Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15-100467, 14-102384
1 HanmiGlobal Partner 808 sw third avenue, suite 300 1 portland, oregon 97204 503.287.6825 1 fax 503.415.2304 www.otak.com October 21, 2015 Becky Chapin, Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 81h Avenue. South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Re: Piekhotin Stream Assessment Project (15-100467-00 AD) PSA Amendment No. 1 Otak Project No. 32285—Invoice for Professional Services Dear Becky: Our invoice for work performed on the Piekhotin Stream Assessment project is attached. This letter summarizes the work performed through October 9, 2015. Work conducted during this billing period included in this invoice was for the following: • Review and evaluate Recommended Actions documentation (Habitat Technologies; July 23, 2015) for Piekhotin parcel. • Conduct site visit to assess existing conditions. • Evaluate presence of critical areas and disturbance regime. • Review City of Federal Way Revised Code for environmentally critical areas criteria and requirements for unauthorized alterations and enforcement. • Prepare and submit memo evaluating Recommended Actions documentation and identifying additional information required for compliance with City of Federal Way Revised Code. • Project management and communications. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 739-7975. Thank you. Sincerely, Otak, Incorporated for Kevin O'Brien Project Manager KO:ty Enclosure integrated design = smart solutions Technical Memorandum To: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner, City of Federal Way From: Jeff Gray, Senior Wetland Biologist 11241Willows Road NE Kevin O'Brien, Senior Wildlife Biologist Suite 200 Copies: File Redmond, WA 98052 Phone (425) 8224446 Date: Octboer 12, 2015 Fax (425) 827-9577 Subject: Piekhotin — Stream Assessment XXX SW 297`' Street, Lot 9 Parcel #720531-0090 Project No.: 32285.B Summary On behalf of the City of Federal Way (City), Otak, Inc. biologists reviewed the document Recommended Actions, prepared by Habitat Technologies, in response to the City -issued Order to Cease Activity for clearing and grading activities conducted without a permit on the subject property and adjacent properties. A site visit to the subject property was conducted September 15, 2015 to assess the existing site conditions in comparison to the information and recommended actions provided in Habitat Technologies' report. This memorandum presents our findings regarding conformance with the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145 (Environmentally Critical Areas), identifies additional information that needs to be requested, and includes a statement about concurrence with Habitat Technologies' recommended actions. In summary, the Recommended Actions document from Habitat Technologies lacks information required to accurately assess the amount and type of impacts, and relatedly, assess the feasibility and adequacy of the proposed actions to restore the impacts onsite. Otak does not concur with the recommended actions due to the plan's lack of conformance with the restoration plan report requirements listed at FWRC 19.145.060 (Unauthorized alterations and enforcement) and FWRC 19.145.140 (Mitigation pan requirements). In addition to rectifying unauthorized activities, recommended actions are intended to document the impacts and associated restoration accurately. Federal Way Revised Code Review and Additional Information Request Per FWRC 19.145.060 (Unauthorized alterations and enforcement), a restoration plan must be prepared and submitted that meets the minimum requirements as described in subsection (2)(a) for unauthorized alterations to wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. The minimum Performance standards for the restoration of these critical areas include [FWRC 19.145.060(2)(a)]: (i) The historic structural and functional values shall be restored, including water quality and habitat functions; Becky Chapin, Associate Planner, City ofFederal Way Page 2 X X SW 297`h Street, Lot 9, Piekhotin — Stream Assessment September29, 2015 (ii) The historic soil types and configuration shall be replicated; (iii) The critical areas and buffers shall be replanted with native vegetation that replicates the vegetation historically found on the site in species types, sizes, and densities. The historic functions and values should be replicated at the location of the alteration; and (iv) Information demonstrating compliance with FWRC 19.145.140 (Mitigation plan requirements) shall be submitted to the director. The restoration plan must clarify the habitat conditions that existed at the site prior to the unauthorized clearing and culvert installation. A wetlands and streams delineation report should be submitted that also includes stream and buffer width determinations to show conformance with Article III (Fish and Wildlife Conservation Areas) of FWRC Chapter 19.145. Once these boundaries have been established, the limits of unpermitted clearing and culvert installation can be overlaid to determine the extent to which these activities occurred within the regulated critical areas. A site plan or similar graphics should be submitted that shows the boundaries of regulated areas, and the extent of the activities within these areas. The restoration plan should also include a specific planting plan based on the resources that were impacted. It was evident during the site visit that trees and shrubs had been cleared to access the drainage for installation of the culvert, and areas had recently been graded to support the culvert. Two culverts were observed — the restoration plan should state whether these existed prior to the violation or if they were permitted previously. A second culvert that parallels the driveway is not addressed in the report, and it was not clear if this culvert was installed prior to or concurrently with the recent clearing and grading activities. Per FWRC 19.145.140 (Mitigation plan requirements), the restoration plan should include details about performance standards and a monitoring program. The performance standards should identify specific measurable criteria for evaluating whether the goals and objectives of the restoration project have been successfully attained. The monitoring program should identify a monitoring and reporting schedule, include a description of the methods, and assess whether the performance standards are being met. Summary of Additional Information Requested The following is a summary of additional information that is being requested to assess conformance with FWRC Chapter 19.145: • Critical Areas Report that addresses habitat conditions on site prior to the disturbance, including: wetlands, wetland buffers, streams, and stream buffers; • A more detailed description of the conditions onsite prior to the culvert installation and clearing/grading activities that acknowledges the existing utilities and shows their locations and extent; Becky Chapin, Associate Planner, City of Federal Way Page 3 SW 297`' Street, Lot 9, Piekhodn — Stream Assessment September 29, 2015 • A project description or similar statement about what actions were performed on site and when; • A description of impacts to critical area and/or buffer conditions, functions, and values • that resulted from the actions performed on the property • A quantitative impacts assessment that addresses the amount (area) of regulated critical areas that were impacted by the recent actions; • A restoration plan that identifies proposed actions to restore the disturbed areas that are regulated under FWRC Chapter 19.145; • A planting plan that specifies plant species, quantities, locations, sizes, spacing, and density that is based on restoring the site to pre -disturbance existing conditions; • A monitoring and reporting plan that addresses performance standards, monitoring methods, and a reporting schedule to evaluate the success of the restoration effort; and, ■ An As Built Report that includes photo documentation and a description of the restoration actions. CITY OF Federal Way STREAM CONSULTANT DIRECT SERVICES AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: August 13, 2015 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Kevin O'Brien, Seniot Associate Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Project: Piekhotin — Stream Assessment XXX SW 2971" Street, Lot 9 Parcel #720531-0090 File No.: 15-100467-00-AD Project Proponent: Vitaliy Piekhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 253-332-6564 Otak, Inc. AUG 14 2015 RECEIVED Project Planner: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner becicv.chapin c citYoffederalway.com, 253-835-2641 Project Background: In August 2014, the City issued an Order to Cease Activity for clearing and grading activities without a permit on the subject property and adjacent properties. This request originally was sent to Otak as a Direct Service Program. However, the applicant has decided to hire their own stream biologist (I Iabitat Technologies) to provide recommended actions and mitigation for the unauthorized work. The scope of work for Otak is to provide peer review of the submitted report. Documents + Recommended Actions, prepared by Habitat Technologies, July 23, 2015 Provided: Task Scope: 1. Review submitted documents for conformance to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, `Environlnentally Critical Areas," especially FWRC Article 111. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and 19.145.060, Unauthorized alterations. Note: the city's critical areas code has recently been updated. 2. Provide a memorandum identifying additional information requested as necessary. 3. Conduct site visit as necessary. 4. Provide written response as to whether or not Otak concurs with Habitat Technologies' recommended actions. Doc [ D 70470 15.100467 AN� clTY OF Federal Way STREAM CONSULTANT DIRECT SERVICES AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: August 13, 2015 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Kevin O'Brien, Senio: Associate Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Project: Piekhotin — Stream Assessment XXX SW 2971" Street, Lot 9 Parcel #720531-0090 File No.: 15-100467-00-AD Project Proponent: Vitaliy Piekhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 253-332-6564 Otak, Inc. AUG 18 2015 RECEIVED Project Planner: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner beck .cha ii1 ci offederalway.corn, 253-835-2641 Project Background: In August 2014, the City issued an Order to Cease Activity for clearing and grading activities without a permit on the subject property and adjacent properties. This request originally was sent to Otak as a Direct Service Program. However, the applicant has decided to hire their own stream biologist (Ilabitat Technologies) to provide recommended actions and mitigation for the unauthorized work. The scope of work for Otak is to provide peer review of the submitted report. Documents m Recommended Actions, prepared by Habitat Technologies, July 23, 2015 Provided: Task Scope: 1. Review submitted documents for conformance to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, `Environmentally Critical Areas," especially FWRC Article III. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and 19.145.060, Unauthorized alterations. Note: the city's critical areas code has recently been updated. 2. Provide a memorandum identifying additional information requested as necessary. 3. Conduct site visit as necessary. 4. Provide written response as to whether or not Otak concurs with Habitat Technologies' recommended actions. Doc [ D 70470 15-100467 ,N� CITY OF Federal Way STREAM CONSULTANT DIRECT SERVICES AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: August 13, 2015 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Kevin O'Brien, Senior Associate Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Project: Piekhotin — Stream Assessment XXX SW 2971" Street, Lot 9 Parcel #720531-0090 File No.: 15-100467-00-AD Project Proponent: Vitaiiy Piekhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 2536-332-6564 Qtak, Inc. AUG 19 2015 RECEIVED Project Planner: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner hecky chanin(a eit offederal —a-y com, 253-835-2641 Project Background: In August 2014, the City issued an Order to Cease Activity for clearing and grading activities without a permit on the subject property and adjacent properties. This request originally was sent to Otak as a Direct Service Program. However, the applicant has decided to hire their own stream biologist (l labitat 'Technologies) to provide recommended actions and mitigation for the unauthorized work. The scope of work for Otak is to provide peer review of the submitted report. Documents a Recommended Actions, prepared by Habitat'rechnologies, July 23, 2015 Provided: Task Scope: 1. Review submitted documents for conformance to Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Chapter 19.145, `Environmentally Critical Areas," especially FWRC Article 1I1. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and 19,145.060, Unauthorized alterations. Note: the city's critical areas code has recently been updated. 2. Provide a memorandum identifying additional information requested as necessary. 3. Conduct site visit as necessary. 4. Provide written response as to whether or not Otak concurs with Habitat Technologies' recommended actions. Doc t D 70470 15-100467 Task Cost: Not to exceed $ without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: City of F far) Consultant (Otak) *4py o p p *j) Project Proponent (Vitally Piekhotin) Date Date WI31I1--76/s Doe IV 70470 I5-100467 FILE August 28, 2015 Vitaliy and Irina Piekhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 Jim Ferrell, Mayor RE: File #15-100467-00-AD; STREAM CONSULTANT PEER REVIEW ESTIMATE Piekhotin Stream Mitigation, *No Site Address*, Federal Way Dear Mr. and Mrs. Piekhotin: Please find the enclosed Stream Consultant Task Authorization form provided by the City and Otak for review of the submitted Recommended Actions report, prepared by Habitat Technologies. The normal course of action for the City is to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and draw down by the work performed by Otak. Please note: any funds that are not used will be returned to you. At this point, please review the proposed work description. Payment in the amount of $1,250.00 (check must be payable to the City of Federal Way) and your signature on the City's `Stream Consultant Authorization Form' must be submitted to the City's Permit Center. Following receipt, I will authorize Otak to begin their review. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your project, please contact me at 253-835-2641 or becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Becky Cha n Associate Planner enc: Strearn Consultant Authorization Form City of Federal Way Invoice Doc, I.D. 70479 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 - www.cityoffederalway.com Becky Chapin From: Isaac Conlen Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 5:16 PM To: vipcarsl@yahoo.com' Cc: Becky Chapin Subject: FW: Permit Update.14-101754 Attachments: Re: Automatic reply: Permit Update.14-101754; Permit Update Hi Vital iy, Becky forwarded your email to me. I see you are frustrated. I get the permitting process can be tedious. I wanted to remind you of several points. First, the fact that you are being required to submit a wetland/stream report and to pay for our third party consultant to review the work is entirely the result of your own actions in conducting unauthorized and unpermitted work in this critical area. If you had followed the rules none of us would be wasting our time dealing with this issue. Because we are dealing with this issue, other applicants who have followed the rules, are delayed to the extent our resources are directed towards this issue. Second, it's been about one month since you got us the report. That is not an unreasonable amount of time, given our high work load, to review the report and forward it to our consultant (who then needs to review the report and prepare a cost estimate). Further, we have been waiting many months since we informed you that you needed to submit the report to the City. Your delay in getting the report to us is by far the most significant factor in the time it is taking to work through this process. My point in reminding you of these things is it doesn't seem that you are taking any responsibility for this situation. That being said, I've asked Becky to follow up with our consultant on getting the cost estimate. We'll let you know as soon as we hear back. I want to get this resolved as well so my staff can focus on the many other projects we need to review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Isaac Conlen Planning Manager 253 835 2643 From: Becky Chapin Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 4:54 PM To: Isaac Conlen Subject: FW: Permit Update.14-101754 From: John [E!ai[tg.Lv-ipcarsl@yahoo.co Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 5:52 PM To: Becky Chapin Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Permit Update.14-101754 i My additional question is:l need to stop this bs and to get forward or to get my money back!!!!! Sent from my iPhone On Aug 25, 2015, at 5:17 PM, Becky Chapin <Becky.Chapin @cityofFederalway.corn> wrote. - Hi Vitaliy, I did receive the Habitat Technology submitted to the City and it was sent to our third party consultant Otak for peer review. I should be receiving a cost estimate from Otak shortly, which will be forwarded to you for payment of the third party review. Once payment is received Otak will review the report, verify conditions, and provided a memo to the City. The recent report submitted by GeoResources seems to answer all Planning's questions regarding slope stability, but it is still being reviewing by the our structural engineering consultant. You will have to contact the Permit Center at 253-835-2607, or contact Scott Sproul, Building Official, directly at 253-835-26333 for a status update on the building permit application. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner <image001Jpg> 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.cltyoffederalway.com From: John [mailto:vipcarslC7yahao.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 1:39 PM To: Becky Chapin Cc: Isaac Conlen Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Permit Update.14-101754 Hi,Becky!Around a month ago my wife submitted for you a letter from biologist about restoring a lot,today I'm at city hall and they say :there is no records on that! 1!(((What's going on? Sent from my iPhone On Aug 21, 2015, at 6:20 PM, Becky Chapin <Becky.Chapin @cityoffederalway.com> wrote: Thank you for the email. I am currently out of the office and unable to respond at this time. I will be back in the office on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, and will get back to you as soon as I can. For immediate assistance please email or call Planning Manager Isaac Conlen, at isaac.conlen@cityoffederalvvay.com or 253-835-2643. Have a great day. Becky Chapin Associate Planner Becky Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Friday, August 14, 2015 10:11 AM To: 'kevin.obrien@otak.com' Subject: RE: Pieckhotin -- Stream Assessment Attachments: Piekhotin Peer Review.pdf, update #2-signed.pdf Hi Kevin, The applicant for the Piekhotin Stream Assessment decided not to move forward with the Direct Service Program and has decided to use his own stream biologist to prepare a stream mitigation plan. The City would like to utilize Otak for peer review of the submitted report, prepared by Habitat Technologies. I have included a task estimate/scope of work if you are able to provide the peer review. The original task estimate and report are being sent in the mail. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, I will be out of the office next week, returning August 25, 2015. If you have any question while I'm out please contact Planning Manager, Isaac Conlen, at 253-835-2643 or Isaac.conlen(o)dtyoffederalway com. Otherwise, the task estimate can wait until I get back. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Fax: 253-835-2609 www.c ityoffede ra I way._co m From: Shelby Petro [mailto:shelby.petro@otak.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:39 AM To: Becky Chapin Cc: Kevin O'Brien Subject: RE: Pieckhotin -- Stream Assessment Thank you, Becky. Attached to this email is the signed authorization form with not -to -exceed cost. I have also included a break -down of cost by task, should you require it. Please let us know when we have authorization to proceed with the work. Best, Shelby Shelby Petro, MESM I Wetland Scientist 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 o: 425.739.4202 1 c. 310.890.4124 1 f 503.415.2498 www.otak.com From: Becky Chapin [mailto:Beckki.Chapin city ffederalway.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:25 AM To: Shelby Petro Subject: RE: Pieckhotin -- Stream Assessment Hi Shelby, I've attached a PDF of the authorization form. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help with. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone:253-835-2641 Becky. C h api n t5cityoffederalway. com From: Shelby Petro [maifto:shelbypetro_Qtak.