The URL can be used to link to this page

18-101580AkCITY OF Federal Way May 1, 2018 Mr. Matt Reider ESM Consulting Engineers LLC 33400 8ffi Avenue South, Suite 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com Jim Ferrell, Mayor FILE Re: File #18-101580-AD; Short Plat Submittal Waiver Request/Septic Critical Areas Waiver Wall, 30201181h Avenue SW, Federal Way Dear Mr. Reider: The city is in receipt of your request received on April 12, 2018, for the Community Development Director to waive the following short subdivision submittal requirement: the Public Health -Seattle & King County approval of the proposed subdivision, as the project is to be served by on -site septic systems (OSS). The request also asks for a "critical areas letter" to allow Public Health -Seattle & King County to begin OSS application review prior to establishment of critical areas designation by the city. For the content of a short subdivision application, Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 18.30.030 states, "The director may waive any sections determined to be not reasonably necessary." Having a vetted method of sewage disposal is -important in any project, especially a proposed subdivision within critical areas and lots be served by septic systems. Omitting the Public Health -Seattle & King County approval from the project submittal to the city will result in longer review times and delay the application decision. The Public Health -Seattle & King County approval is reasonably necessary. The short smbd&vision submittal requirement waiver request is denied The second request is for a "critical areas letter" to allow Public Health -Seattle & King County to begin OSS application review prior to establishment of critical areas designation by the city. City staff spoke with King County staff, who indicated they would not accept an application without critical areas vetting by the city. A waiver letter will not be aarpted by Public Healtb•Seattle & King County. You are correct that the critical areas review occurs concurrent with review of the short subdivision application. It is also true that baseline information can be established in advance. The site's critical areas need to be determined and locations, ratings, and buffers confirmed in order for the city to prepare the typical "critical areas letter" to Public Health -Seattle & King County related to an OSS application. This letter provides verification from the city to the county that the septic system(s) is/are in an acceptable location. Public Health -Seattle & King County needs this letter before they can approve the septic design. An examination of the materials submitted in support of the waiver request generated the following comments. A geotechnical report was submitted, "Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Short Plat 30026-20th Place Southwest, Federal Way Washington," prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC and dated August 3, 2017. The report does not address the septic drain field locations. The report does not indicate Mr. Matt Reider Page 2 of 2 May 1, 2018 whether the locations of the septic drain fields will create any adverse impacts to geologically hazardous areas on site. A revised report can be submitted to the city with a "Request for Administrative Decision" form for the city to review the report before the short plat application is submitted. The report may be peer reviewed at the applicant's cost per FWRC 19.145.080.3. A drawing was hlyd%ubn#tttd��-11 Short Plat Topographic Mapping", prepared by MTN2COAST LLC ", and dated Febr'9, 201 . �n the date on the drawing, it is odd to have the note located near 201h Place SW, "wetland as. mappe- jak. 28 018." Has new critical areas analysis occurred? A critical areas report addressing the wetland can be submitted for review via the process described above for the geotechnical report. A copy of page 6 of the June 2, 2017, Preapplication Conference Summary for the Wall Short Plat, is provided for reference; of particular note are items #15-17 (Streams, Geologically Hazardous Areas, Critical Areas Review). The location of the stream off of 20th Place SW and its buffer are known, per previous city applications (city file numbers 13-104617-UP and 16-100077-SU). If you have questions regarding this response contact Senior Planner Stacey Welsh at 253-835-2634, or s tacey.wel s h Qcirvo ffederalway. com . Sincerely,, r Brian Davis Community Development Director Enc. June 2, 2017, Preapplication Conference Summary, page 6 c Stacey Welsh, Senior Planner Jeff Wall, 30201 181h Avenue SW, Federal Way, WA 98023 Jarone Baker, Public Health -Seattle & King County,-arone.bakeQkia oun V 18-101580-00-AD Doc. I.D. 77621 Stacey Welsh From: Stacey Welsh Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 1:19 PM To: 'Matt Reider' Subject: RE: Wall Short Plat 17-101741-00-PC Matt, If you have correspondence from King County then I can follow up with that person. Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cityoffederalway.com From: Matt Reider[mailto:Matt. Reider@esmcivil.com] Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 11:33 AM To: Stacey Welsh Subject: RE: Wall Short Plat 17-101741-00-PC Hi Stacey, Our septic designer is Rocky at ADC. He has made many applications to Seattle -King County Health in the past and so this knowledge is based on prior experience. I will follow-up with him to see if there is any correspondence that can justify our request. Will you need a point of contact at the Health Department? Thanks, MATT REIDER ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC www.esmcivil.com From: Stacey Welsh <Stacey.Welsh@cityoffederalway.com> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 11:12 AM To: Matt Reider <Matt.Reider@esmcivil.com> Subject: RE: Wall Short Plat 17-101741-00-PC Matt, Who have you been working with at King County Health? Do you have any correspondence from them explaining the letter that you are requesting? Thanks, Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner �. Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.cit,yoffederalway.com From: Matt Reider fmaiIto., Matt. Reider@esmcivil.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 10:26 AM To: Stacey Welsh Subject: RE: Wall Short Plat 17-101741-00-PC Thank you for your response, Stacey. I will be submitting an AD to the permit center sometime today or first thing tomorrow. Thanks, MATT REIDER ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC www.esmcivii.com From: Stacey Welsh Stacey.Welsh@ciyouffederalwaticom> Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 8:49 AM To: Matt Reider <Matt. Reider@esmcivil.com > Subject: RE: Wall Short Plat 17-101741-00-PC Hi Matt, You can request a waiver for a Pre -Application meeting if your one year expires. The process for vetting critical areas for septic submittals is to submit an Administrative Decision request form and you will receive a letter from the City. Stacey Welsh, AICP Senior Planner "rr e, Federal Way rr, . r t ,.. << 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253/835-2634 Fax: 253/835-2609 www.citvofederalway.com From: Matt Reider [mailto:Matt, Reider esmcivil.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:28 AM To: Stacey Welsh Subject: Wall Short Plat 17-101741-00-PC Good Morning Stacey, I am writing in regards to the Wall Short Plat Pre-App we held May 11 of last year. We are hoping to submit before the one year expiration but we have had a few setbacks along the way and the following conundrum... The Short Plat Submittal checklist (Bulletin 10) requires "one copy of the Seattle -King County Health Department approval of the proposed subdivision". Subsequently, our septic designer is working on the application to the health department and as it turns out, the application requires one of the two following options: City of Federal Way "sign -off' on the critical areas or acknowledgement from the City of Federal Way that they are ok with us submitting to Health ahead of their Critical Areas sign -off. I understand the Seattle King -County Health Department to be at least 8 weeks out for review so making the deadline for this Short Plat Application would be next to impossible. I was hoping that I could request a submittal item waiver and a brief letter from you, Mr. Hansen, or Mr. Davis. May I please have a waiver for the Seattle -King County Health Department approval and a brief memo/letter to include with our OSS application that the City of Federal Way is ok with us submitting to Health ahead of your Critical Areas sign off? I am more than happy to discuss further over the phone or in person. I understand that you are very busy so I wanted to get this on your radar before time runs out. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Matt MATT REIDER ESM CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LLC Assistant Planner www.esmcivil.com m .reider esrncivil.corn Federal Way I Everett 33400 8th Avenue South, Ste 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 Tel: 253.838.6113 Fax: 253.838.7104 Civil Engineering I Surveying I Land Planning I Landscape Architecture I GIS REQUEST F DMINISTRATIVE ECISION CITY of k COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APR 12 2018 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way Federal Way, WA 9800 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 COMMUNITY ❑EVELOPMEW Ir".61yoffederalway.coni FILE NUMBER 1 V - l J 1 _5 C Date Applicant Matt Reider 253-838-6113 ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 8th AVE S, STE 205 matt.reider@esmcivil.com Federal Wav WA 1 98003 Property Address/Location 30201 18th AVE SW. Federal Way, WA 98023 Parcel #: 0121039146 Description of Request -_ Request waiver of submittal requirement: Seattle -King County Health Department Approval of OSS. Also a request for Critical Areas Letter which allows for Seattle -King County Health Department to begin OSS application review prior to establishment of Critical Areas Designation. List/Describe Attachments — Letter from ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC addressed to Brian Davis; Geo--technical Report from Earth Solutions NW, LLC evaluating site for steep slopes, infiltration, and soil characteristics; Pre -Application Summary; Hearing Examiner's Decision from 2015,1 Conceptual Site Plan. — For Staff Use llJ Code Interpretation/Clarification ❑ Critical Areas Letter/Analysis/Peer Review ❑ Request for Extension (Land Use/Plat Approval) ❑ Revisions to Approved Permit ❑ Tree Removal ❑ Zoning Compliance Letter - No Fee - No Fee (Actual Cost ifApplicable) - Check Current Fee Schedule - Check Current Fee Schedule - No Fee - Check Current Fee Schedule Bulletin #079 — January 4, 2016 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Request for Administrative Decision NGINEERS RECEIVED April 12, 2018 APR 12 1018 Job No. 1879-001-015 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEtr Mr. Brian Davis, Director Community Development Department City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 RE: Request for Administrative Decision to Waive OSS Approval from Wall Property Short Plat Application Submittal Dear Brian: Please accept this cover letter and accompanying information as our formal request to waive the following Short Subdivision submittal requirement as listed in Bulletin #010: "One copy of the Seattle -King County Health Department approval of the proposed subdivision is required if the project is to be served by an on -site septic system" We understand that this item is necessary for review and approval of the Short Subdivision by the City of Federal Way. Similarly, the Seattle -King County Health Department requires that the application for an on -site septic system is accompanied by either one of the following two items: a) Critical Areas sign -off from the local governing jurisdiction; or b) a letter from the local jurisdiction which states that Critical Areas sign -off is not required at this stage of the application process. As summarized, this presents a "catch-22" because each jurisdiction relies on review from the other. By way of background, we are working on a short subdivision of one 6.25-acre parcel into 6 new single-family lots each served by an individual on -site septic system. It was around this time last year that Mr. Wall requested a pre -application conference for the Short Subdivision in question and it was June 2, 2017 when we received the Pre -Application Conference Summary (copy included). While we are working diligently to make a complete application submittal prior to the expiration of that letter, we know that the Seattle -King County Health Department will not be able to issue their approval prior to the expiration date. Likewise, we know that review of the critical areas occurs concurrent to the review of the short plat application. We are asking that the City of Federal Way waives the OSS approval as part of the short subdivision application package until which time the health department can issue an approval. Additionally, we are asking for acknowledgement from the City of Federal Way that submitting the OSS application without approval of critical areas is acceptable. This acknowledgement will allow Seattle -King County to move forward in reviewing the OSS application. ESM Federal Way ESM Everett Civil Engineering Land Planning 33400 8th Ave S, Ste 205 1010 SE Everett Mall Way, Ste 210 Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Federal Way, WA 98003 Everett, WA 98208 253.838.6113tel 425.297.9900tel 3D Laser Scanning GIS 800.345.5694 toll free 800.345.5694 toll free www.esmcivil.com 253.838.7104 fax 425.297.9901 fax Mr. Brian Davis April 12, 2018 Page 2 We understand that waiver of health department approval does not preclude us from providing OSS approval to the City of Federal Way at a later date nor does it preclude the health department from requiring acknowledgment of critical areas approval as part of their review of the OSS application. The following items represent a complete Administrative Decision review submittal: 1. Administrative Decision Request; 2. Project Narrative (this letter); 3. Geotechnical Report; 4. Pre -Application Summary; 5. Hearing Examiner's Decision for Critical Areas Intrusion; 6. Conceptual Site Plan (6 copies). As listed above, a Geotechnical Report and Hearing Examiner's decision has been included with this request to provide known information as it relates to critical areas on site. We had Earth Solutions NW, LLC provide a geotechnical site investigation and report to identify if there were steep slopes on site and existing soil characteristics of the site. Their findings did not conclude the presence of steep slopes on the subject property. Furthermore, the Hearing Examiner's decision from 2015 classifies the stream present on site as Type F with a 100-foot buffer. All OSS and single-family homes will be outside of the stream buffer. Thank you for your attention to this project and we look forward to working with the City. Very truly yours, ESM CONSULTI NGI EERS, LLC. ATT REIDER Assistant Planner cc: Jeff Wall (w/Enc.) Enc.: As Noted Ilesm8lengrlesm-jobs11879100110151documentl letter-004.dou REc'EivE® Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists Construction Monitoring GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SHORT PLAT 30026 - 20TH PLACE SOUTHWEST FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-5165 i � � 4 9-4 _'t PREPARED FOR MR. JEFF WALL August 3, 2017 Bogdan S. Tirtu, G.I.T. Staff Geologist WHAS pg o 3 2111+ Keven D. Hoffmann, P.E. Senior Project Engineer q;O Kyle R. dampbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SHORT PLAT 30026 — 20TH PLACE SOUTHWEST FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-5165 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1806 —136th Place Northeast, Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: 425-449-4704 1 Fax: 425-449-4711 www.earthsolutionsnw.com �— Geotechnical Engineering Report --, Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one —notevenyou —should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the NO Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Enghtleeping Report Is Eased on A Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific fac- tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes --even minor ones —and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer- ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua- tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ —sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi- neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during constructil the geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having yourgeo- technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti- nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should neverbe redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con- tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, butpreface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac- tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointmenh, Jims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations" malty of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi- bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- agement guidance. Go not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com- prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in -this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per- formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven- tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. Rely,, on youi° ASFE-Member Gectechncial fyineer for Additional Assistance Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE The Best Peopte In Eerth 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's speeffic