Loading...
16120 72ND AVE W.PDF111111111111 5595 16120 72 N D AVE W Z:-Sz/ A . ck - . y ADDRESS: l (O ! �a ,1� Ale Wks%` TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: /o/a/d o6 #260114002 %361f CRITICAL AREAS:. �1 4 DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver L& Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 4& foo PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: ,OTC/�•i�%�id✓orcC�-✓�� �y/�-/�� LC/SI�oZ- PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: 611101,91 SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: 9&—bo ZSO� SEWER LID FEE $: LID ##: 2/0 SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: / BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: L�! GEOTECH REPORT DATED: Z/4 / /00 STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 9-Z ?--O Z i4-il tccn L:\TEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc ual� - �•,�;i,,.-.. ��y�' .,.,.:.-..,re(." '�,,,t� 4 ti r -�r�.rr.�. w..-,. 'f�'+d'( kT'SpLWb(!'i^f J B rr.4 City of Edmonds PERMIT NO: 9619 SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES i%tINdA q�2(a 1r�2 Address of Construction: �(Y I �U 7�h� ,/� LID # Property Tax Account Parcel No. J I.3 000 O J �s n C Attach copies of all access and utility Owner and/or Contractor: Contractor License #: Single Family ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units Verified and Approved by .-""' lding Permit #: 200I - i2 2i 3y Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes 5j'N0 *RW Construction Permit # s ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) Cross other **Private Property: ❑ Yes WNo ❑ Public **Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement. (ZA A ' Owner/ ontractor Owner or contractor.sign ture _an`d74c7knowIedgement statement: Date By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein. ` W . CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-42q-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 9 9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extension -lam 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES 'A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready YES NO Date: Initial: Partial Inspection: Date: 61 Initial: Partial Inspection: Date: \ Initial: D61 `FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Initial: As-builtto Street File: , E] 1,� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE.1s uU White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bl dg;forms;sspermitj Ig4/00 5vATE RECEIVED' 1 ' /" oll PERMIT EXPIRES e' " CITY OF ED:MONDS USE` PERMIT ZONE �� -0 NUMBE CONSTRUCTION, PERMIT APPLICATION JOB /�� SUITE/APT# ADDRESY IZ`% OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS O`` CV ¢ * PLAT NAM E/SUByDIIIVV�ISION NO.gpy�{ LOT NO, Sr LID NO. I1� LID FEE $ Z 3 MAILING ADDRESS f 1 ` •� ! �/� ✓. /� `� PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved Q RW Permit Required►•M" ❑ Sheet Use Permit Req'd ❑ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING POSED Inspection Required Sidewalk Required N0 /�/pt/Gi Cpr✓G� 5PkU3 ,/ `Y.� 3 c s- c7 J •,7 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground Wiring required NAM ^� J^''' ? (�Cl/� /„Je % -.. Cll��� METER SIZE I t FLINE SIZE n't1 t N NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES � NO ❑ O ADDRESS REMARKS w Z % /J % OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTRONdRRAINAGE z CITY TELEPHONE ? ; E �f` C• �rZIP .+ 776441 NAME 4r :••. °srov.,.,,.. 1.`- r .'a,. r '., ..., `ENGINEERING ` ,PEVIEWED/ ATE ADDRESS r .. U a FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE w Z CITY ZIP TELEPHON U. r STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED S VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# '%INSPECTION REQ'D BOND POSTED 1 _........._. ... I 0 _ 0"i'ES ONO SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT LU P O RTV TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. ia.i.,•:-., : Dar.-a;,��.. Z-0 T COMPLETE I EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED a5' ho iFjOPOSED , y�jj EXP ✓ p I EW I IESiDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED SETBACKS (FT.) ' PROP ED SETBACK (FT.) PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAP`. t � � FRONT L/R SIDE REAR L5' O ❑ AUDITION ❑ COM I� LI ANCE ❑ 57� I..�o Z5 +'QI !° � � ' � � ��� z OF UOO SR CHOAN PARKIN ❑ RlfMODEL ❑ APARTMENT ❑ SIGN ROVIDED L T3oS�, NING REVIEWEO'BY DATE ' a ,..., ❑REPAIR^'` FENCE ❑ Gi��✓ Z CYDS (,w X _ ,FT) REMARKS. ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK Cj OTHER //'' r .... �- r,�>� r Z o I1JJ C?GARAGE ❑ RETAINING WALL Q lARPORT RENEWAL (. (TYPE OF USE. INESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: TYPED TION CO OCCUPANT� GROUPNUMBER :G���'� NUMBER OF DWELLING CRITICALOF AREAS WCHECK§PBY NSPECTOR y/ CUPANT O STORIES UNITS 4 UMBER REOIJIRED YES.,,+! CAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE A REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS.PER UBC 108/FINAt INSPECTION REO'D O LL " / ,U g 6,14 VALUATION FEE i PLAN CHECK FEE / �.... HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE'J BUILDING PLAN CHECK VESTED DATE PLUMBING 141 - 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 SEPARATE PERMISSION. 2 STATE SURCHARGE n•=:-j PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS . . a PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS ENG. REVIEW FEE;,) SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION H "APPLICANT. Oy-BEHALF OF HISiSA AER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS ENG. INSPECTION FEE w IN INTEREST,'AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFENQ.AND HOLD, HARMLESS THE CITY OF PING f EQ(11 N9"it WS§HINGTON, ITS OFFICIAL,$,'iEMP4OYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND lN6PE�TbN•F�•E f 5' ..e. ALL CIIAIMS POR DAMAGES OF WHATEVE&Q-'NkeLtRE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY = Q FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE 0 M€ . TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REOUIR MENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE `S }3. fM4G7TAAN WAY THE CITY'S ABI �LYY�-C�POIBOE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION." PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT REC IP ,.> 4 %� 0 RECEI Ti/--(,��"� , ( 1 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HA a,THIS;APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION THE `OR APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM, WNER, THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF TH€-QWNER. I A €E TO COMPLY Wn%,Ql A � TATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- j� ' TIO qN0 IQI Dql THE WORK A THORIZ TM Y; NO PARSON WILL.BE EMPLOYED CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Officiator his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid. and IN V&AftN-O' HE LABOR DE OF E TE�OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receip(.Is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMTN'S COMPEt(S .IPN I URA CEjND RCW 18.27. SIG arU ( E RAGaoy DATE IGNEQ (425) OFF CIALS SIGNATURE DATE 771 -0220 RELEA ,Qz DATE ATTENTION EXTj333 f`. I R IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING O STRUCTURE UNTIL 771 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- '0221 ORIGINAL -FILE YEllow • INSPEcroa CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 FAX PINK • OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR 5/qR RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ..................... FOUNDATION: Footing ...................... Wall .......................... ,............... Pier/Por4, Retainin4Wall ............ Slab Insulation •.......... PLUMBING: Undergrdund ............. L7 . Rough -In ...................i�j Commercial Final ...... HEATING: Gas Test .................... Gas Piping ................. Equipment ................. Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING �.... .......................... ,,, FRAMING ........................ FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... t "(" .OZ INSULATION ................... Floor Insulation ......... Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation ......, A:7 SHEETROCK NAILING ... SPECIAL 114SPECTION ... MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR �/�1 ✓ �O (-�� OCCUPANCY .................. Side Sewer # AMout Paid $ .- Receipt # 1 I'yq Date Issued 1P. ` ' xpireS WaWMeterSize Amount Paid IU Receipt # 2 ROW Amount Paid #__ $.. .._Receipt Dwte ISsued_,.,_,,,,,ExplreS • I'�/�.;. Yam' IV,.ibw!' ��n;.. R tia/• ,�i (L td��i�)a✓�j�A'4f���ij•� j��7A' I 0 �•"1rr'�� `-% M"VATE RECEIVED PERMIT EXPIRES CITY OF EDMONDS "USE PERMIT ZONE rya. �j --' NUMBER-4j�:.r JOB �• •, SUITE/A/PTN ADDRESS/Bl�✓,. .;, ,%l ,J'�"%.•T' �•e � ," CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO.�=�(�p LID NO. �' (�' C (/.� ��` V p IR/W LID FEE $` ¢ W��;' MAILING ADDRESS i � • X i TESCP Approved Q _ ;O ... .." ;,v � ,1 i J/ • /r'�—• r.'' ,.N '��/`l �.J „Y7rl...e��` ._Sj/. .."'.,.`%r-ti•,,,�. .... PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP �,y RW Permit Required fed' ❑ Street Use Permit Req'd ❑ I EXISTING ? eP-ROPOSED Inspection Required CITY ZIP TELEPHONE �� Sidewalk Required A,jO All REQUIRED DEDICATION FT Underground wldna requited53 NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES I NO ❑ r r ,%� '•M?:,rJ/l/ i,, f%.%c' 1,;P •° / u W H cc ADDRESS ! _ 9w REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE z z z ) 1 "•t'• ! G• %'I' i`' f i. 7:?� CITY ZIP TELEPHONE•+✓A 74g1+1 �. >.� Iti► %�`- NAME /.. ,_.....i.Y 'i'i r t ` •� s)'•�''Ita, ,1'r/%' rAT=' \}•'}'y/r<4• 4.'.'�i'�'�'ia ENGINEERING ;REVIEWED/PATE EWED/ ATE ADDRESS ¢ U a - FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE w ¢ CITY ZIP =,: TELEPHON i' z U. O ,:..�,..... .... �J t VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADBk ,INSPECTION BOND POSTED STATE LICENS7­0E NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY .t.L,L .. .. ... - a, y �r G� • 1 J �REQ'ES O NO REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT 75— iiiiiiiIiiiisill"rSEPA J r, P OPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL' _, ..,.. COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED .33 ZL ..✓ ❑Z "f�EW (%�" SIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT SIDE,/,REAR PROP6 ED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT UR SIDE REAR AUDITION ww COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR ❑ ❑ ❑ / `+�b �. 1 r° 0 - IO 10 M. - J`y its; r to z" y �e U �"5 z z CHANGE OF USE ❑ REMODEL ❑ APARTMENT ❑ SIGN PARKIN,g,.r"'"„. fD^' "%FiOVIDED 13c� L w P NING REVIEWED BY DATE g FENCE z L. C55° ❑ REPAIR' C''{�2�jj CYDS ❑ ( X FT) "'I REMARKS 7 M1. .0 i ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK OTHER ❑ xOTHER .` n i / G ta4• L l9 rid bl C" C . /✓ •.+ '1 '0 ,• ! �� I GARAGE RETAINING WALL CARPORT ❑ ❑ RENEWAL t/ z a ¢ (TYPE OF USE: BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: t _ ".. aY• r .. CHECK BY - TYPE O {� TION CO _ OCCUPANT GROUP O { �� f` NUMBER pp OF d NUMBER OF DWELLING it - CRITICAL AREAS w SPE IAL INSPECTOR 9 t CCUPANT O STORIES '=�"ry' UNITS NUMBER .�-'�S� REQUIRED fIG{ YES I� ! •,, AD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS - z 2 PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D S I V Y • i�lt r 1 % PLAN CHECK FEE HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE % BUILDING / /�) •• p'° �" '! ` (� PLAN CHECK VESTED DATE PLUMBING m[ MECHANICAL ¢ ice'• THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO t- BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC GRADING/FILL Ir ru r'j tir DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE !fi F SEPARATE PERMISSION. i ! STATE SURCHARGE f t ' 4, PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS f P a PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS ENG. REVIEW FEES i SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION -•''�"'' (n 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS ENG. INSPECTION FEE r� Imp uj IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF "LAND'SC7(PING '� �' t.. rd:� �M f EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND e 'INSPEG-TION•FEE t'? ,I,-.:;1:M�• ,i4- /',� ••;,f ^��' .• P¢ ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ¢ RECEIPT FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMEDTOMODIFY. WAIVE ORREDUCE ANY REQUIREMENTOFANYCITYORDINANCE PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT: = NOR LIMIT IN ANYWAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.` r RECEIPT,.-•,••% �:;"^y � TOTAL AMOUNT DUE .•'fr' tl' 'e tr •' 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 DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official.or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid. and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ItjSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. OFFICIALS SIGNATURE DATE / SIGNAPTUIjI'(O,, NE: OR AGF�NT) )rlC /7�iit DATE SIGNED, (425) "•'{,({,)•f �� (�+,1�/ ;V:,..../r/•�:rc_ t�..• � ���• 1��, l.y' /�F'. r 771-0220 '� r+'dP,°�7 � t //(';."r.'.• a�trr'� �i' !` RELEASED B + DATE r'' ATTENTION EXV333 '! �,`; !; /:-,...f•,, -'' °, r: 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- ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW -INSPECTOR •,CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 FAX PINK - OWNER • GOLD - ASSESSOR 5/98 • 0 AVER REGT AVERAGE GRAVE 505.6' (905.i+508.55+29:2.0+90E MAX. BUILD HEIGHT=5O LOT GOVERA6F: LOT #1- 94,05� STRUGTURt = 5,416 STUGTURE= 5416 DW\eE/DEGK= 1;04 4920 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS I 6ARA6E AVERAGE 1 E ---------- =T. =T. NEW RE9IDENGE _ = 10% =T. =T16 _— -- 7----- a a (901.5+906.9+910.2+909.47 / 4 = 8.5' �0�, MAX. BUILD HE16HT= 508.5 + 15 = 928.5 -- --- -- EL Oar yea Lisa Heroyd sane sW 1sano IA LFwwk, W& seen 0 B 10 �O (42W4MM RECEIVE® LeoSCALE. SEP 20 2001 PERMIT COUNTER STREET FILE EL.304.4 APPROVE i 6- Y --ft-ANN11- 1.- 9iZsIzm�'_ U ` i Mi4�llA LE\\��\ Tl7 \ J 3N \ \ 1RGH ETEGTS ,[y' 1 T T.&I �._ �•5 1451 91sl A,— Y1-sl \ 0�\ \ \ SEAifl6,300. 114 Sqq EATTLE AA Aq.1"114 \\ AR61417ECTORE P L AN 6 t INTERIORRIOR UE516N TIGHT LINE \ L.306. IATEER- LINE �\ EL.310.2 • f AVERASE GRAD REOTA146LE AVERAGE GRADE 505.6' (505.2+508.55+292.0+50 .9) / 4 = 505. 25'=Vk28b MAX. BUILD HEI&HT-505.6 LOT COVERASE; LOT 01 - - _ - 54,052 SQ T. STRUCTURE = 5,416 50 T. a 16%- D PERCENT LOT COVERA6 TOTAL 6ARA6E AVERAGE (501.5+506.4+510.2+509.4) / 4 = MAX. BUILD FE16ST- 506.5 + 15 - M EL Oadr: Ph18 LLl FleYoyd a 3/06 SIN 132W Stag $ Ly. WILSW R E C s :. i v e: tr SCALE, 1' - 20' SEP U 2001 PERMIT coutq'rai TREET FILE ki NEM R -4AZe ICe _ nwbcm 14 ------ - 7-1" APPROVED 6y TBpR IAgN 1./��R LRH I TTEGTS ��1•L� 199i 5131 A,,c PUS& \ \ \ 6 E 20600.I00. 3111 FTaie70T'114 f _hI'kiM1rtLVI.cORI \ \ AR c MI1 Cc PURE PI ARei X6 1 I NTERIOR UE516K E - of O It LIGHT LINE •5 L.506, .4 uRm V b VVATER--LINE C _ ��-_ EL.510.2 /* . . ..................... PLANNING DATA NAME: Pk.7 DATE: � �' �. 1,,, 9/ 8'12mo i SITE ADDRESS: 612-o _ 7Z- Pl,w. PLAN CHK#:01-ozS' PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Nou, s,Tf r kAt'l, A Mc-1'1,,AA11L1 a14 I" o-'� aaa6f REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: es / No MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: Yes o FLAG LOT: Ye / No ZONING: (LS- CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION M C4 -95--14 O'Studv Required: Ste. dey,,- ,, S-LAnrer+, k� V. q$ 109 at64 cr ►�cr( awl vwn�rQt iuc S- S •rod �Zc) ❑ Waiver Z5' &c &HV- ba«­'� J-4 -a1 ^.-A i-y.f fl pc - Ole - El Conditional Waiver f SEPA DETERMINATION: ,Y 3b3 ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) ❑ Exempt - a.1�u- h.r �,r,�ztit - o..e✓4 Mac � I°' - b.-. `"rtyv h ao-;cr�,t�' ; t �P�f SETBACKS: � Iw✓•9t•101 4% Required Setbacks-? Street:y io ' Left Side: W /35" Right Side: 1 o ' 135 ' Rear: 25' Actual Setbacks: Street: S 11-9 ,Left Side: 7-5' Right Side: l ©' Rear: 25' i Z ` .e) Street map checked for additional setback required? Yes Oo / DNA Ef DETACHED STRUCTURES: &Yx*1 0^A,,vjLff ROCKERIES: '"� f �c % (Pprsi Pirr cw,(�rtiGOr;, _aK ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: fti•,w. L BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: rr z �ev6„y� f 0 STAIRS / DECKS: wvul 4,t4 wr of a {,,,,,,,,,., PARKING: Required: 2 Actual: Z mac LOTAREA: 30 5-55- LOT COVEo Calculations: 3 4 L/ 3-� 5YEI 11 °lo BUILDING HEIGHT: Datum Point: Datum Elevation: row, Maximum Allowed:_ ZS ' k-Ag / 5 ' %lActual Height: ( A.D.U. CREATED?: No / Yes)_ Nor I.1!b - Z"^ 2!4 aptn fi III-. SUBDIVISION: P4,t, I.ar 1 (5 -9ff10,9 w4j uw- �, c,.br� 44A - la..., no- Prdl,rb,kA ,,, iO I LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: OTHER: Plan Review By: 4wtW NewBPPlanningDataForm.DOC 6LE NO. - Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: b lve. u esT ,per vhA& WOO 2. Property Tax Account Numberadd- d,S2-- a 365 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): h f Ata:e a4, T S9 So F7., 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. 41,0 If yes; how is site developed? QArV7A1,03s 5. Describe the general site topography. Check al that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. ,:,A 2 6 Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet ov .a. . horizontal distance of 66-feet). _ Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 159E and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet aver a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).- Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: A , ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What seasons) of the year. 8. Site is in the floodway_ V floodplain _�� of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? M_ Flows are seasonal? (What time of year! ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ;meadow _;shrubs ; mixed_ ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) e � 1v�Pw✓N�,t,Q .ROW 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Ali!?- ; /�eii.o vs /�i1s�M De'Po't1S -S °� �✓� 109- rcu�. Sew ..a, .r,��� •�i - For City Staff Use Only ¢: Site i Toned? _: /�7 •'.�(? > ;,:;::...: .. ;::, 2:: =SCS mapped soil•type(s)?ft��T 3�:: Wetland inventory or C.A. map.indiates wetland pr�esait onaite?:`• /jc'> z.. '77 . :: r ... . Bya,l99 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her repres ntative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it,. r I ' and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shaU include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical 'Area Checklist and -attest that the answers providaim factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: 'city, St't`' up �h• �y ?.gnatum Date Applicant Representative: Name Strut Address City, State, ZIP phone Signature Date 3f ASS K�'j'Ji 00 N"r 'Nn"•.:af.L"Ch tr, City of Edmonds Critical. Areas Determination Applicant. John Johnson Determination, #: CA-95-15 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 16122 72nd Avenue W Property Tax Acct #: 5131000 053 0007 Project Description: Non -Project Specific DETERMINATION: Prior to submission of any application for a development permit With the. City of Edmonds, a Critical Areas Study must.be conducted (Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code) The subject site has been reviewed with regards to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). During review and inspection of the subject site on July 6, 1994 it was found that the site contains a Wildlife Habitat and Geologically Hazardous Areas pursuant to. Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required to submit the following for review by the Planning Department: There are two categories of Geologically Hazardous Areas present (see 20.15B.070.A3): Erosion Hazard Areas, and Steep Slope Hazard Areas. The preliminary report that the Planning Department will require before any permit application may be submitted is a topographic survey prepared -by a Licefised"Land Surveyor combined with'a soils report - prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer which delineates the two categories of Geologically Hazardous Areas on site. 1. Erosion Hazard Areas occur with Alderwood Soils located on slopes greater than 15 %. 2. Any slope over 30% with more than 10-feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50-foot buffer is required from both the top and the toe of the slope. All Critical Areas studies must be completed under a three party contract where the City hires the professional required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.150). City staff would like to arrange a meeting with the applicant to clarify what the owners intentions for the site are, as well as setting a timeline for selecting a consultant(s). The applicant may suggest qualified professionals for the City's approval. After the Critical Area Study(ies) are complete, and the location and classification of the Critical Areas are mapped, the applicant may move forward with their development plans. Each Geologically Hazardous Area category has a specific level of information which must be submitted before any development may occur in those areas. 1. Erosion Hazard Areas: An Erosion Control Plan approved by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. 2. Steep Slope Hazard Areas: Any development which is not identified as an exception pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.15B must receive a Reasonable Use Exception (Variance process pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A). If the results of the above survey/study determine the lot unbuildable, any development which is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B must receive a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). . All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, or is considered exempt from the study requirements, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. WuLtJ 5 9W9C&- - / Name Signature ate f ` LE NO. 6 Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: Nb 1-7trC UJCS7- E�,D,nWW AIXIX U10' 2. Property Tax Account Num ber6 �� ""': 1- ,'13 /---a d10 -053- tv 7) � 2 r � + 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): lr MAu(e W . M9 S1W P7.; �(13� 42 � Sm. FT. � 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; X_ no. /L'a 7u�«T w If yes; how is site developed? �� sA 5. Describe the general site topography. Check al l that apply. t 2 Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. J r N 2 6 Rolling. slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet ov k_ " _, horizontal distance of 66-feet). _ Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of `greweir'than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of .10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: _ lye ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway Ale floodplain XO of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? - Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ), 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ; mixed_ ; urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) /�Rur✓N�� .4nw _ I I . Obvious wetland is present on site: �Esmo v�" ��Az.►�eeo►us T.,�ros °� ~� '.42'a- 9 Rev O.WZ"3 .o 189� 19gp City of Edmonds Critical Areas Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing.a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys).. and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form, -the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, /B7c ' �� �J77i�fGGfY� !/ilf1,00 A41--0 APCI B1Cf ALo r/� Tif�L° �ar1� O�Y� I have cornpleted the. attached -Critical., Area. Checklist and attest that 'the answers-provide&are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Ott - Address 'City, State, ZIP Phone ?gna��ture Date Applicant Representative: Name Street Address City, State, ZIP Phone Signature Date City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: John Johnson Determination #: CA-95-15 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 16122 72nd Avenue W Property Tax Acct #: 5131000 052 0305 Project Description: Non -Project Specific DETERMINATION: Prior to submission of any application for a development permit with the City of Edmonds, a Critical Areas Study must be conducted (Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code) The subject site has been reviewed with regards to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). During review and inspection of.the subject site on July 6, 1994 it was found that the site contains a Wildlife Habitat and Geologically Hazardous Areas pursuant to Chapter.20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required to submit the following for review by the Planning Department: There are two categories of Geologically Hazardous Areas present (see 20.15B.070.A3): Erosion Hazard Areas, and Steep Slope Hazard Areas. The preliminary report that'the Planning Department will. require before any permit application may be submitted is a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor combined with a soils report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer which delineates the two categories of Geologically Hazardous Areas on site. 1. Erosion Hazard Areas occur with Alderwood Soils located on slopes greater than 15%. .2.. Any slope over 3Q% with more than 10-feet of rise will be,classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50-foot. buffer is required from both the top and the toe of the slope. All Critical Areas studies must be completed under a three party contract where the City hires the professional required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.150). City staff would like to arrange a meeting with the applicant to clarify what the owners intentions for the site are, as well as setting a tlmellne for selecting a conSultant(s). The applicant may suggest qualified professionals for the City's approval. After the Critical Area Study(ies) are complete, and the location and classification of the Critical. Areas are mapped, the applicant may move forward with their development plans. Each Geologically Hazardous Area category has a specific level of information which must be submitted before any development may occur in those areas. 1. Erosion Hazard Areas: An Erosion Control Plan approved by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. 2. Steep Slope Hazard Areas: Any development which is not identified as an exception pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.15B must receive a Reasonable Use Exception (Variance process pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A). If the results of the above survey/study determine the lot unbuildable, any development which is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B must receive a Reasonable Use Exception or a Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. If the property owner wishes to apply fora specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, or is considered exempt from the study requirements, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. �l�lnl �l%LL/S �(�YdtJ Name Signature I Ate • CRITICAL AREA STUDY SEQUOIA RIDGE Edmonds, Washington Prepared for David Evans and Associates, Inc. 1716 West Marine View Drive, Suite C Everett, Washington 98201 Telephone: (425) 259-4099 By Anthony Roth PACIFIC INTERNATIONAL ENGINEERINGpU'c 310 Waterfront Building, 144 Railroad Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Telephone: (425) 921-1708 075) 7yq --7760 July 1998 CJ • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1 2. STEEP SLOPE, EROSION AND GEOLOGIC HAZARD CONDITIONS ..............................1 2.1 SLOPE STABILITY............................................................................................................1 2.2 EROSION HAZARD........................................................................................................... 3 2.3 SETBACK FROM WESTERN TOP OF BANK................................................................ 3 2.4 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS...................................................................................... 3 3. WATER RESOURCES............................................................................................................. 3 3.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 3 3.2 METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................3 3.3 INVESTIGATION RESULTS............................................................................................. 9 3.3.1 Stream..........................................................................................................................11 3.3.2 Wetland.......................................................................................................................12 3.4 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS....................................................................................13 3.5 PROJECT IMPACTS.........................................................................................................13 3.5.1 Wetland Buffer............................................................................................................13 3.5.2 Stream..........................................................................................................................13 3.5.3 Stream Buffers.............................................................................................................13 3.6 IMPACTS MITIGATION..................................................................................................14 3.6.1 Wetland Buffer............................................................................................................14 3.6.2 Stream and Stream Buffers..........................................................................................14 BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................15 APPENDIX A: Geotechnical Report APPENDIX B: Field Data Sheets LIST OF TABLES Table 1. USFWS Plant Indicator Status......................................................................................... 9 Table 2. Wetland Functions and Values.......................................................................................10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure1. Vicinity Map................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Water Resources Map.....................................................................................................4 Figure 3. National Wetlands Inventory Map.................................................................................. 5 Figure 4. Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Atlas............................................................... 7 Figure5. Soils Map........................................................................................................................ 8 Critical Area Study Sequoia Ridge Page i Pacific Inummdonal Engineering goo.ss CRITICAL AREA STUDY Sequoia Ridge 1. INTRODUCTION The subject property is a vacant 3.70 acre site located west of and adjacent to the unopened right- of-way of 72nd Avenue West and south of North Meadowdale Road, in the Meadowdale area, in the SWIA; of Section 5, Township 27 N, Range 4 E, W.M., Edmonds, Washington (See Figure 1). The applicant, John Thoresen, proposes to develop the site for a 4-lot short subdivision. A Critical Areas Determination performed by the City of Edmonds on January 31, 1995 found that the site contains a Wildlife Habitat and Geologically Hazardous Areas pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), and that the Geologically Hazardous Areas contained two categories: Erosion Hazard Areas and Steep Slope Hazard Areas. Subsequent site evaluation and contact with City staff has revealed that the Wildlife Habitat is comprised of wooded areas and an unnamed stream .and associated wetlands. The purpose of this report is to present site -specific findings of a geotechnical evaluation and an analysis of water resources. 2. STEEP SLOPE, EROSION AND GEOLOGIC HAZARD CONDITIONS Appendix A contains a preliminary geotechnical engineering report from Nelson-Couvrette & Associates, Inc. evaluating the Sequoia Ridge (John and Delaine Johnson property) from the standpoint of the stability of the steep slopes, erosion and geologic hazards. The report evaluates proposed development on the north -facing slopes of the subject property that are considered environmentally sensitive areas by the City of Edmonds sensitive areas regulations. The study found that the site was suitable for the type of development proposed, provided a setback was maintained from the top of bank along the west property boundary adjoining the Lorian Woods development. The report finds the north facing slope where development is proposed to be stable. The report references and discusses the location of the subject property within the Meadowdale slide area and designation of the site as 3B02, a classification identifying the site as being underlain by material that has not failed in the past and in 25 years, has a 2 percent probability of debris slides occurring due to the steep slopes. 2.1 SLOPE STABILITY The geotechnical report indicates that no signs of deep-seated instability were found on the slopes. The report further notes that soils exposed on the moderate to steep slopes are a clean sand that the geotechnical consultant would expect to be susceptible to slough types failures and erosion; however, the consultant concludes that this type of slope movement is typically shallow. The consultant further concludes that the project should be compatible with the proposed development, provided that site grading and construction are designed and implemented to maintain and/or increase the existing site stability. The consultant expects the native soils to be stable with respect to deep seated failure. Critical Area Study Page 1 Sequoia Ridge Pacific International Engineering 99o.3s 0 ru�7c KMA C yAkot NORM 148TM — SOUND 1 FISHERS <IR = �9 y ;PL i s;w STT ,� I 150TH ,! G ; 5� d� 8 152ND ST m SW ����' •� 1 � I � 3 t53RDj ........... 1-w-••-- Q 153hD PL SW ' I 1156TH :i �• W 56TH <1 ST r L� •^:s�r��•�iiYi'Yi MEAD 0 � MEADOWDALE ; 3 T I PARK: x 157T PL SW LAE�UG'FO ^ fi= t TH __ ~S_T - 3W _ WHARF + i < �1 TM EX-PL SW I SW - ..,��,e� � j I dl PL SW �� ^ a <�e► 63RD ST I$M 164TH ST ysw 3164TH I L ST I� ,WAR t-', • SEA .,♦"mow_ .i' � � � �- M '+ — ' %p d ILA I - i < sw PL 313 , Pt � � MST J ST F; W 172ND ST�� B 1 Q 6 d )3R Z SW4173Ro yST +'ny 172N I J ST SW Z ST q '� ° 174T1L._ 17 s sw �y w ♦. t~ F— dab _ O T D` I ;sw =: ' As �nsn r 76TM K 12 ; 3? Immdimm PL SW Figure 1. Vicinity Map Critical Area Study Sequoia Ridge Page 2 Pacific International Engineering 99033 2.2 EROSION HAZARD The Nelson-Couvrette report notes that on -site soils have moderate to high erosion potential when disturbed and exposed on slopes. The report therefore recommends that, to reduce erosion, all slopes where the soil is exposed should be compacted and re -vegetated after construction. The consultant notes that where existing vegetation is not disturbed, erosion potential should not be significant. 2.3 SETBACK FROM WESTERN TOP OF BANK The Nelson-Couvrette report recommends that foundations for the planned residences should be supported on the underlying medium dense or better glacial deposits and that the foundations on the hillside should have minimum 15 foot horizontal buffer between the slope surface and the outside edge of the footing. 2.4 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Since ECDC Section 20.15B.120.B requires a 50 foot buffer from a steep slope and ECDC Section 20.15B.090.0 requires a 15 foot building setback from any buffer, a Reasonable Use Exception under ECDC Section 20.15B.040.0 is requested from these requirements to substitute the specific recommendations of the Nelson-Couvrette report, including allowing development on slopes, reduction of buffers with compensation and allowing elimination of buffer to west boundary slope. 3. WATER RESOURCES 3.1 INTRODUCTION In May 1998, Pacific International Engineering staff performed on -site investigations to determine the presence, type and extent of water resources on the subject property. The primary objectives of the site evaluation were: 1) the identification of any streams and wetlands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and 2) the delineation of all water resources subject to land use review and regulation by the ECDC Section 20.15B. Approximately 52,248 square feet (1.12 acres) of water resources were found on the subject property, generally associated with seeps along the northerly slopes down to North Meadowdale Road and associated with the unnamed stream (See Figure,2). Representative data sheets from that evaluation are provided in Appendix B. Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the ACOE has jurisdiction over the waters of the United States, including streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands. Only a 210 square foot segment of a small stream is proposed for fill. Direct contact with ACOE is not required and the City of Edmonds will be the lead regulatory agency. 3.2 METHODOLOGY Prior to conducting field evaluation, a number of sources were consulted. As designated in the Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Survey and Map Atlas (1989), the property lies within the Southwest Coastal watershed. This publication identifies the thread of the stream on the subject property, but does not locate associated wetlands (Figure 3). Critical Area Study Page 3 Sequoia Ridge Pacific international Engineering 99o.3s 1 I FGFNn ' / �` . „'� BUFFER BUFFER REDUCTION AREA-ZM SF r , ` sTrNEALN Loss 206 s \ Ls• •�' BUFFER LOSS BDJ SF ` 4 ® _ (! BUFFER AODITI N/COIPENSATION `\ ♦ `qy � � M AREA-sno s �` . � � oaz4x _1 `♦ •• F'q0 ` �POTENTIAL STREAM ! BUFFEoP 2a pR \ . \ ♦ \ s x 1 _ _ IBM LOSS WRG71pN AREA.1732 s \ N O F=Vr" 0 50 100 TOTAL ACREAGE: 170 Ae. ExiSTNG ZONING W-20 R O CATCH BASIN \ ` ST AND ♦ �..\ ♦ 25 STREAM BUFFER0 WETL/UIBOUNDARY / W WATER VALVE ��L\�QCS _ / y` Si.24B.SF \ \ ♦ \ A OAS VALVE .LCY 6 • : ♦ �'\ \ ♦ \ \ \ UTILITY POLE W/ WY WERE \ ♦\ `,\\ \ \ •`• tD TELEPHONE CLOSURE 000002 SF op 6 x• —iL FENCE 7• In O SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE / \1 • `'` `' - i�� y \ ' `, j� FIRE HYDRANT V. SANITARY SEWER LIKE —OP— OVERHEAD POWER WE \\ \, ` �./ -•� I . —SD STORM DRAIN UNE —W— WATER LINE —� EDGE OF ASPHALT \ �) 7 g \ ` j JEMINE L CASPER PROPOSED \ +� `�. ? ` \ \ ♦ ` / }OCA ', 1S i/sue\ ��_. i. \ \ \` ` `\ � ` t0�'• - �` 3 ii N. \ ♦ \ ` CV Figure 2. Water Resources Plan TOP � ♦ ' �, �' ° '•'ti' ' �. � •\ BANK � ` •:Fit. _ �� ` ?=i : • ' O:EOORY S GSaEI LJOHNSON SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION EDGE OF `\ \ \\...; . SW1/4, SEC. 5, T 27 N. R 4 E, W.M. ASPHALT \ JJLY 1998 SCALE: 1'-50' , \ Wow 6�OAUL6 ,T.OGP Q11WG[C4\WY01\MJR! Critical Area TOP OF \ ♦ •� BANK \ ♦\ ;, DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, me IIBST MARINE VflZW DR. SWE C. EVBRBIT, TA 98201 • 425.259.409J9 • I J Page 4 Pa1CIfLC Intmational EM$IFMming wo-m r. gip. ,�'•1;.. � `'� �"', -�� ► , 11H • Sir •iL wr ��• -`•. .,, �• r___ —_ 4 ` �• 1leadowd le i sT T C. Isle - PC SN us ATLl�A Bay ta > .. n.i Vim' dl� �,/1 1' _ +�'♦ ;' �� °•'--• ~'• L •' •��,� ,I !^ I }11 r •t :/ ' �, . A • �m'Zsb ! i— •'�t31s5 �1 .• i : I. ; {� ... ii � �e�. �' 'Its � •�. ._ �,• , �. FIGURE 3. NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAP SCALE: 1 ":2000', FROM USFWS NWI EDMONDS EAST QUADRANGLE Critical Area Study Page 5 Sequoia Ridge Pacific Inamational Engineering 99o-3s The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) has evaluated wetlands throughout the Edmonds East USGS quadrangle, using the system described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin 1979). The NWI map indicates no occurrence of wetlands on the site (Figure 4). Soils on the site have been mapped as Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and Everett gravelly sandy loam series by the USDA Soil Conservation Service and appear in the 1983 Soil Survey of Snohomish County (Figure 5). To perform the wetland delineation for the site, the 1997 Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997) was used. The methodology in this manual recognizes that the three parameters of hydrology and wetland plants are generally found in wetlands and that these parameters are important in the establishment and maintenance of wetland communities. Within the methodology, indicators are evaluated in the field to determine satisfaction of each of the three parameters for establishment of wetland boundaries: 1. Hydrophytic Plants - The US Fish and Wildlife Service (Reed, 1988 and 1993) has established a rating system which has been applied to commonly occurring plant species on the basis of their frequency of occurrence in wetlands. Species indicator status expresses the range that plants may occur in wetlands and non -wetlands (uplands). Within the State and federal methodology, satisfaction of the hydrophytic plant community criterion is satisfied when the plant community is comprised of 50 percent or more of the dominant species which are adapted to or tolerant of saturated soil conditions: an indicator status of facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW) or obligate (OBL) wetland (Table 1). Modifiers are used with the Facultative Indicator categories to more specifically define the frequency of occurrence. A positive (+) sign indicates plants are more frequently found in wetlands than the category indicates, whereas a negative (-) sign indicates plants are less frequently found in wetlands than the indicator signifies. A status of FAC- does not meet the hydrophytic plant community criterion. 2. Hydrology - Evidence of permanent or periodic inundation, or (at least) soil saturation to within 12 inches of the surface for one week or more during the growing season (soil temperatures above 41 °F); indicators other than standing water or soil saturation include stained leaves, soil surficial cracking or water -borne litter. 3. Hydric soils - Soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper soil horizons, or to the depth of 12 to 18 inches; indicators include high organic content, low soil chroma (Munselll matrix chroma of 2 with mottles or less than 2 without mottles) or gleying. 1 Munsell Soil Color Charts, Kollmorgan Instruments Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland Critical Area Study Page 6 Sequoia Ridge Pacific Intemational En pnarin8 Boas Im it r4LJI�-: ff-&- 01 44 .. .. •,'7/ • ` rillw ». soh it ,t.: �., :% a r r. : � ... - 4 :¢T erg•. ik �r� '� y r . s "�C �� �� Ufa �.y _ .y ...,.i ;'. �,� , _ ' cl�����.+r t t• fir n �C•1?'�it •� {r� :.4 � � .. �.. ••. .. ` f }`x!{ '�f.4iiyS�:.•����;�4i.•`flz:l� • n �1f'" •� " a. ;'-_ �, IN Xr i i �• �rJ y _ate/, ♦t;•- • f .y�,��,py.,, .. .! •.:�.f+,... � 'k a ,r/ \.i „• pi 'r .! �� • '•CC ram.:• i•�ti� l �n ,�,, �• �•�,'• ��� r� 0 Table 1. USFWS Plant Indicator Status Indicator Plant Indicator Status Status Category Abbrev'n Definition (Probability of Occurrence) OBLIGATE UPLAND UPI, Occur rarely in wetlands (less than 99 percent) and almost always in uplands (greater than 99 percent) FACULTATIVE FACU Occur sometimes in wetlands (1 to <33 percent), but UPLAND more likely in uplands (>67 to 99 percent) FACULTATIVE FAC Equal likelihood in uplands and wetlands (33 to 67 percent) FACULTATIVE FACW Occur sometimes in uplands (1 to <33 percent), but WETLAND more likely in wetlands (>67 to 99 percent) OBLIGATE WETLAND OBL NOT LISTED NL Occur rarely in uplands (less than 99 percent) and almost always in wetlands (greater than 99 percent) Not listed in USFWS National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands For the analysis of this site, the presence of dominant hydrophytic vegetation was used for the principal delineator of the boundary between wetland and upland areas, supplemented on a case - by -case basis with organic content or soil color evaluation to verify presence of hydric soils and in the absence of a positive indicator of wetland hydrology, use of professional judgement. At several locations which supported uniform or homogeneous plant cover within the delineated wetland areas, sample plots were established for recording of wetland characteristics and for an assessment of wetland functions, including those described in Table 2. 3.3 INVESTIGATION RESULTS Site visits were conducted on May 27 and 28, 1998 to determine the presence, type and extent of critical areas (wetlands and streams) on the subject property. Sample plots were established in areas of homogeneous vegetation within the areas evaluated. For each habitat type, the dominant vegetation (in addition to the common and infrequently -occurring species) was recorded for each vegetation layer and the soil type/soil color and depth of soil saturation recorded (See Appendix B). Critical Area Study Page 9 Sequoia Ridge Pacific international Engineering 99oas Table 2. Wetland Functions and Values Wetland Function Definition Higbot Value Lowest Value hydrologic support provision of water for biological productivity and groundwater permanently saturated or inundated systems temporarily recharge inundated or saturated hydrologically isolated depressions streambase flow contribution potential the wetland's potential and ability to contribute to stream base location in the upper segment of the basin and low located in the lower basin and either and ability flow based on its location within the basin and its surface water recharge rate 2 either of the following: connected high recharge rate, without permanent connection with a stream wetland or with permanent outlet to stream and one of outlet or not connected to a stream the following: permanently flooded, outflow greater than inflow or topography favoring discharge shoreline stabilization presence of wedand plants along the stream shoreline in a Woody vegetation at least 200 yards in width submergent vegetation less than 100• configuration which serves to dissipate periodic increased flow or yards wide current water quality improvement, including toxicant retention is related to soil type; sediment retention and organic soils = toxicant retention; areas of reduced fast -flowing streambed composed of sediment and toxicant retention, nutrient nutrient uptakelconversion are related to presence of macrophytes water velocity containing vigorous plant growth = mineral soils, with minimal plant uptake or conversion and pollution in the subject waters for biofrltration; pollution reduction is sediment retention and nutrient uptakelconversion; growth and no pollutant inputs reduction related to the opportunity for pollutant inflow to the wetland point or non -point sources of pollution = pollutant removal opportunity storm/floodwater management based on the location and of the wetland within the basin and the wetland with impermeable or slowly permeable soils less than 5 acres wetland's physical features comprising e5 percent of the upslope watershed and either no permanent outlet or constricted outlet with uneonstricted inlet or evidence of floodplain or expansive flooding within one year; wetland of more than ten acres groundwater recharge variables include periodicity and rate of flow, wetland size and year-round, open water wetlands greater in size than 10 small, topographic low areas which are depth, surface topography and underlying soils and geology acres with water depths greater than 10 feet only seasonally inundated wildlife habitat and biological functions based on habitat characteristics and biological process values, high community diversity, valuable species support, can absence of or limited manifestation of including: habitat type, diversity, size and value within wetlands provide relatively equal proportions of open water and community diversity, valuable species and adjacent uplands; food quality and diversity; biological vegetative cover and have refuge potential support, relatively equal proportions of community diversity and structure; plant productivity and support open water and vegetative cover and for and presence of game; commercially important or unique refuge potential species; and opportunities for refuge and provision of surrounding vegetation with potential to reduce visual and noise disturbance Critical Area Study Sequoia Ridge Page 10 Pacific International Engineering 990.35 The on -site water resource is a 1.12 acre mixed palustrine and riverine forested, scrub -shrub and emergent wetland and unnamed stream, generally located south of North Meadowdale Road, along and at the toe of steep northerly -trending slopes, with some influences from seeps flowing out of the slopes. Although the site's water resources are directly associated, since the City of Edmonds regulates wetlands and streams differentially, the wetland and stream components will be described separately. 3.3.1 Stream The unnamed stream enters the site from the east, where flows are supported by a stormwater outfall within the unopened right of way of 72"d Avenue West and seeps. Flowing through an man-made, incised channel at the northwestern corner of the site and immediately south of North Meadowdale Road, the stream terminates, as it discharges into a catchbasin, and flows into a culvert under the right-of-way of North Meadowdale Road (see Figure 2). Ultimate discharge is to Brown's Bay (Puget Sound). Data Plot No. 6 (See Appendix B) is representative of site streamside conditions. Understory wetland vegetation within the margins of the stream includes lady -fern (Athyrium filix-femina, FAC+), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, FAC+), piggy -back plant (Tolmeia menziesii, FAC), skunk cabbage (Lysichiton americanum, OBL) and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, FAC). In addition to these species, portions of the stream bank and higher areas in the midst of the stream contain sword fern (Polysticum munitum, FACU) and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica, FAC+), as well as red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC). Upland understory vegetation is deerfern (Blechnum spicant, FAC+), salal (Gaultheria shallon pursh., FACU, red huckelbeny (Vaccinium parvifolium, FACU, red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa, FACU), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FACU) and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus, FAC-). Red alder and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla, FACU-) form the upland overstory vegetation. In general, the where the stream flows through site areas of relatively gentle topography (see Lots 2 and 3, Figure 2), the streambed widens, velocities slow and sediments are typically very dark gray (IOYR 3/1) silt loam. Predominantly in response to placement of fill adjacent during the construction of North Meadowdale Road, the stream narrows in Lot 4, where the main flows narrow to widths of three feet or less and rate of flow increases in the deeply incised and man- made channel in the northwest corner of the site. In this channel, and in response to the flashy nature of flows here, the streambed is comprised of sorted gravels over grayish brown (IOYR 5/2) gravelly silt loam. No fish were noted during site visits in late May 1998. The silt loam streambed in the Lots 2 and 3 do not provide good fish rearing habitat. The markedly increased velocities in the narrow channel in Lot 4 decrease the fish habitat value where substrates would otherwise support fish use. Downstream barriers to fish passage have further eliminated the potential that anadromous fish -rearing (e.g., salmon and sea -run cutthroat trout) could take place on site. The stream receives hydrologic support from seeps and from a storm drainage outfall and the hydrologic function of the stream is principally in groundwater and surface water reception and discharge; due to the perennial nature of the stream, this function is considered moderate. Wider Critical Area Study Page 11 Sequoia Ridge Pacific tntemational Enginceting 9903s areas of the stream provide limited function in floodwater attenuation and desynchronization functions, as well as some retention of sediments and nutrients. While not significantly greater than the adjacent uplands, biologic functions include moderate primary productivity and food chain support, as well as bird habitat and sanctuary and refuge. The stream corridor provides moderate habitat functions for invertebrates and amphibians. Barriers to fish passage and lack of quality streambed habitat have eliminated fisheries functions. Socioeconomic functions are aesthetic in nature and are judged to be moderate. 3.3.2 Wetland Within the area of direct hydrologic support from the stream, wetlands are classified by Cowardin (1979) as riverine forested, scrub -shrub and emergent. On the slopes outside of the stream corridor, and hydrogically supported by seeps, wetlands are classified as palustrine forested and scrub -shrub. Due to the general absence of standing water in the sloping areas, emergent wetlands are an insignificant component. Supported by data plots 26 and 41 (Appendix A), the shrub component of understory wetland vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, with devil's -club (Oplopanax horridus, FAC+) interspersed in some steeper areas where saturation further from the surface. The herb layer is generally dominated by piggy -back plant, with lady -fern, skunk cabbage, field horsetail and stinging nettle as lesser constituents. The wetland overstory is comprised of red alder. In some locations with slight elevation and in adjacent uplands, sword fern (Polysticum munitum, FACU) is found. The wetland vegetation criterion is satisfied. Where a mosaic of higher areas occur within the wetlands, vegetation trends to upland vegetation. For delineation purposes, such higher areas were included within the boundaries of the wetlands. Upland overstory is dominated by red alder, with big -leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FACU) as a lesser constituent. Shrub vegetation is dominated by salmonberry, with red elderberry, indian plum (Oemlaria cerasiformis, FACU) and thimbleberry. Herb vegetation is dominated by swordfern. Surface soils to a depth in excess of 16 inches at data plots 26 and 41 are very dark gray (10YR 3/1) black silt loam and sandy loam. This soil color, along with other indicators, such as clear presence of an aquic moisture regime, satisfies the hydric soil criterion. A data plot on the slope immediately adjacent to a seep (DP 26X, Appendix A) displays non-hydric soils: dark grayish brown (1 OYR 4/2) sandy loam and brown (1 OYR 5/3) loamy sand. As noted above, hydrologic support for the wetlands on the sloping areas is from surfacing groundwater in seeps, while wetland areas adjacent to the stream are supported by stream flows. and surface water via the adjacent ditch. At the time of sampling, depth of saturation was from 0 to 8 inches below the surface. The hydrology criterion is satisfied. The wetlands on the site provide hydrologic functions such as flood storage, recharge and discharge and some water quality improvement (in stream -associated wetlands due to their Critical Area Study Sequoia Ridge Page 12 Pacific Intemational Engineering 99om location downstream from impervious surfaces subject to vehicular use). These functions are limited by position in the watershed as well as occurrence in sloping areas; the latter is due largely to. Groundwater recharge is limited due to underlying hardpan. Biologic and habitat functions are similar to the stream corridor and not significantly different in value from functions of the adjacent uplands. 3.4 REGULATORY IMPLICATIONS Section 20.15B.070 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) classifies streams and wetlands as critical areas. ECDC 20.15B.070.4b classifies the on -site stream as a Category 2 stream. The stream is subject to 25 foot buffers from the top -of -bank under ECDC 20.15B.090 B and 20.15B.130.G. Based on size, presence of two or more wetland classes (including a forested class), ECDC 20.15B.070.5b rates the on -site wetlands as Category 2. Under ECDC 20.15B.090 B and 20.15B.140.C, 50 foot buffers are required. ECDC Section 20.15B.090.0 requires a 15 foot building setback from any buffer. Since the unnamed stream on the site has mean annual flows of less than 5 cubic feet per second (cfs), a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit 26 applies to the fill identified in Section 3.5.2 below and direct notification to the ACOE is not required. 3.5 PROJECT IMPACTS The short subdivision has been designed to minimize impacts to on -site, regulated water resources and their buffers. Since the regulatory requirements regarding topography and critical area pose a hardship for development of this site, Reasonable Use Exception under ECDC Section 20.15B.040.0 is requested to reduce wetland buffers with compensation. Beyond those described below, no impacts to regulated wetlands or their buffers are proposed. 3.5.1 Wetland Buffer The project seeks a site -specific reduction of a portion of the southwesterly wetland buffer within proposed Lots 2 and 3 (see Figure 2). In the area of reduction, buffer less than 50 feet, but greater than or equal to 25 feet will be maintained; the area of buffer reduction is approximately 2,300 square feet. 3.5.2 Stream A driveway is proposed to provide for access to Lot 4 see Figure 2). Driveway construction will result in placement, within the stream, of a culvert of sufficient size to maintain hydrologic capacity of that stream section. Fill for the stream crossing will result in the loss of approximately 210 square feet of in -stream habitat. 3.5.3 Stream Buffers As portrayed in Figure 2, construction of the driveway will result in the loss of stream buffer on either side of the stream totaling approximately 800 square feet. Critical Area Study Sequoia Ridge Page 13 Pacific International Engineering 99o.3s 3.6 IMPACTS MITIGATION For preliminary approval, the following sections outline a conceptual approach in compensation of unavoidable impacts to critical areas on the site through either retention of addition areas of equal functions and values or through creation of replacement with water resources of equal or better function and value. Upon concept approval and during preparation of final engineering documents, a final mitigation plan will be prepared which identifies goals and objectives and specifies details of construction of created mitigation areas, including grades, substrates, plant materials and specifications for installation, construction management and protection measures for adjacent critical areas during construction, plus a plan for three-year post -construction monitoring and a contingency plan. Since such a final mitigation plan should be considered schematic in nature and actual field conditions might require adjustment in planting in response to actual conditions, a qualified biologist should be consulted prior to implementing the future mitigation. Following construction, a site visit should be coordinated with the project biologist. for review of post - construction, conditions by City of Edmonds staff to ensure that goals and objectives established in the final plan, as well as conditions of approval, have been met. 3.6.1 Wetland Buffer As compensation for approximately 2,300 square feet of buffer reduction, the applicant proposes to retain approximately 5,750 square feet of additional buffer throughout the proposed lots. The limits of the buffers will be contained within an easement area on each lot and no future development will occur in such areas. 3.6.2 Stream and Stream Buffers As compensation for a loss of stream habitat and associated buffer habitat totaling approximately 1,100 square feet, the applicant proposes to widen the stream corridor as shown conceptually in Figure 2 and create additional stream habitat in the amount of approximately1,730 square feet. A substratum of gravels and finer materials will be established and native, non-invasive plantings will be installed to encourage establishment of habitat similar to that of adjacent areas. Following construction of driveway access to Lot 4, any disturbed areas outside the limits of the driveway will be replanted with native, non-invasive trees and shrubs consistent with those found in the adjacent buffer. Critical Area Study Sequoia Ridge Page 14 Pacific International Engineering 99o.us BIBLIOGRAPHY Catalog of Washington Streams, Volume 1, Washington Department of Fisheries, 1975. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 88(26.9). et al. 1993. 1993 Supplement to List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: Northwest (Region 9). U.S. Dept. Interior Fish Wildl. Serv. December 1993 Snohomish County Department of Public Works. 1987. Aquatic Resources of Snohomish County, Volume I: Stream and Wetlands Survey Map Atlas. Snohomish County Department of Public Works and Planning Division, Department of Planning and Community Development. January, 1987. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey of Snohomish County, Washington. Prepared in cooperation with the Washington Agricultural Experiment Station. United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. National Wetland Inventory, Edmonds East Quadrangle, Washington. Prepared for the Office of Biological Services for the National Wetland Inventory. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1997. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Publication No. 96-94. March 1997 Critical Area Study Sequoia Ridge Page 15 Pacific International Engineering mm APPENDIX A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311.135th Ave. NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98M (206) 4WI869 • FAX 481.2510 March 28, 1993 Mr. John Johnson 16122 - 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98026-4517 Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Residential Development Edmonds, Washington NCA File No. 145995 Dear Mr. Johnson: EWMODUMON Snohomlah County (206) 704•4332 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 This report pre=ts the results of our prelhninary geotechnical evaluation for the portion of your property to be potentially developed. The site is located at 16122 - 72nd Avenue West, in the City of Edmonds, as shown on the Site Vicinity Map in Figure 1. You have requested that we prepare a preliminary geotechnical report to evaluate the site for development of potential residential housing. Mr. Jim Miller, of Lovell-Sauerland dt Associates, Inc., has provided us with a site plan titled "Meadowdalc Heights PRD preliminary Grading Plan," dated March 9, 1995 by Lovell-Sauetiand & Associates, Inc., showing the proposed site layout for the project. You desire an evaluation: of slope stability and general earthwork parameters. We have been informed that at this time a reconnaissance report evaluating development potential of the property is desired. Additional work may be required regarding specific sensitive area issues, prior to platting. That additional work is beyond the scope of ties report. The site slopes mocleruWy to steeply down towards North Meadowdale Road. The site layout provided to us indicates that potentially seven buildings, along with a new access road, are proposed for construction along the upper portion of the slope and the knob at the west end of the site. Based on the plan provided, it appears that up to an 11 foot cut would need to be made for the access roadway. The residences may incorporate daylight basements into their design. Preliminary Geotechnical Engimfimg Repoli • Residential Development - Edmonds March 29, 1995 NCA File No. 145995 Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of this study a to explore and duwAderize the subsurface conditions, and present general gootecl*nical recxaz-mendations for site development. Our report is intended to identify foundation soil types, and provide an evaluation of slope stability and general earthwork parameters for site development. Specifically, our scope of services include the following: 1 geologic or soils data for the site from published 1 1. Review availab a gran !p Pu geologic maps 2 Explore the subsurface conditions at the site with hand explorations to identify subsurface soils and hydrologic conditions. 3. Measure cross-smhoms through the site in the field using a hand level and a 100 foot tape_ 4. Provide an evaluation of slope stability of the situ. 5. Provide preliminary earthwork guidelines. 6. Prepare a written report to document our findings and recommemdati®s. SITE COMMONS Surface 'file trapezoidal shaped site is located on the south side of North Meadow" Road, as shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. We have labeled the proposed residence locations for descriptive purlwsm. An existing residence is located on the upper level portion of the site. The hillside than slopes moderately to steeply down to the north and to the natural drainage area alongside the midway. In the northwest portion of the site, a knob extends to the north fi+am the upper level area creating a slightly less steep slope at the west end of the site, in the vicinity of units A, B and C. The preliminary grading plan we were provided, identifies the drainage area as a wetland with an associated 50 foot buffer area. The total vertical relief within the site is approximately 140 feet. The slope angles as interpreted from the topographic grading plan show the hillside slopes at approximately 31 degrees over most of the slope, and approximately 27 degrees below the knob at the west end of the site. The steeper areas incline at approximately 35 degrees. We panned two slope surveys at the site using a clinometer and a 100 foot measuring tape. These surveys measured the steeper portions of the slope to be on the order of 35 degrees. This is in Seaeral agreement with the topographic plan. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Residential Development - Edmonds March 28,1995 NCA File No. 145995 Page 3 The slope is vegetated with medium to large dmmeter trees ab* with thick underbrush of £ems and blackberry bushes. We observed two fallen trees and a few trees with slightly bowed trunks. However, the majority of the trees were straight. There is a series of trails on the slope, wbich in places have been, curt into the hillside. Light brown medium sand was observed in these cut areas. Portions of the slope are covered with landscaping debris such as branches and cut trees. It appeared that some vegetation had been pushed over the top of the slope and/or was cut and left an the slope when the trails were created. We did I not observe obvious areas of fill. The lower wetland area is overgrown with blackberry bushes, brush and scattered trees. There was standing water in the drainage draw at:the time of our visit Geology The Ptelimiaary SurfirW Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles. Snohomish and King Counties. Washingon by Mackey Smith (Washington Department of Natural Resources, 1975) was referenced for information about the area geology. This map delineates the soils in the vicinity of the site as Esperaaee Sand (Qe) overlying the Whidbey Formation (Qw). An area defined as Old Landslide (Qols) is mapped to the west We reviewed the City of Edmonds critical areas ordinance (No: 2874) and have reviewed the associated reports by GooEnghwers, Inc. and Rodger Lowe & Associates, Inc. with regard to the Mmknvdale Slide area. This site is mapped as being associated with the Meadowdale slide complex. It is classified as a 3B02 area This classification identifies the site as being underlain by material that has not failed in the past, and has a 2 percent probability of debris slides occurring due to the steep slopes, in 25 years. The sediments classified as Whidbey consist of well sorted beds -of clay, silt or sand. The Especance is a unit within the advance outwash which is generally a medium to coarse sand with trace amounts of fines and varying gravel content. The fisperance sand contains a low:percentage of fine grain particles. It has moderate to high strengths when confined. However, in sloping areas the outer portions can became loose. Advance outwash was deposited at the base of advancing glaciers. The Whidbey and Esperanee, dumAore, have been overridden by past intrusion of continental glaciation.: The last period of glaciation, the Vashon Stade, ended approximately 11,000 to 13,000 years ago. During the Vashon Stade, the Puget Sound region was overridden by over 3,000 feet of ice. Soil layers overridden by the ice sheet were compacted to a much greater extent than those that were uot. NELSON-COWRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Enginog Report • Residential Development - Edmo s . March 2991995 NCA File No. 145995 Page 4 Subsurface The hillside subsurface conditions were explored on March 6, 1995 with five shallow band auger borings on ft sloping portion of the site. The hand explorations were located in the field by a geological engineer, representing this fine, who maintained logs of the conditions encountered. The locations of the band explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The soils were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification system, a copy of which is presented an Figure 3. The band auger logs, edited to r lect examination of soil samples is our laboratory, are presented as Figure 4. Our band explorations were advanced to depths of 2.3 to 4.5 fleet below existing grade. At depth, in Hand Augers 1 through 4, we encountered a unit of loose to medium dense, brown medium sand with trace silt and fine gmvel, the top of which extended up to a depth of 12 to 2.0 feet below grade. These soils are interpreted to be the Espamnee Sand. In Hand Auger 5, this unit was observed to contain a greater amowl of silt, possibly indicating it is part of the advance sand sequence. In Hand Augers 1 through 3, the Esperance sand was overlain by 1.3 to 2.0 feet of loose, brown fins to medium sand with some to trace silt. This unit is interpreted to be wcathcrcd Esperance sand. In Hand Auger 4, the Esperance sand was overlain by 0.6 feet of dark brown organic sandy silt, interpreted to be a buried topsoil horizon. This horizon was overlain by 0.4 feet of loose, brown medium sand, interpreted to be slope wash. Slope wash is material deposited by erosional processes. Hand Augers 1, 4 and 5 were capped with a surfccial layer of forest duff, approximataly 0.6 to 0.2 feet thick. Our explorations were shallow in depth. The types of soils observed on the site typically grade to a more dense condition with depth. Hydrologic We did not observe ground water seepage within any of our explorations. Surface water was obsearvad in the drainage draws within the wetland area. We expect that this water is perched on a less permeable underlying soil. Ahhough we did not find evidence of ground water in the slope, local areas with perched ground water are possible above silt lenses or layers that can exist within this deposit. PcrclW ground water is not associated with a regional ground water table, and will vary depending upon, the amount and duration of precipitation. SLOPE STABHXrY We did not observe signs of deep seated instability on the slopes. We observed munerous older fir trees, approximately 1.0 to 1.5 fat in diameter, on the slope. Their prescnm is an indication that the slope is not active with regard to deep seated or significant shallow earth zoo*ueuts. We did observe a couple of trees NELSON-COWRET.TE & ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I Geotechnical Engineering Prpreliminaryg g Report Residential Development - Edmonds March. 28, 1995 NCA File No. 145995 Page 5 with begot trunks at the base. This is usually an indication that some surface soil creep is occurring. The soils exposed on the moderate to steep slopes are a clean sand that we would expect to be suso ph'ble to slough type failures and erosion. This type of slope moveanent is typically shallow. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM3MNDATIONS General The project site should be compatible with the proposed development, providing that site grading and construction are designed and implemented to maintain and/or imc ram the existing site stability. We expect that the dmsity of the surficial sands will increase with depth, but this should be evaluated prior to construction. The native soils are expected to be stable with respect to deep seated failures. The upper soils are weathered and less dense and should be considered near their natural angle of repose on the slope face. Once disturbed, these soils have a moderate to high degree of erosion. We recommend that erosion on these slopes be controlled. This is discussed in the Erosion sub -section. We would expect sloughing type failures from cuts in the upper loose to medium dense soils. The site is mapped as being a part of the Meadowdale slide complex that bas not moved in the recent past. It is mapped as having a small potential for debris slide type movements or sloughing events. It is our opinion that if proper drainage and erosion control measures are taken, the potential development should have a minimal impact on the stability of the slopes on the site. Our specific mxwurnendations are presented in the Erosion and Drainage sub -sections. Foundations for the planned residences should be supported on the underlying medium dense or better glacial deposits. The foundations on the hillside should have a minimum 15 foot horizontal buffer between the slope surface and the outside edge of the footing. This may be accomplished by extending the footings below grade. It is possible that this buffer could be reduced after review of site specific conditions. Based on the preliminary grading plan provided, it appears that a cut up to l l feet high will be made for the access roadway and the buildings may incorporate a daylight basement into their design. The road cut will require some type of retaining structure. Based on the soil conditions encountered we do not recommend the use of roc3cerim greater than 4 feet in height unless specifically designed as a retaining structure. Types of retaining structures applicable for this site are concrete retaining walls or a gravity retaining structure such as a reinforced earth fill. A reinforced soil wall is constructed with reinforcing geogrid or geotextiles placed in the compacted baclfill. The reinforcing typically extends 50 to 80 peroeat of the wall height back firm the wall face. These walls require a facing such as rockeries or concrete bkwJm on the exterior NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Enginc Report • Residential Development • Edmonds March 28, 1995 . NCA File No. 145995 Page 6 surface. For daylight basement construction the basement wall will need to be designed as a retaining wall. The design of retaining structures is beyond the scope of this report. I Erosion Control The on -site soils have moderate to high erosion potential when disturbed and exposed an slopes. If construction is to take place during the wet seasm we recommend tied slopes disturbed during won be protected frmn erosion. Measures taken may includo diverting surface water away from 1 the top of slopes, and covering slopes with straw or plastic sbeetiug. Erosion fences may be construcmd at the base of construction areas to prevent run off from entering the wetland area. All slopes where tbo sod is atposed, should be compacted and reo-vegotated, after construction, to reduce erosion. The vegetation should be maintained and repaired until it is established. Where the existing veg dafm is not disturbed, erosion potential should not be significant. Site Preparation and Grading Areas to receive pavements, slabs-0n-grade or structural Sll should be stripped of any surficial topsoils layer or duff. Foundation subgtades should be prepared as outlined io the Foundation sub -section. After stripping, pavement area should be compacted with a large vibratory roller. Areas observed to weave under commpaction equipment should be repaired prior to paving or casting slabs -on -grade. The oar -site soils are slightly to moderately moisture sensitive. The need for a blanket of rock spalls at the access roadway should be evaluated at the time of construction. • For estimatigg purposes, we recommend using a minimum one foot thickness of rock spalls for the access roadway. The amount and thickness of the spall blanket will vary, depending upon the conditions, when the site is developed Structural Fill All fill placed beneath buildings, pavements or other settlement sensitive features, should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnicai professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to documem the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The degree of compaction to be obtained is dependent on the type of structure to be placed on the structural fill. The degree of compaction to be obtained for this project can be developed in the future and is dependent upon City of Edmonds standards and good onginceri ng judgment. NELSON-CO.UVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. w Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Residential Development - Edmonds March 28, 1995 NCA File No. 145995 Page 8 Standing water, water loosened soils and slough sbould be removed fiun the foundation excavation prior to placing comet& For foundations constructed as outlined above and founded on ain undisturbed native sod, we reeoumund an allowable design bearing pressure of 2.000 pounds per square foot (psQ to be used for the footing design. The foundation bearing soil should be evaluated by a representative of our firm. The Puget Sound region is classified as a Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Drainage The finished ground surface should be graded such that storm water is collected and directed off the site. Concentrated water run off should not be allowed to discharge onto the slopes. Final site grades should allow for drainage away frown the building. We suggest the finish ground be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the building, except in the area that are to be paved Storm water should not be drained onto the sloped areas of the site. Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines and be discharged into a storm drain system. Perimeter footing drains should be installed at the base of all perimeter footings. Subsurface walls should be provided with wall drainage systems. Roof drains should not be connected to perimeter footing drain or wall drain systems. USE OFT REPORT AND WARRANTY We have prepared this report for Mr. John Johnson and his agents, for use in preliminary planning and design of this project, The data and report should be provided to the contractor for their estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subgrade conditions. The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary, general recommendations for site development. Our work was based on a limited number of shallow explorations, sand our recomntiendations should not be considered adequate for final design. It is h-kely that additional: explorations and geotecbnical evaluation will be required as development plans prooeed. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' mdhods, techniques, sequences or procedures, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geoterhnical Engink Report • Residential Development - Edmonds March 29, 1995 NCA File No. 145995 Page 7 Temporary and Permanent Cut Slopes We recommend that tmnporary cut slopes be no steeper than 1:1 (MV) in dense sand and 13:1(H:V) W the upper loose to medium dense zone. Slopes closer to 1.5:1 (H:V) in dense sand will have a better face performance. When using the steeper slopes, them is risk of some sloughing. We have observed that the preliminary grading Plan indicates a 5 to 10 foot wall is to be constructed below the existing residence. If the toe of the cut for the wall lies within a 1.5:1 (H:V) line extending out from the existing building, temporary shoring treasures may be needed. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to appropriate local, state and federal regulations. Because of the many variables involved, the above estimates for tiemporary cut slopes should be considered a general guideline. The actual slopes angles should be made the responsibility of the contractor, as he is continuously present at the job site to observe the nature and condition of the excavation soils. Temporary slope erosion protection and raveling maintenance should be expected during construction. Permanent new slopes constructed of cut slopes or structural fill should be no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). A 2A (H:V) slope angle is recommended to minimize slough failures and excessive maintenance. Lightly compacted fills, or common fills, should be no steeper than 3HAV. Common fills are defined as fill material with potentially some organics that are "traclQolled" into place. They would not meat the compaction specification of structural fill. Flatter slopes would require even less maintenance. All slopes should be vegetated with a suitable cover and the vegetation maintained until it is well established. Jute , netting or straw should be used to reduce erasion while the vegetation is being established. We have observed that the preliminary grading plan indicates areas with permaueni slopes steeper than 2:1 (H:V). These area are the slopes just south of unit A, and between units C and D. These slopes should be graded back to 2:1, or an appropriate retaining system should be used. Foundations We recommend that the structures be founded on conventional spread footings. Footings should bear on the underlying medium dense or better native soils or structural fill extending to these soils. The foundations on the hillside should have a minimum 15 foot horizontal buffer between the slope surface and the outside edge of the footing. This buffer may be achieved by extending footings below the existing ground surface. It is possible that this buffer could be reduced afWx review of site specific conditions. Minimum foundation widths of 18 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. Footings should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches for Siost protection. _ NELSON-COUVRE77E & ASSOCIATES, INC. VU/ JV/ 1JJV VJ. LJ �L V-.V�LJ�V ..�.L.+M a--.^.��•�^.� •�� �� Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report Residendal Development - Edmonds March 28, 1995 NCA File No. 145995 Page 9 except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. The•.re are possible variations m conditions. We reconuuend that project include contingencies in budget and acb�edule, sabsur6aae p J P�Wg . should area be found with conditions that vary fcm those described in this report. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we have strived to take care that our worm has been done in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report of if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETIE & ASSOCIATES, INC. William B. Beaux Prgcd Engineer EXPIRES William M. Kra* PE Senior Engineer Three Copies Submitted Four Figures Icc: Mr. Jim Mill= - LoWl-Saucrland dt Associates, Inc. , t:XPAES Charles P. Couvrette,, PE Principal Emineer NELSON-COUVRET7 E & ASSOCIA 7Es, INC. I ' VICINITY MAP NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LbN$(ILTNVG GfOTfGMNi� ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIEN17STS JOHNSON FILE NO. : 145995 RGURE 1 DATE MARCH 1995 loan~ qm� qp� N I JIM- UNITC UNIT B - .�; ' •+f' -., UNITA i �• - :' ,►� 1''%- t,`= -� \ L 1 1 f • , J � 1 1 1 i f � � I/Jf !J r r {�Jr J► '' Ian - � i ` � '• � : Z. 1 , . / , ,' ► 'UHI7 DJ f r as► i ;'•�1 1J I i J, �` . "•' . I Uhl if UNITF ' UNIT G ' �' ,'' ��� ' /i �/ JJ j I ►/ i } ' END —� �-�� LEG t , - HA-5 • ' , ♦ /� ,' ,': / i /1 ► i I' t ' �� Id • NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF HAND AUGERS • • _ __ •_•_• w ,.___ • .- _---/ � `` UNIT' A LETTERING SYSTEM BY NCA PROPOSED 72nd AVENUE WEST 5 FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES o FlO�� so too dOFiN30N NEt ON•COwReTTE a AsSOMATES, WC. 2 1E PLAN CREATED FROM UNTITLED AND UNDATED PLAN CMMf8W 4 AW� Oj°fO�,,,,, rs FILE NO. DATE CH 1995 ROVIDED TO US BY LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOC WTES, INC. sotx 1• - to' 145995 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW : WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL •GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS 1ADm„�RU„� WITH FINES NM 4 SIM GC CLAYEY GRAVEL ARMox O RV Mt'r '�""'� Na goo aEve SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND MORE WM MU oP COARM FIACWN PAS= NM 4 SIEVE SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML slLr GRAINED UOMUMIT LMr"W% CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SOILS SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT Motif nmm sox PAS= LlDU1D 11AArT sox OR MORE CH CLAY .OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY PIO.20o SIEVE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY. ORGANIC $ILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1) Field classification is based on visual examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D 2488-83. 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D 2487-83. 3) Descriptions of soil density or consitency are based on interpretation of blowcount data. visual. appearance, of soils, and/or test data. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CoNSlN.7m GEOTEC►MNICAt ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENNRONNENTAL SCIENTIST$ SOIL m61STURE MODIFIERS Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty. dry to the touch Moist - Damp, but no visible water Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM .FIGURE 3 VV/ Jul iJJV VJ. LJ 1L.J1V1 LJ&V I�CL.'>S,JII-WVVItGI IC LOG OF EXPLORATION r rn7G 1 f DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION HAND AUGER ONE 0.0 - DA BRANCHES, STICKS AND DUFF (VERY LOOSE, MOIST) 0.4-1.7 SP-SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT, TRACE ROOTS AND GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 1.7-23 SIR BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL, SCATTERED COBBLES AND TRACE SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) Me) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.2.1.7 AND 1.0 - 2.3 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2.3 FEET ON 3SW HAND AUGER TWO 0,0-20 SIX UGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 2.0 - 3.5 SP TAN -GRAM MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) (Oe) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.1-1.6 AND 28 - 3.2 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET ON 318198 HAND AUGER TMEE OA-20 SP LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE. DAMP TO MOIST) 2.0-3A SP TAN -GRAY MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE GRADES TO MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) (Qe) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5 - 20 AND 2.5 - U FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT &0 FEET ON 3AM WAND AUGER FOUR 0.0 - 0.2 DUFF 0.2-0.6 SP LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (VERY LOOSE, DRY TO MOIST) (SLOPE WASH) 0.0 -1.2 ML DARK BROWN TO BLACK ORGANIC SANDY SILT (SOFT. DAMP TO MOIST) (BURIED TOPSOIL) 1.2-4.5 SP LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE GRADES TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Oe) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 0.5 -1.0 AND 4.0 - 4.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 4.5 FEET ON 3AM WAND AUGER FIVE 0.0 - OA DUFF DA-2.6 SM LIGHT GRAY RUST BROWN MOTTLED SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SCATTERED COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) ps) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.3 -1.8 AND 2.0 - 24 FEET GROUND WATER WAGNOT ENCOUNTERED. HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2.5 FEET ON 3XIM !NELSON-CIDUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC FILE NO.145M FIGURE 4 r DATA SHEETS r 4•i.i: [�•,. PIE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM ''Plot No. 6 ROUTINF,OWITE DETERMINATION METHOD Trat>sect ID Weather v. Cowards Project/Site: C ,� Date: Field r� 198 011 M MB SIM(80 <0.5 <t • t-2 - • 5 i Disturbance? YM7' r 1-0- S♦ 2.5 2-5 • 2S415 GOWf GtiM S. 2S • 60♦37.5 4. SO.7S♦a2. ?6 - 05405 a. 3-93•1 er•S WA. Dankrarrt Pk,rrl SOP Cvr Cis krAmfor States srsh m WA.P Dankwnl Cvr 0-1 kdealx out. ua. 11 AT - 1 3 IFAC+fiAILs��,AsN S �AYA SRRI► G 14 Au V AI.RV FAC O ► -k) L �2. L o wa•dw daft H t.t.. repel broiM wA o PMos•w a�vr o m«pt adavr o ladt a- rw..o t rest; ry�MrO *.UM OIM ♦ 1!O dM. 1 brow Nr.esrraeV60&w Reeataft 0>50% 0<5071(Osl, FACW of RAC (no FAC•)1 G a m kNrw?45N Sul H2O depth • Ssimr Win w* a0e,)? N D.pn a iraa,t0 b pNtoW Ot1w 1• krAsaton: %P11lar nwdu drM boss O aadh,rara dpo" O YWL drakwaa Paurrra Other Ila1d avldfnoa a etlaw a aoe aNrrraMon s.ofrtefry ktak.br.: o oMAfw roe dwnwb�lr o wateattakw baba o bat ash teaalr date OFAC.Nwrinl Tat (in vague, Mae) O oawr Rom Data: O okaatt, bko or rich gags O aerial photo O otlw O testa Oo.ka saaon? 