Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Vuecrest P&D Copies
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-000642 APPLICANT: Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME: Vuecrest Estates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved,the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 21 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations.The project site is currently undeveloped. PROJECT LOCATION: 4800 BLOCK OF WITHERS AVENUE S LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community& Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved, the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14)days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: August 29,2014 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 26, 2014 SIGNATURES: Gregg Z' erm ,Administrator Mar Peterso ,Administrator Public W rks epartment Date Fire & Emergency Services Date Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community& Date Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY city of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT D e �r���,-' DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES AND ADVISORY NOTES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-000642, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 24 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is correspondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations.The project site is currently undeveloped. PROJECT LOCATION: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, excavation, and slab-on- grade construction included in the report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat...," dated February 25, 2013, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area W. 3. A Homeowners'Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of Native Growth Protection Area 'A' shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. 4. Building permits shall be issued, prior to construction,for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and all such walls shall be structural. 5. Building setbacks from the north-south top-of-slope line located west of Smithers Ave S shall be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Furthermore, the top of slope and the building slope setback line shall be indicated on the final plat map. 6. Easements required to accommodate the conveyance of surface water from the project site to the area-wide, downstream system shall be finalize prior to issuance of utility and site construction permits. 7. A wetland and buffer monitoring plan shall be approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. 8. Native Growth Protection Easements 'B' and 'C' shall be protected and maintained by the Homeowners'Association in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements.This responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. 9. Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study shall be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Such revisions shall be made prior to recording the Final Plat. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 2 of 8 ADVISORY NOTES: The following notes are supplemental information provided in conjunction with the land use action. Because these notes are provided as information only, they are not subject to the appeal process for the land use actions. Community Services Review Leslie Betlach Ph: 425-430-6619 email: LBetlach@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: All of the R.O.W. is being proposed to be dedicated to the City, including landscaping and irrigation requiring forestry maintenance and irrigation maintenance,which is currently unfunded. Community Services does not support accepting sensitive area tracts,for other parcels as this is not supported by any adopted plan. Street trees along Smithers Ave S should be trees that mature at a large size. Do not use Callery Pear per plan. Street trees along SE 186th PI should be different species from trees along Smithers & be large-maturing. Each lot should receive 1 tree except corner lots should contain 2 street trees. All street tree spacing shall be 50 feet on-center. Engineering Review Rohini Nair Ph: 425-430-7298 email: rnair@rentonwa.gov Engineering Plan Review Comments Created On:07/08/2013 • The streets have been named by the City and the information has been provided to the applicant engineer. • South 48th Place must meet with Fire Department approval regarding culdesac turnaround as per City standard dimensions and/or a secondary access. ( Discussed with Corey after your email and he said that things had changed after his email to you). • Provide draft letter/email from Soos Creek regarding the water service to the Vuecrest site. This project is slightly different from other projects since it currently lies in the Renton Service area, but the City does not have water service mains in the area. The existing water main that ends at the north property line of the development, is served by Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. • The location of the detention facility can be determined after the landslide hazard areas concerns are addressed by the geotech and as per City amendments of KCSWDM. Section I of Core Requirement#3: Flow Control of the City's 2009 Surface Water Design Manual Amendment includes I. FACILITY REQUIREMENT IN LANDSLIDE HAZARD DRAINAGE AREAS Proposed projects subject to Discharge Requirement 2 in Core Requirement#1 (see p. 1-20) must provide a tightline system unless the 100-year runoff from the project site can be feasibly infiltrated or one of the other exceptions listed on page 1-20 apply. For infiltration to be used as an alternative to the tightline requirement, it must be feasible per the facility design requirements and limitations specified in Section 5.4. When evaluating the feasibility of ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 3 of 8 infiltration, multiple facility locations scattered throughout the project site shall be considered and used where feasible and practical to avoid concentrating infiltrated water in one location. If multiple facilities are not feasible or practical,then a single infiltration facility meeting the minimum setback requirements in Section 5.4 may be used where feasible. Where infiltration is not feasible, it is still possible for a proposed project to qualify for one of the other exceptions to the tightline requirement specified in Core Requirement#1 (p. 1-20). If such a project is subject to the flow control facility requirement in Core Requirement#3,the required facility must be a detention pond sized to meet, at minimum,the Flow Control Duration Standard Matching Forested site conditions flow control facility standard with a safety factor of 20% applied to the storage volume. The detention pond must be sited and designed so as to maximize the opportunity for infiltration in the pond. To accomplish this, all of the following design requirements must be met: 1. The detention pond must be preceded by either a water quality treatment facility per Core Requirement#8 or a presettling basin per Section 5.4, AND 2. All detention pond side slopes must be 3H:1V or flatter and must be earthen, AND 3. Detention pond liners that impede infiltration shall not be used, AND 4. The pond bottom shall be at or above the seasonal high groundwater table,AND 5. The detention pond outflow must meet the discharge dispersal requirements specified in Discharge Requirement 1 of Core Requirement#1 (p. 1-19). • Independent secondary review is required consistent with RMC 4-3-100J and RMC 4-3-100F7 . b. i Geologic Hazards: Independent secondary review shall be conducted in accordance with the following: i. Required—Sensitive and Protected Slopes, and Medium, High, or Very High Landslide Hazards:All geotechnical reports submitted in accordance with subsection J2 of this Section, Special Studies Required, and chapter 4-8 RMC, Permits— General and Appeals, shall be independently reviewed by qualified specialists selected by the City, at the applicant's expense. An applicant may request that independent review be waived by the Department Administrator in accordance with subsection D4b of this Section, Review Authority—Geologic Hazards, Habitat Conservation, Shorelines, Streams and Lakes, and Wetlands subsection F7 of this Section. • The Flow control application in the TIR should refer the site as in the Flow Control Duration Standard (Forested Conditions) • Label the site access shown in the conceptual road and grading plan as (as private or public), showing o the ROW width/easement width, o paved widths ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 4 of 8 Technical Services Bob MacOnie Ph: 425-430-7369 email: bmaconie@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: There is a substantial and longstanding encroachment over the southwesterly portion of proposed Tract 'C'. This issue needs to be remedied prior to final plat approval. Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA13-000642 and LN D-10-0501, respectively, on the final plat submittal. The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAC 332-130-150. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. The lot addresses will be provided by the city as soon as possible. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities,trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 5 of 8 Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department,the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director . A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Remove references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing. If there is a _ Restrictive Covenants, Conditions& Restrictions document for this plat,then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision,they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s)for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. Please provide a label, e.g.Tract 'G'for the balance of the parcel being subdivided. Provide appropriate conveying language for the Tracts created. For those belong to the HOA: Upon the recgrding of this plat,Tract(s whatever) is/are hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Name of Plat Homeowners' Association (HOA). In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months,then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract(s) previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwise, use the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract(s whatever). The foregoing statements are to be accompanied by language defining the ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 6 of 8 maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat or reference to a separate recording instrument detailing the same. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner(s). Planning Custom Created On: 06/06/2013 The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Critical Areas Report, prepared by Wetland Resources, Inc., dated April 8, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Engineering Study and Slope Analysis prepared by Earth Solutions NW LLC., dated February 25, 2013 and April 10, 2013 respectively. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Supplemental Stream Study, prepared by Wetland Resources Inc., dated May 10, 2013. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by TraffEx Northwest Traffic Experts, dated April 23, 2013. Fire Review-Building Corey Thomas Ph: 425-430-7024 email: cthomas@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: Environmental Impact Comments: 1. The fire impact fees are currently applicable at the rate of$479.28 per single family unit. This fee is paid at time of building permit issuance. Code Related Comments: 1. The fire flow requirement for a single family home is 1,000 gpm minimum for dwellings up to 3,600 square feet (including garage and basements). If the dwelling exceeds 3,600 square feet, a minimum of 1,500 gpm fire flow would be required. A minimum of one fire hydrant is required within 300-feet of the proposed buildings and two hydrants if the fire flow goes up to 1,500 gpm. Existing fire hydrants can be counted toward the requirements as long as they meet current code including 5-inch storz fittings. A water availability certificate is required from Soos Creek Water and Sewer District. 2. Fire department apparatus access roadways are required to be a minimum of 20-feet wide fully paved,with 25-feet inside and 45-feet outside turning radius. Fire access roadways shall be constructed to support a 30-ton vehicle with 322-psi point loading. Access is required within 150-feet of all points on the buildings. Approved apparatus turnarounds are required for dead end roads exceeding 150-feet. Cul-de-sac turnarounds of 90-foot diameter are required for dead end streets over 500-feet long. Dead end streets exceeding 500-feet require all ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 7 of 8 homes to be provided with an approved fire sprinkler system. Dead end streets exceeding 700-feet are not allowed without approved secondary access roadways being provided. 3. The Renton Fire and Emergency Services Department does not support any variance request waiving the required secondary access due to the extreme length (approximate maximum length of 2,500 feet)of the proposed dead end street, the heavily forested areas surrounding the proposed development and the increased risk of lengthly response times due to traffic and congestion on the existing dead end street already serving approximately 100 single family lots. Police Review Cyndie Parks Ph: 425-430-7521 email: cparks@rentonwa.gov Recommendations: 20 estimated CFS annually Minimal impact ERC Mitigation Measures and Advisory Notes Page 8 of 8 DEPARTMENT OF COMMI ..ITY Cio,� �; �� f,I� z AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT J ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REVIEW REPORT, REVISED ERC MEETING DATE: july 15, 2013 August 18, 2014 Project Name: Vuecrest Estates Project Number. LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Owner. Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd #1;Tukwila WA 98188 Applicant: Jamie Waltier; Harbour Homes; 1441 N 34th St#200; Seattle WA 98103 Contact: Maher Joudi; DR Strong Consulting Eng; 10604 NE 38th PI, Suite 232; Kirkland WA 98033 Project Location: 4800 Block Smithers Ave S; Renton WA 98055 Project Summary: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved,the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into-24 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low.Density, Residential Single- Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14.The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. Site Area: 263,328 sf Building Area to remain: N/A (6.06 acres) Building Area to be demolished N/A Project Location Map City of Renton Department of Commu. /&Economic Development _ rironmental Review Committee Report VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Report of'u4-15 '-gig August 18,2014 Page 2 of 9 PART ONE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/BACKGROUND A. EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1: Environmental Review Committee Report and Decision, Revised August 18, 2014 Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map, Revised July 15, 2014 Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Talbot Urban Separator Overlay Map Exhibit 5: Conceptual Road and Grading Plan, Revised July 15,2014 Exhibit 6: Regulated Slopes Exhibit 7: Landslide Hazard Areas Exhibit 8: Critical Area Study Map Exhibit 9: Preliminary Plat Plan, Revised July 15,2014 Exhibit 10: Downstream Map Exhibit 11: Drainage Control Plan, Revised July 15,2014 Exhibit 12: Erosion Hazard Map Exhibit 13: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.; "Geotechnical Review, October 31, 2013 Exhibit 14: Hart Crowser; "Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents—Vuecrest Residential Development,"dated February 24, 2014 Exhibit 15: Letter from City of Renton to Jamie Waltier, dated April 11, 2014 Exhibit 16: Technical Information Report for Vuecrest Estates, Revised July 15,2014(full report available in project file) Exhibit 17: The Coe Law Firm; Letter of Intent, dated July 14, 2014 Exhibit 18: Proposed Stormwater Vault letter, dated June 24,2014 B. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner(s) of Record: Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd #1;Tukwila WA 98188 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single- Family(RSF), Residential Medium Density(RMD) 3. Zoning Designation: Residential 1 (R-1), Residential 8 (R-8), Residential 14 (R-14) 4. Existing Site Use: Undeveloped S. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Talbot Ridge residential development (R-1 and R-8 zones) b. East: Reserve at Stonehaven and low-density residential development (zoned R-8) c. South: Low-density residential development (R-1 and R-8 zones) d. West: Talbot Park and Campen Springs residential developments (R-1 and R-14 zones) 6. Access: Smithers Ave S via Main Ave S 7. Site Area: 263,328 sf(6.06 acres) ERC Report 13-000642 revised August 18,2014 City of Renton Department of CommG &Economic Development _ ✓ironmental Review Committee Report VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Report of'��'• 'gin August 18,2014 Page 3 of 9 C. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5100 11/01/04 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/04 Annexation N/A 3268 12/13/78 D. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: E. In 2013;the project proponent submitted a land use master application for subdivision of a 9.31 acre property located in the City of Renton. During the application review,the City of Renton required additional information to be submitted. A "hold"was placed on the project review on July 16, 2013. The requested additional information has been submitted and project review recommenced. The project has been revised as follows:there are now 20 lots proposed (not 21), some lot sizes have changed,the primary access road has been realigned slightly to the east, a rockery retaining wall has been eliminated from the top of a steep slope, grading on the west side of the portion of the site to be developed has been modified, and the surface water control plan revised. The project is subject to State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) compliant environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision. The project proponent has submitted a Modification request of Renton Municipal Code to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet.The site has two Category 2 wetlands, one of which connects to a class 4 stream. The site contains three land use zones, Residential 1 dwelling unit per net acre (du/a), Residential 8 (8 du/a) and Residential 14 (14 du/a). Additionally,the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay. Only the 6.04 acre portion that is zoned R-8 is proposed to be developed. Subdivision into 20 lots would result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree retention. The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave. S. The requested modification of Renton Municipal Code, if approved, would permit this access although it is considered to be a "dead end" road from the intersection of SE 186th St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400 trees that have been deemed to be "significant." Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as required by Renton Municipal Code. An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be required for site construction. A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site.The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report, Supplement Stream Study,Traffic Impact Analysis, Slope Analysis, Geotechnical Engineering study, and a Drainage Technical Information Report with the application. The property is located in the Talbot Planning Area in South Renton (Exhibit 2). Goals, objectives, and policies of the Residential Low Density (RLD), Residential Single-Family(RSF), and Residential Medium Density(RMD) Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations are implemented by the regulations and standards of the Residential 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14 zones respectively (Exhibit 3). The property is also in the Talbot Urban Separator of the City(Exhibit 4). ERC Report 13-000642,revised August 18,2014 City of Renton Department of Commuri*v&Economic Development F- ronmental Review Committee Report VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PL LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Report of P '� 'gin August 18,2014 Page 4 of 9 PART TWO: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In compliance with RCW 43.21C.240,the following State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)- compliant environmental review addresses only those project impacts that are not adequately addressed under existing Renton Municipal Code development standards and environmental regulations. A. ENVIRONMENTAL THRESHOLD RECOMMENDATION Based on analysis of probable impacts from the proposal, staff recommends that the Responsible Officials: Issue a DNS-M with a 14-day Appeal Period. B. MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, excavation, and slab-on-grade construction included in the report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat...," dated February 25, 2013, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'A'. 3. A Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of Native Growth Protection Area 'A' shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. 4. Building permits shall be issued, prior to construction, for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and all such walls shall be structural. 5. Building setbacks from the north-south top-of-slope line located west of Smithers Ave S shall be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Furthermore,the top of slope and the building slope setback line shall be indicated on the final plat map. 6. Easements required to accommodate the conveyance of surface water from the project site to the area-wide, downstream system shall be finalize prior to issuance of utility and site construction permits. 7. A wetland and buffer monitoring plan shall be approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. 8. Native Growth Protection Easements 'B' and 'C' shall be protected and maintained by the Homeowners' Association in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements. This responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. 9. Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study shall be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Such revisions shall be made prior to recording the Final Plat. ERC Report 13-000642,revised August 18,2014 City of Renton Department of Commu. ✓&Economic Development _ ✓ironmental Review Committee Report VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000641;ECF,PP,MOD Report of++ ' , '_^'_'^'_'_August 18,2014 Page 5 of 9 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Proposal was circulated and reviewed by various City Departments and Divisions and appropriate state agencies to determine whether the applicant has adequately identified and addressed environmental impacts anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed development. Staff and state reviewers have identified that the proposal is likely to have the following probable impacts: 1. Earth Impacts:The land use application includes a report by the geotechnical consulting firm of Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW). "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat...," dated.February 25, 2013 that addresses the feasibility of the proposed development from a geotechnical standpoint. ESNW performed cone penetration tests (CPT) on the project site to determine soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed new construction.The results of these tests, which took place in mid-January, 2013, indicate that soils to depths of 1 to 2 feet consist of moderate to well-compacted silty, sand fill; soils underlying these fills are highly variable interbedded alluvial soils composed of silts, clay, silty clay, and silty sand layers at depths up to 20 feet. Below this depth the CPT indicate very dense silty sand and sand and gravel. Based on the geotechnical research, ESNW concluded in the Study that the project was "feasible from a geotechnical standpoint." The western half(approximately) of the site is designated as a critical area, based on the presence of "sensitive" and "protected" slopes (Exhibit 6) and "high landslide hazard" area (Exhibit 7). Sensitive slopes are those with slope angles of between 25 and 40 percent and protected slopes are those estimated to be between 40 and 90 percent.The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) W. A Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of the NGPA shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. A subsequent ESNW report, dated April 10, 2013, specifically addressed proposed slope setbacks. Based on this ESNW slope analysis,the proposed development would "not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond the pre-development conditions." Regardless of this assessment,the Environmental Review Committee, on July 15, 2013, requested a geotechnical report by a second geotechnical firm. On July 29, 2013,the firm of Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. was engaged by the City,with fees paid by the project proponent.Their report of October 31, 2013 (Exhibit 13), provided an assessment of the initial geotechnical report, the proposed grading plan, and made various suggestions for plan revisions, including elimination of the rockery, increasing the building foundation setbacks, and revision of the proposal to discharge stormwater from the vault at the top of the slope. Based on this report, staff recommends that building permits be issued, prior to construction, for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and that all such walls be structural. ESNW responded to the peer review in a report dated December 2, 2013. Cross-sections of the subsurface conditions were provided in this report, as was a landslide hazard analysis. Additional information was requested by the City, and was provided in a follow-up letter from ESNW dated December 10, 2013. ERC Report 13-000642,revised August 18,2014 City of Renton Department of Comm u- , &Economic Development vironmental Review Committee Report VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Report of'uly� , August 18,2014 Page 6 of 9 In January 2014,the City retained the firm of HartCrowser to provide tertiary review of the collective geotechnical reports and analyses to that date.Their conclusion in a report, "Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents—Vuecrest Residential Development," dated February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 14), was that "minimum risk statement" required by Renton Municipal Code 4-3-05012 and provided by ESNW in their letter of December 10, 2013,was supported by the geotechnical analyses, based on common geotechnical engineering practice. HartCrowser did not, however, endorse the proposal to discharge surface water at the top of the protected slope, recommending a stormwater collection and discharge design that "specifically address[es] the potential for increased surface erosion and potential for slope instability...associated with the proposed design." The City, on April 11, 2014,further clarified the necessity to redesign the stormwater collection and discharge system in a letter to the project proponent (Exhibit 15). On July 16, 2014, a resubmittal was made that included revised plans (Exhibits 5, 9, and 11), a revised Technical Information Report (Exhibit 16), a Letter of Intent regarding the ability to utilize an existing downstream private stormwater system (Exhibit 17), and assessment of the weight of the proposed stormwater vault and its effect on the adjacent slope (Exhibit 18). At this time, staff recommends approval of the revised plans with conditions as listed below. Mitigation Measures: 1. Recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, excavation, and slab-on-grade construction included in the report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat...," dated February 25, 2013, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area W. 3. A Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of Native Growth Protection Area 'A' shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. 4. Building permits shall be issued, prior to construction, for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and all such walls shall be structural. 5. Building setbacks from the north-south top-of-slope line located west of Smithers Ave S shall be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Furthermore, the top of slope and the building slope setback line shall be indicated on the final plat map. 6. Easements required to accommodate the conveyance of surface water from the project site to the area-wide, downstream system shall be finalize prior to issuance of utility and site construction permits. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)Environmental Review; RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations; RMC 4-4-060 Grading, Excavation, and Mining Regulations. ERC Report 13-000642,revised August 18,2014 City of Renton Department of Commu. ;&Economic Development _ ✓ironmental Review Committee Report VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Report of't� 'gin August 18,2014 Page 7 of 9 2. Water (Wetland and Stream) Impacts:There is a wetland and a stream on the project site. The land use application included "Critical Area Study for Vuecrest," dated April 8, 2013, and "Supplemental Stream Study for Vuecrest Estates," dated May 10, 2013, both by Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI). According to the Critical Area Study, a jurisdictional wetland is located in a depression on the east and south areas of the site. It is, apparently, a single wetland,the north portion of which curves off site to the east (Exhibit 8); then back onto the south one-third of the site.The Study further states that a stream flows westward within the south part of the wetland. The Study classified the wetland as palustrine,forested, broad-leaved deciduous, saturated (Category II), with differing characteristics north and south. The northern portion being more influenced by the proximity to higher-density residential development, with a higher concentration of invasive species than the southern part, which has a higher concentration of native plants. Category II wetlands require a 50-foot buffer. Buffer averaging is available and has been proposed to accommodate roads, a stormwater structure, and building lots. The stream was identified as an intermittent, non-salmonid, averaging approximately 2 feet wide, with an average gradient of more than 20 percent. Based on these characteristics, the stream has been classified by WRI as Class 4. (See "Otak Review" below) The northern portion of the wetland is in an area identified as Tract 'E' on the Preliminary Plat Plan (Exhibit 9). The southern portion of the wetland, the stream, and two tracts, 'B' ("sensitive area") and 'C' ("tree retention") abut the south property line. Tract 'E' shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'B' and the area of the south wetland,the stream, and Tracts 'B' and 'C' shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area 'C.' The responsibility for protection and maintenance of Tracts 'B' and 'C/ in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements, shall be assigned to the Homeowners' Association. Such responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. In order to verify the potential impact on critical areas by the proposed development,the City retained the firm of Otak to provide a peer review of the previously cited Critical Area Study. In their report of April 3, 2014, "Vuecrest Estates Wetland and Stream Review" (Exhibit XX), Otak verified as accurate the wetland delineation as flagged in the field. Furthermore,the Category 2 wetland criteria under RMC 4- 3-050M are met. The Otak Review found, however, that the Class 4 stream (rating verified), does not appear to flow through the wetland, but rather begins at the top of the protected slope.Their recommendation is that the Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Staff further recommends that this be made a condition of approval. The Otak Review stated that wetland enhancement may result in increased disturbance of the wetland and buffer. A less invasive approach is recommended that requires that all wetland and buffer areas onsite be monitored for 5 years, once per year in the summer, as a condition of project approval. Therefore, a monitoring plan shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. ERC Report 13-000642,revised August 18,2014 City of Renton Department of Commu. &Economic Development _ ✓ironmental Review Committee Report VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Report of !!y 1 ,?^'_?'_^'_?August 18,2014 Page 8 of 9 Mitigation Measures: 1. A wetland and buffer monitoring plan shall be approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. 2. Native Growth Protection Areas 'B' and 'C' shall be protected and maintained by the Homeowners'Association in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements. This responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. 3. Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study shall be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Such revisions shall be made prior to recording the Final Plat. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review; RMC 4-3-050 Critical Areas Regulations 3. Stormwater Impacts:A "Technical Information Report for Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat," by D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc., dated May 21, 2013, was submitted with the land use master application. This report indicates that most of the undeveloped site drains to the Black River subbasin, following the stream channel at the southern portion of the site westward to discharge near the southwest corner of the property. From the site,the flow follows a vegetated channel near S 50th Street to a conveyance system at Talbot Road S (Exhibit 10). Development of the site would result in approximately 2.82 acres of impervious surface. Surface water runoff would be collected and conveyed to an on-site stormwater detention facility. A cast-in-place concrete storm detention water quality vault has been proposed on Tract 'A.'The proposed vault would present a 9 to 10-foot wall facing the westerly protected slope, at the top of a 9-foot (+/-)fill slope (Exhibit 11). Upon recommendation of staff, this vault was relocated somewhat to the east away from the top of slope. This change is reflected on the revised site plan dated July 15, 2014. Runoff was proposed to be discharged from this structure to the existing wetland at the top of the protected slope. During project review, it was determined that runoff should be conveyed in a closed system from the vault to the areawide system at the bottom of the slope and the drainage plan was revised accordingly (see "Earth," above). Mitigation Measures: 1. Discharge from the vault shall be tight-lined away from the protected slopes. Nexus: State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Environmental Review; RMC 4-6-030, Drainage (Surface Water) Standards 4. Plants Impacts: There are approximately 401 trees over 6 inches in diameter on the part of the property to be developed (excludes protected slope area on the west approximately half of the site). Most trees on this portion of the site would be removed prior to construction, except 122 within the wetland and wetland/stream buffer and 42 trees to be retained on "tree retention tract" and elsewhere. In the R-8 Zone,thirty percent of the significant trees must be retained or replaced. Based on the Tree Retention ERC Report 13-000642,revised August 18,2014 City of Renton Department of Commu. /&Economic Development _ vironmental Review Committee Report VUECREST ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Report of A4• n August 18,2014 Page 9 of 9 formula (RMC 4-4-130.H), 140 trees must be replaced. The project proposal indicates that replacement of trees would occur as part of the post-construction landscaping. Trees to be planted in the landscape area associated with the public streets, however, must be installed prior to recording the plat. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted prior to issuance of the street and utility construction permits. Mitigation Measures: N/A Nexus: N/A D. Comments of Reviewing Departments The proposal has been circulated to City department and division reviewers. Where applicable, their comments have been incorporated into the text of this report. ✓ Copies of all review comments are contained in the official file and may be attached to this report. The Environmental Determination decision will become final if the decision is not appealed within the 14-day appeal period (RCW 43.21.C.075(3); WAC 197-11-680). Environmental Determination Appeal Process:Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing together with the required fee to: Hearing Examiner; City of Renton; 1055 South Grady Way; Renton, WA 98057, on or before 5:00 pm on Friday, September 5, 2014. RMC 4-8-110 governs appeals to the Hearing Examiner and additional information regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk's Office, Renton City hall —7th Floor, (425)430-6510. ERC Report 13-000642,revised August 18,2014 � I = Zc Q gJEm 2 N~ j i IS �i 2 y L 0 0 uj x a I s i I I I I I 40 W I, V 4 uj a MU �J� Q IU I Y i ------- - ------------------- - ------ 1----------- g !� I I � I I I i EXHIBIT 2 i I S31V1S3 1SROMA .... . ............:..: . ..:..:..... i H3 —30 T23N R5E E 1/2 !M i ; p 1 CO -� SW41.% ` ++ r li i'. S1]]m St p ` 0.. R-14 _ CO I R'$l g�_ t•CO BE O—Rd co R14 i ✓ ! y co s RM-F SWdmd St - sismsr » —»--,-„— 64&dW ico co co ! } "� Ir co c0 co [ �' 1 W W e`65'� RM-f 1 e l ! 09 PIs ~ r s 1 5Agop asmst m e SSDU`A es a 550th st -- S 1 I iii -- SE ISM!S R- 559 st 5595[ —R-4— I + T R-4 � -R-.4. TONING MAP BOOK J3—06 T22N R5E E 1/” PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 mudmm..ea•r+nru<Ry.. omnrmr i p.unud m.. vacg vmsLsW m 0 200 400: EXHIBIT 3 — _e Ff Ft I?�Ott „ 1:4,800 i 4-3-11.00 2, Talbot Urban Separator: •5�htst 5 ,. .e S17 r U� L 4 St 94 w Gi) i fd a , Lu I T a i. >'PIZ b r`a � j 5 rd Si . s m Talbot Urbain Separator E��.�u'dc�Y:.:laF�t.Pesti_i;�:,r#�,-+cx&Str�+t�icI'l�inK R�'ttonGQyl.3rfi� CS A 6tas Urban ss U WPak, ]irFxiitc 3asf (Ord. 5132, 4-4-2005) EXHIBIT 4 (Revised 4/11) ' i I � s ©01 z s� Z Z 4ais a V e W ``Z J r w Q. I 's s 1r.: [- _�„� C• i,..--. i 1 � ,i m5 I f-y�. 1 I �].r 5 r k 4 I .:`z �i � �! �' � C. y i- I" .I g` Y f 1 I 1 ey ). N 1 .^R .••.,. `: y tk 3 r m ^ c �_ Ir � �i--S I •.� ,� I .ro r k '. i {y. i C � Jv�s� ?.�" Ys � l +� 7 z i S'. ci pp F y 2 _ --- _ _ go CL c~is r jI i EXHIBIT 5 269000—£lt/fll SAV1S3153803M 3m Lamro �arw..sz rvhN wmuxenMMwl�raMlmmUlt�lsmwu .............. m m •s C: Dm 1"i c c C v Y 6 N U U U R f6 O U m N N n n n n a w Q as o Jz° z IU e+ �' 0r2 z 0 E Zt .-. m E W C4 ffi ..r.. - Ifi �� S . 0 U) q? pr oo: O 0? r a E- ia. oo fl ca O m m Z p r h} IM CO ma o ti 0. _ m CL to tl7 m m _ F L A ® C4 dS M � CD 0 CL {� C _ Q1 to m `" CD0 N O N 0 C O � Q Q LL m M th r• m dtr ¢ O CU tfJ ;xt::2e m J. r i� EXHIBIT 6 -----. co 0 3 J CO 07 i c 0 67 P Y W LL ��d U y = ❑ 0C 'cm• " h y 'G u�ull O Z T t c13 N �C O U N N y > = m Sl co N z O o z -� U r "m o_ .. 0.0 Z h m � m E E 0 O 03_ o ' N ca W p m er + tCL0 mca z C .2 . a co A co2 N o F t.. m O m t ej N m CL-4) m 110G LM r' C*1 O er m Co •® U Q }�+ 7 O N M I R orp O o o j m m we + M m O L y d N R �V a7 O `0 EXHIBIT 7 i CRiT1CAL AREA STUDY MAP i KIECREST SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 23N,RANGE 5E,WM BUFFER AVERAGING (REDUCTION) 2,160 SF 1 f 18 19 20 21 ' c 2 nu Lu 3 Z TRAC oOP � 1 EDFNE 4Y OO VJ CATEGORY it ' 4 WETLAND +� RACT- BUF R AVIERAGING (ADDITION) 14 7 12 71 13 8 � BUFFER AVERAGING l TOP OF (REDUCTION) S 186TH PL. STEEP SLOPE 8,308 SF NU d TRACT"A" 6fOH4ORIINtfiE 9 10 AQP CLASS 4 STREAM CATEGORY II ! WETLAND TRACT"C" BUFFER AVERAGING (ADDITION) 8,413 SF 1 WETLAND ' STREAM 7-,\ BUFFER Scale 1" SW BUFFER AVERAGING 0 30 (REDUCTION) Wz BUFFER AVERAGING EXHIBIT 8 ®(ADDITION) ^- no� iae(aA s»a04S ® ® DATA San NGPA SIGNS I _ gg Z vxw a Z fill yki III R a � a y� 1� a«� ■ aa gg � ® i ^ J iONltl' SSS � F-•af oz z liel n [[l t 1 1 B E 1 1e ss l i i i& e 4 ©'rYoy R WW c 114 �iyEy E gg Y i, I'll gill, I ii < 31 1mvii b 1 91`3@1 Rill A� � ���� r �$ Q'I $g to g °l € ',k €"p _� . -1 k lilts e R1111 Oki a O a � b � R 94 qp�p����, � � 6pr$e l�� Ih �a�a��� bi MI E pg C Y��8py�y y{ ° n 011°ii °«. $gp b ba M IQ: k� k. `+ • � € i3ggy ! bbabbbe e�e b ,T�� W3l5 � �' 2 & S € s�i ki@IR $ n � ��°�� 61 41 I aaaaaaa on: Tib C. s i M tl 4 iE= e M�"I - II E,! x I I N z- N it,-,�r JAI• _ ss 1, •. I �/ � x s �.. \ t t �-'9..r—✓9 i � �-i�� t r' I i�I 1 � i J �` � r, -l;, ,1 / r � �-' 1i J — � . _- `l --- as aNalmaea all a% EXHIBIT 9 c g Z*9000—£LVM S3.LV1S31S3ND3M 3mm irycaa u,,...,.r.wm.•nw�..,rwn4+n•.•wlwmrn..naa.m is •°'•�' >�.� �vwe.�tsnitisoa�zc�rn�r� �� MUM ' s3LvLs31s--vo 1AHill 11 o CO I U M6 : ' ht}5���':�=��v C'�.i t�.i�_�.L,•�44�w�nK�ti(+^'�"% a11�..� � `�� ilu 14 -��%YOE —95 -'tom' ==-` _ ate " VN m I i / I lo I � IW -s ado ioMbi EXHIBIT 10 mz $ ' z 0 z Z �3 Q <aa el � a NZ = W� �a a N r ` I r `{• _� T I s LUQ$ �• tii C ��:V ,��-' /,r of �� �, "� 1 .r �' �. •. � ;- TIT yt ) - �-F— -- I I���`— I .' i- �p �l i aG\ i• I� 1�.� i S Q — _ a .,I, r �. 1 r 'I 1 -- - - - tl el . 6 gEi ZMEW- 2 S I I EXHIBIT 11 -Zi+9000—£L m S31tl1S3 1S3803nA 3MN MrOW ,u..a,.a.wv..+naaew.n�w+Mrvwe�nnnaa.an s~ s � °A -jm as § 0 m H v 0 0 U U c m r V U U ;� Q a w` N O L5/ 0 c J Z (} i I r� 4i i c= < E E o O i. D �o a O C L �- 4�l m 0 0 V CO o M v C i ao m o R � � s � C O ® o m rrrar 'ct� r - O t c r .c o 0 SLco O Q M <6 � N p` O I i i m ' m M r � a9.4 . qq e} M @ N a r _ o p EXHIBIT 12 I Associated ]Earth-Sciences, Inco 5 ` k NJ go 0 Serving the Pacific Northwest Since 1981 October 31, 2013 Project No. TE130415A Geonerco Properties WA, LLC 1441 N 34`h Street Suite 200 Seattle, Washington 98103-8904 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Geotechnical Review Vuecrest Preliminary-Plat LUA13-000642 Reference: "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Avenue Residential PIat, 47XXS Smithers Avenue S, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. Report date:February 25, 2013 "Slope Setback, Smithers Avenue Residential Plat, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. Report date: April 10, 2013 "Slope Setback Response, Viewcrest Estates Residential Plat, Renton, Washington." Earth Solutions NW L.L.C. Report date:July 15,2013. Renton Municipal Code; Code Publishing Company, eLibrary, current through Ordinance 5691, passed May 20, 2013, City Website: http://rentonwa.goy/ Dear Mr. Waltier: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI)has completed geotechnical review of the above-referenced documents prepared by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) which are being used to support a request by the Geonerco Properties WA, LLC (Geonerco) to obtain permits for a 21-lot residential subdivision from the City of Renton. Authorization to proceed with this review was granted by Mr. Jamie Waltier of Geonerco and was accomplished in general accordance with our proposal dated August 14, 2013. The purpose of our review is to check for compliance with minimum code standards, completeness, to note obvious factual errors, consistency of data with conclusions and standards of practice. To date, our services have included review of published and unpublished literature we have in our files, review of the..referenced reports, review of the "Vuecrest Estates, Preliminary Plat, Conceptual Road and Grading Plan," Sheet C4, dated September 20, 2013 by D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers (DRS), and preparation of this letter. Kirkland Everett ■ Tacoma 425-827-7701 425-259-0522 253-722-2992 EXHIBIT 13 www.aesgeo.corn Site and Project Description Based on available information and the description provided in the February 25, 2013 ESNW report, the 5.3 acre site consists of an undeveloped, wooded parcel located south of South 47"' Street at the intersection with Smithers Avenue South where it enters into the site in Renton, Washington. Wetland tracts are mapped east and south portions of the site. Topography across that portion of the site to be developed slopes generally toward the south and west. Within the western portion of the site, a 2HAV (Horizontal:Vertical) (approximate) slope descends in excess of 100 vertical feet toward the western property line; total slope height is undetermined as topography presented on the referenced DRS Plan stops approximately 100 feet short of the west property line and does not show a toe of slope. A 311:1 V (approximate) slope descends to the south approximately 10 vertical feet toward a westerly trending ravine within the southerly portion of the site. The February 25', 2013 ESNW report indicates that a visual slope reconnaissance was conducted across portions of the steep slope areas of the site and that no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed and that "stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good." It appears that ESNW did not have a detailed site plan showing current proposed development . for preparation of the referenced February 25, 2013 report. The two subsequent reports referenced above describe currently proposed development and present stability sections that appear to be based on the referenced DRS Plan but do not list the specific reference. Proposed development as shown on the referenced DRS Plan includes a 21-lot subdivision with an estimated earthwork volume of approximately 3,300 cubic yards cut and 10,000 cubic yards fill. Development is concentrated to the flatter portion of the site and will occupy approximately the northeastern two-thirds of the property. Smithers Avenue is to be extended south from 47' Avenue to the central portion of the site where the roadway will turn east and extend to the eastern property line as SE 186 ' Place. A storm water vault is to be located within the southwest portion of the development area. Lots 1 through 8 and the storm water vault are situated along the top of the westerly descending 2H:IV slope. A 4-foot-high rockery wall is proposed along the western edge of these lots and vault area. A 211:1V fill slope will extend from the wall to the pad grade. Excluding the height of the wall, the fill slope achieves a maximum slope height of up to approximately 20 vertical feet. As planned, the structures on Lots 1 through 8 will extend anywhere from a few feet to approximately 40 feet onto the proposed fill slope. As proposed, the storm water vault will be discharged into the westerly trending ravine within the southern portion of the site. Subsurface Conditions The referenced reports generally summarize subsurface conditions at the site as glacial till. The February 25, 2013 report indicates that soil "terraces were observed down the steep slope at the west side of the site which may correlate to the recessional stratified drift kame terrace deposits, however, the proposed development will not extend to those locations." Test pit logs presented with the February 25, 2013 report indicate medium dense to dense, moist to wet 2 sand to a depth of 8 feet in TP-1 within the northeast portion of the site; medium stiff to hard, moist to wet silt located along the top of the slope in TP-6 and TP-7, and between 2.5 and 8 feet below ground surface within TP-8 within the western portion of the site; and, medium dense to very dense, generally moist, silty sand with variable gravel below the sand in TP-1, below the silt in TP-8 and within TP-2 through TP-5 across the remainder of the site. Review of the Geologic Map of King County, Booth, Troost, Wisher, May 2006, indicates that recessional outwash and/or pre-Fraser, coarse grained non-glacial soils on the westerly descending slope within the western portion of the site and glacial till within the central and eastern portion of the site. An earlier publication titled: Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington by D.R. Mullineaux, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405, Publication Date: 1965, Map Scale: 1:24,000 indicates that the soils on the westerly descending slope within the western portion of the site consist of undifferentiated quaternary deposits of glaciofluvial sand and gravel, glaciolacustrine clay and sand, and non-glacial sand, clay and thin peat. Ground water was reported at a depth of 6 feet within the sandy soil reported in TP-1; ground water was not reported within the other test pits excavated at the site. Comments Based on our review, we have the following comments: 1. Our general impression is that subsurface conditions within all but the northeast portion of the site were treated in the reports as a single homogeneous unit, when it appears based on information presented on the referenced geologic maps, that site geology is more complex. Given the importance of slope stability to the project and the potential for geologic aspects of subsurface stratigraphy to play a major role in slope stability, the geology cross section of the slope and associated engineering properties should be defined in greater detail. A supplemental report should be prepared and should contain a geologic map and geologic cross-section(s). The map and section(s) should show the test pit locations, location and extent of geologic strata encountered, existing and proposed grade, proposed retaining walls, proposed buildings and conceptual depths of foundations. There may not currently be enough existing subsurface information to determine the presence of potentially adversely oriented interbeds of silt or other plane of weakness that could affect slope stability; additional, deeper subsurface exploration borings may be necessary. 2. The Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-3-050-B1c defines sensitive slopes as twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) and protected slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater. RMC 4-3-050-J1 defines "Geologic Hazards" and provides specific guidelines for activities on or within 50 feet of sites with geologic hazards. The following classifications for geologic hazards are taken directly from RMC 4-3-050-J1: 3 a. Steep Slopes: i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected slope are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute boundaries independently derived from survey data for the. City's consideration in determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic maps shall utilize two foot (2') contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas. ii. Steep Slope Types: (a) Sensitive slopes. (b) Protected slopes. b. Landslide Hazards: i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL):Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (IS%). ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM):Areas with slopes between fifteen percent (I5%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH):Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (15%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (Ltd:Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. c. Erosion Hazards: i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL):Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (I5%). ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH):Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen percent (I S 7o). As indicated earlier in this letter, current development plans include placement of a 4 foot wall on the face of the westerly descending slope within the western portion of 4 the site. The wall is to support the toe of a 2H:1V fill slope to create support pads for the proposed residences and vault along the top of the slope. The residential structures on.these pads will extend into the sloping area. 3. Based on the classifications presented above, the slope on which the retaining wall/fill slope is to be founded is a regulated steep sensitive/protected slope (RMC 4-3-05041a) with high erosion hazard (RMC 4-3-05041b(iii)), and high landslide hazards (RMC 4-3-050-J1c(ii)). Based on these designations, development is prohibited per RMC 4-3-05045a. In order for development to be allowed, RMC 4-3-05042 requires that a study must demonstrate the following: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results of X stability analyses before and after development demonstrating how the three conditions as listed above are satisfied,25required. r4VI y,u(, n , g*I; C4-ce,6ao low 4. Grading regulations outlined in RMC 4-4-060L require that a line be established from which setbacks for structures and slopes is to be measured and a minimum setback for each are presented. The report documents imply that the line from which setback is to be measured is at the top of the existing westerly steep slope. Plans indicate that residential footings will extend into the steeply sloping fill within the western portion of the site. Based on the steepness of the slope (50 percent) a setback between the lowest outside edge of footings to daylight in the adjacent slope face would be more appropriate. 5. RMC 4-4-060 N6 indicates that creation of a permanent fill slope in excess of 15 feet high at a 40 percent gradient would create a protected steep slope and would not be allowed unless conditions of RMC 4-3-050 N2a(ii) are satisfied. As presented, the stability analyses evaluate the potential for deep-seated instability of the slope under both existing and proposed conditions. The analyses should.also consider the stability of the proposed fill slope/wall where slopes in excess of 15 feet are proposed (Lots 1, 7, and 8). The conditions of RMC 4-3-050.J.2 a (i, ii, iii) as indicated in Comment 2 must be met. 6. The following Table presents a summary of factors of safety presented for existing and proposed conditions anticipated at the site as presented in the April 10, 2013 and July 15, 2013 reports. During our review of the analyses, several issues were noted 5 which require re-evaluation of various conditions and presentation of revised factors of safety. Factor of July 15,2013 Safety Aril 10,2013 Residential Area Vault Area Existing I Proposed Exist Proposed Existing Proposed Static 2.1271•2 1.9192 2.2003 2.0912.5 2.1373 2.0403.5.6 (1.629)4 (1.585)4 [: Seismic 1.3231.2 1.2282 1.3822 1.36625(1.095)4 1.39925 1.3472.5.6 (1.236) (1.175)4 (1.090)4 1. Slice thickness is less than 1 foot between toe of slope and exit point. Exit point should be re-evaluated and modified. 2. Location of center/radius of failure circle shown on section does not agree with center/radius listed in calculation. 3. Missing results for slip circle center and slices-cannot evaluate results. 4. Value in parenthesis is presented on calculation sheets-does not agree with value indicated on section 5. Failure circle analyzed and results presented is inconsistent with results on section-entry/exit points for failure circle indicate a relatively small portion of the slope. 6. The vault should be modeled as a surcharge rather than a region with strength parameters. Stability analyses conducted on the westerly descending slope should be re-evaluated based on understanding of subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the slope enhanced through Comment 1, above. 7. ESNW indicates that rockeries will be used to "face" fill slopes. Rockeries may be used to mitigate erosion of cut slopes where very dense native soil is exposed. Unreinforced rockeries are not engineered structures and where in excess of 4 feet high (including imbedment depth), should not be used in place of retaining walls. 8. As proposed storm water from the detention vault is to be directed toward the southerly ravine and ultimately toward the westerly descending slope, ESNW has identified the soils on the slope as "high erosion hazard" and should consider alternate recommendations to prevent water from being directed over site slopes. Alternatively, the applicant should demonstrate that flow from the outfall system will not cause erosive flows. 9. February 25, 2013 report indicates design in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). The City of Renton has adopted the 2012 IBC. Seismic design of structures should be in conformance with the 2012 IBC including recommended seismic surcharge on walls. Closure This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our review was completed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 6 If you should have any questions, or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Tacoma, Washington ' �.2. 10WO . race L. B on, P.E. Maire Thornton, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Senior Engineer MT/pc TE130415A3 Projects\20130415\TE\WP 7 Elizabeth Higgins From: Maire Thornton <mthornton@aesgeo.com> Sent: Monday, November 18,2013 11:21 AM To: Elizabeth Higgins Subject: RE:Vuecrest in Renton Good morning Elizabeth: Thank you for the positive input. Your thoughtfulness has brightened this cold gray day and has put a positive perspective on the start of the week for me. The second sentence means that the conditions have not been met and that they should demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions by providing the results of stability analyses for existing and proposed site conditions. The changes indicated in red (see below) may clarify the intent. The sentence may have been clearer if it had been written as follows: The results of stability analyses which demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions listed above are required for both existing and proposed site conditions. Text taken from report: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions,and(Ord.5670, 12-3-2012) o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas;and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results 'Me stability analyses before and after development demonstrating how the three conditions as listed above are satisfied as are required Hope that helps! Please make a note:AESI Tacoma has not moved but our street name has changed to Commerce Street Maire Thornton, P.E. Associated Earth Sciences,Inc. 1552 Commerce Street,Suite 102 Tacoma,Washington 98402 C 1425-766-7340 01253-722-2992 F 1253-722-2993 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from yoursystem.If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing,copying,distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. 1 AM p eo vhartcrovvser.com UCRO S 1 February 24, 2014 Mr. Greg Laird Otak - Water and Natural Resources 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents - Vuecrest Residential Development 4800 Block Smithers Avenue S Renton, Washington City of Renton Project No.: LUA13-000642 19017-00 Dear Greg: This letter provides a summary of our geotechnical review of the geotechnical permit documents - pertaining to the above-referenced development site. Our work was performed in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our Task Order dated January 30, 2014 as authorized by Otak on February 7, 2014. PERMIT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED We reviewed the following geotechnical permit documents: s Geotechnical Engineering Study by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW), dated February 25, 2013; ■ Slope Setback Letter by ESNW, dated April 10, 2013; ■ Geotechnical Review Letter by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc (AESI), dated October 31, 2013; ■ Slope Setback Letter by, dated April 10, 2013; ■ Response to Geotechnical Review by ESNW, dated December 2, 2013; ■ City of Renton email review comments by Elizabeth Higgins, dated December 9, 2013 ■ Geotechnical Addendum by ESNW, dated December 10, 2013;and ■ Preliminary Plat Plan (C1) and Grading Plan (C4) by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers, dated December, 2013; 1700 Westlake Avenue North,Suite 200 EXHIBIT 14 Seattle, Washington 98109-6212 Fax 206.328.5581 Tel 206.324.9530 AM Otak- Water and Natural Resources 19017-00 February 24, 2014 Page 2 REVIEW COMMEiVTS Based on our review of the above-referenced documents, it is our opinion that the appl'icant's geotechnical engineer(ESNW) has addressed the review comments provided by the City of Renton peer review geotechnical engineer (AESI; letter dated October 31, 2013) in a manner that is generally consistent with current geotechnical practice in our local area. We understand that no additional follow-up review by AESI has occurred after the ESNW response. However, in their December 2, 2014 response to the AESI review comments, ESNW submitted additional slope stability analyses and addressed AESI's questions regarding geologic cross section and deeper soil conditions. Additionally, in their December 10, 2013 letter, ESNW also provided the minimum risk statement(three conditions of no adverse development impact), as required by Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050-J2.b) and requested by the City of Renton in their email correspondence dated December 9, 2013. A brief summary of the main geotechnical review comments by AESI and final responses by ESNW, along with our comments, is provided below for your information: 1. AESI commented that additional geologic cross sections and more detailed and deeper subsurface information was required for the slope stability analysis. ESNW generally responded in their December 2 letter that additional explorations should not be necessary since the test pit explorations confirmed dense, glacially-derived soil and perched groundwater conditions across the site, and that the risk of deeper subsurface uncertainty (such as risk of a potential weaker soil slippage plane) is very low. Given the geologic mapping of glacial soils at the site and the relatively low inclination of the steep slopes (about 50 percent, or 2Horizontal:1 Vertical [1 H:1 V% we concur this assessment is consistent with common geotechnical engineering practice. 2. The current proposal is to construct house footings on the planned fill slope, with a setback of 20 feet from the existing top of the steep slope area. AESI commented that the proposed 2H:1 V fill slope at the top of the existing steep slopes (sensitive area) should also be considered a regulated sensitive/protected slope (if greater than 15-foot high), with the additional development setback requirement behind the top of the planned fill slopes. ESNW responded in their December 2 letter by reducing the fill slope height to 15 feet and providing a 10-foot setback from the existing top of steep slope area to the toe of the planned fill slope, while maintaining the 20-foot setback from the existing (native) top of slope. Given the provided slope stability analysis showing a static and seismic safety factor against slope failure of 1.78 and 1.22, respectively, for this condition, we would consider this a reasonable design based on common geotechnical engineering practice.'For AW Otak — Water and Natural Resources 19017-00 February 24, 2014 Page 3 reference, slope stability safety factors of 1.5 in the static case and 1.1 in the seismic case are generally considered adequate in local geotechnical engineering practice. 3. AESI commented that there were several issues with the initial slope stability analyses provided. In our opinion, these were adequately addressed by ESNW with their supplemental slope stability runs submitted on December 2, 2013, based on common geotechnical engineering practice. 4. The original design proposal included a 4-foot high rockery at the base of the planned 2H:1 V fill slope. AESI commented that an unreinforced rockery should not be used as a retaining wall structure. ESNW responded by removing this rockery from the design. In addition, the toe of the fill slope was also moved 10 feet back from the existing top of steep slope area, as discussed in item 2 above. 5. A stormwater detention vault is proposed near an existing drainage ravine at the south end of the site, with a planned release of stormwater into the existing ravine. Given the classification of the site soils as "high erosion hazard,"AESI commented that the applicant should demonstrate that such stormwater discharge will not cause erosive flows within the existing ravine, or provide alternate discharge design to prevent stormwater directed over the site slopes. ESNW responded in their December 10 letter that storm drainage facilities have been designed to discharge stormwater at a pre-developed flow rate into the existing ravine, which will reduce the potential for instability. While this sounds like a reasonable approach, we recommend that the applicant be required to provide a stormwater collection and discharge design stamped by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in stormwater design. This design should specifically address the potential for increased surface erosion and potential for slope instability with associated with the proposed design. SUMMARY ESNW provided the following code-required minimum risk statement in their December 10 letter: ■ The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; s The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and ■ The proposal can be safely accommodated on the site. Given the presence of competent glacial soils at the site, the relatively low inclination of the existing steep slopes (2H:1 V), and the slope stability analyses demonstrating static and seismic safety factors Aur Otak- Water and Natural Resources 19017-00 February 24, 2014 Page 4 against slope failure exceeding the generally accepted values of 1.5 in thie static case and 1.1 in the seismic case, we consider this a reasonable statement based on common geotechnical engineering practice in this area. USE OF THIS LETTER Work for this project was performed, and this letter was prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Otak and the City of Renton, or their consultants, for specific application to the referenced site. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. We based our review on subsurface conditions interpreted from subsurface soil and groundwater conditions reported by others. The nature and extent of conditions between the explorations may differ from those presented. If significant subsurface variations become evident during construction, we recommend that the geotechnical engineer of record be consulted to provide revised design recommendations, as needed. CLOSING We thank you for this opportunity to provide geotechnical consulting services. If you have any questions, please contact Rolf Hyllseth at(206) 826-4586. Sincerely, HART CROWSER, INC. tiG pF W �� • j 22484�p �sS7Qd1TAL 1"�G ROLF B.HYLLSETH, PE MICHAEL BAILEY, PE Associate Geotechnical Engineer CEO roff.hyllseth@hartcrowser.com mike.bailey@hartcrowser.com L:Vobs\1901700\Geotech Peer Review-Vuecrest Residential Developmentdoc j Denis Law Mayor - City of tY _ ;fF)!,.- •-F• -� �:2 Department of Community and Economic Development April 11,2014 C.E."Chip"Vincent,Administrator Mr.Jamie Waltier Harbour Homes 1441 N 30 Street#200 Seattle,WA 98103 Re: LUA13-000642,Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Dear Mr.Waltier i This letter is sent to inform you of additional analysis required before the Environmental Review Committee can make.a SEPA determination on the Vuecrest Estates project.Upon satisfactory completion of the items listed herein,the"hold"will be lifted,the ERC and public hearing rescheduled,and project review recommenced.. As you are aware,the City has had continuing concerns regarding geology at the site of the proposed project and the impact the project may have on the hydrology in the area.Therefore, please provide the following: 1. An analysis of the anticipated full water weight of the proposed storm drainage vault on Tract'A'and the slope, 2. Proposed structural design for the vault construction(i.e.supported by pilings if applicable), 3. A Level 2 downstream quantitative analysis through Talbot Road S;include all data and all assumptions for-the existing conditions, 4. A determination that the capacity of the downstream system is sufficient with the proposed project,and 5. A Level flow control analysis demonstrating conservation discharge to full 100-year storm event is recommended for this project. if you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at 425-430-6581. I Sincerely i Elizabeth Higgins,Senior Planner Department of Community and Economic Development cc: C.E."Chip"Vincent Jennifer Henning Vanessa Dolbee Steve Lee Rohini Nair Larry Warren 1 EXHIBIT 15 I Renton City Hall • 1055SouthGrady Way Renton,Washington 98057 • rentonwa.gov TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT for VUECREST ESTATES Preliminary Plat 4800 Block of Smithers Avenue S in Renton,Washington �R A. d Cr 0 F wasgJ�ljr c °.y '5232 STE ' Cs' `sI NAL DRS Project No. 12102 Renton File No. LUA13-000642 OwnerlApplicant Harbour Homes, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98103 Report Prepared by r � D. R. STRONG Consulting Engineers, Inc. 10604 N.E. 38th Place, Suite 232 Kirkland WA 98033 (425) 827-3063 Report Issue Date May 21, 2013 Report Revision Issue Date July 15, 2014 EXHIBIT 16 ©2014 D.R.STRONG Consulting Engineers Inc. Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Page i of iii Technical Information Report City of Renton jcoe@coelaw.eom THE CoE LAw FIRM July 14,2014 VIA E-MAIL ONLY John C.Ba'rnger' Vice President/Corporate Counsel R R,N r"r VD Geonerco Management;LLC. 1441 North 34th Street, Suito 200 JUL 1 "2014, Seattle,Washington 98103 CITY OF PENTON Re: Campcn Sprha99 Condominium Association("Association") PLANNING DIVISION Letter of Intent--Weeresi Project Dear Mr.Baringer: Your company has been working on a project adjacent to and upslope from the Association known as Vuecrest("project"); You have asked the Association.if you could tie into the Association's storni drain system. You have asked for this letter of intent as the City of Denton has requested that our 6lienits submit to the City a signed letter of intent regarding the Association's willingness to grant the easement.and your cliezit's willingness to abide by certain.conditions of the grant. As such, I have ben authorized to issue this letter on behalf of the Association. At the Association's regular and duly noticed monthly Board meeting on June 24,2014, the Board approved.proceeding with allowing the Project to tie into the storm drain system at a Catch Basin No. 14•shown on sheet 7 of 33 :of the dampenSprings Apartments engineering plans prepared by Daley-Morrow Poblete, Inc., dated June 19,2042 in a roadway a few teus of feet west of the birdcage. (Not at the upstream bypass pipe.) This storui drain system handles the storm water runoff from the Association's development. This would keep the Projeces storm water out of the Association's water features, but it would route it through..the Association's detention vault. This approval-is contingent upon;; 1. The execution of mutually agreeable temporary construction easements and permanenteasements effecting the tie in. (As discussed previously, the'Association will require Counsel I'c�x i, l'� �i' Your LiCe's \V01-1: EXHIBIT 17 fifl{�pile°yti•ac< St-ert. Stite G�4Scattic.01'.14�1(ll Pi `3(1ti,li'?-i.-ii�?'� Johan C.Baringer July 14,2014 Page 2 that both the temporary and permanent. asemerits retain language requiring'all upslope homes j.ointly and.severally defend, indemnify and hold the Association harmless from.-any and -all losses;damages.and the.like,for(i)the.eonstruction, use,maintenanee,repair,.or replacem�ent:of the lines and storm drain system and catch basins on Association property, (ii)any and all costs for cleanouts and/or fines imposed by the City of Renton for the Association's lines and storm drain system and Catch basins, (iii)any damages to of breach of the Association's system caused by flooding, or acts and/or omissions of the upslope homes. There will be other conditions as well, including, but not limited to, payment and reimbursement of legal.and expert.fees and costs..) 2. Details acid calculations to be confirmed by Owen Reese when available from DR Strong, tti ensure the Association's storm water system-could safely and sufficiently handle the discharge without flooding, I Your plans include-a couple other elements related to storm water management and slope stability such as: a. The NW corner of the Vuecrest property will require building up by several feet. From a geological/slide perspective, the Association will insist that the retaining wall be a properly engineered retaining wall ratifier than just a simple rockery embankment to hold the fill. (Thus,,if there is any movement of the hillside in the future, xocks from retaining Wall will be less likely to clime loose and tumble downhillinto.Campen Springs) Second, in retation to the substantial.amount of fill required for a few of the western line of lots,we would insist that,rather than using native soils from the site as fill,imported,more structured Fill be utilized to provide greater stability to the slope/lat foundation. b. Finally,.for the .other western lots, utilizing the small slope of the lot to eiiable storm water runoff and natural permeation to the soil is preferable to digging a trench for an interceptor pipe with gravel fill. Neither party is'bouiid to one ainothei until the execution of any easements, This letter of intent is not jntimded to be, and .shall not constitute, a binding and enforceable agreemeixt between the parties. It merely sets forth their present-intentions with respect to the tetras proposed, which terms may or may not become .part of a definitive agreement, .as a.basis for future negotiations. It is not based upon any .existing agreement between the parties, and is not intended to impose any obligation. other than an obligation to bargain in good faith. No other legal of equitable Fights, responsibilities or duties are created hereby, or by the respdnse to any competitive bid proposal. The Association shall have no liability with.respect to this letter of intent, for any incidental, .consequential, exemplary, special, indirect or punitive Cc ul"'.Zc•1 For LiCe youl• l.]Ee's %Y*ork -?I!. SeitIde.NVA I P:20k1.112A. (+2P%201j4)?.i,4_tlfi John C.Baringer July 14,2014 Page 3 damages,including loss of use, loss of revenue, anticipated profits or host business,even if it has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Sincerely, TIE COE LAW FIRM, PLLC l� John A.Coo Attorney at Law JAC cc: Campen Springs Condominium Association Cc,>.))S01 F01- (.ife C%r YOUr Life`s Work �•. t SII rl. �ltt::' :,_r{t. N,.,tti,. \1A )x101 P:'20o.42-4.T11,22 F: t,}(.ti_Th.°l'1iti M June 24, 2014 Earth Solutions NW LLC ES-2660.01 • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Proposed Stormwater Vault Vuecrest Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers Vuecrest Estates Vault Detail Sheet Dated June 19, 2014 Dear Jamie: Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to provide an assessment regarding the weight of the proposed stormwater vault and its effect on the adjacent slope. Based on information provided by the project structural engineer (Mr. Dan Kosnik, P.E.), the vault, when full and including 18 inches.of soil cover will weigh 1,500 pounds per square foot. With a footprint of 5,900 square feet, the maximum weight of the vault will be 4,425 tons. Based on information provided by the project civil engineer (Mr. Maher Joudi, P.E.), the volume . of soil displaced by the vault will be 3,676 cubic yards or 99,250 cubic feet. Using an in-situ soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot, the weight of soil displaced by the vault will be 5,955 tons. Therefore, even when the vault is full of water, it is 1,530 tons lighter than the soil it replaced. As currently designed, the setback from the top of the steep slope to the edge of the vault is 40 to 58 feet from the top of the steep slope. Given the setback from the slope and the fact that the vault will weigh 1,530 tons less than the soil it replaces, the vault will increase the overall stability of the slope RECEIVED JUL 16 2014 EXHIBIT 18 CITY OF RLD iTON PLANNING DN!:"!0N 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 0 Bellevue,WA 98005 9 (425)449-4704 • FAX(425)449-4711 Geonerco Properties, LL ES-2660.01 June 24, 2014 Page 2 If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC ` offA Sit�ri, C �T .. ;, oz M Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Earth Solutions NW,LLC \ �| ■ 2 | 00. . § 2 . Z ° 4 in l&§ �7 2 , \ oW Q �| � | b3 ! Z.I � � ky ƒ ` ■_ . � | /pd� / | . | ! |• | ( � � %� Q / | | /� 1z } | ) �Lj� \% • ( |q | r LLJ g , | }� ` � / | ■ % I . � � ' • � ; ` I § | ■ ! A� & § .$uumn\um[ q ' _ =( \ § D ` � � 4-91 / | � ! | Utz . � ! 2@3-*m 3362 »27 DEPARTMENT OF COMP 'NITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER A. SUMMARY AND PURPOSE OF REQUEST HEARING DATE. September 16,2014 Project Name: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat Owner., Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd#1;Tukwila WA 98188 Applicant: Jamie Waltier; Harbour Homes; 1441 N 34th St#200; Seattle WA 98103 Contact., Maher Joudi; DR Strong Consulting Eng; 10604 NE 381h PI,Suite 232; Kirkland WA 98033 File Number: LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Project Manager., Elizabeth Higgins,Senior Planner Project Summary: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision,which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee.The application includes a a request for Modification of Renton Municipal Code to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet.Approval of the project would result in the subdivision of a 9.31 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use.The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family,and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8,and Residential 14.The proposed density is 4.23 dwelling units per net acre.The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations.The project site is currently undeveloped, except for a paved,temporary cul-de-sac. Project Location: 4800 Block Smithers Ave S; Renton WA 98055 Site Area: 405,395 sf [9.31 acres] (263,328 sf[6.06 acres]to be developed) ;IIIII 119.: i'i i uy{p {f Project Location Map HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Com pity&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY F.,T LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 2 of 18 B. EXHIBITS. Exhibit 1: Report to the Hearing Examiner Exhibit 2: Neighborhood Detail Map Exhibit 3: Zoning Map Exhibit 4: Talbot Urban Separator Area Map Exhibit 5: Preliminary Plat Plan Exhibit 6: Public Comments Exhibit 7: Topography Map Exhibit 8: Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan Exhibit 9: Replacement Tree Plan Exhibit 10: Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit 11: Technical Information Report, Revised Exhibit 12: Generalized Utility Plan Exhibit 13: Environmental Determination Exhibit 14: Mitigation Measures Exhibit 15: Format and Legal Description Review Exhibit 16: Wetland Stream Review Exhibit 17: Critical Area Study Exhibit 18: Supplemental Stream Study Exhibit 19: Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents Exhibit 20: Geotechnical Addendum Exhibit 21: Response to AES Geotechnical Review Exhibit 22: Email:AES report correction Exhibit 23: Geotechnical Review Exhibit 24: Slope Setback Response Exhibit 25: Email:Slope Setback Exhibit 26: Protected Slope Analysis Exhibit 27: Geotechnical Report Exhibit 28: Storm Water Detention Vault Exhibit 29: Proposed Stormwater Vault Exhibit 30: Traffic Impact Analysis Exhibit 31: Environmental Review Committee Staff Report C. GENERAL INFORMATION. 1. Owner(s)of Record: Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd#1; Tukwila WA 98188 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density(RLD), Residential Single- Family(RSF), Residential Medium Density(RMD) 3. Zoning Designation: Residential 1 (R-1), Residential 8(R-8), Residential 14 (R-14) 4. Existing Site Use: Undeveloped S. Neighborhood Characteristics: a. North: Talbot Ridge residential development(R-1 and R-8 zones) b. East: Reserve at Stonehaven and low-density residential development(zoned R-8) c. South: Low-density residential development(R-1 and R-8 zones) d. West: Talbot Park and Campen Springs residential developments(R-1 and R-14 zones) HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Corr •nity&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATEPRELIMINARYF_4 LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 3 of 18 6. Access: Smithers Ave S via Main Ave S 7. Site Area: 405,395 sf [9.31 acres] (263,328 sf[6.06 acres]to be developed) D. HISTORICAL/BACKGROUND: Action Land Use File No. Ordinance No. Date Comprehensive Plan N/A 5100 11/01/04 Zoning N/A 5100 11/01/04 Annexation N/A 3268 12/13/78 E. PUBLIC SERVICES, EXISTING CONDITIONS: I. Utilities a. Water: This site is located in the Renton Water Service area, but the nearest water service is provided by the Soos Creek Water. and Sewer District(SCWSD). b. Sewer: The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City of Renton.There is a sewer main and a manhole at the south end of Smithers Ave S. c. Surface/Storm Water: There are no storm drainage improvements at the end of Smithers Ave S. Drainage must be directed to an existing system located to the west in Talbot Rd S. 2. Streets:There is a public street terminating in a temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Smithers Ave S. 3. Fire Protection:City of Renton Fire Department provides emergency services. F. PROJECT NARRATIVE. In 2013,the project proponent submitted a land use master application for subdivision of a 9.31 acre property located in the Talbot Planning Area of South Renton [Exhibit 2]. During the application review,the City of Renton required additional information to be submitted.A"hold"was placed on the project review on July 16, 2013.The requested additional information was submitted and project review recommenced on July 22, 2014. The project was revised with the following results:the number of lots was reduced by one to 20, lot sizes changed,the primary access road was realigned slightly to the east, a rockery retaining wall was eliminated from the top of a steep slope,grading on the west side of the portion of the site to be developed was modified,and the surface water control plan revised. The project is subject to State Environmental Protection Act(SEPA)compliant environmental review and Preliminary Plat approval for the subdivision.The project proponent submitted a request for Modification of Renton Municipal Code to allow a dead-end road in excess of 700 feet.The site has two Category 2 wetlands,one of which connects to a class 4 stream. The site contains three land use zones, Residential 1 dwelling unit per net acre (du/ac), Residential 8(8 du/ac) and Residential 14(14 du/ac) [Exhibit 3].Additionally,the area zoned R-1 is located within the Urban Separator overlay.Only the 6.06 acre (263,328 so portion that is zoned R-8 is proposed to be developed. The proposed density would be 4.23 du/ac Subdivision into 20 lots would result in a density of 4.05 dwelling units per net acre. Lot sizes would range from 4,500 square feet to 8,134 square feet. In addition to the 20 lots, 6 tracts are proposed for sensitive areas and tree retention. HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 4 of 18 The site is proposed to be accessed via an extension of Smithers Ave.S.The requested modification of Renton Municipal Code, if approved,would permit this access although it is considered to be a "dead end" road from the intersection of SE 186`h St. The undeveloped site has approximately 400 trees that have been deemed to be"significant."Trees will be removed, retained, and replaced as required by Renton Municipal Code.An estimated 3,396 cy of cut and 10,035 cy of fill would be required for site construction.A stormwater detention vault is proposed that would discharge to a closed conveyance system on site and subsequently transported to an area-wide system off site.The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Report,Supplement Stream Study,Traffic Impact Analysis,Slope Analysis,Geotechnical Engineering study,and a Drainage Technical Information Report with the application. Goals,objectives,and policies of the Residential Low Density(RLD), Residential Single-Family(RSF), and Residential Medium Density(RMD)Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations are implemented by the regulations and standards of the Residential 1, Residential 8,and Residential 14 zones respectively. The property is also in the Talbot Urban Separator of the City [Exhibit 4]. G. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE RENTON MUNICIPAL CODE: 1. Chapter 2 Land Use Districts a. Section 4-2-020: Purpose and Intent of Zoning Districts b. Section 4-2-070:Zoning Use Table c. Section 4-2-110: Residential Development Standards 2. Chapter 3 Environmental Regulations and Overlay Districts a. Section 4-3-050: Critical Areas Regulations b. Section 4-3-110: Urban Separator Overlay Regulations 3. Chapter 4 Property Development Standards a. Section 4-4-030: Development Guidelines and Regulations b. Section 4-4-070 Landscaping c. Section 4-4-130:Tree Cutting and Land Clearing Regulations 4. Chapter 6 Streets and Utility Standards a. Section 4-6-060:Street Standards S. Chapter 7 Subdivision Regulations a. Section 4-7-080: Detailed Procedures for Subdivisions b. Section 4-7-120: Compatibility with Existing Land Use and Plan—General Requirements and Minimum Standards c. Section 4-7-150: Streets—General Requirements and Minimum Standards d. Section 4-7-160: Residential Blocks—General Requirements and Minimum Standards e. Section 4-7-170: Residential Lots—General Requirements and Minimum Standards S. Chapter 9 Procedures and Review Criteria 6. Chapter 11 Definitions HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 5 of 18 H. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 1. Land Use Element 2. Community Design Element I. MODIFICATION REQUEST The project proponent submitted a request to modify Renton Municipal Code 4-6-060"Street Standards," Section H, "Dead End Streets." RMC 4-6-060H states that cul-de-sac turnarounds and dead end streets are only permitted when there are demonstrable physical constraints and no future connection to a larger street pattern is physically possible. In addition,this section of the RMC further requires a secondary access be provided when the primary access is a dead end street longer than 700 feet. The proposed project site is located at the end of an existing dead end street in excess of 700 feet.The proposal asks for approval of a temporary cul-de-sac on an extension of this street.The length of the extended dead-end street would be approximately 2,364 feet,from the point at which it becomes a dead end at Main Avenue South (SE 102nd St)and SE 186th St to the new street end within the proposed project. Currently,there are 99 lots that are accessed by this dead end street. Previous land use actions assumed a second access would eventually become available.The Renton Fire Department does not support the current request to continue modification of the RMC requirement for a secondary access, due to concerns for public health and safety in the event of an emergency situation. The Department of Community and Economic Development also does not support the modification request because the project proponent has not demonstrated that there are insurmountable physical constraints and/or future connection to the wider system is not possible. (For additional discussion and staff recommendation,see Section K. 9"Impact on Public Services—Fire," below) J. FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. The project proponent submitted a land use master application for a preliminary plat subdivision of a 9.31 acre site into 20 lots and 6 tracts[Exhibit 5]. The tracts are for storm drainage,tree retention, and critical areas(protected slopes,wetlands,and a stream).The proposal would have a density of 4.23 dwelling units per net acre. 2. The land use master application includes a request to modify the Renton Municipal Code 4-6-060H to allow access by a dead end street longer than 700 feet,without a secondary access.Staff recommends that the Modification request be denied,although the decision lies with the Hearing Examiner. 3. The Planning Division of the City of Renton accepted the land use permit master application for review on May 21,2013, and determined the application complete on June 7, 2013. The project complied with the 120-day review period.The project was placed on "hold" on July 16, 2013,due to the requirement that a secondary geotechnical study be completed.The hold was removed, upon submittal of additional information, on July 22,2014.There were numerous written comments submitted [Exhibit 6]. 4. The City required stormwater to be conveyed from a vault to an existing stormwater system at the bottom of the protected slope by means of a 12-inch diameter pipe.This conveyance on the protected slope meets the requirements for an exemption from the Critical Areas Regulations. 5. The proposed plat would be located south of Smithers Ave S, south of S 47th St. 6. The property has Residential Low Density(RLD), Residential Single-Family(RSF),and Residential Medium Density(RMD) Comprehensive Plan land use designations,the policies of which are implemented by the regulations and standards of the Residential 1(R-1), Residential 8(R-8), and HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTA TE PRELIMINAR Y PLA T LUA13-000641;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 6 of 18 Residential 14(R-14)zoning classifications, respectively. Only that portion of the property designated RSF and zoned R-8 is proposed for development.The RSF designation is intended to be used for quality detached residential development organized into neighborhoods at urban densities. 7. The proposed residential lots would range in size from 4,500 sf to 6,650 sf. 8. The site is not developed,with the exception of a paved temporary cul-de-sac, located at the terminus of Smithers Ave S on the north portion of the property. 9. The following are proposed lot sizes and approximate dimensions for Lots 1-20 and Tracts A through E: Lot Size Width Depth Lots (Minimum 50 ft., except (Minimum 4,500 sf) (Minimum 65 ft.) 60 ft.for corner lots) Lot 1 6,069 sf 51.23 feet 121.89 feet(average) Lot 2 6,008 sf 51.74 feet 124.43 feet(average) Lot 3 6,265 sf 51 feet 124.06 feet(average) Lot 4 6,205 sf 50.18 feet 124.25 feet(average) Lot 5 6,017 sf 50 feet 119.21 feet(average) Lot 6 5,936 sf 53 feet 112.90 feet(average) Lot 7 6,436 sf 50.42 feet 120.63 feet (average) Lot 8 6,650 sf 51.2 feet 132.72 feet (average) Lot 9 8,134 sf 90.08 feet 136.36 feet (average) Lot 10 4,972 sf 50 feet 95.45 feet(average) Lot 11 5,129 sf 50 feet 102.58 feet Lot 12 5,237 sf 60 feet(corner lot) 90 feet Lot 13 4,500 sf 50 feet 90 feet Lot 14 4,500 sf 50 feet 90 feet Lot 15 4,500 sf 50 feet 90 feet Lot 16 5,323 sf 60 feet(corner lot) 90 feet Lot 17 4,985 sf 67.32 feet(corner lot) 80 feet Lot 18 4,507 sf 56.25 feet 80 feet Lot 19 5,528 sf 61.33 feet(average) 88.96 feet(average) Lot 20 5,622 sf 64.54 feet(average) 88.84(average) Tract A 16,426 sf Tract B 48,847 sf Tract C 18,513 sf Tract D 1,458 sf Tract E 24,017 sf 10. Tract A would be the site of a stormwater control vault.Tracts B and E would be sensitive areas (wetland)and C an area for tree retention.Tract D would be an open space. 11. Proposed Lots 1-8 would be directly accessed from Smithers Ave S; Lots 9 and 10 would be accessed from a new street,S 48th Pl (SE 186th PI); Lots 11-16 would be accessed from the alley; and Lots 17- 20 would be accessed from a private access easement(S 47th CT).Tracts A and D would be accessed from Smithers Ave S and Tract E from the alley.Tracts B,C, and F would be inaccessible to vehicles. 12. Topographically,the site has a wide-range of slopes,from 2 percent to greater than 75 percent within the proposed development area [Exhibit 7].The steepest slopes are to the west of the development area and consist of slopes deemed to be "protected" by the Renton Municipal Code.This area would be preserved as a Native Growth Protection Area within Tract A. HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 7 of 18 13. There are 401 trees on the site that have been deemed "significant." Renton Municipal Code requires that,of these, 65 trees must be retained or replaced.The Tree Cutting/Land Clearing Plan [Exhibit 81 indicates 42 trees would be retained;therefore, new trees must be planted.The plan proposes that 140 two-inch caliper replacement trees(280.8 caliper inches)would be planted on the site [Exhibit 9]. 14. The preliminary landscape plan indicates street trees would be planted along the public and private streets [Exhibit 10]. Additional landscaping is proposed although the landscape plan is currently "conceptual"only.A"Landscape Plan, Detailed,"as per RMC 4-8-120L, must be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits. 15. A drainage report and drainage plan, 'Technical Information Report for Vuecrest Estates," Revised,July 15, 2014, by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc.,was submitted [Exhibit 11].The report demonstrates compliance with 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and additional requirements, based on specific site conditions,as required by the Department Community and Economic Development. 16. Although the project site lies within the boundaries of the Renton Water Service Area,the City does not have water service mains near the project site.Water service would be provided by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District from an existing water main located at the Smithers Ave S street end at the north portion of the property.A certificate of water availability from SCWSD must be provided prior to issuance of construction permits. 17. Sanitary sewer service would be provided by the City of Renton. [Exhibit 12]. 18. Pursuant to the City of Renton's Environmental Ordinance and State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA RCW 43.21C, 1971 as amended), on August 26, 2014,the Environmental Review Committee issued a Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated (DNS-M)for the Vuecrest Estate Preliminary Plat [Exhibit 13].The DNS-M included 9 mitigation measures [Exhibit 14]. A 14-day appeal period commenced on August 29,2014,and ended on September 12, 2014, no appeals of the threshold determination were filed. 19. No agency comments were submitted, but there were numerous public comments received during public comment period [Exhibit 6]. 20. Representatives from various city departments have reviewed the application materials to identify and address issues raised by the proposed development.These comments are contained in the official file, and the essence of the comments has been incorporated into the appropriate sections of this report and the Departmental Recommendation at the end of this report. X CONCLUSIONS. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA:Approval of land subdivision is based upon several factors.The following criteria have been established to assist decision-makers in the review of the plat. (✓Compliant; Note 1: Partially compliant; Note 2: Not compliant; Note 3: Compliance not yet demonstrated) 1.CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The site is designated Residential Low Density(RLD), Residential Single-Family(RSF), Residential Medium Density(RMD)on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map, although only the portion zoned RSF is proposed for development. The proposal is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element policies if the project is developed compliant with all regulations and conditions of approval. Land Use Goal 1: Plan for future growth of the Urban Area based on regionally developed ✓ growth forecasts, adopted growth targets, and land capacity as determined through implementation of the Growth Management Act. Land Use Goal 7: Promote new development and neighborhoods in the City that: HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 8 of 18 ✓ a. Contribute to a strong sense of community and neighborhood identity; b. Are walkable places where people can live,shop, play, and get to work without always having to drive; Note 2 Staff Comment. While there would be a system of sidewalks throughout the plat, the context of the development precludes pedestrian access to shopping or employment opportunities. ✓ c. Are developed at densities sufficient to support public transportation and make efficient use of urban services and infrastructure; ✓ d. Offer a variety of housing types for a population diverse in age, income, and lifestyle; ✓ e. Are varied or unique in character; ✓ f. Support"grid"and "flexible grid" street and pathway patterns where appropriate; ✓ g. Are visually attractive, safe, and healthy environments in which to live; ✓ h. Offer connection to the community instead of isolation; and ✓ i. Provide a sense of home. Land Use Objective LU-FF:Manage and plan for high quality residential growth in Renton and the Potential Annexation Area that: ✓ a. Supports transit by providing urban densities, ✓ b. Promotes efficient land utilization, and c. Creates stable neighborhoods incorporating built amenities and natural features. Note 1 Staff Comment. There are no existing built amenities at the location of the proposed rp oiect. Policy LU-140. Pursue multiple strategies for residential growth including: ✓ Infill development on vacant and underutilized parcels in Renton's established neighborhoods Policy LU-146.Small-lot, single-family infill developments and plats should be supported as ✓ alternatives to multi-family development to both increase the City's supply of single-family detached housing and provide homeownership opportunities. ✓ Policy LU-158. Net development densities should fall within a range of 4.0 to 8.0 dwelling units per acre in Residential Single Family Neighborhoods. Policy LU-159. Maximum height of structures should not exceed two (2)stories in sJan family residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-160. Designate land for Residential Single-Family land use where there is exist ing pattern of single-family development in the range of four to eight units per net acre Note 1 and where critical areas are limited. Staff Comment: The proposed project is only partially compliant due to the presence of steep slopes and wetlands. Community Design Objective CD-D: New development should have an interconnected road network that supports multi-modal transportation. Note 2 Staff Comment: The proposed project is not compliant due to the lack of connection to a larger vehicular circulation system. Multi-modal transportation opportunities are not available at this location. ✓ Policy CD-19. Land should be subdivided into blocks sized so that walking distances are minimized and convenient routes between destination points are available. ✓ Policy CD-20. Orient site and building design primarily toward pedestrians through master planning, building location,and design guidelines. ✓ Policy CD-22. During land division,all lots should front streets or parks. Note 2 Policy CD-25.Streets,sidewalks, and pedestrian or bike paths should be arranged as an HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 9 of 18 interconnecting network. Dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs should be discouraged.A grid or "flexible grid" pattern of streets and pathways,with a hierarchy of widths and corresponding traffic volumes,should be used. Staff Comment:Both a dead-end street and cul-de-sac are proposed.See Section I "Modification Request"above. Policy CD-26. Interpret development standards to support plats designed to incorporate ✓ vehicular and pedestrian connections between plats and neighborhoods. Future street connections should be clearly identified to notify residents of future roadway connections. ✓ Objective ME: New development and infill patterns should be consistent with a high quality urban form. ✓ Policy CD-34.Support project site planning in residential land use designations that incorporates the following,or similar elements, in order to meet the intent of the objective: ✓ a. Buildings oriented toward public streets, ✓ b. Private open space for ground-related units, ✓ c. Common open or green space insufficient amount to be useful, ✓ d. Landscaping of all pervious areas of the property, and ✓ e. Landscaping, consisting of groundcover and street trees (at a minimum), of all setbacks and rights-of way abutting the property. Policy CD-39. Ensure quality development by supporting site plans and plats that ✓ incorporate quality building,development,and landscaping standards that reflect unity of design and create a distinct sense of place. ✓ Policy CD-40. Use design regulations to provide direction on site design,building design, landscape treatments,and parking and circulation. ✓ Policy CD-41.Site design of development should relate, connect,and continue design quality and site function from parcel to parcel. Policy CD-42.Site design should address the effects of light,glare, noise,vegetation ✓ removal,and traffic in residential areas.Overall development densities may be reduced within the allowed density range to mitigate potential adverse impacts. Objective CD-F: Ensure privacy and personal space in residential developments. Note 3 Staff Comment:Assurance of privacy and personal space would be demonstrated with the development of individual lots. Policy CD-44. Development should be designed (e.g.site layout, building orientation, setbacks, landscape areas and open space, parking,and outdoor activity areas)to result in a Note 3 high quality development as a primary goal, rather than to maximize density as a first consideration. Staff Comment.Assurance of high quality design and development would be demonstrated with the development of individual lots. Policy CD-45. Interpret development standards to support new plats and infill project Note 3 designs that address privacy and quality of life for existing residents. Staff Comment:Assurance of privacy and quality of life would be demonstrateJhhie development of individual lots. Policy CD-50.Support site plans that transition to and blend with existing dev patterns using techniques such as lot size,depth and width,access points, buisetbacks, and landscaping.Sensitivity to unique features and differences amoneighborhoods should be reflected in site plan design. Interpret development support ground-related orientation, coordinated structural design,and private yards or substantial common space areas. ✓ Policy CD-53. Consideration of the scale and building style of near-by residential HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 10 of 18 neighborhoods should be included in development proposals. Policy CD-57.Single-family lot size, lot width, setbacks, and impervious surface should be ✓ sufficient to allow private open space, landscaping to provide buffers/privacy without extensive fencing,and sufficient area for maintenance activities. 2.COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNDERLYING ZONING DESIGNATION: The portion of the site proposed for development is classified Residential 8(R-8)on the City of Renton Zoning Map. RMC 4-2-110A provides development standards for development within the R-8 zoning classification.The proposal is consistent with the following development standards, if the project complies with all regulations and conditions of approval. Density:The minimum density allowed in the R-8 zone is 4 dwelling units per net acre (du/ac).The maximum density permitted in the R-8 zone is 8.0 du/ac. Net density is calculated after the deduction of critical areas,areas intended for public rights-of-way,and private access easements. ✓ Staff Comment.Based on gross site area of 263,328 sf(area zoned R-8), there would be 39,956 sf deducted for public streets; 7,674 sf deducted for a private access road and alley; 9,571 sf for sensitive areas(slope and wetland), therefore, the net area to be developed would be 206,127 sf(4.73 ac). The 20 lot plat would have a net density of 4.23 dwelling units per net acre, which is within the allowed range for the R-8 zone. Lot Dimensions:The minimum lot size permitted in the R-8,for parcels larger than 1 acre before subdivision, is 4,500 sf. A minimum lot width of 50 feet for interior lots and 60 feet for corner lots, as well as a minimum lot depth of 65 feet, is also required. Insofar as ✓ practical, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved street lines. Staff Comment:As demonstrated in finding of fact 7, table above, all lots would meet the requirements for minimum lot size, depth, and width. Setbacks:The required setbacks in the R-8 zone are as follows: The minimum front yard setback is 15 feet; minimum side yard is 5 feet and, if along a public street, 15 feet for the Note 3 primary structure; minimum rear yard is 20 feet. Staff Comment:Setbacks are dimensioned on the Preliminary Plat plan and would be verified at the time of building permit review. The lots would be sufficient size to accommodate a single family home and meet the setback requirements. Building Standards: Building height is restricted to 30 feet and 2-stories. Detached accessory structures must remain below a height of 15 feet and one-story. The allowed building lot coverage for lots over 5,000 sf in size in the R-8 zone is 35 percent or 2,500 sf,whichever is greater. For lots 5,000 sf or less,the maximum coverage allowed is Note 3 50 percent. The allowed impervious surface coverage is 75 percent. Staff Comment.The building standards for the proposed lots would be verified at the time of building permit review. Landscaping: On-site Landscaping Requirements:Ten feet of on-site landscaping is required along all public street frontages, including sideyards that abut public streets,with the exception of areas for required walkways and driveways per RMC 4-4-070. Landscaping Requirements Within the Public Right-of-Way:A landscaped area with the minimum dimension of 8 feet in width is required abutting Smithers Ave S,S 47th Ct, and S Note 1 48th PI (as per RMC 4-6-060F). Yards abutting public streets must have all pervious areas landscaped in accordance with RMC 4-4-070. HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 11 of 18 Staff Comment.Street trees are shown on the conceptual landscape plan. The conceptual landscape plan, however, does not specify plants.within the required 10 foot wide on-site landscape area. Street trees should not be Callery Pear, as shown on landscape plan, due to their small size at maturity. Use only species/cultivars that attain a large-at-maturity size.Street trees along S 48`x'PI should be different from those on Smithers Ave S,for visual variety and health of the ecosystem. Staff recommends, as a condition of approval, the applicant be required to submit a revised landscape plan, meeting all landscape requirements. The final detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits. Parking: Each unit is required to accommodate off street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. Staff Comment:Sufficient area exists, on each lot, to accommodate off-street parking for a minimum of two vehicles. 3. DESIGN STANDARDS: RMC 4-2-115 delineates residential and open space standards for development within the R-8 zoning classification.The proposal is consistent with the following design standards if compliant with all conditions of approval. Lot Configuration:One of the following is required: a. Lot width variation of 10 feet(10') minimum of one per four(4)abutting street-fronting lots,or b. Minimum of four(4) lot sizes (minimum of four hundred (400)gross square feet size Note 3 difference),or c. A front yard setback variation of at least five feet(5') minimum for at least every four(4) abutting street fronting lots. Staff Comment.It appears from the proposed plan that option c, above, would be the only one available to meet the Lot Configuration requirement. Compliance would be demonstrated when building permit applications are submitted. Garages:The minimization of the visual impact of garages contributes to creating communities that are oriented to people and pedestrians, as opposed to automobiles. One of the following is required: 1. Recessed from the front of the house and/or front porch at least 8 feet, or 2. Located so the roof extends at least 5 feet(excluding eaves) beyond the front of the garage for at least the width of the garage, plus the porch/stoop area,or 3. Alley accessed,or Note 4. Located so that the entry does not face a public and/or private street or an access 3 easement,or 5. Sized so that it represents no greater than 50 percent of the width of the front fagade at ground level,or 6. Detached. The portion of the garage wider than 26 feet across the front shall be set back at least 2 feet. Staff Comment:Building plans, which would be used to determine visual impact of garages, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 12 of 18 Primary Entry: Entrances to houses shall be a focal point and allow space for social interaction. One of the following is required: I. Stoop: minimum 4 feet by 6 feet and 12 inches above grade, or Note 2. Porch: minimum 5 feet deep and 12 inches above grade. 3 Exception: An ADA accessible route may be taken from a front driveway. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). Facade Modulation: Buildings shall not have monotonous facades along public areas.One of the following is required: 1. An offset of at least one story that is at least 10 feet wide and 2 feet in depth on Note facades visible from the street,or 3 2. At least a 2-foot offset of second story from first story on one street-facing fagade. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). Windows and Doors:Windows and front doors are an integral part of the architectural character of a house. Windows and doors shall constitute 25 percent of all facades facing Note street frontage. 3 Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). Scale, Bulk,and Character: Neighborhoods shall have a variety of home sizes and character. Abutting houses shall have differing architectural elevations. Both of the following are required: 1. A minimum of three differing home models for each ten contiguous abutting homes, and Note 2. Abutting houses must have differing architectural elevations. 3 Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). Roofs: Roof forms and profiles are an important architectural component. One of the following is required: 1. Hip or gabled roof with at least a 6:12 pitch for the prominent form of the roof Note (dormers,etc.) may have lesser pitch, or 3 2. Shed roof. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). Eaves: Eaves and overhangs act as unifying elements in the architectural character of a Note house. Both of the following are required: 3 1. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at least 12 inches with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least 5 inches deep on the face of all eaves, and HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 13 of 18 2. Rakes on gable ends must extend a minimum of 2 inches from the surface of exterior siding materials. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). Architectural Detailing: Architectural detailing contributes to the visual appeal of a house and the community. If one siding material is used on any side of the dwelling that is two stories or greater in height,a horizontal band that measures at least 8 inches is required between the first and second story. Also,one of the following is required: Note 1. Minimum 3-1/2 inch trim surrounds all windows and details all doors,or 3 2. A combination of shutters and minimum 3-1/2 inch trim details all windows and minimum 3-1/2 inch details all doors. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). Materials and Color: A variety of materials and color contributes to the diversity of housing in the community.Abutting houses shall be different colors.Color palettes for all new dwellings, coded to the building elevations,shall be submitted for approval.Additionally, one of the following is required: 1. A minimum of 2 colors shall be used on the building(a main color with different trim Note color is acceptable),or 3 2. A minimum of 2 different siding materials shall be used on the building. One siding material shall comprise a minimum 30 percent of the street-facing facade. If masonry siding is used, it shall wrap the corners no less than 24 inches. Staff Comment: Building designs, which would be used to evaluate design of entrances, have not been submitted. They would be submitted for building permit review(compliance not demonstrated). 4.TECHNICAL SERVICES:There are technical issues related to the preliminary and final plat that must be addressed prior to recording the plat.These issues have been clarified in comments from the Department of Community and Economic Development and are included in Exhibit 15. S.CRITICAL AREAS:There are protected slopes,wetlands, and a stream located within proposed sensitive area tracts(Native Growth Protection Areas)on the site.The anticipated impacts of these areas have been addressed in technical reports and studies [Exhibits 16-27] and the Environmental Review Committee Report [Exhibit 31]. The project complies with all critical area regulations provided all mitigation measures are met identified in the Environmental Review Committee Report. A Critical Area Exemption is required to allow placement of a tight-lined stormwater conveyance system in an area identified as a "protected slope."Storm drainage piping is an activity deemed exempt from the Critical Areas Regulations(RMC 4-3-050C.5.d.iv) as follows: Installation of new storm drainage lines in any geologic hazard area when a geotechnical report clearly demonstrates that the installation would comply with the criteria listed in RMC 4-3-050J2b and that the installation would be consistent with each of the purposes of the geologic hazard regulations listed in RMC 4-3-050A4.Also,to qualify for the exemption,the report must propose appropriate mitigation for any potential impacts identified in the report. Staff Comment: The stormwater outfall high density polyethylene(HDPE)pipe must be secured to the ground by using anchors and concrete. At the top the pipe is secured to a vault and at the base it is secured with a slip joint and concrete block. The slip joint is needed because thermo-elastic expansion and contraction of the HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 14 of 18 pipe will be occurring due to differing temperatures. Typically HDPE above ground pipe installations need to have anchors for each 50 lineal feet of pipe placed. The City has successfully placed numerous outfall projects of these types at steep, erosive slopes. These types of outfall installations reduce wet soil bearing weight, erosion, trenching and other negative effects on the steep slope while retaining more trees and vegetation that assist with stabilizing the slope. (See also Section 8 "Stormwater"below) 6.COMMUNITY ASSETS:The proposal is consistent with the following community asset requirements: Tree Retention: RMC 4-4-130 states 30 percent of the trees shall be retained in a residential development. Staff Comments: There are approximately 401 trees deemed to be "significant"(over 6 inches in diameter)on the site. Of these, none have been determined to be dead, diseased, or dangerous. The tree retention formula, as per RMC 4-4-130H,for the R-8 zone, requires Note 2 that 65.4 trees must be retained. The project proposal indicates that 42 trees would be retained. Therefore, 140 two-inch diameter trees, or 280.8 "replacement inches"are required.A tree replacement plan has been submitted indicating 69 two-inch diameter trees would be planted. Staff recommends the Replacement Tree Plan be revised to show the proposed locations for replanting 140 two-inch diameter replacement trees. Tree protection measures during construction shall be required as per RMC4-4-130H8 and 9. 7.COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN SEPARATOR OVERLAY REGULATIONS: RMC 4-3-110 provides requirements for development of land within the Urban Separator Overlay area of the City. Regulations listed below are applicable to Portions of the Urban Separator Outside the Established Contiguous Open Space Corridor or are Standards within the entire Urban Separator(the Talbot Urban Separator does not include a Contiguous Open Space Corridor). Dedicated Open Space: Fifty percent of the gross area of that portion of a property within ✓ the [Talbot] Urban Separator Overlay area shall be designated as a non-revocable open space tract. ✓ Uses Allowed: Uses shall be consistent with RMC 4-2-060 and 4-2-070B (Residential-1 Zone) ✓ Forest/Vegetation Clearing:Clearing shall be limited to a maximum of 35 percent of the gross acreage of the area within the Urban Separator. ✓ Stormwater Management:Stormwater management shall comply with the Surface Water Design Manual. ✓ Private Access Easements: Private access easements and improvements shall be established at the minimum standard needed to meet public safety requirements. Landscape Plans: Landscape plans required in RMC 4-4-070 shall include retention/replanting plans as applicable,consistent with standards and plant lists in King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks Water and Land Resources Division Note 3 Publication, "Going Native." Staff Comment:Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring replanting of vegetation to replace vegetation(trees,shrubs, and ground cover)removed for installation of the stormwater conveyance between the stormwater vault and the west property boundary of the property. This area lies within the Talbot Urban Separator. 8.COMPLIANCE WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: RMC 4-7 Provides review criteria for subdivisions.The proposal is consistent with the following subdivision regulations if compliant with all regulations and conditions of approval. ✓ Access: Each lot must have access to a public street or road.Access may be by private access easement street per the requirements of the street standards. Blocks: Blocks shall be deep enough to allow two tiers of lots. N/A Staff Comment.Depth of property limits this requirement. Note 3 Streets:The proposed street system shall extend and create connections between existing HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 15 of 18 streets per the Street Standards outlined in RMC 4-6-060 Street Standards. Street lighting is required. Improvements that meet the street standards are required. Staff Comment.Street improvements along Smithers Ave Sand S 48th Pl. require a 53 foot wide right-of-way(a 55 foot ROW is shown on the plans). The proposed 28 foot wide road surface would allow on-street parking, 0.5 foot vertical curb;gutter,8-foot wide landscape strip,and 5-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of the street. The primary access road,Smithers Ave,shall connect to S 481h PI and be extended to the east to provide a second access from 102nd Ave SE. The completion of this street and its connection to 102nd Ave SE shall be a condition of project approval. The extended street, providing a second access to the proposed development,shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat. The applicant has requested a street modification to RMC 4-6-060H"Dead End Streets"(see Section 1, "Modification Request"above, and 9 "Fire"below). Relationship to Existing Uses:The proposed project is compatible with existing surrounding uses. ✓ Staff Comment: The properties surrounding the subject site are single-family residences and are designated R-8 on the City's zoning map. The proposal is similar to existing development patterns in the area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, which encourage residential infill development. 9.AVAILABILITY AND IMPACT ON PUBLIC SERVICES: Police: Service would be provided by the Renton Police Department. ✓ Staff Comment: The Renton Police Department has commented that there would be minimal impacts from the project. Fire:Service would be provided by the Renton Fire Department. Staff Comment:Fire Prevention staff indicate that sufficient resources exist to furnish services to the proposed development,subject to the condition that the applicant provides Code required improvements and fees and that a second access be provided to the site in accordance with RMC 4-6-060H, which prohibits dead end streets longer than 700 feet in length. Such dead end streets, of which Smithers Ave S is one, require a second access to the Note 3 development. (See Section I"Modification Request"above)Staff recommends as a condition of approval, a second access be constructed prior to recording the final plat. A Fire Impact Fee, based on the number of new single-family lots, is required to be paid prior to issuance of building permits, in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to City emergency services. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. The 2014 Fire Impact Fee is$479.28 per new single-family residential unit. Schools:The proposed project is located within the Renton School District. Staff Comment:It is anticipated that the Renton School District can accommodate additional students generated by this proposal at the following schools:Benson Hill Elementary, Nelson Middle School, and Lindbergh High School. ✓ These schools are not within walking distance of the proposed development. Transportation would be required. A School Impact Fee, based on the number of new single-family lots, would be required in order to mitigate the proposal's potential impacts to Renton School District. The fee is payable to the City as specified by the Renton Municipal Code. The fee is assessed per single family residence. The 2014 fee for single-family residential units is$5,455.00 each. HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community&Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 16 of 18 Parks:The proposed project would add residents who may use City of Renton Parks and Recreation facilities. ✓ Staff Comment: Although there would be no significant impacts to the City of Renton Park System anticipated from the proposed project, a Park Impact Fee is required of all new residential development. The Park Impact Fee shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. The 2014 Park Impact Fee is$963.01 per new single-family residence. Storm Water:An adequate drainage system shall be provided for the proper drainage of all surface water. Staff Comment: This 20 lot subdivision is required to comply with the 2009 King County Surface Water Manual and the 2009 City of Renton Amendments to the KCSWM, Chapter 1 and 2. Based on the City's flow control map, this site falls within the Flow Control Duration Standard, Forested Conditions. The site is subject to full drainage review. The Technical Information Report(TIR), Revised dated 7/15/2014, was submitted by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers[Exhibit 11].Additional reports[Exhibits 28-29]provided information about the proposed vault. The project is required to provide detention and water quality under the ✓ current King County Surface Water Manual. The engineer has provided a design for a combined detention and water quality vault to be located on Tract of the site.A tightlined stormwater conveyance system shall be utilized to transport discharged stormwater from a vault to an existing system at the bottom of the protected slope(Tract F). A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing system shall be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits. A Construction Stormwater General Permit from Department of Ecology will be required for the grading and clearing of the site since it exceeds one acre. The surface water system development fee is$1,120.00 per lot. Fees are payable prior to issuance of the construction permit. Water:The project would be served by the Soos Creek Water and Sewer District(SCWSD). Staff Comment.The project proponent shall verify that the SCWSD is willing to provide water service to the development and the project proponent must obtain a certificate of water availability from SCWSD and provide it to the City prior to construction permit issuance.An extension of the SCWSD water main will be required and plans for the extension shall be reviewed and approved by both the SCWSD and the City of Renton.A water main improvements final plan, as approved by the SCWSD,shall be provided to the City.A ✓ separate agreement between the SCWSD and the City may be required prior to issuance of utility construction permits. Water main extension within the interior roads will be required to provide fire protection and domestic water services to all lots within the proposed plat. The number and location of the fire hydrants must be approved by Renton Fire Prevention Department. There shall be a minimum 10 foot separation between water lines and other utility lines. A Valley General Hospital—South Talbot Hill Water SAD fee may be applicable. This requirement would be required prior to issuance of construction permits. Sanitary Sewer:The site is provided sanitary sewer service by the City of Renton. Staff Comments:Sanitary sewer is provided by the City of Renton. Civil engineering plans will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.Sewer main extension within the interior roads will be required along with a sewer stub for each lot within the proposed plat. In anticipation of development occurring to the east of the proposed project,staff recommends a condition of approval requiring an easement be recorded along the east property boundaryfor future extension of the sanitary sewer system. The easement shall be HEX Report 13-000642, Final City of Renton Department of Comiaunity& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 17 of 18 at the time of recording the final plat. There shall be a minimum 10 foot separation between sanitary sewer lines and other utility lines. Civil engineering plans for the sewer main extension must be approved by the District and a copy of the approved plans must be submitted to the City. A Sanitary Sewer System Development Fee(SDC)is required. It is based on the size of the domestic water meter. Current sanitary sewer fee for a 3<-inch or a 1-inch water meter is $1,812.00. These fees are assessed and payment is collected at the time of issuance of the construction permit. Transportation: Impacts to the city transportation system are expected due to increased vehicle trips to and from the proposed project. or Staff Comments:Impacts from the development on the transportation system shall be mitigated by payment of Transportation Impact Fees. The 2014 Transportation Impact Fee rate is$1,430.72 per single family house. Payment of the transportation impact fee is due at the time of issuance of the building permit. L. RECOMMENDATIONS. Staff recommends approval of the Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat and Critical Areas Exemption, as depicted in Exhibit 5,subject to the 8 conditions below. Staff recommends denial of the request for modification of RMC 4-6-060H (dead end road longer than 700 feet without a second access). 1. The applicant shall comply with nine the mitigation measures issued as part of the Determination of Non-Significance Mitigated,dated August 26, 2014 [Exhibit 14]. 2. The applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan, meeting all landscape plan submittal requirements of RMC 4-8-120L. The detailed landscape shall be submitted to and approved by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to issuance of construction permits.Street trees shall not include Callery Pear and trees on S.48th PI shall be.a different type from those on Smithers Ave S. 3. The Replacement Tree Plan shall be revised to show the proposed locations for replanting 140 two-inch diameter replacement trees. 4. Vegetation (trees,shrubs,and ground cover)shall be planted to replace vegetation (trees,shrubs,and ground cover) removed for installation of the stormwater conveyance between the stormwater vault and the west property boundary of the property.Type and quantities shall be sufficient to ensure erosion control in the protected slope area. 5. The primary access road,Smithers Ave S, shall connect to S 48th PI and be extended to the east to provide a second access from Main Ave S(102nd Ave SE)at its intersection with SE 186th St.The completion of this street and its connection to Main Ave S shall be a condition of project approval.The street type shall be determined by the City of Renton Fire Department.The extended street, providing a second access to the proposed development,shall have construction completed prior to recording the final plat. 6. A recorded easement agreement demonstrating access to the existing downslope stormwater control system shall be submitted prior to issuance of construction permits. 7. A Homeowners'Association shall be incorporated for maintenance and equal and undivided ownership of the tracts,the private access road, and the alley. 8. An easement shall be recorded along the east property boundary for future extension of the sanitary sewer system.The easement shall be at the time of recording the final plat. HEX Report 13-000642,Final City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Hearing Examiner Staff Report VUECREST ESTATE PRELIMINARY PLAT LUA13-000642;ECF,PP,MOD Hearing Date September 16,2014 Page 18 of 18 EXPIRATION PERIODS: Preliminary Plat Approval expires seven (7)years from the date of approval. HEX Report 13-000642,Final � I e ©R q Z , o E-� I j UZ $ o I ~W � I i I I I P.71 E I I i i b i i x "W j Q� o9wwl L _ i - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - ----- ------------ ciI Y, j � i i i EXHIBIT 2 i I S31VlS3 1SMOMA 3mm��naa H3 -30 T23N R5E E 1/2 !M I is CA co �.... -- R-14 CO -- CO C T -- Rl 14 CO swakd S[� 6TWIhs �� 0G� f R�-� 6 43rd co co — CO i .........- --- - J CO CO c0 I GYsoft' __ H '46t S1 44m st "8 N va am at 0 i...'; 6 R-14 - �' as"4'Y's 8 � � ssomat --r-- ' i esus st '-----..._.,,.�..—_....._.. .. i :.......__. R-1 — -- , I i T_....;.__—.. _ I �b R4- � r Qf -R.,4. i1J1 ZONING MAP BOOK J3- 06 T22N R5E E 1/' PW TECHNICAL SERVICES PRINTED ON 11/13/09 th'sdmm:.ts.ou:cnm..ontien.w �., ,dbr b�sst hhiMdim-&Nmdw1—Mltl1,k u uM1M1�e a.tde ern. 0 200 400: EXHIBIT 3 :;EAut '- -- z - - C' .z i,r. ,..,. t:4,800 Ft 473-1 1-OC a Talbot Urban Sepaator SW mat FYI > ysg a / « s4 . B . , � . . TO . � ■ . _ \ . sem% / � r7-n J ^ � S ni rT . .to S1 Ei Talbot Urbain Separator Eco-'amicm+r'm±aN) md:&Suz4gic R m ,malb E� AJ����© a �� @ = m�r��7 ~ (O@/g3, 4420) z EXHIBIT 4 (Revised 4/11) x ';"ss' g-x-"" ~saan Nil s ©O oR 1.181 If Aa�ajE �� f$ll sit p 1 11 i illRilly k BEi R 6ip3� a eta a ei�$ 6 s r � ii "8! " Uo i a�e;Hil I e "@Y € "Yy k I P 1 i 1A� , i , g 1 $i a kill 1011 ; �o 16 jN N Rif k1111.1-111$ - II - z-� ¢g 77 6 t 1 r 4 R8 RRaRREaR RsaRta=a rt R9i 3E2i8ea� RRRRRR! 83 I a*9000—CLV s3tV1S31S3ND3nA amm l7aroaa EXHIBIT 5 The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association 17701 108th Ave. SE, Box 434 Renton, WA 98055 reserveatstonehaven(o)o mail.com Re: Neighborhood Opposition Notification Vuecrest LUA 13-000642 / 4800 Block of Smithers Ave. S. / Parcel 3123059048 August 14, 2014 PUBLIC COMMENT Ms. Elizabeth Higgins LETTERS Senior Planner, Department of Community& Economic Development 95 Pages City of Renton 1055 S.Grady Way Entire Document Renton,WA 98057 Available Upon Request Dear Ms. Higgins: The Reserve at Stonehaven Homeowners Association, a community of 36 homeowners and taxpayers within Renton city limits continues to be strongly opposed to the application for,and approval of, the project named "Vuecrest Estates"-Land Use Number LUA 13-000642, ECF, PP-which was recently re-activated after a year on hold. The project would be at the end of an already densely-developed dead-end one-way-out access road-jeopardizing the safety and security of our families and the property values of our homes. It adds bottlenecks;traffic and noise as well as burdens on the water main systems--with a potential flow rate which may not be sufficient for peak firefighting demand and puts at risk homeowners and the ability of fire and rescue response. Finally,the project is in violation of wetlands protections and environmental common sense.The proposal is simply too large for an extremely sensitive environmental area. We and our neighboring residents continue to request denial or substantial limitation of this development as currently proposed.We are requesting the following: 1. Denial of the project,or significant reduction to the scale of the project plan. 2. Denial of exceptions to distance limits for single street access for fire department response. 3. Denial of the application for Determination of Non-Significance-Mitigated-(DNS-M).The impact continues to be significant and is still not mitigated in the current proposal. 4. Reduction by at least five additional home sites which are violating critical areas and wetlands-- and needs significantly greater retention of trees and wildlife habitat. 5. Greatly increased scope of buffer protection around critical wetland and stream areas. 6. Detailed plans to mitigate traffic, parking,safety and access issues. 7. Detailed plans to assure safe fire/rescue and water main capacity which --• EXHIBIT 6 Reserve at Stonehaven HOA—Opposition to LUA13-00064. ¢ Y �p r loll � ;�� ; e at _ Ir! I, 11 01, yyy Avila, L�y� f y b s ER5 � ii]� 40Z1 �; pZ$ @ !� � Jill bI it I �� �g o Uj 91 C 71 3 loll if ®08�=®�®0 ��� • � � �ae� alk c� t aW Is��e l�e ��� �� I _ I • E•I�i, !ids lei _I� W s *; 19 a to • ����,l,A1 f!2 11.1pejIb�� s� __ j����g � �.; \`�• , �`�� pig r-1— �'I Ilk I Iebd a^, 'sojarV of ------------ --------------- ------------------------- --- '? r%�' - - ----- --------------------------------------- --------------- ._.__ --- �f ------------------------------ I _ - y^ Ba n Iro � ;,L----- m000-Sl m SAVIS31S3803nA 3mm � EXHIBIT 7 I 3 ©o lR g® Z � O.Dx9RA.�i� Y � � 1 p Y �a0 g e all X0 00 Utljt e C 11 E Li Aj r X X r i� s 7 - _ - - -- EXHIBIT 8 a � 249000-Bl m S31V1S3IS3803M 3MM L'l ,e��.w.wsH�..�.ov.awwwwmrw�uwn�a... cl'Ino Lw axxrw g J c v wa u s« I I �dd�SdW1'4M)N0) I y o am nw�cu craves I �� i� ����Je�•IS �(`� SuNoOISM 211�-5d.1�sVV�o�".sG0Wn $� t y N e u 11 Ell 4- R W C o N FFSFFF AA FS AA J '' � '{ \ Uwe - �•'-` �-� ���� U z° szl- a>m yu fl RIZ ED 3 ' •J�I' - __ � - ____ T� 2i R � � � 3rn gym"„ 'd - FIX 151 ----___-- ��pl oil e �jel fill ji m `al is RO gg alp 1121 w 4 4 A a K.w d EXHIBIT 9 I � � a $ s Q g Z rn� REM 0o J I —w c'i Ju 7711, m r 3 f. � {:r tL d>!!! s I I a pg000_£ mEXHIBIT 12 531tl153 153803M 3"1*3� DEPARTMENT OF COMM6i dTY Cityaf t AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENTAL (SEPA) DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE - MITIGATED (DNS-M) PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-000642 APPLICANT: Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME: Vuecrest Estates PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved,the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into 21 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations.The project site is currently undeveloped. PROJECT LOCATION: 4800 BLOCK OF SMITHERS AVENUE S LEAD AGENCY: City of Renton Environmental Review Committee Department of Community& Economic Development The City of Renton Environmental Review Committee has determined that it does not have.a. probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). Conditions were imposed as mitigation measures by the Environmental Review Committee under their authority of Section 4-9-070D Renton Municipal Code. These conditions are necessary to mitigate environmental impacts identified during the environmental review process. Because other agencies of jurisdiction may be involved,the lead agency will not act on this proposal for fourteen (14) days. Appeals of the environmental determination must be filed in writing on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 12, 2014. Appeals must be filed in writing together with the required fee with: Hearing Examiner, City of Renton, 1055 South Grady Way, Renton, WA 98057. Appeals to the Examiner are governed by RMC 4-8-110 and more information may be obtained from the Renton City Clerk's Office, (425)430-6510. PUBLICATION DATE: August 29,2014 EXHIBIT 13 DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 26,2014 SIGNATURES: Gregg Z' erm ,A ministrator Mark Peterso ,Administrator Public W rks epartment Date Fire& Emergency Services Date —A Terry Higashiyama,Administrator C.E. "Chip"Vincent, Administrator Community Services Department Date Department of Community& Date Economic Development DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY c; of AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE-MITIGATED (DNSM) MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT NUMBER: LUA13-000642, ECF, PP APPLICANT: Jamie Waltier, Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME: Vuecrest Estates Preliminary Plat PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision, which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved, the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into -24 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single-Family, and Residential Medium Density and is correspondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. PROJECT LOCATION: 4800 block of Smithers Avenue S LEAD AGENCY: The City of Renton Department of Community& Economic Development Planning Division MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. Recommendations regarding site preparation, grading, excavation, and slab-on- grade construction included in the report, "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat...," dated February 25, 2013, by Earth Solutions NW, LLC, shall be followed prior to and during construction. 2. The area west from the line marking the natural top of the protected slope to the west property boundary, between the north and south property lines, shall be designated Native Growth Protection Area W. 3. A Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall be incorporated and the responsibility for maintenance of Native Growth Protection Area 'A' shall be assigned to the HOA on the face of the plat prior to recording. 4. Building permits shall be issued, prior to construction,for any retaining walls at the project, regardless of site location and height, and all such walls shall be structural. 5. Building setbacks from the north-south top-of-slope line located west of Smithers Ave S shall be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat. Furthermore, the top of slope and the building slope setback line shall be indicated on the final plat map. EXHIBIT 14 6. Easements required to accommodate the conveyance of surface water from the project site to the area-wide, downstream system shall be finalize prior to issuance of utility and site construction permits. 7. A wetland and buffer monitoring plan shall be approved prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits and shall be initiated prior to recording the plat. A bond, meeting the requirements of the Renton Municipal Code, shall be required for the monitoring period of no less than 5 years. 8. Native Growth Protection Easements 'B' and 'C' shall be protected and maintained by the Homeowners'Association in accordance with Renton Municipal Code requirements. This responsibility shall be recorded on the face of the plat. 9. Critical Area Study and Supplemental Stream Study shall be revised to remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly. Such revisions shall be made prior to recording the Final Plat. ERC Mitigation Measures DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY OilD c��-o� AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTjs M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 20, 2013 TO: Elizabeth Higgins FROM: Bob Mac Onie SUBJECT: Vuecrest PP, LUA13-000642 Format and Legal Description Review I have reviewed the above referenced final plat submittal and have the following comments: There is a substantial and long standing encroachment over the southwesterly portion of proposed Tract 'C'. This issue needs to be remedied prior to final plat approval. Note the City of Renton land use action number and land record number, LUA13-000642 and LND-10-0501, respectively, on the final plat submittal.The type size used for the land record number should be smaller than that used for the land use action number. Please note that the land use action number provided will change when this subdivision changes from preliminary to final plat status. Show two ties to the City of Renton Survey Control Network. The geometry will be checked by the city when the ties have been provided. Provide sufficient information to determine how the plat boundary was established. Include a statement of equipment and procedures used, per WAC32-130-100. Note the date the existing city monuments were visited and what was found, per WAC 332-130-150. Provide lot closure calculations. Indicate what has been, or is to be, set at the corners of the proposed lots. Note discrepancies between bearings and distances of record and those measured or calculated, if any. EXHIBIT 15 hAced\planning\current planning\projects\2013 projects\13-000642.elizabeth\techr Page 2 of 3 06/20/2013 The lot addresses will be provided by the city as soon as possible. Note said addresses and the street name on the plat drawing. On the final plat submittal, remove all references pertaining to utilities facilities,trees, concrete, gravel, decks and other items not directly impacting the subdivision. These items are provided only for preliminary plat approval. Do note encroachments. Remove from the "LEGEND" block all tree items, utilities facilities and mailbox references, but do include in said "LEGEND" block the symbols and their details that are used in the plat drawing. Do not include a utility provider's block, an owner's block, an engineer/surveyor block and an architect block. Do not include any references to use, density or zoning on the final submittal If the abutting properties are platted, note the lot numbers and plat name on the drawing otherwise note them as 'Unplatted'. Remove the building setback lines from the proposed lots. Setbacks will be determined at the time that building permits are issued. Note the research resources on the plat submittal. Note all easements, covenants and agreements of record on the plat drawing. The City of Renton "APPROVALS" blocks for the City of Renton Administrator, Public Works Department,the Mayor, City Clerk and the Finance Director . A pertinent approval block is also needed for the King County Assessor's Office. Provide signature lines as required. Remove references to density and zoning information on the final plat drawing. If there is a Restrictive Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions document for this plat,then reference the same on the plat drawing and provide a space for the recording number thereof. Note that if there are restrictive covenants, agreements or easements to others (neighboring property owners, etc.) as part of this subdivision, they can be recorded concurrently with the plat. The plat drawings and the associated document(s) are to be h:\ced\planning\current planning\projects\2013 projects\13-000642.elizabeth\technical services comments.doc Page 3 of 3 06/20/2013 given to the Project Manager as a package. The plat document will be recorded first (with King County). The recording number(s)for the associated document(s) (said documents recorded concurrently with, but following the plat) need to be referenced on the plat drawings. Please provide a label, e.g. Tract V for the balance of the parcel being subdivided. Provide appropriate conveying language for the Tracts created. For those belong to the HOA: Upon the recording of this plat,Tract(s whatever) is/are hereby granted and conveyed to the Plat of Name of Plat Homeowners'Association (HOA). In the event that the HOA is dissolved or otherwise fails to meet its property tax obligations, as evidenced by non-payment of property taxes for a period of eighteen (18) months,then each lot in this plat shall assume and have an equal and undivided ownership interest in the Tract(s) previously owned by the HOA and have the attendant financial and maintenance responsibilities. Otherwiseuse the following language on the final plat drawing: Lots 1 through 20, inclusive, shall have an equal and undivided ownership interest in Tract(s whatever). The foregoing statements are to be accompanied by language defining the maintenance responsibilities for any infrastructure located on the Tract serving the plat or reference to a separate recording instrument detailing the same. Please discuss with the Stormwater Utility any other language requirements regarding surface water BMPs and other rights and responsibilities. All vested owner(s) of the subject plat, at the time of recording, need to sign the final plat. For the street dedication process, include a current title report noting the vested property owner(s). hAced\planning\current planning\projects\2013 projects\13-000642.elizabeth\technical services comments.doc Technical Memorandum To: Elizabeth Higgins,Senior Planner City of Renton 10230 NE Points Drive From: Darcey Miller,Senior Wedand Scientist Suite 400 Kevin O'Brien,Senior Ecologist Kirkland, WA 98033 Phone(425)8224446 Fax(425)827-9577 Copies: Greg Laird,PE Date: April 3,2014 Subject Vuecrest Estates Wetland and Stream Review Project No.: 32385.0 This review pertains to the Preliminary Plat application of Vuecrest Estates (City of Renton LUA13- 000642) submitted by the applicant;Harbour Homes, to the City of Renton (City).The proposed Vuecrest Estates is located to the south of the intersection of South 47`s Street and Smithers Avenue South,and east of Morris Avenue South. Otak has been asked by the City of Renton (the City) to review the submitted critical areas documents and to provide comments regarding their applicability to the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), specifically,Section 4-3-050, Critical Areas Regulations. A separate geotechnical peer review was also conducted by Hart Crowser and the results communicated to the City. This memo addresses critical areas associated with wetland,stream,and buffers. The following documents were reviewed in terms of compliance with the critical areas sections of the City code: • CriticalArea Study for Vuecrest,prepared by Wetland Resources,Inc.,dated April 8,2013; • Supplemental Stream Study for Vuecrest Estates,prepared by Wetland Resources,Inc.,dated May 10,2013; • Environmental Committee Review Report for Vuecrest Estates,prepared by the City of Renton Department of Community and Economic Development,dated July 15,2013; • Vuecrest Estates plans (Sheets C1,C3-C7,and N1),prepared by D.R_ Strong Consulting Engineers,and received by the City on May 21,2013. The Critical Area Study(CAS) and Supplemental Stream Study (SSS)identify an on-site Category 2 wetland per the RMC,and a Class 4 stream—also per the RMC—associated with the wetland. The K:\project\32300\32385C\Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0404.doc EXHIBIT 16 Elizabeth Higgins,Senior Planner, City of Renton Page 2 1Vuecrest Estates Wetland and Stream Review April3,2014 CAS indicates that wetland buffer averaging is proposed for the project site,and outlines the rationale for meeting the City's criteria for buffer averaging eligibility. The SSS assesses stream and stream buffer impacts,concluding that no loss of stream function or value will occur from the proposed project. Comment 1 Otak biologists visited the site on February 28,2014. We determined that the wetland delineation is accurate as flagged in the field,and agree that the wetland meets the criteria for a Category 2 wetland I under RMC 4-3-050(M). Recommendations: None Comment 2 The CAS,SSS,and project plans show that the Class 4 intermittent stream begins in the southern, linear wetland and flows generally west within the wetland until it reaches the 40%slope area. During Otak's site visit,we determined that a stream does not appear to be present within this wetland;although it appears that water at times may flow through the wetland,no streambed, streambanks, or sorted gravels were observed.The stream begins at the 40% slope area,at wetland flag WRA-27, and continues generally west down the steep slope (as shown on Sheet C1)—showing defined channels,some incision,and generally indicative of a system with significantly more stream flow energy due to the much steeper gradients .We agree with the characterization of the stream as an intermittent,non-salmonid-bearing stream and the Class 4 rating. Recommendations:We recommend that the applicant revise the CAS and SSS (combining the content is acceptable),and remove the stream from plans where it is shown within the wetland, revising the stream description and its linear dimensions accordingly.This revision means that overall,only a very small area of the 35-foot-wide stream buffer will be impacted,in the southwest corner of the proposed development area.This stream buffer impact area is included within the wetland buffer impact area, for which buffer averaging is already proposed. Comment 3 According to the CAS Map (contained in the CAS),the proposal for wetland buffer averaging reduces the wetland buffers in four areas,totaling 10,468 square feet(sf . Buffer addition areas are proposed in four areas,three of which are labeled and total 12,195 sf. The applicant should revise the CAS Map to show the square footage of the triangular buffer averaging addition area immediately east of Lot 10.Although a minor discrepancy,page 3 of the CAS calls out 10,463 feet of buffer reduction and 12,198 square feet of buffer addition in contrast with the quantities on the CAS map. Recommendations: Minor revision of the CAS to correct these discrepancies. K:\project\32300\32385C\Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0404.doc Elizabetb Higgins,Senior Planner, City of Renton Page 3 Vaemst Estates Vetland and Stream Review April3,2014 Comment 4 On page 3 of the CAS,the second sentence "Therefore buffer averaging is not proposed" should be amended to "...buffer enhancement..." Recommendations: Minor revision of the CAS to correct this discrepancy. Comment 5 The buffer averaging proposal in the CAS has demonstrated that it meets all of the requirements in RMC 4-3-050. Buffer averaging reduction areas on the project site are vegetated with native trees and contain an understory of native shrubs and some herbaceous groundcover. The buffer averaging addition areas contain similar vegetative communities as the reduction areas,and have approximately the same number of significant trees as the reduced areas (16-17 trees in each the addition and reduction areas).Non-native/invasive vegetation coverage is very low in the wetlands and buffers onsite. As such,the existing buffers and wetland areas are of moderate to high value.Adding plants could cause more disturbance to a natural and well-functioning system. For these reasons and the buffer averaging justification given.in the CAS,it is our opinion that a wetland enhancement plan is not required to comply with Code,although the Environmental Committee Review Report (ECRR) (City of Renton;July 15,2013) recommends one in the Water(Wetland and Stream)Mitigation Measure#1. However,recommended monitoring(see below) may result in wetland or buffer enhancement actions as an adaptive management response to vegetative loss or introduction of non- native invasive species. Mitigation Measure#2 in the ECRR requests "a mitigation plan demonstrating enhancement of the areas where stream buffers are reduced." The review report says that a planting plan for reduced stream buffers is required,per RMC 4-3-050.L5.c.ii;however,this section of the code is for stream buffer reduction,not buffer averaging.As discussed in this comment above,it is our opinion that the buffer averaging proposal does not require a planting plan per the RMC. This is a moot point,as the stream is considered to be located only on the steep slope (not in the southern,linear wetland where buffer averaging is proposed). The existing on-site habitat consists of contiguous, forested habitat with very little invasive plant species coverage. Much of the wetland system is contained within this interior forested habitat, although residential development encroaches on the wetland to the northeast.The proposed development adjacent to reduced buffer areas will result in overall reduction of this habitat, fragmentation of the remaining forested habitat,and a significant increase in edge habitat. These alterations are likely to result in non-native/invasive vegetation(e.g.,Himalayan blackberry,English ivy, Scotch broom,etc.) invading the critical areas and their remaining buffers. KK\project\32300\32385C\Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014 0404.doc Elizabeth Higgins,Senior Planner, City ofRenton Page 4 Vueerest Estates Wetland and Stream Review April3,2014 Recommendations: We recommend that all wetland and buffer areas onsite be monitored for 5 years,once per year in the summer,as a condition of project approval.If non-native/invasive vegetation is observed,it should be removed immediately (by hand).The monitoring should also determine whether additional plantings or other contingency actions are recommended as adaptive management approaches,in order to preserve the baseline conditions of the critical areas.We recommend that the applicant submit a monitoring plan (which may be included in the revised CAS) prior to issuance of utility and road construction permits.We recommend that the applicant post a bond (financial guarantee) for this monitoring period. Comment 6 The plans show stormwater discharging from the detention/water quality vault into the wetland/stream buffer,approximately 40 feet to the northeast of the steep slope,at the beginning of the stream and the west end of the southern,linear wetland.According to the Geotechnical Engineering Study (Earth Solutions NW;February 25,2013),"the sloped areas along the western margins of the site would be severely susceptible to erosion,in our opinion." In high-gradient stream systems with potentially erodible soils,any additional water could cause erosion on the slope. This erosion would likely eventually affect downstream habitat and water quality,and could destabilize the slope during rain events. Given the high risk of erosion,the position of the stormwater vault and the proposed discharge point,and the presence of protected slopes (40% or greater slopes),an alternative design and/or additional analysis are warranted. Recommendations: We strongly reiterate and support the City's previous recommendation in the ECRR to tightline the discharge down the slope for the Vuecrest project,preferably discharging into a stormwater conveyance system that has capacity to accept these flows. Although the applicant. conducted analysis of the stormwater vault using the King County Runoff Time Series Model per City of Renton Code,we recommend re-analysis of the proposed stormwater vault capacity and associated metrics (discharge duration and peak flow discharges) using a different model such as MGS Flood or WW IM if the proposed discharge to the wetland above the steep slope is retained as a design feature. In addition,should the proposed discharge point be retained as a design feature, greater detail concerning the outfall/discharge structure,proposed energy dissipation,and other relevant detail should be provided by the applicant. Please feel free to call Darcey at(425)739-7977 or Kevin at(425) 739-7975 if we can answer any questions regarding our comments and recommendations. K:\project\32300\32385C\Reports\Critical Areas Review Memo_2014_0404.doc wetlwd cs � Ar o��c� Delineation/Mitigation/Restoration/Habitat Creation/Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 (425)337-3174 Fax(425)337-3045 CRITICAL AREA STUDY FOR g Divisioi, VUECREST POYrON, WA Wetland Resources,Inc. Project#12174 Pre ared By Wetland Resources,Inc. 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 Everett,WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 Prepared For: Harbour Homes by Geonerco Attn:Jamie Waltier 1300 Dexter Ave Nm#500 Seattle,WA 98109 April 8, 2013 f EXHIBIT 17 TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE DESCRIPTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS-COWARDIN SYSTEM 3 WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS-CTTY OF RENTON .3 WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT 4 BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS 5 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT 6 WILDLIFE 7 USE OF THIS REPORT 7 REFERENCES 9 CRITICAL AREA STIUDY MAP 1/1 ATTACHMENT: FIELD DATA FORMS SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources, Inc. (WRI) conducted a site investigation on September 6, 2012 on a 9.31-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Sr ithers Avenue South in Renton, WA (portion of Section 31, Township 23N,Range 05E, W.M.). King County Tax Parcel #3123059048 is the subject property for this report. The purpose of this investigation was to identify any jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The investigation area is bordered by Morris Avenue South to the west, with residential development to the north, south and east. No structures are currently present within the boundary of the subject property. A temporary cul-de-sac associated with the terminus of Smithers Ave S is located in the north central portion of the site. The remaining portion of the site is forested and.appears relatively undisturbed and is vegetated with a mixed canopy, non-mature forest. Topography of the site generally trends west with a slight depression near the eastern property boundary, a linear depression roughly paralleling the southern property line, and steep west aspect slope on the western half of the site. As part of this investigation, one wetland and stream were identified on the subject property. The wetland is located within the depressional- areas on the eastern and southern portions of the site. It is classified as a Category If wetland and is designated a 50-foot protective buffer from its flagged boundary. In addition to the wetland, an intermittent non-salmonid stream flows through the western portion of the wetland boundary and down the steep slope. This stream is classified as a Class 4 and is designated a 35-foot.buffer from its flagged boundary. In situations where wetland and stream buffers overlap,the more restrictive shall apply. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to subdivide the eastern two-thirds of the property into twenty-one single-family residential lots. Access for these lots will be from the continuation of Smithers Avenue S. In order to accomplish this development activity, the applicant is proposing buffer averaging per the provisions established in RMC Chapter 4- 3-050M(6)(fl,which requires: i. That the wetland contains variations in ecological sensitivity or there are existing physical improvements in or near the wedand and buffer; and The on-site wetland varies from slightly disturbed in its northern portion with yard waste and detritus from Idd-related activities to less disturbed in its southern portion. As such vegetation in the northern portion has a higher concentration of invasive species and the southern portion is more native in composition. In addition, existing single-family residential development is located immediately adjacent to the east of the wetland and buffer area. Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Puecrest 1 WRI#12174 ii. That width averaging will not adversely impact the wetland functions and values; and Direct compensation of functions and values will be addressed by providing additional buffer of a similar composition to the reduction area at a 1:1 rating. No impacts to existing functions and values of the wetland area expected by the proposed buffer averaging activity. iii. That the total area contained within the wetland buffer after averaging is not less than that contained within the required standard buffer prior to averaging; and In order to meet the requirements established for buffer averaging a greater than 1:1 (reduction:addition) ratio is provided. The final buffer area will be slightly larger that prior to averaging. iv. A site specific evaluation and documentation of buffer adequacy based upon The Science of Wetland Buffers and Its Implications for the Management for Wetlands, McMillan 2000, or similar approaches have been conducted. The proposed buffer standard is based on consideration of the best available science as described in WAS 365- 195-905; or where the absence of valid scientific information,the steps in RMC 4- 9-250F are followed.. The buffer evaluation method identified above provided provides detailed descriptions of buffer widths and overall effectiveness of protecting wetland and stream functions. Table 4 within the aforementioned document described the differences between 10-meter and a 20-meter buffer. As described in the table,both buffer widths provide an approximate 60 percent sediment and pollutant removal and provide limited habitat values. The averaging proposal combined with the tree retention tract will more usable wildlife habitat and an, on average, wider corridor that allows wildlife to move freely into the forested steep slope area to the west. It is the opinion of WRI that given the increase of 1,735 square feet in overall buffer area,.the proposed buffer averaging provides for an adequate width to protect the wetland and stream. V. In no instance shall the buffer width be reduced by more than fifty percent (50%) of the standard buffer or be less than twenty-five feet (25') wide. Greater buffer width reductions require review as a variance per subsection N3 of this Section and RMC 4-9-250B; and The minimum proposed buffer width as part of this averaging activity is 25-feet, which is 50 percent of the standard 50-foot buffer. Vi. Buffer enhancement in areas where the buffer is reduced shall be required on a case-by-case basis where appropriate to site conditions, wetland sensitivity, and proposed land development characteristics. Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Puecrest 2 WRI#12174 The areas of reduction areas identified as part of this averaging proposal, are generally natively vegetated and would have a limited lift of function from enhancement. Therefore buffer averaging is not proposed. The buffer averaging proposed is to average(reduce) 10,463 square feet of buffer adjacent to SE 1861h PI, the proposed stormwater tract, and Lots 9-11, 20, and 21. In order to meet the no net loss of buffer requirement, the applicant proposes 12,198 square feet of addition buffer adjacent to Lots 10, 12-17, 21 and along the south side of the Wetland and Stream corridor. The applicant will designate all the wetland, stream and associated buffers as a Native Growth Protection Area(NGPA)Tract. WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS—COWARDIN SYSTEM According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the classifications for the on-site wetland and streams are as follows: Wetland: Palustrine, Forested,Broad-leaved Deciduous, Saturated. Stream: Riverine,Intermittent, Streambed. WETLAND AND STREAM CLASSIFICATIONS-CITY OF RENTON Under the City of Renton's Critical Area Regulations in Renton's Municipal Code (RMC), Title 4 Chapter 3-050, the wetlands and streams within the vicinity of the subject site are classified as follows: Wetland—Category II The on-site wetland is a depressional wetland adjacent to the intermittent stream. This wetland is Classified as a Category H under the RMC 4-3-050(M), since it is located at the headwater of the on-site stream and, as such,receives a standard buffer of 50 feet. Stream_Class 4 The intermittent stream originates within the on-site wetland near the southern property boundary and flows down the stream slope to the west. Stream B is a seasonal, non-fish bearing stream and, as such, classified under RMC 4-3-050(L) as a Class 4 stream and receives a standard buffer of 35 feet. In the city of Renton, Class 2-4 streams, regulated wetlands and their buffers are designated collectively as Native Growth Protection Areas (NGPAs). As stated in RMC 3-50(E)4: The common boundary between a native growth protection area and the abutting land must be permanently identified This identification shall include permanent wood or metal signs on treated or metal posts. Sign locations and size specifications shall be approved by the City. Suested wording is asfollows- "Protection of this natural area is inyour care.Alteration or disturbance is prohibited by law." Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Vuecrest 3 WRI#12174 WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT Methodology On site, routine methodology as described in the Waslhington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997), was used for this determination, as required by the City of Renton. Under this method, the process for making a wetland determination is based on three sequential steps: l.) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percentage cover). 2.) If hydrophytic vegetation is found,then the presence of hydric soils is determined. 3.) The final step is determining if wetland hydrology exists in the area examined under the first two steps. The following criteria descriptions were used in the boundary determination: Vegetation The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997 edition, states that "more than 50 percent of the dominant species in each stratum present must be rated"Facultative" or wetter to meet hydrophytic vegetation criteria Soils The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997, states that hydric soils are defined as soils that are saturated,flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part(within 18 inches of the surface). The criteria for a "wetland soil' is that a hydric soil must support hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology indicators must be present. Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil meets the definition and criteria for hydric soils. The soils underlying this site are mapped in the Soil Survey ofKng County Area Washington as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes. The Alderwood soil unit is made up of moderately well drained soils that have a weakly consolidated substratum at a depth of 24 to 40 inches. In a representative profile, the surface layer and subsoil are very dark brown, dark brown, and grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 27 inches thick. The substratum is grayish-brown, weakly consolidated to strongly consolidated glacial till that extends to a depth of 60 inches and more. Soils included with this soil mapping make up no more than 30 percent of the total acreage. Some areas are up to 25 percent Everett soils that have slopes of 15 to 30 percent, and some areas are up to 2 percent Bellingham, Norma, and Seattle soils, which are in depressions. Runoff is medium,and the erosion hazard is severe. Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Puecrest 4 WRI#12174 Hydrology Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual 1997 edition, states that criteria for designation as a wetland based on hydrology is met when "areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days ?12.5 percent of the growing season, provided that soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas inundated or saturated between 5 and 12.5 percent of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetland. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5 percent of the growing season are non-wetlands." Field indicators are employed in the determination that wetland hydrology parameters are met. BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS Wetland The on-site wetland is a linear depressional wetland located in the eastern and southern portions of the site. Vegetation within the wetland consists of a canopy of red alder(Alnus rubra, FAC) and western red cedar(Thuja plicata, Fac); with an understory of. sa.lmonbeny (Rubes spectabihi, FAC), spirea (Spiraea douglasii, FacW), lady fern (Athyrium felix femina, Fac) edge (Carex sp., OBL), and creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FACW). Soils in this wetland are typically a black(2.5Y 2.5/1)silt loam from the surface to eight inches below. The sublayer is a dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) silt loam with redoximorphic features present. Soils were dry to the surface during the September 2012 investigation. The dominance of species rated "Facultative" or wetter satisfies the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation in the areas mapped as wetland. Based on field indicators of hydric soils, it appears that the areas mapped as wetland are saturated to the surface for more than 12.5 percent of the growing season, thereby fulfilling wetland hydrology criteria in the absence of observed primary indicators of hydrology. This wetland meets all criteria for designation as a wetland. Non-Wetland The areas mapped as non-wetland are generally forested with a mixed canopy non- mature forest. Vegetation species within the forest generally include Western red cedary (Thuja plicata, Fac), big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU), red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), Oso-berry (Oemlaia cerasiformis, Facq, red huckleberry (Vaccinium p=ifolium, Facq, dewberry(Rubes ursinus,Facq, and swordfem (Polystichum munitum, FacU. Non-wetland soils were typically a very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) silt loam with no redoximorphic features from the surface to 3 inches below. From 3 inches to greater than 18 inches the soils changes to a dark yellowish brown (lOYR 3/4 ) silt loam with no redoximorphic features. These soils were dry during the September 2012 site visit. Based on the lack of field indicators, it appears that areas of the site mapped as non- wetland are not saturated to the surface for more than 12.5 percent of the growing season, thereby not fulfilling wetland hydrology criteria. Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Vuecrest 5 WRI#12174 WETLAND FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT Methodology The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment pertains specifically to the wetlands and streams in the vicinity of the site,but is typical for assessments of similar systems common to Western Washington. Functional Components Wetlands in Western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among the most important functions provided by wetlands are: stormwater control, water quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, recreational opportunities and education. The most commonly assessed functions and their descriptions are listed below. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided in the "Analysis" section of this report. Hydrologic Functions Wetlands often function as natural water storage areas during periods of precipitation and flooding. By storing water that otherwise might be channeled into open flow systems, wetlands can attenuate or modify potentially damaging effects of storm events, reducing erosion and peak flows to downstream systems. Additionally, the soils underlying wetlands are often less permeable,providing long-term storage of stormwater or floodflow and controlling baseflows of downstream systems. Stormwater storage capacity and floodflow attenuation are generally a function of the size of the wetland and their topographic characteristics. Water Quality Surface water quality improvement is another evaluated function. Surface runoff during periods of precipitation increases the potential for sediments and pollutants to enter surface water. Wetlands improve water quality by acting as filters as water passes through them, trapping sediments and pollutants from surface water. Ponded areas within depressional wetlands also allow sediments to drop out of suspension, thereby increasing water quality. As development increases, the potential for polluted water to reach wetlands and streams also increases. Unnaturally high inputs of pollutants, which are often found in urbanized areas, along with the size of the wetlands and the vegetation structure within them are the main limiting factors of this function. .Wildlife Habitat Wetlands have potential to provide diverse habitat for aquatic, terrestrial, and avian species for nesting, rearing, resting, cover, and foraging. Wildlife species are commonly dependent upon a variety of intermingled habitat types, including wetlands, adjacent uplands, large bodies of water, and movement corridors between them. Human intrusion, including development within and adjacent to wetlands, and impacts to movement corridors are the most limiting factors for wildlife habitat functions. Assessments of these functions for the project site are provided below. Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Puecrest 6 WRI#12174 Existing Conditions Wetland Hydrologic Function The wetland is in a topographic depression adjacent to the intermittent stream. In general, depressional wetlands with direct connected to an intermittent stream have moderate potential to perform hydrologic functions. This wetland collects and temporarily stores precipitation as well as floodwater entering downstream sytems during storm events. This wetland provides a low to moderate value for this function. Water Quality The wetland is moderately densely vegetated and the residence time of water within this wetland is low to moderate, given its gradient and association with the stream. These characteristics allow for the wetland to serve somewhat as a filter and allow sediment in the water to settle. This wetland provides a low to moderate value for this function. Wzldlife Habitat This wetland provides a low to moderate level of habitat interspersion given that it is primarily forested. This wetland provides secondary habitat to multiple species of birds. However, the size of this wetland and its proximity to residential development limits its ability to provide -a high value for wildlife functions. This wetland provides a moderate value for this function. WILDLIFE During our September 2012 visit,few wildlife species were observed. Avian species observed during the site visit include: American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), black-capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), bushtit (Psaltri�iarus minimus), and red-breasted nuthatch (Sitka canadensis). Mammals expected to use this site include: Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), shrews (Sorex spp.), coyote (Canis latrans), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and eastern cottontail rabbits(Sylvilagusfloridanus). USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Area Study is supplied to Goldsmith Land Investments, LLC as a means of determining on-site environmentally sensitive area conditions, as required by the City of Renton. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. The laws applicable to critical areas are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Puecrest 7 WRI#12174 effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Scott Brainard,PWS IWncipal Ecologist Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Fuecrest 8 WW#12174 REFERENCES City of Renton Municipal Code Title 4 Chapter 3. Renton, WA. Ord. 5286, May 14, 2007. Castelle,AJ., C. Conolly,M. Emers,E.D.Metz, S.Meyer,M.Witter, S. Mauermann, T.Erickson, and S.S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Washington.Department of Ecology,Publication No. 92-10. Olympia,WA. Cooke, Sarah S. 2000. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Ouantitative Assessment Methodology(Mg. Cooke Scientific Services. February 2000. Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg,MS. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington DC. December 1979. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating Sy for Western Washine on Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands Northwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington,D.C. Sheldon,D., T. Hruby,P.Johnson,K. Harper,A.McMillan,T. Granger, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State-Volume 1•A Synthesis of the Science. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication#05-06- 006. Olympia,WA. March 2005. Soil Survey:King County Area Washington U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. November 1973. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication#96-94. March 1997. Critical Area Study Wetland Resources,Inc. Fuecrest 9 WRI#12174 CRITICAL AREA STUDY MAP 1/UECREST SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 23N,RANGE 5E,WM BUFFER AVERAGING (REDUCTION) 1 2,160 SF 1 18 19 20 21 2 Q w 3 = TRAC 17 JOINT E UPIVkwAY CATEGORY II 4 WETLAND �^ 16 a .�e BUF=ER AVERAGING (ADDITION) 3,782 SE 5 g 15 „p„ 14 $ 7 12 11 13 8 BUFFER AVERAGING TOP OF (REDUCTION) S 186TH PL. STEEP SLOPE 8,308 SF TRACT"A" STORM DMaUOE 9 10 i CLASS a STREAM a CATEGORY 11 WETLAND TRACT°C" tREERE1eInw BUFFER AVERAGING �/ (ADDITION) 8,413 SF LEGEND iiiiiiiim- WETLAND �• STREAM BUFFER Scale 1"=60' � BUFFER AVERAGING 0 30 60 so 120 (REDUCTION) �'�STUDY�1aa Wet/�hdResoyrc�si/ VUECRESr RENON,WA BUFFER AVERAGING ®(ADDITION) Pl,n,((123)33)-4111 nv Nzs)331aw5 Harbour Hollws Sheet 1/1 ®1 ® DATA SITES bee AtblJarrie Walder W21 RI Job#174 1300 Dexter Ave N,#500 Drawn by.S.Brainard NGPA SIGNSSeattle,WA 98109 Date:4/8/13 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region Project/Site: Vuemont Ci /Coup Renton 9/6/12 City/County: Sampling Date: Appiicant/Owner. Harbour Homes State: WA Sampling Point S1 Investigator(s): SB Section,Township,Range: 31,23N,5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): +/-2% Subregion(LRR): LRR-A Lat 47.436295 Long: -122.208721 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood 5-15%slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation_ .Soil or Hydrology'_ _significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes_✓_ No Are Vegetation .Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_✓_ No— _ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_✓_ No_ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Y"'_ within a Wetland? Yes ✓ No Remarks: Not present during site visit but secondary indicators were present VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Fraxinus latifolia 40 Y FacW That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2. Total Number of Dominant 3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B) 4. 40Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: =Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 66 WB) ) 1. Spirea douglasii 60 Y FacW Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Rubus ursinus 20 Y FacU Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3 OBL species x 1 = 4. FACW species x2= 5• FAC species x 3= =Total Cover FACU species x 4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5= 1. Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3• Prevalence Index =B/A= 4. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5. ✓ Dominance Test is>50% 6• Prevalence Index is s3.0' 7. Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting 8 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9. — Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 11. 'indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2• Vegetation Total Cover Present? Yes No = %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix .Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tvpe' Loc' Texture Remarks 0-18+" 2.5Y 4/2 60 10YR 3/4 5 C M Sil 'Type: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 'Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) _ Histic Epipedon(A2) _ Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ✓ Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions-(F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one reouired•check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) _ Surface Water(Al) _ Water-Stained Leaves(69)(except MLRA ✓ Water-Stained Leaves(89)(MLRA 1,2, _ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 413) _ Saturation(A3) _ Salt Crust(B11) ✓ Drainage Patterns(610) _ Water Marks(131) Aquatic Invertebrates(613) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _ Drift Deposits(63) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ✓ Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(84) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(133) Iron Deposits(135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks(66) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(87) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No_✓_ Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes ca ills fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region Project/Site: Vuemont Ci /Coun Renton 9/6/12 City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner. Harbour Homes State: WA Sampling Point: S2 Investigator(s): SB Section,Township,Range: 31,23N,5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): +/-5% Subregion(LRR): LRR-A Let. 47.436295 Long: -122.208721 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood 5-15%slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology_ _significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes_✓_ No Are Vegetation Soil_ ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_ _ No— ✓ Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes_ _ No_ within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Not present during site visit but secondary indicators were present VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Thuja piicata 30 Y Fac That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 2. Acer macrophyllum 30 Y FacU Total Number of Dominant 3' Species Across All Strata: 6 (B) 4. 60Percent of Dominant Species Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: =Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 WB) ) ' 1 Rubus ursinus 60 Y FacU Prevalence Index worksheet: 2. Oemleria cerasiformis 20 Y FacU Total%Cover of: Multiply by: 3. Vaccinium parviflorium 20 Y FacU OBL species xi = , 4. FACW species x2= 5 FAC species x3= 100' =Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Polystichum munitum 10 Y FacU UPL species x5= Column Totals: (A) (B) 2. 3• Prevalence Index =B/A= 4• Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 5• _ Dominance Testis>50% 6. Prevalence Index is 53.0' 7. Morphological Adaptations'(Provide supporting g data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 9 Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 10. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 11 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 10 =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation • ✓ = %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Total Cover Present? Yes No Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Interim Version WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast Region Project/Site: City/County:Vuemont Ci /Coun Renton Sampling Date: 9/6/12 Applicant/Owner: Harbour Homes State: WA Sampling Point: S2 investigator(s): SB Section,Township,Range: 31,23N,5E Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): hillslope Local relief(concave,convex,none): concave Slope(%): +/-5% Subregion(LRR): LRR-A Lat: 47.436295 Long: -122.208721 Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: Alderwood 5-15%slopes NWI classification: N/A Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (if no,explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation .Soil or Hydrology_ _significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes_✓_ No Are Vegetation .Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (if needed,explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS— Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features,etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes_ _ No—v( — Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes— _ No— — within a Wetland? Yes No ✓ Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ Remarks: Not present during site visit but secondary indicators were present VEGETATION—Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. Acer macrophyllum 70 Y FacU That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 5 (A) 2 Thuja plicata 20 Y Fac Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across All Strata: 8 (B) 4• Percent of Dominant Species 90 =Total Cover That Are OBL,FACW,or FAC: fi2 (A/B) Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. Rubus spectabilis 50 Y Fac Prevalence Index worksheet: 2 Oemlena cerasiformis 20 Y FacU Total%Cover of: Multi by: 3 Sambucus racemosa 10 N FacU OBL species x 1 = 4 FACW species x2= 5 FAC species x3= 80 =Total Cover FACU species x4= Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species X5= 1. Athyrium filix-femina 30 Y Fac Column Totals: (A) (B) 2 Ranunculus repens 10 Y FacW 3 Carex obnupta 10 Y Obi Prevalence Index =B/A 4 Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: ✓ Dominance Test is>50% 5. Prevalence Index is 53.0' 6. 7 Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8. _ Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 9 Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation'(Explain) 10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. be present,unless disturbed or problematic. 50 =Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1 Hydrophytic 2 Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No =Total Cover %Bare Ground in Herb Stratum Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc Texture Remarks 0-8" 2.5Y 2.5/1 80 Sil 8-18+" 2.5Y 4/2 80 10YR 3/4 5 C M Sil 'T e: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM=Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) ` Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(A10) Histic Epipedon(A2) — Stripped Matrix(S6) — Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) ✓ Depleted Matrix(F3) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Redox Depressions(FS) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type: Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes ✓ No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) _ Surface Water(Al) _ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA ✓ Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, _ High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 413) _ Saturation(A3) _ Salt Crust(B11) ✓ Drainage Patterns(1310) Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Sediment Deposits(B2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(133) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) ✓ Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(135) _ Surface Soil Cracks(136) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(137) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(68) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No_v(_ Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast–Interim Version SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox.Features (inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Tvoe' LocZ Texture Remarks 0-3" 10YR 3/2 90 Sil 3-18+" 10YR 3/4 90 Sil 'Type: C=Concentration,D=De letion,RM--'-Reduced Matrix,CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining,M=Matrix: ..Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs,unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils': _ Histosol(Al) _ Sandy Redox(S5) _ 2 cm Muck(Al 0) _ Histic Epipedon(A2). ` Stripped Matrix(S6) _ Red Parent Material(TF2) _ Black Histic(A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(except MLRA 1) Other(Explain in Remarks) _ Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) Depleted Matrix(173) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Redox Dark Surface(F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) wetland hydrology must be present," Sandy Gleyed Matra(S4)-' Redox Depressions(FS) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer(if present): Type. Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one required:check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(2 or more required) _ Surface Water(Al) _ Water-Stained Leaves(139)(except MLRA _ Water-Stained Leaves(B9)(MLRA 1,2, High Water Table(A2) 1,2,4A,and 4B) 4A,and 413) _ Saturation(A3) _ Salt Crust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns(1310) _ Water Marks(B1) Aquatic Invertebrates(613) _ Dry-Season Water Table(C2) _ Sediment Deposits(132) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _ Drift Deposits(B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots(C3) _ Geomorphic Position(D2) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _ Shallow Aquitard(D3) Iron Deposits(135) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks(136) _ Stunted or.Stressed Plants(D1)(LRR A) = Raised Ant Mounds(D6)(LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _ Other(Explain in Remarks) Frost-Heave Hummocks(D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface,(138) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No_✓_ Depth(inches): Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ✓ includes capillary fringe) De-rribe Recorded Data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections),if available: Western Mountains,Valleys,and Coast—Interim Version /SIC, i ! Delineation I MItigation I Restoration!Habitat Creation/Permft Assfstance 9505 19th Avenue S,F, t Suite 106 Everett,Washington 98208 (4.25)337-3174 Fax(425)337-3045 j i I SUPPLEMENTAL STREAM STUDY FOR � �`� -�� �•�'� -� ^_:� ,(jl n. yl r`fl VUECREST ESTATES R&NTON WA 1 J Wetland Resources,Inc.Project#12174 i Prepared By- Wetland yWetland Resources,Inc. j 9505 19th Avenue SE, Suite 106 ' Everett,WA 98208 (425)337-3174 Prepared For: Harbour Homes by Geonerco Attn:Jamie Waltier 1300 Dexter Ave Nm#500 Seattle,WA 98109 ' I • I May 10, 2013 EXHIBIT 18 i i r SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources,Inc. (W-RI)conducted a site investigation on September 6, 2012 on.a 9.31-acre parcel located at the southern terminus of Smithers Avenue-_S--in-Renton WA (portion of Section 31, Township 23N, Range 05E, W.M.). King County Tax Parcel #3123059048 is the subject property for this report. The purpose of this investigation was to identify any jurisdictional wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the subject parcel. This report is intended to supplement the Critical Areas Study for Vuemont, dated April, 8, 2013 (CAS), and meet the requirements established in RMC Section 4-8-120D. The investigation area is bordered by Morris Avenue S to the west, with residential j development to the north, south and east.No structures are currently present within the j boundary of the subject property. A temporary cul-de-sac associated with the terminus of Smithers Ave S is located in the north central portion of the site. The remaining portion of the site is forested and appears relatively undisturbed and is vegetated with a mixed canopy, non-mature forest. Topography of the site generally trends west with a slight depression near the eastern property boundary, a linear depression roughly paralleling the southern property line,and steep west aspect slope on the western half of the site. As part of this investigation, one wetland and stream were identified on the subject property. Details related to the wetland are identified in the CAS. An intermittent stream was identified exiting the southern portion of the property flowing west down the steep slopes identified as part of plat application. At the time of investigation the stream was entirely dry. Its channel becomes incised at the point it intersects the steep slope (greater than 40%)before exiting the site near its southwest corner. The on-site stream is intermittent, non-salmonid, averaging approximately 2 feet wide has an average gradient of greater than 20 percent and is not mapped on King County iMap, Salmonscape or the Washington State Department of Natural Resources Maps. Per RMC 4-3-050L streams with these characteristics are classified as a Class 4 and is designated a 35-foot,buff.4 from its flagged boundary. In situations where wetland and stream bufl'ers overlap,the more restrictive shall apply. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE S The applicant is proposing to subdivide the eastern two-thirds of the property into twenty-one single-family residential lots. Access for these lots will be from the continuation of Smithers Avenue S and extending east to a temporary turn around at SE 186th Pl. The applicant evaluated the potential for extending the road to the south,which would cross the wetland and stream system but opted.to avoid the impact No impacts are proposed to the Class 4 stream The only modification is buffer averaging which is . ........... primarily associated with the wetland buffer. Supplemental Stream Study Vuecrest 1 WRI#12174 i i Avoidance — No impacts are proposed to the Class 4 stream: Multiple development alternatives were evaluated and it was determined that the goals of the development proposal could be accomplished by avoiding direct impacts to the stream. The buffer I averaging would be necessary to accommodate the SE 1861h Pl, the proposed stormwater detention tract,and Lots 9 and 10. Minimization—Impacts to the stream have been minimized to the greatest extent possible. First by avoiding impacts as described above and second by limiting impacts to buffer averaging, primarily the wetland buffer, and only a very small portion of the stream buffer(the wetland buffer is the most restrictive). Rectifying - No permanent or temporary impacts are proposed to the Class 4 stream, therefore no restoration is proposed. Reducing—Tract B(Sensitive Area Tract)will be permanently protected and therefore the potential temporal impact associated with the buffer averaging will,be reduced over time. Compensating—The buffer averaging proposal meets the requirements established in RMC Chapter 4-3-050(L)(5)(d) and (M)(6#. In addition, high quality forested buffer will be provided on the southern side of the wetland and stream at the required 1:1 ratio. IMPACT EVALUATION (a) There is one Class 4 intermittent stream located within the boundary of the subject property. The stream averages approximately 2 feet wide and is approximately 650' long on site. It has a mud bottom with no cobble-gravel substrate. This stream primarily acts as a conveyance of hydrology from the upstream wetland. It does have a moderate water quality and stormwater storage function given the presence of instream woody and emergent vegetation and its association with the on-site wetland system. No fish habitat is present within the on-site portion of the stream or immediately downstream. (b) The applicant is entirely avoiding impacts to the on-site stream. Buffer averaging is proposed along the stream/wetland system, but it mostly relates to the larger wetland buffer. It's unlikely any alternative,site plans would have . ess unpact to the stream system. ......... (c) The application meets the criteria established in RMC Chapter 4.-3-050(L)(5)(d) and (M)(6)(f). and is entirely avoiding impacts to the on-site Class 4 stream therefore,no significant detrimental impacts are proposed or will occur as part of this project. (d) Since no impacts are proposed to the Class 4 stream and the buffer averaging proposal averaging proposal has been designed to meet the criteria established in RMC Chapter 4-3-050(L)(5)(d) and (M)(6)(i), there are no expected cumulative detrimental environmental impacts associated with this application. - I i Su pplemental Stream Study Fuecrest 2 WAI##12171 ------------ . i CONCLUSION No reduction in the functions and values of the on-site Class 4 stream are expected from the implementation of this. proposed development activity. The buffers adjacent to the stream, even in their averaged form, are generally larger than the standard buffers required for this type of stream in the City of Renton and therefore this stream is adequately protected. USE OF THIS REPORT This Critical Area Study is supplied to Harbour Homes by Geonerco as a means of determining on-site environmentally sensitive area conditions, as required by the City of Renton. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. The laws applicable to critical areas are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of case employed by wetland ecologists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources,Inc. i Scott Brainard,PWS Principal Ecologist i r supplemental stream study Puecrest 3 KW#12174 i. j i I REFERENCES City of Renton Municipal Code Title 4 Chapter 3. Renton, WA. Ord. 5286, May 14, 2007. ! Castelle,A j., C. Conolly,M.Emers, E.D. Metz,S.Meyer,M.Witter, S.Mauermann, T.Erickson,and S.S. Cooke. 1992. Wetland Buffers:Use and Effectiveness. Washington.Department of Ecology,Publication No. 92-10. Olympia,WA, Cooke, Sarah S. 2000. Wetland and Buffer Functions Semi-Quantitative Assessment Methodology(SAMA. Cooke Scientific Services. February 2000. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg,MS. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. i Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington DC. December 1979. Hruby, T. 2004. Washington State Wetland Rating System for Western Washington Revised. Washington State Department of Ecology Publication#04-06-025. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands Northwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior,Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington,D.C. Sheldon,D.,T.Hruby,P.Johnson,K. Harper,A. McMillan,T.Granger,S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State-Volume 1:A Synthesis of the Science.- Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication#05-06- 006. Olympia,WA. March 2005. Soil Survey ng County Area Washington U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. November 1973, Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington i State Department of Ecology. Publication#96-94. March 1997. i I Supplemental Stream Study Fuecrest 4 WRI#12174 i i ALIF M%Vhartcrowser.+'.Dm HA. RTCROWSrd? February 24, 2014 Mr. Greg Laird Otak - Water and Natural Resources 10230 NE Points Drive, Suite 400 Kirkland, WA 98033 Re: Geotechnical Review of Permit Documents - Vuecrest Residential Development 4800 Block Smithers Avenue S Renton, Washington City of Renton Project No.: LUA13-000642 19017-00 Dear Greg: This letter provides a summary of our geotechnical review of the geotechnical permit documents pertaining to the above-referenced development site. Our work was performed in accordance with the scope of work outlined in our Task Order dated January 30, 2014 as authorized by Otak on February 7, 2014. PERMIT DOCUMENTS REVIEWED We reviewed the following geotechnical permit documents: ■ Geotechnical Engineering Study by Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW), dated February 25, 2013; ■ Slope Setback Letter by ESNW, dated April 10, 2013; ■ Geotechnical Review Letter by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc (AESI), dated October 31, 2013; ■ Slope Setback Letter by, dated April 10, 2013; ■ Response to Geotechnical Review by ESNW, dated December 2, 2013; ■ City of Renton email review comments by Elizabeth Higgins, dated December 9, 2013 ■ Geotechnical Addendum by ESNW, dated December 10, 2013; and ■ Preliminary Plat Plan (Cl) and Grading Plan (C4) by D.R.Strong Consulting Engineers, dated December, 2013; 1700 Westlake Avenue North,Suite 200 EXHIBIT 19 Seattle, Washington 98109-6212 Fax 206.328.5581 Tel 206.324.9530 ttt Otak - Water and Natural Resources 19017-00 February 24, 2014 Page 2 REVIEW COMMENTS Based on our review of the above-referenced documents, it is our opinion that the applicant's geotechnical engineer (ESNW) has addressed the review comments provided by the City of Renton peer review geotechnical engineer(AESI; letter dated October 31, 2013) in a manner that is generally consistent with current geotechnical practice in our local area. We understand that no additional.follow-up review by AESI has occurred after the ESNW response. However, in their December 2, 2014 response to the AESI review comments, ESNW submitted additional slope stability analyses and addressed AESI's questions regarding geologic cross section and deeper soil conditions. Additionally, in their December 10, 2013 letter, ESNW also provided the minimum risk statement (three conditions of no adverse development impact), as required by Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-050-J2.b) and requested by the City of Renton in their email correspondence dated December 9, 2013. A brief summary of the main geotechnical review comments by AESI and final responses by ESNW, along with our comments, is provided below for your information: 1. AESI commented that additional geologic cross sections and more detailed and deeper subsurface information was required for the slope stability analysis. ESNW generally responded in their December 2 letter that additional explorations should not be necessary since the test pit explorations confirmed dense, glacially-derived soil and perched groundwater conditions across the site, and that the risk of deeper subsurface uncertainty (such as risk of a potential weaker soil slippage plane) is very low. Given the geologic mapping of glacial soils at the site and the relatively low inclination of the steep slopes (about 50 percent, or 2Horizontal:1 Vertical [1 H:1 V)), we concur this assessment is consistent with common geotechnical engineering practice. 2. The current proposal is to construct house footings on the planned fill slope, with a setback of 20 feet from the existing top of the steep slope area. AESI commented that the proposed 2H:1 V fill slope at the top of the existing steep slopes (sensitive area) should also be considered a regulated sensitive/protected slope (if greater than 15-foot high), with the additional development setback requirement behind the top of the planned fill slopes. ESNW responded in their December 2 letter by reducing the fill slope height to 15 feet and providing a 10-foot setback from the existing top of steep slope area to the toe of the planned fill slope, while maintaining the 20-foot setback from the existing (native) top of slope. Given the provided slope stability analysis showing a static and seismic safety factor against slope failure of 1.78 and 1.22, respectively, for this condition, we would consider this a reasonable design based on common geotechnical engineering practice. For AM Otak - Water and Natural Resources 19017-00 February 24, 2014 Page 3 reference, slope stability safety factors of 1.5 in the static case and 1.1 in the seismic case are generally considered adequate in local geotechnical engineering practice. 3. AESI commented that there were several issues with the initial slope stability analyses provided. In our opinion, these were adequately addressed by ESNW with their supplemental slope stability runs submitted on December 2, 2013, based on common geotechnical engineering practice. 4. The original design proposal included a 4-foot high rockery at the base of the planned 2H:1 V fill slope. AESI commented that an unreinforced rockery should not be used as a retaining wall structure. ESNW responded by removing this rockery from the design. In addition, the toe of the fill slope was also moved 10 feet back from the existing top of steep slope area, as discussed in item 2 above. 5. A stormwater detention vault is proposed near an existing drainage ravine at the south end of the site, with a planned release of stormwater into the existing ravine. Given the classification of the site soils as "high erosion hazard," AESI commented that the applicant should demonstrate that such stormwater discharge will not cause erosive flows within the existing ravine, or provide alternate discharge design to prevent stormwater directed over the site slopes. ESNW responded in their December 10 letter that storm drainage facilities have been designed to discharge stormwater at a pre-developed flow rate into the existing ravine, which will reduce the potential for instability. While this sounds like a reasonable approach, we recommend that the applicant be required to provide a stormwater collection and discharge design stamped by a licensed civil engineer with expertise in stormwater design. This design should specifically address the potential for increased surface erosion and potential for slope instability with associated with the proposed design. SUMMARY ESNW provided the following code-required minimum risk statement in their December 10 letter: ■ The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; ■ The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and ■ The proposal can be safely accommodated on the site. Given the presence of competent glacial soils at the site, the relatively low inclination of the existing steep slopes (2HA V), and the slope stability analyses demonstrating static and seismic safety factors A AL/ Otak- Water and Natural Resources 19017-00 February 24, 2014 Page 4 against slope failure exceeding the generally accepted values of 1.5 in the static case and 1.1 in the seismic case, we consider this a reasonable statement based on common geotechnical engineering practice in this area. USE OF THIS LETTER Work for this project was performed, and this letter was prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of the work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. It is intended for the exclusive use of Otak and the City of Renton, or their consultants, for specific application to the referenced site. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. We based our review on subsurface conditions interpreted from subsurface soil and groundwater conditions reported by others. The nature and extent of conditions between the explorations may differ from those presented. If significant subsurface variations become evident during construction, we recommend that the geotechnical engineer of record be consulted to provide revised design recommendations, as needed. CLOSING We thank you for this opportunity to provide geotechnical consulting services. If you have any questions, please contact Rolf Hyllseth at(206) 826-4586. Sincerely, , HART CROWSER, INC. 22484, S�Q�ITAL� ROLF B.HYLLSETH, PE MICHAEL BAILEY,PE Associate Geotechnical Engineer CEO rolf.hyllseth@hartcrowser.com mike.bailey@hartcrowser.com L:\Jobs\1901700\Geotech Peer Review-Vuecrest Residential Developmentdoc December 10, 2013 Earth Solutions NW LLC ES-2660.01 • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Geotechnical Addendum Proposed Vuecrest Residential Plat Smithers Avenue Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Response to Review Comments ES-2660.01, dated December 2, 2013 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2660, dated February 2013 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Slope Setback Letter ES-2660.01, dated July 15, 2013 D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Revised Site Plan Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) Geotechnical Review Letter Project TE130415A, dated October 31, 2013 Dear Mr. Waltier: As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to address comments provided in the referenced geotechnical review letter for the subject project. This letter specifically addresses concerns regarding stability of the project and potential impacts to the site and surrounding properties as outlined in City of Renton Municipal Code Section 4-3- 050J.2.b, as noted in a December 9, 2013 email from City of Renton staff. 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 • Bellevue,WA 98005 • {425 EXHIBIT 20 Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660.01 December 10, 2013 Page 2 Comment —Subsurface Conditions Regarding the ESNW response letter, at least one issue seems to remain outstanding. This is the requirement that the following three conditions (RMC 4-3-0504.2.b) be met by the proposal: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. Response Based on the conditions encountered at the test pit locations, review and collaboration with the project design team and our understanding of the project, the following details address the three conditions provided in the comment: • There have been no recorded landslide events on the site based on review of readily available information, nor were there signs of excessive or chronic erosion or landslide activity observed during site visits conducted by ESNW representatives. Review of King County MAP aerial photos dating as far back as 1936 show complete forested conditions and no signs of landslide activity (we acknowledge the gap of aerial coverage between 1936 and 1989). • Subsurface conditions encountered at the test pit locations indicate, from a geotechnical standpoint, relatively consistent engineering properties exist within the soil strata across the site and have been considered in developing recommendations for the current proposal. • Site designs have been modified to reduce the impacts to steeply sloped areas of the property. This approach will mitigate the potential for instability compared to the pre- development condition. • Storm drainage facilities and elements have been designed to a) collect and convey runoff to a detention vault, and b) discharge at a pre-developed rate within an existing drainage pathway. This condition will decrease the potential for instability compared to the pre-development condition. • Grading activities will be designed, i.e. structural fill, placement methods, drainage, foundation setbacks, etc. which will ensure the final configuration is as stable and resistant to landslide activity as the pre-development condition. • The proposal is consistent with surrounding developments which, to our knowledge, have not been adversely impacted by landslide activity. • Finally, the SlopeW analysis included in the referenced letter indicates a) no decrease in critical factor-of-safety values from a post-construction condition, and b) acceptable critical factor-of-safety* values from a global standpoint. -This analysis agrees with the conditions encountered at the test pit locations. * Critical factor-of-safety is defined herein as the lowest factor-of-safety calculated in the SlopeW analysis. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLQ, ES-2660.01 December 10, 2013 Page 3 Closure In our opinion, based on the above criteria and our understanding of the proposal, the project: • will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and • The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and • The development can be safely accommodated on the site. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, R. CA EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC s�OtvaLt' '3 - t o ieg Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Project Manager Principal cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Earth Solutions NW,LLC December 2, 2013 Earth Solutions NW LLC ES-2660.01 • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr, Jamie Waltier Subject: Response to Geotechnical Review Proposed Vuecrest Residential Plat Smithers Avenue Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2660, dated February 2013 Earth Solutions NW, LLC Slope Setback Letter ES-2660.01, dated July 15, 2013 D.R. Strong Consulting Engineers Revised Site Plan Associated Earth Sciences, Inc: (AESI) Geotechnical Review Letter Project TE130415A, dated October 31, 2013 Dear Mr. Waltier: As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to address comments provided in the referenced geotechnical review letter for the subject project. ESNW previously prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study and subsequent letters for the site and has been providing ongoing geotechnical consulting services during the design phase of the project. EXHIBIT 21 1805 -136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 • Beilevue,WA 98005 ' (425)449- Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660.01 December 2, 2013 Page 2 AESI Comment 'I —Subsurface Gonditions Review comment 1 discusses the geologic conditions which were described in published geologic map resources and compares those to the subsurface conditions described in the referenced report prepared by ESNW. The review comment suggests that the conditions described in the referenced report do not adequately describe the stratigraphy of the subject site. Response ESNW conducted subsurface explorations across accessible areas of the subject site during preparation of the referenced report. We also reviewed readily available geologic map resources to supplement the directly observed site conditions. While a full stratigraphic exploration program was not completed for this site and the descending slope to the west, in our opinion, the exploration program provides adequate information regarding the soil and groundwater conditions which would most likely impact the proposed project. The soils observed along the western portion of the site consisted of silt in a stiff to hard condition at depth, while the soils across the remaining area of the site generally consisted of isolated areas of outwash transitioning quickly to dense silty sand deposits. No groundwater was observed. In this respect, while soil from differing depositional environments may be present, the relative density and lack of groundwater supports a general description in. terms of engineering properties. Furthermore, while there is the_presence of silt deposits near the western side of the site, it is overlain by soils which have very low permeability characteristics to the east; therefore, the risk of a slippage plane being present or developing is very low. The site conditions which pose the greatest risk are related to controlling surface water flow and the effects of erosion, which are addressed in the referenced report and reflected in the current design, largely in the form of controlled stormwater management and engineered fill. The proposed project includes construction of single-family residences, access roadways and infrastructure improvements including a stormwater detention vault. It is acknowledged in the referenced report that landslide and erosion hazards are on or adjacent to the subject site and those conditions were discussed in the referenced report. A cross-section was developed:. through_ the site_based on the-conditions encountered and the, proposed gradingY pians to evaluate overall stability. The cross-section is attach f, AESI Comment 2 and 3 — Landslide Hazard Analysis Comments 2 and 3 relate to the descending steep slope, characterizing the potential landslide hazard and providing setbacks from the proposed fill slopes. Response The grading plans have been modified to omit the rockery at the base of the fill slope and the new slope height is 'lowered to about 15 feet. The current proposal addresses the comments provided in items 2 and 3. With respect to the adequacy of the potential landslide analysis, a slope stability analysis for existing and currently proposed finish grades is attached. The results.. of the stability analysis suggests that the proposed grading plan will not increase the, potential. or Yandsiide activity on the site or adjacent steep slope areas. Earth Solutions Nw,LLC Geonerco Properties, LL ES-2660.01 December 2, 2013 Page 3 AESI-Comment 4— Foundation Setbacks Review Comment 4 suggests the minimum foundation setback reference be the outside face of the lowermost foundation element measured to the face of the finish grade at the permanent slope. Response We agree with this reference and it should be included in the final approved plans., AESI Comment 5 — Fill Slope Height The review comment indicates that creating a 2HAV slope over 15 feet in height 'creates' a landslide hazard. The current plan proposal maintains permanent fill slope heights to less than 15 feet, therefore, this comment is adequately addressed. AESI Comment 6 —SlopeW Analysis The review comment suggests that inadequate input parameters were used or that the factors- of-safety reported did not agree with the calculations for the slope stability modeling analysis. Response The attached slope stability analysis used strength parameters which reflect the soil conditions present on the site, and are valid for this project. It is important to note that computer models are a tool and part of the overall evaluation of a site and proposed project. When employing such a tool to assess a project, we use professional judgment to evaluate the results. In this respect, we filter factors-of-safety output to identify what we expect is most likely for a given site and conditions. It is often the case that a critical failure surface which is generated from a computer program may not agree with what we expect to see on a particular site. Therefore, we choose a slip surface which most agrees with what we would expect to occur and present the corresponding factor-of-safety in our report. AESI Comment 7 This comment is addressed in the current proposal. AESI Comment 8 This comment is addressed in the current proposal. AESI Comment 9 Comment 9 relates to the IBC code year recognized for this project, which is the 2012 version; Earth solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-266Q.Gl.: December 2, 2013 Page 4 Response The 2012 IBC recognizes ASCE for seismic site class definitions. If the project will be permitted under the 2012 IBC, in accordance with Table 20.3-1 of ASCE, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, Site Class C, should be used for design. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call.: Sincerely, fk CA)14.6 r� Y WItS11�f4, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC � ti h 67 :. co Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. oject Manager Principal Attachment: Slope W Computer Output cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Earth Solutions NW,LLC a C O Q i Cl) U 1 U r` y O t� m !n o U7 ch t�6 mo l j pU i i O , N U M i O C) C)� N F a > �; N C) O L i N {p i o CSO > N WW1f ZCOm T N LO CN O r d. r N r M i' N r O r N � N - .. O CD O i N V3 1 O f O I. c0 rk n t I T r O ! O e f . O I" O O r T r. O N T CO T O � J O r O N r "b .. I. O .. .. f ED ! O - I - ch . O ! N O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m CO � O 0 V M N r O O M r- O to 'ItM N T O O m r` O cn Nr co m co m m M m n m cy') N N N N N N N N N N T - 1 I 1(30113 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using Geo studio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright G 1451-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd..nAk _ Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 17 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/26/201-3 Time: 1:34:37 PNA File Name:Vuecrest Existing(Residence), Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/26/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:34:38 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of\Nater:62.4 pcf View: 2D V c Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction:No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: PiezornetricLine Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface ` Direction of movement: Leftto Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack - Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fileJ//CJUsers/henrywright(DocumentstSlopeWNuecrest Estates/vuecrest existing(residence),static condition-hH 114 11/30/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Optic Constant Advanced NumberofSlices:30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations:2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: l° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi:35' Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.24812, 370.9532) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (107.02561, 352.95612)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (113.3958, 350.93716) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 :5 Left Coordinate: (0, 371) ft - Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft P21_+`..m x s +.4 filet//C:Msersfmryvvright(Docun-oft/Slc)eW/Vuer-rest Estates/wecrest eAsting(residence),static condition.htm{ 24 11/30113 Slope Stability .LX(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736, 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 .1 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load:0 Material Points Area (ft') 10,9,8,3,4,5,6,7,1,2 64129.713 Region 1 Dense Native Soil X(ft) Y(ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 40 .:. 150 Point 3 111.10083 352.14108 Point 4 172.10083 320.14108 Point 5 236 300 Point 6 334 250 Point 7 400 250 -------------- Point 8 101.10083 354.14108 Point 26.67 370 Point 10 0 371 Slip Surface FOSCenter(ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit(ft) 1 97 1.9655+(372.681 -, 693.708) 444.548 (80.7049, 358.487) (331.989, 251.026) 1 .97 97 �i.�,r .� F ;• :.� Slip X (ft} Y(ft} PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 97 85.80389 354.17855 -7750.1264 242.09876 169.51938 200 2 97 96.001835 345.8151 -7395.0085 826.71585 578.87267 200 3 97 106.1008 338.0126 _ -7073.1077 1356.1104 949.55874 200 4 97 115.4247 331.19685 _ 6800.0883 1682.2929 1177.9542 200 5 97 124.07245 325.2113 -6567.8275 1817.6223 1272.7129 200 6 97 132.72015 319.52135 -6353.9421 1933.3895 1353.7739 200 7 97 141.3679 314.11365 -6157.8067 2031.7336 1422.6352 200 file:///CJUsers/henry.Wright/Docurr--nts/SlopeWNuecrest Eststes/wecrest exsting(residerice),stafic condiLon.I'tiinl 4 11/30/13 5lope.Stability 8 97 150.0156' 308.97635 -5978.4111 2113.6717 1480.0088 200 9 97 158.66335 304.09875 -5815.30761 2179.7902 1526.3055 200 10 97 167.3111 299.47115 -5667.7721 2229.9835 1561.4512 200 11 97 171.8679 297.1008 ' -5593.1267 2252.4174 1577.1597 200 12 97 176.0945 295.0137 -5509.2413 2348.527 1644.4563 200 13 97 184.0819 291.17335 -5357.3289 2535.534 1775.4 200 14 97 192.0693 287.52635 -5217.4488 2711.3391 1898.5001 200 15 97 200.0567 284.06755 -5089.3923 2874.8323 2012.9793 200 16 97 208.0441 280.79225 -4972.7354 3024.5768 2117.8315 200 17 97 216.0315 277.69605 -4867.3107 3158.5615 2211.6486 200 18 97 224.0189 274.775 -4772.758 3274.3024 2292.6913 200 19 97 232.0063 272.0255 -4688.9979 3369.5418 2359.3786 200 20 97 240.1793 269.38815 -4614.1102 3349.1241 2345.0819 200 21 97 248.53785 266.8676 -4548.6951 3205.2011 2244.306 200 22 97 256.8964 264.5246 -4494.3075 3025.7366 2118.6436 200 23 97 265.255 262.3563 -4450.8388 2809.7668 1967.4199 200 24 97 273.61355 260.36005 -4418.1356 2557.3216 1790.6559 200 25 97 281.9721 258.53345 -4395.8811 2269.6768 1589.2448 200 26 97 290.3307 256.87445 1.-4384.187 1948.7888 1364.5566 200 27 97 298.6893 255.38115 4382.8931 1598.1227 1119.0176 200 28 97 307.722 253.95875 -4342.9891 1189.3435 832.78727 200 29 97 317.4288 252.6338 4266.3217 723.85176 506.84646 200 �3-0 97 327.1356 251.5259 -4203.1494 237.43208 1. 166.25173 200 file:/IIC Users/henrywrighVDocwnents/5lopeWNuecrest EstaWs/vuecrest eAsjting(residence),static conditon.h" 414 O O v 0 t Cl) C: O O m t M U o ti Cl) C) U) M O t � r- i. CD chi O M C�6 i O U M i C/) O W J o t N Qom? O L- r M CD CD to N M N , O- N CDC)-a a) o (U -0 C.0o F-- 1 N tV O _ p CAL. O m ti WN Z m0 r N 1 Cl t N i O - t _ co 1 N 1 N N t N f t O Qt rn r � 1. O r � 1 r. r p r r p Co r � i O r LO r r. i O O A r co 'O c- O 1 N O r � O c- Co ID 1 T• 1 p l co ' O r p CD 1 O - � N i 1 i _ O p O O O O O O O O 0 Nr c0� N O 00 0 0 d M co M 0 (�� t tM tN*) uOi}ena13- O O O , i CD O O I O U t M U O O I CD r M toO C7 1 iJ 1 O U i Co U) O i O W -j `f) +, O O a U co s_ C O CV f po O O + co co p r- rn 0 (D ` N Q 00 CD O +r Q _ i N r` O O r p c WQ. Zm N T r N e. C) + N I O Co / N r O / N r O U - , T r N 7 p N i O I O Q I p _ co I. T I p I T I O ` CO / T LO I p I T / p Cq r f p T - �pt O (a i1 Z . .f O I T CD I � O C r. CF) � I t' O ` — co t r r _ t I O CD I + .. p LO T I '1' i r � l CO r N r + O C) O C3 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 C O 0 O O 0 O m O ti m u) v M N T O C)) CO r` tO Ll v M N T o W Co r- Co LO �J M Cr) CO M M CO C7 0 CO CO N 04 04 N N N N N N N 11/30/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright C)1991-2013 GED-SLOPE Internationa l Ltd. Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 20 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 1:17:20 PM File Name:Vuecrest Proposed(Residence),Static Condition.gsz Directory:C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:17:22 PM Length(L) Units:feet Timet) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units:psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View:2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode:No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option:.Constant file://iCNsers/temy.vkighVDoc�ntsiSlop-WNuecrest Estates/vuecrest proposed(residence),static condition.tdri 1/5 11/30!13 Slope Stability Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations:2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points:16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B: 0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight:130 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi: 32° PRhi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection:Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(0.18509, 376) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (101.63203,354.03484) ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (109.77425, 352.4064)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250) ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 EtCeqz Left Coordinate: (0, 376)ft Right Coordinate:(400, 250) ft file-!/IC:Nsecs/hermw ight/Docunerrts/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/mm-rest proposed(residance),static cordtion.&H 215 11/30/13 Slope Stability X(ft) Y(ft).. 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 . 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Surcharge Loads Surcharge goad 1 Surcharge. (Unit Weight): 250 pcf Direction:Verti cal X(ft) Y(ft) 0 377 21 377 77 367 91 360 Horz Seismic Load:0 ft' Material Points Area(ft') Region Dense Native 10,9,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,20,21,19,18,17,16,15,14,31,30,29,8,3,4,5,6,7,1,2 63994.441 1 Soil Region Select 13,10,9,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,20,21,19,18,17,16,15,14,31,30,29,8,11,12 654.8246 2 Fill Soil X(ft) _Y(ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 -- Point Point 3 111.10083 1 352.14108 Point 4 t 172.10083 1320.14108 filet//CJUsers/henmmiaht t/'Documents/S1oceVJNuecrestEstatesNuwrest proposed(residence),static co tiflnhtn� 3/5 11/30/13 Slope Stability Point5 236 V, Point 6 334 250 Point 7 400 250 Point 8 101.10083 354.14108 Point 9 26.67 310 Point 10 0 371 Point 11 77 366 Point 12 21 376 Point 13 0 376 Point 14 91 355 Point 15 91 356 Point 16 81 356 Point 17 81 358 Point 18 71 358 Point 19 71 360 Point 20 61 362 Point 21 61 360 Point 22 51 362 Point 23 51 364 Point 24 41 364 Point 25 41 366 Point 26 31 366 Point 27 31 368 Point 28 26.67 36.8 Point 29 101 350 Point 30 96 350 Point 31 96 355 a Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius (ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 77 1.781 (111.077, 400.633) 48.244 (78.0107, 365.503) h109.774, 352.406) ,V ;• 7 Slip Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 77 78.55193 365.00855 -8307.8397 204.69065_ 127.90491 . 0 2 77 79.63437 364.04925 -8265.2677 :238.54864 149.06174 0 3 77 80.71681 363.14575 -8226.6917 267.60619 167.21891 0 4 77 81.79925 362.2941 -8191.0762 292.84786 182.99165 0 5 77 82.88169. ..361.49095 -8158.7432 .315.03813 196.85767 0 6 77 83.964135 360.73335 -8129.429 334.74389 209.1712 0 7 17' 85.04658 360.0187 -8102.3398 352.38995 220.19768. 0 8 77 86.12902 359.3448 -8077.8242 368.25421 230.11077 0 9 77 87.21146 358.7097 -8055.9436 382.50879 239.01802 0 10 77 88.2939. 358.1116 -8036.4879 395.19586 j 246.94578 Q file)//C:Nsers/henrywrigiit/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vier-rest proposed(residence),static condition.Mmi 4/5 11/30/13 Slope Stability 11 77 89.37634 35 49 -8019.0364 406.24064 "3.84733 0 12 77 90.45878 357.Q2055 -8003.7117 415.48241 /59.62223 0 13 77 91.5525 356.52015 -7990.3839 238.69777 149.15492 0 4 14 77 92.657495 356.04735 ( -7978.9023 1241.59862 150.96758 0 15 77 93.76249 355.60665 .-7969.4867 241.29175 150.77582 0 16 77 94.86749 355.1971 -7961.93 237.39184 148.33888 0 17 77 95.709995 354.90255 -7957.3932 249.55719 174.74182 200 18 7796.508365 f 354.64405 -7954.2588 223.32383 139.54822 0 19 77 97.525095 354.3342 -7951.4927 209.75357 131.06858 0 20 77 98.54182 354.0486 -7950.2931 192.03299 119.99553 0 21 77 99.55854 353.78685 77950.5525 169.97944 106.21494 0 22 77 100.58385 353.5467 1 -7952.3034 143.22019 89.493909 0 23 77 101.6429 353.3234 -7955.6988 144.76419 101.36498 200 24 77 102.7271 353.12 -7960.7301 140.74425 98.550182 200 25 77 103.8113 352.94215 -7967.276 130.99465 91.723442 200 26 77 104.89545 352.78955 7975.4809 115.83552 81.108904 200 27 77 105.9796 .352.6619 -7985.1965 95.755219 67.048526 200 28 77 107.0638 352.55905 -7996.5219 71.40231 49.996435 200 29 77 108.148 352.48085 -8009.3465 43.502878 30.461043 200 30 77 109.23215 352.42715 -8023.7168 12.835366 8.9874201 200 file)//C Users/henrywrightlDocurnenwsiopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest proposed(residence),static condtian.htmi � 0 o -Y-- .o E5 0 c � � o ; o U m U ; o M � M CDC) 1 CD M U) LO LO M tJ) 0 O , M O tI? W U ai O O J N d} N or) t M U 0 ., t M O N f o to Cfl M r- U N , o rn O L r N 6 `� O r r0) + N N v x O Cy N W W Z m t il, N • 0 — V- _ t CV J 0 t M i N t O f N No T U i N O +r NO i O r w r O t O r O , , r O tt7 t T t O ., O O M U) V, t o TO CD ' T C .: t o t rn CDt � o t m , t o t. O f LO Cl •. v t C) , 0 , T O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O M t=om 0 n V• M N T O M M r W LO V CO N T O CA CO t- CO IQ V' M M M CO CO M M M M CO N N N 04 N N N N N N - T T T T 11/30/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright Q 1591-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd: Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 19 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/26/2013 Time: 1:36:05 PM File Name:Vuecrest Existing(Residence),Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/26/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:36:08 PM Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file)//C:Nsers/henrvwriaht/Documents/5iot)avvNuecrest Estates/vuecrest wdstina(residence),seismic cord-ion_htni 1/4 11/30113 slope Stability FOS Calculation Opti(, Constant Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations:2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° s Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 n. F , i K Left Projection:Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1,24812, 370.9532) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (107.02561, 352.95612)ft Left-Zone lncrement:4 . Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (113.3958, 350.93716)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Ott Left Coordinate:(0,371)ft Right Coordinate: (400,250)ft _ a Ir . ' `"3_ file)//C Nsers/herirywright/Docurrients/SlopeWNuecrest EstatwMecrest eAsUng(residerxe),seismic cordborLhtrrd 214 1130113 Slope Stability X(ft) Y(ft) p - 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load:0.2 Ignore seismic l cad in strength: No Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 10,9,8,3,4,5,6,7,1,2 64129.713 �X(ft) Y(ft} Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point 3 -111.10083 352,14108 Point 4 172.10083 320.14108 Point 5 236 300 Point6 ' 334 250 Point? 400 250 Point 8 101.10083 354.14108 Point 9 26.67 370 Point 10 0 371 Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius (ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 97 1.245 (372.681,693.708) 444:548 (80.7049, 358.487) . (331.989,251.026)._ z f F_ i Saui"i a C,e: 97 „._ S.I p X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress(psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 97 85.80389 354.17855 -7750.1264 182.89609 128.06522 200 2 97 96.001835 345.8151 -7395.0085 693.7598 485.77584 200 ..... . . ... . 3 97 106.1008 338.0126 -7073.1077 1141.8951 799.56353 200 4 97 115.4247 331.19685 -6800.0883 1408.4334 986.19571 200 E4 97 97 124.07245 325.2113 -6567.8275 1511.8254 1058.5916 200 6 97 132.72015 319.52135 -6353.9421 1601.3589 1121.2836 200 314 fileJI/CJUsershwq.v-ightIDocument;ISlopeWNuecrest EstatesAuecrest epsting(residence),seismic condibon.htrri 11/30/13 Slope Stability 7 97 141.3679 314.1136S -6157.8067 1680.3893 1176.6213 200 8 97 150.01565 308.97635 -5978.4111 1751.2679 1226.251 200 9 97 158.66335 304.09875 -5815.3076 1815.7317 1271.389 200 10 97 167.3111 299.47115 -5667.7721 . 1874.4209 1312.4836 200 11 97 171.8679 297.1008 -5593.1267 1905.0373 1333.9215 200 12 97 176.0945 295.0137 -5509.2413 2000.543 1400.7953 200 13 97 184.0819 291.17335 -5357.3289 . 2192:3612 1535.1078 200 14 97 192.0693 28752635. . -5217.4488 2383.4754 1668.9274 200 15 97 200.0567 : 284.06755 5089.3923 2573.0199 1801.6479 i 200 16 97 208.0441 280.79225 -4972.7354 2758..3796 1931.4382 200 17 97 216.0315 277.69605 -4867.3107 2936.0632 2055.8536 200 18 97 224.0189 274.775 -4772.758 3101.5671 2171.7407 200 19 97 232.0063 272.0255 -4688.9979 3248.9974 2274.9725 200 20 97 240.1793 269.38815 -4614.1102 3286.9996 12301.5819 200 21 97 248.53785 266.8676 -4548.6951 3200.606 2241.0884 200 22 97 256.8964 264.5246 -4494.3075 3066.511 2147.1941 200 23 97 265.255 262.3563 4450.8388 2881.3954 2017.5748 200 24 97 273.61355 260.36005 -4418.1356 2644.9099 1851.9859 200 25 97 281.9721 258.53345 -4395.8811 2359.1568 1651.8994 200 26 97 290.3307 256.87445 -4384.187 2028.8519 1420.6174 200 27 97 298.6893 255.38115 -4382.8931 1660.8821 _ .1162.9621 200 28 97 307.722 253.95875 -4342.9891 1229.4978 860.90365 200 29 97 317.4288 252.6338 -4266.3217 740.9841 518.84266 200 30 97 327.1356 251.5259 -4203.1494 1. 237.93423 166.60334 200 fileJllC:Nsers/henrywrightlDocumentslSlopeWNuscrest Estates/wecrest Msbrig(residence),seismic cord bon.htrrs 414 o O o 1 0 I � co U 0 U ' p t M 1 i C) Cl)' Cl) p � I Cl) 1 O cn o m ' t6 i o Ca<n O ' W -� Q N U1 _o O i _ 00 a) p i o r � i`7 4.,�. r _ N O �- F ! o -0 O m C9 N0 O ~ t N 1 > ! o to C� Lf O O N W Z m .! N T� 11 N 1 Q l N x O Cl) ! N 1 p r N t N i N C i C) C) ([S w-+ - tt No W + o r o r { o o _ ' r + T ! p - / v + o Cl) U) o t r .> i:. _ .... Q C6 t r ! CD i W Q� ! + Q � ► : _ i _ p t CD t Q t + O e,- / t + p ' N l 1 C) r T t O O 0 O O O 0 0 O O 0 O CD O 0 O Or O 0 Cl 0 0. CO N r SP 0 0 40 NT COfh N T r r T r co t j Co . co tj coM M N N N N N N N N N N UOlI'ena13 11!30113 Slope Stability Slope -Stability - Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright D 1-451-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd,. File Information Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 21 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 1:25:05 PM File Name:Vuecrest Proposed (Residence), SeismicCondition.gsz Directory:C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\S1opeW\VLie crest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:25:10 PM . . _n Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View:2D 43t Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction:No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode:No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: ! Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option:(none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option:Constant file)//C:Users/henry.alright/Documents0opeWNuecrest EstatesNuecrest proposed(residence),seismic conditionArrA 1/5 11!30!13 Slope Stability Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points:8 Ending Optimization Points:16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: !° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion:200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi: 32' Phi-B:0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(0.18509, 376) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate:(101.63203, 354.03484) ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate:(109.77425, 352.4064) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Left Coordinate: (0,376) ft Right Coordinate:(400,250)fit s� •ufr•n t�..�t�r....rt.+tirtn r. ,�.++�tct��tnrnt„�rPct F;z;atae/unrtrPct rrrrx.)sasi fresidence).seismic cordtiomht dl 215 11/30/13 SlDpe Stability X(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight):250 pcf Direction:Vertical X (ft) �Y(ft) 0 377 21 377 77 367 91 360 rc oe F .4 •-? z a - . s. Horz Seismic Load:0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No F Materia! Points Area (ft') Region Dense 1 Native 10,9,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,20,21,19,18,17,16,15,14,31,30,29,8,3,4,5,6,7,1,2 63994.441 Soil Region Select_ 2 Fill Soil 13,10,9,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,20,21,19,18,17,16,15,14,31,30,29,8,11,12 654.8246 Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point3 111.10083 352.14108 file:///C:Nsers/henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estateslwecrest promsed(residence),seismic condition.htrrd 31$ 11130/13 Slope Stability Poi nt4 172.10083 320.14_ Point 5 236_ 300 Point 6 334 250 Point? 400 250 Point 8 101.10083 354.14108 Poi nt 9 26.67 370 -Tot nt10 0 371 Point 11 77 366 Point 12 21 376 Point 13 0 376 Point 14 91 .355 Point l5 91 356 Point 16 81 356 Point 17 81 358 Point 18 71 358 Point 19 71 360 Point 20 61 362_, Point 21 61 360 Point 2251 362 Point 23 51 364 Point 24 41 364 Point 25 141 366 Point 26 31 366 Point 27 31 368 Point 28 26.67 368 Point 29 101 350 Point 30 96 350 Point 31 96 355 :410.4 cl Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) rRadius (ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 72 1.216 (373.986, 737.223) 487.917 (52.2423,370.421) (331.774, 251.135) -es of SNp Suffl=ce: 72 Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress(psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 72 58.384165 365.2105 -7990.7875 525.13106 328.13831 0 Z 72 67.762995 357.3903 -7656.1381 926.02858 648.4122 200 3 72 74 352.4417 -7449.2718 1229.7594 861.08683 200 4 72 79 348.58475 -7290.2945 1400.6884 980.77258 200 5 72 86 343.41035 -7081.6083 1512.2004 1058.8541 200 6 72 93.5 337.99755 -6866.3446 1471.2286 1030.1654 200 7 1 72 98.5504 334.4968 -6730.4118 1555.5744 1089.2249 200 8 72 106.1008 329.4676 -6539.8971 1757.6235 1230.7012 200 9 72 116.14535 323.04235 -6303.0322 19$8.3409 1392.2513 200 file-J//C:/Users/henmwrightlDocuments,SloW%'A/uecrest Esta#esMecrest proposed(residence),seismic condition.html 415 11/'.,0113 Slope Stability 10 72 126.2344 ' 316.9284 -6086.2764 2078.2261 1455.1896 200 11 72 136.3234 1..311.141 -5889.8686 2161.1997 1513.2883 200 12 72 146.4124 305.6671 ' -5713.1159 2238.4985 1567.4135 200 13 72 156.5014 300.4949 -5555.1514 2310.0401 1617.5075 200 14 72 166.59045 295.6137 .-5415.2791 2374.1638 1662.4074 200 15 72 171.8679 293.13855 5345.759 . 240615 1685.0494 200 16 72 176.66505 291.01415 -5265.9068 2515.7328 1761.5351 200 17 72 185.7935 287.08755 5121.2189 2733.9445 1914.3286 200 18 72 194.92195 283.3785 -4989.9738 2945.9066 2062.746 200 19 72 204.0504 279.88175 ( -4872.1259 3147.1761 2203.6764 200 20 72 213.17885 276.5924 -4767.1248 3331.7747 2332.9338 200 21 72 222.3073 273.5061 -4674.8482 3492.4705 2445.4542 200 22 72 231.43575 270.6188 -4594.8905 3621.9153 2536.0924 200 23 72 240.77635 267.8688 -4525.909 3609.6898 2527.532 200 24 72 250.329 265.26175 -4468.2111 3439.4613 2408.3367 200 25 72 259.88165 262.8614 -4423.3516 3207.1844 2245.6947 200 26 72 269.4343 260.6646 -4391.1752 2913.2372 2039.8707 200 27 72 278.98695 : 258.66855 -4371.574 2561.7475 1793.7549 200 28 72 288.5396 256.87075 -4364.2905 2159.8317 1512.3304 200 29 7.2 298.09225 255.269 -4369.3284 1716.9983 1202.2551 200 30 72 307.68625 253.8561 -4336.5179 1241.987 869.64863 200 31 72 317.32155 252.63195 -4266.0638 745.42984 521.9556 . 200 32 72 326.95685 251.602 420.7.7772 239.18413 167.47853 200 file:!//C:IUserslheraywrigWDocun-ent&GlopeWNuecrest Estatesivlecrest proposed(residence),seisrric cond6orLhtrtl 5/5 0 O C ' O r rn ' o i b co C:) U U + o 1 to 1 co U r: i p O ' o t t � U p r i C O 43 _I N � p C i r c4 m ' O > f o C.0 ' CD ' N cc>C,J N > " (n X O co W W Z m s 0 + N- t i c0 co co O , N N r N C > t oo e N fA ' p D rn O co O Y it t p t r r t o O _ t T i - - O I + O " - co - .O r � O CD r O ( to O , + O co t - p t N r t , O t o Cl p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O ,� m c0 t. cD LO .t M N r- O M co N c0 to t CO N T T T T V- - uOijena» 11/30/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Reportgenerated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright Q 1091-2013 GEO-SLOPEInternational Ltd. Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number:13 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 1:47:39 PM File Name:Vuecrest Existing, Static Condition.gsz Directory:C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 LastSolved Time: 1:47:40 PM _:Y - ,Y Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D - : e Slope StabiiitY Kind:SLOPE/W Method:Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometdc Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Directionofmovement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file:///C:Nsers/henry.%vriaht/JeaunmWSlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest wdstng,static cendition.htrnl 1/4 11136/13 Slope Stabi l ity FOS Calculation Option:Cc. :ant Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1 Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35' Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coo rdinate: (0, 370) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (94.35876, 350.16031)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (100.25406, 347.58742) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Left Coordinate: (0, 370) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft ieaS 214 filet!/C:Usersthenrywright'docunentsoopeWNuecrest EstatesMecrest epsbng,stafic condibon.htrril 11/30/13 Slope Stability X(ft) Y(ft) F 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 I 183.45035 -rr" oads Horz Seismic Load:0 Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 8,5,4,6,9,1,2,3 61110.399 X(ft) Y(ft) Point 400 . 250 Point 2 400 + 150 Point 3 0 150 Point 4 95 350 Point 5 55 360 Point 6 1 193 305 Point 7 304 250 Point 0 370 Point 9 307.86636 248.3727 Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit(ft) 1 92 1.820 (338.979, 634.837) 386.754 (70.9609, 356.01) (305.51, 249.535) Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress(psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 74.96743 352.2664 -7454.1094 177.09711 124.00473 200 2 92 82.980455 344.98445 -7130.5836 658.49769 461.08504 200 3 92 . 90.993485 338.09765 -6831.7057 1095.398 767.00592 200 4 92 98.83175 331.71375 -6561.2966 1417.3014 992.40514 200 5 92 106.49525 325.7956 -6317.2144 1632.6674 1143.2061 200 6 . 92 114.15875 320.17535 -6091.6897 1828.197 1280.1174 i 200 7 92 12.1.82225 314.83735 -5883.7261 2007.0231 1405.3327 200 8 92 129.48575 309.7677 -5692.5149 2171.6431 1520.6008 200 fia/t/r n I.cPrc/Fwnrvwrinht/i r)rrurnnis/SloneWNuecrest Estates/vuecrest ekstiino.static condition.htni 314 11/30/'13 Slope Stability 9 92 137.14925 3C 3395 -5517.3403 2323.5652 26.9778 200 10 92 144.81275 300.3851 -5357.324 2463.8522 1725.2079 200 11 92 152.47625 2-96.0512 -5212.058 2592.826 1815.5163 200 } 12 92 160.13975 291.943350$0.8752 2710.1086 1897.6385 200 13 92 167.80325 288.05345 -4963.3424 2814.7995 1970.9438 200 14 92 175.1958 284.4974 -4843.0998 2903.0105 2032.7099 200 15 92 182.31745 281.255 -4719.0994 2973.6527 2082.174 200 16 92 189.43915 278.1843 -4605.7212 3028.7405 2120.7469 200 17 92 196.9239 275.1416 -4497.9631 3052.6464 2137.486 200 18 92 ' 204.77165 272.14 -4396.9862 3039.756 2128.46 200 19 92 212.6194 269.33155 -4307.9481 2997.8964 2099.1497 200 20 92 220.46715 266.7118 -4230.6272 2924.2866 2047.6075 200 21 92 228.3149 264.27675 -4164.8383 2816.1589 1971.8957 200 22 92 236.16265 262.02275 4110.4457 2671.5072 1870.6095 200 23 . 92 244.0104 259.9466 -4067.1255 2489.6105 1743.244 200 24 92 251.85815 258.04535 -4034.6139 2270.3238 1589.6979 200 25 92 259.7059 256.3163 -4012.9663 2014.9641 1410.893 200 26 92 267.55365 1254.75715 4001.9431 1725.9601 1208.5303 200 27 92 .. 275.4014 253.3658 -4001.2569 1407.1141 985.27192 200 28 92 283.24915 252.1404 -4011.0822 1062.4639 743.94526 200 29 92 291.0969 251.0794 -4031.0528 697.15211 488.15117 200 30 92 298.9447 250.18145 . -4061.1426 316.2173 221.41773 200 31 92 304.18915 249.6538 4072.1931 56.876459 39.825326 200 file)/iC:Nsers(henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest exist•ng,static condtion.htrN 414 � o O i v o + o: ' Cl) 0 i o U CO U i 0 co O co + M c6 i p ItLO oNr � O C/) C) CO(g + U Ur ; O _ O cn � o N i Cl) ca r coCD 0 ' c*> O } 0 Ocn E O N p.• � U1 0 O W a_ zm t a N _ i O r f` r N • r 'i :. N I O N ' o co + . N O � N iI N (1 r- � i O (m + 0 }, I N N � r e 0 r co _ I O Mf .. 8 I: I. O + O r o r. . Lo a) I r O i co Z r __ I i O D O - � r . : ... _` O t r O co - - I O f` .. R 0 r. .. O 1-0 1 .. .. - O s t r p t co O i 0 0 0 0 0 0 cs 0 0 0 0 0 o p0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 w t— w ± * M N O O CC) rl- co LO V M N c- O M M I` Q LO d Cl) m m M c CY? M C7 m N N N N N N N N N N Uo1}enalq 11/30/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated usingGeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright©19°1-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. R Title:Vuecrest. Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 17 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time:2:09:39 PM File Name:Vuecrest Vault, Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 2:09:42 PM Length(L) Units: feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: i bf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of\Nater: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Slope Stability Kind: SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Setti ngs Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: l Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack - - Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file)//C Jsers)henrvwrichVDocuT#ents/SiooevJNuecrest E:stateslwecrestvault,static condition.htrN 1;5 1113a!13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Opti: Constant Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° � r Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion:200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi:32° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Vault Model: (None) Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 z s 1L 1. Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(1.24453, 353)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (85.73941, 353.24121) ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (91.40842, 351.25705) fit Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone increment:4 Radius Increments:4 fileJ//CJUsers/henry.Wright/Documents/SlopeMuecrest Estateslviecrestvault stabc concibon.htrri 215 1113CV13 Slope Stability Left Coordinate: (0, 353)ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250)ft X(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 -17-1.63495 207.50984 302-96855 184.40726. 400 183.45035 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load I Surcharge (Unit Weight): 71.5 pcf Direction:Vertical X(ft) Y(ft) 0 353 0 373 69 —37-3 Horz Seismic Load:0 Material Points Area(ft2) 1 Region 1 Select Fill Soil 14,13,11,10,17-16,15,91 76 . --�0—89341 Region 2 Dense Native Soi 1 7,12,13,11,ID,17,16,15,9,4,5,6,8,1,2,3 _ Region 3 Vault .18,19,14,13,12,7 1390 X(ft) Y(ft) Pointl 400 (ft) J� 250 315 f lejl/c:/Users/henry.wightfDocuments/slopeWNuecrest Es&zisweorest vault,static conafion.htH 11/30/13 Slope Stability Point 2 400 1" Point 3 0 150 t Point 4 95 350 Point 5 193 305 Point 6 304 250 Point 7 0 353 Point 8 307.86636 248.3727 Point 9 85 353.5 Point 10 75 353.5 Point 11 75 355.5 Point 12 69 353 Point 13 69 355.5 Point 14 69 362 Point 15 85 349.5 Point 16 80 349.5 Point 17 80 353.5 Point 18 0 ..373 Point 19 69 373 wt i�YJ_ t3A-3 Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius (ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 . 92 1.797 (33$.858, 636.306) 388.384 (69, 3,62) (305.535, 249.354) SlipX (ft) Y(ftj PWP (psf)' Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 69.7738.- . 356.24345 -7617.3187 518.22742 323.82443 0 2 92 72.7738 353.40615 -7489.4051 534.29375 374.11651 200 3 92 77.5 349,0978 -7293.9671 698.18229 488.8725 200 4 92 82.5 344.5665 -7096.645 863.1477 604.38253 200 5 92 90 338.19575 -68215474 1133.6236 793.77177 200 6 92 98.83175 . 331.0093 -6517.3999 1459.1163 1021.68 43 200 7 92 106.49525 375.1355 -6275.9955 1671.4101 1170.334 200 8 92 114.15875 319.556 -6053.047 1865.0631 1305.9312 200 9 92 121.82225 314.2555 -5847.4406 2043.0008 1430.5246 .200 10 1 92 129.48575 309.22045 -5658.3798 2207.4781 1545.6928 200 11 92 137.14925 304.4388 -5485.1781 2359.9502 1652.4549 200 - 12 92 144.81275 299.89965 -5327.1189 2501.301 1751.4298 200 13 92 152.47625 295.5933 -5183.5151 2631.7681 1842.7839 200 14 92 160.13975 291.5111 -5053.9952 2750.7636 1926.1054 200 15 92 167.80325 287.64515 -4937.8597 2857.5154 2000.8538 200 16 92 175.1958 284.1106 -4819.0219 2947.646 2063.964 200 17 92 182.31745 280.88755 -4696.0616 3020.1084 2114.7026 200 18 92 189.43915 277.835 -4583.842 3076.7616 2154.3716 200 filet//C:/Users/henrvwrivht/Documents/SlopeWNuecrestEstates/wecrestvault static condtion.hM 415 11/30/13 Siope Stability . 19 92 196.9239 1 27. 1015 -4477.2995 3101.0648 71.389 200 20 92 204.77165 271.826 -4377.3251 3086.8376 2161.4269 200 212.6194 269.0338 -4289.2657 3043.1204 2130.8159 i 200 21 92 22 92 220.46715 266.4291 -4213.0059 2966.762 2077.3491 200 23 92 228.3149 264.00805 -4148,1084 2854.9853 1999.0822 200 24 92 236.16265 261.7671 -4094.5481 ( 2706.1449 1894.8631 200 25 92 244.0104 259,703 -4051.8678 2519.1494 1763.9274 200 26 92 251,85815 257.81285 -4020.1674 2294.2226 1606.4319 200 27 ( 92 259.7059 256.09405 -3999.1252 2032.8086 1423.3879 200 28 92 267.55365 254.5443 -3988.619 1737.7166 1216.7623 200 29 92 275.4014 253.16155 -3988.4817 1412.6318 989.13543 200 30 92 283.24915 251.944 -3998.7586 1062.3547 743.86875 200 31 92 291.0969 250.89005 -4019,2069 691.90097 484.47428 200 32 92 298,9447 249.9984 -4049.7982 306.60892 214.68988 200 33 92 303.4343 249.54115 -4064.7394 83.084988 58.176735 200 34 92 304.7673 249.4217 -4058.0532 22.613837 . 15.834379 200 file:QlClUserslhenrvwriaht0ocunwits!SlooeWNuecrest Es atesmecrest Bradt,static condifion."i `q5 O � o 'a i ooi O i o V m M U i o co O o Q) O M c i 0 LO Ui � •O i M i UM U O 0p 0 N N I M }, r C4 cl) co M v , o N to X O co W W Z m o r � N e¢ .i. .. r. N J O i N # O j N I N co t i Q V T i N � (u 0 t-C •4- C) Q b i t l co p I 0 J .. .. T Z .. ! O t M J T CD - - Q N i _ � I I o L T I o t Q CO LO r .d. ! O I M - N r • t a J . 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 o rn co iw• co �� �- M N r- o rn w r m u� �- M N T o or w r• m ,n �Y M M Cr! M M M M M CST M N N N N N N N N N N r T T T T 11/30113 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright Q 1991-2013 GEC-SLOPE International Ltd. Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number:15 Last Edited By:Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 2:10:42 PM File Name:Vuecrest Existing, Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 2:10:44 PM Length(L).Units:feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: lbf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Setti ngs Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown:No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack - Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fiieJl/C:Users/he=.vvrightfDocumerts/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vjecrest existing,seismic conditcn.htmi -114 11/30/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Opt' ;Constant Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1ft . Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: l Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° � �avg� ti a_F s .e M. i�..3�v rT Y Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion:200 psf Phi: 35' Phi-B:0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(0,370)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (94.35876, 350.16031)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (100.25406, 347.58742)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400,250)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Left Coordinate:(0, 370)ft Right Coordinate: (400,250)ft P 2 R'Nk.+1e rt-5.3.sn Y'c.^e`fi€`w Lines yF i`ei`9.:St+r.B s . G,,4pZa..t p_4r-c s£ne.e �. filel//CJUsers/henrywrighVDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vaeuest eiastng,sbisMc condition.html 214 11/3a'13 Slope Stability X(ft) Y(ft} 0 249.88736 1 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 ignore seismic load in strength: No Material Points Area (ftz) ERegion 1 Dense Native Soil 8,5,4,6,9,1,2,3 61110.399 X (ft) Y(ft) . .. Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point3 0 150 Point 4 95 350 Points 55 360 Point 6 193 305 Point? 304 250 Paint 8 0 370 Point9 307.86636 248.3727 Slip Surface FOS Center{ft} Radius (ft) Entry (ft) Exit(ft) 1 92 1.184 (338.979, 634.837) 386.754 (70.9609, 356.01) (305.51- 2.49.S35) SU Slip X (ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress(psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 74.96743 352.2664 -7454.1094 122.39315 85.700606 200 2 92 82.980455 344.98445 -7130.5836 542.11779 379.59496 200 3 92 90.993485 338.09765 -6831.7057 912.1709 638.70894 200 4 92 98.83175 331.71375 -6561.2966 .1176.7376 823.96054 200 5 92 106.49525 325.7956 -6317.2144 1348.1994 944.01936 200 6 92 114.15875 320.17535 -6091.6897 1502.9884 1052.4038 200 7 92 121.82225 314.83735 -5883.7261 1645.7416 1152.3607 200 file)//C:/Users/heerywright/Documents/S1opeWNuecrest Estateslwecrest wdsfing,seisrnic condibon.h&d 314 11/30/13 Slope Stability 8 92 129.4857 ' 309.7677 -5692.5149 1780.3985 1246.6485 200 9 92 137.14925 .304.95395 -5517.3403 1910.1653 1337.5122 200 10 92 144.81275' 300.3851 -53.57.324 2037.5052 : 1426.6765 f 200 11 92 152.47625 296.0512 -5212.058 2164.0415 1515.2781 200 12 92 160.13975 291.9433 ( -5080.8752 2290.5879 1603.8869 200 13 92 167.80325 288.05345 4963.3424 2416.7305 1692.2129 200 14 92 . 175.1958 284.4974 -4843.0998 2537.0496 1776.4612 200 35 92 182.31745 281.255 -4719.0994 2648.9811 1854.8365 200 16 92 189.43915 278.1843 -4605.7212 2753.8242 1928.2485 200 17 92 196.9239 275.1416 -4497.9631 2838.6044 1987.6122 200 18 92 204.77165 272.14 -4396.9862 2894.6756 2026.8737 200 19 92 212.6194 269.33155 -4307.9481 2921.4225 2045.6021 200 20 92 220.46715 266.7118 -4230.6272 2911.0655 2038.35 200 21 92 228.3149 264.27675 -4164.8383 2856.817 2000.3648 200 22 92 236.16265 262.02275 -4110.4457 2753.0724 1927.7221 200 23 92 244.0104 259.9466 -4067.1255 2596.5816 1818.146 200 24 92 251.85815 258.04535 -4034.6139 2387.1486 1671.4995 200 25 92 259.7059 256.3163 -4012.9663 2127.3361 14895768 200 26 92 267.55365 254.75715 -4001.9431 1822.3894 1276.0508 200 27 92 275.4014 253.3658 -4001.2569 1480.2665 1036.4937 200 28 92 283.24915 252.1404 -4011.0822 1109.9513 777.19628 200 29 92 291.0969 253...0794 -4031,0528 720.7846 504.69881 200 3092 298.9447 250.18145 -4061.1426 321.46435 225.09176 200 31 92 304.1$915 249.6538 -4072.1931 . 53.629716 37.551931 .200 fileJ//C:Nsers/henrywrig hVDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estaies/yiecrest erstng,seismic condition.htrrd 414 c O o O / o O Cl) Ut o 7 � r O C t M to � O 1 (D 7 O 05 in .. C: 7 Cl) W O o 7 7 N U i o O co U -} p i o O N Cf) 7 c— co t tY) o e to r co) (10) 0 i O Co cOV N Q > _ , o U) 0 ? co W W Z CC3 i o i N ' , o co r N O t / O / N 1 e no 7 N e; C) CU , O U CD T N to r O Ct) f r / co 7 C) _ t Q r T //0� r - _ v) I O W / C) C13 - .. 7 C / N Ca) r O , I / / Q / co t 0 r / / 0 / / O / LO i o , / O 7 (D / CD i N 1 1 0 O 0 O O 0 o 0 O O o o O Q o O Q o O O Q O O Q o O Q 07 c0 M c~ coM M M cN M N N N t�V N N N N cV COV �� uoilenaIZI 11/30/1 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated usingGeostudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright O 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 18 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 11/30/2013 Time: 2:11:32 PM File Name:Vuecrest Vault, Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vue crest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 11/30/2013 Last Solved Time: 2:11:36 PM Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf _ Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Setti ngs Apply PhreaticCorrection:No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode:No Slip Surface Option:Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution filet!/CiUsers/henrywright(Documents/SlopeWNuecrest EstatWvL,ecrestvault,seismic condi6on.html 115 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Co, .ant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimizati on Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° Dense Native Sail Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi: 32° Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Vault Model: (None) Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 --Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.24453, 353) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (85.73941, 353.24121) ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (91.40842, 351.25705)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) fit Right-Zone Increment:4 . Radius Increments:4 file:ll/C:/Users/herw"wriaht0ocurnents/SlomwNuecrest Estates/vuecresi vault,seismic condifion.htH 2/5 11/30/13 Slope Stability l Left Coordinate: (0, 353) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250)ft X(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 4.00 183.45035 Surcharge Loads Surcharge woad 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight):71.5 pcf Direction:Vertical X(ft) Y(ft) 0 353 0 373 69 373 OfR Horz Seismic Load:0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No -- ��•.r rte. - M Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Select Fill Soil 14,13,11,10,17,16,15,9 76 Region 2 Dense Native Soil 7,12,13,11,ID,17,16,15,9,4,5,6,8,1,2,3 60341.89 Region 3 vault 18,19,14,13,12,7 1380 s Tj u+ X(ft) Y(ft) filet//C:Nsers/henrvwrioht/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrestvault,seismic condition.htr it 35 11/30/13 Slog Stability Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150_ Point3 0 150 Point4 95 350 Point 5 193 305 Point 6 304 250 Point 7 0 353 Point 8 307-86636 248.3727 Point 9 85 353.5 Point 10 75 353.5 Point 11 75 355.5 Point 12 69 353 Point 13 69 355.5 Point 14 69 362 Point 15 85 349.5 Point 16 80 349.5 Point 17 80 3535 Point 18 0 373 . .. ...... . Paint 19 69 373 Z r 3, P" s .4F a.F Ytw`.n Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius(ft) Entry (ft) Exit(ft) 1 92 1.172 (338.858, 636.306) 388.384 (69, 362) (305.535, 249.354) " r-L ,-suers> 197 SlipBase Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface X {ft} Y(ft} PWP (psfJ Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 69.7738 356.24345 -7617.3187 455.73913 284.77741 0 2 92 72.7738 353.40615 7489.4051 429.12992 300.48001 200 3 92 77.5 349.0378 4293.9671 : 570.67655 399.59202 200 4 92 82.5 344.5665 -7096.645 710.73119 497.65934 200 5 92 90 338.19575 -6821.5474 936.10115 655.46509 200 5 92 98.83175 331.0093 -6517.3999 1202.8683 842.25742 200 7 92 106.49525 325.1355 -6275.9955 1372.3839 960.95357 200 8 92 114.15875 319.556 6053.047 1526.6186 1068.9499 . 200 9 92 121.82225 314.2555 -5847.4406 1669.8935 1169.272 200 10 92 129.48575 309.22045 5658.3798 1806.2284 1264.7347 200 11 92 137.14925 304.4388 -5485.1781 1938.4508 1357.3179 200 12 1 92 144.81275 299.89965 -5327.1189 2068.9509. ..- 1448.695 200 13 92 152.47625 295.5933 -5183.5151 2199.1503 1539.8616 200 14 92 1 160.13975 291.5111 -5053.9952 2329.7615 1631.3165 200 15 92 167.80325 287.64.515 -4937.8597 2460.2608 1722.6931 200 16 92 175.1958 284.1105 -4819.0218 2584.7295 1809.8471 200 17 92 182.31745 280.88755 -4696.0616 2700.5181 1890.9232 200 fileJ//ClUsers/henrywight/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest EstatesNuecrestvault,seismic condition.html 415 11/30/13 Slope Stability 18 . 92 189.4391 277.835 -4583.842 2808.8621 1966.7864 200 19 92 196.9239 274.81015 . -4477.299S 2895.3947 2027.3772 200 20 92 204.77165 271.826 4377.3251 2951.343 2066.5526 . 200 , 21 92 212.6194 269.0338 -4289.2657 2976.481 2084.1544 200 22 92 220.46715 266.4291 -4213.0059 2963.2425 2074.8848 200 23 92 228.3149 264.00805 -4148.1084 2904.4577 2033.7232 1. 200 24 92 236.16265 261.7671 -4094.5481 2794.9939 1957.0758 200 25 92 244.0104 259.703 -4051.8678 2631.842 1842.8356 200 26 ' 92 { 251.85815 257.81285 -4020.1674 2414.9319 1690.9535 200 27 92 259.7059 256.09405 -3999.1252 .2147.4543 1503.6637 200 28 92 267.55365 254.5443 -3988.619 1835.1681 11284.9985 200 29 92 275.4014 253.16155 -3988.4817 1486.0479 1040.542 200 30 92 283.24915 251.944 -3998.7586 1109.6088 776.95647 200 31 92 291.0969 250.89005 -4019.2069 715.28301 500.84656 200 32 92 298.9447 249.9984 -4049.7982 311.85639 218.36419 200 33 92 303.4343 249.54115 -4064.7394 80.907527 56.652061 200 34 92 304.7673 249.4217 -4058.0532 18.813814 13.173574 200 filf-://IC/Ust--rs/henryvvrichVDocurrents/Slooe�NNuecrest Estateslwecrest'ault,seismic condition.htrrd 55 K Elizabeth Higgins From: Maire Thornton <mthornton@aesgeo.com> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 11:21 AM To: Elizabeth Higgins Subject: RE:Vuecrest in Renton Good morning Elizabeth: Thank you for the positive input. Your thoughtfulness has brightened this cold gray day and has put a positive perspective on the start of the week for me. The second sentence means that the conditions have-not been met and that they should demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions by providing the results of stability analyses for existing and proposed site conditions. The changes indicated in red (see below) may clarify the intent. The sentence may have been clearer if it had been written as follows: The results of stability analyses which demonstrate satisfaction of each of the three conditions listed above are required for both existing and proposed site conditions. Text taken from report: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions;and(Ord.5675, 12-3-2012) o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas;and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results of stability analyses before and after development demonstrating how the three conditions as listed abore are satis�.ed as are -required. Hope that helps! Please make a note:AESI Tacoma has not moved but our street name has changed to Commerce Street Maire Thornton, P.E. Associated Earth Sciences,Ina 1552 Commerce Street,Suite 102 Tacoma,Washington 98402 C 1425-766-7340 01253-722-2992 F 253-722-2993 This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing,copying,distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. EXHIBIT 22 1 . Site and Project Description Based on available information and the description provided in the February 25, 2013 ESNW report, the 5.3 acre site consists of an undeveloped, wooded parcel located south of South 47" Street at the intersection with Smithers Avenue South where it enters into the site in Renton, Washington. Wetland tracts are mapped east and south portions of the site. Topography across that portion of the site to be developed slopes generally toward the south and west. Within the western portion of the site, a 2H:1 V (Horizontal:Vertical) (approximate) slope descends in excess of 100 vertical feet toward the western property line; total slope height is undetermined as topography presented on the referenced DRS Plan stops approximately 100 feet short of the west property line and does not show a toe of slope. A 3H:IV (approximate) slope descends to the south approximately. 10 vertical feet toward a westerly trending ravine within the southerly portion of the site. The February 25', 2013 ESNW report indicates that a visual slope reconnaissance was conducted across portions of the steep slope areas of the site and that no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed and that "stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good." It appears that ESNW did not have a detailed site plan showing current proposed development for preparation of the referenced February 25, 2013 report. The two subsequent reports referenced above describe currently proposed development and present stability sections that appear to be based on the referenced DRS Plan but do not list the specific reference. Proposed development as shown on the referenced DRS Plan includes a 21-lot subdivision with an estimated earthwork volume of approximately 3,300 cubic yards cut and 10,000 cubic yards fill. Development is concentrated to the flatter portion of the site and will occupy approximately the northeastern two-thirds of the property. Smithers Avenue is to be extended south from 47' Avenue to the central portion of the site where the roadway will tarn east and extend to the eastern property' line as SE 186 ' Place. A storm water vault is to be located within the southwest portion of the development area. Lots 1 through 8 and the storm water vault are situated along the top of the westerly descending 2H:IV slope. A 4-foot-high rockery wall is proposed along the western edge of these lots and vault area. A 2H:IV fill slope will extend from the wall to the pad grade. Excluding the height of the wall, the fill slope achieves a maximum slope height of up to approximately 20 vertical feet. As planned, the structures on Lots 1 through 8 will extend anywhere from a few feet to approximately 40 feet onto the proposed fill slope. As proposed, the storm water vault will be discharged into the westerly trending ravine within the southern portion of the site. Subsurface Conditions The referenced reports generally summarize subsurface conditions at the site as glacial till. The February 25, 2013 report indicates that soil "terraces were observed down the steep slope at the west side of the site which may correlate to the recessional stratified drift kame terrace deposits, however, the proposed development will not extend to those locations." Test pit logs presented.with the February 25, 2013 report indicate medium dense to dense, moist to wet 2 sand to a depth of 8 feet in TP-1 within the northeast portion of the site; medium stiff to hard, moist to wet silt located along the top of the slope in TP-6 and TP-7, and between 2.5 and 8 feet below ground surface within TP-8 within the western portion of the site; and, medium dense to very dense, generally moist, silty sand with variable gravel below the sand in TP-1, below the silt in TP-8 and within TP-2 through TP-5 across the remainder of the site. Review of the Geologic Map of King County, Booth, Troost, Wisher, May 2006, indicates that recessional outwash and/or pre-Fraser, coarse grained non-glacial soils on the westerly descending slope within the western portion of the site and glacial till within the central and eastern portion of the site. An earlier publication titled: Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington by D.R. Mullineaux, U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ-405, Publication Date: 1965, Map Scale: 1:24,000 indicates that the soils on the westerly descending slope within the western portion of the site consist of undifferentiated quaternary deposits of glaciofluvial sand and gravel, glaciolacustrine clay and sand, and non-glacial sand, clay and thin peat. Ground water was reported at a depth of 6 feet within the sandy soil reported in TP-1; ground water was not reported within the other test pits excavated at the site. Comments Based on our review, we have the following comments: 1. Our general impression is that subsurface conditions within all but the northeast portion of the site were treated in the reports as a single homogeneous unit, when it appears based on information presented on the referenced geologic maps, that site geology is more complex. Given the importance of slope stability to the project and the potential for geologic aspects of subsurface stratigraphy to play a major role in slope stability, the geology cross section of the slope and associated engineering properties should be defined in greater detail. A supplemental report should be prepared and should contain a geologic map and geologic cross-section(s). The map and section(s) should show the test pit locations, location and extent of geologic strata encountered, existing and proposed grade, proposed retaining walls, proposed buildings and conceptual depths of foundations. There may not currently be enough existing subsurface information to determine the presence of potentially adversely oriented interbeds of silt or other plane of weakness that could affect slope stability; additional, deeper subsurface exploration borings may be necessary. 2. The Renton Municipal Code (RMC)4-3-050-B1c defines sensitive slopes as twenty five percent (25%) to forty percent (40%) and protected slopes, forty percent (40%) or greater. RMC 4-3-050-J1 defines "Geologic Hazards" and provides specific guidelines for activities on or within 50 feet of sites with geologic hazards. The following classifications for geologic hazards are taken directly from RMC 4-3-050-J1: 3 a. Steep Slopes: i. Steep Slope Delineation Procedure: The boundaries of a regulated steep sensitive or protected slope are determined to be in the location identified on the City of Renton's Steep Slope Atlas. An applicant's qualified professional may substitute boundaries independently derived from survey data for the City's consideration in determining the boundaries of sensitive or protected steep slopes. All topographic maps shall utilize two foot (2') contour intervals or the standard utilized in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas. ii. Steep Slope Types: (a) Sensitive slopes. (b) Protected slopes. b. Landslide Hazards: i. Low Landslide Hazard (LL):Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent (IS%). ii. Medium Landslide Hazard (LM):Areas with slopes between fifteen percent (1 S%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. iii. High Landslide Hazards (LH):Areas with slopes greater than forty percent (40%), and areas with slopes between fifteen percent (I5%) and forty percent (40%) and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. iv. Very High Landslide Hazards (LIQ:Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. c. Erosion Hazards: i. Low Erosion Hazard (EL):Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than fifteen percent (IS%). ii. High Erosion Hazard (EH):Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly U.S. Soil Conservation Service) as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than fifteen percent (15%). As indicated earlier in this letter, current development plans include placement of a 4 foot wall on the face of the westerly descending slope within the western portion of 4 the site. The wall is to support the toe of a 2H:IV fill slope to create support pads for the proposed residences and vault along the top of the slope. The residential structures on.these pads will extend into the sloping area. 3. Based on the classifications presented above, the slope on which the retaining wall/fill slope is to be founded is a regulated steep sensitive/protected slope (RMC 4-3-05041a) with high erosion hazard (RMC 4-3-050-J1b(iii)), and high landslide hazards (RMC 4-3-050-J1c(ii)). Based on these designations, development is prohibited per RMC 4-3-05045a. In order for development to be allowed, RMC 4-3-05042 requires that a study must demonstrate the following: o The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; and (Ord. 5676, 12-3-2012) o The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and o The development can be safely accommodated on the site. The three conditions listed above have not been satisfied by the referenced reports. The results of testability analyses before and of er development demonstrating how the three conditions as listed above are satisfied required. �ti c�-r� i M II/ 1&l 4. Grading regulations outlined in RMC 4-4-060L require that a line be established from which setbacks for structures and slopes is to be measured and a minimum setback for each are presented. The report documents imply that the line from which setback is to be measured is at the top of the existing westerly steep slope. Plans indicate that residential footings will extend into the steeply sloping fill within the western portion of the site. Based on the steepness of the slope (50 percent) a setback between the lowest outside edge of footings to daylight in the adjacent slope face would be more appropriate. 5. RMC 4-4-060 N6 indicates that creation of a permanent fill slope in excess of 15 feet high at a 40 percent gradient would create a protected steep slope and would not be allowed unless conditions of RMC 4-3-050 Ma(ii) are satisfied. As presented, the stability analyses evaluate the potential for deep-seated instability of the slope under both existing and proposed conditions. The analyses should also consider the stability of the proposed fill slope/wall where slopes in excess of 15 feet are proposed (Lots 1, -7, and 8). The conditions of RMC 4-3-050.J.2 a (i, ii, hi) as indicated in Comment 2 must be met. 6. The following Table presents a summary of factors of safety presented for existing and proposed conditions anticipated at the site as presented in the April 10, 2013 and July 15, 2013 reports. During our review of the analyses, several issues were noted 5 which require re-evaluation of various conditions and presentation of revised factors of safety. Factor of July 15,2013 Safety Aril 10,2013 Residential Area Vault Area Existing Proposed Exist Proposed E;;dng I Proposed Static 2.1271•2 1.9192 2.2003 2.09 12.1 2.1373 2.0403,1.6 (1.629)4 (1.585)4 Seismic 1.323'•2 1.2282 1.3822 1.3662.1(1.095)4 1.39921 1.347 2.1,6 (1.236) (1.175)4 (1.090)4 1. Slice thickness is less than 1 foot between toe of slope and exit point. Exit point should be re-evaluated and modified. 2. Location of center/radius of failure circle shown on section does not agree with center/radius listed in calculation. 3. Missing results for slip circle center and slices-cannot evaluate results. 4. Value in parenthesis is presented on calculation sheets-does not agree with value indicated on section 5. Failure circle analyzed and results presented is inconsistent with results on section-entry/exit points for failure circle indicate a relatively small portion of the slope. 6. The vault should be modeled as a surcharge rather than a region with strength parameters. Stability analyses conducted on the westerly descending slope should be re-evaluated based on understanding of subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the slope enhanced through Comment 1, above. 7. ESNW indicates that rockeries will be used to "face" fill slopes. Rockeries may be used to mitigate erosion of cut slopes where very dense native soil is exposed. Unreinforced rockeries are not engineered structures and where in excess of 4 feet high (including imbedment depth), should not be used in place of retaining walls. 8. As proposed storm water from the detention vault is to be directed toward the southerly ravine and ultimately toward the westerly descending slope, ESNW has identified the soils on the slope as "high erosion hazard".and should consider alternate recommendations to prevent water from being directed over site slopes. Alternatively, the applicant should demonstrate that flow from the outfall system will not cause erosive flows. 9. February 25, 2013 report indicates design in accordance with the 2006 International Building Code (IBC). The City of Renton has adopted the 2012 IBC. Seismic design of structures should be in conformance with the 2012 IBC including recommended seismic surcharge on walls. Closure This letter has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client and their agents, for specific application to this project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices in effect in this area at the time our review was completed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. 6 If you should have any questions, or if we can be of additional help to you, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Tacoma, Washington 9�335gg �Q o(3jh3 AUS race L. B on, P.E. Maine Thornton, P.E. Senior Principal Engineer Senior Engineer MT/pc TE130415A3 Projects\20130415\TMWP 7 yr July 15, 2013 Earth Solutions NW LLC ES-2660.01 • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Geonerco Properties WA, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Slope Setback Response Vuecrest Estates Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Solutions NW, LLC . Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2660, dated February 2013 Dear Mr. Waltier: As.requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to address the setback from the top of a slope. ESNW previously prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study for the site. Site Conditions The City of Renton Municipal Code defines steep slopes as follows: • Sensitive Slopes: Areas with slopes between 25 percent and 40 percent. • Protected Slopes: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Based on our observations and review of the referenced topographic survey, sensitive slopes are present along the western and southern portions of the property, and protected slopes are present along the western portion of the property. The referenced geotechnical engineering study identifies soil conditions onsite to consist of glacial till which is dense to very dense near the surface. EXHIBIT 24 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 • Bellevue,IA(.A 98005 • (425)449-470e Geonerco Properties WA, LLC ES-2660.01 July 15, 2013 Page 2 Proposed Development Adjacent to Slopes We understand that the proposed development will incorporate a four foot maximum rockery as well as a stormwater vault structure near the top of a slope at the west side of the subject property. The rockery will be located adjacent to the top of the slope, and will be facing a 2:1 (h orizontal:vertical) partial fill slope above. Single family residences will be located with a 20 foot setback from the top of the natural slope and the proposed stormwater vault is to be located with a 10 foot setback from the top of the natural slope near the southwest portion of the subject property. Slope Fill Placement Grading activities required to achieve the design alignment will include a four foot rockery facing a 2:1 partial fill slope. Portions of the 2:1 partial fill slope will be located within 20 feet of a sensitive slope area. Placement of fill on slopes is acceptable provided the existing slope is stripped and benched and a keyway is provided at the base. A typical slope fill placement detail is provided as an attachment. Opinion and Recommendations Section 4-3-050-J-2 of The City of Renton Municipal Code requires that development within 50 feet of a sensitive or protected slope must demonstrate "i. [t]he proposal will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions; ii. [t]he proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and iii. [t]he development can be safely accommodated on the site". We performed a slope analysis of the proposed development, utilizing soil condition data, visual slope reconnaissance information, existing topography, and proposed topography and development. The results of the slope analysis are provided as an attachment. Based on the results of our slope analysis, and our understanding of the proposed development, in our opinion, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. In our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions, will not adversely impact other critical areas, and can be safely accommodated on the site. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties WA, LLC ES-2660.01 July 15, 2013 Page 3 If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call: Sincerely, , EARTH SOLUTIONS NW LLC S�oNAL51 Henry T. Wright, E.I.T. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Staff Engineer Principal Attachments:Site Plan Plate 1 —Slope Fill Placement Slope Stability Analysis cc; DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) City of Renton Attention: Ms. Elizabeth Higgins (Email only) Earth Solutions NW,LLC 2 d J t NZ� Y z L V�� — • i - € egg yea n— wt azo } �"i � T f• S y I`.tS �� ..iJ .fir.�^rr� sM }F-� � r � :{�Y � flies co In_.� � ��J '� � � ;� z•� it �� � f F '' f ,:� �f .-� +e i..t _T F ��+.� 1 C _ �JI~,4 1 2,�T i i t i l•,.a� i t �K� s�{1, �. 1>) :. Vy }t 4`4 S� J I �..�t# tt� � �3 1 t :1 l t-I.t ._; F• >.3 1 e I �i��l' f y� 1 i l a �tl I i ."- i i,1�.3 1 ! .i b b+4Ji� .I '^•:� 1 i'i_) -U ,� ,• • a � a a SaVIS3 LS3&>3M _ _. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING Final Slope Gradient Compacted Slope Face Bench and Keyway Fill to y consist of suitable granular material approved by the 2 .- Geotechncial Engineer. ; \_? --- r Existing Grade -J -- Typical"Bench" f --- Keyed into Existing Slope Face E. Geotechnical_En Engineer Verify g . Key" (Minimum 2'Deep by 6'Wide) NOTES: o Slope should be stripped of topsoil and 13 Structural fill should be placed in thin loose unsuitable materials prior to excavating lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Key Way or benches. Each lift should be compacted to no less than the degree specified in the"Site Preparation o Benches will typically be equal to a dozer and Earth Work"section of this report. No blade width, approximately 8 feet, but a additional lift should be placed until compaction minimum of 4 feet. is achieved. o Final slope gradient should be 2 : 1 (horizontal:vertical). o Final slope face should be densified by over-building with compacted fill and I trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller. o Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted vegetative mat SLOPE FILL DETAIL will reduce erosion potential of slope area. Vuecrest Estates o Use of pegged in place jute matting or Renton, Washington geotechnical fabric will help maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root Drwn. GLS Date 07111/2013 Proj. No. 2660.01 system has an opportunity to germinate. - - Checked HTW Date July 2013 I.Plate 1 Elevation N N N N W W W W W W W W W W A CJI O V W fD O --' N W A Ch O V w m O — N W A C!i CA 'J N CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ji17 1 1 1 I � r O � r N r O r Wr O I A r O I CJI r O I I W i O I r V O I1 I j 0 O I I CD 0 i 7 O r N r CD O I I Z � r � O i G ' CD N I O r cn r W r O I A i O r CJI 1 (� 1 � I O I 1 I V � O 1 � e 0 I O c0 — r cn o ry N i O I N ' 0 + 1 (D O N N O I N I W � O N r A I O j N 1 cn 1 O I _ co C m m CD x N ,c (n _ �_ N CO C) rl o N C) i ...i CD W O 1'' C) T CD cD l � W , n n � r "1 o CD N CI) ' r o ; o m W I 0 CA W ; v 0 o i (D o i U) W s fl1 O i r+ W ;( 7 4 1 n O ' w O co i 7 o ; Q Wco 0 1 O O _ O Elevation --• -� N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W L! W W A CT W V� N CO O -� N W A C71 O V W cp O � N W A CT O V OD CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O i r N r o w O � A i O e cn — Q r / O i O r r V i O r e m / O e CD CD Q r Q f Z f Q � 1 lV N r T Ocn / W / _O Q / A — r Q r 1 / m f Q / 1 / Q r Q / V O r co O _0 CD r Q r N / � N / C-) O i N / N � O j N / W — / O j N / A _ r O � N / cn — r O N N r 03 L m m IV X. M p Cc � 0) o i N NO ;u C) o i (D r W cn CD CL tD N W n Qi CDD (D r N � r r* cn Q o m CA) n / N C) T i C) i W O i rr CA) / (3 O j n w / O OD O , d CA) .« Q O A O 0 0 7111113 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright©1991-2013 GED-SLOPE International Ltd. r CL .... 4LP1♦..t t �.I. - Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 14 Last Edited By:Henry Wright Date:7/11/2013 Time: 11:26:51 AM File Name:Vuecrest Existing(Residence),Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vue crest Estates\ Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method:Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: l Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced filen/CJUsershhenry.Wright/DocurnerWSiopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest epsting(residence),static condifion.htrd 113 7/11/13 Slope Stability Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance:le-007 Starting Optimization Points:8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 x x: Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.25417, 368.97741) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (78.40479,355.86507) ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (86.04495, 352.36458)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 X Left Coordinate: (0,369) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250)ft X(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 file]!/CJUsers/henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest ersting(residence),static condition.html 213 7/11/13 Slope Stability 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load: 0 Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2 F61452.5 X (ft) Y(ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point3 0 369 Point 4 45 365 Point 5 66 360 Point 6 81 355 Point 7 148 320 PointB 213 300 Point 9 311 250 Point 10 400 250 file)//ciusers/henry.wrig hNDocunenWSlopeWNuecrest EstatesJwecrest e)dsbng(residence),static condition_htrrd 313 Elevation (r O -.! CV CD O s N W A C7+ CO v CO CO O W A C7+ O -.! W CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,O O O O o 0 � N r / O r W , O O cm O , r CD i O e r v ' O e c / O i r CD co ,f O CD i (D O O Z � e � O i C / (D N / O / cn w I Q f A / O / O r Q / � r v r CD r w r O � 0 m ' O / w O :3 N + 0 / CD O i N ' N r O � N / W � O j N + A + O o x c CD cn S --4 _ O ii7 O) co i CD r W (p f Q CD C O '+ CD CD 7 0 o i N (D O a r- 0 'W" w m o ; to �- CA) .+ w p o + CD W r N cn w + (D O 1 w O ' 3 � O W r �. + O n ' O wi 7 o Q CIO '. O i 0 0 0 7/11113 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated usingGeostudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright OO 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. 7. Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 15 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Ti me: 12:09:46 P M File Name: Vuecrest Existing (Residence), Seismic Condition.gsz Directory:C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SIopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date: 7/11/2013 . Last Solved Time: 12:09:50 PM �t Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View:2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option:(none) FOS Distribution file•]/IC:tUserslhenrywight/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estateslwecrest e�dsting(residence),seismic condidon.htrN 114 7111113 ` Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option:Constant Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance:le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° rIars Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion:200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-8:0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line:1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.25417, 368.97741) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (78.40479, 355.86507) ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (86.04495, 352.36458)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate:(400,250)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Slip t ryfca LI it_s Left Coordinate: (0, 369) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250)ft Line CCC"C'1"nat'e5 file)//CJtJsers/henrywright/Docurnents/SlopeWNuecrest EstatesNiecrest mdsting(residence),seismic cordtion htni 214 7/11/13 Slope Stability X(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 E11814.40726400 35 Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore.seismic load in strength: No Material Points Area (ft'). Region 1 Dense Native Soil 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,1,2 61452.5 X (ft) Y(ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point 3 0 369 Point4 45 365 Point 5 66 360 Point 6 81 355 Point 7 148 320 Point 8 213 300 Point 9 311 250 Point 10 400 250 Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius(ft) Entry (ft) Exit(ft) 1 72 1.236 (358.026, 738.41) 490.211 (39.8904, 365.454) 1 (309.884, 250.569) S 0 51, . S ; i Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 72 42.445215 363.3048 -7624.8948 73.470895 51.444875 200 2 72 45.639765 360.6264 -7499.202 270.58802 189.46777 200 3 72 51.209645 356.1404 -7307.8444 532.71272 373.00946 200 4 72 61.06988 348.4293 -6987.6483 963.97772 674.98446 . 200 5 72 69.75 341.9485 -6725.0702 1278.8655 895.47124 200 6 72 77.25 336.6014 -6513.8947 1494.917 1046.7521 200 filet/tC:/Users/henry.Wright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest EstatestAmrest ebsting(residence),seismc condtion.html 3/4 7/11/13 Slope Stability 7 72 85.785715 330.78475 6290.2863 1649.3756 1154.9052 200 8 72 95.357165 324.5511 -6057.6176 1744.5466 1221.5447 200 9 72 104.9286 318.62825 -5844.3848 1828.2044 j 1280.1225 200 10 72 114.5 313.0032 -5649.6729 1903.021 1332.5097 200 11 72 124.0714 307.6643 -5472.8657 . 1970.7862 1379.9593 200 12 72 133.64285 302.601 -5313.2347 2032.1265 1422.9103 200 13 72 143.2143 297.8038 5170.181 2086.6104 1461.0604 200 14 72 151.93.915 293.64535. -5053.222.. 2205.235 1544.1221 200 15 72 159.81745 290.0786 j -4959.3088 2391.7152 1674.697 200 16 72 167.6958 286.6774 4875.7459 2575.8415 1803.6236 200 17 72 175.7715 283.36095 4778.5599 2760.245 1932.7444 200 18 72 184.0445 280.1338 -4668.0248 2941.9811 2059.9974 200 19 72 192.3175 277.0776 -4568.2167 3112.2163 2179.1973 200 20 72 200.5905 274.18895 -4478.7985 3266.0911 2286.9416 200 21 72 208.8635 271.4647 -4399.724 3398.2113 2379.4532 200 22 72 217.49345 268.79865 -4328.1769 3406.703 2385.3991 200 23 72 226.4803 266.20225 -4264.8501 3275.7891 2293.7322 200 24 72 235.46715 263.7902 -4213.0472 3093.2024 2165.8836 200 25 72 244.454 261.5597 -4172.6603 2857.4735 2000.8245 200 26 72 253.44085 259.5082 -4143.3209 2570.2657 1799.7194 200 27 72 262.4277 257.6334 -4125.0523 2235.5629 1565.358 200 28 72 271.41455 255.93325 -4117.7332 1859.8087 1302.2521 200 29 72 280.4014 254.40595 -4121.0983 1451.0476 1016.0345 200 30 72 289.38825 253.04985 -4135.178 1018.0391 712.83867 200 31 72 298.37515 251.86355 4159.8636 569.25321 398.59539 200 32 72 306.37635 250.941 -4153.8817 163.22112 114.28866 200 filel//C:IUsers/henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/we-rest epsfing(residence),seismic conditionhlml 414 Elevation C11 O) -st W fD O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O o 'r D) CD 01 rn C WN -n x O 1 = _'\ CD r (n v) -n = �� CD C71 _ =$o r _ 0 rn 1 o O + -p c 0 CD OD R O r � CD o cn O �r N 0 CD CD CD C) ; Z `2 + 1 D) O <' � f CD N + O f (n , 0 W + p r r A r O � W r O + _ r O i O + O f _ r O � O f � — r CD , p t r N 1 � O + � N r C.) ' 1 CD o it N N � O r N r W f O i N r A r O � O 'r W = O rn O l -' O 0N7 1 s N O rr N Q N i O OD r it W CD W C o r C2 (D rCD 00 7 -i + Cl) pU)W m r N r rr N CJ n CD w n N A r O O r w i Q to r LI O r W r O O i � O 1 W 1 4 r O W r O r O W r tD 1 O 1 A r O O Elevation cmm -4 N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W W A CJI O V w OD c0 O W A Ut O V W cfl O W A (n O V co C.4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 000 ► { { { i I l _ { _ L II oto I I N 0 M CD o 2 e CA oW f Nil fX r = = CD CD — Q o � CD n rn ; CD o r Cn , V ' O i � i R 0 W O r \ ? , ;u LV r r0 U3 CD O i N 0 CD r �- o CD CD O Z r tv O i <�D N i O CO W ; O o + _ r A i O — r r O iI r W ' O i r V r C) r � I 0 r O _0 co , O r � N r r CD O N ' N ' O � N + W ' O i N t A — i O CO -0rn ON o rn o N C� � �j W o `N Q N co r C) O r N t W N C (D , WCD o _ t CD n o } 0 CD W ' SD N + w _ ' U) 171 No Aj U) w t r+ w t n r« G) CD W n cn o — t O W t Cn ; Q- o t i O O i O W t V ' O j W t O t O � W i co t O A t O O 7111/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright O 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd: Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 19 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date:7/11/2013 Time: 1:05:41 PM File Name:Vuecrest Proposed (Residence),Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecr6st Estates\ Last Solved Date: 7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:05:43 PM Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file:///CJUsers/henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estatestwecrest proposed(residence),static cond6on.html V5 7/11113 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option:Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° Dense Dative Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 12S pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35' Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:32' Phi-B:0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line:1 Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:40 Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line:l Residence Surcharge Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 250 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:40° Phi-B: 0° Pore Water Pressure file:///C:/Users/henrywright(Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest proposed(residence),static condtion.hfii 25 7i11/13 Slope Stability Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0,372.5) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (71.44S82, 361.71672)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (74,48028, 358.21091)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (397.54265, 250) ft Right-Zone I ncre ment:4 Radius Increments:4 Left Coordinate: (0, 372.5)ft Right Coordinate:(400, 250) ft i L rd atEs X Y(ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 5 eis:m I c Unt If-i s Horz Seismic Load:0 Material Points, Area (ft') Region Select Fill Soil 14,3,4,10,11,13 37175 Region 2 Rockery 12,5,10,11 14 Region 3 Dense Native Soil... 6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,10,5 61433.25 Region 4 Residence surcharge 16,13,14,15 52 0 n ts file:/`l/C:AJsers/herwy.vvright/Docun-p-nWSlopeWNuecrest Estates/vaecrest proposed(residence),static condition.htni 315 7/11/13 Slope Stability X (ft) Y(ft) Point 1 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point 3 0 368 Point 4 45 365 Points 72 359.5 Point 6 148 320 Point 7 213 300 Point 8* 311 250 Point 9 400 250 Point 10 68 359.5 Point 11 68 363.5 Point 12 71 363.5 Point 13 52 371.5 Paint 14 0 371.5 Point 15 0 372.5 Point 16 52 372.5 4 g.c Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius(ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 77 1.629 (83.219, 394.107} 36.944 (55.3944, 369.803) (74.4803,358.211} ) des of SIT Surface: 7 Sllp X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 77 55.70952 369.4512 -8211.8676 17.083878 10.675192 0 2 77 56.3398 368.76535 -8179.3793 48.523808 30.32104 0 3 77 56.97008 368.11285 -8149.024 75.729556 47.321078 0 4 77 57.60036 367.4913 8120.4885 99.65228 _ 62.269655 0 5 77 58.23064 366.89855 -8093.7781 121.05085 75.640964 0 6 77 58.86092 366.33275 -8068.8239 140.53016 87.812988 Q 7 77 59.491205 365.7923 -8045.3514 158.59894 99.103617 0 8 77 60.12149 365.27575 -8023.4573 175.64508 109.75523 0 9 77 60.75177 364.78185 -8002.8282 191.9913 ... _... ...119.96948 0 10 77 61.38205 364.30945 -7983.6623 207.88108 129.89851 0 11 77 62.01233 363.85755 -7965.8408 223.51799 139.66954 0 12 77 62.64261 363.42525 -7949.0785 238.99285 149.33931 0 13 77 63.27289 363.01175 -7933.5985 254.36607 158.94556 0 14 77 63.90317 362.6163 7919.253.5 269.65089 168.49657 0 15 77 64.53345 362.23825 -7905.9222 284.78182 177.95143 0 16 1 77 65.163735 361.87695 -7893.6703 299.65135 187.24294 0 17 77 65.79402 1 361.5318,5 -7882.4925 314.06576 196.25007 0 18 77 66.4243 361.20245 -7872.1786 327.81196 204.83964 1 0 19 77 67.05458 360.88825 -7862.8822 340.58603 212.82177 0 file•I(/C:Nsers/henrywrig hYDocumants/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest proposed(residence),static condtion.html 415 7/11/13 Slope Stability 20 77 67.68486 3bu.58885 -7854.4259 352.0478 c.a9.98388 0 21 77 68.2858 360.3165 -7847.2889 407.37415 341.8275 0 22 77 68.8574 360.0696 -7841.2744 446.89155 374.98654 0 23 77 69.429 359.834 -7835.8145 484.27895 406.35829 0 24 77 70.0006 359.6095 -7831.1033 :1 518.98049 435.47634 0 25 77 70.6432 . 359.37085 -7826.7317 551.35905 386.06576 200 26 77 71.25 359.15605 -7823.2053 446.77 312.83172 200 27 77 71.75 358.98875 -7821.0954 208.16076 145.75573 200 28 77 72.310035 358.8113 -7819.1435 74.693799 f 52.301161 200 29 77 72.930105 358.6256 -7817.6889 47.940499 33.568299 200 30 77 73.550175 358.45165 -7816.9494 18.99098 13.297627 200 31 77 74.170245 358.28925 -7816.9001 -11.526695 8.0710786 200 file)//C-JUsers/henry_wright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates&uecrest proposed(residence),static condtion.htH 515 Elevation Vt O V 47 O O N W A CN71 V ONO 0 O 1 N W A CT W coo m O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1111111 171 1 11 1 u co o W CD O r 0 f r N -n wo ►' _ — CCD r cn o / Cm CCD o f Q 0 rn ; CD o , cn r V r O i � r C) co o rf p (» t 0o i 0 CD CD i (D CD + Z C3 CD N i O i w i O / _ j 7 A � O f f � 1 � f CD r J 1 V � 0 1 � 1 i + Q m I O F h + O i � N 1 0�\ 1 + CD O , N e N + O j N + W 1 O N + A + O O. 00 C -u m •j N r = C) O i 1 0 0) O N ' (A CA CD CD N ' NO Q• p OD — r 0 / r c,3 CD < C) i CD 0 w 0 CD + CD C) ; W , o CD y W i U3 3 m 0 1 Cn C.) r n A 1 O 1 C.) 1 O 1 O w ' Q- o , O w O V o , w 1 co , CD ; w , m O 1 A . 1 O O 7111/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated usingGeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright©1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE I nternationa I Ltd. Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 20 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 1:09:16 PM File Name:Vuecrest Proposed (Residence),Seismic Condition.gsz Directory:C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date:7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 1:09:20 PM r Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units: Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Side Function Interslice farce function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option:(none) FOS Distribution file///ClUsers/henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estateshmecrest proposed(residence),seisrnic condifion.hb-ni 1;5 7/11/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth: 0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select d=ill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi: 32° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Model:Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Ph i:40° Phi-B:0' !Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Residence Surcharge Model:Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 250 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:40° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure fileJ//CJUsers/henry.Wright/Docurrents(SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vuecrest proposed(residence),seismic condition." 215 7/11113 Slope Stability Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(0, 372.5) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate:(71.44582, 361.71672)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate:(74.48028,358.21091)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (397.54265, 250)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Left Coordinate: (0, 372.5) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250)ft X(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50994 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Select Fill Soil 14,3,4,10,11,13 373.75 ,Region,2 Rockery 12,5,10,11 14 Region 3 Dense Native Soil 6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,10,5 61433.25 Region 4 Residence Surcharge 16,13,14,15 52 file:ll/r—'jUsersA-ienry.wight/DocumentsisiopeW/Vuer,rest EstatesNuecrest proposed(residence),seisrnic condifion.htrA 3,15 7/11/13 Slope Stability }in S X(ft) Y(ft) Point 400 150 Point 2 0 150 Point 3 0 368 Point 4 45 365 Point5 72 - 359.5 Point 6 148 1 320 Point7 213 300 Paint 8 311 250 Point 9 400 250 Point 10 68 359.5 Point 11 68 363.5 Point 12 71 363.5 Point 13 52 371.5 Point 14 0 371.5 Point 15 0 372.5 Point 16 52 372.5 IL Cal Sr J __"Tates Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius(ft} Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 51 1.095 (160.623, 633.019) 287.993 (37.8633, 372.5) (74.4803, 358.211) . �r > s Slip[! u,S `x LR ex 51 Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength(psf) 1 51 38.399605 372.24865 -8130.7732 46.254716 38.812315 0 2 51 39.47211 371.74865 8113.46 138,78409 116.45368 0 3 51 40,635475 371.2126 -8095.3437 226.12457 141.29831 0 4 51 41.88971 370.6414 -8075.2303 283.97324 177.44618 . . 0 5 51 43.143945 370.0774 -8056.1917 341.14518 213.17117 0 6 51 44.39818 369.5206 -8038.2369 397.77564 248.55781 0 7 51 45.652415 368.97095 -8019.9186 453.97959 283.67793 0 8 51 46.851575 368,4519 -8004,8563 507.45387 .317.09237 0 9 51 47.99567 367.96285 -7993.0271 558.2996 348.86431 0 10 1 51 49.139765 367.4796 7981.5672 609.08228 380.59685 0 11 51 50.28386 367.00215 -7970.4862 : 659.86225 412.3277 0 12 51 51.427955 366,5305 -7959.7061 710.70797 444.09963 0 13 51 52.615385 366.04715 -7949.2286 531.65833 332.21699 0 14 51 53.846155 365.5525 -7938.3046 521.75488 326.02863 0 15 51 55.076925 365.0644 -7927.8443 511.43554 319.58039 0 16 51 56.307695 364.58285 -7917,8513 500.63085 312.82888 0 17 51 57.538465 364.1078 -7908.3469 489.26448 305.72638 0 filet//C•JUsers/hercy.wrighYDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest proposed(residence),seismic cordition.html 415 7/11/13 Slope Stability 18 51 58.769235 363.03925 -7899.3288 477.27328 �,d.23345 0 19 51 60 363.1771 -7890.8002 464.56372 290.29163 0 20 51 61.230765 362.72135 -7882.0138 451.0577 j 281.85213 0 21 51 62.461535 362.27195 -7874.4969 436.69123 272.87497 0 22 51 63.692305 361.82885 -7866.7262 421.39242 263.31521 0 23 51 64.923075. 361.3921 - -7859.4676 405.10436 253.1373 __ 0 24 51 66.153845 360.9616 -7852.7361 ` 387.77825 242.31075 0 25 51 67.384615 360.53735 k -7846.5348 369.37983 230.81414 0 26 51 68.617705 360.11855 -7840.5745 396.65391 332.83215 0 27 51 69.853115 359.70515 -7834.7836 442.46285 371.27042 0 28 51 70.73541 359.4131 . -7831.0086 447.03481 313.01715 200 29 51 71.5 359.16345 7827.8127 236.39673 165.52677 200 30 -51 72.62007 358.8017 -7823.7949 1.6322479 1.1429123 200 3151 73.86021 358.4068 -7818.9155 -31.133416 -21.799853 200 file•I/!C:Nsers/henryalright/Documerds!S(opeWNuecrest Estates!wecrest proposed(residence),seismic condition.html 5/5 Elevation s -+ s � N N N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W W •� CJS O) V aD CG O -' N W A UI O V 00 CD O s N W A CTS O v W O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o o ' 1 N r - O 1 1 F W I O r r A i O m r O r r O e O , 1 V i O r 1 W r O i r co ' O i _ r t O 1 O � p i (D CA o r (D J ' W 1 /z^�' O ' W A i <' O C r CD i O m i O r V r O M OD r 1 r 1 C i 1 C O 1 r--1- � O O � N ' n 1 CD O N r N O i N ' W 1 O � � N ' .A 1 O � N � O t O ' r N 1 O r O � N t V 1 N 'r O X W r i O o i C� a3 o C tV O 0 O < O W 1 " Q) --%. O 1 G? C O ' r (D w 0 ' (D 0 ai 1 r+ M w ' O o ly i W i C7 4 1 n O ' e W O � � to L 0 1 O A 1 O O O Elevation N N N N N N N N N N W W w W W w W .W co w A CT CA �1 W W O W A Cn M —1 M 0 O — N W A Cn 0 --! W 0 O O O O CO O O O tO O O O O O O O 0 33 O O O O O O D{ O O i + O e N + O W e O � A � O � + Cn r O + / O C) � �1 r O + r 00 i O r r to i O r r � r O + O p i CD r r fA o CD + Z W e O + � r � ' C O CD J C.71 / CO � r O CP I O 1 1 + O I 1 / c / O � CD C I y♦• O �• N i O + �^ N ' ) ' 1 CD O N N O 1/ N + W r O � N + A + O � Pi 0 e ®N N i 0) i v O + N I J + N + co cm C x W i GGG ^ O 0 o < o W + 0l —' i G? C W i C o r CD CD / O O i f!n CA) i r� O + .-r N 4 ' o ' ca iI O 0 ; Q. w + to O A � O 0 7/11113 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright C 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. } , y t . Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 10 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 10:37:19 AM File Name:Vuecrest Existing,Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ r Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved:! Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option:Constant Advanced filell/C:[UserslhenrywrighVDocun-enWSlopeWNuscrest EstatesMacrest epsting,static condition.hhr9 113 7/11/13 Slope Stability Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations:2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Sta rti ng 0 pti m i zati o n Points:8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0, 370)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (89.06268, 352.8806)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (98.74228, 348.53635)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 .Y '°.t n_ cis z_. .•..i • CZ,a ir1 4- Left Coordinate: (0, 370)ft Ri ght Co o rd i n ate: (400, 250) ft .. £ NR I,t L X(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 f,1let11CAJsers/henry.alright/D6cumenis1SlcpeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest edsting,static condtion.ht l 213 7111/13 Slope Stability 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 Horz Seismic Load:0 Material Points Area(ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 9,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3 61315 X(ft) Y(ft) 210, int 1 400 250 int 2 400 150 Paint 3 0 150 Point4 80 357 Point 5 91 352 Point 6 129 335 Point 7 193 305 Point 8 304 250 Point 9 0 370 fileJ//CAJsersftrvywrigWDocumenfs/SiopeWNuecrestEstate "crestepsting,staticcondtion.hM 313 Elevation N N N N N N N N N Nw co w w W W w w w w A Cr O v M CD O 8 N W � CJ! M -1 M CC) O 1 N w A Ch m -1 w w O O O O O O Oa O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � I O 1 t N ! O ! r W + O + r O' + Cr t� O r ! O i O ! ! O ! 1 co + O t O j O ! O + i + O r CD N — e CD o + CD ! W i z O + J j rf C ! CD Cr 1 O ! Q O i � t v ! O i � r O O ! r rNt N i � O i � N ' 0 r CD O r N ' N + O � N r CA) ! O i N ! N + O N i O r � r W � O co N i �I ! � ! X U) r CD S�C Cp O o O < O w e -.L O i W O C N ; r CD W ! n (D CD ; •+ m CDCD I m CA) 01 I O m m w ' _ O i N w 3 o ; 0 wn t CD O w t co 1 Q O ! p ! - O 0 7111113 Slope Stabili y Slope Stability Report generated usingGeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright©1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd,, F:E fl F, Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 12 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 10:40:57 AM File Name:Vuecrest Existing,Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SIopeW\Vue crest Estates\ Last Solved Date:7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 10:41:00 AM Length(L) Units:feet Time Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water: 62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection:No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Leftto Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved:! Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file-!//CjUsers/henry.Wright/Docurnents//SlopeWNuecrest Estatest%mrest ersting,seismic condition.htrnI 1/4 7111/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points:8 Ending Optimization Points:16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° f Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0,370) ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (89.06268, 352.8806) ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (98.74228, 348.53635) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate:(400, 250)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments: 4 Left Coordinate: (0, 370) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft �a F- -, f n-1 C co file)//CJUsers/henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest e)osfing,seismic condition.htrni 214 7/11113 Slope Stability X (ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.509841 302.86855: 184.40726 400 183.45035 i Horz Seismic Load: 0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Material Points Area W) Region 1 Dense Native Soil 9,4,5,6,7,8,1,2,3 61315 ,j:3 ,aFP ~r X(ft) Y(ft) Point 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point 3 0 150 Point4 80 357 Point 5 91 352 Point 129 335 Point 7 193 305 n nt 8 304 250nt 9 0 370 p Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius (ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 92 1.175 (339.295, 641.678) 392.199 (67.3696, 359.052) (301.337,251.319) Slices cif Sjj ; Surface: 97- Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 92 70.527175 356.0809 -7619.5344 97.54932 68.304769 200 2 92 76.84239 350.26555 -7359.9058 478.95689 335.36922 200 3 92 85.5 342.7521 7032.6246 819.27166 573.6602 200 4 92 94.8 335.05245 -6703.8116 1074.4534 752.34039 200 5 92 102.4 329.1421 -6459.1838 1256.0165 879.47221 200 6 92 110 323.52-315 -6232.6426 1420.2458 994.46678 200 7 92 117.6 318.1803 -6023.4027 1571.9501 1100:6913 200 file)//C:Nsers/henrywright/DocwnentslSlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrestersting,seisrric cordbon.htni 314 7/11113 Slope Stability 8 92 125.2 313.1001 -5830.4699 1714.9219 1200.8012 ( 200 9 92 133.2635 307.99165 -5643.4118 1853.2304 1297.6459 200 10 92 141.7905 302.8738 5463.2883 1989.653 1393.17 200 11 92 150,3175 298.04375 -5301.2156 2124.5761 1487.6442 200 12 92 158.8445 293.48955 -5156.2418 2258.7257 1581.5767 200 113 92 167.3715 1289.20045 -5027.9122 2391.2123 1674.3449 200 14 92 175,1958 285.4804 4904.5383 2509.8503 1757.4161 200 15 92 182.31745 282.2846 -4783.316 2611.3743 1828.5039 200 16 92 189.43915 279.25695 -4672.5667 2703.4423 1892.9707 200 17 92 196.8692 276.27645 -4568.2195 2773.9704 1942.355 200 18 92 204.60755 273.35345 -4470.8915 2814.7271 1970.8931 200 19 92 212.3459 270.61485 -4384.9181 2824.282 1977.5835 200 20 92 220.0843 268.0566 -4310.3788 2795.7384 1957.5971 200 21 92 227.82265 265.675 -4246.7882 2723.2373 1906.8313 200 22 92 235.561 263.4667 -4193.9624 2602.5173 1822.3023 200 23 92 243.2994 261.4287 -4151.7816 2431.8544 1702.8028 200 24 92 251.03775 259.55825 -4120.0747 2211.7607 1548.6915 200 25 92 258.7761 257.8529 -4098.6209 1945.9185 1362.5468 200 26 92 266.5145 256.3105 -4087.4075 1639.9661 1148.3166 200 27 92 274.25285 254.9291 -4086.2563 1301,7654 911.50595 200 28 92 281.9912 253.7069 -4094.9493 939.56792 657.89254 200 29 92 289.7296 252.64245 -4113.4902 562.04924 393.55111 200 30 92 297.46795 251,73445 -4141.849 176.78827 123.78848 200 file)//c:/Users/henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrest e)5sting,seismic concfition.html 414 Elevation Cn W J W 0 O j N W A CTI O V W W O N W A Cn m -y co co O 'O O O O O O O O O 3O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � + C O + O r W r O r r r O i Cn O / r O i O / r V r O e co i �_N c O CO r = (D + . O i .s (D r < C7 r .� 0 / -n -n r + 0 = = _o i CD (_A. CA r N { U1 O 2. CD r CD 0 — W + Z CD O r i N 0 - r < x o + CD (D r v' CO o r O r r 0 O e � 1 W r o _0 -' CO 1 O r 1 ,//��`�r / t1r C r � N ! 0 o i CD N 1 N r O N r CO I O + N i O + e CA i O r N r � 1 O i N 1 4 t O i N + W 1 O � N ! CO k In 1 W O 1 O T W 'O — ; 03 C -Um cn Ni = 1 w0 W i N CDC 0 L -� CA i W < CA 0 C CA r CD CI) r C0 r CD v CD O r (� W m W r 0 W ; Q CD m C) O r p 0A160 Elevation N N N N W W W W W W W G3 W W C1t W V W CD O b. CT O V Co CD O — N W A Cr to V M co O O i O O O O o O I O O O O O O O O O O O p O O O O O O O O O p r r W I O � O + Ch i O — t 1 O O + I O r co CD r CD + _ CD CD ' C) CD r O + = m I o CD fn (n W O O O ; fD O i p 0 o_ f CCD CCD 1 ' cn Q O + O r 8 _ r O i I O r � r co + O i CD N• O + r r + (U O i 7 N ' n + CD O i N + N + O � N + W — + O � N + O � N i • O N N � O _ ? O i O N + V _ I O i N + W r O N + (D r O i W O + O � CD i W = � W i N — � _ � � N O O w _' fD O wo N CL w O01 O CA) i u+ i � O C O _" (D G) cf) 0 o i p� CD W .+ Cn o 0 m co ny O o n. CCD CD O 7/11/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated us ing GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright P 1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd. r sr F Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number:4 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date:7/11/2013 Time: 10:19:00 AM File Name:Vuecrest Vault,Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\Earth Solutions\2734 Ln L\ Last Solved Date:7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 10:19:02 AM :f- , ,_ Z Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View: 2D Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Setti ngs Apply Phreatic Correction:No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine .PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: I Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution file)//C:/Users/henrywrighYDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest EstatWvuacrestvault,static condtia-.htn i 115 W11113 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option:Constant Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance: 0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.lft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: 1e-007 Starting Optimization Points: 8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle: 5° Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B: 0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Sail Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi: 32' Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Rockery Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi:40° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Vault Model:Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 100 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi:40' Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure fileJ//CJUsersfnenrywright/oocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrestvault,static condtion.html 2(5 7/11113 Slope Stability Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (0.48447, 373)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (93.08109, 3S1.06899)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (99.10306, 348.37495)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Left Coordinate: (0,373) ft Right Coordinate: (400, 250) ft LA=LA=e L .161 X(ft) Y(ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50984 302.86855 184.40726 400 183.45035 x ,r« ins Material Points Area (ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 2,1,16,15,14,13,10,9,5,4,3 60469.5 Region 2 Rockery 13,12,11,10 18 Region Select Fill Soil 8,9,10,11 96 Region 4+Vault 7,8,9,5,4,6 1400 PP: if tmss. X (ft) Y(ft) Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point 3 0 150 fileJ//ClUsers/henry.Wright/Docurrients/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vuecrestvault,static conditon.hfrrd 315 7111113 Slope Stability Point 4 0 353 Point 5 70 353 Point 6 0 373 Point 7 70 373 Point8 70 364 Paint 9 70 356 Point.10 86 352 Point 11 86 356 Point 12 90 356 Point 13 91 352 Point 14 129 335 Point 15 193 305 Point 16 304 250 �,-`.,z {fit Iw�� {."R�� q��'°h� p ;� $�s 'S.� .-�4�?t�Y.T 4Ffs��.S-zuf' caca`wF Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius(ft) Entry (ft) Exit(ft) 1 52 1.585 (113.173, 428.033) 80.891 (53.888,373) (99.1031,348.375) .+..>S.. _- 52 . .+ .,. _. mow)5.t` "�' Slip X(ft) Y(ft} PWP (psf} Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 52 54.620345 372.2315 -8367.3751 48.419148 40.628489 0 , 2 52 56.085075 370.73335 -8297.9264 . 142.13893 119.26872 0 3 52 57.549805 369.31 -8233.396 230.62034 193.51344 0 4 52 59.014535 367.9561 -8172.6971 315.35648 264.6155 0 5 52 60.479265 366.667 -8115.991 397.67786 333.69135 0 6 52 61.943995 365.4387 -8063.3828 478.73628 401.70743 0 7 52 63.408725 364.26775 -8013.9892 559.52607, 469.49812 0 8 52 64.87345 363.151 -7968.6751 640.95508 537.82517 0 9 52 66.338175 362.0857 -7925.8304 723.67246 607.23329 0 10 52 67.802905 361.0694 -7886.3168 808.30084 678.24494 0 11 52 69.267635 360.09985 -7849.6851 895.23107 751.18806 0 12 52 70.732515 359.175 -7816.0182 402.829.13 251.71558 0 13 52 72.197545 . 358.2931 -7784.8674 _ 428.55024 267.78791 0 14 52 73.662575 357.45265 -7756.5782 452.51173 282.76071 0 . 15 52 75.127605 356.6522 -7730.0896 474.52739 296.51762 0 16 52 76.59264 355.89035 -7706.6564 . 494.31817 308.88428 0 17 52 78.057675 355.1659 -7685.6526 . 511.49343 319.61657 0 18 52 79.522705 354.4778 -7666.3621 525.58433 328.42154 0 19 52 80.987735 353.82495 -7649.8599 536.04126 334.95575 0 20 52 82.452765 353.2065 -7635.3086 542.28245 338.85568 0 21 52 83.917795 352.6216 -7622.4392 543.68902 339.73461 0 22 52 85.325155 352.08995 -7612..1405 554.02442 387.93208 200 23 52 86.666665 351.61125 -7604.5681 611.88713 428.44798 200 fileJ((C:Nsers/henryvuright(Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/wecrestvault,static condtion.html 415 7111/13 Slope Stability 24 52 88 351.1617 -7597.9772 666.6334 466.78174 200 25 52 89.333335 350.7378 -7593.2892 715.3674 500.90564 200 26 52 90.5 350,3862 -7590.4166 493.92327 345.8458 200 27 52 91.810305 350,0183 -7588.6478 227.45113 159.263 200 28 52 93.430915 349.59245 -7588.7771 181.46165 127.06082 200 29 : 52 95.05153 349.20225 -7591.0423 : 129.1253 90.414505 200 30 52 96.672145 348.84715 7595.0331 71.709725 50.21169 200 31 52 98,292755 348.5266 -7601.5117 10.5401 7.3802573 200 fileJ(!C:/Userslhenry.Wright'DocurrenWUopeWNuecrest Estates/vuecrestvaut,static cord'itionArd �5 Elevation N N_ N N N N N N N N W W W W W W W W W W A CJf (T 'J CA CD O N W A CJI CA -1 C)7 O O W A CJI O y tp CD O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 'o .O O O 1 \r N / O rT 1 w 1 OJA1 1 1 A / p 1 0 r o r t CD i O / t v R O i 1 o — ; N (p ' = CD ' (D O' it < 0 C3 7l TI C> (D (n CA N i 57 2. CD o + ' ' Z ;u (D O �+ O O 0i < X- O O (D ()I i U) i O CA i O e j + O r 1 � 1 m 1 co (fl O 1 r rh 1 Q 1 � N 1 n / 1 CD O r N r N 1 O e N / W r O � N 1 ,p 1 O N � Cri r O 1 N � W 0 / A O + v N i C) 1 O I N co 1 O / N 1 r O i 03 L O 1 0 o f =`< ..O N O -I rn N 1 � N) CL 1CD cjj I O O O w I < w i W O < ACD ~ (D O cf) n MLa i CD CD W 1 O cn O 1 I . m W n cn 1 o I 0 93 @ I o a (n W 1 o O A I � O O 7/11/13 Slope Stability Slope Stability Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.21.Copyright©1991-2013 GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, Title:Vuecrest Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number:7 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date: 7/11/2013 Time: 10:25:06 AM File Name:Vuecrest Vault,Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.Wright\Documents\SiopeW\Vuecrest Estates\ Last Solved Date:7/11/2013 Last Solved Time: 10:25:08 AM Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings Slope Stability Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Setti ngs Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No Slip Surface Direction of movement: Left to Right Use Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option: (none) FOS Distribution fileJ//CJUsers/henrywright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vuecrest vault,seismic condition.htrN 1/5 7!11/13 Slope Stability FOS Calculation Option: Constant Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points:8 Ending Optimization Points: 16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Driving Side Maximum Convex Angle:5' Resisting Side Maximum Convex Angle: 1° Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Sail Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:32° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Rockery Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:40° Phi-B: 0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Vault Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 100 pcf Cohesion: 0 psf Phi:40° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure file)//CJUsersthervywrighVDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estates/vuwrestvault,seismic condition.htH 215 7/11/13 Slope Stability Piezometric Line: 1 Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(0.48447, 373)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate:(93.08109, 351.06899)ft Left-Zone I ncre me nt:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate:(99.10306, 348.37495) ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (400, 250)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Left Coordinate: (0, 373) ft Right Coordinate: (400,250)ft j"j X (ft) 0 249.88736 46.27953 240.31824 171.63495 207.50994 302.86855 184.40 26 400 183.45035 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load:0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Material Points Area (ft ) Region I Dense Native Soil 2,1,16,15,14,13110,9,5,4,.31 604169.5 Region 2 Rockery 13,12,11,10 18 Region 3 Select Fill Soil 8,9,10,11 96 Region 4 Vault 7,8,9,5,4,6 1400 filell/C:/Users/henry.Wight/DocLwrwb/SlopeWNuer-rest Estateslweoresheult,seismic condition.hb-H 3(5 7/11/13 Slope Stability X (ft) _Y(ft) Point 1 400 250 Point 2 400 150 Point 3 0 150 Paint 4 0 353 Point 70 353 Point 6 0 373 Point 7 70 373 Point 8 70 1364 Point 9 70 356 Point 10 86 352 Point 11 86 356 Point 12 90 356 Point 13 91 352 Point 14 129 335 ............. Point 15 193 305 Point 16 304 250 Ct � 'Ca rv..a. .a 11 L.� k9s`lu i Slip Surface FOS Center(ft) Radius(ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 52 1.090 (113,173, 428.033) 80.891 (53.888, 373) (99.1031, 348.375) e e c, L f,-eek 157- Slip X(ft} Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress(psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 52 54.620345 372.2315 -8367.3751 41.177 34.551605 0 2 52 56.085075 370.73335 -8297.9264 119.60583 100.36121 0 3 52 57.549805 369.31 -8233.396 191.82014 160.9562 0 4 52 59.014535 367.9561 -8172.6971 259.52129 217.76422 0 5 52 60.479265 366.667 -8115.991 324.28742 272.10946 0 6 52 61.943995 365.4387 -8063.3828 387.62037 325.25211 0 7 52 63.408725 364.26775 ' -8013.9892 450.97931 378.41657 0 8 52 64.87345 363.151 -7968.6751 515.76512 432.77832 0 9 52 66.338175 362.0857 -7925.8304 583.34646 489.4858 0 10 52 67.802905 361.0694 -7886.3168 654.9605 549.57711 0 11 : 52 69.267635 360.09985 -7849.6851 731.81542 614.06605 0 12 52 70.732515 359.175 -7816.0182 308.4047 192.71265 0 13 52 72.197545 358.2931 -7784.8674 334.62924 209.09956 0 14 52 73.662575 357.45265 7756.5782 361,85453 226.1118 0 15 52 75.127605 356.6522 -7730.0896 390.06443 243.73931 0 16 52 76.59264 355.89035 -7706.6564 419.0171 261.83094 0 17 52 78.057675 355,1659 -7685.6526 448.19548 280.06362 0 fileJ//CJUsers/hen^y.wright/Documents/SlopeWNuecrest Estateslwecrestvault,seismic condition.htrrt 415 7/11/13 Slope Stability 18 52 79.522705 354.4778 -7666.3621 476,81532 297.94728 0 19 52 80.987735 353.82495 -7649.8599 503.82243 314.82319 0 20 -52 82.452765 353.2065 -7635.3086 527.93625 329.89118 0 21 52 83.917795 352.6216 ,.. -7622.4392 547.70452 342.24377 0 22 52 85.325155 352.08995 7612.1405 630.5632 441.52511 200 23 52 86.666665 351.61125 -7604.5681 687.56435 481.43774 200 24 52 88 351.1617 -7597.9772 738.12994 516.84415 200 .25 52 89.333335 350.7378 -7593.2892 779.53947 545.83941 200 26 52 90.5 350.3862 -7590.4166 560.18607 392.24651 200 27 52 91.810305 350.0183 -7588.6478 291.99422 204.45655 200 28 52 93.430915 349.59245 1 -7588.7771 229,63201 160.79007 200 29 52 95.05153 349.20225 -7591.0423 159.84908 111.92753 200 30 52 96.672145 348.84715 -7595.0331 85.434306 59.821745 200 31 52 98.292755 348.5266 7601.5117 8.9886223 6.2939011 200 file)//C:Users/henrywrighttDocuments/SlopeWNuecrest Estateshuecrestuault,seismic condition htnil 515 Elizabeth Higgins rrom: Henry Wright <Henry.Wright@earthsolutionsnw.com> Sent: Monday,July 15,2013 12:37 PM To: Elizabeth Higgins Cc: Kyle Campbell Subject: RE:Vuecrest Slope Analysis Hi Elizabeth, Our letter is being reviewed by Kyle (the PE for the job however he will be out of office for most of the day We should be able to get that out by�,tom©rrow, That being said < F o- o w t f. u Id,��a��ion and one w ttiprop ed� �den econdit '(,rockeryadjacenttoslopwi s LL µyes ope�above}fBase resultsofou;rstudytlje-proposeddeveloprnenfhasa;�regligrbfeionthetslope satab!Ity Inthuptl e er eao adtlress proper. laterr`ee*ftffiIr6n slopes If the fill slopelis'properlyRconstructetl�and erosion cont of easvresgare proper implemert ed,"the-:developmen I e b*from-a=geotechnical stan rnt Sorry for the delay,a_I hope i`s helps clarify our findings. Please let me know if you have any-questions, comments, or concerns. Thank you, Henry T.Wright, E.I.T. Staff Engineer Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 136th Place NE,Suite 201 • Bellevue,WA 98005 Office(425)449-4704• Fax(425)449-4711 Cell (206) 793-4193• Radio ID 112*71686*5 From: Elizabeth Higgins fmailto:EHiggins(a)Rentonwa.govI Sent: Monday,July 15, 2013 10:48 AM To: Henry Wright Subject: RE: Vuecrest Slope Analysis "ASAP" being a relative term,when might we expect an updated letter?As I mentioned in my telephone message of earlierthis morning, I will be presenting this project to the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee at 3 pm today. I will be basing staff recommendations on the ESNW report, as it now stands. Thank you! Elizabeth River Higgins Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 From: Henry Wright fmailto:Hen ry.Wright(obearthsolutionsnw.com] Sent:Tuesday,July 09, 2013 9:09 AM To: Elizabeth Higgins EXHIBIT 25 Cv: Kyle Ca,npbell Subject: RE: Vuecrest Slope Anr Hi Elizabeth, We will address the issues you have raised and reevaluate the proposed development near the slope. We will try to have an updated letter prepared ASAP. Thank you, Henry T.Wright, E.I.T. Staff Engineer Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 136th Place NE,Suite 201 • Bellevue,WA 98005 Office(425)449-4704•Fax(425)449-4711 Cell (206) 793-4193•Radio ID 112*71686*5 From: Elizabeth Higgins rmailto:EHiggins(cbRentonwa.gov1 Sent: Monday,July 08, 2013 1:45 PM To: Henry Wright Subject: Vuecrest Slope Analysis Mr.Wright One other item needs clarification. In your letter of April 10th, on page 2 you cite RMC 4-3-0501.2, specifically subsection b)The required studies shall demonstrate the following review criteria can be met: "i)The proposal will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions." There are two additional conditions that must be met,ii)The proposal will not adversely impact other critical areas; and iii)The development can be safely accommodated on the site. We would appreciate having the ESNW statement of assurance expanded to include the additional criteria. Thank you. Elizabeth River Higgins Department of Community and Economic Development City of Renton 1055 South Grady Way Renton WA 98057 425-430-6581 2 i 1 1 April 10, 2013 Earth Solutions NW LLC ES-2660.01 • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34" Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 = , Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Slope Setback Smithers Avenue Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: Earth Solutions NW, LLC Geotechnical Engineering Study ES-2660, dated February 2013 Dear Mr. Waltier: As requested, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to address the setback from the top of a slope. ESNW previously prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study for the site. Site Conditions The City of Renton Municipal Code defines steep slopes as follows: • Sensitive Slopes: Areas with slopes between 25 percent and 40 percent. • Protected Slopes: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Based on our observations and review of the referenced topographic survey, sensitive slopes are present along the western and southern portions of the property, and protected slopes are present along the western portion of the property. The referenced geotechnical engineering study identifies soil conditions onsite to consist of glacial till which becomes dense to very dense near the surface. EXHIBIT 26 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 • Bellevue,WA 98005 • (425)449- Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660.01 April 10, 2013 Page 2 Proposed Development Adjacent to Slopes We understand that the proposed development will incorporate a three to four foot rockery as well as a stormwater vault structure near the 'top of a slope at the west side of the subject property. The rockery will be located adjacent to the top of the slope, and will be facing a 2:1 partial fill slope above. Single family residences will be located with a 20 foot setback from the top of the natural slope. The proposed stormwater vault is to be located with a 10 foot setback from the top of the natural slope near the southwest portion of the subject property. Section 4-3-050-J-2 of The City of Renton Municipal Code requires that development within 50 feet of a sensitive or protected slope must demonstrate [t]he proposal will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions". We performed a slope analysis of the proposed development, utilizing soil condition data, visual slope reconnaissance information, existing topography, and proposed topography and development. Based on the results of our slope analysis, and our understanding of the proposed development, in our opinion, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. In our opinion, the proposed development will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent or abutting properties beyond pre-development conditions. If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, R CAM�Q EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC X04 wAsy��occ�� Henry T. Wright, E.I.T. Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Staff Engineer Principal Attachments:Slope Analysis Data cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Earth Solutions NW,LLC 440 430 420 410 2127 400 ES-2660.01 Smithers Avenue 390 Existing Conditions 380 Static Condition 370 April 2,2013 3sfl By HTW p 350 R► 4 r '.330 a F 1' C1 320 310 r ti r � r 300 290 6 280 1 voDense Native 260 2 .7 '40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 Distance 4/2113 SLOPE/W Analysis SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated using GeoStudio 2007,version 7.11.Copyright©1991-2008 GEC-SLOPE International Ltd. Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number:11 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date:4/2/2013 Time:9:54:19 AM File Name:Smithers Ave Existing Conditions,Static Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\2660.01\ Last Solved Date:4/2/2013 Last Solved Time:9:54:23 AM Project Settings Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units:Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings SLOPE/fid Analysis Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Setti ngs Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function Interslice force function option:Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source:Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No SI i pSurface Direction of movement:Leftto Right Allow Passive Mode:No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: l Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location:No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option:(none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option:Constant ... w r. e. .`J•w—.. .1 AAA 412113 SLOPE/W Analysis Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points:8 Ending Optimization Points:16 Complete Passes per Insertion:l Dense Native Soil Model:Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight:125 pcf Cohesion:200 psf Phi:35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line:1 Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(1.532689,369.70445)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate:(360.14795,250.15967)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Point Right Coordinate:(360.15693,250.1598) ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate: (0.1023189,370.06196)ft Right Coordinate:(360.15693, 250.1598)ft Plezo etric Lines Piezometric Lias 1 Coordinates X(ft) Y(ft) 0.1378248 299.92062 229.98263 239.93476 412/13 SLOPEM AnalAis Horz Seismic Load:0 Material Points Area(ft2) Region 1 Dense Native Soil 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 ( 24331.82 X(ft) Y(ft) Point 1 360.15693 239.90718 Point 2 360.15693 250.1598 Point 3 320.34257 249.56173 Point 4 76.861983 350.99278 Points 71.583836 352.19544 Point 6 0.1023189 370.06196 Point7 0.1681653 239.98345 Critical Slip Surfaces Number F05 I Center(ft) Radius (ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 2 2.127 (325.704, 744.497) 495.536 (1.532669, 369.704) (360.157, 250.16) Sjk-es of Slip Surface: 2 Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress(psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 2 7.3702845 364.8101 -4166.921 273.25277 191.33365 200 2 2 19.045475 355.31605 -3764.5686 911.52386 638.25588 200 3 2 30.720665 346.39085 -3397.782 1488.7533 1042.4363 200 4 2 42.395855 337.9969 -3064.1643 2015.6757 1411.3913 200 5 2 54.07105 330.1019 -2761.6263 2501.0942 1751.285 200 6 2 65.746245 322.67785 -2488.5083 2952.2598 2067.1946 200 7 2 74.22291 317.5259 -2305.072 3271.6678 2290.8464 200 8 2 82.751235 312.6582 -2140.2008 3473.4236 2432.1174 200 9 2 94.529745 306.2384 -1931.4109 3666.9022 2567.5926 200 10 2 106.30825 300.22365 -1747.9622 3835.2857 2685.4959 200 11 2 118.08675 294.59765 -1588.7063 3978.7422 2785.9453 200 12 2 129.86525 289.3459 -1452.8323 4096.5363 2868.4256 200 13 2 141.6438 284.45565 -1339.4807 4186.8131 2931.6381 200 14 2 153.42235 279.9155 -1248.0199 4247.1522 2973.888 200 15 2 165.20085 275.7152 -1177.6934 4274.3796 2992.9528 200 16 2 176.97935 271.8457 -1128.0506 4264.5481 2986.0687 200 17 2 188.75785 268.29895 -1098.5729 4213.5624 2950.3682 200 4/2(13 SLOPUW Analysis 18 2 200.53635 265.06775 -1088.7754 4117.2861 2882.9548 200 19 2 212.31485 262.1458 -1098.2199 3971.3775 2780.7885 200 20 2 224.09335 259.5275 -1126.6999 3772.2303 2641.3441 200 21 2 235.6301 257.2496 0 3523.2193 2466.9847 200 22 2 246.9251 255.29615 0 3225.3807 2258.4359 200 23 2 258.2201 253.6103 0 2873.9907 2012.3899 200 24 2 269.5151 252.18935 0 2470.2858 1729.7128 200 25 2 280.8101 251.031 0 2016.5514 1412.0045 200 26 2 292.1051 250.1334 0 1516.9088 1062.151 200 27 2 303.4001 249.4951 0 976.25692 683.58245 200 28 2 314.6951 249.1151 0 400.81326 280.65246 200 29 2 326.9783 249.0067 0 112.15763 78.533619 200 30 2 340.24975 249.2187 0 101.90417 71.354068 200 31 2 353.5212 249.7867 0 45.720042 32.013518 200 1• .._ .._.......... .. • Hs_.. -a.k_-..J:a:....4s_.1 AIA 440 430 420 410 1 919 • 400 390 250 PSF Surcharge 9 ES-2660.01 Smithers Avenue 380 20 Foot Structure Setback from Top of Natural Slope Static Condition 370 Rocke April 2,2013 360 — ' ry By HTW 0 350 Select Fill Soil w > 340 0) W 330 320 310 300 290 ~- , 280 270 Dense Native Soil - 260 250 _ 240 I1 1 f I I I I I I I II I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 Distance f 4013 SLOPEM Analysis SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated usingGeoStudio 2007,version 7.11.Copyright©1991-2008 GEO-SLOPE Intern a tion al Ltd. F Hr Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 13 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date:4/2/2013 Time:9:52:08 AM File Name:Smithers Ave 3 Foot Rockery,2 to 1 Slope Static Condition.gsz Directory:C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\2660.01\ Last Solved Date:4/2/2013 Last Solved Time:9:52:12 AM Project Settings Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units:Ibf Pressure(p) Units:psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View: 2D Analysis Settings SL=OPE/W Analysis Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply PhreaticCorrection:No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No SlipSurface Direction of movement: Leftto Right Allow Passive Mode: No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved:l Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option:(none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option:Constant 412J13 SLOPENd Analysis Advanced Numberof Slices: 30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1 ft Optimization Maximum Iterations: 2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points:8 Ending Optimization Points:16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion:200 psf Phi: 35° Phi-B:0' Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line:1 Select Fill Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight:130 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi:32° Phi-B:0° Rockery Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight:140 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi:40° Phi-B:0° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection:Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate: (1.75904,373.98196)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate: (70.0334, 355.82029)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (199.82186,300.29886)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 412/13 SLOPEJWAnalysis Left Coordinate:(0.1023189, 370.06196)ft Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598)ft ri $ t:*" t'Ootdi iJ ,:S X (ft) Y(ft) 0.1378248 299.92062 229.98263 239.93476 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight):250 pcf Direction:Vertical Coordinates X(ft) Y(ft) 0.9875556 375.19653 33.881393 375.1053 56.237811 363.67271 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load:0 Regions Material Points Area(ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 24470.172 Region 2 Rockery 5,4,10,11,6 20.631255 Region 3 Select Fill Soil 6,11,12,13,8,7 548.2873 Points X(ft) Y(ft) Point 1 360.15693 239.90718 Point 2 360.15693 250.1598 Point3 320.34257 249.56173 Point 4 76.861983 352.06283 42113 SLOPE/ Analysis Point 5 76.861983 350.99278 Point 6 71.791243 351.01674 Point 7 43,05417 360.0836 Point 8 0.1023189 370.06196 Point 9' i 0.1681653 239.98345 Point 10 76.501308 355.15984 Point 11 71.596931 355.04006 Point 12 33.684832 373.95884 Point 13 0.1598139 373.98312 'I Slip H1Number FOS Center(ft) Radius(ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 47 1.919 (344.793,737.405) 487.488 (19.8962, 373.969) (317.709, 250.671) Slices of Slip Surfa-ce: 47 Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress (psf) Strength(psf) Strength (psf) 1 47 26.79053 368.0333 0 804.08119 502.44569 0 2 47 33.78311 362.0164 -4422.5686 1296.8402 908.05728 200 3 47 38.46778 358.22975 -4262.6735 1418.234 993.05816 200 4 j 47 49.64599 349.50885 -3900.5536 1661.5246 1163.4121 200 5 47 60.07759 341.7302 -3585.1079 1691.5613 1184.444 200 6 47 67.75715 336.31505 -3372.205 1835.1378 1284.9773 200 7 47 74.04912 332.02515 -3207.0542 2096.607 1468.0601 200 8 47 76.681645 330.26865 -3140.1664 2107.7854 1475.8873 200 9 47 81.966005 326.88215 -3015.0401 2056.8605 1440.2292 200 10 47 92.17405 320.5215 -2784.3522 2276.1413 1593.7713 200 11 47 102.38208 314.50295 -2575.0139 2476.0861 1733.7741 200 12 47 112.59015 308.81205 -2386.145 2658.1533 1861.259 200 13 47 122.7982 303.43585 -2216.9642 2822.8356 1976.5708 200 14 47 133.0062 298.3628 -2066.5875 2970.0026 2079.6182 200 15 47 143.21425 293.5825 -1934.6017 3098.2169 2169.3949 200 16 47 153.4223 289.0856 -1820.2278 3205.648 2244.6189 200 17 47 163.63035 284.86365 -1722.9572 3289.5796 2303.3884 200 18 47 173.8384 280.90895 -1642.4198 3346.8558 2343.4937 200 19 47 184.04645 277.21465 -1578.209 3373.4737 2362.1317 200 20 47 194.2545 273.77455 -1529.7219 3365.7981 2356.7572 200 21 47 204.4625 270.583 -1496.815 3319.6364 2324.4344 200 22 47 214.67055 267.6349 -1479,1724 3231.6536 2262.8282 200 23 47 224.8786 264.9257 -1476.3077 3098.9358 2169.8982 200 24 47 234.85625 262.5021 0 2924.4144 2047.697 200 25 47 244.6036 260.35035 0 2710.1517 1897.6687 200 26 47 254.35095 258,40655 0 2453.5397 1717.987 200 27 47 264.09825 256.66825 0 2156.6861 1510.1279 200 412 99 SLOPFJW Analysis 28 47 273.84555 255.1332 0 1822.9383 1276.4351 200 29 47 283.59285 253.79545 0 1456.4801 1019.8383 200 30 47 293.34015 252.6654 0 1062.3263 743.84889 200 31 47 303.0875 251.7296 0 646.13907 452.43145 200 32 47 312.83485 250.99085 0 213.27082 ! 149.33384 200 440 430 420 410 1.323 400 � ES-2660.01 Smithers Avenue 390 Existing Conditions 380 Seismic Condition 0.2 3701 April 2,2013 iso By HTW p 350 CO 340 Q) , W 330 320 h' 310 300 290 t� 280 270 Dense Native 260 250 240 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 22D 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 Distance r 412113 SLOPEIW Analysis SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated usingGeoStudio 2007,version 7.11.Copyright©1991-2008 GED-SLOPE Intern ationaI Ltd. YwIle Worm, aflon Created By: Henry Wright Revision Number: 10 Last Edited By: Henry Wright Date:4/2/2013 Time:9:53:02 AM File Name:Smithers Ave Existing Conditions,Seismic Condition.gsz Directory: C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\2660.01\ Last Solved Date:4/2/2013 Last Solved Time:9:53:04 AM Project Settings Length(L) Units:feet Time(t) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units:Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View:2D Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Setti ngs Apply Phreatic Correction: No Side Function Interslice force function option: Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown: No SlipSurface f Direction of movement: Left to Right Allow Passive Mode:No Slip Surface Option:Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved: 1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location:No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option:(none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option:Constant 412113 SLOPOW Analysis Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1 ft Optimization Maximum.Iterations:2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points:8 Ending Optimization Points:16 Complete Passes per Insertion:) Dense Native Soil Model: Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight:125 pcf Cohesion:200 psf Phi:35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection: Range Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(1.532689,369.70445)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate:(360.14795,250.15967)ft Left-Zone Increment:4 Right Projection: Point Right Coordinate:(360.15693, 250.1598)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 Slip Surface Limits Left Coordinate:(0.1023189,370.06196)ft Right Coordinate:(360.15693, 250.1598)ft Piezor ietric Ulnas r r Piezametric Line I Coordinates X(ft) Y(ft) 0.1378248 299.92062 229.98263 239.93476 _..- _.. ... r. ..:. .-.•..........:Y.a... ..f.,., .1lA 4/2/13 SLOPEMI Analysis Horz Seismic Load:0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Material Points Area (ft2) Region 1 Dense Native Soil 1 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 24331.82 X(ft) Y(ft) Point 1 360.15693 239.90718 Point2 360.15693 250.1598 Point 3 320.34257 249.56173 Point 4 76.861983 350.99278 Point 5 71.583836 352.19544 Point 6 0.1023189 370.06196 Point 7 0.1681653 239.98345 Critical Slip Surfaces Number FOS Center(ft) Radius(ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 112 1.323 (325.704,744.497) 495.536 (1.53269, 369.704) (360.157, 250.16) Slices of Slip Surfaie: 2 Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP(psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress(psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 2 7.3702845 364.8101 -4166.921 209.65876 146.80464 200 2 2 19.045475 355.31605 -3764.5686 769.10036 538.52987 200 3 2 30.720665 346.39085 -3397.782 1264.1981 885.20107 200 4 2 42.395855 337.9969 -3064.1643 1708.5284, 1196.3245 200 5 2 54.07105 330.1019 -2761.6263 2113.627 1479.9775 200 6 2 65.746245 322.67785 -2488.5083 2489.602 1743.2381 200 7 2 74.22291 317.5259 -2305.072 2757.7608 1931.0049 200 8 2 82.751235 312.6582 -2140.2008 2928.2362 2050.3731 200 9 2 94.529745 306.2384 -1931.4109 3098.2924 2169.4477 200 10 2 106.30825 300.22365 -1747.9622 3258.4932 2281.6215 200 11-12 118.08675 294.59765 -1588.7063 3410.5267 2388.0765 200 12 2 129.86525 289.3459 -1452.8323 3554.5999 2488.9577 200 13 2 141.6438 284.45565 -1339.4807 3689.4246 2583.3629 200 14 2 153.42235 279.9155 -1248.0199 3811.6428 2668.941 200 15 2 165.20085 1 275.7152 -1177.6934 3916.1397 2742.1106 200 16 2 176.97935 271.8457 -1128.0506 3995.918-3 2797.9721 200 412113 SLOPE1W Analysis 17 2 188.75785 268.29895 -1098.5729 4041.9716 2830.219 200 18 2 200.53635 265.06775 71088.7754 4044.3396 2831.8771 200 19 2 212.31485 262.1458 -1098.2199 3992.2047 2795.3718 200 20 2 224.09335 1 259.5275 -1126.6999 3875.2694 2713.4929 200 21 2 235.6301 257.2456 0 3689.8515 2583.6619 200 22 2 246.9251 255.29615 0 3433.8504 2404.4079 200 23 2 258.2201 253.6103 0 3102.2996 12172.2536 200 24 2 269.5151 252.18935 0 2696.6166 1888,1912 200 25 2 280.8101 251.031 0 2221.9891 1555,8535 200 26 2 292.1051 250.1334 0 1687.211 1181.3979 200 27 2 303.4001 249.4951 0 1103.7947 772.8854 200 28 2 314.6951 249.1151 0 484.90942 339.53723 200 29 2 326.9783 249.0067 0 165.6934 116.01977 200 30 2 340.24975 249.2187 0 134.87051 94.437346 200 31 2 353,5212 249.7867 0 58.895972 41.239404 200 440 430 420 410 1.229 400 390 250 PSF Surcharge 9 ES-2660.01 Smithers Avenue 360 — 20 Foot Structure Setback from Top of Natural Slope Seismic Condition 0.2 370 x :.. '--' April 2,2013 Rockery - 360 I All" By HTW o 350 Select Fill Soil CO 340 N U1 330 320 310 300 290 280 _ 270 Dense Native Soih� 260 250 240 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 Distance 4/2/13 SLOPEMAnalysis SLOPE/W Analysis Report generated usingGeoStudio 2007,version 7.11.Copyright Q 1991-2008 GEO-SLOPEInternationaI Ltd. Created By:Henry Wright Revision Number: 11 Last Edited By:Henry Wright Date:4/2/2013 Time:9:50:32AM File Name:Smithers Ave 3 Foot Rockery,2 t 1 Slope Seismic Condition.gsz Directory:C:\Users\henry.wright\Documents\SlopeW\2660,01\ Last Solved Date:4/2/2013 Last Solved Time:9:50:34 AM Project Settings Length(L) Units:feet Timet) Units:Seconds Force(F) Units: Ibf Pressure(p) Units: psf Strength Units: psf Unit Weight of Water:62.4 pcf View:2D Analysis Settings SLOPE/W Analysis Kind:SLOPE/W Method: Morgenstern-Price Settings Apply Phreatic Correction:No Side Function Interslice force function option:Half-Sine PWP Conditions Source: Piezometric Line Use Staged Rapid Drawdown:No Slip$urface Direction of movement:Left to Right Allow Passive Mode:No Slip Surface Option: Entry and Exit Critical slip surfaces saved:1 Optimize Critical Slip Surface Location: No Tension Crack Tension Crack Option:(none) FOS Distribution FOS Calculation Option:Constant 4IC 4013 SLOPEW Analysis Advanced Number of Slices:30 Optimization Tolerance:0.01 Minimum Slip Surface Depth:0.1ft Optimization Maximum Iterations:2000 Optimization Convergence Tolerance: le-007 Starting Optimization Points:8 Ending Optimization Points:16 Complete Passes per Insertion: 1 A2 ria S Dense illative Saai Model:Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 125 pcf Cohesion:200 psf Phi:35° Phi-B:0° Pore Water Pressure Piezometric Line: 1 Select Fill Soil Model:Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 130 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi:32° Phi-B:0° Rockery Model:Mohr-Coulomb Unit Weight: 140 pcf Cohesion:0 psf Phi:40° Phi-B:0° Slip Surface Entry and Exit Left Projection:Range t Left-Zone Left Coordinate:(1.75904, 373.98196)ft Left-Zone Right Coordinate:(70.0334,355.82029)ft Left-Zone increment:4 Right Projection: Range Right-Zone Left Coordinate: (199.82186,300.29886)ft Right-Zone Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598)ft Right-Zone Increment:4 Radius Increments:4 4/2/13 SLOPENVAMysis Slip Surf ca U-niVis Left Coordinate: (0.1023189, 370.06196)ft Right Coordinate: (360.15693, 250.1598)ft g x 'r ' ' 3 Co,isrd'^1 nates X(ft) Y(ft) 0.1378248 299.92062 229.98263 239.93476 Surcharge Loads Surcharge Load 1 Surcharge (Unit Weight):250 pcf Direction:Vertical Coordbia;es X(ft) Y(ft) 0.9875556 375.19653 33.881393 375.1053 56.237811 363.67271 Seismic Loads Horz Seismic Load:0.2 Ignore seismic load in strength: No Regions Material Points Area(ft') Region 1 Dense Native Soil 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 24470.172 r Region 2 Rockery 5,4,10,11,6 20.631255 Region 3 Select Fill Soil 6,11,12,13,8,7 548.2873 Points X(ft) Y(ft) Point 1 360.15693 239.90718 Point 2 360.15693 250.1598 Point 3 320.34257 249.56173 gry�3 SLOPFJW Analysis Point 4 76.861983 352.06283 Point 5 76.861983 350.99278 Point 6 71.791243 351.01674 Point 7 43.05417 360.0836 Point 8 0.1023189 370.06196 Point 9 0.1681653 239.98345 Point 10 76.501308R373R.98312 Point 11 71.596931 Point 12 33.684832 Point 13 0.1598139 Critical Slip SturfaceS Number FOS Center(ft) Radius (ft) Entry(ft) Exit(ft) 1 47 1.229 (344.793, 737.405) 487.488 (19.8962,373.969) (317.709, 250.671) Slices of Slip SurfAce: 47 Slip X(ft) Y(ft) PWP (psf) Base Normal Frictional Cohesive Surface Stress(psf) Strength (psf) Strength (psf) 1 47 26.79053 368.0333 0 707.67939 442.20716 0 2 47 33.78311 362.0164 -4422.5686 1099.2761 769.72139 200 3 47 38.46778 358.22975 -4262.6735 1203.0057 842.35368 200 4 47 49.64599 349.50885 -3900.5536 1406.8481 985.08563 200 5 47 60.07759 341.7302 -3585.1079 1414.9544 990.76177 200 6 47 67.75715 336.31505 -3372.205 1531.6029 1072.4399 200 7 47 74.04912 332.02515 -3207.0542 1750.8746 1225.9756 200 8 47 76.681645 330.26865 -3140.1664 1758.4098 1231.2518 200 9 47 81.966005 326.88215 -3015.0401 1712.0016 1198.7564 200 10 47 92.17405 320.5215 -2784.3522 1898.0411 1329.0227 200 11 47 102.38208 314.50295 -2575.0139 2073.1505 1451.6356 200 12 47 112.59015 308.81205 -2386.145 2240.4078 1568.7504 200 13 47 122.7982 303.43585 -2216.9642 2402.1182 1681.9813 200 14 47 133.0062 298.3628 2066.5875 2558.838 1791.7177 200 15 47 143.21425 293.5825 1934.6017 2710.1371 1897.6584 200 16 47 153.4223 289.0856 -1820.2278 2853.8196 1998.266 200 17 47 163.63035 284.86365 -1722.9572 2986.0044 2090.8228 200 18 47 173.8384 280.90895 -1642.4198 3101.268 2171.5313 200 19 47 184.04645 277.21465 -1578.209 3192.3935 2235.338 200 20 47 194.2545 273.77455 -1529.7219 3251.5674 2276.772 200 21 47 204.4625 270.583 -1496.815 3269.9145 2289.6188 200 22 47 214.67055 267.6349 -1479.1724 3239.395 2268.2488 200 23 47 224.8786 264.9257 -1476.3077 3152.9632 2207.7286 200 24 47 234.85625 262.5021 0 3010.2708 2107.8143 200 25 47 244.6036 260.35035 0 2812.7626 1969.5176 200 26 47 254.35095 258.40655 0 2559.3913 1792.1051 200 4013 SLOPE/W Malysis 27 47 '264.09825 256,66825 0 2254.0183 1578.2806 200 28 47 273.84555 255.1332 0 1903.1232 13325812 200 29 47 283.59285 253.79945 0 1514.8004 1060.6746 200 30 47 293.34015 252.6654 0 1098.2371 768.99388 200 31 47 303.0875 251.7296 0 662.26878 463.72559 200 32 47 312.83485 250.99085 0 215.18517 150.67428 200 'i EEEE < a T l' „, C f• r �' f r x ' + Geotechnical Engineering Geology Environmental Scientists it Construction Monitoring r: p. E�r i '�;f.1 Yr•- •"• �f 9 i + GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUD,- _ s PROPOSED SMITHERS AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PLAT ` 47XX SMITHERS AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON ES-2660 yk, Y EXHIBIT 27 i PREPARED FOR GEONERCO PROPERTIES, LLC February 25, 2013 � Zl2T�l3 Henry T. right, EIT Staff E gineer a. CA a wASI,', h � Ox �QlYAL l� Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SMITHERS AVENUE RESIDENTIAL PLAT 47XX SMITHERS AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 ES-2660 Earth Solutions NW, LLC 1805 — 136TH Place Northeast, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Ph: 426-284-3300 Fax: 425-449-4711 1-866-336-8710 ---- Impoplont InfopmotionAbout Geolechnical Repopt Subsurface problems are principal of construction , The following information is ,vided to help you manage yourrisks. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for • elevation,configuration,location,orientation,or weight of the Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects proposed structure, Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of • composition of the design team,or their clients.A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi- • project ownership. neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer.Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique,each As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project geotechnical engineering report is unique,prepared solelyfor the client.No changes--even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact. one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or llabfliiy for problems first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it.And no one that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which —not even you—should apply the report for any purpose or project they were not informed except the one originally contemplated. Subsurface Conditions Can Change Read the Full Report A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical the time the study was performed.Do notrely on a geotechnical engineer- engineering report did not read it all.Do not rely on an executive summary. ing repoitwhose adequacy may have been affected by:the passage of Do not read selected elements only. time;by man-made events,such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events,such as floods,earthquakes,or groundwater fluctua- A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on tions.Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report A Unique Set of Project- edlic Factors to determine if it is still reliable.A minor amount of additional testing or Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique,project-specific fac- analysis could prevent major problems. tors when establishing the scope of a study.Typical factors include:the client's goals,objectives,and risk management preferences;the general Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional nature of the structure involved,its size,and configuration;the location of Opinions the structure on the site;.and other planned or existing site improvements, Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where such as access roads,parking lots,and underground utilities.Unless the subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken.Geotechnical engi- geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth- neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional erwise,do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the • not prepared for you, site.Actual subsurface conditions may differ�ometimes significantly— • not prepared for your project, from those indicated in your report.Retaining the geotechnical engineer • not prepared for the specific site explored,or who developed your report to provide construction observation is the • completed before important project changes were made. most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final • the function of the proposed structure,as when it's changed from a Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your parking garage to an office building,or from a light industrial plant report Those recommendations are not final,because geotechnical engi- to a refrigerated warehouse, neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion.Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geolechnical have led to disappointments,claims,and disputes.To help reduce the risk engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or of such outcomes,geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of liability for the reports recommendations if that engineer does not perform explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled "limitations" construction observation. many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers'responsi- bilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own responsibilities A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions.Your geotechnical Misinterpretation engineer should respond fully and frankly. Other design team members'misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Lower that risk by having your geo- Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after The equipment,techniques,and personnel used to perform a geoenviroa- submitting the report.Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perfi- mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.Contractors can study.For that reason,a geotechnical engineering report does not usually also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report Reduce that risk by relate any geoenvironmental findings,conclusions,or recommendations; having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or conferences,and by providing construction observation. regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures.If you have not yet obtained your own geoen- Do Not Redraw the Engineers Logs vironmental information,ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man- Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon agement guidance.Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data.To prevent errors or someone else. omissions,the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should neverbe redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable,but recognize Diverse strategies can be applied during building design,construction, that separating logs from the report can elevate risk operation,and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces.To be effective,all such strategies should be Give Contractors a Complete Report and devised for the express purpose of mold prevention,integrated into a com- Glildance prehensive plan,and executed with diligent oversight by a professional Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make mold prevention consultant Because just a small amount of water or contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations,a num- they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent costly problems,give con- ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report,but preface it with a While groundwater,water infiltration,and similar issues may have been clearly written letter of transmittal.In that letter,advise contractors that the addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings report was not-prepared for purposes of bid development and that the are conveyed in-this report,the geotechnical engineer in charge of this report's accuracy is limited;encourage them to confer with the geotechnical project is not a mold prevention consultant;none of the services per- engineer who prepared the report(a modest fee may be required)and/or to formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold proven- need or prefer.A prebid conference can also be valuable.Be sure contrac- tion.Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed fors have sufficient time to perform additional study.Only then might you in this report will not of itself he sufficient to prevent mold from be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, growing in or on the structure involved. while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Relyr on Your ASR--Member Geotechncial Engineer for Additional Assistance Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical Some clients,design professionals,and contractors do not recognize that engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci- genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project.Confer plines.This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information. ASFE The lest F0fsle ra Etttk 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106,Silver Spring,MD 20910 Telephone:301/565-2733 Facsimile:301/589-2017 e-mail:info@asfe.org www.asfe.org Copyright 2004 by ASFE,Inc.DupCcation,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with ASFE's specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission ofASFE,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report.Any other firm,Individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation. IIGER06045.01V1 V 1 1 February 25, 2013 Earth Solutions NW LLC ES-2660 • Geotechnical Engineering Geonerco Properties, LLC • Construction Monitoring 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Environmental Sciences Seattle,Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Dear Mr. Waltier: Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) is pleased to present this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Smithers Ave Residential Plat, 47XX Smithers Avenue South, Renton, Washington 98055". This study has been prepared to address the feasibility of the proposed development from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed 19 residential lot development is bordered to the west by a steep slope. Based on the conditions observed during our fieldwork, the subject site is underlain primarily by native soils consisting of medium dense to very dense glacial till. Groundwater seepage was observed in one test pit at a depth of six to nine feet. Based on the results of our study, the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The residential buildings and associated structures can be supported on a conventional foundation system bearing on competent native soil or structural fill. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are exposed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with structural fill, may be necessary. This report provides recommendations for critical areas assessment, foundation design, structural fill recommendations, and other geotechnical recommendations. The opportunity to be of service to you is appreciated. If you have any questions regarding the content of this geotechnical engineering study, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC Henry T. V4ght, EIT Staff Engineer 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 • Bellevue,WA 98005 1 (425)449-4704 • FAX(425)449-4711 TABLE OF CONTENTS ES-2660 PAGE INTRODUCTION .............. .... .. ........... 1 General ..... .... ...... ..... , ...... 1 Project Description ........................ . .......... ......... 2 Surface............ ..... .......o... 2 Slope Reconnaissance....................................................... 2 Subsurface. .... .., ...... ...... ...... ................ 3 Groundwater. ......................................................... ....... 3 CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT............................................................................. 3 Site and Construction Plans. ..... ..........•••••• 3 LandslideHazard................................................................ 4 SteepSlopes........................................................................ 4 ErosionHazard.................................................................... 4 Analysisof Proposal..................................................................... 5 Critical Areas Functions and Values........................... 5 Minimum Critical Area Buffer and Setback........I........................ 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 6 General. ............................................................I........ ...... 6 Site Preparation and Earthwork........ ... 6 ErosionControl............................................................... ... 6 In-Situ Soils........... .................. ........ ......... . ...... . ... .. 6 StructuralFill.......................... . ..................... .................... 7 Foundations. ....... ........................... ...................... .. 7 Seismic Considerations. ......... ........... ................................ 8 Slab-on-Grade Floors. .... ... ...... ......................... ..... 8 ... ... .. ... ... RetainingWalls.................................................................. 8 Drainage... ................................... ............................... 9 Preliminary Infiltration Evaluation...... . ........ . ............ 9 Utility Trench Backfill. ....... ................ 9 PavementSections. ........................................................... 10 LIMITATIONS. . .......... ....... ................................................... 10 Additional Services. < ........................................................ 10 Earth Solutions NW,LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS Continued ES-2660 GRAPHICS PLATE 1 VICINITY MAP PLATE 2 TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN PLATE 3 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL PLATE 4 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Sieve Analysis Results Earth solution's",LLC- GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SMITHERS AVE RESIDENTIAL PLAT 47XX SMITHERS AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON 98055 ES-2660 INTRODUCTION General This geotechnical engineering study was prepared for the proposed 19 lot residential development on Smithers Avenue South, south of South 47th Street in Renton, Washington. The purpose of this study was to prepare geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. To complete the scope of services detailed in our proposal PES-2660 dated January 16, 2013, we performed the following: • Subsurface exploration and characterization of soil and groundwater conditions by way of test pits excavated on the accessible areas of the site; • Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained during field exploration; • Engineering analyses, and; • Preparation of this report. The following documents and/or resources were reviewed as part of our report preparation; • Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle; • Preliminary Site Plans Provided by the Client; • The King County online GIS property research database; • The City of Renton online GIS property research database, and; • City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations (4-3-050J). Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 2 Proiect Description Based on the plans provided to us, the site will be developed with 19 single family residential lots with associated roadways and stormwater facilities. Based on the City of Renton GIS data, sensitive slopes are located at the south and west portions of the site, with a protected slope at the west portion of the site. Grading activities will include cuts and fills to establish the planned building lots and access roadway alignments. Site improvements will also include underground utility installations and construction of stormwater detention facilities. Based on the preliminary site plans provided to us, we estimate cuts and fills to establish finish grades throughout the site will be on the order of two to eight feet on average. Engineered rockeries or modular block walls may also be utilized as part of the overall grading plan. A storm detention vault facility is planned to be constructed at the south end of Smithers Avenue South as part of the proposed development. The proposed residential structures will consist of relatively lightly loaded wood framing supported on conventional foundations. Based on our experience with similar developments, we estimate wall loads on the order of 2 kips per linear foot and slab-on-grade loading of 150 pounds per square foot (psf). If the above design assumptions are incorrect or change, ESNW should be contacted to review the recommendations in this report. ESNW should review the final design to verify that our geotechnical recommendations have been incorporated into the plans. Surface The subject site is located south of South 47th Street on Smithers Avenue South in Renton, Washington, as illustrated on the Vicinity Map (Plate 1). The site is approximately square in shape and consists of mostly undeveloped wooded land, with a paved temporary cul-de-sac at the north end of the site. A wetland tract is mapped at the east and southeast portions of the site. The topography of the site is slightly undulating with an overall ascending slope to the east, with a steep descending slope at the west side of the site. The Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the approximate limits of the property and approximate existing topography. Slope Reconnaissance During our fieldwork, we performed a visual slope reconnaissance across portions of the steep slope areas of the site. The main focus of our reconnaissance was to identify signs of instability or erosion hazards along the site slopes. The typical instability indicators include such features as; head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along the surface and erosion features such as gulleys and rills. During the slope reconnaissance, no signs of recent, large scale erosion or slope instability were observed. In general, based on the slope reconnaissance, stability of the slope areas of the property can be characterized as good. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 3 Subsurface As part of the subsurface exploration, eight test pits were excavated on accessible portions of the site for purpose of assessing the soil conditions. Please refer to the test pit logs provided in Appendix A for a more detailed description of the subsurface conditions. Topsoil was encountered to an average approximate depth of two to four inches. Underlying the topsoil,medium dense brown silty sand with gravel was observed, transitioning to a dense to very dense brown and/or gray silty sand with gravel at an average depth of two to six feet. The referenced geologic map of the area identifies glacial till (Qgt) across the east portion of the site with recessional stratified drift kame terrace deposits (Qit) of sand and gravel to the east side of the property and possible undifferentiated deposits (Qu) to the north of the site. The soil conditions observed at our test sites generally correlate with glacial till (Qgt). Soil terraces were observed down the steep slope at the west side of the site which may correlate to the recessional stratified drift kame terrace deposits, however, the proposed development will not extend to those locations. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was encountered during our fieldwork at the test pit at the northeast portion of the site (TP-1). The seepage was observed at six to nine feet and likely represents perched groundwater. The presence of groundwater seepage should be expected in deeper site excavations such as deeper foundation and utility trench excavations. Groundwater seepage rates and elevations fluctuate depending on many factors, including precipitation duration and intensity, the time of year, and soil conditions. In general, groundwater elevations and flow rates are higher during the wetter, winter months. CRITICAL AREAS AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDOUS AREAS ASSESSMENT As part of this geotechnical engineering study and critical areas report, the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations (4-3-050J) were reviewed. Per the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations requirements, the following topics related to development plans and site conditions are addressed. Site and Construction Plans The attached Test Pit Location Plan (Plate 2) illustrates the proposed building footprint area and local site topography. Construction of a 19 residential lot development and associated improvements is planned. The building pad elevations will vary according to existing grades. We anticipate the maximum cuts for the proposed development will be on the order of six to eight feet, or to the extent required to maintain the minimum allowable setback from the top of the slope. The overall stability of the steep slope areas can be characterized as good. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 4 Landslide Hazard With respect to landslide hazard areas, Part 4-3-050J-lb of the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations defines landslide hazard areas as the following:. • Low Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes less than 15 percent. • Medium Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. • High Landslide Hazards: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent and areas with slopes between 15 percent and 40 percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. • Very High Landslide Hazards: Areas of known mappable landslide deposits. The natural slope at the west portion of the site exhibits high landslide hazard characteristics, as demonstrated by the City of Renton GIS data, based on a greater than 40% slope condition. However, it is generally underlain by glacial till, and the overall stability of the slope can be characterized as good. As previously described in the Slope Reconnaissance section of this study, typical indicators of instability such as head scarps, tension cracks, hummocky terrain, groundwater seeps along the surface and erosion features such as gullet's and rills were not observed. Steep Slopes With respect to steep slope critical areas, the referenced section of the Renton Code defines steep slopes as follows: • Sensitive Slopes: Areas with slopes between 25 percent and 40 percent. • Protected Slopes: Areas with slopes greater than 40 percent. Based on our observations and review of the referenced topographic survey, sensitive slopes are present along the western and southern portions of the property, and protected slopes are present along the western portion of the property. The overall stability of the slope areas can be characterized as good. Erosion Hazard With respect to erosion hazard areas, the referenced section of the Renton Code defines erosion hazards as follows: Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 5 • Low Erosion Hazard: Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having slight or moderate erosion potential, and that slope less than 15 percent. • High Erosion Hazard: Areas with soils characterized by the Natural Resource Conservation Service as having severe or very severe erosion potential, and that slope more steeply than 15 percent. The sloped areas along the western margins of the site would be severely susceptible to erosion, in our opinion. However, the sloped areas of the property will remain largely unaltered and vegetated. In our opinion, the planned development will not increase the erosion hazard at the site, provided appropriate Best Management Practices are implemented during the earthwork and development activities. General guidelines for erosion control are provided in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this study. Analysis of Proposal The planned development activity will involve grading and construction of a 19 residential lot development with associated improvements adjacent to the steep slope area to the west. The proposed development activity will include 9 single family residences to be located near the top of steep slope areas located along the western portion of the property. As previously described, the slopes exhibit good stability, and the planned development activity will not involve alterations to the areas of 40 percent slope. The proposed development activity is feasible in our opinion, and will not decrease stability of the site or surrounding properties. The project designs must comply with the City of Renton Critical Areas Regulations. Critical Areas Functions and Values The geologic hazard critical areas associated with the subject property include potential landslide, steep slopes and potential erosion. In our opinion, the impacts to the function and value of the geologic hazard critical areas will be minimal. The scale of the project relative to the critical area is such that negative impacts to the function and value of the landslide and steep slope area will be negligible, in our opinion. Minimum Critical Area Buffer and Setback In our opinion, the proposed grading and development activity can be completed as currently planned without adversely impacting the slope area. Sections 4-3-050J5 and 4-3-050J6 specify the requirements for development on sites which contain protected and sensitive slopes. The code requires erosion control measures, slope stabilization, and buffer zones. The proposed nine residential structures to be located adjacent to the steep slope area will be setback at least 20 feet from the top of the slope. Given the overall stable characteristics of the slope area, it is our opinion that the proposed 20 foot setback of the residential structures is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 6 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our study, in our opinion, construction of the proposed residential development at the subject site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed development include the steep slope buffer, foundation support, structural fill placement, and the suitability of the on-site soils for use as structural fill. The proposed structures can be supported on conventional spread and continuous foundations bearing on undisturbed competent native soil or structural fill. Where loose, organic or other unsuitable materials are encountered at or below the footing subgrade elevation, the material should be removed and replaced with structural fill or crushed rock, as necessary. This study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Geonerco Properties, LLC and their representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This study has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. Site Preparation and Earthwork Given the existing grades, grading for the new development will be moderate. Cuts and fills of up to eight feet are anticipated. Once the existing vegetation and topsoil has been cleared, grading operations can commence. Where possible the existing asphalt can be left in place to act as a working surface. Erosion Control Temporary construction entrances and drive lanes, consisting of at least one foot of quarry spalls can be considered in order to minimize off-site soil tracking and to provide a temporary road surface. Temporary slopes and stockpiles should be covered when not in use. Surface water should not be allowed to flow down the face of any natural or cut slope, nor should water be allowed to pond near the top of any slope. Proper care and measures should be taken to ensure that development does not adversely affect the natural slope areas. Erosion control measures should conform to the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and city of Renton standards. In-Situ Soils From a geotechnical standpoint, the soils encountered at the test pit locations are generally suitable for use as structural fill. However, successful use of the on-site soils will largely be dictated by the moisture content of the soils at the time of placement and compaction. The site soils were generally in a moist condition at the time of the exploration (February 2013). Soils encountered during site excavations that are excessively over the optimum moisture content will require moisture conditioning prior to placement and compaction. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 7 Based on the conditions encountered during our fieldwork, the site soils have a moderate to high sensitivity to moisture. During periods of dry weather, the on-site soils should generally be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the moisture content is at or near the optimum level at the time of placement. Successful placement and compaction of the on-site soils during periods of extended precipitation will be difficult. If the on-site soils cannot be successfully compacted, the use of an imported soil may be necessary. Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum level. During wet weather conditions, imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a well graded granular soil with a fines content of five percent or less defined as the percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarter inch fraction. Structural Fill Structural fill is defined as compacted soil placed in foundation, slab-on-grade, and roadway areas. Fills placed to construct permanent slopes and throughout retaining wall and utility trench backfill areas are also considered structural fill. Soils placed in structural areas should be placed in loose lifts of 12 inches or less and compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent, based on the laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with the Modified Proctor Method (ASTM D-1557). Foundations Based on the results of our study, the proposed buildings can be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on competent native soil or structural fill. Where loose or unsuitable soil conditions are observed at foundation subgrade elevations, compaction of the soils to the specifications of structural fill, or overexcavation and replacement with granular structural fill or crushed rock may be necessary. Provided the building will be supported as described above, the following parameters can be used for design of the new foundations: • Allowable soil bearing capacity 3,000 psf • Passive earth pressure 300 pcf(equivalent fluid) • Coefficient of friction 0.40 A one-third increase in the allowable soil bearing capacity can assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. With structural loading as expected, total settlement in the range of one inch is anticipated, with differential settlement of about one-half inch. The majority of the settlements should occur during construction, as dead loads are applied. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 8 Seismic Considerations The 2006 International Building Code (IBC) specifies several soil profiles that are used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the soil conditions observed at the site, Site Class C from Table 1613.5.2 should be used for design. In our opinion, the site is not susceptible to liquefaction. The soil relative density and the lack of an established shallow groundwater table is the primary basis for this opinion. Slab-On-Grade Floors Slab-on-grade floors should be supported on a firm and unyielding subgrade consisting of competent native soil or at least 12 inches of structural fill. Unstable or yielding areas of the subgrade should be recompacted or overexcavated and replaced with suitable structural fill prior to construction of the slab. A capillary break consisting of a minimum of four inches of free draining crushed rock or gravel should be placed below the slab. The free draining material should have a fines content of five percent or less (percent passing the #200 sieve, based on the minus three-quarters inch fraction). In areas where slab moisture is undesirable, installation of a vapor barrier below the slab should be considered. If used, the vapor barrier should consist of a material specifically designed to function as a vapor barrier and should be installed in accordance with the manufacturers specifications. Retaining Walls If retaining walls will be utilized, they should be designed to resist earth pressures and applicable surcharge loads. For design, the following parameters can be used for retaining wall design: • Active earth pressure (yielding condition) 35 pcf • At-rest earth pressure (restrained condition) 55 pcf • Traffic surcharge (passenger vehicles) 70 psf (rectangular distribution) • Passive earth pressure 300 pcf • Coefficient of friction 0.40 Drainage should be provided behind retaining walls such that hydrostatic pressures do not develop. If drainage is not provided, hydrostatic pressures should be included in the wall design. Retaining walls should be backfilled with free draining material that extends along the height of the wall, and a distance of at least 18 inches behind the wall. The upper one foot of the wall backfill can consist of a less permeable (surface sea]) soil, if desired. A perforated drain pipe should be placed along the base of the wall, and should be connected to an approved discharge location. Atypical retaining wall drainage detail is provided on Plate 3 of this report. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 9 Drainage Groundwater seepage was observed at test pit location at a depth of six to nine feet below grade during our fieldwork (February 2013). Perched groundwater seepage should be expected in site or utility excavations. Temporary measures to control groundwater seepage and surface water runoff during construction will likely involve interceptor trenches and sumps, as necessary. In our opinion, perimeter footing drains should be installed at or below the invert of the building footings. A typical footing drain detail is provided on Plate 4 of this report. Preliminary Infiltration Evaluation As part of this geotechnical engineering study, the 2009 King County Surface Water Design Manual (KCSWDM) was reviewed. The City of Renton recognizes an amended version of the 2009 KCSWDM as the governing code. At test pit TP-1, near the proposed residential lots 17, 18 and 19, poorly graded sand was observed to a depth of five feet where an increasing amount of gravel and silt was observed, as detailed in Appendices A and B of this report. In our opinion, for preliminary design purposes, an infiltration rate of four inches per hour may be achievable at these locations. ESNW can perform in-situ infiltration analyses upon request if infiltration will be pursued. Based on the soils observed throughout the remainder of the site, as discussed in the Subsurface section of this report, adequate infiltration will not be achievable. Dispersion methods per section C.2.4 of the KCSWDM may be utilized where slopes less than 15 percent are present. Utility Trench Backfill In our opinion, the soils observed at the test sites are generally suitable for support of utilities. In general, the soils observed at the test pit locations should be suitable for use as structural backfill in the utility trench excavations, provided the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement and compaction. Moisture conditioning of the soils may be necessary at some locations prior to use as structural fill. Utility trench backfill should be placed and compacted to the specifications of structural fill provided in this report, or to the applicable requirements of the city of Renton. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660 February 25, 2013 Page 10 Pavement Sections The performance of site pavements is largely related to the condition of the underlying subgrade. To ensure adequate pavement performance, the subgrade should be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrolling with a loaded dump truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be compacted to the specifications detailed in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. It is possible that soft, wet, or otherwise unsuitable subgrade areas may still exist after base grading activities. Areas containing unsuitable or yielding subgrade conditions may require remedial measures such as overexcavation and thicker crushed rock or structural fill sections prior to pavement. Cement treatment of the subgrade soil can also be considered for stabilizing pavement subgrade areas. Heavier truck-traffic areas generally require thicker pavement sections depending on site usage, pavement life expectancy, and site traffic. For preliminary design purposes, the following pavement sections for heavy traffic areas can be considered: • Three inches of hot mix asphalt (HMA) placed over six inches of crushed rock base (CRB), or; • Three inches of HMA placed over four and one-half inches of asphalt treated base (ATB). For relatively lightly loaded pavements subjected to automobiles and occasional truck traffic, the following sections can be considered: • Two inches of HMA placed over four inches of CRB, or; • Two inches of HMA placed over three inches of ATB. The HMA, ATB and CRB materials should conform to WSDOT specifications. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and conclusions provided in this geotechnical engineering study are professional opinions consistent with the level of care and skill that is typical of other members in the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. A warranty is not expressed or implied. Variations in the soil and groundwater conditions observed at the test pit locations may exist, and may not become evident until construction. ESNW should reevaluate the conclusions in this geotechnical engineering study if variations are encountered. Addiflonal Services ESNW should have an opportunity to review the final design with respect to the geotechnical recommendations provided in this report. ESNW should also be retained to provide testing and consultation services during construction. Earth Solutions NW,LLC { 1iuP �i sa _� a 1"J 7l� r5Tt 5(".`: i 1}SIL .S ...}7.it f�[4 `t ..S�h 6.i��4TTi• 1_ 'rrxr� �(� �'��"If a i%sn T23Jy1���", s " S �h 196TH ST +� a>rll sr ix Jj T. a> p�Jca ' E ,,acl as 59 :i, y �d17�16 .tii. t. S'�l,Wc '� it '+4 _.7�"f � "^k JS7 -� ,��� y .•• _ 'Al r4 i .•P:f!1 1 C.. } � x 1 x _ 1,r}! h t'' 7 4"fit�:�. { - _ S.,iK!!.,`-, �,IS't k '�•a p, ^' �:, � as r s ssaor 1;.7F4 e t ', •`` y,^_t J al L h'a'ir �� x.+e t{•- �`v-� t "! y �.-t 3:, r t. f _•^ ;F -:es yd �„ Y� '= r a ea3+{t •.oei'y;3" �'`i � _ 2QTM r c ril pY �G, r i i's...ET`3 4i" R,;7�C :--- .u�+a ., y,�y -`. ?•,i ' r r � R �! v.z = -' .—.�.._� �" ._i�,A t{.SII• ! e� ��dfr:►-'��:�-�} `tom I'U Aj i-mlt-I 5 S2 tIcH - ;2. a aG' T.. .x s `Sw�," r y--. -+ Y21�?i ^ .� c •, liEL ci ? .Y ! �- .,mss { eta`. tilrttl Ef4l. �� a _,�. _ I L ` £' }}'.'?- --.JIIF �_._ �. _.; - 5 i X51 �'„,�tl il' Y l"Y. 'I 'f lh Y r-il t _-_-E'_6.7 z V � lIII 9 � 'S -•.�,, t� .h..4.Y. �' J-!+a 5 'YS i+- ..—_�F.i - , 21RI14 NORTH ! A A 1 Reference: �x King County, Washington ' Map 686 By The Thomas Guide Vicinity Map Rand McNally Smithers Avenue South Development 32nd Edition Renton, Washington NOTE:This plate may contain areas of color.ESNW cannot be Drwn. GLS Date 02/15/2013 Proj. No. 2660 responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black&white reproductions of this plate. Checked HTW Date Feb. 2013 Plate 1 I E I I 0 LA L-J NORTH <� I I { ua I 0 50 100 200 U) 1"=100' — f Scale in Fee[ 1 1 11 I II '1 1 l C r ` I { �, t. It 1 I t op LEGEND — TP-1—i—Approximate Location of Rpt a ; TP-51 ESNW Test Pit,Proj.No. ES-2660,Feb.2013 Subject Site J\TP l I ip10 Proused Lot Number+4r - ```�``�``� �� / r 1'i _ �`\._`I ❑� Existing Building NOTE:The graphic shown on the pWe ere net intended for design Dlwn.By r , pMveses a praee scab meeswe—b.but antero ilustrate the t. GLS eveft wtd w pmp ed W fee ms,TM eppm—fi bauete of II I II I w 1 is r.ybesd.Eataprrniddbythe cFentetmf tlelmie at p�erd Checked By ' M ESNW rennot be—p—ibk furaubeequent desipnchergee HTW or leklpretatkn M the dela by.M—. Date 02118/2013 NOTE The plate may contain areas of wler.ESNW cannot be Pr j.No. ..ing kfar eery subsequent meiMegaelelkn olMe lelarmatbn �20rewYleptrap bled 8 white repmducgons of this plate. JPl 18" Min. o 0 o p o o p Oo o' m o 00 0 O bO OOO o O op0DO o Qo 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 00 0�pp000 0 O o p°O 0 . o 0 o V o o0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0o Q o 0 0 0 0 00 0.0 o0 o 0 00 .0 o p o 0 0 o 0 o 0 00 0000. o0 oo 0o0 o 00 o Oo p 0 °o o ° Structural 0 0 o ° p o0 0 00 Oo �000 �oo o C Fill C� 0 O C O O 0 0 0 o o p O o o llfj// O ' o , o o 0 0 0 0 0 0o O o 0% 0 00 0 0 0 � o po 0 o 0p o 0 ` o 00 o 0 0p o 0 o p 0, 0 , 0 Qo 00o 4 I �— Qa o0Ooc6 ° oo ° o . 0 0 0 •1�r,rti ~o S• of S• {• ti• Perforated Drain Pipe NOTES: (Surround In Drain Rock) • Free Draining Backfill should consist of soil having less than 5 percent fines. Percent passing#4 should be 25 to 75 percent. • Sheet Drain may be feasible in lieu SCHEMATIC ONLY-NOT TO SCALE of Free Draining Backfill, per ESNW NOTA CONSTRUCTION DRAWING recommendations. • Drain Pipe should consist of perforated, rigid PVC Pipe surrounded with 1" Drain Rock. LEGEND: po o 0 00 00 Free Draining Structural Backfill • _ o gym„ - .r.r.r.r. 'rti tirti.�. 1 inch Drain Rock •r.f.r.r. RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL Smithers Avenue South Development Renton, Washington Drwn. GLS Date 02/19/2013 Proj. No. 2660 Checked HTW Date Feb. 2013 Plate 3 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ES-2660 The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by excavating eight test pits at the approximate locations illustrated on Plate 2 of this report. The test pit logs are provided in this Appendix. The subsurface explorations were completed in February 2013. The test pits were advanced to a maximum depth of 12 feet below existing grades. Logs of the test pits advanced by ESNW are presented in Appendix A. The final logs represent the interpretations of the field logs and the results of laboratory analyses. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Solutions NW,LLC Earth Solutions NWLLC SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN 'rte '�� WELL-GRADED GRAVELS,GRAVEL- GRAVEL GRAVELS �� -, 6 GW F ND MIXTURES,LITTLE OR NO AND 6 GRAVELLY ,;�o POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) o D�o D GP GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,LITTLE Q Q oQ OR NO FINES COARSE GRAINED GRAVELS WITH SILTY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- SOILS MORE THAN 50% FINES o b GM SILT MIXTURES OF COARSE Q o FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLEG`+ CLAYEY GRAVELS,GRAVEL-SAND- AMOUNT OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES WELL-G MORE THAN 50% SAND CLEAN SANDS SW SANDS,LAITTLEORNOSANDSFINES�LLY OF MATERIAL IS AND LARGERTHAN SANDY NO.200 SIEVE SOILS POORLY-GRADED SANDS, SIZE (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SP GRAVELLY SAND,LITTLE OR NO FINES SANDS WITHSILTY SANDS,SAND-SILT MORE THAN 50% FINES SM MIXTURES OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLES+`+ CLAYEY SANDS,SAND-CLAY AMOUNT OF FINES) MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE ML SANDS,ROCK FLOUR,SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINEAND LIQUID LIMIT CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY,GRAVELLY GRAINED LESS THAN 50 CLAYS,SANDY CLAYS,SILTY CLAYS CLAYS,LEAN CLAYS SOILS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% INORGANIC SILTS,MICACEOUS OR OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR N0.200 SIEVE SILTY SOILS SIZE SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAYS OF HIGH CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,ORGANIC SILTS PEAT,HUMUS,SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS �t, PT HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS DUAL SYMBOLS are used to indicate borderline soil classifications. The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of the material presented in the attached logs. Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 1805 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Harbour Homes — PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development PROJECT NUMBER 2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washinaton DATE STARTED 2/8/13 COMPLETED 2/8/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 3"-4" AFTER EXCAVATION — W a. �? U Im TESTS o_O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w— 0-=) ui C1 a z c� to 0 Brown poorly graded SAND,medium dense,moist SP MC=21.20% -increasing medium to coarse sand -becomes gray,dense,moist to wet 5 MC=9.70% 5.4 Becomes brown SAND and GRAVEL with silt,dense,moist SP- SM -becomes very dense,wet MC=9.30% sb Becomes brown gray silty SAND with gravel and cobbles,very dense,wet SM 10 MC=19.50% 10.0 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade.Groundwater seepage encountered at 6.0 feet during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. [V tai p 2 a d i$ w J a F- i m JaQ W z LU Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 1805 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME SmAhers Avenue South Development PROJECT NUMBER 2650 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 2/8/13 COMPLETED 2/8/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVA71ON CONTRACTOR NW Excavatinq GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 3"-4" AFTER EXCAVATION w (Y U W S _ TESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 d Qz 0 Brown silty SAND,medium dense,moist SM MC=8.40% 5 MC=11.10% 6 Becomes gray silty SAND with gravel,dense,moist SM -becomes very dense 10 MC=18.80% 10 Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet, m w O tl U' a C7 d N J a H S m JQ K W Z W Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 1805 136th Place N-E.,Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development PROJECT NUMBER 2650 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 2/8/13 COMPLETED 2/8/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUNDWATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 3%4" AFTER EXCAVATION — W a. _ ~W C6 U w _j g TESTS C6 0_O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q z 0 0 Brown silty SAND,medium dense,moist MC=27.00% -becomes dense to very dense,moist to wet -increasing fine sands SM 5 -becomes gray MC=19.10% MC=16.10% —9.Q Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. M a O W Z_ 0 d U' C WSJ m J W Z W Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-4 1805 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development PROJECT NUMBER 2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washinqton DATE STARTED 2/8113 COMPLETED 218113 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE W EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NExcavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION_ --- NOTES Depth o�soil&Sod 3%4" AFTER EXCAVATION -- w _ W U a _ W � W w 2 TESTS a.0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Q z (� v7 0 Brown silty SAND with gravel,medium dense to dense,moist -becomes dense to very dense MC=12.20% 5 -becomes gray,very dense MC=9.40% SM 10 MC=9.60% 120 Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feet. n m a 0 ui 2 CJ 0. tg1( A J a _H x m QJ Q W Z W Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-5 �Ujll1805 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF t Bellevue,Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development PROJECT NUMBER 2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 2/8/13 COMPLETED 2/8/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- L000ED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 5" AFTER EXCAVATION - Lu 2 �W cn U w TESTS O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 0 0- QZ w 0 Brown silty SAND,medium dense,moist SM 2.0 Gray silty SAND with gravel,dense to very dense,moist MC=16.10% 5 SM MC=11.10% MC=8.00% 8.0 Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 8.0 feet. m 01 D C7 W Z_ a 0 J a F x m K w z w U' Earth solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-6 r 1805 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development PROJECT NUMBER 2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 2/8/13 COMPLETED 2/8/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION — LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of TosQ_gil.&Sod 6" AFTER EXCAVATION — W a. _ W vi U W v _j g TESTS N 0.p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o a> j Qz 0 co Brown sandy SILT,medium stiff,wet MC=28.90% ML -increasing fine sands 4.0 -intermittent gray Becomes brown sandy SILT,stiff,moist to wet 5 MC=29.00% ML -increasing medium sands MC=15.00% -becomes hard,moist 9.0 Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 9.0 feet. m 0 t� a c� J m J ZLLl W Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-7 1805 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development PROJECT NUMBER 2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 2/8/13 COMPLETED 2/8/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavating GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION — NOTES Depth of Topsoil&Sod 3%4" AFTER EXCAVATION -- w W 0 U w Uj M TESTS a.p MATERIAL DESCRIPTION � a ¢Z 0 Brown silty SAND,medium dense to dense,moist to wet SM 2.5 -increasing fines MC 30.70% Brown sandy SILT,stiff,moist = ML 5 5_9 -intermittent gray MC 27.80% Becomes brown gray sandy SILT,hard,wet = ML -becomes very dense 10 12.0 -becomes gray MC=31.20% Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 12.0 feet. a a Z a' d m N J JWy S d F- m J W Z W 0 Earth Solutions NW TEST PIT NUMBER TP-8 1805 136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 PAGE 1 OF 1 Bellevue,Washington 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Harbour Homes PROJECT NAME Smithers Avenue South Development PROJECT NUMBER 2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton,Washington DATE STARTED 2/8/13 COMPLETED 2/8/13 GROUND ELEVATION TEST PIT SIZE EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR NW Excavatinq GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD AT TIME OF EXCAVATION LOGGED BY HTW CHECKED BY HTW AT END OF EXCAVATION NOTES Depth of Topsoil$Sod 2%3" AFTER EXCAVATION — W 2 W in U W Z W±K W TESTS (L J MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o_ ¢z 0 Brown silty SAND,medium dense to dense,moist SM -increasing fines 2.5 MC 37.70% Brown sandy SILT,stiff to very stiff,wet = 5 ML -trace gravel MC=33.20% -intermittent gray -becomes hard 0.0 Gray silty SAND with gravel,very dense,moist SM 10 MC=11.40% 11.0 Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade.No groundwater encountered during excavation. Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. m m A 0 ui 2 'a C7 N J m J W� 2 LL1 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS ES-2660 Earth Solutions NW,LLC Earth Solutions NW GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 1805-136th Place N.E.,Suite 201 Bellevue,WA 98005 Telephone: 425-284-3300 CLIENT Geonerco Properties WA,,LLC PROJECT NAME Smithers Ave PROJECT NUMBER ES-2660 PROJECT LOCATION Renton U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES ( U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 14 1 3/4 112318 36 81,0 14 16 20 30 40 60 60 100 140 200 100 95 08580 90-- 85 --- 80 75 70 65 - s 60 m 55 z50 U. 45 z W 40— Lu EL 35 02520 30 -- 25-- 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse I medium fine Specimen Identification Classification LL PL PI Cc Cu O TP-1 3.Oft. Brown poorly graded SAND,SP 0.89 1.82 a ® TP-4 6.Oft. Gray silty SAND with gravel,SM , TP-6 5.0ft. Brown SILT,ML *1 TP-8 6.Oft. Brown SILT,ML N 7 F Z Specimen Identification D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt %Clay IL O TP-1 3.Oft. 4.75 0.279 0.195 0.154 0.0 97.0 3.0 U) E TP-4 6.OfL 37.5 0.37 0.075 17.9 52.2 30.0 w o TP-6 5.01FL 4.75 0.0 9.9 90.1 N z * TP-8 6.Oft. 4.75 1 0.0 1 8.5 91.5 REPORT DISTRIBUTION ES-2660 EMAIL ONLY Geonerco.Properties, LLC 1441 North 34 Street, #200 Seattle,Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Walder Earth Solutions NW,LLC i s SITE STRUCTURES IA Division of Kosnik Engineering, PC c Vueerest Estates Storm Water Detention Vault Renton, Washington Structural Calculations J. o f pP�oF WA CO S cTURAL S�ONAL Project No. S-14-045 First Issue 07-07-14 EXHIBIT 28 10511 le Ave SE,Suite C, Everett,WA 98208 ♦ (425)357-9600(phone) ♦ e-mail: dan@kosnik.com Vuecrest Estates Storm Water Detention Vault Project No. S-14-045 STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS INDEX Sheet Design Criteria 01 -03 Lid Review 04-07 Wall Design&Footing Design 08- 15 Pirated Opening Framing 16-20 I►q s-r�l-oaf s Vuecrest Estates Storm Water Detention Vault DESIGN CRITERIA Code: 2012 IBC Permitting Agency: City of Renton Soil Cover: 18" over the entire vault Lid Loading: HS20-44 truck loading 150 psf uniform live load Uniform live load not to act concurrently with truck wheel loading. Grating: l 00psf pedestrian loading on raised grate Foundation Design: Foundation design is based on the following values provided by Earth Solutions NW Allowable Bearing Pressure: 4,000 psf Soil Design Values: At Rest Pressure: 55 pcf EFW(Drained Level Backfill ) Active Pressure: 35 pcf EFW(Drained Level Backfill ) Seismic Addition: E= l OH psf Uniform Saturated Soil Density: 125 pcf Material Requirements: Rebar: Grade 60 Concrete: f c=4000 psi walls and lid, f c=3000psi ftgs & grade slab Lid: Pre-cast,Pre-stressed Hollow Core Plank 12-1/2"thick, SITE STRUCTURES Proje,-* UU G cZ GsT L-s1 ftT e.S sheet c)- date 2date 21711Y pr .no. S-Iy-OqS HS20-44 72 OOOLBS FRONS' AXEL: ' � 8,000LBS LBS AXEL XEL#1: 32'0OO- 0 6 c� I I _ i REAR AXEL 42: 14 32,000LBS 1b 4 � .32,000 1 ,4 �1fc1 a W long S.,Qoo tb mS 24,E ib 24,000-!b a4a. some as qxmspomd, 4.iW t a4W - t Wz G6fnttmd weight of fest two oxws V t mi st we gpo;ing t hk%prpducot moil zaum strm For$nkn of�OoI;4,mterar*ti wheel to be I ft from turbE HS 20 -- 44 'TRUCK LIVE LOAD ON WALLS ��I-o�rs 16K 616K. ~: 1 i 8 i . i FIr Ullg 1 LL. 6 w o , a Ti J LE;J 1 ° 0 100' 2 4 ' 300 400 AVERAGE UNIFOR M HO R IZONTAL LOAD . SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates sheet 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date 7/7 11 y Everett,WA, (425)-357-9600 pry. no. 5-14-045 PRECAST.HOLLOW CORE PLANK REVIEW Lid Data Soil Desity -:_-:1;25:pcf Soil Cover depth over lid == ``1':_:5,ft Plank design clear span Design Uniform Live Load - `:`_:_150-psf Design Superimposed Load 337.5 psf Plank capacity based on uniform superimposed load tables Plank span No of tendons -_ __-=--`_`"l�` Allowable superimposed loads _ 3,psf Allowable superimposed loads base of design span of 23.25 ft Based on flexural capacity : :599..psf Based on shear capacity 407,:psf Plank capacity based on truck load charts Plank span No of tendons Allowable soil cover without knee-walls 0:T5_to_2 2 :ft �N��kwq Allowable soil cover with knee-walls ::b5 to Oft �p '� . CONC ETE TECHNOLOGY C ORPORMON --� -- s- r u-ass 121!2" HOLLOW CORE SLAB - DIMENSIONS T-10112" FOR DETAILING s' 11112• 111/x" 111E s. 1vie 2114" •:.,..••.. ..'Y.::�Y'ti!: •}'•�'K:i•'r.... *• , •„ �•.�tiS• neJt:•:Ni;::e i�::i:•iv�:;ii:L:tii r 17116„ t i' 11112' 111/2" 11' " 1 hs 3'-117/8" (4'-0'Nominal Width) SPAN-LOAD TABLE ALLOWABLE SUPERIMPOSED LOAD in pounds per square foot Effective No.of SIMPLE SPAN In feet Prestress 112"o (KIPS) STRANDS . 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 70;7 3 78 44 20 i 77.7 4 126 80 49 26 101.3 5 174 117 78 50 27 124.8 6 221 153 106 70 43 23* 148.4 7 267 186 129 89 59 36 172.0 8 307 216 153 108 74 49 29 195..5 9 . 343 243 174 125 89 61 40 23* 219.1 10 378' 270 195 142 103 73 50 31* 242.7 11 4131 297 217 160 117 85 60 40 24* SECTION PROPERTIES (with shear keys grouted) A =313 int Zt =1019 1n3 Zb =947 in3 w =84 psf 1 =61361n4 Yt =6.02 in Yb=6.48 in NOTES: - 1. The values given in this table are based on hollow core slabs without shear reinforcement.Superscripts(1,2,.etc j following values In the table indicate the number of filled voids required at the ends of slabs to develop the allowable superimposed load.See page 2,"SHEAR"for discussion. 2. Asterisk(*)following values in the table indicate that the total deflection under all loads is greater than 0360 but less than U180. 3. Interpolation between values is acceptable.Do not extrapolate values into the blank spaces of the table. 4. These Span-Load Tables are intended as an aid to preliminary sizing.Sound engineering judgement is required for ) the application of this information to specific design cases. 10 MANUFACTURERS OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE TACOMA, WASHINGTON 4ie6 -a7 _- S-t'(-oy5 CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 12%" HOLLOW CORE SLAB 150 PSF 12 1 1 1 1 1 i Vent Notch9 O 10 �. . f... f .... - ? _ #f =Number of Filled Voids required 3 for 2'-0"at each end of each slab. LL g — a N 8 2 _ I u I 11 Strands J_ vii 7 -- 111 Strands(y,,;,= 125 pcf) I ._ .� 6 ( 11 StLL rands(yso, = 135 pcf) W > C4 �. 1... _... . N I ( 9 LL o H 3 - Knee - I .._ 7 — - - - - - 0 Wa113 = 2 5 - _ 1 - f" 14 16 18 20 222 / 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 try`# SIMPLE SPAN (ft) GENERAL NOTES: 1.)A minimum cover depth of six inches OR a three inch thick cast in place concrete topping slab is required. 2.)Simple Span is centerline of bearing to centerline of bearing. 3.)The Knee Wall envelope represents the maximum span and height of soil cover that carr be supported by slabs with standard notches for manhole openings,assuming void fill concrete fc=3,000 psi.Points flailing outside this envelope require knee walls to support the slabs at manhole openings. 4.) Interpolation between strand contours is acceptable. DO NOT extrapolate beyond the bounds of this chart. 5.)Soil cover is assumed to be uniform. 6.)Except as noted, soil cover unit weight is assumed to be 120 pcf. 7.)Minimum span length=14'-0". 8.)The values shown on this chart are in compliance with IBC 2003&ACI 318-05. 9.)The Vent Notch envelope represents the maximum span and height of soil cover that can be supported by slabs with 6'/z"standard notches in adjacent slabs to accommodate 12"diameter vents,assuming void fill concrete fc= 3,000 psi. Refer to Detail 3 on page 15 of this brochure for vent notch details. 2/1B108 MANUFACTURERS OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE - TACOMA, WASHINGTON 9 �Gvr t S-Ir-1-or{S CONCRETE TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 1UTj c 12%" HOLLOW CORE SLAB HS20-44 12 I I I ! 1 I 4 ` O 10 Z 3LL ! � r — IL N # Number of Filled Voids required r 8Al for 2'-0"at each end of each slab. 11 Vent Notch9 ! �LL 11 Strands > -!11 Strands so(Yi(= 125 pcf) O — Ui11 Strands(Ysoll p c I s —-135 C4 . co O 1-- 3 - -...... I, Knee l Wa113 i_ - — — i I 14 16 18 20 22/ 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 SIMPLE SPAN (ft) GENERAL NOTES: 1.)A minimum cover depth of six inches OR a three inch thick cast in place concrete topping slab is required. 2.)Simple Span is centerline of bearing to centerline of bearing. 3.)The Knee Wall envelope represents the maximum span and height of soil cover that can be supported by slabs with standard notches for manhole openings,assuming void fill concrete f =3,000 psi. Points falling outside this envelope require knee walls to support the slabs at manhole openings. 4.)Interpolation between strand contours is acceptable. DO NOT extrapolate beyond the bounds of this chart. 5.)Soil cover is assumed to be uniform. 6.)Except as noted,soil cover unit weight is assumed to be 120 pcf. 7.)Minimum span length=14'-0". r 8.)The values shown on this chart are in compliance with IBC 2003&ACI 318=05. ,. 9.)The Vent Notch envelope represents the maximum span and height of soil cover that can be supported by slabs with 6'/z"standard notches in adjacent slabs to accommodate 12"diameter vents,assuming void fill concrete fc= 3,000 psi. Refer to Detail 3 on page 15 of this brochure for vent notch details. 2/18/08 MANUFACTURERS OF PRESTRESSED CONCRETE • TACOMA, WASHINGTON 7 SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates ;et: 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date: 7 ILI Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 prj. no. S-14-045 Vault Walls - Lateral Pressures Review Minimum soil cover depth to top of wall: _ =-= - 2.:5 ft Maximum soil cover depth to top of wall: _ ___ _="` 25:°ft Wall Height At-Rest soil pressure: _- r '55 pcf EFD Active soil pressure: - - _ - =:35 pcf EFD Uniform Addition to At-Rest soil pressure: _ _ ,0 psf Soil Density: _..-= 12 pcf Load Combinations: - �_6 L(soil pressure)+ L(surcharge/wheel load) .r'16:L(soil.pressure)+ 10 L(seismic) Due to HS20 Truck Loading: 1.5 ft min cover over lid: _ ' 70 psf Uniform 1.5 ft max cover over lid: - _ =:= '7D psf Uniform Total Factored Lateral Force: 1.5 ft min cover over lid: 17014 plf 1.5 ft max cover over lid: .17014 plf Due to Uniform Surcharge Load: Uniform surcharge: _ _-_'f 50<psf Equivalent lateral force: 66 psf Uniform Total Factored Lateral Force: 1.5 ft max cover over lid: 16810.plf Due to Seismic Activity: Uniform seismic addition: E_ __~ 10 H Seismic lateral force: 163:.psf Uniform Total Factored Lateral Force: 1.5 ft max cover over lid- 12309 plf Combined Load Factor. 1.47 SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates sheet 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date 7/7//q Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 pr . no. S-14-045 Design DataCG ."g U -Gr,Glh4- Soil Density r=- 125pcf Soil Cover depth to the top of the wall :___ ; _:_2=:5:ft Ws1 = 137.5 psf Wall height 16.:2;ft Ws2= 893.75 psf Soil Pressure EFW Surcharge Information uniform S1 =_° :5i);psf (on surface of ground) Equiv Ws= .66.psf truck Ws= =TO:psf(on surface of wall-see design chart) Critical Design Surcharge pressure psf(on the surface of the wall) Calculated Design Forces W1=207.5 F1 = 3371.875 lbs R top= 4107 lbs W2= 893.75 F2= 7261.719 lbs R bot= 6527 lbs M1 = 6849 M total= 24989 ft-lbs M2= 15140 Wall Reinforcing Wall thickness <:1 inches Comp block(a)= 1.39 inches Clear cover 2 inches Depth to CL bar(d)= 9.50 inches Rebar size -_-= 8 d-a/2= 8.81 inches Rebar area .0.79:-sq-in Bar spacing inches OMn= o"37361-ft-lbs Rebar strength fy :='>;==`-6Q ksi Conc strength fc .-066:psi Mu= -26387:.ft-Ibs Load Factor = "1 max tension reinforcing spacing: fr.= 31790 psi s= 13.9 in s= 15:1 in Smax= 13.9 in-OK Anchorage at Top of the Wall Ru= ' :.4928 pif Rebar Dowel Size-. Dowel Area Shear capacity of Dowel = :41376.plf Dowel strength fy= ::y :`_60 ksi Bearing capacity of Dowel= 5670 plf Dowel Spacing=';:_=:___: ;`20.inches Dowel brg length= _ _:-:2 Z '.inches conc strength fc= -. _`::;_ 00 psi Anchorage at Bottom of the Wall Ru= 7833 plf Rebar Dowel Size Dowel Area3f.' = - =___ 0 sq-in Nominal Shear friction capacity Dowel strength fy= .;__AGO,ksi of the footing to wall Dowel 41383.plf Dowel Spacing= ` >_ .=1 inches Coefficient of friction= °'=- Ofi smooth surface SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates sheet 10 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date 7 ! Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 prj. n0. 5-14-045 Design Data r7' 4 ��G Sidt�1�1-toff Soil Density _ _ = :125 pcf Soil Cover depth to the top of the wall 5 ft Ws1 = 137.5 psf Wall height =_= r1:fi,25:ft Ws2= 893.75 psf Soil Pressure EFW Surcharge Information uniform S1 =:'_ 15Q:psf (on surface of ground) Equiv Ws= 66 psf truck Ws -7ti psf(on surface of wall-see design chart) Critical Design Surcharge pressure 0: psf(on the surface of the wall) Calculated Design Forces W1= 137.5 F1 = 2234.375 lbs R top= 3538 lbs W2= 893.75 F2= 7261.719 lbs R bot= 5958 lbs M1 = 4539 M total= AH78 ft-lbs M2= 15140 Wall Reinforcing Wall thicknessinches Comp block(a) = 1.39 inches Clear cover 2 inches Depth to CL bar(d)= 9.50 inches Rebar size =___ 8 d-a/2= 8.81 inches Rebar area 0.79 sq-in Bar spacing = - _"f 0 inches (I)Mn=. 37351 ft-lbs Rebar strengthfy 6b ksi Cont strength f 4404 psi Mu= 236114-ft-lbs Load Factor = °7 �2 max tension reinforcing spacing: fs= 28450 psi s= 16.1.in S= 16.9 in smax= _. :1:6;1. in -OK Anchorage at Top of the Wall Ru= 4245:pif Rebar Dowel Size = $ Dowel Area=' ;_`:;`-`:;0;79::sq-in Shear capacity of Dowel = 11376 plf Dowel strength fy== =- `=_6Q:ksi Bearing capacity of Dowel= ..5670 plf Dowel Spacing= :__`= `; d inches Dowel brg length= _::= x:25:inches cont strength f = °_300;psi Anchorage at Bottom of the Wall _. -. .... Ru= 7150 plf Rebar Dowel Size Dowel Area sq-in Nominal Shear friction capacity Dowel strength fy= '=:=-6 ksi of the footing to wall Dowel 11383 plf Dowel Spacing .inches Coefficient of friction= ;.'Q6_ smooth surface SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates sheet /',' 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date 7�7IT Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 pd. no. S-14-045 { INTERIOR WALL HEADER GEOMETRY AND LOADS ANALYSIS Header Overburden &Uniform Loads Lid weight _: ' 25 psf Soil Desity - `; 2-5�pcf Load Factors Soil Cover depth over lid ` `_ 5 ft Plank design clear span left `23:ft Plank design clear span right 3`ft Design Uniform Live Load ='.:: :x:;50:psf Lid tributary width to header 23 ft Uniform service load to header 10638 plf Uniform factored load to header 14145' plf Truck Wheel Loads to Header Truck type Axle Load ==>3D0.4=lbs Wheel Spacing Cover depth :_ 1_t5 ft Axle assumed centered.over& perpendicular to header distribution width 3.50 ft opening width�Mi]rWft distribution length 10.00 ft length ea side of hdr 5.00 ft uniform load @ top of plank 914 psf wheel load to header from left span 4075 plf wheel load to header from right span 4075 plf Total wheel load to header 8149 plf Factored wheel load to header 13039 plf Design Loads & Forces in Header Service 18:8 klf Factored :-27.2 klf Critical section for shear is at 1.5 feet from the face of the support Design Vu = 95 k Design Mu = 340 k-ft SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates sheet a 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date -217 f�� Everett,WA, (425)-357-9600 pd. no.-S-14-045 INTERIOR WALL HEADER DESIGN Header Data Header width =:_;_$ inches Concrete Strength_ __4OD psi Header span -<1: = ft Header depth 6.3.inches d= 60.00 inches In/d ratio 2.00 Deep Beam limit In/d < 5.0 Min shear steel (Area/ spacing ) ratio 0.012 Min Rebar spacing Max spacing of shear steel 12.6 inches #3@ 9.17 #4@ 16.67 Min horiz steel (Area/spacing ) ratio 0.02 #4@ 10.00 Max spacing of horzontal steel 21 inches #5 @ 15.50 Review shear capacity of header Reinforcing yield strength - =: Q: ksi Shear reinforcing area - >:_" 03t sq in Horz reinf area -b='31sq in spacing -__ 12�in Horz reinf spacing = _ 'f2=in Reinf shear capacity CVs 83 k Conc shear capacity We 52 k Total Shear Capacity 135 k Factored shear Vu 95 k Max Wn @ In/d < 2 206 k Max 4)Vn @ 2 < In/d < 5 21784 k Review flexural capacity of header min As based on 200 bwd/fy 1.6 sq inches min As based on eq 10-3 1.52 sq inches As reqd based on bending model 1.30 sq inches As reqd based on tie-strut model assume Vu is focused @ the center of the header then Tu= 95.14 k As reqd= 1..76.sq inches Ito ProjectSheet /J {�GCZu-,L-, t� tructureS r — Date ' 7/7/1V �-rT TE' 'S J A Division of Koenkk Engineering PC Job No �' [ .�, 15�q. pv .. /4 - !( tw I fi�e-k-,- fi� SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates L ;et e' 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date 7 [7 //q Everett,WA, (425)-357-9600 prj. no. S-14-045 Design Data : Wall Foundation Loads Analysis Soil Desity ? ` ; :1°2'S'pcf Per.wall Cell Width =. ;:.23.ft 9 Soil Cover over the lid S ft Int.wall Cell Width left . 2 ft Plank weight Int.wall Cell Width right _'237 ft Uniform Live Load `: :`;1;50'psf Truck Rating =H520=44. Front Axle Load `-=.800Q'!bs Rear Axle#1 Load ::::=32;QQ0 lbs Wall Height 16.25 ft Rear Axle#2 Load -:'320Ot'lbs Total vehicle wt 72000 lbs Truck Wheel Load Distribution to Perimeter Wall Foundation Truck Perpendicular to the perimeter wall w/rear axle #2 directly over wall &'distance to axle#1 = 14ft total truck load to wall = 44522.lbs distribution width = 43.5 ft Load @ base of wall= .1023:pif Truck Parallel to the perimeter wall w/one wheel over wall& 2nd wheel on plank(incl axle 1&2 only . total truck load to wall = 55652 lbs calc distribution width = 51.5 ft Load @ base of wall= 1081: plf Truck Wheel Load Distribution to Interior Wall Foundation Truck Perpendicular to the int. wall w/rear axle#2 centered over the wall& dist between axles = 14ft total truck load to wall = 44522 lbs distribution width = 43.5 ft Load @ base of wall= 1023. pif Truck Perpendicular to the interior wall w/rear axle#2 ctly over wall& distance to axle#1 = 14ft total truck load to wall = 44522 lbs left plank Load @ base of wall = 1021p1f total truck load to wall = 445221 lbs right plank Load @ base of wall= i023 Of distribution width = ;43:5 ft _Truck Parallel to the interior wall w/one wheel over wall& 2nd wheel on plank(incl axle 142 only) total truck load to wall = .55652 lbs left plank Load @ base of wall= X1081_plf total truck load to wall = 55652 lbs right plank Load @ base of wall= 1081.Of distribution width = 51.5 ft Truck Parallel to the interlor wall w/the truck centered over the wall(incl axle 1&2 only I total truck load to wall = .55.652 lbs distribution width = 51:5.ft Load @ base of wall= 1081 plf Uniform Live Load distribution to Wall Footings Perimeter Wall . 1725 plf Interior Wall 3450.'plf SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates sheet Z 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date 7/�/lt� Everett,WA, (425)-357-9600 pr no. 5-14-045 Design Data : Wall Foundation Design Allowable Bearing Pressure _ = _ .::` 406. psf Per. wall Cell Width 23 ft Rebar strength fy ksi Int wall Cell Width left 23 ft Concrete strength = 3DQ psi Int wall Cell Width right 23 ft Soil Desity 125 pcf Plank weight 90 psf Soil Cover over the lid 1.5 ft Wall Height 16.25 ft Wall Thickness 12 inches Perimeter Wall-Footing Design LY Wu Design live load17.2 -plf 1.6 2760 plf Soil Cover dead load 2344 plf 1.2 2812.5 plf Plank dead load 1125 plf 1.2 1350 plf Wall dead load 2437.5 plf 1.2 2925 plf total dead load 5906 plf 7087.5 plf Total live +dead Load; 7631 pif 9848 plf Required Ftg Width =1.91 ft Selected Ftg Width =_ __ 35ft Selected Ftg Thickness - 1 in Qu = 4226 psf Mu= 935 ft-lbs at face of wall Vu= 2811 pif at face of wall As regd= 0.02 sq-in/ft phi Vn= -11732 plf at face of wall Asmin = 0.43 sq-in/ft 1.33 x As regd = 0.03 sq-in/ft Interior Wall Footing Design LY Wu Design live load -:' "34ifi plf 1.6 5520 plf Soil Cover dead load 4313 pif 1.2 5175 plf Plank dead load 2070 plf 1.2 2484 pif Wall dead load 2437.5 plf 1.2 2925 pif total dead load 8820 pif 10584 plf Total live +dead Load 12270 plf 16104 pif `Y Required Ftg Width 3.07 ft Selected Ftg Width __ ft Selected Ftg Thickness Qu = 4601 psf Mu= 3595 ft-lbs at face of wall Vu= 5751 plf at face of wall As regd = 0.08 sq-in/ft phi Vn= 11732 plf at face of wall Asmin = 0.43 sq-in/ft 1.33 x As regd = 0.10 sq-in/ft SITE STRUCTURES Project Vuecrest Estates sheet: 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date: Everett,WA, (425)-357-9600 prj. no. S-14-045 Reinforcing at Top of Wall Below Grated Opening Design Data Top of Footing to Inside Top of Vault(H1) _« :`;.=' ;12,5:ft curb height 1.6 ft Top of Footing to Finished Grade(1-12) 18 75 ft curb horz reinf bar _ Soil Pressure EFW pcf curb horz reinf spacing _ .:.12 in o/c Controlling Lateral Surcharge == 70 psf depth to center of reinf = ;in Grating Span _ O:ft curb thickness _ 6`in SURCHARGE SOIL PRESSURE GRATE Ws1 — 1031.25 ! a Ws2= 70 R ��IhS1DE �D?GF VAULT NK t : wss ws� Calculated Design Forces Fbot of curb 152;5p : if Mu horz curb= 1. 06 ft-lbs = :25'plf gMnc�ry Fbot of wau= 11.01 = 3726;ft-lbs curb self-supported Mwan uniform= 2X89 ft-lbs Mbase ofal�= 62023 ft-lbs Mwaa triangle= 39334 ft-lbs R= 38-17 plf Load Factor `<_: Mu horz wan 76337 ft-lbs Wu.= 6107. Wall Reinforcing Wall Thickness -°--: 12-.in Add1 HorzReinf. =- Clear Cover - 2 in #of Addl Bars Vert Rebar Size ;.8 As @Top of Wall .+: 1:77 sq-in Rebar Area 0:79 sq-in conc strength fc >=>_ ' 46D psi depth to reinf(d) 8:63.in Closure Reinf (3) #=g - camp block(a) 2;27 in As in Closure1:33 sq-in d -a/2 7_:4,9 in Wn =. 104203 ft-lbs Mu= 776M.7-ft-lbs SITE STRUCTURES Project sheet: 17 10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date: 7 7/6 Everett,WA, (425)-357-9600 Pr . no. 5-/L1-0(-/5 Beam Design Below Grated Opening Design Data Height of Curb: __F_ ft Curb Thickness: `.'.`...:8 :8--in �� > Soil Density: _ }:f25?pcf Beam Width: -2 ==` 1 in �� Beam Span: �- Truck Rear Axle Load: 32'k = <.. Calculated Design Forces = 3s Soil Weight= 104 plf � Curb Weight= '250 pif Self Weight= 156 pif Max Beam Reaction =2 .DDQ:lb Load Factor. DL '12=:: OR 2,_01; LL Wu= 61.3..plf Pu= . 06800 Ib Design for Flexure Reinf Size 41 V b MA ;:. #of Top&Bot Reinf Area of Steel 1_r33 sq-in (00C W i n Depth to Reinf(d)' 28..7,3..in Comp Block(a) 2.60 in d-a/2 .. fi:83 in �Mn= 159987.ft-lbs Mu= "'102270. ft-lbs Design for Shear Tie Reinf Size Area of Steel -T0:20 r Depth to Reinf(d) 10.60jl�ta11 01O Max Spacing 6:25 in Reinf Spacing _ __ 13'in mvc= 586$lbs �y AAVs=. `�#205'T lbs Ja,9a0. 4)Vc+4)Vs= . 47923 lbs Vu= 61331.lbs VUGC2ESi J—STR i LS sh"A � O Protect ' 1-7tructures Date Job No A Dlvlslon of Kosnik Englneering PC Vil .� ...: f '�• . ��:.�� �C��� �:�(?,�. :��' � . I =� � .PTCI � .:.. : � .. : .. � .: 1 ". � SHcc► f 1 2171 Irl S- tit-0y5 - vUmRtST ocla a OH .--t e•i N N C:5 M MMW n\7 M M �• ^ h O\ �1; � CRcC+O� t0 e-[ to v, M V� g i x x Xto •fit 14 coN m m d � o � i M c5 N c5 H -1-t N N N m e .o%D e N N '"'� M rn ,-•� e-i Ll N 0 W H M M M y rn m � N N N CQ co x x� I I CC Q N N H H H C e� h n r i N co N tri 1l N 0 cp cV O h N Oi .-iCD M A ' O •v y. N`Htp�oH� it O1 Ot N N CO N N ^ ^ D7 CO o7 v C m M M `M M tG Oi n *'� D\ M h l� Qi Kx x x M M X k co d+ t+1M rn d+ eM � qt v� r•i ^ d+• O � a •-+,~MNol H c5 r5 r v e tai co 6 C Lf) N S V 10%0 b10b b 10 *-i N M M M`M .-t ,•-t �a P tD K O1 � 'MdM1ON W MI�47M F� fJ ^ ^ H�-i i-1 H H N � � otnm H�101D N� w• S� m b b b 10 b b Ti M M M M M M H oomac�a - - � y KXkkxxM co - H10nVj - ernn� h laz �j H H N H H H mtYJn7m ''ro'a'ms cVtt�mW MVM7M 1p Mjy • � p � � M M M r�t1 tl�'7� ! k x x x x x M tp eDMv/ rMV"a� rm �1't*?�N, Q [k �"p. .•i.•i ti'�ri.=i m 'c p Cn7CMr••�Yto�. .oywM.rnNaN t$ hd[�vf _ Mo1o�M � o N m�mrm-i -�oH 40 20 20 n0 Mmom Mthp.M exT tac h C u N� N O x k x x X x X 10 10 . � WMO'i OHO mtOnO eNNv7n d'O�FO b 8 •C a to H e�N rt H ti e� a ® CO _ _ o� mN:no1 notam m eNtoHM nnta�o V a L M M M x x X K kJx *'i I;NnS ,�V• 'NM�v7�N - .V�rnO�ONNH �.•i � w C � v x x x��`N N _ c o c�V�U V1NaH - HrINH Mtt70�N - nmNsN w ® v 3.. t-,�ti7,NM ^r-icon - W�otnM - 4 oN by o) m m`o'N ncycH�! m y w a eo co �• .. .' w � .� O HHHH� k yaXk�yx, � r•IOeo H H H H .-{t OOO�n cQ hQiHC. _ NlOr1�C a1NmtD � •a � H .--I W H � co co NNW - KV A .�'Z• t0 •=t v�•�e�•c.�-i.moi! •--1 i..• : .. •dM+mti rn'y�°H".' „'4,i,�NQ `� ed Q �y x k K k x K K ' t Sr •. � •0 HH HIHHHH _ NNna ty r =122 • ey tam co co :sz 4s So _ '1: �, -Y�•i- Q N C' d O e-t H'•1 H f-1 H m s� O: ?i M mh o�mnN nnHM O+NnH y 'k 'D K x•K K X xCDCXOO e{ sNS'� Vtt+.'�tt70 �DOnO QtC�O pMNVp] �' H H rl H H p•1 H . ro Mm t, CQ owe p�pp G' m�`mm�eo N, .r ,• � T � VGA n�01��0 � y,�` � � H H i••I H H r/H _ �•�S„y�� � � w '�J N x K X k K K•X t. d W Ma • .p V• k �C '� es '^ OQ M 1e M N b O cb ' •� 1, r a A �N Lo t�www Neo to • :r � x - - - - - -- s=tti-oys r MIT MO -- - TITEN HO' HeavyDufyScrei7AqchDrfor e r Flkisnnry �S ANCMIDH$YST�MS. Tension toads in Normal-Weight Concrete - _ I ize D t =tubed.. rabeat Oritiaa ension mad I n' ff ep h E e Spacm . c ODOfi st :3000 s c_ OD0 st mm , D a Dist. ist. 43 , Pa oner8 a 20'. Ra:-Donc[ete 6 MPa On ere e i n (mm. n. [n. Ulttrttaf td. a Al DWa a AI owab UUima td llowahle 29/4 4,297 1,075 1,315 5,204 1,550 3/8 3/a (70) 3 6 19.1 (4.8) (5.8) 27.6 (6.9 (9.5) 39/4 (76) (152) 7,087 347 1,770 2,115 9,820 1,434 2,455 95) (31. (1.5) (7.9) (9.4) (43.7) .(6.4). (10.9) . 6.580 ,5 "r .2 sle a 413 9 1.855 ?20 U. 7 600 - ;x.��2' •910. - 29/4 4,610 1,155 1,400 5,580 1,645 (7D) (20. 5.1) (6.2) (29.3) (7.3) b/8 6/8 41/e 5 10 8,742 615 2,185 2,630 12,286 - 1,604 3,070 (15.9) 105) (127)• (254) (38.9) 2. 9.7 (11.7) 54. (7.1) 13. 59/4 12,953 1,764 3,240 3,955 18,680 4,670 (146) (57.6) (7.8) (14.4) (17.6) 83.1 (20.8 405• 6560 645 �_ r m 208J 5pall_ - �3•.. US +096 �i 5B5 r 7 7 426 91 " 4-55 j g 55 3D d6i0_ 4n rr Al 9:}:� •a �!,-3); 83: -s 8. 20:8 See Notes Below `See page 10 for an explanation i of the load table icons 0 Cz c '::z Shear toads in Normal-Weight Concrete n -��,,,-� ��'• ��,�- �;� �' � �• - , y- `�` hear .oa - h. :. - - � ,��tze�. Aril ..'_Emb•"ed �iitical;�, ritical� a SID ` =HiteP th d e S acing �,2DOO psr - P:c_ DOAp i =Pc_�4DDD;psi. a a 9 ��mm �D�ia� �.�� ,Dist.- Dist. .a�• ,- ($38.1N.a'-oncre a �" •- 20*7. Ra)'Dancrete- '� a63M a •Gonne e • °jt m�. .atm.. :.., ;�•in ' - °q sa m (m iti ate Std:Dev. -b Ilowa le s Aliewa le tifia a d Dev. Ilia) e. 46 �. 23/4 6,353 1,585 1,665 1,740 3/8 3/s 0) 412 6 (28.3) (7.1) (7.4) (9.5) (9/4 (114) (152) 6,377 1,006 1,595 1,670 1,740 I (28.4) (4.5) .1) (7.4) (7.7) ,• J� �-� 5/e K-_ 8 •9 2 2B5 3D 95 . 13F027� . 9'7 �L55 • - _�e-,,,� �� 4 �� 29/4, 7,745 . 1,940 2,220 9,987 2,495 (70) (34.5) (8.6) 9.9) 44.4) 11.1) e/8 g�8 4Ye 71/2 10 8,706 1,830 2,175 3,415 18,607 1,650 4,650 (15.9) 105 (191) (254) 38.7) (8.1) (9. 15.2 (82.8) .3) 20. 59/4 12,498 2,227 3,125 3,890 4,650 146 (55.6) (9.9 (13.9) - �f - - - =832 �+ 60 -5 -� 60 `, - 65• e. ��' •-900 = D 90 • ` 4,fi80 �6 - 70 • ,> 18si.9 '3 4-• - 95 ;�60 580. 6 .7D 1.The allowable loads Osted are based on a safety factor of 4.0. 4.The minimum concrete thickness Is 114 times the embedment depth. 2 Allowable loads may be Increased 33%%for short-term loading B.Tension and Shear loads for the Titan HD anchor may be combined using the eilipticai due to wind or selsmlc forces where permitted by code. Interaction equation(n=%).Allowable load may be interpolated for concrete 3.Refer to allowable load-adjustment factors for spacing and edge compressive strengths between 2000 psi and 4000 psL 124 distance on pages 128-129. June 24, 2014 Earth Solutions NW LLC ES-2660.01 • Geotechnical Engineering • Construction Monitoring • Environmental Sciences Geonerco Properties, LLC 1441 North 34th Street, #200 Seattle, Washington 98103 Attention: Mr. Jamie Waltier Subject: Proposed Stormwater Vault Vuecrest Residential Plat Renton, Washington Reference: D. R. Strong Consulting Engineers Vuecrest Estates Vault Detail Sheet Dated ,June 19, 2014 Dear Jamie: Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has prepared this letter to provide an assessment regarding the weight of the proposed stormwater vault and its effect on the adjacent slope. Based on information provided by the project structural engineer (Mr. Dan Kosnik, P.E.), the vault, when full and including 18 inches.of soil cover will weigh 1,500 pounds per square foot. With a footprint of 5,900 square feet, the maximum weight of the vault will be 4,425 tons. Based on information provided by the project civil engineer (Mr. Maher Joudi, P.E.), the volume . of soil displaced by the vault will be 3,676 cubic yards or 99,250 cubic feet. Using an in-situ soil unit weight of 120 pounds per cubic foot, the weight of soil displaced by the vault will be 5,955 tons. Therefore, even when the vault is full of water, it is 1,530 tons lighter than the soil it replaced. As currently designed, the setback from the top of the steep slope to the edge of the vault is 40 to 58 feet from the top of the steep slope. Given the setback from the slope and the fact that the vault will weigh 1,530 tons less than the soil it replaces, the vault will increase the overall stability of the slope RECEIVED EXHIBIT 29 1805-135th Place N.E., Suite 201 • Bellevue,WA 98005 • (425)44 Geonerco Properties, LLC ES-2660.01 June 24, 2014 Page 2 If you have any questions, or if additional information is required, please call. Sincerely, EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC �C R' CAA'40- .. , z yr. C 0, AL Kyle Kyle R. Campbell, P.E. Principal cc: DR Strong Consulting Engineers, Inc. Attention: Mr. Maher Joudi (Email only) Earth Solutions NW,LLC N d_ (0 O O O I P7 Q W � W 311-70'GRA 7E W/UDDER d 24'SIXLIRE Q 0.I// \\k p LIE HANGED ACLE53 HATW (11P•) C%+ 'P� (MaV-7RAFF7C kiA i G) 0 W I I 674 [n A 3A AqE I SX AICD 3Z ASE l e (M)I r---------------------- � fi I I U zTlao 22Js tzar eAr Brom W > I I I 72'Du1LErA 3-Moo I � I .- --------------------- 7Y IJLET fL J37.00 70 -- �---------ST 7yj -- PLAN VIEW s 3 a g S a NORTH S GRAPFOC SCALE 0 25 50 100 1 �!S uA9iGd 1 INCH So FT. Cd 2 Waft Dup Bskm 1-«i D4 OF VUECREST ESTATES o6.1 g,t4 R -ON PRELIMINARY PLAT UUMM Ltwerw-rd L ocdon caraar VAULT DETAILS ODMT)dC% R,WA) TONAL Works Dept 1 s� 1 1 DRS PROJECT N0. 12102 VUECREST PLATryt; TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ,a7 CITY OF RENTON 2 Prepared for � L J0 Jamie Waltier Geonerco Properties WA, LLC 1441 N. 34t Street#200 Seattle, WA 98103 Prepared by ► ' 111.t7f2THtw WEST TRAFFIC EXPERT 11410 NE 124th St., #590 Kirkland, Washington 98034 Telephone: 425.522.4118 Fax: 425.522.4311 April 23, 2013 EXHIBIT 30 / HWEST TJ lC EXPERT 11410INE12thSt #590 KirkandFWA98034 rraffmy Phone:425,522.4118 Fax:425,522.4311 April 23, 2013 Geonerco Properties WA, LLC Attn: Jamie Waltier 1441 N. 34th Street#200 Seattle, WA 98103 Re: Vuecrest Plat-City of Renton Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Mr. Waltier: We are pleased to present this traffic impact analysis report for the proposed 21 lot Vuecrest Residential plat on Smithers Ave. S, south of S 47th St. in the City of Renton. Proposed access to the site is to be provided by a street connection to S.47th Street The scope of this analysis is based upon the preliminary plat site plan, conversations with City of Renton staff and the City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development. Our summary, conclusions and recommendations begin on page 5 of this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Figure 1 is a vicinity map showing the location of the site and study area. Figure 2 shows the preliminary site plan. The site access street connects to Smithers Ave. at the north side of the site. It then runs to the south and curves to the east becoming 168th PI. which then is stubbed to the east side of the site. The site access street will be constructed to City of Renton standards with curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides. Development of the Vuecrest plat is expected to occur by the year 2015. Therefore, for purposes of this study, 2015 is used as the horizon year. Page 1 Vuecrest Plat T� 'i1 ` ir TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The 21 single-family units in the proposed Vuecrest Plat are expected to generate the vehicular trips during an average weekday and during the street traffic peak hours as shown below: Trip Rate Trips Trips Time Period Total Trips per unit Entering Exiting 100 101 Average Weekday 9.57 201 50% 50% 4 12 AM Peak Hour 0.75 25% 75% 16 PM Peak Hour 1.01 613 37% 821 A vehicle trip is defined as a single or one direction vehicle movement with either the origin or destination (exiting or entering) inside the study site. The trip generation is calculated using the average trip rates in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation, Eighth Edition, for Single Family Detached Housing (ITE Land Use Code 210). These trip generation values account for all site trips made by all vehicles for all purposes, including resident, visitor, and service and delivery vehicle trips. Figure 3 shows the estimated trip distribution and the calculated site-generated traffic volumes. The distribution is based on existing traffic volume patterns, the characteristics of the road network, the location of likely trip origins and destinations (employment, shopping, social and recreational opportunities), expected travel times, and previous traffic studies. EXISTING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS Street Facilities The streets in the study area are classified per the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan as follows: Smithers Ave. Local Access 102nd Ave. SE (Main Ave S) Local Access SE 47'h St. Local Access Page 2 Vuecrest Plat Smithers Ave. SE, SE 47th St., and 102nd Ave SE (Main Ave. S) in the project vicinity have a speed limit of 25 mph and consist of two lanes with curb gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the street. The streets in the area are straight and flat yielding excellent sight distance at the study intersections. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic Volumes Figure 4 shows existing, future without project and future with project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed Site Access St./156th Ave. SE and Site Access St./158th Ave SE intersections. The City of Renton Policy Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis for New Development requires an analysis of intersections impacted by 30 or more project generated peak hour trips. The proposed project generates less than 30 PM peak hour trips and therefore no intersections meet this threshold. The SE 47th St./102nd Ave SE and SE 48th Pl./102nd Ave SE intersections were analyzed nonetheless, since they are the nearest intersections to the site and provide access to the site. PM peak hour traffic counts were performed at these intersections on Thursday, April 18, 2013 and are included in the Technical Appendix. Level of Service Analysis Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic flow, and the perception of these conditions by drivers or passengers. These conditions include factors such as speed, delay, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Levels of service are given letter designations, from A to F; with LOS A representing the best operating conditions (free flow, little delay) and LOS F the worst (congestion, long delays). Generally, LOS A and B are high, LOS C and D are moderate and LOS E and F are low. Table 1 shows calculated level of service (LOS)for existing and future conditions including project traffic at the pertinent street intersection. The LOS was calculated using the procedures in the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual The LOS shown indicates overall intersection operation. At intersections, LOS is determined by the calculated average control delay per vehicle. The LOS and corresponding average control delay in seconds are as follows: TYPE OF A B C D E F INTERSECTION < Signalized 10 >10.0 and >20.0 and >35.0 and >55.0 and >80. . <20.0 <35.0 <55.0 <80.0 0 Stop Sign Control �i >10 and <15 >15 and <25 >25 and <35 >35 and <50 >50 Page 3 Vuecrest Plat Bra ` FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITHOUT THE PROJECT Figure 4 shows projected 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes without the project. These volumes include the existing traffic volume counts plus background traffic growth. The background growth factor accounts for traffic volumes generated from other approved but unbuilt subdivisions and general growth in traffic traveling through the area. A 3% per year annual background growth rate was added for each year of the two year time period (for a total of 6%)from the 2013 traffic count to the 2015 horizon year of the proposal. The 3% per year growth rate should result in a conservative analysis since the growth in traffic volumes has remained relatively flat the last several years. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT Figure 4 shows the projected future 2015 PM peak hour traffic volumes with the proposed project. The site-generated PM peak hour traffic volumes were added to the projected future without project volumes to obtain the future with project volumes. Table 1 shows calculated LOS for future with project volumes at the study intersections. The study intersections are calculated to operate at an excellent LOS of A for future 2015 conditions including project-generated traffic. TRAFFIC MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS The City of Renton requires a Transportation Mitigation Fee payment of$75 per new daily trip attributed to new development. The net new daily trips due to this development are 201 trips. The estimated Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is $15,075 (201 daily trips X$75 per daily trip). Page 4 Vuecrest Plat SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Vuecrest Plat be constructed as shown on the site plan with the following traffic impact mitigation measures: • Construct the street improvements including curb, gutter and sidewalk to the project site streets to City of Renton standard. • Contribute the approximately$15,075 Transportation Mitigation fee to the City of Renton. No other traffic mitigation should be necessary. If you have any questions, please call 425-522-4118. You may also contact us via e-mail at vince(a nwtraffex.com or larry(a-)nwtraffex.com. Very truly yours, gpNA cfj 1� i Vincent J. Geglia Larry D. Hobbs, P.E. Principal Principal TraffEx TraffEx Page 5 TABLE 1 PM PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY VUECREST PLAT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS EXISTING 2015 WITHOUT 2015 WITH INTERSECTION 2013 PROJECT PROJECT S47 1h St/ (A 7.2) (A 7.2) (A 7.3) 102nd Ave. SE (Main Ave. S) NB NB NB S48 1h St/ (A 8.4) (A 8.4) (A 8.4) 102nd Ave. SE. (Main Ave. S) EB EB EB Number shown is the average control delay in seconds per vehicle for the worst approach or movement which determines the LOS for an unsignalized intersection per the Transportation Research Board Highway Capacity Manual (XX) LOS and average control delay NB northbound approach EB eastbound approach Page 6 NORTHWEST TRA FF/c ExPERTS f �`t ! ^� ► Spr�ny c3kn . is 32 v - al1'Showngco V _ rn m SE Cairn Rd-, m . Valiey�`M t Ciitef „ } SEIBM St Y SF -43rdISt rs SW;3td - 3 SE1_801h PI SE IB1st St: s@ a - �" SE 182nd s . i S 45th Pt_.� SE-t4 m - S40P1 , - -- 515 _ S 471hSt S 471h St- S 47th Pl ABtt15f; S 48th St S SE 185 -SE 1-"St'. 490 St v Project SE1esn, �A ; Site - sE 186 _ CDOL _ S 50th Pt -` 187th PI 9S -3S 51st Si $ 4 m -... , Gurudware Singh f Ln itis Sabha of We i SEP-190ih St .N 515 m Cr J S 53rd Pl: — CL 192nd St--: $SSih Si S 192nd St o'Sy:w - - SE 1926d S2to :. SE _ 5 w New Beyirinings {6 Christen Al Fellowship SE 198th St, Vuecrest Plat-City of Renton Figure Vicinity Map r 1 8z V —� �— __� r —� r----- , PAOQ�aY,�fO �( ix%o ur r F 7 �EASEMEN ,iEC.hQ h i8 F 1 I I I i r I .stq.. I cr�QF, I 21 Rt0 775 P 6..talc ;?u 1 Pro ELEY,m+a f lass sF C --w--�-1 I FI ..wia�v eaa.. _ m sEae rA1c.' srmr.ar Al J aerT}27iY 3`7rs SiJ r • s?� _ ;�,,. - `1 r sFrderar(m7-" S g �t f :l4Aob r7-�-+ tl Sy ^n TRACT�E - IFS 17,yy AOEfM.lSaA I � 4u :. ne CT.,. 22.402 IT - F S'SNE YA 7a LL V L� r I $ 11�j' EAo s�v 3wo I ATy f- ---- IAp[gr[i�.ist7 I c V. 6c a I, F IPAO`EieKisa I , I`• r----- --I I 60.00*. za14 , ` I I I I F / T I 1 PAaMEMM'7no ,ry ;. I E1ll, I :. g $ I + P}a scarrasa I.n+a�aEvs.as c<1 13 1 f r o SrWSE.:1467 R i Ti4♦riT wr,' I 1.1 l,Va sravr10, F I iy sc�3z F I-x sSF ` - �5, {It. err r ; - i TRACS�,�a• SZD-D-I"7 SFS h TRACT C" _ -ate,r. P'ed{ mrr-�vnniw - � lssasrr. Vuecrest Plat-City of Renton Figure Site Plan 2 AF 4" /VORTHIti'EST TRAFF/C EXPERTS 100 % 13 47111 St O a 8 -' S 47th PI M 1 8 48th SO CO CO tS iop C I CO CD CP '"187rlh PI rn o f O CO of 0 � 0 f0 8 '10 M O S 47th St 102nd Av 0 CO 0,) I O PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume �,It Legend Ext Enter 18 S 48th St 102nd Av 15% Percentage of Project Traffic Total 21 .— 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume Vuecrest Plat- City of Renton Figure 3 PM Peak Hour Trip Generation and Distribution NnR7'HWEST TRAFFIC EXPERTS 13 47t St 0 ¢' S 4M P1 CO S 461h 2 Project 1 ' Site E 1 8 "187th PI to rn Existing Future Project Future traffic without voiect Tris with Project 0; 0 0 O. O `0 0 . 0 `0 0- 0 -0 � r 0 7 � r 0 8 r 0 15 11-0 0 0 0 o o � N S 47th St 102nd Av S 47th St 102nd Av S 47th St 102nd Av S 47th St 102nd Av 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 JJ l O JJ i OJ'J a 0 JJ { , o , o ,o ,o 3 , 3 0 11 1 3 -, Z2 � N S 48th St 102nd Av S 48th St 102nd Av S 48th St 102nd Av S 48th St 102nd Av Vuecrest Plat- City of Renton Figure 4 Existing and Future PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes TECHNICAL APPENDIX Prepared for. Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phone:(253)926-6009 FAX:(253)922-7211 E-Mail:Team a@TC2ino.00m WBE/DBE Intersection: 102nd Ave SE&S 185th Pl/S 48th St Data of Count Thurs 04/182013 Location: Renton,Washington Checked By: Jess Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) From West on(EB) Interval Interval 102nd Ave SE 102nd Ave SE SE 185th PI S 48th St Total Ending at T L S R T L S A T L S R T L S R 4:15P 0 D 1 1 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 11 4:30P 0 0 1 1 0 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4:45P 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 5:00P 0 0 2 0 0 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 5:15P 0 0 6 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 5:30P 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 3 2 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 12 5:45P 0 0 2 0 0 5 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 WFO 0 0 0 2 4 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 16 1 0 20 23 17 0 1 8 0 1 0 0 1 5 93 Peak Hour. 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM Total 0 0 10 0 0 12 10 10 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 51 Atroach 10 32 6 3 51 o n/a n/a n/a We 0.0% PHF .4=' 0.91 102nd Ave SE 20 10 10 T. —p !Bike T S 48th St 1-0-1 10 0 ; 0 Ped SE 185th PI 0 12 I Ped; 0 1; 0 6 Bike 0 6 16 15 0 0 Bike 3 I 0 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM € 2 ;Ped io 3 PED. nares: N S E W Ped 12 l0 to 16—i1.0 PBF Peak Hour Volume INT 01 0 Bike( 0 PHF%HV INT 02 _ _ _ 0 •_—___r EB 0.'i We INT 03 0 19 32 Check WB 6.50 n/a I4T04 �� 0 In: 51 NB �!S�� n/a INT05 0 51 Out: 51 SB 0.{2 n/a INT 06 0 102nd Ave SE T Int. 0.91 0.0 INT 07 2 2 4 Sicyc les From: N S E W conditions: INT 06 0 INT 01 ' 0 INT 09 0 INT 02 V 0 INT 10 0 INT 03 I 0 INT 11 i 0 INT 04 0 INT 12 i 0 INT 05 �—0 01 21 2 U 4 INT 06 NO BIKES 0 Special Notes INT 07 0 INT 08 1 10 INT 09 1 D INT 10 1 10 INT 11 L_0 INT 12 1 0 0 0 0 00 TRA13067M_01 p Prepared for. Traffex Traffic Count Consultants, Inc. Phone:(253)926-6009 FAX:(253)922-7211 E-Mail:Teem@TC2ine.com WBE/DBE Intersection: 102nd Ave SE&S 47th PUS 47th St Date of Count Thins 04/182013 Location: Renton,Washington Chocked By: Jess Time From North on(SB) From South on(NB) From East on(WB) From West on(EB) Interyal Interval 0 102nd Ave SE S 47th PI S 47th St Total Ending at T L S R T L S R T L S R T L S R 4:15P 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 7 4:30P 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 4:45 P 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 5:00P 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 5:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 2 9 5:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 5 5:45 P 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4-- 6:00 P 6:00P 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 6:15P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6:30P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 6:45P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7:00 P 0 0 0 Total Survey 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 7 0 9 4 0 0 0 2 9 48 Peak Hour. 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 4 0 T-77 2 0 0 0 1 6 28 Approach 0 12 9 7 28 %HV n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.0% PHF n2 - - 0.78 S 47th St S 47th Pl 10 I Ped 0_i 2 9 Bike 0 7 14 17 0 Bike 7 I 1 4:15 PM to 5:15 PM E 0 IPed 6 PEM A— N S E W Ped-_0 8 4 L36J 1.0 PHF Peak Hour Volume MT 01 0 Bike: 0 PHF%HV INT 02 0 EB �- We INT 03__! _�_ 0 13 12 Cheek WB n/a INT 04 0 In: 28 NB ,. n/a INT 05 0 25 Out: 28 SB n/a INT 06 ( 0 102nd Ave SE T Int. 0.78 0.0% INT07 2 2 _� 4 Bicycles From: N S E W Conditions: MT 0" 0 INT 01 0 MT 09 0 INT 02 0 INT 10 ��_ �..__ 0 INT 03 INT 11_� 0 INT D4 _ 0 INT 12 1 i 0 INT 05 ( �—0 Ull 11 2 4 INT 06 1 BUTS 1 0 S ecial Notes INT 07 0 M 06 0 INT 09 0 INT 10 0 INT11 0 INT 12 1 I 0 0 01 01 00 TRA13067M 02p Existing PM peak hour 3: S 47th St & 102nd Ave SE 4/20/2013 --� '— 4 ovemen. ;EBT :EBR ,WBL :- -WBTB , BR Lane Configurations Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 0 7 0 0 10 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 9 0 0 13 0 irection L'are��u ��.s �fBrWB�11VBa1E�,�, �:� ' ,��, t ,.. - '. ��.'• `,; Volume Total(vph) 9 0 13 Volume Left(vph) 0 0 13 Volume Right(vph) 9 0 0 Hadj(s) -0.60 0.00 0.20 Departure Headway(s) 3.3 3.9 4.1 begree Utilization,x 0.01 0.00 0.01 Capacity(veh/h) 1069 900 859 Control Delay(s) 6.4 6.9 7.2 Approach Delay(s) 6.4 0.0 7.2 Approach LOS A A A ntersection Sum ary � Yb� ':' +7.-..fix.,,"^.�"�: Delay 6.8 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Existing PM peak hour 5: S 48th St & 102nd Ave SE # I 4/20/2013 � -,V - I i ovemeof =R � , ' � _;EBL : .,EBR..% NBRR,"'—W SBT` Lane Configurations ft Volume(veh/h) 0 3 12 10 10 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 3 13 11 11 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 48 11 11 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol ` vCu,unblocked vol 48 11 11 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 958 1076 1621 uecbon�L�arie,#������- ��EB.1��:N6 Vit. SB 1 � �.,r�;r ,_..�. . „�F�: ��._.•.�� ,_.�. Volume Total 3 24 11 Volume Left 0 13 0 Volume Right 3 0 0 cSH 1076 1621 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 0 Control Delay(s) 8.4 4.0' 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 8.4 4.0 0.0 Approach LOS A nterseetionSutnmary %5W Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 17.9% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 Future Without Project PM peak hour 3: S 47th St& 102nd Ave SE 4/20/2013 _ :ement Y DEBT B 0121MMAWN Lane Configurations Fr Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 0 7 0 0 11 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 9 0 0 14 0 i�ection;Lane, :_ . EB1� B1 B;-.OWN t :,... ., .. x Volume Total(vph) 9 0 14 Volume Left(vph) 0 0 14 Volume Right(vph) 9 0 0 Hadj(s) -0.60 0.00 0.20 Departure Headway(s) 3.3 3.9 4.1 Degree Utilization,x 0.01 0.00 0.02 Capacity(veh/h) 1068 900 859 Control Delay(s) 6.4 6.9 7.2 Approach Delay(s) 6.4 0.0 7.2 Approach LOS A A A ritersection Summa Delay 6.9 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future Without Project PM peak hour 5: S 48th St & 102nd Ave SE 4/20/2013 "% t 1 oyement� =� t w fE130 _ EBR.= NBL�� _ Lane Configurations Fr Volume(veh/h) 0 3 13 11 11 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 3 14 12 12 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 53 12 12 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 53 12 12 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 952 1074 1620 �i�ection,Lane#_::_ w :'E81 NB ix r. 'S 1, Volume Total 3 26 12 Volume Left 0 14 0 Volume Right 3 0 0 cSH 1074 1620 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 0 Control Delay(s) 8.4 4.0 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 8.4 4.0 0.0 Approach LOS A ntersection Summary ;� r Average Delay 3.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.0% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 Future With Project PM peak hour 3: S 47th St & 102nd Ave SE 4/20/2013 ovemera 'EBT EB. ,. BL_ sWBTM M B M§K N B Lane Configurations 'fir Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Volume(vph) 0 15 0 0 24 0 Peak Hour Factor 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 19 0 0 31 0 ireetio_n", ane.4 SEB 1 WB ",�" ,�, '+t. .. .... "mss, ..}��xN'3 :�'�"' „,..y. �.' xt ,.__...- ..-.s-_ �...m._. L.gcxw. .., Volume Total(vph) 19 0 31 Volume Left(vph) 0 0 31 Volume Right(vph) 19 0 0 Hadj(s) -0.60 0.00 0.20 Departure Headway(s) 3.4 4.0 4.1 Degree Utilization,x 0.02 0.00 0.04 Capacity(veh/h) 1052 900 854 Control Delay(s) 6.4 7.0 7.3 Approach Delay(s) 6.4 0.0 7.3 Approach LOS A A A nfersection:<Summar� Delay 7.0 HCM Level of Service A Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 1 Future With Project PM peak hour 5: S 48th St& 102nd Ave SE # 4/20/2013 I EBR :SBT � N �.` NBL i. BT,� �SBR...� ..�. :�..c.,�.� Lane Configurations Y 4 1* Volume(veh/h) 0 3 13 24 19 0 Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 0% 0% 0% Peak Hour Factor 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Hourly flow rate(vph) 0 3 14 26 21 0 Pedestrians Lane Width(ft) Walking Speed(ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare(veh) Median type None None Median storage veh) Upstream signal(ft) pX,platoon unblocked vC,conflicting volume 76 21 21 vC1,stage 1 conf vol vC2,stage 2 conf vol vCu,unblocked vol 76 21 21 tC,single(s) 6.4 6.2 4.1 tC,2 stage(s) tF(s) 3.5 3.3 2.2 p0 queue free% 100 100 99 cM capacity(veh/h) 924 1062 1608 Volume Total 3 41 21 Volume Left 0 14 0 Volume Right 3 0 0 cSH 1062 1608 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.00 0.01 0.01 Queue Length 95th(ft) 0 1 0 Control Delay(s) 8.4 2.6 0.0 Lane LOS A A Approach Delay(s) 8.4 2.6 0.0 Approach LOS A ntersectiori Sinmary� _ .� _�_� �` Average Delay 2.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 18.6% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period(min) 15 Baseline Synchro 7- Report Page 2 DEPARTMENT OF COMMI ,.QTY �utyOf AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT { ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE REVIEW REPORT, REVISED ERC MEETING DATE: july 15, 201-3 August 18, 2014 Entire Document Project Name: Vuecrest Estates Available Upon Request Project Number: LUA13-000642; ECF, PP, MOD Project Manager: Elizabeth Higgins, Senior Planner Owner: Schneider Homes I, LLC; 6510 Southcenter Blvd#1;Tukwila WA 98188 Applicant: Jamie Waltier; Harbour Homes; 1441 N 34th St#200; Seattle WA 98103 Contact: Maher Joudi; DR Strong Consulting Eng; 10604 NE 38th PI,Suite 232; Kirkland WA 98033 Project Location: 4800 Block Smithers Ave S; Renton WA 98055 Project Summary: The project proponent has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat subdivision,which requires an environmental review by the City of Renton Environmental Review Committee. If approved,the project would result in the subdivision of a 6.06 acre property, located in the Talbot planning area of the City, into-24 20 lots suitable for single-family residential use. The property has Comprehensive Plan designations of Residential Low Density, Residential Single- Family, and Residential Medium Density and is corespondlingly zoned Residntial 1, Residential 8, and Residential 14. The west approximately one-third of the property is within the Talbot Urban Separator and is subject to City of Renton Urban Separator Overlay Regulations. The project site is currently undeveloped. Site Area: 263,328 sf Building Area to remain: N/A (6.06 acres) Building Area to be demolished N/A Project Location Map EXHIBIT 31