The URL can be used to link to this page

15912 75TH PL W.PDFlillIIII 111111116059 15912 75TH PL W TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL NUMBER: OOS13 /0 Z -/ '7 00 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: /"< 61d 1/" le-w L73-0 q /901Z4 CRITICAL AREAS: �T �C� DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required [Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: /O-!� PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: 0Y17-( 1Akw 211l422,5y PERMITS (OTHER): /l igs -19's / A ry1.411 PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: G -Z U -f - S SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: Z-^/& SEWER LID FEE S: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: lAG`fGOL✓A��/� LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: 7- SIDE SEWER PERMITS) #: 93 72-0 6gI/V6jW GEOTECH REPORT DATED: 4,6 `0 ; STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WATER METER TAP CARD DATED, OTHER: 13 /�,� / �./IiGj I 1 Z0600 Sec/s 1d4 /fit vU10v 7i -f 4h, e ftdle4 LATEMP\DSTs\Form \Street File Checklist.doc CITY (W EDMONDS 890 �9 SIDE ..SEWER PERMIT, v 90 Ys PERMIT. 80720 Address of Construction: �� / , C' L7rivrvvyUUU LINL Gam- �-�1 Property Legal Description (Include all easements): � ` e o RECEIVED A 9 1995 RKj EP) Owner and/or Contractor:' State License No. Building Permit No. >6ingle Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial . ❑ Public Invasion into City Right -of -Way: ❑ No KYes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property: 9No ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement 9S I ,cIrdicated tify that. l have reaW d shall comply with all city requirements or,Lthe b of the Permit Card. Date * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION CALL 7717 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 02-35 Permit Fee: Issued By Trunk Charge: v2 5_ Date Issued: ! �� Assessment Fee: /L) Receipt No.: r9n V�D Lid No.: - Partial Inspection: ,�•�i�ia /��s�4/�� 0� a G sa., � a ,00�ti F �cc �ih� Date -Initial zA " Comments �o S ree F�e••r Tast• Reason Rejected.:, Date Initial - Final .. Final Inspection Approved: Date Initial W ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Bull Copy: Applicant 111;� Revised 3190 I ZP, m ►ll 0 V a H z 0 U W z Ld —ti � n 0, Oi 1-4 PCB a z Pao a � w a a O V V � , 0 a a 0 z 3+� Z tS L o L to ld, 4. d "'f►'� 0. �t .,y :,, ME NQ W� .I I r rr trtt ien shn on tfl8�` -,-d rnap wa t ��sit' forc", by the Cl at. Thor City of Edazratla dog_, ns.. '. of +gin i z 8hL 0" nay at th af�r4 : s t� is e fcr the i� i�ilti'.`40 irw- nu for �.- va i i , 0 cn R *O u z 0 u O z P4 w Z0 a4 u 0 PQ 0 U u u z C\i z 0 \�v rr b, th s b: fc th; Ir sciv.,cr slob r.cy or rr,,-1 not mkyt;2 -C-,L.- nci its emplOY-5 Of this ncr for cnv o' ✓ �' CITY OF EDMONDS • GRINDER PUMPS * lt��A NAME-'/) �,� TELEPHONE NUMBER ADDRESS �J` % l 7/ - 7 7'1- PG PERMIT NO. FILE COPY Quantity Item Unit Cost Total Cost 2 12 MA.IPT. Plastic Adap. $ 6.68 ea. $ 13.36 .,1 14 x 14 bell red. 5.70 ea. 5.70 �l 14" close nipple 3.09 ea. 3.09 4 1 2" St.St. clamps .65. ea. 2.60 n167 1ssyE;� ✓1 6" x 12" P.V.C. plug 22.87 22.87 TOTAL DATE RECEIVED: - ''S GNAT RE ------------- CITY OF EDNOND: - FINANCE DEPARTMENT 501 BELL ST. EDMOND:3: WA 98L REG. R'CPT . 01-14783 ,:09- 'i-1' ' CASHIER ID . D 2:39 PM A;09-21-19; 1 ! 91300 MISCELLANEOUS POS $ 48.7b SEWER FARTS 411.000.000.141.15 31 TOTAL DUE -----$40 .?8 RECEIVED FROM: KEN ANDERSEN CONSTRUCTION CO. CHECK $4G.78 TOTAL TENDERED {48.78 --------------- CHANGE DUE tfj -00 $ 54.-3 8— �t$ . 7s GRINDER PUMP DELIVERY LIST The city of Edmonds has provided BERn15-ra14 �KLN AMO&A50,J CoNs-• with the following components for address '/ 5 91 Z - 7,- ?N roc . LV 1!5'1) #vA-1 1.44 . . This is per 1. i . d. 210 agreement. ✓ _l_ - Hydromatic SPG200, 230 volt , 1 phase grinder pump. ✓ 1_ - 24" x 84" fiberglass basin with steel base, and 1 1 1/4" pump discharge line & two 11'electrical inlets. ✓_1_ - Heavy duty nema 4 cast aluminum junction box for four control floats located in basin. ,/ 2 - Electical conduit seals for.class 1, division 1, group D ✓ 1 - Acute simplex control panel box, U.L. approved,in a nema 3R enclosure. ✓ 1 - 3 wire lockable disconnect switch. _1_ - High level alarm light in a seperate nema 3R enclosure. ,i _1_ - Adio visual in house alarm s4tefa. ness RON,C:,GRDRLIST.WPS 0 E 0-0 � M 0 m --I Om n M m om 0 co 0 0 (1) ci ci LANDAU A ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services • CITY COP BuI«InP X E P 13 1995 September 7, 1995 Ms. Sharon Nolan City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 . RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, PROPOSED RETAINING STRUCTURE PROPOSED BERNSTEIN RESIDENCE LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 29, PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH 15912 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical review of design documents for a soil retaining structure associated with the proposed Bernstein residence. The design documents were prepared by Baker Engineers and include Sheet C-1, Soil Detention Details, dated August 11, 1995, and five pages of supporting calculations. Please note that Landau Associates' review of the structural design of the retaining system was limited to geotechnical issues, and did not include a verification of the structural calculations. As before, our review follows requirements outlined within City Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The layout and design of the structure appears to adhere closely to the geotechnical wall design and design criteria provided in a Dodds Geosciences, Inc. letter titled Slope Stabilization Recommendations, Proposed Bernstein Residence, dated April 10,1995. Landau Associates reviewed the Dodds letter as part of our supplemental geotechnical review for the proposed Bernstein residence. The results of that supplemental review are provided in a letter to the City dated June 7, 1995. In our June 7 letter, we raised concerns regarding the lack of geotechnical design criteria for the structures' drainage and toe embedment. The concerns raised in our June 7,1995 supplemental review do not appear to have been addressed by the project design professionals in the current submittal. We recommend that the appropriate project design professionals re-evaluate the structures design and comment on concerns previously raised. We also understand that a concrete structural facing may be substituted for the current timber and steel wall design. Our concerns regarding wall embedment and drainage would remain for substitute facing materials. P.O. BOX 1029 • EDMONDS, WA 98020-9129 • (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX (509) 327-9691 /TACOMA: (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 4?6-?57t r Py • Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. WDE/JWG/mjp No. 74054.20 09/12/95 JA074\054\N0LAN2.LEr LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager and Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. C LE NO. 4 -ZOO Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topogrraphy/hnydrology/vegetation) p 1. Site Address/Location: �� 1 �2- (� W. w& Z��Zo . 2. Property Tax Account Number: 5 (? d , O 29 — dog] — O00 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): Il 11 S1 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; X "no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). _ Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodwayfloodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where .water flows across the grounds surface? %ws are year- round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) meadow ;shrubs ; mixed_ ; 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: L_ . For City Staff Use Only 1. Site is Zoned? is s- 2 2. SCS mapped soil type(s)iW- y � 1> fvy'7f aT C`'rl�c f/ ��iab�� - 2S- 710 3. Wetland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on site? /SS •4. 'Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? -6 Site designated on theEnvironmentally Sensitive Areas Map? �� S DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED CONDITIONAL WAIVER WAIVER ' ��1 �Zr Reviewed by: �✓ 4,,, u U-05 ' /hcr 5 Planner r,<«� , she, --AP- P/l ate w Pkri—P PKfors t� �. rF( o f= &�) �i /f? RCV ew"/9a7 , D , O n� ,9� o v,� 70 Scj l�S� �� alga -199 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail .that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map,. etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Applicant Representative:, '�K-4 MP. kwp &AW Aumbtr Name Name 6695 0" MaDow Street Address �J"- wk, City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date l/21 100 2S UW Street Address 9W Wh �it tate. ZIP (Z U - vt% Phone Date v"I PLANNING DATA SITE ADDRESS: L�1 �Il z ?� 4�' ? . R)DATE: ZONING: P,-5 J 217 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: X)6iO 472�— SETBACKS:�v Required Setbacks: Front: 0,5 Left Side: '` Right Side ' Rear:2,5 Actual Setbacks: Front: Left Side: 20 Right Side: 1"5-' Rear: 32 FLOOR AREA: LOT COVERAGE: Maximum Al BUILDING HEIGHT: 4'7 - �' 2� Maximum Allowed:. G ),)Actual Height: 5A!227j" SUBDIVISION: CRITICAL AREAS #: / G/ ��2 jwf I/, SEPA DETERMINATION: LOT AR Plan Review By: 0 A" TTREET F BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD M AUG 17199 5 PERMITS SERVICES Gerald & Sarah Bernstein 6655 Windermere Road Seattle WA 98115 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bernstein: 2000 First InterstaT ^Ou 999 Third Avenue / VR Seattle, Washington 98104-1105 Telephone: 1-800-676-0145 Fax No.: (206) 467-3420 August 16, 1995 Subject: RIGHT OF WAY OCCUPANCY Permit Number RW 95-20600 for Storm Water Runoff at EDMONDS WA Attached is copy of completed Permit for your file.. This will acknowledge receipt of your check No. 13662 dated August 15, 1995, in the amount of $300.00, to cover the permit fee for the FIRST TEN YEAR PERIOD. Additionally, Check No. 13663 dated August 15, 1995 in the amount of $263.00 to cover BNRR's Railroad Protective Insurance package. Before beginning any work on our right-of-way, 48 hours' advance notice must be given to three people. One is Roadmaster, Gary Sheets so that he may make any arrangements deemed necessary. His telephone number in Seattle, Washington is 206-625-6462. You must also contact Mike Anderson, Signal Supervisor .to identify any crossing or train signal wiring. His telephone number in Everett, Washington is 206-304-6687. And G. D. Mergel, Telecommunications -Network Maintenance Manager in Seattle, his telephone number is 206-467-3489. Also before you dig, call 1-800-533-2891 for fiber optic locations. Please be certain, everyone connected with this project has a copy of the Permit, including the CONTRACTORS REQUIREMENTS, in hand while on the Right -of -Way working. The BNRR track forces will ask for this. If the workers do not have the complete Permit in hand, they will be asked to leave for 48 hours, and/or until they have copy of Permit. Should you have ME OR ADDRESS CHANGE in th�ture other than that shown in this Per4 , kindly notifyus at the above a ss making reference to this Permit Permit number. Also notify us of any change of property ownership served by this facility as outlined in this Permit with reference to transfer and/or assignment. Sincerely, O' Marilyn J. Burke PERMIT COORDINATOR Attachments cc: Mr. Gary Sheets, Road master,Seattle WA Mr. Mike Anderson, Signal Supvr., Everett WA G. D. Mergel, Telecommunications Mgr., Seattle WA Risk Management Analyst, Ft. Worth, TX BURLINGfON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY OCCUPANCY PERMIT NO. RW95-20600 THIS AGREEMENT made this 21st day of July, 1995, between BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, hereinafter called "Burlington" whose post office address is 2000 First Interstate Center, 999 Third Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98104-1105, and Gerald and Sarah Bernstein whose post office address is: 6655 Windermere Road Seattle WA 98115 hereinafter called "Permittee," WITNESSETH: Burlington, for and in consideration of the fee herein provided to be paid to it by Permittee and of the covenants and promises hereinafter made to be observed and performed by Permittee, does hereby grant to Permittee license and permission to excavate for, construct, maintain, and operate discharge storm water runoff from single family residence to existing ditch located on the east side of the BNRR tracks, installation of one type 1 catch basin and 35 lineal feet of 8-inch PVC storm pipe. Note: FLAGMAN REQUIRED, CONTACT GARY SHEETS AT 206-625-6462 hereinafter referred to as the "Facility," upon the right-of-way of Burlington or underneath the surface thereof of Burlington's track, as the case may be, at or near EDMONDS, in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, to be located as follows, to wit: Line Segment: 0050 Survey Station: Lots 9810, Block 29 of Meadowdale Beach Milepost: Meadowdale Road & 75th Avenue W. Permittee in consideration of such license and permission hereby covenants and promises as follows: 1. Permittee will pay in advance to Burlington for this permit the sum of THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($300.00) for the first TEN (10) year period hereof and ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($150.00) for each subsequent TEN (10) year period that this Permit remains in effect and Permittee will also pay or reimburse Burlington for all taxes and assessments that may be levied or assessed against said Facility. Burlington reserves the right to change the fee on future Permits at any time without notice. This provision shall in no way affect Burlington's right to terminate said Permit pursuant to Paragraph 10 hereof. Either party hereto may assign any receivables due them under this Agreement, provided, however, such assignments shall not relieve the assignor of any of its rights or obligations under this Agreement. RMOccupancv Permit 2. 2. Permittee, at Permittee's sole cost and expense, shall excavate for, construct, reconstruct, maintain and repair said Facility, placing same in accordance with the specifications provided in application dated April 7, 1995, heretofore approved by Burlington's Division Engineer. Permittee shall fill in the excavation and restore the surface of the ground upon which the Facility is located to its previous condition subject to the appr,)val of the General Manager of the Division of Burlington upon which the Facility is located. Said General Manager shall have the right at any time when in his judgment it becomes necessary or advisable to require any material used in the work to be replaced with like material or with material of a more permanent character; also to require additional work or change of location of said Facility as a matter of safety and/or appearance, or on account of additional tracks being laid, change of grade thereof, construction of a building, or for any other reason whether or not connected with the operation, maintenance, or improvement of Burlington, all of which shall be done at the expense of Permittee in the manner herein provided. 3. Permittee shall give to the General Manager at least two (2) days advance notice of any work to be done by Permittee in the excavation for, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, change of location, or removal of said Facility, and shall conduct said work in such a manner as not to interfere with the maintenance and operation of Burlington. 4. In the event that Burlington, at the request of Permittee or any agent or contractor of Permittee, or for the protection of its property and operations, performs any work, furnishes any material or flagging service, or incurs any expense whatsoever on account of the excavation for,.construction, reconstruction, maintenance, repair, change of location; removal of the Facility, or otherwise, Permittee shall reimburse Burlington for the cost thereof within twenty (20) days after bills are rendered therefor. If the excavation for construction, any reconstruction, maintenance, repair, change of location, or removal of the Facility requires any or all of the following work: removal and replacement of track, bridging, protection of track or other Burlington facilities by work or flagging, engineering, and/or supervision, such work is to be performed by Burlington employees and the cost borne by Permittee. S. (a) Fiber optic cable systems may be buried on Burlington's property. Permittee shall telephone Burlington's Communications Network Control Center at 1-800-533-2891 (a 24 hour number) to determine if fiber optic cable is buried anywhere on Burlington's property to be used by Permittee. The Communications Network Control Center will contact the appropriate personnel to have cables located and make arrangements with Permittee as to the protective measures that must be adhered to prior to the commencement of any work on Burlington's property. In addition to the liability terms elsewhere in this Agreement, Permittee shall indemnify and hold Burlington harmless against and from all cost, liability, and expense whatsoever (including, without limitation, attorney's fees and. court costs and expenses) arising out of or in any way contributed to by any act or omission of Permittee, its contractor, agents and/or employees, that cause or in any way or degree contribute to (1) any damage to or destruction of any telecommunications system by Permittee, and/or its contractor, agents and/or employees, on Burlington's property, (2) any injury to or death of any person employed by or on behalf of any telecommunications company, and/or its contractor, agents and/or'employees, on Burlington's property, and/or (3) any claim or cause of action for alleged loss of profits or revenue by, or loss of service by a customer or user of such telecommunication company(ies). 6. In the event any cathodic electrolysis or other electrical grounding system is installed in connection with . the Facility which, in the opinion of Burlington, interferes with train signals in any way, telephone or telegraph lines, or other facilities of Burlington, Permittee, upon being informed by Burlington of such interference, shall forthwith - discontinue operation of and remove said grounding system, or take such steps as may be necessary to avoid and eliminate all such interference. Permittee further agrees to indemnify and save harmless Burlington from and against any damages, claims, losses, suits, or Expenses in any manner arising from or growing out of interference with the signals, telephone, or telegraph lines of Burlington by the operation, use, or existence of any such grounding system. R/W Occupancy Permit • • 3 7. Permittee shall and hereby releases and discharges Burlington of and from any and all liability for damage to or destruction of said Facility, and any other property of Permittee located on or near Burlington's premises, and shall and hereby assumes any and all liability for injury to or death of any and all persons whomsoever, including officers, employees, and agents of the parties hereto, and loss of or damage to property to whomsoever belonging, including property owned by, leased to, or in the care, custody, and control of the parties hereto, in any manner arising from or during the excavation for, construction, reconstruction, use, maintenance, repair, or removal of said Facility, however such injury, death, loss, damage, or destruction aforesaid may occur or be caused, and shall and hereby does indemnify and save harmless Burlington of and from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions, damages, recoveries, judgments, costs, or expenses arising or growing out of or in connection with any such injury, death, loss, damage, or destruction aforesaid. Permittee further agrees to appear and defend in the name of Burlington any suits or actions at law brought against Burlington on account of any such personal injury or death, and loss and damage to or destruction of property, and to pay and satisfy any final judgment that may be rendered against Burlington in any such suit or action. THE LIABILITY ASSUMED BY PERMITTEE SHALL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE FACT, IF IT IS A FACT, THAT THE LOSS, DAMAGE, DEATH, OR INJURY WAS OCCASIONED BY OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF BURLINGTON, ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES, OR OTHERWISE TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT PERMITTEE SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO ASSUME SUCH LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT CAUSED BY THE NEGLIGENCE 'OF BURLINGTON OR ITS EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS WHERE ASSUMPTION OF SUCH LIABILITY WOULD VIOLATE STATE OR PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LAWS. 8. Permittee shall not transfer or assign this Agreement without the written consent of Burlington. 9. Nothing herein contained shall imply or import a covenant on the part of Burlington for quiet enjoyment. 10. It is expressly understood and agreed that Burlington may at any time cancel and terminate this license and permission by giving to Permittee thirty (30) days written notice of its intention to cancel the same and at the expiration of such notice this license and permission shall terminate. Upon receipt of such notice and before the expiration thereof, Permittee, under the supervision and direction of the said General Manager, or his authorized representative, shall remove said Facility from the right-of-way of Burlington and restore the right-of-way and premises of Burlington in a manner and to such condition as shall be satisfactory to said General Manager. If Permittee fails to remove the Facility and restore said right-of-way to such condition within said thirty (30) day period, Burlington at its option may remove same and restore said right-of-way to its previous condition, and Permittee shall pay TO Burlington the cost and expense thereof. 11. Upon any failure of Permittee to punctually and strictly observe and perform the covenants and promises made herein by Permittee to be kept and performed, Burlington may terminate this Agreement on ten (10) days notice to Permittee, remove said Facility, and restore said right-of-way to its previous condition at the cost and expense of Permittee. 12. In the event of Permittee's removal of the Facility from Burlington's premises, Permittee agrees to terminate said Agreement by notifying Burlington's General Manager in writing of Pprmittpp's remnva) of Facility and termination of said Agreement within thirty (30) days from date of removal of said Facility from Burlington's premises. Any notices given under the provisions of this Agreement shall be good if deposited postpaid in a United States post office addressed to Permittee at Pormittee's post office address above stated or as otherwise directed by Permittee. R/W Occupancy Permit rd 13. Any notice given under the provisions of this Agreement shall be good if deposited with the United States Postal Service addressed to Permittee at Permittee's post office address above stated or as otherwise directed by Permittee. 14. The license and permission herein granted is subject to permits, leases, and licenses, if any, heretofore granted by Burlington affecting the premises upon which said Facility is located. Subject to the foregoing provisions, this Agreement and all of the covenants and promises thereof, shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto, their respective executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement in duplicate as of the day and year first hereinabove written. 7 I' 'li 1'1Qi4 (Witness) (Witness) BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY For: Title: AVP Finance & Administration GERALD AND SARAH BERNSTEIN (Pe . e) By Title R/W Occupancy Permit AREp • BURLINGTON NORTHERN A&MORAILROAD • 0 ADDENDUM TO BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY The Permittee and contractors must at their own expense obtain and maintain in force during construction the following insurance: 1. Commercial General Liability Insurance, including contractual liability and products completed/operations, against claims arising out of bodily injury, illness and death and from damage to or destruction of property of others, including loss or use thereof, and including liability of Burlington Northern Railroad Company, with minimum limits for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 for each occurrence. with an aggregate of $2,000,000. This policy shall contain a "Waiver of Transfer Rights" endorsement to waive any right of recovery that the insurance company may have against Burlington Northern Railroad Company because of payments made for bodily injuries and property damage. 2. Business Automobile Policy Insurance, including owned, non -owned, and hired vehicles with minimum limits for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per occurrence, on all vehicles that the Permittee or any of its agents or employees may use at any time in connection with the performance of this Agreement. 3. Workers Compensation Insurance or coverage as required under the Worker's Compensation Act of the applicable state. The policy should include occupational disease to required statutory limits, employer's liability of $1.000,000 to include FELA, if appropriate, and an "all states"endorsement. Evidence of the above insurance (certificate of insurance) must be provided prior to commencement of work and BN shall not be named insured under the above policies. 4. - A Railroad Protective Liability Insurance policy issued in the name of Burlington Northern Railroad Company with limits of $2.000,000 for bodily injury and property damage per occurrence, with an aggregate of $6.000,000 . must be provided when construction work will be within 50 (Fifty) feet of our tracks. The policy will remain in force during the construction phaseof this project and must be provided prior to BN signing the permit or contract. OPTION Instead of No. 4 above, participation in Burlington Northern Railroad Company's BLANKET RAILROAD PROTECTIVE LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY is available to Permittees and contractors. The limits of coverage are the same as above and are in force during the cOtructionphaWf the Permit. The amount is shown on the cover letter. /l'?oze Address G•• I _ 4,� City, State Project Engineer's Name r C Address • Z i P �City, State Zip Project Engineer's Name If more than one Subcontractor is involved, attach additional information to this Addendum, together with Insurance required. NEITHER PERMITTEE CONTRACTOR OR ANY SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL BEGIN ANY WORK ON BURLINGTON'S PROPERTY AND/OR RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED AND APPROVED BY BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND THE ROADMASTER NOTIFIED 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE. Questions or clarifications of insurance requirements may be directed to: Ms. Judith Harris, Risk Management Analyst BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY 777 Main Street Fort Worth, TX 76102 r�` Phone:. 817-333-2374 .FAX: 817-333-7032 0 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTORS & SUBCONTRACTORS WORKING ON BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY In order to protect BN's investment.in its right-of-way and for the safety of persons coming onto BN property, BN has established certain requirements. The followingg constitute minimum requirements for all persons coming on or near BN right-of- way. Contractors are encouraged to develop their own safety rules that meet or exceed the following requirements. Contractors will not be allowed to occupy or work on Burlington Northern RR right-of-way prior to signing and dating this document and returning it to the Burlington Northern contact person shown on page 2. 1. All permits and agreements must be in effect, required payments made, and insurance certificates received and approved prior to Contractor entering Railroad right-of-way. Insurance must remain in effect during the entire project. 2. Any dewatering utilizing drains or ditches on BN property must be approved by a BN Engineer or Roadmaster. 3. Contractor must have BN approved "Construction Plans" prior to commencing work on a project. No change will be made to "Construction Plans" without approval by all parties involved. Approved revised plan will be furnished to all parties prior to implementation of changes. 4. Road Authority or Contractor will incur all costs for track work, including flagging, etc., made necessary due to their construction operation. 5. Pursuant to Federal Regulation, flagging protection is always required when _ equipment crosses or is working within 25 feet of center of any live track. When deemed necessary by local BN officers, a flagman may be required at all times while working on BN right-of-way in high density rail traffic areas. 6. Crossing of any Railroad tracks must be done at approved locations and must be over full depth timbers, rubber, etc. Any equipment with steel wheels, lugs, or tracks must not cross steel rails without aid of rubber tires or other approved protection. 7. All temporary construction crossings must be covered by a Private Roadway & Crossing Agreement, and must be barricaded when not in use. 8. Contractor must furnish details on how he will perform work that may affect existing drainage and/or possible fouling of track ballast as well as removal of overhead bridges/structures. (Structures and bridge spans over tracks must be removed intact.) 9. Absolutely no piling of construction materials or any other material, including dirt, sand, etc., within 15 feet of center of any. secondary track (25 feet of Main Line and siding tracks) or on property of the Railroad not covered by Construction Easement, permit, lease or agreement. A 10' clear area on both sides of a main track must remain unobstructed at all times to allow for stopped train inspection. 10. No construction will be allowed within 15 feet of center of any track unless authorized by Burlington Northern Railroad General Roadmaster and as shown on Plan approved by the Railroad. This includes any excavation, slope encroachment and driving of sheet piles. 11. No vehicles or machines shall remain unattended within 15 feet of a secondary track or within 25 feet of a Main Line track. 12. IMPORTANT: Disregard of any of these items will result in Contractor being shut down for a minimum of 48 hours on Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way while infraction is investigated. Based on findings of the investigation, it will be determined if the Contractor will be allowed to work on BN RR right-of-way in the future. 13. Contractor safety rules, including rules regarding Personal Safety Equipment, must not conflict with BN safety policies or rules. The following safety items are required while on Burlington Northern RR property: 1) Safety Hat 2) Safety Glasses 3) Steel -toed, lace -up boots 14. Articles included in Agreement should complement, this document or exceed its contents. CONTRACTOR'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT: zV X4,�",02�e;__ s�1. COMPANY e By: TITLE (— DATE 'R SUBCONTRACTOR'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT: COMPANY TITLE DATE PERMIT NUMBER; (Form 4129193) CITY CLORK � R, UQP,DED CITY OF EDNMIDS _ d 505 BELL STREET � \ EDMONDS, WA 98020 '�j �� ):9 .� COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATIONIHOLD.,,HARMLESS, �` Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do Cn hereby covenant-1 stipulate and promise as follows: 1. c__a..icn of Subject rcper4,. i..i . Cc enant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of- 1,1112 -- % V4-Kie5 (insert street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: L fs 9 a 77d I cl C CwF D, tiG Tell T G Pilk) Ocr�n e_- .� uC-�iN�� y�li�-1 L�acuf�� :`��ccs�c� •/7iz'.)�r_c% % �t��c:�ir�� c'��' 1'v . 2. Notification and. Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has lieen identified by the. City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide* hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a part of the:process to obtain a -building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of WSS52079A/0006.-040.034 -1 BUILDING t•7SS/klt 02/08/90 ti. VOL. FAG-- � 6 4 3 FEB the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number � C�CJ (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or. prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations of, the consultants in the course of permit issuance. The conditions, limitations, or prohibitions may require ongoing maintenance on the part of any owner or lessee or may require modifications to.the structures and earth stabilization matters in order to address future or anticipated changes in soil or other site conditions. The statements and conditions proposed by the OWNERS' geotechnical engineer, geologist, architect and/or structural engineer are hereby incorporated by reference from the contents of the file as fully as if herein set forth. Any future purchaser, lessee, lender or any other person acquiring or seeking to acquire an interest. in the property is put on notice of the existence of the content .of the file and the City urges review of its contents. The file may be reviewed during normal business hours or copies• obtained at. the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, 505 Bell Street, Edmonds, Washington 9802^v. 3. Indemnification and HoldHarmless. The undersigned OWNERS hereby waive any and all liability associated with - development,. stating that. they have fully. informed themselves of all risks associated with development of the property and do' therefore waive and relinquish any and all causes of action against the City of Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees WSS.52079A/0006.040.034 -2- WSS/klt 02/08/90 vni 2 0 ) 2 PAU 2 1; ' 4 arising from and out of such development_ In addition, the OWNERS on behalf of themselves, their successors in interest, heirs and assignees, do hereby promise to indemnify and hold harmless the City of. Edmonds, its officers, agents and employees from any loss, claim, liability .or damage of any kind or nature to persons or property either on or off the site resulting from or out of earth subsidence or landslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance -of any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit_ 4. Insurance Requirement.. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has/hat (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy. -for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in -order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement.above.: z /'� / c. iv /�= S (insert -insurance.. -.requirements -and time period, • if _any--if--no-insurance---required, - so state._) WSS52079A/0006_040.034 -3- WSS/klt 02/08/90 VOL. 073PAGE Zb4 S. Covenant to' Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent of their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. DONE this �� day of 199_. OWNER(S) By: By: By: STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF 1<174 ) ss I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that li�Il� sZhr4, 1� signed .this instrument and acknowledged' WSS.52079A/0006.040.034 -4- WSS/klt 02/08/90 VOL. Cl 0 7 3 PAGE � - it to be (his/her) 0 free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument_ DATED this day of � xllQ� 1�99;� NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence thatill��'1 LLD �, signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day ofZx"va199 NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ss: COUNTY OF L ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated.that (he/she) was authorized to execute the - instrument and acknowledged it as the (title) of (name of party on behalf of whom instrument. wasexecuted)• to be the free and voluntary act of such party -for ; the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day of 199,_S. NOTARY Plhk IC • My commission expires: tic WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -5- WSS/klt 02/08/90 r J z Ar 6 V(ll �lOr( .�nu2uL !-`T'TYf EDMoAT OF BARBARA MAHEY CITY 1 �f MAYOR 1.. n.i 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 I [� DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Inc .189� Planning • Building • Engineering April 9, 1999 Dr. & Mrs. Bernstein 15912 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development As you may recall, development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects your homeowners policy that was required by this ordinance. If you recall you were required to post a one million dollar homeowner policy in order for your home to be granted final occupancy. Please be advised, the City Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan ------------------------------ ---------------- ------------------ CITE' P 09i0/1995 16:11 2068818641 DODDS GEOSCIENCES PAGE 01 RECEIVE c .. ,,..LVF M. %. S FP - n GE080IENCE8 INC. n 1, Post Office Box 6966 PE�ru'p�.�`jOMER Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 881-8641 Dr. and Mrs. Gerald Bernstein Job Number 4135 6655 N.E. Windermere Road September 7, 1995 Seattle, Washington Subject: Addendum No. 1: S1ope.Stabilization Recommendations Proposed New Bernstein Residence 15912 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Client: This letter addresses concerns expressed by Landau Associates .with regard to the Chance Anchor wall downhill from your residence. ' In order to reduce the potential for erosion under and through the timber wall, we recommend a filter fabric be draped over the lower eight feet of soil behind the wall. This filter fabric should be keyed into the ground to prevent any seeping water from eroding underneath the wall. The timber wall itself is so porous, that seeping water will be able to flow finely through the cracks between the timbers before any hydrostatic pressures develop. The lower foot of wall should be buried to prevent seeping water from causing any erosion from under the wall. We trust this letter presents the required information.. Please. contact the undersigned if there are any questions, or if we can be of further service. Sincerely: DODDS eoseiences Inc. 4K: Doo Xo� i/7 9 S 225M S ARA dANUM MKD/wd 3c,, ce Dom hC 14 S Su MED CO I-! F I G . Z•7S 8,S Z. Z S IA wPL FT -77 3Go PsF 105OL/1.15xZQ.I I+J? -Z Z�.� ►u� Wit-L. At-t_o�.�v X 6 F p FLAT' f S'. vst- 7 t1 i 1 i S m� CoM {� 5N-T� 1n�� cc..r�T � Tr1�4T l � Y1l iV E 5T1�-� (� C.16 r' I� 1'a C.�} �- � ►% �5112� 1�oM rr�1� i3u f x S oc-rra,J Jvl o v L< L- u S C�rn�x rz►so Ib I�EC� I� S i t" 11A,C2L4 uS.. o,y 5A r t. 6 i -L.��T I?-rE� P. hx�. i Ffir z BAKER ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL DESIGN 6628 212TH. S.W. LYNNWOOD WA P.O. BOX 1697 LYNNWOOD WA 98046-1697 SUBJECT: (3=yws roAl SHEET JOB. NO.2-4-US ZBY: CHK'D: 771-6666 FAX 206 771 6558 Pond-n • CITY Copy b�olWu butwia `fir 9 1,16 �v S- 'Ravel eo AUG 17 1995 PF.RMtTCOUWR Cry is pia sz� c�Z��I fir. 7 6061 O� itp(wo lS3i�� Pam'{ rt oak-'�ZU(r WJ C-TiA1� CS� 50i!!l(N� qua' 60 Cam& Vuclk;> ✓Ok I -, 1 4� 1oneer National Insurance Company WASHINGTON TITLE DIVISION ^ 1 for Record at Request of CITY CLERK CIVIC CENT EDPIZONDS,—W-A 88WO RCN, 7ov REVENUE STAMPS OFe 0 9' 99, F.� ro od Las It Quit Claim Deed THIS SPACE RESERVED 101 01,'S USE: R41\h '91 OCT -1 All 28 9EAN V. SNOHOMISH DEPUTY W CD THE GRANTOR Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Bernstein for and in consideration of $0.00 convey and quit claim to City of Edmonds the following described real estate, situated in the County of Snohomish State of Washington including any interest therein which grantor may hereafter acquire: THE EASTERLY TEN FEET OF LOTS 9 & 10, block 29, PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH_ COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH VACATED SEASIDE AVENUE ADJOINING THERETO. NO -EXCISE- TAX DUB $2.00 Treasurer's Feb Required I -TA G OCT 11991 SIEYE , o amis touniy lrtasurer Deputy together with the right to make all necessary cut or fill slopes on the land of grantor's adjacent to the above -described real property in connection with the construction, maintenance or improvement of the above -described real property for purposes of a publi roadway. Dated this l/.7V day of , q � _......_ _._..._._......._..........(saws.) C STATE OF WASHINGTON ® County of 1( On this day personally appeared before me atotlz�el to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that �/� 011v e- signed the same as mac£ Sf�Gs ti free and voluntary an and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hiind"and official seal this dayof VOL `A 37 PAGE 1421L Notary ?'ub(k bR and for the State of TYaikin retidbcl at �t 61/h tt�'' 08/29/1995 13:24 2068818641 DODDS GEOSGIENCES PAGE 01 GEOSC/ENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 �d .HOC Bellevue, WA QW08-p .. Telephone (2066)391-8255 1995 DAILY FIM n a mes r Post -it" Fax Note/ �d71 Date ZA pages► oL.Q,I F� L CoMapt Phone e - o ZZ Phone FaxIF 7-% 1 - oZ Z, f Fax It JOB Af /tea rEaMrr NL"Ot GiNBiAL CONTRACTOR tONTMCTOIAS11) �,, / (fEi �HSUPr DATF oar or w�c -0.�1 Lh! GRADING �� Z� ING FOREMAN HOLAS Y/N • • (�„el aa� i9ys IPe: X�rci -�� U53 E 9 u LJ w 01 R x C+ N C m tD C fi 0 ! -h u C+ 7c' •I 1` m X 1' 'ten •.� �C,:� tD C7� O �Nw tD w 'f 'S wNf�7R1NN70 sl w J. Z O O t0 M O O O O "s A.1.-'• J. 7r C .. C+3 O mtAD n 'S 7c -S 'S � tD . C ;j z p �C' NNC+C+0 nC»C-) 1 N 'd M O fD ti to O CD �-n -� C D C O C CD N 0 0 J tD � 3 w� 3 M O VI w m 'fl tD J. t/I to to Z 3 'S �, A n n x \ -h " N 3 R1 O m O fOD C► tD tC ft4 to a -I c+ t.' \ C Y 70 2 < O -s J. -S tD et 0) J. J O 3 T tD O -1 \ M .. ii. tD .n -s J. -n �.. C4 M M m O i la W ` N w 1 ' T 1 C '• � a .iOR 1II r lRRCgjVZt) AUG 1 7 1995 J mpok)c - PERMIT COUNTER tLW4- is 4XS)(P6WI70AJ refC- 1��, butt' On-lu t;'1iU<�f LkAtL 6mca, au,�8ux- 61 o0a." lot- WWa Uirs 40 kllkm� ez) tme, JWS' tW zr- Ar Lo 6o 6LIL ptr -A) rap�6 tv k; 0 Vr, vlutw�, :ffis Colu-, AbIT V� kbt. lei ku"h-k-ct- Soo L& '19117 • .. ... Qom. ..a�:. .. _.. . RECEIVED 0 C T 1 1 1995 ENGINEERING P.02 aaoe Q� TI o tTC eoo nru Putt Offt(:e Box 096b Bellevue, WA 98W8-M6 tt,� o�rsc 7 b WA of Telephone (200) 867-9297 wEA renraT �+oea DAILY FIELD CPORT (Y, NT) A Dare DA) • X 1 CATgN •may •- Vi91 AS" J{ pENBQ •B 9UGT. ONsii r 1 WIEPAt TFACTOF 2.rlt paaauo FOREMAN ONA,TE? Y / N , cnW,Ha C.ONriuCTOR , I/j C.+.✓ � { � � C�4Gc'il,a,►� � I - 1 ! Sd' _—� �•„rc� u.tb ?nt�xu ��J ------------ Next 311EYSr• -� ci13 4f. TO 3Wd S 7h13I�C�S=' 5QQ�Q Tn99T8S9©Z 6E:5L 565T/0TlOT 9 ' _ c• . - " - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - " - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - _ .. _ _n _, 09!0711995 -16:11 2068818641 DODDS GEOSCIENCES nnnnom QEOSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 88 1-864 1 Dr. and Mrs. Gerald Bernstein 6655 N.E. Windermere Road Seattle, Washington STREET FILE Subject: Addendum No. 1: S1ope.Stabilization Recommendations Proposed New Bernstein Residence 15912 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Client: PAGE 01 RECEIVED SEP - 8 1999 PERMITCOUNTER Job Number 4135 September 7, 1995 This letter addresses concerns expressed by Landau Associates .with regard to the Chance Anchor wall downhill from your residence. In order to reduce the potential for erosion under and through the timber wall, we recommend a filter fabric be draped over the lower eight feet of soil behind the wall. This filter fabric should be keyed into the ground to prevent any seeping water from eroding underneath the wall. The timber wall itself is so porous, that seeping water will be able to flow freely through the cracks between the timbers before any hydrostatic pressures develop. The lower foot of wall should be buried to prevent seeping water from causing any erosion from under the wall. We trust this letter presents the required information.. Please. contact the undersigned if there are any questions, or if we can be of further service. Sincerely: DODDS eoseiences Inc. K. 007/f • w • • 22508 22 • � S �.(��• 9fQ/si£ EXPIRES Mark K. Dod • P.F- MKD/wd • ... log = I�, 3c, o oo� 14�� Ac S SU rnED co-P F I G 3Ep PSF 2.75 g, 5- rZ-,,5 - �.SU �t �llY W i rrr ;..i 2 ' 36o PsF I��O� 1 2� Z Q9 • I Iil.? -�= Z 7, 7 Iu� Vv1 L.L. dt -1-0 w _ 105061.15xI'�� b FLAr -F S, C/s� = Coi,4.�>J+TS cc-Arl- Tr4A-r l �lii2EU Zv 1-a CrtL.L14.4 r x (ma c--r�a,J ��/1 a 0 BAKER ENGINEERS SUBJECT: 13=Tws rvA/ SHEET STRUCTURAL DESIGN JOB. NO.2-4-95�-26 ZBY: CHK'D: OF 6628 212TH. S.W. LYNNWOOD WA DATE- P.O. BOX 1697 LYNNWOOD WA 98046-1697 (206) 771-6666 - FAX (206) 771-6558 LANDAU AASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services Ms. Sharon Nolan City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 STREET FILE 3E P 1 3 1995 September 12, 1995 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, PROPOSED RETAINING STRUCTURE DODDS GEOSCIENCES, INC. SEPTEMBER 7, AND BAKER ENGINEERS SEPTEMBER 9, 1995 RESPONSES PROPOSED BERNSTEIN RESIDENCE LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 29, PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH 15912 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: In accordance with your request, we have reviewed a letter from Dodds Geosciences, Inc., (Dodds') Addendum No. 1: Slope Stabilization Recommendations, dated September 7, 1995 and revised Baker Engineers Drawing C1, dated September 9, 1995. These documents responded to our. September 7, 1995 geotechnical review letter related to structural design documents for a soil retaining structure associated with the proposed Bernstein residence. In their letter, Dodds provides additional recommendations for control of seepage behind the retaining structure and for embedment of the toe of the structure. Revisions to Baker's Drawing C1 reflect those changes. It is our opinion that these additions, if properly implemented, will satisfy the concerns identified in both our June 7, 1995 and September 7, 1995 letters. However, it is also our opinion that Dodds' recommendations should be viewed as the minimum necessary for adequate performance of the retaining structure, and may result in higher than expected levels of monitoring and/or maintenance by the owner. Long-term wall performance would likely be improved further if additional attention were paid to selection and placement of material below and adjacent to the base of the wall. In particular, the use of select imported fill/crushed rock would provide a more stable toe configuration. It is suggested the design professionals and the owner consider this addition. Dodds' current recommendations also appear to be based, to some degree, on the structure being constructed of timber. Both drainage and wall stress distribution could be different for other types of walls, and we suggest that the recommendations provided in Dodds' P.O. BOY 1029 • EDMONDS, WA 98020-9129 • (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX (509) 327-9691 / TACOMA: (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 926-2531 • i September 7, 1995 letter be re-evaluated and modified accordingly by the design professionals if another construction material is anticipated. Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. WDE/JWG/mjp No. 74054.20 09/12/95 JA074\054\NOLAN.LET FA LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. M d" �. E--.- William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager and , Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDAU ASSA INC. BUILDING BUILDING STREET FILE Environmental and Geotechnical Services � ' 1 1995 September 7, 1995 Ms. Sharon Nolan City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW, PROPOSED RETAINING STRUCTURE PROPOSED BERNSTEIN RESIDENCE LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 29, PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH 15912 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical review of design documents for a soil retaining structure associated with the proposed Bernstein residence. The design documents were prepared by Baker Engineers and include Sheet C-1, Soil Detention Details, dated August 11, 1995, and five pages of supporting calculations. Please note that Landau Associates' review of the structural design of the retaining system was limited to geotechnical issues, and did not include a verification of the structural calculations. As before, our review follows requirements outlined within City Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The layout and design of the structure appears to adhere closely to the geotechnical wall . design and design criteria provided in a Dodds Geosciences, Inc. letter titled Slope Stabilization Recommendations, Proposed Bernstein Residence, dated April 10,1995. Landau Associates reviewed the Dodds letter as part of our supplemental geotechnical review for the proposed Bernstein residence. The results of that supplemental review are provided in a letter to the City dated June 7, 1995. In our June 7 letter, we raised concerns regarding the lack of geotechnical design criteria for the structures' drainage and toe embedment. The concerns raised in our June 7,1995 supplemental review do not appear to have been addressed by the project design professionals in the current submittal. We recommend that the appropriate project design professionals re-evaluate the structures design and comment on . concerns previously raised. We also understand that a concrete structural facing may be substituted for the current timber and steel wail design. Our concerns regarding wall embedment and drainage would remain for substitute facing materials. P.O. BOY 1029 • EDMONDS, WA 98020-9129 • (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX (509) 327-9691 /TACOMA: (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 926-2531 r Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. WDE/JWG/mjp No. 74054.20 09/12/95 JA074\054\N0LAN2.LEP LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager and UVu Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. MEMORANDUM Date: February 14, 1995 To: Sharon Nolan Permit Coordinator From: Ron Holland-9* Water/Sewer Supervisor Subject: PERMIT REVIEW AT 15912 - 75TH PLACE WEST c CODA This site will be supplied with a grinder sewage pump by the City of Edmonds. This pump has been paid for by the LID 210 Project. The City will deliver this pump and all control panels to the site at no charge. An inspection will be required for the tank installation and connections will not be allowed to the tank until an electrical inspection is done by the State Department of Labor & Industries. Attached is the minimum installation requirements, but I suggest that the developer contact Everett Akau or myself before he is to this point for specifics RH/lk wo rdata\sewer\ 15912gri City of Edmonds cQ Public Works GRINDER PUMPS INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS DT.T1MnTATC A. 4" clean out required on gravity sewer line between building and grinder pump if 10' or greater in distance. B. Pressure or gravity line will be installed at minimum of 18" depth. C. All sewer lines must be left exposed in.ditch for inspection and location recording. D. 1'" Hi-Mol Poly pipe required for pressure line from grinder pump to 6" gravity sewer stub. Bvakc�Q arJ4T1-v E. All pressure line fittings shall be of brass/bronze material. F. 6" clean out wye, existing at property line, will be extended to within 12" of surface grade at time of connection. PUMP A. Pump station well must be installed on firm earth base or washed gravel. B. Backfill material around pump station and sewer lines will be free of.debris, large rocks, concrete, etc. C. Pump station should be installed no closer than 3' from any structure, rockery, etc. D. Pump station lid should be installed no less than 2" above surrounding grade in dirt, grass, or garden areas. May be installed flush in concrete or asphalt. E. No potentially large shrubs or trees should be placed on maintenance easement. Sewer lines should not be installed directly under large trees or shrubs. F. All electrical controls except audio alarm must be installed outside of home and accessible. G. All electrical leads to grinder pumps and accessories must be installed in approved conduit. H. State electrical permit is required. This can be obtained at the State Department of Labor & Industries, 8625 Evergreen Way, Everett. I. All electrical connections, conduit, etc. 'must be inspected by the State Electrical Inspector - 347-9432. SH/av 3/12/85 City of Edmonds Engineering Dept. Attn. Mr Chrlsman 250 5th AVE. N. Edrnoncls, wa. 98o2o 771-0220 • .. STREET FILE -in reference to Bernstein residence. Dear Sir: Ronald D. Johnson Architect RleCEt VED FEB 13 199s PERMIT couNTER This letter is to request a waiver fn*rn the 149'o max, slaps allowed by the city. Our topography where the driveway wiH be located, will not allow 14% grade. We cannot build the house ,any further away from the front of our property, because of the Slope to the rear of the lot. Thus, our garage IocaDon Cannot be ad;ustted. On the plans you will notice a driveway profile that alb us to drive down into our garage at a max. slope of 20'/0. 1 would aSk that you would grant a waiver to allow us to build our driveway slope to a max. of 200/% as shown on the submitted drawings. An 19601 23rd. NW. 80a t i Wa. N177 546-2288 "00� Af�ISTERED ARCHITECT RONALD D. JOHNSON STATE OF W1ISNINGTON 0 STREET 41LE RECEIVED FEB 1 3 1995 PERMIT COUNTER GERALD & SARAH BERNSTEIN 6653 N.E. WINDERMERE RD SEATTLE, WA 98115 February 10, 1995 TO: CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON BUILDING DEPARTMENT, PERMITS RE: APPLICANT/OWNER LIABILITY & LANDSLIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT We the applicant/owners of the site (15912 75th West) acknowledge the following: a) That the accuracy of all permit submittal information is warranted by the applicantlowner in a form which relieves the City and its staff from any liability associated with reliance on such permit application submittals. While an application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the City, all conclusions shall be those of the applicant/owner her/his design professionals (ECDC 19.05.030) and, b) That the applicant/owner understands and accepts the risk of,developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that they will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective losses of the structures on the site, of the slide potential of the area. (ECDC 19.05.040C) G� Bernstein, February 10, 19 Sarah Bemsteif� February 10 1995 State of Washingto County of Signed or attested before me on /0 l ftL by Title My appointment expires ait��J �Z4/9S • STREET F�LE STRUCTURAL DESIGN AVOCIATES INC. Q0 CONSULTING ENGINEERS 5630 - 198TH ST. S.W. • P.O. BOX 5366 LYNNWOOD, WA 98046 PHONE: (206)7jagl (206) 775-7435 November 14, 1994 Mr. & Mrs. Gerald Bernstein C/O Ronald D. Johnson, Architect 19601-23rd Ave. N. W. Seattle, Washington 98177 Receive,) FEB 10 1995 1r COMER Subject: Bernstein Residence, 15912-75th P1. W., Edmonds, Wa. -DECLARATION STATEMENT - Our ref.: Letter\93-944-1.RJH Dear Mr. & Mrs. Bernstein: This letter is to inform you that our office has reviewed the geotechnical report from Geotech Consultants No.JN 90054 dated April 6, 1990. The review indicates that the lot is in an area subject to ground failure. It is impossible to guarantee future slope stability, regardless of how well it is investigated or engineered, and risks are always associated with construction in a known hazardous area. Among these risks is the possibility of the loss or damage to your property and life, as well` as the property and life of neighbors, public and private, due to soil failure. Because of the unpredictable nature and wet condition of soils, owners must assume the responsibility for risks of. building and living in this known hazardous area. The reports, recommendation, opinions, designs and specifications, associated with this project are professional opinions only, and are not to be construed as a warranty, expressed or implied, against loss or damage. DECLARATION STATEMENT To the best of our knowledge and understanding, the building plans, submitted with the permit application substantially incorporate the above mentioned reports, recommendation. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN AND INVESTIGA-rION. 04wu/ Jko-ly_y— BUILDINGS 0 FOUNDATIONS 0 RETAfNING `HALLS 0 BRIDGES • PIERS 9 DOCKS 0 T:D'VVERS 0 TANKS Bernstein Residence Page Two of 2 Careful and conscientious application of the above referenced recommendations during and after construction will apparently not increase the risk associated with this site. Respectfully submitted, STRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. Rase Vanden Ends, P.E. president RVE/jo t VA C) y Z 'A"'.% 0 U EXPAES nannia GEOSCIENCES INC. Post Office Box 6966 Bellevue, WA 98008-0966 Telephone (206) 867-3297 Facsimile (206) 88 1-864 1 Dr. & Mrs. Gerald Bernstein 6655 N.E. Windermere Road Seattle, Washington Subject: Geotechnical Review and Declaration Bernstein Residence 15912 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Reference: 1) Geotechnical Engineering Study Anderson Meadowdale Lot Edmonds, Washington by Geotech Consultants Inc., dated April 6, 1990 2) Architectural Plans Browns Bay Residence Sheets 1, 2, 7 thru 12, dated 1/6/95 by Ronald D. Johnson Architect 15gia 7` ``"1 OL W RECEIVED 3) Structural Plans Browns Bay Residence Sheets 13 thru 16, latest date 1/6/95 Signed and Stamped by Cornelius D. Vander Ende, P.E. Dear Client: FEB 1 0 1995 PEW COUNTER Job Number 4135 February 9, 1995 In accordance with your request, this office has reviewed the referenced plans (References 2 and 3) to verify the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report have been adequately accounted for. The purpose of this review was to assess suitability of the project for development in accordance with the Meadowdale Criteria (Ordinance #2662). This ordinance requires an analysis of the earthquake/landslide risk. The statistical probability of earth movement on this lot was determined as follows: 1) An analysis of the earthquake record was made. 2) From this analysis, it was determined that there was a thirty percent (30%) chance of a magnitude 6.5 earthquake occurring on the region. 3) A review of published information indicates the nearest known major fault is approximately 4.35 miles from the site. 4) The anticipated earthquake motion was attentuated through the rock in accordance with published procedures. 5) The ground response at the site was determined using a computer program capable of conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of layered soil deposits. 6) Finally, the computed horizontal ground acceleration was applied to a near -surface soils in a pseudo -static analysis to determine the Factor of Safety with regard to the design earthquake. The results of this analysis indicate that the site will remain stable. 0 Proposed Bernstein Residence - Meadowdale Job*Number 4135 February 9, 1995 Page 2 In our judgment, the plans and specifications conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report and the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in the report. The proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. Our analysis indicates there is not an unreasonable risk to this property as defined by Ordinance #2661. If there are any questions, please contact the undersigned at (206) 867-3297. Sincerely: DODDS Geosciences Inc. K. D p0 .0 W16eoo �0 C •� J '0 • P� ' '. ?2508 : '�� •:90 GtSiEp'E�••�. ��ONALE EY.P:RES ZS% (i Mark K. Dodds, AE. MKD/wd �1 o u/L Y'L D G474-2 P L4 .v3 .a .vim Sp "i �kt 2uc`;'UIL4Z P�G��/ev� G110A)4V-,1 /Lecan�rwddz°�vt ie �(NI c4 l /Q � Qi�.�%- �411J".vc ¢.vT /n--o1Tl e ^�'��• So�L �N ST•4/�rc ii—y S / � /1_e P o �; i4 �-� � u-t t.apMa�l i— ?tK , �v� It iot/Q�a2�� 7 4-- c r/ 4 tNA7�F D ✓ �Z SCJe/Bl� /J /.�v�C 2 S. `Leif 2 %--e/L, -,A , o.Al/ )2-1 s« G 12Ad, A)6� �20 �2ai.v.a l c . , A 1 —4-JAN01110+— co 89p-19 • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 S9hEET FILE COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Wod; s • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering July 24, 1991 Gerald Bernstein 6653 N.E. Windemere Road Seattle, WA 98115 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR BUILDING JUL 231991 Re: Site restoration bond, street dedication and sidewalk cash contribution for 15912 - 75th P1. W., Edmonds, WA Dear Mr. Bernstein, Due to the slide potential in your area, it will be necessary for you to post a site restoration bond to repair damaged utilities and pavement surfaces across your property frontage should a slide occur during construction of your house. An estimate of $40,000 has been tabulated to cover the total restoration. In addition to the above requirement, construction of a five foot sidewalk and ten foot street dedication is required. Before a permit can be issued, we must have the recorded quit claim deed dedicating ten feet of 75th P1. W. to the City of Edmonds and the site restoration bond. Since development is sporadic in the area, we are not requiring the construction of a sidewalk with the construction of your house. Instead, we will require a cash contribution in the amount of $1 100. This amount goes into a special account for construction of a sidewalk on 75th P1. W. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt / c. Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator L"- BRNSTEIN/TXTST530 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 a Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan R ET F&E f1,.x$rr Aj �G TL��ri��-i ", 1-7w;P va lea ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE UNIT UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK ISSUE QTY COST TOTAL �%xc ,a Hwy /3�x vv s 43-3 /,30 35 4 9 4z, �� Gam- / 2SlTv ZSav 30 ��Lsfl laDx-;) /Vov -n .Si�� .5��✓c� � GF 4a fig"' /�® ,ems STREET A.E 25 June 1991 REQUEST FOR GRADE WAIVER 0 Norman B. Sandler AIA ARCHITECTS C S This grade waiver request is in reference to Lots 9 and 10 of Block 29, Plat of Meadowdale Beach. It is our understanding that any roadway grade exceeding 14% requires a waiver. We are requesting a waiver be granted to allow a driveway for the above mentioned property, the maximum grade achieved is 20%. The grade is necessary to provide access to a single family residence which is located at the toe of the slope that descends from 75th Avenue West. Any reduction of the driveway grade would require the garage be at a higher elevation, in doing so the garage would be placed within required zoning set backs. The grade as shown on the site plan is dictated by zoning and 75th Avenue West right of way constraints, therefore, we request a waiver be granted allowing the propose design. 206-682-5211 1000 Lenora, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98121 STET FILE 23 July 1991 City of Edmonds Engineering Department 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 ATTENTION: Lyle Chrisman Browns Bay Residence 15912 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 Permit Contact: # 14339 RE: Driveway Grade Clarification Norman B. Sandler AIA ARCHITECTS Architecture Interior Design RF-CE,1111~0 jilt. 24 A" ENGINI:EFlIr` I In reference to our phone conversation, dated 7/19/91, you requested, clarification on the proposed driveway design pertaining to grade. The design has a graduated slope as shown on sheet 2b, Finished Grading Plan. The design was predicated by several constraints. The city requires a 10 ft. property vacation that pushes the improvements to the west. This results placing the garage at a lower elevation increasing the overall elevation gain from parking to the street. One way to mitigate driveway slope would be to raise the garage elevation. This would require moving the garage 'further east' , placing it up the slope. This cannot be done as zoning setback requirements are 25' from the property line. The garage, as designed, complies with the zoning requirement. Thus, that is not an option. The other method that could be used would be to raise the garage up on fill. There are two problems with placing fill on the site to raise the garage. One, there is up to 11 feet of fill on the site already, prompting the garage and house to be built on structural. piles. Adding fill to the site cannot be done with any certainty that it will be stable and is not recommended in the soils report. The other reason that limits raising the garage on fill is one of zoning. The maximum building height is 25' from existing grade. By raising the garage we would violate the height requirement as we are just under the 25' limit with the proposed esign. One other variation was considered and that was to add fil to the driveway at the base of the slope, thus making the bottom o the drive steeper and reducing the grade at l� 206-682-5211 1000 Lenora, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98121 . 0 • Norman B. Sandler AIA ARCHITECTS Page Two RE: Browns Bay Residence Driveway Grade Clarification the top of the driveway. This has two constraints, one is that the bottom of the drive is very close to the north property line. Raising the elevation there, above existing grade, causes problems with fill slope intruding on the property to the north. The other is that the existing soil is fill to begin with. Adding fill to any slope is not recommended by the soils report. Thus,, for these various reasons we decided that the proposed design met the site and zoning constraints the best. We realize that a 20% grade is not desirable but in light of the prevailing circumstances it is the only solution available. Therefore we request the city grant us the driveway design. Sincerely, � -J�-� Ore Miller N rman B. Sandler AIA Architects rj b -- ST ET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN 1 o Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering DIRECTOR 8g�-19 hey �Pg/�/si August 28, 1991 Jed Miller Norman B. Sandler AIA Architects 1000 Lenora #400 Seattle, WA 98121 Re: Driveway slope waiver for 15912 - 75th P1. W. Dear Mr. Miller, Your request for a driveway slope waiver has been reviewed, and although we prefer slopes to be less than 140, the possible consequences of holding the subject driveway slope to 14% are more severe than to approve the slope to 200. Therefore, you may construct the driveway to a slope of 20% as shown on your drawing, sheet 2b. If you have any questions, call Lyle Chrisman, 771-3202, extension 289. Sincerely, ROBERT J. ALBERTS, P.E. City Engineer ALC/RJA/sdt c: Gerald and Sara Bernstein 6653 N.E. Windemere Road Seattle, WA 98115 SLOPEWVR/TXTST530 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan r r. 1,7c. 189�) City, of Edmon* j RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION., PERMIT Permit Number. 9 Issue Date: 7 — " t A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 15� 142110 75—f" QL B. Type of Work (be specific): C L, p CA'V t tJ K 'PCs ns . FD 1z C l y y C. Contractor: Is I, C' n P l) 3 Mailing Address: �i 1 011? 14 1AI v 619 State License #: w)A'< 14 )A D. Building Permit # (if applicable): 5' i h FU3ALk Contact: SOS kA ILA L IE d Phone: G70 — 32 1 q Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision City Project ❑ Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: R� F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes E]No G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or :.. employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. :Fl4i THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC- TION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. Two sets of construction drawings of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection. Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion., Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut.trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on site at all times for inspection purposes. Signature: Date: 7IZ-,—/7 or Agent) ' CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY: � l� RIGHT OF WAY FEE: TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER 'Z� DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND I 1 I: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: RESTORATION FEE: T OTAL FEE: No E" RECEIPT NO.: i ISSUED BY NO WORK'SHALL.BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div 1997 Adilk y �OMISH COUNTY -PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRI +-la6, Rev 12/94 LOCATION 1)5?/0 7S PL GJ E o AkO av S , UJ A q 802� SoL,TN 6uN-i AREA i POLE # SW 1 /4 S 'S T 2 7 R V DATE (o % 30 /g 7 W.O. # z Z !I REASONFORWORK RELOCA-rtaG SEC. PED Our Or ENGINEER KAIGAL£Y DWG.# I ZO(o`I9 FU'(uRE Slt)f L.yALK fOR CtTy OF EDMONDS DRAFTER U.G. # { SCALE I it = qO l DATE WORK-:mMPLETED FEES REQUIRED: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS O YES 0 ND ® EXEMPT O NOT EXEMPT PARA. 18 ITEM C PRIMARYOVERHEAD O.H. U.G. COND. KV O RESIDENITAL Q. COMMERCIAL ADD CKT. FT PH LEO # REM CKT. FT PH $ NET CKT. FT. SECONDARY OVERHEAD O.H. U.G. COND. KV BASIC FEE $ ADD CKT. FT. P 9 $ / = $ REM CKT. FT. NET CKT. FT. METE-R/CQNV. POLE $ PERMITS (DATE GRA ED) PRIMARY>I<NDERGRki O RESIDENIML O COM❑TREE TRIM BASIC FEE❑STATE ❑ COUNTY LEU # $ , ❑ CITY$ ❑ t t• EASEMENTS ` 4 •'a $. _ $ ❑REQUIRED O T REQUIRED SECONDARY U� ROUND J 3�SIC'1 EE $ , y 11 :{ UNDERGHbU D PLAT DATE RELEASED -a i1B� IC FEE $ FOREIGN 6ONTACTS 01\® $ ❑ GTN ,, JPj� # 2 STREET iTING ❑ CA tl # �i$' _ $ ❑ JOINT BENCH GTNW & CATV ❑ J INT BORE GTNW & CAN WORK I Z;HT-OF-WAY ❑ i� U PRIMARY , oSECO7 POLE STENCILING lcfi a $ _ $ FROM TO /TAKE OFF POLE fjISCfELL,ANEOUS FEES i VAULT $ PRE-CONSTR. REQUIREMENTS PERMIT $ ❑ TREE TRIM ❑ PUD LOCATOR $ ❑ BACKHOE ® FLAGGING $ 0 ONE CALL DATE $ # T3iAL DUE: $ INDEX POLES PLAT DATE PAID LOGS U-MAP RECEIPT # XFMR C-MAP LOCATION MAP PAGE 1135-A-7 NEW SVC AFPLIC. # FOREMAN APPROVED DATE PRINTED SUBSTATION 710r q'Dow z>A L E CIRCUIT NO. I Z- 1 8 4C PHASE 3 &>13' KAKALEY (070-3ZIV 787- 7S-Z3 (P) 'R E L O C A -r- E o riE J T . 5 CC_ U G D (Po� ., �. � %rw Kf O LO T-�I o J,�� L. O RE -ROUTE AND SPCIC.E �^'10') 3S0 �C'Cn� �«� IN.TO PEA Ar NE�iU .;LO�ATtO'N Crj) C e RE -Rom E �JCa sVC CoPj-Do CTDR itITo P, CSPLICE IF� NECESSA2y, RAISE PED(Pz-) I-ro NEW FU-rORE G,RApE Location: 271q4EO5C Scale 1:40 `+ �,,,gy."FL�'r'.' 'y }�i.^.1'.,�T'S27i�1 /„w"=' r". �Y-•'*��ij{,��',.%�;�7'DES'4su9'�.J�''.�i:.tm•.R.`+�<ii%''•dl�s`�.,;'.L"��r::'v r-Aft '.�4:.'y;v�'M'..�tyar�-,+i"�;vr j+-*h`�*J.�;s�k'E,.�''��' +'-"" 1, `t ate t Cite. ondg_- RIGHT-OF-WAYF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number: ® F E B 10 1997 Issue Date: EN(a" i aty of Construction: <?a 7_1q PL- vi 18 9 0 1 9 ()(3 B. Type of Work (be specific): Lam( zy mrw l..�47V _< iSeV10E sE� �-rn4c��D C. Contractor: C #Am 13egs CWLE Contact: 76M A AJ DFR2 M AI Mailing Address:.523 M,h1m _,-�T Phone: 1)1)5'— 1564 State License #: <0Par"d1 J,61 &A_ Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑Subdivision Qs, City Project Utility (PUD, GTE, W, CA NGBLE)WATER) n ❑ Multi- Family ❑ ,Other-. ` , IINSPECTOR: I I1 SPECTOR- F. Pavement or, Concrete Cut: ❑ Yes t5tNo Gs Siie>of Cut: . x H. Charge $ APPLICANT Td�READ AD)SIGN" INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application iigrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, thatmay be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. l 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. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress'an( at comvletion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes.fv�� Street -shall be kept clean at all times. , Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with ity regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit wiffbe available o�*ontrajtoa times for inspection purposes. Signature: Date: 4/�a or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY: RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER 10 MEM DAYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: A31- � / t DISRUPTION FEE/FUND 111: RESTORATION FEE: PERMIT' FEE: TOTAL FEE: RECEIPT FEE _ ISSUED BY: % �' �J•- ter=' Cr —•— NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE.. "v Eng. Div. 1994 lnIZ 7.54� DL W --267 -t,�gA EXJSTM7 Cq7/ Z" CONDu ►7' SET --:4. �'� w►9u q�t RoUND PEDSf AL 4 �%)CJ �OWv1 NEW Rls—l1 ry� � � � �• v<)O-j � c �`e r`1 -�v � � Pr -op (or 0 15912 SST Uri CVLR'/;," CCNDu F-M n itov5E +- � I; L� wd As PL,ulA- I y � 1 �. -t ch.�, 11 . tJ ►11 Ctl �n I r (t 4 �r M%, ..aSi... ..._.. wrr _.i.. �sF..>. 777.7377 �:..ti. l.:i. :fir:4 s.: .i+ ..ti• i_:;: 11uc... �,:: z.. a,r...; V P City of Edmon RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit. Number. 9 - Issue Date: A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 15912 75 P1 W (9613424) B. Type of Work (be specific): Install Service C. Contractor. Nashington Natural Gas Contact: Mariamne Kingsbury Mailing Address: 1 199 75 $x cv Izagrett Phone: —75OuR-875�9l6 w State License #: 98203 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit, # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit 11(if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project f[] Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: �,,,�;�IA-1 F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes ®No G. Size of Cut: fl` x H. Charge $ APPLICANT TO READ 'SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to the City of Edmonds harW as from i juries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be maW gdinst the City of Edmon , or any of it departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense coats, 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. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available onAsiaat all imes for inspe ti n purposes. Signature: Date: 5-13-96 (, ontrac or or Age t) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY , APPROVED BY: TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER_ -Al' DAYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS• N'a COMMENTS: RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT DISRUPTION FEE/FUND' 111: RESTORATION FEE: PERMIT FEE: oG.t r Q TOTAL FEE: RECEIPT FEE: DATE: — ISSUED BY: NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT. ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994 AVA%hnglon EnergvGorrvav IN V Watermain depth __ZL: gas main , .. 0 Addendum to: City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: Mariamne Kingsbury Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gag; 1356-7500 X7596 Nc0 Key: -w- Water -G- Gas, -SS-, Sever e. Water hydrant Water valve Washington Natural Gas Company 1122 75th Street S.W., Everett. Washington 98203'. . (206) 355-3331 1, • w AV*s hgtcnEnergvGDTr" Addendum to: City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: Mariamne Kingsbury IEngineering Aide �l Washington Natural Gas i 1356-7500 X7596 Watermain depth gas main h? 0,- �LV\J 3�--24- No .. ST SV Key: W- ' Water -G- Gas • -SS-' Sever -& Water hydrant p Water valve ' . h Washington Natural Gas Company 1122 75th Street S.W:, Everett, Washington 98203'. (206) 355-3331 Whid th cit 0 11 I"AwAstingbnEnergyCanperry N Vatermain depth __?/ : gas main Addendum to: "City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: Marlamne Kingsbury Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 1356-7500 X7596 Key. -V- Water -G- Gas -SS-' Sever e. Water hydrant Water valve Washington Natural Gas Company 1122 75th Street S.W., Everett, Washington 98203', (206) 355-3331 .L.LOCATION.t '_.POLE• N0. PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO.1 .OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY CA REASON FOR ; WORK }�G 1l F1�1 �h1D��i I�l _-DATE WORK COMPLETED FOREMAN FEES- REQID PRIMARY OVERHEAD' ❑ RESIDENTIAL ❑ COMMERCIAL LEO# SECONDARY OVERHEAD BASIC FEE $ METER/CONY. POLE g PRIMARY UNDERGROUND ❑ RESIDENTIAL ❑ COMMERCIAL BASIC FEE $ _ �.__ _ I REv.-7/87 ---',AR A.. DATE ' - (W.O..:NO.r�.. - - ENGINEER OWG: N0. DRAFTER G. N0.' — T SCALE' DATE PRINTED -APPROVED — ENVIRONMENTAL- ANALYSIS ,(�� 1 l^^ i ® EXEMPT ❑NOT EXEMPT SUBSTATION E��iJ YES ❑ NO PARA. 18 ITEM C LEU # ®$ SECONDARY UNDERGROUND BASIC FEE $ UNDERGROUND PLAT BASIC FEE $ _ AFT. ®$$— STREET LIGHTING `tFT. 0S WORK IN RIGHT OF WAY ❑ PRIMARY ❑ SECONADARY tFT.®$_ /= $— MISCELLANEOUS FEES -VAULT $ PERMIT $ TOTAL DUE $ _ DATE PAID RECEIPT# — NEW SVCE APPLICATION# I '1/4- S tz)'-:T 2_ 7 R: -L- L49 O.H. U.G. COND. KV CIRCUIT NO. , PHASE ADD CKT. FT. PH REM CKT. FT. PH NET CKT. FT. O.H. U.G. COND. ___ _ KV ADD CKT. FT. PH REM CKT. FT. PH NET CKT. FT. PERMITS (DATE GRANTED) ❑ TREE TRIM ❑ STATE ❑ COUNTY x CITY E DMONV5 EASEMENTS ❑ REOUIRED J NOT REOUIRED DATE RELEASED FOREIGN CONTACTS ❑ GTNW JPN# ❑ CATV JPN# _ ❑ JOINT TRENCH GTNW do CATV ❑ JOINT BORE GTNW do CATV POLE STENCILING FROM TO __— TAKE OFF POLE PRE—CONSTR. REQUIREMENTS ❑ TREE TRIM ❑ PUD LOCATOR �BACKHOE ❑ FLAGGING ONE CALL DATE # POLES PLAT MXFMR U—MAP C—MAP LOCATION MAP PAGE F . g� � .. .-,. -rgrAuT,,,q Ze, . , . -ems M• ,te.. . fh.; - . r • i••� . -. F .. _ >a -+r^r + ,�.. _ *- °CIt of �$ RIGHT -,OF -WAY CONS4 =RUCTION PERMIT =w Permit,Number: Issue Date: T11 `A, r s A. Address or Vicinity. of Construction: `. _ 1 1..�,?. �,... V Y 18 o B. Type•of:Woik (be specific). �C E,.QC1-1 9:0.19 = C: Contractor: �1.�O�:U 1�r1 � S`� C t)U V '�'t P.M)- ontact: N'- `` n Address: c g1C�� iJ i Phone: 'Maili�' CQ.j ,-State License #: (� Y'1 �5 , W t\ Liability Insurance: Bond: $ 'Building Permit # if aPPlicablSide Sewer Permit l(if applicable): 1 E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project _Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) _ ❑ Multi -Family .�] Single Family ❑ Other ' � INSPECTOR:.. INSPECTOR: �I l �1 . F. Pavement or Concrete Cut: �i Yes ❑No . G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge k1 V APPLICANT TO READ ANDS ; N; - 4�C�LaaPOS�. �t l`" S -4 'INDEMNITY. Applicaaiit�u�nderstaZand by his signature to this application, agreee to ho G'ty of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or cla'"of-any kind or description.tuhatsoever, foreseen or, unforeseen,;that mayrbe,,titade agai t the City of Edmonds;';' t any Qf its.departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including dejen coats, and attorney fees by r�ison ofg�anting`this penmtt. 1 `. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR.n" PEltIOD OF ONE }EAR�OLLOWINA' T"HE 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. Construction drawing.of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 77170220. Work and material is to be,nspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. at Street shall be kept clean at all times. l Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with:City regulations as required by the City Engineer. x t s All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved,16terial prior to the end'bftii;e working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. �y 1 have read the above statements and under and the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit tvill.be 7 available o sit at a L ime for inspe io urposes. 'Signature: Date: (Contractor or Lont) =F CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK OR ,��. �: �.•zx` .. iFOR�CITY'iUSE,�aONL'+Yn�s;a",�F��'�;,��'� ='�i�r r," ,;,3t ..�._r ,'`�•�� ..... emu- rnvr 890 - 19c�v CITY OF EDMO J�EET FILE LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering September 23, 1992 Norman B. Sandler AIA Norman B. Sandler AIA Architects 1000 Lenora, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98212 RE: BERNSTEIN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 15912 75TH PL. W. APPLICATION #410 Dear Mr. Sandler: The City has reviewed your request for permit issuance on the Bernstein residence and the following determination has been made. All permit requirements including the storm water permit from Burlington Northern Railroad and bonding must be approved and or/in place before the City can issue the permit. Per your request the application is extended until next spring anticipating a May construction start. Thank you, 2ine L. Graf Acting Building Official cc: Dr. Gerald Bernstein Scott Snyder, City Attorney JLG/cic r • Incorporoted August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International -- Hekinan, Japan 9 September 1992 City of Edmonds Mr. Robert Chave, Planning Manager 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Dear Mr. Chave, Norman B. Sandler AIA ARCHITECTS .,",,"Architecture ' ,Inferior Design PY,q � 1yg2 �il/p,�'• DEpT • This letter is intended to serve dual purposes relating to the proposed Bernstein Residence at 15912 - 75th Place West. We have been informed that the permitting process and review are finally nearing completion. The only remaining requirement is the City's receipt of the BNR storm water permit. Rita Shaw of the BNR Permit Department is presently preparing the necessary documentation and our office will .forward copies to. the City of Edmonds. With the onset of the Meadowdale .Building moratorium, construction, at its earliest, will begin next spring. Even though construction activity is delayed, we are requesting that the City issue the Bernstein's Building Permit with a condition attached that construction will not begin without the submittal of a Site Restoration Bond and an umbrella liability policy naming the City of Edmonds as the benefactor. To obtain a bond at this time, knowing construction can not begin for at least eight months, places an undue financial burden on the Bernstein. The issuance of the Permit with the bond liability policy condition meets both the City's and the .applicants objectives. The second reason for this letter is to request an extension of the Building Permit Construction window. With the onset of winter and the Meadowdale Moratorium, construction can not and will not start before May 15, 1993. Consequently, we are requesting a six month extension. We aw 't reply to both requests and believe the Bernstein's request with both the seasonal timin�j f the ;4%ratorium as well as the issuance of the affidavit to be reasonable. v 10 w rF' -- Narnlyan B. Sandler AIA Norman B. Sandler AIA Architects NBS/rjb cc. Dr. & Mrs. Gerald Bernstein 206-682-5211 1000 Lenora, Suite 400 Seathe, Washington 98121 OWNERS LIABILITY STATEMENT In consideration of the city of Edmonds issuance of a building permit, covenantors, do hereby covenant with the city of Edmonds, their elected or appointed officials, employees or agents that they will never at any future time sue said city or said designated persons for or on account of any claim for injuries property damages loss of services or support, expenses, costs and general damages that my hereafter occur on or about said premises. Due to errors or omissions that may have remained undetected by the city during permit review and or inspections by the city. Dated this Signed R A T T I S W E N S 0 N P E R B I X C L A R K June 26, 1991 ■ STRUCTURAL DECLARATION E-T F 1 LE STFtE_ RE: Browns Bay Residence We have reviewed the Browns Bay residence drawings. They meet the intent of our structural design (refer enclosed calculations). The residence has been designed to meet soils criteria as described in the Geotech soils report No. JN90054, dated April 6, 1990. RATTI SWENSON PERBIX & CLARK, P.,$. Consulting Engineers enc. A Professional Scrxice Corporation 1.111 41h A,cnuc Building. Suite 500 Se:utle.\\'ashington 98101 Phnnc 20(i014 SfiX7, 1--ax _'ttt) 624 32ti8 LANDSLIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DECLARATION This declaration is in reference to Lots 9 and 10 of Block 29, Plat of Meadowdale Beach. It is of our understanding and acceptance that there is risk in developing the above mentioned lots which lie in an area with potential unstable soils. Furthermore, any prospective purchasers or residential leasees of structures or portions of a structure on the site will be notified of the slide potential of the area. AKUn.U. 'BUT r r 0 • Norman B. Sandler AIA ARCHITECTS 25 June 1991 REQUEST FOR GRADE WAIVER This grade waiver request is in reference to Lots 9 and,10 of Block 29, Plat of Meadowdale Beach. It is our understanding that any roadway grade exceeding 14% requires a waiver. We are requesting a waiver be granted to allow a driveway for the above mentioned property, the maximum grade achieved is 20%. The grade is necessary to provide access to a single family residence which is located at the toe of the slope that descends from 75th Avenue West. Any reduction of the driveway grade would require the garage be at a higher elevation, in doing so the garage would be placed within required zoning set backs. The grade as shown on the site plan is dictated by zoning and 75th Avenue West right of way constraints, therefore, we request a waiver be granted allowing the propose design. 206-682-5211 1000 Lenora, Suite 400 Seattle, Washington 98121 CITY OF EDMONDS USE ZONE PERMIT NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION G. ADDRESS r _ SUiTE,A OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS l �!�Ii_.r) /��/•'7•`- �:-.l�I��/C._/��/ � _ \5I)Z LE AL DESCRIPTION CHECK _.:C": •i� w MAILING ADDRESS SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO 10 �. i % /` �'� 0 TELEPHONE NUMBER PUSLIC RIGHJ OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP ) ' TESCP Approved C RW Permit Required CITY �Ji ZIP% i / EX ISTING O REOUIRED DEDICATION _ Street Use Permit C d PROPOSED ��) Inspection Required Sidewalk Required NAME ^^ /'�r'!-'j% )/'Ir�./ ' :>>I V--/` !L. L:� �1„•.'—l/T !-- (-� /%Y� REMARKS ADDRESS w ADDRESS / f T S.• /i.,..ar %/L�% ��iit:�l� �r-�.lC/%C(� `CITY zip TELEPHONE NUMBER V�i,y:�/LfQr YT/,f-r-C NAME �r Gf. �1%/L�/.L'7 FC �9:..-=Nll.l.Cj I; Jia `CL t< C`� f'ICT%')C 5 ENGINEERING MEMO T )% REVIEW BY CC ADDRESS 7� "�-CQ ��`�. / �/ /• lrl 7 c^J I G- MET Err I Y SIZE NO.OF FIXTURES 2 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER -1 O STATE LICENSE NUMBER C= A L(,I()` Y G $EPA REVIEW ADS NO. Legal Description of Property -- include all easeme ts nLl AL EO PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT z0 (�,•-�"'.^ -� , /o r/(.CG'� �e, !" SNORELINE� / EXPZ•- rVARIANCE %_ �i /a• rcrL\/'•�� "� f� C.: OR CU \ �L�N REVIEW BY 21 DATE _ C��' L� �—dYL Z,,.I '• f T'. SETBACKS — FEET. HEIGHT LOT COV A E FRONT 2 EARZ-'} Zc� -�`y r~ Tax Account Parcel N O Z oo ono / MARK ® Iv v NEW REBID IAL PLUMBING OADOIALTER O COMM MECHANIC ElREPAIR ❑ APT. BL El H ❑ F CE DEMOLISH L. ,1`_ �— CYDS. X_FT) HECK TYPE OF CONSTRUCT( N CODE^ _� X' HEIGHT , 2:54 CARPORT S REMODEL GARAGE SPECIAL INSPECTOR - AREA ••��vv OCCUPANCY�� OCCUPANT REQUIRED YES GROUP LOAD ❑WOOD STOVE O RETAIN ALL/ INSERT ROC RE AL MARKS (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVI E PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 ' n � • aU I/W+ NUMBER OF STORIES N ER OF L UNITSLING �G O DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH AN) ) t" ��: �•L/ S/ `�/< <• `' -A�'' (- /r S FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED Soll f O� /Jy 6 arMo � 3u f� 7 1t. O C%L"i •-c,/r VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE ' SITiargesiml idy CI&Y Slt/d►'JION /°E BUILDING � /!l/ /1 C,%A/'.1/,r/ I — ,V f�iliZl✓b O O PLUMBING �7 V L1 Plan Check No. v MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Z Any Construction on the public domain (curt3, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE SD Permit Application:180 Days UT/ Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days INAGE FEE '— "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns andCTION FEE 3L'UtJ successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and holdG00 w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, Its officials,/employees, and agents from any and all Claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the Issuance DEPOSITmodify, of this permit, Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed toK waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance FNGN i nor limit In any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinanceMOUNT DUE provision."I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that theENTION information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the dulyauthorized APPLICATION APPROVAL agent of the owner. I agree to comply with City andS state laws regulating Construction; and in doing the work authoriz-HORIZES PERMIT This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the LaborLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa.K NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is ti n Insurance. PECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGNATUR (OWNER OrAGENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT III OF I URE QA E Zi G-/�r9 / CITY OF FC:/�m- /v ,SLd EDMONDS 7 ATTENTION CALL FOR RELEASED Y: DATE INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 771_.�,jo.2 UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor It oil ! I V I xdZZ ►N Q S l Q � c'IAAP s W GTT CAP cl 7N1ftJ CIO � 1 � � i• i, I i r r � / f � � z 9cYtY�f=tT�Urr R 61.EV. lOJTUWP- a.v✓.5 fu 130 fl.S 'SI-o r IG-o' �r . vC809'Y�W In o j/ . A �ui �rnlG-4y a.J GPYr11�41_ . . � So't ILF..G�:GTIGAI _ . 0c /FTI GQn7G:-_ J7_7VE_ IF 27 u FF / t �� (• I �' 17 III 1�9� � Ii, �- � / / i r 1 r t �=-'�b1.3: Q�NTIeK'CR TE> V=R1PT or urwrlr� � I�GeQ�D o� 3. E. Gcru.iLit � Mu,oc�ta��..z. srd..D s P+IGx'1 s.G- caar+lert or ritcacm- STREET FIDE V' 77 OF E C-3 V-1-1 E C H AUG ;� 1 CONSUI,'1'AN'TS, INC_ 1.1256 N.E. 20th Ct Way), Sulte 16 (.V r . ff COUNTER Bellme, WA 9F:05 ,1 R � E August 19, 91 (206) 747-56) R RL (206) 343.79 i9 J N 90054 Norman Sandler Architects 1000 Lenora, Suite 402 Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Jed Miller Subject: Geotechnical Response to Literature Review by Rittenhouse -Zeman dated July ll, 1991 Proposed Bernstein Residence 15912 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this letter was prepared to Address those issues raised in the geotechnical review by Rittenhouse -Zeman of the Proposed Bernstein residence to be constructed at 15912 - 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The item numbers used below correspond to the numbers in the RZA letter. (1) The cut-off trench will be excavated to the elevation required to provide positive groundwater control. Stability analyses were conducted for the digging of a typical Cut-off trench, and the analysis indicated the site will remain stable. More important than analyses in our opinion is a recognition by the owner and contractor that our firm will need to be on site during the excavation of the cut-off trench to verify subsurface conditions are anticipated and to allow for changes if different subsurface conditions are encountered. We concur than an approved non -woven geotextile fabric should be wrapped around the drain rock which surrounds the perforated pipe. (2) As we understand it, the structural engineer is modifying the augercast pile diameter to either 18 or 24 inches, whichever is more feasible. We understand the cover requirements to be 1.5 inches, but this item should be checked with the structural engineer. Since the reinforcing is to be a wide -flange beam, it is our opinion that the cover requirements are not applicable. We could have recommended using driven H-piles which would have no concrete cover. b "'. �.. L.— JY'a. (�: Q AUG 2 7 1991 'PERMIT,, COMM Norman Sandler Architects August 19, 1991 JN 90054 Page 2 (3) The analysis of the required temporary slope angle was conducted utilizing triaxial shear data available on the fractured silt from a neighboring lot. Our analysis indicates a 2:1 (H:V) slope is stable. (4) We understand this item has been addressed. See Sheet 20; "Construction Sequence for 2:1 Fill Slope" detail. (5) Our testing and analysis indicate that the developp mcnt, as we understand it and as shown on the plans, will be stable. Thus, we expect the local factor of safety for this lot and the neighboring lots to remain above 1.0 during construction, and we expect the lot to be more stable than it currently is after construction. However, the Meadowdale area is a landslide area, and nothing we do on this- site will stabilize the neighborhood, this.is why we stated that the new structure will be as stable as any in the neighborhood. There is some risk of construction in this neighborhood. The risk has been recognized by the city when the ordinances covering development to the Meadowdale area were passed. The owner/builder must also acknowledge this risk. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. < /<. "349.m Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senio r �O + low SSIUNAI� �w �' F n-Es8 / 17s1C �n ey Jr., P.E. Principal RZARITTENHOUSE-ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical & Environmental Consultants V01M1400140th Avenue N.E. Bellevue, Washington 980054594 (206) 746-80201 FAX (206) 746-6364 11 July 1991 City of Edmonds 250-5th Avenue North Edmonds; Washington 98020 Attention: Ms. Sharon Nolan Subject: Geotechnical Literature Review Proposed Bernstein Single Family Residence 15912-75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Nolan: 0 OUILI)ING JUt z 3 f1 In accordance with your request dated 27 June 1991, we are pleased to present herein our review comments for the geotechnical aspects of the above referenced project. Specific documents provided to us for our review included the following: 1. Geotechnical Engineering Study, Anderson Meadowdale Lot by Geotech Consultants dated 26 April 1990; 2. Plan review/Bernstein residence by Geotech Consultants dated 26 June 1991; 3. Hydrology Report and Calculations, Browns Bay Residence by Norman B. Sandler Architects dated 11 June 1991; 4. City of Edmonds Environmental Checklist prepared May 1991; 5. Declarations, Liability Statement and Request for Grade Waiver for the above referenced project as well as a visit to the site.. The review that we have performed is limited to geotechnical information provided to us by Geotech Consultants in support of this project. The scope of our services is limited to review of the geotechnical information in order to determine whether the submittals were prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. These services were performed in accordance in the City of Edmonds agreement for consulting services dated 6 April 1990. Our review comments contained herein are City of Edmonds 11 July 1991 W-7707 Page 2 related to the City of Edmonds Geotechnical Report guidelines. The following specific comments relate to the materials provided to us and are based upon the geotechnical requirements of the City of Edmonds (Ordinance 2661) and the Earth Subsidence/Landslide Hazard Submittal Checklist. In general, the geotechnical information provided to us appears to have addressed most of the issues presented on the Earth Subsidence/Landslide Hazard Submittal Checklist. However, we have prepared some comments based on the materials provided to us for review. 1.. Groundwater. was _ encountered in test . pit TP-1 approximately 4 feet beneath the existing ground surface or approximately elevation 54 feet. The recommended french drain or cutoff trench system to the east of test pit TP-1 only. extends down to approximately elevation 55.5 feet. It appears that if a cutoff trench is to be installed, it should be installed deep enough to intercept seepage encountered at the time of exploration. If a cutoff trench is constructed along the perimeter sides of the site, it appears that some of the trench will be deeper than 4 feet, in which case, the use of a slip box would be required unless the trench slopes were laid back to a safe inclination. In our opinion, the stability of the upslope portion of the site and that portion of 75th Avenue West should be analyzed for stability conditions during construction and afterwards. Typically, drainage materials placed in cutoff trenches or french drains are wrapped with filter fabric to minimize clogging with fine grained soils in the future. 2. It appears that the house will be supported by 16 and 20 inch diameter augercast piles. Where 20 inch diameter AC piles are installed, W14 x 38 steel beams will be used for reinforcement. The longest cross -sectional dimension of a W14x 38 beam is approximately 15.65 inches. Therefore the concrete protection cover will only be approximately 2.1 inches, if installed correctly. It appears that 3 inches of concrete cover has been specified in the drawings provided to us, thereby requiring a larger diameter concrete AC pile. 3. Soft, wet, fractured silt was encountered in boring B-1 and TP-3 between elevations 41 to 45 feet and 42 to 45 feet, respectively. It appears that the excavation for the residence will extend slightly below elevation 44 feet and intercept the fractured silts. We recommend that the geotechnical engineer review his 2H:1 V temporary construction slopes with respect to stability using residual strength parameters of the fractured silts. City of Edmonds 11 July 1991 W-7707 Page 3 Typically, residual strength values for cohesion and friction angle are 0 and 12 to 1-5 degrees, respectively, in similar soil deposits. Temporary slope stability should be analyzed, and redesigned if necessary to meet City of Edmonds guidelines. 4. The geotech report recommends that permanent cut and fill slopes should not exceed 3H:1 V. . However, sheet 2A of the design drawings shows a 2H:1 V permanent slope above a rockery on the rockery detail, and does not conform to the maximum recommended slope angle. 5. The statement on page 4 of the report, that "It is our opinion that this lot, if developed in accordance with the recommendations herein, will result in a structure that is as stable as any in the neighborhood" should be clarified. The City requirements should be adhered to for presentation of factors of safety regarding slope stability. The stability of near -surface fills and fractured silt on this site is of potentially greater concern than the stability of the area -wide Meadowdale slide. The potential effects of creep or failure of the fills or the foundations should be addressed. • City of Edmonds 11 July 1991 W-7707 Page 4 We recommend that Geotech Consultants review and comment on the items presented above. It appears that the remainder of the items on the City of Edmonds, Earth Subsidence/Landslide Hazard Submittal Checklist have . been addressed in the geotechnical engineering study report, plan review and design drawings in general accordance with accepted geotechnical engineering practices. We appreciate being of continued service to. you on these review projects and we would be pleased to discuss the contents of this -letter with you at your convenience. Respectfully Submitted, RITTENHOUSE-ZEMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ,,- �-� C'; � r 4 4 - _. Thomas A. Jones Project Engineer f < John E. Zipper, P. Associate (, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 33256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 Norman Sandler Architects 1000 Lenora, Suite 402 Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Jed Miller SUN 2 7 PERMIT COUNTER June 26, 1991 JN 90054 Subject: Plan Review/Bernstein Residence North of Meadowdale Road on 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this office has reviewed the plans for the Bernstein residence (Brown Bay Residence) prepared by Norman Sandler Architects (NSA) and Group Four, Inc. Sheets 0, 1, and 3 through 17 were undated and prepared by NSA. Sheets 2A►, 215, 2c, and 20 were prepared by Group Four, Inc., and were dated June, 1991. The following are our comments: I. The location of Test Pits 3 and 4 are not shown on Sheets 2A,and 2e,, 2. The Rockery Wall Section on Sheet 2p�should be modified to show the 1:1 (H:V) influence line extending from the back (not the face) of the lowest rockery rock. 3. The filter fabric mentioned in the above Rockery Wall Section should be specified as an approved nonwoven geotextile fabric. 4. No. 18 of the Roadway and Drainage specifications on Sheet 2p should be rewritten as follows: "Rock or concrete retaining walls may be required depending upon final slopes and encountered conditions. All retaining walls are to be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer during both design and construction." 5. We recommend the construction sequence on Sheet 2 p be iterchanging steps 5 and 6. r ' R Norman Sandler Architects JN 90054 June 26, 1991 Page 2 6. The cut sections on Sheet 10 do not show the wall backfill extending up the walls as directed in paragraph 12 on Sheet 15. Also in paragraph 12, the restrained pressures are 50 pcf and 100 psf across the face of the wall. 7. We recommend that all the western perimeter piers have a 25 foot wl4x38 wide flange beam (4 piers). Provided these discrepancies are corrected, it is our opinion that the plans and specifications do conform to the recommendations in our geotechnical report, and that the risk of damage to the proposed development, or to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in the report. It is our opinion the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. If there are any questions, service, please contact us. MKD:JRF:cka or if we can be of further Respectfully submitted, GE'OTTE'�CH CONSULTANT`S, INC. Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer 'P1 7 � James R. Finley Jr., P.E. Principal 15 q12- -7s CITY OF EDMONDS � PROJECT NAME*M'say ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DATE SUBMITTED The information on this form will be used to determine the effect of your action upon he environment of the City of Edmonds. Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible. 1. LAND STREET FILE Area.,, Meadowdale Soils Type Class 4 Limitations See Soils Report Description of topography (% slope) 1 Note•. If grading or filling will exceed Grading: Estimated cubic yards -1700 500 cubic yards, a grading & Filling: Estimated cubic yards -14A filling plan must be submitted with the application Estimated area to be paved (including buildings) 7536 Estimated area in open space (previous surface) 11655 pervious 2. WATER Stream - Estimated flow (cubic feet per second) (NA) Will stream be altered? (NA)— If yes, to what degree/ (NA) Other water bodies? p„gPt. Impact on storm drainage YeS Method of handling runoff use d,tenfirn s)rstAm than flow to rm1vPrt under Burlington R.R. to Puget Sound. Adjacent to shorelines zone? yes Within 200 fee of MHHW? Yes 3. VEGETATION Type and approximate number of trees 2 - 12,, willows Minimum diameter of trees to remain 121, % of trees to be removed 0 Groundcover Brush % to be removed 90 % Proposed lan scaping, if any project will be professionally landscaped 4. EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN 300 FEET RADIUS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Single Multi - Vacant Family Family Commercial Other North X South X East X West Water 5. CIRCULATION `A Estimated increase in auto trips daily Availability of public transportation No (r6mmunity transit - 353-7433) AREA OF IMPACT Neighborhood X City-wide EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY Negligable CHANGES IN NOISE GENERATION Negligable Two to Four Regional 04/17/89 ENVIRON/TXTMB061 EVIEW D BY:.(l nitial/Da e) ` » ' WATER <' .......... ...: COMMENTS< :. FIRE --PLAN.; BLDG SEWER ..... STREE .ENG. JO • {1?' ' �i• ;j+,;>, X::$:JJJ:�{J:{.�{S'`. Sa:j?iii Con-ditiona',-Use ,��y 9jp ":. 4.C`j$$:i::•:i }Q• '�yA::Jry.;:,»t+U•{..4}� -0RkdSS�3UYSi®\v�yv'\}� i''1':{:��i L'ii�tiVi:;�'i(;}iNJ..A'6Y •5'lA'�>�{i�t,�Yi'�3'�YdC J��, {�%iK'i2'v:(t{•' C.. TK;:n $;:!:r�:CJi1;Jt}:i J>'Lj•+� 1;.2MV.UA+�(>+P{ 2��' *'.i8o4i;H`�z®%{tom{:<�:�z:�i:ir •!i{}.wsx2cA'{.vF,>nc�te. ,'^,,.,.?2��•, 2Y A:4:{•»:R+:(a':�:i:;2:: ®:�i::::$< ';�;5:;�;'' s:: �:isf•.tn.:.: ij: c;:4?:+}'i':.•i>,. nd Wiring Required ;4•tt{4�,SM;;,v{v.'�; sxrx, 4y.;.}M,x;;»,..;4,}y;<+irr}:h,::,,�;::;ct�:{! �`'A,'Y�'8 ;p'f•;:5$$';: .:, z'%"+!i%lairs:+s. t{ � l Plat/Subdivision Requirembnts,-� yy{(Av+_ri�ti.Xn)4:•Jti{.}}}; n:. }}:{{.:{.;.>}i}:t iiv:{d:{� „{.,y7yA £',v.i.,; :.:;y.....::'::;:;;ids:.:;:;:;•::.�...,,,n $f}i;i�$%±M.}} ..'1.•:Jf�i$n �&Aeet Dedications vn� �. xo saJax�u 5 :r>aL>$ $ � ?ip..•: Rom'.:;. y". ::. 2p4}>7t4>;s: ... ,..L '.G,.?.�;tY.a a l i:: i JS3wwk'd �e//� `; r • � }JX @7S?V:d2J�;3:::}� �af:;:>v.:.JF.{{:2}}}:{• }^:>+? a:t:�;+::<'.•;: _ sR•,G :;:'..'.�.;.5...r.'f.i:as:a$$:;ad$'c :; <a;: r b'Craecl4.Lxt,}.>' ep-,'*a>yi`L'iw3: sss:4 s. .,:: s 4,saii° ',v; • • • • • •S!'8:J}4�??Y,.;fn;./#,.J''y�.'.•,�\.+:•,�v., ,:.{x!�?�;Av;;!;Y..:::v. C.v.. >,>'..nf, F<}•.}.'•:i$>v>>;•}v k4n!y;:•: $ii::.i.. ... :::: iJ:�!r �:'��:„�{ ::i:'/,,: :i:.l'r%v: Ar Setback, Storm Drain .........'•,:'. c{.:;:::..•:::,+.:.:nis::<.s:.:v:.s:::: {;:2.}:•}:{:}J' .�•::. �2't�&,Y:Lr•Jr',:{c'v)d wx,�;2 a,.; �:s. '4sr`C �: i:'v:�.. $iw:::':•''$:2>.:: }_R•fnr�d?a.. b d.y �JX..Xu.'u>i,4.i'G'.N'6::»L>:.::o»A iw $:>iN.::$J{:$:::::•r� ' Require-d, .SY.{.$:}tw{Ki..w,ti::{{.��.>•x.v.?$$�{.;J:{�}i::YY,:,.';Culvert :;::J':: Culvert Size i.;`(.t::M1;u{$x{{n:•i:•: S:{•:{.:n J::{.4;ti: t. �.{.::..: '+.vmom .:'�+$'ri j'•:;'n4T:4K?';424.;:!?!:i45:.`r 4'`....`..v:'%?;'...... .� _ Catch Basin • • w,r..:+.?.y�.<5v7:;5:•;>;y!},,..:iiii''.`.:a ,� sL } h 2 A. f//�� 2Ri•.'•!; n{2$�F-3>3.''%#:»wa<:'t ®?�'s<'>•'$;"s�:fs>'$:�ra>:�iirr. �I_�/� '�$$;�•r{2{2.$}:4Nf I J �/ � Ir L!.7L71 :Curb & Gutter Required now • I r • • s1 x;4L:.'+ry}s:'.ci,':}{:;:f:;;.;.!�,.:,54. Street • • • uired .9i'�s+i,Y;',$::t: .WI WI,IStreet Name Sign Required �A •J::.A v i.{: Other Signing Required Jt:v ,.tCPPJSi2A'.>fyser}+>^��Vo;?a A6Y.4}: �$:L:N+Wri4n4.:i: �ii • • { >\!. air: `'f:'i{,a h{'9.4 'Side Sewer Availability :Create Street File - �Existing Water Main Size �Il l Water Meter Size Service Line Size, Mn e> ChargeWater Meter . . -us==. OI • . 1m rH—y. R ".uired ------- Hydrant Size Existing Fire Line Charge Reguired - SprinklerStreet Cut Miscellaneous Reviewed By: FIRE PLANNING ENGIN t:f UEIC WORKS 3 7 PLAN CK # w DATE: ::;After review4of the subjedt permit application, the following requirements mustbe met. ;t 1 . Construction hours are -,WEEKDAYS ...... .., .7:00 A.M.-10:00 P.M. WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS.....10:00 A.M -6 00 P M.. , 2 A separate RIGHT-0F•,WAY Construction Permit is'required for all work on Publicproperty. (ECDC 18.60) 1Truck haul�oute plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance r x4 Builder/Owner U-responsible fo'r containing alltemporary runoff and erosion control on site. (ECDC 18.30.030d) ~NO:N'ORK sHALL:BE DONE .WITIIINIS.FBBT OF.STRSAMS OR 10 FEET FROMANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACIL- ITY sBUILDfiR%OWNER IS REPSONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING "CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING.- (ECDC 18.30.50G) 6 ;,FILTER FABRIC,FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTR UCTION r (ECDC 18.30)t k' 7: INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE. SYSTEMS, TIGHTLINES, FOUNDATION DRAINS, AND ',',CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. 'INSPECTIONS;"ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30) ;, � •'';h)7t�+e> "Pn; "tK �y;a �?,r i .;. } _-.. _ °c 7 � _ _ .. .v .. .• i:; .. . _.: .;. _., _ `.., f .�, t . 8 ; Repair or replace all defective existing curb,' gutter, and sidev6lk adjacent`to the property. ,If an intersection is involved a handica u p ramp, may ,bs"required ;Contractor shallmeet with the City Engineering Staff to determine the extent :of repair prior to issuance'of the permit (ECDC 18.90) R d ; 9 Driveway.slope`shall not exceed 14 9b without a waiver: Every -attempt should be made to keep the slope below 149b Waiver granted to G!7 % (ECDC 18.80.060D) 10. ` Driveways must be paved, from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate perimit is required. (ECDC 18.80.060C) 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQURZED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 18.30) t 12. No burning of construction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. 13. Connection to City water system is required. There is.a separate charge for the water meter. (ECDC 7.30) . 14. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) 15. Water and sewer mainlines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 16. Connec�}i�o the City sanitary system is required. A separate permit is uired. LID# /CC�rJJ Fees paid: Yes r/ No Charge (ECDC 18.10) 17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction; and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50 % of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.05.010) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCU- PANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) I?. 20. STREET FILE PLAN CK # w DATE: ::;After review4of the subjedt permit application, the following requirements mustbe met. ;t 1 . Construction hours are -,WEEKDAYS ...... .., .7:00 A.M.-10:00 P.M. WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS.....10:00 A.M -6 00 P M.. , 2 A separate RIGHT-0F•,WAY Construction Permit is'required for all work on Publicproperty. (ECDC 18.60) 1Truck haul�oute plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance r x4 Builder/Owner U-responsible fo'r containing alltemporary runoff and erosion control on site. (ECDC 18.30.030d) ~NO:N'ORK sHALL:BE DONE .WITIIINIS.FBBT OF.STRSAMS OR 10 FEET FROMANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACIL- ITY sBUILDfiR%OWNER IS REPSONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING "CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING.- (ECDC 18.30.50G) 6 ;,FILTER FABRIC,FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTR UCTION r (ECDC 18.30)t k' 7: INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE. SYSTEMS, TIGHTLINES, FOUNDATION DRAINS, AND ',',CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. 'INSPECTIONS;"ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30) ;, � •'';h)7t�+e> "Pn; "tK �y;a �?,r i .;. } _-.. _ °c 7 � _ _ .. .v .. .• i:; .. . _.: .;. _., _ `.., f .�, t . 8 ; Repair or replace all defective existing curb,' gutter, and sidev6lk adjacent`to the property. ,If an intersection is involved a handica u p ramp, may ,bs"required ;Contractor shallmeet with the City Engineering Staff to determine the extent :of repair prior to issuance'of the permit (ECDC 18.90) R d ; 9 Driveway.slope`shall not exceed 14 9b without a waiver: Every -attempt should be made to keep the slope below 149b Waiver granted to G!7 % (ECDC 18.80.060D) 10. ` Driveways must be paved, from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate perimit is required. (ECDC 18.80.060C) 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQURZED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 18.30) t 12. No burning of construction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. 13. Connection to City water system is required. There is.a separate charge for the water meter. (ECDC 7.30) . 14. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) 15. Water and sewer mainlines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 16. Connec�}i�o the City sanitary system is required. A separate permit is uired. LID# /CC�rJJ Fees paid: Yes r/ No Charge (ECDC 18.10) 17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction; and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50 % of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.05.010) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCU- PANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) I?. 20. STREET FILE GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 `{ � } ,I n I 1 Rhonda Anderson Box 3302 Seward, Alaska 99664 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Anderson Meadowdale Lot Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Anderson: RECIEIVIED FEB 1 0 1995 PEPMIT COUNTER`_ April 6, 1990 JN 90054. We are pleased to present this preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the your lot in the Meadowdale Area of Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site - conditions and provide preliminary earthwork and foundation design criteria. The work was authorized by your acceptance of our confirmation proposal dated February 22, 1990. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with four test pits and two test borings. We found the site to be underlain by four to more than twelve feet of loose, sands, fractured silts and fill soils. These surficial soils are not suitable to provide bearing for a typical single-family residence. Below these unacceptable soils our explorations encountered medium -dense sands and relatively competent silts and clays. A home could utilize a rigid grid foundation bearing on the competent soils below the loose surficial soils. However, this option will involve relatively deep excavations. Alternatively, we recommend that the foundation can consist of drilled concrete piers reinforced with steel. A concern with excavating the loose material is the stability of the side slopes. We recommend a deep cutoff trench be dug along the east and north sides of the site prior to excavation to dewater the subsurface. Even after dewatering, we expect that temporary slopes along the north and east sides of the lot will be unstable at a slope steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page Two The attached report contains the results of our study and recommendations. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted,. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This report represents the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the Anderson Lot in Edmonds, Washington. The property is the second lot on the west side of 75th Place West north of the intersection of 75th' Place West and Meadowdale Road. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Based on preliminary information furnished to us, we anticipate that the single-family residence will consist of a large 4000. to 5000 square foot, lightly loaded home with a daylight basement. We anticipate the first level of the home to be near existing grades. Development of the property is in 'the planning stage, therefore, only conceptual information was available to us. The site plan given to us included the property boundaries but no topographic information. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The property is located in north Edmonds, in the Meadowdale Community. The lot resembles a slightly skewed rectangle, with dimensions of about 110 feet by 176 feet. The lot slopes generally to the west. The flatter area of the lot, where the home will probably be located, is about ten feet below the elevation of the adjacent porti.on of 75th Place West. Much of the vegetation on the flatter portion of the property has been cleared. Although the lots on either side of this property are undeveloped at this time, we anticipate that single-family residences will be constructed within a relatively short time. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by four test pits and two borings at the approximate locations shown on the Soils GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 JN 90054 Page 2 Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was - based upon the anticipated construction, the required design criteria, subsurface conditions revealed during excavation and drilling, the scope of work outlined in our confirmation proposal, and time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on December 20, 1989 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Clifton Backhoe Service. The borings were drilled on March 7, 1990, using a truck -mounted hollow -stem auger drill owned and operated by Drilling Unlimited. Samples were taken during drilling at five (5) foot intervals using a standard penetration sampler. This two-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler is driven into the soil with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits and test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Boring Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 and 4. The Test Pit Logs are attached as Plates 5 through 8. Test Pit 1 and Boring 2 were placed near the northeast corner of the anticipated building site. At this location our explorations encountered approximately eleven feet of variable soft loose fill soils below existing grades. It is our understanding that a ravine formerly existed at the approximate location of the property's northern boundary. The fill was placed to fill the ravine. Below the fill soils were layers of silt and sand that were firm to medium -dense. From 18.5 to 27.0 feet below existing gradesm, Boring 2 encountered a medium-stiff'to stiff silt underlain by a five-foot layer of hard clay. The boring encountered and terminated in a stiff clayey silt from thirty-two to thirty-four feet below existing grades. Test Pit 2 was placed near the southeast corner of the anticipated building area. At this location, four feet of loose to medium -dense sand and silt overlie a two -foot -thick layer of firm silt. From six to twelve feet, where the test pit was terminated, a medium -dense sandy silt to silty sand with occasional cobbles was encountered. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 3 Test Pit 3 and Boring 1 were placed at the location of the anticipated northwest corner of the building area. These explorations encountered six to nine feet of loose sandy silt to silty sand with layers of wood, overlying an approximate four -foot -thick layer of fractured silt. Loose to medium - dense sands with variable amounts of silt were encountered from twelve to twenty feet in depth. Below the sands was- a nine foot layer of medium -stiff clayey silt. At twenty-seven feet below existing grades, the test boring encountered a hard silty clay. ' The boring terminated in the clay at thirty-nine feet below existing grades. Test Pit 4 was excavated near the anticipated southwest corner of the building area. At this location we encountered four feet of loose sand with silt underlain by four feet of loose medium -grained sand. Test Pit 4 encountered a loose to medium -dense silty sand with gravel and occasional cobbles from 8.0 to 12.5 feet, where Test Pit 4 was terminated. The f.inal logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types; _in actuality, the transition may be gradual. . The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit/ boring logs are interpretative descriptions based on the conditions observed during the excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at the locations tested. GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of four feet in Test Pit 1, and the groundwater level was near seventeen feet in both borings during drilling. The test pits and borings were left open only for a short time period, therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not be the location of the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL It is our opinion that the project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The home can- utilize GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 4 rigid grid foundations bearing on competent medium -dense native soil's. We estimate these soils can be found at approximately six to fifteen feet below existing grades. Alternatively, the proposed home can utilize a drilled pier foundation. The final grades for the lot should be near or below existing grades, requiring only minor amounts of cuts or fills. It is also our opinion that drilled piers are the most feasible foundation system because the surficial soils are loose; therefore temporary and final cut slopes should be cut no steeper than 2:1 and 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), respec- tively. An excavation for the rigid grid foundation could be extensive and may require shoring and/or temporary construction easements from your neighbors. However, if the lot is.developed in a manner which takes into account the subsurface conditions, a rigid grid foundation may be workable. One possible method of development which would mitigate excavation problems would be to put a daylight basement structure on the lot with the garage being placed near the location of Test Pit 2 (southeast corner of the building area). It is also important to adequately design for the control of the surface and subsurface groundwater flows. Control measures must be in place both during and after construction of the home. Excavation and foundation work on the site should be limited to the drier months of the year. The Meadowdale area has been identified as an old landslide area. The entire neighborhood is at risk if even a moderate earthquake event occurs in the immediate area. it is our opinion that this lot, if developed in -accordance with the recommendations.herein, will result in a structure that is as stable as any in the neighborhood. We recommend a topographic survey be completed for the lot. This will allow comparison between the current grades and proposed grades. Geotech Consultants Inc. should be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they are developed to verify site specific subsurface requirements are met. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 DRILLED PIER FOUNDATIONS JN 90054 Page 5 The structure should be supported on minimum sixteen -inch - diameter steel -reinforced augercast piers. Augercast piers should be installed with continuous flight hollow -stem auger equipment. This method involves the pumping of concrete through the hollow -stem auger equipment during extraction of the auger.. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as it is withdrawn. The rate of withdrawl should not exceed nine feet per minute. The grout pressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 -to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be calculated. ' For,a sixteen (16) inch diameter pier with a minimum of fifteen feet of penetration into the competent native soils below the fractured material and the loose soils, an allowable capacity of twenty (20) tons may be assumed. Piers should be placed no closer than three pier diameters, center to center. For wind or seismic loads, the allowable load can be increased by one-third.. We can provide design criteria for different pier diameters and embedment lengths if greater capacities are required. Based on our fieldwork, we estimate total pier lengths of twenty-five to thirty-five feet will be required to assure adequate penetration into the bearing soil. Piers should be reinforced their entire length with steel H beams. The thickness and dimensions of the beam should be designed to withstand an active pressure of fifty (50) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting over the top fifteen (15) feet of the pier. The point of fixity of the pier can be assumed to be fifteen feet below existing grades or at the interface of the competent soil. Below this depth, the overturning pressures are resisted by passive pressures acting over two times the pier diameter. The passive pressures can be assumed to be two -hundred -fifty (250) pcf. We estimate that total settlement of single piers will be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. We estimate differential settlements over the structure should be less than one-half inch. Geotech Consultants Inc. personnel should be on -site to observe augercast pier installation. As the completed piers below ground cannot be observed and tested, it is important to have a qualified person on site who can decide when the piers are deep enough and will understand the impacts of contactor variance from the specifications. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 RIGID GRID FOUNDATIONS JN 90054 Page 6 The proposed structure may be supported on a rigid mat foundation. The mat can consist of a reinforced, two-way beam and slab set on a minimum of one foot of compacted structural fill built up from medium -dense competent native soil. The other alternative is to construct the rigid foundation using grade beams bearing on competent native soil. Overexcavation of fill and loose native soils below the mat will be required. Fill placed under the mat should extend outwards from the edge at least a distance equal to the depth of fill underneath the mat. The mat should be designed in such a manner that ten feet of the mat in any direction could sit unsupported. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total settlement of the mat founded as recommended will be about three-quarters of an inch, with negligible differential settlements. Almost all settlement due to dead loads from the building structure should occur during construction. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must either be poured "neat" against the existing soil or the wall backfill must be compacted structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed native soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid having a density of two hundred fifty (250) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS We recommend that concrete slabs be placed over competent native medium -dense soils. The garage slab, if placed atop looser soils, should be placed on a minimum of two feet of quarry spalls. Even then, there is an increased risk of differential settlements and cracking. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control -and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. Saw cuts or preformed strip joints, used to control shrinkage cracking, should extend through the upper one-fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints is a function of the amount of steel placed in the slab.. Reducing the water/cement ratio of the concrete and curing of the concrete by preventing evaporation of free water until cement hydration occurs will also reduce shrinkage cracking. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 7 A 6-mil polyethylene plastic vapor barrier should be used under floors likely to receive an impermeable floor finish or where passage of water vapor through the floor is undesirable. Based on American Concrete Institute recommendations, we suggest placing a two to three-inch layer of sand over the vapor barrier to protect the vapor barrier and to allow some moisture loss through the bottom of the slab to reduce warping in the curing process. Sand should be used to aid in the fine grading process of the subgrade to provide uniform support under the slab. PERMANENT RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. The following recommendations are for walls less than twelve feet high which restrain level backfill: Parameter DesignValue Active Earth Pressure* 50 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Soil Unit Weight 125, pcf Where: 1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2) Active and Passive Earth Pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. * For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100) psf should_ be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are ultimate values. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The resultant force, which can be determined by taking moments about the toe of the wall while neglecting the passive pressure force, should pass through the middle third of the footing. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 8 The above design values also do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. In addition, construction equipment should not operate within a prism defined by a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) line extending from the back end of the footing to the retained soil behind the structure. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free -draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. Alternatively, a geotextile drainage product such as Miradrain or Enkadrain may be used. Compaction of backfill behind 'the retaining wall should utilize methods which will not damage the wall. The purpose of the backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Where the backfill is to support walks or other slabs, we recommend that the backfill consist of clean sand and gravel as this soil would be easier to compact in the excavation prism than siltier soils. Also, these soils will provide drainage behind the wall. The top foot to eighteen inches of the backfill should consist of a relatively.impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. SITE DRAINAGE We recommend" the use of footing drains at the base of all footings and earth retaining walls. Roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed rock. The rock should be wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perfor- ated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and/or crawl space and it should be sloped for drainage. A typical footing drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 11. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 9 The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into the soils. The slopes should be covered with plastic. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. Groundwater was observed during our field work at depths of seventeen feet in both test borings. Seepage was noted in Test Pit 1 at four feet below existing grades. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and if encountered, the water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe or French drains; or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should slopes be cut steeper than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet in unsaturated soils may be attempted vertical. For slopes having a 'height greater than four (4) feet in the loose surficial layers, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. It should be noted that the sands do cave -suddenly and without warning. utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cut slopes into the loose surficial soils should have a final maximum slope less than 3:1 (H:V). Cuts in the native dense soils should be inclined no steeper than 1.5:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 3:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes shou,ld be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 10 SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK The first step to beginning site preparation is to install a french drain on the south, east, and north sides of the site. The french drain should be installed in a manner that allows for the capture of surface and shallow -subsurface flows. The next step is to strip and clear the building and -pavement areas of all surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or, if desired, stockpiled for later use in landscaping. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings,, pavements, walkways, or other areas where the underlying soils need to support loads. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should observe site conditions during excavation. The surficial site soils are moisture -sensitive and.can become soft when wet and disturbed. We recommend the site prepara- tion and earthwork be performed in the normally dry season of the year when earthwork would generally be less expensive and require less effort. Structural fill under floor slabs and foundations, if required, should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks and behind walls should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95.percent of maximum density. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed eight (8) inches in loose thickness. Ideally, structural fill which is placed on this project should consist of a granular soil having no more than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The percentage of particles passing the 200 sieve should be measured on that portion of the soil passing the three-quarter inch sieve. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 LIMITATIONS JN 90054 Page 11 The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soils encountered in the test borings and test pits -are representative of the subsurface conditions of the site. If, during construction, subsurface conditions are found which are significantly different from those observed in the borings and test pits, or assumed to exist in the excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in borings or test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional' expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Rhonda Anderson and her representatives. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and project specifications. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 JN 90054 Page 12 It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations. for design changes in'the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work will not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. IAlso, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. We recommend that a representative of our firm be present during placement of structural fill to observe the process and to conduct density tests in the fill. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Plate 2 Plates 3 - 8 Plates 9 - 10 Plate 11 i • f • �3TEO �ti�►AL E�� Attachments cc: Seawood Homes , I ric . , Attn: Lee Atherton Vicinity Map Soils Exploration Plan Test Pit/Boring Logs Grain Size Analysis Footing Drain Detail Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. Pri nci.pal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. m �L, " I T F c _y; > 1 1ST ST SW ¢ > 14 ND I U s' LAKE I.- 1142ND PL SW a 3 H7N0 y Q I = Q Q r y SERENE L7 1143RD S73 �' • rs = 3 t-3 0 ST SW I e~ I 143RD3; 3 ST iA SW 2 144TH PL SW 144TH ST Qti5t��a; SW Q lel' I 87 3 gc Sk <a o 3 SW = � � tuTH O > > I r d g-, a z ° TH SW �y a ars`' Pl SW c Q ld !a�}a § 145 H PL SW x a ? H °srH I PUGET RMA B�ACN46-,,A st Sw 5V XI T PL ;W1�H�STSW I j �3PL pw PL SW 146THIPL NORM EACH < x411H i� a 14 H5T x> m ST 3.a TH =PL SW SW SW 1 _ w 02< " - t4eTH - SOUND T I>IRO # " 74 3 P 48TH 149TH NORMA BEACH RD 1 FISHE R —�90 > > 149T 3 PIL sw sw ST I 149TH PL SW > 1 TH PL rl S r 150 H PL SW - - 3 Q _ 151ST_ I!$I ?� W i5QT11- PL ;Ltr STS>1t rs z 3 3 xa ; m,—ST .: �3 FSW Ql r...� :--••--•! '� 152ND STH �� a SW a oPL Sw �d 152ND3 ' ST a o _ = 3 x 152N ; .;: L" "=:`:'•".'' :! 31 I g~ S 153RD ST 3 a rT........_., I > J 4'13 F o� a y PL SW L1^1 •-:�.:..; ... ...; :. Y 153bD PL SW ao 153R PL SW 3 S/TH Q ( L� I3 ql {,t.:};::..C..,,,': j E• ,^:;ti I O In 15 TH I = L W 156TH ST ...,t' •;.•:':i �':::::::I > N PLSW o. > SW i 156TH L'...-r�SW'_;�: 156TH Q ST " SW Q 3 156TH STI MEADO �7TH f ;:.'e,MEADQWDALE'•'`•i 3 ,Q 3 157TH ST 3 1- = (OAK RDI SW �r BEACH.r: 'I $ 3 LJ sw SW 1 MOTH ST i•>1' nwov, PL .� .� 2H57TI-1 PL SW a F- I �'TE $i P- Ja a = 01 o H PL SW I 99 I LAa( GTON o f - r I __ x 3: ~ ( z J 3 I I WHARF 3 / w_ - 60TH51 a - - - sw 3 3 ` ° < i as 161ST PL Svi KEELE tszND F IPL sw I F . -� yy•�•� 63R0 ST 3iSW i � 163 D PL SVI C O R N �'1.1 �r 164TH 1 ST f AI sw W 3 a I 3164TH _ I 1 ST a j 3 C F 3 3> 164�1> PL H1 PL > • SW �y I ^ •''�"::.. r R i$ < oon PLSI l_ O t66TH k, Q I L fZ m�L?�3�MA�0 i c 3 16dT BEV RLY LSw 3 s W. gL SIN A 68TH ST SW /lM9 H D Lyo..-II_ - l -3�3 i - M_EADO►VVDALf Q t PLIH Sw. H ST SW I SIB 'Pp0 u f y IL'_I I` p M� I�iS P1L6 11H1 1��p/sp T o o I TtATH = _ k sw 170TH PL SW $I$ t7 H PL ST r t PL I sw ,5 P x 3w 172ND1 ST t1 d 172ND Q 6 a 171ST 1 alai 3 �a 7 N T SW I / ~ 1 )73R n 3 e'p I '173Ro�C STI Wn et °* tnNOST 172N P 9 I 172ND ST SW m H p ST y 9 I�P�/ 7sa°SW # • I 174TUT Q n s 174 N S i a� sw i w 1 x 3 I PL �•' T n t T =/ '� I a~o ' n a:17STH O> �' �i'sra<�>"I� " 1 ST = Z V F`SW� 1 < ST 3 7ii 1'1' /- �' CV m PO 17 TH •' 176TH PL V Z 2 176TH ST OUN(i / Z sw 3� I� 3 3 3 i ; z 3IStIT 178tH PL SW F $ LY�I 17>r �'N 7 PL SV 17TTH T IN m _ a 1» 1 H I ST SW lit �� a 17771 ! 1 TH y> 797W <d� 7 IH I e SNP /SN—IT78TN Pl ' �P-L E v- — - ° _ _ sw l S 180TH.~ ST SW ' e 31� �RSTNN Q 0 NsI sw I Q� r TH I Q 1P SW a a 179T ST S, °{ t 1 S po t w> 1 g 3 ST 18 ST P SW < F; W oTH 3 180TH Q t 182ND Ft 82N T Q SW 81ST PLW / r° 1 JS a� 1815 SW PL SW AQ" ; Iy E>� 183 D PL MR vs 56 LKfNS/NQ > P SW M PIO�'r t/ <> � L y 1821+ID a $ a PL 4W 3 3 ; �p� : a° �Z / ' 1 La °3 S� W _ 1 RO PL w 1sLTH 18 Pt t63Rp ST SN rIL ^ ^ L THN T � 184TH ST W 184TH PL,.; sr sw gly f •j n P ITT > IMTN K I . t TH SNAKE) >-< f v t Q = p !'r.PK:::; _ ST RD RAl1 ! sr 3 ,� 3 = 3 r = 188 H T = I j3 85THI- : PL = _ { :;:.:' ,' # 186TH ST bW Ic f. H< 6 €$ f" 1 H i- I II N 186TH sL w 1 8fd -� aP� Wt$I 188TH- .. ST-3W41; IR r ~ : 1 SIV lw rHI ofi(i �yLYNND�A f;: =3 i89TH. PENNY LNPL SW 1 TH PL SIN #tBBTH T H# 'j( S a > fS t88TH PL 188TH PLs; Oy 9 190TH3 < 3Q.�>tl T ^5 I t99T Q P asi3 Q THSPL I i 1 1ST S S`N a 1915 PLL 1� 191ST iwP�irlr!;r3 TH tt" T w T F 191ST IS l :.: /:r.... t1':e P4 SW' �°A x ST'S '� ST 191ST ST 190 I PlS Sl W c Z 192N0 �i /ct : ST SW ag1F z wv I f, 1ST SW T wT S LV _. A. pc 6 19�2N0 ST 8w _•_•• > 192ND ST SW 192ND CH t92ND ST 1 1 P CW t921 / GEOTECH CONSULTANTS AA VICINITY MAP ANDERSON MEADOWDALE. LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON lob No.I Dole: P/ols: 90054 MAR 1990 N.T.S. 1 LEGEND BB-1 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION pTP-I APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION GEOTECH CONSULTANTS SOILS EXPLORATION PLAN ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON I Jo0 Na+ OO/e: Sce/i+ P/ole: 90054 MAR 1900 i'-302 0° `eC� Q\0 �y ,tp 0 5 u 15 P41e7 25 30 351 40 L BORING 1 Elevation: Uses Description 27.2 4 7 S M: to MU Gray -brown with organics sandy SILT to silty SAND with coarse sand lenses (2" to 1" thick), wet, loose 31.,.5 2 6 --- Sm Wo Gray silty fine SAND, wet, loose ,39.7 3 7 - ML Gray fractured SILT, wet, soft S M Gray silty fine SAND, wet, loose Gray coarse SAND, wet, loose •SP ,30.4 -5 11 Gray fine to medium SAND, saturated, medium -dense 35.0 •6 24 M L Gray c'layey SILT, wet, medium -stiff 2 29.-8 53 Gray silty CLAY, wet, hard 28:0 8 37 CH LL = 58.1 PL = 37.6 32:2 9 '60 2' 311 z 7' 39' Test boring termianted at 39 feet on 3/7/90. Groundwater observed at 17 feet -while drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST BORING LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON roe No.r Dare! top .ear �- 90054 3/9/901K1� 3 BORING 2 Elevation: 0 V 5 0 t USCS Description Brown silty SAND, wet, loose (Fill) qML 50.9 1-• 5—Wood/Peat Gray soft SILT, wet, soft (Fill) WIMMI uray green silt, wet, sott 43':5 26 Organic silty SAND, wet, loose 10 :Sp: Gray fine SAND, wet, loose (Fill) 25.0 3' 9 MIL 15 ; XIA! Gray green SILT and SAND SKI22.4 4• 17 20 ' MLA Gray green SILT 25 35.4 5 25 IIII 25.8 16. 1 70 30 CH Gray silty CLAY,wet, hard 31.5I7; I 33 1 ML Gray clayey SILT, wet, stiff 35 Test boring terminated at 34 feet on 3/7/90. Groundwater observed at 17' while drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST BORING LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT .EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Depth I 3�' 182' 27' 32' 34' ✓ob No. Dob+ Lo00�0 By+ AOI�+ 90054 3/9/90 MKD 4. 1 1 eQl`� ay�,c`�� 0 Z J Uscs 0 �S M TEST - PIT 1 Elevation: Description Brown silty gravelly SAND with roots, -wet, loose Brown PEAT, wood and organic silt, wet, soft • 'Ii Gray SILT with clayey silt and silty clay lenses ML Gravelly silty medium SAND with occasional cobbles, wet, loose -33,6 Gray silty CLAY with small pieces of wood, interlayers with XrcL/ gravelly silty medium SAND, wet, loose 10 1SiMi 15 ,18.3 JIMLI Gray sandy SILT with silty gravelly sand, wet, medium -dense Test pit terminated at 121 feet below existing grade. Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at 4 feet during excavation. Heavy caving 4 feet to 10 feet. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS A r TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .ab ,�., aa,•. LoppeO or' sxoa• 5 90054 0 TEST PIT 2 l/SCS Descri#ion Devotion 0 iIOL1Dark brown organic sandy silty DUFF, wet, loose Brown with organic -stained silty SAND, wet, loose IMF Dark brown sandy SILT, wet, loose ' M L• Brown with organic -stained silty SAND to sandy silt, wet, loose to medium -dense M 11 Light brown sandy SILT, wet, firm I Gray sandy SILT to silty fine sand with occasional cobbles, ML/ wet, medium -dense SM 10 •29. 3 ::I "I :L' Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 15 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FWob97"65 oicl�+ Le�d Br Awl"4 3 9 90 MKD C7 TEST PIT 3 uses Description Elevation 0M11 Brown silty clayey SAND, wet, loose Gray brown silty fine to medium-sized SAND to sandy silt, wet, loose SM /' ML -some pieces of wood 5 �11 Gray SILT, wet, medium -stiff, moderately to heavily fractured, with medium sand lenses 10 11 Gray SILT with gravelly medium-sized sand lenses, wet, ML medium -dense 22.6 Test pit terminated at 122.feet below existing grade. 15 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 20 E G OTECH CONSULTANTS A TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .b0 Ab., Date, Coypid sr I FiOiI � 7' TEST PIT 4 USCS Description E/evoJion 0 Brown silty.fine to medium-sized SAND with silt lenses, ,wet, loose : S M: •19.6 SP%' Gray medium-sized SAND, wet, loose SP/.'� •SM Gray silty medium SAND with gravel.and occasional cobbles, 10 wet, loose to medium -dense M. Test pit terminated at 122 feet below existing grade. 15 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Heavy caving 6 feet to 11 feet. 20 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .Iob No.� 06041 coyy.e erj 90054 3/9/90 1 MKD Slope bockfi/I away from foundation. --- , BACKF/L L See text for requirements. WASHED ROCK e.°.':'a',••. o �. 6 " 1N a. NONWOVEN GEOTEXT/LE FILTER FABRIC GEOTECH CONSULTANTS T/GHTL /NE ROOF DRAIN Do not connect to footing drain. VAPOR BARRIER SLAB I /— j ... `: • , 4 to FREE - DRAINING SAND/GRAVEL 4++ PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Invert a/ leas/ as /ow as looting and/or crow/ space. S/ape /o drain. Place weepholes downward. FOOTING DRAIN ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ✓ob No.+ Doter Scale + Rate: 90054 3/9 90 N.T.S. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 /s9iz isi�w Rhonda Anderson Box 3302 Seward, Alaska 99664 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering study Anderson Meadowdale Lot Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Anderson: PERMIT ,COUJUM Apri 1 6, 1990 , JN 90054 We are pleased to present this ,preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the your lot in the Meadowdale Area of Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site conditions and provide preliminary earthwork and foundation design criteria. The work was authorized by your acceptance of our confirmation proposal dated February 22, 1990. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with four test pits and two test borings. We found the site to be underlain by four to more than twelve feet of loose sands, fractured silts and fill soils. These surficial soils are not suitable to provide bearing for a typical single-family residence. Below these unacceptable soils our explorations encountered medium -dense sands and relatively competent silts and clays. A home could utilize a rigid grid foundation bearing on the competent soils below the loose surficial soils. However, this.option will involve relatively deep excavations. Alternatively, we recommend that the foundation can consist of drilled concrete piers reinforced with steel. . A concern with excavating the loose material is the stability of the side slopes:' We recommend a deep cutoff trench be dug along the east and north sides of the site prior to excavation to dewater the subsurface. Even after dewatering, we expect that temporary slopes along the north and east sides of the lot will be unstable at a slope steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 JN 90054 Page Two The attached report contains the results of our study and recommendations. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. /t.4," L �r3I Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMON,DS, WASHINGTON This report represents 'the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the Anderson Lot in Edmonds, Washington. The property is the second lot on'the west side of 75th Place West north of the intersection of 75th Place West and Meadowdale Road. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Based on preliminary information furnished to us, we anticipate that the single-family residence will consist of a large 4000 to 5000 square foot, lightly loaded home with a daylight basement. We anticipate the first level of the home to be near existing grades. Development of the property is in the planning stage, therefore, only conceptual information was available to us. The site plan given to us included the property boundaries but no topographic information. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The property is located in north Edmonds, in the Meadowdale Community. The lot resembles a slightly skewed rectangle, with dimensions of about 110 feet by 176 feet. The lot slopes generally to the west. The flatter area of the lot, where the home will probably be located, is about ten feet below the elevation of the adjacent portion of 75th Place West. Much of the vegetation on the flatter portion of the property has been cleared. Although the lots on either side of this property are undeveloped at this time, we anticipate that single-family ` residences will be constructed within a relatively short time. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by four test pits and two borings at the approximate locations shown on the Soils GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 2 Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the anticipated construction, the required design criteria, subsurface conditions.revealed during excavation and drilling, the scope of work outlined in our confirmation proposal, and time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on December 20, 1989 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Clifton Backhoe Service. The borings were drilled on March 7, 1990, using a truck -mounted hollow -stem auger drill owned and operated by Drilling Unlimited. Samples were taken during drilling at five (5) foot intervals using a standard penetration sampler. This two-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler is driven into the soil with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits and test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test,Boring Logs are attached to. this report as Plates 3 and 4. The Test Pit Logs are attached as Plates 5 through 8. Test Pit 1 and Boring 2 were placed near the northeast corner of the anticipated building site. At this location our explorations encountered approximately eleven feet of variable soft loose fill soils below existing grades. It is our understanding that a ravine formerly existed at the approximate location of the property's northern boundary. The fill was placed to fill the ravine. Below the fill soils were layers of silt and sand that were firm to medium -dense. From 18.5 to 27.0 feet below existing gradesm, Boring 2 encountered a medium -stiff to stiff silt underlain by a five-foot layer of hard clay. The boring encountered and terminated in a stiff clayey silt from thirty-two to thirty-four feet below existing grades. Test Pit 2 was placed near the southeast corner of the anticipated building area. At this location, four feet of loose to medium -dense sand and silt overlie a two -foot -thick layer of firm silt. From six to twelve feet, where the test pit was terminated, a medium -dense sandy silt to silty sand with occasional cobbles was encountered. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 . Page 3 Test Pit 3 and Boring 1 were placed at the location of the anticipated northwest corner of the building area. These explorations -encountered six to nine feet of loose sandy silt to silty sand with layers of wood, overlying an approximate four -foot -thick layer of fractured silt. Loose to medium - dense sands with variable amounts of silt were encountered from twelve to twenty feet in depth. Below the sands was a nine foot layer of medium -stiff clayey silt.. At twenty-seven feet below existing grades, the test boring encountered a hard silty clay. The boring terminated in the clay at thirty-nine feet below existing grades. Test Pit 4 was excavated near the anticipated southwest corner of the building area. At this location we encountered four feet of loose sand with silt underlain by four feet of loose medium -grained sand. Test Pit 4 encountered a loose to medium -dense silty sand with gravel and occasional cobbles from 8.0 to 12.5 feet, where Test Pit 4 was terminated. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil, types; in actuality, the transition may be gradual. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit/ boring logs are interpretative descriptions based on the conditions observed during the excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at the locations tested. GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth.of four feet in Test Pit 1, and the groundwater level was near seventeen feet in both borings during drilling. The test pits and borings were left open only for a short time period, therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not be the location of the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL It is our opinion that the project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The home can utilize GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 4 rigid grid foundations bearing on competent medium -dense native soil's. We estimate these soils can be found at approximately six to fifteen feet below existing grades. Alternatively, the proposed home can utilize a drilled pier foundation. The final grades for the lot should be near or below existing grades, requiring only minor amounts of cuts or fills. It is also our opinion that drilled piers are the most feasible foundation system because the surficial soils are loose; therefore temporary and final cut slopes should be cut no steeper than 2:1 and 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), respec- tively. An excavation for the rigid grid foundation could be extensive and may require shoring and/or temporary construction easements from your neighbors. However, if the lot is developed in a manner which takes into account the subsurface conditions, a rigid grid foundation may be workable. One possible method of development which would mitigate excavation problems would be to put a daylight basement structure on the lot with the garage being placed near the location of Test Pit 2 (southeast corner of the building area). It is also important to adequately design for the control of the surface and subsurface groundwater flows. Control measures must be in place both during and after construction of the home. Excavation and foundation work on the site should be limited to the drier months of the year. The Meadowdale area has been identified as an old landslide area. The entire neighborhood is at risk if even a moderate earthquake event occurs in the immediate area. It is our opinion that this lot, if developed in accordance with the recommendations herein, will result in a structure that is as stable as any in the neighborhood. We recommend a topographic survey be completed for the lot. This will allow comparison between the current grades and proposed grades. Geotech Consultants Inc. should be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they are developed to verify site specific subsurface requirements are met. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 JN 90054 Page 5 The structure should be supported on minimum sixteen -inch - diameter steel -reinforced augercast piers. Augercast piers should be installed with continuous flight hollow -stem auger equipment. This method involves thepumping of concrete through the hollow -stem auger equipment during extraction of the auger. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as it is withdrawn. The rate of withdrawl should not exceed nine feet per minute. The grout pressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be, calculated. For a sixteen (16) inch diameter pier with a minimum of fifteen feet of penetration into the competent native soils below the fractured material and the loose soils, an allowable capacity of twenty (20) tons may be assumed. Piers should be placed no closer than three pier diameters, center to center. For wind or seismic loads, the allowable load can be increased by one-third. We can provide design criteria for different pier diameters and embedment lengths if greater capacities are required. Based on our fieldwork, we estimate total pier lengths of twenty-five to thirty-five feet will be required to assure adequate penetration into the bearing soil. Piers should be reinforced their entire length with steel H beams. The thickness and dimensions of the beam should be designed to withstand an active pressure of fifty (50) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) acting over the top fifteen (15) feet of the pier. The point of fixity of the pier can be assumed to be fifteen feet below existing grades or at the interface of the competent soil. Below this depth, the overturning pressures are resisted by passive pressures acting over two times the pier diameter. The passive pressures can be assumed to be two -hundred -fifty (250) pcf. We estimate that total settlement of single piers will be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. We estimate differential settlements over the structure should be less than one-half inch. Geotech Consultants Inc. personnel should be on -site to observe augercast pier installation. As the completed piers below ground cannot be observed and tested, it is important to have a qualified.person on site who can decide when the piers are deep enough and will understand the impacts of contactor variance from the specifications. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 RIGID GRID FOUNDATIONS JN 90054 Page 6 The proposed structure may be supported on a rigid mat foundation. The mat can consist of a reinforced, two-way beam and slab set on a minimum of one foot of compacted structural fill built up from medium -dense competent native soil. The other alternative is to construct the rigid foundation using grade beams bearing on competent native soil.' Overexcavation of fill and loose native soils below the mat will be required. Fill placed under the mat should extend outwards from the edge at least a distance equal to the depth of fill underneath the mat. The mat should be designed in such a manner that ten feet of the mat in any direction could sit unsupported. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total settlement of the mat founded as recommended will be about three-quarters of an inch, with negligible differential settlements. Almost all settlement due to dead loads from the building structure should occur during construction. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must either be poured "neat" against the existing soil or the wall backfill must be compacted structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed native soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid having a density of two hundred fifty (250) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS We recommend that concrete slabs be placed over competent native medium -dense soils. The garage slab, if placed atop looser soils, should be placed on a minimum of two feet of quarry spalls. Even then, there is an increased. risk of differential settlements and cracking. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. Saw cuts or preformed strip joints, used to control shrinkage cracking, should extend through the upper one-fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints is a function of the amount of steel placed in the slab. Reducing the water/cement ratio of the concrete and curing of the concrete by preventing evaporation of free water until cement hydration occurs will also reduce shrinkage cracking. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 7 A 6-mil polyethylene plastic vapor barrier should be used under floors likely.to receive an impermeable floor finish or where passage of water vapor through the floor is undesirable. Based on American. Concrete Institute recommendations, we suggest placing a two to three-inch layer of sand over the vapor barrier to protect the vapor barrier and to allow some moisture loss through the bottom of the slab to reduce warping in the curing process. Sand should be used to aid in the fine grading process of the subgrade to provide uniform support under the slab. PERMANENT RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. The following recommendations are for walls less than twelve feet high which restrain level backfill: Design Parameter Value Active Earth Pressure* 50 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Soil Unit Weight 125 pcf Where: 1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2) Active and Passive Earth Pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. * For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred 0 00) psf should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure. The, values given above are ultimate values. An appropriate safety factor should.be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The resultant force, which can be determined by taking moments about the toe of the wall while neglecting the passive pressure force, should pass through the middle third of the footing. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 8 The above design values also do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. In addition, construction equipment should not operate within a prism defined by a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) line extending from the back end of the footing to the retained soil behind the structure. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free -draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. Alternatively, a geotextile drainage product such as Miradrain or Enkadrain may be used. Compaction of backfill behind the retaining wall should utilize methods which will not damage the wall. The purpose of the backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Where the backfill is to support walks or other slabs, we recommend that the backfi'll consist of clean sand and gravel as this soil would be easier to compact in the excavation prism than siltier soils. Also, these soils will provide drainage behind the wall. The top foot to eighteen inches of the backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all footings and earth retaining walls. Roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed rock. The rock should be wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perfor- ated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and/or crawl space and it should be sloped for drainage. A typical footing drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 11. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 9 The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into the soils. The slopes should be covered with plastic. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. Groundwater was observed during our field work at depths of seventeen feet in both test borings. Seepage was noted in Test Pit 1 at four feet below existing grades.. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and if encountered, the water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe or French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. . EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should slopes be cut steeper than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet in unsaturated soils may be attempted vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four (4) feet in the loose surficial layers, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. It should be noted that the sands do cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cut slopes into the loose surficial soils should have a final maximum slope less than 3:1 (H:V). Cuts in the native dense soils should be inclined no steeper than 1.5:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 3:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 10 SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK The first step to beginning site preparation is to install a french drain on the south, east, and north sides of the site. The french drain should be installed in a manner that allows for the capture of surface and shallow -subsurface flows. The next step is to strip and clear the building and pavement areas of all surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or, if desired, stockpiled for later use in landscaping. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings, pavements, walkways, or other areas where the underlying soils need to support loads. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should observe site conditions during excavation. The surficial site soils are moisture -sensitive and can become soft when wet and disturbed. We recommend the site prepara- tion and earthwork be performed in the normally dry season of the year when earthwork would generally be less expensive and require less effort. Structural fill under floor slabs and foundations, if required, should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks and behind walls should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed eight (8) inches in loose thickness. Ideally, structural fill which is placed on this project should consist of a granular soil having no more than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The percentage of particles passing the 200 sieve should be measured on that portion of the soil passing the three-quarter inch sieve. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 LIMITATIONS JN 90054 Page 11 The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soils encountered in the test borings and test pits are representative of the subsurface conditions of the site. If, during construction, subsurface conditions are found which are significantly different from those observed in the borings and test pits, or assumed to exist in the excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in borings or test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to .accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Rhonda Anderson and her representatives. . Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and project specifications. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 12 It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work will not include supervision or direction of, the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. We recommend that a representative of our firm be present during placement of structural fill to observe the process and to conduct density tests in the fill. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Plate 2 Plates 3 - 8 Plates 9 - 10 Plate 11 See �MAI ��eeee••'°• Attachments cc: Seawood Homes,inc., Attn: Lee Atherton Vicinity Map Soils Exploration Plan Test Pit/Boring Logs Grain Size .Analysis Footing Drain Detail Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. m IN- 1142ND PL�SW g- ruN n e1i = 3 I1 T T X3: Q ST SW I LJ�Q�rQ ` SERE. `� I143RD uj ST3 "• rs 1- 148RD3 3 ST � SW 2 144TH PL SW IN 144TH ST 0 6TNh 'a i sw ? (eY Fx- G TSwt< V'-'T W SW �zP4> ax TH STg a �t ° t9°'�PL SW a NSW ��. =3 14 H ° �'PL a PUGET RMA B�ACy s,H et SS°3sW 3 ;w1 HH sTsw °' w �a 14JTH LPL SW sw iwTHiPI NORM EACH < \ IN ^s a 10 y�3v 5a m ST i o SW - 148TH - 1 l> fto; `; 9�u 3 p 148TH 149TH NORMA BEACH D SOUND_ �I FISHER R ,t —�po , �, 14 T �PL w Sw ST I 149T PL SW > I 151ST A PL I I `` QV SW t 15o PL SW'.. - 1WTH- M a 161 ILA U-w - a - 3 x3 x x 3 1- STr I i 150TH 9 z 3 3 1 T' I x x T ;.:;....::...........r / 152ND ST 9� '� SW >i ' W ma- 152ND STa a i StIV . /I _----- :.....:..•.:: x PL S 153RD ST 3 a 3 x 152N Sw 1i > e a L 153h PL SW o 1� T53R PL SW 3 54TN Q I > " z PL sW = a W 155 H ST :.:•..........:........ I }} �:::•:=:I ti k 56TH > ST m SW v Q 3 SVt 6TH STI MEAD O �ZT" MEApOWDALf :'' i 3 3 157TH ST 3 (OAK RDI SW '1, I BEACH,.; :'`i $ a �157TH _ �'':::': : a PL SW SW I F- I 168TH T �!157TJ J PJ SW 1 TH PL SW I I SITE..l_� LAEBU6TON I BW �I- _ _..' H� Z;- I - - -- WHARF '� 3 3 y - - - -� v 4 11 I .. .I I -i I �14D% I �+'"fj: `' aw x1 PL SW I i SW CL S d 161 sT PL Sv4 K E E L E R � Q., vw 1 XI ( x 9<�I 63RD ST �ISW I jl ' t63 D PL Stir CO R N I t 164TH I ST s W 3 Q ( 3164TH� i ST ° SW I I >> Fln- 164 H PL ] I I 1 \GHQ I �186TH PL Sq, I J�:... N oL SW 3 eTTH I , 1 8TH ST a SW --gym p1�EA 1( I; 3 HST SW MEADO DALE < 1 pL Sw ' 9� )PfH P O --1�-pL - ( 31 , Z - '1 S^ ( 18 TH < )♦ �D:e x Q At I I P pl I a< T1aoTN tx e k sw 170TH PL SW S 313 j 1 PL I 3 Ir sw x3w 172ND1 ST r B 1X Q 6 a 171ST t alai 3 'ibd T SW I 1172ND ,5 ^ Q 3 SW STI QP ST S P S I j73R mgII S a173RD cy 1 ' ♦ 172NDSt InN I J �/ 1 N °a = III ST W Z ST '9 T' eT s oSK, 3 ' ( PL SW 174T►UW < � 3 174 H ST 7 SW5 w 3 t �1 T 1 , �l / i st I a� ' m �17 STT Z I V PL S •� V 1 < ' �c's� �„ 13 I �3S1T � • N PO 17 T T� a I t T f z N 176TH ST • Sw PL I Ix 3 3 - LY I 7 PL SV OUN� I fyy i Sw ;� 1L ae ; 3 z 31 ,TNT 17e1'H PL SW F 3 � y nTT r wa m tL 1 H I ST W /�• 177T1 ja 1 TN ATM ^ x Q - 1EL. -) ;,.::...;.. , Tsw aS� 1H t sN iSN PL Sw ST SW ' 3 i� sn N Q ; I TH Q� I 1- Q 1PL SW d 79T gT 180TH Ns I PL SW `� < D Q s w> 1 3 W 1a ST PL SW'a =; . e TH 3 PL SW Q S 1 x •T::::1 1 L po 3 e2 r a � J 1a P sw Q ; W ht sw DEr 182ND _ O 58'� P 1�fNS/NG > SW MA 3 �I R PL 4W GE>� 183 D PL PL w 82N > S e 1 RD PL JW 1 RD PL W ° t8.9R ST SN z / y I � = 1e4TH � 18 PL W 1 H 1B4TH ST W 1 TH PL sT sw SW ?� I n 1�T a• .. T r Q fi 4 :... 184TH PL !_ = ew SNAKRE RA/( ! sT > x 3 < 3� t 6 I 85TH=3 L It 1 ST �W 186 14 J = x't� ....,. 3 t � T = Z 186TH a k .. lee K i I-ii a 3T t H -i c H PL RN 1 PL Y� �.' Odf d-fO - P� - `$ .188TH- _ = 1 I; ST s -31 — — -= — — THo jQ �SLYNNDACfy': €; 199T PENNY LNPL SW 1 TH PL SIN 3188TH T - �; ' > > fS t H PL PL sw (� y' 190TH3 K a h 3sw �31 T I 189T Q P e 6 = a THL I 3 q ` > :?GAifT;^ TH H T 0 1 1 T S SW < 191S Py SW 191ST .wv.pKrr�s,, ,. p4 Syy' ,9pt -' k 1 1ST 181ST ST 1$ Q Z J _ _LE e I , > O 1QlST ST SW ST S ST 1921. ST 190 PLS < 1 wtST SW > (� 191ND T' �t82N0 S oq 192ND ST SW 192N0 CH. 1 s 1 T C W 1821 1 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS VICINITY MAP ANDERSON MEADOWDALE. LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No.., Doter 90064 1 MAR 19 00 N.T.S. 1 Ai ' v �oF 0��c USCS 0 5 101 15 20 25 30 35 BORING 1 Elevation. Description Depth 1 S M: Gray -brown with organics sandy SILT to silty SAND 27.2 to with coarse sand lenses (2" to 1" thick), wet, loose ML' 31.5 6 6 -- SM. Wo 8 39•.7 ,7 Gray silty fine SAND, wet, loose 8 8 Gray fractured SILT, wet, soft ML ,. 24':9 4 C8 SM: Gray silty fine SAND, wet, loose 12 13 Gray coarse SAND, wet, loose SP 30`4 '5 1,3 Gray fine to medium SAND, saturated, medium -dense 35:0 �6 24 M L Gray clayey SILT, wet, medium -stiff - 27 Gray silty CLAY, wet, hard �LL 3� = 58.1 PL = 37.6 28:0 ..`8 32:2 9 '66 40 L Test boring termianted at 39 feet on 3/7/90. Groundwater observed at 17 feet while drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST BORING LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 0 391 Job No., Date: Lo ed j PYOIe 90054 3/9/90 OM :3:] 0` e O`g\J`gC �Q\ Ogg (�tQ ' o ' � 0\ c USCS 0 5 Le 15 25 30 BORING. 2 Elevation., Description Depth • M• Brown silty SAND, wet, loose (Fill) 50.9 l� 5 x Wood/Peat _ ML Gray soft SILT, wet, soft (Fill) ML Gray green slit, wet, sot 6. 5 2'- 6 Organic silty SAND, wet, loose Gray fine SAND, wet, loose (Fill) ;g p; 1] 25.0 3`' 9 M� ::toa : SM• Gray green SILT and SAND 22:4 41 17: 1E 35'.4 5 ' 25 ML Gray green SILT - 27 -5:8 & 70 CH Gray silty CLAY, wet, hard 31:5 35 �- Test boring terminated at 34 feet on 3/7/90. Groundwater observed at 17' while drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST BORING LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 32 ' 34' J00 No. Date: Lopped Brl mem 90054. 3/9/90 MKD I 4 11 Its d°t uscs 0 ILL �S M PTT � �bH .3�..3 � MI I7 TEST PIT 1 Elevation: Description Brown silty gravelly SAND with roots, wet, loose Brown PEAT, wood and organic silt, wet, soft Gray SILT with clayey silt and silty clay lenses Gravelly silty medium SAND with occasional cobbles, wet, loose �33�6 Gray silty CLAY with small pieces of wood, interlayers with VZd, gravelly silty medium SAND, wet, loose {18;13 JIM L11 Gray sandy SILT with silty gravelly sand, wet, medium -dense Test pit terminated at 122 feet below existing grade. 15 Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at 4 feet during excavation. Heavy caving 4 feet to 102 feet. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS A 1% TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON . ob No. i aoh+ towee or, ~01 cJ 005 I 0" uses 0rTrmr 5 E- 11 ML ML/ SM 10 29.3<-. :: 15 20 TEST PIT 2 Eievolion Description Dark brown organic sandy si ty DUFF, wet, loose Brown with organic -stained silty SAND, wet, loose. Dark brown sandy SILT, wet, loose Brown with organic -stained silty SAND to sandy silt, wet, loose to medium -dense Light brown sandy SILT, wet, firm Gray sandy SILT to silty fine sand with occasional cobbles, wet, medium -dense Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON VA& Me.+ GbH+ topped er+ Able+ 6 90054 3 9 0 MK 0 r, USCs TEST PIT DescriN%on 3 0 Brown silty clayey SAND, wet, loose Gray brown silty fine to medium-sized SAND to sandy silt, ' SM /' 1MLI Wet, loose -some pieces of wood 5 III Gray SILT, wet, medium -stiff, moderately to heavily L fractured, with medium sand lenses 10 11,111 Gray SILT with gravelly medium-sized sand lenses, wet, ML medium -dense 22 :.b; , Test pit terminated at 122 feet below existing grade. 15 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. 20 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 1i TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .a0 mw.+ got*, L00fd Br+ I AVAI 7 > 19'.6 E TEST PIT Description n Eievolion r Brown silty fine to medium-sized SAND with silt lenses, wet, loose Gray medium-sized SAND, wet, loose Gray silty medium SAND with gravel and occasional cobbles, wet, loose to medium -dense Test pit terminated at 122 feet below existing grade. ,5 No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Heavy caving 6 feet to 11 feet. 20 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS A ti TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON wob Mo.r ogler Lopped err ftle: 8 90054 3/9/90 1 MKD IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111 111111111111111 (I 'IIIII'III�II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII INIHOUND IIIIIIIIIIII!�I 11111111111i:11 Illlllili�lllll 111111►.11111111 Ili!�IIIlilllll 1�'1111111111111 I!1111111111111 lilllllllllllll I11111111111111 111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII uuumum� IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1-q0-i�+9 1111111111111 ............. 11 ONE ■■r Slope bockfill owoy from foundation. --, BACKFIL L See text for requirements. WASHED ROCK O A, 6 n o. NONWOVEN CEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC GEOTECH CONSULTANTS A --� MHTLINE ROOF DRAIN . Do not connect to footing drain. VAPOR BARRIER SLAB 4 "min. Z` r FREE - DRAINING SAND/GRAVEL. 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Invert at least as low as footing and/or crawl space. Slope to drain. Place weepholes downward. FOOTING DRAIN ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT . EDMONDS,. WASHINGTON ✓ob No. + Dote Scale: P/oIe 90054 3 9 90 N.T.S. COPI GEOTECH 011 6T EET FILE CONSULTANTS yy 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 April 6, 1990 J N 90054 Rhonda Anderson Box 3302 Seward, Alaska 99664 RECEIVIEID Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Anderson Meadowda 1 e Lot FEB 1 p 1995 Edmonds, Washington PERMIT COUNTER Dear Ms. Anderson: We are pleased to present this preliminary geotechnical engineering report for the your lot in the Meadowdale Area of Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site conditions and provide preliminary earthwork and foundation design criteria. The work was authorized by your acceptance of our confirmation proposal dated February 22, 1990. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with four test pits and two test borings. We found the site to be underlain by four to more than twelve feet of loose sands, fractured silts and fill soils. These surficial soils are not suitable to provide bearing for a typical single-family residence. Below these unacceptable soils our explorations encountered medium -dense sands and relatively competent silts and clays. A home could utilize a rigid grid foundation bearing on the competent soils below the loose surficial soils. However, this option will involve relatively deep excavations. Alternatively, we recommend that the foundation can consist of drilled concrete piers reinforced with steel. A concern with excavating the loose material is the stability of the side slopes. We recommend a deep cutoff trench be dug along the east and north sides of the site prior to excavation to dewater the subsurface. Even after dewatering, we expect that temporary slopes along the north and east sides of the lot will be unstable at a slope steeper than 2:1 (horizontal :vertical). Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page Two The attached report contains the results of our study and recommendations. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. xl't�"�L .2�35 Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This report represents the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the Anderson Lot in Edmonds, Washington. The property is the second lot on the west side of 75th Place West north of the intersection of 75th Place West and Meadowdale Road. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Based on preliminary information furnished to us, we anticipate that the single-family residence will consist of a large 4000 to 5000 square foot, lightly loaded home with a daylight basement. We anticipate the first level of the home to be near existing grades. Development of the property is in the planning stage, therefore, only conceptual information was available to us. The site plan given to us included the property boundaries but no topographic information. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The property is located in north Edmonds, in the Meadowdale Community. The lot resembles a slightly skewed rectangle, with dimensions of about 110 feet by 176 feet. The lot slopes generally to the west. The flatter area of the lot, where the home will probably be located, is about ten feet below the elevation of the adjacent portion of 75th Place West. Much of the vegetation on the flatter portion of the property has been cleared. Although the lots on either side of this property are undeveloped at this time, we anticipate that single-family residences will be constructed within a relatively short time. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by four test pits and two borings at the approximate locations shown on the Soils GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 JN 90054 Page 2 Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the anticipated construction, the required design criteria, subsurface conditions revealed during excavation and drilling, the scope of work outlined in our confirmation proposal, and time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on December 20, 1989 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Clifton Backhoe Service. The borings were drilled on March 7, 1990, using a truck -mounted hollow -stem auger drill owned and operated by Drilling Unlimited. Samples were taken during drilling at five (5) foot intervals using a standard penetration sampler. This two-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler is driven into the soil with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer falling thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits and test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Boring Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 and 4. The Test Pit Logs are attached as Plates 5 through 8. Test Pit 1 and Boring 2 were placed near the northeast corner of the anticipated building site. At this location our explorations encountered approximately eleven feet of variable soft loose fill soils below existing grades. It is our understanding that a ravine formerly existed at the approximate location of the property's northern boundary. The fill was placed to fill the ravine. Below the fill soils were layers of silt and sand that were firm to medium -dense. From 18.5 to 27.0 feet below existing gradesm, Boring 2 encountered a medium -stiff to stiff silt underlain by a five-foot layer of hard clay. The boring encountered and terminated in a stiff clayey silt from thirty-two to thirty-four feet below existing grades. Test Pit 2 was placed near the southeast corner of the anticipated building area. At this location, four feet of loose to medium -dense sand and silt overlie a two -foot -thick layer of firm silt. From six to twelve feet, where the test pit was terminated, a medium -dense sandy silt to silty sand with occasional cobbles was encountered. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC: Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 3 Test Pit 3 and Boring 1 were placed at the location of the anticipated northwest corner of the building area. These explorations encountered six to nine feet of loose sandy silt to silty sand with layers of wood, overlying an approximate four -foot -thick layer of fractured silt. Loose to medium - dense sands with variable amounts of silt were encountered from twelve to twenty feet in depth. Below the sands was- a nine foot layer of medium -stiff clayey silt. At twenty-seven feet below existing grades, the test boring encountered a hard silty clay. The boring terminated in the clay at thirty-nine feet below existing grades. Test Pit 4 was excavated near the anticipated southwest corner of the building area. At this location we encountered four feet of loose sand with silt underlain by four feet of loose medium -grained sand. Test Pit 4 encountered a loose to medium -dense silty sand with gravel and occasional cobbles from 8.0 to 12.5 feet, where Test Pit 4 was terminated. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types; in actuality, the transition may be gradual. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit/ boring logs are interpretative descriptions based on the conditions observed during the excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at the locations tested. GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of four feet in Test Pit 1, and the groundwater level was near seventeen feet in both borings during drilling. The test pits and borings were left open only for a short time period, therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not be the location of the static groundwater level. it should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL it is our opinion that the project is feasible from a geotechnical engineering standpoint. The home can utilize GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 JN 90054 Page 4 rigid grid foundations bearing on competent medium -dense native soil's. We estimate these soils can be found at approximately six to fifteen feet below existing grades. Alternatively, the proposed home can utilize a drilled pier foundation. The final grades for the lot should be near or below existing grades, requiring only minor amounts of cuts or fills. It is also our opinion that drilled piers are the most feasible foundation system because the surficial soils are loose; therefore temporary and final cut slopes should be cut no steeper than 2:1 and 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), respec- tively. An excavation for the rigid grid foundation could be extensive and may require shoring and/or temporary construction easements from your neighbors. However, if the lot is developed in a manner which takes into account the subsurface conditions, a rigid grid foundation may be workable. One possible method of development which would mitigate excavation problems would be to put a daylight basement structure on the lot with the garage being placed near the location of Test Pit 2 (southeast corner of the building area). It is also important to adequately design for the control of the surface and subsurface groundwater flows. Control measures must be in place both during and after construction of the home. Excavation and foundation work on the site should be limited to the drier months of the year. The Meadowdale area has been identified as an old landslide area. The entire neighborhood is at risk if even a moderate earthquake event occurs in the immediate area. It is our opinion that this lot, if developed in accordance with the recommendations herein, will result in a structure that is as stable as any in the neighborhood. We recommend a topographic survey be completed for the lot. This will allow comparison between the current grades and proposed grades. Geotech Consultants Inc. should be given the opportunity to review the plans and specifications as they are developed to verify site specific subsurface requirements are met. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 DRILLED PIER FOUNDATIONS JN 90054 Page 5 The structure should be supported on minimum sixteen -inch - diameter steel -reinforced augercast piers. Augercast piers should be installed with continuous flight hollow -stem auger equipment. This method involves the pumping of concrete through the hollow -stem auger equipment during extraction of the auger. Concrete grout must be pumped continuously through the auger as it is withdrawn. The rate of withdrawl should not exceed nine feet per minute. The grout pressure at the grout pump should be in the range of 150 to 250 psi, depending on the length of feeder hose used. The pump should be equipped with a calibrated stroke counter so that grout volumes may be calculated. For a sixteen (16) inch diameter pier with a minimum of fifteen feet of penetration into the competent native soils below the fractured material and the loose soils, an allowable capacity of twenty (20) tons may be assumed. Piers should be placed no closer than three pier diameters, center to center. For wind or seismic loads, the allowable load can be increased by one-third. We can provide design criteria for different pier diameters and embedment lengths if greater capacities are required. Based on our fieldwork, we estimate total pier lengths of twenty-five to thirty-five feet will be required to assure adequate penetration into the bearing soil. Piers should be reinforced their entire length with steel H beams. The thickness and dimensions of the beam should be designed to withstand an active pressure of fifty (50) pounds per cubic foot ( pcf ) acting over the top fifteen (15 ) feet of the pier. The point of fixity of the pier can be assumed to be .fifteen feet below existing grades or at the interface of the competent soil. Below this depth, the overturning pressures are resisted by passive pressures acting over two times the pier diameter. The passive pressures can be assumed to be two -hundred -fifty (250) pcf. We estimate that total settlement of single piers will be on the order of one-half inch. Most of this settlement should occur during construction as the dead loads are applied. We estimate differential settlements over the structure should be less than one-half inch. Geotech Consultants Inc. personnel should be on -site to observe augercast pier installation. As the completed piers below ground cannot be observed and tested, it is important to have a qualified person on site who can decide when the piers are deep enough and will understand the impacts of contactor variance from the specifications. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 RIGID GRID FOUNDATIONS JN 90054 Page 6 The proposed structure may be supported on a rigid mat foundation. The mat can consist of a reinforced, two-way beam and slab set on a minimum of one foot of compacted structural fill built up from medium -dense competent native soil. The other alternative is to construct the rigid foundation using grade beams bearing on competent native soil. Overexcavation of fill and loose native soils below the mat will be required. Fill placed under the mat should extend outwards from the edge at least a distance equal to the depth of fill underneath the mat. The mat should be designed in such a manner that ten feet of the mat in any direction could sit unsupported. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total settlement of the mat founded as recommended will be about three-quarters of an inch, with negligible differential settlements. Almost all settlement due to dead loads from the building structure should occur during construction. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must either be poured "neat" against the existing soil or the wall backfill must be compacted structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed native soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure ofa fluid having a density of two hundred fifty (250) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS We recommend that concrete slabs be placed over competent native medium -dense soils. The garage slab, if placed atop looser soils, should be placed on a minimum of two feet of quarry spalls. Even then, there is an increased risk of differential settlements and cracking. Isolation joints should be provided where the slabs intersect columns and walls. Control and expansion joints should also be used to control cracking from expansion and contraction. Saw cuts or preformed strip joints, used to control shrinkage cracking, should extend through the upper one-fourth of the slab. The spacing of control or expansion joints is a function of the amount of steel placed in the slab. Reducing the water/cement ratio of the concrete and curing of the concrete by preventing evaporation of free water until cement hydration occurs will also reduce shrinkage cracking. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 7 A 6-mil polyethylene plastic vapor barrier should be used under floors likely to receive an impermeable floor finish or where passage of water vapor through the floor is undesirable. Based on American Concrete Institute. recommendations, we suggest placing a two to three-inch layer of sand over the vapor barrier to protect the vapor barrier and to allow some moisture loss through the bottom of the slab to reduce warping in the curing process. Sand should be used to aid in the fine grading process of the subgrade to provide uniform support under the slab. PERMANENT RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. The following recommendations are for walls less than twelve feet high which restrain level backfill: Design Parameter Value Active Earth Pressure* 50 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 250 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Soil Unit Weight 125 pcf Where: 1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot. 2) Active and Passive Earth Pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. * For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100) psf should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are ultimate values. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The resultant force, which can be determined by taking moments about the toe of the wall while neglecting the pass.ive pressure force, should pass through the middle third of the footing. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN'90054 April 6, 1990 Page 8 The above design values also do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. In addition, construction equipment should not operate within a prism defined by a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) line extending from the back end of the footing to the retained soil behind the structure. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free -draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. Alternatively, a geotextile drainage product such as Miradrain or Enkadrain may be used. Compaction of backfill. behind the retaining wall should utilize methods which will not damage the wall. The purpose of the backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. Where the backfill is to support walks or other slabs, we recommend that the backfill consist of clean sand and gravel as this soil would be easier to compact in the excavation prism than siltier soils. Also, these soils will provide drainage behind the wall. The top foot to eighteen inches of the backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. SITE DRAINAGE We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all footings and earth retaining walls. Roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. The footing drains should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed rock. The rock should be wrapped with non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perfor- ated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and/or crawl space and it should be sloped for drainage. A typical footing drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 11. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 9 The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface soils to reduce the infiltration of rain into the soils. The slopes should be covered with plastic. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. Groundwater was observed during our field work at depths of seventeen feet in both test borings. Seepage was noted in Test Pit 1 at four feet below existing grades. Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and if encountered, the water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe or French drains; or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should slopes be cut steeper than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of four feet in unsaturated soils may be attempted vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four (4) feet in the loose surficial layers, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. It should be noted that the sands do cave.suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cut slopes into the loose surficial soils should have a final maximum slope less than 3:1 (H:V). Cuts in the native dense soils should be inclined no steeper than 1.5:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 3:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 10 SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK The first step to beginning site preparation is to install a french drain on the south, east, and north sides of the site. The french drain should be installed in a manner that allows for the capture of surface and shallow -subsurface flows. The next step is to strip and clear the building and -pavement areas of all surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or, if desired, stockpiled for later use in landscaping. The stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill. Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings, pavements, walkways, or other areas where the underlying soils need to support loads. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should observe site conditions during excavation. The surficial site soils are moisture -sensitive and.can become soft when wet and disturbed. We recommend the site prepara- tion and earthwork be performed in the normally dry season of the year when earthwork would generally be less expensive and require less effort. Structural fill under floor slabs and foundations, if required, should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a density equal to or greater than 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks and behind walls should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the lifts exceed eight (8) inches in loose thickness. Ideally, structural fill which is placed on this project should consist of a granular soil having no more than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The percentage of particles passing the 200 sieve should be measured on that portion of the soil passing the three-quarter inch sieve. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson April 6, 1990 LIMITATIONS JN 90054 Page 11 The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soils encountered in the test borings and test pits -are representative of the subsurface conditions of the site. If, during construction, subsurface conditions are found which are significantly different from those observed in the borings and test pits, or assumed to exist in the excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in borings or test pits. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Rhonda Anderson and her representatives. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and project specifications. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Rhonda Anderson JN 90054 April 6, 1990 Page 12 It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations. for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work will not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. We recommend that a representative of our firm be present during placement of structural fill to observe the process and to conduct density tests in the fill. The following plates are attached and complete thi.s report: Plate 1 Plate 2 Plates 3 - 8 Plates 9 - 10 Plate 11 f P��g R. F/ry��!•�• 60` r r �3TEP� f @t r �••� AL EN10 r • Attachments cc: Seawood Homes,Inc., Attn: Lee Atherton vicinity map. Soils Exploration Plan Test Pit/Boring Logs Grain Size Analysis Footing Drain Detail Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. IA4.,eiu,�_ r�OI Mark K. Dodds, P.E. Senior Engineer 'I+ James 'R.;Finle/y, Jr. P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. y•m I re T avv� H 1142ND PL SW a 3 141N 1143RD S73 "•7S IL 1 a Q y I ` PUGET R ; si srT 3 > 1 iST ST SW Q > t LAKE `� sr sw I O�ru P SERENE 143RD3 3 ST SW 2 I O� e: I 3 1 > > 144TH PL SW M 144TH ST O s�t�'a; sw t< ° 3 W = < 3 SW x N 144tH > t > d g— TH ST y Q E. a 4. s`' PL SW Q xi T� PL sw SW t3:' n sw �Qy x311 H Pt I MA B�Cy46TH `0-SW g3 3 1 6 HSTSw ^ JPL pW SW 146THIPL NORM EACH_ _ >> 1g11N S fy� n 14WH $SW 14 �i m ST a 14 iTH a PL SW SW W I SOUND T FISHE_RI> 11D 31 yL J91 8T N ' P 48TH 149TH NORMA BEACH RD ->I —£� > ' e 14 T 3 PL SW SW—ST I 143 H PL SW > I 151ST PL II Qv SW 150 H PL SW , 1�jQn1— TH $T-$NC _ a rs i 150TH �,/ 3 ; za ; 1 1ST s3 x 3 S¢I - •--•!� 152ND ST o SW o &PL SW uli 152ND3 I STa v 3 a SYV z z > = 3 x 152N 7.'i•t:`f I > 3153RDSTJ 3� a aJ PLSw L`'t %_=�'":::' ': '`:::=:•' ':1'� k:'! Q 1531 DPLSW a �153R PL SW 3 54TH Q 1 1S 3Q1 .•..'.:•`'.. :;.}-_;::•:{i'.;:' :.....,. I TH I = L W 156TH ST ...•..:... > Z PL SW la 156TH "`' �•.:. ...;.. f:. a[' �56TH < ST n SW K a3 SW L t— — L_�W'_3•• 156TH STI MEADO 7^H A 1•". MEApQWDALf' I 3 3 157TH ST 3 = l0 K R01 SW g ' 1 BEACH*::.'* 3 15BTH ST �157TH PI SW SW 1 H I xa57TN PL SW a - r SITE 8 JJ a. cc EA PL SW , 99 , _ � I �- a d�� x o o J LAE8UGTON ° I W— - -- . - ►- ti0TF1 Q ;— t — — - - -- - • _ — 1 Pk WHARF , 'n :8 3 c 3 ~ 3 �q�4 I i�•. r._ SW y - - - _N �1D,I xl KEEL C,7 V w �� t82No F.IPL Sw 1 = n 161ST PL SV� 63RD ST �ISW I ' t63R0 PL Svy CORN �� '//2 164TH I ST n' sw 1N 3 Q I 3164TH _ I ST SW 1 5 I k t x3 3> 164HPL "IRF`• RD �111bTH iozim. L w8 V RLY .::I wl S1 8TH ST a SW N ST SW asvTA �C'N— 3T3� iMIO — MEADOWDALE Q 1 PL Sw I , t1/ yoo � 1� I I < I r/I/r P6 TH 1 TR T O I T170TH x = F k' SW 17C7TH PL SW 313 i 1y H PL I 1 �H SW I 1 PL 1 1 I� J x3w 172ND1 ST }IB 172ND Q 6 a 171ST ' a1Q1 1 �a 7 N T SW I 1172ND JT3Rp^ <' ego SW tnao �cysTl VWi1 °�� 172NOST 172N 17 9 I :; ,I ST SW o 9 v sr j q '� /� 73Ros11 3 �, -' I PnS1N .1 n4T7t,4L, c s �, q .� sr sw x Sw .� 174 H S Sw PL W 3 1 4 O T 1 T x/ •� Z m l~ o175TH J I U PL SW 7++'•1 Z !� 1 a Ln am, in p1�STjy U �� 3 I ;SW �• C14 m PO 17 TH T� , 1 • 176TH PL • IS $T-_ :X 176T7H ST PL SV ".� OUN4 IEyy Z sw ;� 3 �; �; ; ; z 3 1$17TT 178tH PL SW x 3 \ > — _- - -� 17)TH ^ T Sw < k x < 177T1 r 1 H I ST SW ,R> ` LY j1 V 17>< � 177TI ;..:.... C,,i� 79TH < % 111 1 ° s :SN I178TH PL " SW E r — — ►— — — SW w x 1 couNry — — ;<: 180TH ~ W ST SW p 3 1� Ne5 N Q I ; vl Sw I Q� al I '� Q PL SW a 19T ST S 4FS ST > s 3 W z orH 180TH Q 1 fT N> 18 ST PL SW < x J I qv Sw 3 z -� i t S182N0 3 82N T Q 1 W �Nv '�'P oil 18 S PL SW AQ� E> 183 D PL OR Sw vs LICENSING82ND < PL SW S ; �� • P� SSW 3 wp�S o Z j I yLM 1 n ; Si _a. ~ > > _ 1 RD PL w 1D1TH 18 PL 18JRe ST SN :: 1n TH '� SHAKE (g ^ w n 1;T _ < > _ �•.'. ao 1 THE > T Q 184TH ST W = 3 PL 184TH PL.•• 1 : ._ , t:::.:': sT swSW WTH PL > I ST ROTRAIE Sr 3x < 3 18 H ( 85TH = ; 186TH ST tW X �+ Sw '— /- w< i 3T x 3 y T 1 11 xl Z CV 186THspy'......;. iU 186� 1 1 nPI S �- 6 — it-IG- ¢ FL — I' 188TH- •. Si'$wpf Q z H PL 'IV — 1p< TN �ft� �.1LYNNDA[E;: K::... ,. y., .:P. PENNY LN x 3 189 j PL y......31 SW 1 TH Pl. SVd ;188TH T H 3 d S > a > FS IS8TH PL -= — 188TH PL SW i c v � 1 • 190TH 3 tt > K< 3: wi I 189T P a T W N J o, a x a PS I• 1 TH SFI I d > x 1ST > S SW Q 191S P� SW 191ND T J t� 191ST ST SW /�irk7,:K3.-- :r. !p.:.t~:``: SCE W P SW 4 t0 t� �191ST TH ST'g k 191ST `* STD 191ST ST I t90 PLS 1 pr SW i N ► ST 1 ST SW 192ND ST SW 192ND CH 192ND ST t t P _. .19QND _._.. i >. CI rcw 1921 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS VICINITY MAP ANDERSON MEADOWDALE. LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON lob No. 7 Dole: pro/e: 17 90064 MAR 1990 N.T.S. 1 �0 K 0 ty.°tv�c y°� 0��cp� uscs 5 E 15 25 30 35 40 BORING 1 Elevation: Description Deoth I 27.2 1 .7 SM: to ML. Gray -brown with organics sandy SILT to silty SAND with coarse sand lenses (2" to 1" thick), wet, loose 31.5 :2 6 --- 6 _ SM• .. W 8 Gray silty fine SAND, wet, loose 8 39.7 7 ML Gray fractured SILT, wet, soft . 24.9 -4 8 S M: Gray silty fine SAND, wet, loose 12 .. 13 Gray coarse SAND, wet, loose - SP� _30.4 -5 1' Gray fine to medium SAND, saturated, medium -dense .35.0 -6 24 M L Gray clayey SILT, wet, medium -stiff 27 ,29.8 53 Gray silty CLAY, wet, hard CH _ LL = 58.1 PL = 37.6 28:0 8 37 32;2 9 '60 Test boring termianted at 39 feet on 3/7/90. Groundwater observed at 17 feet while drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS --- TEST BORING LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON I 39' Job No. Dole. Lop ed a Pole- 90054 3/9/90 3 �0 \ ': P i 1 4, 5, e, , - P4 P e � 5 [ 50.9 11- ' I 5 10 [43'.'5 12'. I 6 15 [25,-0 11" I 9 22.4 14-' 17 20 [35.4 1-1' 25 25 [15-816, 1 70 30 BORING 2 Elevation: USCS Description Depth Brown silty SAND, wet, loose (Fill) • M • • •� —Wood/PeatIII 3� Z Gray soft SILT, wet, soft (Fill) ML ML ray green silt, wet, sot 7' Organic silty SAND, wet, loose, :S P; Gray fine SAND, wet, loose (Fill) 11' ML 111 I Gray ISS green SILT and SAND SM m d Gray green SILT CH I Gray silty CLAY, wet, hard 18z' 27' jj'MJL 32' 31.5 7,` 33 Gray clayey SILT, wet, stiff 35 34' Test boring terminated at 34 feet on 3/7/90. Groundwater observed at 17' while drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST BORING LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No. Date, Lopped or+ Note: 90054 3/9/90 MKD 4 o c uscs 0 SM PT7- ff3;.3 _� E TEST PIT 1 Elevation. Description Brown silty gravelly SAND with roots, wet, loose Brown PEAT, wood and organic silt, wet, soft Gray SILT with clayey silt and silty clay lenses ism Gravelly silty medium SAND with occasional cobbles, wet, loose -3.3,6 Gray silty CLAY with small pieces of wood, interlayers with MCL gravelly silty medium SAND, wet, loose ,18.3 JAM L11 Gray sandy SILT with silty gravelly sand, wet, medium -dense Test pit terminated at 122 feet below existing grade. 15 Moderate groundwater seepage encountered at 4 feet during excavation. Heavy caving 4 feet to 102 feet. 20 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS A y TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No.abl.r Looped Br+ AbIo1 005 5 1 uses Orrrr 5 IIML'I L ML/ SM 10 -29.3 15 20 TEST PIT 2 Elevation: Description Dark brown organic sandy silty DUFF, wet, loose Brown with organic -stained silty SAND, wet, loose Dark brown sandy SILT, wet, loose Brown with organic -stained silty SAND to sandy silt, wet, loose to medium -dense Light brown sandy SILT, wet, firm Gray sandy SILT to silty fine sand with occasional cobbles, wet, medium -dense Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON doe ew. • ao,., topOM er, Pro,.! 6 90054 3 9 90 MKD uscs 5 10 22;-6. 15 20 TEST PIT 3 Elevation Desal#ion Brown silty clayey SAND, wet, loose Gray brown silty fine to medium-sized SAND to sandy silt, wet, loose -some pieces of wood Gray SILT, wet, medium -stiff, moderately to heavily fractured, with medium sand lenses Gray SILT with gravelly medium-sized sand lenses, wet, medium -dense Test pit terminated at 122 feet below existing grade. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. _ GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No. Dole' Lopped Br' PYch' 7 i TEST PIT 4 Elevation: Uscs Descrl#ion Brown silty fine to medium-sized SAND with silt lenses, wet, loose sm. . .19.6 .SPi. ' Gray medium-sized SAND, wet, loose SP/.'� SM Gray silty medium SAND with gravel and occasional cobbles, 10 R1: wet, loose to medium -dense ]JI Test pit terminated at 12 ffeet below existing grade. �� No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. Heavy caving 6 feet to 11 feet. 20 GEOTECH 0.4 CONSULTANTS A TEST PIT LOG ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ✓00 No., aol., Lopp.O Brt PYo1.j 90054 3/9/90 MKD Q O 11 :: Ili ..................... 111111111111111111111 Pro„ 9 lose IIII SIgoe bockfi// away from foundation. — , BACKFIL L See text for requirements. WASHED ROCK •, o a. 6� NONWOVEN GEOTEXT/LE FILTER FABRIC GEOTECH CONSULTANTS �l �_�nf 1• T/GHTL /NE ROOF DRAIN Do not connect to fooling drain. VAPOR BARRIER SLAB `. , 4 min. FREE - DRAIN/NI G SAND/GRAVEL 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE Invert at least as low as fooling and/or crow/ sooce. Slope to drain. Pace weepholes downward. FOOTING DRAIN ANDERSON MEADOWDALE LOT .. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 1Job No. + Dote: Scale: P/oIe 90054 3/9 90 N.T.S. 11 /S9/z �s%L py �. APR 0 6 1995 "B HYDROLOGY REPORT & CALCULATIONS BROWNS BAY RESIDENCE Edmonds, Washington Group Four Job No. 91-3024 PREPARED FOR: NORMAN B. SANDLER ARCHITECTS 1000 Lenora, Suite 402 Seattle, Washington 98121 PREPARED BY: 'S GROUP FOUR, INC. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way N.E. Bothell, Washington 98011 June 11, 1991 EXP4_S 5-06-g4 of LY BUILDING APR U .t 1995 <5��o �J ��`� �n- GENERAL SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property, which consists of 0.44 acres, is located west of and one lot north of the 75th Place West and Meadowdale Road intersection. The site slopes generally to the west with an average grade of 19 percent. A gravel driveway currently exists on the site. The site is primarily vegetated with a mixture of tall grass and blackberry bushes. EXISTING DRAINAGE Based on inspection of the existing site topography and the conveyance characteristics of the downstream drainage system, the site has been split into two sub -basins (see Existing Basin Map). Storm water runoff from the north sub -basin is overland to the west at slopes ranging from 7.50 to 37 percent. Storm water runoff from the south sub -basin is overland to the west at slopes ranging from 8.65 to 45 percent. Storm water runoff from both sub -basins exits the site as sheet flow across the west property line. ' PROPOSED DRAINAGE It is proposed that developed stormwater runoff from new impervious surfaces (rooftops, decks, paved roadway, etc.), and a portion of developed pervious areas (lawns, landscaping), be conveyed to a 36 inch diameter detention tank located in the north sub -basin. Refer to the Developed Basin Map for a delineation of the detained areas. The detention tank will be 1 designed using the Y&W Methodology to provide storage during the 25year design storm using a pre -developed 10 year design storm release rate. The proposed conveyance system will be analyzed using the Rational Method and Manning's Equation for the 25 year design storm. ' Approximately 0.08 acres o developed pervious area (lawns/landscaping) located in the north PP y .f P sub -basin will bypass the proposed detention facility. This undetained, developed runoff will be accounted for in the design. _ The developed on -site area detained in the detention tank will include approximately 0.07 acres ' diverted from the south sub -basin. The detention tank will be sized based on the existing conditions of the north sub -basin. This will ensure that the existing peak rate of runoff currently exiting the site from the north sub -basin will not be exceeded during the required design storms. The remaining 0.09 acres of developed pervious area located in the south sub -basin will remain undetained Developed storm water runoff from this undetained area will be allowed to sheet flow westerly across the west property line in an attempt to maintain the existing drainage patterns and flow rates. Approximately 0.01 acres of off -site impervious frontage improvements are proposed and will be detained in the proposed facility. The remaining 0.06 acres of off -site area which enters the proposed detention tank will be routed through the system undetained (see attached orifice calculations). NOTE. Italicized text represents revised sections of the original report. DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS tStorm water runoff from the south sub -basin sheet flows westerly across Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way, for approximately 35 feet at an average slope of 30 percent, to an existing rock -lined ditch located on the east side of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Runoff is conveyed southerly in this ditch (dimensions: 2-feet wide bottom, 2:1 side slopes, 1-2 feet deep) for roughly 220 feet. At this point, flow enters an 18-inch concrete pipe located roughly 370 feet north of the Laebugton Wharf entrance. This culvert conveys flow westerly for approximately 50 feet, crossing under the railroad tracks before discharging into the Puget Sound. ' Storm water runoff from the north sub -basin will be conveyed westerly across Burlington Northern right-of-way in 33 feet of 8-inch PVC at 37 percent slope to a proposed catch basin. At this point, flow will be conveyed northwesterly in 2 feet of 8-inch PVC at 0 percent slope prior ' to discharging to an existing rock -lined ditch located on the east side of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Flow will be conveyed northerly in this ditch (see dimensions above) approximately SO feet at an average slope of approximately 7 percent to the intake of an existing 24 inch concrete culvert. The culvert is located approximately 750 feet north of Laebugton Wharf. Flow is conveyed westerly approximately 45 feet under the railroad tracks prior to discharging to Puget Sound. Refer to Sheet 2C of the engineering plans for detailed depiction of the north sub -basin downstream conveyance system. Inspection of the downstream system revealed no evidence of scouring, erosion or overtopping. CONCLUSION The "South Sub Basin Analysis" included in this report shows that the 100 year developed peak rate of runoff (0.06 cfs) is less than the 100 year existing peak rate of runoff (0.08 cfs). Since the existing peak rate of runoff will not be exceeded upon development, undetained flows are not expected to aggravate any existing, or create any new drainage problems. In addition, no ornamental ponds or other features which would be adversely affected by a reduction in flow ' were observed downstream. Therefore, it can be concluded that the reduction in the peak rate of runoff resulting from the proposed diversion will have minimal impact on the downstream: drainage system On -site detention is being provided in the north sub -basin up to the 25year design storm. Since the detention standards required by the City of Edmonds limit the release to a pre -developed 10- ' year rate, the peak rate of runoff tributary to the downstream drainage system during developed conditions will be less than the peak rate of runoff that is currently occurring. Therefore, the proposed development is expected to have minimal impact on the downstream drainage system during the required design storms. However, during higher intensity design storms or during overflow conditions which may occur if the facility is not functioning properly (maintenance ' problems resulting in plugged orifice, etc.), the existing peak rate of runoff may be exceeded The analysis performed on the existing 24-inch culvert examines potential impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed development. The capacity of the culvert was determined to be tNOTE: Italicized text represents revised sections of the original report. ' 30 cfs (assuming inlet control). Based on inspection of a, Basin Map obtained from the City of Edmonds (attached), approximately 8.70 acres of upstream area is currently tributary to this culvert. This area includes 0.28 acres of on -site area (the north sub -basin). The existing peak rate of runoff tributary to the culvert during the 25 year design storm was previously determined to be 5.0 cfs (see attached analysis). Upon development, approximately 0.08 acres of additional area diverted from the south sub -basin will be tributary to this culvert (0.07 acres of on -site area and 0.01 acres of off -site frontage). The developed peak rate of runoff tributary to the culvert during the 25 year design storm (assuming overflow conditions) was calculated to be 5.84 cfs ' (see attached revised analysis). The proposed development will result in a 16.7 percent increase in the existing peak rate of runoff during overflow conditions. Therefore, it can be expected that even during worst case conditions (overflow), the proposed development will have minimal ' impact on the downstream conveyance system with respect to the overall basin. NOTE: Italicized text represents revised sections of the original report. (D. CL - ..492 ITE o - h - \� I :y _ 1 ■ ii • •a t e • li , 1 . \ Meado: -_ j,. I \ 7- 42-5 10, ;i - - - - �' \V I' ��: `, 1 •! COAST'GU �;�t• : «- .i;.: < �•, a.�.,a =. I ■. - --.{ - - _ _ - � � j 1 `�• \ { �. I • �' .a'_f'c •IJ c :E• t�i ■/i ! '� I \ a_y� ■ �'- p 1� �s ,•y or . 1, _Ol ; �.ti y ram• '\ • ' ' / ,� ,; • Drive-i TheatE //. .- /.-`� ! 1 :; �" - • Jam' 1- } ---- - . _ • •• ♦ ■ ■ . � �, • \ , is `� i // J •�;r� i Rock.' _ ■-�_! I :.. i %' :_ 1 ON 22 ` i ■ ' / j. y' 11 j/ J z� I• • ! , ' • • ` 1_�\aI \ ', : • II ' I ,� r • , , y ■f■■ ■ •••11 • ' � I - `_ `�--., I ''' J' I . • ♦ y I .-. • • - _ _ :900 �- 4 40. 4 - 1 I 1 11 - - is u F 0H • r _ _ - --' �:..r' ...;. ,.• w,-.::' a ••.: -`_ - : - _ ..-r -•.. _ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ■ r; I ■ •■ ■_l_ J a -�--.� ■ _ i t IN BASIN MAP _ t ■ n • .{ • • • - . _ , • e ♦ � , _ / _ , II �• ■ _ Cam- i, , _ /. ,..: 0 Wa kC 41 t QLS�I�1 i 11' La'ebugfcn:;Wtiaff I • I.E. 15 ` - - CULVERT c` OUTLET NOT FOUND f, 6 8ur1in I I SUBMERGED) G • - Tst` -9 n SITE y eSt` h e 24t. '( rt hem ►( t• , .. --�. � -^:, ""'g mate �` 1 ra i %$ Exist, 1O7 T� puce °use _ ,: •' .. •• - � , - _ • .' . i� =°y+ �� i t'"��i� ."r-""-rr+ ' �J^.,,� „� '�-t`'°` �4r: ,�lc�'1.a �`, i 7 F-'s'4F... `!' -.fie ;�w:",f.J^,'•a-e `khi,,. .:' •• r • ' - �. •-�� .' •• _. t.. Or.LO n.• -? i e;t-��,�•c- 'T4a�< a � . rag � � � a- .y 0,-�♦��,`�Fi 3j(3: is . •. �,� - - • tt • _3(x.,''W.� _{: �y-k .alas,`• Acres • ,u: t'ir +f �;••ra �" -. _ s«•i. _.Yf .- #'- i-:`i 1t �I %5 4. :4 i• r.• _�Acr es,- J.Id 21 ^t - to i L e t. R 2 �•�3 f. 3. t f { •Y fir. .y i' - `' •t a' ••t.' • { Sri' it•n - eta r •b • — f • \ • i• t .i rr .+.• — :ram t•' a.... L . J-.' .ij:�; °�: , CITY: OF'--�EPMONDS BASIN 63 _• Pt: _ " .. _... '_ SCALE 1„=2 . /20 3'1. A c r. e A STORM DRAIN STORAGE REQUIREMENTS ' North Basin -Bernstein Residence 10-yr Release/25-yr Storage - Y & W Methodology A,. ,= 0.29 acres Area of Basin: A0.28 acres Aoff,;te = 0.06 acres Aa„_,nte(det) = 0.27 acres A0 = 0. 08 acres Afr.„.ge = 0.01 acres ' Ae = Aa„,site(ex) + Afro„cage = 0.29 acres Adet = Aa site(det) + Afra„li,8e = 0.28 acres c� = 0.20 Existing coefficient of imperviousness of Basin ground cdet = 0.67 Developed coefficient of imperviousness of Basin as planned. cdet =(0.18)(0.90)+(0.10)(0.25)1(0.28) = 0.67 ' L = * ft Length (maximum) of overland travel * LI = 42.5' L2 = 106 5' L3 = 32.5' ' S = * % Slope (average) from Basin high point to low point (on watercourse) * SI = 33% S2 = 7.50% S3 = 37% ' Vr = *fps Runoff rate * VI = 1.5 fps V2 = 0. 70fps V3 = 1.6 fps Tc = *13.35 min Time of concentration from formula: Tc=10 + L160Vr * Tc = 10 + (42.59/60(1.5 fps) + (106.59/60(0.70 fps) + (32.5 )/60(1.6 fps) Tc = 13.35 minutes i,o = 1.62 inlhr Rainfall intensity from rainfall curve (10 year storm) Qarlaw = *0.06 cfs Existing outflow from site using equation: Q,.,=c�i,oA * Qa ra„. = Q. - Qb.=(0.29)(0.20)(1.62)-(0.08)(0.25)(1.62)=0.06 cfs Qo = 0.32 cfs Maximum outflow permitted per acres imperviousness from formula: ' Qo = Q..ao�Adwc&t = (0.06)1(0.28)(0.67) T = 67 minutes Storage time (to capacity) from formula: T = -25 + (2706IQo)12 Vs = 2,295 cf/AIC&, Required volume o stora a per acre in Basinfrom equation: 9 .f g P .r 4 Vs = 4329T/T+25 - 40QoT Vt = 430.54 ff Required volume ofstorage for this Basin from equation: Vt = Vs x A&t x C&t NOTE: Italicized text represents revised sections of the original report. RA V R fF- s t PF—r\l E- -- - -- �SIZ� ORIFIG� f"D D�.T�r\T10-N- ' nn lac e Q 0 F f= DE-rEP—m I kt E Qe fP 00.06 Ac,' EL (,02)G o +(04 .20): 0.43 QOFF i VI ( 0.43)6.6?)(0.06) 0.04 ofs " ..e__AIM# sgr. I N V. (p�t� ' 5�55 10 570 i 77. } a: I I... .SAY ''' Di�IFiGE. A ■ 1 ( t �'-TiH 0FA F I CE j IMA PIPE... Al-3i cr VOA L4mr-- ?-F-Qwlp- E P ■ .4 -T 0 vo 7r(► s�� Cam) 346.36 46 CF TT V Pzov, > P, E ■ 10 U. PROV j F 446 GF Vb U K F- Q'D 431 cf WE-. R von: -P,- K, -0- V,,O-, X Eob- CF 0< . ABAsiNsummAj?y Please refer to Existing and Developed Basin Maps for delineation of areas and for time of concentration travel paths €° ° :::::::::::: .........€ €° �1 t :................. ##�F f #`#iE' ::::: Area (acres) 0.28 0.16 0.44 c 0.20 0.20 Tc (min) *13.35 *12.71 ................:....:........................................................................ i �t J�itllt !i� €€€:€€:€€€:::::::::::::::::::.......................................................... RNA .... Area (acres) Detained.• 0.27 0.09 0.44 Bypass: 0.08 c Detained.• 0.66 0.25 Bypass: 0.25 Tc (min) 10 (assumed minimum) *10.16 * South Basin Time of Concentration Calculations: Existing. Ll = 92.5' Sl = 8.65% Vrl = 0. 75 fps Tt=L160Vr=2.06 min L2 = 28.5 S2 = 21 % Vr2 = 1.20 fps Tt=L160Vr=0. 40 min L3 = 26.5 S3 = 45% Vr3 = 1.80 fps T1=L160Vr=0.25 min Tc = 10 + 2.06 + 0.40 + 0.25 = 12.71 minutes Vr assumes overland flow across forest (ground litter), meadow. See "Travel Time for Overland Flow" chart attached Developed.• Ll = 18.0' Sl = 33% Vr] = 4.25 fps T1=L160Vr=0.07 min L2 = 26.5 S2 = 45% Vr2 = 5. 00 fps Tt=Ll60Vr=0. 09 min Tc = 10 + 0.07 + 0.09 = 10.16 minutes Vr assumes overland flow across short grass, pasture, lawns. See "Travel Time for Overland Flow" chart attached * North Basin Time of Concentration Calculations: x sti • Ll = 42.5' SI = 33% Vrl =1.50 fps Tt=L160Vr=0.47 min L2 = 106.5 S2 = 7.5% Vr2 = 0. 70 fps Tt=L160Vr=2.54 min L3 = 32.5 S3 = 37% Vr3 = 1.60 fps T1=L160Vr=0.34 min Tc = 10 + 0.47 + 2.54 + 0.34 = 13.35 minutes Vr assumes overland flow across forest (ground litter), meadow. See "Travel Time for Overland Flow" chart attached NOTE. Italicized text represents revised sections of the original report. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AsouTHSUB-BASINANALYSIS I. Existing Conditions A. Area: 0.16 acres B. Runoff Coefficient: 0.20 C. Time of Concentration: 12.71 minutes D. RajUfall Intensity: iloo = 2.60 iph (see attached Snohomish County IDF curve) E. 100yr Peak Rate of Runoff.• Q1oo= ciiooA = (0.20)(2.60 iph)(0.16 acres) = 0.08 cfs II. Developed Conditions A. Area: 0. 09 acres B. Runoiff Coe tcient: 0.25 (lawns, landscaping) C. Time of Concentration: 10.16 minutes D. Rainfall Intensity: iloo = 2.85 iph (see attached Snohomish County IDF curve) E. 100yr Peak Rate of Runoff Qtoo= cito&A = (0.25)(2.85 iph)(0.09 acres) = 0.06 cfs NOTE. Italicized text represents revised sections of the original report. AcoNvEYANcE SYSTEMANALYSIS The catchment areas tributary to the proposed conveyance system have been slightly modified due to the changes as part of Revision #1. Due to the excess capacity available in the proposed pipes, the modified flows (resulting from the slight changes of area) are concluded to be negligible. NOTE: Italicized text represents revised sections of the original report. a v m I �111�1�9 Il�lilll��l�ll� NAME R AcRFSJ q kF4 UNoF� co C FFF�ciFNr q�. � q r, c MFoIP rc�NC FN q Aq�NFgC< / 4fes oN . �� h NrFNsrY . , h� R J of s li hs> I 1 L4 N O'F F 2-4 W LV F- P-7 CIO N T7 F. 1 Fl(, I E-NT- 1,5-- rl? R-A.7 FLOW N T'H:= (?SO :AV&. SLOPE V.= 'j, S/5�c- F�C)M JPF. 6WP,' r-- Frpp,' H 6M 1-5 H. GC>L.4 NTY 2.!r Y� .- I CALGULATE . PZ0PGLSED .- RUNOFF- T"0--- 2�Af' 6ULVI✓2 kwNOPF GOE FF iGiEt`IT r �?u/G RUNOFF: PEvfE:L(� �'ED • � t _ 0 9.78 .Q 84 cf s t � � t { t 3 f I t � � t f t _ I -- 6 ALL U I,ATIr GR PAC 1i'Y CONCZF-Tr �5 = q1I- -IS 0z4- ...-1' PS OF- F-XI.S.TI KIGo, Z4 0.1- �-ULVIF- 1?-7 Zy 0. oiZ CGOi�IG• PIP�� Z2.. `s QI G_H_ECKy CULVERT Cp%PAG ITY USING INLe1" _ CONTI�&L COND11-10N5 HW.° 21,37�- 17.15 4.19� (5EE SHFFT 7-C OF 4) D- a ,. DF_- Z.4 = o USING.; ATTAcHED GNAP.-T (FI6:URF-.435 1= 0 K_ 51 a- 0 Tit_ Wf �_E D :. P I _P E _ P• N D - _.... . ENTR., P,.NCE TYP5 (3) cAPP.r;i'rf = 30 cf s > 5. 8 cfs , F� LF-V,O F._TH E�_ E ICI 611_N G ; T RPAQ KS . �_ ... IS 22;69- -PNp+ 22 90 3 1 ( ITHE WNT-F SURFINCE `F-LEVT�1dN ;TH1= CU'LvE�,r INTP•KE USEP.. tN TNF- ANALYSIS (ZI,37) IS A MINIMUM PsELO�nI LEVj4T7O�i' aF TRAGKS � AcT GEN TE R L, I N E.. t d �< rKING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL rQ FIGURE 4.3.5C HEADWATER DEPTH FOR SMOOTH INTERIOR PIPE CULVERTS WITH INLET CONTROL r180 10,000 168 8,000 EXAMPLE (1) (2) (3) 156 6,000 0•a2 inches 13.5 feet! 6. ENTRANCE TYPE r 144 5.000 C• 120 ifs _-_ 5 6_ SQUARE EDGE WITH 4,000 Mwe MW 6• 5. HEADWALL 132 D feet r7 3.000 (1) z.s e.e 5. 4. 4. :.. . 120 2,000 (2) 2.1 7.4 4'-- I r I 1 t08 (3) 2.2 7.7 3. re 0 in feet 3• 96 1,000 - PLAN 800 GROOVE END WITH r 84 - — HEADWALL 500 � I 1 N 72 400 � `0/ 3 2. w 300 E I.5 1 t I t z N z 7 60 u 200 � w 1.5 PLAN o S4 z o / 5 / / w a GROOVEEND PROJECTING - w 100 ,�0� r LA.;48 > Cr 80 �• Z u 42 N 60 a 1.0 1.0 o 50 HD SCALE EN w I.0 i r �� TYPECE a: � 36 30 (1) Sauors edge .ilh w 1-- 9 9 33 / head all .9 r aLAJ n�( - i Y / / 20 (2) Groove end .nth W 30 hsod.oll = .8 9 Q� (3) Groove and •8 2 7� projecting r 10 24 8 7 7 7 6 To use scole (2) or (3) project r 21 5 horizontally to scale 4 use IIralght inclined line through 0 and 0 scale*, or reverse as 3 illustrated. 6 .6 .6 18 2 IS r .5 .5 1.0 .5 r 12 ENTRANCE TYPE (3) �� 4.3.5-11 1/90 RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS (Values of "C" in 0 = CIA) FLAT ROLLING 0-5% 5% UNDEVELOPED LAND Wood& Forest ................................. 0.10 0.15 Sparse Trees & Ground Cover ................... 0.15 0.20 TA ght Grass to Bare Ground .................... 0.20 0.25 DEVELOPED AREA Pavement & Roofs .............................. 0.90 0.90 Gravel Roads & Parking, Lots ................... 0.75 0.80 CityBusiness ................................. 0.85 0.90 Apartment Dwelling Areas ...................... 0.80 0.85 Industrial Areas -(heavy) ...................... 0.70 .0.80 Industrial Areas.(Light)...................... 0.60 0.70 Earth Shoulder ................................ 0.50 0.50 Playground.................................... 0.25 0.30 Lawns, Meadows & Pastures ..................... 0.20 0.25 Parks & Cemeteries ............................ 0.15 0.20 SINGLE FAMII,Y RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre) 1.0 - 1.5 DU/GA.................................. 0.30 1.5 - 3.0 DU/GA................................. 0.35 3.0 - 3.5 DU/GA....................... ........ 0.40 3.5 - 4.0 DU/GA................................. 0.45 4.0 - 6.0 DU/GA.................................. 0.50 6.0 - 9.0 DU/GA................................. 0.60 9.0 - 15.0 DU/GA................ ................ 0.70 18 Z IT V I I Ti i i -- 7 r 6� T—E lo, L L C I T1 I Ill. I I � � -VaL.C!,C17-Y FEET PIE2 SEtL�►J�) This figure may be used to help estimate overland flow times for surface flow. TRAVEL TIME FOR OVERLAND FLOW 16 y Ro USE PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE NUMBER .95CAS8 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB G SUITE/APT# OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS d 1 A Pe. X, tl• 12.A Lt1 � �iZw.)-S F_1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. LLs-5 M':Ft.'W,wDisewea. ESS PUBLIC"RIGHT F WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP, /e EXISTING DEDICATION S"f_ TESCP Approved O RW Permit Required Street Use Permit Req'd 0111 HER A�REQUIRED Inspection Required PROPOSED Sidewalk Required .. MET Eji SIZE LINE SIZE If NO. OF FIXTURES PRV E UIRED uj U a CITY " 'z . 'TELEPHONE NUMBER NAMj/E�'� AdbRTss' k.., J!,, � I _7!P TEL HONE NUMBER 1 , '�` . S ATE LICENRF u,dcd) ,uEXPI, � L gal scriptibn or vroperty - Include all uaiea;eni: _ ctk I j uj Property Tax tT1 1i O a " D0 � Parcelel No. No. NEW �' RESIDENTIAL( PLUMBING ADDTION COMMERCIAL VN MECHANICAL REMODEL APT. BLDG. SIGN FENCE REPAIR ®G DI CYDS. El I— x_ FT) DEMOLISH WOODSTOVE SWIM POOL INSERT HOT TUB/SPA t GARAGE RETAINING WALL/ LEI RO kERY RENEWAL Z (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL o OF �1z 1 DWELLING /�/�/ AREAS /� co STORIES �,";" UNITS V/' — NUMBER V� •DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) . / /6 YES NO C3 3 AxSPCOAL 1 O {otZ U Fy f Nc D W Q AF INSP wwo. UrG• WIArJG t Z . T, `jWIA WWA� AWNG 6 V,F404P4 INSP. G9,IMer PlIMP RE10. ERING MEMO DATED t - _ — REVIEWED BY SIGN AREA I SEPA REVIEW ADB ALLOWED I PROPOSED COMPLETE (EXEMPT I A I V •I I EXP VARIANCE R CU VIEW BY E I.FRONT MN S SETBACIIS71 FEET HEIGHT I LOT VE SIDE Rf MIA 1TA CIjECKED�Y TYPE OF CONST SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA REQUIRED %-d %Z 3 I O (lI LOAD VES REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 CT4a FINAL INSPECTION IJEOUIRED VAIUAT10N a PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING HEAT SOURCE: GLAZING �ry �T O/0 f* �tr^4* b 14-1 PLUMBING Plan Chet* No. �� MECHANICAL GRADINGIFILL This.Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. Any construction on the public domain ,(curbs, sidewalks; driveways, rtterquees, ettc.) will require Separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 160 Days Permit Llmit:1 Year - Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE ENO. INSPECTION FEE "Applicant; on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and m successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defpnd and hold 'its w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, officials, f employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of iwhatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of Ahis, permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT 0 waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance 0modify, -1' 't•I the Cit 's abilit to enforce any ordinance v = nor Iml n any w y y y provision." . TOTAL AMOUNT DUE �- t I hereby acknowledge that I have read this- application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL given is correct; andthat I am the owner, or the duly , authorized :agent of the owner. 1 agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit, until state law's:regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz• AUTHORIZES THE signed by the Building Official & his/her ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor Code of toe State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa• ONLY WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt: is tion Insurance and RCW 18.27. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. t! SIGNATURE (OWNER OR A4ENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT o I I L'S SI NATURE DATE ' / - 9S CITY OF EDMONDS ATTENTION �G�� Of_f ..� PmAV ojA�-- . CALL FOR `INSPECTION ELEA D B DATE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR.00CUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE_ UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR �� Owwo 11 ORIGINAL =, File YELLOW — inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC rHAPTFR ., PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor N1 I NJ G.L. 3, SEC. 5, TWP 27N, RGE 4E, W.M. LEGAL DESCRIPTION -,>T� 9 4 J L15L-oGK, Z9, FLAT OF MCAPOI&IrAL-E- OC-ACH, A5 ff-1Z (SAT IN V&-Ume /rQAT�, t2A16 36, K66OVP5Or -9JOHOM),,q 0U(Q-rY, WA5WN67TOM, Te2*-,TNEV- WITH V,46ATC-r 51�A51VE AVEQQC-- A0JOICINCH -rHEs?-CTO. SCALE: 1"= 8' 4 51TE LIJ i? hey m w cv) CC BYPASS REA= 0908 a(�res P, F 4- . VICINITY MAP 77/1- :�LATH -,' -,A 0, z 0 11) ��-�. 70,114 - 5; �-� 6 Q Uj cc / � I ^ /� � �� TYPr- :5 - 54. C- 13 5A z -rH IC-Kelmi�r 01 W/ `L-Octe amHIs epj-rIrzE m L-61,4 0 w Z 5A TYr6 -5,, IV )) Cote ffW I WNJ V. 410.0 V. I MV. H Or 1�2V-'VCWAY 3�b SSE EC -r A6A 1wv. 0 4-- 0 J11 Fin 0) RTH SUB-b sj 0.35'acres Dsr Q (l Pep, F.IZAIQ (TYP) 01 IL I- W AKt/ VVZAIM Of Pvr �7 (�A m z . ...... Cl) 10 kj 54 8 j>%- P7\16 @ 1. oy r Im "j 2 A NSA MA-r6 F AS UJ S a C-0 -r jo)N� . I 5 wool V) I. 11Z IV 0\0 INV. 5;1.Z (4-1 Irop 54.00 U.1 > 88,09 43" W CC 1-/7-01' 1 C-0. -7 �. r-7. 4# 4 A Top 0 19, -rop 53.9 INV A f571.7i o(tl� MAP q n 1995 I tj V. 57, 0 9 +� � / "` t jt,�7'I�III ti rtAC-r- -Ti z UOT6: 6AZI-HWOP-K TY. �->HOWU IZ6 F2Z96r:- wr EARTHWORK OUANTITIES- C tZv OU HIE, 0, 6iZA�IU6-i AS 0r AIL-917) A50V6 SIM e9r G1 <C-1 TOTAL BUT = 607 C.Y. POC-55 M0A, LU1 ji VE FILL= 107 C.Y. -VA5L,5; MKT-6p- I APPRO ED FOR CONSTRUCTION NATI IZE� AL or OQsO I AL AS FRONTAGE 0.01 pprE CITY, f EDMONDS STRUCTURAL FiLL='55 C.Y.JOD 5V 6j6-4,--?-T15e--H E P--, ojej�j 1 0 11-�" Si-2061-r 10 0. SHEET NO 2 OF 4 TOPSOIL=' 55 C.Y. APPROX.' 2B N095 -450:3 of Public Works date GEO LINE 135q 6 7- 2- �z -d`4V- TV fz=oq!I"I- 4 -Tum A fiterr 6" MIN 4 SWALE FLOWLINE SECTION TOP OF SWALE AWE)— to .---SWALE FLOWLINE r 7— C, - /../ Ip L KEY ROCK INTO S S W WALE 6" MIN/ I'MAX !J. ROCKERY WALL SECTION L 3,7 MIN 3" MIN ROCK TO BE 4" MINUS SUMP TO BE INSPECTED DAILY CLEAN WHEN DEBRIS EXCEEDS A NO SCALE QUARRY SPALLS PER WSDOT STD 9-1.3.1 1/2 DEPTH W. cc. co, (V M ;ux I= LLJ 0 J-1 G.L. 3, SEC. 5, TRIP 27N, RGE 4E, W.M. FILTER FABRIC W/ WIRE MESH. 2. 4 DOUGLAS FIR NO. I GRADE OR EOUAL 3/4"MIN DIA WASHED ALT-STL FENCE POST GRAVEL EA SIDE IN U SECTION FILTER FABRIC-MIRAF1 140N OR EOUAL ATTACH W1 STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS 2,x2"x,14GA WIRE MESH OR EOUAL II s1 II n n II II II -0i 7/717//7 to if LI BURY BOTTOM OF FABRIC oc IN 8*XI2" TRENCH TYP � FILTER FENCE DETAIL NO SCALE LL W, 1 61Z rADIZ16 az i:2A( 161 H At 4. �p -Imm (-ryp) LO - to 7. 00 INV. 4 SEE, A C,2AM 3 TEMPORARY Sl�ALE DETAIL VICINITY MAP NO SCALE NO SCALE S SCALE: 1"= 8' C—L—E:, A MOUT INV. si Oi /6e MIN 'DEPTH a" (Pik strid, $Pee", /AGGREGATZ2 Balls t (HASH INSTALLATIONS The 'area of the' entrance should be cleared Of 411 vegetation, roots shall be placed to the specified dimensions. ENTRANCE DI The aggregate Any drainage facilities required because of and other 9bJectioriable material. � The gravel must be -at ;,riches thick. it ay the V hi I.:rt specifications &shin should be constructed according to e)ttend the width I :'of L culbr in the plan. It wash reeks Ingress andBrea : ThelengtlT f the are used, they should be installed according, entrance must be at least 50'fi to binufacturer's specifications. at. INTER I qt The I entrance hall be soks"INat conditions .. 3.8 the -it such maintained In a Condition which will Prevent So rights- ' most of the mud Is not tricking or flow of mud onto public r.. from J%hts- val"Ictl;. t/r-- by ..meet with the 'gravel of -way.. L This may require periodic top bawasheIi e. " dressingti,with,, 2-inch stone, asconditions tar a 1?.uybllc road.. Nash re Vihlo�b the 'r.. . -t be a n r ad fr..!& I aW tt;e, ..at rd, and repair and/or clean ut of any r entrance o a .'settling struc(ures used , to trap sediment. ,All materials a --distenhin A44:h rack may filled., dropped, washed or tracked r area1 0 1K.1-to nake was cmn,�.nient, from vehic as onto roadway or into storm and effective. drains aust be removed immediately. TEMPORARY ENTRANCE DETAIL_.._ NO SCALE 7, Lid 0': P—Y 0 P- Oc- K 6M-T�Z,( IVA 50' A -4- a, allA"Y SSEr�7A-1 L 0 0 0 iv Iry Z Uj A, V\ Q r,,: � I . N�- QL Q z :2 vo�o C z 'N It, J VC TE 1< Z co LLJ 6) 2 Uj z cy), 1, W > 0 z z 3 IIJ of I CD U Z.. W U WLU z 4) 01 rz 0 z IV, W z O > cc z 0! z .F: Wt Cl) W les- U) 0 U) 0 U) z LIJ, SHEET N( OF 4. JOB NO' .91-3024 0. 6LC,. i VV I �L nut- , , EQ - - LU 43.I(o r ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE FOR 2:1 `ILL �;�OPES TEMPORARY EROSION ' / a u) 2 / ,{ �/ y7 AMP �, 1 1 ' a 1. APPROVAL of 111IS'.TEMPORARY . SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAIT DOES HOT CONSTITUTE nN APPROVAL of DESIGN, I.: ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF.EDMONDS STANDARDS, AND AMERICAN S 3 - �!'• 1. LU 1 r i9N- e0A0V`VA-Y AMP (�E,yC HI NJC, . SIZE, NOR LOCATION OF PIPES, RESiRICTORS,CHANNELS, OR RETENTION FACILITIES, BUT 1S AN APPROVAL OF PUBLIC WORKS- ASSOCIATION. (APWA) 'SPECIFICATIONS AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF �W 8„ ;,• TILE TEMPORARY EROSION SEDIMENTATION CONiROL PLAN'ONLY. THE SiL7AT1011 CONTROL SYSTEMS DEPICTED ON > TRANSPORTATION 1988 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE, AND MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION, G „---.'/ �_ �I/l _ 'a' THIS DRAWING ARE SUCH AS TO MEET. IfINIHUH COUNTY REQUIREMENTS.: AS CONSiRUC-TION -PROGRESSES AND. v 90 EXPECTED (SEASONAL) CONDITIONS DICTATE, IIORE SILTATION CONTROL FACILITIES ilAY BE REQUIRED TO INSURE 2, ALL -WORK WITHIN THE SITE AND CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION OF THE CITY _ COMPLETE SILTATION CONTROL ON THE PROPOSED PLAT. THEREFORE, DURING 78E COURSE of CONSTRUCTION IT ENGINEER ORHISDESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. • 1 / SHALL BE THE OBLIGATION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF SIIE DEVELOPER 70 ADDRESS., ANY NEC! CONDITIONS --THAT�,MAY'BE O I.E. 45.4 CREATED BY HIS ACTIVITIES AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES, OVER AND ABOVE FlnnnuM REQUIREMENTS, 3. PRIORTOANYSITEWORKPERTAININGTO-DRAINAGE,THECONTRACTORSHALLCONtACTTHECITYENGINEERING AS MAY BE NEEDED TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES. Q J _ • 4 1 / INSPECTOR FOR PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE. DUE TO FIELD CHANGED (REVISIONS), ENGINEERED AS• 1, 5% / Gl)Y BUILDS SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO SITE APPROVAL Q 2. PROVIDE AND. MAINTAIN TEMPORARY SEDIIIENTATIOII COLLECTION FACILITIES TO !INSURE SEDIMENT LADEN WATER �� ti SA I/j"rI till, SL i2o`e5 DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THESE' FACILITIES MUST BE IN OPERATION PRiOR 70 CLEARING I•E. 45.4 //}y�� AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AND SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION AND LANDSCAPING ARE LOCA TIONS, ATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING � l/ COMPLETED AND POTENTIAL FOR ON -SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. THE ,LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES. PRIOR TO `CONSTRUCTION. UTILITIES SHOWN HERE ARE FOR THE (� Q . �!' I.E. 4'i 1lA ® / ) PURPOSES OF -ASSISTING THE CONTRACTOR IN LOCATING SAID UTILITIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT = _ 8 t' OUT UNDERGROUND UTILITIES LOCATION CENTER (1-800-424.5555) 48 HOURS PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION 2 r Q ✓ AND OBTAIN ON UTILITIES LOCATIONS. a 3. TEMPORARY EROSION SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY PLACING SILTATION CONTROL OYr,K✓ ✓') FILTERS AROUND SWALES (NATURAL OR MANMADE) AND_•S,iALL BE MAINTAINED Ili A SAT:SfACTORY CONDl7.lON UNTiL - - - - y� \/-✓L�i(/ SUCH TiME THAT LAND CLEARING AND/OR COL'STRUCTION OF PERMANENT DRAINAGE FACILITIES ARE COMPLETED, W Q NOTES �� / + V �� .�/9Y OPERATIONAL, AND. THEN RETURNED TO ORIGINAL GROUND COfIDiiIONS. TEMPORARY SILTATION CONTROL FILTERS 5. THE TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATIONCONTROLFACILITYSHALLBECONSTRUCTEDPRIORTO/1NYGRADING ¢ �d OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING IN ACCORDANCE. WITH THE APPROVED TEMPORARY. EROSION/SEDIMENTATION/t✓U'r Z - SHALL BE APPROVED FILTER FABRICS 2 TAIL.. \� r� ALL METAL PARTS 81 SURFACES TO BE CONTROL PLAN. THESE FACILITIES MUST. BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED, TO INSURE SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER 51 Q GALVANIZED OR OF CORROSION RESISTANT nF\ 4. )3ERHS AND SWALES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS NECESSARY TO DiRECT ALL SEDIMENT LADEN WATER, 70 NATURAL DOES NOT ENTERTHENATURAL DRAiNAGESYSTEM, UNTILCONSTRUCTIONAND LANDSCAPING ISCOMPLETEDAND MATERIAL. COMPLETE CORROSION PROTECTION 1�� PARTIAL ELEVATION THE POTENTIAL FOR ON,SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. >Q� I , VEGETATION FOR SILT CONTROL. D15CfIARGE FF.OIt CUTOFF SWALES SHALL DE DIRECTED TO DISPERSE INTO HAT!\'E \L) SHALL BE ASSURED. C' Z ± �►LL 'VEGETATION ON•SITE. �IQ� 6, ALL PIPE SHALL BE PLACED ON STABLE EARTH, IF, IN THE OPINION OF THE CITY.THE EXISTING FOUNDATION IS NO SCALE UNSATISFACTORY THEN IT SHALL BE EXCAVATED. BELOW GRADE AND DACKFILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH . RESTRICTOR ORIFICE TO BE SHARP EDGED, 5. VEGETATION STALL BE ESTABLISHED oil AREAS DISTURBED OR oil AREAS OF CONSTRUCTION AS NECESSARY To STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. PIPE SHALL NOT BEINSTALLEOONSOD,FROZENEARTH,ORLARGEBOULDERSOR + SHOP DRILLED. MINIMIZE EROSION. AREAS 70 BE'ROUGH GRADED WiTH FIIl1SUED GRADING. 70 FOLLOW HEAR PROJECT COMPLETION ROCK. O ARE TO DE SEEDED WITH ANNUAL, PERENNIAL OR HYBRID RYE GRASS. THIS ALSO INCLUDES PERiIiETER_DIKES AND Z y� ✓ THE SEDIMENT BASIN EHBANKMENi. HYDROSEED `PREFERRED. 7. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED EQUALLY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE'PIPE OR PIPE -ARCH IN LAYERS WITH A LOOSE E3A CK �1 L L �j EiJ G I-1 ES �L AG E r l L L•) J f7 - 0 On. i pp� - J AVERAGE DEPTH OF 6% MAXIMUM DEPTH 6% COMPACTED TO A.SPECIFIED AASHTO T-99 DENSITY OF 90%, THESE r 6. STOCKPILES ARE TO BE LOCATED 1N SAFE AREAS AND ADEQUATELY PROTECTED BY TEMPORARY SEEDING AND ( COMPACTED LAYERS MUST EXTEND FOR ONE DIAMETER ON EACH SIDE OF THE PIPE OR TO THESIDE OF THE I LG L-�Y w / �IZ I VE: WAY /AY GJ� GT) r Y. I MULCHING. HYDROSEED PREFERRED. TRENCH, MATERIALS TO COMPLETE THE FILL OVER PIPE SHALL BE THE SAME AS DESCRIBED. (REFER TO WSDOT v Y� V V /IU STD. SPEC. 7.04.3(3) AND STD.SPEC.2-03(14)C,METHOD B&C.) 7. >:MEDIA1ELY FOLLOWING FiNISH GPJ,DIIIG, PERMANENT VEGETATION (CONSISTING OF RAPID, PERSISTENT AND 1 4✓ 8. BACKFILL TRENCH OF NEW UTILITIES SHALL BE COMPACT TO 95% RELATIVE COMPACTION UNDER ROADWAYS AND r� LEGUME) WILL BE APPLIED (MIN. 80 LD/AC). 7111S 1S TO INCLUDE: �- OA WA� 20% ANNUAL, PERENNIAL OR HYBRID RYE GRASS 1 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OFF ROADWAYS, AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 2-03.3(14)D AND SECTION 2.03.3(74)B. OFFSET FRAME 8 GRATE SO _ I 40% CREEPING RED FESCUE `lRESTRICTOR/POLLUTION40% WHITE CLOVER DEVICE 9. ALL STRUCTURAL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY BY MODIFIED VISIBLE AT EDGE OF OPENING HYDITosEED PP.EfERRED. PROCTOR TEST. AND DIRECTLY OVER LADDER TOP 5Z•5p 8. PREPARATION OF SURFACE: ALL AREAS TO BE SEEDED SHALL BE CULTIVATED 10 THE SATISFACTION OF THE , --r- 10. CATCH BASIN FRAME AND GRATES SHALL BE OLYMPIC FOUNDRY MODEL 5435, 5435A, OR 50503A, LOCKING TYPE ENGINEER. TN15 MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DISCINC, RAKING, HARROWING OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS: !/ OR EQUAL MODEL 5435A IS REFERRED TO AS A 'THROUGH CURB INLET' ON THE PLAN. MODEL 505MA IS ] Y FERTILIZER: SHALL BE APPLIED AT 400N PER ACRE OF 10.20.20 (10 PWNDS PER 1100 SQUARE FEET) OR ' �I L (-' EQUIVALENT. I REFERRED TO AS A'ROLLED GRATE INLET' N THE PLAN. ALL.LIDS SHALL BE LOCKING TYPE. 11. : ALL GRATES (INLET AND CATCH BAST HALL BE DEPRESSED 0.1 FEET BELOW PAVEMENT LEVEL, THE .. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE OR ADJUSTING ALL MANHOLE, INLET, AND CATCH BASIN FRAMES AND y' �•, ,' �- SILL IG.e'( GRATES JUST PRIOR TO POURING DF� RE3S AND PAVING. v 12. ALL CATCH BASINS WITH A DEPTH OVER 5.0 FEET TO THE FLOW LINE SHALL BE A TYPE 11 CB (MANHOLE). /AGL= -rEN5Alz SS Z GgiZ_)0 49C EQUI\/ALEN -rp 13. ALL .TYPE 11'CATCH BASIN MANHOLES AND ALL INLET AND CATCH BASINS SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS. r WiTH I N OAJr- 1 OOT Of% THE MOrO5E r� SLOP STD GA LV ST L 8 PV`' OVA I'C LAP A S N E G 55� 12Y• 14. STANDARD LADDER STEPS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ALL CATCH BASINS/MANHOLES EXCEEDING 4 FEET IN DEPTH. i�i�'E SIECI�ICATiONS STEPS Rt LADDER 15. PRIOR TO SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCT THE LOT DRAINAGE AND STUB OUTS AND/OR BEHIND SIDEWALK �' 9 \ I N V, + 9. Za �--0AI2WA 1 DRAINS AS REQUIRED.. STUB OUTS SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2- X 4- AND LABELED -STORM-. LOCATIONS OF �- t•� .. ALL PIPE TO BE CMP OR CONCRETE PIPE, EXCEPT AS SHOWN.; CMP TREATMENT 5 OR BETTER MAY BE THESE INSTALLAT19NS SHALL BE PLACED ON THE AS -BUILT CONSTRUCTION PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY. QVE(2.rLOVf 4 (a•4d : , • ' G)Z I iJ SUBSTITUTED FOR CONCRETE PIPE. � SILL_ GAI.I �E PLAGE{7 @ Z: I ( L.1 : V ) ' BACKFILL AROUND PIPE MUST BE COMPACTED TO A SPECIFIED AASHTO T•99 DENSITY OF 90%. USE REASONABLE i6. STORM WATER RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITIES MUST BE FLUSHEDAND CLEANED PRIORTO ENGINEERING FINAL '-� I h� tza;GOMMEN DA>'IDNS ) CARE IN HANDLING AND INSTALLATION. INSPECTION. ALL NON -PERFORATED METAL PIPE SHALL HAVE NEOPRENE GASKETS AT THE JOINTS. O-RING GASKETS MAY BE 17. ALL EARTHWORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY STANDARDS. PRECONSTRUCTION SOILS h �u PVC_ \ CHAIN - 400 Ib. AtZE rOLLOvh ir. 2 I NV. 4649 GAPAG I (Y V\/ELI� �� USED FOR TYPE F BANDS. INVESTIGATION MAY BE REQUIRED TO EVALUATE SOILS STABILITY,, GALVANIZED STEEL CMP SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASH70 DESIGNATION M•36, TYPE 1 AND T8. ROCK OR CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING UPON FINAL SLOPES AND ENCOUNTERED ; o -- SLACK WH 1 IM TYPE 2. PIPE SHALL HAVE ASPHALT TREATMENT 1 OR BETTER. CONDITIONS. ALL RETAINING WALLS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY TAE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DURING BOTH �' Z DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. W GATE DOWN). \ JF CORRUGATION • 2.2/3 X 1/2 CORRUGATION 3 X 1 19. ALL DISTURBED AREAS. SUCH AS RETENTION FACILITIES, ROADWAY BACIKSLOPES, ETC. SHALL BE SEEDED WITH I 1 � Z a A PERENNIAL GROUND COVER GRASS TO MINIMIZE EROSION. GRASS SEEDING WILh BE DONE USING AS APPROVED N Q m 4' i�L A G I2E M A 1 N I N GJ f3A GJC t%I L L A N I% IZOA D WAY %�G'�IDlll HYDROSEEDER OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY SNOHOMISH COUNTY z W /r PIPE ARCH CAGE BAND PIPE ARCH - M Q > I N V 43. I(v MIN 1 M UM GOM PAGT10N1 OM 5L 0 PE / 1 a 12•36' 17x13.42x29 16 12' 20. NO STOCKPILING IS ALLOWED. ' a Y A 42'•54' 16 24' 54--120" 21. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING FINISH GRADING, PERMANENT VEGETATION (CO4SISTING OF RAPID, PERSISTENT AND Z a UNV612 1ZoAI2WAY ►5 95 °/ MObIP)Et N Q O 60' 49x33 14 24' 126'-138' 40x31 - i t2x75 LEGUME) WILL BE APPLIED. (MINIMUM BOA' PER ACRE). THIS IS TO INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: WATERTIGHT LIFT Z ss -so 57x38.64x43 12 24' 144' 117x79.137x87 •20% ANNU N 1}L, PERENNIAL OR HYBRID RYE GRASS GATE ASSY . o 96' 7tx47 8 24' 142x91 - 40% CREEPING RED FESCUE • ^ Q 77x52 . 83x57 8 24' 401& WHITE CLOVER O ' 9? t9IZA I N 5 MAY 0[E iZEQU I P_S12 UN 12ER E HYDROSEED PREFERRED. z , ANNULAR RECORRUGATED ENDS OR ANNULAR CORRUGATED PIPE, 12'-84' DIAMETER, TYPES 0, D & F, TO HAVE i IZOA I2 WAY OIZ ON "rHE �ENI GH ES, f%E� f`J� 12' BAND, GUAGE SAME AS PIPE. 22. PREPARATION OF SURFACE:, ALL AREAS TO BE SEEDED SHALL BE CULTIVATED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ° z f INSPECTOR,- THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY DISCING, RAKING, HARROWING OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE MEANS, ^ fi !�' Q ; RESTRICTOR PLATE :' .'' � UPvN t:i11GDUR.JTE12E1� G011.1t'il"(IONS • CORRUGATED ALUMINUM PIPk: AND COUPLING BANDS SHALL. MEET THE REQWREMENTS of FERTILIZER: SH ALL BE APPLIED AT 400 #PER ACRE OF 10 20 20 (t0 M PER 1100 SQ.FT.) OR EQUIVALENT. EJ J t� r W/ ORIFICE- I Ilyk, Z •4 AASHTO M196 AND M197. >, N CORRUGATION 2-2/3 X 1/2 CORRUGATION 3 X 1 �t m PIP ARCH GAGE BAND - PIPE ARCH I Y Ib M 12'•27' 17x13 - 42x29 16 12' 36'-60' _ A n a 30'-36' 28x2O.35x24 14 21' 66'•72' �. Z .. V p ' 42' 54- 42x29. 49x33 12 21' 78'-96' 6Ox46 - 95x67 `mil • - � 60' 67x38 - 64x43 10 24' - 106'-144' 103x71 • 1 t2x75 W � �. W y +' SPIRAL RIB PIPE Z �,, • TCH BASIN # DETAIL ,B'-a2' 16 12'' • 0 Z 48'-60' 14 21' r _ W �= 66'-84' 12 21' 'ANNULAR RECORRUGATED ENDS OR ANNULAR CORRUGATED PIPE, 12--84' DIAMETER, TYPES B;' D & F, TOHAVENSTRUCTLON SEQU CE �, &___C�A Ty PE it - 54r` N00 O SCALE 12' BAND, GAGE SAME AS PIPE, 12' CONCRETE PIPE 21' DIA AND LESS (ASTM C14 EXTRA STRENGTH) SHALL BE PLAIN AND CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO DESIGNATION",CLASS 2, AND TO DESIGNATION M-198 FOR RUBBER GASKETED 1, ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING JOINTS, UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERV✓ISE, CONCRETE PIPE 24- DIA AND LARGER (ASTM C76; CLASS 2) SHALL BE U' m REINFORCED AND CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO DESIGNATION M•iiO. 2. FLAG CLEARING UMITS Z Z (� F 3.. 1 : INSTALL FILTER FENCE O W -rHIGKEI�IEC> Et'7CIE- ..• • 4. , INSTALL CB PROTECTION AS SHOWN Ncc -(HICK !'i7 W 5. INSTALL FREINC14DRAINS PER SOILS REPORT (PG. 10) ,h PLIVEME.N i 02 GOt.1G12�'rE I , CONSTRUCT BERM AND SWALE WEST OF FOUNDATION AREA ' WAL_KWAY WHE)ZE 5HOWM. �.---- 7. DEWATER AS REQUIRED Z RADiNG8.. STRIP. AND CLEAR THE BUILDING AND PAVEMENTIREAS O / u,=iilll INSTALL UTILITIES (POWER, STORM, SANITARY, ETC) - Z IIII-- 1. ALL SITE VY'ORK MUST COMPLY I'JITH CHAPTER 70 OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. (1985 1111a1111� IIII a011 o>z TOPSOIL. _ o 10. PROVIDE CB PROTECTION REMAINING ;(- EDITION) IIII Ill. FINAL GRADE/PAVE, MAINTAIN MINIMAL CB PROTECTION Q 2. A GRADING PERMIT ISSI)ED PURSUAi47 TO TITLE 17 SCC A14D CHAPTER 17 UBC AND RAI s APPROVAL OF THE TEi✓PORARY EROSION AND SEDIM (ENTATION CONTROL PLAN SHALL HAVE 12. HYDROSEED AND MULCH ALL EXPOSED AREAS L'r P�/G TCaHTLIILI� �n GOMPi` t�E��j ► GL ' O' ASFi-i^L-r GOM6rZ, E BEEN OBTAINED FROM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICVJORKS FOR ANY ON -SITE GRADING WHICH 10 p �p0� �%fZ A I IS NOT EXPRESSLY EXEIAPTED BY SECTION 7003 UBC. 13. FLUSH STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM (I.E., CLEAN OUT AND TEST SYSTEM) I %2" MIN. COMP'>' tiFJ�-I cfz 5U��AGINC� '>'OP GoUfZSE . O 1 " 3. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DATED APRIL 6, 1290.BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS FOR 14. REMOVE ALL TESCP FACILITIES ONLY WHEN ENTIRE SITE IS STABILIZED \ C�OMPAG r rtZ6� I�iZAININ(� 2 /z MIA-1. COMPT (6P'rH CX surerAC.IN )SASE ALL SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK RECO�J ENDATIONS. \ \ O o0 G-ItZA J%JL_AV_ i�AGICF'I LIL C�tZAVEIr GL' 13' MAY 06 i?,60- PE)Z SOIL GoNn 710tJs i • f m � o Bill o i I o$ pO (o VV(_ PEiZI' F-fcj . 9F_A )Nl SU2)ZOUNDErj 0Y A MIN. or ONE I(UGH MI1JU> pp TYPICAL ROADWAl( SECT�N �;% WA5HED IZOGK. Ca jf'UNt�i5TUI2t3Et� SOIL O DRIVEWAY No scALE WRAP iZOGI= w njoN) WOVEN 5 rZE13Al2� : r- ' , C�Eo -f�xr� LE t%p tjlZ.l G . - \� : �\\�y, 'tb •, ,.�� U�� >- 1 rI►�115H C-I2AtSE v, :'moo ::.: '' +'' o' • s� �- �, E00�'INO DRAIN DETAIL PEA GRAVEL 3' %�\ W NO SCALE 1\ I I I I h 1 I' i rA. 51►9E Or- •' �!,�� fl CA ,PIP .LLI (v IZ 15Et; r6A Gt2AVEL,a TOP or% PIPE v�r' �I' -= WY� �. I) CAP AS ►2>:QU112EL7 b <�\/ O M , /B rV-0V10r- 4` ILIA. PVC- O3 L_Ov1/ ,. W SIZE A5 5HOVVN. IMVeRT Or PI Pt✓ �. r?PPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY of.EpMONDS lr - 3 DRAIN CL,EANOUT DETAIL CONCRETE PIPE ANCHOR DETAIL 1 SHEET No. D 4 OF 4 NO SCALE NO.SCALE "+i } Dept. of `Public Works' date Joe NO.: 91-3024 1 � GEO-LINE 135976 � .. e r r 1 km.L.a E LEGAL DESCRIPTION cu/ cc 'W r SA G G� � �X (S'INC, P1/ Ol NEA MA-rGH -ro IL C.pA JO) I .� Lu (tf} cn UL APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION CITY of EDMONDS /�/ /Z �/ / C►�� SHEET NO.- 2 OF 4 E�.I)pt- oi: Public works date: � � r i JOB NO.- � , �� 91-3024 1 LEGEND p SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CULVERT O STORM DRAIN TYPE II ® WATER METER a- UTILITY POLE o MB MAILBOX F BLOW —OFF ss SANITARY SEWER MAIN SD STORM MAIN — CENTERLINE X FENCE DITCH DITCH CENTERLINE psm� Oq I I 2 I l I x2pg � I G.L. 3, SEC. 5 ,TWP. 27N. ,RGE. 4E. ,W.m. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 29, PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH VACATED SEASIDE AVENUE ADJOINING THERETO. b96` ®PTER METER x b92 O l 1 1 / / 65 x b0 0 I' I ®"V ER METER I I / I I I I� .hsl I �0e xb X�_CI�_72" TYPE II $ RI „� 72.36 INV= 63.26 IN S. �UT N. I o I b N �29 / I �l � I= W / J LU /n p 2 3 I O a �I _.I j m � r2b2 I CONC. PIPE 12" INV= 72.62 p22 U TILT Y P 1 I I '1 p I I� I WATER MITER Q- � I I lhg 50 so CB 72" TYPE II RIM= 74.05 INV= 66.35 IN E, OUT NW. VICINITY I WATER MITER Q- � I I lhg 50 so CB 72" TYPE II RIM= 74.05 INV= 66.35 IN E, OUT NW. VICINITY MAP MEADOWDALE 3w BEACH PARK a SOUND m SITE a ~� Mf m � q0 J � PhD x Q q�f > 3 9p f Q� N N T. S MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS 168TH ST SW �W A zI Fb 0 s� LzS �h- �. %. H � .4 a �� •• �� w �[ r x w A I co m r \• Gal 1 A co a q�ry� z W o z v C'3 C� cq cq W Z5 " In i{ Lo ~ Lo I co �> z cD �' d E-� QQ 0 7E � ca pq c P.4 o F-1 Ch) � � Fzi 0 rz V 1 SHT 1 OF 1 JOB NO:95-4503 '. .. .. - �' '. � -�. -, .. .. .. .. ��- ., ', ::- .. �'... /"W T !1'� ftiT\��'V'. ./ lT1TST4r1 �a .�I..Iw T V—� �a T+� I T^I - TMT ', 1f e► �' � a MANHOLE J RIM 75.90 ' LLJ / OUT/SW I a - CB 72 TYPE II = NIV= 69 .07 W • l . --' / OUTS ' J. MEADOWDALE PLAYFIELDS 168TH ST SW Q J' z o > � 00 .a - 0. r- f+f P oP N fh P S -1 q 4 W t� a z z d� �- T • at,• r • AN cnl 14 Ld xK'. tilt m� A. I cl a�� cat 0 w w 6 �. o 0A a a z. ca w _ V A w 0 x ® z �0 w ~ U 0 co ko e� H cn t� C C 0 V1 SHT 1 OF 1 JOB NO:95-4503