The URL can be used to link to this page

1230 7TH AVE S.PDF1230 7TH AVE S a. ADDRESS: TAXACCOUNT/PARCELNUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):' COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: r DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PERMITS (OTHER) PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST SCALED PLOT PLAN DA SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDI; SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMITS) #. SOILS REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: q-.OD"l 9 L:\TE:MP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc ZONE SETBACKS. roll ;Pv c Dc, EN-T toll • OU -I-LET U1 FRONT 1 L 1IJ zo b15 P, �11.1 Ft�- _ �}$ `r° MN .tiZFLOIA/ op >z.CSTK\ G (G SIDE ' - -rc a,. N 'XN in N 39 ?c 30'± Ta-rMAI"ou REA "' — - - - I i Z 1 �,. 0 1 HE GHTj ��1 -rYP f= �,r� u r.� - =l � e I M, I G o r�I N EG-r l 0 1I I ' ' g Vol"T a b./S�E.L. ZO ° `� TErZ t.13 O a A APPROVED BY ENGINEERING n C-A rI 0 )-I ( D T>=M 0 �,� A.Zc,o. 1 I I I � I �AIz�E..I � �I %mR�� E ¢¢Y DI s PE¢SIoki O O l N oNC. vv-(VCsva 1►tF1L--rv-AT1O I Z � I I _rV12 !ter z- Date: ¢ 1o'wlbC FILTs Of' TO / I q ( M 3 S-M I P A. UA of Z ! 6L0 A, M 7i I ,►�l' l/1 C3 m Z (�.. WAY__S 0 E 0�� o f �� i �';a �� ro' `' ,� 3' p 1 r '" r w F� ALLO 614% I N6rA. 6 I I i 19 � 111 � Po124t I /� J —i ATE SEWER Iloo 60 Lwr_. e i SUE FFE(t LI EJ IDs Y, Z.3�8' ) 4- � ALL EXPOSED SURFACES T Pvzo� I DE SILF� I I \ \ �� - INSPECT REM . pUR11J(e Go{rs RU ?Idt1 l S.S.g L. I - BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS- Pe R r Eu T- �E 42 SO , , L 1326 AT c. o I �\ raY�ETIe 1�1 37 ° ur o.H covE IT 0 n OIANER/(`JNTRACTO FS MS1'� " �`� x FOR EF®:LION CC ''S C�1 AND DA�iAG a R-�►�'T 101 �n/to� Ft Ind s $ r �' CA �? t� AA-Fz A O .r✓��/ i+ •�3- r0®�GALI� S o rcro PwR/ca1 �s-ro- —m�1 rr—�n z e- Ti��co4s 9 REGON4�d�►Qi®CL )1�e,►rGLCA44O �o s-zooz _s4v C.) W �O 111 f� U= Li T� 70 - II q r i P0.LT St 0 F> -✓>6c L38 Z Cy Au6'. = 233 FIi-1.I-.wF.sI-/.G � m 0 o L0-7- z, SNa� A-WnnUNED BY PLANNING >�.�.x. N ..- zsg.o' Za9.1' N _ U W �/73 L A�-TVAL' ' Z_s's I BTht,0F i—F0 i 1ki Z 1 q Z 7 S 0.. 1= 7-G� - �...,�^ ' �A I W. (_ r + �a,Tv�"FT, : SA►.A, SEw. n�A►JH.KI/•6= Z4o,5Z m 1 tJ F rz-DLLT o F- LoT I -n G ZI/e-PEV_VIOUS SVIz.FA,cE /`^'�..)=VIAL coNTOUfLS(1FGNA.►.t�o6�� LiJ IS t:-j::-ikA C=, I� 001= = Z3G0 S• �. / �Ex1 sT1►,1� coN-rp v2S I I 1>C=_G 4L 1 8 S S • F. ro r�P.D n.I (o n �1 W L��1YE u"_ � S.>_. _3ZOC) 5: F. GAT 37 e) Gv. v 0 s . SGALE I N �. L50 co. YDS. p ^I epn�c-' oG .=�eGFSS ra`+"diile� M r f�TZ�A O� �rST[JR6P.},G� It1�-l-UDCS A�rrt-0uC,,7 SrTG � �Fd117 r=1.!'T'1 iZl= F RbI�IT" (0 8 , 51 D F• L OTC T'O Fjc POs L� O 5 UI l.-tb Q E c_ovEQ,E p ��J/ � �4GF-A. L10E, NbY oP t�.►it�6c.,�vET� ��IN r.4Nn,1zS V7/ VJ/ LVOJ 1 /: Vo 4ZU 141 0001 al. 0E TECH CONS LTANTS, INC. I i Alai Jackson 1& 01 Highway 99 Lyr nwood, Washington 99037 CCU 1 r-11n /Z-5p _7� &e s SOect: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: r Rut t7Y 13256 Northeast 2(kh Suect, Suite 16 Bellovua, Washington 906 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 September 3, 2003 �i JN 03322 via facsimile. (425) 787-9112 Ware 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 recommendations 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. Wd were provided with a preliminary site plan that includes some topographic information. AFM Ind istries, 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 apF roximately 1.8-acre site into four lots and constructing one single-family residence on each lot. Thg 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 CONDITIONS S�FACE Th I¢¢ 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, wit elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastern comer to .approximately 20 feet at the southwestern corner_ Most of the western part of the site is a relatively flat destignated 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. RECEIVED DEC 12 2003 STREE°i FILE PERMIT COUNTER Wit uj/'Luba 1 /: bM Qlb /4 /libbl GEOTECH PAGE 03 Ala Jackson JN 03322 Sep ember 3, 2003 Page 2 id with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with ferns and other low i vegetation elsewhere. There is an area on the southern part of the site where cimately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally �r slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered hout 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 )sed 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 op ted 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" sar ples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs arelllxovided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report. Thl 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 Gearing. 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 resent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations.. The actual isition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between iloration 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 ,.criations 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 . re laced with structural fill during construction, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. VD1U01Zvv.3 alive latUItL;H PAGE 04 Jackson amber 3, 2003 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JN 03322 Page 3 SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OP OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A ORAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE AINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD rHE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. Thy proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and co structing one single-family residence on each lot. The recommendations presented in this re ort are based 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 redommendations accordingly. Ttest 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 been 1 and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer encountered near th4 top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered be ow the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on coi iventlonal 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 Ba ed on the topographic Information provided to us, and on our understanding of the project, sotne 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 wit in the eastern property line. Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and gri 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 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 en entered 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 indications of instability. Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the too of any cut slope. foundation walls between the adjacent residences are approximately 10 feet apart as shown the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be noved as part of the mass excavation where it cannot be inclined at 1:1 (HY). Taking into ;ount a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot ;eed 3 feet between the foundation walls. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. tly/ U.1f ZUU.1 1 /: VU 4'L5 (4ltlbbl ULU I LUH PAGE 05 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:V) shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts unless the finished floor elevations of these structures are revised. We can ma a recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Ba ad 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 rec mmend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. Finished fill slopes sho Id not be inclined steeper than 2.5:1 (H:V). Depending on the desired back yard layout and the location of the wetland buffer, 0 may prove more economical to overexcavate, place the do 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 we tern 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 witflin 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. Th site sand and gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. The earthwork CO :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 conlipaction is being achieved. foundation walls should be backfilled with free -draining structural fill. The site sand and gravel w the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfill. Footing drains should be installed at the i of each foundation wall.. We recommend that each residence have its own independent dation drainage system, so two separate drains would need to be placed in the backfill Teen the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and Th erosion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather con itions 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 tha a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas and around the wet ands. Straw bales should be placed against the silt fence for added protection during grading. Ro(ked constructionaccess roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud can lied off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alig iment of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet we ther. Following rough grading, 0 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 m 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. OWUitZUVJ 1(:Uri 4L7(4(1:10bl latUItL;H PAGE 06 , Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 5 recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report Ad also be provided to any future propetty owners so they will be aware of our findings and immendations. CONSIDERATIONS Thy' site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (USC)., In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 10 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. FOUNDATIONS Th , proposed residences can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bez ring on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up to 5 feet of properly compacted strL ctural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork anit f 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 should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have ben 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 detormine 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 jipment constraints, this,may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An lallowable 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 ab ve these competent native soils. A c ne-third increase in this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short-term win or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction setllement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thic ness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a dist ince of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load, Lataral 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 foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively lev I, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following ulti ate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. if m Jackson amber 3, 2003 PARAMETER ULTIMATE VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. JN 03322 Page 6 e ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above Will be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised recommendation. We recommend ntaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when i(a the above ultimate values. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Reltaining walls- backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures im osed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain le I backfill: PARAMETER -T Active Earth Pressure " VALUE 30 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 135 pcf where: (i) pcf Is pounds per cubic foot, and (Iq active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0,002 times hs height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 pst 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 ping 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 ild be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends,in the walls. is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a er. design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent datlons will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. 09/03/2003 17:08 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 08 Jackson amber 3, 2003 JN 03322 Page 7 to tile above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate den earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be acsitnted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid de4ty; 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 hig er soil forces that occur during compaction. ckflll 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 rticles 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 aininq wall backfill. purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure 'that the design criteria for a lining 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 ermeable 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 )mmendations 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, terproofing should be provided where moist conditions or some seepage through the Its 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 Dortant to prevent a build up of water vapor that may be transmitted through concrete US from the surrounding soil. ON -GRADE The building floors may be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop the native sand and gravel, or on stru tural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab con truction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and repl�oed with select, imported structural fill. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. V'J! OJ( _'V10J L (: ntl 4Y0 (4 oobl ULU I WIN r'HUG CJ7 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 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 disc ussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. As noted by the American Concrete Inst tute (ACI) in Section 3.2.3 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moi ture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wo d, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI alsc notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defiled 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, althpugh 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 defi ied 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 megt this requirement. In the recent past, ACI (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 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 lite tune 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, w4h 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 i Istalled, 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 sures" (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" ge erally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these iss Ies 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 me. Ins should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. anticipate that rockeries 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 gated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries. recommend limiting fill 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 OEOYECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ny/ 0.1/'Ln19.1 1 /: M 4'Lb rG /ttlbbI QEUTECti PAGE 10 Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 9 pro 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 rocenes 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 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 pro ice and City of Edmonds standards. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or i elusions, should not be used, In order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed oveir time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the de qn. 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 vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be ma a near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Adr ninistrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Tyre B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet In height cannot be excavated at an incl nation steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. As discussed in the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes carlead 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 gec.itechnical 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 r sites with similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a Ively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. porary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. The cut slopes ild also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. se note that gravel can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility ractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanentouts 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 ghing, fill must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the slo e. face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of pa ios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Th s can be accomplished by overbuilding the compacted fill and then trimming it back to its final ink 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 sp cies of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. An disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the sloe. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed ar as 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. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. 09/03/2003 17:08 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 11 Ala 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 floolr elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there ma � 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 tions or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope inclinations, sho ing will be required to make the proposed cuts. We can provide design recommendations for sh Ing if it is necessary. CONSIDERATIONS Fodndadon 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 Jieneral, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water thai may bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains, should th4 become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. Gr undwater 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 tie bottom of the excavation. Thy excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away Fro I the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, sla s, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the residences sh uld slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be pr vided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. Adblitlonally, a drainage swale should be provided upslope of each residence to Intercept surface ruluitable -off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of thdriveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, strm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a outfall located away from any slopes. 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 ref noved sand and gravel above the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as str ctural fill,.but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. GEOTSCH CONSULTANTS, INC. 09/03/2003 17:08 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 12 Alan 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 support 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 rest Its in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and muc, t be closely, controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the General secl ion, the on -site gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we rec ,mmend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. 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 Ad not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not dently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the J to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents Immended relative compactions for structural fill: Where: Minimum Relative Compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as detemdned in aaoordance with ASTM Test Designation 0 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the iel below the root line is suitable for reuse as stnictural 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 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 anal reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are co 1 monly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil sal�iipies in test pits. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 09/03/2003 17:0B 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 13 Jackson smber 3, 2003 JN 0332-2 Page 12 Sub urface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions freclently require making additional expenditures .to attain a properly constructed project. It is rec mmended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such pot ntial 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 rved site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our conclusions and nmendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of Ice 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 y precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, iiques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for deration in design. ADDMONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide ge echnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm tha subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate wh 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. HaN rever, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the co ractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will the responsibility of the contractor. Sulisequent 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 rr ay involve geotechnical observation and testing services during the construction phase, which would also be charged on a time -and -materials basis. Unless otherwise noted by the owner, we wo Id assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design team as required on a time -and -materials basis. d 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 we. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our imendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. t77/ C1JI LOGJ L (: 100 4L7 r4 f uobl ULU I LUM VAUL 14 Alan} Jackson September 3, 2003 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 J N 03322 Page 13 appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we I be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. JHS: esm Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Erin M. Toland Geotechnical Engineer o�5coh Sr \ o R !3094 0 �w Fcrs�+� G� vq EXPIRES 01-31- G y z James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. V'Jd'UJ/yt2Uj If:utl 42t) tQ t8bbl GEUTECH PAGE 15 calm T )I po, PARK YIN Oymm PK !XN All IN It W. cu 2q r 4 4 l' (_ .1# I I Hurr 9ww pK M. Zvi 3. .18IT14 ST sw _CW Ilk 891W SW !z X! SIM !V WATER Sr t!LA llosn'Ssfw CH R ST FIST mar pie '13 0 um, -11 OR It I am son 01. rIN, I 1_96TH STIO 0. SW PmEir PUG I. , I . MELMY LX . DR If sw "DO 5vm ��al �•W. wwy iAE DMR -7 ST 4 Vt Vt 'I ST- -0 LISTA MMU`T",M VMr ST bV 33001 __ ; 0 '1 iZMTY 6 LN I PL !.e Go I \ ZQITT Ma SPACKEM RPMA MIX! sr 8E4CH ST I EN ST �!A 31 r 24 aL RAO" FT Irl 19. PAAGUE PrAZ air —ray r f . ...... -TtT NUt ST K rL S tamm I ! i as INST NIP to rr 41 Lot CATTOKI i4ou JME : IN, mgm VC 14 .23 MON OIL L CEMR:IST rp LMWLL Wr MASHi�p I NXE e I_ - %c nZsmJ. EO . . uwFs 'w . .115M wr sm ST WM -11 5T--C— lie NN 2l, Um r�j Fsn R i,M- EE 210m i. ST dt30 1?DQ T SccSTe I SW ITCOM all" ft V Al OL Ai ST U IN N VICINITYMAP GEOTECH CbNS1 ILTANTS, INC� 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Job Na Vate, scale, I plate. I I July 2003 1 Not to Scale 1 1 by Vdf z Uj 1 /: Gti 4Y5/4/tlbb1 - UEUIECH PAGE 16 , approximate -�—��; TP-s wetland boundary '�� TP-7 TP 4 proposed SFRs Q `1 JA i i i P-31: TP-21s proposed plat lines - I TP-1 ....ram• i GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 230 240 SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 1.230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Jab Nor Date: Scale: Plate. 03322 July 2003 1 Not to Scale 1. 2 UW1Jd/:1UUj 1 /: ed 4n14 /Ubb1 GEOTECH PAGE 17 Test Pit 1 TOPSOIL Dark 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 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 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, dense 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0-2.0 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 `Groundwater 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 - 5.0 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 PIT LOGS GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South CONSULTANTS, WC. Edmonds, Washington Job No: Q.zle: (o 3 03322 August Z003 VW VJr LVOJ Lr. VO 4LUl4r0001 , iau i tLori r M<7C 1 0 Test Pit 5 ' Depth (ft) Soil Classification Soil Description 0- 2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, 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, dense 'Groundwater encountered at 6.0 feet, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 6 0- 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, 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 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 3.0 - 5.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 7 ReOth (tt) Soil Classification Soil Description 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 feet 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Job No: pare: LoygeA by.- qat�• 03322 August 2003 EMT 4 V :fir VJ/LVVJ 1 /: Vtl 4L7I4/tlDbl latU I LH VAUL 19 Washed F (7/8" min. s 6" min, )e backfill away from idation. Provide surface ns where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Nonwoven Geotextile Ifs Filter Fabric kSir SLAB ;ainvtgi v o oOoQo o .l'14(riN;±�1or. O. •...p .P' .O,.A.Q'.p.- .�:p,.A" O.•A: '.p e • • j4i�f Sr:> Y Y,� .. rtva,, .rjL� a s� ta-� e ♦ - 0 0 e• • • . •.0 0 0 0 0 O O 0' a o v oO • v v �� kt r f 14r s j lw i- rr j,n r `� t•��.f ..:oA 0 0 �r� Oo �� o•e �� 0 0 • �/ e e sp t•l li i t r� ! •I »r a?gr ii �r rerjo{'i«3s$,a a •oe.� `? : a,veQ . ; a:SoO ;'e'ooC! • q Oao0oO�oOoOs 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space, Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Free -Draining Gravel (if appropriate) NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypae ses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEOTECH TYPICAL DRAIN DETAIL CONS ILTAMRir— 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington -- �aa e s PI�e: 03322 1 Auqust20031 Not to Scale 5 LANDAU ASSOCIATES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM eMROWaNuI GEOMCWSCM IWRAk TO: Al Jackson FROM: Diane Brewster � STREET FILE �kCWED APR 02M DATE: March 31, 2004 PEWCOtom RE: WILDERNESS BLUFF RESPONSE TO PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS INTRODUCTION City of Edmonds (City) Planning .Division staff reviewed the design plans for the four proposed residences at Wilderness Bluff located at 1230 7 h Avenue S. in Edmonds, Washington and provided comments regarding the sensitive areas in the western portion of the site. In a memorandum dated March 15, 2004, Meg Gruwell documented the City's concern regarding the potential impacts of the reduced building setback and the infiltration trench filter strip on the wetland buffer. The memorandum requested that Diane Brewster review these issues and provide comments on the impacts, if any, on the wetland and wetland buffer. At the request of Al Jackson, these issues are addressed in this memo. As designed, vegetation in the outer 10 ft of the wetland buffer has been temporarily cleared on this site. This was necessary to remove the trash and junk piles that occurred throughout this portion of the buffer and the adjacent upland. In addition, this area of wetland buffer also will serve as a filter strip for the infiltration trenches to be placed at the edge of the buffer behind each residence. Clearing this section of the buffer is a benefit to the wetland and its buffer by removing trash, such as tires, carpet, and lumber, and providing the infiltration trench design required by the City that will allow the wetland to continue to receive runoff amounts similar to pre -development conditions. This filter strip will be initially seeded with grasses for sediment control purposes, then planted with native shrubs and trees to replace lost buffer vegetation. BUILDING SET BACK The March 15, 2003 City memo documents that the Wilderness Bluff site plan shows a building setback from the wetland boundary edge that is reduced from the typical 15-ft width to a 10-ft width. Their concern is whether the reduced setback will adversely affect the wetland buffer. The purpose of a building setback is to allow enough room for heavy equipment to maneuver around the construction site and avoid degradation to the wetland buffer vegetation. Because the first 10 ft of the buffer has been temporarily cleared of vegetation, no buffer vegetation occurs within 20 ft of 130 2nd Avenue South 9 Edmonds, WA 98020 9 (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com V the building footprints. Thus, the reduced building setback will have no adverse affect on existing buffer vegetation during construction of the project. A line of straw bales (located between the cleared filter strip and the undisturbed buffer vegetation) mark the edge of remaining buffer vegetation and no equipment will go beyond these bales, ensuring that the existing buffer vegetation will not be disturbed. The infiltration trenches will be installed and the final grading of the filter strip will be completed after the backfill phase for the house foundations. Following construction of the trenches and filter strip, the fence along the edge of the wetland buffer (located between the infiltration trenches and filter strip) will be installed to protect the cleared buffer area from further disturbance and compaction. This filter strip will be initially seeded with grasses for sediment control purposes, then planted with native shrubs and trees to restore native buffer vegetation. FILTER STRIP WITHIN THE NATIVE GROWTH PROTECTION EASEMENT - The March 15, 2003 City memorandum documents the location of the 10-ft filter strip within the outer portion of the wetland buffer and requests an evaluation of any impacts on the buffer and/or wetland. Wetland buffers serve numerous functions, one of which is to attenuate and filter ground and surface waters that flow into the wetland. Thus, the proposed filter strip is a low -impact use of buffer area, and is compatible with the functions naturally provided by buffers. The temporary clearing of vegetation in this area was done to satisfy engineering requirements for the infiltration trenches and to remove the trash that was present onsite. The cleared area will be initially seeded with grasses to provide sediment and erosion control. This will protect the downslope buffer vegetation and wetland habitat. Native shrubs and trees will be planted per the Plant Recommendations report by Dave Timbrook (see attached) to restore buffer vegetation to the filter strip and will serve to provide the runoff attenuation and filtration typically present in naturally -occurring systems. Four trees are proposed to replace the three trees removed from the filter strip area. The proposed shrubs will provide greater shrub cover than that originally present in this area, and will replace some dense thickets of Himalayan blackberry. The swordfern proposed for groundcover will replace the previously weedy ground vegetation species. As long as specifications for plant materials, timing of planting, and watering the new plantings as presented in the Plant Recommendations report are followed, the revegetation plan is expected to be successful. In addition, the soils in this area also contain a healthy seed base and live roots of the previous shrub, tree, and groundcover vegetative community and volunteers of these species are expected to re-establish along with the new plantings. 03/31/04\\EdmdataNsharedoc\729\Wildemess Ruff Tech Memo.doc 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES The work completed within the filter strip will improve this area beyond pre -development conditions given the amount of trash and invasive plants that were present on this site and will restore the naturally -occurring functions within the buffer. CONCLUSION The reduced building setback and use of the outer 10 ft of the buffer for a filter strip will have no adverse affect on the wetland buffer or the wetland. Because this site had been used as an informal landfill for years, this site plan results in an improvement of buffer by removing trash and junk from the buffer. In addition, the temporary disturbance to buffer vegetation for installation of the infiltration trenches and establishment of the 10-ft filter strip is minimal compared to, the benefit of continuing to provide pre -development runoff to the wetland, ensuring that the Wilderness Bluff development will not significantly reduce the water budget of the wetland. USE OF THIS REPORT This report was prepared for the exclusive use of Al Jackson and his consultants for the specific application to this project. The use by others, or for purposes other than intended, is at the user's sole risk. The findings presented herein are based on our understanding of the project, City of Edmonds Critical Areas Regulations, and on vegetative, soil, and hydrologic conditions observed during numerous site visits. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, the findings presented in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted sensitive area investigation principles and practices in this locality at the time the report was prepared. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. 0WIM4 \\Edmdata\sharedw\729\Wi1demm Bluff Tech Merm.doc 3 LANDAu AssocIATES F DAVE TIIVI )ROOK CONSULTING ARBoRisT - iSA Certified #PNI 199 359 NE 195th Street Shoreline, -WA 98155-2138 Home (206) 362-6410 Cell (425) 343-2248 PLANT RECOMMENDATIONS for 1230 7TH AVENUE SOUTH EDMONDS WA Prepared for Alan Jackson August 5, 2003 ED 20304 PERMIT 06UNTER property address: 1230 71h Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 Client: Alan Jackson Overview: The lots being developed at 1230 7" Ave. S. in Edmonds are positioned with an exiting wetland running along the west end of the properties, As such the primary emphasis of the development will occur at the far east end of the priorities. The current development plans include a 50400t buffer zone immediately west of the actual footprints of the houses going in. There are approximately 1881 square feet of mitigation area and. 956 square feet of impacted area. These are the proposed re -vegetation areas of concern in this report. [See attachment] Current property conditions: The lots on this property run east and west and are sloped up to the east. The lower two-thirds of the property are serves as a watershed for the entire hillside a is wet nearly 12 months a year. The upper third of the lots are fairly typical Northwest urban forest in their vegetation make-up. The predominant trees are Douglas. Fir, Western Red Cedar, Big -Leaf Maple, Red Alder and some native cherry. Understory growth is mainly blackberry, Elderberry, ocean Spray, Salal and Sword Fern with a great deal of perennial and annual weed growth (Nettles, grasses and broadleaf weeds). Plant material recommendations: The plants recommended for re -vegetation of the areas that will be disturbed are not specifically wetland plants due to the conditions they will be planted in. They will not be required to withstand standing water for any great length of time, as a true wetlands plant would need to do. Rather, these native plants were chosen for their ability to survive in a Northwest urban forest. per' SIZE OTY APPROX. S Vine Maple (Acer circinatum) 6-7 feet 9 $30.00 ea. Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menzeseii) 6-7 feet 4 $30.00 ea. Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 5 gal. 12 $13.00 ea ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolor) 5 gal 12 $13.00 ea . Red Flowering Currant (Rrbes sanguinium) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Salmonberry (Rubes spectabilis) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Swordfern (Polystichum munitum) 1 gal 50 $3.00 Approximate cost for all plant material is $1020.00 0 • All plants should be healthy nursery grown stock. Spacing should allow for the growth of the plant and should not crowd each other. The Maple and Fir should be evenly planted in the area allowing for the mature height. plants of similar species should be planted in groups of three with a minimum spacing of 5 feet and a maximum of 10 feet. The Elders will spread out so spacing should be the maximum for them The Salmonberry should have the minimum spacing. The Swordfern should also be planted in groups with a spacing of 18 inches. The ultimate survival of the plant material will be the care they get immediately after they are planted. It is essential that their water requirements be met for the next full growing season Ideally the planting should take place in the fall of the year, if possible, for the plants to get a really good start. Generally this will fulfill the watering needs for establishing the plant material unless we have a really dry fall and winter. Continued watering in the spring and summer will insure the survival of the plants. film IfIll ri r I I i cu 1-0 vuw _— �` _�i` `~�� ' ---- -� y • I -�_'�, �� _ram _ :'-�=- ------p�----- -i 44 ♦ r • • ♦ s i • • s ► • • • • • ♦ • • f ♦ ♦ ♦ # (� 5 ♦ ♦ • • • ♦ i ► ► ♦ ♦ + ♦ ♦ i r AM 3� h'7d PY73 ! I • LANDAU ASSOCIATES MEMORANDUM 4.1GMEaHxxI TO: Lambert Creek FROM: Landau Associates DATE: 04/01/2004 RE: PAYMENT FOR WILDERNESS BLUFF - PROJECT # 792001 WE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CHECK NO 2322 DATED 04/01/2004 IN THE AMOUNT OF $800.00 FROM LAMBERT CREEK LLC. FOR PAYMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES SERVICES PROVIDED BY LANDAU ASSOCIATES. RECEIVED BY _ DILL ORTIZ ct4 •K It ./D ACCOUNTING DE /LANDAU ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South 9 Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 778-0907 • fax (425) 778-6409 • www.landauinc.com k'% 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 ' 7t6 Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf: OCT 3 0 BUILDING DEPT, This 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, KLEINFELDER, INC. � James M. Schmidt Senior Geotechnical Engineer L K - James A. McElroy Manager, Geotechnical Engineering. 36170i§Wi 295.doc Page 1 of 1 Copyright 2003 Meinfelder, 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 12/ • k'% 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 Dear Ms. Graf RECEIVED 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 7th 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. 36170/SBA3L280.doc Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. K L E I N F E L D E R 2405 140th Avenue, NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 - - Page 1 of 4 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax : JAmok k'9 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 h 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. • Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat, 1230 — 7`h 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 Page 2 of 4 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. k4 KLEINFELDER Groundwater 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 7`h 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 cannot 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. We suggest that a slope stability study be performed to assess the potential for slope instability following site development if yard waste is to remain on the property. 36170/SEA3L.280.doc Page 3 of 4 Copyright 2003 Meinfelder, Inc. k'q KLEINFELDER CLOSURE We will be pleased to discuss the above comments with you and representatives from the design team at your convenience. Should you have any questions or wish to arrange a meeting to discuss this letter, please call us at (425) 5624200. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER, INC. James M. Schmidt, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer 36170/SEA3L280.doc Page 4 of 4 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. OW40Jr L001 1 r:00 L4 rM 1 IGE TECH CONS LTANTS, INC. I i Alah Jackson 1 01 Highway 99 Ly nwood, Washington 99037 S4ect: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Wilderness bluff Short Plat 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: Mu 1 Gl.P7 r-F*= OL • 13256 Northeast 20th Sued Suite 16 BdII)vue, Washington 9800 (425)747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 RECEIVED September 3, 2003 SEP 0 S 2003 JN 03322 DEVELOPMENT SERV10E' 8UILDING 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. Th� houses will be accessed via driveways off of 7th Avenue South and will be set back 25 feet froT the street. Each house will consist of one floor of living space and a garage over a daylight bament. Some cuts and fills will be necessary to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of apoximately 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish nodr elevation. No development is proposed on the western side of the site, as this area is a deslionated 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 CONDIT/ONS SItFACE Th I 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, wit elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastern comer to. approximately 20 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 portlon of the site. The slopes are inclined at approximately 30 percent and are covered with tall deciduous and evergreen trees. The ground is GEOTFCH CONSULTANTS, INC Vim. VVI LVVJ L I . VV 1iJl1I VJV• ucu1MUM PAUL 93 Alar i Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 2 Gov red'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 app oximately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally ste per slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered throLiqhout 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 rsed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during ration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. Thtest 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" sart�ples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are (provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report. he test pits encountered a 6- to 24-inch layer of topsoil and 2 to 3 feet of weathered sand nd gravel with abundant roots overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel w1W cobbles nd occasional boulders. One to 2 feet of sand and gravel till was encountered overlying le topsoil in Test Pits 1, 4,' and 7. The dense to very dense sand and gravel was ncountered to the maximum explored depth of 9 feet below existing grade. The depths of Dil layers, including topsoil, that are indicated on the logs are approximate. More exact efinition 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 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 lion between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between )ration 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 riotions 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 rer laced with structural fill during construction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. pa/ Val L00.7 1 1 : CJo YL'J f Y f�l � MU I tldn ' �. r'RUt 04 Alan Jackson • • JN 03322 Se Dtember 3, 2003 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A `RAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE AINED IN 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 Tucting 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. Thb test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill, topsoil, and highly weathered sand and gr vel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered ben 1 and 4 feet below existing grade, with the thicker loose, surficial layer. encountered near th A top of the slope on the eastern side of the site. The native sand and gravel soils encountered be ow the root line are competent to support the four proposed single-family residences on co ventlonal foundations. These soils are also suitable for reuse as structural fill throughout the sit . 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 -ed on the topographic Information provided to us, and on our understanding of the project. ne cuts and fills will be required to achieve the proposed finish floor elevation of 8 to 10 feet :)w existing street grade. Because the proposed houses will be set back at least 25 feet from edge of the street, cut slopes inclined no steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal: Vertical) can be made iin the eastern property line. Please note that this inclination applies only to the native sand and vel: the fill and debris encountered near the surface on most of the site should be removed ing site clearing. Also, groundwater was encountered in two of the downslope test pits during (oration. If groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side of the site, cut slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To gate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table, the cuts may e to be backfilled with rock ballast. We should be contacted at once if groundwater is ountered during the excavation of the cut slopes. All cut slopes should be protected iediately with plastic sheeting and should be monitored daily by the superintendent for cations of instability. Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the of any cut slope. foundation walls between the adjacent residences are approximately 10 feet apart as shown the site plan. The soil between the foundation walls of the proposed residences should be loved as part of the mass excavation .where it cannot be inclines at 1:1 (H;V). Taking into ount a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot eed 3 feet between the foundation walls. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. U-51 riot ZVVO 1 f : GO NCLJ f V *A 4=U 1 CL+II � raac Do Alai i Jackson • • JN 03322 . Se tember 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:V) shoring will be required to make the proposed cuts unless the finished floor elevations of these structures are revised. We can ma a recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Bed 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:V). Depending on the desired back yard layout and the location of the wetland buffer, it may prove more economlcal to overexcavate, place the clownslope foundations on native, dense send 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 we 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 sail 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 compaction is being achieved. foundation walls should be baddilled with free -draining structural fill. The site sand and gravel ry the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfill. Footing drains should be installed at the of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own. independent cation drainage system, so two separate drains would need to be placed in the backfill een the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and Th erosion control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather on Itions 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 tha a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any Leaned areas and around the wet ands. Straw bales should be placed against the silt fence for added protection during grading. Ro&ed 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 iment of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet we ther. 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. :h Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the nendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include is to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical lints that become more evident during the review process. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. . G7f YJf LOflJ 1 f . 00 4L'J f 4 *A AlJ • ackson 34tember 3, 2003 UMu 1 MkIn �� rc Ob • JN 03322 Page 5 recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report Ad also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings .and immendations. CONSIDERATIONS Thg' site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Unifonn Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 10 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The sit soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. FOUNDATIONS Th proposed residences. can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings beJring on undisturbed, dense, native sand and gravel, or on up to 5 feet of properly compacted st ctural 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 det rmine 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 1pment 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 abc ve these competent native soils. A e-third increase In this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short -temp wi or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, It is anticipated that the total post -construction se ement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thi ness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a dis nce of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. the .ral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the Nation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively I, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following late values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, GEOTECN CONSULTANTS. INC. If Jackson • amber 3, 2003 .. -1 L". • • ULTIMATE PARAMETER -F VTA IL' U E Coefficient of Fdctlon UAU Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. JN 03322 Page 6 e ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised. recommendation. We recommend 7taining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when g the above ultimate values. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures sed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain . backfill: PARAMETER Active Earth Pressure " VALUE 30 pef Passive Earth Pressure 300 pof Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 135 pef Where: (i) pef Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. • For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0,M times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf 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 ild be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent cations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. riot vai &UL" a r . uo YL:,, M*l =.0 1 C%ln P11*.*_ OU 1 Jackson • • Ala J c n 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 given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate des n earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be accA unted 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. Hea 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 well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be ccomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higP er soil forces that occur during compaction. ckfill 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 rticles 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 Its are not acceptable in the future. This typically includes limiting cold -joints and wall netrations, 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 )octant 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 tural 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 cad with select, imported structural fill. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Ala 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 disc ussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. As noted by the American Concrete Inst tute (ACI) in Section 3.23 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, wo 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, althAugh the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. However, if no potential for va r 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 wh+ tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can me0t this requirement. in the recent past, ACI (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 pia 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 literpture 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 i 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 sures" (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" ge erally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We 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 the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all me. ns should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. anticipate that rockeries may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry s 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 fill rockeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent re 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 -----CQEOTFCH-CONSULTANTS..-INC. Se or Ad It 4L�lY•1 Jackson • ember 3, 2003 lLU 1 CUM � rNIL 1 rJ JN 03322 Page 9 iosed rockeries could not be determined. Foundations closer to the back of the rockery than times the height of the rockery would exert a surcharge on the adjacent rockeries; surcharged eries or rockeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogrid reinforcement in the backfill. can provide a rockery detail if necessary. construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering cods and standards. It is imperative that rockeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a er manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction. The :vies should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local ;ice and City of Edmonds standards. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures clusions, should not be used, In order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the VATIONS AND SLOPES 3vation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government ty regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in iturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be le near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington iinistrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet. in height cannot be excavated at an ,iation steeper then.. 110 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the )m of a cut. As discussed in the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. If groundwater is encountered in any of the cuts at the the excavation should be immediately backfilled to above the lineof seepage and the ethnical 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. ,e note that gravel can cave suddenly and without waming. 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 sloe face is important for long-term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of pa ios, slabs, foundations, or other improvements that may be placed near the edge of the slope. Th s 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 species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. An� disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the sltn Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed ar as 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. GEOTECH CaNSULTANTS-INC: - 'e"7/ UJ/ kovi 1 /: 1 0 VL7! 1 ltUILLH • Jackson amber 3, 2003 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 floo elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there mal 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 tions or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope inclinations, sho ing will be required to make the proposed cuts. We can provide design recommendations for s Ing if it is necessary. by GE CONSIDERATIONS cation drains should be installed around the perimeter of each of the residences. We emend that each residence have its own independent foundation drainage system. Drains d also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. -These drains should be surrounded least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then.wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert I be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space. and It f be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the ation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 3. For the best arm performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. In j eneral, 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. Gr undwater 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 pipa, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at t ie bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away fro�jl the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slaps, 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 prd Tided 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 ru -off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each of th driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, st rm water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a ukabie outfall located away from any slopes. EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and ott er deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed thr 3ughout the site; these materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or rei ioved sand and gravel above the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as str ictural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,-INC eT7/tl3/ln17! 1/:l7tf 4'L5I4 1 (EUIECH PAGE 12 Alan Jackson JN 03322 Sep ember 3, 2003 Page I I Stru tural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, beh d permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to s1, pport loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or the nea optimum moisture content The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that res Its in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and mu be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the General sec on, the on -site gravel below the root line is suitable for reuse as structural fill. However, we rec .mmend that footings be placed on no more than 5 feet of structural fill. I allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction ipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness l�Id 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 d to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents immended relative compactions for structural fill: where: Minimum Relab" compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry densft, as detemdnod in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557.91 (Modified Proctor). The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils; the gra el 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 sift or day content of no more than 5 perl6ent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that poolon 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 iitions 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.--- Ciyl oil loot 1 / : GC 4L7 f 1 LILU 1 LUH PAGE 13 i Is Alan Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 page 12 Sub urface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions fieq ently require making additional expenditures .to attain a properly constructed project. It is re mmended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such pot ntial extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. Thi report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Alan Jackson and his representatives for spAlfic 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 pra(tice 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 contractors methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. ADDITIOMAL SERVICES In Idition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide ge echnical consultation. testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm tha subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate wh 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 t subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. Ho ver, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the co ractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements; will the responsibility of the contractor. Sulisequent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be ch ed on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached dule of fees and general conditions. This work often includes a review of the geotechnical s of the plans and interaction with the architect, civil engineer, and structural engineer. Also, r 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 noted by the owner, we wo Id assume that your acceptance of this proposal is also authorization to consult with the design Wain as required on a time -and -materials basis. I 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 +e. 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. F GEOTECH CONSULTANTS.-INC, . -VJI VJ/ kwwJ ♦!. VV -VLJlY 1 Ala Jackson Se ember 3, 2003 4mu 1 ck.n rAlit 14 1 J N 03322 Page 13 Dllowing 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. :;I.-]u1 Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Erin M. Toland Geotechnical Engineer ��g'i0N ST p R !30'94 v �w crsrsR� Z� EXPIRES 01-31- Q James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager -- GEDTGCH CON5ULTANTS, INC....__ n �rp v A[ii' AY f yr s ' ■ P o. m d 4 a wOi .. �Ay�._•• �� M_ exr 1_ ea oe2F n � r anrui 5 nar it A Nub PI . • dr.( *,Ay 14 COIL a • ail,'�14� �� g d � o rp is d t - AY lS if t � Nr _ ! Via(( -�. aNZxr�tiia<d x 6A M � •� M COI ra - f `:. � ,_� a ,.1 "' , x t r am?� '� nTd Sp r, ZN ,�" 3 N to aA i7�wr. o be ` x m Q (n ar tt r * N N ld a: In L!►A s .� Tr m+o ; A .rrup� moo ooruz fiv IZ •' woe .wla 1n a Nl�c L C Co v ew¢j�•'v y:�y, ai n ld ui$3 •� - F,urEla' i1i92- E"e > �i 2 R o�r IND �., L�Fj r. 9 j!� 1.. >R ' a� r.r r OpG A tJ how C o AV �� ` _JH� •.-:5`' K k tii •►��.) a w wtutt ! Cj • t _. >:.—ce .wdiura ue e' CO 'O 75 Al�•LLS ~irr, 4 .14 6' M lQ '1(L56 t tii'it i�� 11196 ., ICY �" y :'utFA -�Id7, r SAY tLLt6 _ ai �•i rq _ a� Otl : i.r iitb k�>Rx t AY IIJV6 C ski L7— rlOtt R ... J Y !g< - 111 6 t rw i3 B Iy h X $ , its'S AY s (/i#'�� de .1 n t+ °� eY _. q16 d •.Ci R r HlL x►. -1 ' � ••_ _ x _ Aa m r�rr{dtFii �h Nlg Lw `/% y ,'i[ ��tit iu9 a o AY x[9 WI '�/• s u 1+•1 � �.1 RC J Ofl: O I y i � • .s - nr atld gaUE _ QN AM S4CL lio�l -"owl rs lull )9 •uJI VJ/,4VVJ ♦/•VV `.6Jf4TifJO1 • N :1 I JI 4 E: 1' ' approximate wetland boundary proposed plat lines 1• ILU I C1.r11 TP-5 d TP-7. TP-4 proposed SFRs r� L� TP-6 P-3,1 TP- ; ; TP-1 i f r 230 240 rACi - 16 SITE EXPLORATION PLAN GEO�'EC CONSULTANTS, a1VC 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington ___�,_��_ ✓ofD Mu: Date Sca/c 03322 July 2003 Not to Scale 2 0 0 m c Q �VJI VJI iVVJ i I . VY 1iJ JVL • " Test Pit 1 0 - 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 1.0.5.0 SW Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly 5.0 - 6.0 moist, medium -dense 'No groundwater encounte-becomes dense to very dense red, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 2 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 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 ry moist, No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0-2.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 3 0- 11 ,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, slightty moist, dense 6.0 - 7.0 -with more cobbles, becomes very wet "Groundwater 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.a feet 2.0 - 5.0 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 CONSULTANTS, INC. iJOO1*0 03322 TEST PIT LOGS 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington is IL099W Or. . AU9u5t 2003 EMT 3 JI VV/LVVJ LI. VV 1LJ1 ♦ VLVI�.VI I' r► %= AO Test Pit 5 i 0- 2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, 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, dense 'Groundwater encountered at 6.0 feet, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet'during excavation Test Pit 6 0-1.0 71.0-3.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense 3.0 - 6.5 SP -becomes medium -grained, very 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 feet 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet durino excavation . TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South CONSULTANTS, INC. Edmonds, Washington Job No. Dares ey;. 7 03322 August 2M3 EMT 4 IWashed (7/8" min. 13" min lope backfill away from undation. Provide surface ains where necessary. Back sill (See text for requirements) Nonwoven Geotextile Fitter Fabric � 60 �O�O Oa "� y!�/1\��1 e e 0 00 0x ♦ J Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) SLAB { °er 0'q �0� C °.ems epe.e� p0e.;�•ape.e•e l b:e°4'•.erpm o.ip4�e°.e.ep*1e. .b.ip"a Free -Draining Gravel 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (if appropriate) (Invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl spaoe. Slope to drain to appropriate outfaq. Place holes downward.) NOTES: (1) Inc 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. I GEOTECH TWICAL DRAM DETAIL CONSU!(.TANTSy !N'G 1230 - 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington ✓ob No. Bat& Sralla plater03322 August 2003 Not to Scale 5 afl CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Ih c 1 89p 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 10 Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Citv - Hekinan. Janan ZONE - Prfhcd .7 .. SETBACKS: - �� e PYC DCTEIJ-�101.1 011'i'L_ET ', FRONT I L.WE�-to DISP, IllFlL--M. �/�I1 V-� FI.O�nJ FILF. - - - _ _ SIDE n — N M V N1 ,,� '+ - o _ S- — ,�� :•N 3 x 30 D Tl]J'TI IJ � Z 9 O •-1 O IN '� ^� N ^' N � tJ N N YI TAu Z,40 FT�.�rLMjl — ►�E E II --APPROVED BY ENG�ICIEERIN�G A vO1�T- g .� TE�LIU4-4-b,7-V-Y 3O-ZO CAI %RCDE ATI O �(v Lb T'r-r1.rGH 61 ? La+c�: z38( Date. e z p O 10 W'bE C-E D- To M sTlz I P ae CA ,� - SI.o i I S l L-t' F cE �ii�f111Y S`� P-�� 3' n ! �' E, o�f ALLOWED f49� N6rA 6 �, I "r9I � Pc;2 I /V) WA R S R roM ¢ o // . Kl EW MO F1= Eft L 1 e, r. l in o 6 �w� . 4 e � INSP TIONS NE 'D. �t piCOvIDE stt_ F*A � � � �� F z�8 � -� q'-771-422 . 1326 ALL EXPOSED SURFACES T o u R 1 u� cfl,J s}F u -1 rsu g. S, N to zu, n o E COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS' FF- R ft%,A,�Eu r E c 1 � AT co�PL.ETIo�� 1 D\ •C' 1 ' -PN? S CKP S37 3-71 w1 -o-N GovE A W _ 1 _UU Ztl N %J R- Z O cn In� n ©tNl� R/CONTFAU l". R IS RP.SPO SIBLEAPP OVED BY PLANNING s ' o M F-C' F '(' "fi t (F�L ra:t;ry h �E m s ,,. 11 T. CAL-c, S —� " 1'R.O v Dim F �O f� 5U6J CC-r -fo A= L 7-8, O I Tt� Q t) I iGE nv� ►.tTS o f 0-�-=%"`� -o yr to �..i; g_ Z36.o' sr "cS-zoo3 - v✓�casT_I Z39.S' wl�a�u>=ss $�uF� L.ociclla4�!p U w Ac cr • Z 703 ZSO6 o o I� (Pfaz-r— pF� Dr..,t i� �tD Zz8.5I� 6AF-- L38� L I— 0-7—Z.S N O i�T PLAT (h",, It �.� "L� , Z tiJ • � . U W M AC TUA L =' Z58,Q 1 11 Z7 �- S 0.. I'T. z L 6. `T ° i -,v ® r Z / DtiTUrc` P T, SAKI, SF_W. I�LA►JN. W/c�a LL rlI 1 tJ F fc-DLL'T OF L_OT 1 1..•�FI►.IA - cONTO vw- (IF GN p.►.1<06 -{ Q l3V11_D►► 46 ROOD Z3(o0 S• / —' IEXIC-a"rM jMS 0v-IYEkwAl le- _ cos 5 E; (n��01 � TO T'is.L — �3 Z 0 0 5. c u-r : 3 7 >3 G J. V P s -Z-I FILL: Z-50 cv. "(bS. R1 m pISPOSE of �_xcESs N-r M AREA ot= �ISTUR6AISG1` 11.1CrL VDCS APR-Ova•TG T=1.. -r R F Bo la" T- C0 8 • g I o G l.._ 0-r TO ►+ICoPA LIlJ E EXPOS SO soli--M ISE c_ovEI�ECJ k(� _ N,�s.Y oP t..A►at��c_,�PEZ� Y[/gal r.4No,i�z.S ER-5498 .LEGACY REPORT Reissued August 1, 2003 ICC Evaluation Service, Inc. � � a M60 W0dmw Mil pad Whitler, caswu 9W s (56� 600543 Regional Office • 9W Mwtck* Road, Sufte A Elmrgham, Alabama 35213 ■ (205) 599 M W W W. iCc-e3.o1'g Ofte • 4051 West Rwwwr Road, C=" Club FUk arras 60478 a (708) ass-M Legacy report on the 1997 Uniform Building CodeTM, the 2000 Intemational Building CodeP and the 2000 International Residential CodeP DIVISION: 03—CONCRETE Section: 03130—Permanent Forms ECO-BLOCK INSULATED CONCRETE FORMS (ICFs) ECO-BLOCK, LLC 4100 POWERLINE ROAD BUILDING I, SUITES 1 AND 2 POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA 33373 LIFE -LIKE PRODUCTS, INC. 1000 WEST HIGHWAY 287 WAXAHACHIE, TEXAS 15165 MARKO FOAM PRODUCTS, INC. 2990 W. DIRECTORS ROW SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 CONTOUR PRODUCTS, INC. 4001 KAW STREET KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66102 PREMIER INDUSTRIES, INC. 78M SOUTH 192NO STREET KENT, WASHINGTON 98032 1.0 SUBJECT ECO-Block Insulated Concrete Forms (ICFs) for Concrete Walls. 2.0 DESCRIPTION 2.1 General-. ECO-Block . insulated concrete forms (ICFs) consist of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam plastic panels, plastic webbing and plastic connectors that serve as formwork for concrete load -bearing and nonload-bearing walls, foundation stem walls and basement walls. These forms are defined as a flat ICF wall system, allowing for a solid concrete wall of uniform thickness (solid rectangular cross section). The ICFs are stacked in a running bond pattern to create formwork that remains in place after the concrete has cured, and that becomes the insulation for the walls. Walls made from the ICFs are limited to combustible construction and must be covered with an approved interior thermal barrier and exterior weather -resistive barrier and wall covering, as noted in this report. ECO-Block insulated concrete forms (ICFs) are an aftemative to forms described in Section 1906 of the 1997 Uniform Building CodeTM' (UBC) and the 2000 Intemational Building Cod6P (IBC). ECO-Block ICFs comply with Section R611.3 of the. 2000 Intemational Residential Code as flat insulating concrete form wall systems. 22 Material: 22.1 ECO-Block Forms: The EPS panels are 16 inches (406 mm) high, 48 inches (1219 mm) long and 2.5 inches (63.5 mm) thick. The panels are molded by injecting and expanding polystyrene beads, described in the approved .quality control manual, into molds. The resulting expanded polystyrene foam plastic complies with ASTM C 578 Type II. The polystyrene has a flame -spread index of 25 or less and a smoke -developed index of 450 or less at a nominal 1.5 pcf (24 kg/m3) density. High -density plastic webs are placed 8 inches (203 mm) on center and recessed '/, inch (6.4 mm) from the panel surface. Plastic connectors, of one of three different lengths, connect the webs of two units to form 4- inch-, 6-inch or 8-inch-thick (102 mm, 152 mm or 203 mm) concrete walls. The webs and connectors are high -density polypropylene, a Class CC2 approved plastic, manufactured by Product Moulders, Ltd. The form units have a preformed interlocking mechanism on their top and bottom edges, to facilitate stacking. Figure 1 includes unit profiles. 222 ECO-Block Commercial Forms: ECO-Block Commercial Forms are similar to ECO-Block Forms; except panels measure 24 inches (610 mm) high, 48 inches (1219 mm) long, and 2 inches (51 mm) thick, and the EPS used has a higher nominal density, 1.7 pcf (27.2 kg/m3), than the density of ECO-Block forms. 22.3 Concrete: Concrete must be normal -weight concrete complying with Chapter 19 of the UBC or IBC, as applicable, with a 28-day minimum compressive strength of 2,000 pounds per square inch (13.8 MPa). Maximum aggregate size Is 3/, inch (19 mm). Under the IRC, concrete must comply with Section R611.6.1 of the IRC. 22.4 Reinforcement: Walls are reinforced with deformed steel bars complying with Section 1903.5 of the UBC, Section 3.5.3.1 of ACI 318-99 (IBC), or Section R611.6.2 of the IRC, as applicable. 2.2.5 Other: Wood members for plates or window and door framing shall be treated with an approved wood preservative and attached with corrosion -resistant steel fasteners in accordance with UBC Section 2304.3, IBC Section 2304.9.5 or IRC Section R323.3. ICC-ES legacy reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attributes not specifically addressed nor are they to be construed as an endorsement of the subject of the report or a recommendation for its use. There is no u+armmy by ICC Evaluation Service, Inc., express or implied as to any finding or other matter in this report, or as to any product covered by the PILE rt Copyrightm2u03 STREET mum/' Pegs 1 of 5 2 of 5 ER-5498 2.3 Design: 2.3.1 UBC or IBC Method: Concrete walls formed by the ECO-Block and ECO-Block commercial forms are designed and constructed in accordance with Chapters 16 and 19 of the UBC or IBC, as applicable. Footings and foundations are designed and constructed in accordance with Chapter 18 of the UBC or IBC, as applicable. 2.3.2 Alternative Design Method: For walls limited to a maximum of two stories plus a basement, and a maximum unsupported wall span of 10 feet (3048 mm), walls may be designed in accordance. with Publication No. EB118, Prescriptive Method for Insulating Concrete Forms in Residential Construction, dated May 1998, published by the Portland Cement Association, subject to all applicability limits in Table 1.1 of that document. 2.3.3 IRC Method: Insulated concrete walls formed by ECO-Block and ECO-Block Commercial Forms comply with Figure F611.3 of the IRC as flat insulating concrete wall forms. Wall design, construction and materials shall comply with Section R404.4 or R611 of the IRC as applicable to flat, Insulating concrete form wall systems. 2A Installation: The ICFs and resulting concrete walls shall be supported on concrete footings complying with Chapters 18 and 19 of the UBC or IBC or Chapter 4 of the IRC, as applicable. Two side panels are placed next to each other and the plastic webs are connected with connectors of the appropriate length, to form the required wall thickness. Placement of the form units begins at a comer and proceeds around the perimeter in one direction only. The amount of reinforcing, placement and spacing required shall be determined for each project, based on the approved plans and the applicable code. Vertical rebars embedded in the footing must extend the minimum development length necessary for compliance with Section 1912 of the UBC or Chapter 12 of ACI 318-99 (IBC and IRC). Additional reinforcement around doors and windows is required to be described in the approved drawings. Concrete quality, mixing and placement must comply with Section 1905 of the UBC, Chapter 5 of ACI 318-99 (IBC) and Section R611.6.1 of the IRC. Window and door openings are built into the form units, with wood or polyvinyl chloride plastic frames of the same dimensions as the "rough stud opening" specified by the window or door manufacturer, prior to the pouring of the concrete. Anchor bolts used to connect wood plates or ledgers to the concrete shall be cast in place, with the bolts sized and spaced as required by design. Wood ledgers are attached to ' the concrete wall by removing the face shell of the form units, with the height of the removed portion being equal to the depth of the wood ledger. Wood plates are anchored to the top of the wall. Anchor bolts used to connect the wood ledgers or plates to the concrete are cast in place, with the bolts sized and spaced as required by design. 2.5 Interior Finish: Form units exposed to the building interior shall be finished with minimum 1/2 inch -thick (12.7 mm) gypsum wallboard placed with the long side vertical. The wallboard is attached to plastic webs with minimum 1'/2 inch -long (38 mm), No. 6, Type.W, buglehead screws, spaced 12 inches (305 mm) on center to each web spaced 8 inches (206 mm) on center, penetrating through the web'/4 inch (6.4 mm). 2.6 Exterior Finish: 2.6.1 Above Grade: The form units shall be covered on the exterior with an approved weather -resistive barrier as required by Section 1402 of the UBC, water -resistive barrier as required by Section 1403 of the IBC, or weather -resistant sheathing paper as required by Section R703 of the IRC.:This barrier or paper is installed in accordance with either the applicable code or 'a current evaluation report —The wall covering is attached to the plastic webs with No. 6, coarse - thread, gypsum wallboard steel screws. The screws must be corrosion -resistant and have sufficient length to penetrate through the 0.2-inch-thick (5 mm) portion of the webs at least 3/, inch (19 mm), or, when loaded in withdrawal, to penetrate through the web at least 1 inch (25 mm). Fasteners have an allowable withdrawal capacity of 190 pounds (845 N) and an allowable lateral capacity of 42 pounds (187 N). The maximum screw spacing is 12 inches (305 mm) on center or as specified in the applicable code, evaluation report, or calculations, whichever is most restrictive. Negative wind pressure capacity of the exterior finish material is recognized in the applicable code, for generic materials, and in a current evaluation report for proprietary materials. 2.6.2 Below Grade: Materials used to damp-proof basement walls shall be specified by ECO-Block, LLC, and shall comply with the applicable code or an evaluation report, and shall be compatible with the foam plastic units. Applicable damp -proofing and waterproofing requirements are in Appendix Chapter 18 of the UBC, Section 1806. of the IBC, and Section R406 of the IRC. Compliance with drainage requirements in Section 1804.7 of the UBC, Section 1806.4 of the IBC, or Section R406.1 of the IRC, is necessary. 2.7 Crawl Space Installations: ECO-Block Standard Forms with a solid concrete core are permitted to be used as walls of crawl spaces without a covering, subject to the following conditions: 1. Entry to the attic or crawl space is only to service utilities, and no.heat-producing appliances are permitted. 2. There are no interconnected basement areas. 3. Air in the crawl space is not circulated to.other parts of the building. 4. Underfloor ventilation complying with Section 2306.7 of the UBC, Section 1202.3 of the IBC, or Section R408.2 of the IRC is provided. 2.8 Fire -resistance -rated Construction: ECO-Block Standard Forms can be used to construct fire - resistance -rated wall assemblies as follows:. CONCRETE THICKNESS (inches) FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING (hours) 4 2 6 4 8 4 For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm, 1 plf = 14.6 Ntm. The normal -weight concrete shall have . carbonate aggregate and a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi (24.1 MPa). The minimum reinforcement is No. 5 reinforcing bars centered in the concrete, and spaced 12 inches (305 mm) on center vertically and 16 inches (406 mm) horizontally. The axial compression load must be 7 percent (maximum) of the load determined in accordance with Chapter 19 of the UBC or IBC. 2.9 Special Inspection: 2.9.1 UBC: Special inspection is required as noted in Section 1701 of the UBC for placement of reinforcing steel and concrete, and for concrete cylinder testing.. When approved by the building official, special inspection may be waived when all of the following conditions are met: Walls are a maximum .of 8 feet (2.4 m) high, and are limited to use in single -story construction of Group R, Division 3, or Group U, Division 1, Occupancies. 3of5 ER-5496 Ma)amum height of a concrete pour is 48 inches (1219 v mm). Succeeding lifts must be placed in accordance with Section 1905.10.5 of the UBC. Q Installation is by installers approved by ECO-Block, LLC. /® Half the allowable stresses or loads permitted by the UBC are used for the design of the walls. ( Installation instructions indicate methods used to verify proper placement of concrete. 2.9.2. IBC: Special inspection is required as noted in Section 1704 of the IBC for placement of reinforcing steel and concrete, and for concrete cylinder testing. When approved by the building official, special inspection may be waived for construction of Group R, Division 3, or Group U Occupancies. Qualityassurance plans for seismic resistance and wind requirements shall be prepared in accordance. with Sections 1705 and 1706 of the IBC, respectively, when required. 2.9.3 IRC: For walls designed in accordance with Section 2.3.3, special inspection is not required. For walls designed in accordance with the IBC, as permitted by Sections R104.11 and R301.1.2 of the IRC, special inspection in accordance with Section 2.9.2 of this report is required. 2.10 Identification: . Each bundle of forms is labeled with the product name (ECO- Block Standard or ECO-Block Commercial); the ECO-Block, LLC, name, address and telephone number; the evaluation report number (ER-5498); the manufacturing date; the lot number; the manufacturing location; and the name of the quality control agency (Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc.). 3.0 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Data in accordance with the ICC-ES Interim Criteria for Foam Plastic Insulation (AC12), dated July 2002, and the ICC-ES Interim Criteria for Concrete and Concrete Masonry Wall Systems (AC15), dated June 2003; reports of room fire tests in accordance with UBC Standard 26-3; and a quality control manual. 4A F`NDINGS That the ECO-Block Insulated Concrete Forms (ICFa) for Concrete Walls described In this report comply with the 1997 Unlfonn Building Code*", the 2000 International Building Codtf, and the 2000 International Residential CodeP, subject to the following conditions: 4.1 Form units are manufactured, identified and installed in accordance with this report and ECO- Blocies published installation instructions. 4.2 Concrete walls formed by the unite are limited to combustible construction as defined in Chapter 6 of the UBC or IBC,.as applicable. 4.3 Plans and calculations showing compliance with this report are submitted to the building official for each structure. 4.4 Fonn units are separated from the building Interior with minimum '/,-Inch-thick (12.7 mm) regular gypsum wallboard,. installed as noted in Section 2A of this report. 4.5 Special Inspection is provided in accordance with Section 2.9 of this report. 4.6 Form units are manufactured by the additional listees noted in this report, with quality control Inspections conducted by Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (AA-647-2). This report is subject to re-examination in two years. T Pake 4 of 5 ER-5498 Standard System Commercial System FIGURE 1 . i "r WcArrowS CCONIM M r LOCATKM W 0T NCO ODMP.1 MR VMTK Ock OLO«FOR T COLME P e S of 5 ER-5498 STANDARD WEB COMMERCIAL WEB FIGURE 1—(Condnued) 2 411 04/16/2004 15:02 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 01/02 CE E O'T E-C H CONSULTANTS, INC. Alan Jackson 16401 Highway 99 Lynnwood, Washington 99037 Subject: Review of Dispersion System Plans Proposed Residences — Lots 1, 2, and 3 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: 113256 Northeast 2(th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue. Washington 98005 ,425)747-5618 FAX (425)747-8561 i - r IL April 167 2004 JN 03322 11FCa'v �® APR 1 9 2004 PERMIT COUNTER via facsimile: (425) 767-9112 We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans for the proposed storrnwater 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 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 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 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. Ea i FILE GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC, 04/1.6/2004 15:02 4257478561 GEOTECH PAGE 02/02 .. to 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. A7' 31- James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. I �," Geotechnical Project Manager cc, Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris Stott or Dave Stafford via facsimile: (425) 984-0120 Lisa Snide via facsimile. (425) 672-9182 Mountain Shadow Construction — Jerry Dawes via facsimile: (425) 745-5805 JHS: jhs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. DAVE TIMBROOK CONSULTING ARBORIST - ISA Certified #PN1199 359 NE 195th Street Shoreline, WA 98155-2138 Home (206) 362-6410 Cell (425) 343-2248 RV (;F.IVED t"4-jrr'y Copy All I 110' PLANT RECOMMENDATIONS for 1230 7TH AVENUE SOUTH, EDMONDS WA Prepared for Alan Jackson August 5, 2003 STREET FILE Property address: 1230 7" Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 Client: Alan Jackson Overview: The lots being developed at 1230 7 h Ave. S. in Edmonds are positioned with an exiting wetland running along the west end of the properties, As such the primary emphasis of the development will occur at the far east end of the priorities. The current development plans include a 50-foot buffer zone immediately west of the actual footprints of the houses going in. There are approximately 1881 square feet of mitigation area and 956 square feet of impacted area. These are the proposed re -vegetation areas of concern in this report. [See attachment] Current property conditions: The lots on this property run east and west and are sloped up to the east. The lower two-thirds of the property are serves as a watershed for the entire hillside a is wet nearly 12 months a year. The upper third of the lots are fairly typical Northwest urban forest in their vegetation make-up. The predominant trees are Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, Big -Leaf Maple, Red Alder and some native cherry. Understory growth is mainly blackberry, Elderberry, Ocean Spray, Salal and Sword Fern with a great deal of perennial and annual weed growth (Nettles, grasses and broadleaf weeds). Plant material recommendations: The plants recommended for re -vegetation of the areas that will be disturbed are not specifically wetland plants due to the conditions they will be planted in. They will not be required to withstand standing water for any great length of time, as a true wetlands plant would need to do. Rather, these native plants were chosen for their ability to survive in a Northwest urban forest. PLANT SIZE OTY APPROX. $ Vine Maple (Acer circinatum) 6-7 feet 9 $30.00 ea. Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menzeseii) 6-7 feet 4 $30.00 ea. Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 5 gal. 12 $13.00 ea. Ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolor) 5 gal 12 $13.00 ea. Red Flowering Currant (Ribes sanguinium) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Swordfern (Polystichum munitum) 1 gal 50 $3.00 Approximate cost for all plant material is $1020.00 All plants should be healthy nursery grown stock. Spacing should allow for the growth of the plant and should not crowd each other. The Maple and Fir should be evenly planted in the area allowing for the mature' height. Plants of similar species should be planted in groups of three with a minimum spacing of 5 feet and a maximum of 10 feet. The Elders will spread out so spacing should be the maximum for them. The Salmonberry should have the minimum spacing. The Swordfern should also be planted in groups with a spacing of 18 inches. The ultimate survival of the plant material will be the care they get immediately after they are planted. It is essential that their water requirements be met for the next full growing season. Ideally the planting should take place in the fall of the year, if possible, for the plants to get a really good start. Generally this will fulfill the watering needs for establishing the plant material unless we have a really dry fall and winter. Continued watering in the spring and summer will insure the survival of the plants. • c % b fill STREE R 11.4 T FILE 240' '- --- I--' 111".11 on ---- ---- -- -- -MIR •��•'ry. -------�+ - -- `--- - �: iC.� 1LQ ,r --_ -- --- - . r ♦ • "� ice' T'�. , �I UA i •i s s a •- __3;•�_-� ♦ i i i • ♦ i ♦ i i i i �a'►� �` i`.` J a a ♦ i ♦ ♦ ♦ • Y ♦ a i ♦ a ♦ a a ♦ a a a a i �`•' 1 • s f f i i �3 ♦ ♦ ♦ i s s• a ♦ f i ♦ ar` i i ♦ i�`ti..�\j`` — �7 / + a i i ♦ i �, + f > a i f � ♦ a f � ♦ i i i a �r� ♦ �.�` -- '� r + f ♦ f i s f • s > i f s ♦ ff ♦ f i f • i f f .�� t � a i • i a > + i f, a i i i a i i i i i a f a a a,` !M �/pG° /' J + + + + a a a a a a a a ♦ a i a a a a a a a a `.aj � + + + + ♦ f i i ♦ a a ♦ i ♦ a i i • a i .f + ♦ a �� ,Q' ♦ i a .. a • a • a a♦ ♦ a a i i a ♦ t a i a ♦ a a � a' � `"� a `� ♦ i + i i s �pp a s a + s i' a i i� i • Yl a ♦ • �� ♦ a ♦ ♦ a• a ♦ ♦ a a a a a ♦ a a a ��, f ♦ � s ♦ ♦ • ♦ f S11 s f ♦ > ♦ ♦ ♦ • > ♦ i r a++ i i i a♦►►+►♦• a a+ f f i a i•> S �� i a a i i i a f i f • i i f a >. i ♦ i i i • ♦ - i a a r. a • 1 a a ♦ ♦ a i a a a a a a i aa a ♦ h '-_' -- — s + f v s • + ♦ ♦ i • > .♦ i ♦ s ♦ + s ♦ s ♦ s r---------------------------- ♦ a • ♦ • a • + �i� > i f i i i > i i a i a i a �' i ♦ • ♦ a a a a _Y� • i ♦ ♦ a a a a a a a a a a � ' s a • + f f • • + .ram �` s • s s • f i i > f + r, / i ++♦ f♦ a a♦ i a i bjf � a ♦ a a a a ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ a ♦ ♦ ♦ a a a a ♦ 777"' / i � 1 . i ♦ a a i a i f • a a i i s > ♦ i i f %�' a � y4y i . i a a a i i > i i+ ♦ s i > i > + i i a a > i� � y �� "�\�v//w a a a a a a a ♦ a a a ♦ ♦ a v a i a a >� ♦ , , i, � � ♦��♦ a a ♦ rat i ♦ ♦ �_3�✓� a i f-�`7C_-_ ___� i _ �•�>�� ♦ i j I♦v �7a ' �� 30 V7d PV73 � � i ► � ,1//� %� ' o CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS (} �, 5 2 V 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE REPORT No. No. KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800 EVERETT (425) 259-0817 DATE t o NO FIELD REPORT PROJECT LOCATION .r. TO: BLDG. PERMIT NO OWNER WEATHER TEMP. AT AM r e3 AT PM ENGINEER ARCHITECT ATTN: CONTRACTOR (2) (3) INSPECTION PERFORMED ITEMS INSPECTED FOUNDATIONS RESTEELICONCRETE ESTEEL ONLY _ FOOTINGS _ SLAB _ RESTEEL/MASONRY _ STR.ST/WELDING _ AUGER CAST PILES _ COLUMNS — OTHER — STR.ST/BOLTING — DRILLED PIERS WALLS — BEAMS (LOCATION (AREAS) !� CON('RETE/MASONRY MIX NO. DESIGN STRENGTH (f'C) SUPPLIER TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED f SLUMP (INCHES) SPECIMENS CAST AIR C:ONTENT (%) ` SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO. ti'ES —NO _ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS REMARKS: TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED 8/00 COPIES TO: SIGNED BY CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC.. TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 9803A (A25) 823.9800 EVERETT (425)259.0817 COMPRESSION REPORT .THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: FIELD TEST DATA FIELD REPORT No. I/ g qz-e� No. 4 4 8 2 3 DATE CERT. NO. PROJEC f 1 1, P e6 LOCATION _.- '7 - (� BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNE _p314_3 EA H7;R TEMP. AT AM CAT PM ENGII EER f �I a .0 ARCHITECT CON RACTO TRUCK SAMPLED TRUCK TICKET NO. G MIX NO. TIME SLUMP ASTM C.143 %AIR UNIT WEIGHT ASTM C-138 YIELD CEMENT FACTOR TEMP. ASTM C-1064 CONC I AIR AIR TEST METHOD: ❑ PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR ❑ VOLUME ASTM C-173 EQUIPMENT USED I.D. SLUMP CONE CSLCOO THERMOMETER CCOTHO AIRMETER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear (b) Cone and SDlit (d) Shear (e) Columnar COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH BATCH DATA FOR cU.YD. DESIGN WEIGHTS % MOIST. ADJUSTED WEIGHTS CEMENT FLY ASH C.A. C.A. C.A. FINE AGG. WATER TOTAL CYLINDER. NUMBER DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE DAYS SIZE AREA (SQ.IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK / - Z i 7, CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D. ffL;UL ;L)UU ❑ ASTM C-1231 SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAMPLE PW DATE TEST METHOD ❑ ASTM C-617 APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. SUPPLIER / �Y�J4%V CEMENT TYPE CU. YARDS PLACED1�7 �+y-yam, AEA IV I ADMIX. 4CAC12 ` % r DESlq, STRENGTH TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE -WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TEST1146O 30RATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED 8/00 I SIGNED BY COPIES TO: CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS -7 © 11-89 Z6 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE REPORT NO. No. KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800 EVERETT (425) 259-0817 DATE CERT. NO. LD REPORT FIE O PROJECT 9 AL i IrL P LOCATION' TO, 4z�"4/"' BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER -1r1C11,14' ��o�i�,� /_ �7 P WEATOER TEMP. AT AM I A %l�t�l,ar// (0 ��11�f? -) 7/ AT PM ENGINEER / 1� ARCHITECT ATTN: _ CONTRACTO (2) (3) INSPECTION PERFORMED ITEMS INSPECTED _FOUNDATIONS i ..L/ RESTEEUCONCRETE _ RESTEEL ONLY _ FOOTINGS _ SLAB RESTEEUMASONRY _ STR.STAWELDING _ AUGER CAST PILES STR.STIBOLTING PIERS _COLUMNS Z — OTHER — — DRILLED .! WALLS BEAMS (LOCATION (AREAS) CONGRETE/MASONRY MIX NO.F DESIGN STRENGTH (f'C) SUPPLIER t TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED SLUMP (INCHES) SPECIMENS CAST AIR CONTENT (%) SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO. ES _ NO _ ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS REMARKS:, ' r i 24� c !/ r TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED AL// k. � 1' 4BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE K- ^ %-!�_��J REVISED 8/00 SIGNED BY COPIES TO: CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. OuTESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 1425) 823.9800 EVERETT (425) 259.08 ) 7 COMPRESSION REPORT TO ATTN THE FOLLOWING WAS NOTED: FIELD TEST DATA FIELD 1 REPORT No. II AU4. NO. 44823 DATE CERT NO. ©*-oz—a¢ I- PROJEC 1 LOCATION �� /yt' I BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER -03rgi 3 H TEMP. AT AM C G'� AT PM ENGI EER ARCHITECT CON RACTO 1 TRUCK SAMPLED 1OZ&O TRUCK TICKET NO. 44. e <''ay MIX N0. TIME SLUMP ASTM C-143 %AIR UNIT WEIGHT ASTM C-138 YIELD CEMENT FACTOR TEMP. ASTM C-1064 CONC AIR 14.t 0 AIR TEST METHOD: ❑ PRESSURE ASTM C-231 OR ❑ VOLUME ASTM C-173 EQUIPMENT USED I.D. SLUMP CONE CSLCOO THERMOMETER CCOTHO AIRME'rER CCOAIO OTHER TYPE OF BREAK: (A) Cone (C) Cone and Shear (b) Cone and Split (d) Shear (e) Columnar COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH al FOR ��—cU.YD. DESIGN WEIGHTS 41 Z90 co % MOIST ADJUSTED WEIGHTS 41?i CEMENT FLY ASH C.A. 3 2.5 C.A. C.A. FINE AGG. Z Z WATER 70/0 TOTAL 1112-,0-912 A $Z6 /16 . CYLINDER NUUM3ERR DATE MADE DATE TESTED AGE DAYS AREA IN) TOTAL LOAD STRENGTH PSI TYPE BREAK .+/�657, 7� //',) /�{yS�I(Z'E t'(7SO. �/l -74, d/ 14 5 c a I -710 5 6-36 Z ✓ 'i5 d - o ✓ CONCRETE COMPRESSION MACHINE I.D. #CCOCOOO ❑ ASTM C-1231 SAMPLE P/U DATE ,, I /TEST METHOD ❑ ASTM C-617 SUPPLIER C�i�IN'N CEMENTTYPE �— AEA ADMIX /mac C C1p % PLACE M:NTAREA&NOTES TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OU'r THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. REVISED SM INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED INSPECTOR SIGNATURE SIGNED BY SAMPLING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ✓ APPLICABLE CODES & SPECS. CU. YARDS PLACED 625l COPIES TO:�W�� '-/10 TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS 11520 8 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE EDCASCADE REPORT No. No. KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800 EVERETT (425)259-0817 DATE Z7101` C� NOD. FIELD REPORT PROJECT ,;'c( ^ _ ^, , (L��L TO: LOCATION -Y/.5. ( +' I atnA BLDG. PERMIT NW OWNER 2 _ d>t-c�3i9 zcl- c HER WEA TEMP. AT AM k_n) d AT PM ENGINEER RGcxG41 ARCHITECT ATTN: _ CONTRACTOR (2) (3) INSPECTION PERFORMED ITEMS INSPECTED _ FOUNDATIONS RESTEEUCONCRETE �ESTEEL ONLY _ FOOTINGS _ SLAB RESTEEL/MASONRY _ STR.ST/WELDING _ AUGER CAST PILES _ COLUMNS _OTHER — STR.ST/BOLTING — DRILLED PIERS WALLS — BEAMS (4) 1 �S LOCATION (AREAS) (5) CONCRETE/MASONRY MIX NO. DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c) SUPPLIER TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED SLUMP (INCHES) SPECIMENS CAST AIR CONTENT (%) SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO. 'YES —NO —ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS 9 pl ow^ TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) PRINTED BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED 8loo SIGNED BY COPIES TO: CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. PREVIOUS TESTING &INSPECTION /ENGINEERS 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE REPORT No.�/ --j z " V ryo• — — — — — — KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON EVERETT 98034 (425) 823-9800 (425) 259-0817 DATE CERT. NO. /� (,YI �� /AL L/ Y v FIELD REPORT PROJECT f l LOCATION / TO: iynAia OAi / V �.�c�L _ BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWN WEAT ER TEMP. AT AM LiL li l! ,r 1� Q 16,67 Z _ G P.Owl AT PM ER \ c 1 dC ARCHITECT ATTN: CONTRACTO 7 (2) (3) INSPECTION PERFORMED ITEMS INSPECTED — FOUNDATIONS RESTEEL ONLY FOOTINGS SLAB ESTEEUCONCRETE _ _ _ RESTEEUMASONRY STR.ST/WELDING _ AUGER CAST PILES COLUMNS _ _ — OTHER — STR.STIBOLTING — DRILLED PIERS , J- WALLS _ — BEAMS (LOCATION �Zk1 (AREAS) C,ONCRETE/MASONRY MIX NO, 7bZn DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c) SUPPLIER A TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED ` + ' r SLUMP (INCHES) SPECIMENS CAST .4 AIR CONTENT (%) jL�J SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO. �"b7/3 (ES _ NO _ ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. REVISED 8/00 INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S) INSPECTOR SIGNATURE SIGNED BY Ik,pWL44 COPIES TO: axt% a 6 -I8 CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS 115220 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE IN REPORT No. No. KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800 EVERETT - (425) 259-0817 DATE J 0,0 CERT. NO. FIELD REPORT PROJECTW, I d ge4 LOCATION I �o;L To: BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER WEATHER +., TEMP. AT AM AT PM ENGINEER o ARCHITECT ATTN: _ CONTRACTOR (2) (3) INSPECTION PERFORMED ITEMS INSPECTED — FOUNDATIONS RESTEELICONCRETE RESTEEL ONLY _ FOOTINGS _ SLAB _ RESTEELIMASONRY _ STR.ST/WELDING _ AUGER CAST PILES _ COLUMNS — OTHER — STR.ST/BOLTING — DRILLED PIERS — WALLS _ — BEAMS (LOCATION (AREAS) (5) CONCRETE/MASONRY MIX NO. DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c) SUPPLIER TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED SLUMP (INCHES) SPECIMENS CAST AIR CONTENT (%) SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO. 1'ES _ NO _ ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS REMARKS: aNck G TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY. INC. REVISED WOO U5 INSPECTOR(S). NAME(S) PRINTED -fy INSPECTOR SIGNATURE SIGNED BY ki( CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. 'I L J - I , r ' V ',- �/ TESTING & INSPECTION / ENGINEERS PREVIOUS l / S� 120403 NO. 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE REPORT NO. KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98034 (425) 823-9800 EVERETT (425) 259-0817 DATE CERT. N0. FIELD REPORT PROJECT, , �/ /// �C L� �2 �S v�F LOCATION - J (` t o n i Ilvl I �nni, BLDG. PERMIT NO. OWNER Gv V— 03 a,0 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR WEATHER TEMP. AT AM U��2Gr.�5-;- j G AT /A/04y4M II1PliJIQDS ENGINEER �0/-.- ✓2�� /, z-,-9 ARCHITECT ATTN: _ // CONTRACTOR (2) (3) INSPECTION PERFORMED ITEMS INSPECTED — FOUNDATIONS , k-R EEUCONCRETE _ RESTEEL ONLY _ FOOTINGS _ SLAB RESTEEUMASONRY _ STR.ST/WELDING _ AUGER CAST PILES COLUMNS / L — OTHER — STR.ST/BOLTING — DRILLED PIERS WALLS — BEAMS LOCATION (AREAS) , CONI;RETE/MASONRY MIX NO. U 6> � v DESIGN STRENGTH (f'c) SUPPLIER Fi ,0 TOTAL CU. YD. PLACED L L/l Q SPECIMENS CAST SLUMP (INCHES) AIR CONTENT (%) T' SEE CYLINDER REPORT NO. ,(ES _ NO _ ITEMS INSPECTED WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH BLDG. DEPT. APPROVED PLANS REMARKS: %% J `L. U / D ✓ L CJ F-�//� ,. S/9 /�J�f i' d - � SrG. �A- a � �i9-SST' j L 5 J TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS HEREIN TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT INSPECTOR(S), NAME(S)' PRINTED BE FIEPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL, WITH- OUT THE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF CASCADE TESTING LABORATORY, INC. I INSPECTOR SIGNATURE REVISED 8l00 SIGNED BY �* / L n 77 cv f..�S OW 1/ / COPIES TO: • • 0 FROM : JRR ENGINEERING,Ino. March 17, 2004 Dave Stafford Graham Northwest Inc. 21010 NE 1650' ST Woodinville, WA 98072 PHONE NO. : 425+697 4506 JRR Engineering, Inc. 18609 76d' Avenue West, Suite 13 Lynnwood, WA 98037-4149 Phone: (425) 697-5108 Fax: (425) 697-4506 Mar. 19 2004 12:34PM P1 Post-iY' Fax Note 1671 aai ► ToDaw, CoMept. Go. Phone n Pane a 8 2f a:i * O / ZO SUBJECT. Foundation Revisions, Plans 3298 & 3226,Graham Northwlest Inc_, Edmonds, WA, JRR# 03-79 Dear Mr. Stafford: Per your request JRR Engineering, Inc. has reviewed the plans and calculations for the above subject building using the Eco-Block wall system. JRR has determined the vertical reinforcing may be #4 bars at 16' o.c. rather than the 05 bars at 8d o.c. called for on wall detail "191"/S-3 for plan 3225 and detail "D"/S-2 for plan 3298_ This revision only applies to the 40" ma)dmum backfill basement wail shown on those plans. Please advise If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, JRR Engine0nng, Inc. Karl osman, E.I.T. Ronald K, Riach, P.E. 11WQXVVULM'MS%Q381AUEdm J TREET f. . VA RECEIVED MAY 1 2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS l"D yob ,� 00 `��., �J 0 FROM JRR ENGINEBRING,Inc. PHONE NO. : 425+697 4506 May. 11 2004 11:22RM P3 J'.�.R Erg Sri �rizx, , LUC. ENGLN>_ERLNG & PLANNING SERVICES Project fame_ 63 .. .. _.. _ '.._ _� �._�c?r�.�3..�+? _S`=S� _ ...+�.2..._..-ram--_•-•- . • - --•• ..�_ Qesignea -g— Checked Date - street— of • k'% 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 Dear Ms. Graf: RECEIVED 0 ,�T 1 a 2'�13 "l=3 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 70, 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. - - ' BILE.. . 36170/SEA3L280.doc Page I of 4 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 0 kTj 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 7t' 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. Geotechnical Engineering Study, Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat, 1230 — 7' 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 Sou 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/SEA3"80.doc Page 2 of 4 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. JAML h'9 KLEINFELDER Groundwater 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 7 h 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 cannot 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. We suggest that a slope stability study be performed to assess the potential for slope instability following site development if yard waste is to remain on the property. 36170/SEA3L.280.doc Page 3 of 4 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. hTI KLEINFELDER CLOSURE We will be pleased to discuss the above comments witl you and representatives from the design team 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, KLEINFELDER, INC. James A Schmidt, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer 36170/SEA3L280.doc Page 4 of 4 Copyright 2003 Kleinfelder, Inc. 03-5-C3� 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 Z.11Z� Rtmtz->t OCT 309_ BUILDING DEPT. This 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, KLEINFELDER, INC. James M. Schmidt Senior Geotechnical Engineer James A. McElroy Manager, Geotechnical Engineering . 36170/SEA3L20-doc Copyright 2003 Meinfelder, Inc. STREET FILE' RECEIVED DEC 12 2003 _ Page 1 off PERMIT COUNTER KLEINFELDER 2405 140th Avenue, NE, Suite A101, Bellevue, WA 98005 (425) 562-4200 (425) 562-4201 fax 4 o�-s63 C17/ 03/ L00.7 1 / : 00 YL7 f M 1 GE TECH CONS TANTS, INC. i Ala i Jackson 1 01 Highway 99 Ly Iinwood, Washington 99037 SOject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Wilderness Bluff Short Plat 1230— 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson: LLU 1 Gl.n 01 • r-F4= of 13256 Nordlem 21kh Soren. Snipe 16 . Bcllcrue, Wuhington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (4.-9) 7474561 RECEIVED September 3, 2603 SEP 0 E 2003 JN 03322 DEVELOPMENT SERVII;_ BUILDING . SEP 2 2 2003 via facsimile: (425) 787-9112 are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed single-family dences to be constructed In Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our work consisted of loring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide )rnmendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. work was authorized by your acceptance of our Contract for Professional Services dated July 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.&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 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 roximatey 8 to 10 feet below existing street grade, and a small backyard will be filled at finish tloeir elevation. No development is proposed on the western side of the site, as this area is a deslionated 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 CONDITIONS RECEIVED DECr12 2003 SURFACE II PERMIT COUNTER ThI Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The undeveloped, wooded site is I�cated on the western side of 7th Avenue South in Edmonds. The site slopes from east to west, wit elevations varying from approximately 246 feet at the southeastern corner to .approximately 20 feet at the southeestem 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. STREU FILE 1LJf1f YJV♦ Jackson ember 3, 2003 uw i c.n VAL*- 93 JN 03322 Page 2 'with blackberry and morning glory vines near the street and with ferns and other low vegetation elsewhere. There is an area do the southem part of the site where nately 10 feet of yard waste and construction debris have been dumped to form a locally slope. Dumped garbage, yard waste, and construction debris were observed scattered- )ut the site. The adjoining properties are developed with single-family residences. CE Th subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven test pits at the approximate to bons shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based an the prolI osed 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 op ted 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" sart�ples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are ((provided in Plates 3 and 4 of this report. ie 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 fruition 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 ikon 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 riotions 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 rer laced with structural fill during construction. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. V_.110af LV0J if.00 4zif Y Isa truft�+l'7 �� I"'Wl1t 04 Ala n Jackson JN 03322 Se 3tember 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 IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. Thy proposed development will consist of dividing the site into four roughly equal lots and co structing one single-family residence on each lot: The recommendations presented in this retrt are based 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 reclommendations accordingly. test pits conducted for this study encountered loose fill, topsoil, and highly weathered sand and rel overlying dense to very dense sand and gravel. Competent, native soils were encountered peen 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 I'w 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 uohout the site. This material is not suitable for reuse as fill and should be removed during site Be 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 wi in 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 exoration. If groundwater is encountered during the excavation on the upslope side of the site, th cat slopes below the groundwater table will likely experience some sloughing or caving. To mi{igate the potential for instability of the cut slopes below the groundwater table, the cuts may ha ife 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 i ications of instability. Soil stockpiles and debris from site clearing should not be stored at the tioto 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 ount a space allowance of 2 feet on each side for footings, drains, and forms, cuts cannot ex 3 feet between the foundation walls. GEOTECH CONsuLTAWS. INC. n�i uoi Luuo a � : oo YL'J I Y�1 Hsu i cu1 � rldltt no Alai i Jackson • • JN 03322 . Se tember 3, 2003 Page 4 Sated 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 . eac 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 mal,,e recommendations for the design of these temporary shoring walls if they are required. Ba ad on the topographic information provided to us, fill on the order of 6 to 6 feet willbe 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 clownslope 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 we 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 (require 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 compaction is being achieved. foundation walls should be backfilled with free -draining structural fill. The site sand and gravel w the root line is acceptable for use as wall backfill. Footing drains should be installed at the of each foundation wall. We recommend that each residence have its own independent Jation drainage system, so two separate drains would .need to be placed in the backfill een the adjacent houses. Drainage should also be provided behind all retaining walls and Th rosio en control measures needed during site development will depend heavily on the weather con It2ns that are encountered during construction. She 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 the a sift fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas and around the wet ands. Straw bales should be placed against the silt fence for added protection during grading. Roc[ked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of mud can lied off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alig iment of planned pavements. Soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet we ther. 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. C17/ YJ/ LNNJ 1 f . WO 464 f Y &A • AlJackson s4tember 3, 2003 ULU 1 «,n � rAM Ob JN 03322 Page 5 recommend including this report, in its entirety, 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 immendations. CONSIDERATIONS The site is located within Seismic Zone 3, as illustrated on Figure No. 16-2 of the 1997 Unifonn Building Code (UBC). In accordance with Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC, the site soil profile within 10 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type Sc (Very Dense Soil). The sit soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. FOUNDATIONS Thq 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 properly compacted structural 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 sh d be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have be 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 det, rmins 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 eqL 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 supported on the dense, native sand and gravel found below the root line or on structural fill placed abcIve these competent native soils. A *e-third increase in this design bearing pressures may be used when considering short4erm wi or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is antici ated that the total post -construction set ement of footings founded on competent, native soil, op? on structural fill up to 5 fleet in thi ness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one-half inch in a dist ance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with, a uniform load. Latibral 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 lev I, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following Lifth riate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, GEOTECM CONSULTANTS. INC. If Jackson • amber 3, 2003 I PARAMETER ULTIMATE VALUE !I Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Where: (1) pef its pounds per cubic foot, and (ii) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. r"= ur JN 03322 Page 6 e ground In front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will be appropriate and we should be contacted for a revised. recommendation. We recommend. -staining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when g 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 osed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain . le 1 backfill: , ARAMETER Active Earth Pressure " VALUE 30 paf Passive Earth Pressure 300 pof Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Soil Unit Weight 135 pef Where: (i) pef Is pounds per cubic foot, and (IU active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. ' For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.M 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. 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 .ild be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls.. is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a ier. design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the Is and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent ndations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. vw v.w ccrva A. r . vo YLJ r Y0., 6Lu r �1+f7 0 h'JiLiG G!! Ajar i Jackson JN 03322 September 3, 2003 Page 7 to tt ie above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate des n earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be a unted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid den ity; 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 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 ccomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the hio er soil forces that occur during compaction. ckfill 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 rticles 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 aining 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 �rmeable 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 netrations, 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 Dortant 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 iced with select. imported structural fill. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Ala .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 discussed in Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls. As noted by the American Concrete Inst tute (ACI) in Section 3.23 of the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper. moi tune 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 a1sc notes that vapor retarders, such as. 6-mil visqueen, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defi ied as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (pso 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 whgn tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can' me0t this requirement. In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded con ipactable granular material, such as a 518 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be pia d 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. Huy rever, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI liter ture 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, whI6 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 i 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 sures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of W er vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" ge erally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer. and the owner discuss these iss yes 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 Met e ns should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. Wel anticipate that rockeries may be used to level the backyards. At least 12 inches of quarry spills should be placed behind rockeries to reduce the potential for soil eroding through them. A pert forated drain pipe surrounded by drain rock should be installed behind the rockeries. recommend limiting fill rockeries to a height of 4 feet and constructing them on only competent fe soil. The lower two-thirds of the rockery should be constructed with 3- to Oman 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 .__... GEOTECH-CONSUL-TANTSS.ING----- 1;-11 oil ZVVJ 1 /:00 4L0I*1 ttu1Cuf i ro*= 10 Alai i Jackson • • JN 03322 Se tember 3, 2003 Page 9 .pro osed 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 W ledes or rockeries taller than 4 feet will require the use of geogdd reinforcement inthe backfill. Wecan provide a rockery detail if necessary. Th construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering me ods and standards. It is Imperative that rockeries, if used, are constructed with cane 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 i 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 VA TINS AND SLOPES ovation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government ty regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in )turated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be t near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington iinistrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet. in height cannot be excavated at an -iation steeper then. 1 1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the )m of a cut. As discussed in the General section of this report, groundwater exiting cut slopes lead to rapid destabilization of the cut. If groundwater is encountered in any of the.cuts at the the excavation should be immediately backfilled to above the line of seepage and the ethnical 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, ;e note that gravel can cave suddenly and without waming. Excavation, foundation, and utility actors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cats 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 slo ighing, fill must be keyed and benched into the existing slopes. Adequate compaction of the sloe face is important for long=term stability and is necessary to prevent excessive settlement of pa los, 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 species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. An� 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 area should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed on Ithe slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS-INC— - -will, oil Loot 1 e: ot! 417I obI l • Jackson :tuber 3, 2003 k* U I tlxi 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 floOV elevations. Based on the setbacks indicated on the site plans, the only locations where there ma 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 tions or elevations cannot be adjusted to maintain the recommended cut slope in sho ng will be required to make the proposed cuts. We. can provide design recommendations for s ng if it is necessary. DAINAGE 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 foblic (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 general, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water lh may bypass the footing drains. We can provide recommendations for interior drains. should thel become necessary, during excavation and foundation construction. Gr undwater 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 trenchesat a bottom of the excavation. Tho excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away froF I the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slas, or pavements. are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the residences shld 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. Adliitionally, a drainage Swale should be provided upslope of each residence to intercept surface. ru -off and direct it into the storm drains. We recommend that catchbasins be placed in each. of th driveways to capture surface water and direct it into the storm water system. Water from roof, st water, and foundation drains should not be discharged onto slopes: it should be tightlined to a unable outfall located away from any slopes. JNERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and ott er deleterious material. A large amount of dumped garbage and yard waste were observed thr Dughout the site; these materials will need to be removed during site clearing. The stripped or rer ioved sand and gravel above, the root line should not be mixed with any materials to be used as str ctural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. MI/Vit:10 i "ir:VU' (iLUIECH PAGE 12 Alar 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, beh nd permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to s jpport 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 res Its in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and mu be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. As discussed in the Genera! sec on, 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. allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction =ent used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness Id not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not ;iently compacted, it can be recompaeted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the ,to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents Tlmended relative compactions for structural fill: where: Minimum Relative Compaction is no ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximren dry densft, as deterrroned to acao►danoe with AMU Test Designation D 1557.91 (Modified Proctor). General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the. reuse of on -site soils; the iel 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 :ant. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that Ion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site co ditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater co ditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. if. th subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those ob erved in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions an reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are co 1 monly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil sa nples in test pits. GEOTECH CONSUITANTS,-INC. - b_I/oil 2001 tr,rats ytor t L*-UIhUHIs PAGE 13 Ala Jackson JN 03322 Sep ember 3, 2003 Page 12 ce conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions 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 rved site materials, and selective engineering analyses. Our conclusions and nmendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of Ice 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 y precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors methods, iiques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for deration in design. ADDMONAC SERVICES In Jddition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide ge echnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This Is to confirm tha subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate w 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. Hm fever, our. work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the co ractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements,. will oe the responsibility of the contractor. Subsequent consultation and testing services during the design and construction phase would be ch ed on a time -and -materials basis in accordance with terms and conditions of our attached sch Jule of fees and general conditions. This work often includes a review of the geotechnical as 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 world 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. I 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. • VJ/ VJI }.VVJ L f . VV 1�JI O• Ada Jackson Se ember 3, 2003 ma ucu can 11PA*- 14 J N 03322 Page 13 a 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 : esm (EXPIRES W-31- CG y 1 James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager GEOTBCH CONSULTANTS, fnIC. n ' 6mLI1u sT �L �� S e �' f s Y i TI"I£$' A ti/duly rW�,•�r �Y 1S k �7`etti f° -13 1Y9'�gf' rw �i n Lt I Iota v F[ss' s op n nr_@w �J -IC"� w a en>aF '' W .p I batrI • ,t" J At 1t99 Lt M� 9Q� 6t� : iTirrr O �+ e a it '�' 4 � .saL°L d �sira _ Tom' „_. I at �rL q s .`�y Cib A ad IIIL L rL ILA S gg'a,,ln� HIBB f a woo r rr i7s _ dur wsr _�_ raew 07 Av yllD 111 shy ea a' �, 2E v N: { ' • A1!g- y r AI * A Jq s ut9p Lar►_ui : s _ _ nas rt L _ y t evr_ 11r Td 15IG"'MI. Etta %W wi .fz L cx_ ,AYf6 �� • Yu r Ar ' AY e x •� ., ibi L L ^•:r . colt o yJuRut at► 6' .p G _ � r � p _F IJ196 � per-{ ,� � �% � _ ._ __. d;�e r., lf'� LY — t . s p '�" y 'ued + n er ruu _ t t`�• BYYi 3 _ tn- Q r. Otl : s : laf a�xM s AY 11196 1e �1 fJ AV v L = 6 ro£ » �* �e rtu . N wt'i ,I (� YW i i I a .a o O I N i 4 N N �o 9sl Yn _Y �.. :s .� }� •.1wn' � t, Yr S .' -.0r to sE d `" ,� .o r HlRr � �• . i '� L1 EMI rr � i � � M�1 / e m fir{ fiirii K4 A niy 'ice `.� �`' Al' Jul AY "7 A% ILL9 s G 6 6 a A HIS it •q O • a,+-- 43l� �. Ar as nxoae 071: ell � W.o • ,r J/ WJf iWw j L I . VV •id04 • N. C�' M 1� Hsu i c�,n F'AbL 16 • � r TP-4 proposed SFRs o CO -:TP-6 m I AN OD . j P-3, TP- ' proposed plat lines i`!- 7 f r TP-1 230 240 SITE EXPLORATION PLAN GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South CONSULTAKM INC Washington Edmonds, gt -- _ s•_ 100 Alp; "2003 Nm Scale P/Qle: 2 VJI VJ/ I.VVJ � I . VV 1I. JV• _ �.411 GVI'7 r.�� 1 r r ' Test Pit 1 k mi 00- 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 1.0 - 5.0 SW Brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, slightly 5.0 - 6.0 moist, medium -dense -becomes dense to very dense •No groundwater encountered, some caving from 0 - 3.0 feet during excavation Test Pit 2 0 - 1.0 FILL Ma Brown sand and gravel FILL, with yard waste, 1.0 - 2:0 TOPSOIL boss I 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; 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 0-1.0 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, ' 6.0 =•7.0 medium -grained, slightly moist, dense -with more cobbles, becomes very.wet 'Groundwater encountered at 6.5 feet, some caving from 4.0 6.0 - feet during excavation Test Plt 4 0- 0.5 TOPSOIL Dark b►vwn silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, 0.5 - 2.0 FILL and TOPSOIL dry, loose 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 - 5.0 Sw Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, 6.0-7.0 medium -to coarse -grained, very moist, dense -becomes wet 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 4.0 - 6.0 feet, during excavation TEST PIT LOGS GEOTECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South ccxvsur"T,s' wc. Edmonds, Washington c �� ✓aa nro: 03322 n� August Z003 Plat . 3 VJ.I VJI LVVJ .I-VV 1LJ1 �/� \ wI L.VII rwL= io Test Pit 5 �. .-. Description 0- 2.0 TOPSOIL Brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant toots, dry. loose 2.0 - 4.0 SW Gray SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense 4.0 - 7.0 SIP -becomes gray -brown, medium -grained, wet, dense 'Groundwater.encounbered at 6.0 feet, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet'during excavation Test Pit 6 .-. Description 0- 1.0 TOPSOIL Dark brown silty TOPSOIL with abundant roots, dry, loose 1.0 - 3.0 SW Gray -brown SAND with gravel and cobbles, moist, medium -dense 3.0 - 6.5 SP -becomes mediu rained, very moist dense 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 3.0 - 5.0 feet during excavation ..Test Pit 7 .-. Description0- zo 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 feet 'No groundwater encountered, some caving from 6.0 - 7.0 feet during excavation TEST PIT LOGS GEO'TECH 1230 - 7th Avenue South CONSULTANTS, INC. Edmonds, Washington Job No., I Darr Lo&ieO bj; pp 4 03M August =3 EMT S bpe backfill away from 'foundation. Provide surface' djains where necessary. Washed (7/0" rnin. 6" min Backfill (See text for requirements) Nonwoven Geotextile Filter Fabric 0 an ^h Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to fboting drain) S LAS 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outtan. Place holes downward.) Free -Draining Gravel (if appropriate) NOTES: (1) in crai 0 spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypat ses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer o report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. TYPICAL DRAIN DETAIL 'C GEOTECH* CONSULTAMM Mr— =1 230 - 7th Avenue South 9 j Edmonds, Washington A Job No., Daft Sank- 033M August 2003 1 Not to Some PLW& 5 I ON ZONE SETBACKS: __..� — FRONT — Qm SIDE ' REAR_ AP ROVED BY/ E-OEERIN�G sy Date: lAxkuiun� C�i}�. I1iEWAY SCQPEI f 5e-4�,6e- r� ec4 r PInnp, ,i'o'I-Crow. q � U EXPOSED SURFACES IE COVERED WITHIN 2 D �oI` � P`(G bC'T'E1.1'1"101.1 OU T1-L�'f' LtMr-- bISP.l1wFIL-7z. N M M �I� PCIJ =� N N N Z'3 0.-7 01 nl .N - - - , L -� _,- I� f ,� _I 1-.-.1 GONNE{TIO/.�l I POI IJ -T- M, rn C- AT i o til DI S. PE¢SI0►J/ IN F I L-TR. Am 0 TE r=1.IG H 10' VJIbC ST{Z I,F'�2CA �l r `IT 6� I, NEW 6UFFE-IL LI MOVIDE sIL� F 0vRlrtC0 Gor�s}rz PE K ftVla4EiJ T rf IS AT c.0p4-PLETIoJL► Z9o.7-1, I OWNER/CONTPAC" CI" IS RESPO SIBLE Z GRl�.Ha,r� IJot�TH� O CIO n cc � W Z cr- M 8U _—n R W TA.x Accr . z 703 Z500 L 0-T_ Z , S I-1 O V--T- Pi..•AT"- G� -r f eu . 111 s p, - ZO Cv AfL � E-A 0 Z 1. A.CS: Z3 81 z' Pr SLID R -1 Lu t6 02 A ®d U ga:- 13 ❑ Pol2 4 If 4 \ oefr.F zBI I � -� 0 5e vve r e c4, e- L, ne, '1 MN \ �FlLo-,d I;CSTr-\GIV_ 3,9(K 30'± Dt✓rt�.lTioU 1 y _ -40-T E� — TEiz i►u 20. TE1TK`( I %i roR^D E � :. TRtve15 rl b,IzeY j -n \ I j/ / 1J) � 1 ` 4 r ARAOs R P S ID. -771-022 rFJ� T. 1326, cncn ' 00 1 ( GovE ITH I C LrI f1Y�l F �o v. ju- I m - 506JCGT 70 Pao•.Iac q= L 8, 0 I r /'N ,%. IGErnr�r.1TS o f GLr_A►J -ovY- ,Iv 6= 27S6.0' sr 0-S-Z003 -S=h v✓�casT-Iri4J Z39.S' WIL.IDFa-kLESS gLUPF- LOGKII.acaUD 0 I I O O I)e..t i.v.b-aw_[D Z28. 7 tom' - 1., 6Ai�. Sy�� L381 G58 O Z29.{ NJ OWED BY PLANN I q, z 7 + s GL I/+�PEtz�/i ors S VizEl�.cE : " IS V I tt.-fw ROOF = z30 U EC K- = 1 8 8 S• F. ZDiirIYEk WALIL (0 S•F. TD -rAIL. 3 L O O 5 P. rLv-.A or- I ST U iZ6Al.Scf` 11.► e l -UDC- S iVIJ-rlR-r FRoIVT (og.sl Or- L-oT. TO Kl G PA LI1J E, 'A C.T V AIL- 8.0 1 g-rm, 0 i` I=o o-f I Q zZ6 . `1 1 sV 4'7A-TU,, PT, : SArc1, SEw..r`LAIJI-I, Kim<= Z.¢O.SZ m 1 tJ F rLO11 T p F LOT I �' � 1•�FII.IAL coNTO VfL.S C1F GNl�►-1<o6D, I -- -i W ! Etc 1 ST I{.► Ge wsTD v rzs �;, m ro (ZAb I is (O l c v-r 37 0 GJ . V D s . SGALE I "= Za CC z No zso Gv• �ras. m a m DISPOSE p.rrfe c s EXPOs15iJ SOIL- To QE c_ovEe.Et, \J/ `,4i`,, � s ►J" 0sr- L"vSGtivEd� vl/Ial r.�! Nooiz,-, r �,-!„�+., v�y,,(..„�,tti',/,�;t,F''""�i'i°t"`iY'r �y. . � �l.r• ,V-+'M1iYwt,.%'Z �.,. w./'` 1,,..�N o +•ttt•vx d yS, !" mow:."r'�w� V1:gC,�U.I��M•'µ4i-�1"""1%�.f� i'�'�74•yp"t"i'�� PERMIT NO: 9844 City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRE � Address of Construction Property Tax Account P. Attach copies of all. access and utility easements Verified and Approved by Owner and/or Contractor: PKI, I lmr)/1. llJ Contractor License Single Family Multi -Family (No. of Units ❑ Commercial (No. -of Units ) L ❑ Public .Building Permit #_ Invasion into City g Y S*Ri ht-of Way: ❑ Yes LSO *RW Construction Permit # / Cross other **Private Property: ❑ Yes [�]' Tl� o **Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement. Owner/Contractor Owner 6Y c ,ntraotor signature -and acknowledgement statement'- ate By signing roe this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled Fide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein. 9 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-421 5,555)�BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 9 9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 exterision'iM�� 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS'=' t; PERMIT MUST BE POSTED -ON JOB SITE t White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector . Buff Copy:. Applicant L;temp; bl dg;forms;sspertn itj lg4/00 . 0 GRINDER PU 7 7 7 7 7 7 N W Q r- ell c�F E.D �oo CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS 'ti d ADDRESS � -�.r v' I 1230 7 AVE S .j 1890 HOMEOWNER CONTRACTOR GRAHAM NW DATE DRAWN 10/22/2004 IBY SIBREL 12-15-2004 BUILT I SCALE NTS PERMIT NO. 9844 ZONE 1 Z _r� SETBACKS: _ FRONT 90` �1 �� To blsP �I�IJ�F1L_T2.rLET 9$'�MN w// Flog/ SIDE E5 REAF ve- :N N Zoo.-70 � — >< ao'± Tau .► n�� HER_ -� — EIGHT AG-7 -- - -r-�P F r� . oQ ,d, tit r- 1 - —1 _ wa r Ee �� G O 1-1 hl E.CT I O /JI a ' � g !" <E E � APPROVED BY ENGI�EERIN� VolT I RS•S•6.L. zo ° w Tee `13 0 m m • M1 TI A.T 1 0 1J r�tz -,�. ' I ( I f Z I % roR^D E T>� mfj rR`( 4 b1s rc5Qs10►J/ Z AfL �Iv o►-IC• veivE� / S� JARIMY 11.1 F I t_Tfz AT 1 O I Tv _ ►.I ,� Y Date: A.� Tr_ oI 1 a� g z' _ �o $LAS O 10� WIbC FILTE 06 Ib W i— r? M 1 3 C I M STFL I P f41ZC-A °� Zg SLO - L Fes— 1I I -M m \y 1 _ � I S 1 L-T' F f �NGE• I In ~ F... ru `IT / i �.� p � q /t I I mo t' 9 GaT. Z I O �/ F�� I (o�D ►J6 A NO� 11 1�13 I 1 r MAXlMVk C E_'AY PE d I \ ALLOWED 14% o L-w'� i NEW 6JFFf=1Z LI E e, 1 "_ PFZO\d 1 DE Si �F I `r F, Z3�8Z'Cn Cn �1 n L EXPOSED SURFACES DAYS- u R r �` G°s}rzu rfru, I g. s. g L. % / N I - ID o = 0 E COVERED WITHIN 2 D P� R Eu r �E �� c 1 ' t_1F S . CV-1 371a 010.14. C Ev Zvi N U n Q7 T=-F T� 1n1 � ' n ri ! r I w m m OWNER/CONTRACTO I R $ 471+a1�- T11J1 S � � 1=0 506.1 ECT La H A. l,, N O RT H \!J E S C A = Z L B, O ' R E C1 J I ILE rnr� ►,IiS OF- GL GA►4 -0 v-I C) g= �36.0 ' Sr 'I-s-L003 - w�GasT-IiZC>tii Z H- 0 ramD= 7_�3Z9S.. S�' . V-11 l-at=�"IE_S_s gt_0FF � A(EIS�c��wtti m 703 zsoo30o 0 ,,,x-v M F� *0 4"-,,Iz., s L3 a' I SPECTIONS REQ'D. cr- M nut. = 233� FIx-1. L.\/./g.SL_A%S z W ,— z sl-la,,,AP PAVED BY PLANNING 1 C a 5-771-0220 EXT. 1326 � SAX. 1 .O 0.0 � nOR�Gxc'S� Ac TVAL=' ZSS.Q 1 BTK.oF Fool ING= U 1 � (� 1 q, Z7+ S G1. 1= 1 : �aTUrcl pi, S,AIJ. SEW. PQ.4,klH. R11 ? 1f l FR,OLL'r OF Lo-F 1 = Z40.SZ 37 i'r1 g a 1/'6_PEtL11/10u _s Vi_FACE ..F1kLA"L coNTO VfLS (1F GN/�.tlo61.) I W 0 LL Z t3U It_�f�.l 1�00.�- Z3�0 S. �. / �E)c1 s-1 INS corsTo v1zS n w m R _ W D�CI� =� 1 8 8 S.P. 171z1YF_ Ult - (4oS7--S•F. SGALE I"�Zd(co: IV _3 Z. O O s= F• GOT 3 7& G J. 'I P s Z O tlsvnc.c oP .=xcESS rl�C.a. vt- U15 1-I.JKCSA/�iGF IN�L U D`CS ArILpuC� S LTG STREET 1=1lTIR� FROWT. Co85' o� L oTTo EjcPosE� s01L.-M ISE Govsz_r= k/� FILE I.ICaPA LIrJ E, Nb.Y oP 1�•►-►L�6Gi+,PE1� `�/1�.1 z;4No,)zS • STREET FILE PLANNING DATA NAME: Dxv-� A G. Sft. a /61k-'- , /VW L-.cDATE: 1-ID4 SITE ADDRESS: 12-3 v - *-7— Arc. s PLAN CHK#: O-R-S63 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 6ohc "-� it sr*Lit ms.`Auv - 14, P*', 11vab Lz* 4 4L ' D-4- Zi o' REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: es / No MAP PAGE: 103 CORNER LOT: es o FLAG LOT: Yes o jZONING: K5 -,U • CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: 9-7-s9 ON �.1 StudyReauired: ,c5_Jeep 44yt '^"�t�� L/.+ ff.oa. -5 ,4, e., ,putt SIgoe W l-2 , rq'p'-fw„5 ❑ Waiver i a^�« , ��, . (3. y� caw.:.) s+,s t+, 2 ❑ Conditional Waiver fl r6a r� -s ti �oe� 2 sr i5-!� ;� GrI"/+. rG. «err. ✓) SEPA DETERMINATION: ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form Veeded for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) empt SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Street: ?�' Left Side: 5 ' Right Side: 5 Rear: / s (r S' 1, e` &-lw-au,) . Actual Setbacks: J ^� Street: �-O' Left Side: 5 ' Right Side: S' Rear: MO' Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No / DNA) ❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: ❑ ROCKERIES: ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: Q BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: STAIRS / DECKS: f „o?- „ 6-»4p3 - 16-* be -h R C4 PARKING: Required: Z Actual: Z LOT AREA: 19 Z 7S LOT COVE IG,9 t q4G 44,5 r 7) Calculations: �3'2g5 BUILDING HEIGHT: �r) � ; t Datum Point: ft,.l.v im b., tdr- LLLLDatum Elevation: Z 4-o, s y Maximum Allowed: Z 5 Actual Height: • S w p`" ,u�. r,� A.D.U. CREATED?: No / Yes i,,ev bA h w-e� ,a: , wa; t. /D�a b ti wH�� A.edc a+y prt ;ti l ASK PeXA,,)- F&r N-1 ' SUBDIVISION: 3-03 -34 L `'`9'"'"'` 6' LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Ms / No OTHER: >0F Anu Aij rur � u SaM 4 XihAz " SMwn la' tik b d1G -ram it NGP£ Plan Review NewBPPlanningDataFormDOC STREET FILE 439 zz9 93Z .' 4 : 233 ......................................... •tVSTOMfR - EVt CONTACTM4NODd3 .� GD'� FOPM :......................................... A coordinated utility environment which maximizes joint utility opportunities to provide quality service for the citizens of Edmonds YOU WILL BE GIVEN A CONFIRMATION NUMBER BY EACH UTILITY ONCE YOU HAVE INFORMED THEM OF YOUR PROJECT. SITE ADDRESS: 12'50 -1' I L S • D MoaJ�S V ° � 0 Z�o PUS] # PUD - on ZI - Z005 Rich Afdem - 425-670-3208 You will need to provide PUD with a site plan and a completed New Service Questionnaire. PUGET SOUND# ENERGY New Customer Construction Call to verify gas availability and to coordinate service install. :Department - 1-888-321-7779 You will need to provide parcel number, contact phone number and mailing address. _ # C P DE) veri�n You will need to provide Verizon with the location of your Dow Brandley — 425-710-4118 project, total line requirement, and the date in which service is required. A copy of your development plan may be required. /�►T�T unvt+noN"D You will need to proved AT & T Broadband with the location of 253-437-6906 or e-mail: your project, a copy of your development and site plan (digital wal)pe-north@broadband.att.com copy if available.) The date in which service is required and a list of contact names hone numbers & mailing addresses. "Mc # R9C:5 � ` Steve Dunphy - 425-774-7769 You will need to provide OVWSD with the survey mf ye r _ For customers in Olympic View Service Area site and complete a development information form. .- FRMIT COON c - . THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND GIVEN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT THE TIME OF PERMIT SUBMITTAL T 7 - • 0 DAVE TIMBROOK CONSULTING ARBORIST - ISA Certified #PN1199 359 NE 195th Street Shoreline, WA 98155-2138 Home (206) 362-6410 Cell (425) 343-2248 i itE(;FIVED APR 1.9 20 PERMS OWNTER PLANT RECOMMENDATIONS for 1230 7TH AVENUE SOUTH EDMONDS WA Prepared for Alan Jackson August 5, 2003 koA.5 �4 13vi 01Nv na' �-� M 6Roc BLS Property address: 1230 7m Ave. S. Edmonds, WA 98020 Client: Alan Jackson Overview: The lots being developed at 1230 7 h Ave. S. in Edmonds are positioned with an exiting wetland running along the west end of the properties, As such the primary emphasis of the development will occur at the far east end of the priorities. The current development plans include a 50-foot buffer zone immediately west of the actual footprints of the houses going in. There are approximately 1881 square feet of mitigation area and 956 square feet of impacted area. These are the proposed re -vegetation areas of concern in this report. [See attachment] Current property conditions: The lots on this property run east and west and are sloped up to the east. The lower two-thirds of the property are serves as a watershed for the entire hillside a is wet nearly 12 months a year. The upper third of the lots are fairly typical Northwest urban forest in their vegetation make-up. The predominant trees are Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, Big -Leaf Maple, Red Alder and some native cherry. Understory growth is mainly blackberry, Elderberry, Ocean Spray, Salal and Sword Fem with a great deal of perennial and annual weed growth (Nettles, grasses and broadleaf weeds). Plant material recommendations: The plants recommended for re -vegetation of the areas that will be disturbed are not specifically wetland plants due to the conditions they will be planted in. They will not be required to withstand standing water for any great length of time, as a true wetlands plant would need to do. Rather, these native plants were chosen for their ability to survive in a Northwest urban forest. PLANT SIZE OTY APPROX. $ Vine Maple (Acer circinatum) 6-7 feet 9 $30.00 ea. Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menzeseii) 6-7 feet 4 $30.00 ea. Red Elderberry (Sambucus racemosa) 5 gal. 12 $13.00 ea. Ocean Spray (Holodiscus discolor) 5 gal 12 $13.00 ea. Red Flowering Currant (Ribes sanguinium) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis) 2 gal 12 $7.00 Swordfem (Polystichum munitum) 1 gal 50 $3.00 Approximate cost for all plant material is $1020.00 T All plants should be healthy nursery grown stock. Spacing should allow for the growth of the plant and should not crowd each other. The Maple and Fir should be evenly planted in the area allowing for the mature height. Plants of similar species should be planted in groups of three with a minimum spacing of 5 feet and a maximum of 10 feet. The Elders will spread out so spacing should be the maximum for them The Salmonberry should have the minimum spacing. The Swordfern should also be planted in groups with a spacing of 18 inches. The ultimate survival of the plant material will be the care they get immediately after they are planted. It is essential that their water requirements be met for the next full growing season. Ideally the planting should take place in the fall of the year, if possible, for the plants to get a really good start. Generally this will fulfill the watering needs for establishing the plant material unless we have a really dry fall and winter. Continued watering in the spring and summer will insure the survival of the plants. Nil ELM FLA CE Nit i I 1 1 J gig p ; � f t • i f —F—' f t ♦ E�� f F f { E f f ♦ { i f f F .♦ { F • f i { F f { { < i f { 1 �� 1 � t ,♦ f t f f f r • f f f f t < t < t < r < �^]�/} 1 4 ` f t t f k f { t { f f • F f f t f f k ! f t p �j�,,( �pY\� 1 II �% ♦ \ F ♦ F ♦ i ♦ { F i f f f ♦ { { a f ♦ ' /� J �j� i 44 t F F F F F F t uI 4 r♦ ��iiiTTT333 ��, 11' f { i F f i F f i ♦ { • F f { F F f T� 1 'a r < r r < t < f < r < f f f f F f f .� E E F k k f k f 1 /• % { a i E f f f f ♦ { { ♦ • i M f ♦ a ♦ { I t ♦ f f f < f f f f f f♦ f r f t < f ♦ ! A 1- f f E f f f i ♦ F f f f • f f ♦ < t f f f f ------------------ F F f f ♦ f ♦ ♦ ♦ t ♦ i { F ♦ k ♦ • t i F i f oN t k < < ------_--r r r k < r t f t f f f f r t < < < F E — — — — — — — — — — O F t k F F F F F f 'f F F i f f f f ♦ k F 1 ! f k _-- '�E f F F i i F t • { F F f f i f f • { V N$4__{{ 11f�J;jf{ FF fft ` Fi fff ♦ E r E f it. ! f < f f F f f Q�rQt � f f h f f ♦ f f tFa ♦ f < kF t •4 fE< F ♦ a`#iE♦♦ff ifF♦fft{ { i F t f ♦k E k ♦ i ♦♦ i ff {f U6{ !� �``� ! h f < ♦ f f ! f f • f f r t t < f h f f ♦ ♦ f f f E t f f i F F { f t t f t f f ♦ f ♦ F �� ♦ i i f i i f { f F i F { ♦ { ♦ f t f ♦ f < f < f f < f f f f f f < h f f Jw/� t E f F f t • ♦ f k f k k k k ♦ t fIf j P f F f F F F ♦ ♦ { f { i f t f f f a f i F CS �10 F F E f F f f f F f f f r i F E ♦ t t f f f �a i { { f ♦ �i f a f ♦ s t a { F f { f 1. � r`< f r f t t f r r t f f /. •! f < < < < e � `\1 �`2 � t k f k F { ♦ ♦ F F k { .�_-- ----- • f f { f —{ Zc f ♦ i f t f ♦ .A► — �L--�"—_ � _ 21 UL ALA 1 Q I f Ott ----i i------ ----1 - -- ------------- E. i • G:13OTISCH CONSULTANTS. INC. �l T tFIRR-WE V. • 13256 Nartheest 20th Street. Suite 16 Bellevue. Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 Alan Jackson tto PY 16401 Highway 99 ` �. IL Lynnwood, Washington 99037 Subject: Review of Dispersion System Plans Proposed Residences — Lots 1, 2, and 3 1230 — 7th Avenue South Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Jackson, April 16, 2004 JN 03322 RECEIVE® APR 19 2004 PERMIT COUNTER via facsimile- (425) 787-9112 We 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 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 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 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. r ' • 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, EOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager cc, Graham Northwest, Inc. — Kris .Stotz 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 0 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. ..va av as-w r ry • . . . . . . . Id7Av . ♦ . 1 1 I , , ' r 1 1 tOTtl r, . . . . 70' V " 1 1t i Igo Sr � 1 1, l a . . . ... . . • r r • • `fie. • • + ` + y ' r 7iri i4.` . + . + . . . - . . . Y . . W ." . Y . V . 1; , I , s■c sma t as" . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ 4 al i I p"I i i N. 200 w MAX y _ t I sw sage my ^�'�'u'K' , 12' ti I 7 1S 1d J I 1 1 12.0 7a.ec savDr I � � J� Qil[►OS: 1M S1lC7D NE VJ' 30 0 a (JWFLr 1 G1th r . Sol Project Dotty AMW SW AWA AU PIAM AW L40 ta- NAM air wnwm =4L Rapap)scow AblioavS AEOL.gM VN%M PRYUSEM o»� VA = /Sdff !Up{ M wo :CORDING CERTIFICATE. r KED FOR RECORD THIS DAY Oi "ES I A.F.M. INDUSTRIF,S'. 11W. I Preliminary Plat Map o • Notes: 1. All signs and spacing shall conform to the MUTCD and City of Edmonds specs. 2. Work zone is 5' e/o c/I of 7 AVE S & 240' s/o c/I Elm PL W 3. Flaggers will control alternating one-way traffic. 4. Alert affected residents 5. Channelizing devices are 28" cones. 6. Tapers will be 50' - 100' and must contain at least 6 devices. 7. All signs are 48" x 48" B/O unless otherwise specified. I-OZM m3\ 1YOM moil b-0ZM om. 1NN17 `dL-02M/u'\ 32" x 24" R/W , Y�IININ4 T-39 (SEATTLE) Q ti Birch ST F ! I ('-100' 100' M Pilchuck Contractors, Inc. Job #106125428 25 Feb 04 Sheet 1 / 1 J. Buss National Barricade Co dZ NOT T - SCALE Ica ti ti O N , 6 W N 6~ Y .�Qx +W20-7A CNANNELIZING DEVICE SPACING (FEET) TAPER TANGENT 20 1 20 PL APPROVED AS NOTED BY ENGIN ERING l Date: �a- LEGEND Q WORK AREA • 28" TRAFFIC CONE i EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW Q SIGN LOCATION a FLAGGING STATION PROTECTIVE VEHICLE OR WORKVEHICLE Q165066. 6 a6 � I � �' •.� � i - o i N ,W tf � .111 4 o P N 6 PL\ S ` OD 3 " W 6 W Y J q� •V 0� r � Tsw �D \ un ae» s�47i IN WIA 6oL/ ii Z/ 6ii 62! 631 d+l ssl ' tea// 7v i+ �► not BIRCH1 - ST": �� 5�•33,5 B� - 2+ T� gyp' �fQ 5/8-435?J _ a / 1880 �j ' J a�/4i9s�v t� N !br �V�a H66 �� Ol hM A IT ~ Nc p�1�i V29 iN10�_ � t t 1 DET/►1L t �tf o i �n \t ;u - 1b 1975 N 3Ri31e1 3 �d� f415 IV i aoTp s�e It BIRCH PL 3t,M 6,.ti �a104°�'9 • N = mc VE 10 WN 47'q,tto'E J Ro6Rt 42c�� S i pJ4 t§'q i lv#4 , '?Wit 8. bid 44V ti /v6c �► 0 19 'W. N t ^^ Rtid�'g5 a 24E $ 2003 ye 4 E 5 -24 E b� 2 a ¢� in in a W �C4 � N % - -l# ii'' f City of Edmonds Permit No: AW-tW�e RIGHT-OF-WAYPERMIT Issue Date: 3-1-1 -Z- A. Address or Vicinity of Constr-ucTtion:� B. Type of Work (be specific): I d 1 Y Hale. flag 4� �(1 C. Contractor: ;)t I C°AU.1. C�-� n T Mailing Address: 2) J �.7iL�112 NY State License #:_ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): - n Contact: , r' . 1:'1tCK. 1 r-�1 f I / t= &0to-gI- I 43-. o27(�- 4/ s- 4a`3-73-7 y� Phone:o;/ 6, 4l s- 4,;`3-7 i" Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ CityProject ❑ EUC�(PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVVu D) ❑` Multi -Family 91"'S-ingle Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: F. PAVEMENT CUT: [916S ❑ NO - G. 'SIZE OF CUT C-31 X CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES ❑, NO 4" ; INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR •IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. t ♦ Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be -trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the. required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ -Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. , x . CALL DIAL-A=DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK 1 HA VE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE, PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THATI MUST MAKE THE. PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature.* 7�-- Date: '� (Contractor or Agent),' . CITY USE ONLY . Approved by: T'lS.. t c I t,. ,, Right-of-way Fee: t 1 . � t A160 i s TirneAuthorized: Void After /�l A Y �7 ,2 a-0 4 Disruption Fee/Fund 111: k# W C-"4, Special Conditions: P1_6A_c ,c c' QN F'n a 44 7-0 NPAQ vE ,t ►seecn -' Fee: 2 C_, $ 5o ``� -'' _ A/ TkAFF^1r. C NT koi_. Nnro F'Y AF r Fe l-& Total Fee:' f$ A76 • A AND C0M&Aun4,Tl -T1,Z/arAsir (/F Aa1CAr3 J7),f%E - Receipt No: S1�; A E 9OW "P-0 IiKF_ Aivr) In 1t �1� rTF r2 (�N � t�-I�N . Issued by: � Il�� Df .tnt R;1 ncK S4t)F10Al k /,0.t2t V#QF SAFr PEprCT r2/Anr ra t'z1C ..�(^LZIG ti<IfZS: f � t A,ir, '�J.'QCr.r»-- /iY1i`37 1l1k-ZNlin,.r/LEAS£ C.QGL 1[-042 UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL ; INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE�EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phon 425-77170220, Ext. 1326) FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK. DATE:g-!2 -t�i� Inspectors'Signat' For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. DAMy Doc uments\Forms\Engnmg\ROWpermit_ doc. �v _W r•, _ — — 1-=_-µl--=------------ I _ > ON FM WALLsws ---- I- Drm ON ; 1 p 9 fi I Ct fig I + I I I------------------- 9 i I -� — --- — — — — — — — — — Ir I I I I ®I I L------------- - ____� LL —J ---- ®— — — — — — — — — — — — ® -- --- 19 al �g sag r Z W.Mft 8-e-83 at„I FLAN 3e22S c DAWWES bdOUNTAIN SHADOW CONST. M ( ) �1 V JERRY JCR R V.O. 80X W45 CNONDS, WA UM RV4MM B qp;g6 �`• 0:0 r'-1 e Igoe a V.T. • 2 r Q' I I 4U)70-4873 .----•--- •---I----_.- am ld.�. I I /l Ins i ,e rr�.,e 55 C� d M o r�cl S v)A la3v, IJe-PtAq S r^A 1T 00 C- 20 LLJ LU pp m F- C/) F')F EDMOND DEPARTMENT r f2 ADDRESS l�� G ?, OWNER, ' PROVED DATE, 0 BLDG, OFFICIAt VV I �LLkl, PERMIT N I 4d�'d's W'k e 191 Pi 61 AN CONST• I I:'*' 7' w Cosa 45CITY COPY +' %v4NU 6�1 ak cw'c.� ' '-City of Edmonds Permit No: 6' ' RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: - A. Address or Vicinity of Construction:J?�,*^o _B...Type of Work (be specific): 616 { � `"JI►yio�, Uri T1F5 , 10swIIJ6 C. Contractor: `' Contact: Mailing Address: � � Phone: wn� �s,tto 0-X..e�iA a License #: tL iabilit� s nce: Bond: $ fill D. B aildin Permit # if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # if applicable).:_ g. (( E. ❑ Commercial Subdivision ❑City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ` ❑ Other . .INSPECTOR: F. '' PAVEMENT CUT: - ❑ YES ❑ NO G. 'SIZE OF CUT, X C DNCRETE CUT: . ❑ YES ❑ NO INDEMNITY. • Applicant understands by his/her. signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from, ., ;,• , injuries, damages or claims of any, kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, 'including but not limited to the. defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of'granting this permit. THE, CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP. AND, MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE;. FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE. WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES, WILL. BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUAN47E TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations.. as, required by the City Engineer. Every fl,agger must, be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and' must have certification verifying completion of the required training in. their possession. ♦ Restoration -is to be in accordance with City codes. .All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt_ nor City - approved material prior to the end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work'are required with the permit application. CALL,DIAL-A-DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING_ WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STA THAT I MUST MAKE, ' E PINK Signadure: Approved by:. .Time Authorized: Void After Special Conditions: JTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THE PERMIT A VAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS 1.-.► Date: or Agent) FOR CITY USE ONLY", Right -of --way Fee: Ito 4 15 ' Disruption Fee/Fund, III: fi Restoratio Fee: Total Fee:'% , ' Recei ' No: - ' ' El'it?A Issued by:ZXW ! t t. 't1 UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK9AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE'EDMONDS. COMMUNITY,DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 42 -77-0220,,Ext._1326) FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK 1ATE: nspector's Sign ure . [.i For inspection- requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. NO WORK SHALL 13h.CIN PRIOR TO I)EIZMIT ISSUANCE ,v;A�irnr^. ..... . .s,,:�gya,�wr�r-.=h^�. � •..e,;,�c;.: , t�p,�.e .zY,..•, ... ;.r• h � "r.,.r,;.T City of Edmonds permit N RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Dat A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: B. Type of Work. (be specific): C. , COhiract'or LnqAMMAXW4lk(_ Contact: MailingAddressZO(d � ,' � � _.s Phone: 4 �iS=? State License #:_LaR41J, 1,110WRA4 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ �` . D. Building Permit # (if applicable) �3� Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): 0190 L4 E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ CityProject ❑• EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ Multi -Family WSingleFamily. ❑ Other INSPECTOR:, F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES NO G. SIZE OF CUT X i CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES NO INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application, he/she holds* the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be. made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including,but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason ofgranting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPE('TION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. . 5. ♦ Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of� the required tr"dining in their possession. . ♦ Restoration' is,to. be. in accordance with City codes. All street -cut .trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved. material prior to the end of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING,;W.ORK I HA V E READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND` THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMITAU'VAILABLE ON SITE A T ATIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: _ ;.'�`�,.,4:' Date:�a. Vq it ..:� .ate. L R:,��i _ ` . FOR CITY USE ONLY Approved by: AAEJ-L.. Right-of-way Fee: � -i- /� Time Authorized: Void After / %� / Disruption Fee/Fund 111: Special Conditions: Restoration Fee: Total Fee• �"- Receipt No: Issued v UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE.EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE P 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326 FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: `\ DATE: ' Inspector's Signature For inspection -requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. ` c M 51 NO WORK SHALL 111J;IN NZ101Z TO I'F,lMiT ISSUANCE DATE RECEIVED "? PERMIT EXPIRES �.. tf , 1 l - CITY OF EDMONDS T Z04KE e Y PERMIT NUMBER!\ m) b ( CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITElAPTM OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ADD S v / O '%�/SJ Iq AV II f r �-� A FFrol- �, Cir<Aw �M Nof-T,4w f_j,T I�L P NAME/SUBDIVISION N LOT 03 N/0. LID N0. d,l W MAILING ADDRESS LID FEE $ 3 PUBLI RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Pe Approved O t01' 7 �'7 RW Permit Required l J Street Use Permit Raq'd ' CITY Zip TELEPHONE TING PROPOSED Inspection Required O Sidewalk Required Al �? I N I 1 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT W Underground .�,,,,, i f �6 !. Wiring required NAME EEC L ! METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED C1 tiF-• UN1 10 `., 1i /i YES CI NO 1 z w W C ADDRESS REMARKS z = OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE ►,ci 9 _ �1 1' S C)/\1 ��: �` I�.>� Lt �t w ^_'q(C�.IITY,{, y �'( '^y �(7'�� ZIP �'^�,...,, T�ELLEPHOryNE ^^'�� /'�L�.� e•� V I 1'Li2-t.+r�s•� 1 7-5 — '`. 5' �. P d B NAME CBL N / %4 4 Nlk fq (l IZ•T,1Wr :� / M c.. • i )INGINEERING REVIEWE�BYDDATTE ccADDRESS�� FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE w CITY zip TELEPHONE It :�o Ir,IVIvt We� j42.5—-78B-,7b`1j U. VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND STATE %LICENSE �NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE C ECKED` Y REO'D POSTED" IlL1( l V I O �J / " » m w«�.. .•. w S ONO $ Cl(X_). CMG') SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT Q PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL �NpO. '1 CS O jo I 10 C9 COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED wi 5HOA'_T Pit T S — Gti®b G CS" I Z (� I � Z."� EXP ....'_' �.'.�.e.° 1 © NEW 21 RESIDENTIAL ® PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR COMPLIANCE OR❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ CHANGE OF USE w )/�®t c` + I (� 6 fie -Z PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE g ❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN REQ''D I PROVIDDrE�D (_ NA FENCE a, � a Iq,��WO4'x a. a ) ❑ REPAIR ® I G CYDS -� ❑ ( X FT) „LIE ASKS YY i ff ❑ ❑ ❑ OTHER pC� �k-. 1� DEMOLISH TANK A z ®GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER - t' "I CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY ❑ FIRE ALARM O (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: CHECKED TYPE OF CO _STRU/CTION CO _ OCCUPA� (,/ 6' Plf—O b GROUP ;• `� C , NUMBER % NUMBER OF CRITICAL �w1 l - f ^" O STORIES ti-•' UNITS DWELLING AREASNUM ER (x A 1 1- • p REQUIRED rA YESPECIAL S SN JAREA LOCADUPANT DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONEr r _ '�iCi N i Pam. V� Lr B S I A 6,1z ►r' Fv 1 A4 O ju REMARKS 0 ya PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC I08/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 9 :l•� ' [ !' 15 , VALUATION f Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check �. State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE % Building Permit �,� City Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO 1 VESTED DATE a Plumbing Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO 70 t BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOAIIAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading_ SEPARATE PERMISSION. Q w PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS Engr. Review l IL PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection �10 SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION J to 9'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 f EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # < ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY p = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE r {� DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due O 1 = Recording Fee Receipt k NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION' '� — ` L (j OLI GIVEN BS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE Y ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE WNER, OR THE DULY INFORMATIONION; THAT THE DU Y AUTHORIZED DAGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL / THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATIONOFNTHE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S COMR SATION,IN$URANCE AND RCW 18.27. OFFICIALS SIGNATURE I DATE SIGNATUR OWN OR AGENT) DATE SIG ED f IA9 i RELEASE15SY"r DATE ATTENf1ON EXT 1333 l IT IS UNLFtWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL / _�._4 7 �� ( f A FINAL IIVSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI oRIGwAI•FI'Ilk l vEL. I INSPECTOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR 04;02 DOCCC UAOr% VA11 AOC AMAWi% G ^f%01`0L- GREEN -ACCOUNTING NW 1/4, SW- 1/4, SECTION 25, TO ELM PLACE I , _ N 2 9 6 i .v •v �v �v •v •v •v •v 1,02.99'� •v .v •v w .v I --�"-�-' T-- T- .v �,,. •v •v •v y •v •v •►/ J• •l/ J/ •I, I I I l 1 .v .v .v .v .�, yr 14/ 14/ •V v. .v .v .v �v •V v.• �. .v Ji .v •v , I • 19,639. S.F. �. �l• v. .v �v �v J. .v •V •V •V •v � •v •V `L I I I 1 I I .v .v .v .v w •v .v .v • .y .V .v .V .v .v .v .v .v .v .v .v .v .li .V `y I I I I 1 I .� �, .t. v. •v � .v v. .v •v v. •v •v •v .v .� i yr I j I 1 I I I LLJ I .v .v .v � � y l ,� .v ,� .v �• .� � � � � � � ., � •� •� Iry I �6'' I P I • � I II 1 � v� .v .v .v w v. �(\ .v •v •v w .v .v .v •v I I •1 1 .v .v �v .1. .v / \��/� .y .v .v .v Ji .v •V •� I I \ \ O�+ It � 14/ I CL�, �; �, �, L,0 T.v 2 �, \1, \1, � 2 \ o •v •� .� .v .� .v �, 19,Z75 S.Fj, �• •� .� •� � .` I � I I I I .y .v .v �('� ' .v .v .v � .v � .v V. i .v •V •v .V � I I I \ + 4- .v .v �( 14/ .lam q/ .1, .l,Ld %4/ %4/ q/ q/ %4/ 2�0. 74 14/ IV •V .v .V .v .V v I DE �• .V �L .V J. .�. .!. •V Ji .v .L �v .v � � v. .v •v .v I. �, P I o �I.� �v •l i •v .v �v .v v. �v •v � O•v . ' � .v •�/ •V .v •v .v �v , I - 19,277 S.F. f I EXISTING •V y .l. .ti .�. .(� .v .l, .V .v .l. .v •v I SAN. SWR. &WATER •v .v •v •V `V �' • • I ,, 1 n\-O NT .�. �v .v •v .v �v .V v. .v qL q/ \v •v •v •v I 11 gj I f UTILITY EASEME ,� ,� �, .� I. Nv .v \v \v •v .v •v q/. .v .v •v •v .v -- s- ---s-- .v- - .- - •�-- -.b. � ._,,,-�?90.77�, W I i .v •v av •v .v . .v .t. .v .v �v tv .v .v .v .v •v .v .v ..v y Nv I / \• \ \ \ �i �/ /.v �^9\`r ��L •v vi �v v. v v.v� .v .v •v �v •v / n�OG \ / / \ \ .v �C* 1/,� ,� ..v �v L\4r0 Tl' 4- 1L �L �V .J' `v �/'l' ► v // �� 0 18, 916 - S. F.� .v .v o \ ,v 20Q ,v .v , .v •v v. EXIST 12 " CONC. CUL VERT 1- 1 5 I 1 6 17PROPOSED 56'X38'(T GE 3 EAST, W.M. 75 8x6 WYES (N&S) 0 TO GRADE 48t LFNB" O SEWER LINE S=1.00% 6 CORE do RECHANN� EX SSMH RIM=240.52 IE=23260 (VERIFY) `rl- (2) DOMES71C N WATER METERS PER COE STD I .1 EXIST WATER MAIN A 17 CONNECTION POINT FOR SFR W/ CO TO GRADE (TYP) PER COE STD V DETAIL E6.2 IE=235.6 SSCO IE=236.92 -W EX. C.B. Birch P•l'ace I&F--v r Q PP -EX. FIRE HYDRANT -- - 2 I SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR .VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR FIELD LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. FOR UTILITY LOCATION IN •SNOHOMISH COUNTY, CALL 1-800-424-5555. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ' SHALL CONFORM TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION" AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE -CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAT. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. 4. ALL WORK WITHIN THE PLAT AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION OF THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR, 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION. 6. SIDE SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PLACED ON UNDISTURBED SOIL AND BEDDED PER CITY STANDARD DETAILS. BACKFILL ABOVE BEDDING SHALL BE CDF (2 SACK MIX). 7. SIDE SEWER SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS FOR SUCH INSTALLATION. 8. SEWER LATERAL SHALL BE TESTED AND OBSERVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. 9. SIDE SEWER STUBS ON EACH LOT SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2"x4" LOCATED AT THE END WITH PORTION ABOVE GROUND PAINTED WHITE WITH BLACK LETTERS LABELED "SEWER" WITH DEPTH. 10. . LOCKING LAMPHOLE COVERS SHALL- BE PLACED OVER CLEANOUTS AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AT ALL PROPERTY LINES. 11. LATERAL INTO THE SEWER MANHOLE SHALL HAVE A SAND COLLAR. WATER NOTES 1. APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR FIELD LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. FOR UTILITY LOCATION IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, CALL 1-800-424-5555. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR' MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION' AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAT. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO 1HE .INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. 4. ALL WORK WITHIN THE PLAT, AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT. TO THE INSPECTION BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND U11LITY CONSTRUCTION. 6. CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS SHALL INSTALL THE WATER METER AND LINE TO THE MAIN. 7. -ALL WATER SERVICES BETWEEN METER AND HOUSE SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. ALL MATERIAL, EXCAVATION AND BACKFI! LING SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF .THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL FOR SERVICE INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 8. WATER SERVICES BETWEEN HOUSE AND METER SHALL BE TYPE "K" COPPER PIPE OR 160 PSI POLY PIPE PER CITY STANDARDS. 9. CAU_ THE ENGINEERING INSPECTION O 111E FOR INSPECTION, --TESTING AND PURITY. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SERVICE LINES WITH CURB STOPS AND METER BOXES TO PROPERTY LINE. 11. COORDINATE PLACEMENT OF WATER LINE CDF BACKFILL W/ CITY* OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO OCCUR IMMEDIATELY AFTER CITY INSPECTION. APPROVED FOR C.ON.STRUCTION. C' ngineer Date 0 all � E a vim, 0 0 M 0 O N .M 0 r- la -I M 0 0 r� 0 0 a. EXPIRES:11 /07/041 /4+13.03 . DESIGN/DRAWN/CHECKED: JSH �a rn M• M v° '3Lna 0o rC in ~ N cn c00 4- GJ c °' v ® �N U CLCL `0 w� Q E N C C 0 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 9-800-424-5555 C'T V Vjy" ppy rp"� FEB 3 7.004 PERMIT nj rnrr�„ lava -VA OPe s mol FEB NW 1/41 SW 1/4, SECTION 25, TOWN ELM PLACE 29ROB, ur yr •v v. v/ v v' v, •v 1,92.99'� v. yr •�. v, - 'j" -I- v' v, . v' ►III l v' mod• yr .v v/ v/ •v v/ \V . v' v/ v, v. •v I I I I 1 ' I v/ v. v, v y v. � v/ v yr v v. v/ •V v/ � I I I I 1 1 I. N v, v, �, �, .� .� • �, �, v, .,, �, v, .� v, � I , ;�o 'R CQ29.v .v .V .v .� v, .V •v •V v. v. v/ .v v `L • y 1 '. I I I %1/ L 0 T 1 1 14"\1.1 v- v, v. v, v, •v v' '• 19,669. S.F' l v/ v/ - I I. .� v/ v/ v. v, v v/ I• I r r 1 1 vi \ •v v/ 41. %41 .v v/ v' yr 141, v. v. v. v, v/ v. vl v v, •v .v v. •v v- v, v, v, •v v/ v, v, v, .v I � I i I r I v. 2_90.Z0 -- I _ ► I ( .� •� .� yr v, •� � v v, � v. .� , v, I I /� I P�� I v, v/ vi yr •v 'IVv, IV\V I I I 1 �' v, v, v. •� .� .� ��c v, � v v, v, v. • .� .� v, v. � I 1 G I CL14/ 14/ 1/ �I I•V v. v. � v, yr l/ ' v, �L v. v, v, .v .v v. v. I �'' 1 �1• .11 I I I v, 14/ IV '� v"1-,"1-,-4/, , v, 19,?75 S.F�, NilL 3 • 14/ lY v/ v, 1 � y � � �� v, v, v, yr v, � .L yr v, •v .I I � 1 ;. I •v •v '� v' v/ •v Nv •v .v vi v/ yr yr v yr v, I I I 1 1 11 v, v, v, v. 2�0. 74' �' •� I I I Cj I'll v. •v v, v 7 w 1`• I v' v/ v/ v' v/ .v v/ .v v/ v/ v. v/ .v •v ur •v . I v/ v, v, yr v/ � v, •v yr v/ v. v/ •v .vi � . v� yr v `!' � �' I I I .� yr v, v, v. v, .� v. .v �E �• . v' .v •v yr v/ � v/ yr v/ v/ v/ .v v/ ur •I �� I iv p v� v. •v .v v. • •v v. v� v c O.v .' •v v. •v vi 1 1 �- - -- - - - - -! v, v, .� v, v, .v v, ,,, 19,277 S.F. v, v, v. 1 I I �XISTING v/ �v� •v •v v. v. •v •v •v v. �L v. ' SAN. SWR. & WATER v/ yr yr ur v/ yr v/ v/ v/ u/ iUTILITY EASEMENT v, v, %ill v, v, \ 41 \V q/ q/ \1ol - - - - - - i v' v' .L � v, � .V � v, .L � v, yr v. v, •L v/ `1' `�' III I I yr \J/ \v \1/ \1/ � v. v, v, v, v .L v. v v •v v. v. .v .L v/ v, v- v, I I N11 I �\ v, �i, �l( v v, �L •L v. •L v, v. v, v, v. .v .L �L J / / \V v. v, v. \V v. yr v. v/ .v v. v. `e \ �,v, �, .,� '4, v. q/ L\I o Tv. v, o� \ i� 18, 916- S.F. .L v. v/ \V v. v. - • I i EXIST 12" CONC. CULVERT 14 I i 5 //J/j\/ i I • �/��\/1 1 1 7 PROPOSED S 56'XM(TY U TILITi N I I . ' I I • aA • �.. II AAI ral GE 3 EAST, W.M. IJ W WYES (N&S) 0 TO GRADE 48t LF,- O SEWER LINE S=1.00% CORE do RECHANN� -IX SSMH j RIM=240.52 IE=23260 (VERIFY) 4- (2) DOMESTIC t� WATER METERS oPER COE STD I .1 EXIST WATER MAIN SSCD IE=234 32 I ME E7.6 I / CONNECTION POINT FOR SFR W/ CO TO GRADE (TYP) PER COE STD 18' DETAIL E6.2 IE=235.6 1 ssco IE=236.92 EX. C.B. Birch Place - - - EX. FIRE HYDRANT 2 SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND 'ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR .VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR FIELD LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE CONTACTED IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. FOR UTILITY LOCATION IN -SNOHOMISH COUNTY, CALL 1-800-424-5555. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION ' SHALL CONFORM TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION" AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE • CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAT. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. 4. ALL WORK WITHIN THE PLAT AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION OF THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR, 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION. 6. SIDE SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PLACED ON UNDISTURBED SOIL AND BEDDED PER CITY STANDARD DETAILS. BACKFILL ABOVE BEDDING SHALL BE CDF (2 SACK MIX). 7. SIDE SEWER SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS FOR SUCH INSTALLATION. 8. SEWER LATERAL SHALL BE TESTED AND OBSERVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. 9. SIDE SEWER STUBS ON EACH LOT SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2W LOCATED AT THE END WITH PORTION ABOVE GROUND PAINTED WHITE WITH BLACK LETTERS LABELED "SEWER" WITH DEPTH. 10. . LOCKING LAMPHOLE COVERS SHALL BE PLACED OVER CLEANOUTS AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AT ALL PROPERTY LINES. 11. LATERAL INTO THE SEWER MANHOLE SHALL HAVE A SAND COLLAR. WATER NOTES 1. APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES HAVE BEEN OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND ARE SHOWN FOR CONVENIENCE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND FOR DISCOVERY OF POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES NOT SHOWN SO AS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR FIELD LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. THE OWNER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE CONTACTED' IF A UTILITY CONFLICT EXISTS. FOR UTILITY LOCATION IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, CALL 1-800-424-5555. 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR • MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION"' AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAT. 3. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. 4. ALL WORK WITHIN THE PLAT. AND CITY RIGHT OF WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT. TO THE INSPECTION BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND UTILITY CONSTRUCTION. 6. CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS SHALL INSTALL THE WATER METER AND LINE TO THE MAIN. 7. ALL WATER SERVICES BETWEEN METER AND HOUSE SHALL BE INSTALLED BY THE CONTRACTOR. ALL MATERIAL, EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLING SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF .THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL FOR SERVICE INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 8. WATER SERVICES BETWEEN HOUSE AND METER SHALL BE TYPE "K" COPPER PIPE OR 160 PSI POLY PIPE PER CITY STANDARDS. 9. CALL THE ENGINEERING INSPECTION LINE FOR INSPECTION, TESTING AND PURITY. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL SERVICE LINES WITH CURB STOPS AND METER BOXES TO PROPERTY LINE, 11. COORDINATE PLACEMENT OF WATERIINE CDF BACKFILL W/ CITY'OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO OCCUR IMMEDIATELY AFTER CITY INSPECTION. APPROVED FOR C.ON:STRUCTION. s - .9-41TEngineer Date CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 aR I: o ml I EXPIRES: 11 /07/0411e+13 - a 3 DESIGN/DRAWN/CHECKED: JSH ,� ti 4 M � NON $o �C t �� - L" En Ivc ® 'a Vic. 14 GJ v`� av ts � u� oj C vm L311 V1 E N •� d, C "M a ul U, O (A 4j Zx� (� O Q W 9 ` 3 2004 COUNTER STFFT FILE RECEIVED FEB - 3 2004 PERMIT COUNTER