19-100288M
W
Mr. Yuriy Labaz
Urban Design Group
15445 53cd Avenue South, Suite 110
Tukwila, WA 98188
riylabaz ho[mail.ca
Re: File #19-100288-00-SF; PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS
Singh (Dori) Residence; 105 SW 292nd Street, Federal Way
Dear Mr. Labaz:
February 7, 2019
Planning staff has reviewed your single-family building permit for a proposed new house located at the
above -referenced address received January 15, 2019. A review of the material you submitted indicates the
following issues that must be addressed prior to building permit approval.
GEOTECHNICAL"REPORT
The subject property is in an area identified as being geologically hazardous (landslide hazard area with 40
percent slope). Please submit any current geotechnical reports that address the criteria established in Federal
Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.145.240(2) and (3). The report should address what types of geologically
hazardous areas exist; impacts to the slope and adjacent properties that may result from the construction
activity; and measures to avoid or mitigate those impacts. Also, the report should evaluate the adequacy of the
proposed erosion/sedimentation control measures (silt fencing) for this development. The city may choose to
utilize our third party geotechnical engineering firm to review the report submitted by your geotechnical
engineer. If so, the cost of this review would be at the applicant's expense.
REGULATED STREAM/ CRITICALAREAS
Be aware that construction staging and equipment cannot be located in any stream or geologically
hazardous area buffer area. In order to stay out of the buffer, the improvements may have to be reduced
or moved to adequately provide room for excavation, foundation, and/or general maneuvering around
the building. A construction fence/physical barrier is required during construction to prevent disturbance
to the wetland buffer. The construction fence must be located outside the buffer so when digging and
setting the silt fence, the buffer will not be impacted. Please depict the fence location on the site plan.
+ Prior to approval of the building permit, the city will prepare and record, with the King County Recorder's
_Office at the expense of the applicant a restrictive covenant against tT7e property, The cove a��ygll_mte_
that no land surface modification may take place and no structure or improvement may be located in the
geologically hazardous area, or other critical area buffers.
SITE PLAN
A redlined site plan is provided with the following comments for plan revisions: RESUBMITTED
0 Provide a site plan in two -foot contours pursuant to FWRC 19.145.250, surveyed by a PLS. MAR 15 2019
19-100288-00-SF Cj7Y 0ffEpeRkLY1AY
CQMMUNrrY DEVELOPMENT
1V1r. Yuriy Labaz
Page 2 of 2
February 7, 2019
• It appears the southeast corner of the house sits on the five-foot critical area BSBL—please shift the
house northward to leave room for construction —land disturbance and structures may not locate in a
geologically hazardous area BSBL.
MWAK • Depict the five-foot rear BSBL. The eave overhangs may only project into the rear setback, no structural
` bump -outs into the setback are permitted.
_., A.
t ■ No development may occur five feet from the edges of the critical area buffer, except for landscaping,
building overhangs, and fences/railings six feet and less in height. Any land disturbance within the
geologically hazardous area and buffer shall require city approvals and a geotechnical engineering report
reviewed by the city's consultant at the applicant's expense, demonstrating the activity will not will not be
at risk of damage due to the geologic hazard and will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic, or
erosion hazard.
BUILDING HEIGHT
More information is needed to confirm if the building height meets the 30-foot maximum height limit,
including the addition of two -foot contours. Please identify both the existing grade and proposed finished
grades around the building as there is a grade change of eight to ten feet.
HEIGHT SURVEY — DocT..iMENTING COMPLIANCE WITH HEIGHT Lumm
Per Community Development Director's Rule, the applicant shall conduct a height survey if the residence
exceeds 27 feet above average building elevation (AABE). Your plans depict a 29.53 foot building height. The
applicant must submit a height survey prepared by a professional land surveyor at the time of underfloor
inspection and at roof -sheeting. The house may not exceed 30 feet AABE in the RS 9.6 zone.
TREE AND VEGETATION RETENTION
The minimum requirement is 25 tree units per acre. You will be requires to provide a minimum of 10 trees.
Fractional quantities shall be rounded the next whole number ([16,640/43560] x 25 tree units = 9.5 tree units
required).
CLOSING
Please submit four copies of requested plans and four copies of requested reports with the enclosed
resubmittal form. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 253-835-2644 or
leila.wiUoughby-oakes@cityoffederalway.com.
Sincerely,
Leila Willoughby -Oakes
Associate Planner
enc: Resubmittal Form c: Greg Kirk, Plans Examiner
Federal Way Critical Area Signage Kevin Peterson, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer
PW Critical Area Engineering Standards Chris Cahan, South King Fire & Rescue
Redlined Site Plans Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Water & Sewer District
Joti & Amarjot Singh, 24413 114th Place SE, Kent, WA 98030 (Owner)
19.100ZW,00•$F ' Doc. I.D. 78733
Ph. 253-896-1011
Fx. 253-8%-2633
FEB 13
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
CITY 01: F!)E W ,4V
Veeder Short Plat �,UL-Nj- Y �%C'JJF'Lopmew
c/o ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC
33400 8th Avenue S, Ste. 208
Federal Way, WA 98003
Attn: Mr. Evan Mann
June 8, 2015
Updated July 13, 2016
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Proposed Short Plat] {
105 SW 292nd Street
Federal Way, Washington
PN:1196000985
Job: Veeder.292ndSLRG ,
L qq tt ,A,
INTRODUCTION �J W
This geotechnical report presents the results of our geotechnical site evaluation,
subsurface explorations. laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses for the proposed
residential development. The site is located at 105 SW 292nd Streetln'the Redondo area of
Federal Way, Washington. The general location of the site is shown on the attached Site
Vicinity Map, Figure 1.
Our understanding of the project is based on our discussions with you, members of the
design team, our review of the plans provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, our review of the
available geologic and soils data, our May 29, 2015 site visit, and our experience in the area.
We understand the site development will consist of a boundary line adjustment, the razing of
the existing residence and construction of a new residence in its place along with two new
residences accessed from a new north -south shared driveway extending from SW 292nd
eet. We anticipate the residences will be one or two-story, wood -framed construction and
yfou
h may include daylight basement configurations supported on conventional concrete
dations.
PURPOSE & SCOPE
/ The purpose of our services was to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at
he site as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the
roposed residential development. We also assessed potential adverse impacts to and from the
lopes located within the site area. Specifically, our scope of services for the project included
a fallowing:
1. Reviewing the available geologic, hydrogeologic and geotechnical data for the site
s
area;
2. Monitoring the completion of track hoe test pits at the site, depths of up to
approximately 10 feet below the existing grades. The test pits were backfilled with
tine soil material, bucket tamped but not otherwise oompacted;
k
• RESUBMI17ED
PERMIT #: 19-100288-00-SF MAR 15 2019
ADDRESS: 105 SW 292nd ST
PROJECT: New Construction CITY OF FEDERAL WAY
SIN GH COMMUHrry DEVELOPMENT
RE SUB: 03/ 15/2019
Veedw.SW292ndSt.GR
,furze 8, 2015
Page 2
k�
�
3. Collecting select soil samples for additional evaluation and testing in our laboratory, as
appropriate;
4. Completing grain size tests to develop preliminary infiltration rates for the site soils, if
'+
feasible.
5. Assessing potential geologic hazards, including landslide, seismic, and erosion hazard
areas per the City of Federal Way Critical Area Ordinance;
r
6. (Providing recommendations for site earthwork activities, including grading and
excavation with construction considerations;
7. Providing design geotechnical recommendations and design cdteda for site grading
activities, subgrade preparation, the proposed building foundations, floor slabs, retaining
walls, and site drainage, including pavement subgrade preparation;
8. Providing our opinion regarding the feasibility of infiltrating stormwater at the site,
including a preliminary infiltration rate, as appropriate; and
9. Summarizing our conclusions and recommendations with supporting data in a written
report.
Our services were originally outlined in our May 13, 2015 Proposal for Geotechnical
Engineering Services. We received signed authorization to proceed with our scope of
services from Marianne Veeder on May 22, 2015.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The site consists of a single tax parcel located at 105 SW 292nd Street in the Redondo
area of Federal Way, Washington. The site is rectangular in shape, measuring approximately
150 feet wide (east to west) by 260 feet deep (north to south) and encompassing
approximately 0.9 acres. The site is currently developed with a single family residence in the
NE portion of the site, a gravel driveway, and associated utilities. A sewer easement crosses
the parcel from east to west at approximately the north and south midpoint. A older rockery
wail along the north margin of the sewer easement situated in the western portion of the site
provides approximately 4 to 6 feet of grade separation. The site is bounded by W 292nd
Street on the North, 1st Avenue South on the east, a right-of-way easement to the south and
existing residential development to the west.
Based on a review of topographic data provided by King County public GIS and
otaservations in the Field, the site generally slopes down from the southeast to northwest. The
southeast portion of the site slopes down below the right-of-way for 1st Avenue South at
inclinations of approximately 50 percent and gradually becomes gently sloping after about 100
feet. Below the steeply sloping area, the remainder of the parcel slopes gently to the northwest
at inclinations of 7 to 12 percent. Vertical relief of the steep slope area is about 45 to 50 feet,
While total topographic relief across the site is on the order of 70 to 75 feet.
Surface water was observed in a small drainage channel along the western margin of
the site. The surface water appeared to be artificially channelized and discharged from the
site into a culvert near the SW 292nd Street right-of-way.
No evidence of soil erosion, soil movement or deep-seated landslide activity was
observed on this si at the time of our site visit, or is documented on the published geological
literature.
Site Soils
The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey maps
the soils in the area of the site as Akierwood S Kitsap soil (AkF) and Indianola loamy fine sand
(InC). The Alderwood-Kitsap soils form on slopes of 25 to 70 percent and have a "severe"
Veeder.SW292ndSt.GR
June 8, 2015
Page 3
that form an stapes of to 15 percent and nave a 'mo erate erosl
A copy of the SCS map for the site vicinity is attached as Figure 3.
Site Geology
The Geological A4ap of the poverty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Washington by Booth,
Waldron, and Troost (2003) indicates the site is underlain by fine-grained facies of glacial
deposits of pre -Olympia age and Vashon age recessional sandy lacustrine deposits (Qvrs),
The pre -Olympia deposits consist of interbedded gravel, sand and silt that were deposited
prior to the Olympia age of glaciation, but are of indeterminate age. These deposits have
been subsequently overridden by the continental ice mass associated with Vashon glaciation
and are in a dense to very dense condition, The recessional sandy lacustrine deposits were
generally deposited during the Vashon Stade of Fraser glaciation. These deposits consist of
lightly stratified to laminated sands and sifts deposited in meltwater ponds and lakes during
the retreat of the continental ice mass. An excerpt of the above referenced map is included as
Figure 4.
Subsurface Explorations
On March 13, 2015. a GevResources geologist was on site and monitored the
excavation of five test pits to depths of up to 8 feet below existing
excavated by a small track mounted machine operated by licensed earthwork contact sere
The locations of the test pits were selected by GeoResources personnel in the field
based on discussions regarding the proposed development, along with site access limitations
and consideration for underground utilities. A field geologist from our office continuously
monitored the test pits, maintained logs of the subsurface conditions encountered, obtained
representative soil samples, and observed pertinent site features. Representative $oil
samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to a
laboratory for further examination and testing as deemed necessary. Each test pit was then
backfllled with the excavated soils and bucket tamped in place.
The test pits excavated and reviewed as part of this evaluation indicate the subsurface
conditions at specific locations only, as actual subsurface conditions Can vary across the site.
Furthermore, the nature and extent of such variation would not become evident until additional
explorations are performed or until construction activities have begun. Based on our
experience in the area and extent of prior explorations in the area, it is our opinion that the
sons encountered in the borings are generally representative of the soils at the site. The
approximate iocations of the borings are indicated on the attached Site and Exploration Plan
as Figure 2.
Subsurface Conditions
Our test pits encountered variable subsurface conditions that generally confirmed the
mapped stratigraphy. The test pits extended to depths ranging from 6 to 8,5 feet below the
existing ground surface. Our test pits generally encountered �z fo 1J7 feet of topsoil overlying
light brown silty fine to medium sand with intermittent lens of blue silty sand in a medium dense
to dense condition to the full depth explored. We interpret these sails s d giacivlacumrine
deposits.
The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS) described in Figure 5. The test pit logs are included as Figures
6a and 6b.
veeder.SW292ndSt.GR
June 8.2015
Page 4
Grain Size Anaiyslsrom
Geotechnical laboratory tests were performed pied rL II a i testing
the
borings to determine soil index and engineering Properties
mpedigs encouni
included visual soil classification Per ASTM D: 2488, moisture content determinations per
ASTM ❑: 2216, a grain sine with the ASTM D: 422nalyses and rg limits. standard praocedu es. The labors ory test
in size analyses test$ we're
performed in accordance
results are included in Figure 7.
Groundwater Conditions
page wasobserved in Teri Pit TP-3 at the time a Out
fiery slow groundwater seed seepae In the test ph to be
excavation. We interpret the observe
dev fops when t e vertical infilt 'ation rate of p e pitation
groundwater, Perched groundwater soll e
Through a more permeable soi! i deve d t vp seasonally a op the deepe, less � able and dens � older
expect that perched groundwater may
fine-grained glaciat deposits a the to a pi anticipate
sit construction activities. and
levels likely will occur in responsep perched groundwater
site utilization_ After the site is developed, the amount of seasonal
should decrease over time. Table 4, summarizes our depth to and elevation of groundwater
encountered in our explorations.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Chapter '19.05.070 G of the ccity "areas Federal Way
becau� f the su Code (updated
bility o erosion,
defines a geoiagica„y taza- , .., �a a
landsliding, seismic or other geofog �i events 4nS require
ss�erosionecific tha ��a ar�a$� tands� ale he
buff@r5 or prop9ClY use." The following
areas, and seismic hazard areas per the Federal Way Revised Code,
Erosion Hazard Areas ral Waderal Way Rqvised Code (19.05.070code defines erosion hazard areas as "areas identified by the
The City of Fed Y
U.S. Department of Agriculture'sNatural
a#uResource rgfurai
moderate to severe or severe to Vys�veef1 and #er-rerosran hazard due fona
is srsch as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream Raw: thaw areas containing the
�W9 p of SoNs when they cur on slopes of 15 percent or greater Oar Everett CE D' -end
' Kifsap silt loam i" P '�,
(,Ak.F �, Rlderwood gravelly sandy loam ( Aga")
and andlor sfream bank erosion,"
Indianola (ulnp"); and those areas lira oast�d he flatterre lup and area as the Alderwood soils; the
The USDA NRCS reaps the
Alderwood soils typically have "slight moror e
steerate to eply sloping srouthem and western m rgin�s e erosion hazards, dependnof n
slope inclination. The soils along the which have a
the site are mapped as the Aldenxood}� Pd by S cream orshoreline erosion.Nere" erosion
hazard. No }portion of the site is
sthe more steeply sloping portions of the site meet the technical
Based on the mapping,
definition at an Erosion Hazard area per the City of Federal Way Revised Code.
Landslide Hazard Areas per Federal Way Revised Code (19.05.070 G (2))
areas as"hose areas
The Federal Way City nsll a mode vement of landslideefines mass hazard
or rock including, but not
potentially subject to episodic op
limited to, the following areas:
(a) Any
Slopes greater rthan 15 percent,
Veeder.SW292ndSt.GR
June 8, 2M
Page 5
(ir) Permeable sediment, redominatal sand and Vvel, over4ft relatMply
ON Springs or groundwater seepage.
(b) Any area that has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, fr'od) 10,000 years
ago to the present, or that is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch.
(c) Any area potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream Incision, stream bank
erosion or undercutting by wave action.
(d) Any area located in a ravine or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially
subject to inundation by debris flows or flooding.
(e) Those areas mapped as Class V (unstable), LIDS (unstable old slides), and VIRS
(unstable recent slides) by the Department of Ecology's Coastal Zone Atlas.
(0 Areas designated as quaternary slumps, earthfi'ows, mudflows, lahars, or landslides
on maps published by the U. S. Geological Survey or Washington State
Department of Natural Resources.
(g) Slopes having gradients greater than 80 percent subject to rockfall during seismic
shaking.
(h) Any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 or
more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by
establishing its toe and toga and is measured by averaging the inclination over at
least 10 feet of vertical relief. "
From the above listed indicators, we offer the following comments:
The slopes on the south side of the parcel are greater than 15 percent, but no
permeable sediments over impermeable sediments were observed in our explorations, and no
groundwater seepage was observed at the time of our site visit: There was no evidence of
recentlhoiocene epoch slope instability on the site at the time of our visit. The drainage in the
east portion of the site was relatively gently sloping and did not exhibit any evidence of rapid
incision or stream bank erosion at the time of our site visit culverts had also been installed.
No area of alluvial fans was noted or was observed on or within the vicinity of the subject site.
The site is mapped as "stable" by the Department of Ecology's Coastal Zone Atlas. The site is
not mapped as a quaternary slump, earthflow, mudflow, lahar, or landslide by the U.S.
Geological Survey or the Department of Natural Resources: There are no slopes greater than
80 percent located on or near the site. There is a slope of greater than 40 percent with more
than 10 feet of vertical relief in the southeast cornier of tihe'sfte.
Based on our observations and literature review, the more steeply sloping southeast
portion of the site meets the technical criteria of a landslide hazard area —
Seismic Hazards per Federal Way Revised Code (19.05.070 G (3))
The City of Federal Way Municipal Code defines seismic hazard areas as 'those areas
subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as, a result of seismically induced ground
shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface fauiting. These conditions
occur iii areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a
shallow groundwater table."
According the City of Federal Way Municipal Code, the proposed residential
plat will be required to be designed and constn.icted in accordance with the 2012intemational
Building Code (IBC). Based on the inferred range of Standard Penetration Test {SPT) values,
It is our opinion that the project site could be adequately classified as a Site Class D in
accordance with the 2015 IBC Section 1813,3.2IASCE 7-05 Table 20.3-1. This is based on
the likely range of equivalent SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts for the soil types
observed in the site area. These conditions were assumed to be representative for the
conditions based on our experience in the vicinity of the site.
Veeder.8W292ndSt.GR
June 8, 2015
Page 6
Buffers/Setbacks per City of Federal Way Revised Code 19.145.230-240
Per the FWRC 19.145.230, landslide hazard areas shall have a standard buffer of 50
feet, measured from the top, toe, and sides of the slope. Buffers and setbacks depend on the
sensitivity of the landslide hazard area and may be reduced within the landslide hazard area
when a qualif€ed professional demonstrates that improvements will not cause 0n increased
e hazard or will not be at risk of damage by the landslide hazard.
Erosion and seismic hazard areas do not have standard buffers; however, all proposed
improvements within erosion or seismic hazard areas shall follow the recommendations within
this report. improvements within an erosion hazard area shall not increase surface water
discharge beyond predevelopment conditions, decrease slope stability on adjacent properties,
or adversely impact other critical areas.
Based on our site observations and subsurface explorations, it is our opinion a 25-foot
.setback is adequate and should be applied to the proposed site development. A reduction of
the setback could be achieved by supporting the toe of the slope with an engineered retaining
wall. The amount of reduction would be determined by the height and design of the wall.
Retaining wall recommendations and design criteria can be made available at your request.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our site observations, data review, subsurface explorations and our
engin0ering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed residential development is feasible
from a finical standpoint, provided the recommendations included herein are
kr_orpo*afed into the rra;ect plans.
New residence and other ancillary structures may be supported on new conventional
spread footings or floor slabs bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill placed
above these native soils. The native soils at the site contain a significant percentage of fines
(silt and clay -size particles), which makes them extremely moisture sensitive. These soils will
be diffcult or impossible to compact as structural fill in wet weather conditions.
We understand that grading, for the most part, vAH tie relatively minor, potentially cuts as
much as 8 to 12 feet in the northern and southern portions of the site. It grading activities take
place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to import free -draining granular
material for use as structural fill and backnll.
Stormwater infiltration on the site does not appear feasible in the native sails. We
recommend that stormwater from new impervious surface on the site be collected and
conveyed to appropriate discharge point. Alternatively, Low impact Development (LID)
options should also be considered for stormwater management. The control of surface and
shallow subsurface water in the construction area should increase the overall site stability.
Site Preparation and Grading
All structural areas on the site to be graded should be stripped of vegetation, organic
surface soils, and other deleterious materials including existing sttfesi foundations or
abandoned utility lines. Organic topsoil is not suitable for use as structural fill, but may be
used for limited depths in non-structural areas. Stripping depths ranging from 12 to 18 inches
should be expected to remove these unsuitable soils. Areas of thicker topsoil or organic
- bft may be er wontered in areas of heavy vegetation or depressions, several of our
?explorations did encounter upwards of 18 Inches or topsollfdu€f. Where placement of fill
material is required, the strippedlexposed subgrade areas should be compacted to a firm and
unyielding surface prior to placement of fill material. Excavations for debris removal should be
backfilled with structural fill compacted to the densities described in the "Structural Fill"
section of this report.
Veeder.SW292ndSt.GR
June 8, 2015
Page 7
We recommend that a member of our staff verify the ex Led subgrade conditions
after e
The exposed subgrade soil should be proof -rolled and compacted to a firm and unyielding
condition. We recommend that trees be removed by overturning in fill areas so that a majority
of the roots are removed. Excavations for tree stump removal should be backfilled with
structural fill compacted to the densities described in the "Structural Fill" section of this
report.
Soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during proof -rolling or probing
should be recompacted, if practical, or over -excavated and replaced with structural fill. The
depth and extent of overexcavation should be evaluated by our field representative at the time
of construction. The areas of fill should be evaluated during grading operations to determine if
they need mitigation; recompaction or removal.
Structural Fill
All material placed as fill associated with mass grading, as utility trench backfill, under
building areas, or under roadways should be placed as structural fill. The structural fill should
be placed in horizontal tiffs of appropriate thfckness to allow adequate and uniform
compaction of each lift. Fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (maximum
dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557).
The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and compaction
equipment used. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field
representative during construction. We recommend that our representative be present during
site grading activities to observe the work and perform field density tests.
The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and
moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing US No. 200 sieve)
increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and
adequate compaction becomes more difficult to.achieve. During wet weather, we recommend
use of well -graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent (by weight) passing the CIS
No. 200 sieve based on that fraction passing the 314-inch sieve, such as Grave! Backtill for
Walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork and
foundation installation phase of construction, higher fines content (up to 10 to 12 percent) may
be acceptable.
Material placed for structural fill should be free of debris, organic matter, trash and
cobbles greater than 6-inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be
adjusted as necessary for proper compaction.
Suitability of On -Site Materials as Fill
During dry weather construction, non -organic on -site soil may be considered for use as
structural fill; provided it meets the criteria described above in the `Structural Fill" section and
can be compacted as recommended. If the soil material is over -optimum in moisture content
when excavated, it will be necessary to aerate or dry the soil prior to placement as structural
fill. Shallow soils on the site were observed to be wet of optimum.
Based on our explorations and laboratory testing, the native glaciolacustrine soils on
site contain a significant percentage of fines. The high fines content makes these soils
extremely moisture sensitive and these soils will be difficult to impossible to adequately
compact during extended periods of wet weather or where seepage occurs.
We recommend that completed graded -areas be restricted from traffic or protected
prior to wet weather conditions. The graded areas may be protected by paving, placing
asphalt -treated base, a layer of free -draining material such as pit run sand and gravel or clean
cruehed rock material containing less than 5 percent fines, or some combination of the above.
Veeder.SW292ndSLGR
June 8, 2015
Page 8
Temporary Excavations
All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor
providing serviceslwork, The following cutifill slope guidelines are provided for planning
purposes only. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations or
utility installation.
Ail excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility, trenches
and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal
requirements. Based an current Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA, WAC
296-155-66401) regulations, the shallow upper weathered soils on the site would be classified
as Type C soils, where as the deeper, stiffer soils would be classified as Type B soils.
According to WISHA, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side
slopes in Type B soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1 H:1 V, and Type C soils
should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1.5H:1 V or flatter from the toe to top of the slope.
It should be recognized that slopes of this nature do ravel and require occasional
maintenance. All exposed slope faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic
membrane, jute matting, or other erosion control mats during construction to prevent slope
raveling and rutting during periods of precipitation. These guidelines assume that all surface
loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the
top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut
slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction
materials will be stockpiled along the top of the slope.
Whare it is not feasible to slope the site soils back at these inclinations, a retaining
structure should be ccnsidcred. `A't'ere retaining structures are greater than 4-feet in height
.(bottom of footing to top of structure) or have slopes of greater than 15 percent above them,
they should be engineered per Washington Administrative Code (VVAC 51-16-080 item 5).
This information Is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants,
and should not be construed to imply that GeoResources assumes responsibility for job site
safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
Foundation Support
Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered across the site, we recommend
that spread footings for the new residences be founded on medium dense native soils or on
appropriately prepared structural fill that extends to suitable native soils.
The soil at the base of the footing excavations should be disturbed as little as possible.
All loose, soft or unsuitable material should be removed or recompacted, as appropriate. A
representative from our firm should observe the foundation excavations to determine if
suitable bearing surfaces have been prepared, particularly in the areas where the foundation
will be situated on fill material.
We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated footings and at least 12
Inches for single story and 16 inches for two story continuous wall footings. All footing
elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below grade for frost protection. Footings
founded as described above can be designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of
2.500 psf (pounds per square foot) for combined dead and long-term live loads. The weight of
the footing and overlying backfill may be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be
incrassed by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind
loads.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and floor slabs and as
passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of
friction of 0.30 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil.
Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf
W
Veeder.SW292ndSt.GR
June 8, 2015
Page 9
(F-Qu ..
factor of safety of 1.5 has been applied a these values
We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended
will be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements
between comparably loaded footings of 112 inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur
essentially as loads are being applied. However,; disturbance of the foundation subgrade
during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. We recommend that all
foundations be provided with footing drains.
Floor Slab Support
Slab -on -grade floors, where constructed, should be supported on the medium dense
native soils or on structural fill prepared as described above. Areas of old fill material should
be evaluated during grading activity for suitability of structural support. Areas of significant
organic debris should be removed.
We recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by a minimum flinch thick pea
gravel or washed 5/8 inch crushed rock. This layer should be placed and compacted to an
unyielding condition and should contain less than 2 percent fines.
A synthetic vapor retarder is recommended to control moisture migration through the
slabs. This is of particular importance where the foundation elements are underlain by the
silty till or lake sediments, or where moisture a0gration through the slab is an issue, such as
where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or file to the slab.
A subgrade modulus of 400 kcf (kips per cubic foot) may be used for floor slab design.
We estimate that settlement of the floor slabs designed and constructed as recommended, will
be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet. - • 1. . *r_
Utilities
We expect that underground utilities, such as sanitary sewer, storm, and water will
consist of a series of pipes, vaults, manholes, and catch basins. The utility excavations
should be performed In accordance with appropriate governmental guidelines. Utility pipes
should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Assoclation
(APWA) specifications.
We anticipate that the on -site, non -organic soils will be suitable for use as structural
backfill. If import soil is used as utility trench backfill, it should consist of a material meeting
the wet weather fill recommendations provided in the "Structural Fill" section of this report.
We recommend that utility backfill soils be compacted according to the recommendations
provided in the "Structural Fill" section of this report.
Controlled -density fill (CDF) is most often suitable for use as backfill in any weather
condition and could be used as a convenient, but more expensive, alternative to granular
backfill soil. CDF backfill does not require compaction but should have a minimum
compressive strength of 250 psi commensurate with the application.
Pavement Subgrades
Pavement subgrade areas should be prepared as previously described in the "Site
Preparation" section of this report. The prepared subgrade should be evaluated by proof -
rolling with a fully -loaded dump truck or equivalent point load equipment. Soft, loose or wet
areas that are disclosed should be recompacted or removed, as appropriate. Over -excavated
areas should be backfilled with compacted structural fill and sub -base material. The upper 2
feet of roadway subgrade should have a density of at least 95 percent of the MAD (ASTM D-
1577). Based on our explorations and laboratory testing, subgrade soils on most of the site
have a high percentage of fines. As such, the top 9-10 Inches of the pavement section should
consist of non -frost susceptible materials (HMA or less than 7% fines).
.. -
Veeder.SW292ndSt.GR
June 8.2015
Iaye 10
Erosion Control
Weathering, erosion and the resulting surficiai sloughing and shallow land sliding are
natural processes that affect steep slope areas. As noted, no evidence of surficial raveling or
sloughing was observed at the site. To manage and reduce the potential for these natural
processes, we recommend the following:
A No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto or near the
steep slope area.
4`' No fill should be placed within the buffer or setback zone unless retained by engineered
retaining walls or constructed as an engineered fill.
• Grading should be limited to providing surface grades that promote surface flows away
from the top of slope to an appropriate discharge location beyond the toe of the slope,
such as Into Puget Sound.
Erosion protection measures will need to be in place prior to the start of grading
activity on the site. Erosion hazards can be mitigated by applying Best management Practices
(BMP's) outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Stormwater
Management Manual for Western Washington and the City of Federal Way's stormwater
requirements (which uses the 2,D09 King County Surface Water Design Manual).
Site Drainage
Aii grvurid 5urlaces. pavef Tents and sidavial'rs at tl ie site should .,c sloped away from
structures. The site should also be carefully graded to ensure positive drainage away from all
structures and property lines. Surface water runoff from the roof area, driveways, perimeter
footing drains, and wall drains, should be collected, tightlined, and conveyed to an appropriate
discharge point.
We recommend that footing drains are installed for the residence in accordance with IBC
1807.4.2, and basement walls of utilized) have a wall drain as describe above. The roof drain
should not be connected to the footing drain.
Based on our site evaluation and laboratory analyses, it is our opinion that the
infiltration of stormwater at the site is not feasible. Stormwater should be collected and
conveyed to an appropriate discharge point.
To manage and reduce the potential for the erosion processes; we recommend that no
drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow be directed onto dr near the
steep slope area. Drainage from the roof area, driveways, perimeter footing drains, and wall
drains, should be collected and tightiined to an appropriate discharge point. To intercept
groundwater and to improve slope stability, we recommend that a "French" or intercepter drain
be installed near top of the bluff. The drain will intercept surface water that would flow
uncontrolled over the slope, improving the overall stability of the site. Based on the observed
subsurface conditions, we anticipate that the drain will need to be at feast 10 feet in depth.
The drain should be continued until it daylights or is connected to a catch basin. We
recommend that the collected stormwater be diverted to a series of catch basins and dispersed
as described above.
'L'. ..iwv.v.hMa(!%SY_-d9"^x 3.Y.s.=N9L�`4•••. •••.__ -. .. .'-.f`°i'^v ..
Wet Weather Earthwork Considerations
In the Puget Sound area, wet weather generally begins about mid -October and
continues through about May, although rainy periods could occur at any time of year.
Therefore, it is strongly encouraged that earthwork be scheduled during the dry weather
months of June through September. Most of the soil at the site contains sufficient fines to
produce an unstable mixture when wet. Such soil is highly susceptible to changes in water
Veeder.SW292ndSt.GR
June 8, 2015
Page 11
mars re con en exceeds the OPMUM.
In addition, during wet weather months, the groundwater levels could increase,
resulting in seepage into site excavations, performing earthwork during dry weather would
reduce these problems and costs associated with rainwater, construction traffic, and handling
of wet soil. However, should wet weather/wet condition earthwork be unavoidable, the
following recommendations are provided:
The ground surface in and surrounding the construction area should be sloped as
much as possible to promote runoff of precipitation away from work areas and to
prevent ponding of water.
Work areas or slopes should be covered with plastic. The use of sloping, ditching,
sumps, dewatering, and other measures should be employed as necessary to permit
proper completion of the work.
• Earthwork should be accomplished in small sections to minimize exposure to wet
conditions. That is, each section should be small enough so that the removal of
unsuitable soils and placement and compaction of clean structural fill could be
accomplished on the same day. The size of construction equipment may have to be
limited to prevent soil disturbance. It may be necessary to excavate soils with a
backhoe, or equivalent, and locate them so that equipment does not pass over the
excavated area. Thus, subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic would be
minimized.
• Fill material should consist of clean, well -graded, sand and gravel, of which not more
than 5 percent fines by dry weight passes the No. 200 mesh sieve, based on
wet -sieving the fraction passing the %-inch mesh sieve. The gravel content should
range from between 20 and 50 percent retained on a No. 4 mesh sieve. The fines
should be non -plastic.
r No exposed soil should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. A smooth -
drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, should roll the surface to seal out as much water
as possible.
• In -place soil or fill soil that becomes wet and unstable and/or too wet to suitably
compact should be removed and replaced with clean, granular soil (see gradation
requirements above).
• Excavation and placement of structural fill material should be observed on a full-time
basis by a geotechnical engineer (or representative) experienced in wet weather/wet
condition earthwork to determine that all work is being accomplished in accordance
with the project specifications and our recommendations.
Grading and earthwork should not be accomplished during periods of heavy,
continuous rainfall.
We recommend that the above requirements for wet weathedwet condition earthwork be
incorporated into the contract specifications.
Construction Observation
We recommend that GeoResources, LLC be retained to observe the geotachnical
aspects of construction, particularly the foundations, fill placement and compaction, and
drainage activities. This observation would allow us to verify the subsurface conditions as
they are exposed during construction and to determine that work Is accomplished in
accordance with our recommendations. If conditions encountered during construction differ
Veeder_SW292ndSt_GR
June 8, 2015
page 12
from those anticipated, we can provide recommendations for the conditions actually
encountered.
LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for Marianne Veeder, ESM Consulting Engineering and
members of the design team for use in evaluating a portion of this project. The data used in
preparing this report and this report should be provided to prospective contractors. Our report
analyses, conclusions and interpretations are based on data from others, our subsurface
explorations and limited site reconnaissance, and should not to construed as a wa—mnty of the
subsurface conditions.
Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the explorations and may also
occur with fime. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget
and schedule. Suffiient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm
during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those
Indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the
conditions revealed during the worts differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether
earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications.
The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental
evaluations or constriction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct
the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically
described in our report.
If there are changes in the loads, grades, locstions, configurations or type of facilities to
be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully
applicable. If such changes are made or site conditions change, we should be given the
opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as
appropriate.
Veeder.SW282ndSt.GsR
June 8, 2015
Page 13
.nr
your earfiesl convenlence 1you ave ques fans or comme s.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoResources, LLC
IG
Brad Blggerstaff, LEG Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE
Principal Senior Geotechnical Engineer
BPB:DCB:stm
Doc ID; Veeder,SW292nd.GR
Attachments: Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2: S8e & Exploration Plan
Figure 3. SCS Soil Survey
Figure 4: USGS Geologic Map
Figure 5; USCS Classification
Figure 6a,b: Test Pit logs
Figure 7. Laboratory Resub
�t3i3tii ryr�4cs P) 44
Cr � usi�
. et7r = • SYi 2931d St a •,� ..-
�� S793mp� ,r
S1 291M s[ iS S
29 Sz S29Gt1rP4 1
SW299ul5t �', � S2`s'•• II
i s 4
30 !15
SW 3e1z1.s! f -
r;
Il II _ sv<t'
i i� 3Ci•1St� si
i
.i _ ,n,{6 3EFttR fK
5l S S IOSt1i St
Approximate Site Location
Map Created from King County iMap(http://gismaps.kingoounty.govrMap)
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway E, Ste 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
to
Site Location Map
Proposed Short Plat
105 SW 292rd Street
Federal Way, Washington
Job: Veeder.SW293rd$t.F June 2015 Figure 1
5
Approximate Site Location
Map Created from King County 1Map(http://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap)
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway E, Ste 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
Site Location Map
Proposed Short Plat
105 SW 292nd Street
Federal Way, Washington
Job, Veeder.SIN293rdStT �_- June 2015 Figure 2a
Ica.. -k �.� �•' '
Tp-
TPA
IA
jkri
jP.r4O
;eI"
SW 293R'Y; ST j Y,`
�.
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway E, Ste 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
Not to scale
Site & Exploration Plan
Proposed Short Plat
105 SW 292"d Street
Federal Way, Washington
Job: Veeder.SW293rdSt.F I June 2015 I Figure 2b
Approximate Site Location
Map created from NRCS SCS Soils Map (http://websoiisurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/)
Soil
Soil Name
Parent Material
Slope
Erosion
Hydrologic
Type
Hazard
Soils Grog
OF
Alderwood and
Basil Till with some
25 -- 70
Severe
B
Kitsap Soils
Volcanic Ash
InC
Indianola Loamy
Sandy Glacial
4 _ 15
Moderate
A
Fine Sand
I Outwash
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway E, Ste 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1411
Fax: 253-896-2633
Not to S"$D
NRCS Soils Map
Proposed Short Plat
105 SW 292"° Street
Federal Way, Washington
Job; Veeder.sW283rdSt_F ( dune 2015 1 Flguro 3
Approximate Site Location
Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7. 5-minute Quadrangle, Washington,
Booth, D.B., Waldron, H.H_ and Trost, K.G., 20O3
QP29f Farce -Grained Pre-0! m is Glacial Deposits
Qvrs. Recessional Sandy Lacustrine Deposits
Ck
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacifio Highway East, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-8W1O11
Fax: 2SM96-2633
to
USES Geologic Map
Proposed Short Plat
105 SW 292°a Street
Federal Way, Washington
Job: V"der.SW293rdSCF I June 2015 1 Figure 4
ATtON SYSTEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
GROUP NAME
SYMBOL
GP
COARSE
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
More than 50%
SOILS
Of Coarse Fraction
GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
Retained on
WITH FINES
No. 4 Sieve
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE
More than 50%SAND
Retained on
SAND
No. 200 Sieve
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
More than 50%
Of Coarse Fraction
SAND
SM
SILTY SAND
Passes
No 4 Sieve
WITH FINES
SC
CLAYEY SAND
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
MIL
SILT
CL
CLAY
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
Liquid Limit
Less than 50
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
SILT AND CLAY
More than 50%
Passes
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
No. 200 Sieve
Liquid Limit
50 or more
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES:
1.Field classification is based on visual examination of soil
in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90.
2.Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on
ASTM D2487-90.
3.Description of soil density or consistency are based on
interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of
soils, and or test data.
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-8W2633
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
Dry -Absence of moisture, dry to the touch
Moist -Damp, but no visible water
Wet -Visible free water or saturated, usually
obtained from below water table
Unified Soil Classification System
Proposed Short Plat
105 SW 292nd Street
Federal Way, Washington
Job., Veeder.3W293r+dSI.F I Juno 2015 Figure 5
Test Pit TP-1
Location: E center portion of site, toe of slope
Approximate Elevation: 94 feet
Depth (feet) Soil Type Soll Description-
0.0 - 1.5 - TopsoillForest duff
1.5 8.0 SM Brown grading to tan silty fine SAND with roots in upper foot (dense, moist to wet)
Terminated at 8.0 feet below ground surface.
No caving observed.
No groundwater seepage observed.
Test Pit TP-2
Location: SE portion of site, midpoint of steep slope
Approximate Elevation: 104 feet
feet Soil TyEt Soil Descri Lion
0 ' 0 - 0.7 Topsoil/Forest duff
0.7 -3: 8.0 SM Light brown silty fine SAND (dense, moist)
Terminated at 8.0 feet below ground surface.
No caving observed.
No groundwater seepage observed.
Test Pit TP-3
Location: SW portion of site
Approximate Elevation: 90 feet
th Soil Type. Soil rf
.0 Topsofforest duff
1.0 - 3.5 SM Light brown silty fine SAND (dense, moist)
3.5 7.0 SP Gray -blue poorly sorted SAND with silt (medium dense, wet)
7.0 - 8.5 SP Tan poorly sorted SAND with silt (dense, wet)
Terminated at 8.5 feet below ground surface.
No caving observed.
Very slow groundwater seepage observed below 7 feet.
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
on: Mav 29.2015
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Short Plat
105 SW 292"d Street
Federal Way, Washington
Job: Veeder.SW293rd3tF June 2015 Figure 6a
Test Pit TP-4
Location: NW portion of site, below existing rockery
Approximate Elevation: 84 feet
0,0 - 0.5 _ Topsoillforest duff
0.5 - 2.5 SM Tan silty fine SAND (medium dense, moist)(fill?)
2.5 - 4.0 SM Dark brown silty sand (loose, moist)(relic topsoil?)
4.0 - 7.5 SM Tan mottled stty fine SAND (dense, wet)
Terminated at 7.5 feet below ground surface,
No caving observed.
No groundwater seepage observed.
Test Pit TP-5
Location: N center of site
Approximate Elevation: 80 feet
De fh feet Soil Type Soil Description
0.0 - 1.0 - Gravelly topsoil/sod roots
1.0 - 3.0 SP Tan mottled silty poorly sorted SAND (medium dense, moist)
3.0 - 6.0 ML Tan mottled SILT with fine sand (hard, moist to wet)
Terminated at 6.0 feet below ground surface.
No caving observed.
No groundwater seepage observed.
STM
GeoResources, LLC
5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16
Fife, Washington 98424
Phone: 253-896-1011
Fax: 253-896-2633
Excavated
Test Pit Logs
Proposed Short Plat
145 SW 292nd Street
Federal Way, Walsrangton
Job: Veader.SW293rdSt,F I .rune 2015 1 Figure 6b
tao
90
tx
7C
5C
4C
N
2C
10
Particle Size distribution Report
1
HIM
1111111
ylil�i
u�I
I
Ir
1
NMI
Mill
I
III
If
N
IIIi�
i
Of
I
11111011111111
RUN
I
ON
11
Nil
III
IM11111
1111111111111111111111111511101
11011
,� % era%*
_ +31 Coarse I Fine Ceara
0.0 — 0,0 I 5,1 i .0
TEST RESULT'S
Opening
'Percent
Spec!
Pass?
Otte
Finer
(Percent)
(R=Fail)
1.25
100.0
1
100.0
.75
100.0
.5
100.0
.375
100.0
#4
99.9
#10
98.9
#20
97.3
4l40
94.2
#60
91.0
#100
89.2
#200
95.1
- Snuslomifcal ionprovide d)
Source of Sample: TP-2 Depth: 6-8'
CeoResources, LLC
AIIV zE - mrn.
%sand 16 Fin"
Atadlum
4.7 9 1
�9�l2tjS�[1
Silt with sand
4AI
PL=
LL=
lPl=
_Q11wdLoyon
USCS (D 2487)=
14ASHTO (M 145)=
.cefrieA$
[1A0= 0.1887
D'
D600
D15-
i}S0e
DS{Y=
Co=
D1d�
Cu=
Remarks
Date Received:
Tasted By: rPK
Checked By:
Title:
Date Tested:
Date Sampled: 5/29/15
Client:
Project: Veeder.5W292
Fite WA FI
Tested By: Checked By:
Particle Size Distribution Report
IN
I
I
I
INN
I
pIM
MINNIEOWN
11111
loll
I
HIM
M
11�
UMMIN IL - 2
» % {cravat _ % Sand _ 7i FkM
t;oara+ Fine Coanse' 4Aedw-m Ftne 8Ht i CFa
0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 2.7 24.0 71.9
TEST RESULTS
Opening
Percent
Sptc.'
Pass?
Size
Finer
(Pwc4nt)
(i1--FM1)
1.25
100.0
1
100.0
.75
100.0
.5
100.0
.375
100.0
#4
99.3
#10
98.6
#20
98.1
#40
95.9
w
89.3
# 100
84.3
#200
71.9
trio n, o eficauan provided)
Source of Sample: TP-3 Depth: 8'
GeoResources, LLC
Fife. WA
Sandy silt
ARO-Mff
PI.:
1 Lirrilts_�
LL=
Wl
Pia
USCS (0 2487)=
i
AASK t7 (M 145)--
CksMODYAN
p9o-0.2601
DS,4,0.1589
DB OS
D6(i'
�4a
Dibfi
Oion
Cu
cd"
Rernsrics
Date Received: Des Tested:
Tested By: JPK
Checked By:
Title:
Client:
PrOjW., Veeder-5W292
Tested By: __. x— Checked By:,
Date Sampled: 5129/15
� u 1 11
IN I milli
r11H
a-111111�Mil IM I NINE
_ TEST REBIULTS
vpen
Parewt
Spec.'
Pass?
Sty
; FlFw
(Amment)
(X=FaIQ
1.25
100.0
1
100.0
.75
100.0
.5
100.0
.375
100.0
#4
99.9
#10
98.9
#20
97.3
#40
94.2
#60
91.0
#100
89.2
#200
85.1
MAWIlPH—CrIPALOn- -
Silt with sand
At -to r0, �.1M� t1 [{15T
PL= LL= pie
-Qf-sa tl
USC9 (D 2487)= AASHM (M 145)=
Coefficlents
D9o' 0.1887
D50e pie D1ba
Cc=
Cie= Co=
Remarks
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By: I PK
Checked By:
Title:
(nv specification provided)
►.
Source of Sample: TP-2 Depth. 6-8' Date Sampled: 5/29115
Cloo meourtes, LLC client:
Project: Veeder.SW292
Fite WA tQ:- )sure
Tested By.- j' -- Checked By:_ ---_---
Particle Size Distribution Report
2 � gad
90
70
iI hill I
a
CC 40
30
2 oil I I
10
n NINEm u lllimillillingos
nr�sir 1LG' lill��,
% Gravel % Sapid �• �
JE Coarse no Coarse Medium ifirN silt - CIe
0.0 1 (M) 0.7 0.7 2.7 24.0 71.9
TEST RESULTS
Opening
Percent
spec.'
Pase4
Size
Finer
(Percent)
(X=F911)
1.25
I WO
1
100.0
.75
100.0
.5
100.0
.375
100.0
#4
99.3
# 10
9816
#20
98.1
#40
95.9
#60
89.5
# 100
84.3
#200
71.9
(no sprtCtFication p"wided)
Source of Sample: TP-3 Depth: 8'
GeoResources, LLC
Fife. WA
Sandy silt
gi g LIIMM (ASV
D 4318)_18�
PL=
LL--
P1a
USCS (D 2487)=
Glass (cn -
AA5HTO (M 145)=
D90= 0.2601
1386-_ 0.1589
D80=
NO=
Dgp=
Dts■
Dtp-
C,�=
CC=
Remarks
Date Received: Date Tested:
Tested By: lPK
Checked By:
Title:
Client -
Project: Vicedcr.S►h'292
Tested By: 0 PK Checked By:,
Date Sampled: 5/29/15
Interlaken Engineering and Design, PLLC
Appendix C
"Critical Areas Report — Veeder Property Boundary Line Adjustment" dated August 11, 2016
prepared by Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC. RESUBMITTED
Environmental Consulting
ALI
CM,of FF-DEML WAY
Cos
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
VEEDER PROPERTY
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT
105 SW 292"d Street
Federal Way, Washington 98023
(1196100-0985)
Prepared by:
Cedarock Consultants, Inc.
19609 244th Avenue NE
Woodinville, Washington 98077
Prepared for:
Craig Veeder
2110 V Street NW
Auburn, Washington 98001
August 11, 2016
19609 2441h AVENUE NE • WOOVINVILLE, WA 99077 • 4251788-0961
Veeder Boundary Line Adjustment
Federal Way. Washington Critical Areas Re.port
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................I...................1
1.1 Project Description.......................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose of this Report ..................................................................................................1
1.3 Report Author.................................................................................6......................._1
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS ..................................... ..................................... I.......................... 2
2.1 Streams........................................................................................................................
2.2 Wetlands ...... ....:....•ia....... wi.:i.:.............. .:/gi...............
/k.�NSY�rfsr�.
2.3 Geologic Hazard Areas ...................... � ,,. ,.>P .............
2.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat,�j.....................
3.0 PROJECT EFFECT'S ON CRITICAL AREAS............................................................................. 7
3.1 Streams ............. ..,........:...... �.;.., ..............
^�:`C'N�Y1�XNtYwIrF:,iYiwiXra.��..Fii�':f3%itis'..,.., ._..�21_ T',a'!dl.'1;ilf.•••••••• •••• p
3.2 Wetlands...................... .. ......... .ay.a.rr.�.,y}S.`y.., ....... �r,....�..1.;'.•l,... !�f:!.ar...... .. ....... ..i...............4ii.8
3.3 Geologic Hazard AreasM,...-....... ::...::............. ........:.F:.,:.................................8
3,4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat ............................. ,,, ......... ,................. ..<..a........... ......8
3.5 Critical Areas Effects Summary .....................................................................................8
4.0 MITIGATION....................................................................................................................8
4.1 Impact Avoidance........... 8
4.2 Compensatory Mitigation....
APPENDIX....................................................... uu..............•....0.... 10
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1. Existing conditions in the vicinity of the Veeder property ................... a ...... „M .,......1
Figure 2. Subject watercourse on the Veeder property (April 2015).:........ ..::•
Figure 3. Subject watercourse discharge location to Puget Sound .............................. .................. 4
Figure 4. Subject watercourse upstream (L) and downstream (R) of the Veeder property ..........4
Figure S. Forested area of existing site showing large trees and typical understory .....................7
APPENDIX
Vicinity Map
Proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) Layout
August 11, 2016 CEDAROCKCONSULTANTS, INC.
Vrc&rCA1l0812t6.dMX Page i
Veeder Boundary Line Adjustment
ftPort
Federal Wu , Washington
Crifk°IAt+e�s
1.0 iNTRODUCT ON
1.1 Project Description
An existing lot located at 105 SW 292nd Street, federal Way, Washington will be sub -divided
into three smaller lots for future redevelopment under a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA)
process (see Vicinity Map and proposed BLA layout in Appendix).
1.2 Purpose of this Report
This Critical Areas Report (CAR) was prepared per City of federal Way Revised Code (FWRC
19.145.080(2)) to evaluate environmental effects of the BLA on critical areas. Mitigation is
evaluated where necessary to meet code requirements and restore any lost functions.
1.3 Report Author
This report was prepared by Carl Hadley, a professional biologist with over 25 years of
experience evaluating effects of land use changes on aquatic habitat in Western Washington.
Geotechnical evaluation was provided by Brad Biggerstaff, LEG, GeoResources, I.I.C. Wetland
evaluation was provided by Ed Sewall, PWS, Senior Wetlands Ecologist with Sewall Wetland
Consulting, Inc.
Figure 1. Existing conditions in the vicinity of the Veeder property..
August 11, 2016 CEDAROCX CONSULTANTS, INC.
VeederCAR081116A&X Page 1
Veeder Boundary Line Adjustment
Federol Way, Washington Critical Areas Report
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
This section provides a description of critical areas on and within 1OD-feet of the Veeder
property under existing conditions. Critical areas within 100-feet of the work area include a
stream, steep slope, and buffers/setbacks associated with the stream and slope (Figure 1).
Adjoining properties include similar critical areas.
The site was visited in 2015 and 2016 to evaluate critical area conditions. The entire site was
walked each time.
2.1 Streams
An evaluation of the watercourse crossing the northwest corner of the property was made to
determine appropriate water type classification under the City of Federal Way Zoning And
Development Code (Chapter 19.05.190). Local, state and federal databases, maps, and
reference reports were also searched for any information on the subject watercourse.
The watercourse is only briefly acknowledged or mapped by a few jurisdictions (chiefly DNR and
City of Federal Way). Aside from mention in a URS stteaim inventory report prepared for the
City of Federal in 2001, and a habitat assessment for an upstream development, prepared in
2013, there is no evidence the watercourse has ever received much interest or been studied in
detail. A memo from Jim Harris (City of Federal Way Senior Planner) to Isaac Conlen (City of
Federal Way Planning Manager) on February 3, 2015 summarizes information available in the
City archives with respect to the stream rating2. Multiple evaluations conducted by City of
Federal Way, King County, and private consulting firms, along with the City of Federal Way
Hearing Examiner, have all concluded that the stream should be classified as a minor stream
under the previous Federal Way municipal code. A minor stream is a water course or route,
formed by nature, including those which have been modified by humans, along which surface
waters naturally and normally flow and which do not contain or support resident or migratory
fish. Under the current code this would be a Type N stream. While DNR calls the watercourse a
Type F, the DNR work (except in areas where forest practices are ongoing) is normally done
remotely and based on large scale slope gradient and basin size estimates.
The project site was visited on April 17, 2015 and again on August 4, 2016 by Carl Hadley, a
professional fisheries biologist. The watercourse on the subject property was walked in its
entirety (about 80 feet). The channel upstream (southwest) of the property (approximately 80
feet) was observed from a vantage point on the subject property. From the northern property
line, the watercourse flows north down the slope to Puget Sound. For much of the route
"F dbwnslope the watercourse is contained within relatively steep culverts (gradients up to 23
Soundview Consultants, LLC. 2013. Habitat assessment report and stream restoration plan, Kim residence.
Consultant report prepared for Chin Sup Kim. June 10, 2013.
Memo dated February 3, 2015, from Jim Harris (City of Federal Way Senior Planner) to Isaac Conlen (City of
Federal Way Planning Manager) regarding Kim Residence Stream Classification — Stream R.
August 1:L 2016 CEOAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
vedderWOR"I .ewx Page 2
Veeder Boundary Line Adjustment
Federal Way, Washington Critical areas Report
percent). Private property issues prevented seeing the entire route, The discharge point at the
beach was examined trewl " :
The watercourse on -site is contained within a natural topographic low that meanders across
the northwest corner of the property. The channel has a well-defined bed and banks with a
width at the ordinary high water (OHW) mark ranging between 2-feet and 5-feet wide (Figure
2). Channel depth at OHW was 6" to 12" with a bank -full depth of over 12". Substrate ranged
from small gravel to silt. Habitat was dominated by shallow (0.5") riffle with one small pool
about r in depth. Channel gradient was approximately 3 percent. Instrearn flow was
estimated to be approximately 0.06 cfs (30 gpm) in April, and about 0.01 cfs (5 gpm) in August.
A water temperature of 12 oC was measured in April just after noon on a relatively warm day
with no recent rainfall. This low temperature is indicative of a groundwater source, or
substantial time flowing through culverts or subsurface.
It appears that well more than half of the watercourse has been culverted indicating that it has
a long history of being treated more like a stormwater conveyance than a natural watercourse.
If fish had ever been observed, piping of the watercourse would not have been allowed.
Figure 2. Subject watercourse on'the Veeder property (April 2015).
The one minor pool was quietly observed for approximately 10 minutes with no observations of
fish. The pool provides the only area meeting classic salmonid habitat characteristics and Is the
most likely place where fish would be present if they were in the area.
Fish access from Puget Sound into the watercourse is not currently possible. The watercourse
discharges onto the beach via a concrete culvert embedded in a seawall (Figure 3). The culvert
is buried deeply under an adjacent house, concrete patio, and driveway. Several other culverts
are also present along the route up the steep (300-foot, 15 to 20 percent) slope to SW 292nd
Street.
August 11, 2016 CEDAROCKCONSULTANTS, WC
vetderCAR 081216Atx Page 3
v
Veeder Boundary Line Adjustment
Fede►of May Washington Critical Areas Repart
The subject watercourse meets the definition of a "Stream" under the current Federal Way
Code. The channel appears to have been naturally formed and contains a natural source of
flow. The watercourse is located within a topographic low that extends a long distance up- and
downslope. However, the short (80-foot) section of channel on the subject property appears to
be the only relatively, undisturbed section of channel in the 750 feet of channel that were
observed (Figure 4). The rest of the channel appears to have a long history of being
channelized and/or piped.
Figure 3. Subject watercourse discharge location to Puget Sound
iFigure 4. Subject watercourse upstream (L) and downstream (R) of the Veeder property
It is my opinion that this channel is very unlikely to contain fish. There is no possibility for
anadromous salmon to access the stream under eAsting conditions due to steep slopes and
'v very long, steep culverts. The few short and steep open channel reaches do not contain habitat
that would provide Year-round, or long-term conditions suitable for a resident fish population
to complete a life -cycle (spawn and rear). While the channel on the subject property minimally
provides some suitable habitat, it is an isolated section among much longer reaches without
August 11, 2016 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
VemWC4RMJ16.dM Page 4
Veeder Boundary Line Adjustment
Federal Way, Washington CriticolAreas Report
any habitat aW
gg o rrrFarl@t1t fl il-bearin waters in
Sound, it would be al most impossible tor a fish popu lation to persist in Tnis area.
It is believed based on the evidence seen to date that there is year-round continuous flow in
this channel under normal conditions.
Based on the study conducted for this project, I agree with other studies conducted to date that
the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Type Np under FWRC
19.05.190.Stream(1). The stream does not meet either of the two criteria in the City code for
classification as fish -bearing (FWRC 19.05.190.Stream(2)):
(a) Streams where naturally reoccurring use by fish has been documented by a
government agency; or
(b) Streams that are fish passable, as determined by a qualified professional based on
review of stream flow, gradient and natural barriers, and criteria for fish passability
established by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
2.2 Wetlands
The site was inspected on August 4, 2016 by a professional wetlands scientist. The site was
reviewed using methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification
Manual (WADOE, March 1997). This is the methodology currently recognized by the City of
Federal Way and the State of Washington for wetland determinations and delineations. The
site was also inspected using the methodology described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), and the Western Mountains, Valleys and
Coast region Supplement (Version 2.0) dated June 24, 2010, as required by the US Army Corps
of Engineers. Soil colors were identified using the 1990 Edited and Revised Edition of the
Munsell Soil Color Charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corp. 1990).
With the exception of the steep slope in the southeast corner of the site, the site has a gentle
slope from the south and east towards a low point on the northwest side of the site containing
a well-defined portion of stream. Vegetation on the site consists of an overstory of big leaf
maple and red alder with an understory of Himalayan blackberry, salmonberry, and Indian
plum.
Soil pits excavated throughout the site were found to be a sandy loam soil with colors ranging
from 10YR 3/3-3/4. All were found to be dry with no hydric indicators. No areas on the site
were found with wetland characteristics.
2.3 Geologic Hazard Areas
The property contains an area of steep slope with an average inclination of approximately 50
percent in the southeast corner of the lot (see BLA figure in Appendix). The slope has a 30 foot
vertical rise over about 60 horizontal feet. A rockery wall supports part of the slope. The slope
August 11, 2016 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
VeederCAA081116.docK Page 5
Veeder Boundary line Adjustment
Federal Way, Washfn tan Critical Areas Report
extends to the south* and east onto neighboring properties. The slope is partially supported
with rip -rap and vegetated with trees, and few shrubs, and a great deal of English ivy. Potential
geologic hazards on and near the site were examined and evaluated by a licensed geotechnical
engineer3. While the more steeply sloping portions of the site meet the technical definition of
both an Erosion Hazard and Landslide Hazard area per the code, no evidence of existing
geologic hazards (soil erosion, soil movement or deep-seated landslide activity) as defined in
FWRC 19.05.070(G) was found on the subject property or is documented In the published
geological literature.
The steep slope and setback area are located more than 150 feet away from the channel so
there is little risk of sediment delivery to the stream as a result of any erosion or slope failure.
2.4 Fish and Wildlife Habitat
As described in Section 2.1 no fish are believed to be located on or within more than 300 feet of
the site.
The wildlife habitat review consisted of a site -specific survey and consultation with the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife database 4. The site and surrounding lands have
been developed mostly as moderate -density single -unit residential housing (Figure 1). Some
f— a,.ian cnarioc is fmincl in the arPA. in narticular the presence of a
JLILQIJIG YY'IIYIIIC I IIiMIIG� 1 VI ✓�+�1+•�✓ -'�
number of medium to large deciduous trees, and small patches of native shrubbery on the site
and nearby. However, overall wildlife habitat quality has been significantly modified by past
clearing, fragmentation, and introduction of non-native landscaping species (e.g. English ivy and
turf grasses) (Figure 5).
Species that may be expected to be found intermittently on this site are coyote, Douglas and
eastern grey squirrels, other assorted rodent species, deer, woodpeckers, and song birds.
There are a number of large deciduous trees suitable for eagle, hawk, and owl perching on the
site. No nesting activity by sensitive species is known to have occurred on the site or within
more than 300-feet of the site in the recent past (WDFW 2016).
a GeoResources, LLC. 2016. Geotechnical engineering report, Veeder short plat. J my 13, 2016.
` Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Priority habitat and species map.
August 11, 2016 CEDA ROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
VeederC4RO81216.d= Page 6
Veeder Boundary tine adjustment
Federal Way, Washington Critical Areas Re ort
Figure S. Forested area of existing site showing large trees and typical understory
(August 2015).
3.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ON CRITICAL AREAS
Critical areas on and near the site are described in Section 2.0 of this report. This section
describes potential actions that will be taken within or near critical areas and any proposed
changes to the functions or values that could occur. Critical area functions and values for fish
and wildlife species are based on WDFW guideliness and other best available science6.
3.1 Streams
The on -site stream will be left undisturbed. A 50-foot buffer from OHW as required for Type Np
streams under FWRC 19.145.270(1)(b) will also be left undisturbed. No impacts to the stream
functions or values are expected under the proposed BLA.
S Knutson, K. L. and V. L. Naef. 1"7. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats:
riparian. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 181p.
e For example, see Citations of Recommended Sources of Best Available Science for Designating and Protecting
Critical Areas, 2002, Washington State Office of Community Development, Olympia, WA.
August 11, 2016 Cfl7RRtOC►CCONSUL TANTS, HVC.
Va*rCAfiW1175.d= Page 7
i6` 11
Veeder Boundary Line Adjustment
Federal Wwy, Washi ton CriticalAreas Report
om-
3.2 Wetlands
No wetlands, seeps or springs were noted on or near the site or reported in sensitive areas
portfolios. No groundwater with the potential for daylighting was reported during geotechnical
analysis of underlying soils. The BLA is not expected to have any adverse effect on wetlands.
$.3 Geologic Hazard Areas
Under the BLA the steep slope and required setback have been identified (see BLA figure in
Appendix). No actions are proposed on the slope or within the slope setback. Project
geotechnical engineers have reviewed the proposed BLA and have concluded that based on
their site observations, data review, subsurface explorations and engineering analyses, it is
their opinion that a residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint,
provided that recommendations included in the report are incorporated into the project plans'.
3.4 Fish and Wildlife RAitat
The BLA has identified a road alignment for access to the future Lot B. This road will be located
in an area covered primarily with existing turf grasses. it will not disturb any critical areas or
their buffers/setbacks. Reasonably sized locations that will avoid any disturbance to critical
areas or their buffers/setbacks are available for future houses on each of the lots. While some
large tree removal may occur with development, there are mitigation opportunities available
on the steep slope and within the stream buffer that can provide overall enhancement of fish
and wildlife habitat (See Section 4.2). Overall, there will likely be some short term disturbance
with expected future development, but no significant long term adverse effects on fish and
wildlife habitat.
3.5 Critical Areas Effects Summary
Avoidance of significant impacts to critical areas on the site and nearby can reasonably be
expected under the proposed BLA layout. No adverse affects on critical areas are predicted.
4.0 .MITIGATION
4.1 Impact Avoidance
The primary means of mitigation under the BLA proposed for this property has been avoidance
of existing critical areas (stream and geologic hazards) and their buffers/setbacks. Suitable road
and house locations are provided in the BLA layout whereby all critical areas can be avoided
during final development. With implementation of the following measures, no impacts due to
the BLA are expected.
4` Ro ground'disturbance shall take place within the steep slope area or setback, or within
the stream or stream buffer.
GeoResources, LLC. 2016. Geotechnical engineering report, Veeder short plat. July 13, 2016
August 11, 2016 C€PAROCK COMULTANrs, INC.
Kr*rc4Resszsa.a«x Page 8
Veeder Boundary Line Adjustment
Federal Way, Washington Critical Areas Report
in
4.2 Compensatory Mitigation
While some large tree and native shrub removal can reasonably be expected with future
development, there are mitigation opportunities available on the steep slope and within the
stream buffer that can provide overall enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat. These
opportunities are described below for future consideration when specific redevelopment plans
are being prepared.
• All exotic plant species (primarily Himalayan blackberry and English ivy) could be
removed from the steep slope area and stream buffer. This includes dense infestations
of English ivy growing up most of the native trees on the southern half of the property.
s Trash and landscaping waste materials (branches, lawn clippings, etc.) could be removed
from the stream buffer.
s There are opportunities for further enhancement of the stream buffer with native
groundcovers, shrubs, and trees.
August 11. 2016 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, INC.
VadaCAR 082726-dock Page 9
Wede► Boundary Une Adjustment
Fedeml "y Washington Critical Areas Report
APPENDIX
Vicinity Map
and
Proposed Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) Layout (detail)
(Prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers)
- -- -- ,-%I,- --
August 12, 2016 CEDAROCK CONSULTANTS, WC
wa rC44W 6*m Page 10
Veeder Boundary line Adjustment
Federal Way, Washington Critical Areas Report
PUGET 5?UNDI`:.,
W
s rc
} kP
k+ it
C H
sn
AY
9
�
�T N
IL
�
,
S 2831T• 51
. ill! ._ ��• .ryl.�i�'Tf1 r�l � [��1
105 Saufitwrst
��
242nd Stfeei
yA
S 293n! rs
�,
Y.
U
SV4
er,
"`� � i 5't7bili5t
,�,�.•''
x
Powel aWaad
'W
s SUENNA
Gorden
ELAIDE
r
sw �w,h S�s?�
s AIM Nr s 3oaht st
W
S 3Rath-S�:
S3nithAt
a
Q S
V
r!
44
ywr 3n3u,`�t ,w xw1h St
: i
S xvilt St
y 5 3091Tk St
Vicinity Map (Google 2016)
August 11, 2016 CEDAROCK COd+5t1LTANU, INC.
VaderGAROSM16.4orx Page 11
Veeder Mundary Line Adjustment
Critk a I Aagos 1EM
federal Washington
U
F--
August 11, 2016
Veed;erCARO8JJZ6do"
I
ea,58,50, w
all
rn
=1 IAW SEWER VAIM
mW, mo, 6SOM (SEE
EXCEmDN 'I pff Si or 3)
Ct
p r
N 88'5w,50, w I
/ .4-1:
CEDAROCK CON5ULTAnT5, INC
Page 12
Interlaken Engineering and Design, PLLC
Appendix D
City of Federal Way Boundary Line Adjustment prepared for Veeder Property dated March 15,
2017 by ESM Consulting Engineers
13
d6
lie
fit
m
e
�' • c.�.pw ar ��
J aw r Zoo? 3 .c -io-k n
rr
ME '06' c5 aIm. ' !
a41 '�
mi z fix
�a
loll—.qoo ,
I
� 1 0
z
1
G 1
',Iasi
ft
JHi`
If
1 r
IN1�
r ,T r [1U'OCI
r! F
i f
8
�
N
7
�
a
+F
1
I
I
Ac
O
9
woes
o
v
Ix
x
sit;
[is
LN
JII
I 6e
1-4
z
a
Q.
Interlaken Engineering and Design, PLLC
Appendix E
Easement for Ingress, Egress and Utilities, King County Recording No. 20170601000727 recorded
June 1, 2017
Page 1 of 7
Rfcvrding requmled
and when recorded return to -
Christopher R. 0!;horn
PDster pauper P i-c
l I i 1 'Third Avenue. Suiar.1 D'
NNW, WN"IV1-J"Y
Oba OT REMORW
� Division
BY Deputy
Dw=ent ile
FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UT[LMES
Grantor:
_FASB4ENT
Crw& W. Vccdcr and Mariam a T. Weda, husband and wife
Graneet>:
CTaigr W. Veater and Marianne T. Vecder. husband and wife
Abbreviated Legal Destrlption of s
Prape -
Ptn NE '14 of NE. k See 6TWP 21 N, R 04 E, W.M., Cityof
Ftderal Way, King Ceunt , WA
AbbMiatM Legal Description of Grail
Pr rl :
Lots 17=22I1-6, t31k 14 Buenui V 6 of Plats, p. 29,.King
Conn . WA
Cans ine Umt orSM^Iptian%on hem.
$ and d
Avditar's ttafert<InxJYsrabe s :
,06.12020702
Grantor's Assessor's Property Ts� Porcef
.1NA.IACCOunt No.:
196040985
y
Grsn(ee's Assessor's Properly Tax Parcel
IWnJAtrosnt no.:
_- -
I iov
EASEMENT FOR FNGRESS, %IVS AND UTILITIES
Recitals
A. Grantor owns certain real property located t t County, Washington,
commonly known as 105 SW 292nd Street, Federal Way, tngton 98023tegaily desc7 ihcd Orr
Exhibit "A" ("Grantor's PropeAyp).
B` Grantee owns certain real pmperty located in Xing County, Watsbiitgtott,
commonly known as 105 SW 292nd Street, Federal Way, Washin�qon 99023. legally described
on lxhibii "B" ("Grantee's Property"),
C.: tor good and valuable consideration; the receipt and sufficicncy of which is
hereby acknowledged, Grantor Grl tst$`the. ti J16*6ttg easMent rights in accordamt c with the
provisions of this Agrcemcni.
Agreement
1. Grant of Eascmtmt for ingress. Egrz ss_ and Utilifics to Grantee. Grantor hereby
gives, grants and conveys I Grantee for the benefit of all of Granter's Property, a non-
exciusive, permanent easement for ingress and egress to and from Granter's Pmpmy, and for
constrvmoni • instal lation; rnaitrtenanee and repair of uiiIitics (including, but not limited to.
water, server, storm, gas, CATV, telephone, cable and electricity). Said easement shall he
https: //recordsearch.kingcounty. govALandmarkWeb//DocumentIGetDocumentForPrintPN... 12/ 12/2018
Page 2 of 7
located nver, under snd across IhAt portion of Grantors Property legally described on Exhibit
"C", and it ustrated )ft'D" attached hereto (the'Easement Area").
2. Costs. Grantee shall pay all Fees, costs, taxes and other expenses incurred in
connection k7(h Grantee's exercise of the rights granted in this Agreement. Grantee shall, upon
completion of w i y installation and/or repair of utilities, restore the Easement Area to the same
condition that it was in prior to the installation or repair.
3. indemnity. Grantee shall indemnify defend and hold Grantor harmless front any
all claims, liability, loss, expense, suits, damages, judgments, demands, and casts (including
reasonable legal foes and expenses) to the extent arising out of the acts, errors ar.q;us$04.Of
Grantee in connecticn3 with the exercise of the rights grtnied in this Agreement.
4- B.indinp-Effext. lghts and obligations described herein shall be deemed
covenants running with Granter" y, and Grantee's Property, and shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the p veto, their respective heirs, succcssors and assigns, and
al) future owners of i fl or arty. portF . - tor's Property and/or Grantee's Property.
iN W"ESS WHEREOF, the u ed have executed this Agreement on the dates
indicated below. �*
�c
GRANTEE: �NTOR:
raig Veeder eeder
Marianne'r. Veedr;r
Marianne T. Weeder
https://recordsearch.kingcounty. gov/LandmarkWeb//DocumentIGetDocumentForPrintPN... 12/12/2018
Page 3 of 7
STATE OF WAMINGTON
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
I versify that i know or have satisfaetary evidence that Marianne T. Veeder is the person
who appearod before me, and said person acknowledged that said person signed this instrument
:and acknowledged it to be said pemoWs free and voluntary act For the uses and purposes
mentioned in the instrument.
Fated this
day of i ■► c ►j,
lkiir[rc SyrT �xmt arHnLery i
public in and for the state of Washington, residing
q
HIgtment expires 3-� ►na
',STATE OF FLORIDA 0
tatN`['Y OF 01n, be
Sworn tp (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this ; day of
!tr(h 2017; by Craig W. Veeder, who _ is personalty known to me or
produced a Qr' w L,j eL,as identification.
• �x��� s. rovrute �}
Wiry Rvil[C -slate of FW66j) &I &M s Yl
' caramssinn I GG pt6399 Qr
+ ws� 6h elms Witbs hd 2& 2020 (Impbl9 Py;ni x�y � Marne of NcOr91
https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb//DocumentlGetDocumentForPrintPN... 12/12/2018
Page 4 of 7
EXHIBIT"A"
Legal Description of Grantor's Property
Lots 3, d, 19 and 24, inclusive, ail in Bloch 14, Buenna, according to the plat thereof, recprdC4jn
Volume 6 of Plats, page(s) 29, in King County, Wasttingion.
https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb//DocumentIGetDocumentForPrintPN... 12/12/2018
Page 5 of 7
I 1 11di"
Legal Description of Grantee's Property
mils 17 to 22, iiscitisive; and-l.nts 1 to 6. inclusive; all in Block 14, Buenna, according to the plat
lhereaf, recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page(s) 29, in Icing County, Washington.
https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkWeb//DocumentIGetDocumentForPrintPN... 12/12/2018
Page 6 of 7
EXHIBIT "C"
Legal Description of the Easement ?area
A portion of Lots 17 to 22, inclusive-, and Lots f to 6, inclusive, all in Block I4., ISuenna,
according to the plat thereof, recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, pagc(s) 29, in King County,
Washington. ore particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Norlhwest corner of said Lot 6, said corner being on the South margin of
SW 292`4 Street: THENCE S 88°58'50" E along said South Margin a distance of 76.84 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; THENCE con linuing S 88°58'5T' E along said
South margin a distance of 20.04 f ; Thence 5 04°48'08" W a distance of 165.36 feet;
TH CNCE N 88°58`50" W a di of 20.04 feet; THENCE N 04°48'08" E a distance of 165.36
feet to the POINT QE BEG3
Contains 3,307 square feet, more or is
oac
�r
0
S
https://recordsearch.kingcounty.gov/LandmarkVVeb//DocumentIGetDocumentForPrintPN... 12/12/2018
Page 7 of 7
EXHIBIT "D'*
illustration of the i,a wiluvuI Area
EXHIBIT C
70 ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPWN FOR
n, EGRESS AND vnLr Y EASE] ENT
'A'ORTIf]!"! OF THE NE 1 /4 OF THE NE 1 /4 OF
TlON 6, TWP. 21 N.. RGE o4 E, W.m., CITY
:GF FEDMAL. WAY, KING COUNTY, WASW4GTON
SW 292Np STREET
Mar OF mw OF
COW-MEWffzz B£GSNN}NG
7&84' .04'
rp
I
LU
x NS— TVo
w [nl t +
viu-
3$400 M ok" 4. ItL M aaa
# 1
.Ff�6r�al►�Mq,WA46M
JOB No
1824—OQ1-014
� u swam
DRAWING NAME
SR—Q3
RKM�.Ma!!dl♦14tib111
DATE z
1/24/2017
DRAWN
RFC
r nr4
,,rlsr+'k4,,.�.,� ►
SHEV 1 OF 1
7
https://recordsearch.kingcounty. govILandmarkWeb//DocumentIGetDocumentForPrintPN... 12/ 12/2018
Interlaken Engineering and Design, PLLC
Appendix F
Plan of Stormwater Infrastructure provided by City of Federal Way
ugh - ..�., '� •�. •. '1 .. _ • .- � r
3 a
rf /
}•rr �� _ ,
_ t
a
• y.�y.t�L � w _� r � ii aL• i'/ >r_t .o !~ R � A Mr r r 1 ' - . "+ ' �:`-"-�-+.�vfw.��,.�:,.+1..�..,�..: •r ..
til � L
��', ' ' � } ice. j ' � ;' �_-•-f.-- _�- - .. - ..