The URL can be used to link to this page

1105 DALEY PL.PDF1111111111111110702 1105 DALEY PL • ADDRESS TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: OQII4 51 DO cang ac-) BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):', (dol: COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: CA `)' 00 DETERMINATION:. ElConditional Waiver estudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: •Uu "l$ �0�49y 31 '99 (DR% ea. - B( w-s- ) DRAINAGE PLAN DATEDA -n qg PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: 3" • ZLi ' q 9 SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: 5' 11' s SEWER LID FEE $: LIIDnD #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: `mil BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER ,MBETTERTA(nPCARD DATED: 5' 10 '9 OTHER: -C&L LATEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc District City of;.Edmonds,�Water Department TAP CARD Reading: 0 too © Date No. 31 No. Meter. ' j� ti Tap ,Size Size Mfgrs. No. tn0 6 4 7 Style .7"T' w { Purchaser: �Q-rtX1Y1 C.i�'� I t (D5 Del l�u pc- j Serv. Ad'd, - Lot No: Blk: No. i Add. +; Residential: Other: Meter Location N__;�'x Service Material: f ,F Pressure lbs. Test % :. 6 .l Date of Work -Guar.-.Voucher N-o. Proj.. No: ROUTING SLIP CITEW SERVICE INSTALLATION ADDRESS: ► I ,RnI _p L DATE: ' DIAL A DIG # P.U.D. TELEPHONE ti I CABLE T.V. GAS FOREMAN. STORM SEWER V jkkk OTHER FUTURE SERVICE INSTL: VV BORE: CUT: CREW - NO METER ' SHOP ACCOUNT NUMBER:° "� o SUPPLIER: TREATMENT PLANT i FOREMAN i B aL T 4 i FOREMAN INITIAL: DATE: TAP CART-, MVTRA CLTAA'T ADnT 11A rT/�wri y +is'r`tN'�• YW 11 ' 4't,;r ..r 1- .is *. ..» ,u. • "' "�i• +;y wt. � _.�. ,� �-F 1 qt I, ..••i r.. ..-.4 ., r ...Y .r. •%' .ry' � •� �* 1:... , �in'�:,�:2 '�i !•}�". :.4t r � .. ,. 1 r �i..-, .. 5.�, s.. � � City of YEdmond* RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION 1998 PERMIT P U3 Number. .<� IA.:I °'DER x �.:.<. : o . NG Permit _jt� ` Lssue Date: k A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: //to S Pht- =X A-4ea _ - p B. Type of Work (be specific): PEv2 A,,WRoUEZ P4.4w C. C. Contractor: W-4saj 0 M,17 f4,44 L-.rContact: 2 j4✓I4 AE7M?-F6 J Mailing Address: I d . aK. /� ,T3 � i9�u �,gg5e one: C'%��.f'� 7SL S' — Z 7 Z� State License #:. /27-TE2Cg027 060 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable):. `?80 6 6 7 Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family URI**S ingle Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes ❑No G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC- TION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK.. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT Two sets of construction drawings of proposed work required with permit applicatiom:7• A 24 hour notice is required for inspection. Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during- progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer: All street cut.trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on all times for inspection purposes. Signature: (Contractor or Agent) Date: /O ., F/fty- CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK APPROVED BY: TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER FOR CITY USE ONLY RIGHT OF WAY FEE: DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND I I l: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: RESTORATION FEE: T OTAL FEE: t$&0 PO RECEIPT NO.: ,.1 I l.3 3(dp . ISSUED BY NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div 1997 f • RETURN ADDRESS: City of Edmonds, City Clerk 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 9810055 o;42 10/05 p.0005 Recorded Snohomish county STREET FILE COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATIONIHOLD HARMLESS Reference #: I lO e-mon W. ChcLse- 15,xf GY F• (�i�uS('✓ Grantor(s)c (1) Vern— r-hQs;.@ (2) Ra -ba ra P rhb geAdditional on pg: Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec Twn Rng Qtr Harbor OR' Lot 9 Block _Plat_Vol 49 Pqs 165-167 Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) 7 7 4 9- 0 0 0- 0 0 9- 0 0 0-2 (2)� __Assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned CITY OF EDMONDS ��APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY: 'dam- DATE PAGE ( OF5 Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit. for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: EAPPROVED FOR RECORDING: DAMCI Z3 CIS OF L. Description of Subject PropeM. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of (insert street I ddress), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: ._ Lot 9., Harbor Hills, According to the plat recorded in Vol. 49 pf plats, pages 165-167; inclusive, records of Snohomish County, Washington 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified by the.City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of the.risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number C a¢ iP4" (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds, Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have. been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of 0.5 0 4 . APPROVED FOR RECORDING: BY: DATE PAGE �_ OF the consultants in the course of permit issuance: The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest in the property, is put on notice of the existence of the content, of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies obtained at the Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with development, stating that they have fully informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and do therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees arising from and out of such development. In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or 98i0050247 E D FOR RECORDING: _ DATE. Z.7K� OF arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants.in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4. Insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss.nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. 9810.050247' E VED FOR RECORDING:�DATE: Zj A9 4_ OF DONE this U dayof 199 P' LIT OWNER By: By: - G By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF ti� ) ss: I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence tha>ilJ� signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be ' ter) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day o f ` , 199S. OFFICIAL SEAL GRETCHEN L SMITH Notary Public -State of Washington My Commission Expires 10-29-01 L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADOW\COVENANT 9810050247 NO ARY PUBLIC My ommission expires: 6 ;ZSEP-25-1998 FRI 11:47 AM AESI FAX NO. 426 827 5424. P. 01 CORPORATE OFFICE ASSOCIATE93 t Fife, Ashen 100 Kirkland, Mfashinghmlon 98093 Kirkland, EARTH (425) 827-7701 SCIENCEW, IIVC FAX (425) 827.3424 BAINBRIDGE 15L4ND OFFICE 179 Madrone lane North Bolntxidge Island, WA 98110 1206) 780.9370 FAX (206) 780-9438 September 25, 1998�� Project: No. KE97321A SFp 8 /sonVal O . LNG pF� ' City of Edmonds Community services Department Building Division 121 5'" Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 99020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, C.B.O. Subject: Chase Residence 1105 Daley Place Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms, Graf: It is our understanding that the City of Edmonds recently issued ' a building permit for construction of a single-family residence of the above -referenced site. We request, on behalf of the applicant, that the City approve an extension of the normal dry season grading limit, to allow grading for this project to proceed through October 31". As the geotechnical engineering firm of record, it is our opinion that the potential risks associated with extending the grading season for this project through October 3151 will be minimal, provided the recommendations presented in our April 6, 1998 geotechnical engineering report are properly followed. As the geotechnical inspector for this project, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) will be on -site periodically during construction to monitor earthwork activities in accordance with the requirements of the building permit. iSEP-25-1998 FRI 11:48 AM A I FAX NO, 425 827 5424 F. 02 I is Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington d L-L. P. -� Tim r. r, P.G. Senior SfMf Geologist let deale,-k lvat t- /'o y WAS 0'� � smNAL Y:• fXP1F%3 Bruce L. Blyion, P.E. Senior Associate Engineer cc: Mr, Vern Chase Mr, Dave Peterson/Peterson Custor►l Homes TJP/W KE9732IAJ 911/99 !d - W97 2 0 . 0 MEMORANDUM September 22, 1998 To the City of Edmonds This is to advise the City of Edmonds that as the architect for the home for Mr. and Mrs. Vernon Chase at 1105 Daley Place in Edmonds I have reviewed the geotechnical reports, understand their recommendations and have explained to the owners the risk of loss due to slides on the site and have incorporated into the design the recommendations of the reports and established measures to reduce potential risk of injury or damage that might be caused by any earth movement predicted in the reports. 7349 REGIHI ARCHITECT E CT ROBERT TISCARENO STATE OF WASHINGTON Robert L. Tiscareno, A.I.A. i 0 . CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220: RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) RECEIVED AUG 10 1998 AFAMIT C®UN DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Construction of a new single family 'residence requiring 400-600 cubic yards of grading. Site is located in an area subject to Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard area building permit process. Proponent: Vern and Barbara Chase 8700 SW White Court Portland, OR 97225-6440 Location of propoal, including street address if any: 1105 Daley Place Edmonds, WA Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does. not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. XX There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-1-1-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by: Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson Position/Title: Current Planning Supervisor, Department of Community Services - Planning Division Phone: 771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Date:— -7^1 Signature:' XX You may appeal this determination to Ro LtChave, Planningreasons. Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than 1998, by filing a written appeal citing the You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Jeffrey S. Wilson to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on 1998, at the Edmonds Public Libra Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. Library, Edmonds Community Services XX _ Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. CHASE-DNS.Doc Page l of 2 8/7%98.SEPA Mailed to the following along v e Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section XX Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 Attachments: AESI Geotechnical Engineering Report pc: Plan Review No. 98-134 SEPA Notebook 0 Vern & Barbara Chase 8700 SW White Court Portland, WA 98225-6440 CHASE-DNS.DOC On/98.SEPA Page 2 of 2 CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, suite 100 EARTH Kirkland, Washington 98033 JEMASSOCIATED )(425) SCIENCES, IIVC FAX 820.5424 BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone lane North August 4, 1998. Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370 Project No. KE97321A FAX (206) 780-9438 Mr. Vern Chase 8700 SW White Court Portland, Oregon 97225 Subject: Response to Geotechnical Review Comments Proposed Chase Single -Family Residence Lot 9, Harbor Hills Plat Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Chase: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has reviewed the July 13, 1998 letter by Landau Associates,. Inc. (Landau) regarding their geotechnical review of our April 6, 1998 geotechnical engineering report, the project construction plans, and other related documents. This letter presents our response to Landau's review comments, as well as some additional comments received directly from the City of Edmonds Building Division. The specific comments received and our corresponding responses are provided below. COMMENTS RECEIVED IN LANDAU'S LETTER OF JULY 13, 1998 Page 3, Paragraph 4 "The March 13, 1987 civil drawings for Daley Place indicate that a spring was present on the lot 7/1ot 9 boundary, at. approximately (current) elevation 213 ft..... No mention is made in the geotechnical report about. this spring. We recommend further investigation into the fate of this spring, since it could have been captured by a buried interceptor drain system " No evidence of a spring in this area (or other areas of the site) was observed during our reconnaissance and subsurface exploration of the site in December of 1997. According to a May 23, 1989 report prepared for the plat by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc., French drains have been placed under the roadway in the vicinity of Lot 2. The portion of the roadway adjacent to Lot 2 lies upgradient from Lot 9 and therefore it is possible that this drain,' or other drains installed during development of the plat, have intercepted the ground water seepage from which the spring was derived. Page 3, Paragraph 6 "The applicant states that there is no history of unstable soil in the vicinity. A buried peat. layer on upslope lot 2, a district head scarp on lots 3, 4, and 5, numerous springs, and irregular surface topography were never adequately explained by Cascade Geotechnical. These features, which likely relate to past slope movement, require comment by AESI. " The buried peat layer, possible head scarp, and irregular; topography may be indicative of past slope .failures in the area. However, none of these features or springs were observed on Lot 9. Additionally, drainage control measures installed during the previous phases of plat development, such as French drains and drainage swales, likely have increased soil stability in those areas where slope failures have historically occurred. Page 4, Paragraph 3 "The report recommends excavating all unsuitable fill soil from beneath the building area, but is unclear if the old topsoil layer (exposed in test pits EP-2 and EP-3) should also be removed from the entire building area or from just beneath footings. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer clarify the recommendations for excavation of. unsuitable soil in building areas, including a more accurate assessment of excavation quantities. " We recommend that both the existing fill and. old topsoil layer be removed from below the entire building area, not just from below the footings. We estimate that the volume of soil to be excavated from below the building and driveway areas is approximately 500 cubic yards. Page 4, Paragraph 4 "The geotechnical report allows for temporary .excavations to be sloped at IH.IV (horizontal to vertical) in fill and native soil. Most of the soil reported in the test pits would, in our opinion, be classified as Type C per Part N of the Safety Standards for Construction Work [Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155-650 through 296- 155-66411]. The maximum permissible temporary excavation slope greater than 4 vertical feet in a Type C soil is 1 M2H.•1 V. We agree that the on -site soils fall into the Type C classification. However, with the approval of a registered professional engineer the referenced regulations allow for cut slopes steeper than 1'hH:1V in Type C soils [WAC 296-155-657(2)(d)].. PA Page 4, Paragraph 5 ... excavation depths to remove unsuitable soil beneath building and footing areas could extend 9 to 10 ft or more. Such excavation depths would be deeper than the 8 ft excavation depth assumed in the report. Assuming a I Y2H. I V cut slope, the lateral extent of the excavations could be as much as 15 to 20 ft, which would impact the adjacent property and the paved walkway at the top of the slope. It appears that either a slope easement will be necessary and/or temporary shoring will, be needed to limit the extent of temporary excavations. The geotechnical engineer should clarify this issue " The finished basement floor does not extend all the way to the northeast side of the proposed house. We anticipate that the maximum cut for the building will be made in the area of the northeast corner of the basement slab. The existing ground surface elevation at this location is approximately 199 feet. Given a basement floor elevation of 192 feet, we anticipate a maximum cut for the building of approximately 8 feet.. The edge of the basement floor will be approximately 25 feet from the northeast property line and therefore sufficient room is available to lay back the cut without encroaching on the neighboring property even if the cut slightly exceeds 8 feet. The portion of the proposed foundation lying closest to a property line or buffer zone is along the northeast side of the house'. We estimate that the excavation depth for this portion of the foundation will be approximately 4 to 7 feet. The foundation on this side of the house is set back from the property line 10 feet and therefore, sufficient space is available for a, 1H:1V cut slope. If during construction, excessive raveling or sloughing occurs on temporary cut slopes of 1H:1V and insufficient space is available to lay back the slope at a more gentle inclination, then slope stabilization. could be accomplished by compacting the face of the slope using ecology blocks or other temporary shoring measures. Page 4. Paragraph 6 "No recommendations are provided for surcharge loading on below -grade walls from adjacent floor slabs and/or footings, if they are within the zone of influence of the wall. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer address this issue. Also, Sheet SI notes an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 pcf for the "basement wall, " yet AESI calls for 45 pcf and 75 pcf for yielding and non yielding "foundation walls, " respectively, for. the east and north (?) basement walls. The geotechnical and/or structural engineer should verify that proper wall design parameters have been used. " The most recent version of the architectural and structural plans reviewed by AESI consisted of Architectural Sheet 1 (dated 4/28/98), Sheets 2 through 11 (dated 5/5/98), and Sheet 12 (dated 4/21/98) by Robert Tiscareno, AIA, and Structural Sheets S1 3 0 . * through S3 (dated 5/5/98) by Construction Technologies: According to these plans no footings are positioned so that they will surcharge below grade walls. We discussed the issue of the equivalent fluid pressure used for design of the basement walls which retain sloping back -fill with Mr. Bryon Geerhart of Caladan Design and Development. According to Mr. Geerhart, the walls are intended to be non -yielding and will be redesigned using the recommended equivalent fluid pressure of 75 pcf. Page 4, Paragraph 7 . "The report recommends a coefficient of friction of 0.35, which assumes that disturbed soil beneath any foundation be_ recompacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM.D 1557) for this value to apply. Everywhere else in the report 90 percent compaction (ASTM.D 1557) is recommended. In our opinion, this is somewhat confusing and may not be interpreted correctly by the designer, or could be overlooked during construction. We suggest the geotechnical engineer verify that two values. are needed versus applying a single compaction value. " The recommendation of 90 percent minimum compaction (ASTM:D 1557) applies to soil over which structural fill. is to be placed. Recommendations for 95 percent minimum compaction apply to any soils upon which footings are to be directly cast. This includes either medium dense to dense native soils exposed in footing excavations or structural fill placed over these materials. Page 5, Paragraph 1 "The recommended foundation ' drainage system does not call for wrapping the pea gravel in a non -woven geotextile for separation. This is typical for construction of foundation drains in the area. We recommend that the recommendations be amended to include a non -woven geotextilefor separation. " The purpose of using a non -woven geotextile to separate pea gravel drain rock from the adjacent soil is to filter out fine-grained soil particles which can clog the gravel. and limit its effectiveness to provide free drainage. It is our experience that proper installation of the fabric to prevent clogging (intimate soil -fabric contact with no wrinkles, folds, or voids) is difficult to achieve. For the expected very low volume flows, it is our recommendation that a non -woven geotextile is not necessary around the. foundation drains. 4 Page 5, Paragraph 2 "As previously noted, 1980s and early 1990s geotechnical information is available for the subdivision, nearby lots, and lot 9. This information should be available through the City, and is background information which we believe should be reviewed by AESI. While it is our opinion such a review may not substantially alter AESI's conclusions and recommendations, as the geotechnical engineer of record for the project this information should be in their project file. " We have obtained and reviewed copies of the following documents: • July 23, 1990 letter by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. regarding drainage installation at Harbor Hills Development; • Phase I Geotechnical Report for Harbor Hills, by Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc., dated December 5, 1984; • Phase II Geotechnical Report for Harbor Hills, by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc., dated May 23, 1989; • Road and Storm Drain Plan for Harbor Hills, Sheets 1 through 3, prepared by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., dated March 13, 1987. The information presented in these documents does not effect the conclusions and recommendations presented in our April 6, 1998 Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report. Page 5, Paragraph 3 "The loose to medium dense native sand (glacial outwash) identified by AESI is attributed to weathering, construction disturbances and/or recessional outwash. A more likely scenario is that this material represents soil. which has slumped or flowed downhill from its original location. In our opinion, the risk of future similar earth movement exists, especially under high groundwater. conditions; although, as the area develops, this risk will likely decrease, AESI should comment on this. " We agree that the surficial, loose soils at the site may include material which has been transported down the slope through the years. Such colluvial sediments are often present on'sloping terrain and are not necessarily indicative of landslide debris. Well developed topsoil horizons overlying the loose natural sediments at the site indicate that regardless of their origin, conditions at the site have remained stable for a substantial period of time. Additionally, in accordance with our recommendations, footings for the G proposed house are to be founded upon the underlying, medium dense to dense outwash sands. We agree that the risk of movement has decreased after installation of drainage improvements, and with the apparent reductions in the quantity of ground water in the area. Page 6, Paragraph 3 "...the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are for rockeries supporting cuts only. The geotechnical engineer should review the appropriateness of using rockeries to support fills and, if needed, provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations. The rockery to the north and east of the driveway will suupport road/trail fill, and should not be viewed as cut -slope protection. " In the April 6, 1998 geotechnical report it was recognized that the rockery proposed for the driveway area would be located in an area underlain by fill (Paragraph 4, Page 12 of the report). Recommendations for rockery construction presented in the report have taken into consideration the location of the rockery in an area of existing fill. Some of these recommendations were reiterated in our Geotechnical Plan Review and Minimal Risk Statement letter of May 15, 1998. Page 6, Paragraph 6 "AESI should revisit their risk statement after review of this letter and pre-existing geotechnical data, and revise, if needed. " Upon completion of review of the comments presented in the July 13, 1998 letter by Landau, as well as the above -referenced, pre-existing geotechnical documentation prepared by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc., Cascade Testing Laboratories, Inc., and Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., A is our opinion that the conclusions and recommendations presented in our Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazard, and Geotechnical Engineering Report of April 6, 1998, and our Geotechnical Plan Review and Minimal Risk Statement letter of May 15, 1998 still apply. CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DIVISION COMMENTS (from fax received by Mr. Vern Chase on July 23, 1998) "Geotechnical engineer declaration must be signed and stamped by the engineer", and "Geotechnical engineer statement must indicate a percentage (now says "minimal ") " The Geotechnical Plan Review and Minimal Risk. Statement by AESI, dated May 15, 1998, is to serve as our Geotechnical Declaration. This document is stamped and Z i signed by the engineer.. Probabilities of slope failure occurrences (based on a 25-year return rate) in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds are indicated on The Landslide Hazard Map in the Final "Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc., dated October 16, 1979, revised by. Geo.Engineers, Inc., July 25, 1984. The subject site is located outside of the landslide hazard area indicated on this map. For. this reason, and based on the site specific information obtained for our study, we estimate the 25-year slope failure probability for the subject site to be equal to the minimum value shown on' The Landslide Hazard Map of 2 percent. If you should have any, questions regarding. this letter, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington . -foe Timothy J. Niter, P.G. Senior Staff Geologist TJP/mb KE97321A4 8/1/98 mb - W97 EXPIRES Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Senior Associate Engineer ME 7 JUL-14-98 TUE 11:31 LANDAU TACOMA FAX NO, 2539262531 P, 02 LANDAU A ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotenhnical Sarvlms Ms. Jeannine Graf City of Edrn6nds Community Services Department 250 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds. Washington 98020 SRP �Er July 13, 1998 RE: ( uonCIINIC:AL REVIEW PKOVU5ED CHASE SINGLE FAMTI,Y RESIDENCE LOT No. 9, HARBOR HILTS PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Graf: As requested, Landau Associate has reviewed the geoteehrlical-related aspects of construction Flans and other docutnotas submitted tv the City of Edmonds (City) as part of the building permit application for the subject single family residence. The following document~ were provided for our review by the City-_ • Subsurface Eacploiuliorz, Geologic Hazard and Geolechraical Engineering Report; Chase Residence; Edrnurid , iilashin-ton; propamd.:for Mr. Vern'Chase by As5miatcd Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI), dated April 1998. • Construction Plaits, Sheets 1 through 15, designed by Robert 1. Tiscareno, AiA and drifted by Caladan Design and Development. dated April 21, and May 5 and 8, 1998; Sheets S 1 through S3, prepared by Construction Technologies and dated May 5, 1998. • Grading, Drainage, and T,E.S.C. Plan, Sheets 1 and 2, prepared by Lovell -Sauer] and& Associates. Inc., dated April 17, 1998. • Topographic Survey, Sheet 1, prepared by Lovell -S auerlan d & Associates. Inc., dated September 1, 1989. • Engineeriril; and Drainage Sw inrnry; fbr Ve rnoh Chase, for 9 of Plat of Harhor Hill.,-, 1705 Daley Place, Edmonds, Washingrorr, prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associaless, Inc., dated April 17, 1998. WAPATOC.RFrKPLACE 4210- 24)11iSCRL'lir L. • SUITLF • TACOMA. WA 98424-I6'! {?5.129211-2493^ - nim (253)Qt)-2531 L-htaiF.inlu(;yL.mdauirccnrti i c[monds spoka nc Tacoma JUL-14-98 TUE 11:31 LANDAU TACOMA FAX NO, 2539262531 P,03 • January 7, 1997 letter from Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc., to City of redmonds titled Lot 9, plat of Harbor Hills; determination of slope conditions, • City of Edmonds Stream.Buffer Low Intensity Land Use Restriction e Strewn Buffer Enhancement Pluming Plan, Revised Noeralivt to the Revisc:d13q#r Enhancement Playa avid Stream Pi ffer Low lntensity Land U.rr RrYtriction, prepnrcd by Adolf -ion Assuc-iatrs, Inc., dated March 31, 1998. • 5trewn Buffer Enhancement Drawings, Sheets 1 and 2; prepared by Adolfson Associates. Inc., dated March 31, 1998. • Landscape Plan, Sheet 1, prepared by Allwolth Design group dated April 16, 1998. • Completed City of Edmonds Environmetital Checklist for the proposed residc.ncC. • Geotechnical Plan Review Minimal Risk Statement; Chase Residence, 1105 Daley Pla(:e Edmonds, Wa,chington, prepare by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated May 15, 1999.w•ith U cover letter by Mr. Vern Chase; dated May 19,.1998. In addition, Landau Associates reviewed the civil drawings, Road and Storm I)ruin flan for Harbor Hills. Sheets 1 through 3, prepared by Lovell-Sauerlatnd and dated March 13, 1987, for Lunr,truvtion of Dailey Place. AIso, in 1990 Landau Associales completed geotechnicat 'review of proposed development plans (or and 10 of the Harbor Hills subdivision. Our comments arc Summarized in letters to the Ciry of Edmonds dated April 15, 1993, July6, 1993 and July 23. 1993 (lot 7). October 11, 1990 (Iol 8); June 15, 1940 (lot 9), and ,tune 15 and September 20, 1990 (lot 10), We also reviewed the June 14, l 990 Landau Associates letter to the City which discusses geotechnicat isstkae for three homes along Qlyrtipic Avenue, and till tcn lots of the 10-lot Harbor Hills Subdivision. Much of the 1990 Subdivision correspondence in our report files deals with d inagc clairns by three homeowners along Olympic Avenue, inadequate chary tLr;zation of subdivision -wide geology/hydn)gcvlogy by the original geotechnical consultant for the subdivision (Cascade Testing Laboratory, McXl- wade Geotecluaical), and inconsistencies between earlier reports, drawings, etc. Archived Landau Associates tiles from the early 1990s were not pulled/reviewed for this 1998 Chase geotechnieal review: accordingly; some historical information presented its this letter may be incomplete. GENERAL The subject property is classified as a Steep Slope IIazard Area tinder Chapter 20.15B. Accordingly, our review focuses primarily on the steep slope and laodslidu hazard issues defined within Chapter 20,15B, 07l1198 1APR0IEf"1tiD74\016,101C11A5ERVW 2 LANDAu ASSOCIATES IJUL-14-98 TUE 1112 LAN U TACOMA FAX N0, 2639262631 P,04 Iritcr;n, Critical Areas of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Relevant items from City Ordlnance. 2661 are also covered, where appropriate. Based on review of the site topography map, prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates; slope . gradient; on the property range from approximately 50 to 65 percent in the upper (eastern) portion to about 10 to 15 percent in the lower (western) portion of the site. According to the site plan, most of the. proposed residence and driveway will be located on the north and east portion of the site, where slopes are up to 50 to 65 percent. Review of test pit logs (EP-1 through FP-4), completed by AESI in December 1997. indicate that the site is underlain by about 3 to 10 ft of moist to wet, loose to medium dense, silty sand fr Il an(llor topsoil; over wet to saturated, medium dense, gravelly sand -and silty gravelly sand. Groundwater sccl)age way reported in test pit EP-1 below a depth of 3 ft. Groundwater seepagewas not reported in the other three t.csl pits at the time of field explorations (December 1997)_ AEST dms, not reference any of the prior investigations perfarrtted ci.ther on lot 9, neighboring lots, or the 10-lot subdivision. While site -specific subsurface conditions described by AESI appear reasonably consistent with past work, their interpretation of local gooloa a setting/history of slope instalh;lity rrquires review comment. Specific slope -related comments are covered in the section of this letter entitled "Geotcchnical Rcport." HARBOR HILLS ROAD AND STORlb1 DRAIN PLAN The March 13, 1987 civil drawings for Daley Place indicate that a spring was prosent on the lot 7/lot 9 boundary, at approximate (current) elevation 213 ft, The spring is shown to be near where the nnrtllcaet corner of the proposed residence will be located. Discharge from the sprint; is shown to flow west across lot 9. No mention is made in the geoteelinical mport about this spring. We recommend further investigation into the fate of this spring, since it could have been captured by a burial interceptor drain system. SUA CHECKLIST There are several inconsistencies in the SEPA checklist with respect to geotechnical itoms. Thew are summarized below: B,J.& The applicant states there is no history of unstable Soil in the vicinity_ A buried peat'layer on upslope lot 2, a district head scarp on lots 3. 4 and 5. numerous springs, and irregular Original surface topography were never adequately explained by Cascade Geotechnical. These features, which likely relate to past slope movement, require comment by AES1. 07/t3/98 l.TROJPUr1U74W70.301CHA5E:RVW 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES JUl-14-98 TUE 11:33 LAN4 TACOMA FA% N0, 2539262531 P. 05 B.l.e. The applicant indicates a 300 yd' balanc4tt cut and fill. However, sire. stripping as recommended by AESI will generate in excess of 500 yd' of cut, much of which is clas.cificd as wet or saturated by AE,SI. In our opinion, the applicant should more clearly define the volurnes of soil to be removed from or brought onto the site, since past claims from homeowners along Olympic Avenue TLAItcd primarily to "truck" damage, %GEUTECHNICAI. RRRORT BY AESI In general, Landau Associates agrees with the geotechnical conclusions and recommendations contained in AESI's April 1998 geotechnical report, with the following cominent.5 and cxccptions; The report recommends excavating,411 unsuitable fill soil froin beticath the building at'ea, lout is unclear if'the old topGoil layer (exposed in test pit; l'13_7 through EP-3) should also be rurnuvCd from the entizt; building =-n or from just 6entath footings. We recommend that the geotechnical cnginccr clarify the recommendations for excavation of unsultable soi I in building, areas, including a rnow, accurate assessment of excavation quantities. This Information can then be used by the contractor to manage earthwork goanlities and truck traffic. The geotechnical report allows for temporary excavations to be sloped at IR I V (horizontal to vertical) in fill and native soil. Most of the soil reported in the test pits would, in our opinion, be classified as. Type C per Part N of the Safety Slandards for ionsiruction Work [WasWrigion Administrative Code (WAC) 296-153-650 through 296-155-6641.1J_ The maximum permissible temporary excavation slope'greater than 4 vertical feet in a Type C sail is li/21LIV. Wc. recommend that temporary excavations be in accordance with applicable regulations. The report indicates that sufficient lateral/ space is ovailrible to complete excavations_ liowuvcr, excavation depths to rcrnove.uniuitublc soil beneath building; and footing areas could. extend 9 to 10 ft, or more. Such excavation depths would be deeper than the 8 ft excavation depth assumed in the repast. Assuming a 1 �6'ii:1V cut slope, the lateral extent of the excavations could be as much as 15 to 20 ft, which would,impatct the adjacent property and the pavod walkway at the top of the slope. It appears that either a slope easement will be necessary and/or teiporary Jioring will be needed to limit the extent ofteinppraiy excavations. The geotechnical cnLrincer should Clarify this issue. No recommendations are provided for surcharge loading oh below -grade walls fro,ri adjacent floor slabs andler footings, if they are within the zone of influence of the wall. LV< rccornmend that the geotechnical engineer address this Wiwe, Also, Sheet S1 notes an equivalent fluid pressure 01' 55 pef for the "basement wall," yet AESI calls for 45 pef and 75 pef for yickling and. non -yielding "foundation walls," Iespectively, for the ,:Eist iwd north (?) basemdrt wall:. The geotechnical awl/or structural cnginccr should rerify that proper wall design parameters have been used. • The report recommends a ooeflicient of friction of 0.35, which assumes that disturbed soil beneath any foundation be recompatcted to 95 pcati.ent of the maximum dry density (ASTNI D15j7) for this value to apply. Everywhere else in the report. 90 percent compaction (ASTM U 1557) is recommended. In our opinion, this is somewhat.confusing and may not be interpreted correctly 07/13M i:\PRnJiiC'Arl74\076.101CRAS;P.AVW 4 LANDAu ASSOCIATES ;JUL-14-98 TUE 11 33 LAND U TACOMA FAX NO, 2539262531 P, 06 by the designer, or could be overlooked during construction, We suggest the geotechnical engineer verify that two values are needed verxur applying a single compaction value. • Tho recommended foundation drainage systcrn does not call for wrapping the lira gravel in a non- woven geotextile for separation. This is typical for construction of foundation drains in the area. We recommend that the recommendations be armcnded to include. a non -woven geotextue for separation. • As previously noted, 1980s and early 1990s geotechnical information is available for the subdivision, nearby lots, and lot 9. This information should.be available through die City, and is background information which we believe should be reviewed by AESI. While it is our opinion such a review m:.ty not substantially alter AFSI's conclusions and recnmmendations, as the geotechnical engineer of record for,the project this information should bt, in their project file. The loose to Ynedium dense native sand (glacial outwash) identified by AESI is attributed to weathering, construction disturbances and/or rewssional outwash. A more likely scenario is that this material represents soil whlcli has slumped ter flowed downhill from ils original location. In our opinion, the risk of future similar earth niovetilent exists, especially under high groundwater conditions; although, as the area develops, this risk will likely decrease. AF.S1 ihould comment on this. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS The following are comments on the Constriction Plans, Sheets 1 through 15, designed by Rohcrl I. Tiscareno, AIA and drafted by Crindan Design and M-vrlvprncnt dated April 21, and May 5 and 8, 1998; and Sheets Sl through S3, prepared by Construction Technologies and dated May 5, 1999: • The geotechnical report provides specific recommendations for site preparation,including removal and replacement of unsuitable soil beneath building areas and driveways. In our opinion: the drawings do not adequately reference the requiremunts of the geotechnical report (e.g., 'offsite disposal of excavated fill and loose native soil from the building area). We recommend that the drawings be amended to reflect the recommendations of die gcotachnical report. • Exterior foundation detail P 2 is not shown, an Shext 2. The detail should ku. :acicted to the drawing_ The footing drain shown on Details A2 and B2 on Shutt 2 rue not very clear, and do not reflect the ditrinage systotn recommended in the geowvhnical report. The details Should be revised to he consistent with the geotechnical report. CRADLNG, DRAINAGE, T.E.S.C. PLAN The following provides our comments on the Grading, Drainage, and T.E.S.C. Plan, Sheets 1 and 2, ;prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc., dated April 17, 1998: • Sheet 1 indicates excavation quantities at 200 yd3, and fill volumes at 250 ytl'. With removal of unsuitable soil from beneath the building; and driveway, the excavation and fill quantities will 07113N8 TAPk0kCn0741076.101CHAS£.RVW LANDAU A6gociATES JUL-14-98 TUE 11;34 LAN U TACOMA FAX NO, 2539262531 P,07 exceed those estimated on Sheet 1. The civil cng inC4r should verify the cst.imawd excavation and fill quantities. + Foundation drain lines, cleanouts, and connection to the site storm drain sy5tecn are not clearly shown on Figure 1. Drains for rockeries are not Shown.. We recommond that the civil engineer verify that the proper layout of drains is shown, and that the drawings be revised, as rimiud. Shot t shows the silt fence along the Stream at the top of the bank. Sheet i or tlic Construction Drawings shows the stre.-un buffer at 12.5 ft from the top of bank. The 1989 topographic survey (Lovell-Sauerland) requin,.s a 15-ft setback from the top of the bank, which is to be determined at the tine of the building permit application. As shown, the silt fence would he wilhin the stream buffer. The required setback and the location of the silt fence should be verified. Several of thy. planned rockeries appear that they wil', exceed 4 ft in total height. Sheets 1 mid 2 state that a rockery higher than 4 ft requires a suparate building permit. Has the owner appl;cd for a &eparate building permit for rockeries? In our opinion, all critical Qvnironrntr i,( the planned development should be completed under a single building; permit, to ensure they arc completed in a timely fashion. In addition, the rccornmendadons contained in the geotechnical report are for rockeries supporting QjjL_j only. The geotechnical engineer should review the apllropriatcnuss of using rockeries to support fills and, if needed, provide suppkomcntal geotechnical recommendations. The rockery to the north and east of Lh< driveway will support road/trail fill, and should not be viewed as cut -slope protection. • The geoteclinieal report provides additional recommendations pertaining to rockeries. The rockery detail on Sheet 2 should reference the additional recommendations in the geotechnical report. .STREAM BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN The detail for the silt fence on Sheet 2 is inconsistent with the detail on Sheet 2 of the Grading, Drainage, and T.E.S.C. Flan prepared by Lovell•Saucrland. We, recommend that die detail he cunsisicnt with that on the Grading, Drainage, and T.E.S.C. Plan. STEEP SLOPE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD AFSi ,ihould revisit their risk statement after review of this letter and pet -existing gernechnicai data, and revise, if needed, CLOSURE; Within the limitations of sciipe, schedule, and budget, our geotechnical rcvicw U1'd(XUrnents submitted to the City of Edmonds for the proposed single family residence was completed in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principicg::land practices in this area at the time this haler wits prepared. We make no other warranty either express or implied. 07/13/99 IAPROJEC R07406. UKI IASLi,RVw 6 LANDAu ASSOCIATES JUL-14-88 TUE 11:35 LAND U TACOMA FAX NO, 2539262531 P,08 I H questions arise concerning this review, please direct them to one of the undersigned at (253) 926- 2493. Thank you for the %portunity to be of sarvice to the City of Edmonds on this project. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: Edward I Heavey, P.E. 5cnior Engineer and William D. Evans, CPG Associate WI)2/EJWdjs No. 74076.10 07/13/98 LTR0JECM741076.IMCH.409F.,RVW 7 LANDAU AssoaATFs 4PC.1890 • CITY 'OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EOMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) T71.6220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant STREET FELF January 27, 1998 WHOM Vernon and Barbara Chase MAY 1 l 1998 8700 SW White Court Portland, OR 97225-6440 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Chase: This letter is in regards to critical areas checklist CA-95-88 and the letter from Jeffrey Treiber, at Lovell Sauerland and Associates dated January 7, 1998 regarding lot 9, Daley Place. The city has given this site an address of 1105 Daley Place. Though we disagree in part with Lovell Sauerland and Associate's methodology, we concur with them that the site appears not'to have any steep•slope hazard areas. Therefore, no steep slope buffers or other restrictions will apply. Because the site contains Alderwood soils on 15 to 25 percent slopes, erosion control measures will still be required. The site also has a stream on or adjacent to it, and I understand that you are continuing to work on a buffer plan or variance for that critical area. If you need anything further or have any, questions, please call me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Meg Gruwell Planner cc: CA-95-88 • Incorporated August 11,` 1890 • Sister Cities International -- Hekinan. Janan 1� l 19400 33rd Ave. W., Suite 200 Lovell-Sauerland Lynnwood, Washington 98036 ® (425) 775-1591 ® ® & Associates, Inc. (800) 775-7663 Engineers/Surveyors/ PlannerV Development Consultants FAX: (425) 672-7998 January 7, 1997 LSA No. 3826 City of Edmonds 121 6th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Meg Gruell Subject: Lot 9, plat of Harbor Hills; determination of slope conditions We have been contacted by Mr. Vernon Chase regarding your letter of December 23, 1997. The letter indicated that a licensed professional land"surveyor could judge whether portions of the subject property should be classified as a steep slope, as defined in ECDC Section 20.15B.060.A.3.c. The definition states that "Steep slope hazard areas" means any ground that rises at an inclination of 40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet:- It goes on to say that a slope is delineated by establishing its toe and. top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 20 feet of vertical relief. It is my opinion that the slope on this property does not qualify for the steep slope designation for the following reasons: The steep part of the site does not include 20 feet of vertical elevation change. In September 1989 Lovell-Sauerland prepared a topographic, survey of the lot. Field data was collected at both the top and the toe of the, slope. The highest . spot elevation at the top of the slope was 218.55. The spot elevations at the toe of the slope range between 201.2 and 202..2. These give a vertical elevation change in the steep part of the lot of between 17.35 and 16.35 feet, which are below the threshold value. 2. Prior to the construction of Daley Place, the site had no steep slopes. In 1984 Lovell-Sauerland surveyed the property in anticipation of the platting process which created Harbor Hills. Based on the topographic map prepared at that time, the steepest part of the area that eventually became Lot 9 has a slope'of less. than 23 percent. This is evidence that the steep slopes now on the site were a direct result of the construction of Daley Place. Copies of the topographic maps can be provided to you if you require them. If you have any questions please call me, or Craig Campbell if I am not available. Sincerely, r 14e.1590 .12-23-971 ; 2:14PM CITY OF ED D54 15032929525.; CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 8TM AVENUE NORTH • EDMCNDS WA 89020 • (428) 771•C220 • PAX (425) 771.0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Plarning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant December 23, 1997 Mr. Vernon W. Chase 8704 SW White Court, No. 101 Portland, OR 97225 via facsimile: (503) 292-9525 No. pages: 3 Dear Mr. Chase: This letter is in response to your letter of December 191 1997, regarding Lot 9 in Daley Subdivision. In that letter you asked two general questions. Regarding the steep slope area, we had asked you to have a surveyor tell us whether there was a steep slope on the site or not. In my preliminary calculations, it appeared to me that a portion of the site qualified as a steep slope area, but when John Bissell looked at the topography map, he thought that a surveyor ntight conclude that there was not an area qualifying as a steep slope. We will rely on the judgment of a surveyor licensed in the state of Washington and using the definition of steep slope hazard areas from Edmonds Community. Development Code Section 20.15B.060A.3.c. (see attached) to tell us if -there is a steep slope hazard area on the site. If there is a steep slope, the surveyor should delineate the toe of the slope, the buffer area, and the building setbacks. The buffer area is typically 50 feet, but can be reduced to 10 feet if a geotechnical engineer determines that that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse ifnpact'upon the site, the public or any private party (see ECDC 20.15B.110.A attached). Tha building setback is in addition, to the buffer, and is always 15 feet in width. If the surveyor determines that there is a steep slope hazard area which :Hakes the lot difficult to develop, you can apply for a variance and/or reasonable use exception. 'Regarding the. second question, you are welcome to submit the materials you have. developed for our review. We have done very few buffer averaging reviews, and one that was done was part of a subdivision proposal. As yours will be related to a building permit and the Building department will Kant to see that any discretionary permits have been taken care of prior to your applying for a building permit, we will probably just review the buffer averaging proposal as a stand-alone critical areas review. I know of no fees associated with that review. We can also check the geotechnical engineer/soils report to see if it has the information which the Planning department will need. This will not be the same review as when a building permit is applied for, at which point further information may be needed by the Building department. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Meg Planner cc: File CA-95-88 • Incorporored August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan. Japan 3ENT BY.: 2-23-97 : 2:14Ph1 CITY OF EUVnNQSi 1:03292952�;" 4�1o. is9v CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TM AVENUE NOP7H • EOMCNOS WA 9902C • (425) 7r•C220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 !v1AvpR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT POW Works • Plarning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment ?!ant December 23, 1997 Mr. Vernon W. Chase 8700 SW White Court, No. 101 Portland, OR 97225 via facsimile: (503) 292-9525 No. pages: 3 Dear Mr. Chase: This letter is in response to your letter of December 19, 1997, regarding Lot 9 in Daley Subdivision. In that letter you asked two general questions. Regarding the steep slope area, we had asked you to have a surveyor tell us whether there was a steep slope on the site or not. In my preliminary calculations, it appeared to me that a portion of the site qualified as a steep slope area, but when John Bissell looked at the topography map, he thought that a surveyor might conclude that there was not an area qualifying as a steep slope. We will rely on the judgment of a surveyor licensed in the state of Washington and using the definition of steep slope hazard area from Edmonds Community Development Code Section 20.15B.060.A.3.c. (see attached) to tell us if there is a steep slope hazard area on the site. If there is a steep slope, the surveyor should delineate the toe of the slope, the buffer. area. and the building setbacks. The buffer area is typically 50 feet, but can be reduced to 10 feet if a geotechnical engineer determines that that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party (see ECDC 20.15B.11 O.A attached). The building setback is in addition to the buffer, and is always 15 feet in width. If the surveyor detenuines that there is a steep slope hazard area which rnakes the lot difficult to develop, you can apply for a variance and/or reasonable use exception. Regarding the second question, you are welcome to submit the materials you have developed for our review. We have done very few buffer averaging reviews, and one that was done was part of a. subdivision proposal. As yours will be related to a building permit and the Building department will want to see that any discretionary permits have been taken care of prior to your applying for a building permit, we will probably just review the buffer averaging proposal as a stand-alone critical areas review. I know of no fees associated with.that review. We can also check the gootechnical engineer/soils report to see if it has the information which the Planning department will need. This will not be the same review as when a building permit is applied for, at which point further information may be needed by the Building department. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Mewg ell Planner cc: File CA-95-88 0 Incorporored Augus., 11, 189-0 • Sister Cities Interna!iona! — Hekinan. Japan TREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS BARBA A FAHEY %l 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant j�c. 18°IO December 4, 1997 Mr. Donald C. Cramer 1110 Daley Pl. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Cramer: This letter is in response to your letter of November 30, 1997, sent to the Director of the Building Department, regarding potential development on the lot to the west of you on Daley Place. Our address for the lot I believe you are referring to, which is between the vacant lot on the corner where Daley Place turns and the developed lot at 1107 Daley Place, is 1105 Daley Place. The lot on the corner is 1103 Daley Place. No building permits have been applied for or issued for either of those two lots. As you mentioned in your letter, the lot at 1105 Daley Place has a number of constraints, including the small stream on its south side, the pond and stream to the west, and the slope up to Daley Place. The current prospective purchaser is in the process of having some studies and surveys done to determine the extent of the limitations those critical areas place on the property. I suspect that anyone who decides to build on the lot will probably have to request a variance or reasonable use exception to our critical areas ordinance, in which case a hearing would be held and all property owners within 300 feet of 1105 Daley Place would be mailed a notice of the hearing two weeks prior to the date and would be given an opportunity to comment. If the owner requested a variance to the height or setback requirements, the property owners within 300 feet would also be notified and could comment at a hearing. There is a slim chance that the studies could determine the critical areas are not as severe as they currently seem, and by averaging the buffer on the stream, the owner might be able to construct a home without requesting any variances or other permits that would trigger a mailed notice being required. In that case, the owners would simply need a building permit. Because this site is subject to Edmonds Community Development Code 19.05 (Building Permits -- Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas), the owner is required to post a notice on the site when they apply for a building permit, and the building permit application will be available for your review. You stated that you were interested in determining the height of a potential structure at 1105 Daley Place. Our current regulations only allow a house to be 25 feet tall, which we measure from the average grade. Average grade is the average of the elevations (from undisturbed ground) taken at the four corners of the smallest rectangle that can be shrunk around the footprint of the proposed house. In this particular zone, structures must be set back 25 feet from street and rear property lines, and 10 feet from side property lines. I am enclosing a portion of a survey of the lot, which may help you to see where the house could be located without obtaining a ® Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • ® Lovell-Sauerland I & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants City of Edmonds 121 6th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Meg Gruell 0 Subject: Lot 9, plat of Harbor Hills; determination of slope conditions 19400 33rd Ave. W., Suite 200 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 775-1591 (800) 775-7663 FAX: (425) 672-7998 January 7, 1997 LSA No. 3826 We have been contacted by Mr. Vernon Chase regarding your letter of December 23, 1997. The letter indicated that a licensed professional land surveyor could judge whether portions of the subject property should be classified as a steep slope, as defined in ECDC Section 20.15B.060.A.3.c. The definition states that "Steep slope hazard areas" means any ground that.rises at an inclination of 40 percent or more within a vertical elevation change of at least 20 feet. It goes on to say that a slope is delineated by establishing its toe and top and measured by averaging the inclination over at least 20 feet of vertical relief. It is my opinion that the slope on this property does not qualify for the steep slope designation for the following reasons: The steep part of the site does not include 20 feet of vertical elevation change. In'September 1989.Lovell-Sauerland prepared a topographic survey of the lot. Field data was collected at both the top and the toe of the slope. The highest spot elevation at the top of the slope was 218.55. The spot elevations at the toe of the slope range between 201.2 and 202.2. These give a vertical elevation change in the steep part of the lot of between 17.35 and 16.35 feet, which are below the threshold value. 2. Prior to the construction of Daley Place, the site had no steep slopes. In 1984 Lovell-Sauerland surveyed the property in anticipation of the platting process which created Harbor Hills. Based on the topographic map prepared at that time, the steepest part of the area that eventually became Lot 9 has a slope of less than 23 percent. This is evidence that the steep slopes now on the site were a direct result of the construction of Daley'Place. Copies of the topographic maps can be provided to you if you require them. If you have any questions please call me, or Craig Campbell if I am not available. Sincerely, r3 1 F ti ci sawmicumon provided based upon said map.. - ....1"6w' ""' wr any oral CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT ADDRESS: PERMIT Q' 1105 DALEY PL NO. 980667 CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALEi XXXXXX XXXXX NTS DATE INSPECTED1 INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BYi 06-02-1999 S.HIGHLAND 1 07-18-07 J.TRIEU caovr w'o�+i+» �an'v wci iii ('QM SGIVUvdG�;& 1.'d`ld S�-IIM T�Ofl2i'v'H o A 10-1 �1JJ.V35 �,�=Pun �I o': :Il';°;�:� — ��1�1 G I G2N GS`d H .... �H1. myrrra �wc�o..wn�eate) AG Q2ygI9;ui bo-i SNOIld71d173d5 cw SNdld - . . . . . . y . O • 2 Y i 1 2 c` 0 � c I 4 1_ a Nvs nrov anwo mYwoic ►- of Llb 6 O cc �<� J pt Q.. c 0 z°W T9W� Z LL� K LL ; Q OJO� z � ono=o JwJJ P 9 z sos< &)5- tea1e41pz ST PEET RECEIVED SEP 01.2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF.. EDMONDS �U�LD1N MAY 11 1�y STREET FEE.F. a .A Q l CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICATION " oetss CONSTR UCTION PERMIT »,✓r. - NaarE.,AS,, cr -ti" ss v Eat % aii/u . Z�Jt/ES1. .lc.: o(`%r III yS L.ia "J , �'` lLa waan:^ a»t oa w.. ace or .' �✓. n »ass ZSi f w ,.� u / 0 r d �• r- o.a 4tn T'io .rw,.ao st»io �— tl/ .n o,e yo 1z (psi) •pU/G ]G /;�VH f2 Ln r : e»Urra .I unlu�` / .L/IiNq U.0 �-�•� 5��-- �,��tcm �k0��-' v,� ,.u,� LNG a•GhtA ... .uoar . //y�.�s ' �� ZI 15w ?.-, � � [JL mate»om nvveae o N wv u.11u c a.wtluNoa !,Q emolovees. and !gems .w,.. _... _ p clly 1rv.., 1p whatever n nia Derma !hell not be deemed ^ / •� 1, it afore, arismq peachy or ;n Ire TOTAL AMOUNT DUE LIY •l ' of this permit, Issuance oft eounem en' of any c.lY ohjih nh_ I moddv, wane or rep me D�t"� at.I Y to enforce any ordmance APPLICATION APPROVAL at 4'•,+, nor Emit In any waY canon: that the ATTENTION It2 provision:' Ina duW •ry' �``.' knowledge that 1 nave r<a0 Ihia appl' .» s •r.O4 • Thia appli<atipn Is not a Dermlt until I t� I nerebY ec to city and sgrrd LW the BWldmq O^Kul or nnmer Intprmetipn given la correct: !halt OQreC to teomplYewlpr t ol,the owner, aor.a• r•- Deputy'. end toes sCee av •�" celpt n -, Autnonred age^ p ;n vw�r.•on of the lax' wnv, naco acanowlodgd,,h Istlnq conatructlon: and In doing Inn work aulnonz 444 O etalelawsr00v II be emplOYe „sotC'd {�ry ed thereby, no oeoon wi oee•e+vr.. Code of the State OlSC`V 187 on rClannq lO WO n. es`Comoc CITY Linn In -ranee ou ,v CALL.Ds 10 j CALLFOR Z. I `' ^] INSPECTION , _ mspec:or r j NTION R sTRvctuRE %%1-0220 oalcrvu. vELtO'� ATTE a oOeurY A BAILS p%0A^RROVAL O el 0 _e OOLn AW cuL TO USiiO AS 0E wN NAOE RAN ED. U00 IT U 15 VNL NS.ED AS BEEN D T 1 - ^NtIL AFINAL OCCUPANCY �� L/�/ // -' . ^»• r . CERtI[ CAtE O' L ✓ I V ' SEa.TIUN tb9 R SI T T AVW IMra1tn1 >s0s z = Z m s�m�i N NASA Q iyu'm �m�z >O A�I6-�ya Q66 > �1> s> NZzZZ gg R Mo Z Z m5 }� C) z �tilla .Ell RE eras+ Itl' II1E11 TJLO' a 11A. g y AREA —JL ^rau,0eteeKa.wu_ — — MN R b a Y I _ I d Z L Z • t • G 6 . • . • • ♦ • - PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR I6N=D 6Y (LEW Mm "wa '&#u OR""= Dr. g A art L.Tlocar.no, AIA Caladen o T r/ I I A✓ E I� E 5 I= E I �l G E J5Z BOYG1! AVOWC G5T Desip md �el� seAine M. ICI I 411 Isn. Ave. KV*J,", M. RbM LOT 29 0 WARBOR iJILL S PLAT =DMONDS WA ,, �I a.�-.ze _.,_._....,._..-_ -- PLANNING DATA NAME: SITE ADDRESS: X&Z C'I-DATE: -T� ZONING: �� ' l2 PLAN CHK#: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CORNER LOT _(Yes/No) SETBACKS: FLAG LOT /V (Yes/No) Required Setbacks: Front:�Z5_ Left Side: l0 Right Side: /, Rear: Actual Setbacks: Front: Left Side:_Right Side:hRear:_ Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes/No) LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED (Y/N) LOT COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed:,' _d _ jActual:_aq l a BUILDING HEIGHT: / Maximum Allowed: Actual Height: L5 Datum Point: - Datum Elevation: A.D.U. CREATED?: SUBDIVISION: CRITICAL AREAS #:_ SEPA DETERMINATION: kvy LOT AREA:_9 a17 Plan Review By: c.Tt1e3*rmnk^p1andaLaa • 0 ENGINEERING AND DRAINAGE SUMMARY FOR VERNON CHASE Lot 9 of Plat of Harbor Hills 1105 Daley Place Edmonds, Washington April 17, 1998 Prepared By: Robert Long Reviewed By: n EXPIRES 7/4/98 1 LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19400 33rd Avenue W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 LSA No. 3826 • 0 INTRODUCTION This report was prepared to support the building permit application submission to City of Edmonds for the construction of a single family'residence on Lot 9 of the plat of Harbor Hills. The primary issues of concern are to address detention of the on -site storm drainage run-off and the 100 year flood plain of the existing drainage course on -site. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site location. The site is.in the NE 1/4 of section 24, Township 27, Range 3, W.M. The city has designated the site address to be 1105 Daley Place. The southeast corner of the site is about 330 feet west on Daley Place from the intersection of Olympic Avenue and Daley Place. It has about 63 feet of frontage on Daley Place. Site description. The site consists of one irregularly shaped lot, about 150 feet deep and 85 feet wide. Its long axis lies in the east -west direction. The area of the site is about 0.28 acres. Topographically the site generally slopes from the high point on the east property line down to the low on the west property line. The elevation drop from east to west is about 28 feet, giving an average slope of 25 percent. In the north -south direction the.site has little variation in elevation. From the SCS soils survey for Snohomish County, the designated soil is Alderwood sandy gravelly loam. Proposed project. The current proposal is to construct a single-family residential and driveway that would create about.4000 square feet of impervious surface. - Detention for the increase in run-off will be provided using the City of Edmonds "standard/preferred plan approach". Per the design criteria the calculated detention system would consists of a 32 linear feet of 24" pipe with a 7/8" outlet orifice diameter. The private drainage system will be located on the west half of the site. All of the proposed impervious surfaces will be collected and conveyed to the private drainage system. Discharges from the system will be conveyed to an existing yard drain on -site that was provided during the original platting of Harbour Hills. The contractor must verify the existing invert elevation of the yard drain prior to construction. 100 Year Flood Plain. An existing drainage course is located along the south and west property line. A minimum 15 foot building setback from the top of bank is required by the city. The total collection area of the drainage basin.is approximately 10.5 acres off -site and ' an additional 0.5 acres from the site's plat, totaling about 11.0 aces. The drainage course along the along the south property line is steeply sloped at approximately 8% and is rock lined with a base width of 2.0 feet and a depth of 1.5 feet. Near the southwest property corner the drainage course turns northward and continues along the west property line. The drainage course along the west property line is estimated to slope at 1.0% with a width of 4.0 feet and a depth of 2.0 feet. Based on a field investigation of the drainage course and talking with the neighbors it was determined that there has been no recent drainage or flooding problems with the drainage. Vernon Chase-- LSA No. 3826 ' Lovell-Sauerland.and Associates Page 2 The nearest constriction on the flow path is located at the point where the drainage enters the closed pipe network along Olympic Avenue, approximately 110 feet west of the site. This intake point is at least 10.0 feet below the site. If flooding were to occur due to this constriction it would overtop the road before the flooding would reach the property. Therefore the controlling factor on the 100 year flood plain would be the channel dimensions. The estimated 100 year flood level calculations for both drainage courses along the south and west property lines are attached. By examination of the topography the flood level would not create any impacts on the proposed building. ATTACHMENTS A. Site Plan B. City of Edmonds "Standard Drainage Detention System Worksheet" C. City of Edmonds Development Information "Drainage System Standards" D. 100 Year Flow Calculations with Drainage Course Channel Dimensions STAND4D DRAINAGE DETENJWN SYSTEM WORKSHEET OWNER &a.662h/ CK460E CALC BY: Z6E97' I -A VG ' =NC, ADDRESS e700 S. W, Wf{1TF CaaT PHONE: &46) 775 - 195/ Q 2TLAND 02 9?ag5 DATE: A40 04 *****DESIGN DATA IMPERVIOUS AREA PIPE DIA PIPE LG ORIFICE -7/ JIF DETENTION PIPE LENGTH LOCKING LID (TYPICAL) FINISHED G MINIMUM TIGHTLI E 6' MIN CLLEARANCE OF ORIS .5% TO 1% SLOPE CONCUBOX ORMEAS RP 0 OUTLET -may OUTLET CONTROL 9MIN. UPPER CATCH BASIN ORIFICE CONTROL CATCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION 2'X2'X6' .DEEP, 4-6' SPALLS OR EOUAL FROM CONTROL CB 2'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK EXISTING GRADE in OCK FROM CONTROL OUTLETMCH OW TRENCH, MIN 10' LONG. PIPE TO BE LEVEL PIPE W/ END CAPS SHALL BE LINED WITH MIRAFI PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF WASHED DRAIN ROCK RIFRAP OUTLET RUNOFF SPREADER -TRENCH FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED Y O DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tighdine and detention system inspection APPROVED BY before backfilling and for final inspections. 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice DATE must be kept open at all times. 6 . . city of edmonds . development information Drainag Y�S stem Standards The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) (Chapter 18.30) requires special. drainage control on all developments with over 2,000 square feet of new impervious covering. Development means: 1. A building or other construction permit for a development with more than 2,000 square feet of impervious surfacing. 2: A grading, rockery or retaining wall permit. 3. Final approval of a subdivision or PRD. Before issuance of any development permit and before development begins on any site, the developer must submit a drainage plan and obtain approval from the Engineering Division. The drainage system shall be installed concurrently with site development and shall be ' completed as shown on the approved plan. Development exceeding 5,000 square feet of impermeable surface must have the drainage plan prepared and stamped by a licensed civil engineer. Any plan for a project located in a critical drainage area, in an environmentally sensitive area, or on a site presenting special problems, must be prepared and stamped by a licensed civil engineer, regardless of the impervious area ' on that site. All other developments not exceeding 5,000 square feet of impermeable surfacing may use standard plans. The remainder of this document describes the standard plans. Preprinted sheets for preparing standard plans are included in this packet. If you have questions of a technical nature, please call the Hydraulics Engineer at (206) 771-0220. The standard plan approach uses an enclosed subsurface detention system discharging at an acceptable outfall location. Any other type of plan must be prepared by a licensed engineer. There is no assurance that the proposal )Qu submit will be subsequently approved. DRNGREQR.DOC Revised 3/26/96 • :. 1 "t. • fM T .Submit four (4) drainage plans to scale, preferably at a scale of 1" =10' or 1"=20' on an 11" x 17" or larger drawing sheet. Most applicants use the grading or plot plan submitted with their building permit. The following elements must be included with the drainage plan: 1. Show locations where concentrated surface water enters the property, the route it now takes through the property, and the locations where it leaves the property. A description of the type and magnitude of flow should be noted on the plan. For example, "intermittent flow during storms in shallow .grass swale". Show all other surface waters. 2. Show locations and scaled dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and other impervious surfaces. 3. Show the route and the types of channel to be provided for any concentrated flow that is to be changed. Note that structures are to be set back at least ten (10) feet from any closed drainage facility and fifteen (15) .feet from the top of bank of any channel, pond, or stream. Additional setbacks or native growth protection easements may be required through the SEPA process. Structures must be at least one (1) foot above the maximum water level in the channel.. Work in streams, ponds, or channels require a State Department of Fisheries or Department of Wildlife hydraulics permit. 4. Profile the elevations of the existing utilities and proposed drainage system (inverts, pipe sizes and ground cover). 5. Topography shall be shown: If surface water enters the property from off site. Plan must show all drainage areas that contribute surface water to the site. Contour interval shall be two (2) feet. However, five (5) feet may be acceptable in some cases. (Aerial photos with five (5) foot intervals are available from the City.) 6. Show all improvements or other methods of handling surface water runoff in accordance with the requirements of Section 18.30.060 of the ECDC and this handout (see Standard Plan Detention System). 7. A temporary sediment and erosion control plan is required. Section 18.30.050 of the ECDC delineates the requirements of the plan. The location of the sediment and erosion control practices or devices and the limits of disturbed area must be shoNN n on the plan view. Examples of temporary sediment and erosion control practices and devices include: I DRNGREQR.DOC Revised 3i26/96 2 a) Earth dike diversion to route clean off -site water around the disturbed area b) Filter fabric fence c) Straw bale barriers d) Stabilized construction entrance e) Temporary seeding practices f) Practices used to minimize soil exposure Details of the sediment and erosion control devices are to be provided with the drainage plan. 8. A sequence of construction must be provided. The sequence must stipulate that the tempora s .diment and erosion measures will be in place and inspected prior to any construction or site clearing. Furthermore, it must address the requirement for the sediment and erosion control practices and/or devices to be maintained until the permanent vegetation is established. 9. Calculations must be submitted when plans are prepared by a civil engineer. The detention work sheet must be completed and submitted when standard plans are used. Select the outflow location. It must be low enough to allow the detention pipe to drain completely. a) If a public storm drain or public drainage ditch is within or adjacent to the property, direct the outflow pipe to these facilities. b) When there is no public system available, direct the outflow to a well defined drainage channel that drains through the area to be developed. The outlet pipe and the channel at the discharge location must be within the property. 2. Locate the underground detention pipe. The detention pipe must be placed downhill so that all impermeable surface on the site can be detained. 3. Indicate tightlines from roof drains and driveway drains through the system to the outflow location. Roof drains shall not be piped into footing drains. Roof drains or footing drains shall not be connected to the sanitary sewer. Footing drains should not connect to the surface water system except in unstable slope. areas where groundwater recharge is discouraged. (Discharging groundwater through footing drains to storm water systems can impact fish resources by reducing the low flow volumes of water in streams.) DRNGREQR.DOC Revised 3/26/96 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4. Complete detention work sheet. a) .. Compute the impermeable surface area that will drain to the detention system and enter on the detention work sheet. b) Indicate the detention pipe diameter and specify the required detention pipe length for impermeable surface area using Table 1. Enter the pipe diameter and length on the work sheet. c) Indicate the required outlet orifice size for the impermeable surface area using Table 2. Enter the outlet orifice size on the work sheet. Maintenance of Detention Systems Material must be removed from the catch basins and detention pipe to prevent clogging, especially at the outlet control system. Catch basins should be cleaned at least twice per year. Frequent catch basin cleaning will reduce the need for the more difficult task of cleaning the detention pipe. The system should be kept clean during construction. Material must be . physically removed and not just flushed downstream. DRNGREQR.DOC Revised 3/26/96 2 LE Table 1 — Detention Pipe Sizes Impermeable Required Area Sq. Ft. Vol Cu Ft 2000 50 2500 62 3000 75 3500 87 4000 100 4500 112 5000 125 Note: Allowable Pipe Materials: Impermeable Area Sq. Ft. 2000_ ' 2500 3000 .3500 I 4000 4500 5000 Pipe Diameter 15" 18" 24" 30" 40 28 16 10 50 35 20 13 60 42 24 15 Required pipe 70 49 28 18 length in feet 80 56 32 21 90 63 36 .23 100 70 40 25 Reinforced Concrete Aluminized Steel Aluminum CMP Asphalt Coated N-12 ADS (Not permitted on roads) Table 2 — Outlet Orifice Sizes Outlet Orifice Diameter (Inches) 5/8 5/8 3/4 3/4 7/8 7/8 7/8 Table 3 — Rectangular Catch Basin Requirements Detention Max. size pipe diameter knockout < 18" 20" 18" to 24" 26" 24" to 36" 36" 36" to 42" 42" *Source: Assoc.. Sand & Gravel Co. Standards Catch Basin Type Type I, CB 15 Type IL, C1316 Type II, CB 19 19 (48" Basin) Type II, CB 19 19 (54." Basin) 5 Revised 3/16/95 j E 100 Year Flow Calculations with Drainage Course Channel Dimensions 100 year basin flow: Rational Method: Q=ciA rQ = (0.50)(1.6)(11.0) Q = 8.8 cfs 1 Solve for depth in channel D=? Mannings Eq.: Q = (1.49xQ)/n x (R)"2/3 x S^1/2 R = Area / wetted perimeter Along South Property Line Approx. Slope = 8% Rock -Lined: n =0.040 ' Channel Dimensions Base = 2.0 ft. Max. Depth = 1.5 ft. rApprox. side slopes 3:1 D = 0.50 ft. = 12 in. r - d El r ' Vernon Chase-- LSA No. 3826 rLovell-Sauerland and Associates Area(A) = 11.0 Ac. c = 0.50 ; 4-6 dwelling units per Ac. i,00 = 1.60 ; tc = 30 min. West Property tine Approx. Slope = 1 % Grass -Lined: n = 0.035 Channel Dimensions Base = 4.0 ft. Max. Depth = 2.0 ft. Approx. side slopes 3:1 D = 0.61 ft. = 7.3 in. viSTA y w•rI i JI nb d . y',, �, •� Iy CASCADE DR,./ c X. r • SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CHASE RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR Mr. Vern Chase PROJECT NO. G97321A APRIL 1998 CORPORATE OFFICE 911 Fifth Avenue, suite 100 ASSOCIATED Kirkland, Washington 98033 • . (425) 827-7701 , ��l��i�� EARTH FAX (425) 827-5424 SCIENCES, iric. IN pw BAINBRIDGE ISLAND OFFICE 179 Madrone Lane North Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 (206) 780-9370• FAX (206) 780-9438 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION, GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT CHASE RESIDENCE 1105 DALEY PLACE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON April 6, 1998 Project No. G97321A F =: I. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS f 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic hazard and geotechnical engineering study for the proposed Chase residence. The location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The proposed building location and approximate locations of the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the site and exploration plan, Figure 2. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the structure are planned, the conclusions' and recommendations presented in this , report should be reviewed and modified, or verified, as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be used in the design and development of the subject project. Our study included a review of available geologic literature, excavation of exploration pits, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow ground water conditions. Geotechnical engineering studies were also conducted to determine the type of suitable foundation, allowable foundation soil bearing pressures, anticipated settlements, retaining wall lateral pressures, and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current field work and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authorization Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Vern Chase. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated December 1, 1997. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. Vern Chase and his 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 a report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. It must be understood that no recommendations or engineering design can yield a- guarantee of stable slopes. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE -DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding of the project based on a topographic plot plan of the site prepared by Lovell-Sauerland and Associates, Inc., dated September 1, 1989, and design sketches of the. proposed structure prepared by the architect, Robert L. Tiscareno, dated March 4, 1998. Present plans call for a 2-story over daylight basement, 3,257 square foot structure, to use conventional wood frame construction with a slab on grade floor planned for the daylight basement. The floor of the daylight basement is planned at elevation 192 and will. require a cut of approximately 7 feet along the east side. The lot occupies an area of approximately 12,000 square feet, and slopes downward toward the .west-southwest, with a total elevation change across the property of approximately 35 feet.. The slope gradient in the upper, eastern portion of the site, ranges from approximately 50 to 65 percent, while those in the lower, western portion of the site range from approximately 10 to 15 percent. The property is bounded to the south by a drainage Swale; beyond :which, lies a vacant lot. The drainage Swale continues along the western margin of the site, beyond, which lies a residence. The -property is bounded to the north by an asphalt pedestrian path, beyond which lies another residence.'' And the eastern border of the site occupies approximately 65 feet of frontage along -Daley Place. Vegetation on the site consists, of moderately thick, natural undergrowth. . 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our, field. study included. excavating a series of exploration pits and, conducting a geologic reconnaissance to gain information about the site. . The various types of sediments as well as the depths where the characteristics of the sediments change are included on the exploration logs presented in the: Appendix.. The depths indicated on the logs where conditions change may represent gradational variations between sediment types in the field. Our explorations were approximately located in the field by measuring from known site features shown on the previously mentioned typographic plot plan. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the exploration pits completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within site . and budgetary constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field explorations is necessary. It should be noted the differing subsurface conditions .may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration* of typography by past grading and/or filling. The nature ,and extent of any variations between filled explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to re-evaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 2 • 3.1 Exploration Pits Exploration pits were excavated with a track -mounted excavator. The pits permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. Materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by an engineering geologist from our firm. All exploration pits were back -filled immediately after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing, as necessary. Two geologic cross sections of the site, based on the conditions encountered in the exploration pits, are shown on Figure 3. The locations of the cross sections are depicted on Figure 2. 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions on the parcel were inferred from the field explorations accomplished for this study, our visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of topography provided on the previously mentioned typographic plan. As shown on the field logs, the exploration holes generally encountered fill materials overlying natural deposits of loose topsoil and alluvial sands and . gravels overlying medium dense to dense gravelly sand. The following section presents more detailed subsurface information organized from the upper (youngest) to the lower (oldest) sediment types. 4.1 Stratig-raphy Fill Fill soils (those not naturally placed) were encountered in exploration pits EP-2, EP-3 and EP- 4. The fill ranged in thickness from approximately 2'/z to 3 feet at the locations of exploration pits EP-2 and EP-3 to approximately 9 feet at the location of EP-4. The fill generally consisted of loose to medium -dense; moist to wet, dark brown to brownish gray, silty, gravelly sand with scattered debris (branches, cans, plastic, etc.). The fill is considered unsuitable for foundation support. Topsoil Soil encountered at the surface at the location of exploration pit EP-1 and directly beneath the fill at the locations of exploration pits EP-2, EP-3, and EP-4, consisted of approximately 1 to 3 feet of organic topsoil. Topsoil consisted of loose, moist, dark brown, silty sand with some gravel and substantial amounts of organic matter. At the locations of exploration pits EP-1 and EP-2, the topsoil was peat -like in appearance, containing an especially high concentration of organic material. 3 Glacial Outwash Natural sediments encountered below the topsoil generally consisted of dark brown to brownish gray, silty, sandy gravel and gravelly sand with some silt. Distinct bedding planes 4 were apparent in some portions of this unit. The upper portion of this unit was generally loose to medium -dense, increasing to a dense state at the locations of exploration pits EP-2, EP-3, and EP-4 below depths of approximately 8 to 1 11 feet. We interpret these. sediments, to' be representative of Vashon advance outwash sand. This sand . was deposited by meltwater streams .from the advancing glacial ice during the Vashon Stade of the Fraser glaciation, approximately 15,000 years ago. The sand was overridden by several thousand feet of glacial ice subsequent to its deposition and therefore is consolidated in its unweathered state. The reduced density of the upper portion of this unit is likely the result of weathering and past disturbance during clearing and grading of the property.. Some of the uppermost, loose to medium dense sandy sediments may be -.representative of recessional outwash, deposited by meltwater streams at the time of the glacial retreat. 4.2 Geologic Literature Review A USGS Surficial Geology Map of the Redmonds East and Redmond : West Quadrangles (Mackey Smith, 1975) show the site underlain by Vashon lodgement till. Geologic contacts between the till, advance outwash sand, and recessional outwash sand are also mapped nearby. Our interpretation of the sediments on the, site are, therefore, in general concurrence with the regional geologic map. 5.0 HYDROLOGY Ground water seepage was encountered in exploration pit EP-1 below a depth of approximately 3 ' feet at the time of .our field study. The depth where ground water seepage was first encountered in this exploration pit corresponds to an elevation of approximately 192 feet. Although no ground water seepage was encountered in the other three exploration pits, seepage zones typically mimic the shape of . the overlying surface typography and therefore would be expected to the encountered at somewhat higher elevations in the eastern portion of the site. . Additionally, it should be noted that fluctuations in the level of the ground water may occur due to such factors as the time of year, variations in rainfall, the water level in the adjacent drainage, and site use. 11 April 6, 1998 Project No. G97321A II. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS AND MITIGATIONS The following discussion of potential geologic hazards is based on the geologic, slope, ground water, and surface water conditions as observed and discussed herein 6.0 SEISMIC HAZARDS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majority of these events are small and are usually not felt by people. However, large earthquakes do occur, as evidenced by the 1949, 7.2 magnitude event and the 1965, 6.5 magnitude event. The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest in this area during recorded history. Generally, there are four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events: 1) surficial ground rupture; 2) seismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and 4) ground motion. The potential for each of- these hazards to adversely impact the proposed project is discussed below. 6.1 Surficial Ground Rupture Generally, the largest earthquakes which have occurred in the Puget Sound area are sub -crustal events with epicenters ranging from 50 to 70 kilometers in depth. For this reason, no surficial faulting, or earth rupture, as a result of deep, seismic activity has been documented, to date, in the area of the project site. Therefore, it is our opinion, based on existing geologic data, that the risk of surface rupture impacting the proposed project is low. 6.2 Seismically Induced Landslides Based on the encountered stratigraphy and our visual reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the risk of seismically induced landslides impacting the site is low. The site is underlain by dense, granular soils, as described previously. These materials should remain relatively intact during potential strong motion seismic events, and we do not anticipate that deep seated landsliding would affect the site. 6.3 Liquefaction The encountered stratigraphy has a low potential for liquefaction due to their relatively dense state, and coarse, granular nature of the sediments. 5 6.4 Ground Motion Based on the site stratigraphy .and visual reconnaissance of the site, it is our opinion that any earthquake damage to. the proposed structure, when founded on a suitable bearing strata, would be caused bythe. intensity. and acceleration associated with the event and not any of the above discussed impacts. Structural design of the building should follow UBC standards for seismic Zone 3, site coefficient 1.2, and take into consideration stress caused by seismically induced earth shaking. 7.0 LANDSLIDE HAZARDS AND MITIGATION As previously discussed, the property is located on a west -facing slope.. Slope gradients on the parcel range from approximately 50 to 65 percent in the upper;: eastern portion of the site to approximately 10 to 15 percent in the lower, western portion of the site: During our reconnaissance of the property, we did not observe features, indicative of significant earth movement such as tension cracks, soil slumps or debris flows. To our knowledge, there is no history of landsliding in the vicinity of the property. either.. As. previously discussed, natural soils underlying the slope. generally consist of medium- dense to dense granular sediments, overlain in places. byloose, natural soils and fill. We anticipate that much of the fill'and loose surficial.soils will be removed from the building area during construction. We recommend that these materials be disposed of off -site. Given the encountered subsurface conditions and the. performance of the existing slopes at the site, it is our opinion that the risk of damage to the proposed structure and adjacent properties due to landslide hazards will be minimal, provided the recommendations in this report are followed. Additionally, construction of the foundation for the proposed structure and installation of drainage systems, .and revegetation of disturbed areas as described herein, should maintain or improve the long-term stability of the site slopes. 8.0 EROSION HAZARDS AND MITIGATION Much of the on -site soil is composed of coarse, granular sediments with relatively minor amounts of silt. However, portions of the on -site sediments contain significant amounts of silt and fine sand -sized particles. Therefore, site soils .will be sensitive to erosion, especially given the sloping nature of the. site. To reduce the amourit..of. sediment transport off the site during construction, the following recommendations should be followed: 1. Construction should proceed during the drier periods of the year 2. Silt fencing should be placed along the lower elevations of the cleared areas. 3. All storm water from . impermeable surfaces, . roadways• and roofs, should be tight -lined 'into detention/retention facilities and not be, directly discharged into the adjacent drainage. 6 4. Surface runoff should be controlled during and following development. Surface runoff must not be directed onto or above the steeply sloping areas. All devices used to collect surface runoff should be directed into a tightline or Swale system designed to convey the collected discharge into an approved storm drain. Uncontrolled discharge on the sloping areas may promote erosion and earth movement. 5. Soils which are to be reused around the site should be stored in such a manner as to reduce erosion. Protective measures may include, but are not necessarily limited to, covering with plastic sheeting, the use of low stock -piles in flatter areas, or the use of hay bales/silt fences.. Areas stripped of vegetation during construction should be replanted as soon as possible, or otherwise protected. During winter construction, any bare slopes should be covered with clear plastic to facilitate new growth. VA April 6, 1998 Project No. G97321A III.DESIGN RECOM MNDATIONS 9.0 INTRODUCTION Our exploration indicates that, from 'a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel is suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations • contained herein• are properly followed. The bearing stratum was generally encountered at relatively shallow depths in the exploration pits and conventional spread footing foundations may be utilized.. Consequently, spread footings bearing -on -the medium dense to dense natural, gravelly sand sediments . may be used for building support. The overlying fill soils and loose natural sediments are not considered suitable for foundation support. Where necessary, footings should be deepened to provide suitable ;support. Slab .on grade floors may be placed on the medium dense to dense 'natural sediments as discussed herein. 10.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of the planned building and driveway area. should include removal of all trees, brush, debris and any other deleterious material. Additionally, the upper organic topsoil should be removed and theremaining roots grubbed. . The loose, sandy gravel, gravelly. sand, and fill below the building area should .be excavated down to the underlying medium dense to dense -natural, gravelly sands. Since the density of the soil is variable, random soft pockets may exist, and the depth and extent of stripping, can best be determined . in the field by. the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer. This depth ,generally occurred at approximately. 5 feet below, the existing ground surface at the locations of exploration pits EP-1 and EP-2, and at a depth of approximately 9 to 10 feet at the locations of exploration pits of EP-3 and EP-4. Footing areas should. be excavated deeper, where necessary, to reach the natural medium dense to dense gravelly sand sediments. The area of the proposed driveway is presently underlain by fill soils. The fill from a portion of this area will be, removed during excavation for the_'building foundation. For those areas underlying the driveway, where the existing fill soils are to remain, we recommend that the fill be over excavated a minimum of 18 inches, below the elevation of the final driveway subgrade. The exposed soils should then be recohipacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density (ASTM:D 1557).. Any remaining soft or loose areas should be further excavated to firm bearing and- replaced- with .structural, fill. Once the subgrade has been recompacted and approved, the roadway can -be brought to grade with, structural fill placed as described below. April 6, 1998 Project No. G97321A III.DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 9.0 INTRODUCTION Our exploration indicates that, from a geotechnical standpoint, the parcel .is suitable- for the proposed development, provided the recommendations contained herein are properly followed: The bearing stratum was generally encountered at relatively shallow depths in the exploration pits and conventional spread footing foundations may be utilized. Consequently, spread footings bearing on the medium dense to dense natural, gravelly sand sediments may be used for building support. The overlying fill soils and loose natural sediments are not considered suitable for foundation support. Where necessary, footings should be deepened to provide suitable support. Slab on grade floors may be placed on the medium dense to dense natural sediments as discussed herein. 10.0 SITE PREPARATION Site preparation of the planned building and driveway area should include removal of all trees, brush, debris and any other deleterious material. Additionally, the upper organic topsoil should be removed and the remaining roots grubbed. The loose, sandy gravel, gravelly sand, and fill below the building area should be excavated down to the underlying medium dense to dense natural, gravelly sands. Since the density of the soil is variable, random soft pockets may exist, and the depth and extent of stripping can best be determined in the field by the engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer. This depth generally occurred at approximately 5 feet below the existing ground surface at the locations of exploration pits EP-1 and EP-2, and at a depth of approximately 9 to 10 feet at the locations of exploration pits of EP-3 and EP-4. Footing areas should be excavated deeper, where necessary, to reach the natural medium dense to dense gravelly sand sediments. The area of the proposed driveway is presently underlain by fill soils. The fill from a portion of this area will be removed during excavation for the building foundation. For those areas underlying the driveway, where the existing fill soils are to remain, we recommend that the fill be over excavated a minimum of 18 inches, below the elevation of the final driveway subgrade. The exposed soils should then be recompacted to at least 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density (ASTM:D 1557). Any remaining soft or loose areas should be further excavated to firm bearing and replaced with structural fill. Once the subgrade has been recompacted and approved, the roadway can be brought to grade with structural fill placed as described below. 0 We anticipate that temporary cut slopes of approximately„ 8 feet below the existing ground surface may be required to achieve the proposed foundation subgrade elevations. It appears that sufficient lateral space is available to complete these excavations using open cuts. In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction, based on the encountered conditions . at that time. For - estimating purposes, however, we anticipate that temporary, unsupported cut. slopes in the loose to medium dense fill sediments and native site soils can be made at an overall slope of approximately 1H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical). As is - typical of earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur and cut slopes may have to be adjusted in the field. Compaction of the excavated slope faces with the 'excavator bucket, or a plate compactor is recommended to densif the slope faces and improve stability. Plastic, sheeting covering is also recommended to reduce surface erosion. WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. Portions of the on -site soils contain a high, percentage of fine-grained material which makes them moisture -sensitive and subject to disturbance when wet. The Contractor must use care during site preparation and excavation procedures so_ that the underlying soils are not softened. If disturbance occurs, the softened. soils should be removed and the area brought to grade with structural fill. Consideration should be given to protecting access and staging areas with an appropriate section of crushed rock. Permanent slopes on this site should not exceed'a gradient of 2:1. Vegetation should be reestablished on these slopes as soon as possible to reduce erosion. 11.0 STRUCTURAL'FILL Structural fill will be necessary to establish desired grades at the site. All references to structural fill in this report refer to subgrade preparation, fill type, placement and compaction of materials as discussed in this section. . If a percentage of compaction is specified under another section of this report, the value given in that section should be used. If fill is to ,be placed on slopes steeper than 511:1V, the base of the fill should be tied to firm, stable subsoil by appropriate keying and benching which would be established in the field to suit the particular soil conditions at the time of grading. The keyway will act to embed the toe of the new fill into the hillside. Generally, the.keyway for hillside fills should be at least 8 feet wide and cut into the lower, native, medium dense to dense gravelly sand. Level benches would then be cut horizontally across the hill, following the contours of the slope. No specific width is required for the. benches,, although they are usually a few feet wider than the dozer being used to cut them. All fills proposed over a slope should be reviewed by our office prior to construction. After overexcavation/stripping has been performed to the satisfaction of the geofechnical engineer/engineering geologist, the upper 12 inches of exposed ground should be recompacted to 90 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density, using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. 9 If the subgrade contains too much moisture, adequate recompaction may be difficult or impossible to obtain and should probably not be attempted. 'In lieu of recompaction, the area to receive fill should be blanketed with washed rock or quarry spalls to act as a capillary break between the new fill and the wet subgrade. After recompaction of the exposed ground is tested and approved, or a free -draining rock course is laid, structural fill may be placed to attain desired grades. Structural ,fill is defined as non -organic soil, acceptable to the geotechnical engineer, placed in maximum 8. inch loose lifts, with each lift being compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density, using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. The top of the compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the location of the perimeter footings or pavement edge before sloping down at an angle of 2H:1V. The contractor should note that any proposed fill soils must be evaluated by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) prior to their use in fills. This would require that we have a sample of the material 48 hours in advance to perform a Proctor test and determine its field compaction standard. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than No. 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent (measured on the minus No. 4 sieve size) should be considered moisture -sensitive. Use of moisture -sensitive soil in structural fills should be limited to favorable dry weather conditions. The on -site soils are suitable for use as structural fill, however, much of this material contained significant amounts of silt and therefore is considered to be moisture -sensitive. In addition, construction equipment traversing the site when the soils are wet can cause considerable disturbance.If fill is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select import material consisting of a clean, free - draining gravel and/or sand should be used. Free -draining fill consists of non -organic soil with the amount of fine-grained material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction. A representative from our firm should inspect the stripped subgrade and be present during placement of structural fill to observe the work and perform a representative number of in - place density tests. In this way, the adequacy of the earthwork may be evaluated as filling progresses and any problem areas may be corrected at that time. 12.0 FOUNDATION Spread footings may be used for building support when founded on the medium dense to dense, natural, gravelly sand soils or structural fill placed as previously discussed. We recommend that an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be utilized for design purposes, including both dead and live loads. An increase of one-third may be used for short-term wind or seismic loading. Perimeter footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection. No minimum burial depth is required for interior footings. However, all footings must penetrate to the prescribed bearing stratum and no footing should be founded in or above loose, organic, or existing fill soils. All footings should have a minimum width of 18 inches. 10 • • 1 It should be noted that the area bounded by lines . extending downward at 1H:1 V from any footing must not intersect another footing or intersect a filled area which has not been.. compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM: D 1557. In addition, a 1.5H:1 V line extending down from any footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the footing. Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearing soils. Anticipated settlement of footings founded on the natural. medium dense to dense, gravelly sands or approved structural fill placed over these sediments should be on the order of 1 inch. However, disturbed soil' not removed from . footing excavations prior to footing placement, could result in increased settlements.. All footing areas should be inspected by AESI prior to placing concrete, to verify that the design bearing capacity of the soils has been attained and that construction 'conforms with the recommendations contained in this report. Such inspections may be required by the governing municipality. Perimeter footing drains should be provided as discussed under the section on Drainage Considerations. 13.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES All backfill behind walls or around . foundation units . should be 'placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report.- Horizontally backfilled walls, which -are. free to yield laterally at least 0.1 percent of their height, may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained, horizontally backfilled rigid walls should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 55 pcf. - Walls, such as the foundation walls along the east side .of the proposed structure, which retain sloping backfill at a maximum angle of 4H:1V, should be designed for 45 pcf for yielding conditions and 75 pcf. for restrained conditions. For walls located adjacent to areas that, are subject to vehicle traffic, such as along the east side of the building where the driveway enters the garage, a .surcharge equivalent to 2 feet of soil should be added to. the wall height in determining lateral design forces., The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill consisting of the on -site,. silty, sandy gravel or gravelly sand compacted to 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended as this will increase the pressure acting on the .wall. A lower compaction may result in settlement of adjacent areas, such as below the proposed driveway. Thus, the compaction level -is critical and must be tested by our firm during placement. Surcharges from adjacent footings, heavy construction equipment; or sloping ground must be -added to the above values. Footing drains should be provided for all retaining walls as discussed under the section on Drainage Considerations. It is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that hydrostatic pressures do not develop against the walls. This would involve installation of a minimum 1 foot wide blanket drain for the full wall height using imported, washed gravel against the walls. 11 13.1 Passive Resistance and Friction Factors Retaining wall footings/keyways cast directly against undisturbed, medium dense to dense natural sediments or structural fill may be designed for passive resistance against lateral translation using an equivalent fluid equal to 250 pcf. The passive equivalent fluid pressure diagram begins at the top of the footing; however, total lateral resistance should be summed only over the depth of the actual key (truncated triangular diagram). The passive resistance value includes a factor of safety equal to 3 in order to reduce the amount of movement necessary to generate passive resistance. The friction coefficient for footings cast directly on undisturbed, medium dense to dense, gravelly sand soils may be taken as 0.35. This value includes a safety factor of 2.0. Since it will be difficult to excavate these soils without disturbance, the soil under the footings must be recompacted to 95 percent of the above mentioned standard for this value to apply. 14.0 ROCKERIES Rockeries may be used to prevent erosion of cut slopes; however, they are not engineered structures, and should not be used in place of retaining walls. Although rockeries are commonly used, they should be considered a long-term maintenance item. Buildings should be set back from rockeries so that a 1H:1V line extending up from the rear base of the rockery does not intersect the footing. Care must be exercised in selecting a rock source since some of the material presently being supplied is soft and disintegrates in a relatively short period of time. Samples of rock can be tested by AESI prior to their use in rockeries. It is our understanding that a rockery about 5 feet high will be placed to provide erosion control for a planned cut face along the east side of the driveway. Our subsurface exploration of the site indicates the area of the proposed driveway rockery, is underlain by fill soils. The following notes present rockery design considerations. In addition, the contractor should confirm that his configuration conforms with current City specifications. A) The base of the rockery should be started by excavating a trench to a minimum depth of 12 inches below the adjacent driveway subgrade. The base rock should be situated so the concrete slab for the adjacent driveway will abut the face of the base rock. The surface of the exposed subgrade should then be recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the modified Proctor Maximum Density (ASTM:D 1557). If loose/soft materials exist of the base rock location, they should be overexcavated a minimum of 18 inches and replaced with free draining sand and gravel, or crushed rock. This backfill material should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of ASTM:D 1557. The gradation of the sand 12 and gravel should .be such, that of the material passing the No. 4 sieve, not more than 5 percent by weight should be finer than No. 200 sieve. B) The base rock should have a minimum width (perpendicular to the line of the rockery) of 40 percent of the height of the rockery. Rock sizes should grade from a ,minimum 500 lb.. to 2200 lb. from top to bottom. The rockery height should be limited to 5 feet. C) The rocks should all be as nearly rectangular as possible. No stone should be used that does not extend through the wall.. The rocks should be . hard, sound, durable, and .free from weathered portions, seams, cracks or- other defects. 'The rock density should be a minimum of 160 pounds per cubic foot. D) Rock selection and placement should be such that there will be minimum voids and, in the exposed face of the wall, no open voids over 8 inches across in any direction. The rocks should be placed in a manner such that the longitudinal axis of the rock will be perpendicular to the rockery face. Each rock should be placed so as to lock into two rocks in the lower tier. After ,setting each rock course, all. voids between the rocks should be chinked on the back with quarry rock to eliminate any void sufficient to pass a 2-inch square probe. The batter of the face of the rockery should be consistent and no steeper than 1H:4V. E) A drain consisting of rigid, perforated PVC pipe bedded in a pea gravel trench should be placed behind the lower course of rock to remove water and prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure _behind, the wall. The remainder of the wall backfill should consist of, quarry spalls with a maximum size of 4 inches and a minimum size of- 2 inches. This material should be placed to an 18-inch minimum thickness between the entire wall and the cut material. The backfill material should be placed in lifts to an elevation approximately 6 inches below the top of each course of rocks as they are placed, until the.uppermost course is placed. Any backfill material falling onto the bearing surface of a rock course should be removed before the setting of the next course. F) The driveway pavement should be sloped to drain away from the rockery. In addition, the area above the rockery should be revegetated as soon as possible after rockery construction, to reduce erosion. G) . Inspection of the rockery base, drainage, and wall construction by AESI is recommended. 13 15.0 FLOOR SUPPORT A slab -on -grade floor may be constructed on the medium dense to dense, sand sediments. Floor slabs to be used in areas where moisture intrusion through the slab is to limited, should be constructed atop a capillary break material and a moisture barrier. The capillary break should consist of a minimum thickness of 4 inches of washed pea gravel with a moisture barrier atop of the capillary break. In addition, as per American Concrete. Institute recommendations, a minimum of 2 inches of clean sand should be placed over the moisture barrier to protect the integrity of the moisture barrier during concrete placement and to aid in the curing of the concrete. If seepage is encountered within the slab excavation, a sub -slab drainage system may be required and should be determined by AESI in the field. 16.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS All retaining and perimeter footing walls should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by washed pea gravel. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set approximately 2 inches below the bottom of the footing and the drains should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. In addition, all retaining walls should be lined with a minimum 12 inch thick washed gravel blanket provided over the full -height of the wall, which ties into the footing drain. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain. All storm water runoff must be tightlined into an approved storm water drainage system such as that located in the western portion of the parcel. In planning, exterior grades . adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. 17.0 PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING We are also available to provide additional geotechnical consultation as the project design develops and possibly changes from that upon which this report is based. We recommend that AESI perform a geotechnical review of the plans prior to final design completion. In this way, our earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design. We are also available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the foundation depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures. In addition, engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. 14 We have enjoyed working with you on this study and are confident that these recommendations will aid in the .successful completion of your project. If you should have any questions, or require further assistance,. please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely,. ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington uno J. ,P te>J, P.G. Senior ff logist T]P/pm G97321 A2 3120/98 Ic - W97 ��161 q 2t, C .� EXPMES Bruce L. Blyton, P.E. Associate Engineer 15 . TN MN 19%0 derraVogs\dnm\chase0e 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000FEET Printed from TOPOI 01997 Wlft ower Productions (www.topo.com) FIGURE 1: VICINITY MAP CHASE RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. G97321A MARCH 1998 ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC L SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN EP-4 Ur EP-3 EP- 1 • fj I W, LEGEND EP- 10 Approximate exploration pit location Cross section location REFERENCE. ROBERT L. TISCARENO, AIA DRAWING 'SITE PLAN, CHASE RESIDENCE, EDMONDS, WA- DATED 3/4/98. V/65 71 0 .20 40 ==mild SCALE IN FEET A&MASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES,INC CHASE RESIDENCE EDIVIONDS9 WASHINGTON G97321A 3/98 FIGURE 1. -A' AND B-B' FIGURE 3: GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONS A A A' 220 f r, 220 �y COURT MAN LEVEL FLOOR (ELEV 211) EXISTING GROUND SAC LL 210 8 Fill 210 wi V�'�� LOWER LEVEL FLOOR (ELEV 201) W 200 200 Mserm denas to 0enee, � W allity pavely SAND j 8 SBN NT FLOOR (ELEV 142) � 190 Locas, afty sandy GRAVE 190 • Mth ecattaed eobbbs . 0 10 20 ' SCALE IN FEET - NORMONG L AND VERTICAL B Bs 220 220 I a NOOK PORCH EXISTW W I MAN FLOOR 211 GROUND SURFACE 210 210 H a ; — a C 200 ' , ,200 z ' �._, J � o W Topsca W 190 MedYan dense to dmme, 190 r J =�— sty Warely sArm meartm son Looee, rnemnn dews, My sandy GRAVEL Mtn scattered eobWes . CHASE RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHIIVGTON PROJECT NO. G97321A 180 180 MARCH 1998 ASSOCIATED EARTH AmmmsciENcEs,INC EXPL.ORATIOW PIT, LOG 0 Number EP-1 5 10 15 Loose, moist, dark brown, silty SAND with some gravel and substantial organics; contains lenses of silty, fine to medium sand; peat -like. (Topsoil) Loose, saturated, dark gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL with scattered cobbles; becomes medium dense below 4'. Medium dense, saturated, brownish -gray, gravelly SAND with some silt. BOH @ 8-1/2' Note: Slow seepage below T; no caving. 0 Number EP-2 5 10 15 Loose, moist, brownish -gray, silty SAND with some gravel. (Fill) Loose, moist, dark brown, silty SAND with some gravel and substantial organics; peat -like. (Topsoil) Loose, wet, dark gray, silty, sandy GRAVEL with scattered cobbles. Medium dense, wet, brownish -gray, gravelly SAND with some silt; becomes dense below 8'. BOH @ 9-1/2' Note: No seepage; no caving. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. V% will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Reviewed By Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1.00 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 425-827-770.1 Fax: 425-827-5424 Chase Residence Edmonds, Washington Project No. G97321A December 1997 fXPLORATIOW PIT LOG 0 Number EP-3 5 10 15 Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown and brownish -gray mixed, silty, gravelly SAND; contains branches and pieces of fabric; root zone at base. (Fill) Loose, moist, dark brown, silty SAND with gravel and substantial organics. (Topsoil) Medium dense, wet, brownish -gray, silty SAND with some gravel and scattered cobbles. Loose, wet, dark brown, silty SAND with gravel. Dense, wet, brownish -gray, gravelly SAND with some silt (bedded). BOH @ 10' Note: No seepage; minor caving 8' to 9'. Depths measured from uphill end of pit. 0 Number EP-4 5 10 15 Loose, wet, dark brown, silty SAND with gravel, some cobbles and scattered debris (cans, plastic, brush). (Fill) Medium dense, wet, brown, silty SAND with gravel; plastic sheeting in places at base. (Fill) Loose, moist, dark brown, silty SAND with some gravel and substantial organics. (Topsoil) Medium dense, moist, grayish -brown, silty, gravelly SAND; becomes dense and brownish -gray below 11'. BOH @ 11-1/2' Note: No seepage; no caving. Depths measured from uphill end of pit. Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observation at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by geologic interpretation, engineering analysis, and judgment. They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. M will not accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of information presented on this log. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98033 Phone: 425-827-7701 Fax: 425-827-5424 Reviewed By Chase Residence Edmonds, Washington Project No. G97321A December 1997 CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. t+ ! TESTINJG Ir.5aEC710+�/E1v>IrvEERSiGEOCOG15T5 129�L . C 126•- PLACC K I4��,Ahp, W4SHNGTOV P603c 12061823-P000 December 5, 1984 Cert. No. 8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. 717 N. 182n, Seattle, WA 98133 Attention.: Mike Hanchett y Reference: =arbor Hills Edmonds, 'v:ashinaton Dear Mr. Hanchett: Sr TTLC 1206152 W.-61100 r.w-.CTT 12061 23P-0917 As recuested an enc;4 7eerl ?g geologist Lrom Cascade Laboratory visited the above referenced site on Novembe-r 13, 198=_ to perform a geotechnical site reconnaissance and dig, test pits to establish soils parameters for the development of I this site. V.,e submit herewith a report of our findings, recommendations and con.- clus?ons for feasibility of construction as proposed, site _=epa=a- -ion, site development aid dra'_naae control We understand that the -proposed development will consist of sever__ individual residential lots located on an access road off of Olvmoic Avenue, in Edmonds, Washington. Site development will include .all sitepreparation, utility installation., construction and inspection required for a project of this scope. Authorization to proceed with the Mike Hanchett on November 7, 1984.. site investigation was given by A general site plot plan showing lot layouts and topography was supplied to Cascade Testing Laboratory by Technical. Designs, Inc. prior to our field 'investi;ation. All site work was done in the presence of an engineering geologist, from Cascade Testing. Laboratory. All recorur.endations contained within this report reflect the observed site ccnditions at .the time of the investigation. • CASCADE TESTIN G LABORATORY. IN C. T EST wG 6 wSPEC TiOrv/ENGwEERS/GEOL�OGJSTS December 5, 10,84 Cert. No. .8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. Page 2 ELEVATIONS AND DEPTES Elevations and decths. referred to in this report are based upon existing grades at the time the field work was performed and upon information from the Lovell-Sauerland topographic survey. AREA GEOLOGY The site lies within an area ceolocicaily Tapped as quaternary Vashon till and recessional outwash de-ooiits. T'nese deposits reare- sent a sequence of glaciations and the last glacial retreat from the Puget Sound area. These glacial deposits for:: discontinuous layers of till ranging from a few inches to several tens of feet thick overlain by recessional sands and crav__s. The matriv of t.^:e till deposits range _rcm s_1_y sands to sandy silts with varying amounts of gravel, oebb=es, and occasional cob- bles. The materials apoear ctav to blue on. frash surfaces, but Ir,ay weather to brown or yellow. The Vashon till deposits have been co-solidated under a few thou- sand feet of glacial ice. -_s such, Vashon till deoosits normally make excellent bearing soils.=or rou-cation support in their undis- turbed state. Generally, these deoosits are moisture sensitive .and should .be protected from rain or surface water in exposed cuts. Cut slope stability is good except Where excessive ground water has been encountered. The overlying recessional sands and gravel deposits are generally loose to medium dense a d unconsolidated. They nor- mally make adequate bearing soils for foundation_ support in their undisturbed state. CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. December 5, 1964 TCST.—G 6 ��SpEC �:O /EwGwEERS/GEO�OG�5T5 Cert. t\io. 8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. Page 3 SITE LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY T'ne site is located just east of ,the intersection of Glen St. and Olympic Avenue in Edmnonds, Washington. The lots fronting on Olympic Avenue have been developed. The interior three plus acres are unde- veloped. The current project addresses the development of the interior lots. The site is gently to moderately sloping downward in a westerly direction. Elevations range from a high of elevation 310 in the northeast corner to a low of elevation 185 along the western side o= the site. Steep slopes exist on the, eastern side of the site. There was no surficial or topographic evidence of recent movement along any, slopes on this site. R Tne majority of the site was very wet during our site investigation. At least three (3) semi -developed drainages carry water down'throu= s tze site. Surface water flow through the drainages was moderate. An old asphalt road was located along the southern side of the pro- perty. This road is overgrown with vegetation at thistime. :' ;i=_ road once serviced both the site area and the lots around the site. This existing roadway will make a excellent location for access into the site. All drainage off of the site and utilities into the site should follow this route off of Olympic Avenue. j T e majority of the site is covered by thick undergrowth an- seccn_- ary growth trees. The undergrowth consists primarily of devils club, blackberry vines, vine maple and small alder trees. 7'hLe secondary growth trees consist of alders with a few maples and E evergreen trees. Several large cedar stumps (+ four feet in diameter) were found on the site. (� CASCADE TESTrNG LABORATORY- IrJC. December 5, 1984 TESTI-G d wS-ECTiON/E-GINCERS/GEOLOG.STS Cert. No. 8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. Page 4 SITE STRATIGRAPHY Thirteen (13) test pits -were duo during our site investigation. For the approximate location of the test pits please refer to the test pit location diagram enclosed at the end of this report. Field con- trol for the placement of the test pits was minimal. The locations shown on the test pit location diagram are estimated. Site.stratigraony was interpreted- from the test pit logs. A.detail- ea description of the materials.. encountered during this investiga- tion is contained in appendix A of this report. Generally, the site i s overlain by one (1) to four. (4 ) feet of sat- urated organic silts and oeat. These loose materials are on top of saturated, loose to mec1um dense, silty sands to sandy silts. Locally, these .rateri als conta_ned moderate amounts of ground water. Sloughing of the test pit sid_walls was associated with the presence of minor amounts of cround water or -saturated soils. All test nits (except tp-6 and to-7 ) were terminated at- refusal within very dense glacially consolidated sandy silts to silty sands. This till was underlying the loosened and saturated silty soils. Bearing soils were not encountered in test pit .6. or test pit 7. These test wits were terminated within loosened and saturated soils due to slouchinc conditions. A small le: -+se of peat was uncovered in test pit 13 approximately four and one-half' (=-1/2) feet below the present surface. This lense appears to be localized in the area of test pit 13. CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. December 5, 1984 TESTING b IN5PEC-r10 + E�G,"E=ERS/GEOLOGISTS Cert. No..8411-15G Technical Designs,. Inc. pace.5 A vine -covered, vertical cut face was noted near test pit 4. Mater- ials exposed in the cut face were gray brown, fine -to coarse -.grained silty sand with gravel. The exposed materials were very dense. The age of the cut is not known at this time. T-here was no surficial or up slope evidense of recent movement associated with this vertical face. However, an erosion control or retention wall mechanism may be required when the lot closest to the cut is developed. SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER Moderate amounts of surface water runoff were present during our site investigation. At least three separate drainages were located in the site area. The drainages appeared to be developing =rpm rill and gully erosional processes, becoming more pronounced down slope. One of the drainages was intermittened - flowing seasonally Wit[? wet weather conditions. The drainage in the northeast corner of the prooerty aooeared to be year around. The principle source o-f water for this drainage comes from a artesian flow out of a hole located approximately at the intersection of elevation.240 and the lot line between lots 5 and lot 6. This artesian flow may have been the location of an old water well sometime in the past. The most extensive drainage was located along the southern side of the site. This drainage appeared to carry water year around, was fairly well developed, and drained approximately one-half of the site area. All surficial and hear surficial soils were saturated at the time of. i our site investigation. These materials were loose and easily dis- turbed. Ground water was encountered in test bits 3, 4, 6, 7, and CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. 1984 TESTwG 6 wSRECTION/ENGIwEERS/GEOLOGISTS December 5, Cert. No. 8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. page 6 11^ The around .water was encountered within test pits 3, 4, 7, and ll between two and one-half (2.-1/2) and three (3) feet below the [. ground surface. It was encountered below five (5) feet in test pit r 6. The cround water flow wa`s heavy in test pits 4, 6, and 7 while r i being low to moderate in test pits 3 and 11. Sloughing ozf test pit i wa11s and, unstable side wall conditiong were associate�' wi h the ground water. RECOMMENDATIONS Coo^ anal%rsis of our field observations and accumulates test pit =ct_,trc following recomand L_ions a_e chroeloca_ to�carc_rcsenfor the development of this site. s _ We recoma-lend that this site be deve'lo_ced in two (2) c^ases . teach chase should be closely monitored by the CeoteC7n;cal cons,.:ltant, c0ntraCtOr, O-,%rner and =eQulatory gove_-?menzl aencv, to insure orderly compliance with all recommendatio. s,==eulati o:^_s, sceci =ica- ti ons and codes. We reco:-amend .that the'following phases be adopted or the development of this site: Phase I 1. Placement of erosion control structures along drainages leaving the site. 2. Establishment of a permanent positive drainage along the access road into the site. 3: Site development including:, (A) Construction of access road into the site. (B) Surficial and ground water drainage control CASCAOE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TEST—r, a wS�CCT.O-/C�+ December 5, 1984 GlNEEQS/GEOLOGISTS Cert. No. 8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. page 7 Phase II 1. Individual lot geotechnical.reports including: (A) Foundation design (3) Capacity and depth.,to hearing soils (C) Drainage control (D) Cuts and fills (i) Other as needed 2. Individual lot develooment' as per recom.-nendation contained in the lot geotechnical report. The remainder of this report will address phase I recommendations. Phase II recommendations are beyond the. scope of this report Y porgy and will be addressed in individual lot geotechnical reports which will be completed as each lot ys being developed for actual residential construction. p =zSB I All phase I work should be done during dry weather conditions. We do not recommend doing any phase I work on this site between November and. the following March of any year. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork or excavation on this site, we recommend placing siltation control devices along the west- ern lot line and at the exit points of the three drainages previous- ly mentioned in this report. 'I`he design and installation 'of these devices should be sufficient to controlall erosional materials run- ning off of this site. CASCADE. TESTING LABORATORY• INC. December 5, 1984 TEST,_G b /GEO�OGIST5 C'ert. too. .8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. page 9 3) Gravel; three (3) to six (6) feet of aravel should be placed above the sand fill to ..the required grades. The cravel backfill material. should meet VISDOT standard s_oeci=ication 9-03.12(-) Gravel Backfill for Drains. 4) Lay the filter fabric over the too of.�h_ gr e'- to forma drain- age unit completely enclosed in filter -_ ?;n acceptable alternate design for the --ench would be the c=a__._ oiod vizc sand. fill repe a lacement of the perforated P.V.C. _ _ _ with a minimum -two (2) foot thick- _s s of river roc' meeting the follov:ing specification: Percent pass-inc Percent cassi,_ 3" - 0 Then backfill the trench as' She= ------ _ SC1eTicC representation of the above ^=- �- --_- _-= .se_^.ed in appendix B.of this -report. Ground Water Main -Interceptor Draof s We would recommend. that _:^.e corm- _= .:c = an Of _--_ . -_--n iata= ceotor drain start -from the lowest ele-tcn an _ =oc==^ (smarting - =? low=ng the from Olympic' Avenue and h=_a�_ e=s�, _-.__ -.•- s=_ c proposed access road route. Sa_�===�= _---_ _--=-_=`�- wli limit the length of time. the trench s =ay eke-^•- ?'his. may necessitate the use of short e_ --ava`e'-f __'•'-nc.- SeC`10i.s which are backfilled immediately and/cr utiiizi-:e soMe so= = o= in trench shoring system. A minimu.: grace be maintained throughout all trench sections =c d=a :ace off of the' site.. AGE TESTING LABORATORY. IN - December December 5, 1984 *2;n,NSPCCT O�/ENGiNECRS/GCOLOC 5T5 Cert. No. 8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. Page 8 fUpon the satisfactory placement of the siltation devices, we recom- t ;P.end that a system of ground water interceptor drains be installed r throughout the site. This system should consist of a rain intercep- tor drain installed along the site access road and a series Of i smaller interceptor drains running into the main drain from the F proposed lot boundary lines. , E The construction of the site access road should follow the r;,aim line interceptor drain. into the site. We recommend that both the main_ line interceptor drain and the site. access road be brose'r_t into the site o== of the ex s:.-ing over -grown roadway In t^e. southwest corner of the a-ooerty. E Cro"ind Water Ma_n-Interceptor Drain Des?cn c iit'_clpa ed Cr-_n depths are between = i ve ( 5 ) and e_CAL_ deeo. -The Case O' the trench should be a I11.^.1mu w'-tee. Slouchin-, o_ the surficial sa=`bated soils wi 11 =2G_i31re Mat trench sides be laid back On a l(-):1(V) slope. Following the excavation Of a workable section o tre-cn, the side - walls and bottom should be lined with a filter fabric. The fabric should be temporarily laid out on the trench bank on both sides. The trenches should be backfilled from the botto'n up ;:sing the fol- lOwinc- materials and recommended thickness. 1) Sand; sir (6) to eight (8) inch thickness oZE material meeting WSDOT standard specification 9-03.13 Backfill -for Sand drains. 2) Perforated P.V.C.; six (6) to eight (8) inch diameter perforated P.V.C. pipe laid upon the sand bed. The P.V.C. pipe should be .covered with an additional twelve (12) inches cf 'the above men- tioned sand materials. CASCADE TESTttvG. LABORATORY. INC. TEST—C; s 1'-S=ECTIO-/£�+4.,"CERS /GEOLOGISTS December 51 1984 Cert. No. 8411-15G 'Technical Designs, Inc. page 10 Access Road Desian Saturated surficial soils will require the following considerations for access road design. 1) Complete removal. of s.urTicial top soils and saturated near sur- face soils. 2) Utilization of filter fabric for roadway subbase stabilization where needed. ..A minimum twel-ve ( 12 ) inch crushed rock course should be placed on top of the ilter fabric prior to- proceedin, -with subbase develooment. 3)-The us-e of a thickened subbase section to help create a non -yielding s-!bbase below the asphaltic concrete. 4) Backfill to the re=mired c= aies wit-h a clean granular material which meets 4:SD0^ s anfar s_eci=ication 9-03-12(1) Gravel Sack - fill for Foundations. zil fill _should be placed in accordance with the reconaendations contained within appendix C structural fill, contained at the end of this report. Should complete removal of any u-ssuitable materials from beneath the roadway not be performed, settle -eats within the roadway subbase may be anticipated. a_nv settlements may increase the frecuency of roadway maintenance. CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. December 5, 1984 TESTwG tf'' SAECTiO� /E-GI-EERS/GEOL-OGISTS Cert. too. 8411-15G Technical Designs, Inc. Page 11 For a pavement section over a non -yielding structural fill placed as outlined above, we recommend the following asphaltic concrete sec- tions: A four (4) inch base course consisting of two and one-half (2-1/2) inches of one and one -quarter (1-1/4) minus cruched rock overlain by one and one-half (1-1/2) inches of five -eighths (5/8) minus keystone material. Ti-is- should be, overlain by a minimum two (2) inches 'of class 3 asphaltic concrete. All base materials should meet WSDOT standard specification 9-03.9(3) Crushed Surfacing. We would like to stress the ilmoortance of the proper grading of the base course materials. Prooe= trading will help insure adequate drainage of those areas beneath the pavement, limiting possible damage which may result from frost heave actions initiated by trapped water 4ri _-c . Cold K':=Z^er - Access Road Cons- ien The subbase preoar-tion or t?e access road into the site may. take place as the :'Tsai: line =round water interce:tor -drain is. being installed. We recommend that an engineering geologist from Cascade Testing Laboratory a_rect the removal and replacement of all unsuit- able materials below the access road subbase. Saturated soils con- ditions may recuire the use of a:.-`.s-length construction methods into the site, L:eai ; a ncn-y_e' d .._se can .be developed. 11 CASCADE TESTING LABJRATORY_ INC. December 5, 1984 TESTwG e �wSoECT pr�,EtiG,r,�ERSiG=Ot OG=5T5 Cert. NO. 8411-15G Technical.Designs, Inc_ page . 12 surficial Drainage Control Due to the loose, organic rich nature of the surficial soils -found on this site, we recommend that all suricla_ drainages..be directen into riprap lined channels. These czann els ::iaV be placed and moved as necessary to accomodate bu;ldinc sites,access road crossings, and lot boundary lines. However, we recc:amend that the drainages follow the natural contours .of the site as much as possible. Tne channeling of these drainages should co-�-tent at the bottom of the site and work upwards. The drainaces s;_Juld be cut down through the surficial soils prior to pla c:tc Lot Line Ground Water Intercector D- Upon the comoletlon of the Tian 1_''- drai ^, ===cess roa` and surT ; - cial drainages, we reco=:ttaend _:,sta'_ling seL o-f =ou:;d wale= interceptor drains along anc/c_ ,d =-- _ _v-.� -'rh s psi pose of this system will- be r=- Jgrain-. -age for each .-individual iol, te_ c=ore, v_ _•; eLi-g Lie continued saturation of the near sur=i c_ai soi 'l s . 1':`_c -xact lav C'�t O-f this system will be determined �ven.ri-=_ica=io- off t^e individual lot boundary lines. Specification for sysLeT w'_? 1 meet these pre- sented for the main line int==:e c-fain. This syste-t will be tied into the main line ground water _- _e_ ce_ t:�r drain as needed . Phase II Considerations Based upon the information ettai ed d =_,c our i_.i`ial investiga- tions, we believe that the na_ura_1 oc_u_inc or_-s4-_ materials are computable with conventional =oundat_o sys_ems. However, saturated surficial and near surficial soils _io-s w_ 11 regui=e individ- CASCADE TESTIrvG LABORATORY. INC. 'CST wG 6 wSPEC �+On/EtiG++v EEraSiG£OLOG+STS December. 5, ,95= Cert.. No. 04.11-15G Tech:.ical Designs, Inc. page 13 ual and specific geo�echnical recorsnendat ions for the development of each lot. Upon the finalization of the lot locations and in prep- aration fo= house construction, we recommend that an individual lot geotechnical invest=cation be performed to develop specific recom- nendations for cap=city and deoth of bearing soils, foundation design, special drainge control recommendations and any other recom- mendations deer+e3 pertinent for ^.e development of the specific lot. This type of investigation should be performed after the completion of all phase I reco=endations. CONCLUSION The development of this site into residential lots is both comz)at- able with the surrounding neighborhood as well as .desire -able from a geotecznica'_ point of view. The careful implementation of o+ur eco=iendation:s during the develoo:rient of this site will help stabi - lize the surf_cial materials by controlled dewaterirg of the near sur=ace ground water as well as allowing for better drainage ma-ace- ment through controlled and channelized surficial drai-age on and off of the site. These improvements will be beneficial to the sur- rounding area as well as the site itself. We believe that a continued close liason between the developer/con- tractor and the soils engineer would be advantageous throughout all phases o= this oroject. We fully expect the site soils conditions to re-flect our findings, however, some local variations may occur. Through our continued involvement in this project all necessary mod- ifications to the enclosed recommendations may be promptly made. CASCADE TEST, LABORATORY, INC. T[STInC, a wS�CCT,Ow/C�+GwECRS /GEO�OGSTS December 5, 1984 Cent. No. 8411-15 Technical Designs, Inc. Page 14 .This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of. Technical Designs, Inc. and their proposed development of the Hanchett oroperty just east of the intersection of Glen Street and Olympic .venue in Edmonds,. Washington. It is presented in accordance with generally accepted geologic and soils engineering practices. No Wither warranty, expressed or implied, is 'made. =p --as been a pleasure working with you on this first phase of your pro i�ct. We look forward' to our continued involvement with this p=c=_:-t and trust the --Eindings, recommendation, and conclusions pre- s=_-_=d in. this report will be helpful in the successful completion = is o ase. Should you have additional questions or require fur -- her assistance, _Lease contact us at anv time. -== e-v T_Z�nO.t;_TOP.Y, INC. Vice _ =?sidd_it J _nee ___ l eO1CC' St KRi ' N 111 I�1 (3Lk1A L� SlkLLT c� i TEST PIT LOCATION MAC' HARBOR -HILLS Edmonds, Washing+on CASCADE TES-1 INU LABORATORY T IGINE�RS GFOLOGIS 19 ff. ►261h F CERT. NO. 841.1-156 DRAWN BY' ES D7 DATE N OV. 13, 19B4 1 APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS Soil Description and Clo ratan T. P _ 2 Soit sc6ption and. Classification C:,� o L O-2.C)' cRAuic Sit TND PEAT; DARK 0 � O-I.O'QROAN'IC Stt_� AND P Kt —I DARK BRO'%'N,LOOSE, SATURATED(0i4-1) t BROWn!,LOOSE. SATLJRAT ED(OL-PT). . _ = 1.0-5.5'SILTY SAND; RED BROWN FINE -TO MEDIUtvI-GRAINED, LOOSE TO 3 MEDIUM DENSE,S.ATuRATED, = l:. 2.0-+0.5•51!TY S4,ND; GRAY BROW"./1'J,rINE- 'y1:ri TOCOARSE-GRAINED,LlTTLE IJ To T. SLOUGHING (SM). T O SOmE GRAVEL, EDium 14 j Dc1f5E,WEi (SM). i Y i 2-.O'-SLOUGHING 5EL.OV'! THIS S t SAND GRAY BROWN,FINE- PC!NT, 5'TURATED. f� �55-10.5'TIL.TY O COARSE -GRAINED, LITTLE TO T; SOME ROUNDED GRAVEL,.DENSE, ;: t;_}.A'� MOIST TO WET (SIVO. -10 ttts: T - D-z 1 Na:es T��NtIN:,T=t� r=T. rcEFISAL. Notes: TERMINATED AT REFUSAL, SLOUGHING PROBLEMS. SLOUGHING PROBLEms. T : - 3 Soil Description and Classification T P - 4 Soil Description and Clacsi{ica-ion o _.:I O -.5' TOPSOI I-, DARK i3R0\^'N, HUMUS, o ,., A, O -.5' ToPSo+L; DArZK bROwN, l-iUMI;S, r ORGANICS, ROOTS, TRACEGRA\EL, MN ORGANICS, ROOTS,TRACE V1/ET. GRAVEL,WET. + :� 5-3.0'SILT Y SA;\C; BLUE GRAY, FINE -TO r s. �t.5-9.0 SILTY SANID; CRAY BROWN FINE- I MEDIUM GRAINED SOMEi'ff ~ j TO COARSE -GRAINED, SOME f::..: z ; GRAVEL, T RACE ROOTS, MEDIUMROUND_D •:1 *-t: GRAVEL,\'ERY DE-�:S`, DENSE, WET (SM• ':;�;i ;'Tc WET TO SATURATED (SM). €#:i j j > 3.c-g.o"5►L T Y SA!`+D; GRAY BROWN. FINc- -S .... 3.O' ,H EA.VY GROUN D W.^-%T TO COARSE -GRAINED, SOME t<ai E�Pti J t S - PAGE. — ROUNDED GRAVEL,TRACE ROUNDED 5.0" BELOW THIS DEP T H FOUND r_ r�. COBBLES. VERY DENSE, MOIST T: OCCASIONAL SEEPING } TO WET(SM). 3=�a: : ; COARSE -GRAINC- SAND LENSES. T. D. 1 4 t '' It Notes: 2.5': GROUND WATER SEEPAGE. Notes: SLOUGHING PROBLEMS. TERMINATED AT REFUSAL. _ TEST PIT LOG HARBOR HILLS Edmond 8, V askington Cascade Testing laboratory, Inc. Engineers •. Geologists 14 ; 20 N E 2Ist Street Bellevue Wash 98607 Phone 641-2573 D-L E NOV. 13, 1 5'64 CEPI N0 8 411- 1 BY .E SDT. C " K g• :'C• A. c4� Description and Cl.Motion, T. P - 6 Soit Wription ond: Clorriiicotion 0 0-2.0.ORGA.NtC SILT AND PEAT; DARt, o 0-4-0' PEAT; DARK BRO%NNi LOOSE, - BROWN, LOOSE,SATURA-TED(Ot-PT).. - SATURATED fP1j. 1, ---#, 2.0-$.0•5ILTY SANT>, BLUE GRAY,FINE-TO MEDIUM-GRAMED,SWAE GRAVEL, -_ ':•::=T� OCCASIONAL ORGhNtC POCKETS, - LOOSE, 3ATURATE0(SNO- 4.0-S-O'SANDY SILT; GRAY GROWN, -5l?t_j -5 TRACE. TO LITTLE GRAVEL, t=j=i �'"`�`S" VERY LOOSE, SATURATED- SOGGY WITH NO BOTTOM 5-0' FLO\m N C SOILS. 6.0-13.0' Si LT`' SnND; GRAY BROWN, FIN E- T.D.= � T ^^ GRAINEC SOME l". r:.* 0 C��RSE.- .. 18.0" rI`��} ROUNDED GRAVEL, DENSE, -to J -to T.D=I:--.t7 Notes : ? • 7 I So;! Description cn Clossiiicc:ior. o�—_ O- 2.5' P=-, DARK BROw.%., LOOSE, 5a T LICI ,T_L (PT). i �.�-t.� �;ti1N. El GRA..Y TRACE -0 i T L E v r`^C AV a =r ` RY -.00t 5 E, SA RAT ED-3000', WI T �4 NO I:j 3.0• FL0W;NG SOILS. 7. Note, : H0— = T =R' tIN?.TcD DUET,:) SLOUGHING. DEP7_5 ARE-''t?cCXi �.1rTE Notes: HOLE TERMINAT'cD D1JE TO 5L000NI IG, DEPTHS ARE APPROXIMA I E. Sol Description and Clo,siiicotion o FF t 0-2.5' ORGANIC SILT AND PEAT; DA BROWN, LOOSE, SATURATED A •i:.::y::5: :25-8.0 SANnY SILT TO SILTY SAND;GR?. SRO\NN, LITTLE ZRA\tEL,LOOSE TO MEDIUM DEN5E, 5ATURATED L~i 8.0-12.0, SANDY SILT TO SILTY SAN ;GRAl" BROWN, LITTLE G RAVEL,TRACE 7' [.c COBBLES, DENSE TO VERY -10 �'•=_-:_a DENSE,WET(SM-Mtn. 12 O" Notes TEST PIT LOG HARBOR HILLS. Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc. Edmonds, V askington .Engineers Geoiogis,s Se,:e•:ue was," `P`one 5s: 2573 o-= t-:Oti' {� a6-- -_-- �,0 $�; -15G OWN By ESDT. CN►;D_BY i • I.P. . ✓ Soil Description oral Clossificot;on 1 P .' O I Soil Description and Clossilicotion- n O- 2.C' ORGANIC S117 AND PERT,' DARK rlu� 6ROVVM, LOOSE, SATURATED 1 ' (OL- Pi). ja i F� I 2.0- G-55ANDY SILT;. BLUE GRAY, VV TH f SO,,-,::: GRAVEL; ►J.EDIUtv1i0 11f DENSE DEN517Y, SATURATED (M L): 5 I 2_5' SLOUGH I NC-,. -5 T. D 1.51 10 No1,,: HOLE TERt�tINATED DUE TO SLOUGHING. T P - ( I Soil Description and Classification o �• 07 2.0" PEAT; DARK BRO\NN, LOOSE, t-_ SATURATED (PT) • t= SAND; BRO�'.'N, FINE- K) . 2.1. COARSE-GRAINED, SOME CRPNEL, it`tf MEDIUM DENSE, SATURATED. WITH OCCASIONAL POCKET5 OF CLEAN GRAVEL (stun). -S—E-T:#{j 2.5' SLOUGHING BcLO%Nf DUE TO `i? 1 GROUND \h/ATER SEEPAGc �I 8.0-9.5' SANDY SILT; GRA`( BROWN TRACE TO LITTLE GRAVEL, to I-` D.t HARD MOIST (ML)_ Notips:'HOLETERMINATED DVE T0SL0U6NING. TEST PIT LOG Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc. Enginftrs - Geologists le :20 N E 21st Streel Bellevue Wash 98CX" Phone 641.2573 p-1.5' PEAT; DARK BROWN. LOOSE, SATURATED (PT). 1.5-7.0 51 LTY SAND; GRAY BROWN, FINE-1. COARSE-GRA114ED,TRACE -TO LITTLE GRAVEL, DENSE TOVERY DENSE, MOIST TO WET (SM). Notes: HOI E TERMINaTED AT REt'--US.^%L. t P -1 2- 1 Soil Description and Cicssiiication o _ - O-I.5'PEAT; DARK BROVNN, LOOSE, =� 5ATUR-AT cD(PT) ( ...1 1:5-G.O'SILTY SAND; BLUE GRAt'TOGRA`1 1 =" i'' BRO\,VN, EiNE-TO COARSE -GRAINED 541,AE ROUNIDED CRAVEL.DEKSE, t..�:a.. 5UGN T LY MOB, LEE 0 NNET CS`iI)- -5 Notes : TEkM19ATED AT RF;FQ5?tL-. HARBOR HILLS Edmonds, Washington _--.— I - -- ,/ 13 Soil Description and Clotsiticotion 1_ p o-t.0' PEAT: DARK BR"OVvI , LOOSE, 0 - SATURATED (PT). 1.0-4.55AMIDY S1L1;'BLUE GRAY:VVITH SOME ROUNDED GPAvF_L,LOOSE, - SATURA T ED (NAL)- _ 4.5-5.5'PEAT;.DARK 5RO\MN, ROOTS, -5— { ORGANICS, SATURA-fED (PT). 3 15.5-10.0'SILT,-C SAND; BROWN FINE -TO '. j: COARSE-GRAI>;EG, SOME ! ROUNDED GRP,vEL , MEDIUM TO DC-NSE DENSITY, VVF--i (ST�I. Soil $scriplion and Clossilicotion �. %r :t1 I -10 s i -10� Notes Notes: 1 P . Soil Description - and Clossiiicotion 1 P Soil Description and Ciossi-icatior. 0 -----, 0 —T-1 -5-1 Notes: TESTPIT LOG Cascade Testing Laboratory, Inc. Engineers - Geologists 14 ! 20 N E 21 st Street Bellevue was,. 9Ur17 Phone 641.2573 HARBOR HILLS Edmond s, Washington DATE NOV. 1-5, 113S4 C"' N-- 8411-15G Icwn sY ESDT. CMKO 8y APPENDIX B GROUND WATER INTERCEPTOR. DRAIN DESIGN GROUT. D WATER -INTERCEPTOR DRAIN DESIGN HARBOR FALLS 6'4i Er •rO Yy •Oy4 YY ..YJ11 ,,YY YY„YU YyYy J44 y0'O Y44�•VOyJ Jyy' Gp A'•90 ?y9.p •\•J VF.. Y4y0J44u yYp0 J•• u vlly ,l'4y Y•/YrY Puy VJJ Oy yVuY'YV4y LY�O q�>4V 0: :`49p DYU Opprl'p D.y G4G 1.44Y ggL`Yyu yJY Yy4 vyg4 YY4yVYYYy YpYp DYy 4VJY0 Yy YV I•�`u00py0YJO \y J YG V GYVu u �` 4 4`1• �' J Jp Yyi' uyu VV. 4 p 0 0. J V4 Y 4 qy y 1�,�-,,..—p-.�6- G Yp 4 4.0 p. °.p 0 J 4V uV u V 4 Y u, u 0 M ,• Y G �' Y y 0 Y 0 4 y 4 4 li y p u J° u u V J V p A y U. �!' p 4 Y O O G V q 0 0 p1 Jy 4 0'V ✓O V 4Y 4.Y Oi'y 'J. yr V .:" V oYY v Y M.4 q. __ p uJ P pu4y YJY V �"44 4 V4 4 4 a 4 0"q O. y �.• p' V .D 4'q'y D' I.` (/��/ 4Yy�Vy 0p4 yY.. Jy J4Y 44y V„4u 0u uMyVy'4 y0Yy Q44Y:yqy O•YQQ YY'yu iJ 4�MJ c�. p••poo.QA r O V .\ 4` u 4„ V J lJ 4✓ u y V Y J g 4 Y 4 4 YpJY y y Y J J J Y 4' Y •y M V YY Y J 4 4 V Y• V y V 4 ` Y y p O 0 '0 1 \ y.Q 4u44 ,•4 Yyu,•�•.. V•J"y44V4�'4 a0y Yu 4uVL uV yVYV V4V YV y'OY YVy•• 11 yV MVO'4 VV4y '�� „ Y Luy � •• vu4 H y D Y •• 4Y D� 4' •• u M yl'✓ y Y u P'4 Vu. Y.:�Y ••Lu Yu`r uM yMyY qyy 1IV. VYJVYyY4uJ y4YY IiV Yy'VJV.Y qy-4�.p y.'Vp Jy .. y 1 � v y Y Y• A. � u YY V•.' •• •' Y V u YJ. Y4 V Y y •• J 4 YY4y Y J Y �• V D4V 'Y.'0 —_�--�—_��_��uu yuu y.4L UY.y V„•1. 1!Y•'YY J yY y :. �[JY YuYy Vpy '� \ u 4.y .," . v/'�7 {/ O.�p�o. fY••`�Y I•Ifj�O. U/(y),. �O VCJi.O��iJ y�CJl�I�'Q.L/�J;olr�. J1 u o`6•,o;JOv.'.U• I;J/lrl�• �u(O�Q'O� ° 0•i�r�uV;� QD.�,•�'�1:✓�v{�•r.e ••Ol.�ti�u•�'•(/��:/Or•Yo�1•U ,�'�i.. 4, . iO.• 0,°(1o•i'1)•�. Q'�t 10:e;o .: •/', -=oTjUO+n . �•'� f • J / p p i7b' O ��•Ip°��., U•��. i�^4�•'/u��G•. y°O�. D,DO O��pi..' �1 QUO. ( . ..- \ 1D�1•. „�O,�'�Oy�q•J (1G(,`/•/v•D•O�%°° '0.��°�OO[,D " �'/ �— NATURAL .. -- MINIMUM MATE('-5 —� STANDARD WITHOUT P.V•C. -DRAIN SECTION BACKFILL PI-( RUN SAND AND GRAVEL FILTER FABRIC 1 IVER ROCK ��- NATURAL MATERIALS 0 CASCADE TESTING GNfEgs LABORATORYGEOLOGIST 823- CHIT. NU. PIPE 8411--156 —""oliawN .eir ESDT SCALE NOT. TO SCALE 1 OF C-,ROUfJL> \Ni �-1=1: INTERCCPlI-OR DRAIN DESIGN HARBOR HILLS BACKFILL .. . 4o yr o.YaY'r qqw pY. .. Py •4pt.oq:0op.q.4,.P.QP_apo, .,4,Q o?JP �V9 a°,u.op P.o•.4:p� yY uQMy'9Y YO:J 4 yq w4p Jy yy 'O..'. y:0 J O..Y 04 .0'G OAP. '9. P000 P ° °4 Q:o9•p': .u°.yu°o Yw yougyoywo VV ouu'PY �r 4q V.Y..°yo 4�'u YNgy �.k:o Ppu.4 Rq; oqo y0u,o a°y .Yo oe'i9:.4.y y4 Y Y1.y.Y y V O y.y u 4° 4 V Y Y..G"PV°,y•y';PY 9 '4..4'p y'40 4' pY.:y4 NATURAL. cOpgOoq pypyP4 uPy G. yY ,1y0 PGJO YYy.. �;,9w4 .y.Py YJ.4 qY.P V 4Q0 O.P p, .y 4 •op P.P u V o o:y G w'q.4ly:Qu: q. o4o Yy:P q.44Q:9..o oQ ;P o.P9P Y o.o .Y4p o. p9 °YY u c V Y g Y ✓qu P Y P g 4 u• o o 4. o. u P Y °,p �. o., PQ � P q....p 99 ` 09 4 q o ?.o �. NGPy'oop �• TO G MATERIALS p •?q�Y�y4y4J4cPu4n 4y qy.V 9,9P9qYR p..co..4.4q ou4`9 o.4'yP44q AQ•,J ..p °p pypy o,pr . PIT RUN JANI] 4qp 9P°4co 4y cVo4 JRpP �p'P 9o9 o:...po,q R.9 4 uy4u P�JV Vry ° 44 u4°p.y Jy y4QO JY,00P.`p Q•. RQV,q.QP•P.PY!',Opp.p Oqp . A N D n y ° 0y' o(y�y p'Po,P 44:4P q GRAVEL O Td—v 9Q yY 90'q PP1 P 04.. 4 P.G.G..G.......4 Q Pu 4VP Y�J,V Vyy uq V°o�u yy y.'y yPP�'V.;Puo•,`9Y.4•q�p,p,q,. y..:a.w Q904400.'G'0.0. wuuy 49yw y V'o u4'u'0 p4 P'. u.P PP: 4•d'o.0: Po Vq� J Yy V.II Oy w`4 4 0 P V p y'yy ° y p..rt p 9' q you �yu0 ur 4 , i,yYw OyUyJy4 p� uy0'y O•' PY�°OY P O JY'O9y.H J'u 04 9 iy�e•y ..7•It... ... .:^�: �:.LL!�'..`DT....,.�•K�:;r;1!n 4�}J�.F?;;.: A!'•t.t;,ars:. ... ....�ri- . SAND G" •ro 6' . PERFORATED --- PVC DRAIN PIPE FILTER FABFtIC- WA`ruRAL MATERIALS --�- 6 TO 12 MINIMUM 3' STANDARD SEC -TON' WITH PERFORATED P.U.C. DRAIN PIPE CASCADE'- TESTING LAB o RATORY ENGINEERS G�QLOGISTS 17C a/. DI Arp ►ctPkI AND. WASHftl Fjl '�. 823-9600 Er IIU.— SCALE 8411-156• _NOT TOSCA' MIAWN 9Y DATE PT ESDT 2 qF 2 APPENDIX C STRUCTURAL FILL CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. IIvC. _ - TE57�n+G d uv5 PEC 7�Onn /E^+G�+EERS /GEOLOGi5T5 Cert_ .No. 8411-15G Technical Design, Inc. Site Preparation We do not recommend placing any fill on slopes greater than 15* on this site. We recommend that all areas receiving fill be grubbed of trees, shrubs, roots, and other deliterious materials. Grubbing should be limited to those areas receiving fill. All other loca- tions and slopes should be left undisturbed. The surficial organic rich soils should be removed do%-rn to firm bearing soils and proof rolled to determine if they are yielding or non -yielding,. All yielding soils should be removed under the direction of the site soils engineer.. Fill Placement P_nticiaated wet site conditions may require the placement of an eight (8) to twelve (12). inch. layer.of quarry spalls. This will ::eln establish a non-vieldi ng working base to place the fill upon. 1mDorted structural fill should consist of materials which meet. WSDOT standard specification 9-03.12(1) Gravel Backfill for Founda- tionswet weather conditions will require the use of a class A material. All fill materials should be placed in a.maximum eight (8) inch lift cor„Dactea to 95% of the.ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density proctor value. Lift size and compaction procedures should be well document- ed during the placement of .the fill. We recommend that a represent- ative of Cascade Testing Laboratory observe the fill procedures and take density tests as required by city regulations. I �+4 T CITY OF EDMONDS 890-19 Address of Construction: // 0. Property Legal Description (Include all easements): /dam Rm i �xPi�Q�s SIDE SEWER PERMIT N'jo Owner and/or Contractor: !- .-�'�z-��-�-� ►� «�-v� z-� ��4' y� � .-7. State License No: / Building Permit No. N0 6, 4. Single Family /❑` Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public 90 �D/9/S �r I PERMIT 8970 Invasion into City Right -of -Way: ❑ No x Yes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property: No ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement I certify that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. Date * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * OFFICE USE ONLY f * FOR -`INSPECTION CALL 7M-9202, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. �00 • (g0 rt�a,�S Permit Fee: Issued By Trunk Charge. Date Issued: Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: /2 30 L. Lid No.: Partial Inspection: Comments Date Initial Reason Rejected: Date Final Inspection Approved: Date itial4-c_ Initial ** PERMIT MUST BE PO TED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant Revised 3!90 Side Sewer Drawing The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO . ............................................ NEW CONSTRUCTION gf REPAIRS ❑ LID NO . .................. . ASMT. NO................... OWNER.........................•--•-•-•-•-----........------------------•-••--•..--..--..--........... CONTRACTOR.---.........-•----..................---•------...------....-----•--.........----••. PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS ......... 1.�V .5-.....�AL15'i I L L � ............ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO- --------------- ...................... BLOCK NO. .................................... ti NAME OF ADDITION ................. 5'a.P. 6A0_Y AL,_ Approved: PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78) DATE ...... l 2 11 : `1 g................. By ....... lu T IVAN; ■; a am yr more mao t heri7nni'A dietanr MuSwa s¢ water m me Uoodway_ floodpWm of a water oou me. stains a creek or an area whec+e water flows == the grounds Mdace? Fl, Rows are seasonal! _ (What time of year? _ Ply: forested ; meadow ; sln ibs ; andscaned 112um ehrnhe atA ��.�-+ter �[ `'•i �i`� a .G e'�Ce :o�ri%%r>�.,:,:: � n•.0 t � - 0 °r90 -t99 ,f ,City.of Edmonds Critical AreaS-"-Ch6ck1h§v .YM amxwest• }on � =FF}. .. �`K .•� .M. � M. 4 �.�s �`'' •ef athbnllt W City-, - - be City w� this form is to be StLed out an ,.;r,f by Y Pin : ;-- �: 4 ,> .. review'thedhocklist; maloe a pi ttsory site pig a Development Permit s`. --T; •'vim' and 'iWm a determination of the Application for, the Oty of Edmonds prior , : ; :. subsequent steps necessary to complete a to his/her submittal of a developmentdewdopnheat permit application. permit to the City. .. , -With aligned copy of this form, the the purpose of liar -w �. v...:�:; (�teekiist is to enable .app1icamt should also submit a vicinity map City staff to determine whether any..", ' :: or Plot plan Tor midi ors o Potential Critical Arras are or maybe _ with Moto det& that aty staff can find present on the subject property. Zhe _. and identify the subject piw*s): ` 1n information needed to complete, comp the ad • addition, the applicant shall include Checklist should be euRy available from other pehfh. aeat information (eg. site Observatiow of the site or data available at per, bapOg'aphy map, etc.) or studies in City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, eogjunefion with this Chedklist to assist or soil ). staff In completing their preliminary asg P ccahent of the Site. . An applicant, or his/her we, must fill out the dwddK sign and date it, I have completed the alladwd Critical Area Checklistand attest that the answers provided are factual, to the besta[my kwwledge (fill out the WIXOM . owner ApplieW Itelp r pc P tntive: '414 Y, � c C O I' /1- I'C- KUM Nan 3d3 .S J r v So . (InE"s. abroetAddh+ess _ SbceetAdd�s 2I j � fir. GJ�9 . �Pazo a% state, ZIP Pbona (jfv-, JML-- W k.CtV- !uF 0 S 1OC- 4 M N i Af (. O A/ &Er-tJ i( 2' c,¢ A/ GET 7`o rr�ge%ET r3dTH LdTS, ? iVE-&b ftS Tff E Ld l 7-Af Vk S CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS w MAILING ADDRESS (i t� o ` % �� d , e-. .�J % � f G' 4-EC CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER re 3 a - 7 761 NAME Ra/3E/LT / CsG,4&ew v LOU ADDRESS 20 32- 12oy6e *V,6- &7, a cITYJ,MBER �� P// 2 2�c) 323TELEPHONE U o3 Z NAM _1,0�pko',t1 1 \ . J ADDR r.) e?( — uttl G-�)ZIPTELEPHONE NUMBER STATE ICENSE NUMBE ,fir �/ EXPIRATION DA30 V 6 Legal Description of Property - include all easements LOT f. flj4�i3yLLY�%7cl:t, 4-c -e"l Tb iif>c Si614V ,-7 /;S" F/ Property Tax Account _ 0UO:— 2 MEG:(UO — !Ja O 771TT Parcel No. ® LN ® NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBINGIMECH El COMPLIANCE OR ADDITION COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE APT. BLDG. REMODEL SIGN S. ❑ FENCE ❑Gj REPAIR �`i.CYDS. (X_FT) WOODSTOVE FISWI DEMOLISH ❑;�: POOL a TUB NS RT HOT SPA. GARAGE El RETAINING WALL/ CARPORT ROCKERY RENEWAL (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: S/,v� NUMBER OF iz f- NUMBER OF DWELLING / CRITICAL AREAS S� ppD 0 17 STORIES /,W&j&jjj UNITS NUMBER DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) -- P4.4-i-S HEAT SOURCE: GLAZING I c(n USE PERMIT p��+► (� ZONE I3 it V 667 �N'"U�MBER O r JOB ADDRESS 05 . f ' J� ( LJ .i �.�1.�. �a i� I Ck C e _ SUITE/APT M AA 500-. µtins tJ�A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved ❑ EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION — RW Permit Required J9 Street Use Permit Req'd* - Inspection l Required .o PROPOSED Sidewalk Required ❑ M�T� `E �LII�jESIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PAV REQUIRED YESN NO ❑ :MAHKS GA (/ /N .��((� //V S 0.14 7 �.OS/a ••f a c,..77t' O L it �7 L V /A /n/G R'6-& '0 VGIYyEERING MEMO DATED 410190 VARIANCE OR CU SEPA REVIEW MP ETE EXEMPT XP�� LOT COVERAGE AALLLLOOWED� PROPOSED ADB R ALLOWED IPROPOSED REQUIRED SETBACKS (I FRONT SIDE REAR C7, CKEp BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIONjJIY-T-1Q%j SPECIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED `d •_LI �IYES ,--_ ..! .i REV cA BY SHORELINE a HEIGHT 'ROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.) FRONT UR SIDE REAR PANT LGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 10& ._ FINAL INSPECTION;REQUIREC VALUATION PLAN CHECK FEE PLUMBING �/ ? Plan Check No. I�i I MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE ENG. INSPECTION FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and v, successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, I employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of IJ a whatever nature, arising directly or. indirectly from the issuance = of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED tion in rance aria RCW 18.27. INSPECTION SI RE 11 AGEN DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT d 2Y /f C CITY OF Al NDS CALL FOR ATTENTION INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR �� Owwo L1 A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS, BEEN GRANTED. UBC 3ECTION 109 a342- APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. FICIAL'S SIGNATURE C i / _ - DAjrE TE ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 0 6 i • • �3� 5� A�en�� I�II�IIIIII £d monds WA 980aD 9810050249 10/05/98 10:42 p.0001 Recorded Snohomish County STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Property Address: Edmonds, Washington Legal Description: L� 9, �f�9�eao2 ��c4 s , ,4 cco/"1.-tG 7a 7W&F �L�4-T�FGo /L/> S-.D ln% ✓O L E/M L� � 4 DF' I�L�i -'J'-Y . 1�i¢��5 l6s'/�'� �nfcc.uS�✓G-�, 2�c��s oi- erNayoiyisy Assessor's Parcel Number:- -7 000 - o o 9- a vo 2 I have read the requirements for accessory dwelling units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and understand that an accessory dwelling unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for two years after occupancy by the current owner (unless a waiver is granted by the Community Services Department) and until after a conditional use permit has been approved by the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner. I also understand that approval of a conditional use permit is subject to a public hearing, and neither this statement nor the issuance of a building permit shall act to limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a conditional use permit. Property Owner Signature: i nature: r, a,� 1 . Date: �,L.:.c_ . 3�� Vey -nor) LAJ. ChaSe, 6curbcx'ra. F Cbcksc, STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF SNO f0MfS-H) r I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that�U� '� -��;� �• signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. Notary's pressure seals must be smudged. -m Signature of PAMELA WINSTON ` NOTARY PUBLIC Notary i'itviiC: STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES ResidinR at: COJJ4L ' NOVEMBER 29, 200o y Appointment THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR. Portiand, Oregon 97225-6440 24, 1998 Building Division Community Services Department City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Applicant/owner Liability & Landslide Acknowledgment Re: App i (ECDC 19.05.040C) To Whom It May Concern: e ou that all permit submittal information regarding accurate and This is to advis y Subdiv construction of our residence el evLote the of Edmonds and its staff from any warranted by us so that it w permit submittals. While this application liability associated with reliance on such orpublic consultants to the City, all conclusions may reference the reports of professionals. shall be ours and our design p potent er understand and accept the risk of developing an area with p We further any prospective purchasers of unstable soils and that we will advise; in writing, of structures on the site, of the slide potential the site, or any prospective lessees of the area. Barbara F. Chase Vernon W. Chase Subscribed and sworn to befor, , me this day , 1998 .-�-' OFFICIAL SEAL GRETC HEN L. SMITH. Notary Public -State of Washington My Commission Expires 10_29-01 Nota Public in and for the State of Washington motA 4 Residing a Svv, ; • �• m - a�a o�'t`3a v s yi'fi tr ��sJ '_._'�_�_._ � , ' Cp�'Tt�a�" • €rys,,.i- ,�_' � �� 'nr�.�j l y i {.. ?' a ��Y �-v f � jr t 1��p1_ %�x��x�'}y,9�y+S�d��} "s�s.r � 4• t.: 'T � ti rr 6� ''t� r of •✓+�. z r ':','VF�kl''�p�fiy (f""i s�ir�) � %S +', ! g t 81 + A;h F Y '- t y (.te � r9'b V� e Y � 3 � yP � ,a' -1• SAr 3v. �.�,� v�..�s � ,. �,.. ,_ r .�' x•., `;. ,. .., ... �.:.., ,.. .e: ` .aT ,1`rr,-�a 4,1 N��r�&..��LC.�Ni�e�±�dh�l?��',.��Ylfi�" i,`(.LaS��•��'s. � rl�:r, �x" ��'. 118442 I& J n \I Al h - 6X. 6 ° ASPHALT W L K "PVC JY)DE ZP?" W sA111/T42Y ! a T 1o� h I I I .�q, q.. • � ,.\ �t o \I , I \ Z7.5 y v\11 I , I R3' c �° `m \ r 1 0 Y. 0, q 1 w I 5AN.. SEWER STUB 9 0-150 IU 6' aaN S W GAS 0 ' Z � I .1a7' ,• 1ex, I LC&6N© 06 - CA761-1 6As/1.1 Y.O. z YARD ORA1N G.O. = CLEAN OUT WV = WATER VALVE WA-1 WAT6,e NJETER F/1 = -IR6 N K'010ANT A = ALOER DES. _ ,DESI,p000S A3.6.B.G. _ ,8UI1-0I1V6, SET BACK LINE AP)eOX. LOCATION OF 6 " PVG ROOF DRAIN5 `o ail I 5A ptiti' II 2 APP,20X,,/MATE L'PEC/AL J'-TRACK �ql�, ,� 4064T/61\1 OF POWE,P, Co T� R. E,oHONE, C,40(6 E leZ, 6A48T F,POM WATE,P / • ��/ 3 � I COU,CSE TO �E DETE/zM/NE,O A TIME 1� I OP ,8U/G 0/N R MIT APPLIGAT/oN I (M/N/MUM /0, FROM TOP OF ,BANK) qy . / b • �j - - - - - - - - -- — - , FEWER � 5 I / ' JrU,6 I \ b b j� lab ay 7' U r1L/7Y 7 NOTE : TH/S it'JAP J/IOWJ ONLY Malt E EAJEiVENTJ \ °O AND \1ET,BACK LINEj THAT iIV EX. G,8 i APPEAR: ON THE /eEWRDEO \ �°�► izg �` \ ` ,9q3, 1� I� TOP 2I1 P[AT OF IlA,2, oR H/LLJ . THlJ INV, Z07. 7 -12 "E A14P DOES Nor PuRPn2T TO /NV. 207. - /2 ".S .!HOW AL G EAJE�YIENTJ OR 19y� \ •, �bq Ib,� / i yj ENGG/M,C3ER6iVGE�!' THAT V1'1Ay /t09 1�� • �� r / Q h ,ti' EX/J7; E/THE'2 REGOR,OErO Off' �P ti /I ,406 t / / 4 N I X UNREGOR,OE,O. p1 Kos O /Z CA A� r .� ig95 W 1 n�d- 2`I i C'1gP 5� ` 1 APR 17 199 jo\1 q �WM LEGAL DESCRIPTION BENCHMARKWV LEGAL /Q a LOT 9, PLAT OF HPi ARO,P H/CLS, .C/TV OF E,OiY10N,G1J; TOP OP if�JONL/MENT /N GAJ'E LOGATEO v A;T TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAY1i 1998 J'NOHOM/J'H COUNTY, {1-4MINGTON. AT CENTER OF GUL DE SAG, ELEY. = ZZ9. 45 DATUM : C/T}' OF E01WOMQ5. FOR bb \�!Z EDALLION D-EVELOPMENT .: OFFS/rE ,8U/LD/NG �LE�ATioNs: � o° N.E. I/4, SECTION 24, GA,QTON NDU.5E ,e00F 6 L E V. = Z 00. 08 ' R MATTESON GARAGE,200E ELEV. = 19794' � CITY OF EDMONDS, T. 27 N., R. 3 E., W. M. WASH I NGTON ~ .•r / � , �.' `�`Q ,� 1 REVISED ^• TREES REMOVED M•C. /O•/Io 8`I Lovell-Sauerland & .ASSociryfam Inc r q�5/89 Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 • Lynnwood, WA 98037 • (206) 775.1591 • (206) 340-0830 r, rNr� Hnr✓ K/C yr -7L- KM SECTION 24, T.27 N., R.3 E., W.M. o o 0 --i EX. 6"PVC SIDE SEWER — — --- — 1--SS — — --- SS --- r— ---- -- 4— ss �g \ so - + N 89'34'2 " W i 90.00' 11 I \ + CB #2 *RFDRAINS 0 i I I ,'TYPE 1-L CONNECT �`��\ i I• � RIM 189.0 �� TiP• INV. 185.82 27.5" 24' u� r ♦ 1 gb S I I NCq I r r ♦\ 1 I I I I 1 Ir- LO� r I �) i I N 1 1 1 ` \` y I M I `� \ 1 1 sp CONTRACTOR to FIELD ;ROOF LINE, TYP. SCALE 1 "=10' VERIFY INV. ELEV. PRIOR CB 2 �\\ ��\ 111 ♦♦♦♦ 1�1 `T ly�l h \ 5 0 15 TO CONSTRUC+'ilON. v) ITYPE 1-L �� \ 11 �ti ti` CONSTRUCT ROCKERY RIM 186.52 I I I �` �� 1 �� MAX TYP. 0 10 L� I cn RIM 189.0 ♦ 1 . �, , ., INV. 185.0 r 0a U) �1 ♦ 1 S tO w EX. YD i ,� \ > `� 11 ♦♦ 1\ \ H OW SE c r SS STUB / BASEMENT LE L ffi 192.0� Vo 1 ., I I L LOWER LEVEL = 201.0 / 1 o I 0 ` MAIN LEVEL �� _ 211.0'� 0 I / MAX. HEIGHT �= 225.5 ti�o� 1 , �,,+�OOF �p�j o �`" z CONNECT TO EX. SANIT� RY I '� 1 SEWER ST B poi � � �Q CO � GJ�O. S Q�P ai Co It I 2 I 13' C0'I 1 aw i// rl 'LSO :� �� / -0 I . ) '1 I 1 I I I1 I ` 1 1 - I 1 I / _ww'.� SILT BARRIER FENCE, TYP. INV. 197.64 ROCK LINED CONSTRUCTION — ENTRANCE RELOCATE EXISTING WATER — METERS AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE RELOCATE EXISTING UTILITIES - AS NECESSARY Y 220....................... Y..... _............................................................................................... _............................................................... .............................. ............................,.............................. 1220 . w wl �' a: 215........................................... .................:.................................. ..................... _ .......................... ... 15 `......................... 2 \ FF = 210.5 \ _ : ® GARAGE g -- r r- � 210...............................:............�`.............................................�......--+............ � ...... _ _ .......................... .ti`.`............_............................ :...PROPOSED.. 210 DRIVEWAY — — -- — -� PROFILE .EX. GROUND 205........................................................... _ ........................... .......................... _ ........................... _ ........................... ............................ 205 200........................................................................................................................_..............................'............................................................_.............................._.............................. 200 fi DRIVEWAY PROFILE SCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZ. 1 " = 5' VE R T. o r r Q yew 11100, Qj •/'/ Q Zj N Do rn --t If o EX. CI ' (31 I TOP 211.87 1 I I INV. 207.71 2"E I I INV. 207.5, 12"S , Z 1 EX. FIRE / 2p5`J + HYDRANT Y \ - -210 l vim l s/ / RACKERY HEIGHT: AS NIECESSARY. IF OVER 4' SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT REQUIRED: .................................................................................................. r.. 215 12' / ......... :...............................:................... .... ...... ............................. ............................... : 210 SEE ROCKERY CETAIL SHT. 2:: / ..... A ................................ 205 ROCKERY TO:BE PLACED / ON SUITABLE: BEARING SOIL, TO BE VERIFIED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ��.�. (TYP. 3 PLACES) ........... �P�,.. DRIVEWAY CROSS SECTION A -- A SCALE: 1" = 10' HORIZ. 1"--5'VERT. / 1 / 1 I I I SCALE: 1' 2400' OWNERZDEVELOPER VERNON CHASE 8700 S.W. WHITE COURT PORTLAND, OR 97225 TELEPHONE: (503)292-0506 ENGINEER LOVELL - SAUERLAND AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 19400 33RD AVE. W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 TELEPHONE: (425)775-1591 DATUM: UM: CITY OF EDMONDS . BENCHMARK:ilt�� TOP OF MONUMENT IN CASE LOCATED AT THE MAY 111998 CENTER OF CUL-DE-SAC, DALEY PLACE ELEV. 229.45 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 9, PLAT OF HARBOR HILLS, CITY OF EDMONDS, 0�� SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. CONNECT ALL ROOF DRAINS TO PRIVATE DRAINAGE SYSTEM: ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE MATK,:;FIIAL 2. CONSTRUCT PRIVATE DRAINAGE SYSTEM PER CITY =OF EDMONDS "DRAINAGE SYSTEM STANDARDS"N-12 AD r ESTIMATED' IMPERMEABLE AREA = 4,000 S.F. SCh 40 PVC ' 3. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY EXISTING YARD DRAIN SCR 35 (ASTM D$034) (YD) INV. ELEVATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. K i APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES OF EXCAVATION AND FILL EXCAVATION: 200 CUBIC YARDS FILL: 250 CUBIC YARDS 1 THE QUANTITIES OF EXCAVATION AND FILL ARE APPROXIMATE, AND ARE SHOWN ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING A GRADING PERMIT AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR CONTRACTURAL PURPOSES. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND T.E.S.C. PLAN FOR VERNON CHA SE f yA/� i IN 'NE, 1/4 OF SECTION 24, T.27 N., R.3 E.,W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS .SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON APR171998 Lovell -Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants, %4/'98 19400 39rd Avenue W., Suite 200 •Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425)775-1591 Fax 67277898 DItAIiAi `' I CHECIiD DATE F.B. SCALE N0. C.L.D. C.M.C. 479,8-3826., --17-98 343 1•=10' OF L SECTION 24, T.27 N., R.3 E., W.M. V . ", Pi. GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE & MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAN. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF THEIR SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDE SEWERS (LATERALS & TEES) AND THE PLACING OF 2 X 4 MARKERS WITH THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE LATERALS AND TEES INSCRIBED ON THE MARKERS, AND PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IN TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF THE SIDE SEWERS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 5. UPON COMPLETION OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, THE CONTRACTOR THROUGH HIS CONSULTING ENGINEER SHALL FURNISH AN AS -BUILT PLAN TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS WHICH INDICATED THE LOCATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SIDE SEWER LATERALS OR TEES, WATER LINES OR OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. 6. UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED WITH STREET LIGHTING. Ift 7. WATER SERVICE WITH METER BOX AND CURB STOP REQUIRED FOR EACH LOT. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR AND MAKE AIR TESTS OF SANITARY SEWER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. LATERALS TO BE 6" CONCRETE PIPE, OR P.V.C. CONFORMING TO SDR 3034 STANDARDS. 9. EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE CONTRACTOR IN LOCATING SAID FACILITIES IN THE FIELD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING ACTUAL LOCATIONS IN THE FIELD AND CHECKING WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES THAT MAY HAVE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND FACILITIES RESULTING FROM HIS OPERATIONS. ry 10, A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 11. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CLEAN, FLUSH, DISINFECT WHERE APPLICABLE AND OBTAIN SATISFACTORY APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS REGARDING THE QUALITY AND INTEGRITY OF EXISTING WATER LINES, SANITARY SEWER LINE, STORM LINE, RETENTION SYSTEM, ETC. WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF THESE PROCEDURES MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER. 12. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ' W.S.D.O.T./A.P.W.A. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. 13. ALL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATIONS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. 14. ALL INLET AND CATCH BASIN FRAME AND GRATES SHALL NOT BE ADJUSTED UNTIL IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO PAVING. 15. THE TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN. THESE FACILITIES MUST BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR IN SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. 16. ALL REQUIRED STORM WATER RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO ANY PAVING UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 17. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES NOT ON PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS. 18. ALL DISTURBED SURFACES SHALL BE SEEDED WITH TOUGH, HARDY, FAST GROWING GRASS UNLESS LANDSCAPING/EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE EMPLOYED. 19. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL STORM DRAINAGE PIPING 8 12., 18 24" & 36" INCLUDING DETENTION PIPE WILL BE 16 GAUGE GALVANIZED STEEL AND SHALL USE TREATMENT 1. 20. GRASS SEEDING WILL BE DONE USING AN APPROVED TYPE HYDRO - SEEDER, OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE PERFORMANCE BOND WILL NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE GRASS IS ESTABLISHED UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 21. PIPING SPECIFICATIONS AS NOTED. 22. ALL STEEL PARTS WILL BE GALVANIZED AND WITH TREATMENT #1 (ASPHALT COATED). 23. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS FOR INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER, WATER, AND UNDERGROUND POWER SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUCH WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY P.U.D. STANDARDS. NOTES. ALL\EDMS.2 94-120-A 012595 4 GENERAL NOTES Iuo>E IF ROCKERY HEIGHT EXCEEDS 4' A SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED. MATERIALS (1) SIZE CATEGORIES SHALL INCLUDE: TWO -MAN ROCKS (300 TO 600 POUNDS), 13" IN LEAST DIMENSION; THREE-MAN ROCKS (800 TO 1200 POUNDS), 16" IN LEAST DIMENSION; AND FOUR -MAN ROCKS (1500 TO 2200 POUNDS), 18" IN LEAST DIMENSION. FOUR -MAN ROCKS SHALL BE USED FOR BOTTOM COURSE ROCK IN ALL ROCKERIES OVER 6' IN HEIGHT. (2) THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL BE AS NEARLY RECTANGULAR AS POSSIBLE. NO STONE SHALL BE USED WHICH DOES NOT EXTEND THROUGH THE WALL THE ROCK MATERIAL SHALL BE HARD, SOUND, DURABLE AND FREE FROM WEATHERED PORTIONS, SEAMS, CRACKS, OTHER DEFECTS. THE ROCK DENSITY SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 160 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT. THE ROCKERY SHALL BE STARTED BY EXCAVATING A TRENCH ONE (1) FOOT IN DEPTH BELOW SUBGRADE IN EXCAVATION SECTIONS OR BELOW THE EMBANKMENT FOUNDATION IN EMBANKMENT SECTIONS. ROCK SELECTION AND PLACEMENT SHALL BE SUCH THAT THERE WILL BE MINIMUM VOIDS AND, IN THE EXPOSED FACE OF THE WALL, NO OPEN VOIDS OVER SIX (6) INCHES ACROSS IN ANY DIRECTION. THE FINAL COURSE SHALL HAVE A CONTINUOUS APPEARANCE AND BE PLACED TO MINIMIZE EROSION OF THE BACKFILL MATERIAL. THE LARGER ROCKS SHALL BE PLACED AT THE BASE OF THE ROCKERY SO THAT THE WALL WILL BE STABLE AND HAVE A STABLE APPEARANCE. THE ROCKS SHALL BE PLACED IN A MANNER SUCH THAT LONGITUDINAL AXIS OF THE ROCK SHALL, BE AT RIGHT ANGLES OR PERPENDICULAR TO THE ROCKERY FACE. THE ROCKS SHALL HAVE ALL INCLINING FACES SLOPING TO THE BACK OF THE ROCKERY. EACH COURSE OF ROCKS SHALL BE SEATED AS TIGHTLY AND EVENLY AS POSSIBLE ON THE COURSE BENEATH. AFTER SETTING EACH COURSE OF ROCK, ALL VOIDS BETWEEN THE ROCKS SHALL BE CHINKED ON THE BACK WITH QUARRY ROCK TO ELIMINATE ANY VOID SUFFICIENT TO PASS A 2-INCH SQUARE PROBE. THE WALL BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF QUARRY SPALLS WITH A MAXIMUM SIZE OF FOUR (4) INCHES AND A MINIMUM SIZE OF TWO (2) INCHES. THIS MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED TO A TWELVE (12) INCH MINIMUM THICKNESS BETWEEN THE ENTIRE WALL AND THE CUT OR FILL MATERIAL, THE BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN LIFTS TO AN ELEVATION APPROXIMATELY SIX (6) INCHES BELOW THE TOP OF EACH COURSE OF ROCKS AS THEY ARE PLACED, UNTIL THE UPPERMOST COURSE IS PLACED. ANY BACKFILL MATERIAL ON THE BEARING SURFACE OF ONE ROCK COURSE SHALL BE REMOVED BEFORE SETTING THE NEXT COURSE. WHEN A SIDEWALK IS TO BE BUILT OVER A ROCK RETAINING WALL, THE TOP OF THE WALL SHALL BE SEALED AND LEVELED WITH A CAP CONSTRUCTED OF CEMENT CONCRETE, CLASS "C" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6-02 OF THE W.S.D.O.T. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, BUT WITH REDUCED WATER CONTENT RESULTING IN SLUMP OF NOT OVER TWO (2) INCHES. ROCKERY DETAIL N.T.S. ., GEOGRID SHALL BE MIRAGRID 7T OR APPROVED EQUAL. GRID SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN ROCK LAYERS A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO INSURE A FIRM BOND BETWEEN ROCK AND GEOGRID. GEOGRID LENGTH SHALL BE MEASURED FROM BACK OF WALL. REQUIRED GEOGRID LENGTH CHANGES WITH TOTAL WALL HEIGHT AS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING TAB_E: WALL HEIGTH, FT. GEOGRID LENGTH, FT. 12 - 10 9.5 10 - 8 8.0 8 - 6 6.5 6 - 4 5.0 GEOGRID NP LENGTH PIPE END STORM DRAIN CLEAN -OUT DETAIL N.T.S. FOR ROCKERY GREATER THAN 4.0' HIGH USE GEOGRID (BELOW) CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1.) ARRANGE. FOR- AND ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING .WITH CITY OF EDMONDS SITE INSPECTION, 771=-0220. 2.) CALL DIALDIG (UTILITIES, UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER) 1-800-424-5555. 3.) CONSTRUCT FILTER FABRIC FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 4.) CLEAR AND GRUB SITE. 5.) ROUGH GRADE DRIVEWAY PER.GRADING PLAN. 6.) INSPECT AND VERIFY INVERT ELEVATION OF EXISTING YARD DRAIN ON SITE. CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND. 7.) INSTALL .UTILITIES, STORM DRAINAGE, DETENTION SYSTEM, POWER, TELEPHONE,, ETC, 8,) FINAL GRADE AND PAVE. 9.) HYDROSEED; MULCH AND PLANT LANDSCAPE. 10.) REMOVE THE REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION/ SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLY AFTER SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED AND CITY OF EDMONDS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE REMOVAL, 11.) CLEAN STORM. DRAINAGE SYSTEM. FILTER FABRIC,. MATERIAL 2"x2bx14 GA. WIRE FABRIC OR EQUIV. iv Qco Z7 PROVIDE 3/4" TO 1.5" WASHED 8„ GRAVEL" BACKFILL IN TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER 2" X 4" WOOD POST FENCE FABRIC ON THE SURFACE ALT: STEEL FENCE FILTER BARRIER DETAIL N.T.S. m R - 10'MIN 12" THICK MIN. 4"-8" QUARRY SPALLS Ui�Fo� • � MAN r STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE N.T.S. NOTES. AND DETAILS FOR VERNON CHASE M IN . NE 1/4 OF SECTION 24, T.27 N., R.3 E.,W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHNGTON . APR 17 199 11