. c. Concur with checklist. d. Concur with checklist. In addition, the December 18, 1991 ECI letter recommends that the area be revegated with rapid deep rooted grass, followed with ivy or other rapid growing evergreen vegetation. FWCP H-34 calls for the "protection of natural vegetation and limit clearing and grading in residential developments". This issue should be addressed in the erosion control and landscaping plans submitted with the building permit application. 5. Animals: a. Songbirds were observed during a site visit. b. None are known to be on or near this site. c. The site is part of the Pacific Flyway migratory route. d. No measures are proposed. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a. b. & c. Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: a. & b. Concur with checklist. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a. Current uses of the site and surrounding area include the following: Site: Residential single family house. North: King County Residentially zoned property South: South 293rd and Single family residence. East: Single family residence. West: Single family residence. b. c. and d. Concur with checklist. e. The lot is zoned RS-15.0, Residential Single Family. f. The comprehensive plan designation is SR, Suburban Residential. g. Concur with checklist. It. This slope meets the definition of Steep Slope Hazard Area as defined in the FWCC section 22-1, Geologically Hazardous Areas. i. j. k. & 1. Concur with checklist. 9. Housing: a. b. & c. Concur with checklist. 10. Aesthetics: a. The height of the wall is proposed to be no more than six (6) feet tall. b. Views to the north of the site towards Puget Sound would be minimally impacted by the proposal. c. Concur with checklist. 11. Light and Glare: a. b. c. & d. Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: a. b. & c. Concur with checklist. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a. b. & c. Concur with checklist. 14. Transportation: a. b. c. d. e. f. & g. Concur with checklist. 15. Public Services: a & b Concur with checklist. 16 Utilities: a. & b. Concur with checklist. C. CONCLUSION: The proposal can be found to not have a probable adverse impact on the environment if appropriate conditions are properly implemented pursuant to a mitigated determination of non - significance (MDNS) Conditions of the MDNS are based on the impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments and the above 'FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST APPLICATION #SEP93-0031' and are supported by the plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by the City of Federal Way for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. The city reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to the site or to the proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or non -significance of the project. Prepared by: Deb Barker, Associate Planner Date: August 7. 1995 sepa%le\Noyes\sepaeval.doc 0 4v a Ob 44) ,cw �'� ; � � � �• 'tip • h Rio a t VA, 4 0, 1 00.1 8 qoj s O d o 9�O } P O♦ - SEP ci Or cEi , tvA Bi7itDrNG f)E�� \00 sS OL EXH I PAa .�.. i i CITY OF FE®E-R 1. WAY ' CEPT OF COMMUNITY DEVEL &IMIENT PERMIT NUMBER /-� (� /✓� J �/ ADDRESS 76 S ZN PLANS FOR 1*?-L- 7. �.✓li� �, Gf.Lc. �,TE SUB%H T TED Gr 20113 DATE APPROVED A '-"P; RO ED BY 5 ATE SEP 93-�31 EXI CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 33530 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 661-4118 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE FILE NUMBER: SEP93-0023 Description of Proposal: Construct one 80 foot long by 11 foot tall solider pile design retaining wall on a 17,820 square foot developed residential lot. Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. E. Chrzanoski Contact: Mario Morales, phone 646-3473 Location: 610 South 288th Lane, Federal Way Lead Agency: City of Federal Way City Contact: Bill Kingman, Associate Planner, 661-4110 The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, the referenced geotechnical report dated 6/25/93 and amendment dated 12/23/93, submitted plans and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Application No. SEP93-0023," and Conclusions of Law based on the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and other municipal policies, plans, rules and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to R.C.W. 43.21C.060. Findings of Fact: 1. The proposed action includes construction of one 80 foot long by 11 foot tall retaining wall on a 17,820 square foot developed lot. 2. The geotechnical report prepared by RZA Agra, dated 6/25/93 and amendment dated 12/23/93, are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 3. The "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist No. SEP93-0023" is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Conclusions of Law: 1. Prepare maintenance standards to protect stormwater systems, prevent erosion and protect natural vegetation. (Comprehensive Plan Policy #H-30) The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under R.C.W. 43.21C.032(2)(c), only if the following conditions are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. Conditions: 1. Recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by RZA Agra, dated 6/25/93 and amendment dated 12/23/93 shall be incorporated into the design and construction plans for the project as required by the city. 2. The drainage system recommended in the geotechnical report shall be designed by a civil engineer licensed in Washington State and accepted by the city prior to commencement of construction related to the retaining wall. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted no later than 5 p.m. lZil q Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following expiration of the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 calendar days of the above comment deadline. Responsible Official: Position/Title: Address: Date Issue Signature: Development sEP9223.AMS Kenneth E. Nyberg Assistant City Manager, Development 33530 First Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 2 Director of Community Director of Community 6-1p FRZA AG RA, Inc. '_-�naineering d _11:nvIrcnnlen,al Services 25 June 1993 Paul Davis Systems 10860 N.E. Third Place Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Mario Moralis Subject: Chrzanoski Residence 610 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Gentlemen: Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98034-6918 (206) 820-4669 FAX (206) 821-3914 This letter presents the results of our subsurface investigation and geotechnical recommendations at the Chrzanoski residence at 610 S. 288th Lane in Federal Way, Washington, approximately as shown as our Site Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The approximate location of the boring for this evaluation along with the surficial features observed are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. A boring log with interpretive description of the subsurface conditions encountered at the boring location is also enclosed. The information in this letter was prepared in accordance with the scope of work in our proposal dated 8 q June 1993, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practice. This information is for the exclusive use of Paul Davis Systems, and their agents, for specific application to this site. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located at 610 S. 288th Lane in Federal Way, Washington. All directions in this letter assume that 288th Lane in this area is running north -south. The existing residence is located west of 288th Lane. Behind the house is then approximately a 15- to 20400t wide rear yard, surfaced with washed rock over plastic sheeting. Past the washed rock is a railroad tie divider. Behind the divider is an existing hedge behind which is a steep slope down to the residences on Redondo Beach area. To the north of the subject property is approximately a 3- to 4-foot high rockery behind which is a newly landscaped yard with grass. At the far western side of the newly grassed yard Is a railroad tie retaining wall with a planter area. At the base of the planter area are several 6-inch diameter drainage pipes headed down the slope. At this time, i =� A G R A i iEarrh &Environmental Group c Paul Davis Systems 25 June 1993 1 d:'Z PI it appears that these drain pipes discharge onto the slope. In general, the grassed yard slopes towards the west-southwest. It appears that some of the surface water from this area is entering the residence's yard. To the south of the residence is some vegetation before the next residence to the south. It appears that the, majority of the drainage for the subject residence is directed towards the south over the plastic sheeting/washed rock surface and empties into an existing catch basin located along the southern property line. This catch basin then appears to drain to the west down a drainage line. The actual outfall of this drainage line is not known, but appears not to be on the slope (since no erosive damage to the lower slope was observed in this area). However, at this time some water appears to be running over the side of the slope below the subject residence, and not being directed into the catch basin. This water appears to probably be coming from the residence next door to the north. At the time of our site visits, it appeared that approximately the central third of the shrub line had dropped approximately 4 feet down from previous rear yard (washed rock elevation) grade. In general, it appears that between 2 to 4 feet of the surficial soils have slid down the slope. Several slump blocks were observed on the slope. A seepage zone was observed approximately 4 feet below the top of the scarp below the residence, approximately coincident with the base of the upper slump. The source of this water is not known at this time. There is another seepage zone approximately 50 feet below the slump block. Along the south side of the slump area are several more open fracture, possible slump blocks forming. To the north of the slump block the area is very heavily vegetated with blackberry bushes. Just north of this area appeared to be a possible active slump block. It appears that the slope had been marginally stable before the introduction of the water. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS A subsurface investigation was performed on 14 June 1993 by drilling one boring at the approximate location shown on Figure 2. The boring was advanced by a portable Acker drill rig which advanced hollow stem auger. Standard Penetration Test samples were taken at 2.5 foot depth intervals during drilling. The boring was drilled on the top of the 4-foot slump block just below the washed rock backyard. Subsurface conditions encountered at this location consisted of approximately 11h feet of gravelly, cobbly sand fill. Below the fill was approximately 5 feet of loose to soft, wet silty fine sand to fine sandy slit. Below the loose sand was then a very stiff silt with some fine sand to a depth of approximately 11 feet. From approximately 11 feet to 15 feet was a dense, very fine sand. Below the dense layer of sand was then a hard silt to the final depth explored of 18 feet. No groundwater was encountered at this time, although a very wet zone was encountered from approximately 4 to 6 feet. =^ AGRA Earth & Environmental Group Paul Davis Systems 25 June 1993 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 11-08969-00 Page 3 At this time it does not appear that the existing slide presents a current danger to the existing residence. It is recommended that some remedial action be taken as further slope movement could endanger the residence. It is felt that controlling the surface water will improve the slope stability. It is our opinion that most of the slope instability is due to the introduction of water to the slope. It appears that the four foot drop was caused by the surficial slide of the slope immediately below the drop. It is likely that this slumping is being caused by the introduction of surface water to the slope. To a lesser extent, it may be that the lslope instability is being aggravated by groundwater seepage through the sandy soils atop the silts in a westerly direction across the site. In order to reduce the risk of slope instability, it will be necessary to route 3 all surface water sources away from the slope, or fully collect the flow and tightline it into a suitable outlet at- the base of the slope. To facilitate this, the slope from the edge of the yard should be sloped towards the residence to a drainage swale which should be sloped to the existing catch basin. All surface water coming fo�m the neighbors to the north should also be routed to the catch basin. The drainage swale should be lined so that no water is introduced to the soils. The location of the outlet of the drainage basin should be confirmed. It also appears that the existing drainage conduits from the -neighbor's residence to the north will need to be tightlined to the base of the existing slope. Once the water is removed from the slope, the slope should be revegetated with native vegetation so as to try and prevent soil erosion. We understand that it is proposed that a retaining wall be put in so that the backyard grades can be raised to the previous elevation to return the yard to its former condition before the slump occurred. Cantilevered soldier pile with timber lagging could be used for this purpose. Due to the unstable nature of the near - surface soils, conventional retaining walls would not be possible at this site. Due to the existing residence mass excavation to install reinforced earth retaining walls would not be practical either. The cantilevered soldier pile would probably return the slope to its previous safety factor before the slide, which was probably safe but below standard engineering design criteria for safety factor. To fully stabilize the yard from further slope movement it is likely that a cylinder pile wall would need to be constructed at the top of the slope. This report will give recommendations for the soldier pile design. The cylinder pile design was beyond the scope of work of this project. It is likely the cylinder piles would need to be approximately 30-40 feet deep to provide horizontal resistance. Below are the recommendations for the cantilevered soldier piles and timber lagging retaining system. This shoring system can also be upgraded to serve as the permanent retaining wall system itself. The structure should be designed using passive earth pressure. Even with use of the passive earth pressure, some settlement of the soil retained immediately behind the system should be anticipated. Embedment depths �^ a G R A Earth & Environmental Groun A Paul Davis Systems 25 June 1993 11-08969-00 Page 4 of the soldier piles will need to be designed to provide adequate lateral or 'kick out' resistance for the horizontal loads being applied by the additional fill. For design, the lateral resistance may be computed on the basis of passive pressure acting over twice the diameter of the concrete and soldier pile spacing, whichever is less. A passive pressure of 250 pcf, expressed as equivalent fluid pressure, may be used in design. Passive resistance within the upper 6 feet of soil of the existing grade should be neglected, due to the slope and its loose and disturbed state. An active earth pressure of 55 pcf should be assumed to cut on the upslope side of the wall. We recommend lagging or some other form of protection be installed in all areas. Due to soil arching effects, temporary laggings may be designed for 50 percent of the lateral earth pressure used for soldier pile design. Prompt and careful installation of lagging will reduce the potential for loss of ground. We recommend that any voids between the lagging and the soil be backfilled. The above parameters could be utilized by a structural engineer in developing an appropriate design for an about 4 to 6 foot high cantilevered soldier pile wall. Depending on embedment depths required for design, a deeper exploratory boring may be required for confirmation of assumed subsurface conditions at depth. These values should also be reviewed if a higher wall is planned. Drainage behind the wall must be maintained, collected and tightlined to a suitable outlet at the base of the slope. Groundwater was not noted, except at the base of the 4 foot slump block. Assuming surface water sources are controlled, any groundwater could exit through the timber lagging or weep holes. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations accomplished for this study. The number, location, and depth of the exploration was completed within the site and scope constraints so as to yield the information to formulate our recommendations. The integrity of the retaining structure will depend upon proper site preparation and construction procedures, including dewatering of the slope. We are available to provide geotechnical engineering services during design and construction phases of the project to minimize delays as the project develops. =� A.G RA Earth & Environmental Group .a 01 . - Paul Davis Systems 25 June 1993 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Respectfully submitted, RZA AGRA, Inc. Larry A. Boge, P.E. Project Engineer 119 mes S. Dran fie d, P.E. Associate LAB/JSD/DLO V,6 S. DFc� j`.�►� ids �� - • i r's� EXPIRES 121 191 3 Enclosures: Figure 1 - Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 - Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 - Cross -Section Boring Log 8-1 =' A G R A Earrh & Environmenral (;mr,n Y U w 0 W U Q w J W Q cr 0 0 z U) >- p J w �CO O Z LL W O m � m \ U) J CA p \ }W a:O (I X \ W W W a LL 1 m D \ Cl) \ w 0 \ CO w U \ \ cr \ D Cl) \ W \ a O m F- z w U Q 3 0 W J_ Q N EE Cl) W z3 aJ NQ = =CC W (� 0 W LL Q co I w Q CC Z � O_ F- LL U w Ct U w N_ J a cc w Z w a rn T Z z z w w Q W o Q Q o o U CO Is ' RZA AG RA, A nc. Engineering & Environmental Services J 22 December 1993 Paul Davis Systems 10860 N.E. Third Place Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attention: Mr. Mario Moralis Subject: Seismic Concerns Chrzanoski Residence 610 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Gentlemen: 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98034-6918 RECEIVED BY 820-4669 r4mMUNITY DEVELOPMENTOEPAq�&206) 821-3914 DEC 2 3 1993 11-08969-00 r,,// retaining wall at the Chrzanoski residence This letter concerns the seismic hazard of the pro��f�r pill Kingman of the City of Federal Way. We requested by Mr. Mario Moralis as, in turn, requeslf I`rj pall recommendations in our report dated 25 previously performed a subsurface investigation fof e��'`'�'�'� June 1993 for Job No. 11-08969-00. ,,,,,,,. condition. Based on our studies, it is likely In its current configuration, the slope is in a margir,M / cement of the existing slope. Construction that a moderately strong earthquake would result in`` , of the new wall will increase the safety factor a'' ,1ri4e movement during an earthquake event.e safer resist transient loading �rrr�x� Y factor to 9 Conventionally, designed retaining walls possess ` -R�ri wall will reduce the risk of damage in the imposed by substantially large earthquakes. Ther�f�% event of a seismic occurrence. We trust this letter is sufficient for your current ne,1.� information, please do not hesitat Cto-gatl.., JLE , A/ .a Respectfully submitted, � o� RZA AGRA, Inc. Larry A. Sage, P.E. 'i`: r J ` �14 A Project Engineer 5 DRA, �. ames S. Drainsfell, P.E. �o Associate LAB/JSD/ah ---� 0 23s a "j0 N A L. S" EXPIRES 12/19/ � ~ { „,Mlle are any questions, or if you require further =Y AG RA Earth & Environmental Group Public Works Office Memorandum, City of Federal Way TO: Bill Kingman FROM: Skip Tullock DATE: December 6, 1993 SUBJECT: BLD93-1146 & SEP93-0023, Chrzanoski Retaining Wall (Kroll 365W & 702W, SW 32-22-04, 610 South 288th Lane) The site plan, SEPA checklist and other associated documents for the subject project have been reviewed and the following comments are provided: 1. If the proposed facilities exceed the 25% improvement valuation threshold, the applicant will be required to construct vehicular access easement improvements along South 288th Lane (a private road) in accordance with section 22-1496 of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC). These improvements will consist of 28 feet (min) of paving, 5 foot sidewalks, vertical curb/gutter and associated drainage facilities. The applicant may request (in writing to Ronald Garrow, Senior Development Engineer) a modification, waiver or deferment of the aforementioned improvements per section 22-1477 of the FWCC. The request must address and meet at least one of the four criteria listed in the code section. After the request has been received, it will be routed to City staff for determination of an appropriate response. The submittal of a request does not assure that a modification, waiver or deferment will be granted. 2. Since the applicant is proposing to construct facilities within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area (steep slopes), compliance with section 22-1286 of the FWCC will be required. The geotech report provided by the applicant appears to address most of the items listed in the aforementioned code section. However, the report needs to include information related to seismic stability of the proposed wall as well as its' affect on adjacent properties as required in the code. 3. Plans for all of the proposed improvements shall be drawn on sheets no larger than 241lx36" in size to a scale of 1"=20' (or larger) and need to be signed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Washington. • Lj 4. The following items in the Environmental Checklist also need to be addressed: a. Item B.1.e (page 4) - Based on our estimate of the amount of fill material that will need to be brought into the site, it appears that the 23 CY figure is low. b. Item B.2.a (page 5) - Emissions from construction equipment that will be operating on the site during construction of the wall (along with other related improvements) will need to considered. C. Item B.3.c.1 (page 7) - The location of the existing storm drainage system for the house and other impervious surfaces needs to be verified to determine what impacts, if any, the runoff from the existing system will have on the proposed retaining wall (the geotech report does not indicate where the drainage lines are located). d. Item B.3.d (page 8) - Perforated groundwater interceptor pipes will need to be placed behind the wall to prevent fluid pressure buildup. These pipes will then need to be routed to an approved storm drainage facility. City of Federal Way FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Application No. SEP93-0023 Date: December 23, 1993 Project Name: Chrzanoski Retaining Wall Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. E. Chrzanoski Contact: Mario Morales, phone 646-3473 Location: 610 South 288th Lane, Federal Way S-T-R: SW-32-22-4 Parcel Size: Approximately 17,820 square feet Proposal: Construct one 80 foot long by 11 foot tall soldier pile retaining wall on a 17,820 square foot developed residential lot. Type of Action: Existing zoning: Building Permit RS-15.0 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Suburban Residential NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced below may not be attached to all copies of this staff evaluation. Copies of reports, attachments or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Bill Kingman, Associate Planner, Department of Community Development, 33530 1ST Way South, Federal Way, WA., 98003, phone: 661-4110. A: BACKGROUND: The proposed action is construction of one 80 foot long by 11 foot tall soldier pile design retaining wall as described in the environmental checklist and building permit documents. This improvement is proposed to stabilize a eroding steep slope. SEPA review is required because the proposed development is within 25 feet of a environmentally sensitive area (slope greater than 40 %)• B: ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: The southerly portion of the site, developed with a residence, is approximately 205 feet above sea level- 1 The northerly portion of the lot, north of the house, slopes down 75 feet to the abutting lots at a grade in excess of 53%. The north portion of the site has experienced slope failures due to several factors including, but not limited to, surface water drainage and soil types. Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Section 22-1286regulate development and land surface modifications within twenty five feet of any slope in excess of 40 percent. Development and land surface modifications may not occur unless no reasonable alternative exists and no increase 'in landslide, seismic or erosion hazard will occur. Analysis of these conditions must be based on a soils report prepared by a licensed engineer. A subsurface investigation and geotechnical recommendation dated 6/25/93 and amendment dated 12/22/93 were prepared by RZA Agra, Inc., for the site and proposed development. The report indicates the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided certain recommendations are followed. Based on these documents no increased landslide, seismic or erosion hazard is expected from the proposed development. Approximately 23 cubic yards of material will be imported as backfill for the wall. The geotechnical report provides specific construction recommendations for the retaining wall. These recommendations will be incorporated into subsequent building and site construction plans and documents as required by City codes. FWCC Section 22-1286(d) provides authority for imposing conditions on approval of building or land surface modification on or within twenty five feet of a regulated slope. The FWCC is adopted as a basis for the exercise of substantive SEPA authority pursuant to FWCC Section 22-122, to approve, condition or deny projects. Based on this authority, the following condition is recommended: a. Recommendations of the subsurface investigation and geotechnical recommendation dated 6/25/93 and amendment dated 12/22/93 prepared by RZA Agra, Inc., shall be incorporated into the design and construction plans for the project as required by the city. 2. Air: Construction equipment may produce increased dust and odors. Existing vehicle emission systems will adequately mitigate this impact. No further mitigation is necessary. 3. Water: The geotechnical report provides specific recommendations for controlling surface water drainage issues on the site. These recommendations will be incorporated into 2 0 4W subsequent building and site construction plans and documents as required by city codes. In summary, the geotechnical report recommends all storm water at the top of the slope, uphill and behind the proposed retaining wall, either be routed away from the slope or be collected, tightlined to the bottom of the slope and discharged. The design of the conveyance system should be completed by a civil engineer and accepted by the city prior to commencement of construction. FWCC Section 22-1286(d) provides authority for imposing conditions on approval of building or land surface modification on or within twenty five feet of a regulated slope. The FWCC is adopted as a basis for the exercise of substantive SEPA authority pursuant to FWCC Section 22-122, to approve, condition or deny projects. Based on this authority, the following condition is recommended: a. The drainage system recommended in the geotechnical report shall be designed by a civil engineer licensed in Washington State and accepted by the city prior to commencement of construction related to the retaining wall. 4. Plants: The slope is vegetated with grasses. The submitted geotechnical report recommends the slope be revegetated once the water is removed from the slope to prevent erosion. 5. Animals: Existing urban encroachment and prior removal of significant vegetation has reduced potential wildlife habitat on the site. This site is not part of a known migratory route or habitat area for an endangered species. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: Concur with checklist. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: The site is zoned RS-15.0 and the city Comprehensive Plan designation is Suburban Residential. The construction of the retaining wall will be compatible with adopted city regulations through review of relevant permit application. 9. Housing: One dwelling exists on the site. One will remain. 10. Aesthetics: No significant aesthetic impacts are anticipated. 11. Light and Glare: Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: Concur with checklist. 3 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: Concur with checklist. 14. Transportation: No transportation improvements are proposed with the application. If the retaining wall development exceeds 25% of value of all structures, the applicant will be required to construct vehicular access easement improvements along South 288th Lane (a private road) in accordance with FWCC Section 22-1496. These improvements will consist of 28 feet (min) of paving, 5 foot sidewalks, vertical curb/gutter and associated drainage facilities. The applicant may request ( in writing to Ronald Garrow, Senior Development Engineer) a modification, waiver or deferment of the aforementioned improvements per FWCC Section 22-1477. The request must address and meet at least one of the four criteria listed in the code section. After the request has been received, it will be routed to City staff for determination of an appropriate response. The submittal of a request does not assure that a modification, waiver or deferment will be granted. No further mitigation is necessary. 15. Public Services: Concur with checklist. 16. Utilities: Concur with checklist. C. CONCLUSION: The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment if appropriate conditions are properly implemented pursuant to a mitigated DNS. Conditions of the MDNS are based on impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist; and are supported by policies, plans, rules and regulations formally adopted by the City for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA. The City reserves the right to review any future revisions or alterations to the site or to the proposal in order to determine the environmental significance or non - significance. Prepared by: Date: December 23, 1993 SEP9323.ENV 4 Ao� //ev- J bc�-rry I n Y A �✓dr-,fG, j�A_• .,� .Lso . 