written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or othermse extracting tvording from this document is permfltad only with the express w itten permisslon of ASFE, and only far purposes of scholarly research or book reviety. only members of ASFE may use this document as a eompfement to or as an element of a geotechnicai engloeering report Any other firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document tvilhout being an ASFF member could be committing negligent or Intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation. IIGER00045.01A August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Mr. Jeff Wall 30201 —18th Avenue Southwest Federal Way, Washington 98023 Attention: Mr. Jeff Wall Dear Mr. Wall: Earth Solutions NW«< Earth Solutions NW LLC • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Short Plat, 30026 — 20th Place Southwest, Federal Way, Washington". Based on the results of our investigation, the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our study indicates the site is underlain primarily by advance and recessional outwash. During our subsurface exploration completed on July 5, 2017, light groundwater seepage was observed within TP-6 at a depth of about 11.5 feet below existing grades. In our opinion, the contractor should be prepared to respond to discrete zones of groundwater seepage during construction. In our opinion, the proposed residential structures may be constructed on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing upon competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural fill. In general, competent native soil suitable for support of foundations will likely be encountered within the upper two to three feet of existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill, will be necessary. Based on our field observations, it is our opinion infiltration is not feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The majority of outwash soils observed at the test pit locations were medium dense to very dense, cemented, and contained significant silt content. Such soils should be considered impervious for practicable stormwater design purposes. Relatively clean sands encountered at TP-4 and TP-6 were either oxidized or contained groundwater seepage. Conventional stormwater controls, e.g., detention and/or dispersion, will likely prove more practicable for the proposed development, from a geotechnical standpoint. Pertinent geotechnical recommendations are provided in this study. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC even D. Ho P.E. Senior Project Engineer 1805 - 13601 Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue, WA 98005 • (425) 449-4704 • FAX (425) 449-4711 Table of Contents ES-5165 PAGE INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1 General..................................................................................... 1 Proiect Description................................................................. 2 SITECONDITIONS.............................................................................. 2 Surface..................................................................................... 2 Subsurface................................................................................ 3 Topsoil and Fill............................................................. 3 NativeSoil..................................................................... 3 Geologic Setting........................................................... 3 Groundwater.... ......................................................................... 4 GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT ................. 4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 4 General. . .......... ........................................................................ 4 Site Preparation and Earthwork ............................................. 5 Temporary Erosion Control.............. ........................... 5 Stripping........................................................................ 5 Excavations and Slopes ............................................... 6 Engineered Slopes ....................................................... 6 In -situ and Imported Soils ............................................ 7 Subgrade Preparation .................................................. 7 StructuralFill................................................................ 8 Foundations............................................................................. 8 SeismicDesign.......................................................................... 8 Slab -on -Grade Floors.............................................................. 9 RetainingWalls....................................................................... 9 Drainage............................................................................... 10 Infiltration Feasibility.................................................... 10 Utility Support and Trench Backfill........................................ 10 LIMITATIONS... ....... ........................................................................... 11 Additional Services................................................................. 11 Earth Solutions NW, LLC GRAPHICS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 4 Plate 5 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Table of Contents Continued ES-5165 Vicinity Map Test Pit Location Plan Slope Fill Detail Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Footing Drain Detail Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Laboratory Test Results Earth Solutions NW, LLC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SHORT PLAT 30026 — 20TH PLACE SOUTHWEST FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON ES-5165 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study (study) was prepared for the proposed residential development to be constructed northeast and/or east of the intersection between 20th Place Southwest and 21st Avenue Southwest, in Federal Way, Washington. The purpose of this study was to develop geotechnical recommendations for the proposed project. The scope of services for completing this study included the following: • Completing test pits for purposes of characterizing site soil conditions; • Completing laboratory testing of soil samples collected at the test pit locations; • Conducting engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and maps were reviewed as part of preparing this study: • Record of Survey, prepared by MTN2COAST, LLC, dated March 11, 2016; • Basemap (Preliminary Site Layout), prepared by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC, dated November 25, 2015; Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5' Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, prepared by Derek B. Booth, Howard H. Waldron, and Kathy G. Troost, dated 2004; King County Liquefaction Susceptibility Map, endorsed by the King County Flood Control District, dated May 2010; Critical Areas Map prepared by the City of Federal Way, Washington (City), dated May 2016; • Chapter 19.145 of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), and; • Web Soil Survey (WSS) online resource, maintained by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Page 2 Project Description The site is currently occupied by two single-family residences and associated improvements, which will remain. We understand that several single-family residential lots and related improvements will be constructed across undeveloped site areas. New utilities improvements will likely mimic existing services (City -provided water and on site septic systems). At the time of report submission, specific grading and building load plans were not available for review; however, based on our experience with similar developments, the proposed residential structures will likely be two to three stories in height and constructed using relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. Perimeter footing loads will likely be about 1 to 2 kips per lineal foot (klf). Slab -on -grade loading is anticipated to be approximately 150 pounds per square foot (psf). We anticipate grade cuts and fills of about 5 to 10 feet will be necessary to achieve the majority of finish grade elevations. Retaining walls and/or rockeries may be incorporated into final designs to accommodate grade transitions, where necessary. The proposed development will likely incorporate conventional stormwater management techniques. If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should review final designs to confirm that appropriate geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The subject site is located generally northeast and/or east of the intersection between 20t" Place Southwest and 21St Avenue Southwest, in Federal Way, Washington. The approximate location of the subject property is illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The property is comprised of three adjoined tax parcels (King County Parcel Nos. 012103-9013, -9146, and 085050-0040) totaling roughly seven acres. The property is bordered to the north, south, and east by single-family residences and associated open space, and to the west by 20t" Place Soutlwest. Vegetation is dense, comprised primarily of mature trees and an established brush understory. Grades descend from southeast to northwest; approximately 80 to 90 feet of elevation change occurs across the property (approximate gradients of 30 to 35 percent). A stream is present in the western site area, along 20t" Place Southwest, and a 100-foot buffer has been incorporated into the plans. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Page 3 Subsurface A representative of ESNW observed, logged, and sampled seven test pits, excavated at accessible site locations, on July 5, 2017 using a trackhoe and operator retained by our firm. The test pits were completed for purposes of assessing soil and groundwater conditions. The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on the Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2). Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of subsurface conditions. Representative samples collected at the test pit locations were analyzed in accordance with both Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) methods and procedures. Topsoil and Fill In general, topsoil was encountered within the upper two to eight inches at the test pit locations. The topsoil was characterized by dark brown color, the presence of fine organic material, and small root intrusions. Based on our field observations, we estimate topsoil will be encountered with an average thickness of six inches across the site. Fill was encountered at TP-1 during our fieldwork. The fill was characterized as loose to medium dense, silty sand and did not contain deleterious material or debris. We anticipate fill deposits around the perimeters of the existing single-family residences to extend to approximately three to four feet below existing ground surface (bgs). Where encountered during construction, ESNW can evaluate fill deposits (as necessary). Native Soil Underlying topsoil, native soils were encountered primarily as medium dense to very dense, compact, silty sand with gravel (USCS: SM) and well -graded to poorly graded sand with or without silt (USCS: SW, SP-SM, or SP). Soil relative density generally increased with depth. In general, native soils were observed primarily in a moist to wet condition, extending to the maximum exploration depth of approximately 13 feet bgs. Geologic Setting The referenced geologic map resource identifies the site as underlain predominantly by Vashon recessional outwash (Qvr) and/or Vashon advance outwash (Qva). As described on the geologic map resource, advance outwash deposits are characterized as well -bedded sand and, less commonly, gravel deposited subaqueously or by streams and rivers in front of advancing ice sheets. Vashon recessional outwash deposits are characterized as lightly oxidized, stratified sand and gravel, deposited in broad outwash channels carrying meltwater during glacial retreat. The referenced WSS resource indicates the site is underlain primarily by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (Map Unit Symbol: AgB). The Alderwood series consists of soils formed in glacial drift and outwash, typically as ridges and hills. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 4 Based on our field observations, native soils on site generally correlate with a transitionary geologic setting between advance outwash and recessional outwash. Groundwater During our subsurface exploration completed on July 5, 2017, groundwater seepage was encountered at TP-6 at a depth of approximately 11.5 feet bgs. In our opinion, perched groundwater seepage should be anticipated within site excavations. Seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater flow rates are higher during the winter, spring, and early summer months. GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT Based on our review of the FWRC and the referenced City critical areas map, the site is mapped within an erosion hazard area. The FWRC defines erosion hazard areas as those areas having a severe to very severe erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action, or stream flow. As outlined in the Geologic Setting section of this study, Alderwood series soils are mapped on site. These soils are typically associated with moderate to high erosion hazard potential, especially during the wetter, winter months. Provided appropriate temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures are incorporated into final designs, however, erosion potential can be adequately mitigated both during and after construction. Site -specific ESC measures are typically prepared by the project civil engineer during the appropriate phase of design.. No evidence of either shallow or deep-seated slope instability was observed during our July 2017 site reconnaissance. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our investigation, construction of the proposed residential development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include foundation support, slab -on -grade subgrade support, the suitability of using on site soils as structural fill, and installation of stormwater management facilities. In our opinion, the proposed residential structures may be constructed on conventional continuous and spread footing foundations bearing upon competent native soil, recompacted native soil, or new structural fill. In general, competent native soil suitable for support of foundations will likely be encountered within the upper two to three feet of existing grades. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill, will be necessary. Earth Solutions Nw, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 5 Based on our field observations, it is our opinion infiltration is not feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The majority of outwash soils observed at the test pit locations were medium dense to very dense, cemented, and contained significant silt content. Such soils should be considered impervious for practicable stormwater design purposes. Relatively clean sands encountered at TP-4 and TP-6 were either oxidized or contained groundwater seepage. Conventional stormwater controls, e.g., detention and/or dispersion, will likely prove more practicable for the proposed development, from a geotechnical standpoint. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Jeff Wall and his representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Initial site preparation activities will consist of installing temporary erosion control measures, establishing grading limits, and performing clearing and site stripping. Subsequent earthwork activities will involve mass site grading and related infrastructure improvements. Temporary Erosion Control Prior to the installation of either initial or final pavement sections, temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least six inches of quarry spalls, should be considered to both minimize off -site soil tracking and provide a stable access entrance surface. Geotextile fabric may also be considered underlying the quarry spalls for greater stability of the temporary construction entrance. Erosion control measures should consist of silt fencing placed around the site perimeter. Soil stockpiles should be covered or otherwise protected to reduce soil erosion. Temporary approaches for controlling surface water runoff should be established prior to beginning earthwork activities. Additional Best Management Practices (BMPs), as specified by the project civil engineer and indicated on the plans, should be incorporated into construction activities. Stripping Topsoil was encountered generally within the upper two to eight inches of existing grades at the test pit locations. ESNW should be retained to observe site stripping activities at the time of construction so that the degree of required stripping may be assessed. Over -stripping should be avoided, as it is unnecessary and may result in increased project development costs. Topsoil and organic -rich soil is neither suitable for foundation support nor for use as structural fill. Topsoil and organic -rich soil may be used in non-structural areas, if desired. Earth Solutions NK LLC Mr. Jeff Wall August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Page 6 Excavations and Slopes Excavation activities are likely to expose both isolated fill areas and medium dense to very dense native soils. Provided appropriate methods of sloping and shoring (as necessary) for the excavations are incorporated into the design and construction, overall stability of site excavations is anticipated to be good. Based on the soil conditions observed at the test pit locations, the