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:00 AM To: Becky Chapin Subject: Pieckhotin -- Stream Assessment Hi Becky, I have the cost put together, but I can't find a clean copy of the Authorization Form that you mailed to us. Could you possibly email me a PDF version? Thanks, Shelby w.mrc+r� axviner Shelby Petro, MESM I Wetland Scientist 11241 �Wtllows Road NE, Suite 200 1 Redmond, WA 98052 o:425.739.4202 1 c. 310.890.4124 1 f 503.415.2498 �b:Oby.petwOa Qt2k.com w-ww.otak.com �� at Otak, we consider the environment before printing emails. Disclaimer: The information transmitted in this e-mail message and attachments, if any, may contain confidential material, and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. Distribution to, or review by, unauthorized persons is prohibited. In the event of the unauthorized use of any material in this transmission, neither Otak nor the sender shall have any liability and the recipient shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the sender, Otak and its principals, agents, employees and subconsultants from all related claims and damages. The recipient understands and agrees that any use or distribution of the material in this transmission is conditioned upon the acceptance of the terms stated in this disclaimer. If you have received this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender and permanently delete this transmission including attachments, if any. HABITAT TECHNOLOGIES July 23, 2015 RESUBMITTED Mr. Vitaliy Peickhotin e-mail vipcarsl@yahoo.com JUL 2 4 2015 RE: RECOMMENDED ACTIONS CITY OF FEDERAL WAY Parcel 7205310090; City of Federal Way CDS Dear Mr. Peickhotin, Following our discussions Habitat Technologies has completed an onsite assessment of existing site conditions (i.e. wetlands, surface water drainages, critical habitats) and prior aerial photos in an attempt to address issues raised by the City of Federal Way within file # 14-101024-000-00-VO. Review of Historical Aerial Photos A review of the historical aerial photos for Parcel 7205310090 (project site) has identified that the project site and adjacent parcels have been subject to a variety of urban land used for several years. The majority of the land uses have centered on the development of single family homesites within identified parcels. Additional land uses have included the management of vegetation for view considerations, the development of public and private driveways, the installation of public utilities, and the management of lawn and landscaping. A number of vacant parcels also appeared to have been managed for the control of invasive vegetation establishment prior to the development of homesites. Review of Existing Site Conditions The project site was steeply sloped, irregularly shaped, and vacant. The majority of the project site was dominated by dense thickets of blackberries (Rubus spp.). The project site sloped generally from south to north with an elevation of approximately 252 at the southern boundary and an elevation of approximately 175 along the northern boundary. Access to the southern portion of the project site was provided via SW 297th Street. Access to the northern portion of the project site was provided via 2"d Place SW. Existing sanitary sewer and drainage utility easements were present along the northern portion of the project site. Somewhat recent land use actions had removed vegetation and surface soil from the northern portion of the project site. The removed vegetation and soil appeared to have been relocated offsite to create a somewhat flat area to the north of the northern boundary of the project site. In addition, this action had included the placement of drainage culverts within a portion of a surface water drainage along the northeastern boundary of the project site. As viewed during the spring and early summer of 2015 the impacted area is becoming re-established with a variety of plant species. wetlands, streams, fisheries, wildlife — mitigation and permitting solutions 15010 P.O. Box 1088, Puyallup, Washington 98371 voice 253-845-5119 habitattech@gwestoffice.net RECOMMENDED ACTIONS As identified by existing site conditions, recommended actions appear best defined as an effort to restore the impacted areas back to their pre -impact conditions. Such recommended actions would include: The removal of the somewhat recently installed drainage culvert from a portion of a surface water drainage along the northeastern boundary of the project site. Such action would focus on the restoration of the physical character of the stream corridor and the control of adverse erosion. This removal action should be completed prior to September 1, 2015. This removal action should utilize hand -tools to minimize impacts to the area of the removed culverts. The area should be re -sloped to limit potential erosion. Following the re -sloping the area should be mulched with straw to help minimize potential erosion. The existing dump truck should be removed. Special care should also be taken to clean-up fluids that have leaked from the truck. Such removal should use hand tools to remove stained soils. All removed soils should be taken to an offsite location for proper disposal. The area of prior impact has become re-established with a variety of plant species. As such, additional planting does not appeared required at this time. Habitat Technologies would be available to coordinate with the team undertaking the recommended actions. In addition, Habitat Technologies would also be available to coordinate with the City of Federal Way staff and potentially other permitting agencies if required. Following your review of this letter please contact us with any questions. Thank you for allowing us to assist with your project resolution. Sincerely, -1howaf � 'DewMg Thomas D. Deming, PWS Habitat Technologies 2 15010 CITY OF q��A� Federal Way STREAM CONSULTANT DIRECT SERVICES AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: February 18, 2015 City: City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003 Consultant: Kevin O'Brien, Senior Associate Otak 11241 Willows Road NE, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 Project: Pieckhotin — Stream Assessment XXX SW 297`}' Street, Lot 9 Parcel #720531-0090 File No.: 15-100467-00-AD Project Proponent: Vitaliy Piekhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 253-332-6564 Project Planner: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com, 253-835-2641 Project Background: In August 2014, the City issued an Order to Cease Activity for clearing and grading activities without a permit on the subject property and adjacent properties. It appears a pipe was installed to drain into a major stream, according to the City of Federal Way Critical Areas Map, and ground disturbance within the stream buffer. The owner takes responsibility for the work and entered into a Voluntary Correction Agreement. As part of the agreement, a full assessment of the impacts to the stream and stream buffer and a stream report with recommended mitigation actions is required. Documents • City of Federal Way Zoning Map 10 and 13 Provided: • Photos of disturbed area taken 8/11/14 Task Scope: 1. Delineation and categorization of the stream per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Division V, `Critical Areas," especially FWRC Chapter 19.165, `Streams;' 2. Identify boundaries of impacted area; 3. Prepare field map of impacted area; 4. Provide a report of findings and conclusions; 5. Provide mitigation and monitoring plan for the impacted area. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ ( D q-q• OQvithout a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: City of Federal Way (Planner) (otak) Project Proponent (Vitaliy Piekhotin) Wetland Consultant Authorization Form Date 31115 Date Date cn F� H o D 0 �. 0CD � o Pt. 0 CL o o 0 �-n b a o � o, n 'J ~ 0 C w o U 0 0 o C y bd o {A'F• �' lil N R. 1�-�{� V L7 n' �O W Q b O N 00 G\ N ON H C/3 r• N CA GY. It 00 O O O UN In N W rt 00 C4 N O O N ON -P -P 00 CA `+ rt a O J .4P O -0- rt 5 o W -P N Co F� 00 00 O 4� O -P O Becky Chapin From: Becky Chapin Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9:41 AM To: 'kevin.obrien@otak.com' Sub jeat: City of Federal Way - Direct Services Program Attachments: 078 Critical Areas Optional Direct Services.docx Mr. O'Brien, The City of Federal Way has implemented the Direct Services Program for Critical Area review, and Otak, Inc. is next on our rotation list. The city has not actually used the direct services for a project as of yet, and wanted to contact you to see if Otak is available to do the work and if the scope of work is intended for this direct service program. An applicant did unauthorized work in a stream/stream buffer and would like to use your services to categorize/delineate the stream, evaluate impacts, and prepare a mitigation/restoration plan. Is this in the scope of work that you would feel comfortable doing direct service for. If so, I will forward you an task authorization form/scope of work with additional project details. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks, Becky Chapin Associate Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Phone: 253-835-2641 Beck y. Chapi n (o)ci tyo fled a ralway. co m ';. •.. DEP.ARTMEINT OF CONIMUNM DEVELOPMENT 33325 go' Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 CITY OF 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 V21 te, - r a 111 AV a- cirr'offederalwa .com APPLIC'�JI0 1 CRITICAL AREA DIRECT SERVICES PROGRAM Project Name: Project Descrif a,KA Project Address: i Parcel#: � -il:.31 - 0.0g0- 0,2 Contact Name: i i f `e u �' Pv}v~ Phone: �J�i�' Email: it ]('zCa '� .Ls- G�✓�L Mailing Address (if different from above):r'++r�I?:r=f� I am the owner of the above referenced property and I authorize the city to obtain an estimate of project cost. I recognize the Direct Services Program is optional and that I may choose to utilize any qualified consultant of my choosing. I agree to indemnify and release the city from all liability associated with the program or the work/reports of the consultant_ Signature:. �%� Date: D! . �I City Use ®nay L Consultant Name: _ V 8 f , Folder # Date Sent to Consultant:I i1 a+ Fee Estimate: ?` Materials Sent to Consultant: I Site Plan ❑ Landscape Plan ❑ Construction Drawings Special Study(s) Z5Y ❑ Other: ❑ Other: Bulletin #078 - June 1, 2014 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Critical Areas Optional Direct Services Application ph p iccc�'� AA 'Nat- use C� l fec-f Fef vim -+� c�Se ow i t`S� pAx_4 . � ll rGcc _6 '� Yt -V-i evu 4�� CITY OF Federal Way CITY OF FEDERAL WAY GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: May 28, 2014 City: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development 33325 8 h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-2609 Consultant: Ed Heavey, Principal Landau Associates 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 Project: Pieckhotin Single Family Residence Lot 9 Redondo Highlands #5 SW 297`h Street Parcel #720531 0090 File No.: 14-102384-00-AD 14-101754-00-SF Project Proponent: Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 Project Planner: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner, 253-835-2641 Documents Provided: Geotechnical Report dated May 12, 2006, prepared by GeoResources, LLC Update: Geotechnical Consultation Letter dated March 28, 2014, prepared by GeoResources LLC Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations Task Scope: The applicant has submitted a geotechnical report that has concluded that the construction of a new residence appears feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The proposed drainage system is currently being revised and separate plans will be sent to Landau for review when the applicant has submitted the new design to the city. 1) Review submitted documents for conformance with FWRC 19.160 - Geologically Hazardous Areas. 2) Provide memorandum identifying additional information requested as necessary. 3) Conduct site visit as necessary. 4) Possible meetings on site and/or with applicant's Geotechnical Engineer. 5) Provide written response as to whether or not Landau concurs with GeoResources' Conclusions. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by June 12, 2014. Task Cost: Not to exceed $ Told without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. (The total task amount to be filled in by planner after the consultant returns this form with all items filled out including the total work estimate and said estimate has been approved by the Project Planner.) Acceptance: Doc I D 65649 Eagle Eye Consulting Engineers West Coast Code Consultants Company 708 Broadway, Suite 105 Tacoma, WA 98402 chrisk@wc-3.com 801-682-5031 To: Toby Mark 4216 65" St. Ct. E Tacoma WA 98443 Re: Vitaliy Residence (Redondo Uphill) Second Review 27X SW 297t" St. Federal Way, WA 98005 Federal Way Permit # 14-101754 EECE#: FED 14-06 �0 EAGLE LTMG EYE EYE CPI A 6V—t COOV COdf , CO—It—ts C"ntnpany Wednesday, November 25, 2015 The above referenced project is in the process of plan review for compliance with Federal Way ordinances and applicable codes. The following comments, deficiencies/corrections must be addressed prior to completion of plans review and subsequent issuance of permits. Provide revised plans and calculations along with a written response to each of the items listed below to facilitate a shorter back -check time. _A response to correction must be provided to the city within 90 days of the date of this letter or the permit application mav be cancelled without notice. SCOPE OF REVIEW The scope of this review is for the Structural Only requirements of this project. The project was reviewed for compliance with the State of Washington Building Codes All features were checked only to the extent allowed by the submittals provided. All portions of this project are assumed to meet or will meet other departmental requirements, conditions and concerns before permit approval. STRUCTURAL COMMENTS General Z4. Please provide a plot plan in accordance to IBC 1803.6. This shall be stamped by a licensed surveyor. _ PC2: A response has not been provided to this comment. Please address. 2. Please provide a land slide hazard report as required per the geotechnical report. EECE Project #: FED 14-06 Federal Way Project #:14-101754 Page 2 of 4 PC2: A response has not been provided to this comment. Please address. 3. Please provide a drainage plan as recommended by the geotechnical report. PC2: A response has not been provided to this comment. Please address. 4. Resolved. n 5. Please provide a licensed professional surveyor stamp for the elevations shown. J� PC2: A response has not been provided to this comment. Please address. 6. Resolved. 7. Please provide guardrail details. PC2: The response provided states that this will be a deferred submittal. Please clearly note this on the cover sheet and state that the guardrail system will not be installed until it has been reviewed by the FOR for general conformance and then submitted to the City for approval as required by IBC 107.3.4.2. The plans should also be clear that the guardrail system and connection to the structure must meet the loading requirements of IRC R301. S. 8. Resolved. 9. Resolved. 10. Resolved. 11. Grade beam: EOR, please provide analysis for the grade beam shown. PC2: Section 21.12.3.2 of ACI318-11 requires that grade beams that act as horizontal ties between piles have closed ties. Please address. 12. Resolved. 13. EOR, please note grade 60 steel shall be used for all reinforcement. PC2: The response provided states that this has been added to the plans yet this could not be found on the revised plans submitted. Please clarify. 14. Resolved. 15. Resolved. 16. Resolved. 17. Resolved. 18. Resolved. EECE Project #: FED 14-06 Federal Way Project #:14-101754 Page 3 of 4 19. EOR, please specify the diaphragm nailing requirements. I was unable to find where this was specified on the drawings. PC2: The response provided refers to the floor diaphragm schedule on sheet AB, yet the plans do not clearly label the diaphragm requirements for reference to the schedule. In addition, the plan sheets call for 3/4-inch sheathing while the floor diaphragm schedule calls for 23/32-inch sheathing. Please clarify. 20. Resolved. 21. Resolved. 22. Resolved. 23. , EOR, please specify the diaphragm nailing requirements. I was unable to find where this was specified on the drawings. PC2: Please see follow-up Comment 919. 24. Please provide detail on how the members are being connected. Nothing is referenced to show how they are being connected. PC2: IRCR106.1.1 states that the construction documents shall "show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this code': If the intent is for most connections to comply with the IRC Table R602.3(1) then this fastener schedule should be provided on the plans so that the construction requirements are clear. 25. Resolved. 26. Resolved. 27. Resolved. 28. Please specify the required connection of the joist to the supporting members. Nothing is specified at this time. PC2: The only hangars that are currently specified on this sheet are for LVL's which were removed. Please clarify. 29. Resolved, 30. Resolved. 31. It appears the MIU hanger will not support the design loads. Please provide analysis to justify. PC2: Please see follow-up Comment #28. 32. Resolved. EECE Project #: FED 14-06 Federal Way Project #:14-101754 Page 4 of 4 33. Resolved. 34. Resolved. 35. Resolved. 36. Resolved. 37. Resolved. 38. Please specify the roofing diaphragm requirements. What is the plywood size, what is the nailing, what are the collector elements? etc. PC2: A roof diaphragm schedule is provided on sheetA8 that lists multiple diaphragm requirements. Please clarify. 39. Please add detail for the connections of the guardrails to transfer the code required loads. Nothing is specified except the code reference. Please add this information when resubmitting. PC2: Please see follow-up Comment #7. Please address the following additional items: 40. 'The geotechnical review comments provided by Landau Associates should also be addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit. A copy of this letter which was issued on July 2, 2014 has been attached for your reference. 41. The plans do not appear to provide any specific construction requirements for foundation drainage as required by IRC R405. Please clarify. Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the other department plan review when comments are received from the other concerned departments. Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please contact Chris Kimball at chriskna.wc-3.coan or by phone at (801) 682-5031. Chris Kimball, PE, MCP, CBO Fx. 253-896-1011 Fx. 253-896-2633 Mr. Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 (253) 332-6564 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Hwy. E., Ste.16 Fife, Washington 98424-2462 January 30, 2015 Response to Comments Single -Family Residence Redondo Highlands, Lot 9 XXX SW 2971" Street Federal Way, Washington PN: 7205310090 File: Pieckhotin.Lot9Redondo Heights.1_2 INTRODUCTION We previously prepared a Geotechnical Report for Stonegate Homes dated May 12, 2006 and a Geotechnical Report Updated; Single Family Residence; Redondo Highlands, Lot 9 on March 28, 2014. The City of Federal Way had Landau Associates complete a Supplemental Geotechnical Review of the completed building permit application and accompanying documents, including both our original and addendum reports. The Landau letter, dated October 16, 2014 is attached. Our response to their comments is below: Bullet 1: We visited the site on January 5, 2015 and noted that the previous area of disturbance was still partially covered with clear plastic sheeting and that grass and vegetation had begun to grow over the disturbed soils. Little to no exposed, bare soils were noted. Bullet 2: Our updated report provided capacities for 2, 3, and 4-inch diameter pin piles. The 2-inch pin piles should be driven using a 90 pound pneumatic jackhammer to refusal. Refusal should be defined as less than 1 inch of penetration during 1 minute of sustained driving. For 3 and 4-inch diameter pin piles, the contractor should have correlation tables for their specific hammers and pile size. The industry standard for pin pile capacities and testing requirements in the greater Puget Sound is in accordance with the City of Seattle Director's Rule DR2009-10. Capacities provided in our July 23, 2014 updated report were in conformance with recommendations in the above referenced documents. We do not agree with Landau on the request for pile load tests if 2-inch diameter pin piles are used. Because there is a standard refusal criteria that has been used successfully for years, these piles are not typically tested. However, if 3 or 4-inch pin piles are used, we do recommend load tests on at least 5 percent of the piles (minimum of 1) Bullet 3: The passive resistance developed would be a frictional resistance just as the resistance on the foundation is frictional. Therefore the factor of safety should be the same. It is not typical in this area for the geotechnical engineer to apply an additional factor of safety if the passive resistance is combined with the frictional resistance of the foundations. A factor of safety of 1.5 has already been applied to both i Additionally we are ignoring lateral resistance from the piles, which whilFi�I[,_M_31M1TTE❑ contributing to the overall lateral resistance. FEB 0 4 2015 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Pieckhotin.Vitaliy — Redondo Heights Lot 9 January 30. 2015 Page 2 • Bullet 4: We concur that the geotechnical engineer should perform special inspections during pin pile installation and at other times as required by the FWRC Section 19.160.010.4.c. • Bullet 5: A plan review will be performed and documented in a letter when the City's comments have been resolved and the plans are ready to be approved. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have need of additional information or services please call. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC Keith S. Schembs, LEG Principal KSS:DCB/dcb Job: Pieckhotin.Lot9Redondo Heights.1 2 Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE Sr. Geotechnical Engineer RESUBMITTED Fx. 253-896-1011 Fx. 253-896-2633 Mr. Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive Tacoma, WA 98422 SEP 0 2 20% CITY OF WERAL WAY CDs GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Hwy. E., Ste.16 Fife, Washington 98424-2462 July 23, 2014 r Geotechnical Report Update Single -Family Residence Redondo Highlands, Lot 9 XXX SW 2971h Street Federal Way, Washington PN: 7205310090 File: Pieckhotin.SW297thSt. Lot9.G R _r INTRODUCTION Lot 9 is part of an older residential plat with 4 lots remaining undeveloped. We previously prepared a Geotechnical Report for Stonegate Homes dated May 12, 2006 addressing the proposed residence on Lots 7 through 10 in the Redondo Heights area located near SW 2971h Street in Federal Way, Washington (Appendix "A"). This report included soil explorations on Lot 9 (B-2, TP-1, and TP2). A response to Review Comments and Plan Review Letterwas prepared and dated August 16, 2007. Following completion of additional explorations for you, we completed an update for Lot 9 dated March 28, 2014. This report is provided at the City's request specifically for Lot 9 based on additional exploration data. We understand that you plan to construct a single family residence at the site. The new residence has been designed to take advantage of the site's sloping topography. Because of the old fill material at the site, special construction and foundation support criteria are included in the proposed development plans. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The subject parcel is located at the east terminus of SW 297th Street in Federal Way, Washington. The parcel is irregular in shape extending over the north portion of a X D rn 70 steep slope. The site is currently undeveloped, but was previously used to place O o uncontrolled fill material during development of the surrounding area, likely also related °' M m to the construction of 297th Street. The proposed new residence will include a typical driveway and associated utilities. The site is bounded by existing single family residential development on the north and west, and by SW 297th Street on the � � Z southwest. Additional undeveloped lots are situated on the east. ti, rn rn The site is located on the north margin and slope of the Redondo glacial upland �, = N o area. The ground surface at the site and adjacent areas generally slopes down to the �; 5' U northeast at inclinations of 40 to 85 percent with locally steeper areas. North of the site, z o the ground surface flattens to approximately 10 to 20 percent. The slope at the site is n o about 65 feet in height. A site plan with topography is included as Figure 2. 3.. Vegetation consists of invasive grass and brush with scattered trees along the northwest margin of the lot. No surface water or seepage was observed at the time of Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 2 our site visits. The slopes appeared generally stable for the existing conditions at the time of our site visits. No evidence of erosion, soil movement, landslide activity or deep- seated slope instability was observed at the site or the adjacent areas. Site Soils The USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for King County maps the soils in the area of the site as Alderwood and Kitsap soils (AkF). These soils are typically derived from glacial till that form on slopes of 25 to 70 percent. These soils are listed as having a "moderate to very severe" erosion hazard, where exposed. However, as the site has been filled with uncontrolled silty sand material, we consider the erosion hazard the site to be very severe when the soils are exposed. A copy of the SCS map for the site vicinity is attached as Figure 3. Site Geology The Geological Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Washington by Booth, Waldron, and Troost (2003) indicates the site is underlain by pre -Olympia age glacial deposits (Qpogc). These older glacial soils typically consist of oxidized silt, sand and gravel that was deposited prior to the Vashon deposits. These soils are considered overconsolidated and exhibit high strength values and low compressibility characteristics where undisturbed. The near surface soils at the site have been disturbed by natural weathering processes that occurred since their deposition. An excerpt of the referenced map is included as Figure 4. As previously discussed, fill material was placed across the lots during the historic development of the area. The fill is thickest near the roadway and top of the slope, and decreases in depth towards to toe. Subsurface Explorations We previously completed both test pits and borings at and near the site, the adjacent lots. Copies of those explorations are included in Appendix "A" as part of the previous geotechnical report. Additional test pits were complete on January 30 and 31, 2014 on Lot 9 to specifically address the depth and condition of the old fill material. The approximate locations of the previous and recent explorations are indicated on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. An engineering technician from our office monitored the excavation of the test pits, created the soil logs of the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. The soil samples were placed in sealed plastic bags and taken to our laboratory for further examination and testing, as deemed appropriate. Subsurface Conditions The previous test pits (4) and borings (2) were completed for the short plat in 2006 (Appendix "A"). In general, the soil conditions encountered consisted of 4 to 15 feet of old fill material (silty sand with gravel and cobbles) interpreted to be till fill material. Below the fill material, medium dense to dense silty sand and sand were encountered in the borings to a depth of approximately 32 feet. Glacial till was encountered below the sandy material to the full depths explored, 40.5 feet and 41.0 feet. Similar fill depths were also encountered in the previous test pits. On January 30 and 31, 2014, we observed the excavation of three additional test pits in the lower portion of Lot 9. Exposed soils consisted of 4 to 7 feet of loose sandy gravel with assorted debris. These soils are related to uncontrolled fill material, likely from prior grading activity in the area. Underlying the surficial soils, we observed medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel to gravelly sand with trace boulders and silt, Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 3 representative of native outwash deposits. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) described on Figure 5. The test pit logs are included as Figure 6. Groundwater Conditions No groundwater seepage was observed in the explorations at the time of excavation. However, we expect that during periods of extended or heavy wet weather, perched groundwater conditions could develop in the old fill material, and at depth above the deeper till material. Appropriate drainage components for the proposed structure will address any potential drainage issues. Slope Stability A slope stability analyses was also conducted as part of the previous geotechnical report in 2006. That is discussed in detail in the attached report, Appendix "A". The analyses indicated an acceptable factor of safety for the developed sites, both under static and seismic conditions. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The Federal Way City Code states "geologically hazardous areas shall mean areas that, because of their susceptibility to erosion, landsliding, seismic or other geological events, are not suited to siting commercial, residential or industrial development consistent with public health or safety concerns." Erosion Hazard Areas The City of Federal Way Code Chapter 19.150 defines erosion hazard areas as those areas having a "severe" or "very severe" erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow. Landslide Hazard Areas per City of Federal Way Chapter 19.150 The Federal Way City Code Chapter 19.150 defines landslide hazard areas as those areas potentially subject to episodic downslope movement of a mass of soil or rock including but not limited to the following areas: a. Any area with a combination of: 1. Slopes greater than 15 percent; 2. Permeable sediment overlying a relatively impermeable sediment or bedrock; 3. Springs or groundwater seeps. b. Any area which has shown movement during the Holocene epoch, from 10,000 years ago to the present, or which is underlain by mass wastage debris of that epoch. c. Areas potentially unstable as a result of rapid stream incision, stream bank erosion, and undercutting by wave action. d. Areas located in a canyon or on an active alluvial fan, presently or potentially subject to inundation by debris flows or catastrophic flooding. e. Areas that have a "severe" limitation for building site development because of slope conditions, according to the USDA SCS. f. Those areas mapped as Class U (Unstable), Uos (Unstable old slides), and Urs (unstable recent slides) by the Department of Ecology. g. Slopes having a gradient steeper than 80 percent subject to rock fall during seismic shaking. Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 4 Steep Slope Hazard The Federal Way City Code Chapter 19.150 defines steep slope hazard areas as "those areas with a slope of 40 percent or greater and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet, a vertical rise of 10 feet or more for every 25 feet of horizontal distance. A slope is delineated by established its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 10 feet of vertical relief." Seismic Hazards The City of Federal Way Municipal Code Chapter 19.150 defines seismic hazard areas as "those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table." CONCLUSIONS Based on our site observations and data review, subsurface explorations and our engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the proposed residential development on Lot 9 is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. It is also our opinion that active landslide, erosion, or seismic hazards do not exist on the site. The old fill material is generally stable under the existing conditions, but should be reworked during the site development activities into an engineered and stable condition. The new structure may be supported on new conventional spread footings or floor slabs bearing on competent native soils or on structural fill placed above these native soils where the setback criteria is met and the old fill material is adequately mitigated. The fill and native soils at the site contain a relatively high percentage of fines (silt and clay -size particles), which makes them moisture sensitive. These soils will be difficult (to impossible if wet) to compact as structural fill in wet weather conditions. We understand that grading at the site will include cuts and fills associated with the foundation area for the proposed structure, driveway/garage area and utilities. If grading activities take place during the winter season, the owner should be prepared to export unsuitable material and import free -draining granular material for use as structural fill and backfill. During wet weather conditions, perched water conditions may occur at the site. Stormwater infiltration is feasible in the lower portion of the site, and has been designed by others. We understand that several deep foundation contractors have looked at the project and determined that access is a challenge. Based on this, it was determined that hand operated or small track mounted equipment would be utilized for installation of the deepened foundation elements. Pertinent geotechnical recommendations and design criteria are included in below. Proper surface drainage and erosion control measures will reduce the risk for future erosion and slope instability at the site. Provided the recommendations contained herein are included in the project plans; the proposed development should have minimal impacts to the site and/or the adjacent properties. Erosion Hazard Areas The City of Federal Way municipal code Section 18-28 defines erosion hazard areas as those areas having a "severe" or "very severe" erosion hazard due to natural agents such as wind, rain, splash, frost action or stream flow. Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 5 The USDA NRCS maps the eastern portion of the site soils as and Kitsap soils (AkF) which have a "severe" erosion hazard when exposed. This meets the technical criteria for a "severe" designation per the City ordinance. Based on the explorations completed at the site, the site surficial soils are fill material rather than native soils. But these soils also have the potential for severe erosion. Therefore, erosion control measures will be a critical element on this project site. We understand that specific erosion mitigation for the project is included in the Erosion Control Plan prepared by others. Landslide Hazard Areas From the above listed indicators, we offer the following comments. No evidence of active landslide activity was observed at the site at the time of our site visit. A slope steeper than 15 percent and 40 percent was observed on the property, but no seeps or springs were observed on the slopes and no adverse or intersecting contacts are mapped in the vicinity of the site. No other landslide hazard criteria were observed on the site at the time of our site visits. Based on our observations and literature review, the site does meet the technical criteria of the above landslide hazard indicators. It is our opinion however that the old fill material is marginally stable and the proposed development will improve the overall stability of the site and adjacent area. The construction of basement/retaining walls and drainage improvements will significantly improve the stability of the site. It is further our opinion that the developed site will not constitute an active landslide hazard area. Seismic Hazard The Federal Way City Code Chapter 19.150 defines seismic hazard areas as those areas subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement or soil liquefaction, or surface faulting. These conditions occur in areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually in association with a shallow groundwater table. No groundwater was encountered at the site to depths of 41 feet. In addition, the previously completed stability analyses demonstrated factors of safety greater than 1.1 under seismic conditions. Based on our observation and the subsurface units mapped at the site, we interpret the structural site conditions to correspond to a seismic Site Class "D" in accordance with 2012 IBC (International Building Code) documents and ASCE 7- Chapter 20 Table 20.3-1. This is based on the likely range of equivalent SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts for the soil types observed in the site area. These conditions were assumed to be representative for the conditions based on our experience in the vicinity of the site. These soils are not prone to liquefaction and do not constitute a seismic hazard area. Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil strength due to an increase in pore water pressure. The increase in pore water pressure is induced by seismic vibrations. Liquefaction mainly affects geologically recent deposits of loose, fine-grained sands that are below the groundwater table. Based on the density and consolidated nature of the glacial soils observed on the site, it is our opinion that the risk for liquefaction to occur at this site during an earthquake is negligible. Provided the design criteria listed below are followed, the proposed structure will have no greater seismic risk damage than other appropriately designed structures in the Puget Sound area. Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 6 Steep Slope Hazard The steep slope located at the site is approximately 65 feet in vertical height and meets the technical definition of a steep slope hazard area. A building setback from this slope is required by the International Building Code. Based on our subsurface evaluation, we have recommended a Structural Setback be utilized for the project. We understand that needle piling will be utilized to accomplish the Structural Setback where required, as well as extend foundation support through the old fill material. SETBACK CRITERIA The International Building Code requires a building setback from slopes that are steeper than 3H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) or 33 percent unless evaluated and reduced, and/or a structural setback is provided, by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The setback distance is calculated based on the vertical height of the slope. The typical IBC setback from the top of the slope equals one third the height of the slope. Based on our site observations, and in accordance with IBC (International Building Code) Section 1805 guidelines, we recommend a setback distance of H/3 for slopes greater than 10 feet in height from the top of slopes greater than 33 percent. This equates to a prescriptive setback of 22 feet at this site. Where this setback distance cannot be met, the foundation elements of the structure should extend vertically, a Structural Setback (Figure 7), so that the setback is measured horizontally from the lower outside edge of the foundation element to the face of the slope. This structural setback is contingent on the foundation elements extending through the old fill material and into the dense to very dense native soils that underlie the site. We anticipate that portions of the foundation elements will not meet the IBC setback distance or will need to be extended through the old fill material. We understand that you have selected needle piling to accomplish. In addition, shoring may be required to maintain stable temporary cut slopes above the building pad area, until the walls are constructed. This is discussed in the "Construction Considerations" section of this report. Needle piling consist of small diameter Schedule-80 steel pipe that are driven into the underlying soils to refusal. Individual pipe segments typically range from about 8 to 21 feet long and are successively joined with external threaded couplings, internal slip couplings, or butt welds as pile driving progresses. Minimum embedment shall be 8 feet. We anticipate that the needle piles will meet refusal in the underlying stiff/very dense soils. However, because refusal depths are difficult to predict and because soil conditions could vary significantly across the site, the contractor should be prepared for variable pile lengths. Also, it may be necessary to modify pile layouts if rocks or other obstructions are encountered during pile -driving. When refusal has been achieved, the pin piles can be cut to a predetermined height or elevation. To provide a good bond between the piles and the pile cap, reinforcing bars with 90-degree bends can be welded to the top of the pile or, alternatively, the top of the pile can be splayed apart. A structural engineer should be responsible for designing the reinforced steel and foundation elements. Allowable Value Design Parameter 2-inch diameter Static Compressive Capacity 4,000 pounds Transient Compressive Capacity 5,300 pounds Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 7 We do not anticipate 2 inch piles will necessitate quick load testing. In areas where the lengths of the pin piles are exposed and not directly incorporated into the foundation grade beams, the area around the pin piles should be backfilled with a well draining material such as angular quarry spalls, or CDF (lean mix). If access for a small track driven machine is feasible, it may be more economic to utilize fewer, but larger diameter piling. A properly installed 3-inch-diameter or 4-inch- diameter needle pile driven to refusal (as defined above) will typically provide the following allowable axial capacities. Actual capacities and refusal criteria should be verified by the contractor. Furthermore, the stated uplift capacities would be applicable only to needle piles that are installed with tension -resisting couplings. Design Parameter Static Compressive Capacity Transient Compressive Capacity Transient Uplift Capacity Allowable Value 3-inch-diameter 4-inch-diameter 12,000 pounds 16,000 pounds 8,000 pounds 20,000 pounds 26,000 pounds 13,000 pounds It should be noted that the native and fill soil material in this area may include large soil particles (cobbles/boulders) or organic debris (roots). When encountered by piling, these can result in early refusal depths and an unacceptable pile. It will be necessary to move over and re -drive the piling or possibly increase the number of piling to achieve the required support of the wall. The contractor should be prepared for this condition. Based on our 2014 site observations, there has been no significant change in the site conditions since our 2006 explorations and site visit. Copies of our previous Geotechnical Report and Response to Comments Letter are attached for your reference. Construction Considerations All job site safety issues and precautions are the responsibility of the contractor providing services/work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes only. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations, foundation construction or utility installation. All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches and retaining walls, must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on current Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA, WAC 296-155-66401) regulations, the shallow upper soils on the site would be classified as Type C soils. The very dense glacial till soils would be classified as Type A soils. According to WISHA, for temporary excavations of less than 20 feet in depth, the side slopes in Type A soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 3/4H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) and Type C soils should be laid back at a slope inclination of 1.5H:1 V or flatter from the toe to top of the slope. It should be recognized that slopes of this nature do ravel and require occasional maintenance. All exposed slope faces should be covered with a durable reinforced plastic membrane, jute matting, or other erosion control mats during construction to prevent slope raveling and rutting during periods of precipitation. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 8 necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs, or if construction materials will be stockpiled along the top of the slope. Where it is not feasible to slope the site soils back at these inclinations, a retaining or shoring structure will be required. Where retaining structures are greater than 4-feet in height (bottom of footing to top of structure) or have slopes of greater than 15 percent above them, they should be engineered per Washington Administrative Code (WAC 51-16-080 item 5). Based on the height of the proposed cuts for the foundation wall, we expect shoring will be required. We can provide a variety of options for temporary shoring if the required cut slopes cannot be achieved. This information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants, and should not be construed to imply that GeoResources assumes responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Foundation Support Based on the subsurface soil conditions encountered across the site, we recommend that beyond the recommended setback area, spread footings for the new residence be founded on dense native soils or on appropriately prepared structural fill that extends to suitable native soils. The soil at the base of the footing excavations should be disturbed as little as possible. All loose, soft or unsuitable material should be removed or recompacted, as appropriate. A representative from our firm should observe the foundation excavations to determine if suitable bearing surfaces have been prepared, particularly in the areas where the foundation will be situated on fill material. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated footings and at least 12 inches for single story and 16 inches for two story continuous wall footings. All footing elements should be embedded at least 18 inches below grade for frost protection. Footings founded as described above can be designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 psf (pounds per square foot) for combined dead and long- term live loads. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill may be neglected. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as those induced by seismic events or wind loads. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and floor slabs and as passive pressure on the sides of footings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.30 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Passive resistance from soil should be ignored in the upper 1 foot. A factor of safety of 1.5 has been applied to these values. We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of 1/2 inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However, disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. We recommend that all foundations be provided with footing drains. Subgrade/Basement Walls Based on existing topography of Lot 9, we expect that the new structure will include subgrade retaining walls. The lateral pressures acting on subgrade and retaining walls (such as basement walls) will depend upon the nature and density of the soil behind the wall. It is also dependent upon the presence or absence of hydrostatic Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 9 pressure, as well as any upgradient loads that influence the wall. If the walls are backfilled with granular well -drained soil, the design active pressure may be taken as 35 pcf (equivalent fluid density). Where the walls are restrained from moving, we recommend an at -rest equivalent earth pressure of 55 pcf be used for design. We assume a level backfill condition behind proposed basement or subgrade walls. Where a surcharge occurs above the wall, the pressures will increase. This includes structures, traffic or steep slopes. Based on the final design, this information can be provided at your request. Adequate drainage behind retaining structures is imperative. Positive drainage which controls the development of hydrostatic pressure can be accomplished by placing a zone of coarse sand and gravel behind the walls. The granular drainage material should contain less than 5 percent fines. The drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 18 inches from the back of the wall. The drainage zone should also extend from the base of the wall to within 1 foot of the top of the wall. The drainage zone should be compacted to approximately 90 percent of the MDD. Over -compaction should be avoided as this can lead to excessive lateral pressures. Typical wall drainage and backfilling is shown on Figure 5. A minimum 4-inch diameter perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be placed in the drainage zone along the base and behind the wall to provide an outlet for accumulated water and direct accumulated water to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend that a nonwoven geotextile filter fabric be placed between the drainage material and the remaining wall backfill to reduce silt migration into the drainage zone. The infiltration of silt into the drainage zone can, with time, reduce the permeability of the granular material. The filter fabric should be placed such that it fully separates the drainage material and the backfill, and should be extended over the top of the drainage zone. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of footings and as passive pressure on the sides of footings and the buried portion of the wall, as described in the "Foundation Support" section. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.30 be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 300 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). Factors of safety have been applied to these values. Floor Slab Support Slab -on -grade floors, where constructed, should be supported on the medium dense native soils or on structural fill prepared as described above. Areas of old fill material should be evaluated during grading activity for suitability of structural support. Areas of significant organic debris should be removed. We recommend that floor slabs be directly underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick pea gravel or washed 5/8 inch crushed rock. This layer should be placed and compacted to an unyielding condition and should contain less than 2 percent fines. A synthetic vapor barrier is recommended to control moisture migration through the slabs. This is of particular importance where the foundation elements are underlain by the silty till sediments, or where moisture migration through the slab is an issue, such as where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab. A subgrade modulus of 400 kcf (kips per cubic foot) may be used for floor slab design. We estimate that settlement of the floor slabs designed and constructed as recommended, will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet. Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 10 Utilities We expect that underground utilities, such as sanitary sewer, storm, and water will consist of a series of pipes, vaults, manholes, and catch basins. The utility excavations should be performed in accordance with appropriate governmental guidelines. Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works Association (APWA) specifications. We anticipate that the on -site, non -organic soils will be suitable for use as structural backfill. If import soil is used as utility trench backfill, it should consist of a material meeting the wet weather fill recommendations provided in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. We recommend that utility backfill soils be compacted according to the recommendations provided in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. Erosion Control Weathering, erosion and the resulting surficial sloughing and shallow land sliding are natural processes that affect steep slope areas. As noted, no evidence of surficial raveling or sloughing was observed at the site. To manage and reduce the potential for these natural processes, we recommend the following: No drainage of concentrated surface water or significant sheet flow onto or near the steep slope area. No fill should be placed on slopes greater than 25 percent unless placed as engineered and compacted fill. Grading should be limited to active construction areas to promote surface flows away from the top of slope to an appropriate discharge. Erosion protection measures will need to be in place prior to grading activity on the site. Erosion hazards can be mitigated by applying Best management Practices (BMP's) outlined in the Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. We understand that an erosion control plan has been prepared by others for the project. Site Drainage All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks at the site should be sloped away from residences. The site should also be carefully graded to ensure positive drainage away from all structures and property lines. Surface water runoff from the roof area, driveways, perimeter footing drains, and wall drains, should be collected, tightlined, and conveyed to an appropriate discharge point. We recommend that footing drains are installed for the residence, and basement walls (if utilized) have a wall drain as describe above. The roof drain should not be connected to the footing drain. Stormwater Infiltration Based on our site observations, subsurface explorations and laboratory analysis; portions of the site have the ability to infiltrate the collected storm water runoff, provided the design is appropriate. We understand that a design has been prepared by others. Suspended solids could clog the underlying soil and reduce the infiltration rate for the pond. To reduce potential clogging of the infiltration system, the infiltration system should not be connected to the stormwater runoff system until after construction is complete and the site area is landscaped, paved or otherwise protected. Temporary systems may be utilized through construction. Pieckhotin — Redondo Heights Lot 9 July 23, 2014 Page 11 LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the Mr. Pieckhotin and members of the design team regarding the development of Lot 9. The data used in preparing this report and this report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes only. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are based on data from others and limited site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the explorations and may also occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental remediation and construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. If there are changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as appropriate. We have appreciated working for you on this project. Please do not hesitate to call at your earliest convenience if you have questions or comments. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC Brad P. Biggerstaff, LEG Principal Figure 3: SCS Soil Survey Figure 4: USGS Geology Map Figure 5: Unified Soil Classification System Figure 6: New Test Pit Logs Figure 7: Structural Setback Appendix "A": 2006 Geotechnical Report by GeoResources, LLC Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE Senior Engineer GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite A6 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 © 2002 Thomas Bros. Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map Fax: 253-896-2633 L APPROXIMATE LOCATION B-1 OF BORING APPROXIMATE LOCATION TP-1 0 OF TEST PIT 15 to 25 PERCENT SLOPE AREA l f 25 to 40 PERCENT SLOPE AREA i 40 PERCENT OR GREATER SLOPE AREA e®Resources9 LUC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 20 Life, Washington 98424 Ph:253-096-1011 Fax:253-896-2633 a , FIGURE 2 - Site Plan 1 Project : Stonegate Homes hots 7-10 Location : SW 297`h Street Federal Way, WA Clie+ic : Stonegate Homes Date 5/12/-6 Job No: Stonegate homes.297`h Street.RG An excerpt from the Geologic map of the by Troost, K.G., E GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Site Location ?rty Bay 7.5-minute Quadrangle, Washington, D.B., and Wells, R.E. Qpog -- Glacial deposits of pre -Olympia age (Pleistocene) —Weakly to strongly oxidized silt, sand, and gravel of northern Cascade provenance; underlies Vashon-age deposits and of presumed glacial origin, and thus of pre -Olympia age Not to Scale USGS Geologic Map Pieckhotin Site Lot 9 SW 297th St. Federal Way, Washington nn7t11 USGS Jul onlA Fi ure4 Y g SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL COARSE GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED More than 50% SOILS Of Coarse Fraction GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL Retained on WITH FINES No. 4 Sieve GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND More than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve SP POORLY -GRADED SAND More than 50% Of Coarse Fraction SAND SM SILTY SAND Passes WITH FINES No. 4 Sieve Sc CLAYEY SAND SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY FINE GRAINED ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SOILS Liquid Limit Less than 50 SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT More than 50% Passes CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY No. 200 Sieve Liquid Limit 50 or more I ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D24U-90. 3. Description of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and or test data. GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Hwy. E, Ste 20 Fife, Washington 98424-2648 Ph. 253-896-1011 Fx. 253-896-2633 SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: Dry- Absence of moisture, dry to the touch Moist- Damp, but no visible water Wet- Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE 5 TEST PIT LOGS STONEGATE HOMES SW 2971h STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON TEST PIT 1 — Location: toe of slope near gate (See Plan) De th ft. Soil Type Description 0.0 - 0.5 SM Sparse Grass and topsoil 0.5 - 2.0 SM Brn silty SAND (med. Dense, moist)(Fill) 2.0 - 6.5 SM Dk. Brn/black silty gravelly SAND w/dimensional lumber(Fill) 6.5- 7.0 ML Gray/brn Mottled clayey SILT (hard, moist) 7.0 — 9.0 ML Grey SILT (hard, moist) (Lacustrine) Minor seepage and caving above 6.5 feet TEST PIT 2 - Location: 50-feet east of TP-1 toe of slope (see Plan) Depth ft. Soil Type Description 0.0 - 3.0 SM Grey/brown silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) (Till fill) 3.0 - 7.0 SM/GM Brn silty sandy Gravel to Gravelly SAND(loose, moist) (Fill) 7.0 - 12.0 SM Gry w/ some mottling, silty SAND (loose, moist) (Fill) 12.0 —15.0 SP Brn F-M SAND (medium dense, moist) Minor caving observed in clean sand Minor seepage at 8-feet and 15-feet observed TEST PIT 3 - Location: 60-feet east of TP-2 Toe of slope (see Plan) Depth 00 Soil Type Description 0.0 - 3.0 SM Grey/brown silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) (Till fill) 3.0 - 8.0 SP Brn gravelly SAND w/ trace gravel (loose, moist) (Fill) 8.0 - 12.0 SM Blue Grey silty gravelly SAND w/ SILT (Loose, moist) (Fill) 12.0 - 15.0 SM Grey/brown mottled silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) w.Till) Terminated at approximately 15-feet below existing ground surface Caving observed Minor groundwater seepage observed Test Pit Logs Stonegate Homes 297th Street Page 2 of 2 TEST PIT 4 - Location: On skid road halfway up slope (see Plan) Depth ft. Soil Type Description 0.0 - 0.5 Topsoil/Forest Duff 0.5 - 4.0 SM Grey/Brn silty gravelly SAND (loose to med. dense, moist) (Fill) 4.0 - 5.0 SP Relic topsoil 5.0 - 7.5 SP Brn gravelly SAND w/ trace silt (medium Dense, moist) Terminated at approximately 7'/2 feet below existing ground surface Significant caving observed in upper 4-feet No groundwater seepage observed on: December 1, 2005 Logged by: KWG GeoResources A'BORING 1 5113 Pacific Highway East, Suite 1-P `O Fife, Washington 98424-2M Ph: 253.222.0901 Fax: 253.638.8992 PROJECT: s-rotje & "®miffs Job Number: Boring No.: 13 -1 Elevation faoMmam: Well complelm: ea around Surta2&j dm: Casing Elevation AS -BUILT DESIGN TESTING GbZ t,c.9-S MDlcsT, LOOSI'F j MOtSi�, J nW I l I am� S-Z 5-5 mU 2 3 It s l0 d-� �e OQ 0 f9 FF�i -154 20 25nls� .so - LEGEND _ 24nah D. D. spM.Spam Semple v_ Stack waler level at Ddning cared sample DATE 1-Geopro6e 17 stucwater Lem +�� Type dAnalytlrnlTaWrgUaad DATE ��,� v So" not aaoovam L Pamaad+�wI,� w Na Noraoe<y /_ — ATD At The m DOM Page: i of z- willing atom: Wale; + r + r a dg�p;; urDNng [;ompieuon uate : i a, f 7 t z.,p o 15 Loggea My - k"" 0 GeoResources BORING LOG Tacoma, , Wash Street SW 'Yu Tacoma, Washington 98999 Ph : 253.988.5065 Fax: 253.638.8992 PROJECT: j4o ,t ws Job Number Boring No.: 0 - % Qevetlon Room : [nwnd surface E7vawn : L Well comodw: Casing Elevetkm : m W � 3 w� m 'bo o s i[< _ o 3 :-'fit Vi Zy !�) OA1S AS -BUILT DESIGN �<,'_A',F:-. -r,"v) M5-1Ig 1clllrr I r--oN a_OUG �M'*/" Gp&,":jd. *0"M I W_ wA `€&12__ LEGEND 2idi 0.0. epu>OryimeenpY WOMME.S111 X "NO. M Rrem i v ra ftw w[ woftp DATE v embw wL" DATE s 5011ou1 I [ — R) " 1-F-a.1 izo e-ten [r9 V P ® &.° a.ep. wmwca rm ryp.aNwm+T.rowd NR NOR—W Am A!7k-dDMV TESTIN13 Page : Z of Z Drilling Start Date: 1-)_ ?I Tilling Completion Date: GeoResources •� O I I N LOG 5113 Pacific Highway East, Suite 1-P Fife, Washington 98424-2649 Ph: 253.222.0901 Fax: 253.638.6992 PROJECT: tA®sAs s Job Number: y�, �� }.,. , � _;.� Boring No.: s - 7. t se& Elevation Reference: well co emund surfaea Elevation: casing Elevation: AS -BUILT DESIGN TESTING SPg25e' SV b d\AC-e 12�w h► � � a ;� ��� �,3.�: .., �;�� ., fir. 12, IS ��1�I►� ��^�c�f.l tie 31�) ��'Y`•1�7 � MIV�7p{2 �2F.lfcre 1P.Vti BA„lo — V i�breset i�e�` �� � , ���� , V f , �� � L. y 5A ;_, l I -A D I A aW 1 1 Bw am r�i S•� S3 �e ma 4��8 3 5 3 5 'o¢ �� 03 5 -15 20 25 30 LEGEND 24uah o. D. sptit-spoon smnple �. etetla wafer Level at Drilling Grab Semple DATE VIA. t- e V_ Stdlc water Level ® Type of Analytical Teding Uaed DATE roe x6emplenot Focoeered FoxnaeG:m.-'&:Recovery for NR No j� — AM At nma m fhewg Page: ' of -z'_ u; nmu;g gran uala : f . urming uompinon uate : , t -Z'vc Lagged By: �� GeoResources BORING LOG om Street SW Taccoma,, Wash98999 Ph : 253.988.5065 Fax: 253.638.8992 PROJECT: Job Number: vi-ro Boring No.: I--Z El v dcnRderaFee: emend surface Elevadon : Well Completed: Q ming Elva": AS -BUILT DESIGN TESTING J W co 0Z a o� Z cc O F 03 30 -d 10t'v I a's s-�f.50If. P-0 l "oti op etch O.D.aP%1of_8-p. V_ ammo W.I. L..rra ku DME owsmp. T OEOPR ES11E ee DV amW.ML w ME TyP-dm*v-dT--a— X SWO.MR-1—d V_ .,D�... w+ a.� ATO MT1..dDM.D ling Stan Date : I-7 1 , 1-, „r Drilling Completion Date: F,_ I, Page : Zof -z' I Slopes Greater Than 30 Percent Slopes Greater Than 30 Percent Conventional Footing Setback Distance Footing Extension Setback Distance GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 16 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 Residential Structure Foundation Element Residential Structure Footing Extension Foundation Element Structural Setback Not to scale DocID: June 2013 Figure 7 LANDAU ASSOCIATES October 16, 2014 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 9 REDONDO HIGHLANDS #5 XXXX SOUTHWEST 297TH STREET, PARCEL # 7205310090 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Chapin: Per your request, this letter provides supplemental geotechnical review comments in accordance with applicable sections of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). The following document was provided by the City of Federal Way (City) for our review: Geotechnical Report Update; Single -Family Residence; Redondo Highlands, Lot 9, M SW 29`" Street; Federal Way, Washington; dated July 23, 2014; prepared by GeoResources LLC The July 23, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources, LLC (GeoResources) was submitted to the City in response to comments made by Landau Associates on the GeoResources' March 28, 2014 report prepared for the project. Our comments were summarized in a July 2, 2014 letter to Ms. Becky Chapin, Associate Planner of the City. SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS The July 23, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources addresses most of our comments presented in our July 2, 2014 letter to the City. In our opinion, several issues remain to be addressed by the applicant's geotechnical engineer. The following summarizes our comments on the supplemental information provided to us for review. The March 28, 2014 report indicated that the slope was disturbed during field explorations and recommends maintenance to maintain the repairs. At the time of our review, it is unknown if the repairs are being maintained. We recommended that the City require the geotechnical engineer to periodically check the status of the repairs and if maintenance is required, the applicant should implement the recommended maintenance measures. The July 23, 2014 GeoResources report states that the site appears stable at the time of their site visit. It is unclear if this item has been addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL E NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fox (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com EDMONDS )CORPORATE) • SEAT LE • TACOMA • OLYMPIA • SPOKANE • PORTLAND In our July 2, 2014 letter, we recommended that the March 28, 2014 geotechnical report be amended to include refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. We also recommended that at least two load tests be done to verify pin pile vertical capacity. These recommendations were not incorporated into the revised report. We are concerned that with no means to verify pile capacity, the actual capacity may be less then what the design calls for. We recommend that the City require at least two pile load test to verify pile capacity and develop an appropriate refusal criteria as part of the building permit requirements. The project geotechnical engineer should conduct the load tests. Geotechnical recommendations for resistance to lateral loads (seismic, wind, etc.) have been provided in the July 23, 2014 GeoResources report. Recommendations are provided for passive earth pressures and frictional resistance. Because larger strains are required to mobilize the passive soil resistance as compared to frictional resistance, it is typical to use one-half of the recommended passive soil resistance value went combining passive resistance with frictional resistance. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer review and comment on this. • FWRC Section 19.160.010.4.c requires that the qualified professional engineer (GeoResources LLC) be present on site during all land surface modifications. We recommend that the City also include the requirement that GeoResources LLC be on site to observe installation of pin pile and spread footing foundations, temporary shoring, and any other geotechnical-related construction activities. At the completion of construction, GeoResources LLC should submit a letter to the City stating that construction was in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City make this a condition of the building permit. • We recommend that GeoResources LLC review the constructions plan and provide a letter to the City stating that stating that the site development and grading plans are in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City make this a condition of the building permit. We recommend that the City require GeoResources LLC to review and respond to the above comments. We trust this letter provides the City with the necessary information to respond to the applicant. If you should have any questions or require clarification on any of the items discussed above, please call me at (253) 284-4875. LANDAU ASSOCIA ES, INC. A�Pdwa�rdey, P.E. Principal EJH/jrc 10/16/14 Y:\236\064.010\R\Redondo Heights Review Supp Itr.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES July 2, 2014 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 9 REDONDO HIGHLANDS #5 XXXX SOUTHWEST 297TH STREET, PARCEL # 7205310090 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Chapin: Per your request, this letter provides geotechnical review comments in accordance with applicable sections of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). The following documents were provided by the City of Federal Way (City) for our review: • Geotechnical Report; Proposed Residences Lots 7-10; SW 29`h Street; Federal Way, WA; dated May 12, 2005; prepared by GeoResources. LLC • Update: Geotechnical Consultation Letter; Single -Family Residence; Redondo Highlands, Lot 9, xxxx SW 29'h Street; Federal Way, Washington; dated March 28, 2014; prepared by GeoResources LLC • Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations, dated April 1, 2014, prepared by Development Engineering, LLC. BACKGROUND Based on review of the information provided, we understand that the proposed development consists of constructing a single-family residence on Lot 9 of the Redondo Highlands Development. The lot is currently undeveloped and has slopes as steep as about 65 percent. The proposed single-family residence will be constructed on the steep portion of the lot. Foundation support will be provided by a combination of conventional spread footings and 2-inch diameter pin piles. REVIEW COMMENTS The following summarizes our comments on the information provided to us for review. • FWRC Section 19.160.010.3.a requires that a soil report address how the proposed development will impact (i) slope stability, landslide hazard, and sloughing; (ii) seismic hazards; (iii) groundwater; (iv) seeps, springs and other surface waters; and (v) existing ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL ) NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landouinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATTLE • TACOMA • OLYMPIA • SPOKANE • PORTLAND vegetation on the subject property and nearby properties. The March 28, 2014 report does not address this requirement. The report should be amended to address Section 190.160.010.3.a of the FWRC. FWRC Section 19.160.010.4.c requires that the qualified professional engineer (GeoResources LLC) be present on site during all land surface modifications. We recommend that the City also include the requirement that GeoResources LLC be on site to observe installation of pin pile and spread footing foundations, temporary shoring, and any other geotechnical-related construction activities. At the completion of construction, GeoResources LLC should submit a letter to the City stating that construction was in accordance with their recommendations. • The March 28, 2014 report states that three additional test pits were excavated in the lower portion of Lot 9. The report also implies that test pits were excavated at the top of the slope, though no specific details are provided in the report. The March 28, 2014 report does not include a site plan showing the exploration locations or summary logs of the test pits. We recommend that the report be amended to include a site plan showing the exploration locations and summary logs of the conditions encountered in the test pits. ■ The March 28, 2014 report indicates that the slope was disturbed during field explorations and recommends maintenance to maintain the repairs. It is unknown if the repairs are being maintained. The City should require the geotechnical engineer to periodically check the status of the repairs. If maintenance is required, the applicant should implement the recommended maintenance measures. • The March 28, 2014 report states that temporary shoring may be required to construct the foundations. The report does not contain recommendations for temporary shoring. The report should be amended to include recommendations for temporary shoring. • The March 28, 2014 report does not provided refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. The report should be amended to include the recommend refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. • The March 28, 2014 report states that load testing to verify pin pile capacity is not required. We recommend at least 2 load test be done to verify pin pile vertical capacity. • Though the March 28, 2014 report provides pin pile capacities, the project drawings show some of the structure will be supported by spread footing foundations. The report does not provided recommendations for spread footing foundations. The report should be amended to include recommendations for spread footing foundations. • The March 28, 2014 report does not provide geotechnical recommendations for resistance to lateral loads (seismic, wind, etc). The report should be amended to include recommendations for resistance to lateral loads. • We recommend that GeoResources LLC review the constructions plan and provide a letter to the City stating that stating that the site development and grading plans are in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City require that the March 28, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources LLC be revised to address the above comments and resubmitted to the City for additional review. 7/2/14 Y:\238\064.010\R\Redondo Heights Review I[r.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 We trust this letter provides the City with the necessary information to respond to the applicant. If you should have any questions or require clarification on any of the items discussed above, please call me at (253) 284-4875. INC. Principal EJH/jrc 712/14 YA238\064.010\R\Redondo Heights Review Itr.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES GeoResources, LLC Fx. 253-896-1011 �, - 5007 Pacific Hwy. E., Ste. 16 Fx. 253-896-2633- Fife, Washington 98424-2462 Mr. Vitally Pieckhotin c/o Advanced Building Consultants, Inc. 14422 SE 192"d Street Renton, WA 98058 Attn: Mr. Glenn Carter (206) 714-6246 RECEIVED March 28, 2014 APR 16 2014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Update: Geotechnical Consultation Letter Single -Family Residence Redondo Highlands, Lot 9 XXX SW 297t" Street Federal Way, Washington PN:7205310090 File: Britt.Lot7Redondo Heights.1_2 INTRODUCTION We previously prepared a Geotechnical Report for Stonegate Homes dated May 12, 2006 addressing the proposed residence on Lots 7 through 10 in the Redondo Heights area located near SW 297t" Street in Federal Way, Washington. This report included soil explorations on Lot 9 (B-2, TP-1, and TP2). A response to Review Comments and Plan Review Letter was prepared and dated August 16, 2007. The onsite slope is approximately 65 percent with about 60 feet of vertical relief. We understand the proposed residence will likely be constructed from the bottom up. This phasing approach will reduce the potential for erosion and help increase the stability of the site. On January 30 and 31, 2014, we observed the excavation of three additional test pits in the lower portion of Lot 9. Exposed soils consisted of 4 to 7 feet of loose sandy gravel with assorted debris. These soils are related to uncontrolled fill material, likely from prior grading activity. Underlying the surficial soils, we observed medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel to gravelly sand with trace boulders and silt, representative of native outwash deposits. The test pits were excavated using a large excavator. After digging the test holes at the top of the slope, the plan was for the excavator to be loaded onto a trailer and driven around to the entrance at toe of the slope. Unfortunately, the operator decided to drive down the slope rather than trailer around. This disturbed the shallow soils on the slope face. No other grading occurred during the exploration program. The disturbed areas were erosion protected but require maintenance until the site is developed. SETBACK CRITERIA The International Building Code requires a building setback from slopes that are steeper than 3H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) or 33 percent unless evaluated and reduced, and/or a structural setback is provided, by a licensed geotechnical engineer. The setback distance is calculated based on the vertical height of the slope. The typical IBC setback from the top of the slope equals one third the height of the slope. Based on our site observations, in accordance with IBC (International Building Code) Section 1805 guidelines, we recommend a setback distance of H/3 for slopes greater than 10 feet in height from slopes greater than 33 percent. Where this setback distance cannot be met, the foundation elements of the structure should extend vertically so that the setback is measured horizontally from the lower outside edge of the Pieckhotin.Vitaliy — Redondo Heights Lot 9 March 28, 2014 Page 2 foundation element to the face of the slope. This structural setback is contingent on the foundation elements extending into the dense to very dense native soils that underly the site. Provided the International Building Code Section 1805 structural setback distance of 1/3H (height of slope) is maintained between the outside edge of the foundation and the face of the slope, we do not anticipate deepened foundation elements such as pin piles will be necessary. We anticipate that two of the interior foundation tiers will not meet the IBC setback distance and will need deepened foundation elements. Shoring may be required to maintain stable temporary cut slopes above the building pad area, until the walls are constructed. Several contractors have visited the site and determined it is not feasible to install deepened foundation elements using heavy equipment. Alternatively, 2 inch pin piles may be installed using hand portable equipment. This requires special design criteria, with special "dead -man" anchoring piles. Needle piling will likely be required in portions of the foundations. Needle piling consist of small diameter Schedule-80 steel pipe that are driven into the underlying soils to refusal. Individual pipe segments typically range from about 8 to 21 feet long and are successively joined with external threaded couplings, internal slip couplings, or butt welds as pile driving progresses. Minimum embedment shall be 8 feet. We anticipate that the needle piles will meet refusal in the underlying stiff/very dense soils. However, because refusal depths are difficult to predict and because soil conditions could vary significantly across the site, the contractor should be prepared for variable pile lengths. Also, it may be necessary to modify pile layouts if rocks or other obstructions are encountered during pile -driving. When refusal has been achieved, the pin piles can be cut to a predetermined height or elevation. To provide a good bond between the piles and the pile cap, reinforcing bars with 90-degree bends can be welded to the top of the pile or, alternatively, the top of the pile can be splayed apart. A structural engineer should be responsible for designing the reinforced steel and foundation elements. Allowable Value Design Parameter 2-inch diameter Static Compressive Capacity 4,000 pounds Transient Compressive Capacity 5,300 pounds We do not anticipate 2 inch piles will necessitate quick load testing. In areas where the lengths of the pin piles are exposed and not directly incorporated into the foundation grade beams, the area around the pin piles should be backfilled with a well draining material such as angular quarry spalls, or CDF (lean mix). Based on our 2014 site observations, there has been no significant change in the site conditions since our December 2005 explorations and site visit. It is our opinion that the previously prepared geotechnical documents remain relevant to the proposed residential site development. Copies of our previous Geotechnical Report and Response to Comments Letter are attached for your reference. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, my services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, should be understood. Pieckhotin.Vitaliy — Redondo Heights Lot 9 March 28, 2014 Page 3 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have need of additional information or services please call. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC Brad P. Biggerstaff, LEG Principal RMP:BPB:DCB/rmp Job: Pieckhotin.Lot9Redondo Heights.L w l Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE Sr. Geotechnical Engineer Ph. 253-896-1011: Fx. 253-896-2633 Stonegate Homes 1995178t" Avenue NE Bellevue, WA 98008 FILE Attention: Mr. Larry Jaffy PERMIT #: 14-101754-00-SF ADDRESS: --- --~ PROJECT: New Single Family PIECKHOTIN DATE: 4/16/14 GeoRes®urces, LK.,. 5007 Pacific Hwy. E., Ste. 20 Fife, Washington 98424-2649 APR 16 2014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Geotechnical Report Proposed Residences Lots 7-10 SW 297th Street Federal Way, WA Job:Stonegate.2971hSt. RG INTRODUCTION This report provides our the results of our site exploration program and geotechnical engineering analyses completed for 4 residential lots located on SW 297th Street in Federal Way, Washington. This report is written at your request, and has been completed in accordance with our proposal dated August 22, 2006, subsequently authorized by you. The project site consists of 4 adjoining lots on the cul-de-sac for SW 297th Street. The lots are irregular in shape, extending between 105 and 185 feet in depth off of the cul-de-sac. The other parcels along the cul-de-sac have been developed with existing single family homes. Based on the topographic data provided to us, the site slopes down to the north at inclinations as steep as 70 percent with more than 70 feet of vertical relief. The steeper slopes are adjacent to the street, the slopes at the base of the steeper slopes flatten to 25 to 40 percent. Ground cover at the top of the slope consists of long grass and weeds. The slope is densely overgrown and covered by blackberries and small trees and brush. No sign of ongoing erosion was apparent at the time of our site visits. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. In our opinion, the properties will support the construction of four detached single family residences. Plans for a home on Lot 7 have been developed by Gerry Slick, Architect. As currently planned, the first residence would be accessed from a short drive off SW 297th Street. The residence will step down the slope and will be supported on Augercast piling intended to limit slope and site disturbance. A reinforced earth -type fill will be installed to support the driveway and reduce lateral loads imposed by the existing earth fill on the residence. Based on our site observations, review of the subsurface exploration data and our experience in the area, we conclude that although portions of the site slopes at 40 percent or greater, the native medium dense to dense sand and the underlying undisturbed very dense glacial till soils at the site appear stable relative to deep-seated failure. Significant deposits of man -placed fill soils were observed atop of the natural soils. The fill is thickest at the top (crest) of the slope where 10 to 15-feet of loose fill soils were encountered in the test borings. The fill thickness diminished to about 4- feetnear the middle of the slope on Lot 7. The thickest portion of the fill (near the crest of the slope) will be reworked as part of the reinforced earth approach fill for the driveway Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 2 proposed for the first residence. No adverse changes in slope stability are expected as a result of the proposed residential development at the site. It is our opinion that the proposed site development will improve stability of the site soils. Based on the results of our site reconnaissance, data review, subsurface explorations and our experience in the area, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed single-family residential development. Grading at the site will be associated with the excavation of the foundation area, utility installation and fill/construction of the driveway area. Based on the soils encountered and our understanding of the proposed site development, conventional earthwork and foundation support is generally feasible and recommended at the site. Portions of the foundation constructed on or near the steep slope area will likely require deepened foundation elements. Special foundation considerations are provided in the !'Pile Foundations" section of this report. SCOPE The purpose of our services is to evaluate the site conditions as a basis for satisfying the Federal Way requirements and to provide geotechnical recommendations and design criteria for the long term stability of the structures. Specifically, our scope of services for this project included the following: 1. A visit the site on to conduct a geologic reconnaissance to assess the site's slope, soil and surface water conditions. 2. Reviewing available surface and subsurface soil and ground water information, including USGS maps and the King County Soil Conservation Service soil survey. 3. Drilling and logging two borings at selected locations across the site. 4. Observing the excavation of a series of backhoe excavated test pits at the site. 5. Performing a site specific slope stability analysis of the site. 6. Providing geotechnical recommendations for site grading including site preparation, subgrade preparation, fill placement criteria, suitability of on -site soils for use as structural fill, temporary and permanent cut and fill slopes, and drainage and erosion control measures. 7. Providing recommendations and design criteria for foundation and floor slab support, including allowable bearing capacity, subgrade modulus, lateral resistance values and estimates of settlement. 8. Providing recommendations and design criteria for the design of conventional subgrade/retaining walls, including backfill and drainage requirements, lateral design loads, and lateral resistance values. 9. Providing stormwater recommendations for on -site stormwater controls of the roof water. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The 4 parcels sites are currently undeveloped. Topography in the area of the sites consists of a narrow, nearly level bench at the elevation of the roadway abutting a steep descending slope. Based on the topographic information provided to us, the total elevation change across the parcels is on the order of 70 feet. The steeper slopes are adjacent to the crest of the slope, while slopes inclinations at the toe of the slope gradually flatten to 25 to 40 percent near the toe of slope, and to less than 15 per cent at Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 3 the base of the slope. The upper portion of the site adjacent to the roadway is covered by grass and weeds. The slope itself is densely covered with blackberry vines, brush and low trees. The base of the hillside is likewise covered by brush, grass and weeds. No erosion or seepage was noted at the time of our site work. Anecdotal information indicates the site was used as a contractor's yard, with some form -boards and relic construction materials were observed at the toe of the slope. The existing site configuration is shown on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. Based on the presence of fill soils at the top of slope, we conclude the fill was likely placed as part of plat construction to allow the construction of the cul-de-sac. Surrounding homes are generally located in cut areas above the grade of the existing roadway. Site Soils The Soil Survey for the King County area (USDA Soil Conservation Service) has mapped the site soils as Alderwood and Kitsap soils (AkF). These soils are derived from glacial till soils and typically form on slopes of 25 percent to 70 percent. Slopes at this site have been steepened by filling over the top of the Native soils. Runoff for this soil unit is rated as rapid to very rapid, with a severe to very severe erosion hazard. A copy of the SCS map with the site identified is attached with the soil descriptions (Figure 3). We observed no active erosion in the vegetated site area during our reconnaissance. Based on our observations, the site soils appear to have a low susceptibility to erosion where vegetation is established ❑r otherwise protected. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling two borings and excavating four test pits at selected locations across the site. The methods used for the borings and test pit explorations are described below. Borings Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling two borings at selected location across the site. Our test borings were drilled by a track -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill rig operated by an independent drilling firm working under subcontract to GeoResources. A geotechnical engineer from GeoResources continuously observed and logged subsurface conditions and collected representative soil samples. Collected samples were stored in zip-loc bags and transported to our office for further visual examination. Upon completion, each boring was then backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings. Soil samples were obtained at 2'/2- to 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTM: ❑-1586. This procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch-diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140- pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The soils encountered in the boring were visually characterized in accordance with the Soil Classification System described in Figure 4, ASTM D-2488.The attached Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 4 Boring Logs describe the vertical sequence of soils encountered at each boring location. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we estimated the contact depth based on drilling conditions and cuttings. The logs also present the blow count, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from each borings. Where encountered, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. Detailed interpretive logs of the conditions encountered in the borings are appended this report in Appendix A. The test borings completed at the top of slope indicated the native soils which comprise the core of the hillside consist of dense to very dense silty gravelly sand (glacial till). SPT blow counts recorded in the till were consistently in excess of 50 blows per foot (bpf). The till is overlain in the test borings by a layer of medium dense to dense brown sand. Blow counts in the brown sand ranged from 19 to 43 bpf in Boring B-1, completed on Lot 7.The thickness of the brown sand was on the order of 12 feet. A somewhat reduced thickness of the brown sand was encountered in B-2. Blow counts recorded at the location of B-2 were lower, ranging from 8 to 11 bpf. The native till and sand deposits were mantled by an extensive thickness of fill soils at both boring locations. In boring B- 1, the fill was encountered to a depth greater than 15 feet, while in B-2, the fill was encountered to a depth of 10 feet. Test Pits Subsurface conditions were also evaluated using a series of backhoe excavated test pits at the toe of the steeper slope (TIP-1 through TP-3), and mid -slope for Lot 7 (TP- 4). Subsurface conditions at the sites were evaluated by excavating 4 test pits with a rubber -tired backhoe. The test pits extended to maximum depths of 15 feet below existing site grades. The test pits were located in the field by our representative by pacing from existing site features such as property corners. The approximate locations of the test pits are indicated on the attached Site Plan, Figure 2. Our representative continuously monitored the excavation of the test pits, maintained logs of the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative samples, as needed. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the system described in Figure 4, ASTM D-2488. Based on the consistent nature of the site soils and our experience in the area, it is our opinion that no additional explorations or borings are required. The logs of the test pits are likewise included in Appendix A. Test pits TP-1 through TP-3 were excavated at the toe of the steeper slope. These test pits encountered significantly variable subsurface conditions. The fill soils extended to a maximum thickness of about 12 feet in test pits TP-2 and TP-3. The fill soils were thicker at the top and toe of the slope compared to mid -slope conditions as indicated in test pit TP-4. The fill in the mid -slope area of Lot 7 was only about 4 feet in thickness at the test pit location, and was underlain by weathered till. SLOPE STABILITY General We currently understand that a new single family residence is planned for the proposed south central portion of Lot 7. Due to the proximity of the site to the steep slope and the presence of a soil type susceptible to erosion and slippage, a landslide hazard geotechnical report will be required by Federal Way as part of the permit process. The site soils did withstand the 2001 Nisqually earthquake (Magnitude 6.8) without Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 5 reported movement or damage. The following sections describe our slope stability analysis that was performed. Slope Stability Method Analysis Tlie computer program STABL was used to determine the overall stability of the site in its current condition and with the proposed development. The slope stability analyses typically involve five basic parameters; 1. Location and shape of the potential failure surface, 2. Internal friction angle of the various soils, 3. Cohesion of the various soils, 4. Density of the various soils, 5. Location of the piezometric groundwater surface. Usually, only a few of these parameters are accurately known at the start of an analysis. Instead, the soil properties and other parameters are estimated, interpreted, and/or assumed based on the visual observations, field and laboratory testing, empirical correlations, and experience with similar soil and groundwater conditions. Once the above five parameters have been determined, estimated, or assumed, the critical failure surfaces and associated factors of safety for the modeled slope and conditions can be calculated. The critical surface is the surface or plane most likely along which the soil mass will slide. The factor of safety is the ratio of the sum of moments resisting movement versus the sum of moments driving movements. As such, a slope with a factor of safety less than 1.0 has more driving forces than resisting forces, while a factor of safety greater than 1.0 has more resisting forces than driving forces. Slope stability conditions were analyzed using the Janbu Method, which is a circular failure force equilibrium method. All calculations were performed by the computer program STABL configured for Windows, which requires user input of the topographic surface, sail strength properties, groundwater information, and other loads, including seismic and building loads. Site Stability Based on our site observations, provided site topography, and encountered subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, we estimated both dry and saturated unit weight, isotropic strength intercept (cohesion), and isotropic strength angle (phi angle) for the various soil types. Tl)e following table summarized our assigned soil strength properties. TABLE 1 ESTIMATED PROPERTIES OF ON -SITE SOILS FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS Isotropic Internal Dry Unit Sat. Unit Strength Strength Soil Type Weight Weight Intercept Angle (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (degrees) Loose Fill 115 120 0 28 Very dense silty Sand w/ Gravel 139 143 750 38 I Medium dense Sand w/ Gravel 125 129 _ 0 34 =! Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 6 GeoResources assigned soil unit weight and strength parameters based on our experience, field explorations accomplished on this site, as well as index laboratory testing accomplished on this parcels and adjacent properties. We have also attached a table comparing the values input to analysis to the published values in the geotechnical literature, including Geotechnical Properties of Geologic Material by Koloski, Schwarz, and Tubbs. Based on our review, and the table attached for your convenience, we conclude the assumed values for the various soil types appear to fall well within the range of tabulated values in the literature, and in some instances, the values appear to be conservative. This following table (Table 2) summarizes soil properties, based on a literature search. The table is excerpted from Geotechnical Properties of Geologic Materials, as contained in Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Bulletin 78, as presented in Engineering Geology in Washington, Volume 1. The dense to very dense silty sand with gravel is interpreted to be glacial till, while the medium dense sand encountered in the boring above the till is interpreted as weathered till. Both native soil types are mantled by variable thicknesses of man placed fill soils. The fill thickness varied in thickness with more than 15 feet encountered at the top of slope, and up to 12 feet in the test pits at the toe of the slope area. Only 4 feet of fill was encountered mid - slope on Lot 7 in test pit TP-4. TABLE 2 PROPERTIES OF ON -SITE SOILS FOR STABILITY ANALYSIS Dry Unit Sat. Unit Isotropic Internal Soil Type Weight g Weight Strength Intercept Strength Angle ` (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (degrees) Glacial Till N/A 1,000-4,000 35-45 Medium Dense Sand F120-140 115-130 I N/A 0-1,000 30-40 Using the Janbu method, under existing conditions, the critical failure surfaces generally indicated that the site was prone to a failure near the contact of the fill materials and the underlying undisturbed very dense native till soils. We subsequently modeled the site assuming the Augercast piling were installed below the building footprint. We calculated the safety factors associated for several conditions, including: Trial 1: Static analysis ® Trial 2: Seismic analysis while applying a seismic load of 0.2g. Trial 3: Seismic analysis including surcharge (250 psf) while applying a seismic load of 0.2g. We also applied a seismic load to each of the above trials. The site seismic stability conditions were analyzed by applying a horizontal acceleration equal to two- thirds of the appropriate peak ground acceleration. Based on a peak bedrock acceleration of 0.3g for the site, we utilized a design value of 0.2g. We found that the minimum safety factor generally corresponded to a slide plane that roughly parallels the face of the slope and daylights at the toe of the hillside. The calculated critical failure sliding mode represents a roughly circular slide surface that exits near the slope toe. Our static analyses yielded safety factors greater than 1.5 for the critical failure surface that passes below the toe of the proposed pile foundations. Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 7 Shearing through the piling is considered unlikely owing to the presence of the reinforced pile cross section which is much more resistant to shear forces than the surrounding soil materials. When the seismic load was applied to the same critical failure search, the resulting factors of safety greater than 1.15 were indicated for the critical failure surface. Failure surfaces involving the plan location of the proposed structure will demonstrate factors of safety in excess of the minimum required factors of safety. Graphical output of the STABL analysis, indicating the critical failure planes and corresponding factors of safety for the model described above are attached at the end of the report. CONCLUSIONS General Based on the results of our data review, site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations and our experience in the area, it is our opinion that the construction of a new residence appears feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. Grading at the site is expected to consist of excavation of the foundations and driveway areas. The use of Augercast piling installed using crane -mounted drilling equipment has been selected as the preferred foundation alternative owing to the reduction in site disturbance associated with this method. Seismic — Liquefaction Hazards According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in Figure 16-2 of the 1997 UBC (Uniform Building Code), the project site is located within Seismic Risk Zone 3. Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the site, the site conditions correspond to a seismic Soil Profile type SD, for Dense Soil, as defined by Table 16-J (UBC), or as Site Class "D" in the 2003 IBC/IRC. This is based on the observed range of SPT (Standard Penetration Test) blow counts as well as the relative difficulty in advancing the backhoe test pit and to probing with a'/z-inch diameter steel probe rod. The shallow soil conditions were assumed to be representative for the site conditions beyond the depths explored. Based on our review of the subsurface conditions, we conclude that the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction. The site soils comprising the core of the hillside are generally in a dense to very dense condition and the static water table is located well below the site. No groundwater was encountered in the deep explorations accomplished for our study. Only minor seepage volumes were encountered in the test pits in the soils at the base of the hillside well beyond the maximum lateral extent of the residences. Shaking of the already dense soil is not apt to produce a denser configuration and subsequently excess pore water pressures are not likely to be produced. Based on the above, it is our opinion that the site does not meet the technical criteria of a Liquefaction Hazard. Site Preparation All areas to be graded/excavated should be cleared of deleterious matter including any existing structures, foundations, abandoned utility lines, debris and vegetation. Graded areas should be stripped of any forest duff and organic -laden soils. Based on our explorations, we estimate that stripping on the order of 6 inches will be necessary to remove the root zone and surficial soils containing organics. Areas with Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 8 deeper, unsuitable organics should be expected in the vicinity of depressions or heavy vegetation. Stripping depths of up to 1 to 2 feet may be required in these areas. These materials may be stockpiled and later used for erosion control and landscaping/ revegetation. Materials that cannot be used for landscaping or erosion control should be removed from the project site. Where placement of fill material is required, the exposed subgrade areas should be compacted to a firm and unyielding surface prior to placement of any fill. We recommend that trees be removed by overturning in fill areas so that a majority of the roots are removed. Excavations for tree stump removal should be backfilled with structural fill compacted to the densities described in the "Structural Fill" section of this report. We recommend that a member of our staff evaluate the exposed subgrade conditions after removal of vegetation and topsoil stripping is completed and prior to placement of structural fill. The exposed subgrade soil should be proofrolled with heavy rubber -tired equipment during dry weather or probed with a 1/2-inch-diameter steel rod during wet weather conditions. Any soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable areas delineated during proofrolling or probing should be recompacted, if practical, or overexcavated and replaced with structural fill, based on the recommendations of our site representative. Structural Fill All fill material/trench backfill should be placed as structural fill. The structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of appropriate thickness to allow adequate and uniform compaction of each lift. Fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of MDD (maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557) to within 2 feet of subgrade and 95 percent MDD'in the upper 2 feet. The appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and compaction equipment used. We recommend that the appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field representative during construction. We recommend that our representative be present during site grading activities to observe the work and perform field density tests. The suitability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. During wet weather, we recommend use of well -graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent (by weight) passing the No. 200 sieve based on that fraction passing the 3/4-inch sieve. If prolonged dry weather prevails during the earthwork and foundation installation phase of construction, a somewhat higher (up to 10 to 12 percent) fines content will be acceptable. Material placed for structural fill should be free of debris, organic matter, trash and cobbles greater than 6 inches in diameter. The moisture content of the fill material should be adjusted as necessary for proper compaction. Suitability of On -Site Materials as Fill During dry weather construction, any nonorganic on -site soil may be considered for use as structural fill, provided it meets the criteria described above in the structural fill section and can be compacted as recommended. If the material is over -optimum moisture content when excavated, it will be necessary to aerate or dry the soil prior to placement as structural fill. As previously indicated, the site soils are above the optimum moisture condition, and will likely require remediation. Stonegate Hornes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 9 The workability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. In general, the old fill, weathered till , and glacial till encountered at the site are suitable for use as structural fill only during dry weather conditions and if the appropriate moisture content is achieved. These materials will not be suitable for use as fill during wet weather conditions. Compaction of these soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve during wet weather conditions. Even when properly compacted, these materials can be easily disturbed and will soften when exposed to moisture. We therefore recommend.that the site development be done during the dry weather periods. The quarry spalls and crushed rock fill material are both considered all-weather fill. We recommend that completed graded -areas be restricted from traffic or protected prior to wet weather conditions. The graded areas may be protected by placing a layer of free -draining material such as pit run sand and gravel or crushed rock (2-inch minus) material containing less than 5 percent fines, or some combination of the above. These materials should be placed as structural fill and compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. During wet weather conditions, traffic should be confined to protected areas. If fill material is imported to the site, we recommend that it be a sand and gravel mixture such as high quality pit run with less than 5 percent fines, a clean crushed rock or quarry spalls. Where free standing groundwater or surface water is encountered, quarry spalls should be used. Cut and Fill Slopes All job site safety issues and precautions are the- responsibility of the contractor providing services/work. The following cut/fill slope guidelines are provided for planning purposes. Temporary cut slopes will likely be necessary during grading operations. As a general guide, temporary slopes of 2H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical) or flatter may be used for temporary cuts in the upper undocumented fill soils disturbed soils that are in a loose or soft condition. Cuts in at least medium dense soils may be designed for a maximum inclination of 1.5H:1 V. Temporary slopes of 1 H:1 V or flatter may be used in the underlying dense to very dense glacial till soils, if no groundwater seepage is present. These guidelines assume that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes will be necessary where significant raveling or seepage occurs. We recommend a maximum slope of 2H:1 V for permanent cut and fill slopes. Where 2H:1 V slopes are not feasible, retaining structures should be considered. Fill placed on slopes that are steeper than 5H:1 V should be "keyed" into the undisturbed native soils by cutting a series of horizontal benches. The benches should be 11/2 times the width of equipment used for grading and a maximum of 3 feet in height. Subsurface drainage may be required in seepage areas. Surface drainage should be directed away from all slope faces. Some minor raveling may occur with time. All slopes should be seeded as soon as practical to facilitate the development of a protective vegetative cover or otherwise protected. Pile Foundations Because deepened conventional footings are not feasible owing to the extensive thickness of fill soils, either "Augercast" piling or concrete piers drilled using open hole Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 10 techniques may be considered. For a 12 inch diameter concrete pier penetrating at least 3-feet into the very dense site soils, an allowable bearing value of 5 tons is recommended. Augercast piling of a similar diameter and installed using high pressure grout methods may be designed to support a maximum allowable vertical load of 15 tons. We estimate that the settlement of foundations designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 1 inch, for the anticipated load conditions, with differential settlements between comparably loaded footings of 1/2-inch or less. Most of the settlements should occur essentially as loads are being applied. However, disturbance of the foundation subgrade during construction could result in larger settlements than predicted. We typically recommend that the piers be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and be structurally connected to the footing elements. Where the 12 inch diameter piers penetrate and bear on dense granular soil, a bearing value of 5 tons per pier may be utilized for concrete piers installed by open hole techniques. Piers of this capacity are generally acceptable for residential construction due to the attendant light loads. The concrete piers are usually short and are analyzed as rigid bodies with respect to lateral design. The short concrete piers are usually installed with a "highway' auger or similar truck mounted drill rig. On steeply sloping sites, construction of a series of access roadways would be required to provide the drill rig access to the specific pier locations. This recommended capacity is based on a minimum penetration equal to a minimum of 5 feet into very dense soils. The piers are typically placed on 4 to 6 foot centers starting at the corners of the foundation footings. Piers should not be located closer than 3 to 4- foot centers to each other, typically 3 pile diameters as a minimum. Significantly higher allowable bearing values are available for driven piling or drilled in place concrete piling. Owing to their flexibility in length, and lack of vibrations typically associated with driven piling, the use of Augercast piling (i.e. cast in place reinforced concrete piles) is recommended for residential support at this site, and to accommodate the minimum penetration requirements. Assuming that the ground surface below the residence is inclined at 50 to 70 per cent, each foot of pile penetration results in 2 and 1.5 feet of horizontal separation between the slope face and the pile tip, respectively. The piling penetration required solely to accommodate an appropriate setback from steep slopes would be a minimum of 10 feet in length. Based on discussions with the structural engineer, we understand a working load of 15 tons per pile is desired. We recommend that 12-inch Augercast piling'installed using high pressure grout techniques extend at least 10 feet below ground surface at the pile location in order to generate the desired vertical capacity, and also penetrate 5-feet into the very dense bearing horizon. Variable pile depths will be encountered at this site owing to the variation in the depth of fill above the suitable bearing soils. Accordingly, the pile penetration should be confirmed at the time of pile installation. The Augercast piling may also be installed with truck mounted equipment, but can also be installed with a crane -mounted drill rig. The use of the crane -mounted drilling equipment, in conjunction with a remote location for the high pressure grout pump, allows pile installation over sloping ground areas as far as the crane can reach safely. Where concrete pier or other similar foundation supports are utilized, the footing elements should also be designed and constructed as structural elements or grade beams. All fill material placed adjacent to the footings and support structures should be placed as struc- tural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the appropriate MDD in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 11 Lateral Capacity Lateral Loads imposed on the piles may be resisted by passive pressure which acts on the sides of the piles or piers. At this site, because of the limited pile penetration, the lateral resistance may be modeled by a passive pressure approach. We recommend that the passive contribution of the loose fill materials above the bearing horizon be fully discounted. The passive pressure in the till and dense sand may be modeled as an equivalent fluid with a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Owing to soil arching effects, the passive pressure may be applied over a tributary area equal to two pile diameters for a depth equal to 8 pile diameters. Pile translation equal to 1 to 3 percent of the pile diameter will be required to mobilize the passive pressure. Reinforced Earth Slope stabilization will be necessary for the upper portion of the site (old fill material) during excavation and construction of the adjoining structure in order to support the proposed structure and driveway. As previously discussed, a reinforced -earth retaining wall system will be utilized for this area and will be installed prior to excavation of the basement area. The reinforced fill will be structurally isolated from the structure to limit lateral loads imposed on the residence. We recommend that the reinforced -earth retaining system be constructed in general accordance with conventional practices utilized for Keystone -type segmental masonry retaining wall systems, or for unfaced wails using wrapped slope faces. In general, the appropriate geo-grid should be extended laterally within the fill material a minimum of 0.6 times the height of the wall/fill. Typically the grid is placed on a vertical spacing of 1 to 2 feet depending on the overall geometry of the wall/fill. Drainage is required behind all walls. Specific wall design information will be provided once the final entrance roadway configuration is available. Site Drainage All ground surfaces, decks or patios and pavement/driveway areas should be sloped away from the residence. Surface water runoff should be controlled by a system of curbs, berms, drainage swales, and or catch basins, and should be conveyed via tightline to an appropriate discharge. We recommend that footing drains be installed for the residence. Drains should also be provided behind the garage's geogrid fill, and basement walls, where the daylight basement is included in the design of the residence. The roof drain should not be connected to the footing drain unless an adequate gradient will prevent a surcharge of the footing drain. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Stonegate Homes, Mr. Larry Jaffy, and members of their design team, for use in the design of a portion of this project. The data used in preparing this report and this report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes only. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are based on data from others and limited site reconnaissance, and should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Variations in subsurface conditions are possible between the explorations and may also occur with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes Stonegate Homes. SW297th Street.RG May 12, 2006 Page 12 should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. The scope of our services does not include services related to environmental remediation and construction safety precautions. Our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifi- cally described in our report for consideration in design. If there are any changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type of facilities to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our recommendations and provide written modifications or verifications, as appropriate. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty, expressed or implied, should be understood. * * 40� We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please call if you have any questions regarding this submittal, or if we can provide additional services. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC Keith S. Schembs, LEG Principal i TH SC0TT SCH tIBBS KSS:KVVG:kg Stoneg.atc.29i�h Street.RG Attachments Kurt W. Groesch, PE Principal ��,� V�I • C1?0�`f'C' o .r 19466 EXPIRES: 06115106 GeoResources, LLC 5007 Pacific Highway East, Suite 20 Fife, Washington 98424 Phone: 253-896-1011 Fax: 253-896-2633 © 2002 Thomas Bros. Figure 1: Site Vicinity Map F, 71 57 43.1 28. static Safety Factors I 1.75 I 1.83 1.83 1.84 1.85 1.85 1.87 .- 1.88 1.94 T tCs ` 1.95 1 6 14.38 28.75 43.13 57.50 71.88 86.25 100.63 115.00 seismic (.2g) 14.38 28./b 43.13 b/.5U /1.00 Me-0 iuu.00 i i a.00 Safety Factors 1.21 1.27 1.27 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.30 1.30 1.33 1.35 71 57 43 28 14 seismic (.2g), 250psf surcharge 0 14.38 28. /b 43.13 b/.bu i LOU 00.40 1 vu.vo �. i 1 Safety Factors 1.19 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.27 1.28 1.28 1.30 1.31 1.33 GeoResources BORING LOG 5113 PHighway East, Suite 1-I? Fife,, Washington 96424-2649 Ph: 253.222.0901 Fax: 253.638.6992 PROJECT: smo-+e e-,r,-Tz tat ,-4E Job Number : Boring No.: I3 - 1 [ See• F' 10��. � Elevation Reference: well Compkded: Gnwnd Surface Elevation : Casing Elevation: AS -BUILT DESIGN TESTING w z� lmo SPA ." :!� far. _ 92 dOR tm_ 6a (v: I I LD 9-16Avfo/rcG ri;5'3�.a R2e�13A1 Slc=r�l .51AYD 3 -z 2- 3 B6 S 10 4� FJ i 20 25nls� LEGEND 24nah D. D. SpR Spoon sempla D� stetlo water lavel ai Ddnlnp Grab Sample +' eeopmbe Slmlc water Leval ® Type d Analytical Tatling Used DATE X sample not Re mwW Perched eroamm mr NR No Reo M AM At Thee of DrDlrrp Page Di Z uraimi; Stan ON: r 2.11 JZ an M Ortlllrlg Gon pleucIn vale : L.DA9++o oy % K W V GeoResources -BORING LOG Street SW Tacoma, Wash98999 Ph: 253.988.5065 Fax: 253.M8.8992 PROJECT domes Job Number : Boring No.: R-I >amuoR taer : — Well compwed: AS -BUILT DESIGN Gwnd Wfow Eevadon : Casing Devotion: j R gm f 09 U O 30 /_) r:` a/4'7y � 'J f i!ifJks i•,)� � C�7�c kl����} h1T934v��t� Gil 50 I !! — as/ P-0 C tG W to x e v p,).Q aw�aD.sp�+sP�e.=w TGEOPRO9 e.my. nul R.carad ling Start Date : , P ; i - V_ eumwm. L daw y ® GbS.'p' DATE V ehNew.WL w YR1ROYv. Typal NWytldT..fq O.d DATE .eq P ..dw 0-, *.w NR N. R.2vry 3 ATD MT_�DMM _ rilling Co[npletian Date: 4 1 11 f L OO S TESTING Nags: Z of Z GeoResources Highway East, -264 1-P " �/ Fife, Washington 96424-2fi49 BORING LOG 5113 e, Washington Ph: 253.222.0901 Fax: 253.638.6992 PROJECT: -s;mi�LE. t, Job Number : �,�F, �::.., , •�, Boring No.: Elevetlon Reference: t Well Completed: AS -BUILT DESIGN Ground Surface Elevation : Casing Elevation TESTING aw q �tlf z z� cc SPALS� s�i� a)lL� Ft 15 • SAti).� 20— f�Ejrrsea f��� 25 _I A r,.sF, ) 3��"'%w i'S i vlst2 �( f! 8�1$� l A L� -rt" ao S3 44 5 3 2S rill l i��� o) nve - , - 'D V_e l -fed !LU l [� t7Ge i7 LEGEND/� j &Inch 0. D. Spun -spoon Punple V Static Weler Level al DrIlling yf//l Greh eemple DATE fff� 1' Geoprobe V Stella Water Level w Type of Analytical Testing Used T DATs v 881"1101Remaw PerchedGreundwaler Nn ATD AITIt�iwol�Dr91Uq Page i of Z - urlliing titan uate : ;'?./ 1 1 § 0 0.!� - Drilling Corriptetlon Date: 11 gged vy . GeoResources f Street SW BORING LOG ash9th 98 Tacoma, Washington 98999 Tacoma, , Ph : 253.988.5065 Fax: 253.638.8992 PROJECT: Job Number : 5roocew-rp . vi-s-O Boring No.: ►-3-Z Elawwdw41 drwencs: campww; casino Elvadw : AS -BUILT DESIGN TESTING GmuDd Surface Elert�en: rouptDn 0 c m co z' 30J `I 5 f° V Car~�d►� a�,�, P,6T0OF &apiLodJE 4-1 Pit o e o u 1,3 m L�j A, Mft� 45 50 55 EQ LEGEND T rr�aD.sausa�s.v+ J_ v_ emawm.rt,.rronro DAIE ® a�mwnW pEDperncern v_ 6htle Wahrlavr DATE �nWai ryp�d AnrYlryTdpDnd pw Page j ,��ptl _� hNrd (iw�tlxrK NE Nofic_y C Of Drilling Start Date: S Drilling Completion Date: ATD N7M.9GliO h — 'ZODS Logged By: 4114) A, TEST PIT LOGS STONEGATE HOMES SW 2971h STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON TEST PIT 1 — Location: toe of slope near gate (See Plan) De th ft. Soil T pe Description 0.0 - 0.5 SM Sparse Grass and topsoil 0.5 - 2.0 SM Brn silty SAND (med. Dense, moist)(Fill) 2.0 - 6.5 SM Dk. Brn/black silty gravelly SAND w/dimensional lumber(Fill) 6.5- 7.0 ML Gray/brn Mottled clayey SILT (hard, moist) 7.0 — 9.0 ML Grey SILT (hard, moist) (Lacustrine) Minor seepage and caving above 6.5 feet TEST PIT 2 - Location: 50-feet east of TP-1 toe of slope (see Plan) Depth (ft.) Soil Type Description 0.0 - 3.0 SM Grey/brown silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) (Till fill) 3.0 - 7.0 SM/GM Brn silty sandy Gravel to Gravelly SAND(loose, moist) (Fill) 7.0 - 12.0 SM Gry w/ some mottling, silty SAND (loose, moist) (Fill) 12.0 —15.0 SP Brn F-M SAND (medium dense, moist) Minor caving observed in clean sand Minor seepage at 8-feet and 15-feet observed TEST PIT 3 - Location: 60-feet east of TP-2 Toe of slope (see Plan) Depth (ft.) Soil T e Description 0.0 3.0 SM Grey/brown silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) (Till fill) 3.0 8.0 SP Brn gravelly SAND w/ trace gravel (loose, moist) (Fill) 8.0 12.0 SM Blue Grey silty gravelly SAND w/ SILT (Loose, moist) (Fill) 12.0 - 15.0 SM Grey/brown mottled silty gravelly SAND (loose dense, moist) w.Till) Terminated at approximately 15-feet below existing ground surface Caving observed Minor groundwater seepage observed Test Pit Lags Stonegate Homes 297th Street Page 2 of 2 TEST PIT 4 - Location: On skid road halfway up slope (see Plan) Depth (it.) Soil Type Description 0.0 - 0.5 Topsoil/Forest Duff 0.5 - 4.0 SM Grey/Brn silty gravelly SAND (loose to med. dense, moist) (Fill) 4.0 - 5.0 SIP Relic topsoil 5.0 - 7.5 SIP Brn gravelly SAND w/ trace silt (medium Dense, moist) Terminated at approximately 7'/2 feet below existing ground surface Significant caving observed in upper 44eet No groundwater seepage observed on: December 1, 2005 Logged by: KWG LANDAU ASSOCIATES July 2, 2014 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 9 REDONDO HIGHLANDS #5 XXXX SOUTHWEST 297TH STREET, PARCEL # 7205310090 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Chapin:, Per your request, this letter provides geotechnical review comments in accordance with applicable sections of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). The following documents were provided by the City of Federal Way (City) for our review: • Geotechnical Report; Proposed Residences Lots 7-10; SW 291h Street; Federal Way, WA; dated May 12, 2005; prepared by GeoResources. LLC • Update: Geotechnical Consultation Letter; Single -Family Residence; Redondo Highlands, Lot 9, xxxx SW 291h Street; Federal Way, Washington; dated March 28, 2014; prepared by GeoResources LLC • Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations, dated April 1, 2014, prepared by Development Engineering, LLC. BACKGROUND Based on review of the information provided, we understand that the proposed development consists of constructing a single-family residence on Lot 9 of the Redondo Highlands Development. The lot is currently undeveloped and has slopes as steep as about 65 percent. The proposed single-family residence will be constructed on the steep portion of the lot. Foundation support will be provided by a combination of conventional spread footings and 2-inch diameter pin piles. REVIEW COMMENTS The following summarizes our comments on the information provided to us for review. • FWRC Section 19.160.010.3.a requires that a soil report address how the proposed development will impact (i) slope stability, landslide hazard, and sloughing; (ii) seismic hazards; (iii) groundwater; (iv) seeps, springs and other surface waters; and (v) existing ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATTLE • TACOMA • OLYMPIA • SPOKANE • PORTLAND vegetation on the subject property and nearby properties. The March 28, 2014 report does not address this requirement. The report should be amended to address Section 190.160.010.3.a of the FWRC. • FWRC Section 19.160.010.4.c requires that the qualified professional engineer (GeoResources LLC) be present on site during all land surface modifications. We recommend that the City also include the requirement that GeoResources LLC be on site to observe installation of pin pile and spread footing foundations, temporary shoring, and any other geotechnical-related construction activities. At the completion of construction, GeoResources LLC should submit a letter to the City stating that construction was in accordance with their recommendations. • The March 28, 2014 report states that three additional test pits were excavated in the lower portion of Lot 9. The report also implies that test pits were excavated at the top of the slope, though no specific details are provided in the report. The March 28, 2014 report does not include a site plan showing the exploration locations or summary logs of the test pits. We recommend that the report be amended to include a site plan showing the exploration locations and summary logs of the conditions encountered in the test pits. • The March 28, 2014 report indicates that the slope was disturbed during field explorations and recommends maintenance to maintain the repairs. It is unknown if the repairs are being maintained. The City should require the geotechnical engineer to periodically check the status of the repairs. If maintenance is required, the applicant should implement the recommended maintenance measures. • The March 28, 2014 report states that temporary shoring may be required to construct the foundations. The report does not contain recommendations for temporary shoring. The report should be amended to include recommendations for temporary shoring. • The March 28, 2014 report does not provided refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. The report should be amended to include the recommend refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. • The March 28, 2014 report states that load testing to verify pin pile capacity is not required. We recommend at least 2 load test be done to verify pin pile vertical capacity. • Though the March 28, 2014 report provides pin pile capacities, the project drawings show some of the structure will be supported by spread footing foundations. The report does not provided recommendations for spread footing foundations. The report should be amended to include recommendations for spread footing foundations. • The March 28, 2014 report does not provide geotechnical recommendations for resistance to lateral loads (seismic, wind, etc). The report should be amended to include recommendations for resistance to lateral loads. • We recommend that GeoResources LLC review the constructions plan and provide a letter to the City stating that stating that the site development and grading plans are in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City require that the March 28, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources LLC be revised to address the above comments and resubmitted to the City for additional review. 712114 YA238\064.010\R\Redondo Heights Review Itr.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 s We trust this letter provides the City with the necessary information to respond to the applicant. If you should have any questions or require clarification on any of the items discussed above, please call me at (253) 284-4875. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Edward J. Hea ey,-F.E. Principal EJH/jrc 712114 YA238\064.010\R\Redondo Heights Review Itr.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES LANDAU ASSOCIATES October 16, 2014 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 9 REDONDO HIGHLANDS #5 XXXX SOUTHWEST 297TH STREET, PARCEL # 7205310090 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Chapin: Per your request, this letter provides supplemental geotechnical review comments in accordance with applicable sections of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). The following document was provided by the City of Federal Way (City) for our review: Geotechnical Report Update; Single -Family Residence; Redondo Highlands, Lot 9,Y SW 29'h Street; Federal Way, Washington; dated July 23, 2014; prepared by GeoResources LLC The July 23, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources, LLC (GeoResources) was submitted to the City in response to comments made by Landau Associates on the GeoResources' March 28, 2014 report prepared for the project. Our comments were summarized in a July 2, 2014 letter to Ms. Becky Chapin, Associate Planner of the City. SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS The July 23, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources addresses most of our comments presented in our July 2, 2014 letter to the City. In our opinion, several issues remain to be addressed by the applicant's geotechnical engineer. The following summarizes our comments on the supplemental information provided to us for review. The March 28, 2014 report indicated that the slope was disturbed during field explorations and recommends maintenance to maintain the repairs. At the time of our review, it is unknown if the repairs are being maintained. We recommended that the City require the geotechnical engineer to periodically check the status of the repairs and if maintenance is required, the applicant should implement the recommended maintenance measures. The July 23, 2014 GeoResources report states that the site appears stable at the time of their site visit. It is unclear if this item has been addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATI"LE • TACOMA • OLYMPIA • SPOKANE • PORTLAND In our July 2, 2014 letter, we recommended that the March 28, 2014 geotechnical report be amended to include refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. We also recommended that at least two load tests be done to verify pin pile vertical capacity. These recommendations were not incorporated into the revised report. We are concerned that with no means to verify pile capacity, the actual capacity may be less then what the design calls for. We recommend that the City require at least two pile load test to verify pile capacity and develop an appropriate refusal criteria as part of the building permit requirements. The project geotechnical engineer should conduct the load tests. Geotechnical recommendations for resistance to lateral loads (seismic, wind, etc.) have been provided in the July 23, 2014 GeoResources report. Recommendations are provided for passive earth pressures and frictional resistance. Because larger strains are required to mobilize the passive soil resistance as compared to frictional resistance, it is typical to use one-half of the recommended passive soil resistance value went combining passive resistance with frictional resistance. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer review and comment on this. + FWRC Section 19.160.010.4.c requires that the qualified professional engineer (GeoResources LLC) be present on site during all land surface modifications. We recommend that the City also include the requirement that GeoResources LLC be on site to observe installation of pin pile and spread footing foundations, temporary shoring, and any other geotechnical-related construction activities. At the completion of construction, GeoResources LLC should submit a letter to the City stating that construction was in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City make this a condition of the building permit. ■ We recommend that GeoResources LLC review the constructions plan and provide a letter to the City stating that stating that the site development and grading plans are in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City make this a condition of the building permit. We recommend that the City require GeoResources LLC to review and respond to the above comments. We trust this letter provides the City with the necessary information to respond to the applicant. If you should have any questions or require clarification on any of the items discussed above, please call me at (253) 284-4875. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. A�Pdwa�rdevP.E. Principal EJHJjrc 10/16/14 YA238\064. 010\R\Redondo Heights Review Supp Itr.doex LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES July 2, 2014 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 9 REDONDO HIGHLANDS #5 XXXX SOUTHWEST 297TH STREET, PARCEL # 7205310090 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Chapin: Per your request, this letter provides geotechnical review comments in accordance with applicable sections of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). The following documents were provided by the City of Federal Way (City) for our review: • Geotechnical Report; Proposed Residences Lots 7-10; SW 29`" Street; Federal Way, WA; dated May 12, 2005; prepared by GeoResources. LLC • Update: Geotechnical Consultation Letter; Single -Family Residence; Redondo Highlands, Lot 9, xxxx SW 291" Street; Federal Way, Washington•, dated March 28, 2014; prepared by GeoResources LLC • Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations, dated April 1, 2014, prepared by Development Engineering, LLC. BACKGROUND Based on review of the information provided, we understand that the proposed development consists of constructing a single-family residence on Lot 9 of the Redondo Highlands Development. The lot is currently undeveloped and has slopes as steep as about 65 percent. The proposed single-family residence will be constructed on the steep portion of the lot. Foundation support will be provided by a combination of conventional spread footings and 2-inch diameter pin piles. REVIEW COMMENTS The following summarizes our comments on the information provided to us for review. • FWRC Section 19.160.010.3.a requires that a soil report address how the proposed development will impact (i) slope stability, landslide hazard, and sloughing; (ii) seismic hazards; (iii) groundwater; (iv) seeps, springs and other surface waters; and (v) existing ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • w wv.landauinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATTLE • TACOMA • OLYMPIA • SPOKANE • PORTLAND vegetation on the subject property and nearby properties. The March 28, 2014 report does not address this requirement. The report should be amended to address Section 190.160.010.3.a of the FWRC. FWRC Section 19.160.010.4.c requires that the qualified professional engineer (GeoResources LLC) be present on site during all land surface modifications. We recommend that the City also include the requirement that GeoResources LLC be on site to observe installation of pin pile and spread footing foundations, temporary shoring, and any other geotechnical-related construction activities. At the completion of construction, GeoResources LLC should submit a letter to the City stating that construction was in accordance with their recommendations. The March 28, 2014 report states that three additional test pits were excavated in the lower portion of Lot 9. The report also implies that test pits were excavated at the top of the slope, though no specific details are provided in the report. The March 28, 2014 report does not include a site plan showing the exploration locations or summary logs of the test pits. We recommend that the report be amended to include a site plan showing the exploration locations and summary logs of the conditions encountered in the test pits. • The March 28, 2014 report indicates that the slope was disturbed during field explorations and recommends maintenance to maintain the repairs. It is unknown if the repairs are being maintained. The City should require the geotechnical engineer to periodically check the status of the repairs. If maintenance is required, the applicant should implement the recommended maintenance measures. • The March 28, 2014 report states that temporary shoring may be required to construct the foundations. The report does not contain recommendations for temporary shoring. The report should be amended to include recommendations for temporary shoring. • The March 28, 2014 report does not provided refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. The report should be amended to include the recommend refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. • The March 28, 2014 report states that load testing to verify pin pile capacity is not required. We recommend at least 2 load test be done to verify pin pile vertical capacity. • Though the March 28, 2014 report provides pin pile capacities, the project drawings show some of the structure will be supported by spread footing foundations. The report does not provided recommendations for spread footing foundations. The report should be amended to include recommendations for spread footing foundations. • The March 28, 2014 report does not provide geotechnical recommendations for resistance to lateral loads (seismic, wind, etc). The report should be amended to include recommendations for resistance to lateral loads. ■ We recommend that GeoResources LLC review the constructions plan and provide a letter to the City stating that stating that the site development and grading plans are in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City require that the March 28, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources LLC be revised to address the above comments and resubmitted to the City for additional review. 7/2114 YA236\064,010\R\Redondo Heights Review Itr.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 We trust this letter provides the City with the necessary information to respond to the applicant. If you should have any questions or .require clarification on any of the items discussed above, please call me at (253) 284-4875. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Edward J. He ey�P'.E. Principal EJH/jrc 7/2/14 YA2381064.010\R\Redondo Heights Review Itr.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES GeoResources, LLC Fx. 253-896-1011 5007 Pacific Hwy. E., Ste.16 Fx. 253-896-2633 Fife, Washington 98424-2462 Mr. Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 (253) 332-6564 January 30, 2015 Response to Comments Single -Family Residence Redondo Highlands, Lot 9 XXX SW 297'h Street Federal Way, Washington PN: 7205310090 File: Pieckhotin.Lot9Redondo Heights.1_2 INTRODUCTION We previously prepared a Geotechnical Report for Stonegate Homes dated May 12, 2006 and a Geotechnical Report Updated; Single Family Residence, Redondo Highlands, Lot 9 on March 28, 2014. The City of Federal Way had Landau Associates complete a Supplemental Geotechnical Review of the completed building permit application and accompanying documents, including both our original and addendum reports. The Landau }( etter, dated October 16, 2014 is attached. Our response to their comments is below: I' Bullet 1: We visited the site on January 5, 2015 and noted that the previous area of V disturbance was still partially covered with clear plastic sheeting and that grass and _( vegetation had begun to grow over the disturbed soils. Little to no exposed, bare soils �p S CT L were noted. LC{�` Bullet 2: Our updated report provided capacities for 2, 3, and 4-inch diameter pin piles. The 2-inch pin piles should be driven using a 90 pound pneumatic jackhammer to refusal. Refusal should be defined as less than 1 inch of penetration during 1 minute L`u of sustained driving. For 3 and 4-inch diameter pin piles, the contractor should have correlation tables for their specific hammers and pile size. The industry standard for pin pile capacities and testing requirements in the greater Puget Sound is in accordance with the City of Seattle Director's Rule DR2009-10. Capacities provided in our July 23, 2014 updated report were in conformance with recommendations in the above referenced documents. We do not agree with Landau on the request for pile load tests if 2-inch diameter pin piles are used. Because there is a standard refusal criteria that has been used successfully for years, these piles are not typically tested. However, if 3 or 4-inch pin piles are used, we do recommend load tests on at least 5 percent of the piles (minimum of 1) Bullet 3: The passive resistance developed would be a frictional resistance just as the resistance on the foundation is frictional. Therefore the factor of safety should be the same. It is not typical in this area for the geotechnical engineer to apply an additional factor of safety if the passive resistance is combiners with the frictional resistance of the foundations. A factor of safety of 1.5 has already been applied to both UtiLIOMITTED Additionally we are ignoring lateral resistance from the piles, which whil contributing to the overall lateral resistance. FEB 0 4 2015 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Pieckhotin.Vitaliy — Redondo Heights Lot 9 January 30.2015 Page 2 ■ Bullet 4: We concur that the geotechnical engineer should perform special inspections during pin pile installation and at other times as required by the FWRC Section 19.160.010.4.c. • Bullet 5: A plan review will be performed and documented in a letter when the City's comments have been resolved and the plans are ready to be approved. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have need of additional information or services please call. Respectfully submitted, GeoResources, LLC r Keith S. Schembs, LEG Dana C. Biggerstaff, PE Principal Sr. Geotechnical Engineer KSS:DCB/dcb Job: Pieckhotinlot9Redondo Heights.1 2 �kCITY OF Federal October 16, 2014 Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South FederaWay l Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www, cityoffederalway. com RE: File #14-102384-00-AD; 2ND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT REVIEW Pieckhotin Geotechnical Review, Parcel #720531-0090, Federal Way Dear Mr. Pieckhotin: Landau Associates, the City's geotechnical consultant, has reviewed the geotechnical report update, resubmitted September 2, 2014, prepared by GeoResources LLC, for the development of the proposed single-family home. Enclosed please find an October 16, 2014, memo, from Landau Associates. Based on the review of the resubmitted information and review of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRQ, Landau Associates has identified several issues that still must be addressed prior to approval of the single-family building permit. Please revise the GeoResources report to address the comments made by Landau Associates. When resubmitting, please provide three copies of any revised plans or reports, accompanied by the enclosed Resubmittal Information form. I can be reached at 253-835-2641 or Becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Becky Cha . Associate Planner ene: Resubmittal Information Form Landau Associates Memo, dated October 16, 2014 c: Vitaliy Pieckhotin, vipcarsI@yahoo.com, w/attachment. RESUBMITTED FEB 0 4 2015 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS Doc. l.D 67042 LANDAU ASSOCIATES October 16, 2014 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 9 REDONDO HIGHLANDS #5 XXXX SOUTHWEST 297TH STREET, PARCEL # 7205310090 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Chapin: Per your request, this letter provides supplemental geotechnical review comments in accordance with applicable sections of Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC). The following document was provided by the City of Federal Way (City) for our review: Geotechnical Report Update; Single -Family Residence; Redondo Highlands, Lot 9, XXX SW 29`" Street; Federal Way, Washington; dated July 23, 2014; prepared by GeoResources LLC The July 23, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources, LLC (GeoResources) was submitted to the City in response to comments made by Landau Associates on the GeoResources' March 28, 2014 report prepared for the project. Our comments were summarized in a July 2, 2014 letter to Ms. Becky Chapin, Associate Planner of the City. SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS The July 23, 2014 report prepared by GeoResources addresses most of our comments presented in our July 2, 2014 letter to the City. In our opinion, several issues remain to be addressed by the applicant's geotechnical engineer. The following summarizes our comments on the supplemental information provided to us for review. The March 28, 2014 report indicated that the slope was disturbed during field explorations and recommends maintenance to maintain the repairs. At the time of our review, it is unknown if the repairs are being maintained. We recommended that the City require the geotechnical engineer to periodically check the status of the repairs and if maintenance is required, the applicant should implement the recommended maintenance measures. The July 23, 2014 GeoResources report states that the site appears stable at the time of their site visit. It is unclear if this item has been addressed. ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landouinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATTLE • TACOMA • OLYMPIA • SPOKANE • PORTLAND In our July 2, 2014 letter, we recommended that the March 28, 2014 geotechnical report be amended to include refusal criteria for pin pile foundations. We also recommended that at least two load tests be done to verify pin pile vertical capacity. These recommendations were not incorporated into the revised report. We are concerned that with no means to verify pile capacity, the actual capacity may be less then what the design calls for. We recommend that the City require at least two pile load test to verify pile capacity and develop an appropriate refusal criteria as part of the building permit requirements. The project geotechnical engineer should conduct the load tests. Geotechnical recommendations for resistance to lateral loads (seismic, wind, etc.) have been provided in the July 23, 2014 GeoResources report. Recommendations are provided for passive earth pressures and frictional resistance. Because larger strains are required to mobilize the passive soil resistance as compared to frictional resistance, it is typical to use one-half of the recommended passive soil resistance value went combining passive resistance with frictional resistance. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer review and comment on this. • FWRC Section 19.160.010.4.c requires that the qualified professional engineer (GeoResources LLC) be present on site during all land surface modifications. We recommend that the City also include the requirement that GeoResources LLC be on site to observe installation of pin pile and spread footing foundations, temporary shoring, and any other geotechnical-related construction activities. At the completion of construction, GeoResources LLC should submit a letter to the City stating that construction was in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City make this a condition of the building permit. ■ We recommend that GeoResources LLC review the constructions plan and provide a letter to the City stating that stating that the site development and grading plans are in accordance with their recommendations. We recommend that the City make this a condition of the building permit. We recommend that the City require GeoResources LLC to review and respond to the above comments. We trust this letter provides the City with the necessary information to respond to the applicant. If you should have any questions or require clarification on any of the items discussed above, please call me at (253) 284-4875. LANDAU ASSOCiA S, INC. AE�dwa�rdey, E. Principal EJH/jrc 10/16/14 YA238\064 010\R\Redondo Heights Review Supp Itcdocx LANDAU ASSOCIATES LANDAU ASSOCIATES June 5, 2014 City of Federal Way Community and Economic Development 33325 8`h Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003 Attn: Becky Chapin, Associate Planner RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SERVICES FOR PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 9 REDONDO HIGHLANDS #5 XXXX SOUTHWEST 297TH STREET, PARCEL # 7205310090 FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Chapin: This proposal provides a suggested scope and budget to provide geotechnical engineering review services to the City of Federal Way (City), in accordance with applicable sections of Federal Way City Code (FWCC) for the above -referenced project. This proposal is in response to your request of May 28, 2014 and is based on a brief review of the information provided with your request and our experience on similar projects. BACKGROUND Based on a brief review of the information provided with your May 28, 2014 letter, we understand that the proposed development consists of constructing a single-family residence on Lot 9 of the Redondo Highlands Development. The lot is currently undeveloped and has slopes as steep as about 65 percent. The proposed single-family residence will be constructed on the steep portion of the lot. Our brief review of the documents provided indicates that relevant issues include slope stability, slope stabilization, and foundation support. SCOPE OF SERVICES Landau Associates will provide the following specific services: ■ Complete a geotechnical review of submitted documents and evaluate that information relative to criteria in applicable sections of the FWCC. • If necessary, provide a brief memorandum to the City identifying what additional information should be submitted to fully evaluate the proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, SuRe 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com EDMONDS (CORPORATE) • SEATTLE • TACOMA • TRI-CfTIES • SPOKANE • PORTLAND ■ Complete a brief site visit to observe existing conditions as they relate to the applicant's proposal. The applicant and/or the applicant's geotechnical engineer may be present during the site visit. ■ Provide a written response as to the adequacy of the geotechnical analysis and any additional mitigation, as necessary, to meet the minimum code requirements and assure slope stability. Our budget includes time for office support and telephone discussions (if necessary) with the applicant and/or the geotechnical consultant regarding our review comments. If there are deficiencies in the submittal and the applicant needs to respond to the identified issues, additional budget will be required to review the applicant's response. If there are no deficiencies identified in the original submittal, then the supplemental review will be unnecessary. ESTIMATED FEE We provide our services on a time and expense basis in accordance with our existing on call contract with the City and the May 28, 2014 Geotechnical Consultant Authorization Form. The estimated fee for the scope of services described above is $900. If project requirements change or unforeseen conditions are encountered that require services beyond the scope outlined above, we will bring these to your attention and seek approval for modification to the scope of services and budget, as appropriate. We will not exceed the total estimated fee for our services without prior authorization from the City. If the above scope, schedule, and budget are acceptable, please provide us with written authorization. Landau Associates appreciates the opportunity to continue supporting the City of Federal Way on this project. If any questions arise regarding this proposal, please call. LANDAU ASSOCIA ES, INC. Edward J. avey, P.E. Principal EJH/jrc 2014-1195 616/14 I:\PROPOSAL\238\Redondo Heights Lot 9\RH Lot 9 Rvw prop.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 CITY OF Federal May 15, 2014 Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South FederaWay l Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityofiederalway.. com RE: Permit #14-101754-00-SF; PLANNING REVIEW LETTER Pieckhotin *NO SITE ADDRESS*, Federal Way Dear Mr. Pieckhotin: Planning staff has reviewed your single-family building permit application for a proposed new house located at the above -referenced address. A review of the material you submitted indicates the following issues that must be addressed prior to building permit approval. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT The geotechnical report and updated report prepared by GeoResources, LLC, dated May 12, 2004, and March 28, 2014, will be reviewed by the city's geotechnical consultant, Landau Associates, at the applicant's expense. A scope of work and cost estimate will be provided by the city's consultant and must be approved by the applicant prior to any further review by Landau commencing. Once the city receives the cost estimate from Landau, it will be forwarded to the applicant for approval and signature to proceed. MAJOR STREAM The city's critical areas map indicates a Major Stream at the northeast tip of the property. A major stream has a setback of 100-foot outward from the ordinary high water mark, which encompasses the northern portion of the site. The stream and setback must be delineated and depicted on the site plan. No land surface modification or improvements may take place or be located in a stream or within the setback; this includes any proposed detention system. Please show that all improvements and grading/filling is kept outside of the stream buffer. If there are intrusions into the stream setback (temporary or permanent), land use review will be required prior to building permit approval. Based on extent of the intrusions, the city will determine what land use process will be required; please contact me for further information. DRIVEWAY Per FWRC 19.130.240, the driveway in the required front yard may not exceed 20 feet in width and may not be any closer than five feet from any side property line. As depicted, the driveway is 22 feet 4 inches wide and is located in the east side yard setback. Please revise the driveway to meet width and setback requirements. Mr. Pieckhotin May 15, 2014 Page 2 TREE RETENTION REQUIREMENTS It appears that the site meets the required tree unit density, per the `Calculating Tree Units' handout that was submitted with the permit application. The site plan also depicts an area with the existing trees to be left in place. The minimum requirement is 25 tree units/acre, which equates to 14 tree units for this lot (0.53 acres x 25 tree units/acre = 13.25 tree units). If at any time that number will not be retained, new planting per Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) 19.120.130(4) will be required. Additionally, please refer to FWRC 19.120.160 and incorporate the tree and vegetation protection techniques for any trees in close proximity to the area of construction. VIOLATION STATUS There is currently an open code violation (File #14-101024-00-VO) on the property for some disturbance to the slope face caused by an excavator. City staff is still reviewing the violation and proposed erosion control measures and will be in contact if further action is required. No building permit can be issued until the violation is resolved. CLOSING Plans have been forwarded to the city's third party for structural review. Additional comments will be sent from the Building Division and Public Works when available. Please submit four copies of requested plans with the enclosed resubmittal form. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact meat 253-835-2641 or becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Becky Ch pin _ �1 Associate Planner enc: Resubmittal Form Handout c: Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Kevin Peterson, Engineering Plans Reviewer 14-101754 Doc. I.D. 65525 FILE CITY OF Federal Way October 16, 2014 Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www cityoffederalway. com RE: File #14-102384-00-AD; 2ND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT REVIEW Pieckhotin Geotechnical Review, Parcel #720531-0090, Federal Way Dear Mr. Pieckhotin: Landau Associates, the City's geotechnical consultant, has reviewed the geotechnical report update, resubmitted September 2, 2014, prepared by GeoResources LLC, for the development of the proposed single-family home. Enclosed please find an October 16, 2014, memo, from Landau Associates. Based on the review of the resubmitted information and review of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), Landau Associates has identified several issues that still must be addressed prior to approval of the single-family building permit. Please revise the GeoResources report to address the comments made by Landau Associates. When resubmitting, please provide three copies of any revised plans or reports, accompanied by the enclosed Resubmittal Information form. I can be reached at 253-835-2641 or becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, Becky Cha Associate Planner enc: Resubmittal Information Form Landau Associates Memo, dated October 16, 2014 c: Vitaliy Pieckhotin, vipcars I @yahoo. com, Wattachment. Doc, LD. 67042 4�1 o z O Ct LLI -2 p (a r.L r= CD LU a =) D— cc -1 CD U �r en OA 'a C.2 w = a) -0m 02 CD ca (D o -0 L8 CD Ch to u 0 > t aa U0 C 0 Co a, = .— U E. cu LU LL E -%- L) > CD W= cm 'm",Cd .a s CD C2 P- f cal CK —A -Wibi -j"....1.1% . . 'yi• a _ Y Ll tip irld JIM Or Ri _, , � -wry- J � � U _ Y � ���� � • � ��L -. `•��i� _ � by i CA r� • ,�• - r rTINi a- --7- • ' v'� LL! .� (�_ a71{ tys ..., - . �. �• _ ! + - p,�t •"� CGS co CID W * ni ► f ;,i} — . ' _ * "1e .10 At fli -�k_ P 4 .y �;3' � • ' �'�—_ _ -� --ram+. �� �r -�.� A�kCITY of Federal Way July 7, 2014 Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Drive NE Tacoma, WA 98422 CITY HALL FILE 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #14-102384-00-AD; GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT REVIEW Pieckhotin Geotechnical Review, Parcel #720531-0090, Federal Way Dear Mr. Pieckhotin: Landau Associates, the City's geotechnical consultant, has reviewed your May 12, 2006, geotechnical report, as well as the updated March 28, 2014, Geotechnical Consultation Letter, prepared by GeoResources LLC, in addition to the Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations, dated April 1, 2014, prepared by Development Engineering, LLC, for the development of the proposed single-family home. Landau's initial review has been completed. Enclosed please find a July 2, 2014, letter, from Landau Associates. Based on the review of the submitted information and review of the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), Landau Associates has identified specific issues and requirements that must be addressed prior to approval of the single-family building permit. Please revise the GeoResources report to address the comments made by Landau Associates. When resubmitting, please provide three copies of any revised plans or reports, accompanied by the enclosed Resubmittal Information form. I can be reached at 253-835-2641 or becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, G Bec"Cha Associate Planner enc: Resubmittal Information Form Landau Associates Memo, dated July 2, 2014 c: Vitaliy Pieckhotin, viacarsI@y_ahoo.com, Wattachment. Doc. LD. 66073 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REVIEW CHECKLIST For Internal Use Only Permit # I q— 9 - Date: Site Location: N/b (SW Parcel #_ ZU S 3 1 VO ITO Zoning Atlas Page #-11L Zone: Comp Plan: r Platted: No `Yes Plat Name/Division/Lot#: P Jandb 141 ] ('lr;"1 S Setbacks Minimum Proposed Front: Left Side: S Right Side: 5 Rear: 5 Legal description match subject property: Yes_ No- Foundation/floor plan match siteplan: Yes_ No Lot Coverage: Maximum ProposedQ (RS-5.0, 7.2, & 9.6 allowed up to 601%� SE allowed up to 10%, all other zones allowed up to 501/6) 1 1� Driveway Width: Allowed U Proposed �i Driveway Material: Driveway Length: Required Proposed d,17 Parking: Required Proposed Driveway Setback: Required Proposed 16 �� SEPA: Yes_ No SMP: Yes_ No�,/ (If yes, must be completed prior to land use approval) Height: Allowed Proposed Comments: Water/Sewer Availability: Yes No_ Comments: Septic: Yes_ No_ King County Approval: Yes No_ Site Cleared/Graded: Yes No Comments Frontage Improvements: Yes No Comments: Grading on elevation: Yes__ No. _ Comments: Retaining Walls (Height/Setbacks/Design): Previous residence at this location: Yes_ No_ North Arrow Yes No ADU: Yes No Significant Trees Yes_ No, If yes, how many: Existing Proposed" If yes, need: ExistingProposed or Both_ Need Topo* Yes _ - No— Contour Spacing Silt Fence Yes No— Required: Yes_ No_ Wetland* Yes, No If yes, setbacks are: Required Proposed_ NGPE* Yes No If yes, need silt fence: Yes_ No_ Req'd Setback Lake* Yes No— If yes, setbacks are: Required Proposed _ Stream* Yes No If yes, setbacks are: Required Proposed _ Slopes* Yes No— If yes, setbacks are: Required Proposed _ Wellhead* Yes.. No_ If yes, setbacks are: Required Proposed Shoreline* Yes No_ If yes, setbacks are: Required Proposed _ *Check zoning atlas & plat map for sensitive areas, etc. If yes, see a Planner. ** Must be 25% of existing minimum. KACD Building\single Family Residential Review Checklist.doc/Last printed 5/6/2014 2:01:00 PM CITY OF Federal May 14, 2014 Vitaliy Pieckhotin 4528 Heron Ridge Dr, NE Tacoma, WA 98422 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Feder y Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityofederalway.. com RE: Permit #14-101754-00-SF; Pieckhotin *NO SITE ADDRESS* Dear Mr. Pieckhotin, The Public Works Department has reviewed the civil engineering plans submitted for the above - referenced project. Prior to pen -nit approval, the following shall be addressed: 1) Storm drainage from this site discharges to one of the City's local coastal streams. These coastal streams have been found to be highly susceptible to stream -bank erosion. In order to better protect this stream, a detention system (pond, tank or vault) is required to be constructed as part of this development, to collect storm water runoff from all new impervious surfaces of your development (roofs, driveways, etc.). Please provide a design of this detention system and include it on the civil plans, including all pertinent details. 2) Provide an `abbreviated' Technical Information Report (TIR) that includes the following: a. Existing and proposed land cover assumptions/areas used to determine the storm water runoff peak flows; b. Calculations showing the pre- and post -developed storm water peak flow rates; c. Calculations showing how the detention system and outlet orifice were sized; d. All calculations shall be per King County Runoff Time Series (KCRTS). 3) Depending on the final location of the underground detention tank, vault, or pond, if it is located in close proximity to the house, the geo-technical report shall be amended to include the installation of the underground detention tank and the structural engineer of record shall review the geo-technical report for the installation of the detention tank. 4) In addition to the above requirement, the Public Works Department has determined that the owner will be required to construct a tight -line storm drainage system along the east property line, north to an outfall structure with energy dissipation (design should be similar to the enclosed drainage plan). Please note that there is an existing storm drainage easement that runs along the east side of the lot which can be used to place the storm drain tightline system. The owner of Lot 7 has submitted to the City for a Building Permit, and will be subject to the same requirement to construct a portion of the above -mentioned tightline drainage system. It's recommended that the owners coordinate their efforts in the construction of this line. I:\csdc\does\save\14638441007.doc 5) Southwest 297"' Street noes not meet current city road standards. Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Section 19.135.030 requires street frontage improvements to be constructed (to current City Standards) as part of the development of the site. These improvements may require roadway widening, installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk, a planter strip with street trees, and street lighting. However, FWRC 19.135.070 allows the Public Works Director, on a case -by -case basis, to modify, defer, or waive the required improvements, through a Right of Way Improvement Modification Request process. If you choose to go through this process, please make a written request, addressed to the undersigned, and provide the reason(s) you are seeking the waiver or modification, as outlined on the enclosed handout. The written request shall be submitted to the Permit Center and shall include the $105.50 processing fee. Please revise the plans as necessary and/or provide the additional requested information and submit Four copies of the revised plans for our review. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (253) 835-2734. Sincerely, Kevin Peterson Engineering Plans Reviewer 1.Alm Enclosure cc: Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Becky Chapin, Associate Planner Project File Day File 1: \csdc\dots\save \14638441007. doc - RECEIVEIEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 81h Avenue South CITY OF "� __ �' Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 FQ �1 I�� 2014 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 G 1 "-w.cityoft'ederalway.com CITY OF CDS RAC WAY CALCULATING TREE UNITS (IN RS ZONES) (Chapter 19.120 Federal Way Revised Code) ■ To determine the minimum tree units required for your site: 43,560 (sFacre) _ ' x 25 (units/acre) _ (lot -size in square feet) (lot size in acres) (minimum tree units) Example: Lot Size = 9,723 square feet 9, 723143,560 = .22 acres .22 x 25 = 5.5 = 6 tree units ■ To determine number of existing or replacement tree units: Existing Trees Includes all trees except invasive species and hazard trees Tree Size (diameter at breast height 14.5') # of Trees Tree Units Total Units 1" to 6" dbh x 1.0 = 1,7-1 > 6" to 12" dbh x 1.5 = �� > 12" to 18" dbh x 2.0 = > 18" to 24" dbh x 2.5 — > 24" dbh x 3.0 = Total Existing Tree Units Replacement Trees Evergreen Trees — minimum 6' in height at planting Deciduous Trees — minimum 2" caliper at planting Species Tree Units Small Canopy (mature canopy area <450 square feet) 0.5 Examples: Japanese Maple, Black Hawthorne, Western Crabapple Medium Canopy (mature canopy area 450 — 1,250 square feet) 1.0 Examples: Western White Pine, Choke Cherry, Honey Locust Large Canopy (mature canopy area > 1,250 square feet) 1-5 Examples: Douglas Fir, Tulip Tree, Western Red Cedar For a complete list of recommended replacement trees, see Bulletin #068 Bulletin #073 —January 1, 2011 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Calculating Tree Units i 71A i � r4i it! Am, L�7�- 1�- m �r7 t "M t0600-� - - Y f .r + 1 2�6Q3 ... rv. _ F , ,; a 180 2? �• _.� .''tip "f I, jW IMq .. r ► 0 7g2C-62 - 253.. - 531-003 29 r 720-01 72 , F �y'? CD 00 Lv o� lieI 2p12 � tag"6z� N N PERMIT #: 14-101754-00-SF ADDRESS: PROJECT: New Single Family PIECKHOTIN DATE: 4/ 16/ 14 O�oO� t - rr`` V °T - . ► o � NC�1C\1N4> m N v- O � b ' Ln- O Ln Ln L _ Ln + + Ln II II o(DLnm Ln �mco0 2_QD. LnNn1N -IIII CVNNN lL > J Ln < N Ln V N V° N CL J C\1 O Uzi Doti- �=Q w(V�--� ° `� ,� uJ 0 O �p �9 O RESUBMITTED JUN 2 0 2014 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS RECEIVED, APR I 2014 CITTY OF FEDERAL WAY C.DS Plan: 3486 Drawn By: M� --------------T- Checked By:. f. VP Scale: D M o MO- - _- --1: R 70 M M Date Drawn: n.. 4-16- M Q Q �OQ" Page: zQ o -n 0 Q n 'W Co TOP PLATE N HEADER HEADER 5UB-FLOOR SUB -FLOOR LAP OR HARDI-PANEL AT SIDES AND BACK /�3G" GUARD RAIL TO / COMPLY WITH IRC 3 1 2 N LINE OF PROPOSED GRADE STEEL TRELLIS OVER ENTRY DOOR (VERIFY DESIGN) o� 1 STUCCO SIDING AT FRONT ELEVATION ELEVATION LINE OF EXISTING I= ISO NT L LEVAT I O N rNIS CHANGE DOES GRADE NOT EFFECT THE ABE __-OPTIONAL: ELEVATION NOTES: ■ _ ; BUILD UP DINING a .. ROOM FRONT WALL 1. PROVIDE FLASHING ALL WINDOW $ DOOR OPENINGS (IRC703.8) I I so THAT THE TOP Is 2. APPROVED HOUSE NUMBERS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN SUCH A POSITION TO BE PLAINLY ; 2 FARTHEROUT, VISIBLE $ LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. (IRC R3 19. 1) ; ; EXTEND TRUSS TAILS 3. GRADE G" MIN. CLR. SIDING TO EARTH (TYP.) MIN. SLOPE OF 5% AWAY FROM STRUCTURE. OUT TO MAINTAIN 18" I i OVERHANG. 4. WINDOW MANUF. MUST PROVIDE INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. INSTALLATION MUST ■ ■ COMPLY w/ THE WINDOWS INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS (IRC RG 12. 1) ■ ■ 2GG.33' TOP PLATE HEADER 254.33' SUB -FLOOR TOP PLATE HEADER 244.33' 5UB-FLOOR TOP PLATE HEADER 234.33' SUB -FLOOR I v I LAP OR HARDI-PANEL ffRONT WALL TIP OUT �AT SIDES AND. BACK ROOF MIDPOINT N O -C' 00 O 0- m 0 Z) Q T 1 1 O U) �o r O U -0 LL (o a- L Plan: 3486 Drawn By: TM Checked By: VP Scale: 1/4"=1'-0" u.n.o. Date Drawn: 4-16-14 Page: A 1