16234 72ND AVE W.PDF111111111111
5572
16234 72ND AVE W
r
•
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: D�S-A
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS(RECORDED)FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: []Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required ❑ Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DA'
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S)
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DA
LID #:
BLOCK:
L:\TEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
On6)
am
Q'J3 O
C"
u)rn
2i
GREENESS 4 LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION - PORTIONS OF TRACTS 66 & 67 OF
MEADOWDALE BEACH SECTION 5, TWP.27N.,R.4E-.W.M. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON VOLUME 5, PAGE 38
BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION : BEING A PORTION OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH RANGE 4E WM
TNAI PORTION OF TRACT 65 AND TRACT 66. PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH, AS LINE OF SAID TRACT 67, A DISTANCE OF 85 DO FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34
RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS AT PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH DEGREES 39 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 97.71 FEET;
COUNTY, WASIINCTON AND SITUATED IN SECTION 5. TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST. PARALLEL WITH
RANGE 4 CAST. W.M., IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH UNE THEREOF, A DISTANCE O 105.00 FEET TO SAID WEST LINE
FOLLOWS: OF TRACT 67: THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST
ALONG SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 27.58 FEET: THENCE NORTH 89
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER O SAID TRACT 67: THENCE SOUTH DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST. A DISTANCE OF 185.55 FEET:
89 DEGREES 17 MINUTES DO SECONDS WEST ALONG THE NORTH UNE THEREOF, THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 05 MINUTES OD SECONDS WEST. PARALLEL WITH
A DISTANCE OF 5.OD FEET TO THE WEST OF RIGHT-CF-WAY UNE O 72ND THE EAST LINE O SAID TRACT 67. A DISTANCE O 30.00 FEET TO THE
AVE. W. AND THE TRUE POINT O BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 110.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 67: THENCE NORTH
89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE. A 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID NORTH UNE. A
DISTANCE 321.35 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER O SAID TRACT 87: DISTANCE OF 133.54 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 5,00 FEET OF
THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS NEST ALONG
THE NORTH UNE O SAID TRACT 66. A DISTANCE O 50.00 FEET THENCE
SOUTH/ 00 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST; PARAUEL W11H THE WEST NORTHEAST CORNER TRACT 6i
FOUNDNO 18,230
RE -BAR k CAP IN ORDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYAY
W/LS
FOUND (MICHAEL S. WEBB) SET FOR RECORDED
1967 FOR THE NW COORNEERR '
1 3//'IRON PIPE SET IN SURVEY FOR JOHN JOHNSON IN 1988
BOOK 26 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 214
TRACT 57 1 OF ACT 67 AND ACCEPTED TRACT 52 AND ACCEPTED FOR CORNER.
_
25.00 FOR POSITION TOTAL 371.32500 N89'3Y00_'E 5'
329.00 PUT ro NE CDR. 348.}5-LOT N0.1 C-
MinMEAS TRACT67
S mOU 165' SETBACK FROM ,
SIL PROBABILITY N!0'{1'IYwit
m \AZARO UNE 5.00
STEEP SLOPE TOP -/ -STEEP SLOPE TOP 25 4 R
NI to m L N7 TcS s^
S AREA-18,954 SF
69.2 10• RC
,(•�V I,STEEP SLOPE TOE
n
� I r
DETENTION / ' L__ --c ------ g 3
TANKS �-4 156.00 PO+noN
SJ�TL"
l
AREA=10,113/SF
15,
STEEP ROPE TOES
Sa
B
to
A> DETENTION POND
A --Si PROBABILITY
2.
_ r�l /
tt� OF HAZARD LINE _SOL
~,V TRACT 66 T TRACT 67
AREA.SF
'
(� T' S'
lj I()1 N69'37'00'E
�J r/
145.50
185.55'
PLAT MAP OF MEADOWDALE MACH MERIDIAN
LL�IN O' 10' 20' 40' 80'
120'
'- 40'
LECEND
S SET 1/2' DAM. RE -BAR WIN YELLOW
PLASTIC CAP. STAMPED MAI AND LS10219
FOUND RE -BAR AND CAP .
SET BY MEYRING AND ASSOCIATES IN
1971 AND ACCEPTED FOR CORNER.
O FOUND CONIORETE MONUMENT IN CASE
VISITED 12-5-95
BA GUIDING SETBACK LINE
SOL STORM DRAINAGE LINE
LIME URUTY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
IEUE INGRESS EGRESS UTPUrY EASEMENT
CURVE DATA
CURVE R L CURVE R IN ' L
C-1 55.00 84.23'49 81.02 C-6 25.00 142.48'29' 62.31
C-2 50.00 22.09'16' 19.33 C-17 35.00 106 33'05' 65.09
C-3 135.00 14.32'40' 34.27 C-12 120.00 39.35'09' 82.91
C-4 135.00 2502:29' 59.00 C-13 40.00 10.39*28" 7.44
C-5 25.00 04:5125 2.12 C-14 40.00 137.00.26- 95.65
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED : WTLD T-I AND MACI
REBAR IN LAWNS �. NORTH UNE OF THE SOUTH 110.00 FT.
OF TRACT 67
SLRVEYOR'S CERTFICATE a
THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE By 15
NE OR UNDER' MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITHTM THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT THE
REIN ST O OR N TARA INCORPORATED.
IN 1997,
CERT. NO. 10219
L•
ik
ry
<a
F �Ntv
QQ
--r-
SAID TRACT 67 AND SAID WEST IGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 72ND
AVENUE WEST: THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 00 SECONDS
EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 5.00 FEET OF TRACT 67
AND SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 222.61 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
=i w m
ADP ud,MZ
!l US
n Yin LO11 ii
• z_zjSB
METHOD : FIELD TRAVERSE ��'
T i4TH 5T. sw.
EA ENTS : A TEN FOOT WIDE THEUTILITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (UME) SHALL M DRAINAGE MININTENANCE EASEMENT IS CLUDE THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS CENTERED ON ALL 1. 1 3 6 STORM
X_ SHOWN ON PLATSL) SHORN ON PLAT MAP.
MAP W
BIRLDING SETBACKS : SETBACKS FROM CRITICAL AREAS STEEP SLOPE WHICH HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO 10 FEET ARE VESTED WITH THIS RECORDING. ALL REMAINING
SETBACKS SHOWN ON THE PUT MAP ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHALL BE DETERMIED BY CODE AT THE TIME O DEVELOPEMENT PERMIT APPUCAMON. THE TEN
FOOT SETBACK SHOWN ON LOTS 3 AND 4 WAS DETERMINED BY INTERPRETATION WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN FILE S-95-163. I
ACCURACY :TRAVERSE CLOSURE MEETS OR EXCEEDS WAC/332-130-090 REQUIRMENTS PROBABLE POSITION ERROR O CORNERS SET WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING MONUMENTATION IS 0.10 FT.
GRff lNESS
arr OF ®Moms
SHORT PLAT S-95-W
GREEN TARA
HCORPORATED
"IF W-N ARCHITECT
16202 72ND AVENUE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026
TED SOiElDER, SURVEYOR
TIBBS NE 68TH STREET #725
CERTIFICATION MKL.ANA, WASHINGTON 98033
WE VERIFY THAT WE ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS O THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND WE CERTIFY THAT THIS
TOOURWI. THE FOLLOWING DEDICATI `ACID CONDO IONS Iy MADE OF OUR FREE CONSENT AND ACCORDING
GREEN-TARA INCORPORATED. NGAWANG T-MICYUR, PRESIDENT
PHI.UP LEHN / MARIAM LEHN
STATE O WASHINGTON I
I SS
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I
ON THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME NGAWANG MICYUR. PRESIDENT O GREEN TARA INCORPORATED.
AND PHILLIP LEHN AND MARIAM LEHN, KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE INDIVIDUALS DESCRIBED IN AND WHO
EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FORGONG INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY SIGNED THE SAME AS THEIR FREE
AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN TONED
GIVEN UNDE\/qMY HAND /AAND OFFIICIAL SEAL THIS � 1f DAY O �]i`t"v.ey 1997.0.urr
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE O WASHINGTON
RESIDING AT CW !]AR CdS /1 �d �••:�1`�•'LL,�,,
MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES AM MI•.•.:-. I. ror+ ._
0®ICATION
1, .THE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS EGRESS AND UTTUTIES OVER. UNDER AND ACROSS IS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT
MAP. ITS OWNERSHIP SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY AND JOINTLY BY THE OWNERS. THEIR HEIRS,
SUCCESSORS. AND ASSIGNEES. O SAID LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4.
2. MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, REPAIR AND /OR RECONSTRUCTION, AS INTENDED W THIS DECLARATION, APPLY TO
ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND LABOR REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A STABLE AND USABLE ROAD SURFACE-FOR.USE
OF SAID INGRESS AND EGRESS UTILITY EASEMENT ( IEUE ). 1HE COST O SAID MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND
AND REPAST AND/OR RECONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BORN EQUALLY AND JOINTLY BY THE OWNERS TRF1R HERS. SUCCESSORS
AND ASSIGNEES OF SAID LOTS 1, 2 3, AND 4,
3. THE DETENTION POND. DETENTION TAIIXS. STORM DRAINAGE LINES AND UTILITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ( UWE ) ARE AS
$HORN ON THE PUT MAP. THEW OWNERSHIP SHALL BE SNARED EQUALLY AND JOINTLY BY THE OWNERS THEIR HERS.
SUCCESSORS. AND ASSIGNEES OF SAID LOTS 2. 3, AND 4.
4. MAINTENANCE, OPERATION. REPAIR MD/OR RECONSTRUCTION. AS INTENDED IN THIS DECLARATION. APPLY
TO ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND LABOR REOUIRED TO MAINTAIN A STABLE AND USABLE ORAWAGE SYSTEM
WITHIN SAID DETENTION POND, DETENTION TANKS. STORM DRAINAGE LINES AND UTILITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ( UME )
SHOWN ON THIS PLAT AND IDENTIFIED ABOVE. THE COST OF SAID MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND REPAIR
AND/OR RECONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BORNE EQUALLY AND JOINTLY BY THE OWNERS THEIR HEIRS, SUCCESSORS
AND ASSIGNEES OF SAID LOTS 2. 3. AND 4. ,
5. TRACT X IS AS SHOWN ON THE PUT MAP. I75 OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY
AND JOINTLY BY THE OWNERS THEW HEIRS SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNEES. O SAID LOTS 1, 2, 3 AND 4. ITS PURPOSE
SHALL BE TO PROMOTE A LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE FOR THE ENJOYMENT O THE OWNERS, THEIR HEIRS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNEES OF SAID LOTS 1, 2, 3. AND 4.
HIM HARAYESS ACREMENT
OWNER, AND ALL PERSONS HAVING ANY PRESENT OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERSHIP INTEREST W THESE LANDS, AND
THE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS O OWNERS OR OTHER PARTIES HAVING ANY SAID INTEREST, HEREBY AGREE THAT
THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS W ALL RESPECTS FROM ANY AND ALL CUWS FOR DAMAGES FOR
INJUNCTIVE REUEF WHICH MAY BE OCCASIONED NOW OR IN THE FUTURE TO ADJACENT LAND OR IMPROVEMENTS
BY REASON O THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE O THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND HEREBY WAIVE AND
RELEASE THE CITY O EDMONDS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES E%l%UDING DAMAGE CAUSED SOLEY
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 O SAID DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
CONDOM"
I. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OFAPPROVAL FOUND IN THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SHORT
SUBDIVISION AND THE ATTACHMENTS THERETO. A COPY OF SAID DOCUMENT IS LOCATED IN FILES S-95-163 AND
AP-96-21 IN THE OFFICE O THE CITY OF EDMONDS PUNNING DIVISION.
APPROVED AN�,UTHORIZED FOR RECORDING BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING OF ONSJ /T 19v's
APPRIO,jJ�AND AUn1]Otfl {�r��RE DING BY THE CITY O EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION BY
THISyA DAY 01 J"L.,.r
RECOROM ®LTFICATE
FILED FOR RECORD THIS 3d DAY OSd„A 40.13J 199q AT 1' ()� A'? M., IN
BOOK O SHORT PLATS AT PAGE ••1 AT THE REQUEST OF GREEN TARA INCORPORATED
DIVISION O RECO AND CnDNS
fob Taw; It(qu
SUPT. MANAGER
PEG NO. ��� O; Soo
) I
c
z
00
mo
00
M
CORRECTED GREENNESS 4 LOT SHORT .SUBDIVISION - PORTIONS OF TRACTS 66 & 67 OF GREENNESS
MEADOWDALE BEACH SECTION 5, TWP.27N.,R.4E.W.M. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON VOLUME 5, PAGE 38 CORRECTED
BOUNDARY. LEGAL DESCRIPTION : BEING A PORTION OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH RANGE 4E WM CITY OF EDMONDS
THAT PORTION OF TRACT 68 AND TRACT 66. PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH, AS LINE OF SAID TRACT 67, A DISTANCE OF 85.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34
RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS AT PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SNOHOIAISH DEGREES 39 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 97.71 FEET;
CON TY. WASHINGTON AND SITUATED IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP.27 NORTH, THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, PARALLEL WITH
RANGE 4 EAST, W.Y., IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH UNE THEREOF. A DISTANCE OF 105.00 FEET TO SAID NEST LINE
FOLLOWS OF TRACT 67: THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 42 SECONDS NEST
ALONG SAID NEST LINE A DISTANCE OF 27.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 67; THENCE SOUTH DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 185.55 FEET;
89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 0 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE NORTH UNE THEREOF. THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH
A DISTANCE OF 5.0 FEET TO THE WEST OF RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE OF 72ND THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT 67, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE
AVE. W. AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 110.00 FEET OF SAID TRACT 67; THENCE NORTH
89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES GO SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE. A 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ALONG SAID NORTH UNE. A
DISTANCE 321.35 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 87; DISTANCE OF 133.54 FEET TO THE NEST LINE OF THE EAST 5.00 FEET OF
THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES DO SECONDS WEST ALONG
THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT fib, A DISTANCE OF 50.0 FEET THENCE
SOUTH 0 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 42 SECONDS NEST, PARALLEL NTH THE WEST NORTHEAST CORNER TRACT 67
FOUND RE -BAR h CAP IN DRIVEWAY
SHORT PLAT S-95-163
SAID TRACT 87 AND SAID WEST RICHT-OF-WAY LINE OF 72ND SHEET 1 OF 1 / MAY 30, 2002
AVENUE WEST; THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 00 SECONDS
EAST ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THE EAST 5.00 FEET OF TRACT 67 TED SCHNEIDER, SURVEYOR
AND SAID NEST RIGHT-OF-WAY UNE. A DISTANCE OF 222.61 FEET . 11008 N.E. 68TH STREET #725
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
20'
3/4-IRON PIPE SET BY MN IN -- SURVE(MICHY
EL S. JOHN SET FOR RECORDED \'!
3/4- FOR THE SE CORNER SURVEY FOR JEBB JET FOR IN CORD-\\\ai\�
TRACT 57 /I OF TRACT 67 AND ACCEPTED TRACT 52 BON 26 OF SURVEYS AT PAGE 214
25.0 25.0 FOR POSITION_ N897T0"E TOTAL 371.35' AND ACCEPTED FOR CORNER.
329.00 PLAT TO NE CDR. 346.15-LOT N0./ C-1
326.35 MEAS. TRACT 67
�65' SETBACK FROM 7 03
51L PROBABILITY N40'41'42'OUR
-_ _ OF HAZARD LINE 5.0 h C-
w STEEP SLOPE TOP -1 STEEP SLOPE TOP 25 V / �
0 3
0Ia o 1 _ � h Bz3p•�
AREA=18.954 SF _e N77'23'
- f-STEEP SLOPE TOEINC-
:S ` ---R - = h PORTION I N
V 116.00 o N897 OOP -�40.0 - OF u u CROSS AREA
LOT 3 16,222 SF
m �30_0NET AREA
AREM70,11J 1 E� -- STEEP SLOPE TOE-�C I $• , 13,07J SF
IS SOI r�� 4 `I ", SDL i
I - BO�TO7AL C-5 15.34 N77
LION POND -I� i 73.74 RP C-13 N88]3_21"ER
14 '0hN82'25'18"E ; -- - N8217- w
7 2 :PORTON 77.02
.Z PROBAB6JTY N u WI7 SDL AREA-16.327 SF
ZARD UNE _ ZR J. `
]F HAr' _jI T 1_ LOT 4 , 70 0
C-6
9 BSL
TRACT 66 TRACT 7 TG•� CBS
_ 1 5.001u25'STEEP
IEUE
! SLOPE~ C-14, c
_ n TOE 4
145.50 10.05' ( GROSS AREA-1449
N89-37'0'E 185.55' o REBAR UNDER CEDAR 65E
�10. NET AREA-12,747SF I nc
TEEP SLOPE TOP
PLAT MAP OF MEADOWDALE BEACH MERIDIAN
,,,PLAT
IV 20' mVSO 120'
1' - 40'
LEGEND
9 SET 1/2- DAM. RE -BAR WITH YELLOW -
PLASTIC CAP, STAMPED MAI AND LS10219
FOND RE -BAR AND CAP
SET BY MEYRING AND ASSOCIATES W
1971 AND ACCEPTED FOR CORNER.
0 FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE
VjVISITED 12-5-95
BSL BUIDING SETBACK LINE
SOL STORM DRAINAGE LINE
UME UTILITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
IEUE INGRESS EGRESS UTIUTY EASEMENT
CURVE DATA
CURVE R A L CURVE R 0 L
C-1 55,0 84.23'49' 81.02 C-6 25.00 142.48'29' 62.31
C-2 50.0 22-09*16' 19.33 C-11 35.0 106 33'05" 65.09
C-3 135.00 14.32'40' 34.27 C-12 120.00 39.35'09' 82.91
C-4 /35.00 25.02'29' 59.00 C-13 40.00 10.39*28" 7.44
C-5 25.00 04. 51'25' 2.12 C-14 40.00 137"00'26' 95.65
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED : WILD T-1 AND MAGI -
REBAR IN LAWNS NORTH UNE OF THE SOUTH 110.0 FT.
OF TRACT 67
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY
ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT THE
RE EST OF iARA INCORPORATED.
IN 1997.
CERT. NO. 10219
0L
�A
�A
l�'4C5R7O'"
/OA'AL LSP
E>PwES8-12-02
-x- 2
E
4
. F3
w
<�pa 22l
2K*rv*0
n 1n'VS�
al �
I ws�o
P
METHOD : FIELD TRAVERSE I--,,Ipl,,--
I 164TH 5T. SW.
EASEMENTS : A TEN FONT WIDE STORK DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE EASEMENTCENTERED ON ALL STORM O LINES (SDL) SHOWN ON PLAT MAP. 1J
THE UTILITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (UME) SHALL INCLUDE THOSE PORTIONS OF LOUR 1, 2, 3 6 '%' SHOWNWN ON ON PLAT MAP. >
a
BUILDING SETBACKS : SETBACKS FROM CRITICAL AREA STEEP SLOPE WHICH HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO 10 FEET ARE VESTED WITH THIS RECORDING. ALL REMAINING o
SETBACKS SHOWN ON THE PLAT MAP ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND SHALL BE DETERWED BY CODE AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPEMENT PERMIT APPUCATION. THE TEN N
IN SETBACK SHOWN ON LOTS 3 AND 4 WAS DETERMINED BY INTERPRETATION WHICH CAN BE FOUND FILE S-95-163.
ACCURACY : TRAVERSE CLOSURE MEETS OR EXCEEDS WAC/332-130-090 REOUIRMENTS. PROBABLE POSITION ERROR OF CORNERS SET WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING MONUMENTATION IS 0.10 FT
KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98033
CORRECTION TO CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT S-95-163. RECORDED UNDER A.F. NO. 9902035001,
RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON. PURSUANT TO RCW 58.10.030. DUE TO CHANGES IN THE STORM
SEWER DESIGN CERTAIN DEDICATION PROVISIONS SHOULD BE CHANGED. NO CHANGES ARE BEING MADE TO THE LOTS OR
TRACTS THEMSELVES ALL OTHER SUBDIVISION CONDITIONS AND ZONING REQUREMENTS STILL APPLY AND ARE UNCHANGED.
CERTIFICATION
WE VERIFY THAT WE ARE THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND NE CERTIFY THAT THIS
SUBDIVISION NTH THE FOLLOWING DEDICATIONS AND CONDITIONS IS MADE OF OUR FREE CONSENT AND ACCORDING
TO OUR DESIRES `
GREEN TARA INCORPORATED. NGAWAN YUR. PRESIDENT
PHILUP LEHN MARIAM LEHN
STATE OF WASHINGTON I
I SS
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I
ON THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME NGAWANG MIGYUR. PRESIDENT OF GREEN TARA INCORPORATED.
AND PHILLIP LEHN AND MARIAM LEHN, KNOWN TO ME TO BE THE INDIVIDUALS DESCRIBED IN AND WHO
EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FORGOING INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED MAT THEY SIGNED THE SAME AS THOR FREE
AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND OFFIGAL EAL THIS 31 DAY OF AA" 202,
�r � "-INN-ALB ITTI
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON `.�� O• fq ��q�'
RESIDING AT Lxgnwnoa , IA/X) fr'•.i
MY APPOINTMENT EXPIRES L+/ 7q J0c7 �,OTARI.
o G 'BBLLW OV..,
DEDICATION
1. THE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS EGRESS MO UTILITIES OVER, UNDER AND ACROSS IS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT MAP.
ITS OWNERSHIP SHALL BE SHARED EQUALLY AND JOINTLY BY THE OWNERS, HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNEES OF
SAID LOTS 1. 2. 3. AND 4.
2. ' MAINTENANCE. OPERATION, REPAIR AND/OR RECONSTRUCTION, AS INTENDED IN THIS DECLARATION, APPLY TO
ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND LABOR REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A STABLE AND USABLE ROAD SURFACE FOR USE
OF SAID INGRESS AND EGRESS VTILITY EASEMENT ( IEUE ). THE COST OF SAID MAINTENANCE, OPERATION
AND REPAIR AND/DR RECONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BORN EQUALLY AND JOINTLY BY THE OWNERS, HEIRS SUCCESSORS,
AND ASSIGNEES OF SAID LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4.
3. LOT 2'S DETENTION AND DRANAGE SYSTEM AND UTILITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ( UME ) ARE AS SHOW ON THE PLAT MAP.
THEY SHALL BE OWNED BY THE OWNER(S). HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNEES OF SAID LOT 2. LOTS 3 AND
A'S DETENTION MID DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND UTILITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ARE AS SHOWN ON TIME REVISED GREENNESS
SHORT RAT DRAINAGE PLAN APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ON APRIL 4. 202 AND SHALL BE OWNED BY THE
OWNER(S), HEIRS, SUCCESSORS, AND ASSIGNEES OF SAID LOTS 3 AND 4.
4. MAINTENANCE. OPERATION, REPAIR, AND/OR RECONSTRUCTION, AS INTENDED IN THIS DECLARATION, APPLY
TO ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND LABOR REWIRED TO MAINTAIN STABLE AND USABLE ORAINACE SYSTEMS
AND UTILITY MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS ( UME ) AS SHOWN ON THIS PUT AND IDENTIFIED ABOVE. THE COST OF SAID
MAINTENANCE, OPERATION AND REPAIR AND/OR RECONSTRUCTION OF EACH SYSTEM AND EASEMENT SHALL BE BORNE
BY THE OWNERS. HEIRS. SUCCESSORS. AND ASSIGNEES OF EACH SYSTEM AND EASEMENT.
5. TRACT X IS AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT MAP. IT SHALL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE ONNER(S), HEIRS,
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNEES OF SAID LOT 2.
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
OWNER AND ALL PERSONS HAVING ANT PRESENT OR SUB
SEQUENT OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THESE LANDS, AND
THE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF OWNERS OR OTHER PARTIES HAVING ANY $AID 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 CONS MAY N. OCCASIONED NOW OR IN THE FUTURE AI ADJACENT LAND OR IMPROVEMENTS
BY REASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF TIME DRAINAGE SYSTEM AM GERCAUSEDNE AND
RELEASE THE DUTY IS ON OF S FROM ANY AND ALL GIVE R FOR DAMAGES. T. EXCLUDING DAMAGE CAUSED SOLES
BY AN ACT OR OMISSION VE SAID CITY O 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 O SAID DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
CONDITIONS
1. COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOUND IN THE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SHORT
SUBDIVISION AND THE ATTACHMENTS THERETO. A COPY OF SAID DOCUMENT IS LOCATED IN FILES S-95-163 AND
AP-96-21 IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING D(VISION.
APPRO D AN AU ORIZED FOR RECORDING BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING �DIVISION BY
THIS 3�s �- DAY OF/✓7Gy _2002.
UTH R ORDING BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION BY
yr
THIS
oar of � 2002.
RECORDING CERTIFICATE OQJ4)N�lA�L 4oWW FL&T I%k RaC20 GC1
FILED FOR RECORD THISJ_14 DAY OF /m% 202 AT 0"22 PM., W
BOOK OF SHORT PLATS AT PACE AT THE REQUEST OF GREEN TARA INCORPORATED
DIVISION OF RECORDS AND ELECTIONS
SUPT. OF RECORDS MANAGER
REG. NO.- .So�i
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR GREENNESS
GREEN TARA INCORPORATED AND PHILLIP AND MARIAM LEHN
CITY OF EDMONDS
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
'CORRECTED GREENNESS 4 LOT SHORT SUBDIVISION - PORTIONS OF TRACTS 66 & 67 OF SHEET T OF 1 / JUNE 24, 2002
MEADOWDALE BEACH SECTION 5, TWP.27N.,R.4E.W.M, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON VOLUME 5; PAGE 38 TED SCHNEIDER. SURVEYOR
BEING A PORTION OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF THE S.W. QUARTER OF SECTION 5 TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH RANGE 4E WM 6117 SOUTH 237 STREET, D-301
KENT. WASHINGTON 98032
FOUND NORTHEASTCORNER
�TRACT 67 R W N. R4W
r 1997 ON PIPTHE SET O ER IN FOUND RE -BAR 6: CAP IN DRIVEWAY 2025 _`
1987 FOR THE NW CORNER I1
I N0. 16,
II OFTRACT 67 AND ACCEPTED W/LS 230
FOR POSITION
� (MICHAEL S ) SET FOR RECORDED �
Ij (329.00 PLAT TD HE CDR. -1 SURVEY FOR ,JOHN JOHNSON IN 1958 \
TRACT 57 1 326.35 MEAS, TRACT 67/ " TRACT 52 BOOK 26 DF SURVEYS AT PAGE 214
50.00 3500 _ N89'37'00-E 294.O8' AND ACCEPTED FOR CORNER. I
--- T --w STEEP S&E TOP - -- -- _- -- o •25.01'
/ AREA-12.038 SF C-1- 1.
I
9 S> EXISTING HOUSE �. Nam41'4�
Ey
/ �gy 582.31116.E ,�• GARAGE
I�` c � •I„ i9 N7723 WR U R73• 62 �� O _ 1
-STEEP SLOPE TOE ? �� n `P °y 3 R I
I X
897Y00'E
I �' ry n �eJ• � ,p1 ;�,� /� GROSS AREA a P 4
AREA-10.450 SF (u 5.1e0 SF�Ifn i
,POR ON U„� NET
0.ARSF pl I �. 30.00
STEEP SLOPE TOE l0T 3 z g
(omc-iglu yySE,PRc I / 1 L� -
/ v 2 1$• 164.12 TD7AI,-5 15.34) N�
ry DETENTION POND J� 74.I0 I R - C-13 N88Tr21'ER
e/1C « 130. AREA.25,121 SF TEEP
J7 ( - N82'25'18•
'i/q� SLOPE PORTION OF (I 7J.0 4 I yl
31L PROBABILITY TOENI- I LOT
OF HAZARD LINE so
TRACT 68 (RS-20) _ TRACT 67 (R9-12) N� C M d FI
AR.09735'E IM.07 IE` 4
8I c- PI
GROSSREA-12,053 SF mI I n-ng
146,By 13.2 2S./5 ' NET AREA�12, 053 SF I �
N8B•37'00'E 166.15' TOTAL I TI..,, /
R®AR UNDER CEDAR 'I b I -STEEP SLOPE TOP
9 Fl u=-r 3
z - \ . NBB7Y00'E 13J.34" ' 25.01 I '
ud
`NO LINTRACT 6 OF THE SOUTH 110. DO FT 1 I Q
7 1
PLAT OF MEADOWDALE BEACH MERIDIAN . I °i Z
I I.
N 0 10 20 4 eo zo SI
i8<
LEGEND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 10
O SET 1/2' DUM. RE -BAR NTH YELLOW THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY
PLASTIC CAP, STAMPED TS AND L510219 ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE NTH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING ACT AT 714E
19 SET 1/2' AM, RE -BAR -WITH YELLOW REQUI OF GREEN TIARA INCORPORATED. rr 8 gM
PLASTIC CAP, STAMPED MAI AND LS10210 4A T ; �w�Nz
FOUND RE -BAR AND CAP /�/ CERT, N0. 1D219 8 5 w
SETBY MEYRINC AND ASSOCIATES IN
F,J 1971 AND ACCEPTED FOR CORNER. I P �111H n
O FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE ci'oag
O VISITED 42-5-95 t N o
r,> ROW CENTERLINE m i LSo I 8 o U€ 3
p STEEP SLOPE TOP R TOE - - - - - - m g � P P
�j PROPERTY LINE �- - - - ' .��7�-{N•L. S Yn i??�Se
IEUE INGRESS EGRESS UTILITY. EASEMENT - - y A _?0_ 25'
CURVE DATA
L R
CURVE R pL CURVE R G l .0 .
C-1 55.00 84•23'49' 61.02 C-6 25.00 142'48'29' 62.31 �7'F'� ?: 164TH ST. SW.
C-2 60.00 22-09*15 19.33 C-11 35.00 105 33'05' 65.09 E1�IRE5 ^IZ >•I C=3 135.00 14.32'40' 34.27. C-12 120.00 39.35'09' 82.91
C-4 135.00 25.02'29- 59.00 C-13 4MOO 10'39'28' 7.44
C-S 25.00 04'51'25• 2.12 C-14 4D.00 137'00'26- 95.65
EQUIPMENT EMPLOYED : WILD T-1 AND MAGI - N
r.
METHOD : FIELD TRAVERSE
CITY OF EDMONDS
RECORD OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
INS Is TO CERTIFY THAT A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WAS REVRiWEO AND APPROVED BY THE CRY OP
EDMONDS FOR THE PROPERTIES AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THIS MAP AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (SEC 20.75) FIE LLA-02-X. 714E LOTS
SHOWN ARE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR SUBDIVISION FILE AS-95.163 AND
APPEAL HLE MAP-96.21
I / WE VERIFY THAT I / WE ARE THE LEOAL OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE UWE
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 REGULAM14 SET
FORTH HEREIN. THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECLARE THAT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
VOID AND RECORD A STATEMENT TO THAT EFFECT IN THE GRANTOR -GRANTEES INDEX IN THE OFFICE
OF THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR
GREEN TARA INCORPORATED, N
.,:1:7t::`' PRESIDENT"
�� rFM19CAM. �;iziiZ
HB.LP/ LTBW MARUM LEHN
STATE OF WAfANGTON } /
COUNTY OF SNOHOMSH }
ON THIS DAY PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME NGAWANG MIGYUR PRESIDENTOF GREEN TAP.A
INCORPORATED, AND PHILLIP LEHN AND MARWd LEHN. KNOWN TO METO BE R¢ INDIVIDUALS
DESCRIBED IN AND WHO AND EXECUTED THE WITHIN AND FORGOING INSTRUMENTAND ACKNOWLEDGED'
THAT THE. SIGNED THE SAME AS THEIR FREE AND VOLUNTARY ACT AND DEED, FOR THE USES AND .
PURPOSES THEREIN MENTIONED.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AN/D OFFICIAL SEAL THIS -:}&iL-DAYOF-zM9yL_ z0*
NOTARY PUBLIC IN XND FOR THE STATE OF WASHWGTf4jF1 NgmS P1686
Bq W. MnANn
RESIDINGAT �l'Vi AL Sb f //IL. /: � ItOSESELYN A MIRANDA
2BOS'
MY APPOINTMENTEXPRES1 •ElO.f
CONDITION
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOUND IN THE FINAL'APPROVAL OFTHE
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. FILE LL-02-X. AND THE ATTACHMENTS THERETO. A COPY OF SAID DOCUMENTS
LOCATED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING DIVISION.
PROVED AND AUTHORIZED FOR RECORDING BY THE CITY OF14,4
EDMONDS PUNNING DIVISION BY
Gt^ #a' .{ THIS --bll' DAY OF 200\
RECORDING CERTIFIC��A��TT7E�tt CJ
FILED FOR RECORD TMSL,LT DAY DFS�` F/ngE,e 20M T /.2• 0* p LL IN
$011V s
BOOK -� OF 4=121-P6478AT PAGE AT THE REQUEST OF GREEN TARA INCORPORATED
DIVISION OF RECORDS AND ELECTIONS
45
0L3 7LrQWlLLIGErP
AHuo/rpa/R7 + ! 7 P"wry
REC N0. -ND�TQ /J-/ Sl✓ /
ACCURACY :TRAVERSE CLOSURE MEETS OR EXCEEDS WAC/332-130-D90 REQUIRMENTS. PROBABLE POSITION ERROR OF CORNERS SET NTH RESPECT TO EXISTING MONUMENTATION IS 0.10 FT.
2 4"7'12006'a ; Opm 32 00 PG
Return Address. ONISH CO N Y, W SHtNGTON
Robert A. Bradley Jr.
731 N. 966 Street
Seattle, WA 98102
UTILITY EASE T
Property Address: 16234 - 72"d Avenue W. Edmonds, WA 98026
Assessor's Property Tax Parcel No,: #00513100006706
NO EXCISE TAX.
REQUIRED
f APR 2.7 2006
BOB DANTINI, Snohomish County Treasurer
By BOB DANTINI
THE UNDERSIGNED, ROBERT A. BRADLEY JR., hereby grants a permanent easement for lots 3 and 4 of
the Corrected Greenness 4 Lot 'Short Subdivision #9902035001 and their owners, heirs, successors, and assigns for the
installation, operation, and maintenance of a stone water •detention and drainage system over, across, through, and below the
following described property, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth and other obstructions interfering
with the locatiote, construction, and: maintenance of said storm; water detention and drainage system, together with the right of
access to, the meat at any time for thestated purpose.
The easement hereby granted is located in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMiSH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, and
is more particularly descaibed as follows: The east ten feet (14') of Lot 3 of the Corrected Greenness4 Lot Short Subdivision
#9902035001 comprising portions of Tracts 66 & 67 of Meadowdale. Beach Suction. 5, 'TWP27A1.,R.4E.W.M. Edmonds,
Washington "Volume �, .Page 38 being. a. portion of the. &W. quarter of the: S.W. quarter of Section 5, Township 27 North
Range 4E WM described as follows:
Beginning at the southeast corner of said lot 3.; thence north 01' 05' 00"east along the east line of said lot 3, a distance of
94.93 feet; thence north 460 17' 53" west a distance of 13.59 feet; thence south 019 05' 00" west, a distance of 102.97 feet to
the .soutinvesteily Tine of said 3; thence.sauth Sr 17' 44" east along :said southwesterly line, a distance of 10.07 feet to the
point of beginning containing an area of 990 square feet more or less.
THE OWNERS OF LOTS 3 ;& .4 and their heirs, successors and assigns shall be equally responsible for
maintaining the stun water detention and drainage system and restoring to substantially the original condition such
improvements as ale disturbed during the maintenance, and repair of said utility or utilities, provided the grantors, their heirs,
or assigns shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within. the permanent easement
3 : i
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF .SNOHOMISH }
On this day personally appeared before me �A� r to me known to ` be the .
individual d9scsibed in and who executed the within and foregoing an ent and acknowledged that
signed the same s y\ 1 free and voluntary act
and deed, for the ums and pugmses.therm meniomed..
UNDER My HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS � � DAY OF
cAna
a',•�N� M.
Ekp•.��.•.-
�pTARvuo
. .�
NOTAkY E ami for the - * : ®• �• : * C
N �PUBL%r"\ .: t cState of Washington, residing at
r -' ' 't
W I / � 24� 2N�j�
c ,•�4OF AS`per,'
I_`r 1 0 J Ns
ET
HAW10 2006wME
0". 17
April 4, 1995
Green Tara Incorporated
16202 - 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904
Attention: Mr.
itect
t0 65-1-7
Earth Consultants Inc.
Ceotecnnical Engineers. Geologists & Environmental scientists
Subject: Visual Site Reconnaissance an
Geotechnical Engineering Study U ate
16202 - 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
Reference: Earth Consult nc.
Geot`echnical Engineering Study
Proposed Russell Residence
16200 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
E-1165, dated December 3, 1979
Greenness Residential Development
Site Plan, dated January 8, 1995
Dear Mr. Lehn:
E-1165-1
RECEIVED
APR - 8 2005
BUILDING DEPT.
We are pleased to present the results of our visual site reconnaissance performed on
February 9, 1995. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to observe the existing site
conditions and to modify or add to the recommendations contained in the referenced study
if necessary. Shallow hand excavations and exposures. on the bluff were utilized to provide
subsurface information for Parcels A and B of the proposed site development.
Based on the results of our reconnaissance, it is our opinion the recommendations contained
in the referenced study remain applicable for the proposed site development with the additions
and modifications contained -in this document. In general, subsurface conditions across both
parcels appear consistent with those encountered during the original investigation.
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project
development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your
consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further
assistance, please call.
7136th Place N.E., Suite
8005
Bellevue (206) 643-3780 Seattle (206) 4641584 01 FAX (206) Washington6.0869 0Tacoma (206) 272.6608
r
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
Project Description
E-1165-1
Page 2
We understand the site is to be developed with four single-family residences, two on Parcel
A and two on Parcel B. At this time, final construction plans are not available; however, we
anticipate the homes to be wood frame structures with either concrete slabs on grade, or
wood -joist supported flooring. Foundations are anticipated to be conventional continuous and
spread footings. Three of the four residences are anticipated to be built into the face of
slopes.
At the time this report was written, specific structural design information was not available.
However, based on our experience with similar projects, we would anticipate wall loads of
approximately two (2) kips per lineal foot, slab loads of about one hundred 0 00) pounds per
square foot (psf) and column loads of about twenty-five (25) kips.
If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review
the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform
a general review of the final design.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The proposed site is located at 16202 - 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The
site is bowl shaped with drainage down to the west from an elevation of about 320 feet near
72nd Avenue West to about 255 feet in the southwest corner of the property. A fifteen foot
high ridge runs along the west property line. This ridge is located at the top of a bluff that
drops about one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet down to another residential
development along the edge of Puget Sound. The parcels have slopes ranging from about 10
percent up to about 65 percent. Relatively level areas are located above the bowl and in the
bottom of the bowl.
Along the north. edge of the bowl, there is an existing house that will remain as part of the
proposed development.
Earth Conm*a►ts. Inc.
w
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
Subsurface
E-1165-1
Page 3
The site was explored for the study performed in 1979 by excavating three test pits in the
vicinity of the upper two houses and by ten hand excavations for the current phase of work.
Hand excavations were performed in order to confirm the consistency of soils with respect
to those observed in 1979.. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface
conditions encountered.
In general, the test pits encountered up to eighteen inches of silty sand (Unified Soil
Classification SM) overlying poorly graded sand with silt, or poorly graded sand (SP-SM
and SP). The poorly graded sands were observed to be in a medium dense to dense condition
with the overlying silty sand being loose to medium dense.
Groundwater was not observed in any of the test pits for the original study, or in any of the
hand excavations performed for.this reconnaissance and update. Additionally, seepage was
not observed on the upper portion of the bluff face.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of
Green Tara Incorporated and its representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the
information of the contractor.
Slope Stability
During our site reconnaissance, the site slopes were observed for signs of instability. At the
time of our reconnaissance, there generally does not appear to be any evidence of instability
such as head scarps, hummocky terrain; or vegetation patterns which would indicate past
slope failures. In addition, indicators of potential future instability such as tension cracks; or
seepage zones were not observed. In our opinion, the site appears stable based on our site
observations and experience.
Earth consultants. Inc.
T 3
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995 -
E-1165-1
Page 4
Additionally, the proposed site development should enhance .slope stability by providing
subsurface drainage and retaining soils, based on our understanding of the proposed
development. Removal of the ridge at the top of the bluff, as proposed, would also enhance
the stability of the bluff by reducing the driving forces.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
Construction areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation and any other
deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used
as structural fill. After -stripping operations are complete, filling operations to provide the
design slab subgrade elevation may then commence. The ground surface where foundations
or structural fill are to be placed should be proofrolled. All proofrolling should be observed by
a representative ,of _ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding,
should be'overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable
base.
Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, slabs, pavements, or any
other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in
horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with
ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at
or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed
in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum dry density except for the top
twelve 0 2) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. -
During dry weather, most. soils which are compactible and non -organic can be used as
structural fill. On -site soils should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the grading
operations are conducted during dry weather and the moisture content of the soil is near the
optimum. However, laboratory testing indicates the native silty sand and sand with gravel
and a trace of silt contain at least five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with
more than five percent fines will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction
and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum
condition.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1
April 4, 1995 Page 5
If the native soil is exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be
necessary to use an imported free -draining granular fill. Fill for this purpose and for use in wet
weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum size of
three inches and no. more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus
3/4-inch fraction.
In order to provide grades for the driveway, it may be necessary to place fill on a sloping
grade. In our opinion, the placement of fill on slopes is generally acceptable; however, where
the slope exceeds 25 percent, the fill should be keyed and benched into the slope.
This process consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway
should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of two feet into medium dense to
dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal
to slightly inward -sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small
bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the benches will vary with the gradient of the
slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the benches.
Plate 1, Slope Fill Placement, schematically shows the keyway and benches.
Foundations
Based on our understanding of the proposed project, the information in the referenced study
and our observations of the site, it is our opinion the proposed buildings can be supported on
a conventional spread and continuous foundation system obtaining support as described in
the referenced study. Residences may be built into the site slopes, provided the footings are
placed such that the face of the footing is a minimum of ten feet from the slope face (Plate 2).
All footing excavations should be observed by an ECI representative prior to placing forms or
reinforcement in order to confirm conditions are as anticipated.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -Grade floors may be supported as recommended in the 1979 study.
Concrete slabs resting on soil ultimately cause the moisture content of the underlying soils to
rise. This results from continued capillary rise and the ending of normal evapotranspiration.
As concrete is permeable, moisture will eventually penetrate the slab unless some protection
is provided.
Earth Comultanta, Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
E-1165-1
Page 6
To minimize these problems, suitable moisture protection measures should be used. Various
alternatives exist, including concrete toppings or additives and synthetic moisture -resistant
Membranes. Information on the product usage, installation and warranty should be obtained
from the manufacturer if these products are used. The effectiveness of such measures can
be improved by installing a capillary break under the membrane or damp -proofed slab.
A capillary break, if used, should consist of a minimum of four inches of free draining sand
or gravel. If a moisture -resistant membrane is used, care should be taken during construction
not to damage the membrane and the seams should be sealed. Two inches of damp sand
may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of
the concrete.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls and foundation walls that will act as retaining walls should be designed to
resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. Walls that are designed to yield
can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit
weight of thhmi five (35) pou�n:d''sI er cubic foot (pcf). The equivalent fluid weight should be
increased to fifty (;50�) pcf fors+walls; that arq.-x str,•ained at: ,the, top *om,free,mov"e„menrt. These
._
values are based on horizontal backfill. For retaining walls allowed to yield and a backfill slope
of up to 2H:1 V, an equivalent fluid weight of sixty-five (65) pcf may be used for design.
The equivalent fluid weights assume that surcharges due to hydrostatic pressures, traffic,
structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on walls. If such'surcharges are to
apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures. The lateral resistance,
design values (friction and passive pressure) given in the referenced study are applicable for
retaining walls.
Retaining walls should be backfilled with a free -draining material conforming to the WSDOT
specification for gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). The free draining material
shouId�ex�tend a minima Hof eighteeahjgb s.,bellindAh. e-wall. The remainder of the backfill
should consist of structural fill. A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of the
wall. Drain pipes located in the free -draining backfill soil should be perforated with holes less
than one-half inch in diameter. The drain pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of one
cubic foot per lineal foot with 3/4-inch rock or should be wrapped with a filter fabric.
Ewth Coos arft. Inc.
Green Tara .Incorporated
April 4, 1995
E-1165-1
Page 7
Seismic Design Considerations
The Puget Sound area is classified as Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
The largest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in
depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Such deep events have exhibited no surface
faulting.
Structures are subject to damage from earthquakes due to direct and indirect action. Direct
action is represented by shaking. Indirect action is represented by foundation soil failures and
is typified by ground failure (rupture), liquefaction or slope failure.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time
during an earthquake. Due to the existence of medium dense to dense soils and the lack of
a near surface ground water table, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction induced
damage at the site is low to minimal.
The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force
procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is
our opinion that site coefficient of 1.2 should be used for the static force procedure as
outlined in Section 2334 of the 1991 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in
section 2335 of the 1991 UBC, the curve for Deep Cohesionless or Stiff Clay Soils (Soil
Type 2) should be used for Figure 23-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes.
Site Drainage
During construction, water must not be allowed to stand in building areas. Loose surfaces
should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture
infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building
foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least
ten feet away from the proposed residences. This gradient may be reduced to 2 percent in
paved areas.
Earth Consukm. . Inc.
V
Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1
April 4, 1995 Page 8
We understand that, due to the sloping nature of the site and proposed daylighting of
structures, it will not be possible to slope the ground surface away from the foundations on
all sides of the buildings. Therefore, where surface gradients are toward the structures,
suitable collection and discharge methods should be utilized to remove water from the building
areas. Two options for collections and discharge of water are a concrete lined swale, or
allowing the gravel backfill for the retaining walls to act as an interceptor trench by not
covering the gravel at the surface with topsoil, or other relatively impermeable material. There
are drainage options other than those mentioned. ECI will be available to discuss drainage
with you.
Groundwater is not anticipated to have a significant impact on construction since no seepage
was observed during the original subsurface exploration or the visual site reconnaissance.
However, if groundwater seepage is encountered in foundation excavations during
construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump
pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent
discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it
may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches.
Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the structure, at or just below the
invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on
Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the
footing drain system. Where foundation walls will act as retaining walls, the retaining wall
drain can also be used as a footing drain.
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is
not being implied and should not be inferred.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1
April 4, 1995 Page 9
State law requires that temporary slopes be inclined at specific slope ratios depending on the
'type of soil exposed on the slope. Based on the information obtained from our field
exploration, the site soils expected to be encountered in excavations would be classified as
Type B by OSHA, and as such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be
sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical). Any temporary slopes
should be observed by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc., during excavation in order
to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated and to provide timely recommendations
should differing soil conditions be encountered. Should slopes not be able to be cut back to
this slope inclination, or cuts greater than twenty feet in depth be required, we can provide
temporary shoring design recommendations upon request.
All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined 2H:1 V or flatter. Recommendations for
support of other permanent slope ratios can be provided on request. All cut slopes should be
observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary
recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening
of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be
allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. All permanently -exposed slopes
should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion. and improve
stability of the surficial layer of soil.
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, and
engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering
judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a
manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of
the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty -A
expressed or implied.
The recommendations submitted in this document are based upon the data obtained from the
test pits and our site reconnaissance. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may
vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory
locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be
requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in
writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
Additional Services
E-1165-1
Page 10
As the engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final
design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have
been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction
specifications.
ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to
observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to
facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior
to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the
foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and
specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services.
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project
development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your
consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can beof further
assistance, please call.
Sincerely,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Q'0z4A -S �Wo-
Douglas S. Lynne
Staff Engineer
4
Kyle R. Campbell, P.E
Manager of Geotechn
R. CAl,�p
e
WAL
DSL/KRC/kml
Attachments: Plate 1 - Slope Fill Placement
Plate 2 - Footings On or Adjacent to Slopes
Plate 3 - Typical Footing Subdrain
Earth Consultant.. Inc.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
FINAL SLOPE GRADIENT
ISEE TEXTIH
V�
A.
- '---KEY"
`ftsili l
EXISTING
GRADE
LEGEND
'..-.'l....Illl�zliNlll ..• Fill
ri
EXISTING
GRADE
8111
TYPICAL "BENCH"
MINIMUM 4 FEET
WIDTH
Free draining, organic free, granular material with a maximum
size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent fines Isilt
and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve l or
other material approved by geotechnical engineer.
Key way fill is same as structural fill described above. Key way
should be minimum 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, extending
the full length of the slope face.
-- Approximate original ground line.
NOTES:
• Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior
to excavating key way or benches.
• Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately
8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet.
• Final slope gradient should be 2:1 [Horizontal: Vertical 1.
• Final slope face should be densified by over building with compacted
fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller.
• Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted
vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area.
• Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help
maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an
opportunity to germinate.
• Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10
Inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted to no less than
the degree specified in the site preparation and earth work section
of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction
is achieved.
SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT
Earth Consultants Inc. Sde
Ceo GeoGreenness Residential Development
eectetl,al t7r,�„oce. lo�ts a FiM,orarrinal ekes
Edmonds, Washington'
Proj. No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95 Checked DSL Dated 3/23/95 Plate 1
Founc
Founda
1/1rj
FOUNDATIONS ON OR ADJACENT TO SLOPES
Greenness Residential Development
Edmonds, Washington
I Proj. No. 1165-1 1 Drwn. GLS . I Date Mar. '95 1 Checked DSL I Date 3/23/95 ; I Plate 2
6 Inch min.
. i
-.% ---- . Slope To Drain
o
7.
4 inch min.
Diameter
Perforated Pipe
Wrapped In Drainage
Fabric
::_- •off::..
i
000 0
18 inch min.
f I T
2 Inch min. / 4 inch max 12 Inch 2 inch min.
min.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
.LEGEND
Surface seal; native sod or other low permeability material.
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the
WSDOT Specifications.
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
Earth Consultants Inc. TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Greenness Residential Development
Coam&mkml Enonmm Ccubgism a Eff4awwwa soffatm
I Edmonds, Washington
P oi. No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95
Lr7 I lChecked DSL Date 3/23/95 Plate 3
h1C*
' Geotechnical Engineering and Geology
12893 N.E. 15th Place, Bellevue, Washington 98M5 / Phone: (206) 455-2019
December 3, 1979 E-1165
Ira Paul and Partners
2134 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98121
Attention: Mr. Ira Paul
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Russell Residence
16200 - 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and within the scope of our
proposal dated September 7, 1979 this report presents the results
Of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the subject
r
The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface soiltcon-
ditions in order to provide recommendations for site preparation,
foundation and retaining wall design. The scope of our study
included test pits, laboratory tests,
analyses, and the preparation of this reporthnical engineering
Our study indicates that the site is underlain at shallow
depths by firm natural soils. The proposed dwelling may be sup-
ported on conventional footings bearing in these firm native
soils.
The following sections describe the study and explain our
recommendations in greater detail.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed
building location were as shown schematically on the Test Pit
Location Plan, Plate 1. This is based on a Site Plan by Ira Paul
and Partners, P. s.
It is planned to construct a two-story, wood -frame dwelling
with a three-story tower on the east side. The house will be
located near the top of the existing slope. The first floor is
planned at approximately El. 308. Planned building
be on the order of 2500 pounds per lineal foot along loads will
walls. g perimeter
. f
Ira Paul and Partners
December 31 1979
E-1165
Page Two
For the proposed first floor grade at E1. 308, we expect that
a maximum cut of about 6.5 feet will be required along the east
side of the -building.
If any of the above design criteria change, we should be con-
sulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In
any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be pro-
vided the opportunity for a general review of final design.
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field investigation was performed on November 6, 1979.
The subsurface_ conditions were explored by excavating three test
pits to a maximum depth of 7 feet below the existing surface
at the approximate locations as shown on Plate 1.
The locations of the test pits were approximately determined
by tape measurements from staked building corners. Elevations of
tests pits were approximately determined by interpolation -between
plan contours. The location and elevation of the test pits should
be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method
used.
The field investigation was continuously monitored by an
engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soils
encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained repre-
sentative bulk soil samples, and observed pertinent site features.
Soils were classified visually in the field according to the
Unified Soil Classification System which is'presented on Plate 2,
Legend. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates
3 and 4, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpre-
tations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory
examination and tests of field samples.
Representative soil samples from the test pits were placed in
closed containers and"returned to our laboratory for further
examination and testing. Visual classifications were supplemented
by index tests such as sieve analyses on representative samples.
Field moisture determinations were performed on each bulk sample.
Results of the moisture determinations together with classifica-
tions, are shown on the test pits logs included in this report.
The results of the sieve analyses are illustrated on Plate 5.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The site is located on a west facing hillslope on the west
side of 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The site is
approximately 133 by 156 feet in plan dimension with a total of
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Ira Paul and Partners E-1165
December 3, 1979 Page Three
about 40 feet of relief. The site is stepped down towards the
west in three benches with rockeries and concrete stairs. An
old dwelling was located in the northern half of the site, with
t concrete slabs, footings and stairs remaining. Vegetation along
the hillside consists mainly of grass, some shrubs and a few older
fir and hemlock trees on the south side. No seepage or surface
! water was noted at the time of our investigation.
f.
Subsurface
The site is immediately underlain by up to 18 inches of silty
topsoil. Below the topsoil, the test pits excavated on the site -
encountered medium dense to dense clean fine to medium sand and
sandy gravels to the depths explored. This sand stratum is the
advance unit of the Vashon drift called the Esperance sand and
was deposited as the Puget lobe of the larger Continental Glacia-
X tion advanced into the Puget Sound lowland, approximately 12,000
to 15,000 years ago. This sand and gravel was deposited directly
in front of the advancing ice sheet by glacial meltwater streams.
The ice reached a maximum thickness of approximately between 3000
4000 feet in this area.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits dur-
ing our investigation.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
' General
From a soil engineering standpoint, we conclude that the site
is suitable for the proposed residential development provided our
recommendations are incorporated into the project design and con-
struction. The primary geotechnical factors that should be con-
sidered in site development are:
1. Disturbed materials below the site.
2. Surface runoff.
3. Old rockeries and building foundations.
The site slopes were observed to be in a generally stable
condition. Since benches had previously been formed on the site
along with construction of rockeries, the potential exists for
some disturbed and/or loosened material to be present within the
building area. Foundations for the building should therefore be
extended to a depth below that of this possible loose zone.
In conjunction with the above, it is essential that surface
runoff on the slopes be properly controlled. Uncontrolled, sur-
E Consultants, Inc.
i
Ira Paul and Partners
December 3, 1979 .
E-1165
Page Four
face runoff could cause excessive erosion which could result in
possible slope instability..
The following sections of this report present more detailed
recommendations for various geotechnical engineering aspects of
the project which should be incorporated into the project design
and construction. This report has been prepared for the exclu-
sive use of Mr. and. Mrs. Allard Russell and their representatives
for specific application to this project in accordance with gen-
erally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other war-
ranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Foundations
The proposed building may be supported on shallow spread and/
or continuous footings founded on the medium dense to dense nat-
ural soils beneath the loose surficial soils. We recommend that
the building be supported on natural soils only. Footings should
be at a minimum depth of 36 inches below the lowest adjacent
grade. .1 minimum width of 18 inches should be used for continuous
footings. No footings should be located closer than 5 feet from
the edge of steep or benched slopes. The footings should be
designed for `anIlro�wab`'�l+�e"bea"�ring apraess9iire 3:500 pounds per
sgLgar;;e .:foot, for dead plus live loads. All footings should be
tied`"together in a continuous rigid grid, which can span local
irregularities in the subsurface. We suggest that all footings
also be designed to structurally span a distance of 10 feet.
A one-third increase over.the above bearing pressure may be
used when considering wind or seismic loads. For footings
designed in accordance with these recommendations, we estimate
that total settlements will be less that 1 inch with differential
settlement less than 1/2 inch.
All footings should be examined by qualified geotechnical per-
sonnel to verify that soil bearing conditions will be as antici-
pated.
Floor Slabs
Floor slabs, if used, may be supported on the recompacted nat-
ural soil. We recommend that a minimum of 4 inches of free
draining granular soil be placed beneath all slabs. A vapor
barrier should be installed between the floor.slab and underlying
soils in areas where moisture is undesirable.
Lateral Loads
Resistance to lateral forces may be developed by passive pres-
sures and/or friction between concrete and soil. Passive pressures
irth Consuhants, Inc.
Ira Paul and Partners
December 3, 1979
E-1165
Page Five
may be assumed to be equal to those imposed 'by an equivalent fluid
weighing 300 pounds per cubic foot. A coefficient of friction of
0.4 may be used for soil - concrete interfaces.
Basement Walls
Basement walls should be designed to resist lateral earth
pressures imposed by retained native soils or backfill. Walls
that are free to deflect one -thousandth of their height at the top
should be designed to resist the pressure imposed by an equivalent
fluid weighing 35 pcf. If walls will be restrained at the top,
they should be designed for an additional uni:for_m latera essure
of 100 psf.
The above design pressures assume a maximum wall height of 8
feet and that no surcharge slopes or loads will develop above the
walls. If these assumptions are not considered valid, we should
be contacted for the appropriate design criteria.
Subsurface Drain
Footing drains should be planned around the proposed struc-
ture, as well as the basement. In addition, a detailed evaluation
should be made during construction to determine if any additional
subsurface drainage measures are warranted.
Surface Drainage
Positive gradients should be provided adjacent to the build-
ing to direct all runoff away from the building and towards
suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of water should not be
permitted. Surface runoff should also not be permitted to flow
in an uncontrolled manner over the top or on the face of any
slopes. Also, the discharge from roof gutters should not be
allowed to enter the perimeter footing drains. The flow should
be carried .in tight lines to suitable storm drainage facilities.
Site Preparation
We recommend that fills, except for minor amounts should be
avoided on the site. The building and pavement areas should be
stripped and cleared of all debris, including old foundations,
rockeries, buried tanks, vegetation, tree roots, and existing
topsoil. After excavation to finished grades, the resulting sur-
face should be proofrolled to detect any loose areas or soft
spots. Any such zones noted should be overexcavated to their full
depth and replaced by structural fill. Proofrolling operations
should be monitored by Earth Consultants, Inc.
If -fills are used, they should be benched into firm natural
ground as they are placed.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Ira Paul and Partners E-1165
December 3, 1979 Page Six
Any required structural fill should be placed in 8-inch loose
horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum
dry density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-70. On -
site soils, where free from organic matter and if not excessively
moist, may be used as structural fill for dry weather construc-
tion. However, some of these materials contain a moderate amount
of fines and may be difficult to compact under wet conditions.
Hence, if wet weather conditions are encountered and if fill is to
be imported, we recommend that the materials be predominantly gran-
ular containing no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200
sieve.
All fills should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer.
All permanent fill and cut slopes should be made at an inclin-
ation no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Temporary con-
struction slopes should be made at an inclination no steeper than
1:1. All permanently exposed slopes should be planted with suit-
able species of vegetation soon after completion to reduce erosion
potential.
Slopes
Based on the results of our geologic reconnaissance and our
test pit study, it is our opinion that the site's slopes are pres-
ently stable and the development may proceed as planned.
We conducted a reconnaissance of the slopes and found them
to be generally stable. The existing slopes have a ground cover
and vegetation that protects them from excessive erosion. This
vegetation.and cover should be allowed to remain wherever possi-
ble. Exposed slopes should be planted with an adequate fast
growing cover to reduce the potential for erosion.
All downspouts should be connected to yard drainage lines
draining off the building site or into a wet well and not allowed
to flow over the slopes. The intent is that yard drainage from
the improved building lot over the top of the bank would not be
greater in.volume or velocity than exists in the natural state
unless mitigated by storm drainage improvements.
Additional Services
It is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided
the opportunity for a general.review of the final design and
specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommenda-
tions may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design
and specifications.
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained from the test pits. The nature and
F= 'onsultants, Inc.
Property
i / �
ti
LEGEND
6ITP-1 Approximate Test pit
Location
/—) --- -Contour interval 5 ft.
Existing Structure
Approximate SCOIS
0 10 20 � �40 �4
60 ft
Site Plan
Undated
Ref.Ira Paul Sk Partners, P.S.
W.3
Eartib
Consultants Inc.
C"COTECHNICAL ENGINEERING A OZOL04V
Test Pit Location l_j_a_n.'
Proposed Russell Residence
Edmonds, Washington
A�rqjj.N�o.1165
�D�ate' N�ov__'7�9�pj,
Plate
e• o -o o•
GRAVEL
o " n °
G W
Ano
CLEAN MAvgLS
•00 �000
GRAVELLY
(little At.. r•..A)
SOILS
i..g. .�
coawst
�.g.y.
C A : !::•EGPGaAI"to
sOIls1011
'NAw lo+L
QP COARs( PNAC-
GAAVtLE Vila rings
TIOw RETAINED
•MNIAAN
a no • SIEVE
^.•A►
GC
• .se
SW
AND CLEAN sane • •
SANDY tb•I1. « N ►i.•AI
MORE THAN 30% SOIL$ : .� :. �•
or MAT[R1AL IS ':: • • : • S P
UAKN THAN /10 :•_. •••.
100 Steve six[
MORE TNAN - s011
Or COARSE /IUIC- SAMOS WITH PINE•
'$am Passing I.PPr.sNAM .M.M.f .f
No- • wive I flA..)
ring SILT$
altal"to AND
SOILS
CLAYS
MORE THAN SO%
OP MATERIAL 19
"ALLEN Titan no
200 SIEVE size
LIQUID UNIT
LESS TIIan so
U04MO LIMIT
GREATER TIP*" go
MISMLY OwsAwlC SOILS
I TeIGAL DESCRIPTIONS
WEu•MAOEo NAVELS. SNa11Rl•faNO
SnRTYAIEs, LITTLE M No PINES
rOONIySRaO" GIIAVELS, sRavRL.
SAMG MIXTUR.gS. LITTLE M no Pities
MTV SRAvgLS, GRAVEL.SawD-
BILT MIXTURE!
CLAYEY Stia"Ls. GRAVEL -SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
Steu-Sam"D SAM". SaavELLY
lAMDO. LITTLE M no PINES
rO"LY-ONA4o SAMBS. GRAVCLLT
SAN". LITTLE A No PINES
SM I SILTY M"OS, SAND•sILT MIXTURES
SC Ic"YeT Samos. !MO -Clay MI1tTUR[s
ML
CL
&"". Node rLomn' SILTY OM
CLAYEY FOUR SANDS ON CLAYEY
I00020C curs Or LOW To ingolUs
PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS,
SNlor CLAYS, NOT CLAYS, LEAw
CLAJ-
ORGANIC SILTS Ago QNSaMC
SILT' CLAYS O/ LOW PLASTtdyy
MM A1Wt GILTS, MICACEQUS on
beard —cows rtma GAM on
awry $OIL
010016*A t CLAY! or MIsM
PLASTICITY. PAT CLAYS
ORSaMIC CLAYS Or MEGRIM . TO "Is"
PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILT$
RAT, HUMUS. "WI SOILS
WIT" "ISM ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE- DUAL oTMSOLS ARX USED TO INDICATE 00401111.1111111 SOIL CLASSIP,CATIOwf
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
T"( OISCUSSIOw IN T"e TEXT or T"1! nt"*T 1$ NECISSARY ION A Pap►(" UMo
OP Toot MATURE Or role MATERIAL ►RptNITAMOtIN
E"TEO IN T"[ AT TAC"e0 LOGS
1 2"O.D. Split Spoon Sampler
Ring or Shelby Sample
P Sampler Pushed
Sample Not Recovered Earth
-7 Water Level ( date) Consultants it,
Ts Torvane Reading L EG E N
�ou 0enetrometer Readings
4..tater Observation Well 1165
Proi.No. Date No,
M
Depth
(ft0. )_
5 —
10 —
15 --
0—
5
10
15
TEST PIT NO.
Logged By DKIJ
Date 11/6179
Elev. 2 ±
USCS W
Soil Description M Lab Data
Tpsl Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist -
GP IBrown, clean, sandy GRAVEL, medium
dense, moist. 1 3.4
SP ' Gray, clean SAND with gravel, dense, moist. 11 8.8
No groundwater encountered.
Logged By DKW
Date 11/6/79 TEST PIT NO. 2 Elev. 5+
Tpsl Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist.
SM I Brown SAND with some silt and I
SP gravel, medium dense, moist. 8.
Groundwater not encountered.
� I Earth I
Consultants Inc. � � I�
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED RUSSELL RESIDENCE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No.1165 1 Date Nov. ' 79 I Plate 3 -
Depth
(ft. )
0
5
10
15
TEST PIT NO. 3
Logged By DKW
Date 11/6/79
USCS Soil Description
Elev. 310±
W
(96) Lab Data
Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist.
54
SP
Brown, clean, gravelly SAND with occasional
cobbles, medium dense, moist.
SP
Gray, clean, fine to medium SAND,
medium dense, moist.
Groundwater not encountered.
II ' 1
!W-t h
Coittsultanu Inc. '
GEOTECNPIICAL ENGINEERING Q GEOLOG-
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED RUSSELL RESIDENCE
EDMON DS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 1165 Date Nov. ' 79 Plate 4
Earth Consultants Inc.
Geotechnical Engineers. Geo"ists & Environrn ntW Scientists
April 4, 1995
Green Tara Incorporated
16202 - 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026-4904
Attention: Mr. Phillip Lehn, Architect
Subject: Visual Site Reconnaissance and
Geotechnical Engineering Study Update
16202 - 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Russell Residence
16200 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
E-1165, dated December 3, 1979
Greenness Residential Development
Site Plan, dated January 8, 1995
Dear Mr. Lehn:
E-1165-1
RECEIVE®
APR - 8 2005
BUILDING DEPT.
i„
E
We are pleased to present the results of our visual site reconnaissance performed on
February 9, 1995. The purpose of our reconnaissance was to observe the existing site
conditions and to modify or add to the recommendations contained in the referenced study
if necessary. Shallow hand excavations and exposures on the bluff were utilized to provide
subsurface information for Parcels A and B of the proposed site development.
Based on the results of our reconnaissance, it is our opinion the recommendations contained
in the referenced study remain applicable.for the proposed site development with the additions
and modifications contained -in this document. In general, subsurface conditions across both
parcels appear consistent with those encountered during the original investigation.
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project
development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your
consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further
assistance, please call.
Bellevue (206) 643-3780 1 Seattle (20) 464-1584 01, Bellevue, (26)74746.0860n 9 Tacoma (206) 272.6608
Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1
April 4, 1995 Page 2
Project Description
We understand the site is to be developed with four single-family residences, two on Parcel
A and two on Parcel B. At this time, final construction plans are not available; however, we
anticipate the homes to be wood frame structures with either concrete slabs on grade, or
wood -joist supported flooring. Foundations are anticipated to be conventional continuous and
spread footings. Three of the four residences are anticipated to be built into the face of
slopes.
At the time this report was written, specific structural design information was not available.
However, based on our experience with similar projects, we would anticipate wall loads of
approximately two (2) kips per lineal foot, slab loads of about one hundred 0 00) pounds per
square foot (psf) and column loads of about twenty-five (25) kips.
If any of the above design criteria are incorrect or change, we should be consulted to review
the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained to perform
a general review of the final design.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The proposed site is located at 16202 - 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The
site is bowl shaped with drainage down to the west from an elevation of about 320 feet near
72nd Avenue West to about 255 feet in the southwest corner of the property. A fifteen foot
high ridge runs along the west property line. This ridge is located at the top of a bluff that
drops about one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet down to another residential
development along the edge of Puget Sound. The parcels have slopes ranging from about 10
percent up to about 65 percent. Relatively level areas are located above the bowl and in the
bottom of the bowl.
Along the north edge of the bowl, there is an existing house that will remain as part of the
proposed development.
Earth Cormukarft. Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
Subsurface
E-1165-1
Page 3
The site was explored for the study performed in 1979 by excavating three test pits in the
vicinity of the upper two houses and by ten hand excavations for the current phase of work.
Hand excavations were performed in order to confirm the consistency of soils with respect
to those observed in 1979. The following is a generalized description of the subsurface
conditions encountered.
In general, the test pits encountered up to eighteen inches of silty sand (Unified Soil
Classification SM) overlying poorly graded sand with silt, or poorly graded sand (SP-SM
and SP). The poorly graded sands were observed to be in a medium dense to dense condition
with the overlying silty sand being loose to medium dense.
Groundwater was not observed in any of the test pits for the original study, or in any of the
hand excavations performed for this reconnaissance and update. Additionally, seepage was
not observed on the upper portion of the bluff face.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report has been prepared for specific application to this project only and in a manner
consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of the
profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area for the exclusive use of
Green Tara Incorporated and its representatives. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made.
This report, in its entirety, should be included in the project contract documents for the
information of the contractor.
Slope Stability
During our site reconnaissance, the site slopes were observed for signs of instability. At the
time of our reconnaissance, there generally does not appear to be any evidence of instability
such as head scarps, hummocky terrain, or vegetation patterns which would indicate past
slope failures. In addition, indicators of potential future instability such as tension cracks; or
seepage zones were not observed. In our opinion, the site appears stable based on our site
observations and experience.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
E-1165-1
Page 4
Additionally, the proposed site development should enhance .slope stability by providing
subsurface drainage and retaining soils, based on our understanding of the proposed
development. Removal of the ridge at the top of the bluff, as proposed, would also enhance
the stability of the bluff by reducing the driving forces.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
Construction areas should be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation and any other
deleterious material. Stripped materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used
as structural fill. After stripping operations are complete, filling operations to provide the
design slab subgrade elevation may then commence. The ground surface where foundations
or structural fill are to be placed should be proof rolled. All proofrolling should be observed by
a representative of ECI. Soil in any loose or soft areas, if recompacted and still yielding,
should be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill to a depth that will provide a stable
base.
Structural fill is defined as any compacted fill placed under buildings, slabs, pavements, or any
other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under floor slabs and footings should be placed in
horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and compacted to a
minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density determined in accordance with
ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at
or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed
in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of maximum dry density except for the top
twelve 0 2) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density.
During dry weather, most soils which are compactible and non -organic can be used as
structural fill. On -site soils should be suitable for use as structural fill, provided the grading
operations are conducted during dry weather and the moisture content of the soil is near the
optimum. However, laboratory testing indicates the native silty sand and sand with gravel
and a trace of silt contain at least five percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve. Soil with
more than five percent fines will degrade if exposed to excessive moisture, and compaction
and grading will be difficult if the soil moisture increases significantly above its optimum
condition.
Earth Consultmrts. Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated E-1165-1
April 4, 1995 Page 5
If the native soil is exposed to moisture and cannot be adequately compacted then it may be
necessary to use an imported free -draining granular fill. Fill for this purpose and for use in wet
weather should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum size of
three inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus
3/4-inch fraction.
In order to provide grades for the driveway, it may be necessary to place fill on a sloping
grade. In our opinion, the placement of fill on slopes is generally acceptable; however, where
the slope exceeds 25 percent, the fill should be keyed and benched into the slope.
This process consists of excavating a keyway at the toe of the planned fill. The keyway
should have a width of about six to eight feet and a depth of two feet into medium dense to
dense native soil. The slope above the keyway should then be cut into a series of horizontal
to slightly inward -sloping benches. Typically, the benches are excavated with a small
bulldozer as the fill is brought up. The width of the benches will vary with the gradient of the
slope, usually the gentler the slope, the wider the benches.
Plate 1, Slope Fill Placement, schematically shows the keyway and benches.
Foundations
Based on our understanding of the proposed project, the information in the referenced study
and our observations of the site, it is our opinion the proposed buildings can be supported on
a conventional spread and continuous foundation system obtaining support as described in
the referenced study. Residences may be built into the site slopes, provided the footings are
placed such that the face of the footing is a minimum of ten feet from the slope face (Plate 2).
All footing excavations should be observed by an ECI representative prior to placing forms or
reinforcement in order to confirm conditions are as anticipated.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -Grade floors may be supported as recommended in the 1979 study.
Concrete slabs resting on soil ultimately cause the moisture content of the underlying soils to
rise. This results from continued capillary rise and the ending of normal evapotranspiration.
As concrete is permeable, moisture will eventually penetrate the slab unless some protection
is provided.
Earth ConsukaMs, Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
E-1165-1
Page 6
To minimize these problems, suitable moisture protection measures should be used. Various
alternatives exist, including concrete toppings or additives and synthetic moisture -resistant
Membranes. Information on the product usage, installation and warranty should be obtained
from the manufacturer if these products are used. The effectiveness of such measures can
be improved by installing a capillary break under the membrane or damp -proofed slab.
A capillary break, if used, should consist of a minimum of four inches of free -draining sand
or gravel. If a moisture -resistant membrane is used, care should be taken during construction
not to damage the membrane and the seams should be sealed. Two inches of damp sand
may be placed over the membrane for protection during construction and to aid in curing of
the concrete.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls and foundation walls that will act as retaining walls should be' designed to
resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the retained soils. Walls that are designed to yield
can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit
weight of thirty-five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The equivalent fluid weight should be
increased to fifty (50) pcf for walls that are restrained at the top from free movement. These
values are based on horizontal backfill. For retaining walls allowed to yield and a backfill slope
of up to 2H:1 V, an equivalent fluid weight of sixty-five (65) pcf may be used for design.
The equivalent fluid weights assume that surcharges due to hydrostatic pressures, traffic,
structural loads or other surcharge loads will not act on walls. If such surcharges are to
apply, they should be added to the above design lateral pressures. The lateral resistance,
design values (friction and passive pressure) given in the referenced study are applicable for
retaining walls.
Retaining walls should be backfilled with a free -draining material conforming to the WSDOT
specification for gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT 9-03.12(2)). The free draining material
should extend a minimum of eighteen inches behind the wall. The remainder of the backfill
should consist of structural fill. A perforated drain pipe should be placed at the base of the
wall. Drain pipes located in the free -draining backfill soil should be perforated with holes less
than one-half inch in diameter. The drain pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of one
cubic foot per lineal foot with 3/4-inch rock or should be wrapped with a filter fabric.
Earth Consuharrts. Inc.
Green Tara .Incorporated
April 4, 1995
Seismic Design Considerations
E-1165-1
Page 7
The Puget Sound area is classified as Seismic Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (UBC).
The largest earthquakes in the Puget Lowland are widespread, subcrustal events, ranging in
depth from thirty (30) to fifty-five (55) miles. Such deep events have exhibited no surface
faulting.
Structures are subject to damage from earthquakes due to direct and indirect action. Direct
action is represented by shaking. Indirect action is represented by foundation soil failures and
is typified by ground failure (rupture), liquefaction or slope failure.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of time
during an earthquake. Due to the existence of medium dense to dense soils and the lack of
a near surface ground water table, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction induced
damage at the site is low to minimal.
The UBC Earthquake regulations contain a static force procedure and a dynamic force
procedure for design base shear calculations. Based on the encountered soil conditions, it is
our opinion that site coefficient of 1.2 should be used for the static force procedure as
outlined in Section 2334 of the 1991 UBC. For the dynamic force procedure outlined in
section 2335 of the 1991 UBC, the curve for Deep Cohesionless or Stiff Clay Soils (Soil
Type 2) should be used for Figure 23-3, Normalized Response Spectra Shapes.
Site Drainage
During construction, water must not be allowed to stand in building areas. Loose surfaces
should be sealed at night by compacting the surface to reduce the potential for moisture
infiltration into the soils. Final site grades must allow for drainage away from the building
foundations. The ground should be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent for a distance of at least
ten feet away from the proposed residences. This gradient may be reduced to 2 percent in
paved areas.
Earth Conauhanta. Inc.
l
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
E-1165-1
Page 8
We understand that, due to the sloping nature of the site and proposed daylighting of
structures, it will not be possible to slope the ground surface away from the foundations on
all sides of the buildings. Therefore, where surface gradients are toward the structures,
suitable collection and discharge methods should be utilized to remove water from the building
areas. Two options for collections and discharge of water are a concrete lined swale, or
allowing the gravel backfill for the retaining walls to act as an interceptor trench by not
covering the gravel at the surface with topsoil, or other relatively impermeable material. There
are drainage options other than those mentioned. ECI will be available to discuss drainage
with you.
Groundwater is not anticipated to have a significant impact on construction since no seepage
was observed during the original subsurface exploration or the visual site reconnaissance.
However, if groundwater seepage is encountered in foundation excavations during
construction, the bottom of the excavation should be sloped to one or more shallow sump
pits. The collected water can then be pumped from these pits to a positive and permanent
discharge, such as a nearby storm drain. Depending on the magnitude of such seepage, it
may also be necessary to interconnect the sump pits by a system of connector trenches.
Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the structure, at or just below the
invert of the footing, with a gradient sufficient to initiate flow. A typical detail is provided on
Plate 3. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the
footing drain system. Where foundation walls will act as retaining walls, the retaining wall
drain can also be used as a footing drain.
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for. construction site safety or the Contractor's activities; such responsibility is
not being implied and should not, be inferred.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
E-1165-1
Page 9
State law requires that temporary slopes be inclined at specific slope ratios depending on the
type of soil exposed on the slope. Based on the information obtained from our field
exploration, the site soils expected to be encountered in excavations would be classified as
Type B by OSHA, and as such, temporary cuts greater than four feet in height should be
sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1 HA V (Horizontal: Vertical). Any temporary slopes
should be observed by a representative of Earth Consultants, Inc., during excavation in order
to confirm that the soil conditions are as anticipated and to provide timely recommendations
should differing soil conditions be encountered. Should slopes not be able to be cut back to
this slope inclination, or cuts greater than twenty feet in depth be required, we can provide
temporary shoring design recommendations upon request.
All permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined 2H:1 V or flatter. Recommendations for
support of other permanent slope ratios can be provided on request. All cut slopes should be
observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Supplementary
recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability, including flattening
of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case, water should not be
allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slopes. All permanently -exposed slopes
should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve
stability of the surficial layer of soil.
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, and
engineering analyses, the design information provided us, and our experience and engineering
judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in a
manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by other members of
the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in this area. No warranty is
expressed or implied.
The recommendations submitted in this document are based upon the data obtained from the
test pits and our site reconnaissance. Soil and groundwater conditions between test pits may
vary from those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory
locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should be
requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and to modify or verify them in
writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Green Tara Incorporated
April 4, 1995
Additional Services
E-1165-1
Page 10
As the engineer of record, ECI should be retained to perform a general review of the final
design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have
been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction
specifications.
ECI should also be retained to provide geotechnical services during construction. This is to
observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to
facilitate design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior
to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility for the performance of the
foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and
specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing services.
We appreciate this opportunity to have been of service to you during this phase of project
development, and we look forward to working with you in the future. Should you or your
consultants have any questions about the content of this letter, or if we can be of further
assistance, please call.
Sincerely,
EARTH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Douglas S. Lynne
Staff Engineer
It— � ' �'t
Kyle R. Campbell, P.
Manager of Geotech
DSL/KRC/kml
JEWMES t►ttstk�-
Attachments: Plate 1 - Slope Fill Placement
Plate 2 - Footings On or Adjacent to Slopes
Plate 3 - Typical Footing Subdrain
Exth Consukw tr. Inc.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
FINAL SLOPE GRADIENT : • r' LIIl=1�1=►11 tll
ISEE TEXTIH t�•, (lirl�
V� r' EXISTING
r� t GRADE
TYPICAL-BENCH-
t� =111 MINIMUM 4 FEET
} 11 M111
.c:.:.�;:•s':.: WIDTH
KEY
EXISTING Ili
GRADE
LEGEND
Free draining, organic free, granular material with a maximum
size of 3 inches, containing no more than 5 percent fines (silt
and clay size particles passing the No. 200 mesh sieve 1 or
other material approved by geotechnical engineer.
Key way fill is same as structural fill described above. Key way
should be minimum 2 feet deep and 6 feet wide, extending
the full length of the slope face.
---- Approximate original ground line.
NOTES:
• Slope should be stripped of topsoil and unsuitable materials prior
to excavating key way or benches.
• Benches will typically be equal to a dozer blade width, approximately
8 feet, but a minimum of 4 feet.
• Final slope gradient should be 2:1 I Horizontal : Vertical 1.
• Final slope face should be densified by over building with compacted
fill and trimming back to shape or by compaction with dozer or roller.
• Planting or hydroseeding slope face with a rapid growth deep rooted
vegetative mat will reduce erosion potential of slope area.
• Use of pegged in place jute matting or geotechnical fabric will help
maintain the seed and mulch in place until the root system has an
opportunity to germinate.
• Structural fill should be placed in thin loose lifts not exceeding 10
Inches in thickness. Each lift should be compacted . to no less than
the degree specified in the site preparation and earth work section
of this report. No additional lift should be placed until compaction
Is achieved.
SLOPE FILL PLACEMENT
Earth Consultants Inc. Sd
Ceo
GtaRttatlpl DGreenness Residential Development
t�to[,g, lab{lsls i FiM,vunEntel Wltts
Edmonds, Washington'
1proi. No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95 Checked DSL Dated 3/23/95 Plate 1
�J
Founc
Founda
FOUNDATIONS ON OR ADJACENT TO SLOPES
Earth Consultants Inc- Greenness Residential Development
'�MGOWOOM `"crdW Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95 Checked DSL Date 3/23/95 Plate 2
Slope To Drain o e
•rG T J 1 O • O •
1 3 < y - • O
6 inch min. °
_ ..Ak
:... •. 18 inch min.
4 inch min. e:e '• " o
Diameter ; r.::'::. . - • ° ° o
Perforated Pipe��
Wrapped in Drainage _.. - o : o • o ° ° ° o 0
Fabric • 0.. ° " °• ° • ° ° ° ° o •
2 inch min. / 4 inch max. 12 inch 2 inch min.
min.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LEGEND
Surface seal; native soft or other low permeability material.
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the
WSDOT Specifications.
ODrain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent.
Eartrl COnSL11t�1ts Inc
�+ruc Engkim ccoi "aEnwom "MSckwtft Greenness Residential Development
Edmonds, Washington
Prof. No. 1165-1 Drwn. GLS Date Mar. '95 Checked DSL Date 3/23/95 Plate 3
vonsu
hie*
' Geotechnical Engineering and Geology
12893 N.E. 15th Place, Bellevue, Washington 98005 / Phone: (206) 455.2018
December 3, 1979 E-1165
Ira Paul and Partners
2134 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98121
Attention: Mr. Ira Paul
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study
Proposed Russell Residence
16200 - 72nd Avenue West
Edmonds,. Washington
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and within the scope of our
proposal dated September 7, 1979 this report presents the results
Of our Geotechnical Engineering Study for the subject project.
The purpose of this study was to explore the subsurface soil con-
ditions in order to provide recommendations for site preparation,
foundation and retaining wall design. The scope of our study
included test pits, laboratory tests, geotechnical engineering
analyses, and the preparation of this report.
Our study indicates that the site is underlain at shallow
depths by firm natural soils.
ported on conventional footings Tbearing he oindthese lfirm ingmnativesup-
soils.
The following sections describe the study and explain our
recommendations in greater detail. ,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At the time our study was performed, the site and proposed
building location were as -shown schematically on the Test Pit
Location Plan, Plate 1. This is based on a Site Plan by Ira Paul
and Partners, P. S.
It is planned to construct a two-story, wood -frame dwellin
with a three-story tower on the east side. The house will be g
located near the top of the existing slope. The first floor is
planned at approximately E1. 308. Planned building
be on the order of 2500 pounds per lineal foot along be will
walls. g perimeter
t
t
Ira Paul and Partners
December 3, 1979
For the proposed
a maximum cut of about
side of the -building.
E-1165
Page Two
first floor grade at El. 308, we expect that
6.5 feet will be required along the east
If any of the above design criteria change, we should be con-
sulted to review the recommendations contained in this report. In
any case, it is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be pro-
vided the opportunity for a general review of final design.
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Our field investigation was performed on November 6, 1979.
The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating three test
pits to a maximum depth of 7 feet below the existing surface
at the approximate locations as shown on Plate 1.
The locations of the test pits were approximately determined
by tape measurements from staked building corners. Elevations of
tests pits were approximately determined by interpolation -between
plan contours. The location and elevation of the test pits should
be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method
used.
The field investigation was continuously monitored by an
engineering geologist from our firm who classified the soils
encountered, maintained a log of each test pit, obtained repre-
sentative bulk soil samples, and observed pertinent site features.
Soils were classified visually in the field according to the
Unified Soil Classification System which is"presented on Plate 2,
Legend. Logs of the individual test pits are presented on Plates
3 and 4, Test Pit Logs. The final logs represent our interpre-
tations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory
examination and tests of field samples.
Representative soil samples from the test pits were placed in
closed containers and returned to our laboratory for further
examination and testing. Visual classifications were supplemented
by index tests such as sieve analyses on representative samples.
Field moisture determinations were performed on each bulk sample.
Results of the moisture determinations together with classifica-
tions, are shown on the test pits logs included in this report.
The results of the sieve analyses are illustrated on Plate 5.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
The site is located on a west facing hillslope on the west
side of 72nd Avenue West in Edmonds, Washington. The site is
approximately 133 by 156 feet in plan dimension with a total of
1 Earth Consultants, Inc.
Ira Paul and Partners E-1165
December 3, 1979.Page Three
about 40 feet of relief. The site is stepped down towards the
west in three benches with rockeries and concrete stairs. An
old dwelling was located in the northern half of the site, with
concrete slabs, footings and stairs remaining. Vegetation along
the hillside consists mainly of grass, some shrubs and a few older
t fir and hemlock trees on the south side. No seepage or surface
water was noted at the time of our investigation.
f.
Subsurface
The site is immediately underlain by up to 18 inches of silty
topsoil. Below the topsoil, the test pits excavated on the site -
encountered medium dense to dense clean fine to medium sand and
sandy gravels to the depths explored. This sand stratum is the
advance unit of the Vashon drift called the Esperance sand and
was deposited as the Puget lobe of the larger Continental Glacia-
x tion advanced into the Puget Sound lowland, approximately 12,000
to 15,000 years ago. This sand and gravel was deposited directly
in front of the advancing ice sheet by glacial meltwater streams.
The ice reached a maximum thickness of approximately between 3000
- 4000 feet in this area.
Groundwater was not encountered in any of the test pits dur-
ing our investigation.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
From a soil engineering standpoint, we conclude that the site
is suitable for the proposed residential development provided our
recommendations are incorporated into the -project design and con-
struction. The primary geotechnical factors that should be con-
sidered in site development are:
1. Disturbed materials below the site.
2. Surface runoff.
3. Old rockeries and building foundations.
The site slopes were observed to be in a generally stable
condition. Since benches had previously been formed on the site
along with construction of rockeries, the potential exists for
some disturbed and/or loosened material to be present within the
building area. Foundations for the building should therefore be
extended to a depth below that of this possible loose zone.
In conjunction with the above, it is essential that surface
runoff on the slopes be properly controlled. Uncontrolled, sur-
E- Consultants, Inc.
`:;�
i
Ira Paul and Partners
December 3, 1979
E-1165
Page Four
face runoff could cause excessive erosion which could result in
possible slope instability..
The following sections of this report present more detailed
recommendations for various geotechnical engineering aspects of
the project which should be incorporated into the project design
and construction. This report has been prepared for the exclu-
sive use of Mr. and Mrs. Allard Russell and their representatives
for specific application to this project in accordance with gen-
erally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other war-
ranty, expressed or implied, is made.
Foundations
The proposed building may be supported on shallow spread and/
or continuous footings founded on the medium dense to dense nat-
ural soils beneath the loose surficial soils. We recommend that
the building be supported on natural soils only. Footings should
be at a minimum depth of 36 inches below the lowest adjacent
grade. A minimum width of 18 inches should be used for continuous
footings. No footings should be located closer than 5 feet from
the edge of steep or benched slopes. The footings should be
designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 3500 pounds per
square foot, for dead plus live loads. All footings should be
tied together in a continuous rigid grid, which can span local
irregularities in the subsurface. We suggest that all footings
also be designed to structurally span a distance of 10 feet.
A one-third increase over the above bearing pressure may be
used when considering wind or seismic loads. For footings
designed in accordance with these recommendations, we estimate
that total settlements will be less that 1 inch with differential
settlement less than 1/2 inch.
All footings should be examined by qualified geotechnical per-
sonnel to verify that soil bearing conditions will be as antici-
pated.
Floor Slabs
Floor slabs, if used, may. be supported on the recompacted nat-
ural soil. We recommend that a minimum of 4 inches of free
draining granular soil be placed beneath all slabs. A vapor
barrier should be installed between the floor.slab and underlying
soils in areas where moisture is undesirable.
Lateral Loads
Resistance to lateral forces may be developed by passive pres-
sures and/or friction between concreteand soil. Passive pressures
firth Consuuitants, Inc.
v.
Ira Paul and Partners E-1165
December 3, 1979 Page Five
may be assumed to be equal to those imposed 'by an equivalent fluid
weighing 300 pounds per cubic foot. A coefficient of friction of
0.4 may be used for soil - concrete interfaces.
Basement Walls
Basement walls should be designed to resist lateral earth
pressures imposed by retained native soils or backfill. Walls
that are free to deflect one -thousandth of their height at the top
should be designed to resist the pressure imposed by an equivalent
fluid weighing 35 pcf. If walls will be restrained at the top,
they should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure
of 100 psf.
The above design pressures assume a maximum wall height of 8
feet and that no surcharge slopes or loads will develop above the
walls. If these assumptions are not considered valid, we should
be contacted for the appropriate design criteria.
Subsurface Drainage
Footing drains should be planned around the proposed struc-
ture, as well as the basement. In addition, a detailed evaluation
should be made during construction to determine if any additional
subsurface drainage measures are warranted.
Surface Drainage
Positive gradients should be provided adjacent to the build-
ing to direct all runoff away from the building and towards
suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of water should not be
permitted. Surface runoff should also not be permitted to flow
in an uncontrolled manner over the top or on the face of any
slopes. Also, the discharge from roof gutters should not be
allowed to enter the perimeter footing drains. The flow should
be carried..in tight lines to suitable storm drainage facilities.
Site Preparation
We recommend that fills, except for minor amounts should be
avoided on the site. The building and pavement areas should be
stripped and cleared of all debris, including old foundations,
rockeries, buried tanks, vegetation, tree roots, and existing
topsoil. After excavation to finished grades, the resulting sur-
face should be proofrolled to detect any loose areas or soft
spots. Any such zones noted should be overexcavated to their full
depth and replaced by structural fill. Proofrolling operations
should be monitored by Earth Consultants, Inc.
If -fills are used, they should be benched into firm natural
ground as they are placed.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Ira Paul and Partners
December 3, 1979
E-1165
Page Six
Any required structural fill should be placed in 8-inch loose
horizontal lifts and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum
dry density as'determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557-70. On -
site soils, where free from organic matter and if not excessively
moist, may be used as structural fill for dry weather construc-
tion. However, some of these materials contain a moderate amount
of fines and may be difficult to compact under wet conditions.
Hence, if wet weather conditions are encountered and if fill is to
be imported, we recommend that the materials be predominantly gran-
ular containing no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200
sieve.
All fills should be observed and tested by the Soil Engineer.
All permanent fill and cut slopes -should be made at an inclin-
ation no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Temporary con-
struction slopes should be made at an inclination no steeper than
1:1. All permanently exposed slopes should be planted with suit-
able species of vegetation soon after completion to reduce erosion
potential.
Slopes
Based on the results of our geologic reconnaissance and our
test pit study, it is our opinion that the site's slopes are pres-
ently stable and the development may proceed as planned.
We conducted a reconnaissance of the slopes and found them
to be generally -stable. The existing slopes have a ground cover
and vegetation that protects them from excessive erosion. This
vegetation.and cover should be allowed to remain wherever possi-
ble. Exposed slopes should be planted with an adequate fast
growing cover to reduce the potential for erosion.
All downspouts should be connected to yard drainage lines
draining off the building site or into a wet well and not allowed
to flow over the slopes. The intent is that yard drainage from
the improved building lot over the top of the bank would not be
greater in -volume or velocity than exists in the natural state
unless mitigated by storm drainage improvements.
Additional Services
It is recommended that Earth Consultants, Inc. be provided
the opportunity for a general.review of the final design and
specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommenda-
tions may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design
and specifications.
The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are
based upon the data obtained from the test pits. The nature and
F- 'onsultants, Inc.
i
0
M '
\ I
:•4tTrt,,114t•.
itL••Yt�: ti'{:��
WO
O
.:•.Ott 4t t1i t4ti �..
.r. :•.•:CM
��t, k•t /
�:}}•tti i•\\\5�� �t} /
t •t�,,�,qq,
,
\ ��\ N
on
I
,— Property
3
T Icz
ti
LEGEND
is TP-1 Approximate Test pit
Location
/—) -- Contour Interval 5 ft.
Existing Structure
Approximate scale
Z===3
40 60 ft.
Site Plan
Undated
Ref.Ira Paul a Partners, P.S.
F.artj&
Consultants i1w.
G'EO'r!EC"F41C^L WholmegM,
OROLOGY
Test Pit Location --p---I-a--n-'
Proposed Russell Residence
Edmonds, Washington
Arojj.N�o.1165
�Date Nov-'79
Plate �l
SYMBOL ISYMB
e.
oAArEI
:s o.. e"o
b
G W
AND
CLEAN MAr[Ll
'Op �040
611Av[LLT
11//Ih M M /1••A{
SOILS
i..O. �:. j
COARI[
�.R.y.
t::4 : �:: •
P
CA A/Nl o
laLa
j
MGM TMAN 9M
I(•AF•M'lAIA
GM
CIF COARs( rnAC-
oAArEIl �wIfM IIM[!
I
TIOn R(T419[D
N
o'l Roo Eger[
T"I••I
.C�1
GC
• � o
SAND
• • • •
' •• • •• '
ARO
CLEAN $AMD
�� • �� •
$&NOT
11�•n• « w /:••AI
'long T»AN 30%
loll$
•' ::
MATIMIAL IS
LAnsIN TMAN 00
• •.•.
200 solve SIZE
Hong TMAN
Or COANSE InAC-
$Allot MTN place
TION /AssIND
I
IA►/•w.AAI• ene"/ st
No. • sari(
TIAAAI
SW
SP
I T VICAL DESCRIPTIONS
RLL-SIIAO[D MAYELS, DRAr(L-SANG
IRRTUPWO. LITTLE M No FINS
•OONLT-MAKO DRArgLg, SRArgL•
OARO INRTIAI[S. LITTLE M No rings
SILTY SRAMS. ORAr[L- WD-
SILT MXTURp
CLATIT AIIArELS, DRAY[L-lANS-
CLAY MgfURq
wSLL-MAOEO SAIMS- SAAr(LLT
IAMO. LITTLE OR no rings
rOONIY-MAo[S BANDO. MAYELLT
OANOD. LITTLE a1 No rings
SM I SILTY SAMOD. SAND -SILT MI[TURgE
SC ICLATET WIDS. SAND -CLAY MIITLRgS
ML
sAmD, soar FLOUR, tIITT OA
CLATET FINE SANDS OR CLATET
►1Ng
oAAoll[o
SILTS
LIQUID UMIT
OUR w T
mg
INMSAMC CLAY! Ol LOw TO M(DIW
SOIL[
AND
CLAYS LClS THAN Do
C'L
PLASTICITY, DIIAY[LLT CLAYS,
SAVOY CLAYS, SILTY CLATS. LgM
CLAYS
mnOL
ODIC SILTS AND ORSAMC
SILTY CLAYS OF Low ILASTOTT
0006" C SILTS. MICACEOUS on
MH
OIATOMACCOM Flog SAND on
NON[ THAN SOX
SILTY !OILS
OF MATERIAL 19
SILTS
SMALLER TMAII NO
AND LIQUID LIMIT
•REAT[n
CH
SIORDANIC CLAYS
fOD !I[r[ f12[
CLAYS TKAN SO
or RISK
PLASTICITY FAT CLAYS
OH
0004101OF MgORM - To "IS"
. ..
TIaTY,YS
MMNIC SILTS
MIDMLT
OMSANIC SOILS -•' - -
• :.
P T
PEAT, MINIM, "I' SOILS
WIT" MIDM ONDANIC CONTgRTD
NOTE: OVAL lfMSOLs as USES To INDICATE DORDERLINE SOIL CLASSI►ICATION$
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
THE DISCUSSION IN TM[ TEST OF Tells M[PMT IS
NECESSARY ►On A PROrER UNOgRltAND11M
OF fll[ MATUn[ OF TiltMATERIAL ►nESENTED IR I"'[ATTACKED Los$
T 2"O.D Split Spoon Sampler
]� Ring or Shelby Sample
P Sampler Pushed
Sample Not Recovered Earth
-V Water Level ( date) Consultants Is
Ts . Torvane Reading L EG E N
�ou Penetrometer Readings
'`*,Gt9r Observation Well
--- R-Oj.No. 1165. Data Noy
Logged By DKIJ
Date 11/6l79
Depth
(ft.) USCS
0
5
10
15
TEST PIT NO.
Soil Descrintinn
Elev.320±
W
Tpsl
Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist:
IV/
3.4
8.8
VYV VQ�p
GP
Brown, clean, sandy GRAVEL, medium
dense, moist.
SP
Gray, clean SAND with gravel, dense, moist.
No groundwater encountered.
Logged By DKW
Date 11/6/79 TEST PIT NO. 2 Elev. _-1f)ri+
0
4—L—PsdBrown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist.
5.
10
15
SFt I Brown SAND with -some silt and
SP aravel, medium dense, moist.
Groundwater not encountered.
Earth
Consultants Inc. y
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING & GEOLOGY
91
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED RUSSELL RESIDENCE
E DMONDS , WAS H I NGTON
Proj. No. 1165 1 Date Nov. ' 79' Plate 3 -
Depth
(ft. )
0
5
10
15
A
TEST PIT No. 3
Logged By DKW
Date _11/6/79
USCS Soil Description
Elev. 310±
W
(%) Lab Data
Brown, silty TOPSOIL, loose, moist.
54
SP
Brown, clean, gravelly SAND with occasional
cobbles, medium dense, -moist.
SP
Gray, clean, fine to medium SAND,
medium dense, moist.
Groundwater not encountered. ,
kim t h
Coitsultants Inc. '
GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERING 6 GEOLOG'
TEST PIT LOGS
PROPOSED RUSSELL RESIDENCE
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
Proj. No. 1165 I Date Nov. ' 79 I Plate 4
'NI CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
In e 1 gc10 Planning • Building • Engineering
July 52006 STREET FILE
Mr. Phillip Lehn, Architect
Lehn Desir Collaborative
16202 72° Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
RE: Bradley Request for Green Roof Alternate Design, Plan Check #05-135
Dear Mr. Lehn:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
The City is in receipt of your supplemental letter and documentation (received June 16, 2006) to
the request for alternate design regarding the Bradley green roof. The City received the latest
revised architectural plans on June 26, 2006 which contain specific details of the Carlisle
Coatings green roof assembly.
This letter only addresses the. alternate design request for the green roof product Carlisle
Coatings, and the statements and/or personal comments made throughout your June 16, 2006
letter. All Building Code plan review responses shall be reviewed separately by the City.
After review of the information submitted, it is my determination as Building Official for the
City of Edmonds that the use of Carlisle Coatings and Waterproofing green roof assembly, as an
alternate method and material under the provisions of International Residential Building Code
(2003 edition), is approved with the following conditions:
• Installation is limited to the product Carlisle Coatings and Waterproofing green roof
assembly on plywood substrate per manufacturer detail GR 500-61).
• All work shall be performed in accordance with Carlisle specifications
This letter does not constitute an endorsement of the subject product and shall not to be used in
any manner to promote Carlisle Coatings and Waterproofing products or any portions of the
assembly. As with all alternate design requests the City suggests that property owners consult
with legal advisors and their insurance company regarding liability associated with alternate
designs.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Mr. Lehn
Page Two
July 5, 2006
Regarding statements made throughout your June 16, 2006 letter which included the alternate
design information for the Carlisle green roof we have the following comments:
• The March 171h plan submission you made to the. City, consisted of two sets of plans, one
set was missing the sheets noted .in Building Division plan review comments dated
4/3/06. The City's consultant plan set was complete so his review was not affected. The
second set of plans was kept in-house for staff review and that is why the missing sheets
were brought to your attention. We suggest you check your plan sets thoroughly to
account for all sheets before bringing your plans to the City for submittal.
• Regarding the Lot 2 grading and driveway plan, the City shall review this proposal
separately under separate permit submittal.
• As you have been repeatedly told the City Planning Division determines Critical Areas
and imposes ECDC Chapter 23 requirements. If you have continued questions regarding
status or determination of Critical Areas for the Bradley lot or any lot within the affected
subdivision contact Rob Chave, Planning Manager directly. When critical areas are
determined on a site compliance to applicable provisions of ECDC Chapter 23 are
imposed including permitting requirements of ECDC 19.00.010.
• With regard to peer review of rockeries and retaining walls in Critical Areas, at this time,
the City Engineer is the lead staff person who determines when peer review is required
for rockeries and retaining walls that are located in a critical area.
• The City accepts Mayes Testing as the Special Inspection firm of record who will be
responsible for inspections noted on the Special Inspection Agreement form.
• Thank you for acknowledging that all foundation plans submitted to date have been
missing foundation spot footing dimensions.
• Thank you for acknowledging your computer glitch on plan omissions.
• Regarding the Bamboo Rain Screen Siding, as discussed at the meeting, include the
structural engineer's details for siding attachment in addition to your architectural details.
This will be reviewed separately.
• Regarding your paragraph on your choice to request alternate designs. You have been
repeatedly advised that you could have shown a prescriptive roofing and siding method
on the plans and submitted alternate design review requests independently. It was your
choice as Architect of Record to submit all plans to date with specific siding and roofing
products and/or assembly systems that are not conventional or expressly permitted or
recognized in the code which are therefore subject to the provisions of IBC 104.11 for
alternate designs/methods. The City concurs you have delayed this project by insisting
that the plans only show roofing and siding products that are not conventional which
requires an alternate design, and also by failing to submit requested documents in a
timely manner.
• Regarding the manufacturer's details for the plywood substrate application, the City first
received the manufacturers' detail GR 500-61) by Carlisle Coatings and Waterproofing
on 6/16/06 and is part of this alternate design approval.
C' y
Mr. Lehn
Page Three
July 5, 2006
• Threatening to withdraw the Bradley permit application shall have no bearing on the
decision to approve or deny this or any other alternate design request submitted.
• Regarding 17232 Sealawn Place; alternate design provisions have been included in the
Building Code since at least 1964 and until green roofs are a conventional roofing
assembly recognized in the building code alternate design request approval shall continue
to be required by the City.
• In response to your statement, `rockery and two alternate designs permit, were any of
these permits actually required by statute or policy or did our building officials decide on
their own to impose them ... or are simply an exercise of the building officials authority'.
As you should be aware, IBC 104.11 is the code for alternate designs. A comprehensive
regulatory document such as the building code cannot envision and then address all
future innovations in the building industry. As a result a performance code must be
applicable to and provide a basis for the approval of newly developed products. The
building official is expected to apply sound technical judgment in accepting materials and
is responsible for determining if a requested alternate provides the equivalent level of
protection to public health, safety and welfare as required by the code. Furthermore, IBC
104.11.1 establishes the provisions for supporting data to assist the building official in the
approval of materials and assemblies. It is .the supporting data submitted by the design
professional that should prove code equivalency. To date you have only been asked to
provide copies of information which is readily available from the manufacturer (product
letters, technical data, manufacturer's specifications, etc.). The City has not requested
nor has imposed the testing requirements of IBC 104.11.2. None of the requested
material data was created by your office we have only requested copies of documents
readily available and supplied by the manufacturer so again we strongly disagree that any
delay has been caused or created by the City in this matter.
• Again, by adding personal comments within plan review responses you slow down the
City's review process. If you wish to personally comment on your perception of the City
Building Division it is more appropriate to write separate correspondence to the
Department Director, Mr. Duane Bowman.
• The City shall not respond to your paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 on page six but highlight those
paragraphs as specific examples of personal comments within plan review responses that
are not appropriate and slow down the City's review on the Bradley permit application.
• Thank you for allowing City staff members to browse your presentation boards on green
design.
Lastly, you have not provided enough information on the Hydro -Tech roofing product for
approval at this time. If additional information is provided (similar to the Carlisle product, as
referenced in City letter dated 6/9/06) it will be considered for approval.
n
Mr. Lehn
Page Four
July 5, 2006
Sincerely,
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official, C.B.O.
Cc: Robert A. Bradley, Jr.
References associated with this Alternate Design Request
Letters
• March 17, 2006: Request for Alternative Materials, Design and Methods of Construction
from Architect, Phil Lehn (addressed to Hoyt Jeter, City Plan Review Consultant)
• April 3, 2006: Comments regarding Alternate Design request from Ann Bullis, Assistant
Building Official, requesting formal request to Building Official and general additional
information that needs to be submitted for her review
• May 10, 2006: Response letter from Architect.to Jeannine Graf, Building Official
• June 9, 2006: Letter from Building Official to Architect requesting additional
information
• June 16, 2006: Response letter from Architect to Building Official
Product information
• General product brochure for Carlisle Coatings and Waterproofing, received 5/10/06.
• Letter dated 5/3/06 from David Barnes, Technical Service for Carlisle Coatings and
Waterproofing, received 5/10/06
• Manufacturer's detail GR 500-61) (showing plywood substrate), received 6/16/06
• Testing report for CCW-500R, received 6/16/06
• CAN/CGSB-37.50-M89 National Standard of Canada, received 6/16/06
• CCW 500R Technical brochure, received 6/16/06
• CCW 500R-G Specifications, received 6/16/06
• CCW 500 Reinforcing Fabric Specification Sheet, received 6/16/06
• CCW MiraDRAIN GR9200 Specification Sheet, received 6/16/06
• Carlisle's Moisture Mat Specification Sheet, received 6/16/06
• Carlisle's ROOT BARRIER Specification Sheet, -received 6/16/06
• CCW 550 Primer Specification Sheet (as required on manufacturer's detail GR 500-61)),
printed by City Staff from website 6/27/06
• CCW 711-90 Membrane and Flashing (as required on manufacturer's detail GR 500-61)),
printed by City Staff from website 6/27/06
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
I� c 18 p Planning • Building • Engineering
June 9, 2006
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Mr. Phillip Lehn, Architect
Lehn Desin Collaborative STREET
FILE
16202 72° Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington 98026
RE: Bradley Request for Alternate Design, Plan Check #05-135
Green Roof & Bamboo Rain Screen Siding
Dear Mr. Lehn:
The City is in receipt of your supplemental letter to the request for alternate design regarding the
Bradley green roof and bamboo rain screen siding. This letter will only address the Bamboo Rain
Screen Siding alternate design request; a second letter shall be issued on the green roof alternate design
request.
After.review of the information submitted, it is my determination as Building Official for the City of
-Edmonds that the use of Bamboo Rain Screen Siding as an alternate method and material under the
provisions of International Residential Building Code (2003 edition) is approved with the following
conditions:
• Installation is limited to the specific Bamboo Rain Screen Siding assembly as described in your
letters to the City dated 3/17/06 and 5/10/06
• Specific details of the assembly shall be included on your plans submitted to the City
• Structural attachment of the siding shall be pursuant to the approved structural detail prepared
and stamped by Gary M. Swenson, PE #9982 Washington State Licensed Engineer, dated
5%2/06
• All work shall be performed in accordance with manufacturer's specifications
This letter does not constitute an endorsement of the subject product and shall not to be used in any
manner to promote Bamboo Rain Screen Siding or any portions of the assembly. As with all alternate
design requests the City suggests that property owners consult with legal advisors and their insurance
company`regarding liability associated with alternate designs.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Cicfor Cifi, - HoLin .lar.
Mr. Lehn
Page Two
June 9, 2006
Regarding your paragraph on establishing a collaborative process, as the City's Building Official I
must avoid creating any special relationship with any Architect, Engineer, Contractor, Homeowner,
Business Owner, or Product Representative to avoid the appearance of arbitrary or capricious decisions
in carrying out the duties of my position. The approval of the bamboo rain screen siding was made
because, as the Architect of Record, you provided satisfactory evidence, testing and proof of code
equivalency.
Lastly by adding personal comments within plan review responses you slow down the City's review
process. If you wish to personally comment on your perception of how well or poorly the City
performs plan review, how review fees are established and collected, etc. it is more appropriate to
write separate correspondence to the Department Director, Mr. Duane Bowman.
Sincerely,
6�T
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official, C.B.O.
Cc: Robert A. Bradley, Jr.