The URL can be used to link to this page

16010 75TH PL W.PDF111111111111 6065 16010 75TH PL W R. ADDRESS: A O6 DS loaL w TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: C/C///. --�/ //S / a�199460 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: 07061- 6�IddI?/csJ CRITICAL AREAS: ( DETERMINATION: Conditional Waiver Ej Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: v DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PERMITS (OTHER): 2000 --O(a 7-8 A PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: Z!O SHORT PLAT FILE: J ^ z 3^ go LOT: 2 BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: 1-6 -9( SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: 3 STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 510 OTHER: / y / �/�QD l/✓L�L�(,[_ //�G✓i4L� il'?PS a/'% 20¢�72 LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc l/t4 � � rti " 'ATE RECEIVED C- _ 1 -7Z D i 171 -..� �,.:... PERMIT EXPIRES USE PERMIT TONE CITY OF EDMONDS C �2., NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB �{ S ITE/APTp ADDRESS ' ij Jj OWNER NAMEMAME OF BUSINESS PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO. LID FEE $ ZMAILING ADDRESS ffUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved ❑ RW Permit Required O Street Use Permft Re 'd 3 O s 8i� i! it/ \,I / 7 EXISTING PR P ED O OS q O Inspection Required ❑ Sidewalk Required ❑ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE AV REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wiring required ❑ NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES ❑ NO ❑ cc F ADDRESS REMARKS z OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE a ¢ d%�+ A� � AIJ Z w CITY ZIP TELEPHONE N cc ,Wirt . % "`7• y - �� j� '} ( _ ENGINEERING REVIEWED ATE ADDRESS aFIRE REVIEWED BY DATE W CITY ZIP TELEPHONE z 5 LL O - VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADBk INSPECTION BOND POSTED STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE S CHECKED BY / � 1 y ^1l / t s - 0 YESSj! NO SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT IV J a PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED LU !�5 I J EXP ❑ NEW RESIDENTIAL ❑ PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED PROPOSED REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT SI E REAR PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT UR SIDE REAR ❑ AUDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ COMPLIANCE OR OU z CHANGE OF USE PARKING LOT AREA 011fAe196 REVIEWED BY DATE ❑ REMODEL ❑ APARTMENT ❑ SIGN REQ'D PROVIDED a f•^ / 71— a REPAIR GRADING FENCE ❑ ❑ CYDS ❑ ( X FT) REMARKS .,Gr �' - i % rf !J<� OTH rri11;. ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK � / Z GARAGE ❑ CARPORT RETAINING WALL ❑ RENEWAL ROCKERY (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS bR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: H CHECKED BY ITYI-60F CONSTRUCTION C E OCCUPANT GROUP ^� a Ac'/ w OC,cf � ff f y�•+ NUMBER NUMBER OF DWELLING CRITICA� AREASNUMBER \r `�\ SPECIAL�,' INSPECTORYES AREA OCCUPANT O SOF TORIES UNITS REQUIRED 13114 LA LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS c7 PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC'108/FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D a J nn VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % " LOT SLOPE % BUILDING (22 PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE ° PLUMBING MECHANICAL THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC GRADING/FILL DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE F SEPARATE PERMISSION. 3Th-E-SURCHARGE 0 ., ��i ¢ PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS " W a PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION N APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS ENG. INSPECTION FEE N IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF LANDSCAPING i EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND INSPECTION FEE a ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE RECEIPT PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT o DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE O_ NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' TOTAL AMOUNT DUE REC t1 �� j� I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the ' TION; AND IN DOI THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL 8E EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid. and IN VIOLATION O THE LABOR CODE OF THE STA%TE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S C VS,INSURANCE AND RJ¢VV 18.27. OFFICIALS SIGNATURE DATE SIGNAT AGEN f DATE GNED (425) ,a 4 771-0220—, +R€LEASE BY DA E ATTENTION EXT 333 1. - IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 FAX ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW - TOR PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSSESS OR 5/98 �� ic�iq �0%• ' 1 CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME NAME OF BUSINESS ; RUGGIERO, PHILIP W MAI I�JG_ADgRESS o bulb 140TH CT-.'N.E. CITY zip TELEPHONE NUMBER REDMOND WN 9$05l2 462-7393 NAME V I NCE OJALA A. I ..A U UJ J3RD AV. N. E: U SEATTI.IT WN. 9411 S T0EL 7-9-9RO R ff NA'K_ S r r :t `I CC irr ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER pz STATE LICENSE'NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE U Legal Description of roperty'= include all easements o LOT 2 MC CO 1.' BLOCK .5 , 9 MEADOWDALE BEACH r a r W W as-L3-90 m -i Property Tax o 51.31-059-00A-0001 No.. 't Parcel J P NEW RESIDENTIALI PLUMBING ADDITION COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL APT. SLOG. REMODEL SIGN G I FENCE ®. REPAIR CYOS., L ,x_FT) '.. P { WOODSTOVE SWIM POOL DEMULISH• NSERT HO TUB SPA GARAGE RETAINING WALL/ CARPORT ILX ROCKERY: RENEWAL z Y(TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: Q ER ITICAL Lu O, : U NUMBER .BSMT� OF Lj DWELLING ONE AREAS _ +.' coSTORIES UNITS NUMBER . DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) ZONE PERMIT 9 ^0A66. 20 NUMBER ir am JOB 9 SUITE -APT is ADDRESS ,.... •, , . LIU NO - 1— t— PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET AP. TESCP Approved O RW Permit Required )51 EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION -treat Use Permit Req'd O PROPOSED Inspection Required Sidewalk Required _ '� ¢ E ER SIZE •. METER LINE SIZE NO, OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED QD 1 YES NO 13 ? 9E ARKS - / (: C/ !". !,< %/ ' w 77 i t"' / l - W 2 uI >=�:•, rr/' �:P�i� lrLrvVr <...1 rrJ�.%. J .'.� v� ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVISED BY SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW ADB N9. ALLOWED COMPLETE EXEMPT • 4jROPOSED SHORIiLINE EXP - 5 VARIANCE OR C I I/4 LA W BY DATE SETBACKS/E /f FRONT SIDE //) REAR /,Cl HEIGHT ILOTCLVE ��21 T or7a✓ A BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE OI GI INSPECTOR I A it !.� YES I /AP REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 N - '.FINAL- INSPECTION REQUIRED. , ...... ,...... VALUATION FEE - P,E A 3 0 PLAN CHECK FEE HEAT SOURCE: GLAZINn BUILDING w ;[ I "Z03 GASr - % PLUMBING w w Plan Check No. %RwMECHANICAL / This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADING/FILL Any construction on the public domain (curhs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE, SURCrWGE Permit Application; 180 Days " :Permit-.Irimit!.1 Year - Providect W," Is,Starjed Within 180?Days ; • - STORMpRAINAGE FEE i an "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and 64 L / y successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold A W harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, ��u�s �� low 5 employees, and agents from ansA nand all claims for damages of whatever nature, arising directly o7"Fndirectiy from the issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT c _ij modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance xx nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." 'I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL Information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly --authorized agent.of the owner. I agree to comply with city and state laws regulating -construction; and in doing the work authoriz• THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official'or his/her Code of the State of Washington vela g to Workmen's Compensa• WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insura a and RCW 18.27. INSPEC14ON acknowledged in space provided. , SIGNATURE t W ER OR AGENT) SIGNED- DEPARTMENT JDATE CITY OF.. OFFICIAL• SIGN TORE DATE EDMONDS CALL FOR ELEA D e DATE ATTE ION • INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR �� .-11 OwwO ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC CHAPTER 3. PINK — OWner GOLD — Assessor '.�' � �"�r.��;,nl�l�++�t""�t'i�'Da,t.'r�P`v�.q.i("'�u1�.T.hnM1''e1W'��:'i°j�''�1i�'...1�1 •: l�F+'c+�f"`'iacV•t'�V�nSti f�f'°J��t m "� rrs'f�:A'�`'�!4*�1�'��'*'�'7.f��SR'srhrr�nytri':fact;wt�n" CJTY OF EDMONDNEp 1996 SIDE SEWER PERMIT .3 � 9 9 p .19 [IUBLIC WORKS DEPi PERMIT 112 8799 —7 Address of Construction: l.Y[VNWOOD LINE.. �� `� PG w Q i"1oNf> .000 Property Legal Description (Include all easements): 5731- DS /.-- 004 — 000 Owner and/or Contractor: SNL}96 C�ONsTI;'A-u4?<oN State License No. -3A/AR&G ! 7 2 /-0 Building Permit No. Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public Invasion into City Right -of -Way: JNr No ❑ Y'es r RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property:Zr No ❑ Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement I certifp that I have read acid shall comply with all city requirements as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. 9/3/96 Date * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. Permit Fee: Issued By Trunk Charge: S Date Issued: 9- Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: 2 Lid No.:— U Partial Inspection: Comments Reason Rejected: Final Inspection Approved: Date CI'it?-C� lnitial� Date Initial Date Initial ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy. File Green Copy. Inspector Buff Copy. Applicant . - Revised 3!90 /� t �nr�4A91t�Slip !!,)rmiu9snidol 'Ou pwv, to :J JO 42 J1 PtIB ills ^fL�tlO�U� a� I :3 Sul UO umcc ? , ..., ,T IM ON J;ju,., j L�J �z z a 0 a d 0 z m 0 0 z a r 0 � 0 0 z r O z 0 zz �i a 0 flm.. 3 0 2 a m 0 NO VIlli - - rr, vz r 210eep C, : Deep ^ qb 0 stab its cmpjap, C', z 0 z O Letter of Response Geotechnical Consultation Services Proposed Residential Construction Meadowdale Beach Area Edmonds, Washington RECEIVED May 17, 1995 ..JUL 1 8 1995 PERMIT COUNTER For Mr. Phillip John Ruggiero i a 9i Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas (Me klist contaiaed'on this foams to bo f llcd out by any p=on prcpacigg a Mvdopmcat Paunit Application for dw city awmonds prior to his/her submittal of a devdopment xxmit to the any. the purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to deta n ine whedim any potential Critical Areas are or may be pre smt on the. s*cetp wjWy. The information nooded.t� eompleta the M=Hist should be ca 4 available from observations of the sits or data available. as City Hall (4idcal Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative,, must fill oat dW &0WiSk sign and daze it, and , submit it to the (sty. The City will r viewl the choc04 malw a proausory site visit, and maloo a detar nination of the subsequent steps uxessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed oopy of dds fora n, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map of fire paned vier enough detail that City staff can find andidentify thasabjeet paroei(s). In addition, the applicant is encouraged to include any other pertigwt info=aoation 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 Ctocidist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate cobnnn below). Owner / Applicant: Name' Title Strut Address City, State, ZIP Phone Signature • Date Applicant Representative: Name *rIt1e - 13 0 3 3300 h+•l aE Str t Address 4216tol Critical Areas Checklist Sit- Information �d S£P 13 1 P�RMlT pp�NTER Project Name: 4ZUd*"*JMV 96F.,tDPermit Number. Site Location Property Tax Account Number. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): Id.1 b0.t�'T, 5131 05 Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? General Site Conditions 1. Has the site boas cleared or logged.? Date of most recut action SIFT r o 4,44Its, — 44 ' �c tb Kaoo Soils !'Topography _ 2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil typo(s)? '`4440 tv tA oJEr• 3. Descnbe the general site topography. Chock all that apply. . 6 '� o • prl��& t L �`fi Flat less than 5 feet elevation change over entiit site. T Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 feet.) ly. slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10 fort of horizontal distance- ) present on site. ��Steep: grades of greater than 30°l° Comments Lo TW40-,'WiL Hydrology/Vegetation 4. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: 5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. td am, Approx. Depth: 6. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 7. Site contains a creek or-anarea-, *= water flows across the grounds surface? flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? .Ltt stlltf*M �P 8. Site is primarily: forested : meadow ;shrubs _�; mixed 9. Obvious wetland is present on site:. 10. Wetland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site: A_ 11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site: Geo1,00Engineers .Mt. Phillip John Ruggiero 6126 - 140th Court Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 • May 17, 1995 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Letter of Response Geotechnical Consultation Services Proposed Residential Construction Meadowdale Beach Area Edmonds, Washington File No. 3475-001-R02 INTRODUCTION This letter summarizes our review of the comments made by the city of Edmond's geotechnical reviewer, Landau Associates, relative to your proposed Meadowdale Beach residence. The comments were provided to us by Mr. Vince 'Ojala, your architect, during a meeting with Mr. Gary Beckham of GeoEngineers on April 19, 1995. Our current services on this project were accomplished in accordancewith our memorandum to you dated April 27, 1995, as authorized by your signature on May 1, 1995. Our current services continue our involvementin your project, which include our March 29, 1994 "Report, Geotechnical Consultation Services, Proposed Residential Construction, Meadowdale Beach Area, Edmonds, Washington," and our "Statement of Risk Letter ..." dated September 6, 1994. Landau's comments, in part, .relate to our March 1994 geotechnical report and statement 'of risk letter for the project. The March 1994 report was prepared using preliminary sketches and drawings provided by Mr. Ojala. We did not have the opportunity to review any of the final drawings or plans that were submitted to the city of Edmonds relative to your project. GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 1 111 Fax 1 :61 1 f1d•p, ar �^r ';� _ ".�fL»• r". s'r �+',. nry•'�*� t• x;�. ,�F ,iA;Sa '!�"M .w�� ..+� Y M n •+x,t Mr. Phillip John Rug* • May 17, 1995 Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of our services is to respond to the city of Edmond's request for additional information. Our scope of services for these evaluations included a thorough review of our files, previous reports by others and GeoEngineers for the vicinity of the site, current project plans and specifications, and reevaluation of basic geotechnical design criteria and assumptions presented in our report of March 1994. DISCUSSION The below described items follow, line -by-line, the comments made by Landau Associates. The items are categorized by topic, include Landau specific concerns (comments), and our response. Item No. 7 in the comments prepared by Landau Associates will be addressed by your architect and is not included in this summary. 1. SLOPE STABILITY Comment: Provide the statistical probability in percent of earth movement at the site within a 25-year period. Response: Within the long period of geologic history,, the Meadowdale area has experienced numerous small to large scale landslides. Prior to the late 1970s, the risk of additional landsliding has been high. However, new sewer utilities were installed in the area upslope of the Ruggiero property in 1979 and 1985. These facilities effectively dewatered much of the Meadowdale landslide complex and substantially improved the slope stability conditions. As discussed below, the dewatering reduced the probability of slope movement within a 25- year period to about 30 percent. As part of development of the Ruggiero property, we have recommended the removal of much of the colluvial soils on the site, reconfiguration of the slope above the planned house location, and construction of a soldier pile retaining wall on the property. As stated in our March 1994 report, it is our opinion that the proposed development will not increase the potential for slope movement and the risk of damage to the proposed house construction, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal, assuming that the slope stabilization measures above are constructed. As such, it is our opinion that the probability of earth movement within a 25-year period should be less than 30 percent, providing that the city utility. drain systems are maintained. It is also likely that the proposed construction will further improve the existing slope stability conditions. This may result in a further decrease in the actual risk of slope movement. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Ruge • May 17, 1995 Page 3 Comment: Assessment of site ground water conditions with respect to site stability or probability of future site instability. Response: The conclusions we presented in our March 1994 report relative to slope stability conditions on the property included our observations of existing subsurface water conditions and recent utility construction that has changed the ground water elevations in the vicinity of the site. This information is. summarized as follows: 1. New stormwater and sanitary sewer systems installed by the city of Edmonds in the area upslope of the Ruggiero property and vicinity in 1979 and 1985 resulted in a decline in the ground water table and a decrease of landslide activity in the Meadowdale landslide complex. 2. We observed no ponding of surface water or ground water spring seeps during our visits to the property on December 30, 1993, February 2 and March 8, 1994. 3. Borings that we completed at the site in February 1994 indicated only slight ground water seepage into the borings. No standing water was observed in boring B-1 (see our March 1994 report) and water was observed in B-2 at Elevation 27.5 feet, which is near the planned soldier pile tip elevations. The elevations of the seeps suggest that a small amount of ground water is perched in a zone of colluvium on top of the relatively impervious hard silt layer below. It is our opinion that new drainage systems installed as part of construction of the proposed upslope rockeries and the soldier pile retaining wall will likely intercept much of the ground water that is perched above the hard silt layer. This should result in further lowering of the ground water table at the site. This, along with maintenance of the city sewer facilities and other planned construction at the site, will likely decrease the probability of future slope instability at the site to less than 30 percent over 25 years, as stated above. Comment: Determine if any portion of the site falls within the 50 percent probability area. Response: The entire block was classified in the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates report as 4A90, meaning that there was, at that time, a 90 percent probability of slope failure. However, according to our November 22, 1989 geotechnical consultation report for Hawley & McCorkle, for an area encompassing the 4L G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-1102. c Mr. Phillip John RuV May 17, 1995 Page 4 Ruggiero property, we concluded that the risk of landsliding had been reduced to about 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period because of construction of new sanitary and stormwater sewer systems (see the discussion above). New construction on the Ruggiero property should further reduce the risk of slope failure, as stated above. Comment: Provide a risk statement that addresses the effects of site ground" water conditions. Response: Without any development on the property, the probability of slope failure over a 25-year period is 30 percent, as discussed above. In our opinion, the removal of colluvial soils, reconfiguration of the slope, and installation of a temporary retaining wall will probably not increase the current risk of slope failure. In fact, it is probable that these improvements may reduce the risk to less than a 30 percent probability over a 25-year period. This includes a consideration of the potential reduction of the amount of ground water by installation of drainage systems for the rockeries and the retaining wall, and assumes the continued maintenance of existing cityutility drainage systems. 2. AND 3. SOLDIER PILE WALL DESIGN Comment: Review sheet 9 of the project plans (or any other related sheets) to see if the details shown on the plans invalidate any of GeoEngineers design assumptions for the soldier pile wall. Response: We have reviewed the project plans, our March 1994 report and computations relative to the construction of a soldier pile retaining wall east of the planned residence. In our opinion, the current project plans generally follow the recommendations we presented in our March 1994 report. Overall, we believe that the basic design assumptions have not been compromised nor invalidated.. However, our review indicates that the exposed height of the planned soldier pile wall is greater than shown on preliminary sketches of the wall that we reviewed some time ago. The difference in wall height appears to be the result of final adjustments to the elevations on the slope above the wall (east) from planned grading and construction of rockeries. Because of the different exposed wall height, we recommend that certain geotechnical design criteria be followed, as summarized: 1. The maximum exposed height of the soldier pile wall must not be greater than 11 vertical feet either during construction or permanently. ftG e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Ruro May 17, 1995 Page 5 2. Develop a larger passive resistance on the west side of the soldier pile wall by limiting the amount of soil excavated in the area between the pile wall and the east house foundation wall. The current limit of excavation defined by the 4H:1V (horizontal to vertical) slope shown on sections A and B on sheet 7/14 should be adjusted upward. We recommend that the cut behind the house foundation wall be steepened from 4H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) to 1H:IV, as shown on our Proposed Revision to Detail "A" on sheet 7/14, Figure 1. The recommended revision to the maximum, excavation line should apply to both sections A and B of sheet 7/14 and the plans must show that excavations cannot occur beyond or below the defined area. Comment: Review and confirm the design wall height, exposed height and pile embedment depths with the architect. Response: As recommended above, the maximum height of the exposed portion of the soldier pile wall must be 11 feet or less (i.e., the base of the timber lagging should not be at an elevation lower than 43 feet). The minimum pile embedment into hard silt should be 10 vertical feet, as stated in our March 1994 report. The pile tips should be at about Elevation 26 feet, or lower, to allow for the required 10-foot embedment. We recommend that the actual tip elevation be at a minimum elevation of 22 feet to compensate for possible variable site conditions. Therefore, the total top -to -tip height of the pile wall should be about 32 feet. Comment: Review wall design criteria shown on Figures 11 and 12 of our March 29, 1994 report and revise, if necessary. Review the wall design criteria and our calculations. Specifically, clarify the values for the equivalent active fluid density for lateral wall support (64 pcf shown on Figures 11 and 12 of our 1994 report) relative to the value of 35 pcf shown in the report text. Response: The equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf presented in the text of the March 1995 report does not allow for the soil pressure imposed by a sloping backslope behind the wall. The value of 35 pcf should only be used for design of a wall with level ground surface behind the wall. The value of 64 pcf for active fluid density shown on Figures 11 and 12 of our March 1994 report allows for the ft G e o E n g i n e e r s f File No. 3475-001-R02 ' Mr. Phillip John Rugo • May 17, 1995 Page 6 pressures imposed by the backslope and is, therefore, the correct value for designing the wall for lateral pressures with a backslope as shown on the drawings. According to project plans, the size of the steel H-beams for the soldier pile wall are to be W 1453, which appear to have been calculated using the 35 pcf value for equivalent fluid density. Using an equivalent fluid density of 64 pcf, computations from Kimsey engineers indicate that the size of the steel H= beams should be W 1677. In accordance with the above recommended modification of the passive zone of soil in front of the soldier pile wall, we are resubmitting Figure 12, which has been revised for clarification. 4. STRUCTURAL AND NON. -STRUCTURAL FILLS Comment: Confirm with the architect that for. any foundations or slabs that are to be supported on structural fill that the fill will be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the fill based on ASTM-D-1557 methods. Response: We have not modified the recommendations that we provided in our March 1994 report relative to the placement; quality and compaction of structural fill on the project. Any fill to provide support for foundations, slabs or structures should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the fill based on ASTM-D-1557 methods: We also recommend, for clarification, that construction notes be added to details 7,8 and 10 on sheet. 10/14, and detail 11 on sheet 11/14 stating that foundations should bear on undisturbed native hard -silt or structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM-D-1557 methods. General backfill placed against foundation walls should be clean, free - draining granular material, as described in our March 1994 report. This material should be compacted to no more than 90 to 92 percent of the maximum dry density of the backfill to prevent damage to the walls caused by compaction. However, fill placed between.the east wall of the house and the soldier pile wall should be placed as structural fill (compacted to ,95 percent) except the zone of fill within 5 linear feet of the east wall of the house. The fill within this zone should be compacted to no more than 90 to 92 percent to prevent damage to the house wall. Comment: Review sheet 9. of the project plans to see whether further differentiation between structural and general backfills is needed for clarity. T G e o E n. g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 • c Mr. Phillip John Rulw • May 17, 1995 Page 7 Response: We recommend that item 5 of the Foundation Notes on sheet 9 of the project plans indicate that structural fills must be compacted to 95 percent or greater of the maximum dry density of the fill based on ASTM-D-1557 methods. We recommend that a separate item (item 6) be added to indicate that general backfill placed against foundation walls should be compacted to no more than 90 to 92 percent of the maximum dry density of the till based on ASTM-D- 1557 methods. Excessive compaction against the walls may damage -the walls. As noted above, till in the area between the east wall of the house and the . soldier pile wall should be compacted to 95 percent except within 5 linear feet of the east wall of the house where the fill should not be compacted to more than 90 to 92 percent of the maximum dry density of the fill. As such, detail A and B on sheet 7/14 should be modified to show the different zones of compaction in the area between the east house wall and the soldier pile wall. Comment:. Discuss a requirement for compaction or preparation of fill (non-native) or native subgrades for foundations and slabs. Response: As recommended above, compaction specifications for any portions of buildings, walls or slabs that are to be supported by till should indicate that the fill must be compacted to 95 percent or better of the maximum dry density of . the till based on ASTM-D-1557 test methods. Cuts into native soils for foundation subgrades must be inspected by GeoEngineers to verify that a minimum of soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf (pounds per square foot) can be achieved. This value assumes that the exposed foundation subgrade is undisturbed, contains no appreciable amount of organic matter, is not covered with water, -.mud or loose -soft soils, and has been prepared to a firm, non - yielding condition. Preparation of the subgrades during wet weather conditions may require placing concrete "mats" to protect the exposed subgrades, as recommended in our March 1994 report. 5. AND 6. FOUNDATION NOTES Comment: Review sheet 9 of the project plans to clarify at -rest equivalent fluid pressures of.35 pcf (as shown on the plans) relative to active lateral pressures for basement walls. Response: If the foundation walls are allowed to remain fixed (i.e., at -rest condition), then the value of equivalent fluid (density) pressure should be increased to 50 pcf for design of the walls considering lateral pressures. If the top of the walls are �G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 C Mr. Phillip John Rugo • May 17, 1995 Page 8 allowed to move, at least 0.25 inches over a 10-foot high wall (which is 0.2 percent per UBC), then the value of 35 pcf for equivalent fluid pressure is appropriate for wall design, assuming a level backfill consisting of clean, free - draining granular material. We recommend that sheet 9 of the project plans be amended to note the difference between equivalent fluid pressures for an at -rest wall and a wall that is free -to -move. We have recommended, in items 2 and 3 above, that the passive zone of soil in front of the soldier pile wall be increased in size. This will leave a substantial amount of colluvial soils in front of the soldier pile wall. As such, the crawl space foundation wall and the covered -deck isolated footings, which are located east of the east house foundation wall, will have foundations partially supported on the colluvial soils. These soils should not be used for long-term foundation support because there is a potential for minor differential settlement of foundations supported on the colluvium. Therefore, we recommend that the foundations for the crawl space wall and the covered deck be supported on the hard silt layer. This may be accomplished by using individual footings or concrete grade beams at subgrade with either pin piles (2-inch-diameter pipe) or concrete piers extending from the footings or grade beams down into the silt layer. The size of the grade beam and spacing of the piers or pin piles should be determined by the structural engineer. Comment: Review project plans to see whether additional clarification is needed for support of footings for the west and southwest portions of the house. Response: The actual depth to bearing soil (hard silt layer) cannot be determined until actual foundation excavations are made. It is likely that bearing soils will be encountered within 0 to 3 vertical feet of the base of any wall, isolated column, or thickened -slab footings for the building. As such, we recommend that notes be added to sheets 5/14, 6/14 and 7/14 indicating that the foundation grades shown are approximate and the actual depth to bearing soil will be determined in the field from inspection by GeoEngineers. Foundation note 2 on sheet 9/14 should be modified by adding that footing grades shown on the project plans are approximate and the actual depth to bearing soils will be determined by inspection by GeoEngineers. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-1102 " Mr. Phillip John Ruglw • May 17, 1995 Page 9 8. EXCAVATIONS Comment: Review plans showing excavations at the northeast corner of the residence, which are about 11 feet from the property line and inclined at steeper than 1H:1V, to determine whether shoring will be necessary. Response: This area, according to current project plans, will be inclined at near 1H:1V, which is too steep for a permanent slope constructed in colluvial soils. We recommend that the overall slope inclination be reduced to about 2H:1V or flatter by grading and installation of a 2 to 4-foot-high rockery or structurally supported landscape wall. We recommend that GeoEngineers be present when slopes are being excavated to verify that subsurface conditions are as anticipated and to support alternative methods if changed conditions are encountered. 9. ROCK FACING ON SOLDIER PILE WALL Comment: Provide geotechnical recommendations for construction of a stable rock facing for the exposed portions of the soldier pile retaining wall located about 6 feet east of the east wall of the residence. Response: We recommend that the rock facing adjacent to the west side of the soldier pile retaining wall be constructed using geotechnical criteria generally applicable to the construction of gravity rock walls (rockeries). We recommend that the rock facing be constructed with large base rocks at the bottom and the size of the rocks above gradually decreasing towards the top of the wall. We recommend that the size of the base rocks be a minimum 3-man (28 to 36-inch-diameter rock) for a wall 4 to 5 feet high and minimum 4- to 5-man (36 to 48-inch- diameter rock) for a wall 5 to 7 feet high. The rock facing should slope back towards the retaining wall at an inclination of 1H:6V (horizontal to vertical). A drainage layer of 2 to 4-inch- diameter rock spalls should be placed between the retaining wall and the back of the rock facing. The drainage layer should be a minimum of 12 inches thick at the bottom and should thin (taper) upwards following the inclination of the facing toward the wall. A minimum 4-inch-diameter perforated drain pipe should be installed between the retaining wall and the rock facing. The pipe must have an invert slope of 1 percent or steeper for gravity drainage and should be tightlined to a proper on -site stormwater disposal (catch basin). G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 s Mr. Phillip John Rugro May 17, 1995 Page 10 10. DRAINAGE Comment: Review the project plans to see whether further clarification is required to show routing and construction of soldier pile retaining wall and upslope area rockery drains. Response: We recommend that the routing- of all rockery and soldier pile wall drains be shown on the project plans. We previously recommended in this letter that orie or more upslope rockeries be extended southward to effectively reduce the slope inclination. Plans showing the routing of rockery drains must incorporate the recommended extension of the rockeries. Comment: Provide recommendations for design of wall, footing or rockery drainage systems, if necessary. Response: According to project plans, the timber lagging in the soldier pile wall is to be spaced with a 3/8-inch gap between adjacent timbers to allow seepage through the wall. We previously recommended in this letter that a drain system be installed as part of construction of a rock facing for the soldier pile wall. We believe that the rock -facing drain system will be adequate to collect and convey seep water from the wall to proper storm or surface water disposal. It appears that elevations of yard drains along the north -and south sides of the house may be low enough to accommodate routing and discharge of water from the soldier pile wall -rock facing drain system. We recommend that all soldier pile wall -rock facing drain and rockery drain pipes be installed at a minimum 1 percent invert slope to allow for gravity drainage to proper storm water discharge (catch basins or yard drains). 11. UPSLOPE AREA ROCKERIES Comment: Review cross-section B-B' on sheet 2 of the grading plan to evaluate rockeries planned for the slope area above the house. Response: We have reviewed cross-section B-B' and determined that the slope near the east property line is steeper than anticipated. We, therefore, recommend that the slope be reconfigured by grading and rockery extension. Comment: Provide geotechnical recommendations, if necessary, for improvement of the existing slope conditions in this area, which may include regrading or construction of additional slope retaining structures. G e o E n g i n e e r s He No. 3475-001-R02 C Mr. Phillip John Ruggiero ' May `17, 1995 • Page 1 I Response: Grading and rockery construction should be accomplished to effectively reduce the overall slope inclination to 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, in accordance with the recommendations we provided in our March 1994 report. It will be necessary to extend one or more of the planned rockeries southward (across the planned walkway) to the south property line to reduce the slope inclination to about 2H:1V. The rockery construction should be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations in our March 1994 report and the Association of Rockery Contractors "Standard Rock Wall Construction Guidelines", which is dated January 21, 1993. CONCLUSIONS In our opinion, with the modifications and changes made as recommended in this letter, the geotechnical portions of the plans we have reviewed should conform to the intent and recommendations of our March 1994 report. If there are any questions regarding this letter or any of the recommended modifications, please contact us. EXPIRES 9C GDB:KGB:vvl Document ID: 3475001.LOR Two copies .submitted cc: Mr. Vince Ojala, Architect 7703 - 33rd Street Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Gary D. Beckham Project. Engineering Geologist Kenneth G. Buss, P.E. Associate Mr. Greg Gilda Victor H. Kimsey Engineers 1818 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 308 Seattle, Washington 98109 G e o E n g i n e e r s f He No. 3475-001-R02 • it( • k4^0.0 q_ Li O G O - �I.o 0 o MAX s-rRucTuRA L_ O o F 0 o 5AC K F 1 L.L r o w I�.IN(•I PLs.0 4-,Z"ILh MAX I MUM E-XC \/. LINE �. � o TE pELETE — ' fl O NOT EYCAVA-rr_- -� 2.0 �- 10.0 MIN. U_ PROP05ED ftQt5L0K3 TO DETAIL a SNEET /14 Geo .qp Engineers FIGURE 1 I 1 0 4C-ov = 4,800 psf Geo��Engineers 700 psf = as I ct Between ,ium and Silt Revised 05/09/95 PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR SOLDIER PILE WALL FIGURE 1.2 ;Report III 4 \ Geotechnical Consultation Services Proposed Residential. _ Construction - , \M'eadowdale Beach`•Area; SJ1 r Edrri nds;,,Washington'•' arc / \ - M'h 29,,'1994RECEIVEDri• t 1 SEPl2' 9 1994, STREET FILE', ' PERMIT COUNTER l 7 i t ,.• For`- .' ``Mr/ Phil Ruggiero ` J � G e o E n{g i _n/e).e r s > ('' --File No, 3475-001'R02 \M� Geo �,, Engineers Mr. Phil Ruggiero 6126 - 140th Court Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 March 29, 1994 Geotechnical, Geoenvironmental and Geologic Services Report Geotechnical Consultation Services Proposed Residential Construction Meadowdale Beach Area Edmonds, Washington File No. 3475-001-R02 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical consultation services relative to the proposed construction of a residence on your property located in the Meadowdale Beach area in Edmonds, Washington. Specifically, the property is referred to as Lot 2 of Short Plat No. S-23-90. The location of the property is shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1, and Site Plan, Figure 2. You requested this proposal during a meeting with Mr. Vince Ojala, your architect, and the undersigned on December 29, 1993. Our services are being provided in accordance with our proposal dated January 7, 1994, which Mr. Ruggiero authorized on January 20, 1994. Mr. Ojala provided us with a copy of a topographic survey map of your property prepared by Group Four, Inc., which is dated July 22, 1993. Mr. Ojala also provided us with several undated, preliminary plan- and section -view drawings of the proposed house. We understand the house will be a two-story, wood -framed structure with a daylight basement -garage that is to be situated near the middle of the lot. The drawings indicate that it will be necessary to make an approximately 18- to 20-foot-deep cut into the west -facing slope to facilitate the planned construction. We understand that during construction, the cut, which is to be located about 10 feet east of the east building wall, will be supported by a soldier pile and lagging wall. According to Mr. Ojala, conventional spread footings are planned to support the exterior walls of the house. GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. ' Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (206) 861-6000 Fax (206) 861-6050 4 N 0 20M 4000 SCALE IN FEET Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. k VICINITY MAP Geo �ftEngineers FIGURE 1 Mr. Phil Ruggiero March 29, 1994 • • Page 2 Current drawings also show that three roughly 4-foot-high rockeries are being considered to support surficial soils in the upper portion of the lot, specifically in three cut areas upslope of the east wall of main floor of the house. A 5 to 6-foot-high concrete retaining wall and at least two 4-foot-high rockeries are tentatively planned for a roughly 10-foot-high cut near the northwest corner of the house. We also understand that another 4-foot-high rockery may be installed near the southwest corner of the house. GeoEngineers has provided geotechnical engineering and consultation services for several properties in the immediate vicinity of your lot in the past, including our study entitled "Report, Geotechnical Consultation, Proposed Short Plat, Block 59 of Meadowdale Beach, Edmonds, Washington", that we prepared for Hawley & McCorkle on November 22, 1989. This particular study involved several subsurface explorations on lots adjacent to yours and included one test hole on your property. The information that we obtained during this earlier study is incorporated into this evaluation of your property. SCOPE The purpose of our services is to evaluate the surface and subsurface soil and water conditions at the site and provide geotechnical recommendations for earthwork portions of site development and house construction. Specifically, our scope of services included: 1. Review maps, sketches and drawings provided to us by your architect. 2. Review reports and information that we have in our files relative to our past projects in the immediate vicinity of your site, including the November 1989 report for Hawley and McCorkle cited above. 3. Review published geologic reports, maps and literature for the general area of the site and vicinity. 4. Confer with the city of Edmonds to determine their current requirements for geotechnical studies applicable to this property. 5. Perform a geotechnical surface reconnaissance of the site, which included photographic documentation and sketching of pertinent features and observation of existing conditions. The geotechnical reconnaissance was completed in conjunction with our subsurface exploration on February 2, 1994. 6. Explore the subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the site by drilling two geotechnical test holes into the upper portions of the site using a skid -mounted hollow -stem auger. It was necessary to use a large track -mounted backhoe to access the upper portions of the site, and tow and position the drill rig. The geotechnical explorations were completed on February 2, 1994. 7. Perform laboratory tests on selected subsurface soil samples to evaluate pertinent soil characteristics and engineering qualities. C e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 1, 1 1 Mr. Phil Ruggiero March 29, 1994 Page 3 8. Evaluate whether the short- and long-term stability of slopes on your property and other nearby properties may be affected by development and construction on your property. 9. Provide geotechnical recommendations for earthwork portions of the site development and construction including recommendations for general site preparation, grading and filling, support of temporary and/or permanent cuts, surface and subsurface drainage, temporary and permanent erosion control, and foundation support of the house. SITE CONDITIONS GENERAL The Ruggiero property is located on a west -facing slope about 300 feet northwest of the intersection of 75th Place West and 162nd Avenue West in the Meadowdale Beach area of Edmonds, Washington. According to the July 22, 1993 topographic map, the lot measures about 100 feet generally north -south and extends westward from 75th Place West about 150 feet to a paved trail that parallels the west property line. The paved trail was at one time Seaside Avenue, a street that was vacated a number of years ago. The overall slope declivity from 75th Place West to the west property line is about 26 percent. A topographic "bench" or relatively level area is located about midslope. The slope from 75th Place West down to the bench area declines west to southwest at about 30 percent. The bench area slopes roughly 10 to 12 percent west to southwest, and a small slope located between the bench and paved path declines about 30 percent west. The overall change in elevation from 75th Place West down to the path is about 40 feet according to the topographic map. The Ruggiero property is vegetated with a dense cover of blackberry and alder saplings. The alder saplings form a thicket in the upper portion of the property above the bench. Most of the 1- to 3-inch-diameter alder trees in the thicket exhibit bowing at the base of the tree, indicating that some downslope creep of surficial soil is occurring on the slope. The bench area at midslope is partially covered with grass. A 30-inch-diameter fir tree is located on the bench near the southwest corner of the property. This tree also exhibits bowing of the trunk. The lower portion of the slope below the bench is almost entirely covered with blackberry, except for a number of alder saplings growing from a single root system near the southwest property corner. SOILS The project site is located within the Meadowdale landslide complex. This is an area where numerous landslides have occurred in the past and about which several geotechnical reports have been prepared. The Ruggiero property is included in the area we evaluated in our November 22, 1989 report. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No..3475-001-R02 Mr. Phil Ruggiero March 29, 1994 Page 4 Soils in the immediate vicinity of the Ruggiero property consist of a surficial layer of generally loose colluvium underlain by glacially overconsolidated clayey silt. Much of the past landslide activity in the Meadowdale area consisted of the downslope movement of the colluvium over the overconsolidated silt soils and was influenced by the presence of a significant amount �. of ground water perched on the upper surface of the relatively impermeable silt soils. The city of Edmonds installed new stormwater and sanitary sewer systems in the Meadowdale area between 1979 and 1985. This project resulted in a decline of the ground water table and a " decrease in landslide activity. Jh DRAINAGE Surface water drainage on the Ruggiero property is generally to the west-southwest following the existing topography of the site. We observed no ponding of surface water or ground water spring seeps on the property during our visits to the site on December 30, 1993, • February 2, 1994, and March 8, 1994. FIELD EXPLORATION FIELD METHODS Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by completing two test borings in the upper slope area above the topographic bench on February 2, 1994. We also incorporated the results of a backhoe test pit that we excavated in the bench area during our 1989 study to provide additional correlation of the subsurface soil conditions on the Ruggiero property. The locations of the borings and test pit are shown on the site plan, Figure 2. The borings were drilled using a portable skid -mounted continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger. Boring 1 (B-1) was drilled near the southeast corner of the planned house location starting at about Elevation 52.6 feet (datum: city of Edmonds M.L.L.W. - mean lower low water) and extended down to Elevation 18.6 feet. Boring 2 (B-2) was Iodated near the northeast corner of the house at about Elevation 62.5 feet and was completed to Elevation 19.5 feet. Representative soil samples were obtained using 1.5-inch and 2.5-inch (inside) diameter split barrel samplers driven into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling a distance of 30 inches. The borings were monitored continuously by one of our engineers who prepared a log of each boring. Soils encountered in each boring and the test pit were classified in general accordance with the.classification system shown in Figure 6. A key to the boring log symbols is presented in Figure 7. A summary of'the boring logs for B-1, B-2 and the test pit log are presented in Figures 8, 9, and 10, respectively. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 f I. Mr. Phil Ruggiero• • March 29, 1994 Page 5 Our evaluation of the soil conditions at the site included the preparation of three geologic cross section sketches based on our measurement of.slope distances with a fiberglass tape, inclinations with a hand -clinometer, and observation of surficial and subsurface soils from our geotechnical borings and test pit. The location of each cross section is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The sketches are presented as Cross Section Sketch A - A', Figure 3; Cross Section Sketch B - B', Figure 4; and Cross Section Sketch C - C', Figure 5. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS As shown on the attached boring and test pit logs, and geologic cross section sketches, the soils encountered at the site include a surficial layer of colluvium underlain by glacially overconsolidated silt.. The colluvium consists mainly of moist, soft to medium stiff silt mixed with loose silty sand. The colluvium is likely derived over many decades from the weathering of upslope soils, and the subsequent downslope creep of the weathered soil. The thickness of the colluvium layer ranges from 10 to 15 feet over the underlying soils. A thin 1- to 2-inch-thick layer of topsoil has developed on the colluvium. The soils underlying the colluvium consist of glacially overconsolidated hard silt with some interbedded lenses of dense sand. We expect that the overconsolidated soils extend to a considerable depth beneath the site based on our knowledge of the Meadowdale area. The approximate elevation of the contact of the colluvium with the underlying hard silt unit is near the elevation of the planned basement -garage floor grade (about Elevation 40 feet.) Slight ground water seepage was observed at a depth of about 10.5 feet during the drilling of B-1. However, at completion of the drilling, no measurable amount of water was detected using water -detecting paste on a fiberglass measuring tape lowered into this boring. A slight seep of ground water was observed at a depth of 8.5 feet during the drilling of B-2. At completion, we detected water at a depth of 35.0 feet (Elevation 27.5 feet.) The slight seeps at 8.5 and 10.5 feet roughly coincide with the approximate thickness of the colluvial layer and suggests that a small amount of ground water is perched on the top of the relatively impervious hard silt layer. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL We have reviewed the topography map, plans, sketches and drawings prepared by Group Four, Inc. and Mr. Vince Ojala, your architect. Based on this review, our review of other geotechnical studies we have completed in the Meadowdale area, and our observations and tests, it is our opinion that a residential structure can be built on the Ruggiero property providing that the geotechnical recommendations presented below are incorporated into the site preparation and construction plans. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phil Ruggiero• March 29, 1994 Page 6 In its existing undeveloped condition, it is our opinion that some downslope creep of surficial soils will continue' on the Ruggiero property. However, we believe that if the recommendations below are completed as intended, the existing slope stability conditions at the site will improve.- Likewise, the successful completion of the project in accordance with these recommendations should not adversely affect the slope stability condition of neighboring upslope properties. SITE CLEARING AND GRADING Clearing and Grubbing According to the existing plans and sketches, the planned house will be situated in a cut made into the west -facing slope and substantial soil excavation and removal will be necessary. In areas where grading and substantial excavation will not occur but other site improvements are planned, we recommend that the surface soils be cleared of deleterious matter including any debris, brush, trees, stumps and roots. We recommend that the clearing and grubbing of vegetation extend beyond the limits of cut slope excavations only as far as necessary to keep vegetation and woody debris away from the subgrade areas, or until such time as temporary or permanent erosion control is in place (see below.) Large trees, if they must be removed, should be removed by overturning. The small alder trees and dense blackberry can be easily removed by normal grading and grubbing. In non-subgrade or cut areas, we estimate that stripping on the order of 3 to 6 inches will be necessary to remove vegetation and topsoil. Deeper stripping may be necessary in local areas. The topsoil cannot be used for structural fill but can be saved for later use as landscape topsoil, if desired. Grading of Upper Slope Area The colluvial soils on the upper slope area above the proposed house location are susceptible to downslope movement. We recommend that the upper slope be reconfigured by grading to remove much of the colluvium. This may be accomplished by cutting into the slope in two or more areas to create permanent 4H:IV (horizontal: vertical) "benches." The resulting overall slope should not be steeper than 2H:1V. Small rockeries, as well as other retaining systems, may be used to buttress the cuts, as recommended below. SUPPORT OF TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT CUTS Rockeries Small, approximately 4-foot-high rockeries can be installed to buttress cuts in the upper slope area above the proposed house location, and near the northwest and southwest corners of the house. With the following exception, the rockeries should be constructed in general accordance with the "Standard Rock Wall Construction Guidelines" presented by the ARC (Associated Rockery Contractors) in their revised guidelines dated January 21, 1993. In general, G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phil Ruggiero• • March 29, 1994 Page 7 the base (bottom) rocks should be set about 3 to 6 inches deep into a firm subgrade soil (crushed 1 rock may be used to provide a firm base if the soils are loose or soft), the rockery should be constructed with a batter (slope) of 1H:5V to 1H:6V into the cut slope, and a gravity drain system installed behind the rockery. The drainage system should be installed with a minimum invert slope of 1/2 percent to provide adequate gravity drainage. The system must connect to a tightline that discharges at a suitable stormwater disposal. The exceptions to the ground rockery construction recommendations set forth in the ARC guidelines is that the base rocks should be larger than what would normally be used for a 4-foot- high rockery. In this case, we recommend use of a minimum of "4-man" sized rocks for the base. We recommend that rockery construction occur contemporaneously with excavation so the cuts are unsupported for the absolute minimum of time. We can provide additional assistance to assist in the design of the rockeries, if requested. Soldier Pile Walls By removing much of the colluvium and constructing rockeries, as described above, it will be necessary to only make an approximately 10- to 12-foot-high cut into the slope just behind (east) the planned house location to facilitate construction of the structure. Without the colluvium removal and rockery construction, the cut in this area would be about 18 to 20 feet high. We recommend that a temporary -permanent retaining wall be constructed to provide temporary support of the cut. In our opinion, a cantilevered soldier pile retaining wall with lagging appears to be particularly well suited for this application. Note that once .the exterior walls of the residence have been constructed, the area between the west face of the soldier pile wall and the east wall of the house can be backfilled, leaving about 2 to 4 vertical feet of wall exposed. The soldier pile wall becomes permanent at that time. Geotechnical design criteria for construction of a cantilevered soldier pile wall for the site are provided in the attached. figures: Design Values for Soldier Pile Wall, Figure 11; and Pressure Diagram for Soldier Pile Wall, Figure 12. Several assumptions were made as part of the design including: • The wall is to be an 11.0-foot-high vertical wall and will retain loose colluvial soils. • The average backslope will be 26 degrees (based on 4H:1V cut "benches" that reduce the overall slope in the area above the wall to 21-1:1V.) • The wall is temporary (worst case condition) and that some water drainage will occur between the wood lagging and the face of the cut slope. • Pile diameter is 18 inches. • Spacing between adjacent piles is 8 feet. • The wall is designed using active conditions that allow the top of the wall to move 0.1 percent of the excavation depth. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phil Ruggiero& March 29, 1994 Page 8 We recommend for design purposes that a lateral earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 35 pcf (pounds per cubic foot) be used. The lateral earth pressure should be assumed to act over the center -to -center spacing between the soldier piles above the excavation level and over the soldier pile diameter below the excavation level. The soldier piles must have a sufficient depth of embedment to resist "kick -out." In this regard, we recommend a minimum depth of 10 feet below the basement footings for a factor of safety of 1.5. Permanent lagging should be installed between the soldier piles to retain the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for uniform pressures equal to one-third of the active lateral pressure presented previously. This pressure reduction is based on a maximum center -to - center pile spacing of 8 feet. If wider spacing is desired, we should be consulted for revised lagging pressures. Wood lagging should be pressure -treated with a preservative to resist rot and decay. A suitable drainage system should be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic ground water pressures behind the wall. If wood lagging is used, drainage can be accomplished by spacing the timbers about 3/8 inch. Wick drains or strips of manufactured drainage material should be installed behind concrete or other impermeable lagging, if used. Water from the drainage system should be collected and routed by tightline to a suitable discharge. Once the retaining wall has been complet:d and concrete in the piles fully cured, excavation of the house pad can begin. We recommend that the cut, starting from the toe of east basement - garage wall and extending to the face of the soldier pile wall, be sloped at 4H:1V to provide additional temporary buttressing of the soldier pile wall during construction of house walls. We recommend that GeoEngineers be retained to monitor installation of the soldier pile wall, including observation of vertical and horizontal pile position and setting of the wood lagging, as the excavations proceed. House Basement -Garage Walls We understand that the area between the basement -garage walls on the east side of the new residence and the soldier pile wall will be backfilled with structural fill to reduce the height of the .exposed portion of the soldier pile wall. Therefore, the east basement -garage walls should be considered as retaining structures. We recommend that the walls be designed for lateral pressures based on an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf if the backfill is generally level for a distance behind the wall equal to the height of the wall. An allowance of 1 foot of increased wall height for each 100 psf (pounds per square foot) of surcharge, which may be imposed adjacent to the walls, should be made. The equivalent fluid density value above assumes that an appropriate drainage system is installed behind the wall (see below). G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phil Ruggiero { March 29, 1.994 • Page 9 FOUNDATION CRITERIA We recommend that continuous spread wall footings and isolated column footing pads be used for foundation support of the new residence. Based on our observations, it appears that competent hard silt is located near planned basement -garage floor subgrade for most of the house area, except for a portion at the southwest side of the house. Deeper stem walls may be required in this location, and possibly at other local areas. The basement -garage wall footings along the east side of the house should be installed with a key cut into the hard silt subgrade soils. The key should be appropriately sized to resist the passive lateral pressures described below. We recommend that spread and isolated footings founded on undisturbed stiff to hard silt and dense sand be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf (pounds per square foot) for the combination of dead and long-term live loads. This allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third to account for short-term live loads such as wind and seismic forces. Footings founded on structural fill compacted to the specifications below should also be designed using 2,000 psf for allowable bearing. Footings should be designed for lateral passive pressures equivalent to 250 psf. A value !, of 0.35 may be used for a coefficient of friction if footings are placed on granular structural fill (the coefficient of friction for cohesive soils is not required.) The silt footing subgrade soils are very moisture -sensitive and are easily disturbed when wet. If the subgrade soils become wet, it is unlikely that they can be adequately compacted.. If the footings are to be constructed in wet weather conditions, we recommend that a "mud mat" consisting of a 3- to 6-inch-thick layer of lean concrete or compacted crushed rock be placed in the footing areas before forms and reinforcing steel are installed. It will be necessary to overexcavate an appropriate depth to compensate for the placement of a "mud mat..' We also recommend that all footing excavations be observed by a representative of our firm immediately prior to mud mat or crushed rock placement, to confirm that the bearing surface has been prepared in a manner consistent with our recommendations and that the conditions are as expected. We estimate that postconstruction settlement of structures supported on the hard silt layer should be about 1/2-inch total. Maximum differential settlements of structures founded on the silt should also be about 1/2 inch, measured along 25 feet of continuous wall footing or between comparably loaded isolated footings. We expect that settlements will occur rapidly after the loads are applied. PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION 1 According to the topography plan, vehicle access to the garage will be from a new driveway along an easement that enters the Ruggiero property at the southwest corner. We assume that the driveway will be paved to a final grade of about Elevation 40 to 42 feet. Based on this G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phil Ruggiero March 29, 1994 Page 10 elevation, we expect that hard silt will be encountered at or near driveway subgrade elevation. According to the plan, most of the overlying colluvial soils will be removed in this area as part of the overall site preparation for house construction. However, we recommend that any remaining colluvium, loose, soft or other disturbed or organic soils be removed prior to subgrade preparation. Any grass, brush, tree roots or other organic debris larger than 3 inches in diameter must be similarly removed. We also recommend that all pavement subgrades be proofrolled thoroughly prior to paving to locate any soft or yielding soil areas. If present, the soft or yielding soil areas must be repaired by compaction (if practical), or preferably by overexcavation of the soft soils and replacement with structural fill (see below.) The silt -pavement subgrade soils are very moisture sensitive and are easily disturbed when wet. We recommend installation of a base course of 6 inches of select structural fill or crushed rock to protect the native soils from excessive disturbance. The use of base course in this instance will require an appropriate overexcavation to allow for, placement of fill to subgrade elevation. The subgrade must be sloped to drain in order to prevent ponding of surface water. We can assist the architect in designing a suitable pavement section for the driveway, if requested. DRAINAGE All ground surfaces, pavements and sidewalks should slope away from structures. Surface water runoff should be controlled by a system of curbs, berms, swales, and catch basins, as, y� necessary, and discharged into a suitable stormwater collection system. Roof drains should be tightlined to discharge into the stormwater collection system and must not be attached or directed into any wall or footing drainage systems. No surface water should be discharged onto the existing or any newly reconfigured slopes. Although our explorations did not encounter significant seepage during drilling, it must be kept in mind .that the explorations were accomplished during an extended "drier -than -usual" winter period. That is, over the last several years the Puget Sound region has received less than normal precipitation. Therefore, it is possible that more seepage than what was observed during our explorations could occur during construction or in the future. Therefore, a suitable drainage system must be installed as part of construction of the cantilevered soldier pile wall, as previously described. This system should not be connected to any wall or footing drainage systems. We can assist in the design of a suitable drainage system, if requested. We recommend that exterior wall footing drain systems be installed in accordance with the appropriate UBC guidelines. Basically, the drainage system should consist of a perforated pipe imbedded in a layer of free draining material at least 1 foot wide and extending upward from the base of the footing to within about 1 foot of the ground surface. The drain material should be G e o E r g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phil Ruggiero March 30, 1994 Page 11 a minimum of 1 foot thick (measured fm. the wall ,outward) and be enveloped in a nonwoven geotextile "filter" fabric. The wall footing drainage system must have a minimum of 1/2 percent 1 invert slope to provide gravity drainage to a suitable stormwater discharge point. The basement -garage east walls are -considered retaining walls and should have a drainage system installed on wall exteriors to prevent excessive buildup of hydrostatic pressures. The drainage system can be constructed similarly to the footing drain system discussed above. However, the: retaining wall drainage material must be 1.5 to 2.0 feet thick (measured from the wall outward.) The drainage material should consist of clean sand and gravel that is surrounded with a non -woven geotextile "filter" fabric. Specifically, "clean" sand and gravel should contain less than 3 percent fines based on that. portion of a sample that passes the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve. Except for rockery drains, this specification should be used for all drainage systems requiring "clean" drainage material. Prefabricated drainage panel products may be used for wall drainage providing GeoEngineers has reviewed the installation plans, examined the product to be used, has the ' opportunity to comment on the use of the product, and monitors its installation. Drainage systems behind the rockeries should be in installed in accordance with recommendations in the 1993 ARC Guidelines discussed above. The drainage system for each rockery should be tightlined a suitable stormwater discharge point. Water from the rockeries must not be discharged on the slopes. To provide adequate drainage, the backfill between the rockery and the adjacent soil should consist of washed and screened crushed rock ranging from. 3/4-inch minimum to 4-inch maximum gradation with most rock about 11/2 inches in size. Based on the existing conditions at the time of rockery construction, it may be desirable to use a non- woven geotextile fabric between the drainage material and the native soils to prevent migration of fines into the drain system. EROSION CONTROL Effective methods of erosion control at the Ruggiero property will include efficient surface water management, minimization of disturbance to soils that are not involved. in the earthwork, and erosion resistant slope covers. Management of surface water runoff during construction is the responsibility of the contractor. Grading must be accomplished to avoid concentration of runoff onto fill areas, cut slopes, prepared subgrades, natural slopes or other erosion sensitive areas. Surface water runoff must be prevented from flowing into excavations by using berms, drainage ditches, swales or other appropriate methods. Some sloughing and ravelling of slopes and disturbed soil areas should be expected during construction. Therefore, all slopes and disturbed soil areas should be covered with straw, erosion control mats, or plastic sheeting (such as visqueen or other plastic tarps) during periods of inactivity or in wet weather conditions. Silt fences and berms will be necessary at the downslope AG e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 . Mr. Phil Ruggiero March 30, 1994 Page 12 toe (west perimeter) of the Ruggiero property. The silt fences should be installed in accordance with appropriate local requirements' and codes:' Straw should not be placed on slopes inclined steeper than about 3H:1V because of the tendency of the straw to wash downslope during intense rainfall. For slope areas inclined steeper than 3H:IV, we recommend the use of an erosion control matting, such as coconut -straw mats secured to the slope with large staples. .Long-term erosion control should be considered part of the final landscape plan for the property. We*'recommend that a landscape architect experienced with long-term erosion mitigation in slope areas be contacted. STRUCTURAL FILL All fill used on the project should be structural fill quality material. We recommend that on -site soils not be used for structural fill. Structural fill material should be free of debris, organic contaminants land rock fragments larger than 6 inches. The workability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passing the No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changL,s in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. If material is imported to the site for structural fill during dry weather conditions, we recormend that it have no more than about 15 percent fines. If the material is too wet wl bn delivered to the site, or if it becomes overly wet, it must be aerated and dried out prior4o placement as fill. Material with no more than about 5 percent fines will normally be workable during wet weather construction. Unless specified otherwise in this report, the following general requirements shall apply to all fill and backfill placement. 1. All fill and backfill must be placed in thin lifts so that uniform compaction can be achieved throughout the entire lift thickness. In general, soils with more than about 5 percent fines must be placed in lifts of 8 inches or less loose thickness. Granular soils with less than. 5 percent fines can be placed in lifts of about 12 inches or less loose thickness. Each lift must be compacted prior to placement of the subsequent lift. 2. All general fill must be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by the ASTM D1557 test procedure. All fill below foundations must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). The uppermost 12 inches of subgrade soils below slabs -on -grade and pavements must also be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (.ASTM D1557). Fill more than 12 inches --below slab or pavernent subgrade must be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D1557). 3. Prior to compaction, the material should be moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of optimum moisture content. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 ' f Mr. Phil Ruggiero March 30, 1994 Page 13 r 4. Compaction must be acli'ieved by'mechanical means. No jetting, ponding, or flooding will be allowed for compaction. 5. Where stripping or excavating exposes soft, loose or highly organic soils, these areas must be overexcavated to the depth determined by a representative of GeoEngineers and the overexcavations backfilled with structural fill. I' 6. All fill placement should occur on near -level working surfaces. Where fills are placed against slopes steeper than 5H:1V the fill should be benched into the slope face. During fill and backfill placement, a suitable number of in -place density tests should be performed concurrently with the placement to check that the required compaction is being achieved. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Mr. Phil Ruggiero and by his architect and engineers for their use in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of 'the subsurface conditions. If there are changes in the grades, location, configuration'or type of construction for the planned residence, the conclusions and recommendations presented may not be applicable. ..-If design changes are made, we request that we be given the opportunity to review our conclusions and recommendations and to -provide a written modification or verification. Because the design details are not known at the time of preparation of this report, we expect fthat additional consultation will be necessary to provide for modification or adaptation of our recommendations. When the design has been finalized, we recommend that the final design and specifications be reviewed by our firm to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and - implemented as intended. 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. There are` possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. A .contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-MI-R02 Mr. Phil Ruggiero March 30, i994 Page 14 3 .'.tat. '• � 5.I'Y�J�:�.."`t .Ftj. }. ..''r'�: �. t% foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. This additional construction monitoring, testing and .consultation will likely be a condition of a construction permit issued by the city of Edmonds. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. • O ► We are available to review the final design and specifications to see that ou: recommendations are properly interpreted. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. _,�[) Gary D. Beckham Project Engineering Geologist Kenneth G. Buss, P.E. ociate Jon W. Koloski Principal GDB:KGB:JWK:vw Document ID: 3475001.R Attachments Two copies submitted cc: Mr. Vince Ojala Architect 7703 - 33rd Avenue N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 rm via 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET EXPLANATION: + B-1 BORING -f�-TP-3 TEST PIT A o—� A' CROSS SECTION A, Reference: Drawing entitled "Phil Ruggiero Topography,' by Group Four, Inc., dated 07/22/93. IA 1 70 1 60 East I Property Line Approximate Location I AN of Proposed Structure / / y 70 I Existing Ground Surface N O 11 O N rL o Z m 60 M 0) a S C c p I - a ° y U :t J N We st H..(n I 50 Property , r— Line Colluvium r Surfa PPeu S a e of �.� Sli � �9� 4tSeeP ��`::�:•'•;::�`.ii>`�::;..:::":•'.:� Hard Sil t Existing `Co Iuv'um �. v 40 Paved Walkway Y � Hard Silt 30 Hard Silt m u_ 20 W r 1 10 0 0 10 20 30 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 10' 40 Datum: City of Edmonds M.L.L.W. a Reference: Topography based onedrawing entitled 'Phil Ruggiero Topography,' by Group Four, Inc., dated 07/22/93. SOUTH ELEVATION 50 60 70 80 Length of Property (Feet) •e 110 120 1 ra 140 50 a� a� U. 4 r- 0 a� W 30 IM1 —f- O 150 F1 LJ IQ 140� 130� 1201 1 104 I 0 -F 0 West Property � tY Line I Existing Pave d Walkway w �t rn Approximate Location j \ o of Proposed Structure \ Existing Ground Surface \ N \I I �o d L •••COI v•�• l I o um,Upper Surface f Ha r -- Z o d Silt M_ N I C O r �- Slight Seep on 02/02/94 _ C l d J O H .., fn . F .a r d Silt 4 .i • :Colluvium Hard Silt 10 20 30 40 50 HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: 1' = 10' Datum: City of Edmonds M.L.L.W. t t Reference: Topography based on drawing entitled 'Phil Ruggiero Topography," by Group Fotu, Inc., dated 07/22/93. SOUTH ELEVATION 70 Length of Property (Feet) 80 90 Z Ground Water Elevation on 02/02/94 110 I East Property I B Line -� J F 701 M63 501 301 20 10 140 1 7 C' North Property 70 60 - 50 1 40 20 10 1 C i Line rn 11 North N O N O , N I m C _ M C1 `o m N Existing Ground Surface O South .. M o , Property Line E- 00 •X ; " L O.:'• m �I Q CD' C C oI u vi • m u 00 I - o• :a NO O' N J Hard Silt U ' LL Approximate :...: ; Approximate 0 Floor Suhgrade •: • .•: •.:::•::; :::,: ` ;of Upper Surface Hard Silt w WEST ELEVATION 0-r 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 Width of Property (Feet) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALE: V = 10' Datum: City of Edmonds M.L.L.W. Reference: Topography based on drawing entitled 'Phil Ruggiero Topography,' by Group Four, Inc., dated 07/22/93. 70 MCI d n� LL 0 40 w 30 20 10 80 900 , 100 I COARSE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve FINE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve MAJOR DIVIS GRAVEL More Than 5 of Coarse Fra Retained on No. 4 Si SAND More Than 5 of Coarse Fra Passes No. 4 Sie SILT AND C Liquid Lim Less Than SILT AND C Liquid Lim 50 or IV HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM e GROUP IONS SYMBOL CLEAN GW GRAVEL GP P 0% ction GRAVEL GM S WITH FINES ve GC C CLEAN SAND SW SP P 0% ction SAND SM S WITH FINES ve SC C LAY ML S INORGANIC CL C it 50 ORGANIC OL 0 LAY MH s INORGANIC CH C it e ORGANIC OH 0 SOILS PT P NOTES: 1 . Field classification is based on visual examination of soil• in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. 11P. Geo �A Encineers GROUP NAME JJELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL OORLY-GRADED GRAVEL i ILTY GRAVEL t LAYEY GRAVEL WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND I ti OORLY-GRADED SAND . I ILTY SAND LAYEY SAND ILT LAY RGANiC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY ILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT, LAY OF HIGH PLA.SIICITY, FAT CLAY RGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT EAT SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: j I Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist - Damp, but no visible water i i Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is j obtained from below water table SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE 6 NOTES: 1 . Field classification is based on visual examination of soil• in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. 2. Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. 11P. Geo �A Encineers GROUP NAME JJELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL OORLY-GRADED GRAVEL i ILTY GRAVEL t LAYEY GRAVEL WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND I ti OORLY-GRADED SAND . I ILTY SAND LAYEY SAND ILT LAY RGANiC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY ILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT, LAY OF HIGH PLA.SIICITY, FAT CLAY RGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT EAT SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: j I Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist - Damp, but no visible water i i Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is j obtained from below water table SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE 6 1• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1co t LABORATORY TESP AL Atterberg limits CP Compaction CS Consolidation DS Direct shear GS Grain -size %F Percent fines HA Hydrometer analysis SK Permeability SM Moisture content MD Moisture and density SP Swelling pressure TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression CA Chemical analysis BLOW COUNT/SAMPLE DATA: Blows required to drive a 2.4-inch I.D. split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 300-pound hammer falling 30 inches, Blows required to drive a 1.5-inch I.D. (SPT) split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. "P" indicates sampler pushed with weight of hammer or against weight of drill rig. SOIL GRAW SM Soil Group Symbol (See Note 2) Distinct Contact Between Soil Strata Gradual or Approximate Location of Change Between Soil Strata �7 Water Level Bottom of Boring 22 ® Location of relatively undisturbed sample 120 Location of disturbed sample 17 ❑ Location, of samp!ing attempt with no recovery 10 ® Location of sample obtained in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) procedures 26 ® Location of SPT sampling attempt with no recovery Fa Location of grab sample NOTES: 1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Boring Log Symbols and the exploration logs fora proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure A-1. Geo��o. Engineers KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE 7 ' .L TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group .. Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Sain lees 4S mhol;;..,' 0 A1L ML ML 10 5 32 5 ❑ 'ML SM 4 ❑ I 10 15 W w w z x a p 20 25 30 35 40 31 BORING B-1 i DESCRIPTION 1 I Surface -Elevation (ft.): 52.6 j 0 1 Grayish brown fine sandy silt with occasional roots (soft, moist) (colluvium) I Gray silt with fine sand and occasional clay and roots (medium stiff, moist) (colluvium) Gray fine sandy silt (medium stiff, moist) (colluvium) f- I Mottled brown and gray silty fine sand with occasional roots 5 (loose, moist) (colluvium) Brown fine sandy silt with occasional organic matter (soft'to medium stiff, moist) (colluvium) Brown silt fine to medium sand with coarse rtutd (very loose to Y r loose, moist) (colluvium) F— 10 ❑ ML Mottled orange silt with fine sand and gravel (soft to medium 6 I - Shi/ML stiff, moist) (colluvium) ML Gray silty fine sand and sandy silt (loose/soft to medium stiff, moist) (colluvium) j MUCL Gray silt with clay (medium stiff, moist) (colluvium) 1.5 Gray clayey silt (stiff, moist) 35 1 13 ❑ 29 25.4* ML Gray silt with clay (hard, moist) 36 (] �1-- 20 39 ❑ SM/ML Interbedded light gray silty fine sand and gray ilt with clay (dense/hard, moist) / MUCL Gray clayey silt (hard, moist) 30 62+ ML Light gray silt with fine sand (hard, moist) 50+ ❑ Boring completed at 34.0 feet on 02/02/94 Slight ground water seepage encountered at 10.5 feet during 35 drilling No measureable ground water seepage encountered on 02/02/94 2 *Torvane = 12.5 to 13.75 tons/ft 2 Pocket penetrometer = 3.25 to 3.50 tons/ ft 40 Note: See Figure 2 for explanation of symbols GeoWFEngineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE 8 I- TEST DATA : BORING B-2 i DESCRIPTION Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Surface Elevation (ft.): 62.5 LebTests (%) (pcf) Count.Sam lc3i,S�.in ol'; 0 :: :::: SM Dark brown silty fine sand with roots and organic matter (loose, 0 1+ F7"" SM moist) (topsoil) I SM'ML Brown silty fine sand with roots and organic matter (loose, 5 {! moist) (colluvium) Brown silty fine sand and occasional fine gravel mixed with Q ML dark brown sandy silt (very loose/soft, moist) (colluvium) Brown and gray fine sandy silt with occasional organic matter 5 SM/ML (soft, moist) (colluvium) 5 I Interlayered brown and gray silty fine sand and sandy silt (very 24 4 0 ; . loose to loose/soft, moist) (colluvium) ML Gray silt with clay and occasional fine sand (soft to medium I stiff, moist) (colluvium) 10 10 j ML Gray silt with clay and occasional fine sand lenses (hard, moist) i 40 0 i 15 j ML/CL Gray clayey silt (very stiff, moist) . 15 I F- I LL 30 17 0 z / � � L 0 20 — I f 20 19 0 251 I �'� I I IML Gray silt with clay (hard, moist) r— 25 31 34 01 30 ML Gray silt with clay and occasional fine sand lenses (hard, wet) 30 50+ I ML Gray fine sandy silt (hard, wet) 35-1 1 1 1 1 11 f-35 50+ 3Fj—T7jh1L Light brown silt with fine sand (hard, moist) 40--J IJ 'y L-40 Note: See Figure 2 for explanation of symbols ��% Geo' i Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE 9 F 40 45 J 50 55 f- w w w ' 2 S H a p 60 65 ' a 0 cn > x 70 3 m ' O C7 75 N O C O O in 80 O TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Note: See Figure 2 for explanation of symbols ��' G e o �E Engineers 'BORING B-2. (Continues!) DESCRIPTION LOG OF BORING FIGURE 9 40 1 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 •,r.,�;,.:.,.. LOG OF 'TEST `PIT DEPTH BELOW SOIL GROUP GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT TP-3* . 0.0 - 3.0 SM Grayish brown silty sand with gravel and roots (loose, moist) (colluvium) 3.0 - 6.0 SM Reddish brown and gray silty sand with roots (loose, moist) (colluvium) 6.0 - 8.0 ML Gray sandy silt (stiff, moist) 8.0 - 12.0 SM Brownish gray silty sand (medium dense, moist) 12.0 -14.0 ML Gray sandy silt (stiff to very stiff, moist) 14.0 - 16.0 SM Gray silty sand (medium dense, moist to wet) Test pit completed at 16.0 feet on 08/18/88 No ground water seepage observed *This data is incorporated from our November 1989 report for Haw!ey and McCorkle THE DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FOOT, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FOOT. \�j Geo �Engineers. LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE 10 r._ Ge0 Enoi leers Very stiff to hard silt 0 = 0 c = 1,500 psf y = 115 pcf Ka = 1 Definitions h = height of wall (feet) oa = effective active earth pressure (psf) c = soil cohesion (psf) ov = effective vertical stress (psf) b = soldier pile width, D = depth of embedment DESIGN VALUES FOR SOLDIER PILE WALL FIGURE 11 its Geo Engineers 700 psf = oa PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR SOLDIER PILE WALL FIGURE 12 • I. fi 0 ST FILE II 1 4,io. ere¢C • .,• Oa3 � ,� 41404 / I ao•� 1•d !w 0, I S+tiT. • TIC Ti �teW tivai r. Irw(t.LNG / S 2S •�'• NoC�� ._ j�K 1D `51 tif'.e5•.. IOL .00Dgj v.'t. Stt •.IFat•( I "F ha,.ol.ah 1 naa.wya. rt+�4 c.e FI.1. L•a.ot 01. L .0 se•. `ITN zj]sD e tivtt (�+a ntti.fr< D I -PLC ..•DCwlw+�� I!ft� d Fore- 0 4-ry ors n s S,.P. hL 5,-23- 30 l�s� � y � �r �� ...�- � ear .510r"ll et"'rA Q. 6�-4 e ku la �11 I S /V 50PA nqj!� -7Z 00, -T Oc[ 0 4 4=465 PERMIT Cot IgMwtd C,ve,-) 0. 4o 1A .) lqo < -fla A 6XI /3 7 i7e -_ 2' T 3n-L SC--G T -Ijas wov - "14K � 0 1 --j 3 01�76, 03) Z4., ?- -S + z i:-:D * Vs (A) C c:4r-v //347�0. 3-32.) 0.40 /50.7 F7- (�k�(,ATr,- Pest&oj AS-roRAec- 1AJ / 1p e, P/ec- *a- els 24!1 P) pe PI ;5fbr,�� rr3 p 40 5.7 5*, 1 69. Iq 14 -1 1- 414- /0�-/Crt -- 1.:5. 0 /!50.7f-r-I G 0 : 2 T :a n -L t;;; 6 — G T — --j a s STANDARD DRAINAGE DETENTIJV SYSTEM WORKSHEET L�A 4-j z • OWNER ADDRESS &iz IMPERVIOUS AREA 46o RIM ELEV - 1 I I -+'MIN COVER e 0 INV ELEV asW-n CATCH BASIN r PHONE: DATE: *****DESIGN DATA***** PIPE DIA PIPE LG Il 6" MIN. SPACE Z'MAX COVER- ; ELEV FROM ` - CONTROL ; 'OUTLET ; Tn I;�.,. CONAWL CATCH SAS/N SYSTEM CROSS SECTION RECEIVED SEP 2 9 1994 PERMIT COUNTER ORIFICE WASHED GRAVEL ;l OUTFLOW TRENCH, MIN 10' LONG TOa ANO 4-PEgF PIPE TO BE LEVEL l I: �4'xRF PIPE W/CAPS 4^0 PIPE MIN. . 3FICE RUNOFF/SPREJER TLET ELEV J "-Z-6'DEEP, 4%6'OUARRY SPALLS I - ,Z-Z*-3- DEEP, 3/4-CRUSHED ROCX FROM CONTROL OUTLET I RIP.RjP OVTLET 1 FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TD DETENTIOIV SYSTEIV NOTES: 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection j 1 N`l�G��.s• before backfilling and for final inspections. APPROVED BY I; 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice I DATE must be keot open at all times_ - �� Pace 6 of 6 Impermeable Area Sq . .Ft . ------------- 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 • Table 1 - Detention Pipe Size Required Vol Cu Ft 50 623 75 87 100 112 125 Note: Allowable Pipe Materials: impermeable Area Sq. Ft. ------------- 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 j 0 0 0 Pipe Diameter 15" 18" 24" 30" ------------------------ 40 28 16 10 50 35 20 13 60 42 24 15 Required pipe 70 49 28 18 length in feet 80 56 32 21 90 63 23 100 70 40 25 Reinforced Concrete Aluminized Steel Aluminum CMP Asphalt Coated N-12 ADS (Not permitted on roads) Table '2 - Outlet Orifice Sizes Outlet Orifice Diameter (Inches) -------------------------------- �o v. V 5j8 3/4 3i4 ,/8 7/8 Table 3 -.Rectangular Catch Basin Requirements* Detention Max. size Catch Basin pipe diameter knockout Type < 18 20" I: CB 15 18" to 24" 26" 4Type�IL, CB 16 24" to 36" 36" II, CB 19 (48" Basin) 36" to 42" 412 Type II, CB 19 (54" Basin) *Source: Assoc. Sand & Gravel Co. Standards 8f- 65 40 W op IJ I ! l; r • rl l l r/ j / I I �t �o I 1 1; r � l l I ► '�� 1 ( o o , � Tq Q tirc\ I 1 r 4G 1 D i iQO4/C ! CSEE NOT.:, col `� /LE WW-1LOT 4� ¢^lOr<1 P/L/w'GI LOT 5 Ei4�EOTE / I r 1 r l I l - ;1 t_ ;• F/N/Sf�ED B � � 1 I lr 1 I ► I 1 .-rr� wt �� r =:i• -:r-, � FL. EL 7- (r�P� - i 1-57 C,5 TYPeI-G L�/ - Wit: "'- •- \ 1 Il I 1 t I D IfOCIr C/^/G TOP= 37. 25 ► I 1 1 ►r tr f /NV= 33.00 i 23' 41 (pGo FF r t f I I I { i., V O 1 I /n/STDLL LF / ► FOR 412,5TEIV,510 co_ cv _ ► �� , �1 hp - q� NCo 1 _ T < J a GOP VG : _, / l l / r ► ? T I0 - - / / / / / I I -�. � "• ._"I .8`'ti '•SE�•.1 �'�.','y'- f 'd�. MT F r� C�'9.1•w.'./! ` \ I - . TYPE /2) l ` TOP = 36.68/ I.E. (l8,' S.? j 31.58 (�Xl5T) ��: �. \ t` / \ `` # 32.50 / I \� DECK :. Q ROp¢5ED) � _ .. / ► I 15 3 y EL = 4 6.5 v ¢,� �. \ •' _ � • • - �` i AD I-4548 N - -3G � L = Z6!22 BUI DI _ SETBACK LINE (TYP 1 _ \ \ o of t,-wIx i24w �. N N 870 35' 43" W 1481119 / (DI ci ! r I 1 PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: LAN CHECK#: '?ZI-19'7 7- PROJECT ADDRESS: AOM �� 000/— h/ RECEIPT DATE: E0-910- PEVIEWFD BY: (nitial/D e) PLAN. IWATER ....:"COMMENTS FIRE I BLD'G. ISEWER STREEI ENG. Setbacks/Variance/Setback Adjustment Conditional Use Permit . . . . . . . . . . ADB Requirements ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Other Zoning Requirements :41 Underground Wiring Required ......... ..... . .. ....... Z I IN . .. ..... Lot Slope 15% -6 it SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit Tree Cutting Plan 8 Plat/Subdivision Requirements .5�-Z-3-5o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Legal Description Verification s-2-4- Fb• .10 Quit Claim/St(eet Dedications 5-Z3-j& -------------IXX., ---------------- ... Easements - Public/Private 5 - Z3 Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee Engineering 2.2 Inspection Fee Drainage Plan (On -Site) Setback - To of Bank, Stream, Water Courses ........ .......... . . . . . . . . . ..... 6 Setback - Storm Drain Line .............. .......... ..... ..... Open Ditch - Existing g so ....... cf 4- Culver Required ---- - ------- . . . . . . . . . . Culvert Size .............. Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..21 Catch Basin Required . . . . . . . . . . . . ...Xx Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access or- < Sidewalk Required qe,;, Curb & Gutter Required Ll 25' Curb Cut For Driveway Required Street Paving Required . . . . . . . . . . 27 Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required Lj(:E5 . Street Name Sign Required IN Other Signing Required ....... ...... . . . . . . . . . ..... 30 Bond Required For Public Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 31 FEMA Map Check/Water Table ::32 Side Sewer Availability Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID # 1 ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,i� Create Street File Existing Water MainSize Water Meter Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Service Line Size . . . . . . ..... -38] Water Meter Charge Required 7 L- 0 Hydrant Required Hydrant Size Existing 41 Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler Street Cut 7-, ... 43:.1.1 ,Miscellaneous UbPT 44:+ Reviewed By: FIRE PLANNING ENGINEERING PUYLIC WORKS PLANNING DATA SITE ADDRESS: /&Q/DATE: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: - L le-rS12 ��C SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Front:;%Left Side: /y Right Side:_/j2_Rear:�� Actual Setbacks: Front:4�Z Left Side: Right Side:_4pRear:�� FLOOR AREA: LOT COVERAGE: Maximum Allowed: J�O% S C ��7;Actual: '27�� (26%) BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: S 5 �GJ Actual Height: �I'Ji� SUBDIVISION: S -23 —�/ — 2 — (LL ) CRITICAL AREAS#: SEPA •1 • OTHER: A6 Plan Review By: PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS To: Applicant 0 • From: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Inspector Owner: _ �!! j� Plan Check No: - `l Address: �/%O/!� 7`7+ �� Date: ll/ 5 fL After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements must be met: 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-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT is required for all work on public property. (ECDC 18.60) 3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. 4. Builder/owner is responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site. (ECDC 18.30.030d) 5. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 15 FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACILITY. BUILDER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 18.30.50G) 6. FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION. (ECDC 18.30) 7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGHTLINES AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30) 8. Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the property. If an intersection is involved, a handicap ramp may be required. Contractor shall meet with the City Engineering staff to determine the extent of repair prior to issuance of the permit. (ECDC 18.90) 9. Driveway slope shall not exceed 14% without a waiver. Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14%. Waiver granted to G'� � %. (ECDC 18.80.060D) 10. Driveways must be paved from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate permit is required. (ECDC 18.80.060C) 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 18.30) 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 7.20) 14. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) 15. Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 16. Connect�' jn, ,to the City sanitary system is required. A separate permit is quired. LID# � Fees paid: Yes 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 18.90) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCUPANCY OF Ty,H'E¢BBUILDING� OQR-STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) {; ee PRMTREQRDOT Zo • ;t p4rC14fi aK t�,V4 ITT FILE STREPift8kreas ChecftftFjVED SEP 13 Site Information O C T 0 4 1995 PERT COUJVTER Project Name: eU&4t c .& tO1 �cPenmit Nwcnberp Site Location: M Property Tax Account Number. �P Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): p 513I App ` Have you filled out a Critical Areas CheMist for a project on this site before? t� General Site Conditions 1. Has the site been cleared or logged? Date of most recent action St�T �o GCS r� 3 ... �3 - a.Lo>El�cooc ��[ Soils 1 Topograp�►y--- - _- -- - . V _.he'd 2. In the Snohomish.0 amty Soil Survey. what is the mapped soil type(s)T 3. Describe the general site topography. Chock all that apply. 4�"`*'""" t T60 SQL? Flat: less than 5 fed elevation change over entice site. Rolling: slopes on she generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 feet.) _Jfilly, slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vuiical rise of 10 feet of horizontal distance.) _Steep: grades of greater bran 30% present on site. 4 M.4L tout. La A** Comments U. ;W- HydrologyNegetation 4. Site contains arras of year-round standing water. 1AIP 5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. k p Approx. Depth: 6. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 7. Site contains a credoorart-area:-:+-tee water flows across the grounds surface? flows:. are year-round? Flows are seasonal? _V!?A(.t 6tlRjrAm 8. Site is primarily. forested : meadow ;shrubs _ �,._ ; mixed 9. Obvious wetland is present on site: �— 10. Wetland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site: 11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site. z WA(YER. CMCA ` Determination Number Rev,327l9,2 . S. I,?c.18ci0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 STH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 Website: www.oi.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering September 23, 2003 Mr. Philip Ruggiero PO Box 6159 Edmonds, WA- 98026 RE: Meadowdale Marina Mr. Ruggiero: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Thank you for your concern related to possible future development of the Meadowdale Marina property. The City will be very cautious in its review of any re -development of that facility. We will also invite the neighborhood's participation and comment in that review pursuant to all code requirements. At the present time, our contact with the owner of the property has been limited to directing him to correct or remove the dangerous conditions on the wharf. He did ask what he might be able to do on the wharf related to redevelopment. He mentioned an office facility and/or restaurant, and he was told any change from the facility's current use or configuration will require an extensive public pen -nit process with the city that would include a public hearing. I have heard that he is talking to property owners in the neighborhood about this re -development concept. At this point no pen -nit applications for re -development of the property have been filed with the City. While ultimately, the property owner can apply for anything he wishes to, the City shares your concern over any new use that might increase the traffic and use of the facility. If any proposed plans are not consistent with the City's plans, policies and codes for this area, we will not hesitate to deny or recommend denial of the proposal. I hope this eases some of your concern and I would encourage you to continue to check in with us for updates on any applications that may have been submitted for the property. However, if you would still like to meet to go over the situation please feel free to contact either Linda Ross or Jana.Spellman at 771-0220 to schedule an appointment with me to go over this matter. Sincerely, c Duane > owman Development Services Director Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan PHILIP J. RUGGIERO P.O. Box 6159 Edmonds, Washington 98026-0159 Phone (425) 742-9040 • Fax (425) 742-2098 September 20, 2003 Duane Bowman Director of Development Services City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Bowman: My name is Philip Ruggiero and I reside at 16010 - 75th Place West in Edmonds. Recently it has come to my attention that the owner of the Meadowdale Marina (aka Haines Wharf) has some rather extensive plans for changing the nature of the wharf and it's operations in our neighborhood which would significantly impact not only my home but the residents of the Meadowdale area.. Through neighbors and other sources it is clear that the owner of the marina has plans for transforming the marina into some sort of office complex and possibly a restaurant facility. I want to go on record that I vehemently oppose any sort of building or business activity that is significantly different from the current and past land use. I am also opposed to any sort of activity that would increase traffic volumes, teenage vandalism, loitering, trespassing or otherwise encourage non-residents to congregate at the wharf area. As you know there have been two train related deaths in this area in the past six years. This area has no capacity to handle any sort of increased traffic, parking or additional public access. Additionally I would assume there are major shoreline protective issues and ramifications that would preclude allowing such development. Mr. Bowman, this is a residential area. I realize that the wharf has been there a long time, however, it has operated as a fishing wharf and boat storage facility all these years. To even consider the problems that would be associated with any sort of office complex or restaurant is mind boggling. The increased traffic congestion in this small community in itself would be outrageous not to mention the parking problems, additional trespassing activities and vandalism issues. While I do not think there have been formal requests for permits at this point it is clear that the intent of the owner of the wharf is to develop this property well beyond the scope of the present land use without regard for the citizens of this community. I would like to meet with you personally to share other information regarding this situation. Please contact me as soon as possible so we can set up a meeting at your convenience. i Than you, P i ' J. Ruggiero 61-GROUPFOLAIrrc�. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way NE Bothell, Washington 98011 FAX (206) 362-3819 (425) 775-4581 • (206) 362-4244 e-mail. info@grp4.com Jeannine Graft Building Official City of Edmonds 121, 5`h Avenue N. Edmonds, Washington, 98020 To Whom It May Concern; �uf4l�rca BUILDING Q 2001 This letter is in response of your request for the South wall on Al Ansari property, at 9304 Olympic View Drive, Edmonds, Washington. On September 14, 2001 Group Four, Inc..surveyed the wall in question, and found that it did not encroach on the property to the South of Mr. Ansari. Sincerely yours, John C. Knapp, P.L.S. LS No. 30435 Cy/ W:\G4PROJ\O I-3030Utr-edmonds 10040 Ldoe Clods ,�/e SURVEYING ENGINEERING PLANNING STREET FILE MANAGEMENT TERRA ASSOCIATES Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology, and Environmental Earth Sciences RECEIV 5D AUG 15 2001 August 10, 2001 PERMIT COUNTER No. P-2513 Mr. Steve Anderson Group Four, Inc. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way NE Bothell, Washington 98011 Subject: Final Report Observation of Retaining Wall Construction Ruggiero Residence 16010 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Anderson: As requested, we observed construction of a lock -block .retaining wall at the Ruggiero. Residence in Edmonds. The retaining wall was constructed as a replacement for a rockery along the north side of the property. We earlier made an evaluation of conditions in this area 4nd presented -our findings. and recommendations in a letter dated May 22, 2000. Subsequently, we worked With, your :firm in .developing the designs. These designs were presented on -drawings prepared by Group Four, Inc., dated July 5, 2000 (Your Job No. 97-8004). Construction of the wall was performed during the week of September 1.1, 2000..; Initially, the contractor removed the existing rockery which existed at this location. After removal of the' rockery, we. examined the. subgrade conditions and found that the soils exposed at the bearing level were firm native soils,. which were suitable for providing support to the proposed lock -block wall. The lock -block wall was then constructed to. the configuration . shown on the.project drawings. While'the wall was. constructed, it was concurrently backfilled in accordance with, the design drawings. Based on our observations during construction of the wall and after. completion of the .wall, it 'is .our opinion that. the lock -block wall has been constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in our May.22, 2000 letter and the project drawings. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777 *'Fax (425) 821-4334 e; terra@terra-associates.com a Mr. Steve Anderson August 10, 2001: We trust the information presented is sufficient for your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Since- --you srrzlip TERRA.ASSOCIATES .INC. Anil'Outail; P cE P�iticipal� i 7;:; f 01 3 TERRA ASSOCIATE$ Inc. Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology . and - Environmental Earth Sciences No. P-2513 .PERMIT COUNTER. Mr. Steve Anderson Group Four, Inc: . 16030 Juanita -Woodinville- Way NE ; Bothell, Washington 98011 Subject: Final -Report Observation of Retaining Wall Construction Ruggiero:,Residence 16010 — 75th Place West ' Edmonds, 'Washing,ton Dear Mr. Anderson: As requested, we observed. construction of,a lock -block retaining. wall .at. the 'Ruggiero' Residence .in Edmonds. The,retaining wall was constructed as a replacement for a rockery, along the north side of the property. We earlier made an evaluatiorf of conditions- in this :area and, presented our finding's• and recommendations :in a letter dated.,. May 22, 2000., "Subsequently, 'we :worked with your. firm in 'developing the' designs. These designs' were •,presented on drawings' prepared by Group Four,-Incs, dated July 5, 2000 (Your Job No. 97=8004). Construction of thewall was.performed.during the week of September 11; 2000:. Initially, the contractor removed. 'the, existing rockery which -existed at this location.:.After removal,of the rockery,. we examined the subgrade,' ;conditions and found that the soils exposed at; the bearing level were firm native soils, which.were. suitable for providing support to the proposed lock -block wall. The,lock-block-wall was then constructed to the configuration shown on the project.drawings.. While the wall'was constructed, it was concurrently backfilled in•accordance with the design'drawings. Based on our observations during -construction of the wall and after completion -of the wall, it is our opinion that the lock -block wall has been. constructed' in accordance with the ;recommendations presented in our May 22,. 2000 letter and the project drawings. ` qTREET-, FILE" 160�0,'F-31-A&W 1 12525 Willows Road, ,Suite 101, Kirkland;' Wash'ingtori 98034 Phone (425) 821-7777_4 Fax•(425) 8214334 •.terra@terra-associates.com • CJ OF -� CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 `� DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Ihc.1S9 Planning • Building • Engineering June 28, 2001 Philip J. Ruggiero Post Office Box 6159 Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Private property line dispute Dear Mr. Ruggiero, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The City is in receipt of your letter dated 6/13/01 and your attorney's letter dated 4/9/01 regarding the boundary line dispute between yourself and Mr. Ansari. Be advised, the City has no record of this April 91h, 2001 letter from Mr. Henry or the photographs. Regardless, the City cannot resolve private property line disputes. With regard to your written statements that `the City by the issuance of the Ansari building permit assumes the responsibility to supervise and inspect the construction to include correct observation of the property and boundary lines' again, the City cannot resolve private property line disputes. Rather, it is the responsibility of property owners to properly locate boundary lines and properly construct structures or utilities within those property lines or easement areas. Lastly, I am unsure what survey are you referring to in your letter. The City has a survey submitted by Mr. Ansari, prepared by Daniel K. Roupe, Professional Land Surveyor dated 1/30/97, but this survey does not show utility encroachment. Also, we also have your Group 4 partial site plan dated 5/19/00. If there is another survey please provide me a copy for review. Given the information to date, the City will withhold final occupancy of the Ansari residence until the property line dispute is resolved. In the future, if specific professional evidence (i.e., a stamped survey) is provided that proves a zoning code violation (i.e., setback violation of structures) the City shall investigate the matter and assure code compliance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 771-0220. If you wish to meet in person please call in advance for an appointment. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Cc: Duane Bowman, Director of Development Services • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan STREET FILE /60/O /4/ lhC. 189v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering June 28, 2001 Philip J. Ruggiero Post Office Box 6159 Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Rockery Permit #200678 Dear Mr. Ruggiero, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR After your meeting yesterday with Duane Bowman, Director he informed me that you indicated that the rockery work under the subject permit was complete. According to Building Division records no inspections have been called for this project and no special inspection reports have been submitted for our review and approval. Pursuant to City Ordinance #2661 and Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.05, special inspections for Meadowdale landslide hazard projects are required. Please immediately submit all field reports or special inspection reports to date for our review and approval. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 771-0220. If you wish to meet in person please call in advance for an appointment. Sincerely, �/ram, � Jeannine L. Graf Building Official STREE14 0/ 0 �FILE • Incorporated August 11, 1890 ° Sister City - Hekinan, Japan �v EUM • � p Y �N CITY OF EDMONDS 1215TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS • WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 ts' 1 ago httpV/www.ci.edrnonds.wa.us RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Construct rockery and fence Proponent: Phil Ruggiero Location of proposal, including street address if any: 16010 75`I' PI W, Edmonds Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. There is no comment period for this DNS. XX This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by August 15, 2000. Responsible Official: Kathleen Taylor Position/Title: Planner . Phone: 425-771-0220 Address: City of Edmonds 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: �a Signature: v / XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than August 15, 2000, by filing a written appeal citing the specific factual reasons for the appeal. The appeal submittal must also include the required fees and mailing list. Please contact the Planning Division for specific submittal requirements. XX Posted on August 1, 2000, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page I of 2 RUGGIERODNS.DOC CREATED ON 08/01/00 8:13 AM Mailed to the following along wike Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section XX Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX XX Department of Fisheries Attn.: Richard E. Johnson Regional Habitat Manager 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 Attachments pc: Building Permit No. 00-222 SEPA Notebook • Applicant: Phil Ruggiero 16010 75`h PI W Edmonds, WA 98026 Agent: Steve Anderson Group Four; Inc. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way NE Bothell, WA 98011 Page 2 of 2 RUGGIERODNS.DOC CREATED ON 08/01/00 8:13 AM • • MEMORANDUM 'Sr MLE- Date: May 31, 2000 To: Don Fiene, PE; Assistant City Engineer From: Gordy Hyde, Development Services Engineer 1 Subject: SFR permit for Ruggiero 466010 - 75`h Pl. W. This applicant is proposing to remove a rockery and replace it in a slightly different location in the Meadowdale area. Please review the plan and either approve or let me know what deficiencies exist that I should let the applicant know about. Thank you. City of Edmonds Development Services Department TERRA ASSOCIAT S, Inc. " Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology a..., and Environmental Earth Sciences Mr: Steve Anderson C_ a 1 Group Four, Inc. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way NE, Bothell, Washington 98011 Subject: Retaining Walls Ruggiero Residence 16010 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Anderson: RF-051VE® MAY 2 5 2000 DEVELOPMENT ERVICES CTR. EDMONDS ' May 22, 2000 No. P-2524 r As requested, we have provided you with geotechnical consultation pertaining to the design and layout of a retaining wall to be constructed along the north property line of the Ruggiero Residence. Presently,. this part. of the site is supported by a rockery and Keystone wall with a maximum height of approximately eight feet. The existing rockery ends at a soldier pile wall that extends to the south from a point along the north property line. The existing rockery and small keystone wall immediately above the rockery have been constructed slightly across the property line. It was indicated to us the need to replace these walls with a wall that is constructed entirely on the Ruggiero property. We discussed various options including Keystone walls and rockeries for use in this area. Both Keystone walls and rockeries would require construction of geogrid reinforced structural fills to a distance of approximately six to eight feet across the property line, and would also require excavations of this magnitude for construction. Therefore, these options were not considered practical.' Based on the existing site and slope configuration in this area, we concluded that use of precast concrete blocks, such as ecology blocks or lock blocks, would be the most appropriate option. We discussed this option with you and.provided the following general design guidelines: 1. The wall may be constructed with prefabricated lock blocks with dimensions of 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet by 5 feet. 2. The base of the blocks should be embedded at least 12 inches below the outside grade. 3. In areas where the wall height is more than five feet, the long dimension of the blocks should be placed perpendicular to the face of the wall. • 4. Where the wall height is less than five feet, the long dimension may be placed parallel to the face of the` wall. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-7777 <' U Mr. Steve Anderson • • May 22,2000 5. The furthermost rear portion of the blocks should be at least 12 inches away from the property line. 6. A minimum of 12 inches of free draining material, such as pea gravel, should be placed behind the wall. A four -inch diameter perforated pipe should be placed at the base of the pea gravel and provided with a sufficient gradient to drain by gravity to the west. 7. After the blocks have been placed, the ground surface behind the. blocks can be restored to a maximum inclination of no more than 3:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). 8. The finished slopes should be seeded with appropriate species of vegetation to minimize the potential for future erosion. Based on our input, Group Four, Inc. prepared drawings showing the configuration and details of the lock -block wall. These are shown on the drawings (Sheets 1 and 2) dated May 11, 2000. We reviewed these drawings for conformancewith our recommendations. Based on our review, we conclude that the drawings have been. prepared in accordance with our recommendations. We trust this summary of our recommendations and review are sufficient for you to proceed with construction of this lock block wall. If jTa uestions or require" additional information, please call. Sincerely yours, TERRA ASSO, Anil Butail, P.E. Principal AB:dvp No. P-2524 Page No. 2 TERRA ASSOCIA11S, Inc. " Consultants in Geotechnical Engineering, Geology RECEIVEDand Environmental Earth Sciences MAY 2 5 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. ,a,6May 22, 2000 BEET No. P-2524 Mr. Steve Anderson Group Four, Inc. 16030 Juanita -Woodinville Way NE. Bothell, Washington 98011 Subject: Retaining Walls Ruggiero Residence 16010 — 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Anderson: As requested, we have provided you with geotechnical consultation pertaining to the design and layout of a retaining wall to be constructed along the north property line of the Ruggiero Residence. Presently,this part. of the site is supported by a rockery and Keystone wall with a maximum height of approximately eight feet. The existing rockery ends at a soldier pile wall that extends to the south from a point along the north property line. The existing rockery and small keystone wall immediately above the rockery have been constructed slightly across the property line. It was indicated to us the need to replace these walls with a wall that is constructed entirely on the Ruggiero property. We discussed various options including Keystone walls and rockeries for use in this area. Both Keystone walls and rockeries would require construction of geogrid reinforced structural fills to a distance of approximately six to eight feet across the property line, and would also require excavations of this magnitude for constriction. Therefore, these options were not considered practical. Based on the existing site and slope configuration in this area, we concluded that use of precast concrete blocks, such as ecology blocks or lock blocks, would be the most appropriate option. We discussed this option with you and provided the following general design guidelines: The wall may be constructed with prefabricated lock blocks with dimensions of 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet by 5 feet. 2. The base of the blocks should be embedded at least 12 inches below the outside grade. 3. In areas where the wall height is more than five feet, the long dimension of the blocks should be placed perpendicular to the face of the wall. 4. Where the wall height is less than five feet, the long dimension may be placed parallel to the face of the wall. 12525 Willows Road, Suite 101, Kirkland, Washington 98034 • Phone (425) 821-7777 Mr. Steve Anderson . • May 22,2000 5. The furthermost rear portion of the blocks should be at least 12 inches away from the property line. 6. A minimum of 12 inches of free draining material, such as pea gravel, should be placed behind the wall. A four -inch diameter perforated pipe should be placed at the base of the pea gravel and provided with a sufficient gradient to drain by gravity to the west. 7. After the blocks have been placed, the ground surface behind the. blocks can be restored to a maximum inclination of no more than 3:1 (Horizontal: Vertical). 8. The finished slopes should be seeded with appropriate species of vegetation to minimize the potential for future erosion. Based on our input, Group Four, Inc. prepared drawings showing the configuration and details of the lock -block wall. These are shown on the drawings (Sheets 1 and 2) dated May 11, 2000. We reviewed these drawings for conformancewith our recommendations. Based on our review, we conclude that the drawings have been. prepared in accordance with our recommendations. We trust this summary of our recommendations and review are sufficient for you to proceed with construction of this lock block wall. If p uestions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely yours,' TERRA ASSO' z 17005 a. ail 5 Z Anil Butail, P.E. Principal AB:dvp MORES 12/9/01 No. P-2524 Page No. 2 i L BARBARA FAHEY M CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Inc.18°�� April 9, 1999 Mr. Philip Ruggiero 16010 75`h 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 7-1 Ihc.1891, CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning/Building • Parks and Recreation • Engineering • Wastewater Treatment Plant March 12, 1998 Philip J Ruggiero 16010 75' Place West Edmonds, Washington 98206 Re: Home Owners Insurance Policy As you are aware, the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Area Ordinance requires homeowners to post and maintain a policy of general public liability insurance. This insurance is required for a period of not more than 10 years from the date of final approval (occupancy was granted on (2/6/98). A certificate evidencing such insurance shall be filed with the Building Official and must be continually maintained throughout the 10 year period. The City has received a cancellation notice of your insurance policy. Please immediately inform your insurance company that a current copy be provided to the City. As a reminder, the policy must be for general public liability insurance naming the City as additional named insured against personal injury, death, property damage and/or loss arising from, or out of, the City's involvement in the permitting process for the project in the amount of one million dollars. The policy shall also state that the City will be notified 45 days in advance of policy cancellation. Note this requirement of insurance is transferable to any and all owners within the 10-year period. If you have recently sold your property, please notify the City in writing of the name of the new owners. Be advised if the insurance is canceled and not replaced 3/19/98 occupancy of the structure may be revoked, and the Building Official is further authorized to require vacation of the structure until such time as the insurance has been properly reinstated. Thank you, n Vivienne Myers Permit Specialist • O Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0CT-.= 0-9 r THI_I 1 COO r= K E G E L- =. A'_ _:0C P _ 0 2 Kegel &Associates Inc. 30 October 1997 City of Fdownds Comumnity Services Depaitment 121 5"' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA. 98020 Attn: Jamal Ma,h.moud P. F. Engince:ring inspector Re. Deterltion System `: = Ruggiero Residence KA 4 12099 Dear Jam.al : 1 made an inspection and asbuilt the detention system outlet this aftenwon and. have attached a drawing of catch basin # 1. ft is my opinion that the catch basin as install is adequate to facilitate the dctenti0n system we designed. Respectf illy Submitted • R. Mi had Spatz P. E. Kegel & Assoc. "tic, cc'. Snare Construction / ENGINEERS SURVEYORS • PLANNERS VF CA EVERGREEN WAY • EVERETT. WASHINGTON 98204.3094 • PHONE (206) 353.1119 / 775.5424 FAX (206) 353-7 ,* 4t.'-__T—ZO-197 THU 1 4-7 KEGEL_ & F:4 S S- co c P :T. N S_W5 4B W 148-,19 , .-----e_,.,: cli IN E'QD CAP/ WM4 0 x o GpAl-E; 70F 36. 75 # ..... . . . . . . . Geo Q Engineers City of Edmonds Community Services Division 121 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine L. Graf BOLDING 0 CT 2 1 1997 October 20, 1997 Re: Construction Report Review Permit Nos. 960266 and 970353 16010 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington File No. 3475-002-10 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska This letter responds to your letter dated October 16, 1997 relative to your review of our construction report letter dated September 10, 1997. Our letter summarizes the results of monitoring of the construction of the Ruggiero residence at 16010 - 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. Your letter refers to two items in the Construction Report, letter dated September 10, 1997, which require further action. The two items referred to are the tension crack discussed in field reports numbered 3B, 4B, 6 and 7, and the "rock buttress" discussed in field reports numbered 4B, 6, 7, 9 and 10, and our construction report. The ' tension crack developed as a result of the hillside slope sloughing during periods of heavy rain into the excavation behind the soldier pile/lagging wall. The sloughed material was removed and replaced with quarry spalls to restore support to the slope above the retaining wall. The cracking was the result of that initial movement of material into the excavation and some adjustment of the slope after the quarry spalls were in place. The tension crack was monitored throughout the construction of the retaining wall and during subsequent visits to the site. The slope area on which the tension crack was located was graded as part of the preparation for construction of the rockeries and eventual landscaping and revegetation of the slope. The tension GeoEnoneers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (425) 861-6000 Fax (425) 861-6050 www.geoengineers.com City of Edmonds October 20, 1997 • • Page 2 crack was filled in during this grading and it is our understanding that it has not reappeared. The final landscaping and revegetation of the slope will provide further stabilization of the surface soils on the slope and the tension crack is not expected to recur. The second item of concern stated in your letter of October 16, 1997 relates to revisions to the approved grading and retaining wall plan. The placement of the "rock buttress" discussed in the aforementioned field reports and described as a "change in design" in our September 10, 1997 letter did not constitute a change in the grading and retaining wall plans per se. Because of the extremely heavy rains, the material that sloughed into the excavation was unsuitable for reuse as backfill behind the retaining wall. All of the sloughed material was removed and replaced with the quarry spalls. The quarry spalls were recommended so as to provide a material that would restore support to the slope and that could be placed satisfactorily during very rainy conditions. The configuration of the slope above the retaining wall as shown on the project plans was not substantially changed by the use of the quarry spalls as backfill to "buttress" or support the slope. The use of the quarry spalls was referred to as a "change in design" in our letter of September 10, 1997 because it constituted a change in materials and costs from that specified in the original design. Because the retaining wall and slope above it were constructed in substantial accordance with the approved plans, it is our opinion that revised grading computations and as - built plans are not necessary. We trust this provides the information you require at this time. Please contact us should you have any questi erning this letter or our Construction Report. 7 "y roses :-� EXPIRES G 9$ �� KGB:cros Document ID: PA3475002.RR Two copies submitted cc: Phil Ruggiero Ron Snare Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Kenneth G. Buss, P.E. Associate G e o E n g i n e e r s He No. 3475-002-10-1130 10 (o 7,,D'itk) Geo QpEngineers 0CT 1 5 1917 PERMIT COUNTER September 10, 1997 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Snare Construction Company 107 -. 148th Avenue Northeast Arlington, Washington 98223 Attention: Ron Snare Summary Construction Monitoring Ruggiero Residence 16010 - 75th Place West Edmonds, Washington File No.. 3475-002-10 This letter summarizes the results of our monitoring of the geotechnically related aspects .of construction of the Ruggiero residence located at 16010 - 75th Place West in Edmonds, Washington. The construction monitoring was authorized by Phil Ruggiero on May 1, 1996. Our initial services consisted of an evaluation of the soil moisture conditions at the site and submittal of our field report to the City of Edmonds documenting our opinion that soil moisture conditions were such that site grading activities could begin. A copy.of that field report, dated May 6, 1996, was transmitted to you. A copy is attached to this report for your files. After site clearing was completed, grading of the site began with the installation of the H-pile/timber lagging retaining wall. Numerous difficulties were encountered during the . installation of the retaining wall, including equipment access and unusually heavy rains. At our recommendation, a change in design was completed and a rock buttress consisting of quarry spalls was placed behind the wall to prevent movement of the uphill slope. Field Report Nos. 2 through 6 document our observations during the construction of the retaining wall and the rock buttress. Copies of these daily reports are also attached for your records. GeoEnoneers, Inc. 8410154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (425) 861-6000 Fax (425) 861-6050 www.geoengineers.com 4 '!,` �Xa�; a iF9;, �j:c i F f��, /�y ,:� § ,t ,, ;. ) �;'t'p �'}j,,�r . f. <r8 .a 'r '( :'�'� .V ` '�'�• ..z �.T3s'° .a' ' °� n �,• ,' . j� Printed, o '_fe4ytlwedYpa2 n� ��a ! a",,a,. 1 's l W . n is : u't c r s ? 4 fit ��' Y. t ni , .r� �u • • Snare Construction Cany i September 10, 1997 Page 2 The final construction activities which we monitored at the site included the placement and construction of the rockeries upslope of the retaining wall and the subgrade excavation and preparation for spread footings for support of the house. Our monitoring of those activities is documented in Field Report Nos. 7 through 11, copies of which are also attached. In summary, it is our opinion that geotechnically related activities during construction of the subject residence were completed in general accordance withour recommendations and the plans and specifications. O ► Please contact us should you have any questions concerning this summary letter or the results of our monitoring activities. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Kenneth G. Buss, P.E. Associate KGB:wd Document ID: 3475002.SUM Attachments Two copies submitted Copyright ® 1997 by GeoEngineers, Inc., All rights reserved G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-002-10-1130 WI. ..`r+Kn'M ..=i�w.:.h'�v -vii+� �Y'�t'�,'i."'" J'wi :p�•,t 'fY .'s".,ne'i .3^�:z 4:y qy°ir",;C�'t tir'� � , �'-' r -;~r'� ''.l:�`, .., City d Edmond y RIGHT-OF*AY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT / , . Permit Number. O C I 22 jf t Issue Date• 46 ENGIOMA cinity of Construction: 16010 75 P1 W (9622726) j 8 o B. Type of Work (be specific): Install Serviee 90 19 C. Contractor: Mailing Address: 1122 75 St SW Everett State License #: 98203 D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Contact: Mariamne KingsbuU Phone: 356-7500 X7596 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): _ E. ❑ Commercial ❑Subdivision ❑ City Project Utili1 ty (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other 5 INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: + i F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes Jallo G. Size of Cut: x H� rge; APPLICANT TO READ -AN SIGN j� INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees 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. 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 on site at all times for inspection purposes. Signature: 4 Date: ] 0= 6-9-6- (, retractor or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY: ?4A RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER `Z O DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND III: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: PA. COMMENTS: DATE: RESTORATION FEE: PERMIT FEE: TOTAL FEE: d 0.0- RECEIPT FEE: ^ ISSUED BY: NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994 w M MAML A v�4f Shi�gbn Energy Gompe►N 0 �0 t.M t-.A w t&.t.C-1 Watermain depth 1J/A —L- gas main Addendum to: City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: Hariamne Kingsbury Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 0356-7500 X7596 I coo(o �`'o� S JOfj GCo22�2(0 m Key: {i- Water -G- Gas -SS- Sever -. Water hydrant 0 Water valve Washington Natural Gas Company 1122 75th Street S.W., Everett, Washington 98203, (206) 355-3331 w M Natural Gas AMwOIgwErxwwccff"FN I 0 �o 1 od G0►-3DU%T �Q.ov t Watermain depth ►J/A` /I " gas main Addendum to: City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application Submitted by: Marianne Kingsbury Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 0356-7500 X7596 lu m cool o �S PL w 0 CA - I S J o P> G Co22 2(0 Key: -W- Water -G- Gas -SS- Sever �. Water hydrant p Water valve Washington Natural Gas Company 1122 75th Street S.W., Everett, Washitigton 98203a (206) 355-3331 m fJ -Fri ylyN� :r ;,f 1n�:I� w=.°q'Qnw'°itt`trd`'tT}^+F+`"'.?�kry `,�Y+ r"1"T7rYyayr'`•^''?k,'¢i5ur�'dll°�t'alCi9^L'vti*v' ,�, Y°ta:.r?6! City of _Fdmonc* RIGHT-OF—WAY `CONSTRUCTION . C44 PERMIT Permit Number.'9(� /&0 .k. x Issue Date: LO— A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 1 (a O to 7 S' N P L. 18 B. Type of Work (be specific): 7R V- N C H 1 N R/ W Fo R %EQV I C E. 9 0 1 9 eIr NF-U) FOL CS 'ARE CZ1 Ut'oN t"bMPI�'i'IOrlr C. Contractor: S N O R O AM S 4 C dy.yilt `l POD Contact: O Q hA K A l E Y Mailing Address: 2 1 0 t Q \A W l 11 Phone: State License #: E b M a"t D W A ok 8 0 2(o Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. [3 Commercial ❑Subdivision ❑ City Project E] Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: t� F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : ❑ Yes No G. Size of Cut: x H. Charge $ _ APPLICANT.TO READ,,AN GN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agreea:tohoWfte City of Edmonds harmless rronk 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 costa, and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. �j 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 TIMEA DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT. 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. "J�- A-k ' Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations a,s required by the City Engineer., All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the egad of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and thepink copy of the permit will be available on site at all times for inspection purposes. Signature: Date: ( 24 - 1 �^ (Contractor or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK �p 60 rv►1 FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY: RIGHT OF WAY. DEPOSIT TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER OWL DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND 111: a o E SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Au—.'-wo(?.i ' Tt:iB�,E- RESTORATION"FEE 30 ! GG_l G ! (40, (PERMIT FEE: �.MOV tJTOTALFEE: 13� G'oNT-K�1crv/L. F�itLUt'l.L, c COMMENTS: RECEIPT. FEE: --- — Td M QV ATE: ISSUED BY: NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div. 1994 `-FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.) Comments Diagram; CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P.W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: LOCATION. I.io D t D �.S.TK PL W 500-T.K.CauNtY,.`AREA� POLE N0. 5W1/4 S':DATEiW.O. N0...2 REASON. FOR WORK_ i"r NEUJ ' POLE_A Wj h ►NISTALI RlSERZ ENGINEER .K AXA LE-Y DWG. NO. 11 Sq IDS ' At3D PEDESTAL FOR SWARE LolISTRVCitoN DRAFTER- U.G. NO. '' S 0 GAS_ K� AT SCALE DATE PRINTED _; APPROVED _ VISTA LL 3 � SECONDAiZY _ DATE WORK COMPLETED FOREMAN.. - ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS o TR�t.1CK 33' NORTH{ ALONG ® EXEMPT ❑ NOT EXEMPT FEES REQ D eYEs SUBSTATION M E A lb 0 W DA LIE-�$�%. W'0'- �� 8 .SET (� E 0 A S S i AK eD O ❑ No PARA. 18 ITEM C 2- ,� I,3t 'ALL � c-00 t I000U.3 PRIMARY OVERHEAD �-' O.H. U.G. COND. lz KV CIRCUIT No. 1840 PHASE R l s E R 'Tp ?E D ❑ RESIDENTIAL ADD CKT. FT. PH pv� ❑ COMMERCIAL N0 �UN Ov, OF /O IrRom LEO# REM CKT. FT. PH TU jr C 3 / ®$ /- $ NET _ CKT. FT. SECONDARY OVERHEAD BASIC FEE $ METER/CONV. POLE PRIMARY UNDERG ND ❑ RESIDENTIAL ❑ CON MERC BASIC FEE $ _ LEU O.H. U.G. COND. _ KV ADD CKT. FT. PH REM CKT. FT. PH NET CKT. FT. PERMITS (DATE GRANTED) ❑ TREE TRIM ❑ STATE ❑ COUNTY PeCITY(EoM04D:S)_ SECONDARY UNDERGROUND EASEMENTS BASIC FEE $ __OU ❑ REQUIRED N NOT REQUIRED UNDERGROUND PLAT DATE RELEASED BASIC FEE FOREIGN CONTACTS t FT. ®$ _ $ N GTNW JPN # _ STREET NG E CATV JPN# FT. ®$ / _ $ _ ® JOINT TRENCH GTNW & CATV WORK IN RIGHT OF WAY ❑ JOINT BORE GTNW & CATV ❑ PRIMARY ❑ 15f SECONADARY 75 POLE STENCILING 33_t FT. ®$ G�_�S/ _ $ FROM MISCELLANEOUS FEES TA POLE VAULT $_ PRE-CONSTR. REQUIREMENTS PERMIT $ _30- ao ❑ TREE TRIM ❑ PUD LOCATOR $ ■ BACKHOE E FLAGGING $ __ N ONE CALL DATE TOTAL DUE $ _. -L INDEX POLES PLAT DATE PAID LOGS U-MAP RECEIPT# XFMR C-MAP NEW SVCE APPLICATION# Z S4 7Z 5 _ LOCATION MAP PAGE 4 3 5A- 7 i i l E 3 2 ,I �00 I�AKAI..E1► c.7o-3Zt4 Ski - 3t84 Rom 5►sApf_ Y i d Ivq VIN % IN Wous USER 'ON NEW POLE CONDUIT GRpM.. XFMR -ro PEI4 cowoui f' T& E-tlCA R�W LANDAU AASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services Ms. Sharon Nolan City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED RUGGIERO RESIDENCE LOT 2, MCCORKLE SHORT PLAT (#S-23-90) 16010 75TH PLACE WEST, MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: February 15, 1996 DULDING FEB 2 0 19S6 In accordance with your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of resubmitted plans for the proposed Ruggiero residence. The results of our previous reviews are provided in letters to the City dated March 28, 1995 and January 4, 1996. As before, our supplemental review follows requirements outlined within City Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). A list of the documents we reviewed is included as Attachment 1. The resubmitted plans only partially address the specific issues raised during our earlier reviews. The lead design professional (architect) has included, as Sheet 12A, most of the text of GeoEngineers' May 17,1995 letter, which addressed comments -included in our 1995 preliminary review letter. The architect has also made changes to foundation and structural notes on Sheet 9, and has included additional foundation notes on Sheets 5, 6, and 7. The architect has not provided foundation -related notes for details and cross -sections on Sheets 7, 10, and 11 (as recommended by GeoEngineers), nor has he referenced GeoEngineers' May 17, 1995 letter as suggested in Items 1 and 5 of our January 1996 review letter. In addition, Items 3 and 4 of our 1996 letter have not been addressed on the resubmitted plans. As recommended by GeoEngineers, foundation note 3 on Sheet 9 has been revised to include a design at -rest equivalent fluid density of 50 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This value replaces the former active equivalent fluid density value of 35 pcf. This change appears to have been made relatively late in the design process, and it is unclear if that value has been incorporated into the design of the basement retaining walls for the proposed residence. The resubmitted plans we reviewed are undated and have not been stamped by the structural WORLD TRADE CENTER • 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD • SUITE 209 • TACOMA, WA 98424 • (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 926-2531 EDMONDS: (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 / SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX (509) 327-9691 • engineer. However, we understand that the structural engineer will stamp the official plan sets currently being held by the City. We assume that, by stamping the current plans, the structural. engineer will have had an opportunity to revisit the design calculations for the retaining walls; however, this change is something the City may want to. point out to the structural engineer prior to his signing and stamping the drawings. We recommend that the plans be returned to the applicant for further action. The architect should review the plans and other documents referenced herein and make appropriate changes in order to be consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer and the requirements of Ordinance 2661. In addition, the geotechnical engineer and the structural engineer should be provided the opportunity to review the latest plans, if they have not already, and evaluate and comment on specific issues raised herein. Please note that Landau Associates' review of the submitted documents was limited to geotechnical issues and did not include a review of design calculations. Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. WDE/JWG/mjp(tam) No. 74053.10 02/15/96 DAWPDOCS\PRO] ECTS\MISC\RUGGIER4.LTR Attachment: List of Materials Reviewed LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: gy'Willia D. Evans, CPG Project Manager N and Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF MATERIALS REVIEWED • Transmittal letter from Vince Ojala, Architect, providing revised plans for the proposed Ruggiero residence, dated February 1, 1996. • Sheet SP-1 (Rockery and piling wall detail, and site map), A Custom Residence at Meadowdale Beach for Phillip Ruggiero. Vince Ojala, Architect. Undated. Sheets 1 through 14 (S.1 through S.6, and 12A), A Custom Residence at Meadowdale Beach for Phillip Ruggiero. Vince Ojala, Architect. Undated. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. LANDAU • ASSOCIATES, B MID D I N G °^ INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services J A N 0 5 1996 January 4, 1996 Ms. Sharon Nolan City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED RUGGIERO RESIDENCE LOT 2, MCCORKLE SHORT PLAT (#S-23-90) 16010 75TH PLACE WEST, MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: In accordance with your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of plans and other submitted documents concerning construction of the proposed Ruggiero residence. As before, our review follows requirements outlined within City Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). A list of . the documents we reviewed is . included as Attachment 1. Landau Associates previously conducted a preliminary submittal review for the proposed Ruggiero residence, the results of which are contained in our letter to the City dated December 7, 1994. We also recently reviewed a letter by GeoEngineer's; dated May 17, 1995, responding to issues raised in our 1994 letter. Our review comments were provided to the City in our letter dated August 8, 1995. GeoEngineers' 1995 letter provided an item -by -item response to preliminary review comments regarding the proposed Ruggiero residence. In that letter, GeoEngineers provided additional recommendations and clarified design criteria to be used in design and construction of the project. In our review letter, we suggested that those recommendations and design criteria be incorporated in the project design, and be clearly referenced on the plans and specifications. We assume that the design drawings contained in the most recent submittal are current. Our review of the recently submitted documents for this project indicates that some issues identified in our 1994 letter, and subsequently responded to in GeoEngineer's 1995 letter, have not been addressed on the current drawings. These are summarized as follows: WORLD TRADE CENTER • 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD • SUITE 209 • TACOMA, WA 98424 • (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 926-253 t EDMONDS: (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 / SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX (509) 327-9691 1. Item 4 in our December, 1994 letter identified issues related to structural and non-structural fill, and compaction criteria for subgrade soil supporting foundations, floor slabs, and pavements. In Item 4 of their May 1995 letter, GeoEngineers provided clear and specific criteria for preparation of subgrade soil, and the placement and compaction of fill. They also recommended adding notes regarding those criteria at specific locations on the plans. The current plan sheets that we reviewed have not been modified to incorporate those criteria or include the notes as recommended. Sheet 9 of the current drawings refers to GeoEngineers' 1994 report, but not to their May 1995 letter. We suggest that the lead design professional review item 4 in both our 1994 letter and GeoEngineers' May 1995 letter, and that the plans be revised to correspond with GeoEngineer's comments and recommendations, and to include a reference to GeoEngineers' May 1995 letter. 2. Items 5 and 6 in our 1994 letter identified issues regarding at -rest lateral pressures and shallow foundation support. In Items 5 and 6 of their May 1995 letter, GeoEngineers provided clear and specific criteria for at -rest lateral pressures and foundation support. As above, they also recommended adding notes regarding those criteria at specific locations on the plans. The current plan sheets that we reviewed have not been modified to incorporate those criteria or include the notes as recommended. We suggest that the lead design professional review these items and that the plans be revised to correspond with GeoEngineer's comments and recommendations. 3. Item 8 in our 1994 letter identified the apparent need for shoring at the northeast corner of the house during construction. In addition, it appears that temporary excavation slopes will still be steeper than 1H:1V if excavation is limited to the property. Accordingly, the concerns raised in Item 8 of our 1994 letter have not been addressed on the current plans. Revisions to the grading plan have resulted in a modest reduction of final grades at the northeast corner of the house, and flatter uphill slopes. This has been achieved using low rockery walls and terracing. However, the toe of the lowest rockery is within about 5 ft of the northeast corner of the house and well within any excavation zone for construction of the foundations and basement walls. These grade revisions appear to be based on recommendations contained in Item 8 of GeoEngineers' 1995 letter. While the grading plan revisions address final grades, it is unclear whether they are also intended to assist in limiting the extent of temporary excavation slopes. We suggest that GeoEngineers review the current grading plan and temporary slope conditions in the northeast corner of the house, and that the lead design professional review Item 8 in our 1994 letter. We further suggest that the lead design professional revise the grading plans to correspond with GeoEngineer's comments and recommendations, and to clarify procedures to be used to maintain temporary excavation slopes and protect adjacent property. 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 4. Detail 1 on Sheet 12 indicates a foundation drain line on top of the footing and another drain line adjacent to the footing. It is not clear at which location the line is to be installed. The lead design professional should review this detail and others showing foundation drain locations and revise the plans to be consistent throughout. 5. Sheet 9 contains notes regarding soldier pile construction. Those notes refer to the 1994 GeoEngineers' report but not their 1995 letter. Since that letter contains further recommendation and clarifications related to pile design and construction, it is our opinion that the plans should also refer to the May 17, 1995 GeoEngineers' letter. It is clear from our review of the current submittal that several issues raised in our preliminary review were not addressed on the drawings we reviewed. We also have spoken with Gary Beckham of GeoEngineers who indicated that they were not afforded an opportunity to review the current plans. We recommend that the plans be returned to the applicant for further action. The lead design professional should review the plans and other documents and make whatever appropriate changes are necessary in order to be consistent with the recommendations of the project geotechnical engineer and the requirements of Ordinance 2661. In addition, the geotechnical engineer should be provided an opportunity to review the most current set of plans, and to evaluate and comment on specific issues raised herein. Please note that Landau .Associates' current review did not include a review of the drainage detention calculations. Based on our conversation with Gary Beckham, it is our understanding that he is no longer employed at GeoEngineers. Mr. Kenneth Buss, who also signed and stamped the reports and letters related to this project, is apparently still with GeoEngineers. However, Gary Beckham appears to have had a relatively intimate knowledge of the site and the current review process, and, we feel that his departure could impact GeoEngineers' future role in the review process and in quality control during construction. The City may want to solicit assurances from GeoEngineers' that they can continue the quality of effort that they have provided to date on this project. 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES. INC. Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. WDE/JWG/mjp No. 74053.20 01/04/96 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\MISC\RUGGIER3.LTR Attachments: List of Materials Reviewed 4 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: . a,- - d'_ William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager a/n'd, W .-' Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF MATERIALS REVIEWED • Sheets 9 through 14 (S.1 through S.6), A Custom Residence at Meadowdale Beach for Phillip Ruggiero, Vince Ojala, Architect, undated. •. Sheet 1 (Vicinity Map, Index of Drawings, Rockery Wall detail, and site map), A Custom Residence at Meadowdale Beach for Phillip Ruggiero, Vince Ojala, Architect, undated. • Detention Calculations for Phil Ruggiero of Lot 2 City of Edmonds S.P. #S-23- 90, Kegel & Associates, Inc., September 19, 1995. • Report, Geotechnical Consultation Services, Proposed Residential Construction, Meadowdale Beach Area, Edmonds, Washington, GeoEngineers, Inc., September 28, 1995. • Letter from Vince Ojala, Architect providing the Lead Design Professional Designation (Vince Ojala, Architect) and Statement required under the application checklist, September 13, 1994 (Amended copy of previously submitted letter). • Letter from Victor Kimsey Consulting Structural Engineers to the City of Edmonds confirming Kimsey's review of current plans, September 19, 1995: 5 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. r� �i I Y CLERK I RECEIVED 6ITY OF EDMOND �J 505 BELL STREET' M AY 7 9 1996 EDMONDS, WA 98020 EDMONDS CITY CLERK COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD 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 pertftit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: 1. Description of .Subi- Proper.1-t. Tuffs Covenant GA. notification and indemnification/hold harmless*, relates to a tract of land at the street address of 160/O 75-m l.0 4ei-.r (insert street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: Gz P/ S-23— le? =LOIL rr W- IW4eL 5/31--6)W- 0003 J � 0 2. Notification and. Covenant of Notification. The above referenced site "(hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been 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 consultants reports and evaluations of WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -1- WSS/kit 02/08/90 V 0 L. 3 15 9 P46E .9 53 BUILDING FEB 9 - 1"0 the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file number W r (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or: prohibitions onr-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 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. 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 WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -2- WSS/klt 02/08/90 �6 1i 5 `1 VOL. 315 9 PAGE 2 5 5 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 Recguirement.. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director. has/h(s Xt (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: mill1w *1'4'4 ;- 4ealley ,�e Crtrrryf co,�y a� �✓su��✓u .,lei// �e l��re•✓� �asi�d � A� [insert insurance requirements and tim� period, if any --if no insurance required, so state.) WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -3- WSS/klt 02/08/90 �6050�0 3 VOL. 3115 9 SAGE 2555 • d is 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 121k day of z4� , 199-: OWNERS) By: By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF el0t, ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence n that P hl Le-3- LC ,',tc'n signed this instrument and acknowledged' WSS52079A/0006.040.034 WSS/klt 02/08/90 50 -4- VO1.3159PAGE2556 it to be (his/her) free. and voluntary act for the per'Plgr/s `f , 4�` mentioned in this instrument. =' 4' j�➢ �. DATED this U day of -'3'4' 'W-e 199V. + T - J G, `, 6y,h •• All NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: U `'-�- STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day of , 199_. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) 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 was executed)- to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. .- DATED this day of , 199_. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -5- WSS/klt 02/08/90 �60 508 3 86 VOL. 1 15 9 PAGE 2.5 5 7 0 r , • . , . ,� �••1 I Y CLERK � I :;RECEIVED 6ITY OF EDMONDAS�f • _ 505 BELL STREEMAY 9 1996 • EDMONDS, WA 98020 [ � � � , (!)�� f EDMONDS CITY CLERK COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS 0 U rr 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 periiiit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate .and promise as follows: 1. nescriaticn of s•:b ec- Property. This c;.venan; of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of 16010 7.5-m �`�i9CC k�IeSr ( insert street address), Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: r _ La-t z c ;_ - P�� ---�--9d = �otz lt� c.7 u LO Q7 r p 2. Notification and. Covenant of Notification.. The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been 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 WSS/klt 02/08/90 _ FEB 9 - 1"0 VOL. 315 9 PAGE 2 5 9 3 the risks associated with development are contained in building permit f ile number CD ( insert number) on f ile 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 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. 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 WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -2- WSS/klt 02/08/90 9 5 U80 3 VOL. 3159PAGE2554 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 aray 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/h(s Xt (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: /g e4he /ylIM 6 /.34111TAW11 ze o%C y .f%// ,�e ,� f/k' A144fd Sri f p 7� C,r(cP�a� ��✓��i�s . �} C ry C /ey v� �1.,y%ar�4•✓� .slay// ,4e Cuir�� [insert:insurance requirements and timperiod, if any --if no insurance required, so state.] WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -3- WSS/klt 02/08/90 083 ,VOL. 31159 AGE2555 . s • i'2 •by1s1E 5. 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 / 2-tk day of 4�a 199-i OWNER (S ) By: F By: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) - ss.: COUNTY OF _ e,106, ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence � that Pht I; P-3_ Lam; lec*n signed this instrument and acknowledged WSS52079A/0006.040.034 WSS/klt 02/08/90 -4- Vol. 315 9 PAGE 2 5 56 it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the pttYs�trs. mentioned in this instrument. ='�,�� C DATED this LY day of �,!) c„� (Q� , 1994/. h , 4,1 ti NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 4 r_q -7 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this day of , 199_. NOTARY .PUBLIC My commission expires: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: COUNTY OF ) 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 was executed)• to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes'mentioned in this instrument. ..._ DATED this day of , 199_. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: WSS52079A/0006.040.034 -5- WSS/kit 02/08/90 086 VOL. nu255 i Geo �� Engineers �t �J Mr. Phillip John Ruggiero 6126 - 140th Court Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 RECz�E .13 O C T 0 4 i995 PERMIT COUNTER September 28, 1995 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Geotechnical Consultation Services Proposed Residential Construction Meadowdale Beach Area Edmonds, Washington File No. 3475-001-R02 INTRODUCTION This letter provides additional geotechnical information that the City of Edmonds requires relative to your proposed Meadowdale Beach residence. Our current services on this project were requested by Mr. Vince Ojala, your architect, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Gary Beckham of GeoEngineers on September 13, 1995. We understand that you have authorized our preparation of this letter. Our current services continue our involvement in your project, which include our March 29,1994 "Report, Geotechnical Consultation Services, Proposed Residential Construction, Meadowdale Beach Area, Edmonds, Washington," and our "Statement of Risk Letter ..." dated September 6, 1994, and "Letter of Response ..." dated May 17, 1995. We understand that the City of Edmonds requires further clarification relative to the statistical probability of earth movement at the site. According to Mr. Ojala, the city wants GeoEngineers to provide an exact number for the probability of earth movement at the site within a 25-year period. SCOPE The purpose of our services is to respond to the city of Edmonds' request for additional information. Our scope of services included a review of our files and previous reports for this project and reevaluation of the probability of future earth movements at the site. GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (206) 861.6000 Fax (206) 861-6050 Mr. Phillip John Rt> ro • September 28, 1995 Page 2 DISCUSSION Our May 17 Letter of Response included a discussion of the statistical probability of earth movements within a 25-year period at the site (page 2, item 1. Slope Stability). We concluded, at that time, that "the probability of earth movement within a 25-year period should be less than 30 percent, providing that the city utility drain systems are maintained. It is also likely that the proposed construction will further improve the existing slope stability conditions. This may result in a further decrease in the actual risk of slope movement." If the city maintains the utility drain systems, the risk of slope movement within a 25-year period is less than 30 percent, as stated above. Thus, the upper boundary of the probability of slope movement should be 30 percent (likely less). The proposed development of your property will include removal of much of the colluvium on the site, reconfiguration of the upper slope, construction of a pile -supported retaining wall, and installation of new surface and subsurface drainage facilities. These improvements will decrease the amount of soil and water available to contribute to slope movement mechanisms. The retaining wall will restrict further movement of soil. We have estimated improvement of slope stability (in percent relative to the probability of slope movement within a 25-year period) for each of the proposed elements of site development, as summarized below: Estimated Slope Improvement* Remove colluvium 2 percent Reconfigure upper slope 1 percent New retaining wall 2 percent Drainage improvements 2 percent Sum of Improvements 7 percent *Estimated percent of improvement of slope stability based on the probability of slope movement in percent within a 25-year period. As indicated above, a seven percent improvement in the existing slope stability condition may result from the development of your property, as currently planned. As such, the seven percent improvement should reduce the overall probability of slope movement over a 25-year period to about 23 percent. G e o E n g i n e e r s He No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Ru&ro • September 28, 1995 Page 3 ASSUMPTIONS We have made a number of assumptions to estimate the amount of slope stability improvement on your property. The conditions upon which these assumptions are made must not change over the next 25 years or the estimate of improvement of slope stability stated above may be invalid. These assumptions include: • The city maintains the utility drain systems in the vicinity of the site. • The water levels in the existing ground water monitoring wells in the vicinity of the site remain at their current elevations or drop to lower elevations, indicating that the City's utility drain systems are functioning. • The site is developed as currently planned and as indicated in the drawings approved by the city, including (1) construction of the cantilever retaining wall, (2) reconfiguration of the upper slope area and installation of rockeries, (3) installation of rockery and yard drains in the upper slope, (4) installation of house foundation wall drains, and (5) removal of practically all of the colluvium and surficial soils at house foundation subgrade elevation. • The soil and water conditions encountered during construction are essentially the same as encountered during our field explorations on February 2, 1994 and in previous studies on the site for others, as described in our March 29, 1994 report. CONCLUSIONS In our opinion, providing that the above assumptions remain valid and that the existing soil and water conditions on your property after construction are the same or better than existing conditions, the probability of earth (slope) movement on your property within a 25-year period is about 23 percent. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Mr. Phillip John,Ruggiero in evaluating the potential for future slope movements on his property located in the. Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. This report is not intended for use by others, except for a design/construction team retained by Mr. Ruggiero, and the city of Edmonds. The information contained herein is specific to the Ruggiero property and is not applicable to other sites or the Meadowdale area as a whole. The same limitations as presented in our March 29, 1994 report and September 6, 1994 letter also apply to the conclusions presented in this letter. 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. G e o E n g i n e e r a File No. 3475-001-R02 y Mr. Phillip John RuAbro • September 28, 1995 Page 4 Our letter, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Subsurface conditions will likely vary across the site and may also change over time. These variable conditions and changes may affect the probability of occurrence of any .future earth movements and could influence construction activities. Therefore, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations described in our March 1994 report, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those antigipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply ' to., act plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, we have accomplished our services . in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this letter was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. 4 O P. If there are any questions regarding this letter, please contact us. EXPIRES � �'� GDB:KGB:cros Document ID: 3475001.L Two copies submitted cc: ✓Mr. Vince Ojala, Architect 7703 - 33rd St. N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 Mr. Greg Gilda Victor H. Kimsey Engineers 1818 Westlake Ave. N., Suite 308 Seattle, WA 98109 Yours very truly, . GeoEngineers, Inc. Gary D. Beckham Project Engineering Geologist Kenneth. G. Buss, P.E. Associate G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 8 9 0 _ 199 APPLICANT: CASE NO.: LOCATION: • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS Philip J. Ruggiero SM-95-164 16010 75th Place West LAURA M. HALL MAYOR APPLICATION: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit for the excavation of 916 cubic yards of soil for the construction of a single family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 through 3) REVIEW PROCESS: Shoreline Substantial Development Permit - Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision MAJOR ISSUES: 1. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.36 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Designation of Environments). 2. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.37 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM. - Goals and Policies). 3. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.38 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Use Activities). 4. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 15.39 (SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM - Implementation). 5. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 16.20 (RS - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL). 6. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.55 (SHORELINE PERMITS). • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan • g Examiner Decision Case No. V-95-164 (Ruggiero) Page 2 7. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL REVIEW). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Ruggierio application was opened at 9:00 a.m., December 7, 1995, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 9:04 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Kirk Vinish presented the staff report. From the Applicant: Vince Ojala, applicant's architect, indicated he was aware of the Earth Subsidance Ordinance for the Meadowdale area. From the Community: None WRITTEN COMMENTS: None FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development and Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Location: The subject site is located at 16010 75th Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 and 3). (2) Land Use: The subject property is currently undeveloped. • wring Examiner Decision Case No. V-95-164 (Ruggiero) Page 3 (3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is RS-12, Single Family Residential (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes to the Southwest, with the steepest slope being approximately 40%. Vegetation on the site includes several Alder and Fir trees along with Blackberry bushes and various native grasses (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3). 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a) Facts: (1) North: The properties are currently developed with single family homes, and zoned RS-12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). (2) South: The properties are currently developed with single family homes and zoned RS-12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). (3) East: The properties are currently developed with single family homes and zoned RS-12 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). (4) West: The properties are currently developed with the Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way and tracks and zoned RS-12, beyond the railroad tracks is the Puget Sound zoned Open Space (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) I. a. Facts: A Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) was issued on October 12, 1995. The Environmental Checklist, Determination and additional environmental information are included as Exhibit A, Attachment 6. b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. a. Facts: The subject property is not subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B (Interim Critical Areas) as part of the application process, per City of Edmonds Ordinance 2885 (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). 2. a. Facts: (1) Sections 20.55 and 20.100.010 stipulate the criteria by which all Shoreline Substantial Development Pen -nit applications are to be reviewed (2) ECDC 20.55.010 states the application requirements include, "...the material required in Chapter 20.95. (3) ECDC 20.95 specifies the application requirements of the City of Edmonds. • ring Examiner Decision Case No. V-95-164 (Ruggiero) Page 4 (4) The applicant has included with their application all of the material outlined in ECDC 20.95. (5) ECDC 20.100.010.13 specifies the scope of authority of the City Hearing Examiner to render decisions on applications before the City. ECDC 10.100.010.13.3 lists shoreline permits among the permits the Hearing Examiner may render a decision. b. Conclusion: The requested Shoreline Substantial Development Permit would be consistent with the review criteria. 3. a. Fact: Section 20.55.060 states: "No construction authorization by an approved shoreline permit may begin until 30 days after the final City decision on the proposal. This restriction shall be stated on the permit." D. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM a. Facts: (1) The subject property is designated under ECDC Section 15.36.010.13 as "Urban - Residential." (2) ECDC Section 15.36.010.13 states, "These areas are primarily utilized for single family houses and public streets." b. Conclusion: The proposed consistent with the Shorelin Residential" 2. a. Facts: e development of the site appears to be Environment designation of "Urban - (1) ECDC Chapter 15.37 sets forth the "Goals and Policies" by which all Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are to be reviewed. (3) Section 15.37.060 outlines the "Shoreline Use" goal and policies in the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program. Specific policies which apply to the development proposal are as follows: (a) Section 15.37.060.C.3 states as a general policy of the City: "Assure that shoreline use is compatible with its site, in harmony with adjacent uses, and consistent with long range comprehensive planning for waterfront use." b. Conclusion: The proposed single family dwelling and associated excavation, is consistent with the goals and policies of ECDC Section 15.37. 3. a. Facts: (1) ECDC Chapter 15.38 sets forth the permitted use activities in each shoreline environment. (2) Section 15.38.050 Residential Development states." Residential development shall be governed by the zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City of Edmonds... Residential development should be • ring Examiner Decision Case No. V-95-164 (Ruggiero) Page 5 sited to cause the least disrWtion or %aterfront views.... Residential developers shall indicate methods to be used to control erosion during construction." b. Conclusions: (1) The proposed development appears to be consistent with the standards for development of a single family dwelling and associated excavation in an "Urban" shoreline environment. (2) In addition, the proposed project complies with the Zoning provisions which govern the proposed development. Refer to section ILC above for specific discussion regarding the proposal's compliance with the zoning standards applicable to the proposed development in the "RS" zone. 4. a. Fact: Sections 15.39.030.A &.B state the permit process requirements for the review of all Shoreline Substantial Development permit applications. E. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. Fact: The proposed project has been reviewed and evaluated by other Departments/Divisions of the City (i.e. Fire Department, Public Works Division, and the Parks & Recreation Division). No comments were received. F. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. - a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the application for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. Construction authorization shall not be given by the City until a minimum of 30 days after final City approval. Entered this 19th day of December, 1995, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. on we"e�� Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner g Examiner Decision Case No. V-95-164 (Ruggiero) • Page 6 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony, or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed B. APPEALS: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Staff Report with six attachments, PARTIES of RECORD: Philip Ruggiero Vince Ojala 6126 140th Court N.E. 7703 33rd Ave. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Seattle, WA 98115 T F I L E Q-TY S T P F CITY OF EDMONDS 4o42I COMMUNITY SERVICES Date: — Received of: Water Meter Size: Water Connection Sewer Permit/Repair Trunk Charge Sewer Connection/LID Fee R/W Construction Permit Street Restoration/Street Cut (620 Fund) Street Disruption Fee Eng. 2.2% Inspection Fee Eng. Spec s. & Plans Storm Drainage -Fee Street Use Permit Building Permit (Type) Plan Check Fe State Surcharge (Fund 622) Zoning Applications (Type) Shoreline Permits— S.E.P.A. Review Recording Fed Maps/Books Photostati ng --L-; —Tu—C-W- P 7 ap- 1044X1 i J-7 4ZA z ()T.c� y k Tax dDate of Hgari ng: Time: i RECie OCT 0 4 1995 PERMITCOCNTER 1�� STMO14LE 6o/O 24.eG • W W W W W W Vl VI000 Vl Inca ..0 Neva aaa rein a C4 Cv e0of w • • Z. csr� Asa l��3lr� 3. .ff�o5. Geo,QEngineers ho/0 -7�14 l • C i " O C T 0 4 1995 PERMIT COUNTER Mr. Phillip John Ruggiero 6126 - 140th Court Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 September 28, 1995 x Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Geotechnical Consultation Services Proposed Residential Construction Meadowdale Beach Area Edmonds, Washington File No. 3475-001-R02 INTRODUCTION This letter provides additional geotechnical information that the City of Edmonds requires relative to your proposed Meadowdale Beach residence. Our current services on this project were requested by Mr. Vince Ojala, your architect, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Gary Beckham of GeoEngineers on September 13, 1995. We understand that you have authorized our preparation of this letter. Our current services continue our involvement in your project, which include our March 29,1994 "Report, Geotechnical Consultation Services, Proposed Residential Construction, Meadowdale Beach Area, Edmonds, Washington," and our "Statement of Risk Letter. dated September 6, 1994, and "Letter of Response ..." dated May 17, 1995. We understand that the City of Edmonds requires further clarification relative to the statistical probability of earth movement at the site. According to Mr. Ojala, the city wants GeoEngineers to provide an exact number for the probability of earth movement at the site within a 25-year period. SCOPE The purpose of our services is to respond to the city of ,Edmonds' request for additional information. Our scope of services included a review of our files and previous reports for this project and reevaluation of the probability of future earth movements at the site. Geolingineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052. Telephone (206) 861-6000 Fax (206) 861-6050 • Mr. Phillip John Ru�ro • September 28, 1995 Page 2 DISCUSSION Our May 17 Letter of Response included a discussion of the statistical probability of earth movements within a 25-year period at the site (page 2, item 1. Slope Stability). We concluded, at that time, that "the probability of earth movement within a 25-year period should be less than 30 percent, providing that the city utility drain systems are maintained. It is also likely that the proposed construction will further improve the existing slope stability conditions. This may result in a further decrease in the actual risk of slope movement." If the city maintains the utility drain systems, the risk of slope movement within a 25-year period is less than 30 percent, as stated above. Thus, the upper boundary of the probability of slope movement should be 30 percent (likely less). The proposed development of your property will include removal of much of the colluvium on the site, reconfiguration of the upper slope, construction of a pile -supported retaining wall, and installation of new surface and subsurface drainage facilities. These improvements will decrease the amount of soil and water available to contribute to slope movement mechanisms. The retaining wall will restrict further movement of soil. We have estimated improvement of slope stability (in percent relative to the probability of slope movement within a 25-year period) for each of the proposed elements of site development, as summarized below: Estimated Slope Improvement* Remove colluvium 2 percent Reconfigure upper slope 1 percent New retaining wall 2 percent Drainage improvements 2 percent Sum of Improvements 7 percent *Estimated percent of improvement of slope stability based on the probability of slope movement in percent within a 25-year period. As indicated above, a seven percent improvement in the existing slope stability condition may result from the development of your property, as currently planned. As such, the seven percent improvement should reduce the overall probability of slope movement over a 25-year period to about 23 percent. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 • Mr. Phillip John Rujoro • September 28, 1995 Page 3 ASSUMPTIONS We have made a number of assumptions to estimate the amount of slope stability improvement on your property. The conditions upon which these assumptions are made must not change over the next 25 years or the estimate of improvement of slope stability stated above may be invalid. These assumptions include: • The city maintains the utility drain systems in the vicinity of the site. • The water levels in the existing ground water monitoring wells in the vicinity of the site remain at their current elevations or drop to lower elevations, indicating that the City's utility drain systems are functioning. • The site is developed as currently planned and as indicated in the drawings approved by the city, including (1) construction of the cantilever retaining wall, (2) reconfiguration of the upper slope area and installation of rockeries, (3) installation of rockery and yard drains in the upper slope, (4) installation of house foundation wall drains, and (5) removal of practically all of the colluvium and surficial soils at house foundation subgrade elevation. • The soil and water conditions encountered during construction are essentially the same as encountered during our field explorations on February 2, 1994 and in previous studies on the site for others, as described in our March 29, 1994 report. CONCLUSIONS In our opinion, providing that the above assumptions remain valid and that the existing soil and water conditions on your property after construction are the same or better than existing conditions, the probability of earth (slope) movement on your property within a 25-year period is about 23 percent. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Mr. Phillip John Ruggiero in evaluating the potential for future slope movements on his property located in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. This report is not intended for use by others, except for a design/construction team retained by Mr. Ruggiero, and the city of Edmonds. The information contained herein is specific to the Ruggiero property and is not applicable to other sites or the Meadowdale area as a whole. The same limitations as presented in our March 29, 1994 report and September 6, 1994 letter also apply to the conclusions presented in this letter. 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. G e o E n g i n e e r a File No. 3475-001-R02 - Mr. Phillip John Rulero • September 28, 1995 Page 4 Our letter, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Subsurface conditions will likely vary across the site and may also change over time. These variable conditions and changes may affect the probability of occurrence of any future earth movements and could influence construction activities. Therefore, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the construction budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations described in our March 1994 report, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, we have accomplished our services in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this letter was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. O No. If there are any questions regarding this letter, please contact us. EXPIRES 9l0 GDB:KGB:cros Document M: 3475001.1.. Two copies submitted cc: ✓Mr. Vince Ojala, Architect 7703 - 33rd St. N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 Mr. Greg Gilda Victor H. Kimsey Engineers 1818 Westlake Ave. N., Suite 308 Seattle, WA 98109 Yours very truly, . Geo.Engineers, Inc. Gary D. Beckham Project Engineering Geologist Kenneth G. Buss, P.E. Associate G- e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 ---11 : i i,rl 1catl!v, 11"arloin t :, - .. �'C IVS P© 4 1gg3 E RNjrC September 13, 1994� City of Edmonds $uilding Department 250 - 5th Avenue rA Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Lot 2 of McCorkle Short Flat Pursuant to ECDC 19.05.040B I hereby acknowledge that I have been designated as the lead, design professional for the residential project proposed for Lot 2 of the McCorkle short plat (75th Place West) Edmonds, Washington. I further acknowledge that I will be responsible for the coordination of the recommendations of the other design professionals who provided work for this project. I have reviewed the Geotechnical , the structural and civil engineering for the project. I understand the recommendations provided by these consultants. I have verified the information provided by each and I have incorporated their'recommendations into the design in order to minimize the potential risk of injury or damage.due to any pre dieted earth movement as indicated by the Geotechnical engineer. I further kacknowledge that I have along with the aforementioned'design professionals xplained the elements of risk to the owner. Vince Ojala I` AIIchitect VINE E. 0y, d �. -,. ->s ,�. •; T r %• /T/• t ; IN ADDITION, I HAVE REVIEWED THT DRAWINGS WITdTHE OWNER OF THE PROJECT ( PHIL RUGGI:ERO) AND HAVE EXPLAINED THE INFOR• MA'TION PROVIDED BY'MYSELF AND THE OTHER DESIGN CONSULTANTS AND'AM SATISFIED THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE DESIGN AND THE - Ff r;;.,. •L RECOMMENDATIONS AND POSSIBLE HAZARDS CONTAINED THEREIN.> 8 9 0- 1 9 y_ • CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 •. FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation • Engineering August 29, 1995 Vince Ojala, Architect 7703 33rd NE Seattle, WA 98115 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR BUILDING, AUG 2 11995 RE: Ruggiero Residence: 16010 75th Place West, Edmonds, WA Building Permit Application # 94-197 Dear Mr. Ojala: This letter is in response to your proposal for the Planning Department to approve the subject building permit prior to application and approval of the required Shoreline Management Permit. When a Shoreline Management Permit is required, it must first be obtained prior to issuance of a building permit just as with any other discretionary permit such as a variance, or conditional use permit. Under State mandate, in compliance with the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, the City of Edmonds adopted a Shoreline Management Program, and it is the responsibility of the Planning Division to see that the requirements of the program are met, including staff review and a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner. As the issuance of a Building Permit is the last stage of approvals before commencing work on a project, the Planning Division would not be'able to approve the Building Permit until all State and local ordinances are met that we are responsible to enforce. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 771-0220. "A - Ann Bullis Code Enforcement Officer Planning Division cc: Building Permit App. File. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan g 9 0_ 1 9 9 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - STH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering August 17, 1995 Mr. Vince Ojala 7703 33rd Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 RE: Ruggiero SFR Application #94-197 @ 16010 75th Place West LAURA M. HALL MAYOR The application for the subject single family residence is due to expire on September 29, 1995. According to our tracking files, you were notified on 11/7/94 that a Shoreline Permit is required for this project but has not yet been submitted to the Planning Division for processing (this process takes approximately six months). Based on this time frame it is apparent that the 1995 building season will be missed since the Meadowdale Ordinance requires that all site excavation, drainage and foundation work be suspended between September 30th to May 1st. On behalf of the applicant if this project is still desired, you must submit a new permit application with plan review fees in the amount of $782.00. Also, please be advised the plans on file with the City must be upgraded to show compliance to the new 1994 State Energy Code and the 1994 Uniform Building Code (effective date 6/30/95). If this project will not be pursued please inform the City Permit Coordinator and a final billing for professional service fees will be sent out for payment. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 771-0220. Thank you, of� X'401�> Jeannine L. Graf Building Official cc: Ruggiero • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan LANDAU AASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services Ms. Sharon Nolan City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 UUILDIN9 AUG 14 1995 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW GEOENGINEERS' "LETTER OF RESPONSE" PROPOSED RUGGIERO RESIDENCE LOT 2, MCCORKLE SHORT PLAT (#S-23-90) 16010 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: August 8, 1995 44$6 In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the "Letter of Response, Geotechnical Consultation Services, Proposed Residential Construction. Meadowdale Beach Area, Edmonds, Washington" prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc. and dated May 17,1995. The GeoEngineers' letter was prepared in response to comments contained in our December 7, 1994 letter to the City summarizing our preliminary geotechnical review of submitted documents concerning construction of the proposed Ruggiero residence. As before, our review follows requirements outlined within City Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). In their letter, GeoEngineers provides an item -by -item response to our preliminary review comments. It is our opinion that GeoEngineers' has reviewed the project plans and specifications and has adequately addressed the geotechnical issues raised during our preliminary review. In their letter, GeoEngineers provides additional recommendations and clarifies design criteria to be used in design and construction of the project. As in our 1994 letter, we suggest that GeoEngineer's current recommendations and design criteria be incorporated in the project design, and be clearly referenced on the plans and specifications. WORLD TRADE CENTER • 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD • SUITE 501 • TACOMA, WA 98424 • (206) 926-2493 - FAX (206) 926-2531 EDMONDS: (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 / SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX (509) 327-9691 Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. WDE/JWG/mjp No. 74053.10 08/08/95 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\EDMONDS\RUGIER02.LTR 08/08/95 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\EDMONDS\RUGGIERO.LTR 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager and Wade Gilbert, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Critical Areas Checklist. The Critical Areas C hedidist contained on this foamis to bo Silod out by any pawn pr+c WMg a Development pertnit Application for tho City of Edmonds prior to Mali=- submittal of a dcvelopmentpamit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to affable ;City staff to deteco ine whe&er any potential ;Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject prapaty. The information neod+ed tc. complete the ChwHist should be easily available fmm observations of the site or data avaBabie at City Hall (Critical Areas :inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the c hoddist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review. the choddisk malao a procursory site visit, and ma3w a on of the subsequcat steps accessary to complete a dcvelopmcnt permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity snap of the pared with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject pared(s). In addition, the ar, A i;-antis encouragod to include any other pertinent information or studies in conjunction with this Chodidist 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: Name Street Address City, State, ZIP Signature Phone Date Applicant Representative: Am Name Title �L?" 118S t Address 9 r221 M*1 Critical Areas Checklist SEEP 3 1�,qy Site lnforivation pER�lIT Cps TFR Project Name: Qu�G�.hEt�o _ Pennit Number: _ Site Location: Property Tax Account Number: `� —• �.�p Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 1,.1T..�0o.� 5131 0 Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? General Site Conditions 1. Has the site been cleared or logged? VO_ Date of most recent action: g1}T �o �G'S'�3 — 3 - s.i.C�E�toao kOWN Soils 1 Topography _- l.D,ei./t 2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil type(s)? 3. Descxibe the general site topography. Check all that apply. 4A4A I LY o . 1a�11� �G►'(i cL s r Flat less than 5 feet elevation change over entice site. jtolling- slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 feet.) slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10 fed of horizontal distance.) __K__ Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site_ 4 tv, Comments L1 m 4L Hydrology/Vegetation 4. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: 9 P 5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water. — 9w, Approx. Depth: 6. Site is in the floodway floodplain_ of a water course. 7. Site contains a creek or an arc • e water flows across the grounds surface? flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? 1;91MAMt StlRrAM ru + 8. Site is primarily: forested _; meadow _ ; shrubs ;mixed 9. Obvious wetland is present on site: .____.. 10. Wetland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site: 11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site: _�_WWI 40 ti�6 Pot• Gty .rise Only << S4TUi�Y<R1=QUIR>Cr�ra1 aceat study:is required `' CONIDfTIONAt;WA1VI=RS.twci�reasstudynotregutred;ilspecifiedcondiuonssatisfie�3: WAIVER: Critical areas study is not rewired. Oetermination'Number. q Reviewer Plannu Date Rev Y27192 G P Ord ; ,✓a.✓c e • Geow Engineers Mr. Phillip John Ruggiero 6126 - 140th Court Northeast Redmond, Washington 98052 May 17, 1995 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Letter of Response Geotechnical Consultation Services Proposed Residential Construction Meadowdale Beach Area Edmonds, Washington File No. 3475-001-R02 INTRODUCTION This letter summarizes our review of the comments made by the city of Edmond's geotechnical reviewer, Landau Associates, relative to your proposed Meadowdale Beach residence. The comments were provided to us by Mr. Vince Ojala, your architect, during a meeting with Mr. Gary Beckham of GeoEngineers on April 19, 1995. Our current services on this project were accomplished in accordance with our memorandum to you dated April 27, 1995, as authorized by your signature on May 1, 1995. Our current services continue our involvement in your project, which include our March 29, 1994 "Report, Geotechnical Consultation Services, Proposed Residential Construction, Meadowdale Beach Area, Edmonds, Washington," and our "Statement of Risk Letter ..." dated September 6, 1994. Landau's comments, in part, relate to our March 1994 geotechnical report and statement of risk letter for the project. The March 1994 report was prepared using preliminary sketches and drawings provided by Mr. Ojala. We did not have the opportunity to review any of the final drawings or plans that were submitted to the city of Edmonds relative to your project. GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 'Telephone (206) 861-6000 Fax (206) 861-6050 '� , ;i✓��..,"z+�,.; .�;. '"�,{ '�. :.`•--.i.�'�!r°'i�''�& �� .¢ 'a'�y�;"'y��3;�'. .�i••:�•rbca"rys�.y"�"t"t:. ?�T","4°`,-. Piulte ron•i ytle�P �r,�+.'.'�.'� '�'ri�' ��'*? �r`•a,�..,:n5`.,7., �1?�'?� '�,, i` ,��.� '•''`��.k-i.iiik�' ��'''s, r �" � �'�t,r�''e �%; `.�v��^ ♦.,�,�..u.....a�..:. _— i .d�.f `'i�:etar fi +,e:.a'ti...,.i �:... ..A r . fi,,.j, � �%�, Mr. Phillip John Rug May 17, 1995 Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of our services is to respond to the city of Edmond's request for additional information. Our scope of services for these evaluations included a thorough review of our files, previous reports by others and GeoEngineers for the vicinity of the site, current project plans and specifications, and reevaluation of basic geotechnical design criteria and assumptions presented in our report of March 1994. DISCUSSION The below described items follow, line -by-line, the comments made by Landau Associates. The items are categorized by topic, include Landau specific concerns (comments), and our response. Item No. 7 in the comments prepared by Landau Associates will be addressed by your architect and is not included in this summary. 1. SLOPE STABILITY Comment: Provide the statistical probability in percent of earth movement at the site within a 25-year period. Response: Within the long period of geologic history, the Meadowdale area has experienced numerous small to large scale landslides. Prior to the late 1970s, the risk of additional landsliding has been high. However, new sewer utilities were installed in the area upslope of the Ruggiero property in 1979 and 1985. These facilities effectively dewatered much of the Meadowdale' landslide complex and substantially improved the slope stability conditions. As discussed below, the dewatering reduced the probability of slope movement within a 25- year period to about 30 percent. As part of development of the Ruggiero property, we have recommended the removal of much of the colluvial soils on the site, reconfiguration of the slope above the planned house location, and construction of a soldier pile retaining wall on the property. As stated in our March 1994 report, it is our opinion that the proposed development will not increase the potential for slope movement and the risk of damage to the proposed house construction, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal, assuming that the slope stabilization measures above are constructed. As such, it is our opinion that the probability of earth movement within a 25-year period should be less than 30 percent, providing that the city utility. drain systems are maintained. It is also likely that the proposed construction will further improve the existing slope stability conditions. This may result in a further decrease in the actual risk of slope movement. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Ruggro • May 17, 1995 Page 3 Comment: Assessment of site ground water conditions with respect to site stability or probability of future site instability. Response: The conclusions we presented in our March 1994 report relative to slope stability conditions on the property included our observations of existing subsurface water conditions and recent utility construction that has changed the ground water elevations in the vicinity of the site. This information is. summarized as follows: 1. New stormwater and sanitary sewer systems installed by the city of Edmonds in the area upslope of the Ruggiero property and vicinity in 1979 and 1985 resulted in a decline in the ground water table and a decrease of landslide activity in the Meadowdale landslide complex. 2. We observed no ponding of surface water or ground water spring seeps during our visits to the property on December 30, 1993, February 2 and March 8, 1994. 3. Borings that we completed at the site in February 1994 indicated only slight ground water seepage into the borings. No standing water was observed in boring B-1 (see our March 1994 report) and water was observed in B-2 at Elevation 27.5 feet, which is near the planned soldier pile tip elevations. The elevations of the seeps suggest that a small amount of ground water is perched in a zone of colluvium on top of the relatively impervious hard silt layer below. It is our opinion that new drainage systems installed as part of construction of .the proposed upslope rockeries and the soldier pile, retaining wall will likely intercept much of the ground water that is perched above the hard silt layer. This should result in further lowering of the ground water table at the site. This, along with maintenance of the city sewer facilities and other planned construction at the site, will likely decrease the probability of future slope instability at the site to less than 30 percent over 25 years, as stated above. Comment: Determine if any portion of the site falls within the 50 percent probability area. Response: The entire block was classified in the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates report as 4A90, meaning that there was, at that time, a 90 percent probability of slope failure. However, according to our November 22, 1989 geotechnical consultation report for Hawley & McCorkle, for an area encompassing the G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Rugo • May 17, 1995 Page 4 Ruggiero property, we concluded that the risk of landsliding had been reduced to about 30 percent probability of failure in a 25-year period because of construction of new sanitary and stormwater sewer systems (see the discussion above). New construction on the Ruggiero property should further reduce the risk of slope failure, as stated above. Comment: Provide a risk statement that addresses the effects of site ground " water conditions. Response: Without any development on the property, the probability of slope failure over a 25-year period is 30 percent, as discussed above. In our opinion, the removal of colluvial soils, reconfiguration of the slope, and installation of a temporary retaining wall will probably not increase the current risk of slope failure. In fact, it is probable that these improvements may reduce the risk to less than a 30 percent probability over a 25-year period. This includes a consideration of the potential reduction of the amount of ground water by installation of drainage systems for the rockeries and the retaining wall, and assumes the continued maintenance of existing city utility drainage systems. 2. AND 3. SOLDIER PILE WALL DESIGN Comment: Review sheet 9 of the project plans (or any other related sheets) to see if the details shown on the plans invalidate any of GeoEngineers design assumptions for the soldier pile wall. Response: , We have reviewed the project plans, our March 1994 report and computations relative to the construction of a soldier pile retaining wall east of the planned residence. In our opinion, the current project plans generally follow the recommendations we presented in our March 1994 report. Overall, we believe that the basic design assumptions have not been compromised nor invalidated. However, our review indicates that the exposed height of the planned soldier pile wall is greater than shown on preliminary sketches of the wall that we reviewed some time ago. The difference in wall height appears to be the result of final adjustments to the elevations on the slope above the wall (east) from planned grading and construction of rockeries. Because of the different exposed wall height, we recommend that certain geotechnical design criteria be followed, as summarized: 1. The maximum exposed height of the soldier pile wall must not be greater than 11 vertical feet either during construction or permanently. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Ruro • May 17, 1995 Page 5 2. Develop a larger passive resistance on the west.side of the soldier pile wall by limiting the amount of soil excavated in the area between the pile wall and the east house foundation wall. The current limit of excavation defined by the 411:1V (horizontal to vertical). slope shown on sections A and B on sheet 7/14 should be adjusted upward. We recommend that the cut behind the house foundation wall be steepened from 4H:1V (horizontal to vertical) to 1H:1V, as shown on our Proposed Revision to Detail "A" on sheet 7/14, Figure 1. The recommended revision to the maximum excavation line should apply to both sections A and B of sheet 7/14 and the plans must show that excavations cannot occur beyond or below the defined area. Conunent: Review and confirm the design wall height, exposed height and pile embedment depths with the architect. Response: As recommended above, the maximum height of the exposed portion of the soldier pile wall must be 11 feet or less (i.e.; the base of the timber lagging should not be at an elevation lower than 43 feet). The minimum pile embedment into hard silt should be 10 vertical feet, as stated in our March 1994 report. The pile tips should be at about Elevation 26 feet, or lower, to allow for the required 10-foot embedment. We recommend that the actual tip elevation be at a minimum elevation of 22 feet to compensate for possible variable site conditions. Therefore, the total top -to -tip height of the pile wall should be about 32 feet. Comment: Review wall design criteria shown on Figures 11 and 12 of our March 29, 1994 report and revise, if necessary. Review the wall design criteria and our calculations. Specifically, clarify the values for the equivalent active fluid density for lateral wall support (64 pcf shown on Figures 11 and 12 of our 1994 report) relative to the'value of 35 pcf shown in the report text. Response: The equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf presented in the text of the March 1995 report does not allow for the soil pressure imposed by a sloping backslope behind the wall. The value of 35 pcf should only be used for design of a wall with level ground surface behind the wall. The value of 64 pcf for active fluid density shown on Figures 11 and 12 of our March 1994 report allows for the G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Rugg • May 17, 1995 Page 6 pressures imposed by the backslope and is, therefore, the correct value for designing the wall for lateral pressures with a backslope as shown on the drawings. According to project plans, the size of the steel H-beams for the soldier pile wall are to be W 1453, which appear to have been calculated using the 35 pcf value for equivalent fluid density. Using an equivalent fluid density of 64 pcf, computations from Kimsey engineers indicate that the size of the steel H- beams should be W 1677. In accordance with the above recommended modification of the passive zone of soil in front of the soldier pile wall, we are resubmitting Figure 12, which has been revised for clarification. 4. STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL FILLS Comment: Confirm with the architect that for any foundations or slabs that are to be supported on structural fill that the fill will be compacted to at least 95'percent of the maximum dry density of the fill based on ASTM-D-1557 methods. Response: We have not modified the recommendations that we provided in our March 1994 report relative to the placement, quality and compaction of structural fill on the project. Any fill to provide support for foundations, slabs or structures should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry. density of the fill based on ASTM-D-1557 methods. We also recommend, for clarification, that construction notes be added to details 7,8 and 10 on sheet 10/14, and detail 11 on sheet 11/14 stating that foundations should bear on undisturbed native hard silt or structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM-D-1557 methods. General backfill placed against foundation walls should be clean, free - draining granular material, as described in our March 1994 report. This material should be compacted to no more than 90 to 92 percent of the maximum dry density of the backfill to prevent damage to the walls caused by compaction. However, fill placed between the east wall of the house and the soldier pile. wall should be placed as structural fill (compacted to 95 percent) except the zone of fill within 5 linear feet of the east wall of the house. The fill within this zone should be compacted to no more than 90 to-92 percent to prevent damage to the house wall. Comment: Review sheet 9 of the project plans to see whether further differentiation between structural and general backfills is needed for clarity. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Rugo • May 17, 1995 Page 7 Response: We recommend that item 5 of the Foundation Notes on sheet 9 of the project plans indicate that structural fills must be compacted to 95 percent or greater of the maximum dry density of the fill based on ASTM-D-1557 methods. We recommend that a separate item (item 6) be added to indicate that general backfill placed against foundation walls should be compacted to no more than 90 to 92 percent of the maximum dry density of the till based on ASTM-D- 1557 methods. Excessive compaction against the walls may damage the walls. As noted above, fill in the area between the east wall of the house and the soldier pile wall should be compacted to 95 percent except within 5 linear feet of the east wall of the house where the fill should not be compacted to more than 90 to 92 percent of the maximum dry density of the fill. As such, detail A and B on sheet 7/14 should be modified to show the different zones of compaction in the area between the east house wall and the soldier pile wall. Comment: - Discuss a requirement for compaction or preparation of fill (non-native) or native subgrades for foundations and slabs. Response: As recommended above, compaction specifications for any portions . of buildings, walls or slabs that are to be supported by till should indicate that the till must be compacted to 95 percent or better of the maximum dry density of the till based on ASTM-D-1557 test methods. . Cuts into native soils for foundation subgrades must be inspected by GeoEngineers to verify that a minimum of soil bearing capacity of 2,000 psf (pounds per square foot) can be achieved. This value assumes that the exposed foundation subgrade is undisturbed, contains no appreciable amount of organic matter, is not covered with water, mud or loose -soft soils, and has been prepared to a firm, non - yielding condition. Preparation of the subgrades during wet weather conditions . may require placing concrete "mats" to protect the exposed subgrades, as recommended in our March 1994 report. 5. AND 6. FOUNDATION NOTES Comment: Review sheet 9 of the project plans to clarify at -rest equivalent fluid pressures of 35 pcf (as shown on the plans) relative to active lateral pressures for basement walls. Response: If the foundation walls are allowed to remain fixed (i.e., at -rest condition), then the value of equivalent fluid (density) pressure should be increased to 50 pcf for design of the walls considering lateral pressures. If the top of the walls are G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Ruo May 17, 1995 Page 8 allowed to move at least 0.25 inches over a 10-foot high wall (which is 0.2 percent per UBC), then the value of 35 pcf for equivalent fluid pressure is appropriate for wall design, assuming a level backfill consisting of clean, free - draining granular material. We recommend that sheet 9 of the project plans be amended to note the difference between equivalent fluid pressures for an at -rest wall and a wall that is free -to -move. We have recommended, in items 2 and 3 above, that the passive zone of soil in front of the soldier pile wall be increased in size. This will leave a substantial amount of colluvial soils in front of the soldier pile wall. As such, the crawl space foundation wall and the covered -deck isolated footings, which are located east of the east house foundation wall, will have foundations partially supported on the colluvial soils. These soils should not be used for long-term foundation support because there is a potential for minor differential settlement of foundations supported on the colluvium. Therefore, we recommend that the foundations for the crawl space wall and the covered deck be supported on .the hard silt layer. This may be accomplished by using individual footings or concrete grade beams at subgrade with either pin piles (2-inch-diameter pipe) or concrete piers extending from the footings or grade beams down into the silt layer. The size of the grade beam and spacing of the piers or pin piles should be determined by the structural engineer. Comment: Review project plans to see whether additional clarification is needed for support of footings for the west and southwest portions of the house. Response: The actual depth to bearing soil (hard silt layer) cannot be determined until actual foundation excavations are made. It is likely that bearing soils will be encountered within 0 to 3 vertical feet of the base of any wall, isolated column, or thickened -slab footings for the building. As such, we recommend that notes be added to sheets 5/14, 6/14 and 7/14 indicating that the foundation grades shown are approximate and the actual depth to bearing soil will be determined in the field from inspection by GeoEngineers. Foundation note 2 on sheet 9/14 should be modified by adding that footing grades shown on the project plans are approximate and the actual depth to bearing soils will be determined by inspection by GeoEngineers. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Rugo May 17, 1995 Page 9 8. EXCAVATIONS Comment: Review plans showing excavations at the northeast corner of the residence, which are about 11 feet from the property line and inclined at steeper than 1H:1V, to determine whether shoring will be necessary. Response: This area, according to current project plans, will be inclined at near 1H:1V, which is too steep for a permanent slope constructed in colluvial soils. We recommend that the overall slope inclination be reduced to about 21-1:1V or flatter by grading and installation of a 2 to 4-foot-high rockery or structurally supported landscape wall. We recommend that GeoEngineers be present when slopes are being excavated to verify that subsurface conditions are as anticipated and to support alternative methods if changed conditions are encountered. 9. ROCK FACING- ON SOLDIER PILE WALL Comment: Provide geotechnical recommendations for construction of a stable rock facing for the exposed portions of the soldier pile retaining wall located about 6 feet east of the east wall of the residence. Response: We recommend that the rock facing adjacent to the west side of the soldier pile retaining wall be constructed using geotechnical criteria generally applicable to the construction of gravity rock walls (rockeries). We recommend that the rock facing be constructed with large base rocks at the bottom and the size of the rocks above gradually decreasing towards the top of the wall. We recommend that the size of the base rocks be a minimum 3-man (28 to 36-inch-diameter rock) for a wall 4 to 5 feet high and minimum 4- to 5-man (36 to 48-inch- diameter rock) for a wall 5 to 7 feet high. The rock facing should slope back towards the retaining wall at an inclination of 1H:6V (horizontal to vertical). A drainage layer of 2 to 4-inch- diameter rock spalls should be placed between the retaining wall and the back of the rock facing. The drainage layer should be a minimum of 12 inches thick at the bottom and should thin (taper) upwards following the inclination of the facing toward the wall. A minimum 4-inch-diameter perforated drain pipe should be installed between the retaining wall and the rock facing. The pipe must have an invert slope of 1 percent or steeper for gravity drainage and should be tightlined to a proper on -site stormwater disposal (catch basin).. G e o. E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 • Mr. Phillip John Rug ggo May 17, 1995 • Page 10 10. DRAINAGE Comment: Review the project plans to see whether further clarification is required to show routing and construction of soldier pile retaining wall and upslope area rockery drains. Response: We recommend that the routing of all rockery and soldier pile wall drains be shown on the project plans. We previously recommended in this letter that one or more upslope rockeries be extended southward to effectively reduce the slope inclination. Plans showing the routing of rockery drains must incorporate the recommended extension of the rockeries. Comment: Provide recommendations for design of wall, footing or rockery drainage systems, if necessary. Response: According to project plans, the timber lagging in the soldier pile wall is to be spaced with a 3/8-inch gap between adjacent timbers to allow seepage through the wall. We previously recommended in this letter that a drain system be installed as part of construction of a rock facing for the soldier pile wall. We believe that the rock -facing drain system will be adequate to collect and convey seep water from the wall to proper storm or surface water disposal. It appears that elevations of yard drains along the north and south sides of the house may be low enough to accommodate routing and discharge of water from the soldier pile wall -rock facing drain system. We recommend that all soldier pile wall -rock facing drain and rockery drain pipes be installed at a minimum 1. percent invert slope to allow for gravity drainage to proper storm water discharge (catch basins or yard drains). 11. UPSLOPE AREA ROCKERIES Comment: Review cross-section B-B' on sheet 2 of the grading plan to evaluate rockeries planned for the slope area above the house. Response: We have reviewed cross-section B-B' and determined that the slope near the east property line is steeper than anticipated. We, therefore, recommend that the -slope be reconfigured by grading and rockery extension. Comment: Provide geotechnical recommendations, if necessary, for improvement of the existing slope conditions in this area, which may include regrading or construction of additional slope retaining structures. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 Mr. Phillip John Ruggiero May 17, 1995 • • Page 11 Response: Grading and rockery construction should be accomplished to effectively reduce the overall slope inclination to 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, in accordance with the recommendations we provided in our March 1994 report. It will be necessary to extend one or more of the planned rockeries southward (across the planned walkway) to the south property line to reduce the slope inclination to about 2H:1V. The rockery construction should be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations in our March 1994 report and the Association of Rockery Contractors "Standard Rock Wall Construction Guidelines", which is dated January 21, 1993. CONCLUSIONS In our opinion, with the modifications and changes made as recommended in this letter, the geotechnical portions of the plans we have reviewed should conform to the intent and recommendations of our March 1994 report. O ► If there are any questions regarding this letter or any of the recommended modifications, please contact us. EXPIRES GDB:KGB:vvl Document ID: 3475001.LOR Two copies submitted cc: Mr. Vince Ojala, Architect 7703 - 33rd Street Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inca Gary D. Beckham Project Engineering Geologist Kenneth G. Buss, P.E. Associate Mr. Greg Gilda Victor H. Kimsey Engineers 1818 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 308 Seattle, Washington 98109 G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 3475-001-R02 o �•c�v.o I rnOL O- Il .o 0 o a MAX STRIAGT'uRA L- o o o a o $AC V< FILL MAX I MUM EXC4\J. LINE �. ( Z��, DO NOT ExCA�/ADELETE 1..11.11=D o NOT aYCA�/A-{`a OA Geo Engineers • _.. _..._ .... 10.0 MIN. U PROP05ED REQLSLOK3 TO DETAIL A sNeET /I4 FIGURE 1 4C-cv = 4,800 psf Geo 1p Engineers 700 psf = oa ct Between ,ium and Silt Revised 05/09/95 PRESSURE DIAGRAM FOR SOLDIER PILE WALL FIGURE 12 LANDAU AASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services Ms. Sharon Nolan City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 0 STA'ZeTF1LJ�• RE: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW PROPOSED RUGGIERO RESIDENCE LOT 2, MCCORKLE SHORT PLAT (#S-23-90) 16010 75TH PLACE WEST MEADOWDALE AREA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Nolan: BUILDINB DEC 0 9 7994 December 7, 1994 In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical review of plans and other submitted documents concerning construction of the proposed Ruggiero residence. Our review follows requirements outlined within City Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). A list of the documents we reviewed is included as Attachment 1. In 1990, Landau Associates reviewed a geotechnical report prepared by GeoEngineers, Inc. for the proposed Hawley and McCorkle short plat project, which includes the subject Lot 2. The November 22, 1989, GeoEngineers' report provided general geotechnical information relative to residential development of the short plat and stated that the property was suitable for construction of single-family residences. In our letter to the City dated February 26, 1990, Landau Associates concluded that GeoEngineers had provided an adequate description of the site and that their conclusions appeared reasonable for the information obtained at that time. However, we further stated in our letter that development of the proposed lots would depend on adequate characterization of the soil and groundwater conditions at each individual lot. The site is located within the Meadowdale landslide area an estimated 400 feet south of the intersection of Meadowdale Road and 75th Place West, and between 75th Place West and a paved trail which is apparently a vacated street previously known as Seaside Avenue. The Burlington Northern railroad track is located immediately east of the paved trail. While the document package we received was relatively complete, some items required by the application checklist were not included. The items not included are: WORLD TRADE CENTER • 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD • SUITE 501 • TACOMA, WA 98424 • (206) U26-2493 - FAX (206) 926-2531 EDMONDS: (206) 773-0907 • FAX (206) 778-6409 / SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX (509) 327-9691 Checklist Item Number Description 1 Critical Areas Checklist 3 Vicinity Map (Landslide Hazard Map) 6 Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan 11 Affidavit of Notice of Application 15 Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless The lack of these documents did not significantly affect our ability to perform this preliminary geotechnical review. Our review of submitted documents for this project indicates some issues that may require additional attention or clarification. These are summarized as follows: 1. This property may have been involved in two or three landslide events between 1970 and 1976. An excerpt from the 1979 Roger Lowe Associates report provides an historical perspective on that earlier movement and is reproduced in Attachment 2. This history, the fact that "perched" water is present in near -surface colluvial soil, and the "50% probability" rating for slopes within the adjacent Burlington Northern right-of-way (page 6 of GeoEngineers' 1985 study) are of concern to Landau Associates. The application checklist directs the project geotechnical engineer to include the statistical probability in percent of earth movement at the site within a 25-year period. In their September 6, 1994 risk letter, GeoEngineers states that the probability should be "very low" but does not provide a percent probability. Their 1994 report does not appear to include an assessment of site groundwater conditions with respect to site stability or the probability of future site instability. Since Ordinance 2661 allows possible rejection of development applications where the percent probability exceeds 30%, GeoEngineers must: 1) determine if any portion of the site falls within the 50% probability area; 2) assess site groundwater conditions with respect to site stability and determine what, if any, effect those conditions would have on their conclusions and recommendation; and 3) provide a risk statement that addresses the effects of site groundwater and meets current City requirements. 12/07/94 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\EDMONDS\RUGGIERO.LTR 2 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 2. Sheet 9 of the architectural plans notes that soldier pile wall design is based on recommendations contained in the March 29, 1994 GeoEngineers report. However, the plans show details that may invalidate one or more of GeoEngineers' assumptions (eg. exposed wall height). Also, the design calculations by Victor Kimsey Consulting Structural Engineers for the wall are ambiguous. Two separate sets of design calculations are included: one for the case provided on Figures 11 and 12 of the 1994 GeoEngineers report, and another for a case not discussed in the 1994 report. Both sets of design calculations assume an 11-ft high wall and provide a pile embedment depth extending below "final" grade. It is unclear if this "final" grade refers to: a) basement floor elevation; b) base of retaining wall footing; c) finish grade based on the Grading Plan; or d) some intermediate grade at the wall face based on GeoEngineers' recommendations for a sloping buttress in front of the wall. Based on the Grading Plan, a final grade at floor elevation would result in an exposed wall height of about 16 to 17 ft. With a 4H:1V slope extending upward from the base of the retaining wall footing to the face of the soldier pile wall, exposed wall height would range from about 13 to 15 ft. The type of, and chemical treatment for, the timber lagging has not been specified. This detail is important, as the upper portion of the wall is "permanent," and buried portions will be within 7 to 8 ft of shallow spread footings (i.e., subject to settlement if the timbers rot away). We suggest that revised plans, which clearly indicate structural members treatment for timber logging, exposed wall heights, pile tip elevations, and ground lines along the face of the soldier pile wall be submitted. We further suggest that GeoEngineers review the revised plans and that their comments be incorporated prior to resubmittal. 3. On Figures 11 and 12 of GeoEngineers' March 29, 1994 report, the equivalent active fluid density for lateral wall design is given as 64 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). However, the report text section on soldier pile walls recommends an equivalent active fluid density of 35 pcf. It is our opinion that the value of 64 pcf given on the figures would be more appropriate based on the site soil conditions and the wall backslope geometry. We suggest that GeoEngineers clarify which value is to be used for wall design. 4. Our review of the architectural plans indicates that a portion of the main floor of the residence will be supported on conventional spread footings founded on retaining wall 12/07/94 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\EDMONDS\RUGGIERO.LTR 3 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. backfill. In their March 29, 1994 report, GeoEngineers recommended that all fill below foundations be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density as determined according to ASTM D1557. However, the foundation notes on Sheet 9 of the architectural plans require only 90% compaction for backfill, and the notes do not differentiate between general backfill and backfill supporting foundations, nor do they provide compaction criteria for subgrade soil, whether fill or native, within 12 inches of subgrade for floor slabs and pavements. We understand that GeoEngineers has not had an opportunity to review the architectural plans; accordingly, we suggest that GeoEngineers review and comment on those notes, and that the plans be revised to correspond with their comments and original geotechnical recommendations. 5. The foundation notes on Sheet 9 of the architectural plans provide an at -rest equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This value is the same as the equivalent active fluid pressure recommended by GeoEngineers for lower floor (basement) walls supporting a level compacted backfill. At -rest lateral pressures are typically higher than active lateral pressures. As suggested above, GeoEngineers should review and comment on the plans, and the plans should be revised in accordance with their comments. 6. In their March 29, 1994 report, GeoEngineers suggested that footings for the west and southwest portion of the residence might have to be placed deeper in order to bear on the underlying hard silt. The architectural plans do not provide direction regarding that possibility. Once again, GeoEngineers should review the plans, and the plans should be revised, if needed, to reflect footing support in that area. 7. The current topographic map does not show residences north or south of the subject lot. As City ordinance requires adjacent structures to be shown, we assume there are none. If this is not the case, a revised topographic map should be submitted. 8. As currently drawn, the northeast corner of the residence will be 11 ft from the property line. The planned excavation at that point will be 14 to 16 ft deep, which is steeper than 1H:1V if an open cut is planned. Accordingly, a slope easement or shoring appears necessary at that location. As above, GeoEngineers should review conditions in that area. 12/07/94 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\EDMONDS\RUGGIERO.LTR 4 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. 9. The design plans note that a minimum of 6 ft is required between the east wall of the residence and the rock facing covering the soldier pile wall. The rock facing is planned to go in a 2-ft space; however, about 1 ft of that space will be used by the timber lagging (detail on Sheet 9). Since the rock facing could be up to 7 ft high, it appears that a stable rock wall configuration could be difficult to achieve. The lead design professional should evaluate this issue, as an alternate facing material may be needed. 10. GeoEngineers recommends that footing and wall drains be routed to an approved drainage system. Issues on this topic that we noted include: a) location of the retaining wall footing drain (above the footing rather than adjacent to it); b) apparent lack of a drainage collection system for the soldier pile wall; and c) routing for rockery drainage (not shown on the Drainage Plan). As noted previously, GeoEngineers should address these issues. 11. Cross-section B-B on Sheet 2 of the Grading Plans shows slopes above the rockeries in excess of the 4:1 recommended by GeoEngineers. Additional retaining structures and/or regrading may be needed in that area. GeoEngineers should also determine if the proposed slope at the northwest corner of the residence is acceptable. We recommend that the plans be returned to the applicant for further action. The lead design professional should review the plans and other documents and make whatever appropriate changes are necessary in order to be consistent with the requirements of Ordinance 2661. In addition, the Geotechnical Engineer and the Structural Engineer should evaluate and comment on specific issues raised herein. Please note that Landau Associates' review of the structural calculations for the soldier pile wall was limited to geotechnical issues and did not include a review of the calculations. 12/07/94 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\EDMONDS\RUGGIERO.LTR 5 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Please call if you have questions concerning this review, or require the services of Landau Associates for subsequent review services. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. By: d, William D. Evans, CPG Project Manager and Wade Gilbert, P.E. v Project Geotechnical Engineer WDE/JWG/mjp No. 74053.10 Attachments: 1. List of Materials Reviewed 2. Page 10 from Roger Lowe Associates' October 16, 1979 report. 12/07/94 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\EDMONDS\RUGGIERO.LTR 6 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF MATERIALS REVIEWED • Sheets 1 through 14, A Custom Residence at Meadowdale Beach for Phillip Ruggiero, Vince Ojala, Architect, undated. • Sheet 1 - Phil Ruggiero Topography, Group Four, Inc., July 23, 1993 (Sheet SP 1, A Custom Residence at Meadowdale Beach for Phillip Ruggiero, Vince Ojala, Architect, undated). • Sheets 1 through 2 - Grading and Drainage/Detension (sic) Plan for Mr. Phillip Ruggiero, Short Plat #S-23-90 Lot 2, City of Edmonds, Kegel & Associates, Inc., August 18, 1994. • Sheets 3 through 4 - T.E.S.C. Plan for Mr. Phillip Ruggiero, Short Plat #S-23-90 Lot 2, City of Edmonds, Kegel & Associates, Inc., August 18, 1994. • Environmental Checklist, R. Michael Spano P.E., Kegel & Associates (Agent), August 23, 1994. • Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. October 16, 1979. • Report of Geotechnical Consultation, GeoEngineers, Inc., February 28, 1985. • Report, Geotechnical Consultation Services, Proposed Residential Construction, Meadowdale Beach Area, Edmonds, Washington, GeoEngineers, Inc., March 29, 1994. • Statement of Risk Letter, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Residential Construction, Meadowdale Beach Area, Edmonds, Washington, GeoEngineers, Inc., September 6, 1994. • Letter from Vince Ojala, Architect providing the Lead Design Professional Designation (Vince Ojala, Architect) and Statement required under the application checklist, September 13,1994 (this letter also meets the requirement of the Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration). • Letter from Phillip J. Ruggiero (Owner) providing the Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgment required under the application checklist, September 12, 1994. • Temporary soldier pile wall shoring calculations by Victor Kimsey Consulting Structural Engineers, facsimile from Greg Gilda of Victor Kimsey to GeoEngineers, dated October 10, 1994. • Geotechnical Review, November 22, 1989 Report by GeoEngineers, Inc., Haweley and McCorkle Project, Proposed Short Plat, Meadowdale Area of Edminds, Washington, Landau Associates, Inc., February 26, 1990. 12/07/94 D:\WPDOCS\PROJECTS\EDMONDS\RUGGIERO.LTR 7 LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. ATFAco actiT a. Maps provided to us indicate that a landslide occurred during the winter of 1970-71, centered approximately 220 feet northeast of the Laebugten Wharf access road. The area of movement was approximately 350 feet. long and. extended 50 feet east of 75th Place West.. The landslide reportedly also moved 3 inches in.the 5-year period between 1971 and 1976. Two widely separated landslides, occurred in 1973-74. The southern area of movement was approximately 425 feet long and was. centered approximately _- 1356 feet north of the Laebugten Wharf and 65 .feet east of the Burlington Northern Railroad.tracks. The head scarp for this landslide was located about 80 feet east of 75th Avenue West. The northern area of movement was approximately 220 feet long and was centered 1200 feet north of the.wharf and 200 feet east of -the railroad tracks. The head scarp for this landslide extended to the west edge of 75th Place West. In summary, it appears that historic landsliding has occurred within a zone approximately 400 feet wide adjacent to and immediately east of the. Burlington Northern Railroad tracks. Except for one reported incidence of approximately 4 inches of. lateral movement of the railroad tracks, the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks do not appear to be within the area subject to ground j movement. It.appears that nearly all the active failure surfaces within the Meadowdale landslide complex emerge at the surface east of the Burlington Northern i Railroad tracks and that the primary failure surface probably emerged at approximately, the position of the shoreline priorto the construction of the railroad. ,890-199 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N.. EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works . Planning . Parks and Recreation Engineering Mailed 12/2/94 December 2, 1994 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR Philip Ruggiero 6126 - 140th Ct. N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 SUBJECT: SITE RESTORATION BOND FORF.16010 -m 5T4H6PL_'-W, EDMONDS Dear Mr. Ruggiero, Because of the slide potential in the subject area, a site restoration bond will be required. This bond is to cover the repair of damaged utilities and pavement surfaces should a slide occur as a result of constructing a house at the subject address. An estimate of $19,600 has been determined to cover the total restoration of said utilities and pavement surfaces. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220. Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sf c: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator v RUGGIERO. DOC • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan � (��0 'lam✓' "� �'C.. e.J . ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE ........................................... ............ ......... UNIT UNIT ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK ISSUE QTY COST TOTAL l b Z /?, 3 46 Z tea` �7" C•4 � AS-0-0 3 /AAS'7x u Ngw 4 46 . 10 `sgt 89p.199- CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering December 1, 1994 Vince Ojala 7703 - 33rd Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR Mailed 12/6/94 Re: Ruggiero SFR at 16010 - 75th Pl. W. - Engineering Requirements Dear Mr. Ojala, We have reviewed the subject permit application and need additional information and revised civil plans to complete our review. Based on our calculations, excluding area surface drainage, the total impervious area is 5,229 SF. When you include area surface drainage as shown, the quantity is even greater. Since this site exceeds 5,000 square feet, a licensed engineer must submit storm drainage calculations. Calculations are based on a 25 year storm with a 10 year release using Snohomish County's Y & W method. In addition, a 5 foot walkway is required along the property length. The applicant can have the sidewalk constructed or request to contribute to the general sidewalk fund in lieu of construction. Please change any notes that reference daylighting footing drains or connecting to the detention system. Footing drains are not to be connected to the detention system, but can connect to the outflow pipe of the control catch basin. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220. Sincerely, �sws,4avAW.Or zz- ADDISON L. CB RISMAN IV: . Engineering Inspector ALC/sf Cc: Sharon Nolan, Permit Coordinator Wd,lker OJALA.DOc • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 890.1qc�- CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • 1206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering November 7, 1994 Vince Ojala, Architect 7703 33rd Avenue N.E. Seattle, WA 98115 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR STREET FILE RE: Ruggiero Residence: 16010 75th Place West, Edmonds, WA Building Permit # 94-197 Dear Mr. Ojala: During plan review of the above noted permit application it was found that a Shoreline Management Permit may be required. According to the State, if grading of 250 cubic yards or more occurs within 200 feet of the shoreline, a Shoreline Management Permit is required. Enclosed is a copy of the topo map which was submitted with your application, showing the scaled distance of 200 feet from the shoreline. Please calculate the amount of grading (cut or fill, whichever is greater) within 200 feet of the shoreline (highlighted area). If this amount exceeds 250 cubic yards, a Shoreline Management Permit is required. Please submit a copy of your grading calcuations within this area for review. For your information, enclosed is a handout regarding the permit procedure and requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 771-0220.. Sincerely, Ann Bullis Planning Division cc: Building Permit Application # 94-197 t • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan..lanan Philip JgbbjY icho Septemberk , 1994 p� -. City of Edmonds Building Department 250 - 5th Avenue Edmonds, WA 98020 STREET FILE Re: Lot 2 of the McCorkle Short Plat 0126 1401h C.nn-1 \E Rrdnuuul Washing.1mm 98052 206 885 0133 RECEIVED SEP Z 9 1994 PERMIT COUNTER As owner of Lot 2 of the McCorkle Short Plat, I hereby acknowledge that I have re- viewed and have had explained to me the Geotechnical report, the structural and civil engineering and the architectural drawings for the proposed residence on this site. I understand that the accuracy of all permit submittal information is warranted by the applicant/owner in a form which relieves the City and its staff from any liability associ- ated with reliance on such permit application submittals. While an application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the City, all conclusions are my own and my design professionals'. I understand and except the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and that I will advise, in writing, any prospective purchas- ers of the site or any prospective lessees of structures on the site of the slide potential of the area. Ruggiero 19 SIJi' SCIUBE._^. AND S`r ORN TO BL"' ORE PAE OF T IL N IS')1`0 N E X P I R E S �'_� %' i O,tTzh B�Zai�s S 1/4 SEC. 5, TWN. 27N., R. 4E., W.M. SCALE: 1 = 10' EX. CB (TYPE 2 ) TOP = 42.86 I.E. (18''S.) = 36.56 EX. SSMH TOP = 43.08 INV = 37.77 U j .u� /�, n Kl (51 IC 5 0 ED „c ORD. NO / `\ \\ `\ I\ , / ,' , ono vAc4rEo O `T N 870 35 43 W ` 149.8 j3 I �� y spa / 4-1� . / r)csz \ S r / J r / I / I I % i�� 4-• 4� �_ 4 , r D .- AB NJ DO E / ,SOLDER P/LE W1?LLL0 I I ,/„ / ¢"'old. P/G/NG LOT 5 �� '� �' ' l l l 1 l I l I ;' II I I F//✓/S,�/ED B�SE�ME//T / / Z /-G N/GH @rl8 �O/C ER EdTE I I NA = I 7 I I 1 I I I J /_�T/Q . EG 9. 00C,5 TYPE -G/L / I I TOP= 37. -5 I (U I I I // 1(J� i 2'- G' Gf! I 1 I I r l I I /// V= 33. 00 1 c/) 2,3 I I I I G I ) \ 2 v' v '" I /YOc/y F C/NG (.Li CO I I I I � I I \ 1 I I \ \ I I I / I I I I � Q I I I 1 ✓i \ ` _ I ___I_ — rrJ I I � \ \ / I I /NST4GL �OLFOF 2,�I3O; �I r ' l I /�O/z DETE/US/O�/ I co l� FDUil�p4T/D/�/ ± I \ I I / I I li co Q7 V ~ _ / I I I I I I p 11 f I \ A, 1, •c� l I I I o � I 9C� I � � � ` \ .. \ \ � / i I 13 qj / , I /0 1r /' a l /l l 5 /- G PVc : "L,Lo DECK., \ COVERED 0 �' TIO fig. ` � <v Q . - I E L- 4 . v IR _;. I / / E�X CB TYPE /2) I I I I`. \ u - k- ` V .1 A A V A to I / / / TOP = 36. 68/ IIZ7�v vv \ \ vv v\ = �8 S_) i 31 .58 iX15T) �;_._-- �__'.i v v I I l l l iLo') 32.50 I.E. ( I I \\ \ cor/ DECK 5 ... A X ` I V = 32. �00 I I l i ,' , A �= 103° 45 48 /Nv R = 20.00 1 I I I ti I I BUILDI P 4L 36.22 \ \ \ 1 I I I I I I I z �Lu � I of w N 7302'_- I - i I I \ \ \ \ \ I l/ 4 R 'I-� �t.,,.,�., rK=,k 43.56 I I I I I � -d' / 1 I o N 87- 35� 43 W 148,, 19 I I I (� I ♦ I N \ \ \ \ I I I I l I I I U ` ` \ \ DRIVEWAY EASEMENT I / cD Z \ ` \ \ `\ \ `(I,� \ \ (PARCELS 2 & . 3) I �� r Ltj Ll Ico co cv o � �• C, � U) � II / \ Y Q� N I °' LtjI/ �%� A °' rn I I /"` l� U Cal ��n So °' � 1 / Q:- r o I (3 I / EX. SSMH /'.;�f 1 / \ \ 0 / ✓v P-ez-.,. TOP = 32. 87 •' I/ eNmr- tr.2n�, -rnv lr-. 75 G 1 III / x QD eu 1 • D •1 C7 I C I Z �• 1 tal pj y .O I t z N • 1 { I 9 . V 4�11e r. r• W O \` a n � b iRRY 1 �') �b rp■ yy� ,ram O 2 N o h w FJ 'me �c 093 v y b 1 .11 H N � � 1 1 r a I i z x In O �9 O F � a ; U 1 t 1. rzi� y� l I v 0 n ^ • \n N ry h ^ =S 1n' sro9j L \ W , I � \ I I LI l �f 1 L_ � z r �Ln I� m U ceoa d4 �t I ^O,S 1. • f 091 o • n \ = S 1 W (_)�Z [-- NSZOmoO' \ tpp1.:.WZ Moog ^ JO\ W 0 ¢o�_ o 20:V,LLJ OOZ Q O W Q Y-a1m ill i a; L< o �N/6`nO0 O ;r CJ N rr�j U W "r Z �•P o O 0 'tOOOr-w •- Z �Zoma� od az !\ Q. O a W Y W i O •- m 0 r- Q '- Q U 0D=Oa r Ln X Z r- �- w I wO-to--i ww Q rr,itoXaZ -D i �WE W a� u L)oN co ; Ow1..0 ¢ O> `� i oZ J J o a J O 0Of ?-inL z � .?J.N 9 Nib H,, a =_lgb3 t� J-j J i 1 1 1 r NOTE: north wall to be excavated In stages SEQUENCE: 11). the soldier pile wall should be Installed as Intended. NORTH WALL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE i 2). the east basement wall should be excavated and constructed In accordance ' with the plans, Including the placement of wall backflll to about 3' (three feet) above 1 I the footing level. �' p r� �v..! I fJ G•I � - J ?, f� �• I I�I �L ov �. i A 1 — I! 3). the area of the north basement wall shout be excavated to approximately Elevation 44 feet. 4). excavation for the north basement wall should proceed using a trench box as temporary shoring. This type of excavation shoring Is commonly used for utility trenches. The temporary shoring should extend the full length of the segment of the north wall where the slope ratio is of concern. The segment of wall Is 14'0" (fourteen feet) The height of the shoring box must be enough to allow construction of the full - rcv height of the basement wall and connection of the north basement wall with the completed east basement wall. w4 s 5). backflll should be placed inside of the trench box concurrently with raising the ��,►,� If <_ trench box to remove shoring. Once the backflll reaches a depth of 4" (four feet) the trench box can be removed altogether. 14 s6e, .... .. (Ito Ld °— I�„ r.�11�NC�'jIra fl-I'1I h� LU�.�I I.�• 2 0 6) �h,, M I l� Gip / �c�o p (..,�. tit l � � • �+� ` , L --� _� ' � � r~� � t�:,. roa l �,� r Gq i IC�� I ' C r '/ c L—F 2. '� I`I'„ /;;�,G Ibf•I/S f t I 1 1 r•:�r�l.. T`p `✓ `'.' E L 'I �11 1 I I eP I�IC.•L:. \�1f.~'�'� G;'.€•L �rO�� r. '� ` , I i i (1 l� 1 I ,� / I � I 4. 40) it ilk It 1 }11, � ? , ( `�' fir',• ,\ I - I . ..� . . 1,:,)y ( ,i f k�� I� , ! �._ . - ....^� f I-w. .-_.!-�- I r. r _ .. i � • � � , \ �. �11 � 1 � \ � \ L� �: ... . ...._._ _ .. ... .. ✓.t4I� � - . •.�• �'� ` , �� 1` ! _.._. -- r . �.� r`I7 • 1,." :~ , is ( �J, . D I lo'wl N S I' Edl"a tfi f!lltA/_I., 1 /.'.r-t�' t _._._... •1�:f% �O . i • r 1 1 ' i 0 _.-_ _ _-... _ 44 _-._- ____..-..... -_-__ . — I_ _ _ __- a 2 , -(,. fff /// ,a _..._.. __ ._.._... -- -- rot , lop �� ° � I �-�.� ; i r � it - • Irec -1 ,4 • 111, I I ' 1 .I .. hI ,t 1. L . i \ - _._._ -A - u ►--J.► ,U I �,, I f�� , I:a �I• I L L -- ,/ I rf I �•- I r"r �..Ir> /'•s.. F I 1 (.•. I I/'.ro P,{•,�.� I _._ M �.N, L*wF.� Lew ao - 1 1 _AIT -- _ _ a�'I� .. t I II _ . �., �, 1 - o rnc.�, ��M-Jh d.�•::a� '�'P (� aPf ►'-.:_.�►�'_wa.Tl2 I _�._�. I�.r!I _ . �'�t. 2 M��©�.��I l� ... i ��` �Q / I T P emu• - M I m f�l vie. v M G �►-_.a T F4P1,._ _ Q•G.k�•-I L� IMM31 --h'.fl'i' ._ I .. G� 2,d•t� I F.IC•� I _— P to I I ,� (I� fi.wA✓� �nl r~V.A)+ D ____ _ � .:.±,_ _ _ _ .-._2a2��.- rvo, rp ,�-r eIt 11Z 9a Aezajr, �l ►� .------ 0 ✓� d /� � O ,� L�cfi;� �.am P�z�Ih.JT .. _::. 21 °..__...---- _:: ( � ,. .� �i • P . tiera .r j — - / /W l N j" I,v -_- , „�� . _:. - co • -- . oP �•T) /� ,a,o�1 , /,p ►•a l� - �1-� .-. "j�' .-- ._- -'----_._. __._.. _ _ .__._— !' ' . ' / v bxc eo 12aG h. /II.. I I a if1Co�2; 2. _ECEIVED Lpaw lie. U, 1414a, _ M'J.s FEB p 2 1996LO ® �. D b PERMIT COUNTER v 0 101 _ i r 11/ EC. 5, T a ■' s fir.' r • EX. CB ( TYPE 2 ) TOP = 42.86 I.E. (18"S.) = 36.56 EX. SSMH Z/-TOP= 43.08 RC16E 7 k_� ITE INV = 37.77.� O U/VD n� SCALE: 1 = 10' 10 ' 5' 0 10 ' 1 i ,' o \ \� `� �j / ST. sw -� V SEASIDE' I / � \ \ u ' I � � �o`t' B�POINNS •c? VAC I AVE \ \ 1 , / �� 8.4y 10Ed�wmz,5 co ORp /' I I I N020�3 \� `\ \� \\ �• �� / o,Qo �4rFo W M / \ i O 6—lL e7c N 870 35 43" W I t 149. 8 AC 5RY 211 , CSEE NoTES)l147 ,AB N"— VICINITY MAP %� ' r SCALE:,1 - 2000 A I i� 50Z4,- C' P/LE Will LOT 4 25' / 11, .: I I / �o � •v / �D/<JP!L /NG . LOT 5 I l I I l l I t I I I F/N/Sh/ED BIJSlMeNT i / / Z.�G h//GH 1 80�0 ,� / RE/�►O T I I I I -L'� / / 1 !' 1 I (SEE OET,4/L��• I "�j 1_~. \ \� 1 / / I I O t I I � � • � �� i . � _ �i \ \\ ,::. •.\ ... 2 � G � G.�/ ' � � � II tv I I Q //v v= 33. D0 23 I y r I Oc G ( I i / r I I I I I 41 CO I I I I ► I i I 1 I co �-• I/ rr / r / / l III /nO \�L�rLIA1674GL 4VL -OF 2, i/i =\1 O 1 0) 1 .cO/4 DETE/U5/D// co` 30 \\ \I 1 t Ci � / , I • � ,� .� h�iG'�' � ,co r la ode c ,� r l ! G t? I I n : I 1 I �� a �� \\ Q h I // 25 , /r I I W 2 I '�u 22�1 ir'L/ I ' I I I \ \ / O _kV co , O r 0 i O l 11 I �a �-r+ \ \ \ \� i Q -5'- G .., Pvc r, i A5 ` \ � U i I / I I r �, is COVERED \ \. m / / / J I I fl ECG 0cv LX CB TYPE/2) / TOP = 36. 68/ I 1�7 I l l l l (PRDP 5Ep) DECK \ - I \ � `' \,-T 5 �+•'N .e� y \\ � \ `\ I ! / GB ! TYPE I- I 1 3EL 46.5 ! / / (5L'E DET,d/L.)- I I � s l� � � M\� : • (�' v \ . i' � . ` ` � _ - ' - I / l T4P- 36. 75 I I / l //32. !+4 Vv= I I I I ( I \ �= 10304548 I I 20.00 1 / I _ �L 36.22 \ BUILDI GSETBACK LINE (TYP. /GBTy 5T. 5W DRAWN BY gDXATE CHECKED BY 'rkf S PROJECT MANAGER �G IAE1 • REVISIONS w / I j N �30 I \\ o� c \ \ N 870 35' 43" W 148\ \9 \� �\ \ \ \ \ t � r I I ,/ I I ► J I ? I ► `\ c61 a \ \ \ \ \ \ \ DRIVEWAY EASEMENT I I // (PARCELS 2 &.3) I I _ I I I v, r I — —�-- --- J z I I I I '•, CU I co� �f \\ � OU-��'C.•�t.� S1� l �` \ \ \ \ I I r I /' I i ► � l -___ _ I 1 I 1C / \ GLij ca / / N I <� I 07 ,cn � // / I 8� Q o rv' cn I I I I I I / I 07 / / \ � O N -A 0) (3)uj rn Co I I/ G' 0 � I N EX. SSMH iI \ I WATER w TOP = 32.87 I� �Mt= GZAlt j TOP 3C• 75 j k d � INSPECTIONS INV = 26.41 .' \ REQUIRED. TI S aCCALL 71� ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIAL CONSTR CTION SE UEN E: REN0IA� 8_QD CAP0235 T(PE I -A CA.TU I StIJ _ � wITF+ &a�1cEr :+ SCh 40 PVC sc. ,�1s LEGEND / SDR 35 (ASTM D3034 0 ca 6„ 0IEK5I.4M EL= 35.00 1 IN TALL CB#I AND CONNECT TO EXISTING. CATCH BASIN. cm • ¢O'- 2¢'CMf •• ? EEC/5T//VG Ph'OP05E0 2 INSTALL SILTATION POND, SWALES, EROSION CONTROL PLAN c 0 % "PVG GRAVEL' SWALES . PvvEM�n/T EGGS 3 EXCAVATE SITE AND CONSTRUCT ROCKERIES AND SOLDIER PILE WALL. � Iry �8"sl•�.�P � FOL// 4 INSTALL REMAINDER OF STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM. 7. �, 3�G4 .•, EC�;E c)R1F1G�'-'"I � •.•':.•.-.•.•.-.•••.•.:•.: BU/LD/NG /VD,4T/D/V EX. CB (TYPE 2) �, SS .54/VI74RY SEWER L//VE 5 CONSTRUCT FOUNDATION AND BUILDING. I yr = Ly. I( I.E. (18�"N, S)•= 22.37 I.E. (18 W) = 20.42 TOPOGRAPHY NOTE: ALL TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN ON THIS PLAN IS BASED UPON A GROUP FOUR INC. TOPOGRAPHY DATED 7/22/93. KEGEL & ASSOCIATES, INC. ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ITS ACCURACY. CoN701/R5 �- 6 PAVE DRIVEWAY AND LANDSCAPE LOT. z _�T iC► t{ +� G,S. # I (TvpE I L) so ----0 5701TM 01'F,4/1V z x 0 \ 1T5--.. OR/1 //VA06 5W41- E CL 1c/1V/5NED 5URFACE EGEV4770�V 0- R 5 C:51 V 5 D OVED AS [VOTED - YQRa DRAW � SEP 2 9 1994 0 cn 41,/Z Y.D. PERMIT COUNTER SHEET I OF 4 j \�' FILE NO. 1099 Sr1/4 SEC. 5, TWN. 2., R. 4E., W.M. I • ' EX/5T/NG W.?Gh'WAy i i WaZxWr EASE•N eA17- , / / .........�..........................— 75 i i —' 70 J PROFILE SCALE: HORIZONTAL 1" = 10' VERTICAL 1" = 5' -- 50 40 35 , , 75 — 70 STORM DRAINAGE & GRADING NOTES: KEGEL ASSOCIATES . 1 ALL FOUNDATIONS, ROCKERIES, SOLDIER PILE WALLS AND STORM Q CO DRAINAGE SHALL SURVEYED BY A LICENSED SURVEY FOR LINE & 2 GRADE PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. ALL GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 70 RPM OF THE UBC (1991). 3 ALL BUILDING ROOF DRAIN DOWNSPOUTS AND FOOTING DRAINS SHALL LAND PLANNING BE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE MAIN STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION ENGINEERING SYSTEM THROUGH AN UNDERGROUND PIPE SYSTEM. ROOF DRAINS AND FOOTING DRAINS SHALL BE SEPARATE SYSTEMS AND SHALL BE & SURVEYING CONSTRUCTED OF 4" (OR 6" DIAMETER WHERE SHOWN)P.V.C. (RIGID, NON —PERFORATED FOR ROOF DRAINS, PERFORATED FOR FOOTING DRAINS) . SUFFICIENT CLEANOUTS AND BENDS SHALL BE INSTALLED 9800 EVERGREEN WAY SO THAT THE SYSTEM CAN BE EASILY MAINTAINED. THE SYSTEM SHOWN HEREON IS SCHEMATIC ONLY. THE DRAINAGE/GRADING EVERETT,WA. 98204 CONTRACTOR OR LANDSCAPER MAY ALTER THE LAYOUT AS REQUIRED TO BETTER DRAIN THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP A Ph.(206)353-1119 DIMENSIONED RECORD OF THE LOCATION OF ALL PIPES AND CLEANOUTS AND SUBMIT SAME TO THE CITY, ENGINEER AND OWNER SEATTLE LINE:775-5424 UPON COMPLETION OF'THE WORK. 4 PIPE BEDDING FOR DETENTION PIPE SHALL BE PER APWA CLASS C, DRAWN BY DATE TYPE I TO TWO INCHES OVER THE TOP OF THE PIPE AND COMPACTED TO 95 o OF MIN. DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D-1557-70. ' CHECKED BY DATE 5 THE DETENTION PIPE SHALL BE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CMP) OF PROJECT MANAGER 14 GAUGE OR BETTER OR A.D.S.. 6 ALL STRUCTURAL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 950• OF MAXIMUM. DENSITY BY MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST.1GYIAEL 7 STORM RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITIES MUST BE FLUSHED AND CLEANED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE. r 8 ALL SOILS, FOUNDATION & ROCKERY WORK SHALL BE COMPLETED PER RECOMMENDATION OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR THE SITE BY 1920i GEO ENGINEERS DATED MARCH 29, 1994.�..p Ctsx n e c cC -h - 6Le 01A+_4� P i tl-e 9 ALL FOOTING DRAINS SHALL eE 9AY4 T4HTED BEl)9W DETENTION hL. SYSTEM UNLESS CITY INSPECTOR APPROVES CONNECTION OF FOOTING RUPipes J . •, / . .- DRAINS INTO DETENTION SYSTEM. REVISIONS GENERAL NOTES: 1 ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 2 THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL BURIED UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON PLAN ARE BASED ON THE BEST RECORDS AVAILABLE AND ARE SUBJECT TO A DEGREE OF UNKNOWN VARIATION. 3 FOR AID IN UTILITY LOCATION CALL 1-800-425-5555 PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. 4 CONFLICTS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR AND SHALL BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 5 THE CONTRACTOR- SHALL MAKE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN THE FILED DURING CONSTRUCTION, AS NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO PRODUCE A FINISHED PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE PLAN. 6 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP TWO .(2) SETS OF PLANS ON —SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR RECORDING AS —BUILT INFORMATION; ONE (1) SET SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO KEGEL & ASSOCIATES, INC. AT COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. t2f�V- +41.1 LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. Provide minimum 2 in..of 3-way topsoil'in all lawn areas. Apply dolomite lime at the rate of 40 lbs./1000 sf. and rake into soil. 20 All plants shall'be pit planted per detail using -the specified planting mix,as follows: 50% native soil and 50% 3--ay topsoil,.thoroughly.mixed' .Fertilize with Pac. Agro-4--2-2 transplant Pert. 3. Stake all trees as detailed immediately after planting. 4. All, shrub beds shall. receive 3 in. fine bark mulch. 5. Subgrades in all landscape areas shall be provided by General. Contractor at i'1/10th.ft. 6, Gravel paths to be 5/8 minus crushed rock at min, 3' compacted depth. 7. Plant counts on Legend are for.convenience'only.gntractor tti provide quantity of'plants as-indicate'd by symbol's on the drawing. 8. Landscape contractor shall guarantee all, plant material for a ' Period of one year from final acceptance, .coiitingent upon owner -provided and contractor appr©ved maintenance program. i L #' ✓ 11 j AN vim IV ■1010■ l■■�� , s STATE OF WASii{NGTC}ht REGISTFRFD -+ � L.L11dD5CA1 E ARCHITECT 2,1, ALEXF fi)vp C CERTIFICATE NO. 492 M .4 0 r r F SECURETRU AS H.}LLt'i,� S TREES LESS THAN: W HI r a U'SF I ca. 2x2 STAKE, ;. ga. GALV. nE WIRE AND RUBBa HOSE. TREB GREAM niA.N b' Irr.- SECuRE wlni GUY H'IRES.3 PPRTREE. A_ .r REMOVEWRLAPFROM TOP 113 OF ROOTBALL NUN Z i ISPECIFIFD YLAN`t11:G h1IX MI�i-IMEs p1A+t�:rcu OF Rcx7r BALL. LOOSEN SIDES OF PIT TO ��{{� 7}� tt{{.,��.,�� . [ j� ALLOW Roar PEt^I}�EIIRAnoNl. EVERGREEN rrREE ��L�CiU G, DE 1 AII FREE wFFH 2 ca. 2x2 14 ga. GALV. TIE RUBBER HOSE. MULCH.2 Pt REMOVG 13URI-0 Mom i �+ TOP 113 OF ROOTBALL. i ,11N 6- - +c--= SPECIFIED PLANTING MIX. LOOSEN SIDES OP PIT TO �ALLOW ROOrPENEIRATION. �tIN I II_' I'IAI" DIA.1L-TER OF R(X1T BALL DECIDUOUS ,TREE STAKING DETAIL FLA NT SCm EPU LE 4 ++ Populus tremuloides/Quaking Aspen, 8-10' ht., B&B { �0- Styrax iaponieus/Japanese Snowbell, 1j," cal. B&B + Fruit trees (varieties by owner), 11" cal., B&B Magnolia grandiflora/South6rn Magnolia,�8-10' ht.,B&B Cupressocyparis leylandii/Leylandi Cypress, 6-7' ht., B&B Pinus contorts/Shore Pine, 8-10' ht., B&B 7 Pinus sylvestris 'Fastigiate'/Columnar Scotch Pine, 6-8' ht., B&B Rhododendron 'Exbury'/Exbury Azaleas, 21-24", cont. 'i Arbutus unedo 'Compacts'/Dwarf Strawberry Tree, 21-24", cont. JUL a 31 Viburnum tinus/Laurustinus, 21-24", cont. �r • Ilex crenata 'Convexa'/Japanese Holly, 15-18", cont. Rhododendron 'Unique'/Unique Rhododendron, 24-30", coat. Escallonia rubra/Escallonia, 21-24", cont. Ifo ♦ ♦ Taxus baccata 'Repandens'/Spreading English Yew, 15-18", cont. Pinus moo mugo/Mugho Pine, 18-21", cont. Prunus laurocerasus 'Otto Luyken Laurel'/ Otto Luyken Laurel, 18-21", cont. - - Rosa rugosa/Ramanas Rose, 18-21",, cont. 42" O.C. spacing Mah6nia aquifolium/Oregon Crape, 18-21", B&B or coat., 42" O.C. spacing 49 .. Erica carnea 'Springwood WhiteV.Spririgwood White Heather, 1 gal., 30" O.G. Seasonal Color Arctostaphylos uv.,a-ursi/1Cinnikinnick,,1 gal., 30" O.C. spacing Rubus cal.ycinoides/Rebus, 4" pots, 24" O.C. spacing vsnr•w�wt+wt Vinca minorIDw-rf Periwink]e, 1 gal.:.30" O.C. spacing .. A U c