Loading...
1226 7TH AVE S.PDF111111111111 6955 1226 7TH AVE S r ADDRES S: 6 7 , -5 TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: 15 C/, L/ DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMEIVT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED :PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: �j LOT: BLOCK: (" SIDE SEV/ER AS BUILT DATED: v SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: 1 / SOILS REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DA' OTHER: L:\TEMPOST's\FonnAStreet File Checklist.doc .04/169'2004 15:08 425747JS1 ,G E—.. (Do T E-C H CONSULTANTS, INC. Alan Jackson 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 99037 GEOTECH • PAGE. 014012 13256 Northcnst 20th Stpnt,:Suiiq' Bellevue- Washin tp -.,9 1 (425) 747-5618 FAX(425)'743?0$67 AjOfii1 16, 20o4 JN 03322 Subject: Review of Dispersion System Plans Proposed Residences -- Lots 1, 2, and 3 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: via facsirrlife' (425) 767--97 f2 We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed }tormwater dispersion trenches to be constructed on the northern three lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) of the ,subplat. The plans we reviewed included Sheets C-1 through C-6. The plans were prepared by ,;;SP Engineering and are dated October 13, 2003, We completed a geotechnical study of this site on September 3, 2003. The proposed dispersion trenches are to be located along the western edge of the development area. The natural grades on the land to the west of the proposed dispersion trenches are inclined at approximately 20 to 30 percent and the slope is fully vegetated with mature trees and undergrowth. The grading plan and drainage plans indicate that the new dispersion systems will be located at existing grades with no fill added to the existing grades above or below the system. A vegetated filter strip will be installed along the downslope side of the dispersion trenches to create a level discharge area and to reduce potential erosion. Given the relatively gentle inclination of the slope below the proposed dispersion system and the roil conditions observed in our test pits, it is our opinion, provided that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical study are followed, that the installation of the planned dispersion system wili not result in slope instability of the subject site. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC, s 04/16i2004 15:08 42574701 GEOTECH PAGE 02/02 .Alan Jackson JN 03322 April 16, 2004 Page 2 We trust this letter fulfills your needs at this time. Please contact us with any questions or if we can further assist you. Respectfully submitted, Ci�spr� GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. EXP �34 �- . James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. '�.• Geotechnical Project Manager cc: Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stott or Dave Stafford via facsimile: (425) 984-0120 Lisa Bride via facsimile. (425) 672-9182 Mountain Shadow Construction — Jerry Dawes via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 JIHS: jhs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. �y -, �, �9, RECEIVED 10 SEP 14 2004 PERMIT COUNTER STREET FILE 0 PLANNING DATA NAME: d4STf11C-fhs DATE: o (( o SITE ADDRESS: of • S. PLAN CHK#: Oti- V k PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NS REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: es / No MAP PAGE(: 0 CORNER LOT: es / No FLAG LOT: es / No ZONING: I\ /' CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: Study Required: w M/i'[TjL't-r-k �— ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) Exempt SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Street: a-o ' Left Side: S Right Side: S / Rear: . 1 S �r°^f ^ 2 f o Actual Setbacks: , N Street:-�O Left Side: S Right Side: S Rear: S ' Street map checked for additional setback required? es / No A dCcK _i Y ❑_ DETACHED STRUCTURES: � i \ ( S 6��, ❑ ROCKERIES: ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: t 6 tM" i HT6^, O�C� let�irL� dt .�i .'Td e-t-. D.,�e ❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: i ;M6rvoy ❑ STAIRS / DECKS: ^ b; Seildk ��Zc - S��v(� r . �vj'�• 3 /e�tl��t�,� PARKING: Required:__gL_Actuai: LOT AREA: 13 1 b J 7 LOT. COVE . ' 2. sK�/ l Y�3q = (3 °l Calculations: 13UILDING HEIGHT: Datum Poif Maximum JLD.U. CREATED?J Se"4- /'-19A 6L Elevation: Xyd• 1 Height: :iUBDIVISION: LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION [ISSUED: ffes& OTHER: I-CtkdSLr�ff��� �{ �,�f� 6� 1,sn.11ed /��1o,/ 7T-, occ..�1�Cy Plan Review NewBPPlanningDataForm.DOC EdmandaUth Ave Wetland I T:10741110t0121CrIUca1 Areas r 51MM N88°30,11YW N 19c 8� Jl�.__N w w w. �. �' �Nt99'� . w 1 1' 1 1 •t I � I � 1 PIP LOT taatasw' ,•` '19 1 I' � ,Willow Creek . .. - • _ .: � ( � � � 1 , �?f ' ' .-�IIIIf •� I f 1 w . • : . .. ' . i � ' ' i 1' f ' i i 1 ; SMR. U.1L 11�a `I'• 1`0 .. 24 � t1 >d i i ' v. •i i I I � I . 1 i i � ' I rldn ' I `� Ir. 15 01 tri 3 .. �. w '�(� 1,/{0 " • . . w w i i I `' � �,� I 1` +*fit .� n � Q4a �n -I `- :\�� • 'SWR. Ci0. 1 ((1 o P- •. ♦. w w ♦ • w. ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ' 1 1. 1. I r�? i 1 I 1 1 I • Gr1 1 '^ 1 ' 1 I 1 Y ill 1 ; ; I' 1 `•/ Q� ------ • - - + w w lf;i„�F; w • • '�. �1` ', t{y�(TtLa ;� �p ��y 1 e R Q WAYS • . .. . w .. `� 1 .Il a'�.' 1 ; �.� 1 1 '7 is, I 't .tSfYC)IC • .. . • wL fy1)�i i I , 4ih h� ,' i '' •' ''� � •290.77 "IVV • w V ♦. ♦' I r of a . • w � w � a . . • • • w . . 'i i i �,'��,{ i � 1 i i' � � Cf. C.U. \ 200 I N88'30'11"W 290.8� 1 •- DW 12' CONC CUUM 1 I SOUn;e: AFM Industries 2003 0 50 100 LANDAU 1230 7th Avenue South ' Figure ASSOCIATES Scale in Feet Edmonds, Washington Wetland Flagging Map 140 10.7' 5' olf 10' Q 11.5 ~ 16' 7' 1.5' �� of ED*o� CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS —BUILT ADDRESS HOMEOWNER V v' 1226 - 7 AVE S CONTRACTOR SCALE DAWS CONSTRUCTION NTS DATE DRAM PERMJT 1890 03/14/2005 SIBREL BY NO 12004-0923 1 7 ' /0"�� J 0 N� r 7`24 CITY OF E®11 ONDS v yet AS -BUILT ADDRESS 7 b---A v PERMIT NUMBER _. )9,z HOMEOWNER CONTRACTOR s DATE _ ? 3 4e-5 DRAWN BY /� A ..y*•t. .� 'i.... 'iV 1Jl.:.'kfY••.v^'.• .w�Yt'4'�� rNl.r � ^M.NI .^(i:f.tY'�Jti 'y,,•-�nl�" .I.-.,, ,.1..'.r .n, l..a•�rl •, 'u:�vu. o.rr, ,.tev r.r- ..vuy ��r.v :. W�.�N .,,K'+1N�:9 t�"l�ii`^axu-.V7':. 'tr�, ,. ,;� 'T' c. t a'. 6_1 'City Of Edmonds_`ERMIT NO: 9965 SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES � f'�IO I�LUdx, I� Address of Construction: `7 i" N Property Tax Account Parcel No. 7 :7C2� Z_Q)n —3 01100 Attach copies of all access and utility easement s=� Verified and Approved b11 y'"" Owner and/or Contractor: WI M Contractor License #: hl Eltl/li��L' T7-7 H Building Permit # Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) ❑ Public Invasion into City.*Right-of Way: ❑ Yes No *RW Construction :Permit # Cross other "Private Property: ❑ Yes No **Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement. Own olr vn-lfact'or signature and acknowledgement statement: By lgning this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled &ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein. Assessment Fee $ Receipt No: 'L`7 0-? 4- City Permit Surcharge Fee $5.W 1 Total Fees Paid $ .-7`7 rJ Date NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A .$45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready YES NO Date: Initial: Parlial Inspection: .1amph ie COyw Ill dnVj,0W Date:-/ �J�- Initial: Partial Inspection: Date: Initial: FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Initial: As -built to Street File: �. f� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE White Copy: FileGreen Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bldg;l'orms;ssperm itj lg4/00 O V) of EDZ,_ I CITY OF EDMONDS AS— BUILT ADDRESS HOMEOWNER CONTRACTOR IDATE ✓� j ( DRAWN 1IBY SCALE NTS PERMIT NO. qq W,� _ ■ 1 1L VV W 1 L 6' C,❑, louse Ties into Sewer Main Installed w/ Short Plat W Q of E'Do CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS BUILT IN, _„r d ADDRESS SCALE `' _ 1226 7TH AVE S NTS fit. 1890 HOMEOWNER 1CONTRACTOR MOUNTAIN SHADOW DATE DRAWN 2/22/05 BY I. ABILA PERMIT NO. 9965 Srwt7k F-)e9,c-r0R Pvk" O- U S&,,'� ,. 14 Y L- J I L- V I L- u 1 1 60 MIN. LANDING 1 2x8 #2HF 50 12 ABV ( 50 12 ABV I i 50 12 ABV I 2x8j �y2HF o S66p�� S�iFVGL I P.T. LEDGER 5040 XO ! 5040 XO I 5040 X0 P.T.ILEOGEIt MAX STEP TO LND I o 40 #20F m a 4x10 $20F 3 'x 1 " 24F-V4 GLB 4x10 #2DF' i i II D i to i y 7 V n ®a a i BED RM #2 BED RM BED RM #4 xb i CARPET CARPET CARPET 1 d O Flo� o z � t e I IL L6 6'-0' e`-o" 1q O � a. I a ti Q0 50`BP w U 26 WARD Ld Ij dcP is 12'-4" 12'-6" SINGLE JOIST 301 ,! Pi0 ES ''aII 20 1 I L. 6" A.F.F.2a IL RAILUP 4 6 COLUMN BC48 70 BM pq 2 BR G WALL 4z8 D MIN. 8x8 COLUMN 5 z 18° 24F V4 GLB OR BC8 To BM x 16V' 24F V4 GLB C OPT: PKT INTC FLR JSTS VINYL � O o 6'-2" 3 10'-10" 18`-0" d m Q_ iA u 5' TUB/SNOTE WR U SEE NOTES exv MEDIA ROOM 11 RECEIVEICI CARPET SEP 14 2004 26 PERMIT COUNT (w7 FUR v�` STORAGE Q o (D N1;1 n I STREET FI 6x12 SCREE ED VQVT. u A • , kYrr PaA.'M SAKE lffff ProdUra information presented here reflects conditions at time of publication. Consult fac- tory n:parding discrepancies or incorrWencies. MAIL TO: P0. 80X 16347- Louisville, KY 40256-0347 SHIP 70. 3649 Cane Run Road - Louisville, KY 40211-1961 (502) 778-2731.1(800) 928-PUMP- FAX (502) 774-3624 SECTION: 3.10.015 FM2164 O 04N Supersedes 0703 visit our web site: http.11www.zoeller.com 912 _ SIMPLEX SEWAGE PACKAGE SYSTEMS (JOB RDY1A S BLED) Zoeller Preassembled Sewage Systems More Choices Easier Installation Fast Delivery Saves Labor Reduces Installation Errors SOLUTIONS 912-0017 (Indoor) 912-0063 Deluxe Basin (Indoor) 11 912-0056 (Indoor) 912-0082 (Outdoor) SYSTEMS INCLUDE, (Indoor) • Y sollids handling pump. • 2' PVC discharge pipe, 30" long (36' long on 24" X 36). • Basins - polyethylene, poly -foam or fiberglass construction with poly or solid steel covers and 4° pipe seal hub, 4• PVC hub (Deluxe) or 4" cast iron hub on LA Code Systems. • Check valve options - 30-0151, 30-0020, 30-0021, 30-0101 or 30-0103 (Not Included). • Systws available with alarms and preinstalled alarm float. • Premium indoor systems have a split cover for easy pump inspection; torque stops and an anti -flotation device. Outdoor systems rated for outdoor burial - solid polyethylene structural foam lid and basin with 2' discharge on side. • 3116" vent hole drilled. 0 Copyright 2004 Zoeller Co. All rights reserved. TOTAL DYNAMIC HEADIFLOW PER MINUTE • MODELS 211 264 66 F RkreM G-W. i om. LiS�s r�u. 5 'I'S 82 310 90 W 128 484 10 ai 53 201 60 227 89 337 15 �L6 32 121 23 87 50 189 20 z1 10 38 ShrtoCHed 19.Samg.) 18 IL(55 j 21.58.(6.6m) MONS:Zoeller recommends aHigh Water Alam for added protection. Systems shown below in bold del Alarm. For other alarm pi^ngge;�1�. F options, see EY 732 2" vent 3" vent Weight Order by Itern # Order by Item # Pump Basin Type Basin Sae Each 9124)073 — M211 Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard 18' X 30' 39 9124)007 912-0021 M264 Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard 18' X 30' 56 912-11007 — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard with Alarm 18' X 30' 59 9124)006 — Poly-10' stack 18' X 30' 65 9124)061 — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Deluxe 18' X 3(' 59 9124)069 — Poly -with Integral Side Vent 18' X 30' 50 9124)078' — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Deluxe 24' X 36' 82 912-(XM — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam w/ AFD 18' X 3(r 64 912-11086 Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wf AFD & Alarm 18" X 30" 67 912-0010 912-0025 M266 Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard 18' X 30' 61 12.11010. — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard with Alarm 18' X 30" 6 9124)012 — Fiberglass -Standard 18' X 30' 74 912fi063 — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Deluxe 18' X 30' 64 912-0070 — Poly -with Integral Side Vent 18' X 30' 55 912-0079' — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Deluxe 24' X 36' 87 91241088 — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam w/ AFD 18' X 3(r 69 912-11088 Premium Poll"thyterm Structual Foam vd AFD & Alarm t8' X 30' 72 9124)074 — BN211 with P.B. VL.F.S. Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard 18' X 3(r 39 9124)005 912-M BN264 with P.B. Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard 18' X 30' 56 9124005 — Variable Level Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard wit Alarm 18" X 30" 59 9124)016" — Float Switch Fiberglass-10' stack, LA code 18' X 30' 78 912.0055 — Poly with Integral Side Vent 18' X 30' 50 912-11055 — Poly wit Integral Side Vent with Alarm Is" X 30' 53 912-0065 — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Deluxe 18' X 30' 59 91241080' — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Deduce 24' X 36' 82 912-11080' — Polyethylene Structural Foam40eltme with Alarm 24' X 35" 85 9124)087 — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam w/AFD 18' X 30' 64 912-11087 Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wf AFD & Alarm 18" X 30" 67 9124)017 912-0033 BN266 with P.B. Polyethylene Structural Foam -Standard 18' X 30' 61 912-11017 — Variable Level Polyethylene Structural FoarnSfamdard with Alarm 18" X 30' 64 912-0018 — Float Switch Poly-10' stack 18' X 3(' 67 91241019 — Fiberglass -Standard 18' X 30' 75 912-0020" — Fiberglass-10' stack, LA code 18' X 30' 79 912-(IM — Poly with Integral Side Vent 18' X 30' 55 912.1056 — Poly with Integral Side Vent with Alarm 18' X 30" 58 912-0067 — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Deluxe 18' X 30' 64 912-11067 — Poly Structural Foam-Delmce vd Alarm 18" X 30" 67 912-0081' — Polyethylene Structural Foam -Deluxe 24' X 36' 87 912-11081• — Polyethylene Structural Foam4)dure with Alarm 24" X 36' 90 9124)089 — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wl AFD 18' X 30' 69 9124089 — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wf AFD & Alum 18' X 30" 72 Outdoor Rated Basins Weight Order by Item If Pump Basin Type Basin Sae Each 912-0082 — M264 Polyethylene Structural Foam 18' X 30' 61 912-11082 — Polyethylene Structural Foam with Alarm 18" X 30' 66 91241090 — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wf AFD 18' X 30' 72 912-11090 Premium Polyethylene Structrual Foam wf AFD & Alarm 18' X 30" 72 912-(KM — BN264 w/ P.B. VLFS Polyethylene Structural Foam IT X 30' 62 912-11083 — Pohretyleae Structural Foam wit Alarm 18" X 30' 67 91241091 — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam w/ AFD 18' X 30' 72 912-11091 Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wt AFD & Alarm 18' X 30' 76 9124084 — M266 Polyethylene Structural Foam 18' X 30' 62 912-11084 — Polyethylene Structural Foam wit Alarm 18' X 30" 67 912-(XW — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wl AFD 18' X 30' 73 1092 Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wl AFD & Alarm 18' X 30" 76 — BN266 wl PB. VLFS Polyethylene Structural Foam 18' X 31Y085 L11124085 — Polyethylene Structural Foam with Alarm 18"X30"1093 — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam w/AFD 18' X 30'1093 — Premium Polyethylene Structural Foam wr AFD & Alarm 18' X 30" 77 '24' X 36' 0rdy Stripped irdividua4 " 4' Cast bon Hub on LA Code Systems. PACKAGING 18' X 30' Simplex Systems are shipped four units to a skid 24' X 36' are shipped individually. All unds are property secured with a 2' PVC discharge pipe in the basins to avoid shifting or upsetting the pump and switch mechanism. Float switch is secured with tape that is easily removed through the inlet hub opening. Premium basins have torque stops for prevention of shipping damage to the pump. All other systems are packaged with environment safe peanuts that are water soluble. - No need to remove. ® Copyright 2004 Zoeller Co. All rights reserved. /T ei-Chick® The it Combo" 30-0100 30-0102 1'A" PVC CHECK VALVE I BALL VALVE I UNION COMBINATION 1 %" PVC CHECK VALVE I UNION COMBINATION i PVC" VC B30-0103 ECKYA-L �E,1 �lLI�IAt N10N COLIARIuAT]AD6 2" PVC CHECK VALVE I UNION COMBINATION • Check valve full flow design and meets BOCA (P.604.2) & IAPMO (PS 38-91) Full Flow Pump Code. • Threaded union allows pump to be removed without disrupting discharge piping. - Saves time and money - Easy to install. • Neoprene gasket and flapper, weighted with stainless steel backing plates and stainless steel rivet. • Can be installed on vertical or horizontal pipe. • Meets plumbing codes requiring a ball valve installed in conjunction with a check valve. • All stainless steel screws. • Replaceable flapper in the check valve. Extr,3 wide hinge to reduce stress. Rated for 25 psi (58 ft. of head). - 6 Per carton (30-0100 & 30-0101). • 9 Per carton (30-0102 & 30-0103). 1(502) MAIL Tt): P.O. BOX 16347 Louisvipe, KY 40256 0347 Manufacturers of.. i IU: 3649 Cane Run Road /-Louisvi(fe, Icv 4021ta9 �4- l P� Swr /939 http:/Mnww.zoeUercom PUMP L O FAX (501) �692&PUMP 24 .....................................................-----------------------------------------------.....---------------------._......------------------------------------....-.—...-..-----------------............------ © Copyright 2=1 Zoeller Co. All rights reserved. ..V1J/47.7/LOU.7 1/:Oo 4L.7/YAe1 GE TECH CONS TANTS, INC. i Ala i Jackson 1 r..4 01 Highway 99 Lyr nwood, Washington 99037 s4ect: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Wilderness 61uff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: I=U 1 r_Url 41 f-F4= WX 13256 Ncrthu t 20th Strect. Suite 16 . Bellovuo, Washington 9800 (425) 747-3618 FAX (425) 747-8561 RECEIVE September 3, 2003 SEP 0 0 2003 JN 03322 DEVELOPMENT SE9VI1r,' BUILDING SEP 2 2 2003 via facsimile: (425) 787-9112 W� are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed single-family res dences to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide rec6mmendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. Thi work was authorized by your acceptance of our Contract for Professional Services dated July 24.2003. W . were provided with a preliminary site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM Ind stries, Inc. developed this plan, which is dated September 14, 2002. Based on this plan and on onversations with Alan Jackson, we anticipate that the development will consist of dividing the ap roximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. Thy houses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue South and will be set back 25 feet fro the street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight ba ement. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of ap roximately 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish floor elevation. No development is proposed on the western side of the site, as this area is a deslianated wetland. If t e scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided wit revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of thi , report are warranted. SITE CONDITION SURFACE Th fII Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The undeveloped, wooded site is Ibcated on the western side of 7th Avenue South in Edmonds. The site slopes from east to west, twit elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastern comer to. approximately ,Z feet at the southwestern comer. Most of the western part of the site is a relatively flat ieignated wetland, and there is a creek that winds along the western property line. The proposed :1e4elopment area is located on the sloped, eastern portion of the site. The slopes are inclined at ;gyp I roximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous and evergreen trees. The ground is I GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 't` ,... ..... �:...., ar. vv 1iJ/1I YJY♦ ILu ICk.n VAUL 03 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 2 Gov red 'with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with ferns and other low groNAh vegetation elsewhere. There is an area on the southern part of the site where app oximatety 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally stee per slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered thro Lighout the site. The adjoining properties are developed with single-family residences. subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven test pits at the approximate ons shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the used construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during ration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. Th� test pits were excavated on July 24, 2003 with a small, rubber -tracked trackhoe provided and operated by Alan Jackson. A geotechnical engineer from • our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" sa, plea of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are (provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report. e test pits encountered a 6- to 24-inch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand d gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel with' cobbles d occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel fill was encountered overlying topsoil in Test Pits 1, 4, and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was countered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below existing grade. The depths of it layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact finition of soil unit thicknesses would require more explorations. rge amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered +oughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and in the fill. This debris will need be removed during site clearing. Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet in Test Pits 3 and 5; however, the test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs sent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual ition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between oration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive rintions based on the conditions observed during excavation. Th compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in he area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the. backfill will need to be removed and rer laced with structural fill during construction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. UWV121tuvo antic rtvrrOIL uQuic,.n . rlluC nV AI n Jackson • • JN 03322 Se tember 3, 2003 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OP OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A -RAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE AINED /N THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD � THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and rutting one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presented in this t are based on the assumption that the earthwork for all of the houses can be completed at If the development plans change, we should be notified so that we may update our emendations accordingly. test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill, topsoil, and highly weathered sand and lei overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered veen 1 and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer encountered near top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered iw the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on ventlonal foundations. These soils are also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the The topsoil and weathered sand may be reused as fill in non-structural areas such as Iscaping beds. Dumped construction debris, yard waste, and garbage were observed unhout the site. This material is not suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed during site Ba ed on the topographic Information provided to us, and on our understanding of the project. so ne cuts and fills will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of 8 to 10 feet be ow existing street grade. Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25 feet from the edge of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) can be made witpin the eastern property line. Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and gr vel; the fill and debris encountered near the surface on most of the site should be removed du ing site clearing. Also, groundwater was encountered in two of the downslope test pits during ex oration. If groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side of the site, th cut slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To mii:igate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table, the cuts may ha6,e to be backfilled with rock ballast. We should be contacted at once if groundwater is en untered during the excavation of the cut slopes. All cut slopes should be protected immediately with plastic sheeting and should be monitored daily by the superintendent for inc ications of instability. Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the t0ii of any cut slope. T foundation walls between the adjacent residences are approximately 10 feet apart as shown on the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be re oved as part of the mass excavation where it cannot be inclined at 1:1 (H.V). Taking into a oust a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot ex 3 feet between the foundation walls. oEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. va'i tvnJ a F : no V G:J f V 4, Hsu i ��.n • rlo*= 07 Alai i Jackson • • JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 4 Based on the site plan, it appears as though cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be necessary to ach eve finish floor elevations of the northernmost houses and southernmost. The plan shows eac i of these houses set back 5 feet from the northern and southern property lines, respectively. Because the site soils may be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (H:V) shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts unless the finished floor elevations of these structures are revised. We can mate recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Ba ed on the topographic information provided to us, fill on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to vel the finish floor of each house at its proposed finish floor elevation. However, we recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. Finished fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2.5:1 (H:1). Depending on the desired back yard layout and the location of the wetland buffer, it may prove more economical to overexcavate, place the clov,nslope foundations on native. dense sand and gravel and leave a tall crawl space, or to step the buildings down the slope. Alternatively, a reinforced fill rockery could be constructed near the w tem edge of the development area to level the site. Regardless of which method is chosen, we rec mmend'that the downslope foundation wall be designed as a retaining wall to retain the soil within the crawl space or beneath the slab down to the footing level. Fill rockeries taller than 4 feet will Irequire geogrid reinforcement; we can provide a design if necessary. We should review the grading plans once the house layouts are finalized. The site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. The earthwork con ractor should prepare the fill areas by removing the topsoil and highly weathered sand above the root line. The new fill should be benched into the dense native soils by cutting flat benches into the dense native soils. Each horizontal lift of fill should be tested to ensure that adequate con paction is being achieved. The foundation walls should be backfidled with free -draining structural fill. The site sand and gravel bel w the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfill. Footing drains should be installed at the bas a of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent foteen cation drainage system, so two separate drains would .need to be placed in the backfill Cie the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and !! le on control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather con itionssiothat are encountered during construction. Site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil and the erosion. potential on the site is moderate due to the slope of the site. We anticipate tha a sift fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any Geared areas and around the Wet ands. Straw bales should be placed against the silt fence for added protection during grading. Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud can pied off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alig meat of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet uve they. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. tech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the mmendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan ,w would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include ;ions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical ,traints that become more evident during the review process. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. u 7/ u." LCJUJ . A. f. V O Y L J f V r 1 All Jackson 34tember 3, 2003 ULu I r t M I'A= nb • JN 03322 Page 5 recommend includingreport, in its entirely, this po in the project contract documents. This report ild also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings .and CONSIDERATIONS Thg site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The SRO soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. FOUNDATIONS Tho proposed residences. can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings be ring on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up to 5 feet of property compacted str�cturai fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork an Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density tes ng during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation shc uld be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have bet n exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum wi hs of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. Footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths. or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and eq ,ipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. .An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings su rted on the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed ab a these competent native soils. A c rd increase in this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short-term ,n►i or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction :;ettement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in Ihi ness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a ciis nce of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the I bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the fou idation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following Lifth iate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading- GEOTECN CONSULTANTS. INC. Aldn Jackson • Se�tember 3, 2003 PARAMETER ULTIMATE VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pd Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) passive earth presau►e is computed using the equivalent fluid density. JN 03322 Page 6 If tote ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised. recommendation. We recommend mJintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when uslina the above ultimate values. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS R aining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures im ed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain . le I backfill: PARAMETERVALUE Active Earth Pressure " 30 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pof Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight I- I 135 pef Where: (i) pcf Is pounds per cubic foot, and (If) active and Passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 time Is height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psi times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of. a ining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values do not Include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters uld be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from comers or bends in the walls. is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur when: a wall is restrained by a design values given above do not inciude the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent latlons will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. U20 vai ww ar.vo 14su1404 lLu1r_%1M ►+q(L lots Xar i Jackson • • JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 7 to tt a above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to b 9 given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid. denjity; a traffic surcharge should be applied to the eastern foundation wall of each residence. He construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a di tance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pre ures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be wellicompacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be ecomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the hig r soil forces that occur during compaction. ickfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining uctural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt clay' particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of rticies passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native sand d gravel encountered below the root line during our explorations is suitable for reuse as ainina wall backfill. purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a ining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the . The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively armeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved., The ground surface must also e away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains immendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining foundation walls. e above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. The rformance of subsurface drainage systems will degrade over time. Therefore, iterproofing should be provided where moist conditions or some seepage through the ills are not acceptable in the future. This typically includes limiting cold -joints and wall netrabons, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. plying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but will only help prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action, from seeping through concrete. With any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is mrtant to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete Its from the surrounding soil. building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on aural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab truction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and ced with select, imported structural fill. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC.- Alat Jackson JN 03322 Se ember 3, 2003 Page 8 All labs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that dis 111ture ssed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. As noted by the American Concrete Ins ute (ACI) in Section 3.23 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper. protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, woc d, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI aisc notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is deft ied as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as etermined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, augh the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However, ff no potential for vr passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as Rded by, ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour wh+ tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can me0l this requirement. In tiiie recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded con ipactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be pla( ed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a'blotter" to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI Ifter,iture because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Th refore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab is ill stalled, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that. because there Is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, ,join spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture .be used, and "other me ures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of W4er Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" gerierally agrees with the recent ACI literature. W recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these ,iss es and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on he use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all ime= should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. anticipate thatrockeries may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry is should be placed behind rockeries to reduce the potential for soil eroding through them. A )rated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries. recommend limiting till rockeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent ie soil. The lower two-thirds of the rockery should be constructed with 3- to 4-man rocks and fill should be placed and compacted to structural fill requirements. Prior to rockery ;truction, the fill should be placed beyond the planned rockery location and then cut nearly cal so that the soil in back of the rockery is thoroughly compacted. Since grading plans were established at the time of this report, the relationship between the proposed footings and ' - ------OEOTECH-CONSWT-ANTS-tNC. 177/OJ/LGOJ 1/:VV 4L0/40 1 k=UIMiln 1� r"M I Nad Jackson • • JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 9 proposed osed rockeries could not be determined. Foundations closer to the back of the rockery than two times the height of the rookery would exert a surcharge on the adjacent rockeries; surcharged rocgenes or rockeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill. Welcan provide a rockery detail if necessary. Th J construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering me hods and standards. It is imperative that rockeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a pro r manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction. The roc eries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local pra ice and City of Edmonds standards. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or 1 clusions, should not be used, in order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed ov time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the de gn. VATIONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety, regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted verticaRy in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be mane near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Ad inistrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Ty B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet. in height cannot be excavated at an incl nation steeper than., 11 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bo om of a cut. As discussed in the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes ca lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. If groundwater is encountered in any of the cuts at the sit , the excavation should be immediately backfilled to above the line of seepage and the ge .technical engineer should be called to the site to evaluate the need for remedial measures. above -recommended temporary slope. inclination is based on what has been successful at sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a vely short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. )orary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes Id also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. le note that gravel can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility actors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All'permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should nol be constructed with an inclination greater than 2.5:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow slo ighing, fill must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the slo a face is important for longterm stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of pal tos, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Th can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inc ination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or pe anent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate :i cies of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. 12 disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the slo Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed onIthe slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil. - - ...