Loading...
17035 76TH AVE W (2).PDFIIIIIIIIIIII 6111 17035 76TH AVE W J } �1 ADDRESS: 1763 e-� -La'::!'CUC W TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: ��j 3/ 1 r-)/ 0G ( a cD-O S BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS : �" 1, l �- J DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver MStudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: 610 ,,�, l EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: �5- I10 l05 5-15 CS-P/� -e/ PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: Z51�t�� SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: L�-���c )� LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DA STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: LATEMP\DS'Ps\Forms\.Street File Checklist.doc J01 SCALE 1" = 20'RF-CFIV5 Ida ��) 12 2007 DEVELC1TM OF EDMONDS CTR. I J / ,;'o r" w; TREET FILE PECTION _ RAINA \ \ • KJ 14 ;. k 5.6 EL= 24.0 Q,+4�� 1tv HEIGHT CALCS A-115.6 p=1 15�$•, AVG. GRADE=1 19. I +25.0' MAXIMUM= 144. 1 ACTUAL-143,8 � % / I ' _ IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCS PO PROPOSED DECK OUTLINE., _L§ I S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING ROOF OUTLINE: Y,6977 S.F. /•f • . 1 I ; LA. I I 31, I PROPOSED PATIO/WALK: 309_ S.F. $ J PROPOSED GARAGE (INCLUDED IN ROOF OUTLINE) \ i:• / �-0 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY:I,OJ2 S.F. \ gam• .t�* .rE E PROPOSED PORCH: (INCLUDED IN ROOF OUTLINE) �Y t 1N5 F TOP c GWALL- 1 0 (T?'P.) C 'L 77 -�i�gp 13 6 i I \ \ aorro i of ALL-120.0 (TYP.) BASEMENT FF=111.7 ° ( T V 2,691S.F.% I � 1 LOT COVERAGE: S (22 ) 2ND FF-121.8 1 I I o IDRW� I \ N I I I`Ou Nw LOT AREA: _I S.F. w �; b 1, 03Q S, F. °z�$ \ I GEC I ��.0 m LOT SLOPE:_11 �_X (P ED � URFA CES2 M j ` ' :• /E Eu iTHIN 2 D e \ \\ I 1 i 4` NET �' MOUSE INCL. OVERDID = 2,633 S.F. } \ I �� 0 S i 2,633 S.F. x 4.55 = 17,980 - I 13, r02 S. (C9ROSt) J ( 1 1, 980 C.F.127 - 444 C.Y. 1' � 0. I OT►Nf SS C �Ilk ' �.T I ' GRADING CALCS ` r`' I I ` 01 BE TI D NT I ccyy '` FFL EL =115. 8 �♦�' I I C i �� Y II�� s S7 M % 1 1 1: 1 o t G° L= 120 9 I I AVERAGE GRADE 1 1 .. 14 Q I I / l LOWEST FOOTING 110.1 'To((�' =a.� `RbN I I I r AVERAGE CUT 4,55 SILT FENCE �aHbwiM .� �- I '�� r;. ° Zone A ' - � z ovine Fl illJ ,39. / I ��.�_. PLOT PLAN W �Sg4'05'04 S tbac s *!e4i re f AFr 1 SOUNDVIEW HOMEBUILDERS Sides rt o. I � r V-1. s1 APPROVED BY PLANNING —,--- f1. Temporary �enchTdrkR�r � Io POWEf I� B I Other- �F�ELEV=�� ___ Hei _ _ 25 4�.1 25' (/93.u') o_ es «� PLANNING DATA STREET FILE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Name: Date: a Site Address: _ ./e _tj_ Plan Check #: a Project Description: G4, or I CVX" �-peroded �.Xs cc%r- ,,Ak (%L.O-a000-0195) A-o a. y� ►,; cc�Vcer . AdJ� cnc�er o+. k�.e �«� g:dt'e_ c lone. \ckSe_ Reduced Site Plan Provided: YE / NO) Zoning: _ 1a Map Page: 5-7 1 Corner Lot: (YES / NO Flag Lot: YE / NO) Critical Areas Determination #:C-0or Vb-renk kcce Study Required --Vne- M"t,jor;kr IQ is orN 4. s ck 4 Ike. p-,enk���• ❑ Waiver �`� �o`'� o^ � Io o e- rZt e' SEPA Determination: Exe.r.rs% r� �y c�,� �c�� aQeccv U� pt-p aoa69� 19 Exempt .Iqe �o co�s,�, �ao�.`� �n�✓e ,qre :�,�Snc. . ❑ Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) U �J ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO List with notarized form R uired Setbacks Sty: aic%: Side: Side: /E l Rom. Actual Setbacks Street: ` C Side: e, Side: L / Rgar: ah ovec or ❑ Detached Structures: / t •.�11 �, ro.lec�l he S�one --A 0doe- - n ec' 4- �'oc�r Rockeries: �]QJ\ % PP ��(� �q\ - 1i / �' /1 f-3.��ov`er � a4e, � Se�• U 1 r e' M MTh g,C& 0- hC=�Se. ,eJ ❑ Fences/Trelli s: or:�.�.. �� ❑ Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: ❑ Stairs Deck: Buildin Hei ht . Datum Point: Datum Elevation: Maximum Height Allowed: over or; r Actual Actual Height: 4. W ewe e. Other Parking Required: oZ Parking Provided: Lot Area: N. Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% roposed: Lot Coverage Calculations: ADU Created: (YES 0 Subdivision: _ _S$ L Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES Op Comments Plan Review By: Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc SCALE 7" = 20' I� t NOTICE REQ. ",PPRQVED AS NOTED 'ao FIRSPECTION \ BY E�NGIN - ING` �� STREW FI ©ate. — _ '� ? p6 / O� ROO EXT.1 ELL 115.6' O 1 1 EL= �24.0 -BASEMENT FF=111.7 2ND FF=121.8 -- 131' I Li / I �1• KEY3T NE WALL V Xcv HEIGHT CALCS A=115.6 B=12_0 C=f U0_9 D=1_15_8_` AVG. GRADE=119.1_ +25.0' MAXIMUM= 144._1 ACTUAL= 7 43.8 F ERVIOUS SURFACE CALCS POSED DECK OUTLINE. _L61 S.F. POSED BUILDING ROOF OUTLINE: LL S.F. PROPOSED PATIO/WALK: 10—L S.F. PROPOSED GARAGE (INCLUDED IN ROOF OUTLINE) PROPOSED DRIVEWAY.•?-030 S.F. PROPOSED PORCH: (INCLUDED IN ROOF OUTLINE) TOP LL=;124.0 BOTTO OF ALl -120.0 (T w.) Lo�I I LOT COVERAGE:. _2 69 _ S.F. (22%) 1 I o w ..� I A .,....,;�j• o LOT AREA: _1 -, 48 S.F. 51i; I -q i LOT SLOPE:_J?_% R1 S \ I \ I I I /� HOUSE INCL. OVERDIG = 2,633 S.F. y 1 11J,04� S. . (4T) 2,633 S.F. x 4.55= 11,980 I13,�02� S. (GIROS) l ( 11,980 C.F.127 L(� / GRADING CALCS ss c \ h I F�OO�i�I D'AIkS `I Q B T ED I IN U FFL 1 1 1.7 19.1 'DER �" L=I120I ijEN !0 �'YSEf. / / LOWEST FOOTING AVERAGE GRADE 11 10.35 I AVERAGE CUT 4:55 + SILT FENCE Ss C. 0. �+ 'l (TYP.) I I l j 7 3s.00' „yy Zone 2 I z I opine Fl�g�,_ L. PLAN S84'05 04 S tbac s 4 e ire A - io. SOUNDVIEW HOME®UILDERS R f ak- _ / / / Fro MAR 7` orar �1ch hrk l Ia� I I I APPROVED BY PLANNING BuciTv M',NDS� � � POWE� Other ELEV=_1�'` &--- Hei t �._I a,n..j 2s ' I �J ��� N, \1 J ELEVATIO IT N \\` � 21 8 iT L15 8" STEP LB ®. _ 'UT AND WEIGHT VARY BY REGION •• B 4 2006 UNIT FACE 6` CRUSHED ROCK OR REINFORCED CONCRETE LEVELING PAD - STREET FIL 14;PPROVED AS NOTED BY ENGINEERING r Date: -� �v�- C.>•�� `'`':"� ! � NCO _•l� • G KEYSTONE 4" CAP UNIT = KEYSTONE STANDARD UNIT--, w 8.8' BATTEI = FINISHED GRADE UNREINFORCED ONCRETE OR CRUSHED STON LEVELING PAD-/ It of �'UI ii;; . / 8" MIN. LOW PERMEABLE SOIL PIAI Unn.- = J 1 3 NATIVE SOIL �--- STABLE CUT SLOPE -- UNIT CORE FILL (3/4" CRUSHED ROCK OR STONE) \- 4"O PVC PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE (SLOPE TO DRAIN) )EPARTMENI- �iU`: R ES U B / EDMONDS "' TYPICAL GRAVITY WALL SECTION STANDARD UNIT - 1-1/8' MINIMUM SETBACK MAR - 3 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT :ed Earth Sciences, Inc. KEYSTONE WALL DETAIL ® ® ® C ,I ] / 1-7O 35 -7 / EDMONDS SHORT PLAT - 17039 76TH AVENUE WEST J I`��1V I CO �� Lo t EDMONDS, WASHINGTON STREET FOLD • PLANNING DATA NAME: S & K _-T' V' DATE: 1 /3 / ° 4 SITE ADDRESS: 17a3 5. 7(9 " A • w. ' PLAN CHK#: 05•Sb9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Alaw sr 6 ,,may ff,AtA - : n.a a fb-e 191 S erg= 4i ,- • 1071 9$7'' duxes 5/l.' REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?:,! No) MAP PAGE: 49-7 CORNER LOT: Yes I g) FLAG LOT: e / No) ZONING: R - 12- CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION M t 999- I S L Study Required: iw-nndj t:•A t lywi ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area -site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) Exempt SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Street: Ia , Left Side: �0 ' Right Side: % 0 Rear: / a ' Actual Setbacks: Street: L5' � Left Side: lo. Right Side: 1 1 .S ' Rear: aa' Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No /m ❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: N°^t S ❑'ROCKERIES: 2' (-ju mot- , (h~ ,a - _ nw'r Ju6A-e-t able ❑FENCES/TRELLISES: "Ak fA,,_, 63 /BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: * Q STAIRS / DECKS: 5► 1 m,,,,.,�, ^^ 15 ' h IW44- ^'la' PARKING: Required: Z Actual: 3 LOT AREA: 1 Z o 4 $ " LOT COVE L� I, g� Calculations: IZ,o-,�' GZy° BUILDING HEIGHT: Datum Point: eowv- v,_A#- (Sw (nrw°L I.r) Datum Elevation: 113 -V Maximum Allowed: Z 5' (14 4 . L) Actual Height: 253' (I A 3. g ' A.D.U. CREATED?: • / Yes) WA.- b,� MrsrNYr b»,- ha.e h i-&,.k •4,^ 4�t,. 1-�� � a•, Sr.2 .. ±j 6wF L'� .-. K,kvau, . 2 ro" Shw._A ar Ma k (X "-A I.. kftu ,e-a- SUBDIVISION: 6. 04 -58 - 3. f q . ` z.a .- k'#* - : (W LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Yes ) OTHER: Plan Review fl.;v (k_ NewBP P IanningDataForm. DOC • 3. House designs on the two sloping lots should be multi -level or have garage under d'esigri_,, to relate to the sloping topography. 4. Grading should not be used to create flat yards on lots 2 and 3. Rockeries and retaining walls that are not integral with the foundation walls of the building should not be higher than 5' and multi -leveled retaining walls should be spaced a minimum of 3' apart. �C. 1 S7 - #P2U .00 City. of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). Date Received: (- -7 City Receipt #: Critical Areas File #: C040 o ODC> j Critical Areas Checklist Fee: sig5.00 Date Mailed to Applicant: A property owner, orhis/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff, in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the informatiop and exhibi h ewith submitted are true and correct to .the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file6 �ppl- o - f of the owner as listed w- SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT / �� i� DATE Property Owner's Authorizati6f By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER Owner/Applicant: 5!�' L Name Street/ Address City �1 State Zip Telephone: Name DATE t Representative: Address City State Zip Telephone: Email address (optional): Email Address (optional): #P20 Critical Areas Checklist CA File No:CRAA OQD I Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: i 703 Z W 2. Property Tax Account Number: 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): / 6DC� �1 Z' /Gzs 4. Is this site currently developed? _L1 yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? 5.. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over. a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: /�-)O ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round? 61-MiV1� - I � Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? ), 10. Site is primarily: forested ;1 meadow ;shrubs mixed urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: For City Staff Use Only 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? 2. Site is Zoned? S - I Z 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? jzFWo 0 !CC( ( 0 ov . 15-- 2' o o 4. Crib al Areas inventory or C.A. map ipdicates Critical Area on site? ko SS( b Q t% 5 ivy im Z ( o/-, 5. Site within designated earth subsidence andslide hazard area? /k/'01 DETERMINATION TUDY REQUIRED WAIVER Reviewed b 1' /ice Date: o d CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT Site Location: 17035 761h Avenue West Tax Acct. Number: 00513100012224 Determination: Study Required Determination #: CRA-2009-0001 Applicant: Richard Kirschner Owner: Gregory Strand BACKGROUND During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site contains and/or is adjacent to critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas, pursuant to Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). The subject parcel slopes east to west towards Puget Sound. According to the City's LIDAR data, the steepness of the slope varies from approximately 25% to nearly 40%. There is a channelized water feature near the northern property boundary entering the parcel uphill from the east which was confirmed to be a drainage ditch. This study applies to the entire subject parcel. Depending on the location and type of project proposed relative to the identified critical areas, certain studies and reports may be required. ALLOWED ACTIVITIES AND EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.220. Similarly, certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC 23.40.230). If you have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed or exempt activity, please contact a Planner for more information. GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS Critical Areas Reports identify, classify, and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal results in an alteration to a critical area, the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan. You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may also choose to submit the entire study with your specific development application. • Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas that are listed in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of critical areas (see below). • Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study, and there is an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning Division for more information. • General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110 through 23.40.140. 0 F ED.J�,_ CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT r d ADDRESSi PERMIT 17035 76TH AVE W N❑- BLD20060195 C❑NTRACT❑Ri H❑ME❑WNERi SCALEi XXXXXX SOUNDVIEW HOMES NTS DATE INSPECTEDi INSPECTED BY, DATE DRAWNi DRAWN BYi 04-27-2006 JH 1 08-15-07 1 J.TRIEU 9 0 4-A-X.2- L] STREET FILE CITY CLERK CITY OF EDMONDS 121 8TH AVENUE NO. EDMONDS. WA 88020 STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Property Address: 17© 3s A7(/P-ill /l - Edmonds, Washington Assessor's Parcel Number: 0 O �5- 1 00 O a.L I have read the' requirements for accessory dwelling units contained in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) and understand that an accessory dwelling unit as defined in ECDC Section 21.05.015 is prohibited until an Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit is approved. I also understand that an Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit cannot be approved unless all the criteria in Chapter 20.21 are met, and all the necessary items are submitted, including an affidavit of occupancy and a covenant to be filed with the Snohomish County regarding the regulations imposed on Accessory Dwelling Units. Property Owner Signature: v Property Owner Name (printed): Sd' KI IV L-� 'Roqzt T. oen AdR 1 Date: 3 —" la- 0`7 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) COUNTY OF,.SNOHOMISH) Ro c rtif that I ow or have satisfacto evidence that n Q-e � Rwe / I certify know satisfactory signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in this instrument. —7 Notary's p`k �Wwei$),kls must be smudged. Dated: 3 / Qp:A At� Signature of .�`010 G cad `o�M h TgF+9�9� Rotary Public: Q Af' _ r- :.. Residing at: - w'�•. o �Bl��' o : 0'' My Appointment - �FaeA; ;?`�v`.``� Expires: A i �N THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR. .J y iio EX�'iSE TA REQUIRE® NOV 0 9 2005 AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: STREE0i" D09 DANTINI, SnohomishUun1Y Treasul®t SAND K JOINT VENTURES LLC. FILE DY 13og UAN rINI 902-6"' Ave S. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 200511090353 3 PGS 11-09-2005 10:40am $34.00 SEWER EASEMENT SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that for and in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration in hand paid, RICHARD & GVARA KIRSCHNER, husband and wife ("Grantors" herein), its successors and assigns hereby conveys and warrants to S AND K JOINT VENTURES LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company ("Grantee" herein), its successors and assigns a Non-exclusive Easement for the purposes of installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing, repairing, replacing and using a SEWER SYSTEM over, under, upon and across the following described real property in the County of Spohomish, State of Washington. SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT AFFECTING A PORTION OF CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO, S-04-58, AS RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER 200501105139, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON SAID EASEMENT MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A 5.00 FOOT EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWER HAVING 2.50 FEET OF SUCH WIDTH EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 000 20' 00" EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF A DISTANCE OF 62.02 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CENTERLINE; THENCE SOUTH 870 25' 45" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 5.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 440 52' 50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 39.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 490 00' 52" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 43.09 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 800 49' 01" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND THE TERMINUS OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED CENTERLINE. ALL SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. ASSESSOR'S TAX PARCEL # C Dom'/ loon,i Zze915- This easement shall at all times be deemed to be and shall be a continuing covenant running with the land and shall be binding upon and in favor of the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto DATED this -74 day of 061i v9 , 2005 c GRANTOR BY RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS STATE OF WASFUNGTON ) ) ss County of Snohomish ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Rig the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she/thb�) signed this instrument, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the use and purposed mentioned in the instrument. Subscribed and sworn to before me this `-t 1'14' day of a LT 2005. Seal or stamp J. ti JP��SSlonr'10 qti v r�U Ry cn Z UNA PUBLIC = y) 12.5.2007 � OF WASN��G Signature (Print name) Notary Public in and for the State of Washington residing at Ej6n-evf— My appointment expires I 0 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss County of Snohomish ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that % VA4,^*- 1412 Sit-{ni E is the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that (he/she/they) signed this instrument, to be the free and voluntary act of such party for the use and purposed mentioned in the instrument. Subscribed and sworn to before me this `J rv*' day of b'�-- 2005. Seal or stamp CGS J . Nq JQ' SION Ftis Signature NorAR> CP Z (Print name) Mau► 11 -E J N PUgLIC 2 Notary Public in and for the State of Washington �� 12•5.2o07 t�� residing at EL)e-- L-- T-'- OF WASNMy appointment expires i li ! II i Felipe M. Mendez (206) 224-8109 finendez@karrtuttle.com Gaw Offerer KARR•TUTTLE CAMPBELL Tonndrd1904 A ProferronafSen ice Cotpomtion 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone (206) 223-1313, Facsimile (206) 682.7100 Portland Office Pioneer Tower, Suite 650, 888 S.W. Fifth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone (503) 248-1330. Facsimile (503) 274-1214 Please reply to Seattle Office September 14, 2010 Ms. Marie Harrison Development Services Department: Permit Coordinator City of Edmonds 121 5`h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Revised Landscape and Drainage Plans for BLD-2010-0573 Dear Marie: This letter acknowledges and responds to City of Edmonds Planner Mike Clugston's correspondence of September 9, 2010 (attached hereto as Exhibit A). In response to the City of Edmonds Engineering Division's requests, please find attached three (3) sets of the following documents: (i) the Strand's revised landscape plan showing the installation of compost amended soils (attached hereto as Exhibit B); and (ii) a revised drainage plan indicating erosion control measures (attached hereto as Exhibit C . The Strands await approval to implement the plans above. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 206-224-8109. Regards, F JiM. Mendez R768899v1 / 43442-003 RESUB SEP 14 2010 BUILDING DEPARTMENT OITY OF SDMONDS STREET FILE Ms. Marie Harrison September 14, 2010 Page 2 Enclosures cc: client Michael Clugston Planner Development Services Department: Planning ° Building City of Edmonds 121 5" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Jeanie McConnell Engineering Division City of Edmonds 121 5" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 K.C. Webster Phillips & Webster, P.L.L.C. 13303 Northeast 175`h Street Woodinville, WA 98072-8503 #768899 v 1 / 43442-003 EXHIBIT A CITY OF EDMONDS • 121 5`h AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAX: 425.771.0221 •WEB: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING • BUILDING September 9, 2010 Rob Michel rob@michelpt-opeities.com RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR PLAN CHECK # 2010-0573 DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING REMEDIATION AT 17035 76TH AVENUE WEST Dear Rob, I have reviewed the above building permit application for the Planning Division. While I do not have any specific corrections at this time, the Engineering Division has also reviewed the permit and provided the attached comments. Please make all submittals to a Development Services Permit Coordinator, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. If you have any questions, please contact me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely X;�azCzp� Mike Clugston, AICP Planner 11 El CITY OF EDMONDS PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS DATE: . September 8, 2010 TO: Mike Clugston ENGINEERING DIVISION (425)771-0220 City Website: wwwxi.edmonds.wa.us FROM: Jeanie McConnell RE: Plan Check #: BLD20100573 Project: Strand — drainage & landscaping improvements Project Address: 17035-76th Ave W During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information, corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please ask the applicant to redline plans or submit three (3). sets of revised plans/documents with a written response to each of the items below- 1) Please revise the landscape plan to show the installation of compost amended soils. The "planting beds" specification provided in City of Seattle Client Assistance Memo 531 would be appropriate for this site. This publication can be accessed at www.seattle.gov/dpd 2) Please revise the drainage plan to indicate erosion control measures consistent with City standards that are to be installed with the project proposal. Thank you. 1 EXHIBIT B _ yAr�6`,riy�ii;1:E't5"r$�'�o�t`�utf:l:�9�+�11r�fa�`(„�s�'t'�•°iii:e�s": '�' �:} Title: Strand Property Planting Plan and Tree Removal Request 17035 76`h Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026 Prepared For: Michel. Construction Attn: Mr. Rob Michel 7907 212`h ST. SW. #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 Prepared By: Urban Forestry Services, Inc. James M. Barborinas ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #356 ISA Certified Arborist #PN-0135 Certified Tree Risk Assessor PNW-#0327 Date: September 14, 2010 CC Encl: Landscape Planting Detail R GS U B Landscape Planting Plan SEP 14 2010 CONTENTS BUILDIN(9 DEPARTMENT Introduction CITY OF EDMONDS Plant List Planting Notes Maintenance Plan ', ,• F Landscape Planting Detail Landscape Planting ,I -v Request to Re ree§+Al " Introduction: The purpose of this report is toPo `` d ;P,l nting Plan'£ort(iel1Vl> igatiia;of the unauthorized removal,o spur tree ,.•n thAe Strando e at 1z7,0135 76 venue< es '� P A '-'Y" 4X •iy'`fl 3 ' ,v. Edmonds, Washington htis repoYf will Aso addss^fh igest bythe6nghbo>t�i,rm`%e trees in the northeast corner of1the S.trandT'Perty. �t.. V t� Eli .�$' This Planting Plan is req�uir�ed4b VShe t ? whi $ s ft!ha{�Uor e�erx,,,1 ee -emo fed, at =lea`st v '="71X U :�. �t 4 tp, Y$'✓ri'X T, . 1j P 3� t" ra r Jt' 2 trees be replanted in its lace. 'Phe;r 1 e nttreds�rttustdl a mini um ofp c d'iameter at breast heightfor deciduous trees or 6 e�et%Wgje a re , nes , }r�* �' g q t + Ther fore b d beast 8 3 trees are to be replaced. f, ,,QQ `' �� }a tV1 4' �tbelle( Rb) "JOx9�x1i ki 8( malt: pq uP")n v�cle'cm ?P i arh'iii rt g ti :M 'a n a g i n,�; . & R e"s tad i .i n 9 `�l'b'�rl` gGsfs� e`ns p e;s 't4w�v.urhixnfib!effti Yruic�s.cvnt:` The 4 trees that were removed were of significant size with large spreading -canopies. These trees provided significant slope protection from rainfall and contributed.to ground water absorption thus reducing erosion and ground water flow. It will take many years for the 8 mitigation trees to replace the slope protection and ecological functions that the 4 trees previously provided. In my opinion, additional plants should be planted to protect the bare soil left on.the slope after the removal of the trees. Because the 4 trees have been removed, it is difficult to tell exactly how much of the slope was protected by the trees; however, it is safe to say that any planting will take many years to replace their benefits. Given the bare soil and steep slope that was left after the tree removal, the goal of any mitigation plan should be to cover the bare soil with plants and mulch: to. protect it from further erosion and eventually replace the benefits that were lost with as much vegetation as possible. Therefore, the following Planting Plan is recommended: Plant List: • 6 — 6' Shore Pine, Pinus contorta var. contorta (As shown on plan) • 2 — 1 "caliper Kousa Dogwoods, Cornus kousa chinensis (As shown on plan) • 9 — 2 gallon Red Twig Dogwood, Cornus sericia (In groups of 3 10 feet apart as shown on plan) •75-1gallon Kinnikinnik, Arctostaphylos uni-ursa (In groups of 10 as shown on plan) • 75 — 2 gallon Sword fern, Polystichum munitum (In groups of 10 as shown: on plan) Planting Notes 1. Plants shall meet or exceed National Landscape Standard Specifications. 2. Plants shall be full, vigorous, and healthy with no visual defects. 3. Photos of plants shall be sent to Consulting Arborist before delivered to site for pre - approval. Plants shall be inspected and approved by the Consulting Arborist on the site before planting. 4. Contractor shall meet with Consulting Arborist for pre -construction meeting to confirm plant layout and installation procedures. 5. Contractor shall follow the planting instructions on the attached Planting Detail. 6. The entire planting bed shall be covered with 3 inches of approved compost. Compost shall meet the most current version of ASTM D2974 "Test Methods for Moisture, Ash, and Organic Matter of Peat and Other organic Soils," and TMECC 05.07A "Loss -On - Ignition Organic Matter Method". An analysis of the compost shall be submitted to the Consulting Arborist and approved before it is delivered. An explanation of this soil amending method is found in Client Assisted memo #531 from the Department of Planning and Development. Go to www.seattle.gov/dpd. 7. The soils in the planting beds shall be scarified to a depth of 8 inches into sub -grade to thoroughly mix the compost into the existing soil, either by hand or with a small excavator. The Consulting Arborist shall inspect and approve the depth of the scarified soils. 8. Immediately after plant installation, contractor shall breakup all compacted soil adjacent to and between all plants, from landscape. work, to a minimum depth of 6 inches and Strand Property Planting Plan September 14, 2010 Page 2 immediately cover the soil between plants with" 3 inches of arborist woodchips. Mulch shall be pulled 3 inches away from base of all plants. 9. Hand water all plants immediately and thoroughly. 10. Consulting Arborist shall be onsite when planting begins to approve plants and confirm installation process. He shall approve the proper completion of the planting and report to the owner and City. Maintenance Plan 1:The contractor shall hand watered all plants once per week during the first growing season which include the months of April through September. 2: The contractor shall hand watered all plants once every 2 weeks. during the second year. 3. All mortality shall be replaced immediately during the first growing season, 4. The Consulting Arborist shall inspect the planting once per month during the .first growing season and twice during the second growing season and report on establishment and mortality immediately to the owner. 5. The contractor shall maintain 3 inches of Arborist's mulch over the entire planting site up though the end of the first year. 6.The. Consulting Arborist and property owner (Strands) shall report the progress and final establishment of the plantings at the end of the first and second growing season for final acceptance and approval. Landscape Planting Detail Attached is the Planting Detail that illustrates the specified method for tree, shrub and groundcover installation. Landscape Planting Plan — Attached.is Landscape Planting Plan that generally illustrates the layout of the plants specified. This drawing is conceptual and adjustments in the field will be required to avoid the stumps of cut trees and other .existing plants. Request to Remove Trees Photo 1. A group of 34 trees, 7 of significant size are growing in the northeast corner of the There is a group of 34 trees in the north Strand's backyard. None are "considered hazardous. east corner of the Strand property. They include Red Alder, Ulnus rubra, Quaking Aspen, Populus tremuloides and some type of wild elm variety, Ulmus, spp. Technically, I measured only 7 of the 34 trees to be, considered significant by the city, meeting or exceeding 6 inches in diameter. They are growing as a large group .of trees with a very dense canopy and approximately 60 feet tall. They. all'appear to be healthy and Strand Property Planting Plan September 14, 2010 Page 3 �J y. %1 •�4 J• kf t growing well although competing for the limited space they are in. See�;the attached site map for their location. �i In the Strand/ Hathaway Meeting Letter dated June 14, 2010, on the second page, Part B, it states, "In a conversation on May 27`h with the Strands Attorney Mr. Mendez, he'inquired about what would be necessary to perform work on the deciduous trees at the northeast corner of the Stand's parcel as well as the duration of the Strand's conditional use permit. First, the conditions of CU-08-40 still apply for the deciduous trees and each condition must be satisfied: • A management plan must be submitted for review and approval (Condition 41); • If there are documented hazard trees, they could be removed but otherwise the management plan should describe what arboricultural techniques are proposed for tree cutting and maintenance (Condition #2) } • Any trees removed must be replaced per Condition #3-5. I am assuming that `perform work' on these trees refers to complete removal or pruning to allow for increased views. It is my understanding that the Strands, the owner of the trees are not requesting that they be removed. It also appears that the city requires that the trees be considered hazardous to be eligible for removal. They are not hazardous in my opinion so do not qualify to -be removed for that reason. Another option to improve the view would be to prune or thin the trees of severely top the trees. In my opinion, neither of these options is viable. Pruning or thinning the tree canopies would do little if any good and would, quickly regrow and fill the opening left by the pruning. Pruning or thinning in this regard refers to selectively cutting back lateral limbs. i j4 Topping trees like this is never recommended because it ruins the structure of the tree, leaves a large pruning wound open to disease and insects and stimulates'excessive new growth. This growth is usually denser than what was removed and is susceptible to failure because of poor attachment. It would have to be repeated continually over the coming years and the trees would slowly decline and die over time, and their appearance would be increasingly objectionable over time. Therefore, I do not recommend that the trees be pruned or topped.; If the city allows the removal of the trees even though they are healthy and the Strands make that request, then a tree removal and mitigation plan will be submitted. s A follow-up to this report is to provide an Appraisal for the landscape value of the 4 trees that were removed without authorization. This value is to determine compensation for the loss of the trees that were not considered hazardous but rather were an amenity'to the Strand property. Let me know if you have any questions regarding this planting plan for the Strand property. Strand Property Planting Plan September 14, 2010 Page 4 ,a VIM, g . � � � � 77 Group of 34 trees, of which 7 are considered significant by city code. They include Red Alder, Elm, and Quaking Aspen. These trees are not at risk of failing at this time. Red Twig Dogwood Al 6-6'Shore Pine � ^FS &A P^ , ^ ` STRAND PROPERTY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN 1703576r Ave. West Edmonds, Washington ' This Landscape Planting Plan illustrates the approximate location pfplant | installation onthe slope mfthe Strand property inmitigation pfthe 4trees ( | removed without avtuorizao�ill ustrates . trees considered for removal. See accompanying report for Plant Specifications, ^. Planting Detail andp1antingmotestobefmUoweu' � Planting Plan by: Urban Forestry Services, Inc. Jim aa,bnrinas'July Z0z0 � � TREE./ LARGE SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL: CONTAINER, B X B AND GROWBAG 1. FOR DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN TREES, DIG ALL HOLES (3) TIMES SIZE OF THE ROOTBALL, AND 1 INCH LESS THAN HEIGHT OF ROOTBALL. 2. AFTER PLACING ROOTBALL IN HOLE, REMOVE ALL STRING, WIRE, FABRIC AND BURLAP FROM ROOTBALL. FOR CONTAINER STOCK, CUT AND SPREAD ROOTS TO ELIMINATE ROOT CIRCLING AFTER REMOVING THE CONTAINER. 3. BACKFILL AND TAMP WITH NATIVE SOIL. FORM WATER DAM AROUND TREE (2 FT.) FROM TRUNK. 4. PLACE 3 IN. OF WOODCHIPS OVER THE BACKFILLED PLANTING PIT, 361N. DIA. FOR TREES. FERTILIZE PLANTING PIT WITH SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER, 10-10-10 OR SIMILAR AT MANUFACTURURS RECOMMENDED RATE: SHRUB /GROUNDCOVER 1. DIG ALL HOLES (3) TIMES THE SIZE OF THE ROOTBALU ROOTWAD. BREAK UP HARDPAN OR COMPACTED GROUND WITH PICK OR SHOVEL. 4. ALWAYS WATER IMMEDIATELY AND THOROUGHLY DURING FIRST AND SECOND GROWING SEASON AS SPECIFIED IN PLANT- ING NOTES, 5. PULL WOODCHIPS (3 IN.)) AWAY FROM TRUNK TO DISCOURAGE RODENT DAMAGE. AND ROOT GIRDLING. 7. STAKE TREES OUTSIDE ROOTBALL. USE (2) 2- X X6- TREATED LODGEPOLE PINE BVe"TREE STAKES. USE 1" HEAVY CHAINLOCK TREE TIE OR SIMILAR. REMOVE AFTER ONE YEAR. PLANTING DETAIL: CONTAINER AND GROWBAG?� =`y 2. REMOVE ALL STRING, FABRIC AND BURLAP FROM ROOT BALL. FOR CONTAINER STOCK, CUT AND SPREAD ROOTS TO ELIMINATE ROOT CIRCLING AFTER REMOVING THE CONTAINER. PLANT WITH ROOT CROWN I INCH ABOVE SUR- ;'ROUNDING.GRADE:=.-r.:,..���._:.,� - ....... ;... . �.,.:.� 3. BACKFILL AND TAMP WITH NATIVE, SOIL. UB FORM WATER DAM AROUND SHR(1 FT) FROM TRUNK(S). 4. FERTILIZE PLANTING PIT WITH SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER, 10-10-10 OR SIMILAR AT MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED RATE. 5. PLACE 3 IN. OF WOODCHIPS OVER THE BACKFILLED PLANTING PIT. .•y;:b�'..n'tm":e.�':'':';'z<t'i:.';::"''irz �T°i='�:T..i^.i�`t+":^: w,-:-r>...:�;^i'"X"�.,_•'X':.^� r'-:w:� 4. ALWAYS WATER IMMEDIATELY AND THOROUGHLY DURING FIRST AND SECOND GROWING SEASON AS SPECIFIED .IN.RL- NT-. ING NOTES 5. PULL WOODCHIPS (3 IN.)) AWAY FROM TRUNK TO DISCOURAGE RODENT DAMAGE By: Urban Forestry Services, Inc Date: July 2010 Strand Property Planting Detail Jim Barborinas, ISA Certified Arborist ,#PN-0135 15119 McLean Rd. Edmonds, Washington Mount Vernon, WA 98273 I CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DEPARTMENT WORK , 0=91N--5OWNER- ADDRESS J APPROVED DATE 1 Zl f 7.0/ o 6�vx, x Ems- T PERMIT NUMBER � S7- RESUB SEP 14 2010 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE A,ssociate d' _Earth Sciences, Inc. January 3'; 2006 AESUB. Project No., KE05957A JAN 2 0 - 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Soundview'Homebuilders . CITY of EDMonIDS 902 6' Avenue South Edmonds, Washington 98020.. ,Attention: Mr. Ron Den Adel STREET FILE .Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineering; Letter Report Proposed Edmonds Two -Lot Short Plat ' 17039 76' Avenue West r Edmonds, Washington , Dear Mr.. Den Adel, This .letter summarizes. the results of our subsurface exploration performed yesterday,. and. provides design criteria, for foundations and retaining, walls ,for the two proposed homes to be built on the subject property. A eotechnical*, re ort is required for this - J P P, Y• g P,. q . property based on Section 19.10 of the City of Edmonds Municipal Code for property with .slope inclinations, exceeding 15 percent and' City of Edmonds. review ,comments. issued for your project on December 28, 2005. Subsurface Exploration , We completed one exploration pit in each building; envelope on January 2, 2006..In the northern lot (EP-2), we encountered 10 inches ' of • topsoil over 3 feet of ,medium'. stiff/dense sandy silt to silty sand overlying'medium dense grading to dense sand with . silt to'a depth of 11 feet (approximate elevation 11.1). Beneath the sand, we encountered hard gray silt to the maximum depth explored of 12. feet. _ In the southern lot (EP-1), we encountered 12 inches of topsoil over 1 foot of loose silty' sand with roots overlying brown'grading to gray, .medium stiff grading to hard,., sandy , silt to the maximum-depth,explored of 10_feet (approximate elevation 118). Elevation . estimates are based on plotting the exploration pit locations m a site survey provided by - ..you (photocopy attached). Very slow; perched groundwater seepage was observed at -a .' depth of'4. feet in the pit completed. for* the north lot (EP-2), and at 2 feet within the, pit' . ' excavated for the, south lot (EP-1). The,seepage.depth represents the contact between the loose surficial sediments and underlying denser sediments. Samples were collected at ^ " " Kirkland 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirk1Pg96VJ6• Phone 425 827-7701 Fax 425 827-5424 ~ Everett 291 1 1/2 Hewitt Ave., Suite 2, •EverettGVA 98201 •Phone 425 259-0522 •Fax 425 252-3408 each strata change. We interpreted the sand'to be Vashon advance outwash and the silt to be Pre -Frazier sediments consistent 'with those mapped. on the . Composite Geologic Map of the 'Sno- King Area, " Booth et. al.., 2004. Advance outwash consists of sand- that has been - deposited in front of an advancing glaciai ice sheet- and has been overridden by several thousand feet of glacial- ice. Pre -Frazier fine grained sediments are sediments deposited in a large pro, -glacial lake formed by ice -dams that blocked the outlet to the Pacific , Ocean prior to the advance •of the ice sheet that eventually covered the Puget Sound area during the Frazier *glaciation. As such, this material has •also.been over -,consolidated by the weight of glacial ice. Recommendations and Design Criteria Erosion Mitigation Measures , The . site slopes are defined as Erosion Hazard: Areas by the City of Edmonds. The surface sediments underlying the site generally contain silt and fine sand and will be sensitive to erosion and moisture, especially in the sloping portions of the site: 'In order to reduce the' amount of sediment transport off the site during- construction, the following recommendations should be followed. 1. Temporary silt fencing should be placed around the lower, perimeter of all, . cleared are and at the .base. of sloped-- areas. - The fencing. should be periodically inspected and maintained as necessary to ensure.proper function. 2. To the extent practical, earthwork -related construction should, proceed during the drier periods ,of the year and disturbed areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Temporary erosion control measures should be maintained until permanent erosion control measures are established. 3. Areas stripped of vegetation during . construction, should '-be mulched and. hydroseeded, replanted as soon as 'possible, or otherwise, protected. During winter construction, hydroseeded areas. should be covered with clear plastic to facilitate grass growth'. 4. If excavated soils are to be ,stockpiled on the site. for reuse, measures should be taken to reduce the potential' for erosion from, the- stockpile. These, could include, -but are not limited to, covering the pile with plastic sheeting, the use of, low stockpiles in flat areas, and. the use of straw, fences -around, 'pile., kP _ ,_perimeters. Page 2 of 6 5. To the extent- necessary, interceptor swale's with rock check dams should be constructed to divert storm water from construction areas and to route collected istorm water to an appropriate discharge location. , - ' . 6. A rock construction entrance' should be provided 'to reduce - the amount ''of " sediment transported' off -site on truck tires. 1: All storm, water from impermeable surfaces,, including the driveways and the roofs,. should be tightlined into approved facilities and, not be directed onto or above steeply sloping areas. Temporary Cut Slopes - In our opinion, stable construction slopes should be the responsibility of the contractor and should be determined during construction based on actual soil and groundwater, conditions encountered. For estimating purposes, however, we anticipate that , temporary, unsupported cut. slopes in' the advance outwash sand and underlying pre - Frazier -silt can be. planned at 1.5H:1V (Horizontal: Vertical) or flatter: Permanent cut , or structural,fill slopes should not be steeper than 2H :1 V except behind engineered, retaining -walls where they should not exceed 3H:1V. These slope angles are for areas where ground water seepage ,is not encountered, and . assume that surface water is not allowed to flow across the slope faces. If ground or surface water is present when- the excavation slopes are exposed, flatter .slope angles ' will be re uired. As is typical with earthwork o er'ations, some sloughing and raveling q tYP P, ., g g g may occur and cut slopes may have, to be adjusted in the field. In addition, _ WISHA/OSHA regulations should be followed at all times. Engineering Design Criteria - Based on our calculations, the east basement,,retaining walls for both structures must be- cofnpletely founded.. within, the very stiff to hard- gray. sandy silt in order to reduce the 'risk of slope failure along the sand/silt' depositional plane that is characteristic of the failure mechanism within the 'Meadowdale Landslide Complex. Interior spread footing foundations and the west and portions of the north and south walls of the home can be. founded; in . medium dense to dense brown or. gray sand ,(south lot) or medium ,stiff to _hard. gray silt (north Jot). For residential_ structures founded on the ,prescribed bearing ' stratum, spread footings may - be designed for an allowable -foundation soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square. foot (psf) including both dead and live loads.' rThis bearing, pressure is also appropriate for approved granular,on-site or imported structural fill, compacted under our observation and testing to 95 percent of ASTM D:,1557.and to a firm, non -yielding condition. The'on site sand is appropriate for Page 3 of 6 structural fill use. However, the -sift is not'considered appropriate for use as structural fill, due to its extreme moisture sensitivity. Soils in which the amount of fine-grained material (smaller than the No.' 200 sieve) is greater than approximately 5 percent ^ (measured on the minus -No. 4 sieve size) should be, considered moisture -sensitive. Use -of moisture -sensitive, soil in structural fills should be limited to favorabledry weather and dry subgrade conditions.. If fill containing moderate quantities of. silt is placed during wet weather or if proper compaction cannot be obtained, a select material consisting of a clean, free -draining gravel and/or sand should be. used.. Free -draining fill consists of non -organic soil with the amount of fine-grained- material limited to 5 percent by weight when measured on. .' the minus No. 4 sieve fraction and at least 25 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve. These ,recommendations are, predicated on a member of our firm observing footing foundation excavations to determine- if the proper; bearing capacity :has ,been reached. Anticipated settlement of footings founded 'as recommended should be on the order, of 1/4,inch or less, with differential settlement of inch or less. However, disturbed material not removed from footing :trenches prior to footing placement could result'in increased ' I settlements; " Structural design of buildings should follow.2003 International Building Code (IBC). standards using Site Class "D". as defined in Table '1615.1.1. The 2003 IBC seismic design parameters for short period (SS) and. 1-second period (S1),spectral acceleration - values were determined by the.latitude and longitude of the project site using the United' States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project website (htt.P q://earth uake.us s..g ov/hazmaps/). Based on the more current 2002 data, the ' .. g USGS website. interpolated ground motions at the project'site-to be 1.22g and 0.43g:for building periods of 0:2 and 1.0 seconds, respectively, with a 2 percent chance of exceedance in-50 years.' ' . Up slope from the east basement. retaining walls; short rockery structures are currently planned.' We recommend that these structures, be replaced with engineered. retaining walls. The walls shoald'be founded -at.least 8 feet in horizontal, distance from the ,east basement retaining wall on medium - stiff/dense to hard/dense native silt or sand sediments- or on structural fill compacted to 95 percent of ASTM D:1557. The slopes above the walls should not exceed 3H:1V (horizontal,:verfical). _ Horizontally backfilled basement walls which, are free to yield laterally at -least 0.1 �. percent of their height; may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 40 pounds, - per, cubic foot, (pcf). Fully restrained-, horizontally backfilled rigid walls that cannot yield should be designed for an equivalent fluid of 55 pcf. Free-standing retaining walls to be constructed upslope ' from the basement walls with sloping backfill up to a maximum gradient of .3H:IV. should be designed using. an equivalent„fluid. of 60.pcf for yielding conditions. - If parking areas are adjacent; to walls, a surcharge equivalent to 2 'feet of soil should be added to the wall height in determining .lateral design forces. ' Page 4'of 6 As required by the 2003 IBC, retaining wall design should- include .a seismic surcharge. ' pressure in addition to the, equivalent fluid pressures presented above. Considering the site soils and the recommended wall backfill materials, we recommend :a seismic surcharge pressure of 4H and 8H psf where. H '.is the wall height in'feet; for the active and ' at -rest loading conditions, respectfully: The seismic surcharge should be modeled as a rectangular. distribution with the resultant applied .at the midpoint of the wall. ' The lateral pressures presented- above are based on the conditions of a uniform backfill , consisting of excavated'on-site granular'(sandy) soils, or imported granular, structural , fill compacted to, 90 percent of ASTM-.D 1557. A higher degree of compaction -is not .' recommended as this will increase the pressure acting on . the walls. _ A lower".. compaction may result.in settlement of the slab -on -grade or other structures supported; ' ' above the walls. Thus, the compaction level is critical and must be tested. by our firm during placement. -Surcharges. fforn adjacent- footings or heavy'. construction equipment must be,added to the above values. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and the native medium stiff/dense to hard/dense. soils or supporting structural fill soils, or -by passive earth ' pressure acting on the buried- portions of the ,foundations. ,The foundations must %be backfilled with granular structural fill, compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum. dry density', to achieve the passive• resistance provided below. - We recommend the following allowable design parameters: �' • Passive equivalent fluid = 250 ,pcf • Coefficient of friction = ,.35 Drainage Perimeter footing drains should be, provided for 'all retaining walls and footings.. It is ; iimperative that proper. drainage be provided • so 'that hydrostatic pressures do not develop against the walls. , This, would involve installation'of a minimum 1-foot-wide blanket drain to, within l foot of finish grade for, the 'full wall height using imported 1: washed gravel, against the walls. The ieiaining wall detail drawing shown on the , building plans we reviewed included this drain. All footing drains should.be tightlined ' separately from roof drains to_ an approved discharge location. ,. Page"5 .of 6 - Closure - We trust this information meets your current needs. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, ASSOCIATEDEARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington , f V4 as /71. f wasy� �e o 9 Uj 1 h Z a 06 1, 3 q �Y 'Q 603 P�&ed Ge ' Susan G. BeckhamD 6-exa�acs ' Susan G. Beckham, P.E,., P.G.' Senior Project Engineer . Attachments. Figure 1 - Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration Pit Logs , Mr. Vince Sessa Sessa Corporation. Cc• -, FAX: 425-277-7559 . .. Page 6 of 6 RAYMOND E. WILLAMS \\ I �0 17015 76TH AW. W. \ GEORGE WOODWARD ,} Q EDMONDS, WA, \ 17009 7M AVE. W. I I ' +*e �o \ \ EDMONDS, WA. I - EX. DRAINAGE 1 4 \ I - SBT06'07� i '� - - - -- - a -1 - - - 00, I:: I r .�� p �XPI�o�. Arrad� ' / I W W 12,048 5.� (I , ( a MICHAEL L HATH40AY 17016 74TH AVE.W. P' 13,702. S.F. (G) ®EI p_ a , ,� EDMONDS, WA AVERAGE EL.- IN MAX HGHr. EL ' -I 1 .1 I I. \Z I \ d 41 ----- I I ° er��•� 1P1h------- 21.96 1 4-0504�W I 'I Dena=90'00'00- / I t ` R-20.00 q \ L=31.42' Mi 12,001 S.F. I,E p�I ' 13,319 S.F. ORO I + w 3 / +�"p yam v H + Spz /Oelto=90'OD'DO' \ : + + + o ^ 4+ p / R-20.00 a 15' unL EAsEmENT \ + 1� +' + Ia a►... •....- 0- --�- " I / • SIGURD HANSEN I 12� 1s0" 17107 76TH AVE. W. N EaMDNDS, WA A i 1"=30' LL Associated Earth sciences, Inc. SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 1 EDMONDS SHORT PLAT DATE 1/06 ® ® ® ® EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PRa. NO. KE05957A 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-1 South Home 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 r� 1 This log is part of the report prepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be to,with that report for complete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the read time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are p a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 Weathered Soil/Colluvium Loose, very moist, brown, silty SAND with roots, mottled. 2 Pre -Fraser Deposits Medium stiff, very moist, brown, sandy SILT. 3 4 Medium stiff to stiff, very moist, brown, sandy SILT, little gravel. 5 6 Very stiff, moist, gray, sandy SILT, trace gravel and cobbles. 7 8 9 Hard below 9'. 10 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 10 feet 11 Slow seepage at 2'. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 z Edmonds Short Plat Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. < Project No. KE05957A N Logged by: SGB a Approved by: 1/3/06 CL U Y 1 1 1 I 1 I LOG OF EXPLORATION PIT NO. EP-2 North Home This log is part of the reportprepared by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) for the named project and should be read together with that report for compplete interpretation. This summary applies only to the location of this trench at the a time of excavation. Subsurface conditions may change at this location with the passage of time. The data presented are rj a simplfication of actual conditions encountered. DESCRIPTION Topsoil 1 Weathered Advance Outwash/Colluvium Medium dense to stiff, very moist, brown, silty SAND to sandy SILT with gravel. 2 3 4 Advance Outwash Medium dense, very moist, gray, fine to medium SAND with silt. 5 Medium dense to dense, very moist, rust, fine to medium SAND with silt. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Pre -Fraser Deposits Hard, gray, sandy SILT. 12 Bottom of exploration pit at depth 12 feet 13 Slight seepage at 4'. No caving. 14 15 16 17 18 19 0 C Edmonds Short Plat Edmonds, WA Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. project No. KE05957A N Logged by: SGB ® ® ® ® 1/3/06 a Approved by: U Y . �.EarthTech A tgCO International Ltd. Company March 9, 2006 10800 NE 81h Street Ph Floor Bellevue, WA 98004 E P".10 K D T 425.455.9494 F 425.453.9470 \ www.earthtech.com \ City of Edmonds - Development Services Department�iiiL. =t�``' = `�`'`" 121 Fifth Avenue North ILrw Edmonds, WA 98020' REST Subject: Task Order No. 06-02 Structural Design Review Ron Den Adel - 17039 76'h Ave W. - Retaining Wall - Resubmittal Attn: Jaime Hawkins This will return design review comments on the applicant's March 3, 2006 resubmittal as requested by the above task order. We have the following comments: 1. Backslope Assumptions. The geotechnical engineer has reviewed the backslope angle, and expressed the opinion that the soil loads are adequate for the slopes at the site, although there is some difference between the actual maximum slope and the slope shown in his wall calculations. We accept the geotechnical engineer's determination. 2. Sliding and Overturning Safety Factors. AESI is asking that you accept design in accordance with the National Concrete Masonry Association's publication Segmental Retaining Walls _Seismic Design Manual where that document deviates from the 2003 IBC. The NCMA document permits lower safety factors for overturning and sliding of segmental retaining wall structures than the 2003 IBC, section 1806.1, which makes no distinction between seismic and static forcesi when specifying the minimum safety factor. AESI has construed the IBC's failure to make this distinction as leaving the provision open to interpretation for the case of seismic loads. Since issues like sliding and overturning are caused by seismic loads, we don't entirely agree with this interpretation of code intent, however we do acknowledge that it is generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice to reduce the stability safety factors for seismic loads. We agree with AESI that the NCMA methodology is a generally accepted design guide for these types of walls, however this particular NCMA document is not one of those listed as a referenced standard in Chapter 35 of the 2003 IBC, nor in' the referenced design standards of ASCE 7-02 Section 9.14.2 (incorporated in the IBC by reference.) Even if it were, the requirements of the IBC would govern where they are different, in. accordance with code provision 102.4. Jaime Hawkins February 16, 2006 Page 2 The question as to whether the building official has the leeway to accept NCMA methodology .for the seismic design of segmental retaining walls is more a legal than an engineering question, the answer to which you should probably get from counsel. From a purely engineering point of view, however, in our opinion it is not unreasonable to use the NCMA method for segmental retaining wall design. 3. Ground Motion Assumptions. AESI has provided discussion on the rationale behind the } seismic factor used for the wall design, based on the exception cited in section 1802.2.7 of the 2003 IBC. AESI's clarification of ground motion is acceptable. The accelerations used for design appears to exceed Fa x PGA for the case of 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years, which corresponds to an importance factor I = 1.0 and would conform to the acceleration coefficient assumptions used in the NCMA design method. 4. Grading Changes. Foreslope grading has been revised slightly to provide more backfill in front of the wall. This is fine from the wail's, point of view, but it appears that the grading now violates the code provision in IBC 2003 section 1803.3, which requires that the ground slope away from the building at 10% for at least 10 feet. 5. We have no further objections to this application based on structural design considerations. Very truly yours, c Earth Tech, Inc. Ja P.E., S.E. Se or Stru ral Engineer A Licens 420163 EarthTech A tgCO International Ltd. Company ,I SCALE 20' IN ExNA` \ �?� ?p \6 ELI I 15.6 25' 1,030 S. F. ss EL.= I I 1 EL=124.0 / I ', Y L 1SEMENT FF=l 1.7 2ND Tr= 12 1. 8 i./. 1, � N A 1 11 - -V7 nill ip utLDv4qF G mosos 31' A E WALL 1 9AY CAI r�� HEIGH' 1 7 A =—1 I Iz. 5 E=124.Q C=120.9 -0 = , LL AVG1. GRADE=119-1 +25. 0' MAXIMU,14= 141--1 ACTUAL= 743.8 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCS PROPOSED DECK OUTLINE' 161 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING ROOF OUTLINE: 2,691 S-F PROPO . SED PA1701WAUe.- 309 1 S.F. OF OUTLINE) PROP PROPOSED DRIVEWA S.F. PROPOSED PORCH. (INCLUDED IN ROOF , OUTLIN E) TOP OF 120. 0 (TYP-) - LOT COVERAGE.- S.F. (22%) LOT AREA: S.F. - 44 LOT SLOPE: ',7—% HOUSE INCL. OVERDIG 2,633 S.F. IJ,04 S.- 2,633 S.F. x 4.55= 11,980 3,;7021 SV* 981-1 C.F.12 7 ;?o GRADING CALCS FFL 111-7 AVE RAGE GRADE 119.1 AVE. 7lq x �L=Jzu.v : �.? FOOTING ---4 LOWEST 4.55 1� I AVERAGE CUT > p .SILT FENCE TYP Tss C. 0. 139.00 L 4. POT PLAN . '04"W l- t3405 SOUNDVIEW HOMEBUILDE®fie f X, emporary Pi�nchmdrk POWEiR V, ELEV=- 03/03/2006 16:20 4258277701 FAX PAGE 02/06 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. March 3, 2006 Project No. KE05957A City of Edmonds 1215 5" Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Mr. Jaime Hawkins Subject: Response to Plan Review Corrections 17035 76`" Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Hawkins: RECEIVED KIZ - � 2006 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE Associated Earth Sciences Inc. (AESI) is pleased to provide this letter responding to the plan review comments presented in your memorandum dated March 1, 2006. The comments are in regard to the design and construction of a modular block wall at the back of th-: new house to be constructed at the above -referenced address. Our responses are listed in the order presented in your memorandum. 1. Correct for steeper back slope angle unless the geotechnical engineer do ?s not consider this consequential. The backslope angle included in the design detail and in our stability calculations is representative of the natural slope that exists behind the planned wall. In our opinion, the design submitted sufficiently considers the backslope as it will exist behind the wall. 2. Correct for H=exposed wall height plus embedment depth. The total height of the wall as depicted in the detail is correct as is the top and bottom of wall elevations given on the plans. The grading plan will be revised by the civil Engineer or the owner to show that the ground surface elevation at the bottom of the wall is as reflected on the wall detail (i.e., I1h blocks above the base of the bottom block). Kirtland Office • 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kitidand, WA 98033 - P (425) 827-7701 • F (425) 827-5424 Everett Office • 2911 112 Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 • Everett, WA 98201 • P (425) 259-0522 • F (42") 252-3408 www.aesgeo.com 03/03/2006 16:20 4258277701 FAX PAGE 03/06 3. Correct seismic.factor for the wall to reflect lower "R" value in the building code. As we understand it, the "R" values given in Table 9.14.5.1.1 of ASCE 7-0.: are for use in calculating a seismic response coefficient, Cs, for use in calculating base shear, V. Generally accepted engineering design of segmental retaining walls (SRW) uses Amax or fie peak ground acceleration for use in determining lateral seismic forces on the structure per established AASHTO and FHWA design methodologies. Our calculation of Am=, or t1.e peak ground acceleration (PGA) was determined per Section 1802.2.7 of the 2003 IBC:, which states "Exception: a site -specific study need not be performed provided that peak ground acceleration equal to Sns12.5 is used, where Sns is determined in accordance with Section 1615.2.1." We have provided the calculation of the PGA per these sections of the 2003 IBC as part of our original submittal. We believe this ground acceleration to be conservative and meet the requirements of the 2003 IBC. To the best of our knowledge, thi i is considered generally accepted engineering practice among geotechnical engineers. 4. Amend the design so sliding and overturning safetyfactors are not less titan required by 2003 IBC. Section 1806.1 of the 2003 IBC does not specifically address whether the factors of safety should be applied to both static and seismic forces, which leaves this s(:ction open to interpretation. It is generally accepted engineering practice to design retaining walls for minimum factors of safety of 1.5 for static overturning and lateral sliding with an allowable reduction of 75 % of the static factors of safety, which equals approximately 1.1. We have attached a table listing recommended factors of safety from the publica,ion Segmental Retaining Walls - Seismic Design Manual by the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA). The NCMA design methodology is considered generally accepted engineering practice for design of SRW for residential, commercial, and other non-highw::y applications. We have met Section 1806.1 of the 2003 IBC by designing the retaining wall to resist overturning and sliding with static factors of safety of 3.24 and 3.01, respective)y, which are at least twice the minimum recommended value of 1.5. Furthermore, we believe we have met the intent of the building code by designing the retaining wall to resist additional seismic loads with factors of safety of 1.12 and 1.41, which meets minimum factors of safety established by the current state of practice for SRW design. 5. Add wall drain to site plan per wall details if the designer intends a wall drain be incorporated. The drain line in question will be added by the civil engineer or owner to the plan sheets for the project. 2 03/03/2006 16:20 4258277701 FAX PAGE 04/06 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Shoul-i you haveany questions regarding this letter, please call us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCS, INC. Kirkland, Washington 'Jciri RMs '1 i 1 �i3 4i Jon N. Sondergaard, P.G., P.E.G. Eric J. Lim, F.E. Principal Engineering Geologist Project Engineer Attachment: Table 5.1, Segmental Retaining Walls - Seismic Design Manual JNS/Id KE05957A4 Projrcts\20050957\KE\WP 3 03/03/2006 16:20 4258277701 FAX PAGE 05/06 SEGMENTAL RETAININ 'WALLS S EISMIC DESIGN MANUAL FIRST EDITION Authored by R. J. Bathurst, Ph.D., P.Eng Bathurst, Jarrett and Associates, Inc. NATIONAL CONCRETE MASONRY Cm ASSOCIATION 2302 Horse Pen Road Herndon, Virginia 20171-3499 (703) 713-1900 National Concrete Masonry Association ©1998 03/03/2006 46:20 4258277701 FAX PAGE 06/06 Conventional Segmental Retaining Walls 21 5 Conventional Segmental Retaining Walls External stability modes of failure for conventional (gravity) SRW structures are illus- trated in Figure 5.1. Internal modes of failure are illustrated in Figure 5.2. The cal- culations for factors of safety against facing column instability are similar to external stability calculations for overturning about the toe of the facing column and base slid- ing. Earth forces are calculated using the peak friction angle of the retained (backfill) soil � _ �b and concrete-backfill interface friction angle S > w (typicall y S = 2(pb/3). The value of horizontal seismic coefficient kh used in conventional segmental retain- ing wall analyses is calculated using Equation 4.1. Minimum recommended factors of safety for static and seismic design oi'convention- al SRW structures are given in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 Recommended Minimum Factors of Safety for Design of Conventional SRW Structures Failure Mode Static Sei!.mic Base Sliding* FSSI 1.5 1.1 Base Overturning* FSot 1.5 1.1 Bearing Capacity* FSbc 2.0 1.5 Internal Sliding** FSSI; 1.5 1.1 Internal Overturning* * FSoti 1.5 1.1 Global Stability FSgI 1.3 —1.5 1.1 * refer to Figure 5.1. ** refer to Figure 5.2. In general, minimum recommended factors of safety for seismic design are taken as 75% of the values recommended for statically loaded structures followin ; AASHTO/ FHWA practice. Commentary: Potential settlement of SRW structures due to compression, liquefaction or squeezing of foundation soils is not considered here. Separate calculations for foundation -induced deformations may be required by the designer. In addition, slope instability involving volumes of soil beyond and below the base of the fairing column is not considered. Slope stability computer programs are available that can consider Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. CeAM6T2-5 VeaffO[ S'esvice February 8, 2006 KE05957A City of Edmonds Development Services, Building, Engineering, Planning 121 51h Avenue North, Second Floor Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Addendum to Geotechnical Report Critical Area Evaluation 17035 76`h Avenue West Edmonds, Washington Attention: Meg Gruwell FEB 14 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS STREE7 FILE As requested in your facsimile transmission to Ron Den Adel of Soundview Homebuilders dated February 7, 2006, Associated Earth Sciences Inc. (AESI) is pleased to provide this addendum letter to our previously prepared geotechnical engineering report for the subject site. This letter addresses specific elements of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 23.80.070 A, as identified in your communication. Section 23.80.70.A2. Alterations to erosion or landslide hazard areas In our opinion, the proposed project will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation "to adjacent properties beyond the predevelopment condition nor will the proposed development decrease slope stability on adjacent properties or adversely effect other critical areas. Section 23.80.70.A3. Design Standards within erosion or landslide hazard areas In our opinion, the proposed developed is designed so that its impact to the critical area is minimal. The proposed structure is located on the flattest portion of the lot, minimizes alterations of the natural contour, does not result in greater risk over the pre -developed condition and does not required increased buffers on neighboring properties. The proposed development will utilize a retaining wall at the back of the yard to maintain the existing, natural slope and has been designed to minimize impervious lot coverage. Based on computer aided slope stability modeling of the developed condition, the proposed project will not decrease the factor of safety for the slope below 1.2 for the dynamic condition and 1.5 for the static condition. Section 23.80.70.A4. Vegetation Retention The natural slope behind the proposed home had been cleared of native vegetation (regrown with black berries) prior to the proposed development. As part of the development plan , the natural slope angle above the back retaining wall will be Kirkland Office • 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • P 1 (425) 827-7701 • F (425) 827-5424 Everett Office • 2911 1 /2 Hewitt Avenue, Suite 2 • Everett, WA 98201 • P 1 (425) 259-0522 • F (425) 252-3408 www.aesgeo.com maintained and the slope replanted with appropriate landscaping vegetation that will provide permanent erosion control. The above opinions are contingent upon the contractor/builder using sound construction practices, following City of Edmonds regulations and implementing the geotechnical recommendations presented in our letter report dated January 3, 2006. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this letter or other geotechnical aspects of the project, please call us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington logisl�f:�. ed Geo ti` i i s. 'Ondergaard l Jon N. Sondergaard, P.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist Cc: Soundview Homebuilders 902 6`h Avenue South Edmonds, Washington 98020 Atten: Ron Den Adel I lff STONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Version 3.3.2.278 SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Edmonds Short Plat Project No: KE05957A Case: Case 1 Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Design Parameters Soil Parameters: cy ncf Retained Zone 34 0 125 Foundation Soil 34 0 12S Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus Peak Acceleration = 0.36 g Vertical Acceleration = 0.00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding: 1.5011.13 pullout: 1.5011.13 overturning: 1.5010.00 shear: 1.50 bearing: 2.0011.50 bending: 1.50 Analysis: 4 ft high cut wall Unit Type: Standard 21.5" Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 4. 00ft BackSlope: 18.00 deg. slope, Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 100.00 ft Date: 21712006 uncertainties: 1. 5011.13 connection:, 1.5011.13 Case: Case I Wall Batter: 8.80 deg. embedment: 0.67 ft 200.00 ft long DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearin Factors of Safety: 3. 0111.41 3.2411.12 21.3715.12 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 46211222 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.06 ft/0.77 ft Shear Bending N/A N/A Date 2/7/2006 Page 1 DETAILED CALCULATIONS Project: Edmonds Short Plat' Project No: KE05957A Case: Case 1 Design Method: Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Soil Parameters: k Retained Zone 34 Foundation Soil 34 Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Modular Concrete Unit: Standard 21.5" Depth: 1.79 ft In -Place Wt: 120 pcf Geometry Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) c y pcf 0 125 0 125 sliding: 1.5011.13 pullout: 1.5011.13 uncertainties overturning. 1.5010.00 shear: 1.50 connection: bearing: 2.0011.50 bending: 1.50 Earth Pressures: sing (a +0) ka = a. sing a sin(a — S) 1 + sin(o + 8) sin(o - A sin(a- S) sin(a+,0) External + = 34deg a = 98.80deg P = 18.00deg 5 = 22.67deg ka = 0.247 Hinge Height: Hinge Ht= 12 ft ka = 0.247 Date: 21712006 Designer: EA 1.5011.13 1. 5011.13 Date 2/7/2006 Page 2 Calcdlated Reactions For the "modified" design method, the back of the mass assumed to be vertical for calculation of resisting forces. ql qd wi Pa = 0.5 H (7H ka - 2cvf—a) Pq=gHka P eh = P a co s(6) P q h= P q cos(6) P av= Pa sin(6) Pqy= Pq sin(6) Pq Pa 6 6 Reactions are: U Area Force Arm-x Arm-y Moment Wl 860.00 [1.2051 . 2.000 1036.69 Pa h 239.85 N/A [1.333] -319.80 Sum V = 860.00 Sum; Mr = 1036.69 Sum H = 239.85 . Sum Mo =-319.80 Calculate Sliding at the base: Horizontal Earth Pressure (Dfi = 239.85 ppf Factor of Safety = Rf/Df = 3. 01 Calculate Overturning about base: Driving Moment (Dm) _-319.80 Resisting Moment (Rm) = 1036.69 Factor of Safety of Overturning = Rm/Dm = 3.24 Date 2/7/2006 Page 3 Calculate eccentricity at base: [no surcharge] Sum Moments = 717 Sum Vertical = 860 Base Length = 1.79 e = 0.06 Calculate Ultimate Bearing based on shear: where: Nq = 29.44 Nc = 42.16 Ng = 41.06 (ref. Vesic(1973, 1975) eqns) Qult = 9868 psf Equivalent footing width, B' = L -2e + Lvlpad depth= 2.17 Bearing pressure = sumVB' = 1222 psf Factor of Safety for bearing = Qult/bearing= 21.37 Date 2/7/2006 Page 4 2 Ut/Lor Lookup Output! http://egint.cr.usgs.gov/eq-men/cgi-bin/find-II-2002-interp.cgi LOCATION 47.84423 Lat.-122.33607 Long. The interpolated Probabilistic ground motion values, in %g, at the requested point are: 10%PE in 50 yr 2%PE in 50 yr PGA 30.40 54 . 2Z 122a 0.2 sec SA 67.62 .43 J 1.0 sec SA 22.72 42.93 PROJECT INFO: Homc Page SEISMIC HAZARD: Hazard by Lat/Lon, 2002 Fa _ -(_ O ( (t&T&-jz?z-xA-reP 752 )y TAgLF N<S, j. Z6 )) p- C�cfs mow' l(�C� a: 8 qs- _ o -35-8 of 1 2/7/2006 2:27 PM BASE LEVELING PAD NOTES: 1. THE LEVELING PAD IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF CRUSHED STONE OR 2.000 PSI± MINI CAP UNIT UNREINFORCED CONCRETE WIDTH 18' DEPTH 10' 2. THE BASE FOUNDATION IS TO BE APPROVED HEIGHT 4- THE SITE GEOTECYNICAL ENGINEER PRIOR • y45 LBS. WEIGHT TO PLACEMENT OF THE LEVELING PAD. WIDTH 18" • DEPTH 21, HEIGHT 8- • WEIGHT 115 LBS. SLOPE CUT —/ x //�UNIT FACE • DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT VARY BY REGION 6" CRUSHED ROCK OR REINFORCED CONCRETE LEVELING PAD KEYSTONE 4" CAP UNIT = KEYSTONE STANDARD UNIT---_ 8.8' BATTER FINISHED GRADE 'v 6" CRUSHED ROCK OR REINFORCED CONCRETE LEVELING PAD --I 8" STEP 8" MIN. LOW PERMEABLE SOIL NAIur�--- = 1 3 LNATIVE SOIL STABLE CUT SLOPE UNIT CORE FILL (3 4 CRUSHED ROCK OR STONE) 8" .4 STANDARD ELEVATION 21"t 0 0 O o o O g UNREINFORCED CONCRETE OR 4"O PVC PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE CRUSHED STONE LEVELING PAD (SLOPE TO DRAIN) �806 y TYPICAL GRAVITY WALL SECTION STANDARD UNIT — 1-1/8" MINIMUM SETBACK 8woms zw NO SCALE a F Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. KEYSTONE WALL DETAIL I FIGURE 1 ® ® ® ® EDMONDS SHORT PLAT - 17039 76TH AVENUE WEST DATE 2106 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. KE05957A