Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit L97-0026 - FOSTER RIDGE DEVELOPMENT - BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTL97-0026 FOSTER RIDGE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT S. 139 ST/46 AV S (PRE94-03 2) BLA April 28, 2004 City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: Foster Ridge Development L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development Dear Mr. Friel: Last year your boundary line adjustment was granted a six month extension of the expiration date, extending the time to complete the infrastructure construction and record the final documents to April 18, 2004. Since you have not complied with the conditions of approval and recorded the mylars with King County the approval has now expired. Should you wish to pursue the project in the future you will need to submit new applications. Sincerel , Nora Gierloff L Planning Supervisor cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 • City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development ovember 6, 2002 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: Foster Ridge Notice of Decision Dear Mr. Friel: Steve Lancaster, Director I received your letter regarding the Notice of Decision approving the Foster Ridge project on November 5'h (letter dated November 1St). Here are my responses to your points: 1) Since the Notice was not mailed until October 25'1' we will extend the appeal period until 21 days from that date. That puts the last day to file an appeal of the conditions of approval at November 15t. You received the Notice because your name was listed as the primary contact for the application (see attached). If you wish to have Mr. Pederson replace you as contact please provide me with his current address and phone number. 2) Yes, the covenant attached to the Notice is the covenant referenced on page 2. This is substantially the same language suggested by your attorney. 3) It is the applicant's responsibility to develop the legal description (Exhibit A) and depiction of the sensitive areas (Exhibit B) for the covenant. Your attorney did not provide the Exhibits at the time the covenant was proposed so we approved the covenant with placeholders until such time as you can complete the document. The insurance requirement is substantially the same language suggested by your attorney. The permit referenced in that section will be the miscellaneous permit you will apply for through Public Works to construct the site improvements. Please refer to TCM 11.08.100 (attached) for additional detail about Public Works insurance requirements. The Notice sets out the procedures for filing an appeal of the approval to the Hearing Examiner. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director Jack Pace, DCD Deputy Director 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 CITY Off'TUKWIL.A Community Development De ►artmer. .. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OR LOT CONSOLIDATION (P-BLA) • FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: / 0 C c; Receipt Numbers File Number:(, f l -- 002t9 Project File #: ❑ Application Complete (Date: ❑ Application Incomplete (Date: Zo /1i /g A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Other File #: q4 o32- Lqr1;-0o2-t7 (APgR Other File #: ec-1./ - 00 ( C pA 8. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection; if proposal applies to several properties, list the streets bounding the area.) ADDRESS: Access to property at S 139th St & 46th Ave. S ASSESORS PARCEL NO.: 322920 0100 04 + others Quarter: GI- 1 Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME: John B. Friel ADDRESS: P 0 Box 27; Everett, WA. 98206 PHONE (360) 659-4774 /'l eCrf DATE: 9/z7%7 SIGNATURE: BLAAP.DOC 8/5/96 • RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT •?, ; TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE 2. A fee associated with the plan review and approval of the construction plans — fee amount deter- mined from the value of the construction; and 3. A fee associated with the issuance of the permit and the required inspection of the construction — fee amount determined from the value of the con- struction; and 4. A pavement mitigation fee associated with the loss of pavement life from the proposed excavation in the public right-of-way — fee amount determined from the square footage of excavation being performed and the age of the pavement; and, if applicable 5. A Grading Plan Review. For Type C permits, the developer shall submit separate cost estimates for each item of improvement. The Department will check the accuracy of these esti- mates. Monies derived from the above charges shall be deposited to the General Fund of the City. E. A nonrefundable deposit, equal to the fee asso- ciated with an application base fee and the review and approval of the construction plans, is due and payable prior to starting the review, with the balance of the total fee due and payable prior to issuance of the permit. Two reviews of the construction plans are included in the above referenced fee — an original review and a follow-up review associated with a correction letter. Each additional re -review, which is attributed to the developer's action or inaction, shall be charged as a separate transaction in accordance with the fee sched- ule Should additional fees for re -review be imposed, they will be added to the balance due and be payable prior to issuance of the permit. tOrd. 1 095 §1 /part/, 2002; 11.08.070 Permit Exception Permits under this chapter shall not be required for public use; i.e., persons using the right-of-way as pedestrians or while operating motor and non - motorized vehicles for routine purposes such as travel, commuting, or personal business. /Ord. / 095 § 1!part), 20021 11.08.080 Revocation of Permits A. The Director may revoke or suspend any permit issued under this chapter whenever: 1. The activity does not proceed in accordance with the plans as approved, in accordance with conditions of approval, or is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter or procedures, or other City ordinances, or State laws; 2. The City has been denied access to investigate and inspect how the right-of-way is being used; 3. The permittee has misrepresented a mate- rial fact in applying for a permit (a material fact is a fact which, had the truth been known at the time of the issuance of the permit, the permit would not have been granted); 4. The progress of the permitted activity indicates that it is — or will be — inadequate to protect the public and adjoining property or the street or utilities in the street, or any excavation or fill endangers — or appears reasonably likely to endanger — the public, the adjoining property or street, or utilities in the street. B. Upon suspension or revocation of a permit, all use of the right-of-way shall cease, except as authorized by the Director. C. Continued activity following revocation or suspension under this section shall subject each and every violator to the maximum penalties provided by this chapter, with every day constituting a new violation. / Ord. 1905 §' I +part,;, 2002 11.08.090 Renewal of Permits Each permit shall be of a duration as specified on the permit. A permit may be renewed at the discretion of the Director, if requested by the permit holder before expiration of the permit; provided, however, that the use or activity is progressing in a satisfactory manner as reasonably determined by the Director. (Ord. 1995 § I /,part,', 2002:. 11.08.100 Insurance A. Unless the Director determines that there is not a probability of injury, damage, or expense to the City arising from an applicant's proposed use of the right-of- way or public place, the permittee shall maintain in full force and effect, throughout the term of the permit, an insurance policy or policies issued by an insurance company or companies satisfactory to the Director, hav- ing a policyholders' surplus of at least $20,000,000, or if insurance is written by more than one company, each company shall have policyholders' surplus of at least 10 times the amount insured. Policy or policies shall afford insurance covering all operations, vehicles, and employees with the following limits and provisions: 1. Comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, including contractual liability; personal injury; explosion hazard, collapse hazard, and underground property damage hazard; products; and completed operations. 2. Business automobile liability insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, including owned, non -owned, and hired auto coverage, as applicable. 3. Contractors' pollution liability insurance, on an occurrence form, with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage, and any deductible not to exceed $25,000 each occurrence. 4. Said policy or policies shall include the City and its officers and employees jointly and severally as 11-10 Printed October 18. 2002 ITLE 11 — RIGHT OF WAY USE additional insureds, shall apply as primary insurance, shall stipulate that no insurance affected by the City will be called on to contribute to a loss covered there under, and shall provide for severability of interests. 5. Underwriters shall have no right of recov- ery or subrogation against the City, it being the intent of the parties that the insurance policy so affected shall protect both parties and be primary coverage for any and all losses covered by the described insurance. 6. The insurance companies issuing the policy or policies shall have no recourse against the City for payment of any premiums due or for any assessments under any form of any policy 7. Any failure to comply with reporting pro- visions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its employees, officers, officials, agents, volunteers, and assigns. 8. Each insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that the coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after 30 days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested sent to the City. 9. Each policy shall be endorsed to indem- nify, save harmless and defend the City and its officers and employees against any claim or Toss, damage or expense sustained on account of damages to persons or property occurring by reason of permit work done by Permittee, his/her subcontractor or agent, whether or not the work has been completed and whether or not the right-of-way has been opened to public travel. 10. Each policy shall be endorsed to indem- nify, hold harmless and defend the City, and its officers and employees against any claim or loss, damage or expense sustained by any person occurring by reason of doing any work pursuant to the permit including, but not limited to, falling objects or failure to maintain proper barricades and/or lights as required from the time work begins until the work is completed and the right-of-way is opened for public use. B. The permittee shall furnish the City with certi- ficates of insurance and original endorsements affecting coverage required by the permit. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The City expressly reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. Consequently, the permittee shall be prepared to provide such copies prior to the issuance of the permit. C. If any of the required policies are, or at any time become, unsatisfactory to the City as to form or substance, or if a company issuing any such policy is, or at any time becomes, unsatisfactory to the City, the permittee shall promptly obtain a new policy, submit the same to the City for approval, and thereafter submit verification of coverage as required by the City. Upon failure to furnish, deliver and maintain such insurance as provided herein, the City may declare the permit to be in default and pursue any and all remedies the City may have at law or in equity, including those actions outlined in this chapter. D. The permittee shall include all subcontractors as insured under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. E. A property owner performing work adjacent to his/her residence may submit proof of a homeowner's insurance policy in lieu of the insurance requirements of this section. I Ord. 1095 § !(part:, 2002i 11.08.110 Deposits, Fees and Bonds A. Except as noted in this chapter, each applicant, before being issued a permit, shall provide the City with an acceptable security (this may include a corpor- ate surety bond, cash deposit or letter of credit) in the amount of 150% of the value of the work being performed within the public right-of-way in order to guarantee faithful performance of the work authorized by the permit granted pursuant to this chapter. The amount of the security required may be increased or decreased at the discretion of the Director whenever it appears that the amount and cost of the work to be performed may vary from the amount of the security otherwise required under this chapter. B. Public utilities franchised by the City shall not be required to file any security if such requirement is expressly waived in the franchise documents. C. The applicant shall provide a Maintenance Bond that guarantees workmanship and materials for a period of two years following the completion of the work, with reasonable wear and tear excepted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, utilities shall guarantee workmanship and materials; D. The security required by this section shall be conditioned as follows: 1. That the permittee shall fully comply with the requirements of the City ordinances and regula- tions, specifications and standards promulgated by the Department relative to work in the Public right-of-way, and respond to the City in damages for failure to conform therewith; 2. That after work is commenced, the permit- tee shall proceed with diligence and shall promptly complete such work and restore the public right-of- way to City standards, so as not to obstruct the public place or travel thereon more than is reasonably necessary; 3. That unless authorized by the Director on the permit, all paving, resurfacing or replacement of street facilities on principal arterial, major or collector streets shall be done in conformance with the regula- tions contained herein within three calendar days, and within seven calendar days from the time the excava• tion commences on all other streets, except as Printed October 18. 2002 '�" . ., Page 11-11 FROM : FAX NO. : November 1, 2002 w'"ov. 04 2002 05:01PM P1 DEVELOPi'i4E: {" MEMO TO: Jack Pace, Deputy Director Department of Community Development City of Tukwila. 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX 206-431-3665 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 Tel 425-771-3892, FAX 425-673-7674 REF: BLA for Heilwigs Addition, L97-0026 Six Lot Site Plan for Foster Ridge, L97-0027 The following are my initial commentslettert I feel should be ed October 182002 foto r your attention project. regard to your NOTICE OF DECISION 1. The letter date as noted is October 18, 2002, however my delivery envelope is post marked on Oct 25, 02 and I did not receive until October 29, 2002.(eleven days elapsed before I received Notice) I note in the letter that any appeal must be within 21 days of the issuance of the Notice. In the letter 'on page 4, reference to the issuance date of the Notice of Decision (xx ,od 000c) certinly does not define a date. I also note that the property owner Richard S. Pedersen did not redeye a copy and was not on the s& list. I believe that this does not constitute a proper or timely notice. 2. On page 2, under Geotechnical, paragraph h, you refer to a "revised geotechnical covenant" as being attached. Are you making reference to the "SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT" ?. If so, shouldn't that be the reference for page 2. 3. In regard to the SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT, shouldn't Exhibit A and B be documented and attached rather than the blank pages. Also, on page 2 of 5 of this Agreement, item 4, what is the specifics in regard to insurance coverage required by the permit authorizing the development? The most critical of the above is the establishment of a issuance date for the NOTICE OF DECISION so that all partys can use that as starting point for any consideration of an appeal. I would like to have your early response to the above so that we can plan and proceed accordingly. Thanks. Jo t . B. Friel, PE PLS for Foster Ridge BLA • z �z aa� JU U OCD Q cnw J CO wo 2 u-? w a �w Z= I- O zt- w w U Q 0 I- wW Li- z ui U= o1— z City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 18, 2002 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 NOTICE OF DECISION RE: Foster Ridge Development L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development Dear Mr. Friel: z w re L JU UO CO CI CO MI J= COU. wo z� I— 0 zI— ww The Short Subdivision Committee has completed review of your boundary line adjustment and 2 administrative planned residential development applications and determined that they comply with vo D- ail applicable City code requirements. The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously o !— determined that the project does not create a probable significant environmental impact if specific = v mitigation conditions are imposed on the project and issued a Mitigated Determination of Non- LL Significance (MDNS) requiring compliance with those mitigation conditions z This letter serves as the Notice of Decision per TMC 18.104.170. Based on the latest project p H submittal, preliminary approval is granted subject to the conditions stated below. z There are three basic steps in the 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 boundary line adjustment is consistent with the Criteria for Preliminary Approval listed at TMC 17.08.030 C in the Tukwila Subdivision Code. PRELIMINARY APPROVAL CONDITIONS Utilities a. Drainage design for the site shall be developed according to the Pace Engineering Conceptual Storm Layout drawing dated July 2002 and shall meet City of Tukwila Surface Page I 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Water Ordinance Requirements. Your submittal for a miscellaneous permit to construct the utility systems shall address the City's questions raised in the July 19, 2000 and September 4, 2002 letters. b. Pursuant to the Tukwila "underground ordinance", all utilities shall be placed underground. c. Extension of the sewer and water lines to the lots shall be approved by the appropriate utility. As -built plans shall be provided to the Public Works Department prior to final approval. d. The drainage easement over Mr. Cervantes' property must be revised per the attached redlines. This will be a private easement between the property owners and Mr. Cervantes and the City will not be a party to the agreement. Access e. Access roads built to Public Works and Fire Department standards must be provided to all lots as shown on the plan prepared by Pace Engineering dated July 2002. This requirement must be met prior to issuance of any building permits. f. Your submittal for a Miscellaneous permit to construct the access roads and install the utilities must contain a grading plan that shows the location of all proposed retaining walls and gives estimated cut and fill quantities. Certain retaining walls may require separate building permits and structural review. Please contact the Public Works Department for additional information. Fire Protection g. There must be a fire hydrant within 250 feet of all building sites. If the fire hydrant is not capable of a 1000 gallon per minute flow the future houses will be required to provide interior sprinklers, to be approved by the Fire Department. This requirement must be met prior to issuance of any building permits. Geotechnical h. The property owners will need to sign, notarize and record the revised geotechnical covenant prior to final approval (see attached). i. The recommendation from Associated Earth Sciences, contained in their July 11, 2002 letter, that there be an on-site inspector for the geotechnical engineer during the construction of foundations, retaining walls, water, sewer, and surface water utilities, and driveways shall be a condition of the Miscellaneous permit. The on-site inspector shall verify in writing, on a daily basis, with the reports sent to the City's Department of Public Works, that all construction work has been performed in accordance with approved plans L97-0026 Page 2 z w ce 00 w= J • w w o cn Iw zz zI- w w o - O I— ww LL wz U= o z and specifications, permit requirements, and that the construction work complies with all of the geotechnical's recommendations. General z ~w j. The wetland mitigation buffer enhancement plan prepared by Sheldon & Associates must � be revised to reflect the current lot layout. The 6 lot proposal only requires mitigation for 6 = the reduction of the wetland buffer from 50' to 25' along Lot 2. v p UO U) L1J k. The edges of the wetland buffer easements on lots 2, 3, 4 and 6 shall be delineated with a -J i.=.. split rail fence and signage per TMC 18.45.060 6. N a- wc) 2 1. You will need to obtain all required permits prior to beginning any construction. For water n- and sewer permits, contact the individual provider District. For City of Tukwila utilities, u site grading, and access driveways contact Tukwila Public Works at (206) 433-0179. I w z� m. Install all required site improvements, including those proposed in the application and those z O identified above as conditions of approval. w w Do n. Submit a set of recording documents in either legal or record of survey format that meet the p co King County Recorder's requirements and contain the following items: w U 1. A survey map as described in the application checklist that is consistent with all of L p the conditions of approval. The surveyor's original signature must be on the face of the plat. iii z 2. Existing and proposed legal descriptions for all lots. z E-- 3. Legal description of the access/utility easements. OH 4. Joint Maintenance Agreements for the easements, drainage system and open space tract. 5. Legal description of the wetland buffer easement across lots 3, 4 and 6. APPEALS This BLA approval decision is appealable to the Hearing Examiner. One administrative appeal of the decision on the BLA is permitted. If an MDNS was issued, any person wishing to challenge either the conditions which were imposed by the MDNS decision or the failure of the Department to impose additional conditions in the MDNS may raise such issues as part of the appeal . If no valid appeals are filed within the time limit the decision of the Department will be final. L97-0026 �'; .. In order to appeal the decision a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 21 days of the issuance of the Notice of Decision (xx/xx/xxxx). The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. Appeal materials shall include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. The Notice of Appeal shall state specific errors of fact or errors in application of 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. An appeal challenging a DNS, an MDNS or an EIS may be included in such an appeal. 2. Final Approval The next step is to install the required site improvements, comply with the conditions of approval and submit the necessary documents (survey, legal descriptions, and other required paper work). Aller the documents have been found to be in order, and the all of the requirements of the BLA have been met, the Chair of the Short Subdivision Committee signs your paperwork which constitutes a grant of final approval. No permits for the construction of houses on the site will be granted prior to the recording of the BLA. All taxes and fees assessed against the property must be current prior to final approval. Please check with the King County Assessor's Office and the City of Tukwila Finance Department prior to submitting final mylars. Expiration The final approved documents must be filed with the King County Department of Records by October 18, 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. L97-0026 Page 4 rt /kVra>;,r: w�rr2m 3. Recording The signature of the Chairman of the Short Subdivision Committee certifies that your application is ready for recording. It is your responsibility to record the City approved documents with the King County Department of Records. You will need to pay the recording fees and submit your approved original drawings to King County, see the Recording Procedures handout. The BLA 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 BLA is considered complete. You can shorten this processing time by hand -delivering a copy of the recorded document to the project planner. Sincerely, StEwcianetrstier r• Chair, Short Subdivision Committee Enclosures: Redlined Drainage Easement Revised Geotechnical Covenant cc: Jim Morrow, Public yorks Dtctor (please initial your approval) Tom Keefe, Fire Chief e ini 'al your approval) King County Assessor, Accoun ng Division Department of Ecology, SEPA Division William Looney Benito Cervantes Jon Beahm Cyril Mork L97-0026 Page 5 2,113,,V=2,22,=== .1+.7 YwwM:Y+k q�!WwrNl".1 . ��. ;A: • - ' ''ati-i+,1 •:',,,;44,1A -AV law ' 7. Po -4.4%40 ltMia-f• z z w 6 = -J C.) 00 CO CI CO 11.1 LUI CO u_ w 0 g u.. < w I a I— III Z I-0 Z UJ w 0 O P- o F- tu uj I 0 LI 0 Lij Z O U) -• ±" o 1- z WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: City Clerk z City of Tukwila z I 6200 Southcenter Boulevard ui Tukwila, WA 98188 QQ D J0 00 J= Reference Number(s) of Related Document(s): co �. w0 Grantor: g u__ Grantee: The City of Tukwila = d I -W Zi Legal Description (Abbreviated): 1— 0 z I-- Full Legal Description is found on Exhibit A of this document. ? o ON Assessor's Tax Parcel ID Numbers: o 1— WW ~- SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD u' z HARMLESS AGREEMENT v co. This covenant and hold harmless agreement is entered into between P i , a corporation, ("Grantor), z and the City of Tukwila, a Washington municipal corporation ("Grantee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Grantor owns and has applied for necessary permits to develop certain real property (the "Property") legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by reference. WHEREAS, a portion of the Property contains sensitive areas of potential geologic instability (potential slide areas) as depicted in Exhibit B, which is attached and incorporated by reference. WHEREAS, as a condition of the issuance of boundary line adjustment, planned residential development approval, land use permits, and/or construction permits for the Property, the Grantee required the Grantor to execute and record this "Sensitive Area Covenant and Hold Harmless Agreement" to hold the City of Tukwila harmless from all loss incurred as a result of any landslide or seismic activity, or soil disturbance. SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND PAGE 1 OF 5 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT . ..... ... _.. .- ...r..aaeir—+•*• •*teE .M. VMMT MrleefirtrY'n1 WKIato K«rye~$lei h e*C0'bAt5%Y rtOr+,:1RMNN}nN'MttrANIOVI4lev ac'a+'xmrr!.M�x..R.w,.v.w. Im...y,...w+�wmn+•..»��..w..w.....i...,Y WHEREAS, Grantor assumed this obligation in order to obtain said boundary line adjustment, planned residential development approval, land use permits, and/or construction permits for the Property. WHEREAS, the parties agree that this agreement constitutes an arms length, bargained -for agreement, which includes a waiver of liability that runs with the land for risks created by the proposed use of property because of the shape, composition, location or other characteristic unique to the Property sought to be developed. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. In consideration of Grantee issuing boundary line adjustment, planned residential development approval and/or other development permits, which constitutes good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which and the sufficiency of which the Grantor hereby acknowledges, the Grantor shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Grantee, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and assigns harmless from any and all claims, injuries, damages, losses, or suits, whether brought by grantor or third parties, including all legal costs and reasonable attorney fees, arising out of or in connection with any injuries or damages to persons or property caused in whole or in part by any landslide or seismic activity or soil disturbance on the Property, legally described in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated by reference. 2. Grantor on its own behalf and on behalf of its heirs, successors and assigns hereby waives any right to assert any claim against the Grantee, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and assigns for any loss, or damage to people or property either on or off the site resulting from any landslide or seismic activity or soil disturbance on said Property by reason of or arising out of the issuance of the permit(s) by the City for development on said Property except only for such losses that may directly result from the sole negligence of the City. 3. Grantor will inform its successors and assigns of said Property that the Property is in an area of potential geologic instability (potential slide area), of the risks associated with development thereon, of any conditions or prohibitions on development imposed by the City of Tukwila, and of any features in this design which will require maintenance or modification to address anticipated soils changes. 4. Grantor will maintain continuous insurance coverage as required by the permit authorizing the development. 5. Grantee's inspection or acceptance of any of the Grantor's construction or other work either during construction or when completed shall not be grounds to avoid any of these covenants of indemnification. SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT G:ivx+v+r� PAGE 2OF`S ,..:,AYjY!:'/:'�r'f"t•.C:Y'i `'^ . ..a�..u..r�14;•*,...... n: Sf�;34 4, 6. This covenant and hold harmless agreement shall be a covenant running with the land and the rights and obligations contained herein shall run with and burden the Property, including each parcel comprising the Property and shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Grantor and Grantee, their successors and assigns. z l. DATED this day of , 200 Lu D GRANTOR: v o a corporation co H U) IL By: 2 Print Name: COD =a 1—w Zi 1— O Z E— STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ? o ) ss. v w COUNTY OF KING ) o - wW On this day of , 200_, before me a Notary Public in and for the 1- State of Washington, personally appeared �. o , to me known to be the co of , a F=I corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged it to be the free and z voluntary act of said corporation, for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute said instrument. Its: 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. (seal) SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT Name: NOTARY PUBLIC, in and for the State of Washington, residing at My commission expires: PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT PAGE 4 OF% EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF SENSITIVE AREAS SENSITIVE AREA COVENANT AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT PAGE 5 OF 5 cew O 0 Ww J w0 gQ 2d � w F- O zt—: U • �• ON 0 I- w W F2-0 U. 0 ..z 0- O~' z After Recording return to: PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR(s), the owner(s) in fee of that certain parcel of land, described as follows: hereby grants and conveys a drainage easement (as shown on the attached Exhibit "A") for the purpose of conveying or storing storm and surface water per an engineering plan to Kj ig-CM: (GRANTEE) . to • for the project known as: : . • ..1 • • I • '_a•• 1 1t0. together with the right for to enter said drainage easement for the purpose of qr0s111.n. 15 observing that the properly operating and maintaining the drainage facilities contained within. CCPIANT EE .LS The responsible for operating, maintaining and repairing the drainage facilities contained within said drainage easement, and are hereby required to obtain RECEIVED OCT 07 2002 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT September 30, 2002 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Department of Community Development City of Tukwila z 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 H z cCw FROM: John B. Friel 6 n JBMF Consulting Engineer v p P.O. Box 27 coo Everett, Wa., 98206 Tel 425-771-3892 w = J1.... REF: BLA for Hellwigs Addition Lu p Six Lot Site Plan for Foster Ridge 2 J In reference to your letter of September 4, 2002, I am enclosing a copy of a memo from u) D Phil Cheesman of PACE, dated September 13, 2002 in which he is giving his initial I w response to those PACE items noted in your letter. What Phil is suggesting is for the Cityz i to give a preliminary approval for the six lot BLA subject to doing the details which he has z O outlined and that may be required prior to a permit for actual site construction. This would w w seem to be a reasonable request. As you know we have been involved in this BLA for a v o period of years now and we would at least like to get a conceptual approval. We had the 0 P- expectation from the comments that were made by Jack Pace at our meeting that he was I° ~ Lu going to do the review of the material submitted within 10 days and then get back to us i v with a "punch list" which we understood would lead to a BLA approval which is what p Phil is requesting. Gary Flowers of AES, Inc. concurs with this request and we ask that w z you also concur. 1.1 O z Regarding Site Access - Access for lot 4 is indicated to be from 139th Street and from within a 20' access easement. (see attached map) Regarding Record of Covenants - What is the status of this review ? Also, our ability to do the drainage conceptual plan is contingent on executing the easement between the City and Mr. Benito Cervantes. In my memo to you dated December 4, 2001, I included a easement form and requested the following " Would you please inform me if this is satisfactory as to the form for the actual easement". I have not yet received a response. This matter regarding the easement from Mr. Benito Cervantes is important and he would like to know what that status is with the City. I would assume that it should be executed soon in order to maintain credibility with Mr. Cervantes. He would like to do this now. If you have any questions, please contact me. 7 ohn B. Friel, PE PLS for R. S. Pedersen Sep 13 02 11:15a Penhallegon Associates !'neollpen Aorecleho ConruMoy rollnrrr,!m. Ercineeting E ring MEMORANDUM 425-027-5043 p.1 Date: September 13, 2002 To: John B. Friel — JBMF Consulting Engineer Transmitted Via Facsimile to 425-673-7674 From: Phil Cheesinan - PACE Subject: Foster Ridge Development Response to City of Tuk;vila Letter of September 12, 2002 Please find a brief response to each of the City's comments regarding the conceptual storm layout plan prepared by P.4CE. Each numbered item below corresponds to the respective paragraph listed under the Surface and Groundwater section of the City's letter. . It is asstuned that the foundation of the proposed house will have perimeter drainage mound it to control ground water. I am not sure what "problem" they are referring to. This drainage path is an existing condition and appears to only pass through the far eastern edge of lot 2. I don't see a need for arty improvements to this area unless there arc stability issues from the geotech side of things. 2. Ultimately we Nvi11 need to estimate the percentage of surface arca draining to the wetland that would be taken away from the wetland area. My guess is that it is a fairly small percentage of the overall area that feeds that wetland. Then a wetland biologist will heed to make a determination on impact. Ground water also plays a role in this. I would hope that the City may be able to make an administrative decision on preliminary plat approval based on the conceptual layout and any detailed studies would be a condition for final permit issue rather than spending the time and effort for detailed studies on a layout that may need to change again. 3. We will need to work collectively with a wetland biologist and geotechnical hydrologist (AES) to complete these studies, but again, I would hope that the City may be able to make an administrative decision on preliminary plat approval based on the conceptual layout and any detailed studies would be a condition for final permit issue rather than at this stage. 4. We can provide this, but again, I would hope that the City may he able to make an administrative decision on preliminary plat approval based on the conceptual layout and any detailed studies would be a condition for final permit issue rather than at this stage. 5. We can provide this, but again, I would hope that the City may be able to make an administr tive decision on preliminary plat approval based on the conceptual layout and sizing and any detailed studies would be a condition for final permit issue rather than at this stage. If you have any questions or want to further discuss please call. Thank you. Kirkland 750 Sixth Street South (425) 827-2014 r (425) 827-5043 Seattle • Federal Way • Cle Etem • Portland cif •\ \ \ \ • • /11111 tel'►' ' \ / • , )( III / >< �. 1 , �) I 1 I7 , ,'��%� _�_Th�'� mo i-='�-\/ , 1► � ''. / �/� �i j •- 1 f 1 -.� I I I 111 114.1(�+' //". �!!I I'`�'I11) ' � f x)11(, II1111117/111..„, A 1 �!, ; \ 1 / � I r r / 7/7 - I 11' II/ /nJ/L/1 -- 190 200 210 i ► I 00 \ r��.1,H 1 I; I (i"\%\, 1 (\ ,'?1 1\7 , I ) o 220 r, \ / 7-1.1 c ' '7v/ '6146/J061w, }t� ,O ION 1 an,LWD � tio- ti l .'C.:tj v ' .pt„ .!J''N V k F t .i•.•:'J'.;yY-^� �-4: •n. �.}Pt�Si'.: akl�t,'S.f tl.:�e�:�t ..�..�..aa...+.1 u...;...........v. ....,. s...,... .......,.�......+....u....r.�..�._a,.r.,r.._t...<•.t ._..�.. .J.:.....��....i: ................ ...1�..... .::uby,2t a".Xt�iY City of Tukwila 1 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 4, 2002 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: Foster Ridge Development Dear Mr. Friel: This letter is a follow up to your meeting on July 11th with Jack Pace and Jim Morrow. Even though the July 11, 2002 letter from Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. addressed the questions and concerns raised in the Shannon & Wilson Peer Review of August 9, 1999, the letter did not respond to the City's questions delineated in the Department of Public Works' July 19, 2000 letter. The following concerns remain: Unsuitable Soil Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report of November 13, 1998 stated that the site contained fill materials that were unsuitable for structural support. This material is in or near the revised construction area — Test Pits EP -5 and EP -16. The City agrees with Associated Earth Sciences recommendation, contained in their July 11, 2002 letter, that this unsuitable material be removed for the construction of the house foundation proposed for Lot 2. Is it anticipated that this unsuitable material will adversely impact the construction of the driveway for Lot 2, the underground detention tank, and a house foundation for Lot 1?" Surface and Groundwater Surface water flows from the wetland area down slope and through the eastern portion of Lot 2 on the revised 6 -lot plan. What is the impact upon Lot 2 and how does the Pace "Conceptual" Storm Layout address this problem? Opposing forces are at work — Wetlands need both surface and ground water to stay functional, yet house sites need to stay dry. How will this balance be maintained? The Pace "Conceptual" Storm Layout does not address this problem. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Ground water was encountered in all test pits within the new 6 -lot proposed development area. How will this ground water be managed? A complete and comprehensive water management plan must be submitted. The plan needs to address both surface and ground water. The 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual should be followed in preparing this report. The Pace "Conceptual" Storm Layout proposes to transmit down the unopened right -of- I W way all of the surface water generated by the 6 -lot development. Please submit detailed drawings 6 that show plan and profile for this storm water drainage system. 0 p coo J = F- NLL w0 �Q Please provide the calculations used in determining the size of the detention tank. Site Access From the 6 -lot revised plan vehicular access to Lot 4 cannot be determined. Please provide a plan that shows whether access will be from 139th or 140`h Street. The Fire Department 1 w _ has approved the non-standard hammerhead at 139th Street. z Construction Observation The City concurs with the recommendation from Associated Earth Sciences, contained in their July 11, 2002 letter, that during the construction of foundations, retaining walls, water, sewer, and surface water utilities, and driveways that there be an on-site inspector for the geotechnical engineer. The on-site inspector shall verify in writing, on a daily basis, with the reports sent to the City's Department of Public Works, that all construction work has been performed in accordance with approved plans and specifications, permit requirements, and that the construction work complies with all of the geotechnical's recommendations. Record of Covenants The City Attorney is reviewing the covenant your attorney has drafted releasing the City of Tukwila from liability for damages caused by soil movement. I will notify you if he has any revisions. , If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433-7141. Nora Gierloff Planning Supervisor cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director Karen Willie, Attorney for Foster Ridge Applicants 'MwfaCA iktps erNA#.'t`s'*9+INTrAfroktm!Nglx`+:H infk,r9itv",r rc i5wr t r 13,14nrtrsra,M-K4 ge.< r ,au P.On x,�+ ..Miry g•KO' MPfrYx e"h z Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. July 11, 2002 Project No. KE96296A City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 93188 Attention: Mr. Jim Morrow Director of Public Works a Subject: Shannon.& Wilson Peer Review, Thomas C.. Kinney, P.E. Foster Ridge Subdivision Tukwila, Washington August 9, 1999 Dear Mr. Morrow: This letter represeets our written response to the above noted peer review. document for the subject site. Our comments are presented in the same order as those given in the Shannon and Wilson letter. Our comments are based on chapter 18.45 of the Tukwila Municipal Code and are based on the proposed 6 -lot development that has been submitted to the City since the peer review occurred. Classification of Lots Mr. Kinney states that, "if the topography just north of Lots 1 through 5 is considered, this classification (class 4) may extend to those lots also. Mr. Kinney' also states that Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI's) geotechnical report only provides special provisions for fill placement in the class 3 areas and setbacks in the limited set of identified class 4 areas, but does not otherwise address the issue. We would like to point out that it was not the intent of AESI to evaluate the property located off-site of the subject parcel. Even though' the municipal code requires the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the potential impacts to adjacent properties, it does not require us to incorporate off site topography when determining the suitable sensitive areas classification. AESI provided site preparation recommendations, special fill provisions, setbacks, deep foundation systems, drainage control recommendations, retaining wall recommendations, 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 • Fax 425 827-5424 identified landslide hazards, provided mitigation recommendations and 'required additional studies both before and during construction activities for these areas. Lot Development Mr. Kinney states that no topographic information or stability analyses have been presented for the areas to the north of lots 1 through 8 and the inherent interdependence between the on-site lots and off-site lots was not discussed. Again, even though the municipal code requires the geotechnical engineer to evaluate the potential impacts to adjacent properties, it does not require us to incorporate actual surveyed off site topography into our reports or to provide slope stability analyses of off-site properties. Our evaluation considered off-site impacts but our client has no ability to control off-site development. That is a function of the City of Tukwila. It is also important to understand that the new 6 lot configuration has eliminated all of the steeply sloping lots except for lots 1 & 2. Lots 1 & 2 have been significantly reduced in size and pulled away from the adjacent, off-site, steeply sloping lots. As such, many of Mr. Kinneys concerns should be eliminated. Shallow Slope Movement Mr. Kinney has concerns that the drainage issues are not receiving enough pre -construction attention. With the new lot configuration the lots on the steepest portions of the site have either been eliminated or relocated away from steeper slopes. This will significantly reduce the potential for shallow slope movement. A new drainage plan has been developed by PACE showing how storm water will be addressed for the development. Control of upslope, off-site water onto the subject property will also further reduce the amount of shallow ground water on the site. Shallow and Deep Sliding Mr. Kinney had concerns regarding both shallow and deep-seated sliding for Lots 1-5. Under the new development scenario, these lots have either been eliminated or significantly reduced in size and pulled away from the adjacent, off-site, steeply sloping lots to the north. The . currently planned lots, if properly constructed according to .AESI's geotechnical engineering report and inspected by AESI at the time of construction, will not be impacted by either shallow or deep sliding concerns. 2 .r..•.«.m�vww,e.n�e^,vx+v.o.*x.......y,.�, c r r+ ,3.,� . ... Impacts of Construction to the North of Lots 1 through 8 Mr. Kinney was concerned that construction on the off-site lots to, the north of Lots 1• through 8, could impact the on-site lots. He offered no solution but suggested further consideration. The former Lots 1 through 8 have either been eliminated or significantly reduced in size and pulled away from the adjacent, off-site, steeply sloping lots to the north. The buffer zone between the lots is now in excess of 80 feet between property lines and in excess of 110 to 120 feet from planned residences. We believe that Mr. Kinney would concur that this buffer is more than adequate to protect the homes on the new Lots 1 and 2. Slope Failure Responsibility and Liability Mr. Kinney was concerned that the development of the former Lots 1 through 8 could adversely impact the downslope properties. The reconfiguration of the lots into the currently proposed plan, along with the storm water plan developed by PACE, should •effectively mitigate the suggested concerns. Definition of Setback Issue ti Mr. Kinney was concerned that the setback distances did not take into account the steep _ sloping properties to the north. As stated above, the former Lots 1 through 8 have either been eliminated or significantly reduced in size and pulled away from the adjacent, off-site, steeply sloping lots to the north. The buffer zone between the lots is now in excess of 80 feet between property lines and in excess of 110 to 120 feet from planned residences. We believe that Mr. Kinney would concur that this buffer is more than adequate to protect the homes on the new Lots 1 and 2 from downslope construction and to protect the downslope property owners from any yard sliding that, although unlikely, could occur, Deep Foundations Mr. Kinney's concerns on this issue was related to requiring further study on the former Lots 6, 7 and 8. He also had concerns on former Lots 1 through 5 if slope stability proved to be an issue on those sites. With the reconfiguration of the plat, •it is our opinion that Mr. Kinney`s concerns are. no longer valid.. . r 3 FROM : Panasonic FAX SYSTEM PHONE NO. : JOHN NALEWAJEK f44. T7 yaw d.. iL. r.� Jun. 12 2003 10:04PM P1 405 S, 3rd Si. Yakima, WA 98901 USA one Fax 509-457.3601 May 8, 2003 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd. #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 orri t M,h { i, 1 R• PEW. G 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 to tkisaLer.- I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Jo).t /la(er u J is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that ke signed this instrument and ac owledged it to be a free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. 74.4:4iii.sn3i 9:Wii lig• �•t < Print Name —1-6- Notary r" -Notary Public in and for the State of My appointment expires: 'k�� l -s Benches and Keys Mr. Kinney was concerned that existing fill on the site was likely not keyed and benched (i.e. placed in a controlled manner). The actual amount of fill encountered on the site was relatively minimal and confined to an area where former, unpermitted (prior to Pederson ownership) grading activities occurred during an apparent attempt to establish a road on the property. The new lot configuration has eliminated construction on all areas of fill except Lot 2. On the northern portion of Lot 2 we anticipate encountering 3 to 4f feet of loose fill materials. Any fill in the building area would be removed from beneath the foundations during the construction process. The fill in the yard area would likely remain and would be no more or no less stable than it is at present. Homeowner landscaping activities, including retaining walls, would have to be designed with consideration for the fill. This situation is no different than is encountered every day on building lots in Tukwila and other areas in the region. _ Structural Fill Mr. Kinney's concern regards the definition of structural fill and his desire to have it specified ahead of time Although we can appreciate his concern this is not a municipal or government project whereby every detail is determined prior to bidding the job. The fact is, most of the on-site material can be re -used as structural fill provided it is non-organic and the moisture content is within acceptable parameters for the material. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be required in order to attain near optimum moisture content and facilitate compactive effort. This process is performed every day on construction sites in the region. Only if the on-site soil is too wet or too dry will it not be acceptable for use as structural fill. As per Section 18.45.060. paragraph 5, of the municipal code, the City of Tukwila requires the specialist of record (i.e. geotechnical engineer) to be retained to monitor the site during construction. The engineer, or his representative, will determine what material can be used as structural fill at the time of construction. Spread Footings Mr. Kinneys concern is that the section of AESI's report on Foundations contains a section on spread footings on page 14'that could be missed by anyone not interested in pile foundations. Again,, as per Section 18.45.060, paragraph 5, of the municipal code, the City of Tukwila requires the specialist of record (i.e. geotechnical engineer) to be retained to monitor the site during construction. If the contractor or structural engineer missed these recommendations the engineer of record would be responsible to bring them to their attention. However, if this is a concern of the City, the soils report can easily be re -issued with the paragraphs in. the Foundations section rearranged to Mr Kinney's satisfaction. 4 r' Retaining Wall Pressures The concern is that the contractor may use on-site, fine grained soils for wall backfill which would have the result of adding additional pressure against the wall. On page 15 of AESI's report, it explicitly states that the wall design is based on using imported sand and gravel for backfill behind the walls. The on-site inspector for the geotechnical engineer would be responsible for verifying that suitable material is used .behind the wall to . match the wall design. z w rt JU 000 w • UJ Drainage -11- N LL wo g• ¢ This issue has been fully addressed by thenew lot configuration and the conceptual site_ co a w z� Construction Plans z o Mr. Kinney was concerned about a utility easement down the steep siopc downslope of the 0 in- former Lot 10. o F- LU 'Li This issue has been addressed with the new lot configuration and the placement of the utilities . down the 46th Ave. S right of way. wz Abandoned Mines o The concern regards the overall site drainage plan. drainage plan provided by PACE. Mr. Kinney was concerned whether or not the site was located over an abandoned mine. To the best of our knowledge there are no abandoned coal mines in the immediate area of the subject project. Unless either Mr. Kinney or the City can provide evidence of abandoned coal mines in the area this should not be a concern for the project. Confirmation Letter Mr. Kinney was looking for a confirmation letter that AESI has reviewed the pan and that we are in agreement, with the recommendations. Typically this letter is provided when there are additional construction pian, .o r,vig.wz- We would anticipate providing this letter prior to actual construction beginning on the plat. Construction Observation The concern is that construction observation is very important on this site. We concur totally and assume that the City will require geotechnical inspection as a condition of plat approval. Based. on the new lot configuration and the above comments it is our opinion that the site, if developed in accordance with AESI's recommendations, will have a low risk of slope movement. AESI will provide to the City a letter that can be presented to downslope property owners providing geotechnical risk and mitigations concerning the development of their properties. We trust these comments and opinions are satisfactory to your needs at this time. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Gary A. Principal wers, P.G eologist • GAF/da KE96296A1 LD:D/da - 7-02 $a' Atigiei5 7i i2F. srE'den. Era 5/3fvL/ ) Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Principal Engineer 6 T/0. Law Offices Of Karen A. Willie KAREN A. WILLIE June 19, 2002 James F. Morrow Public Works Director CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Forest Ridge Development Dear Mr. Morrow: REED JUN 2 1 2002 PUBLIC WORKS I am in receipt of your letter dated June 18, 2002 to my client, Mr. John Friel, which references his letter of January 28, 2002 and mine of May 28, 2002. Given your thirty day deadline, we propose a meeting with you and whatever staff you deem appropriate, on the afternoon of July 11, 2002 to submit the requested additional information. We hope that you can confirm this date and look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, aren A. Willie KAW:ep:L:lshared\KAW\Day\PED_TUK Morrow 061902V2.1tr cc: Dick Pedersen John Friel Gary Flowers 11 West McGraw Street Seattle, WA 98119 Phone: (206) 223-1060 Facsimile: (206) 223-0168 E -Mail: kwillie@willielaw.com (...74,4,144.:6 '.u;;,,ni{ridt:ik :k 614,14..$Gvri` eo" & "?fa?i 'in June 18, 2002 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: Foster Ridge Development Dear Mr. Friel: TIn D Steven M. Mullet, Mayor James E Morrow, P.E., Director z z JUN ) 8 2002 -1 o COMMUNITY • w DEVELOPMENT w w• o u. O a =w _ z� I am in receipt of your letter of January 14, 2002 and your attorney's, Karen Willie, letter of Mayw � O 28, 2002 and its accompanying documentation. I have reviewed each and also revisited the site. 8 U co off ww LI-- O wz co 5'- After reviewing your permit file, it is noted that the City is still awaiting a response from you regarding how your proposed six -lot development will address the concerns we have regarding unsuitable soil, slope stability, site access, and the development caused surface and ground water problems. These concerns were brought to your attention in the City's letter dated July 19, 2000, but in actuality have been ongoing since September 8, 1997. You raised these issues again at the March 21, 2001 meeting and were told at that time that the City would not participate in a storm water management system that served your proposed development. If you do not provide the requested information within 30 days from the date of this letter, the City will deny your application. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433-0179. Sincerely, Thtc>t0 Jim Morrow Public Works Director cc: vlVora Gierloff, Planning Supervisor Karen Willie, Attorney for Foster Ridge Applicants 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-433-0179 • Fax: 206-431-3665 z Law Offices Of Karen A. Willie KAREN A. WILLIE May 28, 2002 VIA HAND DELIVERY James F. Morrow Public Works Director CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Foster Ridge BLA Dear Mr. Morrow: `r -,,t/197,;:31) 2002 +•r JL;�� I represent the owners of Foster Ridge who have been attempting, over a long term of years, to develop 2.98 acres in the City of Tukwila. I have reviewed the history of my clients' attempts to develop their land and have questions with regard to the particular site, the development process at the City and the history of similarly situated parcels. My practice is limited to issues involving water law including stormwater management, landslides and wetlands. I am cognizant of the policy issues involved from a municipal point of view. I currently represent the cities of Tacoma and Everett in such matters and did all of the legal analysis for King County on its first stormwater Design Manual as the deputy prosecutor assigned to the Surface Water Management Division. I occasionally represent developers, but only when it seems that the facts warrant my involvement. I recently accomplished a site visit to the area with Mr. John Friel, P.E. I have also reviewed his memo dated January 14, 2002 and its accompanying photographs which were sent to Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner. I agree with Mr. Friel's assessment, documented by the photographs, litstd; Rf.LM�`rii fry�C{( ¢."�F.Td!�?Ct Rk' '�IY?A'rbtliteMVi+1i1!flV 11 West McGraw Street Seattle, WA 98119 Phone: (206) 223-1060 Facsimile: (206) 223-0168 E -Mail: kwillie@willielaw.com 0.P «. ♦T'�Y""tsi/"uSRt w'^.txct+.vna.........,�,,.... _ . James F. Morrow May 28, 2002 Page - 2 that City streets are collecting, concentrating and dumping stonnwater flows onto the property --to its injury. Additionally, I expect that these flows, which are not natural, contribute to and have increased the size of, wetlands on site. As you may be aware, city streets can act as illegal "channelers" of surface water flows. See DiBlasi v. City of Seattle, 136 Wn.2d 865, 969 P.2d 10 (1998). The history of the attempt to develop the property also concerns me. Please find enclosed at Tab A the original plat of the property showing intense development involving eighteen lots. I believe that a twelve lot plan was submitted to the City. This application was deemed complete on October 28, 1997. See Tab B. It is my understanding that geotechnical concerns developed with regard to this proposal. I have reviewed the reports of Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. and the peer review performed by Shannon & Wilson, Inc. in August of 1999. I have also reviewed titles 17 and 18 of your City's Code. The Tukwila Municipal Code appears to vest more discretion in the "Director" than any other code I am familiar with. The section entitled "Disclosure, Declarations and Covenants" (TMC 18.45.080(E)(5)) is similar to other such sections I have dealt with and usually provides a way to allow development and shield the permitting agency from liability. While on site, I also noticed that another development, Foster View Estates, had been permitted and built. This development appeared to be in an area of potential geologic instability. My over arching concern is that these clients have been attempting to simply get site plan approval to develop the property. They appear to be struggling with the City's surface water street flows and with issues more properly addressed when specific development plans are submitted. Delay in the development process is often frowned on by the courts. See Norco Construction Co. v. King County, 97 Wn.2d 680, 649 P.2d 103 (1982). As previously stated, the DiBlasi case addresses the City's duties with regard to its street flows. I am hoping that we can meet to address these issues and ascertain whether the parties are at a stalemate or not. I did not want to proceed with a comprehensive Public Disclosure Request, file a claim and start an injunctive or other type of legal action against your City. My clients are not litigious people but really did not know where to turn. I am hoping that there is room for creative problem solving in this case. I am proposing that we have a meeting with you, your experts, City attorney and anyone else you feel is appropriate. I would propose bringing my clients and their geotechnical consultant, Gary Flowers. We could each prepare a chronology and a list of discussion points. It has been my experience that simply clarifying the issues sometimes leads to resolution. Both sides could agree James F. Morrow May 28, 2002 Page - 3 that nothing said in the meeting would later be used against anyone. Please contact me with regard to this letter and, hopefully, to provide dates to meet. Sincerely, deal )11/..zee Karen A. Willie KAW:len:L:\shared\KAW\Major\PED TUK Morrow 052302.1tr Enclosures cc: Richard Pedersen John Friel January 14, 2002 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX 206-431-3665 FROM: RECEIVED JAN ?-52002 CDEVELOPMENT' OPMENT' John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 Tel 425-771-3892 FAX 425-673-7674 REF: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment Six Lot Site Plan for Foster Ridge APRD During the course of the past several months we have been engaged in an effort to obtain a storm drainage easement accross property with frontage on MaCadam Road which would enable a storm drain pipe to be installed from the subject BLA building sites to connect with the existing system on MaCadam Road. As we reported previously, we have secured a commitent from a Mr. Benito Cervantes to grant such a easement to the City subject to conditions and compensation which we will provide. We are now engaged in the process of assessing and defining what the existing conditions are in relation to the effect on the Foster Ridge Property due to storm water flows from the upstream offsite adjacent drainage area. A area map showing the location of the Foster Ridge BLA site is provided and is included as Exhibit 1. A map with contours is the basis for the drainage area map showing the upstream contributing basin area and is included as Exhibit 2. Also, during the course of the past several years we have attempted to obtain BLA and APRD site plan approval for the Foster Ridge proposal aka Hellwigs Addition to Foster unrecorded Lots 1-7, Blk 2 and 17-27, Blk 1. During this period we have been informed at the various stages that we would not be able to develope and obtain building sites for certain portions of the subject property. In most of the cases, the reason for the objection was directly or indirectly based on the stormwater or moisture related factors relative to the soil conditions or site stability. It has been noted previously, that the subject site is affected by the stormwater runoff which is directed at the site from the ends of the existing pavement at S 139th St. and S 140th St. and runoff from the unimproved right-of-way which is abuting and adjacent to the uphill side of the property along 46th Ave. S. and S 140th St. extended (not open). We have noticed, particularly during the past year, during our visits to the site that at certain times during and after a rainstorm that a very noticeable flow of water would be directed at our property from within the City streets and particularly at the pavement ends at S :.rom' ivi. ,,INw.,mmIrts f.,.r.,rr c•.+,YA tr:5"ac «!nttr„w l” tw: Fra�is 139th and S 140th Streets. The immediate ground surface near these areas on our property would become "soggy" and very wet. A copy of the currently proposed six lot BLA plan is included with hand written comment notes (5) which briefly describe the discharges and impacts directed at our property and is listed as Exhibit 3. We have recently been monitoring this situation and have taken a series of photographs and have included several which represents the above described conditions and are listed and shown in Exhibit 4. A ditch line along the south side of S 139th St. intercepts nmofffrom the upslope area, concentrates the flow and then discharges directly onto our property at or near the pavement end without control. This situation is clearly presented in the photos. Pavement and driveway surfaces within the City right-of-way for both S. 139th St. and S. 140th St. have been constructed and formed in such a manner as to collect, concentrate and divert storm water runoff from within the right-of-way directly onto the subject property without any measure of control. This condition is noticable in the photos. The development scale for this BLA has been reduced over time from the initial 18 lots down to the current 6 lot plan. As it relates to drainage, the site development will be in the range of about 2800 sf per building site or a total impervious area developed of about 17,400 sf or about 0.392 acres total. In comparison to the total upstream drainage basin of about 17.8 acres as shown in Exhibit 2, the site development would represent only about 1.8 % of that value.It would seem fair to conclude that the total upstream drainage area has a much greater impact on the subject site and the adjoining downstream properties fronting on MaCadam Road than the site development proposed as Foster Ridge BLA. It is noted that one of the difficulties in discussing the easement idea with several of the property owners such as Mr Tom Gengler and Mr.Cyrus Mork was the fact that their property is currently being impacted by storm drainage runoff from the upstream area which is directed towards them from the city streets as described above. At the time of our discussions, their property was "soggy" and the surface very wet. The photos #19 & #20 was taken of the Cyrus Mork site in that condition but the ground appearance is not clearly projected. The purpose of this report is to present certain drainage conditions that have been previously and are presently impacting the subject property. We believe that the primary reason that our site has been viewed as negative, even for limited building sites, is because of the impact of the stormwater from the upslope area that is conveyed by the city streets and this has created a problem for our site that has caused actual damage to our ability to develop the property. We have diligently pursued the easement and have now been successful which was absolutly critical to the development of a stormwater management plan as previously stipulated. You recently sent us a letter threatening to close our file. That is not positive, we need more embracing our plan and not less. We seriously need positive ideas from the City and any assistance that you can give us in order for us to move forward. We firmly ✓' .... 7 i" 99.nN/`rq'A"It,+HRhcq.lD i?kJt T.. 7er101,1?:Wrt'?M?r+..V}••tr;,vnr.r:iv:;n.u.;'q„.,.r"..:r�w.:��,a4.,n:.'.. 1 i i 1 believe that we should be given substantial assistance and participation from the City as it relates to the actual design and construction of the stormwater system that will be needed in conjunction with the design for our six lot BLA site. Would you please forward a copy of this memo to Jack Pace and Jim Morrow for their comments. Please contact me after you have a chance to review and discuss the above. Sincirely yours, t /0/ ohn B. Friel, PE PLS for Foster Ridge BLA *(VALLEY AVE) - " 1 n "' 3s q 4S ss 4 13703 2 21 13706 3 20 lai)I 4 1372 19 1371 , 5 18 6 176 131 3 X24!' T 8 IS 131 M. 9 14 3741 10 131374 51 11 1213753 7� 23 24 25.4t.21 2.8 0I374 c 0 7 �n 11 a3 NOT PEN -+I :I . �W� ! Ise. 3 , sc 3s q 4S ss 4 6J *I Asti ss_ 40 sl 804 Ti 203 63 /37111 • llr S. t f ••- ELEA�I�I BENSON N c6O `2ssc I T.L.82 7: /S 1Z a3$ 376.E 56.32 S.COC r19e S.P. 179080 414j • (2) e8 I 44, n0 33 . 7 60 1 1 Tc /72 N I ., 1'.hl3'16 1, // / -/ / • / 1,/ CORP. OF CA'�HOLIC ARCHBISHOP `% SOF SEATTLE 8.02 AC. �--.-- Nt NtiI 34 ti 0 /39TH STS( 0 0 7.4./07 33 141 31 al SY V pLN r— r r sr / /•H04 4S 1 n.9 .97/6.51 KING COUNTY SCHOOL 14.65 AC. HO o _ 040 AC TL J// 0 _----_I'L 2/O -s39Br------'J T. L /OB 1 \\ 11 DISTRICT 7i. /06 sn 406 ATHLETIC F'fIO SCH . DIST. 405 8.02 AC. .w0 TL. /54 393.30 I w U /00 328.60 41.2 CO H.R. SCOONES 2.86 AC. '��,•+�'�`p'sr.;,�'i�tr;"i",°i#.`f,�i',d'�a;fittrs"ro-,;t�u�asatt4vir.+r`x,-.. �:xmY',�.r'y+r.•�.'t��,+:n+:w,cca•rt»:r:.��+. 11.26 9 .'�r�iP��'�`�•.,�Z�1k'�v��,�'������:,.?-kt��'�?`3'`li �s°;+g.�la,;tSyJ^�,h`CST'e:'�4Gtat�:,'7t�na.;y�»•io�y;�. L,;s{q�1w;v�t,,,�y. ',/:( 0)1 11)\) I -�/""_-\- / • ,ter I, lin i 1 :1.• 1 I ' ' `/ -i.e. -----,----5-/ -.---...-R%___\----„::!.__.:,../..,/..----•_./ i )r1 I ft� �^^t Jill) it i t/ ! //, ' -rte % �- — .� . 1V-1.111.) Sao /7 / ////7//;—"---!---g;:- -=� *,n H /-?' 7 / 11. MH I((; l"evM 106.4 g: kr, co N `\, \ i,/ st--- a ea 44- .], O .o 0 E E v m .-10,,... ‘,1-7.-vau.- .-i.2. ia.Nr u--izi. t"...-- 4,— tit, g1 t . �'z ._. Ve.:,- 111 t 0 .a� ��//r://///// / / \ \ I C7%cy=t4 v\v, r .1 El i fill At.1\1 l/P11111 1////j1011 •••:////lN1; o � p � v may; yy�� O oc //-( ,c(Q//4614,, q0 x0 YE to a • � ottu ..�.. `N3Y{� '�'i iV rn,-�� l �'t;siSi 1t^..:•r..'!SY'fS .'L Z3Etlit " AiD „:73,,t . _ ) litaar4s, 1/04-;,, / ••••••••• • ;: • . „? Al el , ;.. • ' :/4:-. e."),e/ .// • , ./. 1 .1 .-- , • . • •-'" 17.. • 7a / / ?,..... ...,_• r• , ,„., ,,...:. /,- ,,.../ ,. ,:,- (),:.,, l, •--, ,• .t. ,,- , /.? ./ e , • • ,. i 7 52- 4•,,r. !,•.,. , .,17/V7 ,, ) / Oh C7/.} ,/,,' 4— / i' ... :L'' / • , (:( (:: ;•:-'.,' ,, ,,, (,',." „i r (1/ I.At,t, 7"/ il t!? ..1 1/ e'ri ...:::'/;,,:.7',,-"7",/,,:,/,:.-5' .,y ..' ; , , •,.... , s a,/ ... / ,f..iy 4. .. /1j. 7- 6.i (..f,, • e.:• t 42 .1-- e'' -,:-.; , C- %•".. .4, .(I /I 117) I?' / ..,, 0 71- e 6 -..-Me C, 74 10 4 V 4:, / ii "/ 1 ' ' t ' , --,, .., • .- ,- - ., ,! „,-,,4•,. ,,:-....-, e'f/i-le i ‘-': ./ / ; 4 '4151- p!•,:'••#J• • / -7.(//• • . • / /// y(/;.1,v•G.; — L l/ 1 (7r1//:(:; e 7 e- ./n• ••r / ' . 1.1 ki f! • • • • • • - / /1,1/ /' •••• ''•• / . e •, • , t 414- r ....• . •.c" f. ." ,• „ , A . . . • - ..• . C :.• ?' A • - .4 27/ • • ••• / 4, •' , • • 1/, - , / ) ,-, r* „:::., ,,,-/ ,.. I ,,.... -, i/.- ..) i -r - /i" • , , ,, , 1 fl. I ....•-/ .. i Ci.i,„, 1,i.f.s,,/ ) I (• •;'I. v „ • r/eI i;<"'.;:. 4/ r.' / 1 , ... ..:;./ / ,. ' L .,/ e)"-- .,u,,,L(i!.".../‘.. . //) I)irfa,7,/il (( /V) "? .-. 3.. ..'w.o o) 04 il (7 i)74"-. ("I." tutt t.-/ a 71- ,/,.--,,,d-cr-. --A4-2 /..!...fr/e,..(7i.-1.,:,.4-:::/..,.,./d, re? I) ,.',..76.)e.,-,) 1 t • • • • 11; - • • • q:47,--= • VA," • o • PA/0 c -I .7)a i, /:)J(/•j , /1/4; ) ve • • 44. 4 ,, • „ „ • „.); frci f/i/ .e/." • , ,,/ 1—z cew —Jo O 0 w WI ...J 2LL O o g < co 1 z I-0 z EU in C.) O D O I- LLI uj LI 0 Z 0 Yip+'! e� ` `,: r y''....jr, --,,, )_/14..Cri t+ (�Vie" (4) r• ! /%f' e rL• ",i5t,:ii c/,,../ rVi.`!•. 6•,.' . •'%,i+f,ee..'• ,, 1. I t /0 rk'/1G' 11 (")1' i'1-3 c 7/art (5-.-::' x/S7 / i/i,: ..,<_-4:;.,1 c:*G /'i �/) E 6-77,ji(/l �1ii / ••!: 6.7., / .% •.M.7.-4,.:;i1,t -i.:.•.� s. 4i'tKi:«,n• s�•' L}i+.•...•4.2. 41 c?^'t1:^T•!':.tMR ,' y'�f,•'w!a.•iTJ{_.1 \. . ,+�• k•"/��.. {'✓ e- • / I' e r 45 .1( X/ S ,)9/,-rsr G ' r'' r . 1 � r ) (► '" ‘;1/..)6, %'/ r 1%t%I) �"{rZ, l , .+ i (.12 1J.�.; 7.)a7.)a�• ,!l(`'' r /,•i t'S 'cr I) /,-,;).F'•' -f, �•.�' j '-4\/'"r l 'fr4 tY1'L' V.Ttq jf*.ti.4t"1 Y,,E.{ iHzikY'• 4.1{,'Wtt#ThP.yrC"'e�•rr.,,. .ra, .. .... ice_ �•,t �,�lt:• .. //I ��... . f`.,• r, ,•• %t/ {,f• • ' '1-i4 �r / ! I / t . Y•(.• C / t,. / I1 , r C' f L l' f i. I , • ( ",'� ddt / (.% _ fes, 4 �� J !_. i`e i..l .• ,4' 4. I �i�• t ., t C C7, 2t , wr. • Vle ri0'Pa f , qfti -7 a e . •/ t;., -('7j E7a •i -c ,• . , 7-7 fi Q 7470 Pot 7.•• e 7e;,• -t •-"' •••• •-• , • c•f • • , • , / if) trefi e k C".4f (id ;fi,..• .• v oit,— - 41,:" Lf,!::',-4:::...!,,,:•,...:,-..,••';,;;Iy.i., .,;..i.,;; ,..),,i...r-:•-:.•.2.,..,--1-':4,.:; i;,,.`t4;:,, ":'4.,...1.::••••;44..-2.--4--.0-•-• .P.,-1:1,•-• • 4 .,ititt• . '. ;?..,...t::-;.':*4'.:...lel.:": .;:'gt :-( -,-;;;2::•lu:4-i....e1;'..,::-5'-',;.-%,%. ...: ,:.:, --,f.‘• • :. Tr',‘ 1 --ii ,N1,•:,,,,,lics.,4: .... v.......... ;,'.4,,L„A, :FT • . -• . • /To . , ,,,, , 4.#4.1.0e.'k ' • • 0 • •• oi ' .. — 4,,..,if.,0,,.„,5k. ,..9...j.7•t. 7.•• :;:,-.1",*'-• '. ... ' • • 6., / , 4 •"',-4,. t,-- . • • • •:,)$' '... lir. , ::.. 4.,./..e --- - • it1.-ro• :r.•:' ._ -..* r., •,.. %op, ..s ?... ,,; ..S.7- •••;.-",-..,:: .0'... , :Iv r ••••%,* 743;17- ,r-vc1.1,Vir. ',.• ,,/ .t.t.... vi*--,:' ":::fr;',11,, 7z.,:iriel,'ev: 41.,ii7.',": ;•••,•!; ...„ 4, -"ii-ks'e- -411i47. ,,•-e • .._--4,. 'q5::!/sto: firOl'fretsr,:v 41...s . i• ,,s,..46,44,t ;,, ... , , • f--,,._, j..A., • .s9i-1.0Noi.-..•;•‘ :-.....17,..;%,,;. , ' lii- ''' '-‘icti, i.e.,' 1.`.;,,,4,,,cs.r- ..% 1.640iye,,.,,,,:.-.4,,.."74);,:,,-1.;.'42.7• ' ' '1,•-• 1,:', VA, ,:.'', 1 . • - ,., . °-1-4:4 r r ' • . .. ; ..."• 4T/t:rf,,;„ e• ..tI.:y , ,,4111,-,e.! ',''.74,S3‘+$4. 'I, . ,,0,-,t1).•:',' ^,i . .. ,..,-• , :'''''• r 4: .....'',;. - ,‘,. ,71,..:;:;'Ati.res (t:‹. -e- 44 9P'A ;',.: rf,"•• l•'. ' f P.'' 41 - • ' ••Ii..,• • .••:'., `• '•••' 4",reN ''.....,': ''•• • 4."-.4'+"- Arrg. ':.411`:•••'.,..• , ' r , .•• ' ' 7‘.;•':) •11. 47.... '''''' /// & 4f) 74- C.? K .1' 571 / )j; 7/-d.S-5- /,//,i,•:',.-?'`' ,-,-..,.../ t-, ,,z.,:vi. ,,,,,7,/ c.,', I /, et l/ 4.:-. / i ),..1' /.1, 7— cl I 71C h //) ye vt / frl fic? ck- ci./ (... ,ei i'; ,.... • L../ -,-,_--,:c,c:--/ . 1 • " • • a IC" ; ••••00.. 1 4 1":• t•i/j.) //1 c. z < • j—• Z w Ce 0 O 0 CO 0 W • I • LL uj 0 g tu z 0 z 2 0 O 9- o uj r -- LL Z CU co 0 o ,••••V R/8-•• c." e, /fV'(( 4; • . fe -s; yr,. 4 , , "4.6.4,1,••44,. •• •- e: A3q*. 711, /P(' ,,/ , 0.s /,141 re/ .76 1' ' /1) t(,?) fr 44 ;' •dc- ,. , • ri • ,.• • .1.••1, .,,,, r--" : •• 6 1,r / ppipp. . 1tpZ PM/ ‘1 rge, • ,11 6 • t- *• "W,Ardtialt • ' '14! ..• . a • • z re 2w —1 • 0 co • w WI CO Li_ Ili 0 2 g u.. I a I— In Z F- 0 ZI— W• W O u) 0 O I— • w 0 LL- 0 — • I o 1— z 446'4-4Zr'. • , I:111 tkr y ; /// rat. / ./1:t At ..t1 / Pave4.?weni- c7keef. /2 a ve' 1/ 6/,/ / elf -7 0‘;14-':./ /.91--6 574-, 4 • w • .0 • • r/ - ; a 1.... A t • •04- • Ilt”" /-C) 7'2 /6'' V/e /ik1,79 &-:?4:1:.1.5. 7-- 74/:'ati/ a 1- a/ 74. p ve 1,.?" 110 571" 44.1431i41.041 0414 Miithro.4 < • • • 11/ _1 0 O 0 (o• w LLI _1 I_ C/) u j 0 u_ < co $3 Z ▪ 0 Z 1- 11J uj • 0 C.) O -U2 O I— W uj I 0 17- 0 Z co r= o 1- z "rs;tk.A:40, ,t'i:•••ts:- • - i" - /,4'4-2 /7 — V/c-ko e.9,14 (•,' //'`, e=?' v ev:; »e- /yr e'd7 afider/1/7/1 Ar It/2 (-15. ) /pi e. 7 5-/:597'4 t- 57L0e- / 5 q 7579/1 t: -.074:'-a4.17 44 -?4)d fce.71 ef re,? 7e:: e7147 e J)/O./'/ • . ' ; • ?F' • • Ve/c'e,0 //.:7, it..taivre;"'", ' • .• • 7`- 7ch, ado/ 5 , /974 5:74. 74ee tV; ,,lintrmstlfamatwom. • z 1—: Z 00 cn 0 w w = -J w 0 u. < co ci I— ILI Z 1-0 Z w 0 0 0 L1.1 w 0 0 Z 6-1 0 1- z • • DI / Vir.{,"•r(ltt) / j.r /`•t ti �•� ��,, r r �(# j` /451/1)//) )/l:,i r. V©/ 1 67l: 'tkf/�'`�R'' •�I •wr 1. l f»o 'PA/ and 4OGI 7' , , A / • M. L' /� t'. L..+'( \ ( r✓' [ .+' ./ `( .t= f/ ��:• :•y 1 C.% ! M (. / •"l"' / 'lam" /� r.i • •f -.%'r•' �. % 1• "• /? ' '• �..- '.rye` . • 7" ,+ e 0 f / i 42 ; December 4, MEMO TO: FROM: 2001 Benito Cervantes 13723 McAdam Road So. Tukwila, WA., 98168 John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA., 98206 REF: Storm Drainage Easement / / e 6-fy, f This is to confirm that on Tuesday, November 27, 2001, Mr. Richard S. Pedersen, Kieth Olson and I met you at your house and we further discussed our request for you to provide a storm drainage easement. It is now understood that you will provide the easement which is to be on a 10' by 50' portion at the southwest corner of your lot as shown on the attached sketch map. The actual easement will be granted to the City of Tukwila and on a form similar to the draft copy attached: It is understood that the compensation to you for this easement will be that certain work to be performed by the developer (Mr. Richard S. Pedersen and others) of the Foster Ridge six lots. The work to be performed on your lot is to consist of mostly earthwork (excavation) to do the following: 1. Relocation of the existing walkway currently situated over a portion of your neighbors property and within the unimproved 30' wide city right-of-way. You are to determine the location of the new walkway. We expect it to be either a switchback path going from near the existing concrete steps towards the tree and then back towards the existing wood steps at your sideyard or a path going from the north end of your existing driveway directly accross your front yard towards the existing steps. 2. Excavation, grading and gravelling of your existing driveway area. 3. Excavation and grading of a space in your rear yard to create a flat surface area for your proposed sport court just beyond the outer edge of the new deck. We expect this earthwork to be "balanced" at the site and not generate any excess for hauling offsite. 4. At the catch basin located within the easement, we will also install a drain pipe stub directed towards the rear of your house to provide a connection to pick up drainage from the rear yard area of your lot. We will provide all of the equipment, operators, material and labor to do the above listed work. 'S+zSfirn..;.7:',',4X14.1 :Aairi" " �e'�,tl.�..iY.'{:3'� .i i J�jllir!�P"e j'JiU'i tuiv v, >' ��'. L\ l 1 y ltl' v Your agreement to provide this easement will enable us to proceed at the City with the actual design for the storm drainage system required for our 6 lot building plan. We will now proceed with this plan and secure approval from the City. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. ohn B. Friel, PE PLS ...for R. S. Pedersen 5::iu;"tlrr t4i mo77t,`iwtS7.i fXi'ia5a'�iwl:..Gutik;s f37W"riiiiX:;;DP;i+fS ':c'�l'S;SGt�4!? .170. WWW40011(43,44141.14M,Iwaollar + r, m f» wr Q �a+V « FROM : JBMF PHONE NO. : 425 771 3892 December 4, 2001 Dec. 07 2001 05:13PM P1 RECEIVED DEC 1 0 2001 COMMUNITY MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner DEVELOPMENT Department of Community Development City of Tukwila Q 6300 Southcenter Blvd. _ • Tukwila, Wa., 98188 1- FAX 206-431-3665 ce 2 00 N0 J= P- �u. WO REF: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment u. Six Lot Site Plan for Foster Ridge APRD = d FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27• Everett, Wa., 98206 Tel 425-771-3892 FAX 425-673-7674 This is to inform you that we have reached an agreement with Mr. Benito Cervantes whereby he will provide a 10' wide storm drainage easement to the City over a portion of his lot as shown on the sketch map which I sent you a copy of with my memo of November 10, 2001. Enclosed is a copy of a easement form which I discussed with Mr. Cervantes. Would you please inform me if this is satisfactory as to the form for the actual easement. As 1 have informed Mr. Cervantes, we will now be proceeding with the additional surveying and then the engineering design relative to the construction plans for submittal to the City for approval. As I have noted to you previously, Phil Cheesman at PACE will be doing the actual engineering design and plans relative to the site development, storm drainage and utility systems. The completed design relative to the geotechnical issue will be reviewed and reported by Gary Flowers at Associated Earth Sciences. I am now asking them to give me their schecule to do this work. I believe that they will be engaged in doing this over the next several months. 1 will give you an update at the beginning of the new year. If you have any questions, please contact me. ohn B. Friel, PE PLS for R. S. Pedersen t Rt£ '�Hi3i:5kt`'I, !jZAta FROM : JBMF PHONE NO. : 425 771 3892 Dec. 07 2001 05:14PM P2 DRAINAGE EASEMENT For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the GRANTOR, �. the owner in fee of that certain parcel of land, described as follows: hereby grant and convey a drainage easement to the City of Tukwila, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, for the purpose of conveying, storing, managing and facilitating storm drainage water per plan approved by the City of Tukwila for the project known as: together with the right for the City of Tukwila to reasonably enter said drainage easement for the purpose of installing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing and improving the drainage facilities contained herein. This easement is intended to facilitate reasonable access to the drainage facilities. It is binding upon the GRANTOR, its heirs, successors and assigns. GRANTOR GRANTOR i'i'»w'$A1, iJ:'tl;:u... ui v;faivw: ti4 i tier a¢s iz' 4.1t say r A.,,iiklgm+,itf. 4 utt' .log'!" November 10, 2001 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 Tel 425-771-3892 RECEIVED NOV 1 9 2001 DEVDELOPMENT REF: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment Six Lot Site Plan for Foster Ridge APRD The following is in response to your letter dated November 2, 2001 reference the subject BLA. I also refer you to my response memo of July 2, 2001 in which I noted that as soon as we are certain about securing the required easement I will inform you of our updated schedule for completing the design and providing the geotechnical information. We have been working diligently on trying to obtain a easement for the drainage pipe. Our earlier negotiations continued with Mr. Tom Gengler, Lot 15, Block 1, thru early August 2001 when it then became clear that Mr. Gengler and Mr. Pedersen were not going to be able to reach an agreement for a easement over Mr. Genglers property. I had previously determined that another option could possibly be a easement over the southwesterly and northwesterly margin of the Cyril Mork property, Lot 12 & 13, Block 1. Mr. Mork is a owner that lives in California and our efferts to contact him and initiate easement discussions went totally ignored, so after a time it was obvious that this was not a viable option. I then most recently contacted a Mr. Benito Cervantes, the owner of lot 18, Block 4, Riverton MaCadam Road Tracts (copy of my memo is attached). His lot is at the end of the 30' right of way, 46th Ave. S. I have met several times with Mr. Cervantes and corresponded with him and am now doing detail field survey work associated with locating on his lot a easement that would make a connection for drainage from the 6 lot plat to the Macadam Road system. I am assuming that a 10' wide easement will be satisfactory as situated and shown on the attached topog sketch map. I am meeting with him in the next week or so to confirm. This business of contacting a series of property owners and going thru the process of explaining our needs and getting a positive response and a commitment to grant a easement to the City for our project has not been a very productive experience. However, I believe that we are getting very close to reaching a agreement with Mr. Cervantes. yf•lFi0f,V5� ;!=N,•�'+`fil'�{ rr!w; ;,N:Ci'+'.k; 's+.{;uy,rtfr3�i��.�y-}t;,M�;.al,ray{,); Twp;�t.ynrs;r;tial.;.,;, 'N_.a, 7i;p fe"�','�.v.�:ryr.}tit1' 't..°�• I know that Mr. Pedersen still wants to continue with this BLA and do the six lot plan and would not want the City to close the file. The largest part of the drainage that flows onto the subject property and creates the biggest impact is directed towards the property from the existing City streets, pavement and right of way. We ask again, is there was someway for the City to give us some assistance in regard to the easement and the drainage system being proposed?. Would you please make copies of this memo and the attached memo and map and distribute to Jim Morrow and Jack Pace. I would appreciate it if you would inform me that the reference file will remain open. hn B. Friel, P PLS for Foster Ridge a(:�i+%+r,r;s".�i�r:>+•:«;o.+ixmw.wn�aer.r.�w�ui.w�ran+riamraidu.er ow•Fv...n..........�a, o., September 28, 2001 MEMO TO: Benito Cervantes McAdam Road Tukwila, WA., 98168 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA., 98206 REF: Request for Storm Drainage Easement This is to confirm that I met with you recently and briefly discussed a request for you to consider providing a storm drainage easement on a portion of your property. I understood that you would be agreeable to further discussing the matter and that I would follow our conversation by providing this memo with additional information regarding specifics. As I indicated, I am making the initial contact with you on behalf of Richard S. Pedersen, Parkside Management, P.O. Box 1518, Marysville, WA., 98270.who is the property owner of the certain lots in Block 1 and 2, Hellwigs Addition, unrecorded, which is situated in your neighborhood and shown on the enclosed area map Also enclosed is a copy of a Boundary Line Adjustment Map for the Pederson property which is currently under review and in process with the City of Tukwila for approval with six lots (building sites) as shown. The large undeveloped portion will remain as open space. This plan is the result of a lengthy process with the City and the consolidation of the 18 lots into the six buillding sites. Our most recent discussions with the City is in regard to the design requirements for the site and utility development. A storm drain outfall line to connect with the McAdam Road drainage system is a requirement. A 30' wide public right-of-way (46th Ave. S.) exists but does not intersect with McAdam Road. Securing a drainage easement over a portion of your property would provide such a connection. I have enclosed a copy of a map representing the area for a easement on your property. The map was prepared from recent survey information and shows some of the topography details at the south margin of your property relative to the driveway locations and walkways. It also shows the location of the existing Val Vue Sewer District sewer main. It is in the south area of your property in the vicinity of the sewer main that perhaps a storm drain easement could be provided. Please note that the actual easement would need to be provided to the City. I am acting on behalf of the various parties. The details of an easement would need to be further described as well as matters relating to construction, restoration and any compensation. x',r.;y l:N,fRi�: F'W+tiY.4J 1'�S kYff�7, : W 11',}t4j1), "`fit'�sx I hope that the above sufficiently defines our request and provides you with enough basic information which would enable you to discuss this further with us. I will deliver this memo to you and we can then discuss the matter further. Prepared by: ohn B. Friel, PE PLS for Richard S. Pedersen Parkside Management. ...h`:.1.1%5 'i-'r�all;:?.�C?, a .,'; ...J:-;ii:;;c=iia !ri , d i.`i�,i t;d✓a:•r.a+ 4::riKLz .0N0;t4`"3; •l'r'�f}s6k7t f4dP� i4:,1•.aif4a.{kii4i?akk. "Y, ke;LS;tiF�"6l�ykisxaWkrik!ti o + 3 1/40 14. os q) kr) k • • + 0 1 m}tit)(;st:?.trmitysti`r.oCnroV , rd z w re 00 Ill H NIL W0 LLQ U� _� F..W Z H F— 0 Z uj 0 • w oI- W W wz • = O H z City of Tukwila Department of Community Development November 2, 2001 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment Dear Mr. Friel: Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director It has now been over seven months since the March 21" meeting at which the City requested additional drainage and geotechnical information in order to continue review of your application. I last heard from you on July 2nd when you requested an extension on your resubmittal deadline of June 1S`. If I do not receive the required information by November 30th I plan on closing the file due to inactivity. Please let me know what your timeline is for completing this work. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director Jack Pace, Planning Manager 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 •. Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 14, From: Jim Morrow To: John McFarland Subject: Foster Ridge — Permits L97-0026 (Boundary Line Adjustment) and L97-0027 (Administrative Planned Residential Development) Date: August 17, 2000 Encl: (1) Talking Points for August 18, 1999 Meeting (2) Foster Ridge Timeline (3) Public Works letter dated July 19, 2000 1. In preparation for your upcoming meeting with Mr. Pederson and Mr. Friel, I have enclosed three items for your review. The first is a paper I prepared for the August 18`h meeting with Mr. Friel. The second is a timeline of events associated with their permit applications and the third is my recent letter to Mr. Friel. 2. Over a year ago, I personally reviewed their permit applications, the Shannon & Wilson peer review results, and all documentation associated with their applications. Enclosure (1) was prepared for an August 18th meeting with Mr. Friel. During the meeting I expressed my concerns about the feasibility of their proposal for 12 houses given the steep slopes, amount of surface and ground water, and potential for landslides on the site. I met three additional times during the next two months, enclosure (2). You were present during the October 14`h meeting. 3. Because of the seriousness of the problems, I could not favorably endorse their proposal for 12 houses. Both Mr. Pederson and Mr. Friel requested that I not put my concerns in writing until they had an opportunity to evaluate their options. I agreed to their request. 4. In June of this year, Mr. Friel formally submitted a revised proposal that reduced the number of lots from 12 to 6. As my letter stated, enclosure (3), even though some of the concerns have been eliminated, their proposal still has major problems. 5. Mr. Pederson and Mr. Friel have told me that they have no intention of building the houses themselves. If the City were to approve their permits, they would sell the site immediately. At this point, they just want out and are trying to recover their investment. Mr. Friel has stated that 6 lots is the minimum that would allow them to break even. 6. During each conversation and at each meeting I have been very careful in my remarks because both Mr. Pederson and Mr. Friel only hear what they want to hear. I have consistently stated that there are no guarantees if they choose to submit additional information in support of their new proposal. 7. I hope the enclosed material helps and should you have any questions before our meeting, please let me know. alk �i;17:."irkw...k:�,S;i'.i.a.,L iTizi•;. k .+.N.'c:'.?:fr.d�i...: Ptl... i {I..a...r .:�+D. nn �`.r�"h<f • 1r+r'lai, e s.. f.'�t{`�:{„.:'t�`,itifs:y.'�.'+"ai July 2, 2001 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 REF: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment Revised Six Lot Site Plan for Foster Ridge APRD 011yROFz4. ILA QSHMir CJJT.H In regard to your letter of 06/11/01, this is to document that I called you previously and informed you that per my comments at the March 1st meeting, our intention was to resubmit certain drainage and geotechnical information relative to our six lot plan by June 1, 2001. However, we are still, in a ongoing stage of negotition with a property owner, Tom Gengler, in regard to our efforts to secure a storm drainage easement. In my earlier meetings with Phil Cheeseman, at PACE, and Gary Flowers, at AES, Inc., it was established that no further details for design should be performed until such time that the required easement for the drainage was obtained. We have not yet succeeded, but we are continuing the negotiations with Mr. Gengler. As soon as we are certain about the easement, I will inform you of our updated schedule for completing the design. For your file, I am enclosing a copy of my notes taken at the March 1st meeting. Would you please make copies of this memo and my notes and distribute to Jim Morrow, Jack Pace and John McFarland. If you have any suggestions to help facilitate the easement, please contact me. ohn B. Friel, PE PLS for Foster Ridge a..'.>:�s`,.. ;i`....._r; :.US:;.'1'e: k;;;•{5: i.. An::*v k4,,i. "4.l'aaiiiik tF`.,.b..Y,iti'i ,G,� '�I iliti}W" File: MSWORKS/FOSTER RIDGE/MAR21 01.MTG Notes of Meeting at City of Tukwila Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 Attended by: John McFarland, Jack Pace, David McPherson & John Friel z Subject: Discussion of items related to Foster Ridge six lot BLA plan as previously w wlij presented and the response by John McFarland to JBF memo/letter of Febuary 28, 2001. 6 D Note: Meeting was a reschedule from the earlier meeting set up between J. McFarland and v p JBF for February 28, 2001 @ 11:00 am which was canceled due to the earthquake which co 0 occurred at that time. Please note also that JBF was on the site meeting with Tom Gengler W I at that exact earthquake time. cn u_ w0 Summary of meeting per following items from notes by JBF: LL? wa 1. Initial item discussed was the status report by JBF of the effort being made to secure = the storm drain easement from the lot 15 owner Tom Gengler. JBF reported that Tom G. z i_ had responded by telephone conversation the previous day to JBF that he was willing to p grant easement but that the cost would be ($15,000.00) as stated. JBF felt that the figure w w was excessive but J. McFarland indicated that it was typical and cited a few examples of D o the City dealing with property owners on matters relating to similar easement requests. 0 P- ol- 2. We discussed the matter relating to JBF request for consideration by the City to z 0 contribute or participate in regard to the storm water management plan as refered to in the u_ JBF memo comments in regard to the storm water runoff from the upland area and city w z streets which impact the Foster Ridge property. After considerable discussion about this v item, it was noted by J. McFarland that he would leave it open for further consideration p F' and he would not close the matter entirely, but that at this time, due to other priorities, he z could not make a commitment for the City to participate. 3. In regard to the memo request for the City to participate in some way with the future ownership and use of the open space tract, J. McFarland stated that because of the nature of the tract that it was of limited value for any potential City use and that we would need to pursue other opportunities thru our own resources. At this time this is a closed issue with the City. 4. Please note that David McPherson attended and was presented as the person that we should now use as relates to initial contact at Public Works for plan details and questions about the final civil and utility drawings. JBF will note this to Phil at PACE. 5. Jack Pace inquired of JBF if he had any other questions. JBF responded that not at this time and this is based on the fact that the six lot plan as previously submitted to J. Pace with memo of December 28, 2000 is satisfactory. JBF noted that we are assuming that the hammerhead backaround is also satisfactory and that J. Pace did not specifically respond to that memo. It was noted and understood that the maximum grade for fire vehicles is ... .EeplIWtAah>°�i'a2^�"'5a;4>{„ ..o in�*; 3c r a?Fg? 7 . 15% as quoted to JBF by Phil Cheesman and Jack P. acknowledged. JBF also noted that based on this plan we are proceeding with detail design, subject to securing the storm drain easement, which has delayed our final design up thru this date. In response to question by Jack Pace, subject to the easement, JBF reported that we expect to finalize all of our details for design drawing completion and submit to City for review/approval on or before June 1, 2001. 6. Jack Pace inquired of JBF also about the status and understanding of items raised in the Jim Morrow letter of July 19, 2000. JBF responded that per comments in notes of our meeting of October 17, 2000, Item #8, it was our understanding that the meeting, as reflected in the notes of the meeting (copy previously sent to Jack P.), was the JBF/RSP response to the Jim Morrow letter and that the JBF meeting notes Items #1 thru #7 represented the focus of our discussion and that those items were specific in what needed to be accomplish in order to do the six lot design plan and then present the complete package to the City for review and approval. Note: Meeting started at about 10:10 am and lasted about 1 hr. + Above notes by JBF .. ....,tt:;��".!'+:..,� .,-. :`a�.i'k`':><tl.: �k�:xt .. •:O.iti'... 0SlL+.4',A:3.4,a .ui.Cis+d<1t{:•dt2.c'!t ' �Lr6iv'' .+ .�t�.i.4.) N•tU".t 0 June 11, 2001 Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment Dear Mr. Friel: It is my understanding that at your March 21' meeting with John McFarland and Jack Pace you said that you planned to resubmit the drainage and geotechnical information requested by Public Works by June l`'. I wanted to check with you on the status of that resubmittal. Please let nie know what your timeline is for completing this work. If you have any questions please call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Jim Morrow, Public Works Director Jack Pace, Planning Manager John McFarland, City Administrator 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 February 26, 2001 MEMO TO: John McFarland City Administrator City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX FROM: John B. Friel/Richard S. JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 FAX 206-433-1833 Pedersen 425-778-3509 REF: Six Lot Plan Boundary Line Adjustment & Administrative PRD Foster Ridge (Lots in Hellwigs Addition) City of Tukwila The following is in regard to the current status of the reference plan and is presented to you in our interest of keeping you informed as to our project. Project Status: Since our last meeting with you in your office on October 17, 2000 we have engaged Gary Flowers of Associated Earth Sciences to do certain additional geotechnical work and Phil Cheesman of PACE Engineering to provide the design details for the six lot development plan. One of the first items of priority for the final design, as required by the City, is to obtain a storm drainage easement in order to connect the storm drainage from the site to the system at McAdam Road. During the past several months we have been in the process of contacting and negotiating a easement location accross a property owned by a Mr. Tom Gengler. That process has been somewhat slow and methodical, but we believe we are close to reaching agreement with Mr. Gengler. I am meeting with him at the property on Wednesday, February 28, 2001 and hopefully this will result in a tentative agreement for the easement. The easement is being secured to the City of Tukwila. Upon securing the easement, we will then complete the detail design plans and with the geotech review and report submit to the City for review and approval. We are hopeful that this will all be accomplished during the next month or so. Several other items have been previously discussed and are mentioned as follows: Wetland and Open Space Tract: During one of our earlier meetings with you on August 30, 2000, you mentioned that the large open space tract provided by our site plan might be utilized by certain interests in the Tukwila Community as a educational site related to observing a forested wetland and may provide some limited use for passive recreational purposes. At our earlier meeting , it seemed to us that you were in support of looking at the potential for access and use of this opens space tract for a community purpose and benifite. Should we pursue this opportunity? 8:x'atf z%b S kx' `..4446'11 0''' aiLlyAntirtiu=tiiTt& Area Drainage: A upland drainage area of approximately 18 acres is associated with the subject Foster Ridge approximately 3 acre site. Surface drainage from the upland area enters the site from within several of the City rights-of-way surrounding and contiguous to our site. This results in storm drainage water entering our site directly at the end of pavements from streets 140th St. S. and 139th St. S. and across unopended right-of-way portions of streets 140th St. S and 46th Ave. S. This drainage from the upland also includes a concentrated source of water from a spring (with associated structures) located within the 140th St. S. right-of-way (unopend) that provides most of the water which creates the defined wetland on our site. Because of the relationship between our site and the City streets we are severly impacted by the existing drainage system. Securing the drainage easement for a outlet and a connection to the McAdam Road system will be an important part and critical element of the plan. We would like to inquire as to what might be available from the City to assist us in developing our storm water management plan for the six lots and what is available as a City sponsored contribution or participation in the best use of the above open space tract. I will present this memo to you at our scheduled meeting in your office on Wednesday, February 28, 2000 at which time you perhaps could give me your comments and response. Thank you for your time in regard to the above. 4727r- ohn B. Friel, PE PLS for Richard S. Pedersen Parkside Management FROM : • JBMF '' PHONE NO. : 425 771 3892 December 28, 2000 FAX MEMO TO: Jan. 04 2001 03:37PM P1 Jack Pace Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431-3665 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. BOX 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 Tel #425-771-3892 Fax #425-778-3509 REF: Six Lot Plan L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 (APRD) Foster Ridge (Lots in.Hellwigs Addition) City of Tukwila The six, lot plan for the reference project is now being finilied and detailed in response to the items discussed at our meeting at the City of Tukwila on October 17, 200u.. Attached is a typewritten copy of my notes taken at the meeting. Also attached is a copy of the current plan with tY.:: hammer head turn around (highlited) for fire vehicle access to be provided at end of S.139th St. 2 would like you to confirm the acceptance of this as illustrated on the attached map and per the attached detail H-14. We have engaged Gary Flowers at Associated Earth Sciences to respond to the geotech items and Phil Cheesman at PACE;to respond to the grading, drainage, utility and APRD itt3ills. I . will be finalizing the six lot boundary line adjustme.7.t: survey,map. We will make every effort to obtain a satisfactory easement for the storm drain connection ..,.i: McAdam Road.. We ' expect ' to accomplish these tasks dur'.i.g the beginning weeks of 2001. I will keep you informed of our progress. Above submitted for review and comment. /47 ohn B. Friel, PE PLS for Foster Ridge BLA 'J.'•.S* r�i:;;"L+"r'.i';ah { i�w;$�ik�r�l,rye'?A:t:e?4crits.iti+:.>;n4�3Vtie�r�»•`Efi2„GW;IfN?ir'�t?� k. ' 44'e . /.L;' 4, FROM : JBMF PHONE NO. : 425 771 3892 Jan. 04 2001 03:38PM P2 Notes of Meeting at City of 'Tukwila Date: October 17, 2000 Attended by: John McFarland, Jack Pace, Jim Morrow, Dick Pedersen & John Friel Subject: Discussion of items related to Foster Ridge six lot BLA plan as previously presented and response to Tim Morrows letter of July 19, 2000. Summary of meeting per following items from notes by JBF: 1. For BLA submit survey map. Need Record of Survey. 2. For APRD Plan and lot consolidation need: a. Conceptual Grading Plan (PACE) b. Utility (sewer & water) plan (PACE) c. Storm water management plan (PACE) d. Lot access - driveway private easements (PACE) 3. Storm water plan to be done in conformance with King County Requireme:its. 4. Items 2 & 3 above to be reviewed by geotech (Gary Flowers) and report.(AES, Inc.) Note: Need Gary Flowers and Phil Cheesman to do above and then submit as package the four items to the City for review, 5. Now SEPA Not required as per Jack Pace. 6. It was understood that turn arround at end of S. 139th St. could be modified to provide for hammer head turn around. 7. JBF to make initial contact with property owner(s) of lower lot(s) from 46th Five. S. for storm drain easement to connect at McAdam Road. 8. Understanding that this meeting is considered as JBF/RSP response to Jim Morrow ltr of July 19, 2000 per purpose of meeting & comments. Meeting lasted approximately 1 hr. ‘144-. o.. e,•�,,,.r.n+•�a�a:txa...ri.=mow.r•c:<�.:nnr mvw�+: wSctsttta*.•:yk<n'•+rte. ,1110‹ .11 P1�7/f1 rlr1� (( 72./%.,•• 11 ► i7�� (� � rel'1�((sT•1rrtt 1 ( 1 1 1 �, t �� ,� >� l Ij111 ►1 ��1 J 11ii1,!!] J,10/11/ o 190 �e // / ' • - _ �� �NcS 1 1 r / I I /71 I �•� 1 O \\ r \ \ •• \ • X11 /if t/ //♦ / / / •/ / / 4/.k4J £d Wd8£:£0 T00Z b0 'uef l ?682 TLL SZb : '0N BNOHd 1► City of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor July 19, 2000 Department of Public Works James E Morrow, RE., Director Mr. John Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: Foster Ridge - Permits L97-0026 and L97-0027 Dear Mr. Friel: As promised during our recent telephone conversation, the following comments are provided in response to your letter of June 12, 2000. I feel it is important to recapture the events leading up to your June 12`h letter. Your June 12th letter submitted a revised six -lot conceptual plan for preliminary review by the City because your original 12 -lot submittal contained numerous unacceptable risks and concerns — See Attachment 1, dated August 18, 1999. Rather than forward your proposal to Council with a denial recommendation, you and Mr. Pederson requested additional time to evaluate your options. Over the last 10 months, City staff has met with you, Mr. Pederson, Mr. Cheesman, and Mr. Flowers on at least six occasions to discuss the concerns and issues associated with your original 12 -lot proposal. As was explained during our recent conversation, even though your revised plan appears to address some, but not all, of the City's concerns associated with slope stability, drainage, and site access, there still is a considerable amount of data required before the City can begin to analyze the feasibility of your revised plan. I want to emphasize that serious concerns remain and must be addressed before a final decision can be made. The following concerns remain: Unsuitable Soil • Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Report of November 13, 1998 stated that the site contained fill materials that were unsuitable for structural support. This material is in or near the revised construction area — Test Pits EP -5 and EP -16. How will this unsuitable material be handled given that the plan proposes to build a roadway that will cross the "old fill area" below Lots 1 and 2? How will the access road be constructed? 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206-433-0179 • Fax: 206-431-3665 '14';1A445,11 H;i,:a:� ;>� i.k^Ya LkilkYT3 ri d a .hriYiF. 4ti f.1 Surface and Ground Water • Surface water flows from the wetland area downslope and through the eastern portion of Lot 2 on the revised plan. What is the impact upon Lot 2? • Opposing forces are at work — Wetlands need both surface and ground water to stay functional, yet house sites need to stay dry. How will this balance be maintained? If additional water is indirectly added to the wetland because of the development, how will this affect slope stability of the property downslope from your site? • Ground water was encountered in all test pits within the new proposed development area. How will this ground water be managed? A complete and comprehensive water management plan must be submitted. The plan needs to address both surface and ground water. z i • ~w .-1 U U O UCD LLJU WI u) LL w 0 2 u.? • The storm water generated from the development is to be transmitted = 0 down an unopened right-of-way. Please submit detailed drawings that Z H show plan and profile for this storm water drainage system. Additionally, O there is no right-of-way outlet or easement at the bottom of your proposed w I— route, how will access to Macadam Road be provided? ? o U U • The City has adopted the 1998 King County Surface Water Design o i - Manual as its standard. A storm water management plan in accordance = v with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual will be f- �-O required, including detention, etc. z iui UN Slope Stability 0P. 1 • The site has at least Class 3 (>20%) slopes and new Lots 5 and 6 may be z Class 4 if the slopes to the south are included. There appears to be bank sloughing above new Lots 5 and 6. • Landslide risk (shallow and deep-seated) is considered at least moderate. • A statement by the geotechnical engineer will be required that states that these risks are either eliminated or that the risk is low. These statements must be supported by detailed geotechnical report. • Another peer review, at your expense, will be required. Site Access • The proposed cul-de-sac for access to Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 will severely impact existing residences. In fact, the proposed cul-de-sac will come within 1 foot of the house on the north side and possibly result in the loss of the resident's porch. The proposed cul-de-sac does not provide sufficient room for a fire truck to turn around. Should you desire a cul-de- sac, it must be 82 -feet in diameter. Therefore, the cul-de-sac access to the four proposed lots will have to be placed on your property. • The proposed access for Lots 5 and 6 does not address how it will interact with S. 140th and the existing three driveways. Also, there is an existing sewer manhole and sewer line that must be factored into your proposal. A complete street intersection plan will be required for the proposed access to Lots 5 and 6. Since the application has been ongoing for several years, the City desires to resolve these issues. You have several options for consideration: 1. The original 12 -lot proposal may be forwarded to Council for a decision. Because there are numerous unacceptable risks and concerns associated with the 12 -lot proposal, City Staff will recommend denial. 2. The original application maybe withdrawn. 3. The original 12 -lot application maybe formally revised to show 6 or fewer lots. This would change the type of review and decision process. The Planning Manager would be the decision official in lieu of the City Council. It is requested that you evaluated the options at your disposal and let me know at your convenience how you would like to proceed. Should you have any questions, please call me at (206) 433-0179. Sincerely, cSia.rrl\z2L. a rfeist-C.1-t_O James F. Morrow, PE Director, Public Works CC:'Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner iL;�4lk� Nt 1�4 Talking Points Meeting with Foster Ridge August 18, 1999 Key Points 1. Unsuitable soil throughout the site — up to 8 feet thick. 2. Water issues must be considered and addressed: z ~w J0 00 U) 0 W In WJI NLL, • Surface water flows from the wetland area downslope and through W o the eastern half of Lot 3 ... flow rate of approximately 5 gals per g 5 min. u. • Ground water encountered in all test pits, except for 9, 10, & 13. = a • Opposing forces at work - Wetlands need both surface and Z 11-1 groundwater to stay functional, yet house construction sites need to 1-0 stay dry. w w U• D O D al— • Every lot has at least Class 3 (>20%) slopes, and Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 are w w U Class 4 (>40%) ... Lots 1-4 may be Class 4 if the slopes to the LL, o north are included. z • With the exception of Lots 6, 7, & 8, the risk of slope movement is r, considered moderate — Lots 6, 7, & 8 are considered high. o t—. • Landslide risk (shallow and deep-seated) is considered moderate, Z 3. Slope stability a big issue except for Lots 6, 7, & 8 which is high. If the slopes to the north are included in the analysis, Lots 1-5 may have a high risk factor too. • Houses have been constructed to the north. The impact of this construction must be considered when determining the slope stability, because in at least one instance (Lot 7) the bank has been undercut and there is an unretained bank that is approximately 15 feet high. 4. The proposed driveway road for Lots 9 and 10 is in an area that has "conflicts." • Realignment problems • Slope problems • Stability problems — bank sloughing observed vkitiiu?tit'' G'a"%t`calSt��'�kL`Yri'+Q+'nir5t(1.'6'+ti .tkii. • giv:z4i014ii's! A S: .M4`0.1i AZ44. Via C4 0 C`• C`• C`• C•• c-• cn a) >- N a) } Com• Com• C'• C-• CZ 'O 0 a) U) a) >- (J)a) >- a) >>- - a) >— (1) CU >- Geologic Hazard C. 00 'Tr U n cn a) >- cn a) >>- - U) a) a) } a) cn a) >- 0, a) > 0) 4) 0) >- a) a) cn a) >>- - 0 CO CO ti CO 0) 0 N viv'ii i t` ; .::a� us�t A i�.r&PMitiiS �ti it 1� a v ��¢asnr Lr i$hm u4tta `;,W4 ,4) k.C�1a 'iJFr ti taWae. '.` 4, i'54 Z w 00 cn J = co LL w g¢ c =a I- W Z I- 0 Z I— w W VO o 521- 111 uj - wW LI- O ill U= Off•. Z March 6, 2000 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 REF: Revised Six Lot Site Plan for Foster Ridge APRD After considering the comments regarding access for lots 5 and 6 of the plan which we discussed at the meeting on Thursday, March 2, 2000; I have made a revision as shown on the attached plan drawing. Under this plan access for lots 5 and 6 would be provided by a 20' easement as shown. Hopefully this will provide a proper arrangement per Fire Department requirements and reduce the need for frontage improvements for these lots on S. 140th St. since access would be limited to the easement road. I am enclosing six copies in order that a distribution can be made to Gary Schulz, Mike Aldersen and Jim Morrow for their review and comments. Please contact me as soon as possible with your response to the above. Memo by: o://;4562 John B. Friel, PE PLS for Foster Ridge RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAR 7 2000 PERMIT CENTER V.T1 )1(6iF111-30'Al6J ,n 3�aa • / 71/;/,//// \ • (( 1 , `r1I lY ti� /Ill' I z 2 / //\ •=•,-.:=.-:--1_%s-..,--5------' \1.-----)2-ili /11 ; // / C) //((tc;*'f,-;:S7:-:".f:.:.-:?.?• -._._z_ ,._-:-.--._://///71// /111/17 ,:1. / /)) ► r : u • /'---�i%^��==-tel__ Jf lob o fjc ;/(1 i �� ��%i'• .-= 190 111. yz/ "' ( 1 (-1..1..1,111(ir 1' /, / •' �' �" • f • - ---=- 200 11 Ii > ,,, I r j o l i t (S(,/ //�� ego r �� •�� • ,- Il� j, ,.r , ,r, I1 1 / 1 / i �/ ,.,,� SJ ,r) l r /T ::-JIjHJ}ij,JJ 11/ �� / 1 ! iil I jr I , 1tf 11 I ;if -. 1 Mil / ( ( f & P .\ 1, 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 .� 1/ JJ, \ \ \ `\ r 1 \.. 11I1 ` \ \ \ .\`\ 11 \ \o \ ' \ e \ \\ �\ \\\ • \\ `\� )/� \ // li J • /-'J , )l ;>/& 125/1/ //^) ) i Pi j.� // V,'' � 11 / ,„. /7,/,,,/„2,./v// ////////, / /j �/� ,!i//// /77/ ,,7'/,�jj////7,/i ////// /',// //•":„/ /,//// / •7 // � /,/// / // / / / /�I 19/44k / / ,• . N 222 i: .SDN I • ii \ I i \V 1 10•17 / • . I/ vi z � w i0 O 00 W Z U)LL w 2QQ LLj Iw z WO w 0Q 0D0I- W w - wW I-- -O wz 0 01- z O \v\- �--I Ph;1 eller a‘.."-) 671ey-zi(74-1101z. /t4»/ —, l l in AA in e- slala(20o . v n ei etc L GAS. Uv1" 7�... (.2 �&. _:__ . / G.•r'c7' ..G've-S ►/1 J-�- Gc7vn 41_7 Giro'( l cam. (- .)Q4 -1- 1..J c� �/ l C�� �-�`� �r1a��.-/t .... r-.. v +� �-� . _.. �-u ,�Jcuv,..ce�.._ ( CLC-.. . fol (7) 64011 a at 6-,7/4cA- r-vor ../01.0() . 1.�Js... L. c . Ar (.2. c, (7," (Dt-w-‘ 1-6G- ter4 42 EN S _L 7 t 4 • A c -c-- -I-Le_ 31., oiere_.-1 vw..e. .4-17 0-..t)..6.677,...., Pi.e_,, e, G's_ c) er,c_. .,_,, 4-1-...L. 1 L.. rt' _b,....1.0 . ' .'. . .-n.:•(..., c-sVk.: . 4. ci a .C. '' 1 --Lt..— ,!..i.je.. . . - • , , . . ', - 1' 1 _..1,.i 4i -1----1---,, --\-\--e...- ..p (1...N7 .p. c -,...,'i ' 1 1 i .c7 -A-- , .e'.,t t'Vese.-[ : a_... -11J-- 4 -t -e___ 111 1 6.i., ti ...1-il ( . be__, .re.._ ,..r.e. • v'l ore, 4 4a4-444"ini • 1,46il;•• ' ' ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC.: 911 5"1, Suite 1 OO: Kirkland, , WAS 98155 Memo ('r C c*i4ti �i+7 cif :.i To: John Friel, P.E. From: Gary Flowers (AESI) & Pnil Cheesman (PACE) CC: Phil Cheesman Date: 02/09/00 Re: Foster Ridge, AESI Projcct NO. KE96296A In answer to your questions preE,ented on your November 22, 1999 memo, and as discussed during our meeting on January 18, 200O3 the following items are presented for your consideration. These answers have been derived during a review of our soils report, review of both of your modified site plans for a 6 lot subdivision, a visit to the site by Bruce Blyton, P.E., Sr. Associate Engineer, and meetings with Phil Cheesman, RE. of PACE. Several of these items were also presented to your during our January 18, 2000 me€ ting. • With the modified site plan presented by fax on January 31, 2000, the slope concerns related to Tots 1 and 2 are generally eliminated and we should be able to present the low landslide risk opinion that Jim Morrow is seeking. However, the city will likely require additional engineering opinions regarding the roadway that will now be crossing the old fill body below Tots 1 and 2.. • We believe that an interceptor drain will still need to be installed above lots 5 and 6 to intercept ground water that may affect construction on these lots. • We will require a grading plan with profiles and cross sections for the driveways in order to determine if additional engineering recommendations will be required for retaining walls or cut or fill slopes. • We believe a full drainage pan will still need to be presented as part of your submittal. • It will be important to either 'educe the amount of water going into the wetland or at most, obtain a near perfect balance such that it can be proven that no additional water will be added to the wetland as a result of the development. We believe this to be important due to future slope stability issues of the property down slope of your property related to overflow from the wetland. s Page 1 • • We recommend that the maximum amount of storm water allowable be removed trom the site ana transmitted down the 46th Av.:. S. easement and placed into the roadside ditch along McAdam Road. • According to Phil Cheesman, a storm drain down the 461hAve. S easement is fine. However, there is no ROW outlet or easement at the bottom and this would need to be obtained by the project proponents. z • Phil also confirmed that the City of Tukwila is following the 1998 King County storm water requirements that provides for infiltration of storm water onto the site where plausible. This is w unacceptable to AESI for thi: project. As such, the project will be required to have a detention system. In order to address leakage concerns of the city, a polyethylene plastic detention pipe i UO would be utilized in lieu of a corrugated metal pipe. co 0 cnw • Phil also stated that the wati:r district may want the water line extended uphill 1 block. He is continuing to research this issJe. 1 LL w0 • Balancing of the storm water input/reduction to the wetland will still need to be accomplished by 2 PACE. a. -d =w �-_ In general, it is our opinion that many of the geotechnical and storm water issues that previously z '— concerned the City have been eliminated or significantly reduced as a result of the new, modified site Z O plan. Following discussion of these issues with you and Dick Pederson, it would then be necessary for W AESI and PACE to provide indivic:ual opinion letters for your new submittal to the city. Please inform us D 0. when you are ready to proceed. 0o 511 ot-. Should you have any questions for either Phil or I, please do not hesitate to call. w w 1— LI - 1-6- .z w 0- O F - w • Page 2 !r, it4L', .k2a1r a to n+ z • • -;:___-\; „J./ I''' I J1 ?).//��j ( 1. _-_-,c.--* *S = ��—_ I • ,i •4•I ,1'� /yam•/- ----",.—••---_=--- ,-- --�l— I':lloii'lima r ; rl% Til i �,�� % j'i =�= i lJ((fu.L! 1 /() / -� •/-7 /7--,-= -, - / i---�-� �I rS / //� 1 • ' / 0 /� ti^ 1/-// /1 // J/ / /T DO J I1 �/f �� 111 I 1 o, I" I1 1 1 ;5''#3iit �l/ J , I I I`c' I _���r 11111!1 I J • 7/. 1) f( I( (.• ( ( /7_ 190 11'(II 1 J 1 / / 1 I / 1 i( ,' f �c I! \\\�� \1 � � 1 I) )?) //1�/ 1 c l //lj f, /',///////,/'/ // ///'�' \p J, / , / / , / /,/,// /////////,/,-,/,/ j./ ///// // 1 d/c/y4x51k(.,(,. '111;;;% •—fc; ac,!9C- i\x H 1 • • V • sup SHANNON iWILSON, ILNC. OTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUNTS August 9, 1999 City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 93188 Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow, Director of Public Works Department RE: PEER REVIEW OF EARTHWORK -RELATED DOCUMENTS, FOSTER RIDGE SUBDIVISION, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON SEATTLE RICHLAND FAIRBANKS ANCHORAGE SAINT LOUIS BOSTON This is the final report on our peer review of the geotechnical engineering aspects of the Foster Ridge Subdivision. The review is based on the following documents: ► Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard and Geotechnical Engineering Report, Foster Ridge, Tukwila, Washington, for JBMF Consulting Engineer by Associated Earth sciences, written on February 13, 1998, and revised on November 13, 1998. ► Memorandum to Jack Place, Planning Manager, from Gary Barnett, P.E., Senior, dated March 12, 1999, regarding Foster ridge PRD (L97-0027). ► Letter to John Friel from Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner, City of Tukwila, March 17, 1999, regarding L97-0026 Boundary Line adjustment, L97-0027 Administrative Planning Residential Development. ► Foster Ridge Preliminary Grading Plan for PRD Administrative Approval, by R.S. Pederson, dated November 13, 1998. ► Foster Ridge Preliminary Utility Plan for PRD Administrative Approval, by R.S. Pederson, dated November 30, 1998. ► City of Tukwila Municipal Code Section 18.45 — Section dealing with geotechnical issues only. We have commented on the following areas: ► Classification of Lots ► Lot Development ► Shallow Slope Movement ► Shallow and Deep Sliding 400 NORTH 34TH STREET • SUITE 100 P.O. BOX 300303 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98103 206.632.8020 FAX 206.633.6777 TDD: 1.800.833.6388 :s�',.$'>�,:!ul..+:xrr:�wSa'�+'��3'�f?:+>�}t'r,'•. jai!fs'K/.x�`rr:�1'ii;^dig.siw��ti�l�;il2a?r�W]•G�t.`�tl:' 471 W-8722-01 • City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow August 9, 1999 Page 2 ► Construction Impacts ► Slope Failure Responsibility ► Definition of Setback Distance ► Setback and Deep Foundations ► Benches and Keys ► Structural Fill ► Spread Footings ► Retaining Wall Pressures ► Drainage Classification of Lots SHANNON E WILSON, INC. Every lot on this site has at least one area where the slope is over 20 percent and is underlain by impermeable soils. This gives every lot at least a class 3 geologic hazard classification. In addition, lots 6, 7, and 8 have slopes of over 40 percent; therefore, these lots are classified as class 4. If the topography just north of lots 1 through 5 is considered, this classification may extend to those lots also. The geotechnical report provides special provisions for fill placement in the class 3 areas and setbacks in the limited set of identified class 4 areas but does not otherwise address the issue. Lot Development From the information provided, it is not evident that it would be prudent to develop lots 1 through 8. In particular, we find the following items conspicuously absent: ► No topographic information has been presented for most of the area to the north of these lots. It is entirely possible that there are steep slopes just to the north.of these lots that could impact the stability of the lots. ► No stability analyses have been presented in areas to the north, which could affect these lots and perhaps even the houses. ► No discussion has been presented regarding the inherent interdependence between lots 1 through 8 and the lots to the north. All of these lots, and the performance of any construction on any of them in the past or in the future, are integrally related. W 8722 -01.1 tr.d oc/wp/eet 1r.iL.'4N�1i:f:iraik:i''sV;', 0;044'1' 444 AV*;i{ "i "J •;d AYugg'. W-8722-01 =#fir Kiaai ', ''.wri., •1a.. City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow August 9, 1999 Page 3 SHANNON &WILSON. INC. Shallow Slope Movement With the exception of lots 6, 7, and 8, the geotechnical report considers that the risk of shallow slope movements is moderate. In our opinion, this is correct; however, we feel that solutions to reducing this risk should receive more attention. One issue is drainage. If the subsurface water were controlled, the risk could be reduced and the desirability of the lots could be increased. We recommend that a comprehensive drainage policy and plan be developed as part of the initial planning and construction. The current philosophy seems to be to install whatever drainage is necessary during construction. Since construction would most likely be in the drier months, and the stability problems would be most prevalent in the wetter months, this does not appear to be an adequate solution. Shallow and Deep Sliding The geotechnical report identifies lots 6, 7, and 8 as high risk for both shallow and deep-seated sliding. Lots 1 through 5 may also be at risk of deep and shallow sliding if the lots immediately to the north are also considered. In our opinion, this situation should be studied in detail prior to planning and construction in this area. Impacts of Construction to the North of Lots 1 through 8 The lots along the north side have the potential to be impacted by construction on the lots to the north. This is a steep hillside, so one logical method of construction for the owners to the north would be to excavate back into the hillside. This excavation could trigger instability either immediately or later. The solution to this situation is not obvious, since it involves non -owned property, but it is an issue to be considered. Slope Failure Responsibility and Liability The reverse of the last paragraph is also true. If there is a failure on this slope that impacts the landowners to the north, it is a near certainty that the failure will be blamed on the Foster Ridge development. The accusation will be made whether or not it is true, and probably even if lots 1 through 8 are not developed. If the drainage upslope has been changed such that more water gets W 8722-01.1 tr.d oc/wp/ee t M1A.'7y,‘,1,-Fa W:'cr74.;T:'kkY 4{"MVas:4 NI'EM.�tt1:'±Vfti3`KP6Yih`sU�kkN)rodh'1'!fit W-8722-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow August 9, 1999 Page 4 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. to the slope, it will be very difficult to say that this had nothing to do with the failure. Design and construction of a comprehensive drainage plan are critical from this standpoint alone. Definition of Setback Distance One solution to avoiding deep-seated stability problems is the one mentioned in the geotechnical report on page 81, that is, to define a setback distance for construction that would avoid damage by a failure. We feel that the setback distance definition should include consideration of the natural slopes and the potential for construction on the downslope lots to the north. This has the potential of requiring a setback for all lots (1 through 8). A setback protects the structure but does not address the issue of the yard sliding and the interaction with adjacent properties. Deep Foundations The geotechnical report (page 12) indicates that it may be necessary to place the houses on lots 6, 7, and 8 on piles and to set them back at least 25 feet from the edge of the bank. It is not clear that enough work has been done in this area to establish either of these two recommendations. We assume that the purpose of the deep foundations is to stabilize the houses against slope movement. However, it is likely that any movement under a house would affect the house regardless of whether the foundation goes through the moving material or rests on top of it. We recommend that a special study be made and a separate report be issued on the foundations for these lots. This comment applies to lots 1 through 5 also if slope stability proves to be an issue on those sites. Benches and Keys The geotechnical report (page 12) calls for benches and keys under any fills placed on slopes of over 5 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (5H:1 V). Every site has at least some areas with surface slopes greater than this. The geotechnical field investigation encountered fill on many sites. It is unlikely that this fill was placed with keys and benches, and it is likely that at least some of it was placed on original slopes of greater than 5H:1 V. This situation should be addressed. W 8722-01.1 tr. d oc/wp/ee t W-8722-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow August 9, 1999 Page 5 Structural Fill SHANNON &WILSON, INC. The geotechnical report (page 12) defines structural fill as "non-organic soil which is acceptable to the engineer." Although we see the desirability of leaving this definition somewhat loose at present, we feel it would be prudent to define those materials that would be acceptable for various applications ahead of time. If this is not done, there would be a tendency to use on-site soils, which are probably unacceptable everywhere. Spread Footings The geotechnical report (page 14) contains a section on the location of spread footings. This section should be included with the other spread footing topics; otherwise, it will be missed by anyone not interested in pile foundations. Retaining Wall Pressures The retaining wall pressures given in the geotechnical report (page 14) appear reasonable, if not slightly conservative for clean granular backfill. However, the specifications for structural fill give the reader the indication that a very fine-grained soil may be used for backfill. If this were the case, then these pressures may be quite unconservative. This is particularly true when the drain is placed directly behind the wall. Drainage The geotechnical report (page 15) discussed drainage. This site has several interesting issues. Water was found in the explorations, and water would be expected from the geology. There are wetland areas to be preserved and not drained, and stability issues requiring removal of water. These requirements are contradictory and require careful consideration, design, and construction to satisfy all concerns. It appears that many of the drainage concerns are being left up to the contractor to be decided during construction. We feel that the drainage plan for the whole site should be considered in detail prior to the start of work. Several guiding rules apply: ► Wetlands must remain wet with both surface and subsurface water. ► Where slope stability is of concern, it is necessary to intercept surface and subsurface water to dry out the soils and limit the seepage forces. W 8722-01.Itr.doc/wp/eet x7,lT7knR$r.2''.S '4.`" W-8722-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow August 9, 1999 Page 6 SHANNON &WILSON. INC. ► Where slope stability is of concern, it is considered impolite, and a reason for liability, to put water on the downslope neighbor's property. z ► To make yards usable, they need to be well drained. At this site, this probably means 1- z controlling both surface and subsurface water on most lots. JU Flow calculations and drainage procedures are beyond the scope of this review; however, we u) o would like to make several observations. UJ Z 0 Roof or Yard Drains 2 There appear to be no provisions for roof or yard drains on lots 1, 2, and 6. Since these u. j co lots are all above steep slopes that could be subject to sliding involving both these lots and the 1- W downslope lots, it would be necessary to remove surface water from these lots. z F. 1— o z I— uj It may be necessary to install yard drains in some areas to keep the yards dry and usable, 2 D and to limit liability from downslope owners. It appears that there will be roads along the uphill o oin- side of lots 3, 9, and 10. We assume that these roads will have proper drainage, which will keep 0 F- LU uj uphill surface water off these lots. Lots 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7 may also have road drainage tts benefit 1=— 0 them, but it is not clear from the plans how efficient the drainage will be. A private r'bad. cd cd z easement might be fairly primitive. Lots 8, 11, and 12 will have no uphill roads. 0 i O1— z Footing Drain Discharge It is not clear where the footing drains are supposed to discharge. Trench Drains The only mentions of trench drains to intercept subsurface water is in terms of a construction expedient. It is likely that there are springs throughout this area, particularly during the wet season, and that some of the land is creeping because of excess water during certain times of the year. In our opinion, consideration should be given to installing trench drains, perhaps on the uphill side of each lot, as part of overall site development. At a minimum, provisions should be made for each lot owner to construct such a drain later. W8722 -OI .I tr.doc/wp/eet • k-.,11,44 eA&'ii.%hA 41'1P? W-8722-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow August 9, 1999 Page 7 Construction Plans SHANNON &WILSON, INC. The plans show a utility easement down the steep slope to Macadam Road to the north. This slope averages about 2.3H:1 V. No mention is made of the design and construction of these facilities. Although we believe it is possible, we recommend that the City of Tukwila be asked to review detailed plans for this construction prior to approval, because it has the potential for being a long-term maintenance issue. Abandoned Mines We have seen no reference to determining whether or not the site lies over an abandoned mine. Confirmation Letter Section 18.45.080 of the municipal code (E — Areas of Potential Geologic Instability, 5 — Disclosures, Declarations, and Covenants) requires a letter from the geotechnical engineer stating that they have reviewed the plans and they are in agreement with the recommendations. We have not seen that letter. Other letters are required but are not of interest to this review. Construction Observation • 4.411 We would like to emphasize the requirement for continuous observation by a qualified geotechnical engineering firm during construction. There are numerous areas where a contractor could, even inadvertently, do things that would impair the long-term performance of the site. This is particularly true in the areas of erosion, drainage, stability, retaining structures, and filling. Limitations This report was prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Tukwila solely in connection with the referenced project and for use only at the time that it was prepared. It is not intended to be used on any other project or any other time. No one, other than the City of Tukwila, should rely, or has the right to rely, upon any information contained in this report. The scope of our services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of wetlands, or hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, W8722-01.1 tr.d oc/wp/eet w.WITm1ns��e.MMMtNarkM+.:Yai+q�kealWnr.n4mv.rmv«..w4:r.�rmma•N.+r.-,..waw..+.u..w.,+.av%.••..w.mw..•m...,f,..,.w.mm..un+r,u»rn.++.,........n..,.,..p�..«w,-L,...•-,,...,.....:,...¢rxaee co.pvo....r w.ww......•.— — W-8722-01 City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow August 9, 1999 Page 8 SHANNON &WILSON, INC. groundwater, or air, on or below or around this site. Absence of such information in this report does not indicate the absence of such features on the site. There is always some level of uncertainty associated with the identification of subsurface conditions. Even a comprehensive sampling and testing program implemented by experienced personnel using appropriate equipment under the direction of a trained professional may fail to detect all subsurface conditions. Our report is based on the work of others, which may not have revealed all important conditions. Any use of this report, except by the City of Tukwila in connection with the referenced project at the time this report was given, is strictly prohibited and shall be at the user's sole risk. Shannon & Wilson, Inc., disclaims any responsibility or liability for the unauthorized use of this report. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are professional opinions based on our interpretation of information currently available to us. They are made within the operational scope, budget, and schedule constraints of this project. They have been developed in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill normally exercised by members ofthe profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty, either•express or implied, is made. A short description on the use of geotechnical reports in general is attached. We trust that this review meets your needs. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, SHANNON & WILSON, INC. 7,‘ Thomas C. Kinney, Ph.D., P.E. Vice President TCKJtck Enclosure: Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report W8722-01.1 tr.d oc/wp/ee t !‘HEY^,m'bt'•.XeraYW:tkc•�na.,?tV���szrwzc++�rta+�s�rl+!*m'M+scazr„Mum r'a watrrry W-8722-01 m�Ct%iS+ri.CY15F.'{'7.�zT'.1K'*✓.Y!h+V3-n+f:1%nu;K/d!+r.w..RRIT.Y.N.vras.�. .yam O SHANNON & l _SON, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Attachment nd part of Report W-8722-01 Date: August 9, 1999 To: City of Tukwila Attn: Mr. Jim Morrow Important Information About Your Geotechnical/Environmental Report CONSULTING SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND FOR SPECIFIC CLIENTS. Consultants prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your consultant prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for the purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the consultant. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the consultant. THE CONSULTANT'S REPORT IS BASED ON PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS. A geotechnical/environmental report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project -specific factors. Depending on the project, these may include: the general nature of the structure and property involved; its size and configuration; its historical use and practice; the location of the structure on the site and its orientation; other improvements such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope -of -service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask the consultant to evaluate how any factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the recommendations. Unless your consultant indicates otherwise, your report should not be used: (1) when the nature of the proposed project is changed (for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one, or chemicals are discovered on or near the site); (2) when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed project is altered; (3) when the location or orientation of the proposed project is modified; (4) when there is a change of ownership; or (5) for application to an adjacent site. Consultants cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not.consulted after factors which were considered in the development of the report have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE. Subsurface conditions may be affected as a result of natural processes or human activity. Because a geotechnical/environmental report is based on conditions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be based on a report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Ask the consultant to advise if additional tests are desirable before construction starts; for example, groundwater conditions commonly vary seasonally. Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical/environmental report. The consultant should be kept apprised of any such events, and should be consulted to determine if additional tests are necessary. MOST RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS. Site exploration and testing identifies actual surface and subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your consultant, who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your consultant can work together to help reduce their impacts. Retaining your consultant to observe subsurface construction operations can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S CONCLUSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY. The conclusions contained in your consultant's 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. Actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork; therefore, you should retain your consultant to observe actual conditions and to provide conclusions. Only the consultant who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's Page 1 oft 1/99 ..••••, ..= zi IP0- 0- C%- 0- c•-• cDu) ow ocn P; ›- >-. 4., cz w vl 11 0 w e. 4., g4 cI c - cu lz. = •••••••N -.4.9 al,= .. w cu to I 1 co co co C,... C=1 sa) (I) 0 ›— ›— ›— p g -,-,:, 4) '') -*.i II CI gr4 L. U) co u) u) co CL) (I) w a) a) a) cri (.0 u) 0 E.4 ,... -0 >_,- ›.. >. >_ >. CD (1) a) sa) cf) • 4 o >- >- >- >II - CD g4 4.1 Geologic Hazard >- >- >- >- en w z c.) _ m ap 00 el C) A a) a) a) (f) CD a) a) 0 >- >- >- CI U) i.• 0 U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) U) a) a) CD CD CD Cl.) a) CD CD a) CD cd) >- ›- ›- ›- >- >- >-• >-' ›- )- >- = C 0011 4t 0 • CV C' 1.0 C.0 1••••• 03 0) )-4IIl iivx.r,A2,444,Aug, if4,1&4' 1.ite.A, ' 4144 qzacrot ' Wits z • z cew —i • 0 U) U.1 1.11 • u_ uj 0 2 27 g 5 u_ I' a Lu z 1— 0 z F— LU al 0 0 1— WWiIu) o 1- z April 30, 1999 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431-3665 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 (425) 771-3892 REF: Revised (April 1999) Site Plan for Foster Ridge L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 (APRD) City of Tukwila In accord with the items we discussed at the meeting on March 30, 1999 in your office, I am submitting four copies of the revised, dated April 1999, APRD Development Plan. This submittal is for the purpose of getting your acceptance for the plan as revised and receiving a letter of approval from your office which would complete the preliminary site plan review and allow us now to proceed to the detail design stage. The graphics of the plan have been revised reflecting the following issues listed in your letter of March 17, 1999 and which were discussed at the meeting with you, Gary Schulz and Gary Barnett. Fire Department• All easement access roads are to be 20 feet. Planning Di vi si nnrnnment•al i st- • 1. The detail design plans will specify a fence type and signage for buffer on lots 9, 11 and 12. 2. The lot size of lot 8 has been substantilly reduced so that the buffer and largest portion of the critical area has now been placed within Tract 99 per our discussion which will reduce the impact and mitigate the problem. 3. All NGPAs designations have been removed from the plan. 4, 5 & 6. Acknowledged. toziAti Planning Division: 1. We have extended the easement access width to the west boundary of lot 1, however, I discussed this with Philip Cheesman at PACE and it was noted that the existing sewer line is located in 48th Ave. S. at a depth such that grading and access extension would conflict and therefore not be feasible Public Works: 1 & 2. Acknowledged. 3. The easement leading to Macadam Road is increased to 20 feet. 4 thru 9. Acknowledged with comments on 4d, that 8% grade applies arround bubble beyond radius point and on 9, that circular concrete pipe with rubber gasket joints ok. Sincerely, John B. Friel; PE PLS for R.S. Pedersen Parkside Management 'I:. �'�a�i .a_...G� :G�:c.„.as�til;�.kL .nr.�:.:;a::. �:S:zSxXi 'Ir.�'�'.t� 414Y+ai.3 diaivSiri'.Gti: ".; . _ f•. a„,,:k Via`` !h tw ,'1` +: 1 t• '.iii+: a42:su' siii...-:ttv: Fer. =zhSiia.G.� "yc?;"r.-r�6waia y;t;; r:3 t24i March 17, 1999 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development Dear Mr. Friel: Thank you for your submittal of the preliminary grading, drainage and utility plans for the Foster Ridge project on December 1, 1998. This letter is a consolidated listing of the Staff comments on those drawings. Fire Department 1. The width of the access roads to both lots 1 and 2 and lots 11 and 12 must be increased to 20 feet. I understand that Nick Olivas conveyed these comments to Mr. Cheesman on 12/4/98. Planning Division — Environmentalist 1. Proposed lots 9, 11 and 12 have a significant portion of wetland buffer within the lot and residential use is limited by a very small area of lawn adjacent to the wetland buffer. In order to guarantee the protection of the buffer area on the lot, a fence and signage should be provided along the wetland buffer edge identifying it as a sensitive area. 2. Proposed lot 8 also has a significant buffer area within it that cannot be reduced. Since this lot is large it is preferred that the lot size be reduced to place the maximum amount of buffer within Tract 99. 3. Sewer lines are shown through the designated NGPAs of lots 1 through 5. This utility construction, as well as filling and grading required for house construction will likely result in the loss of many trees in this NGPA, therefore it should not be so designated. Restoration and tree replacement is already required on slopes over 20 percent through the SAO and Tree Regulations. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 r ; rtatw sniUf r:�iF,i rrt� a4 4 Ai 'k auee fnklio tri),e't4M?s :'+ "°; •;C`ti Mr 1'4>' F c J Y' h lr �' ', zn ,x.. ,S' � �:r i�. S_<<. :: 3::1i,,C+Mi�f`�}=�'1y1��.,, ,�.�,_-. J 4. Tract 99 (wetland and wetland buffer) will meet the 20 percent open space requirement for the PRD permit. 5. The current geotechnical report is very comprehensive but does not address the utility installation such as the new sewer line to be constructed on a steep slope area. The report indicates on pages 7 and 8 that the eastern slope area of the site has a high risk of shallow landslides and the mitigation section does not guarantee that slope failure can be prevented. z The design recommendations include a strong suggestion that houses on proposed lots 6, 7 and 1 z 8 may need to be founded on piers due to the slope instability and off-site modifications to the w w toe of that slope.0o cno -I_ U) u„. w0 LLa • a 6. A conceptual wetland buffer enhancement plan was submitted for the project. A final I w enhancement plan should be submitted for review as soon as the site plan has been finalized. I z will recommend that the plan be completely installed prior to final permitting. w O • w 0 O D O H 1. I spoke with William Looney, owner of a parcel west of your lots 1 and 2, on 3/15/99. He w w would like to gain access to his property through the private access road serving those lots. I i al gave him your number and suggested that the two of you might be able to work out a deal to u. O accomplish that. It does not appear that extending the road would trigger any additional v N requirements from the subdivision code, so long as it serves a maximum of four total lots. 1 O z Another significant point the report makes is about the condition of the upper layer of soil and that fill materials on the site will not be suitable for foundations. This could require a significant amount of excavation and structural fill. Combined with this is a mitigation measure that large-scale clearing should be avoided and occur only during drier periods of the year. As erosion and stability are such important issues on this site we will ask that the geotechnical peer review address whether phasing of clearing and construction should be required. Planning Division Public Works 1. Construction of the utilities at the north portion of the site and through to Macadam Road are in sensitive slope areas. The applicant shall identify and comply with the requirements of the SAO. The City shall review and approve utility location and construction methods for the water and sanitary sewer utilities as a joint City/Utility District approval. 2. The applicant shall secure all off-site easements necessary for utilities including the sanitary sewer from lot 1. 3. The easement leading from Macadam Road shall be increased to 20 feet to facilitate maintenance of the two utilities located in that area. 4. The applicant shall design the on-site and off-site improvements to City of Tukwila Public Works infrastructure standards and City of Tukwila ordinances. Specific requirements identified in an initial review of the preliminary site improvement drawings by PACE include: a. No rockeries in the right of way b. No rockeries over four feet in height 6:44 4 it rf.'ii.U. 3."adAW: ?k7in'''kAk .01 �'i_tzi3L:'u:'.'i�ti c. No rockeries with a surcharge d. Cul-de-sacs may have a maximum of 8% grade e. The storm drainage system shall be designed to King County Surface Water Design Manual or Department of Ecology, whichever is more restrictive f. A complete engineering review will be done after preliminary approval when an application for miscellaneous permit (MI) is made. 5. A geotechnical engineer retained by the applicant at the applicant's expense shall be on-site throughout construction. A specific construction monitoring and reporting plan will be developed when infrastructure plans are approved. The applicant shall provide the City, prior to project completion, certification from the applicant's geotechnical engineer that construction has complied with the geotechnical recommendations. z w a_2 UO wI 6. The applicant shall post a bond as a condition of the MI permit for clearing, grading, utilities w o and street construction to ensure compliance with the provisions of the City's Land Altering Ordinance. g Q 7. The applicant shall make street widening, shoulder and drainage improvements to South 140th = w Street west of the project to improve the substandard roadway conditions. The road shall be z z developed to a paved surface of twenty feet, four foot gravel shoulders and provisions for t•-• o drainage control. w w 0 o- 8. Street frontage improvements to South 140th Street in front of the project shall be improved with 20 feet of asphalt, concrete curb and gutter, drainage control and street lighting. No sidewalk will be required. 9. The City will accept the storm water system for maintenance and operation via an easement for facilities constructed in the private roadway and leading to Macadam Road. All work shall be done to City of Tukwila Public Works standards and recommendations of geotechnical peer review. A watertight concrete tank is required for stormwater storage due to the sensitive site conditions. If you have any further questions please call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist 9 ; tr<f % �r�d ' •ria :: &�a2 t 0 I- wW H-� u.. 0. wz UN —I 0 F - z • CITY OF TUKWILA MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICArCE '.DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: BLA/LOT CONSOLIDATION REDUCE FROM 16 TO 3 LOT:. PROPONENT: RICHARD PETERSEN LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING.STREET-ADDRES, IF ANV: • ADDRESS: • PARCEL NO: 322920=0090'. •'• SEC/TWN/RNG: 139 ST:a46 PV LEAD A'3EtCV CITY OF:TUKWILA': :'FILC JO E97-0033 • The City/ha: determined that:the propoSal does not have a -probetkie significant ethie07.se„'Impact.:,on the environment, An environmenta1Hmpact stateme6i::(EISisr:hot reduired 66d-r-R.CW 43,21c,030(2)(c). Thfs decision.Was'..-.made after reView-Of a completed 'niet•al vhe0,list and the information on.file wjth the2lead'agency. This inforMation •, is avatlable to thejlubliC'on'reduest The .conditions to this SEPA DetermAnationar& attached, ' ' • :This DNS is-isgued Onder 19,7-11-340(2), Comment.:, must,.be submftted by The lead a9OnCY Will not act owthi proposa1ctoT.:.15 days from the date.below,, - -' - • - ____ _ (1411 ",..::i; 7 Date' 1A•14.-/7-1-6141-4-1,---- . .tee Lint. Pesi.ons.. CI* of Tukwt)a, ';',(2p6.1 431736:so ..-. .,,., 6300 Southcenter Botilevard , Tukwila, WA ,9&1138 ' • • • Copies of the procedures for SEPA.',appeal..-... are avatlable with the Department of Communitybevelopment. riT'Y TurwILs. Addre'ss: Applicant: DICK PEDERSON Statwz: RECEIVED Perm)t. No: E97-0013 Applid: O:77/1997 Type: P-SEPA Approved: 'LoOtion: S 139 ST a 46 Par.cel #: 322910-0090 • :Zoning: • 4(4/*A:A*****kA*******AAik**,140.kkA-44**:006k4."***A"""*"*""" 1. PRIOR TO::ISSUANCE'OF'THEAANNED RESIPEPTIALDEVELOPMENT APPROVAL'THE.GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION'MUST-BE'PEER EVIEWED BY A:..OUALIFIED:PROFESSIONAL SELECTED B\ THE ST" PUL' PAID THE APPLICANT. ALL ITE ORK:AND COVSTRUCtON MUST COWLY*WIT171 THEINDING,SA*YtHE PEEP REVIEW • • • • 1 z re w 0 00 •CD(1) L1J LL.1 U) u j 0 2 co z t-0 z 1 - D c UJ uj (.) O (12 u j wz U. E, 0 0 z ts4111R. City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist DATE: March 1, 1999 RE: Foster Ridge - 12/1/98 Plan Submittal (L97-0026, L-97-0027, E97-0013). I have reviewed this submittal and have some comments regarding Sensitive Area Ord. (SAO) compliance and other site development standards. There are site grading and stormwater issues that have not been fully addressed. Please refer to my June 23, 1998 Memo for clarification of the following comments. 1) Proposed Lots 9, 11, and 12 have a significant portion of wetland buffer within the lot and residential use is limited by a very small area of lawn adjacent to the wetland buffer. In order to guarantee the protection of the buffer area on the Lot, a fence and signage may be necessary. In my opinion, the buffer area on these Lots will likely be cleared for additional lawn or other use. 2) Proposed Lot 8 also has significant buffer area within it that cannot be reduced. Since this Lot is large it is preferred that the buffer area that cannot be reduced become part of the established wetland Tract 99. 3) The referenced NGPA's (Lots 7 & 8) and (Lots 1 thru 5) should be designated as two separate tracts if the intent is to keep these areas undeveloped for stability, erosion control, and aesthetic reasons. The utility plan, Sheet C2, shows a new sewer line to be constructed through the identified NGPA of Lots 1 thru 5. This construction will have a significant impact on the trees in this area as well as filling and grading for the lots. I recommend that if this utility plan is approved, this area should not be designated as a tract or NGPA. Restoration and tree replacement will be required per the SAO and Tree Regulations (TMC Chapter 18.54). 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 o Fax (206) 431-3665 Foster Ridge Memo March 1, 1999 Page 2 4) Tract 99 (wetland and wetland buffer) will meet the 20% open space requirement for the PRD permit. 5) The current geotechnical report (AES, Inc - revised 11/13/98) is very comprehensive but does not address the utility installation such as the new sewer line to be constructed on a steep slope area. The report indicates that the eastern slope area of the site has a high risk of shallow landslides. This is mentioned on pages 7 and 8. Also, the mitigation section does not guarantee that slope failure can be prevented. The design recommendations include a strong suggestion that houses on proposed Lots 6, 7, & 8 may need to be founded on piers due to the slope instability and off-site modifications to the toe of that slope. Another significant point the report makes is the condition of the upper layer of soil and the fill materials on the site will not be suitable for foundations. This could require a significant amount of excavation and structural fill. Combined with this is a mitigation measure that large-scale clearing should be avoided and occur only during drier periods of the year. Erosion and stability are issues for this site. I recommend that phasing of the development be required and upper slope areas be cleared and constructed prior to clearing the lower, steep slope. 6) A conceptual, wetland buffer enhancement plan was submitted for the project. A final enhancement plan should be submitted for review as soon as the site plan - lots and roadway design is approved. I will recommend that the plan be completely installed prior to final permitting. Please let me know if you have questions or we need to meet on my comments. cc: Jack Pace, Planning Manager Gary Barnett, Senior Engineer John Friel, JBMF Consulting Engineer u._=•YS v�R!'.;^�•i't�d!M1M1v. VMv.1'.�wrN�'V lxvRH�'nit' w'•NUY �Ai January 6, 1999 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431-3665 ww FROM: John B. Friel _JU JBMF Consulting Engineer v O P.O. Box 27 0 Everett, Wa., 98206 w H New Tel # 425-771-3892 Ww REF: Geotechnical Report Update w O L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 (APRD) E97-0013 Evironmental Review c a Foster Ridge (Lots in Hellwigs Addition) w City of Tukwila z Enclosed herewith is four (4) copies of the updated geotechnical report on the referenced site prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. This report is for the most current site plan. I will contact you later this week in regard to the status of the review of the earlier plan submittal by PACE Engineering for the drainage, utility and grading. Please note my new telephone # above. Memo by: John B. Friel, PE PLS for Foster Ridge Project ✓ . hi+tlk339lt,6VnrtiViiYMu*�wa.... _ z Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. Engineering • Planning • Surveying • Consulting November 30, 1998 Ms. Nora Gierloff City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA DEC 0 1 1998 PERMIT CENTER z �z 000 co w J H U)w w0 Subject: Foster Ridge - Boundary Line Adjustment - L97-0026 co -Administrative Planned Residential Development - L97-0027 = w -Environmental Review - E97-0013 z 1-0 w ~ U• 0 O P- O 1— w w u. 0 CU.. U= 0 1— Dear Ms. Gierloff: " Please find enclosed four sets of blackline prints of preliminary grading, drainage and utility drawings for the subject project. These drawings are intended to conceptually show the feasibility of this project and to address outstanding issues in regards to a final determination for the above proposed Administrative PRD. If you or staff from other departments have any questions or require additional information please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, PENHALLEGON ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. /pdc 98673gicrloff.wpd c: John B. Friel - 3' sets drawings Phili D. Cheesman, P.E. Associate 750 Sixth Street South, Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: (425) 827-2014 • Fax: (425) 827-5043 z City ®f Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 10, 1998 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development E97-0013 Environmental Review Dear Mr. Friel: Thank you for your submittal on August 12, 1998. Staff finds that the changes you have made to the site plan address many of the issues discussed at our last meeting. We are still waiting for the drainage, utility and grading plans. If you have any further questions please call me at (206) 433-7141. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Gary Barnett, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4313670 • Fax (206) 4313665 �rvc,•5?Nod. ^r1?�7`':.'L.433. August 6, 1998 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431-3665 AUG 12 1998 COMldalUNfl Y DEV LOPM►_N 1� FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 FAX(360)653-2526 Call (360)659-4774 first REF: Revised (July 1998) Site Plan for Foster Ridge L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 (APRD) E97-0013 Evironmental Review (Lots in Hellwigs Addition) City of Tukwila In accord with the items we discussed at the meeting on July 7, 1998 in your office, I am submitting four blueline copies of the revised, dated July 1998, APRD Development Plan. This submittal is for the purpose of getting your acceptance for the plan revisions relating to the following issues discussed at the meeting and items in the Gary Schulz memo to you of June 23, 1998: Reference the Gary Schulz memo of June 23, 1998: 1. Lots 11 & 12 have been reconfigured to resolve the issue relative to Lot 11 and the buffer and seback criteria. 2. Lot 8 has been slightly reconfigured (along with Lot 7) and the building footprint repositioned beyond the steep slope portion of the lot in such a way that the 50' buffer width can be provided in the 205t- gradient area. 3. Lot 9 has been reconfigured as suggested. 4. The NGPA designation is being indicated as a way to protect this area during construction and would be included in a covenant for long term protection. It is not the intention to create a seperate tract. 5. As we discussed at the meeting, this access location is necessary to meet the driveway slope requirements and the building pads must be as located to provide space for the sewer gravity line connection and services to the lots. This is the only feasable way to access and develop Lots 1 and 2. Fire Department Items: It was understood that the hammerhead turn around is acceptable with the Fire Department, per Nick Olivas, and that the cul-de-sac radius can be reduced to 30 feet as shown. A 28' street pavement width will be provided as per the comments by Gary Barnett. A 20'extension of the street improvement at frontage of Lot 9 is provided as requested by Nick Olivas. General Items: It was understood, that since our plan is now for 12 building sites, and that we had previously provided traffic report data for a 11 lot plan and a 13 lot plan, that another report would not be necessary. As regards to the questions about the drainage and utilities from Gary Barnett, as noted previously, we are working with Bob Stanton of PACE Consulting Engineers to provide the preliminary layout and design for the sewer, water, storm drainage, roadway and site grading plans. We will get this preliminary design information to you as soon as it is available. We expect Associated Earth Sciences to continue providing the geotechnical services as you requested. Please notify me if the revised plan is not acceptable or if the above is not in conformance with the comments at our meeting. ohn B. Friel; PE PLS for R.S. Pedersen Parkside Management VAWYrY:A^ io, _JVvt ee:rec�1 w MEETING AGENDA DATE: September 8, 1997 RE: Foster Ridge BLA, APRD,..]SEPA eve, cciG lC�� 61 cry 1c-1 AlA0fr%. 4't'�✓1'�' f^,'�-1 Issue areas: Wetland Show the 10' building setback from the wetland buffer. P -I ( 6.J i'/ l IX Show outlet from wetland and indicate how flow will be controlled. -C. 1 tl —471-1,1 00 The minimum buffer distance for a Type 2 wetland is 25' (with an approved buffer enhancement plan). This does not appear to be met at lots 10 and 13. - The City will require that the edge of the wetland buffer be fenced or flagged. Geotechnical Report `ix°5``E`'�• The geotechnical report is not written for the site plan submitted on May 27th. After any site plan changes needed to comply with the other comments are made please have Associated Earth Sciences update the report to match the proposed site plan. k,. Please submit a grading plan that conforms with the recommendations in the geotechnical report. The City will require a peer review of the updated geotechnical report. • The City will require that the geotechnical firm be retained at the owner's expense to perform construction monitoring. • The City will require that a covenant be recorded to run with the land per TMC 18.45.080 E 5. e explaining the risks associated with development of the site and waiving any liability on the part of the City. Utilities %./ The certificate of water availability shows that you have insufficient water and will need to install a new main. Public Works will require that it be lee ed and if it is to be installed on private land that the appropriate easements be obtained. v‘ The City will require a storm drainage analysis and on site detention of stormwater. v' Fire hydrant locations which meet City ordinance 1692 must be shown. Roadways t,•- The maximum allowable slope for roads and driveways is 15 %. Please confirm that you can meet this requirement. 04- ✓• Please revise your design so that only 4 lots are served by the proposed private road. • Frontal improvements will be required on 140th Street along lots 10 and 11. alL,v : Please revise the hammerhead turn around to meet Fire Department standards. /-l0 ��4 • (24- Ci'�1GrLic�C�nn.���-- CJS � 1 ndf l"CJCV �i-l/ IJn 12-CA-1PIt7-1 - ti A• . :Jf• .lL/' �J Y „t „17 �.Cii�..• General t/I`��/ l • Update the traffic report to reflect the current 13 lot proposal. • Update the SEPA checklist to reflect the geotechnical report. ::i4'N�fr yA,MY.T'•ne1�i� aiod'%d"s C:I It. L.3 :,iA��'H 1iL�"{" i 1:45 ?'9{W }'njP,3f.d% 1• ', {611 ei,,,Y0543i H�'f:17n'i).1 h�(1i61��!1•.. ,VteSyl�f : . �itre��• i: 1 ... ay' u:+s.nn. i �• . 4.' i.`" 'i." MEMORANDUM TO: Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner FROM: Gary Schulz, Urban Environmentalist1 _. DATE: June 23, 1998 z w re 6U 00 0,111o RE: Foster Ridge - 6/3/98 Revisions (L97-0026, L-97-0027, E97-0013). w0 I have reviewed this submittal and have comments regarding Sensitive Area compliance standards. The applicant has attempted to meet certain requirements and maintain the previous plat = a configuration. This has resulted in some awkward conditions but technically may be feasible to F- _ permit. There are outstanding issues that have not been addressed; however, these comments are Z mainly a response to the applicant's 5/29/98 Memo to DCD. w O 1) Proposed Lot 11 could have the BSBL waived; however, the area of wetland buffer in the lot(11 is significant and will affect the residential use. How will the applicant guarantee the protection of o the buffer area on the Lot? In my opinion, the area on the Lot will be cleared because there is no = w area for a lawn etc. f- u 2) It appears that proposed Lot 8 has not provided the full buffer width of 50 feet but the slope v F. o~ area is greater than 20% gradient. 3) Proposed Lot 9 should be re -configured to keep most of the buffer in the open space tract. 4) The referenced NGPA's should be designated as separate tracts if the intent is to keep these areas undeveloped for stability, erosion control, and aesthetic reasons. Tract 99, wetland and wetland buffer, will meet the 20% open space requirement for the PRD permit. 5) I would recommend moving the proposed building pads of Lots 1 and 2 upslope so they have backyards instead of cutup front yards. This could shorten the access drive and reduce the amount of slope disturbance. It also seems it would be better to keep the driveway easement on only the 2 lots it is accessing. Please let me know if you have questions or we need to meet. cc: Jack Pace, Planning Manager Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator VIu Moi z i.•1( • �� �1� �v)` 44 ' 9S 1.0 1908 March 26, 1998 City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: :L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development E97-0013 Environmental Review Dear Mr. Friel: For the above applications to proceed you must submit the remaining items listed on the agenda from our meeting on September 8th, 1997. You were notified of these outstanding items in my notice of complete application of October 28, 1997 and again by fax. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that if we do not receive the information and reports requested by April 30, 1998 your applications will expire and any vested rights you may have had with them will be lost. If you are no longer pursuing the applications I would appreciate receiving a letter requesting their withdrawal. Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 ��fM}A/1JS':N�IiWCMM.Mi%'.�MVi:WAi.u...Rei/vnvyNYuf�'.�w`x.ana..wrv.»:ur...:..w-vmw..+.✓•.�k.ta��%en lGrrs.TnNM4Wwrr+w�u{i+I.W'�'/.hY�r'CYaun wlN+.S.•Vhf++m..✓�..,.r..+�.n..+w.a.�r.�C•e.. ...rn.0 u.W�o.r.w..r» .ra i... r�: .. x--..}.y�y November 10, 1997 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development z City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431-3665 rU U O cwo W (0w w O. u.Q =• d z= zO w • w 00 O -. 0 wW H--u. -- O W Z = O ' FROM: REF: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 FAX(360)653-2526 Call (360)659-4774 first Installation of Notice Board for L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 (APRD) E97-0013 Evironmental Review Foster Ridge (Lots in Hellwigs Addition) City of Tukwila In accord with you letter of October 28, 1997, and per your instructions in second paragraph, this is to notify you that the notice board has as of this date been installed at the site, at end of street on So. 139th St. at 46th Ave. So. and according to your instructions you will post it with the Notice of Application. -er ohn B. Friel; PE PLS for R.S. Pedersen Parkside Management NOV 1 U 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT rttYdllWkrat:4 11:teA�e:4 tr z City of Tukwila Department of Community Development November 10, 1997 Mr. John Friel JMBF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 Re: Permit #L97-0026, L97-0027 - Proposed Wetland Buffer Reduction. Dear Mr. Friel: John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director The recent review of your proposed Foster Ridge - Boundary Line Adjustment has identified an additional sensitive area requirement. The Sensitive Areas Ordinance includes the following: "The Director may reduce the standard wetland/watercourse buffers on a case-by-case basis, provided the buffer does not contain slopes 20% or greater" (TMC 18.45.040 C.4.a.). In addition to other standards, the buffer reduction needs to have an approved enhancement plan. The slope analysis conducted by staff indicates the wetland buffer adjacent to proposed Lots 9, 10, and 13 cannot be reduced because the buffer area contains a slope gradient of 20% or steeper. The only option to allow wetland buffer areas to be included in legal Lot areas is to establish a sensitive area easement. The easements would only be used for the portion of wetland buffer that needs to be included in the lot area to meet minimum lot area requirements. The remaining wetland buffer and wetland areas will need to be included in a sensitive area tract. At our last meeting on 9/8/97, we discussed some adjustment needed on proposed Lots 10 and 13 to meet the buffer setback distance. It appears that proposed Lot 10 may be reduced in size enough to avoid using the wetland buffer. The change to use easements for steep buffer areas should not greatly affect the current site plan configuration and may only be necessary for Lots 9 and 13. This adjustment will increase the overall open space area on the project and reduce the amount of required buffer enhancement. If you have questions, please call me at 431-3662 or Jack Pace. Sincerely, C, IV' <7 C. Gary Sc ulz' Urban Environmentalist cc: Jack Pace, Planning Manager Nora Gierloff, Associate Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 m Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 431-3670 0 Fax: (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 28, 1997 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development E97-0013 Environmental Review Dear Mr. Friel: Your application for a boundary line adjustment and planned residential development located at South 139th Street and 46th Avenue South has been found to be complete on October 27th for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. If you need another set of those instructions, please call me. Once you have notified me that the notice board has been installed I will post it with a laminated copy of the Notice of Application and the comment period will start. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. When we met on September 8th you received a list of substantive changes from reviewing City departments that will need to be reflected in your next submittal. If we have any additional substantive comments after completing review of your completeness submittal we will send them to you by November 7th. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 Sincerely, Nora Gierloff Associate Planner cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department iage,,taiinrAtwaviradAZoira.utaweimuviaCtiv$p.:iists1;Istartiiku44wpirto,4.4-7.15,,R,11143414.11avorran001.4i'41`3,1#.0t4i.mumwri4VOKIUs7,104.4....v.,,,,,,,,...:,....4.,„.;,.,. • z < . • z w 6 n -J • 0 U)uJ WI W • o g u. co — w z I-0. z ILI uj 2 0 O (22 (3 1— W • 0 1-- - 0 ..z 111 • u) O • 1- Z • October 15, 1997 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 FAX (206) 431-3665 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 FAX(360)653-2526 Call (360) 659-4774 first REF: Notice of Incomplete Application, June 17, 1997 L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 (APRD) E97-0013 Evironmental Review (Lots in Hellwigs Addition) City of Tukwila The enclosed material is in response to the items listed in reference notice letter and as follows: Item 1. We have done extensive tree survey and a data list of all trees relative to the site is attached. We are still working on the details of the site plan which is subject to change during your further review. This is to document that any trees needed to be removed under the final site plan will be itemized and replaced in accord with the tree ordinance requirements. Item 2. Attached is a copy of work sheet showing calculations for the amount of impervious surface relative to our most current site plan. The result indicates that impervious surface will constitute only 26.40 of the total area. Item 3. Enclosed are copies of four photos taken to indicate the type of tree cover and vegetation presently existing along the northerly margin of the subject site as it relates to nearby downslope property. As indicated on our APRD site plan, the native growth in this area will be retained and protected as a NGPD area. We further declare that we will meet the requirement for 250 landscape coverage now and 40o within 15 years as required. Item 4. Enclosed is a copy of the buffer enhancement report prepared by Sheldon and Associates in response to this item. la' OM01Aktre Alt uo- RECEIVED C.j. I. b 1997 COIviiv;t.SNlTY. ::% EVF.i Oi"iViE NT tl+ryrl��l:! Item 5. Enclosed is a copy of information relative to determining the location of the top of slope line and correspondence from the Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. relative to setbacks and adjustments for building on these lots The above is being delivered to your office today, in accord with the submittal time requirements. Please contact me if you have any questions. Submittal by: ohn B. Friel; PE PLS for R.S. Pedersen Parkside Management u...., ... ..... .. ... .. .. ... r a n+.>til.'sns:rieauaaarya.tti�s.iv msrvV.it*Sok)title.N:�Ji7a:.larvr;st+,s4:?i afi<Hru.LYNi;u-.mx.. R'Fbo-:sl;'t�c�. t+Y::.w:/!+w >an»u'(!75r+dY?at 'dfSfKlPT4't C Salt ':4i:FJ 1 ::V,1�'ry}'Yh?4i�'Y"it illSsorfloar o FOSTER RIDGE PROPERTY LIST OF TREES ON PROPERTY GREATER THAN 4" DIAMETER FIELD SURVEY DONE BY BARRETT CONSULTING AUGUST 1995 TREES ARE IN CLUSTERS AND SCATTERED OVER SITE (COUNT = 313) MOSTLY DECIDUOUS ALDER, MAPLE, COTTONWOOD & A FEW FRUIT POINT, COORDINATES, ELEV., TREE SPEC. & SIZE 650,178022.2078,1643993.3684,133.00,MAPCLUSTER 661,178006.1979,1643963.5383,141.18,MAP36 662,177992.6311,1643997.4129,146.06,MAP21 663,177992.3650,1644003.0366,146.05,MAP21 664,178004.1695, 1644000.7764, 139.75,MAP9 665,178004.9271,1644002.4296,139.01,MAP6 666,178007.4927,1644013.8028,138.07,MAPCLUSTER 667,178003.9681,1644017.5139,137.98,MAPCLUSTER 668,178013.3173,1644030.8845,132.52,MAP14 669,178014.2322,1644013.3780,134.00,MAP14 670,178007.7192,1644050.1321,137.48,MAPCLUMP 671,177988.3092,1644044.2364,143.15,PEAR8 675,177944.1687,1643981.5609,165.55,MAP21 676,177945.7439,1643976.1675,163.94,MAPCLUMP 678,177946.5958,1643952.3766,165.04,MAP7 679,177948.1952,1643928.8628,167.55,MAP24 680,177959.7446, 1643935.2140,159.58,MAP16 684,177945.9577,1643895.3197,171.91,MAP14 685,177961.9866,1643861.5279,167.75,MAP18 686,177962.6974,1643835.3051,165.65,ALD9 688,177956.8830,1643837.6681,167.15,ALD8 689,177940.8152,1643824.3668,169.87,APPLE12 690,177929.5498,1643846.2160,172.70,APPLE12 691,177925.5157,1643869.6218,175.00,APPLE12 692,177919.4495,1643901.3986,176.83,MAP18 693,177897.4833,1643913.6348,179.69,APPLE6 694,177882.9151,1643926.6063,181.67,CHERRY9 695,177869.3265,1643936.6520,184.54,ALD8 696,177855.4313,1643951.4589,186.56,MAP12 698,177871.6323, 1643921.7574,184.17,ALD8 700,177865.0736,1643907.2461,189.01,MAP12 701,177877.9915,1643901.7674,182.21,ALD6 702,177876.3172,1643897.1910,184.20,ALD8 703,177872.8218, 1643895.5811,185.76,ALD8 704,177881.6225,1643898.4754,181.74,ALD8 705,177882.3231, 1643886.6289,182.33,ALD8 707,177880.0982, 1643859.5195,181.30,ALD6 708,177916.9662,1643941.1688,177.04,MAP18 709,177912.9091,1643974.5259,176.06,MAP18 710,177925.4943,1643988.9551,171.33,ALD8 2 711,177938.7229,1643990.8497,167.O1,MAPCLSTER 718,177749.6653,1644009.5803,180.82,MAP21 719,177754.6064, 1644019.4881,178.81,MAP18 720,177759.6554, 1644020.9565,178.47,MAP14 721,177761.4102,1644020.9201,178.39,MAP14 caulU/Axe. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER gg 14,441 722,177781.9716,1644019.8693,177.98,ALD24 723,177781.9716,1644019.8693,177.98,MAP24 724,177784.7515,1644006.7202,185.05,MAP15 2 725,177772.5192, 1644001.2321,191.94,ALD18 726,177769.0108,1644000.3006,192.01,ALD14 727,177763.7120,1643993.1883,193.10,ALD19 728,177741.7450,1643985.4713,200.21,ALD24 729,177755.5663,1643996.8614,194.10,ALD18 730,177797.2234,1643989.9093,190.36,MAP8 731,177780.4020,1643988.7789,194.64,ALD6 732,177789.6529,1643981.1981,194.04,ALD22 734,177811.9537,1643994.8041, 185.94,MAP14 735,177824.3413,1643990.8615,183.93,MAP12 736,177821.6443,1644004.4522,180.50,MAP9 737,177812.9137,1644011.5524,178.90,MAP14 SNAG 738,177809.9723,1644008.8125,180.63,MAP18 739,177801.1186,1644004.8542,184.34,MAP6 740,177851.7341,1643977.5819,183.08,MAP16 741,177852.9318,1643956.9894,187.47,MAP14 742,177848.7249,1643963.6788,186.93,MAP6 743,177844.7133,1643970.5542,184.87,MAP7 744,177842.4649, 1643971.6694,184.25,MAP7 745,177835.0384,1643968.6682,188.26,MAP7 2 746,177835.2562,1643963.5196,189.13,ALD9 766,177830.5098,1644024.7228,174.49,MAP14 767,177815.9736,1644046.6096,162.32,MAP24 780,177814.2348,1644083.4206,159.54,ALD10 2 781,177806.9467,1644087.7045,160.10,ALD14 782,177821.7497,1644100.1002,154.80,ALD11 789,177695.0285,1643770.6618,218.30,ALD12 792,177716.7904,1643785.8689,213.00,APPLE14 794,177741.1189,1643826.4906,205.96,ALD12 2 796,177694.3638,1643832.9094,211.60,ALD8 797,177689.9480,1643837.6092,211.49,ALD8 801,177777.4104,1643944.6754,203.44,ALD6 802,177774.6990,1643946.3615,203.86,ALD8 803,177767.5697,1643941.2509,205.41,ALD6 804,177758.0411,1643940.9110,207.28,ALD10 805,177758.3040,1643928.4146,207.59,ALD8 806,177755.7697,1643926.9215,208.22,ALD10 807,177757.3442,1643915.9981,207.04,ALD10 808,177759.8100,1643910.7115,206.42,ALD10 809,177763.4090,1643908.5637,205.27,ALD6 810,177768.0987, 1643906.5529,204.63,ALD12 811,177777.8731,1643907.8545,200.64,ALD9 812,177777.2748,1643890.4449,196.65,ALD16 813,177771.0677,1643886.1253,200.25,ALD16 814,177752.9605,1643907.9683,207.11,ALD9 815,177757.2968,1643905.4886,206.41,ALD6 816,177749.9285,1643908.9158,208.14,ALD8 817,177748.1477,1643907.2765,208.56,ALD12 818,177744.7142,1643910.4104,209.05,ALD16 819,177742.1694,1643893.0066,209.03,ALD18 820,177733.7790,1643893.2831,209.32,ALD16 2 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 51997 PERMIT CENTER 821,177726.1154,1643891.0633,210.76,ALD14 822,177727.8331,1643891.1325,210.00,ALD6 823,177730.0378,1643885.1514,209.23,ALD8 824,177726.4402,1643880.7173,209.51,ALD16 825,177731.2749,1643880.8165,209.00,ALD12 827,177748.7804,1643864.8096,204.86,ALD20 828,177746.5665,1643863.2328,205.32,ALD9 829,177754.4191,1643859.8338,202.26,ALD16 830,177764.8840,1643862.8885,199.11,ALD16 831,177735.1707,1643927.5681,211.04,ALDCLUMP 832,177728.8173,1643930.4013,212.33,ALD10 833,177719.2500,1643921.8292,213.59,ALD17 834,177717.5976, 1643932.1398,214.02,ALD6 835,177713.2881,1643933.6340,214.59,ALD8 836,177707.1334,1643921.0639,215.80,ALD8 837,177680.2165,1643897.5712,218.09,ALD14 838,177672.6249,1643885.1323,218.59,ALD12 839,177667.7321,1643876.3634,219.32,ALD15 840,177698.3637,1643930.4499,218.10,ALD6 841,177750.9680,1643952.1634,207.50,ALD10 842,177763.1310,1643945.4283,206.05,ALD6 843,177770.6091,1643956.5793,203.62,ALD10 844,177778.0300,1643957.3120,201.81,MAP18 845,177785.3105,1643947.6422,201.53,MAP12SNAG 846,177758.7400,1643955.5216,204.72,ALD6 847,177762.3607,1643962.6833,203.36,ALD8 848,177735.7374,1643958.0492,209.26,ALD8 871,177789.0681,1643796.6025,189.10,ALD10 872,177807.5085, 1643819.5697,187.74,COTT30 873,177824.7800,1643828.2158,187.08,COTT14 874,177797.7651,1643838.5655,188.05,ALD6 875,177790.5090,1643835.7550,187.53,ALD9 876,177783.7279, 1643834.2155,189.66,ALD12 877,177787.0525,1643828.9281,187.29,ALD6 878,177779.7954,1643816.1182,191.34,ALD6 879,177778.1643,1643814.9395,193.48,ALD8 880,177775.0307,1643807.8638,195.62,ALD14 881,177781.3960,1643842.4324,188.70,ALD6 882,177778.6083,1643847.6846,189.39,ALD6 883,177774.1180, 1643855.5707,191.71,ALD6 884,177776.1105,1643856.4784,190.64,ALD6 885,177793.4430,1643858.2937,189.39,ALD6 886,177798.5257,1643860.8071,189.08,ALD6 887,177800.4245,1643870.9130,189.68,ALD6 888,177800.8396,1643875.8715,189.73,ALD6-10 889,177810.1260,1643869.2869,188.94,ALD8 895,177813.2376,1643889.0308,189.95,ALD6-6 896,177781.4529,1643878.8398,191.02,ALD6 897,177811.7503,1643922.7131,191.65,ALD6 898,177823.0811,1643930.0735,190.87,ALD8 899,177828.7784,1643945.9504,191.07,ALD8 900,177824.2790,1643947.8417,191.41,ALD8 901,177808.0852,1643948.4591,193.47,MAP18 902,177839.3184,1643931.3366,190.48,ALD6 i+:'tiv>.�sr.:4."tY:s r 4kbi�uiR�';x?y!.i�:wS A`;u'•eaVst�:�%sA;�ah�kti�'��3�ti�iFhV:,s 3 '61i6Z At: RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER 903,177837.6337,1643925.4074,190.53,ALD9 904,177836.4160,1643924.1225,190.75,ALD6 905,177851.1958,1643928.1794,190.42,ALD9 906,177852.3163,1643921.2582,190.15,ALD6-6 907,177865.2593,1643918.7962,188.23,ALD7 908,177864.6041,1643920.7317,188.19,ALD6 909,177863.7097,1643924.9889,187.85,ALD8 910,177845.9416,1643918.4384,190.28,ALD8 911,177833.2422,1643911.5402,190.29,ALD10 912,177828.4305,1643905.1278,190.36,ALD10 913,177834.4342,1643901.1863,189.74,ALD8 916,177866.0505,1643863.7344,186.94,ALD9 917,177868.9968,1643866.7729,186.58,ALD10 918,177871.1994,1643856.7492,184.44,ALD8 923,177749.9843,1643797.9603,205.85,ALD12 924,177761.9688,1643795.6057,202.98,ALD8 925,177768.7287,1643791.5099,201.52,ALD9 926,177757.9993,1643819.6359,200.19,DECID17 927,177753.2066,1643823.3233,201.37,DECID9 928,177752.7951,1643833.5335,202.32,ALD14 929,177694.2125,1643842.2716,211.71,ALD12-7 930,177689.3248,1643834.5657,211.48,ALD10 931,177688.6540,1643831.3509,211.36,ALD6-9 932,177687.1150,1643828.7282,210.84,ALD12 941,177685.6374,1643803.3570,215.56,ALD11 942,177688.8852,1643798.8820,217.15,ALD6-10 943,177688.2527,1643795.7060,217.44,ALD8 944,177687.8827,1643790.5260,218.05,ALD6 945,177680.4563,1643786.6997,220.24,MAP6 946,177664.2404,1643867.3901,219.54,ALD11 947,177666.8617,1643864.6726,219.40,ALD11 960,177690.8954,1643741.3296,225.53,CHERRY15 971,177707.8800,1643758.4850,217.99,ALD7-10 972,177665.8614,1643752.4564,233.37,MAP16 973,177668.9153,1643746.2357,232.36,APPLE7 974,177660.3815,1643746.9858,237.72,MAP8-9-10 1011,177692.4685,1643699.0648,226.14,CHERRY24 1097,177746.5398,1643622.3080,218.01,C0TT8 1098,177745.1879,1643631.1978,215.21,COTT10 1100,177717.2009,1643662.2457,216.95,CHERRY8 1101,177713.6037,1643665.8025,218.08,CHERRY8 1104,177912.6597,1643716.8926,181.81,ALD14 1105,177917.6478,1643719.2432,179.14,ALD8 1106,177917.1309,1643713.7284,177.49,ALD6-8 1107,177926.3615,1643694.0805,180.71,ALD6 1108,177932.4585,1643693.3249,178.32,ALD9 1109,177945.3311,1643690.0216,178.70,ALD9 1110,177946.0962,1643697.0767,176.69,ALD12 1111,177951.8241,1643692.8775,177.01,ALD14 1112,177951.0776,1643708.8918,174.53,ALD10 1113,177940.4069,1643716.1234,173.99,ALD11 1114,177931.3321,1643707.2137,175.99,ALD8 1115,177916.6057,1643727.4730,178.16,ALD13 1116,177910.5122,1643744.4523,176.36,ALD13 ,;;erv,:,. _.... ,-....•.s;vi�;�in:; �3iy.;-,..oaw .. ,.,.. .. ,"�„�..« :.......,,.W.,. �.. � a"'ya�M_.__ x-. 4 nr• � •.�+,�r-�:+�rxaa+rmrwe•��?xpt'.qt�?✓4tt;�'�!�t!� RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER 1117,177908.5964,1643754.3554, 175.34,ALD9 1118,177922.2230,1643746.6653,172.77,ALD16 1119,177928.8331,1643750.8418,170.60,ALD16 1121,177961.9209,1643780.3271,159.93,ALD11-12-9 1122,177953.6937,1643784.0722,162.00,ALD10 1123,177948.5069,1643778.0227,163.26,ALD10 1124,177942.4281, 1643775.2873, 165.18,ALD8 1125,177931.2890,1643774.9045,168.56,ALD10 1126,177922.0633,1643765.5453,172.03,APPLE14 1127,177913.4450,1643773.0773,173.81,ALD8 1128,177911.5255,1643779.8338,173.25,ALD6 1129,177921.4797, 1643780.6001,171.52,ALD8 1130,177916.7443,1643786.1308,172.29,ALD11 1131,177906.8500,1643786.2607,174.39,ALD11 1133,177921.8353,1643800.6327,171.42,ALD14 1134,177937.0568,1643802.1049,168.16,ALD12 1135,177937.1260,1643805.3437,168.36,ALD11 1136,177933.3871,1643812.5267,169.48,ALD10 1137,177945.0290,1643804.1636,165.57,ALD10 1138,177949.5160,1643805.7296,164.49,ALD14 1139,177968.7347,1643805.5405,160.19,ALD20 1141,177904.8963,1643804.8136,174.69,ALD8 1142,177906.3958,1643808.6226,174.04,ALD12 1143,177895.4249,1643775.8519,176.84,ALD9 1144,177890.6478,1643763.5224,181.32,ALD10 1145,177895.1719, 1643756.6290,179.85,ALD11 1146,177886.2175,1643774.2056,181.61,ALD8 1147,177889.2492,1643786.2235,178.85,ALD6 1148,177884.0205,1643791.8922,178.39,ALD8 1149,177872.4423,1643798.1541,183.61,COTT30 1150,177875.7788,1643794.2417,183.05,ALD6 1151,177887.9881,1643817.4682,177.29,ALD8 1152,177876.6576,1643817.2865,181.01,ALD8 1153,177884.1382,1643826.1037,178.15,ALD6 1154,177885.3059, 1643832.7547,178.31,ALD8 1155,177902.6782,1643844.4564,176.68,APPLE12 1156,177901.8254,1643868.8976,178.01,APPLE14 1164,177964.3180,1643643.8002,184.48,MAP14 1178,178067.3430,1643710.8730,150.77,FIR15 1179,178084.6179,1643686.4319,150.22,MAP6-8 1180,178082.4754,1643681.2170,152.37,APPLE10 1181,178087.6114,1643667.3645,153.15,APPLE12 1182,178113.1101, 1643639.7778,153.15,MAP30 1183,178077.7683,1643636.6851,161.99,MAPCLUSTER 1184,178048.9201,1643688.1265,158.67,APPLE24 1185,178035.9772,1643681.1826,162.70,CHERRY9 1186,178024.4146,1643666.3397,168.20,CHERRY9 1187,178025.2340,1643660.5022,169.09,CHERRY6 1188,178031.5089,1643706.5801,158.76,APPLE10 1189,178012.1041,1643704.8089,162.99,NUT14 1190,178000.5327,1643686.2273,170.18,APPLE16 1191,177984.4935, 1643702.7047,169.31,CHERRY12 1192,177973.4012,1643714.9847,169.24,APPLE9 1193,177979.8871, 1643746.9873,158.25,APPLE12 5 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 51997 PERMIT CENTER 1.42 ,Rq . mo x tr .�'"a�. S ''��Stl'��t�'�'trI'i"'i'-:i7e 1194,177995.8161,1643740.9769,156.54,ALD11 1195,178004.0714,1643732.0547,156.82,ALD9 1228,177916.2825,1643609.9616,203.02,COTT CLUMP 1229,177904.3222,1643604.8014,203.88,COTT9 1230,177875.1455,1643589.2201,205.40,SPRUCE8 1241,177842.3983,1643638.9148,201.98,APPLE18 1244,177844.4773,1643660.4854,199.42,ALD8 1245,177857.5494,1643646.5806,197.22,ALD6 1247,177854.0322,1643661.4554,195.76,ALD8 1248,177853.4785,1643658.3314,196.68,ALD8 1249,177845.7004,1643681.8272,192.12,ALD8 1252,177875.9855,1643654.4049,196.21,PEAR13 1253,177900.2079,1643664.6690,194.98,COTT42 1254,177896.1461,1643683.9514,191.85,COTT30 1255,177920.7369,1643683.7504,188.54,ALD10 1256,177920.7940, 1643691.0667,186.38,ALD6 1257,177926.6279,1643672.4853,187.12,ALD8 1258,177926.0020,1643663.8748,191.04,ALD12 1259,177929.7209,1643663.0042,188.13,ALD8 1262,177715.2936,1643671.8757,218.96,HAWTHRN6 1263,177723.8003,1643672.3544,216.11,APPLE12 1266,177742.8023,1643675.0349,211.48,CHERRY24 1267,177768.1578,1643671.6277,207.20,APPLE16 1271,177789.9206,1643627.9937,211.70,COTT13 1285,178049.4057,1643608.0860,176.27,MAP CLUMP 1305,178112.7099, 1643585.1823,163.23,ALD6 1306,178130.1067,1643578.3229,160.54,ALD6 1308,178128.7053,1643590.0701,157.95,ALD6 1309,178134.0484,1643595.8447,157.74,ALD6 1310,178140.9461,1643607.2577,154.21,MAP9 1312,178141.7509,1643613.7070,152.61,MAPCLUSTER 1314,178150.1819,1643602.4711,153.55,MAP12 1315,178162.5036,1643604.4041,151.30,MAP18 1316,178153.3576,1643568.3695,158.99,ALD7 1317,178144.2917,1643569.2968,160.02,ALD6 1320,178157.0214,1643647.6949,138.94,WILLOW36 1322,178126.0330,1643648.9743,146.64,MAPCLUMP 1327,178190.0905,1643594.3868,149.30,ALD9 1328,178205.0260,1643608.1821,143.66,NUT8 1329,178213.7169,1643604.0033,143.88,NUT8 1330,178228.2792, 1643581.9160,148.50,COTT15 1333,178277.9814, 1643586.8543,143.14,MAPCLUSTER 1339,178304.4129,1643611.3248,134.32,MAPCLUSTER 1344,178321.4414,1643614.3071,134.45,MAP24 1345,178331.2551,1643590.7032,139.97,MAP30 1346,178342.3719,1643621.8033,129.79,MAP24 1347,178344.6032,1643618.3667,130.69,MAP6 1348,178349.6727,1643628.1912,126.34,MAPCLUSTER 1350,178358.6313,1643638.1240,121.45,MAP30 1396,178389.2535,1643652.6746,112.80,MAPCLUMP 1422,178404.5839,1643656.5059,107.17,MAPCLUSTER 1424,178428.3934,1643660.3660,105.19,MAP30 i;+�5r•':���. w �,�?a'^;C:y;&�+'rii�S��'a•;S:;e� viii:?N,��'s�CSs�.'G�:cr�ah:�'a+J�� aS pN. 6 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 51997 PERMIT CENTER • • • •"..1 • • '" • • • • • • :•:": • • • 0 • • • ‘ • • \ • • • • \••1% ,. te \1.A. 5 r-- CC • 1 N 1 W 0 > F.• Ln 0 al w $i, -- LI. ....... c...) "1r tti 16 4g- sts \i4) 01 -EL crl rD ••••••• • • • • • • • •••••=11• • a is-- — --SS-- •••• " .9 .°N1181" (NadO iON ) 4 • I 1 . • • . . • — • • •••••• • • ••=••••• 6 • •••••••• 0 • '7 • " .-- • : • PCF 2 .41.0C.10 14 , • • • • , . • • • , • ••••••••Il • • :••• • • ••••••••• • • Mao.. • • •••••••••• •••••••••••I , • • • ; z < • I Z w —I 0 • 0 CO 0 LLI W I w o g Li_ a -± w zi- I-0 z w • a 0 O -U2 O I— CU w 0 ill 0 Z LU o 1- z VIEW LOOKING SOUTHWESTERLY @ FOSTER RIDGE SITE UPSLOPE FROM AREA NEAR LOT 10 HELLWIG ADDITION ' • s.N3,. :•!). • •5,.1.- 1.11 • • • %.:k7i'.:kr<4. • • '• • ..i • • 711:C311k.'.71 .4'1.4.611,1!,0.70.149t "? "•11 PAN TO LEFT VIEW OF ABOVE AREA FROM SAME LOCATION .1, Ilk RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA C T 15 1997 PERMIT CENTER z Z it W —I 0 00 cn 0 cow LL1 • u. uj 0 g u_ < cn cit I -w z I-0 z 1- w u j O co O — UJ CD Lu • 0 1— -L6 o , z wo P 0 Z VIEW OF FOSTER RIDGE SITE, UPSLOPE FROM AREA NEAR LOT 5 OF HELLWIG ADD. 14=1(:1r42=r7,...,.)�..':4<<�om,':k 'nt.}�,'rt...` VIEW OF FOSTER RIDGE SITE, UPSLOPE FROM OFFSITE AREA ALONG MACADAM RD. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 5 19 7 PERMIT CENTER / \ • / /YS(11 • • • • rliii 1\1( ( , --:.----2...\\\(\_.....jj i I ?/ /,e,./\u•-"?-'••.M----_---:„,-0-,_---- /-j c"; I/ ---?- - ----;.:f-----=_-_-_-_- __N., ..............._ __.• / i(14f( -.;, - J ' 1 1)) 1 I '"•.'i ii /%y.��/ ))))) 1(i�l ill �1�po / 4111(f•4.1,11 t1 -fi{I"?1il((F�1 IMI 17I �-1, tIjjiL' a ! f � I f 11, ��` til I J Aao- 190 200 c' j fj ff c '1 f 1Z1 :14 •••Z ' • .• :: • • • lt 1°' n — 0.0 (\< JDZ fi ti(15) 01 Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE • Seattle, Washington 98105-4341 206 / 522-1214 • Fax: 206 / 522-3507 • BogStomper@aol.com PleCtiVeD PITY I'!C QCT 1 5 19St ,a ,ff1{vSIT CENTEh MEMORANDUM DATE: October 6, 1997 TO: John Friel, JBMF Consulting Engineers FROM: Marcia Fischer, Sheldon & Associates SUBJECT: Foster Ridge Conceptual Wetland Buffer Enhancement Plan Enclosed is a conceptual plan for enhancement of the wetland buffer for the Foster Ridge property including a plant schedule with cost estimates. Because it is unclear at this time just what the scope of the buffer encroachment will be, the plan broadly addresses enhancement of the entire buffer. The plan does not include any drawings - as discussed both with you and Gary Schulz today, October 6th, only a written overview is necessary at this time. A more detailed final plan will be completed and submitted when the permitting process is further along. Please call me at 522-1214 if you have questions or need anything else from our end for your October 15th completion deadline. arcia Fischer enclosures cc: Gary Schulz, Environmentalist, City of Tukwila I'- 1 4, Wetland Analysis '`j:4Y,Fi't'zl�w'i��'.`^�a':"c:.,:pS�w°�'iz'�'f.�'•n�i<'�Eud:o�G: a`r. Environmental Planning :!•;.4 '7hdlki. •;+a }gyp" Regulatory Coordination lava .... Nr :s4lwu u...,,flMq..,.........__ _...........Hw.,....v..r+w.n...a...�rn...wwu..�•..w.w...0 .....o-�.,. CONCEPTUAL WETLAND BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN Foster Ridge Property, Tukwila King County, Washington Prepared for: John Friel, JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98306 Prepared by: Sheldon & Associates, Inc. 5031 University Way NE Seattle, WA 98105 (206) 522-1214 October 6, 1997 iie. ui..eh�k.'cit,,.pay:hjL''cVfx53i5rd$iduSs'�''.��'�:i2:,A 1,i 3xR7r\}.Hi::i�lSffiC'r r: CITY OFT UEI RECD OCT 1 5 1997 h EMIT CENTER '4.0hr:fist KttZ6'rfY-45Aiirtw +Ifi0`tSir.4«t+i}ua' z aa• � JU O 0 Co U) ▪ =` -I 1- U) u. w0 2 gQ I I -w I-0 Z I— w uj 2 U� N 0 I- ww ..z w .0 if2.: O~ z ,Jarxtwa r..,..»...i....,,....... •..........,,.. Wetland Buffer Enhancement Conceptual Plan for Foster Ridge, Tukwila Introduction The planned residential development on 2.92 acres at South 139th Street and 46th Avenue South as proposed does not allow for the required 50' buffer around the Type 2 wetland found on the site. Therefore the City of Tukwila is requiring that a buffer enhancement plan be submitted in compliance with the city's zoning code in order to mitigate for the buffer reduction. At the time of plan submittal it is unclear what the extent of the buffer encroachment will be, particularly in the southern portion of the site. Therefore a plan for the entire buffer is included and changes can be made as appropriate and incorporated into a final enhancement plan when a decision about the buffer reductions for this project is made. Existing Conditions Two wetlands are located on the site as described in the Wetland Delineation and Functional Values Assessment prepared by Sheldon and Associates in November 1995. Wetland 2 is located mostly offsite, and it is the 16,991 sq. foot buffer surrounding wetland 1 that is the buffer referred to in this plan.'A site visit on August 22, 1997 confirmed that the buffer is dominated by Himalayan blackberry and morning glory, with the following scattered canopy trees: red alder, bigleaf maple, and black cottonwood. Soils in the buffer are clay loams that are compacted and disturbed in some areas particularly north of the wetland. Conceptual Plan Overview Goal: An enhanced wetland buffer with improved functional value, vegetated with native plants appropriate to the surrounding upland and wetland vegetation. This goal will be met by the actions described below and shown in the final enhancement plan. • Remove invasive Himalayan blackberry, morning glory, and English ivy with a combination of mowing, spot application of herbicide, and hand - pulling. e After preliminary removal of invasive exotic plants throughout entire buffer, till and amend soil in relatively level buffer area north of the wetland. Pocket planting will be done on sloped areas as specified in the final enhancement plan. • Plant native trees and shrubs as specified in the final enhancement plan. • Maintain the newly planted area by periodically removing new exotic plant growth that will occur after preliminary treatment, and replacing any dead plants. xi'll�.:y} E�u':.YF p,,,....,. fi , utt'�t(a.s'EiA' Aphl :tt��:L?w tt?Y!*YM�<<eui rm31�?bt'YeWarN:. • Monitor site as specified in monitoring plan which will be submitted as part of the final enhancement plan. Clearing Invasive Plants z Himalayan blackberry, morning glory, and English ivy will be removed as the first step of < z plan implementation to prepare the area for planting. Regular removal of these vigorousre 2 invasives will also be necessary during the first three years after installation to enable native 6 plantings to become established to a point where they can outcompete the exotic plants. o o Because the wetland itself also supports some thick stands of blackberry and morning glory, 00) w particularly along the edge, removal of exotic plants will occur in the wetland as well toH prevent colonization of the buffer from within the wetland. N u_ w M Initial removal of blackberry will be done in a three-step process as follows: At least 3 g _., months before planting is to occur, cut blackberry stalks to within 4-6" of the ground with a u_ a portable hand mower. Immediately after stumps are exposed by cutting, spot apply - w appropriate herbicide (e.g. Crossbow) to the cut stumps according to manufacturersz 1 instructions. Dispose of all cut vegetation off-site. Finally, after a minimum of 3 weeks z O (preferably 3 months to allow maximum penetration of herbicide), tilling and subsequent al planting can be done. Morning glory and English ivy will be hand -pulled and treated with a D D o spot application of herbicide to the remaining roots. p D- o 1— LII W Soil Preparation ~ p L Along the north side of the wetland, where the buffer is relatively level and the soils are z disturbed and compacted, till in 2-4" of compost (e.g. Cedargrove), making sure to till to a o depth of 9-12". Soil amendments on sloped areas will be limited to pockets immediately p t— around each plant in diameters of at least twice the standard size of a planting hole for any z given plant. Planting Proposed plants, sizes and estimated costs are shown in Table 1. Obtain plants from a local source (within the Puget Sound area) that offers stock of local origin. Planting shall be done during dormancy (fall) to reduce planting shock and to take advantage of fall and winter rain. Live stakes can also be installed at this time. Appropriate plants could also be salvaged on-site before grading occurs. It is intended that trees and shrubs be planted in dense clusters rather than thinly and evenly spaced throughout the buffer to encourage shade cover and help plants supress new growth of exotics as quickly as possible. This strategy should help the newly established native plants gain dominance in the buffer. Willow and red osier dogwood stakes planted within and just outside the wetland edge are inexpensive, easy to install, and fast-growing plants r 3 Y 5�t'�7ps'1h7p�+{�'�'E7'(,+Y.ing!'`,F^..f05'4?fi M9YNh1,,,"'=�Yc-=:Z��w:��i f1��,;.� t,. �'S4, L7�N'l.}'z`��,�:s;M�lir:, �r�y�sr�,L�lS.i�.:.;y^,*r u�u��`«i:,�':iii,.�3,,"ua.'.."���'^f;�.'J.P,Kt-T/45, ctffx6..:€iyo; that will further help to reduce the prevalence of exotic plants in the buffer as well as the wetland itself. Botanical name anti Scledu Common name etland re >) nttnneen) ............................. Number Size Unit price Total $ Trees Acer macrophyllum bigleaf maple 38 2 gal 5.00 190.00 Alnus rubra Populus balsamifera red alder 38 2 gal 5.00 190.00 black cottonwood 30 3' stakes 0.20/ft. 18.00 Thuja plicata western red cedar 19 2 gal 5.50 104.50 Shrubs Cornus sericea red osier dogwood 54 2' stakes 0.20/ft. 21.60 Corylus cornuta beaked hazelnut 40 2 gal 5.50 220.00 Oemleria cerasiformis indian plum 66 2 gal 5.50 363.00 Rosa gymnocarpa baldhip rose 66 2 gal 5.00 330.00 Rubus spectabilis salmonberry 50 1 gal 2.50 125.00 Salix lucida var. lasiandra Pacific willow 23 2' stakes 0.15/ft. 6.90 Salix sitchensis Sitka willow 23 2' stakes 0.15/ft. 6.90 Sambucus racemosa red elderberry 40 2 gal 5.50 220.00 Sorbus sitchensis mountain ash 20 2 gal 5.50 110.00 TOTAL 487 1,795.90 Maintenance The landscape contractor will be responsible for guaranteeing newly planted species for one year after initial planting. During the guarantee period, the contractor will be required to provide maintenance for the project. Maintenance will include weeding and replacement of dead or dying plants. Continued maintenance will be required for a total of three years, and will include timely and regular removal of Himalayan blackberry, morning glory, and any other undesirable weeds from the planted area. Y�3,vS�c`�',t,�tr7i�,�.'iM,�•�r�r, ;.hiY!'.e:AgEYS i` ,�.`L'.r,'.-�,M tt!'}�K!.:vel^�>.53�".N;•c�ryN�t�ut.,w;n�Y,r..=;j•�e9a�».�,?'r,�,ra.�apc.�:t�.x;.n��,ry • Monitoring Program A detailed monitoring program will be submitted as part of the final enhancement plan. A one year maintenance period will require the landscape contractor to care for the new plantings as specified above in "Maintenance". Annual post construction monitoring will be conducted by a qualified ecologist during the growing season and will assess plant survivorship, coverage, and presence of invasive species. Monitoring will continue for three years after installation. A report will be prepared after each monitoring visit and will be submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development. At the end of the monitoring period of three years a summary report will be prepared as well. Each report will include any recommendations necessary to ensure survivorship and health of the site. is6;1;)si;.,:i 'rlrh"4 zhv_.X [iuiLti%SV;.u.J. ,v447:.4 a:44„' Yo,A''P .6 ), a y �. • $ e�' 4`3:Yi>ii'UA,, ,4�itv76''A:ue:+�/.i1'lA�kk,her+io�nt+TSn%i`�d�wk"o-laa+ianu,�>';�;�s ss October 10, 1997 MEMO TO: Bruce Blyton, P.E. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 - 5th Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Wa., 98033 FAX(425)827-5424 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 FAX(360)653-2526 (Call 659-4774 first) RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 5 1997 PERMIT CENTER REF: Foster Ridge BLA Plat Tukwila, Washington We met at the site yesterday, 10/9/97, and you marked with lath several points along the top of the slope or critical area and we located these points by stadia survey from a existing traverse control point #712. On the attached topo map I have shown this as a bold line. The critical area is situated relative to Lot 7 per this lot layout and numbering plan. I am also showing the 25' bldg. setback line relative to this area on Lot 7. Per our discussion earlier today, you indicated that the balance of the top of slope line was not so critical to require a 25' bldg. setback. I am showing this line and adjusted the bldg. footprint for lot 8 accordingly. The attached sketch layout would result in eliminating the Lot 7 as a building site and combine area with Lot 6 and reduce one lot. Does the above correspond correctly with what would conceptually be acceptable from a geotechnical basis. If so, would you prepare a brief memo to me to document this. I would then send your memo along with the attached skektch to the City in response to their request. If you have any questions, please call. Memo and FAX by: "AK,,4 /'GLS% o-hn B. Friel, PE PLS for Foster Ridge Project t�i�tsl�:mitus lrstaa, • 1 rm V .„LIA Piago 44.707,>, duo ",...6A :14•-\\ 0)0 0 \ 34: to • iftE 0 of es*?: - v v --. 1 - ... r- PERMIT CENTER .4.. —7 —) W W p -- O �C OC ‘112 .. z ~w UOCO Q WI F- WO uj CO a z� w I- • w U Q W o wz UI O • ~ z ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC October 14, 1997 Project No. G96296A JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Washington 98206 Attention: John B. Friel, PE, PLS Subject: Slope Setback Review Foster Ridge BLA Plat Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Friel: CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 IGrkland, Washingtni, 98033 (423) 827.7701 FAX (425) 827•S424 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone lane Noah Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780.9370 FAX (206) 780.9438 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA OCT 1 51997 PERMIT CENTER As you requested, we have prepared this letter to outline the results of our site visit on 10/9/97, and our review of your 10/10/97 memo regarding the slope setbacks in the vicinity of Lots 6 and 7 of the Foster Ridge development. In general, we agree with the top of slope and setback lines shown on the drawing attached to your 10/10/97 memo. We further agree with the concept of combining the originally proposed Lots 6 and 7 into a single lot, to meet the recommended 25 foot minimum top of slope setback distance. As we discussed on the site, additional recommendations for re -contouring, drainage, and removal and replacement of the upper slope soils will likely be required to improve the stability of the slope in this vicinity. These measures will mitigate the recent movement on the hillside that has propagated upslope since our last site visit. The proposed home location for Lot 8 shown on the sketch is suitable from a geotechnical standpoint. As discussed in Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.'s (AESI's) February 13, 1997 soils report, footings in the vicinity of Lot 8 must be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into the surrounding bearing soils. y.., erg, ,yr , • 1 a_.... V a. , JY�Y Ili summary, it is our opinion that the conceptual lot layout and building setback configuration is suitable from a geotechnical standpoint, and meets the intent of the recommendations outlined in our soils report. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington ioJ,Y1 %7 [ ExF2 5:21M , Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Associate Engineer RLB/W G96296A2 10/1/97 rd . Wp7 2 .,, E!n: S', :".,•,,..2.u3`a,t:i.?a`. ��:idy','ii}ii�,'lkrin�i'+i5.d'dir'F4soL'[zJkfet:`r 'r3. • ilOgir^ki Nxh '.1`W ..v ti ' ,4,Yr i T'� ;'t: ' L,. ti:. y�.•yv A: %dd' t..-�'.�::e»�1i.44�s%.�'rih6iiii+3.�ati�d`.isS4S:ikKN:s:.. r[':vAdc�fiwr'�"tr., City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director September 11, 1997 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development E97-0013 Environmental Review Dear Mr. Friel: The City will grant your request for an extension of the expiration date for completing the above applications. The deadline for submitting the items listed in the notice of incomplete application will be moved from September 15 to October 15. This is a firm deadline as no further extensions can be granted. Sincerely Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431.3670 • Fax (206) 431.3 6 ,.11a :art4i3' a, 1 ' VA4 41,0, est 11-414 September 10, 1997 MEMO TO: Nora Gierloff, Assistant Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa,, 98188 FAX (206) 431-3665 FROM: John B. Friel JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 Everett, Wa., 98206 FAX(360)653-2526 Call (360)659-4774 first REF: Request for Time Extension for L97-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment L97-0027 (APRD) E97-0013 Evironmental Review (Lots in Hellwigs Addition) City of Tukwila I am sending this written request for you to give us a time extension on the referenced application in order for us to provide a response to all of the items listed in your letter of June 17, 1997. Please notify me with your response. n ri.el ; PE PLS for R.S. Pedersen Parkside Management iti;t: ^.I.,i: .'.;i wi tiniifoS'SJ.'iisl.hba &:i57riS ik7:.:G `a.Kd`-MIH:�Fi.:iii5ii3 +�,!' Citndb�,`Y, lfl b:�a' lcut :.4'1%7rhri. , *di, 14. • MEETING AGENDA DATE: September 8, 1997 RE: Foster Ridge BLA, APRD, SEPA Z ~w Issue areas: w JU Wetland co o • Show the 10' building setback from the wetland buffer. w i • Show outlet from wetland and indicate how flow will be controlled. N i- • The minimum buffer distance for a Type 2 wetland is 25' (with an approved buffer in 0 enhancement plan). This does not appear to be met at lots 10 and 13. 2 • The City will require that the edge of the wetland buffer be fenced or flagged. g Da Geotechnical Report Z II • The geotechnical report is not written for the site plan submitted on May 27th. After any 0 site plan changes needed to comply with the other comments are made please have w F— Associated Earth Sciences update the report to match the proposed site plan. 2 D • Please submit a grading plan that conforms with the recommendations in the geotechnical o N report. o F- • The City will require a peer review of the updated geotechnical report. = v • The City will require that the geotechnical firm be retained at the owner's expense to u_ perform construction monitoring. w Z • The City will require that a covenant be recorded to run with the land per TMC 18.45.080 0 E 5. e explaining the risks associated with development of the site and waiving any p '- liability on the part of the City. Z Utilities • The certificate of water availability shows that you have insufficient water and will need to install a new main. Public Works will require that it be looped and if it is to be installed on private land that the appropriate easements be obtained. • The City will require a storm drainage analysis and on site detention of stormwater. • Fire hydrant locations which meet City ordinance 1692 must be shown. Roadways • The maximum allowable slope for roads and driveways is 15 %. Please confirm that you can meet this requirement. • Please revise your design so that only 4 lots are served by the proposed private road. • Frontal improvements will be required on 140th Street along lots 10 and 11. • Please revise the hammerhead turn around to meet Fire Department standards. General • Update the traffic report to reflect the current 13 lot proposal. • Update the SEPA checklist to reflect the geotechnical report. 'vow? *,'5 w. . Az City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION June 17, 1997 John B. Friel P.O. Box 27 Everett, WA 98206 RE: '197-0026 Boundary Line Adjustment, L97-0027 Administrative Planned Residential Development E97-0013 Envirorunental Review Dear Mr. Friel: Your application for a boundary line adjustment and planned residential development located at South 139th Street and 46th Avenue South has been found to be incomplete. In order to be a complete application, the following must be submitted to the permit center: 1. A tree permit is required showing replacement tree number and location for any existing significant trees removed from sensitive areas during development. 2. The total impervious surface on the site after development . cannot exceed 50%. Please provide calculations showing the proposed amount of impervious surface. 3. Please provide perspectives or photomontages taken from the nearest downslope off-site privately owned property to demonstrate that at the time of project completion there will be a 25% landscape coverage of all structures with an anticipated 40% coverage within 15 years. 4. Please provide the buffer enhancement plan required for those areas where you will not be providing the full 50 foot buffer. 5. Please indicate the top of the slope and the 25 foot setback from it required for houses on lots 7 and 8. Upon receipt of these items, the City will re -review them for completeness and will mail you written notification of completeness or incompleteness within 14 days. We would like to arrange a meeting with you and representatives from Public Works, Fire and Planning to discuss substantive issues once. we have a complete application. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 If you have any questions with this matter please call me at 433-7141. Nora Gierloff Assistant Planner CC: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department Gary Schulz, Environmentalist May 27, 1997 MEMO TO: John Jimerson, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Wa., 98188 z FROM: John B. Friel w ce JBMF Consulting Engineer P.O. Box 27 -J U Everett, Wa., 98206 0 0 co cnw REF: L96-0058 Boundary Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation N u. APRD (Administrative approval) & SEPA Checklist w 0 Foster Ridge (Lots in Hellwigs Addition) City of Tukwila w c0 Dear Mr. Jimerson: W z� In accord with your letter of September 25, 1996, we are F-0 enclosing the following information: w uj 1. A second affidavit of ownership showing Mr. Richard v 0 S. Pedersen as the owner of the subject property.oN w 2. A complete SEPA submittal for review. v LIO 3. A copy of the recorded easement for existing sewer line and this easement space will be expaned to 20' to It) co provide for the water line installation. o H 4. Enclosed is a copy of letter agreement for providing the easement on existing lots 6 and 7 to Macadam Road. 5. A traffic report update by TSI, Inc. 6. Water availability letter from Water District #125 and sewer availability letter from Val Vue Sewer District. 7. A updated geotech report by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. relative to the soil conditions on the site. In regard to your letter of May 15, 1997, we are including a APRD application for the proposed development of the site in accord with the PRD requirements. We are including a updated application for the BLA in accord with our most recent revised development plan. All other items of the checklist previously submitted would apply. Please note that we are requesting a exception be granted to serve 5 lots on the proposed private road (easement) extension from S. 139th St. Please note that we are providing a turnarround prov)i.sii E1VFD }iS+�tutie '9rii �� 6fR3'ka'titisE1AL T!z MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ittrA z and the road is of short length. The other option was to provide access to Lot 9 with a driveway extension of S. 140th St. Please contact my office if you need any additional information or have any questions. Sincerely, A'6769- ohn B. Friel, PE PLS for R.S. Pedersen Parkside Management :.��'."'n'�/.✓..`i1;,iM:Y.?w:'.5':+`<'{G'eF:.`1S^:.b:{k�:»11K'3{3:!Hsd'i>S!xJYJelAa+d'.:N�,M3AA9L*:::t;2iTtMnN,Y 12Ne�x�y�,ri,,:in�mm,�ctc:�,c;w�rr:u%'iii;�m -��ex+��n s�uw.r�+``i��w::�.,.....`,�.'w':°,`..-•`.�.xa:r.:,iaa....u:•.�uW;�:+.kai�.,+t a.,�xx.F.: CITY OF "''JKWILA Department .. Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT OR LOT CONSOLIDATION (P-BLA) FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: � \c,,, 6, cis—i(�(- /�.,,�� II 1 � File Number: LC1 t—i I - 002(G Project File #: 171.7,e2611-4 - 032_ 32- Receipt Number: Other File #: L - Qom PrPPb 0 0 A. • lication Com • lete Date: 0 Application Incomplete (Date: ('11-7 /6-7 ) Other File #: 07 7 - 00 (� `r�-F�'A . PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: FOSTER RIDGE (AKA HELLWIG'S ADD) B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection; if proposal applies to several properties, list the streets bounding the area.) ADDREss: Access to property at S 139th St & 46th Ave. S ASSESORSPARCELNO.: 322920 0100 04 + others Quarter: GL 1 Section: 15 Township: 23 Range: 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. CONTACT: (Primary contact regarding the application, and to whom all notices and reports shall be sent) NAME John B. Friel ADDRESS: P 0 Box 27; Everett, WA. 98206 PHONE (360) 659-4774 SIGNATURE: ht/4-19 DATE: -27177 BLAAP. DOC 8/5/96 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .FFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP DECLARATION: Know all men by these presents that we, the undersigned, owner(s) in fee simple and/or contract. purchaser(s) of the land herein described do hereby make an application for a boundary line ad- justment/1ot consolidation thereof. The undersigned further declare that the attached map is the graphic representation of said boundary line adjustment/lot consolidation and the same is made with the free consent and in accordance with the desire of the owner(s). In witness-whe = f -we set our hands and seals. T��,_ Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: Name: STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King On this day personally appeared before me KFC' k euLd S. P_ecIerse4' to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- strument, and acknowledge that lr1-e_ signed the same as I1 S free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of e fl. k ,19 910.(11 Notary Pu lic i d for the State of Washington, 9 - l c -1 1(r� residing at STATE OF WASHINGTON County of King Oh this day personally appeared before me to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing in- strument, and acknowledge that signed the same as free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of ,19 RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1997 is 2w i tea r k ; mj ti r t ..i: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing at Page of Jlwi..',?.0 h;1141tVer,> :i: ' 1,2,..::.:k". 1" .,'sol. BLUE RIDGE REALTY, INC ` 9925 15 avenue northwest, seattle, washington 98117, phone (206) 783.4414 March 14th, 1995, City of Tukwila Tukwila, WA RE: Application# Dear Sirs, I, Jon B. Beahm, am the free & clear owner of Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, Hellwigs Addition, King County, Washington. I do agree to fully cooperate with this proposed plat development and to join in with my lots as part of the development. We have reached mutual agreement that my lots may also be used for any site retention or utility easements as needed. In return for the joining of my lots to this project, my lot will be fully developed and sold as part of this plat -or, at my option & prior to the sale of any lots in this plat, I shall have option to exchange my lot for any other median valued lot in this plat. I shall not incur any expenses or liabilities as incurred with the development of this plat. I do agree that my lots may be accessed at any time for the purposes of fulfilling any plat requirements such as, but not limited to, surveys, soil testing, tree topping or clearing; with the condition that any clearing be done as per requirements as imposed by the City of Tukwila. You may contact me if you any questions at 783-4414. Approved as of this date by: Jon' B. Beahni, owner t , Dick Petersen RECEIVED M (fY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT S ilk • \W{%11.11WtidtV:t}h..'GE;41W«,",w:e� E4�F 1RAD.Y:w+;iC'P9`1' •�4'f'N1N 'fWv,yq.: . R E C E MAY 271 COMMUN DEVEL©PN ND r - CD NO U, co 1 97 TV ENT OLID / 10 0 2-14 EASEMENT c• • GRANTORS, Gladys E. Davis 20817 - 7th Pl. S., Seattle, Wa., '98148 For and in consideration of one dollar ($1.00) and other valuable considerations, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, grants and conveys to GRANTEES, VAL VUE SEWER DISTRICT, King County, Wash- ington, a Municipal Corporation, an easement and right-of-way, over, across, along, through, and under the following described property situated in King County, Washington, to wit: 3;z44Zp 1t EWEST 110 FEET OF THE SOUTH 180 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING: LOT 1 THROUGH 7 BLK 2 HELLWIGS ADD TO FOSTER UNREC & POR OF ST ADJ For the .lsurpose • of constructing', installing,: seconsisiicting,. rep.ac- •' ing, repairing, maintaining and operating a sewer pipeline and lines and.all.necessary.connections.and appurtenances thereto, together;.:• with the right of ingress thereto and•egress therefrom for the•pur- pose of enjoying the easement, and also granting to Grantees and to • 7.those acting under'ar for Grantees'the use of.such additional area immediately adjacent -to the•above easement as shall be required for . the construction of the sewer pipeline or lines in the easement, such • additional area to be held to a minimum necessary for that.pur- pose,• and immediately after the completion of the construction and.., installation,• or• any subsequent entry upon•the.easement,• Grantees. shall restore the premises as near.as.may be to its condition Immed- iately before such construction or entry. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantors have•hereunto'set their, hand this (., day of -11-71.4.1 , 19_. 1 .f STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF'KING • ) ) Ss • • On this C.11- day of • , -19'7$ , •before me the undersigned, a NOTARY PUBLIC in an for the State of. Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared (^,,,•gryyj ,E 731mbs tome known to be the individuals described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; and acknow- ledged to me that (hey —He-, She) signed and sealed the said instrument as (The -::-==, Ner) free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. • WIT?:ESS my hand and•official.seal hereto affixed and year in this certificate,above. written. 1% EXCISE TAX NOT RFOJinIID King Ca Recc,rds Divr;ion By . ���ls.` In.!`„LYjI Deputy the day -. , PUBLIC in and for the of Washington, residing at Yi�uJ.�l't;� PROJECT # CERTIFICATE OF WATER AVAILABILITY PART A: (TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT) 1. Owner Name/Address/Phone: �Q. d 6,0-x .27 Agent or Contact Person/Name/Phone: LJ'M'n • �v���� .�1,3/��' �MS I�j/j te/y. Pte. zU 27 ,Ye 14/a Site Address (Attach map and legal description showing hydrant location & size of main): tc�sT.� ,e,d-,6 /golf' L7.16r* 2. This certificate is submitted as part of an application for: ❑ Residential Building Permit ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Commercial/Industrial Building Permit ❑ Rezone 3. Estimated number'of=s�rviceconnections and meter size(s): ❑ Short Subdivision ❑ Other: 64011/ orGOA/Sot iV/; /o /V Lots ¢ " 4. Vehicular distance from nearest hydrant to the rear of the furthest structure: Z'' 11 ft. 5. Minimum needs of development for fire flows: (50 gpm at a residual pressure of 20 psi. Source of minimum flow requirement: ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ Developer's Engineer ❑ Insurance Underwriter ❑ Utility 6. Area is served by: //C GV ,D 46 /2 5 ❑ City ❑ Other (utility) Owner/Agent's Signature: Date =CL1\f =fl (Reverse side to be completed by water utility and governing jurisdictio14yi A,) ,. Y ? 7 �°°7 05/06/94 COMiMUNITYl DE\/ELOPMEN] 9 PART B: (TO BE COMPLETE, •`Y WATER UTILITY) ' -I., The proposed project is located within 77:i h -w; P IC( / (Cit minty) 2. Improvements required to upgrade the water system to bring it into compliance with the utilities' comprehensive plan or to meet the minimum flow requiren nts of the project befre connectio X-43) 7'i&S.-� Q -IP� , ko, . l/: /6�7€,5(c 1 Dc C -ter ve-Z9 a> ..t-, . ee- r 5-714-e-li0 4rZ,45' GC c- - 0157; ',i- 3. Based upon the improvements listed above, water can be provided and will be available at the site with a flow of c'so gpm at 20 psi residual for a duration of Z at a velocityof / 7 —_______ hours fps as documented by the attached calculations. I hereby certify that the above information is true and correct. 10 8 c- hone / y r1� `(Z-9s� By Date PART C: (TO BE COMPLETED BY GOVERNING JURISDICTION) I. Water Availability - Check one ❑ Acceptable service can be provided to this project. ❑ Acceptable service cannot be provided to this project unless the improvements listed in item #C2 are met. ❑ System isn't'capable of providing service to this project. 2. Minimum water system improvements: (At least equal to B2 above) Agency/Phone By Date RECEIVED MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVEL.o /o03NT II 13,110!;114 sI flTR brsrRrcr ri CERTIFICATE OF SEWER AVAILABILITY n CERTIFICATE OF SEWER NON-AVAILABILITY (l Building Permit K1 Preliminary Plat or PUD n Short Subdivision n Rezone or Other Proposed Use: 0 Residential S.F. 0 MulitFamily n Commercial 0 Other APPLICANTS NAME Z01-10 *B. FQ... .L PROPERTY ADDRESS OR APPROXIMATE LOCATION I3 9 11'.'"1-v- (-}-4•�' A� LEGAL DESCRIPTION F1 r R t c.e• LO'S' S 1 174n,1,e, t Z. (Attach map & legal description if necessary) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ SEWER AGENCY INFORMATION 1. a.❑ Sewer service will be provided by side sewer connection only to an existing size sewer feet from the site and the sewer system has the capacity to serve the proposed use. OR 11 b. l Sauer service will require an improvement to the sewer system of: N (1) feet of sewer trunk or lateral to reach the site; and/or [1 (2) the construction of a collection system on the site; and/or 11 (3) other (describe) 2. (Must be completed if 1.b above is checked) a.(� The sewer system improvement is in conformance with a County approved sewer comprehensive plan. OR b.IJ The sewer system improvement will require a sewer comprehensive plan amendment. 3. a.IJ 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 b.L1�j or city. OR 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: ''7 GFC `16 b o_ LFC I5'00251UNIT TOTAL 4 956 a' (Subject to change on January 1st) METRO Capacity Charge $750 billed by METRO after connection to sewer system. b. Easement(s): , Required _ Maybe Required c. Other: I hereby certify that the above sewer agency information is tr.0 :: V :_.h. - This certification shall he valid for one year from date of signature. VAL VUE EWER DISTRICT er, T. J. Mateiich or ector, Steven Fletcher 1/--i3 - L Da Le MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY - - - \ • • i ill 190 200 210 ► co i3 , Nj • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • /1 '11 ► 1 42-1 di z ~w ce 00 W I. - u. LL WO 2 Q co = ° 1-W z F— O Wuj~ 0 0 W W 2 F— Eiz U= O z 1 j SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (425) 827-7701 FAX (425) 827-5424 FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR JBMF Consulting Engineer PROJECT NO. KE96296A February 13, 1998 Revised November 13, 1998 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC F ruKwILA JA,)l! 0 6 118 PERMIT CENTER BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOSTER RIDGE 46TH AVENUE SOUTH AT SOUTH 139TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON February 13, 1997 Revised November 13, 1998 Project No. KE96296A I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our previous and recent subsurface exploration, geologic hazards, and geotechnical engineering studies for the proposed 12 building lot residential subdivision. This current report has been revised to reflect changes in the site plan and delineation of the top of slope in the vicinity of Lots 6, 7, and 8. The proposed lot locations and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structures or lot/street layout are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface soil and shallow ground water data to be utilized in the design and development of the above-mentioned residential project. Our recent field study included the excavation of nine exploration pits and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the shallow subsurface sediments. We also reviewed the previous field study and exploration logs. Geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to evaluate seismic and erosion hazards and mitigations, the type(s) of suitable foundations, allowable foundation soil bearing pressure, anticipated foundation settlement, floor support, lateral wall pressures, and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our recent field work and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. John B. Friel of JBMF Consulting Engineer. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated November 25, 1996. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of JBMF Consulting Engineer, and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within .:'+ w'4aJdtitoP,[ ,.,:;.` �. •!P,L�r '' IV 4! tryja tee the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. It must be understood that no recommendations or engineering design can yield a guarantee of stable slopes. Our observations, findings, and conclusions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. ~ z w 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION v o LU This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on a site survey plan with survey and topographic information provided by Barrett Consulting Group and proposed w O building lot locations presented by JBMF Consulting Engineer, and dated July 1998. Present 2 plans call for two-story over daylight basement residential structures utilizing conventional g wood -frame construction with slab -on -grade floors in the lower level. Finish grade elevations co d were not available at the time of this report, but it is anticipated that in order to accommodate w the daylight basements that cuts on the upslope side of the structures will not exceed 10 feet, z t=- and will generally be less. z O LU w The property was situated on the east side of 46th Avenue South between South 139th and o South 140th Streets upslope and to the west of Interstate 5 in Tukwila, Washington. The — N parcel was located on north to northeast facing slopes with gradients ranging from about 10 to = W 80 percent. Based on topographic information shown on the site plan, total elevation change across the site was on the order of 70 feet. Li. z An area of standing surface water was noted within Tract 99, which has been identified on the 0 site plan as wetland and open space. Surface water flowed from the wetland area downslope z and through the eastern half of Lot 3. The flow rate was estimated at roughly 5 gallons per minute. Our recent field work was performed during a period of wet weather. Vegetation on the site primarily consisted of deciduous trees with a heavy undergrowth of berry vines, ivy, and other ground cover. An old retaining wall, approximately 40 feet long and 6 feet tall, was located at the south end of Lot 8 and Tract 99. Also, based on site reconnaissance and information presented in our previous report, it was evident that past grading or filling has occurred on portions of the property. An old dirt access road extended from the present terminus of South 139th Street to the northern end of Lot 8. The toe of the steep slope east of Lot 7 (off-site) was undercut approximately 15 feet, and the near vertical cut was not retained. A single-family residence, with garage and driveway, was located at the toe of the slope. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field studies included excavating a series of exploration pits and performing a geologic hazard reconnaissance to gain information about the site. The various types of sediments, as eY,"?.C�!44.^fe:ri"if4.,,,ylv.+r�vr 'n!I(„RI' 2 .107; . 'Y4` rw well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by estimating locations from known site features shown on a topographic survey presented on a conceptual grading plan prepared by PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc., identified as "Plan C" and dated 2/5/91, and on a site plan without topographical information prepared by Barrett Consulting Group dated August 1996. The most recent site plan upon which this report revision is based was prepared by JMBF Consulting Engineer dated July 1998. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on visual reconnaissance and the nine recent and seven previous exploration pits. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within site and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Pits The seven previous explorations, EP -1 through EP -7, were excavated with a rubber -tired, tractor -mounted backhoe and the recent explorations, EP -8 through EP -16, were excavated with a track -mounted excavator. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by an engineer from our firm. All exploration pits were backfilled immediately after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of applicable geologic literature. As shown on the field logs, the exploration holes generally encountered fill and weathered/disturbed materials overlying glacially consolidated till, silt, and sand. Four units were distinguished based on age and/or mode of deposition. These units are described below from youngest (uppermost) to the oldest (lowermost), and are illustrated on the two schematic geologic cross sections (Figures 2, 3, and 4). 3 4.1 Stratigraphy Unit 1 - Fill Fill (material not naturally placed) was encountered in EP -1, EP -4, EP -5, EP -9, EP -11, EP - 12, and EP -16 and generally consisted of loose, moist to wet, brown, silty, fine sand or soft to medium stiff, wet, brown, sandy silt. The fill materials were either placed directly over an old topsoil horizon or mixed within and in some cases included root debris. These fill materials vary in both quality and depth across the site, attaining a thickness of about 8 feet in EP -4. The quality and compaction of the fill materials was judged to be poor and is therefore unsuitable for structural support. Unit 2 - Weathered/Disturbed Zone Unit 2 materials were encountered in all of the exploration pits except EP -3, EP -9, and EP -12 and generally consisted of soft to stiff, moist to wet, mottled gray to brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand with scattered gravels, and generally ranged in thickness from about 1 to 4 feet. Unit 2 materials were unsorted and unconsolidated, and generally appeared weathered and disturbed. These materials are interpreted to be colluvium, which is gravity transported material derived from upslope areas. These materials are also considered unsuitable for structural support. Unit 3 - Pre-Vashon Lodgement Till (?) Unit 3 sediments were encountered in all of the exploration pits except EP -1, EP -8, EP -9, and EP -13 and generally consisted of dense to very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with an unsorted mixture of gravels. In EP -10, the lodgement till was highly weathered and was judged to be in a medium dense condition. The thickness of Unit 3 sediments ranged from about 1 foot in EP -7 to over 11 feet in EP -14, and were encountered as shallow as 3 feet in EP -2, but in excess of 10 feet in EP -4. Unit 3 sediments have been tentatively interpreted to be pre-Vashon age lodgement till deposits, and appear to conformably overlie Unit 4 deposits. These sediments were deposited at the sole of the advancing ice sheet which resulted in a material possessing relatively high strength, low compressibility, and low permeability characteristics. Unit 3 sediments are considered suitable for structural support. Unit 4 - Diamictic Silt Unit 4 sediments were encountered in all of the exploration pits except EP -14 and EP -15 at depths ranging from less than 4 feet to over 18 feet below the existing ground surface. Where encountered, Unit 4 deposits extended beyond the termination depth of all of the exploration pits. Unit 4 sediments generally consisted of hard, wet, blue -gray silt containing dropstones with interbeds of micaceous, fine sand and were locally diamictic (material containing an unsorted mixture of silt, clay, sand, and gravel). The fine-grained nature of Unit 4 and the presence of dropstones, localized diamictic zones, • and the gradational contact with the overlying till suggest that these sediments were deposited in a glaciolacustrine environment 4 which formed as the advancing pre-Vashon ice sheet dammed northerly flowing drainages. Unit 4 sediments are considered suitable for structural support. 4.2 Hydrology Ground water was encountered in all of our exploration pits except EP -9, EP -10, ,and EP -13. The type of ground water encountered on the site consisted of a "perched" water table which forms during wet periods of the year atop the till and silt sediments (Units 3 and 4). Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates down through relatively permeable soils such as Units 1 and 2 and becomes trapped or "perched" atop a comparatively impermeable barrier such as the till and silt. An example of this occurs in the vicinity of Tract 99 and the proposed extension of South 139th Street. Seepage may also occur at random depths and locations in the non-uniform fill materials encountered on the site. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of the year and variations in rainfall. 5 rUi:L:nGTh`ait•.`M".ili�Kic.EE'k:`dh;.eliCtY.AiS�.kr«ia'rsi t�.:¢4 ];i�:�?wCr:9�: u)}�',�14tiYtd February 13, 1997 Revised November 13, 1998 Project No. KE96296A II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, and ground/surface water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to seismic, landslide or mass -wasting, and erosion. It should be noted that during our two episodes of subsurface exploration, there was no access to the steep slope area of Lot 8. As such, the geotechnical design recommendations for Lot 8, including setback requirements, may be amended in the future if a site-specific geotechnical study is performed. 5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur as evidenced by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude event and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. More recently, the Puget Lowland experienced a moderate 5.4 magnitude event in the spring of 1996. Evaluation of earthquake return rates indicates that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 likely will occur within the next 8 to 12 years. A magnitude 7.2 earthquake is considered to be a 100 -year event by King County. The subject property is bounded by two significant fault zones. Approximately 7.5 miles to the north is the west trending Seattle fault. About 8.4 miles to the southwest is the north- northwest trending Tacoma fault. The Seattle and Tacoma fault zones are interpreted to be thrust faults with steep dips (60° to 70°) near the surface which flatten to 17° to 25° at depth. The Seattle and Tacoma faults are part of a series of surface manifestations of a north -directed thrust sheet underlying the Puget Sound region. A recurrence interval for movement along these two faults has not been conclusively determined but is estimated to be in the range of thousands of years (Pratt, 1995). The most recent movement is interpreted to have occurred over 1,000 years ago. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture; 2) seismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 6 5.1 Surficial Ground Rupture Generally, the largest earthquakes which have occurred in the Puget Sound/Seattle area are sub -crustal events with epicenters ranging from 50 to 70 kilometers in depth. Therefore, it is our opinion, based on existing geologic data, that the risk of surface rupture impacting the z • proposed project is low. i Cew 5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides 6 v UO CO The fill material and the weathered/disturbed zone (Units 1 and 2), are considered to have a u)w moderate potential for seismically induced failure due to their loose condition, high moisture -J 1- content, high percentage of fine-grained material, and location on steep slopes. The steep CD p slopes on the southeast corner of Lot 6 and on the east side of Lots 6 and 7 are interpreted to 2 have a high potential for seismic induced movement due to the presence of medium dense g a sediments, fill/disturbed soils, and evidence of past movement. Because of the potential risk of co d landslides occurring in these sediments, earthwork and construction procedures and setbacks, 1- w as described in the Design Recommendations section of this report, must be implemented in the z i_ development of the site. Landslide hazard mitigation, as presented in section 6.1, Mitigation, Z o must also be implemented. Following completion of the development according to the g D recommendations included herein, and others that may be presented in future studies and at the D 0 time of construction, the potential for failure can be substantially mitigated.P- oF- ww =U t- 5.3 Liquefaction LI O The encountered bearing soils (Units 3 and 4) have a low potential for liquefaction due to the v N consolidated nature of the dense lodgement till and hard diamictic silt. Units 1 and 2 will be 1.= substantially removed and/or mitigated during construction such that they will present little to z no liquefaction potential. 5.4 Ground Motion Based on the site stratigraphy and visual reconnaissance of the site, it is our opinion that any earthquake damage to proposed structures, when founded on, and keyed into, a suitable bearing strata, as recommended in the Design Recommendations section of this report, would be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above impacts. Structural design of the buildings should follow the latest UBC standards and take into consideration stress from seismically induced earth shaking. 6.0 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The potential landslide or mass -wasting risk can be divided into two depth categories; shallow and deep. The potential shallow landslide risk would involve Units 1 and 2, and is considered to be moderate due to the presence of near -surface ground water and the unconsolidated nature of the materials. However, the steep slope areas of Lots 7 and 8 and the southeast corner of Lot 6 are considered to have a high risk of shallow landslides. 7 h 134 The potential deep landslide risk would involve Units 3 and 4, and is generally considered to be low primarily due to the consolidated nature of the lodgement till and diamictic silt units. However, the steep downward slope located on the east side of Lot 7, the southeast corner of Lot 6, and possibly the east side of Lot 8 has a high risk of slope movement. This is due to the medium dense condition of sediments observed in EP -9, the observation of bowed and downed trees on the slope, evidence of past movement in the vicinity of Lot 7, and the steep cut at the base of the slope near Lots 6 and 7. Therefore, a minimum building setback of 25 feet from the top of this slope as delineated on Figure 1 should be followed to reduce the risk of potential structural damage should future movement occur. Footings for this lot should also be embedded in dense/very stiff natural sediments as recommended in Section 11.0, Foundations. Other recommendations for slope grading, drainage and vegetation, as described in this report, also apply. 6.1 Mitigation It must be understood that our recommendations are offered to reduce the risk of slope movement and to mitigate the risk of damage to the homes if slope movement should occur. Our recommendations do not eliminate the risk of future movement. With the owner's understanding and acceptance of the inherent risks associated with development on slopes, we recommend the following mitigation measures. 1. Surface drainage and collected ground water should be controlled and directed away from or to the bottom of sloping areas. All storm water from impermeable surfaces should be collected and tightlined into suitable storm water drainage systems. 2. At no time should fill be placed on or above steep slopes. Grading on or around slopes should be reviewed by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) prior to design completion. Uncontrolled fill near or over tops of slopes may promote landslides or debris flows. 3. The toes of steep slopes should not be undercut, unless a suitable retaining structure is constructed. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The encountered surficial sediments, as well as sediments at depth, possess a high potential for erosion, even on gentle to moderate sloping areas, when subjected to concentrated flows. To mitigate the erosion hazard potential and off-site sediment transport, we would recommend the following: 1. All storm water from impermeable surfaces, including roadways and roofs, should be tightlined into approved storm water facilities. Uncontrolled 8 �.a discharge from the impermeable surfaces should not be allowed to flow across the site sediments. 2. Temporary sediment catchment facilities should be constructed around all catch basins to intercept sediment eroded during the construction phases of the z proposed project. t -re W. 3. Temporary check dams should be used along storm water drainages. Silt fences 6 D meeting King County standards should be placed along the lower elevations of v p disturbed areas. w13 w J H 4. Soils which are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner N a - w0 as to reduce erosion. Protective measures may include, but are not necessarily 2 limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, g a or the use of hay bales/silt fences. N =w 5. Large-scale clearing should be avoided and as much of the natural vegetation on z the slopes as is possible should be left intact. Construction should proceed z o during drier periods of the year and areas stripped of natural vegetation during w w construction should be replanted as soon as possible or otherwise protected. D o o- 6. If construction occurs after November 1 and before April 1, exposed ground w H should be covered with mulch and additional temporary drainage control may be 1- 0r- 1— recommended, as necessary. u. o idz U=0 1- 9 wog, ' +'%(• 09avgi 41F 74{, Z February 13, 1997 Revised November 13, 1998 Project No. KE96296A III. DESIGN RECOIVIlVIENDATIONS z W re 8.0 INTRODUCTION 6 v 00 0 Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the w i proposed development provided the risks discussed are accepted and the recommendations -i LL contained herein are properly followed. The existing fill soils, and the materials in the w 0 weathered/disturbed zone as described herein, are not considered suitable for foundation 2 support. Thedepth to bearing strata in our exploration pits varied from about 3 feet to over g Q 10-1/2 feet below the existing ground surface but may be even deeper in some areas. It is c a anticipated that proposed excavations for daylight basements will remove much of the f=.. w unsuitable soil from the building footprints. Therefore, conventional spread footings keyed z !-- into, and bearing on, firm, unyielding, natural sediments, or properly placed structural fill, w o will be suitable for foundation support of the residences. If basement structures are not uj utilized, or where basement excavations do not penetrate to bearing soil, it will likely beo necessary to deepen foundations to suitable bearing soil. Lot 7, and possibly Lot 8 may o require deep foundation systems. wv ~- Since steep slopes and muddy soil conditions prevented excavator access to Lot 8, the depth to cd z bearing strata and setback requirements is unsure for this lot. Additional explorations, prior to cn or during clearing for Lot 8, should be preformed to further evaluate geotechnical design P i { parameters. Z 9.0 SITE PREPARATION Old foundations that may be encountered on the site, which are under building areas or not part of future plans, should be removed. Any buried utilities should be removed or relocated if they are under building areas. The resulting depressions should be backfilled with structural fill as discussed under the Structural Fill section. Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas should include removal of all trees, brush, debris, and any other deleterious material. Additionally, the upper organic topsoil should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose, surficial soils exist due to grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Existing fill and soft silts should be stripped down to the underlying medium dense or medium stiff, natural soils. Since the density of the soil is variable, random soft pockets may exist and the depth and extent of stripping can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical 10 Olt =a.40 ,lz engineer or engineering geologist. When overexcavation and stripping is completed, we recommend that road and parking areas be proofrolled with a fully loaded, tandem axle dump truck to identify any remaining soft spots. Soft areas should be further overexcavated and backfilled with approved structural fill. In some roadway or driveway areas, such as near exploration pit EP -4, the fill and soft sediment thickness may be too thick to economically remove and replace. Provided the owner/developer understands and accepts the risk associated with having unconsolidated fill and natural sediments underlying these areas of the development, an alternative methodology may be utilized. This would involve overexcavating a minimum of two (2) feet of the unsuitable soils, placing a high strength, woven geotextile fabric such as AMOCO 2002 or approved equivalent, and backfilling with approved structural fill. The geotextile fabric should be placed as per manufacturer's recommendations. The structural fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Prior to paving, all roadways should be proofrolled as described above to identify any soft or yielding areas. The geotechnical engineer or his representative should be present during the proofrolling. All unsuitable areas should be further overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. This methodology will substantially reduce settlement and improve the usable lifespan of the asphalt or concrete pavement surfaces but will not eliminate problem areas. As such, periodic maintenance should be planned for these areas. The on-site soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material which makes them extremely moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural till. Consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock or Asphalt Treated Base (ATB). If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near -surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL Grading plans have not been finalized at this time; however, it is anticipated that some structural fill will be necessary to establish desired grades. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type, placement and compaction of materials as discussed in this section. 11 ii.T":i sL;tts't�E.r?tF4'k�'J!h}�p,SAS'fN:}}t!'rN".ri�yq+��.rrrattti;�}. :oi;.iV; �;,t;`,;(�.1 i..�a.w ;fis;;:}wr tea.••-7e;e.:rr.; 4','r:;;.`"T?!`5%.L„ M`rSwe If fill is to be placed on slopes steeper than 5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical), the base of the fill should be tied to firm, stable subsoil by appropriate keying and benching which would be established in the field to suit the particular soil conditions at the time of grading. The keyway will act to embed the toe of the new fill into the hillside. Generally, the keyway for hillside fills should be at least 8 feet wide and cut into the lower, dense or stiff, natural sediments. Level benches would then be cut horizontally across the hill, following the contours of the slope. No specific width is required for the benches, although they are usually a few feet wider than the dozer being used to cut them. All fills proposed over a slope should be reviewed by our office prior to construction. After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist, the exposed ground surface should be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free -draining layer by silt migration from below. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free -draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8 -inch loose lifts with each lift being compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling. the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current municipal codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the perimeter footings or roadway edge before sloping down at an inclination no steeper than 2H:1V. The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by AESI prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 48 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather and dry subgrade conditions. The on-site soils contained significant amounts of silt, are considered to be extremely moisture -sensitive, and were well above their optimum moisture content at the time of our field exploration. Even during summer months, it is likely that the on-site soils would be too wet to compact for structural fill. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when on-site soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free -draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining soil is defined as soil containing less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction. 12 r�•,'',.i.?rr"y;�+rtsvi;i✓i�,,;t2 nH'itxw:;,�:Y.,,ari'anil. at:'�• 5.'t.�....: SL .aa 1141, A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in- place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing program. 11.0 FOUNDATIONS Spread footings may be used for building support for Lots 1 through 5, 9 through 12, and possibly Lots 6, 7, and 8 when founded on or embedded in dense natural soils of Units 3 or 4, or structural fill placed as previously discussed. We recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be utilized for foundation design purposes, including both dead and live loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. For Lots 1 through 5, and Lots 6 through 8, if spread footings are determined to be suitable, the perimeter footings must be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into the dense bearing soils. All perimeter footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection; interior footings require only 12 inches burial. To limit settlements, all footings should have a minimum width of 14 inches for one-story structures with 2 inches of width added for each additional story. For Lots 6, 7, and 8, a 25 -foot building setback measured from the outside footing edge to the top of the steep slope is recommended from the top of slope line shown on Figure 1. If it is not feasible to excavate deep enough to embed the foundations into the dense bearing soils and achieve the setback recommended above, a deep foundation may be required . Drilled concrete piers or auger cast -in-place piles may be used in this case. We recommend that 18 -inch diameter piers/piles with a minimum 12 feet of embedment into the medium dense sands be utilized. When suitably reinforced, the piers/piles will be capable of supporting loads on the order of 15 tons per pile. Allowable design loads may be increased by one-third for short term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of approved, pier/pile supported structures should be less than 1 inch. 11.1 Pile/Pier Inspections The actual total length of each pile may be adjusted in the field based on required capacity and conditions encountered during drilling. Since completion of the pile takes place below ground, the judgment and experience of the geotechnical engineer or his field representative must be used as a basis for determining the required penetration and acceptability of each pile. Consequently, use of the presented pile capacities in the design requires that all piles be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm who can interpret and collect the installation data and examine the contractor's operations. AESI, acting as the owner's field representative, would determine the required lengths of the piles and keep records of pertinent installation data. A final summary report would then be distributed following completion of pile installation. 13 It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at 1H:1V from any footing must not intersect another footing or intersect a filled area which has not been compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.5H:1V line extending down from any footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing. Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearing soils. Anticipated settlement of footings founded on medium dense natural sediments or approved structural fill should be on the order of 1 inch. However, disturbed soil not removed from footing excavations prior to footing placement could result in increased settlements. All footing areas must be inspected by AESI prior to placing concrete to verify that the design bearing capacity of the soils has been attained and that construction conforms with the recommendations contained in this report. Such inspections may also be required by the governing municipality. Perimeter footing drains should be provided as discussed under the section on Drainage Considerations. 12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT It is our understanding that a crawl space type construction may be used for portions of homes built on slopes. Construction of the crawl space should include covering the soil below the floor system with a moisture barrier to reduce dampness. It is our understanding that within basement or garage areas the floors will be slab -on -grade. Slabs may be cast over medium dense/medium stiff natural ground or approved structural fill. Where moisture intrusion through the slab is to be controlled, the slab subgrade should be covered with 4 inches of pea gravel to act as a capillary break. The pea gravel should then be covered by a plastic moisture barrier. A 2 -inch layer of sand may then be placed atop the moisture barrier to aid in the curing of concrete and to help protect the plastic. 13.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES All backfill behind walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally backfilled walls which are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height, may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled rigid walls which cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 60 pcf. Surcharges from sloping ground, adjacent footings, heavy construction equipment, floor leads, or sloping ground must be added to the above values. Slopes above retaining walls shall be graded to no steeper than 3H:1V. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform, horizontal backfill consisting of imported sand and gravel compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557 with a blanket drain of washed drain rock immediately adjacent to the wall. In lieu of placing a blanket 14 drain, a select import of free -draining sand and gravel may be used to backfill the wall. Free - draining soil is defined as soil containing less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction. A sieve analysis of proposed wall backfill is necessary to determine whether or not proposed fills are free draining. A higher degree of compaction (above 90 percent) is not recommended for the wall backfill as this will increase the pressure acting on the wall. A lower compaction may result in settlement behind the wall. As such, testing of the in-place density of the wall backfill is recommended. 14.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS As indicated previously, both shallow perched water and ground water within the sand beds of Unit 4 will likely be encountered during construction. Traffic across the on-site soils, when they are damp or wet, will result in disturbance of the otherwise firm stratum. Therefore, prior to site work and construction, the contractor should be prepared to provide drainage as necessary. This will likely be required even during the summer months. All retaining and perimeter footing walls should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set approximately 2 inches below the bottom of the footing and the drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. In addition, if select, free -draining backfill is not used, retaining walls should be lined with a minimum 12 -inch thick washed gravel blanket provided over the full -height of the wall and which ties into the footing drain. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. Depending on site and ground water conditions at the time of construction, it may be necessary to install an interceptor drain along the upper elevations of some of the lots prior to beginning site work. At a minimum, it is recommended that interceptor drains and possibly yard drains should be installed on the upper sides of Lots 8, 9, and 10. The interceptor drain should consist of an 18 -inch wide trench which is excavated a minimum of 1 foot into the lower, dense, relatively impermeable soils. A rigid, perforated, PVC pipe should be placed near the bottom of the trench, embedded in washed drain rock. In addition, the pipe should have sufficient slope to drain by gravity, and the water should be directed into approved storm drainage facilities. Since drainage issues are a major concern on this site, it may be necessary to add drainage provisions under the roadway in order to provide a long-term, usable roadway and to mitigate water flow from the upper portion of the property to the lower portion. We recommend that contingencies be allowed for these potential drainage improvements. However, a final determination as to the actual need for the drainage measures will be made at the time of construction. 15 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, building locations and elevations, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized. Therefore, the recommendations presented herein are preliminary. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the foundation depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions, or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Joseph B. Clare, E.I.T. Staff Geotechnical Engineer Gary A. Principal 1BC/Id/mb KE96296A4 11/1/98 mb - W97 !�y ers, P.G. ;?1,t. rC , 4. ^.i......"4n=r ..'th 5,.ea$sii '•.�:i,�:is:i''rx.'4 .w'y: in'-.'v�''Firitil4`";1% �1 tits*. xFYd�S4+i i3411isbliaw 16 Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Associate Engineer ////06 REFERENCE Pratt, T.L., 1995, The Puget Lowland Thrust Sheet: Presentation to the October meeting of the Northwest Geological Society, Seattle, Washington. )BC/mb KE96296A4 11/1/98 mb - W97 17 0• r• 30• It \.I i . •\•‘ 1 ,, ,� . 1 etb ‘y; 0411 0-2E • VIP/ // 4444". ROAD ( y'Z•� 1 _•7' ^�\ - • e 11 7 111 / • _.-1 1t4•' / ORNEWAY ACCESS FOR LOTS 9 k 10 ONLY FR04 SO. 140TH STREET. S. 14471H13T:••`_Y, (RALEO) ! • • Alt �On -' \ 21,03E S.F. l \::‘':,:-'1:- TRACT 9g oPtN SPACE ?°°== EP •- LS.F. - - ; EP -15___x' ' !. WETLAND_ �• .1\° \ ; 11.107 S.F. ` '\t ..' J,' 0 LEGEND 3.3/3'SF� 21G ® Approximate location of exploration plt excavated 1996 ® Approximate location of exploration plt excavated 1991 A A' Cross section REFERENCE JOHN B. FRIEL, JBMF CONSULTING ENGINEER, JULY 1998. s 0 100 NORTH 200 SCALE IN FEET ASSOCIATED `"" EARTH SCIENCES, INC SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FIGURE 1 DATE 7/98 PROJ. NO. KE96296A File: L1DO?0 35mm Drawing# i 'ail A4-ir; NUMBER EP -1 0 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION - _ Loose, wet, dark brown, silty, fine sand with occasional gravel, scattered roots. (Fill) Overlies approximately 1' thick red -brown soil horizon. (Unit 1) —J Medium stiff to stiff, wet, mottled grey, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, occasional gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. Minor to . moderate water seepage at approximately 5'. (iJnit 2) I Very stiff becoming hard, moist to wet, grey, sandy silt to silty, fine sand. Grades to hard, wet, blue -grey silt with trace to some clay, occasional dropstones. Some brecciated/slickensided surfaces. Diamictic lenses and interbeds of fine sand from 12'-14'. (Unit 4) • Hard, moist, blue -grey, silt, diamictic upper 1'. 2'+ boulder at approximately 7'. (Unit 4) BOH @ 14' Note: Minor to moderate seepage at approximately 5'. No caving. NUMBER EP -2 0 5 10 15 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibifrty for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 1-4611 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Topsoil. Loose to medium dense, wet, brown, fine . mottled silty, sand with gravel, unsorted. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2)r Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Hard, moist, blue -grey, silt, diamictic upper 1'. 2'+ boulder at approximately 7'. (Unit 4) BOH' 0 12' Note: Minor seepage at approximately 2'-3'. No caving. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibifrty for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 1-4611 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 0 5 10 15 NUMBER EP -3 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 0 5 10 15 EP -4 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Soft to medium stiff, wet, brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, some root debris. (Fill - Unit 1) Overlies approximately 1-' thick topsoil horizon. 1 Topsoil. r' Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Hard, moist to wet, blue -grey, silt with interbeds of fine sand. Very stiff to hard, wet, blue -grey silt with fine sand interbeds. Minor seepage at approximately 8'. (Unit 4) Some brecciated,.slickensided surfaces. Moderate water flow from fine sand. Dense at approximately 14'. (Unit 4) BOH a 15' Note: Minor seepage at approximately 8'; no caving. BOH (0 14' Note: Moderate water flow at approximately 14'. No caving. NUMBER 0 5 10 15 EP -4 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Subsurfaceconditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use 'or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 ABBDCIATE® EARTH SCIENCES, INC Soft to medium stiff, wet, brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, some root debris. (Fill - Unit 1) Overlies approximately 1-' thick topsoil horizon. Soft to medium stiff, saturated, mottled, blue -grey, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, occasional gravel, unsorted. Weathered/disturbed zone. Water seepage at approximately 8'. (Unit 2) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Very stiff to hard, wet, blue -grey silt with fine sand interbeds. Minor seepage at approximately 8'. (Unit 4) BOH a 15' Note: Minor seepage at approximately 8'; no caving. Subsurfaceconditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use 'or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 ABBDCIATE® EARTH SCIENCES, INC NUMBER EP -5 0 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 5- 10 — 10 15 0 NUMBER EP -6 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Soft to medium stiff, wet, brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, some root debris. (Fill - Unit 1) Overlies approximately 1' thick topsoil horizon. Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, scattered gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, scattered gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Hard, wet, blue -grey, silt with fine sand interbeds and diamictic lenses. Gravel zone at approximately 12' with moderate water flow. (Unit 4) Hard, moist to wet, blue -grey, silt with fine sand interbeds. (Unit 4) BOH (!15' Note: Moderate water flow at approximately 12'; no caving. BOH @ 14' Note: Minor to moderate water seepage at approximately 5'. No caving. . 5- 10 — 10 15 0 NUMBER EP -6 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 5 — 10 15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other tines and locations. We wil not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 1211 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC Topsoil. Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, scattered gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Hard, wet, blue -grey, silt with fine sand interbeds and diamictic lenses. Gravel zone at approximately 12' with moderate water flow. (Unit 4) BOH (!15' Note: Moderate water flow at approximately 12'; no caving. 5 — 10 15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other tines and locations. We wil not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 1211 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 0 5 10 15 NUMBER EP -7 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION _ Topsoil. . . Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, scattered gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix rwith gravel and cobbles, unsorted.' (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Dense, wet, brown becoming blue -grey, fine sand, micaceous, overlying hard, moist to wet, blue -grey, silt, diamictic. Water seepage in sand lense. (Unit 4) BOH @ 11' Note: Moderate water seepage at approximately 6'. No caving. Hole terminated due to boulder zone at 11'. NUMBER 0 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 5 10 15— Subsurface 5— Subsurface condfions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We MI not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON �v +nom+,R ,n.•m, - n,,.t..rr,.±:;er,�;v y.rr � r.r G96296A JANUARY 1997 Arial ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 0 5 10 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -8 I Forest duff. T _-1 Soft, moist, brown grading to gray, fine, sandy SILT. (UNIT 2) r Stiff grading to very dense, moist, gray, silty, fine SAND with some fine to medium sand lenses; weathered 1-1/2' to 5'. (UNIT 4) BOH@14' . Note: Slight seepage at 5'; no caving. 15 _ 0 5 10 15 Number EP -9 --i Forest duff. Soft, moist, brown, fine, sandy SILT; many roots to 1/4: diameter. (Fill - UNIT 1) Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND with some medium sand zones. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 15' Note: No seepage; no caving. Pit located at top of slope; slope has bowed trees. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and Judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 »', "•` • : star Foster Ridge Tukwila, Washington Project No. G96296A December 1996 we prix 0 5 10 15 0 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -10 _– Forest duff. r – — Loose/soft, moist to wet, brown, silty, fine SAND to fine, sandy SILT. (UNIT 2) - Medium dense, moist, brown with mottling, silty, fine SAND (Weathered Till); below 5' lenses of coarse sand and gravel; occasional boulders to 18" diameter. (UNIT 3) Dense, damp to moist with depth, Tight brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 15' Note: No seepage; no caving. , Number EP -11 Forest duff. Loose/soft, wet, dark brown grading to brown, silty, fine SAND to fine, sandy SILT. (UNIT 1/UNIT 2) 5 Medium dense becoming dense with depth, moist to wet, brown grading to gray, silty, fine SAND with some coarse sand, trace gravel. (UNIT 3) 10 Dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND, trace gravel and dropstones. (UNIT 4) 15 — – BOH @ 18' Note: Medium seepage at 5'; slight caving due to seepage. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic Interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 cr "1O 4C141?9q 4a �q yG" 5! R�" N .'vttw,°xtt2 i^rrttetyw?,»>',Kc,,<c.r, Reviewed By Foster Ridge Tukwila, Vila s h i n g to n Project No. G96296A December 1996 x"'t�!§an'}('.^:-.iH�w;+ttvrq"ns�r;.rw,}...;turevert;r}Y��}�+'F�';r^r.r..,.,p,:• �y.r:•x-u,.., ,.,�,. VPi ill^".1: 0 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -12 _ — Forest duff. r Soft, moist to wet, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, trace gravel; occasional dropstones to 9" diameter. (Fill - UNIT 1) Dense to very dense with depth, moist to wet, greenish -gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel. (UNIT 3) • Dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine SAND with some gravel. (UNIT 3) Very dense, moist, bluish -gray, silty, fine SAND to fine, sandy SILT with trace gravel and with lenses of fine sand with some gravel. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 15' Note: Slight seepage at 3' and 6'; no caving. • Number EP -13 Forest duff. Soft, moist to wet, dark brown grading to light brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 2) 5 10 _ 15 Very dense, moist, light brown, silty, fine SAND with some dropstones. (UNIT 4) Grades to very hard, moist to wet, gray, silty, fine SAND to fine sandy SILT; some slickenside surfaces. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 18' Note: No seepage; no caving. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By rail] Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 Foster Ridge Tukwila, Washington Project No. G96296A December 1996 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -14 _- Forest duff. — (-' _ Loose becoming dense, moist, dark brown grading to Tight brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 2) @ 12' to 13' Tense of medium to coarse sand with silt. Very dense, moist, Tight brown, silty, fine SAND; brecciated. (UNIT 3) @ 8' to 9' Tense of coarse sand and gravel. @ 12' to 12-1/2' tense of very dense, moist, gray, silty, fine sand. BOH @ 15' Note: Seepage at 1', 4', and 8'; no caving. Number EP -15 -i Forest duff. Loose, moist to wet, dark brown grading to Tight brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 2) Dense to very dense, moist, light brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 3) @ 12' to 13' Tense of medium to coarse sand with silt. BOH @ 15' Note: Moderate to rapid seepage at 12'; no caving. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and Judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By J Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 IWO . .«•»rerttn! sY,t4�rtS+'!X.'el4?;'t'i'�V',W'•'t'ii+�9FbY*!n'r.Cr.S�Y.:a ",":R'+; rrt�+h; rrrta»(cap :r` Foster Ridge Tukwila, Washington Project No. G96296A December 1996 -J 0 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -16 - Forest duff. r Soft/loose becoming dense, moist to wet, dark brown grading to light brown, mottled, silty, fine SAND to - fine sandy SILT. (UNIT 1/UNIT 2) Dense to very dense, moist, light brown, silty, fine SAND with some gravel with depth. (UNIT 3) @ 11' to 12' Tense of brown medium sand. Very dense, moist to wet, brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 16' Note: Slight seepage at 11' to 12'; no caving. 5 — 10 15 Number 5 _ 10 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 Foster Ridge Tukwila, Washington Project No. G96296A December 1996 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827-7701 FAX (206) 827-5424 FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR JBMF Consulting Engineer PROJECT NO. G96296A FEBRUARY 1997 12S1 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 +ibl;s,r>v,.+'..:a ...✓.Psf.,titti,,,...... `s'at• cw°vu1C,: 7i'..'', .;t ,r, ':?:S.i,:?w.✓r11:i1i y' 3i.Gii�u»,.i:<,` 4:te.tiY ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC ...Yyy j y 7"-÷i: "• Eqi • 0015 MAY 2 7 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT tg." 9'"'„diath1S"ti1k',c 12,SI ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Filth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827-7701 FAX (206) 827-5424 February 13, 1997 Project No. G96296A JBMF Consulting Engineer PO Box 27 Everett, Washington 98206 Attention: John B. Friel Subject: Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards and Geotechnical Engineering Report Foster Ridge 46th Avenue South at South 139 Street Tukwila, Washington BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 We are pleased to present a copy of the above referenced report. This report summarizes the results of our recent and previous subsurface explorations, geologic hazards, and geotechnical engineering studies and offers recommendations for the preliminary design and development of the proposed project. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that the recommendations presented in this report will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions, or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington Gary A.owers, P.G. Principal GAF/Id G96296A1 12/1/96 Id - WW a c 4C ...`iurilil,.` s'�+ RS: rAiit-14 4tii041.,1441,' dkW" i i4,4"1,14:411. '4:14:441,;:g iM44,714, 6 Oone SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FOSTER RIDGE 46TH AVENUE SOUTH AT SOUTH 139TH STREET TUKWILA, WASHINGTON February 13, 1997 Project No. G96296A I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our previous and recent subsurface exploration, geologic hazards and geotechnical engineering studies for the proposed 11 building and 1 open space lot residential subdivision. This current report is intended to replace our previous geotechnical engineering report, titled Hellwig's Addition, project number 9103-25G dated March 29, 1991. The proposed lot locations and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. We were unable to obtain subsurface information in the area of Lot 7 due to steep slope and wet soil conditions which prevented excavator access. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the structures or lot/street layout are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified, or verified as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface soil and shallow ground water data to be utilized in the design and development of the above mentioned residential project. Our recent field study included the excavation of nine exploration pits and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution and physical properties of the shallow subsurface sediments. We also reviewed the previous field study and exploration logs. Geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to evaluate seismic and erosion hazards and mitigations, the type(s) of suitable foundations, allowable foundation soil bearing pressure, anticipated foundation settlement, floor support, lateral wall pressures, and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our recent field work and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. John B, Friel of JBMF Consulting Engineer. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of Q,�Y,+J�"L:+j'{H!.'yM:YIC�rS•HiA.irrn...,a r..... Imo work letter dated November 25, 1996. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of JBMF Consulting Engineer, and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied is made. It must be understood that no recommendations or engineering design can yield a guarantee of stable slopes. Our observations, findings, and conclusions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on a site survey plan with survey and topographic information provided by Barrett Consulting Group and proposed building lot locations presented by JBMF Consulting Engineer, and dated August, 1996. Present plans call for two story over daylight basement residential structures utilizing conventional wood frame construction with slab -on -grade floors in the lower level. Finish grade elevations were not available at the time of this report, but it is anticipated that in order to accommodate the daylight basements that cuts on the upslope side of.the structures will not exceed 10 feet, and will generally be less. The property was situated on the east side of 46th Avenue South between South 139th and South 140th Streets upslope and to the west of Interstate 5 in Tukwila, Washington. The parcel was located on north to northeast facing slopes with gradients ranging from about 10 to 80 percent. Based on topographic information shown on the site plan, total elevation change across the site was on the order of 70 feet. An area of standing surface water was noted within Lot 12 which has been identified on the site plan as wetland and open space. Surface water flowed from the wetland area downslope and through the eastern half of Lot 3. The flow rate was estimated at roughly 5 gallons per minute. Our recent field work was performed during a period of wet weather. Vegetation on the site primarily consisted of deciduous trees with a heavy undergrowth of berry vines, ivy and other ground cover. An old retaining wall, approximately 40 feet long and 6 feet tall, was located at the south end of Lots 8 and 12. Also based on site reconnaissance and information presented in our previous report, it was evident that past grading or filling has occurred on portions of the property. An old dirt access road extended from the present terminus of South 139th St. to the northern end of Lot 8. The toe of the steep slope east of Lot 6 was undercut approximately 15 feet, and the near vertical cut was not retained. A single family residence, with garage and driveway, was located at the toe of the slope. t+.�]M1SY.91i NlaelkYMiti X17:'?,•aF.itwrrt?v�tfvh•:r.•;•T.xl�n.•.i..r�a.a.,!:.;.»,i.q..., r.: <• 2 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field studies included excavating a series of exploration pits and performing a geologic hazard reconnaissance to gain information about the site. The various types of sediments, as well as the depths where characteristics of the sediments changed, are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions changed may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by estimating locations from known site features shown on a topographic survey presented on a conceptual grading plan prepared by PAC -TECH Engineering, Inc., identified as "Plan C" and dated 2/5/91 and on a site plan without topographical information prepared by Barrett Consulting Group dated August, 1996. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on visual reconnaissance and the 9 recent and 7 previous exploration pits. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within site, and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing subsurface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Pits The 7 previous explorations, EP -1 through EP -7, were excavated with a rubber tired, tractor - mounted backhoe and the recent explorations, EP -8 through EP -16, were excavated with a track -mounted excavator. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by an engineer from our firm. All exploration pits were backfilled immediately after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing, as necessary. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions at the project site were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site and review of applicable geologic literature. As shown on the field logs, the exploration holes generally encountered fill and weathered/disturbed materials overlying glacially consolidated till, silt and sand. Four units were distinguished based on age and/or mode of deposition. These units are described below from youngest (uppermost) to the oldest (lowermost), and are illustrated on the two schematic geologic cross-sections (Figures 2, 3 and 4). 3 .w�Kus15.'•iYg'",'4}?`d/,'tRtl"'Y�^h�7f'1'FAYFf'e'"w,+,n-r,,'ht.+r,.t?r�vnx;rgw .r War 4.1 Stratigraphy Unit 1 - Fill Fill (material not naturally placed) was encountered in EP -1, EP -4, EP -5, EP -9, EP -11, EP - 12, and EP -16 and generally consisted of loose, moist to wet, brown, silty, fine sand or soft to medium stiff, wet, brown, sandy silt. The fill materials were either placed directly over an old topsoil horizon or mixed within and in some cases included root debris. These fill materials vary in both quality and depth across the site, attaining a thickness of about 8 feet in EP -4. The quality and compaction of the fill materials was judged to be poor and is therefore unsuitable for structural support. Unit 2 - Weathered/Disturbed Zone Unit 2 materials were encountered in all of the exploration pits except EP -3, EP -9, and EP -12 and generally consisted of soft to stiff, moist to wet, mottled gray to brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand with scattered gravels, and generally ranged in thickness from about 1 to 4 feet. Unit 2 materials were unsorted and unconsolidated, and generally appeared weathered and disturbed. These materials are interpreted to be colluvium, which is gravity transported material derived from upslope areas. These materials are also considered unsuitable for structural support. Unit 3 - Pre-Vashon lodgement till (?) Unit 3 sediments were encountered in all of the exploration pits except EP -1, EP -8, EP -9, and EP -13 and generally consisted of dense to very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with an unsorted mixture of gravels. In EP -10, the lodgement till was highly weathered and was judged to be in a medium dense condition. The thickness of Unit 3 sediments ranged from about 1 foot in EP -7 to over 11 feet in EP -14, and was encountered as shallow as 3 feet in EP -2, but in excess of 10 feet in EP -4. Unit 3 sediments have been tentatively interpreted to be pre-Vashon age lodgement till deposits, and appear to conformably overlie Unit 4 deposits. These sediments were deposited at the sole of the advancing ice sheet which resulted in a material possessing relatively high strength, low compressibility and low permeability characteristics. Unit 3 sediments are considered suitable for structural support. Unit 4 - Diamictic silt Unit 4 sediments were encountered in all of the exploration pits except EP -14 and EP -15 at depths ranging from less than 4 feet to over 18 feet below the existing ground surface. Where encountered, Unit 4 deposits extended beyond the termination depth of all of the exploration pits. Unit 4 sediments generally consisted of hard, wet, blue -gray silt containing dropstones with interbeds of micaceous, fine sand and was locally diamictic (material containing an unsorted mixture of silt, clay, sand and gravel). The fine grained nature of Unit 4 and the presence of dropstones, localized diamictic zones and the gradational contact with the overlying till, suggest that these sediments were deposited in a glaciolacustrine environment fyn.yq.i''i:y 511. ..nir.rr g`rc 4 —n which formed as the advancing pre-Vashon ice sheet dammed northerly flowing drainages. Unit 4 sediments are considered suitable for structural support. 4.2 Hydrology Ground water was encountered in all of our exploration pits except EP -9, EP -10, and EP -13. The type of ground water encountered on the site consisted of a "perched" water table which forms during wet periods of the year atop the till and silt sediments (Units 3 and 4). Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates down through relatively permeable soils such as Units 1 and 2 and becomes trapped or "perched" atop a comparatively impermeable barrier such as the till and silt. An example of this occurs in the vicinity of Lot 12 and the proposed extension of South 139th Street. Seepage may also occur at random depths and locations in the non-uniforni fill materials encountered on the site. It should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to the time of the year and variations in rainfall. 5 BRsf+.'fiTltik"�C 1. PiR'd1iYF v:f, tv+.^,f.41fi ."M'1.N•fA"\ itP.i°5M+E'4C#';??.k'!'1Cxl{54:4!f!fi+fiWi'.nArJ'd February 13, 1997 Project No. G96296A II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope and ground/surface water conditions as observed and discussed herein. The discussion will be limited to seismic, landslide or mass -wasting, and erosion. 5.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur as evidenced by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude event and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. More recently, the Puget Lowland experienced a moderate 5.4 magnitude event in the spring of 1996. Evaluation of earthquake return rates indicate that an earthquake of the magnitude between 5.5 and 6.0 likely will occur within the next 8 to 12 years. A magnitude 7.2 earthquake is considered to be a 100 year event by King County. The subject property is bounded by two significant fault zones. Approximately 7.5 miles to the north is the west trending Seattle fault. About 8.4 miles to the southwest is the north- northwest trending Tacoma fault. The Seattle and Tacoma fault zones are interpreted to be thrust faults with steep dips (60° to 70°) near the surface which flatten to 17° to 25° at depth. The Seattle and Tacoma faults are part of a series of surface manifestations of a north -directed thrust sheet underlying the Puget Sound region. A recurrence interval for movement along these two faults has not been conclusively determined but is estimated to be in the range of thousands of years (Pratt, 1995). The most recent movement is interpreted to have occurred over 1000 years ago. Generally, there are 4 types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture; 2) seismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 5.1 Surficial Ground Rupture Generally, the largest earthquakes which have occurred in the Puget Sound/Seattle area are sub -crustal events with epicenters ranging from 50 to 70 kilometers in depth. Therefore, it is our opinion, based on existing geologic data, that the risk of surface rupture impacting the proposed project is low. Ki°!WITNfi[,?#t;Si�1.''72'.St,?!,'�?rR..'±avkS;^�e 6 rN+r.;VEO'',,AIMi IOY.*;t+yY.I tt'irNKNVP-.ltr,`m`rs7terXtra?%:r;S':..+Y'?',Kr?;y^,:4y+r:,tr.'�.5; Iw; .-: ,•.r n,,eirritr.,,�Y�:r;^ti rqv.,k;r,-.�;.�N�h�;rr,Lynxrrpgmy?rJ,�°4ry1�H.,;a{4a't±..�r^:i!c:{.4.MYK�A 5.2 Seismically Induced Landslides The fill material and the weathered/disturbed zone (Units 1 and 2), are considered to have a moderate potential for seismically induced failure due to their loose condition, high moisture content, high percentage of fine grained material and location on steep slopes. The steep slopes on the east side of Lots 6 and 7 are interpreted to have a high potential for both seismic and non -seismic induced movement due to the presence of medium dense sediments, fill/disturbed soils and evidence of post movement. Because of the potential risk of landslides occurring in these sediments, earthwork and construction procedures, as described in the Design Recommendations section of this report, must be implemented in the development of the site. Following completion of the development according to the recommendations included herein, and others that may be presented in future studies and at the time of construction, the potential for failure can be substantially mitigated. 5.3 Liquefaction The encountered bearing soils (Units 3 and 4) have a low potential for liquefaction due to the consolidated nature of the dense lodgement till and hard diamictic silt. Units 1 and 2 will be substantially removed and/or mitigated during construction such that they will present little to no liquefaction potential. 5.4 Ground Motion Based on the site stratigraphy, and visual reconnaissance of the site, it is our opinion that any earthquake damage to proposed structures, when founded on, and keyed into, a suitable bearing strata, as recommended in the Design Recommendations section of this report, would be caused by the intensity and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above impacts. Structural design of the buildings should follow UBC standards and take into consideration stress from seismically induced earth shaking. 6.0 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The potential landslide or mass -wasting risk can be divided into two depth categories; shallow and deep. The potential shallow landslide risk includes Units 1 and 2, and is considered to be moderate due to the presence of near surface ground water and the unconsolidated nature of the materials. However the steep slope areas of Lot 6 and possibly Lot 7 are considered to have a high risk of shallow landslide risk. The potential deep landslide risk includes Units 3 and 4, and is generally considered to be low primarily due to the consolidated nature of the lodgement till and diamictic silt units. However, the steep downward slope located on the east side of Lot 6 has a high risk of slope movement. This is due to the medium dense condition of sediments observed in EP -9, the observation of bowed and downed trees on the slope, evidence of past movement, and the steep cut at the base of the slope. Therefore, a minimum building setback of 25 feet from the top of this slope 7 .NiU+.1}�},gx•sa.,r.,?iTle}.�..n!.b.�>CN.r...T'r:i„]p"�,'f^�,^+iTn•.r. v. ��..x ��yen•;, vas should be followed to reduce the risk of potential structural damage should future movement occur. Footings for this lot should also be embedded in dense/very stiff natural sediments as recommended in Section 11.0, Foundations. Other recommendations for slope grading, drainage and vegetation, as described in this report, also apply. Should the recommended setback not provide enough room for a reasonably sized residence, additional exploration and/or a deepened foundation will likely be required. Based on site topography, a residence • z situated near the top of the slope would require a foundation that extends 15 feet or more re below existing ground surface. 6 O 0 6.1 Mitigation CO J It must be understood that our recommendations are offered to reduce the risk of slope uj o movement and to mitigate the risk of damage to the homes if slope movement should occur. 2 Our recommendations do not eliminate the risk of future movement. With the owner's g Q understanding and acceptance of the inherent risks associated with development on slopes, we recommend the following mitigation measures. H III E— 0 1. Surface drainage and collected ground water should be controlled and directed w away from or to the bottom of sloping areas. Downspouts from roofs should be 2 o tightlined into suitable storm water drainage systems. o cn 0 I-- 2. At no time should fill be placed on or above steep slopes. Grading on or around = U slopes should be reviewed by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prior to design E▪ _- completion. Uncontrolled fill over tops of slopes may promote landslides or z debris flows. c) o� 3. The toes of steep slopes should not be undercut, unless a suitable retaining z structure is constructed. 4. Further subsurface exploration, analysis and recommendations should be provided for Lot 7 prior to, or during grading operations. 7.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATION The encountered surficial sediments, as well as sediments at depth, possess a high potential for erosion, even on gentle to moderate sloping areas, when subjected to concentrated flows. To mitigate the erosion hazard potential and offsite sediment transport, we would recommend the following: 1. All storm water from impermeable surfaces, including roadways and roofs, should be tightlined into approved storm water facilities. Uncontrolled discharge from the impermeable surfaces should not be allowed to flow across the site sediments. 8 moi 14,19.;a r1'iS!iP!' l'.uff le.6.Iv33R:ry',.k FY�RY T r 1^wi�m, KC°i,f e,:.tF'ti7:f°v^P?%!M1k1T,(rT,\?f;747wri;.,,rY!1,;4 at!tti�t 2. Temporary sediment catchment facilities should be constructed around all catch basins to intercept sediment eroded during the construction phases of the proposed project. 3. Temporary check dams should be used along storm water drainages. Silt fences meeting King County standards should be placed along the lower elevations of disturbed areas. 4. Soils which are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to reduce erosion. Protective measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stockpiles in flat areas, or the use of hay bales/silt fences. 5. Large scale clearing should be avoided and as much of the natural vegetation on the slopes as is possible should be left intact. Construction should proceed during drier periods of the year and areas stripped of natural vegetation during construction should be replanted as soon as possible or otherwise protected. 6. If construction occurs after November 1 and before April 1, exposed ground should be covered with mulch and additional temporary drainage control may be recommended, as necessary. 9 Wn.� ?w5t testi? Woo February 13, 1997 Project No. G96296A III. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 8.0 INTRODUCTION Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the proposed development provided the risks discussed are accepted and the recommendations contained herein are properly followed. The existing fill soils, and the materials in the weathered/disturbed zone as described herein, are not considered suitable for foundation support. The depth to bearing strata in our exploration pits varied from about 3 feet to over 10-1/2 feet below the existing ground surface but may be even deeper in some areas. It is anticipated that proposed excavations for daylight basements will remove much of the unsuitable soil from the building footprints. Therefore, conventional spread footings keyed into, and bearing on, firm, unyielding, natural sediments, or properly placed structural fill, will be suitable for foundation support of the residences. If basement structures are not utilized, or where basement excavations do not penetrate to bearing soil, it will likely be necessary to deepen foundations to suitable bearing soil. Lot 6 will likely require a deep foundation system. Since steep slopes and muddy soil conditions prevented excavator access to Lot 7, the depth to bearing strata is unknown in this area. Additional explorations, prior to or during clearing for Lot 7, will be necessary to evaluate the depth to bearing for design purposes. 9.0 SITE PREPARATION Old foundations that may be encountered on the site, which are under building areas or not part of future plans, should be removed. Any buried utilities should be removed or relocated if they are under building areas. The resulting depressions should be backfilled with structural fill as discussed under the Structural Fill section. Site preparation of planned building and road/parking areas should include removal of all trees, brush, debris and any other deleterious material. Additionally, the upper organic topsoil should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. Areas where loose, surficial soils exist due to grubbing operations should be considered as fill to the depth of disturbance and treated as subsequently recommended for structural fill placement. Existing fill and soft silts should be stripped down to the underlying medium dense or medium stiff, natural soils. Since the density of the soil is variable, random soft pockets may exist and the depth and extent of stripping can best be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. When overexcavation and stripping is completed, we rm?srsr�sm�z� 10 Vt'1141...1!iU^tl1;v•ttF!.7,,nn.` ..:15.A -..:4N r,Sr+.p•,. rtw •r,.: s.,`*.rr-r+,r.Ml.,nn'Rrux.. !,:nV"`q..'aw�. ¢�.rx;x4'FnW. n:. i+., �.,.�n'rtF„t�� ! t:'e'(1,'t!�rt'I,:;cSr�rrh..,';a.,-.Nn;^'d.Y•?e;`pi:r.!+N^F�!`tifG:ryrh',"ary".tl recommend that road and parking areas be proofrolled with a fully loaded, tandem axle, dump truck to identify any remaining soft spots. Soft areas should be further overexcavated and backfilled with approved structural fill. In some roadway or driveway areas, such as near exploration pit EP -4, the fill and soft sediment thickness may be too thick to economically remove and replace. Provided the owner/developer understands and accepts the risk associated with having unconsolidated fill and natural sediments underlying these areas of the development, an alternative methodology may be utilized. This would involve overexcavating a minimum of two (2) feet of the unsuitable soils, placing a high strength, woven geotextile fabric such as AMOCO 2002 or approved equivalent, and backfilling with approved structural fill. The geotextile fabric should be placed as per manufacturer's recommendations. The structural fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. Prior to paving, all roadways should be proofrolled as described above to identify any soft or yielding areas. The geotechnical engineer or his representative should be present during the proofrolling. All unsuitable areas should be further overexcavated and backfilled with structural fill. This methodology will substantially reduce settlement and improve the usable lifespan of the asphalt or concrete pavement surfaces but will not eliminate problem areas. As such, periodic maintenance should be planned for these areas. The onsite soils contain a high percentage of fine-grained material which makes them extremely moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation operations so that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. Consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock or Asphalt Treated Base (ATB). If crushed rock is considered for the access and staging areas, it should be underlain by engineering stabilization fabric to reduce the potential of fine-grained materials pumping up through the rock and turning the area to mud. The fabric will also aid in supporting construction equipment, thus reducing the amount of crushed rock required. We recommend that at least 10 inches of rock be placed over the fabric; however, due to the variable nature of the near -surface soils and differences in wheel loads, this thickness may have to be adjusted by the contractor in the field. 10.0 STRUCTURAL FILL Grading plans have not been finalized at this time, however, it is anticipated that some structural fill will be necessary to establish desired grades. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type, placement and compaction of materials as discussed in this section. 11 If fill is to be placed on slopes steeper than 5H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical), the base of the fill should be tied to firm, stable subsoil by appropriate keying and benching which would be established in the field to suit the particular soil conditions at the time of grading. The keyway will act to embed the toe of the new fill into the hillside. Generally, the keyway for hillside fills should be at least 8 feet wide and cut into the lower, dense or stiff, natural sediments. Level benches would then be cut horizontally across the hill, following the contours of the slope. No specific width is required for the benches, although they are usually a few feet wider than the dozer being used to cut them. All fills proposed over a slope should be reviewed by our office prior to construction. After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist, the exposed ground surface should be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. Where the exposed ground remains soft and further overexcavation is impractical, placement of an engineering stabilization fabric may be necessary to prevent contamination of the free -draining layer by silt migration from below. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or • a free -draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural fill is defined as non-organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8 inch loose lifts with each lift being compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. In the case of roadway and utility trench filling, the backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with current municipal codes and standards. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the perimeter footings or roadway edge before sloping down at an inclination no steeper than 2H:1V. The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 48 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather and dry subgrade conditions. The onsite soils contained significant amounts of silt, are considered to be extremely moisture -sensitive, and were well above their optimum moisture content at the time of our field exploration. Even during summer months, it is likely that the onsite soils would be too wet to compact for structural fill. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when onsite soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance. If proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free -draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining soil is defined as soil containing less than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve, based on the minus number 4 sieve fraction. 12 A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in- place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. It is important to understand that taking random compaction tests on a part-time basis will not assure uniformity or z acceptable performance of a fill. As such, we are available to aid the owner in developing a suitable monitoring and testing program. cea JU U0 11.0 FOUNDATIONS co i Spread footings may be used for building support for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 when w founded on or embedded in dense natural soils of Units 3 or 4, or structural fill placed as 2 previously discussed. We recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per g square foot (psf) be utilized for foundation design purposes, including both dead and live u loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. For Lots _ 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, the perimeter footings must be embedded a minimum of 18 inches into the ? bearing soils. All perimeter footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding z 0 uj soil for frost protection; interior footings require only 12 inches burial. To limit settlements, 2 all footings should have a minimum width of 14 inches for 1 -story structures with 2 inches of 0 width added for each additional story.N o �- w W For Lot 6, a 25 foot building setback measured from the outside footing edge to the top of the 1 steep slope is recommended. Should this setback not be feasible, a deep foundation system — 0 consisting of drilled in concrete piers or auger cast -in-place piles will be necessary. We • u� recommend that 18 inch diameter piers/piles with a minimum 12 feet of embedment into the o medium dense sands be utilized. When suitably reinforced, the piers/piles will be capable of z supporting loads on the order of 15 tons per pile. Allowable design loads may be increased by one-third for short term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settlement of approved, pier/pile supported structures should be less than one inch. 11.1 Pile/Pier Inspections The actual total length of each pile may be adjusted in the field based on required capacity and conditions encountered during drilling. Since completion of the pile takes place below ground, the judgment and experience of the geotechnical engineer or his field representative must be used as a basis for determining the required penetration and acceptability of each pile. Consequently, use of the presented pile capacities in the design requires that all piles be inspected by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist from our firm who can interpret and collect the installation data and examine the contractor's operations. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., acting as the owner's field representative, would determine the required lengths of the piles and keep records of pertinent installation data. A final summary report would then be distributed, following completion of pile installation. r: la9!rttrrn,.�;:r.•�.t;:t.AMnt`.r^»ttui?n.•,�ne„o<,:,„...•.aaM.«.ur•ar...; 13 f..y�t.;.r.�y Since subsurface exploration within Lot 7 was not accomplished, a building setback cannot be addressed at this time. Site specific studies and possibly a deepened foundation may be required for this lot. It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at 1H:1 V from any footing must not intersect another footing or intersect a filled area which has not been = z compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.5H:1 V line extending 6 down from any footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually 6 undermine the footing. Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in U o the bearing soils. w z J F - Anticipated settlement of footings founded on medium dense natural sediments or approved N w0 structural fill should be on the order of 1 inch. However, disturbed soil not removed from 2 footing excavations prior to footing placement, could result in increased settlements. All g footing areas must be inspected by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. prior to placing concrete, to cn a verify that the design bearing capacity of the soils has been attained and that construction w conforms with the recommendations contained in this report. Such inspections may also be z �-- required by the governing municipality. Perimeter footing drains should be provided as w o discussed under the section on Drainage Considerations. U � o 22 0 WW � - It is our understanding that a crawl space type construction may be used for portions of homes — z built on slopes. Construction of the crawl space should include covering the soil below the o cn floor system with a moisture barrier to reduce dampness. E= H 0 z 12.0 FLOOR SUPPORT It is our understanding that within basement or garage areas the floors will be slab -on -grade. Slabs may be cast over medium dense/medium stiff natural ground or approved structural fill. Where moisture intrusion through the slab is to be controlled, the slab subgrade should be covered with 4 inches of pea gravel to act as a capillary break. The pea gravel should then be covered by a plastic moisture barrier. A 2 inch layer of sand may then be placed atop the moisture barrier to aid in the curing of concrete and to help protect the plastic. 13.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES All backfill behind walls or around foundation units should be placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Horizontally backfilled walls which are free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height, may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled rigid walls which cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 60 pcf. Surcharges from sloping ground, adjacent footings, heavy construction equipment, floor leads or sloping ground must be added to the above values. Slopes above retaining walls shall be graded to no steeper than 3H: 1V. 14 w. �•!.',1.tn'.. ....:'S _^!\t"� �'•.1'rr'.. .� . .''SY" .re/-.it•1 . The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform, horizontal backfill consisting of imported sand and gravel compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557 with a blanket drain of washed drain rock immediately adjacent to the wall. In lieu of placing a blanket drain, a select import of free -draining sand and gravel may be used to backfill the wall. Free - draining soil is defined as soil containing less than 5 percent passing the number 200 sieve, based on the minus number 4 sieve fraction. A sieve analysis of proposed wall backfill is necessary to • z determine whether or not proposed fills are free -draining. nc A higher degree of compaction (above 90 percent) is not recommended for the wall backfill as v o this will increase the pressure acting on the wall. A lower compaction may result in settlement w w behind the wall. As such, testing of the in place density of the wall backfill is recommended. -J }- CDw w0 14.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS g a As indicated previously, both shallow perched water and ground water within the sand beds of Unit 4 will likely be encountered during construction. Traffic across the onsite soils, when z 1- they are damp or wet, will result in disturbance of the otherwise firm stratum. Therefore, w o prior to site work and construction, the contractor should be prepared to provide drainage as 2uj necessary. This will likely be required even during the summer months. o • 52 O I - All retaining and perimeter footing walls should be provided with a drain at the footing = elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by washed pea 1 - gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set approximately 2 inches below L O z the bottom of the footing and the drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow o cn gravity discharge away from the building. In addition, if select, free -draining backfill is not 1-7 used, retaining walls should be lined with a minimum 12 inch thick washed gravel blanket z provided over the full -height of the wall and which ties into the footing drain. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. Depending on site and ground water conditions at the time of construction, it may be necessary to install an interceptor drain along the upper elevations of some of the lots prior to beginning site work. At a minimum, it is recommended that interceptor drains and possibly yard drains should be installed on the upper sides of Lots 8, 9 and 10. The interceptor drain should consist of an 18 inch wide trench which is excavated a minimum of 1 foot into the lower, dense, relatively impermeable soils. A rigid, perforated PVC pipe should be placed near the bottom of the trench, embedded in washed drain rock. In addition, the pipe should have sufficient slope to drain by gravity, and the water should be directed into approved storm drainage facilities. Since drainage issues are a major concern on this site, it may be necessary to add drainage provisions under the roadway in order to provide a long term, usable roadway and to mitigate water flow from the upper portion of the property to the lower portion. We recommend that 'ra 15 contingencies be allowed for these potential drainage improvements. However, a final determination as to the actual need for the drainage measures will be made at the time of construction. 15.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING At the time of this report, building locations and elevations, site grading, structural plans, and construction methods have not been finalized. Therefore, the recommendations presented herein are preliminary. We are available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the foundation depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions, or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington '3 Joseph B. Clare, E.I.T. Staff Geotechnical Engineer Gary A. Fgwers, P.G. Principal 113C/Id G96296A1 12/1/96 Id - WW 16 [ Exa„Es 57 3/9 8 Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Associate Engineer 2/'3/917 REFERENCE Pratt, T.L., 1995 the Puget Lowland Thrust Sheet: Presentation to the October meeting of the Northwest Geological Society, Seattle, Washington. JBC/Id G96296A 1 12/1/97 Id - WW y11 t,, \ r. . .',� 3 1\05 § Y �- -,2 / ` rl s ss lj:,ll, 1 1 Allif 6 i'.:($47...;i**.% :-'id)!i /)111)i'i'( ' O,��r,l '1 ,ii:I r•.I ((_ / , "-O �.-11 ' i t•j.t.i 1 , I Gel I 1._ . /i!:,, ' ' RIi1Y�1 1 c ■ 1 ■ -,'1y 1n ■ ■ . i.�.l'i.;.a /. 0 z t90 zoo ,'` �W \ • '1 i' �- „; / , 4 ,. �. „ss%/ T. v `.• .r7/� i i x i • /: ' (,'! •\ . ``1 • `\ . / ',///7' , {;) •; ,ii ." //- "d. s Y/,'W//,',//,i i , t• _..L.._.._.. J /C,..,f__i/.✓.// .9 anusoa ss 1 -i r n- s/ �9 ^1 /. '‘.. �;IjLJJ�rn�W,Rsi•i.f iii /y/ �/ /,,. rl1l_.II . ,,/��' • h ° 9' i / 1 11! --/a7"'"7"---51—,/ 'ti4''f,W'' t , t It fir! '/ 7' if a J r-, 1 �i pi' ;W 1t' 0 -J 1 • . 109 k� I "gK v 0 z uJ w rj 0 w NQU Cum • D CD N 13) SCALE IN FEET ttegfe ,•!:%. 4.K �,axr.+.w�b uJNrx i•4..ri ,I.a•Y1'�+.~t y'.'4i+;,.{Y, i. LM �. t.l. Mi�•� File: L9.1 E-FODE. 35mm Drawing# ----(00 i�'�'taS,iJsi�i�'rr?.i�,i 4iw' Z re LAI aa� JU 00. u) 111 11.1 �LL w0 L <, �w z o w Uco0 0 —. H wW HU Z wN F= -z- : O F_ Z 0 5 10 15 NUMBER EP -1. EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 0 5 10 15 EP -2 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Loose, wet, dark brown, silty, fine sand with occasional gravel, scattered roots. (Fill) Overlies approximately 1' thick red—brown soil horizon. (Unit 1) Medium stiff to stiff, wet, mottled grey, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, occasional gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. Minor to moderate water —� seepage at approximately 5'. (Unit 2) J Very stiff becoming hard, moist to wet, grey, sandy silt to silty, fine sand. Grades to hard, wet, blue—grey silt with trace to some clay, occasional dropstones. Some brecciated/slickensided surfaces. Diamictic lenses and interbeds of fine sand from 12'-14'. (Unit 4) with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till — Unit 3) BOH @ 14' Note: Minor to moderate seepage at approximately 5'. No caving. Hard, moist, blue—grey, silt, diamictic upper 1'. 2'+ boulder at approximately 7'. (Unit 4) NUMBER 0 5 10 15 EP -2 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 fral ASSDCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC �TiM,I'r"J' w ?ev itp;A;tiqq!Eri1:�5;r{;::w!Sift:A,ilitfi@�fa;!�`p, 5!f$1rr�.Ktt fr ...r .r r�".5. �., .!��%`."�w.f1'w?J.++..Lll •a s.w.4.rwda:lulra.LL�sriu;'i '� rr.;"it..}w.> ri r..J;•i4z+ttXr,RW+;iF:75'iJ"C�'Psi.«S.',jTr.?*',4wt'+p,7,7"??±ik;U;+t ''; Topsoil. Loose to medium dense, wet, mottled brown, silty, fine sand with gravel, P —� unsorted. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) 1 Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till — Unit 3) Hard, moist, blue—grey, silt, diamictic upper 1'. 2'+ boulder at approximately 7'. (Unit 4) BOH. 0 12' Note: Minor seepage at approximately 2'-3'. No caving. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 fral ASSDCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC �TiM,I'r"J' w ?ev itp;A;tiqq!Eri1:�5;r{;::w!Sift:A,ilitfi@�fa;!�`p, 5!f$1rr�.Ktt fr ...r .r r�".5. �., .!��%`."�w.f1'w?J.++..Lll •a s.w.4.rwda:lulra.LL�sriu;'i '� rr.;"it..}w.> ri r..J;•i4z+ttXr,RW+;iF:75'iJ"C�'Psi.«S.',jTr.?*',4wt'+p,7,7"??±ik;U;+t ''; 0 5 10 15 NUMBER EP -3 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 0 EP -4 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Soft to medium stiff, wet, brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, some root debris. (Fill - Unit 1) Overlies approximately 1�' thick topsoil horizon. 'Topsoil. r Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Water seepaee at approximately (Unit 2) Hard, moist to wet, blue -grey, silt with interbeds of fine sand. Some brecciated, slickensided surfaces. Moderate water flow from fine sand. Dense at approximately 14'. (Unit 4) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Very stiff to hard, wet, blue -grey silt with fine sand interbeds. Minor seepage at approximately 8'. (Unit 4) BOH @ 14' BOH 0 15' Note: Minor seepage at approximately 8'; no caving. Note: Moderate water flow at approximately 14'. No caving. NUMBER 0 EP -4 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION 5 — 10 15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC C.•;Y. �i��t?Ft?;9,`;:�i'1}•�.y5{ttN,ri4'a::w,+r,��',�':r,«y Soft to medium stiff, wet, brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, some root debris. (Fill - Unit 1) Overlies approximately 1�' thick topsoil horizon. Soft to medium stiff, saturated, mottled, .blue -grey, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, occasional gravel, unsorted. Weathered/disturbed zone. R'. Water seepaee at approximately (Unit 2) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Very stiff to hard, wet, blue -grey silt with fine sand interbeds. Minor seepage at approximately 8'. (Unit 4) BOH 0 15' Note: Minor seepage at approximately 8'; no caving. 5 — 10 15 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC C.•;Y. �i��t?Ft?;9,`;:�i'1}•�.y5{ttN,ri4'a::w,+r,��',�':r,«y 0 5 10 15 NUMBER EP -5 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION eml NUMBER 0 5 10 15 EP -6 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION • Soft to medium stiff, wet, brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, some root debris. (Fill - Unit 1) Overlies approximately 1' thick topsoil horizon. Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand. scattered gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, scattered gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Hard, wet, blue -grey, silt with fine sand interbeds and diamictic lenses. (ravel zone at approximately 12' with moderate water flow. Hard, moist to wet, blue -grey, silt with fine sand interbeds. (Unit 4) BOH @ 14' Note: Minor to moderate water seepage at approximately 5'. No caving. eml NUMBER 0 5 10 15 EP -6 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION • Topsoil. Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand. scattered gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine sand matrix with gravel and cobbles, unsorted. (Lodgement Till - Unit 3) Hard, wet, blue -grey, silt with fine sand interbeds and diamictic lenses. (ravel zone at approximately 12' with moderate water flow. (Unit 4) BOH @ 15' Note: Moderate water flow at approximately 12'; no caving. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 ri,S1 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC .K.W `:"i%8<aI?i9,,*Vo.. x>n>( r,'.�yt `:�,'�flSu �'t'ssp,,x ;A .' •: b r,'•4 1`"��` ���'"��3S Yi w1 r4; �.�`��%{a4i'�t sr5�;crtif;. "�rtt lt•:'t4 r` :.+Lt.���' �.�+•�s p• L fi�'.��...s.,�..,.. : L/� '� s .�...tw�., i . �..,�'���.. s �t: S�GYit.l,...,,i 0 5 10 15 NUMBER EP -7 EXPLORATION PIT LOG SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION NUMBER 0 5 Ammil 10- 15- - 0- 15— SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Subsurface cone tions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessary representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 ABBC9CIATED EARTH EC:IENCEE, INC ivcgd it' YiA, W4 i. ` 'N$ ',y t `hK k�!'dwACi!t�,th'%�5? i"1:: Y "k,•+s�•,Xj?{. "t t{:!c,�vJ,•• 4t.C.r✓[!:<<`!f'M1",�kS:4.'.ry sh�t�, ;a Z` ,Ift S,tUt .1*in-�t �,h,��gt?t".<•'.r,rti,'.!;''1{ {.'fk?3�h'J1Si—V,-.+.ittily'. :�s:+"' 4 we..L::..ss✓['�`-1 �Ya.r..�;..:iJ�4ay.G:. .��.x... .. .fy. ,,� .�. .� .3,•4',F :L:.d.... 6 'd•'awrit'�'�w� Topsoil. Medium stiff, moist to wet, mottled brown, sandy silt to silty, fine sand, scattered gravel. Weathered/disturbed zone. (Unit 2) brown, Dense becoming very dense, moist, mottled silty, fine sand matrix r with Rravel and cobbles. unsorted. (Lodgement Till — Unit 3) Dense, wet, brown becoming blue—grey, fine sand, micaceous, overlying hard, moist to wet, blue—grey, silt, diamictic. Water seepage in sand lense. (Unit 4) BOH (a11' Note: Moderate water seepage at approximately 6'. No caving. Hole terminated due to boulder zone at 11'. NUMBER 0 5 Ammil 10- 15- - 0- 15— SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION Subsurface cone tions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessary representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON G96296A JANUARY 1997 ABBC9CIATED EARTH EC:IENCEE, INC ivcgd it' YiA, W4 i. ` 'N$ ',y t `hK k�!'dwACi!t�,th'%�5? i"1:: Y "k,•+s�•,Xj?{. "t t{:!c,�vJ,•• 4t.C.r✓[!:<<`!f'M1",�kS:4.'.ry sh�t�, ;a Z` ,Ift S,tUt .1*in-�t �,h,��gt?t".<•'.r,rti,'.!;''1{ {.'fk?3�h'J1Si—V,-.+.ittily'. :�s:+"' 4 we..L::..ss✓['�`-1 �Ya.r..�;..:iJ�4ay.G:. .��.x... .. .fy. ,,� .�. .� .3,•4',F :L:.d.... 6 'd•'awrit'�'�w� 0 5 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -8 10 _ 1 Forest duff. r 1 Soft, moist, brown grading to gray, fine, sandy SILT. (UNIT 2) r Stiff grading to very dense, moist, gray, silty, fine SAND with some fine to medium sand lenses; weathered 1-1/2' to 5'. (UNIT 4) 15 — B01 -I @ 14' Note: Slight seepage at 5'; no caving. 0 5 Number EP -9 Forest duff. Soft, moist, brown, fine, sandy SILT; many roots to 1/4: diameter. (Fill - UNIT 1) 10 _ 15 Medium dense, moist, brown, silty, fine SAND with some medium sand zones. (UNIT 4)' BOH @ 15' Note: No seepage; no caving. Pit located at top of slope; slope has bowed trees. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 Foster Ridge Tukwila, Washington Project No. G96296A December 1996 19p, , ..gt 101., 7 f yf§# �i :rev u" '3: 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -10 _- Forest duff. - - Loose/soft, moist to wet, brown, silty, fine SAND to fine, sandy SILT. (UNIT 2) - Medium dense, moist, brown with mottling, silty, fine SAND (Weathered Till); below 5' lenses of coarse - sand and gravel; occasional boulders to 18" diameter. (UNIT 3) Dense, damp to moist with depth, Tight brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 15' Note: No seepage; no caving. Number EP -11 -I Forest duff. Loose/soft, wet, dark brown grading to brown, silty, fine SAND to fine, sandy SILT. (UNIT 1/UNIT 2) Medium dense becoming dense with depth, moist to wet, brown grading to gray, silty, fine SAND with some coarse sand, trace gravel. (UNIT 3) 15 _ Dense, wet, gray, silty, fine SAND, trace gravel and dropstones. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 18' Note: Medium seepage at 5'; slight caving due to seepage. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 3'ca rr�r:; i1`•:i t A u `at: ifilf'r`.44%afM tIB' Reviewed By Foster Ridge Tukwila, Washington Project No. G96296A December 1996 µlro[R F rtt�yati; f T4'us t3 f r�Sr+ P Mr; f .. t+rgr?Ip!1ra r 0 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -12 -1 Forest duff. 1— Soft, moist to wet, dark brown, silty, fine SAND, trace gravel; occasional dropstones to 9" diameter. (Fill - UNIT 1) Dense to very dense with depth, moist to wet, greenish -gray, silty, fine to medium SAND, trace gravel. (UNIT 3) Dense, moist, mottled brown, silty, fine SAND with some gravel. (UNIT 3) Very dense, moist, bluish -gray, silty, fine SAND to fine, sandy SILT with trace gravel and with lenses of fine sand with some gravel. (UNIT 4) BOH@15' Note: Slight seepage at 3' and 6'; no caving. Number EP -13 l Forest duff. Soft, moist to wet, dark brown grading to Tight brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 2) 5 10 15 Very dense, moist, Tight brown, silty, fine SAND with some dropstones. (UNIT 4) Grades to very hard, moist to wet, gray, silty, fine SAND to fine sandy SILT; some slickenside surfaces. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 18' Note: No seepage; no caving. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By [J Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 '1FYbl'%f�£:k Foster Ridge Tukwila, Vila s h i n g to n Project No. G96296A December 1996 fit?„ 7.vr ifis� Ora i«::4} f 0 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -14 1 Forest duff. Loose becoming dense, moist, dark brown grading to Tight brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 2) 5 _ 10 Very dense, moist, light brown, silty, fine SAND; brecciated. (UNIT 3) @ 8' to 9' Tense of coarse sand and gravel. @ 12' to 12-1/2' Tense of very dense, moist, gray, silty, fine sand. 15 BOH @ 15' Note: Seepage at 1', 4', and 8'; no caving. 0 5 10 15 Number EP -15 1 Forest duff. Loose, moist to wet, dark brown grading to Tight brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 2) 1— Dense to very dense, moist, Tight brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 3) @ 12' to 13' Tense of medium to coarse sand with silt. BOH @ 15' Note: Moderate to rapid seepage at 12'; no caving. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 •;;; Y•. iGdkAa7S Foster Ridge Tukwila, Washington Project No. G96296A December 1996 0 5 10 _ 15 0 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOG Number EP -16 _T Forest duff. r _ Soft/loose becoming dense, moist to wet, dark brown grading to light brown, mottled, silty, fine SAND to fine sandy SILT. (UNIT 1/UNIT 2) Dense to very dense, moist, light brown, silty, fine SAND with some gravel with depth. (UNIT 3) @ 11' to 12' Tense of brown medium sand. Very dense, moist to wet, brown, silty, fine SAND. (UNIT 4) BOH @ 16' Note: Slight seepage at 11' to 12'; no caving. Number Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of Information presented on this log. Reviewed By [ I Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 206-827-7701 Fax: 206-827-5424 -kmige 7�:1t`aSlii+FslAi:°• tiiiG, Foster Ridge Tukwila, Washington Project No. G96296A December 1996 r s •'47{SFr PT gar z z • . ~w 00 UW I— wo 2 LLQ rn Z �. I— O Z I— W U• � O 52 O I— w W H IL O WZ U= O 1— z File: 35mm Drawing# ••• 4.4- '1 .;• ,; • -4;;;; ,;;.4“1:4 ; z k-: z 6 = -J 00 w 0 cow CI)u. 0 1 < D. a Z 0 Z W uj 0 1— W I 0 r- U- 6 . Z 0—. R. I 0 I—, Fi HOZ 35mm Drawing# SOUTH A 250. FILL 200— u - z 0 14 .61 w 100 INF EP -7 ••••••• ...••••• •••••••• AV?. weir EP -5 FIGURE 2 SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION ir EP -1 war3 --- ••••••.... UNIT •4 •••••••••""7. ? -"••••• NORTH A' LEGEND UNIT1-FIU UNIT 2 - Weathered/Disturbed Zone war 3 - Pre-Vashon Til UNIT 4 - Pre-Vashon Silt • 'T.TTTrn-rn-i-c-r-ri-rrn II! 1:Ivtip I ' 25 : so APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL , . • , • • • , 171. hi11i1111[11111.11161111.1111111.111111111.1f1[1111:11.11.1111111.111111,i111.1111.1)11.11.1.11(111hifl.1111.11)41111(dItifi,[1.111.1.111.1j:1111:1101.11111111111111:i FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. G96296A DECEMBER 1996 t2213-giAT" SCIENCES, INC. WEST B. 250 — 200 IU IL z 150 — 100 EP -5 UNIT 1 - FILL UM' 3 UNIT 4 ••-•• - - ? EP -4 UNIT 1 - FIU- UNIT 4 FIGURE 3 SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION EP -9 IJNIT 1 - FILL IJANT 4 2 EAST B' 25O —200 1331 NI NOLLVA313 —150 LEGEND UNIT 1 - FM UNIT 2 - Weathered/Disturbed Zone UNIT 3 - Pre-Vashon TM UNIT 4 - Pre-Vashon Silt 0 25 •50 SCALE IN FEET „ . „ 0INCH • CHINA " •••`. „ : • I. Vl C i. 6. 111 1111 5 C Z:. • • bcF:, 11111.111111111111111111111111111.1111111lliffi111111,1111h11111111111111:1111,[1111111iii1l[dA111111114110,111 IIHJIIIII1111.111)11,111)11111111(1111 FOSTER RIDGE TUKWLA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. G96296A DECEMBER 1996 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC 100 SOUTHWEST 225 - 200 - 175- 150 - 125 EP -15 .1,141 UNIT 3 EP -3 UNIT 2 "--z- - - UNIT 3 - UNIT 4 EP -8 Nir 4 • FIGURE 4 • SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION Lot 6 NORTHEAST :• EP -9 _UNIT UNIT 4 c LEGEND UNIT 1 - Fill UNIT 2 - Weathered/Disturbed Zone UNIT 3 - Pre-Vashon till UNIT 4 - Pre-Vashon Silt FTTFITITI771-:!,1,1:1111 rf:"%!:,1:1.; ! - - ,• o 25 so SCALE IN FEET 225 -200 -175 -150 FOSTER RIDGE TUKWLA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. G96296A JANUARY 1997 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC m -4 2 File: L91 35mm Drawing# • -mg SOUTH A 250 ••► W 200 u. FIGURE 2 SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 100.. LEGEND UNIT 1 - Fill UNIT 2 - Weathered/Disturbed Zona UNIT 3 - Pre-Vashon Till UNIT'4 - Pre-Vashon Silt 0. 25 50 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL 6.. 8:;: L 9:':' 9 b:. g Z HA -3 1111111111111111111.1.11111111111 ilhildifi1111,111111 1.111111111i11.il ii111.111111:111111.1111111111.111011:11111)401.1:1Li110111)11d1i1.1111111,1i111i1 FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. G96296A DECEMBER 1996 ra, ASSDCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC WEST B 250 - 200- i- LU 00- WW z 0 r- 150 150 - 100 EP -5 UNIT 1 - FILL - - = - UNIT 3 UNIT 4 FIGURE 3 SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION EP -4 UNIT 1 - FILL UNIT 4 - -? EP -9 ?UNIT 1 _FILL UNIT LEGEND UNIT 1 - Fill UNIT 2 - Weathered/Disturbed Zone UNIT 3 - Pre-Vashon Till UNIT 4 - Pre-Vashon Silt ii 25 •50 $CALEIN FEET Sl bl - Cl. Z1. • 111IIIII it 1111.1111[111111111.111111111111.1)1111.1i1111IILLIl11111I11I1111111i11II(11,11[11ll1l_Il11111.i[1.10iali.i,[1101[1i11101),1111(1111111iil ii l EAST B' 250 - 200 ' m r- - 150 -150 100 FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. G96296A DECEMBER 1996 jai ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC SOUTHWEST ELEVATION IN FEET 225 - 200 - 175- 150 - 125 EP -15 UNIT 3 EP -3 UNIT2- - - UNIT 3 — UNIT 4 7,43-8 UNIT 4 FIGURE 4 SCHEMATIC GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION Lot 6 EP -9 ?_UNIT UNI -4 1 NORTHEAST C' 225 200 -175 -150 LEGEND UNIT 1 - Fill UNIT 2 - Weathered/Disturbed Zone UNIT 3 - Pre-Vashon till UNIT 4 - Pre-Vashon Silt 0 , i)",!;'.."-;;;;; .3 ..:;,•;,; - 0 25 50 SCALE IN FEET 1.,:• ; ;; Cl. J01..;;';;;'' -Z;;;;',,;!;;;;1:;`'„'Abr0i; ;;;;;. 1111111111h 1:1;11:11111.(iliii 111'1).1 .1 I l.;11:111.1.11111:111111. -11.11.1Y11111.;1111.111_141]];1,1 -1,1:1.01;1111.1,1.1111.1.11:11.1,,1 1.1 1.1.11.i I I 125 I331 NI NOIIVA313 FOSTER RIDGE TUKWILA, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. G96296A JANUARY 1997 /11111 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES INC F,. 1 e• • 1.97--00 Drawing# ( • , , 01/10/01 I WIDEN S. 140TH ST. TO 20' A.C. W/4' GRAVEL SHOULDER EACH SIDE WEST OF PROJECT SITE TO 45TH AVE. S. DRAWN CAM / / / 13 / / 1 \�1 APPROX. LOCATION EXISTING PAVEMENT ° : I\ • 7W 178.00 ,9 0 / / /• , 12 / / / 11 / / / , , / 10 / / . / / 9 / o H M-28 / / / / / 8 / MACADA4 ROAD (PAVED) '1 r / / MH M- • // / \\ 1 \\\\ q,0 (PAVED) MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR LOTS 9 & 10 ONLY FROM SO. 140TH STREET. 140 -%----- -�1 JO' • •,wetland ed .o • \ KZ, ' •?/- / /4„4 4:::aimairesamp finginaffni y APPROX. LOCATION EXISTING PAVEMENT MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT' ty2i e/ CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER BOTH. SIDES S. 140TH ST. FRONTING PROJECT SITE CHECKED PDC REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS SYTA REVISOR /199 SBB PDC DATE BY APPD w.T.MITra we LP Penhallegon Associates • 240-- Engineering Planning Surveying Consulting Engineers, ;Inc. 750 SIXTH STREET SOUTH }OAKLAND, WA 98033 PH: (425) 027-2014 FAX: (4E5).827-6043 l 220 1,- 11N 0 - l - R.S. PEDERSEN PARKSIDE MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 1518 - Marysville, WA 98270 TEL# 380-859-0808 0 REFERENCE INFORMATION REL) BOOK: SURV. CPU FILE: DATUM: DAZE 11-30-98 SCALE 1"=30'. • GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 ' 60 SO. 37TH ST. SO. 1391H ST. S0. o m 0 (1N FEET) 1 inch = 30 feet MH M-30 • NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIfi1' Call before you D=g. MAY 1 71999 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE (USA). VICINITY / MAP SCALE: 1'-1000' RECEIVED CITY OFTUKWILA MAY 1 9 1999 PERMIT CENTER FOSTER 'RIDGE PRELIMINARY • GRADING PLAN FOR PRD ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL I S1O•Dir4 JOB NUMBER 98673.00 DWG N0. 8673CRD-2.DWG SHEET C1 OF 2 dill r1i1 n IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIi �Ilull llilllllllllllll�ll.IIIII�Illllllil:I:Iililllllilll l OINCHA 1 I' . 2 3 '" 4 • 5 6 CHIN 01 51 01 21 . ,'11 :, 01 6. L 6 E Z /`01:.0 13 \ 12 / / / / / 10 0 / APPROX. LOCATION 4- C1 WATER MACADAM ROAL (PAVED) 1 CONNECT TO EX. WATER UNE IN MACADAM ROAD / DISCHARGE STORM INTO EX. DITCH. INSTALL RIP_ -RAP AS ENERGY DISIPA10 , •� / / // / / g / 'k // 8 / / / / 20 0. — .. S. 13 9'TH—S T. (PA VED) \ 10'.E TIUTY EASM NT i DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR LOTS 9 & 10 ONLY FROM SO. 140TH STREET. —AP4ROX, rm1ON I22 • O 115L' E�ifLai±� JL'L�� :.71a��91YJ1Y i,407 *TBC1.11,471 4114 gu;dli, FF4r,/ DISCHARGE FROM WETLAND n tNNA41CF„ ''\ rNr�BUR/FER ic /Z:7\ \\ \ \ \\\y,/ ) \\ V \\` .�\\ 3 \-. ,' 0 \ /i \\ .• \X\\\moo i\\\ ; /' \ • \ 1 \111 \140 \%"1\1\ 6d GRAPHIC SCALE 90 0 15 30 60 ( IN FEET ) 1 Inch = 30 feet MH M-30 0 • 7 i a NOT FOR CUNST.#UCTIrIt MAY 1 71999 S. 1-rOTM S`CONII ATO (FIAVED) EXISTING USI E-IN� S. 1401H STREET -1491 APPROEXIS11y, 2 b- 110N 14.4. II,OCSS $/ - / RC1= • — 240 CI 1Y1DD ur 4 CITYCEIVED OF TTAWILA MAY 1 91999 PERMIT CENTER Call before you Dtg. 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE (USA) I 01/10/01 1 DESIGNED CAM DRAWN CAM CHECKED PDC REVISED PER CITY COMMENTS 5/12/99 SBB PDC SYM REVISION DATE BY APP'D Engineering Planning Surveying Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers,, Inc. 760 SIXTH STREET SOUTH KIRKLAND, WA 98033 P11: (425) 627-2014 FAX: (425) 627-6043 AAPM R.S. PEDERSEN PARK8IDE MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 1618 - Marysville, WA 98270 TEL* 980-669-0808 REFERENCE INFORMATION FIELD BOOK: SURV. CPU FILE: DA1UM: DAZE 11-30-98 SCALE 1"=30' FOSTER 'RIDGE PRELIMINARY • UTILITY PLAN 'FOR PRD ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL JOB NUMBER 98673.00 DWG NO. 6673U11LDWG SHEET C2 OF 2 p INCH" 1 :2 34 .. 5 6 0 91 '14 El 21 .'l4' • 01 /J 6 • 9 L 9 •,'. • 6 E Z GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 CONNECT TO EX. WATER UNE IN MACADAM ROAD ( IN FEET ). 1 Inch = 30 feet DISCHARGE STORM INTO EX. DITCH. INSTALLRIP-RAP AS ENERGY DIS PAT 82 4 .GP • 0 MI -I M-30 DISCHARGE PROM WETLAND COLLECTED AND CONVEYED INTO PR. OVEC SYSTEM. 6 edge DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR LOTS 9 & 10 ONLY FROM SO. 140TH STREET. WETLAND 11,1077 CaII before you Dgg. 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND. SER'ACE (USA) VICINITY MAP SCALE 1.-1000 RECENED OFTUKWILA DEC 011998 PERMITCENTER t il'f FOR (:Ui'v'g T f;L CTFUri 1 WIRES 05/20/99 J DESIGNED CAM DRAWN CAM CHECKED PDC SYM REVISION DATE BY APP'D Engineering Planning Surveying Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. , 750 SIXTH STREET SOUTH KIRKLAND, WA 98033 PI1: (425) 827-2014 FAX: (425) 827-5043 R.S. PEDERSEN PARK8IDE MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 1618 - Marysville, WA 98270 TEL* 980-869-0808 �IIITIf-T'I'I'1'�'11111'j'I'I', p INCH'1 ,a..., r2 p 5 8 CHINA 91 61 Cl ZI :'Li:: 8 L' 9 5 6 C Z 1.'`t9n0 REFERENCE INFORMATION F EID BOOK: SURV. CPU RIE: DATUM: 11-30-98 SCALE 1 "=30' FOSTER RIDGE PRELIMINARY • UTILITY PLAN FOR PRD ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL (EXPIRED 01/15/99 JOB NUMBER 98673.00 DWG N0. 8673U11LOWG SHEET C2 OF 2 o o� o Ha �:0085' m�m� Soo e.K0.U0. DESIGNED CAM -r / / / / 12_ / /. / / /.// 11 o • TW 17:0 • / / / / / MgOgpA� ROAD (PAVED) i r / MH M— / — / / L. LL�/-L 140 N _J= \'\\ / i(\\gy`\\ p // \ • APPROX. LOCATION • • EXISTING PAVEMENT /%//iii% (PAVED) MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR LOTS 9 & 10 ONLY FROM SO. 140TH STREET. APPROX, LOCATION EXISTING PAVEMENT (f VED) MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT' 140 •,wetland N fr N\ \ >o \ \)'\\\,\\\ b/(\\ �1 III1? \ \ II I I I TO O ..2201 N o 0 GRAPHIC SCALE 30 0 15 30 60 ( IN FEET ) I Inch = 30 feet Ivl I-! ,M-30 0 SO. 37TH ST. SO. 139TH ST. 140TH ST. FOS1ER RIDGE SI1E ,32;‘N 90 Nf pECEVED OFTUKWILA DEC 011998 PERMIT CENTER ;UT FOR CONSTRUCTION FOSTER SEN OR HIGH S0. 144TH ST. VICINITY MAP SCALE 1'-1000' CaII before you Dtg• 1-800-424-5555 UNDERGROUND SERVICE (USA) 1 EXPLREs 00/08/99 I EXPIRES 01/10/99 I DRAWN CAM CHECKED PDC SYM REVISION DATE BY APP•D Engineering Planning Surveying. Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. 750 SIXTH STREET SOUTH KIRKLAND, WA 03033• P11: (425) 827-2014 FAX: (425) 827-0043 A E R.S.. PEDERSEN PARKBIDE MANAGEMENT P.O. Box 1518 - Marysville, WA 98270 TELL 380-869-0808 REFERENCE INFORMATION REL) BOOK: SURV. CPU RLE DATUM: DATE 11-30-98 SCALE 1"=30' FOSTER RIDGE , PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FOR PRD ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL JOB NUMBER 98673.00 DWG N0. 8673GRD.DWG SHEET 01 OF 2 I111Tiirj11T1111l,IIII111111! ii0111III111 ITHII1Vi11iIra1rhiiiiliTriii11_I_I11111111..1 01NCHA 1 i ..'. 2 , 3 • '-'4.' '5 6' CHIN , 91 P1 EL 01 .'1(,_: 01 .6. 8 L 9 ; .9 6 E 0 1'`WTiO 0 MH 10-42 30' °MH M-27'. / / / /' • / / / / / / / / / / / / / K o H M-28 / di SID (PA\/E'D) / / / / / / / ���� :7 " - .-- :2 / % / ��'�r—J40 / / / LLQ— _�� �,�� J/%' f / / -�-- may_ I, \______(,,,,- --- --/ /moi. / � —_ti= o .---„,--_,_/__--- f�_ _--���/\17\.:"- \\;\\`' /// zo tet_ -'r - •-: \ i 1 \\\\ \\ / w=iNrr MAP SCALE: I• ° I000• r .-------`5:-*_:::._ �= \• MH M-29 — 'z \ -....,0 ---N-________.*>\\ / 5; ---139TH • 5% , _1 it I 'I / i '�' I10D� (PAVE-'. 1 MH •1 ,-- 4A / \>r�\`\'o \1\\ \' \\ \\\// \ ( \� 0,1\ 140 1 \' DRIVEWAY 'ACCESS FOR LOTS 9 & 10 ONLY FROM SO. 140TH STREET. 5. p((0 `; -- ti S 87 MH 1C1 -4R .48.48- (RAVED) I PROPOSED�}ROAD GRADES: "INDICATES FINISHED ROAD k DRIVEWAY ELEVATION XX'EcX INDICATES ROAD GRADE k DISTANCE \\ 1 _5 9 11\ \\\-' I - ZZ •cam, �����•Ji 11 N 0 Ilillill III r 0 O 0 LtCI,AL DESCRIPTION: A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.; IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOTS 17 TO 27, INCLUSIVE,, BLOCK. 1 AND LOTS 1 TO 7, INCLUSIVF, BLOCK :2, • HELLWIG'S ADDITION TO FOSTER, ACCORDING TO THE UNRECORDED PLAT THEROF. JO OF AS F� ..............,,.,,,,,,,.,.,.,n DATE: JULY 1998 APRD PLAN & DEVELOPMENT DATA: AREA OF SITE: 127,196 SF (2.92 AC) WETLAND AREA: TOTAL WETLAND AREA = 11,107 SF TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA PROPOSED = 32,500 SF TOTAL AREA OF WETLAND BUFFER = 21,393 S.F. LAND USE: ZONE = LDR, MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 6500 SF PER TMC EFF. 12/4/95 ALLOWABLE MINIMUM LOT AREA = 5,525 SF AREA OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PUBLIC = 4,944 SF; PRIVATE = 7,100 SF EXISTING NUMBER OF LOTS = 18 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BUILDING LOTS = 12 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 50' OPEN SPACE AREA: TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA = 32,500 SF TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA PROPOSED = 25.357. OF SITE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA FOR PRD ® 20% , _. 25,439,. S.F..., UTILITIES: WATER SEWER TELEPHONE POWER GAS KCWD #125 KCSD VAL VUE USWEST CITY LIGHT PSE (WNG) MH M-30 OWNER/APPUCAKf: R. S. "DICK" PEDERSEN PARKSIDE MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 1518 MARYSVILLE, WA., 98270 TEL. # (360) 659-0808 PROJECT SURVEYOR: (FIELD TOPOGRAPHY & BOUNDARY) BARRETT CONSULTING GROUP (EARTH TECH) 720 SOUTH 333RD STREET SUITE 200 FEDERAL WAY, WA., 98003 TEL. # (206) 838-6202 PROJECT ENGINEER/CONTACT PERSON JOHN B. FRIEL JBMF CONSULTING ENGINEER P.O. BOX 27 EVERETT, WA., 98206 TEL. # (360) 659-4774 (RGVI5tD) RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA AUG 1 2 1998 PERMITCENTER PROPO5ED DEVELOPMENT PLAN PRD ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL FOSTER RIDGt. (AKA HaLW14 ADDmoN) CTIY OF TUKWILA .1.r -i r i rl.111 1111111.111 I l 11 1 1 F I 1 11111'1 11 0INCH . 1 • 2 3 CHINA 4 5 6 • ;'"±:•;'; • i . / / i �=_���\ 1 / / / �-r—=mac`-.-\\\15A7/.: �� �` • \\N-..._, b//i i /_ --`_ -i1-07-1 .11-1--.7.---7::::1\--;.‘\(\\: �-�`_ ��� i60 -•/ / �-�-'1_60 �`-fr_�-1-- -� �����\\�(_ // � _-; NKA\ \ 1 1\ (`/. ':: (, ' Itk \ Alr\\ \\)c. \\/\:.;r 10. 1\1\\ :\% r \ WETLAND AREA: TOTAL WETLAND AREA = 11,107 SF TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA PROPOSED = 32,145 SF LAND USE: ZONE = LDR, MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 6500 SF' PER TMC EFF. 12/4/95 ALLOWABLE MINIMUM LOT AREA = 5,525 SF AREA OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PUBLIC = 6,782 SF; PRIVATE = 7,100 SF EXISTING NUMBER OF LOTS = 18 - PROPOSED NUMBER OF BUILDING LOTS = 12 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 50' OPEN SPACE AREA: TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA = 32,145 SF TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA PROPOSED = 25.27% OF SITE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AREA FOR PRD 0 20% = 25,439 S.F. Ui1UfltS:.. WATER SEWER TELEPHONE POWER GAS OWNeR/APPUCAH1: • R. S. "DICK" PEDERSEN • PARKSIDE MANAGEMENT • P.O. BOX 1518 MARYSVILLE, WA., 98270 TEL. # (360) 659-0808 DRIVEWAY ACCESS • . FOR LOTS, 9 & 10.ONLY FROM SO.: 140Th •STRES;T.'. (FIELD TOPOGRAPHY & BOUNDARY) BARRETT CONSULTING GROUP (EARTH TECH) • 720 SOUTH 333RD STREET SUITE 200 FEDERAL WAY, WA., 98003 TEL. # (206) 838-6202. PROJtCT eNCJlefR/CONTAICT PfR50N JOHN B. FRIEL JBMF CONSULTING ENGINEER P.O. BOX 27 EVERETT, WA., 98206 TEL. # (360) 659-4774 A PORTION OF:GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION • 15,E TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 4 : EAST; W. M:, IN KING COUNTY, , WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED:, AS ; FOLLOWS: • LOTS`' 17 TO °27, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 1 AND LOTS .:;1;'TO: 7; INCLUSIVE,. BLOCK 2, HELLWIG'S ADDITLON`'TO . FOSTER, 'ACCORDING. TO<THE:"UNRECORDED; PLAT THEROF. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUN 0 3 1998 PERMIT CENTER �IIIII�I. j I I .LLilllililil�.I.I..�i T F 1iI1[1jl �I�j�I��tii�ijl 'I•'I'jijiji�'•I Ij jljl�l� l jii l 0 INCH 1 2 3' _•4 5 6 CHINA (PAVED) r s er4e'4r E.. 11,44 AREA OF SITE: 127,196 SF (2.92 AC) WETLAND AREA: TOTAL WETLAND = 11,107 SF TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA PROPOSED =,32,145 SF TOTAL AREA OF WETLAND BUFFER = 21,038 S.F. LAND USE: ZONE = LDR, MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 6500 SF PER TMC EFF. 12/4/95 ALLOWABLE MINIMUM LOT AREA = 5,525 SF. AREA OF RIGHT—OF—WAY PUBLIC = 6;782 SF; PRIVATE = 7,100 SF EXISTING' NUMBER OF LOTS = 18 PROPOSED NUMBER OF BUILDING LOTS = 12 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 50' WATER SEWER. TELEPHONE POWER GAS KCWD #125 KCSD VAL VUE USWEST CITY LIGHT PSE (WNG) OWNri/APPLIGANI: R. S. "DICK PEDERSEN PARKSIDE MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX . 1518 MARYSVILLE,- WA., 98270 TEL. # (360) 659-0808 (FIELD TOPOGRAPHY & BOUNDARY) BARRETT CONSULTING GROUP (EARTH TECH) 720 SOUTH 333RD STREET SUITE 200 FEDERAL WAY, WA., 98003 TEL # (206) 838-6202 PaoJtCT 11 1l1R/CONT/1CT PERSON JOHN B. FRIEL • JBMF CONSULTING ENGINEER P.O. BOX 27 EVERETT, WA., 98206 TEL. # (360) 659-4774 . .PORTION: OF GOVERNMENT LOT: 1:.SECTION 15, , TOWNSHIP `.23 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WA., IN KING .COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS "FOLLOWS: • -' LOTS 17 :TO.27,"INCLUSIVE, BLOCK=:1 AND LOTS :1 TO..7,'INCLUSIVE, BLOCK, 2, HELLWIG'S ADDITION, TO FOSTER,—ACCORDING TO THE'. UNRECORDED PLAT THEROF: ()INCH 1 2 3 CHINA •( ' • DATE MAY 1998 5 6 p 5' WIDE PEDEsi HIAN • WALKWAY TO' BE PROVIDED' W/IN 46TH ROW FROM 139TH TO, MACADAM RD. / / , ./ / / / ti. (PAVED) Rs40.5' / / ,.. / / / / / / / / /• / 245' . •/' N . /r / WETLAND AREA: TOTAL WETLAND AREA = 11,107 SF TOTAL OPEN SPACE AREA PROPOSED = 28,098 SF TOTAL AREA OF WETLAND BUFFER = 16,991 S.F. LAND USE: ZONE = LDR, MINIMUM LOT SIZE = 6500 SF. PER TMC EFF. 12/4/95 ALLOWABLE MINIMUM LOT AREA = 5,525 SF AREA OF RIGHT-OF-WAY PUBLIC = 8,883 SF; PRIVATE = 6,400 SF EXISTING NUMBER OF LOTS = 18 ' PROPOSED NUMBER OF BUILDING LOTS = 13 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH = 50' / / 55'. / / / 4 / / / / / ..t.? 5 , 4 / / / /a°: / . o / 6,573 dd F. . •I. / / / t' 1,./1',17.'7 • a . T, / / / TE •/ /"//'9'':=.. -k- �_\• ROAD '`rte" / / / \' A; tg\37 w .aid ea9 d .•,=,'. 16,991 S.F. yi- Yr' \� - •j!' � wetland e� ... ,Y.. yv I ^:.,.;ice OPEN iPACE---T,'_� \\\ I 28,098 S.F..: t1 l is x ;10V l' ununes: WATER SEWER TELEPHONE POWER GAS DRIVEWAY ACCESS ::FOR •Larp: 9'. & •10 • ;ONLY 'FROM. SO...140TIi;STREEr. .. OWNER/APPLICANT: R. S. "DICK" PEDERSEN PARKSIDE MANAGEMENT P.O.. BOX 1518 MARYSVILLE, WA., 98270 TEL. # (360) 659-0808 PROJECT SURVEYOR: (FIELD TOPOGRAPHY & BOUNDARY):. BARRETT CONSULTING GROUP (EARTH .TECI;I) 720 SOUTH 333RD STREET SUITE 200 FEDERAL WAY, WA., 98003 . TEL. # (206) 838-6202 PROJECT ENCVNEER/CONTACT PERSON'.: JOHN. B. FRIEL JBMF CONSULTING ENGINEER P.O. BOX 27. EVERETT, WA., 98206 `• TEL. # (360) 659-4774 :`A"PORTION "'OF "'GOVERNMENT LOT ;1; `SECTION • TOWNSHIP ';23' NORTH, ' .4 EAST, W.M , .IN KING .COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ,DESCRIBEDND AS.' FOLLOWS RANGE-' LOTS "17 TO 27, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 1;.'ALOTS 1 TO 7,' ILUSIVE, BLOCK 2, i.HELLWIG'S ADDITION TO ;FOSTER, ACCORDING TO'' THE UNRECORDED: PLAT ',THEROFi'' dynes e . " , DATE: APRIL 1997 riclriirimi riiilLi 1111111 IpI..lir I'L.L�i_i,Lil,i.l..l. ,l l.�.l..�.liiill:i_ .I, �.,.I IIIiIIIII 0INCH • 1 2 3 q • 5 6 . CHINA • 8 5 5 g. w JUL 12002 co!!!! it.!!s!risf• 15 1, 2 • \ DISCHARGE TO MACADAM ROAD STORM SYSTEM. `...., 1 1-' . ,.... .. ..--• • \ C.) ....' . <a: I .-:-.; 1 ... • ,- \ .... I ,,- • x -- • 1 7 (PAVED) !\ ,\PN /6. • 0 / 10 /• / 9 / /20 / 8 • -- APPROX. LocAnom 4' 0/ WATER MACADA ROAD (AWD) w • aS • \•\-1.‘a; -7* / 7 / / \\\ 3 z\. APPROX. S. 1 7. . . \ .. 140 • \ -- / SO. 137Th STAI SO. 139 so• FOSTER RIDGE SITE VICINITY MAP XM u. l•-lcor GRAPHIC SCALE 40 0 20 40 80 • ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 feet LAND USE IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUS TOTAL (ACRES) (ACRES) (ACRES) EXISTING CONDITIONS 0.00 0.78/ 0.78 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS 0.42 0.36 0.78 DETENTION DETENTION STORAGE REQUIRED: DETENTION STORAGE PROVIDED: 4,429 CF 4,480 CF WATER OUAUTY WATER QUALITY STORAGE REQUIRED: 2,395 CF WATER QUAUTY STORAGE PROVIDED: 2,427 CF OTR S AVED) APPROX. EXIS11 1 - 22° • 1,3 240 •••- rt • Call before you Dig. 1-800-424-5555 DESIGNED ALB DRAWN ALB CHECKED PDC SYIA REVISION DATE BY APP D Engineering • Planning . 'Surveying Penhallegon Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. 750 Sixth Street South Kikland, WA 98033 wwwwoceengre.corn PH: (425) 927-2014 1-800-945-8408 FAX: (425) 827-5043 Kirkland • Seattle' . Federal Way • ,CIe Elum • . Portland • R.e. pEDERSEN PARKSIDE MANAGEMENT PO BOX 1518 MARYSVILLE, WA 98270 REFERENCE INFORMATION FIELD BOOK: XX—X SURV. CPU F111: DATUM: NOVO 1929 SUPPL ADJ. 1947 DATE 'JULY 2002 1 SCALE 1."L40'. FOSTER RIDGE SUBDIVISION CONCEPTUAL STORM LAYOUT UNDERGROUND SERVICE (USA) • r1211269 '05/28/03 I Remus 01/18/03 I JOB NUMBER 98673.00 DWG NO. PB673scl1.dwg SHEET10F 6 01=14 1 2 • • 5 81 IA 11 00 ;;1.1.:, M. 6 8 z 0; b r 7 1 1 FILE NUMBER OR NAME OUT OUT TO FOSTER RIDGE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT