The URL can be used to link to this page

16124 MEADOWDALE RD.PDF11111111111111 12374 16124 N MEADOWDALE RD ADDRESS: oC C� LI TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: (BOO lO 2 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: 7 o d 7� STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LATEMMSTsTomis\Street File Checklist.doc f PLANNING DATA STREET FILE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Name: C 1 d S i c7 V(005 IS 10000 S t0 -Z Date: Site Address: w 16 ( l(0 01 �. - Plan Check: - 6A 03 Project Description: `V t*u ccv- q 7 � Reduced Site Plan Provided: (E / NO) rZoning: Map Page: r Corner Lot: (E / NO Flag Lot: (YES / VO Critical Areas Determination /#: _off Z 6 vre -f-- kcA-(- Study Required f - 'i ❑ Waiver SEPA Determination: �Exempt ❑ . Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO List with notarized form Re wired Setbacks Streit: j � /V t Si �= _ i o C-. Sid ActualSetbacks _ Street: 166 Side: 7 Side: / Q — ❑ Detached Structures: - ❑ Rockeries: ❑ Fences/Trellises: ❑ Bay Windows/Project-ng Modulation: Stairs/Deck: Pof\ S� § I p r 25 S (D �' (Z',W '� 3 d(f 8uildin Hei ht _ Datum Point: �p U1i`e/� (�, _ Datum Elevation: l 0 Maximum Height Allowed: 2� l Z . 2 i , Actual HeightZY.b1 ((Z-74V Other Parking Required:. Parking Provided: 3 + Lot Area: ZG , l 3 � �Lot Maximum. Coverage: Posed: e: 35% Pro Lot Coverage Calculations: o S� pv q e, CUJJ ^,c� l� N . -L0 (S � . ADU Created: (YES / 1 Subdivision: -o 3— ! q ` �j'��("6 aC s `Fri t of - VeS `CGC Legal Nonconforming, Land Use Determination Issued: (YES Comments '6 qS t9- , lot 1"I Plan Review By: Z ( 2 Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc 0 City of Edmc Critical Area Notice r� nds W of Decision Applicant: �004V 6_�')Up Property Owner: Critical Area File #: 70 01 _©k - 7 t Permit Number: Site Location: 1GI-Z �nUGw�Gl2 Pa el Number: t��Gtt 00513(0000S1oZ Project Description: 7�_ S - 9 � _ Ak w S F-9 0 n LO 19 l .. 5C±6'kCiS 4 w�N"alS Gc�rs ❑ Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. Ulf-teo( �J 1. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. ❑ Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. ❑ Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40:120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations nand standards. ❑ Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.1.60 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. ❑ Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the.permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). lYf�e_CjS a^ Reviewer Signature /_I? � �('?_ Date Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 12/16/2010 'd �f Recording Wheet page 1 of 1 CITY OF EDMONDS 9607100094 This is to certify that the properties as shown on the attached map (Exhibit "A") and described as follows, See Exhibit "B" have been divided under the provisions of the Edmonds Subdivision Ordinance (Sec 20.75). File No. S-93-149 subject to the following conditions and requirements: 1. Exhibit C, Native Growth Protection Easement 2. Exhibit D, Hold Harmless 3. The setbacks for lot 1 and the setbacks from the wetland shall be vested with the approval of the subdivision. The lot line setbacks on the remaining lots are for reference only and shall be determined at the time of any development or construction according to the codes in effect at that time. I / we verify that I / we are the legal owner(s) of the property described -above and I / we agree to the above conditions of subdivision. I / we warrant that all representations are true and correct and understand that in the event of any misrepresentation or failure to comply with the conditions and regulations set forth herein, the City of Edmonds shall have the right to .declare that subdivisions void and record a statement to that effect in the Grantor -Grantee's Index in the office of the Snohomish County Auditor. Signed: to —• 6�EEANINE �.CASPER AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDiB`Ju CITY Or F-DiVONDS f PLAN EN(_ PAGE 1 01- STATE OF WASHINGTON) ) ss: COUNTY OF SNOHONIISH)- vi •r. � i r•� �e r;•�•. r �I� ne Marchetti It Asst. Secretary On this day personally appeared before me GREG S . CASPER AND JEANINE L. CASPER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, to me known to be the individuals described in and who executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that THEY signed the same as THEIR free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this ' day of Aa Y111 a hi 4 19 e(—. Notary Publk in and for the State '� of Washington residing at GY� J STATE OF Aichigan ) )SS. COUNTY OF Oakland ) On this 29 'day of _ February , 19 96 , before me personally appeared —1^FrP R^tr' , to me known to be the_Assoc. Vice Pres'degt and. Darlene Marchetti to me Known t0 be the_ Assr. ;Sperptary respectively, of SOURCE ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute the said instrument. Witness my hand and official seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. 'Notary Public in and for the State of Michigan Residing at NOTARY PUBUC - OAKLAND OWN Y, Mi MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 11/108 AUTHORIZED - FOR RECORL-)vj CITY OF EDl1 CtteD-3 IPENG_V PAGE OF 1,' sc: 1=100' \\ " / ;' o' 20'40'60'80'100' 150' 200' \\ a` ��0 °:• ,/ EX IBIT A Pg 1 of 2. 25_980 SFct) `y \ ..es 0. L� \ ISTING = p• �� n ,0 ��+ �2, FOR EXCEPTION SEE _l / IW n WETLAND�> 1/A, la \ E.C.DC• 20.156,040 (� so 29,818 SF 26 O Q N89'56'58"E �vo� �� l I 74.00'o 7 td C— FOUND CONC. MONUMENT Z Cjs Sj. l •4 �, WITH 2" BRASS CAP PUNCH MARK i. 25' WETLAND �00• ly �� ib�� \ W / BUFFER(TYP) Ito zo TRACT 100 3 o.\� 25,278 SF 27,958 SF > a+. 01 \ j (N.G.F?A. FOUND PLASTiN I 20.01' 214.59' ) o 228.31' t C PIN NO'D 91 N 89'56'58" E 442.90' M ONPLINE 9891 / 443.00.(P) \ J s 10 Ia I CAIASTlidONTNIEW O1\. 2 } \ O .. w \\ VO 3t (3. 7 fir— of �— FOUND CONC. MONUMENT Ca WITH 1-3/4" BRASS CAP W W .-... W/ PUNCH MARK e0 :.'0- U) r_ dt•O V/ 164th STREET S.W. 0 FOUND 6" DIA. 0 0 "1"1 O J CONC. MONUMENT z z 480.00'(P) I-- Q. WITH 2" BRASS C _ — — N 89'56'58" E 479.99'(M) �- FOUND CONC. MONUMENT AUTHORIZED 1 FOUND CONC. MONUMENT WITH LEAD PLUG AND TACK FOR RECORDING WITH 1-3/4" BRASS CAP CITY OF EDMONDS W/ PUNCH MARK BASIS OF BEARING PLAN ENO TICS . CENTERLINE OF 164TH STREET S.W. PER THE PAGE OF�_ PLAT OF "WESTMONT VIEW DIVISION 2', IN LQUIVIVILIVI : LIETZ SET 4 ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION VOLUME 36. PAGES 24-25, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. METHOD : FIELD TRAVERSE ACCURACY : CONFORMS TO WAC 332-130-090 LEGEND MONUMENTS VISITED : JANUARY 29, 1992 • = SET IRON PIN WITH PLASTIC CAP A/OTE: PUBLIC SEWER ANDWATERAREAI/A/L46LE UPON NO'D 12055 AND 22969 • PAYMENT OFAPPL/CA6LE FEES. ® _' FOUND MONUMENT AS NOTED (M) MEASURED DIMENSION AND/OR BEARING SHORT SUBDINASION' (P) DIMENSION AND/OR BEARING PER PLAT FOR OF VIEW DIVISION 2,VOL 36 GREG S. CASPER PAGES ES 24-25 24-25 -6-1BSBL = ATIVBUILDING SETBACK LINE IN SW 1 /4 OF SECTION 5 27 N•GP. Q. = NATiV E 6,zovrn-1 PRtOTECTtON AlZFA , T. Z / N., R. 4 E., W. N T. T� CITY OF EDMONDS 44��a,<••�,�c�r SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON SHEET I OF 2 o ®�� Lovell—Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Suneyo-/plaaae./D.,Iopment Consultants SJ Sf� nQ AL LAta)• 5 19400 33rd Asenve tl., Suite 200 • Lynawood, iA 98036 % (206)775-1591 (206)340-0830 EXPIRES 10-15- DRAM -JT D17L ra 7=, mz H0. �M .,Tr I1-.z-94, . 1al •too' 2858 r • N SV 4 jJAL =40' 8�R �� ?•.� 0' O0 20' 40' 60' 80' s's 3�EXHIBT A Pg 2 of 2 °< so• �O N89'56'58"E 74.00' 23.05' �— r L18 L16 L17 L21 L20 L19 V / S�S9S L22 ) 25' WETLAND TRACT 100 s'00• ' w BUFFER(TYP) NATIVE GROW714 PROTECTION AREA LEGEND WETLAND BUFFER - LINE DIRECTION DISTANCE Cl 7 20'14'04 E 40.21' L2 N 21'10'00- E 14.99' L3 N 27.22'47'' E 17.22' L4 N 06_0215" E 10.86 L5 N 38'38'34" W 6.49' L6 N 50'58'43" W 14.86' L7 N 43'37'30" W 12.67 L8 N 69'58'42" W 4.97' L9 N 42'56'32" E 1 3.03' L10 N 81'53'08" W 71.28' Lll N 36*47"09 W 3.68' L12 N 36'47'09 W 21.94' L13 N 55'57'48" W 37.15 L14 N 21 *10'04" W 55.86' Ll5' N 25122—YE 35.59' L16 N 73"2637" E 34.77' L17 N 73'19'15" E 21.05' L18 N 85'26'25" E 3.98' L19 N 85 26'25" E 16.27' L20 N 87'Ol'34" W 21.22' L21 N 86'0020" E 22.94 L22 N 71'47'19" E 51.40' L23 N 35'11'02" W 32.72' by US 0 = SET IRON PIN WITH 4�' PLASTIC CAP NO'D �� 12055 AND 22969. AUTHORIZED - 0 FOR RECORDING 22a60 gj rsr>� j sfciv� CITY OF EDMONDS rA14o fi ExPniEs 10-15— I PLAN ENO SUBDIVISION PAGE OF FOR GREG S. CASPER IN SW1/4, SECTION 5,T.27N.,R.4 E.,W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON . SHEET 2 OF 2 ®!� Lovell—Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyers/Plumen/Development Consultants 19400 33rd Avenue T.. Suite 200 . Lynnwood, TA 98036 " (206)775-1591 (206)340-0830 DRAWN T aP.CI® DAR l.& Sw ME g0. ty1M JTT 11-2-Ad 161 1"=d0' 1 2858 0 LovIff-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Engineers/Surveyors/Plmurers/Development Consultants LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FOR CASPER SHORT SUBDIVISION Entire Parcel • 19400 33rd Ave. W. Suite 200 Lynnwood Washington 98037 (206) 775.1591 Seattle: (206) 34040830 May 29, 1996 File No. 92-2858 Lot 51, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington; EXCEPT portion. conveyed to Fred Kefgen and his wife by deed recorded under recording No. 1394097, described as follows; Beginning at the most easterly corner of said Tract 51; thence westerly, along the south line of said Tract 51 to the centerline of the proposed 60 foot county road, as shown in the County Engineers Survey No. 2357;-thence northerly, along said centerline, to its intersection with the centerline of the 40 foot platted road as shown on said plat of Meadowdale Beach; thence southerly, along said centerline to the point of intersection with the south line of said Tract 51, projected easterly; thence westerly, along said south line of said Tract 51, projected easterly to the point of beginning; EXCEPT that portion conveyed to the city of Edmonds by deed record under Auditor's File No. 9604030349. Parcel 1 That portion of Tract 51, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Tract 51; thence N 1 °47'16" E, along the west line of said Tract 51, a distance of 145.07 feet to the True_Point,of Beginning; thence continuing N 1 °47'16" E, along said west line, a distance of 253.43 feet to the southerly margin of N. Meadowdale Road, as conveyed to the City of Edmonds, by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 9604030349, records of Snohomish County, Washington; thence $, 58`14'22" E, along the southerly margin of said N. Meadowdale Road, a distance of 184.00. feet; thence S 30°01'05" W, a distance of 180.61...feet to point which bears N 89'56'58" E from the True Point of Beginning; thence S 89°56'58" W, a distance of 74.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Parcel 2 That portion of Tract 51, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Tract 51; thence N 1 047'16" E, along the west line of said Tract 51, a. distance of 398.50 feet to the southerly margin of N. Meadowdale Road; thence S 58°14'22" E, along said southerly margin, a distance of 184.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence S 30001'05" W, a distance of 180.61 feet; thence S 58059'53" E, a distance of 161.00 feet; thence N 34°13'34" E, a distance of 169.90 feet to the southerly margin of N. Meadowdale Road as conveyed to the City of Edmonds by deed recorded under Auditor's File. No. 9604030349, being a curve to the left, having a radius of 447.50 feet and from which intersection point the ;center of said curve to the left bears S 43°02'45" W; thence northwesterly, along the arc of said curve to the left and consuming a central angle of 11 017'07", an arc distance of 88.14 feet to the point of tangency; thence N 58014'22" W, along said southerly margin, a distance of 86.21 feet to the True Point of Beginning. AUt l� - -. FOR R& 1 CITY O PLAN- ENG� PAG=_ OF Parcel 3 That portion of Tract 51, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page.38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Tract 51; thence N 1 °47'16" E, along the west line of said Tract 51, a distance of 145.07 feet; thence N 89°56'58" E, a distance of 74.00 feet; thence S 58°59'53" E, a distance of 161.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence N 34*13'34" E, a distance of 169.90 feet to the southerly margin of N. Meadowdale Road as conveyed to the City of Edmonds by deed recorded under Auditor's File No. 9604030349, being a curve to the right, having a radius of 447.50 feet and from which intersection point the center of said curve to the right bears S 43002'45" W; thence southeasterly, along the arc of said curve to the right and consuming a central angle of 21 °27'08", an arc distance of 167.55 feet to the point of tangency; thence S 25030'07" E, along said southerly margin, a distance of 75.18 feet to the south line of said Tract 51; thence S 89056'58" W, along said south line, a distance of 228.31 feet to a point which bears S 1 °47'16" W from the True Point of Beginning; thence N 1 °47'16" E, a distance of 61.98 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Tract 100 That portion of Tract 51, Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 38, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Tract 51; thence N 1 °47'16" E, along the West line of said Tract 51, a distance of 145.07 feet; thence N 89°56'58" E, a distance of 74.00 feet; thence S 58°59'53" E, a distance of 161.00 feet; thence S 1 °47'16" E, a distance of 61.98 feet to the south line of said Tract 51; thence S 89°56'58" W, along said south line, a distance of 214.59 feet to the point of beginning. T. 0 AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDING CITY OF EDMONDS PAGE_ OF EXHIBIT C TRACT 100 NATIVE GROWTH AND PROTECTION AREA "The applicant for this short subdivision proposes and voluntarily agrees to the establishment of a Native Growth and Protective Area Tract (Tract 100). The Native Growth and Protective Area Tract is parcel to be left substantially in a natural condition as an open space tract. No clearing, grading or filling is permitted, except for the removal of dead, diseased or hazardous trees during the period that the parcel serves as a Native Growth and Protective Area. Tract. If the property desires to develop the Native Growth and Protection Tract, there is no prohibition of application for a change to the approved subdivision as outlined in the Edmonds Community Development Code 20.75.110. Any application for future residential development of the tract shall include, at a minimum, a geotechnical report evaluating the site, slope stability and proposed residential development, and a detailed residential site plan, including grading, clearing, drainage and visual impact controls. Unless the City approves access and development of the tract, the temporary open space status of this parcel shall continue." . , AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDING CITY, OF EDMONDS PAGE �-OF File Number S-93-149 I - 11_: f, HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT Owner, and all persons having any present or subsequent ownership interest in these lands, and the successors and assigns of owners or other parties having any said interest, hereby agree that the City of Edmonds shall be held harmless in all respects from any and all claims for damages for injunctive relief which may be occasioned now or in the future to adjacent land or improvements by reason of the construction, operation and maintenance of the drainage system and hereby waive and release the City of Edmonds from any and all claims for damages, excluding damage caused solely by an act or omission of said City and injunctive relief which the owners, or their successors or assigns, may themselves have now or in the future by reason of the construction, maintenance and operation of said drainage system. AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDING CITY OF EDMONDG(S PLA EN(l� ,,= PAGOF Y�jS CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering September 17, 2004 Mr. Paul Aiello, Architect 701 North 39th Street Seattle, Washington 98103 RE: 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Mr. Aiello: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR In response to your request for the subject property to be exempt from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05 provisions governing the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard area located in north Edmonds, I have forwarded your request to one of the City's geotechnical consulting firms for a professional opinion. Please refer to the enclosed letter from Zipper Zeman Associates dated September 16, 2004. As Mr. Zipper correctly identifies on page two of this letter, the subject site, (because of it's mapped proximity on the GeoEngineer's Landslide Hazard Map) is subject to the submittal and peer review requirements of ECDC 19.05. Your geotechnical engineer has not provided any documentation to indicate that the mapping is incorrect, or that identified hazards or landslide risks as mapped are not present on site, etc. Therefore, request to be exempt from `full Meadowdale slide application regulations' is denied and submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 shall be imposed as described below. At a minimum, submittal checklist requirements shall include; Item '4 and Items 7 through 15 (reference page one and two of the Zipper Zeman letter) including geotechnical peer review. As provided in ECDC 19.05.030B, the geotechnical engineer of record may provide additional information if any item in the submittal checklist is, in his opinion, inapplicable for consideration by the City. This decision is appealable as a staff decision in accordance with the provisions- of ECDC 20.105.010A4. Complete appeals, must include adjacent property information and filing fees, and must be filed within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. Sincerely, Jeatv Building Official, C.B.O. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan ZZA Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting J-1969 September 16, 2004 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5`s Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 2. Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted 3. Vicinity Map — adequate. 4. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 Fontaine residence 1-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above Ioose near -surface soils. c. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the full Meadowdale Slide regulations". 8. Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnical issues. 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application — Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: • 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; • 19.05.020, Section D; • 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient ZZA 0,21 Fontaine residence J-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 3 information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades, and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. The submittal should be subject to geotechnical peer review, to determine if the applicable geotechnical engineering aspects of the application adequately comply with the requirements of ECDC 19.05, and whether the landslide hazard to the subject property and downslope properties is adequately mitigated. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. vi askl�'.+ John E. Zipper, P.E. .o President ,Ao P M -� w �•j' �G'IF�?'E��'� ��w h gC�G 4.EXP1RE5 1241 _.lam CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwo.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT In 1 S c10 Planning • Building • Engineering September 17, 2004 Mr. Paul Aiello, Architect 701 North 39t" Street Seattle, Washington 98103 RE: 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Mr. Aiello: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR In response to your request for the subject property to be exempt from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05 provisions governing the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard area located in north Edmonds, I have forwarded your request to one of the City's geotechnical consulting firms for a professional opinion. Please refer to the enclosed letter from Zipper Zeman Associates dated September 16, 2004. As Mr. Zipper correctly identifies on page two of this letter, the subject site, (because of it's mapped proximity on the GeoEngineer's Landslide Hazard Map) is subject to the submittal and peer review requirements of ECDC 19.05. Your geotechnical engineer has not provided any documentation to indicate that the mapping is incorrect, or that identified hazards or landslide risks as mapped are not present on site, etc. Therefore, request to be exempt from `full Meadowdale slide application regulations' is denied and submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 shall be imposed as described below. At a minimum, submittal checklist requirements shall include; Item 4 and Items 7 through 15 (reference page one and two of the Zipper Zeman letter) including geotechnical peer review. As provided in ECDC 19.05.030B, the geotechnical engineer of record may provide additional information if any item in the submittal checklist is, in his opinion, inapplicable for consideration by the City. This decision is appealable as a staff decision in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010A4. Complete appeals, must include adjacent property information and filing fees, and must be filed within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, C.B.O. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Zipper Zeman Associates Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting J-1969 September 16, 2004 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: 1. Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 2. Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted 3. Vicinity Map — adequate. 4. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. 5. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 Fontaine residence 1-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above loose near -surface soils. c. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the full Meadowdale Slide regulations". 8. Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnical issues. 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application — Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: • 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; • 19.05.020, Section D; • 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient A, Fontaine residence 1-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 3 information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not, applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades, and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. The submittal should be subject to geotechnical peer review, to determine if the applicable geotechnical engineering aspects of the application adequately comply with the requirements of ECDC 19.05, and whether the landslide hazard to the subject property and downslope properties is adequately mitigated. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Mr John E. Zipper, P.E President WXPiRES 1 / 2t , Q5 _._ __J ZZA J§Ni7 gli Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting J-1969 September 16, 2004 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5`s Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 2... Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted 3. Vicinity Map — adequate. 4. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. 5. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425.771-3549 Fontaine residence 1-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above loose near -surface soils. c. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the full Meadowdale Slide regulations". 8. Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnicaI issues. 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application — Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: • 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; • 19.05.020, Section D; • 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT h Ic. is 9 p Planning • Building • Engineering September 17, 2004 Mr. Paul Aiello, Architect 701 North 39th Street Seattle, Washington 98103 RE: ,16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Mr. Aiello: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR In response to your request for the subject property to be exempt from Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05 provisions governing the Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard area located in north Edmonds, I have forwarded your request to one of the City's geotechnical consulting firms for a professional opinion. Please refer to the enclosed letter from Zipper Zeman Associates dated September 16, 2004. As Mr. Zipper correctly identifies on page two of this letter, the subject site, (because of it's mapped proximity on the GeoEngineer's Landslide Hazard Map) is subject to the submittal and peer review requirements of ECDC 19.05. Your geotechnical engineer has not provided any documentation to indicate that the mapping is incorrect, or that identified hazards or landslide risks as mapped are not present on site, etc. Therefore, request to be exempt from `full Meadowdale slide application regulations' is denied and submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 shall be imposed as described below. At a minimum, submittal checklist requirements shall include; Item 4 and Items 7 through 15 (reference page one and two of the Zipper Zeman letter) including geotechnical peer review. As provided in ECDC 19.05.030B, the geotechnical engineer of record may provide additional information if any item in the submittal checklist is, in his opinion, inapplicable for consideration by the City. This decision is appealable as a staff decision in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010A4. Complete appeals, must include adjacent property information and filing fees, and must be filed within 14 calendar days from the date of this letter. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, C.B.O. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan F FOA1 X City of Edmonds Development Services Department Building -Engineering -Planning 121 5"' Avenue North •2nd Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 COVER PAGE To: /i`!Gl / Igl-C 0 From: J Date Transmitted: 9117-014- f Recipient's Fax No: 206-1}0 No. of Pages: (including cover page.) If there are any problems during transmission or documents are received incomplete, please call 425. 771.0220 and ask for: li✓D/q Subject; L:TempTJana/forms/DSFAX ZZA Fontaine residence J-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 3 information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not, applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades, and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. The submittal should be subject to geotechnical peer review, to determine if the applicable geotechnical engineering aspects of the application adequately comply with the requirements of ECDC 19.05, and whether the landslide hazard to the subject property and downslope properties is adequately mitigated. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Mr John E. Zipper, P.E. President C � w �QIFd?`E��• W-1CMRES i 124 1015 J o �PA A <� �� paul aiello 'F ' ►M architect --y N 2, z �F c� G rt rn `, t August 25, 2004 City of Edmonds Development Service Department Planning Division 1215t° Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Jeannine L. Graf, Building Official Re: Meadowdale Landslide Area Requirements for Proposed Residential Development @ 16124 N. Meadowdale Road Critical Areas File # 2002-0171 Ms. Graf, Thank you for taking the time earlier this month to discuss the Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Map and process as it relates to our project. We have been planning a single-family residence on the lot described tax acct # 005133 000 05102. (See attached map) We are requesting an exemption from the full Meadowdale slide application regulations. This request is supported by the recommendations of Cornerstone Geotechnical's report. (See attached, page 5) We propose to comply to with all the recommendations by the Geotechnical Engineer. including submittal an engineered pile foundation system. (See attached draft foundation/pile plan.) Also, we will provide review and.declaration and statement of risk from the Geotech. Our drainage plan will comply with City of Edmonds prescriptive standards. In short we are hoping to submit a modified standard application, addressing specifically the soil / foundation concerns. Call with any questions or comments, (206) 632-1229. Sincerely, Paul Aiello Architect Attachments:: • $180 fee check • Geotechnical Report • Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Map with project located • Property Survey cc: Scott Fontaine, Property Owner. Chuck Couvrett, Cornerstone Geotechnical V1 1 1 VI LLJIVIVItlVJ ' DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (D i. cY) E t i N i o rn rU . O L% _ C�� V� C3 U 19 l R pi LLJ Q � o • \ ,, �p+ , c2 �0 wx� a �,$� O J o _ R 3.`3ma,l tn. � z Received of: Address: DATE: �lD� �?tkkcl- Phone:y-4Z `u! Project Location: < /0/Z �11- /Y. ie�v,w 1L /44 Check No.1 Cash Total Received $ Water Meter Size: Amount Water Connection Fee Sewer Permit/Repair Sewer Connection/LID Fee Street Disruption Fee (111 Fund) Storm Drainage Fee Engineering Inspection Fee (SFR) Engineering 2.2% Inspection Fee (SP, Multi. Comm) Engineering Review Fees (SP, Multi. Comm) ROW/Street Use/Encroachment Permit Street Cut / Restoration Fee (620 Fund) Traffic Mitigation Fee/Sidewalk Contribution Fire Inspection Fee Fire Plan Check Fee Building Permit Fee - Type Plan Check Fee p Ae &-leiv 44—-- Reimbursable Consulting Fees Critical Areas Landscape Inspection Fee (1%) SEPA Review Fee Shoreline Permit Fee Sign Installation (620 Fund) Zoning Application Fee - Type: Maps / Books Photocopies Recording Fee City Surcharge State Surcharge (622 Fund) Received by: Task Order No. Task Title TASK ORDER City of Edmonds ON -CALL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES � � 141e �4 Consultant Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. JConsultant Contact Person OPhone No. City of Edmonds Requester 1177_ Cry,4if Phone No. 771—OZ26 City Project No. / Budget Line No. a90- 00/ 5;-711• !W• "1 /D Reimbursable? ❑ Yes, by (Name, address & phone no. of person/organization who will reimburse the City) No DESCRIPTION OF TASK ASSIGNMENT � , o C l�i9/ D /�Icv�/ � !�✓/�� % �7�v/le !✓l/L°IiY � Gb✓ C /� �✓O r�/a✓ -1-7L Per attached Scope of Services �� O✓f D� ! /��T COMPENSATION ❑ LUMP SUM —Compensation for these services shall be a lump Sum of $ TIME AND MATERIAL —Compensation for these services will be on.a Time and Materials basis, not to exceed $ %lam ^ without written authorization. ❑ Approved budget attached (if applicable. Required if cost exceeds $3,000.) SCHEDULE The Consultant shall complete the services described above: By q— (Date) ❑ In accordance with the attached schedule. All provisions of the Agreement for Professional Services dated 01/23/04 shall be in full force. and effect for this Task Order. APPROVED: CITY OF EDMONDS By Signature Title _��_!/✓E Glfi Date q7Z CONSULTANT By Signature Title Date CADocuments and Seuings\CurtisNy Documents\Engsec\CONSULTA\Forms\TackOrderBoilerPlate.doc Graf, Jeannine From: John Zipper Dohn.zipper@zipperzeman.com] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 12:14 PM To: 'Graf, Jeannine' Subject: RE: Fontaine Residence NOT FOR PUBLIC Hi Jeannine, DNF0 MA 110N I will resubmit the letter with this included: The applicant's geotechnical engineer will be making the 19.05 are required and what are not required, so yes the peer review. I'll get you the revised letter pronto. John John Zipper Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. 425-771-3304 -----Original message ----- From: Graf, Jeannine [mailto:Graf@ci.edmonds.wa.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 4:53 PM To: 'Michelle Iaci'; Graf, Jeannine Cc: John Zipper Subject: RE: Fontaine Residence recommendation of what parts of application should be subject to Mr. Zipper, I need your letter to include your opinion about peer review; once this application is submitted should the City require peer review? Thanks JL Graf -----Original Message ----- From: Michelle Iaci[mailto:michelle.iaci@zipperzeman.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 10:10 AM To: graf@ci.edmonds.wa.us Cc: John Zipper Subject: Fontaine Residence Good morning, Attached please find a PDF file containing John Zipper's letter dated September 14, 2004. A hard copy is being mailed to you today. Thanks. Michelle Iaci, Project Administrator Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. 18905 33rd Avenue West #117 Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 1 I I I. . I I i I . I i I I I I Geotechnical Investigation Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington For Mr. Scott Fontaine STREET FILE Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. 1 Cornerstone 17625-1301" Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: 425-844-1977 No G eotech n ical , Inc. Fax: 425-84441987 February 12, 2003 Mr. Scott Fontaine c/o Mr. Paul Aiello 701 North 391h Street Seattle, Washington 98103 Geotechnical Investigation Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington CG File No. 1346 Dear Mr. Fontaine: This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed short plat project at the 16112 Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located just east of the right-of-way for 72"d Avenue West on Meadowdale Road, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. INTRODUCTION You plan to construct a single-family residence at the currently undeveloped lot. A hand auger hole and a test pit were completed at the site for previous geotechnical studies of the property for a former owner of the property. These shallow explorations encountered existing loose fill and did not extend into suitable bearing soils. For this study, we completed deeper explorations using a hollow -stem auger drill rig to better understand the subsurface soil conditions at the site and determine a sensible method of construction for the structure. We were provided with a copy of a preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Nelson- Couvrette and Associates, Inc. February 23, 1993, a limited geotechnical investigation letter dated May 19, 1999, and letter describing environmental cleanup documents that have been filed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) dated October 31, 2001. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES The geotechnical report written in February of 1993 by Nelson Couvrette and Associates, Inc. presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation of the proposed site. The study area for this report consisted of four lots, including the slope to the south of your site and an existing house to the east. Nelson-Couvrette and Associates performed a soil investigation and described the surface and subsurface conditions. The report also concluded that foundations should extend through the fill and recommendations for building alternatives for foundation support were given. The limited geotechnical investigation by Dennis Joule in May, 1999, was done to evaluate the fill close to the vicinity of the current site. Mr. Joule found at lest 10 feet of unsuitable fill consisting of loose soil and debris in the test pit he excavated to conduct the study. The test pit was terminated at 10 feet due to abundant ground water and caving of the sides of the excavation. Ground water was encountered at 4 feet. Mr. Joule also commented on the ground water, which was mixed with oils and other hydrocarbon materials. Since this report by Mr. Joule, we understand that the site has been examined by the (DOE) and cleanup of any hazardous materials were done at the site. The DOE issued a No Further Action Letter that was completed to demonstrate that subsurface contaminants addressed in the previous geotechnical report do not pose a threat to human health or the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site surface slopes gently down to the northwest. The parcel is currently undeveloped with the layout shown on Figure 2. The property is approximately 30,000 square feet in area. There is a wetland area to the south and west, which reduces the "buildable" portion to about 9,500 square feet of the northeast corner of the lot. A 25-foot wetland buffer has been drawn on the plan provided to us. The building footprint will lie within a 5,000 square foot area set back 15 feet from the wetland buffer, and 10 feet from the right-of-way for Meadowdale Road and the property line to the east. The 10-foot setback from the right-of-way is labeled "10-foot setback variance" on the plan provided. We understand that the residence will be a two-story, wood - frame structure with living space over a three -car garage. You do not plan to change the grade Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 4 Explorations Subsurface conditions were explored at the site on August 21, 2002, by drilling three borings with a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill rig. The site was explored to a depth of 20 feet below the ground surface in B-1 and B-3, and 25 feet in B-2. The explorations were logged by a geologist and engineer from this firm who also examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered. The locations of the soil borings are shown on the Site Plan, in Figure 2. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented as Figure 3. The samples were brought back to our laboratory for further classification. The logs of the borings are shown on Figures 4 through 6. The boring samples were obtained using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch-outside-diameter sampler using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The standard method is to drive the sampler 18 inches and record the blows for each 6 inches of penetration. The total number of blows for the last 12 inches of penetration (unless otherwise noted) is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance blow count or "N-value" (units: blows per foot). These values are shown on the boring logs. Subsurface Conditions A general description of the conditions encountered is presented below. For more detail please review the boring logs in Figure 4 through 6. The upper 6.0 to 11.5 feet in the three borings consisted of very loose to loose fill. The fill was moist to wet. The ground water was measured 30 minutes after completing each drill hole with a water level between 2.0 and 7.5 feet. The soils encountered below the fill consisted of medium dense, gray fine to coarse sand with gravel and trace to moderate amounts of silt. This soil was encountered to depths of between 15 Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 5 and 20 feet. In all borings, the deepest layer reached was dense to very dense, silty very fine to fine sand. Landslide Hazard Map Review The area near North Meadowdale Road and 75`h Place West has been mapped as part of a large landslide complex (Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, by Roger Lowe Associates., October 16, 1979). We have reviewed the undated "Figure 1, Landslide -Hazard Map" by GeoEngineers. The GeoEngineers map references the landslide map created by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc. The GeoEngineers map identifies the Meadowdale slide area, and also areas that have some potential of sliding. The map provides a legend to distinguish the potential landslide activity, such as "Type", "Process", and "Probability". The hazard map identifies the slide hazard risk in the vicinity of your site will be in the form of debris flow. The probability of a potential slide occurring on the site is stated as 2 percent or less in a 25-year period. The debris flow designation is derived, from the steep slope lying to the south. The flow would be the result of the upper loose soils moving down slope most likely during a heavy rainfall event or rapid snow melt. There is no evidence that such a movement has occurred in the recent (50 years or more) history of the site. Based on the above discussion, it is our opinion that it is reasonable to exempt your project from the full Meadowdale Slide regulations that govern the properties downslope in higher risk areas. The risk stated on the map is minimal and appears to apply to the steeper slope area from which the building is setback about 150 feet. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General In our opinion, the site is suitable for support of the planned residence provided that the foundations are extended down into the medium dense or better native soils. We discussed with you the use of auger cast piles or driven %pe piles. Either option would be suitable from an engineering perspective. Auger cast piles should extend at least 4 feet into medium dense or Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 6 better soils with a minimum depth of 18 feet. Pipe piles are likely to be less expensive on a per foot basis; however, driving may extend well beyond the 18 foot depth and we do not know which method would ultimately be less costly. Pipe pile driving is generally not limited by a predetermined depth, but by a refusal criteria. It is not uncommon for the driven depth to be 50 percent or even 100 percent greater than the depth for auger cast piles. The analytical methods typically used in static and dynamic pile analysis have been found to not correlate with the small diameter piles as with the larger timber, concrete and pipe piles. The dynamic analysis is further complicated with the unknowns associated with energy transfer from the pile driving hammer which is typically a modified concrete or rock breaker. The most efficient method is to use specific driving methods and then field load test those piles to determine ultimate capacity. A factor of safety is used to determine the allowable pile load. The alternative is to use lower pile capacities based mostly on static analysis. Some pile load charts based on driving criteria are available, but larger factors of safety should be applied to those also. Pile Design We present, at the request of your architect, two options for support of the foundations. The design capacity for each system is presented in tables below. The capacity is the design axial or vertical component in 1,000 pound units (kips). We did not include an analysis of the lateral capacity of the piles. Settlements of pile foundations that are designed and constructed as recommended are expected to not exceed about 1/2 inch. The majority of this should take place immediately after pile loading. The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) allows a one-third increase in allowable soil stresses for wind and seismic loads, for certain load combinations. If the appropriate load combinations are used, the allowable axial pile capacity recommended above can be increased by one-third when considering wind and seismic loads. We recommend that the pipe piles not be used for lateral resistance. Lateral resistance will be from the concrete footing structure and surrounding soils. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 7 Auger Cast Piles: Auger cast -in -place piles may be utilized to support the planned residence and garage on this site. Auger cast -in -place piles are placed with a hollow -stem auger drilled to the appropriate depth. After reaching the recommended minimum penetration into bearing soils, grout is pumped into the auger before starting withdrawal to create a head. Withdrawal of the auger is timed to maintain the grout head, with the auger turning slowly in a positive direction. If the filling process is not an even continuous event, the contractor should re -drill a portion of the hole to avoid a non -uniformity or "necking" of the pile. In order to obtain quality control of the pile, the amount of grout pumped and the grout head should be recorded for each pile. A pump -stroke counter and calibration -curve of strokes, verses volume, should be included as part of the contractor's equipment. The volume of grout pumped is compared to the theoretical volume of the pile. Piles with less than 110 percent of actual to theoretical volume should be re -drilled. Auger cast -in -place piles installed in voids or soft soils can sometimes require some additional grout volumes higher than what would normally be calculated. Continuous inspection of the contractor's procedures for each pile is typically required as quality control. It is possible that due to the loose and permeable fill there could be "communication" between adjacent piles during construction. This communication can cause impurities to be pushed into adjacent piles. We recommend that piles less than 7 feet apart be installed on successive days to reduce the potential for communication between piles to occur. This should be monitored during construction. We recommend that piles penetrate a minimum of 4 feet into the medium dense to dense native soils to allow the development of full point resistance (minimum depth of 18 feet). The allowable loads provided, account for skin friction created in native soils and end -bearing at the base of the pile. We have accounted for down drag forces on the piles due to the potential for long term settlement of the fill. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 8 We have calculated allowable pile bearing capacity based on penetration into the medium dense to dense native soils. Pile Diameter (inches) Depth to Bearing Horizon (feet) Minimum Estimated Pile Length (feet) Design Capacity (kips) 12 14 18 24 Pin Piles: We completed an analysis of 4-inch and 6-inch diameter driven pipe piles to support the foundation. We assumed that the piles would be driven at least 6 feet into very dense fine sand encountered in our borings at a depth of 18- to 20 feet (minimum pile depth of 25 feet). Using the static pile method, the axial loads for the piles with appropriate factors of safety are provided below. Based on past documented history, these loads are acceptable without additional load testing provided the minimum depth of 25 feet is achieved and the minimum driving criteria presented below are satisfied. If load testing is completed, the design loads could possibly be increased to a significantly higher capacity due to the ability to reduce the safety factors. A contractor experienced in pipe pile installation has developed a specification chart for driving the piles with a variety of hammer sizes and has included a typical pile capacity, which we present as an Estimated Design Load (which would require load testing). This is reflected on the chart below. - Pile Diam. (in) Driving Criteria (less than 1 inch in X seconds) Design Capacity (kips) If no load test Estimated Design Capacity (kips) if tested 6 16-20 with 1500 lb. hammer 15 20-30 6 18-20 with 1100 lb. hammer 15 20-30 4 10-12 with 1100 lb. hammer 8 16-20 4 14-16 with 850 lb. hammer 8 16-20 4 18-20 with 650 lb. hammer 8 16-20 Ref: McDowell NW Pile King, Inc. Seismic Hazard The site is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map, shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. This, in Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 9 turn, corresponds to an effective peak horizontal acceleration of 0.3 g. Site conditions best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type Sp ("Stiff Soil Profile"). The outwash underlying the structure foundations is dense and is not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Effects on the structures due to increases in lateral pressure from seismic events are expected to be negligible. Slabs- On -Grade The existing fill should be expected to settle over time. Any slab supported on this material should be expected to settle regardless of the loading condition. If risk of settlement can be accepted, we recommend placing a 2-foot thickness of structural fill under the slab compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density from ASTM D 1557. Areas observed to yield under compaction equipment should be replaced with properly compacted fill. This 2-foot layer would help to mask the affects of settlement at greater depth; however some settlement risk would remain. The fill would likely need to consist of imported, clean granular fill. Clean granular fill could include the capillary break material discussed in the Drainage section below. If settlement risk cannot be tolerated then the slab should be supported on piles with a structural slab design. All approach slabs not pile supported, such as driveways and sidewalks will still have the potential to settle with time. We recommend the use of "transition" slabs that connect the pile supported slabs to the surrounding slabs on grade. The transition slab is a structural slab that is dowelled into the pipe supported slab. The steel dowels allow a hinge to form such that bending at the joint, instead of vertical offset, will occur. The length of the transition slab should be such that the final inclination is not too steep assuming 4 inches of settlement. Drainage We recommend that runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roofs and paved areas, be collected and routed to an appropriate storm water discharge system. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the buildings. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum, for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the buildings. Surface water Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 10 should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system. We recommend that footing drains be used around the structure. It is good practice to use footing drains installed at least 1 foot below planned finished floor slab or crawl space elevation to provide drainage for the crawl space. The crawl space should be sloped to drain to an outlet tied to the drainage system. Footing drains should consist of 4-inch-diameter, perforated PVC pipe that is surrounded by free -draining material, such as pea gravel. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point. Where moisture control is a concern, we recommend that slabs be underlain by 6 inches of free - draining sand or gravel for use as a capillary break. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the capillary break. If desired, a sand blanket could be placed over the vapor barrier to aid in curing of the concrete. Most likely, the existing sand will qualify as a capillary break material. This can be evaluated at the time of construction. Monitoring Cornerstone Geotechnical should be retained to evaluate pile installation to confirm that piles are installed as recommended in this report. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for Mr. Scott Fontaine and his agents, for use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report, for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 11 contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. We should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, and to provide recommendations for design changes, should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated. As part of our services, we would also evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take care that our work has been completed 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. M•M Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Doug Bath, PE Project Engineer P- Co EXPIRES 47 7 Charles P. Couvrette, PE Principal Engineer CPC:DJB:nt Four Copies Submitted Six Figures Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Vicinity Map N J B D �4•p Jx Y. �t f t;>t •� 3� y it yta�+ 43S 7 s rq `� . s $ a r v .•rg Y l.t. to a 1 c .. J , 154TH Z, SbF sjd fP^ S .�'} t a, `; t�I s.', t� t} � e' f 3tJ "h,`t''t .�rH •ss..a�',`. `'�`'�'� �•' "'�''x "y�" '' , .. 'l .a.°� f60TH „i}" z � j , - a199TH � ,., r � h`>''1 . � 7 °• ! � .,:'Ei �9a�t'r"'� A 161STi'c'.' t' v+� R`" L'_ t � .l,a-m' 1." pl -t r � ° t + s°� . N. .� `J'•� �yy°'�a ;•'�;'f�'' •47 f�;�� f ` i � .162ND r'> ,t �tr �O t �fi a;. C 1` Je! 5 •' t 3 .3."G$S"R %t� is 'tWR{J �J =t t.i _ 1 D � .. 1 15 tl '4 �4 ! Q r' ` y647TJ lit£ ro Q1 awl{ t X i 'A'j. y, Sjfi`"'S'd's, 165TH a. R S�'�,.�s' t r its Jam• , y,'Y ' { 75a;4 3^a......,..ri< " �•k1�97` dd 7' r t 4- i, -W,' A .{' x�l,_!d '(_a. , llA+�y.,• V. �. C,s _ � - I y .� - �y j�^7i py.��. R i O !. 3xJ'r/•Yq.L iV <4 } �{ °' v, .4Y7v�° t; `�t'tj •'-. '• '� i `�{T i *C,'� I'ttF � S Fa.'.p �t �lYa E+; u TALBOTi . y ( t �fi ae c �,p v o,J E7aL 11 rri H X TRICK ' 1757Ha&�h .__ s i +173kOUiJkJ 1 Lr 'r Ct� 1 Li. — iSI yi` t Cm a 3r }r� ..y_d>Y �t 72ry J� rs.' •L` K.. rL.'i 7 -i �: �— } . i�ssr ' I ♦` I. ... � f� i.% f y _S * �� ' � ( . 4t: L 1.. itl,�7R�`�, � � 4 Q 6 � �Y +L �,.J Y� ...� Ri.q, . 176'fH .It'• .i+nt 3 �7H i � 2 7 ~'f _ W a L !� °7,t614 • i Y l' i s J'�C � —x' t .�"�; x} � a'S -L�'� ;9" Y Y' 1 yJ� I ,q;� a itn+. rll V.Y it �` •� � toM'^ °;f' .�/� r�t 999r .f :Y ��-�'°td... �,E3�0' J. f�w��i-.er`� y+e� t�, G�r'7:X"!i �. ©1995 Thomas Bros. Maps Cornerstone Phone: (425) M4-1977 Scott Fontaine Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987 File Number Figure 1346NO 1 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA • 98072 IV - " Site -� �o ' B-3 1 -ex'v%erLAN v 25-foot wetland buffer Plan B-1 Boring Number and Approximate Location 0 50 100 fi• � Scale 1" = 50' Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 Scott Fontaine - Geotechnical Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987 File Number Figure 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA • 98072 1346 2 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- CLEAN GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50% OF GM SILTY GRAVEL COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ON NO. 4 WITH FINES SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON NO.200 SIEVE MORE THAN 50% OF SM SILTY SAND COARSE FRACTION SAND PASSES NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES SC CLAYEY SAND FINE - SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY GRAINED SOILS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY MORE THAN 50% ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT PASSES NO. 200 SIEV LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR MORE 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 2488-93. Moist- Damp, but no visible water * 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D 2487-93. Wet- Visible free water or saturated, 3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil is obtained from below water table consistency are based on interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance, of soils, and/or test data. * Modifications have been applied to ASTM methods to describe sit and clay content. KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS — Letter symbol for soil type Contact between soil strata — (Dashed line indicates approximate IML contact between soils) Ground water level — Letter symbol for soil type • Blows required to drive MC (M) _ %Moisture = (weight of water) sample 12 in. using SPT (Weight of dry soil) DD = Dry Density Soil Classification and Phone: 425 844-1977 Cornerstone ( ) Boring Log Key Geotechnical, Inc. Fax:(425)84a-1987 w Figure 3 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA • 98072 SOIL DESCRIPTION w o Standard Penetration Resistance V a j w H (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) B-1 vi Q a w • Blows per foot Zi cn (9 o Surface Elevation: 10 20 30 40 50 Light brown silty fine sand with roots and trace gravel (loose, dry to moist) (FILL) SM I 1 Dark gray silty sand with gravel (loose, moist to wet) SM (FILL) ----------------------------------------------------- ----- 0 5 Gray fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel SP- T : (medium dense, wet) (FILL) SM -Bottom % of sample has zones of brown silty sand 1 with roots 10 ------------------------------------------------------ Gray fine to coarse sand with trace silt gravel and SW T : scattered cobbles (dense, wet) 1 15 ------------------------------------ -------- Gray silty very fine to fine sand (very dense, wet) SM I T 20 - • • - • • --- - • - - - - Boring completed at 19.0 feet Ground water measured at a depth of 5 feet approximately % hour after drilling completed : 25 .....:.......:................................. 30 ------ .................. .................... LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven. ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, 3" O.D. thin -wall sample tonstfe + Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tonslfe NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. rnerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 Scott Fontaine Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987 ff File Number Figure o 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 " Woodinville, WA " 98072 1346 4 SOIL DESCRIPTION w o � Standard Penetration Resistance 02 � Z w = (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) B_ 2 Q 0 Q w � 0 • Blows per foot D 07 0 10 20 30 40 50 Light brown silty fine sand with roots and trace gravel (loose, dry to medium) (FILL) SM T Dark gray silty sand with gravel (loose, moist to wet) SM 1 (FILL) ----------------------------------- Gray fine to coarse sand with trace silt gravel and SW T scattered cobbles (medium dense to dense, wet) 1 I I ------------------------------------------------------ ----- Gray interbedded coarse sand with gravel and Sw I scattered cobbles and fine to coarse sand with silt SM and trace gravel (dense, wet) Dark gray silty very fine to fine sand I SM (very dense, wet) Boring completed at 24.0 feet Ground water measured at a depth of 7.5 feet approximately'/2 hour after drilling completed Sample tube was 5 ` pounding on. a rock ... . .�`.. causir)g the blow count:to be overstated ` true blow count estimates �. to be about 15 ? :12-22-39. 10----------- .... ......................:...... 20................:.. .... ...... ",;.,...... :... ..� 25 --1-- ..... :.................... ...........:....... � 30.+.................. ....:.......:.......:......� LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven. ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, tonslfe 3" O.D. thin -wall sample + Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tonsife NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. Phone: (425) 844-1977 Scott Fontaine Cornerstone Fax: (425) 844-1987 Geotechnical, Inc. File Number Figure 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 ". Woodinville, WA • 98072 1346 5 gr SOIL DESCRIPTION w 0 Standard Penetration Resistance V a (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) B_3 (6 Q 0 w • Blows per foot cn 0 0 Surface Elevation: 10 20 30 40 50 Brown silty fine to medium sand with trace gravel SM T : (very loose to loose, wet) (FILL) 1 : 5 :.......:....... ..................... I Gray fine to coarse sand with gravel (medium dense, SW wet) 10 ------- :....... :............... ........ .:....... Dark gray to black fine to coarse sand with trace fine T gravel (medium dense, wet) 1 15 .....:.......:...... ......:....... Gray fine to coarse sand with trace silt grades to fine to medium gravel with coarse sand : (very dense, wet) sP-sM T I1 20 :.......................:.......:...... Fine to coarse sand with silt (very dense, wet) Gray silty very fine sand (very dense, wet) sM Boring completed at 19.0 feet Ground water measured at a depth of 2 feet approximately'/2 hour after drilling completed 25 ..............:........:........................ 30 .....:................:....................... LEGEND Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven. ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, 3° O.D. thin -wall sample tons/fl + Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tons/ft NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 Scott Fontaine Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987 1 File Number WGeotechnical, Figure 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA • 98072 I- 1346 6 - ;•y Y,qs .y., '• _ K;n, YR :.zd.r'H�' 4..irr r•:Y,+a,�.3�� ' JawY s Ib.•9c. .. �• ?� .. 's"J "4...r. TTtt�, tr. ''�,� )s�.� ✓ a,.s�v Ands Community Development Code Chapter 19.05 sites designated within or near the dslide Haiard Complex shall be designated on this map which indicates areas of earth ssi ate the subject - b'e ct _ � � project development located at /�v/,2— �a OAtiI g - - � , dmonds Wasthe- � hin- to fo g n,following ma -- s curve � s - g or other _ P rn Y noted used: - � � =— • uucal Report Prepared by Gorz►J F2S'ttiME G GAL lvcG Eo-r�i+N l - uvey Prepared by Lo LL- SoaAER LA0JD 2 02 enalty of perjury that the site location -designation has been made to the best of m w I r y ief, following an investigation of all information and documentation in my possession a s r obtainable information in the possession of others, including -;public agencies. Any \ � would tend to designate a differing location for the site is attached as a part of my 2 05 ' as all information upon which I reasonably relied." f J PA&A�. A Date 8•zo•o� Date 9, • 2.o o 1( ENTIFIED ! �1 i r FROM ENCROACHING LANDSLIDE MATERIALS i FROM GROUND FAILURE IN MATERIAL THAT PREVIOUSLY FAILED FROM GROUND FAILURE IN PREVIOUSL'AATERIAL s \�, ,LIDES \ r AVALANCHES C• :.5-' _ - 4A f OF OCCURRENCE DURING A 25-YEAR 'ERCENT�*) -� CP 2 I' A 90 4 41N THIS MAP UNIT ARE GENERALLY SUBJECT r •{ 1�' !1 LURE HAZARD FROM AN EXISTING SLUMP' 2 'RCENT PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE / 2' EAR PERIOD.— ��! D 2 THROUGH PROBABILITY INDICATES DECREASE 'BABILITY INDICATED. ..-REFER TO UPDATED 84 FOR REDUCED " � t 3802 '.RCENTAGEVALUES i� t �♦ 1 �. t 4A Landslide Hazard Map, t, Landslide Hazards iowdale Area, Edmonds, Eger Lowe Associates, Inc., 10 300 400 500 FEET serval 5' 10 n C 4 A ?,� 4 A n, �4A / r Air" i 30 ' /i' _ _ ' / 3R02 M O V ED�o� t " Certificate of Occupancy Building Division This certificate is issued in accordance with the requirements of Section 111 of, the 09 International Building Code certifying that at the time of issuance this single family residence was in compliance with the applicable provisions of the codes and ordinances of the city regulating construction and use of buildings. Description: 64 - Single Family Residence New Site Address: 16124 N MEADOWDALE RD, EDMONDS Construction Type: VB Owner: CROSBY GROUP OF WA. 2905 170TH ST SW LYNNWOOD, WA 98037 L*X�ildinaggOff:i:d Permit No: BLD20120394 Parcel No: 00513100005102 Occupancy Group: R-3 POST IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE Date Issued STREET FILE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To: City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 From: John Zipper Subject: Fontaine chapter 19.05 review Date: September 7, 2004 ZZA Job No.: J-1969 Transmitted via: X U. S. Mail . ❑ Overnight (UPS, DHL, FedEx) ❑ Courier ❑ Hand Delivered Enclosed please find the following items: Copies Title Date 1 Task order No. 04-05, signed 9/3/2004 If items are not as shown, please notify us at once, Comments: Jeannine, I received the submittal and will be in touch after I have taken a look at the site and completed an initial review. John Signed: Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting ❑ 811 First Ave. #404 Q 18905 33rd Ave. W. #117 ❑ 2501 East "D" St. #200 Seattle, WA 98104 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Tacoma, WA 98421 T: 206-264-8295 T: 425-771-3304 T: 253-573-9939 F: 206-264-4818 F: 425-771-3549 F: 253-573-9959 k TASK ORDER xw -`` `• City of Edmonds ON -CALL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Task Order No. Task Title F�/✓/�✓E ��/% / cfJUfrT�� L�iYi°idPT/Cd�✓ Consultant Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Consultant Contact Person J0 ? Phone No. ��1" 330 4- City of Edmonds Requester 7z-6g,041- Phone No. 77/'flz26 City Project No. / Budget Line No. &T O 00/. 62- D• �4- !W • '27/0 Reimbursable? ❑ Yes, by (Name, address & phone no. of personlorganization who will reimburse the City) No DESCRIPTION OF TASK ASSIGNMENT fVVVA1Ah-,,&W 1v fin// -lb, ❑ Per attached Scope of Services COMPENSATION / ❑ LUMP SUM -Compensation for these services shall be a lump Stun of $ TIME AND MATERIAL -Compensation for these services will be on a Time and Materials basis, not to exceed $ 05 without written authorization. ❑ Approved budget attached (if applicable. Required if cost exceeds $3,000.) SCHEDULE The Consultant shall complete the services described above: ® By !y vT (Date) ❑ In accordance with the attached schedule. All provisions of the Agreement for Professional Services dated 01/23/04 shall be in full force and effect for this Task Order. APPROVED: CITY OF EDMONDS CONSULTANT Signatu"rem l Signature�6 Title _ /L/yK�,�L Gl�9� Title Date % Z-�7 Date 9 3 0 C�a smi p`.Cuni+My tkw^e E' pztOMSULTA�Tss 01d o PM ,A City of Edmonds GEQ-41, QL Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet LF Name of Proposed Project: Applicant Name ' Str et/IVlailing Address ,� , w City State Zip Telephoner Contact Person: Name Street/Mailing Address v1u-A1ojos4 LIA 9og'6.37 City State Zip Telephone: 5'7Z 6 - elo"' §�_ - C1 96 ell Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if'applicable): Firm Name Contact Name Telephone: E-mail: THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ANALYSIS Project Traffic Levels Sections to Complete I. Less than 25 peak -hour trips generated 1 and 7 only (Worksheet/Checklist) II. More than 25 peak -hour trips generated All sections. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. Location - Street address: 41 X/` { (Attach a -vicinity map and site plan.). b. Specify existing land use: c. Specify proposed type and size of development: „(,AtA_ 1 td Z jtl'QV ,-' rim 30 4 (# of residential units and/or square footage of building) l Date construction will begin and be completed: d. a In p e. Define proposed access locations:'!"°:. Ll f. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: 2. TRIP GENERATION Source shall be the Eighth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I rip Generation manual. For independent fee calculations, the -current edition of the ITE manu ay be used. ADT = Average Daily Traffic PM Peak -hour trips (AM, noon or school peak may also apply as'directe y the City Engineer) a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: PM Peak -Hour Trips Land Use Daily (ADT) IN OUT b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use D y (ADT) c. Net New Project Trip [-Land Us i Table: Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT J d. State sumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips: ju 1 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. ❑ CHANGE IN USE Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04), the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used. ITE Land Use Category Per Unit square feet, Fee Fee Rate # of dwelling, etc. New Use $ X = $ Prior Use $ X — $ New Use Fee: $ - Prior Use Fee: $ = g 1 ❑ NEW DEVELOPMENT TTE Land Use Category New Use I 2-1 u _ SPtz- ❑ OTHER Per Unit Fee Rate $1wo.33IX Units in square feet, # of dwelling, vfn. etc. Fee = 1 $ I lgl,, a 3 �3 INDEPENDENT FEE CALCULATION: $200.00 + consultant fee $ . 0 TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $ 11%, 33 of Edmonds, Engineering Division Approval Date No impact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an impact fee calculation resulting in a net negative. ._City of Edmonds Site Classification Worksheet Page 1 of 2 2012 -037 The project's Site Classification will dictate the specific stormwater management requirements applicable to your.site. Completing this worksheet will help determine the amount of regulated impervious surface and whether your project falls into the classification of a Small Site (Category 1 or Category 2), or a Minor Site. Please reference the Glossary (pp. 10-11), Figures D and E (p)8-9) and Examples (pp. 11-12), to assist with completion of this worksheet. 1) Is Permeable Pavements Proposed For Use on this Site? El Yes R� No Refer to Stormwater Supplement Chapter 5.1 If YES, the subject area is to be considered impervious for initial site classification purposes. Include total permeable pavement area in the calculation of Non -Regulated, Replaced and/or New impervious surface areas in the table below. F ) Determine the Amount and Type of Existing & Proposed Impervious Surface for the Site Refer to Stormwater Supplement Chapter 2 and Fig. C Line 1: Identify the Non -Regulated Impervious Surface Area. Line 2: Identify the Replaced Impervious Surface Area, dividing the total between Exempt and Regulated; either or both may be zero. Note: For project classification purposes, Replaced Impervious may only be considered exempt under certain conditions. Refer to the Glossary and Figure D. Line 3: Identify the New Impervious Surface Area for your project. All impervious areas created post -July 7, 1977 or after the date of annexation into the City are regulated & should be included in this total unless they can be categorized separately as a Replaced -Regulated area. JU Line 4: Enter the sum of the total Replaced -Regulated plus the total New impervious areas. 1 Line 5: Identify the total area currently mitigated by an existing city -approved stormwater management system. M Line 6: Enter the sum of the value in Line 4 less the value in Line 5 to identify the total Regulated area in which stormwater controls have not yet been applied. s Line 7: Identify the total area proposed to be mitigated through the use of Low Impact Development Techniques. Line 8: Identify the total area proposed to be mitigated through conventional Stormwater Management Techniques. ** Provide a copy of the following table on the drainage plan sheet for the proposed project ** Line Type Area (square feet) 1. Non -Regulated Exempt Regulated 2 Replaced - 3. 4' New (Post 1977) Total Regulated Impervious Area Mitigation required if in excess of 2000 + t Y` 5. 6. Total Area Mitigated by Existing Stormwater Management System(s) Regulated Area Not Yet Mitigated - = I �✓ 2 f 0 7. Area Proposed to be Mitigated by Low Impact Development Techniques = 8. Area Proposed to be Mitigated through Conventional SWM Techniques = 329So es filled :wt f_ s1v (e.g. porous asphalt, porous concrete, paver blocks, concrete open celled paving grids, or plastic lattic Revised on 31052012 E72-SWM Ernsion_Control-03.05.12.doc gy 231 5of12 0EVELOPMENT CMNTER RVICES City of Edmonds Site Classification Worksheet 3) Determine the Total Area of Land Disturbing Activity sf Refer to Stormwater Supplement Chapter 8 ' 1 4) Determine the Quantity of Grading, Fill and/or Excavation / t Z J cy 5) Will the project convert 3/ Acre or More of Native Vegetation to Lawn or Yes No Landsca ed Area? 6) Identify the Watershed the Existing Site Runoff Discharges to Refer to Stormwater Supplement Chapter 2.3 Based on Site Location and Watershed Map — Figure-C. Check all that annly. A. F❑ Direct Discharge B. Creek or Lake Basin ❑ Edmonds Way Basin ❑ Puget Sound Basin ❑ Puget Sound Piped Basin DETERMINE PROJECT CLASSIFICATION USING THE INFORMATION ABOVE AND THE PROTECT CLASSIFICATION CHART (Figure B, pg 4) . Small Site - Category 1 ❑ Small Site - Category 2 ❑ Minor Site Stormwater Supplement Stormwater Supplement Stormwater Supplement Chapter 5 Chapter S Chapter 6 Revised on 310512012 E72-SWM _Erosion_Control-03.05.12.doc Page 6 of 12 t Geotechnical Investigation Meadowdale 'Road Edmonds, Washington For Mr. Scott Fontaine STREET FILE RECEIVED JUN 0 4 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES . COUNTER 1 Li corneirston:e Go'otechn:icall, Inc.. February 12, 2003 Mr. Scott Fontaine c/o Mr. Paul Aiello 701 North 39°i Street Seattle, Washington 99103 Geotechnical Investigation Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington CG File No. 1346 Dear Mr. Fontaine: 17625-130u, Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 96072 Phone: 425.844.1977 Fax: 425.844.1987 This report presents the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed short plat project at the 16112 Meadowdale Road'in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located just east of the right-of-way for 72"a Avenue West on Meadowdale Road, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. INTRODUCTION You plan to construct a single-family residence at the currently undeveloped lot. A hand auger hole and a test pit were completed at the site for previous geotechnical studies of the property for a former owner of the property. These shallow explorations encountered existing -loose fill and did not extend into suitable bearing soils. For this study, we completed deeper explorations using a hollow -stem auger drill rig to better understand the subsurface soil conditions at the site and determine a sensible method of construction for the structure. We were provided with a copy of a preliminary geotechnical report prepared by Nelson- Couvrette and Associates, Inc. February 23, 1993, a limited geotechnical investigation letter dated May 19, 1999, and letter describing environmental cleanup documents that have been filed by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) dated October 31, 2001. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence —Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 2, SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS STUDIES The geotechnical report written in February of 1993 by Nelson Couvrette and Associates, Inc. 1i presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation of the proposed site. The study area for this report consisted of four lots, including the slope to the south of your site and an existing house to the east. Nelson-Couwette and Associates performed a soil investigation i and described the surface and subsurface conditions. The report also concluded that foundations should extend through the fill and recommendations for building alternatives for foundation support were given, The limited geotechnical investigation by Dennis Joule in May, 1999, was done to evaluate the fill ,close to the vicinity of the current site. Mr.. Joule found at lest 10 feet of unsuitable fill consisting of loose soil and debris in the test pit he excavated to conduct the study. The test pit was terminated at 10 feet due to abundant ground water and caving of the sides of the excavation. Ground water was encountered at 4 feet. Mr. Joule also commented on the ground water, which was mixed with oils and other hydrocarbon materials. r Since this report by Mr. Joule, we understand that the site has been examined by the (DOE) and; f�. cleanup of any hazardous materials were done at.the site. The DOE issued a No Further Action i t f that was completed leted to demonstrate that subsurface contaminants addressed in the previous P Gti 'geotechnical report do not pose a threat to human health or the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site surface slopes gently down to the northwest. The parcel is currently undeveloped with the layout shown on Figure 2. The property is approximately 30,000 square feet in area. There is a wetland area to the south and west, which reduces the "buildable" portion to about 9,500 square feet of the northeast comer of the lot. A 25-foot wetland buffer has been drawn on the plan provided to us. The building footprint will lie within a 5,000 square foot area set back 15 feet .from the wetland buffer, and 10 feet from the right-of-way for Meadowdale Road and the property line to the east. The 10-foot setback from the right-of-way is labeled "10-foot setback variance" on the plan provided. We understand that the residence will be a two-story, wood - frame structure with living space over a three -car garage. You do not plan to change the grade Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 3 significantly Since there is a gentle slope down to the west we understand that the finished floor elevation would be near the existing grade on the east side of the pad and about 3 feet above the existing grade on the west side of the pad. To provide drainage you plan to place up to 2 feet of material around the downslope side of the residence. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions, and present recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services will include the following: 1. .Review the available geologic maps of the area. 2. Explore the building area with three to four borings using a hollow -stem auger drill rig. 3. Complete moisture content determination on fine-grained soils, if encountered. 4. Provide recommendations for site preparation and grading. 5. Provide recommendations for building foundations. 6. Provide recommendations for site drainage. 7. Prepare a written report to document our findings and recommendations: SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The general area consists of a steep hillside sloping from the south down to a flatter area in the northern portion near Meadowdale Road. The vertical relief of the hillside is about 65 feet. The lot consists of a wetland area at the toe of the slope, and a gently sloping area at the north end of the site where the building is planned. The building is located about 150 feet from the toe of the steep slope. i The surface water drainage for the area appears to generally flow into the wetland south of the building area and then within the wetland to the north along the west side of the property. The planned building area is cleared and vegetated with grass. We observed the northeast corner of the planned building area was soft at the surface apparently due to surface water collecting in the area. i Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No, 1346 Page 4 Explorations Subsurface conditions were explored at the site on August 21, 20.02) by drilling three borings with a truck -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill•rig. The site was explored to a depth of 20 feet below the ground surface in B-1 and B-3, and 25 feet in B-2. The explorations were logged by a geologist and engineer from this firm who also examined .the soils and geologic conditions encountered. The locations of the soil borings are shown on the ti Site Plan, in Figure 2. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented as Figure 3. The samples were brought back to our laboratory for further classification. The logs of the borings are shown on Figures 4 j through 6. The boring samples were obtained using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) method in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch-outside-diameter sampler using a 140.pound hammer falling 30 inches. The standard. method is to drive the sampler 18 inches and record the blows for each 6 inches of penetration. The total number of blows for the last 12 inches of penetration (unless otherwise noted) is termed the Standard Penetration Resistance blow count or "N-value" (units: blows per foot). These values are shown on the boring logs. I Subsurface Conditions A general description of the conditions encountered is presented below. For more detail please review the boring logs in Figure 4 through 6. The upper 6.0 to 11.5 feet in the three borings consisted of very loose to loose fill. The fill was moist to wet. The ground water was measured 30 minutes after completing each drill hole with a grater level between 2.0 and 7.5 feet. I The soils encountered below the fill consisted of medium dense, gray fine to coarse sand with gravel and trace to moderate amounts of silt. This soil was encountered to depths of between 15 i Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road ' February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 5 and 20 feet. In all borings, the deepest layer reached was dense to very dense, silty very fine to fine sand. Landslide Hazard Map Review The area near North Meadowdale Road .and 75"' Place West has been mapped as part of a large landslide complex (Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington, by Roger Lowe Associates., October 16, 1979). i We have reviewed the undated "Figure 1, Landslide -Hazard Map" by GeoEngineers. The. GeoEngineers map references the landslide map created by Roger Lowe Associates, Inc, The GeoEngineers map identifies the Meadowdale slide area, and also areas that have some potential of sliding. The map provides a legend to distinguish the potential landslide activity, such as "Type", "Process", and "Probability". The hazard map identifies the slide hazard risk in the vicinity of your site will be in the form of debris flow. The probability of a potential;.�lidc occurring on the . site is stated. as 2 percent or less in a 25-year period._ _The debris flow desgnationyis derived from the steep slope lying to the south. The flow would be the result of the upper loose soils moving down slope most likely during a heavy rainfall event or rapid snow melt. There is no evidence that such a movement has occurred in the recent (50 years or more) history of the site. Based on the above discussion, it is our opinion that it is reasonable to exempt your project from the full Meadowdale Slide regulations that govern the properties downslope in higher risk areas. The risk stated on the map is minimal and appears. to apply to the steeper slope area from which the building is setback about 150 feet. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General I In our opinion, the site is -suitable for support of the planned residence provided that the foundations are extended down into the medium dense or better native soils. We discussed with you the use of auger cast piles or driven ,Sipe piles. Either option would be suitable from an engineering perspective. Auger cast piles should extend at.least 4 feet into medium dense or Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. GeotechnicalInvestigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No, 1346 Page 6 better soils with a minimum depth of 1.8 feet. Pipe piles are likely to be less expensive on a per foot basis; however, driving may extend well beyond the 18 foot depth and we do not know which method would ultimately be less costly. Pipe pile driving is generally not limited by a predetermined depth, but by a refusal criteria. It is not uncommon for the driven depth to be 50 percent or even 100 percent greater than the depth for auger cast.piles. I ' The analytical methods typically used in static and dynamic pile analysis have been found to not correlate with the small diameter piles as with the larger timber, concrete and pipe piles. The . dynamic analysis is further complicated with the unknowns associated with energy transfer from the pile driving hammer which is typically a modified concrete or rock breaker. The most efficient method is to use specific driving methods and then field load test those piles to determine ultimate capacity. A factor of safety is used to determine the allowable pile load. The alternative is to use lower pile capacities based mostly on static analysis. Some pile load charts based on driving criteria are available, but larger factors of safety should be applied to those also. I .. Pile Design We present, at the request of your architect, two options for support of the foundations. The design capacity for each system is presented in tables below. The capacity is the design axial or vertical component in 1,000 pound units (kips). We did not include an analysis of the lateral capacity of the piles. Settlements of pile foundations that are designed and constructed as recommended are expected_,, Yo not exceed about lh inch. The majority of_this„should take place immediately after pile loading. The 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) allows a one-third increase in allowable soil stresses for wind and seismic loads, for certain load combinations. If the appropriate load combinations are used, the allowable axial pile capacity recommended above can be increased by one-third when considering wind and seismic loads. We recommend that the pipe piles not be used for lateral resistance. Lateral resistance will.be from the concrete footing structure and surrounding soils. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc, Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 7 Auger Cast Piles: Auger cast -in -place piles may be utilized to support the planned residence and garage on this site. Auger cast -in -place piles are placed with a hollow -stem auger drilled to the i appropriate depth. After reaching the recommended minimum penetration into bearing soils, grout is pumped into the auger before starting withdrawal to create a head. Withdrawal of the auger is timed to maintain the grout head, with the auger turning slowly in a positive direction. If the filling process is not an even continuous event, the contractor should re -drill a portion of the hole to avoid a non -uniformity or "necking" of the pile. In order to obtain quality control of the pile, the amount of grout pumped and the grout head should be recorded for each pile. A pump -stroke counter and calibration -curve of strokes, verses volume, should be included as part of the contractor's equipment. The volume of grout pumped is compared to the theoretical volume of the pile. Piles with less than 110 percent of actual to theoretical volume should be re -drilled. Auger. cast -in -place piles installed in voids or soft soils . a can sometimes require some . additional grout volumes higher than what would normally be calculated. Continuous inspection of the contractor's procedures for each pile is typically required as quality control. It is possible that due to the loose and permeable fill there could .be "communication" between adjacent piles during construction. This communication can cause impurities to be pushed into adjacent piles. We recommend that piles less than 7 feet apart be installed on successive days to reduce the potential for communication between piles to occur. This should be monitored during construction. We recommend that piles penetrate a minimum of 4 feet into the medium dense to dense native soils to allow the development of full point resistance (minimum depth of 18 feet). The allowable loads provided, account for skin friction created in native soils and end -bearing at the base of the pile. We have accounted for down drag forces on the piles due to the potential for long term settlement of the fill. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. r• Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 8 We have calculated allowable pile bearing capacity based on penetration into the medium dense to dense native soils. Pile Diameter (inches) Depth to Bearing Horizon (feet) Minimum Estimated Pile Length (feet) Design Capacity (kips) 12 14 18 24 Pin Piles:. We completed an analysis of 4-inch and 6-inch diameter driven pipe piles to support the foundation. We assumed that the piles.would be driven at least 6 feet into very dense fine sand encountered in our borings at a depth of 18- to 20 feet (minimum pile depth of 25Tfeet),_.,.. Using the static pile method, the axial loads for the piles with appropriate factors of safety are provided below. Based on past documented history, these loads are acceptable without additional load testing provided the minimum depth of 25 feet is. achieved and the.minimum driving criteria presented below are satisfied.. If load testing is completed, the design loads could possibly be . increased to a significantly higher capacity due to 'the ability to reduce the safety factors. A' contractor experienced in pipe. pile installation.has developed a specification chart for driving the piles with a variety of hammer sizes and has included.a typical pile capacity, which we present as an Estimated Design Load (which would require load testing). This is reflected on the chart below. Pile Diam.. in Driving Criteria (less than 1 inch in X seconds) Design Capacity (kips) If no load test Estimated Design Capacity (kips) if tested 6 16-20 with 1500 lb. hammer 15 20-30 6 18-20 with 1100 lb. hammer 15 20-30 4 10-12 with 1100 lb. hammer 8 16-20 4 14-16 with 850 lb. hammer 8 16-20 4 18-20 with 650 lb. hammer 8 16-20 Ref: McDowell NW Pile King, Inc. ISeismic Hazard The site is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map, shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997. i Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.30. This, in Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 9 turn, corresponds to an effective peak horizontal acceleration of 0.3 g. Site conditions best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type SD ("Stiff Soil Profile"). The outwash underlying the structure foundations is dense and is not considered susceptible to i liquefaction. Effects on the structures due to increases in lateral pressure from seismic events are expected to be negligible. Slabs- On -Grade The existing fill should .be expected .to settle over time. Any slab supported on this material should .be expected to settle regardless of the loading condition. If risk of settlement can be accepted, we recommend placing a 2-foot thickness of structural fill under the slab compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density from ASTM D 1557. Areas observed to yield under compaction equipment should be replaced with properly compacted fill. This 2-foot layer would . help to mask the affects of settlement at greater depth; however some .settlement risk would remain. The fill would likely need to consist of imported, clean granular fill. Clean granular fill could include the capillary break material discussed in the Drainage section below. If settlement risk cannot be tolerated then the slab should be supported on piles with a structural slab design. All approach slabs not pile supported, such as driveways and sidewalks will still have the potential. to settle .with time. We. recommend the use of "transition"'slabs that connect the pile supported slabs to the surrounding slabs on grade. The transition slab is a structural slab that is dowelled into the pipe supported slab. The steel dowels allow a hinge to form such that bending at the joint, instead of vertical offset, will occur. The length of the transition slab should be such that the final inclination is not too steep assuming 4 inches of settlement. I Drainage We recommend that runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roofs and paved areas, be collected and routed to an appropriate storm water discharge system. Final site grades should allow for i' drainage away from the buildings. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum, for a .distance of at least 10 feet away from the buildings. Surface water Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 10 ishould be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system. t I We:recommend that footing drains be used around the structure. It is good practice to use footing drains installed at least 1 foot below planned finished floor slab or crawl space elevation to provide drainage for the crawl space. The crawl space should be sloped to drain to an outlet tied to the drainage system. Footing drains should consist of 4-inch-diameter, perforated PVC pipe' that is surrounded by free -draining material, such As pea gravel. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point. I Where moisture control is a concern, we recommend that slabs be underlain by 6 inches of free draining sand or gravel for use as a ,capillary. break. A suitable vapor. barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should .be placed over the capillary. break. If desired, a sand blanket could be placed over the vapor barrier to aid in curing of the concrete. Most likely, the existing sand will qualify as a capillary break material. This can be evaluated at the.time of construction. Monitoring Cornerstone Geotechnical should be retained to evaluate pile installation to confirm that piles are installed as recommended in this report. I USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for Mr. Scott Fontaine and his .agents, for use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their fbidding and estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report, for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Fontaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CG File No. 1346 Page 11 contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. i Wei should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation. services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, and to provide recommendations for design changes, should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated. As part of our services, we would also evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take care than our work has been completed 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. 000.. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Investigation Foritaine Residence — Meadowdale Road February 12, 2003 CO File No. 1346 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Doug Bath, PE Project Engineer a p, nrzos .nos C1jS7'F�� EXPIRES Charles P. Couvrette, PE Principal Engineer. CPC:DJB:nt Four Copies Submitted SiX Figures Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Site Plan fr r INS 13 . .O r A 440 k �ti k E B-3' J ' r� 03 - N� EX,�V�'TL4Nv � � •` r' 25-foot wetland buffer 11 B-1 Boring Number and —- Approximate Location 0 50 100 1�� Scale 1" = 50' Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 Scott Fontaine Fax; (425) 844-1987 Geotechnical; Inc. File Number 1346 Figure 17625-1301h Ave NE, C-102 - Woodinville, WA - 98072 2 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS YMaoL GROUP NAME COARSE-; GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ON N0.4 WITH FINES SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND MORE THAN 50% SP POORLY -GRADED SAND RETAINED ON NO.200 SIEVE MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION SM SILTY SAND PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE SAND Sc CLAYEY SAND WITH FINES FINE- SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MIL SILT CL CLAY GRAINED SOILS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILTAND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, -ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY MORE THAN 50% PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE LIQUID LIMIT 50% OR MORE ORGANIC OH 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 2488-93. Moist- Damp, but no visible water ' * 2) Sall classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D 2487-93. Wet- Visible free water or saturated, 3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil Is obtained from consistency are based on below water table Interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance, of soils, and/or test data. * Modifications have been applied to ASTM methods to describe sit and clay content. KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS — Letter symbol for soil type I SM Contact between soil strata — (Dashed line Indicates approximate nn� contact between soils) Ground water level — Letter symbol for soil type • Blows required to drive MC (0) = % Moisture = twetaht orwalerl sample 12 In. using SPT (Weight of dry soli) DD = Dry Density Soil Classification and Cornerstone Phone:(425)844-1977 Boring Log Key. _°�_, � Geotechnical, Inc, Fax: (425) 844-1987 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA • 98072 Figure 3 Sol L'DESCRIPTION J a �' Standard Penetration Resistance v a (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) B— 6 ORw • Blows per foot Surface Elevation: Cn 0 o 10 20 30 40 5o Light brown silty fine sand with roots and trace gravel (loose, dry to moist) (FILL) SM ; ; Dark gray silty sand with gravel (loose, moist to wet) SM (FILL) `7 .,.. 5 fr .. , .. :.......:......: , 1 ----------------------------------------------------- ---- WATfi& , Gray fine to coarse sand with silt and gravel SP- T (medium dense, wet) (FILL) SM -Bottom %z of sample has zones of brown silty sand 1 ; with roots 10 ...... ...... ; ........... .... . Gray fine to coarse sand with trace silt gravel and SW T scattered cobbles (dense, wet) 1 15 ........... .... .....:..... Gray silty very fine to fine sand (very dense, wet) SM 20 " " " : " " " " " ' " " " Boring completed at 19.0 feet Ground water measured at a depth of 5 feet approximately''/2 hour after drilling completed 25 .... ......... .......... . ..... : ..... 30 ............ .....:.............:..... LEGEND Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample driven. ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, 3" O.D. thin -wall sample lonslft' + Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tonslfl' NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 Scott Fontaine Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987 File Number Figure 17625-1301h Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA • 98072 1346 4 SOIL DESCRIPTION w o rx Standard Penetration Resistance v a W H (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) B"2 W o • Blows per foot Surface Elevation: 10 20 30 40 50 Light brown silty fine sand with roots and trace SM : gravel (loose, dry to medium) (FILL) I sample tube was Dark gray silty sand with gravel (loose, moist to wet) SM (FILL) 5 �:•.... ..:.......... PQPo�in9 on tgak ... . causing the blow ,�� ----------------------------------------------------- -----. count:to be overstated ` true blow count 8sUrnated �� G-ay fine to coarse sand with trace silt gravel and scattered cobbles (medium dense to dense, wet) SW I • to be about 15 ; ? : : :12-22-38: I10 ..... : . ,,. .. : ................ 15 ....... . : ... . ... . :..... Gray interbedded coarse sand with gravel and fine to SP/ SW- T scattered cobbles and coarse sand with silt and trace gravel (dense, wet) SM 1 ; 20 ...... :..... Dark gray silty very fine to fine sand SM (very dense, wet) 25 .. ................. .... .. . Boring completed at 24.0 feet Ground water measured at a depth of 7.5 feet approximately''/: hour after drilling completed 30 ....................... ................ LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven. M Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, H 3" O.D. thin -wall sample tons/fe + Plastic limit Plezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tons/fe NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soll types and the transition may be gradual.. Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 Scott Fontaine Inc, Fax: (425) 844.1987 ENumberGeotechnical, Figure 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 • Woodinville, WA • 980721346 5 SOIL DESCRIPTION W V) '0 Standard Penetration Resistance B-3 C5 _j CL Z =1 (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) CA Q 0 U.) 0 Blows per foot =i C/) Surface Elevation: 10 20 3p 21.0 so Brown silty fine to'medlurn sand with trace.gravel SM I (very loose to loose wet) (FILL) . 5 . .................... ...... Gray fine to coarse sand with gravel (medium dense, SW wet) 10 ... ....... ........................ ....... Dark gray* to black fine to coarse sand with trace fine gravel (medium dense, wet) 15 — — Gray fine to coarse sand with trace silt grades to fine to medium gravel with coarse sand (very dense, wet). Fine to (very dense, coarse sand with silt wet) SP-SM 20 ............... ................... Gray silty very fine sand (very dense, wet) sM Boring completed at 19.0 feet Ground water measured at a depth of 2 feet approximately Y2hour after drilling completed 25-7 ....... 30 ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . LEGEND Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven. N Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, 3- O.D. thin -wall sample ionslft. + Plastic limit Plezometer tip PIP Pocket penetrometer reading, tons/fe NOTE: The stratification tines represent the approximate boundaries between soll types and the transition may be gradual. Cornerstone Phone: (425) 844-1977 Scott Fontaine Fax: (425) 844-1987 Geotechnical, Inc. 0 1 File Number Figure L- : 17625-1301h Ave NE, CA02 - Woodinville, WA - 98072 1,346 6 1 1 Storm Water Control Plan Owner: Crosby Group of Washington 2905 170' St SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Site Location: 1612 orth Meadowdale Road dmonds, WA. 98026 Parcel No.00513100005102 Prepared by: Greg Chandler Stone Harbour LLC (206) 650-0804 STREET FILE EQ. IVE® MAY 2 3 2012 DEVELOPMENTSERVICES This is a storm water control plan for a proposed 2630 sq ft single family . residence located at 16120 N. Meadowdale Road Edmonds, WA 98026 The owner of this property is Crosby Group of Washington, located at 2905 170t' ST SW Lynnwood, WA 98037. The contact for this project is Greg Chandler 425-745-0232 or 206-650-0804. This parcel is approximately 26,100 sgft and currently vacant. This lot slopes back to front as well as side to side. The slopes are not greater than 10% anywhere. It is covered with established grasses, small brush, and a few trees at the rear. The major portion of this lot is a documented wetland. It is delineated on all of the site plans as well as the 25' buffer from this wetland. The seasonal water from this wetland flows to the North and West into an established storm system established on 72°d St. There are no streams, swales or other drainage entering the buildable portion of this property that will affect the drainage of this lot. The proposed house plan for this lot is a 2630 sq ft split entry home. This project will create 2731 sq ft of new impervious surface with new roof, driveway, porch, patio and walkway. The majority of the storm water will be collected through a continuous 4" solid PVC drain line and first detained in a type 1L catch basin. It flows next into 61'of 18" pipe to allow sediment to settle. Finally into the control structure designed according to Edmonds standards for impervious surface to allow only the regulated amount of water into the existing storm system. (details on drainage plan provided ) A construction storm water plan has been designed that will reduce, eliminate, or prevent the discharge of storm water pollutants. The first step in the construction process will be to clearly flag or fence the clearing limits lines. This will be done by marking all of the silt fence, as delineated on the SWPPP, with orange flagging as clearing limits. The clearing limits as well as the silt fence will be installed just outside the 25' wetland buffer area. All areas that have.or will be disturbed will be mulched or covered with black plastic. Every effort should be made to retain as much of the established grass as possible during the construction of the home. This will help disperse storm water. A construction access is the next step. Crushed rock will be placed on the lot at the driveway access point. This will help to avoid sediment being tracked onto the asphalt. All vehicles should be encouraged to remain on the asphalt to avoid.sediment being tracked onto the road. Streets will also be swept regularly to prevent'sediment transport offsite. Flow control is not required for this project. This storm water plan proposes to maintain the construction entrance and silt fencing or a brush barrier between the cleared areas and the wetland buffer area. Construction of these features will be completed before the clearing and grading of this site. Straw mulch will be used on exposed soils as necessary to limit erosion. This plan calls for stabilization of soils that remained un-worked for a certain time based on the.time of year. Techniques for stabilization will include, but are not limited to mulching, plastic sheeting and/or hydro seeding. Notes are added to drainage plan regarding protection of the stockpile areas. Stock pile areas are identified on the plan and should be setback a minimum of 10' from any downhill property line. All disturbed slopes on site during construction are required to be protected, with" mulch or other means. No significant amounts of sheet flow will be directed to new cut or fill slopes during construction. Any drainage catch basins near this site that will need to be protected and maintained. There are no existing channels or outlets. The footing and downspouts will outlet to an onsite detention system. This system will be built using 2 type 1L catch basins and 6 V of 18" pipe between them. The outfall CB will have a control structure to regulate the amount of flow to the existing storm system. This system will be built using City of Edmonds standard details and approved tables. There are no outside chemicals expected to be used for the construction of this project. All vehicles working on this site will need to meet state requirements for emissions. De -watering is not expected for this project. The construction supervisor will be responsible for maintaining all BMW's during construction and working with the city to relocate BMW's as necessary as site conditions change. It will be the responsibility of the general contractor with the site supervisor to manage this project and coordinate with the city inspectors. Site inspection shall be done regularly by a person that is knowledgeable in the principles and practices of erosion and sediment control. This person must have skills to assess the site conditions and construction activities that could impact the quality of storm water, as well as effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures to control the quality of storm water discharges. Whenever inspections and or monitoring reveals that the BMW's identified on the drainage plan are inadequate due to actual discharge or potential to discharge a significant amount of any pollutant, appropriate BMP's or design changes shall be implemented as soon as possible. The construction storm water plan shall be retained onsite or within reasonable access to the site. It shall be modified whenever there is change in the design, construction, operation or maintenance at the construction site that has or could have a significant effect on the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state. The storm water control plan shall be modified if during inspections conducted by the owner, or applicable local or state regulatory authority, it is determined that the plan is ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants in storm water discharges from the site. The plan shall be modified as necessary to include additional or modified BMP's designed to correct the problems identified. Revisions to the plan:shall be completed within seven days following inspection. Installation and inspections of all utility trenches shall be scheduled and coordinated in such a manner as to minimize any open trenches. This project will be phased in to allow the areas where the grass is established to remain until such time required for final landscaping. This will help disperse some storm water during construction. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. \ CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS MAIN OFFICE 17311-135th Ave. N.E., #1A500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (206) 486-1669 • FAX 481-2510 Mr. Greg Casper P.O.Box 3764 Seattle, WA 98124 13424 Chain Lake Road Monroe, WA 98272 (206) 788-5612_ • 794-4332 101 East Marine View Drive Orondo, WA 98843 (509) 784-2756 February 23, 1993 ECEIVE® JUN 012012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Preliminary Report Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Planned Short Plat Meadowdale Road, Edmonds File No. 411-01 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical engineering evaluation for your short plat in the City of Edmonds. The site is located in the West 7100 block of Meadowdale Road, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. You have retained us to perform a limited soil investigation at the site and to provide our opinions and general recommendations for the planned subdivision. You have provided us with a topography map showing potential building lots and house locations for use in our study. We met on -site with you to discuss the site conditions and the feasibility of developing the planned short plat. We understand that you plan to parcel the site into four residential lots. Currenay, you do not have a planned grading scheme for the site. The southern portion of the site is a steep slope. We expect road cuts and building excavations into the slope will be part of the development. SCOPE The purpose of our services is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide general recommendations for site development and foundation design. Specifically, our scope of services includes: 1. Review available geologic and soils data for the site from published geologic maps. 2. Explore the subsurface conditions at the site by excavating test holes at locations with a hand auger. 3. Provide recommendations for general site development and foundation design based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the results of our engineering analyses. 4. Prepare a written report to document our findings and recommendations. Report Planned Short Plat February 23, 1993 Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The site consists of a flatter area in the northern portion near Meadowdale Road and a steep hillside sloping from the southern property line down to the center of the site. The vertical relief of the hillside is about 65 feet with the entire site relief being about 90 feet. The average slope of the hillside is 29 degrees (55%). The area near Meadowdale Road slopes to the northwest at approximately 5 degrees (8%). A natural drainage area exists in the west -central portion of the site. Two residential structures currently exist on the flatter portion of the site. The flatter portion of the site is free of most trees and brush. The upper slopes are covered with trees and some berry vines. We understand from verbal communication with you and our observations at the site, that the flatter portion of the site consists of fill. The fill was most likely placed during the construction of Meadowdale Road. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The Geologic Map of the East and West Edmonds area of King Count. Washington by James P. Minard, published by U.S. Geological Survey in 1963, was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions for the site: The soil units for this area are classified as an advance outwash which consists of sand with minor amounts of gravel, silt and clay, deposited by the melt water of the advancing glacial ice. Due to its granular composition, the advance' outwash is considered fairly permeable. This material was glacially overridden and is generally dense to very dense in its natural, undisturbed state.. It can stand in steep cuts or natural 'slopes when well drained and undisturbed. If the vegetation of a slope consisting of advance outwash is removed and the slope is subjected to a concentrated discharge of water, it can become unstable and slough to a flatter inclination. The undisturbed advance outwash can provide foundation support with little settlement expected for light to moderate residential structures. The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating seven observation holes in the hillside and one hole in'the fill area with a hand auger. The observation holes ranged from 0.8 feet to 8.5 feet in depth below the ground surface. The explorations were located in the field using hand level and measuring tape. Tlie location% of the test holes are shown on the Site Map, Figure 2. A field engineer from this firm performed the excavations and maintained logs of the soils encountered. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is shown on Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are presented on Figures 4 and 5. Laboratory testing was not performed for this project. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' t Report Planned Short Plat February 23, 1993 Page 3 The explorations on the slope encountered poorly graded, medium dense to dense, fine to medium sand with a trace of silt. This material type was encountered to the depth of our explorations. The soil deposit is interpreted to be the esperance sand Qe, a unit within the advance outwash deposit. The upper portion (near the surface) was observed to be loose to medium dense with increasing density with depth. Weattempted one exploration in the fill area on the northern portion. Our explorations met shallow refusal on a rock or cobble. Our surface observations indicate that the fill consists of a silty, fine to coarse sand with gravel and cobbles. Additional explorations with a rubber -tired extend -a -hoe will be required in the northern areas to evaluate the subsurface conditions. If an extend -a -hoe is not able to reach to the depth of native soil, a drill rig will be necessary. GROUND WATER Ground water was observed in hand auger 5 within the advance outwash. Hand auger 5 is located near the toe of the 'slope where the standing surface water exists. We expect that this water is perched on a less permeable underlying layer. This water is not interpreted to be associated with a regional ground water table. We expect the water elevations to vary seasonally, but most likely will not completely dry up. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL The project site should be compatible with the planned development, providing that site grading and construction is designed and implemented to maintain and/or increase the existing site stability. The dense native soils that make up the core of the slope are considered 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. We would expect sloughing type failures from cuts in the upper weathered soils. All cuts should be supported by an engineered retaining wall or reinforced soil wall. We expect cuts will be used, particularly on .the south lots, in order to construct the building and driveway areas. . The foundations should be supported on the underlying dense glacial deposits. Structures may be founded on fill, providing the area is properly prepared and the soil is placed as. structural fill compacted to 95 percent of its maximum dry density. We do not expect that the existing fill can be classified as a structural fill, however, it may be worth while taking some density tests at the time of future explorations in this area.. It is our opinion that other options for foundation support, such as drilled piers and augercast piling, may be necessary for construction on this lot. These methods would have to be designed on a site and structure dependent basis. NELSON-COUVRETTEA ASSOCIATES, INC. Report Planned Short Plat February 23, 1993 Page 4 STEEP SLOPE AND LANDSLIDE HAZARD The underlying glacial soils are considered stable with respect to deep seated landslide failures. The slope angle of the hillside is close to the natural angle of repose for the soil conditions. We may expect small layers. of surface erosion/sloughing to occur if the hillside is cleared of vegetation or -the slope geometry steepened. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS The Puget Sound region is classified. as Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC).. Hazards associated with seimicity include liquefaction, ground movement attenuation and reduction of slope stability. The type of soil most susceptible to liquefaction during an earthquake is a saturated, loose, fine -.to medium -grained sand deposit. Under this condition, the sand is temporarily transformed into a liquid state and loses its load bearing capacity. The advance outwash encountered at the site is medium dense to dense and are considered susceptible to liquefaction. However, a low to moderate potential for liquefaction exists near the toe of the slope where shallow ground water and weathered soils exist. It is our opinion that liquefaction would be confined to a small area and should not affect foundations bearing on dense'advance outwash on the overall slope stability. Ground attenuations are associated with soft soil deposits that tend to sieche during seismic events These types of soils were not found on -site. The advance outwash in the slope has a_low potential.for shallow seismic induced landslides. It is our opinion in the current state that only minor surface slough type failures may occur during a reasonably sized earthquake. The foundation setbacks provided are intended to keep the slough failures from endangering the structures. EROSION The on -site soils have moderate to high erosion potential when disturbed and exposed on slopes. All slopes should be compacted and vegetated to reduce erosion. The use of a covering of hay may be required to reduce the erosion until the vegetation is established. If the slopes have not been vegetated and heavy rains are anticipated, they should be covered with plastic to reduce the erosion hazard. The vegetation should be maintained and repaired until it is established. The areas of concern for this should be all, of the slope areas. Where the slopes are currently vegetated, erosion potential should be minimal unless it is disturbed. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC_ Report Planned Short Plat February 23, 1993 Page 5 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING The current hillside slope angle is close to the natural angle of repose for the existing soil conditions. Therefore, any permanent or long-temi cuts made into the hillside with angles above the angle of repose. will cause gradual sloughing and hillside movement. All cuts should be designed with appropriate buttressing methods such as standard cantilever retaining wall, reinforced concrete basement wall and/or reinforced soil wall. A soil wall is constructed with reinforcing geogrid or geotextiles placed in the compacted backfill. These walls require a facing such as rockeries or concrete facial blocks on the exterior surface. Reinforced soil walls should be specifically, designed prior to site development. We recommend that temporary slopes be no steeper than 1:1 .(H:V) in the dense sand and 1.5:1 (H:V) in the upper weathered zone. Slopes closer to 1.5:1 (H:V) in the dense sand will have a better face perfonnance. These slopes are measured from the base of the excavation extending up to the adjacent ground surface outside of the excavation. When using the steeper slopes, there is risk of some sloughing. This material will have to be removed by hand from foundation areas at a later date as opposed to removing more material with the proper equipment during initial excavation. Because of the many variables involved, the above estimates for 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. This would consist of a total covering of plastic in the event of rainfall. In the event that space constraints or easements should limit the room for open constriction cuts, the use of temporary shoring may be required to support the excavations. Should this become necessary, we would develop the geotechnical design input for such a system, as requested. Permanent new slopes constructed of structural fill should be no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). A 2:1 (H:V) slope angle is recommended to minimize. slough failures and excessive maintenance. 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.. The use of jute netting or straw may be advisable to reduce erosion while the vegetation is being established. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Report Planned Short Plat February 23, 1993 Page 6 FOUNDATIONS A. Hillside foundations: We recommend that the structures be founded on the underlying medium dense or better native soils. The foundations on the hillside must have a 15 foot horizontal buffer between the slope surface and the outside edge of the footing: Minimum foundation widths of 18 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and spread footings, respectively. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above and founded on an undisturbed native soil, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square. foot (psf) be used for the footing design. The foundation bearing soil should be verified by a representative from our firm. A one- third increase in the above allowable bearing pressure may be used when considering short -terns transitory wind or seismic loads. B. Foundation on fill: Foundations should extend through the fill that exists in the northern portion of the site. We recommend the following alternatives to provide bearing support for the structures: drilled piers or Control Density Fill (CDF) excavated to bearing soils. CDF may not be feasible for this site and should be determined during the excavation of the additional explorations. It is our preliminary opinion that the foundation will need to be constructed with drilled piers in the fill areas. Design recommendations for the piers are beyond the scope of work for this report. The feasibility of installing drilled piers will be dependent on the ability to use open hole techniques and not have to case the hole as it is drilled. Excessively loose soil or ground water will effect the ability of the drilled holes to stand open without casing. Typically, if the hole needs to be cased it would require the use of augercast piles instead of piers. Augercast piles are installed using a continuous flight auger the full length of the pile. This technique requires more equipment and is significantly more expensive than the open hole system. The ability to use open hole piers can be better evaluated at the time of the explorations during construction. USE OF THIS REPORT This preliminary report has been written for Greg Casper for his use in development of this project. This report should be considered preliminary in nature, as specific plans have not been developed for this project. We recommend that we be • retained to review future site grading plans and provide recommendations regarding fills, retaining structures, foundations and other geotechnical related issues at that time. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Report Planned Short Plat February 23, 1993 Page 7 . Our recommendations and conclusions are based on soil conditions encountered in our explorations, our engineering analyses, and our experience and engineering judgment. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions 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. No condition, expressed or implied, is made. The recommendations submitted in this report are based on the site surface conditions observed and subsurface conditions encountered in our test pits. Soil and ground water conditions may vary from those actually encountered during construction and the nature. and extent of such variations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, we should be retained to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report, and to verify or modify them in writing prior to proceeding with the construction. ADDITIONAL SERVICES We recommend that Couvrette Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. (CGE) be retained to provide monitoring and testing services for geotechnical aspects of the work during construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations and to allow for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. CLOSURE We are pleased to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions regarding. this report or if you need further consultation, please feel free to call us. Yours very truly, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Charles P. Couvrette Two copies submitted Six Figures cc: Mr. Jeff Triber - Lovell-Sauerland & Assoc. P. GO 111 A 0. L SSt�NAL F'', EXPIRES f NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. r VICINITY MAP I SjP S� YL bW6,`.t.I,iff' 1461"�s o o 3,C) S� P!"16TH 146 NORMA D = 141� RD aC0 , sy NST :: j BEACH R sa s� �147j 3 3 3: �3: syti a aaTM FISHER 3 PL W ..,c 151 ST �50TH a: Q p�H PL SW a PL sW N. J I... SVi p� SW ��• ' �� Z lson z � ' ... 152N � 9G o� ¢ � 3 � a i N ; • i• ST �, a SW Vr 64DOWDALE4 £f;g 1153R[ IM wilH # N � °BEACH 156T_ SV . q�ter 3 s FPS ;�,.3r�-�� 3 3 - 5AV _j F 14 3 = 58TH ly i c . Lo PROJECT I - 160TH........... SW 15 l 16 TH PL SW � �. PL I -SITE >' a• T 2ND AV 9��` 16 ST 162NO SW I BROWNSA„ 13R 163RO S sw =: BAY 64 a Sw� -PL STa ' CD 1164TY p _ SW PL SW RQ 164� '? � � 3 3 3 1641W 165TH. < I PL' SW l� , � e P i F • OD x =MEAi1DWD. L vco i Lo 2 s a -- I_7 f%,d {5ywrrp xi I67TH o;J PLAYFIELDS�: MID '� 3 3: 168TH S1 N 'a MEADOWDALE 3 16� HS �.Pi'T SW Q Q _�� o9�Fko s3u--7"` P osu >.::� �I, 17C / !s� Sao F 3 172ND ST SW , ��;a, - o�� 171ST ST SW a: PLl I 172 \�US 173R$7,�� M"� 113RD0 : SW B�� 4� w WHALE 172NO r 3172N SW L P L SW --°' v"}' SW 3> Cy �``Po l �Ro S� a =Ln 174TH ST - CL ' 1 N — � 173 � a !} 175TH _ SW ST jSW 17U Sr 176TH ! ST. w a _SW 176TH _ z 176TH N PL SWT3 3� 13 �.3 f� r_ in a�> _j 177TH ST 7 79Tu ni �..i . NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO, 411-01 FIGURE 1 M HA-5 HAa HA-3 his 44. SITE MAP EXPLORATION I NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. APPROXIMATE. FILE NO. 411-01 HA-3 FIGURE 2 1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50% OF GRAVEL SOILS GRAVEL WITH GM SILTY GRAVEL COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE .FINES MORE THAN 50%- GC CLAYEY GRAVEL RETAINED ON THE SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO NO. 200 SEIVE SAND CLEAN SAND COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND WITH SM SILTY SAND MORE THAN 50 % OF COARSE FRACTION FINES PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE SC CLAYEY SAND FINE SILT AND CLAY ML SILT CL CLAY GRAINED INORGANIC SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC ° MORE THAN 50,6 SILT AND CLAY MH SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY PASSES ON THE NO. 200 SEIVE INORGANIC LIQUID LIMIT ORGANIC . OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT 50% OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. FIELD CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON VISUAL DRY -.ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY EXAMINATION OF SOIL IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE TO THE TOUCH WITH ASTM D2488-83. 2. SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING LABORATORY TESTS MOIST - DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER IS BASED ON ASTM D2487-83. _ 3. DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY WET - VISIBLE FREE WATER OR SATURATED, USUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED FROM BELOW ARE BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF BLOWCOUNT WATER TABLE DATA, VISUAL APPEARANCE OF SOILS, AND/OR - TEST DATA. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 411-01 FIGURE 3 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION HAND AUGER ONE 0.0 - 0.4 TOPSOIL, ROOTS 0.4 - 1.5 SP REDDISH BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE) (ESPERANCE SAND) 1.5 - 4.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, DRY) (ESPERANCE SAND) GROUND WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED. EXPLORATION COMPLETED AT 4.0' ON 2/5/93. HAND AUGER TWO 0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2 - 4.4 SP. REDDISH BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, DRY) (ESPERANCE SAND) 4.4-8.5 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (DENSE, DRY) (ESPERANCE SAND) GROUND WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED. - EXPLORATION COMPLETED AT 8.5' ON 2/5/93. HAND AUGER THREE 0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2-3.6 SP REDDISH BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND OCCASIONAL GRAVEL.(MEDIUM DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (ESPERANCE SAND) EXPLORATION COMPLETED AT 3.6 ON 2/5/93. HAND AUGER FOUR 0.0 = 0.1 TOPSOIL 0.1 - 1.4 SP/SM REDDISH BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE) (ESPERANCE SAND) 1.4-3.0 SP/SM LIGHT BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, DRY) (ESPERANCE SAND) EXPLORATION COMPLETED AT 3.9 ON 2/5/93. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO.411-01 FIGURE 4 l DEPTH USC 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 - 2.6 SP/SM 2.6 - 6.5 SP/SM 0.0 - 2.8 2.8 - 5.0 0.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 5.0 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 0.8 SP/SM SP/SM i 4 LOG OF EXPLORATION SOIL DESCRIPTION HAND AUGER FIVE TOPSOIL BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDUM DENSE, MOIST) (ESPERANCE SAND) BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH TRACE SILT (DENSE, WET TO SATURATED) (ESPERANCE SAND) GROUND WATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 27. EXPLORATION COMPLETED AT 6.6 ON 2/5/93. HAND AUGER SIX REDDISH BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY) (ESPERANCE SAND) LIGHT BROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (ESPERANCE SAND) GROUND WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED. EXPLORATION COMPLETED AT 5.9 ON 2/5/93. HAND AUGER SEVEN SP/SM REDDISH BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY) (ESPERANCE SAND) SP/SM GRAVELLYBROWN FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (ESPERANCE SAND) GROUND WATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED. EXPLORATION COMPLETED AT 5.0' ON 2/5/93. HAND AUGER EIGHT GRASS SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND COBBLES (DENSE) (FILL) EXPLORATION TERMINATED AT 0.8' DUE TO REFUSAL ON ROCK ON 2/5/93. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO.411-01 . FIGURE 5 OF EDA, O U~ rp �Sr. 1890 May 17, 2013 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5T" AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 FAX 425-771-0221 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' Engineering Division RKLET HLE . DAVE EARLING MAYOR First Security Bank 19002 33" Ave W Lynnwood, WA 98036 RE: BLD20120394 16124 N Meadowdale Rd Edmonds, WA 98026 Performance Bond Account No. 5150635920 The City of Edmonds hereby authorizes the release of the above -referenced Performance Bond in the amount of $2437.92. All interested City departments have inspected the site and approved release of the bond. Please feel free to contact me -at 425-771-0220 should you have any questions. Sincerely, JEANIE McCONNELL Engineering Program Manager c: Greg Chandler Stone Harbour LLC 2905 170`h St SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 6 S:\ENGRWDDRESS_FILESWpha\N_Meadowdale Rd.16124\BLD20120394\PerformanceBond Release -Stone HarbourLLC.docx F I✓ ll uate roscea Z�ff 3 O • • Date Expires Q � .U'W Account Number City of Edmonds 121 5`h Avenue North - Edmonds - WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 Fax (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT �s 90 Planning • Building • Engineering t. 18 5 2013 09 DEVE0 �p%JNZER PERFORMANCE FROZEN FUND Edmonds Building ermit No. L- 02-0 1 a Q 3 9 Project Address 9$024 Owner/Developers-� With reference to the above identified project, this will certify that this Banking Institution has a frozen fund account/savings account (or loan) for the above -referenced developer/owner for the project so identified. In consideration of the permitted development of the property this institution hereby agrees that it will freeze the sums of money for the -indicated site improvements pending written authorization for release of said funds by the City of Edmonds in the amount of The total sum indicated will be withheld by this Banking Institution from any disbursements of any kind until written authorization has been received by the institution from the City of Edmonds to release the sum of money indicated by the written authorization from the City. The design, location, materials and other specifications for the indicated site improvements are those required by the City of Edmonds and appear in the above -referenced Edmonds building permit file and are in compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code of said City. In the event the owner/developer fails to complete the indicated improvements within Mo weeks/months, (not to exceed 24 months) the City of Edmonds may demand, and the institution shall make, payment to the City of said funds so that the improvements can be installed or completed immediately to City standards. The institution shall not be liable to the owner for any disbursement of said funds to the City of Edmonds. It is hereby specifically agreed by and between the parties hereto that in the event that any legal action must be taken to enforce the provisions of this agreement or to collect said frozen fund, that the prevailing party shall be entitled to collect its cost and reasonable attorneys' fees as a part of the reasonable costs of securing the obligation hereunder. In the event of settlement or resolution of these issues, prior to the filing of any suit, the actual costs incurred by the City, including reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be considered a part of the obligation hereunder secured. Said costs and reasonable legal fees shall be recoverable by the prevailing party, not only from the proceeds of this frozen fund account, but also over and above said body as a part of any recovery in any judicial proceeding, in addition to recovery of the funds. L:\Building New Folder 2010\Forms\BONDPerformanceFrozen.doc6/29/2011 City of Edmonds Performance Frozen Fund Account Page Two S- 5-OckN L--11—_ n V-N- Financial Institution 1ag-sc5n - �- Officer/Title 1 G DD-2 -�u \PQQ- Lin nckhk Mailing Address Account Number 5-�-6n -e. �k. ( b0 N ( L-Lc Owner/Developer/Principal �� Print Name Mailing Address Telephone Number FINANCIAL INSTITUTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss COUNTY OFL,�ryLi On this 2S day of MM"' V) , ZD�3 , before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appearedLn 2 �bc4 0runeA(y , to me known to be the Mx robe y' of Skithe corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that(.-�c e��i�n-� 0fgA U-�K- was authorized to execute said instrument and that the seal affixed is the corporate seal of said corporation. WITNESS my hand and of cial seal hereto affixed the day and year first above written. NOTAR PUBLe'and r the (pY E. , State of Washington, residing at JV nf\w� , VJ`A _ e►vr. r ce O�r�;4tSH1N010 LABuilding New Folder 2010\Forms\BONDPerformanceFrozen.doc6/29/201 I City of Edmonds Performance Frozen Fund Account Page Three DEVELOPER/OWNER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF WASHfNGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF 5 h Omi � ) o On this , day of , � 13 , before me, the under -signed, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared to me known to be the (` Ayy\VR,,(-' of S� \AeA-r6u-l< L U C , the general partnership that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said partnership, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that Q CACK4= Q � a' � 4J( was authorized to execute said instrument. WI ESS my hand and official eal hereto affixed the day and year first above itten. NOTARY PU LIC in for the State of Washington, residing at uA)_'d , Cu'-' LABuilding New Folder 2010\Forms\BONDPerformanceFrozen.doc6/29/2011 McConnell, Jeanie From: Greg Chandler <masher1@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:29 PM To: McConnell, Jeanie Subject: RE: 16124 N Meadowdale Rd Jeanie, I have verbal quotes from both the pavers and my curb guy. The curb repair he said would be no more than 700.00 and the paver to cut pull out and re -pave is 860.00. Both of these need tax added. 1560 @ 9.5% is 148.20. Total is 1708.20. Let me know if this works. Thanks, Greg. From: Jeanie.McConnell@edmondswa.gov To: masherl@msn.com Subject: RE: 16124 N Meadowdale Rd Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:15:31 +0000 Good morning Greg, I spoke with our Operations group and the concept you proposed with the additional asphalt raised lip at the entrance to the driveway is a reasonable approach, however, we cannot accept it as an overlay. If you'd like to go this route you would need to remove the asphalt walk through the ramps and the driveway approach and repave with the additional height and of course with no more than 2% cross slope. r This instill probably a better solution for you than having to cut into the driveway, but I'll leave that decision to you. Thank you, Jeanie From: Greg Chandler [mailto:masherl@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 9:59 AM To: McConnell, Jeanie Subject: RE: 16124 N Meadowdale Rd I will see you at your office at 1:30. Thanks, Greg From: Jeanie.McConnelI@edmondswa.gov To: masherl@msn.com Subject: RE: 16124 N Meadowdale Rd Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:54:41 +0000 Hi Greg, I'd be happy to discuss this with you. I've been slammed with meetings and projects. I'm headed into another meeting .now (until noon) and could be available to discuss this with you around 1:30 this afternoon if that works for you. If it would be easier to discuss in person please feel free to visit our office. Otherwise, I'll give you a call around 1:30. Thank you, Jeanie From: Greg Chandler [mailto:masherl@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 8:30 AM To: McConnell, Jeanie Subject: Hi Jeanie. I would really like to talk tou about possible options that would be actable to correct the sidewalk issue at 16124 N Meadowdale Rd. I have 2 different scenarios I would like to discuss. I need to see what you will accept before I can get a written estimate for a bond. That is the way I would like to do this. I would like to get the ok to proceed with the building final while I am getting the bond in place. Is that possible? Please let me know as soon as possible as I need to close this house on the 26th. Please call at your earliest convenience. Thanks, Greg Chandler 206 650-0804 i Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 12/02/2008 Existing Right-of-way Future Public Right of Way & Drainage Facilities Private Improvements Bond Reduction* Quant. Complete Cost Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost . Quant.: _ Cost Quant. Cost ROAD IMPROVEMENT No. , AC Grinding, 4' wide machine < 1000s RI - 1 $ 28.00 SY AC Grinding, 4' wide machine 1000-200 RI-2 $ 15.00 SY AC Grinding, 4' wide machine > 2000s RI-3 $ 7.00 SY AC Removal/Disposal/Repair RI-4 $ 67.50 SY 0 Barricade, We I RI - 5 $ 30.03 LF Barricade, type III Permanent RI-6 $ 45.05 LF Curb & Gutter, rolled RI-7 $ 17.00 LF Curb & Gutter, vertical RI - 8 $ 12.50 LF Curb and Gutter,'demolition and dis osa RI - 9 $ 18.00 LF Curb, extruded asphalt RI - 10 $ 5.50 LF Curb, extruded concrete RI - 11 $ 7.00 LF Sawcut, asphalt, 3" depth $ . 1.85 LF Sawcut, concrete, per V depth $ 1.fi9 CF i Sealant, asphalt FRI- $ 1.25 LF Shoulder, AC, see AC road unit rice $ - SY Shoulder, ravel, 4" thick $ 15.00 SY Sidewalk, 4" thick RI -17 $ 35.00 SY Sidewalk, 4" thick, demolition and dis os RI - 18 $ 29.50 SY Sidewalk, 5" thick RI - 19 $ 38.50 SY Sidewalk, 5" thick, demolition and dis os RI - 20 $ 37.50 SY Sign, handicap RI - 21 $ 85.28 Each Striping, er stall RI - 22 $ 5.82 Each Stri ' , thermo lastic, for crosswalk RI - 23 $ 2.38 SF Stri ing, re ine - 0. F Page 4 of 9 SUBTOTAL X 1yVIO *KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. li-wks-sbq.xls Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 11 /26/08 Report Date: 02/22/2013 Backfill & Compaction- embankment Backfill & Compaction- trench Excavation - bulk Excavation - Trench Fencing, cedar, 6' hi h Fencing, chain link, vinyl coated, 6' Fencing, chain link, gate, vinyl coats Fencing, split rail, 3' high Fill & compact - common barrow Fill & compact - gravel base Fill & compact - screened topsoil Gabion, 12" deep, stone filled mesh Gabion, 18" deep, stone filled mesh Gabion, 36" deep, stone filled mesh Grading, fine, by hand Grading, fine, with grader Monuments. T Iona Sodding, 1" deep, slope( Surveying, line & grade Surveying, lot Iocationflir Traffic control crew 2 fl; Trail, 4" chipped wood Trail, 4" crushed cinder Trail, 4" top course Wall, retaining, concrete Wall, rockery Page 3 of 9 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Unit Price 1 Unit GI - 2 $ 8.53 CY GI - 3 $ 0.36 SY GI - 4 $ 8,876.16 Acre GI-5 $ 1.50 CY GI-6 $ 4.06 CY GI - 7 $ 18.55 LF GI - 8 $ 13.44 LF GI-9 $ 1,271.81 Each 31-10 $ 12.12 LF 31 - 11 $ 22.57 CY 31- 12 $ 25.48 CY 31- 13 $ 37.85 CY 31- 14 $ 54.31 SY 31 - 15 $ 74.85 SY 31 - 16 $ 132.48 SY 31 - 17 $ 2.02 SY 31- 18 $ 0.95 SY 31- 19 $ 135.13 Each 31- 20 $ 2.88 Each 31 - 21 $ 7.46 SY 31 - 22 $ 788.26 Da 31- 23 $ 1,556.64 Acre 31- 24 $ 85.18 HR 31- 25 $ 7.59 SY 31 - 26 $ 8.33 SY 31 - 27 $ 8.19 SY 31 - 28 $ 44.16 SF 31- 29 $ 9.49 SF SUBTOTAL Existing Right -of -Way Cost Future Public Right of Way & Drainage Facilities Duant. I Cost Private Improvements Quant. I Cost Web date: 12/02/2008 Quantity Completed (Bond Reduction)* Quant. omolete Cost Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 *KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11/26/08 li-wks-sbq.xls Report Date: 02/22/2013 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 12/02/2008 Existing Right-of-way Future Public Right of Way 8 Drainage Facilities Private Improvements Bond Reduction` Quant. Complete Cost Unit Price I Unit Quant. Cost Quant. I Cost Quant. Cost ROAD SURFACING (4" Rock = 2.5 base & 1.5" top course) For'93 KCRS (6.5" Rock= 5" base & 1.5" top course) For KCRS'93, additional 2.5" base add RS - 1 $ 3.60 SY AC Overlay, 1.5" AC RS - 2 $ 11.25 SY AC Overlay, 2" AC RS - 3 $ 15.00 SY AC Road, 2", 4" rock, First 2500 SY RS - 4 $ 21.00 SY AC Road, 2", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500SY RS - 5 $ 19.00 SY AC Road, 3", 4" rock, First 2500 SY RS - 6 $ 23.30 SY AC Road, 3", 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY RS - 7 $ 21.00 SY AC Road, 5", First 2500 SY RS - 8 $ 27.60 SY AC Road, 5", Qty. Over 2500 SY RS - 9 $ 25.00 SY AC Road, 6", First 2500 SY RS - 1 $ 33.10 SY AC Road, 6", Qty. Over 2500 SY RS - 1 $ 30.00 SY Asphalt Treated Base, 4" thick RS - 1 $ 20.00 SY Gravel Road, 4" rock, First 2500 SY RS - 1 $ 15.00 SY Gravel Road, 4" rock, Qty. over 2500 SY S - 1ES8.60 8.50 SY PCC Road, 5", no base, over 2500 SY S - 17.00 SY PCC Road, 6", no base, over 2500 SY S - 15.50 SY Thickened Edge S - 1 LF Page 5 of 9 SUBTOTAL Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11 /26/08 li-wks-sbq.xis Report Date: 02/22/2013 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 12/02/2008 Existing Right-of-way Future Public Right of Way & Drainage Facilities Private Improvements Bond Reduction' Quant. Complete Cost Unit Price Unit Quant. Cost Quant. Cost Quant. Cost DRAINAGE (CPP = Corrugated Plastic Pipe, N12 or Equivalent) For Culvert pricces, Average of 4' cover was assumed. Assume perforated PVC is same pdce as solid pipe, Access Road, R/D D - 1 $ 21.00 SY Bollards - fixed D - 2 $ 240.74 Each Bollards - removable D - 3 $ 452.34 Each ` (CBs include frame and lid CB Type l D- 4 $ 1,257.64 Each CB Type IL D - 5 $ 1,433.59 Each CB Type Il, 48" diameter D - 6 $ 2,033.57 Each for additional depth over 4' D - 7 $ 436.52 FT CB Type II, 54" diameter D - 8 $ 2,192.54 Each for additional depth over 4' D - 9 $ 486.53 FT CB Type 11, 60" diameter D - 10 $ 2,351.52 Each for additional depth over 4' D - 11 $ 536.54 FT CB Type ll, 72" diameter D - 12 $ 3,212.64 Each for additional depth over 4' D - 13 $ 692.21 FT Through -curb Inlet Framework Add D - 14 $ 366.09 Each Cleanout, PVC, 4" D - 15 $ 130.55 Each Cleanout, PVC, 6" D - 16 $ 174.90 Each Cleanout, PVC, 8" D - 17 $ 224.19 Each Culvert, PVC, 4" D - 18 $ 8.64 LF Culvert, PVC, 6" D - 19 $ 12.60 LF Culvert, PVC, 8" D - 20 $ 13.33 LF Culvert, PVC, 12" D - 21 $ 21.77 LF Culvert, CMP, 8" D - 22 $ 17.25 LF Culvert, CMP, 12" D - 23 $ 26.45 LF Culvert, CMP, 15" D - 24 $ 32.73 LF Culvert, CMP, 18' D - 25 $ 37.74 LF Culvert, CMP, 24" D - 26 $ 53.33 LF Culvert, CMP, 30' D - 27 $ 71.45 LF Culvert, CMP, 36" D - 28 $ 112.11 LF Culvert, CMP, 48" D - 29 $ 140.83 LF Culvert, CMP, 60" D - 30 $ 235.45 LF Culvert, CMP, 72" D - 31 $ 302.58 LF Page 6 of 9 SUBTOTAL Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 'KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. Version: 11 /26/08 li-wks-sbq.xls Report Date: 02/22/2013 • Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 12/02/2008 DRAINAGE."CONTINUED Existing Right-of-way Future Public Right of Way g, rains a Facilities Private Improvements Bond Reduction* Quant: Complete Cost No.- -Unit Price Unit Quant.. Cost Quant. Cost 'Quant. Cost Culvert, Concrete, 8" D - 32 $ 21.02 LF Culvert, Concrete, 12" D - 33 $ 30.05 LF Culvert, Concrete, 15" D - 34 $ 37.34 LF Culvert, Concrete, 18" D - 35 $ 44.51 LF Culvert, Concrete, 24" D - 36 $ 61.07 LF Culvert, Concrete, 30" D - 37 $ 104.18 LF Culvert, Concrete, 36" D - 38 $ 137.63 LF Culvert, Concrete, 42" D - 39 $ 158.42 LF Culvert, Concrete, 48" D - 40 $ 175.94 LF Culvert, CPP, 6" D - 41 $ 10.70 LF Culvert, CPP, 8" D - 42 $ 16.10 LF Culvert, CPP, 12' D - 43 $ 20.70 LF Culvert, CPP, 15" D - 44 $ 23.00 LF Culvert, CPR, 18" D - 45 $ 27.60 LF Culvert, CPP, 24" D - 46 $ 36.80 LF Culvert, CPP, 30" D - 47 $ 48.30 LF Culvert, CPP, 36' D - 48 $ 55.20 LF Ditching D - 49 $ 8.08 CY Flow Dispersal Trench 1,436 base+ D - 50 $ 25.99 LF French Drain 3' de th D - 51 $ 22.60 LF Geotextile, laid in trench polypropylene D - 52 $ 2.40 SY Infiltration pond testing D - 53 $ 74.75 HR Mid -tank Access Riser, 48" dia, 6' dee D - 54 $ 1,605.40 Each Pond Overflow Spillway D - 55 $ 14.01 SY Restrictor/Oil Separator, 12" D - 56 $ 1,045.19 Each Restrictor/Oil Separator, 15" D - 57 $ 1,095.56 Each Restrictor/Oil Separator, 18" D - 58 $ 1,146.16 Each Riprap, placed D - 59 $ 39.08 CY Tank End Reducer 36" diameter D - 60 $ 1,000.50 Each Trash Rack, 12" D - 61 $ 211.97 Each . Trash Rack, 15" D - 62 $ 237.27 Each Trash Rack, 18" D - 63 $ 268.89 Each Trash Rack, 21" D - 64 $ 306.84 Each Page 7 of 9 *KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. li-wks-sbq.xls SUBTOTAL Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 11 /26/08 Report Date: 02/22/2013 J 0 Site Improvement Bond Quantity Worksheet Web date: 12/02/2008 Existing Right-of-way Future Public Right of Way & Drainage Facilities ... Private Improvements Bond Reduction* Quant. Complete . Cost Unit'Price ,; Unit Quart...: Price Quart... .. Cost , _ Quant_ : _ :Cost . PARKINGIOT SURFACING No. 2" AC, 2" top course rock & 4" borrow PL - 1 $ 21.00 SY 2" AC, 1.5" top course & 2.5" base cou PL - 2 $ 28.00 SY 4" select borrow PL - 3 $ 4.55 SY 1.5" top course rock & 2.5" base course PL - 4 $ 11.41 ' SY UTILITY POCES'8 STREET LIGHTING .: .Utility pole relocation' costs must be accompanied by Franchise Utility's Cost Statement Utility Pole(s) Relocation UP-1 Lump Sum Street Li ht Poles w/Luminaires UP-2 Each WRITE -IN -ITEMS' _ Such as detention/water quality vaults. No. WI - 1 Each WI-2 SY WI-3 CY WI-4 LF wl - 51 FT WI-6 WI-7 WI-8 WI-9 W1-to SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL (SUM ALL PAGES): 30% CONTINGENCY & MOBILIZATION: GRANDTOTAL: COLUMN: Page 8 of 9 *KCC 27A authorizes only one bond reduction. li-wks-sbq.xls C D E Unit prices updated: 02/12/02 Version: 11 /26/08 Report Date: 02/22/2013 0 2' MIN SAW CUT EXISTING PAVEMENT 0 30, MAk,AX clq r M �3, AR G �C pMCgR G q'pA MFRc RgGf) NOTEt 1. IF DRIVEWAY WIDTH EXCEEDS 15', INSTALL A FULL DEPTH EXPANSI❑N J❑INT. 2. DRIVEWAY APRON SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 6' THICK AND SHALL BE PLACED ON 2' OF 5/8' CSTC AND COMPACTED GRADE. 3. A MINIMUM 2' SAW CUT IS REQUIRED IN THE ASPHALT WHERE NEW CURB / GUTTER IS PLACED (SEE DETAIL ABOVE). CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS 3- 3000PSI OR 16' VERTICAL CURB (TO MATCH EXIST. ONLY) EXPANSION J❑INT 6' / 1/2' LIP 1 Ilia 6' CURB I DRIVEWAY CURB TRANSITI❑NAL DETAIL FOR CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE POURED CURB AND GUTTER OR VERTICAL CURBS SEPARATELY FROM THE SIDEWALK, CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON FORM WORK PRIOR TO POUR, APPROVED BY DATE STANDARD DETAIL D. GEBERT 10/6/03 STANDARD DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE D. GEBERT 01/15/08 DATE SCALE DWG NO. 7/24/01 1 NTS F _ NOTICE /" TO PERMITTEE AND/OR OWNER go j9"p ❑ PARTIAL APPROVAL XCORRECTION REQUIRED ❑ ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION Owner S�W- Q, aybD�,Y Permit Number Ikqh Job Address, 2 Site Contact Z017-03�i0 Type of Inspection Ad. ❑ WORK DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED. ❑ APPROVED PLANS AND JOB CARD MUST BE AVAILABLE TO INSPECTOR ON SITE. L�QCORRECTIONS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MADE BEFORE WORK CAN BE APPROVED AND/OR THE // NEXT PHASE OF WORK IS STARTED. RECALL FOR INSPECTION REINSPECTION FEE MUST BE PAID PRIOR TO NEXT INSPECTION REQUEST. ❑ STOP WORK -UNTIL AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY CITY INSPECTOR. 1141fifl 10' IAtao,�14 c;z I i A-C, AAW (VIU Iz" �U WI-0 Man 3 THE ACTIONS O&COVECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE ARE REQUIRED TO BE CORRECTED BY (DATE) OR PENALTIES MAY BE APPLIED. FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 El Building El Planning N Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ Public Works Inspector �'iDJ1�1�(1 �,�� Date THIS NOTICE TO REMAIN ON SITE White: Permit File Buff: Applicant tyZo ' *ritical Areas WuvVC 42 Site Information (soils/ topogralhy/ hydrolog 1. Site Address/ Location: Check) i CA File No: / vegetation) wpm /0.. 2. Property Tax Account Number: _ - Lrn-r=W-1 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 2t. Q@5C7C�—S►31—obb p� 4. Is this site currently developed? _ yes; no.X If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 104eet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). _ Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: zVy ; Approx. Depth: 7. 9. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: What season(s) oft a year? . Site is in the floodway NO floodplain of a water course. Site contains. a creek or an area where water flows across.the-grounds surface? Flows are year-round? No Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). AP ; Approx. Depth: 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow _; shrubs ; mixedZ urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.19.2001 City 9) Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.371.0220 Fax: - 425.771.0221 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 the application 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). ( V E� 0 Date ReWed: S 16 ` o°Z- - City Receipt #: '1-6 3-7 Critical Areas File #: Z4n62, -n 1-11 Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $45.00 Date Mailed to Applicant: 4— 3-02-- A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/tierlits i�ii� '; and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attomey's fees, arising from any action or infraction. based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT DATE ' I6 •O Z Property Owner's Authorization By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and postingptyendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF • DATE PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY Owner/Applicant: Name 95'A0 elbA ,VE AIA Street Address City State Zip Telephone: oW Email address (optional):. Applicant Representative: 6c Name ' //19 AIW 6Y4 S Street Address Ste- z 4/0- q8/o City State Zip Telephone: .204 MW `O 9 -8874 Email Address (optional): Critical Areas Checklist.doc/3.193001 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Paul Aiello Determination #: [CA-02-171 Project Name: Permit dumber: Site Location: 16124 N. Meadowdale Rd. Property Tax Acct #: 00 5133 000 05102 Project Description: Non -Project Specific Determination: Study Required: Duringreview and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain and/or is adjacent to a number of critical areas, including a possible Steep Slope Hazard Area, Erosion Hazard Area and 'a possible Wetland pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.1-5B by completing the following: Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements: To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope of 40% or more with at least 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50- foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15-foot building setback is required from the 50-foot buffer. For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50-foot buffer or 15-foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: 1. For development proposals which will occur within the'50-foot buffer, but no closer than 10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50400t buffer requirement may be Teduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. All Critical Area Studies, except those done by a licensed geotechnical engineer, 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.140). Ll • 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.15B4O40C. Erosion Hazard Area The site is also in an area designated on the Critical Areas inventory as Slopes with Erosion Potential. All proposed development must have an erosion control plan approved by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. Possible Wetland My site investigation has shown that the site could potentially have a wetland either on the site or adjacent to the site.. Based on the above findings, a Critical Areas Study is required to determine the hydrology of the area and to delineate the approximate boundaries of any wetland and identify its buffers. The required qualified critical areas consultant needed to perform the study shall be a specialist in botany, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of two years' field experience with wetlands in the Pacific Northwest. All critical areas studies shall be performed as three party agreements with the city selecting the consultant and the property owner or applicant paying the fees. The qualified critical "areas consultant shall perform the following: Classification of the wetland pursuant to the criteria established in ECDC Section 20.15B.060(A)(4) and (5). 2. Delineate the edge of the wetland on the site. 3. State any mitigating measures appropriate to preserving and protecting the wetland. After the qualified critical areas consultant has delineated the wetland boundary, a surveyor licensed by the State of Washington must perform the following: 1. Physically mark the edge of the wetland. 2. Delineate the required buffer (see ECDC 20.15B.120.A and 20.1513.130.C). 3. Delineate the required building setback from the buffer (required setback is 15 feet). 4. Create a map showing the wetland, the buffer and the building setback. Both the qualified critical areas consultant and the Land Surveyor shall enter into a three party contract with the applicant and the City of Edmonds as required in ECDC 20.15B.140(D), where the applicant pays for the study. The applicant may suggest qualified professionals for the City's approval. If the results of the Critical Areas Study determine that the lot may not be developed, the applicant may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.1513.040C). 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 2 development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Name Signature Date N 3 A Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc- Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting 00 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5 h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 b1�EET"FIB J-1969 September 16, 2004 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 1.6�12('44North1Meadowdale Road _ _ ^ , I Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: 1. Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 2. Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted 3. Vicinity Map — adequate. 4. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. �_T: 5. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771.3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 Fontaine residence 1.1969 September 16, 2004 Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above loose near -surface soils. C. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the fall Meadowdale Slide regulations". Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnical issues. 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application — Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; 19.05.020, Section D; 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient �I ZZAFontaine residence J-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 3 information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades, and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. The submittal should be subject to geotechnical peer review, to determine if the applicable geotechnical engineering aspects of the application adequately comply with the requirements of ECDC 19.05, and whether the landslide hazard to the subject property and downslope properties is adequately mitigated. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. John E. Zipper, P.E. o President o� �� rabti �� w 4`t8 'i`E� S� j� N Fs i. 'ECHO 6EXPIRE'3 l / 241 _._ . ZZAZipper Zeman Associates, Inc. 18905 - 33rd Ave West, Suite 117 Lynnwood, WA 98036 (425)771-3304 RFCFIVED 01"I'-:11�1 1. Invoice DATE INVOICE # 10/31 /2004 I-7742 SO BILL TO �13IJILDI G DEPT• PROJECT DESCRIPTION City of Edmonds Jeannine Graf, Bldg. Off. Community Service Department 250 - 5th Avenue N Edmonds WA 98020 Task order No. 04-05 Fontain ESLHA ZIPPER ZEMAN PROJECT NO. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES J-1969 Services 9/1/04-9/30/04 DESCRIPTION HOURS/QTY. RATE AMOUNT Report submitted 9/14/04 Principal 7.75 150.00 1,162.50 Clerical 0.5 42.00 21.00 Mileage 10 0.40 4.00 Mileage 5 0.40 2.00 0� /� � 0 ///ZlD" �- �/_ ODO Goo• sZ9 /oo_ -�/o Thank you for your business. Balance $1,189.50 Please make payment to: Payments/Credits $0.00 Balance Due $1,189.50 Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. P 0 Rnx 9400 Lynnwood, WA 98036-2400 TERMS Due on receipt Federal Tax I.D. No. 91-192-0121 ZZAI Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official SUILDI0 SEP t 1 1004 J-1969 September 16, 2004 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: 1. Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 2. Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted 3. Vicinity Map — adequate. 4. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. 5. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 Z:ZA *Fontaine residence 1-1969 September 16, 2004004 :900M Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above loose near -surface soils. c. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the full Meadowdale Slide regulations". 8. Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnical issues. 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application — Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: • 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; • 19.05.020, Section D; • 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient • Fontaine residence -1969 September 16, 2004 Page 3 information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades, and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. The submittal. should be subject to geotechnical peer review, to determine if the applicable geotechnical engineering aspects of the application adequately comply with the requirements of ECDC 19.05, and whether the landslide hazard to the subject property and downslope properties is adequately mitigated. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. John E. Zipper, RE President W-XMRE$ J / 24 / . ZZ Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official BUILOO SEP Z 1 2004 J-1969 September 16, 2004 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: 1. Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 2. Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted 3. Vicinity Map — adequate. 4. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. 5. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. ' SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 .; A,; • • Fontaine residence 1-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above loose near -surface soils. c. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the full Meadowdale Slide regulations". 8. Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnical issues. 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application — Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: • 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; • 19.05.020, Section D; • 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient Fontaine residence 1-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 3 information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades, and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. The submittal. should be subject to geotechnical peer review, to determine if the applicable geotechnical engineering aspects of the application adequately comply with the requirements of ECDC 19.05, and whether the landslide hazard to the subject property and downslope properties is adequately mitigated. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. John E. Zipper, P.E President r ZZA � G�ING Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official SEP 2 1 2 J-1969 September 16, 2004 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: 1. Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 2. Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted 3. Vicinity Map — adequate. 4. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. 5. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 i' -� Z A • • Fontaine residence � IM ]-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above loose near -surface soils. c. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the full Meadowdale Slide regulations". 8. Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnical issues. 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application —Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: • 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; • 19.05.020, Section D; • 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient r . • Fontaine residence M 1-1969 I—Q September 16, 2004 Page 3 information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades, and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. The submittal . should be subject to geotechnical peer review, to determine if the applicable geotechnical engineering aspects of the application adequately comply with the requirements of ECDC 19.05, and whether the landslide hazard to the subject property and downslope properties is adequately mitigated. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. 1p*�C14-1 John E. Zipper, RE President ZI'P Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting • J-1969 September 16, 2004 City of Edmonds RECEIVED Development Services Department ' ' 7? 17 2004 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 DEVE OPMENT SERVICES CITY OF EDMONDS CTR Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 2. Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted 3. Vicinity Map — adequate. 4. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. 5. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision may be applicable to this project. 6. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 • i Fontaine residence ]-1969 September 16, 2004 Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above loose near -surface soils. c. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the full Meadowdale Slide regulations". 8. Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. 9. Grading Plan — Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnical issues. I L. Affidavit of Notice of Application —Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: • 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; • 19.05.020, Section D; • 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient • • ;ZA Fontaine residence 1-1969 ' September 16, 2004 Page 3 information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades; and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. The submittal should be subject to geotechnical peer review, to determine if the applicable geotechnical engineering aspects of the application adequately comply with the requirements of ECDC 19.05, and whether the landslide hazard to the subject property and downslope properties is adequately mitigated. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. sry John E. Zipper, P.E. o President o� .��, a:L=b» , K t�� WEXPiRES i / 24 / 2 -5- ZZA Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. Geotechnical and Environmental Consulting J-1969 September 14, 2004 City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Jeannine Graf, Building Official Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Review of Exemption Request from ECDC 19.05 Fontaine residence 16124 North Meadowdale Road Dear Ms. Graf, This letter presents the results of our peer review of the referenced project. These services were authorized by the City of Edmonds under Task Order No. 04-05 to our on -call agreement. Our scope of work included review of information submitted to us, a site visit, and preparation of this review letter. . The following list includes our comments pertaining to the geotechnical submittals 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. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. The following submittals are required by the referenced ordinance: Critical areas determination — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision maybe applicable to this project. Lead design professional designation and statement — Not submitted Vicinity Map — adequate. Topographical Map — Submitted; Map is dated 1994 and contains 5 foot contour interval. Checklist requires 2 foot contour interval. Existing utilities not shown. Proposed grades not shown. Environmental Checklist — Not submitted for our review. SEPA information from Short Subdivision maybe applicable to this project. Land Clearing/Tree Cutting Plan — Not submitted. However, the building site does not contain trees. 18905 33rd Avenue West, Suite 117, Lynnwood, WA 98036 425-771-3304 Fax: 425-771-3549 • • ZZAFontaine residence J-1969 EM September 14, 2004 Page 2 7. Geotechnical Report — Submitted. A geotechnical report by Cornerstone Geotechnical dated February 12, 2003 was submitted. Our comments regarding the geotechnical report are: a. The engineer has reviewed the risk of landslide activity at the site, relative to the designation of the site on the GeoEngineers landslide hazard map. The engineer concludes that there is a minimal risk of debris flow impacting the subject property. We concur with this finding. b. The engineer recommends an augercast pile or driven pin pile foundation for the structure, to provide adequate support above loose near -surface soils. c. The engineer states that, in his opinion, it is reasonable to exempt the project from "the full Meadowdale Slide regulations". Drainage Plan — Not submitted for our review. Grading Plan -- Not submitted for our review. 10. Architectural and Structural Plans — Foundation plan was the only architectural plan submitted (sheet A2 dated 1/21/03) and is not complete regarding geotechnical issues. 11. Affidavit of Notice of Application — Not submitted. 12. Applicant/Owner Liability and Landslide Acknowledgement — Not submitted. 13. Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk — Not submitted. (will be submitted, per architect letter dated August 25, 2004). 14. Architect and/or Structural Engineer Declaration — Not submitted. 15. Applicant/Owner Covenant to Notify and Hold Harmless — Not submitted. Conclusion and Recommendation The geotechnical engineer's conclusion that the landslide risk at the subject site is minimal appears to be reasonable and consistent with accepted geotechnical engineering practice. However, the applicable sections of the code determining whether this site is exempt from the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05 appear to be: 19.05.005, Section B, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4; 19.05.020, Section D; 19.05.030, Section B. Based on 19.05.005 and 19.05.020, the site is clearly subject to the submittal requirements of ECDC 19.05. However, 19.05.030, Section B states that "If any item in the checklist is inapplicable to a particular project, the (geotechnical) report shall provide sufficient ZZAFontaine residence hN )-1969 10 ME September 14, 2004004 Page 3 M�%=M information to demonstrate why the item is inapplicable." The geotechnical report does not provide this information. Based on our review, certain items on the checklist (items 1 through 15 listed above) are not applicable to this project. We recommend that the applicant be required to submit for permit in accordance with ECDC 19.05 but with a geotechnical report that states why any items from the City's checklist that are not submitted are not applicable to this site. At a minimum, we recommend that Item 4 (topographical map) be supplemented to show existing utilities and proposed grades, and that Items 7 through 15 be submitted. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you, and would be pleased to discuss the contents of this report or other aspects of the project with you at your convenience. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Zeman Associates, Inc. cz� C/,-, John E. Zipper, President W-CPfRU 1724 i ,)s � �.1... Targeted Storm Water / AiliY t Site Plan Owner: Crosby Group of Washington PrcctAddress: Parcel No. 00513100005102 �licant shall repair/replace all damage to 2905170th St SW B124 N. Meadowdale Rd. ties or frontage improwments In City Lynnwood, WA 98037 :dmonds, WA 98026 i d-of-way per City stanaards that is caused ►scum during the permitted project. Agent: Stone Harbour LLC 2905170th St SW .__. `N__� N.N. Lynnwood, WA'980 - V.. N.N. Contact :Greg ihandier = \ ` \\ \ 95.00 a'� mastlrl@msn cam , T :_. Elev = 94.00 `. Scale 1" = 20 Etasfing Contours `~97.00 .:7 Proposed Contours 41 x9�� 7q�• �' ik` 99.00N. x :=:= _ C X i '� .t .. ��' New Type 2 CEM �•` ' ``'�. Cit3 �� •::: Rom: �•°Qo . 1 yr > : : �:........... 0 , r rt - st3. 'm .24�'� ,GIN rirG fl�.�-::::::"::C:-:::: Mailrteln`S n � yI 103:00aetwaen St re. drin x � ?-z;:-.-.- . - -�,• ,. �" / y , ' revert a�- � �s c. /� wTy�pe 2 Ce% 107.00 i 11 i. �. 07 2 Vib '.Y. •.•.•.>' � .. 1. •''.. �,.: - v tL TD tat F. • % •j ►•A n1l CAS �,10 V,A►rN 'h ItJS P8 GTr UN i. 95. 00 • � , � '� 1 t.-.' .:: :::. t.:: i.... . ti . ►� o A-00 SroaM .0 . .� - :�•:::.• `:'" ��,. BasemantSlab Elev r; 'ti • r�ted ;_fre is l�doe or R ► 102.• ^� p Inverl- . �... --_ _ �:✓S+ Invert-�9.00 / 109.00 -: `.. <<:::::::::::::::: :• w — Proms :. ;' �8..... � �; Elav=109.00 4 VMS tob*4• rased Now SFR �.... :..-.. 2630 sq ft f I G) \\\ \\ I \\ \\ SByg. Al \ s,s�• g�• 0�, , HEIGHT CALCULATION A= 101.46 B= 104.85 C= 105.81 D= 101.97 414.09 AVERAGE GRADE = 414.09=4=103.52 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT = 128.52 �eF 20' g2�" q k No ` t% 0 y M a T7 �� gY OQoo,yooze lA=101.46 cli PROPOSED RESIDENCE�� iop=101.97 w ` '� ��.25,980 Sq Ft j• LBUILpING $ -'--- �� i ••., EiBACK LINE--------_�' ,y. .... zW N �8 W \ m '--1 --------- - - WETLAND 2 4v moo• I& N W E S SCALE : 1 "=30' 5' 30' 45' 60' WON N' 9'56'58" E 74.00' ......................................................................\ RECEIVED \ JUN p 12012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1 OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-93-149, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 9607100094, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 51, MEADOWDALE BEACH, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. HEIGHT STUDY FOR CROSBY GROUP OF WA., INC. IN SW1 /4 SEC. 8, T.27N., R.4 E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON a S NNN---,,, z z 10 17- ,� / -i �-/ ,•� � S`eTe�C��'VG i� 70 'P ,��' \ tips' % �� ,� c ' i .' \\�VF' \ \� G i - •�. tt� Lri • i i \ EX. �40USE TO REMAIN' ' EXIWETLANP SJ ' ,' \ = Z75 ---- --�- O -. 'SUFFER lTYP,i __----- ti \ / 'r \ j zeo- .--- c Ftl`i'�JR -SEV -EO-F MENT --- - - RE-S`E€2VE---A_REA_-------- ----__ ,� „�,�------- z of zol N, N, \ �\ —r - -^�- — 442. --- ` s• \ N89°S/c'Sg"E °• / 44B.00AT) \` 0 01. g r J ------ •• JAMES EN RIG►-�tT X d ROLF \. T06EREiZ / PAUL FLEM ING m Nj �i�l. r r ��i1 J i�l r �/ 1 r l V. VOL. 36 1 P (3 S. 2 4 - 25 480.00' (PLAT ) N8q• 50' 58" E 479.gq' CMEAS.) 16 4TH STREET S.W. LEGEND P. SHEAR WALL SEE _ STRUCTURAL MEMBER W/ WINDOW/GLAZED DOOR -SEE 12' DIA CONC. AUGER CAST PILE SCHEDULE, SHT. Al CANTELEVER SCHEDULE `�- TOP OF PILE z' BELOW GRADE ff AVG. LENGTH 16' I / HOLD DOWN, SEE —0-- POST BELOW FRAMING ® NEW WALL 2X6 DF .2 l / SCHEDULE (MIN) (2.) 2X 4 U.N.O. QD 16' STUDS W/ R-Iq INULATEXT. 8' CONC FOUNDATION WALL _,p_ DOST ABOVE FRAMING ]I� 12' X 16' CONC FOOTING �_•— STRUCTURAL MEMBER W/ (MIN) (2) 2X4 U.N.O. "_""" BOTOF FTG @ 2' IELOW GRADE +J- DIRECT BEARING ( NEW WALL INTERIOR IO HEADERS (2) 2X8 OR EQ. p 16' STUDS INTERIOR U.N.O. DIM' ELEVATION REFERENCE, TOP, (� 4' SLAB rE GRADE OVER BOTTOM. �� SMOKE DETECTOR - u COMDACTED SUDGT•.A.OE RAFTERS AND JOISTS DF DATUM o' o' - TOP OF 1ST FLR `D HARDWIRED #z OR EQ. U.N.O. SUB FLR 84'b" ! 28'-0" 13'fi I 14'�" W4Y' 15-0 �. 3 i */ ---- -`-_, �► --; --- ---L-- — I ..1 qs ---- �----- --------- - I. e I r, oo � I I ,�1i�i �_ riQ�� Q��.,P,� V`� � �(,• 5 1/4"x 111/4PSL ----------- - - r , 51_/III!I4 Ii"II� xI 1--_1-- 1I�/_ 4--t"I Pt!I� S-L - ------ --- --- .233'411Y 231'41/2 T.O.FTG.T.O.FTG. I tH 3r TASLAB ND iD a x 'io— � ! � .�� • jII w ^ ijiII LJ tFr L v 1"'----- `. Q` I ! I i I I I O, ! 1 ' r 2 X 10 PT JOI~ a N I ) ; ' ( i j I I ! I I I 23S4117' u)I I ! I @16,O.C. i1 _ I �� I T.O FND. I ! i _ ! I ,I 233{•1�. I I j -- 23341r2' ! ! ; • ' ' T.O.FTG. ❑ ❑: II N, gyp. Lc.' {;� r r ?r 1. •. 23T41r2' 271'41/2' f` T0a. .PT4' — — �, 23e.2T T.O.FTG. Oa�1 . •, T.O. SLAB , r- z— r' • '. ... .. . �. ... .. ----- -------- —_. l33' 4 12' T.O.FTG. IT-8 12". f FOUNDATION PLAN I - SCALE I/4"=V-(r I I- IT.O.FTG. -' Lj x� --- -- - -- -- 0— ___51/4"xlll/W'PSL : --- -- --- --- -- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- , — — — - - - - - - --J �1$ ------ --- ---------- ----e�$-- - u 4n u_ O I I T.O FND. 23r X ; TO FND. N A w T.O.FTG. 13'6" 15'-9 12 49'-0" Tom" 2829 SF (INCL. GARAGE, NOT INCL. DECKS) paul aiello architect 7818 REGISTERED ARCHITECT P�UL AIELLO 9T�T! V 11A61aNOTOII Targeted Storm Water / Utility Site Plan Owner: Crosby Group of Washington Project Address: Parcel No. 00513100005102 2905170th St SW 16124 N. Meadowdale Rd. Lynnwood, WA 98037 Edmonds, WA 98026 \ Agent: Stone Harbour LLC 2905170th St SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Contact: Greg Chandler (206) 650-0804 •.. os ran masherl@msn.com FMIS ,PANs NDT Eley = 94.00 To BE -mD INTO SYSTEM ACCEPTAKE TIGHRINE 3 aDI� 35ATERIAL CCH `0 N-12 MAXIMUtA t;.1i � �1 OK 4LME 95.00 - - 97.00 - - - 99.00 101.00 103.00 105.00 /Exiti�rgwarld�s 107.00i y%%//�%//yi///y�y%////// 109.00 ,'j�////'_-109.00 �yi ��i ��i ��i ��-yy_ Elev = 109.50 N 89*56'58" E 74.00' Elev=109.50 Scale 1" = 20' ------------ Existing Contours Proposed Contours row o� Nort., N or- OAS, M 4f Q- Er�1Gt I Uhl' a�'T HUS�w ro FZ�-7711A11'L!''t� (�'LIOYZ- TU IIVSTAu /k7�orV Op c Prl�Ip ��rorsM crt�SscN 109.00 ' 12,11 CAST I "A.) L. DUUA' Elev =109.00 Impervious Surface House 2n47 craft Driveway 986snR Walkway 83 sqft Patio 200 crt$ Total Impervious Surface 3296 sqft Lot Coverage Total Coverage House, = 2015 sqft Garage, & Deck q Lot = 26,136 sqft Lot Coverage = .09% 0 24 HR. NOTICE RRM OR 04 101 O Note: All utilities to be located underground Gas to maintain minimum I'separation from all utilities Phone & cable to maintain minimum 4 " separation from power Sidewalk, curb and gutter to be replaced as needed 2' MIN SAW CUT Td]TC. I. IF DRIVEWAY WIDTH IJICEEDS / TYPE •I• CLRO NDD TGY� ID'. INSTALL A & DEPTR EXPANSIDN OR JCaT• 16• VERTEAL CURD ° DRIVEWAY APRON SHALL DE A ND+INUN LTO NATp EXiSi, oDLY) - ]F 6• TRICK AND SHALL DE PLACED W i• of O/D• CSTC AND CN}NPACTF'D IUtADL EXPANSION JOINT L A MNIRRN e' SAV CUT IS RECVIRCD IN 6' ME ASPIw_r vNERE NEv NXAiI / curr[R 'S PLACED LSEC DRAA. ADDVEX ve• m ;oNCRETE SHALL DE CLASS D- DDOOPS! tA2 S1.C� 6• CURD R ION STANDARD DETAIL a t�LAI wun 8TWA0 DFCYEr1Ay Etmw10E a Doan 41 n wt< 7/eN/01 �cu[ xa NTS nu N 89`5658" E 74.00' Site Plan /Height Calc's Owner: Crosby Group of Washington Project Address: 2905170th St SW 16124 N. Meadowdale Rd. Lynnwood, WA 98037 Edmonds, WA 98026 Agent: Stone Harbour LLC Parcel No. 00513100005102 2905170th St SW Zoning IRS 20 \ Lynnwood, WA 98037 Contact: Greg Chandler (206) 650-0804 masherl@msn.com Scale 1" = 20' Impervious Surface HOURA 2047 sqft Driveway 966 craft Walkway 83 crag` Patio ran snft Total Impervious Surface 3296 sqft Lot Coverage Total Coverage House, = 2015 sqft Garage, & Deck sq Lot = 26,136 sqft Lot Coverage = .09% " , >; Height Calc's 16.20.040.C. Porches and Decks. Uncovered y, ). and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and >,q5 NW = 100.95 decks may project into a required setback SW = 101.27 not more than one-third of the required �4u SE = 105.82 setback, or four feet, whichever is less; n0 r v � `SW'.= 104.82 provided, that they are no more than 30 *O*, 412 86 inches above ground level at any point. oo . Average Ground Height = 103.21 Max Allowed Building Height = 128.2125' + 103.21 ) Basement Slab Elev.102.00 Designed Building Height = 25.88 Design Build Elev = 102.00 + 25.88=127.88 127.88 ( Design )— 128.21 ( Max Allowed ) Building Height OK ( See Attached ) A PRQ 6Y' E GINEE618tIG Date, Zone S ` Z-� Corner Flag Setbacks Required Actual Front /J 10 -IL S7 Sides r wcy 2 s -- Rear s I s Other. Hei t Z� ZK•6� z_0t-J_ (,3( 5 STREUi FILE AUG 10 2012 131UH.DING D PAW EN'r CITY OF EDMrONDS Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan N M O N CAI Owner: Crosby Group of Washington Project Address: 2905170th St SW 16120 N Meadowdale Rd. Lynnwood, WA 98037 Edmonds, WA 98026 Agent: Stone Harbour LLC 2905170th St SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Contact: Greg Chandler (206) 650-0804 masher1@msn.com N 89*56'58" E 74.00' iOAViV 25'-MIN. RADIUS A WIAIi .iiViToiuou�iov� A VTiVi�inv 7 PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/ EGRESS AREA CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTR❑ MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN, C: I " • C .. N. I s STANDARD DETAIL a cEeEar 10L'6 STAN W CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE I890-1990 °.a T/t+/o1 NTS M0 E1.2 Parcel No. 00513100005102 Scale 1" = 20' All existing Catch Basins to be Protected FILTER FABRIC SECURED TO 2' X 2' 14 GA. WIRE FABRIC - EQUAL 2' X 2' WOOD OR o EQUIVALENTS 8— 12' �� 7�m S. FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN . PLACE 3/4'-1,5' WASHED GRAVEL IN OR WIRE RINGS TCONTINDUS ROLLSUSE STAPLES O ATTACH THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF FABRIC TO WIRE, FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE. ii1 ii WIRE MESH SUPPORT FEk}E I1J i i TO SUPPORT FILTER FABRIC it I II II BURY BOTTOM [IF FILTER N MATERIAL B' TO 12' I 6' MAX, I `I�\ LJ L "2' X 2• WOOD POSTS OR EQUIVALENT ' CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER ERDSION CONTROL, CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL METHODS BEFORE OTHER WORK CAN BEGIN. 6i REVISI N STANDARD DETAIL I VER FABRIC FENCE FR.TRATTON SMI MS OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL. AND DRAINAGE RgSUB JUL 16 2012 N 89`56'58" E 74 Soil Management Plan Owner: Crosby Group of Washington Project Address: 2905170th St SW 16120 N Meadowdale Rd. Lynnwood, WA 98037 Edmonds, WA 98026 Agent: Stone Harbour LLC 2905170th St SW Lynnwood, WA 98037 Contact: Greg Chandler ,4-@ (206) 650-0804 `�.., r masher1@msn.com Parcel No. 00513100005102 Zoning RS 20 Scale 1" = 20' Basic Soil Amendment Notes 1) A topsoil layer with a minimum organic matter of 10% dry weight in planting beds, and 5% organic matter content ( based on a loss -on -ignition test) in turf areas, .and a ph from 6.0 to 8.0 or matching the ph of the original undisturbed soil. The topsoil layer shall have a minimum depth of 8" except where tree roots limit the depthof incorporation of amendments needed to meet the criteria. Subsoils below the topsoil layer should be scarified at least 4" wi* h some incorporation of the upper material to avoid stratified layer where faasible. F 2) Planting bedsmust be mulched with 2" of organic material. 3) Quality of compost and other materials used to meet the organic content requirements : a. The organic content for "pre -approved" amendment rates can be met only using compost that meets the definition of "composted materials" in Note: WAC 173-350-220. This codeis available online at: Amend Soils for Disturbed, http//ww�r.wa.gov/programs/swfa/facil'tties/350.html Graded, or Compacted Compost used in bioretention areas should be stable; mature, and Areas Onlyderived from yard debris, wood waste, or other organic matenals that meet the intent of the organic soil amendment specification. Biosolids and manure compost can be higher in bio-available phosphorus than compost of from yard or plant waste and therefore are not allowed in bioretention areas due to the possibility of exporting bio- available phosphorus in effluent. The compost must also have an organic matter content of 35% to 65% and a carbon to nitrogen ratio below 25:1. The carbon to nitrogen ratio may be as high as 35:1 for plantings composed entirely of plants native to the puget sound lowland region. This Shaded Area Denotes b. Calculated amendment rates may be met through use of composted Basic Amended Soils y 9 p Note: Total Amended Grass Areasgpproximately 7000 sgft @ 200 sgft per Cu Yd, 35 Cu Yds of Compost Will be Required Amended Plant Bed Areas are Approximately 200 sgft Approximately 2 Cu Yds of Compost Needed 37 Cu Yds Compost Needed to Amend All Areas materials as defined above: or other organic materials amended to meet the carbon to nitrogen ratio requirements, and meeting the contaminant standards of grade A compost. 4) Amend disturbed soil according to the following procedures: a. Scarify subsoil to a depth of one foot. b. In planting beds place 3" of compost and till in to an 8" depth. c. In turf areas place 2" of compost and till in to an 8" depth d. Apply 2" to 4" of arborist wood chip coarse bark mulch, or compost mulch to planting beds after final planting. Alternatively, disturbed soil can be amended on a site -customized manner so that it meets the soil quality criteria set forth above, as determined by a licensed engineer, geologist, landscape architect, or other person approved by Snohomish County. 5) Stockpile existing topsoil during grading, and replace it prior to planting. Stockpiled topsoil must be amended to meet the organic matter and depth requirements by following the procedures in method 4 above 6) Import topsoil mix of sufficient organic content and depth to meet the organic matter and depth requirements. More than one method may be used on different portions of the same site. Soil that already meets the depth and organic matter quality standards, and is not compacted, does not need to be amended. If existing topsoil is stockpiled and replaced in areas shown in the ledgend, testing will be required per. notes 4 & 5 above. t y. RESUM JUL 16 2012 ®UttCIDrrINOffs 9W1,0P DT S M A-Y AUD1, -0 ,.,0L06 0 12 7. 09 (D6.5 4.4) nn Description j �y ..y�+ itJ ml� p �..J Lf I L, A-+ 1 r..rf (_ % (ai �. BY Date EANIGHMEERING 21101-80 Ave. W. 8 "' Suite B Project Edmonds, WA98026((! BENCH MARK NOTE: - : •. - The temporary Bench Mark (TBM) used for this drawing is a PK nail placed in the asphalt walkway about a foot north of.the Existing power pole located about 46 feet west of the proposed catch basin. The assumed elevation at the top.of the nail is 100.00 feet. 1 RMS ENGINEERING 21101-80 Ave. W. Suite B Edmonds, WA98020 Description S _1J t l;a_)L S(C) p..1� :?' ,V By l' ( D t r� 2 '�L�l.f ram•, � / Checked �j fjfs�, Date Scale Sheet No. ©� Project O eo mo / J o� I A e : g,8D3& Checked _' ; Date , _ ...... r/a .r Scale/1/ { Sheet No. ot�t%.�.�At9- �0 Job No. -'tom /r s �- ..1 � .-;11 r, 1,a5 •, ra GC3 To f�E' ioC.+�T� N?B rLTN- ofz C'n�S NA�N. -Ca )t.SS"tA1-LA-r1u0 OF on, AtU>7 STOtZI'1 C(lOSs►N�t• SToam UW5516,Ai To roe I"ST1VA4DD 6e),ow 'I;XIST$J0(4 V4A-Te%• OAR.). 1V rl`blllt~� C^0 No-c a F t.A�S T1c• Fo/kM iK WSM oto Ise rwcaN rA5 v�-r)u 71 �s �ITY CLERK s��- 5 CIVIC CENTER / EDMONDS. WA 98020 PEDESTRIAN AND UTILITY EASEMENT IN CONSIDERATION of benefits to accrue to the grantors herein, the undersigned, Greg S. & Jeanine L. Casper, hereby grants to the CITY OF EDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation, a permanent easement for the installation, operation and maintenance of a pedestrian walkway and utilities over, across, through and below the following described Property; and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction and maintenance of said utility, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purposes. J The easement hereby granted is located in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, and is more particularly described as follows: SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed during the construction, maintenance and repair of said utility or utilities; provided the grantors, their yu� heirs, or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within the permanent easement. C DATED this day of STATE OF WASHINGTON) COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH) On this day ersonally appeared before me and Y' to me known to be the in vi ual( ) describ d in and who a ecuted the within and foregoin instrument, and acknowledged that signed the same as free and voluntary ac an dee , for the uses and purposes *terein mentioned. UNDER MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS DAY OF -A-e_(�jr„ A 19 q2. NOT RY PUBLIC in and for the S ate of Was in ton, residing at - I i �)? 1 � Lille CASPER/TXTFORMS y'� ��iCISE �• r TAX , a, UI R E0 1, PR 16 1992.1 ,.;,►► �}� /i - { ° �" � S!ic&S. S>to�oeisi County Geasurer EXHIBIT A That portion of Tract 51, Meadowdale Beach, as recorded in Voium? 5 of Plats, Page 38, Records of Snohomish County, Washington, lying Northerly of a line 30.00 feet South of, concentric to, and parallel with the following described centerline: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of the right-of-way of 68th Ave. W. and the centerline of the proposed right-of-way of North Meadowdale Road (being Station 0+00 as described per City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 1853); thence N 80*23150" W a distance of 35.28 feet to the P.C. (Sta..0+35.28) of a curve to the right having a radius of 1235.75 feet and consuming a central angle of 6*57135"; thence along said curve a distance of 150.22 feet to a P.T. (Sta. 1+85.50); thence N 73*26117" W a distance of 351.73 feet to the P.C. (Sta. 5+37.23) of a curve to the right having a radius of 205.46 feet and consuming a central angle of 42*36143"; thence along said curve a distance of 152.80 feet to a P.T. (Sta. 6+90.03); thence N 30*49135" W a distance of 56.38 feet to the P.C. (Sta. 7+46.41) of a curve to the right having a radius of 143.54 feet and consuming a central angle of 32*27149"; thence along said curve a distance of 81.33 feet to a P.T. (Sta. 8+27.74); thence N 1*381*14" E a distance of 251.07 feet to the P.C. (Sta. 10+78.81) of a curve to the left having a radius of 286.85 feet and consuming a central angle of 27*22119"; thence along said curve a distance of 137.04 feet to a P.T. (Sta. 12+15.85); thence N 25*44105" W a distance of 482.00 feet to the P.C. (Sta'. 16+97.85) of a curve to the left having a radius of 477.69 feet and. consuming. a central angle of 32*44'15"; thence along said curve a distance of 272.94 feet to a P.T. (Sta. 19+70.79); thence N 58*28120" W a distance of 719.84 feet to the P.C. (Sta. 26+90.63) of a curve.to the left having a radius of 140.94 feet and consuming a central angle -of 49*31107"; thence along said curve a distance of 121.80 feet to a point of reverse curve (Sta. 28+12.43) of a curve to the right having a radius of 572.30 feet and consuming a central angle of 18*15118"; thence along said curve a distance of 182.35 feet to a P.T..(Sta.•29+94.78); thence N 89*44109" W a distance of 191.57 feet to the intersection of the centerline of right-of-way of 75th P1. W. (Sta. 31+86.35) and the terminus of the centerline of the proposed right-of-way herein describe. MEADOWRD.LGL/TXTST530 February 18, 1992 Tt+:Is �r w STREET FILE `V' 2_' . Vol. 256OPAGEJ51 591 En8UIS AUG 10 2012 CITY OF E VIONDS BUILDING D%AMWENT