Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
11-103425
CITY OF Federal April 12, 2012 Mr. David Fall Fall Architectural Studio 8600 Banner Road SE Port Orchard, WA 98367 Way FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. cam RE: FILE #11-103425-00-AD; GHA INTRUSION APPROVAL Bradshaw/Harkness Single -Family Expansion, 3124 SW 302°d Place, Federal Way Dear Mr. Fall: The Community and Economic Development Department has completed review of your request to construct a new single-family residence and associated site improvements on a lot within a Geologically Hazardous Area (GHA). Permission to submit a single-family building permit is hereby approved based on the following findings and conclusions. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Subject property is a developed 36,388 square -foot single-family residential lot located at 3124 SW 302°d Place along the Puget Sound shoreline. Existing and proposed improvements are within the 200-foot Shoreline Master Program overlay. Slopes in excess of 40 percent between the residence and the Ordinary High Water Mark are identified on the topographic survey. 2. The applicant proposes to remodel an existing 1750 square -foot (building footprint) single-family residence originally built in 1952. Scope of work includes the demolition of the existing residence leaving the foundation, covered breezeway, and attached garage. New construction will utilize the remaining foundation and a proposed footprint expansion totaling 2,085 square feet. The proposed deck, one story over basement addition and remodel on existing foundation improvements are within identified geologically hazardous areas, specifically landslide hazard, erosion hazard, and steep slope setback. A Determination of Nonsignificance was issued for the proposal July 23, 2011. The proposal was not exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review at the time of submittal as the improvements were to be located in a critical area.' No appeals were submitted and the determination became final August 22, 2011. 4. A soils report prepared by N.L Olson and Associates and sealed by professional engineer Wesley R Johnson was submitted with the intrusion request. Soils were explored December 16, 2010, by drilling two borings — one within the proposed new building addition footprint and one within a steep slope area between the OHWM and proposed building footprint. 1 A recent amendment to the city's environmental policy now exempts SEPA review for single-family improvements within critical areas. Mr. Fall ` April 12, 2012 Page 2 Analysis of the findings indicate landslide hazard indicators that include slopes greater than 15 percent with permeable sediment overlying relatively impermeable sediment and steep slopes over 40 percent. Slope stability was measured between the existing residence and OHWM. Static and seismic factors of safety for the proposed addition exceeded their respective 1.50 and 1.10 thresholds, and therefore no adverse impacts are anticipated to the underlying slope area. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has determined slope instability, large scale sliding, or deep seated rotational failures between the residence and OHWM from the proposed scope of work appears unlikely. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has recommended the home's addition and wood deck should be structurally supported on pin piles and axial anchor support due to loose granular soils conditions underlying the site. The consultant also recommended the collection of all stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces with disposal away from structures and steep slopes. Additional recommendations for fill, temporary slopes, and erosion control were also included. 5. A drainage assessment and civil drawings prepared by Pacific Engineering Design and sealed by professional engineer Jingsong Feng and Greg A. Diener identify appropriate stormwater disposal and erosion/sedimentation control methods. The 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual allows direct discharge without flow control as the subject property abuts the Puget Sound shoreline. Stormwater will be picked up from impervious surfaces using yard and trench drains. These drains are connected to six-inch PVC pipe located on both side yards and lead to two catch basins located two feet landward of the shoreline bulkhead. Flows will infiltrate into a 1 Oft x 4ft. gravel dispersal trench with six-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe. Flows will then exit through existing clay pipes within the bulkhead and into Puget Sound. During construction, a temporary entrance medium consisting of quarry spalls will be utilized to prevent vehicles from tracking sediment on public rights -of way. All cut and fill stockpiles will be covered and silt fences and/or vegetated strips will contain exposed soils. The applicant will hook up to Lakehaven Utility District sewer facilities. Initially, the existing septic system was proposed to be removed and backfilled. Due to concerns from neighboring properties during the environmental review process regarding possible adverse effects from mechanized soil compaction, the applicant has revised the removal method and will instead abandon the septic facility. Licensed septic designer Mark Babbitt has provided documentation outlining approved state and county methods for abandoning septic systems including removing or destroying the lid, removal of septage, and filling with soil or gravel. The applicant's geotechnical consultant has reviewed this document and states filling with pea gravel will minimize the need for compaction equipment. 7. A landscaping plan prepared by registered landscape architect Glenn Takagi details salal restoration in areas disturbed by stormwater dispersal trenching and other shrub and groundcover planting to stabilize areas near the new retaining walls. One existing boxwood hedge will be removed and replaced with lawn. No trees are proposed to be removed. 11-103425 Doc. [D. 60817 h., 1 Mr. Fall April 12, 2012 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (F)WRC) Chapter 19.160, the Director of Community and Economic Development may permit development and land surface modifications activities on or within 25 feet of a Geologically Hazardous Area if: (1) No reasonable alternative exists; Staff Response — Due to the narrow shape of the lot, required yards and stringline setback, feasible improvements need to extend into the GHA area to capitalize on view features, existing improvements (foundation), and horizontal building area. (2) Only if the development activity will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic, or erosion hazard. Staff Response — The applicant's geotechnical consultant has investigated the soils on the site and determined the improvements can be constructed without increasing geologic hazards. Further review of grading, foundation, and stormwater recommendations will be conducted during the building permit phase. CLOSING This approval is not a building permit or shoreline substantial development permit exemption. Prior to any construction activities a building permit and exemption issued by the department is required. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Matthew Herrera., Associate Planner, at 253-835- 2638 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager for Patrick Doherty, Director c: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner Scott Sproul, Plans Examiner Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer Dm La 60917 11-103425 David W. Dupree, MD, MBA and Lyne M. Ouellet, MD 3120 SW 302°d Place, Federal Way, WA 98023 253-670-1593 253-952-9446 dcm51gcomcast.net August 31, 2012 City of Federal Way Community of Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98023 Attention: Mr. Isaac Conlen Re: Bradshaw/Harkness Residential Remodel/Addition (Federal Way File No: 11-101539-00-SE). Dear Mr. Conlen: This letter is to revisit the issues of slope instability surrounding the potential construction detailed in the Bradshaw/Harkness project noted above. My wife and I are the owners for 22 years of the residence at 3120 SW 302°d.Place immediately upslope of the proposed project. As noted in our comment letter of 8/4/2011, we have evaluated the geotechnical findings submitted with this application along with the engineer's reports and we are most concerned with potential instability of the slope which could be induced by: 1. The removal of the existing septic tank and down slope drain field which will be replaced with fill and compacted. 2. Foundational excavation and pin piling activity downslope of our property. 3. Removal of living root systems located on the subject property requiring back filling and compaction. A letter sent by Mr. Fall on 8/26/201Ito our geotechnical consultant, David Rupert, addressed item 1 above by leaving the septic system in place and filling it with CDF concrete mix but did not adequately address out concerns surrounding numbers 2 and 3. We are requesting that any building permit issuance by the City of Federal Way be conditional on following the recommendation of Mr. Rupert in his report of 8/4/2011 that the Dupree residence be surveyed at Bradshaw expense by a licensed professional surveyor before, during, and after completion of downslope activity noted above. In the event of any upslope movement, these operations should be suspended until such time that the Dupree residence has been shored and properly supported. These precautions are the best practices standards that are currently in use in Seattle and we believe they are appropriate and necessary precautions in this case. Sincerely, David W. Dupree, MD, MBA Lyne M. Ouellet, MD August 4, 2011 David W. Dupree, MD, MBA and Lyne M. Ouellet, MD 3120 SW 302"d Place, Federal Way, WA 98023 r �r! i� 253-670-1593 253-952-940 i1 j 7]� — dcm51 ,comcast.net r' U D i�511 f, City of Federal Way Community of Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98023 Attention: Deb Barker, Isaac Conlen. And Patrick Doherty Dear Ms. Barker, Mr. Conlen, Mr. Doherty: Of �CpS This letter is to express concerns about the environmental determination of non -significance issued on July 23, 2011 with regard to the Bradshaw/Harkness Residential Remodel/Addition (Federal Way File No: 11-101539-00-SE). My wife and I are the owners of the residence at 3120 SW 302na Place immediately upslope of the proposed Bradshaw/Harkness project. We have reviewed the documents submitted by the applicants to the city of Federal Way and have several areas of concern. 1. Question 11 under Section A of the SEPA environmental checklist submitted by the applicant described a pro posed project of 1200 square feet total addition to the main residence comprised of 400 s.f. at the basement area and 800 s.f. at the main floor and a 480 s.f. detached garage (1680 s.f. total project area). The plans submitted by the applicant, however, represent additions of 785 s.f. on the main floor and 1141 s.f. (1926 s.f. total) on the basement level as well as a 700 s.f. deck which was not previously mentioned on the SEPA checklist (Total project area 2826 s.f.). One would assume that there is a requirement for the SEPA checklist to accurately reflect the project for which the determination of n6n significance is sought. 2. Under Section B question 1, b. regarding surface indications of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. This site falls into the geologically hazardous area as described by the Federal Way Shoreline Master Program and new construction in this zone should be undertaken with great caution. Our house demonstrates unstable soils by movement toward the subject property which is demonstrated by cracking and settling of concrete in place on sidewalks, foundations, and patios up slope and directly adjacent to the subject property. This settling has required drainage modifications and repairs to the house to control and appropriately channel surface water runoff, repeated concrete replacement, slabjack leveling of concrete panels, repair of rockeries, and filling of cracks and separations at the junction of the house and concrete sidewalks and is a constant maintenance issue. Earthquakes, predictably, exacerbate this movement. We have evaluated the geotechnical findings submitted with this application along with the engineer's reports and we are most concerned with the removal of the existing septic tank and down slope drain field which will be replaced with fill and compacted. We did not see a graphic depiction as to the exact location of this field so the exact portion of the slope to be excavated remains a mystery. We are very worried that disturbance of the existing slope to such a great degree (removal of existing drain field, fill to replace the lost volume, and compaction requiring multiple vibration inducing hammer strikes will induce upslope motion and markedly increase slide probability on our adjoining property. The subject hillside is essentially loose sand over clay and a definite landslide hazard. Given the level of movement we have seen in the past with even minor earthquakes, the thought of a compacting device creating multiple mini -quakes immediately down slope of our home of 21 years is very worrisome. This aspect of the construction project has not been addressed adequately in either the geo-tech survey or the engineer's report. l There is extensive use of pin piling in the plans for the new structure as well. While the risk of pin piling activity is thought to be less than the conwactina which is envisioned, the risk of movement of the un Slone structures still exists. There is also mention in the plans of tree and root system removal to be carried out. Which root systems are to be affected is not specified. Previous tree removal has left extensive living root systems which stabilize the slope at some of the steepest parts of the slope within 2 to 5 feet of the property line. One would assume that such activity would require fill replacement and compaction similar to that required for the drain field rehabilitation. Disturbance of these root systems without appropriate upslope shoring would almost certainly lead to up slope instability and increase the potential for slide activity. 3. Under Section 10 question a of the SEPA checklist regard alteration of views: This project would significantly obstruct the southwest view of Dumas Bay from our property and reduce our property value. We believe that the project as currently envisioned and planned falls short of providing adequate mitigation of serious potential risks to our property that could be induced by the project. For these reasons, we believe the project should not proceed until adequate evaluation and mitigation of the risks and potential impacts to our property can be accomplished. Sincerely, David W. Dupree, MD, MBA Lyne M. Ouellet, MD E3RA August 4, 2011 T11075 David Dupree 3120 SW 302nd Place Federal Way, WA 98023 Subject: Geotechnical Report Review Letter 3124 SW 302nd Place Federal Way, Washington Dear Mr. Dupree: PO Box 44890 Tacoma WA 98444 253-537-9400 253-537-9401 fax RECEIVED CITY OF FEDERAL 1NrA A-1. ,,/, /01539/ E3RA is pleased to submit this Geotechnical Report Review Letter for the project site located at 3124 SW 302nd Place adjacent to your property at 3120 SW 302nd Place in Federal Way, Washington. The purpose of our review is to address the impact the construction activity may have on your property given the geologic conditions described at the site. We reviewed a Geotechnical Report, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Renovation Work for the property at 3124 SW 302nd Place, Federal Way, Washington, dated April 7, 2011. The report was provided by N.L. Olson and Associates, Inc. Our scope of work is limited to surface observations, geotechnical research, and letter preparation. This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Dupree and his consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practice. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the south bank of the Puget Sound. The water front lot is trapezoidal and encompasses about 0.86 acres. As described in the report, the site slopes down to the north-northwest ranging from about 15 to 80 percent. The relief is on the order of 30 feet from the crest to the toe of the slope. The geology is described in the report as about 25 feet of loose to medium dense sand overlying stiff to hard silt/clay. Plans call for an addition to the north side of existing single family residence. The addition incorporates an 1141 square foot daylight basement with a second story of approximately 785 square feet. In addition, a wood deck with approximately 700 square feet will be added to the northern side of the addition. We understand that both the addition and the deck will be supported on pin piles. Also mentioned within the report, is a septic drain field located northwest of the existing home and south of a rock wall. Based on our conversations with you, we understand that the septic tank will be exhumed and the drain field(s) will be removed and backfilled in order to accommodate the new construction. Ultimately, the new addition will utilize the existing municipal sewer system. We visited the site on August 1, 2011 and our site reconnaissance and observations indicate that conditions described in the report are accurate and that the recommendations are in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practice , August 4, 2011 Dupree Geotechnical Report Review Letter ORA, Inc. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our observations of the surface and subsurface conditions, as well as our review of the Geotechnical Engineering Report provided by others, we are in general agreement with the recommendations for foundation support provided by the installation of pin piles. E3RA's concern is with the removal of the current septic system and the subsequent backfill operations. As the geologic conditions are prone to movement under normal, non -construction related activity, we are concerned that the removal of this septic system and the vibrations associated with compacting the backfill may have a detrimental effect on your property, which is directly adjacent and upslope of this construction project. Based on the possibility of movement upslope, caused by the vibrations associated with mechanically compacting fill materials, we recommend that the Dupree residence be surveyed by a licensed professional surveyor prior to, during and after the completion of the septic removal and backfill operations. In the event of any upslope movement, this operation should be suspended until such time as the Dupree residence has been shored and properly supported. CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this letter are based, in part, on our interpretations and assumptions regarding subsurface conditions; therefore, if variations in the site conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. Respectfully submitted, URA, Inc. may" David Rupert Staff Geologist P.O Box 44890 Tacoma, WA 98444 (253)537-9400 James E. Brigham P.E. Principal Engineer DAR:JEB:dj TACO\\Tacoma-server\c\JOB FILES\2011 JOB FILES\T11075 DUPREE, DAVID\Dupree Geotechnical Report Review Letter.doc CITY OF L Federal Way CITY HALLFILE 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityofiederalway.. com Ms. Gretchen Kaehler, Assistant State Archaeologist February 16, 2012 Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 DAHPReference: Log: 081011-17-KI Property: Bradshaw/Harkness Residential RemodeUAddition, Federal Way File #11-101539-SE RE. Archaeology —Professional Archaeological Survey Requested RE: FILE:11-103425-00-AD; BRADSHAw/HARKNESs GEOHAZARD INTRUSION REQUEST 3124 SW 302" PLACE, FEDERAL WAY Dear Ms. Kaehler: This letter forwards information for your review regarding the request to intrude into geologically hazardous areas on a property located on high bank Puget Sound. The residential remodel and addition is proposed for the property located at 3124 SW 302nd Place in Federal Way. Enclosed please find the following: • Cover letter from Architect David Fall, dated January 30, 2012; • Information review letter from NL Olson & Associates, Inc., dated February 10, 2012; • Exhibit D 1 — Rockery erosion control stamped detail; • Scope of Work for Cultural Resource Assessment of the Bradshaw/Harkness Addition prepared by Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants, dated January 9, 2012; ■ Drainage Assessment prepared by Pacific Engineering Design, LLC, dated January 5, 2012; • Septic system abandonment letter prepared by Babbitt Septic Design, Inc., dated January 9, 2012; ■ Sheet L1 of 1 (Planting Plan) prepared by Glenn Takagi, LSA, dated January 30, 2012; • Sheet C01 (Drainage Plan) and CO2 (TESC Plan) prepared by Pacific Engineering Design, LLC, dated January 5, 2012; and • Sheet A-1 (Site Plan) prepared by Fall Architectural Studio, dated January 30, 2012. Please note that a scope of work for a cultural resource assessment is included with the information submitted by the project architect. Your comments on these documents are appreciated. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 should you have any questions about this letter or the project. Sincerely, � Deb Barker Senior Planner Enclosures as noted David Fall, Architect, via e-mail: davef@buildingart.com Doc. ID. 60422 CITY OF ,Z%414. '1� Federal Way DATE: February 16, 2012 TO: Kevin Peterson Scott Sproul FROM: Deb Barker MEMORANDUM Community Development Services. Department SUBJECT: BRADSHAWMARKNESS GEOHAZARD INTRUSION REQ - (11-103425-00-AD) 3124 SW 302ND PL PLEASE REPLY BY: February 28, 2012 The architect for the house remodel/addition project has submitted information based on the City's October 14, 2011 letter. Please find the following for the proposed intrusions into geolgically hazardous areas • Cover letter from David Fall dated January 30, 2012; • Information review letter from NL Olson & Associates, Inc dated February 10, 2012; • Exhibit D1— Rockery erosion control stamped detail; • Scope of Work for Cultural Resource Assessment of the Bradshaw Harkness Addition prepared by Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants, dated January 9, 2012; • Drainage Assessment prepared by Pacific Engineering Design, LLC dated January 5, 2012; • Septic system abandonment letter prepared by Babbitt Septic Design, Inc. shed January 9, 2012; Edated heet L1 of 1 (Planting plan) prepared by Glenn Takagi, LSA dated January 30, 2012; heet COI (Drainage Plan) and CO2 (TESC Plan) prepared by Pacific Engineering Design, LLC January 5, 2012; and heet A-1 (Site Plan) prepared by Fall Architectural Studio dated January 30, 2012 Please review this information and let me know if we can approve the proposed intrusions into the geologically hazardous areas associated with this house remodel and additionA SEPA DNS was issued last summer. Thanks Fall Architectural Art & Design ART / ARCHITECTURE / CONSTRUCTION buildingart.com 8600 Banner Rd. S.E. / Port Orchard, WA 98367 / (253) 858-6700 (office) / (206) 909-3283 (cell) / davef®buildinuart.com City of Federal Way 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 1/30/2012 re: Bradshaw / Harkness Addition, 3124 SW 302nd Place, Federal Way; file # 11-100548-00-PC Dear Ms. Barker, I am writing on behalf of Barbara Bradshaw & Ron Harkness in response to your letter dated October 4, 2011 requesting written response to concerns raised in the letter by the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) dated August 10, 2011. We will provide a professional archaeological survey of our project area as requested by the DAHP. We will hire this service to be certain that any potential cultural issues are resolved prior to building permit submittal and we will consult with concerned Tribes based on findings of the survey before building permit submittal. I hope this strategy will satisfy DAHP, Tribe and City of Federal Way concerns regarding our proposed project. Thank your Yours u a J. Fall, Arc ect cc Barbara Bradshaw / Ron Harkness PREG'S?EA CH Ci ll ._,� RESUBMITTED FEB 14 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS � Inc. N.L. Olson & Associates, Engineering, Planning & Land Surveying February 10, 2012 Project Number. 