7 Mr. Charles W. Noyes March 29, 1995 Design Parameters E-2867-6 Page 2 Based on the described stratigraphy, the deadmen and planter box will be supporting the uppermost layer consisting of sandy silt/silty sand. For purposes of design, we assumed the soil to have a friction angle of 350, an in situ moist density of 130 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and no cohesion. Based on these soil parameters, equivalent fluid weights of 35 pcf were used for active earth pressure, and 400 pcf for passive earth pressure were used. The passive pressure value includes a factor of safety of 1.5, and the active earth pressure value does not include loads due to buildings, traffic, water and other surcharges. Due to the small contribution of friction to resistance, friction was neglected in the design of the anchors. The wall was assumed to have no embedment into the soil; therefore, all of the active forces acting on the wall would be resisted by the passive force acting on the face of the deadman anchors. Copies of the previously submitted plans and details are attached. If you have any questions regarding this matter, or need additional information, please contact US. EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Douglas S. Lynne Staff Engineer x, 4• (,� Y �C � Kyle R. Campbell,, A �, Manager of Geotech DSL/KRC/kml`'`' EXPIRES til(tjltiv Attachments: Plates 1 through 4: Deadman Anchor Plans and Details Earth Consultants, Inc. Earth Consultants Inc. Gcoorechniczil Engineers. Geologists & f.m'ironmenlal ticic•nlisls March 29, 1995 Charles W. Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Deadman Design Parameters 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc. Slope Stability Assessment Letter E-2867-1, Dated April 13, 1987 Soldier Pile Wall Extension Design Recommendations E-2867-3, Dated July 22, 1992 Addendum to Soldier Pile Wall Extension Design Recommendations E-2867-3, Dated September 2, 1992 Dear Mr. Noyes: E-2867-6 C'iP 6 I 3 BJ,ifJ .I T The purpose of this letter is to provide a description of the parameters used in the design of the deadman retention system for the subject site. Plans and details of the design were previously submitted by our office. Subsurface Based on information contained in the April 13, 1987 letter, there is a layer of dense, brown sandy silt/silty sand (Unified Soil Classification ML/SM) to a depth of about twenty-nine (29) feet below the rear yard grade. Beneath this layer, a twelve (12) foot thick layer of dense gray silt (ML) was observed. At a depth of forty-one (41) feet, a layer of gravelly sand (SP) was observed extending down to about fifty-nine (59) feet beneath the surface. Beneath the gravelly sand, a silty sand with gravel was observed to a depth of ninety-nine (99) feet. The described soil stratigraphy is based on observations of the slope made on March 23, 1987. 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (206) 746-0860 Tacoma (206) 272.6608 -1 S277FH Si (y p�°�H PL = 277TH PLS "_} N '2 \ J, CD O N J- x s ZlBr ry S 279TH ST :,y,• • S279TIt w_ Si S�7gr/i 4•. . 52815 Sr r 5280THST S280TH� 282N[ S aTST ST pL S V JR. h 282f1D 1ST PL S 282ND 57 H.S. S285 � REaC]Nf30 x o x i r `n, IL1�4INA 1 rn �PI1Bi1C8LMf�.Af11:CJ! r 2BSJ� L h S 82 �� ^� a PL w 2@3-f G� ;:« S S28dT ST P� Za�� S 284Tr 284THN _ < --r 87R ST ff ST ,•; r1 ;:. _ 'l'• x S85T T� to is rn S 2 dTHPL ti rya NS: c \ ! S a S 285TH x S 285THST a 2 S 286 w A o TH x Sq K ifi ' � , t S ST 6 S286THST S ST ti `rl m e x ti o p S 28TTH ST L ro S�'1-I S 287TH L � _ y 3 S 288TH ST `•r .St• PL r F 20THPL5 S268 PL S288T�p L 5 289TH w M 289TH ST ti "�" r ya ST S289THST '�+j�p $$2 Pn P S N 290TH n n -� 9t a �9TST sP S291STP65 cam+ S2?2NDST s. SW 292ND ST S 293RD ST YQ� °° 5 S 293RD ST - A � �j� s/R 9 ,ram ST r a�293Ro ► S M 0 { o o ST 4THST S TH y P� tfTP� s SV ST yr 2fifyA F1lCp �[ s Q cs 1 S294THPL °j `r y S29 P or, = 295TH PL T Q H PL �¢ 2 H PL �j -s- +r ti !s 296TH ST S Y of S 296TH PL S 296TH PL $2g6TH AC +:� _ rn y N S 297TH P ' 7TH rn , 4 t� 5 "` o, !! a 298TH a ST SK 238TH PL c ¢ ST S�� Grp R 8 S 299TH 5T S 299TH i tx- N 5 Zgc f'C TH S 300TH ST 1 S 1 i $ S 300TH = = a 8 ST c, 300TH cn YILDI+S'C1oD. �n � Yi Sy1 HL 300THS'i m 5301 rn ST N a = S301STSi H p,ARKS30fST j PL S301STST PL ya S� 302NDST U S301STPI. '``5302NOn 30t poi 5302 DST x 302ND u- a- o Sim F 5303RD5T () cn an SUT w N z 3 pC r (n w DST a cfy �9 S304TR ST = r r z �p Bp fit`✓�. S 304TH PL S = ik_ u+ t" I I 305TH ST 305TH .n S308Tilk S305TF ST a S7 S 306 H FEDERAL. WY 06TH 53ST ST � � a z N x H.S. pq cox x~ZICore i ■ �d.rTti SALE nccElv®ev caauralY aEvaarW aewmert LA W APR IS 1995 1 ' i EartitCoftsaalE'e1•LLS KR4 raw. i Conditions: 1. Recommendations of the geotechnicial reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated December 18, 1991; July 22, 1992; September 2, 1992, and March 29, 1995 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: a. The drainlines must be connected to a permanent tightline which continues ,�,c, j,� to the toe 'of the slope. Rigid, solid piping that is staked in place with fiz glued joints is recommended. b. The disturbed areas are to be revegetated with rapid deep rooted grass, L' followed with ivy or other rapid growing evergreen vegetation. Erosion control matting, pegged in place with steel stakes on a five foot grid pattern, should be installed until the vegetation is established. 01. C. A monitoring program to record any movements in the section of the P' slope immediately west of the April 1991 failure should be established. 2. The drainage system recommended in the geotechnicial report shall be designed by.a civil engineer licensed in Washington State and accepted by the city prior to commencement of construction related to the wall systems. 3. Because the project was constructed without permit authority, formal city inspections of the work have not occurred. To speed resolution of this issue, the applicant must update building permit BLD 93-1014 to reflect the project specific construction elements within seven (7) working days from the date of SEPA approval. In addition, the applicant must obtain the building permit within seven working days of from the time that the applicant is notified that the permit is available for issuance. Failure to address this issue will result in formal abatement action. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 15 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 1995. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Responsible Official: Gregory D. Moore, AICP Position/Title: Director of Community Development Services Address: 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date issued: August 8. 1995 Signature: 2. The existing zoning for the subject site is RS-1500, Residential Single Family. 3. The Comprehensive Plan designation is LDR, Low Density Residential. 4. Access to the site is via South 288th Lane. 5. The subject parcel contains slopes of up to 80 percent. The northern portion of the lot is classified as a geologically hazardous area with slopes in excess of 40 percent. 6. Approximately 28 percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. 7. The applicant proposes to fill approximately 16.6 cubic yards of material. 9. Any erosion related impacts during clearing and construction will be mitigated by implementing a Temporary Erosion/Sedimentation Qontrol (TESC) plan to be reviewed and approved by the City of Federal Way. 10. The reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated December 18, 1991; July 22, 1992; September 2, 1992; August 23, 1994 and March 29, 1995 are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. 11. The final staff evaluation for Environmental Checklist, Federal Way Application number SEP 94-0031 is hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth in full. Conclusions of Law: Federal Way 1990 Comprehensive Plan Policies 1. FWCP H-34 - Protect natural vegetation and limit clearing and grading in residential developments. 2. FWCP NE-2 - Adopt special regulations limiting or preventing development within the most sensitive areas and require completion of special studies by qualified professionals when necessary prior to issuance of permits. 3. FWCP NE-6 - Enforce measures to be taken during construction to prevent erosion. 4. FWCP NE-9 - Require environmental impact assessment and mitigation of potential impacts to sensitive areas before development is permitted. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that the proposed action does not have probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under R.C.W. 43.21C.032(2)(c), only Lf the following conditions are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33530 lst Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 661-4118 MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL DETERABNATION OF NON-SIGNMCANCE NOYES SOLDIER PILE WALL AND PLANTER FEDERAL WAY FILE NO: SEPr 93-0031 RELATED FILE NO's: CAR 93-0277, BLD 93-1014 Description of Proposal: The proposal is to construct a soldier pile wall and planting structure in a steep slope hazard area with slopes of up to 80 percent. Proponent: Charles Noyes Location: 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98003 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way City Contact: Deb Barker Associate Planner, 661-4103 The Responsible Official of the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following Findings of Fact based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist and the "Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist; Application No. 93-0031" and Conclusions of Law based upon the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis for exercise of substantive authority under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act Rules pursuant to R.C.W. 43.21 C.060. Findings of Fact: 1. The proposal is to construct a treated wood soldier pile wall with associated planter at the top of a steep slope in the general vicinity of a two foot tall rock wall. The western most twenty-five (25) feet of the structure is controlled by a deadman anchoring system, from three to four -and -one-half feet deep and ten feet long. The planter will be flush with existing lawn elevation on the south side and approximately six feet tall on the north side. fYE�Q_tOa1 110 l' A / IJ Af orth SEAL E RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Earth Consultants Inc. Patin 4G c "CCtt,� rs. Engineea Environmental �„,� Noyes Fed,,,,QI wy, Pro!. No. z 967-6I Drwn. DS1- 1 Date !d171py 1 Checked KR 6 1 Date 1 Plate .1 1 11 r a w D w w x I 4 P � to � h U DA' x• O� \ • N . kA • X W X, q A r' s o- RECEIVEn DY CO3MMi,INITY D'.-:1.C^'S'rW DEFART1iTMT Earth Consultants Inc. G"edn&ml Fnglrw"S. GCdOgLSis 6 FnvllefvfienlW Sckrn 51S Proj. No. aU7-6 IDrwn. D5 Date 10/1719'Y Checked A Date /0/17/ FY Plate a aE 13 la 3 t 0' �- �ross 'SeGI/ar, A-141 �epresextal;ve oT wa11 fro", �o lay 3 z: a 13 !0 S r iv is �0 25 30 ReP res �� J`a/i✓� o T waft �io�n %Z f � 5 �-.• ... -^ ,Ty Via® ISM TPicaJ Cross - Se�frv� Earth Consultants Inc. Noyes Res�de�� federa l W. W i5 f7l71g ton ProJ No. a 86 7 _ b' Drwn. P S L Date JD�! ��yy Checked k R G Date /o11 -71g y 1 Plate 3 w W N J fWA F V) US N R Cy H O z Y 3 . I I l 1 I I Lul I 3 Ql?y oA i N C .�� c O C W a -9 Awol NN N n m m N _ O �03 � � O O a`, � ti � C LL n 1 1�` RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAR Z 0 1995 l � �I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 COMPUTED BY F 1 DATED el 111� Q• l� Earth Consultants Inc. CHECKED BY DATED 'K c,rw[•<rinic-wl f iµuw•e•rs, Crclul2� is 8 Iminnnwtirfl'.[xvra!, '00' .IMF/ rv" PROJECT NO. SHEET OF PROJECT tiOY� SUBJECT i sL)-0t�� eX LSTI Nv 4u,a--r . . . PrND EIS I•P�Nd S��VL�t nJ Ce AA N�P1i 2� j l a g 2 S1�'E sILF-Tc-4 - f LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS F ALBERT .ALBERT & SLATER, P.S. GARY R W. SLATER MEMBER OF WASHINGTON STATE BAR AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR October 10, 1995 Mr. Mike Visser Visser Engineering Co. 19062 SE 320th Street Kent, WA 98042 Re: Charles Noyes' Pro-pertY 704 S. 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA 98003 Dear Mr. Visser: DONALD F. KLINE ALEC M. SCHWIMMER Enclosed herewith, pursuant to my conversation, is a letter which I have written to the City of Federal Way, the March 29 statement from Earth Consultants and copies of all correspondence from the City of Federal Way, i.e. letter of September 25, 1995, and all statements received from Deb Barker, the associate planner. After you have had a chance to review these items, I would appreciate it if you could inform me as to what steps should be taken to ensure the stability of the Noyes' north property line and secure an appropriate building permit from the City of Federal Way to verify the subject planter box. For your information, the Noyes' address is 704 S. 288th Lane, Federal Way, Washington, 98003. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, T ER & S TER P.S. ert DFA/abm CC: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Noyes Ms. Deb Barker, City of Federal Way 202 Professorial Center • 202 South 348th Street • Federal Way • Washington • 98003 W (206) 838-0678/927-3232 • (206) 874-8005 (FAX) P.O. Box 3025 • Federal Way • Washington • 98063-3025 LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT & SLATER, P.S. DOUGLAS F ALBERT DONALD F. KLINE GARV R W SLATER " ALEC M. SCHWIMMER • MEMBER OF WASHINGTON STATE BAR AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BAR October 10, 1995 Ms. Deb Barker Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: Noyes Scidier Pile Wal11Plant_er SEP93-0031, BLD93-1014 704 South 288th Street, Federal Way, WA Dear Ms. Barker: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of September 25, 1995. Following our meeting, Mr. Noyes retained the services of Visser Engineering Company, Mike Visser, Principal, with offices at 19062 SE 320th Street, Kent, Washington 98042. Mr. Visser was at the site, reviewed the construction and I will be furnishing copies of all documents supplied by your office as well as by Mr. Noyes. He will review them and make his decision/evaluation. For your information, Mr. Visser spoke to the adjacent property owner and it is undisputed that there was, in fact, a storm sewage disposal located south of the planter box. Mr. Visser recommends, in lieu of a tight line going down the hill, discharging the water to the north, to discharge the water in the storm sewage and dispose of it in that manner. Mr. Visser will also review the construction of the planter box and wall and make a decision as to what steps have to be taken for a modification, if any, of the currently constructed wall and planter box. I personally believe that this is a wise decision as it will avoid any disturbance of the embankment as mentioned in one of your reports. I am also enclosing herewith for your file photographs of the four man rock wall that is located on the north portion of the Noyes' property before it drops over the hill. I am further enclosing a photograph 2 which shows the timbers that were placed in front of the rock wall. Photograph 3 is simply 202 Professonal Center • 202 South 348th Street • Federal Way • Washington • 98003 19 (206) 838-0678/927-3232 • (206) 874-8005 (FAX) P.O Box 3025 • Federal Way • Washington • 98063-3025 Ms. Deb Barker Re: Noyes Property October 10, 1995 Page -- 2 a photograph that shows a view of the planter timbers less than two feet in height in front of the rock wall. My understanding is that the storm sewage line is south of the front portion of the planter box. We are endeavoring to obtain the original plans _and description of the storm line but, it is my understanding that King County has destroyed the as -built plans that were filed prior to 1988. However, it is undisputed that, in fact, there is a storm sewage line situated on the Noyes' property. It is Mr. Visser's opinion that it would be a mistake to discharge any water to the north or disturb the slope of the property at all as the blackberries and brush are a stabilizing factor. I will keep you advise of the progress on this file. Very truly yours, DFA/abm cc: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Noyes Q F/? a /V 0 C Ta 6 4--� � Jq L_�� ,4 4 r:" yrs`�`, .