following allowable temporary slope inclinations, as a function of horizontal to vertical (H:V) inclination, may be used. The applicable Federal Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA) soil classifications are also provided: Loose and medium dense soil and/or fill 1.5H:1V (Type C) 0 Areas containing groundwater seepage 1.5H:1V (Type C) * Dense to very dense, cemented soil 0.75H:1V (Type A) If desired during construction, steeper temporary slope inclinations within undisturbed, dense to very dense native deposits may be feasible based on the soil and groundwater conditions exposed within the excavations. Steeper inclinations may be considered, and must be subsequently evaluated, by ESNW at the time of construction. Permanent slopes should be planted with vegetation to enhance stability and to minimize erosion, and should maintain a gradient of 2H:1V or flatter. The presence of perched groundwater may cause localized sloughing of temporary slopes due to excess seepage forces. An ESNW representative should observe temporary and permanent slopes to confirm the slope inclinations are suitable for the exposed soil conditions and to provide additional excavation and slope recommendations as necessary. If the recommended temporary slope inclinations cannot be achieved, temporary shoring may be necessary to support excavations. Engineered Slopes Existing slopes within the property boundaries may be modified and reconstructed as engineered fill slopes. The following considerations should be incorporated into the design and construction process of an engineered fill slope: The slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavation of the keyway or bench. In general, the bench should be equal to a bulldozer blade width of approximately eight feet, but shall be at least four feet. a The final slope gradient should be 2H:1V. Earth solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 7 The final slope face should be densified by over -building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with a bulldozer, vibratory drum roller, or sheepsfoot roller. Planting or hydroseeding the slope face with a rapid growth deep-rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of the slope area. Use of pegged -in -place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in situ until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in this report. Additional lifts should not be placed until adequate compaction is achieved. A typical slope fill detail is provided on Plate 3. The recommendations provided in this section are also included on Plate 3. ESNW should be retained to observe the complete construction sequence of engineered fill or cut slopes in order to provide supplementary recommendations as necessary. Compaction testing should be performed for each loose lift of fill placement. In -situ and Imported Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, on site soils may be suitable for use as structural fill. On site soils are moisture sensitive, and successful use of on site soils as structural fill will largely be dictated by the moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Remedial measures, such as soil aeration and/or cement treatment (where approved by the local jurisdiction or utility district), may be necessary as part of site grading and earthwork activities. If the on site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. In our opinion, a contingency should be provided in the project budget for export of soil that cannot be successfully compacted as structural fill if grading activities take place during periods of extended rainfall activity. Soils with fines contents greater than 5 percent typically degrade rapidly when exposed to periods of rainfall. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded, granular soil with a moisture content that is at (or slightly above) the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well -graded, granular soil with a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three -quarter -inch fraction). Subgrade Preparation Foundation and slab subgrade surfaces should be compacted in -situ to a minimum depth of one foot below the design subgrade elevation. Uniform compaction of the foundation and slab subgrade areas will establish a relatively consistent subgrade condition below the foundation and slab elements. ESNW should observe the compacted subgrade areas prior to placing formwork. Supplementary recommendations for subgrade improvement may be provided at the time of construction; such recommendations would likely include further mechanical compaction effort and/or overexcavation and replacement with suitable structural fill. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall August 3, 2017 ES-5165 Page 8 Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab -on -grade, and roadway areas. Fill placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas is considered structural fill as well. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D1557). For soil placed in utility trenches underlying structural areas, compaction requirements are dictated by the local city, county, or utility district, and are typically specified to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade areas should also be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 95 percent. Foundations In our opinion, the proposed residential structures may continuous and spread footing foundations bearing upon cc native soil, or new structural fill. In general, competent r foundations will likely be encountered within the upper twc Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed al compaction of soils to the specifications of structural fill, or with suitable structural fill, will be necessary. Provided the prescribed, the following parameters may be used for design: S Allowable soil bearing capacity e Passive earth pressure R Coefficient of friction be constructed on conventional 'npetent native soil, recompacted ative soil suitable for support of to three feet of existing grades. foundation subgrade elevations, overexcavation and replacement foundations will be supported as 2,500 psf 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity may be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. The above passive pressure and friction values include a factor -of -safety of 1.5. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch and differential settlement of about one-half inch is anticipated. The majority of settlement should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Seismic Design The 2015 International Building Code recognizes the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for seismic site class definitions. In accordance with Table 20.3-1 of the ASCE Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures manual, Site Class D should be used for design. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 9 The referenced liquefaction susceptibility map indicates the subject site maintains "very low" liquefaction susceptibility. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where saturated or loose soils suddenly lose internal strength and behave as a fluid. This behavior is in response to increased pore water pressures resulting from an earthquake or other intense ground shaking. In our opinion, site susceptibility to liquefaction may be considered negligible. The relatively consistent densities of the native soils and the absence of a uniformly established, shallow groundwater table were the primary bases for this consideration. Slab -on -Grade Floors Slab -on -grade floors for the proposed residential structures should be supported on well - compacted, firm and unyielding subgrades. Where feasible, native soils exposed at the slab - on -grade subgrade levels can likely be compacted in -situ to the specifications of structural fill. Unstable or yielding subgrade areas should be recompacted, or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill, prior to slab construction. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free -draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slabs. The free -draining material should have a fines content of 5 percent or less (where the fines content is defined as the percent passing the Number 200 sieve, based on the minus three -quarter -inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of vapor barriers below the slabs should be considered. If a vapor barrier is to be utilized, it should be a material specifically intended for use as a vapor barrier and should be installed per the specifications of the manufacturer. Retaining Walls Retaining walls must be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. The following parameters may be used for design: Active earth pressure (yielding condition) a At -rest earth pressure (restrained condition) m Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) o Passive earth pressure ® Coefficient of friction ® Seismic surcharge * Where applicable ** Where H equals the retained height (in feet) Earth Solutions NW. LLC 35 pcf (equivalent fluid) 55 pcf 70 psf (rectangular distribution)* 300 pcf (equivalent fluid) 0.40 6H psf** Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 10 The above design parameters are based on a level backfill condition and level grade at the wall toe. Revised design values will be necessary if sloping grades are to be used above or below retaining walls. Additional surcharge loading from adjacent foundations, sloped backfill, or other relevant loads should be included in the retaining wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free -draining material that extends along the height of the wall and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper 12 inches of the wall backfill may consist of a less permeable soil, if desired. A perforated drainpipe should be placed along'the base of the wall and connected to an approved discharge location. A typical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 4. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Drainage Discrete zones of perched groundwater seepage should be anticipated in site excavations depending on the time of year grading operations take place, particularly within deeper excavations for lots and utilities. Temporary measures to control surface water runoff and groundwater during construction would likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps. ESNW should be consulted during preliminary grading to identify areas of seepage and to provide recommendations to reduce the potential for instability related to seepage effects. Finish grades must be designed to direct surface drain water away from structures and slopes. Water must not be allowed to pond adjacent to structures or slopes. In our opinion, foundation drains should be installed along building perimeter footings. A typical foundation drain detail is provided on Plate 5. Infiltration Feasibility Based on our field observations, it is our opinion infiltration is not feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The majority of outwash soils observed at the test pit locations were medium dense to very dense, cemented, and contained significant silt content. Such soils should be considered impervious for practicable stormwater design purposes. Relatively clean sands encountered at TP-4 and TP-6 were either oxidized or contained groundwater seepage. Conventional stormwater controls, e.g., detention and/or dispersion, will likely prove more practicable for the proposed development, from a geotechnical standpoint. Utility Support and Trench Backfill In our opinion, on site soils will generally be suitable for support of utilities. Remedial measures may be necessary in some areas to provide support for utilities, such as overexcavation and replacement with structural fill and/or placement of geotextile fabric. Groundwater seepage may be encountered within utility excavations, and caving of trench walls may occur where groundwater is encountered. Depending on the time of year and conditions encountered, dewatering, as well as temporary trench shoring, may be necessary during utility excavation and installation. Earth Solutions NW, LLC Mr. Jeff Wall ES-5165 August 3, 2017 Page 11 On site soils may be suitable for use as structural backfill throughout utility trench excavations provided the soil is at (or slightly above) the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Each section of the utility lines must be adequately supported in the bedding material. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill as previously detailed in this report, or to the applicable specifications of the City or other responsible jurisdiction or agency. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is neither expressed nor implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit locations may exist and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions provided in this study if variations are encountered. Additional Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review final project plans with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW. LLC Pit - I Il�r�' •�,� � 'I. � I� ry —A K1 5T s vTAT wx 9►1 '� y— MT f.am! srh all 51 �plp� t>F`- ti.l .. At: x J .j` �' 1:e .•�37-_.�.a�—.t`i4 `� i_:G1LIH 37_i). 0 AU. r�'r#•S _a i.!'9 rfy'1 ' i:�" •l:. ,7: -�Y' �i� �`jl w�II !Si14.i{ t Y 111=e5��•.� ri•F ALUM** ' i r 1�4m rA' P'y i�{7 ri ..;. r • I ;T>' :er�r15j �__' - Y it •• rt BA rytr n r i, S 1 :n S 2 s ? � .y�F ��A ° ._�r�l„• 1j - a iiti � ;•:I,.�r:l S � r�''�-. 3 •`sH J4 � ��• :� �ra•' � I rl{ ' q;..� �.•. n n •'" } •fie', � is a y.I I Jlsrr 4 x i[Gi/ 1 i g r. r - Si NF:;nair ;r2.rY � M1�} f : �� '4 �� .. I Rk� S t+�'P • �.��I'L'a'%�l�' . SII':I:4tiI P! — 3 { G ST �'� = vrer>r�:r '• rp _ Yr r,V _•� " lT t' ..i oo ? I rXaa��.� I _ ...+}�it'!�} l �.. �. 1 trr yam' a. r r r t SHV �15�11H. n f� Ir w Ay sw AL Flay CF. at - PAACM ARK �r.� is . �{ >E .a�u 7 -. #�'v �iL.��— Fn � 1 •- .°..� Reference: King County, Washington Map 744 By The Thomas Guide Rand McNally NORTH L T - �04 32nd Edition Vicinity Map Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be Drwn. MRS Date 08/04/2017 Proj. No. 5165 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information Checked KDH Date Aug. 2017 Plate 1 resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate. I4- I 7 o �� c I ' — S � n 1 I I o I I \ t 17CA I �• \ N I I \ I -�--- — --T--- — _ — —_- --*_ 17 1 E � l Jaa N g Val _V 3t m v 7n1 N cn a,x 7C n vm 3 z V .W IF 1_; _ ' 1 � rH m -X. m m ,go o x. Z x a m �~ n � w -I o a Z0 o d Test Pit Location Plan Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Final Slope Gradient Compacted Slope Face Bench and Keyway Fill to consist of suitable granular material approved by the Geotechncial Engineer 11. "Key" (Minimum 2' Deep by 6' Wide) NOTES: o Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior to excavating Keyway or benches. o Benches will typically be equal to a bulldozer blade width of approximately 8 feet but shall be at least 4 feet. o Final slope gradient should be 2H : 1V. o Final slope face should be densified by over -building with compacted fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with a bulldozer or vibratory drum roller. 13 Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep-rooted vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area. o Use of pegged -in -place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an opportunity to germinate. Existing Grade Typical Bench Keyed into Existing Slope Face (Geotechnical Engineer to Confirm) Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the "Site Preparation and Earthwork" section of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction is achieved. Earth Solutions NW «c SLOPE FILL DETAIL Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 08/04/2017 Proj. No. 5165 Checked KDH Date Aug. 2017 1 Plate 3 Sheet Drain (See Note) Floor Slab (Where Applicable) III NOTES: 18" Min. O P0 u0 0 oU p°O q 00 C O v C p° 0 0 0 0 00 O Q O O 00 0 ° 0 p0 p° p p ° 0 00 0 O a o O ° O O O p Op 0 0 0 p° O O , /� O OO p O-V p O 00 . O 00 ° � 0 o O o 0 p O 0 O p 10 .00 jr O O 1 v p 0 p O o ' 0 O p 00 O-°Oo OO 0o p0 0 00 0 00 O 0 0 0 0O 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 o00 0 0 00 o p o p p p ° p 0 p � ° V O 0. O 00 O O o o a 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O v o 0 Op 0 0 0 00 O o 0000 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 ° pp O p O O Op p o ° p p 00 p O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 Op 0 o O � o p 0 8 p 0 0000 0 00 O • Free -Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing #4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu of Free -Draining Backfill, per ESNW recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1-inch Drain Rock. LEGEND: 0 00 0 0 00 ° Free -Draining Structural Backfill O n p . ti.SM 4 � ti ti 1-inch Drain Rock r.r.�r�r. Structural Fill Perforated Drain Pipe (Surround In Drain Rock) SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Earth solutions N W uc RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 08/04/2017 Proj. No. 5165 Checked KDH Date Aug.2017 Plate 4 Perforated Rigid Drain Pipe (Surround with 1" Rock) NOTES: ■ Do NOT tie roof downspouts to Footing Drain. ■ Surface Seal to consist of 12" of less permeable, suitable soil. Slope away from building. LEGEND: Surface Seal; native soil or other low permeability material. S•ti•L•'L• �,ti fL�; • 1 Drain Rock S•1•L•ti• SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Earth Solutions N W ��c FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL Wall Property Short Plat Federal Way, Washington Drwn. MRS Date 08/4/2017 Proj. No. 5165 Checked KDH Date Aug.2017 Plate 5 Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs ES-5165 Subsurface conditions at the subject site were explored on July 5, 2017 by excavating seven test pits using a trackhoe and operator retained by our firm. The approximate locations of the test pits are illustrated on Plate 2 of this study. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of approximately 13 feet bgs. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions NW, LLC _--Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN G� WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS iP �R AND 'I a sit IN FINES GRAVELLY SOILS a /10 c OQ POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, (LITTLE OR NO FINES) oL�O�o p GP GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE Q C n Q C OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED GRAVELS WITH ° a GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINES ❑ SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE a FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND - AMOUNT OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES MORE THAN 50% SAND CLEAN SANDS S�f WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN AND SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SOILS POORLY -GRADED SANDS, SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) Sp GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO FINES MORETHAN50% SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE FINES FRACTION PASSING ON NO- 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS FINE LIQUID AND CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, G S LTY VELLY GRAINED LESS THAN150 CLAYS CLAYS, A SANDY CLAYS, SOILS CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SMALLER THAN SILTY SOILS NO.200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CI„ I INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO ' HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS '= '-'' '" ' ', PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH , "„ HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 7805 - 135th Place N.l__)uite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425- 49-4704 Wma Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr, Jeff Wall _ _ PROJECT NAME Wall Propeq Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way_, Washington DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 715/17 GROUND ELEVATION 232 ft --- TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ _ _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH _ _ AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod W: grass AFTER EXCAVATION — w (L U IL Lu UJ Co TESTS vi V a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ov NZ _j c� O Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, moist (Fill) - - SM 2.0 _ NT rPSL '-j ' '-' 15 Relic TOPSOIL Horizon 229.E MC = 16.20% Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist Fines = 44.20% [USDA Classification: gravelly LOAM] -becomes tan, medium dense to dense -mottled texture - 5 MC = 27.60% SM -heavily mottled texture -becomes tannish gray, dense to very dense -weakly cemented - MC = 12.90% -becomes very dense MC = 11.90% s .g 22a.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. i i i i i i i Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW 1805 - 136th Place N._ Suite 201 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 WAS% Fax: 425- 49-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NUMBER ES-5166 DATE STARTED 715117 COMPLETED 7/5/17 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH _ NOTES Depth of To .soil & Sod 2": grass w W _j 2 TESTS W O z C7 Q 0 SM MC = 9.20% MC = 9.60% r TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Wall Propeq Short Plat PROJECT LOCATION Federal Wa , Washington _ GROUND ELEVATION 240 ft TEST PIT SIZE GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION AT END OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION --- _ _ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Tan silty SAND, medium dense, damp to moist -mottled texture -becomes gray, dense -weakly cemented -becomes very dense, moderately cemented Test pit terminated at 4.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 4.0 feet. Earth Solutions NW 1805 - 136th Place N.l_ ,ulte 201 WAWBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NUMBER gq:L1 g DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED _ 7/5117 EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating_ _ EXCAVATION METHOD LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH NOTES Depth of To oil & Sod 6": blackberry bushes Lass TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 PAGE 1 OF 1 PROJECT NAME Wall Property Short Plat PROJECT LOCATION Federal Wsy+ WBshi ton GROUND ELEVATION 263 ft TEST PIT SIZE _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - AT END OF EXCAVATION AFTER EXCAVATION -- w a U TESTS V) O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a N z c7 0 TPSL 0 0.5 Dark brown TOPSOIL, roots to 3' Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp -cobbles MC = 11.10% -becomes medium dense -mottled texture j -becomes tannish gray, dense, moist 1 SM [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly fine sandy LOAM] MC = 10.80% Fines = 38.70% -becomes very dense -weakly to moderately cemented 5 MC = 6.70% �6_�- Test pit terminated at 6.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. —r- Bottom of test pit at 6.5 feet. 262 Earth Solutions NW ,-) TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1805 - 136th Place K Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 VAN Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME Wall Property ShortPlat PROJECT NUMBER E"165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 7l5/17 _ GROUND ELEVATION 242 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating _ GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION- _ NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod $"- $". forea duff AFTER EXCAVATION — w vi a +K w Co TESTS a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION z t7 w 0 PSL ` ` o.s Dark brown TOPSOIL 241.5 Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp -roots to 3' MC = 7.30% -becomes medium dense to dense -mottled texture SM -becomes gray, dense MC = 11.80% -weakly cemented -becomes very dense MC = 10.20% -moderately cemented G.0 236.0 MC = 8.30% Orange -brown poorly graded SAND, medium dense, moist Fines = 2.40% [USDA Classification: slightly gravelly SAND] SP ix.5.04 Orange -brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense to dense, moist to wet 10 MC = 13.70% -mottled texture Fines = 9.20% [USDA Classification: SAND] SP- SM - MC = 15.70% - 13.0 Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. ti Bottom at test pit at 13.0 feet. u� z a (7 cn J Il D7 -1 i1J LU LU C7 0 Earth Solutions NW -� TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 1805 - 136th Place N Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 WASM Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME Wall Property Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washington DATE STARTED 715117 COMPLETED 7/5/17 GROUND ELEVATION 248 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _. _ ___ __ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION - LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION. — NOTES Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6"_ 8": forest duff AFTER EXCAVATION — W 0 rJ V) a V 0 W m TESTS vi a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a ? av �z � O 0 TPS_L '= =' o.s Dark brown TOPSOIL 2475 Tan silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp - -roots to 2' MC = 9.40% -becomes medium dense SM -becomes tannish gray, dense -weakly cemented MC = 10.10% 5 -becomes very dense tFo_ -moderately cemented 2•12 0 MC = 10.00% - - Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 6.0 feet. A_ U� 0 z 0. C7 N 1sJu S d 2 m W Z W Earth Solutions NW / TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 1805 - 136th Place k Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 VAPBellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425- 49-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall PROJECT NAME Wall Proper Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER ES-51166 PROJECT LOCATION Egderal Way. WashTnqWn DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 7l5/17 GROUND ELEVATION 230 ft TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR _ NW Excavating} GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Depth of Topsoll & Sod 6"- B": forest duff _ AFTER EXCAVATION — W rL W_ v vi a TESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION t7 v 2 z (7 0 TPSL '- o s Dark brown TOPSOIL 229.5 Brown silty SAND, loose to medium dense, damp -roots to 3' MC = 13.90% -becomes medium dense -mottled texture, increased gravel content -becomes tannish gray, dense, moist SM -weakly cemented 5 MC = 8.80% -increased sand content Fines = 26.20% [USDA Classification: gravelly sandy