7603-11 David J. Fall, Architect Fall Architectural Studio 8600 Banner Rd. S.E. Port Orchard, WA Subject: Information Review Bradshaw/Harkness Residential Addition 3124 SW 302nd Place Federal Way, WA 98023-2342 NLO has reviewed the follow document "Septic System Abandonment Letter, 3124 SW 302"d Place, Federal Way, WA, Prepared by Babbit Septic Design, Inc." Dated January 9, 2012, which Provides criteria for abandonment of existing septic system per: • WAC 246-272A-0300- abandonment • King County Title 13.04.054 - Abandonment NLO is concurs with provided criteria for existing septic system abandonment. King County Title 13.04.054 - abandonment recommends the use of pea gravel to backfill voids such as the septic tank. In NLO's opinion, pea gravel will minimize the need for compaction equipment and address the neighbor's concern with mechanical vibration from heavy compaction equipment. Pea gravel does not require compaction. Should you have any questions or concerns, which have not been addressed, or if we may be of additional assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, es ey chnson, P.E. Geotech ical Division Manager FEB 14 2012 _ . rrtr_n_R_LWAY P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue a Port Orchard, Washington 98366 rti� ` , Cu���n CDS Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 • Fax: (360) 876-1487 FOR FLAT BACKSLOPE, SURFACE SHOULD BE IMPERVIOUS & SLOPED TO DRAIN . MIN. 16" D ❑ 4 2 (OR FLATTER) 1 n ° I lr- ° o ° n �—I 7 ... , - 1qJ II-1 L�J�IJ i C1 1-J 3/MIN. HEIGHT FREE -DRAINING BACKFILL (MAX. 5% FINES) MIN. 8" WIDE LAYER OF 2%4" QUARRY SPALLS ADJUS TE TO ROCKERY STABLE CUT FACE IN NATIVE MATERIAL VO (OR LESS) WASHED GRAVEL; MIN. 6" COVER OVER DRAIN PIPE WI MIN. 2" GRAVEL UNDER PIPE MIN. 4"0 PERFORATED PIPE; MIN. 1% CONTIN. SLOPE TO OUTLET; PIPE ANDIOF CUT FACE TO BE LINED WI FILTER FABRIC cv 1. ROCKERIES ARE EROSION -CONTROL STRUCTURES, NOT RETAINING WALLS. NATIVE MATERIAL MUST BE STABLE AND FREE-STANDING. 2. ANY DEVIATION IN DESIGN MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THE SEAL OF A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER. 3, ROCK SHALL BE SOUND AND HAVE MIN. DENSITY OF 160 #/CF. 4. THE LONG DIMENSION OF ALL ROCKS SHALL BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO THE WALL. EACH ROCK SHOULD BEAR ON TWO ROCKS IN THE TIER BELOW. 314"=1'-0" ROCKERY EROSION CONTROL BRADSHAW-HARKNESS REMODEL / ADDITION FALL ARCHITECTURAL STUDIO 3124 SW 302nd PLACE 8600 I3uiZlr1c1 Road S.E. Yur l Orchard, lYxsltiugu98367 Aia FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 David J. rail, ArchiLecl. .,n,.. Dl Scope of Work for Cultural Resource Assessment Of the Bradshaw -Harkness Addition, Parcel No. 0121039058 To be completed in King County, Washington Prepared for - Mr. David Fall Fall Architectural Studio 8600 Banner Road SE Port Orchard, WA 98367 Prepared by - Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants 5518 Trosper Lake St SW Tumwater, WA 98512 Phone 360.359.6701 www.AquaTerraCRC.com January 9, 2012 RESUBMITTED FEB 14 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Cultural Resource Assessment of the Bradshaw -Harkness Addition Project SCOPE OF WORK Mr. David J. Fall has requested a cultural resource assessment of 0.84 acre parcel (parcel no_ 0121039058) located in Federal Way, Washington. This parcel is owned by Ms_ Barbara Bradshaw and Mr. Ron Harkness and hosts one existing stricture, a single-family four -bedroom dwelling constricted in 1952. The Bradshaw -Harkness Addition Project ("the Project") will construct a 1200 square foot addition to the wood -framed rambler style home and includes constriction of a 480 square foot detached wood -framed garage. Construction also includes the establishment of an improved stormwater collection system that will direct roof runoff into pipes that route into a manifold structure where water is discharged into a dissipater system located adjacent to the existing bulkhead/stairway. The Washington State Department of Archaeology (DAHP) was contacted regarding the project and recommended that a cultural resource survey be completed prior to any construction activities_ This project falls under the auspices of Governor's Executive Order 05-05 (EO 05-05), and the DAHP is responsible for ensuring compliance with EO 05-05. This Scope of Work addresses the tasks involved in the cultural resource compliance for the Project. The survey and report are to be consistent with the DAHP "Washington State Standards for Cultural Resource Survey Reporting" and EO 05-05_ Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants (ATCRC) will aid Mr. Fall with complying with these legal requirements by identifying the presence of historic resources on the property through completion of the following tasks - Task 1: Background Research ATCRC will conduct background research at appropriate repositories, such as the DAHP, university libraries, local history museums and informants, and use sources appropriate to the task, such as public records, private manuscript collections, online General Land Office records, published (secondary) sources, Sanborn fire insurance maps, and other relevant repositories. The objective of the research should be to develop a full understanding of the historical context, land use patterns, and previously identified sites within the Area of Potential Impact (API). The client will provide ATCRC with a detailed written description of the project area, including relevant documentation (maps, plan sheets, photos, etc_)_ ATCRC will provide the client with justification for revising/amending the API, if warranted (based on field survey and/or background research). Task 2: Tribal Coordination The relevant tribe(s) will be contacted about the project to identify any concerns about heritage resources within the API and to inform them when field investigations will take place_ This communication is a technical inquiry and does not take the place of any formal consultation required. Responsibility for formal consultation with tribes in matters of the cultural resource review process is a government -to -government function and will be conducted by DAHP if required. Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC Page I Assumptions: - ATCRC will be available to meet with the relevant tribe(s) for one in -person project review meeting. Task 3: Cultural Resources Survey The cultural resources survey will be completed by ATCRC archaeologists using standard, industry -accepted methods appropriate to the project area and landform. Up to 15 shovel -tests or hand auger probes will be excavated where appropriate, in areas judged to have potential for cultural remains or in areas with poor surface visibility. Depositional setting will be evaluated. Any previously recorded resources will be examined and updated as necessary. All survey activities will comply with the DAHP Survey and Inventory Standards www_dah _wa.aov). Newly identified cultural resources will be fully documented (see Task 4). Special care will be taken to determine site boundaries if archaeological resources are present. Any recovered artifacts will be documented and photographed in the field and returned to the survey location. Assumptions: Cost Estimate allows for recording of one historic property (the existing structure on parcel no. 0121039058) and one additional historic/archaeological resource site if discovered. Site boundaries will be determined within parcels approved for access/survey. Cost estimate does not allow for recording of site boundaries that lie outside the approved/scope survey area. A separate cost estimate will be prepared for the client in the case that a Site Protection Plan or additional work (e.g. construction monitoring, recording of site boundaries outside parcel no. 0121039058, etc.) is required due to discovery of cultural resource material. Task 4: Resource Forms Results of the survey will be summarized. Any previously recorded cultural resources will be examined and updated as necessary_ Newly identified cultural resources within the project area will be fully documented on a Washington State Archaeological Site Form and will include a written description of the site and its setting, sketch maps, USGS quadrant maps, and photographs. Any structures older than 50 years will be recorded on historic property inventory forms_ Task 5: Draft Report ATCRC will prepare a draft summary report of their findings that includes relevant supporting evidence for findings and adheres to the DAHP's Survey and Inventory Standards. The report will provide context on pertinent land use customs and beliefs, identify sites within the project area, discuss methods used to survey the project area, and include recommendations on the eligibility of the site(s) and the likelihood of construction impacts. A draft report will be provided to the client for review six weeks after receipt of notice -to -proceed. Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC Page 2 Task 6: Final Report Upon receipt of comment from the client, ATCRC will revise and finalize the report to address specific concerns or suggested modifications. The final summary report will be suitable for submission to DAHP, the tribe(s), appropriate agencies and other concerned parties_ Due to confidentiality requirements for archaeological site locations, distribution of the report will be restricted beyond any of the aforementioned parties. The report will then be submitted in final form to the client, to DAHP and the tribe(s); upon the clients request ATCRC will facilitate the submission of the final report to other agencies/concerned parties, if applicable. Assumptions: If the client wishes for ATCRC to facilitate the submission of the final report to the aforementioned parties, the client will provide ATCRC with the appropriate agency and concerned party contact information_ Task 7: Project Management ATCRC will coordinate with the client to receive project materials, prepare invoicing and transmit correspondence. ATCRC will maintain project files to include necessary supporting materials as required. The Project Manager (Sarah Shufelt) will monitor project task performance, schedule, budget, and approve project expenses. The Project Manager will ensure that systems are in place to conduct quality assurance and quality control on deliverables and correspondence_ Assumptions: - The ATCRC Project Manager will be available for regular phone calls with the client and one in -person meeting to facilitate completion of the assignment. Project Materials The client will supply or facilitate ATCRC acquisition of the following needed for this project- • A general location map; • Preliminary and revised plan maps showing the location and extent of the project; • Any additional descriptive information and design drawings that show the extent/depth of trenching, grading, or other ground disturbance associated with the project; and • The results of any geotechnical boring or subsurface testing that may assist in development of a land use/land formation history_ ■ Contact information or documented permission from property owners to access the survey area; • Contact information for any agencies or concerned parties that the client would like the report disseminated to, if applicable. Deliverables ATCRC will provide the client with a PDF version of the final report via email and/or by CD via mailing. ATCRC will provide a PDF copy of the report on CD to DAHP, the tribe(s), and Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC Page 3 appropriate agencies and concerned parties if requested by the client. Final report deliverable will be sent to client within eight weeks of notice -to -proceed. Schedule ATCRC staff will initiate project work when notice -to -proceed confirmation and a signed agreement are received via email from the client_ Project fieldwork will occur within three weeks from notice to proceed. A draft version of the cultural resource assessment report will be provided to the client for review six weeks after receipt of notice to proceed. The final report will be delivered to the client, DAHP and the tribe(s) eight weeks after notice to proceed. Budget The attachment (Attachment A) lists the costs to complete the tasks described in this Scope of Work. The spreadsheet identifies the professional classification and personnel assigned to complete each of the tasks, lists the hours of work by task and personnel, and presents the labor cost and expenses for the project. Contract The contract including invoicing and payment in full date is included in Attachment B. Upon review, the client shall return a signed copy of the contract to ATCRC for project files. The ATCRC Project Manager will also sign and return a copy of the contract to the client for their records. Aqua Terra Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC Page 4 ATTACHMENT A Cost Estimate for the Bradshaw/Harkness Cultural Resource Assessment Consulting Staff Shufelt, S Chambers, J Schwab, L Potter, A Principal Project Architect. Equipment Task Investigator Archeologist Historian Operations Task1,BackgroundResearch i i i i ______,_____41_____L_____1_____J_____1_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___________ 1 I - ---- - - - - - - - - ---------- - - - - -- ------------r-----r-----7-----------7- Tas- Tribal Coordination i ! _-_--! ____-!_____! _ _____� - - - - -- - - -_ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - ; - - - - - J - - - - - 1 - Task 3. Cultural Resources SurveylFieldwork 7 �7 ------------------------- - - ---- - - -- __ _ ^ _ _ r-----�---------------T- __ ---- -- - '-- - - - - -'---------1- T_ask 4. Resource Forms r - _ ----------------------------- 1 2 1 _ _ _ _ r ------•-------+_----�-----+--- -�- -+- - Task 5.DraTechnicalReport Draft ,$1__. _L_____1_____�_____t_ ------------------------------ --------------r-- _-r-----7-------__--7- Task6.FinalTechnicalReport 2i____ -___ ---__11 - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -__ _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ - _ L _ _ _ _ _ 1 _ _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ _ _ 4- - Task 7. Project Management - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - 1 - - - - - -,- - - - - - r - - - - - r - - - - - T - - - - - 7 - - - - - T - Total hours 10 21 2 0 Aqua Terra CRC billing rates $110 $55 W72 $40 Subtotals $1,100 $1.155 $144 $0 Direct Expenses 521.00 Meals, and Lodging 523.01 Computer/Faxes 523.02 Reproductions 523.03 Equipment Rental 523.04 Postage and Delivery 523.05 Travel, Auto 94 miles p/day (.51 p/mile) @ 1 day 523.07 Surveys and Reports 523.09 Project Supplies 529.00 Other Reimbursable Expenses Mark up on all non -labor costs and subcontractors: 10% Direct expense subtotal Pagel Bradsha Aqua Terra4 Cultural :Resource Consultants Attachment B- CONTRACT FOR SERVICES PROJECT: Bradshaw/Harkness Addition Cultural Resource Assessment Project CLIENT: Mr. David Fall, Fall Architectural Studio ADDRESS: 8600 Banner Rd. SE, Port Orchard, WA 98367 PHONE:253.858.67oo FAX: PARCEL: 0121039058 SCOPE OF WORK: See Attached ESTIMATE: $2457.00 INVOICING AND PAYMENT TERMS Invoicing: ATCRC will invoice for time and expenses upon submission of the final draft report to the client, Mr. David Fall_ Payment: Payment is due upon receipt of invoice. Payment past due 30 days from invoice date will be charged 2% interest on balance due, unless alternative arrangements are made with ATCRC. Unless ATCRC is notified within 15 days of the invoice date, the invoice is deemed acceptable to you. Cease Work: ATCRC reserves the right to cease work under this contract if payment terms are not met and may apply a retainer to any balance due. ATCRC is not responsible for delays resulting from a failure to comply with payment terms_ Quotes: A quote is the amount that will not be exceeded in the process of completion of the Scope of Work identified. It is a total due in specified increments through the job. No breakdown of fees will be sent during invoicing. Estimates: Estimates are based upon typical conditions under current regulations and requirements by the appropriate government agencies_ This is a not -to -exceed estimate_ It is a limit which will not be exceeded without written approval by you. All time spent on the project will be billed according to the rates indicated in the Cost Estimate for the Bradshaw/Harkness Addition Cultural Resource Assessment. 5518 Trosper Lake Street sw -'rainwater, NVA - Phone: 360.359.670t - w-wv,.AquaTerraCRC.com Page 2 of 3 Note: We assume the property boundaries are easily identifiable and that access has been arranged with any property owners involved. If additional services related specifically to this project are required after submission of the final report and invoice (i.e. tribal consultation meeting attendance, correspondence with federal agencies, etc.) and are determined to be minor in scope by ATCRC, ATCRC may provide services on an hourly basis at the "Principal" rate. This arrangement would be covered under separate agreement and invoicing_ GENERAL CONDITIONS Guarantee: ATCRC guarantees the necessary services and efforts will be performed in a professional manner overseen by personnel with qualifications meeting or exceeding federal standards. ATCRC cannot guarantee that any permit(s) will be issued as a result of services completed. Cooperation: The client agrees to cooperate fully with ATCRC so as to facilitate the completion of the Scope of Work. Access and Damage: In granting ATCRC access to the subject property, you shall indemnify, defend, and hold ATCRC harmless from all liability for damages including, but not limited to damages to property and personal injuries to non-ATCRC personnel that may result indirectly from the performance of the services provided by ATCRC. Court Testimony: Subpoenas regarding your project and legal depositions by ATCRC which result from services performed are not a part of this contract, and may be arranged at 2.5 times the "Principal" rate. Authorization: You hereby authorize ATCRC to carry out the steps necessary to perform the Scope of Work. You warrant that you have authority to act on behalf of and to bind the entity for which you are signing. You further warrant, after reasonable investigation, that the information you have provided to ATCRC is valid, correct, and accurate to the best of your knowledge_ You acknowledge having received a copy of this Contract for Services. Agreement: This is the whole agreement between the parties hereto. There are no other oral or written agreements except those specifically stated herein. This agreement shall not be assignable without the consent of ATCRC. The agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Washington. 5518 Trosper fake street SW • Tunm ater, wA 98512 . Phone: 360.359.6701 - vvtivtiv.Agik9TerraCRC.coni Page 3 of 3 PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE I (we) the undersigned, intending to be legally bound, accept the fees, terms, and conditions stated above for the Bradshaw/Harkness Addition Cultural Resource Assessment. Signature Mr. David J. Fall Signature Ms. Sarah J_ Shufelt, M.M.A., RPA Date Date 5518 Trosper Lake Street SW • Tumwater, WA 98512 . Phone: 360.359.6701 ■ www.AquaTerraCRCxom DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT BRADSHAW HARKNESS RESIDENCE 3124 SW 302"d Place Federal Way, WA Building Permit # Assessor's Tax Parcel ID # 012103-9058 Architect: Fall Architectural Studio 8600 Banner Road Southeast Port Orchard, WA 98367 Phone: 253-858-6700 Prepared by: Pacific Engineering Design, LLC 15445 53rd Avenue South Seattle, WA 98188 Phone: 206-431-7970 Fax: 206-388-1648 January 5 2012 PED PROJECT NUMBER: 1�1048Kt-bUbE® FEB 14 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Drainage Assessment Building Permit # Assessor's Tax Parcel ID # 012103-9058 Bradshaw Harkness Residence 3124 SW 302"d Place Federal Way, WA Page 1 This project is located on the northwest side of 33"' Avenue SW on a 0.86 acre lot in zone RS 7.2. The east portion of the lot is forested and undeveloped except for an existing gravel driveway. The west portion of the lot has been developed as a single family residence with an attached garage (the residence was built in 1952). Access to the site is from 33rd Avenue SW. To the southeast of the residence the site is relatively flat. To the northwest of the residence the site features a steep slope (>40%) to the northwest to the beach of Puget Sound. There is a bulkhead sea wall along the shoreline and a 5' to 10' wide flat area between the bulkhead wall and the toe of the steep slope. No offsite improvement is proposed. The proposed onsite improvement includes 771 sf new house addition and 616 sf of new deck at the northwest side of the existing residence, 558 sf new court space at the front entrance, 616 sf new detached garage, 1941 sf new asphalt pavement in front of the existing and new garages, 82 sf of new front and side additions. Total new impervious area is 4584 sf. Total new pollution generating impervious area is 1941 sf which is less than 5000 sf and water quality treatment is not required. Total existing impervious area to remain is 2614 sf which includes a 1298 sf house, a 356sf garage and 960 sf of existing gravel driveway. Total impervious area is 7198 sf. Since this project will result in no more than 10,000 square feet of total impervious surface added on or after January 8, 2001, no more than 5,000 square feet of new impervious surface, and no more than 35,000 square feet of new pervious surface, it meets the requirements for Small Project Drainage Review. New impervious area Existina imnervious area to remain Existing arage to remain sf. 356 Existing house to remain (sf. 1298 Existing gravel driveway to remain (sf.) 960 Total existing impervious areas to remain (sf.) 2614 Im ervious area summary Total new impervious area (sf.) 4584 Total new pollution generating impervious area (sf.) 1941 Total Existing impervious area to remain sf. 2614 Total impervious area 7198 Drainage Assessment Original Permit # Assessor's Tax Parcel ID # 012103-9058 Bradshaw Harkness Residence 3124 SW 302"d Place Federal Way, WA Page 2 This lot is subject to Large Lot BMP Requirements as detailed in the King County Surface Water Design Manual (KC SWDM) Appendix C. All proposed impervious surface (4,584 sf total) will be mitigated with flow control BMPs. There will be minimal new pervious surface. The total cleared area is less than 35,OOOsf, which is the maximum new pervious surface allowed without flow control BMPs. We are under this number; therefore, no BMPs are required for this surface. There is a steep slope area downstream of the proposed building addition. Therefore, there is no way to achieve the minimum required 100 feet of native vegetated flowpath segment with a slope of 15% or less. Therefore, full dispersion is not feasible. Also full infiltration is not feasible due to the steep slope area downstream of the building. Since the north portion of the site is in the shore line of Puget Sound, the Direct Discharge Exemption applies, Flow control is not required. Runoff from the proposed development will be tight lined to a location near the beach of Puget Sound for direct discharge and for steep slope protection. Total collected impervious area is 7,187 square feet which is less than 10,000 square feet. 6" tight lines will be used (SWDM C.1.2.3). Energy dissipation is required for the outfall. Two type 1 catch basins (used as stilling wells) and a 10 feet long by 4 feet wide gravel dispersal trench with 10 linear feet of 6" perforated PVC pipe will be installed 2 feet behind the bulkhead sea wall (parallel with the wall) to provide the energy dissipation. Water will leach out from the perforated PVC pipe to the gravel dispersal trench and then flows to the weep holes (Y to 4" clay pipes at 8' o.c. protruded through the bulkhead). If the weep holes reach their capacity, water will bubble up to the top of the dispersal trench and sheet flow over the top of the bulkhead to the Puget Sound. Stilling well design: Step 1: Select approach pipe diameter, D, and discharge, Q Q100yr = C*I*A = C*Pr*Ar*Tc**(-Br)*A = 0.9*4.35*2.61 *6.3**(-0.63)*0. 