Loading...
16720 76TH AVE W.PDF11111111111111 15062 16720 76TH AVE W PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY AND. STEEP SLOPE EVALUATION PROPOSED ECHELBARGER RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR MR. DEAN ECHELBARGER 1 C FILE Calw< � I� c►� 30 n� C SL/fvlr �c vf� S s, ATTACHMENT 6 NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • Fax 481-2510 June 5, 1998 Mr. Dean Echelbarger c/o Mr. Michael Smith Lovell — Sauerland and Associates 19400 — 33'd Avenue West, Suite 200 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 e Preliminary Geotechnical Study and Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence Edmonds, Washington NCA File No. 233098 Dear Mr. Echelbarger, INTRODUCTION Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation at your proposed residential lot in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located south of 16710 — 761h Avenue West and is known as Lot 10 of the Brookacres subdivision. The approximate location of the planned development is shown on the Site Vicinity map as Figure 1. You plan to construct a single-family residence on the site. You have requested that we address site development considerations in an "Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area", as defined by the City of Edmonds. We have been provided with a copy of the building footprint with boundary and topography, dated February 2, 1998, a copy of boundary and topography showing 40 percent slopes, architectural sketches showing the planned structure in cross section, and excerpts from Earth Subsidence Package pertaining to geotechnical requirements for our use in preparing this report. The project site is the last undeveloped lot in the Brookacres subdivision. It is located between two residential houses. The lot is located on the flank of a steep ravine. You plan to construct a one-story Preliminary Geotechnical Study and Steep,Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 2 residence with a daylight basement. The lower level will have a structurally supported floor and will extend out over the ravine. Minimal grading is anticipated. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions and present recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: 1. Review published soils and geologic maps for the area. 2. Explore the subsurface conditions with power auger borings. 3. Map surficial conditions at the site including cross-section geometry of the steep slopes. 4. Provide an evaluation of slope stability. 5. Provide recommendations for erosion control and site drainage. 6. Provide recommendations for site preparation, grading and structural fill. 7. Provide recommendations for foundations and concrete retaining wall design. 8. Address the criteria called out on the critical areas and environmental checklists. 9. Prepare a written report to document our conclusions and recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The project site is accessed through a gated private driveway. The lot is a rectangular shaped parcel approximately 79 feet by 104 feet in size. Total elevation loss across the site is on the order of 40 feet based on the topographic plan provided. The eastern portion of the property is gently sloping and is landscaped where it borders the adjacent access driveway. The site then slopes moderately to steeply. down to the west. The slope continues west of the lot line down to a creek. A profile was measured in the field using a 100-foot measuring tape and a hand clinometer. This profile is presented as Cross -Section A -A' as shown on Figure 3. We measured slope inclinations ranging from 16 to 103 percent with an average inclination of 60 percent. The profile measured in the field matches closely with the topographic plan provided. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 t • Preliminary Geotechnical Stuond , Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 3 A recent slough type slope failure was observed in the north end of the lot, as shown on the Site Plan. The scarp is approximately 10 feet high. A broken drainpipe was observed at the low point of this scarp. Loose sloughed soil was observed below the scarp face down to the creek. This loose soil is on the order of 2.5 to 4.0 feet thick. The origin of this drainpipe appears to be a catch basin in the access driveway. We were informed by a neighbor that this failure occurred after last years heavy snowfall and rapid snow melt. There also appeared to be an older scarp at the steepest portion of the site within the center of the lot. This scarp is on the order of 16 feet in height and is shown on the Site Plan. A concrete drainpipe was observed exiting the area of this older scarp. The pipe is connected to a plastic drainpipe that was routed through the center of the lot to the outlet at the creek. In a phone conversation, Pat Echelbarger informed us that this drainpipe routes storm water.from the tennis courts across the street. For descriptive purposes, the portion of the lot above these failed scarp areas will be referred to in this report as the upper portion of.,the lot. The area of the scarps and slope below will be referred to as the lower portion of the lot. The upper portion of the site is vegetated with several 1-foot to 3-foot diameter straight growing cedar trees and some scattered brush. The trunks of the trees appeared straight. One of these trees is located at the top of the apparent older scarp where the slope drops off steeply in the center of the planned building pad. A 1-foot diameter deciduous tree is located just upslope from the recent scarp at the north end of the site. It has become undermined and has begun to fall over. The lower portion of the lot is vegetated with low brush, which appeared to be held in place with thin plastic mesh. There are also a few young deciduous trees scattered in the lower portion of the site. Surficial water seepage was observed in the south half of the lot. Areas of loose saturated soil were observed just downslope from the seepage areas. Shallow subsurface conditions were exposed in the scarp in the north end of the site. The scarp is about 10-feet high vertically. The upper 3 to 4 feet of soil in the scarp consisted of orange -brown, fine to coarse sand with gravel and silt. This material is interpreted as fill. A thin layer of dark brown organic soil was observed in the scarp underlying the fill. Below the organic layer we observed about 3 feet of tan, hackled, fine sandy silt. The lowest portion of the scarp was observed to consist of very stiff, gray slightly fractured silt. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stucpand Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 4 Directly below the scarp we observed soil which appeared to have sloughed off the slope face. Further down the slope we observed medium dense to dense sand overlying very dense, silty sand with gravel and cobbles. The very dense, silty sand layer is interpreted as older till. This till unit is considered older till as it was deposited by glacial events previous to the most recent glaciation, the Vashon Stade. Older till was observed in an exposure along the creek near the southeast corner of the lot as shown on the Site Plan. Dense sand was observed in an exposure at the creek, further down the creek to the north. Geology The Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles Snohomish and King Counties, Washington, (U.S.G.S. 1975) by Mackey Smith was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions at the site. The surfical geology is mapped as the Whidbey Formation (Qw). We have reviewed the report titled "Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington," by Roger Lowe Associates Inc., dated October 16, 1979 and have found that the project site is south of, and outside of, the Meadowdale Landslide (Qols) area. The Whidbey formation is an interglacial deposit consisting of bedded sands silts and clays. Our explorations encountered silt interbedded with sand interpreted to be part of the Whidbey formation. This unit was found to overly dense, silty fine sand. This latter unit is interpreted to be an older glacial till deposit. Both the Whidbey formation and the older till deposit have been consolidated by the weight of over 3000 feet of glacial ice. Explorations The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on April 14, 1998 by drilling three borings with a portable hollow -stem auger drill rig. Boring 1 was drilled to a depth of 24 feet in the upslope side of the planned residence. Borings 2 and Boring 3 were drilled near the downslope side of the planned residence. Boring 2 was drilled to a depth of 5 feet where refusal was encountered, possibly due to a large boulder. Borings 3 was drilled to a depth of 10 feet where refusal was encountered due to hard drilling. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. Samples were collected at selected intervals using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter sampler using a.140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows to drive the sampler for three 6-inch intervals is recorded. The blow count or "N" value is the total number of blows to drive the last 12-inches. Our field geologist was present during the explorations and collected soil. samples at specific intervals. He examined the soils and geologic conditions NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 j Preliminary Geotechnical Stuond • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 5 encountered and maintained logs of the explorations. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented in Figure 4. The logs of the explorations are presented in Figures 5 through 7. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches (unless otherwise noted) is shown on the logs. Subsurface Conditions In Boring B-1 we encountered a surficial layer of topsoil approximately 3 feet thick. The topsoil horizon was underlain by 2.5 feet of loose brown, fine to medium sand. This horizon was underlain by stiff to hard silt interbedded with fine sand seams to a depth of approximately 18 feet. The upper portion of the silt horizon appeared hackled. The lower portion exhibited some fractures. This silt horizon is interpreted to be part of the Whidbey formation. The silt deposit was underlain by dense to very dense silty sand interbedded with silt to the depth explored. Borings B-2 and B-3 were advanced on the down slope side of the proposed residence. We encountered dense fine to coarse sand, interbedded with silty sand to a depth of 7 feet in Boring B-3. We encountered refusal on a boulder or cobble at a depth of 5 feet in Boring B-2. In Boring B-3 very difficult drilling was encountered below 7 feet and refusal was encountered at a depth of 10 feet in Boring 3. We were unable to retrieve a sample from a depth of 10 feet. Based on surface mapping we interpret this horizon to be the older glacial till. Hydrologic Conditions Saturated surface soils were observed in the southeast portion of the lot. The soils appeared to be saturated as a result of seepage at the ground surface further upslope. Slight seepage was observed in Boring 1 at a depth between 5.5 feet and 6.0 feet. The shallow ground water seepage is interpreted to be perched within near surface soils on top of the less permeable very stiff silts. A perched water condition develops when surface water infiltrates through the more permeable surface soils and is stopped by less permeable soils at depth. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The erosion potential is related to vegetative cover and NELSON COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stufand • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 6 the specific surface soil types (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic units. We have referenced the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The surface soils were mapped by SCS and classified as the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (15% to 25% slopes) and Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam (25% to 70% slopes). The erosion hazard for these soils is listed as being moderate and high respectively. Landslide Hazard Our explorations found the core of the slope to consist of stiff to hard silt deposits and dense to very dense older till deposits were exposed at the toe of the slope. The upper.portion of the lot is vegetated with large diameter mature cedar trees that indicate that significant slope failure has not occurred in the area for many years. We consider these interglacial and glacial deposits to be of moderate to high strength. These soils are considered stable with regard to deep-seated earth movement. We did not observe signs of deep-seated slope failures at the time of our study. We noted some shallow sloughing had occurred on the steeper portion of the lot. Drainpipes were observed at the base of each of these failures. There is the potential that seepage or clearing of blocked pipes contributed to these slough events. Slough events of this type are typically shallow in nature and occur as the native soils weather on steeper slopes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General In our opinion, the site is suitable for the planned development provide the recommendations in this report are followed. Based on the previous landslide hazard investigation by Roger Lowe and Associates and our interpretation of soil conditions, the site is considered to have a very low probability of occurrence of a deep-seated landslide. Shallow slough -type failure events have occurred on the site in the past and may occur in the future. These types of events typically occur as the surface soils on a steep slope weather and loose strength. Controlling drainage and maintaining vegetation on the slopes can reduce the potential for these types of failures. It is our opinion that site stability should remain the same during construction. Site stability after construction will be improved from its present condition, and potential impact to adjacent properties should be reduced. It is our opinion that the upper portion of the proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. Footings should be founded on the stiff to hard native silt soils NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. •Prelimin`ary Geotechnical Studod • .Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 7 or on structural fill extending to these horizons. These soils were generally encountered at depths of about 5 feet. Shallow foundations should be adequately setback from the face of the steep slope. This is discussed further in the Foundation Setbacks subsection. The downslope side of the structure should be supported on piers or piles to provide adequate bearing and protection from future slough events. The allowable capacity of the piles or piers will be dependent upon the amount of penetration into the bearing horizon. Due to the very dense nature of the native soils, it may be difficult or impossible to install a driven pile to a significant depth. We recommend considering using drilled piers or auger cast piles. Casing of the upper portion of the hole may be necessary if drilled open hole piers are used. Boulders or obstructions could be encountered in the glacial till unit. Installation of drilled piers or auger cast piles will be a challenge on the moderate to steeply sloping site. A large boom rig may be required. It may be prudent to consult a contractor specializing in this type of work to determine what type of deep foundation is easiest to install before proceeding with a specific design. A range of potential capacities for deep foundations is presented in the Foundation subsection. It may be best to install one foundation type rather than mixing deep and shallow. foundations. It is our opinion that the foundation and pile caps should be tied together to make the structure act as a unit. This may be accomplished by using grade beams to connect the pile caps. This is intended to reduce the impact of a shallow slough event or surficial creep on a single -pier foundation. We anticipate that subsequent design meetings will be needed between the geotechnical and structural engineer to discuss the best way to accomplish this. We do not recommend placing fill on the steep slope unless it is retained. Based on the plans provided, we do not anticipate significant fill placement will occur on the site. Some fill may be placed for the planned driveway. Recommendations for fill placement.and compaction are presented in the Structural Fill subsection. We observed two drainpipes daylighting in the planned building footprint. These pipes are located in the area of recent and older slough failures. There is the potential that flow through these pipes contributed to the surface sloughing in these areas. We recommend that the origin of these drainpipes be determined. The outfall should be rerouted outside of the planned building footprint to reduce the potential for future slough events or erosion on the slopes. It would be best to install a comprehensive drainage system for the site. This is discussed in the Erosion Control and Drainage subsection of this report. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Preliminary Geotechnical Stu yond Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 8 Site Preparation and General Earthwork The first step of site preparation should be to strip the surficial duff, topsoil, fill and buried topsoil to expose stiff to hard glacial soils in pavement and building areas. This material should be removed from the site, or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. The underlying soils are considered Highly moisture sensitive, and will disturb easily and become difficult to work with when wet. At the exploration locations, the depth to stiff/medium dense or better soil was encountered at depths of about 5 feet. In driveway areas it may be feasible to remove the topsoil and compact the existing fill in place. With this approach some risk of settlement is possible. . This can be evaluated further at the time of construction. If deep foundations are utilized only minimal stripping will be necessary to remove the surfical vegetation and topsoil in the building area. We do not recommend placing additional fill at the top of slope unless it is retained. We recommend that earthwork be conducted during the drier summer months, if possible. A blanket of rock spalls may be required to provide access for construction equipment. We recommend assuming a 1 foot thickness of spalIs for estimating purposes. Footings should be prepared in accordance with our recommendations for Foundations. Alternative site preparation methods should be determined based on conditions observed in the field. Temporary and Permanent Slopes Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors such as the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open and the presence of surface or ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable temporary cut slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water conditions encountered. We do not anticipate significant temporary cuts for the planned structure. However, some cuts may be necessary for the installation of foundations at the top of and on the slope. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the loose surficial soils, fill or weathered soils be no greater than 1H:1 V. We recommend the temporary cuts in the unweathered native silt soil and older till be no steeper NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. '-Preliminary Geotechnical StuOnd • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 9 than a 0.75H:IV. If loose soils or perched ground water were encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate the cut slopes during construction and provide additional recommendations as needed. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to WISHA/OSHA standards. Final cut slope inclinations for structural fill and the native soils should be no steeper than 2H:1V. Lightly compacted fills or common fills, should be no steeper than 3H:1V. Common fills are defined as fill material with some potential organics that are "trackrolled" into place. They would not meet the compaction specification of structural fill. Final slopes should be vegetated and covered with straw or jute netting. The vegetation should be maintained until it has been established. We do not recommend the addition of fill to the top of the existing steep slope. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate any planned fill placement on this site. Structural Fill General: Fill placed beneath buildings, pavements, or other settlement sensitive features, should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or qualified soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork subsection. Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality free -draining granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches. Imported, all weather fill should contain no more than about five percent fines (soil finer than a U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. No. 3/4 inch sieve). Some of the existing fill may be suitable for reuse as fill. Due to the moisture sensitivity of the on -site silt and till soils, it would be difficult to use these soils as fill without moisture conditioning. We recommend that these soils not be considered for use as fill at this time. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Study and • Steep -Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 10 Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed. Structural Pill should be placed in 8- to 10-inch thick uniform lifts. All fill underlying building areas, and within two feet of pavement subgrade, should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557 Compaction Test procedure. Fills more than two feet beneath pavement subgrades should. be compacted to 90 percent of their maximum dry density. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum so that a readily compactible condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactible condition is not feasible. All compaction should be done with equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Foundation Setback The purpose of foundation setbacks from a slope is to establish a buffer zone between a structure and a slope, such that if a slope failure should occur it would not -endanger the structure. In general the greater the setback, the lower the risk that the structure will sustain damage from a slope failure. We recommend that the bottom of the foundations be placed at least 10 feet horizontal distance from the slope face. In addition, foundations should extend at least two feet into the stiff/medium dense to hard/very dense native soils. The foundation depths should be increased (relative to normal foundation depths) to satisfy this . . . setback distance and recommended embedment. Our recommended setback and embedment are shown on Figure 8. The required foundation depth will be a function of the slope inclination and the depth of loose soil at foundation location. At our cross section location, the steepest slopes in the vicinity of the planned structure are on the order of 103 percent. The greatest thickness of loose surfcial soil is on the order of 5 feet. These inclinations and depths should be suitable for estimating foundation depths for preliminary purposes. Final depths should be based on actual slope inclinations and soil conditions at final footing locations. Representatives from our office should evaluate all depths and setback distances in the field at the time of construction. Foundations General: We anticipate that the planned structure will be founded on a combination of conventional shallow foundations and piles or piers or entirely on piles or piers. Shallow and deep foundations should have sufficient embedment to maintain an adequate effective setback from the face of the slope as discussed above. Our recommendations for shallow and deep foundations are presented below. NEL S ON- C 0 U VRE TTE & ASS0CIA TES, INC. a.Prelirninary Geotechnical Studed Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 11 Conventional Shallow Footings: Conventional foundations could be placed on undisturbed stiff/medium dense to hard/very dense native soils along all but the downslope side of the residence. These soils were encountered at depths of about 5 feet in our explorations. Exterior footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the finished ground surface and interior column footings extend a minimum of 12 inches below the basement slab. Some variation and potential additional depths should be expected where loose soils are encountered. The downslope side of the foundation line should be supported on drilled piers or auger cast piles as recommended in the Drilled Piers subsection below. Minimum foundation widths of 18 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and spread footings, respectively. All foundations should extend through any fill encountered on site. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above and founded on the undisturbed native soil, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design. A geotechnical representative from our firm should evaluate the foundation bearing soil. A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Structural loading information was not available at the time of this study. Based on our experience with similar developments supported on similar soil conditions and for the above allowable soil bearing pressures, we estimate that the maximum total post -construction settlement should be three-quarters (3/4) of an inch or less. The differential settlement across the building width should be one-half (1/2) inch or less across a distance of about 50 feet. Drilled Piers: Along the downslope side of the building, the structure should be supported on drilled concrete piers or auger cast piles. Due to the steeply sloping terrain it will be difficult to develop lateral resistance on the down slope side of the piles or piers. Grade beams or bracing between pile or pier locations may be needed to provide lateral support. In this way, lateral loads may be tied back into other portions of the foundation system. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Study d • Steep -Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 12 Design capacities in the range of 5 to 30 tons may be attained depending upon the diameter of the pile or pier and depth of embedment. We recommend that piles or piers meet the minimum effective setback distance from the face of slope as detailed in the Foundation Setback subsection. We recommend that piles or piers be embedded a minimum of five feet into the bearing soil horizon. We note that obstructions may be encountered when drilling into the older till formation. Retaining Walls The upslope cut for the daylight basement may require the use of a concrete retaining wall. The lateral earth pressure acting on retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed and the inclination of the backfill. Walls that are free to yield at least one -thousandth of the height of the wall are in an "active" condition. Walls restrained from movement by stiffness or bracing are in an "at rest" condition. Active earth pressure and at rest earth pressure can be calculated based on equivalent fluid density. Equivalent fluid densities for active and at rest earth pressure of 42 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 66 pcf, respectively, may be used for design for a level backslope. These values assume that the on -site soils are used for backfill, are compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density from ASTM D 1557, and that the wall backfill is drained. If imported well -graded granular fill is used, the equivalent fluid densities for active and at rest pressure can be reduced to 35 and 55 pcf, respectively. The preceding values do not include the effects of surcharges, such as foundation loads, traffic or other surface loads. Surcharge effects should be considered where appropriate. The above lateral pressures may be resisted by friction at the base of the foundation and passive resistance. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to determine the base friction in the stiff/medium dense to hard/very dense native soils. An equivalent fluid density of 185 pcf should be used for passive resistance design. These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive pressures, the foundations should be poured "neat" against the native dense soils, or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of the footing, and the soil in front of the wall should extend a horizontal distance at least equal to three times the foundation depth. We recommend that the upper 1-foot of soil be neglected when determining the passive resistance. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 ,t Pre] iminary"Geotechnical Stand Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 13 Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess Iateral soil pressures due to overcompaction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in 8-inch loose lifts and compacting with small hand -operated compactors. Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls as recommended in the Erosion Control and Site Drainage subsection of this report. Erosion Control and Site Drainage Erosion control methods should be undertaken during site development and construction to prevent surface runoff from flowing into the creek. Straw bales or silt fence should be constructed down slope from construction grading areas and along the steep slope. Excavation cuts exposed to wet weather should be covered with plastic sheeting properly anchored in place. The site soils are considered highly susceptible to erosion on the steep slopes when stripped of vegetation. In the upper portion of the site where the existing vegetation is not disturbed, erosion potential should be minimal. Erosion control measures should conform to applicable city requirements. The finished ground surface should be graded such that stone water is collected and directed to an appropriate discharge location. A comprehensive drainage system should be developed for the site. This may entail routing storm water to an established system or installing a system on the lot. If a system needs to be installed on the lot, one or two catch basins could be installed above the top of slope in strategic locations. The outlet from the catch basins should be HDPE pipe, which is anchored to the slope. A suitable energy dissipater should be installed at the outfall from the HDPE pipes. The source of the existing concrete pipes daylighting on the slope should be investigated. These pipes could be tied to the comprehensive system or routed around the structure. Concentrated runoff should not be allowed to discharge onto the slopes. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from buildings and roadways. We suggest that the finished ground surface be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from structures. We recommend using a suitable capillary break and vapor barrier for slabs -on -grade. Vapor barriers should be used in any case .for slabs where moisture control is important. Roof drains should not be connected to the perimeter footing drain or wall drain systems until they are a minimum of 1-foot down gradient of the footing drain. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical StuAnd • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 14 Footing drains should be installed around the upslope side and the north and south sides of the planned residence. Perimeter footing/wall drains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by free -draining material, such as pea gravel, installed at the base of the footing. This should be determined by laboratory testing prior to backfilling. The pea gravel should be extended up to within 1 foot of the ground surface. The upper 1-foot should be capped with a relatively impermeable material to minimize surface water from entering into the drain system. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drainpipes be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspout drains must be separately tightlined to discharge. The footing drain system should have a minimum of 12 inches of vertical fall before it is connected to the storm water system. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this preliminary geotechnical study for use by Mr. Dean Echelbarger and his agents for their use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subgrade conditions. Finished plans were not available at the time this report was issued. We recommend that we review final plans prior to construction and provide additional recommendations at that time if needed. We observed only a limited number of explorations throughout the site. There is significant potential for varying soil conditions between our exploration locations. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate conditions in the field at the time of construction. Should variations be encountered we would be able to provide additional recommendations at that time. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. NELSON COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. :•Preliminary Geotechnical Stu(ad i Steep Slope Evaluation Propgsed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 15 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we have strived to take care that our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Douglas J. Bath Project Engineer r �t 33701 Sf�NAL�' EXPIRES ,'t William B. Benzer, PE Senior Engineer DJB:WBB:CPC:nt 4 Copies Submitted Eight Figures NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOC/A TES, INC. i N Vicinity Map A B C_ D E F. 6 154T_H 1 Lo H- 4 an Y r�`ilil,'•},i,''P x t ilrt P `tT' t1 J t4 t y] T ' 157TH L_ Co st 31R(JY"ytiaiti ct IJt P:1� r; 158TH a,�e,� r�s-t(,e � � r � - 160TH- - •..�-r— :169TH ,� .- � , 162NO 161 ST 7tr'rr'4j 7{r . j .r. ` `v I n r• c r .to,x+., jt f•SK' 11 '°! ! T;• ,46 t�. .�f t Iwvrd r'air 3l i. r: I .Jtt rs. 1•• a \., t xp''I .1 ^ r atkesra /,t r ,. .t. i 1 'I 1 't , t'r r•, tpp - t• aU � /• ] t � JYI 1 � 1 .ul � u iti-r -r.Ya I i 6 rP•v'^i GJ 'i6• 1' N 7 r r �i, Ak I t (n •. I �, a J t i [ f °! 169T1{. �9i! - I t i ii ,�i .r~ t w� ja P. ' (`r �hfu tir. ;"`a7 . P § ^ ]t� _ 7'�) 'r• l�� s - !'a :i 72NOr 1 i I I. P �r7R t, v 0- . y :: ° "r''{ r'�;j,.� r J r+d' ? !il y 1 k trt § �Y (" ./,§•�a'- Wl'L i u Wiv. �1 `4�L'tN i Q t. j L' �4444i .t, co rvrr tl llJ ,r�h ,+'lt{ 1.',i a,.ii m-G-t."I•�Lr 1.i ,. ++ 174TFf1 4M 173R0 t 175FHs tilt {t ] T r I,rk'%All� li 7}?� r ky�, I i. i• tea � �� lit ti�rw' yla 4411�� � �7�•IS)k"�F"lta,� 1s Jtrr i I Q_-'t'sa � 'YJTi IfN � tt�fII 71C- 1 k ;i: ty {:l`r r r t � � J j4:: 16,f1•ti�t r .hyl ':� +� i,' j r t p41' r ] J�u.. ✓ . � t f . r �:l � iac iti t�t '� � f uf� ' � :(ic , t , ry �1 F�bi y��7k!r��•t t >;1 � ab C��$ , „� 1n r 'ti;. ct u, 9 rt 11 �d2. J�— rq(G xt` er• i t Jq { r� r�l+ Iurv? 1 t - 7�= t,ItptR T 39 r9; 1'i94{`5jpl r .tE;•ry V i t. I I 7 �q4• i4 d ��." Jt�l ,� i � �] ,� 7 �� �`rrh+ i i ,{ 5 . t ' � I. t I - I '�J '(•• ,u4 ,I 'try i - � �"r r�.' I - y ' nw r r r I `� 1 � yt,1 '1,..'c r E 1 ]]� t JW1 S, I:t.� ] I � 11 v r r ul" w �� I y.. it ,,• 2 i L a] 1: 1 A 1 d r I 0 J I P It4rrtt ,fy s � , { t t 8jH t3 $ I �It 4 r it I I][ w 7Tr9 j .1?I x 4rorl 5 jjII 7 ^ r r I i t5,,1, r„`y�— r9�S L I lj' L� bn I d - 1't• f 1 C.1 ! fV' �J� 9"rt��l, t ti yd+ y��q' Y'�i 'f %Til:4. ' t4s ,lyt Jv � r k r'.]S''{• � `\ni,�r ° .. � �''`�� - ♦ 1 i' 'i66THrt �'1 »r.tJrr-. r .t Qt I>, u.; � tylk 4(, {'„I � �e�_ .}.ln �,'a �: y, .� it t t1��� �u .. y,��. .k: rJ: 7'I � ✓:.• .4°.fi.P! .i Y ...-. tv ,c• 1 1 4 t�� ��t t ] ..� � . °182ND t ram.; � 18i37' I i�1 urn t I y �.N' Id '7t r ,, iI §.drP `' �.•i— t ����i I� r � � J :i** ^ •tc .I r _ t r4., ],!I ] W t ,dy'. I I ^V� tlt5 �� r �tr r it:All r, , w ^4rk0.•Gi: ©1995 Thomas Bros. Maps NELSON-COWRETTE&ASSOCIATES, INC. Echeibarger CONSUL77NG GEOTECHMCAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND EWRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FILE NO. 233098 FIGURE 1 DATE June1998 eomanylmrddrw AdnllN=UA* 110 0 100 , rt Proposed Re'lder><�:ef;�ir w !t J 14 �:.;�: a _ , :,r.F=:93• estlm2ted) B1 small rockery ,tt 4 xt.. % 83. 80 19 103% 28 Grey silt with interbedded sand and silty sand sa 70 B-3 ?----------- ------------? (187) Grey medium sand and silty sand interbedded s1 B with silt ! • 81 ' 60 50 scale: 1 "=10' Horizontal and Vertical R I Older till outcrop creek Cross -Section A -A' 100 90 ROM created from hand measurements using a 100 foot tape and a clinometer. Elevation of measured section NELsoN-CouvRETrE a ASSOC ATE4 INC F_chelbarger 3 referenced to topographic site plan at top of slope. Proposed residence profile created from cross sections provided. O0M0�7N° ,, o A E NO Finished floor elevations estimated from cross sections provided. o 233098. . June 1998 dense sand exposure X` ,/ , x I r 1 • fill exposure / �/ / / I h t l I .IX I I I111 I I N Reference: Site Plan created from undated, untitled site plan provided by LovellSauerland &Associates. 1 ; I 1 I l I 1 I I I I I t i i I i ®� `ppr"te Location of Catch Basin Planned Building Footprint % — t— �� ; t ('��Q� t �` Tennis Courts d s. I� � Site Plan LEA B-1 BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION A A' CROSS SECTION Ate' 0 20 40 Scale 1' - 20' NELSO&COUVRETIE 6 ASSOCJATEA INC. Echelbarger _�\ oowsw.wseooe.+.Muc�a.®aeaxoarw —� NnH�naarero¢scggajm MHO• aNiH 233098 June 1998 UNI SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DMSIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME El COARSE - GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL. FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50% OF SOILS COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO.4 GRAVEL SIEVE WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% SAND CLEAN SAND SW RETAINED ON NO.200 SIEVE WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION SAND PASSES NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES SM SILTYSAND Sc CLAYEY SAND SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT FINE - CL CLAY GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY MORE THAN 50% PASSES NO.200 SIEVE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY LIQUID LIMIT' 60% OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES; SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS 1) Field classification is based on visual examination of soil In general Dry- Absence of moisture, dusty, dry accordance with ASTM D 2488-83, to the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory Mast- Damp, but no visible water tests is based on ASTM D 2487-83. Wet- Visible free water or saturated, 3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil Is obtained from consistency are based on below water table Interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of solls, and/or test data. NELSON•COUVRETTE&ASSOCIATES, INC UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSULTING GEOTEOHNICAL SVC;M ERA OEOLOGISM FIGURE 4 AM ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS SOIL DESCRIPTION z� $ An'dard Penetration Resistance v (140 lb. weight, 30 drop) B-1 cn ix CL 3 W • Blows per foot � � o Surface Elevation: Approximately 88 feet 10 20 30 40 50 >50 Dark brown silty fine sand with roots and SM organics (loose, moist -wet) : Brown fine to medium sand with silt and SP- SM I slight seepage gravel (loose, moist -wet) ------------------------------ 5 ..... ..... ..... .... ...... ; .... . Gray fractured and hackled silt with interbeddedML I fine to medium sand (stiff, moist) Dark gray silt with seams of gray fine to I 10 ......:...... ; :..............:....:. : medium sand with silt (very stiff, moist) ML 1 : Gray silt, fractured with interbedded fine sand ML I 15 and silty sand seams (hard, moist -wet) ------------------------------- Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel and sM I 20 interbedded silt (dense -very dense, moist) 61 ;ray silt with pebbles and trace clay (hard, moist) ML = 25 50(6") ..................... ' .....:..... Boring completed at 24 feet on 4/14/98 Slight seepage encountered from 5.5 to 6 feet 30 ..... ......: .......... ' ...... .... LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limn Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven ■ Moisture content Water level TV oorvene reading, IT 3" O.D. thin -wall sample * Plastic limit Plezometer tlp PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tone/ft NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INc. Echelbarger FIGURE 5 CONSULTING GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTALSGEMr3T3 FILE NO. 233098 DATE June 1998 MIMI Yi7$=Adr 9ndard Penetration 1 SOIL DESCRIPTION • Resistance z v ZL ~ (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) �_� vi 3 w •Blows per foot Surface Elevation: Approximately 68 feet 10 20 30 40 50 >50 Drill pad excavated into slope, material SP consisted of fine to medium sand _Drilling tit g_ravelat2.5feet___________ I __ Gray medium sand with silt tense and sP 50(6") • occasional gravel (dense, moist -wet) 5 ........... ...... ...... ......: ...... Boring stopped at 5 feet on a cobble or boulder on 4/14/98 Ground: water not encountered 10 ...... ...... : ..... ................... 15 ................... ....... ....... :....... 20 ............................... 25 :...... .............. .....:..... 30 .....: ...........: ..... ..... LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven ■ Moisture content Water level TV oorvvene reading, 3" O.D. thin -wall sample tonsM Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tons/tt NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. FIGURE NELSON-COWRErm & ASSOCIATES, INc. Echelbarger g CONSt&77NG GEOTECHN/CAL ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS FILE NO. DATE ANoENwRoNmE rALScrENnsTs. 233098 June 1998 'SOIL DtSCRIPTION o Cr StPdard Penetration Resistance v D � (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) X 3 w 410 Blows per foot :5 CD Surface Elevation: Approximately 70 feet 10 20 30 40 50 >50 0 to 4 feet consists of gray -light brown fine SP/ to coarse sand with silt (loose to medium SM dense, moist) ; ------------------------------ Gray fine to coarse sand with interbedded silty 5 sand (dense, moist -wet) SW/ gp I : 61 40 ------------------------------ - No recovery : Very hard drilling (glacial till?) 2 10 ........... ........50(1.5") Boring completed at 10 feet on 4/14/98 Ground water not encountered ; 15 ..... ....... ......:......:......:..... 20 ....... :....... :....... :..... ............... 25 : ..:...:...... ...... ' ..... ; ..... 30 :.....: ........... ..... LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P sample pushed driven ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, 3" O.D. thin -wall sample tons/ft + Plastic limit Plezometer Up PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tons/ft NOTE: The stratification lines re resent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual.. FIGURE NELSON-COWRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INc. Echelbarger 7 CONSULTING GEOTECNNIGIL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS FILE NO. 233098 DATE .June 1998 ANDEIWIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS "MWYWQ"r"*&.at vie. & TYPICAL FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT AND EFFECTIVE SETBACK DETAIL (NOT TO SCALE) FOOTING OR PIER AT LEAST 2 FOOT EMBEDMENT INTO STIFF/MEDIUM DENSE NATIVE SOILS FACE OF SLOPE LOOSE SURFICIAL LAYER (APR V TO 3' THICK) ......................................................... ....... ........ AT LEAST 10 FOOT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM FACE OF SLOPE (15' IN AREAS STEEPER THAN 35 PERCENT) NELSON-COUVRErm & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGWEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENwRomevTAL SCIENTISTS STIFF/MEDIUM DENSE TO HARD/ DENSE NATIVE SOILS Echelbarger FILE NO. DATE 233098 June1998 „, f, .. .. 'y. -a ” •. l.r,:, u., .-, .. e- .. ...-,•a° J f-�"-K.•i ¢ ..7A ✓•, ry..•� , � �-�w.•�.,., Y =...- t ,h ,w„nrl .: \:.-'•+• _.. - uy,.'.. �'w�^ � i,ir�s�M1'1:r.'Yi.ftL..r.,.. . �. �,...,:..r+r..,,;t......e9,.wsivatlN'�'vtAti+v�nr4.'&.f+r,.v.,-•-ti^•'': •mot `�:� � ... . - - , . '. -. ., 4 rrs, - City of Edmonds PERMIT 11: 9 11 rn 90 SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES PI-1/ �. lg Address of Construction: Ar%aZ0 747"' Ag kz EFDMONQ� LID #4� Y Property Tax Account Parcel No. Attach copies of all access and utility easements Verified and Approved by Owner and/or Contractor: ... ~ Contractor License, #: ' D P4-1`I G Building Permit #: Single Family Invasion into City *Right -of Way: ❑ Yes ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) *RW Construction Permit # ❑ Commercial .(No: of Units ) Cross other **Private Property: ❑ Yes No; Y ublic **Attach legal description and copy of recorded'easement. -too Owne Contractor Owner or contractor signature and ac ment statement: Date By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout 'entitled ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein. 9 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-425-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION.W 9 FOR INSPECTION CALL Q% _1-0220 extension %3�,i 2 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUTRED FORrA`LI INSPECTION REQUESTS ._._ ........ ......... FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Permit Fee $ Repair Fee $ Issued By: Trunk Charge $ c�. '"'� Date Issued: %$�p Assessment Fee $ '-""" Receipt No: .17 'J OL' City Permit Surcharge Fee $5.00 Total Fees Paid $ NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready YES NO. Date: Initial: Partial Inspection: Date: Initial: Partial Inspection: J Date: Initial: '. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date:.' Z r Initial:. As -built to Street File:: Rip, . 1,� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED.ON JOB SITE White Copy: File Greeni'Copy:. Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bldg forms;ssperrnitjlg4/00 N vWi 3 o w _ >Q 3' 26' 45° C/0 _ �0 3' 9' LLJ paapq paptnold a0re,�uasaldal 3 Q ., 101 alpi aQ s;cl;s �10 Au, lot 1ou ,ftw silq b IaiN L7 �o sn-fsit+ .J0 S111ou spuoup3 }o +(}t� ';b ��:� �,; .,..,.!i s �. IJ aC+t1zS lot'. �. (,-nu 10 A W PUB �SN' :Ui11}P.W'0 u fp' YOU "I '6`jipii rjn ',o ���i:.:t�ti9 bU2pt.aiD�pU1 liE CD :you ss0p spuoulp3 }o �t'.o aul y, 0 , , �!;Y:z �t t; p� ar1,1du .':; �. ''. .,�': �� b4 f•.1,i ?41! 4 °" � �u�'� OiJ •�:1ia.., 1 U i) c CITY ❑E EDM❑NDS SIDE SEWER AS -BUILT ADDRESS 16720 76TH AVE W PERMIT NUMBER 9511 HOMEOWNER X X X X X X X X X X CONTRACTOR D E L A P P DATE 06/23/01 ISMAEL ABILA BRAWN 000—N rT :! NO IN irif rvnsli rn -�Fn C.) th "E' m. F.') w p L. y i h e flits CI, E'.-- The City of Edalorids doer not forth on the map. Any pcjsoo or c-lity at-i indepeg Flt in""" rpiluding the 'i , % he locatic.) ci Z'-� Y' s"'L'b b!.1 not jib 'cd tu, t and wycrm� if • SWO i CRy of Eftonds nor KG C..:. '.s CT th,: lot�a'uuil Sr.— L Ijaijja for the informailui- this Malj, nor fcr F-9v Cr: repraseikalucil providod baiud ^^•aM1P."!.•"' , 1�'. .fix }'1S;t � l _,.., CA FILE NO. — r Critical_ Areas Checklist 7 'Site Information(sotts/topography/hydrology/vegetation) Address/I.ocation.�s=``1 S property Tax Acoonnt Number 010 _0001 3 Approximate Site Size (acres or square.feet): �� Ddy is k• 4:. Is this site currently developed?_ .yes; ii no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography: Qieck allythat apply. Flat: . less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizomal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: Steep: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: 1VIO ; Approx. Depth: What seasons) of the year? 8. ` Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains acr9ek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? ii// Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ), 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs_ ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shr ubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Rev01/Wr9C i `y{y 1 LJ C � d }t [p•�L� lr •}'_s f. L� i� `1 r L r � �C r: , dw°7`✓•'„-ri'�"c`�� I+�}:\ - .•� r., L..4; .>.r� $• e��i� ?�.�1`S��Y �tYb _a <� %• \ , 1 !. ! P �7 �1 Y \�1')Mi'.... � � ��x (it\t_J�IK�® •'Ali k � I , \ 1 "�'�. ' ����,�'��`'j`{Y,?�cI�Y�!5�.���1..�i`j• �f 11..? �,,•1 �." b`'. '�/.:s�.eJ,i"j9�/A-S:, � ��`t�� �''•� .. AW+E t;i �\1i,'1\'�}�\L-���f[ !. I~Yid ,1tJ: ic-�r f4j wII�:�J f19 ���-,..'�, a`'1, .. B.9a l94 S+a ti� �� .w .- �II�� City of<Edmonds Critica­I Areas "'Checa onst{::t *if The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior. " to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of. the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be • : , present on the. subject property. The .,a information needed to- complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make•a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this form,, the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc-) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary anent of the site. . M I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: AppCrcant Representative: " Name Name Street Address City, State, ZIP Phone Signature <` Date I �Lio� ('-z� PoiF Street Address Phone Date y ri City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Scott DeLap Determination #: CA-96-119 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 16720 76th Avenue West Property Tax Acct #: 6931-000-010-0009 Project Description: non -project specific A site inspection has revealed that steep slopes which appear to be greater than 40% with a vertical gain of at least 20 feet on or adjacent to the subject property. The inspection also revealed a stream flowing n or adjacent to the subject property Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is potentially one or more critical areas on or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study is required to delineate the boundaries of this potential critical areas, the buffers and setbacks. A licensed land surveyor must prepare.a map which delineates the stream bank location, the critical area buffer, and the buffer setbacks. All work required by this determination must be performed through a three party contract and all studies must be conducted according to section 20.1513 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. John Bissell _ July 1. 1996 Name e Date CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 Est. 189v June 21, 1996 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering Scott DeLap 18408 12th Avenue W Lynnwood, WA 98037 RE: Critical Areas Checklist for property located at 16720 76th Avenue West Dear Mr. DeLap: On May 31, 1996 the City received a critical areas checklist from you for property located at 16720 76th Avenue West. After attempting to visit the site I discovered that the subject property is within.a locked gated development. I was unable to gain access to the subject site, so I returned to the office and attempted to contact you by telephone. I left a message on your answering machine stating that I would like to meet someone on site so that I could make the requested inspection. I have had no response to my phone message, and therefore, am writing to.request an on -site meeting. If I do not receive a response from you by August 1, 1996, we will consider your application for critical areas review to be withdrawn. You may contact me by phone at 771-0220, or by mail at the following address: Sincerely, John Bissell, AICP Planing Division City of Edmonds Planning Division 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 e Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan - n CITY OF EDMONDS - SIDE SEWER PERMIT ` WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT PERMIT�� a. /Call 715-2525 for side sewer inspections BEFORE covering any portion of the construction.` \Inspection will be provided within 24 hours after requst. NO Sat., Sun., or holiday inspections./ ADDRESS LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION_....t�.-r�'. _.................. i�� . d� >=¢- ... ..............•...... PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION...................................�-�=f--....._._..---•--._..._......----._._._.-.a......._.....---..__._...-•----._. ._.. • _ ............................. _.........................................-••-•-----............_._....__....._..__.... :. OWNER AND/OR BUILDER....--_---1.:_ ���z rr .L_._....F.:%�/ S T __.._ .------• � _... ' ;TRACTOR'S NAME &AD DRESS --- V ) fV- " _ ................................ _.............................. ............................._.•_.......--------......._.........---------.........._... >• Permission is granted _.. f...___:_....._.:^---------------------... '..., 19A_, for repair and/or connection of a side sewer to the city sanitary sewer y system in accordance with City of Edmonds ordinances. t ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING: NOTE No. 1—The owners of the property may obtain a permit to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to construct -};- side sewer in street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been inspected. - - NOTE No. 2—All work performed in city right-of-way requires an Invasion of Right -of -Way Permit obtainable from the City Engineer's office. n side sewers when you et it. - - information re din Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulationsgoverni g Y g Perm - -. � fain full i er- _ NOTE No. 3—Obtain g g <- - NOTE No. 4—Top of side sewer must have at least 30 inches coverage at property line and 12 inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2%. No bends in grade _ - .. sharper than A will be permitted. _ _ NOTE No. 5--Trenches in street must be water settled and surface of street restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for failure due to improper - work which may develop within one year of completion. NOTE No. (i--It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or its appurtenances except to in- - t " ' ' - - •y sert the pipe into the wye. ' ' DISAPPROVED ❑ Date ... _.............. .................. By ................ Date..._...-.. ............. By ---------------- Date ............... -................... By ---------------- ....••..----------------------------- - APPROVE) o Date._._ �_Z-. j ..r ..... By. j _ -- ° Remarks •................•----------------------------......•_..._._....__....._.._......----..._.._.....---_..---._.............................__.... _ BOT# Permit Copies MUST Be Signed By Owner of Firm Performing Construction PRIOR To Request For Inspection — =- - - :--•-�-� mot(' } � • �- I ............. �.._.... . __:,t hereby certify that the side sewer installation constructed under this permit (Owner of Contracting Firm Perfcrming Construction) was installed in accordance with all governing ordinances of the City of Edmonds. Dated this A:� .............day of. ( .................... ` 8--• i ./ Check BEFORE you dig for: Water ❑, Gas ❑, Telephone ❑, Power ❑, Sewer ❑, Other ❑ ""' Yt"�% 1 '7 .� o' _. c .. '-3r�.:_s {--r�71i?: .. .,t'�/:1tui'C•+v,- �4�srh•i .. - ,. - APPLICATION:- • - � . T e City Edmonds ... Ci o 'SIDE. ' EASEMENT NO _. SE SEWER' PERMIT _ ----- - - --------- NEW CONSTRUCTION ❑ REPAIRS ❑ LID NO. __................ASMT. NO:'-:.____--___..._.-- OWNERtt ...L�h _+, �__.-------------------------------- -------- CONTRACTOR .--L� _v`-�k►_Q _ .---CJ- _--=-i''rtti!" PERMIT NO -CO. A j . JOB.,ADDRESS (C C%• --------� -CAS'-LIJ-•---••----- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. BLOCK NO. '- ----- ---- ---' ------------------••--------------------•--------------- NAME OF ADDITION _&C-p�--------)t'r� _.................................. f i t - — - --- - Approved: . :. , DATE -•--------------------------........... --... BY-------------------------------------- PERMIT N? 613 3 'ILE ' t {� r. 525 for side sewer inspections BEFORE covering any portion of the construction.`` " will be provided within 24 hours after requst. NO Sat., Sun., or holiday inspections.) PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION ---•-•-•- G'L7.------------- /--- •/-•-----_....at7....r...4...-R_:..:..T_........ " •••....--•---.......• ................ ............................•--..........__....--.--•-•- .. --- - ��-�.....__I...._S_... I OWNER AND/OR BUILDER._..i.L1�__..__.1-.� "e' JXRAGTOR'S NAME & ADDRESS._.. -- •- -. • �J a 19_2L,�_, for repair and/or cit ........ ............--- j system in accordance with City of Edmonds ordinances. ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING: to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to construct - •. j NOTE No. 1—The owners of the property may obtain a permit side sewer in street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been inspected. Permit obtainable from the City Engineer's office. - NOTE No. 2—All work performed in city right-of-way requires an Invasion of Right -of -Way - - NOTE No. 3—Obtain full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit. No bends in grade at property line and 12 inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2%. I• - i NOTE No. 4—Top of side sewer must have at least 30 inches coverage sharper than % will be permitted. restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for failure due to improper - NOTE No. 5—Trenches in street must be water settled and surface of street work which may develop within one year of completion. or to do any work on the main sewer or its appurtenances except to in- NOTE No. 6—It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, - .. I Bert the pipe into the wye. - - ' - By ................ Date --------------- -------------------- By ---------------- DISAPPROVED ❑ Date---_----------------------------------- By.._..---•------. Date-_-_--_ . APPROVED ❑ Date ------- - ............................ --------------------------------------------------------•._--------------•.-------•--- ,, - • .. _ . Remarks: ------- _------ _-------------------------- -__---------- •-----.-_.------•-•--••--• _. ........................... ........._...-•---........._.....-_.._....--•--......_........._....._...... .............................. .................. ..•-.. m,. Req t For Tncrwrtintt -- 4�r BOTH Permit ePx rmit Copies MUST Be Signed By Owner of Firm Performing C;onsrruciiul► rnaviv �v =•�yL�S� - �- - -r- r -- - - hereby certify that a side sewer installation constructed under this permit b tify t t the s e (Owner of Contracting Firm Performing Construction) was installed in accordance with all governing ordinances of the City of Edmonds. Datedthis ............................ day of .........................................................19 Check BEFORE you dig for: Water ❑, Gas ❑, Telephone ❑, Power ❑, Sewer ❑, Other ❑ _ ....._..._.._....._. , �.. PLANNING DATA NAME: SITE ADDRESS: I/ DATE: � A ZONING: .4� PLAN CHK#: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AJf',� i GARY A. GRAY Field Engineer May 26, 2000 Craig Campbell, PE Lovell-Sauerland & Assoc., Inc 19400 — 33`d Avenue West Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Dear Mr. Campbell: Re: Drainage from-Brookacres Estates Burlington Northern Santa Fe 2454 Occidental Avenue South Suite 1 — A Seattle, Washington 98134 (206) 625 — 6189 (206) 625 — 6115 (Fax) E-MiI Guy.Gray@BNSF.Cotn After discussions with you and after review of the prints, BNSF RR engineering has no objections to the proposed project. t? k- -F--D -r' G. A. Gray r PV'( f Cc: Jim Goff` 4'.0" pF EDgjvCITY OF EDMONDS _ JAN ,�121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • IDMONDS • WA 98020 • (425) 771-02200EVEIOP EiVT http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us Clry OF E MON SS CTR• RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Height variance and building permit application for a new single family residence on a vacant piece of property. The site is designated Environmentally Sensitive by the City of Edmonds. It contains steep. slope and stream critical areas as defined by the Edmonds Community Development Code. File Nos. V-99-244 and Plan Check No. 99-256 Proponent: S. Michael Smith of Lovell-Sauerland and Assoc. 19400 33`d Avenue West Suite 200 Lynnwood; WA 98036 Location of proposal, including street address if any: Lot 10 of Brookacres Tax Parcel No. 693 1 -000-010-00 Section 7, Township 27N. R 4E. W.M. Lead agency: CITY. OF EDMONDS The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. XX There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by , 2000. Responsible Official: Phone: Address: Date: �'�� v Rob Chave AICP 425-771-0220 City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 XX You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than r2b - 7 , 2000, by filing a written appeal citing .the specific factual reasons for the appeal. The appeal submittal must also include the required fees and mailing list. Please contact the Planning Division for specific submittal requirements. XX Posted on 5OLA , 2000, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services Building, and the Edmonds Post Office. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copy of the Checklist. Page 1 of 4 V-99-244 SEPA. DOC CREATED ON 01/20/00 9:59 AM Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist: XX Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504-7703 XX Department of Fisheries Attn.: Richard E. Johnson Regional Habitat Manager 16018 Mill Creek Boulevard Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX National Marine Fisheries Service Attn.: Steve Landino WA. State Habitat Branch Chief _——5.1.0-Desmond Drive_SE _. _. Lacey, WA 98503 XX LSA Attn: S. Michael Smith 19400 33`d Avenue West Suite 200 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Attachments Geotechnical Report pc: File No. V-99-244 SEPA Notebook Page 2 of 4 V-99-244 SEPA.DOC CREATED ON Ol /20/00 9:59 AM BY'. .. _ANNIN . 1. ... .. . DEVELCUNAFeNl SERVICES C!R. . CITY OF EDMONDS q6' ul ` tp - 4X Y 6 93/ do0 0/0 ©� 9 m ,t..tr Y: T•'K�t tQ-p'!C'., -�T�Yi 1�1f�� Yam"'�"Ca!�"�++.�i'Tl�� ;71: r,�IMF .F»� �..'^r'"ti Ca.i����^;r,, 1 rq:�ry; A "..��� yr J';�,U:�s� r aY��n t�'�,�' ft''•a �i,!�.�l++y�'YP; •. 7!F' k '�• ..�,. til.��F.r � ,r�! �' 1i. t aA _.�r y�+t 5th RIIENUE/ECHELBRRGER TEL:425-487-6772 Jul 27'99 14:50 No.007 P.02 ru. t Recel eo JUL 2 7 1999 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS F, far; , a: - ET I -r =1- � St. cv do s cx}v55 T 9 3 / o o g� � da�ooc� 5th RVENUE/ECHELBRRGER TEL:425-487-6772 Jul 27'99 14:49 No.007 P.01 �,Amez' 4 1 A;#;e4 'I . �4Y�. the Echelbarger Company P.O. Box 30 Lynnwood, Washington 98046 (425)774-0205 (425) 07-6772 r-AX FAX COVER SHEET DATE- / � � PAGE 1 OF: Z� q 2_�5- "7 "? 1 6 2 2. FROM: eArV- 6-4% Af C, CA Lc- s NOTE: THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE DOCUMENT IS CONFIDENTIAL AND IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED ABOVE IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE (COLLECT IF LONG DISTANCE) AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA U.S. MAIL WE WILL REIMBURSE YOU FOR POSTAGE THANK YOU. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL STUDY AND STEEP SLOPE EVALUATION PROPOSED ECHELBARGER RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FOR MR. DEAN ECHELBARGER STREET FILE ATTACHMENT 6 'qw NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • Fax 481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 June 5, 1998 Mr. Dean Echelbarger c/o Mr. Michael Smith Lovell — Sauerland and Associates 19400 — 33`d Avenue West, Suite 200 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Preliminary Geotechnical Study and Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence Edmonds, Washington NCA File No. 233098 Dear Mr. Echelbarger, INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation at your proposed residential lot in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located south of 16710 — 76`h Avenue West and is known as Lot 10 of the Brookacres subdivision. The approximate location of the planned development is shown on the Site Vicinity map as Figure 1. You plan to construct a single-family residence on the site. You have requested that we address site development considerations in an "Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area", as defined by the City of Edmonds. We have been provided with a copy of the building footprint with boundary and topography, dated February 2, 1998, a copy of boundary and topography showing 40 percent slopes, architectural sketches showing the planned structure in cross section, and excerpts from Earth Subsidence Package pertaining to geotechnical requirements for our use in preparing this report. The project site is the last undeveloped lot in the Brookacres subdivision. It is located between two residential houses. The lot is located on the flank of a steep ravine. You plan to construct a one-story Preliminary Geotechnical Study d • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 2 residence with a daylight basement. The lower level will have a structurally supported floor and will extend out over the ravine. Minimal grading is anticipated. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions and present recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: 1. Review published soils and geologic maps for the area. 2. Explore the subsurface conditions with power auger borings. 3. Map surficial conditions at the site including cross-section geometry of the steep slopes. 4. Provide an evaluation of slope stability. 5. Provide recommendations for erosion control and site drainage. 6. Provide recommendations for site preparation, grading and structural fill. 7. Provide recommendations for foundations and concrete retaining wall design. 8. Address the criteria called out on the critical areas and environmental checklists. 9. Prepare a written report to document our conclusions and recommendations. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The project site is accessed through a gated private driveway. The lot is a rectangular shaped parcel approximately 79 feet by 104 feet in size. Total elevation loss across the site is on the order of 40 feet based on the topographic plan provided. The eastern portion of the property is gently sloping and is landscaped where it borders the adjacent access driveway. The site then slopes moderately to steeply, down to the west. The slope continues west of the lot line down to a creek. A profile was measured in the field using a 100-foot measuring tape and a hand clinometer. This profile is presented as Cross -Section A -A' as shown on Figure 3. We measured slope inclinations ranging from 16 to 103 percent with an average inclination of 60 percent. The profile measured in the field matches closely with the topographic plan provided. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIA TES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stulend • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 3 A recent slough type slope failure was observed in the north end of the lot, as shown on the Site Plan. The scarp is approximately 10 feet high. A broken drainpipe was observed at the low point of this scarp. Loose sloughed soil was observed below the scarp face down to the creek. This loose soil is on the order of 2.5 to 4.0 feet thick. The origin of this drainpipe appears to be a catch basin in the access driveway. We were informed by a neighbor that this failure occurred after last years heavy snowfall and rapid snow melt. There also appeared to be an older scarp at the steepest portion of the site within the center of the lot. This scarp is on the order of 16 feet in height and is shown on the Site Plan. A concrete drainpipe was observed exiting the area of this older scarp. The pipe is connected to a plastic drainpipe that was routed through the center of the lot to the outlet at the creek. In a phone conversation, Pat Echelbarger informed us that this drainpipe routes storm water from the tennis courts across the street. For descriptive purposes, the portion of the lot above these failed scarp areas will be referred to in this report as the upper portion of., the lot. The area of the scarps and slope below will be referred to as the lower portion of the lot. The upper portion of the site is vegetated with several 1-foot to 3-foot diameter straight growing cedar trees and some scattered brush. The trunks of the trees appeared straight. One of these trees is located at the top of the apparent older scarp where the slope drops off steeply in the center of the planned building pad. A 1-foot diameter deciduous tree is located just upslope from the recent scarp at the north end of the site. It has become undermined and has begun to fall over. The lower portion of the lot is vegetated with low brush, which appeared to be held in place with thin plastic mesh. There are also a few young deciduous trees scattered in the lower portion of the site. Surficial water seepage was observed in the south half of the lot. Areas of loose saturated soil were observed just downslope from the seepage areas. Shallow subsurface conditions were exposed in the scarp in the north end of the site. The scarp is about 10-feet high vertically. The upper 3 to 4 feet of soil in the scarp consisted of orange -brown, fine to coarse sand with gravel and silt. This material is interpreted as fill. A thin layer of dark brown organic soil was observed in the scarp underlying the fill. Below the organic layer we observed about 3 feet of tan, hackled, fine sandy silt. The lowest portion of the scarp was observed to consist of very stiff, gray slightly fractured silt. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stu and • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 4 Directly below the scarp we observed soil which appeared to have sloughed off the slope face. Further down the slope we observed medium dense to dense sand overlying very dense, silty sand with gravel and cobbles. The very dense, silty sand layer is interpreted as older till. This till unit is considered older till as it was deposited by glacial events previous to the most recent glaciation, the Vashon Stade. Older till was observed in an exposure along the creek near the southeast corner of the lot as shown on the Site Plan. Dense sand was observed in an exposure at the creek, further down the creek to the north. Geology The Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Ouadrangles Snohomish and King Counties, Washington, (U.S.G.S. 1975) by Mackey Smith was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions at the site. The surfical geology is mapped as the Whidbey Formation (Qw). We have reviewed the report titled "Final Report, Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington," by Roger Lowe Associates Inc., dated October 16, 1979 and have found that the project site is south of, and outside of, the Meadowdale Landslide (Qols) area. The Whidbey formation is an interglacial deposit consisting of bedded sands silts and clays. Our explorations encountered silt interbedded with sand interpreted to be part of the Whidbey formation. This unit was found to overly dense, silty fine sand. This latter unit is interpreted to be an older glacial till deposit. Both the Whidbey formation and the older till deposit have been consolidated by the weight of over 3000 feet of glacial ice. Explorations The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on April 14, 1998 by drilling three borings with a portable hollow -stem auger drill rig. Boring 1 was drilled to a depth of 24 feet in the upslope side of the planned residence. Borings 2 and Boring 3 were drilled near the downslope side of the planned residence. Boring 2 was drilled to a depth of 5 feet where refusal was encountered, possibly due to a large boulder. Borings 3 was drilled to a depth of 10 feet where refusal was encountered due to hard drilling. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. Samples were collected at selected intervals using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT). The SPT consists of driving a 2-inch outside diameter sampler using a.140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows to drive the sampler for three 6-inch intervals is recorded. The blow count or "N" value is the total number of blows to drive the last 12-inches. Our field geologist was present during the explorations and collected soil. samples at specific intervals. He examined the soils and geologic conditions NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIA TES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stu&nd • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 5 encountered and maintained logs of the explorations. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented in Figure 4. The logs of the explorations are presented in Figures 5 through 7. The number of blows required to drive the sampler 12 inches (unless otherwise noted) is shown on the logs. Subsurface Conditions In Boring B-1 we encountered a surficial layer of topsoil approximately 3 feet thick. The topsoil horizon was underlain by 2.5 feet of loose brown, fine to medium sand. This horizon was underlain by stiff to hard silt interbedded with fine sand seams to a depth of approximately 18 feet. The upper portion of the silt horizon appeared hackled. The lower portion exhibited some fractures. This silt horizon is interpreted to be part of the Whidbey formation. The silt deposit was underlain by dense to very dense silty sand interbedded with silt to the depth explored. Borings B-2 and B-3 were advanced on the down slope side of the proposed residence. We encountered dense fine to coarse sand, interbedded with silty sand to a depth of 7 feet in Boring B-3. We encountered refusal on a boulder or cobble at a depth of 5 feet in Boring B-2. In Boring B-3 very difficult drilling was encountered below 7 feet and refusal was encountered at a depth of 10 feet in Boring 3. We were unable to retrieve a sample from a depth of 10 feet. Based on surface mapping we interpret this horizon to be the older glacial till. Hydrologic Conditions Saturated surface soils were observed in the southeast portion of the lot. The soils appeared to be saturated as a result of seepage at the ground surface further upslope. Slight seepage was observed in Boring 1 at a depth between 5.5 feet and 6.0 feet. The shallow ground water seepage is interpreted to be perched within near surface soils on top of the less permeable very stiff silts. A perched water condition develops when surface water infiltrates through the more permeable surface soils and is stopped by less permeable soils at depth. We would expect the amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas include soil,.type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The erosion potential is related to vegetative cover and NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stufand Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 6 the specific surface soil types (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic units. We have referenced the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The surface soils were mapped by SCS and classified as the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam (15% to 25% slopes) and Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam (25% to 70% slopes). The erosion hazard for these soils is listed as being moderate and high respectively. Landslide Hazard Our explorations found the core of the slope to consist of stiff to hard silt deposits and dense to very dense older till deposits were exposed at the toe of the slope. The upper portion of the lot is vegetated with large diameter mature cedar trees that indicate that significant slope failure has not occurred in the area for many years. We consider these interglacial and glacial deposits to be of moderate to high strength. These soils are considered stable with regard to deep-seated earth movement. We did not observe signs of deep-seated slope failures at the time of our study. We noted some shallow sloughing had occurred on the steeper portion of the lot. Drainpipes were observed at the base of each of these failures. There is the potential that seepage or clearing of blocked pipes contributed to these slough events. Slough events of this type are typically shallow in nature and occur as the native soils weather on steeper slopes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General In our opinion, the site is suitable for the planned development provide the recommendations in this report are followed. Based on the previous landslide hazard investigation by Roger Lowe and Associates and our interpretation of soil conditions, the site is considered to have a very low probability of occurrence of a deep-seated landslide. Shallow slough -type failure events have occurred on the site in the past and may occur in the future. These types of events typically occur as the surface soils on a steep slope weather and loose strength. Controlling drainage and maintaining vegetation on the slopes can reduce the potential for these types of failures. It is our opinion that site stability should remain the same during construction. Site stability after construction will be improved from its present condition, and potential impact to adjacent properties should be reduced. It is our opinion that the upper portion of the proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous and isolated spread footings. Footings should be founded on the stiff to hard native silt soils NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. e Preliminary Geotechnical Stud&d Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 7 or on structural fill extending to these horizons. These soils were generally encountered at depths of about 5 feet. Shallow foundations should be adequately setback from the face of the steep slope. This is discussed further in the Foundation Setbacks subsection. The downslope side of the structure should be supported on piers or piles to provide adequate bearing and protection from future slough events. The allowable capacity of the piles or piers will be dependent upon the amount of penetration into the bearing horizon. Due to the very dense nature of the native soils, it may be difficult or impossible to install a driven pile to a significant depth. We recommend considering using drilled piers or auger cast piles. Casing of the upper portion of the hole may be necessary if drilled open hole piers are used. Boulders or obstructions could be encountered in the glacial till unit. Installation of drilled piers or auger cast piles will be a challenge on the moderate to steeply sloping site. A large boom rig may be required. It may be prudent to consult a contractor specializing in this type of work to determine what type of deep foundation is easiest to install before proceeding with a specific design. A range of potential capacities for deep foundations is presented in the Foundation subsection. It may be best to install one foundation type rather than mixing deep and shallow foundations. It is our opinion that the foundation and pile caps should be tied together to make the structure act as a unit. This may be accomplished by using grade beams to connect the pile caps. This is intended to reduce the impact of a shallow slough event or surficial creep on a single -pier foundation. We anticipate that subsequent design meetings will be needed between the geotechnical and structural engineer to discuss the best way to accomplish this. We do not recommend placing fill on the steep slope unless it is retained. Based on the plans provided, we do not anticipate significant fill placement will occur on the site. Some fill may be placed for the planned driveway. Recommendations for fill placement.and compaction are presented in the Structural Fill subsection. Weobserved two drainpipes daylighting in the planned building footprint. These pipes are located in the area of recent and older slough failures. There is the potential that flow through these pipes contributed to the surface sloughing in these areas. We recommend that the origin of these drainpipes be determined. The outfall should.be rerouted outside of the planned building footprint to reduce the potential for future slough events or erosion on the slopes. It would be best to install a comprehensive drainage system for the site. This is discussed in the Erosion Control and Drainage subsection of this report. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. L 'Preliminary Geotechnical Studf nd • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence . June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 8 Site Preparation and General Earthwork The first step of site preparation should be to strip the surficial duff, topsoil, fill and buried topsoil to expose stiff to hard glacial soils in pavement and building areas. This material should be removed from the site, or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. The underlying soils are considered highly moisture sensitive, and will disturb easily and become difficult to work with when wet. At the exploration locations, the depth to stiff/medium dense or better soil was encountered at depths of about 5 feet. In driveway areas it may be feasible to remove the topsoil and compact the existing fill in place. With this approach some risk of settlement is possible. This can be evaluated further at the time of construction. If deep foundations are utilized only minimal stripping will be necessary to remove the surfical vegetation and topsoil in the building area. We do not recommend placing additional fill at the top of slope unless it is retained. We recommend that earthwork be conducted during the drier summer months, if possible. A blanket of rock spalls may be required to provide access for construction equipment. We recommend assuming a 1 foot thickness of spalls for estimating purposes. Footings should be prepared in accordance with our recommendations for Foundations. Alternative site preparation methods should be determined based on conditions observed in the field. Temporary and Permanent Slopes Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors such as the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open and the presence of surface or ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable temporary cut slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water conditions encountered. We do not anticipate significant temporary cuts for the planned structure. However, some cuts may be necessary for the installation of foundations at the top of and on the slope. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the loose surficial soils, fill or weathered soils be no greater than 1H:IV. We recommend the temporary cuts in the unweathered native silt soil and older till be no steeper NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stuend • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 9 than a 0.7514:1V. If loose soils or perched ground water were encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate the cut slopes during construction and provide additional recommendations as needed. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to WISHA/OSHA standards. Final cut slope inclinations for structural fill and the native soils should be no steeper than 2H:1 V. Lightly compacted fills or common fills, should be no steeper than 3H:1V. Common fills are defined as fill material with some potential organics that are "trackrolled" into place. They would not meet the compaction specification of structural fill. Final slopes should be vegetated and covered with straw or jute netting. The vegetation should be maintained until it has been established. We do not recommend the addition of fill to the top of the existing steep slope. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate any planned fill placement on this site. Structural Fill General: Fill placed beneath buildings, pavements, or other settlement sensitive features, should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or qualified soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be prepared as outlined in the Site Preparation and General Earthwork subsection. Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality free -draining granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches. Imported, all weather fill should contain no more than about five percent fines (soil finer than a U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. No. 3/4 inch sieve). Some of the existing fill may be suitable for reuse as fill. Due to the moisture sensitivity of the on -site silt and till soils, it would be difficult to use these soils as fill without moisture conditioning. We recommend that these soils not be considered for use as fill at this time. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOC/A TES, INC. PreliminaryGeotechnical Stud and • }� Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 10 Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed. Structural fill should be placed in 8- to 10-inch thick uniform lifts. All fill underlying building areas, and within two feet of pavement subgrade, should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density, as determined by the ASTM D 1557 Compaction Test procedure. Fills more than two feet beneath pavement subgrades should. be compacted to 90 percent of their maximum dry density. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum so that a readily compactible condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactible condition is not feasible. All compaction should be done with equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Foundation Setback The purpose of foundation setbacks from a slope is to establish a buffer zone between a structure and a slope, such that if a slope failure should occur it would not endanger the structure. In general the greater the setback, the lower the risk that the structure will sustain damage from a slope failure. We recommend that the bottom of the foundations be placed at least 10 feet horizontal distance from the slope face. In addition, foundations should extend at least two feet into the stiff/medium dense to hard/very dense native soils. The foundation depths should be increased (relative to normal foundation depths) to satisfy this setback distance and recommended embedment. Our recommended setback and embedment are shown on Figure 8. The required foundation depth will be a function of the slope inclination and the depth of loose soil at foundation location. At our cross section location, the steepest slopes in the vicinity of the planned structure are on the order of 103 percent. The greatest thickness of loose surficial soil is on the order of 5 feet. These inclinations and depths should be suitable for estimating foundation depths for preliminary purposes. Final depths should be based on actual slope inclinations and soil conditions at final footing locations. Representatives from our office should evaluate all depths and setback distances in the field at the time of construction. Foundations General: We anticipate that the planned structure will be founded on a combination of conventional shallow foundations and piles or piers or entirely on piles or piers. Shallow and deep foundations should have sufficient embedment to maintain an adequate effective setback from the face of the slope as discussed above. Our recommendations for shallow and deep foundations are presented below. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Studod Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 11 Conventional Shallow Footings: Conventional foundations could be placed on undisturbed stiff/medium dense to hard/very dense native soils along all but the downslope side of the residence. These soils were encountered at depths of about 5 feet in our explorations. Exterior footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the finished ground surface and interior column footings extend a minimum of 12 inches below the basement slab. Some variation and potential additional depths should be expected where loose soils are encountered. The downslope side of the foundation line should be supported on drilled piers or auger cast piles as recommended in the Drilled Piers subsection below. Minimum foundation widths of 18 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and spread footings, respectively. All foundations should extend through any fill encountered on site. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above and founded on the undisturbed native soil, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design. A geotechnical representative from our firm should evaluate the foundation bearing soil. A one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Structural loading information was not available at the time of this study. Based on our experience with similar developments supported on similar soil conditions and for the above allowable soil bearing pressures, we estimate that the maximum total post -construction settlement should be three-quarters (3/4) of an inch or less. The differential settlement across the building width should be one-half (1/2) inch or less across a distance of about 50 feet. Drilled Piers: Along the downslope side of the building, the structure should be supported on drilled concrete piers or auger cast piles. Due to the steeply sloping terrain it will be difficult to develop lateral resistance on the down slope side of the piles or piers. Grade beams or bracing between pile or pier locations may be needed to provide lateral support. In this way, lateral loads may be tied back into other portions of the foundation system. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stud and • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 12 Design capacities in the range of 5 to 30 tons may be attained depending upon the diameter of the pile or pier and depth of embedment. We recommend that piles or piers meet the minimum effective setback distance from the face of slope as detailed in the Foundation Setback subsection. We recommend that piles or piers be embedded a minimum of five feet into the bearing soil horizon. We note that obstructions may be encountered when drilling into the older till formation. Retaining Walls The upslope cut for the daylight basement may require the use of a concrete retaining wall. The lateral earth pressure acting on retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed and the inclination of the backfill. Walls that are free to yield at least one -thousandth of the height of the wall are in an "active" condition. Walls restrained from movement by stiffness or bracing are in an "at rest" condition. Active earth pressure and at rest earth pressure can be calculated based on equivalent fluid density. Equivalent fluid densities for active and at rest earth pressure of 42 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 66 pcf, respectively, may be used for design for a level backslope. These values assume that the on -site soils are used for backfill, are compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density from ASTM D 1557, and that the wall backfill is drained. If imported well -graded granular fill is used, the equivalent fluid densities for active and at rest pressure can be reduced to 35 and 55 pcf, respectively. The preceding values do not include the effects of surcharges, such as foundation loads, traffic or other surface loads. Surcharge effects should be considered where appropriate. The above lateral pressures may be resisted by friction at the base of the foundation and passive resistance. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to determine the base friction in the stiff/medium dense to hard/very dense native soils. An equivalent fluid density of 185 pcf should be used for passive resistance design. These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive pressures, the foundations should be poured "neat" against the native dense soils, or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of the footing, and the soil in front of the wall should extend a horizontal distance at least equal to three times the foundation depth. We recommend that the upper 1-foot of soil be neglected when determining the passive resistance. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOC/A TES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Strand Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 13 Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures due to overcompaction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in 8-inch loose lifts and compacting with small hand -operated compactors. Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls as recommended in the Erosion Control and Site Drainage subsection of this report. Erosion Control and Site Drainage Erosion control methods should be undertaken during site development and construction to prevent surface runoff from flowing into the creek. Straw bales or silt fence should be constructed down slope from construction grading areas and along the steep slope. Excavation cuts exposed to wet weather should be covered with plastic sheeting properly anchored in place. The site soils are considered highly susceptible to erosion on the steep slopes when stripped of vegetation. In the upper portion of the site where the existing vegetation is not disturbed, erosion potential should be minimal. Erosion control measures should conform to applicable city requirements. The finished ground surface should be graded such that storm water is collected and directed to an appropriate discharge location. A comprehensive drainage system should be developed for the site. This may entail routing storm water to an established system .or installing a system on the lot. If a system needs to be installed on the lot, one or two catch basins could be installed above the top of slope in strategic locations. The outlet from the catch basins should be HDPE pipe, which is anchored to the slope. A suitable energy dissipater should be installed at the outfall from the HDPE pipes. The source of the existing concrete pipes daylighting on the slope should be investigated. These pipes could ' be tied to the comprehensive system or routed around the structure. Concentrated runoff should not be allowed to discharge onto the slopes. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from buildings and roadways. We suggest that the finished ground surface be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from structures. We recommend using a suitable capillary break and vapor barrier for slabs -on -grade. Vapor barriers should be used in any case .for slabs where moisture control is important. Roof drains should not be connected to the perimeter footing drain or wall drain systems until they are a minimum of 1-foot down gradient of the footing drain. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Preliminary Geotechnical Stud • Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 14 Footing drains should be installed around the upslope side and the north and south sides of the planned residence. Perimeter footing/wall drains should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by free -draining material, such as pea gravel, installed at the base of the footing. This should be determined by laboratory testing prior to backfilling. The pea gravel should be extended up to within 1 foot of the ground surface. The upper 1-foot should be capped with a relatively impermeable material to minimize surface water from entering into the drain system. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drainpipes be connected to the footing drain system. All roof downspout drains must be separately tightlined to discharge. The footing drain system should have a minimum of 12 inches of vertical fall before it is connected to the storm water system. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this preliminary geotechnical study for use by Mr. Dean Echelbarger and his agents for their use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subgrade conditions. Finished plans were not available at the time this report was issued. We recommend that we review final plans prior to construction and provide additional recommendations at that time if needed. We observed only a limited number of explorations throughout the site. There is significant potential for varying soil conditions between our exploration locations. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate conditions in the field at the time of construction. Should variations be encountered we would be able to provide additional recommendations at that time. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIA TES, INC. ,Preliminary Geotechnical Stud •` Steep Slope Evaluation Proposed Echelbarger Residence June 5, 1998 NCA File No. 233098 Page 15 Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we have strived to take care that our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Douglas J. Bath Project Engineer w°� w yeti v y Z � L/sibs 33701 OSfONAL EXPIRES ;Z Woo . William B. Benzer, PE Senior Engineer DJB: WBB:CPC:nt 4 Copies Submitted Eight Figures NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Vicinity Map A B C D E F as 2 17 154TH > 155TH 6 LE im-2i cz, "gym I 160TH , 18 9 TH '5 -T- IMD T' 7 44/ Y\oN '01 7 �r" 777- 9;J; 17 rm 17.7 -z —.4 �, 04 --A-76TK,`, 47�,j MT. 2 181st 1021 W�-. A: 01995 Thomas Bros. N NELSON-COUVRETTE &ASSOCIATES, INC. Echelbarger CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS FILE NO. AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 233098 FIGURE DATE June 1998 GomPaffj=fWdMwWWmW=WUz* I� i r - 110 i ! i -100 Proposed Rery ence .:,; Y FF — 93 estlmatedj 90 %r 470% B 1 , , small rockery ° FF,.= 83 esUr�qedj ' 80 18 103% 26 Grey silt with interbedded sand and silty sand 38 70 8 3 -----------------------? ctgro R Grey medium sand g and silty sand interbedded 5i I with silt Sore. 60 81 eeoi 50 scale: 1 "=10' Horizontal and Vertical Older till outcrop creek Cross -Section A -A' 110 100 90 FKRW Reference: Cross-section created from hand measurements using a 100 foot tape and a clinometer. ElevationNEL801KCOWRErfE a ASS0CUITE4 INC Echelbarger 3on of measured section cWMA,MMn"SUMamwarm referenced to topographic site plan at top of slope. Proposed residence profile created from cross sections provided. AW&AVWAWM rS=WnM FLENo, Finished boor elevations estimated from cross sections provided. 233098. June 1998 .. 4 dense sand exposure X ` Reference: Site Plan created from undated, untitled site plan provided by LoveilSauedand B Associates. I I I I i I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 � 1 1 1 �— Approximate Location of Catch Basin y4 1 A 1 Planned BuildingCFoolidnt 1 As o 1 I 1 1 .a .-. ,O `\\ NELSON-COWRETTE & ASSOCIATES INcL T J,/� co mmim 6eomamwAL6 t Gwwarm — AWENVIMMIMMsoemsn Site Plan L� LEGEND B-1 BORING NUMBERAND �}. APPROXIMATE LOCATION A A' CROSS SECTION A -A' 0 20 40 Scale 1' - 2tr Echelbarger I`— i 233098 1 June 1998 UNA SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DMSIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE - GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50% OF SOILS COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. GRAVEL SIEVE WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON N0.200 SIEVE $gulp CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION SAND PASSES NO.4 SIEVE WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT FINE - CL CLAY GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 509/6 SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY MORE THAN 5016 PASSES NO.200 SIEVE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SiLT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY LIQUID LIMIT' 60% OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES; SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS 1) Field classification is based on visual examination of soil In general Dry- Absence of moisture, dusty, dry accordance with ASTM D 2488-83. to the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory Moist- Damp, but no visible water tests Is based on ASTM D 2487-83. Wet Visible free water or saturated, 3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil Is obtained from consistency are based on below water table interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. NELSON-COUVRETTE&ASSOC/ATES, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONS&U NQ CIE07ECHN" ENOINEERA QEOLOOiM —� An ENwRowwrAL Seem= FIGURE 4 SOIL DESCRIPTION B-1 Surface Elevation: ADoroximately 88 feet o� $ Pdard Penetration Resistance v z w (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) o Blows per foot Dark brown silty fine sand with roots and SM organics (loose, moist -wet) i--------------------- - - - - -- -- Brown fine to medium sand with silt and sSm I slight M seepage gravel (loose, moist -wet) p i Gray fractured and hackled silt with interbedded ML I fine to medium sand (stiff, moist) Dark gray silt with seams of gray fine to MIL I medium sand with silt (very stiff, moist) i Gray silt, fractured with interbedded fine sand MIL I and silty sand seams (hard, moist -wet) ------------------------------ Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel and sM interbedded silt (dense -very dense, moist) I Gray silt with pebbles and trace clay (hard, moist) MIL = Boring completed at 24 feet on 4/14/98 Slight seepage encountered from 5.5 to 6 feet LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample driven 3" O.D. thin -wall sample 1 NOTE: The the * Liquid limit ■ Moisture content + Plastic limit NELSON-COWRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECNNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 10 20 30 40 50 >50 5 10 15 20 25 KE Impervious seal Water level Plezometer tip m soil types and the transition may be Echelbarger FILE NO. 233098 61 50(6") P Sample pushed TV Torvene reading, tonsM PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tons/ft I FIGURE 5 DATE June 1998 aomp.ny�cenkr+w�ea.roo.m700e.ca� Penetration Resistance SOIL DESCRIPTION ondard v Z w (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) �_� o•Blows per foot Surface Elevation: Approximately 68 feet 10 20 30 40 50 >50 Drill pad excavated into slope, material SP consisted of fine to medium sand _Drilling tit g_ravelat2.5ieet___________ __ ; 50(6") • Gray medium sand with silt lense and sP occasional gravel (dense, moist -wet) 5 • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • • • • • : • • .. . Boring stopped at 5 feet on a cobble or boulder on 4/14/98 Ground: water not encountered : 10 ...... ; ..... ; ......... ............. ; .... . 15 .............; .. ;......:......;..... 20 .....;.................. ..... ; .... 25 ..................... ....... ; .......... 30 :..... :....:. ; ..... LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, ]I 3" O.D. thin -wall sample tons/ft + Plastic limit Piezometer tip PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tons/ft NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. FIGURE NELSON-COWRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INc. Echelbarger g CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS GEOLOGISTS FILE N0. DATE AND ENVIRONMENTALSCI&MSTS. 233098 June 1998 =ffwny%=mnnrmftm y=m. JvIL. utJVK1r✓ I IVIV MW aw it� StaYldard Penetration Resistance v Z H (140 lb. weight, 30" drop) B_ 3 vi W Rt W 0 Blows per foot Surface Elevation: Approximately 70 feet 10 20 30 40 50 >50 0 to 4 feet consists of gray -light brown fine sP/. to coarse sand with silt (loose to medium SM dense, moist) Gray fine to coarse sand with interbedded silty 5 ..... , ..... ' ..... ..... , ...... ' .... . sand (dense, moist -wet) sWi sP I : : 6140 - No recovery : Very hard drilling (glacial till?) = 10 ............... ................... 50(1.5") . . Boring completed at 10 feet on 4/14/98 Ground water not encountered 15 .................. : ......:......:...... 20 ------- :............... : ..... .....:...... 25 :...... .............. .....:..... 30 :.....: ................ LEGEND I Depth 2" O.D. split spoon sample * Liquid limit Impervious seal P Sample pushed driven ■ Moisture content Water level TV Torvane reading, 3" O.D. thin -wall sample tons/ft + Plastic limit Plezometer dp PP Pocket penetrometer reading, tons/ft NOTE: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual. FIGURE NELSON-COWRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Echelbarger 7 CONSULTING GEOTecWICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS FILE NO. DATE ANDENMRONMEMAL SCIEM/STS 233098 June 1998 TYPICAL FOUNDATION EMBEDMENT AND EFFECTIVE SETBACK DETAIL . (NOT TO SCALE) FOOTING OR PIER AT LEAST 2 FOOT EMBEDMENT INTO STIFF/MEDIUM DENSE NATIVE SOILS FACE OF SLOPE LOOSE SURFICIAL LAYER (APP. 1' TO 3' THICK) -2 (......................................................... �........ .... AT LEAST 10 FOOT HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FROM FACE OF SLOPE (15' IN AREAS STEEPER THAN 35 PERCENT) NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENwRONI mwm SCIErmsTS STIFF/MEDIUM DENSE TO HARD/ DENSE NATIVE SOILS Echeibarger FILE NO. DATE 233098 L June1998 PERMIT EPT'S USE PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE, NUMBER i�"� `"`�•�J""' CONSTRU'PTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITE/APT# ADDRESS , '-� �(; " .C) �,.,A � EA LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. MAILING ADDREStoiell-'EvevrW'r� /� { /� 11,, j j'. I /':3 L•� O ; fiw' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved ❑ O w RW Permit Required � CITY TELEPHONE EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION Street use Permit Req'd ❑ j�IP0f� % Inspection Required ❑ w A f 'I 1-019 �"] PROPOSED —J / Sidewalk Required ❑ NAME ll �I J� t J� g �` p METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF,FI TUBES PRV REQUIRED p�1��_ R`��vV 4T -bes1/li/�,l� }�J`��l �l j YESX NO ❑ cc ADDRESS �� �� .��` / REMARKS(1"&1 �=i��' � t.,?t,'i' i i Z cc W C ZIP TTEjHO(N�E..CTY R~ i^, !?of I NAM �, /� s ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY rt �11 e Li 1 we Cool cc ADDR S FIRE M p �// REVIEWED BY to a % ! MEMO GATED E LL L ONEv^�`� AE C ADB# SHORELINE # fT /Ab e)Ir ( SATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CH CKED BY r>e. r .J1.�1� .{f,Q..,r�' SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT l ZC t i' //COMPLETE-gEXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED YP PSED 0 LE AL' D SCRIPTION O PROP RTY - INC UQ� ALL EASEMENTS _ / - 1�L /r' /!��, a 10 ` LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) tx ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT UFVSIpE REAR 0 to W J J PROP,ERy� J61X�AC�COyUN'T PARCENO. a lllJy! h��'�LOT PLA /REGIEWBY DATE a r i.1 NEW l tl RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH REMARKSCOMPLIANCE OR / iii����� ✓' ❑ ❑ ADDITION E3 COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE ❑ REMODEL APARTMENT ❑ SIGN FENCE ❑ REPAIR C' CYDS ❑ ( X FT) CHECKED BY ITY—r)FLONSTRUCTION CODE OCCUPANT ) GRO ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER _ i f "• "./ SPECIAL IN$PE,CTCR /!�'' �%C% PANT GARAGE RETAINING WALL RENEWAL REQUIRED Jam& , LOAD Z CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY ❑ YES �� 0, 7 (TYPE OF USE BUST ESS OR TIVITY) XPLAIN! REMARKS t, `��f NCt4l=A�► IZ ?�{!� i'' _ PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108 U j w NUMBER !. - NUMBER OF CRITICAREAS 4 ) .lea/ L/5 K, m o OF., DWELLING � I (1 �•' O STORIES UNITS NUMBER YYV'JJ i r(„�-`` DESCRIBE WO TO BEONE J4 ' i' M Y ✓� =� ( IV) 00Aa %=� � o ,�(� ���rµ 1� FINAL INSPECTI REQUIRED 7VALUATION FEE �) PLAN CHECK FEE ✓ PLAN CHECK NO: 1� ("//% VESTED DATEEE �% V THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS,SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MAROUEES,ETC.) WILL REQUIRE I- SEPARATE PERMISSION. E w PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS a PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS N w 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS J IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF Cc EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND a ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY x 0 FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE U DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE x I NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. - I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. SIGNATURE(OW R R AGENT) DATE/SIGNED BUILDING PLUMBING MECHANICAL GRADING/FILL I /I STATE SURCHARGE STORM DRAINAGE FEES ENG. INSPECTION FEE PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT TOTAL AMOUNT DUE CALL FOR INSPECTION (425) 771-0220 APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFI 1 P, IG %PRE �,. !DATE RptE,ASED BY UAIt fr , ATTENTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPECTOR PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR C1FTY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUIPTION PERMIT APPLICATION Q_DE,4EI�AM�,Q,ELBARCTEP,. o AILIMADDRE U%: �tAe.11-&' `M f' dZ07 CITY TELEPHONE nel� WA GIP OzI 7%�-dZDS`" NAME FAIL 4M CT _bESI MS � ADDRESS T i � cc �52D C�Z%XZIPa� TELEP��/ w • (NE � ` NA / (J J{�' E �tCd. i I ✓�' l,.'C�+�'i ¢ ADDR1.2 Sg' U cc U �TY AIA V A —b ��i c, TELEPHON5 71 SATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION (( /// EXP.IIRRRATII`•OON DATE CHiECKED BY zza CPTION O PROPRT/- INC rLoL EASEMENTS LE ALD��DQ-- CfC se k o U CCOUNT P`ROP,FR / -XrAC/ 0 P�A.,Q( 6, NO. 000 / IJ��{!�(�(J�NEEW 1 V(I RESIDENTIAL i❑-1 ADDITION /'❑� COMMERCIAL ❑ REMODEL APARTMENT ❑ REPAIR CYDS ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK DGARAGE ❑ RETAINING WALL 6I CARPORT ROCKERY (TYPE OF USE, 8i SIf ;S RF_/ II I L XPLfA N NUMBER NUMBER OF OFF, DWELLING STORIES UNITS DESCRIBE WCFSK CBE pONE ousa [PERMIT E-IPMES USE PERMIT'+ -() ZONE�, NUMBER + `+,: J , JOB 1 �� �� SUITE/APT# ADDRESS � j. j LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved ❑ ❑ RW Permit Required Req'd ❑ EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION C• Street Use Permit Inspection Required ❑ PROPOSED ^ Sidewalk Required ❑ METER SIZE �j/\�5 LINE SIZE NO. OF FI TURES PRV REQUIRED ❑ O 7 61 YES NO w REMARKS_ &X1_,-S1'a"-j r:�'�"� z 2 ma�yj)) •7'} �^/ Z W i ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY ( % , :f� . r� 7( �7 v 0 FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY W cc LL VAWE O/VR��/���](f�/(� ADB# SHORELINE # SEPA REVIEW COyI�� I EXEMPT E(IAjk_P// SIGN AREA ALLOWED_ PROPOSED HEIGHT v? ALLOWED ���/�P�'SED LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR �0 FRONT U SIgE REAR t5 z 1t.2�5 LOT AREA 7 a IEW BY DATE 14 ) a PLUMBING /MECH REMARKS COMPLIANCE OR ❑ CHANGE OF USE ❑ SIGN FENCE ❑ ( X FT) CHECKED BY JTY'"_nF A' STRUCTION CODE OCCUPANT ❑ OTHER J "I GROUP / SPECIAL INiSPECTOR ANT ❑ RENEWAL REQUIREDYES A53n LOAD REMARKS V PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108 CRITICAL AREAS 71! NUMBER YprA 15V 4. A/- 417 �x6 \/- pt* FINAL INSP PLAN CHECK FEE HEAT UR E r-mac ��s I Gil G% L BUILDING PLAN CHECK NO: /�1 y„ VESTED DATE PLUMBING MECHANICAL • THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO F BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC GRADING/FILL DOMAIN (CURBS,SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES,ETC.) WILL REQUIRE r SEPARATE PERMISSION. , g STATE SURCHARGE w PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS IL PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS STORM DRAINAGE FEES w APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS ENG. INSPECTION FEE IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF ¢ EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND a ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY x o FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMEDTO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCEANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT OJ x NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF • THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. SIGNATURE(OW R R AGENT) DATE SIGNED /! '.. (425) ... -vl q 771-0220 ATTENTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEWMADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ` CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 REQUIRED VALUATION �� FEE I t� APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy. and Fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFIC IG RE �,. � DATE. J RfCB SEDBY`l DATE ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPECTOR PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR 01 z 0 m j `p0 I � I \ HAI (` TH F ` TO 00, TO YARD "DRAIN. 4 �\ 101?=12..0t` IrJV.=69.00 O FILTER BARRIER- \ `C FENCE (TYP) LOCAT MAY \. VARY 'DING \ 1 \ ON CO 7& \ • •-� - � d- r12c. S o<L , 4 \ OUTFALL TO �`'�Y• i 9 r \ CREEK < 4- CLEANG!-!T ' 8 L I i r� 1 \ 10 :;; d K. \ INV-,;',.67 p I , CONN:.CT ROOF AND - 0 / . FOUNDATION DRAINS �+,[ TO EXISTING 0" ADS p OU TF AL-L TO �� CI? E E[ K I 1 t I I i I v I I N n -- I oI J II f xrs n W NG HOU F 1 OP - 93.80 + INV 8F3.00 (W) INV=90.00 (S)I ` n INV=88.00 (SE&E) i of I 00' SE T IAII. `WITH WASHER � I N 4-0 4,54., �-- CONNECT �O NEW RAINAGE ]9.00' SYSTEM EX'I PIPE T BE REMOVED DRAIN , lop = 96.41 .BONE ti INV 94,63 _-_r1 .;z. / 1AGE PIPE - 4° COTJC__SO EXISTING 6" CONC. PIPE MAY BE PRESENT IN SD 1. THIS AREA. PIPE IS TO BE LOCATED AND \ SD:r---t\`' 1 CONNECTED TO NEW SYSTEM. PIPE DOWNSTREAM TO BE REMOVED. \3'-6r " i I � I I � I I I ftEAN, TC�P=82,0± fP 1 I y% J I = 79.50 I \ Ii I , I I I \ I I � � I , + o blAce `�- I r.� co , , I � , I 'a 0 ,r CB-#5---- TOP= 96.82 INv-91.90 , SC'' - l y 30' INI;RFSS, F (;R[ SS AND U TII_I I r I A`)'I MF 111 SCALE 1 1 "==10' 5 0 15 0 10 F ----- DRIVI. WAY AREA SHALL HE CONSTRUCTED AS A `—�-- TE MPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER I DE. TAIL ``A I I I �o EX. SSMH - 1 - _ I IrJ ✓ - 94.80 , C (-P ,. BENCHMARK SEE NAIL 'vVI1H WA 11FR OPd CErJTEPI INF AT LOT LINE. F_x rE.rJ[)E[) ELFV.= 100.00' (ASSUMLD) CB TOP-99.00f -- �� INV =96.50 1 FIELD SET TO INTERCEPT ROAD RUNOFF. PROVIDE SHAPED ASPHALT OR CONCRETE BASIN TO CONTAIN RUNOFF F O • I C � Ut'7 �vtQY�i/� G-(y�t f �I �1(� LCX�[.f�1''t; "f't-� (dl �a�0' '-�' p n = .30*12'36" R = 1 71.83' T = 46.38' L = 90.60' 6- \ /i f-\ I A I I -r\/ A A A r% PLAT DATA APPLICANT DEAN ECHELBARGER P.O. BOX 30, LYNNWOOD, WA 98046 TELEPHONE: (425)487-6770 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR PLANNER PROJECT CONTACT: MIKE SMITH LOVEL-L-SAUERE_AND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19400 53RD AVENUE W., SUITE 200 L.YNNWOOD, WA 98036 TELEPHONE: (425)775--1591 SITE ADDRESS 16720 76TE1 AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 TAX ACCOUNT NO.-6931-000-0101- 0009 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 10, REPLAT OF BROOKACRES ESTATES, ACCORDING 'TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 40 OF PLATS, PAGES 179, 180 AND 181, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. M A (-I(- /%r- Mr- A r)1AI/\ CENrERLINF OF 30' WIDE INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMI-NI ACCORDING TO THE REPLAT OF E3ROOKACRES ESTATES. VERTICAL DATUM ASSUMED NAIL WITH WASHER AS SHOWN ELEVAIIOIJ: 100.00 AS`iI1blFli LEGEND O EX. REBAR N!/CAI? NO. 9891, EXCF:F'T I,S NOTED. 5S = SANITARY SLWE1? TINE i;? H = iANI FAE'Y SEWER MArll IGL.F. CB _ (;'.A TCH HA SIN CHMH = CA 1C11 E3A51N MANHOLE SD = SIORM DRAIN LINE. ,IV = WAIT -RUNE NJV = WATER VAl vE FH FIRE HYDRANT PP _ POWER POt_I. CP GUY POLE GA GUY ANCHOP rSV = IRAFE IC SIGNAL ROX S3 SIGNAL CON IROI. 130X UH - U IILI TY E3OX ICV IRRIG. COrJTR01. VAI.VE CXo�x:? ROCKERY TREE LEGEND TREES 10 REMAIN TREES TO BE REMOVED NOTES: 1.) ALL RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES IDE-rTTIFIED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE[) JUNE 5, 1998 ARE 10 BE FOLLOWED. 2.) EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO RETAIN THE EXISTING TREES AND FOLIAGE. TREES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE BUILDING SETBACKS ARE NOT TO BE REMOVED UNLESS THEY ARE DETERMINED TO BE DEAD, DAMAGED OR DISEASED. 3.) ALL TREES SLATED FOR REMOVAL_ ARE TO BE TAGGED AND CALLED FOR INSPECTION PRIOR TO REMOVAL. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND T.E.S.C. PLAN FOR IN NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 7, T.27 N., R.4 E.,W•M. CITY OF EDMONDS SN OH OM I SH COUNTY, WASH I N GTON SHEET 11C Lovell—Sauerland & Associates, In21000 c. ; r,fSTFt�F.� / k� Ej)ginecrs/Surveyors/FlanneT•s/Dcveloprrient. Consultants 'j��i1rAL 1 t/50�� r_ r o 1 El A 01, 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 w Lynnwood, 17A 98036 ® (425)770 1591 ® (420)672-799f FAX FFYPIPI 7/4; no z Ir -, ` P'll, P FILE, No, ---� 11l m C: EIE;G�(1�+b l)ATL ,CA1:rP,, SECTION 7, T.27 N., R.4 E.AM. GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHAI L CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICA110NS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE &. MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE. CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAN. 2. ALL. CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF THEIR SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE: WORK. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDE. SEWERS (LATERALS & TEES) AND THE PLACING OF 2 X 4 MARKERS WITH THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE LATERALS AND TEES INSCRIBED ON THE MARKERS, AND PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IN TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF THE SIDE. SEWERS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 5. UPON COMPLETION OF THE SIZE IMPROVEMENTS AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, THE CONTRACTOR THROUGH HIS CONSULTING ENGINEER SHALL FURNISH AN AS -BUILT PLAN TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS WHICH INDICATED THE LOCATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVE.MF.NTS INCLUDING SIDE SEWER LATERALS OR TEES, WATER LINES OR OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. 6. UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED WITH STREET LIGHTING. 7. WATER SERVICE WITH MEIE:R BOX AND CURB STOP REQUIRED FOR EACH LOT. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR AND MAKE AIR TESTS OF SANITARY SEWER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. LATERALS TO BE 6" CONCRETE PIPF, OR P.V.C. CONFORMING TO SDR 3034 STANDARDS. 9. EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE CONTRACTOR IN LOCATING SAID FACILITIES IN THE FIELD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE: RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING ACTUAL LOCATIONS IN THE FIELD AND CHECKING WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES THAT MAY HAVE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITHIN 111E PROJECT LIMITS. THE: CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR AINY DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND FACILIIIES RESULTING FROM HIS OPERATIONS. 10. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE. JOB SIZE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 11. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CLEAN, FLUSH, DISINFECT WHERE APPLICABLE AND OBTAIN SATISFACTORY APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS REGARDING THE QUALITY AND INTEGRITY OF EXISTING WATER LINES, SANITARY SEWER LINE, STORM LINE, RETENTION SYSTEM, ETC. WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE 13Y THE CITY OF THESE PROCEDURES MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER. 12. ALL. WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH W.S.D.O.T./A.P.W.A. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OR AS DIRECTED 13Y THE CITY OF EDMONDS. 13. ALI. LOCATIONS OF EXISIING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE- AND IT SHALT_ BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONIRACTOR TO VERIFr THE. EXACT LOCATIONS 10 AVOID DAMAGE OR DISIURHANCF 14. ALL ILNLEI AND CATCH BASIN FRAME AND GRATES SHALL HOI HE ADJLISII D UNTIL IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO PAVING. 15. THE TEMPORARY EROSION/SLDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. PLAN. THESE FACILITIES MUST BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR IN SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. 16. AL.I.. REQUIRED STORM WATER RErENTION/DETENTION FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO ANY PAVING UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED 13Y THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 17. DRAINAGE. STRUCTURES NOT ON PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF --WAY SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS. 18. ALL DISTURBED SURFACES SHALL BE SEEDED WITH TOUGH, HARDY, FAST GROWING GRASS UNLESS LANDSCAPING/EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE EMPLOYED. 19. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL STORM DRAINAGE PIPING 8", 12", 18", 24" & 36" INCLUDING DETENTION PIPE WILL 13E 16 GAUGE: GALVANIZED STEEL. AND SHALL_ USE TREATMENT 1. 20. GRASS SEEDING WILL BE DONE USING AN APPROVED TYPE H'rDRO- SEEDER, OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE PERFORMANCE BOND WILL NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE GRASS IS ESTABLISHED UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 21. PIPING SPECIFICATIONS AS NOTED, 22. ALL. STEEL PARTS WILL. BE GALVANIZED AND WITH TREATMENT y1 (ASPHALT COATED). 23. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS FOR INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER, WATER, AND UNDERGROUND POWER SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUCH WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY P.U.D. STANDARDS. NOFES.ALL\EDMS.2 94--12.0-A 012595 ELEVATION VIEW PL AEJ VIEW 140I F S: 1. YARD DRAINS TO BE CONSTRUCTED f ROM CONCREIE PIPE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASIIv1 C 14 UNLESS 01HFRWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. 2. CUTOUT HOLE SI7E: IS EQUAL TO OUTLET PIPE OUTSIDE DIAMETER PLUS YARD DRAIN WALL. IHICKNFSS. .3. CONNECTION TO OUTLET PIPE TO 81. MORTARED AND MADE FLUSH WITH INSIDE OF THE YARD DRAIN WALL. 4. CAST IRON BELL GRATE. FITS INTO HELL RECESS AND EXTENDS FLUSH WITH FACE OF BELL. THE GRA IE SHALL. HAVE SLOTS (HOLES) THAT CONSTITUTE 50 PERCENT OPEN AREA FOR DRAINAGE. INLET BELL SURFACE SHALL BE FINISHED 10 ASSURE NON ROCVING FIT WITH ANY COVER POSI110N. 5. WASHED DRAIN ROCK. 6 INCHES MINIMUM DLP IH. 6. VARIES 12 INCHES OR 18 INCHES. 7 SPECIAL CAST YARD DRAIN MAY 131. PEQUIRID FOR MULTIPLE PIPE CONNECIIONS. YARD DRAIN NO SCALE �H \ . ELEVy1 (71.31)+ FLEVy2 (9:591)-1 ELEV#15 (95.43)+1:LFVy4 (72.56)=333.21 333.21 /4=83.30 (AVERAGE ELFV) 83.30-129=112.30 (MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT) HEIGHT CALCULATIONS DETAIL N.T.S. " INljl" ' DAI\C _- ;AP LENGTH PIPE BE. ND STORM DRAIN CLEAN -OUT DETAIL N.T.S. 12" THICK MIN.--\ t'qs, J \� 1 4 -8" QUARRY SPALLS STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (MODIFIED N.T.S. 75 �Cf , y, r 21009 ISTV rIONAI. EXPIRES 7/4/00 CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1.) ARRANGE FOR AND ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH CITY OF EDMONDS SITE INSPECTION, 771-0220. 2.) CALL DIALDIG (UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER) 1-800-424-5555. 3.) CONSTRUCT FILTER FABRIC FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 4.) CLEAR AND GRUB SITE. 5.) INSPECT AND VERIFY INVERT ELEVATION OF EXISTING PIPES ON SITE. CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND. 6.) CONSTRUCT HOUSE AND UTILITIES PER PLANS. 7.) FINAL GRADE. 8.) HYDROSEED, MULCH AND PLANT LANDSCAPE. 9.) REMOVE THE REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION/ SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLY AFTER SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED AND CITY OF EDMONDS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE REMOVAL. 10.) CLEAN STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. FILTER FABRIC - MATERIAL 2"x2"xl4 GA. WIRE FABRIC OR EQUIV. PROVIDE 3/4" TO 1.5" WASHED - GRAVEL BACKFILL IN TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER FENCE FABRIC ON THE SURFACE � 88 N �O O opolo - - 2" X 4" WOOD POST ALT: STEEL FENCE FILTER BARRIER DETAIL N.T.S. NOTES & DETAILS FOR 41 r DEAN ECHELBARGER IN NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 7, T.27 N., R.4 E.,W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SN OH OM I SH COUNTY, WASH I N GTON SHEET NC � Lovell -Sauerland & Associates, Inc.INVE , • I:ngineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants L xti OF 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 ® Lynnwood, WA 98036 a (425)775-1591 - (425)672-7998 FAX DRAWN CITECKED DATE F.B. SCALE FILE NU. MMM CMC 04- 23-00 - - 9 7 i J 7 C ...; 7 SECTION 7, T. 27 N ., R. 4 E., W. M. I ` � I I I I I ' ! I I • � i 1 ! ; I I ` I i I ' I I I ` I' 1 1 IT N I 41 ` 1 C � I i i I N EXISTINGI CB � 90 �O NOOSE / TOP=93.80 j \ i - INV=88.00 (W) T-I _ INV=90.00 (S) INV=88.00 (SE&E) I I 1:90 ` \\\ _ - ` c I s v I ------ SET AIL (WITH WASH EF 15.00 »E\ 79.00'` CONNECT 0 NEW RAINAGIJ, 5' • 1 E\9, SYSTEM E PIPE T BE 'REMOVED ? 5 `\ HAND- DEG -TREO THROUGH ROOT`\ZOLJE `�.�1.............:; ,....... \ TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE I TREE'..... ..... \... �y \ 4 YARD \'DRAIN_ 4 PIPE ISO `\ N \ \ CONC. yV \\ \ TOP=)'•2.0± `\ ` '�� 1 I \ ` \\ \ SD S . �•ti \ \ � ` I 11 IN,V�7W.82 \\ n SOS\ p N 0, v`v % CONFECT f�0`OF ANb REMOVE EX. � PE � of 01 FO6TING'Df AINS �! C � c \ \- FILTER�BARRIER ! FENCE (TYP) \ \ \\ YARD, DRAIN 6 \ LOCATION Y `. \ I t T--,196,00 \ i� VARY D . E \\ ' \\ I V=43.5d \\ ON QS v I v \ \ I qkO \ !\\\ ✓ Y? \ �\\V I` 0 ��� \\ O C�. � Flu I GF• \ \ \ �', y ICV I I^ OUTFACE TO '. � �9 � , \ \ � , I II , .`L I f ^° ! , CREEK I \ \ I ` J� , 'CLEANOUT ' 8 1/ , 1 1 I W FIELD SET 'TOP AND', INVERT 10 �2 T ��\—'EX'., OUTFALL CA\ TO (CREEK • \ \ \ \ 10 I u Q� \ \ INV�49.67', �� • Ey_ A0 ,c, \\ YARD DRAIN 7 \\\ g LQ �p -- Al SURFP E i vv � TOR=` 6 5\p 4 ^ p ° o� I� \ JNV-94\00. TRENCH \ \ \ DRAIN , , w, ,8• ` ` \ \ TOP=97.4--- ' .•, CONNECT ROOF AN i. I \ � \ ', \ � ^\a � , \ \ FOUNDATION QRAINSI TO EXISTING 6" ADS', \ \ + �q L EX. DRAIN L TOP = 96.41 INV = 94.63 Z r EXISTING 6" CONC. PIPE MAY BE PRESENT IN THIS AREA. PIPE IS TO BE LOCATED AND CONNECTED TO NEW SYSTEM. PIPE DOWNSTREAM TO BE REMOVED. �1 CB #5 TOP= 96.82 INV=91.90 iREMOVE i i I EX. R0 KE14Y 1 ! I I ()CD p OUTF'ALL T01 \� 7C, i \ I — rc I 9 6g N b5 �y ROOf�.5 4%�ZllI 3 / i DRAIN'. » pVC I® 313'.. gr i i I ; 1 .5 �p FIR r'• \`� i / CON SURFA' I i E I" '' 00/ , 1 I I I / �� I f. ....I,.,.,..• I I CZ) `� I I 1 I ... I I I I I ! i q QA i � ��• ti � �. 6. %Qr�/o N E N OlJ T 2 ,� ST�c �I I I I •� I i I TOP=82;0±ti0 \ I WJ= 79! 50 G I 1 I I 1 I I I ' I 00 •1 CII Cb (, J\ TO I I cr rn \ O� tj .I O , \ On r-Kvw/l '� H" � @� In aeo • � ` ' i��r^ f✓rro 1Dn.+Aa�>E s�.is�t ��P�t+�1 �� . 0 p\1 VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 "= 2, 400' SCALE 1 "=10' 5 a 15 PLAT DATA 0 10 APPLICANT DEAN ECHELBARGER P.O. BOX 30, LYNNWOOD, WA 98046 TELEPHONE: (425)487-6770 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR/PLANNER PROJECT CONTACT: MIKE SMITH LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19400 33RD AVENUE W., SUITE 200 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 TELEPHONE: (425)775-1591 SITE ADDRESS 16720 76TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 TAX ACCOUNT NO.-6931-000-0101-0009 LEGAL DESCRIPTION EX. 30' INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT ' DRIVEWAY AREA SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AS A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER DETAIL I ' I I I I EX. SSMH ' - -i- TOP = 98.66 INV = 94.80 / 2 BENCHMARK i SET NAIL WITH WASHER ON CENTERLINE AT LOT LINE EXTENDED. ELEV.= 100.00' (ASSUMED) ENGINEERING A�-u � � .�. -) ENOGINEERING APPROVA AS NOTED 6�le ?(V/60 X TOP=99.00± \, INV=96.50 FIELD SET TO INTERCEPT ROAD RUNOFF. PROVIDE SHAPED ASPHALT OR CONCRETE BASIN TO CONTAIN RUNOFF \ V A = 30*12'36" R = 171.83' T = .60' 90 � L = 90.60' 0 LOT 10, REPLAT OF BROOKACRES ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 40 OF PLATS, PAGES 179, 180 AND 181, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. BASIS OF BEARING CENTERLINE OF 30' WIDE INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT ACCORDING TO THE REPLAT OF BROOKACRES ESTATES. VERTICAL DATUM ASSUMED BENCH MARK NAIL NTH WASHER AS SHOWN ELEVATION: 100.00 ASSUMED CONTOUR INTERVAL LEGEND O = EX. REBAR W/CAP NO. 9891, EXCEPT AS NOTED. SS = SANITARY SEWER LINE SSMH = SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE CB = CATCH BASIN CBMH = CATCH BASIN MANHOLE SO = STORM DRAIN LINE W = WATERLINE WV = WATER VALVE WM = WATER METER FH = FIRE HYDRANT PP = POWER POLE GP = GUY POLE GA = GUY ANCHOR TSV = TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX SB = SIGNAL CONTROL BOX UB = UTILITY BOX ICV = IRRIG. CONTROL VALVE COCO = ROCKERY TREE LEGEND • TREES TO REMAIN TREES TO BE REMOVED NOTES: 1.) ALL RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES IDENTIFIED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATED JUNE 5, 1998 ARE TO BE FOLLOWED. 2.) EFFORTS SHOULD BE MADE TO RETAIN THE EXISTING TREES AND FOLIAGE. TREES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE BUILDING SETBACKS ARE NOT TO BE REMOVED UNLESS THEY ARE DETERMINED TO BE DEAD, DAMAGED OR DISEASED. 3.) ALL TREES SLATED FOR REMOVAL ARE TO BE TAGGED AND CALLED FOR INSPECTION PRIOR TO REMOVAL. -j(�'" AVL � � MAY 3 0 2000 GRADING, DRAINAGE AND T.E.S.C. PLAN FOR DEAN ECHELIRAIRGER IN NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 7, T.27 N.$ R.4 E.,W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SN OH OM I SH COUNTY, WASH I N GTON SECTION 7, T.27 N., R.4 E.,W.M. 7 GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD, BRIDGE & MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION AND STANDARD PLANS AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS, AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS PLAN, 2. ALL CONSTRUCTION IS SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF THEIR SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION PRIOR TO AND DURING THE WORK. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDE SEWERS (LATERALS & TEES) AND THE PLACING OF 2 X 4 MARKERS WITH THE LENGTH AND DEPTH OF THE LATERALS AND TEES INSCRIBED ON THE MARKERS, AND PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS IN TIME TO PERMIT INSPECTION OF THE SIDE SEWERS PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. 5. UPON COMPLETION OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, THE CONTRACTOR THROUGH HIS CONSULTING ENGINEER SHALL FURNISH AN AS -BUILT PLAN TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS WHICH INDICATED THE LOCATION OF ALL SITE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING SIDE SEWER LATERALS OR TEES, WATER LINES OR OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. 6. UNDERGROUND WIRING REQUIRED WITH STREET LIGHTING. 7. WATER SERVICE WITH METER BOX AND CURB STOP REQUIRED FOR EACH LOT. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR AND MAKE AIR TESTS OF SANITARY SEWER AND SEWER CONNECTIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE CITY ENGINEER OR HIS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE. LATERALS TO BE 6" CONCRETE PIPE, OR P.V.C. CONFORMING TO SDR 3034 STANDARDS. 9. EXISTING UNDERGROUND FACILITIES HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSISTING THE CONTRACTOR IN LOCATING SAID FACILITIES IN THE FIELD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING ACTUAL LOCATIONS IN THE FIELD AND CHECKING WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES THAT MAY HAVE UNDERGROUND FACILITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT LIMITS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND FACILITIES RESULTING FROM HIS OPERATIONS. 10. A COPY OF THESE APPROVED PLANS MUST BE ON THE JOB SITE WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS. 11. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CLEAN, FLUSH, DISINFECT WHERE APPLICABLE AND OBTAIN SATISFACTORY APPROVAL FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS REGARDING THE QUALITY AND INTEGRITY OF EXISTING WATER LINES, SANITARY SEWER LINE, STORM LINE, RETENTION SYSTEM, ETC. WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF THESE PROCEDURES MUST BE TRANSMITTED TO THE DESIGN ENGINEER. 12. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH W.S.D.O.T./A.P.W.A. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. 13. ALL LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATIONS TO AVOID DAMAGE OR DISTURBANCE. 14. ALL INLET AND CATCH BASIN FRAME AND GRATES SHALL NOT BE ADJUSTED UNTIL IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO PAVING. 15. THE TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FACILITY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR EXTENSIVE LAND CLEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN. THESE FACILITIES MUST BE SATISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND THE POTENTIAL FOR IN SITE EROSION HAS PASSED. 16. ALL REQUIRED STORM WATER RETENTION/DETENTION FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION PRIOR TO ANY PAVING UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 17. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES NOT ON PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS. 18. ALL DISTURBED SURFACES SHALL BE SEEDED WITH TOUGH, HARDY, FAST GROWING GRASS UNLESS LANDSCAPING/EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE EMPLOYED. 19. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL STORM DRAINAGE PIPING 8", 12", 18", 24" & 36" INCLUDING DETENTION PIPE WILL BE 16 GAUGE GALVANIZED STEEL AND SHALL USE TREATMENT 1. 20. GRASS SEEDING WILL BE DONE USING AN APPROVED TYPE HYDRO - SEEDER, OR AS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE PERFORMANCE BOND WILL NOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE GRASS IS ESTABLISHED UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 21. PIPING SPECIFICATIONS AS NOTED. 22. ALL STEEL PARTS WILL BE GALVANIZED AND WITH TREATMENT #1 (ASPHALT COATED). 23. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS FOR INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEWER, WATER, AND UNDERGROUND POWER SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUCH WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND SNOHOMISH COUNTY P.U.D. STANDARDS. NOTES. ALL\EDMS.2 94-120-A 012595 ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW NOTES: 1. YARD DRAINS TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM .CONCRETE PIPE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C 14 UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR NOTED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. 2. CUTOUT HOLE SIZE IS EQUAL TO OUTLET PIPE OUTSIDE DIAMETER PLUS YARD DRAIN WALL THICKNESS. 3. CONNECTION TO OUTLET PIPE TO BE MORTARED AND MADE FLUSH WITH INSIDE OF THE YARD DRAIN WALL. 4. CAST IRON BELL GRATE. FITS INTO BELL RECESS AND EXTENDS FLUSH WITH FACE OF BELL. THE GRATE SHALL HAVE SLOTS (HOLES) THAT CONSTITUTE 50 PERCENT OPEN AREA FOR DRAINAGE. INLET BELL SURFACE SHALL BE FINISHED TO ASSURE NON -ROCKING FIT WITH ANY COVER POSITION. 5. WASHED DRAIN ROCK. 6 INCHES MINIMUM DEPTH. 6. VARIES 12 INCHES OR 18 INCHES. 7. SPECIAL CAST YARD DRAIN MAY BE REQUIRED FOR MULTIPLE PIPE CONNECTIONS. YARD DRAIN NO SCALE ELEV#1 (71.31)+ ELEV#2 (93.91)+ ELEV#3 (95.43)+ELEV#4 (72.56)=333.21 333.21 /4=83.30 (AVERAGE ELEV) 83.30+29=112.30 (MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT) HEIGHT CALCULATIONS DETAIL N.T.S. aP LENGTH PIPE END STORM DRAIN CLEAN -OUT DETAIL N.T.S. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1.) ARRANGE FOR AND ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH CITY OF EDMONDS SITE INSPECTION, 771-0220. 2.) CALL DIALDIG (UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER) 1-800-424-5555. 3.) CONSTRUCT FILTER FABRIC FENCE AND CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 4.) CLEAR AND GRUB SITE. 5.) INSPECT AND VERIFY INVERT ELEVATION OF EXISTING PIPES ON SITE. CONTACT ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND. 6.) CONSTRUCT HOUSE AND UTILITIES PER PLANS. 7.) FINAL GRADE. 8.) HYDROSEED, MULCH AND PLANT LANDSCAPE. 9.) REMOVE THE REMAINING TEMPORARY EROSION/ SEDIMENTATION CONTROL ONLY AFTER SITE HAS BEEN STABILIZED AND CITY OF EDMONDS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE REMOVAL. 10.) CLEAN STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. FILTER FABRIC --- MATERIAL 2"x2"x14 GA. WIRE FABRIC OR EQUIV. P� in '°°o0, oo °G �Oo° O° 0 O R = 10'MIN PROVIDE 3/4" TO 1.5" WASHED GRAVEL BACKFILL IN TRENCH 12" THICK MIN. AND ON BOTH SIDES OF FILTER $" I 2" X 4" WOOD POST FENCE FABRIC ON THE SURFACE ALT: STEEL FENCE / 4"-8" QUARRY SPALLS FILTER BARRIER DETAIL N. T. S. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (MODIFIED) N.T.S. NOTES & DETAILS MAY 302000 FOR DELI N ECHELD U /1111 R IN NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 7, T.27 N., R.4 E.,W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS . c SN OH OM I SH COUNTY, WASH I N GTON SHEET NC `� Lovell & Associates, Inc. z,eso a 2 L/' ' ��, cls�-tt`� �> Engineers/Surveyors/Planners/Development Consultants r�NAL (f p of 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 • Lynnwood, WA 98036 • (425)775-1591 • (425)672-7998 FAX EXPIRES 7/4/00 TT T I..,mn ,., m, I „„ I ., '_ I ,,. i -