Loading...
1205 VIEWLAND WAY.PDFiiiiiiiiiiIIII lill13557 1205 VIEWLAND WAY BE TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER:_` BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS(RECORDED)FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: bg" Oyg(P DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Xstudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DA EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PERMITS PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DA' SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE S: SHORT PLAT FILE: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) # GEOTECH REPORT DATE; STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:(-)O—i yy` OTHER: LID #: LOT: BLOCK: 1D) L:ITEMP\DSTs1Fonns\Street File Checklist.doc Inc.1890 CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSO MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771 0220 • FAX (425) 771 0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT por/4 Planning • Building • Engineering 44so CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Site Location: 1205 Viewland Way Tax Acct. Number: 00729500000200 Determination: Study Required Determination #: CRA-2008-0086 Applicant: Austin Huang Owner: James & Margaret Cannon CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION: STUDY REQUIRED (CRA-2008-0086) During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site may contain (or be adjacent to) critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas (Erosion Hazard Area or Landslide Hazard Area), pursuant to Chapter 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The LiDAR map (attached) indicates that there is a steep slope (approximately 70%) along the northern edge of the property. Projects proposed further than 65' from the top or toe of the slope (50' buffer + 15' setback from the critical area) may not require a geotechnical report to address critical areas issues (of course, other departments may require a report to address their codes, depending on the scope of work proposed). GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS Critical Areas Reports identify, classify and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area the'critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose submit the entire study with your specific development application. • Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas which are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study and an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information. Page t of 3 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan • General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. STUDY REQUIREMENT — EROSION HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area. • Erosion Hazard areas include Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater, among others. • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined in ECDC 23.80.020.A. • In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Erosion Hazard Areas (which are one of the Geologically Hazardous Areas) are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. • Note that Stable Erosion Hazard Areas may have limited report requirements at the director's discretion. At a minimum an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the requirements in ECDC Chapter 18.30 shall be required. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS Development is restricted within an Erosion Hazard Area and must meet additional criteria. • For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stabilityy, an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance ECDC 18.30 will be considered to meet the Critical Areas "Study Required" determination. The determination of "suitable slope stability" will be made by both the Planning and Engineering divisions of the City of Edmonds. • In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified professional. • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. • Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC 23.40.090. D • Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area. • A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated bedrock). • Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B. In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC 23.80.050. Page 2 of 3 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer. • Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer. • The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced. • The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in ECDC 23.80.050). The alteration must also meet the requirements listed ECDC 23.80.060. • In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3. ALLOWED ACTIVITIES Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity, please contact a Planner for more information. EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner for more information. Gina Coccia, Associate Planner �V August 19, 2008 Name, Title Signature Date * NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us. Page 3 of 3 rw 111ii In: Ilk Ir / r7— LOAN Approximate 70% Slope r-�.�_. ��� a. 1*21 . . ....... Jl 00 till , y r err: KT or Ali! Vr AQE V WLAND WAY-, 08.19.08 1201/1205 Viewland Way ( CRA-2008-85/86 1 inch equals 50 feet Planning Division (GC) 1 121 5M Ave N. Edmonds WA 980201425. TT 1.0220 No N my of any kind is given. This map displays LIDAR date st approximate 2-foot contour intervals. Users of this map agree to mdemnily and save harmless Me City of Edmonds, \ ###11) This m is for informationpurposes map only and should not be relied upon for any action. its officials, officers. employees andAx agents oom and against any claim, Actual topography should be ven5ed in Me field by survey for accuracy iV demand or action, mspedne of the nature of Me cause of.. ctam,- Pus map is provided vdh a8 faults on an 'as is' and'as available' basis. demand or action, arising out of any use or possession of this map Critical Areas Checklist CA File No: 03 (0 SibeInfbm:t at ion (Soils/tDpography/hydzobgy/vegetation) 1. Site Address/ Location: 120r I(-:bw 14,d Wt, ZxdwOMclj AM .9d'Q,)U 2. Property Tax A coountN um ber: 0 072 91- 60 0 0 0 20 % 3. A pproxin ate Site Size (acres or square feet) : h- / 9, O Oy SF. 4. Is this site currt>ndy developed? yes; no. Ifyes;how issitedevebped?Fi04k I D.-.'A Y44. 5. D escrbe the general site topography. Check all thatapp ly. Flat: less than 5 feetelevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 feet) . H illy: slopes present on site of m ore than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10feet overa horizontaldistance of 33 to 66 feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10 fleet over a horizontal distance of less than 33 feet) . other Tease describe) : 6. Site contains areas ofyear-ound standing water: ; A pprox. D epth : 7. Site contains areas of seasonalstanding water: ; A pprox. D ep th : W hat season (s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodw ay floodplait ofaw atercourse. 9. Site contains a creek or an area w here w ater flow s across the grounds surface? Flow s axe year-round? Flow s are seasonal? 0 hat tin e of year? ) . 10. Site isprim arils: forested ;m eadow ; shrubs 4 ,m ixed urban landscaped (law n , shrubs etc) 11. 0 bviousw etland ispresenton site: ForC ity StafEU se O my 1. Plan Check N um ber, if applicable? e"' 2. Site is Z oned? lZ-S — 12 3. SCSmapped soiltype(s)? Aj de rW of (AV,(AVejIU cb n4y I oQYVI I E5 5Ij '/ 4. C ribcalA real inventory orC A .map indicates C rn 1 A rea on site? — ha 2G1 rcl (> 4D-1•) + ero5i M h A ZA (d 6 N O r-IY e',V y 1 oor-h oF- oroptj t 5. Site w ithin designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? _ N p DETERM INATMN STU D Y R,,EQU IR ED o nW A IV ER R eview ed by: ILL a, Go nd w/ D ate: O o • 19 r- . 0 0 9 Critical Areas Checklist.doc/2.17.2004 C 7 Ikon 1 6 0LA+Wi 0f 51ye6Lwt J 0 i #P20 City of Edmonds DabeReceived: _Moi. yoog Development Services Department C ity Receipt#: Planning Division C riticalA reas File # :,; ''�j4M0 00 $ (o Phone: 425.771.0220 CriticalAreasChecklistFee: $135.00 t o Fax: 425.771.0221 Date M ailed bo Applicant: �c. 189 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE 7T.)9- 1 as $' Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNRf6�C� DATE ` I� PRINTPLEASE Owner/Applicant: Jg2!� t M 1r4 a r4t C�ar,o 0 A Name Street Address Fd M G n 11A 98o 10 City State Zip Telephone: 4i — 77(- 797f Email address (optional):O f= L'. i� f i Applicant Representative: Name Street Address W-4 City State Zip / Telephone: 3 6 �— % ?f — 6 0' Email Address (optional): �9JMERIT ENGINEERING INC. ,„ � BUILDING DEPARTMENT January. 14, 2008, MYEDNONDS Project No. •01-0141601 Ruth Blackbourn 1201 Viewland Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Slope Restoration 1201 Viewland Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ruth: 6TREti raL= ACEC wash/agtan Gu[d Award Recipient Engineering Excellence [� After checking with available contractors with portable equipment that can access to the site, I have contacted Cemrock of Seattle and proposed the slope restoration plan based on their capability. 1. The plan calls for installation of 3 tiers of retaining walls on the failure section of the slope with 20' long, 24' and 18' for the top, middle, and bottom walls, respectively. The wall will be concrete wall supported by 3" pipe pile driven vertically into ground until refusal, at 3' on center. The wall will also be supported by 2. rows of anchors also at 3' on center. The —1" diameter anchor will be grouted into a pre drilled 4" diameter hole with at least 20' into hard soils. The wall height will be limited no more than 4' and backfilled with light weight geofoams covered with a 1' layer of topsoils for planting. 2. In addition, 9 vertical pipe piles of 3" diameter to the west of the wall and 5 to the east of wall (3' on center) will be driven into ground to refusal as preventive measure to protect the slope adjacent to the failure area. Support Calculations: Back -calculation on the failure slope: From Dunn Anderson and Kiefer (Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis): FS = c + yGh cost /3tan 0 yhcospsinp where: FS = factor of safety of the slope c = cohesion of soil, psf yv= buoyant unit weight of soil, pcf = 60 pcf y = unit weight of soil, pcf = 120 pcf h = thickness of failure soil, foot = 2.5' average estimated 0=slope angle, deg.=330 0 = friction angle of soil, deg. = 340 based on the soil type At the time of failure, FS=1, c =66 psf The current slope soils are dense with cohesion. And the slope has been safe for many year, at least for the houses on the site since 1980s. The failure is apparently the surficial layer of soils that were saturated from field observation. As long as the surficial erosion protection measures are implemented, the slope should be satisfactory as we also understand that the both houses on the top of the hill are supported by piles that will in turn help maintain the slope stable. However, for this analysis purpose, conservative approach is taken by considering the slope with the above soil parameters. With the parameters, using the above equation, a safe slope angle (FS=1.5) is obtained as P = 21.50. Reinforcing the slope failure section with anchors. From Hoek and Bray "Rock Slope Engineering 3rd ed.): FS = cA + K cosp + T sinV)tan 0 W sin fl — TcosV where: V=angle between the anchor and the slope face U = water pressure perpendicular to the slope face V = water pressure parallel to the slope face A = area of soils that prone to slide and W' = effective weight In the calculation, with the parameters used above, and considering the area A as; A=LB=77x3=231 where L = length of slope face at 6 = 21.50 slope with the height of slope is 28', and B = width of the slope in consideration, since we propose anchors at 3' on center, so B=3'. W' = 70,560 lb. y, = 530 (the anchor is 200 with the horizontal). with the parameters, for FS=1.5 from the above equation, we need total tension T from the anchor support is T = 10,000 lb. (FS = 1.87) Since each section will have 3 walls with 2 rows of anchors on each wall, there will be 6 anchors on each section, each anchor needs T = 1.7 kips. We are proposing to use CTS (Con -Tech Systems) Grade 95/120-H All -Thread Bar of 7/8 inch that has Ultimate Capacity of 68.3 k so it has much adequate capacity for the proposed use. =Merit Engineering Inc. -2- Thank you for this opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, �X , 'kzN// ....1►4166 l EXPIRES JUNE 10, Zas Austin X. Huang, Ph.D., P.E., L.G. Principal -3- -Merit Engineering Inc. •, •• llii lu Illi �UlLfii. h Coe Q h C" 2Q Parffof Fiow Nef b (a)i r h W, /•�u — W n — Y,,./+ cos- 13 (pore pressure) N , T N Q W, N U Force Polygon (c) he remaining forces on the free -body diagram are W,=bh (1)y N = W cos Q N=N —U / = W sin /3 N = bh cos R(y — Yj N = bh cos ,3..y� Inulr Slf)pi. 241 ie effective. normal stress and the shearing stress along the bottom of:�ffn ce can now be obtained from N and T by dividing by the length along�fi )ttom of the wedge. N _ = yhh cos' /3. b/cos a 5 T T b/cos/3 — Y/h cos /3 sin 13 he shear strength for a c-(A soil is expressed as S = c.+Q tan (t,, �9 hich becomes r Ir S = c + yr,h cos' )3 tan he safety factor for an infinite slope in a c-O soil with seepage parallel to and a le surface can now be expressed as F S T 1 _c+yrJrcos'6tan cp h F ylr cos R sin R (242=1') " ...' If c = 0, Eq. 242-1 reduces to jl F = yh tan y tan )3 v .., ince p X yh/y 1/2, the safety factor for a cohesionless infinite sloe with:Yfulk}a ,epage is about one-half that for the slope without seepage. T Assuming a factor of safety of unity and solving for h leads to E 242= •hich indicates that for cohesive soils there is a limiting thickness for stabili c see y[tan /3 — (Yh/•y) tan �,] 242 : •-1. 