The URL can be used to link to this page

08-101898CITY OF �- Federal June 30, 2009 Ed Heavey, Principal Landau Ass ociates 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 CITY HALLFILE . 33325 8th Avenue South Y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cit yoffedwal way, cam RE: File #08-101898-000-00-SE; GEOTECRMCAL REVIEW FOR THE REDKA DECK PROTECT Dear Mr. Heavey: We have received the signed agreement and deposit of funds for consultant services to provide peer review of geotechnical studies and information for the Redka Deck Project located at 636 SW 293'd Street, Federal Way. Please proceed with the review as outline in the "Geotechnical Consultant Authorization Form" I am enclosing a signed copy of the authorization form for your files. If you need to contact Mr. Redka to schedule a site visit to his property, he can be reached at 206-920-9995. If you have any questions for me, please contact me at 253-835-2640. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, 4"�� Joanne Long -Woods, AICP Senior Planner enc: Geotecbniral COMUItant Authorization•Form PropasaI for Geatechnical Review c: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293'd St., Federal Way, WA 98023 Ann Dower, Senior Eugineering Plans Reviewer Scott Sproul, Asst. Building Official Fernando Fernandez, Inspector/Plans Examiner Doc. LD. 50616 CITY OF �. Federal Way May 21, 2009 Oleg Redka 636 SW 293d Street Federal Way, WA 98023 �1FILE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway.. com RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSULTANT REVIEW RedkA Deck, 636 SW 293 d Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Redka: Enclosed please find a Geotechnical Consultant Task Authorization Form for review of a geotechnical report submitted for your deck project and a cover letter by the consultant on May 14, 2009. Landau Associates, the City's geotechnical consultant, was asked to provide an estimate for their review of information submitted by you to clarify findings of a geotechnical analysis prepared by George Gergis, Alpha Engineering, along with a conceptual site plan showing the location of work that has been done near the top of a steep slope above Puget Sound. The normal course of action is for the City to set up an account to be funded by the applicant and drawn down by the work performed by Landau Associates. Please note that if any of the funds are not used, they will be returned to you. At this point, please review the proposed task authorization. If you agree with the cost estimate, please sign the authorization form and submit it with a check in the amount of $700.00, payable to the City of Federal Way. The payment must be submitted before the review will commence. Following receipt, I will authorize Landau to begin their formal review. I can be reached at 253-835-2640 if you have any questions about this letter or the estimate. Sincerely, ' J Joanne Long -Woods, A1CP Senior Planner enc: Landau Consultant Task Authorization dated May 7, 2009 Cover Letter from Consultant dated May 14, 2009 C. Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Scott Sproul, Asst. Building Official Fernando Fernandez, Inspector/Plans Examiner Doc. I D 50073 RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY 18 CITY OF Fe d e ra l Way Date: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY GEOTECIMCAL CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM May 7, 2009 City: City of Federal Way Department of Community Development Services PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Consultant: Ed Heavey, Principal Landau Associates 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 Project: Redka Deck Project — SEPA Review of Single -Family Residence on Steep Slopes at 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 File No.: 08-101898-00-SE Project Proponent: Oleg Redka 636 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 Project Planner: Joanne Long -Woods, AICP, Senior Planner (253-835-2640) Documents Provided: 1. Geotechnical Report prepared by George Gergis, PE, dated 9/12/08 2. Site plan prepared by George Gergis 3. Supplementary statement by George Gergis, dated April 1, 2009 4. Letter of June 10, 2008, requesting additional information Task Scope: In late 2007, the City was alerted to the fact that clearing and construction was taking place on a single-family residential site located at the end of SW 293rd Street, which contained steep slopes. The applicant was notified that severe steep slopes were regulated under the Critical Areas section of Federal Way City Code (FWCC) and that a building permit, geotechnical analysis, and SEPA environmental review would be required to build any structures within a "critical area." The applicant submitted a building permit in April 2008 along with a preliminary geotechnical analysis and SEPA checklist after the deck construction was almost complete. In a June 10, 2008, letter to the applicant, the application was deemed complete, but several technical corrections/clarifications were identified that needed to be addressed on the site plan and geotechnical analysis. The applicant's engineer, George Gilgis, submitted a revised geotechnical report on December 31, 2008, to address these issues. A site visit by staff identified the location of the deck tiers and that the applicant proposed directing stormwater to the side of the property to flow down the steep slope to the beach below. The Development Services Manager reviewed the resubmittal and issued a statement that all stormwater must be pumped up to the existing street system. There were also several piles of heavy granite slabs piled on the deck that were intended to be placed on top of the exposed tiers. The geotechnical analysis did not address the placement of granite tiers close to the top of the slope and a supplemental statement was submitted in April 2009 recommending that the granite not be placed on the tiers as proposed. The city requests that Landau review the geotechnical analysis to determine if the report adequately addresses the impacts of the construction and if the proposed mitigation measures will assure slope stability on this site. To that end, please conduct the following tasks: 1) Review submitted documents for conformance with Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, Chapter 19.150-160, - Critical Areas review for "Geologically Hazardous Areas." 2) Provide memorandum identifying additional information requested as necessary. 3) Conduct site visit as necessary. 4) Possible meetings on site with applicant or applicant's engineer. 5) Provide written response as to the adequacy of the geotechnical analysis and proposed mitigation to be incorporated into SEPA determination; and, identify any additional mitigation as necessary to meet minimum code requirements and assure slope stability. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by May 22, 2009. Task Cost: Not to exceed S 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.) A roa"+anrn- 09-101898 Doc LD. 49892 ID City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 Ph: (253) 835-7000 INVOICE Federal � Way Invoice Date: June 25, 2009 Bill #: 141495 Permit #: 08-101898-00 Project Name: REDKA Site Address: 636 SW 293RD ST Applicant Name: OLEG REDKA FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CD - DEP ENV PASS-THRU(8045)........................................... $700.00 001-0000-000-239-10-004 TOTAL DUE: $700.00 DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CITY HALL MANAGEMENT SERVICES 33325 8TH AVE S FEDERAL WAY WA, 98003 Reg# #/Rcpt#: 001-00076476 [ JT ] Accounting Date: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 Date/Time: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 4:35 PM 9020\G/L POSTING-MISC 001-0000-000-239-10-004 08-101898 OLEG REDKA FEE AMOUNT: $700.00 --------------- RECEIPT TOTAL = $700.00 Payment Data: Pmt# :1 Payer: OLEG REDKA Method: CK Ref#: 5452 AMOUNT = $700.00 RECEIPT SUMMARY TOTAL TENDERED = $700.00 RECEIPT TOTAL = $700.00 ----------------- CHANGE DUE _ $0.00 HAVE A NICE DAY! DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE DUPLICATE M GEORGE GERGIS, P. E. CNII,-STRUCTURAL-GF30TECIWICAL 12701 111th Ave E Puyallup, Wa 98374 '(253) 840-3398 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Jan 12, 2008 Client Mr. Oleg Redka 636 SW 29P Place Federal Way, WA 98023 Subject: Geotechnical report, as defined by The City of Federal Way Ordinance "Article XIV " " Critical Areas", Division 4, Geologically Hazardous Areas Development" for the Lot that is located at 636 SW 293rd Place, Federal Way, King County, WA. This tax parcel #1.196000315. It is in NW 1/4 of section 5, Township 21N, Range 4E, W.M., King County, WA. Prepared by: GeoVE?Ni V E D APR 2 2 2008 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS GEORGE GERGIS, P.E 12701 111 lth Ave E Puyallup, WA 98374 (253) 840-3398 Jan 12, 2008 Mr. Oleg Redka 636 SW 293`d Place Federal Way, WA 98023 Subject: Geotechnical report, as defined by The City of Federal Way Ordinance "Article XIV " " Critical Areas", Division 4, Geologically Hazardous Areas Development" for the Lot that is located at 636 SW 293`d Place, Federal Way, King County, WA. This is lot 2 King county short plat 679081 with tax parcel #1196000315. It is in NW `/a of section 5, Township 21N, Range 4E, W.M., King County, WA. Dear Mr. Redka: At your request we have carried out the necessary investigations to complete the above report in compliance of the scope of work required by The City of Federal Way. The following letter conveys our opinions, findings and conclusions. SCOPE OF REPORT This report has been prepared, as agreed, to address the deck that is presently installed at the rear of the site, adjacent to the building. The report addresses the details of the deck, and its effect on the site, especially the rear sensitive area. The site has been studied before from a geotechnically. This report is to evaluate any impact that may cause instability to the slopes and provides recommendations to eliminate or minimize any potential problems. SITE DESCRIPTION The property is a strip of land located off The SW 293rd St near its intersection with 6t' Ave SW. The access is through an east -west easement. The property from its north side is overlooking Puget Sound. The site is about 90'feet wide, in the east -west direction is. The long axis of about 210'feet is the north south. Page 2 Redka Geo Presently, the subject site has been developed and is occupied with a single family residence. All the surrounding lots to the south, east and west are developed properties. As stated, the site overlooks Puget Sound from the north. The property contains slopes that are minor to very steep. From the south, the site slopes with medium slopes toward the east creating a flatter area that was utilized for the house development. A bank that is in the northwest direction connects this flatter area down to the sound with steep slopes that are about 120 percent grade. These steep slopes were in their natural condition with medium dense to dense vegetation of mature trees and thick undergrowth. As found, based on the site development, we observed a catch basin in the front that appears to collect the flow from the driveway. As seen in the approved design, the roof downspouts were connected to a solid pipe and so is the catch basing. We assume that this pipe exits below the top of the bank. Over the slopes, the drainage is a natural surface drainage that runs northerly from the upper areas in the rear yard, the slopes itself, and toward the north. Due to the steep grades it appears that major portion of the runoff may be continue down to the sound. In total, the site covers an area of about less than one half of an acre. Please refer to figure 1, attached to this report. FIELD INVESTIGATION During the months of November and December of 2007, the writer visited the site and carried out a visual examination of the surface features, slope conditions and vegetation. A hand dug test pit was in the south area. Test pit was made to investigate the groundwater that may existed by comparison to the original findings. The location of this pit is posted on Figure 1 and the description is as per the attached soil logs sheet. For this site, deep subsurface investigation was performed prior to the site development and was utilized for comparison and as a reference. As mentioned the purpose of this report is to address the newly installed deck. It is understood from the owner, Mr. Redka, that this deck was installed during the summer months of 2007. The deck was found to be made of concrete slabs that are in different vertical elevations. Generally it was built against the foundation of the existing structure form the interior side. From the rear north side, it was supported laterally on a set of small retaining walls. Page 3 Redka Geo The width of the deck measured perpendicular to the house is aboutl4'feet. Considering the structure was installed about 25'feet from the TOB, the balance is about eleven feet to the steep slopes. Visually, the deck was seen to be in good condition with no cracks in the concrete or other structural deficiencies. The area between the deck and the slopes remains stable with minor signs of surface erosion but no deeper slides were observed. In our original visit, the deck was found to be fitted with perforated pipes to all the retaining walls. The concrete floor of the deck appears to be directing the water to the edges where gravel channels were installed to collect the flow. It appears that all were connected but directed only a few feet below the TOS. Later, as understood, the owner has extended this pipe to about fifty feet below the top of the slopes. SITE STABILITY As per the original geotechnical study, the subject site, although prone to seismic events effect, the site was found presently stable with no damage that resulted from recent or old seismic activities. Some slides appear to have happened to the west of the site, in ' _ neighboring properties. These were caused by a concentration of runoff from the upper sites and areas. And as per the original study, that has been already repaired. Installina such a deck ma cause harm to the slopes if not constructed adequately. The main problems should be the result of poor or ina equate drainage. The deck however may present an upgrade and benefit to the slopes if well constructed. The subject deck, as seen from the topography was replacing about one foot average of soils. The rear area was covered with natural growth that was difficult to manage, as informed. No trees were in this area. The water was partially infiltrating and both surface and infiltrated flow were directed northerly to the sound. The existing deck will prevent water from infiltrating in this area. The collected water, if disposed correctly will present no harm to the site slope stability. In conclusion, the deck should have no or negligible effect on the global slope stability of the site unless created additional surface or underground water, especially to the top area of the slopes. For that the recommendations stated in the following section of this report must be implemented. Page 4 Redka Geo CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Discussion of Development The main concern of this report is the deck at the rear of the site. Description of the deck was detailed in previous section. As understood, the deck is not totally completed. The remaining work is not affecting the slopes and therefore the owner was advised to stop until the time he obtains a permit from the city. 2- Final conclusion Based on the condition the deck was found, structurally and for its drainage we conclude that the deck should not have effect on the slopes with adequate drainage measures. Upgrade and final inspection are required. Please refer to the next section for the recommendations. 2- Final recommendations The following is recommended to upgrade the deck to the condition necessary no to affect the slopes: a) Confirm the pipe collecting the flow from the deck to be extended down the slopes to an elevation about fifty feet from the top of the slopes. The pipe must be secured to the slopes and fully inspected. b) It is recommended to split the pipe into two exit points. Each should be. fitted with an energy dissipating measure. A pad made of riprap may be used for that reason. The pad to be a minimum of 4-0"'x4'-0"xl'-0" feet in dimensions. The riprap size to be a mix of one to four inches average diameter. The riprap to be embedded in the soils and the pad no more than eight percent in slope, otherwise use eight inch of riprap. The pipe to be installed and secured in the middle of the pad. c) The two exiting points to be at least forty feet apart. . d) The pipes and pads to be fully inspected. e) Occasion inspection and maintenance, at least once a year is the owner responsibility. f) The structural integrity of the walls are not part of this report and may be evaluated by other report. Page 5 Redka Geo LIMITATIONS The information, recommendations and conclusions presented herein have been prepared using generally accepted geologic and engineering practices and techniques in use in the date the field investigation was conducted. This report is limited to identifying possible geologic hazards as defined by The City of Federal Way Code mentioned above. This report is limited to the stated purpose for the identified property and should not be applied to any surrounding properties. We make no warranty either expressed or implied with respect to any geologic conditions which can vary between sites and within any one site. If conditions are encountered which appear to differ from those described in this report, we should be notified immediately so that we may review, and either verify or modify our opinions. This report is for the information of the client only. Its reproduction or transmittal to a third party, except in full, is'prohibited without the permission of the writer. We would like to thank you for the opportunity to be in your assistance in this report. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact George Gergis at (253) 840-3398. Very sincerely, George' br GEORGE GERGIS 12701 111 th Ave E Puyallup,WA 98374 Page 6 Redka- Geo LOG OF TEST PITS Depth below Soil group Description ground surface classification Test pit #1 0.00'-4.1' SM-ML -Dark yellowish brown. Fine silty sand. Moist. Medium dense to dense — r _ _ -- - _ ST' P 5 p•'i'M1Rr:_ i1r�}, __ .._-_ �.�-��r' G SSW «S 3 q �•up�` N Sw i n4W A a 5BB -- • •-• _ • 5W Z95TH 295TH r ¢ u7 `S rCPL l I�DVERrY ' • +r+iyy,--' F �`•, f.r R .. �_ 1 JL w. sw 29iTH. Si Si ~� 5 MTH PL rn t � y . SW -• .PAY. • 4.,. ' �;n a : ' 1 ! I `�' 300Tr{ p 80B SW 29BTN P v' a SW 29M ST � � L ¢' SW + "ice Ttt1 PL s P9, c v z : sr a f SW 300 6 $pL M ark A • � V, < M Ha•p sp •• N } l sW 3015T — ST 3015T PL K' - sr srs 79;5 Sr 3WSr ' • n S SASH PaINT r.-: : SN 3URHG PL a a a 400 $ 302HB N �Deeo '.. t 5!I 344T11 S7 �l3 w SW " 304 . _nl ' 04 Sit - 3"' J195TH m T 6 sT v3 5T SN 304TH AL 5 3UATH Sr a385TH Si 4 a •s 3067y sT- a 2300 r.7 A W z Sj� 34GTy io 19no 305TH ST PL 32 y 1 Q�� ar SW 3osn! Ps iP. cy� d 3o s IPSm S+ N ..otiitii w� rH a sr N 10 YL W _ �� S19 BTH sr y� a M 1 x $ 3 pr 12 If9y. $ � � y m 511300m PL SW 31DTH Sl2Tx vL ,y1% a S SlW 4 3 r. :T •� b1 .�i 5T€^I` 5 rll. L7{ a J � • � A� � �+�,� 5i r .-. , 1A14 Burg QL 'I .tea sy •- fir• 10 -.Sk t 0�Jg �� co r 3171if t'1 I 4j rs' a. •100 1 31 H'" �.S . �, iT i 4 ]I'Flirl 4 ✓+ u . ' . ! sr 4 1'!I Fiiilis JI!:�� `1\V' n . � s • a. s rsx 'ems? _. �� 315TH . sv • 61M ` 5! 57 d� x a • si y f i_Fi -7. to J Rio 51i. .31 x ! �", .SY 3I5ill PL g� SH '$' 3ISTH ST 31 m _ p ~ S PL R sT * sv SW 317TH .PL 's'kalg�s' � 3I8TfI ST 'Y' ' 3 7TH' STD •'I' 7rr ��Y g 3s®m- 4 OT '1 � _ n rx sr� /� 450k S5 f S• - 3 7TR ' g: S �� `— � w - rp '.." 319xr n d ]t5rx. r OECA �` $IBTR [�, - n' f 1� sM SPsrx a'' ;HE:'_ 31711 i ii-•-,: v5 •.. .�, s>s 319T15 ZS n TOm -- x100 g Sfi00 5x amn z 110n �. u+•::'I Fn6 *"RIN uB 320TH 5T: 9 ._ ,104 'SS" ]SOyI R �-r' 7ixlsr f . 7 5W 32MI] ST � � I - aL9 - sx � .Sl PL y-7 �I .y ..-. � � _ � h `i{ su 7r2s �� y S1 i �. 4m !. PW�V•su„ro: AQ: �57 �� n u: � � V. 373fd1'S1 - !7S r`+Y � q � � sT t .323RB ti/ s2m sr ^ Y �' r ST • �_ ire J fi � ti7 yrQl !� upr qa. m s 732� N •� 5 1 i ]30+- a PL ! o , ri 3r,n . s Y T Y '�' a!w •,{�- �• -c,�•=yam-. ��y . 1 w :r'L!1 - "' SW32Ul1rt tx fi �gyi _-. x �.. •' w d eri AM �8 .•' ..iD -•� airtli +L PLn �p >x �� '' r `a �- h� o '. t �1 � g � �• t.k � 5 4�: v = S S ¢ yfgiTl 3 o ..SS - • •[r sr. SY. Sx . f -p/a„ x9nr n J' Arm ... �e •- d ~ • +3glH A x cp q _ : Ai 9 } ST •. ]rNF =y �f � swlx � �� S 53 PL CR'1�4TllM f V Y' �, �7 g1 ^u� ��-•. ;i�- a •ri eye 33i1�f 1 �- :xw se SW 333S7 pp r u, st st - Ma P EAIGFIA 757 STN 3 3c � w r7 3x 3uao Lr . j'•'-� R 306 :•• p�p,E` I P • '. r`T Fes_ •- FS THau yIf SW rsT. 33. .�G ST g. q6 Srr ' • S .iNr��s c. 7i1t'�f, r 1 w n7m � �• �rR :O �p.. i� LS N ST £I1 sv 33Y 51 a 'L SW 3 - - "' rr$ 1� SSrPu�e ' FAI r P jjkjp� 7 9ti lF! S MTH CIR h S 33$TM ST S • . P 5T ,w>k .SF1339 Si _ y' G�.uy 4'�.3'' Y ai y •�111RK H PL ww lf.� • r $ 9 �� 9 a,�P/r - ;.r.:�..: • s - H�yM, �3 63AS11ST r y ' n �• 4` ¢ x ''L SW S' '� 3d7iH s � K W 3w57 5V yt2 ST'' _ sW R PAW 24 F-t RIVE MOTH cF sr a 5y a TN PL E 354 '` SW i 346TH -ST SV 347TH _ Sf ' 347TH 4 �.. ! �gAitr ' �j? •j 5TH Pla„ r* 3d5n3 Sr SW W e q? SV H J47ryF�-' $ a Sr L , Sd Sit � 3�BfF1 A �r 20 �A�f ' 3'6"' sT ,, F7LIA'CIS o -+ a HOSPITAL n, n L g' 917N 1 34BTR FL t0. y w 5N a ^ aL SW 348TH � s • 3L7TH T T aE PI 348T1j ,� w `sT '• n � i SK 34BTU CT r1 � A �: BTFi �¢ P 349TH PL alb 3a a a aza v 5T , 3fj N as a� war — ---- - - 0 .125 .25 .375 .5 miles 1 in. = 1900 ft. i 4' TO 8' ROCKERY PER ENGINEER r-- i F r ^ `� 1� ILE I � f• 1 , 410 MOCKERY f I PER ENGINEER I � 1 r � ( I A oi I tg/ CD — 04 co v S o 10' `EP,CEMENT 20 •"' I� co C.'ONC DRIVEWAY. r j _SLOPE TO DRAIN I -IDRAINAGE — i TO STREETS ( fF i SEINER t r PROPERTY LINE 102 10� 0 _ _ 98 SETBACK 1 I x_.. f \ If1iv Si4s, i 1 NEW RESIDENCE V r (F.F. +108.0') r �i ff � I I :�. (TYP.) SETRA(-r 410 CROCKERY 0.5 a` ,C d L° Sept 12, 2008 Client Mr. Oleg Redka rd 636 SW 293 Place Federal Way, WA 98023 GEORGE GERGIS, P. E. CIVIL-STRUCTURAL-GEOTECHNICAL 12701 111 th Ave E Puyallup, Wa 98374 (253) 840-3398 GEOTECINICAL REPORT RESUBMITTED DEC 3 12608 CITY OF- FEDERAL WAY BUILDING DEPT. Subject: Geotechnical report, as defined by The City of Federal Way Ordinance "Article XIV " " Critical Areas", Division 4, Geologically Hazardous rd Areas Development" for the Lot that is located at 636 SW 293 Place, Federal Way, King County, WA. This tax parcel #1196000315. It is in NW 1/4 of section 5, Township 21N, Range 4E, W.M., King County, WA. This is an addendum Prepared by: George Gergis GEORGE GERGIS, E.F 12701 111 lth Ave E Puyallup, WA 98374 (253) 840-3398 September 12, 2008 Mr. Oleg Redka rd 636 SW 293 Place Federal Way, WA 98023 Subject: Geotecluiical report, as defined by The City of Federal Way Ordinance "Article XIV " " Critical Areas", Division 4, Geologically Hazardous Areas Development" for the Lot that is located at 636 SW 293rd Place, Federal Way, King County, WA. This is lot 2 King county short plat 679081 with tax parcel 41196000315. It is in NW 1/4 of section 5, Township 21N, Range 4E, W.M., King County, WA. This is an addendum to the original report. Dear Mr. Redka: At your request we have carried out the necessary investigations to complete the above report in compliance of the scope of work required by The City of Federal Way. The following letter conveys our opinions, findings and conclusions. SCOPE OF REPORT This report has been prepared, as agreed, to address the deck that is presently installed at the rear of the site, adjacent to the building. The report addresses the details of the deck, and its effect on the subject and the adjacent sites, especially the rear sensitive area. This report is to evaluate any impact that may cause instability to the slopes and provides recommendations to mitigate the impact and eliminate or minimize any potential problems. BASIS FOR REPORT Other studies have been performed on this site. A geotechnical report was made about four years earlier by Krazan & Associates of Woodinville, i%vTA. it was prepared to address the impact and potential of the proposed new single family residence to be installed on the subject site. It concludes that the project may be undertaken with deep foundation structure and about twenty five feet setback from the top of the slope. Project 08-05 Page 2 Redka Geo SITE DESCRIPTION th The property is a strip of land located off The SW 293rd St near its intersection with 6 Ave SW. The access is through an east -west easement. The property from its north side is overlooking Puget Sound. The site is about 90'feet wide, in the east -west direction is. The long axis of about 210'feet is the north south. Presently, the subject site has been developed and is occupied with a single family residence. All the surrounding lots to the south, east and west are also developed properties. As stated, the site overlooks Puget Sound from the north with the structure about twenty five feet setback from the top of the bluff.. The property contains slopes that are minor to very steep. From the south, the site slopes with medium slopes toward the east creating a flatter area that was utilized for the house development. A bank that is in the northwest direction connects this flatter area down to the sound with steep slopes that are about 120 percent grade. These steep slopes were found in their natural condition with medium dense to dense vegetation of mature trees and thick undergrowth. As found, based on the site development, we observed a catch basin in the front that appears to collect the flow from the driveway. As seen in the approved design, the roof downspouts were connected to a solid pipe and so is the catch basing. The site structures, both the roof and the driveway dispose to the street.. Over the slopes, the drainage is a natural surface drainage that runs northerly from the upper areas in the rear yard, the slopes Itself, and toward the north. Prior to installing the deck and due to the direction of the grades it appears that major portion of the runoff over the rear yard was infiltrating while directed to the east neighboring and the north down to the sound. In total, the site covers an area of about less than one half of an acre. Please refer to figure 1, attached to this report. FIELD INVESTIGATION During the months of November and December of 2007, the writer visited the site and carried out a visual examination of the surface features, slope conditions and vegetation. A hand dug test pit was in the east area. Test pit was made to investigate the groundwater that may existed by comparison to the original findings. The location of this pit is posted on Figure 1 and the description is as per the attached soil logs sheet. Project 08-05 Page 3 Redka Geo For this site and as stated earlier, deep subsurface investigation was performed prior to the site development and was utilized for comparison and as a reference. As mentioned the purpose of this report is to address the newly installed deck. It is understood from the owner, Mr. Redka, that this deck was installed during the summer months of 2007. The deck was found to be made of concrete slabs that are in different vertical elevations, three levels. Generally it was built against the foundation of the existing structure. From the rear north side, it was supported laterally on a set of small rockery retaining walls. The width of the deck measured perpendicular to the house is aboutl4'feet. Considering the structure was installed about 25'feet from the top of the slopes, the remaining setback is about ten to eleven feet to the steep slopes. Visually, the deck was seen to be in good condition with no cracks in the concrete or other structural deficiencies. The area between the deck and the slopes remains stable with minor signs of surface erosion but no deeper slides or tension cracks were observed. In our original visit, the deck was found to be fitted with perforated pipes to all the retaining walls. The concrete floor of the deck appears to be directing the water to the edges where gravel channels were installed to collect the flow. It appears that all were connected but directed only about forty feet below the top of the bluff. This to be corrected as per this report. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site subsurface was concluded from the previous report and confirmed by our investigation. We only exposed about five feet deep that matches the other investigation. Generally about eight f el ,of medium dense to dense sandy silt is overlaying about forty feet of very dense olive gray sandy silt to clay silt. This is underlain by very dense layers of grayish brown sand. Ground water was encountered at fifteen and forty one feet depth from the surface. In our investigation, however, we did not encounter any seepage to the five feet depth, which confirms the previous studies. It is possible as recognized by the other report that a slip surface exists at about fifteen feet depth. Project 08-05 Page 4 Redka Geo SITE AND SLOPE STABILITY As per the original geotechnical study, the subject site, although prone to seismic events effect, the site was found presently stable with no damage that resulted from recent or old seismic activities. Some slides appear to have happened to the west of the site, in neighboring properties. These were caused by a concentration of runoff from the upper sites and areas. And as per the original study, that has been already repaired. The deck was built in three levels to accommodate the site slopes in the rear area. It appears that cuts of about fifteen to twenty two inches were made near the rear of the house and the area was somewhat leveled to create the deck which necessitated the construction of the retaining structures. As understood, about two inches of gravel were installed over the prepared ground underlying about three and a half inches of finished concrete. As per the original report that was prepared for the main site development, the slope stability was performed and showed a global factor of safety of 1.04 for seismic 100 year event. As installed, we believe that the new deck has a minor effect on the global stability of the slopes since no new additional material were imported. However the weight of the concrete may have minor effect. The expected effect is due to adding extra surcharge closer to the north side which is toward the top of the slopes. Since this is concentrated in an area about eight feet wide and since this is the location of the new retaining walls, it will affect the slopes to a depth of about fifteen to twenty feet. below. Utilizing Janbu's method of slope stability we performed slope stability of the rear area for the new condition compared to the previous one.prior to the deck installation. The soil parameters used were 105 pcf dry soil density, cohesion of 300psf and friction of 20 deg for the eight feet of medium dense and 110 pcf and 600 psf and 22 deg, respectively, for the denser soils below. The analysis was for a 100 year event with 0.2g peak horizontal ground acceleration. The walls pressure is 1000 psf. In the final condition we considered a complete adequate drainage for the rear yard. In which a new system will remove all the surface water from the new deck area and the east and west remaining areas to be disposed in the street. The removal of the surface drainage is essential to compensate for the additional loads. For these two conditions we found that the factor of safety is almost unchanged. The result was FS of 1.08 and FS of 1.32 for the static condition. Project 08-05 Page 5 Redka Geo Installing such a deck may cause harm to the slopes if not constructed adequately. The main problems should be the result of poor or inadequate drainage. The deck however may present an upgrade and benefit to the slopes if well constructed. The subject deck, as seen from the topography was replacing about one foot average of soils. The rear area was covered with natural growth that was difficult to manage, as informed. No trees were in this area. The water was partially infiltrating and both surface and infiltrated flow were directed northerly to the sound. The existing deck will prevent water from infiltrating in this area. The collected water, if disposed correctly will present no harm to the site slope stability. In conclusion, the deck should have no or negligible effect on the global slope stability of the site unless created additional surface or underground water, especially to the top area of the slopes. For that the recommendations stated in the following section of this report must be implemented. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Discussion of Development The main concern of this report is the deck at the rear of the site. Description of the deck was detailed in previous section. As understood, the deck is not totally completed. The remaining work is not affecting the slopes and therefore the owner was advised to stop until the time he obtains a permit from the city. 2- Final conclusion Based on the condition the deck was found, structurally and for its drainage we conclude that the deck should not have minor effect on the slopes if the following is adapted: a) Adequate structural design. b) Adequate drainage measures. c) Adequate erosion control Refer to the mitigation section for the details. Project 08-05 Page 6 Redka Geo RECOMMENDAD MITIGATION MEASURES Based on the slope stability it is concluded that some mitigation must be undertaken to negate the affect of the new loads on the slopes. These are as follow: A) The retaining walls should have no more than 1000psf soils pressure generated. This may be confirmed by the structural design. B) The surface water over the deck must be collected and discharged to the street. As seen, the deck has some gravel channels on its perimeter. These to be fitted with perforated pipes and collecting system directed to the street. We were informed by The City of Federal Way that discharging to the sound is not acceptable. This also will remove the previous surface water flow that was generated from the rear area. C) The east and west remaining areas of the site, although relatively small, should be completely vegetated. It appears that they may require some small retaining structures or some adequate ground benching and sloping for erosion stability. D) The remaining setback between the walls and the top of slope may presently require some vegetation for erosion stability. E) As understood, some collecting pipes are now directed over the slopes. These to be removed and replaced with new solid pipes connected to the street. F) The owner to provide a professional report to the city at the end of a six months and once a year periods from the time of completing the mitigations confirming the stability of the deck structures. Also confirming any changes in the slopes conditions and the erosion control status. A similar report to be provided post any major seismic or flood conditions as required by The City of federal Way. In conclusion, installing such a deck may cause harm to the slopes if not constructed adequately. The main problems should be the result of poor or inadequate drainage. The deck however may present an upgrade and benefit to the slopes if well constructed. The rear area was covered with natural growth that was difficult to manage, as informed. No trees were in this area. The water was partially infiltrating and both surface and infiltrated flow were directed easterly and northerly to the sound. The existing deck will prevent water from infiltrating in this area. The collected water, if disposed correctly will present no harm to the site slope stability. In conclusion, the deck should have no or negligible effect on the global slope stability of the site unless created additional surface or underground water, especially to the top area of the slopes. For that the recommendations stated in the following section of this report must be implemented. Project 08-05 Page 7 Redka Geo LIMITATIONS The information, recommendations and conclusions presented herein have been prepared using generally accepted geologic and engineering practices and techniques in use in the date the field investigation was conducted. This report is limited to identifying possible geologic hazards as defined by The City of Federal Way Code mentioned above. This report does not warranty the stability of the deck structure or the slopes. Seismic or flood activities must be followed by a professional report to the city. Any changes in the deck condition, the erosion condition or any signs of slope instability to be addressed professionally. If occurred new measurements such as repair, partial or complete removal must be required. This report is limited to the stated purpose for the identified property and should not be applied to any surrounding properties. We make no warranty either expressed or implied with respect to any geologic conditions which can vary between sites and within any one site. If conditions are encountered which appear to differ from those described in this report, we should be notified immediately so that we may review, and either verify or modify our opinions. This report is for the information of the client only. Its reproduction or transmittal to a third party, except in full, is prohibited without the permission of the writer. We would like to thank you for the opportunity to be in your assistance in this report. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact George Gergis at (253) 840-3398. Very sincerely, George Gergis, .E. �,..._I)IV U') GEORGE GERGIS 12701 11 lth Ave E Puyallup,WA 98374 Project 08-05 Page 8 Redka Geo LOG OF TEST PITS Depth below Soil Group Description ground surface classification Test pit #1 0.00'-4.1' SM-ML Dark yellowish brown. Fine silty sand. Moist. Medium dense to dense CITY OF "`� �• F ede U.] w1ay DEPARTMEr. r of Color uNrr[ DEVELopmENT SERvICES 33325 8t' Avenue South RECEIVED PO Box9718 �._ 1�' e• Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-2607: Fax 253-835-2669 APR 2 2 2 �3 www.ciLyaffederalw.a cam CM OF FEDERAL WAY r ��,� CDS 441tA 0 ENVIRONMENTAL. CHECKLIST Iq M'� PURPOSE OF CHECKLIST The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Revised Code of WasIlington (RCW) Chapter 43.21 C, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The Purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. INSTRUMONS FOR APPLICANTS This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about our proposal - Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply-" Complete answers to questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasong�ly related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact - USE OF CLU[ECKLIST FOR NON -PROTECT PR€3POSALS Complete this checklist for non -project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." In addition, complete the Supplemental Sheet for Non -Project Actions. For non project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as `proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Bulletin #050 — December 22, 2005 Page l of 18 kAHandoutslEnvironmental Checklist A. BACKGROUND 1.- - Name of -proposed -project,- if applicable: Reav- .T) C_C_K' 2. Name of applicant: O )<a 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 6 3-6: 5W .2Q 3`"4 'FL r-,2041 qda - vas 4. Date checklist prepared: 01/.22/og - - - P'41 0 'Fk ... og -tor Bog SIF 5. Agency requesting checklist: C-N or _e_4 f&� \-J O-) 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): W44(e_ L� - -prb-Tc Soy .eo r~, p ie�Cc c� �'Ir • re c` �.iv c S .Zo 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. s T CYe0.�c ��a'srS o�.3YZ T- �e�,.�� P,y1F�{ r"L_'i LA,� J .,V e�-a, rr, VAT - - 1,17 -„� "~�- S 'al ✓r 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. / ef> i L1r1 Y\ i cop re o+ ! �c1l S�-S�a ek �I 9. Do you know whether applications. are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. Bulletin #050 —December 22, 2005 Page 2 of 18 k.MandoutAlinvironmental Checklist 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. ray -MA OF d, 11 _ Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. `r � 00. eonc. L"� e�� 0 rwY OF 44e 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps -or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. o(e SK '�— �Pr�1' � c � �� • 0 3/ s s�- ( S..# ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly steep slo , mountainous, other. rh2�� S\o\0c o'N Tp — �f'0.Y\ Es�� S `ce. ] S �o �ec�C�. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate pence ��: -S� e e ?I -e jl o rXi o � � cA.n� tS �c�b� c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, mulch)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Say\& To V_-7 C. ` KF Bulletin #050 —December 22, 2005 Page 3 of 18 k.\Handouts\Enviroomental Checklist d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, dPv^rI,. fO IAjC\ I�CCt C11��'G -�5-- A J al e. +c> e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or gra zng proposed. Indicate source of fill. � � 4 "'b t,r1]J i LIZ (.r � IQs'S 41,w y evo c� f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally desccribe. N D .r a S S q�c. 0.� � C. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? / a� _alp a •k.1 G13 X. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. / ( iti o c0 or (� o n �c S� ce 5�0 � j 340 Y' n:l bi&k' w I'Lie -�-� �•-r rCK ��C� 4� ��pe ,v S nor Se.h�s } 2. AIR � Y�O dun v ��.•` PC — a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. rG None. �".��I� •� r Zvio trz,2 b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. - -- J Bulletin #f050 — December 22, 2005 Page 4 of 18 k_1Handouts\Environmental Checklist r-) c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air; if any. N off' nee ctc'�. 3. WATER a. Surface. 1) Is there any surface water body. on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year- round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? Ifye$, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 0"� n 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to -(within 200 feet) the described' 5 waters? If yes, please describe. and attach available plans. ", V,' h- '� Apo 1F a 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 1n {Ira V ' o rc, 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. �A Z) w� u3 0.\e-J CY`orll -JDcLjl�— Su`r PU Ct �D ZY1 TL -ro r:� 1`r� �CA por tfo Sion con f Tw p ro,&S , n1IPA \kW) 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. N� Bulletin 4050 - December 22, 2005 Page 5 of 18 k \Handouts\Environmental Checklist 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to. surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. !�D b. Ground. 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. V 2) Describe -waste -material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. N1A c. Water Runoff (including stormwater) 1) Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Alre-Ic-� !!2kv\o' over Lc�� ` t,.��\\ 2,��•w� bL c1,kt.-� �c��.�,e-C.B�Ct i ��(� � � � l Yl S � 5 k �'^-i ' �=�t5"t.►�.-�,a d,c,., c..�c..�,ti,crr� �7L� �s� 17is 05-r-d ovtd Ov�- 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. - N , z Bulletin #050 — December 22, 2005 Page 6 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any. I t V 3 . C`i s e r 5, 0 vc! To v 4 rra 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site. _ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ✓ evergreen tree:. fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass _pasture _ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other _ water plant: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? -- 3.00 5I, fl. c. List threatened or endangered species known tb be on or near the site. 4_4ze)'i Aa j r ✓loner �o�,� d_ Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. ite.r r7 n ¢ �� e9 17 NIA - p V? �l w� /� /'.c., aA.. Bulletin #050 —December 22, 2005 Page 7 of 18 kAHandoutsCEnvironmental Checklist 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. birCls.' hawk, herd, eagle, sortgbirtis, {oher� mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other ash: bass, salmon, trou herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened or endangered species ]mown to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? -If so, explain. F�6 6�1 d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. /A 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc- b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. _ V Bulletin #050 —December 22, 2005 Page 8 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist c. What Idnds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. -Zvi me-r-41-_d . 10 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Aok.z a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. do 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. ,AJIA 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control. environmental health hazards, if any. b. Noise. 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment operation, other)? --W/"A 2) What types and levels ofnoise would be created by or associated with the project on -a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. ---Kane P10nt or, &GJ-/ Bulletin #050 — Decetnber 22, 2005 Page 9 of 18 klHandouts\EnviroruT=tal Checklist ,j 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. ^�l Invrs proms 1a - 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? p ar 047 ^s NJ' p e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? 9 r ,., f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Bulletin #050 — December 22, 2005 Page 10 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist I- g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an environmentally critical area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? r� j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? No he_.• k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. Yt ce 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. At iA . 9. Housim a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. NIA Bulletin #050 — December 22, 2005 Page 11 of 18 r Uvkj—, k.\Handouts\Environmental Checklist f b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. 10. AEsTHET cs a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structtae(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? v b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No rw c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? -"/A Bulletin #050 — December 22, 2005 Page 12 of 18 le kMandouts\Environmental Checklist b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? -- /i/A WV& d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? 14 /A b. Would the proposed displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. N-0 . c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. Bulletin #050—December 22, 2005 Page 13 of 18 UHandouts\Environmental Checklist 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects -listed on, or proposed for, nation, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. /V 0 b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. ^' /A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any. 14. TRANSPORTATION �-- d'e'a , zgwt'('�" :1erf&,4 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. sw a 3'� m b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? -- 04 /A new Bulletin #050 — December 22, 2005 Page 14 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Checklist d: Will the proposal -require "any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). j /J V e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water; rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. N/A g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. 1 I� 'l�'� i� 15. PUBLIC SERVICES 1. a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. NO. Bulletin #050 — December 22, 2005 Page 15 of 18 k.\Handouts\Environmental Checklist -r b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16. UTILITIES ,to J— a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: lectri tycityci , r}atural gas, r��aier, refuse service, felepio7iie, sanitary sewer, septic system, ocher (please list) b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. —FeQ L 60-n ecx,� E I't-c -, -I-5 E COLS. e- T—S L SCWt,r�-— Let KkCOL vcr, C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. SIGNATURE: A� DATE SUBMITTED: Lf 12 /— Bulletin #050 — December 22, 2005 Page 16 of 18 k:\Handouts\Environmental Cbecklist May 14, 2009 City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 Attn: Ms. Joanne Long -Woods, AICP RE: PROPOSAL FOR GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SERVICES REDKA DECK PROJECT 636 SW 293RD STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Long -Woods: LANDAU ASSOCIATES RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY 18 2009 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 7, 2009, 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, we understand that the proposed development consists of constructing a deck at the top of a steep slope. The City is requesting that Landau Associates review the geotechnical documentation to check that the reports adequately address construction impacts and if the proposed mitigation measures will assure slope stability at the site. 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, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landouinc.com SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • 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 proposed mitigation to be incorporated into the SEPA documentation; and, any additional mitigation as necessary to meet the minimum code requirements and assure slope stability. TERMS AND CONDITIONS For the scope of services described above, we suggest establishing a budget of $700. This budget includes 3 hours for review, completing a site visit to observe site conditions as they relate to the applicant's proposal, preparing a brief letter summarizing our comments, and support staff time. Our services will be billed in accordance with terms and conditions described in our Professional Services Agreement with the City. The above budget amount will not be exceeded without your authorization. SCHEDULE We anticipate being able to complete review of the initial documents provided by the City, complete the site visit, and prepare a response if additional information is required within 20 working days of receipt of notice to proceed. Submittal of the recommendation for approval or denial of the retaining wall will be dependent on if additional information is required to fully evaluate the proposal. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to its favorable consideration. Please call if you have any questions regarding this proposal. Principal EJH/j as Attachments: Geotechnical Consultant Authorization Form 5/14/09 I:\DATA\PR0P0SAL\238\Redka Rvw_pro.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 A Federal Way MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNSy Redka Patin File No. 08-101890-00-SE Propusal:The applicant has applied for an after- the-facl building permit for patio improvements as- sociated with an existing single-family residential dwalling. Improvements were constructed within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 5W 293rd Street, Fed- eral Way, WA 98023 Location:636 SW 293rd Street. Federal Way, WA 98023 -fling County Parcel 119600-0315 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Commanity and Economic Development department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Plan- ner, 253-835-2638 The Responsible Official for the City of Federal Way hereby makes the follmving threshold determina- tion based upon impacts identified in the envirort- mental checklist, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWGP), and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis to ex- ercise the substantive authority under the State En- vironmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.310,060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact .Statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) if the conditions listed In the en- vironmental document are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and information on File with the lead agency. The project file is avallable for review at the Perrhit Center located an the second floor of City Hall during normal business !tours. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND APPEALS This MONS is issued pursuant to Washington Ad- ministrative Code 197-11.340(2). The lead agency will not act an this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Written comments musl be sub- miQd by 5:00 p.m. on dune 1, 21112. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment dead- line. Any person aggrieved of the City's final deter- mination may file an appeal with the Federal Way City Clerk, 33325 8th Avenue South. Federal Way, WA 9a003 no later than 5:00pm June 15. 2012. Any person appealing the decision should be pre- pared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 18, 2012 FWM 1895 31919 Is' Ave S, Suite 101 1 Federal, Way, WA 98003 1253.925.5565 1253.925.5750 (f) Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained by the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement played by City of Federal Way - Community Development Department as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive weeks(s), commencing on the 18th day of May 2012, and ending on the 18th day of May 2012, both dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sum of $103.82, which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.090. Subscribed to and sworn before me this 1 st day of June 2012. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, CHI r `p NOTARY � N ; PUBLIC • 1111111110 Residing at Federal Way �<�, rk"J"-J A�kCITY OF Federal May 7, 2009 Ed Heavey, Principal Landau Associates 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Way Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; REQUEST FOR GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Redka Deck, 636 SW 293'd Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Heavey: As we discussed on the phone recently, I am enclosing a copy of a consultant authorization form for your review and signature. The application is for a building permit for a back yard deck for a single-family residence located at the above address. The application was submitted after the work was done, but because the project is located on top of a severe steep slope above Poverty Bay, SEPA review was required as part of the building permit review. In addition to the authorization form, I am enclosing a copy of the geotechnical analysis submitted by the applicant's engineer, George Gilgis, and a site plan. As we do not have a geotechnical engineer on staff to review this report, we are requesting your services to review the report and submit comments back to us as to whether the analysis was adequate to address potential impacts of the construction project on the steep slope and if the analysis meets minimum standards of review as outlined in Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC) Title 19, Chapter 19 "Critical Areas." We are also requesting you to identify whether there are additional precautions that need to be taken to assure slope stabilization on this parcel, or if there are additional mitigation measures that need to be included in the environmental determination. Thank you for your services. We look forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 253-835-2640. Sincerely, J Joanne Long -Woods, AICP Senior Planner c: Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Scott Sproul, Asst. Building Official Fernando Femandez, Inspector/Plans Examiner Doc I D. 49925 4CITY OF �,, Federal Way May 7, 2009 Oleg Redka 636 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; REQUEST FOR CONSULTANT REVIEW Redka Deck, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Redka: I 117 1 tm� CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com We have recently received a copy of a revised geotechnical analysis from your engineer, George Gilgis, on the tiered deck that has already been built on top of a steep slope above Puget Sound at the above - referenced address. As we do not have a geotechnical engineer on staff to review this report, we require that an applicant pay for the cost to have our consultant, Landau & Associates, review the report and submit comments back to us whether the analysis was adequate to address potential impacts of the construction project on the slope and if the analysis meets minimum standards of review for areas with steep slopes as outlined in the Federal Way Revised Code (FWRC), Title 19, Chapter 19, "Geologically Hazardous Areas;" or, if there are additional measures that need to be taken to assure slope stabilization on your parcel. I will be sending a copy of the agreement to the consultant along with a copy of the report, site plan, and a scope of work. The consultant will then determine what the cost of the review will be and return a signed copy of an agreement back to us for you to review and sign. Once this analysis is completed, we can proceed with the environmental review of your project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 253-835-2640. Sincerely, , � Joanne Long -Woods, AICP Senior Planner c: Ann Dower, Senior Engineering Plans Reviewer Scott Sproul, Asst. Building Official Fernando Fernandez, Inspector/Plans Examiner Doc I D. 49838 CITY OF Federal December 12, 2008 Oleg Redka 636 293`d Street Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALLi'--- 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 y Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; REDKA DECK - EXTENSION REQUEST GRANTED 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Redka: This letter is to verify the decision of the Community Development Department to approve the recent request by your engineer, George Gilgis of Alpha Engineering, for a limited extension of time to submit the geotechnical report and drainage analysis for your deck project as requested in the June 10, 2008, and November 25, 2008, letters to you. The request was for an extension until the end of next week, but in light of the fact that you are actively working on submitting the additional information requested, we will extend the deadline for the resubmittal to the end of the month, or December 31, 2008. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 253-835-2640. Sincerely, Joanne Long -Woods, AICP Senior Planner c: George Gilgis, Alpha Engineering, 12701 11 Ph Avenue, Puyallup, WA 98374 Fernando Fernandez, Plans Examiner Doc I D 49016 Joanne Long -Woods From: George Gergis [alpha-engineering@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 2:51 PM To: Joanne Long -Woods Subject: oleg redke deck at 636 SW 293rd Street. Dear Ms. Woods: I would like to request an extension for re-submital till 12/18/08. I understand the present due date is Dec 09, 2008. This request is due to the reason of being in Yakima for emergency. We understand that extensions were granted before and we appreciate this last chance. Sincerely, project engineer George Gergis Send e-mail faster without improving your typing skills. Get your HotmailU account. i CITY OF CITY HALL - 33325 8th Avenue South �. Federal Way Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com November 25, 2008 Oleg Redka 636 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; NOTICE OF PENDING APPLICATION EXPIRATION Redka Deck Project, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Redka: This letter is to inform you that the above -referenced application will expire 16 days from the date of this letter if you do not respond to the request for additional information identified in the June 10, 2008, technical comment letter. Federal Way City Code (FWCC) § 20-22 states, "[if an applicant... fails to provide additional information to the city within 180 days of being notified by mail that such information is requested, the application shall be deemed null and void and the city shall have no duty to process, review, or issue any decision with respect to such an application.] " Your application was submitted on April 22, 2008, and deemed complete as of May 22, 2008. However, in order to issue a SEPA determination on your project, you were asked to submit a revised site plan showing all areas of construction on the site, and a revised geotechnical analysis with soils analysis of the property. The revised report was to include identification of and mitigation for impacts as the result of your construction within a geologically hazardous area of the City. In addition, the Public Works Department stated that stormwater from this site will not be allowed to be directed onto the slope and must be pumped to the street stormwater system. The Department further requested that you submit a stormwater design plan, prepared by a licensed engineer, detailing how and where the drainage will be disposed of. Also, please be aware that we will route your geotechnical report to our consultant for review. As the project applicant, you will be responsible for the cost of this review. As of today, the City has not received any response to the request for information and it has been over 170 days since the letter was sent to you. I am including a copy of the June 10, 2008 letter, which outlines what needs to be submitted on your new site plan, the revised geotechnical report, and the comments from the Public Works Department. Please resubmit the requested information within 14 days from the date of this letter. If you or your agent does not submit the additional materials/information as requested on June 10, 2008, the City will determine that you are in violation of the City of Federal Way Code, and will turn the case over to Code Enforcement for further action, which could result in a fine and/or legal action. If you have any questions regarding these matters or your development project in general, please contact me at 253- 835-2640 or by email to: joanne.long-woods@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, r Joanne Long -Woods, AICP Senior Planner enc Letter dated June 10, 2008 Resubmittal form c: Fernando Fernandez, Plans Examiner Will Appleton, Public Works Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Doc I o 47867 CITY OF A�k Federal July 1, 2008 Steve and Kay Pedersen 620 SW 293`d Street Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Re: File #08-101898-000-00-SE; Redka Deck Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pedersen: Thank you for your letter of June 17, 2008, regarding the proposed deck project of your neighbor, Oleg Redka. As I told you when you were in this office last week, Mr. Redka's project is presently on hold pending the submittal of a geotechnical report and engineered drawings of his project. We appreciate the information you have given us on the history of development on this parcel and in the neighborhood in general. We understand your concerns about allowing construction of a deck and/or retaining wall on a steep slope. When we receive the additional information requested and proceed with the review of this project, we will take all comments and information into account before making a final decision on the environmental determination of this project and before any permits are issued. Please do not hesitate to contact me to find out the current status of this project. I can be reached at 253-835-2640 between 8:00 and 5:00, orjoanne.long-woods@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, l 4A"& A'ey� GIJ� Joanne Long -Woods, AICP Senior Planner c: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 File Doc #45981 CITY OF CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South ��Mailing Address: Box 9718 Federal Way 98 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com July 1, 2008 Mrs. Barbara Chambers 629 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 Re: File #08-101898-000-00-SE; Redka Deck Dear Mrs. Chambers: Thank you for your letter of June 21, 2008, regarding the proposed deck for your neighbor, Oleg Redka. As I mentioned to you on the phone last week, Mr. Redka's project is presently on hold pending the submittal of a geotechnical report and engineered drawings for his project. We appreciate the information you have given us on your concerns about the development proposed on this parcel and construction of rockeries and retaining walls on an extremely steep slope. When we receive the additional information requested and proceed with the review process on this project, we will take all comments and information into account before making a final decision on the environmental determination of this project and before any permits are issued. Please do not hesitate to contact me to find out the current status of this project. I can be reached at 253-835-2640 between 8:00 and 5:00, or joanne.long-woods@ cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, 4d4� /Pz�r- 1� Joanne Long -Woods, AICP Senior Planner c: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 File Doc ID "5994 CITY OF � Federal Way July 1, 2008 Mr. John C. Hauf 29308 7"` Avenue SW Federal Way, WA 98023 Re: File #08-101898-000-00-SE; Redka Deck Dear Mr. Hauf: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2008, regarding the proposed deck for your neighbor, Oleg Redka. As I told you when you were in this office last week, Mr. Redka's project is presently on hold pending the submittal of a geotechnical report and engineered drawings of his project. We appreciate the information you have given on the history of development on this parcel and in the neighborhood in general. When we proceed with the review process on this project, we will take all comments and information into account before making a final decision on the environmental determination of this project and before any permits are issued. Please do no hesitate to contact me to find out the current status of this project. I can be reached at 253-835-2640 between 8:00 and 5:00, orjoanne.long-woods@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Joanne Long -Woods, AICP Senior Planner c: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 File Doc#45979 Barbara Chambers 629 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 June 20, 2007 City of Federal Way Director of Community Development Services 33325 81h Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98063 RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUN 2 3 2008 Regs: Redka Deck located at 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 I am unable to view the project file in person due to work obligations; however, the Redka home is precariously close to the high bank bluff overlooking the Puget Sound as it is situated at the present time. I would request that the City of Federal Way take all environmental, safety and surrounding resident's properties into consideration prior to approving this construction. After speaking with Ms. Joanne Long -Woods, Federal Way Senior Planner, she informed me that the plans involve rockeries and retaining walls. I am not in favor of rockeries and/or retaining walls being installed on the extremely steep, and at present, vegetated unstable high bluff overlooking the Puget Sound. It can only be presumed that in order to "develop" the high bluff, the vegetation must be removed. I have grave concerns over the stability of the hill side as it is now, much less, after being disturbed. In closing, I would like to request a copy of the original decision for this project be mailed to my home address. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Barbara Chambers 13 OOMMUNffYaE ELOPMEONTTDEPAFI'fMENT Attention: Redka Deck, Project Coordinator JUN 1 9 2008 Subject: Proposal to construct a deck and retaining walls Project Location: 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Reference: Notice of Land Use Application, Dear Sir: I wish to state that I heartly disapprove of the project to construct a deck and retaining walls in the location requested by the Applicant, Oleg Redka. I am personally not against him constructing a deck, however, there are certain aspects about his disturbing the present condition of the bluff and its almost vertical incline that may in the future effect my land, his land and the lot immediately to the west of the proposed site. The reasons I am against this construction project are many: The site is located on the bluff and incline of the bluff which I believe falls under, the code that requires that all construction be,15 feet or more from the edge of the bluff. It was your determination that the .house could be built on the edge by using a hookie rule that: allowed the house to be in line with the others to the•,east. The bluff itself is, in my experience for having been here forty years, very unstable in itself for some of the reasons listed below: There are numerous springs eminating from the bluff, not only there but to the East and West and below the proposed site. The site presently sits on disturbed, clay fill. At one time, when the second to last owner installed a bulkhead below on the Puget Sound beach up against the hill, the method of filling the area between the Bulkhead and bottom of bluff was to bulldoze material from the top, which undercut my property, and push it over the crest to fall into position. Most of the clay soil made it to the required location however, lots of the clay material stayed stuck on the cliff and lay heavily on the incline. Subsequent to that, some of the cliff and the material settled or slumped about 8 feet, exactly where the proposed site is. The slumped soil sat there for a few years and any tree that achieved 6" or more dia trunk tended to fall over the edge, thereby leading to erosion. In addition, when the existing house was constructed, the slumped area was filled with clay material when the house foundation area was being prepared. Another time, there was a slumping of the land involving about 3 feet of the West side of the property and proposed site and about 20 ft ;of the lot due West of Mr Redka suddenly slumped between 8 to 10 feed; downward, about 40 feed south from the edge. The fault line still exists and presently, a rock bulkhead sits on the south end of the fault installed when the house was being built, In addition, the proposed site will sit on the north and b d east end of the fault line. If it ever slips and moves further down the bluff incline it will effect my lot, not to mention the lot immediately to the west. The house with its 12 or more foot deep piers will also be effected. There have been quite a few slides on the two lots immediately to the west. I personally have witnessed tree after tree falling over the edge and taking material with the roots. At one time the house on the lot immediately to the west was in danger of falling over the edge and had to be torn down and a new house constructed, moving some 40 feet south. Another attempt at living within the conditions of an unstable bank. Your consideration to carefully examine the Civil Engineering report to the accuracy of reporting the condition of the underlaying soil would be appreciated as again I state that this is an unstable soil condition area. Yours truly, R �-� •� 1 �.-L[ LG Jo�l1' n C Hauf ` 29308 7�' Ave SW Federal Way, WA 98023 RECEIVED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUN 1 8 Z008 Steve & Kay Pedersen 620 SW 293 Street Federal Way, WA 98023 Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Director of Community Development Services City of Federal Way 33325 8h Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Dear Sir, On Monday, June 16, 2008, we spoke to Joanne Long -Woods and reviewed the plans for the proposed Redka deck (Building Permit (File #08-101897-OOSF) and State Environmental Policy Act (File #08-101898-00-SE). We are very concerned about the stability of the hillside and the harm and negative impact any future tampering will cause to our property. The lot next to the Redka lot (702 SW 294t', Federal Way) and proposed deck has quite an infamous history. It used to be owned by Roger and Merle McClatchie. In 1989 construction of a beach staircase and removal of trees by the adjacent lot's (710 SW 294th) owner coupled with heavy winter rains caused, McClatchies felt, the hillside to erode substantially. The house's foundation was undermined by about five feet. At that time the setback regulation was 50 feet so the amount of hillside that fell to the beach was more than 50 feet. The house had to be torn down and a new one was constructed much farther back. The proposed Redka deck borders on that lot. Also, the aforementioned staircase fell to the beach the following winter along with more hillside and, I believe, a second staircase also ended up on the beach with more hillside. We have been concerned since the beginning of construction on the Redka residence about any negative impact such a large building sitting so close to the bluff edge would have to our property and others who sit near the Redka residence. This area has been designated "geologically sensitive" or "hazardous". Reg. #FWCC 22-1286(b) specifically states " no development activity may take place within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area". We have always felt the residence was well within that measurement but when questioning the city we were told it was beyond the required 25 feet. This deck will not be beyond the 25 foot setback regulation. It is definitely well within the required 25 feet. People who have not lived along the waterfront and don't know the history of the stability or instability of the hillside often don't take it all into consideration when they y choose to build so close to the edge of the bluff. They just want to have the best view possible and don't realize they are jeopardizing theirs and their neighbors' properties. There are many underground springs in this area and over the years we have all experienced sluffing of our bluffs due to freezing and thawing during the winters, especially during the years with heavy rains. If this deck is approved and constructed and it causes any future damage to our property we will hold the City of Federal Way and whomever approves and signs any studies or permits responsible. Our home is our primary investment and we will do whatever possible to protect it, including legal action. Earth movement insurance is being cancelled in this area's residents' homeowner policies. More construction on a designated Geologically Hazardous Area is making us feel rather vulnerable. We request a copy of the Director of Community Development Service's decision. �ank y� Steve and ay Pedersen 253-941-4359 email: stevenpedersenOcomeast. net Attachment — Oct. 6, 2005 letter from City of Federal Way cc: Senior Planner Joanne Long -Woods cc: w/o attachment: Our neighbors Ted Rollolazo and Sue Lee Barbara Chambers Jeff and Melanie Barstow Ken and Sue Wilson John and Doris Hauf Kevin Leung and Tran Uyen C. cirY OF Federal Way October 6, 2005 Steve & Kay Pedersen 620 293d Street Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: Permit #05-104955-000-00-AD; vAIVADA5 636 SW 293RD PLACE Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pedersen, CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South • PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com My name is David Lee, and I am a Development Specialist with the City of Federal Way. I am the one who did the residential planning/zoning review for the single-family residential project currently under construction at 636 SW 293RD PL C"Vaivadas" permit #05-101114-00-SF). I am writing you this letter in response to an inquiry you submitted on September 26, 2005 regarding this project. I will be answering your questions/concerns in the order that you have asked them in your letter: 1 "The structure sits, in many places, 10-15 feet from the edge of the bluff. This waterfront area has been classified as `sensitive' due to the geologically unstable nature of clay. And, according to someone named Dave in the permits department, there is a code required set back of at least 25 feet from the edge that overlooks the water. ...Why was this exception approved for this house?" City Response: The City of Federal Way maintains a citywide map inventory of several critical areas including erosion, landslide, seismic, and steep slope hazard areas, to name a few. The property in question is indeed within one of these inventoried areas. This inventory is based on city, or other agency, initiated inventories as well as an accumulation of existing information collected from other local, state, and federal agencies. Any time a development takes place within these inventoried areas, several steps must be met prior to any construction taking place. The first step in this process is the permitting process. In the permitting process, we review the project for both structural soundness and to ensure that the project meets or exceeds the City of Federal Way's zoning code. In regards to the setback in geologically hazardous areas (GHA), FWCC 22-1286(b) stipulates that no development activity may take place within 25' of a GHA. This code section also allows for the City to require a geotechnical/soils report, by the applicant, in which it must address how the proposed development will affect not only the subject property, but nearby properties in relation to slope stability, landslide hazards, sloughing, seismic hazards, surface water, groundwater, and existing vegetation. We also require the engineer to recommend foundation designs, mitigation methods for any impacts the development may have on the subject property and the adjacent property. In the case of this particular project, all these requirements were met. The site plan submitted on March 10, 2005 clearly shows that the 25' setback from the top of slope had been met. This setback requirement was verified on July 5, 2005 when the footings and setback inspection was passed by a City of Federal Way building inspector. In terms of the measurements you had taken on site, I can only conjecture that there may have been confusion in terms of the start point of measurement. The silt fencing (the bright orange plastic fencing seen in the pictures) does not denote the top of the slope where the measurement would need to begin. 125' SETBACKI TOP OF SLOPE Minimum 10 Feet STEEP SLOPE HAZARD I in Height 40% and Greater 1 125' SETBACKI � OE OF SLOPE GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREA The geotechnical report submitted on March 10, 2005 (done by Krazan & Associates, Inc.), did not identify any hazardous conditions, which would deter any development activity. The report, and subsequent reports, (that came in with building revisions), have all been stamped by a State of Washington registered professional engineer (Sean Caraway) as well as a State of Washington licensed geologist (Chris Behrens). In short, this project met all existing zoning conditions regarding GHA's and setback issues, and no exceptions were made for this project. In regards to the building permit you had applied for on May 19, 1995 (Permit #95-101030- 00-5.-), I am not privy to tire -specifics of your project and therefore cap►nut curinieit as to why your permit was "initially denied". However, in a cursory review of the project, it looks as though your permit was approved and the permit had been finalled on June 23, 1995. 2. "There are no permits visible. Aren't permits required to be placed in an easily visible area?" City Response: Permits are not required to be in an easily visible area. However, both the "site" set of building plans and permits need to be available when the building inspector is on site. Doc Id: 33376 Page 2 File No. 05-104955-000-00-AD 3."This structure appears to be surpassing the 30 feet maximum height allowed by code. We watched as the lot was excavated and shaped prior to the foundation being poured. It appears this was done to raise the base level by several feet. ...Why is this variance being allowed?" City Response: Height of a structure means the vertical distance above the average building elevation measured to the highest point of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mid -point between eave and ridge of the highest principal roof of a gable, hip, gambrel, or similar sloped roof. For single-family residential structures where the total area of dormers exceeds 35% of the total area of the underlying sloped roof, height will be measured to the ridge of the highest principal gable. Average building elevation (ABE) means a reference datum on a subject property from which building height is measured. ABE is the average of the highest and lowest existing or proposed elevations, whichever is lowest, taken at the base of the exterior walls of the structure; provided, that ABE shall not be greater than 5' above the lowest existing or proposed elevation. In the case of this project, this house is being built upon uneven soil elevations which would necessitate the averaging of the entire footprint of the building (per elevation plans resubmitted May 20, 2005). The midpoint of the highest ridge was measured at 129.75' above sea -level. At the lowest point (East elevation), the average building elevation is measured at 103.75' above sea -level. The height on the East elevation is at 26', which is also the highest measured height of the home of the four elevations measured. The average start point of all elevations is at 106.81' above sea -level, and the average height of the building (of all elevations) is at 22.81 feet, which is well below the 30 foot height restriction for this zone. In summary, the constructed building height is below the maximum 30' allowed by code. 4. "The earth has been cut into on the adjacent property (behind) by several feet and will require substantial retaining walls. Will this be rectified in an equitable manner to the owner of that violated property?" City Response: A s coverced .Under the first question/response, all cc;Istrcction done in a geologically hazardous area must be accompanied by a stamped and engineered soils/geotechnical report. In the case of this project, all geotechnical and soils reports submitted to the City regarding this particular project satisfied the City's requirements. A separate permit (05-104412-00-SF) for the retaining walls was submitted and issued per the recommendations of the geotechnical report. In terms of whether or not the adjacent property owner was "rectified in an equitable manner", it is generally the City's policy not to interfere with civil matters between property owners. When the permit was initially submitted, it was accompanied by a copy of a recorded easement that granted the owner of the property the right to use and maintain that easement. Doc id: 33376 Page 3 File No. 05-104955-000-W-AD If the adjacent neighbor(s) feels they have been unfairly damaged by the construction of this home, they may contact the developer of the lot and/or consider civil recourse. The work you question is being carried out in accordance with the approved plans and I am unaware of any code violations or illegal work. S. "Regarding the excavated walls: Will the necessary retaining walls be engineered? We think in "sensitive" areas that should be mandatory and a series of unengineered 4 foot walls not be allowed." City Response: As answered in the first and fourth question, all construction related activities (including retaining walls, rockeries, site drainage, structures, excavation, decks, patios, silt fencing, landscaping, etc;) within a geologically hazardous area must be accompanied by a soils and geotechnical report. The city of Federal Way shares your sentiments regarding the required engineering, hence why the City had required and received such reports from the developer prior to issuance of the permit. Additionally, in your letter, you referenced the "ethics" of the developer. The City can not comment on the ethics of the developer. If you have any issues regarding theft of property and/or trespassing, the City of Federal Way Police Department is readily available to help you with your concerns. Hopefully with this response letter, I have demonstrated that all zoning requirements have been met and that no exceptions/variances were made for this project. I understand your frustration and concern regarding this project, however, the plans for this project do meet both structural requirements (put forth by the IBC 2003 codes) and the City of Federal Way's City Code. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at (253) 835-2607 during normal business hours. Sincerely, David Lee Development Specialist City of Federal Way Enclosure Doc id: 33376 Page 4 File No. 05-104955-M-00-AD CITY OF FEDERAL WAY NOTICE OF LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Redka Deck Project Description; Proposal to construct a deck and retaining walls within a geologically hazardous area - Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Project Location: 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Date Application Received: April 22, 2008 Date Determined Complete: May 2, 2008 Date of Notice of Application: June 11, 2008 Permits Required by this Application: 1. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File 0013-101898-00-SE) 2. Building Permit tHle 408-101897-00-SF} Related Permits: None Relevant Environmental Documents are Avail- able at the Address Below: X YES NO Development Regulations to be Used for Proj- ect Mitigation, Known at this Time: Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection"; Chapter 19. "Plan- ning and Development; and Chapter 22, "Zon- ing.' Consistency ,,ilh Applis;gble Ciiv Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the F1IXG; King County Surface Water Design Manual; and the International Building, Fire and Mechanical Codes - The Official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community Davel- opment Services (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the env4r6K- mental and land use applications to the Director of Community Development Services by .tune 25, 2008. Only persons who summit written doc- uments to the Director of Community Develop- ment Services, or specifically requests a copy of the original decision, may appeal the Director's decision. Contact Person: Senior Planner Joanne Long -Woods, 253-M-2M 33325 8th Avenue South PCI Box 9718 F1-.-leraI Way. VIA 9s'7fcs FWM 1405 Date of Publication: June 11. 2008. File #08- 10 1 898-00-S E Doc. 1-D. 45781 FEDERAL WAY A,\...1_1RROR A SOUND PUBLISHING NEWSPAPER Affidavit of Publication Rudi Alcott, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he is the Publisher of The Federal Way Mirror, a semi -weekly newspaper. That said newspaper is published in the English language continually as a semi -weekly newspaper in Federal Way, King County, Washington, and is now and during all of said time has been printed in an office maintained at the aforementioned place of publication of said newspaper. That the annexed is a true copy of a legal advertisement placed by City of Federal Way L-1405 as it was published in regular issues (and not in supplemental form) of said newspaper once each week for a period of one consecutive week(s), commencing on the 11 th day of June _ 2008 ,and ending on the 11 th day of June, 2008, bath dates inclusive, and that such newspaper was regularly distributed to its readers during all of said period. That the full amount of the fee charged for the foregoing publication is the sure of $95.17 which amount has been paid in full, or billed at the legal rate according to RCW 65.16.090 Subscribed to and sworn before me this 13th day of June, 2008. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, Residing at Federal Way �.12,kV C� 1414 S. 3241h STREET, SUITE B210, fOIRAL WAY, WA 98003 ■ 253-925-5565 ■ FAX: 253-925-5750 L 4111kkL� CITY OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cit attederalwa .cam DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION l hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: XNotice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was Xrnailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 711L->-� [ i 2008. Project Name File Numbers) - - Signature Date a'� I� K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distdbution.doc/Last printed 6/9/2008 1:45:00 PM r�� CITY OF ' �� Federal Way NOTICE OF LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Redka Deck Project Description: Proposal to construct a deck and retaining walls within a geologically hazardous area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Project Location: 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Date Application Received: April 22, 2008 Date Determined Complete: May 22, 2008 Date of Notice of Application: June 11, 2008 Permits Required by this Application: 1. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File #08-101898-00-SE) 2. Building Permit (File 408-101897-00-SF) Related Permits: None Relevant Environmental Documents are Available at the Address Below: X YES NO Development Regulations to be Used for Project Mitigation, Known at this Time: Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection"; Chapter 19, "Planning and Development"; and Chapter 22, "Zoning." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWCC; King County Surface Water Design Manual; and the International Building, Fire and Mechanical Codes. The official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community Development Services (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the environmental and land use applications to the Director of Community Development Services by June 25, 2008. Only persons who submit written documents to the Director of Community Development Services, or specifically requests a copy of the original decision, may appeal the Director's decision. Contact Person: Senior Planner Joanne Long -Woods, 253-835-2640 33325 8d' Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Published in the Federal Way Mirror on June 11, 2008. File 408-101898-00-SE Doc. I.D. 45781 N W tN AN, i N m � 3 Q O E •� o C O U c in f- O E Z o Z ° v AL` C W � rn CD w� cu^ N r.L N x O cu H oC t a fN N N N N... CD N O N CD N CD N O "" (D CD Cl --D N CD O O N (D N O O 00 Cn O 00 C1 O 00 Cn CD 00 G1 O 00 Cl CD 00 G1 CD CO G1 00 C1 CO 00 L1 CIO C\ 00 C1 00 '1 00 G1 00 CT 00 CT 00 C N 00 GO �w Q�Qac�r w w w w w w QQQQQQcaaQQQQQ w w w w www w w w w w c u UD 92 cn DO ri) C/) w Cn V) cn ul cn w H H q 01 Cn G1 d1 ON ( \ C\ CT C1 '�,' C1 :.'1 L1 C:1 Q" x i`S.,' Q) Cn N N .. Cl N N N N N N (V (V CV N CV O d N O cV O ,00 CVO 00 �_ .-. [� v7 0o U N M O, N (V oO N o0 M �,D \O O N D V V o �o N I'D 1.0 1.0 u 7 J 7 z 2 z z �D z ¢ o z a ¢ C- ¢ a Z" >. w¢ as O u w ¢ cG a 9) LU w Q+ U+ '0 C4 Z �� z d Z w Q O¢ w p 2 w V)>o�wz�� C/) u 2¢ zLL) H w cn o w x F" cn i Wpc�. zQo�Q zoc�C/3 3 g w w Q x w z a-. ¢ m z¢ Q v a X Q a 3> O •--• V"1 (V V C4 l� (V O � In " In C— v') oo O Oo in 00 GO W O 1 �--� Dl M C1. O v') CT 1p G1 00 C1i D M O M O M. O M O M 'D.O Cl)V O V O O C` r r r r r 00 00 00 C' 00 -1 O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O O O O O O O O O - G'� Ol Qi CT G1 Q� I'D G1 \�D O� V' G1 Vr CT Vr C1 "D `1 Vr G1 "D C1 "D G1 "0 CT - Q� - CT O� N c°7 d c9 f� e0 M (D ktl r r r r r r r r r I Q Lij O o w t--q � 00 LL! c� � uj u u CD U) (6 a_ I,-) DEPT OF ECOLOGY LAURA MURPHY EDWARDS/LYMAN/THOMAS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC TRIBAL ARCHAEOLOGIST PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS EN EN BOX 47703 MUCKLES HOOT INDIAN TRIBE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPT PO 98504-7703 39015 172 ID AVE SE 3009 E PORTLAND AVE OLYMPIA 70 AUBURN WA 98092 TACOMA WA 98404 CIT Federal Way June 10, 2008 Mr. Ole- Redka 636 SW 293" Street Federal Way, WA 98023 Re: File #08-101898-00-SE; NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Redka; 636 SW 293�d Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Redka: CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com The Department of Community Development Services received your State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) checklist for the construction of a new deck and walls within a geologically hazardous area (steep slope) on April 22, 2008. The proposed site is zoned single-family residential (RS 9.6). Upon receipt of an application, the City has 28 days to determine whether all required information and documentation necessary for a complete application has been submitted. Based on a review of your submittal, staff has deemed your application to be complete as of May 22, 2008. Having met the submittal requirements, your application is now ready for processing. Within 120 days of the issuance of the letter of completeness, the Director of Community Development Services will endeavor to issue a decision on the project. The 120-day clock is stopped any period during which the applicant has been requested by the City to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional information. A preliminary technical review has been completed by staff members. Please address the following issues. Planning, David Lee (253-835-2622, david.lee(a,cityoffederalway.eom] 1. It is unclear from the site plan submitted where the new rockeries/retaining walls are to be built. Please clearly identify any new rockeries/retaining walls to be considered as part of this application. 2. Please show on a more extensive site plan (showing the entire lot) the ordinary high water mark. Additionally, please show where the proposed rip rap pads are located in relation to the ordinary high water mark. 3. Stairs are shown on the smaller site plan and not on the larger site plan. Please either consolidate the plans or make the plans match. Additionally, please identify whether or not the plans the stairs are a part of this submittal. 4. Please resubmit the geotechnical report regarding soil stability in regards to the proposed improvements. Per Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Sec.22-1286, a soils report prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed in the state is required, which describes how the proposed development will impact each of the following on the subject property and nearby properties: File #08-101898-00-SE Doc. I.D. 45777 Mr. Oleg Redka Page 2 June 10, 2008 a. Slope stability, landslide hazard and sloughing b. Seismic hazards c. Groundwater d. Seeps, springs, and other surface waters e. Existing vegetation Additionally, the engineer shall recommend methods for mitigating identified impacts and a description of how these mitigating measures may impact adjacent properties. Once the geotechnical report has been received, it will be reviewed by the City's geotechnical consultant and a quote for the review of the project will be provided to the applicant. Development Services, Will Appleton, P.E. (253-835-2730, wilIiam.a leton�7a ci offederalway.com l . The site plan for the single family residence at this location called out for all roof and foundation drains to be routed to a sump and then pumped to the street. This requirement came about due to the steep slopes and overall slope instability in this area. Therefore, all concentrated surface water drainage generated by the house and associated decks must be piped into the roof drain system and pumped to the street. No surface water will be allowed to be discharged onto the slope. The only other option that would be acceptable would be to convey the water all the way down to the sound, which may involve additional permitting efforts. Pursuant to FWCC Sec. 22-34, if an applicant fails to provide additional information to the City within 180 days of being notified that such information is requested, the application shall be deemed null and void and the City shall have no duty to process, review, or issue any decisions with respect to such an application. The review of your project will be on hold until the above mentioned issues have been addressed. Please submit six sets of revised plans and two copies of any requested documents, along with the enclosed Resubmittal Form. If you have any questions regarding this letter or your application, please contact Senior Planner Joanne Long -Woods at 253-835-2640, or Joanne. Ion g-woods@cityoffederaway.com, as she will be the active planner on this project from this date. Sincerel David Lee v Associate Planner Enc: Resubmittal Form c: Joanne Long -Woods, Senior Planner Fernando Fernandez, Plans Examiner Will Appleton, Development Services Manager File 408-101898-00-SE Doc, I D. 45777 41k CITY Federalo. Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way WA 98063-9718 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.ciiy )ffederalway.com- DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, f a: 0- Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) ❑ Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWCC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2008. Project Name File Number(s) O - /0 t ? R % -r-c' - Sf Signature I/-- / Date K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 6/9/2008 1:45:00 PM 44k ,�� CITY OF '�"'—��o Federal Ways NOTICE OF LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name: Redka Deck Project Description: Proposal to construct a deck and retaining walls within a geologically hazardous area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Project Location: 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Date Application Received. April 22, 2008 Date Determined Complete: May 22, 2008 Date of Notice of Application: June 11, 2008 Permits Required by this Application: 1. State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (File #08-101898-00-SE) 2. Building Permit (File #08-101897-00-SF) Related Permits: None Relevant Environmental Documents are Available at the Address Below: X YES NO Development Regulations to be Used for Project Mitigation, Known at this Time: Federal Way City Code (FWCC) Chapter 18, "Environmental Protection'; Chapter 19, "Planning and Development"; and Chapter 22, "Zoning." Consistency with Applicable City Plans and Regulations: The project will be reviewed for consistency with all applicable codes and regulations including the FWCC; King County Surface Water Design Manual; and the International Building Fire and Mechanical Codes. The official project file is available for public review at the Department of Community Development Services (address below). Any person may submit written comments on the environmental and land use applications to the Director of Community Development Services by June 25, 2008.Only persons who submit written documents to the Director of Community Development Services, or specifically requests a copy of the original decision, may appeal the Director's decision. Contact Person: Senior Planner Joanne Long -Woods, 253-835-2640 33325 86' Avenue South PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063 Published in the Federal Way Mirror on June 11, 2008. File 408-101898-00-SE Doc. I.D. 45781 Page 1 of 1 Tina Piety - Legal Notices .-.- . - .. - . _ - _::: ... .. From: Tina Piety To: admin@fedwaymirror.com; dgrigg@soundpublishing.com Date: 6/9/2008 11:17 AM Subject: Legal Notices Attachments: Redka Deck NOA.DOC; Gil Short Plat NOA.DOC . _ . - . Z-: Hello Again, Please publish the two attached legal notices (Gil Short Plat NOA, 08-100737-00-SU, & Redka Deck NOA, 08- 101898-00-SE) in Wednesday's (6/11/08) issue. Please furnish an affidavit of publication. Thank you, Tina file://C:\Documents and Settings\default\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\484D 1131 CHPO... 6/9/2008 [6/� gI29Q8) Tina Piety - Re: Legal Noticr- Page 1 From: Teryl Heller <theller@fedwaymirror.com> To: "Tina Piety"<Tina.Piety@cityoffederalway.com> Date: 6/9/2008 11:48 AM Subject: Re: Legal Notices Attachments: Gil Short Plat NOA.DOC; Redka Deck NOA.DOC Thanks, Tina for these last two. Teryl Heller Federal Way Mirror 1414 South 324th Street, Suite B210 Federal Way, WA 98003 (phone) 253-925-5565 (fax) 253-925-5750 On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:17 AM, Tina Piety wrote: CITY OF FEDERAL WAY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE TRANSMITTAL DATE: April 30, 2008 TO: Will Appleton, Development Services Manager (DS ONLY) Scott Sproul, Assistant Building Official Brian Asbury, Lakehaven Utility District FROM: David Lee FOR DRC MTG. ON: Completeness Review - May 22, 2008 FILE NUMBER(s): 08-101898-00-SE RELATED FILE NOS.: None PROJECT NAME: REDKA PROJECT ADDRESS: 636 SW 293RD ST ZONING DISTRICT: RS 9.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Environmental review for deck and retaining walls in geologically hazardous area. LAND USE PERMITS: SEPA PROJECT CONTACT: OLEG REDKA 636 293RD ST MATERIALS SUBMITTED: Site Plans (All) Geotech Report (PW) SEPA Checklist (All) 4' TO 8' ROCKERY PER ENGINEER coCD 00 r� ' C14 o 0 CD PROPERTY LINE 102 100 98 1+ _ SETBACK 1: 44 i Fa,LyC � I 4' TO MOCKERY PER PER ENGINEER I NP RESIDENCE I + `� '0 ,1CL pis r 10m �. I `EASEMENT- 20' "' .ONC DRIVEWAY. SLOPE TO DRAIN . .. • ... . �i " � f .. � tea ... �� RECEIVED r - -------_---- — — �f,` — — --� /r -- • . •. ;/ � F 7% — _ —`DRAINAGE — — — — ' — D:APR 2 2 2008S. (TYP. �iY I + SETRAC;K _. •�•��.J —r-- --�. �1 i f CITY OF FEDERAL. WAY CDS .r r `{ fr' PROPERTY LINE { ,} "•.� — JO STREET � I f /r l ( SEINER /%' 410 CROCKERY 07i19/2005 12:21 4255579553 TERRY JENSEN C•SNST PAGE 02 07-19-' 05 12; 09 FROM-KR, 4254856837 1'?'-04 P002I0�g t"m KraZan; &ASSOCIA T ES,1N C. G-OTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • tNVIRONIv1ENTAL ENG1NBBRII-(G CONSTRUICTION TESTING & INSPECTION July t i, 2005 kA Project No. 092-0505 8 Revised July 14, 2005 3.V)(r. Terry ,iensert Terry Jensen Construction Corpora !ion L S03 ' P.O. Box 1326 VY TT i Issaquah, Washington 98027-0058 JUL ; 92005 RE: Additional Concrete Wall — Driveway Area Proposed Sinlgla FZMily No e 636 SW 204 Plans Federal Way, Washington i Dear Mr. Jenson; We have prepared this letter to 2ddre$6 the proposed addition of a cast in place, concrete retaining wall along the driveway at the 3ottthoast corner of the site. We understand that the wall will be located at the opposite end of the site from the bluff�ma. (southeast corner). The wall Twill help separate, in part; the site from the property to the east, We ►naticrstand that the wall will range in height botwc4n about 2 and 10 feet_ ' I We understand that a typical footing rain systetn (perforated pipe) is not feasible for cilia wall dice to the depth of the wall footing and Clio hcigijt of the adjacent storm basins (drain pipe outlet would be below the storm system). to lieu of a standard noting drain system, a series of 2 inch dirunetet wccp }-roles ca.n be used along the. base of the wall, just atiove the top of the footing. Tile weep holC9 ,shoe 1d be spaced every 4 feet (horizontal distance along the ll), and washed a-o;,ic should be used as backfill a£ainst the back of the wall from the top of the wall to tltc top of the footing, All stnichiral fill soils that are require for placement behind the walls should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches loose thickrramoistur-conditioned as necessary, (moisture content, of soil shall not vary by snore than :A-Tpercent of ,{ timum moisture) and the material should be compacted to al, least. 90 pemvit of the maximum dry den9]ity based on �!STM Test Method Di-557. hi place density tests should be perfbrtngd on all structural fill, to verify proper moisture content and adequate compaction. Additional lifts should not be placed f tkte previous lift did not meet the compaction, rtsquirelnen.s or if soil condiW as are not considered stair e. I It is our epittion that the proposed ec�ru:,tion is suitable finm a geoteelmical s'.andpoiat provided the, recommended level of inspection is pbrined and proper drainage is, establishers and maintained, The area, Where this proposed constructiog Will take place is wall away from the bluff atea and should have very little, if any, impact on the site sl',opes. It is also our opinion that if the constluction is cornplated as planned and the recommended mC$sttfes are taken, the construction of this wall and developrnerlt of this site will not adversely affect nearby pr pe"ics, Offices �crvinp The Western United State4 19501— 144'' Avenue NE 9Ir'-300 �Voadinville, Washington 98072 r (e25) 485-5Si;' • rax (425; ¢85.6&)7 N2-Z,%,- W,II Lacer.dac n 071119/20e.5 12:21 4255579553 TERRY JENSEN CONST PAGE 03 07-19-'05 12:10 FP.OhI-Ki 4254956937 "-) T-041 P003/003 F-272 KA Project NO. 092-05058 Revised July 14, 2005 Page No. 2 of 2 We hope that this letter provides a additional information required at this time. if you have aay questions, or if we may be of farther assistance, please do not hesitate to Contact our office at (425) 485- 5519. i Respectfully submitted, AN & ASSOCIATFS, INC. � I earn I,.. CarRumy, P.F,. Geotechnical Division Manager st,cip's 9�4� - - - - —� Phil Haberman, L -G, Eagincering Oeologist Kraxan & Assoclatm, Inc, Serving The Wenora United States 2513 A. Fh%bwM3► 10-05-' 05 13: 55 FROM-KP 74N--,) 4254855837 -'- -718 r0 '%00L -415 is Kx a z an &ASSOCIA` ES,INC- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING 8t INSPECTION October 5, 2005 Mr. Terry Jensen Terry Jensen Construction Corporation Y.O. Box 1326 Issaquah, Washington 98027-0058 RE: Setback Verification Proposed Single Family Horne 636 SW 293`d place Federal Way, Washington Dear Mr. Jensen: Per your request, we have visited the site in order to measure and verify the setbacks for _he proposed single family residence. We understand that the setback requirements include 5 foot mini€ un, setbacks from. the east and west property lines, a 20 foot minimum setback from the south propert- lF3.e inn a 25 foot minimum setback from the top of the bluff. During our site visit on October a, 2005, we measured distances between the single famii;� r:siderce (i„ construction) and the marked property lines and bluff (note that no detailed survey work was conducted and that we used the existing surveyed property corners/lines for our measurements). Distances over 5 feet were measured along the east and west sides of the residence and a measurem,-at of 20 fte,- 1 Vs inches was determined between the south property line and the single family residence. The plans indicate that elevation 98 (feet above sea level) was used to dete,rmile the 25 foot mirimi-ln setback from the bluff. Based on this determination, the single family residence is setback beyond done 2- foot minimum from the bluff area- Detailed measurements could not be taken du=_ing our site vi= : dQe to heavy brush in these areas. We hope that this letter provides the additional information required at this time. if you have. v y questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (425) 4-85- 5519. Respectfully submitted, ZiCargaway,P.E. TES, can L. Geotechnical Division Manage: SLCtph Phil Haberman, L-G- Senior Engineering Ceoioaist Offices Serving The Western United States 19501-140 Avenue NE # F-300 • Woodinville, Washington 98072 a (425) 485-5519 a FFu, (425) 485-683 7 0^: 3� wcx;1".4-c I I I i i I 1 1 1 4W!Krazan& ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECSNICAL ENGINEERING ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRL:CTION TESTLNG & INSPECTION December 30, 2004 Mr. Terry Jensen TFRRY JENSEN CUSTOM Haws P.O. Box 1326 Issaquah, Washington 98027 RE: Slope Stability Eviduation/Foundation Recommendations Proposed Single Family Residence — 6XX — 293rd Street Federal Way, Washington Dear Mr. lcnscn-. KA Project No. 09244087 In accordance with your request, we have completed a Geotechrtieal Study for Slope Stability Evaluation and Fowtdation Recornmen4ation3 at the rcfcronced site. Thu r4sults of our evaluation are prescntcd in the attachcd report. If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not Itesitate to contact our office, at (425) 485-5519. Rcspwlfully submittal, ' AN AND ASSOCUTES, INC. can L. Caraway, P.F. Geotechnical Division Manager SLC:Icb With Eleven Offices Ser►ingThe Western United States 195DI 1441h Ave, NE #F-300 - Woodim'illc, Washinploa 98072 • {415} 485-5519 • Fax: (425) 485-6837 oaz_sa 91dxx20%rilmu Project: Jertsen Lot aS 6XX -CNant: Terry Jensen Location: Federal Way. WasFirigton Depth to Water a E SS Surface Log of Borehole 8-9 SUBSURFACE PROFILE Elevation; Initial: 15' and 41' $Ah1 PLE Project NO: 09204087 Figure NO: Logged By: PH At Completion: grained sand, 5a5ri1Fpleistio, olive gray, finely laminated- Interbedtled_ tus[rine Deposits) grained sand, aline gray, finis[ to vv�t• e Contact. rned�urn grained sand. grayis � Standard '� Persgtration 1aier Content Sample' 50 1 $ � Test i {9itiJ Numbe:'��pe' � � {91aws1ftj 4Vp I--•U•--J 1+UI i 20 4C 64 80 120 40 80 BC �SrItF(Mtj S� � SS 41 � � •f: . • --`-• ...:. . --•- I • I $-7 5S 47 i)YSitT(Sl4}-hdiJw i I •1 I! � h • I . ante Outwashj -:.... � ... .. . S-i p SS I 75 A EndoFBorehole � .. _-....-._... I _.........,_.--: 1 T LEAN i~Z.+4 Y (GL) f Hard, uery+fine mo15t. Massive to Glatiola Srt 71' &,4NA-SAN Dense, very fine Pctential Sbde Plan GiFi�tidED Very dense, fines to brrn�m, moil' to wet 09SCriptlOn ( Drill hl$tttod: LRrNed Aocess HSA 4" Krazan and Associates Drift Dale: 12i15144 79501 144th Ave_ f+l1` #F•300 f3riller. Gregory Drilling Woodinville, Washington Sample Method: S8, 0ht 9$07Z S heat: 2 of 2 LEAN i~Z.+4 Y (GL) f Hard, uery+fine mo15t. Massive to Glatiola Srt 71' &,4NA-SAN Dense, very fine Pctential Sbde Plan GiFi�tidED Very dense, fines to brrn�m, moil' to wet 09SCriptlOn ( Drill hl$tttod: LRrNed Aocess HSA 4" Krazan and Associates Drift Dale: 12i15144 79501 144th Ave_ f+l1` #F•300 f3riller. Gregory Drilling Woodinville, Washington Sample Method: S8, 0ht 9$07Z S heat: 2 of 2 Project' Jensen Lot at sxx Log of Borehole B-1 Project No: 0920408T Client: Terry Jensen Figure No: Surface Elevation: Location: federal wary, Washington Logged By: PH Depth to Water InItIaI: 15•And 41' At Camplation: 1 1 SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description GRASS, TOPSOIL SANDY S2L T (HP Medium stiff to stiff, very fine grained Sand, yellowish brown. mCist. ;Cylacrolacustrine Dep�5t5j ^LF4N CLAY (CLJ fa SA,Vf�Y SJZ r �4ftj Stiff to hard, very fine grained sand, semi -plastic, olive gray. maisttowet Interbedded. (Glaciolacustine Oeposits) potential Side Plano WIN rLthe GlaciolacLstrine Deposits at 15 feet. Near Vertical Joints and Clay Interbed at 25.5 feat. 26.5 feet: 114" clay interbed with plooky. smooth fractures, indicating past movement. Drill Method: Limited Access HSA 4" Driller: Gregcry Drilling SAMPLE: Standard Water Content m CL Penn traij Sample YPe m i Test Number 52 j S (BtowsJtj E wp 1--•0--! W! q 24 40 60 30 20 40 60 BQ `• I i A........ S•1 SS 13 i 1 S-2 SS ; 15 i S 3 IDM 41 # I ' ; S-4 55 3.4 S5 SS 'IE 32 I •i j I Krazan and Associates 19s01 144th Ave. Ne #F-300 Woodinville, Washington 98D72 Drill Date. i2f16J04 Sample Method- SS. DM Sheet 7 of 2 Puget Sound (Povery Bay) � Oe o� ,� Il ai CL CS U "aP 4 p CU j ¢ M t C + d � J aL L �f �> r E Proposed Structure Lorca#Ion LEGEND zwft B-1Loccktbm - Site Ptan 6XX SW 293rd :Street SFR flgure C I NMO aryls Joky Numbers 092-04087 ft4p 4& -•-•--....... __�. C�.L/G�J�1 S +�SSO£IaTES, �+rC. b'� ij�f Zft PI,An r 1 +U-KraZan &ASSOCIATES,INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING . ENVIRONMBNTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTIOI` ITABL E OY C IONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................... .............................. 1 rPURPOSE &ND SCOPE ........................ ............................................................................ 1 SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION...,.................................._.................................... 2 GEOLOGICSETTING ............ ........................................... .................... .............................. 3 ' FIELD IN VESTICATIONS......................................................................................,........., 3 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS„.......................,........................,.........,.. 3 ' GROXINDV4 AT"M...... ........................................... ........................................................... , ., 3 3 SLOPERECONNAISSANCE ....................... .................. ................«..,...,.,...,.................... 3 ' Slope rownnai3sance........................... ............ ,..................... ,....................................... 4 StabilityAnalysis— ........... __---•---•---.....................-•--•--- ........... .............................. 4 Amilysis-----...........................I........................_...........................,.._............_.__ ..... 4 CONCLUSIOIwS AND RECOMMENDATIONS_ ......................................................................... 6 General..................... ........ _.......................................... .................................................. 6 Adger -Cast Pile:s........ .................. ............................... ....... ---................... 7 Shallow FndSecians..,,, ............................................••-•--•..............................._.__....... . ontroi Erosion and Sediment t::pntrpl , 9 . 9 Starmwater M aungement, Drainage and Landscaping .......................... ............ .......... 4........... 14 LYNSITATIONS........... ,.......................................................................................... ....,.,.10 V1('rNMTV VtAP.....................................................................,......... .......................................... I igure I SITEPLAIN ...........................................................................--•--.......,...,.........,.,...................Figure 2 LOGOF BOREHOLE. 134 ........................ ............... ........ ..«...................................,..,.....,,..........Figure 3 LIQUID AIND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT............................,...................,......,.,...... Figure 4 DIRECTSHEAR AT 15............................... .......................,.,....................................... .,,,.Figure 5 DIRECTSMFAR AT 44................................................................................... ,.......................... Figure 6 l 1 1 - With Eleven OMm Serving The Western United States 19501 t44th Ave• NE #F _3Q ■ Woodinville, Wuishington 9W72 .(425) 485.5519 a Fax; (42-5) 485A817 992-0a0R' hXX293rd1tnw �� i� �, T � �p �� INC.=��mm�um "w�m-�.��~��m�� ~~^~~~~~^~~�^^��~�,��~^� GEOTEC8[N/CALENGINEERING ° ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING &[NSP0CTIoN TABLE OF-03NTENT {NMODUCTION............................. ..................... ........................................................... 1 11lRPOSE AND SCOrE........................................................................ ....... .....,-------2 SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION .................... .......... ................................ .......... 2 GEOLOGIC SETT8NG ..._---------_---,^.^~^,_^______________,,,,,^^,_^____I FIELD0X.'--'---'_----`^^'^`^^'-'--------'—'---^^'~^^'~^~^—~'3 ......................................... ........ ................................ � SLOPE _' .^............................... Stabilitym^alyuis'--.'................ -_................ ........ ---- ----........ —.—.... 4 .-_,-_----------- —........................... —..... --.......... ^............... ........... —.... --------- 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS_ .............................. ...... ^........ ......... .............. 6 General, ......................................................................... —........ --.--------- 6 Aki cr-Cast Piles Sh~��n��ou—.''-----------''--'--'—' allow ��...`...,.....^....^..^...��........." Eru;immud Swdimeut Control .......................... ,,~,------ _.___,,_,_,,,,,,,.____g LIMITATIONS`'`—..`~^`~~~................................................................................. ............. 1W VIC I MWMA ��~~-~^------_.kricure8 SITEFLAN ....... ............................... ~~............... ~...... ........... Figure I LOG OF BOREHOLE ~,.~,^~`,.^-._^~.^~.,.^~^.3 LIQUID A�NDPLASTIC LIMITS TFSTREPORT ......................... .-'-_-----..,..-.-.~..,Figure 4 DIRECTSHEAR AT18'......................................................... '^.............................................. ... rc!i DU0ECT SM F A R AT40, � ~ With ElwvemOffioes Serving The Western United States 1950L:44th»w,wc#F3W^wvWinvinc, Washington 98072°��-5-5xn^FiLx; (425) 485A8.17 I r - - an&ASSOCIATES, INC. ' GECTECHhICAL ENGItiEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING?. COKSTRUC•TION TESTING & INSPECTTON IDecember 30, 2004 iCA Projoct No. 092-04081 ' S1,0PE STAB1i,ITY EVALUATIONMOU1tiDAMON RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED SlINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 6XX 293RD STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON I[MfIRO DUCTION This report presents the results of our Slope Stability Evaluation and our foundation recommendations Ifor the proposed single family home located at 6XX — 9W 293rd Street (west end of SW 293-rd Street) in Feder41 Way, Washington. Discussion% regairding site conditions arc prCsentcd hcrcin, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to global slope stability and foundation design and installation for the currently proposed residential construction. The preliminarily planned home is to be located approximately 20 feet horizontally from the top of the site slope (nearest side of the house to the Shope). PURPOSE AND SCOPE rThis investigation was completed to assess the global slope stability with the currently proposed construction and provide recommendations for suitable foundation alternatives- Based on our site + observations and knowlcdgu of the IlisjoTy of the site and nearby propertit;, we analyzed the global slope stability with deep foundation altcrnativcs (at Ics.st along the north (nearest the sltopu) wall of the proposed house). As part of this investigation, we have developed recommendations for deep foundation options to provide information for axial and lateral capacities, which may be used for final design of the residential foundation system. Our scope of work was completed in aceardanee with our Proposal I o. 604-t45WAW ttnd included the fullowinb: Review of ati.ailable geologic and slope stability mapping. + A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface and shallow soil Gnnditions at the project site_ Approximate measurements to obtain the slope height and steepness. No detailed surveying work wes completed as a part of this study, ■ One horing drilled and sampled to a depth of 51.5 feet below the existing site grade. ■ Evaluation of the data obtained from the field investigation for use in global slope stability analysis calculations under static and seismic loading conditions and completion of these calculations, Completion of calculations fnr deep foundation capacities. WIth Eleven ()ffi s Serving T h r Western United States 19501 1441h Ave. NR #F-300 • Wariiauille, Washington 98N2 . ;425) 485-5519 . Fax: (425) 485-5$37 1.792.0437 6XX 293" 51 "FA Mr 1 KA No. 042-04087 Dcecmbcr �0, 2004 Page No. 3 IFIELD INATSTIGATION ' A field investigation cnnsisting of drilling and sampling one boring to a depth of 51.5 feet was completed to obtain the subsurface information necessary for detailed global slope stability and foundation anslyses. The field work was performed on December 16, 2004 and the driiE4 was completed by Gregory Drilling (a Krazan subcontractor). The drilling and sampling was performed with a limited access, track mounted drilling rig. The field work was performed under the supervision of a Krazan engineering geologist. The soils encountered were examined and visually classified in ' accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURf+AC)v CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory boring (B-1) were generally typical of those encountered in the described gcotagic units. The upper 4 to 6 inches, encountered in B-1 consists of the surface grass layer and underlying topsoil. The underlying 7.5 feet consists of mcdiurn stiff to stiff, yellowish -brown sandy silt (Glaciolacustrine Deposits)- This stratum is underlain by about 31 feet of ' very stiff to hard, olive -gray sandy silt to lean clay to sill (Glacialacustrine Deposits). These soils are underlain by approximately 3 feet of very densAard, olive gray silty sandimndy st1t. These soils are underlain by very detise, grayish -brawn sand (Ad,,ranee Outwash), starting at a depth of about 41.5 feet below existing grade. GRDUISD T►� Groundwater was encountered in B-1 during the cJriJIing operations st depths of approximately 15 and 41 lost below grade. The groundwater seepage appears to generally follow possible slip surfaces noted within the subsurfacQ soil profFle. It should be recognized that water table elevations may fluctuate with time, being depemcic:nt upun seasonal precipitation, irrigation, land use, and climatic conditions, as well as other factors. Thcrc;forc, water level obwi-nations at the time of the field investigation niny vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors, is buytutd the scope of this report. SLOPE REC0,X YAISSANC During our site visit, we performed a ,slope reconnaissance on the bluff located at the north end of the si(e. As prt:vikt)usly described (Site Location and Deseription Section) a recent slide mass was observed inimcdiately adjacent to the site (west side). It appeared that. the slide occurred at a depth of about 15 feet below the elevation of the top of the bluff_ No other obvious signs of recent slope instability WOO obscrvod, however fractures and potential slip planes were noted during the subsurface sampling. It appears that the slide that occurred may have been activated by improper drainage which foGuscxi surfacc water runoff toward this portion of the upper bluff. Gcnerally, very slDw slope retreat toward the south will be part of a natural geologic proccss, however this is s long term process that will likely have no significant affect on the building during the design life of the structure (50 to 75 years maximum), if proper drainage and erosion control measures are -- -- -- ---- -- Kra/sn & Associates, Inc. r — — w'idi Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States UY_+:Iai:K'. GXX-]!n1/msm _ KA No. 092-04087 December 30, 20L Page No. 4 implemented and maintained.. Erosiot7 sod retreat of the bluff is typically maintained at an extremely low rate with this type of slope environment, if the natural vegetation is left in place, to the greatest extent possible_ The possibility for activating potential slide plancs andior accelerating general bluff retreat does exist, if drainage and erosion are not properly tnanaged. STAl3IT.l FY AN.+ LYSIS We have analyzed the present global slope stability for the general site slope cross.section. The slope stability analysis is based only on limited information regarding the slope configuration (approximate slope height and steepness measurements taken, not formally surveyed). The slope cross-section was modeled with the placement of the nearest mouse wall st 20 feer borizentally from the top edge of she slope, ' Results of the slope stability analysis are prescaited in the following section. Analysis The commercially available slolse stability computer program {GSTABL7) was used to evaluate the global stability of the existing site slope, 'l*hc slope stability was analyzed under static and seismic oonditions. ' The FORTRAN based GSTABL7 computer program calculates factors of safety for potential slope faihues and generates the potential rotational failure planes (relatively homogencous soil typically has rotational slope failure planes). This software caleulat" the slope stability under seismic conditions using pseudo - static methods. The stability of the described configuration was analyzed by comparing observed factors of safety to mitumum N-alues as set by standard geotechnical practice. A factor of safety of 1.0 is considered equilibriwn and less than 1.0 is considered failure_ The reeammended minimum factor of safety for global . stability is 1.3 to 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 for scismic conditions. I I Two different scismic events were used to analyze the slope stability under seismic loading conditions. 11te ' first event is the one in 100 year event. For this area, the one in 100 year event has a magnitude of 6.5 and a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.2g (for the type of soil encountered at this site). This event has n 40 percent pnobability of being oxceudcd in 50 years_ This level of event is curisi&xcd the design event by various local municipalities, such as the City of Seattle rh:partrnmt. of Planning and Development (DPD) and Kitmp County. The second event is the one in 500 year event. For this area, the one in 500 year errant has a magnitude of 7.5 and a peak horizontal ground acceleration of near 0.28g (per U.S. Geological Survey). The one in 500 year event has a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The following cstimatod soil parameters were +iced in our analysis of the subject slope: Kmzan 4- Associates, Inc. With Eleven Offices Serving The Western lYnited States 0 -341W 6=30inuu�_ 1A No. 092-04087 December 30. 2004 Page No_ 5 Soil parameters used in Analysis Soil Description I3ensrty Ctlhesioll Friction { C s do eca Medium Stiff I105 dry 300 20 Glaciolacustrine 110 saturated 21 ' Stii1'to hard 110 dry 600 Glaciolacu.gtrine 115 saturated Stif£'deasc Undy Silt w 110 dry 400 20 Silty Sand _ 115 saturated 50 38 Advance Outwash 12� dry 130 saturated Stability Results for Existing Slope Configuration (Static) j Factor —of —Safety Factar-of SafeRequired 01kee rve d j Overall Stability 1.35 1.3 Stability Results for Existing Slope Configuration (Seismic) (One in 100 Year Event) Factor --of -Safety Factor -of -Safety Required Observed Overall Stability 1.04 1.1 Stability Results for Existing Slope C1Dnf19ur9tiou (Seismic) (One in 500 Year Event) Overall Stabithy Factor —of —Safety I Factor-cf-SafetyRequired Observed 0.94 Krrzan & Associates, Inc. With Eleven Officcs Serving The Westeni United States W x-7911N7 ax7L'+pSrdlcor_ KA No- 092-04097 ' Drccttmber 30, 2004 Page No. 6 ONCLUSIONS AND REC0MMEND MONS General The analyses indicate that the Factor of Safety (FS) for global slope stability is higher than the recommended minimum for the existing slope; configuration, under static conditions and near the reco,nmended minimum under the one in 100 year seismic event (just above equilibrium; FS = 1.0). The FS for the one iu 500 year event is below the recommended minimum value and slightly below equilibrium. 13asad on the rcm3ults of the global slope stability analyses, it ix our opinion that the house may be constructed as proposed with an auger cast pile foundation system (at a minimum along the nearest wall to the bluff) and properly managed drainage and erosion control measures. The auger cast pile systara should at least be installed along the entire north (,nearest to bluff) wall. The remainder of the house footprint may also be founded on sugmr cast piles for additional resistance to potential lateral fiances generated by possible slope movement. If this is not selected, the remaining portions of the house may be cowsidcrcd for support with spread footings. The level oi'risk that is assumed by the owner should be evaluated to determine the final foundation plan- It should be understood that the auger cast piles provide the best option in terms of available construction methods and [ochnology to maintain the integrity of the structure, if landslide activity occurs on the site. Minimizing the potential for movement through proper drainage and erosion protection (maintaining in place vegetation and landscaping where areas are stripped for construction) is the best method for reducing the risk of damage to the structure from slope movemenr. it should be noted that although the FS value: for the one in 100 year seismic event is slightly lower than the rcuornmendcd minimum value and the FS value for the one in 500 year seismic event is lower than . the recommended minimum value and slightly lower than equilibrium, this does not imply that a slope failure is imminent if these levels of events occur. In the event of an earthquake of a certain magnitude, fiscal depth, epicentral distance and'or duration slope failures arc possible in various portions of the Puget Sound region- However, the potential for soil movement on this property is no greater than that on adjacent lots or for propertiRs chowhcre with similar slope and soil conditions. Due to the presence of potential slip planes in the subsurface soil profile and the recent landslide activity at the adjacent site, it is our opinion that slides could be activated at this site as a result of various faotom- 'I'hc moot. significant po.igible causes fnr such activtty would include surface water focusing over the bluff and/or seismic activity. It should ba noted that seismic events that are similar to the one in 100 year event have occurred in the past 100 years and evidcoce of slide activity from such carthquakes wa, not obse-med. The primary purpose of the auger cast pilc system will be to provide lateral resistance for the structure in the event of slope movement (not installed primarily for high axial loads or compressiblMiquefiable soils). Lateral load resistance parameters for two pile diameters are presented in the following section. It should be understood that the pile system will not limit the potential for slope movement and it will not eliminate the possibility of damage to the structum if a signiticant slide occurs in the immediate vicinity of the house, however the piles should reduce the stntcturol distre3s and the possibility of structure collapse, Kra'can & Ameelites, lnc. with Eleven Offiim Serving The Western Uaked States 0924 as7 nx?[293rd'MWn KA No. 092-04087 December 30, 2004 Page No. 7 Auser-Cast Piles Typically the auger cast pile system is designed by a structural engineer, using the parameters providcxi by us. The parameters provided in the following tables may be used to preliminarily determine diameter and depth: ? �,] ble. Pile Dapacklesy(Au�e,4ff Cast Piles). _ 'S,l: v�:1 1, F: : �� 'n Cl'S.pF, : , Depth Below Existing Grade Con Ipressign Uplift 20 48 30 45 200 so �s ' �"�i lI1Ch � • , tat' �I •r' r'i: -:�.1� `7: w� _�.�"� Depth Below Existing Grade (feet) Compression (kips) uplift (kipsl. 2.0 70 40 30 100 65 45 35U 100 LatqMll Pile C n-rities (Augff Cast Piles) �'�;:� - ;.,�� 1$, Iiiarna#E�i�ile� � •��-: 'A:�-`s�4 iu��i:anYe t3rPile• _ "ti y :� •-'• ''' Depth Below Latcral Lid Maximum M-pth Hi Iow Lateral Load )!Maximum Existing Grade (kips) Deflection* Existing Grade (kips) Deflection* (feet) (inches) feet im: he--z 20 20 E 0.75 20 25 M5 *i)eflection at Pile Cap The tltree pile depths are provided as alternatives for installation, depending on the desired benefit to cost ratio for the owner. Fmcturms Within the soil and potential slip platter w-crc encountered at dcptbx of approximately 15, 26.5 and 40 feet below grade. The pile depth alternatives provide options for emhedment of the deep foundation elements to penetrate the possible slip planes. We rxx:ommend a Kraattn & Asgodatts_ Inc. with Eleiren Offices Serving The Western United States I KA No. 092.04087 Decctnbcr 30, 2004 Page No. 8 minimum pile depth of 20 feet below existing grade to completely penetrate the upper 15 foot zone (approximate depth of the landslide at the adjacent property) - The lateral pile loads are based on a maximum deflection at the pile cap of about 0.75 inches. The lateral pile analyses were performed using the Commercially available L-Pile 5.0 software from Ensoft- The analyses werc completed for fixed head and free head conditions- The maximum deflection was obtained with the free head condition. An auger -cast pile is formed by drilling to an appropriate prcdetermined depth with a continuous -flight, hollow stem auger. Cement grout is then pumped down the stem of the auger under high pressure as the anger is withdrawn- The.final result is a east -in -place concrete pile, Reinforcing steel can be lowered into the fresh Qrvut column to providu lateral and/or tensile load carrying capabilities. The actual volume of grout required to fill an auger -cast pile borehole should be no Im than 11 S permm' t of the nominal pile volume- Additionally, we recommend that a singlc reinforcing bar (tendon) extending the full length of the pile be installed in piles subjected to uplift loads, with spacers acid centralizers employed to ensure proper alignment and clearances along the tendon and any rcinforccd steel cages installed in the fluid grout column of the pile. Due to anticipated length of the reinforcement for the piles, it is recoimnended that a miniinurn of 4 of more inches of clearance be provided between the steel reinforcement and the soil surrounding the pile. Providing more than the UBC-specified 3-inch minimal clearance will increase the likelihood of pmper installation of the reinrorecmumt with actual concntc cover at or above the minimum for concrete against soil. A 9`!s sack 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi) minimum 28-day compressive strcngtb grout is the minimum recommended for auger -cast piles - Pile installation should be monitored to verify proper embedment into the presumed hearing layer, file n lengths may need to be modified during construction if it is determined that the, depth to the bearing layer varies- Auger -cast }riles are well suited to field adjustments as fcngth can be varied by merely adjusting the drillod depth and volume ofgrout roquircd. Sltal logs Foundations If the remaining portion of the house (outside of the wall nearest the bluff) is supported on it shallow foundation system we recommend that the footings hear on the medium stiff to very stiff native soils or properly compacted, structural fill, placed on medium stiff to very stiff native soils. Continuous wall or column footings may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pst) dead plus live load, if the footings bear on medium stiff' to very stiff native soil or on structural fill, placed on the medium stiff to very stiff native soils. A l i3 increase in the above values maybe used for ,hor< duration, wind and seismic loads. Structural fill placed on bearing, native subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM Test Method DISS7. Tooting excavations should be inspected to verify that the foundations will bear on suitable material. Exterior footings should have a minimum depth of t 8 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower, Interior footings should have a minimum depth of 12 inches below pad subgrade (soil grade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is lower, Footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches regardless of load. Kraaan & Associates, tnc. With Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States Dq'4WK7 M293rdkmm KA No. 092-04087 December 30, 20D4 Page No. 9 ' If constructed as recommended, the lotal settlement is not expected to exceed I inch. Differential ' sculomeat, along a 20-foot exterior wall footing, or between adjoining column footings, should be less than 'h inch, producing an angular distortion of 0.002. Most settlement is expected to occur during construction, as the,loads are applied, However, additional post -construction twiticment may occur if the ' foundatian soils are flooded or saturated or if a strong seismic event results in liquefaction of the underlying sails. It should be -noted that the risk of liquefaction is considered low, given the composition ' and density of the native, on site soils. Seasonal rainfall, water run-off, and ttte normal practice of wamring trees and landscaping arm around the proposed structures, should not be permitted to flood andlor saturate footings. To prevent the buildup of water within the footing areas, continuous footing drains (with cleanouts) should be provided at the bases of the footings. The footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, sloped to drain, with perforations placed down and enveloped by 1-inch sized washed rock in all directions and filter fabric to prevent the migration of fines. Resistance to lateral footing displaocmcnt can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 4,30 acting between the bases of foundations and the supporting subgradc. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent tluid passive pressure of230 pounds per cubic toot (pef) acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The allowable fricrion factor and allowable GNuivalent nuid passive pressure values include a factor of safety of 1.5. • hil frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A 113 increase in the above values may be used for short duration, wind and seismic loads_ Erosion and Sediment Control • Erosion and sediment control (ESC) is used to minimize the transportation of sudimunt to wetlands, streams, lakes, drainage systems, and adjacent properties. Erosion and sediment control measures should - be taken and these measures should be in accordance with the City of Federal Way requirements. As a minimum, the following basic recommendations should be incorporated in the design of the erosion and sediment control Features of the situ- ■ Phase the grading, utility work, and other work requiring excavation or the disturbance of the site soils during the dry season (generally May through September)_ if prwautions are taken using Best Management Practices (BMP's), grading activities can be undertaken during the wet season (generally October through April), but it should also be knoum that this may increase the Overall oost of the projcct. ■ All site work should be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible, Additional periiroter croSion and sediment control features may be required to reduce the possibility of sediment entering the surface water. This may include additional silt fcnecs, silt fences with a higher Apparcnt Opcnitng Sire (AOS), cotnstruclion of a berm, or Other filtration systems. -- _ - Krimasrl & msocimes, Inc. With Eltwn Offices Serving The Wmtern ilruced Slates ryrA.pplyt: 57Ui 241rClni4en r KA No. 092-04asp December 30, 2004 Page No. 10 i a Any runoff generated by dewatering discharge should be treated through construction of a ' sediment trap if there is sufficient space, and under no circumstances be allowed to drain over the southwestern slope. If space is limited other filtration methods will need to be incorporated. ' • A WSD4T certified Erosion Control Inspector should be assigned to this project to monitor temporary erosion and sedinientation control &viccs, and make recommendations for ESC repair, or additional ESC installation if needed. Krazan & Associates, Inc_ can provide a WS130-F eertified inspector, if requested. Stour water Mana-ement Drains a and Uitidsea in The ground surface should slope away from building pads and pavement areas, toward apprupriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. It is recommended that adjacent exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures_ Roof drains should be tightlined away from foundations and slope surfaces. Roof -drains should not be wTinccted to the footing ' drains, but may use the same outfall piping if connected well away from the buildings such that roof ;rater 4aill -not backup into the footing drains. Subgrade soils in pavement areas should be sloped a minimum of 1 percent and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry all surface water to collection facilities, away Rom slope surfaces_ These grades should be maintained for the lifr of the project. Yard drains may also need to be incorporated into the stormwater system to help limit surface water runoff and infiltration into the steep site slopcs. The collucticm facilities should be tightlined away ' from slopes and difiposcd of where down slope properties, structures and slopes are not jeopardized_ Specific recommendations for and design of storm water disposal systems or septic disposal systerns arc beyond the scope of our serviccs and should be prepared by other consultants that are familiar with design and diwharge requirements. Infiltration systems should not be located on slopes that exceed 30 percent nor z;bk)uld systems be "stacked" or lined up with ana another down the slope. Infiltration systems should not be located up slope of buildings or retaining structures. LTN ITA_TION S Cieotechnical engineering is one of the ncwost divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as now technologies and understanding of earth sciences improves. Although your situ was analysed using the most appropriate current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvemcats in this branch of engineering. In addition to improvements in the field of geotechnical engineering, physical changes in the site either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations or possible changes in the proposed structure after the time of completion of the soils report may require the soils report to be profeSsiorally reviewed. In light of this, the owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without criticid review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork Construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original Foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. 17te recommendations trade in this mport are based on the gstfumptien that soil conditions Kraaan & Associates, Inc. Wkh Eleven =ces Serving The Western L:nitcd States 4d: il+/16: 6.'fX243rdkrsrn KA No. 092-04087 December 30, 2004 Page No. 11 do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, the geotechnical engineer should b4, notified so that supplemental recommendations can be made. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding tht proposed construction. If the proposed cowtruokn is relocated or redesigned, the conclusions in this report may not be valid. The geotechnical engineer should be notified of any changes so that the recommendations can be reviewed and reevaluated_ This report is a geotechnical engineering investigation with the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation design. The scoN of our services did not include any environmental site assessment for the presence or absener of hazardous andov toxic materials in the soil, groundwater or aimospherc, or the presence: of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report or on the boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicions items, or conditions observed are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intendcd to convey engineering judgment regarding patcntial hazardous an&or toxic assCs3mcnts, The geotechnical information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utiliYing standard engineering practices and a &Lucc of conservatism deemed proper for this project. It is not warranted that Such information and interpretation cannot br superticdcci by future geotechnical developments. We emphasize that this report is valid For this project as outlined above, and should not be used for any other site. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance: please do not hesitate to contact our Woodinville office at (425) 485-5519. Respectfully submitted, 4ZAIi & ASSOCIATES, INC. can L Caraway, P1, Gaotcchaical Division Manager SLC `eb. Chris Behreas, LG., L.EX!, Senior Engineering Geologist w +'Vo f/? 4 {�, brrlas�r�g �+*�tioyat � 214 4`ra s� G e CHRIS J. BEHRE1<8 Kr;xan & Associates, lnc. Wirh Eleven Offices Serving The Western United States O;J •c-ioa; &XX.Mrda Figurcgcncrated from TOM USAe-. KRA,ZAN & ASSOCIATES 19501 144 lh Aventke Northeast #F-300 Woodimille. WA 98072 425-485-5519 FIGURE 1 —VICINITY MAP LoeStion. Federal Way, Washington Job No. ;092-04087 C licot - Jenson C ustiam Hames Date: 1-4-05 yl.{�•-�:.`-__ 'r _, •tt .Ad its+ I-) 3 CD n O Q N (DD CD M CO W —I M (n M �1 W Cn ? W N CT CT CT CT CT 01 GD CT CT G1 CT O\ CT CT CT G1 GD CT i CD O C) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o_ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r 00 00 00 0o J J J J J J��-4�1 O o 0 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W 0 W C \C �O �O Jam• \.O \O o0 00 00 00 J N � N lV N 00 CT In C)W �-' O Oo In O Cn Cli VA O J CT Vi — O m 0 0 r Y x O a D D O Y r m m O m a z x z o d r d p p p `n Y g p m y rn Z ran Z Fr z o y aPIN zEn z o o +yOtyy~�d.� X? ran r+� zz� �C, R O r D m -mG + p x r m r > y C z r z z zcn z�> > xa��r H n7 L r L I i ri 01 01 01 N CT CT CT C) CT tN O� � � --A -IJ --a L1 GN am— �-' �-' �O C) O— CD �-` 4 IliN 00 m N W \O oo O\ J . W 00 N M N O N O w Vim�]!! C�n! Ccn U�]! C�n! Cc�n!! cGGn Cn C�n! CID C�n! US wl Cn � G G G G G CT G G � G � G ::E G G G J W G y y CA a < z x Z r x x::�< x x t7 t7 t7 z CIO y y � y y y '77 '17 't In It 'i] zi Ili 'Tj �i 'rJ =J 17 TJ �i TJ 17 -ri �7 M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m t7 u t7 t7 t7 r7 t ) t7 t7 t7 t7 u t7 t7 t7 t7 t7 u t7 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m - r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r c a a> a> a a a> a> a> a> a> cc 00 00 00 00 00 00�10 m 00 m 00 00 m 00 00I'D 00 w 00 00 0 0 0 o C) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N In N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W r a O m -h a o X N 16< O O ti CD GI � a Z a O N o CD 1 N CL n C fD Q. n O C a O C 3 oy N CD Cl) N CD N Map Date: October 12th, 2007 City of Federal Way City of 300ft Notification as GisDivi 97 P.O Box 9718 33325 h Ave Federal Way for Parcel 119600-0315 (206)- 35-70. Federal Way Wa. 98063 (206) - 835 - 7000 www.cityoffed a ra lway.co m 119600 0257 119600 119600 1 0309 F 21 4 119 5119 1 { 025 l 119oCs1 f9 119oK.0 04 03 - 0575 1 119600 I196000671 119W 119600 _ 179 119600 11 OD 0735 1 4885 0315 19600 0485 6 119 71 0311 1 0505! 119 119600 6725 173 7 0332 '22750 1196DO 10 0304 s� W25 95 >� 119600 SW 293RD ST SW 293RD ST 1i9 OD 119600 340 0326 119600 1 1 96 0 71980 B80 14 2 7 0345 1840 1788 17 G9 11 1650 1f9 119fi00 1 119600 119600 119600 1 7 1620 1622 14fi0 119600 2260 2100 791 11 11 1} 2265 1196W 17 5m i8 87 11 0 ]]9600 11%D0 7 1 98 1 0 1750 1740 1960� 11 9 SW 294TH ST 11 1521 1623 1 1 15M 11%W 2658 119600 119600 119 12794 12792 119600 19600 119 11 600 119600H1171 11 119600 2650 2615 2765 2760 1 9800 1 119fi00 3005 298 294831f0 119800 2397 1 00 50 2940 2941 11 4225 1 11 600 3100 3t05 119500 2398 1g6 119600 119600 119fi00 11960D 579800 119600 11 11 119600 1 1 131200 fi960D 2757 2755 2fi60 2785 2795 2775 2790 1 2942 119600 3009 300 11 1960 3720 2395 1 2939 2943 198 300 119600 3150 } 3730 S 295TH ST 11 2985 3025 40 139600 119600 119600 1960 4383 1196M 119600 4270 1 1 1 9600 4630 46 11960 1960 119600 119600 119600 1796 4381 11 119600 7 119800 4083 54 1196 ] Ti9600 4530 4525 4520 4395 4382 119600 4221 119690 4061 3920 3905 1 j 4380 ¢ 42fi0 4220 9800 198D0 1196 = 196 11960 454P 1 x 1]9600 149600 119600 1198DD = k 119600 119600 4755 4740 0 4570 4545 4540 4390 4387 4386 g385 19 4560 119600 4222 g060 119600 4064 119600JOH112 119 119600 4340 9500 1 4062 3903 3900 4223 427A 195460 0 205 -� S 7205200130 90 2U 72Qg 2051 0 7 31 7 531 1500023 9546 195460 19546D 0010 L� O 7 5207p f7i) 520 01507205 0090 7M �7 00M 205 O1 y 062104 0017 0010 0005 062104 702120 6Y fl1 310i 0 9108 9042 SW 297TH ST SW 297TH ST T 062104 195460 720520 720520 720520 720520 7 0510 702 1 2D531 9059 0025 � D62104 0030 0070 0080 9120 KO 2051 72061 02180 3 062104 195460 145460 > 9064 062104 ¢ 72051 720520 720520 720520 0040 0621 720532 > 720532 9094 0030 0035 062104 062104 = 9130 W52 0040 0060 0090 2052 0110 20510 72057 9107 0070 ¢ 0080 1954600021 9128 9127 50 0100 0020 �� r700 I 233700 233700 233700 233700 233700 3700 70 SW 298TH ST 0020 0030 004D 0054 7 700 720510 0110 Ot 1 0140 954 0222 954 6 SW 283Tx ST 0D80 0010 01 Legend L,aR 2 2 2-00� 0 King County Tax Parcels 300ft Notification Area a 4CITY OF Federal �YF FCDERAL Rao N Subject Site CDS 0 75 150 300 Parcels to Notify Feet This map is intended for use as a graphical representation only. 7 The City of Federal Way makes no warranty as to its accuracy. MASTER ASTER LAND USE APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 81h Avenue South CITY of APR 2 2 2008 PO Box 9718 Federal may Federal Way WA 98063-9718 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY 253-835-2607; Fax 253-835-2609 CDS www,oitvoffederalway.com APPLICATION NO(S) 0 V — / v I ? I? O — v F Date "q —AA— Project Name Z'lydZ) Y__ �, Tit CGK Property Address/Location 6_y�-, Suo .1g3jA -Sr i-W, Wccy WA MIP3 Parcel Number(s) _ 11 I (� C00 `� 1 Project Description 'NO tl" rrw fF-6?_ — C-0,4 S -rrU5;� <nr- oy—C i- PIXASR PRINT Type of Permit Required Annexation Binding Site Plan Boundary Line Adjustment Comp Plan/Rezone _ Land Surface Modification ^ Lot Line Elimination Preapplication Conference Process I (Director=s Approval) Process II (Site Plan Review) Process III (Project Approval) Process IV (Hearing Examiner's Decision) Process V (Quasi -Judicial Rezone) Process VI SEPA w/Project %,/ SEPA Only Shoreline: Variance/Conditional Use Short Subdivision Subdivision Variance: Commercial/Residential Required Information _& S !2. �, Zoning Designation SF Comprehensive Plan Designation Value of Existing Improvements Value of Proposed Improvements International Building Code (IBC): — Occupancy Type U-3 _ _Construction Type Name: o�� AZ0 Address: 63i� SI,J -?19d City/State: p�ICI G✓z5gll, Zip: Phone: 3 Fax: Signature: (A Agent (if different than Applicant) Name: Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Owner Tsp"ze ff ��pe� Name: Address: City/State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Email: Signature: Bulletin #003 —August 18, 2004 Page 1 of 1 k:\Handouts\Master Land Use Application RECEIVED A 01 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY To: Lead Agency, ,City of I: eddral. way - Co muaity and Economic Development Department C DS Re_ UM- GATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIRCIANCE (1h1DNS.)REDYA PATIO z :xo. 0.$-101$9e-00-Sp. RECEIVED Public Comment from owm s pCO SUN 01 2012 From: Ted Rollolazo 624 SW 29rd St Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY OF FEDERAL WAY CDS I Ted Rollohtzv, am the -property awmw next to MegRedlWs property. I lived at Emy:address since 1996. Prior to the Redka house/patio being built, it was a vaunt lot that was covered with large trees, vegetation and shrubs. I was told that the vacant laud was soft and that et wo " twting was Tequired before a house was to be built. I assumed all required tests to include a percolation test were completed and successfully passed prior to the Redka house being built. Nor to the house foundation going in, land dirt from excavating was pushed Toward also back of the property (bluff side). After the house was built, the builder did not Iandseapethe backyard. The dirt remained slopurg downward toward the bluff and trry property. At the time; I was concerned that rain water would flow toward my side of the property. The new owner Oleg Redka knew that I. had a eoncem Redka then badt the brick wall patio, that was later tilled with dirt. Thebrickpatio has a better look than the standing dirt that was left' ftom the builder. I was told that the patio design was approved by an engineer and by the city. Redka also took extra precaution regarding rain water -and installed a drainage system from his brick patio and second floor deck patio. I am not an engineer, so I can only amine that the patio structure was approved by experienced environmental engineers or a geotech-engineer and trust that it serves both caWcoment and protection. Sincerely, Ted Rollelazo •,I CITY OF Federal Way FILE MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) Redka Patio File No. 08-101898-00-SE Proposal: The applicant has applied for an after -the -fact building permit for patio improvements associated with an existing single-family residential dwelling. Improvements were constructed within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Location: 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 — King County Parcel 119600-0315 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 The Responsible Official for the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following threshold determination based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis to exercise the substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required under RCW 43.2 1 C.030(2)(c) if the conditions listed below are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and information on file with the lead agency. The project file is available for review at the Permit Center located on the second floor of City Hall during normal business hours. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On August 31, 2007, an anonymous Citizen Action Request was filed with the department regarding patio improvements that were completed without required building permits. 2. The city's critical areas map and geotechnical studies indicate the improvements are within a geologically hazardous area setback, specifically within 25 feet of a marine bluff containing grades in excess of 40 percent. 3. The applicant submitted a building permit and environmental checklist for after -the -fact approval April 22, 2008. The city's geotechnical consultant reviewed the applicant's application, conducted a site visit, and concluded the improvements do not appear to have a detrimental effect of the overall stability of the slope on the subject property or on adjacent properties. 4. On September 29, 2011, it came to the city's attention that additional unauthorized work occurred on the patio in the placement of granite tiles. 5. The applicant's geotechnical engineer informed the city of the following two options to properly mitigate the surcharge on the slope: (1) the tiles needed to be removed; or (2) three feet of the slope -side portion of the deck needed to be removed. The applicant has requested the latter, three-foot removal, as the preferred mitigation option. 6. The city's geotechnical consultant concurred with the three-foot removal option and recommends slope stability calculations be provided to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation provides similar factors of safety against slope failure as the pre -granite tile installation condition. 7. A building permit is required to be issued prior to approval of the after -the -fact patio improvements. The burden is on the applicant to provide evidence the deck foundation can be adequately engineered and meet current building codes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Goals and policies adopted within the FWCP serve as the basis for the city to exercise its SETA substantive authority and to condition the proposed action as it relates to potential significant adverse impacts that would result from this project. The following policies of the FWCP support the conditions for the development. NEP54 Land uses on steep slopes should be designed to prevent property damage and environmental degradation, and to enhance open space and wildlife and habitat. NEP56 Landslide hazard areas should be free of development, unless the risks and adverse impacts associated with such development can be reduced to a negligible level. SEPA CONDITIONS Based on the above policies, the following mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the building permit. 1. The applicant shall move the rear (slope side) retaining walls up -slope a minimum of three feet as suggested by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and concurred by the cty's geotechnical consultant. Calculations for stability will be reviewed with the building permit application. The applicant shall prepare a legal document acceptable to the City Attorney to be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. The document shall include the following details as they were recommended by the cty's geotechnical consultant: (1) Disclosure of the patio's location within a geologically hazardous area; (2) Acknowledgement of risk from future slope instability and indemnification of future claims against the city as a result; (3) Acknowledgement the city will not issue permits to current and future owners of the subject property to construct shoreline protection associated with the patio improvements; (4) Acknowledgement the city will not issue permits to current and future owners of the subject property to construct trails and/or stairs to beach below for the life of the current patio improvements; (5) Annual inspections by a professional geotechnical engineer. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND APPEALS This MDNS is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 1, 2012. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the Federal Way City Clerk (address below), no later than June 15, 2012. Any person appealing the decision should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager, for Patrick Doherty, Director of Community and Economic Development Address: 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date Issued: Redka Patio File No. 08-101898-00-SE/Da LD 58969 MDNS Page 2 CITY OF Federal Way MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) Redka Patio File No. 08-101898-00-SE Proposal: The applicant has applied for an after -the -fact building permit for patio improvements associated with an existing single-family residential dwelling. Improvements were constructed within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Location: 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 — King County Parcel 119600-0315 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 The Responsible Official for the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following threshold determination based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), and other municipal policies, plans; rules, and regulations designated as a basis to exercise the substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) if the conditions listed in the environmental document are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and information on file with the lead agency. The project file is available for review at the Permit Center located on the second floor of City Hall during normal business hours. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND APPEALS This MDNS is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Written comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 1, 2012. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person ag ,eved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the Federal Way City Clerk, 33325 8 Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 no later than 5:00pm June 15, 2012. Any person appealing the decision should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 18, 2012. Doc- CD. 61075 -=~-�CITY OF Federal May 18, 2012 Steve and Kay Pedersen 620 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 F i LE CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Feder y Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalvvay.com RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; REDKA PATIO UPDATE Redka Patio, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. & Mrs. Pedersen: This letter is to inform you that the Redka Patio environmental review, a project of which you provided written comments, has been completed. The city is issuing a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance May 18, 2012, that will attach additional conditions to the building permit. This determination is not approval of the patio, but provides the applicant the ability to move forward in obtaining a building permit. The determination states that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required as the patio does not pose a significant adverse impact on the environment. This determination was made following review of the applicant's geotechnical engineering reports and consultation with the city's third party geotechnical engineer. Following the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal period, the applicant will move forward with obtaining a building permit or be required to remove the patio improvements. If the applicant elects to move forward with permitting, he must meet requirements of the city's building code in order to keep the patio improvements as they exist today. In addition to the environmental determination's condition that a portion of the deck be removed, further structural modification (foundation, stormwater, etc.) may be necessary to comply with the building code. I have enclosed a copy of the determination as you had requested in your comment letter. The findings of the document detail the geotechnical engineer's determination that the patio improvements, if constructed properly, will not have a detrimental effect on adjacent properties. Proper construction will be verified during building permit application review. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the environmental document. I can be reached by phone at 253-835-2638 or email at matt.herrera yciiyoffederalway.coRt. Since 7 Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: Signed Redka Patio MDNS Doc. I.D. 61 I06 CITY 4F CffY HALL �. 