� � ! .F ...i;.. i' r CITY OF 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH September 25, 1995 (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 Mr. Douglas Albert, Attorney Mr. Charles Noyes Albert & Slater, PS 704 South 288th Street 202 South 348th Street Federal Way, WA 98003 Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: SEP93-0031, BLD93-1014 NOYES SOLDIER PILE WALL/PLANTER 704 SOUTH 288TH STREET, FEDERAL WAY, WA Gentlemen: Thank you for meeting with me on the above referenced project. The purpose of the meeting was to explain what information is required for the building permit application. At the conclusion of the meeting, you indicated that the project might be modified and the ECI deadman anchor wall recommendation abandoned. If that occurs, a geotechnicial engineer licensed in the State of Washington must prepare a geo study reflecting the revised proposal. The enclosed Federal Way City Code (FWCC) section 22-1286, Geologically.Hazardous Areas Development, applies to projects on or within 25 feet of geologically hazardous areas. A copy should be provided to your consultant so that they can supply the information required to evaluate the revised proposal. Have your engineer contact me at 661-4103 if they have any questions about the information needed for project review. A Mitigated Determination of Non -significance (MDNS) was issued on August 8, 1995, for the deadman anchor system proposal. If the project scope does change, the environmental determination (SEPA) is required to be revised and reissued if new impacts are identified. Issuance of a revised SEPA determination will require notification of all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject site, along with affected agencies. A 15-day comment period would be followed by a 14-day appeal period. The building permit should also be revised to reflect the design and recommendations. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. I would like to be kept informed of the engineer timelines. I look forward to working towards conclusion of this project. Sincerely, Deb Barker Associate Planner enc: FWCC Section 22-1286 GEOTECH.LTR RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT C(DP)7 SEP 2 0 1995 1916- Builder Turhun. Cust-on-i Homes declares bankruptcy, home reverts to financing institution CityFed Mortgage. 1987- Mud slide on easternmost portion of property. ECI consulted. Their recommendations were put into place. including soldier pile wall approximately 20 feet in length above site to hold back earth. Approximately 50 feet of steel grating overlaid on slope to prevent further erosion, and complete revegatation of site. At this time, a retaining wall consisting of rocks, each approximately 3 feet in diameter was erected for approximately 30 feet at the top of the slope at the most northwestern portion of the property. A permanant berm was excavated below the rock retaining wall to comply with King County Building Code.Wastewater runoff from entire property was addressed by connecting all downspouts from roof to tightlines emptying into public storm sewer. Piping was placed under the entire lot to the north of the home to collect excess surface water runoff and was also tightlined into the same storm drain. The above action was all required by King County before the property could be occupied. Once accomplished, the property recieved a Certificate of Occupancy by the County. 1991- Mud slide occured just east of original slide site allegedly caused by neighbor's broken drainage lines discharging directly onto northern slope at the top of the slide. ECI consulted. Their recommendations were complied with, including reshaping surface, laying erosion preventing webbing as per their recommendation followed by complete revegatation also following their recommendations. A monitering system was put into, place following ECI's recommendations and was continued until the contractor doing the monitering left town taking all records. During the period of time that the monitering took place, the project showed no sign of movement. 1993- In an attempt to beautify the previously mentioned rock wall, a series of 6X6 treated timbers were laid vertically on end against the northern face of the existing wall. These were held in place by horizontal iron strapping on the exterior of the timbers tied back with 5/8 inch cable anchored into concrete piers buried approximately 3 feet deep into the earth approximately 15 feet to the south. The lower portion of each timber was set in concrete approximately 12 inches deep. A minimal amount of topsoil was added to the top of the rocks to create an area suitable for planting ornamental shrubbery and flowers. Because the original wall was completely permitted by King Cowl ty, and 1n fact was a condition that had to be met for the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and considering that the erecting of the facing boards served only to disguise this wall, and that this wall and all associated drainage previously installed was not disturbed in the slightest degree, we felt that a building permit issued by the then new entity of the City of Federal Way would not be required. To date these timbers have survived two years of hard rain and an earthquake, showing no visual movement and exhibiting no adverse water runoff; as per ECI letter. X-•- x V .., Y33.5 �/ I / ' X...... X 76.1 ' f x 32.8 �, 2 X X 67. 57.3 x x 75.7_ x 31.6 x , -63.3 70. X X 57.5 X � , • r �• 31.4 J / / 197.2 31.9 X X 63.4 6 .1 x •• 7 x x � 59.4 / 31.6 , X J flf! X 7 60.200.6 / x _� l .-��/ x x 58.6 57.2 .01 57.9 .. x / G�'hole 220 OF X 151.8 157.5 152.1 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003 L91 -. f x 196.9 227.1 227.6 X ' 224.2 1> -Cl-j 209.E X 213.8 X J 16.2e" `-,-' '�- \221.8 227.1 X x 241.7 227.2 %227.4 ' X 238.4 x 227.3 242. X 227.2 x s E D E kAL WAY AERIAL MAPPING PROJI P.O. Box 48119 CE S Seattle, WA 98148 UNITY VE S (206) 241-2707 invoice for Classified Advertising by :decal Way News •Higbline Times •Des Moines News Times Number Amount Class Ran of Lines Due 55 NUMBER: .1 r_.: `33N:... fJ �^j NOTES: PHONE NUMBER: AD TAKER } f-ed(-:a*r,--11 Ito. y WA `: 801(a-'.3 Amount Due Upon Receipt: C.4 yy {{ ''•7 .L .1.4. f��«j 1.7 .... (•.!�°1 .1. �, START DATE J 1 Ur lif" n 1 L tj5 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPT PAYMENT. summons, report, proceedings, or other official document required by law to be published, that said newspaper was published regularly at least once each week, in the English language, as a newspaper of general circulation in Federal Way, King County, Washington, at the time of application to the aforementioned Superior Court for approval as a legal newspaper, and was so published for at least six months prior to the date of said publication, and is now and at all times mentioned herein has been so published. That the annexed is a true copy of a,Notice by the City of Federal Way or Environmental Mitigated DNS; App. No. SEP94-0031 as it was published in regular issues of said newspapers once each week for a period of one consecutive week(s), commencing on the 8th day of August , 1995, and ending on the 8th day of August , 1995, both dates inclusive, and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers and as a newspaper of general circulation during all of said period. That the ll amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publics a Fs the sum of $ 44.69 Subscribed and sworn to before me of August, 1995. y Public in an r State of Washington at Seattle. Ivly om . on expires 5/30/99. 05/08/95 RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED DETE if'4�-•iidik:IJN OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE Federal Way, Washington Application No: SEP94-0031 The City of Federal Way has deter- mined that the following project does not have a probable significant ad- verse impact on the environment, and an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030.(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed en- vironmental checklist and other infor- I mation on file with the City. Proposed Action: The proposal is to conslruct a soldier pile wall and plant- 0, ing structure M a steep slope hazard area with slopes of up to 80 percent. Applicant: Charles Noyes Locatiom.704 South 288th Lane, Fed-' ' erat Way, WA Mitigation Measures (Summary): Rec- ommendations of the geotechnical re- ports prepared by Earth Consultants Inc_ shall be incorporated into the de sign and construction plans for the project as required by the city. inciud ing drainline connection, revegetafioi and monitoring program establish ment; drainage systems designed b' licensed engineer, the building perimi shall be updated. Further information regarding this a[ tion is available to the public upon re quest at the Federal Way Deparimer of Community Development, Feder Way City Hall, 33530 First )Nay Soul) Federal Way, WA. 98003, Contaa Deb Barker, Associate Planne Phone: (206) 661-4103. This MONS issued under WAC 197-11-340(2 Comments must be submitted by 5:C p.m. on August 23, 1995. Unless modified by the City, this dl, termination will become final followir the comment deadline. Any person a grieved by the City's determinatic may file an appeal with the City wit)' 14 days of the above comment dea line. Published in the Federal Way Nei on August 8, 1995. F4 '70,FIVEID k. ; SERVICES CITY OF FEDERAL WAY AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of/Washington, that: ❑ Notice of Application ❑ Notice of Action ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance ❑ Notice of Determination of Non - Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Non -Significance (SEPA) 'o. Notice of Environmental Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (SEPA) ❑ Notice of Proposed Land Use Action ❑ Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Notice of Public Land Use Hearing ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Official Notice ❑Other ❑Other was maile 1 faxed 1iosted to/at each of following addresses (see attached list) on , 1995. Project Name File Number(s) f)E -P q �F- 00 ff Date K . I . �s— Signature— NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED DETERABNATION OF NON-SIGh1IF.ICANCE Federal Way, Washington Application No: SEP 94-0031 The City of Federal Way has determined that the following project does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the City. Proposed Action: The proposal is to construct a soldier pile wall and planting structure in a steep slope hazard area with slopes of up to 80 percent. Applicant: Charles Noyes Location: 704 South 288th Lane, Federal Way, WA Mitigation Measures (Summary): Recommendations of the geotechnicial reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. shall be incorporated into the design and construction plans for the project as required by the city, including drainline connection, revegetation and monitoring program establishment; drainage systems design by licensed engineer, the building permit shall be updated. Further information regarding this action is available to the public upon request at the Federal Way Department of Community Development, Federal Way City Hall, 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA, 98003, Contact: Deb Barker, Associate Planner, Phone: (206) 661-4103. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 1995. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person aggrieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment deadline. Published in the Federal Way News on August 8, 1995. sepafile\nyes\newspaper.ntc CITY OF A '— M ■ ! 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH - FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 Mayor Council Members Mary E. Gates I -lope Elder Ron Gintz City Manager Mahlon "Skip' Priest Kenneth E. Nyberg Robert Stead Ray Tomlinson Phil Watkins FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM TO: DV)—_ DATE: ��f � rt FAX #: c� 4 r NUMBER OF PAGES (Including Memo Sheet): FROM: OFFICE OF: G� J 1f there are any problems during treAsmissia , L please call 661-4000 and ask for DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND POLICY PLANNING MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 1995 TO: Federal Way News Fac Number 241-2776 FROM: Deb Barker Associate Planner SUBJECT: PAID AD Please place the attached advertisement in the legal notices section of the classified advertisements in the Tuesday, August 8, 1995 edition of the Federal Way News. You may bill to Purchase Order #17439. e� '� �r. �` 4y Q ref U .�� ►►Tfa � � ��p i,�f ��\ o � 'ram � �(nD �f t '�y F at �` o D� �,� � � rr r � � a Lpiy�l� eF ��s � r � �� �� •u G #'teak. vv fi� fi �• �' ✓ 2 q v o Q N'og St PEOFFIVED fQT � - lr9'34� �o z • 00 'e ati+' 4 commUNITY DEVELOPMENT14 853�� b �rxod .s 4 Q, •� r. Ile 09 N � � z �4 ,ro t•� ,, V L 4 ►V {� J /, . dr . a s 4 v 7 }-+ �' •`. a v 7;' o N rii, � to '�D v4 '�i' 'i� � 7w o e� L N � w ti s.•- .s. �i � o � �� * � "` �!'� n M o O9-w a �.•' �• d 4 �� �p �•t+w If� t0 J L s �► v �y'.o vJ .+ E w N o o goo ,r 37m ~� . Z r ct� Sao �Cl3 r • ' p q q� 3�� y�l- d i'i � �, tt'O�,fi31' �e 0-C � N `�.� 3' `"ate //r '"fr'• 6' LIP iv � � �s • � {� � ~ � C o J} 3o v o D�•►�r.iZ 'Q, \L °� b. �.Ey� N to L*a_ t� � D � yF 41 ' v :.� y �( fi(r � � o�sn poi •' � ,V J■ v C r qo ~ wa 'rot, O� �• } Y L �! P • y . a, C . ( of HIV r y 3 u► L Ito 4g iYir � ID 46 me A"Lw rO I- Boa m &R.R. Tie Wall 10 5.5' CV (a Of 106.8 \ec b1c) UP A ��k C��C�d �of� 'r 100-18, 010 Ale-, c)'b \00 _b 001 CERTIFICATE M's OOY of C IGge rr, 0.1 19 - at vn of the reQ'Jv" �6f 114 Jkv to 144 JCITYOF 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH November 8, 1994 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Application Number SEP93-0031 Dear Mr. Noyes: (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 FILE I received your October 31, 1994, letter and October 17, 1994, design by Earth Consultants, Inc., regarding proposed modifications to the illegal retaining structure on your property. I understand from your letter that you wish to proceed with construction of the project to resolve current code violations. I am encouraged that you have secured the services of a qualified geotechnical engineering firm to assist you. As I discussed with you by telephone on October 28, 1994, city approvals and permits will be required to construct the proposed structure. In order for the city to proceed further with this proposal, all items outlined in my letter of February 25, 1994, must be addressed (copy enclosed). I would be happy to meet with you and your engineer to review the letter and required submittal materials at your convenience. As indicated in a letter from Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer, dated October 20, 1994, abatement action will not be taken by the city as long as reasonable progress is made to bring the retaining structure into compliance with building and environmental regulations. To ensure that reasonable progress is being made, I request that all items identified in my February 25 letter be submitted no later than December 12, 1994. Mr. Nordby will continue to monitor this violation to determine if and when code compliance action will be taken by the city. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 661-4108. Sincerely, X4,tJ r"e� Greg Fewins Senior Environmental Planner enc c: Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer d9:np9331.wp CITY OF Y� FM, 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH October 20, 1994 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 Re: Application Number SEP93-0031 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Noyes: (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 (C(Oply Greg'Fewins, Senior Planner, has forwarded a copy of your letter of October 10, 1994 to me for review. I was pleased to note that you are continuing with the review of the planter by Earth Consultants. As long as reasonable progress is made to bring the planter into compliance with building and environmental regulations noted in my letter of September 7, 1993, no abatement action will be taken. For your information, abatement procedures include formal notification of a violation including a time line for compliance. If compliance is not achieved a citation is filed in District Court. Zoning citations carry both monetary and jail penalties. As we discussed last fall it is important to ensure this matter is resolved. As your neighbors have discovered, the area holds the potential for severe slide activity. It is imperative this matter be resolved as expeditiously as possible. Please have your consultant contact me before October 31, 1994 so we can discuss a schedule for resolution of this matter. Respectfully, Martin Nordby Code Compliance Officer c: Greg Fewins EID CY DEVELON M OIuq�lfaHr�Mrr OCT 18 N4 Mr. Greg Fewins October 10, 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 of this date, we have not heard from Mr. Martin Nordby concerning the code status of our planter box construction, so I assume that this matter is still on your desk. After consulting with our attorney, we have decided to take your advice and have the construction further modified by the geological survey firm that submitted the original specifications. Earth Consultants Inc. of Bellevue is currently reviewing the construction of the planter box and will submit their recommendations as to what must be done in order for them to sign off on the project. They have promised expedient action on this matter. Once their recommendations have been received, we intend to begin modification as soon as possible in an effort to clear this matter up and bring the project into code compliance with the City of Federal Way. Once again, thank you for your time and patience. Sincerely, Charles W. Noyes 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA. 98003 (206) 946-0770 JT�YO.�/ 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Application Number SEP93-0031; 704 South 288th Lane Dear Mr. Noyes: (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 August 31, 1994 I have reviewed the letter dated August 23, 1994, prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc., regarding construction of the planter box on your property. The letter was provided in response to my previous letter to you dated February 25, 1994, regarding the need for additional information related to your permit application. In summary, the August 23 letter indicates that the design of the planter box is different from designs presented in earlier reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. A site inspection performed by Earth Consultants, Inc. on July 29, 1994, indicates that the planter, "does not appear to have displaced or otherwise caused changes in the flow, either in volume or direction, of water runoff'. While this information is helpful, it does not address information related to environmental review, geotechnical analysis, bonding, or code enforcement action outlined in my February 25 letter. My February 25 letter established a deadline of March 25, 1994, for submittal of the outlined information. At your request, this deadline was extended to June 25, 1994. On June 22, 1994, you again requested an extension for submittal of outlined information. No substantive information has been provided since my initial February 25 letter. Due to geologic sensitivity of the site, potential life and safety considerations, forthcoming wet weather conditions, and failure to make timely progress on the application, I am referring this matter back to our code compliance officer for review. Martin Nordby, Federal Way Code Compliance Officer, will be contacting you regarding the next step in enforcement of the city's regulations. I am still available to assist you in any way possible in processing your request for required permits and approvals. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 661-4108. Sincerely, Greg Fewins Senior Environmental Planner c: Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer d9:sep93031.wp Earth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental Scientists August 23, 1994 Mr. Charles W. Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington 98003 Subject: Planter Box Design 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, Washington Reference: Soldier Pile Wall Extension Design Recommendations E-2867-3, Dated July 22, 1992 Addendum to Soldier Pile Wall Extension Design Recommendations E-2867-3, Dated September 2, 1992 Dear Mr. Noyes: E-2867-3 The purpose of this letter is to address the construction of the planter box at the subject site. Earth Consultants previously provided the referenced design recommendations for a soldier pile and wood -lagging retaining wall along the existing planter box alignment. Based on our conversations with you, we understand your planter box was strictly for aesthetic purposes and was not intended solely as a retaining structure. Therefore, you elected to utilize a design different from the one presented in the referenced documents. As a result of ECI's site inspection on July 29, 1994, of both your property and the existing planter box wall, it is our opinion that said wall does not appear to have displaced or otherwise caused changes in the flow, either in volume or direction, of water runoff on the Noyes property. �Ca@o�p�� 1805 -136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 464-1584 FAX (206) 746-0860 Tacoma (206) 272-6608 Mr. Charles W. Noyes August 23, 1994 We trust this letter meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call. Respectfully submitted, EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC. Scott D. Dinkelman Project Geologist Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Manager of Geotechnical Services SDD/KRC/kml cc: Keller Rohrback Attention: Dave Rogers Earth Consultants, Inc. E-2867-3 Page 2 W Greg Fewins, Sr Env Planner City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way South Federal Way, WA. 98003-6210 Cvj.".„ Ui,v,p[]EVF-LOPMENT DLPAP�Tis;cNT JUN 27 IM June 22, 1994 RE: APPLICATION SEP93-0031, YOUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 25, 1994, AND OUR MEETING OF JUNE 22, 1994 Dear Mr. Fewins, This is to request a continuation of deferral of Code Enforcement Action. As you know, I was the recipient of a Bone Marrow Transplant earlier this year. Although I am now convalescing at home, it is taking a great deal more time than I had originally thought. In order to put together the packages that you request in a proper manner, I am afraid I will once again be forced to request an additional amount of time. As always your concideration of this manner is very much appreciated. Sincerely, Charles W. Noyes MY Vellf C.RV & Gt- 1C'M j4t�-O VON 717,�/c C) � n 0 0 N a 9 li f� Ijo • I� i r� ►Flirriir�rrE.�'•0 I; Ef I �700 CITY OF 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH March 24, 1994 Ms. Mary Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 RE. Application Number SEP93-0031 Dear Ms. Noyes: (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 FILE In response to your request of March 14, 1994, the city has extended the deadline for submittal of project materials to June 25, 1994. I was very sorry to learn of your situation, and wish Mr. Noyes speedy recovery from his illness. Please give me a call if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Greg wins Senior Environmental Planner dgmay�.wp COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAR T NIENT .-ch 14, 1994 Greg Fewins, Sr Env Planner City of Federal Way 33530 1 st Way South Federal Way, WA 9803-6210 MAR 17 1994 REGARDS: APPLICATION NUMBER SEP 93-0031 AND YOUR LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 25, 1994 Dear Mr. Fewins, This letter is being submitted to request a deferment in Code Enforcement Action. At this time my husband, Charles Noyes, is in the early recovery phase of a bone marrow transplant. Barring set backs, he should be out of the hospital by the end of April, with a projected convalescence at home that will take many more months. Therefore, we would appreciate an extension of at least 90 days to June 25, 1994 to prepare a response to your letter of February 25, 1994. Sincerely, Mary Noy s I" JCITYOF 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH February 25, 1994 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Application Number SEP93-003I Dear Mr. Noyes: (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 The city has reviewed the above referenced application addressing unauthorized construction of a retaining structure which at a minimum is located within a steep slope area. Before proceeding further with the application, there are additional items which must be addressed. For organization purposes, I have provided comments in the following categories of environmental review, geotechnical analysis, bonding of improvements, and the pending code enforcement action. Environmental Review For this type of project, the environmental checklist becomes the primary source of information regarding the potential for impacts to your site and surrounding properties. Specific questions contained in the checklist are required to be answered to address potential impacts and measures needed to control identified impacts. In this case, sections related to earth and water are most directly applicable to your project. It is critical that these questions be answered with correct and technically supported responses. It is acceptable to reference attached technical studies, however references must include a report title, date, and page or section number which responds to the specific checklist question. Because of the complexity and potential significance of your project, I encourage you to seek professional assistance in answering questions related to earth and water to verify that the responses are technically correct. Last, you are required to submit stamped, addressed envelopes, and a typed list for all property owners and residents located within 300 feet of your property. The envelopes will be used to mail the city's environmental decision on this project to neighboring properties. I have enclosed a brochure describing how to obtain this information. Mr. Charles Noyes February 25, 1994 Page 2 Geotechnical Analysis The city is in possession of three letters from Earth Consultants, Inc. related to your site dated December 18, 199�6,..iuly 22, 1992, and September 2, 1992. In addition, you supplemented these reports with a. letter daWd_September 16, 1993, providing background on construction of the unauthorized retaining -structure' which occurred on your property. None of the reports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. address the retaining structure which you constructed. In addition, we have no geotechnical report on file which meets the report requirements of section 22-1286 of the Federal Way City Code (FWCC, enclosed). Before proceeding further with this project, you are required to have a report prepared by a qualified geotechnical expert that addresses the project which you have constructed. The report must also meet each of the report requirements of section 22-1286, and assess whether the site is subject to any of the other geologically hazardous conditions such as landslide, seismic, or erosion hazards. Bonding In the event that you are unable to secure necessary permits and approvals for the project, you may be required to remove or modify the existing unauthorized retaining structure. The city is requiring that a bond or other acceptable security be provided to secure removal and restoration of disturbed areas in the event that permits and approvals are not granted. The security will be based on 120 percent of a contractors estimate provided by you showing the cost of removing the planter and restoring disturbed areas. A cash deposit to cover administrative costs is also required and is based on a percentage of the contractor's estimate. The security and cash deposit will be required before proceeding further with this application. Code Enforcement Action Because the project was built without required city permits and approvals, this action is under review as a code violation and enforcement action. To ensure that timely and good faith progress is made to resolve this violation, all of the above information must be provided no later than March 25, 1994. Failure to provide all information by this deadline may result in the matter being referred to the city's code enforcement officer for further action. Mr. Charles Noyes February 25, 1994 Page 3 Summary Consideration of your proposal involves complex issues related to proximity of geologically hazardous conditions. In approving your project, the city must be assured that the project will not lead to hazardous conditions on your site or to adjoining properties. Therefore, it is critical that each of the above items be prepared and submitted in a timely manner. I am available to meet with you and your geotechnical consultant to discuss these issues, permit processes or specific code requirements. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please give me a call at 661-4108. Sincerely, Greg ewins Senior Environmental Planner enc. Mailing Label Handout FWCC Section 22-1286 c: Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer aa:scpo3t.wp CITY OF FEDERAL WAY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 6, 1994 TO: Building Section 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 Pre-Develo meet Information 1. Submit with completed application for permit, -seven --complete sets of plans of 241lx36" maximum dimension (include architectural, structural, electrical, drainage, utilities, and landscaping). Provide three each 82-1"x11" and three full size site plans for addressing of multiple building sites. 