'his value of h applies only for the case of full seepage parallel to the surface.) i, milar relationship could be established for other cases. A dimensionlessp ara ter called a stability number is often useful in plotting slope stability datary= :ability number for the case of c-0 soil with full seepage can be define ;writing Eq. 242-2 as tan /3 — —tan Y :x hY sec' /3 . �; �=:; N-::' 42 7 Slope Stability 'Qrii E W parallel, to the plane is T Cos 5 while the component acting across the surface upon which the block rests is T Sin 3• The condition of limiting equilibrium for this case is defined by W Sin �, + V - T Cos 5 = cA + (W Cos L - U + T Sin 5) Tao y (12) This equation shows that the bolt tension reduces the disturbing force acting down the plane and increases the normal force and hence the frictional resistance between the base of the block and the plane. Factor of safety of a slope All the equations defining the stability of a block on an inclined plane have been presented for the condition of Limiting equilibrium, i.e. the condition at which the forces tending to induce sliding are exactly balanced by those resisting sliding. In order to compare the stability of slopes under conditions other than those of limiting equilibrium, some form of index is required and the most commonly used index is the Factor of Safety. This can be defined as the ratio of the total force available to resist sliding to the total force tending to induce sliding. Considering the case of the block acted upon by water forces and stabilised by a tensioned rockbolt (equation 12), the factor of safety is given by cA + (W Cos - U + T Sin 8) Tan (13) F= W Sin �+ V - T cos 5 When the slope is on the point of failure, a condition of limiting equilibrium exists in which the resisting and disturbing forces are equal, as defined by equation 12, and the factor of safety F = 1. When the slope is stable, the resisting forces are greater than the disturbing forces and the value of the factor of safety will be greater than unity. Suppose that, in a practical mining situation, the observed behaviour of a slope suggests that it is on the point of failure and it is decided to attempt to stabilise the slope. Equation 14 shows that the value of the factor of safety can be increased by reducing both U and V, by drainage, or by increasing the value of T by installing rockbolts or tensioned cables. It is also possible to change the weight W of the failing mass but the influence of this change on the factor of safety must be carefully evaluated since both the disturbing and resisting forces are decreased by a decrease in W. The bolt tension required to provide a specifidd factor of safety of F is a minimum when the angle F satisfies the equation 1 (Ih) tan '.3 = F tan ; This result is obtained by differentiating equation (13) dT with respect to ii and setting = p and qdB= o• d: Practical experience suggests that, in a situation such as that described above, an increase in the factor of safety c4W-D53 % ®® • EMIR IRMERIT ENGINEERING INC. ME(;�eV� , .. � � JUNK 2 7,,•2008 . -BUILDING : DEPART,ME _ ..: r • Cgy OF EDMONDS u- 12 December 7th, 2007 ��Lt Project No. OL0141601 bfflEti� Ruth Blackbourn ACEC Washington 1201 Viewland Way Gold Award Edmonds, WA 98020 Recipient Engineering Re: Site Visit - Slope Reconnaissance Excellence 1201 Viewland Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Site Reconnaissance #1 Slope Observations on 12/5/07 by John Gillaspy Dear Ruth: At the request of Mike Blackbourn, we visited your above referenced site to observe conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations concerning a recent slope failure on part of the main slope beneath your residence. We understand the slope failure occurred mid -day on Monday 12-3-07 near the end of a period of stormy wet weather. We visited the site on the morning of 12-5-07 and met with you, your downslope neighbor Sandy Olson, and Mark Blackbourn. This letter briefly summarizes our main slope observations and provides a written copy of our preliminary on -site recommendations at its conclusion. The failed slope area is at the northeast corner of the property. The top edge of the slope at that location is defined by a concrete pad walkway that extends from the open site driveway area. The northeast corner of the attached garage for the residence extends to near the western edge of the failure zone, although the slope directly beneath the garage and house further to the west appears relatively undisturbed at this time with only minor evidence of soil creep. Structural loading directly above the failed area is minimal compared to most other surrounding areas of the slope; i.e. both the intact slopes to the west and east of the failure lie under residences, whereas the failure zone does not lie beneath any significant structures. The portions of intact slope on either side of the failure are covered with small brush and brambles mostly, with sparse deciduous trees in spots. The slope on average was estimated at —33°, shallowing out somewhat at the bottom, with a total- vertical expression of h = 28'-30' in the area of the slide. Directly below the subject property and failure zone is the Olson residence. During our visit, the slide itself appeared generally linear and near -surface in nature. The top edge of the slide resembled a steeper scarp zone but was confined by the concrete pad walkway, and disturbance did not intrude much beneath the pad. Below the steeper top couple of feet, the exposed soil in the slide exhibited similar topography to the surrounding undisturbed slope, except appeared recessed —2'-3' from estimated pre -slide grade. We observed the exposed soil as silty/clayey sand with some gravel, non -coherent to slightly coherent, and very damp to saturated at the surface. A previous study on the neighboring property indicates sandy soils continue to much greater depths on the slope. We also noted that the slide surface was incised by small water channels extending from its top area down to the accumulation zone, most likely from surface stormwater runoff during and after the slide event. At the time of our visit, we did not see groundwater seepage on the slope; however, minor seepage was occurring at the toe of the slide originating from the soil and vegetation refuse pile, presumably from water trapped during the slide and subsequent rainfall that is slowly draining. —Gc.•�C 2�.�n iC,+e, .��1. , rr, !i 1✓yi�:.ri. ,Vint ..�, .uni ..n�-irvrr r,:nr.r. �r...lty ir.O... • To help reduce the further occurrence of failure at the site by providing appropriate on -site recommendations, part of our visit's focus was to identify any possible contributing factors to the slide. Because of the timing of the slide (during heavy rainfall) and moderate slope but non - coherent soil conditions coupled with lack of good stable vegetation, it is reasonable to think that slope stability may have been previously marginal but became fully saturated by stormwater and was compromised to the point of failure, based on our brief on -site observations and previous experience with similar failures and soil conditions. While on site, we were directed by you to observe several stormwater pipes of unknown origin and destination leading downslope from the eastern neighboring property very near the upper edge of the slide zone. At least one of the pipes, possibly two or more, were broken open near the top of the slope. Pipe refuse was mixed in with the accumulated soil and brush near the slope base. The one most visible pipe was open onto the top scarp of the slide zone at the time of our visit. We do not know, based on our observations, if the pipe damage and subsequent opening occurred at some point prior to or during the storm and slide. The presence of damaged stormwater-related pipes suggests that these features could have acted as a source for feeding excess water onto the slope if open at that location during the last storm event. There may be other unknown sources of water or other unidentified contributing factors that we did not observe while briefly on site. After observing conditions and before leaving the site, we gave preliminary recommendations in light of safety concerns and to reduce further risk of additional failure. We recommended that the damaged stormwater pipe systems noted above be repaired and capped or routed away from the slope to an appropriate outlet immediately to ensure no further excess water is directed onto the vulnerable slope. This is in addition to any other possible sources of water to the slope that we are unaware of at this time. We also concurred with the recommendation of a city engineer (as we were informed by you) to cover the exposed slide zone with tarps or some similar material to protect from direct rainfall onto the slide. Finally, we voiced concern to the downslope neighbor to hesitate for now on removing material from the toe of the slide after the question of cleanup was posed by them. We explained that material removal at the base could lead to more failure above, and therefore that repair is probably best postponed for the moment and could be most safely associated with timely remedintion of the failure as a whole. We then agreed at your request to provide this letter documenting existing conditions and our preliminary recommendations in full as communicated during our visit. Merit Engineering, Inc. is available to be on call for further investigation and/or geotechnical consultation as needed for design and implementation of slope repairs. Thank you for this opportunity to work with you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions about this letter. Sincerely, .c- Austin X. Huang, Ph.D., P.E., L.G. Principal -2- =Merit Engineering Inc. Ah 9V 1MERIT ENGINEERING INC. FAX TRANSMITTAL SHEET IDate IlDecember 11, 2007 TO: I Mark Blackbourn Windermere Real Estate (206) 546-5731 (206) 546-5741 REMARKS: ❑ Urgent CK For Hi Mark, INumber of pages including cover sheet I 3 FROM: Austin X. Huang, Ph.D., P.E. MERIT ENGINEERING, INC. 12715 Meridian Street Bellingham, WA 98225 Phone 1360.738.6083 Fax 360.738.1499 Web Page E-mail I MeritEngineering.com Ime6t@MeritEngineer ng.com your review ❑ Re y ASAP ❑ Please Comment Here is the final signed version of the letter for 1201 Viewland Way. If you need original versions I can send a few copies by mail at your request. Regarding your research into house history: Considering the house is relatively young, it may be possible to get ahold of an as -built plan or track down the builder/developer for as -built information. This kind of first-hand information would probably be most helpful in identifying the presence and position of piles if used. Good luck with the search. Thank you, John Gillaspy, M.S. Staff Scientist Geotechnical, Geological, Hydrogeological, Mining, and Environmental Engineering and Geosciences Services. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. \•� ��." ` `° Geotechnical Consultants A ► e 1 RECES'IBE® JUN 2 :l 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS January 29, 1987 Project No. T-418 Mr. Don Miller STREET FILE Group Four, Inc. 19502 - 56th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 /o / Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Lockyer Residence Lot 2, Harbor View Estates Edmonds, Washington Dear Don: As requested, we have conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Study for the proposed residence to be constructed on Lot 2 of Harbor View Estates in Edmonds, Washington. The approximate location of the project site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to explore the subsurface soil conditions on the property in order to provide recommenda- tions for foundation setbacks from the top of the bank, foundation design and construction, and site preparation. The scope of our study included test pits, laboratory testing of representative soil samples, geotechnical engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. In an earlier letter report dated January 5, 1987, we summarized our findings and dis- cussed our preliminary recommendations following a meeting we had with you and the contractor. This report presents a more detailed discussion of the results and findings of our studies. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The main geotechnical feature of the site affecting development as a building site is its location at the edge of a steep bluff overlooking Puget Sound to the west. This location will require special care in the design and construction of a structure on the site. The bluff has an inclination of about 80 percent. It appears to be generally stable although it is subject to minor erosion from surface water movement over the slope. 15301 N.E. 90th Street • Ketlmono, vvasningron low/ - rnunc: uol Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3338 • Redmond, Washington 98073 Mr. Don Miller ,January 29, 1987 The two primary considerations in developing this site from a geotechnical standpoint are as follows: 1. The presence of the previously placed uncompacted fills on the site. These soils are in a variable condition. In our opinion, these soils are not suitable for providing foundation support for the proposed structure in their present condition. Founda- tions must be extended down through the fill soils into competent ,gative soils. 2. The proximity of the residence to the top of the slope. It is our understanding. that a portion of the structure will be canti- levered over the top of the slope and this part of the structure supported on pier foundations drilled into the slope. From a geotechnical standpoint, it is our opinion that this is feasible. As with any construction adjacent to a very steep slope, there is a potential for some movement. This potential can be minimized by not causing any disturbance to the presently stable slope configur- ation. In addition, all foundations must be deepened so that the foundation loads do not impose any additional stresses on the surface of the steep slope adjacent to the proposed residence. Following our meeting with you and the contractor, the amount of building overhang has been reduced. However, it is still significant and will greatly affect foundation design and construction. We estimate that for this purpose the foundation should extend to a depth such that there will be a minimum clear distance of 10 feet between the outside edge of the foundation and the face of the slope. Surface water should not be permitted to flow over the bank and the natural vegetation on the bank should not be disturbed. The following sections of this report describe our study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed it was planned to construct a single- family residence on the site along the top of the bluff as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The residence will be constructed primarily in the southern, gradually sloping portion of the site. However, a part of the structure will be constructed overhanging the steep bluff in the northern part of the site. The western portion of the house will be constructed with a basement level at approximate Elev. 277.5 while the main floor and the eastern portion of the house will be built at approximate Elev. 289.5. Cuts of up to approxi- mately ten feet• or slightly greater will be required for both the basement level and the eastern portion of the structure. To achieve finish grades at the driveway along the east side, cuts of a similar magnitude will also be required. Fills on the site are expected to be minimal. Project No. T-418, Page 2 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 Details of the structural loading for the structure are not known. However, based on our previous experience with similar structures, we anticipate that perimeter load -bearing walls will carry less than 2 kips per linear foot and isolated column footings may carry loads on the order of up to about 25 kips. If there are any changes in the proposed construction as described above, Terra Associates should be requested to review them and make supplementary recommendations, if needed. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field exploration was performed on December 8, 1986. Subsurface soil conditions on the proposed building area were explored by excavating four test pits to depths ranging from 10.5 to 12.5 feet. The test pits were excavated by using a rubber tired backhoe provided by Golden T Construction Company. The locations of the test pits were determined.from known points on the property survey. Elevations were determined by approximate interpo- lation from the site topography provided to us. The approximate locations of these test pits are shown on Site Plan, Figure 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site features. All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on figure 3. The logs of the test pits are attached to this report as Figures 4 and 5. The test pit logs represent our interpretation of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and testing of the field samples. Representative soil samples obtained from the test pits were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Moisture content determinations were performed on all samples. In addition we also conducted Grain Size Analyses on several samples. The results of these tests are shown on the boring and test pit logs and on Figure 6. SITE CONDITIONS Surface The site is Lot 2 of Harbor View Estates in Edmonds, Washington -located at. 12th Avenue North and Viewland Way. At present the site is undeveloped and generally covered with grass and brush. The neighboring lots to the east and west are both presently undeveloped also. Project No. T-418, Page 3 0 • Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 The general building and lot area slopes down from the east to the west with overall topographic relief within the southern portion of the lot of about 20 feet. The north side of the lot is bordered by a very steep slope with a gradient of about 80 percent dropping down approximately 35 feet to the north property line. There are no signs of mass slope instability on the site. However, the slope has been subject to minor erosion from surface water runoff.over the slope. Subsurfacd We excavated four test pits to a maximum depth of 12.5 feet. Our test pits indicated that there is fill of variable thickness on the entire lot. The thickness -of tfie fill varies from approximately five feet along the top of the slope to more than 12.5 feet in the southern portion of the lot closest to the street where Test Pit TP-4 was excavated. These fills are in a vari- able condition and consistency and generally consist of silty sands. Below this fill layer, native clean sands were encountered in Test Pits TP-1 through TP-3. However, this native sand layer was not observed in Test Pit TP-4 to the depth explored. More detailed information is presented in the test pit logs included with this report as Figures 4 and 5. No groundwater was encountered in any of our test pits. However, during the rainy season, a perched water table may develop above the less permeable silty sand layer. This condition may develop at greater depths and may also appear as seepage zones on the face of the slope. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on our study, it is our opinion that the steep slope in the northern portion of the site is generally stable and the proposed residence may be constructed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The primary geotechnical feature that should be considered in developing this site, as mentioned earlier in this report, is its location at the top of a high and steep slope. In addition, uncontrolled fill soils are present on the -site to varying depths. Consequently, the depth to competent native bearing soils also varies considerably. The western portion of the residence is to be constructed as a basement level. At this location, the planned excavations should take the lower level of the structure down to competent native soils which should provide adequate bearing. However, the eastern or uphill portion of the structure will be constructed at a level approximately ten feet higher. At this level, the finished grade will expose competent native soils in the northwestern portion closest to the slope. However, in the southern portion, existing fills will remain in place below the bottom of the structure. At this location, we recommend that foundations be deepened to extend beneath the existing fill soils. Project No. T-418, Page 4 • Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 In the northern, overhanging portion of the structure, foundations for the proposed residence should extend to a depth such that the foundation loads do not.effect the stability of the slopes. We recommend a minimum clear distance of ten feet between the outside edge of the foundation and the face of the slope. Foundations may be designed as piers extending to the appropriate depth as determined above or as deepened spread footings. Based on our discussions with you, it is our understanding that drilled piers will be used for this part of the residence. During and after construction, the native vegetation on the bank should be protected and surface water should be directed away from the bank. Grading should be minimized on the site and no fills should be placed at the top of the steep slope. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotech- nical engineering practices. It is intended for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Group Four Inc., Golden T Construction Co. and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations for the various geotechnical engineering aspects of this project. These recommendations should be incorporated into the project design and construction. Foundations Foundations for the proposed Lockyer residence may be supported on dense competent soils encountered at variable depths below the fill layer. In addition, it is also necessary to extend the foundations to a depth such that foundation loads do not effect the present stability of the slopes in the northern portion of the site. We estimate that for this purpose, the foundations should extend to a depth such that there will be a minimum clear distance of ten feet between the outside edges of the footings or piers and the face of the slope. Where the required depth of excavation is shallow to achieve this 10 foot clear distance, foundations may be designed as deepened spread footings, supported on the dense native soils. Otherwise, foundations could be designed as drilled piers extending to the required depth. Foundations more than 10 feet back from the top of the bank may be designed as conventional spread footings bearing on the competent native soils below the fill. Drilled piers are probably likely to be more appropriate in the northern portion of the house where the house will hang over the slope to some extent. It is very important to excavate these piers well into compe-. Lent native soils and to a depth that will provide a minimum horizontal clearance of ten (10) feet- between the outermost edges of the piers and the face of the slope. Project No. T-418, Page 5 0 0 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 Conventional spread footings bearing on the competent native sands may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead plus live loads. Foundations should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent outside grade. A minimum width of 12 inches should be used for continuous footings. Individual spread footings may also be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf and should have a minimum size of 18 inches. A one-third increase in the above pressures may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. Structural steel should be installed in accordance with structural requirements. As indicated earlier, in the southern portion of the structure, competent native soils are not expected to be exposed at the finish grades. At this location, foundations must be deepened to extend to beneath the fills and into competent native soils. Drilled Piers Foundation support for the northern part of the house may be provided by drilled piers. Drilled piers should have a minimum diameter of 12 inches and should extend to a depth such that a horizontal distance of 10 feet is present between the face of the slope and the outside edge of the pier. The piers may be designed for a capacity of 15 kips. For an 18 inch diameter pier an allowable load capacity of 25 kips per pier may be used. All piers may be designed for the full load bearing capacity, provided they are spaced at least five feet apart. All piers should extend down well into competent native soils and to a depth that will provide the minimum required horizontal clearance discussed earlier. Piers should be installed under the observation of qualified geotechnical personnel to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated and to make any changes in the event that soil conditions vary. Settlements Building settlements are expected to be less than one-half (1/2) inch for pier foundations or deepened spread footings. Most settlements.should occur during construction. Slab -on -Grade Floors Floor slabs may be constructed as slabs -on -grade over the native soil subgrade or existing files recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-1557. To reduce capillary action, the slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches of pea gravel and a 10 mil thick plastic liner. In parts of the building where piers are used, slab - on --grade floors should not be used. We recommend using joist supported wood floors in this area. Project No. T-418, Page. 6 v Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 Basement and Retaining Walls Basement walls should be designed to resist the lateral pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If walls are restrained from free movement at the top they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot. These pressures assume a maximum height of 12 feet and that no surcharge leads will occur. Please contact us for supplementary recommendations if conditions are expected to be different. The basement walls should be provided with a continuous blanket of free drawing material at least 12 inches wide. A perforated pipe should be placed at the footing level to collect water and discharge it to the street. Cuts along the driveway may need to be retained. If a retaining wall is used, it may be designed to the criteria given above. If a rockery is used, it should be constructed to Snohomish County Standards. Please note that a rockery is not an engineered structure like a retaining wall and should not be expected to perform as such. If a rockery is used, some movement and/or repair should be expected in the future. Horizontal Loads Horizontal structural loads carried to the foundations may be resisted by both friction forces on the base of foundations and passive resistance on the sides of foundations and grade beams. A coefficient of 0.30 may be used between concrete and soil. Resistance to lateral loads may also be computed as passive earth pressures exerted by the soils adjacent to the grade beams. We recommend using an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot where the foundations and pile caps are poured "neat" against undisturbed soil, or where the backfill is compacted in accordance with the requirements for structural fill. Where piers are used on the slope, no passive resistance may be mobilized in the uppermost five feet of pier penetration. Site Preparation and Grading Grading work on the site should be kept to a minimum and special care should be taken to avoid disturbance to the existing vegetation on the bank. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as quickly as possible. Soils exca- vated from the pier holes or basement excavations should be removed from the site. We do not recommend that any soils remaining from the construction be placed at any location on the site. Project No. T-418, Page 7 0 Mr. .Don Miller January 29, 1987 Surface Drainage Positive surface gradients should be maintained to direct surface water away from the steep -bank. Yard drains, downspouts, foundation drains and water from paved areas should be directed away from the slope and discharged directly into the storm system. Care should be taken in the design and operation of.any irrigation systems to avoid saturating the soil. Slopes Temporary slope may be made at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). Permanent cut slopes, if required, should be made at an inclination of 2:1. All permanent slopes should be vegetated to reduce erosion. Additional Services It is recommended that Terra Associates be requested to review the final design and specifications to determine that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly incorporated in the design and construction. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the four test pits excavated on the site. The na- ture and extent of variations in the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, we should be requested to re --evaluate the recommendations presented in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. It is also recommended that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. provide the following services during construction: (A) Examine all foundation areas prior to forming and concrete placement to evaluate that adequate soil bearing conditions are present. (B) Observe the installation of the drilled piers to determine that the piers have been drilled to a sufficient depth to achieve design capacities. We request that a minimum of two working days notice be given to us prior to beginning construction in order to schedule our services. Project No. 'r-418, Page 8 Mr. Don Miller January 29, 1987 The following figures are included and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Soil Classification Chart Figure 4 and 5 Test Pit Logs Figure b Grain Size Analyses We trust that the .information presented in this report is adequate for your requirements. If you need additional information or clarification, please call. Sincerely yours, BUT '',','`� TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. F WAsy,��� �,�Q� N Anil Butail, P.E. .� President A GISTEP G =ss/ a a a +- � �1r+� MM: AB/mf ' Project No. T-418, Page 9 >I o1yMC r� ININ )1 IN i ter' u j <ST... -L •r•I I 1 IIS Cl/ENVY ST ;i <Ijila�w Ti iit ! eft C.y' ttw�, PrCt a iY D^ I u, t Ile r f•I -aA J I 1 "°1rw M•r�: O r3 3 s a �p a Is I I I �, iN" {Io�WQ�G r,lE �191TH BST It7 vt xw 3 Iwno u'KMi CIA(� 1 I F r! �o dl��• aytl Y SM 191 N �Swl^rlit ♦` \] /ol n,Gl, O • ,v I 196TH P ET& z Z 9 % 96TN PL 6 V 1 s y 1 l NINO• > awrrl ioo =tm1 sr w Sr a z J _ 4"ONK VNVAAN -SUNSET 9FAt till's ry I a++ « iT_I rvLt P S b F 1 1 PARK /Sri IT('C:,SPE•tSz iT Z ,•IIwI n s •� 7 8 .. IN 9�N > = sSl - 3 199TN ST Al > In • z 1 U (�1�, �' o<CHAW6 ••nn� tw SKMN co3—°� 707iro SI=W ° 51�: Io2ror0 fVAf0ND l'71 r'^i�. _ n ]mn 1 wN « n Y i� x _ ST I NDPARA'TEH a > Q sr 1 ! 4 r u try a P �Sjil 'r ( 'I r V' .. , � y � ... � ^ �+ UI,I � PL •NNE !Yi ... 3 ; ,_ 3 > 1 p I51]N- T'+APK . l I I `'� �• 7 , i{"r:. ~ CH v,wo P<. yt, , „v, 's.ii,Ii I a rJ ----1-----_•- .Ip - 'tr a:f MA +II,v i °1:urn >r-..8, yy- Df• -- . 1 MA HINA �1 ✓Ea• > y e.nr >.R>., +�° atoEH a m� a ;'AIlAi !a f '�« PROJECT SITE :+> 1J f N M ' � I wt. I 'L a (A to a _ .. s� V I QY� iYry SUIE 4 OC- n a `bS y `Tra •_ ♦♦ I SaNC•IJARY M f Y 2112"'T <_ _3L 1„, G "yp, R } ,�1, FS 5,.� r 212TI > �„!b. ,."o r Ti. 'W r P R N r'I'�li `' > 3 'DAIUNOS n I. Q 217111 ST swP r71 - . 6. t una,.C. uo a a,. .: 1 r,0 R , H: y, E JCt• 9 2 vr+ rfl I. h cep. r { tlr 71 b, Sl 2141N h sE11 fAl1014I fDS191HDS �\ i, k.iS ,1 (:IA6 ZDIr Q , •y i4 ' `I « r T PL Se PT 1 w.v1G -Zs n: a > > :I.m • ra,. $ ` 116TH Si f . i. _ _ _„ , �,s _ L _ :o �SY In �L11< > S .1 2 TII S rq 1 sc =� 1 ���•v�j- y PL "f >I °I t i a =np, v 210nt Its - la s 1 S n a17 2 ~ n u )191u t1 r I F- i LW r ,Yr r, � sw to � S f S:v ' r Pu/'t as rY f � ..., rvl . b✓tiCA a� a . > `_' u . ,.�! 77151 pl S"NOSv HO c Iz ! CIS• y a s 5 3 I 1(w T sw L 1 ' 1 L 1F4 j Ilin 1� WY EI. ], s a > > ' O'I,ASc G 4 > �� 1 1 1�0 H 1 siVe Sw z Y IaiN T < D < > �If ¢ "' .•� •i a..a I aN<PLS1 �3a lu� �77ST <" sw PL So STpS I ??um Pt 'aiN '4j g ` Sr .SEE ST. D5 .°I c uQ.' V p OYt.�• J wl„ iLL=J1is i. I w ?L � 719In ft fy � .4 m I V p P r > 1 (v'r ,n 9..ti R.�PARY. PEsz'' > .. .: Jc7 •i Z o i j�(cO J;u1, Fj,Inn ..Q :.,A:. a °au ., 5` li a '' > v�. L'Ij 7 ,. 11 1 tl,nu,mn,cr •hEi T] Sl�a-- S S i Q z f:,.l.l�t O ,. JI sl �. uMO 1 c >� ZI AMPBELL AVI o r a ,„,n. y iT lS• I ��, oFti 99 nisi ' �YvaEli T,:i= , 1 uvuolrAi =T— �.•.._O�1011.4'LPI �r 1 1 V sr'sw RG _ _ PL SS.('7] 111 V ST Slr IM1y � ra .0 •`7 Q im s 1ttY1U„. r _ _ _ _ _ •• _ _ ' -t _ _ _ r• ,� � , av GBBE�+-5kU05T $ v1 :,�' � s �t0i S uQ� : � � _ >: Pr :WELLS ��f U: n l I ^ ST SN q6: rt'S 'J91IS 1 $a L a "_::jL'7,_-T I � � SO >^ Ir.upl r,�wi{ ragl r_:• aw .•T• 1 TERRA VICINITY MAP ASSOCIATES Lockyer Residence _ Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 418 Date 12/88 [Figure 1 s 260 266 260 ' 286 270 276 200 286 290 296 W-2 �1 �ofi QANK — �` 300 PROPOSED RESIDENCE- � ® TP--1 I � 7P-3 � SCALE : 0 12 24 48 "-� TERRA -.