The URL can be used to link to this page

17804 VISTA DEL MAR DR.PDFiiiiiiiiii lill 15997 17804 VISTA DEL MAR DR 'Of PER INTI AT: DEPARTWEi*NT:T�6"F BUILDINGS SI.ATI I ONALBUILD . ING CObP-kSECTION I 11 Bbilding Permit#: BLD20110243 Occupancy established by this certificate: -R3 Dwelling Units: I No. Stories: I Basernerrit: Yes Automatic sprinkler system provided: Yesk. Owner of bui The Single Family Residence at 17804 Vista requirements of the 2009 edition of the International for which the proposed occupancy is classified. -Type of Construction: VB J't��j,-A - - - . - - . �-� -.;� ir Romatic sprinkI6�'system required: Yes has been inspected and approved complying with the City for the group and division of occupancy and the use Issued this 4th day of Feburary, 2013 Chief Building Official By: STREET AnUE. Any change of occupancy or use requires a Wilding permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official. WHO ffn DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC. June 7, 2012 City of Edmonds Building Division 1215 1h Avenue North — 2 nd Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJECT: WILLIAMS RESIDENCE (PERMIT NO. BLD2011-0243) This letter is to certify to the City of Edmonds Building Division as to the as -built elevation of the roof crown of the structure on the above referenced project. On June 7, 2012 David Evans and Associates, Inc. preformed an as -built elevation survey on the newly constructed residential structure at the above referenced project. Using standard ground survey methods and equipment, we measured the highest point on the roof (crown) to be at elevation 177.2 feet, and is under the maximum allowable height elevation of 177.38 feet. This elevation is based upon the datum indicated on the approved construction plans for this project, using the Bench Mark located on Talbot Road (Power Pole No. 27XX) Elevation = 111.70 feet. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Robert C. Hermann, P.L.S. Senior Associate Copies: Robin Kearsley, Kearsley Homes, Inc. File Name: P:\K\KEAR00000002\0600INFO\SV\LegaI Descriptions and Easements\DEA Letter to City_Williams Residence.doc Project Number: KEAROOOO-0002 15 2012 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER 1620 West Marine View Drive Suite 200 Everett Washington 98201 Telephone- 425 259 4099 Facsimile. 425.259.3230 June 18, 2012 To: Robin Kearsley Keareley Homes 6VJI- NomwBeiath- Rd. Edmonds, WA 9W26 -Re: 47-804 Vista Del -Mar Drive Edmonds, WA Michelle D. Thompson, PE 31403 44!h Avenus South Auburn,WASOOOI 253-N7-4726 md.thompson@earthlink.net 7�_P -Iz� ti 01.1- V The following ftems have been brought to my attention: 1. The triplegirder truss over the master bedroom has been chiseled out on the bottom 2x1 2 chord approximately 5/16" deep x 3" long on 2 and I" deep by 1 1/12" long on the third bottom chord. I have reviewed pictures of this as installed in the field and have determined that this does not have a significant impact on the structural integrity of the girder truss. 2. This triple girder truss bears on the 3 112" x 7 %" PSF header over the master bedroom door. I have reviewed the configuration of this support and reviewed the support of this load down to the foundation. The existing framing is adequate until the main floor framing where we need to add a 3 Y2" x 117/8" PSL under the post load from above. This has been noted on the main floor framing plan of the approved building dept. set of plans. Attached are the supporting calculations. Sincerely, Michelle D. Thompson, PE MDT Engineering ....... .... ... if Apt— V.4 115M 1 gwav Nf doom omsw N1 Azi. -Of date project WM44A page --------- - - - ------- 5Z� - --------- -- - - ---------- - - - -------- - ------- - ----- -7 ---- ---------- ---------- ------------ - . .......... - -- ------------ - - -------- 1-- - ------- ----------- - ------ -, - ----- 1- -------- - ----- --------- - - - - - ----- - - - ----- - -- - -------- - -- - - ----- ----------------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------- - ---------- --- ------- - ---- - - - -- 7 ------- ------------------------ ---- - ------- --------- ---------- - - ---------- --- ------ -- -------------------------- ---------- .... ...... ----- -------- -------- - ------------------ - I ------ - ------------------------------------ ------- -- ---------- - -- - ---- --------- ---- -- . ..... . .... - - - ------ ------ ----------- --------- -- - --- - --- - --- ------ ................ ---------- ------------------------------ - ------- - - - - -------- 6075" ... . .... . ..... ------- . ....... --1 ------ - ------ ------------ ------------------- --- - - -------------- - - ----------- --- -- -- ------- ............ ... ........... -.- ........ ------ - ------- - ---------------- ----------- . ... ... le ---------------------------------------------------- ------- .... . ...... ---------- ------------- - - ------- - - ------- - ------ - ------------------ 51D. --- ---------- i;;- I J/7/'AI- / f'/ i( -! —i- I zll-- ------- - ----- - -- - -- - ----- ------- ------ - ----- -------- ------- -- ------ -------- ------- ------ -------- ----------- -------- -------- -- ----- - ------- ...... - ----- - ........ -- - --------- ------ - .... ....... ........ ........ ... ... ---- ------ -- ---------- ----- ....... ------- --- ---- ----- -- ----- - --- - ------- . ....... - -------- ....... . . . . . . ------ ------- ---- - ------- - ----- - - - ----------------- .... ....... ...... --- ........ I.- ...... ---- ............. - ------ -------- ------- ........ ........ t ....... ......... ....... -------- -------- -------- -------- -- - -- --------- --- - -- ------- ------ ----- ------ --- ------ - - ----- . I ..... 1 - -- -------------- -------- ! ------- - - - ---------------- ... ........ ....... .......... - ----- ..... .. ------ ........ -------- ------- ........... T ........... ....... --- - I I . ..... ...... ....... .. ....... ........ ------- 41 - ---- -------- - - ....... ---- -- .............. . ...... date, hbl) project page ---- ------------ -- -- - -- - - ------- - - ------ -------- ----------- - -------- - -------- --------- - --------- - ----- - ------- - ---- - -- M Ai -727 - - -------------- --- ----------- ---- --------------------- ------ - - --- - -- - - --------------------------- - - -7-5 - ----- - - - -------- - ---- - ---- ------------ ------ - - ------ -------------- - - -------- - i-# ------------ - - - --------- - --- - --------- &�'20 --- - --- - -------------- ---- - - ------ - .... ------- --------- ------- --- ------ ------ ----------------- ------- ------- ------- ----------------- ----------- .. .... -------- - ---- - -------- -------- ---- - ----- - ----- L .. .. ......... - ----- -------- ------ --------- ----- - ............ ------ ... ......... ------- ------- ------- -------- ------- -------- ----- ........ ........ ...... ........ .. . ........... . ............. 4 -------- - --------------- -------- ------ .... ....... -------- ........ - ---- - ------- ...... ........ -------- -------- -------- ........... ..... j -- - ----------- - ------- - ------- ---- --- ........... --- ---- -- --- --------- --- I I I I I I I I I I STREET FILE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION WILLIAMS RESIDENCE LOT 8 VISTA DEL MAR EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR MS. ANNE WILLIAMS RECEIVED APR 0 8 2011 BUILDING DEPARTME-14T CITY OF EWAW410�; 'N"', Gw w A Main Office 17311 — 135h Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 FAX (425) 481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County February 11, 2011 Ms. Anne Williams 21800 Nootka Road Woodway, Washington 98026 I I I I I I I I I I NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 8323 10 Dear Ms. Williams: Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Williams Residence — Lot 8 Vista Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface conditions within the site and provides recommendations for the proposed site development. Our services were completed in general accordance with the proposal signed by you on January 15, 2011. The site is generally moderately sloping down to the west, with a steep west -facing slope that overlooks Puget Sound. The site is currently unoccupied and vegetated with grasses. The planned improvements will include the construction of a new multi -story, single-family residence with a daylight basement in the eastern portion of the site. Final stormwater plans have not been developed, but water generated on the site is likely to be directed to the existing storm drainage systems on the western portion of the lot, above the top of slope. We explored the site with three mini-trackhoe-excavated test pits. Our explorations indicated that the site is underlain by sand with silt soils; however, we encountered undocumented fill consisting of silty sand on the eastern portion of the site. The steep west -facing slope appears to be generally stable, and it is our opinion that the planned development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that our recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction of this project. Due to the close proximity of the structure to the steep slope, we have recommended that the downhill side of the residence be supported on drilled piers extending down a minimum of 20 feet. Specific recommendations for design and installation of the drilled piers, as well as recommendations for retaining walls, site grading, subgrade preparation, drainage, and erosion control are further discussed in the attached report. I Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington February 11, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Summary - Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal Three Copies Submitted cc: Scott Miller — Scott Miller, Architect (via e-mail) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... I SCOPE........................................................................................................................................... I SITECONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 2 SURFACECONDITIONS .................................................................................................................. 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 2 HYDROLOGICCONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION ........................................................................................... 4 SEISMICHAZARD .......................................................................................................................... 4 EROSIONHAZARD ........................................................................................................................ 4 LANDSLIDE HAZARD/SLOPE STABILITY ....................................................................................... 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................... 5 GENERAL...................................................................................................................................... 5 EROSION CONTROL AND SLOPE PROTECTION MEASURES ............................................................. 7 SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ............................................................................................... 8 STRUCTURESETBACKS ................................................................................................................. 9 TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SLOPES ........................................................................................ 9 FOUNDATIONSUPPORT ............................................................................................................... 10 STRUCTURALFELL ...................................................................................................................... 12 SLAB -ON -GRADE ........................................................................................................................ 13 RETAININGWALLS ..................................................................................................................... 13 SITEDRAINAGE .......................................................................................................................... 14 USEOF THIS REPORT ............................................................................................................ 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figures 3 and 4 — Cross-section A -A' and 13-13' Figure 5 — Soil Classification Chart Figure 6 — Test Pit Logs Figure 7 — Drilled Piers and Setback Detail NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. W I Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and evaluation of the Williams Residence in Edmonds, Washington. The project site is located on Lot 8 of the Vista Del Mar development, at 17804 Vista Del Mar Drive, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. For our use in preparing this report, we were provided with an undated, untitled site plan showing the property boundaries, top of slope, existing drainage easements, and proposed residence location. As Nelson- Couvrette Associates, we previously prepared a geotechnical report for the entire plat titled "Geotechnical Evaluation Report for Vista Del Mar Subdivision," dated April 26, 1993. The proposed multi -story residence is to be located on the flat portion above a steep west -facing slope. A daylight basement, underground utilities, and a paved driveway are also planned. An existing drainage easement runs parallel to the slope, as close as approximately 10 feet to the top of slope. The planned residence location will be approximately 40 to 45 feet from the top of the steep slope. It is our understanding that storinwater will be directed to the existing storm drain on the property. Grading for the site will require retaining walls to support the daylight basement. The proposed site layout is shown on the Schematic Site Plan in Figure 2. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, and provide general recommendations for site development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: I . Review available soil and geologic maps of the area, as well as our previous report dated April 26, 1993. 2. Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions- within the site with backhoe/mini- trackhoe test pits. The mini-trackhoe was subcontracted by NGA. 3. Provide recommendations for building setback from the steep slope. 4. Provide recommendations for earthwork, including cuts and fills. 5. Provide recommendations for foundation support, slab on grade, and pavement subgrades. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 2 6. Provide recommendations for temporary and permanent slopes. 7. Provide recommendations for retaining walls. 8. Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control. 9. Document the results of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written geotechnical report. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The site is approximately 0.4 acres in size. The property is bordered to the north and south by residential properties, to the east by Vista Del Mar Drive, and to the west by a steep bluff slope. From Vista Del Mar Drive, the site is moderately sloping down to the west with approximate inclinations of 3 to 22 degrees (5 to 40 percent) and then levels off to approximately 3 to 7 degrees (5 to 12 percent). This portion of the site is generally covered with grasses. The site then slopes steeply down towards the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad Easement at approximate inclinations of 45 degrees (100 percent). Puget Sound borders the railroad tracks to the west. The height of the steep slope is approximately 100 feet. The top of slope is vegetated with large fir trees, and the steep slope is mainly covered with deciduous trees. The slope inclinations are shown on Cross -sections A -A' and B-B' in Figures 3 and 4, respectively. We did not observe areas of exposed soil or indications of recent slope movement on the slope. The slope is steep and past slope movement is apparent on the slopes to the north and south of this property. We did not observe surface water on the upper portion of the site and seepage was not observed on the slope during our site visit on January 26, 2011. Subsurface Conditions Geology: The geologic units for this area is shown on the Geologic Mat) of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washingto , by James P. Minard (U.S.G.S., 1983). The site is mapped as Recessional Outwash (Qvr) which is described as a poorly- to moderately -sorted mixture of sand and qgravel with minor amounts of s it and clay. Our explorations encountered fine to medium sand with silt generally consistent with the description of the Recessional Outwash. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 3 Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on January 26, 2011 by excavating three test pits to depths of 4.0 to 9.0 feet below the existing surface using a mini-trackhoe. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from NGA was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different soil types, and maintained logs of the explorations. The soils we're visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 5. The logs of our test pits are attached to this report and are presented as Figure 6. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraph. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the test pit logs should be reviewed. Below the grass in Test Pits 1, we encountered 7.0 feet of medium dense, brown -gray, silty fine to coarse sand with gravel. We interpreted this soil to be undocumented fill. Test Pit I was terminated in the fill material at 7.0 feet below the existing ground surface. Below the surficial grass in Test Pit 2, we encountered approximately 3.8 feet of fill underlain by medium dense, gray -brown, fine to medium sand with silt. We interpreted this sand to be native outwash. Test Pit 2 was terminated in the sand at a depth of 9.0 feet. Below the grass and 0.5 feet of topsoil in Test Pit 3, we encountered medium dense, gray - brown, fine to medium sand with silt. We also interpreted this sand to be native outwash. Test Pit 3 was terminated in the sand at a depth of 4.0 feet Hydrologic Conditions Groundwater seepage was not encountered in the explorations. A perched water condition may develop on this site during the wet season. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of relatively low permeability materials. Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. Perched water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of rainfall. We would expect the amount of perched groundwater to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. If perched water is encountered in planned cuts or exposed subgrade, it should be controlled with open ditches or sump pumps. This is discussed ftirther in the Drainage subsection of this report. Also,'water should not be allowed to flow over the steep slope. This is discussed further in the Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures subsection of this report. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 4 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard We reviewed the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) for seismic site classification for this project. Since competent sand with silt was encountered in our explorations, the site conditions best fit the fBC description for Site Class C. Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motion by soft deposits. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the groundwater table. The outwash soil interpreted to underlie the site has a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. The outwash soil interpreted to forrn the core of the site slopes is considered stable with respect to deep- seated slope failures. However, the overlying loose surficial materials on the slopes have the potential for shallow sloughing failures during seismic events. Such events should not affect the planned residence provided the foundations are designed with the recommended setback embedment values as described in this report. Erosion Hazard The criteria used for determination of erosion hazard areas include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The.Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified using the SCS classification system as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams 25 to 70 percent slopes. This unit is listed as having a high erosion hazard. The on -site soils should have low to moderate hazard for erosion where the vegetation is not disturbed. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 5 Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability The criteria used for evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type, slope gradient, and groundwater conditions. The steep western slope has an inclination of approximately 45 degrees (100 percent). We did not observe evidence of significant slope instability during our investigation, such as deep-seated landsliding. We also did not observe groundwater seepage or signs of erosion or sloughing on the slope at the time of our visit. However, we observed evidence of past instability on the slope to the north and south of the property. The landslide hazard is listed as high by the SCS based on slope steepness, length, shape, and the surficial soils present. The site slopes are inferred to generally consist of sandy material. Slopes with a gradient of up to approximately 45 degrees exist in the western side of the property. The height of the steep slopes is approximately 100 feet. It is our opinion that there is not a significant potential for large-scale, deep- seated slope instability within the development portion of this site under the current conditions. However, steep slopes are naturally prone to'surface sloughing and even sizeable landslides over time. Slope activity results from weathering conditions and seasonal surface saturation, especially after large storin events. The potential for these events could be reduced by proper erosion and drainage control. The direct impact of the slope events on the proposed development should be low if the building setback, site grading, surface water management, and long-term slope maintenance are established as recommended in this report. It is our understanding the structure will be setback approximately 40 to 45 feet from the top of the steep slope. This setback distance should be adequate providing all the recommendations for site development and slope protection found in this report are incorporated in the design and implemented during construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion that the planned development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our explorations indicated that sand with silt generally underlies the site and forms the core of the site slope, and should be stable with respect to large-scale, deep-seated earth movements, due to their inherent strength and slope geometry. There is a potential for shallow sloughing and erosion events, and even smaller scale slides, to occur on the steeper portions of the slopes. Proper erosion and drainage control NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 6 measures should reduce this potential. We recommend that we review the plans after they have been developed. We also encountered at least seven feet of undocumented fill on eastern portion of the site. We recommend that the fill be removed from structural areas on the site during grading. This is further discussed in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. To protect the structure against potential failures on the slope, we recommend that themestem foundation line be supported on drilled piers. The piers should extend a minimum of 20 feet below existing grade to achieve the recommended capacities and to provide an effective setback of at least 50 feet between the bottom of the piers and the face of the slope as indicated by the detail in Figure 7. The piers should consist of a minimum of 16-inch diameter cast -in place reinforced concrete. Recommendations for design and installation of the piers are presented in the Drilled Piers subsection of this report. All grading operations and drainage improvements planned as part of this development should be planned and completed in a matter that enhances the stability of the steep slope, not reduces it. Excavation spoils should not be stockpiled near the slope or be allowed to encroach on the slopes. Also, runoff generated within the site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge system and not be allowed to flow over the slopes. Future vegetation management on the slope should be the subject of a specific evaluation and a plan approved by the City of Edmonds. The slopes should be monitored on an on -going basis, especially during the wet season, for any signs of instability, and corrective actions promptly taken should any signs of instability be observed. Lawn clipping and any other household trash or debris should never be allowed to reach the slopes. Slope maintenance is further discussed in the Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures subsection of this report. The surficial soils encountered on this site are considered moisture -sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. To lessen the potential impacts of construction on the slopes and to reduce cost overruns and delays, we recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months. If construction takes place during the rainy months, additional expenses and delays should be expected. Additional expenses could include the need for placing erosion control and temporary drainage measures to protect the slopes, the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls on exposed subgrades, and construction traffic areas prior to NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 7 placing structural fill, and the need for importing all-weather material for structural fill. Under no circumstances, should water be allowed to flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both during construction, and after construction has been completed. We recommend that stormwater runoff from the roof and yard drains be collected and tightlined to a suitable discharge point. The slopes should be protected from erosion. We recommend that all disturbed areas be replanted with vegetation to re- establish vegetation cover as soon as possible. Specific recommendations for erosion control are presented in the Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures subsection of this report. Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures The erosion hazard for the on -site soils is listed as high, but the actual hazard will be dependent on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped or disturb(e-d areas. Silt fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over the slopes. Stockpiles should be covered with plastic sheeting during wet weather and stockpiled material should be no closer than 50 feet from the top of the slopes. Disturbed areas should be planted as soon as practical and the vegetation should be maintained until it is established. The erosion potential for areas not stripped of vegetation should be low. Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we recommend that the setback area and top of slope not be disturbed or modified through placement of any fill or removal of the existing vegetation. No additional material of any kind should be placed on either slope or be allowed to reach the slopes, such as excavation spoils, lawn clippings, and other yard waste, trash, and soil stockpiles. Trees should not be cut down or removed from the slopes unless a mitigation plan is developed, such as the replacement of vegetation for erosion protection. Vegetation should not be removed from the slopes. Replacement of vegetation should be performed in accordance with the City of Edmonds code. Any proposed development within the slope setback area, other than light decks or patios, should be the subject of a specific geotechnical evaluation. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the slopes. INELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8 323 10 Page 8 Site Preparation and Grading After erosion control measures are implemented, site preparation should consist of stripping any loose soils and undocumented fill to expose medium dense or better native soil in foundation, slab -on -grade, and pavement areas. The stripped materials should be removed from the site or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. Stockpiles should be kept away from the top of the steep slopes and should be covered with plastic. If the ground surface, after site stripping, should appear to be loose, it should be compacted to a non - yielding condition. Areas observed to pump or weave during compaction should be over -excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If loose soils are encountered in any slab areas, the loose soils should be removed and replaced with rock spalls or granular structural fill. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed, and the exposed subgrades should be maintained in a semi -dry condition. If wet conditions are encountered, alternative site grading techniques might be necessary. These could include using large excavators equipped with wide tracks and a smooth bucket to complete site grading and covering exposed subgrade with a layer of crushed rock for protection. If wet conditions are encountered or construction is attempted in wet weather, the subgrade should not be compacted as this could cause further subgrade disturbance. In wet conditions it may be necessary to cover the exposed subgrade with a layer of crushed rock as soon as it is exposed to protect the moisture sensitive soils from disturbance by machine or foot traffic during construction. The prepared subgrade should be protected from construction traffic and surface water should be diverted around areas of prepared subgrade. The site soils are considered to be moisture -sensitive and will disturb easily when wet. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months if possible. However, if construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and delays should be expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls on exposed subgrades, construction traffic areas, and paved areas prior to placing structural fill. Wet weather grading will also require additional erosion control and site drainage measures. The use of the on -site soils may be suitable Ifor use as structural fill, depending on the moisture and organic content of the soil at the time of INELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 9 construction. NGA should be retained to evaluate the suitability of all on -site and imported structural fill material during construction. Structure Setbacks Uncertainties related to building along the top of steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the structure and the top of the slope so that ample room is allowed for normal slope recession during a reasonable life span of the structure. In a general sense, the greater the setback, the lower the risk of slope failures to impact the structure. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is based on the slope's physical characteristics, such as slope height, slope gradient, soil type, and groundwater conditions. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, and the type and desired life span of the development are important considerations as well. Based upon the conditions described above, it is our opinion that the potential for shallow sloughing -type failures and small-scale landslides exist on the steep slopes. This condition is exacerbated where water is present or where the slopes become locally very steep. Backwasting through sloughing of steep slopes can occur up the slope, such that a loss of ground could occur. The planned residence will be setback approximately 40 to 45 feet from the top of the slope. This setback distance is adequate; however, to reduce the risk of potential slope failures of affecting the structure, the downhill side of the structure should be supported on drilled piers extending at least 20 feet below the existing ground surface. Loose material should not be stockpiled in any area between the top of the slope and the setback line. Temporary and Permanent Slopes Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, including the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of surface water or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable, temporary, cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since he is continuously at the job site, able to observe the soil and groundwater conditions encountered, and able to monitor the nature and condition of the cut slopes. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 10 The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the on -site soils be no steeper than 2 Horizontal to I Vertical (2H:IV). If significant groundwater seepage or surface water flow were encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. The slope protection measures may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than four feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope heights and inclinations conform to appropriate OSHA/WISHA regulations. Permanent cut and fill slopes should be no steeper than 2H: IV, unless specifically approved by NGA. Also, flatter inclinations may be required in areas where loose soils are encountered. Pen-nanent slopes should be vegetated and the vegetative cover maintained until established. We should specifically review any future plans for development within the setback back area, including landscaping walls, patios, or decks. Foundation Support Drilled Piers: We recommend that the western foundation line be supported on 16- to 24-inch reinforced concrete piers, extending a minimum of 20 feet below existing ground surface. The remainder of the foundations should be supported on native, competent material or structural fill extending to that material. An open hole drilling method will likely be feasible based on our field observations, however, if caving conditions are e ' ncountered, pile casing will be required. The holes should be cleaned of any slough or water prior to pouring concrete. We recommend that the concrete be readily available on site at the time of drilling. The holes should not be left open for any extended period of time, as sloughing debris and/or groundwater seepage into the excavations may hamper pier installation. For piers installed successfully as described above, we recommend using a design axial compression capacity of 20 and 30 tons for 16- and 24-inch piers, respectively. Lateral resistance on the piers could be INELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page I I calculated based on an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) applied to two pile diameters. Existing fill should be neglected for the purpose of calculating the lateral resistance. Shallow Foundations: For the portion of the structure supported on shallow spread footings, these footings should be placed on native medium dense or better soils, or structural fill extending to these soils. The foundation subgrade should be prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection. If footings are supported on structural fill, the fill zone should extend outside the edges of the footings a distance equal to one-half of the depth of the over -excavation below the bottom of the footings. Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation widths of 18 and 24 inches should be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively, but footings should also be sized based on anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of not more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (pso be used for the footing design for footings founded on the medium dense or better glacial soils or structural fill extending to the native competent material. The foundation bearing soil should be evaluated by a representative of NGA. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures are needed. Current International Building Code (IBC) guidelines should be used when considering increased allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than one inch total and 1/2 inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 30 feet, based on our experience with similar projects. Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the subsurface portions of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 250 pcf should be used for Ipassive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This level surface should INELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 12 extend a distance equal to at least three times the footing depth. These recommended values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the foundations should be poured "neat" against the native medium dense soils, or compacted fill should be used as backfill against the front of the footing. We recommend that the upper one foot of soil be neglected when calculating the passive resistance. Frictional resistance should be neglected for footings supported on drilled piers. Structural Fill General: Fill placed beneath foundations, slabs, pavements, or other settlement -sensitive structures should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include the perfonnance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection prior to beginning fill placement. Sloping ground to receive fill should be benched to allow for fill placement. The benches should be level and at least eight feet wide. Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather structural fill should contain no more than five -percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). The use of some of the on -site soils as structural fill should generally be feasible, but we should be retained to evaluate proposed structural fill material prior to construction. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All filling should be accomplished in unifonn lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -excavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 13 compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction. Slab -on -Grade Slabs -on -grade should be supported on subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining gravel with less than three percent by weight of the material passing Sieve #200 for use as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch thick moist sand layer may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand layer is optional and is intended to protect the vapor barrier membrane during construction. - Retaining Walls Retaining walls will be needed for the daylight basement within the middle portion of the structure, and possibly for a portion of the driveway. The lateral pressure acting on subsurface retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed, wall drainage conditions, and the inclination of the backfill. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least one thousandth of the height of the wall (active condition), soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing (at -rest condition). We recommend that walls supporting horizontal backfill and not subjected to hydrostatic forces, be designed using a triangular earth pressure distribution equivalent to that exerted by a fluid with a density of 40 pcf for yielding (active condition) walls, and 60 pcf for non -yielding (at -rest condition) walls. These recommended lateral earth pressures are for a drained granular backfill and are based on the assumption of a horizontal ground surface behind the wall for a distance of at least the subsurface height of the wall, and do not account for surcharge loads. Additional lateral earth pressures should be considered for surcharge loads acting adjacent to subsurface walls and within a distance equal to the subsurface height of the wall. This would include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads, floor slab NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I H I I Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 14 loads, slopes, or other surface loads. We could consult with the structural engineer regarding additional loads on retaining walls during final design, if needed. The lateral pressures on walls may be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and by passive resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. Recommendations for frictional and passive resistance to lateral loads are presented in the Foundations subsection of this report. All wall backfill should be well compacted as outlined in the Structural Fill subsection of this report. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures, due to over -compaction of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall backfill in eight -inch loose lifts and compacting the backfill with small, hand -operated compactors within a distance behind the wall equal to at least one- half the height of the wall. The thickness of the loose lifts should be reduced to accommodate the lower compactive energy of the hand -operated equipment. The recommended level of compaction should still be maintained. Permanent drainage systems should be installed for retaining walls. Recommendations for these systems are found in the Subsurface Drainage subsection of this report. We recommend that we be retained to evaluate the proposed wall drain backfill material and observe installation of the drainage systems. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the top of the slopes and away from the planned residence. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient of three percent for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the building and top of the slopes. Runoff generated on this site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge system. This should include all downspouts and runoff generated on all hard surfaces and yards areas. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the slopes. Water should not be allowed to collect in any area where footings or slabs are to be constructed. Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the contractor slope the bottom of the excavation and collect the water into ditches and small sump pits where NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 15 the water can be pumped out of the excavation and routed into a suitable outlet. We recommend that the residence down spouts and footing drains be tightlined to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend the use of footing drains around structures. Footing drains should be installed at least one foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum four -inch -diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that the free -draining material consist of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than three - percent fines), granular material placed along the back of walls. Washed rock is an acceptable drain material, or drainage composite may be used instead. The free -draining material should extend up the wall to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should consist of low penneability soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize the migration of surface water or silt into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains. USE OF THIS REPORT NGA has prepared this report for Ms. Ann Williams and her agents for use in the planning and design of the development planned on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. We recommend that we be retained to review the project plans after they have been developed to determine that recommendations in the report were incorporated into project plans. All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storm. If distress is evident, a geotechnical engineer should be contacted for advice on rernedial/preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the roofs should be led to an approved discharge NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 16 I I point). Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we recommend that a copy of our report be provided to any future homeowners of the property if the home is sold. We recommend that NGA be retained to review final plans prior to construction. We also recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 17 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. Bala Dodoye-Alali Project Geologist M. EVIM PU//XVp I � 2 01- - Eri Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal BD:KMS:kmn Seven Figures Attached NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 400 m 01 F1 1200 ft, VICINITY MAP Not to Scale PUGET' SOUND ul-k- Project - —�-- Site T �' �" "III', Southy f --Z. County Park (e pil ,-TALBOT.PARK [IM-1 rr'i F11 Sea -view I t� Hutt Pw* 197th_StSw�l 1Mh P1 Sw S-��herry _J 1. Park _Mz r1r 1 —1 Edmonds, WA ILI, Mesdi I _J LL 188th P1 av L_ — __ Project Number NIELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision 113y CK 1;�:§ 8323 10 Williams Residence --__�NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1131/10 Original DPN BID C GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS igu Vicinity Map Fre 1 17311.135� A. NE. A-500 S-Mnfth nty (425) 339A669 W—finvele. VV98D72 Wenatch�/CC%Ian (509) 665-7696 < (425) 485-1 B69 / Fu 481-2510 -n QD CD A g* 88 B 00 CD CA) 0 K) CA) z C 0) D 3 Cn CD X CD =3 CD =3 0 CD z Puget Sound z > r U) 0 0 Z > M -10 M -1 0 M 0 0 z 0 r LEGEND BNRR Tracks Schematic Site Plan I low\ . . . . . . .... . . . . . . Approximate TP-1 op of Slope A A Planned Residence TP-2 -mum -an.. -No. , ftoft 0 00, . .00, "Na *ftftoo Property line TP-1 Number and approximate ce. (D location of test pit A A' Approximate location z t 0 of cross-section 0 X Reference: Site plan based on an undated, untitled plan provided by Scoff Miller Architects. 0 30 60 ApproximateScale: 1 inch = 30 feet _U .8. 21 oD cD M W 0 C N) W Z co 0 3 07 CD 4A -g 0 U) u) 3 & (0) CD 0 = CD 0 Ln. =3 CL > CD :3 0 CD West 160 120 0 A' East 160 120 W 80-- Sound z E Burlington .R — Northern- 0 L_ > CL Santa Fe CL z 40-- Railroad M > r U) U) U) 0 0 Z 2 0 > M -1 0 M -4 ot 0 U) M n Z_ X 0 z n 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 r Distance (feet) z Exploration P Test Pit Designation TP-1 Groundwater Level NOTES: 5' 9i During Exploration 1) Stratigraphic conditions are interpolated between Geologic Contact the explorations. Actual conditions may vary. (approximate) 2) Elevations are approximate. 0 0 W %< z Reference: Cross Section is based on field measurements using a hand-held clinometer and 1 00-ft tape measure. 9 M M 0 X 3 2011\832310 WiffiamskCS.dwq M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M _U .8. -n CO CD W 0 Pi (A) z CD _L C C) 3 Cr CD 0 3 ca CD 0 = CD 0 Cn =3 E CD =3 60 CD 1 �, t Ug, r f West 160 120 (D .�D C 0 B1 B Planned i i Residence i tt East 160 120 W 80-- Sound z Burlington E R — Northern- 0- > Santa Fe Railroad z < 40-- Sound B rli ngton hern_ S t u / No an a Fe Rail road M > r 00 0 z 0 5 M 0 1 0 M -4 M 0 n z 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 r Distance (feet) z Exploration P Test Pit Designation ---> TP-1 Groundwater Level NOTES: 5' a < —1 During Exploration 1) Stratigraphic conditions are interpolated between Geologic Contact the explorations. Actual conditions may vary. (approximate) 2) Elevations are approximate. 0 ca z Reference: Cross Section is based on field measurements using a hand-held clinometer and 1 00-ft tape measure. 0 X 3 201 1\832310 WIIiamsXCS.dwg I I I I I UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUPNAME SYMBOL CLEAN GW WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL COARSE- GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50 % GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON SOILS NO. 4 SIEVE WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND CLEAN SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SAND SID POORLY GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50 % RETAINED ON MORE THAN 50 % NO. 200 SIEVE OF COARSE FRACTION SAND Sm SILTY SAND PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE SC WITH FINES CLAYEY SAND FINE - SILT AND CLAY ML SILT INORGANIC GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CIL CLAY LESS THAN 50 % SOILS ORGANIC. OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT INORGANIC MORE THAN 50 % PASSES LIQUID LIMIT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY NO. 200 SIEVE 50 % OR MORE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: 1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: examination of soil in general accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests Moist - Damp, but no visible water. is based on ASTM D 2488-93. 3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated, consistency are based on usually soil is obtained from interpretation of blowcount data, below water table visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. Project Number /IN NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No..Date Revision By CK 832310 Williams Residence Soil Classification Chart 1141.111. ASSOCIATES, INC. NGA--"- GF-OTFCHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 1 1/31/11 Original DPN BD Figure 5 17311-135th A.. NE. A-600 Smhormh C—ty �425) 337-1669 Woodinvdle. WA 98072 W .. tch"/C la, (509) 665. 698 1 1 (425) 486-1669 1 Fn 481-2510 .Izng-W�h — LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH(FEET) Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE 0.0-0.1 0.1-1.9 1.9-7.0 TEST PIT TWO 0.0-0.1 0.1 -3.8 3.8-6.5 6.5-9.0 TEST PIT THREE o.o - 0.1 0.1-1.5 1.5-4.0 BD:DPN GRASS LIGHT BROWN -GRAY, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) BROWN, SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.5, 5.0, AND 7.0 FEET GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 1/26/11 GRASS LIGHT BROWN -GRAY, SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIUFILL) SP-SM GRAY -BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) SP-SM GRAY -BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND HEAVY IRON -OXIDE STAINING (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 4.0, 7.4, AND 9.0 FEET GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 9.0 FEET ON 1/26/11 GRASS TOPSOIL SP-SM GRAY -BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT WITH TRACE ROOTS (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0 AND 4.0 FEET GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 1/26/11 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 832310 FIGURE 6 M � M M � M M M M M M M M M M M M M M -n oo m W 0 z CD C -4 c) 3 Cr CD West Cn 160-- M 3 CL 0) Cn 0 -V X - 5* CD 0 LA. CD CL CD - =3 CL D - 0 CD 120-- W ..D C: 0 — U:: o z mn > W Puget X z > W 80-- Sound n > z W Burling r M M� E z > r 2 0 W X 0 NorthE Santa z U, 0 CL M 0 Z M 0 0- 40-- Railrc 5 M -1 0 Q M -4 -0 U) M 0* r 3: 0 a n Z 0 > r 0 0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 CID Distance (feet) 9 ;a Q. CD to 0 Ca a -< z East 160 120 MI 40 NOTES: 1) Stratigraphic conditions are interpolated between the explorations. Actual conditions may vary. 2) Elevations are approximate. M 0 X 1 1 Reference: Cross Section is based on an untitled, undated site plan provided by Scoff Miller. 72011W3231OW,Iliams\DrilledPiers.dwo 0 City of Edmonds 0 Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant: I ci (vJ Property Owner: Critical Area File -D((- 0o 29 Permit Number: ed Site Location: U,& Od Parcel Number: 0 Oq Project Descriptio n: AW Fj Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. I . There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. The proposal. is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. X The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. ,, The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.1.60 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in' ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). 8N�0�6r�19flll - V Reviewer 'AWN; 1� Date Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 12/16/2010 PLANNING DATA STREET FILEI SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Kame: Date: Site Address: V, kA Plan Check 2 or 024 Project Description: Af uv 's- p �z Reduced Site Plan Provided: (FS) NO) Zoning: S— Map Page:----- Corner Lot: (YES Lot: (YES & Critical Areas Determination 9: -102ro C4 Of Required V\CA -Study e r 0 r (i]r\ CA 4� 6 /1-7 11 waiver SEPLDetertnination: -Exempt PI C Y Fr,;K Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of gradi 0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form Reqtiired tbacks Srtet-. 2, V: /0 Side: Rgj: A ctual Setbacks Street: 34 Side: S- Side.- 11 Detached Structures: 4" WL Rockeries: _3 1 X Je 5,46 ce 4f r LA t El Fences/Trellises: El Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation: El Stairs/Deck: Height Datum Point: G atum Elevation: Maximum Height Allowed: Actual Height:Z$ Ct 6 1 -7 7 c_> Other Parking Required: 2- Par -king Provided: Lot Area: Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: Lot Coverage Calculations: Of r_ 4oufel 5cv-r-jeck,�,�- 71, 3 0 -7 ADU Created: (YES NJ) 0:,�d(f tdr\ Ito vo— Subdivision: +cl� Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES E,4m- nwci e S L, C A 6 C-C zo - - V ICY C, 927) -50 J4 �e,( 5 d -1-0 ia [Lis-o -N I At I- 7--u 7 Plan Review By: 2-) ta 4-dA 00 q -P q L Is 11 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-771-0221 www.edmondswa.gov PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division January 5, 2012 Scott Miller 10777 Main St' Bellevue, WA 98004 DAVE EARLING MAYOR RE: Driveway Slope Waiver Requests for 17804 Vista Del Mar Dr. (BLD20110243) Dear Mr. Miller, This letter is in response to your request dated July 1, 2011 to exceed the maximum allowable driveway slope of 14% up to 18% for the driveway serving 17804 Vista Del Mar Dr., due to tight lot dimensions and steep slopes from the access road. After reviewing the request, we understand that the elevation of the garage slab was established to be as high as possible given the topographic restraints and building height limits. It would not be feasible to raise the grade of the garage slab and/or reconstruct the existing road and surrounding properties to keep the driveway slope under 14%. 1 The proposal is found to be in compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code 18.80.060. Therefore, based on the above determination, the city approves your request for a driveway slope waiver up to 18%, not to exceed 20%. Sincerely, ih 3� I ROBERT S. ENGLISH, P.E. City Engineer cc: Street file bld20110243 Incorporated AUgUSt 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan scoft gatewood miller - registered architect 10777 main street, suite 104, bellevue, wa 98004, (425) 455-5549 City of Edmonds Plan Review/ Building and Engineering Division Re; Williams Residence SFR 17804 Vista Del Mar Dr Edmonds, WA BLD20110243 Request for Waiver; Driveway Slope 'gear -Building Official, 2011 JUL ' UEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER We are.requesting a waiver from the maximum driveway slope of 14 Due to.the tight lot dimensions, combined with the steeply sloped upper access portion ofthe. lot, we ar ,pe.requesting the maximum slope of the driveway be increased to 20 %. We have sftuated the house to _,Oyc�6 this,.s ope to the minimum deviation required, as well as keeping the rear of the house away from the -top of the bank, on the water side. We have adjusted the roof pitch to the minimum slope for a composition roof, to maximize finish floor height on property. The first 38 'or so of the driveway from the street will have no more than this slope, then the last 10' to the garage will be substantially less in order to roll driveway slope at bottom for drainage and not having a car bottom out while entering the garage. There is a fire hydrant placed directly at the top of the driveway. Any questions, Aease contact; Scott Miller architect, 425 802 4120 cell Thanks for your Ponsideration. Scott Miller Y3 For Ms Ann Williams 0 RegName JA ress 0 t ITI a- M-S 2-1 9�6 tq 0e) Tf:zk, ---WnM WA- CC E02-0 201106220501 5 PGS 06/22/2011 3:Mm , �66.00 SNOHOMISH COUNT ASHINGTON Document Title(s) Reference Number(s) of Related Document(s) Grantor(s) Grantee(s) pu- I b Add itional.- Reference. #'s- on Page Additional Grantors on Page _ Additional Grantees on Page_ Legal Description (abbreviated form: ie Lot/Block/Plat or Section/Township/Range) L S s to, be- I Complete Legal on Page Assessor's Property Tax Parcel/Account Number 00%4L 0000o&00 Additional Parcel Xs on Page The Auditor/Recorder will rely on the information provided on this form. The responsibility for the accuracy of the indexing information is that of the document preparer. STREET FILE R E C Eii V L-PIE- JUN 2 3 20111 BUILDING DEPART;v. r4TY OF ED%40--,�!�- 0 0 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar J I �?C) 2- V % Si� Edmonds, Washington c� go -L- (0 January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 5 Landslide Hazard/Slope StabilitY The criteria used for evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type, slope gradient, and groundwater. conditions. The steep western slope has an inclination of approximately 45 degrees (100 percent). We did not observe evidence of significant slope instability during our investigation, such as deep-seated landsliding. We also did not observe groundwater seepage or signs of erosion or sloughing on the slope at the time of our visit. However, we observed evidence of past instability on the slope to the north and south of the property. The landslide hazard is listed as high by the SCS based on slope steepness, length, shape, and the surficial soils present. The site slopes are inferred to generally consist of sandy material. Slopes with a gradient of up to approximately 45 degrees exist in the western side of the property. The height of the steep sl . opes is approximately 100 feet. 1i is our Opinion that there is not a significant potential for large-scale, deep- seated slope instabil . ity within the development portion of this site under the current conditions. However, steep slopes are -naturally prone to surface sloughing and even sizeable landslides over time. Slope activity results from weathering conditions and seasonal surface saturation, especially after large storm events. The potential for these events could be feduced by proper erosion and drainage control. The direct impact of the slope events on the proposed development should be low if the building setback, site grading, surface water management, and long-term slope maintenance are established as recommended in this report. it is our understanding the structure will be setback approximately 40 to 45 feet from the top of the steep slope. This setback distance should be adequate providing all the recommendations for site development and slope protection found in this report are incorporated in the design and implemented during construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RJECONMENDATIONS General it is our opinion that the planned development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our explorations indicated that sand with silt generally -underlies the site and forms the core of the site slop.T, and should be stable with respect to large-scale, defp-seated earth movements, due to their inherent strength and slope geometry. There is a potential for shallow sloughing and erosion events, and even smaller scale slides, to occur on the steeper portions of the slopes. Proper erosion and drainage control NELSON GEQ,.,TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 0 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington january 28, 2011 NGA File No. 832310 Page 7 - pla, or structural fill. ,ing structural fill, and the need for importing all-weather material f Under no circumstances, should water be allowed to flow over or concentrate on the site slopes, both during construction, and after construction has been completed. We recommend that stormwater runoff from the roof and yard drains be collected and tightlined to a suitable discharge point. The slopes should be. protected from erosion. We recommend that all disturbed. areas be replanted with vegetation to re- establish vegetation cover as soon as possible. - Specific recommendations for erosion control are presented in the Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures subsection of this report. Erosion Control and Slope Protection Measures The erosion hazard for the on -site soils is listed as high, but the actual hazard will be dependent on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used -to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the stripped or disturbed areas. Silt fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from leaving the site or flowing over the slopes. Stockpiles should be covered with plasfic sheeting during wet weather and stockpiled material should be no clos . er than 50 feet from the top of the slopes. Disturbedareas should be planted as soon as practical and te vegetation should be maintained until it is established. The erosion potential for areas not stripped of vegetation should be low. Protection of the setback and steep slope areas should be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, . we recommend that the setback area and top of slope not be disturbed or modified through placement of any fill or removal of the existing vegetation. No additional material of any kind should be placed on either slope or be allowed to reach the slopes, such as excavation spoils, lawn clippings, and other yard waste, trash, and soil stockpiles. Trees should not be cut down or removed from the slopes unless a mitigation plan is developed, such as the replacement of vegetation for erosion protection. Vegetation should not be removed from the slopes. Replacement of vegetation should be performed in accordance with the City of Edmonds code. Any proposed development within the slo pe setback area, other than light decks or patios, should be the subject of a specific geotecbnical evaluation. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to concentrate on the slopes. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 0 Geotechnical Enginelming Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January 28, 2011 NGA File No. 832310 Page 15 the water can be pumped out of the excavation and routed into ' a suitable outlet. We recommend that the residence down spouts and footing drains be tightlined to an appropriate discharge location. We recommend the use of footing drains around structures. Footing drains should be installed at least one foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum four -inch -diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material wrapped in a filter fabric. We recommend that the free -draining material consist of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than three - percent fines), granular material placed along the back of walls. Washed rock is an acceptable drain material, or drainage composite may be used instead. The free -draining material should extend up the wall to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of soil should consist of low permeability soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize the migration of surface water or silt into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not be connected to wall or footing drains. USE OF TIES REPORT NGA has prepared this report for Ms. Ann Williams and her agents for use in the planning and design of the development planned on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods,. techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifi ay described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subsurface conditions. A contingency for -unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. We recommend that we be retained to review the project plans after they have been developed to determine that recommendations in the report were incorporated into project plans. All people who own or occupy homes on hillsides should realize that landslide movements are always a possibility. The landowner should periodically inspect the slope, especially after a winter storm. If distress is evident, a geotecbnical engineer should be contacted for advice on �emedial/preventative measures. The probability that landsliding will occur is substantially reduced by the proper maintenance of drainage control measures at the site (the runoff from the roofs should be led to an approved discharge NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 0 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Williams Residence Lot 8 Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington January28,2011 NGA File No. 8323 10 Page 16 point). Therefore, the homeowner should take responsibility for performing such maintenance. Consequently, we recommend that a copy of our report be provided to any future homeowners of the property if the home is sold. We recommend that NGA be retained to review final plans prior to construction. We also recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confam that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested. Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner. mono NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 3JNOHO M I SH CO AUDITORS OFFICE —RECORDING DIVISION (42.5)38B-3483 ISSUED TO:PUBLIC -------------------------------- RECEIPT.# 0378521 DATE 06/22/2011 03:18:12 PM - - - - - - - - - - - DOCUMENT # I.. _PGS FEE - - - - - - - - - - �--7 L - 20116622-0501 5 '.NOTICE 66.00 Total Amount.Due $61�13 00 CREDIT'.0157.9D b6. 00 Total Payments: $66.00 THANK YOU VISIT US AT WWW.CO.SNOHOMISH.WA,.ULOJ/AUDITOR 'W Ciarolyn eikel County Auditor DerUtv: SAUAFS of E 13,1f Q. City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet /fic. RECEIVED Name of Proposed Project: Witi4aD5 W-S/1)EA)CC, APR 0 8 2-011 BUILDING DEPARTMEN'r Owner/Applicant Applicant Contact Person: c1r.1 CIF EDMOND'S &W W/W"5 Name 918(V 6/00T/91 O-Qq4W Street/Mailing Address WZowki (A* city State Zip Telephone: -7-7 a - 8 Cf 475' So-ri mtLtc-x Name 10-71-7 MattV 5T , ;0 1 tr Street/Mailing Address 6 C_ U- i-,V U C UM %0,0 4- city State Zip Telephone: Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable): ,:5�6mr situex_ Firm Name Telephone: THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ANALYSIS Contact Name E-mail: TiVe_ *1 -1 1� eAS rovil ccut, lei, Project Traffic Levels Sections to Complete 1. Less than 25 peak -hour trips generated I and 7 only (Worksheet/Checklist) 11. More than 25 peak -hour trips generated All sections 01 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. Location - Street address: 1-7864- V1 9PI 13EL M 4-1Z (Attach a vicinity map and site plan.) b. Specify existing land use: �5 r Specify proposed type and size of development: 6� cr (b meu.) r/ y(OL-C (# of residential units andlor squarefootage of building) Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page I of 5 01 d. Date construction will begin and be completed: e. Define proposed access locations: f. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: 2. TRIP GENERATION Source shall be the Eighth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. For independent fee calculations, the current edition of the ITE manual may be used. ADT = Average Daily Traffic PM Peak -hour trips (AM, noon or school peak may also apply as directed by the City Engineer) a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips: Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 2 of 5 0 0 3. TRIP DISTREBUTION Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. For developments that generate over 75 peak -hour trips, the City Engineer reserves the right to require trip distribution to be determined through use of the City traffic model.' 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements? b. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis: Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City ofEdmonds Traffic Engineer Existing Conditions LOS Delays Year of Opening LOS Delays Five Years Beyond Change of LOS I I Delays I I Land Use c. Describe channelization warrants: (Attach striping plan.) d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths): 50% 95% Existing Conditions Year of Opening Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use e. If appropriate, state traffic control warrants (e.g. stop sign warrants, signal warrants): f. Summarize local accident hiStory2 (only required for access to principal and minor arterials): ' Available upon request at City of Edmonds Development Services Department 2 Available upon request at City of Edmonds Police Department Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 3 of 5 :1 0 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Provide the following and other planned development traffic within the city.' a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts (less than two years old), including turning movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project. b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the project is fully open (with and without project traffic). c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, five years after the project has been ftilly open (with and without project traffic). d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source: 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS a. Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation. Provide the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by ten or more peak -hour trips. Other City -planned developments' must also be factored into the LOS calculations. LOS LOS Existing Conditions Existing Delays Year of Opening With Project Without Project Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use With Project I Without Project b. Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: 1 A list of planned developments are available at the City upon request for public records Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 4 of 5 [37. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. CHANGE IN USE Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04), the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used. Per Unit ITE Land Use Category Fee Rate New Use $ Prior Use $ Units in square feet, # of dwelling, vfp, etc. X X New Use Fee: Prior Use Fee: $ 11 NEW DEVELOPMENT New Use 0 OTHER Units in ITE Land Use Category Per Unit square feet, Fee Rate of dwelling, vfb. etc. P, 10 1 $ X PM GCM� 1q.RZ.090 Fee �119b.zs MITIGATION FEE RECOMMENDATION: S INDEPENDENT FEE CALCULATION: $200.00 (+ consultant fee) $ TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $ 11%, 2-3 Edmonds, Engineering Division Approval Date 1 No impact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an impact fee calculation resulting in a net negative. Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 5 of 5 From: Ub[1[1?U11 11:4U ---WbU-1 F.UU-11UUb NELSON GEOTECHNICAL N I A ASSOCIATES.9 INCe I GA GEOTECHtlICAL ENGINEEIIS & GEOLOGisirs Main Office 17311 — 135h Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA. 98072 (425.)486-1669 FAX(4251481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County - June 17, 2011 ' I Mr. Scott Miller Scott Mil ler Architects .10777 Main Street, Suite 104 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Geotechnical Plan Review Letter WilHams Residence 17804 Vista Del Mar Drive Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 832311 Plan Check No. BLD20110243 Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penn.y Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 Dear Mr. Miller: This letter presents the results of our geotechnical engineering review of the plans for the Willi Residence project located at the above address. E*41RODUCTION Project plans consist of a new residence with a daylight basement. A steep slope is located on the western portion of the property. We previously prepared a geotechnical report for the project titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Williams Residence — Lot 8'Vista Del Mar — Edmonds, Washington," dated February 11, 2011. We also prepared a memo addressing plan review comments for the project "Plan Review Comments — Williams Residence — 17804 Vista Del Mar Drive — Edmonds, Washington," dated May 20, 2011. For our use in preparing this plan review letter, we have been provided with architectural Sheets 0 through 9 of the revised plans titled "Williarn Residence," prepared by Scott Miller Architects, dated May 1, 2011. We were also provided with a letter titled "Plan Review Comments for Plan Check #2011 - RESUB JUN 17 2011 BUILDING DSPAWN-ENT CITy oF MONDS t U)- ;-4 M 1. 0 From: ub/11/2ull 11:4u Fbbi r.uuj/uub 0 Geotechnical Plan Review Letter Williams Residence 17804 Vista Del Mar Drive Edmonds, Washington June 17, 2011 NGA File No. 832311 Plan Check No. BLD20110243 0243 — SFR 17804 Vista Del Mar," dated April 18, 20 11, prepared by the City of Edmonds. We were also provided with a letter titled "Plan Check: BLD20110243," dated April 26, 2011, prepared by the City of Edmonds — Building Division. Drilled piers are planned for supporting the downhill -footing line on the western side of the residence. The residence will. be set back from the steep slope over 40 feet, which includes a I 0-foot Buffer and 30- foot Setback. Tlae cuts for the daylight basement are planned to be approximately 7.� to 10 feet in height and the cuts will be retained by concrete retaining walls. Improvements will include a paved driveway, underground utilities, and short landscaping rockeries. Drainage is planned to be directed to the existing system on the western portion of the site, at the,top of the steep slope. PLAN REVIEW AND CONCLUSIONS We have reviewbd the geotechnical aspects of the provided plans, and found the plans to be in general compliance with our recommendations as presented in our geotechnical report and memo. The soil parameters used in the foundation design are consistent with the recommendations provided by us. Also, the drainage system is adequate and should keep the majority of runoff from reaching the slope. On Sheet 0, the Grading and Erosion Control Site plan shows that any temporary stockpiles created out of material excavated on the site would be a miu'num of 50 feet from the top of the slope, and that the rockery drains will be independent of the footing drains, as recommended. Also, the Utility and Site Drainage site plan indicates that the stormwater generated on the site will be directed to the existing system. Sheet I indicates, that six inches of free -draining material will be used under the slab as a capillary break It also indicates that the footing drains will be surrounded with washed rock and wrapped with filter fabnic, as recommended in the geotechnical report. The dfilled piers that are planned along the western footing line are indicated to be drilled 20 feet below grade. We also recommended that one -inch weep holes be incorporated into the foundation to allow for a connection of the capillary break to the footing drains. These are indicated on the Foundation and Lower Floor Framing detail. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, IA(C. i 0 From: Ub/1 //?U I I _T1 F. UU41uub Geotechnical Plan Review Letter Williams Residence 17804 Vista Del Mar Drive Edmonds, Washin�gtoa June 17, 2011 NGA File No. 8323 11 Plan Check No. BLD20110243 The notes in Detail 106 — Cantilevered Retaining Wall SchedLe indicates design values using a triangular earth pressure of 40 pcf for yielding (active condition) wal.1s, and 60 pcf for non -yielding (at - rest condition) m�alls. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 is used for the base friction and an equivalent fluid density of 250 pcf for passive resistance, as recornmen�ed in the geotechnicaI report. I Our geotechnical report complies with the standards in ECDC 23.80.060 and ECDC 23.80.070. All other recommendations provided in our previous documents should be strictly followed. NE[NE%IUM RISK STATEMENT Provided that the recommendations in t1iis letter, the geotechnical report dated February 11, 2011, are followed during construction, the areas disturbed by construction should remain stable. Therefore, the risk of damage to the proposed development or to adjacent properties from soil instability should be minimal, and the proposed grading and development should not increase the potential for soil movement. CLOSURE We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply with contract plans an� specifications. I MM NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. From: 06/17/2011 11:41 #581 P.005/005 0 Geotechnical Plan Review Letter Williams Residence 17804 Vista Del Mar Drive Edinonds, Washington June 17,2011 NGA File No. 832311 Plan Check No. BLD20110243 We appreciate the opportunity to provide service to'you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this letter or require ftirther information. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, IJVC. ala Dodoye-Alali ):�P� Project Geologist Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal. BD:KMS:kmn Tbree Copies Submitted cc: City of Edmonds (via fax) NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 0 scoff gatewood miller - registered architect 10777 main street, suite 104, bellevue, wa 98004, (425) 455-5549 City of Edmonds Plan Review/ Building and Engineering Division Re; Williams Residence SFR 17804 Vista Del Mar Dr Edmonds, WA BLD20110243 J"tkst for Waiver; Driveway Slope Dear Building Official, We are requesting a waiver from the maximum driveway slope of 14 %. Due to the tight lot dimensions, combined with the steeply sloped upper access portion of the lot, we are requesting the maximum slope of the driveway be increased to 17.6 %. We have situated the house to reduce this slope to the minimum deviation required, as well as keeping the rear of the house away from the top of the bank, on the water side. There is a fire hydrant placed directly at the top of the driveway. Any questions, please contact; Scott Miller architect, 425 802,4120 cell Thanks for your consideration. Sco Mille For Ms Ann Williams U-' r #9%.,Mr 0 F ILE ti I BE 0 0 oE ED 0 SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT ..... . . . . . . Permit#: ;�a 0 Project: S Prior toiss I ofgpennit, thisforhi Midt be completed ih it� ehtireo and reftirntd to the'Cityfor ual ce approval. The completedf6rit ntu*i ha ve signatut es of aclatowledgment by allparties. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Spnial Inspeeflon Firm and Special Inspectors: ')C tfre will perform special The Special Inspecti6n-f1rhiof./-/E(,56A/ &C0TVCRA11(-#L 44-�L I inspection for the fdllowing types of work (Separate forms must'be submitted if more than one firm is to be employed): 13. Reinforced Concrete • Bolting in Concrete • PrestressedCondrete 0 Shotprete • Structural.Masonry • Structural Stetl/Welding 0 High Strength Bolting 0 Spray applied Firf-pr6ofirig 0 Smoke Control Systems 0 Lateral Wood. 0 Structural Observation ?I Grading/solls 0 Other 0 Other Alt individual inspectors O'be empioyed. onthis project. will. be WABO certified for the type of work -they are to inspect. If inspection is for w6rk thatis.n.ot covered by the WABO categories, or the inspector is not WABO certified, a detailed resume of the inspector and firm must be submitted. The resume inu§t show that the inspector and th.e.firin are qualified . b . y.education and experience to perform the work And testing required by the �proj I ect design and.specificAtions. 'The -work shall be insl)ected for conformance with the plans and specificat I ions approved by t . he City. Revisions and addenda.sheets will not be used for inspection, unl . ess they have been approved by the City. Inspection records shall include: .k daily record to be maintained on site, iternizingtbe inspections performed. Any nonconforming work shall be brouglifto.the immediate attention. of the contractor for resolution. A weeld.y report shall be. submitted to the City: detailing the ins ections and testing peiformed, listing p any nonconforming work and resolution of nonconforming items.. A final report shall be submitted to the building.dePar.tment Drior to the Certificate of Occupancy being issued. This report will indicate that inspection and testing was completed in confon-nance with the approved plans, s ecifications and approved revisions or addenda. Any unresolved disc p repancies mus I be detailed in the final re,port. R E C EIV E- D L\BuRdirgNew Folder 1010\Fomis\Special inspecfionfom.docIO/25/20""'�TREET FILE -11123 2011 bo 13UILDING DEPARTIMF ',N CITY OF EDMOtqDS 0 0 Contractor: The contractor shall provide the special inspector or agency adequate notification of work requiring inspection. The City approved plan and specifications must be made available, at the jobsite for the use of the special inspector and the City inspector. The contractor shall maintain all daily inspection reports, on site, for review by all parties. The special inspection functions are considered to be in addition to the normal inspections performed by the City and the contractor is responsible for contacting the City to schedule regular inspections. No concrete shall be poured or other work -covered until approval is given by the City inspector. Building Department: The building department shall review any revisions and addenda. The City inspector will monitor the special inspection functions for compliance with the agreement and the approved plans. The City inspector shall be responsible for approving various stages of construction to be covered and for work to proceed. Desilln Professionals: The architect and/or engineer will clearly indicate on the plans and specifications the specific types of special inspection required. and shall include a schedule for inspection and testing. The architect and/or engineer will coordinate their revision and addenda process in such a way as to insure that all required City approvals are obtained, prior to work shown on the revisions being performed in the field. Owner: The project owner, or the architect or engineer acting as the owners agent, shall employ the special inspector or agency. ENFORCEMENT A failure of the special inspectoi or firm to perform in keeping with the requirements of the IBC, the approved plans and this document, may void this agreement and the Building Official's approval of the special inspector. In such a case a new special inspector and/or firm would need to be proposed for approval. A failure of the design and/or construction parties to perform in accordance with this agreement may result in a STOP WORK notice being posted on the project until nonconforming items have been resolved. ACKNONMEDGMENTS I have read and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement. Owner: L, U / 4222�2 -S ignature tkdjuaz� Date 6W U.- Contractor: /70 & 14 J,�� tZ.57 &E Special Insp. ACCEPTED FOR THE CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DEPT. By: Date: Date: Pate: 511 1/ Date: LABuildingNew Folder 2010\Fornis\Special inspection forrrLdoc 10/25/2010 NGA Main Office 17311 — 135h Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425)486-1669 FAX(425)481-2510 (425) 337-1669 Snohomish County t)ATE: TO: CC: FROM: May 20, 2011 Ann Williams - NELSON G ECH NICAL ASSOCIATES9 INCO GEOTECHNicAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Engineering -Geology Branch 437 East Penny Road Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509) 666-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692 MEMORANDUM Scott Miller — Scott Miller Architects Khaled M. Shawish, PE Bala Dodoye-Alali RE: Plan Review Comments Williams Residence 17804 Vista Del Mar Drive Ed nonds, Washington NGA File No. 832311 We were requested to review project plans and.provide plan review comments for the project. We were provided with a letter titled "Plan Review Comments for Plan Check #2011-0243 — SFR 17804 Vista Del Mar," dated April 18, 2011, prepared by the City of Edmonds. We were also provided with a letter titled "Plan Check: BLD20110243," dated April 26, 2011, prepared by the City of Edmonds — Building Division. This memo is in conjunction with our plan review comments on the current plan set. ApW 18, 2011 Plan Review Comments Letter 1. The final plan review letter will address the additional requirements on ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070. The final letter will also include a site plan showing the buffer and setback areas from the steep slope. ARn �1 26, 2011 Plan Review Comments Letter 1. We will provide a final letter after reviewing the final plans. 2. Our comments regarding capillary break thickness and weep holes (rehef pipe) can be found on Sheet 1. RESUB JUN 15 2011 S I KE""E"T "FILE' BUILDIN13 DEPARFMENT . CITY OF EUMONDS XTTaeview Comments Williams Residence 17804 Vista Del Mar Drive Edmonds, Washington May 20, 2011 NGA File No. 832311 Page 2 3. Comments can be found on Drawing 106 on Sheet 2. 6. Sheet 2 — size of the isolated footings for the exterior stairs and landing are adequate provided they are embedded'a minimum of 3 feet below the finished ground surface. We will be in contact with Robin Kearsley during the repairs and will be on -site on a part-time basis to observe and evaluate the slope repairs. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. /P C. I so,3 0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division February 8, 2010 Theresa Kirschbaum 9513 Forest Dell Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 MEMO TO: Puget Sound Energy Verizon Northwest SNOCOM Police and Fire Dispatch SNOPAC Snohomish County E911 US Post Office Snohomish County Assessor's Office Snohomish County Information Services Snohomish County PUD GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Fire District No. 1 Edmonds Police Department Edmonds Utility Billing Edmonds Public Works Edmonds Building/Street File Edmonds Address Files Edmonds Information Services Allied Waste Comcast This letter is to inforin you of a street name change affecting several properties in the City of Edmonds. On February 2, 2010 Edmonds City Council passed Ordinance No. 3782, approving the renaming of Kairez Drive to Vista del Mar Drive. Please update your records to reflect the following: Previous Address New Address Tax ID Number 17802 Kairez Drive 17802 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000700 17804 Kairez Drive 17804 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000800 17901 Kairez Drive 17901 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200001100 17903 Kairez Drive 17903 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000900 17905 Kairez Drive 17905 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200001000 17907 Kairez Drive 17907 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000600 17909 Kairez Drive 17909 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000500 17910 Kairez Drive 17910 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000400 18002 Kairez Drive 18002 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000300 18004 Kairez Drive 18004 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000200 18006 Kairez Drive 18006 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200000100 18007 Kairez Drive 18007 Vista del Mar Drive 00914200001200 All of the propel -ties noted above are single-family residential properties recorded as part of the subdivision Vista del Mar. A vicinity map highlighting each of the affected properties in yellow Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 0 0 has been attached for your reference. In addition, please find attached copies of the Snohomish County Assessor Parcel Data for each of the properties. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 425.771.0220 x 1338 or by e-mail at mcconnell@ci.edmonds.wa.us. Respectfully, V A 71 Jeanie McConnell Engineering Program Manager 9010 9110 17802 1 7804 1 7903 1790, 17905 1� CD 1 Q N8002 t u "'014 18006 C) CD 00 T- 0,F EDA, Vista Del Mar Properties ADDRESSED OFF 178TH PL SW "', Woo ADDRESSED OFF KAIREZ DR 8910 179TH PL SW N 0 100 200 Feet W— E I I I I I I I By.- GC / 01. 13.2010 S Snoh - omish County, WA Assepr Parcel Data Page I of 2 SnohomishOnline Government Informatton & ServIces County4* Washington * R E A L * Property Information I Counjy Home Assessor Home Treasurer Home Information on which Department to contact Please view Disclaimer If you have questions, comments or suggestions, please Contact Us. Date/Time:2/8/2010 1:11:03 PM Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Parcel Data (opens as new window) Return to Propedy Information Ent[y page Parcel Number 00914200000800 Prev Parcel Reference 4ap of this parcel (opens as new window) General Information Taxpayer Name 11 Address (contact the Treasurer if you have questions) KIRSCHBAUM THERESA J 119513 FOREST DELL DR--- EDMONDS, WA 98020 If the above mailing address is incorrect and you want to make a change, see the infort-nation on Name and Address Changes Owner Name 11 Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions) KIRSCHBAUM THRESA J ALDRIDGE 119513 FOREST DELL DR --- EDMONDS, WA 98020 If the above name and address is incorrect due to a recent sale, please see the information on Name and Address Chan-ges After a Sale Street (Situs) Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions) 17804 KAIREZ DR - - - EDMONDS, WA 98026 Parcel Legal Description Section 18 Township 27 Range 04 Quarter NW VISTA DEL MR BLK 000 D-00 - PTN OF LOTS 8 & 9 DAF: BEG AT MOST SELY COR OF LOT 8 TH NLY ALG E LN THOF N36*32 58E 34.39FT TH N04*38 IOW 47.08FT TH N71*51 12W 56.94FT TH N54*07 41W 148.90FT TH S35*52 40W 71.66FT TH S55*02 04E 108.54FT TH S38*30 IOE 66.53FT TH S84*05 39E 70.10FT TO POB TGW EQ & UND INT IN KAIREZ DR ALSO TGW EQ & UND INT IN TR B PER CITY EDM LL-2003-92 REC AFN 200309160799 Go to top of pBge Treasurer's Tax Information Taxes For answers to questions about Taxes, please contact the Treasurer's office (opens as new window) 2010 Taxes for this parcel $3,682.59 (Taxes may include Surface Water Management and/or State Forest Fire Patrol fees and any fees related to late payments. LID charges, if any, are not included.) To obtain a duplicate tax statement, either download our Tax Statement Request form or call 425-388-3366 to request it by phone. Go to top of pgge Assessor's Property Data Characteristics and Value Data below are for 2010 tax year. Please contact the Treasurer's office for answers to questions about Taxes (opens as new window) For questions ONL Y about property characteristics or property values (NOT taxes), http://web5.co.snohoniish.wa.uslpropsyslasr-tr-propinqlPipinqO2-ParcelData.asp?PN=0091... 2/8/2010 Snohomish County, WA Asse# Parcel Data Page 2 of 2 please contact the Assessors Office Property Values do not reflect adjustments made due to an exemption, such as a senior or disabled persons Values exemption. Reductions for exemptions are made on the property tax bill. Tax Year 2010 Market Land $420,000 Market Improvement $01 Market Total $420,0001 Go to top of pgge Valuation, Payment, and Property Tax History View History (opens as new window) Go to top of page Property Characteristics Tax Code Area (TCA) 00217 View Taxing Districts for this Parcel (opens as new window) Use Code 910 Undeveloped (Vacant) Land Size Basis ACRE Size 0-40 (Size may include undivided interest in common tracts and road parcels) Go to top of p3ge Property Structures No structures found for this parcel Go to top of page Property Sales since 7/31/1999 Explanation of Sales Information (opens as new window) Sales data is based solely upon excise affidavits processed by the Assessor. Transfer Receipt Sales Excise Deed Grantor (Seller) Grantee (Buyer) Other Date Date Price Number Type Parcels 6/1/2005 6/8/2005 $429,000 391621 W VISTA DEL MAR LLC KIRSCHBAUM THRESA J No ALDRIDGE 6/1/2005 6/8/2005 $0 391622 QC KIRSCHBAUM EDWARD KIRSCHBAUM THRESA No H III ALDRIDGE 3/9/20013/12/2001 $0 262930 QC GEORGE KAIREZ VISTA DEL MAR LLC No Go to top of p3ge Property Maps Township/Range/Section/Quarter, links to maps Neighborhood 1504000 Explanation of Neighborhood Code (opens as new window) Township 27 Range 04 Section 07 Quarter SW Find parcel maps for this Township/Range/Section r, 11 VieNv Map of this parcel (opens as ne:w::w::i:n:do:w:)]J http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.uslpropsyslasr-tr-propinqlPrpInqO2-ParcelData.asp?PN=0091... 2/8/2010 PLASTIC COVERING STOCKPILES STORM DRAIN INLET (INSERT) FILTER FENCE METAL FENCE POSTS CONSTR,UCTION. ACCESS ..MATTI NG/R*OLLED EROSION CONTROL ANCHOR WEIGHTS WITH STAKES PRE -MANUFACTURED CATCH BASIN 00 INLET INSERT FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 60" WIDE STRAW WATTLE —7 ON SHALLOW SLOPES, BOLLS. USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO STRIPS OF NETTING MAYBE ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE MIRAFI 70OX.OR APPLIED ACROSS THE SLOPE 10! MAX. SOIL BERM LENGTH PER THE DPD SITE PRE -APPROVED EQUAL S TRAW BALES DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR N 2- X 2' X 14go WIRE FABRIC OR EQUIV. MIN C-4 (OPTIONAL -PER SITE CONDITION) CONVEY RUNOFF TO APPROVED LOCATION. SHALLOW SLOPE to BURY BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL IN 8 CUT SLOPES X 12" TRENCH JUTE MATTING OR OTHER T BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL BURY SHEETING IN 4 IN. X 6 IN. TRENCH A ANCHOR WEIGHTS WITH STAKES 6'-0" MINIMUM OF 8 FT. SETBACK FROM TOP OF NOTES* I I ON STEEP SLOPES, APPLY STRIPS OF 10, AX. MAXIMUM SLOPE. BACKnLL WITH WASHED ROCK. CONVEY RUNOFF TO 1. STORM DRAIN INLETS NEED TO BE REMOVED LI NETTING PARALLEL TO THE DIRECTION OF BERM APPROVED LOCATION. AT THE END OF THE JOB. OVERFLOW (TO BYPASS lo THE FLOW AND ANCHOR SECURELY PEAK STORM VOWMES) e-8" QUARRY SPALLS FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 2. STORM DRAIN INLETS ARE ONLY TO BE INSTALLED IN DRAINAGE DEVICES PER THE N5 NOTE- ANGLE SILT FENC�E BACK UP THE PROVIDE FULL WIDTH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. CATCH THE FLOW AND A k _N�� BASIN INSERTS ARE NOT TO BE INSTALLED SLOPE AT THE END OF RUN. 04 GEO-TEXTILE FABRIC INGRESS/EGRESS AREA PROVIDE ENERGY DISSIPATION AT TOE MEN NEEDED. 10' MAX. 0 . . IN CURB INLETS. 7 WHERE THERE IS A BERM AT THE TOP OF 3. INSERTS SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED THE SLOPE, BRING THE NETTING OVER THE MIN. BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOIL MATERIAL 12" MIN. THICKNESS TOE IN SHEETING IN 4 IN. X 6 IN, TRENCH A WHEN A 1/2 INCH RAIN ACCUMULATES WITHIN A BERM AND ANCHOR IT BEHIND THE BERM OR GRAVEL BACKFILL IN TRENCH AND MINIMUM OF 3 FT. SETBACK FROM BOTTOM 24 HOUR PERIOD. CLEAN AND/OR REPLACE INSERT ON BOTH SIDES -OF FENCE OF SLOPE. BACKFILL WITH WASHED ROCK. WHEN HALF OF THE TRAP IS FILLED WITH SEDIMENTS. FABRIC ON THE SURFACE ISLOPE STEEP -SLOPE STABILIZED ACCESS SHALL BE USED IN ALL AREAS OF THE SITE WITH VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND PARKING, (>,3: 1) CONVEY RUNOFF TO APPROVED LOCATION. u INCLUDING PLANTING STRIPS. OTHER MEANS OF* PROVIDING STABILIZED ACCESS WILL BE CONSIDERED. TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY EROSION PROTECTION TO SLOPES AND PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS PRIOR TO TO INTER�EPT & DETAIN SMALL AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT UNDER SHEET FLOW CONDITIONS FROM TO 11 THE AMOUNT OF MUD, DIRT, ROCKS, ETC. TRANSPORTED ONTO TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE PROTECTION TO EXPOSED SOILS DURING THE PERIOD OF REASON: TO REASON: REASON: �REASON: DISTURBED AREAS THAT CANNOT BE COVERED BY MULCHING & MATTING PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF THE DISTURBED AREA. DISTURBE) AREAS DURING CONSTRUCTION. TO DECREASE VELOCITY OF SHEET FLOWS. PUBLIC ROADS BY MOTOR VEHICLES OR RUNOFF. REASON: SHORT CONSTRUCTION DELAYS JEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCHING SEEDING MAY BE USED ONLY BETWEEN APRIL I AND JqJNE 30, AND SEPTEMBER 1 AND OCTOBER 30. J I I I AREA STRIPPED AND THEN TEMPORARILY r I . -- SEEDED, USING EITHER BONDED FIBER MATRICES OR HYDRO SEEDING TECHNIQUES. t-,j -71 0 17 1 -/rll Cli� STRAW MULCHING: VISTA I)EL MAR F SITE NTH LESS THAN 30% SLO AFN 20001019MU 1. FOR AREAS 0 2-3 BALES OF STRAW EQUALS 2-INCHES OF 0 STRAW MULCH a�(ER 1000 SCARE FEET. ONO(- 04. Z MULCH SHALL BE. WEED FREE STRAW. k ......................... .............. ....... .................................... .. . ................ ...................... .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ .......................................... ................... .................. NAME PROPORTIONS BY KUT 9 PURITY GERMINATION REDTOP (AGROSTIS ALBA) 10% 92 90 ANNUAL RYE (LOUUM MULTIFLORUM) 40%. 98 90 CHEWINGS FESCUE (FETUCA RUBRA COMMUTATA) 40% 97 80 WHITE DUTCH CLOVER (TRIFOLIUM PEPENS) 40% 1 98 90 10 4Q ANN'. k lk kkm -717 MATTI�G/ROLLED EROSION CONTROL,,-,:- PLASTIC COVERING STOCKPILES 'STORM DRAN INLET (INSERT) FILTER FENCE METAL FENCE POSTS CONSTR.UCTION ACCESS ANCHOR WEIGHTS NTH STAKES PRE -MANUFACTURED CATCH BASIN OR INLET INSERT FIOTER FABRIC MATERIAL 60' WIDE ON SHALLOW SLOPES, STRAW WATTLE B LLS. USE STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS TO STRIPS OF NETTING MAYBE ATTACH FABPJC TO WIRE MIRAn 7aox.oR ?10 APPLIED ACROSS THE SLOPE 11Y MAX,,_--WIL BERM PRE -APPROVED EQUAL ,--LENGTH PER THE DPD SITE 1. n DEVELOPMENT INSPECTOR TRAW BALES !6- 1 WA 10' MAX. S 27 X 2" X l4ga WIRE FABRIC OR EQUIV. ,�R=25' MIN cq 11 -PER SITE CONDITION) OPTIONAL CONVEY RUNOFF TO APPROVED LOCATION. to BURY SHALLOW S�LOPE BOTTOM OF FILTER MATERIAL IN Or (<3: 1) CUT SLOPES X 12' TRENCH JUTE MATTING OR OTHER BIODEGRADABLE MATERIAL BURY SHEETING IN 4 IN. X 6 IN. TRENCH A ANCHOR WEIGHTS WITH STAKES u .!I SETBACK FROM TOP OF NOTES: ON STEEP SLOPES, APPLY STRIPS OF MINIMUM OF 8 FT. 10' MAX. MAXIMUM SLOPE. BACKFILL WITH WASHED ROM CONVEY RUNOFF TO 1. STORM DRAIN INLETS NEED TO BE REMOVED u u NETTING PARALLEL TO THE DIREC11ON OF BERM OVERFLOW (TO BYPASS lo 7, THE FLOW AND ANCHOR SECURELY APPROVED LOCATION. AT THE END OF THE JOB. PEAK STORM VOLUMES) FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL V-8" QUARRY SPALLS 2. STORM DRAIN INLETS ARE ONLY TO BE INSTALLED IN DRAINAGE DEVICES PER THE MANUFACTUREWS RECOMMENDATIONS. CATCH NOTE: ANGLE SILT FDCE BACK UP THE m GEG-lEXnI E FABRIC PROVIDE FULL WIDTH cq THE OW ANI A I MAI, .. ....... C A 11 P N P V R E 0 I ENERGY DISSIPATION AT TOE %HEN NE' BASIN INSERTS ARE NOT TO BE INSTALLED SLOPE AT THE END OF RUN. INGRESS/EGRESS AREA PROVIDE EDED. 3, m7iAIL CH A WHERE THERE IS A BERM AT THE TOP OF 10' MAX. IN CURB INLETS. E NETTING OVER THE 3! MIN. 3. INSERTS SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED MA ICKNESS THE SLOPE, BRING TH BACKFILL WITH NATIVE SOIL TERIAL 12" MIN. THICKNESS TOE IN SHEETING IN 4 IN. X 6 IN, TRENCH A WHEN A 1/2 INCH RAIN ACCUMULATES WITHIN A BERM AND ANCHOR IT BEHIND THE BERM ITTOM I OR GRAVEL BACKFILL IN TRENCH AND MINIMUM OF 3 FT. SETBACK FROM BOTTOM 24 HOUR PERIOD. CLEAN AND/011 REPLACE INSERT ON BOTH SIDES OF FENCE ia OF SLOPE. BACKFILL WITH WASHED ROCK. ....... WHEN HALF OF THE TRAP IS FILLED WITH SEDIMENTS. FABRIC ON THE SURFACE STEEP.SLOPE A .SLOP4 STABILIZED ACCESS SHALL BE USED IN ALL AREAS OF THE SITE WITH VEHICLE TRAFFIC AND PARKIN% (>3: 1) CONVEY RUNOFF TO APPROVED LOCATION. INCLUDING PLANTING STRIPS. OTHER MEANS OF* PROVIDING STABILIZED ACCESS WILL BE CONSIDERED. PROTECTION TO EXPOSED SOILS DURING THE PERIOD OF TO PROVIDE IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY EROSION PROTECTION TO SLOPES AND REASON:10 PREVENT SEDIMENT MOM ENTERING STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS PRIOR TO REASON: TO INTERCEPT & DETAIN SMALL AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT UNDER SHEET FLOW CONDITIONS FROM !REASON': 111 THE AMOUNT OF MUD, DIRT. ROCKS, EM TRANSPORTED ONTO TO PR6V3DE IMMEDIATE REASON: DISTURBED AREAS THAT CANNOT BE COVERED BY MULCHING & MATTING PERMANENT STABILIZATION OF THE DISTURBED AREA. DISTURBED AREAS DURING CONSTRUCTION. TO DECREASE VELOCITY OF SHET FLOWS, PUBLIC ROADS BY MOTOR VEHICLES OR RUNOFF. REASON: SHORT CONSTRUCTION. DELAYS TEMPORARY SEEDING AND MULCHING SEEDING MAY BE USED ONLY BETWEEN APRIL 1 AND XNE 306 AND SEPTEMBER I AND OCTOBER 30. X —AREA STRIPPED AND THEN TEMPORAKY SEEDED, USING EITHER 13ONDED FIBER uATRICES OR HYDRO SEEDING TECHNIQUES. -71 t 9pop OrT KA, P VIA, q(6010- 00q 00000 lacro 1-7/. 41 q. r-;)p - Laf gp pr/. t-f� I" mkr4, �rb �-j b-icl -S)r - r2.S. I lZ_ SURUNGTON NOffil*IRN RAKJWM Loi_ -4 1 f"n Z.: STRAW MunING; it __T 1,40 17 10/5U4 9-0*A cli� TA I)EL A#AR mS 1. FOR AREAS OF 37E WITH LESS THAN 3OX SLOPE; AFW %W10195on V 2-3 BALES OF STRAW EQUALS 2-INCHES OF r STRAW MULCH OVER 1OOD SQARE FEET. 4 2. MULCH SHALL BE WEED FREE STRAW. ................ ...... .............................. ..................... ...................... ...... . . ............. . ...................... NAME PRWWWa BY WWff X PURITY X UMMINAlION REDTOP (AGROSTIS ALBA) 10% 92 90 ANNUAL RYE (LOLIUM MULTIFLORUM) 40%. 98 go (FETUICA RUBRA COMMUTATA). '17TE 4OX 97 80 ZCHEWINGSS �FEM OU CLOvm (TRIFOUUM PEPENS) 40% 90 90 Vo I til-Z4 1,-1-71479 2�425; k?- 9� &is 9901,1-7 `4� wc*_ - - 307 V.. Koji qp 444,v 1. ti "'W4, Ito -�/y 3&4 z 5* 4-1 V_ (4A-r4,-r cav 7- 7 Ci - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ Z' V ------------- 0 K -- ---------- a to 20 46 ",A V2 IJ& IN L ND EGE WAIP LNE &MARY Bm ST" v 41' mu wx cl. nm hmat WAN WAIER VALVE 0"Alm - 111.70 DAIM en or % to CAM wa f \v I &Balm WrMW OVA= WE& UM ap I= WrWA PULL Du 1- A OK &rM ICOD= A* hole wa, 10TAL WAWN Wn LM rW 7ms am, GAS VALVE J MUM =W�rW ell, E' MA=Al0W=F WZyry IRECIM F" rac imm mm By mc To P: rm SuR*y WAS caoum cm octow 8, =0. Nu LINT vim, So & "P ftW 03 MX4) 0. MR k W FWND �ZA 1504) f�* aAFSAaMn SWAX r 5aw a Amaw Z" RAW" pvw. 6 W AVJ AV &STAW WWI A LEW 70 VC &4ED6- Aa-Auff" RACM AMMIX AW OVAM HAW M PdPAW V (MAX JX MM M r V A=R9 WN VW S-,AM= v WARRY VAU$ A"W a ROM= 70 R04my mmmv apamm or W= AT Xft%k Ma ;OW OF #WJZTOM AW SrA&E Ctri 4FAX N - �lx MA17W MAXIM W WM 7) AAO AUWZ AAO fA00 R000y R= M4U BE MW AAD HAIV A AWW AMTYOF -Dk PW MR 4 . PP&- 10 FaW F& am Foar AWL tX =04= RAPf TO WU9 PPf A40/0# PE 10M ANO&W OF ALL R= 9W Of PLAW PW- PDOVAM )V W X4jL FAX RM swa "Aw 7w. FWAZIM47 Z"IV) Fm mmum VMW XMW ANX AO AA4UVr TO )?Oili- sat 0412 aL Mm AIDa Om Jr w WW sma W Awn= BrA GUAMM coo 6* Coe 010 cmmm" To w aft. am m am Z Z A002M AM A)ZZWCOMOL mRwxq=.w0r 4y =FA ILE TREET AW &r& MMW Paw at & RACIRW CF. ADJACZVr SMUr--, XW MW X 91WTO WN 7W dr A &&M 2. 771 N& 1000M OF SMUCRM MY sm*w Awk RECEIVED dQ8W OF AWAW SMZW ADDn 6 )nii aw"Agal 23M BUILDING DEPARTI-MFINT EDMUNDS CITY OF 330 A,7 APPROVM BY: cmvm ey 'BY E .17 H-o �i� I NGIN EERING a . . 11 RKVMD *.qcon G, f"'n T H_ nr4e5eT* f STREET FILE RECEIVED APR 0 8 2011 BUILD114G DEPARDA-9, IT Offy CF