--- t------ -- - GEOTECH CONSULTAN __ I__.__--- - - - - -- ---- --- -----.---- -ow 0.41 knna i 1: nes vZa i 1 k*-u I W-1 PAGE 11 Naf i Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 10 We anticipate that cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish floo elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there mat be insufficient room within the property lines to make the proposed cuts are on the northern sid of the northernmost house and the southern side of the southernmost house. If the house to 'ions or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope inclinations, sho ng will be required to make the proposed cuts. We can provide design recommendations for s ng if it is necessary. CONSIDERATIONS Fodndation drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We recommend that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage system. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. -These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert shc uld be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it shc uld be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the fou idation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 3. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. In jeneral, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should th4 become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. Grdundwater was observed during excavation of the test pits. If seepage is encountered in an. ex( avation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pip.-, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at t ie bottom of the excavation. excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away n the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, )s, or pavements.are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the residences uld slope away at least 2 percent, except when: the area is paved. Surface drains should be Tided where necessary • to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. litionally, a drainage swale should be provided upslope of each residence to intercept surface ,off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each, of driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, m water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to litable outfall located away from any slopes. EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL PILL Iding and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed Ihout the site; these materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or ed sand and gravel above. the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as iral fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. - - GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,-INC. --- OW Wit lnnJ A 1: Ou 4'L7 /4 i ULU I ECH I PAGE 12 l Is I Ala r>I Jackson JN 03322 Sep{{ember 3. 2003 Page 11 Stru tural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to s pport loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or nea 1, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that resk Its in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and mut I be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the Generw sec Ion, the on -site gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we re mmend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. Th allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction pment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness ild not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not ciently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the i to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents mmended relative compactions for structural fill: Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, emrosssd in percentages, of the compacted dry danslty to the maximum dry densny, as determined In accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 158T-91 (ModlGed Proctors. General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the ,el below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. Structural fill that will be placed in weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a sift or day content of no more than 5 ,ent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that Ion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site iitions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater Mons encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. if subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those arved in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are monly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil pies in test pits. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS;- INC­ — ow0.112001 - L(-.cc 4L7(4 1 I*UILL:H PAGE 13 Ala Jackson JN 03322 Sep [ember 3, 2003 Page 12 ce conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions V require making additional expenditures .to attain a properly constructed project. It is !nded that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for fic application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based'on ved site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our conclusions and emendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of ce within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is ssed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction f precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, iques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for Jeration in design. ADDMONAL SERVICES Ile Idition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide 13e echnical consultation. testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm iha subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate IN ther earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the rec mmendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the eve it subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. IqoN rever, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the co ractor and Us employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements; will ope the responsibility of the contractor. :iu6sequent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be c:h ed on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached sch dule of fees and general conditions. This worts often includes a review of the geotechnical als s of the plans and interaction with the architect, civil engineer, and structural engineer. Also, it ay involve geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction phase, which wo�Id also be charged on a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise notified by the owner, we wo Id assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization -to consult with the design tealn as required on a time -and -materials basis. t the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services only requested by you or your representatives. We can only document site work that we actually re. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our mendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS_ INC. .0 JI V.Jr fwwJ a r • VV `rLJr 1 1 Aia Jackson Se ember 3, 2003 h'AM 14 J J N 03322 Page 13 following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plate 3.4 Test Pit Logs Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Erin M. Toland Geotechnical Engineer EMT/JHS: esm IUWIRES U1-31- CG y t James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager -- --- GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC..--- - - ..----. -.-_- n y � L S !fi 'OAr I Ae Miff off ��11'fh ` ... t— le tar �— a AD t5i a tj AbT It f tiv J 3 Ycnl -• � 4"• RkY HL" G JJ .'♦. dy) ti ♦,� �p 7 owe[ — S tit AV 8 1 h L AV . •art tsc � e1��;�- �ru � r M id it 2P _ fig AY OG�RP ut i•r 'J .,$5t� S3 b9-at�r' �c4 A is _ '- �hhlll M�^T F�f� ^j ne ippM try' r^ A emu: iJ "' s M fir quo r Ils/ h _ f k3 M fd } .. tit !f ; n ah ii wrf Q 6B IT -la C r� fs t d ram_ r M f WIN eroz a �m A aZKT kj " Nat ..,. 9 ji— � �� IS �MI Yd� f! ♦.,/ �• ifri�i � Y!M a, :Ids` LS(a ultPioltu W a► fir• N C o 1 ifr - r a w,fmt> r• _{•� s_ o _.A=r •%Mutt 06tG �. J. •i N�.. 1 �t M � M '. �Y j�°OAAY liivs' ��� +' � 11—� ' l�r —. - •1 � 1 �r I .. s a M" y I� + �Ar Iues W .....-_ ��'' t�-1 3 Y � 1 '-k — ••--- 1' j _�3 tZs Orl y 3 "lit6 �� flu AY. MR- F • •o Ya : .y, s6� +i � AV Zt• 6 aro� £ � `.k'Nf _ y„ f'y rNlrtnr _.1 �.. y by s 6 , I t I I _) A_ ..Nle' • iv - •` iti. � � 0,11 i N Ma •Mi r `iv - /ib y � � � i W tiI TLL9 a Q Ni9 `.'I � • i �. . . ��.. i► � .r= • a � • ` �` IlY• • lil9 a•' j CT f A aai- J AyOn ml lib 1 6 AM b z w-n . • •VJI VJI'i VVJ L f � VV ♦iJf `f l'QJpi 1:! l� approximate wetland boundary Ucu 1 Ckln i TP-5 TP- TP-4 proposed SFRs TP-6 i i i TP- proposed plat lines- 1 i TP-1 I230 240 VAUL 16 SITE EXPLORATION PLAN � GEOT'ECH CONSULTANTS, 1.230 - 7th Avenue South rEdmonds, Washington � __ Jab Nib; •�G Sca/� 03322 •July 2003 Not to Scale 2 I 1' � VJI VJI iVVUI L, f . VV -LJ VVL Test Pit 1 1 0 - 1.0 1.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 6.0 'No grourn Test Pit 2 �acu i c�.n raac Lf vrwlL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose Sw Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly moist, medium -dense -becomes dense to very dense encountered, some caving from 0 - 3.0feet during excavation 0 - 1.0 FILL Brown sand and gravel FILL , with yard waste, 1.0 - 2.0 TOPSOIL loose Old, black TOPSOIL with abundant mots, dry, loose 2.0 - 4.0 Sw Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, highly weathered, with abundant roots, slightly moist, 4.0 - 9.0 medium -dense Brown, gravelly SAND with cobbles, very moist, dense 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0-2.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 3 0- ,0 _ TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose, mixed with construction debris Incl. 12- inch concrete rubble 1.0 - 6.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, dense 6.0 = 7.0 -with more cobbles, becomes very wet roundwater encountered at 6.5 feet, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 4 0- 0.5 TOPSOIL. Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 0.5 - 2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL Gray -brown sand FILL with gravel and occasional cobbles medium -grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense, mixed with old TOPSOIL, at 1.5 2.0 feet 2.0 - 6.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -to coarse -grained, very moist, dense 6.0-7.0 -becomes wet 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation TEST pYT LOGS GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South corrsuLraw�rs, INC. Edmonds, Washington -���- ✓ea No: oarrr ,Coggses $i; q . 03322 1 August_Z003 EMT 3 SJIV.IIiVVJ i1.VV '.i..I1 �L.VI�.4gI �� r-►aar. i o Test Pit 5 0.2.0 2.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 7.0 TOPSOIL SW SP Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense -becomes gray -brown, medium -grained, wet, dense *Groundwater. encountered at 6.0 feet, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet' during excavation Test Pit 6 0- 1.0 TOPSOIL Dario brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant mots, 73.0-6.5 dry, loose 1.0 - 3.0 SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense SP -becomes medivaRralned, veq moist dense No groundwater encountered, some caving from 3.0 - 5.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 7 0- 2.0 FILL Gray -brown. sand and gravel FILL; dry, loose and Old TOPSOIL 2.0 - 4.0 SW Gray -brown, highly weathered SAND with gravel and cobbles, with occasional roots, slightly moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 7.5 -dense, wet.at 7.0 Beet 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation GEOTECH CONSMTANY'S, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington • Job No: Dales LoggeO by.- OY.etG� 03322 August 2003 EMT 4 IWashed (7/8" min. 6" min backfill away from Ition. Provide surface where necessary. Backfill (see text for requirements) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric 0 0 0 • o o .o ■r, s • e e , Mg.i, Y • •t: O.O.O •0 0 :'s',1�i': Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) SLAB De�'.0 �,��'. pe4cQ:C pQeA:OOF.•A%p�D.•A E ,.Cap°o e, ieAo'o ?'� o•e oO�q.•o 00o a •oo l b ;. 1 . •.O . . • O • � e . �� 1 •:D I p ti � • • b ••� Free -Draining Gravel 4 Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (if appropriate) (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfail, Place holes downward.) NOTE$' (1) In cra I spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypa ses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer o report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEOTECH TYPICAL DRAIN DETAIL CQNSMTAKI ftQr— 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Jab AA DatC ScaIIF Plef� 03322 August 2003 Not to Scale 5 ■ KLEINFELDER An employee owned company October 28, 2003 Kleinfelder Project Number: 36170 Ms. Jeannine Graf City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Third -Party Geotechnical Review Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf 0 C T 3 BUILDING DEPT. 71us letter presents Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder's) responses to the October 24, 2003 letter prepared by Mr. Alan Jackson (site developer). Kleinfelder performed a third -party independent geotechnical review for this site. Kleinfelder's review comments are presented in our October 15, 2003 letter. Mr. Jackson's October 24, 2003 letter addresses Kleinfelder's review comments presented in our October 15, 2003 letter. Kleinfelder has no additional geotechnical issues associated with this site at this time. Please call us at (425) 562-4200 if you have any questions regarding this letter or other geotechnical issues with this site. Sincerely, la EINFELDER, INC. James M. Schmidt Senior Geotechnical Engineer L James A. McElroy Manager, Geotechnical Engineering . 31i170/SEA3L295.doC — -- — ___ .Page 1 of 1 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. K L E I N F E L D E R 2405 140th Avenue, NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax Nj KLEINFELDER An employee owned company October 15, 2003 Kleinfelder Project Number: 36170 Ms. Jeannine Graf City of Edmonds 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Third -Party Geotechnical Review Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Elear Ms. Graf: RECEIVED 0 7 T 1 7 2u`�'� BUILDING DEPT. This letter presents Kleinfelder, Inc.'s (Kleinfelder's) third -party independent review comments regarding geotechnical aspects for the Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat located at 1230 — 7th Avenue South in Edmonds, Washington. Kleinfelder's services were performed in accordance with The City of Edmonds Task Order Number 2, dated September 26, 2003. SITE DESCRIPTION The short plat will consist of dividing an approximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. The site is bounded by 76' Avenue South to the east, residential homes and lawn space to the north and west, and single-family residences to the south. The east portion of the site is fairly level and consists of mowed grass and forbs. The middle portion of the site slopes down steeply (up to 30 percent) to the west. Vegetation in the middle portion of the site consists of deciduous and conifer trees and shrubs. The west portion of the site is relatively flat and comprises a forested wetland. Willow Creek flows along the west edge of the site. The local neighbors have reported that up to approximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris has been dumped along the southern half of the site and extends approximately halfway down the steeply sloping portion of the site. Vehicles dumping yard waste and construction debris have become stuck and required assistance for removal. The neighbors have also reported that historic construction in this area has exposed springs within the slope. 3(1170/SEA3L.280.doc — — — Page 1 of 4 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. K L E I N F E L D E R 2405 140th Avenue, NE, Suite Al 01, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax 1 k'g KLEINFELDER PROJECT DESCRIPTION One single-family residence will be located only on the easternmost quarter of each lot, while the larger remaining portion will be a critical areas tract Each home will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight basement. The homes will also be set back approximately 25 feet from 7"' Avenue South. Cuts and fills on the order of 8 to 10 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation. Some filling in the home backyards will be necessary to create a lawn area. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services was to provide third -party independent review of available geotechnical documents for. the site and preparation of this report. THIRD -PARTY INDEPENDENT REVIEW Our third -party review consisted of reviewing the following documents that were provided by the City of Edmonds: • Five letters of complaint from local neighbors. • Critical Areas Report 1230 7 h Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, prepared by Landau Associates for the City of Edmonds, Dated May 8, 2003. 40 Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat, 1230 — 71' Avenue South, Edmonds, Washington, prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc. for Alan Jackson, dated September 3, 2003. Letter of Interest, prepared by the City of Edmonds to Mr. Alan Jackson. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Geotech Consultants, Inc. (Geotech) explored subsurface conditions at the site by excavating seven backhoe test pits in August 2003. The test pits were located in the east portion of the site where the residential homes will be located and extended to a maximum depth of about 9 feet below ground surface. Subsurface conditions encountered by Geotech consist of up to 24 inches of topsoil overlying up to 3 feet of weathered sand and gravel with abundant roots. This layer overlies dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles. Up to 2 feet of fill was encountered in . three test pits. Geotech stated that large amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and fill. The site soils are classified as "Everett Series" according to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture. 36170/SEA3L280.doc Copyright 2003 Meinfelder, Inc. Page 2 of 4 k'g KLEINFELDER G'roundwater Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet below ground surface in two test pits. Because the test pits were open only for a short time period, the static water level was not confirmed. The Landau Associates (Landau) critical areas report encountered drain tiles on the west portion of the property. The drain tiles reportedly collect water from the east side of 7th Avenue and deliver it to the project site as a point source approximately 6 inches below the ground surface. REVIEW COMMENTS As previously stated, the purpose of our services was to provide third -party independent review of available geotechnical documents for the site. Based on our review of the referenced project, we offer the following review comments. Review Comment No. 1: Geotech's geotechnical report, Landau's critical areas report, and information provided by the local neighbors all identify the presence of yard waste on the site. However, the lateral and vertical extent and the material type and chemical make up of the yard waste has not been investigated. Consequently, the potential for impact to the development cEmnot at this time be determined. We suggest that the developer identify the lateral and vertical extent of the yard waste. The yard waste limits should be shown on a map with respect to the proposed home locations. The documents reviewed do not address the potential for chemical contamination of the soil and groundwater below the yard waste. Because the yard waste has been placed on this slope over several years, we believe that there is a potential that chemicals (such as total petroleum hydrocarbons) may have also been dumped along with the yard waste. We suggest that the developer prepare a sampling and analysis plan for evaluating soil and groundwater conditions beneath the yard waste. Site cleanup, if required, should be performed in accordance with Washington State and City of Edmonds regulations. Review Comment No. 2: The documents reviewed do not indicate whether the yard waste that might be located outside the residential home footprint will remain. stability study be performed to assess the potential for slope development if yard waste is to remain on the property. We suggest that a slope instability following site 36170/SEA3L280.doc Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page 3 of 4 Amok kn KLEINFELDER CLOSURE We will be pleased to discuss the above comments with you and representatives from the design t(.am at your convenience. Should you have any questions or wish to arrange a meeting to discuss this letter, please call us at (425) 562-4200. Sincerely, la,EINFELDER, INC. Junes A Schmidt, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer 36170/SEA3L280.doc Page 4 of 4 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. the 1890 10 9 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Mr. Al Jackson 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 RE: 7th & Elm Short Plat Dear Mr. Jackson: October 21, 2003 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Thank you for so promptly responding to my request to provide a soils investigation report for the subject short plat. As my previous letter indicated, during the short plat review process the City received claims of unclean fill and construction debris illegally dumped and abandoned on your property. Because of the potential of contaminated soils and illegal fill material placed on site, I required a soils report which you provided. Upon receipt of the GeoTech Consultants report dated September 3, 2003 I engaged the services of the City's peer review consultants, Kleinfelder who was tasked to review the report for sufficiency regarding the extent of soil exploration for contamination and plan for soil removal or remediation. Enclosed please find the Kleinfelder review letter dated October 15, 2003 (a copy has also been forwarded to Mr. James H. Strange, Jr. P.E. of GeoTech Consultants). The City shall require that Mr. Strange respond to the peer review comments and provide additional information, documentation or investigation in this matter as stated in the review letter. Note, once contaminated soils are found you are required by State Law to inform the Department of Ecology (local contact 425-649-7000) and follow their regulatory guidelines. The City Engineer shall continue to withhold final approval of the civil plans for this short plat until the GeoTech Consultant response is received, reviewed and approved by appropriate City staff, including but not limited to outside peer review as deemed necessary by the City. No additional building permit applications may be filed on this property until the civil plans are approved, and the building permit application filed under #03-458 shall not be issued until this matter is resolved thus it is in your best interests to expedite the response from Mr. Strange. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me during normal City business hours of 9:00am to noon and 1:00pm to 4:00pm, Monday through Friday at 425-771-0220 extension 1226. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Dave Gebert, City Engineer 11'CGi G'Y'�C'% S10a.r City - Ha.kinnn. ,IAnin 2 28 .q g333 �y 233.3� LEGEND I BENCH MARK TOP OF SANITARY MANHOLE ELEVATION 240.52 GROUND ELEVATIONS MEASURED 2/18/2005 LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE 237.0 THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME 229.0 GROUND .00 AT THE REQUEST OF JERRY DAWES IN F ARY, 2005 GROUND I 258APEX � i U Y c LOT 1 I CERTIFICATE NO. 29539 I N — z HOUSE # .a 1226 I A� 0.0 29539 L LAND IRES 11/24 2005 228.9 238.4 GROUND GROUND i WILDERNESS BLUFF SHORT PLAT LOT 2 Z 2-& ol� Su101eye1-,v 41le16(et'17- 641-6-5' w Q 2 --a.GLp �-1212M 'jEl ELOPMENT SERVICES CTM CITY OF EDMONDS 240.52 RIM M.H. STREET FILE FILE copy CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.EdmondsWA.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION 'nC. I W3 December 5, 2011 Dale Chinn 1226 71h Avenue South Edmonds WA 98020 ibchinn ,comcast.net Ginny Riedinger 612 Elm Place Edmonds WA 98020 vriedinger@hotmail.com RE: PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL AT 1226 7TH AVENUE SOUTH WITHIN THE NGPE -AND WITHIN THE ELM PLACE COMMUNITY. Dear Mr. Chinn and Ms. Riedinger, Thank you for submitting a letter requesting the approval of tree removal on your properties. Because the trees are within a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE), critical area, and within a Planned Residential Development (PRD), review by the City is required if removal is proposed. The photos you submitted, along with the letter from your Arborist, were very helpful. You have requested to remove four trees total. Three are alders along the northern boundary of Mr. Chinn's property and one is Norway Maple within the common landscaping area of the Elm Place Homeowner's Association. After reviewing the arborist's report (Justin Horwath, Certified Arborist #PN-5579A, Certified Tree Risk Assessor CTRA-476, "Trees for Life, Inc."), we have determined the following: 1. You may remove the three dead/declining alder trees as proposed. Leave them where they fall, which will enhance the habitat of the NGPE as recommended by the arborist. 2. You may remove the diseased Norway Maple and replant in kind with a similar species as recommended by the arborist. I can be reached at 425.771.0220, extension 1778, or via email at coccia@ci.edmonds.wa.us. Sincerely, Gina Coccia, Associate Planner CITY OF EDMONDS CC: Street File Attached: Arborist letter, photos of hazardous trees, and map of approximate locations. Trees For Life, Inc.. - 11/7/11 P.O. Box 1586 Bothell, WA 98041-1586 (425) 485-4758 -(425) 487-2079 Fax APPROVED BY' PLANNING ` treesforlife,@earthlink.net Elm Place Home Owners Association Elm Pl. _ Edmonds WA, 98020 As requested on October "21 S`, I visually inspected trees .throughout the Elm Place community. This was part of an annual inspection.to identify potential problems or high' risk trees. The inspection process consists of visual identification of trees, followed by closer inspection and testing Where necessary. All trees. that are potential problems are then rated according to International Society of Arboriculture risk assessment rating system. Summary: Four -individual trees were identified as. potential problems in the near future. Three of these trees are Red. Alders (Alnus rubra) located,within the NGPA area south of Elm Place. One is standing dead currently and two others are in active decline'with ' maximum Live Crown Ratios (LCR) of 40%. All three of these trees are within, striking distance of Elm Place homes. The last tree is a Norway Maple (Acer.platanoides) "located within the community: This"tree is showing signs' of a fungal infection causing canker development,.on the •lower trunk. Concern for the general health of the -neighboring Norway Maples,has brought the board to the -consensus of tree removal for prevention of spreading the "disease, organism. The Trees: 3 Red Alders (Alms tubra) 18 to 26" Diameter at 4.5' above grade All mature for there species; these trees,are actively declining or standing dead. Growing - . in a Native Growth Protection Area (NGPA) with highly saturated -soils, these trees are -prone to wind throw. According to species characteristics. and age class these trees likely o 'have internal decay and structural flaws throughout their trunks. Complete or partial failure of their trunks or root.systems is expected -to occur within the next year or two. When considering'the proximity to homes and regularly used common areas of Elm Place the trees carry risk ratings from, 9 to - 10. These rating require that action be taken within the next 3 to 5 h-ionths-to mitigated thataevel of risk. Due to general conditions of all. three trees I recommend removal with retention of debris on -site for enhanced wildlife habitat. Arboricultural Services since 1979, • A Member of ISA, NAA, Plant Amnesty. Norway Maple (Acer platanoides) Approximately 20" Diameter at 4.5' above grade Tree is developing a large bark canker on the west side of the trunk. This is a new development as of this year and appears to be in the earliest stages. Dark colored stain is apparent with fluid dripping from area. Fungal pathogens that cause symptoms such as this are largely untreatable and often spread to nearby trees. In the interest of preventing Conclusions: Annual inspection of the trees at Elm Place is a practice of prevention. Trees that are likely to be a problem or pose a significant risk to the community are identified early and action is taken. At this time the communities approach to management of their trees is taken from a preservation point of view. Only those trees that are likely to be a significant risk or cause significant damage are removed, all others are preserved to the best or their abilities. The four trees mentioned within this report are examples of both and should be removed soon. Disclaimer: Conclusions within this report were drawn from above ground visual observations and based on professional experience and education. No internally invasive, below ground or lab testing techniques were used. Trees for Life cannot be held liable for any damages that may occur in lieu of these observations. Sincerely, Justin Horwath Certified Arborist PN-5579A Certified Tree Risk Assessor CTRA-476 City of Edmonds_ City of Lynnwood 121 5th Ave N City of Mountiaki Edmonds, WA pYI)PoE)ed C1.1-101)rt st This document is for general information purposes only and is provided on an 'as is' and 'as available' basis. The data used comes from a variety of public sources and no warranty of any kind is given as to its accuracy. Users of this document agree to indemnify and save harmless the City of Edmonds, its officials, officers, 07/18/2005 16:47 4257478561 GEOTECH PAG 01 \Z-(o A \�t. (,:WEOTEC � 13256 NE 2e Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 CONSULTANTS, INC. (425) 747-5618 FAX 747-8561 r I TO: Jerry Dawes JW 03322 Fk= ArthurTuiee corhpany: Datm July 18, 2005 FAX- (425) 745-5805' Pages; 3 including cover page Phone: (425) xxx-yyyy M Daffy Field Report 012rgent ❑For Revlew ClPlamm Cement ❑Please Reply OPleass Recycle Comments: Mr. Dawes, P&r direction from James H. Strange, Jr., P.E., we are faxing to you the two pages of a daily field report that Coders the days November 17, 2004 and November 19, 2004. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this daily field report, you can contact us and ask for James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. or his voice mail. He is our get,Aechnical project manager of the company. Think you_ Arthur Tulee, Te:hnical Editor RECEIVED JUL 1 9.2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS - Page 1 07/18/2005 16:47 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 02 OEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC_ 13M NE: 2M Street. Suite 16 Bellevue, jWA 980M 425-747-!1618 FAX 425-747-8561 DAILY FIELD REPORT TRANELfiWP TIME JOB NUMBER o3zzz_ TIME ON WE DATE 7 1 TIME OFF SRE DAY V11 EK HOMS ARCED WEATHER CLIENTA) AT1ER ui GENERAL CpERMTENDENT MILES PERMIT N R GRADING ERWMN0ENT VlafiORB PAGE OF An -�'. pimp — SKIM IA .AI NEXT SITE COPY TO; I 07/18/2005 16:47 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 03 :.. I DAILY FIELD REPORT A CXE C)Frlsc kf TRAVELIPREP TIME XO NUM R CONSULTANTS, INC. THE bN SITE PATE Is -cc- I �o Il o J it 13256 NF,{ 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellme. WA 98005 TIE oFF S oAr of WEEK ' 425-747-,9618 FAX 425-747.8561 HOURS cWEATHER JOB IOCATIION CLIP MMER GE�NEyRAL�CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTPJ6 710R S SUPERINTENI NT MI PERMIT NUMBER ORADM&CONTRACTOR GRAMNO SLAPERINTENWNT VISRORB PAC£ OF G E G T E C H 13256 Northeast Street. Suite 16 Bellevue. Washington 98005 CONSULTANTS, INC. (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 August 9, 2005 Mountain Shadow Construction JN 03322 Pla Box 6145 Ec.1monds, Washington 98026 Attention: Jerry Dawes 4'ect,,� Subject: Final Letter — Geotechnical Engineering Observations AUG -AR 1228 - 7th Avenue South 6 2005 Edmonds, Permit lNshington 923 oEV �COPl�FNT SE RVDPDjCFS Di Mr. Dawes via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 Giaotech Consultants, Inc. provided geotechnical engineering observations of the foundation of the new residence at 1226 — 7th Avenue South in Edmonds. Our work began on November 17, 2004, avid was completed on November 19, 2004. The foundation excavation exposed anticipated loose fill and weathered sand over medium dense to i dense gravelly sand. Over -excavation was required in some parts of the .foundation to expose thia medium -dense, native sands. The medium -dense to dense native sands exposed in the Observed footing subgrades are acceptable for 2,000 psf allowable bearing. Fit�id memos regarding our observations have been given to you and have been forwarded to the Cil,.y of Edmonds. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. ZJF;UJHS: jhs Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. oUgTON sT o� WASy� 36 EXPIRES 01-31- ilb James H. Strange, Jr. P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager GEOTFCH CONSULTANTS, INC. �SF-60 , CLEIJS /22 (- � AA(- S 200,q—Og2-E 22`? , 0 Z-3q - o 2Sq. 4 2 28 .q g333 23'5 3 � -f-2s = z�Y#32 �1EVc►�uN {(,Egg MICROFILM LEGEND BENCH MARK TOP OF SANITARY MANHOLE ELEVATION 240.52 GROUND ELEVATIONS MEASURED 2/18/2005 LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE 237.0 THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME 229.0 001 GROUND AT THE REQUEST OF JERRY DAWES IN F ARY, 2005 GROUND I 25 X A.00 PEX GUY G, LOT 1 i of Wgsh, �2 CERTIFICATE N0. 29539 I 0 z HOUSEI # cn .a 1226 I goo �-� 29539 L LAND I IREs 11/24 2005 228.9 238.4 GROUND GROUND WILDERNESS BLUFF SHORT PLAT 1 nT Lv - ; EC>EtVEp 73�120 ;JF OPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS 240.52 RIM M.H. UitliI ;eG174 1b:5a 42b(4tbbbl CONSULTANTS, INC. Alan Jackson 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 99037 GEOTECH \22t, 1)�- but S Subject: Geot>echnical Engineering Study Proposed Wilderness Sluff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: - 1 , 13256 Northeast 20th Strut. Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747.9561 September 3, 2003 via facsim#e: (425) 787 9112 JN 03322 We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed single-family residences to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. 'this work was authorized by your acceptance of our Contract for Professional Services' dated July :?4, 2003. We were provided with a preliminary site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM Industries, inc. developed this plan, which is dated September 14, 2002. Based on this plan and on conversations with Alan Jackson, we anticipate that the development will consist of dividing the approximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. The houses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue South and will be set bade 25 feet from the street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight basement. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of approximately a to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish floor elevation. No development is proposed on the westem side of the site, as this area is a designated wetland. - if the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided vvith revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CQNDIT10N3 ,SURFA CE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The undeveloped, wooded site is; located on the western side of 7th Avenue South in Edmonds. The site slopes from east to west, with elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastem comer to approximately 200 feet at the southwestern comer. Most of the western part of the site is a relatively flat designated wetland, and there is a creek that winds along the westem property line. The proposed development area is located on the sloped, eastern portion of the site. The slopes are inclined at approximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous and evergreen trees. The ground is GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Alan Jackson JiY 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 2 covered with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with ferns and other low growth vegetation elsewhere, There is an area on the southern part of the site where approximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally steeper slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the site. The adjoining properties are developed with single-family residences. SUBSURFACE 'The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven test pits at the approximate llocations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the (proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. 'The test pits were excavated on July 24, 2003 with a small, rubber -tracked trackhoe provided and {operated by Alan Jackson. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" !samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs .are provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report. Soil Conditions The test pits encountered a 6- to 244nch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand and gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles and occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel fill was encountered overlying the topsoil in Test Pits 1, 4, and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was encountered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below existing grade. The depths of soil layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact definition of soil unit thicknesses would require more explorations. Large amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and in the fill. This debris will need to be removed during site clearing. Groundwater Conc dons Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet in Test Pits 3 and 5; however, the test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. The final fogs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and ,subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densWes and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. GEOTEW CONSULTANTS. INC, fly/ l;i/'s:bb4 l b: bU 41b f4 t8t)b1 FzEU I EGH PAGE 04 Alan Jackson September 3, 2003 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL JN 03322 Page 3 THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THiS REPORT ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUi1MENT. The proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presented in this report are rased on the assumption that the earthwork for all of the houses can be completed at once. If the development plans change, we should be notified so that we may update our recommendations accordingly. 'the test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill, topsoil, and highly weathered sand and gravel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered between 1 and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer encountered near the top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered below the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on conventional foundations_ These soils are also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the Me. The topsoil and weathered sand may be reused as fill in non-structural areas such as landscaping beds. humped construction debris, yard waste, and garbage were observed throughout the site. This material is not suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed during site clearing. Based on the topographic information provided to us, and on our understanding of the project, some cuts and fills will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade_ Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25 feet from the edge of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1 A (Horizontal:Vertical) can be made within the eastern property line, Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and gravel: the fill and debris encountered near the surface on most of the site should be removed during site clearing. Also, groundwater was encountered in two of the downslope test pits during exploration. If groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side of the site, the cut slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To mitigate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table, the cuts may have to be backfilled with rock ballast_ We should be contacted at once if groundwater is encountered during the excavation of the cut slopes. Aft out slopes should be protected Immediately ,with plastic sheeting and should be monitored daily by the superintendent for Indications of Instability. Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the top of any cut slope. The foundation walls between the adjacent residences are approximately 10 feet apart as shown on the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be re -moved as part of the mass excavation where it cannot be inclined at 1:1 (H:V), Taking into account a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot exceed 3 feet between the foundation walls, GEOTFCH CONSULTANTS, INC. UW1J1ZUU4 lb:bid 4ZO14/dObl IatUILUH I'AbL b5 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 4 Based on the site plan, it appears as though cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be necessary to achieve finish floor elevations of the northernmost houses and southernmost. The plan shows each of these houses set back 5 feet from the northern and southern property lines, respectively. Because the site soils may be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (H:1) shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts unless the finished floor elevations of these structures are revised. We can make recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Based on the topographic information provided to us, fill on the order of 6 to a feet +1viQ be required -to level the finish floor of each house at its proposed finish floor elevation. However, we recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. Finished f+N slopes :should not be inclined steeper than 2.5:1 (H:1). Depending on the desired back yard layout and the location of the wetland buffer, it may prove more economical to overexcavate, place the downslope foundations on native, dense sand and gravel and leave a tall crawl space, or to step 'the buildings down the slope. Alternatively, a reinforced fill rockery could be constructed near the western edge of the development area to level the site. Regardless of which method is chosen, we recommend that the downslope foundation wall be designed as a retaining wall to retain the soil within the crawl space or beneath the slab down to the footing level. Fill rockeries taller than 4 feet Will require geogrid reinforcement; we can provide a design ff necessary. We should review the grading plans once the house layouts are finaltzed. 'The site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. The earthwork contractor should prepare the fill areas by removing the topsoil and highly weathered sand above the root line. The new fill should be benched into the dense native soils by cutting flat benches into the dense native soils. Each horizontal lift of fill should be tested to ensure that adequate compaction is being achieved. 'the foundation walls should be backfiiled with free -draining structural Mi. The site sand and gravel below the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfill. Footing drains should be installed at the Base of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage system, so two separate drains would need to be placed In the backfill between the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and rockeries. 1i-he erosion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered during construction. Site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, and the erosion potential on the site is moderate due to the slope of the site. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas and around the wetlands. Straw bales should be placed against the sift fence for added protection during grading. Flocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will riot be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. G'eotech Consultants, inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. UW1J/211d4 lb:bii 4Z!a141dDb1 l3tUItl,71 F'Alat bb ,Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 5 'We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 'The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS 'The proposed residences can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up to 5 feet of properly compacted structural fill placed above this competent native soli. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural F111 for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation :should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. Footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must oe cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and -equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings :supported on the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed ,above these competent native soils. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short-term imind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction !settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: GEorECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 09/13/2004 15:58 4257478561 GEOTECH ,Alan Jackson September 3, 2003 PARAMETER ULTIMATIF VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Where: (i) pat is pounds per pubic foot, and (IQ pa live earth pressure Is computed using the equivalent fluid density. PACE 07 JN 03322 Page 6 :If the ground in front of a foundation Is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised recommendation. We recommend !maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundations resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS (Retaining walls backfllled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures !imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Where: (i) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and 01) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. • For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at feast O.M times Its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 pet times the height of the wall Should be added to the above active equivalent fluid Pressure. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. 'rhe passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. if?tis is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. lrhe design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added G90TECH CONSULTANTS, INC. law ld/ ltM4 15: !Zd 4'Lb (4 t8t)bl GEOTECH PAGE 08 Alan Jackson JN 03322 .September 3, 2003 Page 7 to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need t:o be given the wail dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wail can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density; a traffic surcharge should be applied to the eastern foundation wall of each residence. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within as distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backf ll and Wateroroofina Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent sift or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native sand and gravel encountered below the root line during our explorations is suitable for reuse as retaining wall backfill. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfllled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Rif contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. The performance of subsurface drainage systems will degrade over time. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where moist conditions or some seepage through the walls are not acceptable in the future, This typically includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but will only help to prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action, from seeping through the concrete. With any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is Important to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil. SLABS -ON -GRADE The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or undersiab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. GEOTECW CONSULTANTS, INC. Alan Jackson Jld 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 8 All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a rninimum flinch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. As noted by the American Concrete institute (ACI) in Section 3.2.3 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, Avood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However, if no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour ►vhen tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. In the recent past, ACE (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded compactable granular material, such as a 518 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. 'rherefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACE now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature. we recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protectioniblotter material. Our opinion is that with Impervious surfaces that all rneans should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. ROCKERIES We anticipate that rockeries may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry spalls should be placed behind rockeries to reduce the potential for soil eroding through them. A perforated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries_ VVe recommend limiting fill rockeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent niative soil. The lower two-thirds of the rockery should be constructed with 3- to 4-man rocks and the fill should be placed and . compacted to structural fill requirements. Prior to rockery construction, the fill should be placed beyond the planned rockery location and then cut nearly vertical so that the soil in back of the rockery is thoroughly compacted. Since grading plans were not established at the time of this report, the relationship between the proposed footings and GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. 17y/li/'t:tll14 15:bd 4G514tbt)bl l*-UILUH F'Aat 111 Alan Jackson JN 03322 Eieptember 3, 2003 Page 9 proposed rockeries could not be determined. Foundations closer to the back of the rockery than firm times the height of the rockery would exert a surcharge on the adjacent rockeries; surcharged rockeries or rockeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill. We can provide a rockery detail if necessary. . The construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirely Controllable by engineering methods and standards. It is imperative that rockeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a proper manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction_ The rockeries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local practice and City of Edmonds standards. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or inclusions, should not be used, in order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed over time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rookery, should be considered in the design. M(CAVATiONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures, Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. As discussed in the Getters/ section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes can lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. If groundwater is encountered in any of. the cuts at the site, the excavation should be immediately backfilled to above the line of seepage and the geotechnical engineer should be called to the site to evaluate the need for remedial measures. The above -recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The out slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that gravel can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2.6:1 (H:V) To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the .dope face is important for long-term stability and i6 necessary to prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination, Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Any disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the slope. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed sireas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed can the slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil. r;FOTFCH CONSULTANTS. INC. by/1J/Yab4 1b:b8 4257478561 Alan Jackson ,September 3, 2003 GEOTECH PAGE 11 J N 03322 Page 10 'Ne anticipate that cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there may be insufficient room within the property lines to make the proposed cuts are on the northem Wde of the northernmost house and the southern side .of the southernmost house. If the house locations or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope inclinations, ;shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts. We can provide design recommendations for :shoring 0 it is necessary, DRAiNAGE CONSIDERATIONS Foundation drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We recommend that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage system. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotexule filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert .should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawi space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 3. For the best bong -term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. In general, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. Groundwater was observed during excavation of the test pits. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches att the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the residences should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. Additionally, a drainage swale should be provided upslope of each residence to intercept surface run-off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of the driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes: it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from any slopes. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed throughout the site; these materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or removed sand and gravel above the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used In non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 09/13/2004 15:58 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 12 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003. Page 11 Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or In other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results In the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the General sF:ction, the on -site gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fil is not sufficiently compacted, it can be rec xnpacted before another lift Is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the sill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed in percerOges, or the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1587-91(Modified Proctor). The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. L1M1TAT10MS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test piss are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. if the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. 09/ 13/ 2004 15: 58 425 -M I8bb1 utu 1 LL;H rF�ut t d Alan Jackson JN 03322 SE;ptember 3, 2003 Page 12 Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for sg ecific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or Implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideratlon in design. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of constn0ion. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. Subsequent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be charged on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached schedule of fees and general conditions. This work often includes a review of the geotechnic al aspects of the plans and interaction with the architect, civic engineer, and structural engineer. Also, it may involve geotechnicai observation and testing services during the construction phase, which would also be charged on a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise notified by the owner, we would assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design team as required on a time -and -materials basis. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services only when requested by you or your representatives. We can only document site work that we actually observe. it is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. 09/13/2004 15: 58 4257478561 ULU I LCH Allan Jackson September 3, 2003 The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plate 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs Plate S Typical Footing Drain t'A[at 14 JN 03322 Page 13 Vie appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. if you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Erin M. Toland Geotechnical Engineer -0>, —WA �Q ��c GW rIENF RES 01-31- cn y James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geoteehnieal Project Manager EMT/JHS- esm 77i3��-. :JeM lll111 YI Y G J 4yiFa p IDS wy Ib � .AV ._ . • 4TN s s s AVIla s-;a '� -•� _ AY's AT* Y m N � r AV c .a TM "� • L2 W t $ 8 x �R ww pt fo 9TM AV 3 H AY 6 ��`_x � AV FL 111 1' l p ... :,tll le+o'•�'Imx iF - -- a� 1 1 A11� N W �:1� . 1' ' B7TH JlY N • g i ' i ..pi - 1• �$ (�7 w `•,i. Rid -1l'�q ��n �g ua Y" Ixn`" Ae m Yi W Yi.3 i 11111 PL H r 9 f ��'» C L W MRD sp>hiiiF �n a�Fu R l 9jy -_ �~ PL e� p vi AY _fit O O •'Y w 7 P L p l IJE w gut C]. ; c j WE � � �' � ��� R � - 91ST S �} W- 1 N l� eat �t sl k .'' a�N y . ' r it c __ a Z j.i lQ Hm lilw t (D },� �'n �y �,� ie c err- — auoo MH gA r s W �. u� .l:= abm R'Aclm M - fir IJ1 d 6711 PLYy PLIF I�eiwb °� 16a 4 i� B51N PLb SLm w Y Ov WN w C7Q 4FJIY y N O a I y 84TH o' V 11_MfAOL;AkE �qo� F•, 7N AYy 1t gi A Y 00 rC-F• d Fs �7 R lM . , 2 "aFill i 03F0 4 u� Ixo 5 All pp AY N Y 9 3 9 Pam" B2N6 ar AND AV• S o- Fll P W y g ST$ r V ui► !¢ M _ .� a a a sr i�tno - -_� d „v�-� q r• ,.. �' (v mm x . Y � � IY � .. 4 N•-�1!_?l k � t_..fi �A� Y � �... �I'' at:�. *'�-���:� 1 b: bH 415 /4 tkJbbl C-itU I LL;H F'HSat I F � l b � TP-5 approximate cm 7. wetland boundary TP- i ;• i i TP-4 proposed SFRs • i a .;TP-6 lIA proposed plat Imes GEOTECH CONRff,'F.AN"M MCI P-3. TP- TP-1 230 T 240 SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 1230 - 7th Avenue South IL Edmonds, Washington Job A aarm 03322 July 2003 Not to Scaleto,�� . 2 UV I J/ UU4 15: 5tl 4:2b M tdtbl i� A - Test Pit 1 0 - 1.0 1.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 6.0 *No groun Test Pit 2 h'AuL 1 / TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose Sw Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly moist, medium -dense -becomes dense to very dense nuntered, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation 0 -1.0 FILL, Brown sand and gravel FILL, with yard waste, loose 1.0 - 2.0 TOPSOIL Old, black TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 2.0 - 4.0 SW Brawn SAND with gavel and cobbles, highly weathered, with abundant roots, slightly moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 9.0 Brown, gravelly SAND with cobbles, very moist, groundwater encountered. some cav€na from 0-2.0 feet durinn excavation Test Pit 3 0-1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose, mixed with construction debris incl. 12- inch concrete rubble 1.0 - 6.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, dense 6.0 - 7.0 -with more cobbles, becomes very wet roundwater encountered at 6.6 feet, some caving from 4.0 - 8.0 feet dutina excavation Test Pit 4 0- U.5 TOPSOIL Dario brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 0.6 - 2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL Gray -brown sand FILL with gravel and occasional cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense, mixed with old TOPSOIL at 1. S - 2.0 feet 2.0 - 6.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -to coarse -grained, very moist, dense 6.0-7.0 -becomes wet "No groundwater encountered, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation GEOTECH CONSULTAPiM MC_ TEST PIT LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington deb MX I Daft �;-] 3 03322 August20M L 'fi 09/1�I1004 1b:btf 4nNtbbbl LAW fLUH rraut Its Ti%cf Pit 5 0- 2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dr loose 2.0 - 4.0 SW Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, mist meclum-dense 4.0 - 7.0 SP -becomes gray -brown, medium -grained, wet, dense *Groundwater encountered at 6.0 feet, some Caving from 8.0 - 7.0 feet during excav Test Pit 8 0-1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant root dry, loose 1.0 - 3.0 SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense 3.0 - 6.5 Sp -becomes medium -grained, very moist, dense o groundwater encountered, some caving from 3.0 - 5.0 feet during excavation Pit 7 0. 2.0 FILL Gray -brown. sand and gravel FILL, dry, loose and Old TOPSOIL 2.0 - 4.0 Sw Gray-brovm, highly weathered SAND with gravel and cobbles, with occasional roots, slightly moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 7.5 -dense, wet.at 7.0 feet *No groundwater encountered, some caving from 8.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation GEOTECH CONSU L.TA,Nt.'S, INC. TEST PST LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington � Ab �• t A:plaft 03322 1 August=3 EMT 1 4 09/13/ 2004 15: 58 42b M lbtibl - t ku � LUH t'AUL l7 Slope backfll away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Washed Rocl (718" min. size) 6" min. Backfill (See text for requirements) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) SLAB O 0O040 a a':: `:«o�enn.>^: v:<W.iv:<. �..• «e'1•y+o�:>.o>ee'O'o00.p'Q'09 e'e-0 DPe'C {1•CP °•C•(1•Ce0`p•0 ae e odeeD��e fixRa:•f>>::>;nwi>wi3w°H+»hn:rxs: :Ms:e.?, m.°.�>'a::• .2o�t.:.:G,'1>'.xr:.i�>;..sS,{crya+we�w"<>» <»r..:>:ii>,'>s>'�'.c4Y` 'f�<o�s` .ux sw:'ao,•?<>a:exa �s.v,•.xit :'a' �e....0e.O0n�—Q C O, ^.�.Oe.apO P,q •'nn;o.9e� pq P�i•aa w =esAn: e�p4 0w•,oC <t.oee�p •pw•dp. ow e.esecnmv.°osaed n.hnS. R o''' 5 2< <�'' a• YiG>be:e:•a.,w< ar, 9 fi-. - �� ! .' b b. • , b . , b` . b .. b . , b . v e 9:'es s«•� ..aL. r•<A2: i..»n>�»>.o. s•2.5Y{;°'Ri _ 1•• . A • ' A e I1e a 3;3.,C ,£"�..>a'°'::»�:>, y>�»:>�: a,:>:>:w:g x'f . w , � y5.� •' i r eQ eQe ww»C�w'isi»%siW>: !: <jS f'•'ry�:• '''O:<'':<t W �t.A;_riw 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at feast 8 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Free Draining Gravel Qf appropriate) NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text fbr additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEOTECH CONSMUINM RMC. TYPICAL DRAIN DETAIL 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington. JO 03322 1 August 2003 Not tc State 5 ... i CITY OF EDMONDS SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT The project at Z 2 %��!/ S. - issued under building permit number — �- ' requires special inspection and/or testing per IBC Chapter 17. The his complete of special inspections is attached to this document. BEFORE; A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED: The owner and contractor and special inspector shall complete this agreement and the attached structural test(s) and inspections schedule including the required acknowledgements. APPROVAL OF SPECIAL INSPECTORS: Each special inspector shall be approved by the Building Official prior to performing any duties or inspections. Each special inspector shall submit Statement of Qualifications to the Building Official for review. Special inspectors shall display identification when performing special inspections on site. Special inspection and testing shall meet the minimum requirements of IBC Chapter 17 and the following: A. Dutit s and Responsibilities of the Special Inspector 1. Observe Work Txapp � p pThe s ecial ins ector shall observe the site work for confurmancdrst�ped) plans and specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the TBC. Architect or Engineer reviewed shop drawings may be used only as an aid to inspection. Special Inspections are to be performed on a continuous basis —meaning that the special inspector is on site at all times observing the work requiring special inspection. Periodic inspections, if any, must have prior approval by the City based on a separate written plan reviewed and approved by the Building Official and the engineer or architect of record. 2. Report Non -conforming Items The special inspector shall bring non -conforming items to the immediate attention of the contractor and note all such items in the daily field report. Any item not resolved in a timely manner shall be Immediate cause of the special Inspector to notify the Building Official of the plan deviation, error, change or omission. It shall also be the duty of the special inspector to promptly notify the engineer or architect. 3. Complete Daily Reports Each special inspector shall complete and sign both the speciai'inspection record and the daily report form for each day's inspection. These records shall remain at the jobsite with the contractor for review by the City Building Inspector. 4. " Furnish Weekly Reports The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish the City with weekly reports of tests and inspections. The project engineer or architect, and others as designated shall also be copied on reports. Weekly reports must include the following: • Description of daily inspections and tests made with applicable locations • List of all non -conforming items Report on status of non -conforming items (resolved or unresolved) Itemized changes authorized by the Architect, Engineer and City if not included in non- conformance items. S. Furnish Final Construction Report The special inspector or inspection agency shall submit a final signed report to the City stating that all items requiring special inspection and testing were fulfilled and reported. ARIEROWeV ff D L:\TEUP\BLaDING\SpeciailmpmtionAgrccmcxdBC.doe 7/04 OCT 9 8 2004 PERMIT COUNTER OCT-17!-2004 08:26 PM P.01 ' i i � T st�Ynjw (`�i,` t� a�.i¢�S•�c*-,�.y'. i`�,i i.dt "_'�tii �'9'b'r.yy; �? Yn`•''i "`'.�-Tr'�. a..` r;.., -.'.- � e.. r ; i ,_:: �'�� . _ `.+.'• `':- �.t.�S"'� S ''�':` .r 4i �.ia.'..M.. �_ �t � y��.._�.....r''°a;_�`°_:..'"a..'� ��..�>.�.�.y-�.eY•+�-t1.a---'�'�-. _ ilislher. knowledge the project is iq conformance with the approved plans and specit%, ations orders and the applicable workmanship provisions of the [BC. Itemsot is +pproved changees in i ection coverage, %.a., i�nformance or wnwolved items or any diacrepanci �P shall be specifically iInspeetiotis, periodic inspecdon when continuous inspections were required, ) iitemixed in this report. Cog',tractor Res uoas'ibitltigs 1 __ ;Notify the special Inspector inspector when work is ready for Special it is the duty of the contractor to notify the special he as noted on the approved plans and inspection. Note, the items listed on the attached one. Adequate schedule qu notice shad be provided by the specificadons are required to have special i time do 'contractor so that the special inspector has time to become familiar with the project. 2. Provide Access to Approved plans The contractor is responsible for pro�+idwg the special inspector access toappro+�ed pia at the jobsite. 3. Retain Special inspection Records The contractor Is responsible to retain at the jobsite sill special inspection records submitted by the special inspector. These records are to be provided to the City building inspector upon request. C. CijX of Edmonds Buddlnst pew ea o 1. , A Pprove special inspectors or hispecdon agencies The building department shall approve ail special inspectors and special inspection regniremems. 2. Monitor special inspection and approve weekly reports Work requiring special inspeetie t and the parformaace of spedai inspectors shall be monitored by the CRY Saddling Inspector. HWE[er approval toast he obtained prior to piaceMent of cotterete or other similar activities in addition to that of the specW inspector. 3. issue Certificate of.QccupatlCy inspection reports The Building 011teW may, issae a Certificate of Qccu¢aacy after all weekdy $pedal eP including the final report have been submitted and Accepted. D. OijuSK Rsnonssbiii The project owner or We engineer or architect of record acting as the owner's agent shall fund special Inspection services. E EjOdneur or Armbitect of Record, RimMalbilitivi The engineer or architect of record shall include special isspecdoa Mquireanents on the plans and spceiFicatinas. ACKNO I have read and agree to comply with dire awm and coadMeas of this 08re MO-ft / 0 - y 2�� Lorl Spedid Inspector C�so'f 1•tl �aysulTe.rr� 1 _ Date /e/iz/o� � 7#7r L; ;TEi,+1PP,,SUML)ING1SpeeWinsgecda aAgeemendBC.doc 7104 1 1 PRdErNAME PRQM=ADDMSESA EM IREINFORCED CONCRETE, GUNITE, GROUT AND MORTAR PRECAST/PRESTRESSED CONCRETE: MASONRY —_ Sp rdd inspec900 Suessm used PfeUminmy Awe Tess fMasoery units. Wall Prisms), Sabsequeat Teas (Monrw. Grwr. Field wall Prisms) Placemeec lnspecaon of uoia ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS OR O MER TESTS AND INSPECI9ONS: STRUCTURAL ING: _ sample- and 'rm iron spocific =MAX ss below) — Sbop Material ldendfinam ---- Wwccum o smp O Field — Uftmu s w InWOcbon ❑ Sbop ❑ Rid --- High-atreng* auldo m O sbop p Field DA32s ON ❑x Cal: O A490 Mena Dads welding lnspeodop — lteiofott S,cel welding hapocdon _ Metal Stud VII Mani! laspadoo — Cie lasat Wemug lnspeam ME-PRMFING: — Plaoenictstls>:pactioo — Daasky Tess .—. Thidmcss Taos — uapaat asucbiag DVSULATING CONCRETE: — Sample mw Test — Placement laspe tiara — unit woious ►L_ . oi .._ Aoceptm= Tests — Placeoavc lnsp wdoa Field oca5ky STRUCTURAL WOOD; _. sbw WAl1 Naiiiog tospecdm lnspwrion of Glwlsaa hb. — Inspaaion of Truss Join Fib. — SWWW and Tat Coasponena Sa 11- d7CjaZ1,4,t, kt--Q l rl e-4E'rlb — ViV��-�r��tl .�det �,✓` /^/ST1�11 �,'�-7'/1�2�' F ntc mplMd br. Tcl *Ww Iwo.: - - ��S ' 7,/1= ��z. 3 .,..... l�tc ...1 _� ` 0,,", TOTAL P.05 04/16/2004 15:;08 4257478561 GEOTECH 1 ZZ�p 11�' A v PAGE Of /.02 -CX C3 T E-C H CONrSLTL'rA'rrS, INC. Alan Jackson 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 99037 13256 Ncrthcast lath Street, Spifg• io Bellevue- Washint0ri;'4i{Q$'1 (425) 747-55 J $ FA�A'`lyd»5 '.147al�bJ APMI 16, 2004 JN 03322 Subject, Review of Dispersion System Plans Proposed Residences — Lots 1, 2, and 3 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: via facsimife: (425) 767--9ff2 lNe have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed stormwater dispersion trenches to be constructed on the northern three lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) of the s;ubplat. The plans we reviewed included Sheets C-1 through C-6. The plans were prepared by GSP Engineering and are elated October 13, 2003, We completed a geotechnical study of this site cm September 3, 2003. The proposed dispersion trenches are to be located along the western edge of the development area. The natural grades on the land to the west of the proposed dispersion trenches are inclined at approximately 20 to 30 percent and the slope is fully vegetated with mature trees and undergrowth. The grading plan and drainage plans indicate that the new dispersion systems will be located at existing grades with no fill added to the existing grades above or below the system. A vegetated fitter strip will be installed along the downslope side of the dispersion trenches to create a level discharge area and to reduce potential erasion. Given the relatively gentle inclination of the slope below the proposed dispersion system and the soil conditions observed in our test pits, it is our opinion, provided that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical study are followed, that the installation of the planned dispersion system will not result in slope instability at the subject site. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 04/16/20@4 15:-,08 4257478561 GEOTECH POLE '0!2/02 Alan Jackson April 16, 2004 JN 03322 Page 2 We trust this letter fulfills your needs at this time. Please contact us with any questions or if we can further assist you. Respectfully submitted, EOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. James H. Strange, Jr., RE, Q9 �' Geotechnical Project Manager cc: Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stott or Dave Stafford via facsimile: (425) 984-0120 Lisa Bride via facsimile: (425) 672-9182 Mountain Shadow Construction — Jerry Dawes via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 JHS: jhs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. 'DECEIVED SEP 14 :Z004 PERMIT COUNTER cI1'y ®ply, lTT OWNER/CONTR.ACTOR iSRESPONSIBLE A T 1 T. S �`� Ni l �.r"? S �P f�'T!a / WATER & SEWER . y FAR EFOSION•CON �01 AND DAMAGE ; 'INSPECTIONS REQ D ` _ tiMD- CAL��46.771.0220 EXT. 1325 .. -�/, N. •Z l0 `%C 8� .t INV, r� S '•N N ti N caz t N1. 4 ALL EX OSED SURFACES T o�E >z' I NUJ 9_8E COV RED WITHIN 2 DAY ,.: 907 s,F t Zo 3 ° Al nC�AX1'OIJ \ A 4IOJSrc lcli�1 _ Gi�.'r Z \ I so: O /r.Ai u Z3 81 x, 3o ae I TL-h1T l 00 m 4NaAAXIMUM IVEWAY SLOPE �E 01= ry RSE-1� e4g; T _4 k ED 14 l0e, I f) * , o ciVE ' Vl TueKj- r (_ IN i r-- 101,1 t1 I 5 J 2A6 E A 0 �A 7 I �. `0��,' T1{P.-FT(o��.�� � I .,oi g $,8 L". � � / SP •LLS `.^A, I. �j+�S'; I COfJE.GT"IOIJ !/" D y'Y - 3 o wJ A TG ACCEPTABLE T{GHTLINE : - :' - /o �:w� �� ►-� ►�-rIOIJ-_ ovTLET 't-Itil'-To .-:MATERIAL - •p1s.P /1uF_��' 1z., t=�o�✓ 1�rsTQ�GTo� �o ri SCH:ori : 40 Y zZSo 12'N ss, or 03F81rt , f/f vw� vnUaE�s 24/0.sZ to rlu:I 23 A RECEIVED O `� �-►- I shoe ,'.p�n r:: HPPRUVED, AS -NOTED max ►�_�-,� ._�Zs-r..a EKING ° BY ENGINE : �+,:c �sl SEP 14 2004 PERMIT COUNTER C p �200d IN�PE1Zv1"OUs sUr�'Fa.c. r ..:� �' � r�u1La����. coo►=._ � ��,n:��r - - .l �,. 7•R.i�/E � w%�:u` r'osZ S � SCALE : ,; �pl t pISPOSE vP �ccESS AT 041T H Co slolE iC.6 A W� __ .-_-" .. - .... ,. .- _ ,. _7,..yr. _., r...,.. .-,... _... a.l�/._._s°'1i..✓w....ty rar:i .. r•w-a:.://.::.,...�,.n .r:. _.� 0 0— Dale Chinn 1226 7 h Ave South Edmonds, WA 98020 May 27, 2008 Gina Coccia, Associate Planner City of Edmonds 1215`h Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Ms. Coccia: 14ECEIVED 2 7 2008 CLCCOUN SRCES We received your letter dated May 14, 2008 that provides us with two options regarding five trees within our property's NGPE that pose a risk to adjacent property. We are requesting approval from the Development Services Department to proceed with Option 2, i.e. remove all five trees included in the Arborist's assessment and replanting a total of 6 native trees (a ratio of 3:1 for each of the two healthy trees) within our property's NPGE boundary. We will ask the tree service performing the proposed work to leave the trees where they fall within the NPGE on our property. Please let me know if you require any additional information in order to formally rule on our request to proceed with Option 2. Sincerely, 19 le Dale Chinn Cell 206-406-8724 APPROVED BY PLANNING fiX•��0 05.21.09 u 94&r ()6.4.03 leftr 1�C.180) May 14, 2008 • 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Dale Chinn 1226 71h Avenue South Edmonds WA 98020 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL AT 1226 7T" AVENUE SOUTH WITHIN THE NGPE. Dear Mr. Chinn, Thank you for submitting a letter requesting the approval of tree removal on your property. Because the trees are within a Native Growth Protection Easement (NGPE), review by the City is required if removal is proposed. The photos you submitted, along with the letter from your Arborist, were very helpful. You have requested to remove five trees total along the northern boundary of your property, labeled 1-5 on the site plan and in the letters. After reviewing the arborist's report (Randy Kyle, Certified Arborist 4PN:5572A, "Trees for Life, Inc."), we have come up with two options for you: L Remove three dead trees labeled #2, 93, and #5. Leave them where they fall, which will enhance the habitat of the NGPE. Do not remove trees labeled # 1 and #4 as they are relatively healthy. Remove all five trees. Leave them where they fall, which will enhance the habitat of the NGPE. But, replanting at a 1:3 ratio is required for trees labeled # 1 and #4, because they are not completely dead. If you would like to remove all five trees, then you must replant six (native) trees somewhere within the NGPE on your property. Please let me know, in writing, which option you would like to pursue. I am looking forward to working with you on this proposal. I can be reached at 425.771.0220, extension 1778, or via email at coccia(a,ci.edmonds.wa.us. Sincerely, Gina, Coccia, Associate Planner CITY.OF EDMONDS CC: Street File Attached: Letter from owner requesting tree removal. Photos of hazardous trees. Arborist Letter. Plat Map including NGPE notes. Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan. danan Peffimlille/Gillet Comp Plan Ame dment (AMD-07-17) Page 1 of 1 Coccia, Gina From: Lesley Brown [lesleyb@adshapiro.com] Sent:: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 4:11 PM To: Coccia, Gina Subject: RE: Perri nvil le/Gil let Comp Plan Amendment (AMID-07-17) Hi Gina, We have used his main business address in Lynnwood for mailing. That is Norkotel, Inc. 18717 7611 Ave W #J Lynnwood, WA 98037 425-771-1138 Or PC) Box 3546 Lynnwood, WA 98046 Email: danag@norkote.com If you need a home address, then maybe you can send him an email. The building in Perrinville is sort of a warehouse for the business, not their main address. Hope this helps, Lesley 5/14/2008 May 13, 2008 ]Zequest to manage dead, dying or diseased trees that pose an unreasonable threat to Homes adjacent to our house (address 1226 7t° Ave S, Edmonds, WA 98020). "tree #1 Plan — Reduce north stem to approximately 40" (includes broken limbs tangled 2/3 up tree) Tree #2 Plan — Fall dead tree back into woods away from houses Tree #3 Plan - Remove tree Tree #4 Plan - Reduce two Northern limbs to 50Ft 'Tree #5 Plan — Remove tree The five trees referenced in the Trees for Life letter are marked with a metal tag numbered 1 through 5. In those instances where trees are designated to be removed, where possible, those trees designated for removal or reduced will be fallen back into NGPA area to serve as it fallen naturally and to serve as natural habitat for wildlife. P e a contact me, ' f you have any questions. ale Chinn 425-775-1299 Trees For Life, Inc. . 'P.O. Box 1586 Bothell,, WAk 98041-1586 t (425) 485-4758 (425).487-20.79 Fax , Dale Chinn 1226 7' Ave S. Edmonds, WA'98020 ' May 5, 2008. Dear Dale, You'll recall that on April 3, 2.008, I visited your property at the above address, for the, purpose of assessing your trees. You directed my attention to the wooded area west of your house, which'is.a designated dative growth. Protection Area, and indicated 'that your neighbors had'expressed concern about the safety ofsome, of the trees there. The wooded area in question is a fairly dense stand of second -growth vegetation, consisting mainly of native Red Alders and Western Red cedars, with a mix of various native and-non-native-understory plants. The area is quite wet, with mucky, saturated -soil; is bordered on two sides by slopes draining into the area, and is enclosed with a 4' chain - link fence, which approximates the property boundary. On visual assessment, my immediate impression was'that most of the trees in your woodlot are. -not hazardous, ,and are either leaning safely away from residences, or are' structurally sound enough to not cause concern.. However, along the north edge -of the - woodlot, where the terrain is relatively flat, are some Alders that are large enough to strike neighboring homes, and some which actually lean toward homes. I've identified five trees along the northern boundary, which could potentially damage neighboring properties" in the event of a complete or partial tree failure. These trees were labeled in the field in metal tags. I've listed the five trees below, ' ' with notes regarding their condition and my recommendations for minimizing tree hazards (trunk diameters are measured at a hefight of four feet.from the ground): 1. 40" Alder, double-trunked with -two 20" stems, fairly healthy.'One stem leans toward the woods, but the other stem leans toward a house,. approx. 50'.away,. This tree -has numerous broken limbs and'a large broken dead top hanging up' in its crown.. At the base . of the tree.'s trunk, where the two trunks are joined, there is a, bark inclusion, .which is . often a point of weakness and failurein double-tninked�trees, especially if hidden fungal , decay is present or develops within the inclusion. Recommendation: Remove tree,'or reduce north -stem of tree to approx. 40' height. 2. 16" Alder, dead. This tree has fallen over, is. resting against tree # l; and' leans toward a house. . kecommendation: Fell tree safely back into the woods. - 14 Arboricultnral. Services since 1979 A Member of rSA, NAA, Plant Amnesty • 3. 24" Alder, appears in poor health, top 30' is dead. This tree leans toward a house approx. 70' away. Recommendation: Remove tree. 4. 18" Alder, double-trunked, fairly healthy. Both trunks lean toward a house approx. 60' away and over a landscaped common area. Recommendation: Remove tree, or reduce to approx. 50' height, and remove two large limbs on north side for further weight reduction. 5. 16" Alder, appears in poor health, top 25' is dead. Leans toward a house approx. 70' away, and over a landscaped common area Recommendation: Remove tree. Notes: We don't often recommend crown reduction (or topping) of trees, because the practice is well known to have negative effects on tree health and structure. However, in this case, reduction may be preferable to removing the trees outright. Lower live limbs will usually be left intact after a crown reduction, and Alders will often remain alive for years and continue to provide the benefits that we associate with native trees, including slope stabilization, watershed protection, and wildlife habitat. The crown reductions I've recommended will accomplish the goal of minimizing the hazard to neighboring persons and property, while retaining the integrity and value of your natural area. A major disadvantage of crown reduction is that the trees will likely re -grow their tops, and the reduction process may need to be repeated every 5 years or so, to prevent the trees' again growing tall enough to threaten neighboring homes. There is also a strong possibility that fungal decay will develop in the reduction cuts over time, which can eventually weaken the tree such that complete removal may then be needed. Dale, please bear in mind that trees are living organisms, their condition can vary greatly and unpredictably over time, and no firm guarantee can be made regarding the safety of any tree. My recommendations in this letter are based on visual assessment of the trees, and it is possible that some of the trees on your property have, or will develop, hidden decay, defects or disease processes. Trees For life Inc. is not responsible for damage or injury incurred by partial or total failure of any tree on your property, whether or not you perform the recommended tree work. Thank you, and please call me with any questions. Sincerely, l� Randy Kile Certified Arborist # PN5572A Trees For Life, Inc. PO Box 1586 Bothell, WA 98041 (425) 485-4758 ti 5 ~tip.-r'e,,,w�i�Lj iL,• fn:4 g ;r �Y i.' L+ %�f t �' COS' (�;j' �j+ �� �' iw 1 r�.� Y j. ie c - L- � �:'i'Y� a j,•/;. t17 l.y l L1"t,'%'n 42 �''�� ,�'p�'j " ea, fir'' "'y6,�. 'r! ` �• 111j{�4� ' ��'�'�; r M / N„r, � ti • �rYy ��' A flo 14 h It 10 XV vp P I MA ' i, _. t{ •�. Tara) c eP�' {.'Si/"S AJ •��=^� . irwV.�e !. ` � � ';�ie, ;�J'�'e.l�•i!✓a !" . � r. � " 91 *s1'- 1 RP. Or f49t 4Ci- �' �1 ..���4' i;`�Fw�Z 1•�„� .'iptj}�; tl. �n �� 4 � � �4 Y.. tit F .{'S-' �"t ♦�� ��4a ',\IyY •t .h• '•�: dos 4 eAST Lite OF WMT 75a :Wr RMAR 3DO' EASt LOT I fqf>-:$q S.F. LOT 2 LOT 3 __..,�..:-....--�.+.•::..:..�....�...�..-. �..r:....,.. 3:. v.:�. v/�-.-l�+ir%/Ri/iI/T'7., G/�f'Vt "I:VRi'i , THE lV'Y7:rve;:'eRDwm ke TZRf'lTwE.E.A T L.� F f F� AT t AL , PYft f ;.plSE et 7:: Ti TiF MAY,8e: k�ffC.it TEAT iC3Tf STY:fIF f+ttdY A 3A H OR FBIC 6R PPJVA* Piew+fr OF WAY oRk fit? f?T.GT Ti4 " fAETIIM FWDM: 5T to TO AT Mc NW-4211.1p r � . 2005. M`t' PPOIN'iN� EXf'` F E5 � E Wr REBAR: I. ELM ti ' ' ` y`.'r, • � i�� y^i .. ". .: ...�. -gip q� 30.001 lqcxm fq t I + 3 Imt ITY EMEMENr LPF�* ATE ITY ! ! ! f " Ewa Fad . n-rp f ! t ! '! GF.►w, J f l ! ! ! IN HELL CASE frt, ! f rsv i# i FxOSp t4 Cam_ 1, c 4 T' \J ON E-PlanningBook City of Edmonds Planning Department 1215th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 360, 771. 0240 Printed: 511312008 9:53:32 AM Published April 11, 2008 This document is for general information purposes only and is provided on an 'as is' and 'as available' basis. The data used comes from a variety of public sources and no warranty of any kind is given as to its accuracy. Users of this document agree to indemnify and save harmless the City of Edmonds, its officials, officers, employees and/or agents from and against any claim, demand or action, arising out of any use or possession of this document . Edmonds City Limits 100fl Contours 1Oft Contours -- 2ft Contours 7-1 Edmonds Parcels (March 2008) Irj Parcels (March 2008) 0 • 'I 04/16/2.004 15:08 425747i1 CaECJTE-CH CONSULTANTS, INC. Alan Jackson 1W1 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 99037 GEOTECH 0 PAGE 01/1,02 13256 Northeast 2(hh Saeet,_Sui -14 Bellevue_ Wasbin�r -,'q w (425) 747-5618 FA.*`(425j`747 1 mil 16, 2004 JN 03322 Subject, Review of Dispersion System Plans Proposed Residences -- Lots 1, 2, and 3 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: via facsimife- (425) 767 9f f2 We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed stormwater dispersion trenches to be constructed on the northem three lots (Lots 1, 2, and 3) of the subplat. The plans we reviewed included Sheets C-1 through C-6. The plans were prepared by CSP Engineering and are dated October 13, 2003. We completed a geotechnical study of this site on September 3, 2003. The proposed dispersion trenches are to be located along the western edge of the development area. The natural grades on the land to the west of the proposed dispersion trenches are inclined at approximately 20 to 30 percent and the slope is fully vegetated with mature trees and undergrowth. The grading plan and drainage plans indicate that the new dispersion systems will be located at existing grades with no fill added to the existing grades above or below the system. A vegetated biter strip will be installed along the downslope side of the dispersion trenches to create a level discharge area and to reduce potential erosion. Given the relatively gentle inclination of the slope below the proposed dispersion system and the soil conditions observed in our test pits, it is our opinion, provided that the recommendations provided in the geotechnical study are followed, that the installation of the planned dispersion system will not result in slope instability of the subject site. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. RECEIVED SEP 14 2004 PERMIT COUNTER STREET FILE P 04/1.6/2004 15:08 425747# GEOTECH PAGE 02/02 Alan: Jackson JN 03322 April 16, 2004 Page 2 We trust this letter fulfills your needs at this time. Please contact us with any questions or if we can further assist you. Respectfully submitted, iEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. R4 01- Geotechnical Project Manager cc: Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stott or Dave Stafford via facsimile: (425) 984-0120 Lisa Bride via facsimile. (425) 672-9 f 82 Mountain Shadow Construction — Jerry Dawes via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 JHS: jhs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. ey/lyI'LbG4 15:5i3 41b14llibb7 1 CONSULTANTS, INC. Alan Jackson 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 99037 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: GEOTECH 1] PAGE 02 13256 Northeast 201h Strict. Suite 16 Bellevue, Washinpon 98W5 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747.8561 September 3, 2003 via facsimile_ (425) 787-9112 JN 03322 We are pleased to present this geotec finical engineering report for the proposed single-family residences to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of exploring site surFace and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our Contract for Professional Services' dated July 24, 2003. We were provided with a preliminary site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM Industries, Inc. developed this plan, which is dated September 14, 2002. Based on this plan and on conversations with Alan Jackson, we anticipate that the development will consist of dividing the approximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. The houses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue South and will be set back 25 feet from the street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight basement. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of approximately 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish floor elevation. No development is proposed on the westem side of the site, as this area is a designated wetland. - If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CON0/T14"!N3 SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The undeveloped, wooded site is located on the western side of 7th Avenue South in Edmonds. The site slopes from east to west, with elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastern comer to approximately 200 feet at the southwestern comer. Most of the western, part of the site is a relatively flat designated wetland, and there is a creek that winds along the western property line. The proposed development area is located on the sloped, eastern portion of the site. The slopes are inclined at approximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous and evergreen trees, The ground is GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Alan Jackson 0 0 JN 03322 September 3, 2003 page 2 covered with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with fems and other low growth vegetation elsewhere. There is an area on the southern part of the site where approximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally steeper slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the site. The adjoining properties are developed with single-family residences. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on July 24, 2003 with a small, rubber -tracked trackhoe provided and operated by Alan Jackson. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report. Sor/ Conditions The test pits encountered a 6- to 24-inch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand and gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel with cobbles and occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel fill was encountered overlying the topsoil in Test Pits 1, 4, and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was encountered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below existing grade. The depths of soil layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact definition of soil unit thicknesses would require more explorations. Large amounts of yard waste, garbage, and construction debris were observed scattered throughout the site and were encountered in the topsoil and in the fill. This debris will need to be removed during site clearing. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed at depths of 6 to 6.5 feet in Test Pits 3 and 5; however, the test pits were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not indicate the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. The final fogs represent our interpretations of the field logs. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. GEOTI=CH CONSULTANTS. INC, b'J/ 1J/ Ybb4 1b: bd 415 /4 tdbb1 Alan Jackson September 3, 2003 GENERAL (:Eu I LLH • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE @4 JN 03322 Page 3 THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ,ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presented in this report are based on the assumption that the earthwork for ab of the houses can be completed at once. If the development plans change, we should be notified so that we may update our recommendations accordingly. The test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill, topsoil, and highly weathered sand and gravel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered between 1 and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer encountered near the top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered below the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on conventional foundations. These soils are also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the site. The topsoil and weathered sand may be reused as fill in non-structural areas such as landscaping beds. Dumped construction debris, yard waste, and garbage were observed throughout the site. This material is not suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed during site clearing. Based on the topographic information provided to us, and on our understanding of the project, some cuts and fills will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade- Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25 feet from the edge of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal.Vertical) can be made within the eastern property line. Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and gravel; the fill and debris encountered near the surface on most of the site should be removed during site clearing. Also, groundwater was encountered in two of the downslope test pits during exploration. If groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side of the site, the cut slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To mitigate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table, the cuts may have to be backfilled with rock ballast. We should be contacted at once if groundwater is encountered during the excavation of the cut slopes. All cut slopes should be protected Immedlately .whh plastic sheeting and should be monitored daily by the superintendent for Indications of instability. Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the top of any cut slope. The foundation walls between the adjacent residences are approximately 10 feet apart as shown on the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be removed as part of the mass excavation where it cannot be inclined at 1:1 (H:V). Taking into account a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot exceed 3 feet between the foundation walls. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Alan Jackson September 3, 2003 JN 03322 Page 4 Based on the site plan, it appears as though cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be necessary to achieve finish floor elevations of the northernmost houses and southernmost. The plan shows each of these houses set back 5 feet from the northern and southern property lines, respectively. Because the site soils may be inclined no steeper than 1:1 (H:1n shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts unless the finished floor elevations of these structures are revised. We can make recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Based on the topographic information provided to us, fill on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to level the finish floor of each house at its proposed finish floor elevation. However, 'we recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. Finished fill slopes should not be inclined steeper than 2.5:1 (H_V)- Depending on the desired back yard layout and the location of the wetland buffer, d may prove more economical to emexcavate, place the downslope foundations on native, dense sand and gravel and leave a tail crawl space, or to step the buildings down the slope. Altemafively, a reinforced fill rockery could be constructed near the western edge of the development area to level the site. Regardless of which method is chosen, we recommend that the downslope foundation wall be designed as a retaining wall to retain the soil within the crawl space or beneath the slab down to the footing level. Fill rockeries taller than 4 feet will require geogrid reinforcement; we can provide a design If necessary. We should review the grading plans once the house layouts are finar'oed. The site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. The earthwork contractor should prepare the fill areas by removing the topsoil and highly weathered sand above the root line. The new fill should be benched into the dense native soils by cutting flat benches into the dense native soils. Each horizontal lift of fill should be tested to ensure that adequate compaction is being achieved. The foundation walls should be backfiiled with free -draining structural fill. The site sand and gravel below the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfill. Footing drains should be installed at the base of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage system, so two separate drains would need to be placed in the backfill between the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and rockeries. The erosion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered during construction. Site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, and the erosion potential on the site is moderate due to the slope of the site. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas and around the wetlands. Straw bales should be placed against the sift fence for added protection during grading. Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. Geotech Consultants, inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. GCO`rECH CONSULTANTS, INC. by/1J/Yb1d4 1b:bb 4'Lb14ftibbl ULUILUI tAL-- Ub Alan Jackson • JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 5 We recommend including this report, in its entirety, In the project Contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The site Is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 18-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). in accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface Is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc ('Very Dense Soil). The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOLINDA77ONS The proposed residences can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up to 5 feet of properly compacted structural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and S"trucftwW Flll for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 18 inches, respectively. Footings shouldalso be bottomed at least 18 Inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (pso is appropriate for footings supported on the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed above these competent native soils. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 09/13/2004 15:58 4257478561 GECTECH Alan Jackson September 3, 2003 PARAMETER VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Where: (i) pd is pounds per cubic toot, and (Pik passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid deri ter. PAGE 07 JN 03322 Page 6 If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised recommendation. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation`s resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. PERMANENT FOUNDA770M AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining wails backfiiled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: Where: (i) pat is pounds per cubic foot, and 01) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psi times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure, The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added GeOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ow ldr zura4 lb: bt$ 41b /4 /abb1 GEOTECH PAGE 08 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 7 to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wail dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid density; a traffic surcharge should be applied to the eastern foundation wall of each residence. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Baclfll and Watlemmofina Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. The native sand and gravel encountered below the root line during our explorations is suitable for reuse as retaining wall backfill. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfclled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof the below -grade walls. The performance of subsurface drainage systems will degrade over time. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where moist conditions or some seepage through the walls are not acceptable in the future. This typically includes limiting cold joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or membranes on the outside of the walls. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion is not considered waterproofing, but will only help to prevent moisture, generated from water vapor or capillary action, from seeping through the concrete. With any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is Important to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil. SLABS -ON GRADE The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. UW 1d/ Ln34 10: Od 42014I Mab1 • Alan Jackson September 3, 2003 (*-U I LC H • PAGE E9 JN 03322 Page 8 All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum flinch thickness of coarse, free -draining structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. As noted by the American Concrete institute (ACI) in Section 3.2.3 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structuresproper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade stab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (pef) per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However, if no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. In the recent past, ACE (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to aid In the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Therefore, if there is a potential that the protectiontbtotter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced; a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and 'other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM EA 643 for Installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. ROCKERIES We anticipate that rockeries may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry spalls should be placed behind rockeries to reduce the potential for soil eroding through them. A perforated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries_ We recommend limiting fill rockeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent native soil. The lower two-thirds of the rockery should be constructed with 3- to 4-man rocks and the fill should be placed and , compacted to structural fill requirements. Prior to rockery construction, the fill should be placed beyond the planned rockery location and then cut nearly vertical so that the soil in back of the rockery is thoroughly compacted. Since grading plans were not established at the time of this report, the relationship between the proposed footings and GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. uVidlZMA 15:!Od 4Zn14td0b1 ULUILUH h'AL*- 10 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 9 proposed rockeries could not be determined. Foundations closer to the back of the rockery than two times the height of the rockery would exert a surcharge on the adjacent rockeries; surcharged rockeries or rockeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill, We can provide a rockery detail if necessary. The construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirety controllable by engineering methods and standards. It is imperative that rockeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a proper manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction. The rockeries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local practice and City of Edmonds standards. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or inclusions, should not be used, in order to fimit the amount of maintenance and repair needed over time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the design. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national govemment safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability_ However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1.1 (HorizontalMertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. As discussed in the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes can lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. If groundwater is encountered in any of the cuts at the site, the excavation should be immediately backfilled to above the line of seepage and the geotechnical engineer should be called to the site to evaluate the need for remedial measures. The above -recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather, The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that gravel can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2.5:1 (H:V). To reduce the potential for shallow sloughing, fill must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the slope face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of patios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. This can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final inclination. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Any disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the slope. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed on the slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil. r;FnTFr.H CONSULTANTS. INC. Fly/1J/:MW4 1b:b8 4257478561 Alan Jackson September 3, 2003 GEOTECH • PAGE 11 JN 03322 Page 10 We anticipate that cuts on the order of 6 to 8 feet will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there may be insufficient room within the property lines to make the proposed cuts are on the northern side of the northernmost house and the southern side of the southernmost house. If the house locations or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope inclinations, shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts. We can provide design recommendations for shoring if it is necessary. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Foundation drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We recommend that each residence have its own Independent foundation drainage system. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in nonwoven, geotextile fidter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supse 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a stab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 3. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. in general, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should they become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. Groundwater was observed during excavation of the test pits. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the residences should slope away at feast 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. Additionally, a drainage Swale should be provided upslope of each residence to intercept surface run-off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of the driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, storm water. and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from any slopes. GENERAL, EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed throughout the site; these materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or removed sand and gravel above the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 09/13/2004 15:58 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 12 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 11 Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfili, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or In other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the tilling and compaction process. As discussed in the General section, the on -sits gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we recommend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the frill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recornplacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required companion. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Where: Minimum Relative Compactlon Is the ratio, expressed in percent 9es, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, n determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation d 1557411(Modified Proctor). The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the gravel below the root fine is suitable for reuse as structural fill. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits, 09/ 113/ 2004 15: 58 42514 Mbb1 ULU I LUH rFwt t d . • • Alan Jackson J N 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 12 Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or Implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. ADDMO AL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. Subsequent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be charged on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached schedule of fees and general conditions. This work often includes a review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans and interaction with the architect, civil engineer, and structural engineer. Also, it may involve geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction phase, which would also be charged on a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise notified by the owner, we would assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design team as required on a time -and -materials basis. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services only when requested by you or your representatives. We can only document site work that we actually observe, it is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. 09/13/2004 15:58 4257478561 Alan Jackson September 3, 2003 ULUFLUH The following plates are attached to complete this report: plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plate 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs Plate S Typical Footing Drain 0 !JAUt 14 JN 03322 Page 13 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Erin M. Toland Geotechnical Engineer �0� 36094 ANAL E)(PlRE8 01-31- O James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geoteehnieal Project Manager EMT/JHS: esm rr �IiB _ dtN�''�'t.Pal:EflY..i^AhYHI.�M��Nn"xn �Ilqm _ r lJWI:J/ZUkJ4 lb:bd 42b14fWabl L*-UILUH tAL*- lb TP-5 approximate �� �'••. TP-7 wet<and boundary i i t i .- ' r r ' TP-4 proposed SFRs 1 I� TP-6 't 4 _ r P-3 TP- proposed plat fines !� ; r TP-1 } i Lj GEOTECH CONRTUAN11%Tl CI 230 240 SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Joib A DW $cam pray 03322 July 2003 Not bo scale by/:��/Ybtl4 lb:!38 41b/4t8bb1 L-k-UILUH t AL*_ 1! Test Pit 1 0 -1.0 TOPSOIL ©ark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 1.0 - 5.0 SW Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly moist, medium -dense 5.0 - 6.0 -becomes dense to very dense 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 2 FILL Brown sand and gravel FILL, with yard waste, loose 1.0 - 2.0 TOPSOIL Old, black TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 2.0 - 4.0 Sw Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, highly weathered, with abundant roots, slightly moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 9.0 Brown, gravelly SAND with cobbles, very moist, o aroundwater encountered. some caving from G-2.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 3 0^ 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose, mixed with construction debris Incl. 12- inch concrete rubble 1.0 - 6.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, dense 6.0 - 7.0 -with more cobbles, becomes very wet roundwater encountered at 6.6 feet, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 4 0- 0.5 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 0.6 - 2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL Gray -brown sand FILL with gravel and occasional cobbles, medium -grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense, mixed with old TOPSOIL at 1.5 — 2.0 feet 2.0 - 6.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, medium -to coars"rained, very moist, dense 6.0-7.0 -becomes wet "No groundwater encountered, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation GEOTECH CONSULTANM 94C TEST PIT LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington /. Aft. 3 03322 1 August 20M EW 031:131:MM 1 b: bU 41b /4 tbbb1 ULU I LUH rAtjr- 10 ract Pit 5 0- 2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dr loose 2.0 - 4.0 SW Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 7.0 SP -becomes gray -brown, medium -grained, wet, *Groundwater encountered at 6.0 feet some Test Pit 8 - 7.0 feet during 0-1.0 1.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 6.5 TOPSOIL SW SP Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, Loose Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense -becomes mediu rained, ve moist, dense *No groundwater encountered, some caving from 3.0 - 6.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 7 Depth 0- 2.0 FILL Gray -brow. sand and gravel FILL, dry, loose and Old TOPSOIL 2.0 - 4.0 SW Gray -brown, highly weathered SAND with gravel and cobbles, with ou sional roots, slightly moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 7.5 -dense, wet.at 7.0 feet *No groundwater encountered, some caving from 8.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, tNC - 'PEST PIT LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington A* 0MW 'r �zoa3 L 4 09/1312004 15:58 42bf4lbbbl L*-uIti.FH rF�lit 1� Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Washed Rocl (181 min_ size) Ir min. Backfiill (Sea text for requirements) Nonwoven Geotexlfle Filter Fabric ` OR� e V:0 e0 6 Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) SLAB , n.�_• ,V Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (invert at feast 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate, WWI. Place holes downward.) a OD�-e� oDs-c�'o0 �•�pp ooaa� CP !elle%� �•s.4.a o Free -Draining Gravel (if appropriate) NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing draiins. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEOTECH CONSMTANI% 1W— TYPICAL DRAIN DETAIL 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington. 033M 1 August 2003 Not to Scale 5 �iutaE�;r`i '�{ �f��l��t? ��( �}'�i� Yf ��•�1 � t �,- i0 1 � �h`.k.A. `�, a ft eMr.t � 1 d.. f ,i •e.. ., J DATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ly)QUIQ'F�W INC W MAILING ADDRESS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NAME: {Iu; ES li"" C ADDFIESS x CITY ZIP TELEPHONE . C L' F t &203 kAME! jCBLf S Aro g 45' ADDRESS CITY ZIP TELEPHONE STATE: UdEN(sif 40ABER EXPIRATION DAT"tCHECKED mowr__v q'0ft_27L13 of 5- TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. NEW ® RESIDENTIAL 7❑�. ❑ ADDITION COMMERCIAL ❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ REPAIR GRADING CYDS ❑ DEMOLISH TANK �( GARAGE L1Sl CARPORT ❑ RETAINING WALL ROCKERY (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: NUMBER NUMBER OF OF DWELLING STORIES 2 UNITS DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE &vc reuc r A. iv L. E-U�•L Fit/T/? y 7 L6 PLUMBING / MECH ❑ COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE ❑ i SIGN-: ❑FENCE ( X FT) ❑ OTHER SPRINKLER ❑FIRE FIRE ALARM CRITICAL f AREAS NUMBER lnl , /40 M / 7/ "PERMIT EXPIRES USE ZONE PERMIT NUMBER u JOB SUITE/APT# ADDRESS f) 7 PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION No. LOOT NO. LID NO. G LID FEE $ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP Approved RW Pe mitRequired RW Permit Requked Street Use Permit Req'd EXISTING +� PROPOSED Impaction Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION % FT Underground Wiring required METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED I 11 11 YEs4, NO ❑ REPAR/KS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE BY DATE Ynn Dll IU17l FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE VARIANCE OR CU SW@ReW4&GRAQB# I INSPECTION BOND REO'D fOSTED YES ONO $ Q SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED EXP LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETTBACKKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.) ALLOWED PROP U ITE FRONT (/GV�S* 3 1/ fS PARKING I LOT AREA P NNING VIEW Y DATE REO'D I PR VIDED ��y6� yy1E lG r3 0 REMARKS 1~ _ I — l^,mo11td 144wf+'7 A i,u/ LA/iiavW T a((v/kin(V I y un i d = `I '-iRro ^-- Diu BY rYPE OF CON�Ti1UOTIpN CO�E7 GROUP j �,( (31 W 2 a W W IR SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA - OCCUPANT REQUIRED a LOAD VES �-� REMARKS i = PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108 / IBC109/ IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 9 m :.� 7 HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % I LOT SLOPE % PLAN CHECK NO: I VESTED DATE THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC E DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. y PERMIT APPLICATION: ISO DAYS I3ERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR- PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN ISO DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION •APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF E EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FRO14 THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE I NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE�ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. - I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT LHAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATINWCONSTRUC- TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. SIGNATUaE (OWNER O DATE SIGNED - V�j� vv VALUATION $D 41-L Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge Building Permit City Surcharge 5— Plumbing "' Base Fee V Mechanical 7219 Grading ' Engr. Review Engr. Inspection Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit Fire Inspection Receipt # i Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due Recording Fee Receipt # GALL -OR INSPECTION (42I.A5) 771 -0220 APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFIC LS SIGN U E DATE 11 Za4 REAt�ED BY � DATE AT)FEINTION EXT 1333 IT IS UNLkWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILA FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORAGERTIFICATE OFOCCU- PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110/ IRC110. ORIGINAL •FILE YELLOW • INSP COO PINK •OWNER GOLD •ASSESSOR Os/Os PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES i)ATE RECEIVED PERMIT EXPIRES USE PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE %� G _ NUMB RS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB , SUITEJAPT# ADDRESS/ IER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS t_?(i lira/ S� Dd �•+� Q'DN S 771-(JG JPLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO. ING ADDRESS LID FEE $ -,/ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW RW Pe Required Approved �1 i9 „\/- ��["• lJ VVVd/ 7� J Streetet Use Uee Permit Req'd CITY ZIP TEL 60 M S�c12 NAME: )C-S 14A 1 i�l r=S ADDRESS --4'., CI" iP TELEPHONE .0 CBL q ADDRESS = CITY ZIP TELEPHONE LICENSE NUMBER �ROPE:RTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. NEW � RESIDENTIAL '-❑ PL BIN ,.-_- ❑ ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR ❑ CHANGE OF USE ❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN ❑ REPAIR ❑ GRADING CYDS ❑ FENCE ( X Fr) ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK K...3FW& p( lwo ❑ ❑ AKERY INING WALL F RE ER ❑ CARPORT ROCGARAGE FIRE ALARM (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL OF r� DWELLING AREAS / /y STORIES G... UNITS NUMBERS DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (AJSi'tGc.. New - ecellrR ,. ecl 04 EPHONE EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION Fr ound Undergr Widerroundrequired METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED l7 YES ❑ NO ❑ Z W REMARKS z OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE a W ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE I ¢ I iL VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND •--•- RE 'D POSTED ^.."�...� ❑YES NO $ SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED. ALLOWED PROPOSED EXP LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR c7 -- z z PARKING LOT AREA P NING R WE Y DAT g REO'D PROVIDED ,,,� 1� /� l3 Q REMARKS CHECKED BY TYP NSTRUCTION CO E OCCUPANT GROUP SPECIAL INSPECTION AREA OCCUPANT REQUIRED ❑ YES LOAD REMARKS Z PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 106 / IBC109 / IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 9 m C V V S T It( I/GT/ �V D./r V 4: VW ! VALUATION Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE % Building Permit City Surcharge PLAN CHECK NQ / VESTED DATE Plumbing BasEj Fee Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO SE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE g SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review i PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE.CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # i ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CrIYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Recording Fee Receipt # kY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION S CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF NER. I AGREE TO COMRLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS flEGULATING CONSTRUC- D IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED \TION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO :N'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. (OWNER O GENT) DATE SIGNED � i W ` APPLICATION APPROVAL CALL ,° This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknoWledged In space provided. (425) OFFICIALS SIGNAT DATE r 771-0220 R�L ASED BY; , DATE EXT 1333 _ / A �l ITIS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORACERTIFICATE OFOCCU- � ORIGINAL -FILE •YELLOW PANCY FIRS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 / IBC110 / IRC110. PINK -OWNER GOLD - A 09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES