1115 DALEY PL.PDF1111111111111110708
1115 DALEY PL
Escr��-
,DDaEss: /ll5 ��ule� Taro .
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER. QM'?
4-'t D Q 0 OO i0 0
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): -LEI (QUI6l'/
COVENANTS (RECORDED)
CRITICAL AREAS: ` / DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: V -2(.'QD( I eiAAf Cu- .Sc) •G t
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: �l�j u'q I
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:��'C.�
SEWER LID FEE $:
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: ?
LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:`qZ
SIDE SEWER PERMITS) #: 7 I
GEOTECH REPORT DATED: 0-2 3-9
D
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
L:\TEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
District
City of Edmonds -Water "Depwrtment
TAP CARD
Reading:: cv c7�CD Date 0 3V1'Ia—
No. No.
Meter Tapa,_
3
Size Z Size
Mfgrs. No. Style S'NSt� S
Purchaser:' i&aA 9A
Serv. Add. 1 11 G .DczQs ,, P(a .g
Lot No.
Blk. No.
Add.
Residential:
.Other:
Meter Location !;i-
we -of?- N rIT-A, �-
Service Material:
co tom °-/`-
Pressure
.
lbs-. -Test %
1
i
Date'of Work
Foreman
Guar. Voucher No.
Proj . No.
Remarks: a�c��
t
nr==- e2 N-�� J-�ZQ�ci2
OUTGOING Index Reg. Route Bk. Stencil Card
INCOMING Index Reg. Route Bk." Stencil Card"
ROUTING SLIP
SERVICE INSTALLATION
.IEW
� 1
5 . D
ADDRESS:
DATE:
DIAL A DIG #
P.U.D.
TELEPHONE.
CABLE T.V.
GAS
FOREMAN
STORM SEWER
OTHER
FUTURE. SERVICE INSTL: YES NO
BORE: CUT:
LOCK
DATE INITIAL's's ..;`-
CREW
UNLOCK �' x
DATE:.3-I"� 'INITIAL
ACCOUNT NUMBER: 2,
METER SHOP
;
SUPPLIER: A L t
TREATMENT PLANT
FOREMAN
B L T
FOREMAN
INITIAL: DATE:
TAP CARD METER -SHEET APPLICATION,/
UTILITY
DISPATCH
BILLING
7/76
-/:tL, .
USE PERMIT�gq.ye�
CITY OF EDNIOND8 zGrIE I� NUMSEC+ �t✓�A,a7 ;� + }ti',
t CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ALPPLICATICh! JOB � SUITEIA1T4.�
N ^S
OWNEF NAME/NAME OF eU$ E..
, `
1 '�/ JI I /��r•"5 �� /11 17 /11/ J.EGAL D SCAIPTION CHECK $UBDIYISIGN NO.
i_1 l-^T✓(j1C,Ja_.-•p...b._._
w MA UNIT ADDRESS
111 Aso G
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STRT`ET M:1P TESGP Apprerb D
ZIP TEI: iHONE NUMBER RW fyrmlt RpulM . D
CITY�I (11,�(�11^ ��t� EXISTING _REOUMEO DCCICATID"-= — $i'MIUq PE/mR Rpe TD
T LS�fi'^'N iJ� WI L _-InWp•Ion RpulrM D, M..
PRO-OSED ._ `aldW.Ik puaO! U" ' j
NAME f
REMARKS
/ F ADDRESSS
• C ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER (J/f(((+ 'Q' l%L..SXt. D .K•� ',' "
71'^Sfi31 i
• '. NAME --JA.G/I'`E.NV.LY
ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEW
Ztll
ADDRESS
CH
� H�/ c ;� t'" 3 METE •F^ BUILDING ��PFLY SIZE NO OF FI%tURE9 - '�k��.�iL
6 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE N MBEA
` S_TATE'LICENSE NUMBER
yt� C% 81- /A4 . ". - BIUN AItEA 1 SEPA'REVIEW AOB
! F TALLPHED .PAOPOS£0 ��-C.OMPLEEEj��E aE%i
Legal Descriptlomof Property -include a0 BBeamentA r y M q ZIY eH REELLIINe. ? t
YARIANCB GR W '• NI IEW BY „ I y 0 E 'fi /'k r• �' '.
t F BETBACKtI -FEET,; - , ;,. 5�' NEq LOT OOVT RA
• � .FRONT :810! iY �RWR F '�"Q"� •✓ 'i.a
1 . T�)t:'A0001Unt �6rCBI 1�t:C : /��G� •. /l,[rlrl t. Z .• r t i ~j � ',..41 �fw.J..' x ied � � : 0
�i1 .. i 1-tilJ • ' • .� Y�. ?O` �-s 9'' � .� i/ a� � 519 °4.. ' "_� � i „ �y 1 <.
Z.y r , F {
N 'W. JRESIDENTIAL CI•PLUMB NO 1 _ e�'�- ��,y��. G }
DADO/ALTEh D COMMERCIAL D MECHANICAL/f^ -, �51� * Nt y� �j
(r APT. BLDG } /• D-,& i- a ti� s//i - w�,rr, fI6*i "��"� ''t`•• y 5. '
- D REPAIR ;(%JIu r�: ...t p.W. 1 ' :♦-' GHE EtrBY S:'' ME OF (/CON�rI PAkL: ; ,� NEIGK7{ �,:: y� r,''
S D DEMOLISH v . - . D91_._z :;�5',^".
r
�-e 5p(.OI/U„INCPECTOR AREA a OCGUP tC,'.. - -. OCCUPANT t Y
D REMODEL D GARAGET� - 'D PDGL J 'REOUIRED? tLOAD
TS.:, r •^ t .><• YES;IN
t •Q WOOD STOVEI RETAINING KAt.L/ ❑
INSERT D•ROCKOiY-- t g .,,�,�.• "1°{J,""; r -t" t
RENEWAL LIAR7(S '� ..iC.:Y�. 91i
3 : PRGt3RE3��itNSPCTIDPIB�R tUBC305 -y,:-
QQ (TYPE OF USE ;BUStNES OiZrACTIVfi11
6. N ,r. till F; A 5ii T a'C•y6 J!'•4 `Y F 1Y y G v l
NUMBER OF STORIES ly 'NU SER OR��• ^'7'. �' L ^,]
W UNITE .. .rJ .y' t� )�, "'"•rfi.lT' cy-L*��'Ctrii. �..-,.• d ..err y,�t'.
OESCP.IB WORK TOBEOONE (ATTACH PLOTPU?g;� ,T�r n:rytn•� F.;, •:NP-
x
;FIN_AL,eNSKC'nbw 1Ea ED
'•,j��J-' k i •T-rVALUATION FEE.:8 ig�I
) ,,,i' ^ ;s "� �) PLAN CkEC)( FE�Tq �y '' �J ' ''. �•i; � � .
LiF7t///I'�, ,/.Ari•1r PLUMBING - dri•� - LPL, il`. Ab . . #.ti
far ..
• Plah•Cl ei; 'Yo yry MECHANICAL
...
• ':Thls, Permit covers,work to be done on private property ONLY: � GRADING/FILL..,•..
Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewPlks,
driveways, marquees, etc.) will require Separate permissicn. STATESURCNARGE _j •, �.5��%0. f
Permit Application: 180 Days $
STORM DRAINAGE FEE
faemdt Lint!t: 1 Year - Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days - _ -
-�r- •'Applicant; cn behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECrIOH F'EF- .. _ •" _ ,_k.,, ,. ''
successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold % EO �. -
harmless the City of Edmonds, WBShI.1 ton, Its olflce s,
employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of
whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the issuance DUN CMEUK DEPOSIT. • -Q•_! �P.'-'T�
of this permit, Issuance of this permit Shall not be deemed to -
modify; waive or reduce any roculrement of any City ordinance ' •:6p,
nor Iim11 In any way the City s ability tO enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE o>'• •'. .� �' ; k `
provision.,.
I hereby acknowledge that I have read this appllestlon; that the ATTENTION APPLIGATION. APPROVAL
Information given Is cornet; and that I am the owner, or the duly, _ a •`
• autbnrized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and ' THIS PEAMIT ,nls applleatlen le, not a permit until � y: N����IA,r� 1'
state laws repulDling cine.ruction; and Ir doing the work authoriz• AUTHORIZES _ W7-, �
ad thereby, no parson wilt be employed In violation of Ina Labor ONLY THE signed by the Elulidlnp OMIOIGI or,hla/herT•
Code of the Slate of Washington relDtlnp to Workmen's COmpense• WORK NOTED Deputy; and feee.sro paid; snd,noelpt !Y4';
tl n I our nce. INSPECTION ackrowlltdgad.in apace Pro'F, -•, 1'. `i"q;
SIGNATURE (OWNER ON OE Ty 1 , DATE STONED�% DEPAA'MENT OFF C Us 61 NATUAE F �j'
CITY OF _ yt Lei sn;;
1
tRELE G :BAT .0 'i y, to 2 x ,
• CALL FOR
ATTENTION IIusPECTIort`�
j IT IS:UNLAV,FUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 771-3202 - -' E
4 UNTIL A,FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL Flle YLLOW napectorq t ` iT`¢w �� T
':A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED: '!BC
r,CHAPT[R 3 - PINT -Owner -COLDASS asset,
RECEIVED • `
t CITY OF EDMOND92 51992 SIDE SEWER PERMIT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. PERMIT NO2 8 3 71
B9p\9
Address of Construction: ,//_S DaL Py
Property Legal Description (Include all easements): D� = G, /�q
E7 v" o� ^'
Owner and/or Contractor: AG / / �fP �-S n 2,+12 41 eS
State License No. Building Permit No.
Single Family
❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units )
❑ Commercial..
❑ Public
Invasion into City Right -of -Way: 1A No ❑ 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 a city requirements Date
as indicated on the back of the Permit Card.
*CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION.*
.OFFICE USE.ONLY
* FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-3202, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
Permit Fee: 3 �Issued Bytes-�*%J
Trunk Charge:, _ _ Date Issued: 0117
Assessment Fee: -� Receipt No.:
Lid No.:
Partial.lnspection: Date Initial
Comments
Reason Rejected_: Date Initial
Final Inspection Approved: Date�.��lnitialA W
** PERMIT MUST BE. POSTED ON JOB SITE **
White Copy. Fle I Green Copy. Inspector Bull Copy. Applicant
' Revised 3 90
The City Of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO- -------------------- ------------------------
r
NEW CONSTRUCTION [� REPAIRS ❑ LID NO- ------------------ ASMT. NO. ------------------
r
OWNER---------------------•-•------------------------------•------••----------------•-•-•-•------•--- CONTRACTOR --------------- PERMIT NO.
it
JOB ADDRESS .. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. ...................................... BLOCK NO. ------------------••----•--------•-
•
0
It
PWW-000 1 - 11/75 (REV.11/78)
4'` P.v.c. Co .
C''P t' o.e e�? .
NAMEOF ADDITION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDMONDS
TREAT., P€ENT PLANT
Approved:
y
DATE..................... By --------------- ------- •-•---
..CITY
COPY
7v /,3E APR 17 M1
r lll'l y COOTER
LOT 6 OF HARBOR HILLS SUBDIVISION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
JOB NO. 9007-21G
RECEIVED
OCT 2 6 1990
SDA, INC.
^ - 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1'
Scope.
Project Description
Page
1
Site Description
Page
2
Subsurface Conditions.
Page
3
Conclusions
Page
5
Recommendations
Page
5
Site Preparation
Page
5
Site Drainage
Page
6
Grading
Page
8
Foundation Design Parameters
Page
9
.,Slab -on -Grade
Page
11
Lateral Pressure
Page
12
Environmental,Checklist
Page
12
Construction Monitoring
Page
13
General
Page
13
Appendix A
Test Pit Location
Map
Appendix B
-Test Pit Logs
Appendix C Unified
Soils Classification System
CASCADE GEOCHNICAL, INC.
12919N.E. 126TH PLACE (266) 821-5080
KIRKLANO, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203
August 23, 1990
Job No. 9007-21G
Barbara Clark
960 Cedar
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Reference: Lot 6 of Harbor Hills Subdivision
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Ms. Clark:
0
pMjiT CC1;;rITE?
At your request, we have completed a soils report for the -above
site which conforms to the-Geotechnical Report Guidelines set forth
in the City of. Edmonds Ordinance #2661 (Meadowdale Notebook as
modified for Harbor Hills): The- purpose of -.this report is to
summarize our subsurface investigations and.to provide conclusions
and recommendations for the proposed construction.
SCOPE
This report provides conclusions and recommendations which
specifically address the development of Lot 6 for a residence.
This report provides a discussion of the slope stability for
before, during and after construction, a' history of the development
completed prior to this date, and specific recommendations for site
preparation, foundation design, -,lateral pressures, drainage
requirements, and constructionmonitoring requirements. -
PROJECT. DESCRIPTION
We completed. Phase I .and II reports 'for the Harbor Hills
Subdivision prior to this report. The Phase I report discussed
the feasibility of developing the site. and provided specific
&ASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
August 23, 1990
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
.Page 2
recommendations for utility placement and road construction. The
Phase II soils report provided general design recommendations for
each lot based on past and recent subsurface investigations. The
recommendations provided here are `based on the subsurface
information obtained for the previous two, reports and additional
test pits excavated recently on the''site.
We have been provided the topographic survey prepared by Lovell-
Sauerland dated 3/14/90. We should be engaged to review the final
plans to conform to the City of Edmonds requirements.
The sanitary sewer, storm sewer and roadway were constructed at the
site in, accordance -with the design plans and.our recommendations
for the Phase I. We were present at the site periodically to
monitor the -construction of the roadway and utility placement to
provide recommendations during construction. -
There is an extensive and complex ground water system underlying
the Harbor Hills Subdivision. Substantial subsurface.drainage and
rechanneling of surface runoff was done during the Phase I
construction.
There was no evidence of deep seated slope instability within the
Harbor Hills Subdivision noted in our Phase I and II reports.
During the excavation for the cul-de-sac on the upper portion of
the plat, there was some surficial movement within saturated
organic soils. The failure was within the upper two (2) to three
(3) feet of material and was buttressed immediately with quarry
spalls and fill'. This area was not located within Lot 6.
SITE DESCRIPTION
Lot 6 is located on the upper portion of the Harbor Hills
*CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
August 23, 1990
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 3
development on Daley Place in Edmonds, Washington, directly below
a west facing steep slope. The western portion of the lot slopes
down to the west at an average grade of 30% below a small flat
area. The west facing slope on.the eastern side of the lot slopes
at an average grade of 45%.
The lot was covered with grass and brush at the time of our recent
visit. Recent work done on the site included placing a
drain/tightline at the toe of the slope. on the eastern side of the
lot. The buried pipe directs surface flow from the southeastern
corner of the lot to an open stream course on the northern property
line. We were not present during the installation of this drain
line. We have reviewed the Hydrologic Project Permit dated 10/5/89
that you obtained for this work and discussed it with West Coast
Construction.
The surface of the site was firm and dry during recent visits.
We noted seepage and wet soil conditions at the toe of the steep
slope on the eastern side of the lot. Seepage was observed from
an area on the northwestern side of the site from an area that
appeared,to have been filled with pea gravel.
Preliminary design drawings prepared by McNurlen-Design Group were
provided for our review. We noted significant proposed cuts into
the steep slope on the eastern side of the site and on the flat
portion of the lot that would extend well below the existing drain
elevation. We discussed our concerns about the design,plans'with
the owners and designer. We understand that a new design will be
developed based 'on the.recommendations provided in this report.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Site subsurface conditions were determined by excavating backhoe
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL •
August 23, 1990
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 4
test pits. The test locations were determined by pacing relative
to property lines, known landmarks, and. the surveyed line down the
center of the property.
Test pits were excavated on the site in November 1984 prior to any
site work. Additional test pits were excavated on the site and
on adjacent sites to the east and south in May 1989 after
completion of the Phase I site work. The test pit locations are
shown on'the test pit location map in Appendix A. Test pit logs
and detailed soil descriptions are located in Appendix B.
Elevations discussed in this report are from the surface elevations
at the time of our study. All soils were classified according to
the Unified Soils Classification .System. A copy of this
classification system is contained in Appendix C.
The tests pits excavated on the. site in November 1984 showed about
two (2) feet of topsoil/peat overlying a sandy silt that was medium
dense to dense. Test pits excavated in 1989 showed about two (2)
feet of fill overlying one (1) foot of peat/topsoil overlying a
silty sand with gravel.
It appeared that fill had been placed on the site since our 1989
subsurface study. Additional test pits were excavated on July 24,
1990. These test pits showed fill on the western slope and flat
portion of the site. The fill was up to seven (7) feet thick and
consisted of organic debris, stumps, logs and silty sandy soil.
Underlying the fill was a silty sand to sand that was medium dense
and saturated. The test pit excavated into the toe of ,the steep
slope on the eastern side of the lot showed a saturated topsoil
overlying saturated silty sand.
At the time of the recent test its, we no slight -to moderate
P
seepage from the toe ' of the slope on .the east side of 'the lot.
OASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
August 23 1990 •
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 5
Moderate seepage was noted from the fill material -in the test pits
and from the underlying sand.
i
CONCLUSIONS
It is our conclusion that Lot 6,is.'presently stable and presents
little_. risk of slope failure. Specific and detailed
recommendations for development of this lot are provided in this
report to minimize the potential-, for slope: failure during
construction. The site will be stable after completion of the
project if our recommendations are.adhered to.
The f ill material noted in the test pits is unsuitable for the
support of structural loads.. We:recommend. two alternatives .for
developing this site. The first alternative is to .lower the
recently installed drain line on the eastern side of the lot and
remove all the fill down to native bearing soil for support of the
building -loads. The. second alternative is to leave the fill in
place and support the building on a deep foundation that transfers
the building loads through the fill to the firm native bearing
soil. It may be possible with this option to construct a daylight
basement under the .western portion .of the building if suitable
drainage can be installed. Both options will require extensive
drainage and careful site preparation.' Specific recommendations
are provided below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation
We recommend that the earthwork be done during an extended period
of dry weather. The fine-grained soils, steep slope and wet
surface conditions may cause significant additional .construction
WASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
August 23, 1990
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 6
costs .from the adverse affects of,wet-weather construction.
We recommend that erosion control be placed prior to any
excavation. Erosion control may.consist of -a silt ,fence with hay
bales along the northern and western edges of the site. It will
be necessary to place plastic sheets over any cuts made on the site
during construction. We should review the detailed erosion control
plan prior to construction.
Extra -.precaution should be taken to protect the stream course on
the northern side of the -property. We should review the erosion
control plan in detail to confirm that the existing channel is
protected.
If a deep foundation is utilized, it may be possible to work during
-the wet conditions if Piles are used. We, do not recommend that any
excavations be made during wet weather; however, it may be possible
to install piles,without,adversely effecting the site conditions.
We should review your proposed construction plan if you anticipate
working during wet weather.
Site Drainage
Specific drainage will be required to dewater the area prior to
construction.' We recommend installing drainage at the toe of the
slope on the eastern-side.of the lot prior to construction. Due
to the steepness of -the slope, wet conditions, and soft soils, we
recommend minimizing any.excavation for drainage in this area.
We recommend installing horizontal' drains into the toe of the
slope. The drains should penetrate into the toe of the slope -and
be tightlined away from the building area. It may be possible to
use short' drive point wells instead of the ,mechanically' drilled-
OASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
August.23,.1990
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 7
horizontal wells if adequate drainage can be obtained. A drainage
plan should be developed prior to installation and construction.
We should be engaged to observe and confirm the proper placement
of the drive point or horizontal walls.
We understand that a drain line.receiitly installed on the eastern
side of the site is about'three (3) feet below the existing grade
and consists of two (2) perforated pipes and_.one (1) tightline pipe
that is bedded in a washed: rock. There is.a rocked inlet at the
southeastern corner of the lot that allows the surface water from
the adjacent lots to enter the pipes.
If you anticipate removing the existing fill, we recommend lowering
the recently.installed drain line down to below the bottom of the
footing elevation.. This .may be difficult and expensive and may
require additional drainage and.shoring due to the proximity of the
steep slope to the.existing drain location. This should only be
done after the installation of the horizontal drain lines.
Additional drainage will likely be necessary to dewater the
underlying sandy soils. This will likely require a French drain
that extends to below the bottom of the footing elevation. The
location and depth of this drain will depend on the building
location and floor elevations.
If the fill is to be left in place and the building to be supported
on piles, we recommend placing additional drainage at the contact
of the fill and the underlying soils.- This may consist of north -
south trending drains excavated to the fill/native soil contact.
The drains should connect to a tightline that directs the water off
the site.
If you propose placing a daylight basement on the western side of
OASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
•
August 23,_ 1990 .
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 8
.the site, a French drain which is lower than -.'the bottom floor
elevation maybe required upslope from the proposed backwall. The
drain location and depth will depend on the final design.
All drains should be carefully located and shown on as-builts so
that the building construction .does not damage them. This is
especially true if a pile supported foundation is used.
We recommend placing,,a four (4) inch diameter,_rigid, perforated"
pipe that is bedded and backfilled in at least eighteen (18) inches
of, pea gravel at the base of all perimeter footings or grade beams.
The footing- drains should be tightlined'away from the.foundation
to the storm sewer system.
All roof drains should be tightlined to the storm system separately
from the footing drains to avoid backflow
All paved surfaces should be curbed and graded to direct all
surface runoff.to a suitable catch basin. The catch basins should.
be tightlined to the storm system.
Grading
No grading plans were provide for our review. We should be engaged
to review the proposed grading plans in detail to conduct our
analysis.
We recommend that a select, imported fill be used as wall backfill
and for backfill under any floor slabs. We do not recommend
placing compactedstructural fill .for support of building loads.
We do, not recommend making any cuts into the -'slope on,the eastern
side of.the site. We understand that you may require cuts. of,, up
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL •
August 23, 1990
Barbara.Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 9
to four (4) feet high. If it is totally, unavoidable. to make these
cuts, they should be made only after drainage is installed, be less
than four (4) feet high, and may require.shoring. They should be
supported by engineered retaining structures only, since rockeries
will not be suitable for this area..
If cuts are required on the western portion of the site, we
recommend that they be made after the installation of all.of the
drainage. They should be sloped at a temporary grade of 2H:1V and
be protected with anchored plastic sheeting. Additional drive
point drains may be necessary if seepage is noted from the cut
faces.
Foundation Design Parameters
We recommend two (2) alternatives for development of this site.
Both alternatives will require specific design and careful
construction.
Drainage, as discussed in _the Drainage Section of this report,
should be installed prior to construction and located with .as-
builts for both of these alternatives.
.I Alternative 1
One alternative .for a foundation design would be to lower the
existing drain line on the eastern side of the site to below the
proposed lower floor elevation and remove all the existing fill
from the lot. If the.drain is left at.its,present elevation and
the fill is removed, we'anticipate significant difficulties with
seepage and a possible cut slope failure.. Once the: fill is removed
and adequate drainage is installed, the house may be constructed
on_a daylight basement. This will require careful and cautious
r
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
August 23, 1990
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 10
construction techniques and may require shoring and additional
drainage on the eastern side.
The native silty sand and sand underlying the fill is suitable for
the support of a spread footing foundation designed toga 2000 psf
maximum safe soil bearing value if the soils are firm, undisturbed,
organic free and do not become wet prior to concrete placement.
The soil was saturated at the time of our study and was extremely
moisture sensitive: If the fill is removed and the footings are
to be placed on the native bearing soils, it may be necessary to
place crushed rock to -protect the surface of the soils during
construction.
Footings should be seated at least eighteen (18) inches below the
outside finished grade for frost protection. All foundation
excavations should be free of standing water, loose soils, or
organic material at the time the concrete is placed. We should be
engaged to observe the excavation to confirm suitable soil
conditions.
Alternative 2
A second alternative which would require considerably less
disturbance to the site is to leave the fill in place and support
the building loads on a deep foundation consisting of piles which
penetrate into the native bearing soil. The grades would be left
at or near the existing elevation which would require a minimum of
excavation. Additional drainage and venting of the crawl space
will be necessary if the fill is left in place. We do not
recommend supporting a slab on this fill material.
We recommend utilizing auger cast piles if this option is used.
The length and diameter of the piles will depend on the loads
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
August 23, 1990
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 11
required and the final building design. We will be able to provide
specific design parameters for the piles once a more detailed
design concept has been established.,
It may possible to place a daylight basement on the western side
of the lot which is seated on native soil and which . utilizes ' a
spread footing foundation. The sequencing of construction will be
important if this is done-. We should work with-* you and .your
designer to develop. specific drainage requirements, design
parameters, and construction sequencing recommendations.
Slab -on -Grade
The existing fill appears to be unsuitable for support of a slab -
on -grade. We recommend that the building utilize a crawl space
with a deck or a structural slab garage floor. If a slab -on -grade
floor is used, we recommend removing all of the organic fill from
the slab area down to a subgrade of -undisturbed native bearing
soil.
If a slab is utilized, we recommend placing at least eight (8)
inches of a clean, free draining sand, pea gravel or -crushed rock
under the lower floor slab to act as a capillary break. The
capillary break should be covered with a plastic vapor barrier
which may be covered with one. (1) to two (2) inches of clean sand
to aid in concrete curing. We should be supplied with a sample of
the free, draining. material to confirm that it meets our
specifications.
We recommend placing a subslab drain under any slab floor. The
subslab drain should consist. of four (4) inch diameter, rigid,
perforated pipes that are bedded and backfilled in at least
eighteen (18) ..inches of pea gravel below the capillary break
• CASCADE GEOTECHNI'CAL •
August 23, 1990
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page .12
material. We recommend placing at least three (3) pipes under the
slab that extend through the -stem wall to the footing drain.
Lateral Pressures
We understand that retaining/basement walls may be used for a lower
floor or the garage. No wall height or preliminary configurations
have been determined at this time. The following design parameters
have been provided for preliminary design purposes. More specific
values will be provided once a building design concept has been
established.
We recommend the following preliminary design parameters for the
retaining walls:
At Rest Earth Pressure 55 pcf
Active Earth Pressure (flexible.wall) 40 pcf
Passive Earth pressure (native bearing soil) 250.pcf
Bearing Value 2000 psf
For the above values to be adequate, we recommend that a drain be
.� placed at the base of the wall -footing and that the wall be
backfilled with a clean, free draining material to within two (2)
feet of the top of the wall. The upper two (2) feet of material
should consist of a fine grained soil that slopes away. from the
wall. The backfill may consist of a free draining pea gravel,
washed.rock or a.clean.coarse sand.that has less then %5 passing
the #200 sieve based on the percent passing the #4 sieve.
Environmental Checklist
We have not been provided with the Environmental Checklist for
4kASC*ADE GEOTECHNICAL 0
August.23, 1990
Barbara Clark
Job.No. 9007-21G
Page. 13
review. We feel that we have addressed the significant issues with
regards to Earth .within the text of. this report. We should be
provided a copy of the Environmental Checklist to provide any
additional comments necessary.
Construction Monitoring
We should be engaged to observe the installation of site drainage,
excavation for the building, French drain, and placement of the
erosion control to .confirm that. construction is done in accordance
with the approved plans and recommendations. It is especially
important that we be on -site during the excavation for the building
to provide monitoring of the cut slopes. We should be engaged to
observe the foundation excavation or. installation of auger cast
piles to confirm suitable soil conditions.. The placement of the
drain lines and backfill should be observed by our office to
confirm proper placement. These are engineering inspections that
are in addition to normal testing requirements.
General
We should be engaged to work with -you and your designer as the
design concepts are developed to provide more specific and detailed
recommendations. A detailed review of the final plans is required
by the City of -Edmonds specifications. Once final plans are
available, we will" provide a detailed review with any additional
or.alternate recommendations that may be necessary.
We expect the on -site, conditions to reflect our findings;, however,
variations may occur. Should soil -conditions be 'encountered that
cause concern and/or are not discussed- herein,: we should be
contacted. immediately to determine if additional or alternate
recommendations are required.
�CADE GEOTECHNICAL
August 23, 1990
Barbara Clark_
Job No. 9607-21G
Page 14.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Barbara
Clark for specific application to Lot 6.of Harbor Hills Subdivision
in Edmonds, Washington, in accordance:.with generally accepted soils
and foundation engineering practices.. No other warranty, expressed
or -implied is made
Thank you for this opportunity to:work with you on this project.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact us at any time.
Sincerely,
CASCADE GEOTECHNICA'V. 0�
-C
Q.c �EG
`�loSS�GNFI
Principal Engineer
PJ:Pg .
CC:SDA; Attn:Robert Hughes
McNurlen Design
—�1
r
eter ett
Enofieering Geologist-
i
APPENDIX A
r
H*BOR HILLS LOT (a
TEST PIT LOCATION MAP
EX61M HOCK LI ED T® \I
STREAM ( �AN�]- z
`3s Q PPE UUEf
(
EXISTING SPRING
SUMMDEI) 8YEYY PEA GRAVEL
TP2
1
TP.1
FROM AN LWENTFm SITE PLAN
Job No. SCALE: 1' = 2(7
907-21G
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE
12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821-5080
KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823.2203 Oat* J"n: By Eno
07/24/90 1-LA . J�
•
APPENDIX B
9
T.P. — y Soil Oasaiption and Classification
J. P. 2
0 0 —5- FILL; ORGANIC, L GS, STICKS,
WETL —3
-5 5'-8'SILTY SAND;.WITH SOME GRAVEL,
GRAY, WET MEDIUM DENSE TO
DENSE. (SM)
8'-12'SAND; WITH SOME SILT, IIINOR
GRAVEL, SATURATED, MEDIUM -
DENSE, MOTTLED TO GRAY.
1710 (S P- SM )
q�
Notes:
T.P. — 3 Sal Description and Clouification
0 ��. 0—2'TOPSOIL; BLACK, SATURATED.
2'-6'SILTY SAND;.WITH MINOR GRAVEL,
SATURATED, MOTTLED, MEDIUM
DENSE, CAVING. (SM)
_5
T. D. = 6'
101 1
SEEPAGE FROM SURFACE.
Notes
TEST PIT LOG
CASCADE - GEOTECHNICAL
A DIVISION Of
CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC..
-5
IE
Soil Description & Classification
0-7'FILL; UPPER 2':GRAVELLY
SAND,.BELOW.2': ORGANIC
DEBRIS, LOGS, STUMPS,
TOPSOIL, SATURATED.
7'-8.5'SILTY SAND; MOTTLED, WET,
MEDIUM DENSE. (SM)
8.5'-15'SAND; WITH SOME SILT,
MOTTLED TO GRAY, SATURATED,I
MEDIUM DENSE, MEDIUM
GRAINED. (SP)
-15 T.D. = 15'
Notes: MODERATE SEEPAGE 0 -71. MODERATE
SEEPAGE BELOW 10'
HARBOR HILLS LOT 6
Date 07/24/90
J a No. 9007--21G own. By A'
Goo / Eng.
_ a
i Feed for record��� ll; 30�'' PM ' LNG
�t 7
-Request wlEt7
//��// R y 1
Co
DEAN V. WILLIAMS, Snohomish Co. Auditor, ' 11 LE 21992
COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/:i(-LD HARMLESS
Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State
Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgIt._.d by the City
of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuan..il of a building
permit .for the construction of a residentia'C structure and
is
attendant facilities, _the undersigned OWNERS S:f property do
hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follow:_.:
..mi t c
escr r. _pticof Cz:b',::ct ^r:,::e...a r.• �.3Jz covenant c.L
C notification and indemnification/hold harmless re:,';_tes to a tract
i. of land at the street address of 1I IS DAYRJ PLO (insert
CV street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, 'Mashington and
(" legally described as:
AS OEP , PLA�r
y(X.0 � 4�1 of r -ram , OP PAGES cos -1cc"7 IMCL -SIVE )
TZC oRos p� cNu �vtDMLbk+ CDUO-ry 61TU /r �'. IQ Tilt✓
' CoU (:)F SN0tt0lu.LSHj sT - of WP►36tt���;-UN .
2. Notification and Covenant of Notificatil;in. The above
referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area
which has. been identified by the City of Edmcrr_':s as. having a
potential for earth subsidence or landslide ha<:a,.-d. The risks
associated with development of the site have batE:n evaluated by
technical consultants and engineers engaged by tr►e .applicant as a
part of the process to obtain a building permit :i:)or the subject
site.; The results of the consultant's reports aid evaluations of
WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -1- BUILDING
WSS/kit 02/08/90
r, 1990
c VOL. 250 � Ft��E0
2,0, o 18
j "s!
the risks associated with development are contained in building
permit file number 33 (insert number) ;,cic► file with the
City of Edmonds Building Department. Condition:, limitations, or
prohibitions on development may have been impe;e.d in accordance
with the recommendations of the consultants .r. the course of
permit issuance. The conditions, limitationsf or prohibitions
may require ongoing maintenance on the part o` any owner or
lessee or may require modifications to the strUC,tures and earth
stabilization matters: in order to address futu2:!e . -or anticipated
changes in soil or other site conditions. The, statements and
conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechn.ical engineer,
geologist, architectand/or structural engisiesr are ;hereby
incorporated by reference from the contents of t:r:, file as fully
as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, Icssee, 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 Planning Department, City of Edmonds, 53!3 Bell Street,
Edmonds, Washing.tun 98020.
3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. :7-he undersigned
OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with
development, stating that they have fully infor.ned themselves of
all risks associated with development of the r-;roperty and do"
therefore waive and relinquish any and all ca_►ses of action
against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agent:> and employees
v0L. 2"a PAGE j 40 J
WSS52079A/0006.040..034 -2-
WSS/klt 02/08/90
�1 ]. 20201 9
arising from and out of such development. In addition, the
OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successor:- in interest,
.,Heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to index: n,ify .and hold
harmless the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents;'and employees
prom any loss, _claim, liability or damage of any kind or nature
to persons or property either on or off the site r0,3ulting from
::r out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or
:%ut of the issuance of any permit(s) authorizing development of
the site, or occurring or arising out of any false,, misleading,
Ix inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their,
E!;aployees, or professional consultants in the cour=e- of issuance
cif the building permit.
4. Insurance Recruirement. In addition to any_'bonding which
u.;y be required during the course' of development, 't'ie Community
Services Director has/has not (strike one) specifically required.
ttie maintenance of an insurance policy for pubic liability
c:average in the amount and for the time set for b(.l.ow in order
t:t provide for the financial responsibilities establit; hed through
the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above:
(insert insurance re
quirements and time period,
if any --if no insurance required, so state.:{
WSE-52079A/0006.040.034 -3-
WSS/klt 02/08/90
VOL. 2507P'&6 U32G
1120.400189
J
S. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. Th.,Is covenant
of notification and indemnification/hold harmless tc.)uches and
..o icerns the subject tract and shall run with the la.nl.:'., binding.,
:�b*Agating and/or inuring to the benefit of future ownl:.rs, heirs,
au,:cessors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring
an interest in property, as their interest may apphar. This
pr.:vision shall not be interpreted to require a mcrtgagor or
lender to indemnify the City except to the extent o;: their loss
no-i7 to obligate. such persons to maintain the insurance above
rE ;luired .
DONE this day of17il ? c H , 1991.
OWNERS)
By:
By:
By:
STATE OF WASHINGTON
ss:
COUNTY OF
I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence
tbat signed this instrument and a.:knowledged r
41SS52079A/0006.040.034
WS':'/klt 02/08/90
-4-
VOL. �5O'7:PAGEO32 7
U.-1202U 189
t to he (his/her) free and voluntary act for. the purpose
mentioned in this instrument.
DATED this day of _ . t al , 1991.
i
NOTARY PUBLIC
My co ission expires:
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
)ss:
COUNTY OF )
1. certify that I know or have satisfactp2y evidence
chat signed this instrument andacknowledged
t to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes
11tantioned in this instrument.
DATED this day of , 199_.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires..
TE OF WASHINGTON )�
)ss:
IOUNTY OF )
I certify that I know or have satisfact.o:--y evidence
':aat signed this instr:.mant, on oath
:Mated that (he/she) was authorized zo execute the
.instrument and acknowledged it as the (title)
%f (name of party on behalf of w)'tol1 instrument
<<is executed) to be the free and voluntary act of :xlch party for
the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument.'
DATED this day of , 199_.
NOTARY PUBLIC
M commission ex
y pire::c; -
4iSS52079A/0006.040.034 -5-
V3S/k1t 02/'08/90
9112020189 VOL2PAGE0328
�lvRP �u ly
AI.LACE
September 28, 1992
BUILDING
SEP 2 9 19sz
ATTORNEYS A T L A W
Seattle office:
John D. Wallace
R Miller Adams
2100 Westlake Center Tower
Douglas E. Albright
Charles D. DeJong
1601 Fifth Avenue
Lee Corkrum
John F. DeVleming
Seattle, WA 98101-1686
Wayne D. Tanaka
Terry Lee Jurado
(206) 447-7000
Robert G. Andrei
Kent C. Meyer
Michael G. Wickstead
Carol A. Morris
FAX: (206) 447-0215
Robert A. Kiesz
Jessica G. Rickard
Steven A. Reisler
Theresa A: Rozzano
W. Scott Snyder
Susan N. Slonecker
Christopher A. Washington
Gil Sparks
James E. Haney
Phillip C. Raymond
Counsel to the Firm
Charles D. Zimmerman
Stanbery Foster, Jr.
Carol D. Bernasconi
Ross D. Jacobson
William F. Joyce
Karen Sutherland
Of Counsel
navid A. Ellenhorn
James A.:Mu.;.hy
John J.O'Donnell
Mr. George E.am Lb, P.E. Raymond D.Ogden,Jr.
President
CASCADE GEOTECBMCAL, INC.
12016 - 115th Avenue N.E.
Building H
Kirkland, WA 98034
Re: Harborhill Lot No. 6 - Applicant Clark
Dear Mr. Lamb:
Mrs. Clark has again requested final inspection on her property. We have spent the last few
weeks exchanging letters regarding the ;July 21, 1992 determination of Richard R. Mumma,
Building Office of City. of Edmonds, waiving a final Geotechnical report on the property.
Your last letter implied that your previous letter to Clark referenced the problems remaining to
be corrected. My review of the- letter indicates only that it quotes a price of $1,000 for a field
survey to determine compliance with your prior recommendations. It was Mr. Mumma's
judgment as the City's Building Official that a final report. was unnecessary for building permit
purposes given the review -which had previously taken• place and the risk of damage or, loss that
might be mitigated -by a follow-up report. - To. date our communications have not revealed any
situation or condition- indicating that your recommendations have not been followed. While I
recognize that unless you review this site you will be .unable to render a final opinion as to
whether or not all of .your recommendations have been met, our communications have not
revealed a reason to reverse Mr. Mumma's decision.
I recognize that without a final report, your firm does not have liability for the final condition
of the property anymore than it would if some future property owner altered the condition of the
site without your knowledge or advice. Your'original report and recommendations as well as
your field reports are all on file and referenced in both the building permit and the records of
Snohomish County. Future property owners are advised to, educate themselves as to the
condition of the property and to review your prior report -and recommendation.
Wenatchee Office: I South Chelan Street, P.O. Box 1606, Wenatchee, WA 98807• (509) 662-1954. FAX: (509) 6&1-1552
Mr. George E. Lamb, P.E.
September 28, 1992
Page 2
Based on information. received to date I can find nothing which leads.me to recommend that the
City revoke the prior decision of its building official. Accordingly the. final inspection and sign -
off will proceed. Your cooperation and prompt response to my prior communications is
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
OGD HY WALLACE
. Scott y e
WSS:are
cc: ,JeaiinirieGraf
Jerry Saterlie.
Barbara Clark
W 3330169. I L0006.040.034
DEN
UI�PHY
� CE AT-TORNEAS AT LAW
DATE: September 21, 1992
To: Jeannine Graf
Building Inspector
City of Edmonds
250— 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA ;98020
RE: Harbor Hills Development Lot 6
s
MEMORANDUM OF TRANSMITTAL
SUP
LDING
SEP 2 2 1992
ENCLOSED: Enclosed ,is a. copy for your files regarding the above
referenced matter. Please distribute a copy to Ms.
Clark.
OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE
BY
April,R. Evans,
Secretary to W. Scott Snyder
❑ Seattle Office: 2100 Westlake Center Tower, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-1686, (206) 447.7000, FAX (206) 447-0215
❑ Wenatchee Office: 1 South Chelan Street, P.O. Box 1606, Wenatchee, WA 98807, (509) 662-1954, FAX (509) 663-1553
DEN
U�PHY
LA1l'�� E ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Seattle Office:
John D. Wallace
R. Miller Adams
2100 Westlake Center Tower
Douglas E. Albright
Charles D. DeJong
1601 Fifth Avenue
Lee Corkrum
John F. DeVleming
Seattle, WA 98101-1686
Wayne D. Tanaka
Terry Lee Jurado
(206) 447-7000
Robert G. Andr6
Kent C. Meyer
Michael G. Wickstead
Carol A. Morris
FAX: (206) 447-0215
Robert A. Kiesz
Jessica G. Rickard
Steven A. Reisler
Theresa A. Rozzano
W. Scott Snyder
Susan N: Slonecker
Christopher A. Washington
Gil Sparks
James E. Haney
i
Phillip C. Raymond
Counsel to the Firm
Charles D. Zimmerman
Stanbery Foster, Jr.
Carol D. Bernasconi
Ross D. Jacobson
September 21 1992
William F Joyce
f
Karen Sutherland
OfCounsel
David A. Ellenhorn
James A.Murphy
John J. O Donnell
George E. Lamb, P.E.
Raymond D. Ogden, Jr
President
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC.
12016 115th Avenue N.E.
Building H
Kirkland, WA 98034
Re: Harbor Hills Development Lot 6
Dear Mr. Lamb:
Thank you for your response of September 10, 1992. One reason that I am corresponding is.
that Mr. Mumma is no longer with the City of Edmonds. He has been employed as a building
official in the City of Federal Way. As I drafted the provisions of the City's ordinance land
slide hazard, shepherded it through review by the State Building Code Council 'obtaining their
approval of the ordinances as amendments of the State Building Code and . have litigated several
cases involving the area, I was designated to respond.
In your letter you indicate:
We have provided Ms. -Clark with an estimate for the work required to review
available data, examine the site, provide her with either a final approval of the
letter. or recommendations as to how the property can be brought within the
requirements of our recommendation.
Please provide me with a copy of that letter. Before writing you I had reviewed the matter with
Jeannine Graf, of the City's Building Department, reviewed portions of the building permit files
and discussed your work both with Ms. Clark and with Mark McNaughten, a builder for whom
you have performed work in the same subdivision. It appears one of the factors considered by
Mr. Mumma in waiving formal, final review was Ms. Clark's indication that the employees or
members of your firm with which she has dealt throughout the project are no longer 'with the
firm. She is concerned that the wheel is about to reinvented.
Wenatchee Office: I South Chelan Street, PO Box 1606, Wenatchee. WA 98807, (.W) 662-1954, FAX- (509) 663-1553
•
George E. Lamb, P.E.
September 21, 1992
Page 2
My concern at this point is which, if any, of your prior written recommendations have not been
met. I am not requesting that you conduct further work without a client's authorization but I
would like a copy of your letter .outlining the work that remains undone.
Very truly yours,
OLDEN ,MURPHY WALLACE
W. Sc4Sny�
WSS:are
cc: Mayor Hall
Council Members
Jeannine.; Graf
VARa 2ILMOo6.ow.rot
Iry
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC•
12016 115TH AVENUE N.E., BLDG. H (206) 821-5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 820-6953
September 8, 1992
Job No. 9007=21G
Mr. Scott. Snyder, Esq.
Ogden, Murphy Wallace
Attorneys.at Law
100 Westlake Center. Tower
1601 5th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101-1686
FAX: (206) 447-02.15
RE: Harbor Hills Development Lot 6
Dear Mr. Snyder:
hJ
U�
SEP 0 1992
O;_e y & Wallace
I ,am responding to your letter dated September 3,. 1992, addressed to Pat -Gray of our office.
I am responsible for sending the letter of August 28 and for requesting that it be sent to the City
Council. Therefore, I am responding to your letter.
I am obliged to first comment on paragraph I of your letter. You indicate that my letters betray
a "fundamental misconception about the nature of. the City's Earth Subsidence and Landslide
Hazard Ordinance and your role in the process." In fact, your response indicates a fundamental
misunderstanding of the background for this project.
We have been involved in the. Harbor Hills project for a long time, and have been required to
comment to various organs of the City regarding our role in the process. Our work has been
defined by these agreements as well as the general requirements of the ordinances.
Before the subdivision was permitted I was asked to testify before an agency of the city council.
I believe it was the full city council in evening session. At that time, during my sworn
testimony, I was asked how the council would know whether the requirements in our report were
being followed. I responded that we would be providing the city with regular reports, that they
would describe the performance on site. I was then asked what assurance the council had that
my firm would remain involved in this project: I advised them that were I no longer involved
in the project I would advise the council and the engineering department at once.
4200 MERIDIAN, SUITE 216 (206) 647-8588
BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON 98226 FAX: (206) 671-4329
CALI—AOE GEOTECHNICAJOAC.
I later had similar conversations with Mr. Mumma, both in meetings with the developer and
contractors for the three lots now developed, and in conversations between Mr. Mumma and
myself.
Because of these personal agreements and Illy understanding of my professional responsibility,
I feel it was essential that i advise both Mr. Mumma and the council that we are no longer able
to exercise any influence over the. project. This was based on Ms. Clark's, comment to Mr.
Khan of our office that the occupancy permit had been issued and that no further work was
required.
We were quite surprised by this since we had not worked at the site since January 14, 1992.
We understood that the City would handle Lot 6 as they handled Lots,,2 and 3 where they
requested our final letter before issuing an occupancy permit. As you know, we visit the site
when' requested, but we were not engaged to act as resident inspectors or permanent.
representatives at the site. Since work has apparently been done since our last visit which
involves our recommendations, we are unable to comment on the suitability of the site.
We are not satisfied that the condition of the property on Lot 6 fully meets the requirements of
our reports, and we have so advised. Ms. Clark. We have provided Ms. Clark with an estimate
for the work required to review the available data, examine the site, and provide her with either
a final approval letter or recommendations as to how the property can be brought within the
requirements of our recommendations. Ms. Clark chose not to do this.
I assume that this side conversation is familiar to Mr. Mumma. If not, I will -be happy to advise
him. The City obviously has the right to issue permits with or without our approval, with or
without our inspection, and -with or without our final letter indicating that the project meets the
requirements of our report. Naturally, when the City issues these, they issue them on their own
authority and not based on any approval of ours.
The City is well aware of our working relationships, both with the overall project developer and
with the developers of Lots 2, 3, and 6. On Lots 2 and 3 the City was quite careful about the
performance on the site and indeed stopped work on Lot 2 at, one point because the work did
not meet our requirements. We were anticipating a similar fastidiousness on Lot 6. There were
indeed problems during construction at Lot'6 and the City did hear about them immediately.
The project can.proceed by engaging its, or sonte other firm willing to take the responsibility; -
to perform the review of the project and the review of the records necessary to provide either
the letter of final approval or a letter outlining how the project can be brought in line with
recommendations. We will be happy_ to cooperate with any other firm selected by Ms. Clark
and acceptable to the City. We will provide them with. copies of all our records on the site.
Failing that, we will be happy to resume work on Lot 6 and on other lots on the. project as soon
as satisfactory contractual arrangements can be made.
In your letter you indicate that we imply our refusal to sign off on this project has to do with
a fee dispute with Ms. Clark. We have performed our professional responsibilities throughout
this project and we will continue to do so.. We have, however, no professional duty to perform
reviews or final. examinations at the site while bills are outstanding: Please do not concern
CO.:ADE GEOTECHNICA .vC.
yourself that.we would have signed off on this project had our accounts with Ms. Clark been
current. As we have indicated in our correspondence with Ms. Clark we are concerned about
work which has occurred at the site'which4e did not inspect and about the quality of the work.
in place. We feel it would be irresponsible to provide a pro forma approval of this project
without a proper review of the data and the field conditions.
I am very proud of the work we have done on this development and on our success in producing
two suitable building pads on a very difficult'site. I believe I have extended myself and my firm
beyond any requirements of professional duty in order to help the,project proceed. To continue
to do this I will require cooperation from the City of Edmonds and understanding on the part
of the owners and developers. If this.cannot be provided, I feel the work would best be handled
by another firm of similar qualifications. One such firm which is familiar with, the work, and
which performed a peer review of our reports, is Landau. and Associates located in Edmonds.
I trust this meets the "immediate response" portion of your letter and provides you the
information you need.
Sincerely,
CASCADE GEOTECH.NICAL, INC.
President
GEL:pg
%
0
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT- CORPS
P.O. BOX -3755
OF ENGINEERS
_
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
98124.2255
NTO
yrX
Ai[N TION Oi
Regulatory Branch
STREET
FILE
Mr. Michael & Ms.
Barbara Clark
960 Cedar street
Edmond, WA 98020
Reference Number: CU-30-91
Dear Mr, and Ms. Clark
We recently received a copy of the following information from City of
Edmonds concerning your proposed project.
determination on Nonsignificance
( ) Shoreline Permit
( ) Environmental Checklist
( ) Other:
Your project may require authorization from the Corps of Engineers under
the following regulations.
( ) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
( Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
A Section 10 permit is required for construction work in or over any
navigable waters of the United. States. A Section 404 permit is required for
the placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States,
including wetlands. The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or
saturated by' surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically'adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Please contact (;ail Teri , telephone (206) 764-3495, concerning
specific permit requirements. Enclosed for your use is our permit pamphlet
and necessary application materials. If you already have a pending Corps of
Engineers' permit application, please disregard this letter.
Copy Furnished:
City of Edmonds %
250 5th Ave N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Enclosures
Sincerely,
i
Robert H. Martin
Chief, Processing Section
CASCADE GEOTECHMICAI_ 4:206-820-6953 Sep 30,91 17'23 No.003 P.02.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC.
12016115TH AVENUE NI., 80G. H (206) 821-5080
KIRKIAND. WASHINGTON 98034 FAX; (206) 820.6953
September 27, 1991
Job No. 9007-21G
Ms. Barbara Clark
960 Cedar
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Reference: Additional Recommendations
Harbor Hills Lot 6
Daley Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Ms. Clark:
BU LIDINS.
OCT 1 - 10
As we discussed during our meeting with you, your contractor (Dave
Peterson) and Dick Mumma from the City of Edmonds on September 25,
1991, we are providing recommendations for resolving the recent
problems at the site. Because site conditions have become unsafe,
these- recommendations should be implemented immediately. Much
progress has been made on these items, and the present condition of
the site is addressed below, after our recommendations.
At this time, a stop -work order (red tag) has been placed on this
site by the City of Edmonds; however, based on our telephone
conversation with Dick Mumma of the City of Edmonds, we understand
that work to correct the following items may proceed prior to
removal of the 10red tagtP if Cascade Geotec:hnical, Inc. is on -site
to provide continuous observation.
The following recommendations address the items of concern outlined
in our letter to you dated September 20, 1991.
SOIL STOCKPILES
PA •
We recommend removing all soils which had been stockpiled adjacent
to the top of the out slopes of the building excavation. Based on
our conversation with you and Dick Mumma of the City of Edmonds, we
understand that a grading permit was issued to allow temporary
storage of these soils on the flat portion of an adjacent 1.0t.
West of Proposed Buildi.na
The large stockpile of soil located on the slope to the west of the
building area is unsafe in its present state. We recommend
regrading the stockpile to a to a safer configuration and providing
erosion protection. A significant portion of the stockpiled
material will have to be removed from the site during this
procedure.
CASCADE GE07ECHNICAL6:205-820-6053 Sep
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
September 27, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 2
30.91
INC.
17:25 No.003 P.03
It appears that some material may be able to be stockpiled in a
relatively flat area adjacent to the western side of the building
area. Material stockpiled in this area should be graded to drain
and protected from erosion during construction.
TEMPORARY CUTS
At this time portions of the construction cuts are near vertical.
Prior to resuming work on the foundation, we recommend regrading
the temporary construction cuts to an inclination of l(H):l(V) or
flatter. This inclination may be difficult to achieve in an
isolated area on the north side of the building area due to the
presence of an existing creek drainage system above the excavation;
however, it appears that a relatively safe temporary slope may be
created by grading the cut back at two successively flatter
inclinations.
The flattening of the temporary cut slopes appears feasible at this
time due to successful dewatering of the site above the excavation.
TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL
All bare sloping ground and stockpiled soils must be covered with
plastic sheeting wet working conditions and/or periods of
inactivity. The plastic sheeting should be anchored at the top of
the slopes and weighted down on the slope faces with sand bags or
another suitable method. Soil stockpiles should be completely
covered with anchored and weighted plastic sheeting.
DRAINAGE
We understand that an interceptor drain was installed in the
building excavation without documentation of cascade Geotechnical,
Inc. We recommend uncovering the existing drain system and
replacing it under the observation of cur field representative..
The interceptor drain should consist of a six (6) inch diameter,
rigid, perforated pipe that is backfilled to the surface with pea
gravel or washed drain rock. The drain pipe and the gravel.should
be contained within a geotextile fabric envelope. The drain should
be tightlined to a suitable outlet separate from any other drains.
All of the lower level of existing horizontal drains must be
connected to a manifold system which tightlines the water from the
horizontal drains to a suitable drainage outlet. The drainage
system should not be installed until the excavation cuts have been
laid back and covered with plastic.
`CASCADE GEOTECNNICAL L:106-$10-6953 pep 30,91 17:15 No.003 P.04
0
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAIs. INC,
September 27, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 3
Based on our conversation with Dick Mumma of the City of Edmonds,
we understand that all of the above recommendations must be
followed prior to lifting the stop work order. We will work with
you and your contractor to accomplish these tasks in a timely and
efficient manner.
At this time, the following items remain to be completed. All
other recommendations have been followed.
• The contractor should have a responsible person on -site at
all times.
• All remaining horizontal drains should be tightlined to a
suitable outlet. Although they are dry at this time, they
provide a strong second line of defense against future
ground water problems.
• The regrading of the west stockpile should be completed.
• Erosion protection should be completed.
• We should be on -site to observe all work and provide field
recommendations.
• Drainage from the quarry spall mat should be maintained so
that water cannot rise in the quarry spalls.
We trust that this information meats your needs.
informed as to when work is proceeding at the site,
staff the inspection. If you have any questions,
contact us at any time.
Sincerely,
CASCADE G TECHNICAL, INC.
G rge E . &amb , . E .
President
John Sadler
Engineering Geologist
Please keep us
so that we can
feel free to
0
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC.
12911 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821-5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98634 FAX: (206) 820-6953
September 20, 1991
Ms. Barbara Clark
960 Cedar
Edmonds, WA 98020 p2 199
i
Re: Harbor Hills, Lot 6
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Barbara,,
As we have discussed, work at the above site has.created concern
for the. last several weeks. Because site conditions.have become
unsafe, and because the construction window is nearing the end, we
believe that urgent* action is necessary at this time. We-urge.that
the following items be implemented immediately. We will work with
you to accomplish this. I am attaching Chr,is's latest field report
which further illustrates our concerns.
1) It is essential that a responsible person be on site at
all times when work is underway. We understood that the contractor
Mr. .Peterson was to fill this role. We were recently advised that
he is not responsible for the site preparation and drainage aspects
of the work. Without someone present who can respond to -our
recommendations, it is very doubtful that we can help you produce
the job you want.. As of this morning, we understand that Mr.
Peterson is now the general contractor in charge'of al-1 the work.
Please document this so we can avoid any future confusion.
2) The excavated slopes on the site, especially where they
have stockpiles at the top, must be regraded or backfilled. These
slopes were excavated at a time when we were not expected to be at
the site,, and we were not. The present unsafe conditions make it
impossible for us to provide field monitoring until they are being
corrected.
3) Drainage is critical at this site, both for the future
safety of the home, and to meet the permitting requirements. Much
of the drainage, and even much of the recently modified drainage
was installed without notice to us and without, our presence at the
site. We cannot document 'or verify ,the work done to date except for
the- horizontal drains and one footing drain. To meet the
permitting. requirements :as we understand them, we will need to
verify that. the drainage. has been installed according to the
recommendations in our reports and our field recommendations. This
drainage work should be done prior to further construction.
4) The stockpiles on the site, especially the pile to the
J_11CAOE
GEOTECHNICAANC.
September 20, 1991
Ms. Barbara Clark
Page 2
west of the house which impinges on the adjacent lot; are slowly
failing at this time. This must be corrected at once. Any rain
would make the situation even worse and could result in a major,
rapid failure.
5). It is essential that current, approved plans be present
at the site, and that we have a copy for our review. We will
address these plans as soon as we receive them, and it, is quite
urgent that we have them for review.
b) Site conditions are such that rainfall could trigger a
serious slide or mudflow. It is essential that the stockpiles be
removed and that preparations be made in advance so that the
remainder of the site can be covered. -All areas not actually being
worked should be covered by plastic sheeting right away.
We want to work with you to resolve these problems. It would be
inappropriate,for us to do other work on the property until these
issues have been corrected. Please call me to discuss how we can
best resolve these problems and get on with the work.
Sincerely,
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
4Gege E amb, E.
President and Principal Engineer
GEL:pg
cc: Richard -Mumma
City of Edmonds
0
STREET FILE
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 51-1-4 AVENUE NORTH
EDMONDS, WA 98070 JULY 16,1991
ATTN: MS. SHARON NOLAN
RE: PLAN CHECK #343
TRUCK ROUTE
DEAR MS. NOLAN,
AT YOUR REQUEST, I
AM SUBMITTING OUR PROPOSED
FOR THE
CON3TRUCTION OF OUR
RESIDENCE
AT 1115 DALEY PLACE,
EDMONDS WA.
TRUCKS COMING FROM
HIGHWAY 99
WILL TRAVEL WEST
ON 212TH STREET TO
MAIN STREET. THEY
WILL TRAVEL
NOHTH ON OLYMPIC
AVENEUE UNTIL
THEY REACH DALEY PLACE.
THEY
WILL TRAVEL EAST
ON DALEY PLACE TO
THE SITE.
SINCERELY,
�
�_/~��/" Va«~~~
BARBARA J. CLARK
JUL 15 '91 16:05 8DA INC. P.12
*rRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOSTES, INC.
p —CONSULTING ENGINEERS
July 15, 1991
City of Edmonds
attn: Dick Mumma
250 Fifth Avenue West
Edmonds, WA 98020
553p,196TW 67. sm
TIYNHWOOD.WAOSUS
BUILDING
JUL 15 1991
P.O. BOx 6M
PHONE:MW775-ris4 Dace 775-7435
Otructural Design Assoc.
FACSIMILE
From: -Lome—r 1Aoicdg5
To: S:it _l oIr
FAX No. 1 -713 - t'3-z_
Attn: _ bo r r4 ; to i&^ a
Date:1.5--iJ .lob #: _13-z!To
Total No. of pages: �..
Subject: Lot 6 harbor Hills, Edmonds, Washington
- RESPONSE NOTES
Our ref.: Lotters,93-250-7.rjh
Dear Dicks.
Our response to Landau Associates, Inc. review letter$ date July 3,
1991, with margin notes by you is es followal
Items 1 & 2: ' No response required.
Ytem 3: The sub -division proposed and existing drainage plan by
Cascade Geotechnical, Inc., dated July 12, 1990, indicated only a
"french drain" to be installed on Lot 6. This work was completed
in conjunction with the Hydraulic Project permit #01--77845-01.
Additional horizontal drains are to he installed as required by the
on -site geotechnical engineer. These drains are adequately shown
and noted on the,submitted plans. No other approval is required..
Item 9: See revised construction sequence on sheet 0-1.
Items 516,718 & 9: Ala response required.
Item 10: Mrs. Clark has been informed she should provide the city
with a letter stating the owners know, understand and accept
responsibility for results of differential settlement due to mixed
foundations.
Item 11: Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. has indicated there is
adequate documentation to justify an evaluation of low probability
of slope failure.
Item 12: No response required.
Item 13: Sea revised page from the Environmental Checklist.
STRUCI UkAL ENGINEERING DFSIGt. ANC iNVES T iGAT'iGrd
JUL 15 191 16:06 SDA INC. P•2i2
0
Trot 6, Harbor Hills Page 2 of Two
Item, la z Site Plan on sheet 0-1 indicates an east garage wall
height of less than 5 feet. Detail #2 on sheet #S-2 has been
revised to indicate a maximam retaining height of 5 feet. Cascade
Geotechn.ical, Inc. anticipates a temporary ecology block buttress
wall will be adequate for Cuts less than 5 feet. The City requires
a geotechnical engineer to monitor all phases of the site work.
Unexpected requirements can best be addressed by the on -site
engineer using his field experience and firsthand knowledge of
current site, weather, and construction conditions.
Items 15 & 161 No response required.
Respectfully submitted,
STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC-
by;
Ease Vanden Endo, P.E.
president
RVE/eve
Encl.
B.D_A_ LQetaWn\09-250-7.Xjb
4722Y 15, 1201
LANDAU •
A ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies
STREET FILE
City of Edmonds
250 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Ms. Sharon Nolan
RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF RESUBMITTAL
PROPOSED CLARK SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT 6 HARBOR HILLS SUBDIVISION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Sharon:
BUILDING
U15 m 1991
July 3, 1991
In accordance with your request, we have completed a review of the resubmittal package
concerning the above noted proposed residence. The review is intended to evaluate compliance
of the project documents with the requirements of Ordinance 2661 and the Uniform Building
Code. A list of the resubmittal documents reviewed is included as Attachment 1.
Our review of the documents indicates that the majority of the issues raised in our June
6,1991 Preliminary Geotechnical Review have been adequately addressed. Specific discussion
of the individual issues as numbered in our June 6 letter follows:
1) Applicants state that work completed under the drainage permit issued previously
(#01-77845-01) has adequately addressed this issue.
2) Based on our conversations with City staff, we understand that the City will waive
UBC/City Ordinance 2661 requirements in this case.
3) The requested horizontal drain criteria have not been provided. We agree with
Cascade Geotechnical that these can be numerous and detailed. Should the City
wish to waive the request for these criteria, we recommend that the City require
horizontal drain installation on the permit. The City should also require that any
field decision to eliminate the drains must have the concurrence of the City. We
would be available for consultation on this issue at that time.
4) Notes revising the construction sequence have been made on the drainage plan.
It is still a bit unclear as to when the excavation into the east slope at the garage
wall will occur.
07/03/91 EDM0NDS\N01AN. Er
P.O. BOX 1029 • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020-1029 • (206)778-0907 - FAX (206)778-6409
5) Revisions on drawings require dry weather construction. Our previous comments
concerning permit restrictions would still apply.
6) Details have been provided for the subslab drain penetration of the foundation
walls. Some drainage revisions have been made and appear to be more
appropriate.
7) The requested maintenance criteria have been provided on the drawings.
8) The surveyor has apparently not been asked to update the June 1, 1989 survey.
The structural engineer (lead design professional) has stated that he has reviewed
the surveys, but does not state that they reflect current conditions at the site. Based
on our site visit, it appears that some fill has been placed on the site since the
survey. The presence of this fill and excavation into the east slope may require
excavation quantities greater than 500 cubic yards, necessitating a Conditional Use
Permit for the site.
9) Pile lengths have been shown on the drawings as requested.
10) While the design professionals state that the owners have been advised of the
potential for differential settlement which is associated with mixed foundations, no
acknowledgement of this is made by the owners. The City should consider
requiring such an acknowledgement.
11) Cascade has stated that their probabilistic stability analysis was based on review
of existing mapping by others and that a new analysis has not been made.
12) Cascade states that they have reviewed the Environmental Checklist and that it is
in accordance with their analysis.
13) The applicants state that the square footage on the Environmental Checklist has
been revised. We have not seen this revision.
14) We are concerned with the temporary stability of the slope in the area of the east
garage wall. The garage wall at this location is a retaining wall with a height of
up to 6 feet and a 1:1 slope above. A temporary retaining structure consisting of
a typical ecology block wall may be inappropriate for this application. We believe
that the City should require an engineering design of this temporary wall and
should place limits on the length of time that an unsupported cut is allowed to
stand in this area.
15) Our previous comment concerning roof access from the east slope applies at two
locations where 5 to 6 feet of soil is retained by the east garage wall.
07/03/91 EDMONMNOLAMM 2
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
16) Statements from the geotechnical and structural engineers indicate that they are
satisfied with the lateral earth pressures used in the design of each wall.
Depending on the City's evaluation of the above items, the documents may require
additional action by the applicant and/or his consultants.
Please contact the undersigned should you have any questions concerning this review.
DMW/WDE/njb
No. 74-28.10
attachment
07/03/91 EDMoNDSWOt.ni` M . 3
Yours very truly,
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
gean White, P.E.
Senior Engineer
and
William D. Evans, CPG
Senior Geologist
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
ATTACHMENT 1
1. Revised Drainage Plan; single sheet with revision dated June 24, 1991 by Structural
Design Associates, Inc.
2. Revised House Plans; stapled set of drawings with latest revision date of June 19, 1991
by McNurlen Design Group, numbered as Sheets 1 through 10
3. Structural Engineer's Revised Declaration; letter dated June 25,1991 by Structural Design
Associates, Inc.
4. Response Notes; letter dated June 25, 1991 by Structural Design Associates, Inc.
5. Response to Preliminary Geotechnical Review; letter dated June 24, 1991 by Cascade
Geotechnical, Inc., Job No. 9007-21G
07/m/91 FOMOMM OLAM r 4
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
•
•
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC.
12911 N.E. 126TH PLACE
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034
June 24, 1991
Job No. 9007-21G
Barbara Clark
960 Cedar Street
Edmonds, Washington 98020
(206) 821-5080
FAX: (206) 820-6953
STREET FILE.
Reference: Response to Preliminary Geotechnical Review
Clark Residence
Lot 6, Harbor Hills Subdivision
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mrs. Clark:
RLr1L D�'G
V`
1997
We have prepared this letter in response to the Preliminary
Geotechnical Review letter prepared by Landau Associates dated June
6, 1991. Our response to their comments are as follows:
1. We understand that the "artesian well" noted in our December,
1984 soils report has been diverted into buried pipes that
extend across the eastern side of the site and outlet into the
existing rock lined channel. We understand that the work was
done under H.P. Permit # 01-77845-01. We have not been
provided a copy of Landau Associates letter dated August 14,
1990 and cannot comment on their recommendations. We were not
involved in the installation of the diversion project. We
have been told by Mrs. Clark that documentation has been
provided to the City of Edmonds.
2. We are aware that the diversion pipes will be located under
the northeastern corner of the proposed garage. This was
discussed at length with the owners, architect and structural
engineers. Due to the topographic and building restrictions
on the site, it was our conclusion that the diversion pipes
should not be relocated.
The garage foundation and floor slab will be supported on a
pile foundation which will extend the loads to below the pipe
elevations. Access to the pipes will be maintained on the
inlet and outlet points. Strict control of the pile locations
will be necessary to avoid damaging the pipes during
installation. It is our conclusion that this is acceptable
for the purposes of the house construction.
3. An experienced engineering geologist from our office will be
present during the installation of all the horizontal wells.
The criteria used to site and place the wells are based on
design assumptions from our subsurface study.
• s
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
June 24, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 2
Should the City require a detailed discussion of the field
methods and criteria used to install the horizontal wells, we
will be happy to prepare such a document. It would be lengthy
and cumbersome to summarize all the criteria used in the field
to augment the design assumptions at this time.
4. We concur thatcoordination with the construction schedule
will be required to avoid damage to the horizontal drains, as
noted in our August 23, 1990 report and our January 23, 1991
letter. We have recommended the following sequence for
installation of the horizontal wells to SDA:
1. Place the horizontal wells into the hillside east of the
proposed garage and tightline to a suitable outlet.
2. Excavate a rough cut for the western, daylight basement
area, maintaining a 2H:1V grade, and providing access for
the drill rig.
3. Mark the pile locations in the field prior to installing
the horizontal drains which will extend under the
proposed garage.
4. Install the horizontal drains east of the daylight
basement which will extend under the garage and tightline
to a suitable outlet.
5. We concur that construction should be limited to dry weather.
We understand that the City has restricted construction to the
summer months only.
6. We concur that details for the floor subdrain with outlet
elevations should be provided.
7. We concur that clean -out details should be provided with a
detailed maintenance program. A statement that the owners
clearly understand the importance of drainage maintenance
should be included.
8. We understand that a copy of the recent topographic map will
be provided to the City.
9. As noted in our January 23, 1991 letter, we recommended that
a minimum of ten (10) feet of penetration into undisturbed
native bearing soil using an auger cast pile foundation. We
also recommended that we observe the installation of all
piles. We concur that more specific details be shown of the
construction plans.
• •
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
June 24, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 3
10. We have discussed the potential difficulties with using the
mixed foundation types proposed for this residence with the
owners and documented some of them in our letter dated April
15, 1991. The city may wish clarification documentation from
the owners.
11. We feel that there is adequate documentation to justify an
evaluation of low probability of slope failure. Our statement
concerning appropriate analysis is regarding a "Percent of
Probability Map" which was prepared by others exclusively for
the Meadowdale area.
Our statements for this lot are exactly the same wording as
that used for the final letters prepared for Lots 2 and 3,
which were permitted and have been completed, and for Lot 8,
which was permitted. We feel it is inappropriate to require
additional documentation for Lot 6 which was not required for
other permitted lots within the same plat.
12. We have recently been provided a copy of the Environmental
Checklist prepared by SDA. It appears that the Earth and
Water sections in the Checklist is in accordance with our
analysis.
13. The square footage calculation was corrected on the
Environmental Checklist we reviewed.
14. We have not been involved in the calculations of cut and fill
volumes. Our recommendations are that all temporary and
permanent cut slopes be at a grade of 2H:1V or flatter. We
concur with Landau Associates that this may not be feasible
for the cut necessary for the eastern side of the garage. It
may be possible to excavate temporary cuts of less than four
(4) feet at a grade steeper than 2H:1V.
Should the cut for the eastern side of the garage be greater
than four (4) feet, shoring will be necessary. We anticipate
that for cuts of less than five (5) feet, a temporary ecology
block buttress wall will be adequate. Should cuts be greater
than five (5) feet, alternative shoring will be necessary.
As we recommended throughout, we should be engaged to observe
all excavation at the site to provide immediate
recommendations, as needed.
15. Not Applicable
16. We understand from discussions with SDA and Detail 13, Sheet
S-2 prepared by SDA, undated, that the eastern side of the
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
June 24, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 4
daylight basement will be designed as two (2) stepped
retaining walls. The lower wall will be supported on a spread
footing, while the upper wall will be supported on a pile
foundation. The toe of the upper wall will be attached to the
top of the lower wall by a reinforced slab.
We understand that both of these walls have been designed as
flexible retaining walls using an active equivalent earth
pressure (fluid equivalent) of 40 pcf. It is our conclusion
that this is an appropriate design.
We trust that this provides sufficient information for your needs.
Should you have any additional questions, feel free to contact us
at any time.
Sincerely,
CASCADE GEOTECHNICXL;;kA F r
O jpV
George Lamb,tli>=
President and Pber
Peter ett
En bring Geologist
PJ:pg
cc: Structural Design Associates; Attn: Robert Hughes
City of Edmonds; Attn: Dick Mumma
# OUCTURAL DESIGN ASSC�4TES, .
INC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
5630. 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX 5366
LYNNWOOD. WA 98046 PHONE: (206) 770434 Fax: 775-7435
L
a
STREET FILE
_ '' 11nn'' _ :,3�1
JUIY a ;N
June 25, 1991
p�RM1T G011NTER
City of Edmonds
attn: Jeannine Graf
250 Fifth Avenue W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Residence on Lot 6, Harbor Hills, Edmonds, WA
- RESPONSE NOTES -
Our ref.: Letters\93-250-6.rjh
Dear Jeannine:
Our response to Landau Associates, Inc. comments, dated June 6,
1991, is as follows:
1. All issues surrounding the reported "well" were closed with
the construction of the Washington Department of Wildlife Hydraulic
Project, associated with this site. Control Number 01-77845-01,
dated September 19, 1989.
2. Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. and Structural Design Associates,
Inc. have reviewed and accepted the submitted plans. No other
approval by them is required. The garage located over the existing
culverts is founded on deep-seated concrete piers. This
construction is typical near or over water.
3. See response from Cascade Geotechnical, Inc.
4. See revised "Construction Sequence", sheet D-1, on the site
plans. Geotech engineer will determine if, when, and where
horizontal drains will be installed as the work progresses.
5. See new note on sheet D-1. The soils report is referenced on
the drawings,, therefore it is part of the construction documents.
6. See new proposed footing and sub -slab drain invert elevations
on the Drainage Plan, and revised detail 4 on sheet S-1.
Reinforcing at wall and slab openings is specified in the
structural notes.
It is unwise to place absolute invert elevations on footing drains
as this could be interpreted to set the footing depth. Footings
need to be placed on soils of the designed bearing strength which
can only be determined at the time of construction.
7. See revised maintenance schedule and new clean -out detail on
sheet D-1.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN A.tJD INVESTIG1-.1IO'J
Letters\93-250-6 Page 2 of Two
8. Structural Design Associates, Inc. has reviewed the referenced
surveys and found the boundary and topographic information
identical. No updated survey is required.
9. See response from Cascade Geotechnical, Inc., and revised
detail #14,_sheet S-2.
Pile lengths must be determined in the field, at the time of
construction.
10. Barbara Clark was informed that some differential settlement
could occur at the interface of the pier and spread footing
foundations.
11. See Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. response.
12. See Cascade Geotechnical, Inc. response.
13. See attached revised sheet of Environmental Checklist. The
submitted checklist did not include the basement area. There is no
significant impapt regarding this omission.
14. The on -site geotechnical engineer will determine shoring
requirements at the time of construction.
15. See revised Elevations Drawings sheets #2 and #3 for existing
grade clarification.
16. Structural Design Associates, Inc. has reviewed the foundation
design parameters and found them to be consistent with the reports
of Cascade Geotechnical, Inc.
Respectfully submitted,
STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.
by:
Rase Vanden Ende, P.E.
president
KVE/eve
TRUCTURAL DESIGN ASS ^IATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEE
5630. 198TH ST. S.W. P.O. BOX 5366
S�tR
June 25, 1991
Michael & Barbara Clark
960 Cedar Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
LYNNWOOD.WA98046 PHONE: (206)7757434 Fax: 775-7435
F orilEy Pz-)q
h.11
JUN -2 : 1991
PERMIT COUNTER
subject: Residence on Lot 6, Harbor Hills
Edmonds, Washington
REVISED_DECLARATION STATEMENT Our Ref.: Reports\93-250-4.rjh
Dear Michael and Barbara:
This letter is to inform you that our office has reviewed the
geotechnical reports. from Cascade GeoTechnical, No. 8511-15G, dated
May 23, 1989, and No. 9007-21G, dated August 23, 1990, the
declaration letter dated April 17, 1991, response letter dated June
24, 1991, and the Landau Assoc., Inc. letter dated June 6, 1991.
The review indicates that the lot is in an area subject to ground
failure: "There is less than a 30% chance of movement on Lot 6
within a twenty year period." It is impossible to guarantee future
slope stability, regardless of how well it is investigated or
engineered, and there are always risks associated with construction
-in--a known hazardous area. ----Among these -risks "-is-.-the-possibility of ---
the loss or damage to your property and life, as well as the
property and life of neighbors, public and private, due to soil
failure.
Because of the unpredictable nature and wet condition of the soils,
owners must assume the risks of building and living in this known
hazardous area.
The reports, recommendations, opinions, designs and specifications,
associated with this project are professional opinions only, and
are not to be construed, as a warranty, expressed or implied,
against loss or damage.
DECLARATION STATEMENT
To the best of our knowledge and understanding, the building plans,
submitted with the permit application substantially incorporate the
above mentioned reports' recommendation.
STRUCT'URA.L ENGIt4EERItdG DESIGN AND INVESTIGA110'-1
. 'U Il DiPJGS C roL1 i`aDF, t 10,tc R AFT A.�. �: !.!C; '.�. '.Lc t. of -in rcrc ! PIE:Pt 6 D(: C-K c" e TO":NFP C. m TA P.)vc
r�
June 25, 1991
93-250-4
Page 2 of Two
DECLARATION (continued)
Careful and conscientious application of the above referenced
recommendations during and after construction will apparently not
increase the risk associated with this site.
Respectfully submitted,
STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.
by:
Kase Vanden Ende, P.E.
president
KVE/eve
t LANDAU I*OCOPY
ASSOCIATES, DING
INC. . 'v
Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies 1991
June 6, 1991
City of Edmonds
256 Fifth Ave. North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Ms. Jeannine Graf
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED CLARK SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT 6 HARBOR HILLS SUBDIVISION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Graf:
In accordance with your request, Landau Associates has completed a review ,of the
submittal associated with the subject project. This review was conducted using the requirements
of City Ordinance No. 2661 and the Uniform Building Code as a standard for comparison.
Documents reviewed are listed in Attachment 1 to this letter.
Our review of the documents indicates that some of the issues associated with the house
and with the subdivision require resolution in accordance with City Ordinance No. 2661
requirements. Our specific comments are as follows:
1. An artesian well has been reported on the boundary between Lots 5 and 6, as shown
on the original geotechnical report for the subdivision. Our August 14,1990 letter
to the city recommended an ulvesti�a tion and proper abandonment of this well in
accordance with Chapter 173-160 WXC. We are unaware of the present status of this
issue.
2. Seepage from the well noted above and other sources in the hillside east of the
proposed structure formed a stream which crossed the site at the time of the original
geotechnical report for the subdivision (1984). At the time of the geotechnical report
for the Clark residence (Reference 7, 1990), the stream had been routed into three
buried pipes (shown on Reference 2). Reference 7 states that Cascade Geotedmical
(Cascade] had performed a limited review of this work and was aware that a
Hydrologic Project Permit existed for it. It is unclear whether Cascade contemplated
that the three pipe drain would flow under the structure when they made their
recommendations. This is certainly not a standard construction practice and has
many drawbacks which could be remedied by rlocatin the drain. If the drain is
not relocated, the geotechnical engineer and design team eader for the house should
review the design and construction of the drain and state that it is acceptable for the
purposes of the house construction. The City would then need to agree to waive the
UBC/City Ordinance No. 2661 requirement that drainage be directed away from the
building.
3. Horizontal drains drilled into the slope are recommended by Cascade in References
7 and 8. Reference 8 states that tentative locations are shown on an attached sketch.
We have not been provided with this sketch and are not aware if the proposed
locations shown on the Drainage & Grading Plan (Reference 1) are those provided
by m Cascade. Reference 10 states that horizontal drains should be field located by a
Cascade representative during construction.- We recommend that the City should
require Cascade to identify those criteria which will be used by their personnel in
the determination of the location and adequacy of the hillside drainage system. For
example, if an excavation is made and some seepage is encountered, what criterion
will be used to determine 2) if drains are to be installed, 2) how many drains are
needed, and 3) drain locations, inclinations, etc.
P.O. BOX 1029 - EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020-1029 • (206)778-0907 • FAX (206)778-6409
4. Depending on the outlet elevation and location of the horizontal drain, system,
considerable coordination ma be required with the building contractor to avoid
conflicts with other drains and the foundations, while meeting me criteria established
for the horizontal drains. The recommended construction sequence on the Drainagge
& Grading Plan (Reference 1) is not clear concerning when the horizontal drains w�l
be installed.
5. Dry weather construction is recommended by Cascade (Reference 7) but not required
elsewhere in the construction documents. The City may wish to make this a
condition of the Building Permit.
6. The proposed floor subdrains exit beneath footings and are below the footing drain
elevations shown in some locations. In addition, floor drains penetrate foundation
walls in some locations. We recommend that the City require a detail of the
foundation wall penetration and that the applicant review the outlet locations and
elevations for the floor subdrains and revise as appropriate.
7. Provisions for the ongoing maintenance of the drainage facilities do not appear to
have been made as required by City Ordinance No. 2661. Due to the complexities
of the drainage at this site, a maintenance schedule is recommended as. a part of the
written plan required by the Ordinance.
8. Cascade references a Lovell-Sauerland topographic survey of the site dated March
14, 1990 in their eotcal report, as does Structural Resign Associates on their
Drainage & Gradiin Mn.PlaHowever, we have been furnished with a survey dated
June 1, 1989. The Uty should require that an updated survey be furnished for
review. The updated survey should be accompanied by a statement from the
surveyor that he has recently visited the site and that the survey provided accurately
reflects current conditions.
9. Proposed/anticipated pile lengths are not shown on the construction drawings. Pile
.construction criteria are also not shown. Since four eotechnical documents have
been prepared, it would be best to summarize p-de foundation requirements
(including inspection) on the construction drawings.
10. Both auger cast piles and spread footings are proposed for use in support of the
structural loads at this site. The. stated reason for this use of mixed foundations
appears to be primaril economic. No documentation of the differential settlement
and other risks associated with mixing foundation types is present in the documents
furnished. The City may wish to make sure that the owners are aware of and
acknowledge this rusk.
11. Cascade states on Page 3 of their Geotechnical Declaration (Reference 10). that their
analysis and experience indicate that a low probability of movement exists on the
site, but does not state the method of analysis used or show stability calculations.
On Page 1 of that document, they state that such an analysis is not ap ropriate for
the Harbor Hills Development. We recommend that the City requeW that if this
analysis has been made, details be provided for review. Alternately, the statements
should be revised.
12. The City should require a statement from Cascade concerning the Environmental
Checklist. This is required by City Ordinance No. 2661 and Cascade requested the
opportunity for comment in their Geotechnical Report.
13. The Environmental Checklist states that the project is a 3743 square foot residence
while the plans indicate a 5096 square foot residence. The appropriate document(s)
should be corrected or clarified.
14. The Geotechnical Report states that temporary excavation slopes of 2.1 should be
used for construction. It is not clear whether a) this is the basis of the cut and fill
volumes shown on the Site Plan, or b) this is geometrically possible at this site,
LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC.
particularly along the east wall of the garage where existing slopes are 1:1.
Engineering design of a temporary shoring system is recommended this are,
particularly considering Cascade's statemenE that maximum cuts of 4 ft are allowed
on the. east side of the site. This maximum cut limitation will most likely be
exceeded given the current proposed site grading.
15. The proposed permanent slopes along the east wall of the garage are such that the
ground elevation may approach to within 1-2 ft of the eaves, creating easy roof
access at this location. This is not standard construction practice and may pose some
security and safety problems.
16. The laterial earth pressures shown in the "Structural Notes" section of Sheet 6 of the
House Plans (Reference 5) should be revised to reflect those shown on Reference 9,
if appropriate. The structural and eotechnical engineer should be in agreement
with respect to the appropriateness of the design parameters, particularly concerning
a) rigid vs. flexible walls; and b) level or 2:1 or 1:1 sloping backfill. Basement walls
and �e east garage walls are areas of particular concern. The City may wish to
require a statement from the parties that these matters have been reviewed and are
appropriate to the proposed construction.
We recommend that the above concerns should be addressed by the appropriate
professionals and that a resubmittal to the City should be required. Landau Associates should
review the responses provided when they become available.
Should you have any questions concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned.
DMW/WDE/sms
No. 74-28.10
06/06/91 ®MONMEIARBORAPT
3
Very truly yours
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
By:
Dean M. WPE.,
Senior Engineer
and n
William D. Evans, CPG
Senior Geologist
LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC.
ATTACHMENT 1
REFERENCES
1. Drainage & Grading Plan; single sheet dated April 6, 1991 by Structural Design
Associates, Inc.
2. Stream Relocation Plan; single sheet dated August 21, 1989 by Lovell-Sauerland &
Associates, Inc.
3. Topographic Survey; single sheet dated June 1, 1989 by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates,
e.
4. Site/Plot Plan; single undated sheet by McNurlen Design Group, numbered as Sheet 1,
Job No. 9013
5. House Plans; stapled undated set of drawings by McNurlen Design Group, numbered
as Sheets 2 through 13, Job No. 9013; revised Sheets 3, 9 and 10 dated May 7, 1991
6. Foundation Plans; 2 sheets stapled with House Plans dated April 6, 1991 and revised
May 7, 1991 by Structural Design Associates, Inc., numbered as Sheets S-1 and S-2
7. Geotechnical Engm'neering Report dated August 23, 1990 by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc.,
Job No. 9007-21G
8. Preliminary Design Parameters; letter dated January 23,1991 by Cascade Geotechnical,
Inc., Job No. 9007-21 G
9. Additional Preliminary Design Parameters; letter dated April 15, 1991 by Cascade
Geotechnical, Inc., Job No. 9007-21G
10. Geotechnical Declaration; letter dated April 17, 1991 by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc., Job
No. 9007-21G
11. Environmental Checklist dated January 21, 1991, prepared by Robert Hughes of
Structural Design Associates, Inc.
12. Structural Engineer's Declaration letter dated April 17, 1991 by Structural Design
Associates, Inc.
13. Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement letter dated March 19, 1991 by Michael and
Barbara Clark
n
LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC.
MEMORANDUM
May 23, 1991
r , , ,� r
TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official AT COUN TER
FROM: Jim Walker, Hydraulics Engineer r
SUBJECT: LOT 6 - HARBOR HILLS SUBDIVISION
In an initial review of the Lot 6 - Harbor Hills building permit
submittals, I believed that a storm drain line existed on the east side
of the lot. After further review, I think that line should be
considered a groundwater collection system.
The line is basically a french drain system. It was designed to
consist of three (3) 8" perforated pipes surrounded by 3/4" drain
rock. (See attached HPA application sheet.) The french drain was
installed under a grading permit issued by the City and a HPA issued by
the Department of Wildlife. Phil Schneider treated the french drain as
a replacement for the spring feeding the stream and not as a culverted
stream. He does not remember any water from other parts of the site
contributing to the stream on Lot 6 before the stream relocation and
french drain installation occurred.
Although I think the line should not be treated as a surface water
drain, it can (as currently designed) carry surface water runoff. The
rock sump at the boundary of Lots 5 and 6 can collect surface water
runoff from Lot 5. However, surface water from Lot 5 will discharge to
the stub provided and from there to the detention system once Lot 5 is
developed.
In summary, I believe we should treat the line on the east side of Lot
6 as part of the subsurface drainage system for the house. As such, it
should not be required to conform to CDC requirements for surface water
facilities. '
JCW/sdt
Attachment
c: Peter Hahn, Community Services Director
Bob Alberts, City Engineer
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor
L0T6HRBR.SUB/TXTST530
iN r LSJN ADD1 T J DJAI
( VCJ' L . 19 , PG. 89 )
it uc.WTuorzN (��
O N N N N N
N
N ' '
nrl a 314,es"w zz<o<er
/
/ 1
/
Vid i i i pp
30
1NV- 201.00
SCo'32'26"
i C' 44.401'
1
1
PUGET SOU D MACHINERY
rJVE ACRE TRACTS
J S
0 u�
N N N
N N
1
1 I
1 1 1
I , ,
y;
\,\toe �Q
NFAM
1 RAC 1 23
MAN7 L IGT
GtTY. PLLulT N4 5_
Dr PJT
pG�urzuNaTUM/Vw�MA►�
'�'
Gt�.TAt=vUS c�0U6t-o,��ll,(µAWTUOr�t.l
10_
ANIELAIJGW�IZ f;LOt211�A���iz.\/IG�I�
IFi
GpIZNUs STOt�oNi��zA/K�hGsl� Rx�lc
5
G�tzYLUS G•ofZNUTA/I-FA7��u-r
10
MAUONIA Ad1uI�0UUM/Ot��GONGIZAt
5(MpUOtZlcAizl��AL+��LIs/SNoL1tzKY
O''�LL W/1V NATIVE AIL
r-i LTA FAEMZJ G
\ / G✓EliT ION L1L�
TOP 231.98
i AK1rY.:;r APr-.r) 4=,1 Al t-\1
MAY 17.
81.AIVl���NG DEP3.
MAY. 16 ,: 1991
After years of _ efforts to obtain final ...plat
approval for the Harbor Hills Subdivision and months of
effort to establish a feasible building plan for my
lot, I have. encountered yet another road block that
seems to be of the tityfs making. Hopefully, after
reviewing the recitation of the facts surrounding the
situation as set forth below, we. can put this final
obstacle behind us and I Can: move towards. .the
completion of my home.
When the proposed p]at for ....the: Marbor Hills
Subdivision was first formuYatied.,`. the prbperty...was
heavily wooded and the source and location of. the
streams on the property, were : d*if f icult to.'. determine.
Subsequent to the clearing of .the property and the
installation of the road improvements, it' Was possible
to designate specifically where the streams that flowed
on the property originated .'and.; the course of those
streams. It was discovered, for the first time, that
the stream that crossed Lot: 6:cut. right' through the
middle of the lot. The stream originates on Lot 6 at a
man-made well that carries subsurface water to a point
where the stream begins.
Due to the lot set -back constraints and .the
location of the stream whore .:it existed, it was
realized that Lot 6 would be . a,. -none-buildable lot in the
event the stream rema4rned inits. existing location.
Accordingly, application was made to the City of
Edmonds to tight -line a portion'of .the stream and move
the remainder of the stream -bed in order to accommodate
the anticipated improvements on the property.
May 16, 1991
Page 2
The location of the stream wags discussed in great
detail; with the City of Edmonds.. and also with the
Department of Fish & Game. The'.Department of Fish &
Game acknowledged that this was a'Subsurface source of
water, however, they desired to leave a certain amount
of open stream channels to address their concerns in
regards to any wildlife impact. Working with the City
of Edmonds and the Department of Game, the stream was
partially tight -lined and the stream -bed was recreated
to address the concerns of the Department, and. the
concerns of the City for the: -ultimate' construction
across the site where the stream ran.
The house has been designed to address the. fact
er a'.part of the
that the tight -line runs: undfootprint
for the house. The foundation over ,.the drain will be
auger -cast pilings. There will be access for
maintenance of the tight-line.'if necessary; Further,
both ends of the tight -line 'are..exposed on either side
of the proposed footprint k6r ' -',ilia improvements. If
need be, the entire 'ti4ht-line could be excavated and
replaced.
Pursuant to the requirements of the .Meadowdale
Slide Ordinance, my husband, and I are assuming full
responsibility for any earth.subs:idence that, may occur
on our site. As you are:; -aware;:, this requires a
$lmillion insurance bond to dover.'.any incidents that
may result from earth subsidence: At. the City's
request, we.changed the original, plans of .the house to
move the location of the garage. to:comply with.concarns
about cutting into the blink and. to. address the concerns
about construction over the'.tight'line. My-husband.and
I have retained the services of:.Cascade :debtechnical,
Inc. and Peter Jewett'at 821-5084`:and ` Stxictural Design
Associates, Inc. and Robert Hughes'at 775--7.434. These
professionals worked closely. w th..the architect who
designed the plans for our. house. All of the
professionals working in conjunction on this project
view the current plan as being not only sound, but.
over -built.
In addition to the work which has been. completed
so far, horizontal drains' will. be.:installed on site,,
together with an exterisi�re Francis Drain Field. All .of
the effort and design, �tixbe a:nd . ,expens$. that .has gone
into the proposed plains for construction of'our, house
have been based upon clear and un2►�arbiguous statements
the planning Department at. the City of Edmonds
May lb, 1991
Page 3
that this approach would be acceptable. It is not only
frustrating but outrageous to think that the City of
Edmonds could at this late of date teverse its position
on a matter which it was intimately involves withand
approved.
I am not a professional soils, engineer,
geotechnicai engineer or architect, so.I hope that I
have expressed my position in a clear and logical
fashion. If you have any,specific,questions.in:regards
to the soundness, of the plan i&.id4 has been proposed., I
would appreciate it if you would. ,contact the
professionals referenced ;above and . request further
clarification from them. I anticipate that this will
put this matter to rest and that we can move ahead with
the completion of our home.
sincerely,
J
Barbara, J..Clark
'IfROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME: LAN C:".BECK #:
PROJECT ADDRESS: 11I5- if!GEY 'All C RECEIPT DATE:
EVIEW O BY: (nitial/Da e) >.
PLAN: WATER
COMMENTS :FIRE BCDG_ SEWER STAFF FNr.
setbacksNadance/Setback Adjustment
•{.2Sik:::oi;,«°fi
}q•,o'.�...:: .':���: ,.4 Ni:.:.\a`.::•i.?
.::..to:::`•.;•`.::•`.\::'::;:•:•:i.,%•:,QN`:i:.t�\•:':::•`.:;i::
•wL r°: '`i:.;"Y?'ice.
v vY:f•:�:L.:::}i
--"1
Conditional Use Permit,""
' ' ::'
A + : '
>:vfi
ADB Requirements
3
Other Zoning Requirements
f}:
,.� .::
4
Underground Wiring Required
y
1
5
Lot Slope 15%
} :>Y .4:?.: ....'......
6
SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit
;._.:.<. , .+
7
Tree Cutting Plan
::<}}
Plat/Subdivision Requirements
Le al Description Verification.
:���?'�>'
w:
V:. <•;� 'j:•.v'nNf ..Oi?:�}{
Quit Claim/Street dedications ---
..........
Easements - Public/Private --�
�" "`h r >.
12
Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee ;
<:h :.s;
`<:>.� ••:iK.; } k• }$ +
Engineering 2.2 Inspection Fee
x�;•r"°
.r,:`.„<r«%:}:::
1.4 .
Drainage Plan On -Site •
�"
" '"' :
- j
Setback - Top of Bank, Stream, Water Courses
.rM1v f?•#{ .ar
:<: ,:.v::� ::F::'Y� Y::;;;:: ' <:......
:.}:. ,t:r":..{>::.
1$
rm Drain Line �rxs f.:'..
Setback -Storm
{: c<
17 `
Open Ditch -Existin
Culvert Required
r:•xa:`w:'
F <:::f.r. .:}.;
\;42�i': }�;:'M,ei:....
:` .. wb'>�4:i:.:. �f •�•..:1�:.. .:•.:
<:.(.:��.:..«> ::� /� ,�.<;
ti<Y:�y}ti4}::w::;:{}p� .;C�ti{<:}v,'tO�.�Yn.'Lv.'{C�r:}
19
I .7
Culvert Size
houlder.Drainage/Shale Open -Runoff
Catch Basin Required it, DJw
Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access c�
Sidewalk Required �c->'
}..
r
......%
ff V21
v:f�: •f� ,ft•,:">
23 .
24
Curb & Gutter: Re uired tip
q
25
Curb Cut For Driveway Required
Street Paving Required
Ri ht-Of-lrrla Construction Permit Required
<.":1f
Street Name Sign Required Wb
';t +••,.;;;";: ,+.y.:+"
2g
Other Signing Required
r°"""""" {"" `"`
:`.c•`:.}:'.: ;65:t•:
30
Bond Required For Public Improvements ,�_.,._.__
FEMA Map Check/Water Table
���4 +}��;,:
r�A �; .g�:><�;y>F<
Side Sewer AvailabilitySv b �v
i}:v• }nO a{i{{:::.}.:rrY.;}�::5
�
�.��:i'r::'r: >.'r}; ^::+F<:Yr�v:
.
::tii:::tii::i:•S:yJ'::::
. :'•;
33
Calculate b
c late Sewer Connection Fee If No LID #
::<>>:<f,:.: ;::>::><::>{::::>
">�.,�{:�»>„
\: r:::it.+:::::::`:.:5
>>,::Y„r}4?:
••�,{ ...� ,�,.��c,�••,�,.�F.•<kf�:
::`:•:::.,•it;:iy`.'•Yc: %:itx::y:25}x<co5:::
;,:4:
M.
>:.'}:;:;
>3•t:
Create Street File
Existing Water Main Size
'�:«>:� ;::,.Y.>,'.:-':::
�-':: •••�:
":..-}'
Water Meter Size
37. j
Service Line Size
:<:><:>::::°
::' �y,
......;
38^1
Water Meter Charge Required
Hydrant Required
Hydrant Size Existing:........::::
Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler
Street Cut
Miscellaneous
C>.>ii:Y}OYi
:+:?•.:4:'.}ii$J}:?dti{S:
_ ?;;: 5
:.......
5liq'
OV O
• i }J}:•:'f.:+:::}''}.iii
:{ . {�
...
:riiiif$.iiiiY r......
. •
r_
,3g �
4u
42,.
43
4
Reviewed By:
FIRE
PLANNING
PUBLIC WORKS
CASCADE GEO TECHNICAL, INC. STREET FILL
Colo12911 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206! 821.5D80
KIRKLAND, WASHiNGTON 9803A FAY: (205) 823.2203
April 17, 1991
Job No. 9007-21G APR 17 1991
_ PER JIT COUNTER
Barbara Clark
966 Cedar
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Reference: Harbor Hills Lot 6
Geotechnical Declaration
Daley Place
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Ms. Clark:
As requested, we have prepared this letter in'accordance with the
Meadowdale Notebook Specifications Ordinance 12661 as modified for
the Harbor Hills Development. This letter summarizes our review of
the'final plans and provides the required declaration as modified
for the Harbor Hills Plat.
As we discussed with Dick Kamara of the City of Edmonds Planning
Department and Scott Snyder, the City of Edmonds attorney, it is
our conclusion that a Landslide Hazard Map with an assessment of
risk based on percent probability is not. necessary or appropriate
for the Harbor Hills Development. The Landslide Hazard Map that
was prepared for the Meadowdale area is specific to that site based
on an analysis done a number of years ago by other firms. Such an
analysis is not appropriate for the Harbor Hills development.
We completed a Phase I subsurface soils study of the Harbor Hills
development dated December 5, 1984, for site preparation, utility
placement and access road construction. The analysis was based on
air photograph interpretation, a review of geologic maps, and test
pits excavated on the site. The city of Edmonds accepted our
report and issued permits for the Phase I work.
Additional subsurface study and laboratory work was done on the
site during the Phase I site work. A.Hydrologic Analysis was done
in 1986 by GeoEngineers Incorporated, test borings were done by our
firm with laboratory analysis in 19870 a vibration testing study
was done by Sigmund Schwartz in 1989, and periodic monitoring of
the site work, drain installation and site excavation was done by
our office during all of the Phase I work.
After completion of 'the Phase I site work, additional test pits
were excavated to observe the subsurface conditions on each of the
individual lots. This study was sumarized in our Phase 11
datedMaY 21, 1989 which prorecommendationsreport
provided preliminary. for
d
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
April .17, 1991_
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 2
each site with generalized recommendations for foundation design
and drainage based on -overall site conditions.
We completed a detailed soils report based on previous subsurface
information and more recent test pits for Lot 6 dated August 23,
1990. This report was prepared. -in -accordance with the Meadowdale
Notebook - Specifications as modified for the Harbor Hills
Development and our understanding of the preliminary building
design which was submitted to us''for review. We have provided
additional design recommendations in letters dated January 23,
1991, and April 15, 1991. ' we believe that all necessary
information for the Meadowdale Notebook is included in the
correspondence we have provided.
The preliminary recommendations provided in our Phase II soils
report for Lot 6 included utilizing a pile foundation. We adjusted
our Phase II recommendationE in the AuyusL 23, 1990 boils report
and subsequent correspondence to reflect the more recent test pit
information and a more detailed design.:,
It is our- conclusion that we have sufficient - -information to
delineate the subsurface conditions of the site and the slope
stability. We do not feel that additionalteet borings are
necessary to further investigate the subsurface conditions of the
site.
Although topographic evidence suggests the possibility of ancient
movement, we noticed no sign of deep seated slope inbLability
within the Harbor Hills development. During excavation for the
cul-de-sac on the upper portion of the plat, near Lot 4, there was
some surficial movement within saturated organic soils. The
failure was within the upper two (2) to three (3) feet of material
and was buttressed immediately with quarry spalls and fill. This
area was not located within or adjacent to Lot 6.
We reviewed Sheets 1 through 13, undated, of the design plans
prepared by McNurlen Design, Sheets D1, S1, S2 prepared by
Structural Design Associates, dated 4/6/91 and the Topographic
Survey prepared by Love ll-Sauerland and Associates dated 6/1/89.
We recently received faxed details of revisions we recommended. It
is our understanding that these details have been added to the
final plans.
The plans we reviewed show a three (3) story, wood framed house
with an attached garage and daylight basement. The lower floor
will be a daylight basement with a slab -on -grade floor with a
finished floor elevation of 226.01, and the main floor will be at
elevation 236.01. The garage will,be a structural slab -on -grade
floor at elevation 236.01f according to the plans we were provided.
NI'4;1C.H- � TES: �:2'(.- =1�^
0
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
April 17, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 3
The plane we reviewed showed a spread footing foundation bearing on
undisturbed native bearing soil for the western daylight basement
ouse. The eastern portion of the house and garage
portion of the h
will be suppotted on auger: cast..piles. Horizontal drains east of
the garage, and east of the daylight basement below the garage are
also shown on the plans. The length and spacing of the horizontal
drains will be determined at the time of excavation and
construction oy a reFrubt:11totitie of our offieo. An eight (R) inch
capillary break with a subslar drainage system and vapor ecommend
barrier
will be installed under the slab of the lower floor.
that a capillary break and vapor barrier be placed under all slabs.
Footing drains and free drf.ining backfill are shown as well. \
The erosion plan showed a silt fence on the southern, northern and
western sides of the site. We recorariend that hay bales be placed
adjacent to the existing stream in the northwestern corner of the
site. Permanent landscaping will he placed immediately after
completion of the building.
FiTT calculations prepared by Structural Design Associates indicate ;
there will be 493 cubic yards of.material excavated and 404 cubic
yards of fill placed on the site. We did not conduct an analysis
of the cut and fill calculations. No fill will be placed to
adfill may be necessary to replace
support structural)
disturbed soils g construction
We recommend that we be engaged to provide continuous monitoring of
the site during site preparation, drainage installation, foundation
excavation, Pilo installation, And wall and slab backfilling.
Based on our analysisandexperience
isless than a 30�;
to this site
and in
the chance area,
of
it is our conclusion
movement on Lot 6 within a 20 year period.
It is our judgment that the plans and specifications
we reviewed
conform to the recommendations in our soils/g t
reports
and letters prepared for the Hrobcoi�edllls development, development �o this
The risk of damage to p P
properties, from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the
conditions set forth inalforsoil. mo er�e
rreports.
ntifourrecommendations
osdevelopment
not increase the potenti
are carefully followed.
Ecj E
a
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
April 16, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job NO- 9007 - -21G needs.
Page 4 - -- sufficient jrf orriatiOn f or your
toot
us at
We tru t that this provides
s additional quests
Shouldeel f,
Should you ha,, addIt'
any time .
Sincerely,
CASCADE GE
-x 4,
rb E!i
G / ;Cle rb
t.- 0
""t �.jle er
eo ge n
president and Pr C
pr- J6 gt
jiTinGeologist
Pj: P9 Rttn % Robert Hughes 14ulnia
CC: SDI� of Edmonds onds'. Attn - Dick
City
N
eve
r CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
12911 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821-5080
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823-2203
April 15, 1991
Job.No. 9007-21G
APR 17 iggl
PERMIT COUNTER
Barbara Clark
960 Cedar
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Reference: Additional Preliminary Design Parameters
Harbor Hills Lot 6
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Barbara:
RECEIVED
App 17 1991
SDA:
We have prepared this letter to provide additional comments
concerning the foundation for the proposed residence. This letter
also provides additional design parameters requested by Structural
Design Associates (SDA).
We have reviewed our soils report dated August 23, 1990, and our
recent letter dated January 23, 1991 concerning design
recommendations for the foundation and building/retaining walls.
We have also reviewed Sheets S-1 and S-2 dated 1/22/91 prepared by
SDA and Sheets D-1, S-1, and S-2, undated, prepared by SDA and
recently sent to us.
Recommendations provided in our soils report for the foundation
included two alternatives. We recommended that; 1) the entire
building be placed on piles or 2) the eastern portion of the
foundation located in the area of thick fill be supported on piles
and the lower, daylight basement portion of the foundation be
supported on a spread footing foundation on natural ground. Our
January 23, 1991 letter provided further informmation for using a
pile supported foundation throughout the building.
We understand that you have reviewed the preliminary foundation
design prepared- by SDA, dated 1/22/91, which showed a pile
supported foundation and have determined that it is too costly. As
an alternative, you have requested that we analyze the option of
using piles on the eastern portion of the house and spread footings
on the western, daylight basement portion, as in Option 2 of our
soils report.
Based on the elevations provided by Ron McNurlen of McNurlen
Design, it appears that the lower, daylight basement will be below
the fill soils noted in our test pits.. The garage/laundry room
will be within the area of fill soils.
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
April 15, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 2
We recommend that the garage/laundry room be supported on a pile
foundation, as discussed in our letter of January 23, 1991. It
appears that a spread footing may be used to support the foundation
of the daylight basement of the building if all unsuitable soils
are removed and the foundation trenches bear on undisturbed native
bearing soils.
Spread footings should be seated directly on undisturbed native
soil which consists of the medium dense sand/silty sand. Drainage,
as discussed in previous correspondence, should be installed and
tightlined-away from the building pad prior to excavating for the
foundation.
You should be aware that additional construction costs from the
adverse effects of water and equipment disturbing the soils may be
encountered. These could include additional costs of imported
materials, removal of unsuitable soils, and limiting excavation .to
dry weather only. We feel that with an experienced contractor,
suitable drainage, and. cautious construction, a spread footing
foundation can be used- on the., portion of the house that is
excavated below the existing fill into native soils.
We understand that the east basement wall will be designed as a
rigid retaining wall which will be restricted at the top and toe
prior to backfill. We also .understand that a surcharge from the
driveway will effect the wall. The backslope will be horizontal.
We recommend the following design parameter for the retaining wall:
At rest equivalent fluid pressure 60 pcf
The wall should be backfilled with a free draining material and
have a footing drain which is placed at the base of this wall and
tightlined away from the building as discussed in detail in
previous correspondence. We have assumed that the wall will be
restrained prior to backfilling.
0
•
April 15, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 3
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
We trust that this provides sufficient information for your needs.
Should you have any additional questions, feel free to contact us
at any time.
Sincerely,
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
V4.1
Ge ge E. amb,
President and Prin
Pete Jewett
E neering Geologist
PJ:pg
CC: SDA; Attn: Robert Hughes
City of Edmonds; Attn: Dick Mumma
STREET FILE
0
•
14arch 19, 1991
City Of Edmonds
Building Division
250 5th Ave. North
Edmonds, WA 98020
APR 17 i991
PIERMI3 COTNTER
Subject: Lot 6, Harbor Hills
-LIABILITY AND LANDSLIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT -
Our ref.: #93-250-2\letter.rjh
To Whom It May Concern:
Michael & Barbara Clark, as owners of the referenced:.7.ot, make
the following acknowledgment and declaration concerning the
construction of a residence on the property.
The lot is located in the Harbor Hills area that has '.peen
classified as an Earth Subsidence and Environmentally Sensitive
Area and as such is subject to the City Ordinance No. 2661
Revised Chapter 19.05 Edmonds Community Development Code,
otherwise known as the "Meadowdale Notebook".
to have read and understand the provisions of the Meadowdale
`ubmittal Requirements revised 5/20/88. We further acknowledge
our responsibility to indemnify the City and to inform all future
owners of said terms, conditions and information. We have read
aid understand the reports and declaration prepared by Cascade
Geotechnical, Inc., as well as the declaration prepared by
Structural Design Associates, Inc.. We accept sole
responsibility for the risks described in the referenced
documents.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Clark
Barbara Clark
960 - Cedar Street
Edmonds, WA 98020
�r75 CASCADE GEO CHNICAL, INC.
12911 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821z5080 �; J' VV
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206)�23=2203
Jill
January 23, 19.91
Job No. 9007-21G Pam
i-T FILE
Barbara Clark
960 Cedar
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Reference: Preliminary Design Parameters
Harbor Hills Lot 6
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Barbara:
0 RECEIVED 9 4
JAN 2 8 1991
/ SDA, INC.
19 c- `7GJ
At the request of Structural Design Associates (SDA), we have
prepared this letter to provide preliminary design parameters for
the proposed residence. The preliminary design parameters provided
here are based on our soils report for this lot dated August 23,
1990 and the building design concept prepared by McNurlen Design,
undated, the preliminary proposed grading plan/sketch prepared by
SDA, and an untitled building cross section.
We understand that the proposed construction is to consist of a
residence with an attached garage. on the east side and a daylight
basement on the west side. The building will step down the slope
to the west, requiring short retaining walls on the east side of
the daylight basement living area. Based on the subsurface
information we have on this lot and the proposed building, we
recommend that the building be supported on a pile foundation and
that the garage floor slab be designed as a pile supporteod
structural slab.
It appears from the proposed grades that the western portion of the
residence may be seated below the fill on native soil. Due to the
expected seepage and difficulty in working with these soils, we
recommend that the building be supported on piles to avoid
unexpected construction costs.
We recommend using twelve (12 ) inch diameter auger cast piles which
penetrate the native soils at least ten (10) feet. It appears that
piles may be up to twenty (20) feet long in some areas of the site
due to the thickness of the uncontrolled fill. Piles placed in
accordance with our recommendations will be suitable for a twenty
(20) ton vertical and ten (10) ton lateral load per pile. A point
of fixity four (4) feet below the upper contact of the native soil
can be assumed for design purposes.
-96(
*CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL
January '23, 1991
Barbara Clark :
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 2
Design values for the retaining walls shown on the design concept
provided are as follows:
Active Earth Pressure (equivalent fluid pressure)
2H:1V backslope, flexible wall east side of the
daylight basement 40 pcf
.Active Earth Pressure.(equivalent fluid pressure)
2H:1V backslope, flexible wall,
east side of the garage 50 pcf
Passive Earth Pressure (equivalent fluid pressure)
Undisturbed native soil 300 pcf
The design values provided here are preliminary and may be altered
or augmented depending on the final design. We should be engaged
to review the final plans to confirm that our recommendations are
correctly interpreted and to provide any'additiona1 or alternate
recommendations that may be necessary.
It appears that the elevation for the proposed daylight basement
will be below the "existing drain/tightline pipe located on the
eastern portion of the site. We anticipate that there may be
significant seepage from the cuts made for the building. We
recommend installing a drainage system prior to excavation for the
building.
Due to .the limited space and building location, a French drain
system will be difficult to install. As an alternative, we suggest
utilizing horizontal wells.
The enclosed sketches show possible drain locations using the
building cross section and proposed grade plan sketch provided.
The exact length and spacing should be determined in the field at
the time of installation. The horizontal drains should be
tightlined away from the slope after installation. Detailed plans
will be necessary to avoid intersecting the drain lines with the
drilled piers.
This letter is not a plan review and is for preliminary design
purposes only. A detailed and specific review of the final plans
will be necessary for the permit application.
#ASCADE GEOTECHNICAL db
January 23, 1991
Barbara Clark
Job No. 9007-21G
Page 3
We'trust that this provides sufficient information for your needs.
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact us at any time..
Sincerely,
CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL,•'•.'.
�'�Q�o^ �rfii:�:•\Sand'
G rge E. Lamb, P.E.
President and Principaa3
AP Jewett
Engineering Geologist
PJ:Pg
CC: SDA; Attn: Robert Hughes
City of Edmonds; Attn: Dick Mumma
LANDAU
ZAJ ASSOCIATES •
INC. ®
GeoenvironmentaLEngineering and Technologies
lam+ �:.1.
,AUG 15
PERMIT COONTER
Mr. Dick Mumma
City of Edmonds
250 Fifth Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE. WELL ABANDONMENT
POSSIBLE ARTESIAN WELL
HARBOR HILLS SUBDIVISION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
August 14, 1990
The Phase I. geotechnical report prepared by Cascade Testing Laboratories, Inc.
(December. 5, 1984) for the above -noted project indicates the possible presence of an artesian
well between Lots 5 and 6, near the 24046ot elevation contour. The location is shown on a
figure in Cascade's December 1984 report.
The Minimum. Standards for Construction and Maintenance of Wells (Chapter 173-160
WAC), identifies proper well abandonment techniques in Sections 1737160-415 to 465. Copies
of these sections are attached. .
Prior to development of Lots 5 and 6;; ;Landau. Associates recommends that the City
request an investigation concerning the reported presence of this. well. If the presence of the
well is verified, proper abandonment per State standards is suggested. Spectfic questions
concerning this subject can be answered by calling the Northwest Regional Office of the
Washington Department of Ecology (phone 867-7000).
Please call if you have questions concerning the above.
Very truly yours,
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
WDE/sg William D. Evans; CPG
No. 74-11.10. Senior Geologist
attachments
3 copies submitted
EDMONDS\HARW=.M
P.O BOX 1029 • EDMONDS, %NASHINGTON 98020.9129 • k206) 778-0907 -- FAX (200) 778 6409
173-160-365 Cleuction and Maintenance of Wells •
(3) The well casing shall be swabbed and cleaned to
remove oil, grease or joint dope.
(4) All pumping equipment, sand or gravel used in
gravel --packed wells and the well casing shall be thor-
oughly sluiced with clean water and disinfected with a
solution containing at least fifty ppm of chlorine for at
least thirty minutes.
(5) Prior to use for drinking purposes, sufficient dis-
infectant (chlorine compound) shall. be added to the
standing water in the well to give a residual of fifty ppm
free chlorine. The disinfectant should then be thoroughly
mixed with the water in the well and shall remain in the
well for a period of at least twenty-four hours, after
which there shall remain a minimum of ten ppm free
chlorine residual. The well shall then be flushed to re-
move all traces of chlorine. If testing indicates a pres-
ence of coliform bacteria, more stringent disinfection
methods may be required by the department of social
and health services or local health authority.
(6) Chlorine is a pollutant. Allow the chlorine in the
rinse to dissipate before discharging the water to surface
water. This water shall be discharged in a safe manner
consistent with the intent of the Water Pollution Control
Act, chapter 90.48 RCW. [Statutory Authority: Chapter
18.104 RCW. 88-08-070 (Order 88-58), § 173-160--
365, filed 4/6/88.]
WAC 173-160-375 Quality of drilling water. All
water introduced into a well for drilling purposes shall
be obtained from a potable water source or be thor-
oughly disinfected to assure noncontamination of the
water -bearing zone. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 18-
.104 RCW. 88-08-070 (Order 88-58), § 173-160-375,
filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-385 Pump installation. All pumps
and pumping equipment shall be installed in a manner
consistent with the intent and purposes of these regula-
tions. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 18.164 RCW. 88-
08-070 (Order 88758), § 173-160-385, filed 4/6/88]
WAC 173-160-395 Explosives. The use of explo-
sives in the construction, development or reconditioning
of any water well shall be accomplished under the direct
supervision of an individual licensed under chapter 70.74
IZCW. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-
08-070 .(Order 88-58), § 173-160-395, filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-405 Chemical conditioning. The use
of detergents, chlorine, acids or. other chemicals in wells
for the purpose of increasing or restoring yield, may be
used according to manufacturer's recommendations.
(Statutory Authority: Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-08-070
(Order 88- 58), § 173-160-405, filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-415 Abandonment of wells. General. .
(1) Any well which is unusable, or whose use has been
permanently discontinued, or which is in such disrepair
that its continued ' use is impractical or is an environ-
mental, safety or public health hazard shall be aban-
doned. The abandonment procedure (as prescribed by.
these regulations) must be recorded and reported as re-
quired by the department.
(2) Wells that were not constructed in accordance
with these regulations, or wells which are abandoned to
allow the placement of potential sources of contamina-
tion within one hundred feet of.the well, shall be aban-
doned in one of two ways:
(a) The casing shall be perforated from the bottom to
within five feet of the land surface and pressure grouted.
Perforations shall be at .least four equidistant cuts per
row, and one row per foot. Each cut shall be at least one
and one-half inches long.
(b) Withdraw the casing and fill the bore hole with
grout, puddled clay, or bentonite as the casing.is being
withdrawn.
(3) Piping of sealing materials directly to the point of
application or placement by means of a dump bailer or
trcmic tube is recommended. If cement grout, neat ce-
ment, or puddlcd clay is used as a sealing material below
the static -water level in the well, it should be placed
from the bottom up by methods. that avoid. segregation
or dilution of the material. When used to place grout,
the discharge end of the tremie tube shall be submerged
in the grout to avoid breaking the seal while filling the
annular space.
(4) If it can be verified that a water supply well was
constructed in accordance with these regulations, and .it
is not being abandoned to allow siting of potential
sources of contamination within one hundred feet of the
well, it shall be abandoned. in accordance with WAC
173-160-420 through 173-160-465, whichever applies.
[Statutory Authority: Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-08-070
(Order 88-58), § 173-160-415, filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-420 Abandonment of uncased Wells.
Uncased wells shall be backfilled with concrete, grout,
puddled clay, or high -solids bentonite. [Statutory Au-
thority: Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-08-070 (Order 88-
58), § 173-160-420, filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-425 Abandonment of wells --Aban-
donment of drilled or jetted wells. A cement grout or
concrete plug shall be placed opposite all perforations or
openings in the well casing. The remainder of the well
shall be filled with cement grout, concrete, puddlcd clay,
or bentonitc. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 18.104
RCW. 88-08-070 (Order 88-58), § 173-160-425, filed
4/6/88.]
WAC 173-160-435 Abandonment of wells --Aban-
donment of gravel -packed wells. All gravel -packed wells
shall be pressure -grouted throughout the perforated sec-:
tion of the well casing: The remainder of the well shall
be filled with cement grout, concrete, puddlcd clay, or
bentonitc. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 18.104 RCW.
88-08-070 (Order 88-58), § 173-160-435, filed
4/6/88.]
WAC 173-160-445 Abandonment of wells --Aban-
donment of artesian wells. A cement grout or concrete
plug shall be placed in the confining stratum overlying
1(%. 171-161) WAC-p 121
(4/6/88)
• Construction and Maintenance of Well*
173-160-530
the artesian zone to prevent subsurface leakage from the
artesian zone. The remainder of the well shall be filled
with cement grout, concrete, or bentonite. [Statutory
Authority: Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-08-070 (Order
88-58), § 173-160-445, filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-455 Abandonment of wells --Aban-
donment of dug wells. Clean chlorinated sand shall be
installed to a point two feet above static water level. The
remainder of the well to land surface shall be filled with
clay, concrete, puddled clay, or bentonite. [Statutory
Authority: Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-08-070 (Order
88-58), § 173-160-455, filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-465 Abandonment of wells --Plug-
ging of test wells. In the abandonment of cased wells in
which the well casing is to be removed, the well shall be
plugged as the casing is withdrawn: Test wells shall be
abandoned in accordance with WAC 173-160-426.
[Statutory Authority: Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-08--070
(Order 88-58), § 173-160-465, filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-475 Artificial recharge of ground—
water bodies. Approval must be obtained from the de-
partment before starting any project related to the arti-
ficial recharge of ground —water bodies. [Statutory
Authority: Chapter .18.104 RCW. 88-08-070 (Order
88-58), § 173-160-475, filed 4/6/88.1
PART THREE --RESOURCE PROT'ECI'ION
WELLS
WAC 173-160-500 Design and construction --Gen-
eral. (1) No resource protection well shall be used for
domestic, industrial, commercial, or agricultural pur-
poses, unless it meets the minimum construction stan-
dards for water supply wells.
(2) No resource protection well shall interconnect sat-
urated formations or aquifers.
(3) Cuttings and development water shall be managed
in a manner consistent with the intent and purposes of
the Water Pollution Control Act, -chapter 90.48 RCW,
the Hazardous Waste Management Act, chapter 70.105
RCW, and implementing regulations (chapter 173-303
WAC).
(4) A well identification number shall be permanently
attached or engraved on the inner and outer well cas-
ings. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-
08-Q70 (Order 88-58), § 173-160-500, filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-510 Design and construction --Sur-
face protective measures. (I) Every resource protection
well shall be capped and protected using one of the fol-
lowing methods:.
(a) If the well is cased with metal and completed
above the ground surface, a lockable cap shall be at-
tached to the top of the casing.
(b) If the well is not cased with metal and completed
above the ground surface, a metal protective casing shall
be installed around the, well. The protective casing shall
extend at least six inches above the top of the well casing
and at least two feet into the ground. A lockable cap
shall be attached to the top of the protective casing..
(c) If the well is completed below ground surface, a
lockable "water —meter cover," or equivalent, shall be in-
stalled around the well. A protective cover, level with the
ground surface, shall be installed with a waterproof seal
to ,prevent the inflow of surface water. Drains shall be
provided, when feasible, .to keep water out of the well
and below the well cap. The cover must be designed to
withstand the maximum expected loadings.
(2) The well(s); completed above ground, shall be
protected from damage by one of the following methods:
(a) Three metal posts at least three inches in diame-
ter, and set in concrete, shall be installed in a triangular
array around the casing and at least two feet from it.
Each post shall extend at least three feet above and be-
lowthe ground surface.
(b) A reinforced concrete pad may be installed to
prevent freeze/thaw cracking of the surface seal. When
a concrete pad is used, the well seal shall be part of 'thc
concrete pad.
(c) A protective cover shall be installed when the well
is completed below the ground surface. The cover must
be designed to withstand the maximum expected
loadings.
(3) The protective measures may be waived, if the
well is inspected at least weekly and is located. in a sc-
cure area that is not susceptible to vandalism or to
damage.
(4) If the well is to be protected by other surface pro-
tection methods, the owner shall obtain prior written ap-
proval from the department.
(5) If the well is damaged, the well protection mea-
sures and casing shall be restored as prescribed by this
chapter. If the well is damaged beyond repair, it shall be
properly plugged and abandoned in .accordance with
WAC 173-160-560. [Statutory Authority: Chapter 18-
.104 RCW. 88-08-070 (Order 88-58), § 173-160-510,
filed 4/6/88.1
WAC 173-160-520 Design and construction --Cas-
ing. The casing shall be nonreactive with the subsurface
environment. The casing shall not effect or interfere
with the chemical, physical, radiological, or biological
constituents of interest. All resource protection well cas-
ing shall conform to ASTM Standards, or at least 304
or 316 stainless steel, PTEE, or Schedule 40 PVC cas-
ing. Glued casing joints shall not be used in areas of
known or potential contamination. [Statutory Authority:
Chapter 18.104 RCW. 88-08-070 (Order 88-58), §
173-160-520, filed 4/6/88.]
WAC 173-160-530 Design and construction --
Cleaning. (1) When drilling in known or potential areas
of contamination, the drill rig derrick and all drilling
equipment shall be steam cleaned before and after well
construction.
(4/6/88) 1Ch. 173-160 WAC-p 131
LANDAU
ASSOCIATES,
INC.
Geoenvironmental Engineering and Technologies
City of Edmonds
250 Fifth Ave. North -
Edmonds, WA 98020
Attn: Ms. Jeannine Graf
RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW
PROPOSED CLARK SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOT 6 HARBOR HILLS SUBDIVISION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Dear Ms. Graf:
A0 1 r.1 r4
1991
June 6,1991
In accordance with your request, Landau Associates has completed a review of the
submittal associated with the subject project. This review was conducted using the requirements
of City Ordinance No. 2661 and the Uniform Building Code as a standard for comparison.
Documents reviewed are listed in Attachment 1 to this letter.
Our review of the documents indicates that some of the issues associated with the house
and with the subdivision require resolution in accordance with City Ordinance No. 2661
requirements. Our specific comments are as follows:
1. An artesian well has been reported on the boundary between Lots 5 and 6, as shown
on the original geotechnical report for the subdivision. Our August 14, 1990 letter
to the city recommended an mvesti�a tion and proper abandonment of this well in
accordance with Chapter 173-160 WV. We are unaware of the present status of this
issue.
2. Seepage from the well noted above and other sources in the hillside east of the
proposed structure formed a stream which crossed the site at the time of the original
geotechnical report for the subdivision (1984). At the time of the geotechnical report
or the Clark residence (Reference 7, 1990), the stream had been routed into three
buried pi (shown on Reference 2). Reference 7 states that Cascade Geotechnical
(Cascade] had .performed a limited review of this work and was aware that a
Hydrologic Project Permit existed for it. It is unclear whether Cascade contemplated
that the three pipe drain would flow under the structure when they made their
recommendations. This is certainly not a standard construction practice and has
many drawbacks which could be remedied by relocating the dram. If the drain is
not relocated, the geotechnical engineer and design team leader for the house should
review the design and construction of the drain and state that it is acceptable for the
purposes of the house construction. The City would then need to agree to waive the
UBC/City Ordinance No. 2661 requirement that drainage be directed away from the
building.
3. Horizontal drains drilled into the slope are recommended by Cascade in References
7 and 8. Reference 8 states that tentative locations are shown on an attached sketch.
We have not been provided with this sketch and are not aware if the proposed
locations shown on the Drainage & Grading Plan (Reference 1) are. those provided
by Cascade. Reference 10 states that horizontal drains should be field located by a
Cascade representative during construction. We recommend that the City should
require Cascade to identify those criteria which will be used by their personnel in
the determination of the location and adequacy of the hillside drainage system. For
example, if an excavation is made and some seepage is encountered, what criterion
will be used to determine 2) if drains are to be installed, 2) how many drains are
needed, and 3) drain locations, inclinations, etc.
P.O. BOX 102y - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020-1029 • (20 )77R-0c)07 • FAX (206)778-6409
4. Depending on the outlet elevation and location of the horizontal drain system,
considerable coordination may be required with the building contractor to avoid
conflicts with other drains and the foundations, while meeting the criteria established
for the horizontal drains. The recommended construction sequence on the Drainage
& Grading Plan (Reference 1) is not clear concerning when the horizontal drains will
be installed.
5. Dry weather construction is recommended by Cascade (Reference 7) but not required
elsewhere in the construction documents. The City may wish to make this a
condition of the Building Permit.
6. The proposed floor subdrains exit beneath footings and are below the footing drain
elevations shown in some locations. In addition, floor drains penetrate foundation
walls in some locations. We recommend that the City require a detail of the
foundation wall penetration and that the applicant review the outlet locations and
elevations for the floor subdrains and revise as appropriate.
7. Provisions for the ongoing maintenance of the drainage facilities do not appear to
have been made as required by City Ordinance No. 2661. Due to the complexities
of the drainage at this site, a maintenance schedule'is recommended as a part of the
written plan required by the Ordinance.
8. Cascade references a Lovell-Sauerland topographic survey of the site dated March
14, 1990 in their geotechnical report, as does Structural Design Associates on their
Drainage & Grading Plan. However, we have been furnished with a survey dated
June 1, 1989. The City should require that an updated survey be furnished for
review. The updated survey should be accompanied by a statement from the
surveyor that he has recently visited the site and that the survey provided accurately
reflects current conditions.
9. Proposed/anticipated pile lengths are not shown on the construction drawings. Pile
construction criteria are also not shown. Since four geotechnical documents have
been prepared, it would be best to summarize pile foundation requirements
(including inspection) on the construction drawings.
10. Both auger cast piles and spread footings are proposed for use in support of the
structural loads at this site. The stated reason for this use of mixed foundations
appears to be primarily economic. No documentation of the differential settlement
and other risks associated with mixing foundation types is present in the documents
furnished. The City may wish to make sure that the owners are aware of and
acknowledge this risk.
11. Cascade states on Page 3 of their Geotechnical Declaration (Reference 10) that their
analysis and experience indicate that a low probability of movement exists on the
site, but does not state the method of analysis used or show stability calculations.
On Page 1 of that document, they state that such an analysis is not appropriate for
the Harbor Hills Development. We recommend that the City request that if this
analysis has been made, details be provided for review. Alternately, the statements
should be revised.
12. The City should require a statement from Cascade concerning the Environmental
Checklist. This is required by City Ordinance No. 2661 and Cascade requested the
opportunity for comment in their Geotechnical Report.
13. The Environmental Checklist states that the project is a 3743 square foot residence
while the plans indicate a 5096 square foot residence. The appropriate document(s)
should be corrected or clarified.
14. The Geotechnical Report states that temporary excavation slopes of 21 should be
used for construction. It is, not clear whether a) this is the basis of the cut and fill
volumes shown on the Site Plan, or b) this is geometrically possible at this site,
LANDAU ASSOCI:VFES. INC.
particularly along the east wall of the garage where existing slopes are 1:1.
Engineering des!n of a temporary shoring system is recommended this are,
particularly considering Cascade's statement that maximum cuts of 4 ft are allowed
on theeast side of the site. This maximum cut limitation will most likely be
exceeded given the current proposed site grading.
15. The proposed permanent slopes along the east wall of the garage are such that the
ground elevation may approach to within 1-2 ft of the eaves, creating easy roof
access at this location. This is not standard construction practice and may pose some
security and safety problems.
16. The laterial earth pressures shown in the "Structural Notes" section of Sheet 6 of the
House Plans (Reference 5) should be revised to reflect those shown on Reference 9,
if appropriate. The structural and ggeotechnical engineer should be in agreement
with respect to the appropriateness of the design parameters, particularly concernmi
a) rigid vs. flexible walls; and b) level or 2-1 or 1:1 sloping Wckfill. Basement wal19
and the east garage walls are areas of particular concern. The City may wish to
require a statement from the parties that these matters have been reviewed and are
appropriate to the proposed construction.
We recommend that the above concerns should be addressed by the appropriate
professionals and that a resubmittal to the City should be required. Landau Associates should
review the responses provided when they become available.
Should you have any questions concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact
the undersigned.
DMW/WDE/sms
No. 74-28.10
06/06/91 ®MONDS\HARBOR.RPT
3
Very truly yours
LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
4ea
. WPE.,
Senior Engineer
and
W,.-_ a Lo�,
William D. Evans, CPG
Senior Geologist
LANDAU ASSOCIATF.S.INC.
ATTACHMENT 1
REFERENCES
1. Drainage & Grading Plan; single sheet dated April 6, 1991 by Structural Design
Associates, Inc.
2. Stream Relocation Plan; single sheet dated August 21, 1989 by Lovell-Sauerland &
Associates, Inc.
3. Topographic Survey; single sheet dated June 1, 1989 by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates,
Inc.
4. Site/Plot Plan; single undated sheet by McNurlen Design Group, numbered as Sheet 1,
Job No. 9013
S. House Plans; stapled undated set of drawings by McNurlen Design Group, numbered
as Sheets 2 through 13, Job No. 9013; revised Sheets 3, 9 and 10 dated May 7,1991
6. Foundation Plans; 2 sheets stapled with House Plans dated April 6, 1991 and revised
May 7, 1991 by Structural Design Associates, Inc., numbered as Sheets S-1 and S-2
7. Geotechnical Engineering Report dated August 23, 1990 by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc.,
Job No. 9007-21G
8. Preliminaryry Design Parameters; letter dated January 23, 1991 by Cascade Geotechnical,
Inc., Job No. 9007-21G
9. Additional Preliminary Design Parameters; letter. dated April 15, 1991 by Cascade
Geotechnical, Inc., Job No. 9007-21G
10. Geotechnical Declaration; letter dated April 17, 1991 by Cascade Geotechnical, Inc., Job
No. 9007-21 G
11. Environmental Checklist dated January 21, 1991, prepared by Robert Hughes of
Structural Design Associates, Inc.
12. Structural Engineer's Declaration letter dated April 17, 1991 by Structural Design
Associates, Inc.
13. Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement letter dated March 19, 1991 by Michael and
Barbara Clark
4
INC.
- - --. �- .. •:: n« -- - - r
j
- - - ,eo t
}
. 118442 I.: _
F
I1
..
ia..�ts c'..r" 2,` -ear' a,`' - ..i ?r.�.. -tc.•: �[I: �..�, tom., .:('; _,r: ..i. ,l .r,'' ,It -I t..
jt Im, � r ` \ t t
t � v. ' w .
,t� I,':
' ?�a :.w
4..1-.f � ,
• 4 Ia f %`' g4�Lk L�c�ll', Y I i _ .. _ t r
. . . .
I-'t�tdtolr � �g *tw o '.. r- .., ,.I. . I I- - r
, , -, -"
�1\11�..��1 71
7h }'�6 t,1 - '� I \ - f (� 1 \1 • •\ T�' ' �\1 r I^ `, 11 r' r /'`,� I -/ - G ^.,'�.
°;r G>'�urRM r' J .� J .�.� J 1 �1 :, J J FR l D r' lJ r
1 A' " ,
r f fl tr t S 1 _
I,1��#�N".. t�is r1Vr .r-\�r�r TRAC r11
t fit. �� '{' S �'S t./ �i fit { (.\J I._. J j, �Y,J ) :�._�'�
p f LIAWTUOtZIJ C I. s `
I r'a o
N NrIu r �c o . .
o r,J, „ts ,o I , a _r _
„� ,^ O N N "` N FAY M. a t N11: i N N N N J f /� .. r, �j
2°\ \2� N I N � h`1�� �� I r' 's , i 1 1 h` N )
�.1. '
/ I I
1 I r r } Iz M � ,, , I i I I 1 _
VIN�'M LI . / '1 IAh�t�, . 1 I, I 1 I I GzTY, PA-,�1T N41mr- SI2� �'AUN6,
' / I o I t ,, i I 1 I I ., ,
s, . I
y� ,� (5 �(L!''T'AL� \Q' i !' t1T1�"�1-� I I 1 0' I �a I ?7 Q� Gll�l�If�TUM�YIN� I - AM r-_ . '-,r I O I O,Gt'
p. I 2 / / :: id I'�... r:NDA I I I I
�- ° \ I ,� /' _ /, } , ' -! , ', i 5 i Gi�.T�, IJs t70UGt,A�11.CµA WTUoI�tJ A'- 5' l of o. _ l
' ` , i ► BIZ VAIN: le G� Iz•Y � . ' a
/ / / V / v ( ems. , . ` 1 \ I I 1 I I
/ I 77
— .
2 �:.
/ // . i,` 1, �\ u i ®: ! ', 2� 1D AM l rA1.IGl-11 LOt21 �I i - Zvi S O G
�..:�_. II . Z`D I I '. .x.--yl- i 0J,"Ic .,>,:�23 �'• 1 , I ! I Iih IG1�12NUs STOLoNI���PI/I b�l G i 1 �A>✓ �1 o.G. i
o �� / 1 I y � < j \ , I moo, y 'at�yt_Us G tzNUT/a/I-}AZa✓t--Nub I� -?�I ..
I t i ` , 2 ��lyjO / , \ , 1 / G ; ! d,"t\, .,' P� \ \ � \ 10 MA1-10W1/� A,dZulr-ol-lUMl, I91z ,�ON6,IzAA J�=,'1- I �" 41 o.G,
a N 2 \ \ 1 1 b rr/.I"� I ,-e'$•�`s r \ _ \ h- ...
%z°° I ''IG ;/ �I r,__mi l ti301 '. �-���. \`\ \\ �` �;� 5 �'( !'1-10121�Alzhh�/�U,LAS5 oW - 'I_
/ / \ �, �,
M / N l�.Y 1 �' o•G
! m,
I � I / . I .,�.L,;'i 6" , \ \ 0 - I I . . I .. .
I , � -`� OP . � /
a ` 1 I ° / __ / 0 _ ,I t 3` lire ,s/S .
q0`? 1, ' I Z\� / /N N \ Za i ;f } ' % , �'?li� t i / \\ �Q o0a r .+
3 I i I / � Wfl �iD a' �,'d a )4 2 ,�y4. ,,i �C .
I I / / ) VJ.L / '& Yid �,t i s �. t„,'_ �.`1"t% ' - \ \
I
. , �'
1p i i % Sr / 2 ,/ _\ t, .; \s f is rr - �\ 23y �K F114- W,�q/l'�n NA71VI✓ 60 - . .
a I , I / l ,� \ t °♦ I x,.6 s t t t' da W I LT I�'^V7�-i G „ .! I
r w / \
I/ / / / ! a s f q I \ N�I)I{j t - (j' Yht f/{)� I
2 i I I // / Sr r1\ i R i F , fi P•.1[Vi \ ' -,^', rt TyC.• �, N
'1
I ' 1 / �� ) 2A s n-1 �'S °h'ii l�1i:� t + _ ��j (/ \���i\�Y �(��y / .rl ":t •f.Ihy 'Qa V '.:n, s•'�f r .�'!•.i././" +i:•.;
I t I / / O 2 i ! !i r !`�' r l \ p V \� �/ Y `/ I'S 1 ifl y� " r e vr• �11 S rJ1' tr'�$:) l 1 /i-,..,A.,),.. ) I
I I\� . J""_ 1_ _" +r U / ��� \� \ III t, S + � .) � '� -V 4' ' 'i`.v,, , •� ",.i ... •. - tv�+
I I 1, 1 1 ! r , e\ i r 4 2 ` Q \l� �� �j C�'/ •\ I 'COY .ad ' I �'' � /iI7 {- 1 111 _ ./ rt t , .,i\ . • CY. +.1
I 1 i , I $ . r t A ` / I I - '✓ .t' 11. \. 4y..'1 ` `!3. 7T y i'iJ + !, • , ....
/ / , 1 ti:i ,z / + s ,w
I I / )' `L.•) -t Y�, v' .Z3 \ " 1'r`:%L':"S+ \'3� .,';:t'.ri :St;•<J:-,I , 's. •,\r� w� ".
I ' i 0 I ' � / \ s r , t BQ ° • , p �. 0e10 $o p8� ° 8 ✓ jk' ^,St .%' 'tf Y . ;? / �, "
I ' I % �� //� Zg4 g$ N Yoh r. c `''` .'':='C \.
wm
I I i 1 i �� l °`. ,/ / ,- !1. � -' .INV ,;2Z1.00 i �p noa '_:" cJJ` �'`" �` :.- .; :4. _ I,rt�!/_; ;_� ;, .
1� / ; /' 03 I IZ / 2 1 GJ' f�'.�t,I�+I' IC`C�` �� ,r.Ny�„ j1��! it =�
i" ,.?`
I.
Z� ?�' i 1 2\� I i / t� � f SCo°3Z 26" hr ram•, -• , , •t q ;- " .' }' y's I
% tulb, /' . I I I t 1 C 44 4 JI.! o °8 i5o o f � s y ?
EX "PVC /' \ 1 o -�- ,�0� III ( / .� .� !'l ! '
/. i I I 6 # , n e 5r c� y' a
SIDE SEWER '� \ j) ' ' / `� "�w�,I;? ,�' \ 2� / / �Z _ 4 y , s - ;k
— — �\ ` ��• \5 . , i 1\ ° pl9 U Z � ; b 3 I � 5 ,� �I L 2 �,411 t2 C- i 1 "•' y, ;e ' t°, (`+ `
'� P d SIN p o K- �' d AM. �0�4 a2 y ° - '�` Pie
1 I ` ej D Qi' \;I.s '',. G \` / P�pti. I�1Pt✓I.�, y s/rise '`
\ 1 ' 1 \ •V \ i.q i.
9 ` / 11 ZtD //I _ \ ..,. .._ .._____-•._ ._ .dais \w3 +V ..t. ,u F M J,F '.t7 a�tr 7P r ' .� 'P .� F t :..sr".. Ei,4a_,. �t:...;-.:.tt _Ww"_
1.
. \ ) 1 N� ZS • \ I \y0 \`\ /r� j�, €4 K4.,�,, �/ ! I• _1_1 r �4 . :t, f'
\ ` . r1i.. I
\7Q Z / , k f �. ' � l i r I .,. r. S Via , } a
\ LL. �• , Q �S � ti 6 ,1.-�, . s-� - tpy+;,•• 'r.
t Z\ , �.,�V. L!. \ Q i i� p91} tk. <t fyi '! 'll�n �{ $;sFn1.. 1.'.
\ -- I l9 %• \ , t : (' rtk .i<2 . - - t `i, . C,t* . t.; '. , 1
ci�
0
° \�//.,11 fr I' y{✓pu� �.. it ,
\ �,. ��6 • �\ 1 .P, Ifi' i - ` - 1,�+ � _ wi;.; II ''Iiii t' .,Gym r �i, ,n, • 11 '• :l )1'f ,', ?i
g, 0 , 1�
" \ 50 0j t,
\�>, . .�., ) --- � . . . - .- , F - ;
p n 2� N.%'E'` 8 °� �� °, ` _" Y \ ` TOP 03 /. q8 il i ,, 1.� :. t 1; ` ."
i I . 1. r: :nw',
lIF 1 d k Is 1 `Z'.��. i- r
.f l (?
`� APP/C�X LOCATION OF \ 2``,' _ \ \,� �,/ \\ ,. , , a \ - `.`.1 IIIIi
c ki r \ \ -`fi
/i /^,�/\ �L.�r \\.�,' I'\. .-,,t�l��i4rTl 1.
\ / ,1. LANt G,A►�' C7•_-�`-�SL�IAL...E. ���
up , 4 \ W4 �� xt' �'Iii1 r'rk x ° \
� / N ,
46
� , c� D� ^ Al ---._� �'• / ' Z:iM A.I�A%i
/ V/- �/ / G�� ♦ .I / ,xWt Ike 4 �' Il'f i I c11.
I I I I
11VV eO 7.7 / - /,? E // �, I I .,-,.,� - \ , - �`�""�_,�`_`11�1! I - . . ,,',� �
\ - . :.;;�;,�;:,1�5""�;�.,
IAIV .%i�/,! iO -1,., \ , ` r r#r \ 1I. yl-O/1 21 0" 1''�'I �`' �"
\� ,l #0 ^ EX 'SSA44 MIN
. ,.,...�..�.. w.._. _ \� 4i / k1. �IIIALr_ 6 10 .
f•:r 5' '-1 y�ONDS Z d' TOP i .l !,i; , � G- N.
C� �ir1G. . �/ �;� {Nv 'ZIT 1.e? a'�vF` 8 l.N-lMAIeK N.T.s. .
%
1.
1.
C�i;'df�1Tl01`JAL .PERMfiT 1A. le ' 1 ``• /, , 1 i , rOF' OF CASED CUNC. MONUMENT LOCATOO
��,•p `�V STREA(�/I RELOCATION PLAN
/^ "s V,I - £ r 1 QENTER OF CUC DE SAC. ,. �,�11 ,
• �* /1.�tl ` x 1.
IRK• AO / , , � Itl ECBIVATION ZZ9 45 DATUM CITY of EDMONO5 ... FOR
�- / `� �_ \ Q'
DRESS- 1115r/VC V /Fl ;�• _I I li' 1' '. + (U (u
1 ; !
i 2 �I11CH�►EL a 3ARRARA C L`ARK.
T t. < t-.,
(t'� J ` '
s ut iwia `,' SPLIT
INER- �W '_ ,� / '- a ._fit tt ..'i �4• I I2' - - t %J,,
,� COUPLING N E �/ S E C TI O N 2 4 T 2 7 N R 3 E W M
1
. JN ► S 0 �N r\ D D 1 r I
(VOL. 19 , Pr. JJ )
A PROVED DATE- r ,�
(� S t -% �12" CMP -� • t 1 e . t z
'V V /1 i t �, +? I , r - l
B �1 �/\. C.B. y�l;t Iyt,;IIY \ '\am I •/j BARS'�:�
ry!
OFFICIAL TOG z11.8Z_" , _: �,, '' ,��� c�N-rsRs CITY . 0 F : EDMON DS WAS H I N GTO N
BLDG. y «1 t "�1.% i
KEEP THESE STAMPED Q" , r,, p J r� I.� t it I %ay t �l•ZtaJ $9 i� hrkLA/ti/AE
PLANS ON JOBSITf_ FOR : 1 + I .1 ,4-
ALL INSP'— :I1�:='�S Q z/tt +►5 BARB 3' I Lovell-Sauerl ' ' d & Associates, � hd,.
- �7 X zr!.. CENTERS' 6ET 5' MITERED ,, I Engineers / Surveyors / Planners / Development Consultants ; , -
_. '.
a P
ai °,,_ V -RTIGAL,LY I SEGTION OF CIAP
-.�
HEED ' i'�'' a::
PER'\�I :19400 33rc1 Avenue W„ Suite 200 i Lynnwood, WA 98037 (206)775-1591 • (206)�340.0830
I, -it: ; ..
�p�.l�tyy I ,� a},u> TRASH .SCREEN DETAIL ' ;
lJ w.J rryy,y v - r+at. {..a - —: ... -e..?` a „ kt., y
(1721 DRAW CHECKED DATE: T.B... SCALE FILE NO.
,t >; , .r, ,i\ jA 1 N.T.S. i /� p. d //� //� t l ;F
m } k . vJ� Cial z/ ' Z 1 ' C/ I t343 f�6 » F l /r z� 1 f,. L,. ��' E a ar ..
R. It[!,�br$.it [d v,��' �A y�P,,�'.iy ,� „' •! � r ;J, .. - _ / .. Irrj� s .A. ''-�:�
?r+rlf+r..a tr l� .mil ',•
11
.. •rei - Wu } . n . 1 . r .......x .Jt -.. :e:Ztl.. .. t'a,,ti .. . .. ... -.:. ., _.. o- .. _ .:
66-/z-8
HAKt�VK HILL, LV 1 �, tLJIVIVIvtJ�,Vvf=4.
Ii�fi 2�-d'
ap V't:2maJr' h
+ :�;7FO <;�HT L? - I r—o f ?-,, C_,-,,RApj N&r + PK�sd FL44"IN
i
SQUARE FOOTAGE SU it11 L1Y
Residence.
Main Floor
►
S.F.
Upper Floor.
1 0•
S.F.
Lower Floor
i
S.F.
Bogus Room
S.F.
TOTAL:
r2ri2n (0 S.F.
GARAGE:
S.F.
DECK: -
S.F.
PORCHES:
S.F.
OTHER:
S.F.
ENERGY CODE�MRY r
Floor Area: - r`.�,C�9(p S.F.
Windows and Doors - _ S� • %2 S.F.
Skylights X 2 __�^`ice l�G� S.F.
Total Glazing Area 9 2-G S.F.
Glazing as a % of floor area w �•
Note: All glazing must comply with the 1986 Washington. State
Energy Code. caulk and Weatherstrip all Windows, Doors;.
and Building Joints.
ROOF. . . . .
. .10 PSF DEAD LOAD
+
25
k$F LIVE LOAD
="Z6
PSF`
FLOOR
.1-0 PSF DEAD LOAD
+
40
PSF LIVE LOAD
50
PSF
CEILING .
5 PSF DEAD LOAD
+
16
PSF LIVE LO
- 15
PSF
DECK .
5 PSF DEAD LOAD.+
60
PSF LIVE AD
== 65
PSF
INTERIOR. PART '• ON . . . . . . . .
�:
10
PSF
EXTERIOR PARTITI
t . . . . .
10
PSF
F -N LING:
Frame nailing to
b,-, In co t,yi.t
TAbl,e No. 25-•Q,
U.B.C.
s�
A11 joints ��1�-
b u -ccr vve s �a spc w
14"!
-- — ----_____---_
te,�
HEM• -FIR # 2
-
- 11.50' 75 1,400,000
4" 1-minateted
OMIN DOUG-FIR #2 3.250 95 00,000
61'OM AL DOUG-FIR #1 1300 85 1,.
P_ Timbers:
FIR LARCH
2400 V3 165 1,7001000
2400 V4 165.- 1,800,000
DRAWING INDEX:
1. PLOT PLAN
2. SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS'
3. NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS
4. MAIN FLOOR PLAN
5. UPPER FLOOR PLAN
6. .LOWER FLOOR PLAN
MAIN FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
STRUCTURAL & FOUNDATION NOTES
7. LOWER ROOF FRAMING PLAN
UPPER FLOOR, FRAMING, PLAN
SHEATHING SCHEDULE
SHEAR WALL SCHEDULES
8. ROOF FRAMING PLAN
SHEAR WALL SCHEDULES
9. BUILDING_ SCHEDULES
10. DETAILS
S1. FOUNDATION PLAN
S2. FOUNDATIONS DETAINS
D1. DRAINAGE & GRADING PLAN
OR
1?1u�1
PER.UIr �o�nrrFr�
�//SDa4evA4 ee-
7073ZI-3
5117��
.T , � j*�''� , YT-+✓., r tn' Y 3' } ,� ,,. b r7�i' y�., 'y �� i���. y;.. # �: s'.
1 "MIN
•. ,.' ^. s ,,, , r.' :-s,x x Fr Y . Yi 2 , k.r.;£,uw� t, �:.A £ 'k ?� D-:..,:y �s �nbi 3iD`;1 ' at . aa'�',' S, t %r . r?,::, t 4¢ a»,
+
r. ,.,
r .,:'
,.,, ,. , ,.
.,'Y"}
..
r $;.2'. + r ,
s r, 7 .3 7 N 7'�:. ,`£ s tr i..r r a b v
r `' :.rt�, ; �?ur r n+*«�,: ��c � �; :x,jy� r"s �'„. ..;;s £.'.� )o gt�r' +: �°,rsr t t . �; x rev
6
Y rc
HA
giv
r
10,
Poo
a � i
a "
.,H
loop,
3
071
B:..,.,,,.
+
v� is
,v
a
,.:. ,...,.:ev+;. ,
,~r
.x , <+;'e
k t F
' .,. i„
�
,,,... ...; , , , . , ,:.. �. .».-.,>•, .. + . *+t a. ~•v uk 1' a °�.:}.i; r ' rxs # , } h��,"'-. t� . f. s:.?> a
r ,, ,,,;r,
Ali Q_
gem,
r
s
t
�
rF a
r
Kit
40
a
Vol
N
�i
t ki
1
t-
r. " w'!
pot
10
18442
Jul r L S J Jl "-\ D D J T 1 J 1\1
(VOL, 19 , PG. mo )
o A I
� o N m Q
N N I ' N N N
' N89°34'Z8"W 226.0
58. Oo }
po � 1 <n8.0 '
q4 I
jli
1 I \ 1 2 I
/0
10,
;0� i' 3\� C� \`�
Z� �� ��1 0�
,L3�
C
as •� , . y' Z � � � / \ C� ` ��
� r \
r'Urr _r JN/LACHIN FRY Dr PJ r
rlvr r\C. Rr TIR,/\- C T S
( V 0 ! . 0 P G . 47 )
r
J
BUILDING SETBACK LINE (TYP. )
"
I � , pLg
INV 20too
n22�
� 1 5
= 56
203 r ( I ' ' ,
� I I
EX. 6 "PVC l �, ; I I oo
_ _ o• c
5/0E SEWER �y •\ j i i / �I 0^
09
Z \ do
EX. C.O.
TOP 231.98
Za
J APPROX. LOCAT/ON OF
6 "PVC ROOF DRAINS
o$ o \cr,
\ o`
EX. C.B.
TOP Z11.87
INV. 007.71 ^-1Z'E
INV 00750 -10"S
I
k rz CMp '
AZ
Q fop
o
C
1
EX. SSAW
TOP 001. 7z
(o lb I/VV. 0/7.87 8'WE
INV. 014-6G 8"SW
Q
441
a-
�� Ex. C.B.
TOP E 11. 8Z
INV. Z09.66
QQ
BENCUMARK
TOP OF CASED CONC. MONUMENT LOCATED
CENTER OF CUL - DE - SAC.
ELEV4TION 009.45 DATUM CITY OF EOMONDS
I- E6 END
OO — EX. CASED CON(. MONUMENT
O — EX. IRON PIN W/PLASTIC CAP NO O 7891
T.
104 4 �rk."
rc
w—
r ;� � CERT/FICATE
`Z ' y A10. 22969
iI LF,ta7 �� 0 ~ 26 -89
T r� ,/a C T
APR 17 1991
'MMIT COUNTER
for 6
TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
FOR
KEVIN HANCHETT
N.E.'/4, SECTION 24, T.27N.,R.3E.; W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
SFR C[ai�Ck
�qlf
118442
04
JN - L IS)J1\l ADD] F1 ON I r �-
(VOL. 19 , Pr. 8J) r' IU C`j r
o ° ro N N r ° kf� a
N iU N
58. 00 1,
I/ 2
20�,• � ♦ • \�
' T
/.'
i• 2 / , I n 1 `
11P
10
/�! I
3��
Z
'oLob
J U Jul D jail r\ C H l 1\J r R `t
r l v ll r-C FR r r FR r\ c ,-�
(VD L . Pr. 47 )
r-R,-\c- r 213
PLANT LILT
DEPOT
GAG. IZ 4-1112,e--4F lATUM/VINE MAt'-'1.-•�.
G�TA�I..1S taDl-1Gt-�-\�t��-t-AWTWOI�I
A•'�5'
Ion r�.G.
�
AM f✓ L..•Atil�l-ll�{2- � l:-Dt2117A/.ill �tzY
I �''- 2�-"
51 0. c. .
th
GDtZNUs. STDI..oNI�I✓tZA/f�bG�l � G��c�
i �,AL •
y�� o.G.
5
Gd1zYl_US Got2..NU1't-a/N-�Z-�.I_-NU•T
t�j"_21�'II
G�� O.G.
10
t AWONtA AQuir-OWLim %OI �I�'Jh1C.alzt�,l
try"_Ii5"
41O.G•
GYM VL ,O2K1, --�Ar- k, � � /ALi,US/SNOW ��}�Y
19�"— 2�''
7-;'I v.G
i ,� 2 \ \'� \� 23� �,'•'�'-1LL W�IZ.n %JA7(V�.• �jj.,, .
i 4b l I I I
EX G"PVG i
51,E SEWER
o
ti0 e
'q °
� 1
/NV. 221.00
1 !�5 a=s�3z•
° 28„
1
.,�A
ere
00)
11PPROX 40CA7/0N of �Q1
"PVC WOOF Of 111AI
q
Ex. c.a.
232gd
i 23a�
III�E�llt�tlll / ��/'
��•�•"t?1�1.liN l2.Oc�K../� / g'' DiL\M. �0�4'
4
\ r'
oo
� EX. SSM,U
Z 4,• TOP ZZ 1. 7Z
INV. 017. 87 - 6"A/E
/NV 014.626 - 6"5W
�I-
kph
JOY
V t ,n
TOP e11.8z
IAIV. 009, 66
BE>`JCQ MARK
iOP OF C45E0 CONC. MONUMENT LOCATEO
@ CENTER OF eUL - OE - SAC.
ELEV, 10N' 00q.45 DATUM: CITY OF EOMON05
Ll
COU LIWG12,
1A2, CUP
I ! �" /" 5SCENTE S
05 BARS Q'S'
CEWTERS-SET 45• MITERED
VERTICALLY SECTION OF CMP
TRASH SCREEN DETAIL
N
-10'ma.
STREAM RELOCATION PLAN
FOR
MICHAEL a BARB ARA C LARK
N.E. !/4, SECTION 24, T. 2 7 N., R. 3 E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHI NGTON
SDA, INC.
N 4 19919 4 - 9 6i
S�lC aj9K,4t
111�-S- V&z5xll,tee
5jiWIM 16 Gaornta✓