2. At submittal provide two sets of structural calculations prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of . r Washington. g � r At submittal provide two copies of soil investigation and report as specified in Chapter 29 of Uniform Building Code. 4. At submittal provide two sets of energy code calculations including lighting budget. 1991 Washington State Energy Code. 5. Provide two copies of Ring County Health Department approved drawings. - 6. At the time of submittal, those regulations which are currently in effect shall be applicable to all project plans and specifications. The City of Federal Way has currently adopted all Uniform Codes, -1*90W editions. j c(4 f 7. Washington State Barrier Free Standards apply. 8. Special inspection by an--'gppr6-Ved- testing#. -laboratory- is required for mite---we-l-d-ing; —high-strength-T_bolti-ng; p�l­ing- operations, --sprayed-on _firepraQfing,--structural -masonry,—&md cast -in -place concrete. -_--Include testizig­---lab' -�'forftrw - buildi t1q permit submittar. Vt'ri. f y r y��, CC i �� Fr e r 1 9. Separate permits are required for demolition, signs, rack storage, rockeries, etc. Refer to Washington State Department of L & I for electrical permits. Plumbing and mechanical should be included on the main application for permit described in #1 above. 10. Revisions to submitted drawings will be subject to additional plan review fees. 11. Minimum estimated fireflow (gpm) 12. Provide TWO FULL SIZE SITE PLANS APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL WAY POSTMASTER when installing gang -type mail boxes showing approved locations. 13. No building or portion of a building shall be occupied or used for storage prior to the issuance of the CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 14. Other KING COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 39 FEDERAL WAY FIRE DEPARTMENT 316?7 • 1ST AVENUE SO. FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON 98003 January 20, 1994 Greg Fewins Technical Review Committee Re: Noyes Planter Box SEP93-0031 The Fire Marshal's Office has no comments regarding this project. Respectfully submitted, —���tck -�b- vzt�- Patrick D. Kettenring Assistant Fire Marshal Business Phones: Seattle 206-839-6234 Tacoma 206-927-3118 FAX: 206-946-2086 CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM 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 .. A -site storm water infiltration; 7. Recommended foundation design; S. 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 PUBLIC WORKS MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Fewins FROM: Jeffrey H. Sharp For Your Information DATE: January 24, 1994 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. " 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 Cw � 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 September 28, 1993 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: BLD93-1014, RETAINING WALL 704 South 288TH LANE Dear Mr. Noyes: r have reviewed your permit application to rebuild retaining walls on the north side of your property at 704 South 288th Lane. Your application includes one copy of a completed SEPA checklist, and reports by Earth Consultants, Inc. dated December 1991, July 1992 and September 1992. My site visit confirmed the area with the retaining walls has slopes in excess of 40 percent. According to Martin Nordby, Code Compliance Officer, the retaining wall was installed without prior permit approval. The Federal Way City Code (FWCC) regulates development on or within Geologically Hazardous Areas. Geologically Hazardous Areas include erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, seismic hazard areas, and steep slope hazard areas as defined in FWCC Section 22-1. Steep slope hazard areas include those areas with a vertical relief of 40 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet for every 25 feet of horizontal distance (see enclosed.) When an improvement is proposed within a geologically hazardous area, it is reviewed under the provisions of the Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The SEPA review includes examination of a completed environmental checklist and analysis of any potential environmental impacts to the site. The public is notified of the project. Due to the geologically hazardous nature of your site, the retaining wall proposal must undergo SEPA review before a building permit may be issued. The fee for SEPA review is $350. A master land use application has been enclosed for you to include with the fee. Please provide six additional copies of the completed SEPA checklist. Please provide stamped, addressed, legal -size envelopes of the residents within 300 feet of the project area for notification purposes. (see the enclosed handout.) The SEPA review takes approximately 60 days and review of the retaining wall project may run concurrently with the SEPA review. Building permits may not be issued until the SEPA determination has been issued and all appeal periods have passed. Mr. Charles Noyes September 28, 1993 Page 2 I have included several handouts and a SEPA checklist. Please call me at 661-4103 if you have any questions about the SEPA process. Sincerely, 146 UW'06-'� Deb Barker Planning Technician Skip Tullock KC Ellis Martin Nordby Enc: FWCC 22-1286 SEPA application form Mailing label handout 9gjOfatnI\OOYO9Op8.1SI CITY OF FEDERAL WAY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: January 6, 1994 TO: File 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. SIGNED: techalt.frm DATE: T DEPA r ��. RTiviINT arror r --- ';:;'.` ' to 10T: 33530 First Way South Federal Way WA 98003 Phone (206) 661-4000 ENVIRONMENTAL MEECKLIST V of Purpose of Checklist: &OMr '1--"—"' The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for Applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about our proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to wh checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional inf related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact EXH Use of Checklist for Non -project Proposals: PAGE Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for Non -project Actions (part D). For non -project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively_ 1 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY A. 'BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: /�io!!i/cAY/p,►— of �k/t7iv� .QarioE.:ii iA� �'�.a�:c� c7o� TTiruc� ue� :o 2. Name of applicant: GiS�i�.ac�r Lc% s,,.-o /�'la.`�Lrr� %iloYcs 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: C�'R�-Lcs L✓- Noyes f=E'Jlc...,.�� C✓� � w� C206J 9y6 077� 4. Date checklist prepared: 5. Agency .requesting checklist: y- 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Srlf� LlJO/ty i/srCOiA T�c-y A/"rjLr /2 d8ri�/.r iiv6 f�ET�h i T� i�.to✓ ctci I S EtTiev�g'7� 7. - Do you- have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. A/ ca 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be repared, directly related to this proposal. G✓/�Gx�/rT � 7O ''v6.cRA.r� c/tc sux���- — �vct c� F�c� �d�7'.4C�a--y 3 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. •SG /'�/�{ �.vdlr�.e�<�r-a E`✓?"%?-L GJ/F a-kL/ST 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. /-1' jZES/.vErvT/laG dAG:c j`.9✓t-o i'�ai.�,E l�u — �6=J�=..��.✓6 ?c•v.r✓reez. 47ox � �6r�c.vE.o �:O !J /�E+vvT/ FY �1•.io or-FiWr- ESUri�•� • 6 Yprta—sL.a/-C i•vr�r�- Z� AGT far C/,N/c/� %�,crr�.rG �. y-l1�K Yr9r..o Td S/ov� /.v �'isE rvrc.,.�ST ear- SyFF7�Y, 3, J// Cxi�/�.d JZOIJe /�ETi9/.e/jti� 4Jf3LL lHNT Nr9t S67% Ll�r� r4: To .JC �t=J:..�Tic.,+�cv- �.r��L��,ri.�a/ .BcT .coos /�.rvrrc�LCY o�•,/r6t� �vF Ta �w ��n7sst�v a+CLE /L,' A>I r7'Jl1� W7,Ar; tr+J 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to underst'and the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency,. you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. %O �� s? z Sf S >rJ ��/ /_gAE I[egL (i✓R Yi Lt//4� F vq-q _ 4 B. ENV IRON- MENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hill tee slopes, mountainous, other. ' /J level Cfo- 4f r r y� r� 0 -p zoo se 1.t t 'I. G ezs 101aP a�-f e . b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 50Z- c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils zn the immediate vicinity? If so describe. yes rev-ovs or_ s; le- .ram , s �' p rs Te- Ir S ;/�dr� way rei fvWJ Wi t�- Got s�ry ro oiT Shc�rCr �� Q.��r�rx5 Wale a,�d�� 6e Jae, fo �e��� ��,� r�1� � 5 .-11, a :;I -It e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. RP�Za yr i yAAhS f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. �o 8IT OF b C4 J Cr g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt -or buildings)? NIo r'rrdv5 5 a r 72 rr. {i h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. p��q/.✓ /=/6-�-O Gc�.vs/rTi.✓6 OF Rcc,c FILL /'t✓+�E!> o.v 7'N/Gr /ti/� ��/'PF9 wrTN LA✓oTGAVOr ToArni� Aa+ Ls-.CB�tLY//✓6 PE•CFEJt.`9T�.O 'CBS 'D,QN/.✓ f�l r�G TO Gc+c.t�GT' .✓N�'j LJ TTL� Sic"+'.-9�C r2Lnr„i✓s /9FT�=+a� 4��r'?�n-/i�•G fC.�yv T$' R.vO/O/j- 2sP /iv.CN LL _ /�6lz .tea i..iii..-6 ING/.eG '�✓TH � R.i/LIO/.✓.� E� �� .[3� /���y6uro ,dy tn�/o /913J P/�'i.ri! ��.�r�7'Gr� iu Eu.s7-i.ri6 t`+ti-��cii'�v- �ia2.1 P.R.q/.✓ O.� orvE/a._ ,ra/7r911Cc f24YEo�-�c.CC_ 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. ,fEGT/�f/ rt/aT �Pi�c�c.�aac•�. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. ' c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. FAG- Ems. of C5 3. WATER a. Surface. 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. voc5 IVC? T k Pft Y 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. wEws rJOi APPI-Y 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? :Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. moors /�1 OT A PPP- � 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? plan. IDES Cf/ /Ppt l If so, note location on the site Vk%.At'_ (0 1 0- K, - 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. Uob�5 Ah% 'T i b. Ground. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 00 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals... ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or ` the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. Do55 IJ07 A PPI- Y c. Water Runoff (including storm water). 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? �If so, describe. 1 t5proram' IA> l' ,o rb de[for Hq- 2) Could waste materials enter IIground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. /U O d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any.G�G-S for PAL 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site. © deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other •❑ shrubs ❑ grass - ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain ❑ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plant: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. '3� OF GJ d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. i3 LAG .c i7EKsc,� fg ,�� G z'a�G 2mT �fi R.ffEf SE'E n 6t� �'-� S ca r[r i a I X7-- e L--Ieg fiT-G [..� 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. Ey' I -BIT � rAGE �-OF-H to 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control Energy impacts, if any. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. D�� S �T A N-ff Describe special emergency services that might be required. 3PtuE l0 0F .�r 11 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental healtli hazards, if any. b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and ad* cent properties? 5 7_ je" r`� � re, J& FYI � ^�- 12 b. Has the site been used for agriculture? if so, describe. .[io c. Describe any structures on the site. f/iYoG� �ANiLY [a4�rs-curd- roc�T.+ p� P/ro �'cG� 4-All vC••�T7 d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? �o e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? 13 h. Has any part of the site been{ classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specif�a 5. y. He— SIu�� sla�JG3 on �/� rort� dams Sid2 o T -1-L s to - Jl i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. ,vC j- J4 Pi'4 2 C_ rr BLS 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. I✓O T /�!'/ E iG E� bL � 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. g �� O 1q 14 b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts; if any. 4./6 7- /1 FP -/G.w %SLl--- ° AA i 9L it � 0 �• �= 1 OF ` 1 f 1� 11. LIGHT AND GLARE SFG�JO�� hioT R'f PL lI/�1SL� a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere xith views? c. What existing off -site sources of -light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reducd or control light and glare impacts, if any. 12. RECREATION SE=c�io �- .✓oT Cry/ucr,/���/ a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? E - ' T -- _• 1 S OF 16 b. Would the proposed displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION �^ a. Are there any places- -or = objects -=listed =on, -or-::proposed >-for, : nation; state; --or local - preservation registers-. known- to -be -on or-.next-to;the:site? Jf soy :generally -describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to. the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. 17 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parldng spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air .transportation? If so, generally describe. j: Yo aI��"�" nG F� -4 F f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES sC-z-%inr✓ .c�v i �Pt'U4.FtdCG� a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. PAGE---L-OF 16. UTILITIES 19 a. 'Circle utilities currently available at the site: ect Sew��urafga , w) eseptic system, othEr (please Fist). b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNATURE The above answers, are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: r C A-nc-hor S A U E/eVcJed Deck SEAL E ", /o Earth Consultants Inc. Gedechnld Fnglneers. Ceob m & Envlronmenial Sck-M WS Proj. No. 2 96?- 61 Drwn. D SL `Date /0`/7! %y 80vSe EXHIBIT +! PACE,I OF..L, rt 4 Pltin V'aw Noyes Re5;de7�e.- W,,y Checked KR G Date Lo// 7/p y Plate 1 >RECEIVE . CDMMUNP DEVELOPMt I ''' p�rF' �=t'T A&. Deb Barker City of Federal Way 33530 1st Way Federal Way, WA. 98003-6210 RE. Application Number SEP93-9931 Dear Ms. Barker, FEB 2 6 1996 22 February 1996 I have enclosed a copy of the findings of a study that I had commissioned regarding the adequacy of design and construction of our existing planter box. The study was accomplished by Visser Engineering, a Kent Washington firm. Please give this document your attention, so perhaps we can meet during the week of February 26, to discuss the granting of our permit. As always, I am very anxious to finally receive the blessing of the City to continue with the required modification, because, as you know, the affected property is extremely unstable and I am concerned that any further delay by the City may be detrimental. For your information, the planter box as it exists was not effected in any way by the disastrous rain and subsequent flooding during the past week, even though it does appear that there was some sloughing of the earth on neighboring properties where vegetation was inadequate. Again, that you for your attention to this matter and I am looking forward to meeting with you next week. Sincerely, Charles W. Noyes 704 S. 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 946-0770 ]3L,O q 3- ►o►y 19062 SE 32Oth St. Kent, WA 98042 (206) 630-4530 Dec. 15, 1995 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: Per your request Visser Engineering has reviewed your documentation and conditions at the above referenced project. The materials reviewed include the City of Federal Way's Determination of Non -Significance (File No. Sep 93-0031), Earth Consultants Inc. letter dated March 29, 1995 regarding Deadman Design Parameters, and the Federal Way Landscape Service Inc. design drawings. It is our opinion that, structurally, the wall is adequate for a retained height of no more than six feet. This opinion is based on the parameters provided by Earth Consultants, and used with the pole design formulas given in the recent edition of the Uniform Building Code. For retained heights in excess of six feet, the backfill must be excavated and partially filled with concrete, as shown in the attached detail. It is also our opinion that the drainage from the planter should be tightlined to the existing storm drain system running across the property. Since we have not been provided with documentation regarding the exact placement of the existing system, your contractor will have to locate it with a shovel. This drainage scheme is in lieu of the existing outlets running downhill, and in lieu of the system proposed by Earth Consultants. Finally, it is our opinion that the work described herein is in accordance with the design concepts proposed by Earth Consultants which provided a basis for the City's finding of Non -Significance. Please call if you have any questions regarding the foregoing. Very truly yours, i u! . VVA V�/, Mike Visser, P.E. 0; -, 1' -N (E:P!RE-S OCT. 21, VA i 1 AFFIDA VIT OF DISTRIB UTION I � � � hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws State of Washington, that: of the St ❑ Notice of Application ❑ Notice of Action ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance ❑ Notice of Determination of Non - Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Non -Significance (SEPA) ❑ Notice of Proposed Land Use Action ❑ Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Notice of Public Land Use Hearing ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Official Notice ❑Other Notice of Environmental Mitigated ❑Other Determination of Non -Significance (SEPA) w s maileg-Lfaxed / posted to/at each of following addresses (see attached list) on _. _ _ _, 1995. Project Name File Number(s) gnatu Date oe" AFFIDAVI.DOC REVISED 8/8/95 SEPA COORDINATOR COMMUNITY PLANNING SECT DOE - CENTRAL PROGRAM KING COUNTY DDES 707 SMITH TOWER PO BOX 47703 3600 - 136TH PL SE 506 SECOND AVE OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 BELLEVUE WA 98006-1400 SEATTLE WA 98104-2323 KING CO ROADS DIVISION COUNTY ROADS ENGINEER 500 FOURTH AVE RM 900 SEATTLE WA 98104 KEVIN BECK PUGET POWER 33940 WEYERHAEUSER WY FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 NANCY BARTLEY SEATTLE TIMES PO BOX 70 SEATTLE WA 98111 RODGER ANDERSON SEA/KING CO ASSOC/REALTORS 12015 - 115TH AVE NE STE 295 KIRKLAND WA 98034 CHARLES NOYES 704 S 288TH LN FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 LAKEHAVEN UTILITY DIST PO BOX 4249 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 SHARON E NANNEY MORNING NEWS TRIBUNE 32050 - 23RD S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 LORI CORSO FEDERAL WAY NEWS 1634 S 312TH ST FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 HERB POLLINGER FW COMMUNITY COUNCIL PO BOX 3684 FEDERAL WAY WA 98063 FEDERAL WAY FIRE DISTRICT #39 31617-1STAVE S FEDERAL WAY WA 98003 70E MOONEY SEATTLE PI 101 ELLIOTT AVE W SEATTLE WA 98121 WA ENVIRON COUNCIL 1100 SECOND AVE STE 102 SEATTLE WA 98101 US WEST 15900 SE EASTGATE WY BELLEVUE WA 98008 7J DA �-OA-rtSb laws of the State of Washington, that: ❑ Notice of Application ❑ Notice of Action ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance ❑ Notice of Determination of Non - Significance and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Non -Significance (SEPA) Notice of Environmental Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (SEPA) hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the ❑ Notice of Proposed Land Use Action ❑ Notice of Public Meeting ❑ Notice of Public Land Use Hearing ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Official Notice ❑Other ❑Other wa tmailejdl faxed / posted to/at each of following addresses (see attached list) on ��� , 1995. Project Name � `'�'P 5 k ...._ File r(s) ignature ArFMAv[.Doc REVISED 1/4/95 Date1',5� w G0r'' FlJrn�d (D F- (D cn O � rn :� Al O (D � In (D o (D P, • (D rt w P- ¢N(n O Rl fl M r tov (D A) O (D ,� 00 O�:, Lri rrt- rt rt �o CO p l0 P) co r CD�G co 01 c CO (D �r o o l0 : W CO (D O O W 14 mW M M fD p•j m fD o r• H r P• w m rmp rr rh Pi e4�.'�ut�:cam¢e'i p-st�i5y'�5it? i dnu 9i5t`��dS��ii�i�'e H F•raN? +•NN �fc:v+;oi p�ran-:h 1riK3'q➢ Hjfiiaaenwv�•^rye a1?n....."=d :: Asa. s.:?x»� b - r �N 0 �o o�- 0 o wr r o 1 '_] N $V (D Co (D (D O W P� J En (D O F' H WJUI n ra. N (D o N• rrrtrt HHA. PH rrn�j N H(D a, tMS 't� rim `"fir r+rt Ex <ro w3' a` kro o ID co o W . CO o o o. ox CO wr ox W O o x O W rn Li 0 W Or N 14 » \C\ (\( kj{ 2m; » o=e ;eR ems, (& ;&2 _ [®E r ! / K ƒ\^ \(( #���_+�a¥�w -• /\ »y - /S CO CD f\ §\ ID Li CD #} �c::kiwnti�tt: i:�+zhil.IlFyii�iifl! ro (D to y R' CO (D (D U (D m h O "a a�� CD �r (D CO (D, CD p r ff x. rt o�m_ W rm rat w ::r 0) (D ro Nrn r �rt cn K ko o ro in O r p 0. gym` 0 wx �cn O N p O 4. O co, Li r O O iC O N Lim 0 w N N ;h (D m (D a' J N w r r (D r M rt rt ro p l0 . O] . O O ik w F� r 0 r� J N z (D CO (D R. J En (u o P- h r pl a (o rrna rt rt �x CO � ro r �o C. o� o� Wo J r- �1 N 'd a-4N t,0f r R• rm �xrt Kro r O io 0 o, W N O V1 "1 NW a0lW FCD a m r rt rat, a` a• kro r E• �O W. o, o wo •P h] NZ m W m P.JUI h] 'V N,'tl m O P- M MN• to mmm irP� is rnm m CD Q, v Eq W m mrr PJUI MC. rrnp w"w nF'o lb `�rt rm-:1 w m rmt w rt Kro wxN rtri lr a • w r o IDp O �� o =1*= m r1 1D • CJ • W N O O O =k N W O xk W N W N O r o 0 ..::1:(wAF�:3y�oR�(ywHi>inw!gY�i�� y�W'kv?At��?F�tl�.v -1 N ;d (D Co Ql J tr' K N n w rr Hrn rt n P, O P k No r• in ow m- 0 o wN 0 J 11 N m a�w (D o " nro N LI rtr (D m L (D J croy new - rrt w P x r o, a �coCj 00 ro~ m- - r n o o� $ w w En N O o 'o • w m- :J O O � w N O ID h] NW (D CO P- Pco ']ui4 n ow P.I) F, P, (D °° 0 w F, Imo SD con 4.0 r 10 CU1 � r 00 P) �� O• w 00 O 0 w w h] N 4 (D OD O CL -j "3, (D CD p Nmo wr4 flco LQ r Krow Pi cn r� F (D ym� s'Nro K wn LO° n x co G o 7� o wr rt o �n w o (D o (D O rt w cv � w aIn y rm ,0 0 a� w�� 't­J �d (D o (D I�Jnor' r- rnw CO d 0 n p, z (D (n a Cl .j rt w O (D nrw �a� �. rs ~ CYN :n rDD N W �• rn w OD ox ?y o N- O �1COFO-I WF, %D O F-h m (D o o 00` o wN o N O W N 'C Op O F-' '9itf�?!k;i�wh�ry�:�da!Niir-yH 'Jt-iW acom n'Da Hm� ��� �C � C W io O 0• 0 0 w 11 N (D 00 I Q+ 0 (D W N Nrn rr w� � ro r o io 0 0 0 w o o w /%( /\/ \%\ }�\ /2\ D^\ wry a=U) ems -®® n\\ i\� 5/ ®// � §§ / C) 0 o Lo m /_ G 00 2. � hi w 'd (D as M �t co ",rl {� W a N W Wcn O((DD n� w rt n )n �cN ra H �O x o r o En "0 P- W� co or 4 0 Ul ry W cl tJ oo ;u (D N (D p, ao (n 9) O (D W G �l W Vfi n H W- �@ Q x o W oN W W U1 Noo N (DLA)w (D (D(D C N N a W N m Fl- (o FI Fl- h (n o, Ft In Sl rr rr rt E�i: :4 �r "P)CFPt �C� (D x io F+• io (n oo N 000 C>H o• om o w w P w h]Jw (D O (D o+ p G9 (D F'- Fi w 0 (D N• � rt G N 0) CO �C co rF �r w OD (D 0 0 w hJ —1 :d m F-' m r�-1En m F'• H mpl wom rt v 0) ww H �j G m x �Dw c7 FJ C. F O Ul W w F J v ',o m rm p.aam m P. H In Rj wom rr y N pi co �00 , rr �r w 00 m O O W FTJ --t ' d m Hm a o, m r• wom N• �J ti�rt G w kC H r• G m lO F'- co H O N O En ca w M, 1.1i ..j. !Z m (D (D �. �o(D F • :. fi N 00 00 >r p �10 ::s 00 (D 0 C) W m H (D ; ,... n Q0. �m M w lD N- q I-i O N O U) W m N• ���d "Icrl�d FtJ Cfl (D O (D PA O in (D N (D $a, N N O, m m �l (n a n cn R, (D (n F+ 00 (D AJ O (D Pi O (D I � . � F- - � � ti �, V N 1' �l k< Ny Y `�W ` FJ- `D �m �x pi 10Il• CC H OFF CC (D O CO I—' O I-' O O O Ul LA) ti W � ¢1 � ,d N L] 0 m Pl h1 A] LC P(D loM � m pi°v ri w a O rn Ut H tD m w n rr t3Ln a N ~p U1 rt n roz .rK .:,:rciwyrvwl�Ifzp)?titi�Ar:Wro;F.�j3iw`3�Yr. i:ylrr eN N. :3' N ~ N N 'C 0 .nv; o0 cn � o N � f �V1� �G o O �Ox rt, �:l CO2 op CD N nG ft W rrt o n ` Or CD w rt r r. N• o 0 OL k§0 /km 7J� C/ w�� 2�K aK)m //\ 7/D J§2 + co R \ \ F- rt- §/( \}\ CD // w/ �R =m CD (D G � : (D &e2 .jcot- (/� g3(D P) 0� P. \(/ ko/ \\� —}j k[ -„ /r °( jJ 8/ /\ Sa % o n_ CL NWO J - m �m D� 00 w� N d% m wr N a O 11 m coo a m b tiirnL- acoim m n00F1 N°n Hurt "(AN N N w ,d F'o �m0 NrF �C m NN O �rt'X Fl �t� ~ ~ w CO m �m om 00 0 x W O W o co r o• oN w O Ul W _ c � D�rri Nloo �i R1 ❑ Y h] U1 C4 fLN M N O w M U] 'y '.V N .'{. fD p Fw .. .F~j r Co r• G J O o O n ❑p mF{ a$ 0)0 p . Omr w`w o �nr. 7N W H r•m r• � �':r y tc Oo M d y x ID r• 0 or•O pN w U1C G om P fD w 11wm E0; E%§ h • , P)0 ,CD e. 2 &2> Ems- f CD P. g■Ft -§& p\e /§C4 7e el�{ ( & z N"x (D 00 F O w �rnw oWF- o 5 �dro 00 O H. O 1114 's P (p In O 1.1Nx NC7 w Fart N ~N F rn rt F-' rn rt ti PJ . (D �O H >O F OD- 0 CJ - (D� 00- Eno CDo� W N o O W N Ol O W i a -n CLW 0 vl ti ci 0 xnm D� Qrr I-Jm$ h]N (D co F- C) (D N (D H (D N P) (D o P'� N mW F W H Fo- o n ((DD �rt �rn a �� mom. z ~rtr c w >Enro �• ~N ' O yv O <. (D to 1O ' rn CO CO o o o ,fl o WN 0 0o O 0 LI) F O � Oo F W H O JP IMNr M (D O P+ (D CO G P \] Fi � C n rw m oQ, (D ow ~r(nra n �n P)rnz� w ��' .� N n ��• tr F, 0 tr :y!F :ish:ii` F$]FaL•i3d?+i*i!i'khi i�+:Ayid+l�l;;:,:w:�la'+a: �p �' N O �o • 0 O rr o . o ko co . o� 00 o wr o=w o41- w lfl w N O O N n L t J N :' (D 00 F (D o P Fi I W 'r >�N 0 0 to rf CO rF 0 o =H- W N F- O FJ N C7 (D CO Pi n] N ii wC)a wCD� ~(D No,• a Nrt z"�� 0 in CO �D o C� o=*I- o w r o y> o w H w o m 1 i% �G !U © 'q <(13 � C � � W I-jN C-1 F] N7'd R+ v �j P. �t Fi N h orw "F,�]% m O 0,vt:r tip• �rn �croo �crotu a�ti �o j o m �• m co. CO. O 0 0 �• o=9= o 0` wN wI-j O 0 0 041- P N W N O v CITY OfgB�� 33530 1ST WAY SOUTH August 4, 1995 Mr. Charles Noyes 704 South 288th Lane Federal Way, WA 98003 (206) 661-4000 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003-6210 RE: MITIGATED ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD DETERNMiATION FOR APPLICATION NO: SEP 94-0031, NOYES RETAINING WALL 704 SOUTH 288TH LANE, FEDERAL WAY, WA Dear Mr. Noyes: The Environmental Checklist you have submitted has been reviewed by this office and other staff. We have determined that the proposal, in conjunction with mitigation measures identified in the attached Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance, does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. These measures have been established to mitigate specific probable significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the Environmental Checklist and related documents. As a result, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), if each of the attached measures are properly implemented. A copy of the determination is enclosed. A fifteen (15) day comment period is required by the SEPA Rules (WAC 197-11-340). A notice inviting comments was published in the Federal Way News on August 8 1995. At the end of the comment period, the Department will determine if the MDNS should be withdrawn, modified, or issued as proposed. All final determinations may be appealed within fourteen (14) days following the comment deadline. No licenses, permits, or approvals will be issued until completion of the appeal period. Our decision not to require an EIS does not mean that the license, permit, or approval you are seeking from the City has been granted. Approval of denial of the proposal will be made by the appropriate administrative or legislative body vested with that authority.. The environmental record is considered by the decision maker(s) and conditions may be imposed to reduce identified environmental impacts as long as the conditions are based on adopted and designated City policy. After a final decision has been made on your proposal (i.e., after a permit has been issued or City Council action taken, as applicable), you may, but are not required to, publish a Notice of Action as set forth in RCW 43.21C.075. The Notice of Action sets forth a time period after which no legal challenges regarding the proposal's compliance with SEPA can be made. A copy Mitigated Environmental Threshold Determination August 4, 1995 Page 2 of the Notice of Action form and copies of RCW 43.21C.080 and WAC 197-11-680, providing instructions for giving this notice, are available from the Department of Community Development Services. The City is not responsible for publishing the Notice of Action. However, the City is responsible for giving a notice (to parties of record) stating the date for commencing a judicial appeal (including the SEPA portion of that appeal) if your proposal is one for which the City's action on it has a specified time period within which any court appeals must be made. If you need further assistance, feel free to contact Deb Barker, Associate Planner at 661-4103. Sincerely, Gregory Mo e, AICP Director of Community Development Services sepafde\ noyes\mdns.1tr hIj �/3 /aY From: PHILIP REIGHTLEY To: DebB,JulieV Date: 10/17/96 6:04pm Subject: Noyes wall/slope Heard from Mary Lisa Noyes yesterday and spoke to Chuck Noyes today of 704 S 288th Lane. I went down the 4 requirements of the Oct 16 letter necesssary for their Building Permit. He is going to call his engineer (Creative Engineering Options presumably) to do a drawing and address all 4 items on it. I suggested that the engineer call both of you to get details of requirements before he did the drawing and that once drawing was done that the engineer, Noyse and the 2 of you meet to go over what else was needed on the drawing before submission for Building Permit so approval could be quick. Their frustration is that each time they meet with the city there always seems to be more that needs to be done. You may want to be as complete as you can in the telephone calls and the meeting. It appears Chuck knows almost exactly where his tight pipe storm drain is located that goes into the SD system and it is suitably located to be able to pick up the 4 or 5 temporary drains from the wall that go only about half way down the slope. Good luck. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. CC: GregM,CaryR FEDERAL WAY4 LANDSCAPE SERVICE INC. F-rz-111 E LICENSED SEP b-1993 BONDED CITY OF-FE~DER4L WAY INSURED BURLQINGrr) :". i eXPIMS ults1%ti a �l"WND My COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT D"7AE'iMENT MAR 201995 I 1n%a- �� E�e vafwyl Earth Consultants Inc.1 Geotectmkal Englrme.m Geo"osts & Fn%lronrrtental Sdrnilsts re, f e-ra 1 a�I' �A5!11 �D/it Proj. No. a 86 -6 Drwn. 5 � Date 1o/r ?/9' Y Checked K R Date loll, -If F Y Plate a c "Deaj -nq.n A-n ahoy_`, COMMUNITY OEVE(.OPWNT 0rMF;TMEN1- n' MAC ) VS V95 SEAL E /,( _ /o/ Earth Consultants Inc. C.Medmld Englner.M Geologlsra & EnvlrmffwMtal 5clentLsts Proj. No. Drwn. DSO Date lo`1?l%y f WASy� r. EXPIRES N (f 9ke", Patin ��w Fe��Q! �cry1 NG[LSR/n�/o+L Checked KR C Date I o1 ?11?y Plate .1 MA,STr � ''. LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 64cpgb-0031 APPLICATION NO. Gp L 7 o N 5 Lf�r- c.,q Date 1 2-A,*' Agent 33530 Iat Way South ♦ Federal Way, WA 98003 Name of Applicant -w, ZVo y&1--5- Owner �6 S � ref .�-� /' zra6� 9'16m ® a-7o Address _ � ) Phone _ .