� , A � ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants WN LEGEND: APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION AND NUMBER SITE PLAN Lockyer Residence roj_ No. 418 1 Date 12/86 IFigure 2 • Group PRIMARY DIVISIONS Symbol SECONDARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS Clean GW well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures more than half Gravels little or no fines. GP poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand of coarse (less than fraction to 5% flees mixtures, little or no fines. Gravel GM silty gravels. gravel -sand -silt mixtures. v larger than A v No: 4 sieve wtth non- lastle fines. a om fines GC clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures 8 N plastic fines. �ry C o • SANDS Clean SW well graded sands, gravelly sands, little z more than half Sands or no flees. SP poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, a ° of coarse (less than 8 fraction is 5% fines little or no fines. d) smaller than Sands SM silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non- 0 No. 4 sieve with plastic fines. SC clavey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines fines. o SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock M flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey m v liquid limit is I silts with slight plasticity. CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity �i o less than 50% A :tl m `� gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, m N lean clays. a 0 OL organic silts and organic clays of low V z plasticity._ SILTS AND CLAYS liquid limits is MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatom- � 9 a a ceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. greater than 50% HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS U.S. S 200 rd Series 'Po 10 SILTS & CLAYS fine medium coarse GRAIN SIZES SANDS,GRAVELS, STANDARD AND NON --PLASTIC PENETRATION SILTS very loose 0- 4 loose 4-10 medium dense 10-30 dense 30-50 very dense over 50 RELATIVE DENSITY TERRA MR ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants Clear Square Sieve Openings 3/4T' 3,1 12" GRAVEL fine coarse) COBBLE' BOULDER PLASTIC SILTS Unconfined STANDARD Compressive AND CLAYS Strength PENETRATION very soft 0 - 1/4 0-2 soft 1/4-- 1/2 2 - 4 firm 1/2 - 1 4 - 8 stiff 1-2 8-16 very stiff 2 - 4 16-32 hard over 4 over 32 CONSISTENCY UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Lockyer Residence Edmonds Washington • • Depth (ft.) 0 5 10 15 I 10 15 Logged By M_ Date 12-08-86�� TEST PIT NO. TP-1 USCS Soil Description Elev. +301' (Approx. } W M SM Gray -brown, gravelly, silty -SAND, with scattered cobbles and small. wood fragments, moist to damp, medium dense (Fill) 10.4 I'I;Y Brown, gravelly, clean medium to fine SAND, SW slightly damp, medium dense to dense. 6.6 •riii .\•aw Y \•.1•I .SI.Y.\ 6.6 Test Pit Terminated at 10.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. Logged By MM +284' (Approx.) Dote 12-08-86 TEST PIT NO: TP`2 Elev. Shl Gray, slightly clayey, gravelly, silty -SAND, becomes silty -SAND with scattered gravels, moist, loose to medium dense(Fill). 10.8 12.2 Silt Gray -brown, gravelly, silty -SAND with interbedded layers of blue -gray clean SAND, clamp, medium dense. SW Blue -gray, gravelly, clean SAND, becomes brown in color, damp, medium dense to dense. 9.6 Test Pit Terminated at 12.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Lockyer Residence Edmonds Washington Proj_ No.. 418 1 Date 12/88 Figure 4 • 0 Depth (h.) 0 5 10 15 Ell 5 10 15 lopped By MM Date 12-08-86 USCS TEST PIT NO. T Soil Description Elev. +290'(Approx.) W M SM ' Gray -brown, gravelly, cobbl.y, silty -SAND, with scattered roots at top, and wood fragments., 9.0 " moist, loose becomes medium dense (FILL). 9.3 SM 9.8 Test Pit Terminated at 10.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. Logged By *1_ O. TP-4 Elev. +2$8'(Approx. Date 12-08-86 TEST PIT N, SM Tan -brown, grading to gray -brown, gravelly, silty -SAND, with scattered roots at top and scattered cobbles and debris, i.e, concrete 6.8 chunks and wood fragments, damp to moist, _ loose to medium dense (FILL). 9.2 :. SM 10.6 Test Pit Terminated at 12.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. TE R RA • ASSOCIATES • Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Lockyer Residence Edmonds Washington Proi. No. 418 Date 12/88 I Figure 6 d6/23/2008 13:31 425774W DOWNTOWN EDMON90AW PAGE 01/15 FAX S H E E T To: Austin Huang Merit Engineering, Inc. Fax t#: (360) 738-6083 Subj: 131ackbourn/Cannon Settlement Agreement Date: 6-23-2008 Pages: 15, including this cover sheet. COMMENTS: Mr. Huang: RECEIVED JUN 27 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS As per your request, please find attached a copy of the fully executed settlement agreement be aree .$lackboum and Cannon regarding the project at 1021 Viewland Way, Edmonds, WA. Jon Hatch Note: This facsimile transmission Is intended only for the addressee shown above. It may. contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise. protected from disclosure. Do not read, copy, use or disseminate. this information unless you are the addressee (or the person responsible ror delivering it). If you have received this facsimile In error, plea%e notify this office immediately by telephone at (425) 771-4846 and mall the original to us at the above address. Thank Youl 96/23/2008 13:31 4257741W DOWNTOWN EDMONDOAW PAGE 02/15 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Ruth "Vi" Blackbourn and James and Margaret Cannon agree as follows: 1. On December 3, 2007, a landslide occurred in Edmonds, Washington, that damaged the real property located at 1201 and 1205 Viewland Way. The damage to the property needs to be repaired. 2• The Cannons dispute that their action or inaction caused the landslide. However, they recognize the risk of litigation and have agreed to work with their insurer, Safeco, to repair the hillside using a mutually agreeable contractor. 3.. The Cannons will retain Cemrock to repair the slide area contained within the real property located at 1201 and 1205 Viewland Way, consistent with its bid, which is attached as appendix NA- and incorporated as part of this agreement. The repair work will be done consistent with the plans prepared by Austin Huang, which are attached as appendix "B" and Incorporated as part of this agreement. 4. The Cannons' insurer, Safeco, will contribute $50,000 towards the payment of the work done by Cemrock. The Cannons will pay the remainder of the work done by Cemrock. 5. The Cannons and Ms. Blackbourn will cooperate to obtain the necessary permitting with both state.and local authorities. The parties will mutually provide the necessary information and signatures to promptly get the permits issued and the work completed. Both the Cannons and Ms. Blackbourn will provide full access as required by the City of Edmonds, the contractors, and sub -contractors for purposes of the project. Neither the Cannons nor Ms. Blackbourn will make any claim against the other for the disproportionate use of, or interference with, their respective property or utilities for purposes of completing the work. 6. Should there be any variance in the project from the estimate of Cemrock that does not materially change the project, the Cannons will have the right to decide the best course of action given their personal financial responsibility for the work. 7. Should there be any variance in the project from the attached drawings of Austin Huang, the Cannons and Ms. Blackbourn will work together to come to an agreement as to the best course of action, keeping in mind that cost is a major consideration since the Cannons are personally financially responsible for the work. If the Cannons and Ms. Blackbourn cannot agree on the variance by Mr. Huang, the issue will be presented to Scott Holte, who will render a binding and non -appealable decision. This agreement will be admissible as part of that dispute resolution process. To the extent legal fees are incurred in the resolution process, they are the responsibility of the individual parties. ORIGINAL T6/23/2008 13:31 4257741&2 DOWNTOWN EDMONPOAW PAGE 03/15 8. The Cannons also agree to pay Ms. Blackbourn $5,500 for costs incurred in the development of the plan by Austin Huang. The Cannons also agree to pay the fees of Austin Huang from the date of the execution of this agreement forward. Austin Huang must communicate directly with the Cannons regarding any work he intends to do, since they will become his paying clients. 9. In consideration of this agreement, Ruth Blackbourn releases James Cannon and Margaret Cannon, and their agents and attorneys, from all claims of any kind, known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, now existing or arising in the future, resulting from the landslide on December 3, 2007, in Edmonds, Washington. Ms. Blackbourn agrees that this settlement is not an acknowledgement of liability, Ms. Blackbourn understands the consideration stated in this agreement is the entire consideration she will receive from James and Margaret Cannon for any claims as a result of the landslide. Ruth Blackbourn specifically understands she may later discover damages or injuries related to the landslide that are not known to her at this time, that this settlement agreement applies to such later -discovered damages or injuries, and that she accepts the risk she may later discover such damage or injuries. Ruth Blackbourn intends by this Release to release James and Margaret Cannon fully from any and all claims, as set forth in this Release. Ruth Blackbourn acknowledges that she has been represented by counsel and has conferred with counsel concerning the terms of this Release. 10. This agreement is premised upon the assumption that Mr. Huang's plan is approved by the City of Edmonds without significant modification. Significant modification is deemed to have occurred if the revisions to the plan increase the bid by Cemrock by more than $5,000. If there are significant modifications necessary, this agreement is void, 11. This agreement is binding upon the heirs and assigns of the Cannons and Ms. Blackboum. Date: — In Date: �?, — el uth "Vi" Blackbourn J es W. annon !rew-ti L. 1 I 11 • , CITY- OF.EDMONDS TQNE Al 7' NUMBER v�� ' CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION - - NA4E ION NAME OF BUSINESS!• ... •.• . . ' ADDRESS / /� . • 1. ��• //L/'/' /'J.l Robes: L. d! Susanne N. Lo er. L , . DESCRIPII' NtCNECA aUBDIW�ION NO: LIU NO' ='4AIUN0'ADaflEss ....'. .- _ ' - - - /ew t --/ $ 12T S" line Drive %?: -Z- ` TY � " - - - " - •' Edmond8 WA ELEPHONE NUMBER' 6 PUBLIC RIGHT OF. WAY PER OFFICIAL 519EET: MAP. U.,'. ' - I 121 EXISTING.r .REQUiREDDEDICATION,_,O"_.„• . NAME ... - ... , .. _ ,...... ...- ,- ,.. .: PROPo5t;Q_ Lar Throndsen ry - RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED g -Ill ADDRESS STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED i=_. 1T703 Fourth. Place West SEE ENGINEERIN FMO DATED L��/E CQ� R Lr - �!!_ i CITY 1ElEPr'ONE NUMBER W. Bothell , WA 74 _l O REMARKS . ... NAME .: ._...... .. ..-...... ...../( • . /7 n �. / �'� �C // G" Golden 'IT" Constriction Inc. - E/i�&415L //✓ ` 614%Ti� .DpREss .. . , ., - -.. _ `%7 ``"' . c c��o'i•C% • v P. a. Box 1la2 �«u METER' E BUILOING'SUPP Y SiA ; y FIXTURE UNITS ' a . F CITY .. . - ......_ TELEPHONE_ NUMBER ., '.. - ' V nvood WA -' "' "" -- 7-78-1102. ,STATE 710ENSE NUMBER`' .' •" G01J)fiTC1 6PX SIGN`AfiEA ENV: REViEW' 400 NO. - - -tegal Descript{On oIPFOpelty=incluGea110a3Bmen(i- -' ALLOWED PROPOSED L CO!APETE EXEMPT ($IYdW belOW OF attach iOUf C000)l SHORELINE _ CF Lot 2 harbor View Estates as per lat. ., VARIANCE OR CU - - - yr _ PLANNIbi( VIEW I; ' � D' , cal • ' 3.recorded iw :.volume A- of iats oa YARD9 ` - S %( DE. iROHT. SIRBAR, H !GMT SOT COVERAG' z • Pages 7.2 and T3,. �reco:d.s of ngh CTity. R a • :.. , RESIDENTIAL - - AOo'ALTER O COMMERCIAL C)' MfgHANICAL - - �ao'TINv iNsA�P.` (� 6 -. REPAM �, RETAINING WALL SIGN ,... ,. �y /��•F�C . . LOrCAVATE PENCE El � CHECKED BY - TYPE 0 CONSTRUCTION - '. ..-� CODE" " '' �� HEIGHT HT - t__i OEMOW.H. OR PYA 4-... x.-r.—�� 0 �� • '' PRE -MOVE INSPJ.SPECIAL REMODEL COMPLIANCE INS POOL - POOL � INSPECTOR" PE ED AREA 'OCCUPANCY - CROUP ^`J OCCUPANT LOAD ❑WOOQ STOVE! INSEP.T AP.T. RENEWAL ;;I a�DG Ax ,' x /Mf -eu y 6 cle O o . W NUMBER OF STORIES ' . - " ' 'HUTABER OF'. ,• ` '. .' ..... -. i�SC>rRe'SS 17CiYs /,/:/\' ��QC!..�Y�/ m - 1 + daylite bsmt DwTBu"c .. _ - .._ " ...._ ... _ - � NATURE OF. WORK TO:af DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN)-- - - ' fr T s Resloental�YcYonstruction j�L�'lFi/I��.,I'SPEUIQ'�1� 'VALUATION - . FEE '-- .... PUN C4611 FEE . -. .. ,. BUILDING /J^ /�,/ A�7/ Awe PLUMB)NO MECHANICAL Thra-Permlt covers woik-to'be'dione.dn prlvate'properfy ONLY; pRArnNCIFLL - Apy construction on the public domain (CurCs, sidewelks, - - ' driveways, marquees, etc;) will requlre separate permission. SiArt !,uH.,, r�GE - %Sv Permit Application: 180 Days - - - - - P-ermit Limit: t Year •Provided Work is Started Within Ai0 Days fNEROY CODE ' Appfi*f. on' behalf of his Or hpr spouse, heirs• assigns iriJi - ' o Successors in interest,', roes to indemnify defend and hold. harmless the City of Edmond8, Washington, Its oLFieiels, - - - s emp!0yee5, and, agents from any anti ell claims for damage9 Of • - : whatever nature arising directly or indirectly trgm Ina. Issuance z of this parrot. IBsuan__ of this pgrmtt sh811 not'be degmed to O ""' °- -` -' .. PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT -- - - "/•' y—/L ✓�C�L/ ?� I modify waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance i nor hmrt in any way the pity's bbility to enforce any ordinance TOTAMOUNT. DUE AL I - by a2(Iorl;dhatihetion given is correct ar}q that I.am theGwner, or theduly ATTENTIONQPPLICATIOIV AFPR.OYAI.ed agonl of the owner. 1aQree to comply with city and THIS PERMITThis s. regulating construction; and In doing the work authorii• utoglzfsby, application is nota'pennit until no person will be employed i•n violationof the Labor pNLrr E sgned by the Building O.Iflcial or his L,nf'n'a the State of Washington relating tgWorkmen•sCompenja• WCAR NOTED Deputy; and feesare paid, and receipt is urance. NsefcnoN acknowledged, in space prE IOYATE SIgNE O� ofPARTMEHi . '• /u1 CITY .OF. OF.F K.yuL CN' E •... '"i1AYE .:_ ` . ATTENTION O H2•'.:-' R SED BY - . _ ., SE, ..' 11 2 i7i- I IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN 'MADE AND APPROVAL OR ' 'BEEN ORIGINAL - File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF (QCCUPANCY I{A$ GRANTED. UMC - CHAPTEq-, - - .•PINK.-,• Owner GOLD ;.c Assessor MEMO TO: Building Division FROM: Engineering Division SUBJECT: After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: 1) Connection to City water system required. 2) Connection to City sanitary sewer system required. 3) Right-of-way permit required for any work .on City property. 4) Driveway slope not to exceed 14%. 5) Back water valve required if downstairs plumbing is below elevation of upstream manhole. 6) Water and sewer lines to be separated by 10 foot minimum. 7) Builder/owner responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion on site and may not impact neighboring properties in any way. 8) Construction hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and ,n.nn a m to 6-00 o.m. on weekends and holidays. 4. /D �7r�' � x E� � rmrr�•a � �t �Y , �„ ,5�, to ,..: .. v •ai. 1� +.$'°`.3v«k�n i. y `�5 ^�'F"�t„'1,�%.",�. #f pp^^ �K^...2+.�:1��i'.$i.S.IS.:r..�i......� .I qn. J.'".,_...:..-- .,., ���' .,•r,..,lu✓i. ,..V.tCLy(bs..x....e'G.twr, m, .a 1..�......:+ I[ C;Il0UI' F�1 VR, Inc'. . 1M?-561AAvenue West •:206IL5+5N1 Lgnnwgod, Wvt Ingtrin 33UJG - 1-7-8.6 p 86 .403:0 Height Calculation Lot 2 HarborView Estates y Benchmark:• Invert of sanitary ewe mahol�e #� ' Datum: City of Edmonds y 65 'at' intersection of Viewland Way,And 12th Ave: N: Elevati.on 247.QO ` (per•'Jerry Hauth.12 1-86). - Elev. 310.0 - Maximum allowable ridge line per plat_ restrictions. and covenants'. v Recording nu.*bers 846503.0178 and '85.092303:02. *, `a Elev. 310.0 Maximum allwable ridge line per amended decision E of the City'' Hearing Examiner.'' File V.24-86:as � -'x amended September • 2.5'; .986. Elev. 310.7 - Maximum allowable ridge.line per standard criteria, if it would'.have applied. r Existing Ground Elevation t. 287 + NE corner bldg. a 279 + NW corner bldg' . j " 291 ± SE corner bldg. 2,86 + SW corner bldg, i 1115 = 4 - 285.75 +25.00 310.75 . ELEHRTION USES - 31.0:0 cer ??earna Examiner's decision f SUHV'BYI.N.G. ENGI\F E fI1NG PLANN[\G `iriV 46};JiF:D T. • 1 f { - .lien 7 1-4 "' • . , -7. CITY OF EUMONOS 250 W AVE. N. • EDIVION D S. WASHINGTON 98020 1206) 77 1•3202 COMMUNITY -SERVICES T ilk Nk February 17, 1987 Robert Lockyer 121.Skylifie Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. ockyer: CARRY INIALIGHTEN PETER E. HAHN The buil.ding,p6mit for tot 2 Harbor View Estates 1205 Viewland Way is issued. under er the condition that that the addi'ti onal services'recommended on page . 8 of the . January, 29th, report from Terra Associates are followed. comp? e'tely. If ycu desire to not .retain the firm of Terra Associates:, then another licensed geotechnical consultant must perform the work with reports submitted -to -the Edmonds Building Department. Has the,final design been reviewed by the geotechnical engineer as let i recommended? If so, a- ter stating should be,provi,ded to the BuildingDivis. If . this has not been accomplished, it must be prior. to ,ion P ilding.Division approval to pour concrete. If there are any questions regarding the permit reqq,irem.ent, please, contact .the Building. ;IA;-gDivision. i�i Sincerely, AW.Aik, Harold Reeves Building Official., HR/dmc Gol,den T. Construction PUSUPWqqKS PLANNING 1 1 - . 1 } .M ; I t s}Y�/ ',� '%' mot,; t .. _ ���'•�...�..��. �-+..7.�J ..' TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc. Geotechnical Consultants March, `13,'.1987. ` Project No.,' T"4"18_.l, Mr. Don Fuller Group Four, Inc. 19502 - 56th Avenue West Lynnwood,; Washington 98036 >>tii�D1rl�' Subject: Review of Plans Proposed Lockyer Residence ' 1205 Viewland Way Edmonds, Washington ' GearDen: As requested, we have reviewed the Or plans for the Lockyer residence wh_h were,previ,ded to us by Golden T Constr,uction. We, earlier- performed a geotechnical study for this. residence and presented the result1.s in our report dated..January 29, 1987. Based on our review of the plans, it. 'is our. opinion that the type of residence and the configurations sho::n on the plans. are generally appropriate for the so•iF and site conditions pr?srnt on the ' lot. The residence -will have a lover level daylight basement o.var the western two-thirds of the house &t_Elev +280. The gttragP and ul!per flo,o,r will be. based at_ about Elev. y290. house .The wi.l'l. e.t.end northward .to the top of he existing steep bank ;and,will.partially cantilever over the top the lose', of We have reviewed Plans. prepared by Mr. Larry Throndsen ;da.ted January 2•, 1967. the+et A>?, of the project plans shovs that ten a .total ref t,wo -fopt diam_e'ter . pi:E.rs will be used t� su,ppott the resid'enre along the to.p 0f the bank ' four _and piers for the n_ orth' en! of the deck The reni3inde of the Iwe ye will he suppoctrd on spread footings based on the firm nn'Live soils belnw.t,e t.il;lh, Based on existing site grades, we antic,ipilte that much of the lower htsement level will be based below the existing fills. in the north half.uf the h,use. 0+crcrcovarions for footings tray be required for soma footin S lit Southern portion of .the house and along crawispace areas'wesr ofthe garage„ aril at the southeast house corner, As noted in our edriicr- report the sul}:;urface. condiaie,ns change dramttital.ly un the sl,te and careful 'eya,luati.gns ;t jot be ng need to by made during construt on of all excavations. l 15301 tV:E: 90th Street t'Redmond; Washingto6 98052 • Phone; 6 1-5570 � Mailing Address P:O. Box 333.8-.•, Redmond, Washington 98073' f : ,t i > f., Y ) ! h .. r +•nYs.t:.. .... i J. w. .. .. .... .. .... t.u..� . ., ¢ � J .�l,W: iei .. t.., .....s:a1 '...:;vY�. .. + .,ftrW.,2.wiE..� .ri.w.,;,., - M • Ptr..•tkin Mille i c+ K resh..13, l.()$ >? .. We wish to reiterate several point§`ouCl.lnP,d in our earlier soils report:. + l: Piers should be used to support foundations wi.'th.in•ten^feet of 'the. top of the bank. To satisfy this'rerommendation, additicna.l piers need to be insta116d. extending•one more row to the south. e i'. ?: 9asement wall backfill against the wall should be free -draining for the full hc.ght, and be tied to , -a footing drain along the entire toe of -the wall. Perimeter footing drains should be"used elsewherearound the house and should also be' backfilled. with free draining.material it All foundations should be carried to firm native soils below the fills. 4; All slab and foundation retaining wall backfill should be compacted:• t, ., in accordance with our report recommendations. i } 5. Slab subgrudes should be underlain ;by at least four inches free" ?` sf .of draining material. 6. It is also suggested that reference to made to our earlier report dated January 29, 1987, for all other applicable geotechnical criteria_ for use in construction of this residence. We trust this summary of our review is sufficient for your present needs. If an ou need Y. y ad ••diti.onal information, Please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1t'10; guT1 t'P ofwASNs�l` Anil Fiutail, P.E. =� 'J President0 ssfo;kA PKB/AB:Mf 1 III•{ . .. 4 s � 4 . F FL �' il"R VAL 657 BY: REr ORD.OF INSPECTlgNN .. - Date Se�y DatePassed La, iab I FOUNDATION j t2:iNia�+' House Fire e+t 4. , Porches. piers _sal • ; iFsr,.+:,.. ti D3.) Retaining walls J t — PLUMBINGUnd ' preround a i!�8 s Roughtin Water service ` 7 '• `� HEATING SYSTEM 5 FRAMING jr i o--�^ c7 t� �-1- ..• .�"��/ WALLBOARD i tC_. T� `Lb �;_ T ru TREET FEE ..;L f..t 4G.. Daily Field'Memo♦ .+. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Project No. 41 8 _ Geotechnical Consultants (206) 881-5570 Redmond, Washington Memo No Date 4-2- gIL s J Project: LOCKVER k9ES /DENCE Subject: Pl-,2 a,Qt4e A/6 j Location E DM D iV DS Contractor: 9 "y Weather: L LCAP_ J Present At Site: M/kE 70hb LA,2,2Y "+ yL.. I. 7• 'v d D $Op Cr.'.i z'l Lcc/ c:e.rs , G c c e d �.0 c, 6e. 6", �v be diilLec/ tAg co)i Zrn,-.Zar- a,-,c/ t„c i'Z_ ?)ems ffi117 fyn, f3e4a+ti. l�+z.LLc�rc 090U. Pup-5 degZLcd -t✓c 1L�i-t- /0,0 A-ce w- (4 kxpL j slacbCt.LC/ �oVe_ Z IxaSf 10, 0 Ace-t tic6✓et.Et Lo bang 4�vrc>/ Lie bG7�J7v` dam 0 p CA l 48 " of f l L o v',r- r- Z 48 " 12.0. Z3 "6.01 s 33 1 G. -v .� � 3(. 4 ' a pp ", ti r q 4. $ / • i / � � 4, o ' � �, - �`�� '� *'�l 1.2 ,. . 12— F l co �s�s2s v�' bra ty 9t, s/.1iV c3INb tv,lk QrcnveC . Ale, flL)e n,aZt-'c( L Cu-1't.- sc.sis of �a,t 6) ,,. ,Slip cc�,ti, L�4Nb,W,eL, _ �.v�-I�YaCz`vr- pLc,�.t.s r<o L.o w.e,.r- L/�. %ao�c►�� ictsZ/ ���t oi� �c.e,= '�'�.Z�d, .. . . //zcj e- dtouz sc, h_5 z',/,e c-�c>r.�z; �, ►�, it`s �foec.c u:c� c �t t By: �GGC"tic� 1T• �7<r co�9.�i� Copies To: r \: ;} TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc. A ® ® s ®a A , Geotechnical Consultants May 8, 1987 Project No. T-418-1 Mr. Mike Todd Golden T. Construction Company P.O. Box 1425 Lynnwood, Washington Subject: Geotechnical Services Proposed Lockyer Residence Lot 2, Harborview Estates 1205 Viewland Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Todd: As requested, we have been providing periodic geotechnical services during the construction of the Lockyer residence. Our work has involved a general examination of the house excavation as well as making observations during installation of drilled piers.. Initially, we made a site visit on March 17, 1987 to examine the general. excavation subgrade for the proposed residence. At that time, no foundation areas were marked and no footing forms were in.place,. We made general observations and comments in our field report regarding the existence of the native soils and isolated fills around the building excavation area. At: Lhat time, we recommended that we examine specific foundation areas once foundation forms were in place to verify that all foundation excavatio-as had been carried down through localized existing fills around the house area. On March 31, 1987, a representative of our firm visited the site during the installation of drilled piers. The purpose of these piers was to carry foundations loads below a critical area adjacent to the slope. We verified that the 12 piers installed had. been carried down to a sufficient depth that would provide at least 10 foot lateral distance from the bottom of the pier to the face of the steep northern. slope. These piers have been insta31+_i.ed in accordance with our recommendations and the project plans. 15301 N.E. 90th Street • Kedmond, Wasnington yuusz - rnone: aai-:)aiu Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3338 9 Redmond, Washington 98073 i Mr. Mike Todd May 8, 1987 • To date, we have not been requested to examine excavations for foundations for the southern portion of the house. We understand that all foundations have been completed and were examined by you or your field personnel. Copies of our field reports are attached. If you have any questions regarding our observations, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anil Butail, P.E. President PB/AB:pk Enclosure: Memo dated 3/31/87 cc: Mr. Don Miller Group Four, Inc. Project No. T-418-1, Page 2 :7 0 Daily Field Memo TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. Project No. 4 i 3 chnical Consultinic, 2 Geote (206) 881-'5570 Memo No. Redmond, WashingLon Date Z-C .3 Project: L-L E /Vct-F Subject: Location: Contractor: -' -)-- Weather: Present At Site: T 0 bb I Z- A k)k Y Lcl Z' LLB OL, cL) q, A,, "A' X) PiEAZ 1)� 4.3 4' 1, - - -I, . f' - I Y I 6 Ur ? G- -7/- 4-o 4. 3 4. c' 4,C) L �F, L,4--'/ C L L L-� L &/I/vi) c'/-* v4-: Zl,ilfL'l 6 LIZ vu. ec r�. ter` :�i._ .n r'. 1-� G� `),?cam c.c ��.. / __ .,: :' �_ LA A L BY: Copies To: ;:. TERRA ASSOCIATES, Inc. ► ►A 4 AA Geotechnical Consultants Mr. Don Miller Group Four, Inc. 19502 - 56th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Lockyer Residence Lot 2, Harbor View Estates Edmonds; Washington Dear Don: FEB -- 2 Rtb January 29, 1987 Project No.-T-418 As requested, we have conducted a Geotechnical Engineering Study for the proposed residence to be constructed on Lot 2 of. Harbor View Estates in Edmonds, Washington. The approximate location of the project site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The purpose of our study was to explore the subsurface soil conditions on the property in order to provide recommenda- tions for foundation setbacks from the top of the bank, foundation design and construction, and site preparation. The scope of our study included test pits, laboratory testing of representative soil samples, geotechnicall. engineering analyses and the preparation of this report. In an earlier letter report dated January 5, 1987, we summarized our findings and dis- cussed our preliminary recommendations following a meeting we had with you and the contractor. This report presents a more detailed discussion of: the results and findings of our studies. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The main geotechnical feature of the site affecting development as a building site is its location at the edge of a steep bluff. overlooking Puget Sound to the west. This location will require special care in the design and construction of a structure on the site. The bluff has an inclination of about 80 percent. It appears to be generally stable although it is subject to minor erosion from surface water movement over the slope. TLmi� FILE 15301 N.E. 90th Street • Redmond, Washington ytsu52 a rnone: tsts�-ssiu - Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3338 • Redmond, Washington 98073 I I Don Miller is January 29, 1987 • The two primary considerations in developing t.hi.E-. site frorr a geotechns.cal standpoint are as follows: 1. The presence of the previously placed uncompacted fills on the site. These soils are in a variable condition. In our opinion, these soils are not suitable for providing foundation support for the proposed structure in their present condition. Founda- tions must be extended down through the fill soils into competent native soils. 2. The proximity of the residence to the top of the slope. It is our understanding that a portion of the structure will be canti- levered over the top of the slope and this part of the structure supported on pier foundations drilled into the slope. From a geotechnical standpoint, it is our opinion that this is feasible. As with any construction adjacent to a very steep slope, there is a potential for some movement. This potential can be minimized by not causing any disturbance to the presently stable slope configur- ation. in addition, all foundations must be,deepe_sed so that the foundation loads do not impose any additional stresses on the surface of the steep slope adjacent to the: proposed residence. Following our meeting with you and the contractor, the amount oi_ building overhang has been reduced.'However, it is still significant and will greatly affect foundation design and construction. We estimate that for this purpose the foundation should extend to a depth such that there will be a minimum clear distance of 10 feet between the outside edge of the foundation and the face of the slope. Surface water should not be permitted to flow over the bank and the natural vegetation on the bank should not be disturbed. The following sections of this report describe our study and explain our recommendations in greater detail. PROJECT DESCRIPTION At the time our study was performed it was planned to construct a single- family residence on the site along the top of the bluff as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The residence will be constructed primarily in the southern, gradually sloping portion of the site. However, a part of the structure will be constructed overhanging the steep bluff in the northern part of the site. The western portion of the house will be constructed with a basement level at approximate Elev. 277.5 while the main floor and the eastern portion of the house will be built at approximate Elev. 289.5. Cuts of up to approxi- mately ten feel: or slightly greater will be required for both the basement level and the eastern portion of the structure. To achieve finish grades at the driveway along the east side, cuts of a similar magnitude will also be required. Fills on the site are expected to be minigial. Project No. T-418, Page 2 ' Mr. Don Miller • January 29, 1987 ' Details of the structural loading for the structure are :not known. However, based on our previous experience with similar structures, we anticipate that ' perimeter load -bearing walls will carry less than 2 kips per linear foot and isolated column footings may carry loads on the order of up to about 25 kips. If there are any changes in the proposed construction as described above, Terra Associates should be requested to review them and make supplementary recommendations, if needed. FIELD F"LORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ' Our field exploration was performed on December 8, 1986. Subsurface soil conditions on the proposed building area were explored by excavating four test pits to depths ranging from 10.5 to 12.5 feet. The test pits were ' excavated by using,a rubber tired backhoe provided by Golden T Construction Company. The locations of the test pits were determined from known points on the property survey. Elevations were determined by approximate interpo- lation from the site topography provided to us. The approximate locations of these test pits are shown on Site Plan, Figure 2. The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer ' from our firm who classified the soil conditions encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained representative soil samples and observed pertinent site .features. ' All soil samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System which is presented on Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are attached to this report as Figures 4 and 5. The test pit logs represent our interpretation of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and testing of the field samples. ' Representative soil samples obtained .from the test pits were placed in closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further examination and testing. Moisture content determinations were performed on all samples. ' In addition we also conducted Grain Size Analyses on several samples. The results of these tests are shown on the boring and test pit logs and on Figure 6. ' SITE CONDITIONS ' Surface The site is Lot 2 of Harbor View Estates in Edmonds, Washington located at ' 12th Avenue North and Viewland Way. At present the site is undeveloped and generally covered with grass and brush. The neighboring lots to the east and west are both presently undeveloped also. IProject No. T-418, Page 3 ' Mr. Don Miller • January 29, 1987 ' The general building and lot.area slopes down from the east to the west with overall topographic relief within the southern portion of the lot of about 20 feet. The north side of the lot is bordered by a very steep slope with a gradient of about 80 percent dropping down approximately 35 feet to the north property line. There are no signs of mass slope instability on ' the site. However, the slope has been subject to minor erosion from surface water runoff over the slope. Subsurface We excavated four test pits to a maximum depth of 12.5 feet. Our test pits ' indicated that there is fill of variable thickness on the entire lot. The thickness of the fill varies from approximately five feet along the top of the slope to more than .12.5 feet in the southern portion of the lot closest ' to the street where Test Pit TP-4 was excavated. These fills are in a vari- able condition and consistency and generally consist of silty sands. Below this fill layer, native clean sands were encountered in Test Pits TP-1 ' through TP-3. However, this native sand layer was not observed in Test Pit TP-4 to the depth explored. More detailed information is presented in the test pit logs included with this report as Figures 4 and 5. No groundwater was encountered in any of our test pits. However, during the rainy season, a perched water table may develop above the less permeable silty sand layer. This condition may develop at greater depths and may also appear as seepage zones on the face of the slope. DISCUSSION AND RECO*E-NDATIONS General Based on our study, it is our opinion that the steep slope in the northern portion of the site is generally stable and the proposed residence may be constructed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project design and construction. The primary geotechnical feature that should be considered in developing this site, as mentioned earlier in this report, is its location at the top of a high and steep slope. In addition, uncontrolled fill soils are present on the site to varying depths. Consequently, the depth to competent native bearing soils also varies considerably. The western portion of the residence is to be constructed as a basement level. At this location, the planned excavations should take the lower level of the structure down to competent native soils which should provide adequate bearing. However, the eastern or uphill portion of the structure will be constructed at a level approximately t,en feet higher. At this level, the finished grade will expose competent native soils in the northwestern portion closest to the slope. However, in the southern portion, existing fills will remain in place below the bottom of the structure. At this location, we recommend that foundations be deepened to extend beneath the existing fill soils. Project No. T-418, Page 4 tMr. Don Miller . January 29, 1987 In the northern., overhanging portion of the structure, f0u:ndations for the proposed residence should extend to a depth such that the foundation loads do not effect the stability of the slopes. We recommend a minimum clear distance of ten feet between the outside edge of the foundation and the face of the slope. Foundations may be designed as piers extending to the appropriate depth as determined above or as deepened spread footings. Based on our discussions with you, it is our understanding that drilled piers will be used for this part of the residence. During and after construction, the native vegetation on the bank should be protected and surface water should be directed away from the bank. Grading should be minimized on the site and no fills should be placed at the top of the steep slope. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotech- nical engineering practices. It is intended for specific application to this project and :for the exclusive use of Group Four Inc., Golden T Construction Co. and their representatives. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The following sections of this report present more detailed recommendations for the various geotechnical engineering aspects of this project. These recommendations should be incorporated into the project design and construction. Foundations Foundations for the proposed Lockyer residence may be supported on dense competent soils encountered at variable depths below the fill layer. In addition, it is also necessary to extend the foundations to a depth such that foundation loads do not effect the present stability of the slopes in the northern portion of the site. We estimate that for this purpose, the foundations should extend to a depth such that there will be a minimum clear distance of ten feet between the outside edges of the footings or piers and the face of the slope. Where the required depth of excavation is shallow to achieve this '10 foot clear distance, foundations may be designed as deepened spread footings, supported on the dense native soils. Otherwise, foundations could be designed as drilled piers extending to the required depth. Foundations more than 10 feet back from the top of the bank may be designed as conventional spread footings bearing on the competent native soils below the fill. Drilled piers are probably likely to be more appropriate in the northern portion of the house where the house will hang over the slope to some extent. it is very important to excavate these piers well into compe- tent native soils and to a depth that will provide a minimum horizontal clearance of ten (10) feet between the outermost edges of the piers and the face of the slope. Project No. T-418, Page 5 ' Mr. Don Miller • January 29, 1987 ' Conventional spread footings bearing on the competent native sands may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot ' (psf) for dead plus live loads. Foundations should extend to a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent outside grade. A minimum width of 12 inches should be used for continuous footings. Individual ' spread footings may also be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 psf and should have a minimum size of 18 inches. A one-third increase in the above pressures may be used when considering wind or seismic loads. Structural steel should be installed in accordance with structural ' requirements. As indicated earlier, in the southern portion of the -structure, competent native soils are not expected to be exposed at the finish grades. At this location, foundations must be deepened to extend to beneath the fills and into competent native soils. Drilled Piers ' Foundation support for the northern part of the house may be provided by drilled piers. Drilled piers should have a minimum diameter of 12 inches and should extend to a depth such that a horizontal distance of 10 feet is t present between the face of the slope and the outside edge of the pier. The piers may be designed for a capacity of 15 kips.. For an 18 inch diameter pier an allowable load capacity of 25 kips per pier may be used. All piers ' may be designed for the full load bearing capacity, provided they are spaced at least five feet apart. All piers should extend down well into competent native soils and to a depth that will provide the minimum required horizontal ' clearance discussed earlier. Piers should be installed under the observation of qualified geotechnical personnel to verify that soil conditions are as anticipated and to make any changes in the event that soil conditions vary. Settlements ' Building settlements are expected to be less than one-half (1/2) inch for pier foundations or deepened spread footings. Most settlements should occur during construction. ' Slab -on -Grade Floors ' Floor slabs may be constructed as slabs -on -grade over the native soil subgrade or existing files recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM D-1557. To reduce capillary action, the ' slab should be underlain by at least 4 inches of pea gravel and a 10 mil thick plastic liner. In parts of the building where piers are used, slab - on -grade floors should not be used. We recommend using joist supported ' wood floors in this area. IProject No. 'r-418, Page 6 ' Mr. Don Miller . • January 29, 1987 Basement and Retaining Walls Basement walls should be designed to resist the lateral pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). If: walls are restrained from free movement at the top they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square foot. These pressures assume a maximum height of 12 feet and that no surcharge leads will occur. Please contact us for supplementary recommendations if conditions are expected to be different. The basement walls should be provided with a continuous blanket of free drawing material at least 12 inches wide. A perforated pipe should be placed at the footing level to collect water and discharge it to the street. Cuts along the driveway may need to be retained. If a retaining wall is used, it may be designed to the criteria given above. If a rockery is used, it should be constructed to Snohomish County Standards. Please note that a rockery is not an engineered structure like a retaining wall and should not be expected to perform as such. If a rockery is used, some movement and/or repair should be expected in the future. Horizontal Loads Horizontal structural loads carried to the foundations may be resisted by both friction forces on the base of foundations and passive resistance on the sides of foundations and grade beams. A coefficient of 0.30 may be used between concrete and soil. Resistance to lateral loads may also be computed as passive earth pressures exerted by the soils adjacent to the grade beams. We recommend using an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot where the foundations and pile caps are poured "neat" against undisturbed soil, or where the backfill is compacted in accordance with the requirements for structural fill. Where piers are used on the slope, no passive resistance may be mobilized in the uppermost five feet of pier penetration. Site Preparation and Grading Grading work on the site should be kept to a minimum and special care should be taken to avoid disturbance to the existing vegetation on the bank. All disturbed areas should be revegetated as quickly as possible. Soils exca- vated from the pier holes or basement excavations should be removed from the site. We do not recommend that any soils remaining from the construction be placed at any location on the site. Project No. T-418, Page 7 Mr. Don Puller • January 29, 1987 ' Surface Drai_na�e t Positive surface gradients should be maintained to direct surface water away from the steep bank. Yard drains, downspouts, foundation drains and water from paved areas should be directed away from the slope and discharged ' directly into the storm system. Care should be taken in the design and operation of any irrigation systems to avoid saturating the soil. ' Slopes Temporary slope may be made at an inclination of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). ' Permanent cut slopes, if required, should be made at an inclination of 2:1. All permanent slopes should be vegetated to reduce erosion. Additional Services It is recommended that Terra Associates be requested to review the final ' design and specifications to determine that earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly incorporated in the design and construction. The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the four test pits excavated on the site. The na- ture and extent of variations in the test pits may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, we should be requested to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report prior to proceeding with the construction. It is also recommended that we be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and to allow design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We recommend that Terra Associates, Inc. provide the following services during construction: (A) Examine all foundation areas prior to forming and concrete placement to evaluate that adequate soil bearing conditions are present. (B) Observe the installation of the drilled piers to determine that the piers have been drilled to a sufficient -depth to achieve design capacities. We request that a minimum of two working days notice be given to us prior to beginning construction in order to schedule our services. Project No. T-41.8, Page 8 Mr. Don Miller • i January 29, 1987 The following figures are .1:au laded and complete this report: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Soil Classification Chart Figure 4 and 5 Test Pit Logs Figure 6 Grain Size Analyses We trust that the :information presented in this report is adequate for your requirements. If you need additional information or clarification, please call. Sincerely yours, ,',,►►►`� TERRA ASSOCIATES, INC. � Q� E W A N Anil Butail, P.E. President %. I" I$ Vzss104 Project No. T-418, Page 9 260 256 -- 206 / 270 276 280 285 200 286 1 TP-2 Epp- -- — — 300 PROPOSED F ESKX34CE N TP-1 I TP-3 1 N SCALE: LEGEND:, 0 12 24 48 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT FEET LOCATION AND NUMBER TERRA SITE PLAN ;:ti_ �6� •; ASSOCIATES Lockyer Residence Geotechnical Consultants Proj. No. 418 jDate 12/86 lFigure 2 Group PRIMARY DIVISIONS Symbol SECONDA tY DIVISIONS GRAVELS Clean GW well graded gravels, gravel -sand mixtures more than half Gravels little or no fines. GP poorly graded gravels or gravel -sand m of coarse (less than fraction is 5% fines) mixtures, little or no fines. Gravel GM silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt mixtures, 'Cd a) larger than A No. 4 sieve with non -plastic fines. .�, x v c fines GC clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay mixtures Nplastic fines. O C c SANDS Clean SW well graded sands, gravelly sands, little z more than half Sands or no fines. SP poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, of coarse (less than Y fraction is 5% fines little or no fines. Sands SM silty sands, sand -silt mixtures, non- 8 a) smaller than a) N No. 4 sieve with plastic fines. 8 ^ fines SC clavey sands, sand -clay mixtures, plastic fines. SILTS AND CLAYS ML inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock N flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey i liquid Limit is silts with slight plasticity. CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity o V less than 50% A clays, sandy clays, silty clays, :gravelly m lean clays. b OL organic silts and organic clays of low Z laffticity. SILTS AND CLAYS MH inorganic silts, micaceous or diatom- 0 a g a liquid limits is ceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic. CH inorganic clays of high 21asticity, fat clam greater than 50% HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS U.S. Standard 2Series Sieve 10 4 Clear Square 11 Sieve Openings �� SAND GRAVEL SILTS & CLAYS fine medium coarse fine I coarse COBBLE BOULDER GRAIN SIZES SANDS, GRAVELS, STANDARD AND NON -PLASTIC PENETRATION SILTS very loose 0- 4 loose 4-10 medium dense 10-30 dense 30-50 very dense over 50 RELATIVE DENSITY PLASTIC SILTS Unconfined STANDARD AND CLAYS Compressive Strength PENETRATION very soft 0 - 1/4 0- 2 soft 1/4 - 1/2 2-4 firm 1/2 - 1. 4-8 stiff 1-2 8-16 very stiff 2 - 4 16-32 hard over 4 over 32 CONSISTENCY UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ,W :.�,:.. TERRA Lockyer Residence ASSO CIATE5 Edmonds Washington Geotechnical Consultants Proj. N0.41S Date 12/86 1Figure 3 Depth (ft. ) 0 5 10 15 n F1 10 15 TEST PIT NO. T Logged By ML Data 12-08-86 USCS Soil Description Elev. +301' (Approx. ) W M SM Gray -brown, gravelly, silty -SAND, with scattered cobbles and small wood fragments, moist to damp, medium dense (Fill) 10.4 •:i.� •.. Brown, gravelly, clean medium to fine SAND � g Y > > . i •r i• SW slightly damp, medium dense to dense. 6.6 {•;. • 6.6 Test Pit Terminated at 10.5 feet. No groundwater or seepage encountered. Logged By . ` ` Date 12-08-86 TEST PIT NO. TP-2 - Elev. +284' (Approx.) T. SM Gray, slightly clayey, gravelly, silty -SAND, becomes silty -SAND with scattered gravels, moist, loose to medium dense(Fill). 10.8 12.2 SM Gray -brown, gravelly, silty -SAND with interbedded layers of blue -gray clean SAND, damp, medium dense. irr.•r. SW Blue -gray, gravelly, clean SAND, becomes brown ,.,. in color, damp, medium dense to dense. 9.6 Test Pit Terminated at 12.5 feet. No groundwater.or seepage encountered. - WO 7 TERRA ASSOCIATES Geotechnical Consultants TEST PIT LOGS Lockyer Residence Edmonds Washington Proj. No. 418 Date 12/86=Figure r LL CITY of EDMJJDS For Inspection Call 771-3202 Address of Construction: 12-05- ZDT Z Property Legal Description (Include all easements): S�4 E SEWER PERMIT N0. PcERWIT O�UU U� It UPAONDS TREATNIEN-1' PLAN Owner and/or Builder: 6p4or,-Y r(nlvsi Contractor & License No: Single Family Residence Multi -Family (No. of Units ) Commercial (No. of fixture Units ) Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No Yes (If Yes, Right -of -Way Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before any excavation.) Cross other Private Property: No Yes (If Yes, easement required, attach legal description and county easement number.) , PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE BACK I certify that I have read and shall comply with the items listed on the back. Permit Fee: OCR Trunk Charge: ,C>0 Assessment Fee: Partial Inspection: b /1Z Date FILE Issued By: ,Date Issued: Receipt No.: Comments Final Inspection Approved: _S l�(-g% �✓1� Date Initial Rejected: Reason ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy - File Green Copy - Inspector Date Initial Date Initial Buff Copy - Applicant The City of Edmonds r T ' EASEMENT NO- -----------------•-- ...................... S F NEW CONSTRUCTION ® REPAIRS ❑ LID NO - ------------------ -ASMT. NO................... OWNER _ CONTRACTOR( - CO WSX%,�k e�W PERMIT NO. � t` tips_ JOB ADDRESS -;QZ.__-----,L--,--1t���N------- i]°►-.................... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. ---:.......... ............... . BLOCK NO- ------------------------------ all 0-6 Cv.e". ty 1, ex 3,*p f 2' Side. Sewer Draw log NAMEOF ADDITION--------------------------------------------------------------------- LL 7 , s t 7EDM0 S C] 1/mil �l �►�nl> \A�� Approved: PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11178) DATE--��--` �-�-'-•-$--7•-----•----•--- BY---L-�---_`-----•------•- 711 117 CITY OF EDMONDS ASSET INFORMATION SHEET 5/ NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ RETIREMENT "* PURCHASE ORDER NO. PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST ASSET NO. ADDITION TO ASSET NO. _ * PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT COMPLETION DATE-�`//tr% COST B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. l/ '�D0 ��`�` ��-S� OD• �d SESTIMATED LIFE INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY 2/DEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT 0 G.L. ENTRY REFERENCE INITIAL bP // DATE VERIFIED BY PROCESSED BATCH NO.- DEPARTMENT FILE Ti PRA=T REVIEW, CiIE ps-T . S • . 2� PRD = PT D=T ADDRESS t / .Z�• �I �i� `�'�y APPLICATION RECEIPT DATE: /A6 Reviewed : tial date CONTENTS PLANNING WTR/SWR I STREET ENC2MG FIRE 'BUILDING• / / / / // SD=Z FAMILY/MULMILE/C049 RCIAL - (Circle One) SETBACKS CHOMED - Planning + / / VARIANCE/SETFACiK ADJ. ' 1 •1 ImI11///ITFIT CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT ///// a ///////// //////// ////////// 2 77 7 7 7/7f/T/-/7/ / T1 77-7 ///// /// ADB REQUIREMENTS CHECKED ////// ///////// //////// ////////// 3 - XWER ZONING RDQUIRE{dfNlS ////// ///////// //////// /// ///// 4 / // //////// - ENVIRCX?'ISTPAL FEATURES ////// ///////// //////// 5 ACCESS SIAPF. & VEHICLE ACCESS ///////// ///////// ////////1 6 DRAINAGE PLAN (On Site) ////// ///////// ///////// //////// 7 �--�i / / / / SWEET FILE ////// ///////// 111111.1.1,19191111111 8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION VFRTFICATICN g QUIT CLAIM/DEDICATIONS ////// /// //// VXM// //////// 10 FASEIrIENT - PUBLIC/PRIVATE77777777 CALCU ATE SEWER CONNWPION IF NO LID# ///////// ///////// //////// 12 PLAT/SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS /// 13 RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT READ ////// ///////// ///////// 14 TFITIM17 / — BOND READ FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ////// ///////// ///////// //////// 1 15 SOILS CONDITIONS 6 GROUND "— WATER FIEID'ClIDCKID ////// ///////// ///////// //// // 16 STREET PAVING REQUIRED ////// ///////// ///////// 17 CURB AND (A)FM REQUIRED ////// ///////// ///////// //////// 18 SIDEWALK REQUIRED ., ////// ///////// ///////// �, 19 'IRB CUT FOR DRIVEWAY RDQD" _ 7/7777777 /////////f ;20 / / — mmE?r NAME SIGN REC)D ///////// ///////// //////// / 21 MMER SIGNING RDQD111177 SIDE SEWER AVAILABILITY' ////// ///////// ///////// ////////za EXISTING HWTER MAIN SIZE ////// ///////// r r //////// ////////// / / t4' WATER Mkt SIZE ////// ///////// /i //////// ////////// 25 111171177 SERVICE LINE SIZE ////// ///////// % //////// ////////// 26 HYDRANT REQUIRED ////'///// //%////// //////// ////////// 27 HYDRANT SIZE EXISTING ////// ///////// ui 7 //////// ////////// 28 :.'BOSS CONNECTION INSPECTION REOD ////// ///////// //////// ////////// 29 — ttiRM METER C1MRGE REC)D ////// ///////// Q, /// // 30 FIRE LINE CHARGE READ - SPRINKLER STREET CUT ////// ///////// ////////// 32 OPEN DTLCH EXISTING ////// ///////// ///////// 33 CULVERT REM ////// ///////// ///////// 35 / — SIZE -. ////// ///////// ///////// 36 CATCH BASIN'ROOD ////// ///////// ///////// 37 177 / y INDICATED ON SITE PLAN R DRAINAGE MAINTAIN ////// ///////// ///////// 38 — 1'' SHALE OPEN RUNOFF ////// ///%///%/ ///////// 39 7777777777777777// 40 ENGINEERING MGR. . PUBLIC WORKS MGR. - 1.ti�, r+•et � �{ .-1 _ 4 1 '1 1 ,1 .r{ - p� . � - Window Company f Weathervane^r a ' }2pth Ave Northeast P 0-;eoz 2424 Kirkland, Washington 99440 8083 2424 yy`i (•208) 827 98,89 800 882 �f s My {v2: November.25; Colden "T" Gonsiruction ',.Box?.1425 r• ! • 980A6 ' `Lynnwood,. WA �.' ryyy, To whom this Hay Concern:. r'©om on both' family ' [o certify that the. the, i'n the. 1205 Vi,ewIAnd Wa,y, This.:is ck er'residence+ d, lass. sides of :the ,door a.t the Lo " Y `,,• Lot 2 Harbor View Esaates were aanufactured with •t,empere 8 further assist.an.ce or.evi_'dense.; ple. a s. neee -'C o.n.t'at t me a,t Y y d If you 827-9669:, A.• Si Y? e. O'Co,nnor ;a WEATHERVANEWINDOW CO,MPAP?Y 1 KO ,- MANUfAGiURERUAUTY S OF O.WOOD.WINDOWS e,� 1 � et iJ' G �6 Ef • I TY D F E D M D nn N:D S v,RRY,S NAUGHTEN %tit � �� EOMONDS. rI `5 :2W S 9 AV . N MAYQP. � wASNiN670N 9E020 • 12061 Z7t•)?Q2 � r , COMMUNITY SERVICES PETER E. WAHN �'a0ctober 26, 1987 >. Golden T Construction %PO'Box'14.255 '^+ Lynnwood, Washington 98036 le, OW-*, -- �- %. % is CITY OF EDMONDS . 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Inc. 189� Planning • Building • Engineering Mr. & Mrs. James Cannon Post Office Box 517 RECEIVEDEdmonds, Washington 98020 RE: 1205 Viewland Way DEC 5 - 2007 ENGINEERING DIVISION Dear Mr. & Mrs. Cannon, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR December 5, 2007 610-p� 'vw In response to the December 3, 2007 rain event City officials were notified of slide damage to have occurred all on private property at the northwest corner of your property. City staff conducted a site reconnaissance and observed the slide yesterday. The purpose of this letter is to alert property owners affected by the slide so that you may take whatever action you deem appropriate. The City recommends that you enlist the services of a professional Geotechnical Engineer for an independent assessment of your property and home to provide recommendations about the impacts of possible future landsliding, necessary slope restoration or mitigation, or necessary improvements that may be advisable for you to undertake to protect your property. Geotechnical reports and assessments for properties, including Plat Civil plans showing drainage systems, are on file at City hall and are available for review. If your geotechnical engineer requires slope restoration, slope mitigation or improvements an approved permit from the City is required in advance of start of work, for compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80 which regulates Geologically Hazardous Areas. Please note that any work deemed an emergency by the Geotechnical Engineer shall be immediately implemented and special inspection by the engineer for such work is required. All field reports or special inspection reports associated with required emergency work shall be provided to the City for review and approval and after the fact permits will be required if applicable. Please contact me should you have any questions regarding permit requirements or other concerns at 425-771-0220 extension 1226. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, C.B.O. Cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Director Dave Gebert, City Engineer Rob Chave, Planning Manager • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • 'qictor rifu - Holrinan .lanan 890 199 CITY OF EDMONDS 250-5th AVE N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 a (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works C Planning o Parks and Recreation • Engineering August 3, 1988 James W. Cannon 1205 Viewland Way Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJECT: BACKFLOW_PREVENTION DEVICE_TESTING Dear Property Owner: : IL LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR The backflow prevention device in vour water supply system i`s due for annual testing as required by State Code WAC 248-54-500. Our records shot4--a total of one device in your system. Please have the testing performed by a person holding a certificate of competency as a cross connection specialist, issued by the State Dl=partment Of oc:iai and Health Services ( telephone 46L+-7674? . if a device fails it -Is test, please have:? the r!ecessary repair-, macjp. Upon completion of a satisfactory test, have the certifier.! tester fill out the enclosed Test and Maintenance Repr-,rt and return it to this office within thirty days. Additional information relative to this matter may be obtained by contacting our Cross Connection Control Specialist at 7'71-321:)2. extension 318. Sincerely, Archie Brena Water/Sewer Stipervisor SFi i 1 k Enclosure BK.FLTEST,'TXTWATER 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan N-AdT.-Z(v �a/y v -7 /1�� 1 I �`/A\ /1s EXISTING HOUSE c V l�/�/ • - .5 5 .7 ����� t-.l.CON �FF CTJry.Z 2S ROCKERY Vol - Ad " N 89'53'58" W • 50UW .00 24' - �� To in A5-! _! . • 3" VERTICAL PILE ROW ~• • ROCKER 0 3' 0/C, 9 PILES TYPICAL �♦ --• .♦_ ♦` • 260 --250— • • • -� SLIDE • • • � ` LIMITS 24' • • `25S • '--3" XERTICAL PILE ROW • ® 3' 0/C` - P1LFS i— • 6 uj _ g 0 'EE • • • SCH 80 PILES, p. $ 8' DRIVEN TO REFUSAL O 3' 0/C, 5 PILES, SPRINKLE ?,,TYPICAL ey� PUS PIPES s WALK • • �270 CCONONCRETE PAD FF ; �N y IRRIGATION 275 J5\ OF ASy� �9 VALVE < � � TOP OF BANK Qr� ,.: DECK �- — — -- — -- •,I 1 + 545 OVAL ,T4a / 6 2 0 0 2 . HI � EkPiRES 10, 2dd .::.-•.-::_..,_ :.__..:.:.._:::::,�::•._. ,, . .._ .... �: . , � GRAPHIC ,CALF � 3 (MIQ) 1" = 10' 1111 16 ar NEW SHOTCRETE WALL (ro" - 4000 par) (4) ADDITIONAL 04 REINFORCING BARS SPANNING ANCHOR HEADS MIRADRAIN 6000 DRAINAGE FABRIC BEARING PLATE W/HEX w" iT n i n nuMc 3" SCHEDULE W COMPRESSION PILE DRIVEN TO REFUSAL 3' ON CENTER W RE I FORCING' GRID o z 12" VERTICAL ti °� q{� 7ir ... ,..kF. .. t cc m n `_. TOPSOIL $ I' BELOW GRADE 4"DIA HOLE PRE DRIVEN LIGHT WEIGHT GEOFOAM Spk i // s N 0 t, DOSTING HOUSE t,F,To245:2 1 .`' is � � • � �� "e . Ey:S,:, 4 �_ .i el.��... t. A N 8953'58" W \ • 50.00 24' 3" VERT AL PILE ROW \ • ROCKER 0 3i0/C, 9 PILES TYPICAL ~� f • 260 f-250-- .� • • • SLIDE • • LIMITS ��qq 24' • • � ` -- • 265-- `2Sg W coe pp7 i • ``3"-VIRTICAL PILE ROW c�4 a • 0 3' 0/C7--& Pl ZS �- �' o 4 bi �Q • • • SCH PILES, uj � 235 � € 70� • DRIVEN 0 REFUSAL --a -� • 1= 0 3' C5 PILES, CD, ►,j;,.:4 ` SPRINKLE k 265TYPIC L PLAS PIPES e00 WALK ♦ • 2'0 ONCRETE PAD FF s' _ _ _ • • 277.5 • IRRIGATION 2 ,� VALVE r, � TOP OF BANK � INSTALL APPROX 200 � p � � _ � _ _ � � � L.F. SILT FENCE � � DURING CONSTRUCTION SWALx RRIrK wAI I 1, Oc F.;r,►� ��' GRAPHIC SCAB c� EXPtHES - JUNE10,10091 IQ oil li - 1.1 lri 1rl 1r1 lr, 1rl Nominal Diameter Steel Area Load Capacity Ultimate Yield Load 0.6 ULT °`° �� Major Thread Diameter D Weight Part ID, 18 mm 254 mmz kN 170 kN 122 kN 21 .mm 2 kg/m CTS-18/120-H in _-_ 45.9K_ 3 8.2___--- K __--- K_ ___---------------- in - __1-- Ibs- ----------- __5/8_in- 22 mm ----- 380 mmz kN 255 kN 182 kN 25 mm 2.96 kg/m CTS-221120-H in' - 68.3 K _ _ _ _ _57.3 K _ - 41,0 K _ _ _ _0.98 in _ _ _ _1,99 Ibs/If _ - _ _ _718_in_ 25 mm _0.59 - 491 mm' _ 393 kN 329 kN 235 kN 28 mm 3.85 kg/m CTS-25/120-H 1 inz 86.3 K.- ...74.0 K - _ 53.0 K. ..1,10 in _ _ - _ 2.59 Ibs/lf ........... _in 28 mm _0,76 616 mmz - _ 493 kN 413 kN 296 kN 32 mm 4.83 kglm CTS-281120-H 1 1/8 in - - 0,95 in' 110.8 K . - -565 - _ 92.8 K _ _ 65.5 K -339 1.26 in _ 3,25 Ibs/If -5.55 30 mm 707 mmz kN 474 kN kN 34 mm kg/m CTS-30/120-H 1 1/4 in -------- 1.10 in' --------- 127.0 K -------------------- 106.6 K 76.2 K ------------------------------ 1.34 in _ '3.73 Ibs/If _ 35 mm 962 mmz 770 kN 645 kN 462 kN 40 mm 7.55 k8/m CTS-35/120-H 1 3/8_in_ inz _173.1 K 145.0 K - - 103.9 K_ - 1.87 in _ 5.07 Ibs/If _ _ _ 43 mm _1.49 1452 mmz _ _ 1162 kN _ _ 973 kN 597 kN - _ _ 48 mm. 1 4 kg/m _ _ - _ _ _ - - CTS-43/120-H 5/8 In 2.25 In 261.2 K 218.7 K K _ _1_,89 in 7.66 Ibs/K _1 57.5 mm _ 2597 mmz _ - 2077 kN _ 1740 kN _ _156.7 _ 1246 kN _ _ 53 mm _ 20.38 k9/m CTS-58/120-H' 2 1/4 in 4.03 ins K K _ 280_1 K - 2.48 in _13,69 Ibs/If _ _ _ _ - 63.5 mm _ 3167 mmz _ _466.9 _ 2534 kN _ _391.2 2122 kN 1520 kN _ - - 70 mm 24.86 kg/m CTS-64/120-H 2 112 In 4.91 in' K�) 477.0 K K in 1_Ibs/lf 75 mm 4418 mmz _ _659,6 3535 kN _ 2950 kN _ _ _341.8 2121-kN - _2.76 82 mm _ - - 34 kglm CTS-75/120-H 3 in 6,85 inz 1 794.7 K 665:4 K 476.8 K 3.23 in 1 22.85 Ibs/If Notes 3-- This bar exceeds the physical properties of ASTM-615 and is specifically manufactured Rock and Soil Anchors and, SoiI..N.ails.. It..i.s. ery ductile, ideal for seismic applications. [e,Sn-Ioac:for te:mpor ry:�alc:tioY:u to 0.7 ULT. yens for CL 00 CO "S M N a A y N M a a N O m tJ7 N to N to O Rdmin 2066251559 p.2 (2) #4 rebar 60 grade ontop of Load plate in addition to std gri de of #4 rebar @ 12" OIC both ways 4000 PSI shotcrete wall 6" min thickness • 4" Square X 318 Thick A36 Steel load Plate Welded to a 2.6" insert pipe X 6" � U 3" Schedule 80 pipe. Driven to refusal with a '140 LBS Collins hammer RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF' EDMdONDS Admin 2066251558 P.3 Schematic Only - Not to Scale PirnenstOns aS indicated only) =r t (2) #E4 Vertical Steel Reintorcing Bars at-2* Spacing on each Side of • , '%, Anchor Head for Fdl.Wali Height , do • /i A36 Steel Load Spreader Plate r - •r e Anchor hail (2) 04 Horizontal Steel Reinforcing Bars at 2' Spacing on each Side " of Anchor Head for Ft f> Wail Length r 1811Y--ide Horizontal #4 Steel Strip, of tNiradrain G'e'ocoinposite Draitmge tMaaerial for Bars at u- f , f -Full Vlt B He ' on�C «� r FuY Wall� � r _. '� S of L Length .. �_ C , V917,cr F IP�; NOTES • MinWwm thickness of shotcrm over eaposed.sof.tace, t y F = 6 inches M,niswrn sbotcxeLe cover over reirrlorpng: steel bars. c = 3. ches - Welded wire mesh reinlon*V to erdend #or ftA Ines and length of shotaete wall for crack cova vt �---- - gain geocomposde (or egtivaient) to cover W height a6d-letngth of exposed soil face behind siwrcrete walL RECEIVED JU-N 2'7':•Z008 BUILQi G. DEPARTMENT CITY "of EDMWNDS 3 Plate TYPICAL ANCHOR HEAD & WALL CEMROCK / SEATTLE RDNFORCEMENT $ D O D Rdmin 2066251558 p.4 E Schematic Only - Not to Scale (Dimensions as indicated only_) #4 Vertical Reinforcing Steel r c-c Bars @ 12' on Center fore by � � . Full Wan Height Spreader Plate Il 11 Horizontal Reinforcing I -i-fi- Steel Bars - (2) #+4. Each I Side of Anchor Head for I I (Full Wan Length I 2' c-c t --- --r- I-T J I II II I1. II I I I ( #4 Horizontal Reirdorcing I I I Steel Bars @ 12" on Center 1 I for Full Wail Length Vertical Reinforcing Steel Bars - (2) #4, Each Side RECEIVED ` d Arxtgr Head for Fug WaY �� �Hit r JUN 2 7 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS MOTE Hon¢onlal and vertipl sled forcing bars:fonning Waler tearrns• heads should extend for tun length oraround anchor wa4 and should emulate all of the anchor head 'Block out pockets' around anchor heads are firmed with concrete grout after anchor load testing is completed. - All reinforcement } ' "- type, size, spacing and`location to be verified by project stnrctural engineer i _.. 0 0 a CEMROCK / SEATTLE a - Piate ,AL SHOTCRETE WALL REINFORCEMENT 1 7 t LEGAL DESCRIPTION 13FNCH MARK 2 JUN 27 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY FOR MEWLAND WAY RUTH BLACKBOURN — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - IN NE1/4, NEI/4, SECTION 24. 1.27 N., R.3 E- W-M CITY or EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON C-5 Lovell—Sauerland k Associates, Inc. L Sm., Lry-. 11 1'7 1':-- 1 5068-0-07 ,fPFROJECT NO" �^�►� l�,C.�[ ��f^e 0MERIT ENGINEERING INC. SHEET NO. OF 2715 Meridian Street Bellingham, Washington 98225 CALCULATED BY AAw,, DATE 1- 7 ;:t3W Telephone: (360)738-6083 Fax: (360)738-1499 •�P.HECKED BY DATE y " L Imo: ram. RECEIVED JUN 2 7 20 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS Foy, A, � �s t rJ THE. • qY� 1 i) smv Me-R-%T &4 > &e-F. n1G� ,+pO34Avon t,E-c�-- i' Res, d 4A4*V M i�T �1G� c �3v►��3 . 1)ZI) 1 c &? lr-129A— A%C �� 110 X20006 Edition IRC wIWAC Arwndmcats m Edition IBC w/WAC Amendments 006 Edition UPC w/WAi Amendments Appendices A, 8, 006 Edition IMC wAVAC Amendments 2006 Edition IFGC wIWAC Amendments 2006 Edition IFC w/WAC Amendments 2006 Edition VIAQ WAC S 1-13 2006Edition WSECWAC 5 1 -11 y.---- APP 0` ED SY P KING �I oe city of Edmonds Building Department VFj .D PLAN 1) Any request for alternate design, modification, variance or other administrative deviation (hereinafter "variance") from adopted codes, ordinances or policies must be specifically requested in writing and be called out and identified. Processing fees for such request shall be established by Council and shall be paid upon submittal and are non-refundable. 2) Approval of any plat or plan containing provisions which do not comply with city code and for which a variance has not been specifically ident(fied, requested and considered by the appropriate city official in accordance with the appropriate provision of city code or state law does not approve any items not to code specification. �) pi Le l,�s�� l�td9u- 5)rY15�nTEK4 1 4 a' � i s to t r Pli SLJBMLT ALL SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORTS TO CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR ON A WEEKLY BASIS RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE 5 kry�bS LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, HARBOUR VIEW ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 45 OF PLATS, PAGES 72 AND 73, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS 'AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. k25,5 BENCHMARK INVERT OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF VIEWLAND AND 12th AVENUE N. ELEVATION : 247.00 DATUM : CITY OF EDMONDS SNAITARY SEWER SYSTEM (M.L.L.W.) K FIREPLACE a L O r A • y RECEIVED JUN 2 7 2000 BUILDING CITY OFDEDMOEDMONDS PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY FOR RU TH BLA CKBOURN IN NE1 /4, NE1 /4, SECTION 24, T.27 N., R.3 E., CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 2. REVISED MAP TO 10 SCALE 1. ADDED CONTOURS IN SLIDE AREA W.M. 1-8-08 JTT 1-7-08 JTT Lovell—Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 • (425)775-1591 • (425)672-7998 fax DRAWN CHECKED DATE F.B. SCALE FILE NO. J.T.T. J.T.T. 12-18-07 514,P. 11 1" = 10' 15068-0-07 SCALE : 1" = 10' 0' 2' 4' 6' 8' 10' 15..,'. 20' 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION - - - LOT 1, HARBOUR VIEW ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 45 OF PLATS, PAGES 72 AND 73, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. k�y,5 BENCH MARK INVERT OF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF VIEWLAND AND 12th AVENUE N. ELEVATION : 247.00 DATUM : CITY OF EDMONDS SNAITARY SEWER SYSTEM (M.L.L.W.) K FIREPLACE a xrs-c�s7 E-07REET FILE PARTIAL TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY FOR RUTH BLACKBOURN RECEIVES JUN 27 2008 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS IN NE1 /4, NE1 /4, SECTION 24, T.27 N., R.3 E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SN OH OM I SH COUNTY, WASH I N GTON 2. REVISED MAP TO 10 SCALE 1. ADDED CONTOURS IN SLIDE AREA 1-8-08 JTT 1-7-08 JTT Lovell— Sauerland & Associates, Inc. mm Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425)775-1591 • (425)672-7998 fax DRAWN CHECKED DATE F.B. SCALE=NO. J.T.T. J.T.T. 12-18-07 514,P. 11 1" = 06 8- 0- 07 BOLT HEADS AND NUTS BEARING AGAINST WOOD TO BE PROVIDED WITH GENERAL NOTES , FLAT CUT WASHERS. WOOD BEARING ON OR INSTALLED WITH 1" OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE TO BE TREATED WITH AN APPROVED " ' CODE PRESERVATIVE.SOLID BLOCKING. OF P40T LESS THAN -all -allTHICKNESS SHALL • BE PROVIDED AT ENDS AND AT ALL SUPPORT OF JOISTS AND RAFTERS. UNIFORM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO BE FOLLOWED 1985 BETWEEN SUPPORTS PROVIDE BLOCKING OR APPROVE$ BRIDGING AT 8" -- 0" EDITION AND ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND AUTHORITIES HAVING O.C. FOR FLOOR JOISTS, 10' - 0" FOR ROOF JOISTS. TYPICAL SILL BOLTS TO JURISDICTION. BE 5/8" DIAMETER AT 4'0" Q.C. EMBED 10". ALL METAL FRAMING ANCHORS AND HANGERS SHOWN -ON DRAWINGS SHALL BE "STRONG TIE CONNECTORS" AS MANUFACTURED BY SIMPSON COMPANY QR APPROVED EQUAL. stop BUILDING TYPE VN WOOD TRUSSES OCCUPANCY GROUP: R FIRE ZONE III I`✓I (I%' s'iG�I '- " SHALL_ `BE FACTORY FABRICATED TRUSSES. DESIGN AND FABRICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS IN THE CODE. ENGINEERING DESIGN AND SHOP DRAWINGS BEARING THE STAMP FIELD, PROVIDE TEMPORARY: BRACING AS REQUIRED UNTIL ALL OF A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF WASHINGTON PERMANENT CONNECTIONS AND STIFFENINGS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. IT IS AND SHOWING ALL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING BRACING. THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO IDENTIFY ALL DISCREPANCIES OR CONFUSIONS TO THE DESIGNER AT THE TIME THEY ARE NOTED. TRUSSES SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR UNIFORM LOADING AS FOLLOWS: cm TOP CHORD 30 PSF OF.TRIBUTARY AREA (A ((} FOUNDATION BOTTOM CHORD 10 PSF OF TRIBUTARY AREA ��, 1 UNLESS A SOILS INVESTIGATION BY A QUALIFIED SOILS ENGINEER IS Q� Gf� I%-IIo" I I PROVIDED, FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED ON AN ASSUMED AVERAGE SOIL STRUCTURAL GLUED -LAMINATED LUMBER BEARING OF 21000 PSF. EXTERIOR FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR 1' - 6" (MINIMUM) •• •• •• • ...• W BELOW FINISH GRADE. ALL FOOTINGS TO BEAR ON FIRM UNDISTURBED SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR FABRICATED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF U.S. - 7e),6 I EARTH `BELOW ORGANIC SURFACE SOILS. BACKFILL TO BE THOROUGHLY PRODUCT STANDARD PS 56. LUMBER SHALL BE OF SUCH GRADE TO -t COMPACTED PER SPECIFICAT iONS. PROVIDE 1 # 5 (MINIMUM) CONTINUOUS PROVIDE NORMAL WORKING STRESS VALUES OF 2,400 PSI IN BENDING 1,100 -"(� BOTTOM OF AIL WALLS AND FOOTINGS. PSI IN TENSION I,600 PSI IN COMPRESSION PARALLEL TO GRAIN 450 PSI COMPRESSION PERPENDICULAR TO GRAIN AND 165 PSI HORIZONTAL SHEAR _ z$z_ dS_ .wt r (COMBINA?ION 24F-V3). LAMINATED MEMBERS TO BE AI?C CERTIFIED. THE _ -- _ . D. CONCRETEFABRICATOR SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT. USE WATERPROOF - .4 MINIMUM � `I CLASS ANC? USE F'C SLUMP SACKS/C.Y. REMARKS �" 1 f p , LINE: ` PLYWOOD �..'�% .�'1 ` 1/� L� (� �1 C -� i # A - FOOTINGS AND 21000 3 = 4 5-1/2 279± • `'� FOUNDATIONS PLYWOOD ROOF AND WALL SHEATHING TO BE C-D INT-AFA (WITH ! EXTERIOR GLUE) PER U.B.C. STANDARD NO. 25-9 UNLESS NOTED AS B - SLABS ON GRADED 29000 3-4 5-1/2 OTHERWISE. MINIMUM PLYWOOD NAILING TO BE 6" O.C. AT ALL � SUPPORTED EDGES AND 12" O.C. AT INTERIOR SUPPORTS. NAILS TO BE 10d ` C - STRUCTURAL 31000 3-4 5-1/2 * COMMON FOR 1/2", 5/81', AND 3/4" PLYWOOD ROOF AND FLOOR SHEATHING. STAGGER END LAPS AT ROOF AND FLOOR SHEATHING. NAILS SHALL BE 10d CONCRETE ABOVE �, ;;` ��� ; " GROUND FLOOR COMMON FOR 1/2" WALL SHEATHING (ALL EDGES TO BE BLOCKED). - • PLY CLIPS }''�,�i"I �•.��G �G� � � * Fc = 3,000 PSI FOR RETAINING WALLS (INSPECTION REQUIRED) SUPPORTS SHALL BE SUPPLIED TO ALL PLYWOOD EDGES WITH , K BLOCKING TONGUE AND GROOVE PLYWOOD JOINTS OR OTHER APPROVED 1. AIR -ENTRAINING AGENT (696 to 1096 MINIMUM) TO BE' USED IN ALL METHODS PER APA RECOMMENDATION.. CONCRETE FLATWORK EXPOSED TO WEATHER 2. POSSOLITH 300 SERIES (4 OZ. PER 100# OF CEMENT) TO BE USED IN ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL f f , CONCRETE. STRUCTURAL GRADE ASTM A36, FY = 36,000 PSI. PIPE COLUMNS ASTM A53, Now 3 MIX MAY BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF GRADE B> FY = 35,000 PSI. STRUCTURAL TUBING COLUMNS ASTM A500, _j � 0 SECTION 2604 OF THE U.B.C. GRADE B, FY = 4b,0G0 PSI. ALL STEEL EXCEPT STEEL EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE SHALL BE GIVEN ONE SHOP COAT OF APPROVED PAINT. WELDS ' TO BE 3116" MINIMUM CONTINUOUS FILLET BY CERTIFIED WELDERS. FIELD cq 4. ,WATER - CEMENT RATIO PER U.B.C. TABLE 26-A. CONNECTIONS NOT SHOWN SHALL BE BOLTED FRAMED BEAM CONNECTIONS PER RISC. ALL BOLTS TO BE A325. DURING ERECTION, _ mS.TRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE SECURED FROM COLLAPSING WITH REINFORCING STEEL , TEMPORARY BRACING WHERE EXPANSION ANCHORS ARE SPECIFIED, THE - . r :� �, ��/ 91 + r .i-;�►"` — _ -- _; CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER A SAMPLE r ASTM A615 GRADE, 40 REINFORCING STEEL DETAILS SHALL BE P�ZEPARED �OF THE ANCHOR TO BE USED WITH LABORATORY DATA OF PULL` -OUT AND i BY AN EXPERIENCED APPROVED DETAILER AND CONFORM TO STANDARD I✓I PRACTICE OUTLINED IN ACI REPORT 315. SHEAS � GTH. - - • -FIREP47 CONCRETE OVER OF REINFORCING - MASOWY""FIREPLACES AND CHIMNEYS ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO " CONCRETE POURED AGAINST EARTHU.M.C.3 C CONFORM TO ALL APPLICABLE PORTIONS OF THE U.B.C. AND UMC` FLUE��� , _ .' �' • � /,•-� ,r 1 { �� E WITH EARTH BACKFILL LINER MINIMUM 5'8" FIRE CLAY (OR EQUIV-) PER U.B.C. SECTION 3703(D) � � `, l/ri �L��•��' 2 FORMED CONCRETE WI AND TABLE 37.5. FLUE AREA PER U.B.C. TABLE 37-A. CHIMNEYS SHALL SUPPORT' ONLY THEIR OWN WEIGHT UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO 1-1/2" BEAMS AND COLUMNS (STIRRUPS TIES) WALL EXPOSED TO SUPPO'f ADDITIONAL LOADS. _ WEATHER SLABS ON MOISTURE BARRIER 1" WALLS INSIDE FACE ALL FIREPLACES ARE TO BE PROVIDED WITH TIGHTLY -FITTING FLUE t DAMPERS, OPERATED WITH A READILY ACCESSIBLE MANUAL OR 4 LAP C:ULUMN VEwrlCAL.S, CLASS A, CONCRETE. AND MA :ONRY COLUMN APPROVED AUTOMATIC CONTROL AND AN OUTSIDE SOURCE OF UM DUCT SIZE OF 6 S MINIMUM T B. COMUSION AIR, MMQUARE INCHES IN AREA, _ AND WALL VERTICALS 32 DIAMETERS LAP ALL OTHER REINFORCING 24 �lu DIAMETERS. SPLICES AT TENSION REGIONS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. PROVIDED WITH READILY OPERABLE DAMPER LOCATED IN FRONT PART OF • ' % FIREBOX. PREFABRICATED FIREPLACES CHIMNEYS AND RELATED 'COMPONENTS TO�1 1 FRAMING BEAR UL OR ICBO SEAL OF APPROVAL AND TO BE INSTALLED PER ANY ALL FRAMING TO COMPLY WITH U.B.C. CHAPTER 25. NAIL SIZES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. '' — SPACING TO CONFORM TO U.B.C. SECTION 2517(J), TABLE 25-P AND SECTION 2510(F). BOLTS AND OTHER FASTENERS TO CONFORM TO U.B.C. SECTION 2510. DOORS AND WINDOWS .. • � .. .. .. ALL GLAZING TO BE DOUBLE GLAZING, WITH MAXIMUM "U" VALUE OF 0.65.GC✓1/�� , ALL WOOD IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE TO BE PRESSURE TREATED. ALL SKYLIGHTS TO BE DOUBLE GLARING, MAXIMUM "U" VALUE OF 0.65. ' LLOWING ALLOWABLE STRESSES FACTORY BUILT WINDOWS TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO PERMIT MAXIMUM ;, / N STRUCTURAL DESIGN IS BASED ON THE FO INFILTRATION OF 0.5 CFM PER LINEAL FOOT OF OPERABLE SASH I,�f (UNITS IN PSI). _PERIMETER A5 TESTED BY. STANDARD ASTM E 283.73. SITE BUILT AND MILL � WORK SHOP BUILT WOODEN SASH ARE EXEMPT FROM INFILTRATION CRITERIA ABOVE, BUT MUST BE MADE TIGHTLY FITTING AND / WEATHERSTRIPPED OR CAULKED. SLIDING GLASS DOORS .TO PERMIT'L''Y MAXIMUM INFILTRATION OF 0.5 CFM PER INFILTRATION OF 1.0 CFM PER LUMBER STRENGTH (UNITS IN PSI) SQUARE FOOT OF DOOR AREA. ,, HCI4HT CALGULATIC2W I.DT Z HAVZOZ VIP-W 6STAT V FB "'''� , - - ttnTY uM� C�1�'oF�DI�IOPlDS GLAZING IN DOORS AND GLAZING 1N HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS DESCRIBED �v4 IN U.B.C. SECTION 540b, TO BE SAFETY GLAZING.' I Nc. r-tA ^ {NVMfi•-o SANI'fA Y Wye T4A VE,N,wov- L , 47,0 51rG�'ioN JOIST RAFTERS t t ZP- rY H war Ewa IZC' Av�.N, Etv+✓V 2�7.r✓a 1 150 1 400 00t'? � <pE�. ?Etuz.Y �IAUTN HEM -FIR #2 75 � ' � tNStlLA' N ",i �� LI EV 310.0- t-1 0 COV AuowAS3LE. WDttiE Llt0 # 0 p1.AT ir�iRIGTI�✓N5 _....._ ANt� GQVENANT�• ''i�-�..�1ZI�iN(� 140.640 �.a0301'i0 ,i AWO 85og23o3o2 BEAMS, HEADERS, LINTELS, GIRDERS 4-UNLESS NOTED uTHEkWtSE, 1NSULATtUP1 TO Bfr AS FOLLOWS, ELEv.31ao - t'1AT14E CI AHeAlZi dl F- iZHINJO(AE UNE P@KAM4-8(a I?EG1510N Or`iNE G�1YH�AIZINU �XAMINEX:.14� V'24-81n Ay AME►JDe✓© 4" NOMINAL DOUG-FIR I'#2 95 1,250 1,700,000EL MAX 25,198to 4" NOMINAL DOUG-FIR Ir#1 95 1,300 1,600,000 � LAN EV. 310.'7 I�IAxIMUM AI10WAelr>z ��t� LINE pEIA':si'AP11?A�:C7MIN. INSULATION MAX. ASSEMBLY dZITISCIA I w IT WOULD NAVE A?I-uED Q. . -_ .. EXI�j'CINLz Lat�CTUI.ID'_t.I:NATl0w - LOCAT N ADDED „�,,, vnl.0 Y G-L- -111'' 2sl�a. uN1>+e >.. GLUE LAMINATED TIMBERS r -- (-- I DOUG-FIR LARCH (24F-V3) 165 2,400 1,700,000 CEILINGS AND ROOFS R-38 03 TOTAL FLOOR AREA i SQ. FT. EXT<rRIOR'WALLS R-19 � 08 WINDOW AREA SQ. FT. � Z'1�t • N.W. LL�SZN�S'� Pt•Uy• LOADING FLOORS OVER UNHEATED SPACES R-19 08 TOTAL GLAZING SQ. FT. I ZSt�� S.vJ.coi�r.lt�Q �-PG. ROOF 15 PSF DEAD LOAD + 23 PSF LIVE LOAD 40 PSF SLAFi FERIMETI'R (1) GLAZING AS A PERCENTAGE OF AREA � '#� � ,� �t � ELF-Y• U5Co-�l©© P 4IE_V tj z 7• FI„OOR 15 PSF DEAD LOAD * 40 PSF" LIVE LOAD a 55 PSF LOAD 15 PSF HEATED SLAB R-6.15 CEILING 5 PSF DEAD LOAD 10 SF LIVE -4 S t'�``' J J Ex�r�l µt�5 G�I✓Gt5itzl.! DECK 15 PSF DEAD LOAD + 63 PSF LIVE LOAD a 80 PSF UNhti@AT1�p SLAM R .2 Y � .-- ELECTRIC WATER HEATERS R-16 � r 0 f eY:�? INTERIOR PARTITION 10 PSF GAS WATER HEATERS P-16 RC 5115ENC:t' �4 ' FT. ��i�•�i�,.�"/A`° ' a EXTERIOR PARTITION 10 PSF bUCTS IN UNHEATED SPACES I4-6 C'ARJI►C'I, � ' , FIT. 13C C" So. 1' T. PORCHES SQ. VT. ` ] / / / n Im Zvv7 �O,C/T le r—� IV7 Yiewl6vd WAY