Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L2000-077 - OLIVIER CHRISTOPHER - SHORT PLATL2000 -077 NALEWAJEK SHORT PLAT KENYON DISEND, PLLC MICHAEL R. KENYON BRUCE L. DISEND SANDRA S. MEADOWCROFF SHELLEY M. KERSLAKE STEPHEN R. KING HEIDI L. BROSIUS TO: FROM: DATE: THE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM 11 FRONT STREET SOUTH ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON 98027 -3820 (425) 392 -7090 (206) 628 -9059 FAX (425) 392 -7071 CITY OF TUKWILA MEMORANDUM Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Peter Beckwith, Assistant City Attorney July 15, 2004 RE: Nalewajek Short Plat 13900 Macadam Road S. KERRI A. BERGLAND MINDY A. ROSTAMI SHANNON L. GARVIN KEVIN J. KAY LACEY L. MARTIN PETER B. BECKWITH I. INTRODUCTION This memo is in response to your June 14, 2004, memo regarding John Nalewajek's request for an extension on his short plat preliminary approval. II. ANALYSIS Under TMC 17.12.040, "Upon written request by the subdivider prior to the expiration date, the Short Subdivision Committee may grant one extension of not more than one year." In this case, Mr. Nalewajek has already received a one -year extension; therefore, under this code provision, Mr. Nalewajek is not entitled to another extension. However, TMC 17.28.010 states that, "Exceptions from the requirements of this code may be granted when undue hardship may be created as a result of strict compliance with the provision of this code." (Emphasis added) An exception may only be granted when: (1) There are special physical circumstances or conditions affecting said property, such that the strict application of the provisions of this code G:1City Attomcy\PEfERISltort Plat Nalewajck.do JE/RVING WASHINGTON CITIES SINCE 1993 .,�,... ...,, sx.,.• r..;:xrLa;;A,•rrvyYysj;{'2eYiY' ..tP:tf%. 'lli�l,,.eC:,v,; »ib Awe/. • HW. re L1 UO u) 0 w= J . w • 0 g J. w ¢: =• 0. �_ z� F- 0 z 2 0 0. tft; W 2 w, u' O. .Z: w co FU =` O 1—' z would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of development of his land; and (2) The exception is necessary to insure such property rights and privileges as are enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under similar circumstances; and (3) The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity. A request for an exception must be submitted as part of the application for the subdivision and fully state all substantiating facts and evidence pertinent to the request. The Short Subdivision Committee then reviews the exception along with the short subdivision plan application. Unless appealed, the decision of the Short Subdivision Committee is final and conclusive. In this case, Mr. Nalewajek did not request an exception when he initially submitted his application. Therefore, at face value, Mr. Nalewajek is not entitled to an extension under this provision of the code. However, although Mr. Nalewajek did not follow the exception procedure, he may claim he was not aware of the undue hardship because Link Light Rail did not issue its Amended Record of Decision until after he had already applied for the subdivision. Although it is unlikely that Mr. Nalewajek could go back in time to apply for an exception, even if he could, it is within the discretion of the Short Subdivision Committee to determine whether he should be granted an exemption to receive another extension on his short plat preliminary approval. Thus it is within their discretion based on the extenuating circumstances preserved on a case -by -case basis. I hope this answers your question. If you need any additional information or would like to discuss this further, do not hesitate to contact me at 433 -7199. G: \City Attomey\PETER\Short Plat Nalewajek.doc/T /07/15/04 -2- JOHN NALEWAJEK 405 S. 3RD ST. Yakima, WA 98901 USA Phone 509- 457 -3536 Fax 509 -457 -3601 June 10, 2004 Mr. Lancaster Tukwila Planning Department 6300 South Center Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 In Re: 13900 MacAdam Road L2000 -077 Dear Mr. Lancaster: JUG 1 1004 , O4Mltp _ ~ w I.Om r re JO. U0. CO CI W= I understand that the extension on my preliminary approval expires 6/13/04. Due to unusual circumstances that occurred with Sound Transit Light Rail Link, I would like to request an additional extension for 2 or more years until Sound Transit releases the property back to myself or utility bond same as Darryl Tapio receipt from City of Tukwila for the property located at 3805 S. 150`h. At that time, I would like to continue construction on the 7 new homes as approved. Attached is a copy of the letter dated 4/9/04 from my attorney Gary Olson to Steve Reinhart, an attorney for Graham & Dunn, PC concerning the condemnation of my property. Also, attached is a copy of the letter dated 4/16/04 to my attorney Gary Olson, from Steve Reinhart stating that they were proceeding with the condemnation lawsuit to acquire my property for 2 or more years. Therefore, our improvements to the property would have been halted anyway on the day that they condemned the property. As you are aware, I have a lot of time and money involved in the property to this point. I would greatly appreciate it if you would grant the extension requested above. Sincerely, John Nalewajek U) LL: W O: = a. F- 111 z� I- O z�— U� o ,w w. U • u. ~O. .. z: w. O~ z LAW OFFICES OF GARY O. OLSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 3900 East Valley Hwy., Suite 204 Tel (425) 251 -9313 Renton, Washington 98055 Fax (425) 251 -0546 April 9, 2004 Steve Reinhart LaBonde Land, Inc. 601 Union Street, Suite 1725 Seattle, WA 98101 Via Fax & Regular Mail 206 -654 -4148 RE: Sound Transit Condemnation of Nalewajek Property Dear Mr. Reinhart: Mr. Nalewajek has now obtained bids and is prepared to proceed with all of the utility improvements and engineering necessary to obtain final plat approval on his property that Sound Transit is condemning. Unfortunately, we still do not have a clear answer from you or Sound Transit as to whether they will be purchasing the entire parcel or taking an easement over the edge of the property and a two year lease of the entire property. Obviously, if Sound Transit is going to take the entire property, it does not make sense for Nalewajek to spend the considerable sums necessary to install utilities and obtain final plat approval, which costs will then have to be recovered from Sound Transit. However, due to the time bind, he must proceed with that construction right away and will expect Sound Transit to pay for such construction in conjunction with its condemnation. Please advise me as soon as possible as to whether Sound Transit will purchase the entire property, thereby alleviating the need for Nalewajek to incur all of these additional expenses. Very truly yours, Law Offices of Gary O. Olson, P.C. Cite Gary O. Olson cc: Nalewajek • e.u...t✓, -.... ...r� City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor June 17, 2003 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Christopher Olivier 3805 S 150`h Street Tukwila WA 98188 RE: 7 -Lot Short Plat at 13900 Macadam Road, Tukwila. File Number L2000 -077. Dear Mr. Olivier: As you know, the Tukwila Short Subdivision Committee granted preliminary approval to the above - referenced short plat application on June 13, 2002. Per TMC 17.12.040, upon written request by the applicant prior to the expiration date, "the Short Subdivision Committee may grant one extension of not more than one year." The Short Subdivision Committee has reviewed your May 16, 2003 letter requesting an extension of that expiration date. This letter is to acknowledge our approval of your request and to formally extend the deadline from June 13, 2003 to June 13, 2004. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster Director Community Development cc: File Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 . • z • z. .6 • J U. • 00 • J m H LL: w� LL .0a. w. Z �. I- o zt-; 11J LLL ,o L1.1 w• MI 0- • 0 z• JOHN NALEWAJEK Phone 509- 457 -3536 Fax 509 -457 -3601 May 8, 2003 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 NVD cm( vukom PEmArr CE141E1 405 S. 3rd St. Yakima, WA 98901 USA asseowriouttA • In Re: L2000- 077 /application for extension under TMC 12.12.040 recorded with King Co. I am requesting an extension for the short plat, tax parcel ID#1523049072 located at 13900 Macadam Rd in Tukwila, WA. Development was put on hold when I was contacted by Sound Transit about their possible need for part of my property for their Link Light Rail project. At this time, Sound Transit does not have a specific plan of how much of my land that they will need. Per my telephone conversation with Roger Pence representing Sound Transit. he informed me that the final plans will be ready in July. Therefore, I would like the city of Tukwila to grant a 1 -year extension for the short plat of 7 lots until the decision has been made by Sound Transit. Sincerely, John Nalewajek STATE OF WASHINGTON County of ( t,kctnak_ I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that jo i,.i /-)eztecuatti is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that h.c signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be a free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Print Name —j ;-4- ; (4.) Notary Public in and for the State of My appointment expires: et \ z Z `. 6 `o No cn w J 2 U) u_ w o' L< zF- 1- Z 1—; 0 oN 01— • = U: • .z. w r 2. • z City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director April 28, 2003 Christopher Olivier 3805 S. 150 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: L2000 -077 Dear Mr. Olivier, This letter is a reminder that your short plat will expire on June 13, 2003 unless the infrastructure listed in the Preliminary Approval Letter has either been bonded or constructed, recording documents submitted to the City and approved and final mylars recorded with King County. If you wish to apply for an extension under TMC 17.12.040 you must submit a request explaining the need for additional time no later than June 2 "a If you have any questions about the bonding process please call David McPherson at (206) 433 -0179. /41/ Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor CC: David McPherson, Public Works Q:\LETTERS \Olivier4- 28.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 wsyram,.0, - z . w • 6 J U: U O_ U 3 ..w =` J1—: Q LL wO a • I-w 1= o .z �— •0 ;O w w' 112 O. ..z w iz .z FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : Sep. 16 2002 02:36AM P2 DEVELOPMENT BROCHURE 1 -2 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GUIDELINES PROVIDE NOTARIZED RECORDED COPY GEOTECHNICAL AFFZDAV.IT FROM OWNER Legal Description: ✓b nX Parcel Numbers ?3 2 4'979- City ofTukvvila Permit Numbers E-9,ovo-o3Q_ Ct -8. LQUpo- Geotechnicai Report titled: Prepared by r�oi 1 - cLr - Qssc�C,ta S Dated: I understand and accept the risk of developing in an area with potentiaI,'. ... unstable soils. SUk x rttQed and Sor'r-. be f - rns0 -`44 s 1 Lei4 'Lo' --j o ,Pooa. Brochure 1 -2 6 '2. , rest of L ieu • ‘oos z < z • w: 0 o' u) o. wz •J N w O. ti,. o f-. w uj u-� z U to z • FROM ; Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE N0. : Sep. 16 2002 02:36AM P1 DEVELOPMENT BROCHURE 1 -2 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GUIDELINES PROVIDE NOTARIZED RECORDED COPY GEOTECHNICAL COVENANT'FRQM THE OWNER Legal Description: i ) 'Mdsz•Cr .ec, Roca S , ] L`-f —s \ ' 47c f t cc cci Parcel Numbers City of Tukwila Permit Numbers Ea ©yd- &3� c i t�Lac DO..O t Geotechnical Report title Prepared by: Goi4e, ailet �Gc a'cS Dated: This site is in an area of potential geologic instability, as determined. .by the City of Tukwila. The risks associated with development of this site are,.. Conditions or prohibitions on development of this site are: Design features, which require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soil changes, are: , waive any claims 1, my successors or assigns may have a•ah .t the City for any Toss or damage to people or property, either on • off the site, resulting from soil movement arising out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development on the site. BCOthure 1.2 7 StAIrr-c r.. anrk or r - D ?t'- �k••i5 \lfl'-4•. � t `xp o\' aooa . i■okani ck licr ■n cL-tid u-r Cotes z =z 0 0 N O CO u- w0 u..a co z d. Fw Z �- o Z ►- 2 �. U� O N: O F- w W .z - U U- ~O:. Cu z' -=. 0 H. z • • , DEVELOPMENT BROCHURE 1-2 GEOTECHNICAL REPORT GUIDELINES PROVIDE NOTARIZED RECORDED COPY ..... , ...... GEOTECHNICAL AFFIDAVIT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER Parcel Numbers Vo6S ■ 'Ptc_ck.c\ coy) S City of Tukwila Permit Numbers •1 Zc Al V • .. •• • • .. • '• . ..•-•...-. In rrly judgement, on review of theAion4rucpoin clans and spefi'6ations for tlal e. wooe, oi ‘ozi-t. 1.4.0A \ ) 40 1 0. 4-I 0 2, the/fOris and : ... ... . • specifications coKform to the geotechnic recomrendations..„Prnade in the..../ •••... • geotechnical rep9rt, titled Qil u-No p_oiL-v and dated 'bi-J1 01)- . ....., In my judgement, the risk to the proposed development from soil instability will be minimal and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement, subject to the conditions set forth in my report. Brochure 1-2 A-1\ Cu • mog's ‘oz cv_oveNoi m eert civn \\Q-c (v.(' Vta/1 cw-\ \-v G\ z < • I- . Z LU cC 2 6 = _J 00 co 1.11 11.1 -I 1- w 0 :3 a z I-0 ZI- 0 u j 0— UJ I 0 I- Fr_ L-6 0 Z ud 0 • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION June 13, 2002 Christopher Olivier 3805 S. 150 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: L2000 -077 Dear Mr. Olivier, The Short Subdivision Committee has completed review of your short plat application, and determined that it complies with all applicable City code requirements. The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions: 1. The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Design Report by Golder Associates dated March 21, 2002 shall be followed for all site work and house construction. 2. The installation of the auger cast piles for the house foundations shall be monitored by an experienced geotechnical field engineer, preferably from the Golder firm. That engineer must provide a report to the City detailing his/her observations and opinion of the adequacy of the piles prior to the pouring of the house slabs. This letter serves as the Notice of Decision per TMC 18.104.170. Based on the latest project submittal, preliminary approval is granted subject to the conditions stated below. There are three basic steps in the short plat approval process: 1. Preliminary Approval This letter constitutes your preliminary approval. The application was reviewed by the Tukwila Short Subdivision Committee and approved with conditions. The conditions imposed are to ensure the short plat is consistent with the Criteria for Preliminary Approval listed at TMC 17.12.020 C in the Tukwila Subdivision Code. Page 1 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Z 6 � oo W= -I 1-. �w w0 g u. < -a I-- Ili Z= zo o o- . =U I-0 .z H= 0 z PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CONDITIONS Utilities a. The storm drainage system shown on your drawing of 1/29/02 shall be installed prior to final plat approval. The storm drainage design for the lots shall meet the requirements of the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual and the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The design shall include all added impervious surfaces. b. Pursuant to the Tukwila "underground ordinance ", all utilities shall be placed underground. c. The water line in Macadam Road shall be upgraded to an 8 inch main per previous agreement with Water District 125. As -built plans shall be provided to the Public Works Department. Access d. Frontal improvements including pavement widening, curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage and street lighting must be installed along the length of the lots. e. A sight distance study for the driveways shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Fire Protection f. A fire hydrant capable of a 1000 gallon per minute flow must be installed per the approved plan and agreement with Water District 125. General g. You will need to obtain all required permits prior to beginning any construction. For water and sewer permits, contact the individual provider District. For land altering, frontal improvements and storm drainage contact Tukwila Public Works at (206) 433 -0179. h. Install all required site improvements, including those proposed in the short plat application and those identified above as conditions of approval. Submit a set of recording documents in either legal or record of survey format that meet the King County Recorder's requirements and contain the following items: 1. A survey map in NAVD 1988, NAD 83/91 that is consistent with all of the conditions of approval. The surveyor's original signature must be on the face of the plat. Short Plat LO1 -019 Page 2 oar. •ir+ X111 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS April 25, 2002 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 SEATTLE RICHLAND PORTLAND FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE DENVER SAINT LOUIS RECEP:IF..0 APR 2 0 2002 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW, NALEWAJEK 7 -LOT SHORT PLAT, 13900 MACADAM ROAD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: This letter presents the results of our peer review of a geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Nalewajek Short Plat project. The project site consists of seven lots located in the 13900 block of Macadam Road, Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our work is to offer an opinion as to the adequacy of the geotechnical engineering report submitted with the permit application. The geotechnical report for this project was prepared by Golder Associates, Inc., dated March 21, 2002. The report presents the results of eight test pit explorations, three soil borings, and geotechnical recommendations for site development. The test pit explorations extended to depths of 10 to 15 feet and encountered fill materials. The soil borings extended deeper than the test pits and encountered stiff or dense native soils underlying the fill at depths of 22 and 28.5 feet below ground surface. The report provided descriptions of the site geology, site development history, and subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. It provided opinions and recommendations regarding site development, foundations and earth pressures, slope stability, liquefaction hazards, buffers and setbacks, and other typical geotechnical design issues. Based on our review of the Golder Associates report and our previous observations of the site, we generally concur with the opinions and recommendations provided for site development and building foundations. It is our opinion that the geotechnical report prepared for this project meets the generally accepted standards of practice in this area and meets the standards of Tukwila Municipal Code 18.45.080E. 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 21 -1- 09472 -002 ttt rM • Mr. Dave McPherson City of Tukwila Dept. of Public Works April 25, 2002 Page 2 SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, I am available at (206) 695 -6875. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. .6V/5/,z 30308 v0 ��' - �' /ST(:� L��� �,SS�ONAL [EXPIRES 4/21/ 4' Martin W. Page, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:TMG /mwp 21 -1- 09472- 002- LI/WP /LKD 21 -1- 09472 -002 Z re U12 ual � 0 0O v) W: W =: J 1- : •0).LL: W 0: LL a. a = . "I- W • Z �. 1- 0.. • ZE- W .0 0 • O :0 1— WW.. '1- • Z :• UN •0 z• • Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 -3333 Telephone (425) 883 -0777 Fax (425) 882 -5498 REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT MACADAM ROAD SOUTH RESIDENTIAL PLAT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Prepared for: John Nalewajek Submitted by: Golder A Redmon soci. Was tes Inc. ngton Golder Associates Frank S. Mocker Ro L. Plum, P.E. Project Geologist Principal March 21, 2002 RECEIVED MAR 2 5 2802 TUKWiLA PUBLIC WORKS 4 4 (V S�p��ir�L�G k OFFICES ACROSS ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA z zz w 00. w =. J w 0' LL Q'. co = W z 0. zt- :w U '0 w W: z 1.. U W 0 - O, Z U co_ 0 March 21, 2002 023 -1014- 100.100 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Proposed Development 2.2 Site Description 2.3 Aerial Photograph Review 3. FIELD EXPLORATION 3.1 Subsurface Explorations 3.2 Laboratory Testing 4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Soil 4.2 Surface Water and Groundwater 5. ENGINEERING EVALUATION S 5.1 Liquefaction And Lateral Spreading Assessment 5.2 Stability 5.3 Foundation and Development of Stable Slopes 6. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Foundation Recommendations 6.2 Slab On Grade 6.3 Foundation Drainage 6.4 Slope Setbacks and Regrading 7. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Subgrade Preparation 7.2 Fill 7.3 Auger Cast Piles 7.4 Construction Monitoring 8. USE OF REPORT Golder Associates Page No. 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 10 12 12 12 12 13 14 YsxMan.,�, z. = H` j- o: w. 6� j0 00 CO 0. W= J F. w J. d w z� zo U • � u) O oE-' wW _• Z w :U =; O z March 21, 2002 1 023- 1014 - 100.100 1. INTRODUCTION Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) is pleased to present the results of our geotechnical design report for the Macadam Road South Residential Plat. The site is located between Interstate 5 and Macadam Road in Tukwila, Washington as shown on Figure 1. The scope of work for this project was presented in our proposal to you dated February 12, 2002. We proceeded with our study based on your signed authorization dated February 15, 2002. We had completed a previous report for the site titled Preliminary Geotechnical Study, Macadam Road South Residential Plat, Tukwila, Washington dated January 15, 2002. The earlier report recommended that additional explorations and engineering be completed for final design and construction. Thus the main purpose of the work presented in this report was to complete the additional work and develop recommendations suitable for permitting, design and construction of the project. The scope of this report included additional borings, additional test pits, laboratory testing, engineering analyses and development of geotechnical design and construction criteria. Our work addresses the specific site development concept depicted on the proposed Plat Plan by Jaeger Engineering dated 11/3/01 (note: we understand that the large- diameter detention pipe shown on the 11/3/01 plan has been relocated to the west away from the slope). We have concluded that the project can be developed as planned but it will be required that the buildings be pile supported due to the thickness and poor quality of the fills underlying the site. We also recommend that the structures are off set from the top of the fill slope due to the risk of shallow sloughing failures of the slopes. Alternatively, the piles could be designed to resist the lateral forces developed by these shallow slides. Golder Associates z ~w 6 00 co 0 J = o w J ci F- i z� I-- 0 Z W U0 ON 0 I- wuj` -O wz U� 0 z • 1' s 1 1 1 1 1 1 i March 21, 2002 2 023- 1014 - 100.100 2. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 2.1 Proposed Development Based on the Jaeger Engineering plan, the site will be divided into seven lots fronting along Macadam Road as shown on Figure 2. We understand that three of the houses (Lots 1, 6, and 7) located on sloping ground will include a daylight basement. Some limited filling and cutting will be required to construct the houses and grade the final lots. We understand that there will be a stormwater- detention pipe some six feet in diameter and about 300 feet long. It has been relocated from its original design location near the crest of the fill slope to a new location in front of the houses. At the time we prepared this report, the exact location and design of the houses had not been determined. However, we have assumed that they will be conventional one- to two - story wood -frame structures, some with a daylight basement. In addition, we had not reviewed the revised plans showing the new detention -pipe location. 2.2 Site Description The site consists of approximately 1 -% acres, which is roughly rectangular in shape and is located between Interstate 5 (1 -5) and Macadam Road in Tukwila, Washington as shown on Figure 1. Site elevation ranges from approximately 195 feet at the level portion of the property adjacent to Macadam Road to about 164 feet in the northeast corner of the property adjacent to I -5. The site has a relatively level portion adjacent to Macadam Road. The topography then slopes down to the east towards I -5 at about 3H:1V to 4H:1V to a small swale located adjacent to I -5. Currently the level portion of the site is mainly open with tall grasses and small brush. The sloping portion is covered with brush and small trees. We reviewed plans developed by Arnett and Associates dated 1990 showing general site layout, lot subdivisions, a proposed subsurface cut -off drain, and a proposed surface drainage system. We understand that the sub drain and surface drainage system were installed. We observed some of the surface drainage features shown on the Arnett and Associates plans during our recent investigation. These include a catch basin and a manhole located at the top of the existing fill slope in Lot 2. We understand that the site has been filled at least three times over the years. This appears to include fill placed prior to 1986, fill placed between 1986 and 1990, and some re- grading of the fill after 1990. Our aerial photographic review (Section 2.2.1) generally supports this history. Based on this information supplanted with some older topographic plans and sections, we were able to estimate the elevation of the original ground and depth of current fill. We observed evidence of a shallow scarp along the east -facing fill slope as shown on Figure 2. The scarp averages about 1.5 feet in height and extends north -south across the full length of the fill slope. Anecdotal information indicated that a slide may have occurred within the fill in the late 1980's requiring excavation of material from the drainage swale Golder Associates ■ ■ • • March 21, 2002 3 023- 1014-100.100 adjacent to 1 -5. In addition, it appears that the debris may have been placed back onto the fill slope. Our aerial photographic review (Section 2.3) generally supports this history. 2.3 Aerial Photograph Review As part of our study, we performed a review of aerial photographs from 1936 to 2000. The aerial photographs were available at Walker and Associates located in Tukwila, Washington. A list of the aerial photos we reviewed, along with a summary of our observations, is presented in the table below. Date ofPh o to A . • roximateScale Comments /Observations 1936 1 inch = 1000 feet Black-and-white photos. Pre - highway I -5 and SR -599. Pre -fill. Macadam Road present. Cultivated orchards up slope of road. Tall trees observed on old slope below road. No evidence of disturbed ground. April 10, 1956 1 inch = 1000 feet Black-and-white photos. Same observations as 1936 except no orchards observed up slope of Macadam Road. Slope above road looks to be recently cleared. May 4, 1980 • 1 inch = 1000 feet Black-and-white photos. Highways I -5 and SR -599 exist. Pre -fill. Turnout adjacent to Macadam Road in northwest corner of property. Tall trees on slope below road look straight. Remainder of site to east is low -lying with low vegetative growth (grasses ?). Drainage swale and fence line present adjacent to I- 5. No evidence of disturbed ground in or around site. July 10, 1990 1 inch = 1000 feet Color photos. Fill has been recently placed on portions of the site. Very limited vegetative cover observed on the fill (older fill surface only). Possible scarps Observed in the vicinity of Lots 3, 4, and 5 near crest in east - facing fill slope (Figure 3) These possible scarps are located in the area of the scarps observed on the site during; this investigation. October 7, 2000 1 inch = 2000 feet Color photos. Site is well vegetated with light brown grasses on flat portion of site and dark green (young trees) on fill slopes. No evidence of disturbed ground. Ground surface obscured by vegetative cover. Golder Associates z w 6 .J U U 00 N ww CO W wo g -. Lt. ¢ a I-w Z= I- • I-. 0o U o2 o 1- =w u- 8. U0) i oc . o1-' z ■ March 21, 2002 4 .; 023 - 1014 - 100.100 3. FIELD EXPLORATION 3.1 Subsurface Explorations The subsurface explorations included eight test pits and three borings. The locations are shown on Figure 2 and the logs are included in Appendix A. Golder excavated 6 test pits (TP -1 to TP -6) in 1999 located in the flat portion of the property adjacent to Macadam Road. These test pits were excavated to depths of between 10 and 15 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The most recent geotechnical subsurface exploration program was performed between February 25 and February 27, 2002. The work consisted of two additional test pits (TP -7 and TP -8) excavated adjacent to I -5 at the toe of the existing fill slope. In addition, we completed three borings located near the crest of the existing fill slope in Lots 1, 4, and 7. The location of the test pits and borings are shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2). Samples were obtained from the borings using a SPT split -spoon sampler. Bag samples were taken from the test pits. The borings were performed by Boretec Drilling out of Spokane, Washington using a custom -built MM 45 drill rig to depths of between 36.5 and 40 feet bgs. The test pits were excavated to depths of about 13 feet with a Komatsu PC 120 excavator. At test pit TP -8, the excavator became stuck in soft, saturated soils. This required another excavator to aid in extracting the excavator. The test pits and borings were located in the field.based on hand measurements and pacing from existing site features and should be considered approximate. The field explorations were performed under the full -time observation of a representative of our firm who recorded soils information including depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics and groundwater occurrence. The observed conditions were recorded on Golder Field Test Pit Log forms and Record of Borehole forms (See Appendix A). Disturbed but representative samples were collected and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. The exploration test pits were backfilled immediately after the subsurface conditions were recorded. Some settlement of the backfill in the test pits should be expected. 3.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing consisted of washed sieves and minus #200 washed sieves. The results are included in Appendix B. Golder Associates March 21, 2002 5 023 - 1014 - 100.100 4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4.1 Soil Waldron (1962)1 mapped the geology in the area of the site as undifferentiated pre - Vashon drift overlain by Vashon -aged ground moraine deposits (till). These deposits are generally hard and/or very dense as they have been deposited in front of or beneath the advancing glacier and have been overridden by the full weight of the glacier. Recessional outwash and lacustrine silt, clay, and peat are mapped by Waldron on the east side of the site in the area of I -5. These units are generally loose to compact and/or soft to very stiff as they were deposited during the recession of the Vashon glacier and were generally not overridden by the full weight of the glacier. Based on the soil conditions observed in our test pits and borings, the site is mantled by compact to very loose fill underlain by recessional lacustrine deposits. These units are then underlain by dense to very dense till and stiff glaciolacustrine deposits. Soil units encountered during our geotechnical exploration program are summarized in more detail below: • Fill — Fill was encountered in all the test pits and borings. The depth of the fill ranges from about 12 feet bgs adjacent to Macadam Road, to about 27 feet bgs at the crest of the fill slope in Lot 4. The fill encountered was variable but can be split into two units. • Upper Fill: The upper 5 to 15 feet beneath the flat portion of the site consisted primarily of compact to dense fine to coarse sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel and minor organics. Some of the 1999 test pits encountered building debris in the fill including bricks, chunks of asphalt, pieces of concrete, pipe, etc. This upper compact to dense fill layer may represent the newer fill placed after 1983 as discussed in Section 2.3. • Lower Fill: Underlying the upper fill, the explorations encountered very soft and very loose finer - grained fill. This unit was also observed in the two test pits excavated at the toe of the fill slope adjacent to I -5 and in the borings. The lower very loose and very soft fill unit consists of primarily silt ranging to silty clay with a trace to little sand and gravel and a little to some fine- grained organics. The lower fill unit can vary to fine to coarse sand with some clayey silt and a trace of organics. The more organic -rich fill was observed in the areas of Lot 1 and the toe of the fill slope adjacent to I -5. • RecessionalLacustrine Deposit — This unit was observed in boring GB -1 located in Lot 4 between about 26.5 feet and 28.5 feet bgs, and in the test pits located at the base of the fill slope in Lots 2 and 4. The unit consists of interbedded loose to compact, silt, fine to medium sand, and firm to very stiff, clayey silt. The unit contains a trace of gravel throughout and is commonly iron oxide stained. Pocket penetrometer readings in this unit range from about 1.5 to 3.5 tsf (tons per square foot). ' Waldron, Howard H., 1962. Geology of the Des Moines Quadrangle, Washington: U. S. Geological Survey Map GQ -159. Golder Associates March 21, 2002 6 023 - 1014 - 100.100 • Till - We encountered this unit underlying the fill in all the borings at depths of between 22 and 28.5 feet bgs. The unit consisted of generally compact to dense, nonstratified, silty, fine to coarse sand with a little fine to coarse rounded gravel. The till can vary to clayey silt and is iron oxide stained. • Glaciolacustrine Deposit — This unit was encountered underlying the till in boring GB -3. This unit consists of very stiff, massive to faintly laminated, clay ranging to silty clay with thin interbeds of fine to medium sand. The unit contains ice - loading features such as jointing and contorted bedding. 4.2 Surface Water and Groundwater Surface water was observed in the drainage swale at the base of the fill slope bordering the eastern property line. No surface water was observed on the fill slope or in the swale adjacent to Macadam Road. No evidence of seepage was observed on the existing fill slope. Groundwater seepage was observed in all but one of our test pits and likely represents the groundwater levels at that time. We measured the groundwater level in GB -1 at the time of drilling. In the other holes, groundwater did not stabilize in the hole during drilling. In these boreholes we estimated the depth to groundwater by the depth where we first encountered soils that appeared saturated. The approximate depth and elevation of groundwater occurrence in our test pits and borings is summarized below. Test Pit/Borehole Number Date of Groundwater Observation Approximate Ground Surface Elevation (feet MSL) Approximate Depth to Groundwater (feet bgs) Approximate Groundwater Elevation (feet MSL) TP -2 4/8/99 198 9.5 188.5 TP -3 4/8/99 197 13 184. TP-4 4/8/99 196 13 183 TP -5 4/8/99 195 8 187 TP -6 4/8/99 194 7 187 TP -7 2/28/02 166 2 164 TP -8 2/28/02 174 4.5 169.5 GB -1 2/25/02 195 12.5 182.5 GB -2 2/25/02 195 10 185 GB -3 2/26/02 193 10 183 Note: The groundwater depths and elevations shown above are approximate and are for the time and date shown. The depth to groundwater in the borings is interpreted based on observed wet soil conditions in the samples. Based on this information, the groundwater levels were about 10 feet below the ground surface on the western level portion of the site becoming shallower near the toe of the fill slope. Groundwater levels should be expected to fluctuate depending on the time of year. The groundwater levels at this site would generally be the highest during late winter and spring depending on precipitation. Golder Associates March 21, 2002 7 023- 1014 - 100.100 5. ENGINEERING EVALUATIONS 5.1 Liquefaction And Lateral Spreading Assessment Loose granular soils below the water table can be susceptible to liquefaction and lateral spreading during a major seismic event. Accordingly, we completed an evaluation of these risks for the proposed site development. These risks can be assessed based on the SPT blow counts and the composition of the soils. Typically, fine - grained soils and/or soils with SPT values in excess of about 10 have a low liquefaction risk. Based on the exploration, loose /soft soils below the water table occurred the lower fill unit as described in Section 4.1. This unit is primarily fine- grained consisting of silt ranging to silty clay with a trace to little sand and gravel and a little to some fine- grained organics. In some areas it varies to fine to coarse sand with some clayey silt and a trace of organics. In general organic and plastic . soils are considered to have a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The more granular soils still had relatively high percentage of silt. We completed a liquefaction evaluation of these soils using the general Seed procedures, which takes into account the high silt content. The results indicated that these materials generally have a low liquefaction potential except for a few localized areas of cleaner loose sands within the lower fills. We considered the risk of lateral spreading or slope failure caused by liquefaction. Conservatively assuming a continuous zone of liquefiable soils in the slope area, the calculations indicate a low risk of seismically induced slope failure. This was based on the likely range in the liquefied undrained sand strengths and the limited fill heights. Thus the only credible failure mode would be some localized sloughing. In summary, the credible risks associated with liquefaction include localized shallow sloughing of slopes. Although some post - liquefaction settlement is theoretically possible, due to the localized nature of liquefiable zones and the depth to these zones, it is unlikely that any settlement effects would actually occur. 5.2 Stability We completed several stability evaluations using the computer code XSTABL. The results indicated a factor of safety of a deep- seated failure was adequate, generally in excess of 1.5 for even very conservative strength assumptions in the lower fill. These included cl)' =24 degrees, c' =0 for drained conditions and (1)=0, c' =500 psf for the undrained conditions. However, the calculated factor of safety was relatively low for shallow sloughing failures along the slopes where the lower loose /soft soils are exposed. This is not surprising and is consistent with the observed scarp that likely occurred about the time that the fill was placed. Calculated seismic stability is adequate related to a deep- seated failure but some localed sloughing could occur. We discussed the possible effects of liquefaction on the slope stability in Section 5.1 above. Golder Associates ow-Mt r • Z • w U O - 0 U 0 w= - H • w w0 2 LLa �. • w z F-. I- 0 Z I- ww U � O — ❑ 1—. ww I ▪ O w z. UD 0 z March 21, 2002 8 ''" 023- 1014-100.100 For a range of possible strength parameters, the static and seismic factor of safety against shallow sloughing type of failures is considered marginal for areas where the lower loose /soft fill is exposed and the fill slope is steeper than about 3.5H:1V (16 degrees). 5.3 Foundation and Development of Stable Slopes We considered supporting the houses on spread footings bearing in the upper compact to dense fills. However, we were concerned about the poor quality of the underlying fills and the risk of settlement induced by loads, creep in the organic portions of the fill and/or seismic vibrations. Thus, we recommend that the structures be supported on piles founded in the dense, stiff native soils underlying the fill. Specific design criteria are presented in Section 6 below. Although the fill slopes are considered stable with respect to a deep- seated failure, as discussed in Section 5.2 above, areas of steep slopes with exposed loose /soft soils are susceptible to shallow sloughing failures. In general, this risk is considered low as evidenced by the current slopes exhibiting no evidence of recent movement with the current scarp having likely occurred shortly after the fill was placed. However, we recommend that the slopes be modified to reduce these risks in areas that are in close proximity to the proposed houses such as Lots 6 and 7. Section 6 below presents specific recommendations. Golder Associates z w U O: cn o cn w. w 0. J • ¢' cn a. I- al z� F-O zE- U • 0; O -: 0 H w. H (1 u ' O. Wz U c° O • I'. z March 21, 2002 9 023- 1014 - 100.100 6. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Foundation Recommendations We recommended that the houses be supported on pile foundations. There are many pile foundation options available. Based on our experience, we recommended that auger -cast piles be used. Small- diameter driven piles may have difficulty driving through the upper dense fills and conventional -sized driven piles are likely more expensive than auger -cast piles. Below, we present design criteria for auger -cast piles. If other pile types are found top be more economical, we can develop alternative design criteria. Auger cast piles should be augered through the fill and recessional soils into the underlying dense /stiff glacially overridden soils. Figure 4 shows the estimated elevations to the top of this bearing layer. In general, the depth from the existing ground surface to this bearing layer varies from about 10 to 15 feet along the front of the proposed house locations to about 20 to 25 feet on the backside of the house locations. We present the following auger-cast-pile design criteria: • MINIMUM DIAMETER: We recommend that the piles have a minimum diameter of 14- inches • MINIMUM DEPTH: All piles should be advanced at least 4 feet into the bearing material. For budgeting purposes Figure `4 can be used to estimate pile lengths. The actual installed pile lengths may vary depending on conditions encountered in the field. • PILE CAPACITIES: The following table presents the allowable axial compression load based on pile diameter and depth of penetration into bearing. Since the loads are likely small, the design will probably be based on 14- inch - diameter piles with the minimum 4 -foot penetration into dense /stiff bearing. ''}}f -14'S D'fit. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Diameter — in 49 53 57 60 64 68 71 61 65 69 73 77 82 86 73 78 82 87 92 97 101 if Estimated elevation to top of bearing based on figure 4 For short -term transient loads, the above values can be increased by 1/3. If a load factor design is used, the ultimate axial loads can be assumed to be twice the allowable loads. Settlement is expected to be less than 1/2-inch. Golder Associates ,l- z • w 6 O 0 CO CO - 1-- CO w w o. _ z�. Z °. 11J w U D O L 0 =w �.. U. O wz • (1) O )- z March 21, 2002 10 "; 023 - 1014 - 100.100 • MINIMUM REBAR: Regardless of the structural requirements, we recommended that as a minimum of one small rebar is placed full depth into the grout after auger removal as a check on hole "necking". If the rebar cannot be installed full depth, the pile should be rejected. 6.2 Slab On Grade The first -floor slab and garage slab can be designed as a normal slab -on -grade provided that the existing subgrade is prepared as discussed in Section 5.6. All slabs should be underlain by a capillary break, which consists of at least six inches of sand drainage blanket overlain by plastic sheeting. The drainage blanket should meet the requirements of section 9- 03.13(1) of the 1991 Washington State Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction. At the contractor's option, the plastic can be overlain by about two inches of drainage sand. It has been our experience that some contractors feel that the upper sand layer is necessary for proper curing of the concrete. 6.3 Foundation Drainage Normal footing and wall drains should be provided for any building that has interior slabs below the elevation of the adjacent finished ground surface. Below -grade basement walls should be provided with drainage provisions consisting of either a drainage fabric or a clean well graded sand and gravel backfill. Foundation drains should consist of a four -inch- diameter, perforated, rigid, plastic pipe embedded in clean, free - draining sand and gravel, meeting the requirements of Section 9.03.13 and Section 9.03.12(4), respectively, of the 1998 Washington State Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. A positive means of draining the sand below adjacent floor slabs should also be provided. This could be done with either a separate slab drainage system or cutouts in the footings. Roof drains should be connected to a separate system and not drain into the under drain or wall drain system. 6.4 Slope Setbacks and Regrading As discussed in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, areas of steep slopes with exposed loose /soft soils are susceptible to shallow sloughing failures. In general, this risk is considered low as evidenced by the current slopes exhibiting no evidence of recent movement. However, we recommend the following to minimize the risk of any slope impacts on the utilities or houses: Golder Associates , ZbG.i�Rn -. z z JU U 0 co 0 w= � w w0 �Q = d I-w z= Z 0 F-. w uj O N. o i-- ww IT 0 u. 0. wz U= O ~ z March 21, 2002 11 023- 1014 - 100.100 • HOUSE SET BACKS: The pile caps for all house structures should be located at least 10 horizontal feet from the top of a projected imaginary 3H:1V line from the toe of the slope (18 degrees). This criterion can be met by locating the house away from the top of the slope, by lowering the grades on the backside of the house to create the setback (likely requires a daylight basement), and/or flattening the slopes. In general, this will impact Lots 1, 5, 6 and 7. • UTILITIES: In general, utilities should meet the same setback criteria as presented above. If any utilities must cross the slope, they should be aligned down the fall line of the slope and placed at a depth of at least 5 feet (3 feet at the toe area of the slope), which should be below any active sloughing zones. • DRAINAGE: It is essential to limit any surface runoff down the slope or ponding of water above the slopes. Thus all surface drainage should be controlled and tight lined before draining down the slope or drained towards the front of the site. • Golder Associates z ice. w cc -1 C.) O 0 co w =' • LL w 0. Q. 0 id 1-w 1- 0: zi- w. tr 2 w 1-- U. f' iuz. U = 0~ z March 21, 2002 12 t 023 - 1014-100.100 7. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Subgrade Preparation Since the structure will be pile supported, the existing fills need not be removed. However, the subgrade needs to be stabilized in order to provide adequate support for construction equipment, the slab -on -grade and pavement areas. In general, the near - surface fills are well - graded sand and gravel with minimal silt. Except during very wet weather, this material should provide an adequate subgrade. However, in areas where the upper fill is thin, on the slopes, and/or in areas where the grade is lowered the lower fill may be encountered. This lower fill is generally a wet, fine- grained material that will provide an inadequate subgrade for equipment and construction activities particularly during wet weather. The contractor should anticipate that over - excavation and replacement or a stabilizing layer of fill or ballast may be required in these areas. Use of heavy woven geotextiles in these areas may be warranted. If the soft lower fills are exposed in the excavation for a lower slab the subgrade will need to be stabilize. This should consist of some over - excavated, placement of a heavy woven geotextile, and backfilled with compacted structural fill. The depth of the over - excavation depends on the nature of the unsuitable areas with the intent to provide an adequate subgrade for the slab. In general, the maximum depth of over - excavation will likely be on the order of 18- inches. 7.2 Fill In general mass earthworks will be minimal. Fills placed in areas of pavements and inside the building footprint should be well graded sand and gravel placed in maximum 12 -inch -thick loose lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM 1557, Method D. The upper granular on -site excavated fill can generally be used for structural fill provided they can be properly moisture conditioned and contain no organic debris, building debris, or other unsuitable materials. 7.3 Auger Cast Piles Auger cast piles are particularly sensitive to the installation methods and contractor experience. Poor equipment and/or inexperienced contractors can result in piles that are improperly installed and, in the worst case, piles that are completely "necked" providing essentially no significant resistance. Thus, it is essential that auger cast piles be installed by qualified, experienced contractors with the full time construction monitoring of experienced geotechnical field engineers. General monitoring requirements include the auger down pressure, identification of cuttings, grout pressure, the rate of auger withdrawal, and grout take. It is also uv�iUk;,;a:4'rv?,;ii .'x4+cfireraEb'.�+�+..;MrEY,:r: Golder Associates March 21, 2002 13 � 023- 1014100.100 recommended that as a minimum one small rebar is placed full depth into the grout after auger removal as a check on hole "necking". If the rebar cannot be installed full depth, the pile should be rejected. 7.4 Construction Monitoring Critical geotechnical aspects of construction should be monitored by a qualified geotechnical field engineer. This indudes pavement and slab subgrade preparation, placement and compaction of structural fills, construction of wall and footing drains, and installation of the auger cast piles. Golder Associates z LU CC 2i J 0. . o o. W =: o; g J, • LL.Q: W _ •Z 0' R H' • ,WLLI' 2 h- V. • .. Z.. W U March 21, 2002 14 ""; 023 - 1014 - 100.100 8. USE OF REPORT This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of John Nalewajek and his consultants for specific application to this project. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the explorations accomplished for this study and conversations regarding the proposed development of the site. Once the site project plans are finalized, we recommend that we be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications to verify that they are in accordance with our recommendations. The integrity and performance of the auger cast pile foundation system and the development of a suitable pavement/slab subgrade depends greatly on proper construction procedures. Therefore, it is recommended that a geotechnical engineer be retained to provide geotechnical services during the critical aspects of the project. The Golder field borings were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice to provide information for the areas explored. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the borings and variations with in the groundwater conditions with time. We recommend that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the construction schedule and budget. Golder associates z i=— z re Ili' 6 J U U O. moo. ww J 1_1 LL,. • ill O ti d: w z�.. 0 z ww, D D. O --; = w' -- O Z 0 p H 0 .. •Z SHANNON &', SON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants MOW Attachment to and r' f our Proposal: 21 -3 -15004 -001 Date: To: Re: January 28, 2002 Mr. Dave McPherson 7 Lot Short Plat, Tukwila, Washington STANDARD GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS (ALL PURPOSE) ARTICLE 1 — SERVICES OF SHANNON & WILSON Shannon & Wilson's scope of work (Work) shall be limited to those services expressly set forth in its Proposal and is subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. Shannon & Wilson shall procure and maintain all business and professional licenses and registrations necessary to provide its services. Upon Client's request (and for additional compensation, if not already included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal), Shannon & Wilson shall assist Client in attempting to obtain, or on behalf of Client and in Client's name attempt to obtain, those permits and approvals required for the project for which Shannon & Wilson's services are being rendered. Client acknowledges, depending on field conditions encountered and subsurface conditions discovered, the number and location of borings, the number and type of field and laboratory tests, and other similar items, as deemed necessary by Shannon & Wilson in the exercise of due care, may need to be increased or decreased; if such modifications are approved by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be,equitably adjusted. If conditions actually encountered at the project site differ materially from those represented by Client and/or shown or indicated in the contract documents, or are of an unusual nature which materially differ from those ordinarily encountered and generally recognized as inherent for the locality and character of the services provided for in Shannon & Wilson's scope of work, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. Without increasing the scope of work, price, or schedule contained in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson may employ such s'ibrrm-,,tractors as Shannon & Wilson deems necessary to assist in furnishing its services. If Shannon & Wilson's scope of work is increased or decreased by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 2 — FEES AND EXPENSES FOR RENDERING SERVICES LUMP SUM AMOUNT Shannon & Wilson's total fee for performing all of the services described in the Scope of Work shall be the lump sum amount of $1,200. Shannon & Wilson shall be entitled to monthly progress payments in proportion to the percentage of the completed Work bears to all of the services described the Scope of Work. Fees For Additional Services Fees for Shannon & Wilson's services attributable to any additional services provided by Shannon & Wilson which are not specifically included in our Scope of Work will be based on the actual time expended on the project, including travel, by our personnel and will be computed by multiplying the actual number of hours worked times the employees direct salary rate times 3.3. The hourly rates for the services of our staff will be doubled for time spent actually providing expert testimony. ADDITIONAL REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Expenses other than salary costs that are directly attributable to any additional services provided by Shannon & Wilson which are not specifically included in our scope of work will be invoiced at our cost plus 15 percent. Examples include, but are not limited to, expenses for out -of -town travel and living, information processing equipment, instrumentation and field equipment rental, special fees and permits, premiums for additional or special insurance where required, long distance telephone charges, local mileage and parking, use of rental vehicles, taxi, reproduction, local and out -of -town delivery service, express mail, photographs, film, laboratory equipment fees, shipping charges and supplies. A unit price of $7.00 per hour will be charged for computer time to prepare spreadsheets, $25.00 per hour for AutoCAD and modeling software use, and $35.00 per hour for GIS computer work. ARTICLE 3 —TIMES FOR RENDERING SERVICES Shannon & Wilson shall perform its services in accordance with the schedule set forth in its Proposal. If Shannon & Wilson's Proposal sets forth specific periods of time for rendering services, or specific dates by which services are to be completed, and such periods of time or dates are extended or delayed through no fault of Shannon & Wilson, Shannon & Wilson's compensation and schedule shall be equitably adjusted. If Shannon & Wilson's schedule is increased or decreased by Client, Shannon & Wilson's compensation shall be equitably adjusted. ARTICLE 4 — PAYMENTS TO SHANNON & WILSON Invoices shall be prepared in accordance with Shannon & Wilson's standard invoicing practices and shall be submitted to Client by Shannon & Wilson monthly. The amount billed in each invoice shall be calculated as set forth in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal. Unless Shannon & Wilson's Proposal contains a fixed lump -sum price, Shannon & Wilson's actual fees may exceed the estimate contained in its Proposal. Shannon & Wilson shall not exceed the estimate contained in its Proposal by more than ten percent (10 %) without the prior written consent of Client; provided however, unless the Client authorizes additional funds in excess of the estimate contained in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall have no obligation to continue work on the project. SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 1 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC:. Invoices are due and payable within 30 days o` '°'`-eipt. If Client fails to pay Shannon & Wilson's imp `` ! within 30 days after receipt, the amounts due Shannon & Wilson shall accrue interest at the r. ;f one and one -half percent (1.5 %) per month (or the imum rate of interest permitted by law, if less) after the 30th day. In addition, Shannon & Wilson may, after giving seven (7) days written notice to Client, suspend services under this Agreement until Shannon & Wilson has been paid in full. If Client disputes Shannon & Wilson's invoice, only the disputed portion(s) may be withheld from payment, and the undisputed portion(s) shall be paid. Records of Shannon & Wilson's direct and indirect costs and expenses pertinent to its compensation under this Agreement shall be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting practices and applicable federal, state, or local laws and regulations. Upon request, such records shall be made available to Client for inspection on Shannon & Wilson's premises and copies provided to Client at cost. ARTICLE 5 — CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES Client shall grant or obtain free access to the project site for all equipment and personnel necessary for Shannon & Wilson to perform its services. ARTICLE 6 — STANDARD OF CARE / ABSENCE OF WARRANTIES / NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR SITE SAFETY OR CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE Standard of Care The standard of care for all professional services performed or furnished by Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement shall be the skill and care ordinarily exercised by other members of Shannon & Wilson's profession, providing the same or similar services, under the same or similar circumstances, at the same time and locality as the services were provided by Shannon & Wilson. The construction, alteration, or repair of any object or structure by Shannon & Wilson shall be performed in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with general industry standards, and conform to this Agreement. Shannon & Wilson warrants for one (1) year from substantial completion of the Work, all goods delivered hereunder shall be new and free from defects in material or workmanship, and shall conform to the specifications, drawings, or sample(s) specified or furnished, if any, and shall be merchantable and fit for their intended purpose(s). Shannon & Wilson warrants that Shannon & Wilson has good and marketable title to all goods delivered hereunder, and that all goods delivered hereunder shall be free and clear of all claims of superior title, liens, and encumbrances of any kind. Subsurface explorations and testing identify actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken, at the time they are taken. Actual conditions at other locations of the project site, including those inferred to exist between the sample points, may differ significantly from conditions that exist at the sampling locations. The passage of time or intervening causes may cause the actual conditions at the sampling locations to change as well. Interpretations and recommendations made by Shannon & Wilson shall be based solely upon information available to Shannon & Wilson at the time the interpretations and recommendations are made. Shannon & Wilson shall be responsible for the technical accuracy of its services, data, interpretations, and recommendations resulting therefrom, and Client shall not be responsible for discovering deficiencies therein. Shannon & Wilson shall correct any substandard work without additional compensation, except to the extent that such inaccuracies are directly attributable to deficiencies in Client- furnished information. No Warranties Shannon & Wilson makes no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or otherwise, about Shannon & Wilson's professional services. Client - Furnished Documents Shannon & Wilson may use requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and information furnished by Client to Shannon & Wilson in performing its services under this Agreement. Shannon & Wilson may rely on the accuracy and completeness of requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and other information furnished by Client to Shannon & Wilson. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from Shannon & Wilson's reliance on Client - furnished information, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Site Damage Shannon & Wilson shall take reasonable precautions to minimize damage to the project site, but it is understood by Client that, in the normal course of Shannon & Wilson's services, some project site damage may occur, and the correction of such damage is not part of this Agreement unless so stated in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from any project site damage caused by Shannon & Wilson, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Buried Structures If there are any buried structures and/or utilities on the project site where subsurface explorations are to take place, Client shall provide Shannon & Wilson with a plan showing their existing locations. Shannon & Wilson shall contact a utility locator service to request that they identify any public utilities. Shannon & Wilson shall use reasonable care and diligence to avoid contact with buried structures and/or utilities as shown. Shannon & Wilson shall not be liable for any loss or damage to buried structures and/or utilities resulting from inaccuracy of the plans, or lack of plans, or errors by the locator service relating to the location of buried structures and/or utilities. Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify, and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from damage to buried structures and/or utilities caused by Shannon & Wilson's sampling, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Aquifer Cross - Contamination Despite the use of due care, unavoidable contamination of soil or groundwater may occur during subsurface exploration when drilling or sampling tools are advanced through a contaminated area, linking it to an aquifer, underground stream, or other hydrous body not previously contaminated and capable of spreading contaminants off the project site. Because Shannon & Wilson is powerless to totally eliminate this risk despite use of due care, and because sampling is an essential element of Shannon & Wilson's services, Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from cross - contamination caused by Shannon & Wilson's sampling, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 2 of 6 ..'"115'. ;°FHrY", i9� �i+rC.'Y•ffu...