165 = 0.53 cfs. Where C = 0.9 for impervious area A = 7198 sf. = 0.165 ac. Tc = 6.3 minute for small site area Pr = 4.35 inches for 100 year 24 hour storm event Ar = 2.61 and Br = -0.63 Approach pipe diameter D = 6" = 0.5' Step 2: Obtain well diameter, Dw from Figure 12.2 Dw = D = 0.5' Use Type 1 CB with 26"x22" opening area, o.k. Step 3: Calculate the culvert slope. The depth of the well below culvert invert, H1 from Figure 12.3 S = 55.17%, V/H = 0.5517 H1 = 0.45 * Dw = 0.23' Use Type 1 CB, H1 = 2', o.k. Step 4: The depth of the well above the culvert invert, H2 = 2*D = 2 * 0.5' = 1' minimum, use 3.5'. Step 5: The total height of the well, Hw = H1 + H2 = 3.5'+2' = 5.5'. I 3.2.1 RATIONAL METHOD FIGURE 3.2.1.D 100-YEAR 24-HOUR ISOPLUVIALS COUN`Y �j• Yy = -I• - — ---' I_ "�_ «.-- !—� — N COUNTY \•iy �j [no NIW D'A1`'rn i� ~ rni+ C{ St r I 1 9 I i nN 1Z VMA D I' '. 6 it 5` y u i t amt.u! a -} 0 "'-Sy[[Sq!.M-551...�� s.:x y �i`R.�l''..: •.: tip' t� �.r --.—.. y� l4•_ >� SITE TV a roll" � -- PI8 CON. —MY WESTERN o� KING COUNTY so 100 -Yea r 24-Hour Precipitation �,� ho �� �- — in Inches Miles yh 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 3-17 I/9/2009 Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts and Channels Hydraulic Engineering Circular Number 14, Third Edition Chapter 12: Stilling Wells The design of the US Army Corps of Engineers' stilling well energy dissipator is based on model tests conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 1963; Grace and Pickering, 1971). It is illustrated in Figure 12.1. The stilling well can be used in channels with moderate to high concentrations of sand or silt and where debris is not a serious problem. The stilling well should not be used in areas where large floating or rolling debris is expected unless suitable debris -control structures are used. The highway uses of stilling wells are at the outfalls of storm drains, median, and pipe down drains where little debris is expected. Fiaure 12.1. US Armv Corps of Enuineers' Stilling Well (USACE, 1963) The design of the stilling well is initiated after the size and discharge of the incoming pipe are aetermmea. r-igure 12.2 is used to select the stilling well diameter, Dw. The model tests indicated that satisfactory performance can be maintained for KuQ/D- ratios as large as 10, with stilling well diameters from 1 to 5 times that of the incoming conduits. (K„ is a unit conversion constant equal to 1.811 in SI and 1.0 in CU.) These ratios were used to define the curves shown in Figure 12.2. The optimum depth of stilling well below the invert of the incoming pipe is determined by entering Figure 12.3 with the slope of the incoming pipe and using the stilling well diameter, Dw, previously obtained from Figure 12.2. The height of the stilling well above the invert is fixed at twice the diameter of the incoming pipe, 2D. This dimension results in satisfactory operation and is practical from a cost standpoint; however, if increased, greater efficiency will result. Tailwater also increases the efficiency of the stilling well. Whenever possible, it should be located in a sump or depressed area. Riprap or other types of channel protection should be provided around the stilling well outlet and for a distance of at least 3Dw downstream. The outlet may also be covered with a screen or grate for safety. However, the screen or grate should have a clear opening area of at least 75 percent of the total stilling well area and be capable of passing small floating debris such as cans and bottles. Fiaure 12.2 [SI). Stilling Well Diameter. Dw (USACE. 1963) 6.Q i 0.6 0.40.3 1 l .03 .04 .06 .00 0.1 0.2 0.3 QA 0.6 0.S 1 2 1 A 5 6 8 90 20 30 i ter. rrrr-.s rric� � �s,�s n urr: r+ara i � sir: rra rs�e �msi�s�s�+n � tii�» ' e■■I�Il1�MIMRM�FIwRIW1s�kMw�Irl■IEs�����■■�������■■� COMA �0P.1pro-Rao 0..apap a CH, DISMANE M. CPS Figure 12.3. Depth of Stilling Well Below Invert USACE, 1963 W 0. d= j © S' O.G m m o 4) 0.2 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Slope (Verticall"Horizontal) The design procedure is summarized as follcws: Step 1. Select approach pipe diameter, D, and discharge, Q. Step 2.Obtain well diameter, DW from Figure 12.2. Step 3. Calculate the culvert slope. The depth of the well below the culvert invert, h, is determined from Figure 12.3. Step 4. The depth of the well above the culvert invert, h2, is equal to 2D as a minimum, but may be greater if the site permits. Step 5. The total height of the well, hW = h, + h2. Drainage Assessment Original Permit # Assessor's Tax Parcel ID # 012103-9058 Bradshaw Harkness Residence 3124 SW 302"d Place Federal Way, WA Page 3 In order to prevent erosion on the site during and after construction, the following BMPs will be used approximately as shown on the ESC plan: - A stabilized construction entrance will be constructed. - Mulch will be used as a temporary cover. - Plastic covering will be used only as necessary to cover stockpiles and cut/fill areas - Clearing limits will be clearly marked with tape. - Silt Fences and Vegetated Strips will be installed/used to control run-off and erosion. - Seeding will be done at an appropriate time to stabilize uncovered ground, as soon as final grade has been achieved. - Run-off will not be allowed to concentrate, and point discharges will not be allowed on the slopes. tC'ss O N G I•' � � a b7 S i 25? T_ r2 fps �Z, <s> Babbitt Septic Design, Inc. 25113 9e Street East Buckley, Washington 98321 David J. Fall, Architect Fall Architectural Studio 8600 Banner Rd. S.E. Port Orchard, WA 98367 January 9, 2012 Re: Septic system abandonment at 3124 SW 302°a Place in Federal Way, Washington. Dear Mr. Fall, This letter is specific in outlining code requirements governing septic system abandonment. More specifically there are two codified sources appropriate for guiding abandonment found at the state and county levels. The state code, WAC 246-272A is a general minimum, where King County Title 13 has more specific guidance. Below are the two appropriate code citations: WAC 246-272A-0300-Abandonment Persons permanently abandoning a septic tank, seepage pit, cesspool, or other sewage container shall: (1) Have the septage removed by an approved pumper; (2) Remove or destroy the lid; and (3) Fill the void with soil or gravel. King County Title 13.04.054 Abandonment. A. Persons permanently removing a septic tank, seepage pit, cesspool or other OSS wastewater tanks from service shall within thirty days: 1. Have the septage removed by an approved pumper; and 2. Remove or destroy the lid; and 3. Fill the void with compacted soil or gravel; and 4. Report the abandonment to the health officer on a form obtained from the health officer and accompanied by the fee specified in the fee schedule. RESUBMITTED FEB 14 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS B. Contaminated rock, sand and gravel material from repairs to failing OSS shall be properly disposed of by either burying at an appropriate location approved by the health officer or transported to an approved sanitary landfill. The process of disposal shall be supervised by a licensed master installer. (R&R No. 08-03 § 3, 2008: R&R No. 99-01 § 2 (part), 3-19-99). King County Title 13.04.054 outlines in greater detail the process and documentation of septic system abandonment. Applying these sections of codes to the referenced project, the following would be an appropriate procedure for complete abandonment: 1) The wastewater tank shall have all septage removed by an approved pumper. 2) The wastewater tank shall have the lid destroyed. 3) Fill all voids with pea gravel. Pea gravel will more adequately fill voids and need far less compaction. Vibration due to compaction may cause some adverse site conditions on an already sensitive site. 4) Report the abandonment on the appropriate Report of Wastewater Tank Abandonment with appropriate fee. (See attached form) Any existing drainfield requires no disposal or special treatment if the following conditions are present: 1) System is not failing. 2) Rock, sand and gravel material remain underground. 3) Rock, sand and gravel material unearthed have no wastewater commingled with the earth material. It appears that a small portion of the existing drainfield could be unearthed during the proposed expansion project. If there are contaminated soils then disposal should be in accordance with Title 13.04.054 B. The above guidance is limited to the referenced site description and is based upon information provided by owners or owners agent. If you have any question please contact me at (253) 862-4307. Ve truly, ark Babbitt Babbitt Septic Design, Inc. WSOSD # 5100246 U /-05-Z-e9• Z' 1�kCITY OF Federal Way October 4, 2011 FfL�=:�, CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Mr. David Fall via e-mail: davef buildart.com Fall Architectural Studio 8600 Banner Road SE Port Orchard, WA 98367 RE: FILE #11-103425-00-AD; ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED Bradshaw/Harkness Geologically Hazardous Area Intrusion Request Dear Mr. Fall: This letter provides comments on the proposed work in geologically hazardous areas associated with the above -referenced project at 3124 SW 302nd Place in Federal Way. On July 23, 2011, the City issued an environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)' for an addition to the existing single-family house located within geologically hazardous areas according to the City's critical areas map. Intrusions into critical areas are subject to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.160.010 and the City can permit the work if no reasonable alternative exists and only if the development activity will not lead to or create any increased slide, seismic, or erosion hazard. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED To date, a building permit has not been submitted. As a result, the full extent of any activities within those geologically hazardous areas is not fully known. Based on this fact, additional information as discussed below is required in order to approve such work that might be proposed in geologically hazardous areas. Drainage Design The N.L Olsen June 12, 2011 addendum to their April 2011 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation recommends that collected runoff be tightlined from the house to the bottom of the bulkhead or the staircase leading to the beach, and that pipes discharge into a manifold type structure or into an energy dissipater such as a pad of crushed rock to minimize erosion. The City's Public Works staff required that the energy dissipation system designed by a licensed engineer shall comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) requirements, and that discharge onto the beach steps is not a concept that is supported or will be approved. Please provide the following information about the drainage system: • Provide a preliminary design of the energy dissipater system that complies with the 2009 KCSWDM requirements and include soils information as appropriate. • Depict the location of the tightline system on a site plan. • Confirm the condition of the bulkhead/retaining wall for the energy dissipation design. Identify any proposed changes that the wall might require. 1 The appeal period concluded with no appeals filed_ Mr Fall October 4, 2011 Page 2 Septic System The April 2011 N.L. Olsen addendum to the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation also recommended that the septic tank be removed, the area be backfilled, and a licensed professional be consulted to assist with the septic system removal. In response to concerns about backfill vibrations, your August 26, 2011 letter proposed that the septic system be abandoned in place and the empty tank filled with Controlled Density Fill (CDF) concrete. Please provide information about the current septic system proposal: • Please have the geotechnical engineer comment on the proposed option. • Depict the location of the septic tank and drain field on a site plan. Provide abandonment design recommendations from a licensed septic system professional including drain field abandonment. Steep Slope Restoration As noted in the City's May 23, 2011 letter, a professionally prepared planting plan with steep slope restoration recommendations as called out by the geotechnical consultant is required. Your June 24, 2011 letter stated that no new planting is being proposed. However, as some form of earth disturbance is proposed on or within 25 feet of the steep slope areas, restoration of the steep slope areas is warranted. DAF[P In an August 10, 2011 letter, the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) commented on the proposed actions and requested that a professional archaeological survey be conducted in advance of ground disturbing activities. Their comments were forwarded to you on August 11, 2011, and the city requested that you provide a written response to their identified concerns. To date, this information has not been received, and, is still requested. Please note that this matter must be addressed before a building permit will be issued. Resubmittal When resubmitting, please provide four copies of any plans or reports, along with the enclosed Resubmittal Information form. I can be reached at 253-835-2642 if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Deb Barker Senior Planner enc: Resubmittal Information Form c: Barbara Bradshaw, via e-mail: bradshaw.b(4wmcast.net Gretchen Kaehler, DAHP, Gretchen.kaeh1c[ dahp.wa.gov Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer 11-103425 Doc I D 58780 June 21, 2011 Attn: N.L. Olson & Associates, Inc. Engineering, Planning & Land Surveying Attn. Deb Barker Senior Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Project Number: 7603-11 Subject: FILE #11-101539-00-SE, 11 -101 540-00-SH; BRADSHAw/HARKNESS RESIDENTIAL ADDITION COMPLETE APPLICATION AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED CITY OF BONNIE LAKE COMMENTS; DATED MAY 13, 2011 City Of Federal Way Comment (1) May 23, 2011: Discuss the proposed roof runoff tight lined to rain garden/cistern systems, and provide recommendations as appropriate. NLO's Response: NLO understands that in lieu of rain garden/cistern systems that would infiltrate into the slope area between the shoreline and residence. NLO has recommended that the collected runoff should be tight lined to the bottom of the bulkhead or staircase. This method of stormwater disposal in our opinion is acceptable. However, such disposal systems should comply with all applicable regulations and the pipes should discharge into a manifold -type structure or into an energy dissipater such as a pad of crushed rock to minimize erosion. City Of Federal Way Comment 2 May 23 2011: Portions of the addition are proposed to be constructed over the existing septic system which will be abandoned. Please provide recommendations for this abandonment and subsequent construction. Response: NLO recommends that a professional who specializes and licensed in septic system design should also be consulted to assist with the septic system removal. The person consulted for the septic system removal will need to determine the extent and depth of the drain field area to be removed and may require their assistance to be on site during drain field clean up operations. Once the area has been determined clean and signed off by the person consulted for the septic system removal, the subsequent excavation can be brought back up to the desired construction elevation with structural fill or general fill. NLO has also provided recommendations for backfilling the drain field area below. RESUBI, JUN 2 8 2011 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS P.O. Box 637e 2453 Bethel Avenue ■ Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 8,76-1487 Project Number: 7603-11 June 21, 2011 Page 2 All pavement, fill and/or building areas should be stripped of all sod, organic soil, existing fill and debris. However, deeper excavations will be required to remove large tree root system, existing fill, foundations, septic tanks and associated drainfields, or pockets of unsuitable soils. Stripped soils, contaminated with organics or debris, should be wasted off site. Following site stripping, and prior to fill placement, the exposed subgrade should be compacted to a firm, unyielding condition using vibratory equipment of appropriate size and type. Compaction of the stripped subgrade should be continued until field density tests show that a minimum compaction of 95% of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM method D-1557, has been achieved in all fill, and building the areas. Areas, which are to be filled to bring the building or pavement grades up to the desired elevation, should be filled with compacted granular material free from roots, trash or other deleterious materials. We recommend that all site grading and preparation be undertaken and completed during dry weather with on site soils. If grading in building, or pavement areas is necessary during wet weather, we recommend that all excavated soil be removed from the site or set aside in covered stockpiles, and structural fill as defined below for the purposes of grading. Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, foundations or along grade beams that consist of free draining gravelly sand having a maximum size of 1-1/2 inches and with not more than 5.0% fines, material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve. All imported fill material should conform to the above recommendations regardless of the weather. All structural fill should be placed on a firm, properly prepared subgrade. Structural fill should be placed in 8 inch thick layers, conditioned to a moisture content suitable for compaction, and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. General fill consist of on -site granular soils such as sand with a fines content greater 5 percent. This material can be used in lieu of structural fill if compaction can be achieved typically during the dryer time of the year April through October. If fill is to be placed between November and March, NLO strongly recommends utilizing structural fill material. General fill shall be placed on a firm, properly prepared subgrade. The fill material should be placed in layers approximately 8 inches in thickness, conditioned to a moisture content suitable for compaction, and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. Note: On -site fill material, structural fill, and materials associated with the placement of the fill slope or for backfill within the proposed drain field / septic tank removal area be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to construction. City Of Federal: Way Comment 3 May 23 2011: The Boundary and Topographic Survey prepared by Centre Pointe Surveying shows several rock walls that will be covered by the building addition and/or decking. Discuss the impact, if any, removal of these structures will have on the slopes, and detail construction recommendations, as appropriate. Response: In our opinion, the rock walls removed with in or below the proposed building or deck areas should have minimal impact on the slope in the form of slope or soil instability to this or adjacent properties. However, NLO is recommending that the slope presently supported by the rock wall that are P.O. Box 637- 2453 Bethel Avenue ■ Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 • Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project Number: 7603-11 June 21, 2011 Page 3 proposed for removal should be sloped back to a permanent slope configuration of 50 percent. Please note that the rock wall along the observed alignment is less than five (5) feet. Therefore, NLO recommends that the large basal rock comprising the rock wall should be removed in 10 to 15 foot long sections and the slope flattened to the desired gradient along that section. The rock wall removed in this manner should preclude any slope instability concerns. It is recommended that permanent cut slopes or fill slopes should not exceed 2H:1V (50 percent). In areas where steeper slopes are required, retaining structures should be provided. It should be anticipated that, if steeply cut, the near surface soils may be subject to caving, and sloughing will occur as the soils are exposed to drying. All temporary cuts and excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. It is our opinion that fill slopes may be constructed, provided the fill is placed and compacted in a manner that is consistent with recommendations presented in the structural fill or general fill discussed in the previous section of this letter. The fill placed along fill slope areas should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches loose thickness, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method D1557. Recommendations for fill placement on slopes are provided solely as a service to our client. NLO, under no circumstances, assumes liability for the site with regard to safety or other construction activities directed by the contractor. Should you have any questions or concerns, which have not been addressed, or if we may be of additional assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, WesleyVon, P.E. -- Geotechnical Division Manager P.O. Box 637- 2453 Bethel Avenue e Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 v Fax: (360) 876-1487 Fall Architectural Studio buildingart.com 8600 Banner Rd. S.E. / Port Orchard, WA 98367 / (253) 858-6700 (office) / (206) 909-3283 (cell) / doveFs buildin ari.com E3RA P.O. Box 44890 Tacoma, WA 98444 David Rupert 8/26/2011 re: Bradshaw / Harkness Addition, 3124 SW 302nd Place, Federal Way; Federal way file # 11-100548-00-PC Dear Mr. Rupert, I am writing in response to your Geotechnical Report Review Letter dated August 4th, 2011 which raises concerns with our proposed removal of the existing septic system and the vibrations associated with backfill compaction of the excavated area. I would like to revise our proposal from removal of the existing septic system to abandonment of the system. This would include pumping and proper disposal of the septic tank contents followed by filling the tank with a Controlled Density Fill (CDF) concrete mix. Our proposed foundation system of grade beams supported on pin piles, as you know, is a typical foundation support system in sensitive soils and steep slope situations. Similarly, this foundation system is compatible with abandonment of the existing septic system. I hope our revised proposal resolves the concerns expressed in your letter. Yours truly, David J. Fall, Architect c: Barbara Bradshaw & Ron Harkness, owners Deb Barker, Federal Way Senior Planner David Dupree & Lyne Ouellet, owners 3120 SW 302nd Place Roger & Jana Goodwin, owners 3128 SW 302nd Place 91 N; �� /l Deb Barker From`:- - - Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP) [Gretchen. Kaehler@DAHP.wa.gov] Sent.- Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:29 PM To: Tamara Fix; davef@buildingart.com; brandon.reynon@puyalluptribe.com; laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us; phi lippe.letourneau@kingcounty.go Cc: Deb Barker Subject: RE: Bradshaw/Harkness Remodel I believe that my comments addressed the potential for impacts of the project on archaeology within the geologically hazardous area. Since this was the case I do not understand why damage to cultural or archaeological resources that may be present within the project area is not an "impact associated with the geologically hazardous area". Even though it would be a cultural resources impact, not a geological impact, it's still associated with the area. I don't believe that either WAC 197-11-908 or 800 limits review to impacts associated with a geologically hazardous area. Are you referring to a critical areas ordinance instead? The DNS (Pg. 5, no. 13) for this project, states that "there is a potential for the presence of historic cultural resources at the site, based on the presence of other know cultural resources in the nearby vicinity, which will be reviewed in conjunction with the shoreline exemption." Has the shoreline exemption notice been distObuted for review and comment yet? If so I could address cultural resources under the shoreline exemption. PI E(se let me know if you would like me to rewrite my letter to reference the shoreline exemption instead. i 'A - --"� t Thank you, 1, Nc) /: Gretchen Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist, Local Governments Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Olympia Ph:360-586-3088 Cell:360-628-2755 From: Tamara Fix[mailto:Tamara.Fix@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 3:16 PM To: Kaehler, Gretchen (DAHP); 'davef@buildingart.com'; 'bra ndon. reynon@ puya I luptribe.com'; 'laura.murphy@muckleshoot.nsn.us'; 'philippe.letourneau@kingcounty.gov' Cc: Deb Barker Subject: Bradshaw/Harkness Remodel Attached is a letter with enclosures from the City of Federal Way regarding the above -mentioned project. 1'arnara `- ix .Adinbi Asst. city of FederaClv'ay tamara�ix� offederaCway.com "When life gives you a hundred reasons to cry, show life that you have a thousand reasons to smile." Unknown Gretchen Kaehler August 17, 2011 Assistant State Archaeologist Via e-mail: Gretchen.kaehlerdahia.wa.ov RE: YouR LOG No: 081011-17-KI, BRADSHAw/HARKNESS RESIDENTIAL REMODEL/ADDITION Federal Way File No: 11-101539-00-SE, 3124 SW 302°d Place, Federal Way, WA Dear Ms. Kaehler: Thank you for your August 10, 2011, letter regarding the city's environmental determination for the proposed residential addition and remodel at the above -referenced property. You requested that a professionally prepared archaeological survey of the project area be conducted and a report submitted to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and the Tribes for review prior to ground disturbing activities. The applicant has proposed to remodel and expand a home that is at the top of a steep slope which meets the City's definition of a geologically hazardous area, and which in turn triggers environmental review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Pursuant to WAC 197-11-908 (enclosed), the scope of the environmental review is limited to impacts associated with the geologically hazardous area. For this reason, your comments are not relevant to this SEPA review. Not withstanding this fact, we will forward your comments to the applicant so that he/she may take steps to comply with the requirements of RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53.060 referenced in your letter. Summary Your comments are not relevant under the limited scope of this SEPA review, and do not cause us to reconsider the DNS. The Determination of Nonsignificance is now the city's final decision. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m., August 22, 2011, pursuant to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 14.10.060 (enclosed). SEPA appeal fees are $120.50 and are nonrefundable. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please don't hesitate to call Senior Planner Deb Barker at 253-835-2642. Sincerely, Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager For Patrick Doherty, Director Enclosures WAC 197-11-908, FWRC 14.10.060 c: David Fall, Fall Architectural Studio, via e-mail: daveMbuildart.com Brandon Reynon, Cultural Resources, Puyallup Tribe, via e-mail: brandon.re on a u l I W .com Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muddeshoot Tribes, via e-mail: laura.murohy rf muckleshoot.nsn.us Phil LeToumeau, Archaeologist, Kiig Co. Historic Preservation Program, via e-mail: phili e.letourneau @kin gcounty.ggy Doc. LD. 58623 SiA �n rzin 5Z p� STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 106 • Olympia, Washington 98501 Mailing address: PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 • Fax Number (360) 586-3067 • Website: www.dahp.wagov August 10, 2011 Ms. Deb Barker Associate Planner City Of Federal Way 33530 First Way South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 081011-17-KI Property: Bradshaw/Harkness Residential Remodel/Addition, Federal Way File No: 11-101539-00-SE Re: Archaeology — Professional Archaeological Survey Requested Dear Ms. Barker: We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the proposed project referenced above. The area has a high potential for archaeological resources. At least two precontact archaeological sites have been identified in the Lakota Beach area on landforms similar to that of the project area. These sites are within approximately 730 feet of the proposed project area. Please be aware that archaeological sites are protected from knowing disturbance on both public and private lands in Washington States. Both RCW 27.44 and RCW 27.53.060 require that a person obtain a permit from our Department before excavating, removing, or altering Native American human remains or archaeological resources in Washington. Failure to obtain a permit is punishable by civil fines and other penalties under RCW 27.53.095, and by criminal prosecution under RCW 27.53.090. Chapter 27.53.095 RCW allows the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to issue civil penalties for the violation of this statute in an amount up to five thousand dollars, in addition to site restoration costs and investigative costs. Also, these remedies do not prevent concerned tribes from undertaking civil action in state or federal court, or law enforcement agencies from undertaking criminal investigation or prosecution. Chapter 27.44.050 RCW allows the affected Indian Tribe to undertake civil action apart from any criminal prosecution if burials are disturbed. Identification of cultural resources during construction is not a recommended detection method because inadvertent discoveries often result in costly construction delays and damage to the resource. Therefore, we request a professional archaeological survey of the project area be conducted and a report be submitted to DAHP and the Tribes for review prior to ground disturbing activities We also recommend consultation with the concerned Tribes' cultural committees and staff regarding cultural resource issues. Finally, please note that effective Nov. 2, 2009, DAHP requires that all cultural resource reports be submitted in PDF format on a labeled CD along with an unbound paper copy. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project and we look forward to receiving the survey report. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 586-3088 or Gretchen.Kaehler@dahp.wa.gov. Sincerely, Gretchen Kaehler Assistant State Archaeologist (360) 586-3088 gretchen.kaehier@dghp.wa.gov cc. Brandon Reynon, Cultural Resources, Puyallup Tribe Laura Murphy, Archaeologist, Muckleshoot Tribes Richard Young, Cultural Resources, Tulalip Tribes Fabio Apolito, Tribal Attorney, Nisqually Tribe Phil LeTourneau, Archaeologist, King County Historic Preservation Program PARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORIC PRESERVATION Potedtthe Pastkw? ftrutwe .. k:'IsI'I'LC"I'L:I:,.'�a� � ♦ �' • O ART / ARCHITECTURE / CONSTRUCTION buildingarf.com 8600 Banner Rd. S.E. / Port Orchard, WA 98367 / (253) 858-6700 (office) / (206) 909-3283 (cell) / davet@buildingcrrt.com City of Federal Way 33325 8t` Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 4/11/2011 re: Bradshaw / Harkness Addition, 3124 SW 302^d Place, Federal Way; file # 11-100548-00-PC To Whom It May Concern, I am writing on behalf of Barbara Bradshaw & Ron Harkness to illustrate that there is no reasonable alternative to our proposed construction activity within 25 feet of the designated Geologically Hazardous area. A portion of the existing basement rambler structure currently lies partially within the 25 foot setback from existing sloped grades that are defined as a Landslide Hazard. The sloping gradients are minimal but some slope areas beyond the proposed work are > 40%. Our proposal is to expand and remodel the existing 1950s structure and includes the addition of building and deck footprint on the water side no further than the 'string line' connecting existing adjacent neighboring structure. The lot is narrow and the limited width of the lot forces additional footprint length of the house both water ward and land ward. This is the only reasonable alternative that will allow the owners to achieve their architectural goals for improved and updated interior spaces and access to view lines otherwise obstructed by neighboring structures. Our proposed project will not lead to any increased slide, seismic or erosion hazards as structural design and construction will follow recommendations by N.L. Olson and Associates, Inc. These include axial foundation support, fill requirements, temporary slope guidelines, surface runoff mitigation, and erosion control. Thank you! Yours truly, 4Di J. Fal , Ar itect RECEIVED APY CITY OF FEDERAL WAIF CDS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RENOVATION WORK 3124 SW 302ND PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023-2342 CLIENT: BARBARA BRADSHAW 3124 SW 302ND PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023-2342 PHONE: (253) 952 7011 BY: N.L. OLSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2453 BETHEL AVE. SE PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366 (360) 876-2284 Project Number: 7603-10 APRIL 2011 RECEIVED APR 22 2�'11 CITY OF- FEDERAL WAY C-Ds TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1 SITELOCATION 1 ....................................................................................................................... SITECONDITIONS.................................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSEDCONSTRUCTION..................................................................................................... 2 FIELD INVESTIGATION.............................................................................................................. 2 SiteSoil Conditions............................................................................................................ 2 SubsurfaceWater.............................................................................................................. 2 AVAILABLE GEOLOGIC AND SOILS INFORMATION....................................................................... 2 Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources...................................................... 2 Natural Resource Conservation Service............................................................................. 3 Federal Way Master Shoreline Program Geology Mapping ............................................... 3 LANDSLIDEHAZARD INDICATORS.............................................................................................. 3 SEISMICHAZARDS.................................................................................................................. 4 Federal Way Master Shoreline Program Geology Mapping ............................................... 5 HISTORICALLANDSLIDE RESEARCH.......................................................................................... 5 SLOPERECONNAISSANCE....................................................................................................... 5 SEISMIC................................................................................................................................... 5 Recommended Seismic Design Ground Shaking Parameters IBC — 2006/2009................ 6 SLOPESTABILITY.................................................................................................................... 6 SoilStrength Parameters................................................................................................... 6 SlopeStability Results....................................................................................................... 7 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................. 7 AXIALSUPPORT SYSTEMS....................................................................................................... 8 PinPiles............................................................................................................................. 9 HelicalAnchors .............................................................................................................. 9 STRUCTURALFILL................................................................................................................. 10 GENERALFILL...................................................................................................................... 10 FLOORSLAB......................................................................................................................... 10 TEMPORARYSLOPES............................................................................................................ 10 SURFACE RUNOFF AND PERCHED GROUND WATER................................................................ 11 EROSIONCONTROL............................................................................................................... 11 REPORTLIMITATIONS......................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF FIGURES VICINITYMAP............................................................................................................................. FIGURE 1 SITEPLAN................................................................................................................................... FIGURE 2 CROSSSECTION A-A................................................................................................................ FIGURE 3 NCRSMAPPING........................................................................................................................... FIGURE 4 FEDERAL WAY MASTER SHORELINE PROGRAM (GEOLOGY) ... ........................................ FIGURE 5 FEDERAL WAY MASTER SHORELINE PROGR AM (GEOLOGIC HAZARD AREAS) ............. FIGURE 5 COASTALZONE ATLAS............................................................................................................ FIGURE 7 APPENDIX A — Boring Logs APPENDIX B — Slope Stability Graphical Results N.L. OLSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Engineering, Planning and Surveying April 7, 2011 Project Number: 7603-10 Attn: Barbara Bradshaw 3124 SW 302nd Place Federal Way, WA 98023-2342 Phone: 263 952 7011 Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED BUILDING RENOVATION 3124 SW 302ND PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023-2342 KING COUNTY PARCEL NUMBER: 0121039058 Dear Mrs. Bradshaw We are pleased to provide our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which provides the results of our subsurface exploration and geotechnical recommendations proposed addition and renovation work. Our services were completed in accordance with the scope of work outlined on page 6 of 6 of our Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between Barbara Bradshaw and NLO. Preliminary results of our subsurface investigation and geotechnical engineering analysis have been verbally provided to the project's Architecture prior to the completion of our geotechnical engineering investigation. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please contact our office. Sincerely, C. Wesley R. Johns n, P.E. Project Engineer P.O. Box 637- 2453 Bethel Avenue e Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 876-1487 CADocuments and Settings=Johnson\My Documents\Project Folder17603 Bradshaw\7603 Bradshaw Geo Report.doc GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RENOVATION WORK 3124 SW 302ND PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023-2342 INTRODUCTION NLO's scope of work for the geotechnical engineering investigation included a site reconnaissance, review of available geologic site information, a subsurface exploration program, slope stability analysis and our finding and conclusions summarized into this report. SITE LOCATION The property is located at the address of 3124 SW 302nd Place, Federal Way, WA 98023- 2342. Utilizing the Public Land Survey System (PLSS), the site is situated in the northeast quarter of Section 01, Township 21 North, and Range 3 East. The location of the property has been illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. SITE CONDITIONS The roughly 0.86 acre site is trapezoidal in shape with the long dimension of the site trending northwest to southeast. The property is bordered by single-family residences to the north and south, to the northwest by a steep descending slope that terminates into Dumas Bay and to the southeast by Southwest 302nd Place. The property has been previously developed with a single-family residence with an attached garage. The existing residence has a building footprint of about 1,750 square feet (sf). The client has informed NLO that a drain field has been installed immediately northwest of the single-family residence and south of the rock wall. The property has been illustrated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The site's topography consists of relatively level lawn area and access road that descends from SW 302nd Place towards the residence with a slope gradient of about 5% to 10%. Between the existing residence and Dumas Bay, the slope increases in steepness and descends with gradients of about 15% to 80%. The slope height was on the order of 30 feet as measured along the base of the bulkhead to the existing residences lower finish floor elevation. NLO has provided a cross section that details the existing slope configuration on Cross Section. A -A, Figure 3. For grade separation, an existing rock wall roughly centered on the existing residence extends towards the northwest a linear distance of about 55 to 60 feet. The rock wall has a maximum height of about 5 feet daylighting towards Dumas Bay. For shoreline protection, a 4 to 5 feet high bulkhead has been placed that extends across the width of the property. The site vegetation consists of lawn and landscaping. Along the northwest portion of the property, the vegetation along the slope has been maintained with a lawn area and low growing shrubs to provide an unobstructed view of Dumas Bay and beyond by the Puget Sound. P.O. Box 637e 2453 Bethel Avenue . Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 876-1487 CADocuments and Settings\WJohnson\My DocumentsTroject Folder\7603 Bradshaw\7603 Bradshaw Geo Report doc Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION As presently conceived, the site is proposed for development with new addition, renovation work on the existing building and a new wood deck. NLO understands the building's existing foundation will be utilized for remodeled sections of the existing structure. The new addition will increase the current building footprint by about 760 square feet (sf) and the new wood deck will occupy and area of about 700` sf. Cuts and fills below the new addition will generally be in the range of about 5 feet or less with minor grade modifications anticipated below the proposed wood deck. NLO has shown the new proposed construction on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The new additions approximate finish floor elevations has been shown on Cross Section A -A, Figure 3. FIELD INVESTIGATION The site soil conditions were explored on December 16, 2010, by drilling two borings. NLO had the drilling contractor advanced the borings down to about 15.5 feet and 26.5 feet below current site grades, which were drilled with an Acker. Drilling was subcontracted through Geologic Drill. The approximate boring locations have been shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. The boring logs have been included in Appendix A of this report. Site Soil Conditio In general, our subsurface exploration revealed very loose to loose, poorly graded sand (SP) and poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) in the upper 5 to 20 feet of our borings. The layer of sand was deeper near the residence daylighting towards the shoreline. The sand was underlain by elastic silt (MH), lean clay (CL), sandy clay (SC) and silt (ML). The elastic silt and lean clay had a relative density that ranged from soft to stiff. The silt encountered towards the termination depth of boring B-2 had a hard relative density. For a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions, please refer to our boring logs in Appendix A. Subsurface Water During drilling operations, subsurface water was encountered in boring B-1 at roughly 19 feet below ground surface (bgs) and in Boring B-2 at roughly 5 feet bgs. The subsurface water was perched above the fine grained soils in the sand. The encountered subsurface water encountered in both borings had a measured depth of about one foot. rA,111-ABLE GEOLOGIC AND SOILS INFORMATION �.reashinogion Division of Geol®gv and Earth Resources The Washington Division of Geology and Earth resource (WDGER), Geologic Map of Washington — Northwest Quadrant, dated 2002, indicates that the site is mapped as Quaternary sediments, dominantly glacial drift and includes alluvium. Glacial till consists of an unsorted, unstratified, highly compacted mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders deposited by glacial ice. P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 • Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 3 A review of the Department of Natural Resources "Geologic Map of Washington State" by Eric Schuster, dated 2005, indicates that the sites area is mapped as Pleistocene continental glacial drift (Qgd), which may have taken place 18,000 to 30,000 years ago. Natural Resource Conservation Service The USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NCRS), Web Soil Survey, classifies the site's native soils as Indianola fine grained sands, 4 to 15 percent slopes and Coastal Beaches. For more detailed soils information of this area, please see the NCRS mapping illustrated on Figure 4. In the following, NLO has provided the NCRS soil descriptions of the property. (InC) Indianola Fine Grained Sands, 4 to 15 percent slopes, the NCRS indicates that runoff of the soil is slow to medium and the hazard of erosion is slight to moderate. The soil is moderately well drained and permeability is rapid. (Cb) Coastal Beaches, These beaches are above the mean tide, but are swept by storm waves. Most areas have no vegetation, although some areas have a sparse cover of beach grasses. The NCRS has also classified the soils in this area as beach sand, which is a medium to course grained sand, pea to pebble size gravel with shell fragments. Federal Way Master Shoreline Program Geology Mapping Federal Way Master Shoreline Program, Geology, Dated May 2006, Figure 5, indicates the property is comprised of both Vashon Recessional Outwash (Qvrs) and Mass Wastage deposits (Qmw). (Qvrs) Geology mapping for this area describes material as recessional course grained lucustrine deposits deposited during the Vashon Stade that took place roughly 13,000 to 20,000 years ago. (Qmw) A linear feature paralleling the shoreline has been described as an area of mass wasting that had occurred during the Pleistocene or in the process of occurring in the Holocene. Mass wasting generally occurs as material is redistribute down slope by past soil movement. During our field work, NLO did not observe evidence of slope instability consistent with previous soil movement or mass wasting. In our opinion, the slope area delineated on the geologic mapping as mass wasting has been modified with a bulkhead and appears stable. LANDSLIDE HAZARD INDICATORS Landslide hazards are identified as areas that present potential dangers to public health and safety, to prevent the acceleration of natural geological hazards, to address off site environmental impacts, and to minimize the risk to the property owner or adjacent property owners from development activities. These areas may be identified by the presence of any of the following indicators: P.O. Box 6379 2453 Bethel Avenue o Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 m Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 4 A) Areas with any indications of earth movement suck as debris slides, earth flows, slumps and rock falls; B) Areas with artificial oversteepened or unengineered slopes, i.e. cuts or fills; C) Areas with slopes containing soft or potentially liquefiable soils; D) Areas oversteepened or otherwise unstable as a result of stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action; E) Slopes greater than fifteen percent and having the following: (i) Hillsides intersecting geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock (e.g. sand overlying clay); and (ii) Springs or groundwater seepage. F) Any area with a slope of forty percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock. A slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least ten feet of vertical relief. G) The areas identified by the Coastal Zone Atlas, as: Unstable — "U" m Unstable Old Slides — "UOS" Unstable Recent Slides — "URS" • Intermediate Slopes — "I" Modified Slopes — "M" Note: of the landslide hazard indicators listed above, NLO has observed granular soils overlying fine grained soils and a steep slope of 40 percent or greater with a vertical relief of 10 feet or more. NLO has addressed the landslide hazard indicators in the slope reconnaissance section of this report. SEISMIC HAZARDS General seismic hazards include: surface faulting; ground shaking; earthquake -related ground failure and landslides; lateral spreading; liquefaction; lurch cracks; rockfalls; differential settlement; regional uplift; seiches; and/or tsunamis. NLO has reviewed the following items identified below to determine if the property of interest could be classified as Seismic Hazard Areas or areas susceptible to ground failure: ® Areas with geologic faults ® Deep road fills and areas of poorly compacted artificial fill ® Areas with artificially steepened slopes (i.e., old gravel pits) Postglacial stream, lake or beach sediments ® River deltas • Areas designated as potential Landslide Hazard Areas ® Bluff Areas • Areas underlain by potentially liquefiable soils USGS mapping of the area indicates the Seattle Fault resides roughly 2.5 miles to the north. This fault is capable of magnitude 7.1 seismic event with the most recent seismic event from this fault occurring about 1,100 years ago. For liquefaction to occur, a high subsurface water level within a loosely consolidated soil mass such as sand with a low fine content is generally needed. In our opinion, the potential for P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue c Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 5 liquefaction during a seismic event appears low to very low based on the limited extent of subsurface water encountered during drilling operations on this property. In order to determine the stability of the slopes in the area proposed development, NLO has provided slope stability analyses discussed later in this report. Federal Way Master Shoreline Proc iram Geoio Mapping Federal Way Master Shoreline Program, Geologic Hazardous Areas, (1 B) Dumas Bay and Part of (1A) Puget Sound Reach, Figure 6, indicates the property is an erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are described as, areas underlain by soils that are subject to severe erosion when disturbed. Such soils include, but are not limited to, those for which potential for erosion is identified in the Soil Survey performed by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation. The NCRS indicates the Indianola Fine Grained Sands, 4 to 15 percent slopes, as a slight to moderate erosion hazard for the property. It is our opinion that the footprint of the new addition, about and wood deck, will have a minor influence on the present potential for erosion along slope areas located between the shoreline and existing residence. It is our experience that the erosion risk can be mitigated through normal landscaping and surface runoff control. NLO has provided methods for erosion control later in this report. HISTORICAL LANDSLIDE RESEARCH A review of "Coastal Zone Atlas of King County, Washington" Department of Ecology, Web Based Mapping Services was performed in conjunction with preparing report. Based on mapping of this area, the property has been classified as stable (S). Stable slopes are generally less than 15 percent but can include areas of steeper slopes that are stable due to low groundwater concentration or competent bedrock. The stable slope designation also includes areas underlain by weak areas such as peat, which are stable because they have no significant slope. We have included a Coastal Zone Atlas mapping for this area as shown on Figure 7. SLOPE RECONNAISSANCE As part of our fieldwork, the slope comprising the areas both on an off the property were examined for instability indicators. NLO has observed the slope area for the previously referenced landslide hazard indicators mentioned previously in this report. At the time of our December 16, 2010 slope reconnaissance, the slope area located between the existing residence and the shoreline of Dumas Bay appeared stable. Our findings of a stable slope condition are consistent with Coastal Zone Atlas mapping of this property that has designated this area as stable. SEISMIC NLO has reviewed the IBC for seismic design criteria for the proposed construction. The site's ground acceleration was determined from the 2002 USGS Earthquake Hazard Program for the Conterminous 48 States. The PGA was based on the following location 47.331593°N Latitude and 122.374452°W Longitude. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) for our slope stability analysis was derived from the United States Geologic Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program — National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. P.O. Box 637a 2453 Bethel Avenue - Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paoe No. 6 I; Seismic Ground Shaking Summary Probability Of Approximate Probabilistic Peak ground Spectral Acceleration (g) Exceedence Return Period motion values (PGA) Period (sec) 2% in 50 year event 2475 nears _ 0.5649 g ASS =1.258 S, =0.430 For the area located by 47.331593°N Latitude and-122.374452°W Longitude, the peak ground acceleration rate (PGA), PGA=0.5649g, was utilized for the 2 percent probability of exceedence in 50 year event. The maximum horizontal ground acceleration utilized for slope stability analysis was determined as indicated (Kh= PGA/2.5) or Kh=0.5649/2.5=0.226. Recommended Seismic Design Ground Shaking Parameters IBC — 2006/2009 Seismic Parameters (2006/2009 IBC) Values Mapped Spectral Acceleration Short Period (SS) 1.258 Mapped Spectral Acceleration For One Second (Si) 0.430 Site Class (Seismic Soil Profile) D Short period Site Coefficient (Fa) 1.000 1-second Site Coefficient (F„) 1.557 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration for short period (Sms=SSxFa) 1.258 MCE Spectral Response Acceleration for one second (SM,=S,xFv) 0.6751 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for Short Period (SD5=2/3xSms) 0.8387 Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one second (SD1=2/3xSM,) 0.4501 Design Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA=SDS x 0.4) 0.3355 SLOPE STABILITY Slope stability analyses were performed utilizing (PCSTABL7-Version 2.0) slope stability computer program. The slope stability method used was the Simplified Bishop Method of Slices, which provides failure surfaces and the associated factors -of -safety (FS) against slope movement. The FS is defined as the ratio of shear strength (the frictional resistance and soil cohesion resisting the down slope movement) to shear stress - (gravitational forces that initiate slope movement) or FS = Shear Strength/Shear Stress. A FS equal to 1.0 is considered equilibrium and a FS less than 1.0 indicates failure. Our slope stability analysis utilized the simplified bishop's method of circles. The minimum static factor of safety is 1.5. The minimum seismic factor of safety is 1.1. -'sail Strer: th lP'r7. rcnmetem, The soil strength parameters were developed based on our experience with similar soil conditions, n-values from drilling operations, and published values for sand and glacially consolidated soils. The soil strength values utilized in our slope analysis for the cross section have been provided in the following. P.O. Box 637c 2453 Bethel Avenue m Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 7 SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS Material Type Soil cCassification Cohesion s Soil Friction (Degrees) Density 1 Beach Area Sand and Gravel 0 35 135m /135(s) 2 Silt ML 600 38 140 m /142 s 3 Elastic Silt, Clay and Clayey Sand MH.CL. and SC 1 350 1 35 135 m /142(s) 4 Poorly Graded Sand L SP and SP-SM 0 1 33 115(m) /135(s) "The degree of soil moisture is indicated by Moist (m) and Saturated (s) for the slope stability analysis as shown above. Slone Stability Results For global stability concerns, NLO has analyzed the slope area between the existing residence and shoreline. NLO performed the slope stability analyses for the present slope configuration and with the new addition for both static and quasi -static analysis. The results of our slope stability analyses have been presented in the slope stability results table presented below. Slope Stability Results_ Location Static FS >1.50 *Seismic I FS>1.10 Cross Section A -A -(Existing Co Cross Section A -A (Proposed New 1.840 1.06 1.980 1.10 *NLO utilized the Quasi -static analyses with a horizontal coefficient of Kh=0.226. IL NLO has provided our determination of the horizontal coefficient, Kh, previously_ discussed in this report. The overall slope stability under the present site conditions and proposed constructions appears sufficient for both static and Quasi -static analysis. Our slope stability analysis indicates an adequate factor of safety for the proposed addition. Based on the proposed new construction, the new addition will provide a slight increase the slope's overall stability. In the area of the proposed wood deck, NLO did not anticipate an adverse impact to the underlying slope area. The cross section illustrating the slope and slope area utilized in our slope stability analysis is shown on Cross Section A -A, Figure 3. The graphical results for our slope stability have been presented in Appendix B of this report. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Following our review of City Of Federal Way's, Chapter 19.160, Geologic Hazardous Areas, we conclude that the slope area overlooking Dumas Bay is a landslide/erosion hazard area due to; Geologic mapping for the area indicated steeper portions of the site as being an erosion hazard area. Geologic hazardous areas mapping indicates steep slopes of 40% or greater as a landslide hazard area. Federal Way Master Shoreline Program, Geology, indicating Mass Wastage deposits along the shoreline as a potential landslide hazard area. P.O. Box 637- 2453 Bethel Avenue . Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 o Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 8 10 Slopes greater than fifteen percent with geologic contacts comprised of a relatively permeable sediment overlying relatively impermeable sediment. NLO has addressed the previously identified landslide hazard indicators and provided an opinion that the slope area located between the existing residence and the shoreline of Dumas Bay appeared stable. Based on our fieldwork, slope stability analyses, and encountered glacial consolidated soil conditions, we conclude that slope instability, large scale sliding or deep- seated rotational failures between the existing residence and Dumas Bay, resulting from the proposed addition and deck area appears unlikely. Erosion arising from the proposed construction of the addition or deck on this property or adjacent properties, in our opinion, appears unlikely. However, NLO has concerns with potential differential settlement between of the new addition's foundation and existing residence's foundation based on the encountered loose sand soil conditions. NLO has also recommended that the wood deck should also be pin pile supported. In order to minimize settlement between the existing and proposed structures and provide support for the proposed wood deck, NLO has provided recommendations for axial anchor support in the next section. In the event that the structural layout or grading information assumed in this report is inconsistent with the final design, the geotechnical engineer should be notified so that we may update this writing as applicable. NLO recommends the geotechnical engineer report should be implemented into the design plans and specification prepared by both the architect and structural engineering. AXIAL SUPPORT SYSTEMS NLO has performed a subsurface exploration with a boring roughly centered in the proposed area of the new addition to better define the underlying soil conditions. The boring revealed loose soil conditions down to 25 feet below current site. At roughly 27 feet, glacially consolidated soils were encountered. Based on the encountered loose granular soil conditions that underlay the site. NLO has expressed concern about settlement and recommended axial anchor support for the new addition and wood deck. The new additions strip and interior columns loads can be carried via grade beam onto the pin piles. The pin piles load will transfer the building loads down to the underlying glacially consolidated soils. This method of foundation support should mitigate future settlement of the new addition. Based on the provided building floor plan, NLO is also recommending that the floor slab in the area of the new addition should be structurally supported on pin piles. In lieu of a structurally supported floor, an open crawl space and wood joist floor could also be implemented along the base of the building. NLO advises against pier pads for wood deck foundation support. In lieu of pier pads, foundation support for the wood deck can be provided with 2-inch pin piles. Due to the slenderness of the pin piles or helical anchor, no lateral pile capacity should be assumed. Lateral loads can be resisted by passive soil pressures acting against the buried portion of the foundation and grade beams. This will require the foundation or grade beams to be backfilled with structural fill. For passive earth pressure, the available resistance can be computed using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 PCF. The lateral resistance value is an P.O. Box 6379 2453 Bethel Avenue o Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 9 allowable value with a factor of safety of 1.5. As movement of the foundation element is required to mobilize full passive resistance, the passive resistance should be neglected if such movement is not acceptable. We anticipate settlement with either the pin pile or helical anchor should be less than one inch if placed per our recommendations. If settlement occurs, it should be elastic in nature and should occur essentially as the loads are applied during construction. Pin Piles Based on the anticipated depths that may be required to embed the pin piles and buckling concerns, NLO is recommending 3 to 4 inch diameter pin piles for support of the new additions strip and column footing areas. Because of the potential length of pipe and potential foundation loads that will be required to support the new additions foundation and floor slab, NLO does not recommend 2 inch pin piles for support of the new additions foundations stem or structural) cinh arzn Pin piles consist of 2, 3 and 4 inch diameter pipe driven with a jack hammer or track mounted pneumatic hammer. We have provided a chart below that provides the allowable capacity for the pin piles and hammer sizes. We recommend that the 3 and 4 inch pin piles should consist of schedule 40 galvanized pipe. Pin piles are typically cut in 5 to 10 feet lengths with the ends cut perpendicular to the pipe. As the pin pile is advanced slip couplers are added between the pipe sections. In order to achieve the pin piles allowable capacities please see the refusal criteria in the table below identified as Pin Pile Hammer Size and Refusal Criteria. Pin Pile Hammer Size and Refusal Criteria _ - Allowable Pin Pile Diameter Hammer Size (Ibs) Refusal Criteria. Pile ji Ca acit 2 inch Less than one inch of penetration for one 2 tons (Schedule 80) 90 continuous minute of driving Less than one inch penetration for ten 3 inch 750 seconds of continuous driving at one 6 tons (Schedule 40) thousand blows a minute for three cyr-1 s Less than one inch penetration for ten 4 inch 850 seconds of continuous driving at one 10 tons (Schedule 40) I thousand blows a minute for three c;,clss I _ Based on previous experience with the fine-grained soils encountered below the outwash material, NLO is recommending that pile verifications test should be performed if refusal criteria cannot be achieved. NLO will provide testing procedures for pin pile placement at the time of installation. Mica) Anchors. In lieu of pin piles, helical anchors could also be considered. For preliminary design purposes, an allowable axial capacity of 25 kip can be used. NLO recommends that a proprietary P.O. Box 637o 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 10 contractor should be consulted to assist with selection of SS5 and SS150 helical anchor system to verify required axial capacity. NLO will provide additional information in regards to the helical anchors system at the client's request. STRUCTURAL FILL Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under buildings, foundations or along grade beams that consist of free draining gravelly sand having a maximum size of 1-1/2 inches and with not more than 5.0% fines, material passing a U.S. No. 200 sieve. All imported fill material should conform to the above recommendations regardless of the weather. All structural fill should be placed on a firm, properly prepared subgrade. Structural fill should be placed in 8 inch thick layers, conditioned to a moisture content suitable for compaction, and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. GENERAL FILL General fill consist of on -site granular soils such as sand with a fines content greater 5 percent. This material can be used in lieu of structural fill if compaction can be achieved typically during the dryer time of the year April through October. If fill is to be placed between November and March, NLO strongly recommends utilizing structural fill material. General fill shall be placed on a firm, properly prepared subgrade. The fill material should be placed in layers approximately 8 inches in thickness, conditioned to a moisture content suitable for compaction, and compacted to 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557. FLOOR SLAB As proposed, the new additions perimeter foundation elements and interior columns will be axially supported on pin piles or helical anchors, which should minimize the associated settlement. However, the new additions floor slab if supported on native soil could be susceptible to the same movement the underlying ground undergoes. Based on the relatively small footprint of the new additions, NLO is recommending a floor slab supported on axial anchors or a wood joist floor or combination of both. TEMPORARY SLOPES As a preliminary guideline for temporary slopes less than 10 feet in height, we recommend temporary slopes be made no steeper than 1H:1V for the dense or stiff to very stiff soil condition and no steeper than 1.5HAV in medium dense soils or structural fill placed in a manner described earlier in this report. For temporary cut slopes in existing fill, topsoil, or loose materials or over 10 feet in height we recommend temporary slopes no steeper than 1 1/2H:1V for the full height of the cut. Temporary slopes or excavations should be benched as required by safety regulations in effect at the time of construction. The provided temporary slope recommendations are for native soils and fill materials; flatter slopes may be required in wet weather or if soil conditions other than those previously described are encountered. The contractor should be aware that slope height, slope inclination, and excavation depths (including utility trench excavations) should in no case exceed those specified in local, state, or federal safety regulations; e.g., OSHA Health and Safety Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR Part 1926, or successor regulations. Such regulations are strictly enforced and, if not followed, the owner, the contractor, or the earthwork or utility subcontractors could be liable for substantial penalties. The contractor should be made responsible for the stability of all P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue • Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 a Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paoe No. 11 excavations and slopes during construction because they are continually on site and can observe the stability of the exposed soils. In addition, the contractor should be prepared to shore unstable slope area and provide shoring as required by local, state, or federal laws or codes. The provision of shoring design recommendations is beyond the authorized scope of this report. All temporary cuts and excavations should be sloped or shored in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. SURFACE RUNOFF AND PERCHED GROUND WATER Only minor storm water related problems are anticipated if site grading and preparation are undertaken during the normally drier portions of the year. If site work is undertaken during wet weather it should be expected that the near surface silty and fine-grained soils would become over -saturated and unworkable. If the site work is undertaken during wet weather the contractor should be fully prepared to deal with soil and water problems normally encountered in these materials during wet weather work, including the filtering of runoff, as needed to prevent the siltation of down slope areas. To aid in minimizing potential erosion, it is recommended that the site not be stripped and left without erosion protection for an extended period of time prior to the actual start of construction and/or landscaping. Silt fencing and other erosion control devices and measures may be required to control water runoff over slope areas and sediment transport off the site. It should be anticipated that perched water flows or water flows developed during periods of wet weather may occur in excavations as shallow as one to two feet below the existing site grades or atop siltier zones at deeper depths. Methods that can be utilized to control groundwater seepage into excavations include shallow drainage ditched excavated along the base of the excavation. The free flow of water toward or over steep slopes is to be avoided due to potential erosion and slope stability concerns. Additionally, all runoff from roofs, driveways, patios and hard surfaced areas should be intercepted, collected and disposed of away from structures and steep slopes, and discharged where the water will not effect down slope structures, walls, or properties. From a geotechnical engineering standpoint, tight lining of the collected runoff to the bottom of the bulkhead would be a means of acceptable disposal. However, such disposal systems should comply with all applicable regulations and the pipes should discharge into a manifold - type structure or into an energy dissipater such as a pad of crushed rock to minimize erosion. NLO is not responsible for obtaining permits for out fall pipes into the Puget Sound. If an energy dissipater pad is used it should be a minimum of three feet on a side and one foot thick, and comprised of two to four inch crushed rock inside a stacked from to prevent down slope migration of the rock. EROSION CONTROL It is our experience that this risk of erosion can be mitigated through normal landscaping and the control of surface runoff. During construction and until fully surfaced and/or landscaped, the exposed site soils may be subject to some erosion. Erosion of the exposed soils would be most noticeable during periods of intense rainfall and may be controlled by the use of normal erosion P.O. Box 637. 2453 Bethel Avenue o Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 . Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Page No. 12 control measures, i.e., silt fences, hay bales, mulching, control ditches or diversion trenching, and contour furrowing. In a disturbed condition the site soils may be eroded by channelized water or storm runoff from sheet flow. Therefore, it is recommended that all site preparation and excavation work be completed during the normally drier portion of the year. During periods of heavy rainfall, ditching should be used to divert water away from stripped areas and visqueen should be used to cover the slopes and soil stockpiles to aid in preventing excessive surface erosion. This covering also aids in preventing infiltration of water into the unprotected soils. All disturbed soil areas and slopes should be replanted with fast-growing, deep-rooted grass, shrubs and other ground cover as soon after final grading as possible. If the vegetation is not fully established prior to the on set of wet weather, the slopes should be covered with visqueen to aid in preventing excessive erosion and water infiltration. It should be anticipated that there could be a number of additional site development or construction problems, particularly if the earthwork has not been completed and the site properly protected at the onset of wet weather. REPORT LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the client regarding the subject property. Information presented in this report has been collected and interpreted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions, and in accordance with sound and generally accepted principles consistent with normal consulting practice. No other warranty, expressed or implied, including (but not limited to) any warranty or merchantability or fitness for a particular use has been made. In the event that change in the nature, design, or location of the proposed construction is made, or any physical changes to the site occur, recommendations are not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed by NLO and conclusions of this report are modified or verified in writing. NLO should be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation. Any site involving sloping terrain has inherent risk of earth movement. As a result, the CLIENT agrees to accept full responsibility for all risks associated with steep slopes. The CLIENT acknowledges that this risk cannot be completely eliminated and that engineering and geologic analysis is intended to reduce the inherent risk associated with slopes. No amount of geotechnical engineering and geologic analysis can provide a guarantee of stable slopes. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analyses are based heavily on subjective interpretation, professional judgment, and opinion regarding the physical conditions at a specific site. P.O. Box 637- 2453 Bethel Avenue Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 Fax: (360) 876-1487 Project No. 7603-10 April 7, 2011 Paae No. 13 Subsurface conditions are only documented at those points where samples were taken and interpolation and extrapolation is necessary between and around sample locations. Conditions can vary between samples and can change over time due to natural processes and/or human activity. Analyses and recommendations provided in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the subsurface exploration. P.O. Box 637c 2453 Bethel Avenue c Port Orchard, Washington 98366 Phone: 1(800) 755-1282 8 Fax: (360) 876-1487 �?C�ti��� ����� �..: ,.�_.., . .... wall CC I 3 t i a` f Is 32 ll FirCc s yO I a 9 i ,I ILL tisy3 7 € �t F M 2� SCALE f I ; ► -. ' .Al 1 inch = 30 feet ` ,r �' ' 1. E f kill'l }".. . EW ECK Retai ng I l wall BV Retaining rid 111 I All D ION wall L r r Brick _1 1 i; Q•:•' ` 1:- Retaining wall C'0 rC Rockery I Yzrd =ght {ten Va^d` r , x i , J✓ SITE PLAN DEVELOPED FROM DRAWING PROVIDED BY CLEINT AND KITSAP COUNTY v, LIDAR INFORMATION. FIGURE 2 � SITE PLAN REVISIONS BY DATE � BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED `:� N.L.01son&Associates, Inc. 3124 SW 302ND PLACE DRAWN Engineering, Planning and Surveying °•{ , FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 CHECKED � (360) 676-2284 'd?oKas APPROVED I ACCEPTED 2453 Bethel Avenue, P.0 Box 637, Port orchard, WA 911366 B-2 INDICATES BORING LOCATION FOR: BARBARA BRADSAW SCALE AS SHOWN 3124 SW 302ND PLACE DATE ��• zon JOB NUMMBB ER FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 7603 80 1 Soil Type No. Soil Desc. Total Unit Wt. (pcf) Saturated Unit Wt. (pcf) Cohesion Intercept (psf) Friction Angle (deg) Piez. Surface No. 1 Beach Sand 135.0 135.0 F 0.0 35.0 0 2 Silt 140.0 142.0 600.0 38.0 0 3 Clav and Silt 135.0 142,0 1350.0 35.0 10 4 1 poody graded SAND 1 115.0 1 135.0 10.0 1 33.0 1 W1 NEW ADDITION --� I EXISTING BUILDING ��V� `i f-PS FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY (PIN PILES j —� r > GRAdDE BELOW BUILDING SUPPORTS) DOES NOT REFLECT ACTUAL �- Z (POTENTIAL CRAWL SPACE INSTALLATION DEPTH OR PIN PILE LOCATIONS! / 4) _GRpp ARE is�}G BO OM OF FOUNDATION PREDICTED FAILURE 5 g LEVZL MAY SLIGHTLY VARY SURFACE MODIFIED FIN D'ESIGhL HIS — 40 _ SLOPE; " .. POORLY GRADED 5AN© AREA FSmin=1.983 (STATIC) 10 1 FSmin=�.102 (SEISMIC) PI PILE (TYPICAL) _ P!N PILE WILL REQUIRE DESIGN f �5 9 BYISTRUCTURALENGINEER AND SILT BORING LOCATION--- ENCOUNTERED SUBSURFACE WATER CLAY 25 38 20 I j I END OF BORING 26.5 FEE7T Beach 7Sand 7 SILT NOTE: SOIL INFORMATION BELOW 26.5 1 FEET WAS INFERRED FROM BORING B-2. SOIL HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN DISTINCT HORIZONTAL LAYERS I 0 20 40 CROSS SECTION DEVELOPED FROM SITE PLAN INFORMATION PROVIDED BY CLIENT. REVISIONS BY DATE NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED ACCEPTED A d9�L N.L.Olson &Associates, Inc. Engineering, Planning and Surveying (360) 876-2284 2453 Bethel Avenue, P.O. Box 637, Port Orchard, WA 9B366 E :t FIGURE 3 CROSS SECTION A -A 3124 SW 302ND PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 100 120 FOR: BARBARA BRADSAW 3124 SW 302ND PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 SCALE: 1' = 10' DATE: fF9 r1. 2011 JOB NUMBER 7603 Iy „OZ,zz ,ZZL „Zf .ZZ ,ZZI - v in m Q r P � M „OZ �ZZ ,M ON O M N � m �(/ •� ■LU Wj � � S � V � n LL O � C O n 0 N N � � _ N d � C o 0 C. � c0 N i f0 7 N C Z� 76 zU „ze .zz ,ZZv 0 t Sound g,:l �g Qva Qs� Qvr naw 7, - i! i Qpogc , r_ _ y e� r � av� V aQVr Qv , a a Ste irrar w� -~Lake C�`� Qvr - — - — • ! SSW 32 t St Qvr ISWYS20th • y= N > Q'A • a - `r - - —� - -- -- North, m rlvr �°re 4 Q _ r Qvt Key to Geologic Units: af- Artificial fill -Gravel, sand, silt, concrete, other materials m - Modified land (Holocene) - -_ Qal -Alluvium (Holocene) - QVt Qb - Beach deposits (Holocene) Qf -Alluvial fan deposits (Holocene) _ w -- Qls - Landslide deposits (Holocene) Qmw - Mass -wastage deposits (Holocena and Pleistocene) 356t =8t Goal -Alluvium (Holocene) Gob - Olympia beds of Minard and Booth (1988) (Pleistocene) Qpf - Sedimentary deposits pre -Fraser glaciation age (Pleistocene) @ _ - • Qpfc- Sedimentary deposits pre -Fraser glaciation age (Pleistocene) o _ Qpog - Glacial deposits - _• �- Qpogc - Coarse -grained deposits ` • Qpogf - Fine-grained deposits _ Qpogt - Till deposits Qpon - Nonglacial deposits • Qr- Reversely magnetized deposits (Pleistocene) 4 Qrn - Reversely magnetized nonglacial deposits Vnincorporate Qva - Advance outwash deposits Pierce-Cougy 6 Qvi - Till f Qva- �fi ° cs Qvie - Eskers Qvr - Recessional outwash deposits ., Qvrl -Recessional lacustrine deposits Qvrs - Recessional coarse -grained lacustrine deposits Qvt - Til I _ I Qw- Wetland deposits (Holocene) J h f Q tr v - QVrI Llui . Vt Qvi u Kent Qht ederal.Way 1ofenfial- innexatiar rArea 3 all C14. V Rilt6, "i a ■.a• ■ 4-6_ • �w Qvt Figure 4 Federal Way 0 oreline Master Program Geology General Legend: lQal/Qb/Qf/ Qls/Qmw/goal ® Qpf/Qpff/Qpfc EQpog/Qpogc/ Qpogf/Qpogt []Qr/Qrn :orporate Qva/Qvr/Qvrs/Qvrs County Qvi/Qvie/Qvt _ ® Qw ,7 Elaf/rn AIZO lake 1 =GePT2 eral" W. .P,- fential r 1e -AVe e ---Lake vi Un, incorporated King county a Trout - . QVi- J Qp � M a Shorelines: ERegulated Shoreline Puget Sound East Puget Sound - Dumas Bay Puget Sound Q West Steel Lake 0 Star Lake 0 Lake Dolloff 0 Lake Geneva 0 North Lake Lake Killarney Five Mile Lake Scale: City of Federal Way 0 0.5 1 mile 33325 8th Ave S PO Box 9718 N Federal Way, WA 98063 Map Date: May, 2006 (253) 835-7000 Map Source: USGS CIVY OF AN�' Federal Way This map is accompanied by NO warranties, and is simply a graphic representation. For more information, visit us on the web: www.cityoffederalway.com • , cc ED .■ • ' .. < ' _ ` ' • ' -� •Cc.. ' . - OVA "gyp+'�"� � 1 ■ - MINOR MIA ;� �` rr r liS r •';<' ���,p��-'����� - �►"`' G � J� NUT f - arc SPA ��C c igo �. • ,�"�.�' .��� ram' � i �r T r�"� ii� ►��'�d r r �arv� i .� m 3Lug Qoaa3 m N m y N 0 m � LL O APPENDIX A DISCUSSION OF.SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION METHODOLGY BORING LOG The site soil conditions were explored on December 16, 2010� by drilling two borings. NLO had the drilling contractor extend the borings down to about 15.5 feet and 26.5 feet below current site grades, which were both drilled with an Acker. Drilling was subcontracted through Geologic Drill. The approximate boring location has been shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. The boring log has been included in the appendix. Standard Penetration Test: During drilling operation the split spoon sampler was used to determine soil strength parameters and recover soil samples. The dimension of the split tube sampler is 2" outside diameter x 1 3/8" inside diameter x 18" long. The sampler is driven into the soil with a 140 pound hammer dropped a vertical distance of 30 inches. Soil strength parameters are related to the cumulative number of blows (N-Value) necessary to drive the sampler tube one foot into the soil. Prior to determining the N value, the sampler is driven 6 inches into the undisturbed soil. The samples recovered from the split spoon are suitable for atterberg, gradation, and moisture content tests. Water Drill lit tube mart /-rod 51 mm = 35 mm =1.38 in. 36 rnm =1.42 in. (40 38 mm) Check valve 2 in. a 1 ( [ I 76 mm = 3 in. 1 460 mm =18 in. 1 150 mm =6 in., Figure 1. Diagram of a typical split -spoon sampler used for a standard penetration test (Sowers, 1979). Stratification lines designating the interface between soil types in subsurface exploration logs represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The test pit logs and related information depicts conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. The depths represented on our logs were referenced to present site grades encountered during our subsurface exploration work. A' A' -'A N. L.Olson &Associates, Inc. Engineering, Planning and Surveying 2453 BETHEL AVENUE P.O. BOX 637 PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON 98366-0637 urfSae BORING LOG BARBARA BRADSHAW 3124 SW 302ND PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 G undSurface l-!^•a'!-ri Boring' JobN:,'n;e: Lagged By Subs µ ro fS?-1 r1 WRJ Start Date 12/16/2010 E m Oar 12/16/2010 35 B U O m General a E USCS o t Notes E n SYMBOL r o SPSM 1 2 B1,2.5ft 3 4 5 B1, 5.0 ft 6 '. J B1,7.5ft r. 9 SP 10 B1, 10.0ft . 11 12 13 14 15 B1, 15.0 ft _ SP-SM 16 17 18 19 20 Surface Conditions: Blow SURFACE CONDITIONS LAWN AREA WITH A ROOT DEPTH Moisture per (ft) Content (N-Value) OF ABOUT 2 TO 3 INCHES (�) FILL?: Brownish Gray Poorly Graded SAND with trace silt & I gravel, very loose, moist - Contains fine to medium grained sand - Encountered Muck From adjacent Drainfield L Native?: Grayish brown Poorly Graded SAND with trace gravel, 4 very loose, moist -Contains fine to medium grained sand , 9 11 10 - Relative soil density increases - Becomes Medium Dense - Medium grained sand - No recovery - Becomes Loose Grayish Brown Poorly Graded SAND with trace silt & gravel, 9 very loose, moist - Contains fine to medium grained sand - Perched groundwater conditions encountered 19 feet B1, 20.0 ft CL I I I I - U U I tin 1k1UU, DUl11I y 0- I i-cl�m L VI L. Start Time I End Time Hammer Type Drawn By: Date 0800 1030 140 lb Manual with cats head WRJ January 10, 2011 utiliing Contractor Operators Name Drillmg and !Enp ng Method che;,'kea By Date Geologic Drill Wade Bellaf Standard Split Spoon WRJ January 10, 2011 Equipment Groundwater Elevation ews,on By Date Acker 19 to 20 feet Job Location Along Bay Street in Part Orchard, WA Remarks: bgs = below grounds surface Hole Completion Monitoring Well Piezomeler ® Abanonded and backfilled ❑ Inclinometer Sampling Method Standard Split Spoon California Sampler n t �'-`� N . L.Olson&Associates, Inc. General s o a E oPage uSCS > r Blow Job Nu barFI,,,,,,N--e Lomeo By 6onng Moisture Content Notes rj ( SYMBOL o (NV lue) 760310 ave J B1, 20.0 ft CL Gray Lean Clay, Stiff, moist 102 6 9 2 3 I 4 B1, 25.0 ft SC 6 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Gray Clayey Sand, Dense, water bearing 38 - Contains fine to medium grained sand END OF BORING 26.5 FEET t'!A N. L.01son &Associates, Inc. Engineering, Planning and Surveying BORING LOG BARBARA BRADSHAW 2453 BETHEL AVENUE 3124 SW 302ND PLACE P.O. BOX 637 PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON 98366-0637 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 Job Number 7603-10 Logged By �� Subsurfaca Ey4kration Drilling Ground Surface Elevation Boring: 22 � B — Page Date Siam 12/16l2010 End Dale 12/16/2010 Surface c Conditions: General Notes "� E, rn SYMBOL ,�� per(ft)Content (N-Value) SURFACE CONDITIONS LAWN AREA WITH A ROOT DEPTH OF ABOUT 2 TO 3 INCHES Moisture Native?: Brown Poorly Graded SAND with trace gravel, very 1 loose, moist - Contains fine to medium grained sand 2 B2, 2.5 ft SP 1 2 41 B2, 5.OA ft - Iron oxide stained and perched groundwater at 5 ft - Water bearing soil conditions encountered at 5 ft 5 1 6 1 IT1- 2 Gray Elastic Silt, very soft, moist - Pocket Pin Indicates PP=0.25 tsf -1 B2, 5.OB ft MH 7 16 8 13 27 Gray Clayey Sand, Dense, moist - Contains fine to medium grained sand - Contains Silt B2, 7.5 ft SC 9 14 10 B2, 10.0 ft 20 11 27 ,38 65 1 Gray Silt with sand, very dense, moist 12 - Drilling operator indicated gravels encountered between 11.5 B2, 10.0 ft ML 13 and 15 feet 14 15 - pocket pin indicated PP= +4.5 tsf at 10 ft and 15 ft B2, 15.0 ft 15 16 35 29 64 END OF BORING 15.5 FEET Meet projects refusal requirements 17 18 19 20 Start Time 1100 End Time 1330 Hammer Type 140 lb Manual with cats head Drawn By: WRJ Date Jan 10. 2011 Hole Completion ❑ Monitoring Well ❑ Piezometer ® Abanonded and backfilled Drilling Contractor Geologic Drill Operators Name Wade Belief Drilling and sampling Method Standard Split Spoon CnecKec By WRJ Dale Equipment Groundwater Elevation Revision y- Dale Acker Perched growndwater conditions 5 ft Inclinometer Jab Location Along Bay Street In Port Orchard, WA Sampling Method Remarks: bgs = below grounds surface Standard Split Spoon California Sampler J L APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS GRAPHICAL RESULTS . I � ■k � � |),■� | � q ) 1 E\\ 00 CC &\� 5m§ §§§ § @ to mow/ 2/§ nf2« m22� co k�k� o 73: /AN ��m< l\w �� LL 2 m 8 I U m § ¥ 7 E / \f , U _ /§$ /)E2 m - §■:2 «q e [ � E � E � . @ G 9 R I I ' � I � : ] � } § _ j � c \ � \ § ƒ � 0 � \ \ � � 0 0 } j \ / / / � § o § - } � E 2 0 § R § � u �' e j \ § o ' ! z000\ § < 9,o )««RRm® n / � / \ � � } lIaGG§S i \ z , � ■ o �\7)k}) -\ 9999 \ / � / �\22 �@ as imam k . APPENDIX A DISCUSSION OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION METHODOLGY BORING LOG The site soil conditions were explored on December 16, 2010, by drilling two borings. NLO had the drilling contractor extend the borings down to about 15.5 feet and 26.5 feet below current site grades, which were both drilled with an Acker. Drilling was subcontracted through Geologic Drill. The approximate boring location has been shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. The boring log has been included in the appendix. - Standard Penetration Test: During drilling operation the split spoon sampler was used to determine soil strength parameters and recover soil samples. The dimension of the split tube sampler is 2" outside diameter x 1 3/8" inside diameter x 18" long. The sampler is driven into the soil with a 140 pound hammer dropped a vertical distance of 30 inches. Soil strength parameters are related to the cumulative number of blows (N-Value) necessary to drive the sampler tube one foot into the soil. Prior to determining the N value, the sampler is driven 6 inches into the undisturbed soil. The samples recovered from the split spoon are suitable for atterberg, gradation, and moisture content tests. Water Drill Shoe -=Split tube /-mart /-rod 51 mm=J 1 in. , 135 mm =1.38 in. 36 rnM = 1.42 in.�(.to 38 mrn) Check vollve -, 76rnm=ain. I 460mm=1.8in. ' 150mm=6in. Figure 1. Diagram of a typical split -spoon sampler used for a standard penetration test (Sowers, 1979). Stratification lines designating the interface between soil types in subsurface exploration logs represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The test pit logs and related information depicts conditions only at the specific locations and at the particular time designated on the logs. The depths represented on our logs were referenced to present site grades encountered during our subsurface exploration work. A BORING LOG A' -'A N . L.Olson &Associates, Inc. Engineering, Planning and Surveying BARBARA BRADSHAW 2453 BETHEL AVENUE 3124 SW 302ND PLACE P.O. BOX 637 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON 98366-0637 Job Number Logged By Subsurface Exploration DrUrtg Ground Surface Elevation Boring: Page 1 1 7603-10 WRJ Start Date 12I16/2010 End Date 12116/2010 35 B - 1 —of— Sudaca c Condifions o t Blow SURFACE CONDITIONS LAWN AREA WITH A ROOT DEPTH moisture General E „ Notes 0 rn SYT"BOL o g perIN-Value(ft)OF ABOUT 2 TO 3 INCHES Content FILL?: Brownish Gray Poorly Graded SAND with trace silt & SP-SM 1 gravel, very loose, moist - Contains fine to medium grained sand 2 - Encountered Muck From adjacent Drainfield B1, 2.5ft ; : 3 1 Native?: Grayish brown Poorly Graded SAND with trace gravel, _ 1 very loose, moist 4 3 4 i - Contains fine to medium grained sand 5 131, 5.0ft 6 7 B1,7.5ft 8 9 SP 10 B1, 10.0ft I 11 12 13 14 15 B1, 15.0 ft _ SP-SM 16 17 18 19 20 9 ; - Relative soil density increases 11 - Becomes Medium Dense - Medium grained sand 10 1 - No recovery I - Becomes Loose 9 Grayish Brown Poorly Graded SAND with trace silt & gravel, very loose, moist - Contains fine to medium grained sand - Perched groundwater conditions encountered 19 feet 2 f2 131, 20.0 ft CL - Continued, Boring B-1, Page O Start Time End Time Hammer Type Drawn By. Date Hole Completion DB00 1030 140 lb Manual with cats head WRJ January 10, 2011 ❑ Monilcring Well Drilling Contractor Operators Name Dril me -and sampling Method Checked By: Date Geologic Drill Wade Betlaf Standard Split Spoon WRJ January W, 2011 ❑ Plezcmeier Equipment Groundwater Elavazo.^. evision By: Date ® Abanonded and backnlled Acker 19 to 20 feel D Inclinometer Job Locafion Along Bay Street in Port Orchard, WA Remarks: bgs = below grounds surface Standard Split Spoon. I California Sampler Tr A'-'.AN.L.Olson &Associates, Inc. BORING LOG Engineering, Planning and Surveying BARBARA BRADSHAW 2453 BETHEL AVENUE P.O. BOX 637 3124 SW 302ND PLACE PORT ORCHARD, WASHINGTON 98366-0637 FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 Job Number 7603-10 Logged By WRY Subsurface Exploration Drilling Ground Surface Elevation End Date 12116/2010 22 Start Date 12/16/2010 1 Boring: Page B - 2 Surface c Conditions: General Notes ti E rn USCS SYMBOL o o Blow per (t (N Value) SURFACE CONDITIONS LAWN AREA WITH A ROOT DEPTH OF ABOUT 2 TO 3 INCHES moisture Content (%} Native?: Brown Poorly Graded SAND with trace gravel, very 1 loose, moist - Contains fine to medium grained sand 2 B2, 2.5 ft SP 31 1 4 1 2 132, 5.oA ft - Iron oxide stained and perched groundwater at 5 ft - Water bearing soil conditions encountered at 5 ft 5 1 6 1 1 ' 2 Gray Elastic Silt, very soft, moist - Pocket Pin Indicates PP=0.25 tsf 132, 5.013 ft MH 7 132, 7.5 ft 8 Ij 113 Gray Clayey Sand, Dense, moist SC 9 27 - Contains fine to medium grained sand - Contains Silt 14 10 B2, 10.0 ft :20 117 2 38 65 Gray Silt with sand, very dense, moist 12 - Drilling operator indicated gravels encountered between 11.5 62, 10.0 ft ML 13 and 15 feet 14 - pocket pin indicated PP= +4.5 tsf at 10 ft and 15 ft 15 35 29 B2, 15.0 ft 15 16 64 END OF BORING 15.5 FEET Meet projects refusal requirements 17 18 19 20 Star; Time 1100 End Tme 1330 Hammer Type 140 lb Manual with cats head Drawn By: WRJ Date Jan 10, 2011 Hole Completion ❑ fAcniloring Well ❑ 'iezomeler ® Abanonded and back:illed DriGrg Contractor Geologic Drill Operators [Jame Wade Bellaf Drillinc and sampiing 1•Aethod Standard Split Spoon Checked By: WRJ Date Equipment Groundwater Eievation Revision By: Date Acker Perched growndwater conditions 5 ft Inclinometer Job Location Along Bay Street in Port Orchard, WA Remarks: bgs = below grounds surface Sampling tiethod Standard SpiiI Spoor. Ca6fornla Sampler 1T APPENDIX B SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS GRAPHICAL RESULTS `O P 1 w 1 U Z W U) r c7 z F- w X w LL m 0 N Z 0 r � U d \Q \ (n \ v \ d' \ 'C \ E \ Cli LL r m a��oaa3 0 - 01 v,v,na �i a r°�j raj t�7 S ui 5r ?o r4 r r N G O O O �`5L) O YiT N .J U N C O N 0 O m O m O N O N 0 0 O m O m 0 N X -- \ % � e § � o � \ � LL § \ 0 : ILLU � > 5 / w q 0 D >. wF o z \ \ § '� 5 0 S = -J k/ o. = E g ; o \� \ \ ° � 0.wz § �� Z o 3 � ] Pik§§§§ \ 0 0 \��02 \ M§ \ / { a£So ± > F- ,« ggqq in 3%\Ukk i� / i \ )\\kk\( � j ~. - {~%{ � )3ci!52 0 G 9 & ) \j\ (\\ &\_ ƒ\\ I ]° @ �®/ mko� cok�� / U.:5 cn�ui U- M 2 CD f SCALE 1 inch = 30 feet wail t..'1� � �• S E �J .4 AWING PROVIDED BY CLEINT AND KITSAP COUNTY BY DATE DE9GNED DRAWN CHECKED APPROVED ACCEPTED 'i Retaining 1, Ewa 11 Brick Retaining wall ..� Rockery - - Y2^1 i = _ght 0, Yard i; --sighIn oJJ LGJ N.L.01son&Asso6otes,Inc. Engineering, Planning and Surveying (360) 876-2284 2153 &bid Avenue, P.D. Box 637. Port Drdiord. WA 98365 FIGURE 2 - SITE PLAN 3124 SW 302ND PLACE FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 B-2 INDICATES BORING LOCATION FOR: SCALE: AS '1101M BARBARA BRADSAW DATE: �g 7�, 20I1 3124 SW 302ND PLACE JOB NUMBER FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 7603 r ,.,. ., . ., wa 11 - L _ •y S + � �� ► ili - 'Z _ fr c 32 " (F • . fo Firro Ir Ul i L ` litf� j 21 cto • 1 1 4 EW- z 0OD G [ ECK Reta ngNEW' Retaining ro� a_- _ .._ i 1 j 1 al Iorr wa I i ck Q>.�� `� Retaining wail - Rockery vard i C'0 y o^d �4n +--1: g ht 1 v 1 F� • L°�a, �JF SITE PLAN FOR: BRADSHAWIHARKNESS REMODEL & ADDITION � o -• E PLAN - FIGURE 2 - SIT A 3124 SW 302ND PLACE L_J`N.L_Olson&Associotes,inc_ Engineering, Planning and Surveying.�,�`` FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 �♦ \ /( ♦ \ ♦AA \ \\ CTIO o y ♦ \ �( ♦♦ lI/ \ t� / ♦♦ DU S BAY/ ♦♦� _ �o // \\ ( PUG SOUND I 42Y ( ♦ ♦ ( � / ( ( ♦ ♦EXISTING i % \ NEIGHBOR \ ( ` BULKHEAD I Ao \ MOUSE & ( ♦ O.H.W.M. I DECK \ DATUM; 0.00' / NGVD 29 \ \ STRING LINE BETWEEN \ ADJACENT STRUCTURES \4i PROPOSED \ DECK \ \ EXISTING \ TERRACED YARD ♦ 6 PROPOSED ADDITON \ \ WITH 25% TO 50% I \; i OVER BASEMENT & \ SLOPE AREAS CRAWL SP \ \ EXISTING 1' TO 5' ♦ fi \t. l PRO SED \ ROCKERY 1 CONSTRUCTION OF \\ EXISTING 1' TO 3' EXISTING BASEMENT \ROCKER RAMBLER CC \ P2 *:i171EiOUTLINI SITE ADDRESS; 3124 SW 302nd PL. TAX PARCEL 012103-9058 QUARTER OI SEC 01 LEGAL DESCRIPTION R°rwrGEo3 Description: Beginning at a point in the south line of Seci.ien 1, Township 21 North, Range East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, n'ashingtcn, said point being 208.44 feet west Of southeast corner of Government Lot 4 in said Section; Running thence north 32'06' west 474.65 feet more or less to the northerly line of Georgian Avenue in the Plat of Lakota projected southv.�aster l y: hence SCucn J/ sv' west cio fe L to :;lP. iNiiL t'i1 Ji Gr ncGINN1ING of property affected by this conveyance; Thence north 32°0 ' viest 770.04 feet more or, .less, to Governmert Meander Line; Thence following said Government Meander Line in a southerly direction 119.61 feet. Thence south 37'09'20" east 684.49 feet to the north line of Georgian Avenue aforesaid projected southwesterly: Thence northeasterly 19.13 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: ALSO tidelands of second class abuttin,'J Upon the meander line of aforedescribed tract. / / / / Z PROPERTY LINE \ EXISTING WALL LOCATION NEW WALL LOCATION \ — -- ---- - A r \ \\ \ EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM % ' t TO BE ABANDONED / _ � RELOCATE WALL LINE 18 l WEST M \ EXISTING SEPTIC TANK TO BE FILLED PER A KING COUNTY HEALTH DIST. DEMOLITION PERMIT 5 P2 PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR EL , 47.00' 1 PRO P/0SED EXISTING MAIN FLOOR EL.; +44.50' ADDITION \ /PROPO PROPOSED BASEMENT EL.; +37.00' ! PATIO \ — — — — — — -- PROPOSED 4" PVC WAS- rs \ XIS G PIPE FROM HOUSE \ PROPOSED SEPTIC DETAIL \ / GRINDER PUMP LOCATION Q REPL. LAWN \\ AREA EIGHBOR/ / \ BB H@USE & / EXISTING FENCE CTIO DECK / LINE PER \ \ � a SURVEY �� \\ PROPOSED PAVED \\ DRIVE & PARKING \ \ / PROPOSED DETACHED,\ \ 2CAR GARAGE UNDER \ f EXISTING SITE PLAN. BUILDING & SURFACE COVERAGE ID Area A -BACK ADDITION 848 A -COURT PVG. 483 A -DECK 469 A -DEMO. HOUSE 41 A -DRIVE PVG. 1,355 A -EXIST. GARAGE 357 A -EXIST. HOUSE 1,332 A -NEW GARAGE 480 5,365 sq ft 15% SITE AREA; 36388 sf (.84 ACRE) PROPOSED PL. EL.; +55.00' — _ _ PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR EL.; 47.00' _ EXISTING MAIN FLOOR EL.; +44.50' PROPOSED BASEMENT EL.- +37.00' — — — — — —� PROPOSED FLOOR LEVEL EXISTING _ FLOOR EXISTING _ BASEMENT / WOOD NCE SEPARATE BLDG. PERMII�` 2Vi \ \ / ♦ EXISTING 'WAGON \ \ NEW 6' flfi \WHEEL' DRIVE WAY FENCE goo \ \ ♦ cos .�� \ � \ \ F �\ PROPOSED 1 1/41, \ \ ♦;moo \\ HDPE SANITARY \ \ o� \ SEWER CONNECTION ♦ �, ♦ \ \ \ \ ,9 \ UNDER SEPARATE moo ♦ \ \\ PERMIT s \� ♦\ \\ ♦ \ PLANNING SINGLE FAMILYHIGH DENSITY ZONING RS 72 11 UNIT/7200 S.F.) ENVIRONMENT LANDSLIDE HAZARD DESIGN CRITERIA R301.20) (LOCAL) CLIMATIC & GEOGRAPHIC DESIGN CRITERIA GROUND SNOW LOAD; 20 WIND SPEED; 85 MPH, EXP. 8 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY; D2 WEATHERING; MODERATE FROST LINE DEPTH; 12 TERMITE; SLIGHT TO MODERATE DECAY; SLIGHT TO MODERATE WINTER DESIGN TEMP; 26° ICE SHIELD UNDERLAYMENT; NO FLOOD HAZARD; 1983 FIRM AIR FREEZING INDEX; 117 MEAN ANNUAL TEMP; 51.3 FIRE PROTECTION AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM k F a Y f �� S�ElifrU BUJ t, ' r �`�. �`r�ELLfrri 1v a n i766b 1J y � r Jt' "'t�"`i..Y., +ky •;,r p<.?';7� SQ�.f ��ri � jt .. b�.�y d� � { ' �`�rt �'��� s ttliDr��lU�`r�l$� ���rL.• 3'121 ! y� Fri^ax He's r f'C+'LL to 30;t >„ �,� ''a'i 20 "•�. '� w�°r� € CS tik' if rU r� F �"'a Fa S 5 y �• i ti E".r ��' , � t � t..,r„ � �i to � 1.�.'�, 61 I� 1,.,.} �a ,f4 1 P 5`a�3F T; �'k.•5 I.,�„ t t b f 2� ^! r3U0yu tsi ' al' <�. ae� w' `.�a w+ i r(•�7ti i�fLt� •a a 1666',rl23 SUBJECT PROPERTY �1 4f y���. FG'[IE14IF Iikia. \ NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES, TYPICAL �A NEIGHBORING DRIVEWAYS, TYPICAL F ro 54 ADJACENT PROPERTIES. NOT TO SCALE \\ \\ \ ♦ \ EXISTING FIR PROPOSED PL. EL.; +55.00- — — — — — — ♦ \ - \ TREES AND \ \ ♦ \ \♦ LANDSCAPING \\ PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR EL.; 47.00' \ ♦ \ \ ♦ EXISTING MAIN FLOOR EL.; +44.50' PROPOSED BASEMENT EL.; +37.00' N \\ \ ♦♦ EXISTING MAPLE \ ♦ \ \ TREE \ EXISTING \ \ DATUM; 0.00' / NGVD 29 PROPOSED NEIGHBOR \ \ �- ROOF LINE \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \ \ \ ♦ DATUM' 0.00' /NGVD 29 SECTION BB_ \\ SCALE: 1" = 20' \ APPROX. AA EDGE OF CTIO CTD} r:T APPROX. NEIGHBOR HOUSE BRADSHAW-HARKNESS ADDITION - FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON VICINITY MAP; SITE .t SEE PARTIAL SITE 'PLAN o ,o Y-- z � N � w � � a � A , w co co C F-co q a V 0 0 'O 0 0000 U ro 00 CO T, !oin,g_ 00 00 '� 0I-r)10(7)� U NNN L � 6r TJ U _0 - x 0 -. tl j- 0 C C= S V1 r� 00 �� C_ w 0 c' r wO O_ t:JO = ��F�G? r r ✓ ` r.. w C r s t 6� y w Q t fYl V) L 00 ro c7NZ LLJ Q z JQ m ru N Z C C3 UN I N Q L UN PROPOSED ROOF Co o LINE M Lvi 3 EXISTING = Q Q PROPOSED HOUSE TO BE EXISTING PROPOSED (n (%) Q cc 7D 300 FLOOR DECK REMOVED GARAGE W/ DETACHED GARAGE r i -� o UTILITY RM. UNDER SEPARATE Q �' W Ez rn Q BELOW BUILDING PERMIT CV U z in w r- rr" v— 1 L J NOm M1 LL-ft_ po�N — h -4 =U --- -- ----- — --- — ---- REV.; 0 r"M,0, DATE; 6/24/11 EXISTING/ SEPA Corrections PROPOSED PROPOSED DECK BASEMENT SECTION AA, SCALE: 1" = 20' MAIN FLOOR TOTAL; 2558 S.F. BASEMENT TOTAL; 1927 S.F. TOTAL LIVING SPACE; 4485 S.F. EXISTING FLOOR AREAS I D Area FLOOR E BSMT 883 FLOOR E MAIN 1,357 2,240 sq ft NEW FLOOR AREAS I D Area FLOOR N BSMT 380 FLOOR N BSMT AD 761 FLOOR N MAIN N 785 FLOOR N MAIN S 42 1,968 sq ft ESUB LIT ED CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS ACCESSORY FLOOR AREAS ID Area ACC G EXISTING 357 ACC G NEW 480 ACC UTILITY 307 1,144 sq ft SITE DRAWINGS JeN z)EPA SEPA PROJECT REVIEW; 4/22/11 0 z Qp m C/) C W II ` oa ` i I EXISTING TERRACED YARD ♦' WITH 25% TO 50O/ ` SLOPE AREAS ' ItXI'ST'I. �° \ N = GROONQ♦ \ ' COVER O ♦ Z I ' ' -- , I i , 2 ,I o Q I I I ', % ; NEIGHBORING c I DECK ♦ Iseit �'� I ,', '• , g -' ' EXISTING ♦ � ' ' I� I I I I '• m I ,_' ' LAWN / I 'PATHWAY ♦ x' '�1 NEIGHBOR HOUSE w \\ ; TlI G', \ �'� ' SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 - +40. � � � � ', � ' „� FOR RESTORATIVE GR QN \ PLANTING DESIGN Cl EXISTING ' � � '� �. \ 3' TO 4' ROCK CONCRETE X STING \ RO KERY' \ WALL, TYPICAL STEPS ' \ +47.00 T BE PROPOSED DECK STORM DRAIN I A ER�D \ \\ ABOVE GRADE `! \ DISPERSAL � \ • PER CIVIL 114 > >'`� XI,5T1,NG �� X STORM DRAIN \ OCK�RY +38.0 T.L. PER CIVIL ♦ \ I Retaining , \ v � ♦ I , I 'I \ :;�. Retaining wall I \ _ I I s Q' \ wall RELOCATE WALL LINE 1811 I I O ♦ \ I I � , 5�"= ��p �\ '., WEST I EXISTING D�AIN FIE D, TO BE ABANDONED +47.00 CANTILEVERED ♦ " '` �' ADDITION AREAS �x,0 - o TIC TANK TO O O �. I EXISTING SEPTIC BE FILLED PER A KING ; ♦\ 0�0�1 /�EW a�11�1 QUO d G RCS U N-D COUNTY HEALTH DIST. ,; + �P ..: �G 1 ,� I COVER DEMOLITION PERMIT I �� � , I0 PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR EL., 47.0 \ y�'L;I' EXISTING MAIN FLOOR EL.; +44.50' Ci \ PROPOSED BASEMENT EL.; +37.00\ I� / U % O N SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' +47.83' NEIGHBOR HOUSE I �✓A/Y' I , I I � \ I�I\ o I I I I I I , i I �g3 I EXISTING 4' LANSCAPE WALL EXIST. GROUND COVEN\ SEPTIC - GRINDER PUMP - HEAT PUMP EXISTING FENCE �— LINE PER SURVEY PROPOSED 1 1 /4" C� HDPE SANITARY +50.00, ` SEWER CONNECTION �. UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT `• PROJECT OUTLINE SITE ADDRESS; 3124 SW 302nd PL. TAX PARCEL 012103-9058 LEGAL DESCRIPTION QUARTER 01 SEC 01 TOWN 21 RANGE 03 Description: Beginning at a point in the south line of Section i, Township 21 North, Range '3 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County. Washington: said point be 208.44 feet west of southeast corner of Government Lot 4 in said Section; Running thence north 32*06' west 474.66 feet more or less to the northerly line of Georgian Avenue in the Plat of Lakota projected southwesterly", to the TRUE PGIN7 OF ScOZNNDNG Thence south 57`54'30" west 5U feet of property affected by this conveyance: Thence north 32*06' west 770.04 feet more or less, to Government Meander Line; Thence following said Government Meander Line in a southerly direction 119.61 feet; Thence south 37'09'20" east 684.49 feet to the north line of Georgian Avenue aforesaid projected southwesterly; Thence northeasterly 19.13 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO tidelands of second class abutting upon the meander line of aforedescribed tract. PLANNING SINGLE FAMILYHIGH DENSITY (verify) ZONING RS 7.2 (1 UNIT/7200 S.F.) ENVIRONMENT LANDSLIDE HAZARD BRADSHAW -HARKNESS ADDITION FEDERAL WAY, A S H I N 6 T 0 N VICINITY MAP; aaa m -_ fiCIlfi PROJECT TEAM owuca BARBARA BRADSHAW & RON HARKNESS 30205 33rd S.W. FEDERAL WAY, WA 98023 253-740-3837 BARBARA BRADSHAW CIVIL DESIGN PACIFIC ENGINEERING 15445 53rd AVE S. SEATTLE, WA 98188 206-431-7970 GREG DIENER GEOTECH ENGINEERING N.L. OLSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 2453 BETHEL AVE. SE PORT ORCHARD, WA 98366 360-876-2284 WESLEY JOHNSON I\ I \ I \ I \ W . \ j DUMAS z BAY / \ SEE ENLARGED SITE PUGET / PLAN ON SHEET A-1 I SOUND- . / /\ I; PROPOSED DECK M.H.W.M. \ ` 1 \\ PROPOSED ADDITION 6" CONCRETE \\ \ BULKHEAD \ 'PROPOSED � 1 \ RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING TERRACED '/ \ EXISTING 3 BEDROOM HOUSE YARD & ROCKERIES �' < l \ PROPOSED STRING LINE \\/ / \ ADDITION BETWEEN \/ \ PROPOSED NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES \ 3 \DETACHED GARAGE % no 0 50' 100, 200'9p�o\ oo % \\ c�� EXISTING \ 'WAGON SITE \\ V WHEEL' AREA: 37,496 sq ft \\ %\ \\ DRIVE WAY N OVERVIEW SITE PLAN��'�3tdP SCALE: 1" =100' ARCHITECTURE: F.A. STUDIO LANDSCAPE DESIGN 18550 FIRLANDS WAY N SUTE 102 SHORELINE, WA 98133 206-542-6100 GLEN TAKAGI SEPTIC CONSULTING BABBITT SEPTIC DESIGN, INC. 25113 90th STREET EAST BUCKLEY„ WA 98321 253-862-4307 MARK BABBITT BUILDING COVERAGE AREAS ID Area A-BACKADDITION 771 A-DET GARAGE 616 A -EXIST. GARAGE 356 A -EXIST. HOUSE 1,298 A-FRNT ADDITION 13 A-FRNT ADDITION 42 A -SIDE ADDITION 9 A -SIDE ADDITION 18 3,123 sq ft PAVING AREAS ID Area PVG. COURT 299 PVG. DRIVE 1,941 2,240 sq ft RESUBMITTED CB 14 2012 c1TY OF FEDERAL WAY -DS o Z O o�aa� Ld d z \ In = O U Q , s wO QoPk, �w p d �- qa F- .0 n 0 0 n 0 00cc U �rN4_1 0000ME LA L0 0'_ 0303M- �F� �0 p if) LA0� U! NN(N ,--/ ,-,/ C _ (D -- U Q U - x o U � o '4- a d z �a -- x z u r, 0 bt4 u; c x QQ 4- o C4 Ao2�' � a wxA, V�F�" d .F C O d xo�oG w C) zip 00 Z � 0 Q 1 L LtJ Q Z J Q DC Q C 4_ Q ry-, u = 3 Q W -I o O Q N w 0 = r'r, r— W n m M ISSUED DATE; 1/30/2012 ADDITIONAL INFO. SUBMITTAL; FILE#11-103425-00-AD REV. DATE; SITE PLANS A-1 BOUNDARY 8c .T0 UGRAPHIC SURVEY i A portion of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 01, Township 21 N., Mange 3 E., W.M. City of Federal Way, King County, Washington ' Vertical Datum: / / National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929-NGVD29 h i/\ (City of Federal Way) . Benchmarks: Base: City of Federal Way benchmark 2168-5-1, Ramset on east edge O of telephone pedestal pad at the northwest corner of South 336th Street and Pacific Highway South. rp �1 Elevation: 346.81 feet. / o •� 0 Site: �o � I Set rebar and cap, 8.7' northeast of yard light, 5.5' east 0 3Q 60 eoo \ �� of pump style faucet, 3.7' southeast of storm cleanout. Elevation: 51.49 feet. Basis of Bearings. ,Scale. sc�® True North. Based upon Global Positioning System (GPS) o� - E N I Lambert Grid Washington State North Zone coordinates. A 0 k convergence angle of 1 07'S9. 97" counterclockwise was �cuCb I applied at a PK nail in concrete, 0.5' below surface. Oh // co ®-0 The monument is the Southeast section corner for Section 1, °51 / Township 21 north, Range 3 east of the Willamette Meridian. The North American Datum of 1983, 1991 adjustment, / (NAD 83/91) grid coordinates were found to be 123959.237 / 1262933.898 at that point. The inverse of both a sea level correction factor determined from the mean ellipsoid / ( ( control elevation of 215.8 feet of 0.999989672 and the grid IN,s scale factor of 1.000036142 was applied to the grid o (^r) J coordinates for shown ground distances. \ \ c � : 1 \ J C: ^ ' -.) \ oC / 4-.) �J��° A ea) c CD CD�CD - (0 M L 4 \ � o � / a 0) Cu Calculated location Found lead and tack in >r, na,,4 �, q;;� \ of stone monument per La o �j \'\ U �°' // �, `o , stone inside of water v lve \ ROS 9903019002 O 0 -J 0„ \ 14-o / w e�o� �, o \ case at end of 300th Pl e o� o �o� ^�, �� �, Southwest at begin of private M m0 \\ 4 road, in front of house o. +� IN, / ° a1 �� (� \ 3100, 3.8' northeast of --enter O CO o / w a �� i\ r ro na += o c rn \ / ce ;L� o��` J o \ of Catch basin. 0 o ro L co \ / w ` (^ ro en a) +-) 00 \ a) C u) C • I_- \ .--H _W a) -•-, M L.) M 3 � + �a I= f / CCa)�doE i_ to U Ln L M O / / X) w / 3r t lei ' w, / e'' 4 �de" �g 'Ile LU 91 0 +P'C.�� O__ -AR „,...., O Breaker ?�eaig� •ere o a,ao 6': /.. Retaining Rocker 9 wail a m C Ci 3 > w C C > U a / +) Q 8 P� Z\ a,, N10°17'29"E 118 98' Beginning at a point in the south line of Section 1, Township 21 North, Range 3 East, Willamette Meridian, in King County, Washington, said point being 208.44 feet west of southeast corner of Government Lot 4 in said Section: Running thence north 32°06' west 474.66 feet more or less to the; northerly line of Georgian Avenue in the Plat of Lakota projected southwesterly; Thence south 57°54'30" west 50 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of property affected by this conveyance; Thence north 32°06' west 770.04 feet more or less, to Government Meander Line; Thence following said Government Meander Line in a southerly direction 119.61 feet; Thence south 37°09'20" east 684.49 feet to the north line of Georgian Avenue aforesaid projected southwesterly; Thence northeasterly 19.13 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; ALSO tidelands of second class abutting upon the meander line of aforedescribed tract. Surveyor's Notes: 1) The monument control shown for this site was accomplished by field traverse utilizing a one (1) second theodolite with integral electronic distance measuring meter (Geodimeter 600) and Real Time Kinematic (RTK) / Static Global Positioning System (GPS). Linear and angular closure of the traverses meet the standards of WAC 332-130-090. 2) Utilities other than those shown may exist on this site. Only those which are visible or having visible evidence of their installation are shown hereon. 3) This survey represents physical improvement conditions as they existed October 12, 2006, the date of this field survey. 4) Legal descriptions provided by client. No additional research has been attempted. 5) Offset dimensions shown hereon are measured perpendicular to property lines. 6) It is not the intent of this survey to show all easements or reservations for this site. V Approximate o� \ \ I 11.- Government 10 - V �� _ _ - 1 . Meander o�ne (Actual line not \ 9�°\ determined, shown for information only) �V \ Found 1-112" brass disk with punch in concrete post, 1.4' below surface, at the intersection of Southwest 302nd Place and 30th �`' \ \ - Avenue Southwest V10 ems: / Subject property appears to be the confluence site for descriptions written from the east and west. Deeds from the west yeild a .70 foot gap with the deed call of 19.13 feet. Held the descriptions from the west as the intent of property description. \\ . \\ 0 100 200 North margin of 33rd Avenue Southwest�Za \� Found brass plug, �� \ a / o incased, on centerline o \ 100 \'0, of 304th Place, 15.8' northeast of mail box \ to house house No. 30303 \ Calculated monument ZC0 V� \ South quarter corner of position from Goddard D til �, \ \ Section 1, Township 21 ROS 8607039004 North, Range 3 East, �N � Held d. Deed 75 °50' \ \\ found stone with "X" 2� 3068643 \ o 369.85 ' 2 495.47 ' \\ ' 377.20 ' (P) -Held ; \\ 1146.26 ' 202..43' .. - - - - - 174.77' \ 872.67' _ God C1rd ROS 8607039004 ; S89°40'02"E 2388.78' Found copper plug with I punch in concrete post, SW 304ul Stree incased, 0.02' south of Held as 0.0 � �; N Legend: section line as per ROS No. as per ROS 86070„ 8607039004 VED = Monument found. Visited Oct.12, 2006 O = Calculated monument position (C) = Calculated (M) = Measured (P) = Lakota Division No.2, Vol.22, Pg.12 Rd. = Road Quit Claim Deed to King County for Deed 33rd Avenue South (Georgian Avenue, filed under Rec. No.3068643) ROS = Record of Survey E. P N A q9 �Z F` q 2`2338 O �� ssI 6I S T ERF c,JQ NAC L ANC xPIREs 12-15-2007 aupmk fINTE 33701 9t1Avenue South - Federal Way, WA 98003 253-661-1901 main 253-661-7719 fax APR 22 Il1DEX DATA: SW - S i1 1.11, ' >'��„ �� T21 3 F SURVXY FOR: Barbara Bradsh w 30205 33rd Aven , Southwest Federal Way, WA 023 KING C0U AS IN T f REVISIONS: RETRIEVAL STRAP (SLIP THROUGH SLOT IN GRATE) 4 48 > 36' t♦ ♦ kill, / m. ! I ! VEGETA D STRIP - - ADAPTER SKIRT (FOR RESTORE AT1VE VEGETATION AT A PERFECT FIT) DISTURBED REA AS REQUIRED ♦ } ' { " OVERFLOW (TO BYPASS RUNOFF WILL NOT BE ALLO TO 24 CONCENTRATE, AND POINT D CHARGED PEAK STORM VOLUMES) WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON E SLOPES. t SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION ♦ _ MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF 500 GPM, INSERTS WILL NOT CAUSE jl} PONDING. FITS ANY SIZE CATCHBASIN UP TO 30 x40 I CB .PROTECTION MID) � , SEDIMENT FILTER INSERT I LIMIT OF CLEARING AND GRADING. APPLY 11OLFt I SILT FENCE. s, 4♦ " .' TRENCH DRAIN YARD DRAIN PROTECTION PROTECTION TYP MID)♦ , ♦ ( ) USE MULCH AS r TEMPORARY C VER APPLY PLASTIC COVER AT 1 STOCKPILE AREAS AND i = ' CUT/FILL AREAS AS REQUIRED. LIMIT OF CLEARING AND GRADING. APPLY 11OLFt SILT FENCE. 30 0 10 20 ao so LIMIT OF CLEARING AND GRADING MARKED H TAPE GRAPHIC SCALE G R= 25' MIN. oo, � INSTALL DRIVEWAY CULVERT IF THERE AS PER KING COUNTY ROADSTANDARDS, DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE IS A ROADSIDE DITCH PRESENT, AS PAVED TO THE EDGE OF R-O-W PER KING COUNTY ROAD STANDARDS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO AVOID 4"-8" QUARRY SPALLS DAMAGING OF THE ROADWAY IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE ENTRANCE GEOTEX11LE BE CROWNED SO THAT RUNOFF DRAINS OFF THE PAD 5 12" MIN. THICKNESS PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/EGRESS AREA TEMP., ROCKED, CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MAINTENANCE STANDARDS 1. QUARRY SPALLS (OR HOG FUEL) SHALL BE ADDED IF THE PAD IS NO LONGER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. 2. IF THE ENTRANCE IS NOT PREVENTING SEDIMENT FROM BEING TRACKED ONTO PAVEMENT, THEN ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO KEEP THE STREETS FREE OF SEDIMENT SHALL BE USED. THIS MAY INCLUDE STREET SWEEPING, AN INCREASE IN THE STABILIZED DIMENSIONS OF THE ENTRANCE, OR THE INSTALLATION OF A WHEEL WASH. IF WASHING IS USED, IT SHALL BE DONE OI3b*#rRUCTION AREA COVERED WITH CRUSHED ROCK, AND WASH WATER SHALL DRAIN TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR POND ENTRANCE 3. ANY SEDIMENT THAT IS TRACKED ONTO PAVEMENT SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY BY SWEEPING. THE SEDIMENT COLLECTED BY SWEEPING SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON SITE. THE PAVEMENT SHALL NOT BE CLEANED BY WASHING DOWN THE STREET, EXCEPT WHEN SWEEPING IS INEFFECTIVE AND THERE IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO WASH THE STREETS, A SMALL SUMP MUST BE CONSTRUCTED. THE SEDIMENT WOULD THEN BE WASHED INTO THE SUMP WHERE IT CAN BE CONTROLLED. WASH WATER MUST BE PUMPED BACK ONTO THE SITE AND CAN NOT DISCHARGE TO SYSTEMS TRIBUTARY TO SURFACE WATERS. 4. ANY QUARRY SPALLS THAT ARE LOOSENED FROM THE PAD AND END UP ON THE ROADWAY SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. 5. IF VEHICLES ARE ENTERING OR EXITING THE SITE AT POINTS OTHER THAN THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S), FENCING (SEE SECTION D.3.1) SHALL BE INSTALLED TO CONTROL TRAFFIC. A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION NOTE: o PLACE INSERT INSIDE OF FRAME, SEEDGATE ING WILL BE DONE AT AN APPORPRIATE o AND PLACE GRATE OVER INSERT TIME TO STABILIZE THE UNCOVERED GROUND, -► 4 Q o D D TO HOLD IT IN PLACE AS SOON AS FINAL GRADE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED. PLX)ET BOUND ♦ TOE OF STEEP ♦ SLOPE AREA � ! MAINTENANCE STANDARDS 1. ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE " BY 14 Ga. WIRE OR REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY. VALENT, IF STANDARD 2. IF CONCENTRATED FLOWS ARE :NGTH FABRIC USED EVIDENT UPHILL OF THE FENCE, THEY MUST BE INTERCEPTED FILTER FABRIC--- AND CONVEYED TO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR POND. Z 3. IT IS IMPORTANT TO CHECK THE UPHILL SIDE OF THE FENCE FOR SIGNS OF THE `~ FENCE CLOGGING AND ACTING AS A BARRIER TO FLOW AND THEN CAUSING CHANNELIZA11ON OF FLOWS PARALLEL TO THE _ FENCE. IF THIS OCCURS, ..� Z REPLACE THE FENCE OR I I 6' MAX. ( ( MINIMUM 4"x4" TRENCH REMOVE THE TRAPPED ' I 04 SEDIMENT. Li BACKFILL TRENCH WITH 4. SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED NATIVE SOIL OR 3/4"-1.5" WHEN THE SEDIMENT IS 6 POST SPACING MAY BE INCREASED WASHED GRAVEL INCHES HIGH. TO 8' IF WIRE BACKING IS USED 5. IF THE FILTER FABRIC 2"x4" WOOD POSTS, STEEL FENCE (GEOTEXTILE) HAS POSTS, REBAR, OR EQUIVALENT DETERIORATED DUE TO NOTE: FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE ULTRAVIOLET BREAKDOWN, IT INSTALLED ALONG CONTOUR WHENEVER POSSIBLE SILT FENCE SHALL BE REPLACED. TEMPORARY EACX31ON AND SEMW C*NMM STAWAM NOTE: 1. APPROVAL OF THIS EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (ESC) PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF PERMANENT ROAD OR DRAINAGE DESIGN (E.G. SIZE AND LOCATION OF ROADS, PIPES, RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS, RETENTION FACILITIES, UTILITIES, ETC.) 2. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE ESC PLANS AND THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND UPGRADING OF THESE ESC FACILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION IS APPROVED. 3. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FLAGGED BY SURVEY TAPE OR FENCING, IF REQUIRED, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION (SWDM APPENDIX D). DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE CLEARING LIMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 4. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. ADDITIONAL MEASURES, SUCH AS CONSTRUCTED WHEEL WASH SYSTEMS OR WASH PADS, MAY BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN AND TRACK OUT TO ROAD RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT OCCUR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. 5. THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN MUST BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL CLEARING AND GRADING SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT TO SURFACE WATERS, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES IS MINIMIZED. 6. THE ESC FACILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THESE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE UPGRADED AS NEEDED FOR UNEXPECTED STORM EVENTS AND MODIFIED TO ACCOUNT FOR CHANGING SITE CONDITIONS (E.G. ADDITIONAL COVER MEASURES, ADDITIONAL SUMP PUMPS, RELOCATION OF DITCHES AND SILT FENCES, PERIMETER PROTECTION ETC.). 7. THE ESC FACILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY THE APPLICANT/ESC SUPERVISOR AND MAINTAINED TO ENSURE CONTINUED PROPER FUNCTIONING. WRITTEN RECORDS SHALL BE KEPT OF WEEKLY REVIEWS OF THE ESC FACILITIES. 8. ANY AREAS OF EXPOSED SOILS, INCLUDING ROADWAY EMBANKMENTS, THAT WILL NOT BE DISTURBED FOR TWO DAYS DURING THE WET SEASON OR SEVEN DAYS DURING THE DRY SEASON SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY STABILIZED WITH THE APPROVED ESC COVER METHODS (E.G., SEEDING, MULCHING, PLASTIC COVERING, ETC.). 9. ANY AREA NEEDING ESC MEASURES, NOT REQUIRING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, SHALL BE ADDRESSED WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS. 10. THE ESC FACILITIES ON INACTIVE SITES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED A MINIMUM OF ONCE A MONTH OR WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A STORM EVENT. 11. AT NO TIME SHALL MORE THAN ONE (1) FOOT OF SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE WITHIN A CATCH BASIN. ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING. THE CLEANING OPERATION SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM. 12. ANY PERMANENT RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITY USED AS A TEMPORARY SETTLING BASIN SHALL 8E MODIFIED WITH THE NECESSARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE STORAGE CAPACITY. IF THE PERMANENT FACILITY IS TO FUNCTION ULTIMATELY AS AN INFILTRATION SYSTEM, THE TEMPORARY FACILITY MUST BE ROUGH GRADED SO THAT THE BOTTOM AND SIDES ARE AT LEAST THREE FEET ABOVE THE FINAL GRADE OF THE PERMANENT FACILITY. ' 13. COVER MEASURES WILL BE APPLIED IN CONFORMANCE WITH APPENDIX D OF THE SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL. 14. PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON (OCT. 1), ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE REVIEWED TO IDENTIFY WHICH ONES CAN BE SEEDED IN PREPARATION FOR THE WINTER RAINS. DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON. A SKETCH MAP OF THOSE AREAS TO BE SEEDED AND THOSE AREAS TO REMAIN UNCOVERED SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DDES INSPECTOR FOR REVIEW. WET SEASCtN SPECIAL PROM OCTOWR 1ST THRO" AML 30TH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS FOR WET SEASON CONSTRUCTION ARE DETAILED IN THE REFERENCED SECTIONS. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE LISTED HERE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE DESIGNER AND THE REVIEWER. 1. THE ALLOWED TIME THAT A DISTURBED AREA MAY REMAIN UNWORKED WITHOUT COVER MEASURES IS REDUCED TO TWO CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS, RATHER THAN SEVEN (SECTION D.3.2). 2. STOCKPILES AND STEEP CUT AND FILL SLOPES ARE TO BE PROTECTED IF UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS (SECTION D.3.2). 3. COVER MATERIALS SUFFICIENT TO COVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STOCKPILED ON SITE (SECTION D.3.2). 4. ALL AREAS THAT ARE TO BE UNWORKED DURING THE WET SEASON SHALL BE SEEDED WITHIN ONE WEEK OF THE BEGINNING OF THE WET SEASON (SECTION D.3.2.5). 5. MULCH IS REQUIRED TO PROTECT ALL SEEDED AREAS (SECTION D.3.2.1). 6. FIFTY LINEAR FEET OF SILT FENCE (AND THE NECESSARY STAKES) PER ACRE OF DISTURBANCE MUST BE STOCKPILED ON SITE (SECTION D.3.3.1). 7. CONSTRUCTION ROAD AND PARKING LOT STABILIZATION ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL SITES UNLESS THE SITE IS UNDERLAIN BY COARSE -GRAINED SOIL (SECTION D.3.4.2). 8. SEDIMENT RETENTION IS REQUIRED UNLESS NO OFFSITE DISCHARGE IS ANTICIPATED FOR THE SPECFIED DESIGN FLOW (SECTION D.3.5). 9. SURFACE WATER CONTROLS ARE REQUIRED UNLESS NO OFFSITE DISCHARGE IS ANTICIPATED FOR THE SPECIFIED DESIGN FLOW (SECTION D.3.6). 10. PHASING AND MORE CONSERVATIVE BMPS MUST BE EVALUATED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY NEAR SURFACE WATERS (SECTION D.5.3). 11.ANY RUNOFF GENERATED BY DEWATERING MAY BE REQUIRED TO DISCHARGE TO THE SANITARY SEWER (WITH APPROPRIATE DISCHARGE AUTHORIZATION), PORTABLE SAND FILTER SYSTEMS, OR HOLDING TANKS. 12. THE FREQUENCY OF MAINTENANCE REVIEW INCREASES FROM MONTHLY TO WEEKLY (SECTION D.5.4). TESL NOTE 1. FROM OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH APRIL 30TH, NO SOILS SHALL BE EXPOSED FOR MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE WORKING DAYS. ALSO THIS TWO-DAY REQUIREMENT MAY BE APPLIED AT OTHER TIMES OF THE YEAR IF STORM EVENTS WARRANT MORE CONSERVATIVE MEASURES. 2. EXPOSED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF THE WORKDAY PRIOR TO A WEEKEND, HOLIDAY, OR PREDICTED RAIN EVENT. 3. MULCH SHALL MEET WITH THE MULCH STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN D.3.2.2 OF SWDM. 4. HYDROSEEDING SHALL MEET WITH THE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES IN D.3.2.6 OF SWDM. 5. WATER WILL BE USED FOR DUST CONTROL PER D.3.8 OF SWDM. 6. SILT FENCE SHALL BE STANDARD STRENGTH WIRE BACKED SILT FENCE OR APPROVED EQUAL. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING. 2. POST SIGN WITH NAME AND PHONE NUMBER OF ESC SUPERVISOR (MAY BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE REQUIRED NOTICE OF CONSTRUCTION SIGN). 3. FLAG OR FENCE CLEARING LIMITS. 4. INSTALL CATCH BASIN PROTECTION IF REQUIRED. 5. GRADE AND INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE(S). 6. INSTALL PERIMETER PROTECTION (SILT FENCE, BRUSH BARRIER, ETC.). 7. CONSTRUCT SURFACE WATER CONTROLS (INTERCEPTOR DIKES, PIPE SLOPE DRAINS, ETC.) SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH CLEARING AND GRADING FOR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. 8. GRADE AND STABILIZE CONSTRUCTION ROADS. 9. MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH KING COUNTY STANDARDS AND MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 10. RELOCATE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES OR INSTALL NEW MEASURES SO THAT AS SITE CONDITIONS CHANGE THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL IS ALWAYS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE KING COUNTY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL STANDARDS. 11. COVER ALL AREAS THAT WILL BE UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS DURING THE DRY SEASON OR TWO DAYS DURING THE WET SEASON WITH STRAW, WOOD FIBER MULCH, COMPOST, PLASTIC SHEETING OR EQUIVALENT. 12. STABILIZE ALL AREAS THAT REACH FINAL GRADE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. 13. SEED OR SOD ANY AREAS TO REMAIN UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN 30 DAYS. 14. UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, ALL DISTURBED AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AND BMPS REMOVED IF APPROPRIATE. 01, TOWNSHIP 21 N., RANG JOINTS IN FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE SPLICED AT POSTS. USE STAPLES, WIRE RINGS, OR EQUIVALENT TO ATTACH FABRIC TO POSTS. 00 0) 00 00 >� O 00 Q < N 0 0 QT oc U co .. oo W U oo 0 00 P to w Z QOoxomU .. ' -. W �UJ.,, a LL W a �J u • r-I • r-j . � bb U U PROJECT NO.: 11048 DRAWN BY: ENM ISSUE DATE: 01-30-2012 SHEET REV.: TESC PLAN 11048te01.dwg SHEET 2 OF 2 REVISIONS: A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 01, TOWNSHIP 21 N. RANGE 3 E. W.M. VERTICAL DATUM v SHEET INDEX - NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 NGVD29 (CITY OF FEDERAL WAY). C01 DRAINAGE PLAN ; DUMAS BAY/ lr ,_� CO2 TESC PLAN BENCHMARKS PUGET SOUND�i BASE: / CITY OF FEDERAL WAY BENCHMARK #2168-5-1, RAMSET ON EAST EDGE OF TELEPHONE PEDESTAL PAD AT THE ♦' + NORTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH 336TH STREET AND PACIFIC HIGHWAY SOUTH. EX. TERRACED YARD WITH ELEVATION: 346.81 FEET. ♦ 25% TO 50% SLOPE AREAS tl + ♦ �t SET REBAR AND CAP, 8.7' NORTHEAST OF YARD LIGHT, 5.5' EAST OF PUMP STYLE FAUCET, 3.7' SOUTHEAST OF o STORM CLEANOUT. 31 ; " ^ ELEVATION: 51.49 FEET. Ot; ♦ i' . i J c �� BASIS OF BEARINGS TRUE NORTH. BASED UPON GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) LAMBERT GRID WASHINGTON STATE NORTH ZONE a COORDINATES. A CONVERGENCE ANGLE OF 1 07 7 59 9 COUNTERCLOCKWISE WAS APPLIED AT A PK NAIL IN u EX. ROCKERY /� ` I ► { f 1 I CONCRETE, 0.5' BELOW SURFACE. TO REMAIN THE MONUMENT IS THE SOUTHEAST SECTION CORNER FOR SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF ♦ w I / \ t1 i THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN. THE NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, 1991 ADJUSTMENT, (NAD 83/91) GRID ♦ r i \ ` \ i t t COORDINATES WERE FOUND TO BE 123959.237 / 1262933.898 AT THAT POINT. THE INVERSE OF BOTH A SEA LEVEL CORRECTION FACTOR DETERMINED FROM THE MEAN ELLIPSOID CONTROL ELEVATION OF 215.8 FEET OF t 0.999989672 AND THE GRID SCALE FACTOR OF 1.000036142 WAS APPLIED TO THE GRID COORDINATES FOR m`t ' \y'•�I\ F 1�' 12 SHOWN GROUND DISTANCES. rlco �-9 \' NEW WALKWAY \\ 74 WITH STEPS LEGAL DESCRIPTION 1 ' BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SEC nON 1, TOWNSHIP 21 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, WILLAMETTE 40.\00` ✓ , MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SAID POINT BEING 208.44 FEET WEST OF SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEW 3 TO 4 HIGH Calculated location ROCK WALL, TYP. of stone monument per GOVERNMENT LOT 4 IN SAID SECTION; ROS 9903019002 RUNNING THENCE NORTH 32'06' WEST 474.66 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GEORGIAN ♦ ( i t r t \ ,1 AVENUE IN THE PLAT OF LAKOTA PROJECTED SOUTHWESTERLY, THENCE SOUTH 57 54 30 WEST 50 FEET TO THE TRUE .POINT OF BEGINNING OF PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THIS � �l I � � J � ♦ , ;> EEC. coNc ,, � CONVEYANCE; THENCE NORTH 32 06 WEST- 770.04 FEET. MORE OR LESS, TO GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE; STEPS j f +' } THENCE FOLLOWING SAID GOVERNMENT MEANDER LINE IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION 119.61 FEET; { \\ ♦ THENCE SOUTH 37.09'20" EAST 684.49 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF GEORGIAN AVENUE AFORESAID PROJECTED EX. ROCKERY = ♦ SOUTHWESTERLY, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 19.13 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 20 0 10 20 40 2 TO BE ALTERED 42.00 ALSO TIDELANDS OF SECOND CLASS ABUTTING UPON THE MEANDER LINE OF AFOREDESCRIBED TRACT. 3 }� ! 38.00� i 'NEW' ; DcK� \ ��� SURVEYOR'S NOTES -�-. � I I \-� GRAPHIC SCALE ,- Poopp�.____ ` ., 10 1, THE MONUMENT CONTROL SHOWN FOR THIS SITE WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY FIELD TRAVERSE UTILIZING A ONE (1) SECOND THEODOLITE WITH INTEGRAL ELECTRONIC DISTANCE MEASURING METER (GEODIMETER 600) AND \ FR>t �b REAL TIME KINEMATIC (RTK) / STATIC GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS). LINEAR AND ANGULAR CLOSURE 3 \� OF THE TRAVERSES MEET THE STANDARDS OF VVAC 332-130-090. 00 p'y '� 10 2. UTILITIES OTHER THAN THOSE SHOWN MAY EXIS`7 ON THIS SITE. ONLY THOSE WHICH ARE VISIBLE OR HAVING \ - ��' '� ♦. VISIBLE EVIDENCE OF THEIR INSTALLATION ARE SHOWN HEREON. EX. ROCKEY -� '; / ' �,F'�FF ��� \� �_ 3. THIS SURVEY REPRESENTS PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED OCTOBER 12, 2006, THE El I TYPE i CB DATE OF THIS FIELD SURVEY. W/ SOLID LOCKING LID i p� F 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PROVIDED BY CLIENT. NO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED. � O F�p� �� RIM=9.50 , 36.,00 I �P�� ���' ; 9 5. OFFSET DIMENSIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO PROPERTY LINES. INV=6.00 't. �'�P�' 6. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS SURVEY TO SHOW ALL EASEMENTS OR RESERVATIONS FOR THIS SITE. t ,i `� ♦ rll EX. CONC COURT YARD 2 TYPE 1 CB 4 1 9 %, 49.00 TO BE REMOVED AND W/ SOLID LOCKING LID 17 4 46.83� REPLACED WITH NEW SITE INFORMATION GROUND COVER RIM=9.50 Z ' " INV= 6.00 45.00 �:. NEW CONC. WALK SITE ADDRESS: 3124 SW 302ND PLACE =� I ''� ♦ �� z 5 �. NEW STEPS FEDERAL WAY, WA ♦, ❑3 YARD DRAIN NEW STEPS_ ��f HEAT PUMP PARCEL NUMBER: 012109058 RIM-9.40 � 0 INV=6.26 I '` ` ��,pF�9 l SEWER GRINDER PUMP LOT SIZE: 37,496 SF ❑4 YARD DRAIN ';; !' NEW CONC DRIVEWAY j I 5 lI EX. ROCKERY TO BE REMOVED IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY RIM=35.80 / INV=31.40 I O 14LF 6" PERF. PVC ®S=0.009a 8 49.00 TOTAL NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA: 4,584 SF ❑5 YARD DRAIN W/ 4' WIDE DISPERSAL TRENCH ` ? = EX. WEEP HOLES ALONG THE I >l �` ' ,�F TOTAL NEW POLLUTION GENERATING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 1,941 SF RIM 35.40 � � I ,�� INV=31.98 BULKHEAD WALL ARE AT 8'f O.C. 6 % c CORE ' GRILL ADDITIONAL NEW WEEP 6 " 7 soya ♦ EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA TO REMAIN: 2,614 SF HOLES ❑ YARD DRAIN AND INSTALL 4" PVC PIPES IN 0 �_ THE HOLES WITHIN THE LENGTH OF ;� s � �F ` TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA: 7,198 SF RIM=48.00 THE DISPERSAL TRENCH (14LF), S0 ` INV=46.50 (4") / 7 NEW 1.25" HDPE SEWER INV=44.50 (6") THAT WEEP HOLES ARE AT 1.5 f O.C. \ - 50.00' ' FORCEMAIN CONNECTION 13LF 6" PVC ® S=2.0090 1 / { ❑7 YARD DRAIN Site benchmark N ASPHALT PAVEMENT RIM_ 50.00 O3 74LF 6" PVC ® S=33.9790 Set eb & c a p Elevation: r 51.49 .49 feet MATCH EX. GRADE 7.. 8 TRENCH DRAIN 4 O 29LF 6" PVC ® S=2.00Y RIM=48.00f INV=47.00f (NE) INV=46.60f (SW) O 40LF 6" PVC ® S=31.307. 9 TRENCH DRAIN O6 19LF 6 PVC ® S-13.1690 RIM 43.90 N, t , INV=43.40 (SW) INV=42.90 NE ( ) O7 22LF 6" PVC 0 S=2.00� � x\, F110 61 YARD DRAIN O 4LF 4" PVC ® S=2.507 RIM=43.90 ,� J INV=43.30 (4") INV=40.90 (6") O 3LF 4" PVC 0S=3.33% 11 YARD DRAIN 10 59LF 6" PVC ® S=3.639' RIM=42.00 INV=38.76 11 38LF 6" PVC 0S=2.007 12 YARD GRAIN RIM=42.00 INV=38.00 12 58LF 6" PVC ® S=55.1790 UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT D> �T sue" s sF ♦ ♦ ♦ 4' 2' " 6 EX. 4" CLAY WEEP PIPES AT 8'f O.C. ° . . CORE DRILL ADDITIONAL NEW WEEP 3' HOLES AND INSTALL 4 PVC PIPES IN THE HOLES WITHIN THE LENGTH OF THE DISPERSAL TRENCH (14 LF) S0 a° THAT THE WEEP HOLES ARE AT 1.5'f 4'-5' O.C. 1' MIN. ee SEA LEAVEL a 6" PERF. PVC TO 1 Y2" CLEAN CRUSHED ROCK FILTER FABRIC RESUBMITTED DISPERSAL. TRENCH DETAIL FEB 14 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ODS U7 ONO T- oo >� O 00 Q� 0 00WU co c� 00 �- 0 LD c')�Z QO Q x 0 MU o O w ����� a- �n V �J U y� n O .�U W U� Z 0 0 U a a C) Z co � ^ co w ``z Y Q N O Z �S} co Q 4: Q�� W lL m 0 PROJECT NO.: 11048 DRAWN BY: ENM ISSUE DATE: 01-30-2012 SHEET REV.: 02-08-2012 DRAINAGE PLAN 11048cv01.dwg SHEET 1 OF 2 0 cC� � Co O m Q io N�N C U C N .0 J "' co 4 Co m (D a) F- a T6 � O O C U7 J C COO._ ca +• n �c co v ._ a a) C C C +='cu'� 2 a) . 8 o Q C�-0moo 15 > C0 O CCoo �2-cc "c0 0 -0) C � ��� - m e 'ED 8N a `CZ. 0 <d o oF- P L A N T S C H E D U L E Qty. Symbol Botanical f Common Name Size/Remarks S H R U B S/ G R 0 U N D C 0 V E R S 95 Mahonia repens/ CREEPING MAHONIA 1 gal. 1 Nandina d. `Sienna Sunrise'/ HEAVENLY BAMBOO min. 24" hgt. 7 Pinus mugo `Pumillo / DWARF MUGHO PINE min. 18" spr. 16 Polystichum munitum / SWORD FERN min. 5 fronds @ 12" o.c. 5 Ribes s. `King Edward VII'/ FLWG. CURRANT min. 24" spr., hgt. 12 Vaccinium ovatum/ EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY min. 18" spr. as needed � Arctostaphylos `Massachusetts'/ KINNICKINNICK 1 gal. at 24" o.c. tri—spacing as needed goF—bt Gaultheria shallon/ SALAL 1 gal. at 24" o.c. tri—spacing * Plant sizes are specified per the American Standard for Nursery Stock, Publication -- May 2, 1986 sponsored by the American Association of Nurserymen, Inc. * If plant quantity shown on schedule conflicts with what is represented by symbol on Plan, the quantity represented by symbol shall be used. GENERAL NOTES: * Coordinate work with other trades as required. Determine location of underground utilities and perform work in a manner which will avoid possible damage. Coordinate with Utilities Underground Location Center and Owner for locations of existing underground utilities, etc. servicing or routed through the site. * Provide protection of all property, persons, work in progress, structures, utilities, walls, walks, curbs and paved surfaces from damages incurred arising from this work. The Contractor shall pay for any such damage at no additional cost to the Owner. * During construction, keep pavements, building clean. Protect site and adjacent properties from damage due to construction operations, operations by other Contractors/trades and trespassers. Unfinished and completed work shall be protected from damage by erosion or trespassing, and proper safeguards shall be erected to protect the Public. * Staking and Layout: Immediately notify Landscape Architect in writing of any variance between plans and actual site. Landscape Architect has the right to adjust the location of elements. Verify layout with Landscape Architect prior to any installation work. * Verify installation conditions as satisfactory to receive work. Do not install any site elements until any unsatisfactory conditions are corrected. Beginning of work constitutes acceptance of conditions as satisfactory. When conditions detrimental to plant growth /con tru cted elements, are encountered such as rubble fill, adverse conditions, or obstructions, notify Landscape Architect. PL, NN]ING NOTES• 1. Planting soil for shrubs/groundcovers shall be deemed as new topsoil/compost cultivated into existing prepared subgrade. See Details. 2. Soil Preparation: Planting Beds; Determine/ attain shrub bed subgrade and cultivate to a minimum depth of eight inches (8'), clean/ remove all rocks, roots, debris over two inches in diameter. Lay a three inch (3') depth of Compost over entire bed and till again to a minimum depth of eight inches (8") to incorporate Compost thoroughly into grade. 3. Fertilize all installed plants during backflll operations with 4-2-2 Agra Transplanter as recommended by Manufacturer. 4. Substitutions or changes in materials and placement shall be made only on the written change orders as agreed between Contractor, Landscape Architect and Owner. 5. Mulch all beds with a minimum 2 inch (2") depth of approved 'mulch'. Finish grade of mulch shall be 1' below adjacent hard surfaces. 6. The Landscape Architect retains the right to inspect trees, shrubs and groundcover for compliance with requirements for plant size and quality at any time. This includes but is not limited to size and condition of rootballs, root systems, insects, latent injuries and defects. Remove rejected material immediately from project site. 7. Substitutions or changes in materials and placement shall be made only on the written change orders as agreed between Contractor, Landscape Architect, Owner and City, of Federal Way. 8. Maintenance: Provide landscape maintenance immediately after planting and pruning, resetting of plants, restoring eroded areas, adjustments to staking and removal of weeds/debris as required for healthy growth of plants. Maintain until Final Acceptance, but in no case less than 30 days. B&B OR CONTAENERIZED SHRUB, TYP SET ALL PLANTS AT NURSERY LEVEL MIN 2"-3" OF MULCH ( PER SPECS) SHRUB BED SOIL PREPARATION DEPTH ( SEE SPECS) FINISH GRADE I DEPTH PER SPECS -= REMOVE CONTAINER ROOTBALL DEPTH COMPLETELY OR REMOVE BURLAP, WIRE & STRING FROM TOP 213 OF ROOTBALL AMENDED BACKFILL ROOTBALL + 17 (MIN I UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE ( PROVIDES FIRM BASE SO THAT OR 3 TIMES WIDTH OF ROOTBALL ROOTBALL WILL NOT SINK) SHRUB PLANTING NOT TO SCALE F'tK LANUSUAFt TYPICAL SPACING PLAN �1 GROUND COVER PLANTING NOT TO SCALE Existing Lawn Blend New Lawn Area -- into Exist. Lawn Area Edge of Existing ---- Salal/ Ivy Groundcover JUTE FABRIC UNDERNEATH BARK MULCH ON SLOPES OVER 2:1 MIN 2-MULCH ( PER SPECS) FINISH GRADE TYPICAL GROUND COVER PLANTED AT NURSERY LEVEL PREPARED NATIVE SOIL SCARIFIED SUBGRADE ( SEE SPECS) It GENERAL SLOPE PLANTING 3 NOT TO SCALE Edg# of Existing Sal I/ Ivy Groundcover lal/ IVv G of Exi ofe Areas Di rl renchinqJSalal k Stairs 3' E 'clean' Crushed fed Barrier Fabric. SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0" :SUBMITTED FEB 14 2012 North CITY OF FEDERAL WAY ODS W U Z M W N 0 � � � (D rn 3: Q M � = O (n N CU M 70 m Glenn Takagi Landscape Architect 18550 Firlands Way N. Suite #102 Shoreline, WA 98133 (206) 542-6100 FAX: (206) 546-1128 Project No.: Drawn: GT Checked: GT Drawing Issue: 01.30.2012 Revisions: Sheet L 1 Of 1