LOAM] -intermittent lightly mottled lenses MC = 12.30% Gray well -graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet MC = 9.50% Fines = 3.60% [USDA Classification: very gravelly coarse SAND] 10 SW -increase in fine sand, becomes wet 120 -light groundwater seepage 218.0 MC = 19.30% Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 11.5 feet during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feet. u'+ H 0 U` ai M z _Z a WSJ ll m W Z W Earth Solutions NW, TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 1805 - 136th Place I Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-449-4704 Fax: 425-449-4711 CLIENT Mr. Jeff Wall _ _ PROJECT NAME Wall Property Short Plat PROJECT NUMBER ES-5165 PROJECT LOCATION Federal Way, Washingtons. _ DATE STARTED 7/5/17 COMPLETED 715117 GROUND ELEVATION 225 ft _ TEST PIT SIZE _ EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD _ AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY BJP CHECKED BY KDH AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Tapsaiil & Sad 8": forest duff AFTER EXCAVATION — w o- OC U dW TESTS 0_O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Cd o 2 Z C9 Q 0 f TPSL Dark brown TOPSOIL r74.4 6 Brown silty SAND, loose, darn -roots to 3' -becomes medium dense, moist MC = 10.90% -lightly mottled texture MC = 9.90% -becomes gray, dense -weakly cemented 5 SM -becomes dense to very dense MC = 10.80% MC = 9.40% -slight increase in sand content 10 _ 10.5 214.5 MC = 11.80% Test pit terminated at 10.5 feet below existing grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. No caving observed. Bottom of test pit at 10.5 feet. 0 c� z C7 m �1 S a' x m u� z w Appendix B Laboratory Test Results ES-5165 Earth Solutions NW, LLC sold H H1,1111111MI11111111111111110 MIRE 1111001111 HIM 1 1 1111001111 NUNN 1 11111011111111111111 III �I MINE u� HE HIM 111111 � Iq 1 in 11111111 1 11110 INS 11111111111110111111111 i m I Olin 1 0 1111111111111 IM1111 111110 111111100111 1110 I1MllI1111mllI 11111110111111111111 d111M 1111111 III I-eiiiinmiiiiiilm m III I milli lismillillin I MORE I m MEN moll 11 millill Milli Mill 11011111111111 11110 RUN 1llI1111m III n III I Hill I� ismi III iiisoll INS MINE 'lism ■�Ilis i lismillillismillill Ili i11111101,111111 Millillis Ills OR NO INN 1 111 MINE 11111 INEIIIIIIINEIII ON NUNN liiiinmii III 11111 1 1 ills III lmomi RUN 111 0 iiiiiiinmiiiiiiim liiiismilill I INN MIMI 11 lllillomill Milli INS MIMS 11 lllmmiiiiiilmmiLill I HIM liiiiin 11 Ills 111111, ON I MINIMUM I INN INN liimm_iiii Milli lismilli llmmiiii lmmiiiiiilmmmiiimirliilloolin SAND coarse Specimen Identificatim Specimen Identification Report Distribution ES-5165 EMAIL ONLY Mr. Jeff Wall 30212 —18th Avenue Southwest Federal Way, Washington 98023 EMAIL ONLY ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 — 8th Avenue South, Suite 205 Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attention: Mr. Matt Reider Earth Solutions NW, LLC SURVEY NOTES UTILITY NOTE .. �x .>.. ^' ' ., 'e; ,s-' °`fit°-, r3 3, 1 [fit I if fix Jill III 0= 40' 60' � WEi'LAND AS MAPPED JAN. 28, 2018 � J SCALE 1" 40'( � � { � �1I f /✓ �' � / 1; / �`` / / / ILI 60.00 l i I f f '. , 21 .- {ff f fif /// / � 1T � I f 1 �f� f 1 - j . l f `� r ,, `� _ _ � � � �- � � � ,...- ,- ,,,,, � � ✓. � '.- � � , � � f / df l � �:: /j/ff �-'' Fit !j � . „ � I� i -•-.. - l f fRI f f PA .,-,..em , . BLA 1 - 00 P7-00-SU 1. INSTRUMENT USED: SOKKIA SRX 3 TOTAL STATION AND TOPCON GR5 GPS. 2. THIS SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE STANDARDS OF WAC 332-130-090. 3. SURVEY COMPLETED 2/1 /2017. 4. INDIVIDUAL TREES NOT MAPPED. 5. WETLAND ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK(OHWM) SHOWN AS DELINEATED BY MARK HECKERT WITH BEAVER CREEK ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. ACCORDING TO MR. HECKERT THE OHWM DELINEATES A MINOR STREAM CLASSIFICATION WITH 50' BUFFER. HATCHING RwamGRAVEL ASPHALT v CONCRETE d A LEGEND (SURFACE FEATURES) /J' ' i f f J f f o - r 0 f `, , �- ,,/ / t ,� .�-, �. '' r ..fi DECIDUOUS TREE sm .,. � � / / � / .r} o'.f `�,r'``r, / �' �`�' --`.• r J` �` .r'f � CONIFER TREE ...„ ,...;•>�'� n,_._. _ - / / j r' ^� Dmp MAPLE TREE �r DOUGLAS-FIR TREE ° f -� ` ,� � is s «. � '-'- -'" 05�,•/ .r� f r �' j ''{!'!" "` ..,'r ,/ ` / s! � � ..+". � � r ""`.. � r,000 WNW TOP OF DITCH BANK ! ` 1 { /i / ..,• - ---tl -- �. -- ,,�' ! J f,' -'''� '� >/ ff1 _v ,/^" .,.., .-- 'S I '/ � �' ff,• r�+"�'`1 < % � ��'� }�,,, F '', �` /, f'� r' ". _ d,.- -`� ,� r"' �. ,�- ...-A ,,.., ., .. s' y, � �,,' =,r• `, .r ff/y,. ..'a ,r� %/ 00, �'` f ;y `ti�`...' ./ . P � � � '`.. � �`..�- *" /' % { f ! --" .i'-. ,+"� ✓`r „*' � � -- '.' `^' � .r- x-' � _,,.. �t � J ,./ ,.r' J' / ,✓J,, ,, r^�'�, 'r'' t 1 /�` J,/ / r LA.0— 0077-005 — r'" rr K� t /`+ 7� �" ..fib �.., �r } l ="',./'ram.'',, ,/ , ,. ,ter � 4 �• �� '' �„ � r,,. � �,,• ...+.s' J � J .,.-� � � _ �'' r�' ,r/f, f, �.• :.s�" I / J f < •" / �,j' v / A lJ I �}I( n .a w; F �'. r' """ "'"". '.1 ✓'``'°'�, } /' sJi - ter• .f / .M'i'*hf!�' iilYi+ t�. �" .,,.... -..,, ., 2 :lt.�!' ,,��/' /}., J: r/ J* «„'_,' $� ✓.!!'._,�:%' �,, "'•p' ,� {f �' �� '. { ` ..% 1r' .....�, .«... ,®.- .f' ^a` .rt ,,.> ,.�' .r•> ,,/ / ✓ �,. p � �.0I_ � ' ,:. .� t 1 ` � / ! f ..L �. .s.. .a ,• , '� " ..�+,''f .f,,,..r' „/' �,.' 20 r " i �'`� ` - .r f 1 /�if t y ^ J 000 r r' �• jd� 'e+' � .-y '""' � . ' r �, e` ' :'' / / �. � � � +C r �,�{ } / �' �,. s=` � � �..r- - �,' �.. ~''" .�'� �, ''�,,f `,Ji f � �' '��" /` � � �+ . ,- `.% `� ' s' ADELAIDE �'� " ^..°,. w"" i' / ! / r � '% ! ./ ! T. � "°a -\ � � ` _ J / � / ' / 'J�. ✓.r :r' rr" r/ ✓'' /'r"' .+r` e+� % �, „w, '✓ r' '�..`- 'l r/ f '"'� ....' f % .✓ .,s' ,rt j .! ,j' ,r- �- — ✓ «r✓"• �, ^"" s"` ..+_`•.,J,.r' '�" ,.J ,, � / / ✓ f FOREST r. +r ESTATES + f A-- 8.5' 3 r/ if '� �'" �...�� ...� .-- 1 •.... i f ..'� :r .r- �r � d f,, �, .✓ � �. � .%l �!r/ (/��iS} �++""" ,�.. , ems., 41 :' �....:i`„ � f ,! .%° / ff �"• � / /� �'` J� .f' �,. � f �- l I ... s.... f 1..� ,«-`. "` ,i ' �'` ,.�• „- ._.- / � _ ,,,,- f ,•° .�' j ,,, ,F. _'• - a.::, ✓:.ram �,..... t 4 A� LQ i I 1 N � i� i i' 11 1 I • /a , v ..t I I, t k POWER ' i �-• �/ ,� - — ? ob LOT 4 �, 10 DRAINAGE f' EASEMENT ..ft /- (sl N��f l EASEMENT ,+ �% / 9' BUILDING POWER ' LOT' 3 �.. --- P /1!1 SET BACK LINE EASEMENT 3.00 AFN7906060682 270 SK. k AT N" BLAESIWOOD PLAT 5' POWER EASEMENT 19TH PL SW LOT 3 J SHORT PLAT 1277151. d > ' AE N 7910020898 LOTS REVISIONS 20180212 REVISED WETLAND PER NEW DELINEATION BY OTHERS. JHK 30,00 [ > INGRESS EGRESS I < € AND !.UTILITIES I 0 ALUMINUM CAP 0 BRASS CAP Z HUB AND TACK O IRON PIPE 0 MONUMENT IN CASE + PK NAIL O REBAR AND CAP UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM MAPPING VISIBLE SURFACE APPURTENANCES, REFERRING TO AS -BUILT RECORDS AND MAPPING UTILITY PAINT MARKS FROM A UTILITY LOCATING SERVICE. BURIED UTILITIES ARE ONLY SHOWN AS APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE VERIFIED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. HORIZONTAL - CITY OF FEDERAL WAY, BASED ON GPS TIES TO MONUMENT FW154. VERTICAL - NGVD-29 BASED ON GPS TIES TO FW154 MONUMENT ELEVATION = 236.5. LINE TYPES n WOOD FENCE 0-0-0— CHAIN LINK FENCE x x x x x WIRE FENCE TOE GROUND TOE TOP GROUND TOP GROUND BREAK D D D STORM LINE S S S SANITARY SEWER LINE T T T BURIED TELEPHONE P P P BURIED POWER OP OP OVERHEAD POWER W W W WATER LINE G G G NATURAL GAS LINE T T-----7 BURIED CABLE TV LINE --- -- DITCH LINE MAJOR CONTOUR --- -- — — MINOR CONTOUR WLWL ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK LEGEND (UTILITIES) C CABLE MARKER POST © CABLE RISER/ PEDESTAL ® SS CLEANOUT 0 CABLE VAULT/MANHOLE O SS MANHOLE SS MARKER POST --� CULVERT Q SEPTIC TANK --0 LUMINAIRE WITH ARM STORM CATCH BASIN # LUMINAIRE D STORM MANHOLE # LANDSCAPE/YARD LIGHT o STORM CLEANOUT STORM ROOF DRAIN ® NATURAL GAS MARKER POST STORM YARD DRAIN 0 NATURAL GAS METER 0 STORM MARKER POST M PROPANE TANK p NATURAL GAS VALVE ® TELEPHONE CABINET M TELEPHONE JUNCTION BOX O° POWER CONDUIT ® TELEPHONE RISER J- GUY ANCHOR M TELEPHONE MARKER POST oc*uyGUY POLE -6 TELEPHONE POLE 0 POWER JUNCTION BOX 0 TELEPHONE VAULT/MANHOLE ® POWER MARKER POST ® POWER METER -o- POWER POLE 0 WATER BLOW OFF PP WITH DROP LINE 4 FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION PP WITH DROP AND LIGHT ff HOSE BIB PP WITH DROP, LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER 0 IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE PP WITH DROP AND TRANSFORMER 19 WATER MARKER POST PP WITH LIGHT AND TRANSFORMER ® WATER METER PP WITH LIGHT <&> WATER POST INDICATOR VALVE -�- PP WITH TRANSFORMER # SPRINKLER HEAD ® POWER TRANSFORMER D4 WATER VALVE © POWER VAULT/ MANHOLE if WATER FIRE HYDRANT ® WATER VAULT/MANHOLE SITE DATA PARCEL B BLA ADRESS:30201 18TH AVE SW 98023 PARCEL NO.:0121039146 ACRES: 6.246 RECEIVED LOT 4 ADDRESS 30300 19TH PL SW 98023 APR 12 2018 PARCEL NO.: 0850500040 ACRES: 0.48 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT