HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscSHORT SUBDIVISION NUMBER _____ _ SE l /4, SW l /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
i a:;
:,...
!:j
-.:i ' §/
:,... I ~
ki
t,:j
I
' ,,. I
' I
I
,,.
•• ,·
r
l$T-3.~·RICJttrOF
/31 WA.y0€ot6ino,.,, i 'L •
TAX PARCEL #3424059072
225.:ii
~!!_' Sl_QE!'._ARfl_B~l _
I...J ~ ,. .
LOTC 1~ ~~
17,lMSF la! ""!?
[G ls
1s7s!rievAA0BsBL ------.J ~
'11"2l'l9'E
243 !7
l~S~Y~ll~S!!L ii/% 16.79 tr
•I 7
l~f . ,., . ~
l' •' '-
LOT B
17,6B8Sf
-1~ siiiE Y.ii11:Dasei. -
1.f 1; ~
/~ Id',
_/~ ·• h Nl"2!'39'E J~·
2H.39
C
<
"r -e, s, ~,
/;/L
_15'.§:ID§_YA~!_~
LOTA
16,598SF
ls·sioE-v~oBSeC
224.03
-l
,1.
-_JftJ t~ t::-.
N1"l8'S3°E 3U.13(TOTAL)
TAX PARCEL #3424059016
t/!t
~
"
.!..!1:.R
Nl.21'~9"E S86.J6
TAX PARCEL #3424059117
311.20
NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION TRACT
11 S,60S SF ~
"
1~
~ •
TAX PARCEL
#0323059267
TAX PARCEL
#0323059164
I --r
FIElD LOCATED CENTERLINE OF
MAY CAEBC. (lf\0/2013)
NO CORNERS SET THIS VICINITY ----------------------~"~'~'~·00%~-----------;;,;;..;,,,i]l,-------------l "'
I
e
I
TAX PARCEL #3424059109
-iiiiioiii,-----Z-~"""""'.
'--"-~~ '" '" SCAtE: 1" ~ 40'
GOLDSMITH
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1115 it41l,,..,.,,Sf.Belicv<.:.WA~ I PO&,,cl~S.-.,,..W/198009
T 415 462 1000 F 415 462 n19 -~-.com
N ',AC~O\SURY[V\12\l 219G\12196X<l4.<hi,,g Erlu Malm 2013-03·07 2.H PM
N1"18'44"E 323.04 (II.U:818LEJ
ailv!<o.1£
··'"'\
,' ~ ()
TAX PARCEL f34~~o5'Utfolf:, ( .....
LEGEND
@ REBAR & CAP~fl AS PART OF THIS $HOl!.T Pl.AT
(L'i 29277,38984,23070)
Q RO REBAR & CAP FOUND (AS NOTED)
M4R
J 6 l!}!.f
\}{.,;1j!Q.l,!NDARY / NEW LOT LAYOUT
, -,II, ..• ,~.·
'MA\, VALLEY MEADOWS
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT
ITT Df IWffiltl KING COUNTY ~~!-
SOU. ,•-40' DAH. 2/1S/l01l JOB NO.: 121!1t; FID8~
PWM. iMA.LM a«:MWo.UGffi s.HEET: 3/6 ~·
I I
1 fill i, I• I I -
I
; .. ,, .i : ?
'! i
~ ·~
0
I ...
!' '
, __ _
3<-.. s;/---~~-<)---,,
.,..i. ,, • ~--. .....__',,
~ ·"'' ,.-',j -'. i
-----
On lJ ' '
! j ! 1~
1 1 '
1.
\"
T.·;:.~-~..:-::--:::;;,':T~. ==·"·-----~··--r '<C-.'
. ;;,--.--~:c-,-> ..... -· f-----
SHORT SUBDIVISION NUMBER SE l /4, SW l /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGES E, W.M.
------CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PROPERTY OWNER: MAY VALLEY MEADOWS, LLC
1215114thAven~S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone (425)462-1080
Fax (425) 462-7719
ENGINEER/SURVEYOR: GOLDSMITH & ASSOCIATES
121 S 114th Avenue S.E.
Bellevue, WA 98004
Phone (425) 462-1080
Fax (425) 462-7719
SITE DATA
TOTAL AREA 167,843 SF (3.85 ACRES)
PROPOSED LOTS:
ZONING: R-1
LAND ASSESSMENT
PROPOSED LOT AREAS·
WITHIN CRITICAL AREA
WITHIN BUFFERS:
WITHIN PUBLIC ROADS·
WITHIN ACCESS EASEMENTS·
PERMITIED DENSITY:
PROPOSED DENSlli':
DECLARATION
LOT A: 16,598 SF
LOTB: 17,688SF
LOTC: 17,164SF
TRACT: 115,605 SF
31,871 SF
77,304 SF
788 SF {TO BE DEDICATED)
0 SF
l DWEUJNG UNIT PER ACRE
0.77 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
KNOW' ALL PEOPLE BY THESE PRlSlNTS lHA 1' WE, THE UNUERS/GNED, OWNER(S) IN FEE SIMPLE Of
THE LAND HEREIN OESCRIBED 00 HEREBY MAKE A SHORT SUBDIVISION TttEREDF PURSUANT TO
RCW S8. 17.060 AND DECLAII.E THIS SHORT SUBDMSIDN TO BE TilE GAAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF
SAME. AND THAT SAID BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT IS MADE WITH TffE FREE CONSENT AND IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE OF THE OWNER(S).
MAY VALL.£Y MENX>WS. LLC
UY GOLDSMITH LAND INVESTMENTS, LLC
1TS c MANAGER
"' JOHN D. DULCICH. PRESIDENT
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
STATEOFWASHIN(;ffiN l
' " COUNTY OF KING l
I CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OI!. HAVE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT
SIGNW THIS IN~TRUMENT ANO ACKNOWU:OGED IT TO Bt: (HIS/Hrn)
FRH ANO VOLUNTARY A.CT FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENT!ONED
IN THE INSTRUMENT.
PRINTED NAME or NOTARY PU8llC
SIGNATUFIE or NOTAAY PUBLIC
DA.fED
MY APPOINTMrnT F,~PIRES
'i) GOLDSMITH
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1)15114thAv.S[.llellevve,WA9000'I I PO!lo>:JISS,l'lele,,.,Je,WA'l8009
r ~)5<167 1000 f4/54h7ITI? VW1Wg,:,l°""1,-.,~oom
M \llCA[}\~WYcV\l 2\l l19~\1219tiXC2.<lw\j [rte• Malm 2013-03-0$ ~:2lNA
APPROVALS
CITY OF RENTON
DEl'AATMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
GREGG ZIMMERMAN, OIIU'(T()R.
EXMIINED AND APPROVED THIS ............... DAY OF ..•.....•............................... , ZOl 3
"' . ADMINISTRATOR. PlANNING. BUILDING & PUBLIC WOltKS
EXAMINED AND APP!lOVED THIS.. . ...... DAY OF .. . .............• 2013
"'·. TAAJolWOIITATION sYSTI:MS MANAGER
KING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENTS
EXAMINED AND APPRO\IEO THIS .. ...... OAYOf .. •• 2013
" ASSESSO!I
BY:.
DEPUTY ASSESSOR
NOTES
1. t!ORIZONTAL OATUM: NAO 1983/91. aOUNDAllY INFORMATION SHOWN HfllEON REFERENCED
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
A) RECORD OF SURVEV AS RECOIi.OED IN VOLUMf. 65 Of SUINEYS, PAGE 171, RECORDS OF KING
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
i) RECORD Of SURVEY AS RECORD£0 IN VOWME 2S6 Of !iURVEVS, PAGE 073, 11.ECORDS OF KING
COUNTY. WASHINGTON
CJ HIGHIANDS AT Nl'WCASTLEACCQRDING TO TliE PlAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 204
OF !'I.ATS. PAGES 91-1 00. RECOR.OS Of KING COUNTY.
D> WGS SURVEY DATA WAREHOUSE.
E) KING COUNTY ASSESSORS MAP FOR SW 34-24-05
l. BASIS OF f'OSffiON IS TATE PI.ANE COOII.OINATES ANO CAOASTRAI.). HEW SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP ll NORTH. RANGE OS EAST (Al.SO KNOWN AS WGS SURVEY COl'ITIKll
POINT l70n. FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH 3/8" 8RASS PLUG WITH PUNCH IN CASE.
MONUMENT 15 LOCATED ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE Of THE 1'1.ATOF CALEIX)N ANO IS 1.0'
EAST OF TilE CENTERLINE OF 132ND AVENUE SOUTii EAST. OPl'OSITE THE soorn PROl'EllTY LINE
OF HOUSE "95SO, MONUMENT IS 1.0• BELOW GllOUNO. SEE WGS SURVEY DATA WAREHOUSE FOR A
MrntE OETAllEO DESCII.IPTION. NORTHING (FT).191241.843, EASTING (ffi:1311481. 147
3. BASIS OF BEARING (STATE PLANE COORDINATES AND CADASTRALI: HELD THE BEARING IIETWEEN
THE AIIOVI' NOTED BASIS OF POSmON ANO THE SOUTttlAST CORNER or SAID SECTION l4, ( AL.SO
KNOW AS WGS SURVEY CONTI\Ol POINT 3705). A FOUND STONE WI™ CHISELED "X" IN CASE TO 8E
N 88" 33'1 s·w PEIi DIRECT INVERSE. SEEWCS SURVE'f DATA WAREHOUSE FOR A MORE DETAILED
DE501PT10N. NORTttlNG (FT)' 191108.SBZ. F.ASTING (FT):1 ~16760.441
4. MONUMENTATION NOTED AS fOUNO WAS FIELD VIS/TEO ON JANUARY 08, 2013.
S. THE LEGAl OESCRIPnOl<I ANO EASf:Mfl'lTS Sl10WN HEREON A.RE PEIi. OLD IID'UBLIC TI TIE. lTD
!'I.AT CERTIFICATE ORDER NUMBER 5207110286 DATED FWUARY 8. 201 l, ANO SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMITMENTS THERETO. otlLYTHOSE EASEMENTS NOTED IN SCHEDULE B Of SAID RB'ORTTHAT
CAN BE PlOTTED ARE SHOWN HEREotl.
6. GRID DISTANCES WERE REUUCED TO GROUND DISTANCES USING A COMBINATION FACTOR OF
0.999985210. WHERE GRID DISTAMCE DIVIDED BY COMBINATION FACTal EQUALS GROUND
DISTANCE. THEREfORE THE ONLY TRUE WASHINGTON STATE PlANE COORDINATE !S THE BASIS OF
POSITION (STATE PLANE COORDINATES)
7) THAT PORTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY THAT IS OESCRIDED AS "THE CENTER.LINE OF MAY
CREEK" WAS CALCULATED U51NG TliE MIDPOINT OF THE FIELD lOCATED OIIDINARY HIGH WATER
MAAKS DEUNEATEO BY WETLAND RESOURCES INC.
8) THE SOUT11 II.IGHT or WAY MA~GIN FOR SE MAY VAi.LEY ROAD IS RASm ON rHE AlllM NOTFD
RECORD OF SURVEY (VOLUME 2S6, PAGE 071).
9) WORK Pf.llFORMEU IN CONJUNcnON Willi TlllS SU~VEY UTII IZED ONE OR MORE or Tlif
FOLLOWING SURVEY INS'\ll:UMENTS AND PROCEDURES·
11.ECORDER'S CEII.TIFICATE . SURVEYOll.'S (ERTIFICA TE
FllW FOR RKORO THIS ..... OAYOf
.• 20 ... AT .... MINIIOOK.
°'· ... ATPAG<. ATT!iER[QUl:STOF
HUGH G. GOlOSMITH & AS$0CtATE<;, INC
AUOITOR. KING COONTl' DEf'IJTY CO!l"ITY A.WITOR
TH~ MAP (ORREf:TIY R[PRFSFNTS A !URVfY MAD< IV
ME OR UNDER M\' OIRKTION l"I CONfORWl"ICl' WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS Of THE 5UMaV RKOO!l<NG "Cl Al TH>
ROC[U~T QfGQl.QS""T~ LAND IPNESTMl:'NTS. lLC IN
A. fl€LO TAAVEltS£ ANO/OR GLOBAL NAVIGATION !.ATELUTE SYSTEM (GNSS).
B. ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATIONS, INClUOING TOPCON GPT lOOS, TOPCON GTS-lC,
TOPCON GTS Bl SA. NIKON DTM--430 OR NIKON DTM-530.
C. LE!CA SYSTEM 300 GNSS EQUIPMENT
0. TOPCON HIPEll. llTE PLUS GNSS EQUIPMEN r.
E. TOPCON GR-l GNSS EQUIPMENT.
F. ALL FIELD TllAVEl\SE WOR~ COMPLIES WITH CURRENT ST ANDA.ROS AS OUTIJNEU IN WA{.
332-130-070, 080 ANO 090. ALL INSTRUMENTS MAINTAINED TO MANUFACTUREKS
SPEOFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY WAC 332-130-100.
10) VEl\TICAl DATUM. NAVO 19118 PER WGS SURVEY DATA WAREHOUSE.
MASTER BENCHMARK: WGS SURVEY DATA WAREHOtJSE (DESIGNATION llENT-#21113). FOUND 3"
BRASS DISK STAMPED '"CITY OF BELLEVUE OHl" SET ON TOI' Of CONCRm MONUMENT IN CASE.
MON\JM[NT IS LOCATED IN FRONT OF HOUSE #13905 ANO IS 2.0' SOUTH OF THE SOUTH EDGE OF
PAVEMENT OF MAY VALL['( ROAD (NAVO 191111) ELEVATION-31 S.55 FEET
SITE BM#l. GOlOSMITH WII.YEY CONTROL POINT MV"I -SET l'K NAIL ANO TAG IN THE NORTH
~HOIILDER Of SE MAY VAllEV llDAD 2.7' SOUTH OF THE NORTH EDGE Of ~AVEMENT AND+/-2]'
WEST OF THE WEST EDGE OF DRIVEWAY TO HOUSE ,1381 S. ELEVATION -114.l l FUT,
SITE BM#2: GOLDSMITH SURVEY CONTROL POINT MV"2 -SET REBAR AND CAP IN BACK YARD +l-
73• SOlfTH OF THl SOUTH EDGE OF ASPHALT ROAD AND +/-100• EAST Of A 6' WOOD FENCE
RUNNING ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY LINE. REMll.15 +/-3' NORIB Of TOPOf SlOPt:. HIVATION
a 299.98 FEET.
SITE BM"3: GOLDSMITH SURVEY CONTROL POINT MV"3. SET PK NAIL ANO TA.GIN BACK YARD IN
ASPHALT ROAD. Pl<. NAIL IS +/· 36• EAST OF 4• WlllE FlNCE RUNNING ALONG THE Wl:ST l!OUNCIARY,
211· SOUTH OF THE SOUTH EAST COIINER OF A SHED ANO s.o· EAST Of THE W£ST EDGE OF
PAVEMENT OF SAID ROAD. ELEVATION m 305.48 FEET.
11) PL.ANlMETRIC ANO TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHQWlol HEIi.EON WAS flELO LOCATED ON
JANUARY 8 11, 2013 AND IS CURRENT TO THOSE DATES ONLY. ELEVATIONS WERE TA.KEN ACROSS
THE SITT AND ARE AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY 8UT AIU NOT AU SHOWN HEREON FOR SAKE Of
CIARl1Y,
12) UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HEII.EDIII ARE PER A COMBINATION OF FIELD l.OCATtD
SURFACE OBSERI/A.BLE FEATUII.ES AND RECOIi.OS OF THE APPUCABl.E UlllfrY PURVEYOR. AU
LOCATIONS SHOULD BE VERIAEO PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.
13) WETLANDS AND OIi.DiN.UY HIGH WATER MARKS SHOWN WERE DEUNEATEO BY WETLAND
RESOURCES INC. AND WERE flELD lOCATIO BV GOLDSMmi AND ASS00ATES IN JANUARY 2013
14) FLDOO ELEVATION DA.TA IS BASED ON THE l'REUMINARY D-flll.M -PRELIMINAII.Y FLOOD
INSURANCE RAT!: MAP AHO FLOOD ~SUIIANCE STUDY KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. MAP
#53033C0669 K. PORTIONS OF SITE ARE DESIGNATED AS FLOOD ZONE "X" WHICH ARE AREAS
DEEMED TO IE OUTSIDE OF THE S00 YEAR FLOOD PLAJN AND ZONE "AF' WHICH ARE AREAS WHERE
TltE SASE FLOOD ELEVATION HAS BEEN OETERMINED. THE APl'ROXIMAT£ BASE HOOD ELEVATION,
TilE ELEVATION DEEMED TO BE TllE \00 YEAR FLOOD LIN£. EXTEND'; fl!OM ELEVATION 282 FEET
TO ELEVATION 288 FEET ACROSS TiiE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY AS DEPICTED ON FLOOD PIIOFILE
109P AS ASSOOAT£D WITH SAIO PRELIMINARY D-FlRM. TliE BASE FLOOD PI.AIN HAS NOT BEEN
FIELD VERIFIED AS PART OF THIS SUII.YEY.
RECORD MATTERS
11 EXCEPTION NO. 4 OF THE ABOVE NOTED PLAT CERTIFICATE IS FOR AN EASEMENTRECOR[lEO
UNDER RECal.DING NUM8El\ 30261 81. SAIO EASEMENT ESTABLISHES THE R!CHT TO MAKE
NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUT'i 011. me, UPON THE SUIIJECT PROPERTY ALONG THE STREET MARGIN
BUT CANNOT BE PLOTTED HUEON
l) EXCEPTION NO. 6 OF THE A80VE NOTED Pl.AT CERTIFICATE IS FOR A SENSITIVE AREA NOTICE
RECOIUJW UNDER RECOROING NO. 91 0225 I Sl0 ANO Yl030B0632. THE SlNSITIVE AREA NOTICE
NOT1FIE5 THE PUBLIC OF THE SENSITIVE AREAS ON TttE..lln;i,suT IT IS NOT A DELINEATION Of SAID
SENSITIVE AREAS. CONCURRENT WITH THIS SHORT SIJl9.Nj6JIN. CRITICAL AREAS HA\IE BEEN
IDENTIFIED ANO DELINEATED. THE SENSITIVE AREAS, A.IQ~ BUFFERS AND SETILA.C~, PER
Cl1Y OF RENTON MUNIOPAl CODE. ARE SHOWN UERE~. (.'
LEGAL 'i:-_,,_<,_ -tfi:,.,,
THE WEST UALF OF THE SOLITl-lEAST QIJARTER OF THE SOLITl-lEA~./~fElt,; ;/~(~T
QUARTER OF SECTION :i<I. TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH. RANGES EAST. W.M .• IN'Kltit(IQUNTY~--,f"-,
WASHINGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY or s.e. MAY VALUjJ.9AD (Al.SO KNOWN AS i~WSE
ROAOl; .'lf,4J.) I,
EKC£Pr rHE WEST 11 0 fl£T IN WIDTH ~V'.NG NORTHERLY.Or '1r/j.N~UNE OF MAY CREEK.
SITUATE !N THE COUNTY OF KING. ~~(~f-t~.l~GTON. !J
TRACT NOTES !([:___:.,ti' ... i,~ 1--~
NATIVE GROWTii PROTECTION TRACT: ~E~~n,'.6/~~(i~H 3 WITHIN THIS SHORT
Pl.AT INUUOE AN EQUAL ANO UNDIVIDED OWNERSHIP 1lirtgis r..TivE GROWTH
PROTECTION TilACT. AND AN EQUAL AND UNOMOl'O RESl'CIN 1'ftioJi .Tlit:¥AINTl'f,jANU or
SAID TRACT. : -,. :
MAY VALLEY MEADOWS
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT
ITY OF RDITON KlfolC CQIJNTY W.O.SHII
S(AL<:N/A ;,,;,~,. 2/11/201) '"l~~-N0-_:-1;,i; ""~
OWN:EMALM CHK. MMAUCD SHEET. 1/~ rt;#:
SHORT SUBDIVISION NUMBER _____ _
1/{JT V!SITH}
HEIDPFRPLAT
SEE /'/Off ,PC, SI/EH !/6 r ---~h,--/18e'f6'41'W 26~!~------.------,--------T-IJ2?44 I
I,
•":' '"' I
' J
' I
tL, ~:~ •r
~: +· :e N8B'Jll'll'W ,.,t------~--IJU62 -----
l/ '
' I .• 1, ,,
f:~ .,
I' 'I'
'
I
al ~:
I
'~ •• _ G6JJON88'Jl1'11°111 ~ fJU.6;,
6615
~ • _ ~=
'·'
'/" ,.
"' ~i •:
i~
/IMSTfl?IJII :
SEEN<JTf Ii I'-"' . ~,· "
33,t34 ---_ _,,,,_,, _______ le __ __._~,• JSITE L~,., i
~--N88"29'Je"W i'6JMJ -~---
n/0 CONC M<JN II'/ ,/8" 81?4S5
PLUG t/ Pll!K:/1 /N CAS(
/BASIS or f'0Sfflr1N/
NOT VIS1Tf0
HHQ~PlATl)f"
HIGHLAHD AT 1/EltCASTlE
CONTROL SKETCH
e
~ LEGEND
BM BENCHMARK
CONC CONCRETE
N fNl.l FOUND
~ MON ldOfflJMENT
0 200 400 800
..,-,11 ~ 1• • "''"'
GOLDSMITH
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
121 ', 1141h A.,._, 5E. ~-WA98004 I PO&,. 3S65. S.I.,.,.,.. WA 98(X)'I
T 41', !0) IOSO F ~25 ~~l 7719 wwwf)ld.nvd""'f:«c"',g.<om
•t \ACO.D\~UIIV['I"\ 12\ I 2\ 96\ l:l lUXOJ.d,;g Enc,, .... Im .1013-03-01 l 3l PM
SE 1 /4, SW 1 /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
1/IJrV/S/Tc()
HflJ) PER PLAT
Sff NOTE 1/C, Sllf:Er 1/6
-------------------N88"46'41'ff Z6J;>8! i
'
I
' I,
i!
ii
34 ,l.,s
-Nlll!"J6'Sl'W 26'15.60 -----------~
N98"JJ'/5'1# (RUIS ()F ~ARINt;) 5l6J./!Z ~ -{ 2
FNDSTONf W/
r;ff!SE:L£0 "X" IN CASI:
·::~(J,;, n-r
,,•,-
fi/11 ';
-,~~ l .5 tJl}
, .l_l_l-.i~."<S:,\~fil U~~ij·~;Ji!f1 ~~/.i\'l.}}~~ j. :\\ ;o, \\ "I ,x,~;;i \ • "'J .1.. , , -.. \.',\/.· _ Lit .. ·\-.:..1 .. /---././1 J · --\· . ·. . -\\ -· ·r .. _\ 1 "'"·-, ···</Js \
' '1~' ·.' 11lJ.\1 \) I \.· '\ lf1·1·;· j il·1··· \,.·I H .• ·.\.\ '. \ .. · .. '· L. '(.,\. ".//. · .. · -. •. \. .\ , i\l\\h IIJlll;\\'~n1f:J \'''<,)';, ') \\ / i \\ \/ I 15:'· ... J. \,1_--f·\:~-1 \'"' \'·\'"--:,_,, .
.11-· r · ) 1~r""u.;w,1,\>.1( •.•. 't<':\\ .. %.<. ;')_
11 :I I •. ' (1 ·'•{f VJ1i\~~Z\'ii<f',t,C,
I \~./. I /
1:j/.lJlii 1
~· w
1 ·1l1)],r.;,~".·~P¥r1r.1
l
,,i, ,,,1 I~ t: I, I -1· IT I. 11:"'.,1;'/"'i'.\, ~\ 1 .. J "' --] ··~· .. .1 · ·1--1 r l~fPII,, IL_~-~>,_--. _/
~/.1/.11i,l1j rf}1f1J1,~<:.,, · / .·.i·i. _\ I rl-,/1 (:! 111,11, )'-11.c \ _:ll 1,,,-· 1
· /1,r1ifi 1 .~,.,,I, 1Ji 1n0.1 • 1 , Ll' 1' :1111 i/11'ir'1!i i/, , 1.1 1 J;
1 Jltlll 1\lli\lJJJIJ[[f.///TI f\1 l''llj.J'll'f'~ J-1fl, ·ti!·,-l,ilij' \\1.1 'l: .·-.· ., _ rr:i.i:.1n11t,.,1:i, .111,.).'I ·.,,, (il:
·. lJw.l · j\\lY)IJlll•IJ,) ,J'/jl)ll11{!1,\JJll/v,(', J,l\\
11 J:IJ·~-. 1;,-~1/Y}lr1.1}, _i(:·--u,\Jd)\:x-·,--,/ 1 \.\'· -) ,, I,,. · -'::(.,. _·, , -I \_. 1,_ -/ _ ,._ . -, J , , -,
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
SURVEY CONTROL
MAY VALLEY MEADOWS
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT
ITY OF ~iNTON KltlGCOl.tlTY WIISHl~OI
SCO.U·1"•4DO" ] DATE:2/1S/201l IJOINO. 12196 I AOIII<
IJWN·£M.llM CH~: MMA.UGER I SHEET l/6 ~·
SHORT SUBDIVISION NUMBER _____ _ SE l /4, SW l /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
LEGEND ~·-w,
"" m
CON( ,~
" "' '" '"
CJ ••
6 ~-
,_
0 RU
'" _n_ ~,
e
SlNO-JMARK
MRl!ED WIRE Fri.CE
CENHRLINE Of DITCH
CIWNUNK FENCE
(ONCRHl
CORllttl!
EDct Of PAVEMENT
FENCE
GRAVEL
INTERSECTK)M
M/1.ILBOX
GOLDSMITH SV!lV~
CONTROL POINT
ORDINARY HIGH
WATER IMII.K
RUAR & CAP fOUNO
(AS NOTED)
RETAINING
""
/ l_
I ,,. TAX PARCEL #3424059072 TAX PARCEL 63424059117
'---~..-' ',,., ·~:,u,=-~_: __ -_-:_::__-~"1--'. : 0 J _I r I '>--J--.. )--',\ !'
~cf--------;:;-o I O 'V •=o=m , ' ,._
,-):(_ "' "<!l, 0 . lOCAT/ONOF/00 ~' "\ • ..........__ OF '
7' > 't · '~"" ~ I ='"=m , s,. \
1
sA~swPE'\.. W
Jl'lA?.t.rn;onaa PC/t/OVfO! '~~ . I ZONE ~En j ${%-!:§,'."
1
'·i")
T>Y POOCU< -<k., " . .----._ --,_,, ;\
u · ~ ""ft \ \i •..._ -f._-....,,.t' ZONE "X" (
TAX PARCEL #3424059016
TAX PARCEL #3424059109
ZONE'?("
,...._ SlrEB/ql
/-.:;, MV-1!
-W ~\~ )\ -_-_-, ,wwmAN°"'"' / ~ 1 / > """'7) I \
ti
1_o'
. El.EV•29999
'0 I
6' 'IO{!OFNC
SffNOTf#f ,.,,
~ ~""'4: -~
oo
\
\
I
i
I
l>.l'FROX/UATELOCAT/ON 4 /.'f,':·i'·f'·
OF 100 YEAR FLOODPIA/N h -· I
i :: ~t :_, .. ... ti
· .. -\ /' , /,,-APPfl.OXIMATEI.YIJ.O /
• __ '' ' // I. fl S!GNIFICANTTREES J :•, \_ , •• ;// S01.mf0F1'!1YCRffK / \~·i . -I~· (DJDNOTLOCATfJ II i/
• " \ / // '" _I I
' / .,. \ I / , I\/. ,' /'--. ' // I
;._.J<C_··_.:;,:;,: -._ ( '_ ' '\ ' J,~+s;' :,.~ / S'' , 2' \ L" . <-.= .' .•
\, '-s~ -, _I ~ /" -/i < " f':'~,;;. ·~ //'/ -' ---;:. .. ·1 ', ~ fl ;, / ~·· '·, "--<;._f ._-/·h "",...•1' -,, ,-...'I;;·-~------:;:;._--~ ~::/ ::,
·, ,'l. __ 'v / ""'"'"'"c:./ ,,,,~--F/8.D I DOI TlD CfNTFRl/NF
OFCRIT( /01/11/1013)
-/ /-........
-----
TAX PARCEL #3424059086
;::: ,
~ "b~
; OETENT/ON POND"'
-{0/D ,V(JT ~CCf$$/
/ [
9.8'N FNC
-iiiiiiit:--Z .I F-~~:·n·:~::-:-:1
.:.:!·.:·,
20 40 " '"
TAX PARCEL
#0323059267
:U'SFNC COR r-
-2.l'NINC
TAX PARCEL
#0323059164
= {II..LEl;//JlfJ
O.!'IIX O.tf
SCALE: l" -40' EXISTING CONDITIONS
... t.•
GOLDSMITH MAY VALLEY MEADOWS
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Ill I 11·11', Ave':J., llo1ovu<. WA9E!ClOI I POik»< l'iM, n,,11ev,,,,. WA9800'J
l ~lS1t,liCOOf11S4~llll~www~ng.cam
;\I;'>'_ '')'
:c \~i u _; !L_.1 ITY OF RENTON
~LEcl"m~O"
·~= WMHINGJ"O~I
OAH:l/l~/lOU IJOBOIO,; ll19~ FLDN<
M \hChD\SURV>Vlll\ ll1%\ll19&,o~.°"'1J ErluM.im 1013-0J-07 l.JJPM OWN. EMIIUI CH< MIMAUGR Sl<EEf· •16 ~·
SHORT SUBDIVISION NUMBER _____ _ SE 1 /4, SW 1 /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGES E, W.M,
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
-I
I
e
Ii I, /l3S• ' ' / / ,,. '•,, o * TREES rn BE RETAINED
)
/ l.r ~ "' I/ '",, Q9 ~ TREES TO BE REMOVED
..-;· / l '\ : ('
I :,, . . \ ,,.----~st.!16] l • ·:;,_c'/::, : . / : I 1 (' , , ', , , o , W•c, I 1 , ,
/ \ · , , 1 \ * il!ISQ r·-\,, · '0/ \ / /i'.: ·'.'s-. / , r ___ ...... :..x_
/ \' I / ,, LOTC lK?l~!JH ··-----··· ' · -' :-··~]( '>, , \ ,. / (',, i ~~-\._)Cx) ._.--------,,. ( / . -.'.'--li_ \ APPIWXINATf_/ J-., ) '· I
'·, . '!iitu"v:. ', 1 ,, __ , / · '. I.OCATIONOf/00 ,' ', I \ /
I \"· ~ i / / I .-™RFLOODPUolN '\ \
!
Sir£ BM/IA ' ft/Y-/
flfV•J/0 I 1
Sff'NOTEµ ~
' I
I
I
I \, ' ,' ! \ 4k,, i ''v:oNE.AE" :~o-', 1'------=EAOF~\
, -\ \ ~ I ;, ' -/ ~%:~ I STEEPSLOPE r ' I I ' " ' \ ', ·-.,_ ...,,, ' I · / --!-,,' ',, ) ~ ' " i ' . ..._, I "· NATIVE GROWTH ( ' I ' 'i'" I ---. ' "'~ r:,p J . . 1 ' l j \ ·1· I ''fy '>--y PROTECTION TRACT I I I v._ l 1,, 5w'! 1--·1 ZONE :X J\ I / I , ) . . . l
-'i 7F"-/ ,'11 ~ ; / / / '-., \ / \. .' / \ • • t 100 WITIANPfJlJffEII I
'I / /ir,._j / / LOTB /(i/!t!J=~~1BMP ·{. \ • ,'/ / )WE~/) I I
/ / ,-"',:1 , ELEV•l,j,98 \ \ ' ,,/' , • i/' ) I/ I
• 1 _/ ' SEE NOTE '6 / MV·lA ~> ~ / / -/ / APPROXIMATllr 130
_,.J t -'o,,. . / ' /· . ,,,, 5/CNIFICAIVTTf/(fS I I
/ / I S1ruJ1q3 q.<.t. .' I -. , soomOFMArCREEK I
/ , / 5/?155""'-··,,. _ 111r-3 .---~~ / / ~'"[', . ----// • / (Di{JNQTlOCATEJ 1 / 1 61!U-6 ~ / £LH•JOH8 / -...;:,__~ · , ,•;,··,. f • -10B£/l£TAINEO /
I / >.1
1 -52278 \ ' SEE NOTE 16 • / ':-..~-1--.. \ ···:·:.r.. / • / /
' 1 (' 5226/J"~ " ' ' .,.,_ , · / JI-': 1 /;;1, ,,,,~* * ~·-10 ~ LOT A \ 1 0 o -.:;;:1_ ... ·~ii·· .. -· :Y ,<'\ zoNE ·x· I/ 1 Ir fli-'1: 52219 52111 *ii ,'_) ··:.'i:,.'r~\-'}·~.---.-:~. , ,;"" \ I/ : ,: ,'<_ts· r·-----1.\Mv-lA e, _____ µ281! • ,\\.·,:;_ .:"-''.·\:· \ --.._, /1 I
c '/1) J > / ',rn, , c\"'\,j \ '\ ~-"" ,' / I !ff [D''\'" :; · ·..:~ , )-_ J, s,,:,.,. ;
i 1' !ir-' 0 \ \ o/'"-::--' / '-, / / "'""' ,/-/1 '. /1/' ' .fi..4Y / /, ',;,f;· ' -, __ ,,___ "' 1,, / -f, 1·
'i-----' ' ~1< """' / ' --, __ ....,_ •. ".<._ ,~ii .; , , ;" z c:==s JIPPIIOXIM4TElOCA770N '-·-----/-,,_ -...;_'-.. ,..i;_~ •
I I OFIOOl'EARFI.OOOPl.A/IV ,_ >,,....,,./ -~"):,,.._<.::. ~ I ------/ ~~ , O 20 40 80 120 I flf.LDLOC4TEDCTNTRIUNE /--.._ .;..;..,,, "'
I ---2S· SCALE: ]"R40' --..._ "
,
-/I r --~-~, --~~ ;' .
/ FIELD LOCATED TREES: '· TREE TABLE
FIELD LOCATED SIGNIFICANT TREES 17
(OUTSIDE OF CRITICAL AREA)
SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE REMOVED
REQUIRED RETENTION (30%)
SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE RETAINED
REQUIRED REPLACEMENT TREES
17
5
0
30
NOTE : 1 58 SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE RETAINED
WITHIN NATIVE GROWfH PROTECTION TRACT.
GOLDSMITH
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
I! I~ I l'llh -~. n.,llevl,e, WA WJ004 I l>O B<o< 3565. Belbue, WA9BOO\I
I 'llS-!6l lOOO r'il\4617719 wwwg,;,ld,milhcnp,<"""!1.(0ffi
POINT NUMBER
S2110
S21S2
'>21;3
12H4
121S'i
12276
122'7
52278
ll279
12280
12281
5228.2
12311
52363
52369
S2:170
52l71
f>IZl/rY!'la DRIP DIAMETER
12.FIR 24' DRIP
IS"FIR 30' DRIP
12" FIR 24' DRIP
18" ~NE 36' Ol!IP
10' FIR WORlP
24"FIR 48' Dl!IP
20· FIR SO'ORll'
N'FIR 50'0RIP
28" FIR 60' DRIP
TWIii! CEOAll 116".12"1 30' 01!11'
18"CEOM 30'0RlP
U"CEOAR 24'01!1P
DEC.Cl.U'-U'(8"".6".6"J 16' D!tlP
DECIDUOUS CLUMP 24"0RIP
TWIii! DEC. (6'.•") 20" DRIP
OKIDUOUI CLUMP 24' DRIP
12"FIR 24"DRIP
''"",5<,;n
MAIi I 5 20/3
,/Ji~_-, ( "\': i:. __ , f ;-
-.; '~-~---L(~/j jki'f_;·-.
TREE PRESERVATION PLAN
MAY VALLEY MEADOWS
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT
ITY OF RENTON ~!N~ COU~ WMHINGTOI
·~,,-~"(I' I DAH·ll•l/2013 IJOBOI0.:1219& I fll)~---····-
M \AC~D\SURV£Y1 I 111 , 19~\ I 219,;xtJl,d>og hl<a Malm 2013--\ll,07 2:l3 PM D'tffic£MALM Oik:MMAUC.ER SlllitT:S/6 ~,:
SHORT SUBDIVISION NUMBER _____ _
'/ // l TAX PARCEL #3424059072
Js•' /;' l/ I 2S•
I ,
/
' .-<, \
') \
' I HOll~f FOOTl'lll!IIT
,I /.t '·""" ""'! ,..
I.·
q '/ 6 /; Ji
I !/
.~ ! ( fl) ' "'~ !11 I
HOUSE FOOTPRINT
3,~26 Sf (20%)
(
....:, . I
::! I! , I
~·'
/) HOUSE rnOTPlllNT
3,ll6SF(2°") ::..~,f
I "
c,j ;' /. ..,_,, ' "','"' 7 I ( -J (-) V-2 / (/J·tf:f ()·· / I
e
/;• ~(/ /!
'I I I
,,. I
, 2s,
TAX PARCEL #3424059016
I
' -r
I
I
'" " SCAU,
TAX PARCEL #3424059109
z
80 "' ---1"•40'
GOLDSMITH
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
•l 1Sll~~,t,,.,;S{,!ldeYuc.WA~OOCl-1 I l'Olh<JS6S,~.WA~
T 471462 I~ H/S-1617719 www~com
M \,t,CAD\)l)R~lY\ \2\ 12196\ lll91iX07.dwg Ma Malm 201)-03-07 2 33 I"!
/ /
SE l /4, SW l /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGES E, W.M.
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
I
\
··--..
:009."
~-'ci.}uol'.__
OIUVE'WAY
TYPICAL 10'
LANDSCAPING PLAN
,0 " SCALE ,. -10' ----z~
(.';·I_}-n,t-' .. ,. ·-
.:., :1 t:.· .. , -,
R 1 .5 iD/3
0
0
LANDSCAPE PLAN NOTES/ SPECIFICATIONS
TREES
STREET TREES· BITTER CHERRY (PRUNUS [MARGI NATA) OR OTHER APl'ROVID TREE
SPACED 20' APART; 2" MINIMUM CALil'fR.
R£PlACEMENT TREES: WESTERN REDCEDAR (THU)A Pl.lCATA) OR OTHER APPROVE!> TilEE
!SITE INTERIOR} SPACED 20' APART; 2" MIN/MUM CALIPER.
LARGE SHRUBS -SPACED FOUR FEET TO TEN HET APART, ON CENITR·
0 PACIFIC RHODODENDRON !RHODODENDRON MACROPHVLLUM)
G MOCK-ORANGE (PH1lAOELPHUS LE'MS!I)
0 OCEANS PRAY (HOLODISCUS OISCOlOR)
SMAll SHRUBS -SPACED TWO FEET TO FOUR FEET APART, ON CENTER·
0 HYBRID MAMZANITA (ARCTOSTAPHYlOS JC. MEDIA)
(J LOW OREGON CRAPE (MAHOHIA NERVOSA) 0 EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY (VACCINIUM OVA TUM)
CROUNDCOVER -SPACED ONE TO THREE FEET APART, ON CENTER:
9" DEER FERN (Bl.ECHNUM SPICANT)
(.) CAMAS, CREAT (CAMASSIA LElCHTUNII)
co FAREWELL-TO-SPfUNC (CLARklA AMOENAJ
if COLDEN EYED CRASS (SISY11.1NCHIUM IDAHOENSIS)
TREES, SHRUBS ANO GROUNDCOVER PER KINC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND PARKS WATER AND LAND RESOURCES DIVISION PUBLICATION "GOING
NATIVE".
NOTE: THESE l'REUMl~RY sPECIFICATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE: FINAL LANDSCAPE
PLANS ANO l'I.ANTINC SPECIFICATIONS, INCLUDING Tll.EE, SHRUB AND CROUNDCOVl:.R
SELECTIONS WILL BE REVIEWED ANO APPROVED AT TIME OF ENGINEERING OR BUILDING
PERMIT APPROVAL.
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
MAY VALLEY MEADOWS
PRELIMINARY SHORT PLAT
IIYOF•Ufl"ON KING COUNlY WASIIINGT<
SCAU r~•I>'
DWII· EMAlM CHK; MMJ\\.11,!R
DATE,2/15/2013 1)081Kl .. 12_1_~ I FLDiio: I
SHE.ET:6/6 ~·
.... ...... ....
r
i!
! 0
'
' '
.m
dv'V\I A.11Nl81/\
-,
I
NGPA TRACT
115,605 SF
\
\
\
\
\
\
" > I
CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP
f38f5 SE MAY VALLEY ROAD
PORTION OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24, RANGE 05E, WM
~ ~
0:
SITE VICINITY
1f ilJ SE MAY VALLEY RD
w
0:
(.)
...J
<3
(.) APPROX. SITE
LOCATION
EX. BLDG
(TBR)
WA STATE. ROlliE. 900
...._
--·1 '-.
'-
j ;
I I
PROPOSED
LOT C
-------
100 FT BUFFER
1
.._ ____ EX. DRIVEWAY
(TBR)
~1----EX. BLDG
(TBR)
SCALE: 1" = 50'
I /...._ ® ---·-·-· -----··--· -~
\._ . '---·-· MAY CREEK. CLASS 2 STREAM
\. -··-·--··-
. --·-· "·· / )/
/·./
··/ ;/
//
/.I
-· ---.-.---·---·
CATEGORY 1 WETLAND
0 50 100
LEGEND
G WETLAND
/;; •
STREAM
BUFFER
NGPA SIGNS
/· .· /
I
I
I
I
I //,...,,;.,____STREAM B
. / CLASS 4 STREAM e@oATA POINTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.· ·; I.·
!(
I
' I I , I
I
I \ • .1
\ 35 FT \ \
\BUFFER \ \
100 FT BUFFER
/
/
/
//
-----------
I
/
I
I
I ~ .~~~~~,~~~'::!::'!~ ... "~'
9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washin!lton 98208
Phone: (425) 337-3174
Fax: (425) 337-3045
Email: mailbox@wetlandresources.com
\ \ \
\\ \ \ CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP
1.1815 SE MAY VAL.LEY ROAD \ \ \
.\
Goldsmith Land Investments, LLC
Attn: John Dulcich Sheet 1 /1
Drawn by: MK
Date: 02.14.2013
1215 114th Ave. SE
Bellevue WA 98004
May Valley Meadows
3 Lot Short Subdivision
Technical Information Report
February 2013
May Valley Meadows
3 Lot Short Subdivision
Technical Information Report
Prepared for: May Valley Meadows, LLC
February 2013
Job Number: 12196
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 Project Overview ................................................................................................. 1-1
Chapter 2 Conditions and Requirements Summary .............................................................. 2-1
Chapter 3 Off site Analysis ..................................................................................................... 3-1
Chapter 4 Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design .............................. 4-1
Chapter 5 Conveyance System Analysis and Design ........................................................... 5-1
Chapter 6 Special Reports and Studies ................................................................................ 6-1
Chapter 7 Other Permits ....................................................................................................... 7-1
Chapter 8 CSWPPP Analysis and Design ............................................................................ 8-1
Chapter 9 Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of Covenant.. .................. 9-1
Chapter 1 O Operations and Maintenance Manual ................................................................ 10-1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
TIR Worksheet
Site Location
Developed Conditions Map
Soils
Existing Conditions Map
Developed Conditions Map
FIGURES
EXHIBITS
APPENDIX
A. Geotechnical Report, ABPB Consulting, February 18, 2013
12196 Introduction TIR 02252013.doc
May Valley Meadows
Technical lnfonnation Repolt
1. Project Overview
Introduction
February 2013
The May Valley Short Plat is a proposed three lot short subdivision of a 3.9 acre site located at
13815 SE May Valley Road (APN 3424059099). The property is zoned Residential -1 dwelling
unit per acre. The properties located to the east, west and south of the site are also zoned R-1.
Properties north of the site (opposite side of May Valley Road SE), are located within the City of
Newcastle.
Project Description
The site is located within the May Valley Urban Separator Overlay. A cluster development is
proposed, with three residential lots having at least 10,000 square feet each. The remainder of
the site, approximately 70% of the project area, is proposed to be dedicated open space and
would include May Creek which is a Class 2 stream.
The 3.9 acre site is bisected by May Valley Creek. Other critical areas include a small Category 1
wetland located south of May Valley Creek; a small, unnamed Class 4 stream which enters the
site from the south and flows into May Creek; and also a limited area of steep slopes (over 40%),
located south of May Creek. These critical areas and associated buffers will be included within
the projects dedicated open space.
The site contains a mobile home and a metal outbuilding or shop. These structures will be
removed as part of the short plat. The proposed lots are located on the northerly portion of the
site, which gently slopes down to the south, towards May Creek. On the south side of May Creek,
the site slopes back up to the south. Access to the three lots is proposed by individual driveways
to each lot from SE May Valley Road.
Per the Pre-Application meeting held with the City of Renton, 3.5' of right-of-way dedication will
be required for SE May Valley Road. Improvements associated with the preliminary short plat will
be limited, as the proposed lots front SE May Valley Road. The project does not propose frontage
improvements to SE May Valley Road, as the surrounding roadway is not improved to urban
standards. The proposed short plat will remove approximately 17 trees in the northerly portion of
the site, while retaining approximately 158 trees within the dedicated open space. Improvements
for the three lots will occur outside of the required 100' buffer from the ordinary high water mark of
May Creek. The existing buffer of May Creek is wooded, with shrubs and grasses. Future,
proposed homes on the proposed lots would not obstruct views in the area. The site was
previously developed with a mobile home and large metal building, and a majority of the land
north of the site (across SE May Valley Road) is open space.
12196 Chaptenll TIR 02252013.doc 1-1
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 1 PROJECT OWNER AND
PROJECT ENGINEER
Project Owner May Valley Meadows LLC
Phone /425) 462-1080
Address 1215 114"' Avenue SE
Bellevue, WA 98004
Project Engineer Scott Kim P.E.
Company Goldsmith
Phone ""' '"_1,wn
Part 3 TYPE OF PERMIT APPLICATION
rii:I Landuse Services
Subdivison I Short Subd. I UPD
1:1 Building Services
M/F I Commerical I SFR
1:1 Clearing and Grading
1:1 Right-of-Way Use
1:1 Other
Part 5 PLAN AND REPORT INFORMATION
Technical Information Report
Type of Drainage Review~ Targeted
(circle): rge Site
Date (include revision February 2013
dates):
Date of Final:
Part 6 ADJUSTMENT APPROVALS
I
Part2 PROJECT LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
Project Name May Valley Meadows
DDES Permit# _,C"'i,,,ty_,o,,,f,,,Recen.,,t"'on"---------
Location Township 24 N
Range , "
Section _,e,3~4 ____ _
Site Address 13815 SE May Valley Road
Part 4 OTHER REVIEWS AND PERMITS
1:1 DFWHPA
1:1 COE 404
1:1 DOE Dam Safety
1:1 FEMA Floodplain
1:1 COE Wetlands
1:1 Other __ _
1:1 Shoreline
Management
1:1 Structural
RockeryNault/ __
1:1 ESA Section 7
Site Improvement Plan (Engr. Plans)
Type (circle one): ~ Modified/
m II Site
Date (include revision Fehnrn0: 2Q 13
dates):
Date of Final:
Type (circle one): Standard / Complex / Preapplication I Experimental/ Blanket
Description: (include conditions in TIR Section 2)
Date of Annroval:
06710-3 SWDM TIR Worksheet Ch.! 2009.doc FIGURE 1
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 119/2009
1
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 7 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Monitoring Required: Yes 1(§) Describe:
Start Date:
Completion Date:
Part 8 SITE COMMUNITY AND DRAINAGE BASIN
Community Plan : ---,--------------
Special District Overlays:------------------------
Drainage Basin: May Creek. Cedar River/Lake Washington Watershed.
Stormwater Requirements: -----------------------
Part 9 ONSITE AND ADJACENT SENSITIVE AREAS
eg River/Stream May Creek & Unnamed Trib.
D Lake
1:::81 Wetlands Category I Wetland
D Closed Depression _______ _
~ Floodplain Associated with May Creek
D Other ___________ _
Part 10 SOILS
Soil Type Slopes
Medium Dense, Coarse Grained Approx. 5%
iX'l Limited -SE portion of site
t;;i Steep Slope ---------
0 Erosion Hazard _______ _
0 Landslide Hazard--------
0 Coal Mine Hazard _______ _
D Seismic Hazard _______ _
0 Habitat Protection _______ _
D _________ _
Erosion Potential
Low
Saods and Gravels (Plaoned Development Area)
0 High Groundwater Table (within 5 feet) 0 Sole Source Aquifer
D Other 0 Seeps/Springs
D Additional Sheets Attached
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009
2
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 11 DRAINAGE DESIGN LIMITATIONS
REFERENCE LIMITATION I SITE CONSTRAINT
D Core 2 -Offsite Anal~sis
l]I Sensitive/Critical Areas
l]I SEPA
D Other
D
D Additional Sheets Attached
Part 12 TIR SUMMARY SHEET (provide one TIR Summarv Sheet per Threshold Discharge Area)
Threshold Discharge Area:
(name or descriotion-)
Core Requirements (all 8 apply)
Discharae at Natural Location Number of Natural Discharne Locations:
Offsite Analysis Level: c.J_J 2 I 3 dated: reoruary, ~vu
See Exhibit I -Existing Conditions Map
Fl ow Control Level: CJ.)' 2 I 3 or Exemption Number
fin cl. facilitv su mmarv sheet) Small Site BMPs
Conveyance System Spill containment located at: Not Appllcable
Erosion and Sediment Control ESC Site Supervisor: To be determined
Contact Phone:
After Hours Phone-
Maintenance and Operation Responsibility: ~I Public
If Private, Maintenance ' = Reau ired: Yes UNol
Financial Guarantees and Provided: Yes~
Liability
Water Quality Type: Basic I Sens. Lake I Enhanced Basicm I Bog
(include facility summary sheet) or Exemption No.
Landscaoe Manaaement Plan: Yes I No
Soecial Reauirements las annlicablel -
Area Specific Drainage Type: CDA I SDO I MDP I BP I LMP I Shared Fae. ~
Requirements Name: NIA
FloodplainlFloodway Delineation Type: Major I Minor I Exemption I None
1 DO-year Base Flood Elevation (or range): Eh:~ 282 to 288
Datum: NAVD 1988
Flood Protection Facilities Describe:NIA
Source Control Describe landuse: NIA
(comm./industrial landuse) Describe any structural controls:
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 119/2009
3
KING COUNTY, WASIIINGlON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Oil Control High-use Site: Yes (!:!£)
Treatment BMP:
Maintenance Agreement: Yes ~
with whom?
Other Drainaae Structures
Describe:
Part 13 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM ESC REQUIREMENTS
DURING CONSTRUCTION AFTER CONSTRUCTION
!RI Clearing Limits rsl Stabilize Exposed Surfaces
D Cover Measures ~ Remove and Restore Temporary ESC Facilities
lSJ Perimeter Protection ~ Clean and Remove All Silt and Debris, Ensure
D Traffic Area Stabilization Operation of Permanent Facilities
D Sediment Retention D Flag Limits of SAO and open space
lSJ Surface Water Collection
preservation areas
D Other D Dewatering Control
D Dust Control
D Flow Control
Part 14 STORMWATER FACILITY DESCRIPTIONS (Note: Include Facilffv Summary and Sketch)
Flow Control Type/Description Water Quality Type/Description
D Detention D Biofiltration
ii Infiltration Trench Infiltration D Wetpool
D Regional Facility D Media Filtration
D Shared Facility D Oil Control
D Flow Control D Spill Control
BMPs
D Flow Control BMPs D Other
!xi Other Exempt
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT (TIR) WORKSHEET
Part 15 EASEMENTS/TRACTS Part 16 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Q Drainage Easement CJ Cast in Place Vault
CJ Covenant l:J Retaining Wall
Q Native Growth Protection Covenant Q Rockery> 4' High
0 Tract l:J Structural on Steep Slope
0 Other CJ Other
Part 17 SIGNATURE OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
I, or a civil engineer under my supervision, have visited the site. Actual site conditions as observed were
incorporated into this worksheet and the attached Technical Information Report. To the best of my
knowledge the information provided here is accurate.
Signed/Date
2009 Surface Water Design Manual 11912009
5
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
FIGURE 2
NOTES:
I. ONLY CONCEPTUAL TESC /UTILITIES/ GRADING/ DRAHIIAGE
DESIGN ARE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.
2. CONSTRUCTION/ IMPLEMENTATION Of UTILITY CONNECTIONS,
DESIGN / CONSTltUCTION OF ON-SITE STORM DRAINAGE 8MP'S,
ANO INDIVIDUAL LOT GRADING WIU BE COMl'lETED AT THE
TIME Of FUTURE BUILDING PERMITS.
3. CONSTil:UCTION ENTRANCE IS NOT SHOWN AS EACH LOT WILL
BE CONSTRUCTED/ BUILT INDIVIDUALLY. ADDITIONAL TES(
MEASURES CAN BE PROVIDED AS DIRECTED BY THE INSPECTOR.
4. SURFACE RUNOFF FROM PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
INCLUDING DRIVEWAY ROOF AND PATIO TO BE DIRECTED TO
PROPOSED TRENCH INFILTRATION 5VSTrM.
EXTEND DRIVEWAY TO
EDCE OF PAVING {TYP.) --
S. SEE SHORT PLAT FOR LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION.
LEGEND:
--110-PROPOSED CONTOUR
--,o--PROPOSED STORM PIPE
___,,__ PROPOSED SANITARY SIDE
'""' --w--PROPOSED DOEMESTIC WATER
SERVICE LINE
11!1 PROPOSED WATER METl:R
-•--x-FILTER FABRIC FENCE
REUSE EX. WATER METER,
ROUTE NEW SERVICE LINE
AS NECESSARY
REUSE EX. SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE LINE,
ROUTE NEW SERVICE
i/1
'
•·--•=, LIMITS OF CLEARING AND
CONSTRUCTION LINE AS. NECESSARY ~
PAVEMENT RESTORATION
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
z
10 40
~
0 ~ ~
SCALE: I " ~ 20'
TYPCIAL PATCH FOR ~
R1G!O PAVEMENT
RESTORATION (TYP.)
INSTALL WATER METER,
ROUTE. SERVIC£ LINE A5
NECESSARY (TYP.)
INSTALL SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE LINE,
ROUTE AS NEC ESSA.RY
(TYP.)
"' 6 "' .
it
::f
§/ ,_
i/
/ t:.t.,.
l
/.
/
I' . ', 't. ,,.
.' ,' /i .. '·
' .
J
I i 11 11·· . .!l ·.1·., .I.·. f
, .. / / Ii · ,
! j :, /
( f~'-:
'.I.I" ',,) •
. , ,,,, ::;.-: ; '
~,,
e
GOLDSMITH
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
12rS1,1t1,1w,;Sc.ee.c"YUC.WA98004 I POSu,;lSe-$.8clk,,uc,WA98009
T 12516! IOSO F 1!516l n19 www
,o I
,0~ 11
Ck: . /!
!
'~ ~: ~:
~' ,! ,~, '' ,'
• I
SE 1 /4, SW l /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.
I
/
Cl1Y OF RENTON, KING COUN1Y, WASHINGTON
·-.
/
LIMIT Df CLEARING
AND CONSTRUCTION
(TYP.)1
i
' \
-r,:, -,)
.t(;}I
--1-
\\
PROPOSED HOUSE\ I
FILTER FA.BRIC
FENCE (TYP.)
/
I -/-
L. ·. :< .--------~ t
\.
., !,.
~
I~-
/~
~
i
3360 S,F ,
FF= 308.S
.· If-! .~
! •. I';.'.· .· . . ~"l"~. ',.,_"--f-,, I I" -; "'i !.., I , so·. ----_'; -J ----/---',.J,_., ,----..,.,, ·., I I I /
... •..; .,'!-Is ~ ;.,,. ' ' • , i / -i .... ,·~ ,; .• _,,., ·' ii O I I i i i
· , .r ·1 I ''I"" I . ...._____,_
I II ----f--+ n·, . ----f---,,--. ,-. -.. ' l I . I .. ,. I •I . .
/( O I I :· ol'[ i I /
\
I
LOTC
\17, 164 SF 7
I
./
N ·-
I! . , I \ . ' I
.// -/-----:-t-1L.-,.-f----t
I ,,,., ,· 'i•, )
I ,'/'"/"<' -/ j ./ I ----/ · .... I
/ ··1 PROPOSED ·HouSE , PATIO / LOT B
3~b0-SF-_.' ,; :'4S4 Sf/ , 17,688 SF
f~/= 307.~ ·c:.,'i,;;-,··-/ .' / I ( . ( I ;-'
I . _ -~80 --so --i-----so/--so -.s-o
. , , -~~--'/ _:'so·_/ , , .. , -~~ ·7 ------/---/--·,i ~ .. IVi ( " • • , %' I / I • \ •, ,,, " j C . . ,. I ';' . , . I
'''.;111 '· / · . · ,Y '.I!," -+ '--'--T ----
r~
t.
n1
1
~':
-~·
l
I
~
)
I
, I
\ \ ' '... ·. \ ~ '\ ..
. '
·,
\
'· i ..... I ..
, i
f -'r-il-... tt---. ' ~c-+---C .L ; I / ,,.: .-:.:::;;;--. ;1 · . ; . I
/ /, '"' e, •1•.,u,es i/ \ ',/
-----·---. ----~--\
,' / i
2'l<2'l<S0' L NG GRAVEL r :,;.-, . j I /
.• I ,;,· INFILTRATl N TRENCH '"~,/ / // -" / ~ '/I (TYP.) ··,/· c/ / /
,'
..•
\
)
\
\
' ;, :) ··~ .
---
,, / ~ ' I ,? ;·; / ' I
rPROe(:)SED HOd .--.' _. . . " '. / ' , ,J,•osr s; .,./"J ,}lr,o ·L'o • / / ff, I/ 1/ / I/I ,J 'Ff•j07:0 •. 41/4SF / TA / ff , / I/ / ·. --. 16,59'8 cl i'!.'' ,. I/
1
," 1,
1
J,.. . I, I ,, .· VI -if ,,...,, .• ,·, ·/.c',.5(1
1 ,/:7, '. ·._,; ;',, I . · .· / 1 ~I 1··· ·';/{,/ /! , ,_ .. :-
I
[
' :\}··
l
'
'l '.:·· I, t
I " q
II ~
I• ,, \t;i
. . I.[,
I
·''I •,N.~ • .-,,drf?'
1:,
i}
I:!
·,r,, I ~
' I
I ' '··'\ \ ',
\·:_1' . ,·\
' ·\
•I
\,
\.
'>J',,,
'!"·'
(
..... .,," t. .,,,,,. \'. ;r ·,
,,, ... ·t·~·;;:;J~;,'.'
11!3
/';, .
,.. -,,. ,\(r--/.1: .,-~ . :t-so-7',_ / h ' /1~\/,.; // ,/ I ,.,, • I& ---"' ,},/·,, -,d'.
:f-i----x--,-. ; \ . -..-I i -,.f ---.-!J / 1
/ / I/ ,,,,·~<f,,; :J-,
l . ' I .· . • • ' / I ' , . Y · r-. -~ A,,,, 1 . •=•CqlC• X' ¥ x--H+:t / < · ).. l .·: / b 1'..
1
. ..'/···
1
. . f '-t 'l . . !l\y-·
0
r ,-, "i .. ~J;;;-,;·:~ ' --.. ,...Ji Ii'; I I . '
·r, 7·{;' \
-~>'.. '-\
;~}OS·
.1,1.-1·.,:c ;-:.".'1 .. 1\
I
I
I I · r-7 .. / i co,,,aTo ,6o, ·· ·11
·' ii?··.,· , :, 11· ..'
'-::. --•L _1 ''; , 1 ;,,,, , , I 'r6~ ~"' r , L;-":1'·Y I ORAIN(TYP.) i ,;' ~1 H'--...,..,-ry ,,
' ;· 1' / ,1/1 ti, _ .. f/ '/'
... ' ; ! • -' /c >' I I / , / / / I F > /. < l. ' ~ / 1 ~~1 1 p ')1,',,,
EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS• AREA CALCULATIONS• ''"'.::,'.i,:J::.:;,;J;;,;! /,' f/ . / / / • , /; · ,· ~·-~ I .,,. / / • I , I.'.' ., CUT VOLUME
FILL VOLUME
NET CUT
= 1191 CY
-~-
= 243 CV
NOTE: EARTHWORK TO BE BAlANCED
OR RE-SPREAD ON SITE.
1 • SITE AREA:
LOTA
LOTB
LOTC
CA TRACT
TOTAL
16,861 SF
17,951SF
17,426SF
= 1151605 SF
= 167,843 SF
2. TOTAL AREA OF WORK~ 56,814 SF
3. LOT IMPERVIOUS AREA:
PA TIO = 484 Sf
DRIVEWAY = 1 044 Sf
HOUSE = 3360 SF
TOTAL = 4888 SF
: ,~ I j tt I l!
., f/,' / / ~ _,>,.; I i
/ ,,
'-, ; " .•.. ?\··
·/'" ' . ~-:,-----.~
I /
I I I i> I
..
l ,, '.
/ i
FIGURE 3
Pl.OTTI:O: lDll/Ol/01 ll:44 MAY VALLEY MEADOWS, LLC _IOBNO 12196
DRAWN: JCJ
DESl~NED: SK
APPflOVID· KIG
flH08(>()1(.
•=•
M;\ACAO\PlAT'S\ 1211 ll%\I l 1%8'.ll .,
PRELIMINARY GRADING, UTILITIES, AND DRAINAGE PLAN
FOR
MAY VALLEY MEADOWS
CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SHEET
C-1
47°3 1' 11"
47° 30' 55"
~
"' "' "'
563280
N
A
Soil Map-King County Area , Washington
(May Valley Mead ows -Figure 4 (Soils))
563360 563440 563~520 563600
Map Scale: 1 :3.550 if printe d on A size (8 .5" x 11 ") sheet.
-----=====----------=========Me1ers
0 4 5 90 180 270
-----=====---------========Fee1
0 150 300 600 900
563680
USDA Natural Resources = Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
5638 40 563920
563~760 563840 563920
FIGURE 4
a>
"' N
a>
"' N
2/27/2013
Page 1 of 3
47 • 3 1' 11 "
47° 30' 55"
USDA -
Soil Map-King County Area, Washington
(May Valley Meadows. Figure 4 (Soils))
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Units
Special Point Features
\..~J Blowout
1l!l Borrow Pit
* Clay Spot
• Closed Depression
X Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
li:ll Landfill
A Lava Flow
.... Marsh or swamp
>< Mine or Quarry
@ Miscellaneous Water
® Perennial Water
V Rock Outcrop
+ Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
-=-Severely Eroded Spot
{) Sinkhole
p Slide or Slip ,. Sadie Spot
ii Spoil Area
C Stony Spot
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Q) Very Stony Spot
t Wet Spot .. other
Special Line Features
Gully
Short Steep Slope
.,._,,. Other
Political Features
• Cities
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation ..... Rails -Interstate Highways
;'v' US Routes
Major Roads
/V Local Roads
Map Scale: 1 :3,550 if printed on A size (8.5" :,c 11 ") sheet.
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1 :24,000.
~-----------------~ -~
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line
placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting
soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale .
~----
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map
measurements .
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov
Coordinate System: UTM Zone 10N NAD83
This product. is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of
the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area:
Survey Area Data:
King County Area. Washington
Version 7, Jul 2, 2012
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/24/2006
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting
of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
2/27/2013
Page 2 of 3
Soil Map-King County Area, Washington
USDA -
Map Unit Legend
Age
AgD
AkF
Bee
Eve
Map Unit Symbol
Totals for Area of Interest
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
I
King County Area, Washington (WA633)
Map Unit Name
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. 6 to 15
percent slopes
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30
percent slopes
Alderwood and Kitsap soils, very steep
Beausite gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15
percent slopes
Everett gravelly sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent
slopes
I Acres inAOI
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
1
22.8
7.1
0.1
1.9,
31.6
63.5
May Valley Meadows -Figure 4 (Soils)
Percent of AOI
35.9%
11.2%
0.2%
3.0%
49.8%,
100.0%
2/27/2013
Page 3 of3
May Valley Meadows
Technical Infonnation Report
2. Conditions and Requirements Summary
February 2013
This report and the proposed infiltration facilities comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water
Design Manual (KCSWDM), and the City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWDM, Chapters 1
and 2, as adopted by the City of Renton.
12196 Chaptertl2 TIR 02252013.doc 2-1
,Way Valley :Ueadows
Technical Infonnation Reporl
3. Off-site Analysis
February 2013
A site visit was conducted on February 6, 2013 to observe and document field conditions of the
.25 mile downstream area from the site. Off-site observation was mainly performed from standing
along the west property line where May Valley Creek leaves the site and travels directly under the
newly constructed bridge over May Valley Creek (Coal Creek Parkway SE). The .25 mile
downstream flow-path from the site follows the May Valley Creek waterway in a westerly direction
toward Lake Washington.
Proposed flow control, full infiltration, complies with one of the most desirable flow control BMPs
because all the runoff from nearly all storm events is infiltrated into the ground without generating
any point discharge. Field observations, where possible, did not reveal any areas of significant
problems. Field observation at limited locations confirmed that the downstream path and
conditions are generally consistent without any reportable issues. This Level 1 analysis field
inspection did not reveal any apparent or significant problems in terms of hydraulic capacity,
overtopping or flooding, siltation, erosion, or damage within May Valley Creek.
12196 Chapter03 TIR 02252013.doc 3-1
May Valley Meadows
Technical Infonnation Report
4. Flow Control and Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design
Febroary 2013
The following provides design details for sizing of the required/proposed stormwater control and
water quality treatment facilities for the May Valley Meadows Short Plat. Proposed facilities
described herein will prevent any potential adverse impacts from the proposed development. The
City of Renton adopted the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual, with Amendments,
to meet the Washington State Department of Ecology's Western Washington Phase II Municipal
Stormwater Permit.
Per the City's pre-application memo, dated January 16, 2013, the project site falls within the Flow
Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. Below describes how Core Requirement #3 and
#8 are addressed.
Core Requirement #3: Flow Control
In order to comply with Core Requirement #3, this TIR follows Section 1.2.3.2 Flow Control
Facility Implementation requirements. Based on findings in the soils report, full infiltration is
proposed as the flow control method for the proposed development. Table 1.2.3.C Flow Control
BMP Facility Sizing Credits states that full infiltration design option can subtract impervious areas
that are fully infiltrated. Appendix C, Section 2.2 (Small Site Drainage Requirements) is used for
full infiltration as the proposed short plat is considered as a single family residential project subject
to full drainage review. Full infiltration means the use of BMPs that can fully and reliably infiltrate
runoff into the ground.
Core Requirement #8: Water Quality
In the 2009 KCSWDM, all projects must provide water quality (WO) facilities to treat the runoff
from new and replaced impervious surfaces. However, this requirement will be exempted as the
combined areas from the proposed driveways are approximately 3,132 sf which is less than the
5,000 sf threshold. Reviewing Section 1.2.8 of the 2009 KCSWDM, the proposed development
meets the exemption criteria set forth in "Surface Area Exemption".
Part A: Existing Site Hydrology
The proposed site is approximately 3.9 acres in size located off of SE May Valley Road. The site
is bisected by May Valley Creek flowing west through the central portion of the site. The north
area of the site is mostly cleared, with some trees, within the 100 ft creek buffer sloping gently
from the road toward the creek. This north half of the site contains a mobile home and a metal
building which will be removed as part of the development. On the other hand, the south half of
the site is generally covered with the second growth forest sloping moderately toward the creek.
The south half of the site contains a small Category I wetland and a small stream merging into
May Valley Creek. See Exhibit 1 for an existing conditions map.
Part B: Developed Site Hydrology
The developed drainage conditions are shown on Exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 shows the developed site
conditions including conceptual driveways, conceptual home foot-prints, and the approximate
location of conceptual patios. A detailed calculation of the proposed site's impervious areas and
the anticipated land use are shown in Exhibit 2, and further described in Part E of this section.
12196 Chapter04 TIA 02252013.doc 4-1
May Valley Meadows
Technical InfonnahOn Report
February 2013
Developed site conditions propose to collect and capture runoff from these impervious areas to
the proposed trench infiltration system to meet the flow control requirement.
AREA BREAKDOWN (See Exhibit 2)
Total Site Area: 3.9 acres
Critical Area Tract: 2.65 acres
Development Area: 1.18 acres (less the right-of-way dedication)
Development Area Breakdown:
Lot# Lot Area
A 16,598 sf
B 17,688 sf
C 17,164sf
Part C: Performance Standards
Flow Control Standard
Driveway House Patio
1,044 sf 3,316 sf 615 sf
1,044 sf 3,526 sf 380 sf
1,044 sf 3,418 sf 488 sf
Total
Impervious
Area
4,975 sf
4,950 sf
4,950 sf
As discussed above, sizing of the trench infiltration system follows Section C.2.2 Full Infiltration in
Appendix C of the 2009 KCSWDM. Section C.2.2 shows the minimum requirements and design
specifications for full infiltration of runoff from impervious surfaces.
The soils report, dated February 18, 2013, prepared by ABPB Consulting is enclosed in Appendix
A for reference. This soils report states that the medium dense coarse-grained sands and gravels
underlying the site are suitable for storm water infiltration. The report also noted that no
groundwater was found in the test-pits, to a depth of 9 feet.
Conveyance System Capacity Standards
Not applicable as full infiltration system is proposed.
Water Quality Menu
Core Requirement #8: Water Quality is exempted as the proposed pollutant-generating
impervious surfaces (PGIS) that are not fully dispersed are less than 5,000 sf, per the 2009
KCSWDM Section 1 .2.8.
12196 ChapterD4 TIR 02252013.doc 4-2
May Valley Meadows
Tech11ical bifomiation Reporl
Part D: Flow Control System
Design of Trench Infiltration System
F ebmary 201.1
Design Criteria: Per Section C.2.2.3, infiltration trenches must be at least 20 ft in length per 1,000
sf of impervious served. Assuming the estimated impervious area for each lot would not exceed
5,000 sf, the proposed trench infiltration system is approximately 100 ft.
Based on the above assumption and design criteria, two {2) 50 ft long infiltration trenches are
shown on Exhibit 2.
Part E: Water Quality System
As noted above, Core Requirement #8 is exempted.
12196 Chapter04 TIR 02252013.doc 4-3
NOTES
\. HORIZONTAL OATUM· r,iACI 19&3{91. llOUNDARY \NFO!lMATION SHOWN HEREON
REfERENCEO THE FOLLOWING INfORMATION:
A) RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED IN VOWME 65 OF SURVEYS, PAGE 1 71, RECORDS
OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
B) RECORD OF SURVEY AS RECORDED IN VOW ME 256 OF SURYEYS, PAGC 07], RECORDS
OF KING COUNTY. WASHINGTON.
Cl HIGHLANDS AT NEWCASnE ACCOI\OING TO THE PLAT TiiEREOF AS RECORDED !N
VOLUME 204 OF PLATS, PACES 91-100, REC OROS OF KING COUNTY
D) WGS SURVEY DATA WAREHOUSE.
£) KINC COUklTY ASSESSORS MAI' FOR SW 14-24-05
2. BASIS OF POSIT!Of<I (STATE PlAIIIE COORDINATES AND CAOASTRAL): HELD SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 2l NORrH, RANGE OS EAST (Al.SO KNOWN AS WGS
SURVEY CONTIWL PO!JiT 370n. -FOUND CONCAfTE MONUMENT WITH ~/&" BRASS PLI.IC
WITH PUNCH IN CASE. MONUMENT IS LOCATED ON fflE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF THE
PLAT OF CALEDON AND IS 1.0' WT OF THE CENTERLINE OF I 32ND AIIENUE SOUTH
EAST, OPPOSITE THE SOUTH PltOPERTY Lll>IE OF HOUSE f9S50. MONUMENT IS 1.0' BELOW
GROUND. SEE WGS SURVEY DATA WAREHOUSE FOR A MORE Off AILED DESOIIPTION.
NORTHING <m:191141.843. EASTIN(; 1m·1 ]11481.l 47
3. BASIS OF BEARINC (STATE PLANE COORDINATES AND CADAST~L). HEW THE BEAR.ING
BETWEEN THE ABOVE NOTED llASIS OF POSITION AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 34, ( ALSO KNOW AS WCS SURVEY CONTROL POINT 3705), A FOUND STONE
WITH CHls.ELEO ")(" IN CI\SE TO BEN gs• H'l ;• W PER DIRECT INVERSE. SEE WGS SURVEY
DATA WAREHOUSE FOR A MORE DETAILED DESCRIPTION. NORTHING (FTI:1 911 08.582,
EASTING (m:1316760.441
4. '-'ONUMENTATION NOTED AS FOUND WAS FIELD VISITED ON JANUARY 08, 2013.
;. THF, LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON ARE PER OLD REPUBLIC
TITLE, LTD. PLAT CERTIFICATE ORDER NUMBER 'i107110286 OIi.TEO FEBRUARY 8, 201 l.
ONLY THOSE EASEMENTS NOTED IN SCHEDULE B OF SAID REPORT THAT CAN BE PLOTTED
ARE SHOWN HEREON.
6. GRID DISTANCES WERE REDUCED TO GROUND DISTANCES USING A COMBINATION
FACTOR Of 0.999985210, wtlERE GR!D DISTAJIICE OlVIDEO BY COMBINATION FACTOR
EQUAl5 GROUND DISTANCE. THEREFORE THE ONLY TRUE WASHINGTON STATE PLANE
COORDINATE IS THE l!ASIS OF POSITION {STATE PI..ANE COORDINATES).
7) THAT PORTION OF THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY THAT IS DESCRIBED /15 "THE
CENTERLINE OF MAY CREEK" WAS CALCULATED USING THE MIDPOINT OF THE FIELD
l.OCATl:D ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARKS DELINEATED av WfTlAND RESOURCES INC.
8J THE 'iOUTH RIGITT OF WAY MARGIN FOR SE MAY VALLEY ROAD IS BASED ON THE
ABOVE NOTED REC ORO OF SURVEY (VOLUME 256. PAGE 073).
9) WORK PERFORMED IN CONJUNCTION WrTH THIS SURVEY UTILIZED ONE OR MORE OF
THE FOLLOWING SURVEY INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES:
A. flELO TRAVERSE ANO/OR GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATEUITI: SYSTEM (GNSS).
B. ELECTIIONIC TOTAL STATIONS, INCLUDING TOPCON CPT lOOS. TOl'CON GTS·1C,
TOPCON CTS 81 ~A. NIKON DTM-430 OR NIKON OTM-S30.
C. LEICA SYSTEM 300 GNSS EQUIPMENT.
D. TOPCON HIPER LITE PlUS GNSS EQU!PMENT.
E. TOPCON CR-3 GNSS EQUIPMENT.
f. All FIELD TRAVERSE WORK COMPLIES WITH CURRENT STANDARDS AS OllTUNEO IN
WAC 332-130--070, 080 ANO 090. ALL INSTRUMENTS MAINTAINED TO
MANUFACTURER'S Sf'EOFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY WAC 332-130-100.
10) VERTICAL DATUM: NAVO 19118 PER WGS SURVEY DATA WAR£HOUS£.
MASTER BENCHMARK: WGS SURVEY DATA WAREHOUSE (DES(GNATION RENT #2183).
FOUND 3" BRASS DISK STAMPED "CIT'/ OF IEUEVUE 0341" SET ON TOP OF COIIICRETE
MONUMENT !N CASL MONUM'i:NT IS LOCATED !Ill FRONT OF HOUSE #13905 AND IS 2.0'
SOUTH OF THE SOUTH EDGE OF PAVEMENT Of MAY VALLEY ROAD (IIIAVD 198Bl
ELEVATIOIII c 315.SS FEET
SITE BM#I: GOLOSMIT!i 5URYH CONTROL POINT MV'l -SET PK NAIL ANO TAG IN THE
NORTH SHOULDER Of SE MAY VALL.EV ROAD 2.7' SOUTH Of THE NORTH EOCE OF
PAVEMENT ANO+/-2)' WEST OF THE WEST EDGE OF DRIVEWAY TO HOUSE #1381 S.
ELEVATION~ 314.11 FEIT.
SITE B""'2c COLDSMITH SURVEY CONTROL POINT M\f'2 -SET REBAR ANO CAP IN BACK
YARD 1-/--73' SOUTH OF THE SOUTH EOG!: OF ASPHALT ROAD AND +/-100' EAST OF A
6' WOOD FEMCE RUNNING ALONG THE WEST SOUN DARY LINE. REBAR IS +/-3' NORTH Of
TOP OF SLOl'E. ELEVATION ~ 299.98 FEET
SITE !IMl3. COLDSMITH WRVEY CONTROL POINT MV"). SET PK NAIL AND TAG IN BACK
YARD IN ASPHALT RO/\D. PK NAIL IS +/-36' EAST OF 4' WIRE FENCE RUNNING ALONG
THE WEST BOUNDARY, 28' SOUTH OF THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF A SHED AND s.o·
EAST OF THE WEST EDGE OF PAVEMENT OF SAID ROAD. ELEVATION ~ 30S.48 FEET.
11) PlANlMETRIC AND TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON WAS FIELD
LOCATED ON JANUARY 8-11, 2013 ANO IS CUMENT TO THOSE DATES ONLY_
EUVATIONS WERE TAKEN ACROSS THE SITE ANO ARE AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY BUT
AR.E NOT ALL SHOWN HEREON FOR SAKE OF CLARrrY.
12) UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHO~ HERWN ARE PER A COMBINATION OF FIB.D
lDCATEO SU!IFACE OBSERVABLE FEATURES AND RECORDS Of THE APPLICABLE UTIUTY
PURVEYOR. ALL LOCATIONS 'iHOULD BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.
I 3) WETLANDS AND OROlNARY HIGH WAHR MARKS SHOWN WERE OELINEATEO BY
WETLAND RESOURCES INC. ANO WERE FIELD LOCATED BY GOLDSMITH Am> ASSOCIATES
IN JANUARY Ul13.
14) FLOOD ELEVATION DATA IS 8ASED ON THE PRELIMINARY D-FIRM -PRELIMINARY
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP ANO FlOOO INSURANCE STUDY KING COUNTY,
WASHINGTON. MAP #'iJ033C0669 K. PORTIONS OF SITE ARE DESIGNATED AS FLOOD
ZONE "X" WHICH ARE AREAS DEEMED m BE OUTSIDE OF THE ~00 YEAR Fl ODO l'LAIN
AND ZONE "AE' WHlCH ARE AREAS WHERE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION HAS BEEN
DETERMINED. THE APPROXIMATE BASE FLOOO ELEVATION, THE ELEVATION DEEMED TO
BE THE 100 ~R FLOOD LINE, EXTENDS FROM ElEVATION 282 FEET TO EI.EVll."llON 290
FEET ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY AS DEPICTED ON Fl..OOD PR.OFllE !09P M
/15SOCIAT£0 WITii SAID PRELIMINARY 041RM_ THE SASE FLOOO PLAIN HAS NOT BEEN
FIELD VERIFIED AS PART OF THIS SURVEY.
e
GOLDSMITH
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ll151111hAvoSE,lle-.O,WA'ijj()(M I F'Qflo>:3161.~.WA98009
T 12.1162 1080 F 4251617719 www.g,;,ld!'I~ com
RECORD MATTERS
1) EXCEPTION NO. 4 OF THE A!KM 11101 tD l'LA T CtRTlflCATE IS FOR AN EASEMENT
RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 3026181. SAID EASEMENT ESTAIIUSHES THE
RJGHT TO MAIIE Nt:CES.SARY SLOPES FOR CUTS Oil FILLS UPON THE SUBJECT PIIOPERTY
ALONG THI: STREET MARGIN BUT CANNOT BE PLOTTED HEREON.
2) EXCEPTION NO. 6 OF THE AIIOVt r«:>TEO PLAT CERTIFICATE IS FOR A SENSITIVE AREA
NOTICE RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 91 022'il510 ANO 91030ll0632. THE
SENSITIVE AREA NOTICE r«>TIFIES TiiE PUBLIC Of THE SENSITIVE AREAS ON THE SITE, BUT
ff IS OOT A DELINEATION OF SAID SENSITIVE AREAS. CONCURRENT WITH THJS SHORT
SU6UIVISl0N, CRITICAL AREAS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFlfD ANO DELIH£ATEO. TH£ SENSITIVE
AREAS, AND REQUIRED BIJFFERS AND SETBACKS, P!:R CIT'/ OF RENTON MUNICIPAL COOE,
ARE SHOWN HEREON.
SE 1 /4, SW l /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
LEGAL
THE WEST HALf OF THE SOUTHEAn QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER. OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF S.ECTION 34. TOWNSHIP 24 NORTI-1, RANGE 5 EAST, W.M., IN
KING COUNTY, W/15HINGTON, LYING SOUTHERLY OF S.E. MAY VALLEY ROAD (Al.SO
KNOWN AS THOMAS ROWSE ROAD);
EXCEPT THE WEST 110 FEET !N WIDTH LYING NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF MAY
CREEK.
SrTUATE IN THE COUNT'/ OF KING, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
TAX PARCEL #3424059072
i
w-;q_ ONii:-_7'.~~~:.>{ ~ ~
<//
//.-,-------. \\ ' (
,' ~ ./ --
. lltCC!.P I
,' . 1"21'19E S86.!6 ::C·
I r ,' r-· -;~---i ,, ____ 24'1)111/' \
-1 , y \
/ \ t
r·----l!~~<J
/ .,>'
rll=.' ·.' ''/,V','J I
:}::;_,,
', JJ1"DS!lf0
'"'
----iiiiiiiiii:'---Z
" SCALE:
i / /,---,,, ,/ ',,,;_ !:"/
I J i O r~/Jf:' \ ··--·::;: -I , • /& .4, . .---••
I \ /·po'Dflli' J.-' i. ~ '•,,f._/ / .
g i / /
PARCEL #3424059099 / \ cl MJ'Oml'/ 1 TAX
' . ~,i,,; '
13815 SE MAY VALLEY ROAD \ l,· 16 .::::,-zy:. ;~:;:IP: AtoCLP
RENTON, WA 98059 \ .Jc'l)lltP '·>, \o"l.ll'c ~· ,s'/JR/f'
', j / ,~'30'[)(/11' ,\ &"AUl-._(
', ·, rrno,,,.7(fl'\·: I\ i/0'()111!>"
• 9~ ,1,
~
/
/
I
/
f--,,O<C CL!' itQ ,e',G',61
\ ,.W.f!Rit!.
·-,{I! 11;i:·g;;;, __ )\ \ / \ ~w;:: ..
' .. ) ' ; rm,7: /1\ / \ / \ 9'AiJ '\, i \ // •; SO'DR~ii< '-t---t ___ >{ \ 4i·:;: ::..2 BMft \ \ -----( \ \_,;; ~:::c:.
flel/~9.tNI "' ""',<>,,, \ ~ ---~-::~{ •
/'
/
,,e '. 'W-' _,,o "'" --
/ ~ ,.,,_" '\"'') ) F ,' ,' /~~? _, ""
I,,,,-----,,,\ //
lncCLP o o
(&"5f.0"4"4' 0 '
I JO DI/fl' I ,
i
i
\ L.,, i '•,,,7
1 NJ"!8'53"E 343.13
,' 20·,111
§' ~i." 40' Df/lP Yi
/ ' I
I /
60 " --1" • 30'
flfWLOCATED'
OF CREEK (0 II I
TAX PARCEL #a424059109
PLOTTED, 20!3/03/07 l~:l2 EMALMI
DRAWN. £MALM
DESIGNED:
APP!l0\1£0· MMAUGEJI.
fl8.D800Kc
PAGEft:
M:\AC.o.0\SU.VW\12\11196\12196)((\6.,
-------,,,\
\
\
i
LEGEND
,w
0G
~ .. -"" cw
m
m
""" ,~
'" ,.,
ill ™
~
-6-'"
""'
·.
,w .. '"' GRAVEL
BUILDING '"' INTERSECTION
B(NCHI\IIARK CJ "' MAILBOX
BARBED WIRE FENCE = MAPLE
CEDAR 6 ~-GOLDSMITH SURVH CONTROL POINT
CENlcRLINE OF DITCH O><WM OftOINARY HIGH WATER MARK
CIWNLINK FENCE 0 "" REBAR II, CAP FOUND (AS NO TEO)
CLUMP m RfTAININC
CONCRETE _n_ "" SIGN
COIINER ® '"" SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
DECIDUOUS "" "'" TREe Oll!P L!NE DIA'-'ETER m T'IPICAL
ELECTRIC METER -0-"' UTILTYPOU
EDGE Of PAVEMENT !ll •• WATER METER
FIRE HYDRANT 0 wse WATER SP!GOT
FENCE M w; WATER VALVE
TAX PARCEL #3424059117
i
r ·.1)
i,I
I///
///t> I
.. 'T '/' I / / \ /
'1-··/.' y '. ' ' / I ·, / /, < . i//
/;-( .
-,
//I:
" i
'' I
/ I
/
ea
~ .,,
r;,
" '" '"
"" 0
1':l
" 0
"' "' N a,
"
"':~11, K«;.%,
i '-.;; •.
·x lJ' r:-
I / tt~~-;,:~ -
', >
.,./'
l
'+-\
OC~IITl(JNPQ}I!) ,,.-:...._ .• \
f{Jl(}l«JrACCCSS/ '<>.i-\
'\_
/ \ I
r _,r
•' .... _ '
~~0--,,,---7
= /11.i.E/il/Jlf/
Cr"N~O.l'f
ea
~ .,,
~
"' '"
"" 0
" N
" 0
"' "' ~
"' ..
EXHIBIT 1
MAY VALLEY MEADOWS, LLC
TOPOGRAPHIC EXHIBIT
FOR
JORN() 12196
HtElT
MAY VALLEY MEADOWS, LLC
1/1
1381 5 SE MAY VALLEY ROAD, CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
NOTES:
1 _ ONLY COl'KEPTIJAL TESC / UTILITTES /GRADING/ DRAINAGE
DESIGN AAE SHOWN ON THIS Pt.AN.
2. CONSTRUCTION/ IMPLEMENTATION OF UTILITY CONNECTIONS,
DESIGN / CONSTRUCTION OF ON-SITE STORM DRAINAGE !IMP'S,
AND INDIVIDUAL LOT GRADING Will BE COMPLETED AT THE
TIME. OF FUTURE BUILDING PERMITS.
3. CONS.Tl!.UCTION ENTRANCE IS NOT SHOWN AS EACH LOT WILL
8E CONSTRUCTED/ 8UILT INDIVJDUA!.LV. ADDITIONAL TESC
MEASURES. CAN BE PROVIDED AS DIRECTED 8\' THE INSPECTOR.
4. SURFACE RUNOFF FROM PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
!NCLUDING DRIVEWAY ROOF AND PATIO TO 8E DIRECTED TO
PROPOSED TRENCH INFILTRATION SYSTEM.
5 SEE SHORT PLAT FOR LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION.
LEGEND:
---,.o~-PROPOSED CONTOUR
EXTEND DRIVEWAY TO
EDGE OF PAVING (JYP.)
----5D-PROPOSED STORM PJPE
RE.USE EX. WATER METER,
ROlJTI NEW SERVICE LINE
AS NECESSARY ----------..__
-SS-PROPOSED SANITARY SIDE ,,.,,,,
--w--PROPOSED DOEMESTIC WATIR
SERVICE LINE
11'1 PROPOSED WATER METER
-•--x-FILTER FABRIC FENCE
.. .._ _...,. ~ .... , LIMITS OF CLEARING ANO
CONSTRUCTION
PAVEMENT RESTORATION
j:.'.::·· :-I PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
z c::::s
10 40
,0 60
SCALE: 1" ~ 20'
REUSE EX. SANITARY
SEWER SERVICE LINE,
ROUTE NEW SERVICE
UNEAS. NECESSARY~
TYPCIAL PATCH FOR / / ~
RIGID PAVEMENT ~/ L_
RESTORATION (JYP.) -
INSTALL WATER f.1ET£R,
ROOTE SERVICE LINE AS
NECESSARY (TYP.)
INSTAU SANITARY
SEWER S.ERVICE LINE,
ROUTE AS NECESSARY
ITTP.)
e
GOLDSMITH
LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
121Sll4thAwS£.BeleYu,,,WA'!aro! I l'Olk»:3S65,Betewe.WA9800':I
T '125 462 1060 f 4!54617719 www.g_.._-"
I
I t /t'
I
/ t~ I:
///
// ,/
I.' I
!';J ,,i, '" .! .~/H (~"n/,.; ·,,
SE 1 /4, SW l /4 SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 24 N, RANGE 5 E, W.M.
CITY OF RENTON, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
-...J
/
LIMIT OF CLEARING
.
AND CONSTRUCTION
(JYP.)1
"_J,,,,,,,,
-·--.I ---·r--·
,-,r::i"li
FILTER FABR~~
FENCE (TYP.) -/
\
·~ 'I [ . Jr/ ~.---'-Jl~ i't(,..,.I "'.._''.''· ',JI • j l -•--x · n 1 ' '"-.,,,, ""'?,.1rr) ,
I !," -~-'";'.:';:!-/ ! ! ', • . r~ 4·,~i//P , /--/,0:__"11,,f ( ' ------, ~ ._ -----,c_:r r-1· / i / i.{,.
\cJ
//:J
I
,·-; ....
,-.
,' . ...
\
\
·\
-... ef : i -~-~~ij; 2-r ;/.,.,,,/-,\(~-,. ' • ft ,, ' " .,.,, ,,\ ' ' ' ' ' '"' ' J' / ·-•·\ \ \ / 'y ;;,,, c· ,..-) :Z'rit ~ f., -,//"' \ I._\
;,.::,t,~,-:,
'.:' I ,. I 1.\
I ,\
---...
'
.1F-">"O):J.U1 re Lele .. r•ON or
'!!U YtAP.ti.UODI'/ 1/•I'
' I PATIO/\ ' \ LOT '" .,;, "''j ' ~' rj' > --~" \ \ PROPOSED HOUSE. \. . \ 484 Sf \1 7, 1 64 SF (' ._ 1 ~ / : ( , I
O
""""' ,,,;-\ \ t -,
3360 S[ \. I \ \ I ~ I . ,.,,,, / I \ -FF• aqa.5 I \ \ \ --so--/--,, I "";'''' / I :
' . ' i I SOr---\SO I -.::--,,,j___ '· "' ~c, l ' '
I
''•• '"---.• 'h•,., ""
. , ,, _ ---\-,-;' I, '--~''Y'< ,,,A-1 --',;,,,. 1)
~~fk~l!fJ~1;&;J/~/-·1-.,7--~r1-1 1 , .-,_.,, "'r· '~----·,·, ·
' ., -.,. " ' ' ''
/ n / "' -+---~, . . "" • \ --. , ' "
-!c-:-~ ... • r' //__.----., ;·-;<
)
I --
('
:<i·: -~
1
1_,,,,, /'/, I L --1--t---· j -_ I .. :i,1!;'.\ ':'(/ '·"'_," 'i'). _ ~-,-
/
, ... ,, . --I -/ ,f" ·-·1· r-1.::i:;;,;, )'· 'i ~-~', .. !) , o. I //
----I ' , ' ' ' ' , -----, ' -I ' ' -H ', . ' ' ,,, ' ---I. , ··"' 1 i' ___ ,_ -; -/,----1 ,,," ji 1,J -· ,,::;;;,,1 ·1 ,, ~-/
I
; .,, , , -----,,~,J,-"> · , " ' i ' 1, (
-·--I V' (y . I; I ! !I , 'I I / ,;·:~.:l /'t "'" I ! I I --·-/ ii I f I '\ l i •'1 .: -•I---~ .J I . ,
1
// I ,-' ·; • !-LO,T B I I 3 /. . I \. ' '" '(l,• .
' ' ' '' ' -~ ' .d •• " ' ' \'
PRO~g~~~~? -.~· '_//. <' '"' ~ i "l ' , i c J •,-:;, \, \ c : " '" p , -: ; _, r:w~cc·~ I "•·/0'-~-"1,vl ·,-; ,./_., ,,
1
~-" "~' ·---._ ~ [/ . I ,i,,,,_. ''"" ( 1,t '---so-----sol/_ --// ',, "'---.._ '1 ,,(1
' . ' • j ' j, . 1--' --·, . . ' ,
" /, ---,, • --i'; /' ,,, .. ,, """'-
~~'
__..?~fl
I
\.
/
W,>,;,
(J;· Sf/'{/C IAh'>C
;,(
~t'l\·
CtF•
r----"1
\,_./
J". / LL------'"
H ' V/_______,, _:_ }1if;} ... ,.... " ,i , .. / /ijJ_L ~ ---_-~ i. ;' I -----,w--,fl. ,.,,..,,-~ ~';-;';~,:,--~~-~ / I . .', -_ ,,~~:}~;,1 . <. /1!:
-LL_L -1 -, f -, , / ',; ,, 4-<,f I , .{;i/7,;\;
. -~ ,: / t. 0 r . , /,, "' V, ·,,'5 ,_<"' •\ ~~~ en 1, ',}z ! ,/ i'1' •
" ' , u !a '7" ,' --,· , • • A I ' .
,
1
-;;~VV' f' 1 '
0
cl< f/•Y; t \ /;,,.r ,,. .. j ---. • ·/'°--. , ·-"''· " d',• ); \ M"' C/"1-K l ,;/ ..-;_ '•. ' '
L
i1£---T, ,'· '"'"'\1
·' " fl
~ "'
r· -(,./!1~,~'";'
I !! I I · (_ . .. ,,,,)M,<
17
L . .r (;[/.\-.
''°"'
"',,, ............. ~
~ _JL .J 7),'.'{t:o
--;, ( /'·
-·~-,.._ EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS:
CUT VOLUME
FIU VOLUME
NET ClJT
= Jl91 CV
= .MUY_
= 243 CY
NOTE: EARTHWORK TO BE BALANCED
OR RE-SPREAD ON SITE.
--.--
-.·ww,·,-·( I ') ', '---.,/
I CONNECT TO RboF
DRAIN (JYP.) /
AREA CALCULATIONS:
1. SITE AREA:
LOT A ~ 16,861 SF
LOT B 17,951 Sf
LOT C = l 7,426 SF
CA TRACT = 11 S1605 SF
TOTAL = 167,S43SF
2. TOTAL AREA OF WORK -S6,B14 SF
3. LOT IMPERVIOUS AREA:
PATIO
ORIVfWAV
HOlJSE
TOTAL
~ 484 SF
= 1044Sf
~ 3360SF
= 4B88 SF
I
-.,;;,·ur"
)::·i,./;·1 .,.,__, ' ;.;:-;,,.
I ' "''" \ \,.c~."2 ! (~-, •!, -11~"'•7~ •• ·--(\1"1 /
1
If' c" ~/,.>II,' on,,;,.,. f, /I ~ ;::~?;~r /' \ I I l
,o·mn
1
' .. ,)7 , , ', -ry \ / ,' ( \ / \\11 r I ( ' "'"" , ,, . .,,,,,. 'I . I I /' ,.,,,,,.,_,, . • • \ ' , • ' .-I ' I I / / ~ ~ 1;·"'' /;/ . _.!, "'" ' . .\ ' ; -, / I " , " . . , --I , . i. , .
ca~souo ----"'l/, 1/_; >•~. I J :. / ' \ (\ // /\ \\,/ i 1;
-/~ .l.f f-I • I -•,, ..
~
. " ,,,, ·;t /· .' h , · ··,r 1 ,m,uu,w, ',,f;,,,,, -·"" ,..._, I \ \ I I \ ''!
"'""·' _, "': ti ·. ·· --·\ I I ;· J '1-
: I . --.--! I I ). I ,. I I I ! (
' ! I I I ' n l f / u j f . ~
?r," .-..
EXHIBIT 2
PLOTTED: 1013/03/01 ll:H Jl"'C< MAY VALLEY MEADOWS, LLC JOBNO 12196
DRAWN: JCJ
O~!Gf>EO SK
APPROVED: l(JG
FIELD 100~
P.-\Gt;t:
1.1:\ACAD\Pi.ATS\ 12\ \ 1196\ 11196E01,0W(;I
PRELIMINARY GRADING, UTILITIES, AND DRAINAGE PLAN
FOR
MAY VALLEY MEADOWS
CITY OF RENTON KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ss=
C-1
May Valley Meadows
Technical lnfonnafum Report
5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design
February 2013
This section of the report is not applicable as full infiltration utilizes infiltration of runoff into the
ground. Runoff from the proposed impervious suliaces will be captured and conveyed to the
proposed trench infiltration system so that all runoff from nearly all storm events is infiltrated into
the ground as shown on Exhibit 2.
12196 ChapterlJ5 TIR 02252013.doc 5-1
May Valley Meadows
Technical Jnfonnation Report
6. Special Reports and Studies
• Critical Area Study, Wetland Resources, Inc. -February 2013
• Geotechnical Report, ABPB Consulting -February 2013
12196 Chapter06 TIR 02252013.doc 6-1
February 2013
May Valley Meadows
Technical Infonnation Report
7. Other Permits
The May Valley Meadows 3 lot short subdivision may require these additional permits:
• Preliminary/ Final Short Plat
• City of Renton Engineering Plan Approval
• Building Permits -Residential
• Possible ROW Use Permit
• Demolition Permits (by Owner)
12196 Chapter07 TIR 02252013.doc 7-1
February 2013
May Valley Meadows
Technical Infonnation Reporl
8. CSWPPP Analysis and Design
Part A -ECS Analysis and Design
Purpose and Scope
February 2013
As stated in the King County Surface Water Design Manual, "The purpose of erosion and
sediment control (ESC) is to prevent the transport of sediment to streams, wetlands, lakes,
drainage systems and adjacent properties." This section of the TIR outlines the site specific
strategies to minimize erosion and transportation of sediment throughout construction of the May
Valley Meadows Short Plat.
ESC Implementation Requirements
The May Valley Meadows Short Plat erosion and sediment control implementation requirements
are detailed below by construction sequence, ESC measures, inspection and maintenance
contingency plan, and final site stabilization. These requirements, accompanied by the ESC
Plans, shall serve as the principle guidelines for control of erosion and sediment transport.
Construction Sequence
The following is a construction sequence which identifies required ESC measures and
implementation requirements. Although site specific, the construction sequence is general in
nature. This provides the owners and the City of Renton some flexibility while still achieving the
intent of the ESC requirements.
Construction Sequence
1. Hold the pre-construction meeting.
2. Post sign with name and phone number of ESC Supervisor (may be consolidated with the
required notice of construction sign).
3. Flag or fence clearing limits (limit of disturbance/grubbing) and sensitive areas.
4. Install catch basin protection in existing structures, if required.
5. Grade and install on-site construction entrances as shown on ESC plans.
6. Install perimeter protection where specified on ESC plans and/or required by the inspector.
7. Construct sediment trap, if required by the inspector.
8. Grade and stabilize construction roads.
12196 Chapter08 TIR 02252013.doc 8-1
May Valley Meadows
Teclmical fofomration Report
Febn,ary2013
9. Construct surface water quality controls (interceptor swales, cut-off trenches, check dams,
gravel filter dikes) simultaneously with clearing and grading for project development.
10. Maintain erosion control measures in accordance with City of Renton standards and
manufacturer's recommendations.
11. Relocate erosion control measures, or install new measures so that as the site conditions
change, the erosion and sediment control is always in accordance with the King County
Erosion and Sediment Control Standards.
12. Any areas of exposed soils, that will not be disturbed for seven (7) days during the dry
season or two (2) days during the wet season, shall be immediately stabilized with the
approved ESC methods (e.g. straw, wood fiber mulch, compost, plastic sheeting or
equivalent).
13. Stabilize all areas within seven (7) days of reaching final grade.
14. Seed, sod, stabilize, or cover any areas to remain unworked for more than 30 days.
15. Upon completion of the project, stabilize all disturbed areas and BMP's removed if
appropriate.
The construction sequence is supported by the following ESC plan notes.
Erosion and Sediment Control Notes
1. Approval of this erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan does not constitute an
approval of permanent road or drainage design (e.g., size and location of roads, pipes,
restrictors, channels, retention facilities, utilities, etc.).
2. The implementation of these ESC plans and the construction, maintenance, replacement,
and upgrading of these ESC facilities is the responsibility of the ApplicanVESC Supervisor
until all construction is approved.
3. The boundaries of the clearing limits shown on this plan shall be clearly flagged by survey
tape or fencing, if required, prior to construction (SWDM Appendix D). During the
construction period, no disturbance beyond the clearing limits shall be permitted. The
clearing limits shall be maintained by the ApplicanVESC Supervisor for the duration of
construction.
4. Stabilized construction entrances shall be installed at the beginning of construction and
maintained for the duration of the project. Additional measures, such as constructed wheel
wash systems or wash pads, may be required to ensure that all paved areas are kept clean
and track out to road right-of-way does not occur for the duration of the project.
5. The ESC facilities shown on this plan must be constructed prior to, or in conjunction with, all
clearing and grading so as to ensure that the transport of sediment to surface waters,
drainage systems, and adjacent properties is minimized.
12196 Chapter()8 TIR 02252013.doc 8-2
May Valley Meadows
Technical lnfom1ati011 Reporl
February 2013
6. The ESC facilities shown on this plan are the minimum requirements for anticipated site
conditions. During the construction period, these ESC facilities shall be upgraded as
needed for unexpected storm events and modified to account for changing site conditions
(e.g. additional cover measures, additional sump pumps, relocation of ditches and silt
fences, perimeter protection, etc.) as directed by the City of Renton.
7. The ESC facilities shall be inspected daily by the Applicant/ESC Supervisor and maintained
to ensure continued, proper functioning. Written records shall be kept of weekly reviews of
these ESC facilities.
8. Any areas of exposed soils, including roadway embankments, that will not be disturbed for
two (2) consecutive days during the wet season or seven (7) days during the dry season
shall be immediately stabilized with the approved ESC cover methods (e.g., seeding,
mulching, plastic covering, etc.).
9. Any area needing ESC measures, not requiring immediate attention, shall be addressed
within seven (7) days.
10. The ESC facilities on inactive sites shall be inspected and maintained a minimum of once a
month during the dry season, bi-monthly during the wet season, or within twenty-four 24
hours following a storm event.
11. At no time shall more than one (1) foot of sediment be allowed to accumulate within a catch
basin. All catch basins and conveyance lines shall be cleaned prior to paving. The cleaning
operation shall not flush sediment-laden water into the downstream system.
12. Any permanent retention/detention facility used as a temporary settling basin shall be
modified with the necessary erosion control measures and shall provide adequate storage
capacity. If the permanent facility is to function ultimately as an infiltration system, the
temporary facility must be rough graded so that the bottom and sides are at least three (3)
feet above the final grade of the permanent facility.
13. Cover measures will be applied in conformance with Appendix D of the Surface Water
Design Manual.
14. Prior to the beginning of the wet season (Oct. 1), all disturbed areas shall be reviewed to
identify which ones can be seeded in preparation for the winter rains. Disturbed areas shall
be seeded within one (1) week of the beginning of the wet season. A sketch map of those
areas to be seeded and those areas to remain uncovered shall be submitted to the City
inspector for review.
WET SEASON NOTES
Wet Season Special Provisions
1. The allowed time that a disturbed area may remain unworked without cover measures is
reduced to two (2) consecutive working days, rather than seven (Section D.3.2).
12196 Chapter08 TIR 02252013.doc 8-3
May Valley Meadows
Tech11ical lnfonnation Report
Febmary 2013
2. Stockpiles and steep cut and fill slopes are to be protected if unworked for more than twelve
(12) hours (Section D.3.2).
3. Cover materials sufficient to cover all disturbed areas shall be stockpiled on site (Section
D.3.2).
4. All areas that are to be unworked during the wet season shall be seeded within one (1) week
of the beginning of the wet season (Section D.3.2.5).
5. Mulch is required to protect all seeded areas (Section D.3.2.1 ).
6. Fifty (50) linear feet of silt fence (and the necessary stakes) per acre of disturbance must be
stockpiled on site (Section D.3.3.1 ).
7. Construction road and parking lot stabilization are required for all sites unless the site is
underlain by coarse-grained soil (Section D.3.4.2).
8. Sediment retention is required unless no off-site discharge is anticipated for the specified
design flow (Section D.3.5).
9. Surface water controls are required unless no off-site discharge is anticipated for the
specified design flow (Section D.3.6).
10. Phasing and more conservative BMP's must be evaluated for construction activity near
surface waters (Section D.5.3).
11. Any runoff generated by dewatering may be required to discharge to the sanitary sewer
(with appropriate discharge authorization), portable sand filter systems, or holding tanks.
12. The frequency of maintenance review increases from monthly to weekly (Section D.5.4).
Critical Areas Special Provisions
1. Whenever possible, phase all or part of the project so that ij occurs during the dry season. If
this is impossible, November through February shall be avoided since this is the most likely
period for larger, high-intensity storms.
2. All projects shall be completed and stabilized as quickly as possible. Limiting the size and
duration of a project is probably the most effective form of erosion control.
3. Where appropriate, sandbags or an equivalent barrier shall be constructed between the
project area and the surface water in order to isolate the construction area from high water
that might result due to precipitation.
4. Additional perimeter protection shall be considered to reduce the likelihood of sediment
entering the surface waters. Such protection might include multiple silt fences with a higher
AOS, construction of a berm, or a thick layer of organic mulch upslope of a silt fence.
12196 Chaptenl8 TIR 02252013.doc 8-4
May Valley Meadows
Technical lnfonnatiOn Reporl
Maintenance Requirements
February 2013
During the wet season, weekly reviews shall be carried out every six (6) to eight (8) calendar
days. During the dry season, monthly reviews shall be carried out within three (3) days of the
calendar day for the last inspection (e.g., if an inspection occurred on June 6, then the next
inspection must occur between July 3 and July 9), reviews shall also take place within 24 hours of
significant storms. In general, a significant storm is one with more than 0.5 inches of rain in 24
hours or less. Other indications that a storm is "significant" are if the sediment ponds or traps are
filled with water, or if gullies form as a result of the runoff.
ESC Measures
ESC measures represent Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the control of erosion and
entrained sediment. This section details the BMP's to be followed throughout the construction of
the May Valley Meadows short subdivision.
1. Clearing Limits: Prior to any site clearing / grubbing or grading, areas to remain
undisturbed during the project construction shall be delineated. Temporary orange silt
fencing shall be placed at the edges of the sensitive area buffers and shall remain in place
until construction activities are completed. Permanent sensitive area / wetland signs shall
be installed along the sensitive area buffers.
2. Cover Measures: Temporary and permanent cover shall be provided where necessary to
protect disturbed areas. Temporary cover shall be installed if any areas is to remain
unworked for more than seven (7) days during the dry season (May 1 to Sept. 30) or for
more than two (2) days during the wet season (Oct. 1 to April 30), unless otherwise
determined by the City. Any area to remain unworked for more than 30 days shall be
seeded or sodded, unless the City determines that winter weather makes vegetation
establishment unfeasible. During the wet season, slopes and stockpiles 3H:1 V or steeper
with more than ten (10) feet of vertical relief shall be covered if they remain unworked for
more than twelve (12) hours. The intent of these measures is to prevent erosion by having
as much area as possible covered during any period of precipitation.
3. Perimeter Protection: Perimeter protection to filter sediment from sheet flow shall be
provided downstream of all disturbed areas. Silt fencing shall be used as primary
sediment treatment, along the site boundary and sensitive area buffers. Installation of the
silt fencing shall occur prior to any upstream grading.
4. Traffic Area Stabilization: Unsurtaced entrances, roads and parking areas used by
construction traffic shall be stabilized to minimize erosion and tracking of sediment off-site.
5. Sediment Retention: Runoff control for clearing and grading is based on the Rational
Method holding the 10-year developed discharge (the 10-year flow rate analysis is based
on 15-minute intervals).
6. Surface Water Control: Interceptor swales shall be constructed to collect and convey
surtace water runoff from disturbed areas. Gravel check dams shall be installed in the
interceptor swales at appropriate intervals in the swales. The cut-off trenches will
discharge into gravel filter dikes prior to release into undisturbed areas.
12196 ChapterllB TIR 02252013.doc 8-5
May Valley Meadows
Technical lnfomiation Report
February 2013
9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, and Declaration of
Covenant
Not provided for short plat application. These will be provided during the engineering design
submittal.
May Valley Meadows
Technical fofomiatimr Reporl
10. Operation and Maintenance Manual
February 2013
Operation and Maintenance Manual for the private, on-site infiltration facilities is not required.
12196 ChapterJO TIR 02252013.doc 10-1
Appendix A
Geotechnical Report ABPB Consulting,
February 18, 2013
ABPB CONSUL TING
GtEOTECHNICALfEARTH SCIENCES
ANIL BuTAtL, P.E.
PAUL BoNtFAct, P.E.G.
Mr. John Dulcich
Goldsmith Land Development Services
1215 -1141h Avenue SE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Subject: Geotechnical Report
May Creek Short Plat (#12196)
13815 SE May Valley Road
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Dulcich:
12525 Willows Road. Suite 80
Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone:425-820-2544
Fax 206-418-6448
February 18, 2013
Project No. 1358
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject
short plat project in north Renton, Washington. The attached report presents our
findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and
construction.
SUMMARY
Our field exploration indicates the planned building areas of the site are generally
underlain by medium dense to dense native glacial outwash sands and gravels. No
peat or other compressible soils were encountered in any of the test pits on the north
side of the creek in the planned lot areas. No groundwater was encountered at the
time of exploration in the test pits which extended to a maximum depth of nine feet
below the existing ground surface.
In our opinion, the site conditions encountered are suitable for the planned residential
short plat development. The undisturbed native soils are suitable for supporting the
proposed residences, provided the recommendations presented in this report are
incorporated into project design and construction.
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Some localized site soils encountered in the upper foot or two are fills and contain
excessive amounts of fine-grained material. These soils are moisture-sensitive and may
not be suitable for use as structural fill during the wet winter months.
The near surface soils are generally granular and moderately well drained. We have
not been provided with stormwater detention/disposal details for the project but some
infiltration of roof runoff is a potential option for the proposed lots.
The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into
project design and construction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A proposed lot layout has been developed for the site and is shown on the Goldsmith
Land Development plan dated February 1, 2013, which was used as a site plan for this
report. This plan indicates that the north side of the property, north of the creek, will
be developed into three residential lots. Based on the site plan, these lots will be
located between Elevation 300 and 315 feet. The lots will be set back at least 100 feet
from the May Creek channel passing through the south central side of the site near
Elevation 286 feet. Lots A, B, and C will encompass about 17,000 square feet. The
south side of the irregular shaped property includes some steep slopes and wetlands
and is not included in the current development plans.
Detailed building plans for the residences have not been prepared. However, we
expect the new residences will have conventional spread footing foundations and
concrete slab-on-grade garage floors. Building loads are expected to be light, on the
order of one to two kips along building walls and 10 kips at columns. We expect that
new houses will be two-story wood frame construction with no basements and that the
ground floor level will be established at or near the existing grades.
The preliminary recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are
based on our general understanding of design concepts provided by our client. When
actual layouts have been prepared, we should review them in order to modify our
recommendations as required.
SCOPE OF WORK
We excavated five test pits on February 13, 2013, using a small backhoe. The test pits
were dug to a maximum depth of about 9 feet below the existing ground surface.
Using the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, to develop
geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 2
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Specifically, this report addresses the following:
• Site Hazard Evaluation
• Soil and groundwater conditions
• Site preparation and grading
• Foundation design
• Slab-on-grade floors
• Storm water Infiltration Assessment
• Drainage
• Utilities
It should be noted that the recommendations outlined in this report regarding drainage
are associated with soil strength, design earth pressures, erosion and stability. Design
and performance issues with respect to moisture and seepage as it relates to structure
environment (i.e., humidity, mildew, and mold) are beyond the scope of our study. A
building envelope specialist or contractor should be consulted to address these potential
issues.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The property is an irregular shaped parcel located along the south side of the SE May
Valley Road in north Renton, Washington. The approximate site location is shown on
the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The property measures about 586 feet in a north-south
direction and is between 225 and 329 feet wide in the east-west direction. May Creek
flows down to the west through the south central portion of the 3.85 acre property.
The area north of the creek in the planned development area covers a gently sloping
plateau area between Elevation 300 and 315 feet near the road, based on the
topographic survey. The area south of May Creek includes streams, slopes and some
wetlands.
The northern development area contains some cleared land and includes a small
shop/shed and an old residence (#13815 SE May Valley Road). The land slopes gently
southward down to the creek from the road. No ponded surface water or flows were
noted in this area during our site work. Surrounding properties include large single
family residential sites to the east and west of the subject property.
A small depression exists in the southern portion of the planned Lot B. Based on our
conversation with a nearby resident, it appears that there was an old pool in this area.
The pool was apparently constructed by lining an excavation with corrugated sheeting
and placing a plastic liner on the sides and bottom. The pool area was reportedly
backfilled many years ago.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 3
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
On February 13, 2013, we conducted our subsurface exploration by excavating five test
pits with a small backhoe. The test pits were dug to depths of up to 9 feet below
existing grades.
The approximate test pit locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan, Figure 2.
The test pit locations were approximately determined by pacing from known landmarks.
The Test Pit Logs are presented as Figures 3 through 7.
An engineering geologist maintained a log of each test pit as it was excavated,
classified the soil conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All
soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System.
Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic
bags and returned to a laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture
content of each sample was measured and is reported on the Test Pit Logs. The Test
Pit logs are presented with this report as Figures 3 through 7.
The soils encountered in the test pits in the central and northern parts of the lot areas
generally consist of about 8 to 18 inches of fill, sod/duff, and topsoil. The soils below
that level are slightly silty to silty gravelly Sands and sandy gravels. With depth, the
soils grade into medium dense clean sandy gravel with occasional cobbles and a few
boulders.
The southern portion of the lot areas (test pit areas TP-3 and TP-4) are underlain by
about a foot of fill/topsoil overlying about 2.5 to 3.5 feet of clayey silt soil. The fine-
grained silt is in a stiff condition and contains a few pebbles and small roots. The silt
soil overlies several feet of slightly silty sandy Gravel soil in a medium dense condition.
This silty gravel grades with depth into clean sandy Gravel with occasional cobbles. The
test pit logs present more detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions
encountered in the test pit exploration.
Site Geology
The Geologic Maps of the Mercer Island and Issaquah Quadrangles, King County,
Washington shows the soils in the vicinity of the site as younger glacial outwash
consisting of sands and gravels deposited by a recessional glacial environment after the
last Ice Age glacier retreated into Canada about 12,000 years ago. Meltwater streams
carried clean sand and gravel away from the retreating ice front and deposited it in
terraces such as in the site vicinity.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 4
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) mapped the soils in this area as Everett Series
soils. These are recessional outwash soils and match with the quadrangle soil maps of
the area. The native sand and gravel which were encountered in the test pits are
generally consistent with these classifications. We did not encounter peat or significant
thicknesses of fine-grained compressible soils in any of the test pits.
The coarse grained sands and gravels underlying the site are in a medium dense
condition. These soils are not susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake.
Groundwater
No groundwater was encountered in the pits to a depth of 9 feet. However, seasonal
fluctuations of groundwater levels at this site will occur. The deeper subsurface sand
and gravel layer is fairly permeable and will transmit shallow perched water from the
May Creek basin laterally at depth. We anticipate that the low groundwater levels will
occur during the dry summer months and that a water level of greater than 10 feet may
exist during the wet winter months. Minor fluctuations in the water levels at the site
would also be expected following periods of heavy precipitation. Based on our
experience in the area, we believe the high groundwater level will be at depths of ten to
15 feet or slightly less below the ground surface.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Seismic
Based on our site specific findings, the area of the site should not be classified as a
Seismic Hazard Area. Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology,
per Chapter 16 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), Site Class "D" should be
used in structural design.
The following parameters should be used in structural design, as needed:
Seismic Design Parameters (IBC 2012)
Spectral Response acceleration ( Short Period), Ss
Spectral Response acceleration ( 1 -Second Period). Sl
Site Coefficient. Fa
Site Coefficient. Fv
Five percent damped .2 second period. Sds
Five percent damoed 1.0 second, Sdl
1.40
0.53
1.00
1.50
0.94
0.53
Project No. 1358
Page No. 5
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil
strength due to an increase in water pressure induced by vibrations. Liquefaction
mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the
groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular friction.
The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and
eliminates this intergranular friction; thus, eliminating the soil's strength.
Due to the medium dense and well-drained nature of the soils that will support the
planned houses, it is our opinion that there is little or no risk for liquefaction to occur at
this site affecting house construction during an earthquake.
Erosion
The site near-surface soils are mostly all alluvial outwash or glacial pond deposits in
nature. The site silt soil layer is relatively thin and lies on gently sloping grades. These
soils have a low potential for site erosion based on the existing shallow slope gradients.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used during construction to mitigate the
potential erosion hazard. If the erosion control measures are properly implemented
and maintained, it is our opinion that the planned residential development will not
adversely impact the erosion potential for the site or adjacent properties.
As a minimum, we recommend implementing erosion and sediment control BMPs prior
to, during, and immediately following clearing and grading activities at the site.
Application of BMPs should conform to the standards and specifications presented in the
King County Storm Water manual as well as City of Renton requirements.
Steep Slope/Landslide Hazards
Generally, the lot areas are gently sloping to the south over low gradients. A single
band of 40 percent slopes about 12 feet in height exists south of Lots A and B nearer
May Creek. This limited area of slope lies 50 to 60 feet south of the planned southern
lot lines for Lots A and B. Based on the lot topography, there are no steep slope or
Landslide Hazards in the proposed lot areas to be developed in the northern zone of the
3.85 acre property. No setbacks or buffers from steep slopes will be needed for the
planned Lots A, B, and C. Steeper and higher slopes and other geologic hazards may
exist south of the creek in the southern portion of the subject property but those areas
are presently not slated for any disturbance or development.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 6
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on our study, the site is suitable for the proposed development. The planned
residences can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent
native soils below the topsoil and any localized old fill or utility installations. If required,
spread footings can also be supported on structural fill or clean rock placed and
compacted above the competent native soils. Garage floor slabs and pavements can be
similarly supported.
The following sections provide detailed recommendations regarding the above issues
and other geotechnical design considerations. These recommendations should be
incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications.
Site Preparation and Grading
To prepare the site for construction within the new house or driveway areas, all
vegetation, organic surface soils, uncontrolled fill, building debris, old abandoned utility
installations and other deleterious materials should be stripped from below the
crawlspace excavation, slab-on-grade areas, and new pavement areas.
Soils containing organic material will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be
used in non-structural areas or for landscaping purposes.
The on-site soils generally appear suitable for use as structural fill. However, some of
the near-surface soils are silty and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too
wet.
The ability to use these upper silty sands and fills from site excavations as structural fill
will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time
of construction. The relatively clean sands and gravels found beneath the site will
generally be suitable for use as structural fill.
If grading activities must take place during wet weather or on a wet subgrade, the
owner should be prepared to use wet weather structural fill as needed. For this
purpose, we recommend using a granular soil which meets the following grading
requirements:
Maximum Aggregate Size
Minimum Retained on the No. 4
Sieve
Maximum Passing the No. 200
Sieve
3 inches
25 percent
5 percent*
Project No. 1358
Page No. 7
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
*Based on the 3/4 inch fraction
Prior to use, ABPB Consulting should examine and test all on-site or imported materials
proposed for use as structural fill. Alternatively, railroad ballast or clean small quarry
spalls may be used over wet subgrades or in any old utility area over-excavations as
structural fill material.
Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and then
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content
of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as
determined by this ASTM standard. In non-structural areas or for backfill in utility
trenches below a depth of four feet, the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90
percent.
Excavations
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches,
must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on
current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the on-site
soils would generally be classified as Group C soils.
Caving of trench sidewalls in the clean sand and gravel will occur in almost all trench
areas where excavations are deeper than about four feet. The contractor should use
appropriate safety precautions and trench boxes.
While the test pits did not encounter groundwater at the time of excavation in the
winter, we expect that some groundwater seepage in excavations extending below the
groundwater level may occur based on the depth of the planned utility. Dewatering
should be anticipated if excavations will extend below the high groundwater level,
which is anticipated to be about 10 feet. For excavations above the water table or for
those adequately dewatered, side slopes should be laid back at a slope of 1:1
(Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter. Shoring will be required where site excavations cannot
be completed to the recommended inclination due to site constraints or groundwater
conditions.
The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design
consultants, and should not be construed to imply that ABPB Consulting assumes any
responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole
responsibility of the project contractor.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 8
Mr. John Dukich
February 19, 2013
Foundations
The new houses may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on
competent native soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils.
Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and
Grading section. Perimeter foundations should extend at least 1.5 feet below final
exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth. All
footing excavations should be thoroughly recompacted with hand equipment following
excavation disturbance. Some of the future home foundation areas in a crawlspace
excavation may encounter the old septic tank, drain lines, or old pool excavation. It
appears the existing septic tank may be near the future lot line between Lot A and B
just behind the existing old house. The drain lines would be just south of the tank and
are thought to be about three feet deep. If these lines and tank are found in the
crawlspace excavations, they should be over-excavated and removed and replaced by
clean small rock such as railroad ballast. The ballast rock will provide suitable
foundation support for the homes.
Based on comments by a neighbor, an old pool area had existed behind the vacant
residence on the site. The pool was located just below a small retaining wall south of
the house. The approximate location of the pool is shown on the Exploration Location
Plan, Figure 2. The dimensions of the pool are not known. We understand that it was
about five or six feet deep and was enclosed by metal sidewalls and had a liner base.
It this old excavation is encountered in any of the foundation holes, the area should be
over-excavated to its base and sides and subsequently backfilled with compacted and
test structural fill or by clean railroad ballast rock.
Footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches or be in accordance with the IBC
standards. We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity
of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic,
a 1/3 increase in this allowable capacity can be used. For the anticipated loads and
bearing stresses, estimated total settlements should be 1/2 to 3/4 inch, of which 1/4 to
1/2 inch would be differential.
For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a friction coefficient of 0.4 can be
used. Passive earth pressures acting on the sides of the footings and buried portions of
the foundation stem walls can also be considered. We recommend calculating this
lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because
they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value
assumes the foundations will be constructed neat against competent soil or backfilled
with structural fill as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section. The values
recommended include a safety factor of 1.5.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 9
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Retaining Walls
It is not anticipated that any retaining walls will be needed. However, if walls are
needed, the magnitude of earth pressures developing on any proposed retaining walls
will depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting
wall backfill as structural fill. Below improved areas such as pavements or floor slabs,
the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit
weight, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). In
unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To prevent
hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed.
With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly
installed, we recommend designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure
equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral
pressure of 100 psf should be added. These values assume a horizontal backfill
condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or
adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions will exist, then the imposed
loading must be included in the wall design. For seismic loading conditions, a uniform
pressure of SH psf should be added, where H is the wall height.
Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to
these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in the Foundations
section.
Slab-on-grade Floors
We anticipate that the only slab-on-grade areas will be within the house garage areas.
Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in
the Site Preparation and Grading section. If moisture intrusion is a concern, the garage
slabs should be provided with a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-
draining sand or gravel that has less than three percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve.
This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through
the underlying soil and subsequent dampening of the garage floor slab. Where
moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be
placed below the slab above the capillary break. This membrane is commonly covered
with one to two inches of clean, moist sand to protect damage during construction and
to aid in curing of the concrete. Other methods are available for preventing or
reducing water vapor transmission through the slab. We recommend consulting with a
building envelope specialist for additional assistance regarding this issue.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 10
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Drainage
Storm Water Infiltration
In our opinion, the medium dense coarse-grained sands and gravels underlying the site
are suitable for some storm water infiltration. Additional infiltration design information
can be determined in the future, if needed, once individual house designs are available.
The deeper permeable sand and gravel soils under the silty surficial materials and the
clay silt soils can be used for stormwater infiltration as permitted/required by local
regulations. For preliminary sizing of the stormwater infiltration facilities, an allowable
infiltration rate of 10 inches per hour may be used. This value is based on our
knowledge of the site soils, testing of similar sites and a review of the grain size
analyses of representative site soils.
Surface
Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the house
areas at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent foundations
or within the immediate building areas. We recommend providing a gradient of at least
three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeters, except
in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be
provided, unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water
adjacent the structures.
Subsurface
We recommend installing continuous drains along the outside lower edge of the
perimeter house foundations. The foundation drains and roof downspouts should be
tightlined separately to approved discharge facilities. Subsurface drains must be laid
with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to a controlled point of approved
discharge. Lower level drainage should be installed as noted above at the level of the
lowest wall footing.
All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These
cleanouts should be serviced regularly.
Utilities
Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works
Association (APWA) or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill
should be placed and compacted as structural fill as described in the Site Preparation
and Grading section.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 11
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
If the soils excavated on-site are free of excessive deleterious material or debris and are
not excessively moist, they can be suitable for use as backfill material. If construction
takes place during winter or spring, it may be necessary to import structural fill for
backfilling purposes.
If proposed elevations of buried utilities will extend beneath the water table, dewatering
will be necessary and excavations may need to be provided with temporary shoring
support. It may also be necessary to provide measures for uplift resistance of buried
utilities if they are located below the groundwater table.
Pavements
Driveway pavements should be constructed on subgrades prepared as described in the
Site Preparation and Grading section. However, regardless of the relative compaction
achieved, the subgrade must be in a firm and relatively unyielding condition prior to
paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to
verify this condition.
The appropriate pavement section depends upon the supporting capability of the
subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. We expect that
traffic will mainly consist of light passenger and commercial vehicles with occasional
heavy traffic in the form of trash removal vehicles. Based on this information, with a
stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the following pavement
sections for light automobile traffic:
• Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base
(CRB)
• Two inches of AC over 3 inches of asphalt treated base (ATB)
The paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete, ATB, and CRB.
Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained
pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water
infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. To improve
pavement performance, surface drainage gradients of no less than two percent are
recommended. Also, some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement
surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal
cracks when they occur.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 12
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
The following figures are included and complete this report:
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figures 3 through 7
Vicinity Map
Exploration Location Plan
Test Pit Logs
We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices. This report is the property of ABPB Consulting, LLC and is intended for
specific application to the May Creek S.P. project in Renton, Washington. This report is
for the exclusive use of Mr. John Dulcich and his authorized representatives. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of project
development and design and look forward to working with you during the final design
and construction phases. We trust the information presented in this report is sufficient
for your current needs. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call.
Sincerely yours,
ABPB CONSUL TING
Paul K. Bonifaci
Project Engineering Geologist
Anil Butail, P.E.
Principal Engineer
Project No. 1358
Page No. 13
NTS
Ref: Google Map Satellite
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Kirkland, Wash.
Vicinity Map
May Creek Short Plat
Renton Washin ton
Proj. No. 1358 Date : 2-13 Figure 1
' _., __ ----...'-}
()-i'1 . ..-,.' -·~-· ... ~-------,_~~-,· ~ :1· ..... . .;.· ·.~ .. :~ C," • I I '
•-. .,. ·•·;;; .. ·TP"'"" ··. •. TP ·4 I I ·I:
~
r
i ~ t
"
~-fq ~
'"' fir
j'
,/! i'
) .... -·~
r.;
:ri-t·
r,;•
~-
'! :'t
' . :/ '!,/
'
:[
• /j .·.1. l.:,• ' ,,, . ~J:
'Jf"' .·
' '}f l ,_, '
.;f
J
i
• ..• . . ;;JI •. • • -. . ,
'~ ' .. , LOT C . ,\. \ : c• ~ . .
• ;i. ·--. ···-""'" "•"'['" ', 11:J . <'¥.·
1
..• , -,,,..._ ,; ..•• ,,, .•. ,4 w., , Lil . .J
I J :·· • . . .. ...• .. I ,I } 1
• ·,.,,.___._,,, "iff.:a'
f -°t ,1 .. -=::...--~-....i.;~----~-r-····i ,' ) / '~,,;, :~ {
(}
()
~::;>!.
·.,, .'.J::::·
~
! . . ; ··7 • ;. • • ' I ~ • • ,•'
1
, . . ./ ~--',.,.,,.~c. LOT s ,,· . A(Jt't /
1
• ...-·' --,4 . . ... ,," -~ . .•·
l '----•• _ ' ., ""''·' . ~. • •, ,; .. ;..
·. i ·--2· -~J:,:',!;.c,..,, "'"il.pprox. ,.~,.-·~-,..,, . . .· II !Ji' '.<.:__:;,_TP · -~··" Location of Ji[.' i ..,.,KL,,.,..,,,..,. .,. . . ..,._ . . . . "' -. ·--, •• ';[· ': .. :' 1 :. ;-.. ,._..,~o-rcr Pool ~: l · '~ '"""'.!"
1
~,.., '""'" . •. . ··~ -· ' " '~ l""al"',,,.}{.-::1> . -1.' ~--" l· { •,. .s' "'-',~
.. I ' -c>c,• ; ...•. , / . "'
:c t-, f-.,a ., LOT A . .
1 1
.. ,. -...'--'-/ l r --~~--J-·· ...... ·_·,,fi;.,,,_.,,,. . .·, · C• · ' . . .•. .... ...• . . . . .. . .. .., .,. """'""'··· "FP 3 .. .. . 5,/;-.J ·[tf .-c:: ;.· JI i J . o . , • · • • .,. .. +.• ' 4 ·--•.. ,.... ti ·
Tp
·1 ~¥ ••• ' • ", ' !' • I/ ..• ··"·· .. . . . ..
,..
-{!;·· ¥l<4f. r .. Ji?' ..
t g 1k) Lt~I
TAJ F.iXSI. f3!N0$8018
--·----· -·-, ----•--._,_ -·--•• ---------·---·--·--•w«-·--d>"
Ttr.'.I F,Yl;:BL fll!t,Efl;U,l\llfilll
.:-t·· .. ' I .
; !;~ .J
J . ·' !~I
t) ::/;
'.!_ ,..
. ,,
fl;: t·
..... ifi.t:A -~-!11,'.'1,,s;,~-
..... tt,;,;
__ ,......_z-----'!'
L.llr ~ 4 • -r~:M'
LEGEND
~ TP-1 Approx. Test Pit Locations
Ref: Preliminary Layout by Goldsmith Land Development dated 2-1-13
"
J
~
I
,.,
C·
!/AA'f~'(
~~
TOT,t.L, F-.AF:CEJ,. A.i'l;.4. :=: --:~,8-e (~~ J;.G;£a;
QE"..i'ELOP,11,ELE .i..~E;-J..:lf. 52,8!.0 8~ (1.21 ;!£;;"5°S)
,, -., r: i
""~ .... ,t /
~ ,1 ·, •,
' ',, lh.~
"">
' ' l,,...... ,_Wm-,_, __ ,,.:-.,' --; ---------~
'
.,
"\ ~~-:
'· / ., '· , \ :, ,
'\ '
\
\ .
'
}
/;'
/ .t
,/'
CA TRACT·
~~Ill:' _..._.._..,..
_.._..,.,...,..., ..... 'II'
f:)T>".t. iJJ~ ,r,.'11(.r,~t 'Ui.t)!-::.1-·
,,
·~;~
..... ,,
\" -~
,:i;~-.
~~'..; .. ··--~ l1\
!'" \ \
\
\\ ....
.--~·-,., -j
.•. .,
·--s.. •..
'1J.i .E'J!,l!Ql,i .pt.RV;lttll':J-,S
.. t. ~·
'-" .... ..; ·~ -......
i-,,.." * '···-~-..
~t.r,_:,;~
Proj. No. 1358
,
?
Vi
'i
,.
-' 1 ~· ,,. '
' ,
..,~-
.'
""·:!
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Kirkland, Wash.
Exploration Location Plan
May Creek Short Plat (#12196)
Renton, Washington
Date : Feb. 2013 Figure 2
Project : May Creek SP
Proiect No. 1358 Date:
Client : Goldsmith Elevation
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By:
V
-1 -
-2-
-3-
-4-·~·ci·~.
0 0 ··o·· . . . . ..
•5 -ci <<0 ··o·· . . . . .. . . . .
-6-0>> 0 . o·· . . . . . . . .
-7-0·-·.·0· . . . . ··o· . . .
_8 _ 0>> 0 ··o···· . . . .
0 . ·O· . . . .
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Soil Description
Silty Sand: (12 inches Fill,SodfTopsoil)
Tan brown, silty gravelly SAND to silty
sandy GRAVEL, with roots, loose,
moist
Sandy Gravel: Tan to tan grey, clean to
slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL,
occasional cobbles, and a few roots,
medium dense, moist
No groundwater encountered
2-13-13
310 feet
PKB
SAMPLE
CJ)
(.)
CJ)
:J
SM
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Test Pit TP -1
Laboratory Results
Field Strength Tests
Moisture Content
4.7%
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 / Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 3
Proiect :· Mav Creek SP
Proiect No. 1358 Date: 2-13-13 Test Pit TP-2 Client: Goldsmith Elevation 308 feet
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By: PKB
I SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Laboratory Results
~ >, g! Q)
Field Strength Tests "' ~ C. (/J .c ~ .Q Soil Description
...,
E (.) Moisture Content a. (/J _g .!l m (/J Q) ;!! (/J 0 "' :::> ..J
u ~;+;:-r.;.T. :.;:-r.:r.;r.:-r.:r:-r. Silty Sand: (18 inches Fill,Sod/Topsoil)
-1-
~:-r.;:r.;,..:; Tan brown, silty gravelly SAND to silty
-:T. :r. :T. :r. :r. :T. sandy GRAVEL, with roots, loose, §~~~~~§ moist
-2-
SM
"-..) . . . . "-..)
Sandy Gravel: Tan to tan grey, clean to -3-0 . . . .
00 slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL,
. . . occasional cobble and a boulder, a few 0 -4-. . . . ..
roots, medium dense, moist . . . .
GP 0 0
0 . . . . .. No groundwater encountered -5-. . . .
~TI o·o 5.2% ·o . . . . . . . . .
-6-0 0 . . . . ·o·· ..
-7-0 0 . . . .
'O
1-0>> 0 -8 . . . . ··o·· . . . .
00
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 / Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 4
Pro"ect: Ma Creek SP
Pro·ect No. 1358 Date: 2-13-13
Client: Goldsmith Elevation 302 feet
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By: PKB
SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE
'!:;, >, 1 Q)
Cl ~ Q. .c :g .Q -' E
Cl)
0. Soil Description ~ (.)
Cl) _g 2 m Cl) Q) ~ Cl)
Cl ·"' ::)
....J
Clayey Silt: (14 inches Fill,Sodffopsoil)
Tan, clayey SILT, a few roots, stiff,
moist, a few pebbles, moist
ML
JJI!
silty Gravel: Tan, slightly silty to silty,
sandy Gravel, medium dense, moist
GM
0 sandy Gravel: Tan, clean, sandy . . . . . Gravel, a few cobbles, medium dense, . . . .
-6 0 0 moist GP . . . . o< o·o No groundwater seepage -7 ... ·. .
0 . . . . . .
-8 0>>0 Im ·o . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . . . .
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Test Pit TP -3
Laboratory Results
Field Strength Tests
Moisture Content
35.0%
9.5%
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 I Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 5
Pro·ect: Ma Creek SP
Pro·ect No. 1358 Date:
Client : Goldsmith Elevation
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By:
-5 0 <0
>>o >>
-s O >0 << 0 <
0>>0 -7 > o<<
O»O -s .· o<<
0<<0
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Soil Description
Clayey Silt: (8 inches Fill,Sod/Topsoil)
Tan, clayey SILT, a few roots, stiff,
moist, a few pebbles
Silty Gravel: Tan, slightly silty to silty,
sandy Gravel, a few cobbles, medium
dense, moist
Sandy Gravel: Tan, clean, sandy
Gravel, a few cobbles, medium dense,
moist
No groundwater seepage
2-13-13
302 feet
PKB
SAMPLE
ML
GM
GP
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Test Pit TP -4
Laboratory Results
Field Strength Tests
Moisture Content
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 1 Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 6
--··-,·
Proiect: Mav Creek SP
Proiect No. 1358 Date: 2-13-13 Test Pit TP-5
Client: Goldsmith Elevation 309 feet
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By: PKB
SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Laboratory Results
~ >, ~ II)
Field Strength Tests "' ~ a. (J) .c == 0 ...,
E a. o-Soil Description (J Moisture Content (J) _g i "' (J) II) (J) :::) Cl 5 5'
u \J. C) .'-/ (! '-
I'.) . I'.) i Silty Gravel: (12 inches
-1 -:::> (! 0 c:? (
Fill,Sodffopsoil) Tan brown, silty sandy
Gravel with scattered roots, loose, I'.) . I'.) i moist
-2-:::> (! 0 c:? ( GM c'.>. I'.) I
-3-Oc:JOc:J(
c'.> I'.) I
0 ]l[ 3.8% . . . . .. Sandy Gravel: Tan to tan grey, clean to -4-. . .
0 0 slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, . . . .
0 occasional cobbles, and a few roots, . . . . .. . . . .
-5-0 0 medium dense, moist GP
0 . . . . .. . . .
No groundwater encountered -6-0 0 ·o . . . . . . .
-7-0 0 . . . .
0 . . . . .
0 0 ~ . ·. . .
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 I Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 7
ABPB CONSULTING
GEOTECHNICALfEARTH SCIENCES
ANIL BUTAIL, P.E.
PAUL B0N1FAc1, P.E.G.
Mr. John Dulcich
Goldsmith Land Development Services
1215 -114th Avenue SE
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Subject: Geotechnical Report
May Creek Short Plat (#12196)
13815 SE May Valley Road
Renton, Washington
Dear Mr. Dulcich:
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80
Kirkland, WA 98034
Phone:425-820-2544
Fax 206-418-6448
February 18, 2013
Project No. 1358
As requested, we have conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the subject
short plat project in north Renton, Washington. The attached report presents our
findings and recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of project design and
construction.
SUMMARY
Our field exploration indicates the planned building areas of the site are generally
underlain by medium dense to dense native glacial outwash sands and gravels. No
peat or other compressible soils were encountered in any of the test pits on the north
side of the creek in the planned lot areas. No groundwater was encountered at the
time of exploration in the test pits which extended to a maximum depth of nine feet
below the existing ground surface.
In our opinion, the site conditions encountered are suitable for the planned residential
short plat development. The undisturbed native soils are suitable for supporting the
proposed residences, provided the recommendations presented in this report are
incorporated into project design and construction.
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Some localized site soils encountered in the upper foot or two are fills and contain
excessive amounts of fine-grained material. These soils are moisture-sensitive and may
not be suitable for use as structural fill during the wet winter months.
The near surface soils are generally granular and moderately well drained. We have
not been provided with stormwater detention/disposal details for the project but some
infiltration of roof runoff is a potential option for the proposed lots.
The geotechnical recommendations presented in this report should be incorporated into
project design and construction.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A proposed lot layout has been developed for the site and is shown on the Goldsmith
Land Development plan dated February 1, 2013, which was used as a site plan for this
report. This plan indicates that the north side of the property, north of the creek, will
be developed into three residential lots. Based on the site plan, these lots will be
located between Elevation 300 and 315 feet. The lots will be set back at least 100 feet
from the May Creek channel passing through the south central side of the site near
Elevation 286 feet. Lots A, B, and C will encompass about 17,000 square feet. The
south side of the irregular shaped property includes some steep slopes and wetlands
and is not included in the current development plans.
Detailed building plans for the residences have not been prepared. However, we
expect the new residences will have conventional spread footing foundations and
concrete slab-on-grade garage floors. Building loads are expected to be light, on the
order of one to two kips along building walls and 10 kips at columns. We expect that
new houses will be two-story wood frame construction with no basements and that the
ground floor level will be established at or near the existing grades.
The preliminary recommendations contained in the following sections of this report are
based on our general understanding of design concepts provided by our client. When
actual layouts have been prepared, we should review them in order to modify our
recommendations as required.
SCOPE OF WORK
We excavated five test pits on February 13, 2013, using a small backhoe. The test pits
were dug to a maximum depth of about 9 feet below the existing ground surface.
Using the information obtained from the subsurface exploration, to develop
geotechnical recommendations for project design and construction.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 2
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Specifically, this report addresses the following:
• Site Hazard Evaluation
• Soil and groundwater conditions
• Site preparation and grading
• Foundation design
• Slab-on-grade floors
• Storm water Infiltration Assessment
• Drainage
• Utilities
It should be noted that the recommendations outlined in this report regarding drainage
are associated with soil strength, design earth pressures, erosion and stability. Design
and performance issues with respect to moisture and seepage as it relates to structure
environment (i.e., humidity, mildew, and mold) are beyond the scope of our study. A
building envelope specialist or contractor should be consulted to address these potential
issues.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The property is an irregular shaped parcel located along the south side of the SE May
Valley Road in north Renton, Washington. The approximate site location is shown on
the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The property measures about 586 feet in a north-south
direction and is between 225 and 329 feet wide in the east-west direction. May Creek
flows down to the west through the south central portion of the 3.85 acre property.
The area north of the creek in the planned development area covers a gently sloping
plateau area between Elevation 300 and 315 feet near the road, based on the
topographic survey. The area south of May Creek includes streams, slopes and some
wetlands.
The northern development area contains some cleared land and includes a small
shop/shed and an old residence (#13815 SE May Valley Road). The land slopes gently
southward down to the creek from the road. No ponded surface water or flows were
noted in this area during our site work. Surrounding properties include large single
family residential sites to the east and west of the subject property.
A small depression exists in the southern portion of the planned Lot B. Based on our
conversation with a nearby resident, it appears that there was an old pool in this area.
The pool was apparently constructed by lining an excavation with corrugated sheeting
and placing a plastic liner on the sides and bottom. The pool area was reportedly
backfilled many years ago.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 3
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
On February 13, 2013, we conducted our subsurface exploration by excavating five test
pits with a small backhoe. The test pits were dug to depths of up to 9 feet below
existing grades.
The approximate test pit locations are shown on the Exploration Location Plan, Figure 2.
The test pit locations were approximately determined by pacing from known landmarks.
The Test Pit Logs are presented as Figures 3 through 7.
An engineering geologist maintained a log of each test pit as it was excavated,
classified the soil conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All
soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System.
Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in sealed plastic
bags and returned to a laboratory for further examination and testing. The moisture
content of each sample was measured and is reported on the Test Pit Logs. The Test
Pit logs are presented with this report as Figures 3 through 7.
The soils encountered in the test pits in the central and northern parts of the lot areas
generally consist of about 8 to 18 inches of fill, sod/duff, and topsoil. The soils below
that level are slightly silty to silty gravelly Sands and sandy gravels. With depth, the
soils grade into medium dense clean sandy gravel with occasional cobbles and a few
boulders.
The southern portion of the lot areas (test pit areas TP-3 and TP-4) are underlain by
about a foot of fill/topsoil overlying about 2.5 to 3.5 feet of clayey silt soil. The fine-
grained silt is in a stiff condition and contains a few pebbles and small roots. The silt
soil overlies several feet of slightly silty sandy Gravel soil in a medium dense condition.
This silty gravel grades with depth into clean sandy Gravel with occasional cobbles. The
test pit logs present more detailed descriptions of the subsurface conditions
encountered in the test pit exploration.
Site Geology
The Geologic Maps of the Mercer Island and Issaquah Quadrangles, King County,
Washington shows the soils in the vicinity of the site as younger glacial outwash
consisting of sands and gravels deposited by a recessional glacial environment after the
last Ice Age glacier retreated into Canada about 12,000 years ago. Meltwater streams
carried clean sand and gravel away from the retreating ice front and deposited it in
terraces such as in the site vicinity.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 4
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
The U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) mapped the soils in this area as Everett Series
soils. These are recessional outwash soils and match with the quadrangle soil maps of
the area. The native sand and gravel which were encountered in the test pits are
generally consistent with these classifications. We did not encounter peat or significant
thicknesses of fine-grained compressible soils in any of the test pits.
The coarse grained sands and gravels underlying the site are in a medium dense
condition. These soils are not susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake.
Groundwater
No groundwater was encountered in the pits to a depth of 9 feet. However, seasonal
fluctuations of groundwater levels at this site will occur. The deeper subsurface sand
and gravel layer is fairly permeable and will transmit shallow perched water from the
May Creek basin laterally at depth. We anticipate that the low groundwater levels will
occur during the dry summer months and that a water level of greater than 10 feet may
exist during the wet winter months. Minor fluctuations in the water levels at the site
would also be expected following periods of heavy precipitation. Based on our
experience in the area, we believe the high groundwater level will be at depths of ten to
15 feet or slightly less below the ground surface.
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Seismic
Based on our site specific findings, the area of the site should not be classified as a
Seismic Hazard Area. Based on the soil conditions encountered and the local geology,
per Chapter 16 of the 2012 International Building Code (IBC), Site Class "D" should be
used in structural design.
The following parameters should be used in structural design, as needed:
Seismic Design Parameters (IBC 2012)
Soectral Resoonse acceleration ( Short Period'-Ss
Soectral Response acceleration ( 1 -Second Period). Sl
Site Coefficient. Fa .
Site Coefficient. Fv
Five percent damped .2 second oeriod. Sds
Five percent damped 1.0 second, Sdl
1.40
0.53
1.00
1.50
0.94
0.53
Project No. 1358
Page No. 5
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where there is a reduction or complete loss of soil
strength due to an increase in water pressure· induced by vibrations. Liquefaction
mainly affects geologically recent deposits of fine-grained sands that are below the
groundwater table. Soils of this nature derive their strength from intergranular friction.
The generated water pressure or pore pressure essentially separates the soil grains and
eliminates this intergranular friction; thus, eliminating the soil's strength.
Due to the medium dense and well-drained nature of the soils that will support the
planned houses, it is our opinion that there is little or no risk for liquefaction to occur at
this site affecting house construction during an earthquake.
Erosion
The site near-surface soils are mostly all alluvial outwash or glacial pond deposits in
nature. The site silt soil layer is relatively thin and lies on gently sloping grades. These
soils have a low potential for site erosion based on the existing shallow slope gradients.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used during construction to mitigate the
potential erosion hazard. If the erosion control measures are properly implemented
and maintained, it is our opinion that the planned residential development will not
adversely impact the erosion potential for the site or adjacent properties.
As a minimum, we recommend implementing erosion and sediment control BMPs prior
to, during, and immediately following clearing and grading activities at the site.
Application of BMPs should conform to the standards and specifications presented in the
King County Storm Water manual as well as City of Renton requirements.
Steep Slope/Landslide Hazards
Generally, the lot areas are gently sloping to the south over low gradients. A single
band of 40 percent slopes about 12 feet in height exists south of Lots A and B nearer
May Creek. This limited area of slope lies 50 to 60 feet south of the planned southern
lot lines for Lots A and B. Based on the lot topography, there are no steep slope or
Landslide Hazards in the proposed lot areas to be developed in the northern zone of the
3.85 acre property. No setbacks or buffers from steep slopes will be needed for the
planned Lots A, B, and C. Steeper and higher slopes and other geologic hazards may
exist south of the creek in the southern portion of the subject property but those areas
are presently not slated for any disturbance or development.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 6
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on our study, the site is suitable for the proposed development. The planned
residences can be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on competent
native soils below the topsoil and any localized old fill or utility installations. If required,
spread footings can also be supported on structural fill or clean rock placed and
compacted above the competent native soils. Garage floor slabs and pavements can be
similarly supported.
The following sections provide detailed recommendations regarding the above issues
and other geotechnical design considerations. These recommendations should be
incorporated into the final design drawings and construction specifications.
Site Preparation and Grading
To prepare the site for construction within the new house or driveway areas, all
vegetation, organic surface soils, uncontrolled fill, building debris, old abandoned utility
installations and other deleterious materials should be stripped from below the
crawlspace excavation, slab-on-grade areas, and new pavement areas.
Soils containing organic material will not be suitable for use as structural fill, but may be
used in non-structural areas or for landscaping purposes.
The on-site soils generally appear suitable for use as structural fill. However, some of
the near-surface soils are silty and will be difficult to compact as structural fill when too
wet.
The ability to use these upper silty sands and fills from site excavations as structural fill
will depend on their moisture content and the prevailing weather conditions at the time
of construction. The relatively clean sands and gravels found beneath the site will
generally be suitable for use as structural fill.
If grading activities must take place during wet weather or on a wet subgrade, the
owner should be prepared to use wet weather structural fill as needed. For this
purpose, we recommend using a granular soil which meets the following grading
requirements:
Maximum Aggregate Size
Minimum Retained on the No. 4
Sieve
Maximum Passing the No. 200
Sieve
3 inches
25 percent
5 percent*
Project No. 1358
Page No. 7
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
*Based on the 3/4 inch fraction
Prior to use, ABPB Consulting should examine and test all on-site or imported materials
proposed for use as structural fill. Alternatively, railroad ballast or clean small quarry
spalls may be used over wet subgrades or in any old utility area over-excavations as
structural fill material.
Structural fill should be placed in uniform loose layers not exceeding 12 inches and then
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the soil's maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). The moisture content
of the soil at the time of compaction should be within two percent of its optimum, as
determined by this ASTM standard. In non-structural areas or for backfill in utility
trenches below a depth of four feet, the degree of compaction could be reduced to 90
percent.
Excavations
All excavations at the site associated with confined spaces, such as utility trenches,
must be completed in accordance with local, state, or federal requirements. Based on
current Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the on-site
soils would generally be classified as Group C soils.
Caving of trench sidewalls in the clean sand and gravel will occur in almost all trench
areas where excavations are deeper than about four feet. The contractor should use
appropriate safety precautions and trench boxes.
While the test pits did not encounter groundwater at the time of excavation in the
winter, we expect that some groundwater seepage in excavations extending below the
groundwater level may occur based on the depth of the planned utility. Dewatering
should be anticipated if excavations will extend below the high groundwater level,
which is anticipated to be about 10 feet. For excavations above the water table or for
those adequately dewatered, side slopes should be laid back at a slope of 1:1
(Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter. Shoring will be required where site excavations cannot
be completed to the recommended inclination due to site constraints or groundwater
conditions.
The above information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design
consultants, and should not be construed to imply that ABPB Consulting assumes any
responsibility for job site safety. It is understood that job site safety is the sole
responsibility of the project contractor.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 8
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Foundations
The new houses may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing on
competent native soils or on structural fills placed above competent native soils.
Foundation subgrades should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and
Grading section. Perimeter foundations should extend at least 1.5 feet below final
exterior grades. Interior foundations can be constructed at any convenient depth. All
footing excavations should be thoroughly recompacted with hand equipment following
excavation disturbance. Some of the future home foundation areas in a crawlspace
excavation may encounter the old septic tank, drain lines, or old pool excavation. It
appears the existing septic tank may be near the future lot line between Lot A and B
just behind the existing old house. The drain lines would be just south of the tank and
are thought to be about three feet deep. If these lines and tank are found in the
crawlspace excavations, they should be over-excavated and removed and replaced by
clean small rock such as railroad ballast. The ballast rock will provide suitable
foundation support for the homes.
Based on comments by a neighbor, an old pool area had existed behind the vacant
residence on the site. The pool was located just below a small retaining wall south of
the house. The approximate location of the pool is shown on the Exploration Location
Plan, Figure 2. The dimensions of the pool are not known. We understand that it was
about five or six feet deep and was enclosed by metal sidewalls and had a liner base.
It this old excavation is encountered in any of the foundation holes, the area should be
over-excavated to its base and sides and subsequently backfilled with compacted and
test structural fill or by clean railroad ballast rock.
Footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches or be in accordance with the IBC
standards. We recommend designing foundations for a net allowable bearing capacity
of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). For short-term loads, such as wind and seismic,
a 1/3 increase in this allowable capacity can be used. For the anticipated loads and
bearing stresses, estimated total settlements should be 1/2 to 3/4 inch, of which 1/4 to
1/2 inch would be differential.
For designing foundations to resist lateral loads, a friction coefficient of 0.4 can be
used. Passive earth pressures acting on the sides of the footings and buried portions of
the foundation stem walls can also be considered. We recommend calculating this
lateral resistance using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
We recommend not including the upper 12 inches of soil in this computation because
they can be affected by weather or disturbed by future grading activity. This value
assumes the foundations will be constructed neat against competent soil or backfilled
with structural fill as described in the Site Preparation and Grading section. The values
recommended include a safety factor of 1.5.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 9
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Retaining Walls
It is not anticipated that any retaining walls will be needed. However, if walls are
needed, the magnitude of earth pressures developing on any proposed retaining walls
will depend on the quality of the wall backfill. We recommend placing and compacting
wall backfill as structural fill. Below improved areas such as pavements or floor slabs,
the backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry unit
weight, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-698 (Standard Proctor). In
unimproved areas, the relative compaction can be reduced to 90 percent. To prevent
hydrostatic pressure development, wall drainage must also be installed.
With wall backfill placed and compacted as recommended and drainage properly
installed, we recommend designing unrestrained walls for an active earth pressure
equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pcf. For restrained walls, an additional uniform lateral
pressure of 100 psf should be added. These values assume a horizontal backfill
condition and that no other surcharge loading, such as traffic, sloping embankments, or
adjacent buildings, will act on the wall. If such conditions will exist, then the imposed
loading must be included in the wall design. For seismic loading conditions, a uniform
pressure of SH psf should be added, where H is the wall height.
Friction at the base of foundations and passive earth pressure will provide resistance to
these lateral loads. Values for these parameters are provided in the Foundations
section.
Slab-on-grade Floors
We anticipate that the only slab-on-grade areas will be within the house garage areas.
Slab-on-grade floors may be supported on the subgrade prepared as recommended in
the Site Preparation and Grading section. If moisture intrusion is a concern, the garage
slabs should be provided with a four-inch thick capillary break layer of clean, free-
draining sand or gravel that has less than three percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve.
This material will reduce the potential for upward capillary movement of water through
the underlying soil and subsequent dampening of the garage floor slab. Where
moisture by vapor transmission is undesirable, a durable plastic membrane should be
placed below the slab above the capillary break. This membrane is commonly covered
with one to two inches of clean, moist sand to protect damage during construction and
to aid in curing of the concrete. Other methods are available for preventing or
reducing water vapor transmission through the slab. We recommend consulting with a
building envelope specialist for additional assistance regarding this issue.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 10
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
Drainage
Storm Water Infiltration
In our opinion, the medium dense coarse-grained sands and gravels underlying the site
are suitable for some storm water infiltration. Additional infiltration design information
can be determined in the future, if needed, once individual house designs are available.
The deeper permeable sand and gravel soils under the silty surficial materials and the
clay silt soils can be used for stormwater infiltration as permitted/required by local
regulations. For preliminary sizing of the stormwater infiltration facilities, an allowable
infiltration rate of 10 inches per hour may be used. This value is based on our
knowledge of the site soils, testing of similar sites and a review of the grain size
analyses of representative site soils.
Surface
Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage away from the house
areas at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or collect adjacent foundations
or within the immediate building areas. We recommend providing a gradient of at least
three percent for a minimum distance of ten feet from the building perimeters, except
in paved locations. In paved locations, a minimum gradient of one percent should be
provided, unless provisions are included for collection and disposal of surface water
adjacent the structures.
Subsurface
We recommend installing continuous drains along the outside lower edge of the
perimeter house foundations. The foundation drains and roof downspouts should be
tightlined separately to approved discharge facilities. Subsurface drains must be laid
with a gradient sufficient to promote positive flow to a controlled point of approved
discharge. Lower level drainage should be installed as noted above at the level of the
lowest wall footing.
All drains should be provided with cleanouts at easily accessible locations. These
cleanouts should be serviced regularly.
Utilities
Utility pipes should be bedded and backfilled in accordance with American Public Works
Association (APWA) or City of Renton specifications. As a minimum, trench backfill
should be placed and compacted as structural fill as described in the Site Preparation
and Grading section.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 11
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
If the soils excavated on-site are free of excessive deleterious material or debris and are
not excessively moist, they can be suitable for use as backfill material. If construction
takes place during winter or spring, it may be necessary to import structural fill for
backfilling purposes.
If proposed elevations of buried utilities will extend beneath the water table, dewatering
will be necessary and excavations may need to be provided with temporary shoring
support. It may also be necessary to provide measures for uplift resistance of buried
utilities if they are located below the groundwater table.
Pavements
Driveway pavements should be constructed on subgrades prepared as described in the
Site Preparation and Grading section. However, regardless of the relative compaction
achieved, the subgrade must be in a firm and relatively unyielding condition prior to
paving. The subgrade should be proofrolled with heavy construction equipment to
verify this condition.
The appropriate pavement section depends upon the supporting capability of the
subgrade soils and the traffic conditions to which it will be subjected. We expect that
traffic will mainly consist of light passenger and commercial vehicles with occasional
heavy traffic in the form of trash removal vehicles. Based on this information, with a
stable subgrade prepared as recommended, we recommend the following pavement
sections for light automobile traffic:
• Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base
(CRB)
• Two inches of AC over 3 inches of asphalt treated base (ATB)
The paving materials used should conform to the Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) specifications for Class B asphalt concrete, ATB, and CRB.
Long-term pavement performance will depend on surface drainage. A poorly-drained
pavement section will be subject to premature failure as a result of surface water
infiltrating into the subgrade soils and reducing their supporting capability. To improve
pavement performance, surface drainage gradients of no less than two percent are
recommended. Also, some longitudinal and transverse cracking of the pavement
surface should be expected over time. Regular maintenance should be planned to seal
cracks when they occur.
Project No. 1358
Page No. 12
Mr. John Dulcich
February 19, 2013
The following figures are included and complete this report:
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figures 3 through 7
Vicinity Map
Exploration Location Plan
Test Pit Logs
We prepared this report in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering
practices. This report is the property of ABPB Consulting, LLC and is intended for
specific application to the May Creek S.P. project in Renton, Washington. This report is
for the exclusive use of Mr. John Dulcich and his authorized representatives. No other
warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service during this phase of project
development and design and look forward to working with you during the final design
and construction phases. We trust the information presented in this report is sufficient
for your current needs. If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call.
Sincerely yours,
ABPB CONSUL TING
Paul K. Bonifaci
Project Engineering Geologist
Anil Butail, P. E.
Principal Engineer
Project No. 1358
Page No. 13
NTS
Ref: Google Map Satellite
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Kirkland, Wash.
Vicinity Map
May Creek Short Plat
Renton Washin ton
Proj. No. 1358 Date : 2-13 Figure 1
!
ifj ,, q;li
;
,r /~
;:,..
!~
Oi .;
..
.
·' .,..""'
---..;,,&"lrt~
~Ji>
;i,. 11/1>" ..;,:,
, ··· ~: ·· ·· TP-5 -1 '!MO .• ,,
,, ~ LOTC . ~ "' .,.,. " ;,, :t: /'-...._ ~m .... Lo-~1;,,.c:xiu~
C .]
~
' .
'f
'f ;f
'
' '
I
· ,' J BiJI C4\ii. ' "
I }
TP-4
.~·,
,, f-~ () -
i l I • •. ....._ __ _ '" ' ~"";1,nmf, 1
"' l · · ./ ,,,.,-::.:=,. LOT B ) t· (I.
', -----I ""'' "''" J;.JF I/ . ..,. /~1-2 ~~v~Lii;~~~ Of t,~·f }/_,., BL,_....,.,. • , ~. ca.. -. . ~ --.. -·-· .1 _ .13 . . -I~' ··-"cir• Poor ,,
1
"'-••.:..r.l'lll!. . . 'if: .. r·c'~. , : f '"0,'-• ;)' ~~ I. ·~-., ', ! •
·--• LOTA . ,, · ·~ f I / .. ·-,&,;:::Zdt~i',j. 3.'/ I .. st·--.! ' ' ··~. '.;.;: .... --~ i ,, '
. 111'.:ii'.
1. t,;;,.._
?~ :;(-
.i •
'
~
~
'
--;· ,:,:,;, ~ ~· .',, i '/
' ff' ' ' ,~ ' ' ' • <,·,L,J OH .. , !·'.. ... ..,,,,,... , (> . 1 -~--' >; ,: .. , TP,~ · ,_, , • , , · • •• . , • . • ,, ' ,,.. ·.··.;·/. ,i . , ,. .,,.,. -· . . .
W:fGmV!
-, • . -;% 4l% 11,·· ··-"· ,. .. J"[i' / ' 'Ti> • . .
[l.irl) , ; ; ., •
',F
ir;.:; --,
!'i
TOToiJ... PARCEL AREA . .:.1i'87 ,-&.4S 11.!:ris: ACNE:8}
CEVELOPABLE Ni!EA ~ 52,&&I 8F (1.21 ,ICRES'J
,,
'
•
';,:
\
; l$il)")\)1)'4\ , -----~-----:;'---·--·
/
1
.... \,,..··
/ ~. , '.:..
\
\
\
\\\ ~.
'
,·
'
'
,•
·,.
,·
i -·~ ------,it'E"·
CA TM.CT
"Cf Ji _-J' l\'1ll'r' I :di:{)5. ~
'·
', ,:.: .. ... 4',,i ~~'.
,· "
?
:z
'i
I ,.. \
··-'.;:~ ·:, ..
T
I~ ,· '
,..
----.... --·-IM.\"'11'"nJ-
-lilml."-1
' \:
\
I.ii Pat:llt fr8j.l:lllliiOUI
>•
. ·--
·-·-
,. ..
'"'-···-------------·-----w---·----¥~----·Y. . .. .,' f· ; . ~ ------~-W--"'>-.
Ta py:car, ,a!I.QllMlff t'-91..~
'l.U: P.6JK'.&I ,pf-RtotHIOftS
-------,z ---
____Q_ ,.,._ • ,.
=· r~w
LEGEND
~ TP-1 Approx. Test Pit Locations
Ref: Preliminary Layout by Goldsmith Land Development dated 2-1-13 Proj. No. 1358
,·
• .. :j
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Kirkland, Wash.
Exploration Location Plan
May Creek Short Plat (#12196)
Renton, Washington
Date : Feb. 2013 Figure 2
Proiect: MavCreekSP
Project No. 1358 Date: 2-13-13
Client: Goldsmith Elevation 310 feet
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By: PKB
SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE
~ g! Q) $ >,
'ls j ~ a. Cl) .c -' E 0. Soil Description ~ u Cl) _g .i!! .. Cl) Q) ~ Cl) C "' :::i ..J
V ~!$.$$.!$. Silty Sand: (12 inches Fill,Socl/Topsoil)
Tan brown, silty gravelly SAND to silty -1-~;;;,;;; sandy GRAVEL, with roots, loose, ~ :r. T. ;,r, :T: :T: :T: ~$;$;;;. moist
-2-. :T: :T: :T: :T: T. :T: SM i ~(~~; ; ~(i.
. :T: :T: :T: :T. :T: :T.
-3-:$,ffi$ffi$.$
-···-· 0 Sandy Gravel: Tan to tan grey, clean to -4-. . . . .. . . . .
I I 11
GP O··O . . . . ·o . . . . ..
-5-. . . .
O· ·O . . . .
0 . . . . .. . . . .
~-Q· .. Q . . . .
0 . . . . .. . . . .
-7-Q·.·O· . . . .
0 . . . . . . . .
-8-0 0 . . . .
0 . . . . .. . . . .
0 0 Q . . . .
slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL,
occasional cobbles, and a few roots,
medium dense, moist
No groundwater encountered
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Test Pit TP-1
Laborat;;,ry Results
Field Strength Tests
Moisture Content
4.7%
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirldand, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 I Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 3
Proiect: Mav Creek SP
Project No. 1358 Date: 2-13-13 Test Pit TP-2 Client: Goldsmith Elevation 308 feet
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By: PKB
SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Laboratory Results
g >, 1 ..9l Field Strength Tests sf !l a. CJ) ,;;; Soil Description E u Moisture Content ii jj '" CJ) C1) ~ CJ)
0 ,t: ::i
...J
V ~;;;,;~; Silty Sand: (18 inches Fill,Sod/Topsoil)
r: :T. :T. :T. :'T': :"I': :T.: Tan brown, silty gravelly SAND to silty -1 -
JHH~I sandy GRAVEL, with roots, loose,
moist
-2-SM
-3-
':-" ... '-/ Sandy Gravel: Tan to tan grey, clean to ··o·· . . . . slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, 0 0 . . . . occasional cobble and a boulder, a few 0 -4-. . . . ..
roots, medium dense, moist . . . .
GP Q.Q . . . .
0 . . . . .. No groundwater encountered -5-' . . .
0 0
1111
5.2% . . . .
0 . . . . . . . . . .
-6-0 0 . . . .
0 . . . . .. . . . .
-7-0 0 . . . .
0 . . . . ' . . . .
_8 _0->0
0 >> o·o 0 ..
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 I Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 4
Pro'ect: Ma Creek SP
Pro·ect No. 1358 Date:
Client : Goldsmith Elevation
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By:
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Soil Description
Clayey Silt: (14 inches Fill.Sod/Topsoil)
Tan, clayey SILT, a few roots, stiff,
moist, a few pebbles, moist
silty Gravel: Tan, slightly silty to silty,
sandy Gravel, medium dense, moist
sandy Gravel: Tan, clean, sandy
Gravel, a few cobbles, medium dense,
moist
No groundwater seepage
2-13-13 Test Pit TP -3 302 feet
PKB
SAMPLE Laboratory Results
Field Strength Tests
Moisture Content
ML
nn 35.0%
GM
GP
I Ill 9.5%
>>o >
-s O <<0
<< o< >
-7 0 <0
>>o :<
-8 0: :0
>>O :<
0::0 o__i_;=..c_;_;-=...;J_------------~~---'---~-----------'------_J
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
12525 Willows Road, SUlte 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 I Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 5
Pro·ect: Ma Creek SP
Pro·ect No. 1358 Date:
Client : Goldsmith Elevation
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By:
-5 0:<<0
> ·o<<
.e 0> <0 < o< >
0>: 0 -7 << 0 > o.o
-8 <<o<>
0><0
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Soil Description
Clayey Silt: (8 inches Fill,SodfTopsoil)
Tan, clayey SILT, a few roots. stiff,
moist, a few pebbles
Silty Gravel: Tan, slightly silty to silty,
sandy Gravel, a few cobbles, medium
dense, moist
Sandy Gravel: Tan, clean, sandy
Gravel, a few cobbles, medium dense,
moist
No groundwater seepage
2-13-13
302 feet
PKB
SAMPLE
j .SI
3 0. (J)
E ()
.!! <II (J)
~ Cl) :::)
ML
GM
GP
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Test Pit TP -4
Laboratory Results
Field Strength Tests
Moisture Content
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 I Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 6
Proiect: Mav Creek SP
Proiect No. 1358 Date: 2-13-13
Client: Goldsmith Elevation 309 feet
Location: May Valley Rd. Logged By: PKB
SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE
~ "ii ~ !!:. 'o j j Cl) .i::. Soil Description E u a Cl) _g ~ (U Cl) 4) ~ Cl) C "' :::l _,
V
'-./ " '--./ " '-i'.) i'.) i Silty Gravel: (12 inches
-1 -
~c!~r!~
Fill,Sod/Topsoil) Tan brown, silty sandy
Gravel with scattered roots, loose,
moist
-2-C>i:,OrJ(
i'.) i'.) i GM
-3-~ci~i:,(
. . . I
0 UTI . . . . .. Sandy Gravel: Tan to tan grey, clean to -4-. . .
0 0 slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL, . . . .
0 occasional cobbles, and a few roots, . . . . .. . . . .
-5-0-0 medium dense, moist GP . . . .
0 . . . . .. . . . .
No groundwater encountered -6-0 0 ' . ' .
0 . . . . .. . . . .
-7-0 0 . . . .
0 . . . . ' . . . . .
0 0 Q . . . .
ABPB Consulting
Geotechnical Consultants
Test Pit TP-5
Laboratory Results
Field Strength Tests
Moisture Content
3.8%
12525 Willows Road, Suite 80, Kirkland, Washington (425) 820-2544
Date Feb. 2013 I Project Name : May Creek SP I Figure 7