The URL can be used to link to this page

18006 VISTA DEL MAR DR.PDF1111111111111113586 18006 VISTA DEL MAR DR • TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER:030m=oo BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):20C2,C1!2J COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver ❑ Study Required giver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: & - co. 4 - of PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: <!5 "2°l -O2Z SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) GEOTECH REPORT DATED: g. v'O I STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LATEMP\DS'Ps\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc Ad1l73 &k CETY COPY I re row E�—. fM Dl MAW) . D] (mlow) . YICLO / claw Dp ww BY (2). claw / / r0 ne Ram / ............. ; % /� / �. \ % FA emm re' e I / 1 _ Oak1 t :/ / lta�aowawuNn. 14T. INS w 1 1 i�� Di /T04 1 \ / q wav / DIEVIIIWT lee •10 R � / MAR 7 9 RECEIVE / MAR2 9 2002 \ ,� _ / oW ED�q��'u•ING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTF. 9, CITY OF EDMONDS O / /MNE p3-12 DONIcr ALL ROAND DP Ya gDgppp rr)DTRn pwAme To MATC � slow+ aIME R SOP /61 / HEAR MP& st \ / DER; DPlot Plan \ �jN euia r .Iwo / Ep RI�CEE1 LOT t AGTA DEL 1'NR Q O %'k �Y1 FEB 2 2 spx"a10e, MTQI 3/iZ7/.i \ %(� L.1 Ght.GJ U1f1 dJ �, IDN/f'C� NtEP BUBDINB BIGHT CALCULATION / T�£v1�9@p Fid7A\ 19S.N P vEPM AMM—W6 rover- -- roRrt c far-I4 ilfr---- / I`I9•`i1} ' °� u1W bwule row V claw PON V mlco �.7� If ' ST /r9/.�/ / xF\6Yxls E1�h71c9� � uP Awe P� ----- -------------- a WwArl'D (15 oel VAL 114m AMCFt,T aAnAm I$�i �4r4p 4plyer 0'1 61 %L*, ° F~Oc ^ A&U& WONT 2we.,s Zli. 97 / / n�lla ti-2 MAtx- ADS) P� u btml- M �enur �ls. R7 �/l. Ry / • Gd/A'vUcrraJ StiR+s"f LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION -------------------- . gz�u1llt. gYYtos LOT eovwvm tb9} enrr. / \1 K�FUMaJ flY MA¢� Lm AweA - Dave- ea rr. 5/ RECt A OV LA ING Asrnu+� Nqo_,, rMGUN1F�afy) APPLICANT COPY Bu4Du ':."' :- - . rS POW-. D) (b2AW) • E2 01i' M ac NY a I / r{pp DIVID® D7 (2) • r7ad / fl0 -_-_- Ot4Tql N4K Pow 5.4 effwq ! / /Y7 07 I Ivor AA. SADH DAM q I / / /' �� ; ;139 � � �► i i„ T"' ` .. ! �i _-fix 1 / Drivrmy T102 CommTo RO ATa • / PONT -D WIAIr \ MbAdp. / 4�\ / REGE VED PAR 2 9 zw RECEIVED \; '°sue' U�PMPB/ 3 (g oz MAR 2 9 2002 9�\j��2 �! DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. 4hq \ ��r - 0 / CITY OF EDMONDSD come= ALL )Soar A)O / 6E1BAgfS p= pTO MAT Cep \ FFiONf mmm REA Nomm °Dplot Plan � � \ '� • ��j/�. = aH ED LOT % VISTA Oft KAN ` vIS/cN cif i"9JOy REG 5, FEB 2 2 eDl+aoa TOH 3�:7f�s \)C 1 cAuJ u1Tl of "�„h C'00 tt s'YNtEP BuSnpw EIGHT CALCULATION '--------------- - -� oa IM,D PONT'A' r4AW rO*ff V J'F �Y---- / j p4 ,f dpygE fRrT NDNT 'N wuw POW o' WWO �,'7 t1 • ,i , f/$ / �.Rv6Yotls SI�\IJMv� MID u� "A) Rp I �9rfdPAPIS ? 4py{ye 84 u wW='" ' ACWL MjWt 2I42s Wi. 97 / uati2 Mkxt -DCV05) P& u Row- P•A' P Nye' ►wQv+mwrt24s.87 �dC,7FP •Gc�#Rucrr�r] SVR�sy LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION / p'`i M�thGT ``, io -------------------- iy .toP4 mW / R�i'iGMa1 Y.'Y M,4f.G -------PmactrTTAoe 23.32i.5/ REECI - OV D Y NNING (w-- Alftft Yqo:•' ��ar5) APPLICANTCOPYI 11, 03/26/2002 19:39 �+.raw 4258289443 • o HAVE A GREAT DAY PAGE 01 GEOSCIEN ES INC. ® Post Office Box 2385 Kirkland, WA 96083 ? ` ` 1 2 7 2002 Telephone (425) 827--1084 p�' ',glT COUNTER DAILY FIELD REPOT TRIP CHARGE JOB N0, TIME ON SITE a % 3—, JOB TITL6 TIME OFF SITE PAGE of P.o. s ATHER PE ITN ER JOB LOCATION CLIENTIOWNER pAT DAY OF WEEK GENERAL CONTRACTOR , �..� s^ GE RAL CONTRACTOR'S SUPT.. ON -SITE? Y VISITO 3 �,c),). eJ o /V 4 �✓ .5"— e. �- �^ O t l Ic SAS U _ 2 °z � sLui Z U I--o p� O N C" N d ce U ui w U It 0 w I z ala- 00 I• Q U :30C� MNN OM -0O EU-) N cN'DO 0�JlnO�0) CA FILE N0. Criil Areas Checklist�� Site Information (soils/topogra h ./hydrology/vegetation)/BCo(o Mz/y1 1. S ite Address/Location: ©L 11/6W vS- W T 2. Property Tax Account Number: - -04d-0 Q 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): Zgw,/�l� -/�• 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; no. If yes;.how is site developed? n��%�, •��/i�S�LL 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. !/1 Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally .less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). _Hilly: slopes present on -site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: &114 ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year?` 8. Site is in the floodway, /I/D floodplain_of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? )1 10. Site is primarily: forested : meadow : shrubs : mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) D 11. Obvious wetland is present on site:% c. 0ua S✓'":h," .S.rs %" w.ws:.r w� rAT-r-.� } _ Tu�ytc:. 4.��,—,+,'i•G .,#+3�h`�r:S ,�.. 5.. ..� .:vM��rr,�l,� 7�'�jQ�.4(�.ifs'�,..�<,WicA:�.�,y*�.:a.T'.Si.'"r•�o<...� ++et6h �r....iar...2I, o>kr sY .: T:'iK rvr r')�: .�•': 1�. sy y 4 e. t.. Y.'.ig �) y'e aFy %i� ki.c .�.l�e' I �L,.Qnt.4 r F i%Ri ;:c: t IG' S v R,•t t'?r,✓.:3y.M:'. ,es :•,l `3>•'? : <`'> 3 S•: 4 Y 9GSaFPEdi tpe�i` 4. :J,M.. 4 'Y..' Y •�.• :;i�Y. SA •k' l4 Y.:�te1.;��t j' ;letl d �gvetitoF qr Via}}'��.:aat$ :i�►ta a s:(c�'ty* ..i :. .... ':'-%. .. ..��; �.: �' ..,«•F.. .. o:w:t'w<w. A�:.:vZ�.:iF:'tr�•Niw•.«. iT'C 4ilii li•iiiii 14 i -.'1 IIA ill+'ir• 'e.%« :::� :::•Y ry(• :, r'• : ?t.•sse:eY•. R : r.:rt : �: }r M1:{ � 1,•, i �..,, .. y; S . � ,y;• re:.x.= Viz'iEicleas iet4,aaEes CFlt3aaYe� op> .:`flli.:. `~ .. 4 , <.o.' •:�.. < ° afi8slid � � , t q 0;'",::�'ts Y• •;� � : •3< i '" �:: , ;'`' f :s: �• . : �s�..�'�t1iT�t�des�neledgarthhsuBs�i��p4�;1r; M.,.:'�s.•,:.«�i.�� ;�..,� .... ..:. '• ' .: ... .. .. ... ,..<v.at.: •a..o: 54,i}•: �/a ... L• :,} 'vh• :� 3' •. ::� ::,•i��,:.••: lte'desilchRn*04.1 rxl n �' Qii !:A 4 i e C' 1 (Z :.F ? t <,, tlsl ;.�..::.t.,,, _ >^ •.. •.:? k'a.:: �-�% • ., My w:9..Y w ,., �K M.C+w+r.. x. '\A• IITTITw�TrTwq'.. lyT`ItERMfNA_1i,;aP1. T. •Sr.:i.�:',/•!'t:::ti•Li �.'l:•• i �tv•.<y,,.i.• •;M�.;:f. •:':sGe ai'�:$i raw....... 'Yp �«4i. .....tip ^:w%r::Ydf::•'Yti.i w..i<�.:lt ••`"• .. � ,; y.. tip:. ^...1 .e }•.. 1..;Y,\.i. J;�' n: �'' :. `1v:r{:>::F• 'n., :.y•<'�..: y'yt ..:, :`RCIVlewadby� '�J�l> I f•R„ x..`� ! _ M � a : } 1 x�cyt•-7Fv.0 ��. � s / X 4• >v k , �,�j .. ix,•�> i}C. •9 1 �. r7 S `' y. iCo $ "'•5` T i' Fj ...•rll { _',,�, S.' '.'4wi..•.t.i:'.dr.....'r4�i.t�..:`.a..�ad.�'Ktf:�,�A.•rt.•�rn.,�'X�..S.tiay.�t ..i+: f•.".....�., a..w.t.. .YS:e..;R.. C�Lf K RW {NIM M City of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.022.1 Critical Areas File #>'�"�� 001—f 00 Critical Areas Checklist Fee: 5 00 Date Received by Dev. Serv. Dept: 2i� City Receipt No: I & &- Date Mailed to Applicant: Z — —a CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds Prior to his/her submittal of a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). An applicant, or his/her repr( the checklist, sign and date i City. The City will review precursory site visit, and make subsequent steps necessary to permit application. tentative, must fill out , and submit it to the the checklist, make a a determination of the omplete a development Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece c this form. In addition, the other pertinent information (e map, etc.) or studies in conjut to assist staff in comply assessment of the site. property described on ,pplicant shall include ., site plan, topography :ion with this Checklist ng their preliminary I have completed the attached Critical Areas Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner/Applicant: Name /Z Street Address City Spate Zip 7/<9-/4G3 T vabaa`a�a�a v Date d:receptloNlanatCACLHandout.doe Applicant Representative: Name Street Address City State Zip Telephone Signature RE y� EM ��!�+ . Date PERMIT COUNTRRvhw 4/1W o u GEO','ECHNICt.L EVALUATION REPORT FOR VISTA DEL NIAR SUBDIVISION EDMONDS, `rtiASHINGTON RECEIVED AUG 3 1 2001 PERMIT COUNTER S, I N,C: "-" 4'. CO^!SULTING GEOTECHNICAL EPiG%idEERS, GEOI.O, ISTS AND ENv//?L)NME.vlAL SClEN7YS,'S ��+ • .wSaft- NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS MAIN OFFICE 17311.135th Ave. N.E., #A500 13424 Chain Lake Road 101 East Marine View Drive Woodinville, WA 98072 Monroe, WA 98272 Orondo, WA 98843 (206) 486.1669 • FAX 481.2510 (206) 788.5612 • 794.4332 (509) 784.2756 April 26, 1993 IMr. George P. Kairez P.O. Box 3197 Lynnwood, Washington 98046 ' Reference: Geoteclulical Evaluation Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington ' NCA rile No. 101593 Dear Mr. Kairez: INTRODUCTION ' This report presents the results of our gcotcclulical investigation for your proposed Vista Del Mar subdivision in Edmonds. Tile site is located north of Olympic View Drive and includes six lots adjacent to ' the top of a steep slope. Tile City of Edmonds has requested a geoteclinical analysis of the slope stability below these lots, as required by their ordinance ECDC Chapter 20.15B. We have also been requested to ' provide gcotcclulical recommendations for general site development. The planned subdivision consists of 15 lots on a parcel just less than 7 acres is size. The planned 111Q111 ' access road will cross a shallow Swale which will require some fill and potentially a soil reinforced or gcogrid retaining wall. The geogrid wall would be designed by others. Rockeries may also be used to face ' native cuts in the northern portion of the site. We understand that the plat detention systen, is not vet designed. Due to the proximity of the site to the Puget Sound, detention may not be necessary. ' our services includes erfonnance of 17 ex )loratc,D, backlioe (test) pits, surficial The scope of o>. p I ' observations, physical measuring and mapping of the slope area, and review of available geologic, stability and coastal drift maps of the area. Using this data N\,c have developed building setbacks and recommendations for site development above the slope, including residential and roadway construct1011, ' earthwork parameters and drainage recommendations. The locations of the test pits, measured profiles and IApril 26, 1993 Vista Dcl Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 2 • other observed conditions are shovvii on the enclosed Site Plan, Figure 2 and Profiles A through F, Figures 3 through 7. SITE CONDITIONS Cencral The site consists of about 6.83 acres lying north of Olympic View Drive, west of Talbot Road and along the top of slope above the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in Edmonds, Washington. The site currently supports a large residence that exists on planned Lot 9 and a smaller house located on planned Lot 11. The current access to these structures is an asphalt drive that extends from 01)wpic View Drivc and crosses the western portions of the plarmed lots 1, 6 and 10. The portion of the site adjacent to Olympic Vicw Drive slopes gcntly to moderately down to the west with a gentle slope to the north. A swalc starts in the vicinity of the western portion of Lots 2 and 3. We expect that a fill and reinforced soil wall will be required for the road fill in this Swale. The northern portion of the site slopes gently down to the northwest to the top of a steep slope. The northeastern poi7ion, adjacent to the steep slope, slopes down to the north. This slope can be followed off -site down to the railroad grade, Lot 15 is located on a parcel that will have access from a private road that connects to Talbot Road. This portion of the site has gentle to moderate slopes to the northwest. The top of slope is shown on the Site Plan, as surveyed by Lovell -Sauer]and. This top of slope line is in our opinion considered relatively stable. We state this, in that some times the top of slope can be undercut and considered to be expected to fail within a short period of time. We adjust the top of slope line to acconunodate this condition. We did not observe any undercutting or inuninent slope failures on this slope. Below this top line, the slope was measured to range from about 45 to 53 degrees. The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks were constructed along the toe of the slope many years ago. The constriction of the railroad bed included constriction of a large rock seawall along the outboard side. This sea\\all and track extends to the north and south from the property, along the shoreline. The cross -sections showing the measured profiles and geologic conditions logged on the bluff, are shown on Figures 3 throuah 7. A sanitary, sc%\,cr line is located along the top of slope. The sewer line is also shown on the Site Plan. Vcgctation in the portion of the site adjacent to Olympic View Drive consists of large evergreen trees \%ith a dense undergrowth. The developed portion of the site is mainly covered with grass and occasional evergreen trees and shrubs. A stand of evergreen trees is located along a portion of the top of the steep slope. Vegetation on the steep slope consists of bnish, berry vines, ivy, and scattered deciduous trees. The trees have an apparent age of about 20 to 30 years old. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 3 Geologic Conditions Landfomis within this region comprise a system of glacially sculptured features, which have been exposed by post -glacial erosion. Locally, the terrain of this area is interpreted to have-becn glacially modified, and to have been placed during the latest glaciation of the Puget Lowland area, Glacial ice is thought to have last occupied the region during the late Pleistocene epoch, some 11,000 to 13,000 years before present. Tile latest glacial advance over the area is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, of which the geologic materials on site are believed composed. The general stratigraphy within this area is observed and found to consist of advance glacial outwash, referred to as Esperance Sand (QvA/Qe). This is in agreement with the geologic conditions described on the geologic maps of this area. Advance outwash in this area is composed of a dense, fine sand, with trace silt and occasional gravel, which has been overridden and compacted by the weight of the thick glacial ice. The advance sands were observed in all of the test pits, and also on exposures on the steep slope. It is not unconumon for more gravely and/or silty zones to occur in these deposits, as was indicated in TP-13 through TP-16. Site Explorations, 1VI11)ping and Subsurface Conditions The steep slope Scomctry was measured using a hand held inclinometer and cloth tape. This data was used to develop the sections of the slope. \Vc also performed shallow hand explorations on the slope and observed ,exposures where present. The subsurface conditions were explored on the site using a tractor mounted back -hoe. A representative of this firm was present during the explorations and maintained continuous logs of the explorations. The locations of the test pits are shown in the Site Plan on Figure 2. The logs of the explorations are presented on Figures 10 through 13. Subsurface conditions found on -site consisted mostly of a fine to medium sand that varied from loose at the surface, to dense with depth. Occasional gravelly layers as well as fine to coarse sand were also observed. We also found an occasional silt lens in the deposit,. however, these lenses did not appear to be continuous. Test Pit 17, located on tale south portion of Lot 1, encountered 11.5 feet of fill. We understand that this fill was associated with road construction on Olympic Vicw Drive. Hydrologic Conditions No obvious evidence of ground water, perched ground water or outcropping ground water along the slopes was observed within this site. The advance outwash is considered fairly permeable and water is expected NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 I Page 4 to infiltrate vertically in the deposit until an underlying silt layer is encountered. We did not observe a continuous silt layer in our test pits or on the bluff face, The site appears to be well drained, with the advance sands apparently being of sufficient thl6mcss and extent to minimize any surface water or ground watcr seepage on the steep slope face. I SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard The Puget Sound region is classified as a Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. Seismic considerations for this type of site includes liquefaction potential and attenuation of ground motions by soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand and silt; sand .with a high ground water table. I Seismically sensitive conditions were not observed in this site. Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas include soil tN pc, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil tYPes (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The following table outlines the erosion hazard for the on -site soils that have been stripped of vegetation. The soils have been classified in accordance with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system and have been grouped with respect to the corresponding geologic ullit. Gcolol;ic Unit Surface Soil Sensitivity At Slone 0-15 /° ° QvA/Qe Everett Med High High Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability Slope stability was observed below the subject lots of Vista Del Mar area to be only minimally active in backwasting, primarily through weathering and surface sloughing of the slope through normal erosional processes. This is in agreement with the conditions discussed for these slopes on the coastal zone stability map. Local occurrences of shallow surface sloughing can be seen across the bluff slope face, as indicated by older surface scarps. These scarps generally indicate a few inches of sloughing per event. The slope has a uniformly common slope angle ranging from about 45 to 50 degrees. This is what would be expected for the dense underlying sand. As the surface of the sand loosens, shallow sloughing events will occur after which vegetation will rc-establisli. The date of the trees on the slope indicate that the slope face has been relatively stable for the past 20 to 30 years. Vegetation on the slope does not indicate large scale land sliding characteristics, but does indicate minor localized soil creep. The cut adjacent to the Burlington NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 5 Northeni Railroad tracks did not show any signs of backwasting which is common where seepage occurs near the tracks at other locations on the Puget Sound. Local cleaning of the slope toc just upslopc of the tracks has created some surface sloughagc, but is minor in extent. I The occurrence of local, debris along the top of slope is of concern to long-term slope stability. Where tine ' debris occurs, an increase in the potential for surface slides and disturbance to the slope integrity does exist. ' CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General In general, we conclude that the site is suitable for the planned residential development, provided that the guideline recommendations and precautions presented herein are followed. From a geologic and gcotcclulical standpoint, the area above the top of bluff slope appears stable and should be capable of supporting the planned development. The underlying sand deposits have moderately high strength and is ' considered stable Nvith respect to deep seated landslides or slope failures. Surficial sloughing and crosion can occur, hoNvever, we did not observe evidence of large scale backwasting of the slope in recent piston . '. Tile sand deposits should provide a good subgrade for support of the structure foundations. Adequate building setbacks from the top of slope line arc considered appropriate to reduce the risk of future effects ' to the development from bluff recession for a reasonable life -span. The slopes across the bluff within this development have receded over the past centuries due to slope crosion and surface land sliding processes. This process has been significantly slowed by the construction of the BNRR tracks and seawall. The processes that occur at present should be expected to persist at their ' current rate. Presently, it is our opinion that the backwasting rate within this slope area is on the order of less that one inch per year (cumulative) in the worst case. Development related improvements such as site ' drainage control systems, earthwork control and slope protection should lessen the impact of perched water Outflow, and play slow the rate of backwasting to almost, nil. These improvements are conlnlonly ' performed and should be expected for this project. Residence foundations placed into the native sands also aid in reducing the effects of backwasting on structure development. ' We recommend that any detention facility be lined and designed such that it cannot introduce ground\vater into the hillside. It would be preferable to use the direct discharge into the sound and not store water on site ' if possible. ' NELS ON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, /NC, lApril 26, 1993 Vista Dcl Mar NCA File No. 101593 Pagc G The c%tcnt of the fill in the area of Test Pit 17 is not {mown. We expcct that it extends along the south portion of Lot 1 and portions of Lots 3 and 4. Foundations in these areas should extend through the fill. We recommend that we be retained to observe foundation excavations in these areas to determine if bearing soils are exposed. ' Building Setbacks Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes, and in particular unstable or actively backwasting I slopes, are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. Tile purpose of the setback is to establish a buffer zone between the dwelling areas and the slope margin so that ample room is allowed for normal slope regression or if a slope failure were to occur, the likelihood of dwelling involvement would be ' minimized. In a general sense, the greater the setback, the lower the risk. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is usually based on the slope's physical characteristics, e.g., slope height, surface Iangle, material composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, type and desired life span of the developmcnt are important considerations as \\,cll. I observations, mmcnd a minimum building Based upon our explorations, slope evaluation and obscn , we rcco setback of 25 feet for all structures from the top of slope. Protection of the setback and steep slope areas ' should be perfonncd as required by the City of Edmonds. Specifically, we recommend that the setback area not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, including "temporary" excavation spoils from ' building area preparation and excavation. And- development or encroachment into the setback areas should be evaluated by a specific geotechnical evaluation and report. Reductions in setback areas are possible, but ' only with the additional geotechnical investigation. It should be understood that the closer disturbance and developmcnt of the structure is to the slope, the more risk there is of future distress. Selective thinning or topping of trees should not be a problem. Cutting of trees located within the setback ' and along the top of slope can be perfomied, but certain precautions should be made. We reconunend that the root bundle/stump of felled trees be left in place. Pruned materials and debris should be removed from the area, and not allowed over the slope. Additional dumping of soil, sod, clippings or other matter over the ' slope is not rcconunended. ' SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING General ' Site preparation and grading will consist of stripping the roadway alignments of the upper topsoil and organic laden soils. Based on the conditions observed in our explorations, we expcct a stripping depth on NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26, 1993 Vista DO Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 7 y require additional stripping, particularly areas of existing the order of 6 to 12 inches. Local areas ma fill. The underlying soils are considered marginally moisture sensitive and should be capable of bcing worked shortly after periods of wet weather. If the site is worked during wet conditions, additional stripping depth may be required, as the upper topsoil has a higher silt content. Ceobrid Wall A geogrid wall consists of a reinforced soil mass with a suitable facing, such as a rockery. The soil mass is rcinforccd with geogrids and essentially stands by itself. The face of the wall is th pically covered to reduce erosion. Typical coverings consist of rockeries or precast concrete blocks. The fill in the rcinforccd mass is placed and compacted as structural fill. The geogrid is placed in horizontal layers as the fill is placed. The grid should be stretched such that it is taught prior to placing the fill. The facing should be placed as the geogrid wall is constructed. The length of the grid and the vertical spacing is determined by the wall designer. Arcas to receive a geogrid wall should be prepared as outlined below in the subgrade preparation section We expect that the on -site soils will be used for the geogrid fill. For these soils compacted as outlined below, we rcconU»cnd using a value of 35 degrees for the angle of internal friction. This WOUld apply to both the soil in the grid and the soil being retained by the system. Foundation bcaring pressure is a function of the width of the grid, which is a fiulction of the height of the wall. We recommend using an allowable bearing pressure of 4000 pounds per square foot (psf) in design. If a higher value is needed, we should be requested to review the final wall geometry. Subgrade Preparation Preparation of areas to receive stntctural fill should include stripping of all topsoil do\\m to firm native bearing soils. After stripping, the areas to receive fill should be thoroughly compacted with a large steel dnim compactor, or equivalent, to a dense non -yielding condition. Any areas that have noted weaving under the compaction equipment should be repaired. Repairs may consist of additional compaction or overcxcavation and replacement with structural fill. Areas that are wet may require a blanket of spills or Isome other material prior to placing fill, in order to achieve a suitable base for compaction. This should be evaluated at the timc of site preparation. Fill Placement Following subgrade preparation, placement of the stntctural fill may proceed. All backfilling should be accomplished in 6 to 8 inch thick uniform lifts. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly I NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26, 1993 Vista Dcl Mar NCA File No. 101593 I Pagc 8 compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. We recommend that the fill be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, of its maximum dry density for all structural fill underlying all building areas, and %within 2 feet of pavement subgrade. Maximum dry density in this report refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1537 compaction test procedure. We recommend that the fill be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent, with more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades. The moisture ' content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum, so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to ovcrexcavatc and remove wet soils in cases where ' do ing to a 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. ' Common Fills Fills used for landscaping (common fills) which are not settlement sensitive should be sloped no steeper than 31-1:1V, It is presumed that such yard area fills will be comprised of stripping spoils or other poorer quality site fill materials, and will contain a sparse to moderate quantity of fine organic debris. Common ' fills should be placed in I to 2 foot lifts (loose measure) and be nominally compacted using available spreading equipment. Conumon fills should be thoroughly compacted along slope faces, and be graded so that concentrated slope surface erosion or other unstable conditions are avoided. ' FOUNDATIONS Structure foundations should be placed within the native sand deposits, expected to occur two to three feet below grade. Any loose or disturbed soil in foundation excavations should be removed or recompacted tprior to placing concrete. We recommend that foundations have a minimum burial depth of 18 inches and have minimum widths of 14 and 18 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. For ' foundations founded as outlined, we recommend using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2500 pounds per square foot (psf). Higher bearing capacities are appropriate for specific applications and should be ' reviewed at the time of design. The above allowable bearing pressure can be increased by one-third when considering temporary loads such as wind or seismic conditions. Settlement is expected to occur as the ' load is applied and should be negligible. Foundations in the area of the fill should extend doN\m to native soils. This can be accomplished by deeper ' stem walls, structural fill pads that extend to the native soils, Control Density Fill, or piers. The t�`pe of the foundations used will depend on the stricture type, location, elevation of foundation and contractor ' preference. We recommend that additional geotechnical studies be performed for the area around Lot I where the deep fill was found. These studies could include explorations prior to design, or at the very least NELSON- C 0 UVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26, 1993 Vista Dcl Mar NCA File No. 101593 I Page 9 on site monitoring to determine if the foundation system extends through the fill. We would be available to discuss foundation options at the time of lot development. Drainage and Stability Considerations Of great importance to the long-term backwasting for the bluff is the existing surface and near -surface water control, and crosion.protection. Adequate drainage protection should be provided around the building and development areas. We recommend the use of foundation and roof drain systems that empty into a proper storm water system. Thcsc drains should be routed indcpcndentl): until there is a minimum of 1 foot of vertical fall below foundation elevation before the tie in. We understand that the stonm water system will be routed down an casement to the north and not over the steep slope. We do not recommend that storm water be detained in a detention facility that Would allow infiltration into the subsurface soils. This could increase groundwatcr in localized areas and could create local instability along the slope. Also of importance is the maintenance of the existing slope stability of the top of slope and slope areas. ' Erosion protection for exposed soil areas could be increased through placement of jute netting, hydrosecding and/or vegetation planting. Any exposed soils on the steep slope will erode due to normal ' erosion processes. Native vcgctation will eventually protect tlhese areas, but could be aided through planting. Also, we recommend that no loose vegetation or spoils should be placed on the slopes. Additional Notes We suggest that observation of the earthwork and drainage control phases of development, be observed and ' approved by us. This should include setback, foundation placement, drainage and erosion control measures. USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY ' We have prepared this report for use by Mr. George Kairez and his agents for their use in planning and preliminary design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report conclusions and interpretations should not be ' construed as a warrant), of subgrade conditions. ' 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, ' NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26, 1993 Vista Dcl Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 10 I except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There arc possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this 'report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied should be understood. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, feel free to call on us at any time. Sincerely, NELSON-COWRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. David L. Nelson, PG Professional Engineering Geologist 5 p. C () U vti WAS/�� cc) T `a vi 20285 Ld �, p O 4� G ONAL E*� EXPIRES � Charles P. Couvrette, PE IGeotecluiical Engineer cc: Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. I . I NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. I. VICINITY MAP • o m NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC, CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS VISTA DEL MAR FILE NO. 1015A93 I DATE FIGURE 1 04/20/93 (n IV A, Ae IjAol u -4 u- Qj* njI— r I\; n 0 m 0 0 X Z CA In M M 0 j 0 —4 z :2 E: -4 Z m 0 0 0 z v 0 /� q m D m � T � z u Z m m o_ 0 m -i O v D m O 0 N O O (° =G) � n O D , m v C r i o p\ N It rr, i z Ro O Cl) Cn rn r sm� m b Zi C/) z 2 -n 1 "V z 1 -4 n m T n m co -i z x D n !A y Cl) v D ; -` o z Z � � (A(A n -j N D �� 0 r N m 0 0 < V Qo � y0 m wa 1. p, CO co A z Di 0 O z� 1 0 y M-0 L rm•• D r Z O Z m D mZ ��" 0 m Z -10 cD m cnz Op �'z c <x W X D cnG) mrm 0 mg o-D+ -a - cnG) m - m O m O �� 0 CnD -n Mr D o Op mr- ON> m f mz �D cn-+ 1 \m D O 0< C)n m 0 Oi0 0 c cnZ OZT A n m0 z�T N m= O N O m ((D W W rn n 'D 0 z M r m z O W v m M c N m O m W i i CO m D n m O CD m D -� I Z H4 v f r m m r Dr z z m O � I o O o M O �m m 07 m fn r_ Z m D � m O v m it cn r z m J D N 2% r O G) O U) m W N -_+ p < -I O -4 � X 17 0 co1 m -{ N 1 D O Z 1 -0 m v -� m z-0 o< 0 m O cn z U)i O a: ? cn G) cn O -I z C/) < x m K m m m r- cn G) O -o 0 D v< m C, m m O c O � r- ct)O mz cn> D Z zD o< m O m D c) Z m0 zm �O' cno Z m cn U) m -� O .�► z O m O Z 00 41 F�. I X0 1 1 O D O o m m Z ` (A m r cn o 0 cn Z m Dz ' rp , X� m Q m 1 oncn c C F cn m, N 1 �< < m m J 2 Q m '`. 0 0 O i rn Cl) ' o 0� O O m m m m �- yN D �^ m o Cn rco Z o O �C) Z N N m z -. D m v Z O < % X _ C O > 0 D o q � ��ND D r = m m o O m D --i > m 0 4 X O Z m z m Z o) = m- O to m x O mO z0 0 v m r— -0 O m m n D m < m r- � v n 00 T O O � ram- cc1) D m 0 z o mp ' z 'n m DniZ m r- OCl) n-n O Z m CZ 0 m(A) I m m I m 17 CD m v r Cn O� 2 o � C n Cm m� 0 7 n rn i i 20 Z m o rn C/) �N y ' ' �om c/ ' m H H n -< 1 o m 1 Z r" � 1 .F_� r- m T m Z I I z O G _ y m .'_ m Ocn rDT_- N m N O D r �� o W D �� r r�W ' m n = o D m O c .t�l :1) N m O CY) CD w U m O rn m Q� m -� m r z m m D z C7 r r = O n r r o r D / O / z \ / D / r G) m / D < r r ..A Cp 0 t m r T I N r r m Ni Ln I0 m N o � m 1 Q Cl) J 10 , Z D Oz O O -1 D -I m z -0 cDi, O� O m Z �C) Cl) �O M rm- CQ G) m < m RBI O D m D r m 0 D y m O 0 o O p Z G) m D m z m 0 p z m 0 � cn W Cf) Cl) m m C) O z Z • n 70 O m O z 0 U� V) m I 0 C/) 0 Cl) m 0 --q 0 z T m CROSS SECTION F-F mr-� SCALE: 1" = 50' TOS TP-1 170' -- TPA TP-3 TP-2 , FINE SAND WITH OCCASSIONAL GRAVEL FINE SAND (Qva/Qe) NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS. GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS TOS EXPLANATION: TP-1 - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT RELATIVE TO CROSS SECTION TOS - TOP OF SLOPE Qva/Qe - VASHON GLACIAL ADVANCE DEPOSITS/ESPERANCE SAND 170' - BEGINNING ELEVATION OF CROSS SECTION . VISTA DEL MAR FILE NO. I DATE 1015A93 FIGURE 8 04/20/93 l� f f I I �. I I I I I FIGURE VISTA DEL MAR 9 I NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FILE NO. DATE 04/20/93 101 SA93 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP GROUP NAME SYMBOL COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GW WELL GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO conasE GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50^h OF GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL SOILS COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON N0. 4 GRAVEL WITH GM SILTY GRAVEL SIEVE FINES MORE THAN 50^h GC CLAYEY GRAVEL RETAINED ON THE SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO N0, 200 SEIVE SAND CLEAN SAND COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND WITH SM SILTY SAND 1/SILT 6MORE THAN 50 " OF COARSE FRACTION FINES PASSES N0, 4 SIEVE Sc CLAYEY SAND FINE SILT AND CLAY ML SILT CL CLAY GRAINED INORGANIC SOILS ORGANIC QL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50"� MH OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC MORE THAN 50'f6 SILT AND CLAY SILT CH CLAY OF NIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY PASSES ON THE N0. 200 SEIVE INORGANIC LIQUID LIMIT ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT 50"�+ OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1, FIELD CLASSIFICATION IS BASED ON VISUAL EXAMINATION OF SOIL IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE DRY •ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY WITH ASTM D2488-83. TO THE TOUCH 2. SOIL CLASSIFICATION USING LABORATORY TESTS MOIST -DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER IS BASED ON ASTM D2487.83. 3, DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY WET •VISIDLE FREE WATER OR SATURATED, ARE BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF DLOWCOUNT USUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED FROM BELOW WATER TABLE DATA, VISUAL APPEARANCE OF SOILS, AND/OR TEST DATA. 0 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH TEST PIT ONE 0.0 - 0.1 0.1 - 1.0 1.0 - 4.0 4.0 - 10.0 TEST PIT TWO 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 2,5 2.5 - 5.0 5.0 - 10.0 TEST PIT THREE 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 10.0 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 - 0.2 0.2. 1.5 1.5. 10.0 USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL SP/SM DARK BROWN TO BLACK FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST) SP SLIGHTLY DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TOPSOIL SP/SM DARK BROWN TO BLACK FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP/SM BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP RUST TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH WOOD DEBRIS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TOPSOIL SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST TO DRY) SP RUST FINE SAND WITH ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST TO DRY) SP RUST FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO HARD, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TOPSOIL SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 419/93 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 10 I, LOG OF EXPLORATION , DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION ITEST PIT FIVE 0.0 - 0.3 TOPSOIL I0.3 - 1.5 SP/SM BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, DRY) 1.5 - 8.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY) GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 419/93 TEST PIT SIX I 0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2 - 0.5 SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS I (LOOSE, MOIST) 0.5 - 2.0 SP DARK BROWN TO RUST FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 2.0 - 6.0 SP RUST TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT SEVEN G.0 - 0.3 TOPSOIL 0.3 - 0.5 SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) 0.5 - 6.0 SP RUSTY LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT EIGHT 0.0 - 0.4 TOPSOIL I0.4 - 1.5 SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) 1.5 - 7,0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 7.0 - 10.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) j GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT NINE 0.0 - 0.4 TOPSOIL 0.4 - 1.0 i SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) 1.0 - 7.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 419193 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 11 LOG OF EXPLORATION • DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT TEN 0.0 -0.4 TOPSOIL 0.4 - 6.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 6.0-7.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 7.0. 8.5 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.5 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT ELEVEN 0.0. 0.5 SP/SM TOPSOIL 0.5.8.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 419/93 TEST PIT TWELVE 0.0 - 0.3 TOPSOIL 0.3 - 5.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 5.0 - 6.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT THIRTEEN 0.0. 0.5 TOPSOIL 0.5 - 3.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MESIUM DENSE, MOIST) 3.0 - 5.0 ML GRAY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL SAND (STIFF, MOIST TO DRY) 5.0 - 6.0 SW LIGHT BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND ( DENSE, DRY) 6.0 -8.0 SW LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (VERY DENSE, DRY) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT FOURTEEN 0.0 - 0.3 TOPSOIL 0.3.6.0 SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES 6.0 - 10.0 ML GRAY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL LENSES OFGRAVEL AND SAND (STIFF, MOIST) NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 12 0 LOG OF EXPLORATION • DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST FIT FIFTEEN 0.0 -1.5 DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) 1.5 - 6.0 SW BROWN TO RUST FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND FINE AND OCCASIONAL LENSES OF GRAY SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 6.0 - 9.0 SP GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT SIXTEEN 0.0 -0.7 DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) 0.7 - 6.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (LOOSE, MOIST) 6.0 - 7.0 SW BROWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 7.0 - 10.5 SP GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.5 ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT SEVENTEEN 0.0 - 0.4 SPISM DARK BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) 0.4 - 11.5 SPISM DARK GRAY TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES, GRAVEL AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (CONCRETE AND ASPHALT) (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 11.5 - 12.0 SP RUST FINE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (NATIVE SOIL) GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 12.0 ON 4/9/93 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 13 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 e FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Inc 189Q) Engineering Division February 8, 2010 Ross Marturano 18006 Kairez Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 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 Comeast This letter is to inform 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 properties 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 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, 9&Q- Jeanie McConnell Engineering Program Manager Vista ®el Mar Properties -,c c: ADDRESSED OFF 178TH PL SW ADDRESSED OFF KAIREZ DR 0 100 200 Feet I I I I I I By: GC/01.13.2010 Snohomish County, WA Ass 0r Parcel Data 0 Page 1 of 2 Snohomishftlirie Government Information & Services County4* washinpton * R E A L M Property Information County 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 1:13:27 PM Answers to Frequently Asked Questions about Parcel Data (opens as new window) Return to Property Information Entry page Parcel Number 00914200000100 Prev Parcel Reference IF - View Man of this parcel (opens as new window) General Information Taxpayer Name 11 Address (contact the Treasurer if you have questions) MARTURANO ROSS P 1118006 KAIREZ DR - - - EDMONDS, WA 98026-5341 If the above mailing address is incorrect and you want to make a change, see the information on Name and Address Changes Owner Name 11 Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions) MARTURANO ROSS P 1118006 KAIREZ DR - - - EDMONDS, WA 98020 If the above name and address is incorrect due to a recent sale, please see the infonnation on Name and Address Changes After a Sale Street (Situs) Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions) 18006 KAIREZ DR--- EDMONDS, WA 98026-5341 Parcel Legal Description Section 18 Township 27 Range 04 Quarter NW VISTA DEL MAR BLK 000 D-00 - LOT 1 TGW EQ & UND INT IN KAIREZ DR Go to top of page 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 $7,113.21 (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 pne 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 ONLY about property characteristics or property values (NOT taxes), please contact the Assessor's Office Property Values do not reflect adjustments made due to an exemption, such as a senior or disabled persons Values exemption. http://web5. co. snohoinish.wa.uslpropsyslasr-tr-propinglPip1ngO2-ParcelData. asp?PN=0091. 2/8/2010 ^Snohomish County, WA Ass r Parcel Data E Reductions for exemptions are made on the property tax bill. Tax Year 2010 Market Land $395,3001 Market Improvement $416,500 Go to top of page Valuation, Payment, and Property Tax History View Histo (opens as new window) Go to top of Dage Property Characteristics Tax Code Area (TCA) 00217 View Taxing Districts for this Parcel (opens as new window) use code 111 Single Family Residence- Detached Size Basis ACRE size 0.28 (Size may include undivided interest in common tracts and road parcels) Go to top of page Property Structures Type Yr.Built Structure Description Dwelling 2002 2 Story View Structure Data (opens as new window) Go to top of pne Property Sales since 7/31/1999 Explanation of Sales Information (opens as new window) Page 2 of 2 Market Total $811,800 Sales data is based solely upon excise affidavits processed by the Assessor. Transfer Receipt Sales Excise Deed Grantor (Seller) Grantee (Buyer) Date Date Price Number Type 10/7/2003 10/10/2003 $770,000 283362 W STROMME MARTURANO ROSS P CONSTRUCTION LLC 3/15/2002 3/18/2002 $300,000 462917 W RANTA LAURANCE STROMME CONSTRUCTION LLC 8/9/2001 3/12/2001 $0 262930 QC GEORGE KAIREZ VISTA DEL MAR LLC 11/8/2000 11/8/2000 $225,000 458150 W GEORGE P KAIREZ LAURENCE & SONIA RANTA Go to top of. age Property Maps Township/Range/Section/Quarter, links to maps Nainhhnrhood 1504000 Explanation of Neighborhood Code (opens as new wundow) Township 27 Range 04 section 18 Quarter NW Find parcel maps for this Township/Range/Section View Mau of this parcel (opens as new window) Other Parcels No No No No http://web5.co. snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinq/PrpIngO2-ParcelData.asp?PN=0091... 2/8/2010 Lie — *FIELD REPORT NELSON Project: Vista Del Mar Lot 1 File No.: 327201 GEOTECHNICAL Owner: Soundview Homes Date: 5/21/01 ASSOCIATES, INC Location: Edmonds Report No: 1 17311 135T" Ave. NE #A-500 Weather: Sunny Page 1 of 1 Woodinville, WA 98072 Purpose of Evaluation Surface Soils G (425) 486-1669 FAX 481-2510 Visit: By: TRC ve We visited the site today at the request of Dennis Parker for the purpose of evaluating the surface soils of Lot 1 of the Vista Del Mar project. We, as Nelson-Couvrette & Associates (NCA), have previously issued a geotechnical evaluation of the Vista Del Mat development, dated April 26, 1993. We have not monitored grading or placement of fill at the development. We understand that the City of Edmonds has requested that a geotechnical engineer evaluate this lot for stability as a part their plan review. We met Dennis at the site, and discussed his plans for lot development. A single-family residence is planned in the central portion of the lot. We observed that the development has been graded, and an asphalt cul-de-sac access road has been constructed. Lot 1 is located at the east end of the site, between Olympic View Drive and the newly constructed access road. The main portion of the lot slopes gently from Olympic View Drive down toward the access road. Using a pea level, we measured the inclination of the lot as 12%. For approximately the 25 feet of the lot adjacent to the access road, the lot slopes at roughly a 3 Horizontal 1 Vertical inclination down to the access road. Dennis informed us that construction of a sidewalk was planned for the north side of the road, and possibly a rockery up to 4 feet tall. He indicated that the final slope between the gently sloping portion of the lot and the sidewalk would be no steeper than 3 Horizontal : 1 Verticap. The grade of the portion of the lot near Olympic View Drive does not appear to have been altered significantly since mature trees remain undisturbed. Dennis told us that he had been informed that material had been cut from Lot 1, and that no fill had been placed on the lot. We did not observe any indication of surficial slope instability on the lot. In the NCA geotechnical evaluation of the development site, we encountered undocumented fill material in one of our subsurface explorations near Lot 1. Based on that exploration, it was our opinion that the undocumented fill material extended along the south portion of Lot 1. We recommended that we be retained to observe foundation excavations in the location of the fill material. We did not explore the subsurface soil conditions of Lot 1 for the preparation of this field report. We did not monitor site grading. We do not know if all the undocumented fill has been removed from Lot 1 or if structural fill has been placed on the lot. We should be retained to evaluate the foundation subgrade soils after footing excavations have been made. STREE'T FILE Attachment: RECEIVED Signed: Distribution: AUG 2 9 2001 PERMIT C4t1M 1 1 Fi GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EVALUATION PROPOSED MEYER RESIDENCE 18006 KAIREZ DRIVE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PREPARED FOR MR. LOUIS MEYER C� 1 1 � I 1 N A ' 17311 —13V" Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 . (425) Fax 481-2510 August 5, 2004 Mr. Louis Meyer ' 20419 Dayton Avenue Seattle, Washington 98133-3028 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Meyer Residence 18006 Kairez Drive 11 iJ f' 1 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS Edmonds, Washington NGA File No. 397804 Dear Mr. Meyer: Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 We are pleased to submit this report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Proposed Meyer Residence — 18006 Kairez Drive — Edmonds, Washington." This report documents our subsurface explorations within the site and presents our opinions and recommendations for site grading, foundation support, and site drainage. Our services were completed in general accordance with the services agreement signed by you on August 2, 2004. We monitored the excavation of four test pits in the project area. Our explorations within the site indicate that the area beneath the planned residence is occupied by about 3 to 12 feet of undocumented fill and buried organic soil, underlain by competent native material. The fill layer appears to be thickest on the western edge of the planned building pad. The planned excavation for the basement and garage slab will remove much of the fill but we anticipate that several feet of fill and buried organic soil will remain under the western portion of the building footprint. From a geotechnical standpoint, we have concluded that the planned residential project is feasible. However, due to the thick layer of fill and organics, we have recommended that the western side of the proposed residence be supported on pin piles extending down into the native soil to transfer the building loads through the undocumented fill down onto the native soils. Alternatively, this footing line could be excavated through the fill and organics and supported on medium dense native soils underlying the fill and buried topsoil with concrete stem walls extending through the fill. The remainder of the residence foundations could also be supported on spread footings placed on native, competent soils or structural fill extending to these soils. Specific recommendations for design and installation of the piles and spread footings are included in the attached report. General site grading and drainage recommendations have also been provided in this report along with recommendations for retaining wall design and construction. r� r Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Summary - Page 2 ' It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or require further information. I Sincerely, Ved TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. hawish, PE Principal Three copies submitted F1 � I i I NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. r '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................1 SCOPE.........................................................................................................................................................1 SITECONDITIONS.................................................................................................................................. 2 SurfaceConditions.................................................................................................................................... 2 SubsurfaceConditions.............................................................................................................................. 2 HydrologicConditions................................................................................................................:............. 3 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION......................................................................................................... 4 SeismicHazard......................................................................................................................................... 4 ErosionHazard.......................................................................................................................................... 4 Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability.............................................................................................................. 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................... 5 General...................................................................................................................................................... 5 ErosionControl......................................................................................................................................... 6 Site Preparation and Grading.................................................................................................................... 6 TemporaryExcavations............................................................................................................................ 7 FoundationSupport ................................................................................................................................... 7 StructuralFill.......................................................................................................................................... 10 Slab-on-Grade......................................................................................................................................... 11 RetainingWalls....................................................................................................................................... 11 PavementSubgrade................................................................................................................................. 13 SiteDrainage........................................................................................................................................... 13 USEOF THIS REPORT..........................................................................................................................14 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Cross Section A -A' Figure 4 — Soil Classification Chart Figures 5 and 6 — Test Pit Logs NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. I� 1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation Proposed Meyer Residence 18006 Kairez Drive Edmonds, Washington INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation of your proposed single family residence in Edmonds, Washington. The project site is located at 18006 Kairez Drive, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. The site is also known as Lot 2 of the Vista Del Mar development. We, as Nelson-Couvrette and Associates, prepared a geotechnical report for the Vista Del Mar project dated April 26, 1993. We were also involved in construction monitoring of earthwork activities in this development. The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the surface and subsurface conditions within the project site and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed residence. For our use in preparing this report we have been provided with plan sheets A-8 dated June 30, 2004, by Christianson Design Research, C-2 dated June 30, 2004 and S-1, S-2, and S-3, dated June 28, 2004, by JRR Engineering. We have also been provided with an electronic file for a drawing titled "Site plan for Louis and Lynn Meyer," dated June 25, 2004, by Green Land Surveying. The planned development will consist of a new single family residence with a daylight basement, a garage, and a driveway crossing the southern portion of the lot. We understand that the residence will consist of a slab -on -grade with concrete retaining walls and wood frame construction. SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site surface and subsurface conditions, and provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed residential construction. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: 1. Review our previous report for the Vista Del Mar project. 2. Explore the site subsurface soil and ground water conditions with trackhoe excavated test pits. The trackhoe was provided by our client. 3. Provide recommendations for site grading and earthwork including structural fill. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1� Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 2 4. Provide recommendations for foundation support. 5. Provide recommendations for slabs -on -grade. 6. Provide recommendations for drainage and erosion control. 7. Provide recommendations for retaining wall design. 8. Document our findings, observations, and recommendations in a written geotechnical . engineering report. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The site is an irregularly shaped lot and covers approximately one -quarter acre. The site is bordered by Kairez Drive on the west, an existing residence on the south, and undeveloped residential lots to the north. The site layout is shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. The lot is located on a west -facing slope overlooking Puget Sound. The eastern and central portions of the lot form a gently sloping building pad and yard area. Along the west edge of the lot a 211:1V (2Horizontal:lVertical) slope descends about 12 feet to the street elevation. An east -west cross section of the site showing the existing grade, planned residence, and interpreted subsurface conditions is presented as Cross Section A -A' in Figure 3. The lot has been cleared of most trees and brush and is vegetated with grass. We noted a stump near our exploration in the southeast portion of the site. Subsurface Conditions Geology: The geologic units for this area are shown on the Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington, by James P. Minard (U.S.G.S., 1983). The site is mapped as advance outwash (Qva). Contacts with glacial till (Qvt), recessional outwash, and transition beds (Qtb) are also mapped near the site. Advance outwash is described as mostly clean pebbly sand deposited by meltwater streams in front of an advancing glacier. Our explorations generally encountered fill underlain by native sand with trace gravel and silt. Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on July 8, 2004 by excavating four test holes to depths ranging from 7.3 to 12.0 feet below the existing surface using a small trackhoe. The approximate locations of our explorations are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. An engineer from NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC, Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 3 Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. (NGA) was present during the explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the soil, and maintained logs of the explorations. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, presented in Figure 4. The logs of the borings are attached to this report and are presented as Figures 5 and 6. We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraphs. For a detailed description of the subsurface conditions, the exploration logs should be reviewed. Each of the explorations encountered a thin surficial layer of sod and organic soil extending about 0.2 feet below the ground surface. Underlying the surficial organics, TP-1 and TP-2 in the eastern portion of the site exposed loose silty sand with gravel and debris, interpreted as fill, extending to about 3 to 4 feet below the surface. Underlying the fill, these explorations exposed medium dense sand with silt and trace gravel interpreted as native outwash material. Underlying the surficial organics, TP-3 and TP-4 in the western portion of the site exposed sand with silt, interpreted as fill, extending to about 1 to 2 feet below the surface. Underlying the sand fill, these explorations exposed loose to medium dense silty sand with gravel and trace debris, also interpreted as fill, extending 9.8 to 10.5 feet below the existing ground surface. Underlying the fill, these explorations exposed loose dark brown silty sand with abundant organics that was interpreted as buried topsoil and extended to 11.0 to 11.8 feet below the surface. Underlying the buried topsoil, these explorations exposed medium dense sand with trace silt interpreted as native outwash material. Hydrologic Conditions We did not encounter ground water seepage in our explorations. However we would anticipate that during extended periods of wet weather perched water may exist in the site soils. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of underlying, less permeable soils. On this site, the more permeable soils would consist of loose sand fill materials. The less permeable materials consist of the silty sand fill materials. Perched water does not represent a regional ground water "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 water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods. The native sand materials appear to be well drained. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 4 SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard ' The project is located within Zone 3 of the Seismic Zone Map shown as Figure 16-2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). This corresponds to a Seismic Zone Factor, Z, of 0.3. Since medium dense well - drained sand materials were encountered underlying the site, the site conditions best fit the UBC description for Soil Profile Type SD. Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground ' motion. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the ground water table. The medium dense well -drained sand materials interpreted to underlie the site are considered ' to have a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion. However, the overlying loose fill materials in the western portion of the site are considered to have a moderate potential for surficial ' sloughing failures during seismic events. Accordingly, our recommendations for foundation placement should be followed to reduce the potential impact to the structure as a result of ground motion. IErosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes soil type, slope gradient, ' vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to the vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil ' Survey, 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 mapped for this site were classified by the SCS classification system as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes and 25 to 70 percent slopes. In our opinion, the fill materials on this site are also similar to the description of the Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loams. These soils are listed as having a moderate to high erosion hazard if exposed. All undisturbed, vegetated areas should have a low hazard for erosion, depending on how surface water is controlled on the site. Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability The criteria used for evaluation of landslide hazards include soil type, slope gradient, and groundwater conditions. A fill slope with a gradient of up to approximately 27 degrees (51 percent) exists in the western area of the site. We understand that a Hilfiker wall was installed to support the road fill for NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 5 Kairez Drive west of this lot. We did not observe groundwater seepage on the slope at the time of our visit. The surficial soils in the fill embankment along the western portion of the site may consist of loose to medium dense fill soils. It is our opinion that while there is potential for soil creep and shallow sloughing on the western slope; there is not a significant potential for deep-seated slope instability. Grading on this site should, however, be completed in a manner that enhances slope stability. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General It is our opinion, from a geotechnical standpoint, that the site is generally compatible with the planned development. Our explorations within the site indicate that the area beneath the planned residence is occupied by about 3 to 12 feet of undocumented fill and buried organic soil, underlain by competent native material. The fill layer appears to be thickest on the western edge of the planned building pad. The planned excavation for the basement and garage slab will remove much of the fill but we anticipate that several feet of fill and buried organic soil will remain under the western portion of the building footprint. There is potential for settlement if structures are supported on these materials. To avoid problems related to fill settlement and subsidence we recommend that the western foundation line of the residence be supported on pin piles. Supporting the footings on pin piles extending down to the native soils should limit this settlement potential. This is further discussed in the Pin Piles subsection of this report. Alternatively, this footing line could be excavated through the fill and organics. Conventional spread footings could be supported on medium dense native soils underlying the fill with concrete stem walls extending through the fill. The remainder of the residence foundations could also be conventional spread footings supported on native competent material or structural fill extending to the native soils. Our observations at the site indicate that the fill contains some substantial roots, cobbles, and debris. There is a possibility that this material may obstruct some piles. There should be contingencies in the budget and design for additional/relocated piles to replace piles that may be obstructed by debris in the fill. Slab. on grade subgrade should be stripped of any fill or loose material and the slab supported on competent native soils or structural fill extending to these soils, if future settlement or cracking of the slab can not be tolerated. If some slab settlement and future maintenance can be tolerated, the slab could be NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 �I J 1 1 I� Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 39.7804 Page 6 reinforced and supported on the existing fill. Alternatively, a portion of the fill could be removed and replaced with rock or structural fill to further reduce settlement potential under the slab. 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 slope 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 additional erosion control and temporary drainage measures to protect the slope, placement of a blanket of rock spalls to protect exposed subgrades, and the need for importing all-weather materials for structural fill. Erosion Control The on -site soils can have a high potential for erosion, depending 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. Measures taken may include diverting surface water away from the stripped areas. Silt fences or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from flowing over the site slopes or onto the adjacent road. Disturbed areas should be replanted with vegetation at the end of construction. The vegetation should be maintained until established. Final grading should incorporate appropriate erosion control measures to route stormwater runoff away from the top of slopes and to appropriate discharge locations. Site Preparation and Grading Site preparation should consist of stripping any topsoil, undocumented fill, or loose soils to expose medium dense or better native, material in foundation and slab -on -grade areas, where deep foundation support is not planned. The stripped material should be hauled off -site. If the ground surface, after 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 reworked to structural fill specifications or over - excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction, this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed and the exposed subgrade maintained in a semi -dry condition. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 ii 1 J Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 7 Slab -on -grade subgrade should be stripped of any fill or loose material and the slab supported on competent native soils or structural fill extending to these soils, if future settlement or cracking of the slab can not be tolerated. If some slab settlement and future maintenance can be tolerated, the slab could be reinforced and supported on the existing fill. Alternatively, a portion of the fill could be removed and replaced with rock or structural fill to further reduce potential settlement under the slab. The slab should be additionally reinforced to reduce settlement -related distress. Temporary Excavations Temporary excavation stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of soils, depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of surface or ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable, temporary, cut -slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water conditions encountered. Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes no responsibility for job site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor. Cut slope heights and inclinations should conform to WISHA/OSHA standards. We are available to provide consultation during construction regarding safe excavation inclinations. We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut slopes with plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. If safe inclinations can not be met due to property line constraints and/or worker access issues, we recommend that shoring be considered for the planned cuts. Foundation Support General: Our explorations within the site indicate that the area beneath the planned residence is occupied by about 3 to 12 feet of undocumented fill and buried organic soil, underlain by competent native material. The fill layer appears to be thickest on the western edge of the planned building pad. The planned excavation for the basement and garage slab will remove much of the fill but we anticipate that several feet of fill and buried organic soil will remain under the western portion of the building footprint. There is potential for settlement if structures are supported on these materials. To avoid problems related NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 ' NGA File No. 397804 Page 8 to fill settlement and subsidence we recommend that the western foundation line be supported on pin piles extending down into the native soils. Alternatively, this footing line could be excavated through the fill ' and organics. Conventional spread footings could be supported on medium dense native soils underlying the fill with concrete stem walls extending through the fill. The remainder of the residence foundations ' could also be conventional spread footings supported on native competent material or structural fill extending to the native soils. ' Pin piles should provide adequate vertical support for the foundations, but would not provide meaningful lateral resistance. Lateral loads should be resisted by either battering some of the piles and/or by passive ' resistance or friction on the portions of the foundation that are not pile supported. ' Our observations at the site indicate that the fill contains some substantial roots and debris. There is a possibility that these materials may obstruct some piles. There should be contingencies in the budget and ' design for additional/relocated piles to replace piles that may be obstructed by debris in the fill. ' Pin Piles: We provide allowable pile loads and installation recommendations for 2-, 3-, and 4-inch diameter pipe piles in the paragraphs below. ' For 2-inch pipe piles driven to refusal using a hand-held, 90-pound jackhammer, we recommend a design axial compression capacity of two tons for each pile. The refusal criterion for this pile and hammer size is ' defined as less than one inch of movement during 60 seconds of continuous driving. We recommend using extra strong (Schedule 80) steel pipe for the 2-inch diameter pipe piles. ' We recommend that 3-inch pipe piles be driven using a tractor -mounted hydraulic hammer with an energy rating of at least 850 foot -lb. For this pile diameter and hammer size, we recommend a design ' axial compression capacity of five tons for each pile driven to refusal. The refusal criterion for this pile and hammer size is defined as less than one inch of movement during 20 seconds of continuous driving. We recommend that 4-inch pipe piles be driven using a tractor -mounted hydraulic hammer, with an energy rating of at least 1,100 foot -lb. For this pile and hammer size, we recommend a design capacity of eight tons for each pile driven to refusal. The refusal criterion for this pile and hammer size is defined as ' less than one inch of movement during 20 seconds of continuous driving. NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 11 LI Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 9 The above design capacities for the 3- and 4-inch diameter piles are based on theoretical numerical pile driving analysis. If higher pile capacities are desired, we recommend that a minimum of one pile load test be performed to verify the higher design values. We recommend that the piles be loaded to at least 200 percent of the design capacity, and that we be retained to observe the pile load test. A factor of safety of two could be used to reduce the ultimate capacity achieved from the pile load test to a design capacity. Actual pile load test procedures could be discussed with your contractor at the time of testing. We do not recommend using a design capacity of more than seven tons for 3-inch pin piles and 10 tons for 4-inch pin piles, regardless of the outcome of the pile load tests. We should be retained to review final plans, monitor installation of the piles, and evaluate pile refusal as well as pile load tests. Final pile depths should be expected to vary somewhat and will depend on the actual depth of the existing fill and nature of the underlying competent soils and ground water conditions. The pin piles should penetrate a minimum of five feet into the native soil in order to develop the design capacity. Piles that do not meet this minimum embedment criterion or piles that are obstructed on debris in the fill should be rejected, and replacement piles should be driven after consulting with the structural engineer on the new pile locations. Due to the relatively small slenderness ratio of pin piles, maintaining pin pile confinement and lateral support is essential to preventing pile buckling. Pin piles should not stick above finished ground surface. Shallow Foundations: For the portion of the residence supported on shallow spread footings, these footings should be supported 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 above. 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 16 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 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. f] 11 u U I� Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 10 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 (psf) be used for the footing design for footings founded on the stiff/medium dense or better native soils or structural fill extending to the native competent material. A representative of our firm should evaluate the foundation bearing soil. We should be consulted if higher bearing pressures are needed. Current Uniform Building Code (UBC) 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 20 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 passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. This level surface should 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 footing lines supported on pin piles. Structural Fill General: Fill placed beneath foundation slabs, pavement, 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 performance of a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. C CIS Ci I� I� r-, Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 11 should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report, prior to beginning fill placement. 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 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 on -site soils as structural fill may be feasible, but will be depend on the moisture content of these materials at the time of construction. We should be retained to evaluate on site material proposed for use as structural fill prior to construction. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All fill placement should be accomplished in uniform 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 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 The slab subgrade should be prepared as discussed in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches of free -draining sand or gravel 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. A two-inch layer of damp sand could be placed over the vapor barrier to aid in curing the concrete. Retaining Walls 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 NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 U 1 Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 12 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 35 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 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 loads, footing lines, slopes, or other surface loads. We could consult with you and your structural engineer regarding additional loads on retaining wails 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 six-inch loose lifts and compacting it 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 lessened 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. The above lateral pressures assume drained backfill. 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 drainage systems. NELSON GEOTECHN/CAL ASSOCIATES, INC. �I �7, Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 13 Pavement Subgrade A driveway is planned to provide access from Kairez Drive. The pavement area preparation and grading should be completed as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection of this report. After the pavement subgrade has been stripped of unsuitable materials, structural fill can be placed to the planned pavement subgrade elevations. To lessen the potential for frost heave damage and to aid in extending the useful life of the pavement, it is prudent to place a subbase course consisting of six inches of compacted clean pit run sand and gravel on the prepared subgrade prior to construction of the pavement section. The gravel subbase and crushed rock base materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D-1557. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the top of the steep slope and the structure. Runoff generated on this site should be collected and routed into a permanent discharge system. Subsurface Drainage: Our explorations did not encounter groundwater seepage during our site visit on July 8, 2004. 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 the water can be pumped out and routed into a permanent storm drain. Chronic water seepage conditions may be controlled through the use of cut-off or "French" type drains. The need, extent, and actual design of such systems will depend on prevailing conditions. This can be evaluated at the time of construction. We recommend the use of footing drains around structures. Footing drains should be installed at least one foot below planned finished floor elevations. 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. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain material or drainage composite may also 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 impermeable soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and �I NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 0 n n Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 14 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 Louis Meyer and his agents, for use in the planning and design of the residence 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 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 18006 Kairez Drive, Edmonds, WA August 5, 2004 NGA File No. 397804 Page 15 It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require further information, please call. Sincerely, NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. 1A-Z Mike Rundquist Project Engineer Khaled M. Shawish, PE Principal MDR:KMS:lam Six Figures Attached NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. N Project Site D � a 0� A Quo m o'y o ( a N fBSfAp� S•� St W t7 St S W /y++ 87!L_1 t SW Q,7� � erri Jc61Y m a a° a d fi St G Q aD o 11 a ao \\ ¢ t9tsf 1 � � 00 Sfo ,per m •�� Or CL h p pu O �9Bfh m ~� :ap/riyni �� 19"y""�-199r, (711 �fUGfL :'UfpofaCl9fl tirla/9f IL: stl(J(Jllrf �. �dl flLJfriL•:' f::fI ��a. � / a 0 w w w rn `w T 0/ Not to Scale J V f- 01 0 UQ S j Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK g 397804 Planned Meyer Residence NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. ' 7/1g/04 Original BWN OR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS @ Figure 1 Vicinity Map 17311-135N A. NE, A-500 SroMmIM County (425) 337-1669 Q WooWro4b. WA 98072 W.atdroe211elen (509) 781-2756 (� (425) 486-16691 F. 451.2510 www.(rolwrg-l.rh.mn Z /) Z � \ I�00 O X C a O •- +. a Q Q p o U o cv ® ~ O N L ' Z O E II I' / I CO N O a)O O o C E CL () ' 04 LU Z -J Q o ui r(aL �J�i • - �_ . _ U) \ ,1 a o C \ - \ I J NL C ' J / f0 c n . c� , 1 1 I N I ' tt�ili c 1 - N— — J ' f _�_ \ C C I I C� ' IIa I II 0 ` \\ I I I I ° I (u �r — - — - — — N a. ti -- a ' ( F- I \ x N O T` aD 0 f0 \ — N cc N � \ O KAIR11Z DR (92ND OL W) I I arcs N -I- - - - ' Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL NO. Date Revision By CK g' 397804 Planned Meyer Residence NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 7,1,04 Original BWN MDR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 2 8/2/04 Edits AJD MDR 1 Figure 2 Site Plan 17311-135th NE.A-500 600tnniNCo ty(425>337.160 0 WaeWrnBk. WA 96672 Wwatd—Chelan (5091784-2756 Q (425) 466.1669 / F. 461-2510—.ml—V-fwh— (D Z LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH (FEET) USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE 0.0 - 0.2 SOD AND TOPSOIL 0.2 - 2.0 SM GRAY BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ASPHALT DEBRIS (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) 2.0-4.0 SM LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND TRACE GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 4.0 - 7.3 SP BROWN TO GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO DRY) (OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.0, 2.5, AND 7.0 FEET GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.3 FEET ON 7/08/04 TEST PIT TWO 0.0 - 0.2 SOD AND TOPSOIL 0.2-2.8 SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) 2.8-7.5 SP LIGHT BROWN IRON -OXIDE -STAINED FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 2.0 AND 5.0 FEET GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.5 FEET ON 7/08/04 TEST PIT THREE 0.0 - 0.2 SOD AND TOPSOIL 0.2 - 2.0 SM BROWN IRON -OXIDE -STAINED FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) 2.0 -10.5 SM GRAY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND. WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE DEBRIS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 10.5-11.8 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH ABUNDANT ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST TO WET) (BURIED TOPSOIL) 11.8 - 12.0 SP BROWN IRON -OXIDE -STAINED FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO DRY) (OUTWASH) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0, 11.0, AND 11.9 FEET GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 12.0 FEET ON 7/08/04 , am,z NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 397804 FIGURE 5 rLOG ' DEPTH (FEET) USC OF EXPLORATION SOIL DESCRIPTION ' TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 - 0.2 SOD AND TOPSOIL ' 0.2 -1.5 SM BROWN IRON -OXIDE -STAINED FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) 1.5 - 9.8 SM GRAY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND TRACE DEBRIS (LOOSE TO ' MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 9.8-11.0 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH ABUNDANT ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST TO WET) (BURIED TOPSOIL) ' 11.0 -11.5 SP BROWN IRON -OXIDE -STAINED FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO DRY) (OUTWASH) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 11.3 FEET GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED ' TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 11.5 FEET ON 7/08/04 1 1 r 1 r r r r r r rMDR NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO 397804 rFIGURE 6 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP NAME 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 SP 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 SAND WITH FINES CLAYEY FINE- SILT AND CLAY ML SILT INORGANIC GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT CL 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 NELSON GEOTECHINICAL No. Date Revision By CK 397804 Meyer Residence Soil Classification Chart NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS 1 7/19/04 Original BWN MDR Figure 4 17311-135th Avs NE,A-500 Sroho ilhC—ty(425)337-1889 Woodlmdb,WA98072 W.Wrhae/Ch le (W9)781-2756 (125) 08-18891 F. 481-2510 w'nw.nMaonprolxf.wm 03/26/2002 19:39 4258289443 HAVE A GREAT DAY PAGE 01 I i GEOSCIEN ES INC. b C E I V E Post Office Box 2385 Kirkland, WA 98083 ` '? 7 2002 Telephone (425) 827--1084 ; DAILY FIELD REPO 1T C OUf�TER TRIP CHARGE JOB NO, TIME ON SITE 3 JQgTITLB TIME OFF SITE PAGE of P.O. a WEATHER �.. y ON P ITN ER JOB LOCATION VG4 1 w �„/ Ci z P V'C CLENT/OWNER � 3 25o�.. DAY Of WEEK DNA, GE ERAL CONTRACTOR GE RAL CONTRACIOR'3 SUPT A v cr T`'n0A. ON -SITE? Y VISITo S o +f ..+^ i C--j ni c. ,✓ ---- S ESE r MAC a NEXT SITE VISIT: w COPY TO: SIGNATV 0•1 W N (A3 a O 0 W? N(nZ .� o- 0 U1� S m p co 0 Z m 0 to .p �i WE - rn 0 W N t0 M 1 SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTATION SERVICES KAIREZ VISTA EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 11 11 1 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS t 17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500 Snohomish County (206) 794-4332 Woodinville, WA 96072 (206) 486.1669 • FAX481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 May 9, 1994 1 ' Mr. George Kairez P.O. Box 3197 Lynnwood, Washington 98046 Letter Supplemental Geotechnical Consultation Services tKariez Vista Edmonds, Washington ' NCA File No. 10151394 Dcar Mr. Kairez: ' INTRODUCTION This letter presents the results of our supplemental geotechnical evaluation for your proposed Vista Del Mar subdivision in Edmonds. The site is located north of Olympic View Drive and includes six lots adjacent to the top of a steep slope. We have previously performed a geotechnical evaluation of this ' property and have issued a report, dated April 26, 1993. The City of Edmonds has requested additional geotechnical information regarding the planned development. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. has ' provided us with a set of current development plans, with a copy date of April 27, 1994; and a letter prepared by Jeffery S. Wilson, AICP of the City of Edmonds, dated April 20, 1994; for our use in preparing this letter. ' f i concerns raised b the City of Edmonds is the use of a smaller distance for the buffer zone One o die co y y , ' (building setback) for the six lots adjacent to the slope. We understand that you plan to apply for a "Reasonable Use Exception" pursuant to ECDC Chapter 20.15B. This letter has been written to furnish additional explanations of our design recommendations, which include the 25 foot setback, provided in our ' original report. We also provide other geotechnical recommendations for the suitability of a wall to ---,support the roadway at the west entrance, impacts that the planned storm drain will have on the existing ' sanitary sewer line, and the design of the pond facility. ' Supplemental Geotechnical Osultation Services • Kariez Vista May 9, 1994 ' . NCA Pile No. 1O15B94 Page 2 Project Description ' The planned subdivision consists of 15 lots on a parcel approximately 7 acres in size. Six of the lots are located at the top of a steep slope. A Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way is located at the toe of the slope. The current plans provided show elevations of the hillside and railroad. A 30 foot building setback ' is planned from the edge of the steep slope. We understand that the planned building setback has been increased to 30 feet to allow additional space for the storm line, which is planned along the top of the slope. 1 The site storm lines, in some places, will parallel the slope and be approximately 10 feet east of the existing tsanitary storm line. The storm line is planned to be approximately 25 feet from the top of the slope. All of the storm water for the site will be directed in this line to the north into a pond. The pond will be located between lots 13 and 15. The pond will be excavated below the existing ground surface. The maximum ' water elevation is shown as 97 feet with the bottom elevation of 94 feet. A 4 to 5 foot rockery is planned along the west and north sides of the pond. Slopes with the inclination of 3 Horizontal to 1 Vertical (H:V) ' are planned along the east and south sides. ' The main access road that crosses a shallow swale, in the southern portion of the site, will require a reinforced soil wall or some other type of retaining structure. A reinforced soil wall on the west side of the road fill is planned. The wall face will be approximately 17 to 18 feet above the existing surface. The face ' of the wall will be located approximately 4 feet from the property tine. The reinforced soil wall has been designed by others. The road and storm drainage details in the plans show. the retaining wall location, ' elevations of the exposed face and a typical cross-section. ' A rockery or retaining wall is planned on the east side of lot 14; adjacent to the neighboring property. The rockery/wall will be no more than approximately 3 feet in height and will be cut into the slope. Your designers have informed us through telephone conversations that the rockery/wall will not be large enough ' to create excavation limits that cross the property line. ' Site Conditions Surface: Access on the slope is very difficult due to terrain and existing vegetation. The slope measurements were taken during our initial investigation with a hand tape and inclinometer and should be. ' considered accurate only to the degree implied by those instruments. With this in mind, we have compared the current topographic lines of the slope with our hand measurements. Besides a couple of elevation ' differences, the current hillside slope angle and distances were in general agreement with our measurements. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Supplemental Geotechnicalqksultation Services Kariez Vista ' May 9, .1994 NCA File No. 10151394 Page 3 We have recently visited the site, after receiving the plans showing the approximate location of the pond ' and roadway fill, to observe the surface conditions. The pond is planned between lots 13 and 15 in the northern portion of the property. The pond will be constructed by excavating below the existing surface. ' We observed that the site to the north has a courtyard, near the property line, approximately 30 to 40 feet lower than the pond elevation. If the pond is not lined, water may migrate to the north and cause seepage to ' occur in the neighboring property. The vegetation on the slope consists of deciduous trees and brush. We estimate the trees to have an age of ' about 20 to 30 years. We did not observe signs of instability on the bluff face. Some of the trees were tilted which indicates that some surficial soil creep occurs on the face of the bluff. We did not see signs of ' large scale movement of the trees. Signs of seepage from the bluff face or toe were also not observed. Indications that the existing sewer line has had an impact on the slope were not observed, except where we were told that water was allowed to run over the top of slope during construction. Evidence of a washout twas observed at that location. Impacts that could be attributed to the sewer trench would include seepage on the bluff face near the line and settling or movement of the edge of slope soils. We did not obverve any ' of these. The roadway fill is planned in a swale which runs in a southeast to northwest direction. The swale bottom ' is on the property, with the adjacent property to the west being higher in elevation. We did not observe any signs of instability in the area planned for the roadway fill. 1 Subsurface: The subsurface conditions, observed in our soil investigation, indicate that the site is ' underlain by clean sands with minor amounts of silt. We have interrupted the sands to be Advanced Outwash (Esperance Sand Unit) which was deposited prior to the glacial overrunning the area. These sands are typically compacted to a dense state, due to the weight of 3,000 to 4,000 feet of glacial ice which ' once rested on the soils. The outwash deposits have a moderately high to high internal friction angle if they are left in an undisturbed natural state, free of weathering. Internal friction angle is an engineering term ' that is used to evaluate internal strengths of a soil mass. Outwash exposed on slopes, without vegetative coverage, typically erodes causing a backwasting process of the slope. The backwasting process is very ' common in the shore line properties where the wave action undermines the toe of the slope. We performed four testpits during our initial investigation in the area of the planned roadway fill. Our ' explorations in this area show 1.5 to 4.0 feet of loose soils; with the top portion being 1.0 to 1.5 feet of root zone (high organics). NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Supplemental Geotechnicaltsultation Services • Kariez Vista ' May 9, 1994 NCA File No. 1015B94 Page 4 1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' General It is our opinion that the bluff is considered stable for the proposed residence building setback, using a normal structure life of at least 100 years. The bluff on -site is considered stable with respect to deep seated failures. The surficial stability of the slope is marginal in that we would expect sloughing of the face with time. This type of face failures is highly impacted by seepage on the bluff face. The sand that cores the ' bluff is fairly permeable and must extend below the toe of the slope, as we did not observe signs of seepage on the bluff. This lack of seepage, the fact that we did not observe indications of instability and that the vegetation is well established, indicates a low risk of frequent face failures. We expect that the occurrence of sloughing is in excess of 30 years. The roadway fill in the portion of the site should not create any instability with the surrounding conditions, provided recommendations in this report are followed. The surface soils need to be reworked in the area of tthe retaining wall face, to increase the allowable bearing pressure. This can be accomplished by compacting the exposed subgrade soils to a dense non -yielding state. It would be difficult to determine the seepage impacts from the pond. Because of the potential negative impacts to the slope and the downslope neighbors to the north, we recommend that the pond be lined. The ' liner could consist of either a soil or geosythetic. ' Steep Slope. The underlying glacial deposits have moderately high to high internal strength; when mostly covered with vegetation. Long -shore currents and wave action in this vicinity do not effect the toe of the slope due to the. 1 presence of the railroad beam. Typically, slopes like those found on -site are active due to the loss of the toe from wave action or some other weathering process. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the hillside is considered stable with respect to deep seated landslides or significant slope failures. This means that the slope should not expect large landslides affecting significant portions of the property, but rather ' more shallow surface slides which culminate in backwasting over the years. Some backwasting material has already stacked up against the hillside in the lower portions. This increases the stability of the toe of ' the slope with respect to further weathering. The building setback has been established with a reasonable life of the structure in consideration. The ' setback lines for the building and the planned storm alignment are located behind a line that is projected up from the toe of the slope on the order of 37 to 42 degrees. In our opinion this is a reasonable setback for NELSON-.COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Supplemental Geotechnical 9sultation Services Kariez Vista May 9, 1994 NCA File No. 1015B94 Page 5 this type of bluff condition. The planned buildings on the lots should not impact the existing slope conditions, providing the precautions outlined in our previous report are followed. The drainage of the surface water around the site will in effect decrease seepage into the slope soils which will further reduce the risk of slough events. The fact that the existing sanitary line does not show any signs of impacting the bluff, indicates that the ' planned storm drain system also would not impact the bluff. Sometimes .utility trenches intercept ground water and route it to other locations on site by allowing the water to flow through the coarse bedding ' material. The underlying free draining soils do not have ground water flow toward the bluff that would be expected to be intercepted by the storm water trench and routed to the bluff. However, a conservative t design would be to place a low permeable soil dam in the storm drain trench between lots 9 and 11 before the trench approaches the top of bluff. This dam could be relieved by routing a tightline pipe to the next lower catch basin. Although we do not expect ground water flowing into the trench, this would reduce the ' risk of some ground water source located further upslope from entering the trench bedding and flowing to the slope. The soil dam should be constructed of the same type of soils described in the Pond sub -section of this report. Although the existing sanitary sewer line does not appear to impact the slope stability and that the storm ' drain is also not expected to impact the slope, we strongly recommend that some precautions be taken during installation. All soil excavated from the trench should be placed on the uphill side of the trench. Fill ' and equipment should be kept from operating on the downhill side of the alignment.. Since there is a significant grade toward the pond, we expect that the pipe will be fairly shallow. We recommend that only ' small equipment, such as rubber -tired backhoes and hand operated compaction equipment, be used for the pipe installation. Large excavation equipment and backhoe mounted vibratory compactors should be avoided. Roadway Fill The planned roadway fill should not cause any instability in the area, provided that our earthwork and structural fill recommendations outlined .in our geotccluiical report are, followed. The bottom of the ' reinforced soil wall should be embedded at least I/10 of the exposed wall height below the adjacent ground surface. This means if the exposed wall face is 20 feet; then at least 2 feet is required for cmbeddment. ' This would make the total wall height 22 feet. 1' (� NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Supplemental Geotechnical Pultation Services Kariez Vista ' May 9, 1994 NCA File No. 1015B94 Page 6 Some loose soil exists in the area of the planned wall. We recommend that the loose soils be reworked by ' recompacting. The exposed subgrade in the area of the facing should be compacted to a dense state. We do not expect that more than 3 to 4 feet will need to be reworked. The subgrade for the wall should be evaluated by personnel from our office. Pond We recommend that the pond be lined with either a low permeable soil liner or a synthetic geomembrane liner. The soil liner should have a minimum thickness of 2 feet with a maximum permeability rate of lx10-5 centimeters per sec (cm/sec). A one foot thick top soil layer should be placed above the liner to ' allow vegetation to grow. Proposed liner material should be provided for permeability testing prior to placement in the pond area. The alternative to the soil liner is to use a synthetic liner. We recommend that 1 a liner with a minimum 20 mil thickness be used. The liner should be placed in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications. This type of liner will most likely also require the 1 foot of soil cover to tsupport vegetative growth. The excavation of the pond should consist of removing all of the soil to the appropriate depth, plus the ' depth of the liner and soil cover. The inside slopes of the pond should not exceed 3 to 1 (H:V) as shown in the plans. The soil liner should be compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) ' determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. We recommend that the fill be placed in accordance with the Structural Fill sub -section provided in our previous report. CLOSURE We have prepared this report for use by Mr. George Karicz, and his agents, use in planning and design of . ' this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty ' of subgradc conditions. The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our ' recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take care that our work has been done in I NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Supplemental Geotechnical 0sultation Services Kariez Vista May 9, 1994 NCA File No. 10151394 Page 7 accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Rick B. Powell, PE Project Engineer r� P. COLL WASy U � s`sfONA11 EXPIRES 1 qc{. Charles P. Couvrette, PE Geotechnical Engineer Two Copies Submitted cc: Mr. Bob Jones - Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. (2 copies) NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 0 cQ' c a � O N � O a) v 0 rD mm o 0 ccm IV / O ` CDm 4 v C 0 0 0 co r D n C07= sg P Asr- Z A fZ1 !TI , "a7 n�o m �m ., 6 = Lfo e� e �r� 1 s for L � VD � III n mm own -Z 0m v W W 101 ®' L1' ii 2 y UJ �Z LLJQCL O N O Wo O p W W O LL summon W > z� � Z U ca uj v w .: � � • STry: 1 November 19, 2007 Theresa Umbaugh City of Edmonds 121-5t' Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Vista Del Mar Entry Gate RFCEIVED Nov 2 7 2007 gU1C�LDY Q� _DIA S This letter is to confirm that the Homeowners of the Vista del Mar Homeowners Association have approved the commissioning and construction of an entry gate into the Vista Del Mar development. The project was approved and funds appropriated by a ballot vote at our Homeowners Association meeting which was held on April 23, 2007. Sincerely, <4Y Jim Wegner President Vista Del Mar Homeowner's Association 17907 Kairez Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 Phone: 206-399-8758 Cc: Mike Hostermann Maggie Peterson Ross Marturano Page l�of 2 From: Perotl@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 1:25 PM To: Mike@ironfiredesign.com Cc: mhosterman@clearpoint.com; rolft@trautmannmaher.com; jim.wegner@darigoid.com; jim.wegner@westfarm.com Subject: Re: gate Attachments: AVG certification_.txt Mike Included with this correspondence are the minutes of the meeting in April when we voted to install the gate. The homeowners have already been accessed and are eagerly awaiting the construction start. We also met with the town (an engineer, planning supervisor and a third person, title unsure) they gave us the information and forms/approvals that I provided you. They indicated that when all the information was supplied, we could move forward. Is there someone we can speak with? Entire building plans get approved in less,than six months. You had indicated that the planning and architecture department had approved and we were awaiting traffic and safety. These queries do not appear to be traffic and safety questions, just exactly what is going on? Frankly, we are passed being patient and the association is about to get involved. One of our members is an associate of the Police Chief. We are pondering having a meeting. Please advise me ASAP. Regards, Ross Vista Del Mar Homeowners Association Minutes May 21, 2007 Present: Louis, Lynn, Bonnie, Rolf, Jim, Maggie, Rocky, Mike, Lynne, Ross, Gayle, Ted, Theresa Motion to approve April 23 meeting minutes. Approved. Treasurer Report: Annual dues were received from lots 11 and 3. Lot 15 dues are in arrears. No checks have been written. All dues have been paid for the year except for Lot 15. Two notices have been sent. Maggie will call Stephen Conroy to set up an appointment to pick up check for gate payment. CC&R committee: Rocky and Louis have met twice and will meet again with Rolf on May 30th. The expectation is that the committee will be ready to present the recommended changes by early fall. -- Doug Rich from Automated Gates presented his proposal for the gate. They have been in business for over 27 years. He explained what the gate would look like and how it would work. Questions raised by the homeowners were answered by Doug. Masonry work is estimated to be $1,00043,000 per column. Jim asked if we could see any neighborhoods in the area. Doug will get back to Jim with some addresses for us to go look at their work. Automated Gates is 12-14 weeks out at this time. Once project starts, the process should take 2-3 weeks. file://C:\Documents and Settings\westfall\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK9... 11/28/2007 Page 2 of 2 Mike Gaidos from IronFire Design and Fabrication made his gate presentation. The company has been in business since 2003. Columns and electrical work are included in the proposal. Normal construction installation will.be about 3-4 weeks. Construction can begin immediately upon approval from the City of Edmonds. After proposal discussion: There is about a $6,000 difference in the estimates from the two companies. Ross noted that IronFire's price is lower and they give you more. Ted feels that there will be less work on the homeowner's part if we use IronFire. Ross handed out the permit and requirement information from the City of Edmonds. Bonnie noted that the two major cost differences on each proposal are for the same product. Maggie moves that the association vote on which vendor to hire. Ted seconded. Unanimous vote in favor of IronFire Design & Fabrication. Ross and Rolf will communicate our acceptance to IronFire and request a contract, timeline; and deposit amount. Louis suggested that we pay only for the design for permit purposes and pay 50% after the permit is issued. Scott has been removed from the gate committee as the CC&R's state that only property owners may serve on committees. No replacement was named. Mailbox update: There is a company in Mukilteo that will install new mailboxes for about $1,120. Ross will find out what installation would cost. Ross will also work with Perrinville Post Office to find out what the requirements are. Street Name Change update: Rolf will speak with his contact at the City with regards to the name change (Vista Del Mar). As it is, the city will approve changing the name back to 92"d Place W. _Lynn reminded everybody that the city considers any other name a safety hazard as emergency vehicles may have trouble finding a different street name and the city is familiar with 92nd Place W. Next Meeting date: Monday, July 9, 7-9 pm Peterson Residence Thank you Ross and Gayle for your hospitality. A very special thank you to Gayle for the wonderful melt -in -your mouth cheese -cake. See whafs new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your HomeMe. file://C:\Documents and Settincs\westfall\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK9... 11/28/2007 I I t EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL ` CHECKLIST DATA REPORT FOR PLAT OF VISTA DE-L MAR CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Prepared by ' v 1- auerland & Associates Lo e 1 S , Inc. ' 19400 - 33rd Avenue West, Suite 200 Everett, Washington 98036 May 1993 • • INDEX SECTION I Environmental Assessment SECTION II Environmental Checklist SECTION II Geotechnical Evaluation SECTION IV Preliminary Drainage Basin Evaluation SECTION V Traffic Analysis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • SECTION I Environmental Assessment CITY OF EDMONDie ' ENVIRONMENT AL ASSESSMENT PROJECT NAM&iSTA DEL MAR DATE SUBMITTED IThe information on this form will be used to determine the effect of your action upon the environment of the City of Edmonds. Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible. 1. LAND t Esprerance Sand Area 6.83 Acres Soils Type QVA/Qe Limitations See Soils Report Description of topography (b slope) The majority of the site has slopes in the range ' of approx. 107 to 15%. NOTE: If grading or filling will Grading: Estimated cubic yards 7,900 c.y. cut exceed 500 cubic yards a grading 'and filling plan must be sub - Filling: Estimated cubic yards 5,600 c.y. fill mitted with the application. Estimated area to be paved (including buildings) 2.4 acres �Estimated area in open space (pervious surface) 4.43 acres . WATER Stream - Estimated flow (cubic feet per second) N/A Will stream be altered? N/A If yes, to what degree?_ Other water bodies" Puget Sound ' Impact on storm drainage Minimal Method of handling runoff Tight line system to existing storm sewer facilities located within the project ' Adjacent to shorelines zone? yes Within 200 feet of MhHW? 3. VEGETATION ' Type and approximate number of trees A mixture of approx. 350 Fir, Hemlock, Cedar Trees are located on the site approx. 150 will be retained in addition. most evergreens and d o tries he ba wi .be retained. 'M r��r'�u Mame�ier $` gees ` re gain various sizes % of trees to be .removed 57% Ground cover Grass, Rhododendrum, % to be removed - 57% Proposed landscaping, if any Existing Rhododendrums, landscaping on individual lots by ' homeowners. 4. EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN 300 FEET RADIUS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: ' Single Multi - Vacant Family Family Commercial Other _North - X ' South X East X _West X Puget Sound ,. CIRCULATION Estimated increase in auto trips daily 130 A.D.T. Additional Trips �Availability of public transportation Public Transit on Olympic View Dr. . AREA OF IMPACT �Neighborhood Minor City-wide Negligible Regional None . EFFECT ON AIR QUALITY Negligible tCHANGES IN NOISE GENERATION Construction equipment during construction residential traffic after development E SECTION II Environmental Checklist ' CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat of Vista Del Mar 2. Name of applicant. t George Kairez 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Applicant: Contact: Jurgen Sauerland ' George Kairez Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 3197 19400 33rd Avenue W., Suite 200 Lynnwood, Washington 98406 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 ' Telephone:771-9554 Telephone: 775-1591 4. Date checklist prepared: ' November 17, 1993 5. Agency requesting checklist. City of Edmonds Planning Department ' 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Contingent upon plan approval and permit procurement, development of the site is expected to occur in 1994. Depending on reasonable market conditions, site preparation is expected to be completed in 1994 with commencement of residential construction immediately following. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions,. expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. ' No development beyond that proposed with the instant proposal is anticipated. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be. prepared, ' directly related to this proposal. Preliminary Plat Map Preliminary Storm and Utility Plan Preliminary Grading Plan Tree Retention Plan Preliminary Grading Profile Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. ' A Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit application from the City of Edmonds. ' 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Clearing and Grading Permit Conditional Use Permit Site Development Plan approval by the City of Edmonds Engineering Department Approval of preliminary and final subdivision by the City of Edmonds Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit ' Issuance of building permits by the City of Edmonds 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed use and the size of the project and site. .There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The instant proposal is for a Conditional Use Permit for grading in excess of 500 cubic yards to provide for a 15 lot subdivision of a 6.83 acre parcel containing two single family residences, two garages and an unused shed. Both residences will remain on the property. Principal access to and from the site will be via a private roadway, Kairez Lane, from Olympic View Drive immediately north of the Sunset Way intersection. Secondary plat access to three lots will be via private roadway, Nicholas Lane, from Talbot Drive, north of Olympic View Drive. The proposal makes provisions for a landscaped and gated entrance. The proposal makes provisions for an additional. secondary access connection to the private roadway located within the adjacent unrecorded plat of Maple Manor to the west of the instant proposal, if such access is deemed to be desirable by the adjacent neighbors and the City of Edmonds. To rectify a building encroachment, a tract, south of and adjacent to the proposed roadway will be deeded to the owner of Lot 7 of the unrecorded Plat of Maple Manor, upon recordation of the plat of Vista Del Mar. -Site development will include grading, excavation and trenching necessary for the preparation of building sites, construction of access roads and utility installation. The project design creates a development which is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is in concert with the unique natural environment of the site. The proposed development within 200 feet of the designated shoreline under the Shoreline Management Act requires a Substantial Development Permit for which the current application includes the construction of a storm drainage line, sewer laterals to the existing sewer line and construction of individual single family detached residences on proposed Lots 7, 8, 13 and 14. All other proposed development lies outside the 200 foot shoreline permit area. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any,. and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you `a should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. tThe instant proposal area is located in Sections 12 and 13, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, W.M. and Sections 7 and 8, Township 27 North, Range 4 East, W.M. north of Olympic View Drive and west of Talbot Drive in the City of Edmonds, Washington. A legal description, Vicinity Map, Preliminary Plat Map and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan with topography is included in the instant application to depict the project location, superficial site conditions and preliminary project design. ' TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. EARTH ' a. General description of the site (underline one): flat, rollin hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: ' The majority of the site exhibits a moderate northwestern slope with isolated areas of incline greater than 30 percent. The property is situated on a high bluff ' overlooking Puget Sound with approximately 600 feet of frontage on the bluff and extends more than 700 feet upslope at its deepest point. West of the 10 foot Public Sanitary Sewer Easement paralleling the bluff edge, the property has a pronounced break to the Burlington Northern Railroad Right -of -Way approximately 140 vertical feet below. Elevations range from a high of approximately 200 feet MSL in the southwest corner of the site to approximately 20 feet MSL along the railroad right- of-way. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? ' Slopes on the majority of the site are less than 30 percent. Limited areas of slopes greater than 30 percent within the buildable area occur along Olympic View Drive ' in the southwest corner of the property and in the narrow extension of land situated between the Talbot Park and the Mount Baker Seavue Estates developments. These steep slopes appear to be, at least in part, the consequence of excavation and backfilling work done for the installation of both sanitary and storm sewer lines within the excavated Flagpole Creek drainage swale. The entire flow of Flagpole Creek from Olympic View Drive to Puget Sound is presently contained within the storm sewer system. Slopes along the northwestern margin of the site which form the overlook bluff, approach vertical in places but are situated beyond designated development limits. Those areas of steep slopes within the buildable area will receive minor grading to accommodate road placement and required turn -around areas but, where feasible, will be situated to avoid adverse impacts to the slopes. 3 ' All development work within the site will be performed in accordance with the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by Nelson-Couvrette & Associates, Inc. ' and attached hereto. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, ' peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Based on soils classification mapping presented in the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington (USDA Soil Conservation Service), soils on the site are within the Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam 25 to 70 percent slope map unit and the Alderwood-Urban land complex 2 to 8 percent slope map unit. Alderwood- ' Everett gravelly sandy loam is a map unit which is composed of elements of Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and Everett gravely sandy so closely associated that accurate mapping is infeasible. This map unit is found on till plains, terraces and ' outwash plains. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is a soil map unit which is composed of moderately ' well drained soil found on till plains and in non -wetland areas on the site. Formed in glacial till, this soil is moderately deep over a hardpan. Permeability above the hardpan is moderately rapid and permeability through the hardpan is very slow, effectively presenting a barrier to drainage. Typically, the surface layer of Alderwood soils is very dark grayish -brown gravelly ' sandy loam about 7 inches thick. The upper segment of the subsoil is dark yellowish -brown and dark brown very gravelly sandy loam about 23 inches thick. The lower part is olive brown very gravelly sandy loam about 5 inches thick. A ' weakly cemented hardpan is usually found at a depth of between 20 and 40 inches. The Everett soil portion of this complex is very deep and somewhat excessively ' drained soil formed in glacial outwash and is found in upland areas within the project area. Permeability of the Everett soil is rapid and available water capacity is low. Runoff is rapid and the hazard of water erosion is moderate. Typically, the ' surface layer where mixed to a depth of about 6 inches, is very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam about 12 inches thick. The upper part of the substratum is brown very gravelly loamy sand about 5 inches thick. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches or more is dark brown extremely gravelly sand. The Alderwood-Urban land complex is a map unit composed of about 60 percent Alderwood gravelly sandy loam so closely associated with about 25 percent Urban ' land that mapping them separately is impractical. The Alderwood soil portion of the complex conforms to the description given above for Alderwood soils. The Urban Land designation is used for areas that are covered by streets, buildings, parking lots and other structures that obscure or alter the soils to the degree that identification is not possible. 13 The attached geotechnical report prepared by Nelson-Couvrette & Associates indicates that the general stratigraphy within this area is observed and found to ' consist of advanced glacial outwash referred to as Esperance Sand (QvA/Qe). Advanced outwash in this area is composed of a dense, fine sand, with trace silt and occasional gravel, which has been overridden.and compacted by the weight of the ' thick glacial ice. The advance sands were observed in all of the test pits, and also on exposures on the steep slope. It is not uncommon for gravelly and/or silty zones to occur in these deposits, as indicated in on -site test pits 13 and 16. ' Subsurface conditions found on -site consisted mostly of a fine to medium sand that varied from loose at the surface, to dense with depth. Occasional gravelly layers ' as well as fine to coarse sand were also observed. Occasional. silt lens deposits were observed, however, these lenses did not appear to be continuous. Test Pit 17, located on proposed Lot 1, encountered 11.5 feet of fill associated with the construction of Olympic View Drive. No agricultural soils were found on the subject property. ' d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. ' Slope stability was observed below the proposed lots of Vista Del Mar area to be only minimally active in backwasting, primarily through weathering. and surface sloughing of the slope through normal erosional processes. Local occurrences of ' shallow surface sloughing can be seen across the bluff slope face, as indicated by older surface scarps. These scarps generally indicate a few inches of sloughing per event. The slope has a uniformly common slope angle ranging from about 45 to ' 50 degrees. This is what would be expected for the dense underlying sand. As the surface of the sand loosens, shallow sloughing events will occur after which vegetation will re-establish. The age of the trees on the slope indicate that the slope ' face has been relatively stable for the past 20 to 30 years. Vegetation on the slope does not indicate large scale land sliding characteristics, but does indicate minor localized soil creep. The cut adjacent to the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks did not show any signs of backwasting which is common where seepage occurs near the tracks at other locations on the Puget Sound. Local cleaning of the slope toe upslope of the tracks has created some surface sloughing, but this is minor in ' extent. From a geologic and geotechnical standpoint, the area above the top of bluff slope appears stable and should be capable of supporting the planned development. The ' underlying sand deposits have moderately high strength and are considered stable with respect to deep seated landslides or slope failures. Surficial sloughing and erosion can occur, however, no evidence was observed of large scale backwasting ' of the slope in recent history. The sand deposits should provide a good subgrade for support of the structure foundations. Proposed building setbacks from the top .of slope line are considered appropriate to reduce the risk of future effects to the ' development from bluff recession for a reasonable life -span. I ' I ' . 0 1* ' The slopes across the bluff within the development have receded over the past centuries due to slope erosion and surface land sliding processes. This process has been significantly slowed by the construction of the BNRR tracks and seawall. The processes that occur at present should be expected to persist at their current rate. Presently, the project geotechnical consultants hold the opinion that the backwasting ' rate within this slope area is on the order of less than one inch per year (cumulative) in the worst case. Development related improvements such as the drainage control systems, earthwork control and slope protection should lessen the impact of perched water outflow, and may slow the rate of backwasting to almost nil. These improvements placed into the native sands also aid in reducing the effects of backwasting on structure development. ' e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. ' A balanced cut and fill utilizing competent fill from on -site sources is anticipated for roads, driveways, parking areas, building pads, drainage facilities and utilities installation. Approximately 7,900 cubic yards of material will be removed for ' construction of roads and utilities and approximately 5,600 cubic yards of material will be required for road embankment improvements. All existing vegetation will be retained where possible, especially around the entrance point from Olympic View ' Drive to provide visual screening and noise abatement and to preserve elements of the natural landscape. Consistent with Community Development Code City of Edmonds Environment Section: soils and topography, grading and filling on the site ' will proceed in accordance with the following policies: Grading and filling will be restricted to building .pads, driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces. Grading will not jeopardize the stability of any slope or of any adjoining ' property. Minimal cutting and filling is anticipated on slopes exceeding 15 percent to ' preserve the natural topography of the site. Temporary erosion control measures will be undertaken to reduce erosion during construction. ' Based on the soils report prepared b Y Nelson-Couvrette & Associates, the onsite P P P soils will be utilized for any filling and grading necessary for the construction of ' roadways. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally ' describe. Temporary exposure of soils due to grading and filling for construction of roads, ' parking areas, building pads, drainage facilities and for installation of utilities will tcreate the potential for increased erosion. In accordance with City of Edmonds development standards, a temporary erosion and sedimentation control (TE&SC) t plan will be prepared and necessary controls will be installed prior to grading on the project site. Depending on specific site conditions, temporary erosion control measures might include, but are not limited to, placement of straw bales across ' drainage channels, temporary detention or siltation ponds to contain runoff and placement of silt fences to control movement of soil. All work will be performed in accordance with the recommendation of the geotechnical engineer. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? ' Less than 35 percent of the total project area will be covered with impervious surfaces. With the exception of two small areas along the north and south project boundaries which contain slopes greater than 30 percent and which will be overlain ' with portions of new site roads, coverage of critical areas with impervious surface will be avoided. ' h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: ' Of great importance to the long-term backwasting 'for the bluff is the existing surface and near -surface water control and erosion protection. Adequate drainage protection is proposed around the building and development areas, with the use of ' foundation and roof drain systems that empty into a tight -lined storm water system. These drains are to be routed independently until there is a minimum of one foot of vertical fall below foundation elevation before tie-in. The storm water system ' is to be routed down an easement to the north and not over the steep slope. Erosion protection of the exposed soils areas could be increased through the ' placement of jute netting, hydroseeding and/or vegetation planting. Any exposed soils on the steep slope will erode due to normal erosion processes. Native vegetation will eventually protect these areas, but could be aided through planting. ' No loose vegetation or spoils will be. placed on the slopes. Governed by the Tree Retention Plan, naturally occurring understory vegetation will ' be retained in designated critical areas and wherever practicable on the site, augmented with selected plantings of deep-rooted trees and shrubs to stabilize erodible or exposed areas. During preparation of roadways, driveways and building ' pads and installation of utility systems, temporary drainage and erosion control devices such as silt fences, temporary holding/siltation ponds and straw bales will be installed where necessary as dictated by the TE&SC plan and monitored to ' provide protection. Measures which could be employed include application of mulch or hydroseeding of cleared areas prone to erosion. Based upon geotechnical explorations, slope evaluation and observations, project ' geotechnical consultants recommend a minimum building setback of 25 feet for all 7 ' structures from the top of slope. Protection of the setback and steep slope areas will be performed as required by the City of Edmonds. The setback area will not ' be used for the placement or storage of fill materials, including "temporary" excavation spoils from building area preparation and excavation. With additional geotechnical investigation and recommendations, reductions in setback areas are ' possible. As indicated by the geotechnical report, cutting of trees within the setback and along the top of the slope will be performed, with the following precautions: • the root bundles/stumps of felled trees will be left in place. ' • pruned materials and debris will be removed from the area, and not allowed pushed over the slope. • additional dumping of soil, sod, clippings or other material over the slope is ' not recommended. With the planting of cleared areas with lawns and shrubs on individual lots by - homeowners and by restricting building placement to areas away from steep slopes, ' post -construction potential for erosion is not expected exceed pre -construction levels. All erosion control measures imposed by the City of Edmonds' Engineering ' Department will be followed. 2. AIR ' a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project ' is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, minor amounts of dust could result from grading activities ' during the dry weather months. Emissions will include those typically resulting from the use of automobiles and construction equipment. Quantities of dust and .other emissions should be insignificant compared with pollutants generated by ' adjacent off -site sources such as roads, yards and fireplaces, given the proposed control measures. Odors from construction materials will be present during construction and dust and smoke may be generated during short term grading and ' clearing activities. Upon project completion, increased motor vehicle use on the site will produce automotive emissions and the use of wood burning stoves and natural gas space heating units will also produce emissions. ' b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. ' Vehicle emissions from traffic on Olympic View Drive, Talbot Drive and access streets in neighboring plats may produce odors but should have minimal impact on ' the instant proposal. r Ic. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: ' Construction will be limited to Monday through Saturday, 7AM to 7PM. Site production of dust will be monitored by the applicant or his agent and, if significant, watering of vehicle pathways or cleared areas will be performed as needed to control dust. Construction equipment will not be left idling when possible to reduce total emissions. 3. WATER ' a. Surface: I) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site ' (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. ' Puget Sound, lying to the northeast of the property, is the only identified aquatic feature within the immediate area. According to the Snohomish County Stream and Wetland Atlas, the property lies within the SW Coastal drainage basin and, although ' no wetlands have been identified on the site, this publication has indicated that a reach of Flagpole Creek coincides with a portion of the eastern property boundary before crossing the northeastern corner of the property. City records indicate that, ' at least by the time of construction of the Mount Baker Seavue Estates to the east, Flagpole Creek had been contained within a culvert as part of a storm sewer system which continues from Olympic Drive, through the Talbot Park plat and crosses the subject property. The National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) also reflects the absence of freshwater wetlands on the property or contiguous property, and identifies the tidally influenced wetland underlying Puget Sound immediately west ' of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks as the only environmentally sensitive aquatic feature in the immediate area. This wetland is classified as Estuarine Intertidal Aquatic Bottom/Unconsolidated Shore Regularly Flooded (E2 AB/US N). ' On the basis of a site reconnaissance performed March 2, 1993 by a professional biologist, no streams or wetlands, other than the previously cataloged estuarine ' wetlands, were identified in the vicinity of the proposed Vista Del Mar site. Flagpole Creek does not currently have nor is historical surface flow evident between Olympic View Drive and Puget Sound. A 24 inch cement pipe, exiting the ' topographic low point of the Talbot Park development passes beneath the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks, and appears to service the entire Flagpole Creek drainage basin. IIFII ' 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. As indicated on the attached Preliminary Plat map, portions of proposed Lots 7, 8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 lie within 200 feet of the shoreline of Puget Sound. Lots 9 and 11 contain the existing residences, outbuildings and utilities scheduled to be retained in the instant proposal. No construction is planned for these lots under the instant proposal. Lots 7 and 8 contain sufficient buildable area beyond the 200 foot limit ' to locate individual residences and allow construction without encroachment. Only within proposed Lots 13 and 14 will residential construction likely occur within 200 horizontal feet of Puget Sound. Impacts to adjacent waters from construction on ' these lots will be insignificant and will be less intrusive than was installation of the sanitary sewer line. To connect to the existing sanitary sewer supplied by the City of Edmonds and coincidental with the top of the bluff, excavation for individual lot ' tie-ins will be required within 200 feet of a designated Shoreline of , the State. Additionally, a required storm sewer line servicing the development will be located adjacent to and south of the sanitary sewer line. ' Residential construction will not significantly impact surface water resources in the area due to elevation of property above Puget Sound, temporary erosion and sediment control measures and presence of the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks ' between. All roadways, cul-de-sacs and parking areas will be placed beyond the 200 foot adjacency area. ' 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. No fill or dredge material will be placed in or removed from any surface water body as part of this project. ' 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. ' No surface water diversions or withdrawals are proposed as part of this project, with the exception of storm water collection from all impervious surfaces and tight - lining of such drainage to an existing outfall below the bluff. This minor diversion ' of natural drainage to reduce surface flows over the bluff and ground water infiltration on -site will improve slope stability and reduce natural erosion. Domestic ' water service will be provided by the City of Edmonds. S) Does the proposal lie within a 100 year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. ' No onion of the project lies within the 100-year floodplain. P 10 ' 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No discharge of waste materials into surface water is proposed as an element of this proposal. Sewer service will be provided by the City of Edmonds through an ' existing sanitary sewer line paralleling the top of the bluff. Site generated storm water will be collected in a storm sewer system and conducted to a storm sewer line to be installed immediately south of the existing sanitary sewer line along the north edge of the property. ' b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. Other than stormwater, no water will be discharged directly to groundwater. No water will be withdrawn. Domestic water service will be provided by City of ' Edmonds Water System. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks t or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or ' the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. In concert with concerned agencies, a program of contractor education and spill ' contingency and response plan compliance will be instituted to reduce the potential for discharge of waste materials to the ground during construction activities. The instant proposal will construct an internal sanitary sewer collection system, serviced by the City of Edmonds, .for the 15 lot subdivision. Domestic sewage will be discharged to an existing sanitary sewer line along the northern property line. No domestic waste material will be discharged into the ground. c. Water Runoff (including storm water): l) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The principal source of runoff will be rainwater and snow melt from roadways, roofs and other impervious surfaces. As shown on the Preliminary Grading Plan and the Storm and Utility Plan, stormwater runoff will be collected in a system of catch basins and underground pipes and conveyed to the existing Flagpole Creek storm drain system for eventual discharge into Puget Sound. 11 , 1 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Typical components of stormwater from impervious surfaces such as roads and parking areas and runoff from yards and other open spaces are petrochemicals, automotive waste products, fertilizers and pesticides. In the completed project, storm water runoff from impervious surfaces on the site will be collected in the catch basin collection system and treated with oil/water separation before being routed to the adjoining storm sewer system for eventual discharge into Puget Sound. 1 Sanitary sewer service will be provided by the City of Edmonds. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: During construction, temporary measures will be employed to control runoff and water quality, including silt fences, straw bales and rip -rap across drainage ways and construction of temporary siltation/holding ponds. Oil/water separation in the completed project will control impacts of runoff from impervious surfaces, including those subject to vehicle uses. The limits of clearing and grading will be posted prior to any land clearing activities to reduce the possibility of stormwater flows reaching the steep slopes on the northwest side of the site and the transport of soil into Puget Sound. Protective covenants will be prepared governing control and disposition of surface ' water and associated impurities generated as a result of such activities as irrigation runoff, pesticide application, semi -pervious surface runoff and automobile maintenance within the development. Covenants will also prohibit disposal of I household hazardous material and automotive wastes directly into groundwater or storm sewer system or in any manner deleterious to the area environment. 1 11 4. PLANTS a. Underline types of vegetation found on the site: x deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. x evergreen tree: fr cedar, pine, other. western hemlock x shrubs x grass _ pasture crop or grain _ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other: none _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other. none other types of vegetation 12 b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Existing trees, shrubs and ground cover within the proposed roadways, .building ' sites and utilities corridors will be removed. Selected evergreen conifers will be retained in rear yard areas and around the periphery of the site and within 25 feet of steep slopes, with the exception of diseased, damaged or unstable trees. All understory vegetation on steep slopes defined as environmentally sensitive by the Critical Areas Study will be retained to stabilize soil and reduce erosion potential. The Tree Retention Plan identifies trees to be retained or removed. The tree ' retention plan indicates that 126 of the significant evergreen trees will be retained with development of the project, retaining the forested character of the subject property following construction. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species are known or expected to exist on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: ' Existing, healthy, vigorous native vegetation will be retained where possible and will be supplemented with plantings of both native and ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcover. All cleared areas will be replanted and/or landscaped in the course ' of site development or house construction. 5. ANIMALS ' a. Underline any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds other: waterfowl, small typical native birds 1 mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other. small typical. northwest mammals, including squirrels, mice, gophers and other small mammals fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other. none ' b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. No endangered threatened or sensitive species are known to exist on or in the vicinity of the site. Contact with Washington State Department of Wildlife State Library revealed no designations on the subject property for priority habitats and species or nongame data systems. On -site reconnaissance revealed no evidence of priority, rare or endangered species habitat or occupation of the subject property. 1 13 C� c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The subject property is not known to be part of a migration route. d. Proposed measures to preserve or .enhance wildlife, if any: Creation of open lawn segments in residential areas can provide quality habitat for various bird species, including American robin and could result in greater use by small mammals. Plantings of ornamental trees and other vegetation which provides seeds, fruits and berries will provide additional food resources on the site. Where possible, all existing native vegetation, especially on steep slopes, will be retained. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical energy will be used for lighting, appliances and possible space and water heating. Natural gas is also available for space and water heating. Wood stoves and fireplaces may be used for heating in the single family residences. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The project would not effect potential solar energy uses on adjacent properties. ' c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in. the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None beyond energy code requirements for applicable energy conservation practices. ' 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If. so, describe. None other than gasoline or diesel fuel in heavy equipment. Some fuel storage in fuel trucks may occur during initial grading. 14 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. ' Standard police, fire and medical emergency medical services in the event of accident, fire or unusual emergency event. Police services are provided by the City of Edmonds Police Department. Fire protection is provided by the City of ' Edmonds Fire Department. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Meet all Fire Code and Building Code provisions for fire and safety. Emergency service vehicles will be granted comprehensive access to private interior site roads. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, aircraft, other)? ' Traffic noise from local streets, including Olympic View Drive are the only significant sources of noise. ' 2) What types and levels of.noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. ' Short-term: Construction equipment and traffic noise related to site preparation and construction activities between 7 AM to 7 PM Monday. through Saturday. ' Long-term: Human activity, pet noises, and related traffic will be expected to generate noise in the completed project. Peak noise levels will occur primarily during the morning and evening commutes, before and after school and on weekends, typical of other multi -family developments. 3) Proposed measures .to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: ' Short-term: Construction activity and traffic related to construction will be limited to between the hours of 7 AM - 7 PM Monday through Saturday. Vehicles and equipment will use properly maintained exhaust systems and will be shut off when not in use. Long-term: Retention of site perimeter native vegetation, where possible, will attenuate street noise and noise generated at adjoining developments. Standard energy code construction will provide substantial interior noise reduction for site ' residences. ' 15 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site contains two presently occupied single-family residences and attendant out- buildings. The area surrounding the site is developed exclusively as single family residential. Land to the north is occupied by potions of the Mount Baker Seavue Estates, Talbot Park developments or is unplatted land. Land to the east across Olympic View Drive and to the west and south are developed as singly family residences. Burlington Northern Railroad tracks define the northwestern property boundary immediately adjacent to Puget Sound. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No evidence of agriculture can be found for the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. Two single family residences with detached garages and two small out -buildings presently exist on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? An unused out -building and a detached garage are scheduled to be removed as part of plat development activities. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current City of Edmonds zoning classifications is RS-12 for the majority of the and RS-20 for the area of the site between the Talbot Park and Mount Baker Seavue Estates developments. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Low Density Residential is the comprehensive plan. designation. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The current shoreline master program designation of the site is Urban - Residential. 16 h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? ' If so, specify. The steep slopes in the northwestern portion of the site have been designated as a "Critical Area" due to presence of potentially unstable steep slopes. All understory ' vegetation on these slopes will be retained per the Geotechnical Evaluation Report. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? It is anticipated that 13 new families will reside in the completed project, representing approximately 39 people, at a ratio of 3 persons per single family ' dwelling. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 1 None are expected to be displaced. The two existing residences will be retained. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. Due to lack of anticipated impacts, no mitigation measures are proposed. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: ' Development will be in accordance with applicable portions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. The instant proposal is for the provision of 15 ' view lots intended for development as middle to upper income residences and, as such, designs and materials used for construction will be similar to other residences in the area. Homes to be constructed in Vista Del Mar are intended to be of custom ' design which will ensure harmony with surrounding land uses and strengthen the character, of the community. 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, ' middle, or low-income housing. The final project will provide 13 new middle/upper income, single family residences. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None will be eliminated. 17 c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: ' No adverse housing impacts are anticipated and no measures are proposed. The project will reduce area. housing impacts by providing 13 new residences. ' 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum heights will be limited to two stories or 25 feet. The principal exterior building materials are anticipated to be brick or cedar siding and cedar or tile roofing. External configuration and finishing of dwellings and landscaping will be controlled and coordinated by a set of protective covenants along with a Homeowner's Association and Architectural Control Committee. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? ' Site development will reduce the number of trees on the site, allowing some views of the new residences, access roads and interior streets. Removal of vegetation for road construction or residence placement will increase views of Puget Sound and ' distant islands and mountains . from within the proposal area, neighboring developments and minimally from Olympic View Drive. Character of the site will change from sparse residential to RS-12 density for lots 1-14 and RS-20 for lot 15, ' consistent with other developments in the area. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: ' Evergreen trees and other native vegetation will be retained where possible and, as indicated on the Tree Retention Plan (Attached), the majority of native vegetation bordering Olympic View Drive will be retained to provide aesthetic buffers. Future residents will landscape yard areas in accord with comparable single family residences in the area. I] U d 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Exterior building illumination and street lights during non -daylight hours are the only anticipated sources of new light and glare. Additional sources of lighting should not exceed that which is normally found in similar residential neighborhoods and. will not be significant. 18 tb. Could light or glare from the fcnished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? ' No significant impacts are anticipated. All exterior light fixtures will be shielded and generally directed toward the interior of the site. c. What existing off -,site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? No significant impacts are anticipated. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: ' All house and grounds illumination will be shielded and directed toward the interior of the development. Anticipated exterior lighting will be of the same character and intensity as currently_ used in similar neighborhood developments. Unusually 1 reflective building materials will not be used within the instant project. The large lot size and arrangement within the project area will reduce the potential off -site impacts from light or glare generated from within the project. 12. RECREATION ' a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The 115.5 acre Snohomish County Park to the east between Talbot Road and 76th Ave West affording hiking trails and nature study is the nearest area offering public recreational facilities. Overlook Park, which lies south of the instant proposal on Olympic View Drive, provides parking and benches on the bluff overlooking Puget Sound. Several access roads to Edmonds Tide Lands north and south of the site provide additional recreational opportunities. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No recreational uses will be displaced by the proposed project. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Since no significant adverse recreation impacts are anticipated, no mitigation is proposed. 19 H H 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. There are no places or objects listed on, or proposed for local, state or federal preservation registers on or near this site. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or ?text to the site. The best knowledge of the applicant or contact person, no landmarks or evidence of historic, archeological, scientific or cultural importance are known to exist at or near the site. c. Proposed measures. to reduce or control impacts, if any: None are proposed. In the event that construction activities encounter historic or cultural artifacts, construction will be halted and a qualified archeologist will be consulted. 14. TRANSPORTATION a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plaits, if any. Principal access to and from the site will be from Olympic View Drive immediately north of the Sunset Way intersection. Secondary plat access will be from the Talbot Drive north of Olympic View Drive. The development will be served by a private roadway with maintenance of same through a homeowners association which will be formed in conjunction with the development of the property. If it is desired by the adjacent homeowners within the unrecorded plat of Maple Manor, a secondary roadway access connection for exit purposes and emergency vehicles will be allowed through the proposed roadway network within the plat of Vista Del Mar to serve the adjacent property owners. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No. The nearest transit stop (Community Transit Route 150) is at 76th Ave West and Olympic View Drive, approximately 1.1 miles east of the proposed site access road on Olympic View Drive. 20 ' c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would ld the project eliminate? ' Each lot will provide parking for four. vehicles, two in a garage and two in a P P g g g driveway for a total of 52 off-street parking spaces. None will be, eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether ' public or private). The proposed plat will require construction of approximately 1,040 lineal feet of ' private roadway in two cul-de-sac site roads accessing from Olympic View Drive to the south and from Talbot Drive to the east. ' e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. ' The project will not depend on water, rail or air transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? ' If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. The number of vehicular trips per day generated by the project is approximately 124 new Average Weekday Daily Trips (ADT). Peak volume will occur between ' 4:30 - 5:30 PM and will experience 10 percent of the ADT or 12 trips. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Sufficient off-street parking will be provided to reduce congestion within the plat ' and traffic movement signs will be provided to control- traffic movements where necessary. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES ' a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. ' The project will use existing fire protection, police protection, public sewer and water services, available from the City of Edmonds. Public schooling will be made available through Edmonds School District No. 15. Health services are ' available from numerous clinics and medical offices in the vicinity within the City of Edmonds. 21 b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. No mitigation is proposed, since no significant adverse impacts are anticipated to be created by this proposal. 16. UTILITIES a. Underline utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Electricity: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Natural Gas: Washington Natural Gas Company Public Water and Sewer Service: City of Edmonds Water System Telephone: General Telephone Company of the Northwest, Inc. Refuse: Waste Management Northwest C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of nzy knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date November 17, 1993 `A SECTION III Geotechnical Evaluation , I T GEOTECHI�ICAL EVALUATION REPORT i FOR VISTA DEL MAR SUBDIVISION I - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 1 i NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS MAIN OFFICE 17311.135th Ave. N.E., #tA500 13424 Chain Lake Road 101 East Marine View Drive Woodinville, WA 98072 Monroe, WA 98272 Orondo, WA 98843 (206) 486-1669 • FAX 481.2510 (206) 788-5612 • 794-4332 (509) 784.2756 April 26, 1993 Mr. George P. Kairez P.O. Boa 3197 Lynnwood, Washington 98046 Reference: Geoteclunical Evaluation Vista Del Mar Edmonds, Washington NCA File No. 101593 IDear Mr. Kairez: INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our gcotcclulical investigation for your proposed Vista Del Mar subdivision in Edmonds. The site is located north of Olympic View Drive and includes six lots adjacent to the top of a steep slope. The City of Edmonds has requested a gcoteclinical analysis of the slope stability bcloNv these lots, as required by their ordinance ECDC Chapter 20.15B. We have also been requested to provide gcoteclulical recommendations for general site development. The planned subdivision consists of 15 lots on a parcel just less than 7 acres is size. The planned main access road will cross a shallow swale Nvhich will require some fill and potentially a soil reinforced or gcogrid retaining wall. The gcogrid wall would be designed by others. Rockeries may also be used to face native cuts in the northern portion of the site. We understand that the plat detention system is not yet designed. Due to the proximity of the site to the Puget Sound, detention may not be necessary. The scope of our services includes performance of 17 exploratory backhoc (test) pits, surficial observations, physical measuring and mapping of the slope area, and revicNv of available geologic, stability I and coastal drift maps of the area. Using this data we have developed building setbacks and ' recommendations for site development above the slope, including residential and roadway construction, earthwork parameters and drainage recommendations. The locations of the test pits, measured profiles and l April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 2 ' other observed conditions are shoNNin on the enclosed Site Plan, Figure 2 and Profiles A through F, Figures 3 through 7. SITE CONDITIONS General The site consists of about 6.83 acres lying north of Olympic View Drive, west of Talbot Road and along the top of slope above the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in Edmonds, Washington. The site currently supports a large residence that exists on planned Lot 9 and a smaller house located on planned Lot 11. The current access to these structures is an asphalt drive that extends from Olympic View Drive and crosses the western portions of the planned lots 1, 6 and 10. The portion of the site adjacent to Olympic View Drive slopes gently to moderately down to the west with a gentle slope to the north. A swalc starts in the vicinity of the western portion of Lots 2 and 3. We expect that a fill and reinforced soil wall will be required for the road fill in this swale. The northern portion of the ' site slopes gently down to the northwest to the top of a steep slope. The northeastern portion, adjacent to the steep slope, slopes down to the north. This slope can be followed off -site down to the railroad grade. ' Lot 15 is located on a parcel that will have access from a private road that connects to Talbot Road. This portion of the site has gentle to moderate slopes to the northwest. ' The top of slope is shown on the Site Plan, as surveyed by Lovell-Sauerland. This top of slope line is in our opinion considered relatively stable. We state this, in that some tunes the top of slope can be undercut and considered to be expected to fail within a short period of time. We adjust the top of slope line to accommodate this condition. We did not observe any undercutting or imminent slope failures on this slope. ' Below this top line, the slope was measured to range from about 45 to 53 degrees. The Burlington Northern Railroad tracks were constructed along the toe of the slope many years ago. Tlic construction of ' the railroad bed included construction of a large rock seawall along the outboard side. This seawall and track extends to the north and south from the property, along the shoreline. The cross -sections snowing tic measured profiles and geologic conditions logged on the bluff, are shown on Figures 3 through 7. A sanitary sewer line is located along the top of slope. The sewer line is also shown on the Site Plan. Vegetation in the portion of the site adjacent to Olympic View Drive consists of large evergreen trees with a dense undcrgro\\1h. The developed portion of the site is mainly covered with grass and occasional ' evergreen trees and shrubs. A stand of evergreen trees is located along a portion of the top of the steep slope. Vegetation on the steep slope consists of brush, berry vines, ivy, and scattered deciduous trees. The trees have an apparent age of about 20 to 30 years old. NELSON- CO UVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar t NCA File No. 101593 Page 3 Geologic Conditions Landfonns within this region comprise a system of glacially sculptured features, which have been exposed by post -glacial erosion. Locally, the terrain of this area is interpreted to have been glacially modified, and to have been placed during the latest glaciation of the Puget Lowland area. Glacial ice is thought to have last occupied the region during the late Pleistocene epoch, some 11,000 to 13,000 years before present. The latest glacial advance over the area is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, of which the geologic materials on site are believed composed. The general stratigraphy Nvithin this area is observed and found to consist of advance glacial outwash, referred to as Esperance Sand (QvA/Qe). This is in agreement with the geologic conditions described on the geologic maps of this area. Advance outwash in this area is composed of a dense, fine sand, with trace silt and occasional gravel, which has been overridden and compacted by the weight of the thick glacial ice. The advance sands were observed in all of the test pits, and also on exposures on the steep slope. It is not unconunon for more gravely and/or silty zones to occur in these deposits, as was . indicated in TP-13 through TP-16. Site Explorations, Mapping and Subsurface Conditions The steep slope geometry was measured using a hand held inclinometer and cloth tape. This data was used to develop the sections of the slope. We also performed shallow hand explorations on the slope and ace conditions were explored on the site using a tractor observed exposures where present. The subsurf, ' mounted backhoe. A representative of this firm was present during the explorations and maintained continuous logs of the explorations. The locations of the test pits are shoN\m in the Site Plan on Figure 2. The logs of the explorations are presented on Figures 10 through 13. Subsurface conditions found on -site consisted mostly of a fine to medium sand that varied from loose at the surface, to dense with depth. Occasional gravelly layers as well as fine to coarse sand were also observed. We also found an occasional silt lens in the deposit, however, these lenses did not appear to be continuous. Test Pit 17, located on the south portion of Lot 1, encountered 11.5 feet of fill. We understand that this fill was associated with road construction on Olympic View Drive. Hydrologic Conditions No obvious evidence of ground water, perched ground water or outcropping ground water along the slopes was observed within this site. The advance outwash is considered fairly permeable and water is expected aNELSON-COOUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 4 1 to infiltrate vertically in the deposit until an underlying silt layer is encountered. We did not observe a continuous silt layer in our test pits or on the bluff face. The site appears to be well drained, with the 1 advance sands apparently being of sufficient thickness and extent to minimize any surface Nvatcr or ground water seepage on the steep slope face. j, SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard ' The Puget Sound region is classified as a Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. Seismic considerations for this type of site includes liquefaction potential and attenuation of ground motions by soft soil deposits. ' The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand and. silty sand with a high ground water table. Seismically sensitive conditions were not observed in this site. Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The following table outlines the erosion hazard for the on -site soils that have been stripped of vegetation. The soils have been classified in accordance with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system and have been grouped with respect to the corresponding geologic unit. Geologic Unit Surface Soil Sensitivity At Slone0-15% 16-39% >40% QvA/Qe Everett Med High High Landslide Hazard/Slope Stability Slope stability was observed below the subject lots of Vista Del Mar area to be only minimally active in i' backwasting, primarily through weathering and surface sloughing of tilt slope through normal erosional processes. This is in agreement with the conditions discussed for these slopes on the coastal zone stability Imap. Local occurrences of shallow surface sloughing can be seen across the bluff slope face, as indicated by older surface scarps. These scarps generally indicate a few inches of sloughing per event. The slope has a uniformly common slope angle ranging from about 45 to 50 degrees. This is what would be expected for the dense underlying sand. As the surface of the sand loosens, shallow sloughing events will occur after which vegetation will re-establish. The date of the trees on the slope indicate that the slope face has been relatively stable for the past 20 to 30 years. Vegetation on the slope does not indicate large scale land sliding characteristics, but does indicate minor localized soil creep. The cut adjacent to the Burlington NELSON- CO UVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. J April 261,1993 • • Vista Del Mar ' NCA File No. 101593 Page 5 Northern Railroad tracks did not show anv signs of backwasting which is common Nvhere seepage occurs ' near the tracks at other locations on the Puget Sound. Local cleaning of the slope toe just upslope of the tracks has created some surface sloughage, but is minor in extent. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ' General 1 1 I 1 1 �i =1 J 1 1 In general, we conclude that the site is suitable for the planned residential development, provided that the guideline recommendations and precautions presented herein are followed. From a geologic and geotechnical standpoint, the area above the top of bluff slope appears stable and should be capable of supporting the planned development. The underlying sand deposits have moderately high strength and is considered stable with respect to deep seated landslides or slope failures. Surf►cial sloughing and erosion can occur, however, we did not observe evidence of large scale backwasting of the slope in recent history. The sand deposits should provide a good subgrade for support of the structure foundations. Adequate building setbacks from the top of slope "line" are considered appropriate to reduce the risk of future effects to the development from bluff recession for a reasonable life -span. The slopes across the bluff within this development have receded over the past centuries due to slope erosion and surface land sliding processes. This process has been significantly slowed by the construction of the BNRR tracks and seawall. The processes that occur at present should be expected to persist at their current rate. Presently, it is our opinion that the backwasting rate within this slope area is on the order of less that one inch per year (cumulative) in the worst case. Development related improvements such as site drainage control systems, earthwork control and slope protection should lessen the impact of perched water outflow, and may slow the rate of backwasting to almost nil. These improvements are commonly performed and should be expected for this project. Residence foundations placed into the native sands also aid in reducing the effects of backwasting on stricture development. We recommend that any detention facility be lined and designed such that it cannot introduce groundwater into the hillside. It Would be preferable to use the direct discharge into the sound and not store water on site if possible. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. li April 26, 1993 • • Vista Dcl Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 6 The extent of the fill in the area of Test Pit 17 is not known. We expect that it extends along the south portion of Lot 1 and portions of Lots 3 and 4. Foundations in these areas should extend through the fill. We recommend that we be retained to observe foundation excavations in these areas to determine if bearing soils are exposed. Building Setbacks Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes, and in particular unstable or actively backwasting ' slopes, are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the dwelling areas and the slope margin so that ample room is allowed for normal slope regression or if a slope failure were to occur, the likelihood of dwelling involvement would be minimized. In a general sense, the greater the setback, the.lower the risk. From a geological standpoint, ' the setback dimension is usually based on the slope's physical characteristics, e.g., slope height, surface angle, material composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, type and desired life span of the development are important considerations as well. Based upon our explorations, slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a minimum building ' setback of 25 feet for all structures from the top of slope. 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 not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, including "temporary" excavation spoils from building area preparation and excavation. Any development or encroachment into the setback areas should ' be evaluated by a specific geotechnical evaluation and report. Reductions in setback areas are possible, but only with the additional geotechnical investigation. It should be understood that the closer disturbance and development of the structure is to the slope, the more risk there is of future distress. Cutting of trees located within the setback and along the top of slope can be performed, but certain precautions should be used. We recommend that the root bundle/stump of felled trees be left in place. Any new pruned materials and debris should be removed from the area, and not allowed to remain on the slope. ' Additional dumping of soil, sod, clippings or other matter over the slope is not recommended. In the event the existing debris is removed from the slope, suitable vegetation should be replanted to reduce erosion. SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING General ' Site preparation and grading will consist of stripping the roadway alignments of the upper topsoil and organic laden soils. Based on the conditions observed in our explorations, we expect a stripping depth on NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 • • April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 7 1 the order of 6 to 12 inches. Local arcas may require additional stripping, particularly in areas of existing fill. The underlying soils are considered marginally moisture sensitive and should be capable of being worked shortly after periods of wet weather. If the site is worked during wct conditions, additional 1 stripping depth may be required, as the upper topsoil has a higher silt content. j, Ceogrid Wall A geogrid wall consists of a reinforced soil mass with a suitable facing, such as a rockery. The soil mass is 1 reinforced with gcogrids and essentially stands by itself The face of the wall is typically covered to reduce erosion. Typical coverings consist of rockeries or precast concrete blocks. The fill in the reinforced mass 1 is placed and compacted as structural fill. Tlie geogrid is placed in horizontal layers as the fill is placed. The grid should be stretched such that it is taught prior to placing the fill. The facing should be placed as :1 the geogrid wall is constructed. The length of the grid and the vertical spacing is determined by the wall designer. Areas to receive a geogrid wall should be prepared as outlined below in the subgrade preparation section. '1 We expect that the on -site soils will be used for the geogrid fill. For these soils compacted as outlined 1 below, we rcconvmend using a value of 35 degrees for the angle of internal friction. This would apply to both the soil in the grid and the soil being retained by the system. Foundation bearing pressure is a function 1 1 of the Nvidth of the grid, which is a function of the height of the wall. We recommend using an allowable bearing pressure of 4000 pounds per square foot (psf) in design. If a higher value is needed, we should be 1 requested to review the final wall geometry. Subgrade Preparation '1 Preparation of areas to receive structural fill should include stripping of all topsoil down to firm native bearing soils. After stripping, the areas to receive fill should be thoroughly compacted with a large steel it drum compactor, or equivalent, to a dense non -yielding condition. Any areas that have noted weaving i under the compaction equipment should be repaired. Repairs may consist of additional compaction or it ovcrexcavation and replacement with structural fill. Areas that are N\,ct may require a blanket of spalls or some other material prior to placing fill, in order to achieve a suitable base for compaction. This should be i� evaluated at the time of site preparation. Fill Placement it Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed. All backfilling should be accomplished in 6 to 8 inch thick uniform lifts. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly 1 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 April 26, 1993 Vista Dcl Mar ' NCA File No. 101593 Page 8 ' compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts.. We recommend that the fill be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of its maximum dry density for all structural fill underlying all building -' areas, and within 2 feet of pavement subgrade. Maximum dry density in this report refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 compaction test procedure. We recommend that the fill be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent, with more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum, so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to overcxcavate and remove wet. soils in cases where drying to a 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. Common Fills Fills used for landscaping (common fills) which arc not settlement sensitive should be sloped no steeper than 3H:1V. It is presumed that such yard area fills will be comprised of stripping spoils or other poorer quality site fill materials, and will contain a sparse to moderate quantity of fine organic debris. Common ' fills should be placed in 1 to 2 foot lifts (loose measure) and be nominally compacted using available spreading equipment. Common fills should be thoroughly compacted along slope faces, and be graded so ' that concentrated slope surface erosion or other unstable conditions are avoided. ' FOUNDATIONS Structure foundations should be placed within the native sand deposits, expected to occur two to three feet below grade. Any loose or disturbed soil in foundation excavations should be removed or rccompacted prior to placing concrete. We recommend that foundations have a minimum burial depth of 18 inches and have minimum widths of 14 and 18 inches for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. For foundations founded as outlined, we recommend using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2500 pounds per square foot. (psO. Higher bearing capacities are appropriate for specific applications and should be reviewed at the time of design. The above allowable bearing pressure can be increased by one-third when considering temporary loads such as wind or seismic conditions. Settlement is expected to occur as the load is applied and should be negligible. Foundations in the area of the fill should extend down to native soils. This can be accomplished by deeper stem walls, structural fill pads that extend to the native soils, Control Density Fill, or piers. The t\`pe of the ' foundations used will depend on the stnicture type, location, elevation of foundation and contractor preference. We recommend that additional geotechnical studies be performed for the area around Lot where the deep fill was found. Tbcsc studies could include explorations prior to design, or at the very least .1 NELSON- CO UVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. • r 1 April 26, 1993 Vista Del Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 9 • on site monitoring to determine if the foundation system extends through the fill. We would be available to discuss foundation options at the time of lot development. Drainage and Stability Considerations Of great importance to the long-terni backwasting for the bluff is the existing surface and near -surface water control, and erosion . protection. Adequate drainage protection should be provided around the building and development areas. We recommend the use of foundation and roof drain systems that empty into a proper storm water system. Thcsc drains should be routed independently until there is a minimum of I foot of vertical fall below foundation elevation before the tic in. We understand that the storm water system will be routed down an casement to the north and not over the steep slope. We do not recommend that storm water be detained in a detention facility that would allow infiltration into the subsurface soils. This could increase groundwater in localized areas and could create local instability along the slope. Also of importance is the maintenance of the existing slope stability of the top of slope and slope areas. lErosion protection for exposed soil areas could be increased through placement of jute netting, hydrosecding and/or vegetation planting. Any exposed soils on the steep slope will erode due to normal ' erosion processes. Native vegetation will eventually protect these areas, but could be aided through planting. Also, we recommend that no loose vcgctation or spoils should be placed on the slopes. Additional Notes We suggest that observation of the earthwork and drainage control phases of development, be observed and approved by us. This should include setback, foundation placement, drainage and erosion control measures. USE OF THIS REPORT AND WARRANTY We have prepared this report for use by Mr. George Kaircz and his agents for their use in planning and preliminary design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and estimating purposes, but our report conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of subgrade conditions. 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, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 April 26, 1993 Vista DO Mar NCA File No. 101593 Page 10 0 • except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Therc arc possible variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in.budget and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we warrant that our work has been done in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied should be understood. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, feel free to call on us at any time. Sincerely, NELSON-COWRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. David L. Nelson, PG Professional Engineering Geologist 4ti�'p4 WAS z a F' M 2028! Fss10 N A L, E�G� EXPIRES Charles P. Couvrctte, PE Geotecluiical Engineer cc: Lovell -Saucrland & Associates, Inc. NELSON- CO UVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I� II II n u VICINITY MAP i PUG.ET SOOUND . I IPROJECT, SITE � --' Qo. 4 / x ..................... ►ARK ...... - .l DI VItW I i I�p 1 'cam ---- --- A r. 3 1 4 T+ sr sw d Q L. I" Tu 6T. iw J 106 nl ,T. s W YN NW OOD W r E D TiJ •••,• N D S W 4 0 V FIGURE NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. VISTA DEL MAR 1 CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS - ANO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FILE NO. 1015A93 DATE 04/20/93 T z m U) D z 0 •v 0 V m r � m z _r z m m O m 0 -� � c CD D z 0 ' m r� i r 4 .v u_' < i y W Z J S A D 0 Z 1� r_ 0 W Z m 0 0 A ao m r z m m A O O r o �p A Z 000 m m , D> zt) � z cvmv m D 0� Z Z 0 2 cn O (m!) z �z0 mK mrr �0m o—Di O U C (1) n n r r-D' m D O 0 aZZ PD c�i)-Di m0 z, mD r-X O m0 D0 zm 0 O Z cn m U) m 0 D -I � O z X 0 U) ---I 0 M-. '. ;u n �. O D O q m m LZ m o zD DZ m r' 0 � 2 rn Q D z Q r �- o n W i c C m i N 21 rn o ~ m m 0 r 1 D �' z m z m '- O iU D= o D o �' G O o czi O mm - �m M m --I m ci �o m0 OD h H zi �r D� f �o m z o � m x 00 o' O p O D N D D r = w m O O m W v h zO zm=oomOW i —�z'i m zm 0 -I Cl) oy mm m r- -q m n 00 ' O O � rD- vi D O C m Z O Z m0 O ' „ m .D -ni Z O m r; O.Zm D n OO Z-a W m N O c to -i m 0 O a, m m n ' D z z r- z m m ,m Du z v' 0 2 O O n , o D� 2 coto ,. o D O O 2 1 X , o n m c, Rl ! p m G O 0 i 2 00 m A , r z ui i z m �i m _ n .`A^ 1 C) Vim t1 p Icn X N Z to to I O '1] 1 m m I � 1I > t r- m m z I z �I m r o < X �� O Z. o v _ O D yr m w O CD o Z �f m �zmD ov m-0=i o '�rj)> o m Z vU) O --'i � z W D , � Z O O T � p _� x ' m m r- �z cp 0 � m D v ; > < cn rn m -D-I = O I m D r m m O D r" m n0 D Z o mg 0z 00 o A r- n m X co Dn � OO N m O0 zz m U) O (1) cn m W m n � O O z z , CROSS SECTION F-F SCALE: 1" = 50' TOS TP-4 TP-1 170' _ _ TP-3 TP-2 FINE SAND WITH OCCASSIONAL GRAVEL FINE SAND (ova/oe) NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS TOS EXPLANATION: TP-1 - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT RELATIVE TO CROSS SECTION TOS - TOP OF SLOPE ova/Qe - VASHON GLACIAL ADVANCE DEPOSITS/ESPERANCE SAND 170'- BEGINNING ELEVATION OF CROSS SECTION VISTA DEL MAR FIGURE 8 FILE NO. 1015A93 I DATE 04/20/93 IL ' - • LOG OF EXPLORATION • DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE 0.0 - 0.1 TOPSOIL 0.1 - 1.0 SP/SM DARK BROWN TO BLACK FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) 1.0 - 4.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST) 4.0-10.0 SP SLIGHTLY DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 � TEST PIT TWO 0.0 - 0.4 TOPSOIL 0.4-1.0 SPISM DARK BROWN TO BLACK FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) 1.0 - 2.0 SP/SM BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) 2.0 - 2.5 SP RUST TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH WOOD DEBRIS (LOOSE, MOIST) 2.5 - 5.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL ' (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 5.0 - 10.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ' TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT THREE 0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2-1.0 SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, SP MOIST TO DRY) RUST FINE WITH ROOTS MOIST TO DRY) 1.0 - 2.0 -SAND (LOOSE, 2.0 - 10.0 SP RUST FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE TO HARD, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2 - 1.5 SPISM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) BROWN FINE SAND DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) 1.5 - 10.0 SP (MEDIUM GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ^' TEST PIT COMPLETED AT. 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 10 LOG OF EXPLORATION • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l l 1 1 DEPTH TEST PIT FIVE 0.0 - 0.3 0.3 -1.5 1.5 - 8.0 TEST PIT SIX 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 - 0.5 0.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 6.0 TEST PIT SEVEN 0.0 - 0.3 0.3 - 0.5 0.5 - 6.0 TEST PIT EIGHT. 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 -1.5 1.5 - 7.0 7.0 - 10.0 TEST PIT NINE 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 - 1.0 1.0 - 7.0 USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL SP/SM BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, DRY) SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TOPSOIL SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP DARK BROWN TO RUST FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) SP RUST TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 ON 4/9/93 TOPSOIL SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP RUSTY LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 419/93 TOPSOIL SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT, ROOTS AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TOPSOIL SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ROOTS (LOOSE, MOIST) SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 7.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 11 LOG OF EXPLORATION • DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT TEN 0.0 -0.4 TOPSOIL 0.4 - 6.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 6.0 - 7.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 7.0 - 8.5 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.5 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT ELEVEN 0.0 - 0.5 SP/SM TOPSOIL 0.5 - 8.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT TWELVE 0.0.0.3 TOPSOIL 0.3 - 5.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) 5.0 - 6.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 6.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT THIRTEEN 0.0 - 0.5 TOPSOIL 0.5 - 3.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MESIUM DENSE, MOIST) 3.0 - 5.0 ML GRAY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL SAND (STIFF, MOIST TO DRY) 5.0 - 6.0 SW LIGHT BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND ( DENSE, DRY) 6.0 -8.0 SW LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (VERY DENSE, DRY) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 8.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT FOURTEEN 0.0 - 0.3 TOPSOIL 0.3 - 6.0 SP BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES 6.0 -10.0 ML GRAY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL LENSES OFGRAVEL AND SAND (STIFF, MOIST) NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 4/9/93 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 12 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION • ' DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT FIFTEEN 0.0 -1.5 DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) 1.5 - 6.0 SW BROWN TO RUST FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND FINE AND OCCASIONAL LENSES OF GRAY SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 6.0-9.0 SP GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES ±' (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 9.0 ON 4/9/93 ' TEST PIT SIXTEEN 0.0 -0.7 DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIL) ?� 0.7 - 6.0 SP BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL AND COBBLES (LOOSE, MOIST) 6.0-7.0 SW BROWN MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL AND FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) ' 7.0 - 10.5 SP GRAY TO BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 10.5 ON 4/9/93 TEST PIT SEVENTEEN 0.0 - 0.4 SP/SM DARK BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, MOIST) 0.4 - 11.5 SP/SM DARK GRAY TO BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES, GRAVEL AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (CONCRETE AND ASPHALT) (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 11.5 - 12.0 SP RUST FINE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (NATIVE SOIL) GROUND WATER NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 12.0 ON 4/9/93 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 1015A93 FIGURE 13 M; • • 0 SECTION IV Preliminary Drainage Basin Evaluation 23 Apr 1993 LSA No. 2926 LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 19400 33rd Avenue W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE BASIN EVALUATION FOR THE PLAT OF VISTA DEL MAR a proposed development on Olympic View Drive at 92nd Avenue West, Edmonds Prepared By: I93 2926.001 Page 1 23 Apr 1993 LSA No. 2926 I REFERENCE: City of Edmonds letter of March 26, 1993 to Jurgen Sauerland; regarding preliminary comments. I. Proposed Development. ' The project consists of the subdivision of several contiguous land parcels into approximately 15 lots for construction of single family dwellings. Subdivision improvements would include the construction of public ' and private roads, utilities, and a storm water collection system. The properties are situated at the top of a bluff ' adjacent -to Puget Sound. A 100-foot wide Burlington Northern Railroad right-of-way lies between Puget Sound and the property. The site is currently occupied by two houses and some small out -buildings. The smaller of the houses lies at the south boundary of the site, and is accessed by an off -site private road from the south. The larger house lies near the center of the site, and is accessed by a looped driveway having a total length of about 1000 feet. ' About a third to a half of the site is clear of trees and brush, and has historically been lawn with large landscape shrubs and trees. The remainder of the site ' is covered with evergreen forest, probably mature second growth. ' Existing Sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems cross the northernmost portion of the site. The northern portion of the site is accessed by easement ' through an adjacent single family lot.* II. Existing Drainage Conditions. All runoff from the site eventually drains to the drainage ditch in the BNRR right-of-way. Most is transported by direct overland flow, but some from the site's forested area is possibly collected in the private systems to the south. These would also eventually discharge in the same BNRR ditch. The ditch drains to the 18-inch culvert crossing under the tracks ' adjacent to the site. The piped storm drainage system crossing the site at ' its northernmost end discharges into Puget sound just north of the site. It drains a basin which includes roughly 130 acres, but does not currently include any ' significant portion of the site. This basin is discussed in detail below, as it is proposed to use this system to convey future developed runoff. 1 2926.001 Page 2 23 Apr 1993 ' • LSA No. 2926 III. Proposed Drainage Improvements. ' The drainage improvements must address two basic issues. First, it is considered desirable to reduce or eliminate surface runoff onto or near the face of the bluff. In particular, concentrated flows from impervious areas must be collected and safely conveyed ' so as not to increase erosion on the face of the bluff. Due to the BNRR right-of-way and the intolerance the BNRR has demonstrated for development in land they ' control, and due to the steepness of the bluff sloping to the BNRR right-of-way, it is not at this time considered feasible to convey storm runoff by any new ' piped system to Puget Sound, or to the BNRR ditch. By default then, storm runoff must be conveyed by pipe to the existing storm sewer crossing the property. ' The second issue is whether the runoff can be released without control or whether it must first be detained to match existing peak runoff levels. To answer this, the t capacity needs of the upstream basin and available capacity of the downstream system were reviewed. A study of this basin was completed by URS Consultants ' for the City of Edmonds, as documented in their report "Edmonds Drainage Basin Studies" dated June 1989. The basin of concern in this instance was one of several ' subbasins identified in the Talbot Park Drainage Basin. Portions of the study relating to this basin are attached. The basin features include.subbasin areas ' numbered 5, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, and 58, and the drainage system elements are labelled F1 through F9. ' From the "Projected Flows" table, it is noted that the elements F1 through F4 have excess capacity beyond what is needed to convey the 100 year storm in a future "built -out" basin. Upstream of element F4, it is ' observed that capacities fall short of requirements. The proposed connection to this storm system would occur in the area of elements Fl-F2. Since at that ' point 95 cfs capacity is provided, and only 61 cfs is needed, it is evident that detention storage of the proposed development would serve no useful function. ' Therefore, no detention storage is proposed. 1J I ' 2926.001 Page 3 EXCERPT FROM EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDIES • • URS, DUNE 1989, J System Elements •••�•• Pipe •••••••••• Subbasin Boundary Stream rmmm Major Basin Boundary Figure 7.1 Talbot Park Basin Problem Areas UI EXCERPT FROM EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDIES URS, DUNE 1989 Problem No. 3 Problem No. 3 is an undersized pipe at the bottom of the drainage course discharging along the southwest side of Hutt Arboretum. This problem is exacerbated by housing construction and landscaping in the vicinity. The pipe itself appears to have the capacity to handle the anticipated flows from the current basin. However, the capacity of the system in this case is not regulated by the capacity of the pipe, but by the capacity of its inlet configuration. Any obstruction caused by debris limits the ability of water to enter the pipe and causes flooding. The unobstructed inlet appears to have the capacity to handle a 10 year 24 hour design storm. Problem No. 4 Problem No. 4 is the capacity of the culverts and channels of the system draining 92nd Ave. W. Headwater limitations on the culverts is the limiting factor at this time. As the basin develops out, the additional flows will exceed the capacity of the channels as well. Problem No. S Problem No. 5 is the capacity of the trunk line draining the highlands portion of Talbot Park. An improved line was recently installed along the lower reaches of this system. The trunk line improvements need to be extended south along 88th Ave. W. and west along Olympic View Drive. Problem No. 6 Problem No. 6 is the capacities of the facilities in the low area draining Frederick Pl. and the basin above to Talbot Rd. The culvert under Frederick PL, the channel to Talbot Road, and the pipe entering the Talbot Road system are undersized. Problem No. 7 Problem No. 7 is the capacity of the pipe discharging the Talbot Road system to Perrinville Creek. Problem No. 8 Citizens in the Talbot Park basin reported eight of the 29 water quality problems identified in the survey. Half of these complaints involved land or channel erosion or 1 siltation, while the remainder concerned petroleum products or detergents. As an example, the project team inspected the Talbot Road crossing of the Perrinville tributary, where there was little stream bank vegetation. The team also recorded several problems along 92nd in the vicinity of 184th•188th. These problems included disposal of lawn clippings in natural drainage swales and possible leakage from a shallow sewer line. FW i EXCERPT FROM EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDIES . • � URS, JUNE 1989. EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY URS CORPORATION - TALBOT PART; DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY TABLE C.4 SYSTEM INVENTORY Manning's n= ' PIPES 0.013 ELEME)!T (DIAMETER :UPSTREAM 1DNSTREAM 1 LENGTH 1 SLOPE (FLOW DPTHIVELOCITY 1DISCHARGEISTORASE 1 ' NO. 1 (INCHES)1ELEVATIONIELEVATION1 (FEET) 1 1 (INCHES): (FPS) 1 (CFS) 1 (CU FT) I �' fil 1 36 1 12 I 11.5 1 40 1 0.013 1 36 1 10.58 I 74.77 1283 I E3 I 36 1 52 1 51 I 55 1 0.01B 1 36 1 12.76 1 90.18 1 389 I BS I IE I B3.5 I B3 I 55 1 0.D09 1 18 1 5.68 1 10.04 1 97 I B11 1 36 C 145.7 1 145 1 60 1 0.012 1 36 I 5.54 C 39.13 I 424 I B13 1 24 1. 161 1 16D 1 62 1 0.016 1 24 1 9.17 1 2B.81 1 195 I E5.1 1 24 I 105 1 B3 I 350 1 0.063 1 24 1 18.10 1 56.87 1 1100 1 ' B6.1 1 12 1 105 1 63 I 35D 1 0.063 1 12 1 11.40 1 8.96 1 275 I :' C1 1 18 1 16.5 I 15.5 1 40 1 0.025 1 1B 1 9.42 1 16.65 1 71 1 C3 1 24 C 68.1 I 16.7 I 35D 1 0.147 1 24 1 14.99 C 47.09 1 1100 I C4 I 24 C 9B 1 66.1 1 280 1 0.107 I 24 1 12.78 C 40.15 1 BBO 1 C5 I 24 C 113.2 I 9B 1 120 1 0.127 1 24 1 13.72 C 43.73 1 377 1 . Cb 1 15 1 14B.5 I 113.5 I 940 1 0.037 I 15 1 10.1E 1 12.50 1 1154 1 _ ' E7 I 12 1 1B1.1 1 148.7 I 722 1 0.046 1 12 1 9.78 1 7.6B 1 567 1 D1 I 1B 1 16.5 i 15.5 1 40 I 0.025 1 1B 1 9.42 I 16.65 I 71 I ' D2 I 18 C 73 1 16 I 100 I 0.570 1 18 1 24.37 C 43.07 1 177 I �% D3 I 12 1 135 1 73 1 200 1 0.310 1 12 I 25.33 1 19.89 1 157 I _ D4 1 36 I 142 I 141 1 60 1 0.017 1 36 I 12.21 I 86.34 I 424 1 Db 1 12 1 277.5 1 237.9 1 550 I 0.072 1 12 1 12.22 1 9.60 1 1 432 I E1 1 30 1 14.5 1 14 1 40 1 0.013 I 30.1 9.37 I 45.9E 1 196 I - E3 1 12 I 1 1 0 1 20 1 0.050 1 12 I 10.17 1 7.99 1 16 I �` ' E4 1 1B I 190 1 175 1 300 I 0.050 1 IB I 13.33 I 23.55 1' 530 I E6 I 12 1 214 1 204 1 150 1 0.067 1 12 1 11.74 I 9.22 1 116 I _ F1-2 I 14 f 120 I 15.5 1 600 I 0.174 I 24 1 30.13 1 94.66 1 1885 1 F3-4 1 24 1 200 1 120 1 1050 I 0.076 I 24 1 19.93 1 62.61 1 3299 1 _ F5 1 1 219.5 1 212 1 175 1 0.043 1 18 1 12.34 1 21.80 1 309 1 ' Fb .18 1 12 1 320 I 219.5 1 1020 1 0.099 1 12 1 14.28 1 11.21 1 801 I _ FT 1 12 I 339.3 1 320 1 530 1 0.036 I 12 1 8.68 1 6.82 1• 416 1 FB 1 12 I 352 1 339.3 1 830 1 0.015 1 12 1 5.63 1 4.42 1 652 1 - ' F9 1 12 1 361 1 352 I 700 1 0.013 1 12 I 5.16 1 4.05 1 55D I ; F4.1 I 12 1 213 1 212 1 100 I 0.010 1 12 1 4.55 1 3.57 1 79 1 _ 1 1 I I 1 I 1 I I F5.1 I 18 I 222 I 219.5 I 50 1 0.050 1 18 I 13.33 1 23.55 B8 I F5.2 1 18 1 233.5 1 222 I 266 I 0.043 I 18 1 12.39 1 21.90 1 470 1 F5.3 I 12 1 247 I 234 1 633 1 0.021 I 12 1 6.52 1 5.12 1 497 1 - ' 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 H2 I 12 I 20 I 18 1 200 1 0.010 1 12 1 4.55 1 3.57 I 157 1 H3 I 18 1 43 1 20 1 700 1 0.033 I 18 I 10.B0 I 19.09 I 1237 H4 I 12 I 44 1 43.5 1 30 I 0.017 1 12 1 5.67 1 4.61 1 24 1 ' H6 .1 12 1 46.6 1 46 I 33 I 0.018 I 12 I 6.13 1 4.82 1 26 I ' TOTAL 11801 _ EXCERPT FROM EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDIES . ; • � URS, DUNE 1989 EDMDNDS BASIN STUDIES - ' TALBOT PARK BASIN RUNOFF MODEL DATA SUMMARY TABLE D.6 ' ' 1 � EXISTING LAND USE w - ' - FUTURE LAND USE - 1 YEISHTED CN'S 1 Bross :HYdrol.: Pervious Area 1 Impervious Area 1 Pervious Area ]&pervious Area 1 24 HOUR Area : 5oil 24 hr Tc 24 hr Tc 1 24 hr Tc . 1 24 hr Tc :Subbasin:lacresl! Group '.acres CN hours :acres CN hours :acres CN hours !acres CN hours :EXISTING FUTURE delta 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 : 6.6 : A : 6.5 68 0.59 '. 2.1 98 0.59 1 5.2 68 0.59 1 3.4 9B 0.59 1 75.33 79.66 4.53 12 : 17.9 : A,C : 14.3 80 0.32 '. 3.6 98 0.13 : 10.9 BG 0.32 ! 7.0 98 0.13 : BI- Q B7.04 3.42 : 13 : 10.1 : C 1 8.1 86 0.53 : 2.0 98 0.13 : 6.2 B6 0.53 ! 3.9 98 0.13 : 88.3B 90.63 2.26 i4 : 14.5 : A ! 13.7 4B.3 1.32 : 0.8 9B 0.14 : B.9 68 1.32 : 5.6 98 0.14 1 51.04 79.59 28.54 _2.6 : C : 19.3 62.9 0.17 : 3.3 9B 0.22 : 13.8 86 0.57 1 B.B 96 0.22 : 85.10 90.67 5.57 f 16 : 36.1 : C : 27.6 86 0.52 '. 8.5 98 0.22 1 19.9 Bb 0.52 : 16.2 98 0.22 ! BB.B3 91.39 2.56 1 17 ! 9.4 : A : 7.1 68 0.34 : 2.3 9B 0.15 1 5.7 6B 0.34 : 3.7 9B 0.15 : 75.34 79.81 4.47 '. 16 : 42.1 : C : 31.9 E5.8 0.68 : 10.2 98 0.21 : 25.7 B6 0.6B : 1b.4 9B 0.21 : BB.76 90.67 1.92 21 : 11.6 : A : 10.0 6B 0.67 1 1.B 98 0.67 1 7.2 68 0.67 1 4.6 98 0.67 : 72.56 79.69 7.12 22 : 19.E : A ! 15.9 68 0.54 : 3.9 9B 0.13 : 12.1 bB 0.54 : 7.7 9B 0.13 : 73.91 79.67 5.76 ?3 5.2 ; A : 4.5 68 0.55 1 0.7 9B 0.10 1 3.2 bB G.55 1 2.0 98 G.10 : 12.04 79154 1.50 24 : 6.1 : C : 5.4 81.6 G.bl 1 0.8 98 0.14 1 3.B 86 0.61 1 2.4 9B 0.14 : 63.72 90.65 6.53 _1�1 : 0.0 : C 1 7.2 66 0.65 : 1.8 9B 0.65 : 5.5 Bb 0.0 1 3.5 96 0.65 1 BB.40 90.67 2.27 It 32 15.7 : C : 11.8 83.8 0.66 : 3.9 96 0.17 1 9.7 86 0.66 1 6.0 98 0.17 1 81.33 90.34 3.01 1 JL 1 1 41 : 16.6 : C : 15.6 7E.6 0.59 1 1.0 9B 0.25 1 10.6 86 0.59 1 6.0 9B 0.25 1 79.77 90.34 10.57 42 1 34.2 1 C 1 28.1 62.5 0.47 1 6.1 9B 0.16 1 22.6 B4 0.47 1 11.6 98 0.16 : 85.26 BB.B1 3.55 1 1 1 1 1 I ' ! 43 : 27.5 : C 1 22.5 135.5 0.54 1 5.0 9B 0.22 1 16.8 Bb 0.54 : 10.7 98 0.22 1 . 67.77 90.67 2.90 51 1 5.7 1 C 1 4.0 86 0.35 1 1.7 98 0.12 1 3.9 Bb 0.35 1 1.8 98 0.12 1 84.58 89.19 0.21 t 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 52 : 4.B 1 C 1 4.2 82 0.31 : 0.6 98 0.31 1 2.9 8b 0.31 1 1.9 98 0.31 1 84.00 90.75 6.75 14 53 1 14.1 1 C 1 12.1 B4.5 0.21 1 2.0 98 0.16 1 B.6 Bb 0.21 1 5.5 98 0.16 1 86.41 90.6E 4.27 54 1 19.7 '. C 1 15.2 85.5 0.24 1 4.5 9B 0.16 1 12.0 86 0.24 1 7.7 98 0.16 1 BB.36 90.69 2.34 1 1 1 1 I 1 / 1 55 -1 30.4 1 C 1 23.4 84.9 0.49 1 7.0 98 0.18 1 18.0 86 0.49 1 12.4 98 0.18 1 87.92 90.89 2.96 56 1 44.8 1 C 1 2B.0 86.1 0.52 ! 16.0 98 0.43 1 25.3 86 0.52 1 19.5 96 0.43 1 90.35 91.34 0.99 57 1 10.3 1 C 1 7.3 86 0.61 ! 3.0 98 0.17 1 6.3 86 0.61 1 4.0 9B 0.17 1 29.50 90.66 1.17 '. SB 1 60.3 1 C 1 50.4 84.5 0.40 1 9.9 9B 0.31 1 37.1 B6 0.40 1 23.2 98 0.31 1 86.12 90.56 3.84 61 : 41.0 : C 1 32.8 Bb 0.77 1 8.2 9B 0.32 1 29.9 86 0.77 1 11.1 9B 0.32 1 BB.40 89.25 0.85 Q 1 48.9 1 C 1 48.9 76 1.38 1 0.0 9B 1.38 1 48.9 76 1.38 1 0.0 98 1.38 76.00 76.00 0.00 1 63 1 26.8 1 C 1 21.7 82.2 0.53 1 5.1 9B 0.10 1 19.2 82 0.53 1 7.6 98 LIB 1 B5.21 86.32 1.12 enaee: DATASMRY.MIK1 11F LEGEND Unit Identifier � Reach Numer b e #32 81-3 Subbaaln No. Bement Numbw E► Diversion struetwo Storspe Fedliies F1.2 O F3-4A F4.1 © F5 53 0 O s #21TF6 F7-8 EXCERPT FROM EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDIES • • URS, DUNE 1989 G3 2 F5.1 0 0 F5.2.5.3 0 #22 0 #23 # 13 57 58 #14 (3)v � F8 # 15 H1-2 t'J 61 3 0 H3-4 #31 '#32 HS-6 0.� H7 # 33 63 Figure D.6 North Talbot Park (Talbot Road) Hydrologic Model Schematic EXCERPT FROM EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDIES URS, JUNE 1989 EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY URS CORPORATION � TALBOT PARS: DRAINAGE BASIN STUDY TABLE D.10 SYSTEM INVENTORY ' PIPES PROJECTED FLOWS J ELEMENT :DIAMETER ;VELOCITY ;DISCHARGE; EXISTING ; FUTURE t NO. 1 (INCHES): (FPS) ; (CFS) ; 2 YR ; 10 YR 1 25 YR 1 100 YR 1 2 YR I 10 YR ; 15 YR ; IUD YR ; BI 1 36 ; 10.58 ! 74.77 ; 11.0 ; 19.6 ; 29.3 ; 38.7 ; 19.6 ; 30.9 ; 47.2 1 52.4 B 1 36 1 12.76 1 90.1B 1 )G.B ; 12.3 ; 28.7 : 38.1 ; 19.3 ; 30.4 1 41.4 1 51.5 ; E5 ; 1B ; 5.6B : 10.04 ; 10.3 ; 18.4 ; 27.3 : 36.1 : 1B.5 ; 29.0 1 39.4 1 49.4 ; ' Bll : 36 C 5.54 C 39.13 ; 4.7 ; 8.6 : 12.7 1 16.9 ; 5.3 : 14.6 : 19.8 1 24.6 1 B13 24 ; 9.17 1 28.81 1 4.7 1 8.5 ; 12.6 : 16.1 : 8.4 1 13.3 ; 18.1 ; A.12.6 ; a 1 . 85.1 1 24 1 12.10 : 56.67 1 4.3 1 7.2 ; 10.3 1 13.6 1 5.9 1 9.1.1 12.5 1 16.1 1 "r•6.1 : 12 1 11.40 1 8.96 1 O.B 1 1.0 ; 1.3 1 1.9 1 1.1 1 1.6 1 2.0 ; _ 2.6 1 i i ' C1 C3 1 1 18 1 24 C 9.42 1 14.99 C 11.65 1 47.09 1 1.9 1 1.4 ; 2.7 1 2.0 ; 3.6 : 2.7 1 5.1 : 3.7 1 4.3 ; 3.2 1 6.1 1 4.6 1 7.9 : 6.0 1 10.0 1 7.5 1 _ C4 :. 24 C 12.7E C 40.15 1 1.4 : 2.0 1 1.7 1 3.7 1 3.2 1 4.6 1 6.0 : 7.5 1 C5 1 24 C 13.92 C 43.73 1 1.4 1 2.0 1 2.7 1 3.7 1 3.2 1 4.6 1 6.0 1 7.5 1 Cb : 15 1 10.1E : 12.50 1 D.4 1 0.7 1 1.2 : 1.8 1 1.1. 1 1.9 1 2.5 1 C7 : 12 1 9.78 1 7.6B 1 0.3 1 0.6 1 0.9 1 1.3 1 0.8 1 1.3 : 1.8 : 2.3 : D1 1 18 1 9.42 1 16.65 1 1.5 ; 4.4 1 9.6 1 13.7 1 4.3 1 6.0 1 12.0 1 16.2 1 G2 1 1B C 24.37 C 43.07 : 1.5 1 4.4 1 7.7 1 ll.l 1 3.2 : 6.4 : 9.9 : 13.5 1 - G3 : 12 : 25.Z 1 19.89 1 1.5 ; 4.4 : 7.7 ; 11.1 ; 3.2 1 6.4 1 9.9 1 13.5 : G4 : 36 1 12.21 1 B6.34 1 1.5 1 4.4 1 7.7 1 11.1 1 3.2 1 6.4 1 9.9 1 13.5 1 D6 ; 11 : 12.22 : 9.60 ; 0.4 1 2.3 1 4.5 : 6.B 1 1.8 1 4.0 1 6.4 1 2.9 1 _ It Is El' : 30 1 9.37 1 45.9B 1 4.4 1 6.2 1 11.7 ; 15.6 1 7.2 1 10.6 1 14.5 : 16.4 :. E3 1 12 1 10.17 : 7.99 1 4.4 1 7.1 1 9.B 1 12.6 : 6.1 1 8.7 1 11.5 1 14.5 1 E4 1 16 1 13.33 1 23.55 1 4.4 1 7.1 1 9.B 1 12.b 1 6.1 1 8.7 : 11.5 : 14.5 : - E6 : 12 1 11.74 : 9.22 1 4.5 1 7.1 1 9.8 1 12.6 1 6.1 1 8.7 1 11.5 1 14.5 1 1 s 1 F1-2 : 24 1 30.13 1 94.66 1 14.4 1 26.5 1 39.5 1 53.3 1 21.3 1 333 : 41.2 1 61.4 1 _ F3-4 : 24 1 19.93 : 62.61 1 14.6 1 26.0 1 36.1 1 52.3 1 20.9 1 33.2 : 46.4 Isb0.4 1 ' F5 F6 1 1 18 1 12 1 12.34 1 14.2B 1 21.B0 1 11.21 1 14.6 1 8.7 1 26.1 : 15.1 1 3B.6 : 22.1 1 51.9 1 29.7 1 20.7 1 11.7 1 32.7 1 1B.4 1 45.6 1 25.6 1 59.3 1 33.2 1 F7 ; 12 1 B.b6 : 6.82 : 7.3 : 12.5 : 18.4 1 24.B 1 93 : 15.4 1 21.5 1 27.9 1 FB 1 12 : 5.63 1 4.42 1 7.3 1 12.5 1 18.4 1 24.8 : 9.8 1 15.4 1 21.5 1 27.9 1 F9 1 12 1 5.16 1 4.05 1 4.9 1 B.3 1 12.1 1 16.0 1 b.b 1 10.3 1 14.2 1 IB.3 1 F4.1 1 12 1 4.55 1 3.57 1 1.3 1 2.5 1 3.8 1 5.2 1 2.2 1 3.5 1 4.9 1 6.3 1 F5.1 18 1 13.33 1 23.55 1 6.2.1 11.4 1 17.2 1 23.4 1 9.5 1 15.2 1 21.3 1 27.8 ; F5.2 1 1B 1 12.39 1 21.90 1 5.2 ; 9.7 1 14.7 1 20.1 1 8.4 1 13.4 1 18.8 1 24.4 1 F5.3 1 12 1 6.52 1 5.12 1 5.2 1 9.7 1 14.7 1 20.1 1 8.4 1 13.4.1 10.8 1 24.4 1 H2 1 12 1 4.55 1 3.57 1 4.8 1 9.2 : 14.7 1 20.3 1 5.8 1 10.4 1 15.9 1 21.6 1 H3 1 18 1 10.80 1 19.09 1 1.6 1 3.9 1 7.2 1 11.1 1 2.2 1 4.4 1 7.6 1 11.5 1 ' H4 1 12 : 5.87 1 4.61 1 1.6 : 3.9 1 7.2 1 11.1 1 2.2 1 4.4 1 7.6 : 11.5 1 Hb 1 12 1 6.13 : 4.62 1 1.6 1 3.9 1. 7.2 1 11.1 1 2.2 1 4.4 1 7.b 1 11.5 1 - -------- 1---------:---------1--------- 4 Is ' TOTAL - 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 A 0- I .r -/ 24" RCP EXCERPT FROM EDMONDS DRAINAGE BASIN STUDIES URS, JUNE 1989 / 1 �•• HCP I' 3 CP cco 21 RCPII co C ? 182nd PI. S.W. N *t 6 Ci 'O� 184th St. S.W. 185th St. S.W. Talbot Park Basin Plan Recommended Improvements Problem No. TP-SA SECTION V Traffic Analysis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR VISTA DEL MAR CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Prepared for George P. Kairez By LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES Lynnwood, Washington May, 1993 0 Traffic Impact Analysis for Vista Del Mar City of Edmonds, Washington Prepared by: Dale B. Watkins P.E. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates 19400 33rd Avenue W. Suite 200 Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Telephone (206) 775-1591 May, 1993 ellTt EXPIRES 21"00- 4 Y I • • TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE Introduction ............................................... 1 Proposed Development ...................................... 1 Existing Conditions ......................................... 1 Trip Generation ........................................... 1 Trip Distribution ........................................... 2 Traffic Analysis ........................................... 3 Intersection .Sight Distance ................................... 3 TABLES 1 Traffic Generation ..................................... 2 2 Sight Distance ....................................... 4 Lovell-Sauerland & Associates ii File No. 3013 Introduction ' The following traffic study has been prepared to determine the traffic related impacts associated with development of the proposed preliminary plat of Vista Del Mar. The project is located north of Olympic View Drive and west of Talbot Drive. The study examines traffic generation, traffic distribution and identifies the traffic impacts of the project. This traffic study has been prepared to support the Environmental Checklist ' prepared for the City of Edmonds under SEPA. The report has also been prepared to address the requirements of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) which requires distribution on all locations on state highways with 10 or more ' peak hour trips. Existing Conditions Olympic View Drive provides access to the plat vicinity which is north of 196th Street ' and west of 88th Avenue W. Olympic View Drive is designated as a collector arterial on the Snohomish County Arterial Plan. Olympic View Drive has a posted speed limit of 25 mph with 20 mph advisory speed limits due to road curvature on both approaches to the plat. A flashing yellow beacon is located just easterly of the intersection with Sunset Way, which would be just westerly of the proposed plat road. The City of Edmonds conducted 24 hour traffic counts in 1989 and determined the average daily traffic on ' Olympic View Drive to be approximately 3,500 vehicles per day. I Proposed Development As proposed by the project developer, the proposed preliminary plat consists of a total of ' 15 single family lots on 6.83 acres. Two single family homes are located on -site, thereby resulting in 13 net new single family residences. Access to the proposed development site will be via two roadways. One roadway serving 12 lots, (10 new) will be a tee ' intersection with Olympic View Drive adjacent to the existing intersection with Sunset Way. The other plat roadway will serve 3 platted lots and will have a tee intersection with Talbot Road north of 179th Place SW. Both roads are intended to be private gated roadways. The main plat roadway will connect with an existing private roadway at its northerly ' terminus. The plat can be designed to allow use of both roadways by exisitng and proposed residences. The City of Edmonds may also elect to restrict such use. ITrip Generation ' The number of trips have been estimated using the average vehicle trip rates for Land Use Code 210, Single Family Housing, as outlined in the Institute of Transportation Engineers ' Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Page 1 ' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition. Using these estimates, the completed 13 net new lots will generate a total of 172 average weekday daily vehicle trip ends (ADT), 14 ' AM peak hour trips, and 18 PM peak hour trips. Table 1, "Traffic Generation" shows the net expected traffic from Vista Del Mar. Table 1 Traffic Generation ' Vista Del Mar (1) ' Total Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends (ADT) ....................... 124 (13 new single family residences at 9.55 ADT per residence) ' Total AM Peak Hour Trips ...................................... 10 (13 new single family residences at 0.74 trips per residence) Inbound Trips (26%)....................................... 3 Outbound Trips (74%)...................................... 7 ' Total PM Peak Hour Trips ....................................... 13 (13 new single family residences at 1.02 trips per residence) ' Inbound Trips (65%) ...................................... 8 Outbound Trips (35%)..................................... 5 (1) Trip rates from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition, pp 257, 259 and 261. ITrip Distribution ' The purpose of the trip distribution analysis is to determine the roadways and intersections impacted by new traffic generated by the proposed development. The estimated distribution of PM peak hour trips from the proposed development has been based on a review of the existing road network in the vicinity of the project as well as previous traffic studies prepared by Lovell-Sauerland & Associates for projects in the vicinity. It is estimated that 60% of the trips will be distributed south on Olympic View ' Drive to and from the City of Edmonds. It is estimated that 30% of the trips will use 88th Avenue W for access to 196th Street and areas to and from the east. A small percentage, estimated to be 1 % may use Olympic View Drive for access to and from ' areas northerly. i ' Lovell-Sauerland & Associates ° Page 2 Traffic Analysis ' The standard for providing a traffic analysis for intersections under the jurisdiction of WSDOT is 10 PM peak hour trips through an arterial/State highway intersection or intersection of two state highways. No WSDOT intersection would meet this standard. The traffic capacity of the plat entrance road onto Olympic View Drive was examined. ' The PM peak hour traffic counts from 1989 were projected to 1993. Capacity is adequate. It is estimated that the entrance road will operate at level of service (LOS) "A". Intersection Sight . Distance The plat entrance road was located with regard to providing sufficient sight distance for traffic movements to and from Olympic View Drive. There are two sight distance standards used to examine intersection locations: stopping sight distance and intersection ' sight distance. Stopping sight distance is the distance required for a driver of a vehicle traveling on the major road to react to a stationary object and bring a vehicle to a complete stop on wet pavement. Stopping sight distance should be available on collector ' arterials such as Olympic View Drive. Intersection sight distance applies to the driver approaching the intersection on the minor road and is reflects the time required to react and maneuver onto the major roadway. ' Sight distance was examined in the field at the proposed location of the intersection of the plat entrance road and Olympic View Drive. Available sight distance was determined to be 260 feet to the left and .296 feet to the right measured from a point 15 feet back from the traveled roadway, which corresponds to the location of a drive approaching Olympic View Drive. A comparison between available sight distance and stopping sight ' distance and intersection sight distance for the speed limit and advisory speed is provided in Table 2. As indicated by Table 2, the proposed intersection meets stopping .sight distance standards for the advisory and posted speeds, intersection sight distance ' standard for the advisory speed, and intersection sight distance to the right for the posted speed limit. The intersection does not meet intersection sight distance standard for t meet ' posted speed limit for sight distance to the left for a vehicle turning right. It does;eet ' the standard for advisory speed of 20 mph. m Given the situation at this particular intersection, vehicles traveling at the posted speed ' limit would have to slow to the advisory speed for right exiting vehicles accelerating slowly. This situation is not considered unsafe. 0 L!f J"Gl S rat cat � pd r e-S 'c� I Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Page 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 2 Sight Distance Vista Del Mar 20 mph Advisory 25 mph Speed Limit Speed Limit Stopping Sight Distance (wet pavements) 125 feet 150 feet Intersection Sight Distance Sight Distance for passenger vehicle turning 230 feet 255 feet left into 2-lane highway and attaovertaken by a vehicle approaching from the right and reducing speedd from desing speed to 85% of design speed. Sight Distance for passenger vehicle turning 210 feet 255 feet left into 2-lane highway across passenger vehicle approaching from left. Lovell-Sauerland & Associates Page 4 -- •, — I C — (( l 77iQ14FIT EXPIRES' CITY OF �EDMO'1i USE PERMIT �) ZONE �_ y� NUMBER r ! 0- ' ` CONSTRUCTION JOD ` SUITEIAPTe ADDRESS 0. \(40 (� I v G OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS'-- ? I / J .... PLAT NAM EISUB ISION N0. LOT NO.f LID NO J4 n - CE 1, 3 LID FEE S MAILING ADDRESS j I ! li u_ / 6 PUBLIC R ,qF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW P—pproved Q TIE�! Q RW Per t Rews '1 / 1 "`�' EXISTING�ROPOSED R Street Use Pnrmil Roq tl Q InePenlon Requires 0 Sid—k Required CITY ZIP TELEPHONE n,,ry ji� Tom, dl�"` f','1 .}•.�� t.7 c{., v1 �/ t//•.V{ .] v 1 f "1 "`� j U i �'7 L 1 / tx REQUIRED DEDICATION.( FT Underground Q n requtrea NAME.i ,METER/SI��E LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED O /r y1} �/ sy�� + YES NO ❑ w ADDRESS I "1 �^'� , j ,I REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE Z � ilk" c)N C.i� L Z T1 f 4 _ _ w CITY TEL�EP,H2O,/N'E ;1'� � ,y � �y (,,�Z,I(P� + // � / 6 / % 1 /' ('� -y- /� G �r��f]IIGf'P (f VV Pi 6 0 -2 7 (T3t 4�G�CpV�%P. J� IFFY PV ! /i 1 NAME �u1 ,/�/j J(�' Y/y� b t'I YEA a /J ENGINEERING REVIEWEDIDATE 5+' 1� . �%�• �I 1-7 �J ! G �V 2 - -�+"t lz r� IN `�- I , , ADDRESS �/'1 {,,rQ ^j( "" r J1 �V FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE w x LL CITY ZIP TELEPHONEItJ VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE INSPECTIQrI REOt�f BOND POSTED STATE LICENSE NUMBER EX ,t$,E v.,;� ED 0Y / r j A ��•�, �r, 3� t,,r% ❑YES i SEPA REVIEW COMPLETE EXEMPT SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED HEIGHT HEIGHT ALLOWED PROPOSED Y i PROPERTYTAX AA6/CCOUNT PARCEL NO. I 26 �q 1J `NEW EA RESIDENTIAL Igl PLUMBING I-ECH f " TT " LOT COV RAGE ALLOWED gOPOSED REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT SIDE PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT LIP SIDE REAR t , ' COMPLIANCE OR AUDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL . ❑ ❑ CHANGE OF USE 3� � �'� /yREAR �, I 'QI yCy ( I�/ 0 G Q ' PA LNG REQ'D PROVIDED LOT AREA - TAREAVEV W�fEV�I WEV�BY DREMODEL APARTMENT SIGN ❑ ❑ - j'� ❑ REPAIR GRADING CYDS FENCE ❑ ( X FT) REMARKS ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER I . GARAGE ❑ RETAINING WALL ❑ L CA.AFPORTF.CKERY 4 (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: t' T - CHECKED 0Y TYPE NSTR CTI OF COON CO E OCC ANT GH t NUMBER OSTORIES NUMBER OF't ELLING, ;- 1 CRITICAL/'�1 AREASNUMBER SPECIAL I,NSPE YESR AREA �� e -} fl y� OCCUPAN O� :•S•/ LOAD f� UN // CJ(� REQUIRED , �� ✓ ry a I i DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONEREMARKS •, r PROGRESS INSPECTIPNS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION AEO'D o r r+ y PLAN CHECK FEE ■L�irr �ea�a fJCdbi)il�.�i/lrJ GlA_ZI_NG °!q LOT SLOPE % BUILDING yy�� HE`A-T'SOfU�R}CE PLAN CHECK NO / `? VESTED DATE PLUMBING .--- - 'l_b MECHANICAL go THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO �. BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC . GRADING/FILL DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION.I ItSTATE PERAPPLICATION: 180 DAYS SURCHARGE ^"I PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR • PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS ENG. REVIEW FEES SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION' 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS ENG. INSPECTION FEE 1* -�;,,x., f IN INTEREST'AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF CA'NOSCAYKNGCG ' GS /ry� �•+� EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE INS?=0N FEE "" . RECEIP t ' (`� �^" 1743. FROM THE ISSUANCE OEEMEDTO MOD FY, WAIVE OR REDUCEANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT �'� I /// iii NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'SABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION,°. RECEIPT(( i '�l`-'"" (} 0 '� TOTAL AMOUNT DUE ttJ1Yi jL.Fs0" AEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL ! ' IVEN IS, CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF HE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL {' This application is not a permit until signed by I ne ION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED I VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION Building 011icial or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid. and receipt Is acknowledged in space provided. 'ORKMEN'^COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. DATE E OEFICIAL' �:" jNATj�ll��, isOWN AGENT) G{jFJDN"�A',y DATE S NED (425) r—.""c) lTT�-lUtVRE`yC 1Y" � a a /v - 771-022O RELEASE '0Y r ,1 �t DATE TTENTION EXT 333 •j, IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771'0221 " I FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAL- FILE • YELLOW - INSPECTOR ITE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 FAX PINK - OWNER • GOLD - ASSESSOR e:•,' a r. i "ier,:.e,ilii :::v: «i< . a.w. Y... uw •• !°.i .n � <....•w so :.li.ii�.�., r. r r.ru, a,•t wrn er t•w,w », lwa..lr » sewi w • ww,e .i «u uM�a�ie •.rsw< :w"liNs i� s�, ire• ¢.ru t�'. r wu wnl« *n:r •e»wwsul.l.in� �:�«y sn.:w alai ..aa e�i u eau �o i:.`< •lel«+w, i° wru )«w •< se i a i!` �< `•iv:i• a:e iiei:iir: im.te i£bi'alr••r : [ . a twelu w e•rY wnu •e w ie:•"!i. %i• e •1 :M se. •re si • •vnv i•tt ;nt n lni•1.1 sN•rtlM et va •:•. tt::w re tn• srv. !r¢ of Nut4 �•�� fp lw.slaer.i0 � y, • et >�s t<ei, '� <I,°°'onlwnef •<Ir .wC,r IYIA'rlaeln rt: 1•el•Ir' 4 !ra•.Wt••pI ..... twsi Y W«t rhea •t ry •t brwt rerte.w w»..r, Mlr<e +•b+••e• Wt Ui.e• ptt tv tA• •w Mlw •t )aC<L ei tr s:a•Imal•�`r trYwel! I�Y :Wv`!r<rr 1t rur YyrNwrb�r� er Mro �a.se�.liep�.«ls s s" reiiea..u. »• r » � i�.«rih < w <rwG <u. °l•.elww»t r.1er� i , m.w. iw la,r�l •ii•.r�ww r.«.r teYie a ` ri: w bw` u t ...� . • ew �<!wu i.s •t b`y`wi,q«iw •i•w *+•: �� w�ieri:.,lw � ,.. i lewlwiroi•»• i..a ai:.ui « , °ei �rbr•wsli..e s• w w: re •r < w '" aii:ta.`a<.` .rtw w tl Vie,: a«!w m !m»» '«<t i a' ew"..ru »« .:. u •.rsl« • + b •b•..< .x.ai w u u: iro: `rel.t m < us..w .+ ••.i� i..e i• wtsro• nus et l.ru:,w. i wralw° efi«• . ei> •ni<» <tl �, )lr ! !• nwre.b lln YeiY<i iia[ » N �p.y< r0 t•<rN. er i.lb ttYJw l��t )1!` M " et w wblwr oia".+ u:°iai«iw •..wiYr i:rsi.�`�`�i ~w !!_ we trs w!`1rwW.wirw«mtY lle."st w4 Tr.es ai, W>M,�.N • wr w w`!is! lw et •�4 teas w a rr eaam n i..: ei rn": reei,.� R`irrl«e r:..piR i»al.• ..w w w.0 ra — _ _ _ _ _{ wi ;w.<,wrw le wim'.' r::ii,. `l�ni°.uwia. w.«.•:°i lav: j d0• liswu le sM <eunrr r�aew,.n, <c.<. et r<.ei,gaw. r r\ 1 7 .41 T�, e. au¢aea ¢r.R.naP R� AT OF MAPLE MANOR •.� UNREC. 17 PUGET 50UND _ C 6PROJER a �•_ Gr £ LY N1 � 3 £ EDM NDS `R VICINITY MAP OLbt.a : t r el60' cots—[ R » ecwa w¢ P eta aaPNnaa m� WePNtnIKlt �.,a ...>a mor9am maw t,, a ¢PNt PRPtt Pfl'BPr+iB1t nql.. itI— 6r. (a e0 ti 9rllF[T RYWr p Iva' aRER: tl— tR H1PvrAE fe1Ye1TF. M P.<T� W>7 aPepRRnN� eor a,.a ,e.be . aNa •Yt .aP, .� arY p rPawme wPa ,,,rta NtO,bOIC rta,c lmim m,no Nn , p eller,brnM muefr �� OOaRti «O.ON 0 p M NpIMOfiL aC rNIK el.Wgie: mNOMP! tCigIX 4eNblT tlp re „M aVltpeye COY p N,•P,IPe rM p0lerllBlr t%4I, leplgq,e tatt p PNNMM rPW OPM+161r (Niel ir,Y lOep IDP ¢OBI e113M CP+nP,w )If9NiY • rRi t0ltitL ¢PD ei•ntY I UNPLATTED ¢re9 wPriwe Is sEAriuRsT a •,4 •,� �,• \ UNREC. PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR VISTA DEL MAR IN SE 1/4 SEC. 12 8 NE 1/4 SEC. 13, T. 27 N., R. 3 E., W M. AND IN SW l4 SEC. 7 8 NW %4 SEC. 18, T. 27 N., R. 4 E., W.M. CITY OF EDMONDS SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON SolLovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. L_. ■ In09ieere/Suteegoa/P1tiPiW4/Deglnpmertl COPAN,m'lb lsre<yy4,( 10.400.110Avenue W,S-20D•tynnwootf.WA 036-am)-nri5q•0003100M PeANN (gym DlitL ri ICJ.tt ru NP. ' ALV JPS SEPT-1992 410 i•aao• 92-2926 Lj n `� w (6M) C ainBij kim rov z sv.p3 mzts c ODWIN -AV IKCH MB NOW mo 4IP3 vorm z S1SIDO-1030;9 SM33NION3 IVOINNO31039 V-V uo4oaS ssojo HM am IMIBUO VOISZIL L 'S3JLVI00SSV VIff%N 80UGP!SOU JOAQVY POUUBld 408L6C No AS UOISIASH Wa ON IVOINH331031!) NOS-13N jeqwnN PgfOJd ' 0 Vi 7 LU 0 r ---------- m UJ CD C-4 C11 N C-4 CV CL uj 0 cmn m O ,r_ 0 _(D C:, CV 11 C E x m N try to y x .0 2 % CL > 0 C� 0 a v C4 0 �? �2 < w 'C Dil C? C'll " I I i 71 LG m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m .. Z m J{p O m " Ao N 3 3 r =1 2 Z O F w a w N = uni 0w L,z ¢ v� -.r O Q Q W LL Z ! 0, nz°a _ Q_Y ISO J O U Iy W W N w t- 0 r.9 n w Z X> N 10a 0 Zw O`dd- w 2h O O dJ d j:0 a j(_Z z °doo oO m =W w J l: cya , > w I Q Z 1 0 t N 1 Q 1 U i 0 13 1 0 I N OF —, a N LI.I G Z W N w w Z O1 LL J O wl 1!} ' J U c W U) a w r w U3' � OOf i U r- CL co t- J 7 0 a � N 1 w i Z � I I d. r- io m " w Z J } N a rr' �, N M rn w o. cc N 0 O U. ui cc n Z WIt 41 �a ILL pis W " / x N •i I 1 tow i ZI w 7 M 1j 07 /e',..', U IHSVM ({Gzn) S_ OZ086 YA NIHSVM 9P 4ZtOZVG�3 n i 3 o m 1Nd kl(d6J N Idn >yl m mv� lva3x3i oNV 31v1s —d 5 1S8h1 30V1d 4798 A88VI z d ' � � ` m uosxnrY f TivciNva o3laaoad s s P NV — jV1NV21 VINOS PaD A2RI7l �b03 �SnN3 INM 553bdx33HL Ln0 U413%tY - NO� NIHSVM 'S�NO��3 O ' W d]U'3L 3b 31 qJ tlttd n tl03 a3[13S 5 NY Sxt = p� t^� p� J cn 3ON � ry n Aa 3 _ {> m � �o xo 3DLLON LNDIHAdOQ —_� a'(1MA y�w'ilH 22 6 ��4 `7 Y 'V V ul Eli J- \ vuo t I - I a� - co 4 i� �I V VA s Qa � 4 OI I� v !h II w �a o 0100) O a m„ s x S as kc ih jj a t� $a a a $ offi as "_ w n m n 4 p . '�$ on mS. ''646 _ �° �3s� s' a" W mpg '-° a �' Da g oa a 8 < =orc g gga IYHI.H�. r ;2 z 12To °"Xi m &m R n �� o �o �'s±d a g z tJ §a °°a � za m $ � H °o a d� wn�. umg s o Mom F gg a `rc 6 J� �m ° _ z �o rc m p 3 "' m�'" IV am aW 3 ° & 6a m �a 3�u� �° c =oa u a Mp u z> �a m -16 zm F a H-IM HT 'd 1 �' "Ho e a n m \ sa�an�� u } p° � F o y w as 3.0 �9 � 03 � s ° � k°� �3 ° w Go a e M. a o k aRI % kdr, t ° Evan 5� o °� °°� ff a a k $N� �(1°9m� ° oo� a 3 aaP $i�'a�ao�W d'Y ° o� n m U 9 a �° ° s =wm > _ sma1 000e °%� �ga 3� 3 � nA o ai "o w �m°0 momw1aM�wz aN= m' zooz a 38 mid lS '1 90'JNlplln9 ioua a - Nnr Q3Ai33aU -r-Y'1"' `0 V7JUl Y1-I �'6 Cv/ iQ OZ086 NOlONIHStlM SON04V03 3M 3� eZ o\e4 Mv� 'lbiflo33 aM' dtY1S a3°Nn 5llq a TiY sxn1N - - 1S0Yld 4}y8 LZtOZ ` i w s i i NOSNNN T IIVONtlN '03L�8 a0ad sI NCSNnN T TIY4NVa eo aw au a raaa s = 1N w �N o vinva v Hos cuo xa aoe°z a s .. N 9HI. ao asn aQ xoaonwadaa aat»ww yaro a;u F. - -�I Aes oaanallouonasx aimssisN asru- - NO-L!iNIHSVM iSGNO Q3 {T. c6 . - 3aLLaN IHOIHAdQa j,, � a 2ON3 ISS:H b`va •b°�„ � �� ' � ,°N \ \¢ 0� ok m _411 '\ £� YR it IT f T It � --- _ `\ � - -- ," �✓ Zt It ` e J �t--�7r� •, ' w� > >, .t s tt t't ;s \ 1 ��j �� co ^rtr is H� ¢ a `\ 'tt A ✓�' tt '� y �,T �:jrt o qar, t y _ i'%"` t t- --��r --- �i; � -'-- o0 - t t� � o HA s ig s lgij'�il'q Nip ZZ'it-4 6 mZW eat $ nit g�w £ ymj � 33a w£�� 9i�mII Wi a s 3�uNi.-cgrc? a. dy�©° �j a a2 =az�Ym m�I sj hdi g 3� g € m b N. omz� i mm a 3 �pj a a IF- d ¢ a m��u�,°�a � �m. � a d z er up jsq a. -till i° me °a ° m�rc o a§g�� @� v w� 'a�°�a a ai a I Iva a ,x MSS mmUD g 0 -gQ1m °tea' os�wo�nw ,�a& Mg� .14�. o� m � �-'3`°a'n ` $ a mg =O W - 'afla-A l mk s � q $ 3 d� 3. V, Pamaiam6 �m S'a �gm �Fm1orc wmt�mm°�>.°aaK' am o a ° 4s_ m�G as k°poa ~$56� Im. �s pad °_o gsy�q v omis ffi - rc z a=a o pU. $F a- �' p � i i; &°o< ¢ �� aj1�§� g � "�� _ �`� 2g>- *.m> n m'Ca"��° a Jn°'Y'� �'�t_ $M y � L f k Wxg 3. �A X jom $ w� m � yy -�aa a $'�"E d �5�ax'3� aQao4 a aoz w � oRnEil g R mQ a6i ,� o a ` �y -0 0 '8= Ei �gN yti g o $.N U $� Ea �� °' ��m�b $ �''� �� °. aQ��p_ g ��g°�°�m�°'�°�°g�� °ego 1=.�� a d= �N� R as a $ a ow �e� a �wm , >r'"$mm HAM � j xdm� n S__ 6 12 mn� Z=aa s °Pn w m� °a.� g°� °o I dim �� ,eS W �E a� 48 a� as qE z �4m z € '° � ��o+-�� `." n'� b s-oo m Y 6�.mm°g 5=8�.hn '�_ {+� m o \ a 2�-a$o a o %%g li m o a�;t=�°�x_a'o��QQ'g�5} F r =a�'�a n $a '��a`4 n �mw i5 _m_'m 'a az 4 a �m :a 6 is€Sm $ n ¢ g 7-- U = mmg�g °' o o a �.�� o°� a 8@ z==ozw c ¢ ° s_ 2g a`�'�$ d$amos� gym. ¢o' w and i= o ei w - 5,� 5 o Iw-- a a s j`o ms z z aka°a z ¢ u n � a a q 2��m '°.Y a= o F' ° 5 `rc' LL -a' o a" �. $ w ° % W �� m m---pgn- a fl`�zUH U.N.^°' x.$ =om oxs r a mdWa r g�_�m� qem��m� ' ai sa�Es=m o� w N m a N a I