�_ ., Signature G ,� Owner Name/Address Phone different than applicant) .. r C, � ��� Property Location -- - -- Kroll f mac_ 3 (,/) 5 bJ one - r � Legal Description Project Description Parcel Number(s) % r -- C�q 3 " G I qC) Type of Permit Required: SEPA Notice Sign Checklist Mailed Board Site Plan Review R R # Land Surface Modification R R Boundary Line Adjustment Binding Site Plan R R R Short Subdivision ' Subdivision R R R Shoreline R R Variance R R R Conditional Use R R R E Use - Process I R R Use - Process II R R R Use - Process III R R R ®t Quasi-judicial Rezone R R R Variance R* R R CITY OF FEDERAL Comp. Plan/Rezone R R 13UILDING ❑EP Annexation R R Lot Line Elimination *Pre -Application Meeting R = Required * = Optional by City FOE Y 6ros3-se,J,ari a `yplenJ Jead7AaA a7te/ .See.1,2" C-C i 1I C J 'I a ross -Sect/On d pyPrGal {/p,�y�7L ze-,nnee-1,oxt Se,L t,on b - D� gr, ' id3 rea r L Pe71 VIP�fr/ o��prcaC 1/ead7yJG�m 3 l !- 1 Sir lam o�filt � aUr w aler � f f 2,* r'it)r 11 eXi sf1a�� 1a914ScaPi*O /1mtber WA (ff 5 -- 5 ec! ram o Ptcz! li0411 e0717)e--1ie91 TIRES It11131cOr .._ RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT l7 VLtriCpS 11 Pe Ter �O Wall e�2dalior, S Wa�er/ 6°;Ya.�ent G077774J r 7g- ?ioo?L to 6 ;7,<I,7, a4ier {ryefr�ra� rrarrsaor� a//xc�ior/ do�f 61.11- rind wQSer I3 s 7oWx) r r oti oT �fl rD�'o>< �GPO�Cy� around �c�ot l2 in IumLer- large. e7loa, / Io Plaee ra,�ox (epoxy) a,ravnd re.1d", or Dd(4 e �APv3t rbe ed �o texdon a7)d D/�1e0 %O "I,/e, by a� u�as(Je aVe- a GO-Mpre551V� stre�t;f �j of a000�se. an ul fr`�Ia TCIA5 2 spf'e,71 ,� a f 3 /OGb�c sc, L, r. s/pu�� Le rG��aine�J /p abser✓e coT�/rdG�iox easare Go�nP%aace. auitX �e, )esT Dd-o-i 1 s Earth Consultants Inc. ResideT4.e- Geolechnkal Engineers, Geobgglms 6 Fsvironmen1al SCk nilsis r , I / !'griB/`al Way, WasAl-Aa.7ort Proj No. $6 - 6 Drwn. DS L Date I01719y Checked KR a I Date io� ��g y Plate `( I. a 1 9 �rOSS 'SLrGIrO� A- 41 �eprese�fa�,'ve dT wa�� f", 0 r, /2 AF-ep-M COMMUNrrY DEVROR M AR 2 0 1995 15 m 5 nwl 7`c%l l .r7�6 x y stee/ cvw�er 6 x� �aTr�-SCQioi�� �vnt�er O /5 AO 2 3 30 CroSS - sew ion 8 -B Rey, res e� fa1�✓� o u�a��� ��o�n /2 to ; 5� �pica.� C�o55 - Se�fro� Earth Consultants Inc. Noyes fZesir)g�cB Geotechnlcal Engineers. Geo"LsLs a EnAronrnental Scientists '/ FGdBra.� rya , +Y as Aing 7,, �l Proj No. a 86 _ Drwn. SL Date /D%I /9y Checked 1� g G Date /o� ��qy Plate 3 I Cros3-seG7`,ori of t i-4.l rDeJ7A"l 5eafo„ -C Cr055'seGtion of Iy�rGat' Dea��a•si .Sew ion b -j� 7/ 71 VIP.") tvn« a� `Dead 7Ac�m.� I si l:�`rrinli'n Mo 3� e o7iA eelroot 77 L far' 115 PAar 1- I $�r lon�qq w�fih 13�o' LA) fir Pr�viJale* 0 k+.�scaPi•Ra li�nDer wa(J C/OSS - 5 CGl tO�G O JYPIGtL! SFG l iOT 5 - toa// ea717)eGi�-71 No fes I. l7 V0.r+GPS a1( e�val/o•ri� (,,,few to W bu;+agent G0nr7e�t rendon tv y/C 71.117, 2 5 bl 11eTl�r wadrnp- ter Ar$aoGd a%44 - UC1f (aJT AAJ ures4er. is A—) r7- �,Ie- B7<Od�� fo 'Places rroSioT Prop �c� (GPOI�y) ar6aiLd reld"t A in �x� 'u�n�cr %arm e7iod�R /o Plmce- yt �raec iox (epoxy dravrd re o7i or �d(6 i5 )5ejJ de Ped to f'exo'on. 4easf � //$ a-nd �-- fared % coa�er by Co�GrLd / 51"a/ld nave a co�nPress*eve /sfire/x���F of a000P5i. Steel SfjoJ�d yy/�a�d--e TTan u�/l`i„�/�e rr�15i( s`re7jgr�j /a T 3 6'060 5i, Earth CoTSJ(la�lS�L�a. s/IpolJ II �e. /'G��ain� t oDserJe Goxa/�r/e�ox /o e-A5ore- 6o7n )'-,a-AGO- VAX rk� Desl�r, Earth Consultants Inc. Pro) No. a W - 6 j Drwn. T)s L 1 Date 10/ 7,19y Deta-ils Aoyes RIess;d6-A4.e- 1j !'gdGra/ Wcey, kjASRla[�.�o'YL ■ Checked KR Date i�l ?,Ig y Plate y E •;J ROCKERY NEIGHBORS RESIDENCE SUBJECT RESIDENCE CATCH BASIN DECK fo EDGE TERRACE WASHED RoCx OVER l VIRTU ALLYOUNSUPPORTED Y SQUEEN ON TERRACE SLOPE 2 8096 P pV R SLOOPEOFF� C�^ 41 Cj DROA~" v TO SLUMP 6• MA DRAINAGE I 1 LOCK �CO OF W A7 BASE % l APPROXIMATE TOP OF $� / OPEN FRACTURES * OF WALL - J SCARP {pL7ryy0 ENT 3 MINERAL SOIL EXPOSED ❑U7FALL IVOT r� 27C4 RETAINMENT OBSERVED l OD 3.8 ' HIGH1 ' ]ti SEEPAGE ZONE {• SLUMP BLOCK STEEP BANK BREAK 111���nUS �� V BELOW TOP OF SCARP /�� AOSSIBLE PAST % rr OPEN FRACTURES ACTIVE SLUMP BLOCK rJ +/ t \ E0-100% SLOPE SLUMP BLOCK RECENTLY ACTIVE l / S DEBRIS RES VERY r ,fTTLE VEGETATION t't $'A7 B-1 �J THI31BERRY l' gA, A A' SEEPAGE ZONE RZA-AGRA }} ENGINEERING&ENVIRGNMENTALSERVCEs wo. A-8969 ! DESIGN 1.� ! 11335N.E. 122ndWey Suite too DRAWN DMW x1rklend, Wnshinpton DATE ALN 1993 { 96034-6918 SCALE NTH LANDSCAPED YARD LEGEND BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION INDICATES DIRECTION OF SLOPE APPROXIMATE DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GENERALIZED CROSS SECTION FEDERAL WAY WASHINGTON SITE & EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 2 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION No. F26 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF KING ) ss. I, Carla Royter, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says: That she is the Marketing Director of The Federal Way News, a tri-weekly newspaper which is now and at all times herein mentioned has been published and printed in an office maintained at the place of publication at Federal Way, King County, Washington, that by order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for King County, said newspaper is now and at all times mentioned herein has been approved as a legal newspaper for the publication of any advertisement, notice, summons, report, proceedings, or other official document required by law to be published, that said newspaper was published regularly at least once each week, in the English language, as a newspaper of general circulation in Federal Way, King County, Washington, at the time of application to the aforementioned Superior Court for approval as a legal newspaper, and was so published for at least six months prior to the date of said publication, and is now and at all times mentioned herein has been so published. That the annexed is a true copy of a Notice by the City of Federal Way of Environmental Mitigated DNS, Ann. No. SEP94-0031 as it was published in regular issues of said newspapers once each week for a period of one consecutive week(s), commencing on the 8th day of August , 1995, and ending on the 8th day of August , 1995, both dates inclusive, and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers and as a newspaper of general circulation during all of said period. That the ll amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publica onis the sum of S 44.69 .— Subscribed and sworn to before me {iris 4ili day of August , 1995. y Public in an r State of Washington at Seattle. My m on expires 5/30/99. NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATED DETEHMil$-A WN OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE Federal Way, Washington Application No: SEP94-0031 The City of Federal Way has deter- mined that the following project does not have a probable significant ad- verse impact on the environment, and an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed en- vironmental checklist and other infor- mation on file with the City. Proposed Action: The proposal is to construct a soldier pile wall and plant- ing structure in a steep slope hazard area with slopes of up to 80 percent. Applicant: Charles Noyes Location:_ 704 South 288th Lane, Fed- eral Way, WA Mitigation Measures (Summary): Rec- ommendations of the geotechnical re- ports prepared by Earth Consultants, Inc. shall be incorporated into the de- sign and construction plans for the project as required by the city, includ- ing drainline connection, revegetation and monitoring program establish- ment; drainage systems designed by licensed engineer, the building permit shall be updated. Further information regarding this ac- tion is available to the public upon re- quest at the Federal Way Department of Community Development, Federal Way City Hall, 33530 First Way South, Federal Way, WA, 98003, Contact: Deb Barker, Associate Planner, Phone: (206) 661-4103. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2). Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 1995. Unless modified by the City, this de- termination will become final following the comment deadline. Any person ag- grieved by the City's determination may file an appeal with the City within 14 days of the above comment dead- line. Published in the Federal Way News on August 8, 1995. F26 3 s . 1995 lil. 1 -SERVICES CITY OF FEDERAL. WAY co UESP.O. Box 48119 Seattle, WA 98148 NEYfSPAPERS (206) 241-2707 Invoice for Classified Advertising by Federal Way News e Highline Times e Des Moines News Times Number Amount Class Ran of Lines Due ,-4 (a 0 0 1. 5 5 4 4. 6:-) INVOICE NUMBER: 1. J. 27 9 2 0 0.16 8 NOTES: AD TAKER PHONE NUMBER: 0 G . .... 661--4000 ,W)T? RF*1t` - E N V 1'. R 0 N START DATE STOP DATE 08/08/95 1 06/08/95 ktb-,PZ." City 0f Fe(Je-ra'L Wj.xy Attn Alexi 33530 Ist W,-..xy S,. F-ede-ral. WAy WA 98003 Amount Due Upon Receipt: 1. 1. 2 7 9 2 — 0 01.68 44.69 08/08/95 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPT PAYMENT. RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT. A. or/0 l ' G, • ,� �,t C'� tea` a�{1Ci t { 'ram c5 J ss--C,* ow Jr oc v�- \tl JQ Q otoo r� o tx. V 10 05© \ 4 �� 1 orov a£pG } oer �{ s •( "" na /14' o or P p °fi 3 MF6 LL '6& 4 e r �it> /t\ 4 7 1 °9zO s4i' ® / �f '1 4 y� o /rtl�• `' •;, 36t'�sSe,� ff oo �� d} 4 o£ .� A 9 o9pt� \ �-� �� Z� Ms �y A t� t1 •'i (� � ON pQ �+ ' a Q M I t ft xr 'Gp ii �^tr o$dQ �..: • Q �'x.i°`ia."Ks�n O tG.-. 'rim P.S/_ `•'+ cc 1`'f�yg VN pL. bf St+/ f v c -t, w p Pi /�{�+?? \ a !slabN-6t bBN 6z t 3t° ffls°�11 0bt'O �! 01•?'ip � ?�C� s`'� V t �"G } '� (yi d+ Tom . 0A,0 `F .'""{ �`S fi 4 to 1 O tb Lt UI L f `• oboo rvt y J 1 r jlf a s ' 4 p bi, 0,;t \ coo! r {e 08P 0 6S'EE! os°Q / p ` .E. 8S'S1 . Sr aF Q L�' &{ tj e� 0 .. 9f J *e Y ti '�. d o411 a'c" 9b . '1 rTQtQ ^ / �/ \ a �' fi �' � pQ�p 6 ^ .Sy to � cS+ �" �t 0fl � t 6` ^'� � V 2 0�0° ,n �'�t tp t0 c�a, �f - rj�' I✓ t tits A 00_ / O w ga•g2t H� ®�` oyty�iQc� \ (1) °°7� cas 0 �` 4�N g^+LG tb Qa , Obp. ti £f't9t 3$f.^6 fEN �,t'4f iS4 .+. ota ,f a gs•ea 4 +f i,. Q tGQ , D ,y, x4- h ti ° 4 r' 61 a �. C cpo S� 'd t�i1 i} Z 05.0 x �tDCh �� 1Q qN p 3 N ti i LLI 01 Ui t� �? } V� Q8 azt (9 {# L 4 8 s ct�cz\ Qom! c �i t oor ap # f a3 5 qt 6t zr E� h¢ ¢j f i + f 1 N . ,' " 1 vi � �•+rog -9s' -s8 h` � � s j` 4 +.t'� � ,.� ,�. � 5' -5.9- 0A 'tt i;, c�it ., t y� � _ n -, o o£f re 8a ap w 0 Q Op te� s. OG.;� ` �.Ct} fl °° ty /f F!'FJ! .fi6`°y .iµ. ,tS+ °7, p �9 = c °{+ ° ' - t, V 0 61 3Ssf -6'8 %Y t r3`� \ + _ - t'' �? y 3 Q it?o n.• g t � oP of o9t° � N tD � M °�� gs t�s swi Y �• � �s. ti�wt # £° eta �` e0.a —�` %! p1! / �AQ / °000 tt A Y A Se of O�0O :... ,„."^,.. ,+ 01- {p is r0 at % NLEE v tn3 of of ti 3 09 4 °d _+' �° f !` ' o it s s h �. ts, d° ° ,t or^r I �t •�z,y N t �. '< - `` °SQo v - �,° :s�Ft1 .. F� qw 4 - ep`e�i b ?!1 Ojti V 0 t f • v E'f 1. G - +t -! # V 1 yr` Qa' # t + Q , l S �c' p�: �'a •.v :r (jy '9 e >� � t , jN �4 � } -�y6 •'"j /��a`` a 4r .tv 4 �' 1' 16 t7 r�i . L? 2 � a /b ♦ r of �l 3¢7+-'$ iV tO 0 ' ° 28` s Niyt y 0 r ©? d.., •< �� # d# . h 9tG-6 -0ex 9£ .a9i1 r� �9 + `� ,.{,w "�4 to o+rti 4 . ., fox FS 4° `3t . r j � 1 G f °1 ?pJ y tt? ' s� ss. S• 9 < o£ Q£ %� CA a Q Qn 4 #z 5E 1 t yif� a} ` 6l bi lea q `o i�� E r� .Y W yy..�, p y .. w' �. �► f t1. ') Q i {�, _ p�OQ -4'p ¢ / '4, �; S M p�ft0 ;ga •! � S¢ t �o [Y' .Y°�-.- g) a`` '"`'/ `1' `i.1 Qitp `i �Q�y-L.t LT.,ir Q gH � P48 S 7 x 0 �'���';, "� � ;..:-�"2� 4 y-*�'��t � �2 � v ,° � � `?� •��k i+r `� /� p � .- ..., .. ��' Cf .�a`d► F•,�r �,1 - � �v�, � t 9� t5`! $;� ��� � f," �� ` L a •'w' F �\'S8 oar ' rri 09t 1 i o o �t 2l \ � U) C9 v g9L #-# ,. $ - - •7' l '' ., # '•rG � �'s•g �i, c+ t, f Zg'Sr d ns e• .. < . n ptZg tU {p Gt m d ->o { .1� z.. ov a> _ Gr 69 t .tt7.2,i tt� otQ o �p s`'tr�< i`• w �tr'.�\< {5 - y� X+t` c',� 2 Get Tyx o Ss ..?.6<N C1L ° `ij w r, o, 'Mu-pt, seN Qp�' lot ° �7' c s s �t r 'tSp `S+ L ¢0 rat c 0 tv rw ;y �' 6,} #0 fi't•'tQ , _ f,,l *...�. 1D Q'V , t !g• kf" sr, ° ti� a�. D c- 0 !�X -'� { q7' � t3.'t• F �Tt •'! b qt Ss V. v£r�t £ �� 61 Q $ r 42 s/ $ s oar Q o tl�tQ iz$� c�q°/ V� <t s �� `� t:/ •�- x > p 01- a� �. t+ p , ' .0 r d �/�` • ' •,�1 t o s v 10 J8' +� t. � � 4 la o6to as w. 14 L v'7 Y � � q' 90 $ {j i a ° t Xt i� ty Qkr t+l# f CY'?. iG - U (° IE'S GZ l �' #1 ( ci m f ti W (fl l v 4 . . '., ' u-9 S� � "'�. x>•" � .. .1°. o Nft.: ah' � L � ., .+,q G ,$ t° 4 1 rr 4� ., r:9 �;� aa. �., Y1 � 4 �.. ,.mot-„'zaea� X �.: � � � t ✓4 � :dt • S a 11 V aSTYrq s+ o� G x,. 1 # 9 b , C�)st _ .�. �+ �+ # v +a 3 ,u � sc a _ l 1 +tt Z' k { �" s * z k z f � t, ..+ � •-. j cs ,.- f . , ... <_ - , . „ ,_ ,:.a... �' 1 -. » ;t r '.r ,. � 3 : 5... . ( f' , ...,..,. ?C Y 2/ .!• Rk z . r :- - t3vA y:. fit -tQ . •.jj!! i[, n( .: - ,. :�T{,}+: - �. fs.;-t =,, � ;:;' �.... _ y... �j t ., :�'r- ,<, „..r .{, .r,.. .^ /F VJ .:,-,:' x: V, ^... ,'. .; -•�.-. a, „..'. 3 i, ! , ems.,: . .. ., X .ss .f } yr Y: r • ._. 1 / � i...s . v ,..:: .> ':...T ... tom. C s:. V.: 5 n-. �r .. , z.,i. so i :w` >', Si 1 :'1 �• ''.€ r N Y i • � }� � t, .W r ff.M r� r t .�, ,, ,< � : `dui i n • < p / Yi e¢ L� �` y qq� b J 4 Y.. 1} �7 .¢ .. f) ,1 - 4, ,� c7" t+ V^ !'. i S .�,,., -k,�„- '\ r ? OL .�5.' cc� ,q l ,{r + f 0 c-o$ 0 t - % 1 V "11 ''r 1 rt'c j N, IG a>,( f S2 , \\ y p v, `i '{''..(i zrtj `�5`0 4' 0� i1 Ott' ( t \tt • f v of r �brL O39 `` I f- +•1 fyy!1t.4 t. it`i ? , t tj 1,'+ pQ b' ;4 '1 jpf to 0 '✓ p�' l�' 4 ✓ ,, r "� - ;, 't'� ,, f- �,. ,aj'LCrV �'�.(¢ Ji " 1`-'�,t ' ;n` •,� o. � ,.�...-, � t � Qq � 1! ,;1 0 i�r'Zl �I fr N jiv' p'k �44 4,6 �f4 • , '1 •� 51 ' �Q LtV tL ja r ' s ,i r` �`✓ f et ` o �+ ++ oy 0 3e `• � . �f ° , � . � `� ECG ` � - atr It q to 6�6'pZi ` Z9'LIrl ¢ R y ! / - ,� d , r k {L } a * t) •J �F (� twit �J 1 1 � ,� 4 4 `� �� �p1 9Y' �t /;j! i•` E•6l f 4 £00 o a r n'�i t'8 Ck . �— „+, F l c +� �,w c" lc;;. l cam`: tt3 �, jJ e o`t v +,+'c �7 {pa ��� AS o 1 .. o o try -_ _ y flJ F' . !✓ tU 1'� r ., J Py d' 4 OdG N N 1 f pdt o �� J L } rye2 1 ke r,f 1i {�� (` < t'°y 1 tL,�Q�/ o3, •�n� x o S `c t ly t d I Q r €.Yf ,Y r-v 1 yp �.. - ".. ..1: ,.,s`" '� °; tv i{ �- ,:,�G. _..�, 'f {�I: o�, jg 0400 t--� tt 4 {� 1 ,x — , a °r 7 r "° } " J E 1 I¢ `3 r�� �: 1 4 # ,� 7� Z t 1'0 to 1 c i } y \ y , ,r Z ti AI i f CY 3 4� 4� aft GT� a o' '-� y4 tc� :'i, r ova + 1 o �'¢ 4 It /1tr r(! t19 {} ',` 9\ p,?4 aPr< '' ^•� •�,�`"" � �,' � �' ,� � y � •Q� t � ^t" r kt' .;�.�' �s` t+�` t+S' r �^` + , ` i. „� � •} l a tiC��t_ ��f k f� } PS' �`%ltl� � �Cl t 0 4 } W 1� Y ty� j Qi¢ 1 T� �[ 6 P * 'art r'`" Q°` �Fjvk !/ 3 1 .rR rt to �1� C'rf + _ SS .'- £t. �" ° .`` `-� .% t jl y''�rOP "^'s " v } m Q .. 1. .y6'iS:. at. S4. *y ;:Ut`�a - 4`.t•{, ,4 f ?• .y "t� :i /�/pt// ,° fjA/£ _� , 4S. ° - o 0 �+ rY2 '�'� � �a�•� �,, \ <� �' �� �tR r •�¢� o �..�- .r 3 4r,`� 0 0� 3 �� t tw �tS 7 9 p' b�"i '• qt � ¢ C cs3 c {::7• ZOP C? Ol Y1 �7` ld \f�s . � t ' Y,t�. . ( t� .: .11 `r �A�d ta. � �� • � ' U -ice i ,� q - �' st t l 4� o1 p2, d �� i' r' J : 1S ri jai /j i C f ta,t � 4 1f C �,• f 4. Fr, ': v y�PP Ci 5 Q to +' w,z+ P a O On ��l 4 It N T�� to ; pp0 al \ t 04. \Q l n Sri Z2 OL' S£ gti t 4 tj *. a'V € sJ t' r � v Ana, 0� .� r a ', � •� a � Q3 filla4� ni to d .( 'A' 4' G 4 k� F t.� f 4 7+'mot,• { / N n�� ��.�`-d' l�21 J. S 1�,p cy/,t4 t ;t y� ,X 'IV Q1 ,Q % �' ,;:s a.-x.± ♦ is �. ` £ \,£i A ..,>'\ 7i ' : g4j*4. l C7 p�i r,\� Y, Yt.Sr�Y'4J - ''>fl`%f "V R{ 6 t''a ° ' P� 1v t4 7 °' °J •off aZF€x p ' �, 1