0�aaw wwtios oI WW a 19r s11•F owMaudArboro0r1" RdstbLou►N Sala to M low /a•Dooh ; Wam.i� �arorwmp ' CsM ra kips YN b3 Y N Y O SL �YN YN , �YN YN •bobwAAlabot 1oN r N 1sd kwbwn O a- opbaM 00 smells Odm O Aqb Lickhm pso to O PAOJ a offAM rw O OkClroraa O N4h etas. organs-Cattlattl b aW* soft o Catere tm O ot0attb araatrkq in SW* Bob 01" so% Wt otmd oewr ly" NA k,eb.lop - Reeoulec_ otte�rnnohp AIA RODPWAa Wttittd?� b M rte va0 rte t1t1b no rtpor aetttate oekq t1JNa1 • .� . • 'M1 FUNCTIONS AND VALUES HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT Groundwater recharge (�j,, • Groundwater discharge (H Stream baseflow, con • Floodwater attenuation (H Floodwater detention (H M Floodwater retention (H M i Floodwater attenuation (H • rlooOwateroesyncnrordzatioh•(H I"Al WATER OUALITY FUNCTIONS SedlrnenVWwoltrue stabilzatlon (H 4 LL A Retentlon of sedknents. nutrients or is H L Al • Transforrnadon of nutrlento or (H M • Wastewater tr"bnant (H M L A NATURAL BIOLOGICAL fl NCTI Ord la (H ( M Al • Orw ft export (H L A �l/AI 1 • (H I Detrital transport (H WA • Nutrient cydhg and fat on (H L WAl • Food d1Nn aupport (H L NIAl HABITAT FUNCT10N8 • Invertebrates (H 4@ L WAl • Amphit iarla (H WA) . Fisheries (H M W �f QslTx AI Sanctuary jBirds (H am, AAfebW (H WA1 SOCIOECONOMIC FUN S �� Value Recreational (H WAl Aaatflatic (H L Hiatarlaul (H >of L (�M Flahsrles(H NL'L RenewaWo M L Al AWkdrb M (H M L Wsldfifs •-MnH DAM Plot Location Sketch • • PIE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM Plot No.. 2- ROUTINE ONSATE DETERMINATION METHOD Transect ID Weather. Cow's Projwt/Site• rrj CA,Date• Field Investig r: M MB Size(ac): <0.5 <t J� Nomlai Conds? Disturbance? cow c 1- 0. 5♦ 2.5 2-5. 25♦ 15 3- 25. 60i37.5 4- 50. 754e2.5 7S • 95465 6• 3P954 97.5 WA. CW kmftw r WA CW Yd�o, PbrM SPP Cw SWIM Swtun hw Cb 81rw 8toun FAC Ru5 P FA64 RU t)% ALP-0 G -Iwn7 bw■t pWX ON 6N O phmpr od�pl O 1napA odoPt O Nd� a O MdL plw dM��» FACW or FAC h" • _ drub ♦ IrN . _ IoW Nylgbyao N ftftw oc *80% 0<60M06L FACW of FAC (no FAC-)I O c6W NYOROIAa M I-0 Y N N20 drpft • SW W W h wady r0b)'11 Dpdi ar♦ b1!p h pI N A , $_ Odrr 1• n O wow mom O 4 1r - O mom d "k O VU dmb"" pMunr oih« Iwa .aa.no. a ouA.a hundedw or NO sekn* n S.00ndm hdcotors O owed Foot dmmwwir O welts-Mdnsd bam O bod w6 oumW dw OFAC•Nw+trd Ted (h.vpw hydmQ O adw ROoadd Det bke ardit qmp O mW photo O oorr O nom 8won Y PA�M dW Qobwr oow6� p 0061oop %10.7' sIt•\F o Y6ti�t�6 �� Con6m rY�p& Y© YN iL rN. YN YN YN. • YN YN ? � Imbw A hlrmon or 10' Widmom dybwo) *,*b Sob YdoYore O NtMood O NY6a pOWm O Saffdo OderflgAqdo WOW RplwO • : •� O RrduoYq ootdrorr Chats H%% &vbm n %@ +mCadent b Bondy lob � O carsmn O n in O so* soft IV" Bob Lbe Oleed aN�l Eby b1° and rtaleYaN N7iM N/f�jq�t . Ostf'JrINATlm A/O RATtDIWN hlonhor moves mob its bj" smwb r N %ohm waadf . FUNCTIONS AND VALUES HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT • Groundwater recharge (H WA) • Groundwater discharge (H L(Al Stream basetlow, contribu WA1 • Floodwater attenuation (H NIA1 Floodwater detention (H L Al Floodwater retention (H M; Al Floodwater attenuation (H. L NA • Floodwater dusynchronizatlon (H WAl WATER OUALITY FUNCTIONS SedirnenWahoretins stablYzalim (H M L • Retention of sedhlents. nutrients or toxiomi' (H W/�,_ • Tr'nsformabon of nutrients or is (H (NFL N W"Iewatsr treatment (H M L •W NATURAL BIOLOGICAL F NCTI • Pdrnmy productivity (H'WAl • Organic H A) Ortiz export (H • Decomposition (H M Al • Detrital transport (H WI/A� Nutrient cycling and tlonNIAl • Food chdn support ( HABITAT FUNCTI S • invsrW&ates (H WAL MpNbisns (H �1IA1 • Fished" (H M JQ]]I17 Mermtals H A) Bids (H L A Ssnctaxl refuge (H ML WA1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS .N� Recreational M Ar Aesthetic (H pf Historical (H LL •�D Archeological (H !A 'C Constrrove vat Fished" (H M L A RenewWo rem M L ) Agrtatittiral (H M L A WY�Ife Data Plot L.ocedon Sketch -_N ` W! 40-� n i� ra-1 Iq PIE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM Plot No. 26X ROUTINE ON TE,DETERMINATION METHOD Transect ID Weather. Cowardl Project/Site: Date: Field I or. R TM MB Slze(ac): c0.5. <1. -2e _� >5 Nom acl nds4 Dlahrbsnce? Y PndA&n Araa7 Y town Chu 1- 0 - 64 2.5 2-5 23♦ tS 7. 2S • W437.5 w 60.76♦62.5 S• 76.05465 6. >954 97.5 W& %v cW Cr Mdnhr stetwPhnt UP 8pwhs CWPhrM CIDShiaSWUM ZWA • FAC Mo lip p nprrtl Mar p�wA. ra a gy.n.or w.q o n tW o too a s wti pwT a s llOat- FACw PAC herb 1�shwb =tree tout MydrapArlls Y N RYbrWsc flib-M 134MOWOOL FACIN or FAC Oro FAG)) 0 011w "TOPOLOGY lump Y N NZo depth: • Serb Fs' M sway -ft)7 Y -0ee lhhs h p *0- prr t• 0 yaw make 0 00 tyre b eedewrl o all dmb" pelle— > ., Otter Hrd a 40- d surhco' e, ' ftn or we salrm0on semwwy hndo.lom o oAfted roar dw~ir o water-subw haves o bal as mxM dsh OFAC-N%*W Tess On woos hydra) 0 osnr Rwadsd Dne o sloe. Me or We 92we 0 GWW photo 0 00w 0 none el', I 9usat7 Y N JaWamOdW 0o govrMr o Mmp 9 mr 3omv o ls W4 d1ylsW WzP"W&b fi1d_ t e F, 'mu' cmftm p— IV IZ Z rV Y O �S YN YN L1 YN YN YN If •ONsw A hmhon of IW !Mddmw drbwo "Oft sss lyd . 1 0 NMmd o l6sss eptpedsn 0 auo* Odor 0 Apro I k' PA*km 0 RsdrsYy emoft w 0 Olyedkm MGM O Nqn sanwe OfWft cmrsnl In Sw* soft o cawesmy O Omaha sues "In sandy soft 1lydrb soft Ust • oloeal Osrsr tv" tms "Oft Gan Rt/artslst � jAwa C'r101M1. mummapffhap MTIONALa TrrrQn Y N Roftnsltr as pare m vp dsrrrI l pall srPtYt wMndn an FUNCTIONS AND VALUES HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT • Groundwater recharge (H M L HIM • Groundwater discharge (H M L WAL . Stream baseflow contribution (H M L WA1 • Floodwater attenuation (H M L WA1 . Floodwater detention (H M L NMI • Floodwater retention (H M L WAl . Floodwater attenuation (H M L WAL • Floodwaterdesynchronization (H M L WA WATER QUALITY FUNCTIONS . Sedinhent/shoretine stebilzatlon (H M L WAl • Retention of sedi dents, nutrients or toxicants (H M L WAL_._• • Transformation of nutrients or toxicants (H M L WAl___ • Wastewater treatment (H M L WAl NATURAL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS • Pdrnary productivity (H M L WAl . Organic accumulation (H M L N/Al Organic export (H M L N/Al • Decomposition (H M L WAl • Detrital transport (H M L N/Al • Nutrient cycling and utilization (H M L N/Al . Food chain support (H M L N/Al—_-- HABITAT FUNCTIONS invertebrates (H M L N/Al . Amphhiblans (H M L WAl • Fisheries (H M L WAl . Mmmlals (H M L WAl • Bids (H M L WA) Sanctuary and refuge (H M L WA) SOCIO-ECONOMIC FUNCTIONS • Non-constrrhptive value Recreational (H M L WA` Aesthetic (H M L WA1 - Historical (H M L WAL Archeological (H M L WAI • Consumptive value Fisheries (H M L NIA) Renewable resources (H M L N/A1 Agricultural (H M L WAl V"fe i Data Plot Location Sketch n PIE WETLAND DELINEATION DATA FORM Plot No. ROUTINE ONSITE DETE;MINATION METHOD Traneect ID PWeather. _� �,.:. Cowardin ' O rojecVSke: r✓ Date: t r, Field Invest) r M MB Size(ac): <0.5 <1 1-2 0 >5 Normal Come Dmud m? Ptnidsm Arms Cover cku 1. 0 - 54 2.5 M • n♦ 15 7. 2S • 60.937.E a 60.75♦W-5 5. 75 • 06496 e. 3,954 97.5 WA. So Crr CM erdlcalw Status skahm WA. UP DomYrmrM PMnI Species cvr CM krdlcato Su1w Sm m 3 • w--t i 1WC O -H pno VI-o t v 3 O gvu P 1=0(,•t = 3 FAG 4 va -7J Vac .-.... _._... .•.� .••• r7�••w w'A u .rwRr Won w u nti pwnt mwm twsm %0K. F or FAC Iwo ♦ 400 dwub * jQ• YN Ioh1 Mtdreplryas y�9� N Retlaw9s C)aMOat, FACW or FAC (no FAC-)(o otw YrrrrQr 11 SuA � dmymr: • 9eN14' (!' b w�idp�ioM�t�! d has N>4 b p1NwN: r� ' Other t• rr4sstwm: O umur morn. O erN trrss O sWtmwd deposm^WA. droage poaom. Omw rbtd svtdsnsm d SwIsw kwwdaftn a so/ Gebmadm S000ndry Yr 1s , : o oaldlrsd rod damtewir o walmr•mtdned Morass p local moll sunny date OFACAmfirml Tod can vspum hydmq O cow --. 0Mm: O ovum. Wo or caft gew o on" photo O em,.r O now aro&MrO 9smmo 70 suW WK edMm o * powl! Qsoy Iwnp e)9.r s41•F o WsMmtld byroNMt®N RsgorwM: L1�i tl�f A+ fOlLa M M rsmet 19• Nhok Gabe doyl.T ama cadrm Mep� O d !$ YN YN �) YN YN YN YN YN YN 'bsbw A Iwrkm m t0' (sAddwm ft1, & Soil —I Ropimm o rwrwm9mm o Ogoib alroMrYr9 b Sur* soft � Hift Soft List Mood ��, lml o9tw upw mo9 s+moMsw "Oft ma N Re9almMt oaT.nrAroN A10 RATtoNAL! Q�aem N Iwwwb wq m oob mo rgdtd smmpk POM SIM WWWWO N FUNCTIONS AND VALUES HYDROLOGIC SUPPORT ' • Groundwater recharge (H/trA L A) Groundwater diachwge (H WA► • Stream basefaw •• nH ®L N/AI Floodwatw atenioH L WAI Floodwater detenItNWL • Floodwater retention (HFloodwater attenuation (AI FloodwaterdesyrtchronlzL WA WA; ER OUALITY FUNCTIONS Sediment/shoreline stabilization (H M L (WA • Retention of s dlrnents, nutrients or toxlcan H M 4 L WAL _ • Transformation of nutrients or to-k'-to (HWAl • Wastewater treatment (H M L6m NATURAL BIOLOGI FUNCTIONS • Primary produdlvlty hA L WA1 • Organic acclmulation (KIML WAl • Organic export (H • Decomposition (H Al • Detrital transport k4 L A Nutrient cycling and tan (H ' WA •t Food chair suppo L NIA N HABITAT FUNCTI . Invarbbrates (H N/A • Amphibians (H N/A► • Flaharles (H • dli ld ( Al 1r M A Bir • Sanctuary and re M L WA1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FLWCTIONS • • Non-oonatrnptlw vaIW-1 �REEO(H M L fN/MMLM L Arch m a' kal (H M • Cons rnptlw value FWlerles (H M L RenemMe reaou M L A W AwWIH M L Data Plot Loca*m Sketch 5 1 [!= Group Northwest, Inc. ' Gcotechnical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists 16120 0 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION EDMONDS, WASHINGTON G-1061-1 Prepared for Mr. John Thoresen Sequoia Ridge Partners 15621 - 48' Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 February 29, 2000 GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. 13240 NE 20'h Street, Suite 12 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone: (425) 649-8757 114 1 Group Northwest, Inc. Geotecfinical Engineers, Geologists & Environmental Scientists February 29, 2000 Mr. John Thoresen Sequoia Ridge Partners 15621 - 48" Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Thoresen: G-1061-1 Geo Group Northwest, Inc., is pleased to present our Geotechnical Engineering Study report for the Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision in Edmonds, Washington. This report was prepared in accordance with our proposal dated September 22, 1999, and the City of Edmonds guidelines for geotechnical reports. It is the opinion of Geo Group Northwest, Inc., that the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed development, provided the recommendations in our report are followed. Although there is some inherent risk in any proposed development located in or near to areas of steep slopes or geological hazards, it is our opinion that the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement at the site. Please refer our report for a detailed discussion of our conclusions and recommendations. We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with geotechnical engineering services for this project. Please feel free to call us if you have any questions. 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 • Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone 425/649-8757 • FAX 425/649-8758 February 29, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page ii Sincerely, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 2'd� William Chang, P.E. Principal W c y wAsy o� ati'�r� �a OjO V A eta 2054 AL CxM2 2/194200 Z Geo Group Northwest, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS G-1061-1 Page 1 INTRODUCTION ........ .............................................I 1.1 Project Description ................................................ 1 1.2 Scope of Work .................................................... 1 2 SITE CONDITIONS....................................................2 2.1 Site Description .................................................... 2 2.2 Geologic Conditions ............................................... 3 2.2.1 Regional Geology .............. ............................3 2.2.2 Soil Survey................................................5 2.2.3 Site Geology ............................................... 5 2.2.4 Groundwater...............................................6 2.3 Wetlands........................................................7 2.4 Geologic Hazards ................................................. 8 2.4.1 Erosion Hazard ............................................. 8 2.4.2 Steep Slope and Landslide Hazards ......:...................... 9 2.4.3 Seismic Hazard ............................................ 10 2.5 Geologic Hazard Area Buffers and Setbacks ........................... 11 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 12 3.1 General........................................................12 3.2 Site Stability Evaluation ........................................... 13 3.3 Site Preparation and Earthwork ..................................... 14 3.3.1 Temporary Slopes and Excavations ............................ 15 3.3.2 Subgrade Stabilization ....................................... 15 3.3.3 Structural Fill ............................................. 17 3.3.4 Pipe Bedding .............................................. 18 3.3.5 Trench Backfill............................................19 3.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control .................................. 20 3.4.1 General Development Standards ............................... 20 3.4.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan ........................ 21 3.5 Foundations.....................................................22 3.5.1 Deep Foundation Systems .................................... 22 3.5.2 Shallow Foundation Systems ................................. 23 3.6 Building Floors .................................................. 25 3.7 Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Walls .................. 25 3.8 Modular Block Walls ............................................. 27 3.9 Rockeries.......................................................28 3.10 Site Drainage....................................................30 3.10.1 Surface Drainage ........................................... 30 3.10.2 Footing and Wall Drains ..................................... 30 3.11 Pavements......................................................31 3.11.1 Driveway Support ..........................................31 3.11.2 Driveway Stream Crossing ................................... 32 3.12 Post -Construction Soil Stabilization and Re -vegetation ................... 33 4 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES .......... 33 5 LIMITATIONS.......................................................34 REFERENCES ILLUSTRATIONS Plate 1 Plate 2 Plate 3 Plate 3A Plate 4 Plate 5 Plate 6 Plate 6A Plate 7 Plate 8 Plate 9 APPENDIX A Site Vicinity Map Site Plan Development Plan Vicinity Drainage Map Geologic Map Subsurface Profile A -A' Subsurface Profile B-B' Subsurface Profile C-C' Landslide Hazard Map Basement Wall Backfill Details Typical Footing Drain Soil Boring Logs (Geo Group Northwest, 1999) Hand Auger Boring Logs (Nelson-Couvrette & Associates, 1995) APPENDIX B Rockery Construction Guidelines GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION EDMONDS, WASHINGTON G-1061-1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background Sequoia Ridge Partners proposes to subdivide and develop the subject site located in the Meadowdale neighborhood of Edmonds, Washington, into four single family residential lots. The proposed short subdivision would be named Sequoia Ridge. The four proposed residences would be built on the western part of the site, near the top of a steep west -facing slope that offers views of Puget Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The site location is illustrated in Plate 1 - Vicinity Map. The proposed lots, labeled Lots 1 through 4, are indicated on Plate 2 - Site Plan. Access to Lots 1 through 3 would via a proposed driveway that would extend from the northern terminus of 72nd Avenue West. The driveway for the proposed residence in the northwest part of the site (Lot 4) would be via a driveway from North Meadowdale Road. The north driveway would cross a small stream on the north side of the site. 1.2 Scope of Work The scope of work performed for this study was consistent with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices and with that presented in our proposal dated September 22, 1999. The scope of work included the following tasks: • Use the results from the on -site subsurface investigation work previously performed during the Limited Scope Environmental Impact Study completed by Geo Group Northwest, Inc., in 1999 (Geo Group Northwest, 1999), and the results from a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site reported by Nelson-Couvrette & Associates (NCA) in 1995 (NCA, 1995), to assess soil and groundwater conditions at the site. • Perform engineering analysis for foundation support, grading considerations, pavement section design, utility trench backfilling, and earthwork criteria for on -site soils and imported soils. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. , 2000 G-1061-1 February 25 ' Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 2 • Prepare a report that summarizes our activities, findings, and conclusions regarding the I' proposed development of the site. The report will contain recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development at the site, including; - Pile -supported foundations and floor slab support, - Subgrade preparation, - Concrete and asphalt pavement section design, - Soil parameters for rockery and retaining walls, - Rockery construction guidelines, - Bedding and backfill requirements for utility trenches, - General grading and earthwork criteria, - Site drainage, - Geotechnical recommendations for the driveway stream crossing, and - Suitability of on -site soils as structural fill. Detailed construction plans for each of the four proposed residences were not available at the time this study was conducted. Geo Group Northwest did receive and review construction plans for Lot 2 at the site, but not for Lots 1, 3, and 4. A geotechnical review of the construction plans for the other three lots can be performed when the plans are available. 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2.1 Site Description The site is an 3.66-acre parcel of undeveloped land located in the Meadowdale neighborhood of Edmonds, Washington. The site vicinity is illustrated on Plate 1 - Vicinity Map. The site is bordered by North Meadowdale Road on the north, by undeveloped land on the east, by residential property on the south, and by a residential development at the bottom of the slope to the west. A small stream (Meadowdale Creek) runs across the north part of the site, adjacent to North Meadowdale Road. Utility improvements in the site vicinity include a municipal sanitary sewer system and a system of interceptors drains and trenches that capture drainage and convey it the local storm drain system. Site conditions and proposed storm drain and sanitary sewer Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 3 systems are illustrated on Plate 2 - Site Plan, and the currently proposed residence locations are shown on Plate 3 - Development Plan. The drainage system installed by the City of Edmonds in the Meadowdale area to mitigate potential landslide activity in the vicinity of the site is illustrated in Plate 3A - Vicinity Drainage Map. The site is characterized by moderate to steep slope topography. A narrow ridge with moderate to steeply sloping sides runs roughly north -south along the western part of the property, and broadens eastward along the south margin of the property. The slope on the western side of the ridge consists of a steep slope (portions of which consist of near -vertical bluffs) and is thickly vegetated. The upper part of this slope on site has an overall inclination of about 45 to 60 degrees (equivalent to 100 to 173 percent), but tends to flatten out somewhat further downslope. The east side of the ridge is moderately steep in its upper portion, having slopes of about 24 to 30 degrees (45 to 58 percent) and also becomes flatter to about 16 degrees (30 percent) downslope. The height of the steep west -facing slope ranges from about 40 feet at the north end of the site on Lot 4, to about 110 feet below Lot 3, to approximately 130 feet at the south end of the site on Lot 2, bused on topographic data for the site (shown on Plate 2), and available topographic data for the adjacent property to the west presented in a geotechnical engineering report prepared in 1989 by Terra Associates, Inc. (Terra, 1989). As noted above, the slope varies in steepness, with the uppermost portions typically being steepest (up to vertical in places). Below the steeper, upper part of the slope, groundwater seepage and silty soils are present. Most of the slope is thickly vegetated with shrubs, vines, grasses, and deciduous trees. 2.2 Geologic Conditions 2.2.1 Regional Geology The proposed project site is located in the Puget Lowland physiographic province, a north -south trending topographic and structural basin. Geologic processes including tectonic uplift and subsidence, glaciation, and erosion by streams have acted to shape the physiography of the area. The site vicinity is underlain with Quaternary -age sediments associated with past glaciation of the Puget Sound region, as illustrated on Plate 4 - Geologic Map. Limited areas are underlain with younger alluvium deposited by streams, and some of the sloped areas may have a surficial Geo Group Northwest, Inc. . February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 4 layer of colluvium. The majority of the glacial sediments are from the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, which occurred approximately 13,000 to 11,000 years ago. Some pre-Vashon age, non -glacial to transitional environment sediments also are found below the Vashon sediments in the proposed project area (Minard, 1983). The Vashon-age glacial sediments present in the site vicinity consists of (in downward succession) compact till (composed of unsorted mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel); moderately to very dense, fine-grained advance outwash sand and silty sand; and dense silt with lenses of silty sand. At the site, the pre-Vashon age deposits consist of silts with some interbedded fine sand interpreted to be the Whidbey Formation. The geologic contact between the Whidbey Formation silts and the overlying outwash sand often is an area of groundwater springs and seeps. The site is located immediately east of the Meadowdale Landslide Complex, which was mapped and characterized by Roger Lowe and Associates (RLA, 1979) and GeoEngineers (GeoEngineers, 1985). The Meadowdale Landslide Complex is a large area of historical landsliding (slumps and debris flows) extending about 3,200 feet north -to -south and up to 650 feet east -to -west. The steep west -facing slope on the site forms the eastern margin of the landslide complex, and is the head wall of the landslide zone. The initial movement of the landslide is believed to have occurred about 7,000 years ago. Active landsliding in the area has primarily occurred within a 400 feet wide zone immediately east of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks (the zone would be located about 100 to 200 feet west of the proposed project site). The most recent movements in the landslide complex (in 1946-47, 1955-56, and 1970-71) have occurred in the middle and western portions of the complex, away from the site. The previous studies determined the primary cause of ground failure in the Meadowdale Landslide Complex has been a combination of shoreline processes at the bottom of the slide area and erosion caused by groundwater flowing from springs and seeps on slopes at the contact between the outwash sand unit and the underlying silt deposits. Erosion of the base of the affected area was the primary cause of the initial large-scale landsliding and of subsequent smaller slumps and movements in the middle to western parts of the slide complex. Sloughing and small slumps in the eastern portion of the complex (including the west side of the site) that occurred after the initial large-scale landslide event have been caused primarily by erosion by springs and seeps in the steep west -facing slope Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 5 2.2.2 Soil Survev Surficial soils at the proposed project site consist of Alderwood gravelly sand loam on 8 to 15 percent slopes and Alderwood-Everett gravelly sand loam on 25 to 70 percent slopes, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey for Snohomish County (SCS, 1983). Alderwood-type soils are typically moderately well drained, have a depth to the hardpan (glacial till substratum) of about 35 inches, and are developed on till plains. Alderwood-Everett soils are typically moderately well to excessively drained, have a depth of up to about 60 inches over hardpan and glacial outwash, and are found on nearly level to very steep slopes on till plains, terraces, and outwash plains. Permeability of the Alderwood soils is relatively rapid above the hardpan and very slow through it, while permeability of the Everett soils is rapid. 2.2.3 Site Geology Based on the findings from site exploration performed by NCA in 1995 and by Geo Group Northwest in 1999, surficial soils on Lots 1 and 3 consist of glacial outwash sand to at least 30 feet bgs. We encountered a surficial veneer of gravelly, fine to medium grained sand in the soil boring drilled at the proposed building location on Lot 1. This surficial soil corresponds to the uppermost part of the outwash sand unit where it was directly overlain by glacial till. A cap of glacial till may have been cut from this part of the site when the residence immediately to the south was constructed. Surficial soils at the proposed building location on Lot 2 consisted of at least 12 feet of very dense glacial till soils composed of silty fine to medium grained sand with gravel. Shallow hand auger borings completed further east on Lot 2 encountered outwash sand and not glacial till soils. Based on this information, the extent of glacial till soils on the site is anticipated to be limited to the western part of Lot 2. Silt and silty sand deposits identified as transitional between the outwash sand and the pre- Vashon'age Whidbey Formation deposits were found at the ground surface on Lot 4. Encountered soils consisted of a surficial layer of fine sand and silty sand (similar to glacial outwash sand) about 4 feet thick, underlain by interbedded silty sand and silt to 30 feet bgs. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 6 A soil classification legend and logs for the soil borings drilled by Geo Group Northwest in May 1999 are provided in Appendix A. Soil logs from hand -auger borings performed by NCA in 1995 also are included in Appendix A. A south -to -north subsurface profile of Lots 1 through 3 on the site is presented in Plate 5 - Subsurface Profile A-A'.A west -to -east profile across Lot 2 is presented in Plate 6 - Subsurface Profile B-B'. A south to north subsurface profile of Lots 3 and 4 is presented in Plate 6A - Subsurface Profile C-C'. It should be understood that the proposed locations and configurations of the homes and driveways on Lots 1, 3, and 4 are schematic at this time. Final locations and elevations of these features will be determined at a later time. During our site investigation, we observed small slumps and areas of relatively recent sloughing on the steep slope in the west part of Lots 2 and 3. A silver -colored tarpaulin was observed to be covering one such area of sloughing along the steep slope near the boundary between Lots 2 and 3. We observed no evidence of significant soil movement on the north and east -facing slopes on site, and NCA reported that they did not observe any indications of deep-seated soil instability on the site, but did notice some evidence of surface soil creep. 2.2.4 Groundwater During our subsurface exploration of the site, we encountered groundwater at a depth of approximately 30 feet in the soil boring drilled on Lot 3. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings drilled on Lots 1 and 2, but is suspected to be present at a greater depth (the borings on Lots 1 and 2 were located at much higher elevations than the boring on Lot 3). A very thin zone of wet soil (about 1 foot thick) was noted in the surficial weathered soils on top of the very dense glacial till in the boring on Lot 2. These findings are consistent with the geologic literature for the area, which describe the presence of groundwater in the glacial advance outwash deposits on top of the underlying silt deposits. Groundwater was present within the silty sand lenses in the silt soils encountered in the soil boring drilled on Lot 4. These observations are consistent with similar findings reported in the literature. We observed that the steep west -facing slope on Lots 2 and 3 of the site has a distinct zone of seepage and springs located at the boundary between the overlying fine sand layer and underlying silt layer. This zone is located at elevations of approximately 220 to 230 feet. Water from these Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 7 springs flows downslope off site and infiltrates into the soils on the Lorian Woods property, or is diverted into catch basins connected to the local storm drain system. Seepage from the west - facing slope on Lot 4 was not observed during May or June 1999, but was observed further downslope on the adjacent residential .development property. The elevation of the stream as it passes through the site, according to the topographic survey data on the site plan, ranges from approximately 215 or 218 feet at the northeast corner of the site to less than 180 feet in the northwest part of the site. A comparison of the stream elevation to the seepage and springs elevations indicates that the seepage elevation is not lower than the elevation of the stream. Thus the stream does not appear to provide recharge to the seepage and springs at elevations of 220 to 230 feet on the west -facing slope. The source of these springs and seeps appears to be local precipitation and recharge from higher areas to the south and southeast. 2.3 Wetlands One wetland and one stream are located on the site. The wetland edges and the stream were delineated by Pacific International Engineering, P.L.L.C. (PIE), in May 1998 (PIE, 1998). The wetland and stream areas delineated by PIE were surveyed and plotted by David Evans & Associates, Inc. (DEA), and appear in Plate 2 - Site Plan and Plate 3 Development Plan. Wetlands on the site total 1.12 acres. The wetland is channelized near the northwest corner of the site and is more accurately described as a stream. Off -site to the west the water resource continues as a stream. Off -site to the northeast, the wetland edge is disturbed and bounded by a storm drainage line and fill from residential yards. Thus, the majority of the wetland is located within the Sequoia Ridge site. The majority of the wetland consist of mixed palustrine, forested, scrub -shrub wetland. Within the stream corridor and flood zone, the wetland meets the definition of a riverine, forested, scrub - shrub classification. Small areas of uplands are located within some parts of the wetland. These upland areas appear to be both natural knolls and remnants of site manipulation (road fill, side cast, and fill piles) and are included within the wetland boundaries. Under ECDC regulations, the wetland meets the criteria to be classified as a Category 2 wetland due to its size (greater than one acre) and presence of two or more wetland classes. Under this Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 8 classification, a 50-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to the wetland edge and a 15-foot building setback area is required beyond the wetland buffer area. A small stream (Meadowdale Creek) enters the site at the northeast side of the site. This stream appears to be supported by storm water from the unopened right-of-way for 72" Avenue West and from groundwater seeps in the wetland areas on site. This stream appears to have been ditched through the wetland. The stream channel terminates at a catch basin under North Meadowdale Road. The stream flow eventually discharges to Brown's Bay in Puget Sound. No evidence of fish presence has been observed in the stream on site. This stream is not identified in the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife "Catalog of Washington Stream and Utilization -Puget Sound". The stream is not likely to be an anadromous fisheries stream due to the presence of downstream barriers. Parts of this riparian area also include the wetland areas identified as riverine, forested, scrub - shrub habitat. The stream channel shows evidence of carrying "flashy" flows due in large part to the storm water discharge from off site to the east. The stream channel is vertical sided, incised in several locations, and lacking vegetation along the steepest sidewalls of the ditch. The stream appears to be perennial, carrying water from groundwater discharge and flow from the wetland. Under ECDC regulations, this stream meets the criteria for classification as a Category 2 Stream. ECDC regulations require a 25 foot buffer adjacent to a Category 2 stream and a 15-foot building setback area beyond the stream buffer area. 2.4 Geologic Hazards 2.4.1 Erosion Hazard The soil types present on the proposed project site have moderate to high erosion potential, according to the SCS soil survey (SCS, 1983). The Alderwood soils at the site have medium erosion potential and are susceptible to sheet wash and rill erosion, if exposed. The Everett soils at the site have high erosion potential and are susceptible to sheet wash, rill, and gully erosion. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 9 Based on site observations during geotechnical studies in May 1999 and historical experience in the Puget Sound region, Geo Group Northwest, considers the advance outwash sand (Everett) soils at the site to have a high erosion potential. The silty (Alderwood) soils associated with the on -site areas underlain by glacial till are considered to have a low to moderate erosion potential, when exposed. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. anticipates that the soils in the wetlands area on site have relatively lower susceptibility to erosion due to the relatively lesser slopes and the thick cover of vegetation. The City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) identifies areas with Alderwood or Everett Series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater as erosion hazard areas (ECDC Section 20.15B.060(A)(3)(a)). Based on this criterion, the sloped portions of the project site underlain with glacial till and advance outwash soils (Lots 1, 2, and 3, and the proposed building location on Lot 4) are erosion hazard areas. The flat area on the southwest corner of the site is not an erosion hazard area by this criterion. 2.4.2 Steep Slope and Landslide Hazards The site has moderate to steep slopes across its west, north, and east -central parts. The steepest slopes are found in the western part of the site on Lots 2, 3, and 4. The slopes in this part of the site tend to be irregular in steepness, and much of the slope is obscured by thick vegetation. The steepest slopes on the site reach near -vertical inclinations of about 60 degrees. According to the geotechnical reports by RLA (RLA, 1979) and GeoEngineers (GeoEngineers, 1985), the steep slopes along the southwest part of the proposed project site have a 5 percent probability of failure within 25 years, and the slopes in the north and northeast part of the site have a 2 percent probability of failing within 25 years. The reports characterize the landslide risk in the west part of the site as involving slumps of material that has not previously failed. The landslide risk in the north and northeast parts of the site are characterized as debris slides in material that has not previously failed. The criteria used in these reports for determining the landslide risk included steepness of slope, height of slope, soil types, presence and character of evidence of previous landsliding, and presence of groundwater seepage or springs. Landslide hazard areas are shown on Plate 7 - Landslide Hazard Map. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. Feb 25 2000 February G 1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 10 The ECDC incorporates by reference the landslide hazard findings in the GeoEngineers and RLA reports (ECDC Section 20.15B.060(A)(3)(b)). The ECDC also defines landslide hazard areas as those areas that have interbedded permeable and impermeable soils, groundwater springs or seepage, and slopes of 15 percent or greater. Based on these criteria, the steep west -facing slope on the site is a landslide hazard area. 2.4.3 Seismic Hazard ' The project site is located within the Puget Sound Lowland. The greater Puget Sound area has experienced a number of small to moderate earthquakes and occasional strong shocks during the brief 155-year historical record in the Pacific Northwest. The major earthquakes in the region are believed to be associated with deep-seated plate tectonic activity. Major faults within the region have not been active in the Holocene Age (geologic period dating since the last glacial retreat 14,000 years ago), consequently, none are known to be associated with historical seismicity. Historical records for the region indicate that the Olympia earthquake of April 13, 1949, with a Richter magnitude of 7.1, produced ground -shaking of intensity VIII near its epicenter; and the Seattle -Tacoma earthquake of April 29, 1965, with a Richter magnitude of 6.5, produced a ground -shaking of intensity IV to VIE on the Modified Mercalli Scale near its epicenter. This level of ground -shaking is estimated to be the maximum that has occurred in the region during the 155 years of historic record. The ECDC identifies seismic hazard areas as those area which are subject to severe risk of earthquake damage as a result of seismically induced landslides, earth adjustments (such as displacement by faulting), settlement, or liquefaction (ECDC Section 20.15B.060(A)(3)(d)). ' Liquefaction is a phenomenon where loose granular materials below the water table temporarily behave as a liquid due to. strong shaking or vibrations, such as earthquakes. Clean, loose and saturated granular materials are the soils susceptible to liquefaction phenomena. During our site investigation, subsurface. soils consisted of medium dense to dense, fine grained sand (advance outwash) and silty sand with gravel (glacial till) on Lots 1, 2, and 3. Groundwater was encountered at approximately 30 feet bgs in boring B-3 on Lot 3. Light seepage was observed at depths of 2 to 3 feet bgs on top of dense glacial till soils in boring B-2 on Lot 2. No groundwater was encountered in boring B-1 on Lot 1. Subsurface soils encountered in boring B- Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 11 4 on Lot 4 consisted of medium dense to dense silt, silty sand, and fine grained sand. Wet soils were encountered at approximately 6 feet bgs in boring B-4, but the predominant silt and silty sand are not soil types susceptible to liquefaction. Thus, subsurface soils at the proposed building locations on site are not susceptible to liquefaction, based on the observed soil types, densities, and moisture contents. The saturated soils in the northeast part of the site (where wetlands have been identified) may be susceptible to liquefaction because of the presence of shallow groundwater conditions and the possible presence of fine sandy soils below the surficial layer of organic soils. The potential hazard is not considered to be a significant concern for the proposed development, however, because this part of the site will not be developed. Based on these criteria, the areas of the site proposed for development are not considered to contain seismic hazard areas. 2.5 Geologic Hazard Area Buffers and Setbacks The ECDC requires a 50 feet wide buffer for geologically hazardous areas, including erosion, landslide, and steep slope hazard areas (ECDC Section 20.15B.110(A)). The width of the buffer can be reduced to as low as 10 feet if it can be demonstrated that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact on the site, City, or any private party. The ECDC also requires that a 15 feet wide building setback be established from the edge of any buffer, including buffers for geologic hazards, to prevent construction intrusion into the buffer (ECDC Section 20.15B.080 (Q. Thus, the minimum total distance between the proposed buildings and geologic hazard areas is 25 feet. Alterations within erosion hazard areas require City approval of an erosion control plan that minimizes disruption of soils to the minimum degree necessary to provide reasonable use of the site (ECDC Section 20.15B.110(B)). Alterations in steep slope hazard areas require an exemption or exception pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.040, or a variance pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.170. Categories for exemption or exception include situations where critical areas studies had previously been prepared for the type of proposed development, and reasonable use exceptions where application of the critical areas regulations would deny all reasonable use of the property. Categories for variance also include situations where critical areas regulations would deny the reasonable use of the subject property. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 12 The ECDC Chapter 20.15B specifies that a 50 feet wide buffer and a 15 feet building setback be established for geologically hazardous areas (such as steep slope and landslide areas). The buffer can be reduced to 10 feet if it can be demonstrated that the proposed buffer reduction will have no adverse impact on the site, public, or any private party. 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' 3.1 General Based on a review of the available information for the proposed development, Geo Group Northwest concludes that the site is geotechnically suitable for development into a four -lot residential subdivision as proposed, provided that the development is designed and constructed in a manner that minimizes impacts to the site that could adversely affect site stability. Issues of primary geotechnical concern include establishing appropriate building setback distances from the steep west -facing slope on the site, controlling soil erosion during and following site development, using deep foundation systems for the proposed residences to mitigate impacts from future sloughing along the steep slope on site, and constructing a driveway across the stream at the north end of the site. As a result, we recommend the following measures be incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed development: • support the homes on Lots 2, 3, and 4 entirely on deep pile foundation systems; • configure residences on slopes to minimizing grading, where feasible; • support fills below the driveways with modular block walls and geogrid reinforcement, and support cut slopes with rockeries or concrete retaining walls; and • perform daily, on -site, geotechnical quality control monitoring of erosion and sedimentation control measures, earthwork activities, pile installation, driveway and roadway construction activities, underground utilities installation and backfilling, site stability, and other aspects as required by the City of Edmonds. These items and other geotechnical issues involved in the proposed development are discussed in detail in the following sections of this report. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 IMr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 13 3.2 Site Stability Evaluation In their preliminary geotechnical study, NCA recommended that a 15 feet wide setback be established between the top of the steep west -facing slope and any buildings. It is the opinion of Geo Group Northwest, however, that a 15 feet wide setback will be suitable for Lots 3 and 4, but that a setback of 25 feet should be established for Lot 2, where the steep west -facing slope is higher. These recommended setbacks for Lots 2, 3, and 4, should be conditioned on the requirement that the residences on these lots be supported on deep-seated pile foundation systems. Our rationale for these proposed buffer/setbacks is as follows: • Based on the findings from the site investigation work performed by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. in May 1999, dense soils are present at depths of approximately 5 feet bgs at each of the proposed building locations. The depth to groundwater at the proposed building locations ' ranges from approximately 6 feet on Lot 4 to 30 feet bgs at Lot 3, to depths greater than 30 feet bgs on Lots 1 and 2. The geotechnical reports by Roger Lowe Associates (1979) and by GeoEngineers, Inc. (1985), have described a lack of recorded, historical large-scale landsliding on the steep west -facing slope at the site, but have also noted that historical records of past landslide events are incomplete. The owner of the adjacent property south of the site, Mr. John Johnson, has reported that no landslides have occurred on the slope during his residence in the area (approximately 40 years). Geo Group Northwest believes it is possible for the proposed buildings to be located at minimum distances of 15 to 25 feet from the top of the steep west -facing slope (15 feet on Lots 3 and 4, 25 feet on Lot 2), if the buildings are supported on deep foundation systems that are embedded in soils that less susceptible to future sloughing along the nearby steep slope. The proposed residence on Lot 1, however, can be supported on shallow conventional spread footing foundation systems, provided that the residence is located at least 50 feet from the top of the steep slope. As discussed in the Limited Scope Environmental Impact Study prepared by Geo Group Northwest in 1999 (Geo Group Northwest, 1999), steep slope and landslide hazard areas on Lots 2, 3, and 4 at the site can be protected from potential impacts by establishing 15 to 25 feet wide Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 0 February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 14 building setbacks zone from the top of the steep west -facing slope on the site. The recommended ' setbacks have been approved by the City of Edmonds through a review of the EIS by the City Hearing Examiner. The proposed development incorporates such setbacks for these lots. It is the opinion of Geo Group Northwest that the proposed development, utilizing the proposed 15 and 25 feet setbacks from the top of the steep slope, will not affect the site stability during or ' following construction, provided the recommendations provided in this report are followed. 3.3 Site Preparation and Earthwork To minimize the amount of site grading for construction of the proposed residences, the building pads should be step -graded to where dense native soils are exposed. Split-level building floors could be incorporated into the construction plans and design to accommodate the topographic relief across the proposed building locations. This would require the removal of minimal amounts of loose soils on Lots 1 and 2, and removal of about 5 feet of loose soils on Lots 3 and ' 4. The areas between the residences should be graded to permanent slopes no steeper than 2Horizontal: I Vertical (2H:1 V); alternatively, rockeries and modular block retaining walls can be used to accommodate changes in grades, where available space would require steeper slopes. The building, driveway, and sidewalk areas should be stripped and cleared of surface vegetation. Disturbance to the site should be kept to a minimum. Silt fences should be installed around areas disturbed by construction activity to prevent sediment -laden surface runoff from being discharged off -site. Exposed soils that are subject to erosion should be compacted or covered with plastic sheeting, or both. The surficial topsoil and loose sand soils below the proposed building foundation areas should be excavated down to dense, native soil. Based on the findings from our soil investigation at the site, we anticipate that the medium dense to dense soil under the building area is present at approximately 3 feet bgs. Based on these findings, some over -excavation and replacement of the loose to medium dense silty sand soils with structural fill may be required. After the loose soils are excavated, we recommend that the bottom of the excavation be compacted and proof -rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment. Any soft spots or disturbed areas thus detected should be re -compacted or excavated and replaced with compacted Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 0 i February 25 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 15 structural fill. To protect underground utilities from settlement, we recommend that the bottom of utility trenches be compacted using a backhoe-mounted "hoe -pack". City of Edmonds regulations (ECDC 20.15B.080(A)(1)) prohibit site clearing activities in critical areas (including geologically hazardous areas, erosion hazard areas, steep slope areas, and sensitive habitat areas) between October 1 and April 30. An appeal process exists for requesting a variance from this regulation (ECDC 20.15B.040). The City of Edmonds does allow for weekly consultation from the project geotechnical engineer on whether earthwork can continue past September 30. We recommend that Geo Group Northwest be retained to monitor site earthwork and consult with Sequoia Ridge Partners and the City of Edmonds, in the event that a variance to continue earthwork past September 30 is requested. 3.3.1 Temporary Slopes and Excavations Under no circumstances should temporary excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical) in the weathered glacial till and no steeper than 1H:2V in the dense glacial till soils. Permanent fill slopes at the site should be inclined no steeper than 211:1 V. Surface runoff should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes into the excavated area. During wet weather exposed cut slopes should be covered with plastic sheeting during construction to minimize erosion. If groundwater seepage is encountered during construction, excavation of cut slopes should be halted and the cut slopes should be re-evaluated by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 3.3.2 Subgrade Stabilization The silty sand soils encountered in the borings on Lots 2 and 4 are moisture sensitive and may prove to be unsatisfactory as a subgrade base for the pavements, slabs, and structures if earthwork takes place during wet weather conditions. We recommend using either or both of the two following methods for subgrade stabilization: 1) bridging the soft subgrade soils; or 2) cement treating the soils. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. r 0 i February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 16 3.3.2.1 Bridging Soft subgrade conditions can be stabilized by bridging with an 18-inch minimum thickness of 2- inch minus crushed rock, or a 24-inch thickness of class A pit run. A woven geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 500X or equivalent, should be laid below the bridging soils to provide base reinforcement, separation and stabilization. Areas of additional rock/pit run thickness may be needed depending on the subgrade conditions at the time of construction. Standing water should be pumped or drained prior to placement of the geotextile and bridging soils. It should be noted that bridging may require over -excavation and export of the over -excavated spoils, depending on the planned final site grades. The cost of over -excavation and export and disposal of the over -excavated soils should be considered in the decision to over -excavate and bridge or to cement treat unsuitable subgrades. Over -excavation and export can be minimized by raising the finished site grades or by cement treating the subgrade. 3.3.2.2 Cement Treatment Unsuitable subgrade soils at the site can be cement treated, instead of excavated and replaced. In general, cement treatment should provide a minimum 12-inch thickness of cement treated base (CTB) or extend down to firm soils, whichever is encountered first. The site should be pre - graded prior to treatment to prevent cutting or removing the minimum thickness of CTB during the final grading process. The final, post -grading CTB thickness should be at least 12 inches. The rate of application of the cement is dependent on the soils moisture content and may vary from about 4 percent to 8 percent ( 43 lbs to 861bs per square yard by 1-foot deep). We anticipate that a 5 percent cement content or an application rate of 6 pounds per square foot (54 lbs per square yard) would be used at the site. It should be noted that site traffic of equipment, trucks, backhoes and forklifts can soften areas treated with cement. Yielding subgrade areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer and if necessary we recommend applying additional cement treatment, or over -excavating and replacing with imported structural fill, underlain by geotextile fabric. It should also be realized that the cement treatment base can harden to the point of having an impact on later site utility work, especially if higher cement application rates are used. We recommend that the CTB be Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 17 protected from site traffic by covering with a minimum of 4-inches of 5/8 inch minus crushed surfacing top coarse or other imported soil approved by the geotechnical engineer. 3.3.3 Structural Fill All structural fill material used to achieve design site elevations below the building area and below non -structurally supported sidewalks, driveways, and patios, should meet the requirements for structural fill. During wet weather conditions, material to be used as structural fill should have the following specifications: 1. Be free draining, granular material containing no more than five (5) percent fines (silt and clay -size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve); 2. Be free of organic material and other deleterious substances; 3. Have a maximum.size of three (3) inches in diameter. All fill material should be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is the water content in soil that enables the soil to be compacted to the highest dry density for a given compaction effort. We anticipate that the on -site silty sand soils will be moisture -sensitive and will be unsuitable for use as structural fill if they become wet. These soils should be suitable for use as structural fill as long as they are placed at or near their optimum moisture content. Alternatively, an imported granular fill material may provide more uniformity and be easier to compact to the specifications for structural fill. The fine to medium grained sand soils without silt should be suitable for use as structural fill under anticipated site conditions. If the on -site soils are to be used as engineered structural fill, it will be necessary to segregate the topsoil and any other organic- or debris -containing soil, because such soils would be unsuitable for use as structural fill. Excavated on -site material that is stockpiled for later use as structural fill should be protected from moisture or contamination with unsuitable materials by covering it with plastic sheeting until it is used. Structural fill should be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding ten inches in loose thickness. Structural fill under building areas (including foundation and slab areas), should be compacted to Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 18 at least 95 percent maximum density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91 (Modified Proctor). Structural fill under driveway areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum density, with the exception of the upper twelve (12) inches. The top twelve (12) inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent maximum density, as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91. Poor quality subgrade conditions are anticipated in the location of the existing sewer line trench. For this reason, we recommend that the fill section over the trench area consist of 18 inches of clean, 2-inch sized, crushed rock wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140NL or equivalent. We also recommend that the driveway fill consist of a free -draining pit run sand and gravel or a clean crushed rock material. We recommend that Geo Group Northwest be retained to evaluate the suitability of structural fill material and to monitor the compaction work during construction for quality assurance of the earthwork. 3.3.4 Pipe Bedding The pipe and pipe bedding interact to form a soil structure system; therefore, the bedding support requirements differ for flexible and rigid pipes. Our recommendations for pipe bedding materials ' follow the 1996 Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction, published by Washington State Department of Transportation and American Public Works Association ' (APWA) Specifications Sections 9-03.15 and 9-03.16. Any changes to these material specifications must be approved by the geotechnical engineer. �I Bedding material should be placed between at least 6 inches below the base of the pipe and at least 6 inches above the top of the pipe. Bedding material shall have a maximum dimension of 1.5-inches in diameter and shall be a clean sand and gravel mixture free of organic matter and fines (material passing a #200 sieve), conforming to the following gradations: !, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 19 WSDOT/APWA Specifications Section* 9=03.1"5 Beddifi Tor. Rigid,Pipe U: S.'Sievel Size Percent -Passing -(by weight) 1-inch square 100 1/4-inch square 25 - 80 No. 200 7 max. Sand Equivalent 35 min _PQTOxPWA S ,eifications Sedtion 9-03.16 Bedd ig or:Tlaermo c=Pipe'(Flexib —eiPipe) , 5 US Sieve Slze Peroent Passingyweight) 3/4 inch square 100 3/8-inch square 70 - 100 No. 4 55 - 100 No. 10 35 - 95 No. 20 20 - 80 No. 40 10 - 55 No. 100 0 - 10 No. 200 0-3 All pipe bedding materials should be compacted to provide the lateral support needed for the pipe. However, caution should be exercised when compacting the soils in the vicinity of non - reinforced pipe to prevent damage to the pipe. 3.3.5 Trench Backfill Trench backfill (above the pipe bedding materials) beneath concrete slabs and pavement areas • may consist of native soils, provided the backfill can be compacted to the specified compaction Geo Group Northwest, Inc. - February 25, 2000 G 1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 20 1. criteria. The backfill should be placed in lifts of approximately 8 inches in un-compacted ' thickness. If the native soils cannot be compacted to the specified compaction standard, we recommend that a suitable imported structural fill material be used. During wet weather, we recommend using a pit -run sand and gravel material with 100 percent smaller than 3-inches in diameter and less than 5 percent passing a #200 sieve. Trench backfill beneath pavement areas and sidewalks should be placed and compacted according to the recommendations for structural fill. Trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density according to ASTM D1557-91 (Modified Proctor), and to 95 percent of the maximum dry density for the top 12-inches. 1 3.4 Erosion and Sedimentation Control iThe west and center parts of the site are the most susceptible to erosion impacts, since these areas have the steepest slopes on the site, are underlain generally with Alderwood and Everett soils, and are the areas proposed for development. Uncontrolled runoff during construction could impact surrounding areas in the form of erosion, sloughing, and sedimentation. Sloughing or ' erosion along the steep slopes on the west side of the site could result in -sediment or slough debris traveling onto the adjacent property west of the site. Sediments eroded from cleared land on Lot 4 could reach the nearby stream if not controlled. Measures to control erosion and sedimentation impacts can be implemented during construction. Typical measures would include application of General Development Standards as outlined in ECDC Chapter 18.30, and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) per ECDC requirements. 3.4.1 General Development Standards Anticipated impacts to soil during construction can be mitigated by application of General Development Standards pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.30. These standards include: • Clearing shall occur only during the dry season of May 1 through September 30, unless authorized by the project geotechnical engineer and agreed to by the City. Extensions of Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 1� February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 21 clearing activities beyond September 30 can be recommended by the project geotechnical engineer, where appropriate, and approved by the City on a weekly basis. • No clearing shall be allowed within protected critical areas, including buffers, as approved by the City and identified by survey on the Final Short Plat map. • Prior to start of construction, the approved, protected critical areas and buffer areas shall be protected with temporary fencing. • All utilities, including grading for utilities shall be located outside the approved protected critical areas and buffer areas. • All structures, including grading for structures, shall be located outside the steep slope setback line approved by the city during the short plat review process. • A site specific management plan for both temporary sediment and. erosion control and permanent storm water management shall be prepared and approved by the city for protection of the wetland, stream, and buffers in accordance with the ECDC Storm Water Management standards. 3.4.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan The ECDC requires the preparation and implementation of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (ESCP) for construction projects located in critical areas (including steep slope hazard, erosion hazard, and wetland areas). The ESCP shall be approved by the City of Edmonds, and implemented pursuant to ECDC Chapter 18.30. Minimum requirements for an ESCP include, but are not limited to, the following: • Construction vehicle access shall be limited to one route, whenever practical (for the proposed development, two routes would be most practical —one route from North Meadowdale .Road for Lot 4, and one route from 72" Avenue West for the remaining lots). The route(s) shall be stabilized with quarry spalls or crushed rock. • Adjacent properties shall be protected from sediment deposition by appropriate use of vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching, or combination of these measures and other appropriate BMPs. • Cover exposed soils that will be left unworked either overnight or over longer periods of time during rainy periods; at a minimum, no soils should be exposed for more than two days from October 1 to April 30. • Regular inspection and maintenance of BMPs. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. • February 25, 2000 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners G-1061-1 Page 22 Delineate clearing and easement limits including setbacks, critical areas and buffers, and trees. Limit construction traffic to access roads and designated traffic areas and provide designated areas for staging equipment, to minimize the area of soil disturbance. Re -vegetate disturbed areas as soon as practical following grading, and stabilize newly vegetated areas with mulch, straw, or jute netting until vegetation is established; do not remove BMPs until disturbed areas are stabilized. Drainage off impervious areas (building roofs and pavements) would be directed to catch basins and tightlined to discharge to the storm drainage line below North Meadowdale Road. Drainage off the roadway and driveways also would be treated by being passed through an oil/water separator before being discharged. Water associated with drainage behind retaining structures (such as walls that support proposed driveways and cut slopes, and rockeries greater than 4 feet in height) also can be tightlined into the storm drain system, instead of being discharged to site soils. A decrease of the infiltration rate into site soils could result in a marginal decrease in the groundwater elevations at the site and thereby slightly increase the stability of the slopes on site. 3.5 Foundations 3.5.1 Deep Foundation Systems The proposed buildings can be supported on a pile foundation system such as augered concrete piles. The piles would be embedded deeply into the dense soils so that they transfer the building loads to deeper soils which are less susceptible to sloughing along the nearby slope. Placing the buildings on a deep pile foundation system will significantly help to protect the buildings from potential damage from possible future sloughing along the top of the steep slope (which could be anticipated to occur over the long term even if no development occurred on the site). We recommend that the piles be installed to a minimum depth of 25 feet into the dense, native soils. However, specific geotechnical recommendations for pile lengths at each proposed building location should be further studied during the design of the residences and after the topography of the steep west -facing slope is better defined. We recommend that the piles have a minimum diameter of 14 inches. The piles should have a minimum allowable bearing capacity Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 23 of 25 tons, as calculated based on the encountered soil conditions in the soil borings drilled on site. Lateral loads can also be resisted by using battered piles or by the passive earth pressures acting on grade beams. To fully mobilize the passive pressure resistance, the grade beams must be poured "neat" against compacted fill. Our recommended allowable passive soil pressure for lateral resistance is 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight, with a friction factor of 0.3. The performance of piles depends on how and to what bearing stratum the piles are installed. Since a completed pile in the ground cannot be observed, it is critical that judgement and experience be used as a basis for determining the embedment length and acceptability of a pile. Therefore, we recommend that the project geotechnical engineer be retained to monitor the pile installation operation, collect and interpret installation data and verify suitable bearing stratum. We also suggest that the geotechnical engineer review the contractor's equipment and installation procedure prior to pile installation to help mitigate problems which may delay work progress. 3.5.2 Shallow Foundation Systems An alternative to constructing deep foundations for the proposed buildings is to create building pad areas on which the buildings could be constructed with shallow, conventional spread footing foundation systems. The existing soils below the proposed building locations have adequate bearing strength to support typical shallow conventional spread footing foundations, after the surficial loose soils are removed. However, the springs, seepage, and visual evidence of previous small slumps and sloughing on the steep west -facing slope indicate a potential exists for future sloughing or slumps to occur along the slope. Future sloughing or slumps could adversely affect structures placed on shallow foundations. The use of shallow foundation systems, such as conventional spread footings, should be limited to buildings which will be located at least 50 feet from the top of the steep west -facing slope (such as the proposed residence on Lot 1). Loose or soft soils below the foundation footings should be excavated down to dense soil and the over -excavated areas should be replaced with compacted structural fill. Based on the findings from our soil investigation at the site, we anticipate that medium dense to dense native soil under the building area is present at approximately 3 feet bgs. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. t 0 February 25 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge.Partners Page 24 Individual spread footings may be used for supporting columns and strip footings for bearing walls. Our recommended design criteria for foundations are as follows: - Allowable bearing pressure, including all dead and live loads Dense native soil (glacial till) = 2,000 psf Compacted structural fill = 2,000 psf - Minimum depth to bottom of perimeter footing below adjacent final exterior grade = 18 inches - Minimum depth to bottom of interior footings below top of floor slab = 12 inches - Minimum width of wall footings = 16 inches - Minimum lateral dimension of column footings = 24 inches - Estimated post -construction settlement = 1 /4 inch - Estimated post -construction differential settlement; across building width = 1/4 inch A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressures can be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Lateral loads can also be resisted by friction between the foundation and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure acting on the buried portions of the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing undisturbed soil or be backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements for structural fill. Our recommended parameters are as follows: - Passive Pressure (Lateral Resistance) • 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight for compacted structural fill • 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for native dense soil. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 25 - Coefficient of Friction (Friction Factor) 0.30 for compacted structural fill 0.35 for native dense soil We recommend that footing drains be placed around all perimeter footings. More specific details of perimeter foundation drains are provided below in Section 3.10: Drainage. 3.6 Building Floors The building floors can be supported on either the dense native soils at the site (where conventional footing foundations are used), or can be structurally supported on a pile foundation system. In preparing the subgrade for slab -on -grade floors, any areas of the building pad disturbed by construction activity should be either re -compacted or excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill material. We recommend the building pad area be proof -rolled with a piece of heavy construction equipment prior to placing the capillary break material. Any soft or low areas thus detected should be filled to grade and re -compacted or excavated, and replaced and compacted with crushed rock as described in Section 3.3 : Site Preparation and General Earthwork. To avoid moisture build-up on the subgrade, slab -on -grade floors should be placed on a capillary break, which is in turn placed on the prepared subgrade. The capillary break should consist of a minimum of a six (6) inch thick layer of free -draining crushed rock or gravel containing no more ' than five (5) percent finer than No. 4 sieve. A vapor barrier, such as a 6-mil plastic membrane, is recommended to be placed over the capillary break beneath the slab to reduce water vapor transmission through the slab. Two to four inches of sand may be placed over the barrier membrane for protection during construction. 3.7 Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Walls ' Permanent basement walls restrained horizontally on top are considered unyielding and should be designed for a lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition; while conventional reinforced concrete walls free to rotate on top should be designed for an active lateral soil pressure. ' Geo Group Northwest, Inc. t 0 C� February 25, 2000 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Active Earth Pressure G-1061-1 Page 26 Conventional reinforced concrete walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to 0.002 times the wall height, should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of: • 35 pcf for level backfill behind yielding retaining walls; At -Rest Earth Pressure Walls supported horizontally by floor slabs are considered unyielding and should be designed for lateral soil pressure under the at -rest condition. The design lateral soil pressure should have an equivalent fluid pressure of. • 45 pcf for level ground behind permanent unyielding retaining walls; Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf equivalent fluid weight for structural fill 350 pcf equivalent fluid weight for native soil Base Coefficient of Friction • 0.30 for structural fill • 0.35 for native soil We recommend that a vertical drain mat, Miradrain 6000 or equivalent, be used to facilitate drainage behind permanent concrete basement walls. The drain mat core is placed against the basement wall with the filter fabric side facing the backfill. The drain mat extends from the finished surface grade, down to the footing drain pipe. A minimum of 18 inches of clean, free - draining, washed rock, crushed rock, or pea gravel should be placed in the bottom of the footing trench. With the above exceptions, perimeter foundation drainage recommendations and installation procedures should be followed in Section 3.10.2: Footing and Wall Drains. Please also refer to Plate 9 - Typical Basement Wall Backfill and Drainage Details. To prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind permanent concrete basement or conventional ' retaining walls, a granular, free draining structural backfill material should be placed within a horizontal distance of 18 inches of the wall, in place of vertical drain mats. We recommend ' Geo Group Northwest, Inc. • • February 25, 2000 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners G-1061-1 Page 27 using a clean, granular, free -draining, structural fill material. The free -draining granular material should surround the wall subdrain system as described in the footing drain section of this report. The top twelve (12) inches of the fill should consist of compacted and relatively impermeable soil. This cap material can be separated from the underlying more granular drainage material by a geotextile fabric. The surface should be sloped to drain away from the building wall. Alternatively, the surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. Backfill material behind permanent concrete basement or conventional retaining walls should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined by ASTM D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor Method) as specified in Section 3.3.3: Structural Fill. The top 12-inches should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. The backfill in areas adjacent to basement or conventional retaining walls should be compacted with hand held equipment or a hoe -pack. Heavy compacting machines should not be allowed within a horizontal distance to the wall equivalent to one half the wall height, unless the walls are designed with the added surcharge. 3.8 Modular Block Walls We understand that a retaining wall will be required along the south side of the driveway for support. The proposed wall is anticipated to be approximately 125 feet long and up to approximately 8 feet high. This wall may consist of either,a conventional concrete retaining wall founded on the dense glacial till soils, or a modular block wall with geogrid reinforcement set on the dense glacial till soils. Design parameters for a conventional retaining wall are presented in Section 4.7: Permanent Basement and Conventional Retaining Walls. The modular cement block wall can consist of keystone walls or ecology block walls and should include reinforcement by geogrid layers embedded in compacted structural fill. The wall base pad should be prepared by excavating a trench into dense, bearing soil. The cement blocks should then be stacked on a 6-inch thick layer of free -draining crushed rock. Steps should be excavated on the existing slope behind the wall to allow the backfill to interlock with the existing soils. The wall should be designed using the following parameters: Geo Group Northwest, Inc. C� February 25, 2000 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Friction Angle (phi): 35 degrees Unit Weight (gamma): 130 pcf G-1061-1 Page 28 A wall drain should be installed behind the wall. The drain should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe placed at the inside base of the wall. The pipe should be surrounded by a free -draining crushed rock and geotextile fabric as illustrated in Plate 8 - Typical Basement Wall Backfill and Drainage Details, and tightlined to a suitable discharge location away from the wall (such as the local storm drain system). The drain should extend the entire length of the wall and be installed at a grade sufficient to maintain flow to the tightline. The geogrid layers should be attached to the cement blocks and embedded within a compacted structural fill material. Backfill behind the wall shall consist of free -draining structural fill material that meets the compaction requirements in Section 3.3.3: Structural Fill. 3.9 Rockeries It should be understood that a rockery is not intended to function as an engineered structure to resist lateral earth pressures, as a retaining wall would be. The primary function of a rockery is to cover the exposed excavated surface and thereby retard the erosion process. However, some lateral support is provided by virtue of the weight of the rock. Therefore, the larger the rock the greater the mass and the more lateral load resistance available. However, since this support depends on the contact areas and characteristics between individual rocks, it is virtually impossible to predict or provide for a specific lateral resistance. Also, rockery construction is to a large extent a skilled craft not entirely controllable by engineering methods. Because of this, it is imperative that rockeries be constructed in a proper manner by contractors experienced in, and with a proven capability in, rockery construction, and in accordance with the guidelines specified by the Association of Rockery Contractors, presented in Appendix B to this report. Rock Specifications Where cut slopes less than six feet high, or fill slopes less than four feet high exist, rockeries may be constructed entirely of four -man rock. Rockeries placed in front of six to eight feet high cut slopes should have one basal course of six -man rock. Rockeries with a height of eight to ten feet Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 29 should have at least two basal courses of six -man rock. For rockeries with a height of 10 to 12 feet,- there should be at least three basal courses of six -man rock. The remaining courses may be four -man rock. The rock should be hard, sound, durable, free of seams and cracks, and broken in generally tabular to cubical shapes. Preferably, the rock density should be at least 165 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), but you should recognize rock densities will vary from source to source. Fills Behind Rockeries Any fills behind a rockery should consist of structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Designation D1557-91 (Modified Proctor). We do not recommend using rockeries in front of fills more than four feet high unless the fills have been reinforced with geogrids. Construction Procedure The initial step in rockery construction involves the excavation and preparation of a "keyway". This should be about six to eight feet wide, about 18 inches deep, and slightly inclined back in towards the face to be protected. The keyway should be excavated into dense, compacted soil capable of bearing the rockery. We recommend a shallow ditch, about 12 inches wide and deep, then be dug along the rear edge of the keyway. A four -inch minimum diameter perforated or slotted plastic drain pipe should be placed on and surrounded by a free -draining ballast or crushed rock. The pipe should be directed to a positive and permanent discharge. Once the exposed keyway subgrade has been prepared, the first basal layer of rock should be carefully "slammed" into place. These rocks should be placed in as close contact with each other as possible. Each row of rock should be well seated and thoroughly tamped and driven into place having as few voids as possible. Since the rockery derives its support partially from friction between individual rocks, point contact of rocks should be avoided wherever possible. Succeeding layers of rock should be placed so that rocks overlap each other. The face of the rockery wall should be inclined at a slope of approximately 1H:6V. The filter rock behind the rockery should be installed concurrently with the rockery. It should consist of a well -graded crushed angular rock with a three-inch maximum size. The filter layer should not be less than 12 inches in thickness. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. �• February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 30 Geotechnical Observation We recommend that the construction of the rockery (including placement of the rocks) be performed under our periodic observation. We will be available to meet with you and your rockery contractor to discuss these matters in more detail. 3.10 Site Drainage 3.10.1 Surface Drainage The finished ground at the site should be graded such that surface water is directed off the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where footings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. During construction, loose surfaces should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the soils. Final site grades should ' allow drainage away from the building. We suggest that the ground be sloped at a gradient of three (3) percent for a distance of at least ten feet away from the building except in areas that are to be paved. 3.10.2 Footing and Wall Drain We recommend that drains be installed around the perimeter of the foundation footings. The drains should consist of a four (4) inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted, rigid drain pipe laid at or near the bottom of the footings with a gradient sufficient to generate flow, as schematically illustrated in Plate 9 - Typical Footing Drain. The drain line should be bedded on, surrounded by, and covered with a free -draining rock, pea gravel, or other free -draining granular ' material. Once the drains are installed, the excavation should be backfilled with a compacted structural fill material. The surface can be sealed with asphalt or concrete paving. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing drainage system. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to discharge into the storm water collection system. We recommend that sufficient cleanouts be installed at strategic locations to allow for periodic maintenance of the footing drains and downspout tightline systems. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 31 3.11 Pavements We recommend the driveway subgrades be prepared as described in Section 3.3: Site Preparation and General Earthwork. Areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may still exist after this process. If so, over -excavation of the unsuitable material and replacement with compacted structural fill or crushed rock may be required. The overlying pavement section should consist of at least 3 inches of asphalt. The asphalt may be placed either directly over the crushed rock layer above the sewer line trench, or over a crushed rock base of at least 6 inches above other driveway areas. Alternatively, the pavement section can consist of a 2-inch thickness of asphalt concrete over a 3-inch thickness of asphalt treated base (ATB). 3.11.1 Driveway Support To minimize the width of the area that would be covered by the roadway, the roadway can be designed to include gravity retaining walls and rockeries to stabilize cuts and fills. The downslope (east) side of the roadway can be supported by a modular block wall reinforced with Geogrid layers placed in the underlying fills. Such a wall can be located adjacent to the east side of the roadway pavement (or about two feet out from the pavement edge to accommodate a guard rail) and can be constructed to be vertical or nearly vertical, as desired. Rockeries, Ecology block, or cast -in -place concrete retaining walls can be constructed along the west side of the roadway to retain cut slopes. The use of concrete retaining walls (instead of rockeries or block walls) may be more favorable where cuts exceed 10 feet in height and where surcharge loads from buildings, driveways, or traffic, may affect cut slopes. Non -gravity type walls (such as CMU walls) will not be adequate to retain the cuts along the roadway and are not recommended. . Drainage associated with the cut slope retaining structures and with water on pavements can be directed to catch basins that are installed in the roadway and connected to the local storm drain system. Drainage associated with the fill slope walls on the east side of the roadway should also be tightlined to a storm drain system. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 32 3.11.2 Driveway Stream Crossing Based on the available information, earthwork for the driveway on Lot 4 is anticipated to require more filling than cutting in order to meet the ECDC requirements for driveway slopes (driveway slopes should not exceed 14 percent except under certain conditions, where slopes of up to 20 percent may be allowed). The proposed driveway is approximately 80 feet long over an elevation gain of approximately 15 feet. In this scenario, Geogrid-reinforced fills and modular block walls can be used to support the roadway in a minimum amount of space and can easily be incorporated into the design for the stream crossing that involves either a box culvert or a backfilled corrugated metal pipe. Another option that could be implemented in construction of the driveway and stream crossing consists of designing a pile -supported structural driveway deck that spans the stream and the portion of the stream buffer that is lower than the design driveway grade. Storm drain and side sewer lines could be attached to the underside of the driveway deck. Post -construction impacts to the stream and stream buffer areas would be significantly reduced, as there would be minimal loss of habitat area. Poor quality subgrade conditions are anticipated in the location of the sewer line trench in the driveway areas. For this reason, we recommend that the pavement section over the trench area consist of a layer of crushed rock at least 18 inches in thickness wrapped with a layer of geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 140NL or equivalent). The crushed rock and geotextile can be subsequently covered with structural fill where needed to achieve the design driveway subgrade elevation. No upper layer of geotextile fabric is needed if asphalt pavement is placed directly on the crushed rock base. A drainage pipe should be installed at the lowest part of the crushed rock layer. The drain pipe should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe. The pipe should have a slope sufficient to generate flow and should be connected to a tight line for discharge `to an appropriate location (such as a storm drain system). This line should not be tightlined into the wall drain system. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25, 2000 G-1061-1 Mr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 33 3.12 Post -Construction Soil Stabilization and Re -vegetation Areas where soils were exposed during construction should be replanted with appropriate native plant species to stabilize the soils. Selected plants should not require significant watering by homeowners. The vegetation should be monitored as it becomes established, and areas where vegetation does not take hold should be evaluated for repeated re -planting or for other methods to stabilize the surficial soils. Mulching and jute netting can be used to help stabilize the surficial soil during the re -vegetation process. The utility easement should also be monitored by the homeowners to ensure that re -vegetation and soil stabilization measures instituted after construction are adequately preventing erosion or sedimentation impacts to downslope areas. The easement should not be re -vegetated with trees, to avoid possible damage to the utilities and to allow access along the length of the easement if repairs are needed. 1 4 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES We recommend that Geo Group Northwest be retained to perform a geotechnical review of the final completed construction plans for each lot of the proposed development, per ECDC Section 19.05.040. We also recommend that we be retained to conduct geotechnical construction monitoring and observation of the following: • earthwork quality control, • subgrade preparation, • pile installation, • site drainage, • temporary erosion and sedimentation control, • pavement subgrade preparation, • utility trenching and backfilling, and • rockery and retaining wall construction. We also recommend periodic monitoring of the steep west -facing slope during construction for indications of soil movement or other signs of potential instability. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. February 25 2000 G-1061-1 IMr. John Thoresen - Sequoia Ridge Partners Page 34 ' 5 LIMITATIONS ' This project has been prepared for the specific application to this site for the exclusive use of Sequoia Ridge Partners, and its authorized representatives. Reliance on this report by other parties is solely at their own risk. We recommend that this report be included in its entirety in ' the project contract documents for reference during construction. Our findings and recommendations stated herein are based on field observations, our experience and judgement. The recommendations are our professional opinion derived in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area and within the budget and schedule constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. In the event that soil conditions are found to vary from those anticipated, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. should be notified and the above recommendation should be re-evaluated. We appreciate the opportunity to provide Sequoia Ridge Partners with geotechnical services. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding this report. Sincerely, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. Keith Johnson Geologist any �1p,M C� 0 wf►s�c�,,� k 114 tI SIoNAL IMPM 211W 2o<:7L I William Chang, P.E. Principal Geo Group Northwest, Inc. REFERENCES City of Edmonds, 1999, Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of EIS, February 26, 1999. City of Edmonds, 1998, City of Edmonds Environmental Checklist, Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision, June 12, 1998. DEA, 1998, Drainage Report & Calculations Sequoia Ridge Subdivision City of Edmonds, Washington, David Evans & Associates, Inc., September 25, 1998. GeoEngineers, 1985, Report of Geotechnical Consultation. Property Value Appraisals and Assessments. Meadowdale Landslide Area, Edmonds, Washington, Geo Engineers, Inc., for City of Edmonds, February 28, 1985. Geo Group Northwest, 1999, Final Limited Scope Environmental Impact Study. Proposed ' Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision. Edmonds. Washington, Geo Group Northwest, Inc., and B- twelve Associates, Inc., August 31, 1999. ' Mina rd, 1983, Geologic Mgp of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles. ' Washington, Minard, James P., U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF- 1541, 1983. NCA, 1995, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering ReportResidential Development, Edmonds Washington, Nelson-Couvrette & Associates, Inc., for Mr. John Johnson, March 28, 1995. PIE, 1998, Critical Area Study. Sequoia Ridge. Edmonds. Washington, Pacific International Engineering, P.L.L.C., for David Evans and Associates, Inc., Everett, Washington, July 1998. RLA, 1979, Final ReportLandslide Hazards Investigation Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, Roger Lowe Associates, Inc., for the City of Edmonds, October 16, 1979. Terra, 1989, Geotechnical Report. Meadowdale Beach. Lots 54 to 57. Edmonds. Washington, Terra Associates, Inc., June 6, 1989. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. SCS, 1983, Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area. Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1983. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. F FIGURES Geo Group Northwest, Inc. -_ I.at«ri) I. NYfN. — N.-zi'r f � S I s Ire i IurN n tw - r= f e s IIfT K gg w fw = r ! r +'1 SRDsr' •:i�„�T IfL10 K aw ' r R INTN _ - -, 1faT1Si fw X s s F PROJECT "°'"'r'w SITE a � (� 'fJwD ♦ i Ilaan wM' �"�1---'-� \ I .T n WFA.DOWDALE 1[)R IafrN ntw I4T{NWR � s s >s Y3 Ia.rN>i aw 3 IastN n I. usrN- i nsW MEADOWDALE_- FF F5 r r ELEM SCH G-'�_•.jl InrF n• ' ! •ryy i fw BEVERLY i + IT w i FLEM SCH l.: MEADOWDALE MIME SCHOOL Z iMEADOWDALE � � . � 3 � •y i d HIGH SCHOOL , 5 O INTMRsw IMMR••. sw N 4 n tw • > L fF I` �d msnurn € 5 ! IRNO �•I,IMD fT sw i ! sw 4 s \�" 1)IND ,.Di 17210 IT tw (' >R IT SW C LAND fISW 111N D Si Sw Z ♦ r)R ST tw W °1 t` fwi Ir)NO •° Z !4 113RD aT fw + n,w 2 1) DI ITfw • - II}FO ° ; Z ^ } J "•ry 3 Sw ,µNIT Jr fw = II IT 1 f I IIRD ! ii 5 11.1E R fw fIs' • = C R R=w 1»TN � _ E, ST THOMAS TwtD[RID> 11f1N „ 1r.« IT • •I t`�� .tea. _..,.. ..�_ {.i ='0(, 1»r«K/3 s ; b i t IraT« i STj,II-Lt(19I�9nUNT!PC. :Y,, 4"'t+o sw Y r Y = r r W . Y InTN sr )w =3 � Y � :"`�,6!r,Eti! ' ri. sOUFD T•k i i IT Sw 1171N n irfrN n : ' PpA S!�: � v1[w wr oR sr aw i C ` sw = �f „li;:'�""'• _ ..' . si � I»rN fi ,.., I rfr nil- {w IT . i ISOTM n I IfRN fT iK INT11 SIS. ; : [ • 1i i ;,. i = s[IR near. I3 fw »»T I slit[ d Is)FO T +4 ItIRR{W ! L ItTFD R sW sW k= y I�•DKM 3 ! RSW lf)FD 3 . )FD T (¢S 1—ftsW IfbW RtW S 1• ^ opf nsw fJRD ns.: INTN {T : {w ' is Y I `f •4 INTM IT i ~ 1! ItSTN W 1 � �T S ri INTF ' IfsTN L E F Iasi DI } fw; .5" INTM n ° i IT . SW TOK '4_ b 3 � —� ` =w F »RNnfw IRrN fT fYr 3 = i IT W. ...s S, I IUTN R sw U)TIIK If1TMRN i LY�N SEAVIEW HEIJNTSF s : NT" sW ; " €ri.1 tl .,�_. :X. _ s INTw n -___._ __ _- I �. 'b, ' •w �. >i{ ---- --- w a.awwSy - -: a • ',>',_ er' RRaw - < If9T« aT sW IYNNOALE ♦ -- w^ KS ~••1 s f • / f1 i »)FD R tw NMD �Y F ; RfrrZ»)MDR If lti EIEM fTl If fr= C n tT T w f O M ° •>_. • i ! • i fw Ifi fT 'fo Is9,t ; E 3 19ZN0 K tw If1R0 R aw ; 3 = i O r + fIM F W INTM K< W 3 INTN i K fW IMN{T s• INTN C RD 3 & r >I ; < ; t i` Z 1J•p w s[ LAKE i9JRD HIGH I IT fw NI jM SCN�I sw ;w INTM K < R NI ° ri INTN R D M O N S � fW r = w >; .i; w I NT. N I < 3 � .: �- :INlM WIE �»> Niw.IT T Min R O [ i .:.Sc - ..�WUFo }; I'ri VICINITY MAP M'Group Northwest, Inc. SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, a 160XX - 72ND AVENUE WEST Environmental Scientists EDMONDS, WASHINGTON SCALE: 111 = 2000' DATE: 6/14/99 MADE: KJ CHKD: WC JOB NO: G-1061 PLATE 1 0 GEO 0 0 a Atli A4 Yr .7a, fn <jo w 2 11 ji �Sr.. ar��l �,.ii ��. JY•• �`t. yt �. • cif ��r� .1�� ��.� _;.Z'`1''Mi �Y ��� •y-*�....�~7.�_. �'.�'�.�• .~._. 02 J r� R KEY ?-i AZArRC NONE IDENTIFIED Z "AZARDS FROM ENCHROACHING LANDSLIDE MATERIALS 3 HAZARDS FROM GROUND FAILURE IN MATERIAL THAT HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY FAILED a HAZARDS FROM GROUND FAILURE !N PREVIOUSLY FAILED MATERIAL PROCESS A. SLUMPS 6 DEBRIS SLIDES DEBRIS AVALANCHES D DEBRIS FLOWS PROBABILITY PROBABILITY OF OCCURENCE DURING A 25-YEAR PERIOD IN PERCENT I') ............................. EYANIPLc 4A90 LOCATIONS WITHIN THIS MAP UNIT ARE GENERALLY SUBJECT TO GROUND -FAILURE HAZARD FROM AN EXISTING SLUMP. WITH A 90 PERCENT PROBABILITY -OF OCURENCE DURING .A 25-YEAR PERIOD. • SLASH THROUGH PROBABILITY INDICATES DECREASE TO PR08ABILITY INDICATED Group Northwest, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists. 8 Environmental Scientists LANDSLIDE HAZARD MAP SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION 160XX - 72ND AVENUE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON SCALE: 1" = 200' 1 DATE: 6/14/99 1 MADE: KJ CHKD: WC I JOB NO: G-1061 I PLATE 7 Relative Impermeable Compacted Backfll Free draining material (Washed rock or Crushed rock) Geotextile (Miraft 140 NL, or equivalent) 4 or 6 inch diameter slotted or perforated PVC pipe Slope to drain COMPACTED ONSITE BACKFILL MATERIAL (IF USABLE) Basement Wall F-OOTING NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain lines. 4.) Backfill should be compacted to 90% of maximum dry density based on Modified Proctor. The top one foot should be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density if backfill is to support sidewalks, driveway, etc. Vertical Drain Mat (Miradrain 6000 or equivalent) TYPICAL BASEMENT WALL ( - I , Group Northwest, Inc. BACKFILL AND DRAINAGE Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, & SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION Environmental scientists EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. SCALE NONE DATE 2/23/00 MADE KJ CHKD WC JOB NO. G-1061-1 PLATE 8 Slope to drain LYKVJ Relatively impermeable, compacted CAPILLARYBREAK backfill ' Geotextile filter fabric, (Miraft 140 NS, or equivalent) Free draining material, FOOTING (Washed crushed rock or drain rock) Minimum 4-inch diameter slotted or perforated PVC pipe with positive gradient to discharge NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1.) Do not replace rigid PVC pipe with flexible corrugated plastic pipe. 2.) Perforated or slotted PVC pipe should be tight jointed and laid with perforations or slots down, with positive gradient to discharge. 3.) Do not connect roof downspout drains into the footing drain lines. 4.) Backfill should be compacted to 90% of maximum dry density based on Modified Proctor. The top 12 inches shall be compacted to 95% of maximum dry density if backfill is to support sidewalks, driveway, etc. TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN Group Northwest, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, & SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION Environmental Scientists EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PLATE SCALE NONE DATE 2/23/00 MADE KJ CHKD WC JOB NO. G-1061-1 9 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS Geo Group Northwest, Inc. LEGEND OIL CLASSIFICATION AND PE RATION TEST UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USCS) MAJOR DIVISION GROUP TYPICAL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA SYMBOL WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND Cu = (0601 D10) greater than 4 CLEAN GW MIXTURE, LITTLE OR NO FINES DETERMINE Cc = (D301) I (D10 • 060) between 1 and 3 GRAVELS PERCENTAGES OF GRAVELS (little or no GP POORLY GRADED GRAVELS, AND GRAVEL -SAND GRAVEL AND SAND NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS (More Than Half fines) MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES FROM GRAIN SIZE COARSE- SRO Grains DISTRIBUTION ATTERBERG LIMITS BELOW GRAINED SOILS Larger Than No. 4 CURVE Sieve) DIRTY GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXTURES 'A" LINE GRAVELS CONTENT or P.I. LESS THAN 4 OF FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -CLAY ATTERSERG LIMITS ABOVE "A' (with some EXCEEDS 12% fines) GC MIXTURES COARSE GRAINED LINE. SOILS ARE or P.I. MORE THAN 7 CLASSIFIED AS WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, FOLLOWS: Cu = (DW I D10) greater than 6 SANDS CLEAN SW LITTLE OR NO FINES Cc = (D307) I (D10' D80) between 1 and 3 SANDS , (More Than Half Coarse Grains pdtle no SID POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, < 596 Fine Grained: NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS More Than Halt by Smaller Than No. fines ) LITTLE OR NO FINES GW, GP, SW, SP Weight Larger ATTERBERG LIMBS BELOW Than No. 200 4 Sieve) Sieve DIRTY SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES > Fine Grained:ILT "A" LINE SANDS GM, GC, SM, SC CONTENT OF with p L LESS THAN 4 FINES ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE 5 to 12% Fine EXCEEDS 12% (w some SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES Grained: use dual "A" UNE fines) fines) symbols with P.I. MORE THAN 7 SILTS Liquid Limit INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, SANDY SILTS (Below A -Line on < 50% ML OF SLIGHT PLASTICITY Plasticity Chart, FINE-GRAINED Negligible Liquid Limit INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR 50 SOILS Organic) > 50% MH DIATOMACEOUS, FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOIL 29 INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, 40 - CLAYS Liquid Limit CL GRAVELLY, SANDY, OR SILTY CLAYS, CLEAN w 0 (Above A-Une on < 3096 CLAYS Z Plasticity Chart Negligible a 30- Liquid Limit INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT Organic) -50% CH CLAYS More Than Half by 20 - Weight Larger Liquid Limit OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF a Than No. 200 ORGANIC SILTS a < SO% LOW PLASTICITY Sieve CLAYS 10 - (Below A -Line on 7' Plasticity Chart) LiquidLimit OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY 4 0 ..' r I No 10 ■ni�wn� 11O='511111 0 .0 20 30 40 50 W 70 80 90 100 110 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS LIQUID LIMIT (%) SOIL PARTICLE SIZE GENERAL GUIDANCE OF SOIL ENGINEERING PROPERTIES FROM STANDARD PENETRATION TEST (SPT) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE FRACTION Passing Retained SANDY SOILS SILTY & CLAYEY SOILS Sieve Size mm ( ) Sieve Size mm ( ) Blow Counts N Relative Density % Friction Angle degree Description Blow Counts N Unconfined Strength qu, tsf Description SILT I CLAY #200 0.075 SAND 0-4 0.15 Very Loose 42 40.25 Very soft FINE 040 0.425 9200 0.075 4 -10 15.35 28 - 30 Loose 2.4 0.25.0.50 Soft MEDIUM 010 2.00 840 0.425 10.30 35 - 65 28 - 35 Medium Dense 4-8 0.50 -1.00 Medium Stiff COARSE 04 4.76 #10 2.00 30-50 > 50 85 - 85 85 -100 35 - 42 38 - 48 Dense Very Dense 8 -15 15 - 30 1.00 - 2.00 200.4.00 Stiff Very Stiff GRAVEL FINE 19 04 4.75 > 30 > 4.00 Hard Group Northwest, Inc. �- GeotechnicalEngineers, Geologists, & Environmental Scientists COARSE 78 19 COBBLES 78 mm to 203 mm BOULDERS > 203mm ROCK > 78 mm FRAGMENTS 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone (425) 649.a757 Fax (425) e49417511 PLATE Al ROCK 4.76 cubic meter in volume 0 c r- r BORING NO. B-1 Page l of 1 Logged By: KJ Date Drilled: 5/18/99 Surface Elev. 310 feet +/- Depth USCS Description Sample Blow Count per Water Content Other Tests dt ft. Code 6-inches % Comments Type No. Lawn surface SI 9,20.20 2.2 Blow counts affected SP- (N )surface. by new SM SAND to SILTY SAND, damp, medWrn denser fine grained sand, 1(1t1.1 9.0 10-1 S% funs, little subrounded gravel, dark brown (becomes gray S2 .1 SP- at 2 feet). 5 S1v! -- - -- - --- 83 21,10,3 7.3 S-P SAND, damp, medium dense, fine grained sand, grayish brown. = M=13) SP As above, dense, fine to medium grained sand, trace gravel, S4 18 8.0 occasional lenses of well graded silty sand -N (32) 10 SP BroY� trace coarse sand and vel. As above, brownish gravel. S5 13.19,20 (N-39) 7.8 IS SP As above, very dense, fine grained sand. 2(N3) 8.7 S6 =64SP As above. = S7 (NQ'�) 7.4 25 Sp As above. = 32.50 62 S8 (N-S0+) 30 SP As above, very fine to fine grained, 1" thick silty sand lens in 23,48,S0 sample. = S9 (Nm78) 6.4 Bottom of boring: 3 LS fief. 35 Drilling Method: Hollow -stem auger (portable). Sampling Method: 2-inch-O.D. standard penetration sampler driven using a 140 lb. hammer with a 30-inch drop. No groundwater encountered daring drilling. LEGEND: = 2.O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler GROUNDWATER seal T 3- O.D. Shelby -Tube Sampler OBSERVATION WELL: measured water level 3' O.D. Celitbmia Sampler �IlBO ) G LOG RIN • Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT % SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION Geoteebakat 989hK M Ce010911eq @ EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Envlroaauatal sdeaWta JOB NO. G-IOL1_1 DATE 5/20/99 I PLATE 5 BORING NO. B-2 Page I of 1 Logged By: KJ Date Drilled: 5/18/99 Surface Elev. 285 feet +/- Depth USCS Description Sample Blow Count per Water Content Other Tests & 6-inches % Comments ft. Code T7e No. SM Ivy landscaping, SILTY SAND, brown, damp, loose, 10-15% I S1 3,2,2 13.6 Wet cuttings gravel. (N=4) encountered at about SM SILTY SAND, damp, medium dense, fine grained sand, 10-15% S2 3,1,5 11.7 3 feet during drilling fines, little subrounded gravel, gray. (N=6) (suspected perched water zone SM SILTY SAND with gravel, damp, dense, fine grained sand, S3 14,15,25 9.5 encountered). olive gray (GLACIAL TILL). (N=40) SM As above, very dense. S4 39,26,35 9.1 (N=61) 10 SM As above, poor sampler penetration due to rock. = S5 32,50 (N=50+) Drilling refusal at 13 feet. 15 Bottom of boring: 13 feet. Drilling Method: Hollow -stem auger (portable). Sampling Method: 2-inch-O.D. standard penetration sampler driven using a 140 lb. hammer with a 30-inch drop. Minor groundwater seepage noted around 2 feet during drilling. 20 25 30 35 LEGEND: = 2" O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler GROUNDWATER seal _ll_ 3" O.D. Shelby -Tube Sampler OBSERVATION WELL: t measured water level 3" O.D. California Sampler Ul well tip (screen) BORING LOG • Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION Geatechnieal Engineers, Geologists, & EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Environmental Scientists JOB NO. G-1061 DATE 5/20/99 PLATE A3 TORING NO. B-3 Page 1 of I Logged By: KJ Date Drilled: 5/18/99 Surface Elev. 255 feet +/- Sample Blow Water Depth USCS Description Count per Content Other Tests & ft. Code 6-inches % Comments Type No. Sp Ivy surface. SAND, dark yellowish brown, damp, fine grained S1 1,1,1 16.6 --- sand_veryloose.-------------------- - - - - -- (N=2) SM SILTY SAND, moist, medium dense, fine grained sand with 5,8,7 11.2 gravel, brown. S2 (N=15) 5 _ _____ S3 27,12,13 9.3 Sample at 5 feet $p SAND, damp, medium dense, fine grained sand, brown. (N=25) affected by wateradded to hole. SP As above, very dense, fine to medium grained sand, grayish S4 15,25,26 6.6 brown. (N=51) 10 SP As above, moist, medium dense, silty sand lense at bottom of SS 9,12,17 (N=29) 11.5 sample, brownish gray. 15 SP As above, dam dense, fine P, grained sand, gray. S6 12,17,29 12.9 (N=46) 20 SP As above, very dense, moist. S7 19,27.33 (N=60) 8.0 25 Sp As above, damp. 25,34,45 S8 (N=79) 6.3 30 SP As above, wet, very fine to fine grained sand, 5% fines. = 28,50 Groundwater S9 (N=50+) 24 5 ecountered at 29 to 30 feet during Bottom of boring: 31 feet. drilling. 35 Drilling Method: Hollow -stem auger (portable). Sampling Method: 2-inch-O.D. standard penetration sampler driven using a 140 lb: hammer with a 30-inch drop. Groundwater encountered at approximately 29 to 30 feet during drilling. LEGEND: Z 2" O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler GROUNDWATER seal T 3" O.D. Shelby -Tube Sampler OBSERVATION WELL: measured water level 3" O.D. California Sampler W well tip (screen) BORING LOG PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT • Group Northwest, Inc. Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists, & SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION Environmental ScientistsEDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB NO. G-1061 DATE 5/20/99 PLATE A4 r. NW qW BORING NO. B-4 Page 1 of 1 Logged By: KJ Date Drilled: 5/19/99 Surface Elev. 215 feet Depth USCS Description Sample Blow Count per Water Content Other Tests & 6-inches % Comments ft. Code T e No. Sp Forest duff surface. SILTY SAND, damp, loose, fine grained S1 1,1,3 32.1 sand_brown.--------------------- -- - - - - -- (N=4) --_ SP/ SAND and SILTY SAND, moist, loose, fine grained sand, S2 5,4,4 14.1 SM mottled brown and gray. (N=8) 5 --- --------------------------- - - - - -- SILTY SAND and SILT, moist to wet, medium dense, gray and S3 347 33.3 Possible thin perched SM/ brown with reddish oxide staining, silty sand is micaceous, (N=11) water zone at about 6 ML occasional fine sand layers (without fines). feet based on ML SILT, damp to moist, stiff, reddish oxide staining, olive gray. S4 8,7,9 (N=16) 31.6 observed wet Cuttings. 10 ML As above, damp, very stiff, no oxide staining, some very thin SS 7,12,16 (N=28) 34.3 vertical fine sand laminae and occasional powdery horizontal laminae, occasional wet fine sand lenses I to 2" thick. 15 —— —— S6 15,17,22 23.7 --— Sp- SAND damp, dense, 10-15% fines, very fine to fine grained-39) SM 20 --------------------------------------- SM/ SILTY SAND and SILT, dense, very fine sand is wet, trace mica S7 14,17,27 (N=44) 32.5 ML and fines, silt is damp and laminated to thinly bedded, gray. 25 --------------------------------------- SM SILTY SAND, wet, dense, very fine grained sand, occasional silt S8 17,23,25 25.6 --------------------------------------- lenses, gray. (N=48) 30 SNV SILTY SAND and SILT, very dense, sand is very fine to fine ML grained and wet, silt is damp, gray, gravel clast in sand lens. = 35,50/5" 33.8 S9 (N=50+) Bottom of boring: 31 feet. Drilling Method: Hollow -stem auger (portable). 35 Sampling Method: 2-inch-O.D. standard penetration sampler driven using a 140 lb. hammer with a 30-inch drop. Suspected thin perched groundwater zone encountered at approximately 6 feet. during drilling; most sand layers observed to be wet, but no flowing water. LEGEND: Z 2" O.D. Split -Spoon Sampler GROUNDWATER T 3" O.D. Shelby -Tube Sampler OBSERVATION WELL: ls!eal measured water level 3" O.D. California Sampler well tip (screen) BORING LOG Group Northwest, Inc. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION Geote"cal Engineers, Geologists, & EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Environmental Scientists JOB NO. G-1061 DATE 5/20/99 PLATE AS Lima mi..m Lam! LAN .njm- a pm aim L—_LJm. a..90._9,m t_p= CPO _11-r IL-MR-M _2-m LW N r EM��W=Z UNIT CUNIT ft _ �� � � � , �� �„� '�-ice•, �i / •/� ,/ f• , �/,. UNIT 10, ' , \►`\ \ � 1 , � �� ' . � f i • ' � /� Sri ,/ , �. / +,r , r / ` UNIT ,NIT FJv ARA- J LEGEND 71 NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF RAND AUGERS 6� > PROPOSED 72nd AVENUE WEST PLAN CREATED FROM UNTITLED AND UNDATED PLAN IVIDED TO US 6Y LOVELL-SAUERIAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. UNii A o so too NEL ON-coumE m 8 ASSOCIATES, INC. mhnawra Oronr mm &4wr.►t amamm initr 1" • 10' r e fmw wAm%%w saw"m FlLF NO. LETTERING SYSTEM EY NCA FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES JOHNSON IFIQURE 145995 1 'AT" MARCH 1095 a a LL Lr cl SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL. GROUP NAME COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW � WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAINED GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL SOILS maWTr" 5WOFOOARM FAAcncm WT FAV ON WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAM HM { 3LW GC• CLAYEY GRAVEL Mop�r++w soy RErAMM ON SAND CLEAN SAND SW : WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND Na goo � SP POORLY -GRADED SAND UM 7HAN WS OF COARM FucnaN PAS= SAND SM SILTY SAND MM4 SM WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND FINE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT GRAINED UaLwumff LOOTHMMS ORGANIC CL OL CLAY ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SOILS SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT w"WIMM WS P tnirC utrtisox OR MmiE CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY NM 200 SEW ORGANIC OH 2 ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES; SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS 1) Field classification Is based on Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty. dry visual examination of soil in general to the touch accordance with ASTM D 2488-83. Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests Is based on ASTM D 2487-83. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from 3) Descriptions of soil density or below water table consitency are based on interpretation of Wowcount data. visual appearance, of soils, and/or test data. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM mwu7m GfOnaa+NrcAt ENG/Neeft GEOLOGZ75 EHaWWANNTAL sCoeNTW$ FIGURE 3 06/30/1998 .09:29 4254812510 NELSON—COUVRETTE PAGE 17 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 0.4 BRANCHES. STICKS AND DUFF (VERY LOOSE, MOIST) 0.4-1.7 SP49A BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT, TRACE ROOTS AND GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) 1.7-2-3 SP BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL. SCATTERED COBBLES AND TRACE SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Oe) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.2 - I J AND 1.9 - 23 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 23 FEET ON UM NAND AUGER TINO a0-20 SP LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 2.0- 93 SP TAN -GRAY MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) Me) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.1 -1.8 AND 18 - 31 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 3.5 FEET ON 316186 HAND AUGER THREE 00-2.0 SP LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE, DAMP TO MOIST) 20-3.0 SP TAN -GRAY MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE GRADES TO MEDIUM DENSE. MOIST) (Qe) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5 - 20 AND 2.5 - 7-9 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT &0 FEET ON 3 M HAND AUGER FOUR 0.0 - 0.2 DUFF 0.2 - 0.6 SP LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (VERY LOOSE, DRY TO MOIST) (SLOPE WASH) 0.0 - 1.2 ML DARK BROWN TO BLACK ORGANIC SANDY SILT (SOFT. DAMP TO MOIST) (BURIED TOPSOIL) 1.2 - 4.5 8P LIGHT BROWN MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND SILT p.00SE TO MEDIUM DENSE GRADES TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) Me) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT a6 -1.0 AND 4.0 - 4.5 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 43 FEET ON 360 HAND AUGER FIVE OA - 0.6 DUFF a6 - 25 BM LIGHT GRAY RUST BROWN MOTTLED SILTY FIRE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND SCATTERED COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) Me) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 13 - I A AND 10 - 24 FEET GROUND WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED. HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 2.5 FEET ON 318196 NELSON-COWRETTE A ASSOCL47ES, HW FILE NO.14510 FIGURE 4 APPENDIX B ROCKERY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES Geo Group Northwest, Inc. ARCP Association of Rockery Contractors ASSOCIATION OF ROCKERY CONTRACTORS STANDARD ROCKERY CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES 1.01 Introduction f 1.01.1 Historical Background: These standard rockery construction guidelines have been developed in an effort to provide a more stringent degree of control on rockery materials and construction methodology in the Pa:ific Northwest. They have been assembled from numerous other standards presently in use in the area, from expertise provided by local geotechnical engineers, and from the wide experience of the members of the Association of Rbckery Contractors (ARC). 1.03..2 Goal:.. The primary goals of this document are to standardize the methods of construction, and to provide a warranty for the materials used in construction and the workmanship employed in construction. This standard has also been developed in a manner that makes it, to the best of ARC's knowledge, more stringent than the other stan- dards presently in use by local municipalities.. 2.01 Materials: 2.01.1 Rock Quality: All rock shall be sound, un- weathered, weathering resistant, angular ledge rock. The longest, dimension of any individual rock should not .exceed three times its shortest dimension. Acceptability of rock will be determined by laboratory tests as hereinafter specified, geologic examination and historical usage records. i All rock delivered to and incorporated in the project shall meet thr-% following minimum specifications: J a. Absorption, (Corps of Engineers CRD-C-107) Not more than 3.0% b. Accelerated Expansion (15 days) (CRD-C-148) Not more than 15% breakdown P.O. Box 1794, Woodinville. Washington 9807.2 ( 206) 481 - 3456. or (206) 481 - 7222 Association of Rockery Contractors Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines Page 2 The test sample will be prepared and tested in accordance with Corps of Engineers Testing procedure CRD-C-148, "Method of Testing Stone for Expansive Breakdown on Soaking in Ethylene Glycol." Test requirements of not more than 15 percent breakdown will be computed by dividing the number of individual pieces of initial sample suffering breakdown (that is, separating into two oz more pieces) by the total number of initial pieces in the sample. c. Soundness (MgSO4 at 5 cycles) (CRD-C-137) Not greater than 5% loss 2.01.2 Frec[uency of Testinct: Quarry sources for rockery rock shall begin a testing program when either becoming a supplier or when a new area of the source pit is opened. The tests described in Section 2.01.1 shall be perfumed for every four thousand (4000) tons for the first twelve thousand (12000) tons of material blasted and removed to establish that specific•rock source. The tests shall then be performed once a year or at an apparent change in material. If problems with a specific area in a pit or with a particular material are encountered, the initial testing cycle shall be restarted. 2.01.3 Rock Density: Recognizing that numerous sources of rock exist, and that the nature of rock will vary not only between sources but also within each source, the density of the rock shall range between one hundred fifty- five (155) and one hundred sixty five (165) pcf. Typical- ly, rocks used for rockery construction shall be sized approximately as follows: Rock Size Rock Weight Small One Man 58 Large One Man 210 Small Two Man 265 Large Two Man 580 Small Three Man 760 Large Three Man 1830 Small Four Man 3000 Large Four Man 4000 Five Man >5000 Six Man >7000 Association of Rockery Contractors Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines Page 3 Two and one-man rock, and sometimes smaller, are often.used to fill surface gaps along the top of the completed rockery to create an aesthetically pleasing surface. This is an acceptable practice provided none of the events described in Section .01.5 occurn, the that the owner prevents people or from climbing 9 completed rockery. In rockeries over eight feet in height, it should not be possible to move the large sized rocks (four to six -man size) with a prybar. If these rocks can be moved, the rockery should not be considered capable of restraining any significant lateral load. However, it is both practical and even desirable that smaller rocks, particularly those used for "chinking" purposes, can be moved with a prybar to achieve the "best fit". 2.01.4 Submittals: The rock source shall present current, or most recent, test data for the testing described in Section 2.01.1 on request by either the rockery contrac- tor, the client or the applicable municipality. 3.01 Rockery Construction 3.01.1 General: Rockery construction is a craft and depends largely on the skill and experience of the builder. A rockery is a protective system which helps to retard the weathering and erosion process on an exposed cut or fill soil face. While by its nature (the mass, size and shape of the rocks) it will provide some degree of retention, it is not a designed or engineered system in the sense a reinforced concrete retaining wall would be considered designed or engineered. The degree of reten- tion achieved is dependant on the size of rock used; that is, the mass or weight, and the height of the wall being constructed. The larger the rock, the more competent the wall. To accomplish this, all rockeries in excess of four feet in height should be built on a "mass" basis. All rockeries constructed in front of cuts and fills in excess of eight feet in height should be constructed in accordance with this standard and the geotechnical engineers supplemental recommendations which should be provided before bidding or the start of construction. The same geotechnical engineer should be retained to monitor rockery construction and to verify, in writing, that the rockery was constructed in general accordance with this ARC standard and with his supplemental recommendations, in a professional manner and of competent and suitable mater- ials. Association of Rockery Contractors Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines Page 4 3.01.2 Geotechnical Engineer: The geotechnical engineer retained to provide necessary supplemental rockery construction guidelines shall be a practicing geotech- nical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the State of Washington who has at least four years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge, including experience with fill construction and stability and rockery construction. The geotechnical engineer should be hired either by the rockery contractor or the client. 3.C1.3 Responsibility: The ultimate responsibility for rockery "design" and construction. should remain with the rockery builder. However, rockeries protecting moderate to thick fills, with steep sloping surfaces above or below them, with multiple steps, with foundation or other loads affecting them, protecting sandy or gravelly soils subject to ravelling, with seepage or wet conditions, or that are more than eight feet in height, all represent special conditions and require consultation and/or advice from qualified experts. 3.01.4 Workmanship: All workmanship is guaranteed by the rockery contractor and all materials are guaranteed by supplying quarry for a period of six years from the date of completion of erection, providing no modification or changes to the conditions existing at the time of comple- tion are made. 3.01.5 Changes to Finished Product: Such changes include, but are not nc.:essarily limited to, excavation of ditches or trenches within a distance of less than 1.5 times the rockery height measured from the toe of the rockery, removal of any material from the subgrade in front of the rockery, excavation and/or removal of material from any location behind the rockery within a distance at least equal to the rockery's height, the addition of any surcharge or other loads within a similar distance of the top of the rockery, or surface or subsur- face water forced, directed, or otherwise caused to flow behind the rockery in any quantity. Association of Rockery Contractors Page 5 1 Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines 3.01.6 Slopes: Slopes above rockeries should be kept as flat as possible, but should not exceed 2:1. (Horizon- tal:Vertical) unless the rockery is.designed specifically to provide some restraint to the load imposed by the ' slope. Any slope existing above a completed rockery should be provided with a vegetative cover by the owner to help reduce the potential for surface water flow induced erosion. It should consist of a deep rooted, rapid growth ' vegetative mat and typically- will be placed by hydroseed ing and covered with a.mulch. ' It is often useful to overlay the. seed. and mulch with either pegged in -place jute matting, or some other form of approved geotechnical fabric, to help maintain the seed ' in -place until the root mat has an opportunity to ger- minate and take hold. 3.01.7 Monitorincl: All rockeries constructed against ' cuts or fills in excess of -eight feet in -..: height shall be periodically monitored during construction by the geotech- nical engineer to verify the nature and quality of the ' materials being used are appropriate,. that the construc- tion procedures are appropriate, and that the wall is being constructed in a generally professional manner and in accordance with this ARC standards and any supplemental recommendations. on completion of the rockery, the geotechnical engineer shall -submit to the client, the rockery contractor, and to the appropriate municipality, copies of his rockery examination reports along with a final report summarizing rockery construction. 3.01.8 Fill Compaction: Where rockeries are constructed in front of a fill, it is imperative that the owner ensure the fill be placed and compacted in a manner that will provide a competent fill mass. To achieve this goal,, all fills should consist of relatively clean, organic and ' debris free, granular materials with a maximum size of four inches. Ideally, but particularly if placement and compaction is to take-. place during the wet season, they t should contain no more than five percent fines (silt and clay size particles passing the number 200 mesh sieve). Association of Rockery Contractors Page 6 i Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines i 1! All fills should be placed in thin lifts not exceeding ten inches in loose thickness. Each lift should to compacted ' to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor), before -any additional fill is placed and compacted. In -place density tests should be performed at random locations within each lift of the fill to verify _ this degree of compaction is being achieved. 3.01.9 Fill Construction and Reinforcement: There are two methods of constructing a fill against which to build a rockery. The first, which typically applies to rock- eries of less than eight feet in height, is to overbuild and then cut back the fill. The second, which applies to all rockeries in excess of eight feet in i,eight, is to construct the fill using a geogrid or geotechnical fabric reinforcement. overbuilding the fill allows for satisfactory compaction of the fill mass out beyond the location of the fill face to be protected. Overbuilding also allows the earthwork contractor to use larger and more effective compaction .' equipment in his compactive efforts, thereby typically achieving a more competent fill mass. Cutting back into the well compacted fill also typically results in con- struction of a•competent near vertical fill face against which to build the rockery. For the higher rockeries the use of a geogrid or geotech- nical fabric to help reinforce the fill results in construction of a more stable fill face against which to construct the rockery. This form of construction leads to ' a longer lasting and more stable rockery and helps reduce the risk of significant long term maintenance. This latter form of construction requires a design by the ' geotechnical engineer for each specific case. The vertical spacing of the reinforcement, the specific type of reinforcement, and the distance to which it must extend ,! back into the fill, and the amount of lapping must be determined on a rockery -by -rockery basis. t • • Association of Rockery Contractors Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines Page 7 3.01.10 Rockery Keyway: The first step in rockery construction, after general site clearing and/or general excavation, is to construct a keyway in which to build the rockery. The keyway shall comprise a shallow trench of between twelve (12) and eighteen (18) inches in depth, extending for the full length of the rockery, and inclined back slightly towards the face being .protected. It is typically dug as wide as the rockery (including the width of the rock filter layer). If the condition of the protected face is of concern, the keyway should be constructed in sections of manageable length, that is of a length that can be constructed in one shift or one days work. The competency of the keyway subgrade to support the rockery shall be verified by probing with a small diameter steel rod. The rod shall leave a diameter of between three -eights and one-half inch, and shall be pushed into the subgrade in a smooth unaided manner under the body weight of the prober only. Penetration of.up to six inches, with some difficulty, shall indicate a "competent" keyway subgrade unless other factors in the geotechnical engineer's opinion shall indicate otherwise. Penetration in excess of six inches, or of that depth with ease, shall indicate a "soft" subgrade and one that could require treatment. Soft areas of the- subgrade can be "firmed up" by tamping a layer of coarse quarry spalls into the subgrade. 3.01.11 Keywav and Rockery Drainacre: On completion of keyway excavation, a shallow ditch or trench, approxi- mately twelve (12) inches wide and deep, should be dug along the rear edge of the keyway. A minimum four -inch diameter perforated or slotted ADS drain pipe, or equiv- alent approved by an engineer, should be placed in this shallow trench and should be bedded on and surrounded by a free -draining crushed rock. Burial of the drain pipe in this shallow trench provides protection to the pipe and helps prevent it from being inadvertently crushed by pieces of the rockery rock. This drain pipe should be in- stalled with sufficient gradient to initiate flow, and should be connected to a positive and permanent discharge. • Association of Rockery Contractors Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines Page 8 Positive and permanent drainage should be considered to ' mean an existing, or to be installed, storm drain system, a Swale, ditch or other form of surface water flow collection system, a detention or retention pond, or other stable native site feature or previously installed collection system. 3.01.12 Rockery Thickness: The individual -Mockery I' thickness, including the rock filter layer, should be at least 40 percent of the rocker height. Unless otherwise specified in writing, the individual rocks should be ' arranged in a single course which, when measured to include the filter layer, is equal to the required rocker, thickness. ' 3.01.13 Rock Selection: The contractor should have sufficient space available so that he can select from among a number of stockpiled rocks for each space in the rockery to be f illed. ' Rocks which have shapes which do not match the spaces offered by the previous course of rock should be placed elsewhere to obtain a better fit. ' Rock should be of a generally cubical, tabular or semi - rectangular shape. Any rocks of basically rounded or tetrahedral form should be rejected or used for filling large void spaces. Smaller rocks (one to two -man size, or smaller) are often used to create an aesthetically pleasing "top edge" to a ' rockery. This is acceptable provided none of the events described in Section 3.01.5 occur, and that people are prevented from climbing or walking on the finished rockery. This is the owner's responsibility. 3.01.14 Rock Placement: The first course of rock should ' be placed on 'firm unyielding soil. There should be full contact between the rock and soil, which may require shaping of the ground surface or slamming or dropping the rocks.into place so that the soil foundation conforms to ' the rock face bearing on it. As an alternative, it is satisfactory to place and tamp crushed rock into the subgrade to tighten it up. The bottom of the first course ' of rock should be .a minimum of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent site gra3e. 0 ' Association of Rockery Contractors Page 9 Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines As the rockery is constructer', the rocks should be placed r so that there are no continuous joint planes in either the vertical or lateral direction. Each rock should bear on at least two rocks below it. Rocks should be placed so ' that there is score bearing between flat rock faces rather than on joints. Joints between courses should slope downward towards the material being protected (away from 1 the face of the rockery). 3.01.15 Face Inclination: The face of the rockery should be inclined at a gradient of about 1:6 !Horizontal:- I' Vertical) back towards the face being protected. The inclination should not constructed flatter than 1H:4V. ' 3.01.16 voids: Because of the nature of the product used to construct a rockery, it is virtually impossible to avoid creating void spaces between individual rocks. ' However, it should be recognized that voids do not necessarily constitute a problem in rockery construdtion. Where voids of greater than six inches in dimension exist ' in the face of a rockery they should be visually examined to determine if contact between the rocks exists within the thickness of the rockery. If contact does exist, no further action is required. However, if there is no rock contact within the rockery thickness the void should be "chinked" with a smaller piece of rock. If a void of ' greater than six inches exists in the rear face of the rockery, it should be "chinked" with a smaller rock. 3.01.17 Filter Laver: In order to provide some degree of ' drainage control behind the rockery, and as a means of helping to prevent loss of soil through the face of the rockery, a drainage filter shall be installed layer ' between the rear face of the rockery and the soil face being protected. This filter layer should be at- least twelve (12) inches thick; and for walls in excess of eight ' feet in height, it should be at least eighteen (18) inches thick. It should be composed of four inch minus crushed rock, or other material approved by the geotechnical ' engineer. If one of the rockery rocks extends back to the exposed soil face, it is not necessary that the filter rock layer ' extend between it and the soil face. • • Association of Rockery Contractors Standard Rockery Construction Guidelines Page ..lo In the event seepage is encountered emanating from a protected face, we recommend the use of a well -graded filter layer. We do not recommend the use of a geotech- nical fabric for other than coverage of relatively small and isolated seepage areas because it has been the industry's experience that the filter fabric tends to clog rapidly. This quickly leads to a buildup of hydrostatic pressure which can subsequently cause failure and collapse of the rockery and is to be avoided. This clogging is apparently due to the virtual- impos- ' sibility of achieving full contact between the soil face, fabric and rock filter material. If full surface contact cannot be achieved, there is often a tendency for the soil ' materials to flush from the protected face into the "Pockets" in the fabric which leads. to the aforementioned clogging. 3.01.18 Surface Drainage: It is the owner's respon- sibility to intercept surface drainage from above the rockery and direct it away from the rockery to a positive ana permanent discharge- well below and beyond the toe of the wall. Use of other drainage control measures should be determined on a case -by -case basis by the geotechnical engineer prior to bidding on the project. 4/20/88 6-6 •�::. ' "ill 6 - . H ..,. ,' ..... f� t .. • vt ut=11t= .t •• _ Ni D " • • H '• •I 3 8 F-- Fig. A. ROCKERY SECTION Fig. B. ROCKERY ELEVATION SCHEMATIC ONLY — NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING NOTES: Rockery construction is a craft and depends largely on the skill and experience of the builder. A rockery is a protective system which helps retard the weathering and erosion process on an exposed soil face. While by its nature (mass, size and shape of the rocks) it will provide some degree of retention, it is not a designed or engineered sys- tem in the sense a reinforced concrete retaining wall would be considered designed or engineered. The degree of retention achieved is dependent on the size of the rock used; that is, the mass or weight, and the height of the wall being construc- ted. The larger the rock, the more competent the wall. Rockeries should be considered maintenance items that will require periodic inspection and repair. They should be located so that they can be reached by a contractor if repairs become necessary. Maximum inclination of slopes behind rock walls is 2:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) Minimum embedment D - 12 inches undisturbed native soil or compacted fill placed in accordance with report recommendations. Maximum rock wall height H feet. Rockeries greater than 8 feet in height to be installed under periodic observation of the geotechnical engineer. Rocks placed in the lower 'two-thirds of the wall should be 5 to 6 man rock, 5000 lbs. or larger. Rocks placed above this level should gradually decrease in size with increasing wall height using 3 to 5 man rock, 760 to 5000 lbs. The long dimension of the rocks should extend into the earth to provide maximum stability. Rocks should be placed to avoid continuous joint planes in vertical or lateral directions. Each rock shou;4 bear on two or more rocks below it, with good flat -to -flat contact. All rockeries over 4 feet in height should be constructed on basis of wall mass, not square footage of face. Approximate Approximate Weight - lbs. Volume (0) 1 Man 58,210 0.9 - 4.0 2 Man 265,580 4;1.- 8.25 3 Man 760 - 1830 12.3 - 27.1 4 Man 3000 - 7000 49.0 - 76.0 5 Man 5000 76 6 Man 7000 100 Reference: Local quarry weit�ht study usingg average weights of no less Chian six rocks bf each man size conducted in January, 1988. LEGEND: Drainage materials to consist of �. •;•;�• clean angular well -graded quarry spalls, with 3-inch mar.imum size, or other material approved by the geotechnical engineer Surface seal; may consist of imper- vious soil or asphalt 111ilaitla Undisturbed firm Native Soil 1 Drain pipe; 4-inch minimum diameter, perforated or slotted rigid plastic O ADS pipe laid with a positive gradient to discharge under control well away from the wall. TYPICAL ROCKERY DETAILS ARC -<. Association or Rockery Contractors Pro). No. Date Plate • • Ms. John Thoresen Sequoia Ridge Partners 15621 - 48`' Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Geo Group Northwest, Inc. Project File DISTRIBUTION Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 4 copies 1 copy TABLE OF CONTENTS SITEINFORMATION....................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................... :......................................................... l EXISTING CONDITIONS..................................................................................................................... 1 DEVELOPEDCONDITIONS................................................................................................................ 1 DOWNSTREAMCONDITIONS........................................................................................................... ] APPENDIX.......................................................................................................................................................... 2 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS.........................................................................................:.................. 2 SOILSMAP......................................................................................................................................................... 5 EXISTINGCONDITIONS................................................................................................................................. 7 DEVELOPED CONDITIONS...............................................................................................................I............ 9 BASINMAPS...................................................................................................................................................... 11 DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE SYSTEM.......................................................................................................... 14 i i Targeted Drainage Report Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision r STREET FILE Page i March 3, 2000 SITE DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCR IPTION ' A four lot subdivision is proposed for single family residential development. EXISTING CONDITIONS The 3.66 acre site lies on the south side of Meadowdale Beach Road and adjoins the west side of the unopened 72nd St. W. right of way. Vegetation consists of second or third growth forest with dense underbrush. A small spring fed stream runs along the northerly portion of the property and enters a 12- inch intake near the northwest property corner. The site is bounded by residential development to the south and west. A hogsback ridge, which descends from south to north, runs along the west side of the property. Soils consist of Alderwood gravely sandy loam. Some Everett series soils may be encountered in this area. DEVELOPED CONDITIONS ' Four residences will be built along the ridge line, set back as prescribed by the city and geotechnical engineer. Three of them will be accessed by a private road extended down from the existing terminus of 72nd Avenue W. The fourth will take direct access off of Meadowdale Beach Road. The drainage from the site will be tightlined and routed to an underground CMP detention pipe. The 80" r'.;0001 84" pipe will detain the developed site runoff, discharging the developed 2- r at 50% of the ' predeveloped 2-yr rate, the developed 10-yr storm at the predeveloped 10-yr rate, a the developed 100- yr storm at the predeveloped 100-yr rate. The resulting discharge will be route into the existing system under North Meadowdale Road. tDOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS ' Upon entering the enclosed system in the city street, drainage crosses the road in a 30 foot long 12 inch diameter culvert and connects to a type II catch basin on the north side. Drainage from most of the road and from the tributary drainage to the north enters this CB and is carried north about 105 feet to another type II CB equipped with a flow splitting device. A minor amount of the flow to this CB is discharged to a natural ravine which flows to the northwest. Discharge to the ravine is by means of a 6" CMP. This outlet is equipped with a "FROP" tee, and the lift gate is currently in the open position. ' Primary drainage flows down the road in an 18 inch diameter culvert to the intersection with 75th Pl. W., then continues to the southwest down to the easterly margin of the BNRR right of way. This point is about 770 feet downstream from the proposal. This enclosed drainage system then turns to the south and parallels the BNRR right of way a distance of about 510 feet where it turns to the west, crosses the railroad tracks, and discharges into the sound just south of the boat house dock. r Targeted Drainage Report Page 1 Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision March 3, 2000 DRAINAGE REPORT SUPPLEMENT SEQUOIA RIDGE SHORT SUBDIVISION EDMONDS, WA Prepared for: John Thoresen 17003 72"d Place West Edmonds, WA 98206 425-424-0809 Prepared by: DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 1620 W. Marine View Drive Everett, WA 98201 425-259-4099 THOR0001 Prepared: March 28, 2000 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS Detention will be provided by an underground CMP pipe sized in accordance with ECDC 18.30. The developed 10-yr storm will be released at the predeveloped 10-yr rate, and the developed 100-yr storm at the predeveloped 100-yr rate. Water quality will be provided by 6" of dead storage in the underground pipe. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS • SBUH METHOD AND SCS CURVE NUMBERS WERE USED FOR HYDROGRAPH GENERATION • THE "LEVEL POOL ROUTING" TECHNIQUE WAS USED FOR DETENTION PIPE DESIGN • KING COUNTY HYD SOFTWARE WAS USED FOR HYDROGRAPH GENERATION AND DETENTION DESIGN • 24-HOUR DESIGN STORMS WERE USED AT THE VARIOUS RECURRENCE INTERVALS LISTED BELOW WITH RAINFALL DEPTHS FOR THE EDMONDS A R.EA INTERPOLATED FROM ISOPLUVIAL MAPS OF 24-HR STORMS • WEIGHTED RUNOFF CURVE NUMBERS WERE USED FOR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS AS ALLOWED BY DOE, FOR CURVE NUMBERS WITHIN 20 CN POINTS OF EACH OTHER. • THE SCS SOIL SURVEY INDICATES ALDERWOOD GRAVELY SANDY LOAM AS THE SOIL TYPE, THUS HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP "C" WAS USED FOR COMPUTATIONS PROJECT PRECIPITATION DEPTHS [6mo] 0.99 in [2 yr] 1.55 in [10 yr] 2.25 in [25 yr] 2.60 in [100 yr] 3.25 in HYDROGRAPH DATA BasinID Peak Q Peak T Peak Vol Area Method Raintype Event (cfs) (hrs) (ac-ft) ac /Loss PREDEVELOPED 0.14 7.83 0.0829 1.30 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10 yr PREDEVELOPED 0.34 7.83 0.1626 1.30 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 100 yr POST -DEVELOPED 0.45 7.83 0.1569 1.30 SBUH/SCS TYPEIA 10 yr POST -DEVELOPED 0.75 1 7.83 0.2545 1.30 SBUH/SCS TYPE 1 A 100 yr 1 Drainage Report Supplement Page 1 Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision March 28, 2000 DRAINAGE AREA: PREDEVELOPED Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Storm Dur: 24.00 hrs Area CN TC Pervious 1.30 ac 81.0 0.40 hrs Total 1.30 ac Supporting Data: Pervious CN Data: Second growth forest 81.0 1.30 ac Pervious TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Sheet Initial sheet flow 300.0 ft 35.00% 0.40 23.65 min Channel Stream 200.0 ft 7:50% 23.0 0.53 min Tc = 24.18 MIN DRAINAGE AREA: POST -DEVELOPMENT Hyd Method: SBUH Hyd Loss Method: SCS CN Number Storm Dur 24.00 hrs Area CN TC 1.30 ac 90.98 0.19 hrs Total 1.30 ac Supporting Data: CN Data: Impervious 98.00 0.54 ac Landscaping 86.00 0.76 ac TC Data: Flow type: Description: Length: Slope: Coeff: Travel Time Shallow Shallow Flow 300.00 ft .35.00% 0.150 10.79 min Channel Pipe Flow 400.00 ft 25.00% 42.00 0.32 min Tc =11.11 MIN DETENTION PIPE PERFORMANCE DATA PERFORMANCE: INFLOW TARGET -OUTFLOW ACTUAL -OUTFLOW PH -STAGE DESIGN HYD: .75 .34 34 5.49 TEST HYD 1: .45 .14 :11 3.39 Drainage Report Supplement Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision STORAGE 2187 1470 Page 2 March 28, 2000 CULVERT Desc: 72" CMP Detention Pipe Start El: 173.28 ft Max El: 179.28 ft Length Diam 79.00 ft 6.00 ft (72") MULTIPLE ORIFICE CONTROL STRUCTURE Required Volume Design Volume 2,187 cf 79LF*7T*3' = 2,234 cf Descrip: Multiple Orifice Riser Orif Coeff. 0.62 The pipe control structure will consist of a Type 2-54"diameter catch basin Bottom Elev: 172.28 ft with a 8.5 foot, 2-orifice, 12" diameter riser inside. The riser will have a Outlet Elev: 174.28 ft restrictor plate with a 1-1/2" diameter orifice welded to the base (Elevation Max Elev: 179.78 ft = 172.28 feet). The second orifice with a 2-1/2" diameter will be at an Lowest diam: 1.4800 in elevation of 178.28 feet. The top of the riser will extend up to an overflow Outlet to 2nd: 4.0000 ft. elevation of 179.78 feet. Diam: 2.4500 in Drainage Report Supplement Page 3 Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision March 28, 2000 SOILS MAP Targeted Drainage Report Page 5 Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision March 3, 2000 EXISTING CONDITIONS Targeted Drainage Report Page 7 Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision March 3, 2000 ASI TOP 221.62� / C 210.69N' 10P 215.19 1 _— ss— Sd 0 15 30 60 SS MANHOLE / SD TO9SS P 2t.5B iE 209.., _SS 95 55 T6; OF /BAKK Aa CATCH A9N� . TOP 215.40 GARAGE 1 K. TOP SS Y2ANHOLE WIC IE 192.09-8N /� 1 LIE192.04-BCE 'fP / CAM ASIN 3. /' / / 4,✓y� / :V 'yc. /./_vj,. ��.v� / / GARAGE / . WATER MANHOLE (PRV) 6 /� I• T •. ;� °%` "'. =},,w" ; �_4�. / • ' / �,.�1 j.::.%'%Y LAWN ' t; / EI jYYY l J // LAWN OU 0 / , y,v ; EX HSE _ i' Q 0:�t72.91 (ptiv11!% ? ' /. TOP 171.90 'd v [ATM BASIN>Wl'b1� TOP 175.31 _ / / /7.jv\ �'• • I �.1 Z� ,� AT H ASIN TOP 171.90 - � •' / / / / ct //evy ' CAT A N I TOP 167jl .16 (r / im /w / \.pat..Yry fir^ � � a�w� �v\ i•.v� Y \ __ AT ASIN TOP 154 .76 c ra / /'Y•' \'`.' � 4/ = 7H,�-�lOi'. L 'r`Y"� SP � ,�y� � ire � . .1A5.59 (CP) TOP. F EIAN 50.79 \ \ IE=15B.90 CP �a b `} I } S -� BENCHMARK INVERT CF SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AT N.W. CORNER OF PROPERTY ELEV. 143.09 DATUM: OTY OF EDUONDS LEGEND O CATCH BASIN IN WATER VALVE GAS VALVE UTILITY POLE W/ GUY WIRL t0 TELEPHONE CLOSURi CDC)b ROOKERY A—K FENCE 0 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE J.1 FIRE HYDRANT —SS— SAEOTARY SEWER LIN[ —OP— OVERHEAD POWER LINE —SO— STORY DRAIN LINE —W— WATER LINE y —�— EDCE OF ASPHALT H HEMLOCK OF DOOGLAS FIR DEVELOPED CONDITIONS Targeted Drainage Report Page 9 Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision March 3, 2000 A PORTION OF THE SW1/4, SECTION 5, T. 27 N., R. 4 E., W.M. I NORTH 0 15 30 eD h' f ss O CONSTRUCT PAVED EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURN -AROUND AT EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD END PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. -:_ .r 5. __.... _ r_ i: .cA:cl: ------ 1,�' • / \ AVENUE / W O2 MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT EDGE AND ELEVATION.1'� -NOT DPEN /_ OINSTALL STORM DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM PER DETAIL S. SHEET 5 OF 6. :c:^G �. , ; - - - __. ..._I ._ ...... _S`'7 ..-_... _ __ _._ .. _. 55-' / / J / i _ /� A HYDRAULIC PROJECT APPROVAL FROM W.D.F.W. SHALL BE OBTAINED FOR '� ~ / ///r— CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE STREAM. O RESTORE STREET PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. _ / / / <.i•/ / / / / /. / u/ y�l = OS WATER SERVICE TO LOT 1 TO BE INSTALLED BY CITY OF EDMONDS FORCES O� /\ �\----�-'—^ / //u ` // / / / // / i� I�•o AT TIME OF HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. / •� // \ /—�?:•'/ J �---L —L / iy� / 6O PAVED ACCESS ROAD TO BE USED AS FUTURE DRIVEWAY FOR LOT /. Q/'• SEx % O7 RESTORE GROUND TO PRECONSTRUCRON ELEVATIONS. CDIKCT TO E2 Tf M O8 INSTALL W.S.D.D.T. STANDARD BEAM GUARDRAIL Q� / / / \ j I I j / / / / / / / / / l r •: s ' � ! i (• ' e THRUST �xc'� QQ < ` / / / e�//^ // / d y yi I /-e CATEVAuc (wn) O9 INSTALL FIRE DEPT. AND EMERGENCY AID ADDRESS SIGNS FOR (V ,-Y et0E-ar AisEvetr LOTS 1, 2 AND 3 WHERE SHOWN. / , 1I' RUC (11J) ETastwGHWDRANt 1- % /�//r// � / / / \I I / // I/ � � / / // / / s / / � \ IH6wsTeLoaac // rWSTA (3) RATER 1CTER & i T/Y RA1ER /` / YRMCE IDES M COWIN TRDKH MTN /- �•L MGREA EGESS A . TRACER vRE PER aTr sT.NO.ROs TD LoTs / I uTUTt E-W-ENI: UiC_A A J� IjFEd'i / P —E: zzoe e +92.09-e-L alp _ Tf;. 1• —� n wa Ei v?fir J.E (PNv) 0430 I E-n..e171 6 7- -eYrs / COISTRUCT OVER EX 6 SS A A RM-1815Os E-17120-ER 8 LW — / I E-17157-7E. 6.5 . Sum IOCSMC / RM-162.0C ' E.17110 - 12-SE,. Ge e-3 IEN INS AT AT D OF 1 CP GRATE.,75A, / E.Imm - ,Y E. • EI LA,�H 0 \ 5 n CAICei R- 101 -.. iL9.9�SC--'• � U 3 :K';yi,iy 1 r \ - 31' / ,y T Lho-/ E�17400 I , J ` ti \ // �•r o 7 2 OD R/ 68. -i211 5 i J ss1. 1 A -/3.49 4 � / I-ixiao� / C , Y IT I TOP-2 W E'-224. �+ / RANK �Q ♦ _ I-0 , z z J IL W J � Q e Z ` Q W �-0E, m cc 4J c W � N W 62 F N � Z u Z z c � - W E a s v 0 APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION `z yN6 W 071 OE E OFM ENO1(LF FVR o, CO 15631 j ^ ^ ` 15709 15707 I -118 I 7! 13722 • 1371E W 66M t S 1-8 1-136 11-119 13721 1 J728 15724 13729 .., ' 13723 h h 15720 158TH -131 1-144 _43 1-142 1-140 1_1 15730 157-72 1 b 1-166 1-150 7¢D0 PIE ZD 13819 I 5810 1-141 I5808 T-UBE 15B21 W lSB14 13800 -49 = 7324 > 1.580.9 NOfZ7-H Q 3 13824 1-128 15810 , 1381E -7 � 15812 1-148 1 =zoo• p 1-127 15824 i IS823 '' � 15826 1382E 1-9 15908 0- 15827 1-146 1-31 _3 , 15904 1-29 )3 5 f r rE 13902 1-4 15911 15907 2 15910 Q 5906 15910 1-27 ^ 1-174 z t-19 l/2 15902 1-178 15909 115912 1-26 -76 NL7 15915 159z0 1/ 4 PIEII] 1-79 1-77 1- ,� 13926 1-1ts 13920 1-3 16000 1- 1-78 c,_ 12 l t 6911 6909 '-74x 160TH T ilsw 1-24-231-22 1 2 1-91 16121 1-116 1 16012 1-73 13931 16123 16008 6910 6520 1-33 600 1600 I-g5 t- 6970 1-94 16010 t-tt2 16024 16W t z „I I ^'L 1-87 �> ` 6916 `�826 1-to 1601 6031 6010 I 1E119 >61/5 16020 I-P6960 1-171 �q�� 1-71 6920 i 038 3 1-lt Q-t 16I0 16109 1-134 1-111 I 161 � �8- �0 t-no 1-70 � 6809 1611! GRHD v ER 16209 691E :t �(+ 6803 t-132 �. Qy-( poi -` L 151 IWTE OR SYSTEM 1-169 C M �' 6912 6903 76 ST P v 1610 1610 � ' t-t2 1-450 16100 -6 16215 1-133 6804 t-9a t-3� 1-t3E 1-42 4 611 ` 1 8 l61I3 ` -137 6217 16116 j l6131 6 6121 >612c (2 �� P ��' t � 1 . 1 -43 1-173 RND WATER Q 1 1-89 INTE TOR SYSTEM Li 16c09 l6P16 0` A 1-44 RC � 1-90 1-88 1620P > -' P ZO l6211 1-16t -101 OP£N SSA££ T 1-13 � 1-41 � 16209 ¢ 6P� t-sb '-S3 16213 � 6923 � �• 6801 t-14 16220 1-40 koPPo 16219 6923 Q. -a7 -� 1-toe 1-102 16310 1-3g t-33 16223 6805 16P3B 6?29 16228 '0/ 1 163P0 1-38 16236 1-163 ` 16225 I 29 16991 It -10316P3P ( 6908- l 4 Q t-s1 /� /63171� 6919 1-104 16330 164l1 Z t- 1-99 6915 6802 1-13e` ' 1 X (� 16318 16315 /6320 l 64 1 -177 6909 16404 16319 138 ` 63 1-9- 69-165 P1EZO TU)E r-1-- srl_1 ti 71" 16323 1632? 163 �p 1-16a 4 1 , � 0 'v 7 1-I -180 I6429 t-S4- 1-SO 1-47 ,-16321 1"% 1I94 1_93 6901 ^ 1-6 1 • C� DOWNSTREAal D:7_l� A�G�SYSTEM I N C Targeted Drainage Report Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision Page 14 March 3, 2000 BASIN MAPS 1 N C. !9 Targeted Drainage Report Page 1 1 Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision March 3, 2000 y. I \ �.:;:y z2"i ' 'ya f , E Y : 4.� S'•.Y Q'> � :o�i:?ri!'4i• srrc'• � ✓, s �'N,z< � ��:. < � vc. OJ s •S ' E it V 4 X co lei cn 7 X � Y rl -`Z rz ! ,.y Fra ink,\t i° �. �f ,tzsE ANit?, r Y Q•� h Q ;:7� �. >.,.., p, : zs � ✓• '� ,{.S3 � c. >�,a's' l E ris v i\ < l l � A•r/ � � � r .� �' > r ,t� \ a. ?' > ? � Jai< $ z � £z s ys c s J 'd°",r yG<�� R x• > � 3 ' � r /v �> li v :.,,t •.sf :3 �' :i � 2a�. • � "o`" y" �.., f :K E`vY. ' Q :. E.!Q .Y i" � j„t',, l 1i. `�,. ,� 3 , s >• w ££ y-, s � .^w w3 �` <a' :>ia' a�,.s � ,Y ;;;��, �, <., �f „.£ % ,y;;. 1<, ,'d sr b „�E ",, y �' �•s+ Q �:y ;� \{,.,yv�r'dY;Hr< ,���°' s, ,�...`, N;z .x t^ 'St kq, zy:� cs rf J'Q> a a •' D r •:Co /t ? y,"J.�y, 'A'v .. L ".K H l,,Y R'Y `'`"^••,.,;• t r ,� f'. � y� '?°ir v. rX � „� „�.,� c 1'"'^r..n� _ 'r'...+.s«�. r '� �.oait �Y a ! � " '� i,. e •. JJ be s> L < ;'^ $. . ;t'3,' `" �"r .•' L be � r '" a Aw, kLO OD --- -gy M, X !, •` err a Lo ..; 'ter"` vr/ ' ' • m 2 ,� � '� .,. `. s — ,.�� � l � = to ;:•� ��b•� �r�'xi$„ mr s' • 'v< .... fit: °„ '4'c$ ^' 'ar. < .A k J!y".5—t'�."'.^ ur r �.. �,y :l� .� 3k 3 �, st•s �rxa ,�3" e3>,,' s<�'' � ` .� �` „j/` � �-•.� J„"`\ � l � s �� t i Y Y 3 � ?� C. �.: r��%h€?�sd •'l. °<'�""` � f Y, J 's'� � :'v> y ,, v^, �! �d r a , , � ,S' � � r • 7je > \ , ^Y . :,V I ,"1'.`_*`I^^71 •t ff.>yy � � Al {{f1-� '�iiyi�b � ° .,z�!�.� v�•`� ° �,� b' f , ' Jam' ' ' " , ,/ �,\ \ ,,, f far` ,>y: ,: ��` r�T r,/Tc .:�` �cr J'V >c..aYf^3 \,,'<R, �•n.. y.'j•5>\. £. � � rfr • Y � . ,is, 1E.�, � � •'" ', <tv rI 1 4 ' / < %r"y 3 yE , •^ ! L 'R" '.(',?�`' ,�' '•�/°� ;;�; �C.y�,, � _ H° �f 1 , � � Ln : 1.'. f� f!/ � b ��'�<4 'ti•: �,. �r �.:, .� sa:�R'"`M' :., �.�'I's l ; •a''' �� . � r 0 \ W!` 71 •`' l ,,5 [ �h: er .<a '_a?Foy�. ,s.�\ �� F 1 � :a� ¢" � r�' Y � t>14.s> � i Y<., •�\ �..e"., V,�`•:_ en l �r N M �-^'Y <.•Y' D�./'t �j >,iY.�G.• Q,/ ��. `<➢ , � R > ^ � ` y �, �^r.� `�. '. ,vim 0 . ,� K '',< fir s � •. t ,L.. :. ,� a �•���,......... I <Y•r„ .� ;.ti «. ,� `Saoo;:36.r`• ��.w�� y.; .,��r,,.e'� s, f Y �, l � C <ir :. > � :.. Ls��i ''`. :\ \\` Y ,,gyp p ,,,Y".".•� � , � �.ro'�' _ \�w.. �h � •D<'� Z f� � , '��ti •,;b"d� �^�•..,. ��"".•"'°�,t• l ;"' �`rt, °yd A a0"` ''c � �� a, ' • ,i«• .C'�,w;T ° � < .:r..� f ',7�' ',°f' .. a \Y tea:: r �Y'��',�� ..1 ^a .`.?$N.'b t•Y' .. , P RETURN ADDRESS: City of Edmonds, City Clerk 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 CONFORMED Copy 10/02 200110020364 p.000AM 4 RECORDED2001 6 Snohomish County COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS t Reference #:_D/- Grantor(s): Additional on pg. Grantee(s): city of Edmonds Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec :�L Twn a 7 OR Lot Z Block SgQtc°i Plat_Aj_4 - Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): 53 Cy6 (2) ---__ _aAssessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned CITY OF EDMONDS gy�APPROVED FOR RECORDING DATE: ` ZWA PAGE 1 OF L Under the review procedures established pursuant to the State Building Code, incorporating amendments promulgated by the City of Edmonds, and as a prerequisite to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a residential structure and attendant facilities, the undersigned OWNERS of property do hereby covenant, stipulate and promise as follows: 1. Description of Subject Prop PR VE _ FOR RECORDING: : E DATE:GE OF This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to alract of land at the street address of (insert street address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: 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 the risks associated with development are contained in building permit file numberaf& — D79 (insert number) on file with the City of Edmonds Building Department. Conditions, limitations, or prohibitions on development may have been imposed in accordance with the recommendations -of APPRO D FOR RECORDING: PAGE . DATE. PAGE _ OF 1_ 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 Building Department, City of Edmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington 98020. 3. Indemnification and Hold Harm& cc 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 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 Iandslide hazard, arising from or out of the issuance 0f any permit(s) authorizing development of the site, or occurring or APPR VED FOR RECAI NBY. DATE PAGE OF DONE this -�_ day of l OWNFnici By: By: By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Qom, qo C r (- S e signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED thisa,mday of a eeeeu.ee• ^i o ice'' *0 /Cti , (71 NOTARY PUBLIC a My commission expires: a r '� t's, 'eaveweee�q°• LA77-M BUILDINGWEADOWXCOVENANT .4 RECEIVIS SEP 14 2000 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Return Name and Address: d/ON.cI � 'TNo,els�I vfn e,v j 5, G✓f- f S*O a 6 RECORDER'&TE: PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT ARE POOR QUALITY FOR SCANNING. I��OY200008180I�Otl�I ish P.bba4'AEBo&ono° "' County gease print or WOO imvrmaaon Document Title(s) 'r f Qn1 CJ IC CO✓11:/�� i�% e6 1 2. AW jD 3. 4. Grantor(s) , 1. gEecAofi4 fD�R- /7.4•e��'� E/L 2. ja4,j ,E. TIfa,2�SF�. i/c'•e,A�- ^� 3. 4. Additional names on page of document. 2. 3. 4. ❑ Additional names on page of document. Legal description (abbreviated: i.e. lot. block, plat OR secction, township, range, gtrJgtr.) po,eT-, o-., ofc T sty S u) /J, SEC S, Ta 7 �!, 4 �� uJ, M . ❑ Additional legal is on page or aocumenz Reference Number(s) (Auditor File Numbers) of Documents assigned or released. ❑ Additional numbers on page of document Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number —053 —Oo07 Property Tax Parcel ID Is not yet assigned ❑ Additional parcel numbers on page of document The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on the form. The staff will not read the document to verify the accuracy or comoleteness of the indexing information. • U V11M John E. Thoresen Sequoia Ridge Partners 15621 48'b PI W. Edmonds, WA 98026 NO EXCISE TAX REGUMED rAGG 18 2000 BOB DMNIINI, Snohomish Gou* Town By BOR DANTINI / ooe i/ DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONSAND EASEMENTS OF SEQUOIA RIDGE SEQUOIA RIDGE PARTNERS, a Washington Partnership, is the owner of certain real property in the City of Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington, commonly known as Sequoia Ridge Short Sub -division, consisting of 4 residential lots, and shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (page 11). Said real property is hereafter referred to as the "Property" or "Properties". Sequoia Ridge Partners, as Declarant, and in fiutherance of protecting the economic value, desirability of ownership, and uniformity of the Properties, hereby declares that the above -described Properties are hereinafter subject to the terms, conditions and provisions of this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements. 1. EFFECT OF DECLARATIONS; TERMINATION; AMENDMENT The Properties shall be held, sold end conveyed subject to the provisions, covenants, restrictions and easements contained in this Declaration. The provisions of this Declaration shall run with the land and be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Properties or any part thereof and shall benefit all persons who are or become Owners of Lots. The provisions of this Declaration are valid and binding for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of recording this Declaration in the office of the Snohomish County Recorder, at which time said provisions shall he automatically extended for successive periods of ten (10) years each unless seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the Owners, by an instrument or instruments in writing, duly signed and acknowledged by than, terminates said provisions insofar as they pertain to residential Lots or Building Sites, and termination shall become effective upon the filing of such instrument of record in the office of the Snohomish County Recorder. This Declaration may not be amended without the approval of the Declarant until after termination of the Development Period as defined herein, and then only by an instrument properly executed and acknowledged by seventy- 200 0 0 8180,5-2 Z.of// five percent (75%) or more of the Owners, which amendment shall be recorded in the office of the Snohomish County Recorder. For purposes of voting under this provision, Owners of Lots will be entitled to one vote for each vote they are entitled to cast in the Association for a Lot, which is subject to this Declaration. 2. DEFINITIONS The following words, when used in this Declaration or any supplemental declaration (unless the context indicates otherwise) shall have the following meanings: "Association" shall mean the Sequoia Ridge Homeowner's Association, a Washington non- profit corporation. "Board" shall mean the Board of Directors of the Association. "Building Site" shall mean a legal site for the construction of a single-family residence. "Common Areas and Improvements" and "Access and Utility' Easements and Improvements" shall mean: (a) all the real property (including any improvements thereon) maintained by the Association for thel common use and enjoyment of the Owners and (b) those areas or other sub -division related improvements lying within the access easement, utility tracts, or easements over building lots granted to the Association for such purposes; and which have been landscaped or have had improvements installed by the Declarant or the Association for the common use of the properties. (Entry signs, mailbox stands, and, detention systems, etc. are the type of areas and improvements included herewith.) "Declarant" shall mean Sequoia Ridge Partners, a Washington general partnership, and its successors and assigns. The term "successors and assigns" as used in this definition does not include purchasers from the Declarant (or from its successors and assigns) of Lots. "Declaration" shall mean this Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Sequoia Ridge Short Sub -Division. "Development Period" shell mean the period defined in paragraph..9_of this Declaration. "Initial Board of Directors" shall mean the Board serving during the Development period. "Lot" shall mean and refer to any plot of land shown upon any recorded subdivision map of the Property with the exception of access easements, utility easements and native growth protection easements. "Member" shall mean and refer to every person or entity that holds a membership in the Association. There shall be one membership per Lot, which shall be inseparably appurtenant to each Lot. "Native Growth Protection Easement" shall mean that area identified within the Sequoia Ridge development that consists of wetlands, stream, and buffers and is not to be disturbed or any improvements made there on. "Non -disturbance Area" shall mean the area identified as the first 15 feet extending east from the top of the west -facing slope on all lots within Sequoia Ridge. "Owner" shall mean and refer to the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of any Lot and shall include any persons or entities purchasing a Lot pursuant to the terms of a recorded real estate contract, but said term shall exclude those having an interest in any Lot merely as security for the performance of an obligation. 200008180552 "Property" or "Properties" shall mean the real property described herein, which is subject to this Declaration. 3. EASEMENTS; RIGHTS IN COMMON AREA AND IMPROVEMENTS Easements for the installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage, facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded plat, or as recorded elsewhere. Within these easements, no structure, including such items as patios, barbecues, etc., shall be placed or permitted to remain, nor shall any activity be permitted within said easements which may damage or interfere with the installation and maintenance of existing and future utilities, or which may change the direction of flow of drainage in the easement areas. A utility or drainage facility for each Lot or Building Site shall be constructed by the Declarant and maintained continuously by the property Owners who require the utility or drainage facility except for those improvements for which a public authority or utility company is responsible. In the case where a utility or drainage facility has to be installed on an Owner's property in the easement area herein defined, the cost to install the facility and to restore the Building Site to its original state prior to installation must be bome by the property Owners who require the utility or drainage facility. Any and all drainage collected or sufficiently concentrated to create erosion problems in the opinion of the declarant shall be piped to the nearest underground storm sewer line or street gutter at the expense of the property Owner(s) who requires the drainage facility. A. Costs. Until such time as the Access and Utility Easement Improvements shall be conveyed to the Association, the Declarant shall pay all costs of maintaining and operating these. Upon conveyance of the Access and Utility Easement Improvements to the Association, the Association shall thereafter pay all costs of maintaining and operating the Access and Utility Easement Improvements. 4. USE RESTRICTIONS. The following use restrictions govern the property and must be adhered to: 1. The Non -Disturbance Area of each lot shall restrict the following: Structures of any kind including but not limited to: patios, decks, gazebo's, or posts used to support such items. Swimming Pools, spas, fountains, ponds, etc, Any material used to fill or add to the pre -development elevation of the area Any in -ground sprinkler systems. Further, each lot owner shall maintain the non -disturbance area in a native growth manner with lawns being prohibited. 2. Prior to construction of any house or other structure on any lot, the builder and/or owner of said lot shall obtain from the declarant's geotechnical engineer approvals for any development activity that may have any impact on the non -disturbance area such as house foundations, rockeries or retaining walls, landscaping, etc. Included in the approval will be a plan to enhance the affected area that must be adhered to by the lot owner. 3. No home shall be constructed on any lot that in the opinion of the Declarant or Association does not compliment the other homes in the development in terms of style or exterior color. 20009 81.80552 4. No trees or shrubs of any type, other than those existing at the time these restrictive covenants are filed, shall be allowed to grow in height to a point where they shall noticeably and unreasonably interfere with a view of some significance from another residence. 5. No trash, garbage, ashes, or other refuse, junk vehicles, underbrush, or other unsightly growths or objects, shall be thrown, dumped or allowed to accumulate on any Lot or Building Site or easement. Trash, garbage or other waste shall not be kept except in sanitary containers. All equipment shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. All containers must be buried or screened so as not to be visible from any street or adjacent properties or residences. 6. No trailer, camper, tent, shack, barn, or other outbuilding or temporary structure erected or situated within the property shall at any time, be used as a residence, temporarily or permanently, nor shall any permanent building or structure be used as a residence until it is completed as to external appearance including finished painting. 7. The access easement shall not be used for the overnight parking of any vehicles other than lot owners private family automobiles and shall not be used for the storing of any boats, trailers, camper vehicles, trucks or other vehicles of any nature. 8. No live poultry or animals shall be permitted on said property other than songbirds, and not more than two (2) dogs and two (2) cats as household pets. 9. No sign of any kind shall be displayed unless written approval is received from the declarant or association, with the exception of temporary real estate "for sale" and "for rent signs the maximum size of which shall be two feet by three feet. The Declarant and/or builders of new homes in the area may install larger signs during the Development Period 10. No exterior clotheslines are allowed that can be seen from any adjacent residences. 11. No building or construction materials to be used for future improvements may be stored out of doors where they may be visible from any adjacent properties or residences. The builders of new. homes may store materials in connection with the construction of new homes subject to any reasonable conditions the Declarant may establish for the protection, enjoyment, and general welfare of the development. 12. No woodpiles, for fireplace or other use, may be stored out of doors where they create, in the opinion of the Association, an objectionable view from any adjacent property owners. 5 HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION A. Membership and Voting. Every Lot Owner shall be a Member of the Sequoia Ridge Homeowners' Association, a Washington non-profit corporation. Membership shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from ownership of any Lot, which is subject to assessment. All Members shall have rights and duties specified in this Declaration, the articles and bylaws of the Association. B. At any meeting of the Association, each Lot Owner (including the Declarant if the Declarant shall own any lot), shall be entitled to cast one vote per each lot, which is owned. Fractional voting shall not be permitted If any Lot is owned by more than one person or other entity, then the owners thereof shall appoint one person to cast the vote 200008180552 ,5—,:Ye i/ pertaining to the Lot, and shall file a written statement with the Board signed by all owners of that particular lot stating that such person has been appointed to cast the vote for that Lot. If the Owners cannot agree on the appointment of one person to cast the vote for the Lot, no vote will be allowed for said Lot and the Owners will not be included in any quorum. The person appointed to cast such vote need not be a Lot owner. Any such designation once made shall be voided when the Board shall receive notice of the death or judicially declared incompetence of any Lot Owner, upon the conveyance by any Lot Owner of his interest in his Lot, or upon written notice from all owners of the subject Lot. In any situation where there is more than one Owner of a Lot, the Owners of that Lot attending any meetings of the Association may, if they act unanimously, cast a vote for that Lot. If a Lot's boundaries are modified by a Lot Line Adjustment approved by the appropriate government agencies, each new lot thus created shall be entitled to cast only one vote, and the Lot Line Adjustment shall not result in creation of fractional lots or fractional votes. C. If a Building Site consists of more than one Lot, the Owner shall be entitled to one vote for each whole Lot owned. If the Building Site results in the use of fractional lots, the Owner that owns the largest square footage portion of said lot, which has been divided, shall cast the vote for said lot unless an Owner of a lesser portion of said Lot was specifically granted the right to vote by deed or other recorded conveyance. D. Voting at any meeting of the Association may be in person or by proxy, provided that such proxy is in writing and signed by the Lot Owner and filed with the Board in advance of the meeting at which such vote is taken. The voting rights of any member may be suspended as provided in the Declaration, or the articles or bylaws of the Association. E. Articles and Bylaws. The Association shall be governed by its articles and bylaws, which instruments may be amended in accordance with their respective terms and conditions. F. Initial Board of Directors. The members of the Initial Board shall be appointed by the Declarant and shall serve until the termination of the Development Period. Prior to the transfer of the management and administration of the Sequoia Ridge Homeowners' Association from the Initial Board to the first Board elected following the end of the Development period, if any member of the Initial Board is no longer alive, or becomes incompetent or resigns or if the Declarant desires to replace or remove any such member, then the Declarant shall have the right and power to do so and to appoint a successor who shall serve until the Initial Board transfers responsibility for management and administration of the Sequoia Ridge Homeowners' Association to the first Board elected following the end of the Development period. Except as specifically provided herein to the contrary, during such time as the Declaranfs appointees compose the Initial Board, such appointees shall have the right to exercise all powers and perform all functions of the Board as authorized and provided in this declaration, the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the Association. The Initial Board shall serve without compensation. G. This Declaration and/or the articles of incorporation and/or the bylaws of the Association shall not be amended, modified or superseded without the express written consent of the Declarant until management and administration of the Sequoia Ridge Homeowners' Association is transferred from the Initial Board to the first Board of directors following the end of the Development Period. 20 8.0552 & ASSESSMENTS 6 of // A. Lien for Assessments. The Declarant, for each Lot owned within the Property, hereby covenants, and each Owner of any Lot by acceptance of deed of real estate contract therefore, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed or real estate contract, is deemed to covenant and agree to pay to the Association: B. Annual assessments or charges; and Special assessments for Improvements. The annual and special assessments, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be a charge on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon the property against which each assessment is made. Each such assessment, together with interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall also be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of such property at the time the assessment became due. The personal obligation for delinquent assessment shall not pass to successors in title unless expressly assumed by such successors. C. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association shall be used exclusively to promote the, health, safety and welfare of the residents of the Properties and for the improvement and maintenance of the Access and Utility Easements and Improvements. D. Annual Assessments. The Board may fix an annual assessment for the operation and maintenance of the Association and for the purpose of providing revenues to fulfill the assessment purpose stated herein. E. Special Assessments for Capital Improvements. In addition to the annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to that year only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any construction or reconstruction of a capital improvement upon the Common Areas and Improvements, including fixtures and personal property related thereto, provided that with respect to any new capital improvements such assessment shall have the assent of two-thirds (2/3) of the votes of the members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for the purpose of considering a special assessment. Assessments with respect to the repair or maintenance of existing capital improvements shall be decided by the Board of Directors of the Association and shall not be subject to the two-thirds (2/3) ratification procedure discussed above. A special assessment applicable to one year only may provide for a payment schedule extending beyond that one year to allow the Association to finance any such capital expenditure. F. Notice and Quorum for Special Assessment Meeting. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of making a special assessment shall be sent to all Members not less than thirty (30) days nor more than sixty (60) days in advance of such meeting. At the first such meeting called, the presence of Members or of proxies entitled to cast 60% of all the votes of the Members shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirements, and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum at the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting. G. Rate of Assessment. Both annual and special assessments must be fixed at the following rate: "Lot If 25%; ' Lot 2: 30%; Lot 3: 30%; Lot 4: 15% and may be collected on a monthly basis. 20000 8180 5 5'� H. Commencement of Annual Assessments. The annual assessments provided for herein shall commence as to all Lots on the first day of the month following the conveyance of the Common Areas and Improvements to the Association. The Board shall fix the amount of the annual assessment against each Lot at least thirty (30) days in advance of each annual assessment. Written notice of the annual assessment shall be sent to every Owner subject thereto. The due date shall be established by the Board. The Association shall, upon demand, and for a reasonable charge, furnish a certificate signed by an officer of the Association, setting forth whether the assessments on a specified Lot had been paid. A properly executed certificate of the Association as to the status of the assessments on a Lot is binding upon the Association as of the date of its issuance. 1. Effect of Nonpayment of Assessments; Remedies. Any assessment not paid within thirty (30) days after the due date shall bear interest from the due date at a rate set by the Association. The Association may bring an action at law against the Owner personally obligated to pay the same, or foreclose the lien against the Lot or Lots. No Owner may waive or otherwise escape liability for the assessment provided for herein by nonuse of the Common Areas and Improvements or by abandonment of his or her Lot or Lots. J. Subordination of Lien to Mortgages. The lien of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment lien. However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to mortgage foreclosure or any proceeding in lieu thereof shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to payments, which became due prior to such sale or transfer. No sale or transfer shall release such Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof. 7. ENFORCEMENT Provisions of this Declaration are declared to create mutual, equitable covenants and servitudes for the benefit of the Declarant, each Owner of a Lot or Building Site subject to said covenants, and their successors in interest. Enforcement of these covenants, conditions and restrictions may be by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant, condition or restriction, and said action may be brought either to restrain violation and/or to recover damages. Failure of the Declarant, or any Owner to enforce any covenant, restriction or exercise any rights herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. All costs incurred in enforcement shall be at the expense of the violator or violators, including a reasonable attorneys' fee. & ADDITIONAL PROPERTY A. The Declarant hereby reserves for itself, its successors or assigns, the right, but not the obligation, to include additional adjacent properties within the auspices of the Association and to grant to the Lot Owners of any such additional adjacent properties all rights and benefits to which Members of the Association are entitled. The Declarant hereby reserves for itself, its successors or assigns, the right to develop said additional adjacent properties without subjecting them to the terns and provisions of this Declaration. The intent of this provision is to allow the Declarant the option to create one Homeowners' Association for all phases of the Sequoia Ridge project. Thus, Lot Owners of additional adjacent property 20000 8180552 0 . 0 8 ac= // may become Members of the Association even though they are subject to a declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements, which differs from this Declaration. B. Each Lot Owner hereby consents to the inclusion of additional property entitled to membership in the Association at any time from the date on which this Declaration is recorded with the Snohomish County Recorder. Each Lot Owner hereby appoints and constitutes the Declarant at his attorney -in -fact to accomplish the amendment of the Association's Articles and; C. Bylaws to add such additional properties. Each Lot Owner fiuther agrees that the Declarant, as attorney -in -fact for each Lot Owner, shall have the authority to file such amendments to this Declaration and/or record additional Declarations as the Declarant may reasonably deem appropriate to include such additional properties within the auspices of the Association If the Declarant adds additional properties to the Association, at the time at which any additional properties are added to the Association, the Common Areas and Improvements included in such property shall be combined with the Common Areas and Improvements existing in the Association prior to such addition or additions. The Common Areas and Improvements shall then be burdened by easements in favor of the Lot Owners of the originally described Property and in favor of the Lot Owners of any additional properties, and shall be, benefited by an obligation of the Lot Owners of the originally described Property and the Lot Owners of any additional properties to pay a portion of the cost of maintenance of the Common Areas and Improvements. Until such additional adjacent properties shall be subjected to the Association, the property shall not be governed by the Association. This Declaration shall not give the Association or any Lot Owners any right in said adjacent properties until said adjacent properties are subjected to the Association. D. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be construed to require the Declarant to include any additional properties. 9. DEVELOPMENT PERIOD A. The Development Period shall mean that period of time from the date of recording this Declaration until one day after the date when all of the lots entitled to membership in the Association have been sold. A sale shall be evidenced by the recording of a deed or real estate contract with the Snohomish County Recorder. Lots entitled to membership shall consist of lots included in this Declaration and lots included in the Association under the provision for additional adjacent property. B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Declarant, at its option, may elect to terminate the Development Period at any time. Upon termination of the Development Period, either as a result of the sale of lots or the election of the Declarant, the Declarant shall record with the Snohomish County Recorder a Declaration of Termination of Development Period referencing the Declaration and stating that the Development Period is terminated, and the Development Period shall terminate with the recording of said document. C. Not less than ten (10) no more than thirty (30) days prior to the recording of the Declaration of Termination of Development Period, the Declarant shall give written notice of the termination of the Development Period to the Owner of each Lot. If there shall be more than one Owner of any Lot, notice to anyone of said Owners of any Lot shall be sufficient. The notices shall be transmitted by regular mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the Owner at the last mailing address provided to the Declarant. If no mailing 20000 8180552 9 d< i/ address had been provided to the Declarant, then said notice shall be addressed to the mailing address of the Lot. Notices shall be deemed given when deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as herein indicated. D. Said Notice of Termination of Development Period shall specify the date when the Development Period will terminate, and shall further notify the Lot Owners of the date, place and time at which the first annual meeting of the Association will be held. The notice shall specify that the purpose of the Association meeting is to elect new officers and a Board of Directors of the Association. The board and officers of the Association may be elected by a majority vote of said quorum. If a quorum shall not be present, the Development Period shall nevertheless terminate and it shall thereafter be the responsibility of the Lot Owners to provide for the operation of the Association. E. The Declarant hereby reserves for itself, its successors - or assigns, during the Development Period, all of the rights, powers, and functions of the Association or the Board of Directors thereof, which shall be exercised and/or performed by; the Declarant.. The Declarant shall appoint the Initial Board of Directors who shall exercise the aforesaid rights during the Development Period. 10. SEVERABILITY The invalidation of any one of the covenants contained in this Declaration by judgment or court order shall in no way affect any of the other provisions, which shall remain in full force and effect. 200008180552 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SEQUOIA RIDGE PARTNERS has executed the Declaration of Co ant, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements by the undersigned this /7rN day of Lvs 2000. , General Partner STATE OF WASHINGTON ) )ss COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) �� ��w SEN� On Jame 2000, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared JOHN E. THOREpeerrsonally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity. WITNESS my hand and official seal. on Q004o 8180552 u u. MS 15 H1191 i fib = 4a y �p sg a A ¢ 'Ica 9� � I /tv-- // i MMUMIMMIS 11 b� w d d 1 !1 >d a1 b� •Mpp nn/I�� bii �Ii �f 1 d d. d d Q 1 1 Ip SEC S, 'T a7a,1I �41E, w, wt. at s131-oc�--0s3-0007 200008180552 Ik Grou Northwest, Inc. Geotechnical ak �pygT `�V% 'yONpMsFiyT September 27, 2001 Project No. G-1061A CITY OF EDMONDS Attn: Ms. Jeannine Graf, Building Official 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Wet Season Grading Restriction Waiver Sequoia Ridge Development Lot 1, Holroyd Residence 16120 72"d Avenue West Edmonds, WA Ref: Erosion Control Plan Dwg. No. E 1.1: Temporary Filter Fabric Fence Filtration System Dwg. No. E 1.1.1 Straw Bail Dam Filtration System Dwg. No. E 1.2 Stabilized Construction Entrance Dwg. No. E1.3 Temporary Sediment Control Trap for Catchbasins Dear Ms. Graff: As the geotechnical engineer of record for the Sequoia Ridge Development project, it is our opinion that it is acceptable to allow site work to occur during the wet season, after September 30. Based on the existing site conditions and review of the erosion control plan referenced above, it is our opinion that adverse impacts, safety problems, and environmental harm will be mitigated during the wet season, provided the erosion control requirements are implemented as described on the erosion control drawings. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. William Chang, P.E. Principal 2119J Zovz- 13240 NE 20th Street, Su ing Phone 425/649-8757 • FAX 425/649-8758 FROM HAMMERHEAD_CONSTRUCTION_SRUCS_ FAX NO. : 4256e79907 Jun. 18 2002 03:30PM P2 • roue Northwest, Inc Geoteehn;esl Engineers. Geologists C' r • & Environmental Scieniists June 10, Z002 CITY Ol' EDMONDS Develop! vent Services Department 121 5 h Avenue North Edmond:, WA 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Special Inspection - Final Letter Project r'ame: Holroyd Residence Project kddress: 16120 - 72"d Avenue West, Edmonds, WA Project No. G-1061A REc-2--1VED BUILDING DEPT. Geo Gro ip Northwest, Inc, conducted the geotechnical related special inspections during the construe ion of a new single family residence for the Holroyd family. The special inspections were conducted starting October 8, 2001. A final site inspection was conducted June 10, 2002. The folic wing special inspections were performed by Geo Group Northwest, Inc: Observation and monitoring of excavations; Rockery construction; — Foundation soil bearing verification; — Monitoring the installation of pipe piles to support the house foundation above the rockery; — Subsurface drainage installation; — Erosion control & wet season monitoring. Based or our site observations and monitoring, the above items were satisfactorily completed in accordu ce with the project plans. Monitoring of structural fill placement and compaction was not requi red as fill soils were not placed below foundations or slab -on -grade floors. 13240 NE 20th Strect, Suite 12 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Phone 425/649-8757 FAX 425/649-8758 C�-CTZF 6/Z%L FROM HAMMERHEAD_CONSTRUCTION_SRUCS_ . FAX NO. : 4256979907 Jun. 18 2002 03:31PM P3 June 10, . ;002 G-1061A Final Gec technical Special Inspection Letter Page 2 Holroyd l residence Prior to tl .e start of construction, a geotextile filter fabric fence was installed around the perimeter of the cor struction site for temporary erosion control. Temporary erosion control can be removed, s landscaping is complete. If you hay s any questions, please call. Sincerely, GEO GROUP NOR VEST, YNC. 01 Wade J. L ►ssey End neerin ; Geologist William C1 ang, P.E. Principal cc: Mr. 1>ale Miller - HammerHead Construction Services Mr. Phil Holroyd - Homeowner N Geo Group Northwest, Inc. r CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 •, Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT jh e 189p Planning • Building • Engineering Mr. Phil Holroyd 3406 132"d Street Southwest, #2 Lynnwood, Washington 98037 September 26, 2001 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: 16120 72"d Avenue West, Building Permit #2001- Earth Subsidence Landslide Ordinance #2661, Rainy Season Construction Provisions Dear Mr. Holroyd, The purpose of this letter is to reiterate that the referenced residential project is subject to Edmonds Community Code Chapter 19.05 for landslide hazard development. Rainy season regulations require that excavation, drainage, grading and groundwork be completed by September 30th. If groundwork of this nature is not complete and will overlap into the month of October, the City requires a letter stamped and signed from your geotechnical engineer of record that states a site inspection has confirmed that the site is stable and work may continue past the ordinance deadline of September 30th.. A schedule of work shall be submitted with the letter that establishes a final completion date of any additional work during the rainy season (September 30th to May 1s). If the City does not receive such notice it is understood that groundwork, as defined by ordinance, shall be stayed until May 1 st, 2001. Winterization measures are also required which includes protection of exposed slopes with visqueen or hydroseeding, installation and maintenance of temporary erosion control measures, completion of site stabilization work (i.e., rockeries) and generally securing and safeguarding the site. Regardless of whether work commences or is stayed until May 1st, 2002, the geotechnical engineer of record shall make winterization recommendations in a field report and provide a copy to the City. All report recommendations shall be immediately implemented. Installation shall be approved by the geotechnical engineer and a field report submitted to the City. Please be advised, it is possible to start groundwork prior to May 1, 2002 by providing a letter from your geotechnical engineer stating the weather and site conditions are stable and work may start. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220. Sincerely, eannine L. Graf Building Official Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Sep ?0 01 09:16a . - Corbett architects 206 263 0080 p.1 • C or et rchitects P5 I nc__ Phone 206-283-7808 Fax 206-283-0080 * 1951 31st Avenue West Seattle Wa. 98199 fac.51'milc transmittal To: Meg Gruwcll From: Katie Greernun Re: Holrovd Datum Point CC: Fax: 425-771-022 Date: 9/20/01 Pages: 4 Plus Cover ❑ Ungeld ❑ For Review ❑ Please Corn ment ❑ Please Reply O Plwse Recycle Meg - Because of the uncertainty of the elevation at the catch basin, we have decided to change the location of the datum point from the catch basin to the sanitary sewer manhole located on the access casement, with a surveyed elevation of 279.5 at the top of the manhole. Please see the RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2001 BUILDING DEPT. Sep 20 O1 09:16a corbett architects 206 283 0080 0 p.2 revised attached 8-1/2 a I I site plans. 1 will come to the building department this afternoon to redline all of the site plans that you have on file with the new datum point. I added the Icxt from John Thorson's Landscape Plan to Phil Holroyd's yesterday. If there is a better time for me to come in this afternoon. or you had any remaining questions about the landscape plan. please give me a call at 206-283-7808. The two -week correction review period will expire for Jim Bosch's planning corrections on Monday the 246'. Please let me know if there is any more information that 1 can give you that would maloc your review any easier. Thanks for your help. Katic RECEIVED SEP 2 0 2001 BUILDING DEPT. o Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. 0U Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting City of Edmonds Community Services Department 250 — 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Subject: Supplement to Geotechnical Review Proposed Holroyd Residence, Lot 1 Sequoia Ridge 16120 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf: J-924 July 12, 2001 BUILDING J U L 16 2001 This letter supplements our March 13, 2001 geotechnical review for the referenced project. Additional submittal information was received with your transmittal dated July 6, 2001. The plan review number for this project is 01-025. A letter from Geo Group Northwest dated June 21, 2001 was submitted for our information. The letter responded to specific items addressed in our June 8, 2001 geotechnical review. Conclusions and Recommendations The geotechnical engineer provided additional information sufficient to confirm that the geotechnical analyses were completed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice. We recommend that the foundation plans for the project be revised to show, the locations of needle piles, minimum pile lengths, capacities, and installation criteria. We recommend that geotechnical special inspection be required for needle pile foundations. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, John E. Zipper, P.E. President 18905-33rd Avenue West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425Fk94 1 / 24 ,w� NMIGeotechnical Engineers, Geologists Group Northwest, Inc. & Environmental Scientists June 21, 2001 Ms. Jeanie Graf, Building Official Development Services Department, Engineering Division CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5 h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Response to geotechnical review comments Proposed Holroyd Residence Lot 1 - Sequoia Ridge Development 16120 - 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Plan Review Number: 01-025 Project No. G-1061-A RecelveD JUL - 5 2001 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. C�TY OF EDMONDS Ref: Report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision, Edmonds, Washington', by Geo Group Northwest, Inc., dated February 29, 2000. Dear Ms. Graf: This letter has been prepared in response to the geotechnical review comments for the Proposed Halroyd Residence, Lot 1 of the Sequoia Ridge Development, by Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc., dated March 13, 2001. The following restates the Zipper Zieman comments in Item 7 and , presents our responses: ITEM NO.7. A.) COMNMNr: A portion of the proposed Halroyd residence and detached garage will be located within five (5) feet of the driveway easement rockery wall. The stability of the rockery due to surcharge loading and the stability of the foundation should be addressed. The slope stability analysis should 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 • Bellevue, Washington 9801 Phone 425/649-8757 • FAX 425/649-8758 June 21, 2001 Lot 1 Comments Response G-1061-A Page 2 address this condition. Additionally, the response should reference the February 2000 report for general recommendations about development within landslide hazard areas. RESPONSE: The geotechnical issues related to locating structures above to the rockery wall have been discussed with Corbett Architects. In our letter dated June 18, 2001, we recommend pile supporting those portions of the house and garage positioned within a 1H:1 V plane up from the base of the existing rockery wall to avoid surcharge loads on the rockery. This also addresses mitigation of potential instability of foundations and slope instability behind the rockery wall. The Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk letter refers to the February 29, 2000 geotechnical engineering study in the second paragraph. We concur that development of Lot 1 should conform to the recommendations contained in the referenced geotechnical engineering study, including the general recommendations about development within landslide hazard areas. B.) COMMENT: The GGNI "Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk" for Lot 1 dated December 20, 2000 includes a table that indicates numerical factors of safety for shallow sloughing and deep failures. The table does not provide enough information about the calculated factors of safety and where the analyses were performed. For example, does the shallow sloughing factor of safety apply to on -site slopes such as rockeries and graded slopes, does it apply to the steep east facing slope, or does it apply to the off -site west facing slope? Response: The table indicates the estimated probability of earth movement within a 25-year period for shallow sloughing and deep failures on the steep west -facing slope. The slope stability calculations analyzed the west -facing slope factors of safety against deep seated slides and shallow sloughing on Lot 2 (located at Section B-B' on the Development Plan, Plate 3, of the referenced Geo Group Northwest, Inc. June 21, 2001 G-1061-A Lot 1 Comments Response Page 3 geotechnical engineering study). Based on our analysis, the -west -facing slope has a factor of safety of 1.1 against shallow sloughing, indicating that some shallow sloughing is anticipated over time. The west -facing slope has a calculated factor of safety of 1.8 against deep seated slides, indicating a low probability of deep-seated slope failure that would affect the structure. Taking into consideration the condition of the west -facing slope the calculated factors of safety were also found to be applicable to Lot 1. Roger Lowe and Associates and GeoEngineers, Inc. estimated a five (5) percent probability of earth movement within a 25-year period for the subdivision. This probability was based on geotechnical investigation reports prepared by Roger Lowe and Associates (RLA), dated 1979, and by GeoEngineers, Inc., dated 1985. GGNI concurred with this estimated probability for the overall subdivision, however an evaluation of both shallow and deep slope movement on the west - facing slope was needed. The risk of failure estimate was formulated using similar estimates made by RLA and GeoEngineers for the surrounding area and by using the calculated factors of safety, the existing condition of the slope, and the evidence that recent sloughing had occurred on the steep west -facing slope. We estimated that the 25 year risk of failure due to shallow sloughing on the west -facing slope has a 10 percent probability and a deep seated slide affecting the house has a very low probability of 1 percent. In our response to the Landau Associates Rockery Review, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. (GGNI) analyzed the global stability of the proposed rockery and cut slope systems for the subdivision and determined that they would have a global factor of safety equal to or greater than 2. The rockeries themselves are facing units and we have recommended they be built according to the construction standards of the "Association of Rockery Contractors". Recommendations for permanent graded slopes are discussed in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of the referenced geotechnical engineering study. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. June 21, 2001 G-1061-A Lot 1 Comments Response Page 4 Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Respectively Submitted, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. Wade J. Lassey Engineering Geologist )� Z�� . William Chang, P.E. Principal cc: Mr. Phil Halroyd - Owner Katie Greenmun - Corbett Architechs Geo Group Northwest, Inc. V00owle Zi er Zeman Associates In . Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting J-924 March 13, 2001 BU110ING City of Edmonds Community Services Department MAR 2 250 — 5' Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Review Proposed Halroyd Residence, Lot 1 Sequoia Ridge 16120 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf: This letter presents our conclusions and recommendations concerning our geotechnical review of building permit application documents of the referenced project. These services were requested with your letter of transmittal received February 6, 2001. The plan review number for this project is 01-025. Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. services were limited to geotechnical review for the referenced project. These review services do not include design, analysis, or engineering recommendations for the project: These review services were provided for the purpose of evaluating general conformance of the documents with City of Edmonds permit requirements. These services were provided for the exclusive use of the City of Edmonds for specific application to the referenced project and purpose. No other warranty is expressed or implied. Ordinance No. 2661 of the City of Edmonds, dated January 27, 1988 and revised February 29, 1988 contains requirements for design, geotechnical analysis, construction, and permit submittal within the Meadowdale Slide area of Edmonds. Paragraph 19.05.000 of the ordinance defines the purpose of the ordinance. Paragraph 19.05.030 describes required application submissions. The following sections of this letter contain our conclusions regarding the submissions for this project, including conformance with the required application submissions noted in the ordinance. Additionally, this letter comments on conformance with Paragraph 19.05.050 of the ordinance, which describes disclosures, declarations, covenants, and waivers required for construction in the Meadowdale Slide area. The following list includes our comments as pertaining to the geotechnical submissions for this project. The site evaluation checklist utilized for this review is titled "Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Landslide Hazard Area Checklist for Permit Submittal" and appears to be dated May 1999. After we receive additional information, specifically a site specific grading plan, additional review items may develop. 18905-3Yd Avenue West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771 - 3304 Halroyd Residence, Lot 1 Seq�idge Edmonds, Washington The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: 1. Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. J-924 March 13, 2001 Page 2 2. Lead design professional designation and statement — Reviewed, dated October 1, 2000; R. Brian Corbett (Project Architect) is the Lead Design Professional for the project. 3. Vicinity Map — Complete. 4. Topographical Map — A topographic map is included in the geotechnical report. However, the map does not show the topography of the west -facing slope located west of Lot 1. 5. Environmental Checklist — Complete. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the site has previously been cleared. 7. Geotechnical Report — A geotechnical report (dated February 29, 2000) prepared by GEO Group Northwest, Inc. (GEO Group NW) was submitted. The geotechnical report addresses general development of Lots 1 through 4 within the Sequoia Ridge Development. An addendum letter by GEO Group NW to address site specific development of Lot 1, dated December 20, 2000 was submitted. Our comments regarding the getechcnial report and addendum are: Based on our review of Plate 3 of the February 2000 GEO Group report, a portion of the house will be located within 5 feet of a rockery. The stability of the rockery due to surcharge loading and the stability of the foundation should be addresseed. The slope stability analysis should address this condition. Additionally, the addendum letter should reference the February 2000 report for general recommendations about development within landslide hazard areas. GEO Group NW prepared a "Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk" for Lot 1 dated December 20, 2000 as a permit submittal. This letter includes a table that indicates numerical factors of safety for shallow sloughing and deep failures. The table does not provide enough information about the calculated factors of safety and where the analyses were performed. For example, does the shallow sloughing factor of safety apply to on -site movements such as rockeries and graded slopes, or does it apply to the off -site west -facing slope? 8. Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Complete regarding geotechnical issues. 18905-33"d Avenue West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771 - 3304 Halroyd Residence, Lot 1 Seggidge J-924 Edmonds, Washington March 13, 2001 Page 3 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application — Not submitted for our review. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted for our review. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Complete. 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Complete. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted for review. Recommendations We recommend that the City determine which of the above items that were not submitted for our review are required. We recommend that the following information, as a minimum, be required to confirm that the geotechnical analyses and grading plan conform to City requirements: Grading plan; Geotechnical supplements described above, to confirm that adequate numerical factors of safety are calculated by the engineer for slopes and rockeries shown on the grading plan, and to confirm that the foundation and rockery designs specific to Lot 1 are addressed; We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this phase of the project and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of this project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, ZIPPER ZEMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert A. Ross, E.I.T. Project Engineer 671114- 6, John E. Zippe President EXPIRES .1124 / 18905-33`d Avenue West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 (425) 771 - 3304 Febnw" 16,2001 • To the building officals of Pity of Edmonds, Phil and Lisa Hohv),d state for the record that the accunscy of all permit submittal information is warranted by Phil and Lisa Holroyd and relieves the city and its staff from any liabitily associated with its reliance on such permit appplicadon submittals. Pbtl and Lisa iHohWd also wtderstand that all conclusions, while they tray reference the reports of prior public consultants of the city. All conclusions drawls are those of Phil and Lisa Holroyd and the professionals retained for all aspects of the submittal. Phil and Lisa Holroyd understand and accept the risk of developing in an area with potential unstable soils and Phil and Lisa Holroyd will advise any prospective purchasers or lessees of structures on the site of the slide potential of the area Sincerely Phil and Lisa Halrovd ECEIVED RECEIVED S EP 1 1 2001 FEB IS 2001 BUILDING DEPT. PERMIT COUNTER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (Individual) STATE OF WASHINGTON, County of ss. Notary Public in and for the State ofWashington, residing at _ L—y►1`'V0n")a do hereby certify that on this ��Thday of , J)LAP-2i personally appeared. efore me o� to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that signed the same asfree and voluntary act and deed for the uses and. purposes herein mentioned. Given Under My Fla) <-911d Offic4l Seal this / q �.I,p1RES 2 Q \O� QA O } y �P U Cr'S Q' O Z C9 Qj QJ� ;LO CO F STATE% C) day of Notary Public�n and for the State of Washington, residing at j 00 �_, February 16, 2001 To the building officals of the* of Edmonds, • Pail and Lisa Holroyd state for the record that the accuracy of all pwnit submittal information is wart anted b•/°Phil and Lisa Holroyd and relieves the city said its staff from any liabitily associated with its reliance "on such permit appplication submittals. Phil and Lisa Holroyd also understand that all conclusions, while they may reference the reports of prior public consultants of the city. All conclusions drawn are those of Phil and Lisa Holroyd and the professionals retained for all aspects of the submittal. Phil and Lisa Holroyd understand and accept the risk of developing in an Arts with potential unstable soils and Phil and Lisa Holroyd will advise any prospective purchasers or lessees of structures on the site of the slide potential of the area Sincerely Phil and Lisa Holroyd ECEI VED S EP 1 1 2001 BUILDING DEPT. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (Individual) STATE OF. WASHINGTON, County of ss. RECEIVED FEB 15 2001 PERMIT COUNTER SNotary Public in and for the State ofWashington, residingng at at Lv h �� �a , do hereby certify that on this 3�Th day of , �0—\W personally appeared. efore me to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that signed the same asfree and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. Given Under My Ha qW Off'icK Seal this �y91RES \ (� \off Qy 2p C) c� Q Q v �O Z �Q F STATIC 0 —�� day off \ Notary Public�n and for the State of Washington, residing at - w�0o�, 1/%fo/y�od�� Geotechnical Engineers, Geologists Group Northwest, Inc. & Environmental Scientists December 20, 2000 Ms. Jeannine Graf, Building Official Development Services Department CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEIVED DEC 2 2 2000 B GiyNOOEDUDAOSNT Project No. G-1061-1 Subject: Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk Lot 1 - Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision Edmonds, WA Ref: Design and construction plans titled, "New Home For The Halroyd Family, Edmonds, Washington," by R. Brian Corbett Architects, dated March 2000. Dear Ms. Graf: Geo Group Northwest, Inc. has prepared this letter regarding our review of the design and construction plans for Lot 1 of the Sequoia Ridge short subdivision in Edmonds, Washington. Based on our review of the design and construction plans, referenced above, Geo Group Northwest finds that the foundation plan and relevant specifications are in conformance with the recommendations presented in our geotechnical engineering study dated February 29, 2000 for the project site. In the judgement of Geo Group Northwest, Inc., the above referenced plans and specifications prepared by R. Brian Corbett Architects conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical engineering study dated February 29, 2000. The risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties from soil instability will.be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in our geotechnical engineering report, and the proposed development will not increase the potential for soil movement. JAN 2 2 2001 13240 NE 20th Street, Suite 12 • Bellevue, Washington 98005 DEVELOPMENT Phone 425/649-8757 • FAX 425/649-8758 CITY OF EDMi, December 20, 2000 G-1061-1 Ms. Jeannine Graf - City of Edmonds Page 2 Lot 1 - Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision, the estimated probability of earth movement within a 25-year period is as follows: Type of Slope Failure Factor of Safety Risk of Failure (25yr) Shallow Sloughing > 1.1 <10 % Deep Failure (affecting house) >1.8 <1 % On -site improvements and measures to mitigate the risk or hazard of soil movement at the site include the following: • Establishing building setbacks of 15 to 25 feet from the top of the steep west -facing slope; • Providing the proposed residences with connections to the local sanitary sewer and storm drain utility systems, and tightlining all roof, foundation, and wall drains and driveway catch basins to the storm drain system; • Incorporating City General Development Standards and implementing an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan during construction; • In our geotechnical engineering study we recommended that the proposed residence on Lot 1 can be supported on a shallow conventional spread footings foundation system, provided the residence is located at least 50 feet from the top of the steep west -facing slope. Based on the site development plans, the building setback for Lot 1 is approximately 55 feet; • Establishing covenants between the City and the residents regarding vegetation and landscaping practices on the lots, maintenance of the sewer and storm drain systems, and regulating construction of improvements such as swimming pools and ponds. Geo Group Northwest, Inc. 0 December 20, 2000 G-1061-1 Ms. Jeannine Graf - City of Edmonds Page 3 The above items and additional measures are discussed in our geotechnical engineering study report, which should be consulted for further information. It is the judgement of Geo Group Northwest that these measures will reduce the susceptibility of the risk of soil movement and will mitigate the risk to the proposed structures. Respectively Submitted, GEO GROUP NORTHWEST, INC. I%C— � zxa�� Wade Lassey Project Geologist William Chang, P.E. Principal F�M�• �y o vrnS& R 20114y. sYONAL " cc: Mr. John Thoresen, Sequoia Ridge Partners Mr. Phil Holroyd, Owner of Lot 1 2/1 Geo Group Northwest, Inc. R. Brian Corbe 0 tt Architecture 195131st Avenue West, Seattle Washington, 98199 October 1, 2000 The Halroyd Family 3406 SW 132nd St.#2 Lynwood, Wa. 98037 Lead Design Professional Designation. I have reviewed and incorporated the Geotechnical,Civil and Structural engineering reports provided for the home site at the Sequoia Ridge Short Subdivision . These recommendations are understood and have been incorporated into the design and engineering for the new residence to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage from any earth movement. The owner has also been made aware of this potential risk. Having coordinated with the soil engineer, civil engineer and structural engineer I shall act as "lead design professional" for this project. Thank you, Urian Corbett Washlitoto State kchmw j,6967 RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2001 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES G" R. CITY OF EDMONDS R.BRIAN CORBETT ARCHITECTURE 1951 31ST AVENUE WEST, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, 98199 R_BRIAN®MSN.COM 206.300.7714 M CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FS�90 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR APPLICANT: Sequoia Ridge Partners represented by John Thoresen (partner) and Jim Miller of David Evans and Associates (see Exhibit A, Attachment. 2). CASE NO.: S 98-108 & V-98-109 LOCATION: 160XX 72"d Avenue West APPLICATION: To subdivide a 3.7-acre parcel into 4 single-family lots. The application also includes variance requests for the following: • A critical area variance to allow construction of 4 homes within a Steep . Slope Critical Area and elimination of the required buffer and setback. • Elimination of the 15-foot building setback from a wetland buffer for lots 3 and 4. • Reduce the standard flag lot setback (10 feet in the RS-20 zone) for Lots 1 & 2 to allow construction of the homes closer to the access easement. REVIEW PROCESS: The Examiner conducts an open record public hearing and prepares a written decision. MAJOR ISSUES: • Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). • Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15B. (Critical Areas) • Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.75 (SUBDIVISIONS). INTRODUCTION The original application requested a 4-lot Short Subdivision with Critical Area Reasonable Use Exception and Variance. After review of the proposal, it was determined that a Variance from the Critical Area ordinance is required. Due to the unusual environmental issues with the site, staff • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 2 felt an Environmental Impact Statement covering geotechnical and water concerns was necessary. An appeal was filed on the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), which had been issued by the City. Ordinarily, staff makes the decision on a short plat with setback modifications. However, because a consolidated application for a Critical Area Variance request and a Short Subdivision was filed, and an appeal on the FEIS was also filed, the consolidated application and the appeal must be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner. In this situation, the Hearing Examiner will rule on the entire proposal. A separate report on the FEIS appeal (file #AP-99-185) has already been issued. This report will address only the issues related to the requested Short Subdivision and the Critical Area Variance. 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 Sequoia Ridge application (held jointly with the appeal on the FEIS) was opened at 1:00 p.m., October 7, 1999, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:59 p.m. for oral testimony. The hearing was held open administratively until October 14, 1999. 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 TESTIMONY/LEGAL ARGUMENT: The following persons testified or provided legal argument at the public hearing. From the City: Karissa Kawamoto, Project Planner Gordy Hyde, Development Services Engineer From the Applicant: Dennis Reynolds, Attorney for the Applicant Delane Johnson, Property Owner Vaughn Sherman, Edmonds Community College Foundation John Thoresen, Applicant Bill Chang, Geotechnical Engineer Charles Couvrette, Geotechnical Engineer Anthony Roth, Wetlands Scientist Jim Miller, Site Planner N*wring Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 3 From the Community: Drew Wojtanick. Neighbor Mike Duffy, Neighbor Robert Anderson, Owner of Neighboring Property Henry Judson, Legal Guardian of Owner of Neighboring Property Charles Warner, Concerned Citizen CORRESPONDENCE: The following members of the general public submitted letters: Drew Wojtanik, Exhibit C, Phyllis Wiggins, Exhibit E Robert Anderson, M.D., Exhibit F Mark Thometz and Kathleen Johanson, Exhibit. H Glenn Loboudger, Exhibit I The Lorian Woods Homeowners Association, Inc. submitted a petition with 10 signatures (Exhibit G). Patricia Thompson, Wildlife Biologist for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, submitted a letter (Exhibit K). CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY NEIGHBORS AND CONCERNED CITIZENS: Concerns expressed by neighbors and concerned citizens about the proposal included the following: • The City gave inadequate notice of the hearing. • 72nd Ave. W is substandard and already overtaxed. Three additional houses should not be allowed to take access from 72°d Ave. W. • This area is a well-known landslide hazard area and a recent landslide approximately 300- 350 feet from the subject site was ignored by the City in the review of this proposal. • No pool or spa should be allowed and if they are, they should be extensively reviewed by the City. • There are many water problems in the area. The wet slope of Sequoia Ridge seeps water constantly and the seepage shifts from time to time. Increased water flow due to the proposed development might adversely complicate the ability to site homes and obtain building permits for lots 1, 2, and 5 of the adjacent Lorian Woods development. • No reduction in stream capacity or wetland should be allowed due to the potential for slides and runoff to downstream property owners. • The setback requirements should not be waived. • The proposal is ineligible for a critical area variance. It should be reviewed for a reasonable use exception and the City has previously ruled that one house on a piece of property is a reasonable use of the property. Rearing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 4 • A reasonable use exception should also be required for the stream crossing. • The requested variances are non-specific and should not be granted. • The access road for the three upper homes should be treated as a street and street setback requirements should apply. • A wildlife assessment of the site should be conducted before development occurs. APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO CONCERNS EXPRESSED: The applicant and his consultants responded to many of the concerns raised. Those responses include the following: • Public notice signs were placed above and below the site. • The landslide hazard line does not show on the subject property because it does not he on the site. The line on the USGS map is not definitive, but rather depicts an area to be studied. Two professional geotechnical engineering firms have conducted independent investigations and evaluations of the site and have arrived at very similar descriptions and recommendations. • There is potential for sloughing on the site whether or not the property is developed, but field tests have shown that the deep-seated soils are stable. More stability for the site should be provided if the site is developed because the proposed storm drainage system will enhance, not decrease slope stability on the subject property. • The variances easily meet the criteria for approval. The process has not been corrupted. The issues raised in the hearing relative to the variances have been addressed in the Applicant's Hearing Memorandum (Exhibit Q. • Even if the variances are approved, there will be additional reviews. • The wildlife issue should have been raised within the time periods for commenting on the EIS. No expert testimony was presented to indicate there would be adverse impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat resulting from the proposed development. • The FEIS spells out specific recommended conditions to safely locate a swimming pool and spa on the site. CITY'S RESPONSE TO CONCERNS EXPRESSED: City staff responded to some of the concerns expressed. Those responses include the following: • The notification process was accomplished in accordance with City code. The applicant provides a list for public notification. All those on the list as well as others who expressed interest were notified. • There are two areas on the site shown on the Meadowdale landslide hazard area. That is one of the reasons why the limited scope EIS was required. • The Hearing Examiner determined and the City Council concurred that 72°d Ave. W has been widened to its maximum practical width. "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 5 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: (1)Lot Size: approximately 3.7 acres. (2)Land Use: A shed used by the adjacent property owner exists at the very southern end of the site. The remainder of the site is vacant. (3)Zoning: The subject property is located in an RS720 zone. (4)Terrain and Vegetation: The site has moderate to extremely steep slopes. There is a ridge running north — south along the west property line where survey estimates the slope to range between 45-60 degrees on the west side and 24-30 degrees on the east side. The degree of slope tends to flatten as one moves to the east. Another top of slope can be found in the southern part of the property, which slopes to the northeast. The site is in a natural state with extensive forest and undergrowth. Several large Sequoia trees can be seen in the southeast portion of the property. The site also contains wetland areas and a small stream. 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: (1) RS-20 zoning dominates the area. The primary existing land use is single family residential. (2) A four -lot subdivision was processed in 1995 (S-95-163) at 16202 72°d Avenue West. No homes have been constructed on the new lots to date. B. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) a. Facts: (1) Short subdivisions are typically exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11- 800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). (2) The site is designated as Environmentally Sensitive by the City of Edmonds and therefore subject to SEPA for all development applications. (3) The site is also mapped as being within the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area. (4) Several critical areas as defined by ECDC Section 20.15B. have been identified on the site. The site is constrained by steep slopes, a Class II wetland and Class II stream. "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 6 (5) After review of all environmental information, a Determination of Significance and proposed EIS limited scoping notice was distributed for comment on February 26, 1999. No comments on the determination or scope were received. (6) After a consultant selection process, Geo Group Northwest, Inc. teamed with B- Twelve Associates was hired to produce the limited scope EIS under a 3-party contract with the City of Edmonds and the applicant. (7) The Draft EIS was distributed for the 30-day comment period on June 22, 1999. (8) The three letters received during the comment period were forwarded to the consultant for review and incorporation into the FEIS. (9) The FEIS was distributed on September 1, 1999. b. Conclusions: The State and City appeal period on the FEIS expired on September 15, 1999. An appeal of the FEIS was filed and the appeal hearing was held in conjunction with the hearing on this application. The Hearing Examiner report on the FEIS appeal was issued on October 29, 1999 (File AP 99-185). The appeal of the FEIS was denied. One issues raised in the appeal was the issue of whether or not a swimming pool and spa should be allowed on the site. The Examiner determined in the report that credible testimony was submitted to support the applicant's contention that a pool and spa could be safely installed and maintained on the site. The Examiner also determined that the proposed pool and spa could be allowed subject to strict conditions. Those conditions are spelled out in the revised recommendation of Geo Group Northwest, Inc. in the FEIS. The City has complied with the requirement of the State Environmental Policy Act. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a. Facts: (1)This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.B (Critical Areas Ordinance). (2)The applicant has submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA-95-14). A Study Required determination was issued. (3)A survey to determine the top of bank was performed by Robert Hermann, P.L.S. of David Evans and Associates. It identified the two critical area steep slope "top of bank" locations (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8). (4)Tony Roth of Pacific International Engineering performed a wetland delineation and stream analysis (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8). "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 7 (5)Nelson — Couvrette & Associates, prepared a preliminary geotechnical report of . the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 8). (6)The applicant has proposed a wetland buffer -averaging plan. Typically, buffer averaging is approved by staff. In no area is the buffer proposed to be reduced by more than half, however, there are areas where the 15-foot required building setback from the buffer is proposed to be reduced or eliminated. (7)The stream will be crossed by the driveway to Lot 4. This also can be done administratively if approval for the State Fish & Wildlife is obtained. (8)The applicant has shown areas of buffer reduction and buffer mitigation enhancement. This includes the area in and around the utilities easement through Lot 3 & 4. After installation, of the utilities the area will be replanted and restored for use as a wetland bufer area. The steep slope critical area has been labeled in 2 areas of the property. The area not affected by the steep slope is constrained by the wetland and stream. b. Conclusion: The documents submitted complete the Critical Area Study. The proposals are in compliance with the Critical Area ordinance with the exception of the proposed buffer and building setback reductions or elimination. Variances will be addresses later in this report 2. Compliance with RS-20 Zoning Standards a. Facts: (1) Proposed number of lots: 4 (2) Approximate size of proposed Lots: Gross sq. ft ** Net sq. ft. Lot 1 34,052 Lot 2 46,891 Lot 3 51,222 Lot 4 27,222 27,222 **Due to the uncertainty of the access easement size, the net square footage cannot be calculated for Lots 1, 2, and 3. It does not appear as though they would be in danger of falling below the 20,000 square foot size minimums after subtracting the easement. (3) Setbacks: Due to the unique environmental factors facing this development, the setbacks are actually measured from the various critical areas identified on the property verses the actual property lines. The applicant has requested critical areas variances from the building setback required from a wetland buffer on Lots 3 & 4. A variance to eliminate the steep slope critical area buffer and buildingsetback has also been requested. The FEIS recommended a 25-foot setback from the top of "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 8 west side slope for Lot 1 and 2. Only a 15-foot setback is recommended from the top of that slope for Lots 3 & 4. Setbacks in the RS-20 are as follows: Front: 25' Side: 10' minimum; 35' combined Rear: 25 (4) Corner Lots: This proposal does not contain any corner lots. (5) Flag lot determination: Lot 1, 2 & 3 are considered "flag" lots because they do not have actual frontage on an open, public street. As proposed, the new homes would utilize an easement over the adjacent property to the south to access the opened portion 72°d Avenue West. (6) Lot arrangement to topography: The FEIS is intended to demonstrate the if, how where and when the 4 homes could be constructed on the site without negatively impacting the soil stability. The consultant confirmed the geotechnical feasibility of the site and made recommendations for the design and construction of the roadway and homes. b. Conclusion: It appears as if the applicant has proposed a subdivision that could comply with the RS-20 development standards, however the critical area setbacks and buffers must be addressed by requesting numerous variances (addressed below). 3. Compliance with Subdivision Review Criteria a. Facts: ENVIRONMENTAL (1) The ECDC places an emphasis on protection of environmental resources and design proposals, which minimize the significant adverse impacts. Special restrictions may be imposed. (2) Proposals should be designed to minimize grading by using shared driveway and by relating street, house site and lot placement to the existing topography. (3) Hazardous conditions to future residents of the site or adjacent property owners are cause for denial. LOT LAYOUT (4) Lots are to contain a usable building area. (5) Lots are not to front on highways, arterials or collector street. Shared driveways, turnarounds or frontage streets may be required to minimize traffic hazards. (6) Each lot is to meet the applicable dimensional requirements of the zone in which it is located. "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 9 DEDICATION (7) Any approval of a subdivision shall be conditioned on appropriate dedication of land for streets, including those on the official street map. IMPROVEMENTS (8) Improvements which may be required, but are not limited to: streets, curbs, pedestrian walks, bicycle paths, sidewalks, street landscaping, water lines, sewage systems, drainage systems and underground utilities. b. Conclusions: (1) The steep slopes, wetland and stream were important factors in determining the need for the Environmental Impact Statement by the City's Responsible Official. The City was concerned with determining if it were feasible to develop a 4-lot short plat without significantly impacting the natural environments. The FEIS demonstrated that the 4 homes could be constructed without having a significant negative impact to those specific geotechnical and water issues (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). (2) Each lot has a proposed building footprint that was used by the consultant in reviewing the project feasibility. Both the top of slope setback recommendations by the geotechnical engineer and the location of the access easement (outside of the wetland buffer) will limit the overall buildable area per lot. The flag lot determination of Lots 1,2 & 3 (side setbacks from all property lines) allows more flexibility in terms of buildable area. (3) The EIS stipulated specific setbacks, construction techniques (pile foundations, geogrid reinforced retaining walls etc), activity limits are intended to prevent the possibility that the development could create hazardous conditions for adjacent property. (4) The Engineering Division has indicated that an emergency vehicle turnaround should be installed at the end of the 72°d Avenue right-of-way. There may be the need to require additional right-of-way, but it is unclear at this time and will be determined with the civil site improvement drawings. (5) If the property were void of the critical areas, the development would easily meet the dimensional standards of the zoning district. After application of the additional setbacks and buffers from the steep slope, stream and wetland, the applicant is forced to demonstrate that a reduction in the requirements is necessary but will not be detrimental. (6) Utilities for the project must be brought down from 72°d Avenue West through the project site and connect to service in North Meadowdale Road. Other improvements required by the Engineering Division can be found in Exhibit A, Attachment 4. M"earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 10 D. ANALYSIS OF REQUESTED SETBACK VARIANCE 1. The applicant has requested a side setback reduction for Lots 1 & 2 to allow flexibility in construction of the homes in relation to the access easement road. Typically, access easement lines are treated similarly to property lines in terms of setback application. Since Lots 1 and 2 are flag lots, the setback requirement is 10 feet. Although house plans have not been created, the applicant would like the ability to locate the homes as far away as possible from the top of slope on the west side and push them towards the easement: The following is the variance criteria directly from the ECDC. a) Special Circumstances: That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special Circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the zoning district in which the property is located. d) Not Detrimental: That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 2. Hearing Examiner Analysis: a) Special Circumstance: The steep slopes and wetland boundaries are the special circumstances affecting this request. The applicant has to work between steep slope requirements on the west and south sides of the site, and a Class II wetland, which occupies space on the north side of the site. The upper access road is to be designed to minimize encroachment into the wetland buffer to the greatest extent feasible. This in turn reduces the building envelopes for Lots 1, 2, and 3. M"earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 11 b) Special Privilege: Variances for setbacks in this RS-20 zoned neighborhood is not very common. However, a search of the database by staff showed several height variances have been granted to nearby properties, and setback variances have been granted to properties on 1641h St SW. Not all of the adjacent neighbors have as many environmental constraints facing development of their properties as exists on this site. c) Zoning and Comprehensive Plan: The zoning of the property is Residential Single Family -RS-20 and the comprehensive plan designation is Residential Single Family Large Lot. The development proposed would be in compliance with both the zoning and comprehensive plan designations. d) Not Detrimental: The FEIS provided some of the documentation that can be applied to this criteria. It was indicated in the FEIS that if Lot 2 maintains a 25-foot setback from the top of slope on the west side, and is constructed on piles instead of a standard foundation, it would not decrease the soil stability of the site. The location of the roadway was chosen because it preserves a larger wetland buffer area. The two homes located on Lots 1 and 2 would need variances to the setback requirements along an access easement, which services those two lots, along with proposed Lot 3. The setback variance from the easement would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, particularly since it would allow more distance between the top of the slope and the proposed homes. e) Minimum Necessary: The applicant has requested the setback variance to allow construction of the homes on Lot 1 & 2 closer to the access easement due to the limited amount of buildable area remaining after application of the wetland buffer and top of slope requirements. It would be the minimum necessary for the property to provide an adequate building area similar to others in the immediate vicinity. E. ANALYSIS OF REQUESTED CRITICAL AREAS VARIANCES 1. The applicant has specifically requested the following: • Elimination of Steep Slope critical area setback and buffer requirements • Reduction of the 15-foot building setback from a wetland buffer for Lot 3 & 4. The following is the Critical Area Variance criteria directly from the ECDC Section 20.15B.170: a) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, or the size or nature of the critical area, the strict application of this title would deprive the subject property all reasonable use of the property. b) The granting of the variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the development proposal and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated, or contrary to the goals and purposes of this chapter. Rearing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 12 2. Hearing Examiner Analysis: a) The topography and size of critical areas are the obvious special circumstances of this property. The proposed development is attempting to make up for portions of the disturbed critical area through wetland buffer averaging and wetland and stream mitigation enhancement. The existence of the critical areas on the site combine to eliminate all use of the property unless a variance is granted. When all buffers and setbacks are taken into account, no buildable areas would be left on this 3.7-acre site. Although the property has been identified by the City as being within the Meadowdale Landslide Area, the field data compiled by the EIS consultant confirmed the soil suitability for single-family residential construction in the proposed building foot print locations. b) An RS-20 zoned 3.7-acre parcel, in theory could be developed with 8 single-family lots. The applicants have proposed what they believe is the reasonable use of the property — 4 single-family lots with preservation of the wetland and documentation of stable slopes. The FEIS demonstrated that 4 homes, if constructed in accordance with their recommendations could be developed at this site without impacting slope stability (Appendix A of FEIS), and with minimal impact to the stream and wetland. If developed as conditioned below, the Examiner believes the public welfare and public safety will not be compromised by the development of this site. c) The concept of determining "minimum necessary to accommodate the development" in the context of a subdivision is not easily definable. In this .instance, the subject property theoretically could accommodate 8 lots based on the total lot area. However, since the site is so heavily constrained, a thorough review of the file is necessary to determine if the requested variance is the minimum necessary to a accommodate the proposed development. The FEIS indicates that 4 homes are safe from a geologic perspective and the FEIS also indicates that the wetland and stream will not significantly suffer if the recommended mitigation and protection of the wetland and stream are accomplished. F. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE a. Fact: The short plat application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Division, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Division. Engineering has provided their requirements checklist (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). %earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 13 G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family" residential on the comprehensive plan. b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan identifies goals and policies, which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. Residential Development Goal, "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted". Policy B.6. "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage". b. Conclusion: The documentation provided for the short plat, the FEIS and the preliminary conditions of approval are consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the application is approved, subject to the following conditions: Prior to recording: (1) Record a separate easement document on the Johnson property (to the south) for ingress and egress for Lots 1, 2 and 3. (2) Add notation to the face of the plat referencing the easement and its recording number. (3) Revise the access easement width on the face of the plat to accommodate the required engineering improvements. If the easement is required to increase in size, it must expand towards the west, thereby reducing the amount of buildable area for Lots 1-3. (4) Revise the lot sizes labeled on the face of the plat to exclude the access easement. Notes regarding gross and net square footage of each lot would be acceptable. 40earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 14 (5) Add note to face of plat referencing the approved setback and critical area variances. Language is to be approved by planning staff. (6) Complete Engineering requirements contained in the subdivision checklist under "Prior to Recording" (Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (7) All new property corners are to be staked by a State of Washington licensed land surveyor. (8) Remove or legally relocate the shed from Lot 1. (9) Remove the "building setback line (typical)" note and lines from those portions of lots east of the access easement or within the NGPE. (10) Add Endangered Species Act statement to face of plat (language provided with Exhibit A, Attachment 8) (11) Add Native Growth Protection Easement statement to face of plat (language provided with Exhibit A, Attachment 9). (12) Receive approval of a draft final recording document prior to drawing up the Mylar for signatures. (13) As recommended within the FEIS: a) Add note to face of plat regarding the minimum 25-foot setback between structures and the top of slope for Lots 1 & 2. Add note to plat regarding the 15- foot setback between' structures and top of slope for Lots 3 & 4. b) A detailed Critical Areas Mitigation Plan, developed by a qualified, City approved, consultant, is required to design the revegetation of both the disturbed stream critical area, wetland buffer and wetland/stream buffer enhancement area. The Mitigation Plan is to at a minimum meet the parameters contained in the FEIS (species, spacing, drought tolerant, quantities etc). c) Roadway design must incorporate modular block walls and geogrid reinforcement to support fills. Rockeries and concrete retaining walls for cut slopes. d) Analyze raising the roadway elevation which could lessen the grades of the road and driveways thereby reducing the amount of cut and fill retention required for the west side of the roadway as recommended by in the EIS. e) Record a Homeowner's covenant that identifies permissible property uses and structures following the recommendations found in the EIS. Maintenance agreements for the storm drainage system, roadway and retaining structure should also be addressed in the document. f) As recommended within the EIS, establishment of a native growth, non - disturbance area for the 15-25 foot wide building setbacks from the top of the west slope. It should be incorporated into the Homeowners Association covenant and include restrictions on the outdoor landscaping, no lawn on Lots 2,3 & 4. Prohibit swimming pools, ponds, sprinkler systems and limitations on tree removal. Wearing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 15 g) If a swimming pool and spa are to be installed, they must be constructed in accordance with the revised recommendations by Geo Group Northwest, Inc. found on page 3 of the FEIS dated 8/31/99 (Exhibit A, Attachment 5). Prior to issuance of any clearing or grading permits: (14) A detailed tree survey must accompany a "limit of clearing" plan for review. (15) Clearing and grading shall only occur during . the dry season of May 1" through September 301h unless otherwise permitted by the geotechnical engineer of record and the City Building Official. (16) A site -specific management plans for Temporary Sediment and Erosion Control and Permanent Storm Water Control must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. (17) Prior to start of clearing and grading, the stream/wetland buffers and buffer mitigation enhancement areas are to have their boundaries clearly marked in the field by a State of Washington licensed surveyor. Temporary, chain -link fencing is required to protect the buffers with the exception of that portion of buffer area to be disturbed for the installation of utilities. Prior to issuance of a building permit: (18) Individual landscape plans for each lot must accompany the permit application, modeled after the EIS recommendations. (19) Prior to issuance of a permit for Lot 4, a copy of the Hydraulic Permit Approval from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife must be obtained. The crossing is not to be constructed prior to approval of a building permit for the residence. Protective fencing and erosion control are to be approved elements of the building permit. (20) Construction of each lot is subject to Edmonds Community Development Code Section 19.05 — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas. (21) Complete the Engineering checklist of requirements for building permits (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Entered this 4th day of November 1999, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 16 RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL 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.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. APPEAL 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 with 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. TIMEFRAMES The time limits for Reconsiderations and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.75.100 (as amended by Ordinance No. 3190) states "A preliminary approval of .a subdivision or lot line adjustment will expire and have no further validity at the end of five years, unless the applicant has acquired approval of the final plat or final short plat approval within the five year period." NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by Planning Division request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 17 EXHIBITS: The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report for S-98-108 and V-98-109, with attachments B. Planning Division Advisory Report for AP 99-185, with attachments C. Letter received 7/6/99 from Drew Wojtanik, President of the Meadowdale Community Council D. Applicant response to the Critical Area variance criteria received 9/13/99 E. Letter received 9/13/99 from Phyllis Wiggins F. Letter received 9/13/99 from Robert Anderson G. Letter received 9/14/99 from the Lorian Woods Homeowners Association, Inc. H. Letter dated 9/15/99 from Mark Thometz and Kathleen Johnson I. Letter received 9/16/99 from Glenn Loboudger J. Xerox picture from John Sherman Mills of the Laebugten Wharf and beyond, taken in the 1950s K. Letter received 10/4/99 from Patricia Thompson of the State Department of Fish and Wildlife L. Applicant's Hearing Memorandum, with 12 attachments M. Road access drawing N. Notice O. Comment regarding variance request, submitted by Henry Judson III, dated 10/14/99 PARTIES of RECORD: John Thoresen and Phil Holroyd Sequoia Ridge Partners 15621 48`h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Dennis Reynolds Williams, Kastner, Gibbs 601 Union Street, Suite 4100 Seattle, WA 98101 Drew Wojtanik, President Meadowdale Community Council 16306 72"d Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98020 . Delane Johnson 16122 72"d Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 so"earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 18 Vaughn Sherman 703 Spruce Edmonds, WA 98020 Bill Chang GeoGroup Inc. 13240 N.E. 201h Street, Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98004 Robert A. Anderson, M.D. 614 Daniels Drive N.E. East Wenatchee, WA 98802-4036 Glenn M. Loboudger 15920 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Michael Duffy 16238 72°d Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Rolf and Marilyn Toberer 16214 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Phyllis Wiggins 16012 74`h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Mark Thometz Kathleen J. Johanson 7309 N. Meadowdale Edmonds, WA 98026 Henry H Judson III 101 Yesler Way, Suite 602 Seattle, WA 98104 Charles Couvrette Nelson-Couvrette & Associates, Inc. 17311 1351h Ave. NE, Suite A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 Jim Miller Anthony Roth David Evans and Associates, Inc. Pacific International Engineering 1716 West Marine View Drive, Suite C 310 Waterfront Building, 144 Railroad Ave. Everett, WA 98201 Edmonds, WA 98020 Charles Warner 20021 88`h Ave. W Edmonds, WA 98026 Willie and Ruby Wellington 7109 164`h St. S.W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Arthur and Martha Haig 16222 71 nst. Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Phil and Marian Lehn 16202 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Lorian Woods Homeowners Assoc., Inc. 16119 73`d Pl. West Edmonds, WA 98026 Mark and Penny Westland 16318 71 nst Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Vaneltin and Linelle Milatchkov 16220 70`h Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 Dave and Kate Wells 16330 72nd Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Rita Stillings 16342 72°d Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Patricia Thompson Department of Fish and Wildlife 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 "earing Examiner Decision Case No. S 98-108 & V 98-109 Page 19 Scott and Joyce Wright 7211 164`h St. S.W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Engineering Division 11 �\ \. ,CLOUDtA AREAS'`\WILL �E E D%OUGH ESISTAN IVA y1/E MOI�}ITORED % IT BE h` S 1 \ TAKE 'H LD SHWLD BE L ` •=�I TH00 0 STABILIZE TH \ U D TO HELP STABILJZE T l AT IF ------------- LAWN C� NEW REGE 5II�ENd1 MULCHING AND JUTE NETTING TO r BE USED DURING THE RE -VEGETATION tu w w ' wLU\� ulQ LAWN Q� rn b 0 L APPROVED 8y PLANNING 0 0 0 0) / N v 0 •-n O 0 N N 07 .. 0) C) 0 O �T v 0 V1 C � (0 D •� d m a / •.c Z WITH -ACOMB01 IES LISTJO IT >H AND A FOR EATED '�L SOILS. MULCH CII,SOIL D RING MULCHING AND ` JUTE NETTING TO BE USED DURING THE RE -VEGETATION PROCESS. %r.,l, F AMTNG OR AND JUM \ �\ N °13� 17„1111�\ The disturbed area alongside the driveway on lots 1, 2 and 3 which is within the Native Growth Protection Easement shall be replanted with a mixture of native grasses, salal and native trees. The salal shall be a minimum one gallon pot size every three feet on center. Native trees shall be planted along this strip at minimum sizes as given in Edmonds Community Development Code 20.12.015.13 and at spacing recommended by the nursery providing the trees. All planting shall be done during the planting season between October 1, 2001 and April 30th, 2002. An inspection by Planning Division personnel is required. The plantings shall be installed and monitored and corrections shall be made to ensure it meets the goals established for all plantings in the Sensitive Areas Mitigation Plan, dated,SeptemAr 18, 2000. Conaium Accer �� D/I r7 . Date V ,TMEB�, �\ �� OT IAN TAME ZE MAX�SPAICJIW, )THER RE OSIER b GWOOD 3-4 �R TO S5• SALAL \. �\ 2 GAL. 4.5 C. �\ -EANSPW L. 4.5' 0. . INDPAAk PLUM \ 5 G � 4. O.C. \ AOIFI FENEBAR 2 3' ` 4:5' C. \ N00 5' O.C\ ROSE \ QITI/A YY ��OW 2-\\ 4. ' D.C. \ JTING •TQ CONF M TO THE REQEMENTSIN \ \ 20'-0"/1N6RE55 FA5MtNT l�V r� \ 2.015 X W"�i CO r1a 13R IA N Rf Gf-t I T EGT5 ARGHITEGTURE P L A N N I N G 4 \ INTERIOR DE516N ...ww■rw.r \ w wnwww. \LLJ 1 V Qa I \ -C: z I w \ ' O \ CIO AC� jC0 I zc.v� o�� �w �$Y� N F5N \. Lr U . W y \ \ \ o = �0 jE mo`` cn F= '*" FwZ � w o \ \ ___ V •ss V \, z a. I \ f%! N O Za�F�-WOG \ Cr rs0VNoz ' � POQ� \ I o�T tL C w 6 GI D \\� A I BRIAN CORBETT ` STATE QF WASHINOTQN \ \ \ THIS 00aHENT HAS am P1eAm 1+°'M MWW AMIGAT'ION AND IS So. \ by 60v1: T �IGi +TICS \ \\ \ \ )ME Yl PRD,.ECT ARCHITECT \i \ R.Brlan Gorb tt. AIA DATE r+j M/j /�/� (� REV 1/�Y�f5/00-&/'50/01 CaWPMR ME NAME 01g001 halroud SHEET NUMBER �A'V i 1\2000 \'\\ UNPUBLISHED Yma02000 BY R.am Cowin ARCHITECT PERMIT COUNTER " REET FILE 14 k 6/�dG yq1 s�� - R E.: �Cfl%-D AUG 3 0 2001 13(JILDING DEPT. ,DER67 RE0TA%lmq6LE > C.- 00 'TIC514T LIN STOP, .,N LAT 5Y5TE WE RN-1 'A MIT ARY, E W., x\ Ld 2 > Q0 Lo L (D d� 'A JU tu tu ,BRAE A)C 1161-IT L EL. .2 ZONE q J 05 SETBACKS: - FRONT L 50 SIDE REAR - OTHER HEIGHT 0 V) 0 0 L. LOT '00\/F.RA6E: LOT #I= 54,052 eOFT. STRUCTURE = 5,416 SOFT. FERC,ENT LOT GOLF-RA(9F- = 10% eTUC,TURE= 5,416 SOFT. pRI\,/r-/pEcK= 1,504 i5OFT. 4,120 150-FT. TOTAL IMFERVIOU5 14.45vo A\/F-RA6E GRAPE LOT #1 = 505h, (505,2+508.55+2q2.0+508-q) / 4 = 505.6 MAX. BUILD HEI(5yHT=5O5.6+25'=528.(5 ACCEPTABLE TIG MATERIAL SDR 35 SCH 40 N -12 F810 HANCOR APPROVED AS No,rELj By ENG NEERINC Date. I ROU R -DR61 A VAJE R.­0 N E EX HOUSE TEMPORARY Co"TRUCTION ENTRANCE REQUIRED IMUM DRIVEWAY -, Al I OWED 14% 011NER/CONTRAv ToR, EROSION CONTROL RESPONSIBLE Foil AND DRAINAGLT - GA SAGE& CALL 425- 1.022-0 &Tlk2�1 ALL EyIpoSED SURFACES T' BE COVERED \qTHlt4 2 DAI 'IK ./'N jam- cV 20'-O"/1N6RE55 FEA5MtNT % A 7 w 15),,00 R E3 R IA N F f.RGI 'TTJ< - T S 1151. 5Ist Ave. Nest 5EATTLE NA q$lqq Fhone206.500.1114 r_brlan@msnxom AROHI TEOTURE FLANNINO 4 INTERIOR PE516N w war O C� .. `gym � n�� �� � �� NET Ld op �W� :5 g 6 LL oa z uj V) L'i X g t� ti �E U 928g 5fid pu�, (4uw It BRIAN CORBETY STATE OF WAWINGTON THIS vomw w mm M41PAW rM PM4T AM"TION NO 19 SID- -is"lo i M�ovr 13Y 6wovia"o"WN. pRo,ECr AR007ECT DATE RV 1/25/00-OM/01 -11V D cowpumi nlE NAME c c11001 holro d S \ own= 0 2 1. ER C N'T <\ > MW Aim AUG 3 0 2001 culffof COPY PERMIT COUNTER SF� N�✓royd /Zo n LOM VSs= -OAnIR- MWRoa;M 1 will u rra r,�71 FT I :0 0 11, r111-%1j MALL + 303,11 304.88 TOP Top icp .303, 11 TOP - 307+53 Gs \JZ LL AU 303.92 cp 300 4' 38 9 305.09 T8p 0, 7 17.5' + .08 +305.50 .305.12 Gs Top O 03 GI Ci rri = al m Z m V-1 71 m A m Z q ay 0 0 + 305,15 OP 105"79 29Z77 WALL 0 z 306.6- 307.39 Too 306.59 + Gs DEA CON Top 7.13 + 30&80 GS 3OU2 GS IA N88*13'47"W 153.00' C- z C) z 0 0 C-) 7:0 M M Z. 11 71 ;d m J) >u) T1 =;h Rp C) o o C) CD N OEVTOO54 GGW 08/28/01 09:43:07GGW P:\T\i—tiORGOOi\SD5kPROJ\TrJ.ORGDOI\DWG\OV54eBXxdwg Ca m A . .. . . ... . . . .. .... ... . . .............. tz to ::s 5 tv 5- WA L rj MV-,-J, j . .. .. ... . ... . . . .... SEOU01A "h"IDGE C)"r, 1 a 11 > rn A.. :L1 ........... ....... M C: .... ... .... n DAVTD EVANS .. . ...... . .... . . CwU4 I Fir Hle" PUR rm" !Vr.— T AND ASSOCIATES, ame, Im L L Kt�'D La 1620 WEST MARINE VIEW+ DR. SUITE 200 for PHIL HOLROYD EXPIRES 12/6/2002 EVERE71', WA 98201 425.259.4099 CITY OF EDMONDS 10 .S s - �r��� 16120 72,11�1�tc A/ GREGORY S. CASPER ....... . ,_" ___ . _ _ _ . _ / JEANINE L. CASPER / 0 50 100 °i Q 24.68' OQ` co V., <0 a• l.Q Q '141 / O 3 a o 49,221 SF 3p, N01'47'58"E 16T ; I I I I I 2 AVENUE WEST (NOT OPEN) WEST R/W LINE HELD PARALLEL WITH FOUND MONUMENTS SET BY �- THE PLAT OF WESTMONT VIEW DIV. 1 (VOL 34, PGS 12 & 13) WESTMONT VIEW DIV. 2 VOL. 36, PG. 25 FOUND 5/8" REBAR & CAP (LS&A-9891) FOUND 1/2" REBAR & CAP (LS 22989/12055) 735.74' � I - Ln N C) _ v v O v .� 375.26 of o o I o i N N .t 188.26N 20.00'</ FOUND OLD CAP IN CONC (NO ID) HELD AS WEST R/W LINE 72ND AVE W / PER ROS 26-214 X/ FOUND REBAR & CAP IN CONCRETE (NO ID) --LOUND 5/8" REBAR & CAP (RMA-7892) -----'-FOUND NAIL IN 6" DIA CONC BOUNDARY I FOUND NAIL IN 6" DIA CONCRETE a9u Ile FOUND NAIL IN W/ / m� 6" DIA CONCRETE o ro co / %\ 10 25 Y./ o 0.0 JOHN L. JOHNSON /11 10, Z N rn a Rp\\AP0- 27, 222 SF X\ 4 1n / \ -;P-Ar BSBL � TOP OF BANK o Fj3v/� 5, 25 co // '�: v // N N _N 221.86' 0 _' S15,42 `499.17 '31 "w R rn_ FOUND REBAR & CAP (LS #9435) HELD AS N.W. CORNER OF LOT 53 II C LORIAN WOODS FOUND BRASS CAP IN VOL. 51, PGS. 145 & 146 CONCRETE MON IN CASE (RMA-4561) I � / 1 I � hi 34,052 SF GROSS) 0 30,555 SF NET) I �2 z I / PG��� `.�� I ZO OWTH 48,892 SF (GROSS) �° P o CT ON ----,_ 46,625 SF (NET) �� EASEMENT o G � i 153.89' I \\ N01'17'36"E WEST LINE, LOTS 52 & 53, MEADOWDALE BEACH (VOL 5, PG 38) AS ESTABLISHED BY THE PLAT OF LORAIN WOODS (VOL 51, PGS 145 & 146) HELD FOR THIS SURVEY. 123. REFERENCES 1. ROS 26-214 AFN 8803305001 7. PLAT OF LORAIN WOODS VOL 51,PGS145&146 w 2. ROS 31-94 AFN 9002275001 oss �' 8. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT o N � 3. ROS 32-236-257 AFN 9009045001 VOL 1480, PG 387 AFN 7903130265 U rp ib z - 4. PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH 9. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT VOL 5, PG 38 VOL 2458, PG 2680 AFN 9107030640 5. PLAT OF WESTMONT VIEW DIV. 1 VOL 34, PGS 12 & 13 1 6. PLAT OF WESTMONT VIEW DIV. 2 FOUND BRASS CAP IN VOL 36, PGS 24 & 25 CONCRETE MON IN CASE vo(RMA-4561) SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CON- FORMANCE WITH THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT THE REQUEST OF JOHN THORESEN ON JUNE 29 2000 C. SIGNATURE I DATE CERTIFICATE NO. 18904 FILED FOR RECORD THIS DAY OF 49. AT M, IN BOOK OF SURVEYS AT PAGE AT THE REQUEST OF DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES. INC. DIVISION OF RECORDS & ELECTIONS MANAGER/AUDITOR SUPT. OF RECORDS/DEPUTY AUDITOR RECORDING NO. NO1 *17'36"E 5�8 71' 17.5' 0 CV N AF # r / / FOUND 5/8" REBAR & CAP (RMA-7892) x INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITY EASEMENT PER AF# A PORTION OF THE SWIM, 804, See.SyT27N,R4E,WM I- FOUND 1-1/2" d� I BRASS DISK IN CONC (IN CASE) BASIS OF BEARING - N01'47'58"E _ 351.43' (M) 351.05' (P) FOUND BRASS PLUG IN LEAD IN CONC (IN CASE) BASIS OF BEARING THE BEARING N 01'47'58" E AS MEASURED BETWEEN THE FOUND MONUMENTS IN 72ND AVENUE WEST AND SET BY THE PLAT OF WESTMONT VIEW DIV. 1, VOL 34, PGS 12 & 13. LEGEND O INDICATES MONUMENT FOUND BY THIS SURVEY ® INDICATES REBAR & CAP FOUND BY THIS SURVEY 0 ALL LOT CORNERS ESTABLISHED WITH A 1/2" DIA. BY 24" LONG REBAR WITH CAP, "DEA 18904". (C) - CALCULATED (M) - MEASURED (P) - PLAT BSBL - BUILDING SETBACK LINE 1. A ONE SECOND THEOLODITE AND ELECTRONIC DISTANCE METER WERE USED FOR THIS SURVEY. 2. THIS SURVEY EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SURVEY PRECISION FOR FIELD TRAVERSES, AS SET FORTH BY WAC 332-130-090. 3. ALL MONUMENTS FOUND WERE FIELD VISITED IN JUNE 1998. EASEMENT LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING E1 186.38 N32'39'48"W E2 163.35 N32'39'48"W E3 24.48 N32'39'48"W E4 55.39 N40'28'38"W E5 67.68 N40'28'38"W E6 17.99 N32'39'48"W E7 10.09 N24'33'03"W E8 14.89 S35'44'40"E E9 131.21 N22'47'18"W E10 42.90 N22'47'18"W E11 112.45 S41'30'42"W E12 129.62 S58'14'38"E E13 20.00 N31'45'22"E E14 92.42 S58'14'38"E E15 99.01 S41'30'42"W E16 51.14 N22'47'18"W E17 145.45 N22'47'18"W E18 1 126.03 1 N71'43'10"E EASEMENT CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH DELTA ECII 13.74 _RADIUS 50.00 15-44'45" EC2 37.87 32.00 67'48'12" FILES S-98-108 & V-98-109 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, 1620 W. MARINE VIEW DR. SUITE 200 EVERETT, WA. 98201 (425)259-4099 SHEET 2 SCALE 1"=50' SURVEYED FIELD BOOK _ DRAWN GGw CHECKED RCH FILE THOR0001 OF 2 1 61IOr P21�r 16 / 20 A,-e W \\Brians\dwg\1999 Projects\99001 Holroyd\99001-S Holroyd-dwg Thu Aug 30 1 3: 06: 1 0 2001 m O o E 0 v CA > X 43� p3 � �m + Q ��ff •t� � z i w (1 o + N Ul -� w fJf� l t = UJ Z� m A Cn o z rn (p -0 0 r- t- rn rn O #� -z3 rn O < 's Cn p- ZIP,- -A < _ 0(p _p i-a i-a i ° =n 74 -t O CA o G) m 0 —n 4.2 �. , NMV-1 N 01 01 T 36"E 58�:,71 to M , O O { CP `. tn -.--------------------------------- --...... -------------- ------- ........... .....-----------------------------'....... _......... = { , O 1 , z rn r A� n i w kn / r Z r r ' rn '� iZIDGE ELE�I.-328.b' • M J ` A X IO,,° = ,� . °00-vi= --- -- ...--. .- rn l ro-- G i \. .� �fTty -mug. I r ems' // ///// /, %' '' % � /, //' • / G•_L /� ' �'�# f .2 � �''�1 • •�.� �ti4�� ' ' 1� . O t /' >' a{i Y K —FOR ALL CONDITIONS NOT SPECIFICALLY REPRESENTED GRAPHICALLY or IN WRITING or 0 FOR CONDITIONS REPRESENTED WHICH ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE CURRENT U.B.C. and CURRENT STANDARDS OF THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY THEN THE CURRENT U.B.C. and CURRENT STANDARDS and REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY SHALL GOVERN. V —WRITTEN DIMEENSIONS SHALL HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED'DIMENSIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS and/or CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE WORK PRIOR TO PRO — CEDING TO THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE. ARCHITECT SHALL BE INFORMED OF ANY VARIATIONS >. FROM THE DIMENSIONS and CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS.ANY SUCH VARIATIONS 1 SHALL BE RESOLVED BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCEBING WITH THE WORK or THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCEPT FF 4L RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COST TO RECTIFY THE SAME. —THE DRAWINGS and PLANS SET FORTH ON THIS SHIM AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE ARE I and SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RBian Corbett Architec. USE OF THIS 1 DRAWING IS LIMITED TO A SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR THE PERSONS NAMED HEREON. and FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE BUILDING. ANY USE OR REUSE OF SAID DRAWING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM R.Brian Corbett Architects. 2ndAVE. (NO OPEN) / ✓ z-aa >Oul M rn TO rn�� -rnz Cr�7d srnW rn� z a. Frt w " D - 0-1 rnrn� tea O�m n J1CP d i -84s' 4t4e) ga vphe�5, �d 617-,!!�r RECEIVED AUG 3 0 2001 BUILDING OF.PS'. STREET FILE w_� l�1 O z 0 ^N V .— q)0 •-1 0 o N LL 0 N C u 0) M 0� r1- / N rn -� 0 N c t a m I �.il✓ CJ`I \ C-0 oiK 1�i \ �Aj1 _ ,.� EX. ROCKEWr J....w '�„-��" ,jC,�"`)<,,,,, ?\�••�"•�. �- 294 29 8 ---- TEMP. 501 L STORACvE AREA � 17.5' w o z SHE D LINES INDICATE x. GRADE TO BE MODIFIED 'X vEW RESIDENCE MAIIN FLPL.=9055' N r�SMT=tabs' m N m � w J LU W Q � p `v. LOT CO\/F.RA&E : LOT #1= 54,052 SOFT. STRUCTURE 9,41(o 50.FT, PERCENT LOT COVERAGE = IO% STUCTURE= 5,41(o 50 FT. T�RI�/E/oF�lj&Q4 eO.FT. 4,120 50.FT. TOTAL I MPERV I OU5 14.45v \ LiJ ¢a 0 �0 N`� I` 0 --I O� -D \ \ I L.v 00 Q C W \' �680 310 �t'J, \ L O Z ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE Z MATERIAL \ \ \ I �-- SDR 35 \ \ � I SCH 40 WATER & SEWER O F810 HANCOR INSPECTIONS REQ'D \ CALL 425.771.0220 EXT.1326 \ \ \ cn O ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS x. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION Iv ENTRANCE REQUIRED MAGI � � �/ \ \\ \ \ MUM DR�EWAY SLOPE \ 49NTAlN PLAT 114STALLED EROSION CONTROL ALLOWED 140/. \ \ \ I \ \ \ APPROVED AS NOTED \ \ \ BY ENGINEERING \ \ Date: 9110141� 64•` --' \ \ \ C�9A L7INC7 6ARA6E . = 16.5 GU. YD5 REMOVED DRIVEINAY = "l.q CU. YD5 REMOVED 5A5EMENT = all CU. YD5 REMO\/ED MAIN HOUSE = 2511 CU. YD5 REMOVED TOTAL = GU. YD5 REMOVED 440 WINENONTffiffOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE ......................m.m l$:I...... N88013'47"W 153.00' \ m z , f Km ITI CC)O \ \ c \ \ \ 0-0 34,052 SF �� \\1;)A5HED LINES INDIG)(�TE \ n \ EXI5TINe efPAPE TOR \ \\' MODIFIED \ \ \ O \\ \ '\ 50LIM LINES INDIC�4TE \ PROP05ED (5RAME \ • r.,r�:: r •., r�. 5R IA N f CV ITT EGT5 M51 51st Ave. West 5EATTLE NA 98I99 Phona206.500.1114 r_brIon®msn.com ARCHITECTURE P L A N N I N G d INTERIOR DESIGN I rrrrw� �1rrl N r C 2 ll",� m C/ - - ,o w 2t 9> pW O Lu ZoF� W W 4 uU ao p9 FOR Lo N O G QIYNOtI=0� In p� � W 6967 AR IS-- 10 R. BRIAN CORBETT STATE OF WASHINOTON 'MI5 >a :u tr HAS 8M PWAM MR P'S"T AI° ICATION AND Ig 81l- JWT TO RIMM Aim M0117r GATION3 By WVm"4NTAI. unE A�.EXJILT TOP-0. l oicCi ARWITECT DATE CDMPUTER RE NAME R.i 41,,.+ n. < Yf lz. a SEP r' 0 2001 PERIM11 T C0[J 'TT. F' I AUG 3 0 2001 PERMIT COUNTER AUG"�51?1 IE D REC 3 o toot BUILDING pEfTf. STREET FILE