+^�f.: �' UA. ^itaruk�r rA> t ,.:.::'�'g,VrwFi:!�CnkC:57;;' `r_ s�za*Pr /;�st:a'�tn�5.nn.aPa, .?i- 1" �'+^;. �r ..r�tvrr�.......n..v;�i±vh�s:: �r-�: ;�,.., Luc., xr „� �,:y,:tvi. i'�.?.'�;w�.:;x ?,: SHANNON & WILSON. INC. Opinions of Probable Construction Costs If opinions of probable construction costs are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson's opinions of probable construction costs shall be made on the basis of its experience and qualifications and represent its judgment as a professional generally familiar with the industry. Opinions of probable construction costs are based, in part, on approximate quantity evaluations that are not accurate enough to permit contractors to prepare bids. Further, since Shannon & Wilson has no control over: the cost of labor, materials, equipment, or services furnished by others; the contractor's actual or proposed construction methods or methods of determining prices; competitive bidding; or market conditions, Shannon & Wilson cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction cost will not vary from opinions of the components of probable construction cost prepared by Shannon & Wilson. If Client or any contractor wishes greater assurance as to probable construction cost, Client or contractor shall employ an independent cost estimator. Review of Contractor's Shop Drawings and Submittals If review of a contractor's shop drawings and submittals are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall review and take appropriate action on the contractor's submittals, such as shop drawings, product data, samples, and other data, which the contractor is required to submit, but solely for the limited purpose of checking for general overall conformance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept. This review shall not include a review of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities; dimensions; weights or gauges; fabrication processes; construction means, methods, sequences or procedures; coordination of the work with other trades; or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the contractor. Shannon & Wilson's review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time, in Shannon & Wilson's judgment, to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not be construed to mean that Shannon & Wilson has reviewed the entire assembly of which the item is a component. Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for any deviations by the contractor in the shop drawings and submittals from the construction documents, which are not brought to the attention of Shannon & Wilson by the contractor in writing. Construction Observation If construction observation is included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall visit the project site at intervals Shannon & Wilson deems appropriate, or as otherwise agreed to in writing by Client and Shannon & Wilson, in order to observe and keep Client generally informed of the progress and quality of the work. Such visits and observations are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed inspection of any contractor's work, but rather are to allow Shannon & Wilson, as a professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress in order to determine, in general, whether the work is progressing in a manner indicating that the work, when fully completed, will be in accordance with Shannon & Wilson's general overall design concept. Shannon & Wilson's authority shall be limited to observing, making technical comments regarding general overall compliance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept, and rejecting any work which it becomes aware of that does not comply with Shannon & Wilson's general overall design concept. Shannon & Wilson's acceptance of any non - conforming work containing latent defects or failure to reject any non - conforming work not inspected by Shannon & Wilson shall not impose any liability on Shannon & Wilson or relieve any contractor from complying with their contract documents. All construction contractors shall be solely responsible for construction site safety, the quality of their work, and adherence to their contract documents. Shannon & Wilson shall have no authority to direct any contractor's actions or stop any contractor's work. If Shannon & Wilson is not retained to provide construction observation of the implementation of its design recommendations, Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from the implementation of Shannon & Wilson's design recommendations, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. No Responsibility for Site Safety Except for its own subcontractors and employees, Shannon & Wilson shall not: supervise, direct, have control over, or authority to stop any contractor's work; have authority over or responsibility for the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction selected by any contractor; be responsible for safety precautions and programs incident to any contractor's work; or be responsible for any failure of any contractor to comply with laws and regulations applicable to the contractor, all of which are the sole responsibility of the construction contractors. This requirement shall apply continuously, regardless of time or place, and shall in no way be altered because a representative of Shannon & Wilson is present at the project site performing his/her duties. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, Shannon & Wilson shall never be deemed to have assumed responsibility for the project's site safety by either contract or conduct. No act or direction by Shannon & Wilson shall be deemed the exercise of supervision or control of any contractor's employees or the direction of any contractor's performance. Any direction provided by Shannon & Wilson shall be deemed solely to ensure the contractor's general overall compliance with Shannon & Wilson's design concept. No Responsibility for Contractor's Performance Except for its own subcontractors and employees, Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for safety precautions, the quality of any contractor's work, or any contractor's failure to furnish or perform their work in accordance with their contract documents. Except Shannon & Wilson's own employees and its subcontractors, Shannon & Wilson shall not: be responsible for the acts or omissions of any contractor, subcontractor or supplier, or other persons at the project site, or otherwise furnishing or performing any work; or for any decision based on interpretations or clarifications of Shannon & Wilson's design concept given without the consultation and concurrence of Shannon & Wilson. Approval of Contractor's Applications for Payment If approval of a contractor's applications for payment are included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal, Shannon & Wilson shall review the amounts due the contractor and issue a recommendation about payment to Client. Shannon & Wilson's review and approval shall be limited to an evaluation of the general progress of the work and the information contained in the contractor's application for payment and a representation by Shannon & Wilson that to the best of the Shannon & Wilson's knowledge, the contractor has performed work for which payment has been requested, subject to further testing and inspection upon substantial completion. The issuance of a recommendation for payment shall not be construed as a representation that: Shannon & Wilson has made an exhaustive check or a detailed or continuous inspection check of the quality or quantity of the contractor's work; approved the contractors means, methods, sequences, procedures, or safety precautions; or that contractor's subcontractors, laborers, and suppliers have been paid. ARTICLE 7— CONFIDENTIALITY AND USE OF DOCUMENTS Confidentiality Shannon & Wilson agrees to keep confidential and to not disclose to any person or entity (other than Shannon & Wilson's employees and subcontractors), without the prior consent of Client, all information furnished to Shannon & Wilson by Client or learned by Shannon & Wilson as a result of its work on the project; provided however, that these provisions shall not apply to information that: is in the public domain through no fault of Shannon & Wilson; was previously known to Shannon & Wilson; or was independently acquired by Shannon & Wilson from third - parties who were under no obligation to Client to keep said information confidential. This paragraph shall not be construed to in any way restrict Shannon & Wilson from making any disclosures required by SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) ' xt FdL ES. Rfly;a+Yr� 7:1ti.,,,.h..,,p x ∎Lt Page 3 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. law. Client agrees that Shannon & Wilson may " and publish Client's name and a general description -". ihannon & Wilson's services with respect to the project in describing Shannon & Wilson's expci .c and qualifications to others. Copyrights and Patents — Shannon & Wilson shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Client from any and all actions, damages, demands, expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), losses, and liabilities arising out of any claims that any goods or services furnished by Subcontractor infringe any patent, trademark, trade name, or copyright. Use of Documents All documents prepared by Shannon & Wilson are instruments of service with respect to the project, and Shannon & Wilson shall retain a copyrighted ownership and property interest therein (including the right of reuse) whether or not the project is completed. Shannon & Wilson grants to Client a non - exclusive, irrevocable, unlimited, royalty -free license to use any documents prepared by Shannon & Wilson for Client. Client may make and retain copies of such documents for their information and use. Such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by Client, or others, after the passage of time, on extensions of the project, or on any other project. Any such reuse without written verification or adaptation by Shannon & Wilson, as appropriate for the specific purpose intended, shall be at Client's sole risk, and Client shall, only to the fullest extent permitted by law, waive any claims against Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors, and indemnify and hold Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors harmless from any claims, liability, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) arising from such reuse, except to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract. Any verification or adaptation of the documents for extensions of the project or for any other project by Shannon & Wilson shall entitle Shannon & Wilson to additional compensation to be agreed upon by Client and Shannon & Wilson. Copies of documents that may be relied upon by Client are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that are signed or sealed by Shannon & Wilson. Text, data, or graphics files in electronic media format are furnished solely for the convenience of Client. Any conclusion or information obtained or derived from such electronic files shall be at the user's sole risk. If there is a discrepancy between the electronic files and the hard copies, the hard copies govern. Because data stored in electronic media can deteriorate or be modified inadvertently or otherwise without authorization of the data's creator, the party receiving an electronic file agrees that it shall perform acceptance tests or procedures within 60 days after its receipt, after which, unless notice of any errors are given in writing to the delivering party, the receiving party shall be deemed to have accepted the data thus transferred. Any errors reported within the 60- day acceptance period shall be corrected by the party delivering the electronic files at their sole expense. Shannon & Wilson shall not be responsible for maintaining documents stored in electronic media format after acceptance by Client. When transferring documents in electronic media format, neither Client nor Shannon & Wilson makes any representations as to long -term compatibility, usability, or readability of documents resulting from the use of software application packages, operating systems, or computer hardware differing from those used for the document's creation. ARTICLE 8 - INSURANCE Shannon & Wilson shall purchase and maintain during the term of this contract, the following insurance coverage at its sole expense: Commercial General Liability - $1,000,000 each occurrence/$2,000,000 annual aggregate Bodily Injury /Property Damage Combined Single Limit including Blanket Contractual Liability, Broad Form Products and Completed Operations, Explosion/Collapse /Underground (XCU) Exposures, and Washington Stop Gap coverage. Auto Liability - $1,000,000 Bodily Injury /Property Damage Combined Single Limit including Owned, Hired, and Non -Owned Liability coverage. Umbrella Liability - $10,000,000 Bodily Injury /Property Damage combined Single Limit in excess of Commercial General Liability, Auto Liability, and Employers' Liability. Workers' Compensation - Statutory in monopolistic states and $500,000 per accident/$500,000 per disease/$500,000 disease policy aggregate Employers' Liability in non - monopolistic including if applicable, U.S. Longshore & Harbor Workers coverage. Professional Liability - $5,000,000 per claims /$5,000,000 annual aggregate for professional errors and omissions including Pollution Liability coverage. If requested in writing by Client, Shannon & Wilson shall name Client as an additional insured on its Commercial General Liability policy. If requested in writing by Client, Shannon & Wilson shall deliver to Client certificates of insurance evidencing such coverage. Such certificates shall be furnished before commencement of Shannon & Wilson's services. Client shall cause Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors to be listed as additional insureds on any Commercial General Liability insurance carried by Client that is applicable to the project. Client shall require the project owner to require the general contractor on the project to purchase and maintain Commercial General Liability, Automobile Liability, Workers Compensation, and Employers Liability insurance, with limits no less than set forth above, and to cause Shannon & Wilson and its subcontractors to be listed as additional insureds on that Commercial General Liability insurance. Client shall require the project owner include the substance of this paragraph in the prime construction contract. All insurance policies shall contain a waiver of subrogation. ARTICLE 9 - HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Disclosure of the Existence of Hazardous Environmental Conditions Client has disclosed to Shannon & Wilson all data known to Client concerning known or suspected hazardous environmental conditions, including but not limited to, the existence of all asbestos, PCBs, petroleum, hazardous waste, or radioactive material, if any, located at or near the project site, including its type, quantity, and location, or has represented to Shannon & Wilson that, to the best of Client's knowledge, no hazardous environmental conditions exist at or near the project site. If any hazardous environmental condition is encountered or believed to exist, Shannon & Wilson shall notify Client and, to the extent required by applicable laws and regulations, the project site owner, and appropriate governmental officials. SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) ••- 1SWi.P,..4VS#`59.•. rnh Page 4 of 6 tt SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Disposal of Non- Iazardous Samples and Hazardous or Toxic Substances All substances on, in, or under the project site, or obtained from the project site as samples or as byproducts (c.g., drill cuttings and fluids) of the sampling process are the project site owner's property. Shannon & Wilson shall preserve such samples for forty -five (45) calendar days after Shannon & Wilson's issuance to Client of the final instrument of service that relates to the data obtained from them. Shannon & Wilson shall dispose of all non - hazardous samples and sampling process byproducts in accordance with applicable law; provided however, any samples or sampling process byproducts that are, or are believed to be, affected by regulated contaminants shall be packaged by Shannon & Wilson in accordance with applicable law, and turned over to Client or left on the project site. Shannon & Wilson shall not transport store, treat, dispose of, or arrange for the transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of, any substances known, believed, or suspected to be affected by regulated contaminants, nor shall Shannon & Wilson subcontract for such activities. Shannon & Wilson shall, at Client's request (and for additional compensation, if not already included in Shannon & Wilson's Proposal), help Client or the project site owner identify appropriate alternatives for transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of such substances, but Shannon & Wilson shall not make any independent determination about the selection of a transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal facility. Client or the project site owner shall sign all manifests for the transportation, storage, treatment, or disposal of substances affected by regulated contaminants; provided however, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement to the contrary if Client directs Shannon & Wilson, Shannon & Wilson's employees, or Shannon & Wilson's agents to sign such manifests and/or to hire for Client or the project site owner a contractor to transport store, treat, or dispose of the contaminated substances, Shannon & Wilson shall do so only as Client's disclosed agent. Contaminated Equipment and Consumables Client shall reimburse Shannon & Wilson for the cost of decontaminating field or laboratory equipment that is contaminated by regulated materials encountered at the project site and for the cost of disposal and replacement of contaminated consumables. In some instances, the cost of decontamination may exceed the fair market value of the equipment, were it not contaminated, together with the cost of properly transporting and disposing of the equipment. In such instances, Shannon & Wilson will notify Client and give Client the option of paying for decontamination or purchasing the equipment at its fair market value immediately prior to contamination. If Client elects to purchase equipment, Client and Shannon & Wilson will enter into a specific agreement for that purpose. Any equipment that cannot be decontaminated shall be considered a consumable. Client's Liability for Hazardous or Toxic Materials Except to the extent caused by Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, omissions, or breach of contract, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, Client shall: indemnify and hold harmless Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors and their partners, officers, directors, employees, and agents; from and against any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees), or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever; arising from the arrangement for and/or ownership, operation, generation, labeling, transportation, storage, disposal, treatment, release, or threatened release of any hazardous or toxic materials, as defined by CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws, on and/or from the project site. ARTICLE 10 - ALLOCATION OF RISK Indemnification of Client To the maximum extent permitted by law, Shannon & Wilson shall: indemnify and hold harmless Client, its appointed and elected officials, partners, officers, directors, employees, and agents; from and against any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage, (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever; arising from the negligent or wrongful acts, errors, or omissions, or breach of contract or warranty express or implied, by Shannon & Wilson or any of its subcontractors; but only to the extent of Shannon & Wilson's and its subcontractor's relative degree of fault. In furtherance of these obligations, and only with respect to Client, its appointed and elected officials, partners, officers, directors, employees and agents, Shannon & Wilson waives any immunity it may have or limitation on the amount or type of damages imposed under any industrial insurance, worker's compensation, disability, employee benefit, or similar laws. Shannon & Wilson acknowledges that this waiver of immunity was mutually negotiated. Limitation of Shannon & Wilson's Liability A. Total Liability Limited to Insurance Proceeds Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors, and their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents and, or any of them, to Client and/or anyone claiming by, through, or under Client, for any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not Limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage, (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, liabilities, and penalties of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to the project or this Agreement, shall be limited to the insurance proceeds payable on behalf of or to Shannon & Wilson by any insurance policies applicable thereto. If you are unwilling or unable to limit our liability in this manner, we will negotiate this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price, with you. You must notify us in writing before we commence our work of your intention to negotiate this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price. Absent your prior written notification to the contrary, we will proceed on the basis that our total liability is limited as set forth above. B. Professional Liability Limited to $50,000 or 10% of Fee With respect to professional errors or omissions only, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, and only to the maximum extent permitted by law, the total liability, in the aggregate, of Shannon & Wilson, its subcontractors, and their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents, or any of them, to Client and/or anyone claiming by, through, or under Client, for any and all actions (whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise), claims (including, but not limited to, claims for bodily injury, death, property damage (including bodily injury, death, or property damage to Shannon & Wilson's own employees) or arising under CERCLA, MTCA, or similar federal, state, or local environmental laws), costs, damages (including without limitation, economic, non - economic, general, special, incidental, consequential), demands, expenses SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 5 of 6 SHANNON & WILSON, INC. (including, but not limited to, reasonable attornr`- 'revs and costs of defense), fines, judgments, liens, lial "" °es and penalties of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related k .e professional errors or omissions of Shannon & V . a, its subcontractors, or their partners, officers, directors, employees, agents or, or any of them, shall not exceed the aggregate total amount of $50,000.00, or ten percent (10%) of the total compensation actually paid to Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement, whichever is greater. If you are unwilling or unable to limit our professional liability to these sums, we will negotiate the amount of this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price, with you. You must notify us in writing before we commence our work of your intention to negotiate the amount of this limitation and its associated impact on our approach, scope of work, schedule, and price. Absent your prior written notification to the contrary, we will proceed on the basis that our total professional liability is limited to $50,000.00 or ten percent (l0 %) of the total compensation actually paid to Shannon & Wilson under this Agreement, whichever is greater. ARTICLE 11 — MISCELLANEOUS Termination This Agreement may be terminated without further obligation or liability by either party, with or without cause (for convenience), upon 30 days prior written notice to the other. Shannon & Wilson shall be entitled to compensation for all services performed prior to the termination of this Agreement. This Agreement may be terminated by the non - breaching party upon any breach of this Agreement that remains uncured after 10 days notice to the breaching party by the non - breaching party. Upon payment of all amounts due Shannon & Wilson, Client shall be entitled to copies of Shannon & Wilson's files and records pertaining to services performed prior to the termination of this Agreement. Successors, Assigns, and Beneficiaries This Agreement shall be binding upon each party's assigns, successors, executors, administrators, and legal representatives. Neither Client nor Shannon & Wilson may assign or transfer any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. No assignment shall release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, impose, or give rise to any duty owed by Client or Shannon & Wilson to any third - party. All duties and responsibilities undertaken under this Agreement shall be for the sole and exclusive benefit of Client and Shannon & Wilson. There are no intended third -party beneficiaries. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should a court find a third -party to be a beneficiary of this Agreement, it is the intent of the parties that the judicially created third -party beneficiary be bound by and subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Jurisdiction, Venue, and Choice of Law Any applicable Statute of Limitation shall be deemed to commence running on the date which the claimant knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to their claims, but in no event later than the date of substantial completion of Shannon & Wilson's services under this Agreement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, as a condition precedent to commencing a judicial proceeding, a party shall give written notice of their claims, including all amounts claimed, and the factual basis for their claims, to the other party within one (1) year of when the claimant knew, or should have known, of the facts giving rise to their claims, but in no event later than one (1) year from the date of substantial completion of Shannon & Wilson's services under this Agreement. As a condition precedent to commencing a judicial proceeding, a party shall first submit their claims to non - binding mediation through and in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws (except choice and conflict of law provisions) of the state in which the Project is located. Any judicial action shall be brought in the state in which the Project is located. Attorneys' Fees Should any dispute or claims arise out of this Agreement, whether sounding in tort, contract (express or implied), warranty (express or implied), statutory liability, strict liability, or otherwise, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including upon appeal and in the enforcement of any judgment. Should neither party prevail on all of their claims or receive all of the relief they sought, then the substantially prevailing party shall be awarded their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including upon appeal and in the enforcement of any judgment. Waiver A waiver of any of the terms and conditions or breaches of this Agreement shall not operate as a subsequent waiver. Headings The headings used in this agreement are for general ease of reference only. They have no meaning and are not part of this Agreement. Integration This Agreement, together with all attachments hereto, are incorporated by reference into each other, and supercede all prior written and oral discussions, representations, negotiations, and agreements on the subject matter of this Agreement and represent the parties' complete, entire, and final understanding of the subject matter of this Agreement. Survival Notwithstanding completion or termination of this Agreement for any reason, all representations, warranties, limitations of liability, and indemnification obligations contained in this Agreement shall survive such completion or termination and remain in full force and effect until fulfilled. Severability If any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement are found to be void or unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, and the court shall attempt to judicially reform the void or unenforceable provisions to the maximum extent possible, consistent with the original intent expressed in the provisions, to render it valid and enforceable. If the court is unable to reform the provisions to render it valid and enforceable, the court shall strike only that portion which is invalid or unenforceable, and this Agreement shall then be construed without reference to the void or unenforceable provisions. SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Page 6 of 6 ?'A' x_,,ESy'r"3do?�7iY+"x" in9 v sYi .+.rv�i(AI':,.iVlrq't't!.;1'4, v.e!tnir.yt,; b'1.w,.'j"tr3'.t,::w�ii�v 15 1t5 Ytr �ILG'S:'' Y'� � "=r. <._.:..• -• r1.::4 �4.ir '��'.. i�ryi� .;?Y r.i AIM 111 SHANNON & . ..SON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants IMP Attachment to part of Proposal 21 -3 -15004 -001 Date: January 28, 2002 To: Mr. Dave McPherson City of Tukwila Public Works Dept. Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Proposal More construction problems are caused by site subsurface conditions than any other factor. The following suggestions and observations are offered to help you manage your risks. HAVE REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS. If you have never before dealt with geotechnical or environmental issues, you should recognize that site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions at those points where samples are taken, at the time they are taken. The data derived are extrapolated by the consultant, who then applies judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions; their reaction to construction activity; appropriate design of foundations, slopes, impoundments, recovery wells; and other construction and/or remediation elements. Even under optimal circumstances, actual conditions may differ from those inferred to exist, because no consultant, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal what is hidden by earth, rock, and time. DEVELOP THE SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PLAN WITH CARE. The nature of subsurface explorations —the types, quantities, and locations of procedures used —in large measure determines the effectiveness of the geotechnical /environmental report and the design based upon it. The more comprehensive a subsurface exploration and testing program, the more information it provides to the consultant, helping to reduce the risk of unanticipated conditions and the attendant risk of costly delays and disputes. Even the cost of subsurface construction may be lowered. Developing a proper subsurface exploration plan is a basic element of geotechnical /environmental design, which should be accomplished jointly by the consultant and the client (or designated professional representatives). This helps the parties involved recognize mutual concerns and makes the client aware of the technical options available. Clients who develop a subsurface exploration plan without the involvement and concurrence of a consultant may be required to assume responsibility and liability for the plan's adequacy. READ GENERAL CONDITIONS CAREFULLY. Most consultants include standard general contract conditions in their proposals. One of the general conditions most commonly employed is to limit the consulting firm's liability. Known as a "risk allocation" or "limitation of liability," this approach helps prevent problems at the beginning and establishes a fair and reasonable framework for handling them, should they arise. Various other elements of general conditions delineate your consultant's responsibilities. These are used to help eliminate confusion and misunderstandings, thereby helping all parties recognize who is responsible for different tasks. In all cases, read your consultant's general conditions carefully and ask any questions you may have. HAVE YOUR CONSULTANT WORK WITH OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS. Costly problems can occur when other design professionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a consultant's report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your consultant to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechn- ical/environmental report. This allows a consultant to explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and to review their plans and specifications so that issues can be dealt with adequately. Although some other design professionals may be familiar with geotechnical /environmental concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent consultant. Page 1 of 2 1/2002 OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION MONITtf)NG SERVICES. Most experienced clients also retain their consultant to serve during the construction phase of their projects. Involvement during the construction phase is particularly important because this permits the consultant to be on hand quickly to evaluate unanticipated conditions, to conduct additional tests if required, and when necessary, to recommend alternative solutions to problems. The consultant can also monitor the geotechnical /environmental work performed by contractors. It is essential to recognize that the construction recommendations included in a report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork and/or drilling, design consultants need to observe those conditions in order to provide their recommendations. Only the consultant who prepares the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid. The consultant submitting the report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of preliminary recommendations if another party is retained to observe construction. REALIZE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. If you have requested only a geotechnical engineering proposal, it will not include services needed to evaluate the likelihood of contamination by hazardous materials or other pollutants. Given the liabilities involved, it is prudent practice to always have a site reviewed from an environmental viewpoint. A consultant cannot be responsible for failing to detect contaminants when the services needed to perform that function are not being provided. ONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF YOUR CONSULTANT IS TO PROTECT THE SAFETY, PROPERTY, AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. A geotechnical /environmental investigation will sometimes disclose the existence of conditions that may endanger the safety, health, property, or welfare of the public. Your consultant may be obligated under rules of professional conduct, or statutory or common law, to notify you and others of these conditions. RELY ON YOUR CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. Your consulting firm is familiar with several techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risk exposure for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Ask your consultant, not only about geotechnical and environmental issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. The preceding paragraphs are based on information provided by the ASFE /Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences, Silver Spring, Maryland Page 2 of 2 1/2002 :. ..1,15:07•.ra :44.44 x::sx m; x a °;+.:i.11644:z ua.m c kki: i l: 2 fw au. csc t�i tiattN. tYlta4rH '.ts�eklCr.,rr,w.e..c,:„,,., „. •"K'` ' t� GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS SHANNON 6WILSON, INC. January 28, 2002 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RECEIVFD JAN 2 8 2002 'TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS RE: SECOND GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW FOR NALEWAJEK — 7 LOT SHORT PLAT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: SEATTLE RICHLAND FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE DENVER SAINT LOUIS BOSTON This letter presents our proposal to conduct a second, or follow -up, peer review of a geotechnical engineering report for proposed Nalewajek Short Plat at 13900 Macadam Road, Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our work will be to offer an opinion of the appropriateness and adequacy of the updated geotechnical engineering report that has been prepared by others. Our fee and the terms under which our services are offered will be in accordance with the attached Standard General Terms and Conditions and on a lump sum basis. Our fee will be $1,200, which includes review of the geotechnical report that has been prepared for this project and preparation of a written summary of our findings. The findings and geotechnical conclusions will be limited to and based on our review of City of Tukwila - provided information and experience with similar projects. Invoices for payment will be submitted to you as our client. Please sign in the space provided and return a copy of this letter, which will then serve as an agreement between us. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., has prepared the attached "Important Information About Your Geotechnical 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 21 -3- 15004 -001 5i444 'h.'L ^'a'ti: Mr. Dave McPherson City of Tukwila Public Works Department January 28, 2002 Page 2 SHANNON ENVil SON, iNC. Proposal" to assist you and others in understanding the use and limitations of our proposals. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Martin W. Page, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:TMG /mwp Enclosures: Standard General Terms and Conditions, SEA -LS -2002 (1/2002) Important Information About Your Geotechnical Proposal I accept the above conditions and authorize the work to proceed. By Signature (print) Organization 21- 3- 15004- 001 -L1 /W P /LKD '•,•f;� - rtr,:.;): i�i�: i6�f5:: A :J:::':2:i1;ii4:••_ ..,.. Date 21 -3- 15004 -001 z .}-W. J U` U O;. U �.. U w _. W z.. JF- M LL w g -J u. c� =d w z� 1-0 z U 0� w. 1--U O; .Z, U = 0 1-= ~` z MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. - David McPherson, Associate Engineer DATE: January 25, 2002 SUBJECT: Nalewajek — 7 Lot Short Plat 13900 — 48th Ave. South (Macadam Rd. South) Short Plat and Miscellaneous Comments Short Plat - L2000 -077 1. The most recent Geotechnical study by Golder Associates Inc., dated January 15, 2002, submitted to the City, shall require a peer review. The cost for this required geotechnical peer review, shall be at owner's expense. I have requested a price quotation from Shannon & Wilson, Inc. for this service. Miscellaneous comments . The Engineer of Record for this project, James Jaeger, P.E., met with Ryan Larson, John Howat, and me, on January 18, 2002. It was agreed that the storm drainage system shall be revised, and to allow public storm water detention along Macadam Road South. A revised storm drainage report and plan shall be submitted by the Engineer, as part of the Building /Miscellaneous permit. • z z • w JU, UO . U0: •• W =' O. Q- C a. =w z� o: D o U ;O U; • III w. • --- V w ..z. (4' • P O z City of Tukwila Department of Community Development - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila. WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 REVISION SUBMITTAL Revision submittals must be submitted in person at the Permit Center. Revisions will not be accepted through the mail, fax, etc. Date: Plan Check/Permit Number: j-\, 00 0— 077 0 Response to Incomplete Letter Response to Correction Letter 0 Revision Y after Permit is Issued Project Name: 0_,A ri.S±v2he O /eve (- Project Address: /06) U 4" A II 5 Contact Person: I i Y J S Phone Number: (;26'0 76 if Summary of Revision: Aeice (2.,"A, O. tom( 4ibe A si o c; cr.te s c144'..1 .•--S an�. . /5- 2,002.. . Sheet Number(s): "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revision including date of revision Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center bv: 0 Entered in Sierra on 08/30/00 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 Revision submittals must be submitted in person at the Permit Center. Revisions will not be accepted through the mail, fax, etc. Date: aoa Plan Check/Permit Number: 1,,� o 0-- 07 7 Response to Incomplete Letter # 0 Response to Correction Letter # [] Revision # after Permit is Issued Project Name: e.A 1 Sf 0 0 e( 0/1 U e r Project Address: /9)) Av 5 Contact Person: C h Y I' S 0/, 1i 1 e jr Phone Number: (POO,;d-t---76i(9 Summary of Revision: Sheet Number(s): "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revision including date of revision Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center bv: Ei Entered in Sierra on 08/30/00 z �w re JU UO cn o (j) 11,1 W I: J 1-. N u_. W O 2 Q. co _a I-- _. z �. I— 0. Z I--: 2 U ' O -' W W. H U. —, .z U =. O ~, Z 1 Gciider Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 -3333 Telephone (425) 883 -0777 Fax (425) 882 -5498 January 15, 2002 Johaus Nalewajek c/o Christopher Olivier 741 S Elmgrove Street Seattle, Washington 98108 ATTENTION: Mr. Johaus Nalewajek RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY MACADAM ROAD SOUTH RESIDENTIAL PLAT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Nalewajek: Golder Associates Our ref: 023 - 1014.000 RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2002 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical engineering study for your Macadam Road South Property in Tukwila, Washington. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal to you dated January 2, 2001 and represents a review and updating of our earlier report titled "Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, Macadam Road South Property, Tukwila" dated May 20, 1999. We understand that you have obtained permission from Mr. Larry Howe, our client, for us to use the 1999 report. This report is based on the proposed Plat Plan by Jaeger Engineering dated 11/30/01. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the subsurface conditions particularly as related to the thick existing fills and develop preliminary geotechnical recommendations for proposed site development and construction. Thick fills extending to depths in excess of 15 feet underlie the site. The conservative design approach would be to place all foundations below the fills into the native soils. This would require piles or extensive fill excavations. Alternatively, it is also feasible to place the foundations on the existing fills provided some settlement risks are acceptable and the ground modification recommendations below are implemented. To minimize uncertainties and assist in making a decision about foundation design, we recommend that additional subsurface information be obtained for specific structures as discussed in Section 7. 1. SITE CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The site consists of approximately 1 -% acres, which is roughly rectangular in shape and is located between Interstate 5 and Macadam Road in Tukwila, Washington as shown on Figure 2. Figure 1 was prepared from an older site plan that used a different datum than January 15, 2002 2 023 -1014 the newer plan prepared by Jaeger. The elevations shown on the Jeager plan appear to be about 140 feet less than the elevations shown on Figure 1. The site has a relatively level portion adjacent to Macadam Road that extends to about the' Top of Fill" line shown on Figure 2 at about elevation 330 to 340 feet. From the top of fill, the surface slopes downward at about 3H:1V to 4H:1V to a small small at about elevation 305 to 310 adjacent to I -5. We observed evidence of a shallow slope failure in the fill as discussed below in Section 4. Currently the level portion of the site is mainly open with tall grasses and small brush. The sloping portion is covered with brush and small trees. We understand over the years that filling and some subsequent excavation of fill has occurred over the years at least three times. This appears to induded fill placed prior to 1986, fill placed between 1986 and 1990, and some regrading of the fill after 1990. We reviewed plans developed by Arnett and Associates dated 1990 showing general site layout, lot subdivisions, a proposed subsurface cut -off drain, and a proposed surface drainage system. We understand that the subdrain and surface drainage system were installed. Based on the d on the Jaeger Engineering 11/30/01 plan, the site will be divided into seven lots fronting along Macadam Road as shown approximately on Figure 2. The three houses located on sloping ground will include a daylight basement. Some limited filling and cutting will be required to construct the houses and grade the final lots. 2. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS We explored the subsurface conditions by excavating a total of six test pits in early April 1999. The test pits extended to depths of 10 to 15 feet and were located in the areas of the proposed houses as shown on Figure 2. The shallower test pits were terminated above the full reach of the backhoe due to heavy caving. The logs of the test pits are included in Appendix A. The test pits were located by geologist from our firm by pacing from known field locations. Thus the locations shown on Figure 2 should be considered approximate. The geologist logged the soil and groundwater conditions and recorded pertinent information including depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence. The stratification depths indicated on the summary logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil and groundwater conditions were those recorded at the time of the exploration and may not necessarily represent those at other times and locations. The test pit backfill was tamped in place with the backhoe bucket; however, some settlement over the test pits should be expected. 3. SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS None of the test pits penetrated through the fill that extended to depths of 10 to 15 feet. The fill encountered was variable but consisted primarily of a fine to coarse sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel. Some of the tests encountered minor organics and 1 January 15, 2002 3 023 -1014 building debris in the fill including bricks, chucks of asphalt, pieces of concrete, pipe, etc. The upper 4 to 8 feet were generally compact to dense with the deeper fills loose to compact. The upper compact to dense fill layer may represent the newer fill and the underlying loose to compact fill the older fill. Based on an interpretation of the available data, we have estimated the thickness of the Q existing fill under the site. This data includes topographic plans from 1986 and today and I-- iz the test pit results. The 1986 topography implies that fill had been placed in the central re m art of the site prior to the major filling after 1986. In general, it appears that over the years v v0 fill was placed on a sloping site to create a relatively level bench next to Macadam Road. 0 o The data implies a fill thickness of about 4 to 8 feet along Macadam Road to a maximum of w = about 24 feet near the break in slope some 60 to 120 feet from Macadam Road. The fill _i (- thickness thins out essentially zero at the eastern property line next to the Creek. w O 2 Moderate seepage was observed in all of the test pits except TP -1 that was dry. The g Q depth of the seepage ranged from about 3 to 13 feet with most of the pits indicating a N seepage zone at a depth of about 8 feet. Since these seepage zones were within the fill, it 1" W is unlikely that they represent the regional groundwater table. It is more likely that z seepage zones represent perched water occurring in more permeable zones within the z O fill. w • w U C O -: O I-- w w. u' O. w z —• 1 O ~ 4. SLOPE CONDITIONS As discussed in Section 1, we observed evidence of a shallow slump feature or scarp in the fill both in April 1999 and in January 2002. The slump appears to extend across most of the site starting at the top of fill slope as a small one to two foot high scarp and extending dowrislope. We believe that the scarp likely occurred during the first wet season after the fill was placed and involved only the upper 2 to 4 feet of material. There was no evidence of recent slope movement. In general the slopes appear stable however there could be additional minor slouging of the steeper slopes particularly around the scarp feature. 5. LIQUEFACTION RISKS In our opinion, liquefaction risks are low and within the generally accepted levels for these types of projects. Although the existing fills are locally loose and granular, the continuous groundwater table likely occurs at or below the contact with the underlying native soils. Thus the fills are not considered liquefiable. Based on published geologic maps, the site lies outside of the Duwamish valley and any liquefaction hazard areas. The lower portions of the site near the creek may be underlain by a thin zone of loose soils. However even if these soils are liquefaction prone, they are outside the limits of the proposed structures and could only impact back yards. z January 15, 2002 4 023 -1014 The scarp feature across the western portion of the site was observed in 1999 and is not considered to have been impacted by the 2001 Nisqually earthquake. 6. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Thick fills extending to depths in excess of 20 feet underlie the site. Within the footprint of the proposed houses, the fill thickness likely ranges from 10 to 20 feet. The conservative design approach would be to place all foundations below the fills into the native soils. This would require piles or extensive fill excavations. Alternatively, it is also feasible to place the foundations on the existing fills provided some settlement risks are acceptable and the ground modification recommendations below are implemented. With fill depths exceeding 20 feet, fill excavation is considered uneconomical. The conservative design would involve the use of a pile foundation with the piles founded in native soils below the fills. Several pile types are considered feasible including pin piles, driven wood piles, and auger cast piles. Additional information including borings drilled into the native soils would be required to design the piles. At this time, we feel that auger cast piles would likely be the most economical due to the potential problems of driving the wood and pin piles through the fill into the native soils. A less conservative but more economical design would involve the use of normal spread footings placed on stabilized fill. The fill stabilization should include: • SURCHARGE: A surcharge should be placed over the building areas consisting of placing fill to an elevation of three feet above the final slab elevation for a period of at least two weeks. If the houses are designed with daylight basements, the existing grades may already be in excess of three feet above final grade and no actual surcharge fill need be placed. • PARTIAL FILL EXCAVATION: The entire house footprint should be excavated to a depth of at least two feet below the bottom of the footings. • PROOF - ROLLING AND COMPACTION: With the subgrade at a depth of at least two feet below the bottom of the footings, the entire building area should be proof rolled with a fully loaded dump truck and then compacted with a heavy vibratory compactor. The intent of the proof- rolling is to identify any soft areas in the fill, which would be over - excavated, and backfilled with compacted fills. The intent of the vibratory compactor will be to densify the soils and obtain 95 percent Modified Proctor Compaction within at least the upper 18- inches. • PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL: After completion of the proof - rolling and compaction, a layer of two feet of structural fill should be placed and compacted to a minimum dry density of 95 percent of Modified Proctor Compaction. Provided the debris is removed and suitable compaction can be obtained, the excavated soils can be used. Based on implementation of the above recommendations, the houses could be placed on normal spread footings with slab on grade. The footings could be designed for a siavry tm Amme- a ..,..n»....- .- .wT..K «.u.,...,.. .r�..,�.. tr.. r.. e.t.�iH7.x,Y:t•.'��nti. ^•.•v;:.tr , January 15, 2002 5 023 -1014 maximum bearing pressure of 2 ksf. These foundations should perform well with minimum long -term settlements less than one inch. However there are some uncertainties related to the possible occurrence of very loose deep fills or fills with extensive debris underlying the houses. This might occur if some of the lots are underlain by a deep filled gully. These types of conditions could result in long -term settlements exceeding one inch or sudden settlements during a major seismic event or ground saturation event (broken water line, clogged downspout drains, etc). Although these risks are considered small, the shallow foundation option is less conservative than the pile foundation option. 7. OTHER PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS In general, the site can be developed using conventional design and construction procedures except for the foundations as discussed above and the following: • SLOPE SET BACK: We recommend that the footings on the eastern side be located so that an imaginary line drawn downward from the bottom of the footing at a slope of 3H: 1V does not intercept the ground surface. In addition, the footing should be set back a horizontal distance of at least 10 feet from any slope exceeding 4H:1V. In general, provided the houses are constructed as daylight basements, these criteria should be easily met. On a case -by -case basis, these criteria may be relaxed to allow the houses to be situated on the lots. However, relaxation may require implementation of some other criteria. • SURFACE DRAINAGE: Surface drainage should be controlled to minimize runoff down the slope. This would include collection of downspout discharge and runoff from the Macadam road, driveways, and front yards. Under no circumstances should any runoff including downspouts be infiltrated into the ground through "dry wells" or perforated infiltration pipes. • SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE: Wall and footing drains should be designed for any below grade sections of the houses such as the below grade daylight basements. • EARTHWORK SCHEDULE: To the extent possible, the recommended ground modification required for using spread footings be completed during the drier periods of the year. Performing this work during the wet periods of the year will be more difficult and result in higher costs. 8. ADDITIONAL WORK AND USE OF THIS REPORT To minimize uncertainties, finalize design criteria and provide information for the contractor, we recommend that additional subsurface information be obtained. This information should include: • GROUND STABILIZATION AND SPREAD FOOTING OPTION: If ground stabilization and spread footings are selected, the intent of additional work would be to better define the nature of the fills, the likelihood that the fills could contain significant unsuitable materials and help determine the depth of over - excavation. This would likely involve one to two test pies at each house location. Y�+ffigi 4•v�w..«. ................�.... _ _ .. ,,.,..... ...:...:,.•...,.:,.- :,.fii -xWr.. �s�w4,, +w�,..��....., January 15, 2002 6 023 -1014 • PILES: If piles are planned, we recommend borings to determine the depth to and nature of the pile - bearing stratum. Two to three borings for all seven lots should be adequate. We recommend that a specific geotechnical assessment with final design recommendations be made of each house foundation and drainage design. This could be done as one report if spec houses are to be built or as separate reports if custom houses are built. Once the site project plans are finalized, we recommend that we be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications to verify that they are in accordance with our recommendations. This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of Johaus Nalewajek and his consultants for specific application to this project. The integrity and performance of the foundation system depends greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. The explorations and engineering analyses were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the borings and variations with in the groundwater conditions with time. We recommend that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the construction schedule and budget. Sincerely, GfJLDL R ASSOCIATES INC. Robert L. Plum, PE Principal RLP /ms 0115r1p1 z Z 0; .0 `U O 'w.0• W.= N ti'. W O: LL Q' • F- W Z 10 wi • W H V .0 • :O • 'Z PROJECT NO. 993 1457 DRAWING NO. 82251 DATE 4/12/99 DRAWN BY EA FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP HOWE/MACADAM/WA Golder Associates z =H + W IY u. aa JU UO U �. J= H WO g Q. - d = W z�. H O z ui W 2• p U O - W W I- H U. ..z W U O z 305 -_ 3'55 310 1• ~ ~ z 305 _ -• - -1 1 ~•'-. i, -- •- 3 .'' / '- 975. 1 • ''•, / / / - �-• - � 310 �/ / 310 { / .. �/ // ~ ^....._ . 11 // 1 1 I / i / .... ti 1 1 \ / 320 iILL. / // ��' ����� / \ L 'L,_ =^ `." : =• 325 320 - 1 \ 7___ �-t II i / / /- - --..._�, ��. 325 --- -• -.. - F. / / v ,, 1 I. . ., / _ . 330 - ~ L/ `.A Yom' 0 80 sumirossor FEET 330 - 335 —340 FIOURE 2 SITE EXPLORATEIO�N 1 INEIACT N0. 993 t "57 DRAWING 140. X252 DATE 5.109) PRAWN BY FA Golder Associates Z I-W UO LIJ LU WO u-<. ID a �W Z= O Z~ W. . .W W • H V u^O Z. U =' Z Z < • Lu ce 2 P.,' _I ,-- 0 %., I- . 0 MI . 2 It? ters to te 5 ; Z I--, . D ........______-.............-_--- ---....---.... .....____--... ._____.---. .....i. Z : W cl , -±- ni F- -. m; --........_ -..........,. 1 ii 1 ; z ill w. .2 D. ) . .I,1 II 1 i Ii 1I ll 4 1 I 4 , I t l C ii• i 1 I i I lit . I I I • 1 , • • , / 4 , . / , \ \ % t 1 I l 1 1i. ■ f % 1 ..4- ...... -., ,....— ... iIiII1 I1 1 I1 t 1 t I tt i1tI i I I t tI I i 1 i 11 1 l 1 I I i I 1 1 1 N. . ' . 1. .'0 1 1 • . cw i ' 1IL — :(F— ,%I;.- .-) i -) "• , u—Iw 0- 10 t _ . E t 111 t ! t Lot 1 I Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 ? z—cr -1-- oy Creek t a t • oad S* d a 111 = 4,) "•••,'" • •••••-• APPENDIX A Q• re J0: UO.' U0: . ,U w J H t W Os • •fn D; =(2 • 2i• • Z1—; I- 0• Z !—;. Ds U0 W W'. ILO, 111 Z: • U U! Z Temp. 45° Weather Partly cloudy Equipment Cat 416C Extendahoe Location E West end between lots 6 and 7 — 0 — 5 FIELD TEST PIT LOG Engineer T. Sager Operator Dean Test Pit TP 1 Contractor Owner Date 416199 Elevation -340' Datum MSL Job 9931457 0 10 —1 — 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 15 20 W Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes :.:..•.,..` _4: 44++++(++.+ ° - °' : ° °' - -' ° -° - °,., -• -•- -;; Depth to W/L Samples No Depth 0930 1 2 -10' -O 0945 12' Q 0.5 -10.0 Compact to dense, mottled, light olive gray and Tight olive brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine to coarse subrounded gravel. moist (TILUFILL) Special Notes 10.0 -12.0 Compact, Tight olive brown, fine to coarse SAND, little No caving, no seepage observed 'r; "• i alt. ?: {:•' ':i:� TOPSOIUBASAL FILL) • 1 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0 -0.5 Sod 0930 0 NA -O 0945 12' Q 0.5 -10.0 Compact to dense, mottled, light olive gray and Tight olive brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine to coarse subrounded gravel. moist (TILUFILL) Special Notes 10.0 -12.0 Compact, Tight olive brown, fine to coarse SAND, little No caving, no seepage observed boulders, trace gravel, trace wood debris (REMNANT TOPSOIUBASAL FILL) re Eq L gi UCd.I�CS FIELD TEST PIT LOG ip 50° Weather Partly cloudy Engineer T. Sager Operator Dean Test Pit TP 2 uipment Cat 416C Extendahoe Contractor Owner Date 418199 ration West end between lots 4 and 5 Elevation `340' Datum MSL Job 993 1457 W E 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 10 15 20 — 0 — 10 — 15 ; ;i :i :: :: :: ::+::: tt :It S:.•y ;.*: ;:k .4..•k:•: ::. 1::•!•: •:! Samples No Depth 1 1 -2' 2 7 -10' — 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0 0 -0.5 Sod 1000 0 9.5' 1015 10' 0 0.5 -3.0 Compact, mottled, light olive gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine to coarse subrounded gravel, trace concrete. asphalt and misc. debris. moist (FILL) Special Notes 0 3.0 -10.0 Loose to compact, mottled, dark gray and dark brown. Moderate caving throughout full depth of the test pit fine to coarse SAND, little silt, little concrete, pipe -and asphalt debris. little organics as decomposed1 vigs ` Heavy seepage below -9.5' and grass. trace brick fragments, moist to wet (FILL) Debris were up to 18' x 12' x 4' Couldn't see much below 10' due to groundwater so test pit was terminated �sty+auemn wx nw anm . .. „mu, � .-., x H.xn°_<vrwawa:r ✓? SCR!,q tr,.77r G!'VdCw9i°t7y:tr rwIrat4 emp Golder Associates 50° Weather Partly cloudy Equipment Cat 416C Extendahoe FIELD TEST PIT LOG Engineer T. Sager Operator Doan Test Pit TP 3 Contractor Owner Date 4/8/99 _ocation East end between lots 4 and 5 Elevation _340' Datum MSL Job 993 1457 '-0 — 5 1 0 —'10 —1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 15 20 , • ..:: +. ❖: • : � 1; :: � ; . : :: � :4 ..,.,,,,...... .................... �S 4:. ; . ❖. • : ::... . i,.. :: •:4.4.;: ;. ;. * * , i . ......................... Time Depth of Hole Samples No Depth 1 0.5-4' 2 5 -8' 1030 13.5' 2.5' Perched 13' 02 0.5 -4.0 Compact, mottled, light olive gray and light olive brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel, trace cobbles, trace asphalt, moist {FILL) Special Notes •'ci:i ''" ::i:: • iid Seepage noted at 2.5' and 13' ,trace qra el, trace cobbles, trace asphalt, moist to wet (FILL) Moderate caving in the upper half of the test pit :ly�riyY�'L'h: MCA.K Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0 -0.5 Sod 1030 13.5' 2.5' Perched 13' 02 0.5 -4.0 Compact, mottled, light olive gray and light olive brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, trace gravel, trace cobbles, trace asphalt, moist {FILL) Special Notes V 4.0 -13.0 D"erse1compact, dark gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, Seepage noted at 2.5' and 13' ,trace qra el, trace cobbles, trace asphalt, moist to wet (FILL) Moderate caving in the upper half of the test pit Fill was less dense in wet portion below 9' :ly�riyY�'L'h: MCA.K Temp. Golder Associates 50° Weather Partly cloudy Equipment Cat 416C Extendahoe FIELD TEST PIT LOG Engineer T. Sager Operator Dean Test Pit TP 4 Contractor Owner Date 4/8/99 Location West end between lots 2 and 3 Elevation -340' Datum MSL Job 993 1457 E —0 —5 1 1 0 —10 15 —2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 .15 20 W wonteNt Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L Samples :fit..::' ::`: ::i No Depth 1155 1 0.5 -7' 2 7-15 15' 13' 0 0.5 -7.0 Dense, mottled, light olive gray and light olive brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine to coarse gravel, trace cobble -sized concrete. trace asphalt. moist (FILL) Special Notes L/ 7.0 -15.0 Loose, dark gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine Moderate to heavy caving below 7' to coarse gravel, trace cobble - sized' concrete, trace asphalt. trace organics as woody debris wet Moderate seepage below 13' _ wonteNt Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0 -0.5 Sod 1155 0 1240 15' 13' 0 0.5 -7.0 Dense, mottled, light olive gray and light olive brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine to coarse gravel, trace cobble -sized concrete. trace asphalt. moist (FILL) Special Notes L/ 7.0 -15.0 Loose, dark gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine Moderate to heavy caving below 7' to coarse gravel, trace cobble - sized' concrete, trace asphalt. trace organics as woody debris wet Moderate seepage below 13' _ wonteNt Golder Associates Temp. 50° Weather Partly cloudy Equipment Cat 416C Extendahoe FIELD TEST PIT LOG Engineer T. Sager Operator Dean Tost Pit TP 5 Contractor Owner Date 4/8/99 Location East end between lots 2 and 3 Elevation -340' Datum MSL Job 993 1457 E 0 —5 0 —10 —1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 15 20 k:i•itt.k.1.1-1 :i:i:g.gttf4..k.:■:::-:4::i4k4:4::::::: 1 Depth of Hole Samples No Depth 0-0.5 Sod . 1 0.5-8' 2 8-14' 14' 8' ® 0.5-8.0 Dense, mottled, light olive gray and light olive brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace asphalt. trace woody debris. moist (FILL) Special Notes . . ; .. Moderate caving at 8' and below to coag•ettpvet, trace asphalt, trace woody debris, wet(FILL) Water seepage at 8' (-3 gpm) • . . Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0-0.5 Sod . 1300 0 _CI 1315 14' 8' ® 0.5-8.0 Dense, mottled, light olive gray and light olive brown, silty fine to coarse SAND, trace fine to coarse gravel, trace asphalt. trace woody debris. moist (FILL) Special Notes 1J 8.0-14.0 Loose dark gray, silty fine to coarse SAND. trace fine Moderate caving at 8' and below to coag•ettpvet, trace asphalt, trace woody debris, wet(FILL) Water seepage at 8' (-3 gpm) *MMIM.IS 7fA np. Golder Associates 50° Weather Partly cloudy uipment Cat 416C Extendahoe FIELD TEST PIT LOG Engineer T. Sager Operator Dean Test Pit TP 6 Contractor Owner Date 4/8/99 ration North end of site north of lot 2 Elevation -340' Datum MSL Job 993 1457 N — 0 —5 0 10 — 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 10 15 . 20 S :; :.. + •* + +,.o : : :4: %4'•: : ■.. :. :••.. Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Samples Depth to W/L ` No Depth 1 0.5 -3' 0 -0.5 2 3 -13' 0 1345 13' T 0 0.5 -3.0 Compact to dense, light olive gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine to coarse gravel, trace asphalt, trace `c l� ' woody debris. moist (FILL) Special Notes -0 3.0 -13.0 Loose -dargray, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine Water seepage on south end of TP at depth of 7' to coarse gravel, trace asphalt, trace woody debris, 1 wof (FILLL Moderate caving at 3' ��c Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 33 0 -0.5 Sod 1320 0 1345 13' T 0 0.5 -3.0 Compact to dense, light olive gray, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine to coarse gravel, trace asphalt, trace woody debris. moist (FILL) Special Notes -0 3.0 -13.0 Loose -dargray, silty fine to coarse SAND, little fine Water seepage on south end of TP at depth of 7' to coarse gravel, trace asphalt, trace woody debris, wof (FILLL Moderate caving at 3' ��c City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director Christopher Olivier 3805 S. 150 Street Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: L2000 -077 Dear Mr. Olivier, Thank you for your submittal of 12/4/2001. The Public Works Department has reviewed it and I have attached Dave McPherson's comments. It appears that additional work is needed regarding the geotechnical evaluation of the site and the storm drainage plan prior to issuance of the SEPA determination. As a reminder a sight distance study and street lighting plan will be required with your miscellaneous permit submittal for construction of the frontal improvements. If you have any additional questions or comments, please call me at (206) 431 -3670. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner Enclosure CC: Dave McPherson, Public Works C:Wora's Files \LETTERS \Olivier1 -8.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 -431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 z • Z. w oo cnw. w =. J H • w O. I- z •I- o` • zi-. U oDi. ww O • z `~O Z• MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. - David McPherson, Associate Engineer DATE: January 4, 2002 �w tr 2 U: o Q, co cA w SUBJECT: Nalewajek — 7 Lot Short Plat � F: 13900 — 48`h Ave. South (Macadam Rd. South) w 0 Short Plat Comments 2 gQ =a ▪ w Z 1.— 1— 1— uj O N' w 2. The most recent storm drainage plan and drainage report, have been reviewed by t=-- Ryan Larson, P.E., Senior Surface Water Management Engineer. The storm drainage O; z system is not adequate as proposed. The Engineer may contact the Public Works w co Department, and arrange a meeting with Ryan, me, and John Howat, Superintendent F.':' of Sewer & Surface Water. z Short Plat - L2000 -077 1. Geotechnical issues have not been resolved. for this project. The primary report by Golder Associates Inc., dated May 20, 1999, was peer reviewed by Shannon & Wilson, Inc.. Shannon & Wilson's letter of August 16, 2001, concluded that further geotechnical studies are required. The cost of all additional and required geotechnical peer review, shall be at owner's expense. 3. The documents provided to the Public Works Department in December, 2001, relating to previous grading, drainage, and erosion control measures for this site, do not mitigate the requirement for additional geotechnical studies. • October 19, 2001 Mr. Ch- :stochcr Olivier for lohu'Naleajek 3805 S. 150'" w• Street Tukwila, WA 981SS Subject: Naletvajek -- 7 Lot Shon Plat Site Address -1 900 Macadam Rd., Tulovila L2000-077 E2000-032 Geotcchnical Peer Review Dear tvfr. Olivier: PS, i7 J• f Enclosed is the final b {tiling information: m Shannon & Inc., telard!n? their geotecmnical plan review, for the Na,!ewajek — 7 Lot Short Plat p :oject_ The lump sum amount for their servlcts is S2.000.00.. Please make a check, in the amount of S ?,00C`.00, payable to City Of Tukwila (budget account # 000.1:.532.200.41.00) and mail to: Mr. David McPherson Public Works Department City Of Tukwila 6300 Sout'neanter Blvd-, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Thank you. for your prompt attention and assistance.' If you have any questions, please call me at (2i)6) 433 -0179. Since :ely, David H. McPherson Associate Engineer Public Works Department DHM'ad Enclosure: Shannon R 'Wilson, Inc. — coy of invoice City of Tukwila— copy of r c ase order cc: Gail Labanara. Public Works Analys: tie velop:ncnt File v r Z i Z . 00 tno U) =. J 1— U) LL w 0, ?; w I— Z= I— z I- LLJ U P 0 I-- w w' _z U CO ` 0 1— O z ® SHANNON iWILSON, INC. wow GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS August 16, 2001 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW, NALEWAJEK- 7 LOT SHORT PLAT, 13900 MACADAM ROAD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: SEAT LE RICAN. AND FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE: DENVER SAIL; i LOUT BUST ON This letter presents the results of our review of a geotechnical engineering report for the proposed Nalewajek Short Plat project. The project will consist of residential development of a 7 -lot parcel located along the east side of Macadam Road approximately 1,600 feet north of the intersection of South 144th Street with Macadam Road in Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our work is to offer an opinion as to the appropriateness and adequacy of the geotechnical engineering report submitted with the permit application. A preliminary geotechnical report for this project was prepared by Golder Associates, Inc. and dated May 20, 1999. The report presents the results of six test pit explorations and geotechnical recommendations for site development. The test pit explorations extended to depths of 10 to 15 feet and encountered fill materials consisting of dense to loose sands, with variable amounts of gravel, silt, and other debris. As noted in the preliminary geotechnical report, the subsurface explorations did not extend deep enough to ascertain the thickness of the fill and the depth to native soils that would be competent for foundation bearing. The report provided a brief description of evidence of a past landslide, but did not show the location of the slide on the Site Exploration Plan. Detailed slope stability analyses were not performed. The report provided preliminary site development recommendations including potential ways to mitigate foundation settlement risks through fill stabilization. Based on our review of the Golder Associates report and our observations of current site conditions, it is our opinion that the preliminary report is acceptable as a preliminary design document; however, it does not meet generally accepted geotechnical principles and practices for 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 21 -1- 09472 -001 Mr. David McPherson City of Tukwila Public Works Dept. August 16, 2001 Page 2 SHANNON &WILSON. INC. geotechnical reports that are to be used as a basis for final design and construction. The primary reasons that the report should not be used as a basis for final design and construction are: 1. Subsurface explorations did not determine the total thickness, engineering properties, and settlement potential of the fill underlying the site. 2. The presence of potentially liquefiable soils beneath the property has not been addressed. 3. The presence of potentially hazardous materials in the fill has not been addressed. 4. The stability of the slopes along the eastern portion of the building lots 2 through 7, and the northern side of building lot 1, have not been adequately evaluated. 5. The preliminary report is not stamped by a licensed, professional geotechnical engineer. The presence of an existing mappable landslide deposit along the eastern slope of the property qualifies these building lots as Class 4 areas according to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) 18.45.010.E, requiring detailed slope stability analysis (TMC 18.45.080.E.4). Proposed houses on Lots 6 and 7 extend across the known slide scarp and into the landslide zone. With regard to the proposed public detention tank or vault on Lot 1, we recommend that subsurface explorations be performed at the tank/vault location to determine the soil and slope stability conditions. The dimensions of the proposed vault were not provided; however, it appears likely that some deep excavation will be required adjacent to the proposed residence. The information from subsurface explorations at the vault location, and other locations, should be used by the geotechnical engineer of record to prepare recommendations for excavation slopes and shoring if necessary. SUMMARY The presence of recent and older fills on the property with variable composition and currently unknown thickness represents a potential hazard or risk for the proposed residential development. We agree with the Golder Associates recommendation for additional subsurface exploration. In our opinion, the preliminary geotechnical report prepared for this project does not meet the generally accepted standards of practice in this area for preparation of final 21 -1- 09472 -001 .L1 /WP /LKD 21 -1- 09472 -001 Mr. David McPherson City of Tukwila Public Works Dept. August 16, 2001 Page 3 SHANNON WWILSON, INC. geotechnical reports. The geotechnical engineer for this project should review the current plans, perform additional subsurface explorations to sufficient depths, perform additional engineering analyses, and provide a supplementary geotechnical report that meets the minimum standards of the Tukwila Municipal Code section 18.45.080.E. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, I am available at (206) 695 -6875. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. EXPIRES 4/21/ oz Martin W. Page, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:SRB /mwp 21 -1- 09472- 001.L1 /wP /LKD 21 -1- 09472 -001 • "=111 SHANNON &WILSON, iNC• Iiir GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS June 26, 2001 Mr. Dave McPherson, Associate Engineer City of Tukwila Public Works Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 -2544 RE: GEOTECHNICAL PEER REVIEW, NALEWAJEK - OLIVIER PLAT, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. McPherson: SEATTLE RICHLAND FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE DENVER SAINT LOUIS BOSTON This letter confirms your request for Shannon & Wilson, Inc. to conduct a peer review of a geotechnical engineering report for proposed construction of Nalewajek- Olivier Plat, 138XX Macadam Road South, Tukwila, Washington. The purpose of our work will be to offer an opinion of the appropriateness and adequacy of the geotechnical engineering report that has been prepared by others. Our fee and the terms under which our services are offered will be in accordance with the attached Agreement for Professional Services and on a lump sum basis. Our charges will be $2,000, which includes a site visit, review of City of Tukwila - provided documents, review of the geotechnical report that has been prepared for this project, and a written summary of our opinions. The findings and geotechnical conclusions will be limited to and based on our visual observations, our experience at nearby properties, and information provided by the City of Tukwila at this time. Invoices for payment will be submitted to you as our client. Please sign in the space provided and return a copy of this letter, which will then serve as an agreement between us. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. Martin W. Page, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer MWP:SRB /mwp Enclosure: Agreement for Professional Services, LS -01 (1/2001) 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.695.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 21 -2- 02001 -226 z z Cew �U. UO moo: W J I-.. LL w° g J. w= ED- 111 Z �. �0 Z �- w uj • of O N W w` H U' A .z -. O t✓' z City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor June 7,.2001 Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director z • 1F- z ce w 6 -I U 00 CO CI Christopher Olivier for John Nalewajek w 3805 S. 150'x' Street N Tukwila, Washington 98188 w 0 g Q. (o �w 2 Z �. I— O` Z I— O N w w I—U. u_F-: O .. Z • Peer review of the geotechnical report is required per the City of Tukwila codes U N, 18.45.080.E and 21.04.140.A. The applicant is required, and has agreed verbally, to 1' bear cost of peer review and geotechnical reports and studies. Until this time, the Z following additional comments apply to the short plat application submittal: Re: Nalewajek Short Plat, File Number L2000 -077 Nalewajek SEPA, File Number E2000 -032 Dear Chris Olivier: The short plat permit application and SEPA Checklist submitted to the City of Tukwila has been reviewed. The following comments have been made to the short plat application file number L2000 -077. I will revise comments to the SEPA Checklist prior to final approval and determination. Public Works Department Comments • Combine the driveways. This is a required common driveway. Show the easements for these driveways. • Storm drainage system needs to be redesigned to include detention and water quality treatment of the public roadway drainage system before it can be discharged to the WASHDOT system. • Show utilities, both existing and proposed, in the street cross. • Provide the following notes on the short plat site plan: a. The plan shall comply with the geotechnical Engineering Report, by Golder and Associates, dated May 29, 1999, and subsequent geotechnical reports. b. No runoff shall be infiltrated, including downspouts, into the ground through dry wells nor perforated infiltration pipes or trenches. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Letter to Christopher Olivier/ on behalf of John Nalewajek Nalewajek Short Plat,•File Number L2000 -077 Nalewajek SEPA Checklist. File Number E2000 -032 Page 2 c. Individual house foundation and drain system shall provide a specific geotechnical assessment with final design recommendations. Information Items: Prior to approval of a building permit, the following items will be required: a. WASHDOT approval is required to discharge storm drainage water within the right of way. b. You will need to obtain a preliminary plat approval and then a miscellaneous permit to install all common infrastructures. c. The 8 inch water pipe is in conflict with the roadway drainage system. Coordinate Water District #125 plan with the civil engineering site plan and roadway plan. It will need to be removed. The 4 foot waterline within the street is also in conflict. Correct the site plan to avoid these conflicts. d. Provide a cross drainage agreement between lots. e. Show location of wetland drain on the civil plan. • A street lighting plan will be required. • A sight distance study will be required. Fire Department Comments • A second fire hydrant will be required. Lot 6 and Lot 7 do not meet the 150 foot travel distance required for fire hydrants. Please review and respond to the comments on your project. Attach a revision Submittal Form. A copy of this form is enclosed with this letter for your convenience. Sincerely, Alexa Berlow Associate Planner Attachment CC: David McPherson, Associate Engineer, Public Works Department Steve Kohler, Lt. /Fire Prevention Officer, Fire Department z H Z, tares: J0. .00. N cnw J I— w 0 • Q. • a: I=- _': z�.. I- O'. w~ .0 .O H. . w w.. 2 u_ O: w Z U O ~. z MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Alexa Berlow, Associate Planner zQ FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson w 0 DATE: January 23, 2001 (.) 0: CO w, SUBJECT: Nalewajek Short Plat 13900 — 48th Ave. South - w w 0. SEPA, Short Plat and Misc. Comments 2 J SEPA — E2000 -032 cn a I-- w. 1. Project to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report, by Golder Associates, z dated May 20,1999 and subsequent geotechnical reports. E— 0 z t— w2 tun 0. The environmental checklist should be revised as follows: F= w w: F- U A. Background - p'. .z. � 10. Building Permit 0 0 Approval from WSDOT to discharge storm drainage within their Right of Way 0 13. Portion of parcel is class 2 and 3 landslide hazard area B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth b. 30% c. See Geotechnical Report d. See Geotechnical Report e. Structural Fill, surcharge, foundation excavation — see Geotechnical Report g. Approximately 20% per storm report by Civil Engineer h. Construction entrance, silt fence, straw bales, and other methods per King County Surface Water Design Manual 2. Air a. Dust during construction and exhaust emissions from construction equipment b. Emissions from traffic on 48`h Ave South (Macadam Rd) c. Dust control note on civil site plan sheet 5. Animals birds — The site will remain partially native and is near native areas. Many common species of birds may be on the site on occasion. mammals — Many common species of rodents and small mammals may be on the site on occasion. 8. Land and Shoreline Use h. The site contains areas of Potential Geologic Instability Class 2, and Class 3 (See Soils Report). There is a watercourse along the East end of the site, which may be classified as Type 3. 14. Transportation d. Addition of approximately 3 feet of asphalt roadway, curb & gutter, and sidewalk. Storm drainage system for roadway drainage. 16. Utilities b. Electricity - Natural Gas - Telephone - Water — Water District # 125 New 8" waterline required along site Sanitary Sewer — Val -Vue Sewer District Short Plat — L2000 -0077 1. Provide note on short plat, to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report, by Golder Associates, dated May 20, 1999 and subsequent geotechnical reports. 2. Provide note on short plat, that no runoff, including downspouts, shall be infiltrated into the ground through "dry wells" or perforated infiltration pipes and trenches. 3. Provide note on short plat, that individual house foundation and drainage system, shall provide a specific geotechnical assessment, with final design recommendations 4. Provide easement and show on short plat, for required common driveways. Informational Comments 1. Coordinate Water District # 125 plan, with civil engineer's site and roadway plan. New 8" water in conflict with roadway drainage system. 2. Abandon or remove existing 4" waterline within street? 3. Proposed storm detention system on steep slope. Verify construction and maintenance access plan and procedures. 4. A cross drainage agreement between lots, will be required. 5. Show utilities, existing & proposed, in the street cross - section. 6. WSDOT approval required, to discharge storm water within their Right -of -Way. 7. Show on civil plan, where the wetlands drain to. 8. Provide street lighting plan. 9. Provide sight distance study. 10. Combine driveways. 11. See geotechnical report — soil stability issues to be resolved, prior to Building Permit. 12. Per the geotechnical report, provide additional subsurface information as needed r Pee 17)2v 6 .:z I I- JU O' D W • W =; i •UJQ. J. Q" • W' Z f.. 4-O.. •Z • U.O ;O N' W W. 1- U • U N• • • O. z City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED: JANUARY 9, 2001 The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: John Nalewajek LOCATION: 13900 48th Avenue South FILE NUMBERS: L2000 -077 (Short Plat, Seven [7] lots) PROPOSAL: Proposal for a seven lot short plat including a wetland stream OTHER REQUIRED LAND USE PERMITS: E2000 -032 SEPA (State Environmental Policy Review) These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431 -3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on January 31, 2001. For information on the date and time of the public hearing, please contact the Department at (206) 431 -3670. If you cannot submit comments in writing by the cutoff date indicated above, you may still appear at the hearing and give your comments on the proposal before the Planning Commission. If you have questions about this proposal contact Alexa Berlow, Planner -in- charge of this file. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision by the Planning Commission on a project or obtain information on your appeal rights by contacting the Department of Community Development at 431 -3670. A decision from the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. DATE OF APPLICATION: NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: NOTICE OF APPLICATION POSTED: November 28, 2000 December 15, 2000 January 10, 2001 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206- 431 -3665 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT' 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 AFFIDAVIT OF I'\ STALLATTO:\ AND POSTING OF PUBLIC rjORVIATIOJ SIGH (S) State of Washington County of King City of Tukwila 1 CHOi lt) PH OZ 011 Vtg2(PrintName) understand. that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on :kV? 7 . ZOO / the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicali e guidelines were posted on the property located at /2 90E2 Il i`' live so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number 2, 2 O(20 -- O 7 7 Affiant (Applicant Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me s', 't,, day of lti1 d I s:, • GOMM FxA;90 • OTAq • w l'9 ari I NOTARY ° 'Qttoff& the Late of Washington 9 ,te . oz r l. ?' Z,.o°• O`` 4 1 Sri v , residing at e „ ; ,.. , My commission expu' •'aar• t' _ z • Z: ww 6 O 0. U U . W =. J 1- Ui u_ w0 g • 5 ui = C� w. z �- o. zF-- w Lu • o' U 0 U: O 1—. ww LL• B"" — O. wZ U u) O I- z city of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION December 29, 2000 Chris Olivier for Johan Nalewajek 3805 S. 150th Street Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Nalewajek, Johan Short Plat, Seven (7) Lots Short:Plat L2000- 077;:° SEPA Checklist E2000 -032 Dear Chris Olivier: W. JU 00 CO 0 • W w= 2L. w 0. LL.¢ 0 w. Z• Z �.. I- 0. Z F-- w 0 0 -' C11-' W W 2 U- _ -O Your applications, on behalf of Johan Nalewajek, for approval of a short plat and a State iii z. Environmental Protection Checklist for a seven (7) lot short plat at, 13900 48th Avenue South, U = have been found complete, as of December 15, 2000. .0 Within the next 14 days, you will need to attach a laminated notice form on a notice board. All short plats that propose more than seven (7) lots and that require a SEPA determination require a notice period. For instructions and timelines to install a notice board on the site, please refer to Attachment B - Public Information Signs in the application packet. I will notify you when this laminated form is ready for you to pick up. After the form has been installed, please drop off a signed Affidavit of Posting to show proof that the notice board and proper notices have been installed. You will be responsible for removing the notice board from the site once your application has been approved and finalized, and when all public comment periods have terminated. This determination of Complete Application does not preclude the City to request revisions to your proposal through the formal project review phase that has now commenced. Your application will be routed to appropriate departments for internal review, and any revision comments made back to you within 21 days of this notice. This is to insure that your proposal meets the substantive requirements of the zoning code and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 Nalewajek Johan File NumberL2000 -077 (Short Plat) File Number E2000 -035 (SEPA Checklist) ,votice of Complete Application Page 2 If you have any questions about this notice, or if you wish to speak to me sooner than my next response date, please do not hesitate to contact me as planner -in- charge of your project at (206) 431 -3673. Sincerely, Alexa Berlow Associate Planner cc: Reviewing City Departments City of Tukwila Department of Community Development / 6300 Southcenter BL, Suite 100 / Tukwila, WA 98188 / (206) 431 -3670 MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NON - SIGNIFICANCE (MDNS) File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: E2000 -032 11/28/2000 05/20/2002 ISSUED Proponent: CHRISTOPHER OLIVIER Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: 7 LOT SHORT PLAT ADJACENT TO MACADAM ROAD SOUTH Location of Proposal: Address: 13900 48 AV S TUKW Parcel Number: 1523049072 Section/Township/Range: The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The conditions for this SEPA Determination are amended at the end of this document. This DNS is issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2). The conditions are attached. Comments must be submitted by .) N2 The lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. For a copy of the appeal procedures, contact the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. wl� Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 AAA-1 2.0 .L , Date Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) SEPA Determination Conditions: 1: The recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Design Report by Golder Associates dated March 21, 2002 shall be followed for all site work and house construction. 2: The installation of the auger cast piles for the house foundations shall be monitored by an experienced geotechnical field engineer, preferably from the Golder firm. That engineer must provide a report to the City detailing his /her observations and opinion of the adequacy of the piles prior to the pouring of the house slabs. doc: Miscperm E2000 -032 Printed: 05 -17 -2002 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan a,ci.tukwila.wa.us RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NOV 2 8 2000 (P -SS) PERMIT CENTER APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P-SS Planner: File Number: L aD00 -- 0 77 Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: pre PI q - .0L Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: EaCCO - Qga NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: N AL Evil A 1 E IC - 6L 1 n Ei ruNT LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdiyi4i¢rz, cceilstreetd ne est intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. 13800 -- �zS iuK UPI « faA Quarter: Section: Township: Range: (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: &has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, Qhas full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and Qis the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: CH OA PHCQ 0LiVI► =2. Address: 2 8 0 5 5 i s-n44 i T U l<. W 1 L,v4 ci 8 1 (6°6 Phone: 7 06 2 2 8 7b 9 FAX: 767 2 3 66 Signature: c°1 G:1APPHAN LANDUSE .APPlS1ITPLTPT.DOC.05/15 /00 Date: 1 % % / co RECE IV ' NOV 2 8 2000 COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact the Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived, or should be submitted in a later timely manner for use at the public hearing (e.g., revised colored renderings). Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow starting project review and vesting the applicant's rights. However, they in no way limit the City's ability to require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. Department staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206 -431 -3670. COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST TABLE Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning Information Waived PbWk %Ping Office Use Only Comments & Conditions. APPLICATION FORMS: s/ 1. Application Checklist four (4) copies, indicating items submitted with application. 2. Short Plat Complete Application Packet: four (4) copies of the application form and full size plans and one (1) set of High Quality Photo Reductions of all plans reduced to 81/2 " x 11 ". (See Site Plans). L/ 3. Short Plat Fee $200. eV 4. SEPA Environmental Checklist eight (8) copies and Fee ($325). REQUIRED FOR SHORT PLATS OF 5 -9 LOTS. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: (5 — 9 Lot Short Plats Only) SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS ONLY FOR SHORT PLAT OF 5 TO 9 LOTS OR IF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. 5. King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot. V SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS ONLY FOR SHORT PLAT OF 5 TO 9 LOTS OR IF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. 6. Two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents and businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. (Note: Each unit in multiple- family buildings - -e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks - -must be included) (see Public Notice Materials Section). SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS ONLY FOR SHORT PLAT OF 5 TO 9 LOTS OR IF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. 7. A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Materials Section). SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS ONLY FOR SHORT PLAT OF 5 TO 9 LOTS OR IF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. PROPERTY INFORMATION: 8. Vicinity Map with site location. V 0:4APPHANU.ANDUSE.APPISHTPLTPT. DOC. 06/15/00 z a1- =z w 00 to 0 CO w J1=.. (Ow w0 LL¢ =d 1._ W Z = Zl uj U O O N O I— W w 1- tL O wz U= O 1- z Information Required::: May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning. • Information Waived PbWk /Ping Office Use Only Comments '& Conditions. .: 9. Title Report- -dated within 30 days of application filing which clearly establishes status as legal lot(s) of record, ownership, all known easements and ecumbrances. 10. Lot lines for 300 ft from the sites property lines including right -of -ways. SITE PLANS -- 11. One set of all plans and analyses shall be stamped by a licensed professional surveyor or engineer, as would normally be required in a building permit application, and have an original signature. Additional copies of the signed set may be submittd to satisfy the total number of copies required. Revisions shall satisfy this criteria. V 12. A boundary and topographic survey (2 ft. contours including a minimum 20 ft. beyond the property line) with all above easements, encumbrances and right- of-way width /infrastructure. Elevations shall be City of Tukwila datum (NGV 1929 datum for 100 year flood elevation with equation to City of Tukwila datum). This shall be stamped by the surveyor, and include a surveyor's certificate (sample attached). / v . 13. Location of all sensitive areas (e.g., streams, wetlands, slopes over 20 %, coal mine areas and important geological and archaeological sites.). Provide sensitive area studies as needed per TMC 18.45. Also show trees over 4" caliper in sensitive area or buffers, indicating those to be saved. All proposed sensitive area and tree protection measures shall be shown. /� / �f 14. 100 yr. flood plain boundary and elevation as shown on FEMA maps. 15. Existing property lines to remain and proposed lot lines shall be shown as solid lines. New lines shall be called out. Lines to be removed shall be dashed and called out. j / V 16. Building footprint with changes in elevation, site improvements with sufficient dimensions to be accurately described and located (driveways, firelanes, parking layout, rockeries /retaining walls, fences). , / 17. Fire access lanes and turn - arounds to be per Fire Department standards. V G: APPHAMLANDUSE .APP\SFITPLTPT.DOC, 06/15/00 unusual ~ Inforniation ` ' and '^ -caSes, upon p�'-v--'W'—'----'g ��� - ` ' `� ��� `�'�` ��� .` '!� ��� ' � �' � Waived �P8Wk/P/ng Office Use ` ' � � Comments ~^^~°°~n' �� 18. For sewer and water and fire) and proposed utility easements and improvements, on site and in street. Schematic designs to be provided regardless ofpurveyor (e.g., site line size, location, and size of public main. No capacity calcs, invert depth, vaive locations or the like are needed). y ) 19. Document sewer and water availability ifprovided by other than the City ofTukwila. (./ 20. Storm drainage: -- Proposed schematic desigri for all conveyance systems, water quality features and detention structures per TMC 16.54.060(D) (e.g., detention ponds/vaults, frop-T elbows, coalescing plate separators, and bio-swales). 11 • 21. Storm drainage -- Include a Level One downstream analysis per TMC 15.54.060(D), and a narrative discussion of consistency with the King County Surface Water Drainage Manual's Core and Special Requirements. fi 22. Fire hydrant: -- Locate the nearest existing hydrant and all proposed hydrants (adequate fire flow demonstrated in the "water availability" documentation). / � /� ^~ 23. Schematic road design. ` / � �� 24. King County Health Dept. approval if using septic systems (Min. lot size 15.000 s.f.). 25. Lot Sizes (e.g., 6,jOOof for LDD) and average width of each proposed lot (min jO�.). / � �� 26. For Short Plats of 5 to 9 lots, a Iandscape plan which includes at Ieast one tree in the front yard of each lot & which meets Public Works standards per TMC 17.20.030(G). . � <� 27. For stream frontages: existing and proposed top of stream bank, stream bank toe, stream mean high ob water mark, and base flood elevation (i.e., 100 yr. flood). / � �^' GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT REQUIRED INFORMATION Information.Required.. : :: Response Office Use Only Comments & Conditions.. Total existing lots prior to Short Plat. Total lots in this Short Plat. 7 Total acres involved in the Short Plat. 1,7a Constraints (sensitive area, right retention /detention areas) in acres or sf. of way, V Any preexistiong uses? Overall density (lots /acre). (/ G:\APPHAN\LANDUSE.APP \SHTPLTPT. DOC. 06/15/00 Z Z. re `U O' Np. W =` J 1- N u_ W 0 }r: d' W Z O Z I— U 'O N Ui = U' I- - U.. I- Z L!J — O H,. Z STATE OF WASHINGTON CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 E -mail: tukplan(ci.tukwila.wa.us RECEIVED NOV 2 8 2000 COIVIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees agent , engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at / 39e�/ ' / Cl�,l�teCei17 /2ee? rtfv( )/L for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. The City shall, at its discretion, cancel the application without refund of fees, if the applicant does not respond to specific requests for items on the "Complete Application Checklist" within ninety (90) days. EXECUTED at (city), (state), on , 20 Ck /Z/ 5 bP/-1 2 692- / Ii' /L12- (Print Name) gc9/2 5 S /S Df1' 57 Iviet,9/ LI' x'62 °d' (Address) y (2 ,J % ?r7 76V (Phone Number) (Signature) / On this day personally appeared before me 2 %n Apr 696''6 a r' to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged tha he he signed the same his er voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS c49 L3�_ OF 20 0 0 I'tOTARY"POBLIC in and for the tate of Vashington residing at %(,/ fr , h lG My Commission expires on 0O/9/ fit' R CE ED NOV 2 8 2000 FINAL PLAT DOCUMENTS COMMUNITY DEVEL9P #PN The recording documents submitted for final approval must be on mylar, in record of survey format, meet all of t e mg County recording requirements and contain the following signature blanks, where applicable. SIGNATURES DECLA RATION Know all men by these present that we, the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple of the land herein described do hereby make a short subdivision thereof pursuant to RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said subdivision shall not be further divided in any manner within a period of five years, from date of record, without the filing of a final plat. The undersigned further declare this short plat to be the graphic representation of said short subdivision and the same is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). In witness whereof we have set our hands and seals. Name: (�%% )ylo Name: Name Name (Provide a blank for each owner) STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King On this day personally appeared before me e/,AL/( 6/1VIeA to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. GIVEN under my a o eal this STATE OF WA County of King rA day of AM-et/ate- ,20 O e' . Signatur Name of omm issioned:x Title: fid My appointment slam /n. /2Q � M. � G DON a pires: • �3 . o On this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he /she signed the same as his /her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this Short Plat Number day of ,20 Signature: Name of commissioned: Title: My appointment expires: CITY OF . JKWILA Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 RECENT-7 t'J Q.,,( 2a 2000 Suite 100, l UKWIIa, WA 98188 CoM►MUN1 € `ea'. air'\ 1=1 -v, ;; \! H -11 a Certificate of Water Availability PROJECT #: (Required only (To be completed if outside City of Tukwila water utility district) by applicant) hydrant location and size of main): PART A: Site Address (Attach map and Legal Description showing / 900 c/ fWe 4-tic- S' % //k106/0/94t) %?a2. ;Owner lnformation. , `.. "AgeiitlCamtact�P...erson.. `> . Name: d(fi 4 4ick{totdn, Name: Cl-(/2(3 06((/1)5// ‘' Address: 10 y F . an-c f (anew /yam Address: 3420 S- 5 / j-o /ll 1/— Phone: ( I clog) Ct 3 0 C 00 Phone: -2,1.9 6) 7.-I 2 Z (9 S This certifica a is fo the purposes of: ( ❑ Residential Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat 'ft" Short Subdivision ❑ CommerciaVlndustrial Building Permit ❑ Rezone ❑ Other Estimated number of service connections and meter size(s): 7 Vehicular distance from nearest hydrant to the closest point of structure ft. Area is served by (Water utility district): Owner /Agent Signature: Date: (/17.99 PART B: (To be completed by water utility district) The proposed project is located within 7T-( k_ t,v 4 k--t (City /County) The improvements required to upgrade the water system to bring it into compliance with the utilities' comprehensive plan or to meet the minimum flow requirements of the project before connection: ` t9 ' s -1- -e-� '� "(.vr+�7�£ k vh ... ��-�� c2L1 ALGA, + 1114(..1 1- ;its. /Z ))J Frvn-t or In✓O #'+T 4% /IVs'74 -cc_ /1Gw / 4.4.4 -,af. leOu r +ft,i' (Use separate sheet if more room is needed) 1.70 r /{- Or 4. 4.d Pip Pt c i- 42-5--- 5 27 r Zv IF//t Based upon the improvements listed above, water can be provided and will be avlable at the site with a flow of gpm at 20 psi residual for a duration of 2 hours at a velocity of fps as documented by the 1111-7 attached calculations. I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. /n (G s vtrp Co.. LA} A-- fl iS T 1±12,s-- J Agency /Phone B) - -j7 —yy Date PART C: (To be completed by governing jurisdiction) Water Availability: ❑ Acceptable service can be provided to this project ❑ Acceptable service cannot be provided to this project unless the improvements in item C2 are met. ❑ System isn't capable of providing service to this project. Minimum water system improvements: (At least equal to B2 above) (Use separate sheet if more room is needed) Agency /Phone By WTRAVAIL.DOC 6/5/96 • Date z aI- =z A-- w CC 6 J0 O 0❑ W� U) u_ w 0 LL.a =• d �w z= t— H O zF- O N 0 w W LLO ..z Uw O • ~ z I "WORKING TOWARD A EETTIE,d ENVIROFIMl?FIT" SEWER DISTRICT Yea E C E ` e.. -.+a 14816 Military Road South - P.O. Box 69550 NOV 2 8 2000 Tukwila, WA 98168 Phone: (206) 242 -3236 COi r iai ; ;; j Fax: (206) 242 -1527 DEVEI CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY /NON - AVAILABILITY ci0 Certificate of Sewer Availability OR ❑ Certificate of Sewer Non - Availability Part A: (To Be Completed by Applicant) Purpose of Certificate: ta. Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat or PUD ❑ Other 'i. Short Subdivision ❑ Rezone Proposed Use: IAI Residential Single Family ❑ Residential Multi - Family ❑ Commercial ❑ Other Applicants Name: Phone: )"oh►, Ne, Iewct IP.V. ,u, ..,,,, CCv.+' ci) Property Address or Approximate Location: C h r',J D/jvig.r / 3 + VI' 4- /✓ 4eQaq►-i-i Ro4d Legal Description(Attach Map and Legal Description if necessary): i► L, ag is-,),30,/-90-72. Part B: (To Be Completed by Sewer Agency) :r 1. IA a. Sewer Service will be provided by side sewer connection only to an existing size sewer 0 feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR ❑ b. Sewer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of: ❑ (1) feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site; and /or ❑ (2) the construction of a collection system on the site; and /or ❑ (3) other (describe): 2. (Must be completed if 1.b above is checked) II a. The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan, OR ❑ b. The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3. 51 a. The proposed project is within the corporate limits of the District, or has been granted Boundary Review Board approval for extension of service outside the District of city, OR ❑ b. Annexation or BRB approval will be necessary to provide service. 4. Service is subject to the following: a. District Connection Charges due prior to connection: j W+ ► K, w, v eh GFC: $ s'� /f SFC: $ /c1�0. / %0 7L UNIT: $ TOTAL: $ (Subject to Change on January 1st) King County/METRO Capacity Charge: Currently, $1090 /residential equivalent, will be billed directly by King County after connection to the sewer system. (Subject to change by King Co/Metro without notice.) b. Easements: ❑ Required , a Maybe Fequired c. Other: 5151-(11.5 m . vv f 6 s ., I s 1 of creol► an sre ►- j s - %7- I hereby certify that the above sewer agency information is true. This certification shall be valid for one year from- date of signature By �sJi tip!,i —. Title Vi6/99 Date DEVELOPMENT Name john nalewajek Address 104 P. RAC'. F. ST PH HE HO. : 509 457 3601 Hoy. Or 20101 09:07HI.1 P1 Ippik City, State, ZIP YAKIPMA, WA. 93901 E1720428 11/05/1999 15:02 KING COUNTY, UA TAX $1,248.00 SALE $70,000.00 19991105001718 PAGE 001 OF 00S. KINGS COUNTY , UA PAGE 001 OF 002 753864ARj,-,1(90/33,- As.,r-:ssor'...Tag 1:'at•rN1 CD t Acct. • It 52.304 9Q_72 -O6 _ .. STATUTOrY Warranty DEED THE' GRANTOR LARRY L. HOWE and EVELYN J. HOWE, TRUSTEES OF THE LARRY L. AND EVELYN J. HOWE CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST, U /A /D/ DECEMBER. 30, 1996 for and in consideration of TEN AND NO /100 DOLLARS AND OTHER VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, in hand paid, conveys and warrants to JOHN NALEWAJEK, A SINGLE PERSON, the following described real estate, situated in the County of KING, State of Washington: QEr Gou•-+ 40-t I Q c l s 743-1,1 D.3 to R4. (4‹. See Legal Description attac`l ed hereto a'. marked Exhibit "A" . r , SUBJECT TO: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "B ". FILED FOR RECORD AT rHE REQUEST OF TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE CO. '00 3ONb'1:111SNI 31111 NOIONSNtrj1 • 30 1S3(103.I 3H1 !b OR0038 O03 03113 Dated: ovember 4, 1999 /�"• WE, TRUS 'E> (-F,4,ezde) r EVE; N J. or T\U• OW TEE STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING } ss. On this day personally appeared before me LARRY L. HOWE and EVELYN J. HOWE to me known to be the trustees of the Larry L. and Evelyn 3. Howe Charitable Remainder Trust., U /A /D December 30, 1996 described in :_:.3.14- wha•axorn.4ed_t11l= t.,:ith.Lu.and .f.orep,oir • - - ument.,. 1,1.,-ac:kuuw1edeed .:: that they .signed the saute a eir and. vole, tart' act : and •deed;' 0 7` . •the.;uses. and' purposes th- in mer�ti • GIVEN under my hand al ■,,11 -r-, `�; i';y''� ( Notary 'Ubiii:: -. . nd for th •t.a.te of Washington, • :t,t3_ ,.,, • -.,-J I, --residing at c�;,.,,^r�, fib;, 4 , My appointment i °.-4 M., 70 I DD \ • .11 ivAs1400 _- Form 7176 -i {Rev. 12 -96) Transnation A IANDAAtnt C CeNteArr • TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY FROM : SUN VALLEY DISTRIBUTING, . PHONE NO. : 509 457 3601 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Nov. 08 2000 09:07AM P2 RECENED NOV 2 8 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - . THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT.1.AND.OF -THE STEPiihk FOSTER. DONATION CLAIM INTO 38, ALL IN SECTION 151 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH RANGE 4 EAST, W.M, LYING EASTERLY OF .THE EAST MARGIN OP 48TH • AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE .?D ROAD.NO. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS. 5484211 AND 5537865, AND LYING SOUTHEASTERLY • OF THE SOUTHEAST MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET (ADOLPH BAKER, COUNTY ROAD), AND LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE DISTANT SOUTHERLY 110 FEET, MEASURED.AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTH 138TH 'STREET; ": • SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. . . . • . • TRANSNATION TI UD 10.00 19991105001708 PAGE 002 or 003 11/05/199D •!5:55 KING COUNTY ,\ WA ■ z Z ft L4 6 D' 00 . co co w w LL.. w 0 < w • 1. z 1.- 1— CY z 0 tO 92' 'w 0: z. Oite. • • FROM : SUN VALLEY DISTRIBUTING, SUBJECT TO: PHONE NO. : 509 457 3601 EXHIBIT "B” Nov. 08 2000 09:08AM P3 RECO NOV 2 8 2000 paviivium-rt_ DEv ELOPI\AN RESERVATION OP, EASEMENT AND THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF: • , 'REpERVED IN Joseph Foster and Martha J. Foster Laying and repairing 2 water pipes The description contained therein is not sufficient to determine its exact location within the property herein described 348146 • • • • • • • •• -• PURPOSE: AREA AFFECTED: RECORDING NO.: RELINQUISHMENT OF ALL EASEMENT$ existing, future or potential, for :access, light, view and air, and i all rights of ngress, egress and regress to, from and between the land and the highway or highways to be constructed on land conveyed by deed. To: Dated: Recorded: Recording No.: State of Washington November 30, 1962 Not disclosed 553785. • ' . • . . . ' . . . . . . . . . - • . . 1111111111 19991108002708 PAGE 003 OF 003 TR21/05/2999 15:55 ANSNATION TI WO KING COUNTY, WA 10.00 ■ • , NUU- e4 -1$$ 11•i? H- UM wuKU UJLESS 1 NL Prepared for: TRANSNATION TITLE COMPANY 188 106TH AVE. N.E BELLEVUE, WA 98004 Attn: 3/1 Vanessa TRANSNATION TITLE 14450 N.E. BELLEVUE, INSURANCE ., ¢#660 753864AR iu 9646E694 P.02 ' RECEIVED INSURANCE NOV 2 8 2000 WA 98007 Transnation No. Customer Reference: Escrow No. • Seller HoweTrust Buyer /Borrower . Nalewajek COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2260132 For service onthis or er as : (425) 646 - 8580/1 - 800 -441 -7701 RANDY L RIEMAN, ROBERT L.IVERSON, MARGARET ORMBREK or SUNtEE M.BLACK (FAX # (425) 646 - 0545) SCHEDULE A EFFECTIVE DATE: October 25, 1999 at 8 :00 A.M. 1. Policy or policies to be issued: Amount ALTA Owner's Policy Standard Policy Proposed Insured: JOHN NALEWAJEK, A SINGLE PERSON $70,000.00 Premium Tax Total 2. Title to fee simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: $435.00 $ 37.41 $472.41 LARRY L. HOWE AND EVELYN J. HOWE, TRUSTEES OF THE LARRY L. AND EVELYN J. HOWE CHARITABLE REMAINDER TRUST, U /A, /D DECEMBER 30, 1996 3. The land referred to in this commitment is described as follows: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN FOSTER DONATION CLAIM NO. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD NO. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OP PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. `1, AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NOS 5484211 AND 5537865, AND LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE SOUTHEAST MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET (ADOLPH BAKER COUNTY ROAD) , AND LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE DISTANT SOUTHERLY 110 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SOUTH 138TH STREET; SITUATE IN THE CITY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON. AIP51 I- OIrl -1 QGQ i7 42RA4ARTiq4 SPPIA 97% P.03 John Nalewajek 104 E. Race Street Yakima, WA 98901 lihone 509-45 1-3536 Fax 509-457-3601 November 11, 1999 To Whom it may concern: RECEN'ED NOV 2 8 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT I, John Nalewajek authorize Christopher Oliver to apply for permits and plans on my property located at 138XX MacAdam Road in Tukwila, WA. Escrow Number of the property is 06-753864ar. John Nalewajek SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this L2/-4 day of an/e/rthe.-- , 1999. 4E-AL NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington, residing at Yakima Commission Expires: 9/10/01 z O 0, w w w LU • LL uj 0 u_ I a I— III Z I— 0 • Z I- LL! Lu. 2 D. 10 9-2: I- II WO: LI 0, . Z •0 co' 0 I— - z AA 0 ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING &LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Mr. Chris Olivier 3805 South 150th Street Tukwila, WA 98188 RECEIVED NOV 2 2000 COMM' MINI TY DEVELOPMENT January 31, 2000 SUBJECT: Wetland /Stream Delineations on Site Located at 13900 Macadam Road (48th Ave. S.) in the City of Tukwila Dear Chris: At your request, on January 17, 2000 I conducted a wetland and stream reconnaissance on the 1.72 -acre subject property (Figure 1). The property has been historically filled and topography on the site currently consists of a flat area adjacent Macadam Road, with the remainder of the site sloping down to the north and east towards Interstate Highway 5. Vegetation on the site consists primarily of a mixture of low weeds and grasses within the upper flat area, and shrubs and tree saplings along the fill slopes. Dominant plant species are . typical of disturbed habitats within western Washington and include Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), Scot's broom (Cytisus scoparius), and red alder (Alnus rubra). One stream was identified flowing from south to north at the bottom of the fill slope along the eastern edge of the property. Most of this stream appears to be located within the right -of -way for Interstate 5. Two small highly disturbed wetland areas were also identified associated with the stream. These small wetland areas extend slightly up the fill slope in the northeast and southeast comers and appear to be -hydrologically supported by both groundwater seeps and collected drainage discharged from two culverts (one located within each wetland area). Although the wetland area in the northeast corner does contain a single black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) tree located on a fill pile within the wetland, it consists primarily of a palustrine scrub -shrub and palustrine emergent plant community dominated by Himalayan blackberry, reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), and bittersweet nightshade.(Solanum dulcamara). Vegetation within the wetland located in the southeast corner of the site also consists of a scrub -shrub and emergent plant community dominated by Himalayan blackberry and reed canarygrass. In addition, small red alder trees and one larger red alder tree are located along the edge of this wetland. At the time of the .January 17, 2000 site visit, soils within both wetland areas were saturated to the surface and several inches of ponding was observed in places. LV�S+x•.T.i., AaMeib Mr. Chris Olivier January 31, 2000 Page 2 The stream located along the eastern edge of the property would likely be classified as a Type 3 watercourse according to Section 18.45.020 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). Type 3 watercourses are lower value streams based on their instream features and corridor quality and generally require a 15 -foot buffer plus a 10 -foot residential building setback (TMC 18.145.040.C). The two wetlands on the property would be classified as either Type 2 or Type 3 dependent upon whether the City of Tukwila determines that coverage from trees rooted along the wetland edge are actually rooted within the wetland and provide more than a 20% canopy coverage to the wetland. If the trees are determined to provide a 20% or greater canopy coverage, then the wetlands would be classified as Type 2 wetlands that generally require a 50 -foot buffer and 10 -foot building setback. However, due to the disturbed condition of the existing wetland buffer, it is likely that if these wetlands were determined to be Type 2, a buffer enhancement plan could be implemented that would allow the buffer to be reduced to 25 feet (plus the 10 -foot building setback). If the trees are determined to provide Tess than a 20% canopy coverage or are not actually rooted within the wetland, then the wetlands would likely be considered Type 3 wetlands that would require 25 -foot buffers (plus 10 -foot building setback). I hope that this information helps you in your development plans for this site. If you have any questions or require any additional information at this time, please call me at (425) 333 -4535. Sincerely, ALTMANN OLIVER ASSOCIATES, LLC John Altmann Ecologist JA:'GER ENGINEERT IG 9419 S. 204 PLACE - KENT, WASHINGTON 98031 PHONE (253) 850 -0934 FAX (253) 850 -0155 October 20, 2000 RECENED NOV 2 8 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT PREPARED FOR: NALEWAJEK OLI'VIER PLAT 13900 MACADAM ROAD TUKWILA, WA. Applicant: Chris Olivier 3803 S. 150' St. Tukwila, WA. 98188 (206) 228 -7649 PREPARED BY: James J. Jaeger, P.E. "PARCEL NO. 152304-9072 z IZ mow: J0 '0 O , W In W0 J LL =. =▪ W M. I-0: Z �- ;0 -. o WW 2 H -: 0, uiz, -= z I. OVERVIEW The proposed plat will create 7 single family residential lots from an existing 1.72 acre undeveloped parcel. There are no existing improvements on the parcel. The 7 new lots will be long, narrow lots that extend the width of the site, with lot widths varying from 50 ft. to 75 ft. The new lots will all have frontage along Macadam Road S. and all will gain access from driveways that are connected directly to this existing road. The site is the location of a previous large fill operation. It is estimated that over 25,000 CY of fill were placed on the site in 1990. This operation was performed under a King County Grading Permit (C9001981). A copy of those permit conditions is attached at the end of this report. All of the proposed lots will get water and sanitary sewer connections from the existing mains within Macadam Road. The site is immediately west of the 1 -5 freeway. The freeway right -of -way is the east property line of the site. Macadam Road S. is the west property line. The width of the property between the two ROW's varies from 225 ft. to 100 ft. The fill was placed within the west half of the site, along the Macadam Road frontage. The fill is in excess of 10' to 15' deep, as determined by soil logs and a geotechnical report by Golder Associates (May 20, 1999). The fill creates a fairly level "pad" along Macadam Road. This pad tapers from 100 ft. wide at the north end to 0 ft. at the south end. This pad will be the primary location for the proposed houses. The Golder report includes recommendations for the house construction. The eastern half of the site is a primarily a 20 ft. high bank created by the fill slope. This bank slopes down to the east towards the freeway at a 3:1 slope (30 % + / -). There is an intermittent stream along the edge of the freeway, adjacent to the site. This stream corridor has spawned several small wetland areas. Two of these small wetlands have entered the site and are mapped. These wetlands are shown on the plans. The existing parcel is generally covered with low pasture grass and shrubs with a few trees in the lower slope area near the wetlands. This vegetation is primarily the native plants and grasses that grew on the fill material over the last 10 years. The Macadam road frontage is currently asphalt with a gravel shoulder. The road is crowned, but there is no ditch along the shoulder. The runoff from the road flows onto the site and is collected by the temporary drainage system installed during the fill process. This system discharges into the wetland /stream area at the base of the slope against the freeway ROW. 11 Li St s:E/ 625 \ ""° 0 • .a — •C• 5. .2 . s 1:a h ST , .,,Q- ,. . 8=�.+ n '''s =': =a,v \ S lzsTq S'. /� _ = 1z4TM 5j SI 3. .4 S r. \s BF 10� S FS� LIB H� NM, s Ve 4 :sy S� �S$ S„ In ■ I sl I r. ,�� •� Co, H t �tt� lib I■ 47r `' 1 Z• A ' .A t r A7 ZE M. rr I. f Z: h l� 4 R_ w i WIN a a. +, t a �' s ° �I h 1Z8TN `r ST •` 6800 of �:. MZ00 1%500 ST ' j <. .'S 129tH.PLaI: S 129TH • 5T = 5 130T11 1,-51-?. i1 655 s /LAN 511H RD = ?N 0 N ) ) 000 IN a ST sr S 1 9 S 150114 ST HUT 22 S ISISf ST IN N 5100 I SW sr . sr —3r LLA nJ 1T6TN it.! s,. ONfOS 13911d u•A•ss. 111 i• In :4. 63 .s miret-r sF+11 ILI (ft Ett g �sn S an 'NT Govt Lot2 36 Acres: MN 1110351Elli � 1000 R. 74ANN 1000 • . /44 aC 1 10 x = _ _ :(iWLLeT Arl) /37TH LCST i tLolt€ d`!;7'6 AVeSI :L_. • • 1,;14.. Pr W y I'1 rw.7N i _ -t S /39TH Sr 74 446C W Q r• ••• 1 • . /r (MIL M. MA• I.Sx SCN. 0111 400 ILO/ K. N 4 SLOWLS I" AC „.s 4146 4011N11 SC4001 01114K L•Aa•L. •11JKO--StN •0t K ofp. 4. LEGEND c.••• •r •r 4. 0 Q •4 y.•.... 4� w ATLAS Of SEATTLE KNOLL MAP COMPANY. LNG SEATTLr SC:K(. • 44U4 • ?CO f((1 1110351Elli � 1000 R. 74ANN 1000 • . /44 aC 1 10 x = _ _ :(iWLLeT Arl) /37TH LCST i tLolt€ d`!;7'6 AVeSI :L_. • • 1,;14.. Pr W y I'1 rw.7N i _ -t S /39TH Sr 74 446C W Q r• ••• 1 • . /r (MIL M. MA• I.Sx SCN. 0111 400 ILO/ K. N 4 SLOWLS I" AC „.s 4146 4011N11 SC4001 01114K L•Aa•L. •11JKO--StN •0t K ofp. 4. LEGEND c.••• •r •r 4. 0 Q •4 y.•.... 4� w ATLAS Of SEATTLE KNOLL MAP COMPANY. LNG SEATTLr SC:K(. • 44U4 • ?CO f((1 ._ SUN VALLEY DISTRIBUTING, INC. - _ :t- nC 14:S4.4; OWNER : SITE ADDR: SITE CITY: '• TELEPHONE: HAIL ADDR: MAIL CITY: RCDG DATE: SALEPR -ICES ZONING . LAND USE : LEGAL . SUB /PLAT : CENSUS TR: LOT ACRES: STORY /STY: BEDROOMS : BATH -F3H : FIREPLACE: SEWER . HEAT MTHD: WTRFR TYP: NALEWAJEK JOfi: 0 T0I WILA 425 -747 -1745 104 E RACE S. YAKI_ is 11/05/99 70, 000 LDR 90. VAC. NT, RESIDENTIAL S7R 152304 TF?CCT 72 POR GL 1 & OF PHONE NO. : 509 457 3601 =====.=-==== = .... - - -_ TRY. COMP REPORT MAP: 65.5 GRID: F3 !�Tj WA 9690_ -3 203 E # EXCISE : V 1 .%.d DEED TYP: WA?.RANTY BLOCK . 1.72 LOT SF : DEV TYPE: ABV GRD SF: C 0 0 TOT FIN SF: ESN FIN SF:' PUBLIC BSM TOT SF: TOT ELD SF: WTR FRT FT: 74,923 TAX ID# . Q- SC- TN -RN: STRUCTURE S LAND $ :O: ASS $ 4 IMPROVED: LEVY CODE : 1999 T?► .XESS PARCEL T Y ? : VOL: NGRHD CODE: BLDG ID# . YEAR 8LT . EFFYR BLT : BLD CND: BLD QTY: BLD MAT:.. BSM TYP: GAR TYP: SOT UHT: Jul. 12 2000 OB:07AM P9 : EE 15 23N 04E 77000 77,000 2413 1,,249 'NPLA "TED PAGE: 024005 VIEW . VW -MTN : VW -CTY: VW-SND: Z w -LK . VW-LRV: NONE Z L '� 1 t �Z c4 G. 00 N 0 = W J F- w 0: J LL = W : Z�: I- O ZI-- U� 2V' O, Z. 0I Z II. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS Since this project is a residential development with over 10000 square ft. of new impervious surface, it will be subject to a full drainage review. It will also be subject to the drainage detention requirements. CORE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS 1. Discharge at Natural Location: The site will continue to discharge at the natural location. This location is at the northeast corner of the site where the new site drainage system will discharge into the existing wetland and stream that runs along the eastern property line. 2. Off -Site Analysis: A downstream drainage analysis has been performed and is detailed in section III of this report. 3. Runoff Control: This project will provide the standard Level 1 runoff control as specified in the 1998 King County Surface Water Manual. The KCRTS method of analysis will be used. The detention pipe will provide the storage. 4. Conveyance System: The onsite conveyance system has been calculated to handle the 100 year peak rate developed storm event. 5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan: An erosion control plan will be prepared and submitted as part of the engineering plan set. 6. Maintenance and Operation: Operation and maintenance will be performed by the homeowners. A section in the report outlining maintenance procedures will be provided. 7. Bonds and Liability: The required construction and maintenance bonds will be determined by the City and executed for this project. 8. Water Quality: The site is exempt from water quality because it is adding less than 5000 SF of new impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic. III. OFFSITE ANALYSIS REVIEW OF RESOURCES The following resources were used in the preparation of this section: 1. King County Wetland Inventory Reports: ' There are no wetlands shown in this report, but small wetlands were field located on the site. 2. King County Surface Water Management Reconnaissance Report shows the beginning of an un -named stream along the eastern edge of the site. 3. Generalized topog. map from the City of Tukwila. 4. King County Sensitive Area Map Folio - Dec., 1990 • Wetlands: none shown, but field mapped. • Streams and 100 year floodplain: un -named stream. • Erosion Hazard: none on site. • Landslide Hazard: none on site. • Seismic Hazard: none on site. • Coal Mine Hazard: none on site. 5. USGS topography map 6. USDA Soil Conservation Service soils survey. FIELD INSPECTION A visual reconnaissance of the site and the offsite drainage system was performed on Sept 12. The weather was dry. UPSTREAM OFFSITE DRAINAGE CONTRIBUTION There is a rather large upstream area to the west that drains down onto Macadam Road with some of the runoff extending onto the site and into the stream along the eastem property line. The stream also begins south of the site and travels along the eastern property line, the common line with the freeway right -of -way. The stream will not be altered by this project because the eastern portion of the site will remain undeveloped. The runoff from the west will be collected by the new curb and gutter that is proposed for Macadam Road and will be piped directly into the wetland /stream along the eastern property line. DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS The site has some minor drainage improvements that include catch basins and piping that was installed as part of the previous grading = . permit. The catch basins are located along the top edge of the fill w and are piped to the lower wetland at the northeast property corner. The stream that runs along the eastern edge of the site and o o the freeway right -of -way is the primary component of the u) w downstream drainage system. J E U) L w 1. Drainage leaves the site within the stream and travels to the north for approx. 500 ft. This portion of the stream is adjacent to the § freeway ROW and flows past the end of S. 138th St. It flows into a = a wetland area that is approx. 300 ft. north of S. 138th St. This wetland _ area collects smaller swales coming in from the west and o southwest. w uj 2. The wetland area has an outlet to the north. This also is in the o form of a stream than flows within a deeper swale. The stream w crosses under S. 136th St. at approx. 1000 ft. past the site within a o culvert. The stream then continues to the north for approx. 500 ff. o: and crosses under 48th Ave. S. within a culvert. u.i U P~ 3. The stream continues within a network of culvert sections and z open ditch sections behind the houses and buildings along the west side of S. 134th PI. There have been reports of occasional overtopping within sections of this segment of the stream corridor. SUMMARY The downstream drainage from this site will be discharged into the Stream that flows along the western edge of the 1 -5 corridor. This is a major drainage channel and continues to be a main drainage corridor until its discharge into the Duwamish River. The stream is well defined and is maintained by the City as necessary. The history of problems along S. 134th Pl. is said to be a result of an undersized culvert at the north end of S. 134th PI. It is also said that the problem is cured when this culvert is periodically cleaned. The developed drainage system will include a Level 1 flow control structure and as such, should not have any significant effect on the downstream drainage system. rt !u'.M'!1.xf)a7NY'a?u757P+ 5r„rryA s Mi\\ 17'30" 1 640000 FEET ,s54 DES MOINES QUADRANGLE WASHINGTON —KING CO. 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC) 122 °15' 47 °30' 1�► WOO r USGS 110 ror IV. DETENTION ANALYSIS AND DESIGN A. PREDEVELOPED DRAINAGE The drainage from the existing site flows towards the east and into the stream along the east edge of the site. The existing temporary drainage system collects some of the runoff that accumulates on the top of the fill area. This also is piped to the stream. The drainage area used in the calculations will not include the entire site. It will be limited to the western 100 ft. of the site (the west half). The remaining portion will not be developed due to the high, steep fill bank and the wetlands. The existing drainage analysis was performed using the "KCRTS" hydrology software that was produced by the County. Summary computer printouts are attached for reference. The methods outlined in the 1998 King County Drainage Manual were used as guidelines. Following this page are the data sheets used for the computer input data. The computer summary sheets for peak flow. Below is a brief description of the existing drainage characteristics: 2 year peak flow: 10 year peak flow: total area: developed area: pervious area: land use type: 0.034 CFS 0.060 CFS 1.72 acres 0.94 acres 0.94 acres till pasture impervious area: none B. DEVELOPED DRAINAGE The developed project will include a drainage detention structure in the form of a subsurface oversized pipe. The existing drainage system installed with the fill area will be abandoned. The developed site will include the roof downspout drains, the driveway drains and the rear lawn areas. The improvements to Macadam Road are not included within the detention system because the amount of the widening is only 3 ft. of asphalt and the sidewalk. It also collects a large amount of upstream offsite runoff that should not be directed into the detention system. Similar to the existing condition, the KCRTS method was used to determine the peak flows for the various storm events. The computer data sheets for the developed flows are shown on the summary page for the detention system summary. The flows are designated as inflow on the time series results table. A brief summary of the developed drainage characteristics are: 2 year peak flow: 10 year peak flow: developed area: 0.121 CFS 0.145 CFS 0.94 acres pervious area: 0.59 acres land use type: till grass impervious area: 0.35 acres land use type: impervious CLIvi 1✓rz Pc_ �' Ro Ft= puDv\1 s DR Pr A-Gs a._ CP CC -no) gc s s 19 9 es k , r\? C10 . U) t - De n v ) 1Y) a r► vck_ kis-R-Ptz- 6) -v4ioJ &..v c rn €iv+ 4t z k oo = 9-12 O s� = 0. Pc ca-eS'. 2 31 `t-€ I S t �.:o. l o` G Rc \-; l Re t c-pn (RC .kr 3.2 . 2 . ft) 'Roca CA) e 0 2-Aryk r-2 fin-- Is O\ -r-c roc,, v1 \ V10 rc1 ro∎le_. m oxNts . vSe_ � +v - wrckn- Ue e,1 . ffs 1 to; -s 2. Lo+ Lot It 41-0'.1e- 4-S' hose coo -tom% _ / cb00 .rF 11 - ?.p 13ct c r'tv -ia-A-0 O./ 3 . i (zz-o) - 1 5A-0o . = Q . 3 SS Psc, 4 - tm .00 us- ; 0,3S fir. r a-r itous; 0 94- p.3�= O,5-1 V se.- lam F-roU hck. 4. Sa 115 o.re. +t i I SD t (S ( • - ?ealz IRL D c -yyN k GRTS e`.) _ = F1 f12.4 r' n 17.1 �'F.s OLIVIER PLAT PEAK FLOW CALCULATIONS USING KCRTS PREDEVELOPED CONDITIONS Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:omacpre.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Flow Rate (CFS) 0.066 0.025 0.060 0.006 0.034 0.056 0.054 0.113 Computed Peaks Peak Flow Rates-- - Rank Time of Peak 2 2/09/01 18:00 7 1/05/02 16:00 3 2/28/03 3:00 8 3/24/04 19:00 6 1/05/05 8:00 4 1/18/06 16:00 5 11/24/06 4:00 1 1/09/08 6:00 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:omacdev.tsf Project Location:Sea -Tac - -- Annual Peak Flow Rates-- - Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 0.137 0.101 0.168 0.098 0.121 0.145 0.142 0.290 Computed Peaks 5 2/09/01 2:00 7 1/05/02 16 :00 2 2/27/03 7:00 8 8/26/04 2:00 6 10/28/04 16:00 3 1/18/06 16:00 4 10/26/06 0:00 1 1/09/08 6:00 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks (CFS) 0.113 0.066 0.060 0.056 0.054 0.034 0.025 0.006 0.098 - - Rank Return Prob Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 Flow Frequency Analysis - - Peaks (CFS) 0.290 0.168 0.J.45 0.142 0.137 0.121 0.101 0.098 0.249 - - Rank Return Prob Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 sZt; • \ \ A.. \ \ 9 295 \ \ \ \ . • • % . . \ %. 195.9 \ \ \ 1A° 734 \ .•- \ ° A-1 "MOTO 01-K1 ■ •••s. 1415 ,p.ft. ,s, • \ \ \\ dft 's -.•••., 4:3'.71.''‘ . 1 "Ns, `‘,..4..../i•e..... lii. \ \ \ y.....,-...■--.1372.3 \ \ 7. '''s. ° .,‘ A:40110r .4407 N.. \ V \ \ A - 51 ? ; . \ .. , 6:› \ ...nod fence '. '• `.. \ N., s'se I67.9 ,. . ‘N,• \ \ ... \ ' \s' \ \\ \ \ Z4 .\ N N• V \ \ ‘•.1;*., 4 **--..". `•,,,...... , % \ \ \ X \\ \ \ \ \ . 4 \ \ s '\ \ \ 5 \ \ \ X . ' \ • 1698 \ \ ,5 \ , •. , \ \• -r l' \\:\\\\%\ \ \ •,. \ \ (.1 '../.., (1) \ X \ \ 1"4 \ (---:..-- ..... \ • ... , „ .....- \ \ \ ' , \ • ....,-- ,.... • 194.4 NORT1-4 ( "= 5c, I . • % \ • • , , ..., • •.. .. I ' 1 I \•• \ 1 \ \ \ . po, \ •N %,. \1�79 ) •?1,..\\ \ \ 1914'...1 ..".• \ , ,.. , ....._..2.....7.:;:s......_........._........„ \ \ 1 \ \ \ .....„ .',.. .... • 195Z . X St? • t9S,..2 ' \ . •. \ ,s, \ •....,.. \ ,\ \ \\ \ \\. \ \,\.\\, \\\*:''..k, ,\'‘:71\.. : _ 169 7 \ \ \ AMA' \ ‘, 1, .3c,,s \ 3. , fe 1976 \ <ibq \ \ \ \ • • / • C10 \ \ \ 1 \ \ . , 7.----1; 1961)% .. • 1971 'y rp q.., \ ■ , \ \ \ : % • .,/„4a , ,, \ % k k % \ ‘ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ \ \ 1\ \\'; ‘ % 1. \ i . % \ ‘,1 :, \ \ \ \ \ \ , ' \ \ % \ • '. 1 \ \ 1\ \ \ \\ 11 1 , \ \ 4 \ \\ 2.\5 ....‘ , ..t.i . . :. ,. \ \‘,.., i , \ \ , .. \ . \ \ \ \ \ -. % \ % \ , \ \ \ \ . \ .....3 .0. 2.,,s...... \ \ \ •\1992 \ \ \\\\\\\ \ \ I \ , , • % ‘ , ‘ \ \,. '''t, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' ' \ 1 yill 11 .,„ •%, . \-, \ ..,,, \ N \ .421\ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \. \ \ \ k \ \ 1 2 \ \ 1 I 1 \ c \ • .....____. ....,99.2.11.9 ,,,. \aqi 6 \ ...,201. A T"tts.7---..... \ \ \ \ \ \ \‘‘ .4.-•:',„ \ \ \ \ \ 1 171.4 \ \ 1 \ \ V \• \ 20 10199 9 i i I . 9 i i / 1 i / t1 s \ 21" ' • '''' / ti . ' / / / / ! / I aai IA;;:95 \ 4 • , / • &42, a; ! i ./. / ." ," / •I. 'Tie 4-114- - :' ;Kikjulna.:39 1: 1 I I 1 \ 2.3.23 . , •.! \ ■, \ %.,.....,.. `.... , ,e(r90 to F•41,cr / \ \ „..,, ..:, ..,,,,:\ t.I..4,.....„...\,..,..\:.: \ 1. : 176.4 /46.7.te:i•L "" \ P-VE-L-Ce1\1\54■Ir 1 5.. 2223 225 C. DRAINAGE DETENTION The site falls within the area of the County that is designated for the Level 1 flow control standard. This requires a drainage detention system. This Z detention system will be designed based upon the 1998 King County = Surface Water Design Manual. This document uses the King County cc m Runoff lime Series (KCRTS) as the tool to determine the respective 6 D drainage peak flows for various storm events and for the predeveloped 0 o and post - developed site conditions. The Level 1 standard requires that w the post developed peak flows for the 2 year and 10 year storm not -J i- v) the predeveloped peak rates for the same storm events. The o detention storage facility is proposed to be a large diameter pipe 2 located on the slope within the eastern portion of the site. An orifice type a flow restrictor will be used to limit the discharge from the storage facility I a so that it does not exceed the pre - developed flow rates. Z I- o The detention pipe was sized using the KCRTS program and the defined w w runoff time series. Summaries of the time series are included within the 0 o report. A total length of 288 ft. of 48" diameter underground storage o pipe is shown as the detention facility. Three type 11 catch basins will be w u uj located at the ends and in the middle of the pipe. The first type II catch ~ basin at the pipe outlet will be equipped with an flow restrictor riser pipe o with 2 orifice discharges. The detail for this catch basin and riser is shown Lii v_, on the plans as determined by the computer program. The computer o output sheets resulting from the KCRTS program are attached for z reference. The drainage conveyance system that feeds the detention system includes the direct pipe connections from the roof downspouts for all of the new houses. A driveway drain will also be connected to this piping system for each house. The piping design will allow for the inclusion of a rear yard drain for each lot that can collect the rear lawn area runoff before it flows down the bank. All of the new onsite impervious surfaces will be collected by the detention pipe. The respective peak flows are summarized as follows: Storm event. Predev. (CFS) Develooed(CFS) Pipe discharge (CFS) 2 year: 0.034 0.121 0.03 10 year: 0.060 0.145 0.06 The required detention storage volume is 3770 cubic ft. The 48" diameter detention pipe did not include a 6" dead storage depth on the bottom for sedimentation. Since the system is primarily collection roof runoff, sediments are not a concern. Provided detention storage is 3771 cubic ft. including the type II catch basins. An access road to the storage pipe and the flow restrictor will be provided along the north property line. This system will be a private system since it is not collecting the runoff from any public right -of -way. The system will be maintained by the homeowners with a maintenance covenant being executed as part of the final plat documents. D. WATER QUALITY Water quality will not be required by this project. The amount of new impervious surface subject to vehicular traffic is 2800 SF due to the new driveways. There is also approx. 1200 SF of new pavement widening along Macadam Road (only an additional 3 ft.) The total of 4000 SF is under the 5000 SF threshold for requiring water quality control. z re w 0 0 0: w w= w u_ a: ten. = d: z F--, Z o. ;U ;0 u ;C1 ~ W w' z U N1 • i- _ nalewajek olivier plat detention storage drainage calculations Retention /Detention Facility Type of Facility: Detention Tank Tank Diameter: 4.00 ft Z W Ce 6 j0. 00. 0 W = Full Head Pipe J Orifice # Height Diameter Discharge Diameter In AL O, (ft) (in) (CFS) (in) 1 0.00 0.90 0.044 Q. 2 3.10 0.86 0.019 4.0 Top Notch Weir: None = Outflow Rating Curve: None F- _ F- O Z f- W U� O- al I-- W UJ U' 9'O Z • W 0 F- Z Tank Length: 300. ft Effective Storage Depth: 4.00 ft Stage 0 Elevation: 180.00 ft Storage Volume: 3770. cu. ft . Riser Head: 4.00 ft Riser Diameter: 12.00 inches Number of orifices: 2 Stage Elevation Storage Discharge Percolation (ft) (ft) (cu. ft) (ac -ft) (cfs) (cfs) 0.00 180.00 0. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.01 180.01 1. 0.000 0.002 0.00 0.02 180.02 2. 0.000 0.003 0.00 0.03 180.03 4. 0.000 0.004 0.00 0.04 180.04 6. 0.000 0.004 0.00 0.05 180.05 9. 0.000 0.005 0.00 0.06 180.06 12. 0.000 0.005 0.00 0.07 180.07 15. 0.000 0.006 0.00 0.18 180.18 60. 0.001 0.009 0.00 0.28 180.28 116. 0.003 0.012 0.00 0.38 180.38 182. 0.004 0.013 0.00 0.48 180.48 256. 0.006 0.015 0.00 0.58 180.58 338. 0.008 0.017 0.00 0.68 180.68 425. 0.010 0.018 0.00 0.78 180.78 518, 0.012 0.019 0.00 0.88 180.88 615. 0.014 0.021 0.00 0.98 180.98 716. 0.016 0.022 0.00 1.08 181.08 821. 0.019 0.023 0.00 1.18 181.18 929. 0.021 0.024 0.00 1.28 181.28 1040. 0.024 0.025 0.00 1.38 181.38 1153. 0.026 0.026 0.00 1.48 181.48 1268. 0.029 0.027 0.00 1.58 181.58 1385. 0.032 0.028 0.00 1.68 181.68 1503. 0.034 0.028 0.00 1.78 181.78 1622. 0.037 0.029 0.00 1.88 181.88 1741. 0.040 0.030 0.00 1.98 181.98 1861. 0.043 0.031 0.00 2.08 182.08 1981. 0.045 0.032 0.00 2.18 182.18 2101. 0.048 0.032 0.00 2.28 182.28 2220. 0.051 0.033 0.00 2.38 182.38 2338. 0.054 0.034 0.00 2.47 182.47 2444. 0.056 0.035 0.00 2.57 182.57 2560. 0.059 0.035 0.00 2.67 2.7.7 2.87 2.97 3.07 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.28 3.38 3.48 3.58 3.68 3.78 3.88 3.98 4.00 4.10 4.20 4.30 4.40 4.50 4.60 4.70 4.80 4.90 5.00 5.10 5.20 5.30 5.40 5.50 5.60 5.70 5.80 5.90 6.00 182.67 182.77 182.87 182.97 183.07 183.10 183.11 183.12 183.13 183.14 183.15 183.16 183.17 183.18 183.28 183.38 183.48 183.58 183.68 183.78 183.88 183.98 184.00 184.10 184.20 184.30 184.40 184.50 184.60 184.70 184.80 184.90 185.00 185.10 185.20 185.30 185.40 185.50 185.60 185.70 185.80 185.90 186.00 2674. 2786. 2895. 3002. 3105. 3135. 3145. 3155. 3165. 3175. 3185. 3194. 3204. 3214. 3309. 3398. 3482. 3559. 3629. 3689. 3737. 3768. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 3770. 0.061 0.036 0.00 0.064 0.037 0.00 0.066 0.037 0.00 0.069 0.038 0.00 0.071 0.039 0.00 0.072 0.039 0.00 0.072 0.039 0.00 0.072 0.039 0.00 0.073 0.040 0.00 0.073 0.043 0.00 0.073 0.044 0.00 0.073 0.044 0.00 0.074 0.045 0.00 0.074 0.045 0.00 0.076 0.048 0.00 0.078 0.051 0.00 0.080 0.053 0.00 0.082 0.056 0.00 0.083 0.057 0.00 0.085 0.059 0.00 0.086 0.061 0.00 0.086 0.063 0.00 0.087 0.063 0.00 0.087 0.373 0.00 0.087 0.937 0.00 0.087 1.670 0.00 0.087 2.460 0.00 0.087 2.740 0.00 0.087 3.000 0.00 0.087 3.240 0.00 0.087 3.460 0.00 0.087 3.660 0.00 0.087 3.860 0.00 0.087 4.040 0.00 0.087 4.220 0.00 0.087 4.390 0.00 0.087 4.560 0.00 0.087 4.710 0.00 0.087 4.870 0.00 0.087 5.020 0.00 0.087 5.160 0.00 0.087 5.300 0.00 0.087 5.440 0.00 Hyd Inflow Outflow Peak Target Calc 'Stage Elev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.29 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.03 * * * * * ** * * * * * ** 0.25 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.02 4.06 4.01 3.96 3.71 3.41 2.28 1.38 1.05 Route Time.Series through Facility 184.06 184.01 183.96 183.71 183.41 182.28 181.38 181.05 Storage (Cu -Ft) (Ac -Ft) 3770. 0.087 3770. 3760. 3645. 3426. 2220. 1149. 786. 0.087 0.086 0.084 0.079 0.051 0.026 0.018 Z • Z 6 U CY W W 11.1 J =' 0' W LL _, • - = W F- _ • Z F- O • Z •2 U •:0 -_. .W W; = O O Z S1rCT1ON 3.2 RUNOFF COMPUTA ..JN AND ANALYSIS METHODS n FIGURE 3.2.2.A RAINFALL REGIONS AND REGIONAL SCALE FACTORS ST 1.1 ST 1.0 ST 1.0/ LA 0.8 LA 0.9 LA 1 -0 LA 1.2 ST 1.1 ST 1.0 Rainfall Regions and Regional Scale Factors = Incorporated Area River/Lake Major Road LA 0.9 9/1/98 1998 Surface Water Design Manual z JU 00 CO J = H W O I— w Z= I— O Z W ui U O 92 • I— W W. • 0. Z W U= O ~ Z 01/2/2000 16:09 4256410514 FROM,: CFC FINANCIAL FRANI:_KLE I N PAGE 13 FAx NO. : 42S 747 1417 0.t.. 20 1999 03 :53PM P2 PRE4ou couaTir cp-R074b1161- PAGE: 1 Et pttr Activity No C9001981 TYPE; G -RENEW Location: 13900 MACADAM RD S TU GRADING /MINING GENERAL COL'D'S te J U. 0011 - AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY WORK CALL THE U o cn GRADING SECTION AT 296 -6610 TO ARRANGE A .PRE- CONSTRUCTION w = MEETING. AT THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING THE CIWL ENGINEER SHALL STAKE THE PROPOSED TOP OF SLOPE AND TOE OF w o SLOPE. THE TOES OF ALL SLOPES SHALL BE SET BACK A `vfTN1 1UM OF 10 FEET FROM ALL PROPERTY LINES g u) 3 0080 - All work shall comply with the provisions of King County = w Ordinance 3139, relating to noise control. Z 0090 •- Hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to w 7 :00 p.m., Monday through Friday. o U O- 0120 - Permittee shall abide by the regulations of the Puget Sound cat— Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA). z v` O 0140 • You must call 1 -800 -424 -5555 not less than 48 hours before beginning excavation where any underground utilities may be v co'. located. Failure to do so could mean bearing substantial o repair costs (up to three times the cost of repairs to the z service). 1020 . Cut/fill slopes shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the soils engineer. During site prepara- tion and grading of this site, permittee shall provide full - time supervision by a licensed geotechnical engineer. 1050 - Only earth materials which have no rock or similar irre- ducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 18 inches shall be used as fill. 1090 - The following statement shall be recorded as a covenant on the property and shall not be changed without express per- mission in writing from King County Building and Land Devel- opment. Division or its successor agency: The fill placed upon this property may not be suitable for structural support. Prior to any future development, a geotechnic.al analysis shall be submitted to King County Building and Land Development Division addressing the suitability of the fill FROM : CFI. FINANCIAL FAX ''10. : 425 747 141? 0-t. 20 1999 03:54PM P3 for structural support, seismic stability, and settlement." 1110 - All uncontaminated , unsuitable, or surplus excavated soils, construction, demolition, or landclearing (CDL) debris..to be removed from the site shall be disposed of or recycled in an ¢ approved, legal diposal or recycling site. It will be the Z permittee's responsibility to locate acceptable disposal or ee 2 recycling sites and to assure that all surplus material and o cm debris is disposed of in those sites 0 co w J H 1 CONDITIONS OF PERT /APPROVAL ' * DATE: 10/19/99 uj p MI PAGE: 2 w Activity No C9001981 TYPE: G -RENEW Location. 13900 MACADAM RD S TV =w 1120 - Prior to bond release, permittee shall provide a detailed z account of all off-site disposal activities. This account- o' ing shall include date, number of trips, volume, haul route w w used, type of truck, type of material, and destination, with D a complete summary for each separate disposal site. o cn. ►- 2020 - The implementation of these ESC plans and the construction, = v maintenance, replacement, and upgrading of these ESC facili- F ties is the responsibility of the permittee until all con- . z struction is approved. co 2070 - Any area stripped of vegetation, including roadway embank- z ments, where no further work is anticipated for a period of 15 days, shall be immediately stabilized with the approved ESC methods (e.g. seeding, mulching, netting, erosion blankets, etc.). (KCRS 7.091.) 2110 - Stabilized construction entrances and wash pads shall be installed at the beginning of construction and maintained for the duration of the project. Additional.measurts may be required to ensure that all paved areas are kept clean for the duration of the project. (RCW 46.61,655.) 2140 - Where straw mulch for temporary erosion control is required, it shall be applied at a minimum thickness of 2 inches. 2200 - The erosion and sedimentation control systems depicted on this drawing are intended to be minimum requirements to meet anticipated site conditions. As construction progresses and unexpected or seasonal conditions dictate, the permittee should anticipate that more siltation and sedimentation control facilities will be necessary to ensure complete sil- tation control on the proposed site. During the course of construction, it shall be the obligation and responsibility of the permitter to address any new conditions that may be created by his activities and to provide additional facili- ties over and above minimum requirements as may be needed to protect adjacent properties and water quality of the receiv• ing drainage system. w 2220 - Permittee is totally responsible for the installation and v maintenance of the TE/SCP facilities noted on the plan and o for bringing to the attention ofthe Owner/Engineer new con- ce W ditions which may be addressed by these plans. The Contract 1 for shall be held liable for all damages which may result CO IL, from mis- implementation of this plan or neglect of changing w o conditions. LL. Q' co 7020 - During hauling operations, perm f ittee shall provide o ective H =; dust control measures consisting of water, asphalt treated z base, chemical dust palliatives, or equivalent measures to w o control dust from this operation (KCC 21A.22.070.C). ? n. 7030 - To prevent tracking of mud and rocks onto King County roads ° w �, and to comply with R`CW 46,61.665(4), permittee shall use a w � w technique approved by King County which is capable of clean- 1 ing wheels, tires, and vehicle undercarriages. "-- z. o 7040 - Permittee shall he responsible for implementing all approp- i E_ riate measures needed (i.e. paving, sweepers, and /or other 01— z techniques) to keep streets and roads used as haul routes for export or import of material clean and free from debris, mud, etc. 7070 - Any damage to pavement edges, sidewalk, curb and gutter, etc., resulting from operations authorized by this permit shall be repaired immediately. 7080 • Warning signs must also be installed prior to hauling and must conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic. Control Devices. 7100 - Permittee shall provide the name of a responsible peraon or agent who can be contacted 24 hours a day, 01/02/2000 16: Cry 4::5641051.: . FROM : CFC. FINANCIAL . . FP.z i' _ILEI14 FAN N0. : 42E: 747 1417 82)0 - Prior to bond release the per nittee shall submit verification that the remedial measures Zor s;hpe stablization have been constructed in accordance witlithe soils engineer's recommendations in the report dated 3/539' 8220 - The toes of the till slopes shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from all property boundaries 8230 - Remedial slope stabilization work shall not commence until a revised drainage and grading plan has been approved by King County. These plans shall address re•design of the fill slopes from 2: I to 3:1 with the toe of the slope set back a minimum of 10 feet from all property boundaries and a re- design of the drainage system to reflect the changes in slope. In addition, a letter fl-om the soils engineer shall be submitted verifying that their recommendations have been incorporated in the revised plans. 8240 - Prior to bond release, the permittee shall pay a fee based upon cubic yards of fill removed from the site. This fee shall be based upon 1990 King County grading permit operating fees. The permitte shall also pay any outstanding .s associated w'h revirw and inspection of draingagte plan Ic•i i411S. P. ,E 21 pr t. 19 ?$ 07: 7sPn F5 z =H • w 0 0 0; cnw w= w0 7-1: • to w, • • •w 2 ` • •,0• . = V_'. ~' U(i) • ••Z Golder Associates inc. 4104 -148th Avenue. N.E. Redmond. WA 98052 Telephone (425) 883 -0777 Fax (425) 882-5498 May 20,1999 Larry Howe 14548 SE 51" Street Bellevue, Washington 98006 ATTENTION: Mr. Larry Howe RECE VED NOV 2 8 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY MACADAM ROAD SOUTH PROPERTY TC?KWILA, WASHINGTON Dear Mr. Howe: Our ref 993 -1457 This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical engineering study for your Macadam Road South Property in Tukwila, Washington. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal to you dated March 26,1999 and authorized on April 2,1999. The purpose of our work was to evaluate the subsurface conditions particularly as related to the thick existing finis and develop preliminary geotechnical recommendations for proposed site development and construction. Thick fills extending to depths in excess of 15 feet underlie the site. The conservatirk.' design approach would be to place all foundations below the fills into the native soils. 'Phis would require piles or extensive fill excavations. Alternatively, it is also feasible to place the foundations on the existing fills provided some settlement risks are acceptable and the ground modification recommendations below are implemented. To minimize uncertainties and assist in making a decision about foundation design, we recommend that additional subsurface information be obtained. As a minimum this should include review of old air - photos and review of County and/or City records on Macadam Road. The intent of this work would be to better define the nature of the fills and the likelihood that the fills could contain significant unsuitable materials and/or be very thick This information should also be useful in determining if any house lot is underlain by a deep, filled gully. If piles are used some borings will be required to assess the depth of the fill. and nature of the native soils. OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY. ITALY, SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM. UNITED STATES ws Mr,-: es�r.yrrr� i� .....,--.43102/2000 16:69 4256410514 FRANK_KLEIN PAGE 02 993.1457 1. SflE CONQ+1TIONS AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The site consists of approx uatzly 1.34 saes, which is roughly rectangular in shape and is located between Intervtatz 5 and Macadam Road in Tukwila, Washington as shown on Figure 1. We understated that approximately 25,000 yards of fin was placed on the site about ten years ago. The site has a relatively level portion adjacent to Macadam Road that extends to about the "Top of Fill" lire shown on Figure 2 at about elevation 330 60 340 feet. From the top of 1311, the surface slopes downward at about 31•1:1V tr • ` " to a small awall at about elevation 305 to 310 adjacent to 1 -5. We obaexved evic ,allow slope failure in the fin as discussed below in Section 4. Currently 1.)oiOnn of the site is mainly open with tall grasses and small brush. The sloping potion is covered with tali grasses, brush, and small tees. We reviewed plans developed by Arnett and Associstws dated 1950 showing general site layout, lot subdivisions, a proposed subsurfa T cut -off drt.ut, and a proposed surface drainage system. We understand that the subdrain and si Jaoe drainage} system -ere installed. • ; The property is situated with the long axis along Maosdnm Road as shown on Figure 2 with the proposed houses to be located in the level p- in adjacent to Macmiam road. 2. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS We explored the subsurface conditions by excavating a total of six twat pits in early April 1999. The test pity extended to depths of 10 to 15 fret and were located in the areas of the proposed houses as shown on Figure 2. The shallower test pits :Arere terminated above the full reach of the bacichoe due to heavy caving. The lags of the hest pits are irbchtded in Appendix A. The test pits were looted by geologist front our firm by paring from kxww r field locations. Ti ' the Locations shown on Figure 2 should be considered apprcxirna te. The geologist 1 .,peed the soil and groundwater conditions and recorded pertinent inform: ion inti.luding depths, sfratigraphy, soil *veneering charketr_ris tics, and groundwater occurrence. The strt'tfiration depths indicated on the sualmary logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil and groundwater con, T' :'.: }; :. ,.... ''' T, . , ?,;: . _;,: ��:�,•:.t :R •i a exploration and may not necessarily repre : >, ::: •;. ,;- ; :- ,., :• :, ' est pit backfill was tamped in place with the backhoe bit;, howev er, some ::e'c; train- over the test pits should be expected. 3. SOIL AND lit OUNDWATER CONXTTIONS Norte df the best pi, penetrated through the fill that extended to depths of 10 to 15 feet. The fill encounter- .± was variable but consisted primarily of a fine to coarse sand with varying amounts t silt and gravel_ Sonte of the tests encountered minor organics sand building debris in t2 fill including bricks, chucks of asphalt, pieces of eoncreta, pipe, etc. y 20, 1999 3 993 -1457 building debris in the fill including bricks, chucks of asphalt, pieces of concrete, pipe, etc. The upper 4 to 8 feet were generally compact to dense with the deeper fills loose to compact. Based on the area geology, the fill is likely underlain by . z It was surprising that the test pits did not penetrate through the fill. The maximum i 01l111120L1L1 lt: ii i 4::tih41V.D14 I N':aNF\_KL .1N rF;ut May 20, 1999 4 993 -1457 With fill depths exceeding 15 feet, fill excavation is considered uneconomical. The conservative design would involve the use of a pile foundation with the piles founded in native soils below the fills. Several pile types are considered feasible including pin piles, driven wood piles, and auger cast piles. Additional information including borings drilled Z into the native soils would be required to design the piles. At this time, we feel that auger Q cast piles would likely be the most economical due to the potential problems of driving the = W wood and pin piles through the fill into the native soils. ID D JU A less conservative but more economical design would involve the use of Ju r -..j1 spread N o footings placed on stabilized fill. The fill stabilization should include: w i • SURCHARGE: A surcharge should be placed over the building area r_ r;sisting cn u of placing fill to an elevation of three feet above the final slab elevation for a w o period of at least two weeks. If the houses are designed with daylight basements, g the existing grades may already be in excess of three feet above final grade and no actual surcharge fill need be placed. = d. w • PARTIAL FILL EXCAVATION: The entire house footprint should be excavated to z a depth of at least two feet below the bottom of the footings. z O • PROOF - ROLLING AND COMPACTION: With the subgrade at a depth of at 2 D least two feet below the bottom of the footings, the entire building area should be v ° proof rolled with a fully loaded dump true.. and then compacted with a heavy o P vibratory compactor. The intent of the i.:vor• nulling is to identify any soft areas w w in the fill, which would be over - excavated, and backfiIled with compacted fills. 1- P The intent of the ',. ilbratory compactor will be to derl''ify the soils and obtain 95 L' 0 percent Modifie PT,: ctor Compaction within at 1c , _.t the upper 18- inches. w� N. • PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL: After completion of the proof - rolling and F=- H compaction, a layer of two feet of structural fill should be placed and compacted z to a minimum dry density of 95 percent of Modified Proctor Compaction. Provided the debris is removed and suitable compaction can be obtained, the excavated soils can be used. Based on implementation of the above recommendations, the houses could be placed on normal spread footings with slab on grade. The footings could be designed for a maximum bearing pressure of 2 ksf. These foundations should perform well with minimum long -term settlements less than one inch. However there are some uncertainties related to the possible occurrence c.r very loose deep fills or fills with extensive debris underlying the houses. This might occur if some of the lots are underlain by a deep filled gully. These types of conditions could result in long term settlements exceeding one inch or sudden settlements during a major seismic event or ground saturation event (broken water line, clogged downspout drains, etc). Although these risks are considered small, the shallow foundation option is less conservative than the pile foundation option. 