The URL can be used to link to this page

16904 73RD PL W.PDF1111111111115807 16904 73RD PL W .3 in By order of the Building Official for the City ®f Edmonds All Persons Are Ordered to is Pursuant to Section 202(d) of t%e Uniform Building Code the Building Official for the City of Edmonds hereby orders all work to STOP at the site listed below. i'. Address: t% For the following reason(s): "r® Posted this _ day of --"- at --am/pm OT—uAilding7Officia The failure to stop work, or the resuming of work without permis- sion from the Building Official, or the removal, mutilation, or cor.;calmcnt of this notice is punishable by fine and imprison- nrcnt. 0 _j �'! :: '\ {.,�.:�„ � #'� X'�'f.¢f.,t^4yT�•x•5 1`i�. \ •h. � t i f"',<yr^}'.,. Mt> kC ✓" �''�) \ 14 (' � d ��, •fit � �iK T x,.'��• y.<<+N C `=;ski' 4x .+ _. �ii .4 '�F »7w i Ly ra i �s � �--Y RECEIVED 3 1§92 i PERMIT COUNTER � j 17OIio�/ I E 97O��v2 Icicle Creek Engineers Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Services Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon 16904 - 73rd Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 INTRODUCTION August 9, 1997 Construction Monitoring Summary Letter Deck Repair - Pin Pile Installation Gordon Residence 16904 - 73rd Place West Edmonds, Washington ICE File No. 0155-002 This letter presents a summary of our construction monitoring observations of the installation of "pin piles" at the Gordon residence at 16904 - 73rd Place West in Edmonds, Washington. We understand the City of Edmonds requires these services to verify the design foundation requirements for the installation of the pin piles associated with the repair of your deck. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Icicle Creek Engineers (ICE) previously conducted a geotechnical evaluation of the damaged deck foundation area; the results are presented in our report dated June 9, 1997. In our report, we concluded that the deck foundation failed because of loose soil underlying the existing deck footings (vertical settlement) and lateral ground movement of the loose soil on a steep slope (causing horizontal foundation movement). In addition, surface water runoff from the driveway and downspout drains may have been discharging into the loose soils that accelerated the vertical settlement and lateral movement of the foundation soils. We recommended in our June 9, 1997 report that the deck may be supported by pin piles or supported directly off the existing house foundations. The limitation of pin piles is that they do not provide resistance to lateral loads caused by soil creep, which was a factor in the existing foundation failure. Soil creep is a process by which loose soil on steep slopes moves downslope and is usually measured in less than an inch per year but can be accelerated by the introduction of ground water. However, the uncontrolled surface water runoff from the driveway and downspouts has been corrected. Therefore, soil creep may have been reduced to a slower rate. The Gordon's and Deck Crafters (the deck designer) decided to use pin piles for support of the new deck with the knowledge that future soil creep will not be resisted by the pin piles. This may result in future damage to the deck. The pin piles are designed to be embedded in firm native soil. Therefore, damage to the deck caused by vertical settlements should be reduced because of this deck foundation support method. Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc., Meadowcreek Professional Center, 22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 202, Issaquah, Washington 98027 Telephone: (425) 557-4368 Fax: (425) 557-4369 MICROFILM . 4, Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon August 9, 1997 Page 2 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING OBSERVATIONS On July 30, 1997, Brian Beaman of ICE, conducted a site visit to observe the installation of pin piles. The design plans provided to ICE by Deck Crafters on July 15, 1997, indicated that three pile groups were planned. Each pile group containing two piles; one pile driven vertical and the second at a 1H:5V (horizontal to vertical) batter. Mr. Beaman observed the installation of the three vertical piles that are the primary vertical loaded foundation elements. The three piles were driven to practical refusal at a depth of 18 to 20 feet below the ground surface. The driving resistance was easy to a depth of about 10 to 15 feet, then increased in difficulty to practical driving refusal. We did not observe the installation of the batter piles. David Mohs of Deck Crafters (the deck designer and builder) informed us that the batter piles were installed to a depth of 18 to 20 feet below the ground surface. CONCLUSIONS Based on our observations, the vertical piles are embedded at least 5 feet into native, firm soil. In our opinion, the installation of the vertical piles was completed in substantial compliance with our recommendations presented in our June 9, 1997 report and the project specifications for vertical load bearing capacity. ******************** We trust this letter meets your current needs. If you have any questions concerning this letter, please call. Document ID: 0155002.CMS t EXPIRES I o - 3o - 98 Three copies submitted Icicle Creek Engineers Yours very truly, Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. Brian R. Beaman, P.E., P.G. Principal Engineer/Geologist 0155002/080997 MICROFILM Aug-20-97 11:03A Icicle Creek Engineers 206 557-4369 P,01- I C E Icicle Creek Enponeers Geotechnical, Geologic -and Environmental Services Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon 16904 - 73rd Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 August 9, 1997 Construction Monitoring Summ Deck Repair.- Pin Pile Installat Gordon Residence 16904 - 73rd Place West Edmonds, Washington ICE File No. 0155-002 INTRODUCTION This letter presents a summary of our construction -monitoring observations of the installation of "pin piles" at the Gordon residence at 16904 - 73rd Place West in Edmonds, Washington. We understand the City of Edmonds requires these services to verify the design foundation requirements for die installation of the pin piles associated with the repair of your deck. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Icicle Creek Engineers (ICE) previously conducted a geotechnicai evaluation of the damaged deck foundation area; the results are presented in our report dated June 9, 1997. In our report, we concluded that the deck foundation failed, because of loose soil underlying the existing deck footings (vertical settlement) and lateral ground movement of the loose soil on a steep slope (causing horizontal foundation movement). In addition, surface water runoff from the driveway and downspout drains may have been discharging into the loose soils that accelerated the vertical settlement and lateral movement of the foundation soils. We recommended in our June 9, 1997 report that the deck may be supported by pin piles or supported directly off the existing house foundations. The limitation of pin piles is that they do not provide resistance to lateral loads caused by soil creep, which was a factor in the existing foundation failure. Soil creep is a process by which loose soil on steep slopes moves downslope and is usually measured in less than an inch per year but can be accelerated by the introduction of ground water. However, the uncontrolled surface water runoff from the driveway and downspouts has been corrected. Therefore, soil creep may have been reduced to a slower rate. The Gordon's and Deck Crafters (the deck designer) decided to use pin piles for support of the new deck with the knowledge that future soil creep will not be resisted by the pin piles. This may result in future damage to the deck. The pin piles are designed to be embedded in firm native soil. Therefore, damage to the deck caused by vertical settlements should be reduced because of this deck foundation support method. Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc., Meadowcreek Professional Center, 22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 202, Issaquah, Washington 98027 Telephone: (425) 557-4368 Fax: (425) 557-4369 a 0 Aug- 26-97 11:03A Icicle Creek Engineers 206 557-4369 P.02,. Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon August 9, 1997 Page 2 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING OBSERVATIONS On July 30, 1997, Brian Beaman of ICE, conducted a site visit to observe the installation of pin piles_ . The design plans provided to ICE by Deck Crafters on July 15, 1997, indicated that three pile groups were planned. Each pile group containing two piles; one pile driven vertical and the second at a 1H:5V (horizontal to vertical) batter. Mr. Beaman observed the installation of the three vertical piles that are the primary vertical loaded foundation elements. The three piles were driven to practical refusal at a depth of 18 to 20 feet below the ground surface. The driving resistance was easy to a depth of about 10 to 15 feet, then increased in difficulty to practical driving refusal. We did not observe the installation of the batter piles. David Mohs of Deck Crafters (the deck designer and builder) informed us that the batter piles were installed to a depth of 18 to 20 feet below the ground surface. CONCLUSIONS Based on our observations, the vertical piles are embedded at least 5 feet into native, firm soil. In our opinion, the installation of the vertical piles was completed in substantial compliance with our recommendations presented in our June 9, 1997 report and the project specifications for vertical load bearing capacity. We trust this letter meets your call. EXPIRES I®•.n •n Document ID: 0155002.CMS Three copies submitted If you have any questions concerning this letter, please Yours very truly, Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. Brian R. Beaman, RE., P.G. Principal Engineer/Geologist Icicle Creek Engineers 0135002/080997 (,S q 2-So, 41 m JAN 0 21 119S2 PEMIT COUNTER IA t4lo -MAi1-4 LZ Z'Ts.s e-13 2( q, 2-S k, 0 .13.- 2 745, 2 C.4 G 10*7-5.0 r s pol+-wevv—b 2 STREET FILE L JAN 0 ti ► =�2. pEPI)I;T COUNTER L-F V 41—t v ^3 ILI�-- - _ - rF t side, k'Xc p►.� ��-r, aw I 1 c. S a�. APR — 1 4— 9 2 T U E 1 S:@ tB G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS P.01 Pnst•tt" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 N Of pages ► ¢roan D. . j -J� � r DO JkWi GE�TECH oe� :..fS0 CONSULTANTS I NC Fax N ex N U M r ,Y Suitt 16 Atin. Page From ..i0"— �j1j -------- — — — Data —_— Project (G9r�4_.�3. �s�_}tJ__? E�ri-co 5�_.�---.__ Job Hum bor __.. Sub!oct ...,_. j1P _ t V0� .�SL10�� ----- Fax Number ins rf-owt ou R- OF C VI s+ T ;,I,, S 17i:, Y��1Tt 1t�1. Tf . CiTj N A-% v4ED' TAr,46-V Tft nb PUC 7t_) S(X)P9 COM-reAum, lUgf.? C-IftL4' 1'1W AN FACAvO. �, z- rn� c'nf w rent APE-a�r�-Y 9 F�! t j e, w :wf) ;� w trA ruucN of-rrh-5 54-AjO MW $dame(-L LseY3 A.A;N!,r A rim 7� e077��. aF i� CffTCos P-6r#k4J )r V6.C#Wrtj)WQ ,,,jA-.,y, g4 ft /UA-qc— IW f4 0C j t. A "► +I�R� 4'c.�!;� �U�O k*1D plrE ..ar��li tag llfi'i5 4�� ►s�ve� f�R 'te:wrft�F�4>�( St! rA•►4j D FAT V F wa.s� 5uri ran s J UP Owl - pOwNSWPE .5106 yr % TO five— f-',DwL gir. Cttrc.o.s A-mo vie k'--voavrA% f! ? a >t, tS �ou+� onl CamV 1T20► i- 146S gam;'-rkI jj£ t 'An\je <4kNP Apt'" LCKSI- t7 RjE'r f3CLOW T Nr:` Y (*'RV v),JD YFt. -rL-)P oF- 4ftugi� Ouv-sit iHLc- 63uee> de W .APR-14-92 T U E 15:09 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS P.02 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS I NC MEVORAMOUM r (Northup Way) Suite 16 T 0 Attfl. D; - — Date -------- From Pro]* e t Job Number Suble,"I Fax Number c>/v6- fbov A-r Y-Hs pji6 AN6 v4t(ls Al-: WA-f-,< .TWC " b4a A-S-rff c e 09 d AIA -qff;' OIF WA-,-i-. T"kae_TV-R-C/ Ir TW6 $00, (1�115IC6 0 cc t46 A .3' A Pt ?AMlAfq er /S 'Aj(fft,�f UJJL4ge" bLAr7 C041-JOAt kc g*z.4-xcp4z>,(ij JN WoDt>.-Ukc�, -6ktut 5, A- b IAJ A?JY llill_f_,V_� -f, t-I 13C Coisl4ocnt. C ter VA'_W 01= VJI*, CORV; C-,XCAV4kM07J AMC), a/Snk)4 LIAVI- A; 66 cc-lq-- ANY . . ..... C-. or, - — (Ojh�__ APR —14—S:2 7UE 15:10 GE07EICH CONSULTANTS P-0:3 O GEOTECH CONSULTANTS INC MEMORANOUM Affl.,A 1,12*16 s I. %,llli. 17,1 (Northup Way) stille 16 (206) 747 4 To - Atin, Pogo --3 of From Data Job Number fax Number CA— P U3 eoksT"CTOCs Ldl%14- IM , 1>0LI U-6D wc-4e I jtb 6DLE-S� LA-) I TA- rtft!Ovkms o0wo ..� ,�,:, c�-ti.,c,. - - �...� z Cr��r�� -�- z. G�N ems-) . �5.,, ��-r�. �6 5PACiM AT 647007— Tper A-) e�ejsvNc SLOM i 4 c*-) okm M �C.Rs < 7)J-IE ClZlN7MaL*- V14A-jr/V0-W Le* (4q; V) PC 6 CD-i Ck-* 714S . 7v , Xh- �l/ �� it%I�'r�r�-' G� �e �� CA5 NZ AlTRAVEL PREP TIME OEOTECH �: n E A CONSULTANTS, INC. TIME ON SITE TIME OFF SITE (206) 747-5618 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 (206) 343-7959 Bellevue, WA 98005 WEATHER DAILY FIELD REPORT JOB LOCATION CLIENT/OWNER � 1, 0 G! l ( 0 GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS SUPT. GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING FOREMAN JOB NO. MILES PAGE OF VISITORS PERMIT NUMBER WEEK RGED MIS wilLNE-11k FM MIN err :E 1 it C71 1 .—atmm t l?� it 3 _".. .. E. r Ra u ► �t �� — I • -f�'05201 1. a 1�Q / 1 Li .� tr►1 ,, ;.1 JIM,r, NEXT SITE VISIT. COPY TO: �F �°v A P R— 1. 7— 9 2 F R I P . 0.1 G F C)I"I~ FF C H CONS[ 1 t .•PANTS, INC. 13256 N.E. 2611.:;1. l.` -rthup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA (206) 747--5G 19 FAX 747S5G1 3 2 4,.. G E O T E C H C O N S U L T A N T S Post -it" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 Roger Childs Company, Inc. P.O. Box 3071 Redmond, Washington.98073 is k M ?-7 1 - 0Z-7-1 N of pages �Z-self _ April 17, 1992 JN 92189 sut)ject:-Geotechni cal Engineering Considerations si nggl a-Fami 1 y Residence 16904 73rd Place West, Edmonds, Washington BUILDING APR. 1 7 1992 Thi 6 letter i s i n response to a request by Dick Muninia , engineer for the City of Edmonds, to evaluate the post. - construction stability of the site. A geotechnical investigation was prepared in 1981 by another firm for the Eagle's Nest development, of which the subject site is a part. Our involvement in this project began after the start of site excavation. 'rhe original toppography appears to have sloped continuously downward to the north and east. ' The geotechnical investigation noted that the soils in the sloped areas consisted of approximately 3 feet -of loose, slope -wash s.)il overlying medium -dense to dense sand. We observed in the residence excavation that the sand has been.encountered on the west side of. .the proposed residence. However, it apppears that some fill soils were placed on the site since the 1981 report, and some remain in the residence area at this time. Nat.ive soils were observed in a small portion of the east side of the residence excavation, and it appears that there are 3 feet of loose soil over a dense layer --similar to the soil conditions noted in the original geotechnical investigation. We reviewed the original plans for the. residence, preps rec1 by Roger Childs Company; Inc., which indicate that a conventional, 16-inch-wide footing has been designed for the eastern, downslope wall of the residence. However, due to the sloping ground, the east wall must be backfilled on the inside of the residence in order to support a, proposed slab. since the outside of the wall cannot.be backfilled up to the s,>il level inside of the residence, the foundation wall would have to be designed as a retaining wall. After discussions with mr. Childs and Peter S. White, structural engineer, it was T- 9 2 F R I 1 2 Z G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS P 0 2 • ir.)ger Childs Company, Inc, Page 2 ri 1 17, 1992 JN 9?.189 decided to eliminate the slab in the eastern basement area and support that portion of the basement with a wood fl,�,or.. Beneath the floor will be a crawl space, thus no lateral soil pressures- will be exerted on the. eastern wall, a+id no retaining wail is needed. The plans have been revised to reflect this change. A copy of the plan is attached. wp have added one note to the drawingg indicating that the footing iti.ust tie founded on bearing soil {i.e. medium -dense to dense saritiY. We recommend that all footi ngs ' be founded on native, M,I i ufln- dense to dense sands beneath the slope wash soils. We further rer,.ommend that no additional fill soils be placed on the site s1,.�pes. All storm water from impervious surfaces should he discharged to a storm water system or a natural drainage Swale, or at least 50 feet downslope of the residence/ —'— Soil movement on slopes such as those at the subject site is the result of creep in the near -.surface, loose soils, h-)wever, since the footings will be founded on the denser s�)i1s, the risk of instability involving the house foundation 14 low. Therefore, it is our opinion that if the recommendations in this.1etter are.adequatei.y implemented, the stability of the site slopes will not be reduced. the recommendations presented in this report are, directed toward protection of only the structure from damage dues to slope movement. Landslides and surficial soil movemer.. can orc;ur on steep slopes. At additional cost, we can p,Uvide recommendations for reducing the risk of future movement on the steep slopes, which could involve construction of c.o.iO y GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. AP.R- 1 7-S2 FR I 1 3' 25. GEO-rECH CONSUL.YANTS P _ O Roger Childs Company, Inc. Aj-•r-i 1 17, 1992 Page 3 JN 92189 retaining structures. Alternatively, the owner can accept: the p,::ssibi1tty that some of the ground on the slope below the residence area could be lost to slope movement over time. if there are any questions, or if we can be of furthf-r !c--rvice, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. D, Robert Ward Geotechnical Engineer ALJLJL A. a. FIAT. ST��'� `? �sSly VAI, ExPIF fs 8117 / q3�r, James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. Principal DkW/JRF: rme A. L. t.achment c,r, : City of Edmonds --Dick Mumma GEOTECH CONSULTANTS; INC. �r1i�-i r d 71S �"�✓iH f�' N� j £ 6l-vzl 5-;P,04d7rF o0 l'ol +� t'1 �?aO�t`ll'�9 Z1� 70• i�2 1" 1O�-7t 1 M71 hA ug 1 T-- nd !u[3 I IT i•�tti�=rJ' �.J�� r i 1 LD Y 1 1 I "i7 ► (9 N ( n .- ., 'f•.:� a, `:; _ 1 .-:ip 1 " t :a �" ' y .. - `�S. .+fib. <;-;��t. ' : . �- ., , • RIB - . { l � � L/PREP TIME JOB No. OEO'TECH, . 'N.26 4!". INC. CONSULTANTS, APR Z � ' ' � ON SITE MILES '�- PERMIT cpuN OFF SITE PAGE (206) 747-5618 13256 N.E: 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 i (206) 343-7959 Bellevue, WA 98005 OF WEATHER VISITORS DAILY FIELD REPORT :12111. ;)„ - G�NA r� JOB LOCATION PERMIT NUMBER GENERAL CONTRACTOR ' GENERAL CONTRACTORS SUPT. DATE DAY OF WEEK 1Vfll; -pV- CL4-7J of I 14-2-o-qz--1 6140N AM NMI i d au, t �lb A ' .�� l Woff '' L TRAVEL/PREP. TIME' r JOB NO. GEOTECH2!(26 CONSULTANTS,. INCRE,CEIVEIIIIE ;ON SI E MILES 199 TIMY OFF SITE PAGE (206) 747-5618 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), ulte.. . 3 DI `OF ' (206) 343-7959 Bellevue, WA 98005 PERMIT COUNT 3VERTHER VISITOR DAILY FIELD REPORT JOB LOCATION , CLIENT/OWNER PERMIT NUMBER GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS SUPT. 0 TE DAY Of WEEK — - q Tkj S G ADING CONTRACTOR GRADING FOREMA NRS.CNARGED 5< L. c�( r ? aS -4- r . SW -TOLD k1we— D r :56((-- "AS r_ 7 1) NEXT SITE VISIT. n 1 COPY TO: SIGN TORE: 0 RIVEP ECE � TRAVEL/PREP. TIME GEO-r CONSULTANTS, IN4R 2 1' 1992 TIME ON SITE PERMIT COUNTER TIME Off SITE (206) 747-5618 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 (206) 343-795.9 Bellevue, WA 98005 WEATHER DAILY FIELD REPORT JOB LOCATION CLIENT/OWNER l C� GENERAL CONTRACTOR GENERAL CONTRACTORS SUPT. GRADING CONTRACTOR GRADING FOREMAN J 013 NO. 9 Z MILES PAGE Z• OF VISITORS PERMIT NUMBER OA E IOAY Of WEEK NRS. CHARGED J S �. I S nJ V i GY✓//-' f J?prk-11 S S "`r V ' - NEXT SITE VISIT: COPY T0: A-0 ) � \\ �l '2 fl 13 - jo� ConverseWard Davis Dixon IGeotechnical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Edmonds View Property - Phase II Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, Washington Conducted for: Whiteley Jacobsen and Associates CWDD Project No. 80-5251-04 June 1, 1981 Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 300 Elliott Avenue West Suite 150 Seattle, Washington 98119 Telephone 206 285-5200 WJ ConverseWard Davis Dixon Geotechnical Consultants June 1, 1981 80-5251-04 Whiteley Jacobsen and Associates 2118 Third Avenue Seattle, Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. Paul Forsander Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Edmonds View Property - Phase II Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: This report presents the results our subsurface investigation conducted at the Edmonds View Property - Phase II, a planned residential develop- ment. The site is located near 172nd Street and Meadowdale Beach Road in Edmonds, Washington. The site, including Phases I and II, encom- passes.. approximately 12.5 acres. It is our understanding that project plans are to subdivide the property into residential lots and construct roadways and associated utilities. Present plans call for the site to be developed -in two phases. Phase I consists of development of the southern approximate five acres. A geo- technical investigation has been completed for this phase of development with the results summarized in a report dated January 30, 1981. Phase II consists of the development of the northern approximate 7.5 acres, which is the subject of this report. An undated preliminary layout of the Phase II development has been pro- vided to us and was the basis for our geotechnical investigation. This layout consists of 18 building areas clustered at the higher elevations in the western half of the site as shown on the enclosed Drawing 1. Access to the Phase II area is presently planned to approximately fol- low the general alignment of an old logging road. This access is .via Meadowdale Beach Road which bounds the east and northern sides of the property. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 300 Elliott Avenue West Suite 150 Seattle, Washington 98119 Telephone 206 285-5200 F I a t It is our understanding that the proposed structures will .be similar to those proposed for Phase I: wood -framed and ranging between one and two stories in height. In general, the foundations reportedly will consist of poles based in drilled holes on the steeper downhill areas with some conventional wall footings for the uphill and flatter areas. The purpose of this study was to obtain subsurface information and de- velop geotechnical design recommendations. Verbal authorization to proceed was given by the owner, Mr. Peter Bilder, on May 5, 1981. Our scope of services in the Phase II area consisted of the following: 1. excavation of nine test pits; 2. continuous logging of subsurface conditions; 3. obtaining samples of representative soils encountered in the test pits; 4. visual classification of the soils encountered; 5. engineering evaluation of field exploration results; and 6. preparation of this.geotechnical report. Site Conditions The Phase II area is irregular in plan with a maximum east -west width of approximately 600 feet and a maximum north -south width of approximately 900 feet. The property is characterized by higher elevations in the western portion of the area with moderate to moderately steep slopes. The steeper slopes face in an easterly and northeasterly direction and are approximately 1.75H:1V (horizontal to vertical). The maximum amount of relief across the Phase II area is approximately 140 feet. A maximum elevation of 340 feet occurs in the extreme southern portion of the area and the minimum elevation of 200 feet occurs in the extreme northwest corner. There are no roads into the site, with the exception of an abandoned logging road near the central portion of the site. The higher portions of the site are covered by a moderately thick growth of second -growth evergreen trees while the lower portions of the site are dominated by deciduous trees and low brush. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. — 3 — Geol ogy The subject area is located on an upland surface in the Puget Lowland, The Puget Lowland was invaded by continental glaciers in at least four separate periods during the Pleistocene Epoch. During these glacial and accompanying non -glacial periods, a thick sequence of soils was depos- ited. It is estimated that these soils reach thicknesses on the order of a thousand feet in the project vicinity. The present surface characteristics and near -surface soils are the result of the last period of continental glaciation, which occurred between 15,000�and 13,500 years ago. It is assumed that these sediments are underlain by older glacially -related soils. Field Exploration The subsurface conditions in the area of .proposed Phase I I development area were explored by means of excavating nine test pits on May 11,' 1981. Seven test pits (TP-1 through TP-7) were excavated by a tractor - mounted backhoe and two test -pits (TP-8 and TP-9) were hand -dug in areas which were in to the backhoe. The backhoe-excavated test pits ranged in depth from 3 1/2 feet to 11 1/2 feet. The hand -excavated test pits were approximately 3 1/2 feet in depth. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on Drawing 1. The test pits were observed by .a engineering geologist from our office who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface conditions encountered. Representative bag samples were secured for visual examination and classification. Summary field logs are presented at the end of this report. All soils have been clas- sified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Subsurface Conditions The near -surface soils which underlie the site were deposited during the last period of glaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. These soils (from. oldest to youngest) are referred to as the Whidbey Formation and the Esperance Sand. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -4- A limited amount of overlying glacial till was encountered in the south- ern portion of the Phase I area. No glacial till was encountered in the Phase II area explorations and it is assumed --not to be present in this area. The subsurface conditions encountered at the test pit locations con- sisted of a dark brown organic layer of forest duff which ranges up to.a few inches in thickness. This surface material was underlain by silty sand or sand which represents either a residual soil layer and/or slope - wash. This sand was observed to range in thickness between approximate- ly one to 2 1/2 feet and ranged from loose to medium dense. Underlying these upper sands was medium dense to dense sand. This underlying sand represents the Esperance Sand unit. The Esperance Sand was underlain by the oldest unit observed on the site, the _Whidbey Formation, which was near the surface in the lower slopes. The approximate area underlain by the Whidbey Formation is shown on Drawing 1. The Whidbey Formation consists of silt and clay with some interbeds of fine sand. With the exception of the near -surface soils, all of the soils which un- derlie the site have been compressed by•glacial ice. Weathering of the near -surface soils has resulted in loosening of these materials. The soils encountered in the test pits generally ranged from slightly moist to dry and no groundwater was encountered with the exception of test pit TP-5. The static groundwater table at the site is anticipated to be in older granular soils which underlie the Whidbey Formation. However, there is a perched groundwater table which exists within the Esperance Sand. Because of the clean nature of this sand, surface water infiltrates. rapidly, percolating downward to. the boundary of the Whid- bey Formation. The Whidbey Formation is sufficiently fined -grained so as to greatly reduce the downward percolation of the water and results in a perched water table above the top of the Whidbey Formation. This perched water was encountered in test pit TP-5. Springs or areas of seepage generally occur where this contact intersects a slope. The ap- proximate locations of the geologic boundaries are shown on Drawing 1. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -5- :. No areas of instability were noted during our investigations of the site. On the steeper slopes, there was evidence of a general downslope creep of the near -surface soils as evidenced by the bowing of tree trunks. Creep of these looser surface soils is a normal occurrence of steeper slopes. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following conclusions and recommendations apply specifically to the Phase II area; however, they are very similar to those for Phase I. On the basis of the information obtained during this investigation and our preliminary geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the pro- posed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The steepness of some of the terrain will restrict development without ex- tensive grading. The major portion of the proposed structures will be founded on sloping ground and excavations into the hillside are anticipated. Footings and lower floor slabs should be supported on competent, undisturbed moder- ately dense to dense native soils where exposed in the excavations. In areas where the lower floor will be above the existing ground surface, it will be necessary to install footings well below the ground surface on a relatively steep slope. A pole -type footing would be suitable at these locations. At locations where the ground is not steeply sloping,, it should be possible to place compacted structural fill which would be suitable for support of spread footings and slabs -on -grade. Our following recommendations are general. First, it is anticipated that similar designs and construction with lower floors as specified for the Phase I area will apply to the Phase II area. In our opinion, our recommendations are adequately complete to cover foundation design for the proposed structures; however, if design modifications are made such as changing structure locations or floor elevations, we should be con- tacted to review our recommendations and their applications. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. .� 6- Site Preparation All areas within the limits of excavation or where fill is to be placed should be stripped to remove vegetation,and debris. The vegetation and debris should be removed from the site or placed in non -building areas. No material should be placed on the hillside downslope from the proposed houses. It is important that the slopes not be disturbed by the con- struction. Surface water.must be controlled so that it is not allowed to become channelized and spill down the slope. The preliminary plans indicate that the maximum depth of excavation will be approximately 13 feet. Based on our explorations, the soils in the excavations will generally be sand with some gravel. The upper two to li four feet of soil was loose to medium dense and graded to dense below. 1 We recommend that the contractor be made responsible for the stability .i of temporary excavations. He is continually at the site and can evalu- ate the stability of the soils as they are exposed. Structural fill to support floor slabs or -footings should not be placed on the moderately to steeply sloping ground, slopes steeper than 2H:1V. Fills may be constructed on flatter slopes. Areas to receive the fill steeper than 5H:1V should be benched to -provide a level surface to sup- port the fill. A bench should be at least six feet wide and the differ- ence in elevation between adjacent benches should be at least three feet. All structural fill should be placed in layers approximately eight inches in thickness, conditioned to,a moisture content suitable for compaction, and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 compaction test. Fill slopes should be inclined at 2.5H:1V or flatter. Soil for structural fill should be free from organic matter and debris and should have a granular texture free of clay lumps. On -site sandy soils are suitable for use as fill in dry weather, and we recommend that soils containing a minimum of silt or clay be utilized as they will be easier to compact and less sensitive to'moisture content. Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. Foundation Support The proposed' structures may be supported on conventional shallow spread footings or a combination of spread footings and pole -type foundations. We recommend that the foundation system be designed so that all hori- zontal forces, such as those due to earthquakes, are resisted by the shallow spread footing portion of the foundation system. Shallow footings founded on undisturbed medium dense to dense soils may be designed for an allowable net bearing pressure of 3,000 psf (pounds per square foot). Suitable bearing soils were observed at shallow depths across the site in our explorations, generally two to four feet below the existing ground surface. Wall footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches and individual column footings should be a minimum of 18 inches wide. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the adjacent grade. Our recommended criteria for footings founded in areas of sloping ground are that the outside edge of the footing on the downhill side should be at least eight feet back from the face of the slope measured in a hori- zontal direction. Footings founded on'structural fill may be designed for an allowable net bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Minimum size and depth of embedment are the same as recommended above. The outside edge of the footings founded on fill should be at least five feet back from the face of the fill measured in a horizontal direction. Pole -type footings may be utilized on sloping ground where it is not feasible to construct shallow footings. A pole footing would be con- structed by drilling a hole with a power auger, inserting the pole, and then backfilling the annular area. We recommend the annular area be backfilled with low -shrink Portland cement concrete. Our recommended minimum depth of pole embedment below the ground surface is six feet. The base of the poles should have a minimum diameter of eight inches. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -8- Our recommended allowable bearing capacity for a pole embedded six feet is 18,000 psf. For pole embedded eight feet, .the allowable bearing capacity may be increased to 24,000 psf. The effective area of the foundation is equal to that of the base of the pole. The effective area of the foundation could be increased to the area at the bottom of the hole if a. concrete .footing was poured in the bottom of the hole to sup- port the pole. Such a concrete footing should be at least 12 inches thick. The foundation systems for the proposed structures will generally con- sist of a combination of shallow footings and pole -type footings. We recommend that the horizontal loads be resisted by the shallow footings. However, if pole -type footings are required to resist horizontal loads, it may be necessary to deepen the footings to greater than the minimum six-foot embedment depth. The following formula may be used to deter- mine -embedment depth to resist horizontal loads: d 2 1 + /1 + 4.A6h where A = 2.34P Slbl P = applied horizontal force in pounds S1 = allowable lateral soil bearing pressure bl = diameter of pole h = distance in feet from ground surface to point of application of P d = depth of embedment of pole in feet A value of 300 pounds per square foot may be used for the allowable lat- eral soil bearing pressure (Sl). The diameter of the pole (bl) may be increased to the effective diameter of the hole provided the annulus is backfilled with low -shrink concrete. Shallow footings can resist horizontal forces through the horizontal passive pressure of backfill adjacent to the footing and by friction across the base of the .foundation. Horizontal passive pressure may, be Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. calculated using an equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution) of 250 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). This assumes the backfill is drained and compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry den- sity. Resistance to sliding may be calculated using a base friction factor of 0.45. Basement Walls All subsurface walls should be backfilled with a free -draining granular soil and foundation subdrains should be installed behind the walls to minimize the potential for hydrostatic pressure to develop. The walls must be supported on dense undisturbed soil. The on -site sandy soils described as the Esperance Sand unit would generally be suitable for re- use as backfill behind walls. Backfill behind walls should be placed in layers not exceeding eight i inches loose thickness and compacted with relatively light vibratory equipment to at least 90 percent•of its maximum ASTM D1557 dry density. i An 18-inch thick layer of impermeable soil should be placed on the ground surface and compacted to prevent surface water fromseeping downward into the granular backfill. The ground surface should be sloped to drain away from the wall. Perforated footing drains, at least four inches in diameter, should be placed behind basement walls. The invert of footing drains should be at least 12 inches below finished interior floor grades and sloped to drain at a grade of at least 0.5 percent. Convenient cleanouts should also be provided. All perforated footing drains should be protected by a, filter of drain- age sand.and gravel. There should be at least four inches of this mate- rial below the drains, six inches along the sides, and 12 inches above the drains. In addition, the filter material should extend upward, adjacent to the wall so that it is a minimum of 12 inches thick measured perpend icular to the wall. Our recommended gradation for filter mate- rial is: Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. U.S. Standard Percent Passing, S.i eve Size by Dry Weight 1 1/2 inch 100 3/4 inch 70 - 90 No. 4 30 - 60 No. 8 20 - 50 No. 30 8 - 30 No. 50 3 - 12 No.-200 0 - 1.5 We recommend that subsurface or retaining walls up to approximately 12 feet high be designed for horizontal pressures equivalent to that. of a fluid weighing 40 pcf (triangular distribution). Surface Water The exterior ground surface should be sloped to drain away from the building and the surface should either be paved or covered with at least 18 inches of impervious soil to inhibit surface water from infiltrating into the subdrains. It is our understanding that it is desirable to dispose of roof drainage in dry wells. We. anticipate that this scheme will work satisfactorily based on certain requirements. These requirements are as follows: 1) the dry wells should be located in the Esperance Sand unit and not in the finer -grained soils of the Whidbey Formation, 2) the wells should not be located on the very steep slopes, and 3) they should not be located in the proximity of the basement wall perforated drains. We understand that the storm drain system,relative to the roadways, will be designed to flow into a detention system. We recommend that the detention system have a controlled orifice and be tightlined away from the slopes. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. Arrccc Rnari At the present time, the planned access to the Phase II development will be via a roadway along the approximate alignment of the existing logging road. The existing roadway is estimated to be approximately ten feet in width and appears to be primarily located in cut areas with some fill along the outboard portion. It is our understanding the present plans call for widening by the construction of a cantilever retaining wall up to approximately 25 feet in height. The existing roadway has resulted in some oversteeping of the slope above the roadway. It is our opinion that a structural retaining system would be required if additional exca- vations were planned on the uphill side. An alternative to the canti- lever wall would be widening by placing a new fill along the outboard slope or use of a Reinforced Earth type retaining system. For the case of a cantilever retaining wall which can rotate 0.001 of its height, it is recommended that the active lateral earth pressure be assumed equivalent to that from a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This pressure is appropriate for the case of granu- lar, drained backfill in a flat configuration. Additional lateral pres- sures on the back of walls from a uniform surcharge pressure on the adjacent backfill may be taken as a rectangular distribution with a mag- nitude equal to 30 percent of the surcharge pressure. For the case of a cantilever wall with granular backfill at a 2H:1V slope, the equivalent fluid density should be assumed as 55 pcf. To avoid hydrostatic pressure buildup on the back of walls, it is recom- mended that backfill consist of free -draining granular soils (less than five percent, by dry weight, passing the No. 200 sieve). The gradation recommended for filter material for basement wall backfill will be suit- able. A perforated drain pipe should be provided at the base of the wall and should discharge collected water into a suitable disposal area. In addition, weep holes should be constructed in the wall on four -foot centers. Backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 compaction test. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -12- Retaining wall footings should be based in firm, undisturbed soils or properly compacted fill and should be buried at least 18 inches below adjacent level ground surfaces. Footings based in the recommended materials may be designed with a maximum bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. This value may be increased by one-third for transient loads. The coefficient of friction between dense granular soils and cast -in -place concrete should be assumed as 0.4. Wall footings should be set back from slopes inside an imaginary line at 2H:1V up from the toe of the outboard slope. In the case of widening the roadway by filling, the fill should be keyed into firm natural soils near the base of slope. The new fill should be benched into the existing fill soils. These benches should be three to four feet in height and eight to ten feet in width. The new fill should be placed in horizontal layers approximately eight inches in loose thickness, conditioned to a moisture content suitable for compaction, and compacted to the specification noted above. The maximum fill slope should be 2H:1V- In areas where seepage or groundwater is encountered, it may be necessary to install a french drain for collection of water. The fill material should be granular and free -draining so as not to result in a buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the fill. It is recommended that a ditch be constructed.along the inboard portion of the roadway to collect surface water. This ditch should be paved or lined to prevent erosion. The best method of fill slope construction would,be by overfilling and cutting back to the desired slope. It is recommended that the fill surface extend outward beyond the edge of the paved sur- face at least two to four feet. This will prevent immediate undermining of the paved section, if for some reason water is allowed to spill over the bank. The roadway should slope slightly into the hillside so that surface water is prevented from spilling over the bank and resulting in erosion of the fill. An alternative would be construction of a berm along the outboard edge. The fill slope should be vegetated as soon as possible. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. Summary This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation and development of this site for its intended use. The discussion of site development is conceptual in nature and must be refined to take into account final roadway grades, slope locations, and construction sequencing. It is recommended that we continue our involvement with the design engineers to assure that final site development plans and specifications are con- sistent with the findings of our investigation. We recommend that site preparation, foundation excavations, fill -place- ment and drainage installations be observed by personnel qualified by training and experience to verify that the work is performed in accord- ance with these recommendations, the plans and specifications, and accepted engineering practice. The findings and conclusions of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and prac- tice. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Please do not hesitate to call us if there are any questions regarding the conclu- sions and recommendations contained herein.. Respectfully submitted, CONVERSE WARD DAVIS DIXON, INC. Wi S. Bliton eologist Dean/. Ryden Principal Enginer ti<Pk 6�STE �;• oFSS�ONAI Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. �ra�ar+r+r+r+�sari-�s�a a�� ■s��r � \ \ � _ . Qe /` TP-4\ 1 I 200 TP-2 29 328 323 1`21 \\ 311 9 Qe \ / /\ i 04 Q W J \ ,TP-3 307 " TP-8 M- \� tol 324 322 1 PIP- 0 / \ \. /be �—® \ / 77 /W QV / / X 4____1/ 0 o cy ��♦ / / / N o QW \` ♦ TP- 5 I i o ' EXPLANATION M cv cy Qe Es / ZA5 perance Sand o I co QW Whidbey Formation N " o �' / � I !—" N � Approximate Geologic Contact \ 2,�•� 30 0 30 60 g0 TP-it Approximate location of Test Pit �� - / Ow ) SCALE IN FEET • o0 GEOLOGY AND EXPLORATION MAP - PHASE a •EDMONDS VIEW PROPERTY Scale NOTED Project No. N / t I Edmonds, Washington Date MAY 1981 80-5152 N 0000 �for Whiteley -Jacobsen and Associates Prepared by Bfi Drawing No. / ConverseWard Davis Dixon � eotechnical Consultants Checked by WSB 1 Approved by WcB LAG OF TEST PIT- N1. TP-1 I I �_ I 1 11 u Locations See Drawing I. Surface Conditions. FnrPttPd with hijchP�,_ E Ievation: 297+ a.� .c N 0-0DESCRIPTION 0 a REMARKS --- SILTY SAND dark brown, fine to medium, little 1 ,(Forest Duff) coarse sand and fine to medium •1 gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose -------------- 2 1------ - ------ SP/ SAND reddish brown, fine to medium, with 3 SM (Slope Wash/ some silt and fine to coarse gravel, ,Weathered Sand) occasional cobble, some roots, trace ' orQanics; slightl,y_moist, loose. 4------------- - - -y - ------------ SP SAND brown to ra , fine to medium, with g 5 some lenses and layers of.coarse fine Grades to dense sand and to medium gravel, at 5.0' little silt occasional cobble; moist, medium dense to dense. g .. 9 10 11 12 13 Bottom of test pit at depth 11.5'. No groundwater encountered. Completed May 11, 1981. 14 y� LJG OF TEST PIT Location: See Drawing 1. Surface Conditions, Forested with bushes. ti s NJ. TP-2 Elevation: 308+ W 10 C o 0 < < o N DESCRIPTION REMARKS �M SILTY SAND dark brown, fine to medium, with 1 (Forest_Duff)_ little coarse sand and fine to medi- .'S P/ gravel, organics, roots.; slightly ' 2 $M, SAND � moist, loose. (Slope Wash/ reddish brown, fine to medium, with Weathered Sand) some silt and fine to coarse gravel, 3 SP �-AND --------- ; occasional cobble, some roots, trace SAND organics; -slightly_ moist,_ loose. brown togray, fine to medium, with 4 some lenses and layers of coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, 5 little silt, occasional cobble; moist, medium dense. 6 Bottom of test pit -at depth 3.5'. No groundwater encountered. g .Completed May 11, 1981. 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 1 J R EDMONDS VIEW PROPERTY Project No. Edmonds, Washington 80-5251704 for Whiteley -Jacobsen & Associates 6 Drawing No. Converse`p ardbaviS Dixon ` Geotechnical Consultants 3 ` LOG OF TEST PIT NV. TP-3 Location: See Drawing I. E I evotion= 292+ Surface Conditions:. ai ' o a $ DESCRIPTION REMARKS �"- H �o E C) c v N SILTY SAND dark brown, fine to medium, with _5M (Forest Duff)' little coarse sand and fine to medi- 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - .um gravel, occasional cobbles, or- Spj SAND ganics, numerous roots; slightly .2 SM (Slope Wash/ LmaLs�t,_ZQW52-------------------- Weathered Sand) reddish brown, fine to medium, with some silt and fine to coarse gravel, 3 -- ---------- occasional cobble, some roots, trace Sp SAND �Lorcnics; slightly._m_oist2_loose_____ L} brown to gray, fine to medium, with some lenses of fine to medium gravel 5 and coarse sand, little silt, occa- sional cobble; moist, medium dense to dense. 6 grades to dense at 5.0'. 11 12 11 1 Bottom of test pit at depth 11.0'. No groundwater encountered. 13 Completed May 11, 1981. 14 _15 Pro)ect No EDMONDS VIEW PROPERTY Edmonds, Washington 80-5251-04 forWhiteley-Jacobsen & Associates Dixon � .. - .r. .1iw"' .!C.�•_•�� .-_g. : ...:..�-•. ut. � .;��.:�' \dry,}�N1dI+--•--..+�W-�jj'e•LM'S...Ar..l'^'��i'J�--,?'��;L •:T A� - ' LJG OF TEST PIT Nvy' TP-4 Location: See Drawing 1. Elevation: 283+ Surface Conditions: Forested,with bushes. CL .� t. o E DESCRIPTION . REMARKS c <o a SM SILTY SAND dark brown, fine to medium, with 1 _Forest Duff) _ little coarse sand and fine to medi- um gravel,.organics, numerous roots; SAND\slightly SM/ moist, loose. 2 _ _ ( Slope Wash/ re&i sfi -Frown; fi ne -fo medium;-wit_h- Weathered -Sand) some silt and fine to coarse gravel, 1 3 ��occasional cobble, some roots, trace SP SAND `organics; slightly_moist,_loose___- 4 brown to gray, fine to medium, with some lenses and layers of coarse 5 sand and fine to medium gravel, little silt, occasional cobble; moist, medium dense to dense. 6 grades to dense at 6.0'. 7 8 9 I 10 i� 11 12 Bottom of test pit at depth 10.5'. No groundwater encountered. a 13 Completed May 11, 1981. �I 14 15 L 0 EDMONDS VIEW PROPERTY Project No. Edmonds, Washington 80-5251-04 for Whiteley -Jacobsen & Associates ConverseWDrawing No. ard Davos Dixon Geotechnical Consultants 5 LJG OF. TEST PIT NO. TP-5 Location. See Drawing 1. EIevatlon: 252+ Surface Conditions: Wet, soft ground; standing water. "" Qi ° E DESCRIPTION REMARKS to c O o SM SILTY SAND dark brown, fine, with numerous 1 (Slope Wash) sticks and organic debris; wet, loose. 2 Water seepage. -- -------------------------------------------- 3 SM SILTY SAND gray to brown, very fine to fine, with some clay; wet,.loose to medium 4 dense. 5 Bottom of test pit at depth 4.0'. Groundwater on surface and -at 2.0': 6 Completed May 11, 1981. 7 9 10 � 11 12 13 14 15 U 1 v c u G EDMONDS VIEW PROPERTY PfOJeCNO Edmonds, Washington 80-5251-04 for Whiteley -Jacobsen &.Associates Drawing No. ConverseWard Davis Dixon Geotechnical Consultants 6 T a J • LOG OF TEST PIT NV: TP-6 Location: See Drawi ng 1. E I evation= Surface Conditions: Forested, with bushes. 275+ c .— N 0-0DESCRIPTION o a N REMARKS S_M_ SILTY SAND dark brown, fine to medium, with (Forest Duff) little coarse sand and fine to medi- Sp --------- � um gravel, organics, numerous roots; Cut on side of SM Lslightly moist, loose. hill. 2 SAND ------------------ Slope Wash) brown, fine to medium, with some ---------- silt and fine to coarse gravel, some 3 1 roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose. SP _ _ _ _ _ SAND brown to gray, fine to medium, with 4 little silt and coarse sand; moist medium dense to dense. 5- 6- 7— Height of cut approximately 6.0' No groundwater encountered. $ Completed May 11, 1981. 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 J 1 . L G OF TEST PIT NUTP-7 Location' See Drawing 1. Surface Conditions: Forested, with bushes. Elevation: 261+ CLJV .c N o n Ln DESCRIPTION REMARKS -SM SILTY SAND dark brown, fine to medium, with 1 _(_Forest Duff)little coarse sand and fine to medi- _ SF �.um gravel, organics, numerous roots; SM SAND i sligh-ly moist; loose. . 2 -- --- ----- ----------------- (Slope Wash) brown, fine to medium, with some ----------- ; silt and fine to coarse gravel; 3 SP some roots, trace organics; slightly SAND i.moist, loose. Cut on side of ----------- -loose ------ _ hill. 4 brown to gray, fine to medium, with some lenses of coarse sand and fine 5 gravel, little silt, occasional cobble; moist, medium dense to 6 ] Height of cut approximately 5.0'. No groundwater encountered. 8 Completed May 11, 1981. 9 10 11 12 13 14 1C: y LOG OF TEST PIT NO TP-9, Location: See Drawing 1. Surface Conditions: Forested, with bushes_ Elevation= 315+ } o c o OR DESCRIPTION REMARKS `SM_ SILTY SAND dark brown, fine to medium, with 1 `-(Forest Duff) little coarse sand., fine to medium it gravel, some cobbles, organics, nu- Hand excavated SP SAND , merous roots; sli�htl_y moist,lo_ose._ test pit. 2 SM (Slope Wash/ reddish brown_, fine to medium, with Weathered Sand) some silt and fine to coarse gravel, 3 -- ------------- many cobbles, some roots, trace or- SP SAND 1_ 9ani cs ; _sl ightl�r moist,_ loose. 4 _ _ _ _ _ gray, fine to medium, with Lbrowno. and lenses of coarse sand and 5 medium gravel, occasional moist medium dense to dense 6 Bottom of test pit at depth 3.5'. No groundwater encountered. Completed May 11, 1981. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .L C LUG OF TEST PIT NO.' TP-8 Location: See Drawing 1. Surface Conditions: Forested, with bushes. Elevation: 336+ o o a a DESCRIPTION REMARKS GSM SILTY SAND dark brown, fine to medium, with '- 1 '_(Forest Duff)- little coarse sand and fine to medi- Hand excavated � .um gravel, some cobbles, organics, test pit. SP/ I numerous roots; slightly moist, SAND .2.SM Lloose------.-------------------- (Slope Wash/ Weathered-Sand) reddish brown, fine to medium, with 3 - - - some si l t and fine to coarse gravel, SP SAND many cobbles, some roots, trace or- 4 panics; slightly moist,_ loose______ brown to gray, fine to medium, with 5 layers of coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble; moist medium dense to dense. 6- 7- Bottom of test pit at depth 3.6'. 8 No groundwater encountered. Completed May 11, 1981. 9 10 11 12 13 14 .L J EDMONDS VIEW PROPERTY Project No. Edmonds, Washington 80-5251-04 forWhiteley-Jacobsen & Associates Drawing No. 63-1 ConverseWard Davis Dixon Geotechnical Consultants 10, 0 ,. �. CITY OF EDMON DS USE / ; s. °"y � �:-, ? •r- PERMIT 8 -70 61.2 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION . OWNER NAME NAMFr OF BU INESS � � ,Der ADDRESS ] Y , SUIT EIAPr v�� S �tI fj 7 lA, l + y _:.•� LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO. UO NO, MAILING ADDRESS'+- AbqbL rN CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP, TESCP Apprered O 1,1d /� _ r S i f � /I -1 .. '1/ EXISTING REQUIRED DEOIDATION RW Pernet Required SM1ae1 Ute ParmR Req a O 0 NAME PROPOSED Inglet:Ilen Required O SWil RaquVed 13 ' METER SIZE UNE SIZE NO.OF FO(TURES PRV REQUIRED ADDRESS YES ❑ Not] 3 � s- I�h' ff^1 TEL V t � G� iatPLf2 f of Property - include all ea`sem DATED SIGN AREA BEPA REVIEW ADS NO. ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE Exiii`7 ✓y NY,OhRELINEI EXP a y w.. VARIANCE OR CU PLANNI�NG+il'E"VJI�VY.SY J TyyE �... I SETBACKS —FEET HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE r'7 FRONT i SIDE `/ REAR 1r ><wrwuni Parcel Nn r 11 LV 15 R ARKS DNEW LI RESIDENTIAL PLUMSMGMECH ADDITION COMMERCIAL OR CHANGE OFEUSE EJREMODEL APT-BLDG. SIGN ❑ GRADING REPAIR CYDS. ❑ FENCE FENCE CHECKEDBYttPE CONS TppNN CODE/, OC v INSERTWOODSVE INSERT SWIM POOL HOTTUBBPA SPECIAL iNSP R `� REQUIRED AREA OCCUPANT CARPORTGARAGE WALL/ El YES r{/� (.�r"' dii— LOgO ROCKINING ERY Z RENEWAL REMARKS` O (TYPE OF USEBU NEBSORgCT ITYlEXPLAIN: PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC toe ( CP t%1 t�ha<tG li e� ER NU OF NUMB o OF 1 DWELLING- AREAS �-J -'�. �� •" "rb/� . 0 STORIES f UNITS -' i D RISE�W/O�RK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) FINAL INSP CTION REQUIRED 23 VALUATION FEE e PLAN CHECK FEE (j0 HEAT SOURCE-- GLAZING BUILDING / e� PLUMBING ,. \ Plan Check No. - �/L�r1 i MECHAil, This Permit covers work to be done on private Property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewPlks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. Permit Application: 180 Days STATESURCHARGE Pemdt Limp;1 Year - Provided work is Started µN1Mn 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE y successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold v harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, s employees, and agents from any and all clainll fgr'gamages of iwhatever nature, arising directly dr'indirectly from the issuance 0 of this permit. issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to ive o o modify, war'reduce any requirement of any city ordinance PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT (JI Ui1 x nor limit In ar Wey the City's ability to enforce any ordinance provision." : ' <M' TOTAL AMOUNT DUE y ��( 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information given is correct; and that 1 am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. 1 agree to comply with city and state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- THISPERMIT AUTHORIZES AUTHORIZES This application is not a PP permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- ONLY THE WORK NOTED Signed by the Building Official or his/her Deputy; tion Insurance and RCW 18.27. i. INSPECTION and fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged In ice provided. SIGNATU E OWNER OR AGENT) J DEPARTMENT WIGNED .''f l: � I�'� 1- TY OF OFFICI SIG E DATE( ! DIMONDS ATTENTION (vt CALL FOR RELL eY: D E � IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE INSPECTION %) � J,q� w7. UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF 771 �0220 ORIGINAL/ File YELLOW OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC — Inspector LLL SECTION 109 rota? PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor _ IL ' CITY.OF EDMONDS USE PERMIT zoNE NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION Jp�liEss ITE/APT# 7-7 b 41- OWNER NAME!NAME,OF BUSINESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECKI SUBDIVISION NO. LID NO. Cr MAIL Z 0 NG RES , PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved ❑ O CITY I TELEPHONE NUMBER 'EXISTING RW REOUIREO DEDICATION Street Permit Required Use Permit Req'd ❑ Inspection Required � PROPOSED �.T!� �tSidewalk Required Z NAME REMARKS w w w ADDRESS 'G 1 ZZd ( \ z i w a CITY ZtP TELEPHONE NUMBER NAME ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEW BY n ADDRESS O METER ZE BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER w a Z `4`i nqREMARKS I 3 0 U STATE LICENSE NUMBER SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW ADS NO. ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT Legal esc Iption f op4rty-71n—c1—ude7 all easements H SHORELINE # Z EXFp l `� O a VARIANCE OR CU NNINQ .REVIEW BY Dg TE 6/6; 0 w \ SETBACKS - FEET :- HEIGHT. LOT COVERAGE O 2 J w , -,ii jig 0 1-J .. k FRONT SIDE REAR . �i Tax Account Parcel NO. REMARK00 a NEW C7 RESIDENTIAL- EJ PLUMBING �1 I El j ADD/ALTER COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL REPAIR APT. BLDG. CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION , CODE HEIGHT GRADING ❑ FEIJCE" DEMOLISH CYDS. x-� ElREMODEL GARAGECARPORT swim SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA b GROUPOCCUPANCY 1 OCCULOAD POOL. , REQUIRED ❑ YES WOOD STOVE/ ❑ RETAINING WALL/ RENEW' L REMARKS O Z -_INSERT ROCKERY PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 Z (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR AL; TIVITY)�EXPLAIN.« r . J I I m EC wNUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF o DWELLING I m UNITS DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) 5, 11 FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE 0 BUILDING OQ /Z�/� PLUMBING Plan Check No. MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADING/FILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work is Sta ed Mthj1180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his or her«S ssigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE successors in interest, agrees to indemnl y, efend and hold . w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, agents from any and all claims for damages of v/ employees, and nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance / iwhatever of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT 0 J modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance ° limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE .nor provision." I hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this application; that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and. THIS PERMIT This application is not a permit until state laws regulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES signed by the Building Official or his/her 9 ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor Compensa= ONLY THE . W RK. NOTED - Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is Code onhe State of Washington relating to Workmen's - �' acknowledged in space provided. tl n Insurance. INSPECTION��' J� SIGNATURE (OWNER OR AGENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE DATE CITY OF —' EDMONDS CALL FOR LEAS Y DATE ATT NTION, INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE 771-3202 ORIGINAL —File YELLOW — Inspector UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE APPROVAL OR ^AND .. .::,d�..W...;-�'G'a"-i 21'^�..':q-.:,t•�. •.".t�.-�:. ,a ... ,. _, .1Ay^k're.•,.ts'oFu•stvti....:':as..-dw9:.ix.itn?.G7s;-:w':3.5. �'9.'aJx�::• .e1.�u ..... - Icicle Creek Engineers Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Services Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon 16904 - 73rd Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 .June 9, 1997 RECEIVEr. PERMI"r COUNTr` Geotechnical Consultation ;A Deck Foundation Evaluation;. Gordon Residence 16904 73rd Place West- Edmonds, WashingtonY'- File No. 0155-001 INTRODUCTION This letter summarizes Icicle Creek Engineers .(ICE) geotechnical consultation regarding an evaluation of foundation conditions for a new deck at the Gordon residence (16904 73rd Place West) in Edmonds (Eagle's Nest residential development), Washington. Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon requested our services to evaluate the depth to firm subgrade for support of the new deck and to provide recommendations for foundation method(s) for which the deck can be supported. Our services have been completed in general accordance with our Confirming Agreement dated June 9, 1997 and were verbally authorized by Ms. Gordon on June 5, 1997. The city of Edmonds (letter prepared by Meg Gruell dated May 13, 1997) has indicated to you that the reconstruction of the deck is in a "Steep Slope Hazard Area". A Steep Slope Hazard Area includes sloping areas more than 20 feet in vertical relief that are inclined greater than a 40 percent grade. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Gordon residence was constructed about five years ago and included a wood deck attached to the south side of the house. The house and deck are situated on an Past -facing steep slope. The house appears to be supported entirely within a cut into the steep slope. - The original deck was supported by 6-inch diameter concrete "piers" in the steep slope area. During the past five years, the deck has gradually settled vertically and moved laterally downslope. By summer 1996, the deck framing became distorted and prompted the Gordons to contract with Deck Crafters (formerly known as Decks-R-Us) to replace the deck. Brian Beaman of ICE conducted a preliminary site visit to the Gordon property in September 1996 to observe site conditions for the planned deck reconstruction. ICE was not under contract with the Gordons at the time of this initial site visit. During this site visit, Mr. Beaman observed that the original deck had been damaged because of ground movement (lands Iiding/rapid soil creep) that caused the existing deck foundations to move laterally downslope. Mr. Beaman also observed surface evidence that the ground movement extended across the Gordon's driveway and northward along the west shoulder of 73rd Place West for several tens of feet. The evidence of ground movement was manifested by a crack in the driveway and rolled curb in the street area, and pavement distress in the street. A fire hydrant was in an area Icicle Creek Engineers. Inc., Meadowcreek Professional Center, 22525 SE 64th Place, Suite 202, Issaquah, Washington 98027 Telephone: (425) 557-4368 Fax: (425) 557-4369 • Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon June 9, 1997 jU1. 1.s ..:: . Page 2 i COUN ,1: potentially affected by ground movement. No subsurface explorations were conducted during this site visit, but it appeared that soil fill (probably originating from the Gordon house excavation) had been sidecast into the area affected by ground movement. No further work was completed by ICE,during our September 1996 site visit because of unresolved issues related to the ground movement extending into Eagle's Nest community property. On June 4, 1997, Ms. Gordon contacted ICE and requested that ICE conduct the deck foundation subgrade evaluation. leis. Gordon said that the driveway had been replaced, a new driveway drain installed, and that the City of Edmonds had relocated the fire hydrant outside the affected area of ground movement. In addition, she had not observed changes in the affected deck or street area during this past winter and spring. SITE DESCRIPTION Our site visit was completed on June 6, 1997. The original deck has been removed except a small area adjacent to the kitchen area of the house. The original six deck foundation piers are in -place. The ground surface in the deck area slopes downward from the east side of the house at about 40 degrees (85 percent grade) for a vertical distance of about 30 feet. We excavated one test hole (using a hand auger) roughly 20 feet from the kitchen and about 10 feet from the garage. The test hole was completed to a depth of about 6 feet where wood debris prevented deeper excavation. Using a 3/8-inch diameter extendable steel rod, we probed the base of the test hole and other areas in the planned deck area. We were able to probe easily to a depth of 12 feet in most areas. The test hole and probing resistance suggested sandy soils in a loose condition (fill). No ground water was observed in the test hole. We probed adjacent to the piers for the original deck. Based on probing, it appears that the original piers extend to a,depth of about 2 to 8 feet. We probed adjacent to the house foundations in the deck area. Based on probing, the house footing is about 8 to 13 feet below the upper floor level of the house, as measured from the top of the foundation stem wall. The footing is 3 feet below the top of the stem wall about 5 feet from where the driveway connects to the garage. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL The soils in the deck area are loose to a depth greater than 12 feet. Consequently, supporting the deck on shallow foundations is not recommended because of the potential for unacceptable foundation settlement and/or lateral movement of the fill. We recommend using pin piles, set in pairs to support foundation components of the deck. Pin piles are not specifically designed to resist lateral loading (caused by soil creep) therefore may be at risk for long-term lateral (downslope) deflection. Alternatively, the deck may be supported directly onto the existing house foundation. Supporting the deck on the house foundation will require structural engineering review and likely will decrease the size of the deck. However, this risk of long-term foundation support damage cause by soil creep or landsliding is reduced because the house appears to be founded on firm native soil. The slope in the deck area is marginally stable in its present condition. Surface water runoff, including the driveway and downspout drains, must be tightlined to an approved discharge area. We recommend that the slope be protected from erosion by planting shade tolerant vegetation on the slope surface. Icicle Creek Engineers 0155001/060997 Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon June 9,' 1997 Page 3 PIN PILE SUPPORT We recommend that the pin piles corusist of 2-inch-diameter extra strong (ASTM A53) galvanized steel pipe driven with a 90-pound pneumatic jiackhammer to substantial refusal defined as 1 inch of vertical penetration for one minute of driving with tl:Ie hammer. Based on the driving criteria above, the design axial capacity of the pin piles should be 2 ton6 per pile. We recommend that ICE be retained to verify that substantial refusal has been achieved for eac-h pile. Please note that the 2-inch-diametter pin piles will have little capacity to resist lateral soil movements. Based on our observations, we: expect that ground movement of the slope in the deck area will continue. This ground movement may cause unacceptable lateral displacement of the pin piles over time and may require additional repairs to tine deck and foundations. We explored to depths ranging up to 12 _feet below the ground surface in the deck area using hand tools.. We estimate that pin pile length (depthh to substantial refusal) may range from 15 to 20 feet below the ground surface at any particular pile location, However, because we could not excavate or probe down to these depths (15 to 20 feet) with our hand ttools, the soil conditions and their response to driving of pin piles with a pneumatic hammer at these depths are unknown. Concrete fragments in the fill may cause problems with pile driving. As such, we swggest the budget for this project include a contingency for variations in pin pile lengths and installing extra piles if concrete rubble is encountered. Also, we recommend that the contract for pin pile insttallation include unit cost items for increases or decreases in pile lengths. DECK SUPPORT ON,EXISTING HOUSIlE FOUNDATION An alternative method of deck supgport is to attach a column, set at an angle, from the house foundation to the deck. Based on our prcobing with a steel rod, the house foundations appear to be supported by firm soil. . Support of the deeck by this method requires structural engineering review regarding attachment to the house foundation stem wall and the allowable angle in which the column may be set at to attach to.the deck. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this letter for use by Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon. This report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a wvarranty of the subsurface conditions. . If there are changes in the location oer configuration of the footing plan in the vicinity of the deck area, the conclusions and recommendations peresented may not be applicable. If design changes are made, we request that we be given the opportunity tcD review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide a written modification or verification. The scope of our services does not imclude services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as. specifically described iin our report for consideration in design. Within the limitations of scope, schedfule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this are: a at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Icicle Creek Engineers 0155001/060997 Sherwood and Marilyn Gordon June 9, 1997 Page 4 We trust that this letter provides the information you need at this time. If you have any questions or need additio►ial infor► i i ease contact us. R. B WAS �✓jYours very truly, Icicle Creek Engineers, Inc. 24010 5'f<)PIAL kNC. Brian R. Beaman, P.E., P.G. Principal Engineer/Geologist EXPIRES lD J-`►13 Document ID: 015500LLEr Two copies submitted cc: David Mohs Deck Crafters 1030 - 164th Street SW Lynnwood, Washington 98037 Icicle Creek Engineers 0155001/060997 .- NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCwEs, INc_ CoNSt.ILT7NG GEt7mmvic& ENGINEER$, GEOL001STS _.' �� -^.. -___._ _....,.____-- •,.._�........._ AMY ENViROWEN7/l L SCIEN rl,S I S r 7 i ! t. t35th Avenue Nf, A 500 VV00di—Ifle, WA gft072 enr,11669 • r'ns-181.2510 SnOhomfah County (2CM) 33r• 156R WPnatcheelGh®1an (509) i844756 Allp'!(a 30, 1996 t,tt ` tvvc McMickcnOP ' l nl;f e Ne5t 11011MAYTiers Asg+,cialion 1 ►t1(I(! . 73rel Glace West i �l,n n1ds, Wemllington 98026 1.1113110,11 Lrtler 6 !i1(Te (nstr!hility at 16004 - 73r(l Place Went I,.(Imnnds, Washitigion NCA rile: No. 197096 I Ym A11', McMnrkctr IN Vi ODUC;'1 ION 1 (ii� I, tfcr sttntnllrtT.CS (n1r. ohsl^rvalimlr. and opi"kinn regarding the slolm'Instability that Ills occurred it 1+ ShctwmId (im(kyll5 1cNcic:nce ill the Eagles Nest Development ill Edmonds. The site is located at rl lr l,I'I�tcc=£`1Ye�t 'iii F(I1 mirfc, Washington. We met with you and Mr. Gordon on Augusi 15, ev11lu:1(e SlTe il,31;t11ility 'Alld distress to Mr, Gotdon's residence. We were informed that the itt'l;lhility 111d (#istress s(:lrted to occur an r Mr. Gorton moved into the residence ill November of 1995. Ntr. (.i+.11dotl 118s t0ni11ed his m'Ytt design profelOunals (o Provide inlrot on rePliring the deck nwl 111c• (it ivvwly. Voa 1)1vc reveFtcd that tvc provide otlr evaluation of the instability, the passible causes at!(I I+1r1! tc1 Rlnmcn(1<1(iems f(7r ftfrthrr work, if necesshry. 111r..t tvith y(111 on sitc, an Thursday, August 15, 1996. to t)bserve the existing coriditivns. Vrn1 !t!(+ t1n<t1 tts t#171. (ile 1whicowtit-r is responnit+le fclr the conditions tvithfti the building footprint, inchidinp (#rivewlys. TIT iinrltcolvners Ass(lciatit n is respol►sible for the Common ground outside (,f- tll+�sr� :ltcls. Ed Wd00:E0 e-66T 02 'FpW : 'ON 3NOHd sa;4.+2a0 loza : WOad f'onsliltaliott Letter Slot c- It istability at 16904 - 73rd Plncn West Ansttst 30, 1996, NCA File No. 192696 Pogo 2 51TV, 003CKVATION-S We c.,hserved that rile residence i, kxntcd vn the eav side or a nortit to south trending ridge. I lie iv-dZlcnce arllcrtrs to Il ive ITC11 cat tinto the hillside. The entryway and a wood deck are loetitcd on the r€owlislo ve. Rifle of file rc:i<€ct,c:4, . The slope under the clock 1s steep. .Vircctly under the cast site <,f live rlcck, we nhserved sever,ll tree stumps With soil riled 89ainst them 3 to 4 Peet high on .th+r uphill 3idc. We itltQtprel this sail to br fill. 'the slope below -the deck inclines at 60 percefit. Several springs were r,h,.r..rved approxtniatefy 55 feet do nslcvpe (slope distance) from the residence. I fie driveway approaches the residence front the scluth and consists of concrete stabs.. A* level yarcl :Iron with n lawn is located between the drivewrlY and tic top ofa,stee Slope. P . Pe Tite upper slope is vegel, Nvith !vy and the lower Slopl- is vegetafed with sinall to large dimeler alder and maple tree8, tlrtd lrt+l.al+. Ilie slol+es below the larva tires ir}ciinc.at 70 to 84 percent. The shores below the adjacent readway it+rfiric at about 50 itercettl. Wr? fcicll sli•J,R transitintr lies„ the drivoway down 104he entryway deck. These atEps are co+tslraotet! Ill al;ett cnncrelc steps. 't he deck filta to%vrtrda the re-xidence and appears to. bowl d iti a downslor?c dircctiot,. Tl,c deck fomidmic111 lit the SOtititWest cortter near the garage $job 11As lost support. The sleek and woad steps have polled away ftoin the residence. We ob:terved thlt the rear deck had also bccit r„l,r,lracled Ovcr a brukcn cot}Ctele film). 'f lie slnb for the garage Ins cracked lit several places and tilts down to the east towards the slope. We observed a 'I inch 9-V between file cast edge of the altlb and the Boil. Small catch basins were set ill the ,hiVrWjy. We were not vole to ascertain where these catch basins drained to, A boulder set in the level yard wren belween the slab and the top of glopc AlTlcars to have settled I to 2 inches. Tile sail just I.tclmv il,c lot, of slope And lawn area appears to have sefiled tot couple of inches. 'Ilia ivy on tits slope apt?enrs to have tilovIcd downslope 1 t,o x feet. We observed some ctacking of the pavement and curbs oil the (IM nslnl)e sic€e (,f 73td fines Vlesf, adjacent to the project site. 'f for: soils exPnse<f on the Slope consist of brown, fine to tnedium sand with Silt, we evaluatod tile.,5cserifs hr l,r<,laing with a 1/2 inch diatt,eter steel rod. We were able to prcitte 3 feet (tile length of our probe rud) Oil live enst side or the driven-ny, J11st below to top of slope the were able to probe 2.5 feet before cal":,lltltef ing. tnedintlt dears In dense toils. NELSOMCoUvREirtE & ASSOCIATES, M . Ed WdTO:20 z66T 02 'h?W bZ92+£bL+SZb : 'ON 3NOHd saa�jea0 �oaa : W083 • n (.'rmsuIfat hill Letler �'Ictile ;"stabilityal 16904 - 7:lyd iylnvl. West At*giist 30, 1996 NCA Nle No. 182096 Valle 3 4. n On the 1'cal.i►,ttinx.C4ia.LCc�.ls;�i�.:`� t.It►r<lttiriRl ;_S11oltQm!sit.'aitct._KJ.0 A,C;.Q_W IjV,S,_Wns1)iillftIn by .Mackey Smith (DNi2, 1975) tc► he rmticrirtil1 by lsperance Sind (fJe)_ (.ilacial till (Qvt) and Whidbey for,nalion (Qw) arc malipcd nearby. I lsc i"weranc.c mml colusiat9 of a fitic to Coarse sand deposited in• front of the advancing continental ginciets. The Whidbey formation is a glacial lake or lacustrine deposit consisting of silt mid clay. Tlra ►tlaci ti tilt is At' trncor.ted mixture of sand; silt and -gravel deposited At the hose oftile cvntitlental glt,cicts. W.e interpret the soils on Ihi9 site to be L'sperance stlnd and fill. The Esperat,ce sand tends to have high sfreligilt whet] confined., but tvea(hets to a less dense condition oil slopes, We interpret that ilie fill IIhcCr'vCd rr( rho site is lrrc,t,�l,ly dn'ived frottl the on-slle native soils. CONCLUSIONS AND itECOMM.U+'NUA-VIONS 'i ho cti~;tressed rtreas ere lo(Ater,) nnddr, rile existing deck .and driveway area. It ie our olrinioti that the tlicttecs nil-Qr;ved is nsRocinled with seldrment of loose rail. The area of the distress is located outside of Ilic existing road prism and sloes lieu appear to tic tile.resuli of plat development. ,Yr_ surmise that (he icxrsC fill was plaeed during construction of the residence to create level.yarc! areas, aml to fill next to the howc s,rch thnt cohcrctc steps may be poured to provide an access from the !Itivcvvny to the deck, This is stlplicirted by our observations of the fill piled up behind the tree srrntipi; tulcierticZth the fleck and file Slnlle to the east of the driveway, and Inndscaped arena inclining steeper than tltc. nalural slope below Uic residence and the entry road, it is possible that the drains in file driveway may li:Ive contributed to the seltienlen( by wfltar settling f}ie 1111 during heavy rainfall events, if they are !atrlul to dischirge into the. fill, 'Illis should be evaluated by the homenwrier before or during repaim to �. file driveway. it ie tnrr CXpericncc that uncompacted fill will settle with time. it is trot uncottunon to see significant sctllemciit of garage slabs 171aced over basement wall backfill, even on non -sloping ground, bill pincea lemccly pn slopen Mmuld by C;%hcctcd to settle find move horizontally in the downslope direction. !'his fillwollicnt cnrild he a fety inclles, sinlitar to the vertical settlernent amounts, or it e6uld be a larger scale ^lopc movement an the older of feet.' The soils on this Site cat, also "flow,, if saturated under the right cc;rldlliol,s. A flow type f;lilttre could lake the deck supports completely out, dependirlp oil how thcy me f0mided. NELSON-CUUVRETTE & ASsoco7F5, /N(,. Vd WdTO:20 L66T 02 'hpW bZ92+2VZ+SZb : 'ON dNOHd saalieu0 >Ioaa : WOyd t.. onstillation Letter ':hvpc Insfability at 16904 - 73rd Place West August 30, 199G NCA rile No. 182090 Pare 4 We ttclle ilia file native ,zoilc observed at the Site typically weather to a loose condition on Slopes. -WC would nrlticipate (lint the outer pnrtion orthe afo ro can ;4Iough yr fail. Wizen additional iili is pintetl tin 1hf� r1r7lic there Is an inc:le;t5ed risk of failure. 1'lie potential for failure may be reduced t?y diverting snitrlcc water 8w,1y frtlttl 111c ttllt of slope, removal or grading of fill to a lover angle, compacting file fnr.C. ortiie .flore nail maintaining yeRetatiplt oil ore slope. ~ At this time wc' rho nth( anticipate. [!le need fur ad(litiottnl investigalion, unless the ll0* 11)C Albers A�:cncitlt.ion anticipntcs 906119 invoived in the repairs to tho driveway qr the deck. We are af`aiialrlc tr1 periorm zidditional'serviccs at your request. bVc have prepared ilfig letter report for the eagles Nest Homeowners Association, for use in eValnntint: the distress and Slope movcnfcill. at Mr. Gordon's property. Our letter report. is based tm strrfieini oh;acrvalivns of tlic soils expo3cd In the existing sti)hes, attd a lirnitetl number of slope incli11s1tion 111rslsurcillcnfs. A dcfailetl soils exploration pr09rrrltt was not performed on the slope. This letter repori ah��„icl be cr}n.-,'ictcrc�l ; surticial evaination orexisting cvtiditions, and our conclusions and iiltCrl)relRti[+rtc ^:lrrnrid not be crmStrur..cl�vnrranty of stibsurfnec conditions. Witilin file Itf111t:1tions of scope, schedule and budget Jor our services, we have strived to vomplete our �ti<<,ric hl Aceclrcl'"nce .vill, gets—lty accented precticcs fvtiowed In this area at the time this letter report W,ts prcllnred. No other ct%n(litiuns, exprmed or implied, Should be understood. t) NELSON-COUIVRETTE & ASSOCIAT�,S ING. sd WdZ0:C0 466T 02 'fivw 1P392+ZVL+9ZV : 'ON 2NOHd s.ta+,t>?a0 Aoaa : WONA c'1111sultativri l..elter 5i�,t>� Tnst�hility ht 16904 - 73rd Place West l�ugnst �0, 199Cr NCA file No, .l 92696 Page S We mprrecinte the OpPort"Itfl,y to be of service ha you cm (Ills project. If you leave. any quesiicros ct,t,ccrniirg this letter, (to not hesitate to call. fi iisccrcly, A!!?(,SUN-C.UUVItL•;f'ff & ASSOCIATES. INC. 1!; illinm 13. T3enzcr Project Ulgiticer Ex mils c. . r- Cliuirles 1'. Coubrette,111, Priucipal t:ngineer , W tt;(:p0 jln TWO C;apleS Submilled 9d Wd£0:£0 Z66T 02 'hpW I 'f NELSON•COUVR TTE & ASSOCIATES, IN(;. 4Z9R+_M+SZ0 : 'ON 3NOHd saallea0 moan WONJ ,� i..' ii4. - i ��! ti1"•,. yam, - - t`� t4 #'1~ 13`i Z. jjr Sri✓L:�'.�.f ��+� "� �,,,%:. '�C. 1�... �;.5� ti .. - a �,;%��:i'�rt�•. "� .J �r�. t. r4'� �\v"�'r�W�' .. ,� :�`„�,`w..!� - AUG �pl1NTER `� S T �REST FILE CA FILE NO._� Critical Areas Checklist -------------------------------------------------------------- Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/ Location: UD `7 15 rot l'J L l O 2. Property Tax Account Number: -_ � q �6 mo 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently developed? ✓/yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? Q,Q,w- ,6 n G-mi-L'A' 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a / horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30°0 ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: 6A-� ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: � Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplairi of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ; shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: 1 7 --------------------------------------For City Staff Use Only-=----- ' - ---------------- ----------- ---------- 1.: Site is Zoned? F(Z-0 - 2 - ri ! i.� -k+ S 2. SCS mapped soil type(s)? 4' �( wed-z.ti-e�+- �w-��, s� �n {�N,s 2 70 A ayr I. Wetland..inveritory or C.A. map.indicates wetland present on site? 4. Critical Areas inventoryor C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? Y�1ska.�., 5.. Site. within designated earth subsidence: landslide hazard area? N*�t S:^,,..n 141, 6. Site designated:on the Environmehfally:'Sensitive Areas Map? :DETERMINATION:. \ STUDY REQUIREDECFEIVED CONDITIONAL WAIVER WAIVER AR G 3 197 Reviewed by'�ElPERMIT7COUNTER anner Date ^ca chk.doc; Rev 02/11/97 City ®f Edmonds %4 C 0 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are or may be present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil.surveys). An applicant, or his/her 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 0f this form the applicant should also submit a vicinity map or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. 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: /' ma��[!�rt C Name Street Address C/o City, State, ZIP Phone Signature . , . Applicant Representative V V. Name 10 1 Lo 4 SPg�D Street Address U�'n Pi UJ " 3�S Citytate, ZIP Phone - - T 240-a Date Signatur 23 —e� 2 Date City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Sherwood & Marylyn Gordon Determination #: CA-97-71 Project Name: Non -Project Specific Permit Number: - Site Location: 16904 - 73rd Place W. I Property Tax Acct #: 7415 000 0010003 Project Description: Non -Project Specific Determination: Study Required: During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain and/or is adjacent to a Steep Slope Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope of 40% or more with at least 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50-foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15-foot building setback is required from the 50- foot buffer. For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50-foot buffer or 15-foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: 1. For development proposals which will occur within the 50-foot buffer, but no closer than 25 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. All Critical Area Studies, except those done by a licensed geotechnical engineer, must be completed under a three party contract where the City hires the professional required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.150). 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.15B.040C. All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 (Building Permits - Earth Subsidence and Landslide) 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. The site is also in an area designated on the Critical Areas inventory as Slopes with Erosion Potential. All proposed development must have an erosion control plan approved by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department. Name ture 0 111997 Date 2 F �1 ft0.✓ �d ND �l ud ��,rl S �` � �y�/LUf/y�j �I7 P%�/�" Ir i t , •• ��r ynt J� l0 q �,�o,,ry ii✓f� o.✓s�6.G,y fold .- . . , ,mod ib t-- RECORD. OF INSPECTIONS______ _-- - a7" _— Sf ` INSPcCTOR DATE APPROVED ' SETBACKS . • • " . �'' . may/ � � •�" FOUNDATION: ____ Footing Wall ................... �— .. .. "� •� '�.. .ati Pier/Porch . .. Retaining Wall.......... $'�� •— . - '?¢ PLUMBING: �u • Underground .......... � � " I• :. ?� Rough -in .............. CF HEATINGi �,�� •„'' ZZigTi`�t .• _..'r ,.'• /1!� rNs�t! r! .✓D�r%�'°�i2o+�/1G �''' l ' i!' .. tl Gas Test ............... c [' ��✓ �!r Gas Piping ............. — —�� n• Cd quipment ............. f Agarr ��nviorN d' ........... FRAMING INSULATION • • • • • " "."•�� Z . SHEETROCK NAILING ... • SPECIAL INSPECTION • • • Z i FINAL APPROVAL "' I �'• `• =-'' , i FOR OCCUPANCY ....... _. G..r• , T•O 1 Rr / xo/� 'DCk /YI�9Y �iYT� . `y�dCh' m r'.f'�, I'S OESicivv• / O�j` p`� I5T/NG M.N. TO 57wRT tia Imo,. 8 a �O L • F - 8"P l!C ,STUB PL UG FO,Q /-"UTU,PC- CONN1z-C7/ON Of 70 - 0 45 5hOWN uj r M.H.#2 P-A50 - LOC. 45 590WN '�£�' � wER �i�vE ►A ; r. 4�00 - LOC..45 5AVIVN `�• � s-. •-s �,�y.�•'l^ 1, Y�' ��,wb r y.�"s':t,w• l x,\,.�", ti 4.r. �'+1 e � w,, ', .' ,,Gf.sx, Y. See .Ma . 47 _ 1 , ST , y j141ST 3, t ?3Q 5 D a•+Q d, ya i 3i r { '.. 143RD ..� i .r IIIINO PL SWd r $ •. 0.1RD3`i-ST _ SRO > B a, ¢ j yo 1, ,1,,• r.: j143RD S 3 . .� 4Tr♦ q .N }^. d� s ; Pt. sw q > 1 as%y�Y a y. af5g /f , m Pl 146TH v •c* ' sw w I - ;PUGEY MA. BF,�H ,{\►P _ 4 THNORMA�' ;. _ - _ a 3W,v w 3sa ; SW N T > __ -'1 - -5 1 149TH P 1> RD �� Pl w SW st BtA; a 2 + SLSIw - - - 1 1 TH SW � t FiSHER <IR iy sv4'N_ S' _ 151sT ST sw { \ : ST sw A..- .,,•�VNL�•..'-►li Pl I of - Qv' _,3 ,tir x1: x; 5 DY 3 - ,.• 750TH iCM » � �� T rS� ✓•5 152N0 St � o SW � x i �; $ .x PLNW • i of:n - 1 - N 3 153RD ST$ a3 » a a ] ,'I •,L x a -t �! Si53bDPl5Wq Rig�Rf PLS 3 W t66tH ST I T r:+rt- ^,;,,.,., t'.''1' E' t•� :'if �•1 . ' •i. i tiw >; SW i' ST, .:.:. SVy 3 7 [ H 1�ri¢TN f :&y^> :� '� ••..t'. ._t, a T SW v _ = 15T 110AXR01 =�� 4; 1 P` ._ 1 \-v'.`g ":'.r'-• $ •i r C .. S •. N / � sn I THST , _ 57TH 7 Z L 1 TM .' I 5. ��11��•• //�� (f••.MEPoACM ., :.$ i .3 U �ISRN Pt sw SlV F- f lA 5 Q I 1—•4L , .. tVtEyAPO ►- •j+f Yl '.>al PARK; zn57TH - TH Pl 5t•r i _.. _. - - •- - - $ o r n TY x :, swi . } .. ... _. ." Pt. SW J u K.EELER° I x 1STPlSW C 2+ 1..- G a 1 i .jffiT. _ I-c�T -• scy- 4 � � � sw-; o ; _ � PBS' ' c, a u t{fai�GlOri 1. - I t 1 IN P7 61�+ f a.� N .tJ t'] 182ND.0 P SW LL .: I ',�� ,e;stPLSvY :CORNF PARKS ! 1tit.RO ISW- -�NUD� ' . 2trL SW i I r - 1838D PL s�. G+�. _ I f T DH'� : %: ST . s .: \' v w, O9 I F$tSW 1 $ h LAKE RDI 9 1 0 / 4 t; k�` !F. 63 Q 1 ;184T ::. 1 ST SW ti y: '1 ' �IMARTHA W •.i �/_.-14't t T r of sw I- ] I 11`► \ Q es1�W PL ;, a m Q✓i�i.-l..�l.`h !' s n 6S3 � °' !•st � .. C � � � tBSTH Lis a C ��< i4 1 51t1 189TH ST I 1. H v - t 17 l r��f. - w 13 '' t, • * r,' - { :� i - y st ST 6W Iq - b`,'� El�P $ T ,r v _ 6 1"` rT,,, R 9 sw ;atf#v►sv� ; Pt sw 1 ' 172N0 ��. '� Ls°�r.' -. I_o t' .G I a�� S •d ; '�{ $ � 7 a "� 6_^ `ww"�a In.�.� , p � vsTHw 44. p v+ ti .' • >,<-,_, � 0 , BLS `�/�, _a � — �. JNt>f ><1N,��Z wHr < ,�€ E {-- Y.� t - .•j' q ..L� -i ti j 'N z � $T 5'i1 n$ rt9;; Q� 180TH ., �ir/YrY{�/"V✓iy�� -t t T rf' �z 1 OT � W T SW . � ae• 18 sw a SW 7 P � � Q �� HS■ P•:• � Pt sw ;y r • SW - kl7;S � �J1 5181N0 . ✓� 9 � „ E: PL �. � GW ' S te3 D v_ �-' 7 v Ix V S'N 4: ' ' . c � •�� ., j i� :. . O / v .. K •iC__ x Q 194tH � Px • 1 g•r �w (3 A � _ i , •�' , �7: a 3 r L / 3 �• 1 'rFt' Z n • o �•y :; y . 136T � . 0 _ _ ��. � f1N KR '+!,+l• �# .�',� .2; 1 xt - ��~ ^ � � ., 5 -_ _ _'� _a atjA. p•� T' 1�:ItAH�• 1tS s µ" > FS PS t ALD a ♦ 1-(J r1's.-ij, L�� JJ�� 1915T JS � ' �j� c oAr�� •. ..1 t I,mt : �' M"A y i� - - y!yA • 1 ^4i" L fh 7 .�.itk. f 8T 1 :1 5�. 192N10 .- rt . V �5� �, .t a':4: 'L" sk• Y•. 3i a 1 �{•r air t : 4W, T . , if i 1 ,h SW f= t t�J !3T-: y t �a � P4 Nr }: t9�Nd 5Yv "N r,� t i9ralo .t sw �► «:S1 ► t 4 � 6 kr--I.:'1T+ ' t ' 1gt11D f tsr k.:; seA7eEa "- s us fi �'. � m sw ;. f, `s < Y IVKFIBM W. 4rtY t yn• ->?c ;.lt:.; 3. T:6'W }I s 1 �, - r 1 1 mod' • 't't' y, . CITY OF EDMONDS USE PERMIT ZONE /� W NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ,OB TE/APTe ADDRESS ,� 'sYb ; (� LEGA�E�IPTION CHECK SUBD�j ISI0 0� 'ID NO, MAILING ADDRESS Z _ / O �'- / A CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER j-^ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION TESCP Approved ❑ RW Permit Required ❑ Street Use Permit R d ❑ PROPOSED ( f Inspection Required NAME Sidewalk Required JQL> ❑ L7 Z REMARKS ADDRESS OZ.. wi((�w(w tu ZZ7 <w CITY Z TELEPHONE NUMBER 0,C. Wzw-f?jEYo 1_ NAME ENGINEERING MEMO DATED EVIEWSY- _ ADDRESS / OO Q CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER METE //' - BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE NO. OF FI2UR Z o - 1 REMARKS - y ; U STATE LICENSE NUMBER ' L ,!• `> SIGN AREA _:. - ALLOWED ^, SEPA REVIEW. ADS NO. Legal Description of Property -Include all easements y PROPOSED E _EXEMPT Zip'-.r _ ii { P �P EX. n_EVIEW SHORELINEe° 4�Lr Tj w VARIANCE'OR'CU NN BY pA�E l/Q ° a ` U SETBACKS - FEET -. -.' HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE Z z Lu FRONT, SIDE;,.V 'REAR Cam., moo' S Tax Account Parcel No.REMARKSa _. - ® NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING ADDIALTER COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL REPAIR APT. BLDG. SIGN' GRADING FENCE . DEMOLISH O •. CYDS. O L• x_FT) CHECKED BY::-' 1 I. .-'- TYPE OF Cam( JSTRUCTION CODE ?, HEIGHT CARPORT, SWIM REMODEL El GARAGE POOL BPECIAL'INSPECTOR AREA'.,; ,,. OCCUPANCY ,. OCCUPANT , REQUIRED YES ,GROUP 2 D 7 LOAD ❑ WO NSERTVEI O WALV ❑ RENEWAL REMARKS „ ROOKERYRETAINING PROGRESS. INSPECTIONS PER_UBC 305 Z 0 (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: _ S' u) NUMBER OF STORIES � NUMBER OF TE�Pri�� Eiei9 / t�Ls,c m o DWELLING C UNITS -' DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) 5' W lk PE c` 1 FINAL INSPECTION -REQUIRED 5/ PS�I�P/V VALUATION FEE �R, n PIW6 PLAN CHECK -IF EE -,41 1 �j / .BUILDING- •1ZW6 PLUMBING Plan Check No. MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. oRAOINGIFILL Any cons tructlon on the public domain (curbs, sidewPlks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require Separate permission. STATESURCHARGE rJv Permit Application: 180 Days �o Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE 3D successors in interest, agrees to Indemnify, defend and hold w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, Its officials, employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of i whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the Issuance / of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT ) / ° modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance ° nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the 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 ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL TREET FILE, state laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz- THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insurance. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGNATURE (OWNER OR AGENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT [ 9 I CITY OF �O�FFICRE DATE EDMONDS ATTENTION CALL FOR LEASE 6Y DATE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE INSPECTION UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771-3202 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. USC CHAPTER 3. 10247 PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: PLAN CHECK #: / / RECEIPT DATE: Z REVIEW D BY: ( nitW/Da e)..._ PLAN. WATER COMMENTS FIRE BLDG. SEWER STREE fNG. Setbacks/Variance/Setback Adjustment Conditional Use Permit ADB Requirements Other Zoning Requirements Underground Wiring Required Lot Slo a-1596 SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit Tree Cutting Plan Plat/Subdivision Re uirements Legal Description Verification Quit Claim/Street Dedications. Easements - Public/Private - Engineering Storm -Drain Review Fee EngineeringEngineeflng 2.2 Inspection Fee , 4� Drainage Plan On -Site Setback Top of Bank, Stream, Water Courses Setback,;- -Storm Drain Line Open Ditch - Existing Culvert Required Culvert Size Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff Catch Basin Required Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access OK-- Sidewalk Required Curb & Gutter Required Curb Cut For Driveway Required Street Paving Required Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required Street Name Sign Required Other Signing Required Bond Required For Public Improvements FEMA Map Check/Water Table Side Sewer Availability Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID # Create Street File Existing Water Main Size Water Meter Size Service Line Size Water Meter Charge Required Hydrant Required Hydrant Size Existing Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler Street Cut Miscellaneous Reviewed By: FIRE 2 -- 3 ;:4s. m- 14 15 22 27 40 41 4 PLANNING ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS STREET" FILE, r After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements mustbe met 1. Construction hours are .WEBKDAYS 'f 7.00 A.M. 10:00 P.M. 1 WEBKENDS/$OLIDAYS :...10:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M. 2. A separate RIGHT -OF WAY Construction Permitis required for all work on Publicproporty(BCDC 18 60) 3. Truck haul route plan must be k6iiitted andapproved prior to permit issuance , b .i-,11af F_ , 4. Builder/Owner is responsible for �co,yyny�tta,ining all temporary runoff and erosion control on site (ECDC 18 30.030d) S.. NO WORK SHALL BB DONE;�,Wzrj N IS?FEBT,OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROMAN d bC ED DRAINAGE FACIL-. , ITY `BUILDER/OWNER A�IyLyS� �RBPSONSIBLB4VR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON 77W DRAWING.' .(ECDC 18 30.50G) ''r:' - - r' ': i. L".:9 i�r.,j'Tt`d�:�' .�,��'��+ -& - a c�,. _ .. ..: _...,.: .•. .-: - L+.�-:i, .. ,�,�xt+�.;ryy�.r,�'�`rs ;: iiyft�t.ir _:��F,-. .. ... `6. FILTER FABRIC FENCB.SHALL BEINSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR T10.+CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION . i'�,11 . n i l , r x (ECDC 18 30) MIR - W " i! aWXR+� x if4 Cra`•;+j.. '" i' i l • . +-+ ' . 5+ 1.3t,. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIItED WSTORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS; TIGHTLINES FOUNDATION DRAINS, AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLA}�T'IONZXW* PECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACEFI LLING.+ (ECDC 18.30) =01 �" P ,.. ; ; r - i..•`r _i `ydS+,�"tV,: W,,- i� 8.. Repair or, replace all defective existing•kourb gutter,,and sidewalk adjacent to the property �1.If as intersection is involved a handicap ramp may be required�Contractor;shall meet with the.City Engineering Staff.to' determine the extent of repair prior to issuance of the permit:.-(ECDC'18 90) 9. Driveway slope shallnot exceed 14 96 without a waiver. `, Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14 Y . Waiver granted to C. `(ECDC 18 80.(60D) ry 10. Driveways must be paved from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate peruaiit is required. (ECDC 18.80.060C) _ } 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 18.30) 12. No burning of construction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. 13. Connection to City water system is required. There is a separate charge for the water meter. (ECDC 7.30) 14. Aback water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) 15. Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 16. Connection to a City sanitary system is required. A separate permit is re gjred.. . LID1# b Fees paid: Yes No Charge SS(ECDC 18.10) 17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction; and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50 % of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.05.010) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECT70N IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING .000U- PANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, (ECDC 18.90) 19 20 STREET FILE". N/V055 rP'J207 - oo�b HN -40 Xam Z IV1140H-,:; 5P.207 - 0S tJ 9# HIT I'm H'kV IVOIZ 2:7-1VNO,2 7&12Z 917 7d 912Zr A o ,fir - - �/y 1�� / . / � � �vroaro�r ol O-Z �t-L'r,�.•",,`�'kxe.+*';�..ter;r'�r1'^b'�av�"��,•>,^,.s'�•,;%yos•�,fc,��-;,.�+6'�-,.,�+'�.imsv:+'.wk�:-,.r�"�rv.rw:.�.tir o�as"�r'9°„i�ui.a�ryGg''�+ ` »i�i'' ' `.. _ 4 F$``{t,('�b�*n...�'�,'�,i�":ka�mc:.�u...-f +v^�..,.,,.. .. s` � - RECEIVED. +. - CVP E 6•OND� 7 1992 SIDE SEWER PERMIT .PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 890.19°PERMIT ` �t]2 8404 .`Address of Construction: v` Property Legal Description (Include all easements)': Owner and/or Contractor: L. 0 0 0 ---(D d I- a 0 State License No.'s' Building Permit No.�� O Single Family Invasion into City Right-of-Way:%�No ❑ Yes ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) RW Construction Permit No. ❑ Commercial. Cross other Private PropertyXNo ❑ Yes ❑ Public Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement "k, L I certify that ad and shall comply with all city requirements Date as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION Assessment Fee: l Lid No.: - Partial Inspection: Comments Receipt No.: Ile" 4>-Je' Date Initial Reason Rejected: Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: DateR_-_�nitial INC ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant Revised 3!90 Side Sewer Drawing The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO . -------------------------------------------- NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS ❑ LID NO - ------------------ -ASMT. NO. .......... ._. ` t Lj OWNER CONTRACTOR --------------- PERMIT NO.. ' � L ! .. R� P L _ `� ( LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. BLOCK NO. JOB ADDRESS--•------•-•--V.--! -•- •--- ------------ "i LYN 00Q--lt1NE NAME OF ADDITION -------------•----------------------- sins) IX 0 Approved: � C� DATE o......_g.... . �' i OTI-CE 5 1 -,iC W TO PER EE AND/OR OWNER PARTIAL. APPROVAL C� VIOLATION CORRECTIONS REQUIRED PERMIT NUMBER JOB ADDRESS /�3 ❑NO PERMIT - STOP WORK - REMOVE CONSTRUCTION OR OBTAIN PERMIT AND MAKE WORK COMPLY WITH BUILDING LAWS. ❑CONSTRUCTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT - STOP WORK. MAKE EXISTING WORK COMPLY WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT OR REMOVE IT. ❑ STOP WORK - UNTIL AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY INSPECTOR. ❑CORRECTIONS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MADE BEFORE WORK CAN BE APPROVED. ❑ WORK DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND IS APPROVED. CONTACT INSPECTOR AND ARRANGE FOR APPOINTMENT. RECALL FOR INSPECTION. l4ywle<✓/ All 94��m 41,1A v'a6ri c THE ACTIONS OR CORRECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE ARE REQUIRED WITHIN DAYS OR PENALTIES IMPOSED BY LAW MAY BE APPLIED. FOR INSPECTIONS CALL:Zr�il BUILDING DIV. INSPECTOR �b� PUBLIC WORKS Z� yz CITY OF ❑ EDMONDS DATE FIRE DEPT. JT,�&J,� e4 . 1 . 1 • �t z a ea<. .. F'n "fir Y�`S� �Sya. rn.''�' ;u..Jr, •:^�x1� �r f' aa'�_.. °fi .,� ,'• </�% �c�v6"' ;.�'..r..# 4r fit,; t`t �,�'!'4+�!'n�`t.�e�' zap., As f�M 7'T h a , ' .. - • ..r\I.. 1 I r..-` -•�. ..• ! .,�J�J {Ja .1 '� ♦(J�t,i i�. !` P "/% JUL 23 '92 13:49 SpBLOi' * E6Fi�'i6=1 Sn:x. fthim-w W24-S66 ro SI°C�URITY PACIFIC BANK P.1 �r ^s -------------- Xevin Berssler Real Ebtate Officer (206) 385-4373 ; FAX: �9S^5?07 FAX NOr: There are Pages including t s cover sheet.'1 deliver to the person ab a as soon As possible. ?lease Thank You. K y` Gn Z� C n"A 0,,° a N\IuLk Vw'� Im • �� off, .�.r e�n< e ' fay. jai m �i fmal "`"� t' °wfl Xyt� . g m 1 w 3 rf .°" w ffill Y�� Vo, S t, = N.W 1 /4 SEC.B.-TWP27N., ciry OF EoMoNos SNOHOMISH CO., WA. f� LeD/C.JTEO op D.- T/NE C/TY Of El10/YDS � ! UPD/Y THE .PE-CD:PD//YG QF r�h po��. 71//5 Pl/T / mlal n'.f1;rBPS ir' 't \ XG) SET CO/YC ,W&7/y �� I B � N.g � �s� o � 'E Z \\ � •� SET Ct�'C .L/Qii' 4�6� ` \ SE! C/P.�'ED PEBd,P rl1/Pf'ED i1 iYOlf 6w1y49zeI' BSSED D/Y ,PECO.PD SU.PVEY BY A)9 1e/N'ETHEIP � N � QO �'I ti� .JSSOC/,STES, W �o 00 E \ CO,PDED //Y YOCU i I ' 8 0 ! hh eq / SY/�PI'EYS CYY PSGE ?36 IPELO.PD_ OF .S�'ONDit�//SN co, YY�J RGE. 4E., W. M. n ,46 •J ;; TiQldCT 999 O \ O.�E/Y co o TD EOM �� Y: f Z( Erj I \\ \\ f I SIT /� p0 ' C �\ 0lf E / Z. 7 077 Ila QK ly PB I Qi /rw�po� it f �1?4'966' 65 �� D r f Z 09 U/ 00 ' I T , �1 ry �'B �S "ri .::.' .. : `.. . ' <'.. ' . J ` : `, , . y as /2 \ ssv Z I TRIAD %1?K' /3 2 -e' • o � - �bfi /Y f'9' JW , I?/ - AV I ASSOCIATES KIRKLAND, -WA W� ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THE /moo /4 o COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFIr'F ssov r � JOB NO. 84-036 SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS 30 %?'/ST/iYG .l•�Q7' 5FT S Gt� yr�sEcr�o� '�c leas —�_ �� 'N 9. ;t� u3 s;ijtiYv:;€} .5 aN N.W 1/4 SEC. 8 fl TWP 27N* RGE. 4E. W. M.CITY OF EDM ONDS4 SNOHO } l H CO. A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at the Southeast corner of Tract 123, t•leadowdale Beach, as per -plat recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 3S, records of Snohomish County, said point being 30 feet North of the centerline of 172nd Street S.W. Thence North 89°36'21" West along, the Northerly margin of said street as deeded to the City of Edmonds under Snohomish County Auditor's File No. 20�1425 a distance of 273.41 feet; Thence North 00°23'39" East, 122.17 feet; Thence North 65°51'50" hest, 107.91 feet; Thence North 41°05'57" Vest, 11.79 feet to the TRUE POI;IT OF EZCINNING; Thence continuing, North 41°05'57" 14est,152.33 feet; Thence ?forth 89°36'21" hest, parallel to the said street margin, 165.85 feet to the Easterly line of an easement as cornveyed by instrument recorded under Auditor's File Nos. 7605110293 and 7904260235; Thence North 02°25'12" 1:est along said easercnt :inc, 309.,"S feat to a point which lies South 66`34,'42" East, 31.1_) feet frz):, an existing iron pipe at the "occupancy corner" of Tracts 119, 12G. 122 and 123 of said Pla: cf Neado%�cale beach, as establ_shed prrd described ir. Snohomish l_ouncy superior Lour: I:o . 76697 ; Thence ?:girth 86°34'42" 1:est,10.96 feet; thence 1,orth 02°28'0� East, 564.44 feet; Thence South 7E°36'02" East, 191.75 feet to the Sout^:es.er=� c,argin of rleadowdale Beach Road; Thence along said Southwesterly margin as deeded to the City of Edmonds by instrument recorded under Auditor's File No. 2051425, through the following courses, South 62°01'56" East, 124.4[, feet; Thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 339.26 feet through a central angle of 40°00'00", an arc distance of 236.85 feet; Thence South 22001'56" East, 236.40 feet; Thence along a curve to the left having a radius of 975.37 feet, through a central angle of 01°45'59", an arc distance of 30.07 feet; Thence North 89°16'12" West, 10.98 feet; Thence along a curve to the left the center of which bears North 66°27'59" East, having a radius of 985.37 feet through a central angle, of 8057'32", an arc distance of 154.07 feet to the last point on the said road margin; Thence West, 249.68 feet; Thence South 34001'20" West, 173!76 feet; Thence South 00°23'39" Vest. 195.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEG11111ING; Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. DEDICATION Know all men by these presents that we the undersigned, owners in fee simple of the land hereby platted, do hereby declare this plat and dedicate to the use of the public forever, all streets and easements or whatever public property there is shown on this plat and the use thereof for any and all public purposes, also the right to make all necessary slopes for cuts or fills upon the lots and tracts shown hereon, in the reasonable grading of all streets shown hereon, also the right of access over the lots to the utility easements at any time for the stated purposes. OLD NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INCORPORATED ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STATE OF WASHINGTON ) SS COUNTY OF KING J '� � This is to certify that on the 119 7 da of 1119 , before the and signed, a Notary Public, personally a geared �,� T,�t,� and respect i ve i f th d / a Washington corporation, to me known to�be the individual s who executed the within dedication and acknowledged to me that they signed and sealed the same as their voluntary act and steed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned and on oath stated that they were authorized to execute said instrument and the seal affixed (if any) is the corporate seal of said corpora- tion. WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year first above written. Notary �Public in',and for the Atate of Washington residing at COVENANT Owners, and all persons having any present or subsequent ownership interest in these lands, and the successors and assigns of owners or other parties having any said interest, hereby agree that the City of Edmonds shall be held harmless in all respects from any and all claims for damages for injunctive relief which may be occasioned now or in the future to adjacent land or improvements by reason of the construction, operation and maintenance of the drainage system, and hereby waive and release the City of Edmonds from any and all claims for damages, excluding damage caused solely by an act or omission of said City and injunctive relief which the owners, or their successors or assigns, may themselves have now or in the future by reason of the construction, maintenance and operation of said drainage system. All lots within this plat are subject to the covenants recorded the�day of &. 19851 .under recording number4_ Aerds of Snohomish County, Washington. EASEMENT PROVISIONS An easement is hereby reserved -for and granted to the City of Edmonds, Washington Natural Gas Company, Snohomish County P.U.O., General Telephone Company of the Northwest, and a cable T.V. company, and their respective successors and assigns, under and across that portion of Tract A lying within a strip of land 26.00 feet wide, being 13.00 feet on each side of the centerline of the private roads as shown on this plat in which to install, lay, construct, renew, operate, and maintain underground conduits, cable, pipelines, and wires with necessary facilities and other equipment for the purpose of service to this subdivision and other property with electric, telephone, gas, cable T.V., sewer and water service, together with the right to enter upon the lots and tracts at all times for the purposes stated. Also an easement to provide each lot with individual electric, telephone, gas, cable T.V., sev)er, and water services over that portion of Tract A lying bet,,:een the above mentioned 2C.00 foot wide easement and the line for each lot fronting the pri•,ate road centerline. llo lines or wires for the transmission of electric current or for tele- phone use, f,ATV, fire, or police signals, or for ocher purposes, shall be placed upon any lot outside the building thereon unless the same shall be underground or in conduit at- tached to the building. - A- eas('mnnt I h!r `'r' r(!,,rrvcd fir and orc:nted to City of urder ant upon t'.e e a s r nis shoes:!': ()^ ,' ( : la( and ccscrizcd hCrCir as "se.•• r or water ease- 'nt" to rs!al I r-.ainln, rc;-Iacc r(;,,s .. O.-q,rate sC",.^r Or w„ter !Lairs: 3^L' a7DJr!er,i;.'1Ce5 for this. sL.bdsio,i and tth(•r :)err) toQrther t•.ith the right to enter Upon said ease -eats at al -cs f ,' Du- ,, CS stated. Structures stealI not be c�_-si .._ted upon any area for thc,_.e eas- _,nts. f,r ea`,Cment is h(-re`.)y reSCrved for and z-ra^ted to Edmonds ViFrr. Ho",eorJners hSsoCia,ion ^ e' a d u[(n the ease r, <^: ,�,C o•a :,,nC CeSC -er ..erein as "Cruinace ea se- tc' sns,a1 ^.7sntoIrC, , rc, ''_c !':.a r ,,, _ CperatC drdr' Je snes and appurter.dr,ces for this cut,,dIvision and ^;`-- [rc;,erty toc(ther v:ith the right to enter upon said easements a, all tlmcs for the a.:r.:uses stated. structures shall not be constructed upon any area reserved Fur these ease- rts. AND SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE I hereny certify that this plat of EQMON DS VIEW pIV, 2 is based upon an actual survey and subdivision of Sectior _�, 1o::nship 27 North, Rance 4 East, W.M. that t')e courses and distances are snown correctly thereon,, that the monur,er.ts will be- set and the lot and block corners staked correctly on the oround as construction is completed and that I have fully complied with provisions of the platting regulations. Gus av B. Osterbac Pr fessional Land Surveyor Certificate No. 18094 APPROVALS Examined and approved this 10 day of JU#_y 1985, A.D. Edmo s City Engineer COPY ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THE Examined and approved tl. I s 'I, day of , �, .� _ 1985, A. DCOUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE Edmonds lanning Director Examined and approved this / tL day of :YL4,,,( 1985, A.D. Mayor, City of dmon s 61 / �t• �:e�ctv»�-<. G�'�-%.-fit— G�t�p-r�� Attest, City Clerk TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE I, Kirke Sievers, Treasurer of Snohomish County, Washington, do hereby certify that all of the taxes on the within described tract of land have been fully paid up to and includ- ing the year 15'. /6 A,I,eke, Z RECORDING CERTIFICATE s L 1Z v zC 2 N t. �00 (� � . � Filed for record at the request of iWTONA d F11JANC7,A � --1-71 minutes past .m. this �_ day of 1985, and recorded in Volume of Plats, pages Z A L and 191&, records of Snohomish County, Washington. 7F 14 1). d iL,4it'l'R Snohomish County Auditor RIAD ASSOCIATES KIRKLAND, 'WA JOB NO.84-036 SHEET I OF 2 SHEETS Deputy Snonomish C unty Auditor 0 C T I l