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 FederaI Way . (253) 835-7000 www cityoffederalway. com May 18, 2012 Mr. John C. Hauf 29308 7h Avenue SW Federal Way, WA 98023 RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; REDKA PATIO UPDATE Redka Patio, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Hauf: This letter is to inform you that the Redka Patio environmental review, a project of which you provided written comments, has been completed. The city is issuing a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance May 18, 2012, that will attach additional conditions to the building permit. This determination is not approval of the patio, but provides the applicant the ability to move forward in obtaining a building permit. The determination states that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required as the patio does not pose a significant adverse impact on the environment. This determination was made following review of the applicant's geotechnical engineering reports and consultation with the city's third party geotechnical engineer. Following the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal period, the applicant will move forward with obtaining a building permit or be required to remove the patio improvements. If the applicant elects to move forward with permitting, he must meet requirements of the city's building code in order to keep the patio improvements as they exist today. In addition to the environmental determination's condition that a portion of the deck be removed, further structural modification (foundation, stormwater, etc.) may be necessary to comply with the building code. I have enclosed a copy of the determination as you had requested in your comment letter. The geotechnical investigation did conclude that prior sloughing events on the adjacent property you identified in your comment letter were likely due to unrestricted stormwater runoff upslope. A properly installed stormwater conveyance associated with the Redka patio will mitigate any future sloughing caused by stormwater. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the environmental document. I can be reached by phone at 253-835-2638 or email at matt.herrera ,ci offederalwa .com. Sia3w- Matthew enc_ Signed Redka Patio MDNS Doc. I.D. 61104 CITY OF � Federal May 18, 2012 Ms. Barbara Chambers 629 SW 293`d Street Federal Way, WA 98023 1 CFTY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Feder y Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com RE: FILE #08-101898-00-SE; REDKA PATIO UPDATE Redka Patio, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way Dear Ms. Chambers: This letter is to inform you that the Redka Patio environmental review, a project of which you provided written comments, has been completed. The city is issuing a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance May 18, 2012, that will attach additional conditions to the building permit. This determination is not approval of the patio, but provides the applicant the ability to move forward in obtaining a building permit. The determination states that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required as the patio does not pose a significant adverse impact on the environment. This determination was made following review of the applicant's geotechnical engineering reports and consultation with the city's third party geotechnical engineer. Following the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal period, the applicant will move forward with obtaining a building permit or be required to remove the patio improvements. If the applicant elects to move forward with permitting, he must meet requirements of the city's building code in order to keep the patio improvements as they exist today. In addition to the environmental determination's condition that a portion of the deck be removed, further structural modification (foundation, stormwater, etc.) may be necessary to comply with the building code. I have enclosed a copy of the determination as you had requested in your comment letter. To address your specific concerns regarding vegetation removal, no further vegetation removal is proposed with the patio improvement. If vegetation removal is needed for structural or stormwater needs, further geotechnical review identifying impacts and needed mitigation would be required. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the environmental document. I can be reached by phone at 253-835-2638 or email at matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: Signed Redka Patio MDNS Doc. I D. 61094 I FCITederal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cif offe eralwa .corn DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, Kennith George hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notce. ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on May 18 , 2012. Project Name Redka Patio File Number(s) 08-101898-00-SE Signature Date 5 1 $ 201 2 K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 5/18/2012 2:40:00 PM Posted Sites: Federal Way City Hall: 33325 8h Ave South Federal Way Library: 342)0 1st Way South Federal Way 320h Library: 848 S. 320h St Subject Property:636 SW 293rd Street K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 5/18/2012 2:40:00 PM CITY 4F Federal Way MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) Redka Patio File No. 08-101898-00-SE Proposal: The applicant has applied for an after -the -fact building permit for patio improvements associated with an existing single-family residential dwelling. Improvements were constructed within 25 feet of a geologically hazardQus;area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Location: 636 SW 293"1 Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 — King County Parcel 119600-0315 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 The Responsible Official for the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following threshold determination based upon impacts identified in the environmental. checklist, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis to exercise the substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required under RCW 43.2 1 C.03 0(2)(c) if the conditions listed in the environmental document are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and information on file with the lead agency. The project file is available for review at the Permit Center located on the second floor of City Hall during normal business hours. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND APPEALS This MDNS is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Written comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 1, 2012. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person agrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the Federal Way City Clerk, 33325 8 Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 no later than 5:00pm June 15, 2012. Any person appealing the decision should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 18, 2012. Doe. CD. 61075 J Redka Patio 'Y.` • 1 { 'y...j r I .�. � — � S StY29:iRD.$T � __ .. _ P1 III r• IxtisFyr�.:,••• ,. ,rri, .Ir¢`_I•�_'�3't• f r ire e-7 1 w i wr c AIL— .!.ki- ri i d fff . ;C12GIIBKmgCounly :'- ! � � COMMENTS: After -the -fact review of patio improvements located at 636 SW 293rd St., Federal Way The information Included on this map has been compiled by King County slalf Tram a variety of saurcesond Is subject to change wlsttasrl nvGco. tong County makes no mpresentabons or warranties, express or implied. as le aararraey, complelenass, timsAness, or rights to the use of such tniormativrt. This document is not Intended for use as a sunay product King County shall not be ]iable [or any general, special, tndlrecl, incidental, or consequential U damages Inctudu7g, bul nt lirnitad to, last revenues or foss profits resulting from the use or misuse or thetnforrnation aonlalned on Utk , map. Any sale ofKing County Ihls map or in{ormalioae on thle map is pmhlbited except by written permissron of King County. Dale: 5/11/2012 Source: King County NAP - Property Information (http://www.metroke.gov/GISAMAP) 4ik CIT Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.cityoffederalwav:con 1 DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I, y-�_ hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was ❑ mailed ❑ faxed li�e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on } 2012. Project Name fl , J � _ �,o File Number(s) O's '/ b l S 92 Signatures {�� _Date . �'��i • � 6/a K:\CD Administration Res\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /12/2012 2:20:00 PM CITY 4F 'A Federal Way MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) Redka Patio File No. 08-101898-00-SE Proposal: The applicant has applied for an after -the -fact building permit for patio improvements associated with an existing single-family residential dwelling. Improvements were constructed within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Location: 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 — King County Parcel 119600-0315 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 The Responsible Official for the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following threshold determination based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis to exercise the substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c) if the conditions listed in the environmental document are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and information on file with the lead agency. The project file is available for review at the Permit Center located on the second floor of City Hall during normal business hours. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND APPEALS This MDNS is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Written comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 1, 2012. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the Federal Way City Clerk, 33325 8 Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 no later than 5:00pm June 15, 2012. Any person appealing the decision should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 18, 2012. Doc. I.D. 61075 Tamara Fix From: Rudi Alcott <ralcott@fedwaymirror.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 11:07 AM To: Tamara Fix Subject: Re: Legal Notice - Redka Tamara, No problem. We will get this in for you. Thanks. Take care, -------------------- Rudi Alcott Publisher Federal Way Mirror p: 253.925.5565 x-1050 c: 253.336.5359 t: 206.390.5925 On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Tamara Fix <Tamara.Fix ,c offederalway.com> wrote: Please publish the following legal notice (Redka Deck MDNS, 08-101898) in Friday's (May 18, 2012) issue. Please confirm and issue an affidavit of publication. Thanks! i 41k OF 10i:�� Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www. it o€federalwa . om DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was $mailed ❑ faxed ❑ e-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on 2012. Project Name File Number(s) Signature G -16 ) g 9 Date cS L:d K:\CDAdministratfon Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /12/2012 2:20:00 PM CITY OF Federal Way MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (M DNS) Redka Patio File No. 08-101898-00-SE Proposal: The applicant has applied for an after -the -fact building permit for patio improvements associated with an existing single-family residential dwelling. Improvements were constructed within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Location: 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 — King County Parcel 119600-0315 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 The Responsible Official for the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following threshold determination based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis to exercise the substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required under RCW 43.2 1 C.030(2)(c) if the conditions listed in the environmental document are met. This decision was made after review- of a completed environmental checklist and information on file with the lead agency. The project file is available for review at the Permit Center located on the second floor of City Hall during normal business hours. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND APPEALS This MDNS is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Written comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 1, 2012. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the Federal Way City Clerk, 33325 8`h Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 no later than 5:00pm June 15, 2012. Any person appealing the decision should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Published in the Federal Way Mirror on May 18, 2012. Doc i D- 61075 King County .R M ayx at your 5 e r r d cti e Parcel Map and Data JG21niHYplt'- -._� _ r�r 1lyt.1.�703Lu! - l� •t r 119fi7ln49rf(! AriE. -' , 1ug00`rs:;• _" �y . "7EnRrril}5 . !96r+fl�iy64 J �n'i„i n 7 196CJv4Ertt5- _ — - -" ; 15Gnpil3!P. 46LLtA•F25 1i960[slf�: i 719fi1}�JiL5Y5 '7_f..JPp11475 I 1 d__L.S55 �� — •� �ryng __�� i 1196GCrJ53S 156000;04 + 17'?L�nrr�sl:• SW 293RD ST J 1S+E'3.�J3dp, j _ i _ —f j +ir•+r•;+f"-•i'_Fas .! 1!96o3 ibYD ,196tl;Jx A20 179G>7EL34 i.. 19G6ll7•Y95 11969ol6g01?gGnfJl6N¢ 119EU01E22 / 1960ti21L10 Fed a r.a l W a y ' *rw1Y93': 1931[0[t1?"dY� 1-!g6t1 16gd .. r 71 S'6PU__ 77�7 !1969U117a r1wb007Esy8 �y � ?Y9FJa'b;°4Li � 1zyu�"�a �:: 1#5�G00Ji'ut1 a d� ! �� _'F79G00?79LI 3 J,9GU016�, ? SN ZNTt h Q x J 196pi+7Pi'G 1196QU!7'60 f 9 • 1 gef 02 • 5 2, m 119 1U294w 11_E0Q2'G50 1_L'JJ"E7: 1?96Q0."fJd y 1196QL12G4J 119C'D0?986 119600294A )146 J01630 1J9600271':5 1*60929T1 1196L[0300111 1196004225 119E0uQ47 11960J'?AG0 9.V 295T11 -T1195092942 '1195'YS2T55 119a'027;15 1196A02790 ??9fi0(J19.33 11QW031r0/ P 19COD3009 (Cj201U King Gounty 1196L1027£-5 1'19002796 1196002939 11W'W-; U9 c'e�82`t Parcel Number 1196000315 Site Address 636 SW 293RD ST Zip code Taxpayer REDKA OLEG+NATALYA The Information included on this map has been compiled by King County stall from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. King County makes no representations or warranties, express or Implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. King County shall not be liable for any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages Including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the into rmaticn contained cn This map. Any sale of this map or information on this map is prohibited except by written permission of K i rig County.` Parcel Number 062104HYDR Parcel Number 1196000310 Site Address Site Address 620 SW 293RD ST Zip code Zip code 98023 Taxpayer Taxpayer PEDERSEN STEVEN P Parcel Number 1196000311 Parcel Number 1196000325 Site Address 624 SW 293RD ST Site Address 702 SW 294TH ST Zip code 98023 Zip code 98023 Taxpayer ROLLOLAZO TED L+HYON S LEE Taxpayer LEUNG KEVIN+UYEN C TRAN Parcel Number 1196000326 Parcel Number 1196000327 Site Address 710 SW 294TH ST Site Address Zip code 98023 Zip code Taxpayer ERICKSON RICHARD L+NANCY J Taxpayer LEUNG KEVIN+UYEN C TRAN Parcel Number 1196000332 Parcel Number 1196000340 Site Address Site Address 718 SW 294TH ST Zip code Zip code 98023 Taxpayer FEDERAL WAY CITY OF Taxpayer MIDDLETON ROBERT T+SUSAN T Parcel Number 1196000425 Parcel Number 1196000475 Site Address 602 SW 293RD Site Address t d SW 293RD ST Zip code 98023 Zip code 98023 Taxpayer ELROD JERRY R+ELIZABETH A Taxpayer WILSON KENNETH C Parcel Number 1196000485 Parcel Number 1196001785 Site Address 616 SW 293RD ST Site Address 611 SW 293RD ST Zip code 98023 Zip code 98023 Taxpayer VANDERARK THOMAS J+KAREN F Taxpayer JAKIN COLLINS S & KATHLEEN Parcel Number 1196001788 Parcel Number 1196001790 Site Address 617 SW 293RD ST Site Address 616 SW 294TH ST Zip code 98023 Zip code 98023 Taxpayer BARSTOW JEFFREY & MELANIE Taxpayer DANG HUNG D Parcel Number 1196001791 Parcel Number 1196001793 Site Address 618 SW 294TH ST Site Address 629 SW 293RD ST Zip code 98023 Zip code 98023 Taxpayer HORSHAM GEORGE M Taxpayer CHAMBERS BARBARA A Parcel Number 1196001840 Parcel Number 1196001895 Site Address 29308 7TH AVE SW Site Address 622 SW 294TH ST Zip code 98023 Zip code 98023 Taxpayer HAUF JOHN Taxpayer FLYNN GREGORY L Parcel Number 1196001896 Parcel Number 1196001898 Site Address 628 SW 294TH ST Site Address 638 SW294THST Zip code 98023 Zip code 98023 Taxpayer DOWD ROBIN A Taxpayer COLBO SAMUEL M Parcel Number 1196004900 Site Address Zip code Taxpayer FEDERAL WAY CITY OF King County 1016 enter I News I Services I Comments I Search By visiting this and other King County web pages, you expressly agree to be bound by terms and conditions of the site. The details. s 41k CITY 40';:tS;P OF Federal Way DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way WA 98003 253-835-7000; Fax 253-835-2609 www.citvoffede[qbyQy.com DECLARATION OF DISTRIBUTION ►, -r" hereby declare, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Washington, that a: ❑ Notice of Land Use Application/Action ❑ Notice of Determination of Significance (DS) and Scoping Notice ❑ Notice of Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, DNS) Notice of Mitigated Environmental Determination of Nonsignificance (SEPA, MDNS) ❑ Notice of Land Use Application & Optional DNS/MDNS ❑ FWRC Interpretation ❑ Other ❑ Land Use Decision Letter ❑ Notice of Public Hearing before the Hearing Examiner ❑ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing ❑ Notice of LUTC/CC Public Hearing ❑ Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Shoreline Management Permit ❑ Adoption of Existing Environmental Document was mailed ❑ faxed Ke-mailed and/or ❑ posted to or at each of the attached addresses on , 2012. Project Name 1 File Number(s) O -16 Signature Date S 16 F1 K:\CD Administration Files\Declaration of Distribution.doc/Last printed 1 /12/2012 2:20:00 PM trzr or 4A Federal Way MITIGATED DETERNHNATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) Redka Patio File No. 08-101898-00-SE Proposal: The applicant has applied for an after -the -fact building permit for patio improvements associated with an existing single-family residential dwelling. Improvements were constructed within 25 feet of a geologically hazardous area. Applicant: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Location: 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 — King County Parcel 119600-0315 Lead Agency: City of Federal Way - Community and Economic Development Department Staff Contact: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 The Responsible Official for the City of Federal Way hereby makes the following threshold determination based upon impacts identified in the environmental checklist, the Federal Way Comprehensive Plan (FWCP), and other municipal policies, plans, rules, and regulations designated as a basis to exercise the substantive authority under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Rules pursuant to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.31C.060. The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment, and an Environmental Impact Statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c) if the conditions listed below are met. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and information on file with the lead agency. The project file is available for review at the Permit Center located on the second floor of City Hall during normal business hours. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On August 31, 2007, an anonymous Citizen Action Request was filed with the department regarding patio improvements that were completed without required building permits. 2. The city's critical areas map and geotechnical studies indicate the improvements are within a geologically hazardous area setback, specifically within 25 feet of a marine bluff containing grades in excess of 40 percent. 3. The applicant submitted a building permit and environmental checklist for after -the -fact approval April 22, 2008. The city's geotechnical consultant reviewed the applicant's application, conducted a site visit, and concluded the improvements do not appear to have a detrimental effect of the overall stability of the slope on the subject property or on adjacent properties. 4. On September 29, 2011, it came to the city's attention that additional unauthorized work occurred on the patio in the placement of granite tiles. 5. The applicant's geotechnical engineer informed the city of the following two options to properly mitigate the surcharge on the slope: (1) the tiles needed to be removed; or (2) three feet of the slope -side portion of the deck needed to be removed. The applicant has requested the latter, three-foot removal, as the preferred mitigation option. 6. The city's geotechnical consultant concurred with the three-foot removal option and recommends slope stability calculations be provided to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation provides similar factors of safety against slope failure as the pre -granite tile installation condition. 7. A building permit is required to be issued prior to approval of the after -the -fact patio improvements. The burden is on the applicant to provide evidence the deck foundation can be adequately engineered and meet current building codes. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Goals and policies adopted within the FWCP serve as the basis for the city to exercise its SEPA substantive authority and to condition the proposed action as it relates to potential significant adverse impacts that would result from this project. The following policies of the FWCP support the conditions for the development. NEP54 Land uses on steep slopes should be designed to prevent property damage and environmental degradation, and to enhance open space and wildlife and habitat. NEP56 Landslide hazard areas should be free of development, unless the risks and adverse impacts associated with such development can be reduced to a negligible level. SEPA CONDITIONS Based on the above policies, the following mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions to the building permit. 1. The applicant shall move the rear (slope side) retaining walls up -slope a minimum of three feet as suggested by the applicant's geotechnical engineer and concurred by the city's geotechnical consultant. Calculations for stability will be reviewed with the building permit application. The applicant shall prepare a legal document acceptable to the City Attorney to be recorded with the King County Recorder's Office. The document shall include the following details as they were recommended by the city's geotechnical consultant: (1) Disclosure of the patio's location within a geologically hazardous area; (2) Acknowledgement of risk from future slope instability and indemnification of future claims against the city as a result; (3) Acknowledgement the city will not issue permits to current and future owners of the subject property to construct shoreline protection associated with the patio improvements; (4) Acknowledgement the city will not issue permits to current and future owners of the subject property to construct trails and/or stairs to beach below for the life of the current patio improvements; (5) Annual inspections by a professional geotechnical engineer. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND APPEALS This MDNS is issued pursuant to Washington Administrative Code 197-11-340(2). The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date of issuance. Comments must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 1, 2012. Unless modified by the City, this determination will become final following the above comment deadline. Any person aggrieved of the City's final determination may file an appeal with the Federal Way City Clerk (address below), no later than June 15, 2012. Any person appealing the decision should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Responsible Official: Isaac Conlen, Planning Manager, for Patrick Doherty, Director of Community and Economic Development Address: 33325 8th Avenue South, Federal Way, WA 98003 Date Issued: May 18, 2012 Signature• Redka Patio File No. 08-101898-00-SE/Doc. I.D. 58969 MDNS Page 2 ,�) Signed DNS and Environmental Checklist to: DEPT OF ECOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEC PO BOX 47703 OLYMPIA WA 98504-7703 sepauni#�ecy.wa.gov MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE ATTN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER 39015 172ND AVE SE AUBURN WA 98002 PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWER 3009 E PORTLAND AVE TACOMA WA 98404 Tamara Fix From: Tamara Fix Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2012 4:13 PM To: 'ECY RE SEPA UNIT' Subject: Redka Patio MDNS Attachments: Redka MDNS Pkt.pdf Attached is the MDNS and Environmental Checklist for the Redka Patio project in the City of Federal Way. This is being issued on May 18, 2012, and the Associate Planner for the project is Matt Herrera, 253-835-2638, matthew.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. Tamara Fix City of Federal Way Tamara.fix@cityoffederalway.com 253-835-2602 "Just think about how happy you'd be if you lost everything and everyone you have right now, and then somehow got everything back again." Kobi Yamada RECEIVED APR 11 2012 CITY OF rEDERAL WAY April 10, 2012 t-.D. City of Federal Way 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003-6325 Attn: Mr. Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW REDKA DECK PROJECT 636 SW 293RD STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Herrera: LANDAU ASSOCIATES In accordance with your request, this letter provides geotechnical review comments regarding the patio located at 636 SW 293rd Street in Federal Way, Washington. Our services were provided in accordance with our proposal dated February 8, 2012. Authorization to proceed was received from the City of Federal Way (City) on February 29, 2012. BACKGROUND The homeowner constructed a concrete patio within the 25-foot (ft) setback from the top of bluff. The patio consists of several concrete slabs founded at various levels separated by short mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls. The new patio encroaches within a few feet of the top of the steep bluff to the north of the house. At the City's request, Landau Associates reviewed the documentation provided by the homeowner regarding original construction of the concrete patio. It was our opinion that slope regression will eventually affect the patio within the economic life of the residence. In addition, it was our opinion that there is a relatively high risk that a large seismic event could destabilize the slope resulting in damage/loss of portions of the patio. We recommended that the homeowner follow the recommendation of their geotechnical consultant and not install the granite tiles and implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the risk of slope regression. Our conclusions and recommendations were summarized in a letter to City dated November 17, 2009. We understand that the homeowner recently installed the granite tiles on the patio against the recommendation of their geotechnical consultant, Mr. George Gergis, P.E. Mr. Gergis has recommended moving the rear (slope side) retaining walls inward about 3 ft to compensate for the weight of granite tiles. The City is requesting that Landau Associates review and comment the November 29, 2011 letter prepared by the homeowner's geotechnical consultant, Mr. George Gergis, P.E. ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landouinc.com SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND 1 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT In our opinion, placement of the granite tiles has increased the surcharge loading of the steep slope and likely reduced the overall global factor of safety against a slope failure. Prior to placement of the granite tiles, slope stability calculation submitted by Mr. Gergis indicated that the global factor of safety against failure of the steep slope were 1.32 and 1.08 under sustained loading and seismic loading (1-in-100 year seismic event), respectively. In our opinion, the proposed mitigation of moving the rear retaining wall inward about 3 ft to compensate for the increased weight of the granite tiles will likely improve the overall factors of safety. The homeowner's geotechnical 'consultant did not provide calculations indicating what the new factors of safety against slope failure would be after moving the retaining walls about 3 ft inward and including the additional load of the granite tiles. Slope stability calculations should be provided to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation provides similar factors of safety against a slope failure as the pre -granite tile installation condition. Assuming that the proposed mitigation provides acceptable safety factors against slope failure, we recommend that the City require the homeowner prepare and submit drawings detailing the proposed new retaining walls. Of critical concern is that adequate drainage for the patio and new retaining walls be provided to collect and route water away from the slope. The drawings should be prepared and stamped by a civil engineer licensed in the State of Washington. The drawings should be reviewed by the City's building department for concurrence with the City's building code. The homeowner's geotechnical and civil consultant should be present during construction to verify that the mitigation measures have been properly implemented. The homeowner's geotechnical and civil consultant should provide a letter to the City stating that the mitigation measures were constructed in accordance with the approved plans. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the City of Federal Way with this project. Please call if you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. LANDAU ASSOC ES, INC. Edward J. Heavey,l'.E. Principal EJH/jrc 4/10/12 Y:\238\058.020\R\Redka Patio Supl Rvw_Itr.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 CIT Federal Way February 29, 2012 Ed Heavey, Principal Landau Associates 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 CITY HALLF ILE 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoh`ederalway. com RE; File #08-101898-00-SE; GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW TASK AUTHORIZATION Redka Deck, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Heavey_ Please accept this authorization to begin review of the November 29, 2011, recommendation from Mr. George Gergis regarding the removal of a portion of deck to compensate for granite tiles that were installed on a deck within the setback of a geologically hazardous area. The applicant, Mr. Oleg Redka, has funded the environmental pass through account for a total of $600.00 as recommended in your February 8, 2012, cost estimate. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this request for geotechnical services at 253-835-2638 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerel 4 'xx 0 ?/ 4 Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: February 8, 2012 Landau Cost Estimate (to Oleg Redka only) c: Oleg Redka, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 Doc to 60520 1 LANDAU ASSOCIATES February 8, 2012 City of Federal Way 33325 8"' Avenue South Federal Way, Washington 98003-6325 Attn: Mr Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner RE: PROPOSAL FOR SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SERVICES REDKA DECK PROJECT 636 SW 293RD STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Herrera: This proposal provides a suggested scope and budget to provide supplemental geotechnical engineering review services to the City of Federal Way (City). This proposal is in response to your request of January 11, 2012, 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, we understand that Mr. Redka installed granite tiles on the deck against the recommendation of his own consultant. The consultant has recommended removing a portion of the deck to compensate for the granite tiles. The City is requesting that Landau Associates review and comment the November 29, 2011 letter from Mr. Redka's geotechnical consultant. SCOPE OF SERVICES Landau Associates will provide the following specific services: • Complete geotechnical review of submitted November 29, 2011 letter prepared by George Gergis, P.E. ■ Provide a written a response regarding the proposal to remove a portion of the existing deck. RECEIVED FEB 10 2012 CITY OF FEDERAL War ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES CDS 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND TERMS AND CONDITIONS For the scope of services described above, we suggest establishing a budget of $600. Our services will be billed in accordance with terms and conditions described in our Professional Services Agreement with the City. The above budget amount will not be exceeded without your authorization. SCHEDULE We anticipate being able to complete the review and submit our comments within 10 working days of receipt of notice to proceed. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this proposal and look forward to its favorable consideration. Please call if you have any questions regarding this proposal. LANDAU ASSOCI TES, INC. Edward J. Heavey, P.E. Principal EJH/jrc 2/8/12 Y:\238\058.010\M\Redka supl Rvw Proposal.docx LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 1 CITY OF 4 V Federal Way GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: January 10, 2012 Consultant: Ed Heavey, Principal Landau Associates 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 Project: Redka Deck Project — SEPA Review of Single -Family Residence on Steep Slopes at 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 File No.: 08-101898-00-SE Applicant: Oleg Redka 636 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 City Staff: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 Transmitted: November 29, 2011, memorandum from the applicant's geotechnical consultant George Gergis, P.E. Mr. Gergis has recommended the removal of approximately three feet of the deck and thereby relocating its retaining wall further from the slope. This recommendation was provided to mitigate the impacts of the unauthorized granite surfacing that was installed during the previous summer months. Task Scope: Please review the Gergis memorandum and provide any needed addendum of your previous recommendations for the deck improvements. Also include any needed site visit expenditures to your estimate. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by January 25, 2012. Task Cost: Not to exceed without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: r Matthe H Date a ey a e) Date Oleg Redka Date Dor, ID. 60080 FILE CITY OF t Federal Way January 11, 2012 Ed Heavey, Principal Landau Associates 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; REQUEST FOR GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW Redka Deck, 636 SW 293`d Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Heavey_ CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 (253) 835-7000 www.cityoffederalway.com Please find an updated task authorization and memorandum from the applicant's geotechnical consultant. As we discussed on the phone, the applicant had recently installed granite tiles against the recommendation of his own consultant and without authorization from the city. Please review the consultant's recommendation for the removal of portions of the deck. The city requests an addendum to your original recommendation with regard to this new proposal. Please sign and date the enclosed task authorization. Feel free to add your task cost to the form. Thank you for your assistance and please contact me if you have any questions or need copies of prior reports. Sincer Matthew Herrera Associate Planner enc: November 29, 2011, memorandum from George Gergis, P.E_ Task Authorization Doc i D 60081 CITY OF 'A Federal Way GEOTECIiNICAL CONSULTANT AUTHORIZATION FORM Date: January 10, 2012 Consultant: Ed Heavey, Principal Landau Associates 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 Tacoma, WA 98402 Project: Redka Deck Project— SEPA Review of Single -Family Residence on Steep Slopes at 636 SW 293`6 Street, Federal Way, WA 98023 File No.: 08-101898-00-SE Applicant: Oleg Redka 636 SW 293d Street Federal Way, WA 98023 City Staff: Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, 253-835-2638 Transmitted: November 29, 2011, memorandum from the applicant's geotechnical consultant George Gergis, P.E. Mr. Gergis has recommended the removal of approximately three feet of the deck and thereby relocating its retaining wall further from the slope. This recommendation was provided to mitigate the impacts of the unauthorized granite surfacing that was installed during the previous summer months. Task Scope: Please review the Gergis memorandum and provide any needed addendum of your previous recommendations for the deck improvements. Also include any needed site visit expenditures to your estimate. Task Schedule: Provide task cost estimate by January 25, 2012. Task Cost: Not to exceed $60t) without a prior written amendment to this Task Authorization. Acceptance: 1 Date Oleg Redka 2viZ Date Date Doe I D 6M GEORGE GERGIS, P. E. Cri ,STRUCrU AI-GEOTECBMCAL 12701 111 th Ave E Puyaft, Wa 98374 (253) 840-3399 November 29, 2011 Oleg Redka 636 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 Re: Attached Deck located at 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way, WA 98023. Owner: Oleg Redka Dear Mr. Redka: At your request, this letter to address the some issues in the building. Specifically, to address the rear deck at your property located at the above address. You have contacted us regarding the letter that you received from Mr. Matthew Herrera, Associate Planner, of the City of federal way, in regard of the subject deck. The letter was a notice due to the installation of slate surfacing the existing deck. As per our original geotechnical report and the subsequent letter, we noted to install any surfacing materials. A site visit was made during the month of November 2011 to verify the new condition of the deck and the slopes. As per our discussion, one of the options was to remove the surfacing and bring the deck to its previous condition. Other option is to move the rear retaining walls of the deck about three feet, farther from the slopes and toward the rear of the house. It is understood that you have agreed to the second option. Therefore, the deck concrete slab is to be saw cut, the existing walls to be removed and new retaining walls, as per the provided design, to be installed at the new location. This will be a safe compensation for the added load and the slate may remain. Recommendations were made during the recent site visit related to the setback space between the deck walls and the top of the slopes. As per the received photos, this are has been covered with sod for protection, as recommended. Page 2 of 2 Oleg Redka deck Slate report Please submit this letter to The City of federal way for approval. Post approval to this proposition by the City of federal Way, a plan of the new deck and unproved planters, will be submitted. Should you have ,any questions regarding the content of this report, please contact George Gergis at the above address. Sincerely, Georg G Nrgos FiLE CITY OF �. Federal September 29, 2011 Oleg Redka 636 SW 293rd Street Federal Way, WA 98023 CITY HALL 33325 8th Avenue South y Mailing Address: PO Box 9718 Federal Way, WA 98063-9718 (253) 835-7000 www. cityoffederalway. com RE: File #08-101898-00-SE; UNAUTHORIZED DECK IMPROVEMENTS Redka Deck, 636 SW 293rd Street, Federal Way Dear Mr. Redka: It has come to the city's attention that granite tile improvements to your deck have been installed that were not authorized by the city and specifically not recommended by consulting geotechnical engineers. According to an April 1, 2009, letter from your geotechnical engineer George Gergis, the granite tiles would "create additional weight to the slopes and the walls." The city's geotechnical consultant Ed Heavy concurred with this recommendation in a November 17, 2009 report. Prior to issuing an environmental determination that would precede any building permit for the already constructed deck, the Community and Economic Development Department requires that you remove the granite tiles. The department will require you to complete this task by November 15, 2011. When completed, please contact me at the phone number below to schedule an inspection. Please note that failure to act within the time period provided will result in a violation order carried out by the city's code compliance officers. Questions regarding this letter or your project should be directed to me at 253-835-2638 or matt.herrera@cityoffederalway.com. Sincerely, Matthew Herrera Associate Planner c: Fernando Fernandez, Inspector/Plans Examiner Doc. I D. 59050 Matt Herrera From: Isaac Conlen Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:21 PM To: 'Ed Heavey' Cc: Matt Herrera Subject: RE: Redka Deck - City File 08-101898 Thanks Ed. From: Ed Heavey [mailto:eheavey@landauinc.com] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 2:18 PM To: Isaac Conlen Cc: Matt Herrera Subject: RE: Redka Deck - City File 08-101898 Isaac: Based on our review of information provided to us by the City of Federal Way (City), the homeowner's geotechnical consultant (Mr. Gergis), and the homeowner; it is our opinion that the existing deck (without the granite tiles and assuming that the drainage system remains functional) does not appear to have a detrimental effect on the overall stability of the slope on the subject property or on adjacent properties. Installation of the deck drainage system has likely reduced the potential for surface water runoff to affect the slope. If the deck drainage system were to fail, water collected by the drainage system could have serious detrimental effects on slope stability. As discussed in our November 17, 2009 letter to the City, natural slope regression can potentially affect the deck within its economic life. If the City allows the deck to remain in place, we recommend that the BMPs outlined in our November 17, 2009 letter to the City be implemented to reduce risk of slope regression. We trust this supplies you with the necessary information. Contact me if you have any additional questions. Edward J Heavey, PE ♦ Principal Landau Associates, Inc. 950 Pacific Ave., Suite 515, Tacoma, WA 98402 dir 253.284.4875 ♦ main 253.926.2493 ♦ fax 253.926.2531 ♦ cell 206.390.8742 eheavey@landauinc.com ♦ www.landauinc.com Email is a sustainable communications tool — please consider this before printing. Notice: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. From: Isaac Conlen [mailto:Isaac.Conlen@cityoffederalway.com] Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 11:48 AM To: Ed Heavey Cc: Matt Herrera Subject: Redka Deck - City File 08-101898 Hi Ed, good speaking with you this morning. I'm writing regarding the above referenced project, which you reviewed for the city sometime back. We have received letters from neighboring property owners expressing the viewpoint that construction of the deck improvements, within the geologically hazardous area, will have a detrimental effect on the slope stability of the subject property and on the slope stability of neighboring properties. Based on your evaluation of the property, would you please give me your professional opinion as to whether the construction of these improvements has had or will have a detrimental effect on slope stability on the subject property or on adjacent properties? Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Regards, Isaac Conlen Planning Manager 253 835 2643 { November 17, 2009 City of Federal Way P.O. Box 9718 Federal Way, Washington 98063-9718 Attn: Ms. Joanne Long -Woods, AICP RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW REDKA DECK PROJECT 636 SW 293RD STREET FEDERAL WAY, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Long -Woods: RECEIVED NOV 18 2009 Cry OF FFDFRAL. WAY CDS IANVDAU ASSOCIATES In accordance with your request, this letter provides geotechnical review comments in accordance with applicable sections of Federal Way City Code (FWCC). The following documents were provided for our review: • Environmental Checklist dated April 21, 2008 • Geotechnical Report dated January 12, 2008, prepared by George Gergis, P.E. • Revised Geotechnical Report dated September 12, 2008, prepared by George Gergis, P.E. ■ April 1, 2009 letter to the City of Federal Way prepared by George Gergis, P.E. regarding placement of the granite tiles on the surface of the deck • Drawing showing site upgrades prepared by George Gergis, P.E., undated • Slope stability calculations prepared by George Gergis, P.E., undated + Photographs taken by the homeowner during construction of the patio. As part of our review, we reviewed the following documents prepared by Krazan & Associates for the original construction of the residence: ■ Slope Stability Evaluation/Foundations Recommendations; Proposed Single -Family Residence - 6XX - 293rd Street, Federal Way, Washington. Prepared by Krazan & Associates dated December 30, 2004 • Additional Concrete Wall - Driveway Area; Proposed Single -Family Residence; 636 293rd Street, Federal Way, Washington. Prepared by Krazan & Associates dated July 12, 2005, revised July 14, 2005 ■ Setback Verification; Proposed Single -Family Residence; 636 293rd Street, Federal Way, Washington. Prepared by Krazan & Associates dated October 5, 2005. ENVIRONMENTAL I GEOTECHNICAL I NATURAL RESOURCES 950 Pacific Avenue, Suite 515 • Tacoma, WA 98402 • (253) 926-2493 • fax (253) 926-2531 • www.landauinc.com SEATTLE • SPOKANE • TACOMA • PORTLAND k In addition, a representative of Landau Associates completed a brief site visit on July 16, 2009 to observe existing conditions as they relate to the applicant's proposal. George Gergis, P.E. and Mr. Redka were present during the site visit. BACKGROUND We understand that the homeowner has constructed a concrete patio within the 25-ft setback from the top of bluff. The patio consists of several concrete slabs founded at various levels separated by short mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls. The new patio encroaches within a few feet of the top of the steep bluff to the north of the house. Based on our review of photographs, discussions with Mr. Redka, and observations made during or July 16, 2009 site visit, the amount of fill placed to construct the patio appears to be up to a few feet thick. GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT From the original December 30, 2004 geotechnical report prepared by Krazan & Associates, the computed global factor of safety against a slope failure on the steep bluff east of the residence was found to be 1.35 under sustained loading conditions. The global factor of safety is defined as the ratio of the driving forces to the resisting forces. A global factor of safety of 1.0 or less indicates a high probability of a slope failure. The required minimum global factor of safety for sustained loading under most municipal codes in the Northwest is 1.5. Krazan & Associates also evaluated global slope stability for two seismic events, the 1-in-100 year event and the 1-in-500 year event. The global factor of safety was computed to be 1.04 for the 1-in-100 year event and 0.94 for the 1-in-500 year event. Most municipal codes require that slope stability be evaluated for 1-in-500 year event. The minimum required global safety factor under seismic loading varies from 1.1 to 1.2, depending on the municipality. To address the potential of slope instability affecting the residence, Krazan & Associates recommended deep foundations to support the portion of the structure closest to the slope. In their assessment of the property, Krazan & Associates did not evaluate potential impacts to the property as a result of continuing slope regression. The toe of the slope along the water is unprotected and subject to continual wave attack, causing the slope to become oversteepened and periodically fail. In addition, continual weathering of the exposed soil on the slope face results in periodic shallow surficial failures (mud flows), especially during periods of prolonged precipitation. These shallow failures are generally narrow in width, involve the upper few feet of soil, and often extend the entire height of the slope. These processes result in a continual regression of the slope landward. The rate of regression has been estimated to average a few inches per year; but in reality, a single slope failure may result in several feet of regression with little or no change to the slope until the next failure occurs which may be many 11/17/09 YA238\058.010\R\Redka Patio Rvw_Itr.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 2 years later. Though slope regression may impact the property, the deep foundation system would likely provide adequate protection over the economic life of the structure. As part of his investigation, Mr. Gergis reevaluated global slope stability with the new concrete patio and retaining walls in place. His analysis concluded that the new concrete patio in it current configuration (without the granite tiles) has a global factor of safety under sustained loading of 1.32 and 1.08 under seismic loading (1-in-100 year event) as compared to 1.35 and 1.04 for sustained and seismic loading, respectively, as determined by Krazan & Associates for the pre -patio condition. As with Krazan and Associates, Mr. Gergis did not consider slope regression in his analysis of potential impacts to the patio. Given the close proximity of the outer edge of the patio to the top of the slope, it is likely that slope regression will impact the patio over the economic life of the residence. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our review of the referenced information and our understanding of the geologic processes operating on the slope, it is our opinion that slope regression will eventually affect the patio. When this will occur is unknown. Also, there is a relatively high risk that a large seismic event could destabilize the slope resulting in damage/loss of portions of the patio. The homeowner should implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce the risk of slope regression. These should include: • Yearly inspections of the slope and patio should be completed by a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer experienced in slope processes. Ideally the inspection should take place in the early spring months (March/April) prior to use of the patio. A report should be provided to City. • The homeowner should inspect the slope and patio on a monthly basis during the winter and springs months (November through April) to check for cracks, settlement, etc., which may be indicative of changes in slope stability. If any significant changes are noted, the homeowner should not use the patio until the situation can be evaluated by a qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer. A report should be provided to the City. • To prevent increased erosion that could impact the patio, disturbance to the slope should be avoided. We recommend against construction of any trails/stairs to access the beach below. • Tree removal and topping can causes harm to trees that help stabilize the surficial soil on the slope. Prior to any tree removal/topping on the slope for view enhancement, the homeowner should consult with a qualified arborist and an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer. A report should be provided to the City. In addition to the BMPs discussed above, we concur with Mr. Gergis' recommendation that the granite surface tiles not be installed. Furthermore, we recommend that it be verified that the drainage from the short MSE walls, which had been directed down the slope to the beach, has been rerouted to the storm drainage system in SW 293rd Street. The homeowner should provide documentation to the City 11/17/09 Y:\238\058.010\R\Redka Patio Rvw_Ilr.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 3 verifying that this has been completed. The yearly inspection should include evaluating the functionality of the MSE retaining wall drainage system. Finally, if allowed by City Code, the City should require the homeowner to acknowledge the risk of impact to the patio from future slope stability and waive any future claims against the City as a result of slope instability. We appreciate the opportunity to assist the City of Federal Way with this project. Please call if you have any questions regarding the information contained in this letter. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, Edward J. Heav , P,L.- Principal EJH/j as 11/17/09 Y:\238\058.010\R\Redka Patio Rvw_Itr.doc LANDAU ASSOCIATES 4 C.EORGE GERGIS, P. E, CIVIL-s-MUeItq?,A - EOTECHNI(.'AI, 12701 111 th Ave E Puyallup, Wa 98374 �253) 840-3398 GEORGE GERGIS, P.E 12701 1111 th Ave E' Puyallup, WA 98374 (253) 840-3398 Apri I f) I , 2009 Nis. Joanne Icing -Woods Senior Planner City of Federal Way 33325 8t" Ave South Federal Way, WA 99061 Subject-- Redka Deck at fi-ib SW 293" Place, Federal Way, WA 98023, Dear Ms. Long-WocAs This letter is to address the granite tiles that Mr. Redka was planning to install to surface the subject deck. Based on our findings we recommend that this }granite not be installed as surfacing, This will create additional weight to the slopes and tha walls, and that is not recommended at this time. Thin ceramic the may be used for that purpose: and the weight will be negligible in its effect. I hope this letter corers this issue to your satisfaction. Should you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact George Gergis at (253) 840-3398_ very sincerely, GeurgeVII\S-�.F. c�a4 u I o r. ��i<3f _ 9 at c W U X� ice' o 50 1 i At 10atl Art- Fx`- fa<lA c� f 7 C4