10.0517,.7 ro, LII PILILI J. . C17 L. J. J. y20,1999 1 I \11111 \_I \LLSI 5 993 -1457 6. OTHER PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS In general, the site can be developed using conventional design and construction procedures except for the foundations as discussed above and the following. • SLOPE SET BACK: We recomrend that the hooting; on the eastern side be located so that an imaginary line drawn downward from the bottom of the footing at a slope of 3H: 1V does not intercept the ground surface. In addition, the footing should be set back a horizontal distance of at least 10 feet from any slope exceeding 4H:1V. In general, provided the houses are constructed as daylight basements, these criteria should be easily met. On a case by case basis, these criteria may be relaxed to allow the houses to be situated on the lots. However, relaxation may require implementation of some other criteria. • SURFACE DRAINAGE: Surface drainage should be controlled to minimize runoff down the slope. This would include collection of downspout discharge and runoff from the Macadam road, driveways, and front yards. Under no circumstances should any runoff including downspoub be infiltrated into the ground through "dry wells" or perforated infiltration pipes. • SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE: Wall and footing drains should be designed for any below grade sections of the houses such as the below grade daylight basements. • EARTHWORK SCHEDULE: To the extent possible, the recommended ground modification required for using spread footings be completed during the drier periods of the year. Performing this work during the wet periods of the year will be more difficult and result in higher costs. 7. ADDITIONAL WORK AND USE OF THIS REPORT To minimize uncertainties and assist in making a decision about foundation design, we recommend that additional subsurface information be obtained. As a minimum this should include review of old air - photos and review of County and/or City records on Macadam Road. The intent of this work would be to better define the nature of the fills and the likelihood that the fills could contain significant unsuitable materials and/or be very thick. This information should also be useful in determining if any house lot is underlain by a deep, filled gully. If piles are used sorne borings will be required to assess the depth of the fill and nature of the native soils. We recommend that a specific geotechnical assessment with final design recommendations is made of each house foundation and drainage design. This could be done as one report if spec houses are to be built or as separate reports if custom houses are built. Once the site project plans are finalized, we recommend that we be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications to verify that they are in accordance with our recommendations. This report has been prepared exclusively for the use of Larry Howe and his consultants for specific application to this project. The integrity and performance of the foundation 01/02/2000 16:09 4256410514 FRANKJIEIN PAGE 06 May 20,1999 6 993-1457 system depends greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. The explorations and engineering analyses were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotedmi.011 engineering practices. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the borings and variations with in the groundwater conditions with time. We recommend that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the construction schedule and budget. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Principal JURLP/ms doeuftmd Goidui As000klion z < • .1■••• Z w —J :OO cn 0 cn w w = --I u_ w 0 7.1 ° W Z -� ZI- uj u j L-6 to m 0 I- 2. Existing and proposed legal descriptions for all lots. 3. Appropriate signature blocks for the owner, City and County. 4. Geotechnical Covenant and Affidavits per the Geotechnical Report Guidelines = ~ (attached). t- w APPEALS U 0 This short plat approval decision is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. One administrative w = appeal of the decision on the short plat is permitted. If no valid appeals are filed within the time u) LL: limit the decision of the Department will be final. w 0 In order to appeal the decision a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of u_ Community Development within 21 days of the issuance of the Notice of Decision (July 5, 2002). = ci The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. F-- _ zF- 1- o Appeal materials shall include: w E- uj 1. The name of the appealing party. o o _ o1-- 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a = tu corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person 1- LL- authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. z U 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the o = '- decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of Z the law in the decision being appealed; the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. Any appeal shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Hearing Examiner's decision pursuant to the procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. 2. Final Approval The next step is to install the required site improvements, comply with the conditions of approval and submit the necessary short plat documents (survey, legal descriptions, and other required paper work). You may apply to delay installation of the site improvements up to six months beyond final approval subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. A financial guarantee must be provided to ensure installation. Short Plat LO1 -019 Page 3 After the documents have been found to be in order, and the all of the requirements of the short plat have been met, the Chair of the Short Subdivision Committee signs your short plat which constitutes a grant of final approval. Expiration J• The final approved short plat must be filed with the King County Department of Records by June 13, 2003, one year from the date of this preliminary approval or the application will expire. The City may grant a single one year extension if requested in writing prior to the expiration date. 3. Recording The signature of the Chairman of the Short Subdivision Committee certifies that your short plat application is ready for recording. It is your responsibility to record the City approved short plat documents with the King County Department of Records. You will need to pay the recording fees and submit your approved original short plat to King County, see the Recording Procedures handout. The short plat is not complete until the recording occurs and copies of the recorded documents are provided to the Department of Community Development. After recording, the County returns the recorded original to the City of Tukwila within 4 -6 weeks, at which time your short plat is considered complete. You can shorten this processing time by hand - delivering a copy of the recorded short plat to the project planner. In many circumstances, building permits on the short platted property may not be issued until a copy of the recorded short plat (or original) is returned to the Department of Community Development. Sincerely, Steve Lancaster Chair, Short Subdivision Committee Enclosures cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works D. ector Tom Keefe, Fire Chief' Works (pla initial your approval) King County Assessor, Accounting Division Department of Ecology, SEPA Division (please initial your approval) Short Plat L01 -019 Page 4 4•5 1:,6iiirr ,di Ivo 4.• A -1 467,3 • ‘• A.-3...A N . )4 -----• 5 k n - 4.... %'• \ \ \ \ A mo frlic, \ 's . \ A-.‘ • .."- • ",. . '; " (4•,.', , , , •., '''st ,,, ,V,I ,n:2.:;. ,, 3 1. , 1 167 - ----, 1 1 \ \ % N...,1-,F.t. 5 1, \ 61, • • '1 \ ...... , •t. \ \ ‘,. ‘\ • \ . *'...' \ \ . . GNI 11,4*Itnce )' $0 - . . • • ./ ' N. _ ..... _ .,_ . 3. .„.....\ ‘i.9. • • , •, •-, 9• * \ % . -•‘ ,........- , . VNicr trri - 0 - . 1, 9• 4,2 . - 2' \/D • S . '. 195 5 / A,5'.---',„,"_,,,,\,e' 5' tir - ...--- 7 ,i; A 5 ..--' .., A . '-'• 194.4 5). ..-"' .t!, Sr,-, .c., t...., .1'''' 1....4', ' ...." " 'l.)• ...' pro 9 t.. \ ,,, l'' ...0 1447/ 1. • 5, li 1:iih'r :.,,,.. , 5 , .C19 If . ■ 176.0 1\71;,,,:' • N 4.1 v Li . A. .. '94, ` V ,. ••1 4<3.1 \ • • •• • 195 \ 165.5 \ \ o ''•, \ \., • 1'60 (I 5 169.6 169 0 5 " 167.0 \ ...., 5 ' I . \ .\ 1 . , \ i •• 72. Y ' \ \ I. ), .1 .ri 1 ' . i . •4 s•i s 1 1,1' , t 4, \ NI,96,, \ ••4•1r, 5\ \5•4 , ,. \ '-'\'\4 \v..0 \ \\\ •' '1 ‘ \ \\ ,- ''- ' / , , L' 2 ' ‘ ..5-‘" , . , ■ , '.‘-:, ' , 4 ,., 1 - t 1 \ \ . ,s, \ ■ , \ \ V \ s\ ' , ' ' Z t \ \ 1 . - , : .\ ' \ . ; \ ■ \‘\ . • 1.1 1‘ le" re ..1„; ■- • 2.5 7)c n •-• 200.5 \ 4.-- c,-,. .i..,. .4. ,. ,. I . ,\ \ ,. _ V. . \ • .;......`'° • V ;:". r, '.' ‘,.. Ji .," ,'.,: 1 ,g,,. ,..,: 1 ii.'3:- (Oz.., 414';j',. i• . 5 4 '. \ '''‘51 Vp* • , I ' \ .1. • . ' N V ' '1:1. to:... '-^.,7'..'... • ;, -,,,,I:r roll, j \ 1 1LAp 111.11 . 0 )1'. .1,', l. 4.1,40.43 44 4' r ,,,,,,,., 3, 4..,.,, xa..,,,,,ci r. 5 k t F. 0 41; L. dfiN F 1 9 Pl. 1o. ■ 9 2 11,7 a 14 3 15 ga A- q 169.7 i, 1\ i % A• 111 I 1 A-ts \ . .4..,„ r...‘, \ \ A.,..• , I, II \ 4171.4.. 4,.... ';9° \ .01 \II ■ (\/ Yr\ " ' \I ' % 1 / ■\ , . . i `. o ., / I / • t . i \ \ , ),./.A '• '■ , • I .. 1 . A-14 ' o :I 99.9 1 i' / .. . • 1 /39:5 A-I5 / / ! 't, 1 \ I7A 172.9 • \ • • , ' . 171 .2 ¥ 154 -..-1711 • 'ill. )1.1030 • 1, 1448 • 176.4 ..t100.60'1113.:44.712t lent. 11 VIER ST. 9018(3 1,7 RIA1J• ....VI PROXCTI NALEWAJEK - 0 LI VI R 1 'LAT 7 LOT RESIVENTI-11 1311xx AMOID,131 tro 11- t.1•01.(IR 1" •1 JAEGr'ER ENGINEERING 9119 south 20,1111 Move Kent, IM. 911031 90'6 3t0 01$ 444 44. "s.- -.....'..... - -- /rrl ors Iato .e...ti .` • ti•. ti- 1 1 _. ate I / our 3Pg /f r •� ��� ��,....+.�"� 1 2800 —._— TP•4 d flO vemenoves FEET $IL? wall: asp. 111,9 6111, y}:r r7 1.1Y1.11RY E'. A?MagX M E L.oCAT 1 0C.- t ' t,.ka b / S'i"R EArivi Fo StiRgEN E US 5E- Foct- S I T [c. Pt-AMAIN(' p0a MpOadam LEGEND TP -2 f9 'rest pit nunJ. er nr►41 approwmnte toralion n Conceptual house ff.(/1 tocall0n Letf'•5r�t!. S1'•=,»sn•C;; rt .==Pkt;!.'l;PAIMi!N,�4� Fl SITE EXPLORATION t;nlr( r A55( 1 J J 3 7. 3 r 1+ I ) U N --I"' 4 ._ -_ ga.3 t. J / :0 + y ,�t 3 % • �3 9 o I1 1 3 - ! J1 \ J 1 I I J f a= C� -a / 1 1 I I •J ►1 y , t .J to \�, 1 I : r Co • IA j 1 I i \\�•`� I 1' I 2� -3 Q f i't-.•.I ca 1 I I I 1 /— '� I I I I w ) ) S Q (1 i / I 1 I 1 1 i / �// �1, '" t...1 I r� - __, 1 1 1 1 1 / / /4 / —!. �' / / 1 1�► /1 / / ti/ 1 , , I' 1 / / / V �i • 1 I I �1' ....t• .f...L...1.`.. /. .1 .•�••• .. II Il /I • U . 1 1 i III T � • I 1 I I I � \C 1 / ' i 1 IN 1 r 1 I ;4 i i 12 I ; im / 1 ."%i 1 1 y ►' 1 I I . / 1 !I, I01 I ► 1 1 11 .1 -1 I 1 1 y i 11 j 1 L I f 1 1;' 1 I I f 1 I1 I 1 / ! / i i I ', , 1 1 1 I I 1: i 1 i I I I / 1. I I I / 1 1 r! I I 1 1 1 I r1, 1 i �a j I r 1 1 , 1 1 I I , -'} 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 I 1 ; r l I 1 I (1 I 1 1 r►I �I / / f / ( 1 1 1 / II 1 Ir 1 • ! 1 1. I I I 1 ic„ ,;I / I• 1 J I 1 1 I I 1 1• i / ft • / 1 I 1-o / • 1 1 1 I • \ ,A 1 • 1 1\ \ . / 1 ,, 1 I 1 / 1 .. I il l f I 1 1 I � 1 / I 1 1 I 1 r 1 / o /1 1 .g 1 j 1 I I o / 1 1 1 / / I ti / 1 1 vs 1 / t slue I t ti UD1,VV4 T13st011.0 2 Ir 4 Golder Associates 8!98 gut- c -e• �•FJ bP•un ;ity of Tukwila (ing County, Washington S� • /Qaaa/ , o\- 9r /eoKa/ Found 4'x4" mon. with 2" 2/4/20 brass disk w/"X" 110.00' OQ E chain link fence a6i1eA1 J.OT AREAS LQT -r , 14,846 eq.ft. +/- LOT 2 = 8,945 sq.ft. +/- LOT 3 = 9,150 sq.ft. +/- LOT 4 = 9,130 sq.ft. +/- LOT 5 = 8,377 sq.ft. +/- LOT :6 = 7,440 sq.ft. +/— 4.0T 7 = 14,085 sq.ft. +/— RECEIVED NOV 2 8 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMbNT 1.4' 2.8' wetland • wood fence Lot 1 `�15' drainage Deco easement ti \ Emit edge of lot Lot 2 `n6 • •dielurhance 1.(3%' A '{ are° ate,. >(24 Ls Lot 3 ZNcko. Vs ay�.,ya q.k \ 4 4��, Lot 4 00 Zo \ ep O \ \ Found 4 "x4" mon, with 2" brass disk w / "X" 2/4/00 2.44' Found rebar w /cap 1/17863 1.19' Lot 5 Lot 6 ., 1411. a9 Drainage easement 4, �a l) nts Y $ Lot 7 u N�f N87'48)21 "W 101.63 SCALE: ' t tech - 40 It 1 0 40' 80' PORTION OF NE J/4 of SE _1/4, S. 15 _ T. 23 N., R. 4 _E., W.M. • LEGEND ® Concrete Monument In Case + Monument s Bronze plug X Tack In Lead or Nall & Disk O Sat rebor w /cap 1/23604 O Found rebarw /cap 1/17863 ._NOTE; Field data for thls survey was obtained by direct field measurements. Angular and linear relationships were measured with a six second theodolite and electronic measuring device, supplemented by o steel tope. w ..J ECORDER'S CERTIFICATE Id for record this day of 20 at M book of of page at the request of :f.‘ e €7Le.4.4rsAJ'arrVyoa' LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This Short Plot correctly represents a survey made by me or under my direction In conformance with the requirements of the opproprlote tppte and County Statute and Ord 0t.< SURVEY FOR: Nalewojek — Olivier 3803 So. 1501h St. Tukwila, WA SCHROETEROLAND SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS PA. Box 813, Stahurat. Washington 90062 1206) 242 -6621 TAS (206)243 -9679 DM. BY tow DATE 10/24/00 JOB NO. 363/1 DATE RELD 2/4/00 PROJECT NO. 00011ep Z Z W. 0 00 W I J LL W0 u_?. Ci W z�. Z OI W uj 2 0 ci WW = 0. u O. Z W tJ 0 H' Z King County, Washington DEDICATION ow all man by these presents that we, the undersigned, ner(e) In fee simple and /or contract purchaser(s) of the d hereln described do hereby make a short subdivision ireof pursuant to RCW 58.17.060 and acknowledge that said )dlvIalon shall no be further divided In any manner within 7erlod of live years, from date of record, without the ig of o final plat. The undersigned further declare this )rt plot to be the graphic representation of sold short )division and the some Is made with the fres consent and accordance with the desire of the owner(s). IN WITNESS WHEREOF we set our hands and seals. Name Name amt Nome GM Nome Stale of Washington County of I certify that I know ar have satisfactory evidence that ned this instrument and acknowledged It to be (hle/her and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentlon d the Instrument. Signature of Notary Public Dated My appointment expires State of Washington County of I certify that 1 know or hove satisfactory evidence that ned this Instrument and acknowledged it to be (hIe/her) e and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned the instrument, Signature of Notary Public Doted My appointment expires Examined and approved this —_ day of ___, 20____ Chairman, Short Subdivision Committee Examined and opproved this _ day of __, 20___ xsesssor beputy Assessor Acaotlnt Number SCALE: l leah IL Wool 0 PORTION OF _NE_1 /4 of _L.1/4, S. 15_ T. 23 N., W.M. D LEGAL DESCRIPTION NEW LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS LOT 1 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN FOSTER DONATION CLAIM N0. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD N0, 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5484211 AND 5537865, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: • •' BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH, SAID POINT LYING 110 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET; THENCE SOUTH 29'00'09" EAST, ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN, 58.67 FEET, TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION, WITH A RADIUS OF 789.03 FEET, AN ARC OF 16.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59'00'15" EAST 208.93 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1; THENCE NORTH 20'23'13" WEST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 83.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 62'23'00" WEST 218.47 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 48711 AVENUE SOUTH AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN iSTER DONATION CLAIM NO. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, WNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING IUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST IRCIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM IAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD NO. 1), AND LYING :STERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY 1. 1 AS ESTABUSHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING IMBERS 5484211 AND 5537865, AND LYING SOUTHEASTERLY THE SOUTHEAST, MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET DOLPH BAKER COUNTY ROAD) AND LYING SOUTHERLY OF LINE DISTANT SOUTHERLY 110 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT IDLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF SAID SOUTH 138111 REET. LOT 2 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN FOSTER DONATION CLAIM N0. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF 711E EAST MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAO AND AS STATE AID ROAD N0. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGIiWAY NO. 1 AS ESTABUSHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5484211 AND 5537885, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF 48711 AVENUE SOUTH, SAID POINT LYING 184.81 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 59'00'15" EAST 208.93 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE SOUTH 20'23'13" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN 38.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 55'24'32" WEST 201.46 FEET TO THE EASTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH AND A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION WITH A INITIAL BEARING OF SOUTH 58'I1'33" WEST, A RADIUS OF 789.03 FEET, AN ARC OF 50.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LOT 3 LOT 4 THAT POR110N OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN FOSTER DONATION CLAIM N0. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 48111 AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD NO. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE (HIGHWAY NO. 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5484211 AND 5537865, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH, SAID POINT LYING 234.66 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 55'24'32" EAST 201.46 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1; THENCE SOUTH 20'23'13" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 45.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53'29'49" WEST 189.72 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 48TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 36'30'11" WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN, •12.88 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION, WITH RADIUS OF 789.03 FEET, AND ARC OF 37.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN FOSTER DONATION CLAIM N0. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD N0. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5484211 AND 5537865, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH, SAID POINT LYING 284.18 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 138711 STREET; THENCE NORTH 53'29'49" EAST 189.72 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1; THENCE SOUTH 20'23'13" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 32,42 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22'01'16" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 19.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53'29:49" WEST 175.50 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 48TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 36'30'11" WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN, 44.71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LOT 5 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN FOSTER DONATION CLAIM NO. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD N0. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5484211 AND 5537865, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH, SAID POINT LYING 333.58 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 53'29'49" EAST 175.85 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1; THENCE SOUTH 22'01'18" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 11.02 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15'48'57' EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 42.04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53'29'49" WEST 158,25 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY 1AARCIN OF SAID 48TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 36'30'11" WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN, 50.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LOT 6 LOT 7 THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN FOSTER DONATION CLAIM N0. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD NO. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY 110. 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5484211 AND 5537885, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT 011 THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF 481h AVENUE SOUTH, SAID POINT LYING 432.38 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 53'29'49" EAST 139.00 FEET TO 711E WESTERLY MARGIN OF '-"ID PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE 15'48'57" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY MARGIN, 27.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 14'42'06' EAST, ALONG SAID MARGIN, 135.94 FEET TO THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 87'48'21" WEST, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 101.37 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 48TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 38'30'11" WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN, 88.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN FOSTER DONATION CLAIM N0. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 48711 AVENUE SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD NO. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST IAA13GIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 5484211 AND 5537865, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF 48TH AVENUE SOUTH, SAID POINT LYING 382.98 FEET SOUTHEASTERLY, AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET; THENCE NORTH 53'29'49" EAST 158.25 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF SAID PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY N0. 1; THENCE SOUTH 15'48'57" EAST, ALONG SAID WESTERLY IAARGIN, 53.45 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53'29'49" WEST 139,36 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID 48TH AVENUE SOUTH; THENCE NORTH 36'30'11" WEST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY MARGIN, 50.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE Wiled for record this day of 20 at M 119 book of of page at the request of c4lA..!'Are.4iro.1!tee; l a H / 44-reyoi- .i "t wti, ;SR)..x:•,;•, . <x .yam' 'n LAND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE This Short Plat correctly represents o survey made by me or under my direction in conformance with the ,requirements of the oppropriate 5t a and _county Statute and Ordinance In h a.20 SURVE'S' FOR: Nolewajek – Olivier 3803 So. 150th St. Tukwila, WA R C vED NOV 2 8 2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0 > SCHROETERZLAND SURVEYING PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS P.O. Saw 813, Seahurst, Vashhaton 98062 4206) 242 -6621 FAX (206)243 -9671 OWN. BY law (men RY DATE 10/24/00 JOB N0. 363/1 DATE FIELD 2/4/00 PROJECT NO. 00011.p cr u c PORTION OF: SE 1/4 SECTION 15, T.23 N., R.4 E., W.M. VICINITY MAP z (:=> , 4 c t 0> 0 O O O NALEWAJEK WATER EXTENSION tJ I.a .2 •sL,r a c.Ei+ .i:: JIlJ1 0) 49 YD •O gE \ 0 fa] I ■01 1.1 :1YJS JOh 113.5 UY CC /01 /2 5+0 0l0f 3,1010 \S IGIW \W\'c 23* WATER DISTRICT NO.125 STANDARD NOTES: A ^ s a 2 ,` m F §d 6g8 c S o$ gg g g 0 G M. dwt HIIig - '4* N' .0 s V y ' a g w R_ �bY Fx' $z dWWt83 �_ w 5g $ mucE 8'cr� < u 96;3681 5 -W kEj 49* a � % OpA- - Rig = 4$ i� sM7dgw ai g'J -.0 i'9H �tx D V!s.4gumpi k A v�..N zu,�„ ^ qamuri5 � 3W8� aWS Fgxaugg y�pG3 .5��W �.' S,�18 Z.=u.n � r�N oF. 8_ mC �g �cru< "7esoa f 45'f.1,9 5E a to Lg �`� <c #y28gN = off$ '1 W dS� sd _ �<> gym.. �B'1, < «�N:<mjkv+= i�us�� 8: � 1=- '�Zo°ti2�..sscW.902o°.°,.0 •- 3� °p � ESe� 1�3r3E � ° ^�y�,.,W §6.ceWg'i3u m'd<e 2Any1 ?in36 a 88, i1"'o°:8s8m37 iZ a� :t�dz ���ds�G$Wc °<a���' ` >��_: r STD. DETAIL No. 4 VALVE MARKER / GUARD POSTS ae g _R 8 3 3 R R 3 E 8 e igt Cy6 2 g S S@gNg cY r6 F n 6 -'4N rt n3 b gi IN 4 0 ig 4 c STD. DETAIL No. 1 3/4' & 1' DOMESTIC SERVICE DETAIL STD. DETAIL No. 3 FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY DETAIL 2 z a 0 STD. DETAIL No. 8 m wwwww VI . V -- AP.RVS ;:a Fa t6oe1..u4hvo VALVE EXTENSION DETAIL 0 0 61 t a0 8 4 9 Y =o � 0 STD. DETAIL No. 7 WATER MAIN FILLING DETAIL z so O ci W Z m m J F < F � H W Q 'd O F J Ci .74 • I. Z G 0 N FE 0 4 N.. N �; V N 0 O e9 0 a 9 1 C I a " f3 8 a 9 1 " -s 1 8I 2 WIN ;0 IA 1-. 3Ic .,ov. s,un 9u co/br/t z Q • • Z w 6 00 cow WI w 1 Q VTI /� i V mow_ z wo w U � O — O H W w u. z U= 0 z File: L 00 -0077 Drawing #1 -2 - O. Inch rr++� sly 1t Et Lt ;Li 01 1111.1111 :i1111i1111111111i11i111111.11. 1111111/111111 6thi1i(ic01111 ili1111111111llni1Iilulilnlllnlinl - ti L.. i 0 , in11n11I 1111.Inn1ilil.1.iul1ii,11ii11.,1_ LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 AND OF THE STEPHEN GOSTER DONATION CLAIM N0. 38, ALL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EASTERLY OF THE EAST MARGIN OF 48TH AVE. SOUTH (ALSO KNOWN AS MACADAM ROAD AND AS STATE AID ROAD NO. 1), AND LYING WESTERLY OF THE WEST MARGIN OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 AS ESTABLISHED BY DEEDS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO.'S 5484211 AND 5537885, AND LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE. SOUTHEAST MARGIN OF SOUTH 138TH STREET (ADOLPH BAKER COUNTY ROAD), AND LYING SOUTHERLY OF A UNE DISTANT SOUTHERLY 110 FEET, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FRON THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF SOUTH 138TH STREET. A PORTION of the S.E. 1/4, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 N., RANGE 4 E., W.M. UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: CAUTION: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT BY POTHOLING THE UTIUTIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTIUTY LOCATE 0 1- 800 -424 -5555 AND THEN PO1H0UNG AU. OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS CF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFUCTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE NOT GUARANTEED AND ARE SUO ECT TO VAR4,TNN. �ak,e �e'cs faro \t Un's n 4et'. °e o o e° i oo b ti° a °tt. u1 e. o REVISIONS: 1. Rao. /area. K /3o /.' 9On 2 RC.V. PE.'. C,11 Cote MrArr_jz/,. i a^. 1 .0 z TRgNSPSR•fARNAP. . 14P-ALT TAPE12 END TAPER 5423 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. 0 0 / • m ces oo 0 N b EXPANSION JOINT 02 F1. /. 0.05 n. /rt, 2 0 A. 09 E't SSMH fV' M: 202.3 CB1Yr'E.T)' RIM: S7199 B IE: 19((0.0 a� f-\ xcr G c. a (1' PF_ RIM: I1Lo.o DMINO,GE IF : 1'13.5. EASEME0 . W / SOLID, WCIUNG LID (PUBLICi .19 4'1 T }IICk C.RUSI•IED ..' 6RNNE.- ACC-ES .S oar ROAD, f2' wooe- Vo Ca04 -TY I RIM: IB3•o 164 119.0 W /50uD, LOCKING LID SST• FIRE HNDRJ tr m BE RELDGa1 t BEHIND Si t,,j, . le' FRo M PAwTED CB' 9 1YFE 1D FACE OF NEW c'ufh3 RIM: 194.0 ((w /Sou D, LOCKING IF : 109.4(. LID ca° t0(TNFE4 RIM: 195.6 IE.: 192.32 1.60' 2 SEGloN OF 3'.• cm? N. 07. CBn I ^ TNP2 IT- 54" WITH FLCAN ReeTRiaroR RIM: 192.0 tE: .0' (3L ", NE) . IF_: 104.0 OVERFLOW ELev: i9o.o' w/ SOLID, LOCKING LTD (SEE p5.T0tL) 20 • GRAPHIC SCALE 10 • 20 40 ( IN FEET ) 1 Inch - 20 ft. 80 i9' Ran% 195.i 5'x7 A3PHAr, 1iLMv91TIot4 BATH? To NEw 51DP WALK. BEGIN TAPER 0. STA 0100 rBNe- ripe. I •/ SOLID, L(Y.k.ING LID RNA: 191.0 IE: 190.5 RALE.. sz1th PIA: 19 (..0' 31x" DA. CMP Rtse.R w/ SLID, LOCKING LTD Q. AtDPOINr CP PIPE nol� fU %� / al, FNP 0 .' B, Q STARS o13fPRUP LIME) NFW FIRE HNDRANr CB03-TIPS IE- X18 RIM: 190,5 IE : 144-.0( 3L4 5W) W/ SOLID, LUCKING LID 3(.; DIA. CAP RISER W SoLID, LOCKING LID MIDPOINT OF PIPE CB° 2 -TYPE IT-S4'' RIM: 194.0 ie.: 14)4.0 31. ",SW4NE) le_: 1e4.0 vv/ SOLID, LOCKING LID FBA EL: . 24' DIA. SOLID, LocKll.sy. LID f 8tRK.EO PER KS DN s G3 'L -OL2 z -023 ENERRON EL UPPER oRtPlce ELEOw: 4" CNtr PIPE 5uPPORT: 3 "r ORtPICi: DIA: 0,9 G., INIU WN1 3' SFIL,CING . NOTE: TOP OF LIP AT DRIVEWAYS. CEMENT CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER 0' (To Lt. OP R.O : «) CEUEM CONCRETE SIDEWALK I0'. P .7-41 10 1'ACE. A+PHAI r Q CURB =pa CONOVIE 1ERRCAL CURB ANO GUTTER .. (SEE KQRS STD. WC 1s -027)1 =Warr e..AW CUT ' N11N. 1'" INTO E)t13r• l'AVE- MENEE. SRN - jolNr w/ RaAD 00- 8 AD 3" MIN. Cower. DEPTH CLASS 'B" ASPHALT CLWCIOIE a" MK. color. DEPTH 0 USNED SURFACING MP COURSE 4" MW. tearer. DEPTH CRUSHED SURFACING BASE COURSE GRAVEL BASE (GLASS '9) MAY BE REWIRED PEN0ND SOL C08010085 - 0.5 '� 3'• s' SIDEWALK 0. FRAME { $TEAS OFF�T, (MUST BE ABLE TD , Ar1.E3 THE TEEQ LIFT "'-`7 LIFT Rob W /uAJ LE E TENDING To wiTT4W 12• OF EaVER W/ A D7: HOOK. LOUC, FASTEN TD UPPER HAND HOLD 5TD. 4A LV STEEL L OR Ten:( p I:O D Dw5.2•cWn IJOTIE 5 •• 1. THE PRO3ECT /PLAN °..HALL cOMpLy WITH The GEOTECNNICAL REPORT dY GDLDER NESOC.. , DATED MA1 29', 1999, AND A 41 5•JBSEY ueur CCEDTECH NICAL. EPCgT_ • 2. NO Ru1JDFF SHALL Be. INFILTRP,T'ED, INCLU PING Poww SPDUiS, INTO THE C•:POUI -1.0 1- HRoL10H DR`I WELL5 oR paRFoRArep PIPES OR TRt=_NCHI3S'. '� IMOI'JiDUgt_ HOUSE. Fout^1DA110N AND CRA1N S1Sra'N\ SHA L pROVIDE A col=ic. C•+E.OTCCNNIGr,L P,SSESSMENT WITH FINAL DESIGN PLC-OMm1,1D1AT1ONS. 1n IOPLI oRIFIcE g.(.Bovf. 4' CHIP. .�RlFlc0. DIA.: 1.95" 12" DIA.WP DuTLEr @B,PIv o EL•. RESRICTDR PLATE WITH x aA ORIFIcE Goa. STL. RAM,T71'JG w /ELD W.L. AROUND • N TNT Al LING F8' 1 1441 -.12.14 111/4. CLAP To ..143,/z e O/, I LEvEZ yWA1tRTIC41- GROUT SEAL l�(P. ALL PIPES.) WATERTIGHT SHEAR CLEANOUr GArE(F5R STD. eaaEV 1(.c. ROAD Sl L•) 55- ON CRUSHED GRAVEL- OR CDMRiciE.O NATIvE. NAT'ERIA4_ SATCI -± i3A�lI` r' I - FLOW RE_gTRIGTOR /' 'MEN/ CtiegE7E WALK \ NEW swan,. `. Nevi W9AOER �• DRAIN • IZ" _ sic li? I 1 1 ••_- -NEW uTIL101 CONIUrT/ WiRF3 WeeAr) R D. - T`( R SEGT101.1 *GRADING NOTES 1. Unless olherwlse specified, all work shall conform lo the 1998 Slandatd Spbclllcaliom for road, bridge and municipal construcllon as published by the WSDOT and the AMA, as amended by the Clly ol Tukwila. All grading acllvlty shall conform lo UBC. Chaplet 70. 2. These plant do not represent the location ol all existing ulllllles. II 6 the responslblllly of the contractor lo confirm the locallon and depth of exlsling utilllies prior to excavallon. 3. The conlraclor shall be responsible for all safety conslderollons during the execution of the work Including Trench shoring per OSHA epeclllcollons and bailie conlrol on exlsling roads. 4. The engineer shall be nolilied Immediately upon the discovery o1 any conflicts 01 discrepanclos relative to These plans. 5. All mhlerlal used ai'llll shall be approved p11 run gravel or native ntalurlal tltal hos been observed and approved by the engineer. All slruclural 1111 material shall be compacled to a minimum of 957. MOD (under buildings, roods, driveways, walks, parking lots. etc.). This 1111 shall be compacted during opllrnurn molsluro content In 11111 nol excFeding 12 ". See arch. specs. 7. Compaction 10(11 shall be token for all slruclural (ills al the direction of 1110 engineer. 0. All trench baekllll material shall be compacted to 957. MOD wllhin'Due11 01 907. outside ol halite 01001. 9. fill slopes shall nol exceed 3:1 and cul slopes shall nol exceed 2:1. 10. All ad)acenl roads shall be kept clean and free born mud and debris. Cunllaclol shall bo 104)001lb10 lot periodic roadway cleaning. 11. Conlraclor shall lake measures lo minbnite dull gonetaled by grading aclivltles Including boquenl walering by an ankle wale' buck. II nocosfory. .- :..,_r: i.,•- 'r•r,.:FrT'1r r1iT'TJT7-iT„_,. •0 0ch No 1 • b S1L P1 Li Lt. :,,I: .111 . ... B_i. 1 - -.,r` 'V1' L G 1 1'0 i ''' I 111111IIIIIIIIHIIIIII11101IIIIIIIIII1111411I1111111111111 111iillNillili1111ilINNllndnNlmdOnlnNINN1111111N110N1011611f 01 '.. 10 C4 0:3 CO 01 En co N OoN ��N ti y 'o ki C) C'DFo 0, DATE: 10/12/00 SCALE: 1" = 20' OESIC1I B. JJJ._ ORt0t OY: JJJ. APP 6Y: _.. . c6. N0. _ snll 1 RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2002 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS