The URL can be used to link to this page

18105 SUNSET WAY.PDF18105 SUNSET WAY ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: WXVl,,9 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): 65W oc �Sg 3 COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS : q�DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver �tudy Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:_ PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: / SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT.D'ATED.'' SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: y� q GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: LATEMP\DSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc • • PLANNING DATA Street File SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Name: Tony Shapiro Review Date: 0-7 , 28 . Z v 10 site Address: Permit Number: D L(), ?i010 , 0 6 ()7 Project Description: wood ramp C%4 4') f-r-DM CiV Veway —,P deck.. Zoning: Comp Plan: cj F �jOI.IYC.� Corner Lot: ( E0S / NO±Flapg Lot: (YES / 0) Small Site Plan: (YES /0 ADU Created: (YES 0) LLA: : / Variance: / Shoreline: exerngt Subdivision/Legal/Recording Number: Z Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES A Critical Areas Determination #: OF -A. 19 9 9 . QD U 4 C) ?A-1 o k4&i nfe(dW Lf ■ Study Required ❑ Waiver pro5ion ha-zard t adj 1-D 51oQe.. (2.+-/- QcA.,D`.:)6 SIiC SEPA Determination: C x f wpi-- Re wired Setbacks Q, Street: 25 � ISO I D � Sidee: (0 ` R ear Actual Setbacks Street: 5Z Side: -7 1 Side: 14 Rear: ' 1 2c Detached Structures • Rockeries/Retaining Walls • Fences/Trellises/Arbors Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation • > 30" Stairs • Covered Deck/Porch • > 30" Eaves Chimney/Fireplace • Uncovered Unenclosed < 30" Deck/Porch/Patio Parking Required: 2 7Parking Provided: % Coverage Required: 35% Coverage Provided: O. 31 QGr e 5 (sn o L o) Lot Area: 115 , Lf q p mvi d e. Lot Coverage $ 4 Calculations: ntu/ Zq B ilding Height Datum Point: Datum Elevation: Maximum Height: 25' Actual Height: M jG -- une.ov erect Plan Review By: Gina Coccia, Associate Planner ' , \ 'N- = 212....VJ I = 1 \INV = 212.21^21-�1 ov-0, ,O- po�E S69'57'50"E - BASIS OF BEARING 200.05' (MEASURED) 199.67' (DEED) R=389.20 L-7�4— FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE aa•' — 7on=37.49 NAIL IN CO POSIT101ri Z' Delta=l l'00'12" gjE WNDK L� SSMH RIM = 220.81' GIJNGR V INV 8 CONC = 214.2 GURg \ cw!,1 N.V CL R=359.20 (a �� a �O�� r s 8 R =40 L=266.69 SW 40 SWALE R8 Ton=139.83 AS SHtO PPNgM�N� ZL HIGH ROCKERY Delta=42'32'2O TOW 22 .0 W OLYMPIC — rV� DRIVE y W °� a W _ \ TOW 22 - 0 M N 10 ! \ EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED SET R C 2 D xa # 10671 AND REPLACED PER TREE _ --E-:,ALUATON, IMPACE ASSESMENT, RETENTION_AFD-REKACEMENL _ _, _ _ _ _ _ — �z ��s ti ° PLAN, DATE 12/12/O1 224 10' SETBACK LINE 228 226 APPROX. CONFIGURATION OF STAIR 2J < 228 FROM DECK EXACT LOCATION WILL + �?2 230 �v NOT ENCROACH ON SETBACK SANITARY SIDE SEWER LINK TO EXISTING LINE / 232 6' WOOD FENCE YARD 233.5 h N A=EL 223.0 BI=E BLDG. HEIGHT BORDER TYP EXIST CB TO REMAIN AT EXISTING DECK HEIGHT - -� I 24" ROOF OVERWANG TYP 52-EL 45 BAY WINDOW b CLOSET A' MAIN FLR LEVEL 4 CA I 5 Sunset Way WEST FACE OF CARPORT 0 IST FLR 2455 LUMN, ROOF OVERHANGS 24" R FLR 2355iFTG D IN BEL 108 01 I" DIA WATER LINE INTO FG24 2�53 FOOTPRINT D INAGE DIT H �y CRA PACE OF NEW HOUSE I PARCEL 2704180 500 a I L ; 15,459 SOFT. (0,35 ACRES) I 0 ` I 0 I � z z f w o I GAR FLR 245.5 I N p TB IWll cP D _ 1 NQu 9 a 3' WOOD FENCE ° 22.b9 S IE N90-0000 1! NEW GAS LINE TO CRAWL / / G b L 1511' — 8''7 1/LPL TO a SPACE OF HOUSE g�' y� FO \1�2' M UM T NEW ELEC METER — 232 4EIGHT DATUM SET R C ' D \\/_ D K NEW GAS METER 230-- q 1067 K c��`3 SHED I/, xxq� \> APPROX EDGE OF NEW DRIVEWAY / PAVER CURB WITH 3/4" FO 25 \\ / RISE ON DWY SIDES NEW ROCKERY AS REOUD REBA HOUSE #18107 C FOR PLACEMENT OF DRIVEWAY �c \ ( GRADEAT�DET'AROUND \ SET W FOOTPRINT OF BLDG. FOR /p WAT METER �T HEIGHT CALCULATIONS SSMH RIM 253.89' c/ L F�q ' INV N = 249.5 ^ INV S = 25.0' `� o �\ NEW CUT ROCKERY, SEE CIVIL DWGS INV SE) = 251.10' �/ \ SITE P N '�I City of Edmonds • RECEIVED MAR 121999 �CW 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). PERMIT COUNTER An applicant, or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. Please submit a vicinity, map along with the signed copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent information (e.g., site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site 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: - Applicant Representative: Name 4�22-- /93 0L 5� Street Address A]VZLV eP 7 City State Zip yes) "?'1Z.- >F637 Telephone Signature Date Name Street Address City State Telephone Signature Date Zip c:receptionVanakaddoc (over) '-ILE NO. kritical Areas Checklis -------------------------------------------------------------- Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/Location: 1K105 - 5w 2. Property Tax Account Number: /6 Z -=7 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently developed? yes; L_ no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. =,, Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10=feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: 2; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? F 8. Site is in the floodway _ floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? _ /Ul e&"onal? (What time of year? ). 10. Site is primarily: forested �adow • shrubs '�mixe d , urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: � 2�E 5 3 .. --For City Staff Use Only--------- ------------------- --------- --- --- SCS mapped sot3 type(sr 7 `3. Wetland inventory or C.A.map indicates wetland present on site. li. 4; .. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates'Critical Area on site?. 5: , Site within destgnated earthsubsidence landslide hazard. area? Uo b;. Site:designated.onahe'Eivironmentally. Sensitive A.ireas Ma ^ca chk.doc; Rev 10/03/97 NAME: 7=7�t-A A'P I tZ SITE ADDRESS: l P PROJECT DESCRIPTIO REDUCED SITE PLAN MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: PLANNING DATA FLAG LOT: Yes / o ZONING: CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: Q:Q �Io Ll Ki Study Required: —Q2c.,��-E- ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION ❑ Fee 7 f� ❑ Checklist (1 / ❑ APO list w/ notarized form ❑ (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) ❑ Exempt SETBACKS: , '�a'„i` St O V 0 Required Setbacks: ' I I � Street: a-� eft Side: 1 Right Side: i t'7 Rear: Actual Setbacks• Street: ' Left Side: I) Right Side: c,.)0� Rear: a T / Street map checked for additional setback required? Yes / No NA ❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: t�l . tF ROCKERIES: 4t> �.A�•j-CQ�e,rA o�i c.e7� w.. S.LkiocL_ � .o , ' [,—I L-L / ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: 9/ �� p;�'�►C� ❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: \� STAIRS ECK "„ O L-q0 1-40tNI %1`40 CT �paZ _,_- WCXU__C —94C_C � PARKING: Required: 2. Actual:!!: , - �t�7CXZ + ^w 'per N , �LcL vA- n Nor i �r LOT AREA: S' �3+�� GLY7 !SAW L-� �E� St� LOT COVE ©/O� • p Calculations: 5c= =4ma= . BUILDING HEIGHT: ay Datum Point:Datum Elevation: oZ rJ' a G• a��. o Maximum All°°d: oZt9.i �- Actual Height: CD 2 IL A.D.U. CREATED<`70= res)_ _ _ -D . LEGAL NO 0C_ Mir LAND D�TEI�MINAT N ISSUE a No OTH A�TL-�LV� t T4 a fJt� Plan Review By: t ?> NewBPP1anningDataForm.D0C • a r 1 , CC k ' U r" / EM / (U 0 . _ -a � (D 0 Cl. %\ pa ) d 'a a) C§§){) cc f[ I c � § � 0 c % CL SS k k\ k k k �� E §§ § § Q ee e k 2k a k kk k § k � (\ ( J a, , % )) ) G aA 2 e � 2 « a )/ / E IL k § w 2 C2 \\ CD CD Q cam§§ .� \ § Ci Of Edmonds PERMIT NO: 9 70 3 Jol 890 SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRE c. S Address of Construction: Property Tax Account Parcel No. Attach copies of all access and utility ease Owner and/or Contractor: 514 tex 6) Contractor License #: ing Permit #� Single Family Invasion into City *Right -of Way: esNrYes ❑ No ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units _� *RW Construction Permit # ��i " 1 ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) Cross other **Private Property: RrYes ❑ No ❑ 1' **Attach legal description and copy o r cad ease e . Own r/Contractor 6 Owner 1 los or c tr for signature and acknowledgement statement: Da e By signin r this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled Side Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein. 9 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-42-4-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 9 9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extension 1341- ' 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY r Permit Fee $ 30, Repair Fee $ Issued By: Trunk Charge $ --730 . '-- Assessment Fee $ �— City Permit Surcharge Fee $5.00 Date Issued: (� Receipt No:� Total Fees Paid $ NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready YES Partial Inspection: Partial Inspection: NO Date: Initial: Date: Initial: Date: Initial: FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Initial: As -built to. Street File: ❑ '6- PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE n� White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bl dgforms;sspermitj lg4/00 • i • - .'DATE Rr.cir o �i EXPIRES - CITY OF EDMONDS ?ONE \� I (! NU BIER L' Z'L'tLJ(� � , �5 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION . JOt) c(��•I SUITOAPTA AUURES{1.11�� .. NAME/NAME OF DU •MESS '' - (V> V - 1. ' /OW}N�FR �V .ice d Slat PUT rikMCiS(!DDIVISION NO LOT N0. L16 NO. /S / / - •, ' r i ii0 w MAILING ADURF-SS (y� � '0.I ill S �'[\ LID FEE f ' 1, I JI PUBLIC RIGHT OF V.AY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP - Iw v« y-- r Q Zlf TELF.I'IfONF. S' �I+J U2.V /�J� �•�S ,�� `('-li(�+ EXISTING PROPO' DD—. - REOUIREO DEDICAT:CNP Ff wt�w,ri aoiwa -dq. -MANE METyER/SIZE LINE SIZE N0. OF FIXTURES VRV'REOUIREO ' �I ADDRESS - YES id U OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROMRAINAGE III CITY - ZIP TELEPHONE I 1(" 1 •rJ ' i`�J��v T'�•� 11-11_7l'illiC1� �11.G•� V�W iW}+L.. r 1 J NAME.. CBIr Lf.T�J ��j• - Ly ,t JVftt/ �C�u1101 IHSP`cC.rfT� CLtYIJ.�-_' A' 1 BESS ENOINEEHwO REVIEWED BY UAT .1 • - p F ZIP t•l l.0 lJ _ TFI,F.PHONE ntvfF.WF.O by .DATE uJ; r STATE LICENSE. NI.WDEH --.-EXPIRATION UAL[-� I K• VAJnANCE ON CIJ' SHORELINE On AUU. .INSPECTION BOND Z I' •• CT2_ . I✓ —0.1 -� �," REO ❑YES POSTED NO it O F• PROPERTY IAA ACCOUNT PARCEL NO, . Br PA REVIEW. pQM ETF E%F.MPT T • �SION. AREA . ALLOWED P,ROPOSE.D ALLOWED N -- HEIGHT PROPOSEU m • �jNEW '� RESIDENTIAL ^I !— PLUMOiNO/MeCH OT V?RA ALLOWED' PROPOSED 1 'tlUIRE0 SETOACKB (FT.) PROPOSED ' FRONT SIDE REAA FRONT bETBACKS (FT.). 11R 1DE R;AR 1 V1 �r ' ❑ ADDITION ;- ❑ COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR ❑ C4ANGEOFUSE , (j �� 1 i I _ 0 M. l •-' • ' : " MULTIFAMILY' SION rPAnK�INGI\ .LOT AREA PIANhINO RFVIFWEO BY DATE maEMCDEL FCNCC I CD I k Q�1. ' .' REPAIR iSi{ GRADING ❑ . Y•+� CYDS ❑' ( X _ FT) T�jf/❑ .PF. 1 —L I O'1111�7777 m - ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ OTi1ER "AX' t m • .. . rt o GARAGE RETAIN INO VIAL" FIRE SPRINKLER CARPORT ❑ 'ROCKERY ❑ FIRE ALARM - � -U2- �� — - _ - - to D Z (' (TYPE OF USE, BI151NE58 OH ACTMTY), E%PWN: r `I k' ,�T, tr - ^ -. NUMOEI NUMRER R�./ CHEC/(ED BY 7VPE OF CONSTRUCTION C OCCUP OIIOU xy ' a .- E O ST tlTORIE OF OWELLINO UNITS cRRIG AREAS �tC.'I^/(' NUMRER ` lD �i SPECIAL IN i:REA �C I -�V •r,�I OCCUPANT - 0 T t, DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REOVIREO YES �+T U LOAD �N - -4 • - _ - - REMARKff •' - m - PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 0— - 8 oI, cy ; i P ... Tn m� i a .VALUA N ��Xffffff'''"'oki : 3 Description. 'FEE 'Description FEE. D Z ! ' 1 Plan Check d' '. State Surcharge = _0 HEAT SOURCE -' GLAZING %• LOT SLOPE % 0 Building Permit ^. City Surcharge y .. PLAN CHECK NO: _ ...' - Plumbing U Z O -i _ THIS PERYRAUTNORIZES. ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIYCOVERS WOnKTO MECI18nICRI / - I m ' 5 BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC O DOMAIN (CURDS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, YAROUEES, ETC.)WILL REQUIRE. Grading - i - , - H SEPARATE PERM I SSION. w PF.RYIT APPLICATION: iBD DAYS 'PERYR Engr. Review - - _ LIMII: 1 YEAR • PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 100 DAYS SEEBACK' OFPINK PERMIT FOA'MORE INFORMATION Engf. InS;+eCIIOn ' . JIAPPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR;MER SPOUSE. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS INNT IEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY DEFEND AND HOLD HARJALESS THE CITY OF File Review Plan Chk. Deposit ALLCW MS n-nINUI UN, HS UFFTCbMS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM A- AND Q ALL FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY Fire. inscection Receipt r, = FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE i DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. :total Amt. DUO Z NOR LIMIT IN AN WAY THE CITY$ ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE FRWISION.• Recording Fee Receipt N. I.HEREDY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE'READ THIS AP.PI.ICATION; THAT THE INFORMATiOII GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND.THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED. AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL - THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC� ' TION;-AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED -CALL - TNappliCatlon is not a perm0 JmIi Mgrgg by Nu - IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO 7 FOR INS, EC Bwld g OKxul pr hisRlet DCpVly: anai d Fees era paid, d e - - r• WORKMEN'S COMPENSATI 0-LU�URANCE AND RCW I8.27. SON _ _ . eipt is aCkn 1&1gW apP ps".d. ' GNAT (OWNER n .EN - _ DATE SIGNED 42/►JC/n��] OFFICIALS ATURE /JJ`• GATE "/ tIL . 771 ATTtNTIO). ' EXT.1333 !P V `L IT.IS UNLAWFUL TO USE.OR CUG PY.A BUILDING STRUCTURE UNTIL L' . - A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN -MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-:'' "- -- - 'CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN.&ANTED. UBC SECTION 1bg C IGINAL-FILE' .� YELLOW. INSPECTOR' ' -' oA/oz P LESS HARD -YG.1 R.HEMAKINGS a PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR ' CO' -;ES '. GREEN -ACCOUNTING (, i i Y! RECORD OF INSPECTIONS }, INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED , b t SETBACKS ' FOUNDATION: +: I . Fcoling ...... . . _._ F Wall ......................... ,e Pier/Porch ! ' Retaining':'all .. !4 i • Slab Insulation Z. 0• fS PLUMBING: Underground•' :............ 1 a u—a� m. " Rough -In 1 `) .L,3 .^63 -4. \ ....... Commercia! Final = pm. C p, p L tr e {✓'�4d. HEATING: Gas Test ..... _ ._.. � QIL4/yV'� /� � n� ,:,� - r' r 1 S. c7J +�S o "'} �• S m r �� arc.'. , ` 1 �' S S �^ '. ... ..:. Gas Piping• ................. C ��— 4 !� m Equipment ................. I F Commercial Final ...... T, • EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING •. S 1� ............:...... .. FRAMING 9 _ : m• m r �•' .- FIRST FLOOR FRAMING.:. ` '`cJ �"' •' `•� C 0).. t t; M INSULATION ................... / nS ' r�4' .O n R 1 _ r, Flonr Insulation ........ _ u ..ad Insulation ........ ' t�CtJt, , Ceiling Insulation ....... SHEETFOCK NAILING ... SPECIAL INSPECTION .. Z f ' ::.... MISCELLANEOUS .. t t FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY ........,.1..:... ' Sti-�'� �� .tilde SCwer ti ((� ✓� T i s •, Amoat,P-lc; ." /,, . Date ISSucc: r = eretcr Watl4g -Amountl' ;c� Z1�.—t`c:�:,,.,:G��Z' �, } Date Pvrdt=c t, • Pad�Y; Amount r 1 Golder Associates Inc. IL V DECEIVED 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 — Redmond, WA USA 98052-3333 Golder Telephone (425) 883-0777 J U L 10 j�''� Fax (425) 882-5498 www.golder.com BUILDING DEPT. July 1, 2003 Our ref: 013-1685-001.000 Mr. Anthony D. Shapiro VILE RECEIVED 600 Main Street, Suite C JUL 0 3 2003 - Edmonds, Washington 98206 A. D. SHAPIRO ARCH. Attention: Mr. Tony Shapiro RE: GEOTECHNICAL SJDE N SUMMARY LETTER FOR THE SHAPIRO HOUS , 18105 SUNSET WAY DMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Tony: As requested by you, Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) provided geotechnical inspection during placement of pin piles, keystone retaining walls, structural fill, and underground utilities. This letter provides a summary of the geotechnical inspection that was performed by Golder as required by the City of Edmonds. The following is a summary of the geotechnical inspection services provided by Golder: • Pin Piles: Golder provided part time, monitoring during installation of the 2-inch diameter pin piles required to support the building. Before installation began, four production piles were load tested to 200% of the designed load of 20,000 lbs. The load test results indicated that load bearing capacity of the test piles was within the limits given in the specifications. The production piles were driven to the refusal criteria specified in the plans. A pile location plan with depth to bearing resistance was submitted to Golder by McDowell NW Pile King, Inc. After review of the installation data, it appears that the piles were installed in general accordance with the plans and specifications; • Subsurface Utilities Installation: Golder provided part-time observation of installation of storm -drain utilities across the site. This included observation of trench backfill placement and density testing of backfill compaction. Our observations indicated that the storm drain utilities were' installed in general accordance with the plans and specifications; • Verification of the retaining wall installation: Golder observed, on a part-time basis, the preparation of retaining wall subgrade soils and verified that suitable bearing for support of wall loads was present. We observed that the blocks and reinforcing grids were placed in accordance with the specifications; Verification of Structural Fill Material and Required Compaction: Golder observed placement and compaction of structural fill, which consisted of imported sand and gravel. Compaction of utility and retaining wall backfill was also observed and tested for conformance with plans and specifications~,,. Fill_ observed by Golder Associates was7iirfoy placed in general accordance with the plans and specifications; mt4' OFFICES ACROSS AFRICA, ASIA, AUSTRALIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA AND SOUTH AMERICA f Mr. Anthony D. Shapi* M 2 July 1, 2003 013-1685-001.000 ✓ • Erosion Control — Golder provided inspection of the erosion control system during earthwork. Erosion control measures (placing filter socks in adjacent catch basins, maintaining silt fences, and insuring that the excavation contractor maintained the City Streets free of dirt) were performed in conjunction with the major onsite earthwork. Golder Associates, in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, have completed all geotechnical special inspections that were required. Based on our involvement with the project, the phases of the project observed by Golder Associates (described above) were completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at (425) 883-0777. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Thomas P. Mars4411 Senior Technician David M. Cotton, P.E. Principal TPM/DMC/ngs 070103tpm1 Golder Associates City of Edmonds"Permit No• - RIGHT—OF—WA'Y CONSTRUCTION PERMIT •Issue Date: —171-0�— � 4 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: • - •ovao!tTactor: III • - • - V b'T1//.�%si[/l%%/��Z�!✓��.rL��I1�i"�� l�J/�'TJ/_1 a. Mailing Address: �L' • 72, State License.. . . • • City Business License #: D. Building Permit # (if applicable): "' {.Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, jA OVWSD) j ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: C= F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES [D-NO G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE CUT: El YES RNO G. ❑ Mail Approved Permit ❑ Call for Pickup APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds. or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF. ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE 1HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ Traffic control and publicisafety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK y-- I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS r• // Signature: Q l Date: v 61ontractor or Agent) Tr °FOR'CITYUSE ONLY';,:...., Approved by: P Time Authoriz : Void After /3t��``'`/-�O�i h Disruptlo �und:11 Speeial Condition=�Q,,.f7 wr [.t,� - A"ni I ct�on Fee:,ZC� ",P� ° - ✓f " Total Fee: ; a 27!5 - A1_4 Receipt Nott,.� ram_ - �• a / 'IMfi [w 1 1IONS • • � fi___:J� �1e Jf i. r Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326 for a 24-hour • ' '`'°�C�j��1 �' aT: i�1 9 1 1 ' request line. DATE•_ / C:\Documents and Settings\Curtis\My Documents\Forms\Engnmg\RO Wpermit_ doc Revised 10/01/03 Open trench in shoulder of ROW for approx 80 ft. bore driveway approx 30 ft, bore roadway approx 13 ft, to extend and bury CAN service drop from aerial tap at pole to house e , co . Cn N �D rCr G 00 N r Go r Pole/ . aerial tap -- —— 15-- -- — — — 24^ r� �04 N Comcast of CA/CO/TX/WA, Inc. / 1525 75th Street SW Suite 200 1APPROVED AS NOTED S Everett, WA 98203 BY ENGINE ING NORTH NOT TO Contact: Kermit Benson 425-263-5362 ` SCALE North Drop Node: EM 06A 18105 Sunset Way - City of Edmonds Work Details Open trench in shoulder of ROW for approx 80 ft. bore driveway approx 30 ft, bore roadway approx 13 ft, to extend and bury CAN service drop from arial tap at pole to 18105 Sunset Way. Install cable at 36" depth. All disturbed areas will be restored to existing or better conditions. Backfill material will be mechanically compacted to 95% of maximum density as specified by the City of Edmonds. In tight corridors hand trenching will be utilized to ensure protection of other utilities. Contractor must locate all existing utilities impacted by this project. Please see attached plans for restoration, erosion control and traffic control. Erosion control will consist of placing filter fabric fence and/or sandbags along curbs and catch basins where necessary. Keep drainage system clean and functioning. Remove all debris from the work site. Streets and roads will be cleaned both during and after installation of work. n T 0omcasty PROJECT'S TIMELINE AND PROPOSED HOURS OF OPERATION: • Timeline — Up to 30-days past the issue date. • Work Hours —The entire project area will be conducted from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM or as specified by the Inspector. Traffic control set-up for minor encroachment Traffic Control Plans ,00i 1. The standards and guides of the latest version of the MUTCD or as set-up per Code shall be followed at all times. 2. A copy of the Permit and Traffic Control Plan shall be on -site with all contractors during the project. 3. All contractors will avoid parking on sidewalks and shoulders and will take the lane and follow the proper traffic control set-up for the given situation. 4. Pedestrian access shall be maintained through or detoured around all work sites. 5. Please find attached the traffic control plans for the various types of work sites that will be encountered during our project. 6. Flaggers will be used only when all other methods of traffic control are inadequate to warn and direct drivers. Only licensed flaggers will be used on the project. (PU04aol 7. If situations occur when questions arise about proper traffic control set-up the solution will be determined in the field with the Comcast Construction Rep. and the Inspector. Erosion Control`Rules If curb and gutters in project area: • Filter bags will be placed in catchbasins downstream of work site, and • Small check dams of pea gravel filled sandbags will placed within the gutter upstream of the catchbasin. Traffic control set-up for lane closure FLAGGER STATION oo ` Bu 100, )ace BAGGER STATION ♦i 0 • • n c � C CD b � o C. CD aSD CD n C17 � CD CD CD CD Q.. a CD rn aq' i (-A CD CD C o ." b CD CD o' b � O O CD . CD 0 CD CD a c� CD a i CD � CT °o o C 7�• :mr CD CD CD N � CD .0 c) o CD a sCD aid 0 > p c x N my C 0 C �• �+ CDo EL V) • CD b '' , C D CD CD CD ►-� ta. CD C), o o via �Q. CDGd0 r ??, CD w N CCD (AD 0CD Pa x W CD. CD � as �. IV a s� . Z oo CD . °° A p CD a �* d cn oo^.o rn II o � a n CD ��y �-g'=z CD UPCD y ►D > cCD cn MCI CD CD 0 W CD CD b �, Q. CCDD a 01-t c a. CD 0. = aq a 0 v� 0 CD A� a. CD CD 0 °- p' CD CD CD Z a' a o D � cD o a (0) 0 3 0 a /+ ^ d l 1 CD O � Inc.1890 CITY OF EDMO S GARY HAAKENSO MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020`• (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering ✓�N �� June 17, 2004 / <00jr Matthew and Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: TREE(S) ADJACENT TO OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Dear Matthew and Elana, I have received your letter of June 15, 2004, which requests that the City pursue compliance by Mr. Shapiro with City requirements to plant trees on his property. Steve Bullock and Star Campbell, in the City's Planning Division, are familiar with the tree planting/landscaping requirements for Mr. Shapiro's project and will follow up on your request. You should hear from Steve once they have checked into the status of the project. If you have further questions, Steve can be reached by telephone at 425 771 0220. Sincerely, WAVID K. GEBERT, PE City Engineer Cc: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Noel Miller, Public Works Director Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan, Japan 0 Date: June 15, 2004 Mr. David K. Gebert, PE 121 5" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: TREE(S) ADJACENT TO OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Dear Mr. Gebert, Recpl JU e® N 16 2004 PLANN/NG D1 T. Thank you for sending us a copy of your letter to Mr. Shapiro, dated June 10, 2004. We are pleased that the city has informed Mr. Shapiro that our trees do not pose any safety hazard to his property or any utility lines. Mr. Shapiro has repeatedly asked us to cut these trees in order to improve his view. He has also contacted PUD in the past and received the same response as the one stated in your recent reply to him. The trees in question have been on our property since before we bought our house over 12 years ago. We have monitored this stand of trees because it protects a sensitive slope on our property. As we informed Mr. Shapiro before he bought his property, and long before he began construction of his home, both our own geo-technical engineering and arborist reports advised us not to alter the trees under any circumstances. Our most recent reports, in fact, advised us to plant additional trees to further stabilize the slope that was weakened when Mr. Shapiro removed trees on the slope adjacent to our property. When Mr. Shapiro originally applied for a building permit, the city's independent geo- technical engineer turned down his application, based on safety concerns related to building on such a steep slope" and removing all the existing trees and vegetation. Mr. Shapiro then presented the city with his own arborist and geo-technical engineering reports, stating that he would plant new trees and vegetation to strengthen the slope (copy attached). This was the basis for the city granting him permission to build his house on 18105 Sunset Way. Mr. Shapiro moved in to his new house in January 2004. Ironically, he has not planted a single tree or any other vegetation in accordance with his submitted plan. Given the perilous nature of this slope, we request that your office pursues compliance with Mr. Shapiro's proposal to plant the trees and vegetation. We are very concerned that any further delay in fulfilling the city's requirements by Mr. Shapiro will adversely affect our slope and therefore Olympic View Drive. Please advise us on what action the city is planning to take to ensure the safety of Mr. Shapiro's and our slope. Sincerely, Matthew & Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 (425)778-6413 Cc: Noel Miller, Public Works Director 7 Rob Cha e Planning Man ger -I Atjcricultural CA-sulting F.C. Box 135 MouNnnrce TeRtuce, WA 98043 0135 PHove:(425)776-0850, MOBILE:(206)419.8549 Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan Shapiro, Olympic Drive Edmonds PREPARED FOR: A.D. Shapiro Architects, PS 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 PREPARED BY: Arboricultural Consulting Anthony V. Shoffner, ASCA ISA Certified Arborist #PN-0909 P.O. Box 135 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-0135 December 12, 2001 Project Summary This Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan is provided to A.D. Shapiro Architects,PS as a means of addressing the conditions of the existing trees and of the site features on the property of the proposed single family residence on Olympic Drive in the City of Edmonds, WA. The City of Edmonds requires that the trees on the site of the proposed development are evaluated in order to assess the adequacy of their retention through development. The purpose is to identify any existing hazardous situations, any concerns over looming hazardous situations and to assess the extent of the proposed impacts and the affects of these impacts upon the trees. The conclusions of any of these elements of the study can to lead to the recommended removal of any given tree. Specifically, the contents of this Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan will address the conditions of all of the evaluated trees located on site, the existing site conditions, projected impacts resultant of the proposed development plan, recommended removals, removals proposed by the applicant, tree replacement, and retention measures. Preparation of this report requires that an evaluation be conducted to identify all potentially hazardous trees adjacent to high use areas in the proposed development plan. A visit to the project site of the proposed development was made on December 3, 2001 for the purpose of gathering information on the existing trees in order to determine hazard potential, and on the conditions of the site, such as soils and existing vegetation. The proposed development calls for the construction of a single family residence to be located in the center of the site, nearest to the southern boundary. The residence will be accessed from the southeast via a' driveway extension through an easement off Sunset Way. In order to accommodate the proposed development of the single family residence, the parking area and the driveway, some trees will be required to be removed. In addition, residual impacts from the development, such as those from clearing, grading and excavation, will impact other trees not displaced by the footprint of the house, and likely requiring their removal. The accompanying map shows the proposed development site plan and all evaluated and surveyed trees on the site. The bold trees are those that are either proposed to be removed in order to accommodate the development plan, or are recommended to be removed because the impacts they will be subjected to or their present condition will render them hazardous following development of the site. The non -bold trees are those that may be retained if the preservation and protection measures are followed. Site Conditions Existing and Surrounding Land Use Currently, the subject site is not developed for any use, and remains wooded. The immediately adjacent land use to the north, south, east and west is for single family residences. Existing Site Conditions The site is irregularly shaped in sort of a wedge. Sunset Way to the Southwest via an easement. Shapiro, Olympic Drive Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan December 12, 2001 1 It borders Olympic View Drive to the north and As ,previously.,: stated, the site. is undeveloped and remains largely, wooded_ The topography,tof the,site varies'quite drastically• within its borders... It slopes :upward isteeply from �Olympic_Driye, anA a small.depressional.area located.in:the northeast'comerlof. the site. Continuing southward within the site, the topography moderates until it becomes nearly flat within the easement. For the,most.part;!..the site itself is sloped with a northern-northeastem aspect. Please see the geotechnical�report.portion of this development plawfor:detailsregarding;this;slope i.�:;.r The; vegetation composition, of the site includes.:a moderatelynzdense;.forested- overstory;-�and,.a- moderatelytdease understory. The overstory is dominated:by,;deciduousihardwood trees; namely red'alder. (Alnusirubra).i�!Although some coniferous .evergreen),#ees,ido:exist:.onsitb;�tliey Are note.. large enough ,to be, considered as part of the overstory ;; Of,aW,38 evaluated ;and_ surveyed(trees q . . site;i27jare.:red alders. .The remaining 11 are mostly,: big- leakmaple.(Acer.,:macrophyllum);,but . also:i,include .unidentified willows (Salix''• species), and ' what;;appears, to';be ac locust; (RQ WO, species):i,,Accurate .dentification of the willows, and .the. supposed locust. was difficult as the leaves had senesced by the time of the investigation. The coniferous evergreen trees range m size jrgM-*plings to small trees less than 8" dbh, and include Douglas fir,,(Pseudotsug.t nienziesil);;kwestern�,red '1•cedar (Thuja •plicata).,,an& westem�4.he0ock :(TsugQl l terpp ylklu)�,,:, Because theseatreesare less than 8" dbh,' they: were: notr,survey'ed;�andaherefore, do not,appear 94, ' the;accompanying.map.• The understory vegetation includes,$iiiitxis�not;limitedltottho follQWmg; `. . species: Himalayan blackberry (Rubus; discolor. ), .sword.,#fe;n OP,,olystichumi,munitum); .salal. j i (Gaultheria shallon), osoberry (Oemlaria cerasiformis), red huckleberry :(Vdccinium pawl ollum); ,Oregon' grape (Berberis nervosa), trailing blackberry(Rubus ursinus). and English ' i3v�y1(Me ra-helix).',f:. lsggilii; 4t ,,, € ..,c. Ali .f , $Olt$",3�.)L:.i �..1.' e' .. iL�: ... i :5+.r, •t Yi��.1»�::'`'r ;. 2,'iv 15' f. � E This: , roe is -,,mapped in the : Soil Surve of i Snohomish .' County! Areas Wasllington ?gas,, Property rtyj y w Alderwtood:.gravelly: sandy' loams 8:''to 15 ercent slope's,' and ' 15 ' to 25 ercent':�slo es, Alderwood gravelly sandy loam is described as being moderately weff drained, and moderately_ deep?oyer-hardpan. Permeability is moderately rapid above, the hardpan and very slow through, it; :and available water capacity is low. • Effective rooms20-40 inches;:,andtpmgff lis.. r-� medium, and the hazard of water erosion.is moderate: The ekisting;yegetadon, a crept-for.1 e Himalayan blackberry, fits the description of:.vegetation.that is,commonly.found,ont$iW$.Nith+the Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. _ * �;, " • •i ' `=TMt' Forest, Functions and Values The._'functions and; values. of forests and: trees- are, aargely, dependent; uponA their;iimmediate; surroundings: and the greater'environment,-in';which,theyc.exist;,,r:,f:Being:.Y:within an urban environment, the on -site forest provides functions and values for both the natural environment and humans. ; Wildlife Habitat a, rasa While!limited in: its. ability.to provide habitat for, a; large number�ofawildlife species because, of the size of the on -site forest, and the openness of the forest, ,this forest does .provide, some habitat: The trees .and unde'rstory vegetation on site likely provide habitat for many species of birds. Live , trees -are:•used.for, cover and nesting, and dead trees, or snags, :particularly red alder snags, are Shapiro, Olympic Drive Tree.Evah= ion, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan . December l$ 2WI 2 -` { quite often used, -by cavity nesting birds in the urban environment. The on -site forest provides limited wildlife habitat, largely due its size and the fact that it is surrounded by developed land, and. therefore not connected to any significant greenbelts. Slope Stabilization The trees, shrubs and vines on the slopes provide direct on -site benefits through their ability to stabilize the slopes through several means. First of all, the root systems of the trees, shrubs and vines provide a connected network that helps to hold the soils in .place. As the roots spread, their hold on the slope increases. Secondly, the leaf and needle. cover- aid in,preventing water, erosion by intercepting rainfall before it hits the soil. This helps by slowing ,the rain and by limiting the amount that, falls to the soil below. Lastly, all vegetation. aids. in, reducing erosion through,;the uptake of water from the soil. Water often acts as a lubricant of soils.,, -Therefore, wetter'soils on slopes are more prone to slides. Please see the geotechnical report for their perspective on the contribution of the forest, particularly the red alders, to stabilizing the.slope. , Oxygen Production :Trees, shrubs, grasses and forbs all, take up carbon ,monoxide; .;.process it and, return, : qgr ,on dioxide,. to the atmosphere.. Not only, does this provide humans .with breathable air, but in an urban environment, this also contributes to cleaning the air of exhaust fumes and other airborne 'pollutants and irritants.. The on -site forest provides moderate oxygen production. Temperature: Moderation Urban vegetation has : the ability to moderate temperatures during both hot and cold extremes. By providing shade and through transpiration of water, forests --aid :in. cooling,,_thelower atmosphere during the summer months. Likewise, by providing, canopy cover and by providing wind blocks, particularly evergreen trees, forests can aid a in •moderating temperatures, and warming the air during the cooler months. Aesthetics Urban, vegetation provides a natural element in an otherwise. developed environment,: thereby, softening the urban environment and separating developed areas.. This function is particularly important in,areas where spread -out tree cover (such as is found,in,a neighborhood of moderately vegetated .lots) is replaced by fewer, but larger patches;,,of,,greenery. Since, . much,; :of a the surrounding , neighborhoods are moderately vegetated, the aesthetic functions and values provided by this site can be considered to be minimal. The majority of the vegetation on this can ,bet considered "scrub type. , Such vegetation, including species such as red alder and willow, `provides less! aesthetical, functions and values 'than; does, more,climax, species,. such, as;;large ,evergreens. ;Methodology All 38 trees on -site were flagged with orange flagging and numbered following -features were evaluated and any outstanding conditions noted. • species ,..: . • size (diameter,'height, spread) smpfro, ObMplc Drive Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan December 12, 2001 3 1-38. For each tree, the • condition (live crown percent, failure potential) ` location • soils • exposure • surrounding vegetation • potential target The above ground portion of each tree was evaluated from standing beneath the tree and no inspection. below the root crown was performed. Any,external suspicious symptoms (such.asIhe. presence of fruiting bodies, severe branch die -back ,.or extreme .damage) ;lead to,'a recommendation for removal, thereby eliminating the need forthe invasive measures;,by- use O the increment'. borer. Hazard tree determinations are based upon, the; following three criteria: whether or not a given tree has a high enough failure potential,to;.cause concern; whether the:size of parts of the tree are large enough to cause damage ;to any` target;_and,whether or. not,,the tree, possesses a,target, such as a house, parking lot or-, park.:., Each tree was, evaluated,onjhe,basis of vigor, soundness, risk of failure, defective .'parts,. abnormaly,growth, � structure-r and ..blowdown potential. The information on each tree, including. number,.species, ;diameter; height,; live,. crown percentage and spread, is displayed on the accompanying Tree:Evaluation.Data Sheet., r Tree Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations All ofthe tree data gathered during the site investigation can.be found in Tree Evaluation Data of this report.. The condition of each tree is shown on the accompanying Tree Evaluation Data�.and Recommendation, Sheet as a number between 1 and 4. Trees: with a' score. of ' 1, 2 and,3 can;be. retained provided they are not stressed further due to development;impacts,and provided�they,are not presented with a - target. Whereas those with a score. of +.4 Mate; to; ,be removed; regardless -,of proposed impacts or presence of a target. Following is the classification of each,,numerical' designation; 1 Excellent condition. No defects or signs of natural decline,�risk of failure.low; 2 — Good condition. Limited, or minor, defects and no signs .of natural decline, risk of 'failure low to moderate; 3 — Fair condition. Significant defects and/or signs of natural,decline, risk of failure moderate..: - 4;— Poor condition. Major defects, obvious decline or dead;'risk4'of failure moderate.ao, high: Remove. Constraints Limiting Tree Preservation The constraints' limiting preservation of the trees include the conditions of some trees and the proposed site impacts. As previously mentioned, the trees proposed or recommended. for removal are shown in bold on the accompanying map. Following, are, the. specific_.development impacts limiting,the•preservation of some trees: r • - , • it � Aib;i.elf':.i i-, !'. �u ;i, .4:; ('. 'Co. 1. The Proposed Single Family Residence:— The residence is,ptoposed to,•be.,located gnithe z highest portion;of the site near the southern border. All trees located within the building L footprint, and those located in the location of the garage and. driveway are proposed to be . Shapiro, Olympic Drive Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan December 12, 2001 4 y removed. The displaced trees include numbers 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35,36 and 37. 2. Filling, the Depressional Area - The applicant proposes. to fill in the depressional area extending from the southeast comer of the site to the northeast comer.. Filling, in, this depression will displace trees number 4, 5, 10, 11,. 12, 31, .32, .33 and 38,--.therefore requiring their removal. 3. Grading Fill and Excavation Impacts Associated withthe House - Several trees located immediately adjacent to the location of the proposed residence will likely suffer .considerable root damage during construction.. Proposed,. site contour changes. and. excavation for the. foundation of the house will result in: impacts to these trees:.. Grading and excavation through the depth of the rootzone (approximately. 1-2 feet below existing grade) will greatly impact the roots of several trees. F11 to a depth of greater than 1 foot over. the root zones �of trees will adversely affect .the,trees',;ability;to. thrive, andzlikely. accelerate their.decline. As a result of these impacts, ;trees number 13, 14, 24 `,.and 25.wi11. be required to be removed. If grading or fill affects any :other. trees, such as, numbers 4, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, � 18 and 21, the extent of. the impacts should be assessed. Any trees. that are 'impacted may need to be removed as well. Proposed Removals of Unimpacted Trees The. applicant proposes to; remove the remaining trees on the site, not impacted by the proposed development. These trees include numbers 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18 and 21. These trees are not included in the category of those recommended to be removed asthey either are not in poor or declining condition and will not be greatly impacted, such as with numbers 21 and 18, or they. are not, going to be impacted at all, as with trees number 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 , 8 and 9. However, all of the trees proposed.to.be removed, except for number 21 which is a big:leaf maple, are red alders. Red, alder, is a. species that tends to be brittle and having weak branching connections. In addition, red alder. is generally short-lived, and decline, once begun, tends to be fast. As noted on;the -Tree Evaluation Data Sheet, each of these .trees showed some symptoms of decline in signs of decreased vigor, and terminal leader dieback. Although the, dieback was not severe'in any: of the cases;:even moderate dieback of the main leader canindicate progression toward rapid decline. It,,also, appeared that stem growth had decreased during the last growing.season. Not. only_ the above ground growth is affected. Root health and growth is also reduced, and as previously stated, red alders are weak wooded and tend to become weaker with age. However, because all of the trees had senesced their leaves, it was.4iff cult to gather more certain information on.the extent of the decline. Aside from tree number 21, the big -leaf maple, all are west to northwest of the house. These trees are :directly exposed to winds -off the water, that, if strong enough and the trees weak - enough,, could blow, them over or break them in half in the direction of the proposed residence. Given the lifespan and growth characteristics of red alder, it will not be, long before they begin to fail and become hazardous to the residence. Slurp ro, Olympic Drive Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan December 12, 2001 5 Tree Replacement Plan and Revegetation As a measure of replacing the forest functions and values lost through the removal of 38 trees, it is recommended that the trees removed are replaced through replanting. Replacement ratios for local jurisdictions vary between 1:1 and 2:1. Given thattthe;majority of trees to be removed are undesirable in .terms of their short lifespans and hazardous qualities, and that the available planting space following development will be limited, it would not be practical to recommend planting ratios as high as 2:1. However, it would be detrimental to the site to not replace the trees removed. Removal without replacement would : leave the:slope open.., to direct, rainfall thereby likely:increasing erosion and would allow the blackberry,an undesirable:and unsightly invasive species, to assume a greater dominance on the site. Therefore, a ratio of, 1:1,is the most adequate and practical approach to replacement. With 38 .trees.. removed,. the recommended replacement is for the planting of 38 trees. The species and; locations of the trees to be planted will be shown on the landscape plan for this development plan. s The plants planted as replacement. need to be capable of surviving in the specific site conditions. The ,applicant had requested that shorter growing tree and shrub, species, be evaluated for their potential to provide replacement. If replanting with shrubs; however, the ratios are greater and included in.the column of each species. Aside from vine maple, cascar&and saskatoon; therejs a limited, number of native trees that are considered low -growing, ornamental, species are; given instead. The,following trees and shrubs are recommended for use as replacement because of their.native qualities. Many of the trees are the same species :as,,native trees, ,and: all .possess some of the same, functions and values as some native trees:. ; Trees Vine;maple,:(Acer circinatum) Paperbark;maple, (Acer griseum) Hedge maple, .(Acer: campestre) Saskatoon, (Amelanchier alnifolia) Japanese hornbeam, (Carpinus japonica) Cornus-`Eddie'sWhite Wonder% (C. `Eddie's White Wonder') Strawberry tree, (Arbutus.unedo) Sourwood, (Oxydendron arboreum) Cascara,•(Rhamnus purshiana) American Mountain Ash (Sorbus Americana) Shrubs Red -twig dogwood, (Corpus stolonifera) Beaked hazlenut, (Corylus cornuta) Oceanspray, Molodiscus discolor) Pacific rhododendron,,(Rhododendron.macrophyllum) Red flowering .currant,(Ribes sanguineum) Red elderberry, (Sambucus racemosa) Shapiro, Olympic Drive Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan December 12, 2001 6 . Avg_Ht r 15'• 15' ,15' 15' 15, 15' 15' . 2p' . He�placement-Numbers 5 ,3 l 3 3, 5 3, F All of the shrubs listed above average approximately 10-15 .feet; tall at • their maximum height. Trees are recommended over shrubs for replacement over, however, if preferred the shrubs listed above in the specified replacement numbers may be used. If,gr4amental,species;of shrubs ;are substituted for the above native species, they should possess similar characteristics one of the above species and be planted in the same replacement numbers. Planting Time and Follow -Up Care All replacement trees should be planted in the fall after the rain season:has begun.so,as to allow the plants to begin their adaptation o e site conditions during .dormancy. In, addition,, all o e, rep acemen p an ngs s imga wee y during the;drier,months0 the,growing season (May -September) for their first two growing seasons .in t q,,6eld:. -The most=effective, ands preferred, method of direct irrigation is through the use or: drip -irrigation systems or; soaker hoses. , Tree;Protection Standards r. . The following tree protection standards pertain to all trees proposed to be'retained: A. All 'required tree, protection measures shall be shown on- the tree, protection• and replacement plan, clearing and grading plan, or other plan submitted, to - meet thei requirements. ,of .this subchapter. B. Tree dripline areas shall be protected. No fill, excayation, construction ,materials, or equipm s gi retain C. , Prior to an ; land disturbance, temporary construction`, fences �must,beplaced ;around- the npline of trees . e preserve . i a cluster of�,trees is proposed for retention,the barrier - s e placed around the edge formedTby the drip lines of a trees to a retained. D. Tree protection barriers s e a irunimum o [our .gh, constructed of chain link; or polyethylene laminar safety encing or similar maten ,;su. ject-to,approy y;; e, irec r or, multiple- ro'ect. sites, the Director may also require. that signs reduesnng suvconuacwr cooperation and compliance with tree protection standards be posted at site entrances. E. W ere tree protection areasare remote rom areas ol land,approved by the .Director, alternative forms of tree protection may be used in lieu of tree protection barriers;' provided, that protected trees are completely surrounded with continuous rope or flagging and are accom anied by "Tree Leave Area — KeepOut" signs _ FoalhbP iline, when existing grade levels are lowered or raised by the proposed grading. _ G. Retain small trees, bushes and understory plants within the tree, protection zone to the maximum extent practicable. H. Preventative Measures. In addition to the above minimum tree protection measures, the applicant should support tree protection efforts by employing, as appropriate, the following preventative measures,consistent with best management practices for maintaining the health of the tree: A. Pruning of visible deadwood on trees to be protected.or relocated; B. Application of fertilizer to enhance the vigor of stressed trees; Shapiro, Olympic Drive TYee Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan December 12; 2001 7 . Used of soil amendments and soil aeration in tree protection.and planting areas; D. Mulching over tree dripline areas, and E. Ensuring proper watering during and immediately after construction and throughout: the first growing season after construction. Use Of This Report and Limitations This Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and replacement plan is supplied to A.D. Shapiro Architects, p.s. as a means of determining, to. the''most thorough extent possible, conditions of the 38 trees of concern on the site located on Olympic Drive as required by 'the City of Edmonds. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and, to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. There are several conditions affecting a tree's health which are pre-existing and cannot necessarily be ascertained with a surface analysis. These conditions include, root and stem rot, internal cracks or construction root ,damage, which may be hidden beneath the soil. In addition, certain circumstances `can, cause a .rapid deterioration 'of a tree's condition. While I have used every reasonable means to examine these'trees,.this report:is an opinion and we cannot guarantee or warrant the condition of these trees. Given these;facts,in combination: with the fact that external factors, such as weather events (i.e. drought :and windstorms) contribute to the failure of a tree, it is impossible to determine the eventual ifailure_ ofi'any .given tree. Therefore, a recommendation, for ,retention, .: was based, upon. the -ini iediate : conditions of the trees, and whether or not that conditionpted , resen., a hazardous_conditian.......; 4 A. - removal. The determination of the tree condition'was'based soleIT" : n..the outward .. j. appearance _ of the trees. This report does not guarantee -:against the..failure . of -trees'- not-: recommended for removal as part of this report. No' attempt has'•lieen''inade td detetrmini ` hidden- -or. concealed conditions. Reports maybe adversely affected -due to the,physical condition of the -1 site and the difficulty of access which may lead to observation''or evaluation difficulties. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of -care employed by ISA Certified" s Aiborists. No other representation or warranty is made conceming;the. work or this 'report and }-'-any, implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Certain, elements,' such as those 'requiring treatment and replacement, may be revised by the City of Edmonds: } Tony ,Shoffner, ASCA - .ISA: Certified Arborist #PN-0909 0 4�tYpL. y':L� Shapiro, Olympic Drive Tree Evahtadon, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan December 12, 2001 S r, A APPENDIX AShapiro, Olympic Drive..,TREE EVALUATION DATADecember 12, 2001 Tree Sp DBH (Inches) HT (Feet) Spread (Feet) Rating Tree Condition/Development Impact Notes Retain OR Remove 1 ALRU 10 45 25 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-P 2 ALRU 10 45 15 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-P 3 ALRU 8 40 1 10 3 1 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-P 4 ALRU 10 40 20 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-SP 5 ALRU 12' 30 20 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-SP 6 ALRU 8 40 20 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-P 7 ALRU 10 40 15 1 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-P 8 ALRU 8 40 10 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-P 9 ALRU 8 40 15 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback, IVY Rem-P 10 ALRU 8 35 15 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem-SP . 11 ALRU 16 45 20 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback, leaning Rem-SP 12 ACMA 16 45 15 1 3 Multiple leaders at 15, deadwood in crown Rem-SP 13 ALRU 8 45 25 3 Decreased vigor, leaning to the south Rem-R 14 RH-sp 9 40 10 3 Headed back to 20', massive sucker growth Rem-R 15 ACMA 10 45 15 3 IVY Rem-SP 16 ACMA 12 45 20 3 IVY Rem-SP 17 ACMA 1 8 45 20 1 3 IVY Rem-SP 18 ALRU 15 45 20 3 Leaning a ainst the fence, decreased vigor Rem-P 19 SA-sp 14 35- 30 3 Poor condition; headed back, sucker growth Rem-SP 20 ACMA 23 25 20 3 to 4 Poor condition, headed 'back at 12' - OFFSITE 21 ACMA 12 40 20 2 Nothing noted r Rem-P 22 ACMA 1 12 45 25 2 to 3 Some deadwood in th6.canopy, rubbing branches` �`, Rem-SP • 23 ALRU 9 35 1 15 3 Decreased Vigor, main leader dieback - OFFSITE 24 ALRU 10 35 15 1 3 Dead main leader",' decreased vigor Rem-R 25 ALRU 8 35 15 3 Dead main leader,, decreased vigor Rein-R 26 ALRU 12 45 20 3 Decreased vi or; main leaderrdieback i Rem-SP 27 PREM 11 40 15 3 Decreased vigor, main leaderdieback Rem=SP 28 ALRU 10 35 15 3 Decreased vigor, main leader dieback Rem=SP 29 ACMA 10 50 20 3 Some deadwood in the.66i f Rerrr 4 .30 ALRU 17 55 25 3 Decreased vigor, main leader-dieback Rem-SP 31 ACMA 13 45 25 3 Leaning over -the slo e: ' "' ' ! Rem-SP 32 ALRU 12 55- 15 3 Leaning over the slii e; _.r . Jr '�i i Rem-SP .' ;.. 33 ALRU 16 55 15 3 Leaning over'the slo Pe:M Rem-SP - 34 ACMA 11 •30 15 4 Main leader dieback,`rotaat the base Re'm-SP 35 ALRU 14 45 15 3 Main leader dieback; "IVY'; .`. I ! Rem -SPA' , 36 ALRU '14 30 15 3 Main leader'dieback, W 'T' : Rem-SP 37 ALRU 10. 35 15 3 Decreased vigor, main`leader.dieback Rem=SP 38 ALRU 12 ` '45 20 3 1 Decreased vi' or. ; : -• . rr.." ' . . - ` Rem-SP ' * Retain or Remove - Rem-SP=Proposed removal per site plan Rem-P=Removal proposed by applicant Rem-R=Removal recommended due to condition or.impacts, 'Rating Codes: 1,=Excellent condition; 2=Good condition; 3=Fair condition; 4=poor condition, REMOVE Tree Species Codes: ACMA=Acer macrophyilum (Big -leaf maple); ALRU—Alnus rubra (Red alder); RH-sp=Robinia species (locust); SA-sp=Salix species (willow) Arboricultural Consulting Mountlake Terrace, WA. Phone:(206)419-8549, Fax(425)776-0850 1 A.130. Shapiro, Olympic 130 ,,/e i Edmonds, WA �J 1 "= 3 0' 0 15 30 45 60 OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (EDMONDS—BEVERLY PARK ROAD) ° 0 6' WOOD FENCE LEGEND Removals per site 0 plan (Rem-SP) Removals recommended 0 due to impacts (Rem-R) Trees Proposed For Removal (Rem-P) • PP�ME� lop, 1 10' WATER/ STORM EASEMENT 1 1 73 1 I /IF 111 Arboricuitural Consulting Tr- P— Yll-'eam,ti- ni^�lal".7 —tee •.cm,ti- P/y.Ni 7 8U ,Ti9 (d Treece•+��IM '�v�7 U= Tony Sh6ffner, ASCA Consulting Arborist, Horticulturist ISA Certified Arborist t1PN-0909 PO Box 135 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-0135 Phone and Fax: (425) 776-0950 Mobile (206)4194549 omail: arboriculm al.conaulting@veroon.not TREE IMPACT AND REMOVAL MAP A.D. Shapiro, Olympic Drive CITY OF EDMOND$ WA A.D. Shapiro Architects 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 Date: December 12, 2001 Anthony V. Shothwr ASCA, ISA Certified Arborist OPN-0909 eee�eee� C= architects ps _.. _ . 624 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020-4641 425.778.5400 FAX-778.3032 January 5, 2007 Gina Coccia Planner Edmonds, City of 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject SEPA Compliance Project: Bldg Permit Review 2002-0848 Dear Gina: RECEIVED JAN 0 5 2007 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES The attached report from our soils engineer, David Cotton, evaluates our site for stability and erosion control. From a practical standpoint, we have not had any erosion, drainage or other site problems from this most recent storm, or any of the other major storms we have had in the past three years. Please note that one of these storms was considered a 100 year storm. In regard to the landscaping, we will be adding (12) additional trees this spring, when weather is better suited to installation, say by May 31'. Note that David's letter specificly targets the west side of the property as being stable, and not in need of additional planting. Lyle's concern of major tress being planted along this property line will be honored. I would also note that our neighbor to the west has planted significant evergreen trees over this easement in the last four years, and also has a retaining wall structure as well. We look forward to completing our landscaping this spring, but also note that the site is very stable, (as proven from these past few winters), in it's current state. Thank you for your revieg-of-this matter. Shapiro, AIA, NCARB Enc. STREET FILE July 10, 2006 I�ECc_IVEL� A.D. Shapiro Architects 624 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Tony Shapiro RE: GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION CONTROL BUILDING PERMIT REVISION 2002-0848 SHAPIRO RESIDENCE 18105 SUNSET WAY EDMONDS, WA Dear Tony, JAN - 8 2007 BUILDING DEPT. At your request we have prepared this letter response summarizing our site visits and evaluation of the overall slope stability and erosion control of the north -facing slope just below your house and adjacent to the north property line paralleling Olympic View Drive. During the last six months we have visited your property at four different times. Our site visits usually followed a period of heavy rainfall. During all four site visits we have observed a stable slope condition consistent with the anticipated overall slope stability outlined in the original geotechnical report and the final site grades and landscaping plan. Specifically, the Plan Review Corrections dated February 8, 2006, noted a concern for the steep slope on the Western side yard stability. In our opinion, leaving the area to the west of the deck unplanted will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions, and it will not decrease slope stability on the existing slope or adjacent properties. The site development in fact, has improved overall stability from the original condition, as well as the control and management of the surface water discharge and sediment control. In addition, it is our opinion, that the current landscaping and ground cover is providing erosion control consistent with or better than the original site conditions. 06001GA/SEA6L228.doc Page 1 of 2 July 10, 2006 Copyright 2006 Kleinfelder, Inc. It has been a pleasure working with you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER, INC. cdom S /ffd f 2 : 0 �W- � David M. Cotton P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Seattle Area Manager 06001 GA/SEA6L228.doc Page 2 of 2 July 10, 2006 Copyright 2006 Kleinfelder, Inc. 2i RECEIVED NORANDUM FEB 0 6 2003 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES w Date: February 5, 2003 To: Dave Gebert, City Engineer From: Jim Kammerer, Street/Storm Manager Via: Noel Miller, Public Works Director Subject: Storm System Damage on Sharpiro Project On February 3, 2003, the Storm Maintenance Division sent a crew to perform a video inspection of our storm line which runs in an easement along the west property line of the project. This was due to concerns that the line may have been damaged by heavy equipment working in the area as part of a private development and a report from a worker on site that our pipe was deteriorated to the point of needing replacement. The inspection found that the aluminum corrugated metal pipe is in good to excellent condition. Damage to the pipe was discovered approximately 30 feet down stream of catch basin # 5-20B that is significant enough to require replacement of the damaged section. The damage is obviously caused by a mechanical, not natural, event. The color of the damaged area (bright silver with no mineral staining) indicates a very recent event. There has been no construction activity by the City or contractors hired by the City in the area, so it is safe to say that the damage was done during recent development of the - property. We are requiring that the damaged section be replaced (existing pipe exposed, the damaged section of pipe completely removed, a replacement section cut to fit, and new bands placed on either end). We are also requiring inspection by the City prior to backfill. All materials will be supplied by the developer. It is my understanding that your staff can insure the proper repair of this storm line and perform the needed inspections. If you have any questions, please give me a call at extension 1648. Cc: Tod Moles Duane Bowman �f � h • o 5 —%9 o� O 5-9 5 98b 5-98C o�n� o a` o� 18020 �3 � 18017 b �� ,:, 78030 �o 5-96b 30 61 O 9100 o 00 lob 91V72 j 18707 18108 1 k28 j �... ::._. 5- �{ f Bb........ .... cr 5- 18L 18130 78127 5- 5-1 o9b 5-17b 782, 18129 18214 78210 18220 18215 18300 5-16b 78229 5-15b 18 302 1� 18310 City Of. Edmonds ,. Permit No• e?U) —03�9 RIGHT-OF-WAY- CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: B. Type of Work (be specific): U rl(-i '1 r C. Contractor: S L C \ 7 ��U Contact:5Lz�tti, _ w Mailing Address: ze)�iv\-n Phone: � 1 �� State License #: Liability Insurance:'>Cin�d� D. Building�Permit # if applicable) : �� '� �%�{� $ " Side Sewer Permit # (if -applicable): licable C ( PP � ): E. t ❑ 'Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ Multi -Family .Single Family ❑ Other ` INSPECTOR:. F. PAVEMENT CUT: []YES ❑ NO % G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO` 1 D INDEMNITK �A licant understands b his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City o Edmonds: harmless rom PP Y ; % PP f fr . injuries,•, damages or claims of'any kind,,or,description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may. be made against the City of Edmonds or any.of its departments or employees, including but not limited to. the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees;by reason of granting this permit.' THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A' PERIOD,;; OF UNEJYEAR : FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HEL^'D\U/VTIL THE FINAL STREETPATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY# FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦ Traffic .control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as. required, by the City Engineer: Every flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 2964M-305hand must., have certification verifying completion":of the . required training in their possession. ♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with Cityodes IAII street eut trench work shall'tie patched with: asphalt or'City- approved material prior to the end of the wor day ENO`°EXCEPTIONS. . ♦ Three,sets.of construction,drawings of proposed4ork are,xequired with the permit application. l CALL DIAL A-D,IG�(1=800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT'REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON, ,.SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: ` Date: (Contractor or Agent) UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK,,AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT'` CODo 25 1-0220, Ext. 132) j FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: `0"- DATE: I.eflector,s Signature G , For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. NO WORK SHALL IIECIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE i MEMORANDUM Date: February 3, 2003 To: File From: Dave Gebert CC: Duane Bowman, Noel Miller, Don Fiene, Lyle Chrisman. Danielle Gilbert, Jeanine McConnell, Jaime Hawkins Subject: Meeting with Tony Shapiro and Jamie Schwartz, February 3, 2003 Duane and I met with Tony Shapiro and Jaimie Schwartz at 1:00 PM this afternoon. Meeting had been requested by Jamie. Following topics were discussed: Side Sewer inspection. Jamie complained about recent side sewer inspection. He said that he had called for inspection, wasn't ready, and forgot to call to cancel. When Jaime Hawkins came to do the inspection, Jamie Schwartz said that Jaime Hawkins told him he would have to check to see if the reinspection fee would be imposed. He said that Jaime didn't get back to him to confirm that fee was required. Then when Jamie Schwartz later called for reinspection it wasn't until about 10:30 on the day requested for inspection that Danielle told him that he had to pay the reinspection fee first. Jamie also complained about Danielle requiring a raised (at grade) cleanout with cover at property line. Subsequent to meeting Per Danielle, Jaime Hawkins did not have a copy of the correction Notice form we use to inform developers that they must pay the reinspection fee before calling for reinspection. This has now been corrected. However, Jamie Schwartz has been building in Edmonds for quite some time and should know this requirement. Also, the requirement that a "cleanout with locking cast iron lamphole cover shall be installed at final grade at the property line... " is our standard Cite requirement, included in our Side Sewer Information handout. Erosion Control. Jamie and Tony expressed concern about City's Engineering inspector threatening to issue stop work order last week and issuing stop work order this morning. They also expressed concerned about angry tone on part of Engineering inspector and Storm Division crew leader. City of Edmonds Development Services Department Engineering Division 0 0 Duane and I explained that the procedure followed by Danielle was consistent with the manner in which we deal with all developers. Duane cited another specific project example where the developer was warned of possible stop work order, then issued stop work order upon next violation. After considerable discussion and review of photos taken on site this morning Tony and Jamie acknowledged that they need to take corrective actions and that it is their responsibility to install and maintain adequate erosion and sediment control. Duane and I emphasized that it is not up to the City to tell them how to do this. The bottom line is that the runoff from their site to the storm system must be clean. It is their responsibility to determine how to do it and to do it. Duane emphasized that maintaining proper erosion and sediment control is a very high priority to the City, and that neither party wants the Department of Ecology to have to come out to the site to investigate. Tony will get his engineer out to evaluate the site and establish the adequate measures to be taken, including a larger sediment pond. Both parties agreed that we must avoid showing anger and maintain a professional manner in dealing with these issues. Jamie asked if he could now pay the $45 reinspection fee and call for erosion control inspection and resume work on the project. After some more discussion, it was acknowledged by Tony and Jamie that they had not yet corrected the erosion control deficiencies and must do so before they call for inspection. It was emphasized that they must complete all corrections and pass inspection before they can return to work. City of Edmonds 7110 210th St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 DJ (425) 971-0235 ,Photo 01 Oak for Prq® ect: OO MD AND TAL o OT Site ID City Street Inspection Date Time 1 EDMONDS 18101 SUNSET ( 02/03/2003 09:50:19 AN From Manhole Observation ID 2 Category Pi a Problem To Manhole Pipe Size 12 Category Details Broken 11 Observation Comment Type of Pipe Direction F Concrete NGAINST FLOV1 Clock Position Severity Level t11 O'clock F Photo 01 PhI522 Distance(fft1m): 154.8 City of [Edmonds 9910 29®tau St. SW ; Edmonds, WA 98026 (428) 771.0235 Site ID City Street Inspection Date Time 1 EDMONDS 18101 SUNSE 1 02/03/2003 09:50:19 AN From Manhole Observation ID 1 F Category Pipe Problem To Manhole Pipe Size 12 Category Details Broken Observation Comment Type of Pipe Direction 1 Concrete JkGAINST FLOkA Clock Position Severity Level t2 O'Clock Photo 01 PhI529 Diistance(ff 1m): 2.6 /OL/l 0 Lr) Q o 0 0 0 0� 18020 � � � 18017 5 � a 5-- g b Z7 i 78030 6 Q M _3Q 5 98b 5��0 0 5— 98C 9104 5-96b 9100 o 18111 N .� Cr LP y 91152 18707 18108 Lp. LP ff 1 �128 5718b 6 91�6 5- 18L 18130 18121 5- 5-1 09b 5-17b 182 18214 18129 18210 18220 18215 18300 5-16b 18229 5-15b 18302 1� 18310 goo AUG ' 2002 City of Edmonds, Permit No: d2— "/ "/ 0AG1"EE NOF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: 7, � A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: $ /O✓Scl�JS�` GHQ �$�/l� 88 �'l�1I (J B. Type of Work (be specific): G�i4?'DlfJ S7zJ 7ae�i� C. Contractor: Ji g e` 63N Contact: Mailing Address: A Phone: So( �5\ `` 0 State License #: S�• L- �-C- 7 `� 0It Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): -4 E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ 'City Project ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ Multi -Family Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: DA Gi�tA�J'�tt.► v-"-`"�``•'�_ . _ . �. . F. PA'VEMENT CUT: ❑ YES 95NO CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO G. SIZE OF CUT X INDEMNITY. • Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that maybe made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR. IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING' THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME ADEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. . ♦ Traffic control; and public. safety shall be in accordance'with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger mustk,be trained as required by (WAC) 296455-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the required. training in their possession:. ♦ Restoration is, to. be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or .City - approved material prior to the end of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three, sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR T0,11EGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND ITHE`PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE TH PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: Date: rac Agent) FOR CITYUSE ONLY Approved by: Time Authorized: Void After 6/ / Special Conditions: 4l• n?Usr Right-of-way Fee: Disruption Fee/Fund 111: Restoration Fee: Total Fee: 02..E Receipt No: Issued by:# T UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION, IS REQUIRED. PER CHAPTER 0.00 THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. E' o e 25-771-0220, Ext. 1326) • ` FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK. DATE: _r�am pector's Signature For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. NO WORK tiIIALL H M 10111111111R TKim PI?RMI"I' 1San= -1 L Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 _Redmond, WA 98052-3333 Telephone (425) 883-0777 . Fax (425) 882-5498 � I REP%RT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON el,l&z= Frank S. ocker Project Geologist t David M. n P.E. Principal January 9, 2002 Prepared for: A. D. Shapiro Architects Seattle, Washington Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. Redmond, Washington Gsociates older JAN 10 2002 A. C. SHAPI RO ARCH. rmFCZIVED J U W 2 8 2002 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE Michael Mengelt Project Engineer C NYASly 013-1685.100 ..." 3RES I OFFICES ACROSS ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA January 9, 2002 i 013-1685.100 '. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 2. SUMMARY 2 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 3 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 5. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 5 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 6.1 Geologic Setting 6 6.2 General Site Geology 6 6.3 Observed Soil Conditions 6 6.4 Observed Groundwater Conditions 8 7. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 9 7.1 General 9 7.2 Site Preparation/Grading 9 7.3 Temporary and Permanent Slopes 9 7.3.1 Slope Stability 9 7.4 Erosion Control 10 7.5 Foundation Recommendations 11 7.6 Slab Subgrade 11 7.7 Foundation Drainage 12 7.8 Retaining Walls 12 7.9 Rockeries 12 7.10 Utilities 13 7.11 Fill Materials and Placement 13 7.12 Use of On -site Soils 14 7.13 Pavements 14 7.14 Construction Monitoring 15 8. USE OF THIS REPORT 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Groundwater Seepage Table 2 Factor of Safety of the Monnahan Property LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Golder Associates January 9, 2002 ii 013-1685.100 Figure 3 Geologic Cross Section A -A' Figure 4 Foundation Drainage Detail LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Test Pit Logs and Wildcat Dynamic Cone Tests Appendix B City of Edmonds Community Development Code for Development on Steep Slopes Golder Associates � I January 9, 2002 1 013-1685.100 I I I I � I � I 1 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This report presents the results of the Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) geotechnical investigation of the proposed single-family residence on the undeveloped lot located between 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The work was performed in accordance with our proposal dated November 13, 2001. The purpose of this study was to investigate the existing site conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations for the following. • Site development/grading; • General construction issues; • Foundation design; • Surface and groundwater management; and • Roadway construction. This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 2 013-1685.100 2. SUMMARY The project site can be developed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. During this investigation we reviewed section 20.15B.110 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code regarding development or alteration of steep slopes and have addressed the listed criteria in this report. The site in the area of the proposed residential structure is underlain by a combination of competent glacial soils, fill, and landslide debris. The glacial soils will provide adequate bearing capacity for anticipated building loads. The site grading proposed for this project would include cuts into fill, landslide debris, and glacial soils to construct the lower level of the structure. Landslide debris soils will be encountered within the footprint of the lower level based on the design elevation shown on the site plan. Pin piles are recommended to support the proposed structure where it is underlain by landslide debris. If the recommendations presented herein are followed, we believe the resultant subgrade condition will support the anticipated loads, and the slope will increase in overall stability. This development as planned will result in a 30% increase in the factor of safety for slope stability on the property, which will result in a stable site. If the rockeries described below in Section 4 are not built, we anticipate stability of the overall slope will be more stable than the current slope configuration with a factor of safety between 1.4 and 1.7. The risk of continued soil creep and shallow debris flow on the resultant finished slopes should be virtually eliminated assuming proper surface water management devises are utilized and the slope is adequately landscaped and vegetated. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 3 013-1685.100 3. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located on a north to northwest -facing slope in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 2). Site access is from the south between existing residential structures located at 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way. Olympic View Drive is located on the north side of the property and an open, undeveloped lot is located along the east property line. The east half of the south property line is also bordered by undeveloped land. A drainage ditch directs surface water across the far -east edge of the site. The ditch enters the southeast corner of the site and directs surface water north to an existing storm drain located in the northeast corner of the site. The storm drain then directs the water off site under Olympic View Drive to the north. Topography on the site slopes generally down to the northeast ranging in elevation from about 260 feet MSL in the southwest corner of the property along Sunset Way, to about 210 feet MSL in the northeast corner of the site. Slopes range from about 15H:1V (horizontal to vertical) in the southwest third of the site, to about 4H:1V in the central third of the site, and about 1.5H:1V in the eastern third of the site adjacent to the drainage ditch. Vegetative cover on the southwest third of the site consists of low grasses. The eastern two thirds of the site contain deciduous and evergreen trees of various stages of maturity, as described in a specific arborist report for the property, with an understory of Sword fern, Salal, Oregon grape, blackberry brambles, and other low shrubs. Several large tree stumps were also observed on the site. The topography rises about 10 feet in elevation directly east of the drainage ditch. The slope adjacent to the east edge of the ditch is about 2.3H:1V dropping to about 9H:1V further to the east. Golder Associates ' January 9, 2012 4 () 13-1685.100 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. The November 2001 report presents findings of a visual ' site reconnaissance of your parcel in support of your proposed single-family residence. Site plans showing the proposed site development were not available at that time. Based on the site plan provided electronically by A.D. Shapiro Architects and dated December 12, 2001, we understand the proposed development would consist of a single two story wood framed structure, including a daylight basement, with an attached garage. Access will be from Sunset Way to the south of the structure. We anticipate that the building loads will be light and no below grade structures are planned (other than the daylight basement and any underground utility installation). We understand that the elevation of the upper and lower levels of the structure will be about 250 feet and 241 feet, respectively. Based on those elevations we anticipate cuts of up to about 11 feet for the lower level. We understand a crawl space is planned under almost all of the lower level of the structure. In order to create usable yard to the east of the structure, we understand you are going through the City of Edmonds for approval to place fill in the drainage ditch on the east side of the property. We understand two to three terraced rockeries are planned for the east and north sides of the house but that they will not likely be built during the initial phase of construction. We understand that a culvert is planned at the base of the fill to direct surface water from off site south of the property, to the existing storm drain in the northeast corner of the site. We also understand you plan to build a deck off the north side of the structure. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 5 013-1685.100 5. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Our site field investigation work consisted of excavating six trackhoe test pits. The trackhoe test pits were excavated on December 4, 2001. The trackhoe test pits were excavated using a Case 9010B track excavator supplied and operated by NW Excavating under contract to ' you. Following the test pit program we performed DCPT (Dynamic Cone Penetration Test) testing using portable Wildcat equipment at two locations within the footprint of the proposed structure. We performed the DCPT testing in order to provide additional, ' quantitative measurement of the density/consistency of the shallow (< 15 feet) soil units. The test pit and DCPT test locations were established in the field by pacing or measuring ' relative to existing landmarks, property boundary markers, and/or features as shown on the site plan. The test pit locations were flagged and staked after they were backfilled. The approximate test locations are shown on Figure 2. A geologist from Golder examined and logged ed the soil conditions observed in each of the test explorations. Pertinent information including depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence were recorded. The stratigraphic contacts indicated on the summary logs ' represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil and groundwater conditions were those recorded for the locations and dates indicated and may not necessarily represent those of other times and locations. The test pits were backfilled with the excavated soils tamped into place with the bucket of the trackhoe after the completion of the soil logging. Some settlement of the test pit backfill should be expected with time. ' The soils were classified in accordance with Golder Associates Inc. Technical Procedure for Field Identification of Soil, which is summarized in the Soil Description Index in M Appendix A. J iI The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. The logs of the test pits are included in Appendix A. 1 Golder Associates January 9, 2002 6 013-1685.100 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6.1 Geologic Setting The recent geologic history of the Puget Sound Lowland region has been dominated by several glacial episodes. The most recent, the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation is responsible for most of the present day geologic and topographic conditions. The Puget lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet deposited a heterogeneous assemblage of proglacial lacustrine deposits, advance outwash, lodgment till, and recessional outwash upon either bedrock or older pre-Vashon sediments and bedrock. As the glacier retreated northward, it uncovered a sculpted landscape of elongate uplands and intervening valleys. Post glacial deposits found in the region generally include: alluvium deposited within active stream channels, modern lacustrine deposits, organic silt and local peat deposits within kettle depressions, drainages, outwash channels, volcanic mudflow and landslide deposits. 6.2 General Site Geology Geology of the site and surrounding area has been mapped by Smith,1975' and Minard, 1983'. In general, the existing geologic maps indicate that the site geology consists of fine- grained, Pre Fraser transitional beds overlain by younger Vashon age advance outwash deposits. The transitional beds typically consist of silt, clay, and fine-grained sand whereas the overlying, Vashon age advance outwash can vary from fine to medium sand with silt interbeds to sand with varying amounts of gravel. Till is mapped to the south of the property. Till generally consists of a dense mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The site is also shown on unpublished geologic hazard maps prepared for: Snohomish County in 1991. The map ranks landslide hazards areas based on geology and slope angle. The property is shown to be in an area with a moderate to high landslide hazard designation. This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. 6.3 Observed Soil Conditions The geologic conditions observed on the property during our test pit investigation do not agree with the geology described by Smith (1976) and by Minard (1983). Based on soil conditions observed in the test pits, the majority of the site is mantled by landslide and older slide deposits. Fill and glacial soils were observed along the northwest portion and southwest third of the property. The soil units encountered in our explorations include topsoil, fill, landslide debris, older slide debris, ice contact deposits, and advance outwash deposits. The interpreted subsurface ' Smith, M.,1975. Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and I' Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-14. z Minard, James P.,1983. Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington: USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1541. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 7 013-1685.100 distribution of these units is shown on geologic cross section A -A' (Figure 3). The soil units are described as follows: • Topsoil — Most of the site was covered with a relatively thin (< 6-inch) layer of topsoil consisting of very loose, dark brown organics with little to some sand and a trace to little fine to coarse gravel. The unit varies to silt and clayey silt with a little sand, little to some gravel, and abundant organics. • Fill — Fill was encountered in test pits TP-4 and TP-6 to a maximum depth of 10 feet. ' The fill generally consisted of very loose to compact, light olive brown to dark olive brown, non stratified, silt ranging to clayey silt with a trace to some fine to coarse sand, ' a little fine to coarse gravel, cobbles, and boulders, and trace to little roots, rootlets and other organics. Cobbles and boulders to about 16 inches in diameter were observed in this unit. In test pit TP-6, an older buried topsoil horizon or bum pile up to 6-inches ' thick was observed. The buried topsoil is generally dark brown in color and contains roots and charcoal fragments. Landslide Debris — This unit was encountered in four of the six test pits excavated on the site. The interpreted limits of the landslide debris encountered on the site based on the test pits are shown on the site plan (Figure 2). The landslide debris varies widely in composition including: very soft to firm, light olive to light bluish gray, clayey silt ranging to silty clay, with a trace to some fine to medium sand; silt; and very loose to compact, fine to medium sand with a little to some silt, a trace fine to coarse gravel. The unit is commonly nonstratified, mottled, fractured, or jointed, and iron oxide stained. Roots, rootlets, and other organics were also observed throughout. A dense mat of rootlet development was commonly observed along many of the fractures or joints. Some of the joint surfaces were polished and contained large-scale slickensides. In test pit TP-3, located at the southeast comer of the proposed garage, this unit compact and stiff to very stiff and may be older slide debris that mobilized soon after the Puget Lobe of the Vashon glacier receded. Ice Contact Deposits — This unit was observed in only one of the test pits (TP-4) excavated at the site located in the far north corner of the site adjacent to Olympic View Drive. These deposits were formed on or near the ice sheet and consist of compact, light olive brown, non stratified, silt with a trace to little fine to coarse, sand, a little subrounded to rounded, fine to coarse gravel, and a trace of cobble and boulder to 2 feet diameter. Advance Outwash Deposits — This unit was encountered in test pits TP-1, TP-4, and TP-6 located in the northwest portion of the property. The unit consists of compact to dense, stratified to massive, interbedded, jointed, silt ranging to silty clay, and fine sand with a trace of silt ranging to fine to coarse sand with a trace of silt. A sheared clay layer was encountered in test pit TP-1 at the contact between the advance outwash and overlying landslide debris. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 8 013-1685.100 6.4 Observed Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed in four of the six test pits excavated as shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Groundwater Seepage Approximate Depth to Approximate Test Pit Ground Surface Groundwater Groundwater Designation Elevation Elevation (Feet MSL) (Feet BGS) (Feet MSL) TP-1 251 4 147 TP-3 234 7 227 TP-5 227 1.5 225.5 TP-5 227 14 216 TP-6 249 10 239 BGS = Below Ground Surface All the groundwater encountered in the test pits occurred within the landslide or older slide debris. The interpreted groundwater table is shown on the Geologic Cross Section A -A'. It is likely that the observed groundwater seeps represent a shallow seasonal perched condition that may not exist during drier periods of the year. We anticipate that groundwater levels will rise during extended periods of increased precipitation. Golder Associates I January9, 2002 9 013-1685.1 0 0 7. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General ' Based on the results of our study, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed. The native site soils or structural fill derived from the native soils will ' provide adequate bearing capacity for the proposed buildings and structures, in the upland portion of the site. However, on the sloped portion of the site, pin piles will be required to penetrate the recent slide debris and established in the lower more competent native soils. 7.2 Site Preparation/Grading ' Site preparation should include removal of the surficial fill and debris. The thin organic topsoil layers should be stripped from the building area and removed or stockpiled for later used in landscaped areas. Based on our test pit observations the organic topsoil thickness ' on the site is generally less than six inches. We understand that cuts and fills up to about 15 feet are proposed to establish grades at the site. These cuts would most likely be through recent and older landslide debris. The landslide deposits, particularly the silt and silty sand soils, can be moisture sensitive. Where this condition exists, we recommend that site grading be performed during an ' extended period of dry weather. We would anticipate added construction costs to handle unsuitable soil if work was performed during wet weather. ' 7.3 Temporary and Permanent Slopes ' Safe temporary excavations are the responsibility of the contractor and depend on the actual site conditions at the time of construction. Temporary cuts are the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with applicable OSHA and WISHA standards. Cut slopes ' exposed for any length of time, particularly during vet weather, should be covered with visqueen to maintain stability and minimize erosion. ' Long-term permanent cut slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter assuming proper drainage and erosion control. Long term permanent fill slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter assuming proper compaction, drainage, and erosion control. In general, 3H:1V slopes or gentler are preferred for ease of maintenance and application of landscaping. 7.3.1 Slope Stability ■ The stability of the existing and proposed slopes at the site was analyzed using the computer slope stability analysis program SLIDE, a proprietary software program produced ■ by RocScience, Inc. The stability of the existing hillside, the hillside with the proposed cuts, and the final proposed geometry of the property were examined for the analysis. The stability of the hill was assessed using the simplified Bishop method. I Golder Associates January 9, 2002 10 013-1685.100 The results of the slope stability -modeling program are outlined in Table 2, below. Representative cross section analyzed using SLIDE can be found in Appendix A. TABLE 2 Factor of Safety of the Monnahan Property Condition Analyzed Static Factor of Safe Yield Acceleration' Current Conditions 1.31 0.09 Proposed Cut 1.4 0.08 Proposed Final Grade 1.71 0.19 ' Yield Acceleration is defined as the horizontal earthquake acceleration required to reduce the static factor of safety to 1.00. As shown in Table 2, the current conditions and proposed but have global stability safety factors ranging from 1.3 to 1.4; yield acceleration of the slope under these conditions is approximately 0.08g to 0.09g. After the proposed filling of the ravine to complete final grade, the location of the critical failure surface shifts to the upper portion of the hillside, creating a global factor of safety of 1.71 with a yield acceleration of 0.19g. The design earthquake for Edmonds, Washington with a 10% Probability of Exceedance (PE) in 50 years is approximately 0.3g. Because the yield acceleration of the proposed final grade is greater than 507o of the design earthquake acceleration, deformation of the slope in the event of the design earthquake is anticipated to be small. It should be noted that SLIDE predicts safety factor of approximately 1.0 for surface ' ravelling (shallow translational soil movement) on the existing slope, and on the downhill edge of the proposed cut just above the filled ravine. This indicates that the surficial soils on the slope are in a state of active erosion and will continue to ravel without landscaping ' and adequate ground cover. As such, we recommend that the existing grade below the proposed house be shallower than existing; a 3H:1V slope is recommended. 7.4 Erosion Control We understand that Snohomish County is requiring submittal of an erosion control plan for the site prior to any grading or other associated construction activities. Erosion control for the site will include the BMP's incorporated in the civil design drawings and may incorporate the following recommendations: • Limit exposed cut slopes; Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes; • Use silt fences, straw, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site; Golder Associates ' January 9, 2002 11 013-1685.100 • Seeding or planting vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no buildings are proposed; and • Retaining existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent. ' 7.5 Foundation Recommendations Conventional, shallow isolated or continuous spread footings are not suitable for this site in ' the sloped area, as the structure will likely be founded on recent and older landslide deposits consisting of very loose to compact silty sand, sand and silt deposits. As such, we recommend that the perimeter strip footings be founded on 4-inch diameter steel pipe piles ' spaced four feet on center. Based on the allowable bearing pressure on the perimeter strip footing and spacing of four feet, the steel pipe piles shall have an allowable loading of 12,000 lb. On average, we anticipate that the piles will need to be 25 to 30 feet long to develop sufficient load bearing capacity. Based on driving conditions in the field, the piles may need to be lengthened during driving; if better than anticipated conditions are discovered, the piles may be shortened in accordance with observed conditions. A minimum length of 20 feet per pile is recommended in any case. The perimeter strip footing foundations in the upland portion of the site where dense soils were encountered, should be designed based on the following parameters: • MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES: 2,000 psf These values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term wind and seismic loading. • MINIMUM EMBEDMENT: • MINIMUM WIDTH: Perimeter footings 18 inches Interior footings 12 inches Perimeter footings 18 inches Interior isolated footings 24 inches • LATERAL LOADS ON BASEMENT WALLS: Basement walls should be designed to resist a fluid with a density of 50 pcf assuming a level backslope. • RESIST LATERAL LOADS: Lateral loads can be resisted through an ultimate base friction value of 0.4 and an allowable passive earthpressure based on a fluid with a density of 250 pcf assuming level ground below the footing. • SETTLEMENT: Total Settlement less than 1 inch Differential Settlement less than 3/4 inch 7.6 Slab Subgrade Normal slab -on -grade floors can be used in cut sections, if properly compacted. Slab -on -grade floors should not be founded on existing fills or organic soils. The slabs should be underlain by a capillary break material, consisting of at least four inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 3 percent fines passing the #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction). A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting Golder Associates 9, 2002 12 013-1685.100 #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction). A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting should be included between the slab and the capillary break If desired, an additional two-inch thick layer of sand may be placed on the vapor barrier to aid in concrete curing. Framed floors should also include a vapor barrier placed over any areas of bare soils and adequate crawl space ventilation should be provided. 7.7 Foundation Drainage We recommend that perimeter footing drains be included in all the building designs where adjacent slabs are below grade. Footing drains should consist of a four -inch diameter, perforated, rigid plastic pipe, embedded in a clean, free -draining sand and gravel consisting of the following gradation: 100% passing 1 %i' 40 —100% retained on the No. 4 sieve, less than 5% fines, meeting the requirements of Sections 9-03.12(2) and Section 9- 03.12(4), respectively of the 2002 Washington State Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction (Figure 4). The ground surface adjacent to the buildings should be graded to drain away from the building. ' To prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure against the wall, we recommend that a layer of free draining sand or gravel be placed against the back of the wall, connected to the footing drain. See figure 4 for details. Roof drains should be collected and conveyed in a tightlined system separate from the footing drain system 7.8 Retaining Walls If needed for site grading, a variety of wall types are feasible including MSE walls, and conventional concrete walls. Once a specific wall type is determined, detailed design recommendations can be developed. All retaining walls should be constructed with a permanent drain system that conveys the water under gravity flow to the storm water collection system. The drains should consist of a properly sized perforated drainpipe bedded in a clean gravel backfill. 7.9 Rockeries We understand rockeries are planned on portions of the property. Rockeries 4 feet or less in height should be constructed using clean, granular, free draining fill compacted according to the specifications in Section 7.11. If terraced rockeries are planned and the terraces are located less than a distance of two times the height of one of the wall terraces, we recommend the lower terraces be constructed using reinforced fill as described below for walls greater than 4 feet in height. Rockeries between 4 and 8 feet in height should be constructed using reinforced clean, granular, free draining fill with the length of the reinforcing equivalent to the height of the wall. The reinforcing should consist of geogrid, geotextile fabric, or welded wire mesh spaced every 18 to 24 inches vertically. The 1 14 6"�L�M*wG' vKm01;i� Golder Associates 9, 2002 13 013-1685.100 7.10 Utilities Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility of the utility contractor. In our explorations, we did not observe much sidewall caving. However, when observed, it was typically found in the existing fill. The native outwash can be prone to unexpected caving and can exhibit rapid degradation if water seepage is present. We expect excavations in the outwash and fill will be difficult in places because it contains occasional boulders and cobbles. Conventional excavation equipment can be used to excavate the soils. Where the utility crosses pavement areas, the trench backfll should be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 and to 95 pqrcent within three feet of final grade. of (s?'--4'� 7.11 Fill Materials and Placement Structural fill material should consist of native outwash sand or imported granular soils, be free of organic and inorganic debris, be at or just below the optimum moisture content, and be capable of being compacted to the required specifications listed below. Maximum lift thickness: 12 inches loose. Minimum Compaction Requirements: • Beneath Building Foundations and Floors — The fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density value for the material. The structural fill beneath footings should at a minimum extend laterally at a 1HJV slope projected down and away from the bottom footing edge. • Beneath Roadways and Pavements — The fill should generally be compacted to at least 907o of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except within three feet of subgrade elevation, where the fill should be compacted to at least 957o of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material. -- - -� • Foundation Wall Backfill — We recommend that any fill placed against the foundation walls located on the uphill side of the house be compacted to between 90 and 92% of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557, with hand operated compactors within a 5-foot zone behind the walls. Over compaction near the wall should be avoided to reduce lateral pressures against the back of the wall. • Utility Trench Backfill — The fill should generally be compacted to at least 90% of the ' ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except in paved and structural areas where the material should be compacted to at least 957o of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material. • Non-structural/Landscaped Areas — Firmly compacted. We recommend that a jumping jack or hoe-pac is suitable for compacting subgrade. Thin lifts or work in confined areas can also be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. If density tests taken in the fill indicate that compaction is not being achieved, the fill should be scarified, moisture -conditioned, and recompacted. If the required densities cannot be ' met then the material can be excavated and replaced or a soil admixture used to dry the soil. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 14 013-1685.100 In the area of the garage where the existing fill is deepest, we recommend removing the existing fill to a couple feet below the proposed slab elevation, then placing compacted structural fill. Alternatively, you could densify the existing fill at the slab elevation provided any organic rich topsoil has been removed. Fill placed on slopes steeper than a 3H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical) shall be benched using a bulldozer or backhoe. Benches shall have a minimum width of three feet and a vertical spacing equal to the thickness of two compacted lifts. 7.12 Use of On -site Soils In general, the excavated native soils at the site would be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are placed at or below the optimum moisture content. During our investigation, we found that the site soils appeared to be typically moist to wet. ' We would anticipate that if the site development work were to proceed during the drier months of the year, the contractor would most likely have to moisture condition the soils prior to use as fill. However, if the site work were to proceed during the wetter periods of the ' year, drying of the site soils, the use of soil amendments, or selective use of the site soils may be necessary. The silty sand and sandy silt soils comprising the landslide debris would be more suitable for use during drier periods of work. ■ 7.13 Pavements Pavement subgrade shall be maintained in a well -compacted state and protected from degradation prior to paving. Any areas disturbed prior to paving shall be remediated by a method determined suitable based on the observed field conditions. The options may include excavate and replacement of the disturbed soil, placement of a geotextile separation fabric, chemical stabilization and/or drainage improvements. Protection measures may include restricted traffic, perimeter drain ditches, or placement of a protective gravel layer on the subgrade. ■ The pavement subgrade can consist of cuts into undisturbed native soil, or structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Structural fill section of this report. The pavement subgrade should be capable of supporting a fully loaded dump truck with minimum ' weaving and rutting. A typical pavement section of 2 inches of asphaltic concrete over 4 inches of clean, free draining, well -graded crushed rock sand base material is appropriate for the subgrade conditions described above and identified on site. ■ We understand that 4-inch thick brick pavers may be used for the driveway. We assume the manufacturers specifications for preparation of the paver subgrade include a layer of ' clean, free draining sand over rock. The sub base for the pavers and subgrade can consist of firm and unyielding native soils free of topsoil and organics or structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Structural fill section of this report. If the manufacturers ' specifications do not include free draining subgrade soils, we recommend a minimum of 8 inches thick layer of clean, free draining soil as the base material. Where the pavers are 'at Golder Associates January 9, 2002 15 013-1685.100 located over structural fill, we recommend installation of a trench drain to direct surface water away from the driveway. Additionally, we recommend installation of a French drain along the edge of the driveway to collect any water that may accumulate in the free draining subgrade soils. These two drains should be tight lined to direct the water off the site. 7.14 Construction Monitoring We recommend that critical site construction elements be observed and documented by a qualified geotechnical consultant. These include: confirming suitable subgrade soils for building foundations and slabs, retaining wall construction, compaction of structural fills, and utility trench backfill compaction under pavements. Golder Associates January 9 2002 16 _ J rY � 0131685.100 ' 8. USE OF THIS REPORT ' This design geotechnical study has been prepared exclusively for the use of A.D. Shapiro Architects and their consultants for specific application to this project. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We ' recommend that Golder review the final site -grading plan and provide specific comments and criteria related groundwater, drainage, retaining walls, foundations, and grading. The explorations were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice to provide information for the area explored. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the exploration areas and in the groundwater conditions with time. Therefore we recommend that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the construction schedule and budget. Further, we recommend that Golder Associates Inc. be retained to perform the construction monitoring and testing during construction to confirm the conditions indicated by the explorations and or provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions encountered during the work. Golder Associates FIGURES Golder Associates �y, Qn �' S s p3ti J L tilt Q PLSW. ��;: a A x.frA r r +� v +�'bti �•. � � c � ire �A,{,•T�'H fiW � 1 H S SW ti t 4 ,.`•t,h, ��• 5 o„y-} �+:_w�+.�`�' :�• s2+r i,�6 ' C 1 T P W y'� .3. '} -� � ;A•yii .{�7'�a `� sue•`.'_:^^ is::i,.,r` }'i , � ....1';i D L SW ''' �.--• •e'C~%•5' y s•1' `�d' �°` ':�i' it�C� �'`l� ?s'i .. 1 QL SW t 164TH ST SW =�Y. 3a - a• 1 TH PL r Zvi p u3s R A E W P FIR D t TH PL f s a4 YY4w t a`+ fi• d„ 1 7T PL }i t6( L{utji fF t?. X zY a a 4 PL w `N �r'�i.+/_+�,r =-41� �{�v"ice .: r �b•c�"a fw�•r."q�1.''ir'{�i�� i. :.. SW :�s�;s.:�:s,�:a^;rr:,,- •, Xs.•.�; • �-z•.: A,• •,%r .p 172Nosr � <',�%`•,E i'j:' •.'ify:<`•«7(3101V1tS;i1 73 S U}' C S m 'y`�'�.,�',,,;"Y'•y,::4f,::1:.' DERIC TH T SW D 1 ST o Siten -` 178 PL S S t,1 = t S P + =•rS ''tT9THP SW BOTH 1 81 T ST S 181 PL 1 ST SW 18t T PL •"'7%'1 Lc�N1 T182 PL z _ y 163 Y ,• _ 64 HSTSW v 1 PL W 1' W i% 185TH ST PL w 1 I _1-- _-Vj 1a TH atigVB 8TH ST 1 @ffII1 III6 187LtELLW t: J `n g1p 90 H SS q y 9TH PL 191 ,� x ✓ii' '; Q �, 1 L SW 1 D ST SW l js 2NIZ 3RD P SW FR PLS f1 193 D P L — . � R TO 4 S IOR TH SW Sli TH T 4Troll, a v 9 6T F m 1 ST SW 981 H ST SW T W EIPIVIONIDS 6 S SW / `N Ed mbN ds < ti SW Id 0 S H ST SW 3 A z s eJl w ry opine 2 PL W 20 > 04 < m two � 10T T 21C ST SW n W L T a n F A -CEDAR > m m CL 21 H ST SW SW 213TH PL rn O 3TH S A = y H MLO URE N m a O D !H H P m UR q 215TH ST SW to NE 2 TH . 215TFt p SW p Syt L < w < 2 W 217THNit 216TH S SW m FIF m � 9 21 HSTS < 21 HSTSW TSW ` < > S 77i N �COM STSW HSTSW NOT TO SCALE - —.4 sw 1 ©rII P 2 3T S u N FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY/WA -• - •- •.. _ .. .,r..,vnwv �.�, aooao um'r lL/lllul UF<AWN tlY EL Golder Associal A 4 A A, 4 Al 0 20 40 V. V � Y , FEET v A ....... ........ V / A. • A. V, ------- af/avri/ a V . . . .. ..... '7 J, X/ -T '7-! > vi x U DQPT-1�' -�h _IQ r _7 v� A, A A, 4 /X/ r y�;\•�\ ITP V V x P 0" < f LEGEND APPROXIMATE LOCATION GEOLOGIC TABLE AND DESIGNATION OF GOLDER TEST PIT of FILL DCPT-2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION Qal ALLUVIUM O AND DESIGNATION OF Qls LANDSLIDE DEBRIS DCPT TEST Qvri ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS GEOLOGIC CONTACT -DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED, Qva? ADVANCE OUTWASH? DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 23 SPECIAL NOTE: Data concerning the various strata have been obtained at--- _ .2 36 exploration locations only. The interpretation between these locations has been inferred from geological evidence and so may vary from that shown. SOURCE. A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS, DRAWING DATED 2112101 .. . .. ....... FIGURE SITE PLAN SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTYNVA Golder Associates A WEST 260 I i TP-1 APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE 250 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY 240 J W LL Z 230 Q W w 220 210 200 A' EAST r- 260 DCPT-1 AND TP-2 \ QIS \ (PROJECTED) HARD AND \ FUTURE CONSTRUCTION DENSE OF ROCKERIES Qva? \ \- (APPROXIMATELY LOCATED) TD = 16.0 FL ? \ ? \ Qls ? TP-5 �-- , DESIGN GRADE \ �--� \ '-� ? \ 4.O FL ? - - Z_ - - - ? \ PROPOSED \ \ CULVERT - af Native \ \ Qls ? ? ? BASED ON 1993 PLAN BY \ QOIs C. SHAWN O'BRIEN, P.E. FOR TD = 15.0 Ft ADJACENT PROPERTY LEGEND TEST PIT DESIGNATION TP-5 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED IN TEST PIT GEOLOGIC UNIT Qls GEOLOGIC CONTACT - DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATE, TD=15.0Ft QUERIED WERE UNCERTAIN TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT af: FILL Qls: LANDSLIDE DEBRIS Qols: OLDER SLIDE DEBRIS Ova: ADVANCE OUTWASH DEPOSIT SPECIAL NOTE: Data concerning the various strata have been obtained at exploration locations only. The interpretation between these locations has been inferred from geological evidence and so may vary from that shown. 0 110 20 FEET VERTICAL: 1" = 10' 250 240 LL 230 Z O 220 210 200 FIGURE 3 GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A -A' SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY/WA Q w w 9:12tK:ji:- Golder Associates j (See Note 2) 2 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE LAYER (See Note 1) DRAINAGE GRAVEL (See Note 3) 4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE ( See Note 4) • Q /\/ % A NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. DRAINAGE LAYER SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 5 % FINES ACCORDING TO 2002 WSDOT SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(2). FULL FACE GEOCOMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD CONNECTED INTO THE FOOTING DRAINAGE GRAVEL MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DRAINAGE GRAVEL. 2. WALL BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). 3. DRAIN GRAVEL SHALL CONSIST OF PEA GRAVEL ACCORDING TO 2002 WSDOT SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(4). 4. 4-INCH DIAMETER, PERFORATED, SCHEDULE 40, PVC DRAIN PIPE WITH HOLES TURNED DOWN. 5. CAPILLARY BREAK SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN SAND OR GRAVEL AS RECOMMENDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. FIGURE `T FOUNDATION DRAINAGE DETAIL SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTYNWA SLAB ON GRADE CAPILLARY BREAK (See Note 5) DCabeIKAProjects\2001 \0131685\ 100\97052.dwg 11-&2 13uluer t].Sbuclateb APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS AND WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE TESTS Golder Associates Unified Soil Classification System Soil Clossificotion Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Names Generalized Group Descriptions COARSE —GRAINED SOILS GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS Well—graded Gravels More than 50% retained on More than 5DS of coarse fraction Less than 5% fines Poorly —graded grovels No. 200 sieve retained on No. 4 Sieve GRAVELS WITH FINES More than 12% fines rGC ravel and 'ik Mixtures ravel and lay Mixtures SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well —graded Sands 50% or more of Less than 5% fines SP Poorly —graded Sends coarse froction posses No. 4 Sieve SANDS WITH FINES SM Send and Silt Mixtures More than 12% fines SC Sand and Clay Mixtures FINE—GRAINED SOILS 50% or more posses the No. 200 sieve SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit less than 50 INORGANIC CL Low —plasticity Cloys ML Low — Non —plastic and Low— Plasticity Silts Non —plastic and Low — ORGANIC OL Plasticity Organic Clays Non —plastic and Low — Plasticity Organic Silts SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit INORGANIC CH High —plasticity Cloys MH High—plosticity Silts greater than 50 H.gh—plosticity ORGANIC - OH Organic Gays High—plosticity Organic Sifts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peal Relative Density or Consistency Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values Cohesionless Soils (a) Cohesive Soils (b) (c) (c) Relative (c) Undroined (d) Density N.blows/ft. D n Consistency N. blows/ft. Shear pS�Cength very loose 0 to 4 0 — 15 Very soft 0 to 2 <250 Loose 4 to 10 15 — 35 Soft 2 to 4 250-500 Compact 10 to 30 35 — 65 n 4 to 8 5DO-1000 Dense 30 to SO 65 — 86 Stiff 8 to 15 1000-2000 Very Dense over 50 >BS Very Stiff 15 to 30 20D0-400D Hord over 30 >4000 (a) Soils consisting of grovel, sand, and silt, either separately or in combination, possessing no characteristics of Plasticity, and exhibiting drained behavior. ' (b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plosticity, and exhibiting undroined behavior. (e) Refer to tent of ASTM D 1586-84 for o definition of N; in normally consolidated cohesionkss soils Relative Density terms are bosed on N values corrected for overburden pressures. ' (d) Undroined shear strength a 1/2 unconfined compression strength. Descriptive Terminology Denoting t Component Proportions Descriptive Terms Range of Proportion Troce 0-5R Little (a) 5-1212 Some or Adjective And 12-30% 30-50% (a) Use Gravelly, Sandy or Silty as appropriate. Component Definitions by Gradation Component Size Range Boulders Above 12 in. Cobbles 3 in. to 12 in. Gravel 3 in. to No. 4 (4.76mm) Coarse grovel 3 in. to 3/4 in. Fine grove: 3/4 in. to No. 4 (4.76mm) Send No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) Coarse send No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 10 (2.Omm) Medium send No. 10 (2.Omm) to No. 40 (0.42mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) Silt and Clay I Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) Samples SS SPT Sampler (2.0' OD) HD Heavy Duty Split Spoon SH Shelby Tube P Pitcher Sampler 8 Bulk C Cored Unless otherwise noted, drive somp!es advanced with 140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop. Laboratory Tests Test Designation Moisture (1) Density D Grain Size G Hydrometer _ H Atterberg Limits (1) Consolidation C Unconfined U UU Triax Uu CU Triox Cu CD Triax CD Permeability P (1) Moisture and Atterberg Limits plotted on log. Silt and Clay Descriptions Description Typical Unified Designation Silt ML (non—plostic) Clayey Silt CL—ML (low plasticity) Silty Cloy CL Clay CH Plastic Silt MH Organic Soils OL. OH, Pt 1 Figure SOIL CLASSIFICATION/LEGEND (a Golder Associates 773-1D64/FORM 573 ,_ �U�ta FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 1 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —251", Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 N ► S 0 5 10 15 20 r— 0 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0807 Start NA 1 0-0 5' To soil: Very loose dark brown ORGANICS little to some sand little gravel, moist 0815 9' 2 0.5'-7' Loose light olive brown and light gray, nonstratified 0825 12' mottled ine to medium SAND some clayey silt little 0840 16' As above rounded fine to coarse gravel,trace cobbles. roots in upper 3' varies to CLAYEY SILT some fine to medium Notes SAND moist to wet. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS?)Special 3 7'-12' Loose to compact and firm light olive brown and light Moderate caving above seepage zone with TP @ —9' gray. nonstratafied, massive, SILT ranging to sillyblue CLAYEY SILT varies to trace fine to coarse rounded gravel. moist contains ioints with abundant rootlet development. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS? 4 12'-16' Hard liaht gray nonstratified. Jointed- sheared, CLAY laye[ undpdain by denseand hard.lightbrown. nonstratified? 'ointed FeOx stained fine to medium SAND trace silt and SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY moist to damp, upper portion contains polished pla surfaces. ADVANCE OUTWASH PROJECT NO.0131685_100 DRAWING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL V 1SOta FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 2 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —242' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 N S 0 5 10 15 20 f— 0 1 1 1 _ 5 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0856 Start NF 1 0-0.5' Very loose dark brown nonstratified ORGANICS some to little sand to gravel, moist.(TOPSOIL) 0924 14' NF 2 0.5'-9' Loose to com act light brown nonstratified mottled SILT ra0ging to CMEY SILT,some fine sand, little Special Notes rounded fine to coarse ravel moist contains slight FeOx staining, rootlets above 4' b s contains hard Slight seepage < 1/4 m between 8'-9' b s. angular CLAYEY SILTY clasts. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS li h vin above 9' b s. 3 9'-14' Compact. light blue gray. nonstratified to crudely bedded? mottled fine to coarse SAND little fine rounded gravel, trace silt AND SILT to CLAYEY SILT little to some fine sand trace rounded fine to coarse gravel. trace w ody detritus throughout. mQst to wet. contains angular CLAYEY SILT cl stslooks mottled at a large scale wood up to —4" diameter, trace charcoal. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS? PROJECT NO. 013 1685_100 DRAWING NO. TPOI-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL GOI(leleS r FIELD TEST PIT LOG ASSOC Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 3 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation -234' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 E -• - — W 0 5 10 15 20 r 0 5 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0950 Start NA 1 0-0.5' Topsoil: Dark brown very loose ORGANICS little to some sand trace gravel, moist. 1000 8' -2 m 3'-4' o 1048 16' East end of TP 2 0.5'-7' Loose li ht olive brown nonstratified fine to coarse SAND some silt. little to some rounded fine to coarse Special Notes ravel trace cobble and boulder, roots in upper 2' moist to wet trace rounded to suban ular hard Seepage corresponds with top of blueish gray unit -T. CLAYEY SILT clasts. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS Severe caving above Twith T 1 '. 3stratified, little to some silt little rounded gravel. contains rounded SILT clasts varies to SILT little to some fine sand moist to wet contains wood unit not continuous around TR (LANDSLIDE DEBRIS) 4 10.5'-16' Com act/stiff to ve stiff, light olive gray and light reddish brown nonstratified mottled silty,fine SAND and SILT to CLAYEY SIL'L FeOx ta to fine SAND, trace SILT. OLDER SLIDE DEBRIS? PROJECT NO.0131685_100 DRAWING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL = A�lOtCS FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 4 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —230' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 N S 0 5 10 15 20 0 Samples No I Depth 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1126 Start NA 1 0-0.5' To soil: Dark brown ve loose ORGANICS some to little sand trace ravel moist. 1150 16' NF 2 0.5'4' Very loose to compact, dark olive brown to light olive 1203 1 18' NF brown d SILT to CLAYEY SILT trace to little fine to coarse sad little fine to coarse su round d to Special Notes rounded gravel, trace cobble trace boulder, moist becoming dry to dam 4' contains clasts of No caving observed SILT becomes compact —4' trace rootlets in upper 5'. (FILL?/ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS) o gm-ndwater observed 3 to little fine to coarse sand little fine to coarse subrounded to rounded gravel, trace cobble trace boulder, damp to d ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS 121-1-B'- Dense, Imaht olive brown- trace rootlets, stratified to 4 assive. FeOx stained fine SAND race 15' becomes moist increased FeOx. ADVANCE OUTWASH rmu=%,1 Nu. Uie -Iotsa_iw UNAINING NO. TPo1-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL = sU�tLS FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 5 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —227' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 S ---► N 0 5 10 15 20 r-0 5 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1 0-0.5' To soil: ve loose and ve soft olive brown 1227 Start NA _ nonstratified SILT to CLAYEY SILT little sand little to 1240 10' as above some suban ular to rounded gravel, abundant 1255 1 15' seepage from —14' on uphill 2 organics in upper 0.3' wet. .5'-10' Veiy loose to loose and ve so to -firm, i live to Special Notes side li ht olive brown nonstratified mottled sillyfine SAND AND SILT ranginq to SILTY CLAY trace fine sand Sever caving on west sidewall with TP —11'eXDOSing steeply trace rootlets in upper .5',moist. LANDSLIDE dipping olishedplanar-curved, slickensided surfaces dipping Z3_ DEBRIS) Ugae, light blue gray, nonstratified --mottled silty fine into u slope, SAND trace fine to coarse rounded gravel, moist to Note: Trackhoe dug TP from up slope. Unable to get downslo e wet containing roots and rootlets. LANDSLIDE and set in stream. DEBRIS 4 -Lose and soft- lwobt olive brown to b[Qwnwsh orange. j3onstratified. mo led fine SANDlittle to some silt AND SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY moist to wet FeOx throughout, trace fine rounded gravel. LANDSLIDE • _ ..•..,rru.�arvv. trurLe UAIr iuiZIUi UWiWNBY EL lt� FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 6 Equipment Case 901013Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation --249' Datum MSL Job 013 1685,100 W - N. E 0 5 10 15 20 r— 0 . 5 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1 0-0 4' To soil 1309 Start NA 1340 16' Seepage 10' from 2 0.4'-9.0' Loose li ht olive brown nonstartified mottled? sandy East side of Test Pit SILT little subrounded to rounded fine to coarse gravel, ace cobbles to boulders- rontlatn observed in tipper Special Notes 3-4' moist. E uisetum fragment? FILL Sli ht cavin from South sidewall above —10' 9.0' Abundant or anics wood debris �0.5' thick 3contains charcoal. (BURNPILE?) r4l 9.5- 22.0 Compact to dense light olive brown to blue gray,faint) laminated to massive SILT trace fine sand sli ht FeOx moist. ADVANCE OUTWASH AND 5 - 6 0 C a o d se i h oliv b w ass've fine to coarse SAND trace silt moist trace fine subrounded ravel. ADVANCE OUTWASH rMVJW,1 ryV. Uia 100a_iw UKAWING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL ' WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 2 Colder Associates, Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 Redmond, Washington 98052 DATE STARTED: 12-10-2001 DATE COMPLETED: 12-10-2001 HOLE #: Z' CREW: M. Mengelt SURFACE ELEVATION: Top of Subgrade PROJECT: Shapiro/Monnahan Prop./WA WATER ON COMPLETION: None ' ADDRESS: Sunset Drive HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: Edmonds, Washington CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY 0 0.0 0 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 1 4.4 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 1 ft 2 8.9 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 1 4.4 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 3 13.3 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 2 ft 6 26.6 ......• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 31.1 ......••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 ft 30 133.2 ...................................... - DENSE HARD - 1 in 15 66.6 ..................• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 5 19.3 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 4 ft 4 15.4 ••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 19.3 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 15.4 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5 ft 6 23.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 23.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 19.3 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 ft 5 19.3 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 19.3 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 2 in 4 15.4 .. 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 7 ft 5 17.1 ••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 4 13.7 oo. 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 6 20.5 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 8 ft 6 20.5 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF _ 8 27.4 ......• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 11 37.6 •••••••••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 9 ft 12 41.0 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 44.5 ••........ 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 11 37.6 .......- 10 LOOSE STIFF - 3 in 10 ft 11 37.6 ......... 10 LOOSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ••....... 9 LOOSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ......••• 9 LOOSE STIFF - 12 36.7 •......... 10 LOOSE STIFF - 11 ft 11 33.7 ... o..... 9 LOOSE STIFF - 13 39.8 •••••...... 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• I 1 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 ft 16 49.0 ........ o..... 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 30 91.8 •••.......... ••••••••••••• - MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 15 45.9 .......•••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 4 m 13 ft 18 55.1 ............••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF W ILUUA I ALJ ' HOLE #: 1 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 nnnTVt"r• Prnn [WA PRn7FCTN1JMBFR: 013-1685.000 DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm' GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY - 22 60.9 ............••••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 14 ft - 15ft - 16 ft -5m - 17 ft - 18ft - 19 ft -6m - 20 ft - 21ft - 22 ft - 7m 23ft - 24 ft 25 ft - 26 ft -8m - 27 ft - 28 ft - 29 ft -9m W ILDGATAL5 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page l of 2 Golder Associates, Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 Redmond, Washington 98052 DATE STARTED: 12-10-2001 DATE COMPLETED: 12-10-2001 HOLE #: 2 CREW: M. Mengelt SURFACE ELEVATION: Top of Subgrade PROJECT: Shapiro/Monnahan Prop./WA WATER ON COMPLETION: None ADDRESS: Sunset Drive HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: Edmonds, Washington CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY - 0 0.0 0 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 2 8.9 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 1 ft 4 17.8 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 17.8 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 2 ft 4 17.8 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 26.6 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 ft 5 22.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 1 m 6 26.6 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 11.6 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 4 ft 3 11.6 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 3 11.6 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 2 7.7 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 ft 2 7.7 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 3 11.6 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 19.3 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 ft 6 23.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 15.4 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 2 m 6 23.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 ft 5 17.1 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 7 23.9 •-•••- 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 17.1 -- 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 8 ft 6 20.5 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 20.5 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 23.9 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 9 ft 7 23.9 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 20.5 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 20.5 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 m 10 ft 15 51.3 •••••-•••••••• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 49.0 -••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 •-••-•••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 49.0 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - I 1 ft 13 39.8 ••••-•••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ••••••••- 9 LOOSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 ft 13 39.8 •••-••••••• I 1 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 •••••--•••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 23 70.4 •••••••••••••••••••• 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 4 m 13 ft 17 52.0 ••••••••••••••• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF W ILDCAT.XLS tHOLE #: 2 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 DDnYVf r QhoArmen fWA PROTFCTNITMBERR 013-1685.000 DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K /cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY - 17 47.1 ••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 44.3 •••••••••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 14 ft 18 49.9 •••••••••••••• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 15ft - 16 ft -5m - 17 ft - 18 ft - 19ft -6m - 20 ft - 21ft - 22 ft - 7m 23ft - 24 ft - 25 ft - 26 ft -8m - 27 ft 28 ft 29 ft -9m W ILDCATALS APPENDIX B CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR DEVELOPMENT ON STEEP SLOPES Golder Associates Document Page 1 of 8 Title 20 REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES Chapter 20.15E CRITICAL AREAS 20.1513.110 Development standards — Geologically hazardous areas. 20.15B.110 Development standards — Geologically hazardous areas. A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be 50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native vegetation, and where appropriate, be placed within a critical areas tract. This 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet by the director or his/her designee upon review of critical areas study prepared pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140 (A) by a licensed geotechnical engineer or geologist which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. "Adverse impact" shall include but not be limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Such report shall be certified in a form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as the geotechnical report requirements of Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer reductions shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4). B. Erosion Hazard Areas. Alterations within the identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18.30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located on slopes less than 40 percent shall only be approved to be altered if both of the following provisions are met: 1. Proposed development will not decrease slope stability on any adjacent property; and 2. The landslide hazard to the project and adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated such that the proposed development on the site is certified as stable by a licensed professional geologist or geotechnical engineer. Any landslide hazard area and its buffer which combined are greater than the one acre in size shall be placed in critical areas tract for any proposed master plan development, subdivision, short subdivision, or planned residential development, pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.160. Where alterations are authorized, city staff shall determine whether the remaining portion (s) of the landslide area shall be placed within critical areas tract. Landslide areas located on slopes greater than 40 percent shall be regulated pursuant to subsection D of this section. D. Steep Slope Hazard Areas. No development or alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the property is exempt under the provisions of this section or ECDC 20.15B.040, a reasonable use exception has been granted, or a variance has been granted pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170(A). 1. The development or alteration is one of the following exempt activities: a. Surface water conveyance designed to the best available technical standard, such as the Stormwater Management Manual, approved by the city. Installation shall utilize the best available technology to minimize disturbance to the slope, soils and vegetation; b. Trails construction designed to the best available technical standard approved by the city. Technical standards are provided in the U.S. Forest Service "Trails Management Handbook" (FSH 2309.18, 1987) and "Standard Specifications for Construction of Trails" (EM-7720-102, 1984). In no case shall trails be constructed of impervious materials which would contribute to surface water runoff', unless such materials are necessary to provide for soil stabilization or erosion control, and trail design assures that surface water runoff will not increase or contribute to erosion and sedimentation; c. Utility construction by private or public proponents may be allowed; provided, that city staff determined upon review of a critical areas study that the proposed alteration shall not subject the steep slope to the risk of landslide or erosion; d. Trimming and limbing of vegetation on steep slopes may be allowed if a clearing plan is provided for review and approval by the city; and provided, that the soils within the steep slope area are not disturbed to subject the area to the risk of erosion. Clearing shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.45 ECDC. 2. The development or alteration may be exempted if it meets the following criteria: a. The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property, and the site following the permitted activity will be stable within the meaning of Chapter 19.05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting requirements of the State Building Code as adopted by this code. b. The development will occur on steep slope areas that either: i. Are mapped as one of the following deposits on the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles", by James P. Minard (Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 1983, Map MF-1541): Till, Advance Outwash, and/or Olympia Gravel; or ../om—isapi.d11?client1D=21573873&hitsperheading=on&infobase=edmonddc.nfo&jump=20.15B.1 /8/02 Document Page 2of8 ii. Are comprised of fill which was placed under engineered conditions on stable geologic deposits listed in subsection (D) (2)(b)(i) of this section; provided, that the fill meets the following conditions; all fill was placed under a legal grading permit, the grading and fill were designed by a licensed professional engineer, native soils beneath the fill were prepared in accordance with the engineering design, and compaction testing confirms that uniform compaction to the specified percentage is present throughout the entire fill. c. All excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 35-degree plane extended down from the property lines, unless the excavation is retained by structural shoring. The shoring must be designed by a registered professional engineer. d. All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building Code as adopted by this code; rockeries are not permitted greater than four feet in height. e. Steep slope areas cannot be altered if one or more of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope; impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater seepage, significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits. "On or adjacent to" includes those areas upslope and downslope of the steep slope, within a horizontal distance from the toe or top of the slope equal to two times the vertical height of the steep slope. f. Steep slope areas (greater than 40 percent) cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, collovial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586) method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope exceeds three feet. g. For Commercial Development. A buffer of 15 feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition, measured from property lines adjacent to residential properties. 3. Notice of Application for Exemption. Upon application for exemption of all or any portion of a site under the provisions of this section, which is equal to or greater than 20,000 square feet in area, posting and notice of such application and of staff decision shall be given in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.95.050(B). Notice shall be provided to all adjacent property owners for sites or portions of sites sought for exemption which are less then 20,000 square feet in area under the same procedures. E. Seismic Hazard Areas. Development proposals for sites containing a potential seismic hazard area shall only be authorized by staff to alter the seismic hazard area when the applicant documents that: 1. A technical evaluation of the site's specific subsurface conditions indicates that the site is not located within a seismic hazard area; or 2. Mitigation is implemented which renders the site of the proposed development as stable within the meaning of the State Building Code and this code. F. Peer Review and Independent Analysis. All applications for development proposals within geologically hazardous areas or seismic hazard areas shall be accompanied by a written site analysis by a geologist or geotechnical engineer licensed by the state of Washington. Peer review, or at the discretion of the staff', an independent review of the technical analysis of site conditions shall be conducted at the applicant's expense pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140(E). [Ord. 3329 § 1, 2000; Ord. 3087 § 2, 1996]. 20.15B.110 Development standards - Geologically hazardous areas. A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be 50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native vegetation, and, where appropriate, be placed within the critical areas tract. This 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet by the director or his/her designee upon review of critical areas study prepared pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140 (A) by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. "Adverse impact" shall include but not be limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Such report shall be certified in a form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as the geotechnical report requirements of Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer reductions shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4). B. Erosion Hazard Areas. Alterations within identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18. 30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located on slopes less than 40 percent shall only be approved to be altered if both of the following provisions are met: 1. Proposed development will not decrease slope stability on any adjacent property; and 2. The landslide hazard to the project and adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated such that the proposed development on the site is certified as stable by a licensed professional geologist or geotechnical engineer. ./om_isapi.dll?clientID=21573873&hitsperheading=on&infobase=edmonddc.nfo&juinp=20.15B 1/8/02 r 06/27/02 _ 14:05 FAX 425 $82 5498 GOLUER ASSOCIATES li�002 i Golder AwodWes Inc. 8300 NE Union M Rood. suite 200 8=1daws r Redmond. WA 98052-3333 Telephone (425) 883-0777 Fax (425) 882-5498 ' June 27, 2002 Our ref: 013-1685.200 City of Edmonds Planning Department 250 5th Ave North ' Edmonds, Washington 98020 ATTENTION: Ms. Star Campbell RE: SLOPE STABILITY MODELING RESULTS REVISED GRADING PLAN SUNSET WAY DRIVE RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Campbell: This letter presents the results of our slope stability analyses of the revised grading plan ' proposed for the construction of the single-family residence on Sunset Way in Edmonds, Washington. Our work was performed in accordance with our telephone conversation with Mr. Tonv Shapiro on June 25, 2002. Based on our discussions with Mr. Shapiro, a revised grading plan has been developed for the site. We understand that the revised grading plan was developed as a result of concerns raised by City of Edmonds plan review staff regarding the extent of the regrade proposed for the site. The regrade originally proposed for the site consisted of filling the existing ravine downslope of the planned construction and building a Mesa71' block wall to provide overall slope stability for the proposed project Golder designed the MesaTM block MSE wall; our design and construction recommendations for the wall are contained in our May 9, 2002 design report and plan set. It is our understanding that City of Edmonds recommendations require that existing slopes be left undisturbed, if possible, to avoid changing the original topography of the slope. Furthermore, we understand that no construction should be detrimental to the integrity of existing slopes. While the MSE wall construction was not detrimental to the stability of the slope, the changes it created in the topography of the hillside were considered unacceptable from the standpoint of the city planning division. The City code requires that proposed grading plans fit the natural topography. As such, we understand that the City has requested that the original grading plan including the MSE wall be changed to preserve the original slope. The currently proposed grading plan was developed in response to this request. I OFFICES ACROSS ASIA. AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE. NORTH AMERICA. SOUTH AMERICA 06/27/02 14:05 FAX 42b 882 5498 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 16003 une 27, 2002 BACKGROUND 2 013-1685.200 The project site is located on a north to northwest -facing slope in Edmonds, Washington. Site access is from the south between existing residential structures located at 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way. Olympic view drive is located on the north side of the property and an open, undeveloped lot is located along the east property line. Topography on the site slopes generally down to the northeast ranging in elevation from about 260 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to about 210 feet AMSL in the northeast corner of the site. Slopes range from about 15HAV in the southwest third of the site to about 4H.1V in the central third of the site, and about 1.5HAV in the eastern third of the site adjacent to the drainage ditch_ Originally, a system consisting of two to three terraced rockeries was planned for the east end of the property. Additional rockeries were planned for the east and north sides of the house but were not planned during initial construction. The stability of these structures was evaluated during our initial geotechnical investigation; the results of our analyses are contained in our January 6, 2002 report to A.D. Shapiro Architects. Geological Characterization Golder visited the site and performed a geological characterization to assist in development of the site. Our exploration program consisted of six test pits to characterize the subsurface geological conditions, and two Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT's) used to infer subsurface density and strength conditions. The results of our exploration program were detailed in our letter to A.D. Shapiro architects, dated January 9, 2002. In general, the site is underlain by fill of variabie thickness, consisting of very loose to compact silt to clayey silt with a trace of fine to coarse sand. The fill also contained minor _ components of gravel to boulder size particles and miscellaneous organics. The fill. is underlain by landslide debris, ice contact deposits and advance outwash deposits. The landslide debris, which is closest to the surface in the area of the wall, consists of very soft to firm clayey silt to silty clay with traces of fine to medium sand and silt. Other components noted in this formation are very loose to compact fine to medium sand with silt and gravel. Minor organic components were noted. The formation was generally mixed and fractured with considerable evidence of previous disturbance, which is commensurate with a landslide formation. ANALYSIS OF REVISED GRADING PLAN Golder reviewed the current grading plan and performed a geotechnical engineering evaluation of the proposed construction. The purpose of our review was threefold: Golder Associates 06/27/02 14:06 FAX 425 862 5496 GOLDER ASSOCIATES June 27, 2002 3 013-1685.200 1. Determine the overall static and seismic stability of the proposed system to ensure adequate stability; and 2. Compare the stability of the currently proposed system to both the existing conditions at the site and to the originally proposed Mesa" wall scheme ' presented in our May 9, 2002 report. 3. Compare the contours of the proposed regraded fill slope to the existing, natural slope. The revised grading plan was analyzed using the computer slope stability program SLIDE, a proprietary code developed by RocScience, Inc. Stability of the Existing Slope ' The results of our original slope stability modeling are presented in our Geotechnical Investigation report dated January 9, 2002. The models were based on the site topographic maps provided to us by A.D. Shapiro architects and on our interpreted ' geologic cross section presented in the report. The cross section analyzed for the slope stability modeling corresponds to Section AK in Figure 2 of our January 9, 2002 geotechnical investigation report. Figure 2 from this report is shown in Appendix A. Our original analysis concluded that the factor of safety of the existing slope in this area was approximately 1.31. ' During preparation of our Mesa" wall design report during April and May of M, we analyzed a second set of sections corresponding to the critical wall height of 14 feet. The critical section for our design was oriented southwest to northeast; by contrast, the ' section analyzed for our January 2002 report was oriented roughly west to east. In the area of the critical wall section analyzixi for our MesaT''' design report, we found that while the slope was not steeper than the west -east section previously investigated, the ' vertical relief in this area was approximately 14 feet in comparison to approximately 8 feet as analyzed in our original report. The increased height of the second section analyzed had significant implications on the stability of the native slope. ' When the existing slope was analyzed using SLIDE at the location of the critical wall cross section, an incipient failure condition is predicted. This condition for the 2H:IV ' existing slope is shown in Figure 1. The SLIDE analysis predicts that the factor of safety of the overall slope in this area is approximately 1.01. Furthermore, SLIDE predicts ongoing surficial (shallow translational, rill and gulley) erosion on the exposed face. ' These results are in accordance with a simple, infinite slope analysis. The factor of safety of an infinite slope can be determined using the following equation: F. = tan %na where FS is the factor of safety of the infinite slope, 0 is the friction angle of the soil, and a is the slope angle. For a 2H:1V slope, the average slope angle is approximately 26.5 16004 Golder Assoetates 06/27/02 14:06 FAX 425 882 5498 GOLDER ASSOCIATES �JU05 ' June 27, 2002 4 013-1685.2W degrees. The landslide debris mapped during our site investigation has an estimated angle of friction of approximately 29 degrees. Thus, in the absence of water the factor of safety of the infinite slope is approximately 1.1; presence of excess water pressure in the slope due to elevated groundwater causes this value to decrease. Our field ' investigations during the winter of 2001 to 2002 revealed nearly saturated soil conditions and seeps in selected areas. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the factor of safety would be less than 1.1 for the infinite slope case. The slope stability model presented in ' the attached prints represents a more detailed analysis of the anticipated conditions and also considers the effect of groundwater. The more realistic model presented in the attached prints predicts that failure of the slope in this area is possible. It is our opinion ' that the original slope stability modeling performed did not indicate this possibility due to the fact that the slope section analyzed was not as high as the more critical section currently analyzed. Stability of the Mesar' MSE Structure The slope stability modeling of the proposed Mesa'' wall construction is reproduced in the attached prints. For the originally proposed regrade, the ravine at the northeast and eastern sides of the site was to be filled to approximately 221 feet AMSL, and a MSE retaining structure built to facilitate construction of a backyard area adjacent to the proposed residence at elevation 234 feet AMSL. Good quality sandy fill was to be t the fill was considered instrumental to improving imported to facilitate filling a site; this p g the strength characteristics of the slope and increasing the factor of safety. The presence ' of the reinforced fill zone added to the safety factor of the slope by driving the potential failure plane deep into the fill zone. Our models indicated that the reinforced earth retaining structure would be stable under both static and design seismic conditions. The results of the slope stability -modeling program are presented in more detail in our May i 9, 2002 design letter and are reproduced in Table 1_ I TABLE 1. Slope Stability Analysis Of Mesa'° MSE Structure Condition Factor of Safety Static Global Stability 1.66 Design Seismic Event 1.31 Yield Acceleration () 0.32 The results of our analysis on the reinforced earth wall configuration indicated that the factor of safety of the reinforced slope would be up to 66 percent greater than that of the unreinforced existing slope currently analyzed. Furthermore, the reinforced earth structure was predicted to have a factor of safety of 1.21 during the design seismic event; industry standard of care mandates that such a structure have a factor of safety of greater than 1.0 during such an event. We concluded that the Mesa" ' MSE structure could provide necessary levels of support for this project. II Golder Associates 06/27/02 14:07 FAX 425,.882 5498 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 16006 June 27, 2002 Stability of the Proposed 2HAV Regrade 5 013-1685.200 Golder analyzed the factor of safety of the currently proposed regrade, a 214AV fill operation designed for two purposes: 1_ Provide added support for the existing slope and protect the proposed structure, and 2. Match as closely as possible to the existing 2H:1V natural slopes at the site. The proposed fill operation will import similar fill to that specified for the MesaT" MSE structure, and will fill the ravine at the east and north sides of the project. However, from the toe of the proposed slope, the new fill section will be graded at 2H:1V from 221 feet AMSL to 234 feet AMSL. The new grade will reduce the usable yard space relative to the originally.proposed reinforced earth structure, but will provide necessary support for the slope. The results of our analyses are shown in the attached prints. The results of our analysis are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 Slope Stability Analysis of Currently Proposed Regrade Condition Factor of S Static Global Stability 138 Design Seismic Event 1.0 Yield Acceleration () 0.16 The results of our analysis on the reinforced earth wall configuration indicated that the factor of safety of the reinforced slope would be up to 38 percent greater than that of the unreinforced existing slope currently analyzed. Note that the design seismic event (1/2 the peak ground acceleration for a 50 year recurrence interval) and the yield acceleration are equivalent in this analysis. Based on the results of our analysis, it is our opinion that the currently proposed regrade will not only provide sufficient support for the residence, but also will strengthen the existing slope and provide greater resistance to failure in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our analyses, we recommend that a regrade of the existing slope be completed to facilitate construction. In our opinion, the incipient failure state of the slope in certain areas beneath the proposed structure could result in a condition that endangers the structure and adjacent properties and utilities. Our analyses indicate that the safety factor of the slope can be increased to approximately 1.38 with the addition of a 2H:1 V slope regrade, as currently proposed in the submitted plan set. In addition, examination of this grading plan appears to create a final grade on the slope which will Golder Assoclotes 06/27/02 14:07_FAX 425 662 5498 _ GOLUER,ASSOCIATES June 27, 2002 6 013-1685.200 match as closely as possible to the existing 2H:1 V natural slopes and will conserve as much as possible the aesthetic nature of the existing hillside while providing necessary support for the planned structure. Golder Associates is pleased to present the results of our current slope stability analyses. Should you have any questions, or require additional consultation or information, please do not hesitate to call us at (425) 883-0777. We look forward to our continued involvement with you on this and other projects. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. Michael Mengelt Staff Geotechnical Engineer NNAS David M. Cotton, P.E. , y Principal Geot:echnical Engineer .� 17418 MJM/DMCAag ZONAL' G 0627dcl.doc 16 007 Golder Associoles 06/27/02 _14:07 FAX 425 882 5496 GOLDER ASSOCIATES APPENDIX A Golder Associates 06/27/02 14:07 FAX 425 $82 5496 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 009 `` 4 0 ( r s� V) rn N - u an T tear) �o dm O Q=a rn cv a v,�q� rncQ O�n om o �'m2 �'moC oG v� m� o -j � o m cLno chin 2 �OnUta. —now AL h-T-r•T�-r7 1 ;..ITT I , �. r.T_,._.�.., I ,-.(_.... _ l 1 , I , 1 06 St 09 S4 _ 0� 06/27/02 14:08 FAX 425 682 5418 COLDER ASSOCIATES 0 010 (O Q� Q t�l _O N m N iA � O1 d O N d Q L w 'Q E m M n > mO pNj L -o0d a0d=�N. Ey a mnCm � to&LL- a.Ma) -LiQ7 ?�N mO O Q O� ov Q- >7 :24).2 �'c� > ca C7 VCL to N Mr m E w QnUti cnc) Mill _3 O Uzi I , I. �... r"_T.""" I I , .1T7-1T1..1 _i I I C r V I. I- 1 1 � ( : I .-I "t 1i I , I. - "I~r-T- -- j � �. �T'�'.r_�.• � i l 06 SL 09 9b 0£ SL_____ }V 06/27/02 14:08 FAX 425 882 saga GOLDE ASSOCIATES CL @ & _ q -0 § § 2 Z. 2 & / © w Min a _0 a. �o04 .. CL.—o_q 22oa�//��—�� m �� 0.0 0.2��k 22 m2 7 ��$£to -0 f2 ®C \ ■ o ofk°22 §=QLL�GQu-m'�f mo @a in- in- - � O 35UL �,�,��" ','a'�'r'2rceE' nw©r•Teeeg® A!/�v�v,� ��,�•� �,.. L; [ 06l27l02 14:09 FAX 425 882 5498 GOLDER ASSOCIATES (�j012 C ' >z o a y _ n C a -0 Q1 Gi N 0 g �' m N0I.7a n. o -tN� ZT.amav,C o Y o dLo M•NztnCo .Q �� d od�a ` o w V N fD QQ� c �� ar O } O a Q`- -� a7•-� i� WaUtLi��Uti V3 o V) V) �lti O 06/27/02 14:04 FAX 425 882 5496 GOLDER ASSOCIATES 1 Golder Associates Fax 1 1 .1 1 1 To: Star Campbell, City of Edmonds Fax N umber. 1425-771-0221 io 001 dCer APSSVC1ateS Planning Department Tony Shapiro, A.D. Shapiro IA25-778-3032 44 Architects Company: See Above Date: June 27, 2002 From: Nina for David Cotton Our reef: 013-1685.200 e-mail: @ golder.com Voice Mad: (425) 885-7648 x RE: SLOPE STABILITY MODELING RESULTS REVISED GRADING PLAN SUNSET WAY DRIVE RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ITotal pages (including cover): 12 Hard copy to follow 18300 NE Union 1+0 Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052-3333 U.SA Telephone (425) 8BU777 Fax (425) 882-6498 Cor npimhmmive Camdting Services in Geotschnical Engineering, Emvimvnentai Rerr:edladon and Waste Management Ennlimmenial Remediation MESSAGE Ell Rsh and VVi dVe Also mailed to Star Campbell, City of Edmonds Planning Department and Tony ESA Responses Sh ap iro, A.D. Sh ap iro Arch itects 6/27/02. MarkwJAgtaic giobw Waste Management Water Resources Lsndg Sang & DesVn GecOysi= CW Engineering & Connsbuc Muting & Quarrying Of and Gas Waste Management Sol? and Rods Mechanics Nuclear Waste Management fWskAssessrtient Energy Projects Tfartspaiation Offs in Australa, Canada, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, Indonesia, nary, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States The document(s) included with this bansmission are only for the rec oant named above and contain privRegeftonfidenfial information. Unauthorized disclosure, dissemination, or copying of this transmission is strictly prohibited. N received m error, please destroy. Questions or problems with this tr+ansm/asion should be refened to the receptionist at the number provided above. Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052-3333 Telephone (425) 883-0777 Fox (4?5) 882-5498 I REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE PROPERTY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON S7-REST Prepared for: A. D. Shapiro Architects Seattle, Washington STgEET FILE Frank S.'Mock r Project Geologist David M. d6tten P.E. Principal January 9,.2002 Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. Redmond, Washington Golder Associates RECEIVED JAN 10 2002 & DI SHAPIRO ARCH. 7 77� 2 cg M -:VP1 npki- cf N. Michael Mengelt Project Engineer C 0 WA > a .013-1685.100 1221n-Lml OFFICES ACROSS ASIA. AI)STPAI ARIA M 10nOr KInDTLJ AKACD1r'A Cr%l MU AhAMV-A January 9, 2002 i 013-1685.100 TABLE OF CONTENTS 4 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2. SUMMARY 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6.1 Geologic Setting 6.2. General Site Geology 6.3 Observed Soil Conditions 6.4 Observed Groundwater Conditions 7. GEOTECHNICAL; RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General 7.2 Site Preparation/Grading 7.3 Temporary and Permanent Slopes 7.3.1 Slope Stability 7.4 Erosion Control 7.5 Foundation Recommendations 7.6 Slab Subgrade 7.7 Foundation Drainage 7.8 Retaining Walls 7.9 Rockeries 7.10 Utilities 7.11 Fill Materials and Placement 7.12 Use of On -site Soils 7.13 Pavements 7.14 Construction Monitoring 8. USE OF THIS REPORT LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Groundwater Seepage Table 2 Factor of Safety of the Monnahan Property LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan N 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 11 11 12 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 Golder Associates January 9, 2002 ii 013-1685.100 Figure 3 Geologic Cross Section A -A' Figure 4 Foundation Drainage Detail LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Test Pit Logs and Wildcat Dynamic Cone Tests Appendix B City of Edmonds Community Development Code for Development on Steep Slopes Golder Associates January 9, 2002 1 013-1685.100 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ' This report presents the results of the Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) geotechnical investigation of the proposed single-family residence on the undeveloped lot located between 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The work was ' performed in accordance with our proposal dated November 13, 2001. The purpose of this study was to investigate the existing site conditions and provide geotechnical ' recommendations for the following. • Site development/grading; • General construction issues; ' • . Foundation design; • Surface and groundwater management; and • Roadway construction. ' This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. 1 I 1 .1 Golder Associates January 9, 2002 2 013-1685.100 ' 2 SUMMARY ' The project site can be developed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. During this investigation we reviewed section 20.15B.110 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code regarding development or alteration of ' steep slopes and have addressed. the listed criteria in this report. The site in the area of the proposed residential structure is underlain by a combination of ' competent glacial soils, fill, and landslide debris. The glacial soils will provide adequate bearing capacity for anticipated building loads. ' The site grading proposed for this project would include cuts into fill, landslide debris, and glacial soils.to construct the lower level of the structure. Landslide debris soils will be encountered within the footprint of the lower level based on the design elevation shown ' on the site plan. Pin piles are recommended to support the proposed structure where it is underlain by landslide debris. If the recommendations presented herein are followed, we believe the resultant subgrade condition will support the anticipated loads, and the slope will increase in overall stability. This development as planned will result in a 309o' increase in the factor of safety for slope stability on the property, which will result in a stable site. If the rockeries described below in Section 4 are not built, we anticipate stability of the overall ' . slope will be more stable than the current slope configuration with a factor of safety between 1.4 and 1.7. The risk of continued soil creep and shallow debris flow on the resultant finished slopes should be virtually eliminated assuming proper surface water ' management devises are utilized and the slope is adequately landscaped and vegetated. rl J i 11 Golder Associates January 9, 2002 3 013-1685.100 3. SITE DESCRIPTION ' The project site is located on a north to northwest -facing slope in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 2). Site access is from the south between existing residential structures located at 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way. Olympic View Drive is located on the north side of the ' property and an open, undeveloped lot is located along the east property line. The east half of the south property line is also bordered by undeveloped land. A drainage ditch directs surface water across the far -east edge of the site. The ditch enters the southeast ' corner of the site and directs surface water north to an existing storm drain located in the northeast corner of the site. The storm drain then directs the water off site under Olympic ' View Drive to the north. Topography on the site slopes generally down to the northeast ranging in elevation from about 260 feet MSL in the southwest corner of the property along Sunset Way, to about 210 feet MSL in the northeast corner of the site. Slopes range from about 15H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) in the southwest third of the site, to about 4H:1 V in the central third of the site, and about 1.5HAV in the eastern third of the site adjacent to the drainage ditch. Vegetative cover on the southwest third of the site consists of low grasses. The eastern two thirds of the site contain deciduous and evergreen trees of various stages of ' maturity, as described in a specific arborist report for the property, with an understory of Sword fern, Salal, Oregon grape, blackberry brambles, and other low shrubs. Several large tree stumps were also observed on the site. The topography rises about 10 feet in elevation directly east of the drainage ditch. The slope adjacent to the east edge of the ditch is about 2.3HAV dropping to about 9H:1V further to the east. 1 Golder Associates January 9, 2002 4 013-1685.100 ' 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. The November 2001 report presents findings of a visual ' site reconnaissance of your parcel in support of your proposed single-family residence. Site plans showing the proposed site development were not available at that time. Based on the site plan provided electronically by A.D. Shapiro Architects and dated December 12, 2001, we understand the proposed development would consist of a single ' two story wood framed structure, including a daylight basement, with an attached garage. Access will be from Sunset Way to the south.of the structure. We anticipate that the building loads will be light and no below grade structures are planned (other than the daylight basement and any underground utility installation). We understand that the elevation of the upper and lower levels of the structure will be about ' 250 feet and 241 feet, respectively. Based on those elevations we anticipate cuts of up to about 11 feet for the lower level. We understand a crawl space is planned under almost all of the lower level of the structure. In order to create usable yard to the east of the structure, we understand you are going through the City of Edmonds for approval to place fill in the drainage ditch on the east side of the property. We understand two to three terraced rockeries are ' planned for the east and north sides of the house but that they will not likely be built during the initial phase of construction. We understand that a culvert is planned at the base of the fill to direct surface ' water from off site south of the property, to the existing storm drain in the northeast corner of the site. We also understand you plan to build a deck off the north side of the structure. 1 I Golder Associates 1 January 9, 2002 5 013-1685.100 5. SUBSURFAC E INVESTIGATION Our site field investigation work consisted of excavating six trackhoe test pits. The trackhoe test pits were excavated on December 4, 2001. The trackhoe test pits were excavated using a Case 9010B track excavator supplied and operated by NW Excavating under contract to ' you. Following the test pit program we performed DCPT (Dynamic Cone Penetration Test) testing using portable Wildcat equipment at two locations within the footprint of the proposed structure. We performed the DCPT testing in order to provide additional, quantitative measurement of the density/consistency of the shallow (< 15 feet) soil units. The test pit and DCPT test locations were established in the field by pacing or measuring ' relative to existing landmarks, property boundary markers, and/or features as shown on the site plan. The test pit locations were flagged and staked after they were backfilled.. The ' approximate test locations are shown on Figure 2. A geologist from Golder examined and logged the soil conditions observed in each of the test explorations. Pertinent information including depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence were recorded. The stratigraphic contacts indicated on the summary logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil and groundwater conditions were those recorded for the locations and dates indicated and may not necessarily represent those of other times and locations. The test pits were backfilled with ' the excavated soils tamped into place with the bucket of the trackhoe after the completion of the soil logging. Some settlement of the test pit backfill should be expected with time. 1 I The soils were classified in accordance with Golder Associates Inc. Technical Procedure for Field Identification of Soil, which is summarized in the Soil Description Index in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. The logs of the test pits are included in Appendix A. Golder Associates ' January9 2002 6 013-1685.100 6., SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6.1 Geologic Setting The recent geologic history of the Puget Sound Lowland region has been dominated by ' several glacial episodes. The most recent, the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation is responsible for most of the present day geologic and topographic conditions. The Puget ' lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet deposited a heterogeneous assemblage of proglacial lacustrine deposits, advance outwash, lodgment till, and recessional outwash upon either bedrock or older pre-Vashon sediments and bedrock. As the glacier retreated northward, it uncovered a sculpted landscape of elongate uplands and intervening valleys. Post glacial ' deposits found in the region generally include: alluvium deposited within active stream channels, modern lacustrine deposits, organic silt and local peat deposits within kettle ' depressions, drainages, outwash channels, volcanic mudflow and landslide deposits. 6.2 General Site Geology Geology of the site and surrounding area has been mapped by Smith,19751 and Minard, 19832. In general, the existing geologic maps indicate that the site geology consists of fine- grained, Pre Fraser transitional beds overlain by younger Vashon age advance outwash deposits. The transitional beds typically consist of silt, clay, and fine-grained sand whereas the overlying, Vashon age advance outwash can vary from fine to medium sand with silt interbeds to sand with varying amounts of gravel. Till is mapped to the south of the property. Till generally consists of a dense mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. The site is also shown on unpublished geologic hazard maps prepared for Snohomish County in 1991. The map ranks landslide hazards areas based on geology and slope angle. The property is shown to be in an area with a moderate to high landslide hazard designation. This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. ' Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. 6.3 Observed Soil Conditions The geologic conditions observed on the property during our test pit investigation do not I agree with the geology described by Smith (1976) and by Minard (1983). Based on soil conditions observed in the test pits, the majority of the site is mantled by landslide and older slide deposits. Fill and glacial soils were observed along the northwest portion and southwest third of the property. The soil units encountered in our explorations include topsoil, fill, landslide debris, older slide debris, ice contact deposits, and advance outwash deposits. The interpreted subsurface Smith, M.,1975. Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and ' Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-14. 2 Minard, James P.,1983. Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington: USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1541. Golder Associates 1 9, 2002 7 013-1685.100 1 distribution of these units is shown on geologic cross section A -A' (Figure 3). The soil units are described as follows: Topsoil — Most of the site was covered with a relatively thin (< 6-inch) layer of topsoil consisting of very loose, dark brown organics with little to some sand and a trace to little fine to coarse gravel. The unit varies to silt and clayey silt with a little sand, little to some gravel, and abundant organics. Fill — Fill was encountered in test pits TP-4 and TP-6 to a maximum depth of 10 feet. The fill generally consisted of very loose to compact, light olive brown to dark olive brown, non stratified, silt ranging to clayey silt with a trace to some fine to coarse sand, a little fine to coarse gravel, cobbles, and boulders, and trace to little roots, rootlets and ' other organics. Cobbles and boulders to about 16 inches in diameter were observed in this unit. In test pit TP-6, an older buried topsoil horizon or bum pile up to 6-inches thick was observed. The buried topsoil is generally dark brown in color and contains roots and charcoal fragments. 1 ii 1 1 1 Landslide Debris — This unit was encountered in four of the six test pits excavated on the site. The interpreted limits of the landslide debris encountered on the site based on the test pits are shown on the site plan (Figure 2). The landslide debris varies widely in composition including. very soft to firm, light olive to light bluish gray, clayey silt ranging to silty clay, with a trace to some fine to medium sand;, silt; and very loose to compact, fine to medium sand with a little to some silt, a trace fine to coarse gravel. The unit is commonly nonstratified, mottled, fractured, or jointed, and iron oxide stained. Roots, rootlets, and other organics were also observed throughout. A dense mat of rootlet development was commonly observed along many of the fractures or joints. Some of the joint surfaces were polished and contained large-scale slickensides. In test pit TP-3, located at the southeast comer of the proposed garage, this unit compact and stiff to very stiff and may be older slide debris that mobilized soon after the Puget Lobe of the Vashon glacier receded. Ice Contact Deposits — This unit was observed in only one of the test pits (TP-4) excavated at the site located in the far north corner of the site adjacent to Olympic View Drive. These deposits were formed on or near the ice sheet and consist of compact, light olive brown, non stratified, silt with a trace to little fine to coarse, sand, a little subrounded to rounded, fine to coarse gravel, and a trace of cobble and boulder to 2 feet diameter. Advance Outwash Deposits — This unit was encountered in test pits TP-1, TP-4, and TP-6 located in the northwest portion of the property. The unit consists of compact to dense, stratified to massive, interbedded, jointed, silt ranging to silty clay, and fine sand with a trace of silt ranging to fine to coarse sand with a trace of silt. A sheared clay layer was encountered in test pit TP-1 at the contact between the advance outwash and overlying landslide debris. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 8 013-1685.100 6►4 Observed Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed in four of the six test pits excavated as shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Groundwater Seepage Approximate Depth to Approximate Test Pit Ground Surface Groundwater Groundwater Designation Elevation Elevation (Feet MSL) (Feet BGS) (Feet MSL TP-1 251 4 147 TP-3 234 7 227 TP-5 227.. 1.5 225.5 TP-5 227 14 216 TP-6 249 10 239 BGS = Below Ground Surface All the groundwater encountered in the test pits occurred within the landslide or older slide debris. The interpreted groundwater table is shown on the Geologic Cross Section A -A'. It is likely that the observed groundwater seeps represent a shallow seasonal perched condition that may not exist during drier periods of the year. We anticipate that groundwater levels will rise during extended periods of increased precipitation. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 9 013-1685.100 7, GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1 General Based on the results of our study, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed,. The native site soils or structural fill derived from the native soils will provide adequate bearing capacity for the proposed buildings and structures, in the upland portion of the site. However, on the sloped portion of the site, pin piles will be required to penetrate the recent slide debris and established in the lower more competent native soils. 7.2 Site Pre aration/Gradin P g Site preparation should include removal of the surficial fill and debris. The thin organic topsoil layers should be stripped from the building area and removed or stockpiled for later used in landscaped areas. Based on our test pit observations the organic topsoil thickness ' on the site is generally less than six inches. We understand that cuts and fills up to about 15 feet are proposed to establish grades at the ' site. These cuts would most likely be through recent and older landslide debris. The landslide deposits, particularly the silt and silty sand soils, can be moisture sensitive. Where this condition exists, we recommend that site grading be performed during an ' extended period of dry weather. We would anticipate added construction costs to handle unsuitable soil if work was performed during wet weather. ' 7.3 Temporary and Permanent Slopes Safe temporary excavations are the responsibility of the contractor and depend on the actual ' site conditions at the time of construction. Temporary cuts are the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with applicable OSHA and WISHA standards. Cut slopes exposed for any length of time, particularly during vet weather, should be covered with ' visqueen to maintain stability and minimize erosion. ' Long-term permanent cut slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter assuming proper drainage and erosion control. Long term permanent fill slopes should be 2HAV or flatter assuming proper compaction, drainage, and erosion control. In general, 3H:1V slopes or gentler are preferred ' for ease of maintenance and application of landscaping. 7.3.1 Slope Stability The stability of the existing and proposed slopes at the site was analyzed using the computer slope stability analysis program SLIDE, a proprietary software program produced ' by RocScience, Inc. The stability of the existing hillside, the hillside with the proposed cuts, and the final proposed geometry of the property were examined for the analysis. The stability of the hill was assessed using the simplified Bishop method. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 10 013-1685.100 The results of the slope stability -modeling program are outlined in Table 2, below. Representative cross section analyzed using SLIDE can be found in Appendix A. TABLE 2 Factor of Safety of the Monnahan Property Condition An zed Static Factor of Safe Yield Acceleration' Current Conditions 1.31 0.09 Proposed Cut 1.4 0.08 Proposed Final Grade 1.71 0.19 'Yield Acceleration is defined as the horizontal earthquake acceleration required to reduce the static factor of safety to 1.00. As shown in Table 2, the current conditions and proposed but have global stability safety factors ranging from 1.3 to 1.4; yield acceleration of the slope under these conditions is approximately 0.08g to 0.09g. After the proposed filling of the ravine to complete final grade, the location of the critical failure surface shifts to the upper portion of the hillside, creating a global factor of safety of 1.71 with a yield acceleration of 0.19g. The design earthquake for Edmonds, Washington with a 10% Probability of Exceedance (PE) in 50 years is approximately 0.3g. Because the yield accelerationof the proposed final grade is greater than 5076 of the design earthquake acceleration, deformation of the slope in the event of the design earthquake is anticipated to be small. It should be noted that SLIDE predicts safety factor of approximately 1.0 for surface ' ravelling (shallow translational soil movement) on the existing slope, and on the downhill edge of the proposed cut just above the filled ravine. This indicates that the surficial soils on the slope are in a state of active erosion and will continue to ravel without landscaping ' and adequate ground cover. As such, we recommend that the existing grade below the proposed house be shallower than existing; a 3H:1V slope is recommended. ' 7.4 Erosion Control We understand that Snohomish County is requiring submittal of an erosion control plan for ' the site prior to any grading or other associated construction activities. Erosion control for the site will include the BMP's incorporated in the civil design drawings ' and may incorporate the following recommendations: • Limit exposed cut slopes; ' • Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes; ' • Use silt fences, straw, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site; Golder Associates ' January 9, 2002 11 013-1685.100 t vegetation on expo areas where work is completed and no Seeding or planting eg p p buildings are proposed; and tRetaining existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent. 7.5 Foundation Recommendations Conventional, shallow isolated or continuous spread footings are not suitable for this site in ' the sloped area, as the structure will likely be founded on recent and older landslide deposits consisting of very loose to compact silty sand, sand and silt deposits. As such, we recommend that the perimeter strip footings be founded on 4-inch diameter steel pipe piles ' spaced four feet on center. 1 u 1 Based on the allowable bearing pressure on the perimeter strip footing and spacing of four feet, the steel pipe piles shall have an allowable loading of 12,000 lb. On average, we anticipate that the piles will need to be 25 to 30 feet long to develop sufficient load bearing capacity. Based on driving conditions in the field, the piles may need to be lengthened. during driving; if better than anticipated conditions are discovered, the piles may be shortened in accordance with observed conditions. A minimum length of 20 feet per pile is recommended in any case. The perimeter strip footing foundations in the upland portion of the site where dense soils were encountered, should be designed based on the following parameters: • MAMMUM ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES: 2,000 psf These values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term wind and seismic loading. • MINIMUM EMBEDMENT: Perimeter footings 18 inches Interior footings 12 inches • MINIMUM WIDTH: Perimeter footings 18 inches Interior isolated footings 24 inches • LATERAL LOADS ON BASEMENT WALLS: Basement walls should be designed to resist a fluid with a density of 50 pcf assuming a level backslope. • RESIST LATERAL LOADS: Lateral loads can be resisted through an ultimate.base friction value of 0.4 and an allowable passive earthpressure based on a fluid with a density of 250 pcf assuming level ground below the footing. • SETTLEMENT: Total Settlement less than 1 inch Differential Settlement less than 3/4 inch 7.6 Slab Subgrade Normal slab -on -grade floors can be used in cut sections, if properly compacted. Slab -on -grade floors should not be founded on .existing fills or organic soils. The slabs should be underlain by a capillary break material, consisting of at least four inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 3 percent fines passing the #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction). A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting Golder Associates January 9, 2002 12 013-1685.100 ' #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction). A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting should be included between the slab and the capillary ' break If desired, an additional two-inch thick layer of sand may be placed on the vapor barrier to aid in concrete curing. ' Framed floors should also include a vapor barrier placed over any areas of bare soils and adequate crawl space ventilation should be provided. ' 7.7 Foundation Drainage ' We recommend that perimeter footing drains be included in all the building designs where adjacent slabs are below grade. Footing drains should consist of a four -inch diameter, perforated, rigid plastic pipe, embedded in a clean, free -draining sand and gravel ' consisting of the following gradation: 100% passing 1 %z" 40 —100% retained on the No..4 sieve, less than 5% fines, meeting the requirements of Sections 9-03.12(2) and Section 9- 03.12(4), respectively of the 2002 Washington State Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction (Figure 4). The ground surface adjacent to the buildings should be graded to drain away from the building. ' To prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure against the wall, we recommend that a layer of free draining sand or gravel be placed against the back of the wall, connected to the footing drain. See figure 4 for details. ' Roof drains should be collected and conveyed in a tightlined system separate from the footing drain system. ' 7.8 Retaining Walls ' If needed for site grading, a variety of wall types are feasible including MSE walls, and conventional concrete walls. Once a specific wall type is determined, detailed design, recommendations can be developed. All retaining walls should be constructed with a ' permanent drain system that conveys the water under gravity flow to the storm water collection system. The drains should consist of a properly sized perforated drainpipe bedded in a clean gravel backfill. 7.9 Rockeries We understand rockeries are planned on portions of the property. Rockeries 4 feet or less in height should be constructed using clean, granular, free draining fill compacted ' according to the specifications in Section 7.11. If terraced rockeries are planned and the terraces are located less than a distance of two times the height of one of the wall terraces, ' we recommend the lower terraces be constructed using reinforced fill as described below for walls greater than 4 feet in height. Rockeries between 4 and 8 feet in height should be constructed using reinforced clean, granular, free draining fill with the length of the t reinforcing equivalent to the height of the wall. The reinforcing should consist of geogrid, geotextile fabric,.or welded wire mesh spaced every 18 to 24 inches vertically. The Golder Associates January 9, 2002 13 013-1685.100 ' 7.10 Utilities ' Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility of the utility contractor. In our explorations, we did not observe much sidewall caving. However, when observed, it was typically found in the existing fill. The native outwash can be prone to unexpected caving ' and can exhibit rapid degradation if water seepage is present. We expect excavations in the outwash and fill will be difficult in places because it contains occasional boulders and cobbles. ' Conventional excavation equipment can be used to excavate the soils. Where the utility crosses pavement areas, the trench backfill should be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 and t�rcent within three feet of final grade. G L 7.11 Fill Materials and Placement 1 Structural fill material should consist of native outwash sand or imported granular soils, be free of organic and inorganic debris, be at or just below the optimum moisture content, and ' be capable of being compacted to the required specifications listed below. Maximum lift thickness: 12 inches loose. ' Minimum Compaction Requirements: • Beneath Building Foundations and Floors — The fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density value for the material. The ' structural fill beneath footings should at a minimum extend laterally at a 1HJV slope projected down and away from the bottom footing edge. • Beneath Roadways and Pavements — The fill should generally be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except within three feet of subgrade elevation, where the fill should be compacted to at least 959o' of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material. Foundation Wall Backfill — We recommend that any fill placed against the foundation walls located on the uphill side of the house be compacted to between ' 90 and 920/o of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557, with hand operated compactors within a 5-foot zone behind the walls. Over compaction near the wall should be avoided to reduce lateral pressures against the ' back of the wall. • Utility Trench Backfill — The fill should generally be compacted to at least 909o' of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except in paved and ' structural areas where the material should be compacted to at least 957o of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material. ' • Non-structural/Landscaped Areas — Firmly compacted. We recommend that a jumping jack or hoe-pac is suitable for compacting subgrade. Thin ' lifts or work in confined areas can also be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. If density tests taken in the fill indicate that compaction is not being achieved, the fill should ' be scarified, moisture -conditioned, and recompacted. If the required densities cannot be met then the material can be excavated and replaced or a soil admixture used to dry the soil. Golder Associates January 9 2002 14 013-1685.100 In the area of the garage where the existing fill is deepest, we recommend removing the existing fill to a couple feet below the proposed slab elevation, then placing compacted structural fill. Alternatively, you could densify the existing fill at the slab elevation provided any organic rich topsoil has been removed. ' . Fill laced on slopes steeper than a 3H:1V Horizontal to Vertical shall be benched using a P P P � ) g bulldozer or backhoe. Benches shall have a minimum width of three feet and a vertical ' spacing equal to the thickness of two compacted lifts. 7.12 Use of On -site Soils In general, the excavated native soils at the site would be suitable for use as structural fill ' provided they are placed at or below the optimum moisture content. During our investigation, we found that the site soils appeared to be typically moist to wet. ' We would anticipate that if the site development work were to proceed during the drier months of the year, the contractor would most likely have to moisture condition the soils prior to use as fill. However, if the site work were to proceed during the wetter periods of the ' year, drying of the site soils, the use of soil amendments, or selective use of the site soils may be necessary. The silty sand and sandy silt soils comprising the landslide. debris would be more suitable for use during drier periods of work. 7.13 Pavements ' Pavement subgrade shall be maintained in a well -compacted state and protected from degradation prior to paving. Any areas disturbed prior to paving shall be remediated by a ' method determined suitable based on the observed field conditions. The options may include excavate and replacement of the disturbed soil, placement of a geotextile separation fabric, chemical stabilization and/or drainage improvements. Protection measures may ' include restricted traffic, perimeter drain ditches, or placement of a protective gravel layer on the subgrade. ' The pavement subgrade can consist of cuts into undisturbed native soil, or structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Structural fill section of this report. The pavement subgrade should be capable of supporting a fully loaded dump truck with minimum ' weaving and rutting. A typical pavement section of 2 inches of asphaltic concrete over 4 inches of clean, free draining, well -graded crushed rock sand base material is appropriate for the subgrade conditions described above and identified on site. ' We understand that 4-inch thick brick pavers may be used for the driveway. We assume the manufacturers specifications for preparation of the paver subgrade include a layer of ' clean, free draining sand over rock. The sub base for the pavers and subgrade can consist of firm and unyielding native soils free of topsoil and organics or structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Structural fill section of this report. If the manufacturers ' specifications do not include free draining subgrade soils, we recommend a minimum of 8 inches thick layer of dean, free draining soil as the base material. Where the pavers are 1 Golder Associates January 9, 2002 15 013-1685.100 located over structural fill, we recommend installation of a trench drain to direct surface water away from the driveway. Additionally, we recommend installation of a French drain along the edge of the driveway to collect any water that may accumulate in the free draining subgrade soils. These two drains should be tight lined to direct the water off the site. 7.14 Construction Monitoring We recommend that critical site construction elements be observed and documented by a qualified geotechnical consultant. These include: confirming suitable subgrade soils for building foundations and slabs, retaining wall construction, compaction of structural fills, and utility trench backfill compaction under pavements. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 16 - 1 �'}' 0131685.100 8. USE OF THIS REPORT ' This design geotechnical study has been prepared exclusively for the use of A.D. Shapiro, Architects and their consultants for'specific application to this project. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We ' recommend that Golder review the final site -grading plan and provide specific comments and criteria related groundwater, drainage, retaining walls, foundations, and .grading. ' The explorations were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice to provide information for the area explored:. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the exploration areas and in the groundwater ' conditions with time. Therefore we recommend that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the construction schedule and budget. Further, we recommend that Golder Associates Inc. be retained to perform the construction monitoring and testing during construction to confirm the conditions indicated by the explorations and or provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions encountered during the work Golder Associates 0 FIGURES Golder Associates ITH S SW ,:. .... .. 1$ S ;Lrsww L 164TH ST SW f AVE W a PL w .164 °jr T SW `pp 17 N 2 D ST `;M1TB�4wriS BQ} 73 DERIC T SW a 1 ST SW G 178 LS S S2 r 181 PL 81 T 5 4 132 PL 1 S1 1 LSW 1 2NDSTSW COD p� 3RD P SW SW IOR TH a TM ea � a a � o z M a -114 NOT TO SCALE a* SW % f Sw ---4 SW I URrlt N FIGURE 1 SITE VICINITY MAP SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY/WA 1-111U1 U11W.4 OT IL Golder Associates . A WEST 260 — 250 J F w Z 230 w 220 210 20D i TP-1 APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY V DCPT-1 AND TP-2 (PROD TED) A' EAST r M Qls HARD AND } DENSE \ \ FUTURE CONSTRUCTION Qva? 1 OF.ROCKERIES \ (APPROXIMATELY LOCATED) TD = 16.0,Ft ? I \ ? \ ? \- DESIGN GRADE \ Qls \ TPA ? tPl: .0 FL \ ? (. I ? f t ? \ \ PROPOSED CULVERT ? I of �— Native ? \ Qls l ? ? BASED ON 1993 PLAN BY ? \ QOIS (?) ? 1 C. SHAWN O'BRIEN. P.E. FOR TD = 15.0 Ft ADJACENT PROPERTY LEGEND TEST PIT DESIGNATION TP-5. ( GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED IN TEST PIT Qls GEOLOGIC UNIT _i— GEOLOGIC CONTACT - DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATE, To = 15.0 Ft QUERIED WERE UNCERTAIN TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT af: FILL Qls: LANDSLIDE DEBRIS Qols: OLDER SLIDE DEBRIS Ova: ADVANCE OUTWASH DEPOSIT SPECIAL NOTE: Data concerning the various strata have been obtained at exploration locations only -The interpretation between these locations has been inferred from geological evidence and so may vary from that shown. I { 1 0 10 20 FEET I VERTICAL: 1" = 10' i 'i 250 240 230 z P;11 - 210 r_iro, FIGURE 3 OGIC CROSS-SECTION A -A' SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY/WA Golder Associates O a w w .. A. A. A kv- A. 0 40 V 20 •r r. _ FEET {(��>>^✓ A. c+� T: •a ice... .;�. 1A ~� i. L I►, r/ is TPAJ Y© 5-1 A. A �••� /"•� \ ='rl i I {` .; ,, r f 'mil '`J nr+ `� i^ t s f l /.' ) ./ yy�r — r• 1 1�5tL000 1 Yc.4l� ~ i �. ,r i w - � � •�\ �,' '1 1 � i � �/,i • �j' � ' ! ! ,:y' I .! ! 2 { ��.�;;r, � �J'f j,----_�' � '1'; µ' �� rft '?�„'•-'•-�•^ .....1` .^.'t� \ \ �'�n_/ ` I� i 1 /' '� � � ', y, .I' �' � +\ �^• ti�� `� f \ �,,.•�/ i/ • !', � i 1 ;' � Y� '' i - ` ,iJ,` \\J.� rYf �: T� v)•� ✓� . . /r ✓ Y \ f i' \i`j%ram WPI 4 O' C,/�!'LG - T . y 1 c T J s I i / / � ! j !/ / �' / f, 4� Al '` i a �'f' �' � i % / C� �/ j'y r t I .-'• E�' 1 01 tics ! t r 4' / }C-- 2301 ' y 1 � SPECIAL NOTE: Data concerning the various strata have been obtained at` �_ - _ _ 236 exploration locations only. The interpretation between these locations has been inferred from geological evidence and so may vary from that shown. FURE SOURCE. A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS, �E�_ tG SITE PLAN DRAWING DATED 2/12/01 SHAPIROlOLY bdarkiK.WMOCW2001w131685%IOM94862dwgII2-19.1 9:19ly-w - �_ MPIC VIEW PROPERTYNVA Golder Associates DCabelKAProjeetM20011013168511 >)�(See Note 2 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE LAYER (See Note 1) DRAINAGE GRAVEL (See Note 3) 4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE ( See Note 4) �N d i NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. DRAINAGE LAYER SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 5 % FINES ACCORDING TO 2002 WSDOT SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(2). FULL FACE GEOCOMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD CONNECTED INTO THE FOOTING DRAINAGE GRAVEL MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DRAINAGE GRAVEL. 2. WALL BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor)., 3. DRAIN GRAVEL SHALL CONSIST OF PEA GRAVEL ACCORDING TO 2002 WSDOT SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(4). 4. 4-INCH DIAMETER, PERFORATED, SCHEDULE 40, PVC DRAIN PIPE WITH HOLES TURNED DOWN. 5.' CAPILLARY BREAK SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN SAND OR GRAVEL AS RECOMMENDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. — -- -- - -- -- FIGURE 4 FOUNDATION DRAINAGE DETAIL SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VJEW PROPERTYMA Golder Associates SLAB ON GRADE d: t` CAPILLARY BREAK (See Note 5) APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS AND WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE TESTS 1 ' Golder Associates Unified Soil Classification System Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Names Generalized Group Descriptions COARSE -GRAINED SOILS More than SOS retained on No. 200 aieve GRAVELS More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVELS Lou than 5% fates GW Well -graded Grovels GP Poorly-groded grovels GRAVELS WITH FINES More than 122 fines GM ravel and nn Mixtures GC ravel and Clay Mixtures SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well -graded Sands 50% or more of Less than 5% fates coarse fraction passes No. 4Sieve SP Poorly-groded Smuts, SANDS WITH FINES SAl Sand and Silt Mixtures More' than 12% rates SC Sand and Clay Mixtures FINE-GRAINED SOILS 50% or more posses the No. 2DO sieve SILTS AND CLAYS liquid limit less than 50 INORGANIC CL Low -plasticity Clays ML Non-plostic an - Plasticity Sills Non -plastic and Low - OL Plasticity Organic Clays Plastic Non -plastic and Low- Plosticity Organic Sills SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit INORGANIC CH High -plasticity Clays greater than 50 MH H'gh-plasticity Sills ORGANIC OH t ig -P a rcdy Organic Clays High -plasticity Organic Sills HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS organic matter. dark in color. and organic odor organic Pi Peat Relative Density or Consistency Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values Cohesionless Soils (a) Cohesive Soils b (c) (c) Relative (c) Undrained (d) Density N. blows/ft De11ity ll- JJ15 Consistency N. blows/ft. Shear( pSstt ngth Very Bose 0 to 4 0 very soft 0 to 2 <25011 Loose 4 to 10 15 - 35 Son 2 to 4 250-500 Compact 10 to 30 35 - 65 Firm 4 to B 500-10DO Dense 30 to 50 65 - Bt Stiff a to 15 1oDO-2000 very Dense over 50 >85 very Stiff .15 to 3D 20OD-40DO Hord over 30 >4000 (a) Soils consisting of grovel, sand, and sill, either separately or in combination, possessing no characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting drained behavior. (c) Refer to text of ASTM D 1586-84 for a definition of N; in normally consolidated cohesionless soils Relative Density terms are based on N values corrected for overburden pressures. ' (d) Undroated shear strength - 1/2 unconfined compression strength. ' Descriptive Terminology Denoting Component Proportions Descriptive Terms Range of Proportion Trace 0-55 Little (a) ' 5-12% Some or Adjective And 12-30% 30-50% Component Definitions by Gradation Component Size Range Boulders Above 12 in. Cobbles 3 in. to 12 in. Grovel 3 in. to No. 4 (4.76mm) Coarse grovel 3 in. to 3/4 in. rime grove: 3/4 in. to No. 4 (4.76mm) Send No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 10 (2.Omm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.Omm) to No. 40 (0.42mm) rime, sand No. 40 (0.42mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) Sill and Clay I Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) Samples SS SPT Sampler (2.(1 OD) Ho Heavy Duty Split Spoon SH Shelby Tube P Pitcher Sampler B Bulk C Cored Unless otherwise noted, drive sornp!es advanced with 140 lb. hommer with 30 in. drop. Laboratory Tests Test Designation Moisture (1) Density D Grain Size G Hydrometer - H Atlerberg Limits (1) Consolidation C Unconfined U UU Triox Uu CU Temc CU CD Triox CD Permeability P (1) Moisture and Atterberg Limits plotted on lag. Slit and Clay Descriptions Typical Unified Description Designation Sin ML (non -plastic) Clayey Sift CL-ML pow plasticity) Silty Cloy CL Cloy CH Plastic Silt MH organic Soils OL. OH. Pt (a) Use Gravelly, Sandy or Silty as appropriate. —' - -- - ----- Figure --- -- SOIL CLASSIFICATION/LEGEND 1 �-rtvna4/snau a1~ �� Golder Associates ' GOI(lex A.Ssoclaes FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather Clouu cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 1 ' Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property N Elevation—251'-, Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 S 0 5 10 15 20 ' 0• 9,51 Samples No Depth 1 9' �. 2 12' 1 10 ' 15-- 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0807 Start NA 1 0-0 5' To soil: Very loose dark brown. ORGANICS. ittle to some sand little ravel moist 0 2 0.5'-7' Loose. olive brown and light gray, nonstrat'fiied 0825 12' -light mottled ine to medium SAND some clayey silt little 0840 16' As above gravel.rounded fine to coarse r uppgr 3' varies to CLAYEY SILT, some fine to medium Notes SAND moist to wet. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS?)Special 3 7'-12' Loose to compact and firm light olive brown and light Moderate caving above seepage zone with TP. —9' blue gray. nonstratified. massive. SILT ranging to CLAYEY SILT. varies to sib fine to medium sand. trace fine to coarse rounded gravel. moist. contains %oints with abundant rootlet development. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS? 4 - underlain�'ard_ light gray. nonstratified- jointed. sheared- CLAY layer d'ght brown, nonstratified? iointed FeOx stained fine to medium SAND trace silt and SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY moist to damp. upper portion contains polished planar surfaces. ADVANCE OUTWASH PROJECT NO. 0131685_100 DRAWING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL 7 Golder FIELD TEST PIT LOG - Associates Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 2 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavatino Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation -242' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 N IN 0 S 0 5 10 15 20 0 _ - -- -_ . --- .- Samples No Depth 2 10' 5 10 15 --- -- -- -- — ?n Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0856 Start NF 1 0-0.5' Ve loose dark rown. nons ratifie ORGANICS, some o little sand to gravel, moist.(TOPSOIL) 2 0.5'-9' Loose to compact, light brown nonstratified mottled SILT ranging to CLAYEY SILT. some fine sand, little Special Notes i rounded e to coarse ravel moist contains slight FeOx staining, rootlets above 4' b s contains hard Slight seepage < 1/4 m between 8'-9' b s. angular CLAYEY SILTY clasts. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS cavingSlight above 3ompact. light blue gray, nonstratified to crudely bedded mottled, l e to coarse SAND le fine rounded gravel, trace siltAND SILT to CLAYEY SILT little to some fine sand trace rounded fine to coarse gravel. trace woody detritus throughout. moist to wet - angular mottled at a large scale wood up to -4" diameter trace charcoal. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS? PROJECT NO. 0131685100 DRAWING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12112/01 DRAWN BY EL ASSOC1_ Golder FIELD TEST PIT LOG c1teS Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 3 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —234' Datum MSL Job 0131685.100 E -- W 0 5 10 15 20 0 _ 5 10 15 20 I No I Depth Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0950 Start NA 1 0 5' Topsoil: Dark brown very loose ORGANICS little to some sand trace Qravel, moist. 1000 a, —2gpm 0- 3'-4'on 048 16' East end of TP 2 0.5'-7' Loose li ht olive brown nonstratified fine to coarse Special Notes ravel trace cobble and boulder, roots in upper moist to wet trace rounded to suban ular hard Seepage corresponds with top of blueish gray unit —7'. CLAYEY SILT clasts. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS cavingSevere 0 1 ' 3 little to some sift. little rounded oravel. containsounded SILT clasts varies to SILT little to some fine sand moist to wet contains wood unit not continuous around TP. (LANDSLIDE DEBRIS) 4 10.5'-16' Compact/stiff to very stiff, li ht olive gray and light reddish brown nonstratified mottled silty, fine SAND to fine SAND, trace SILT. OLDER SLIDE DEBRIS? PROJECTNO. 6131685 100 DRAWING NO. TPOI-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL G�d' = l res FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp, Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker - Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 4 ' Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 ' Location Sunset Way Property Elevation -230' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 N S 0 5 10 15 7n 0 10 15 _- — - -77 ...... - — u , Samples No Depth 1 5' 2 16' -- — — — 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1126 Start NA 1 0-0 ' To so': Dark brown. very loose, ORGANICS some little sand trace gravel, moist. 1150 16' N 2 0.64 Very loose to compact, dark olive brown to light olive 1203 1 18' NF brown d SILT to CLAYEY SILT trace to little fine to coarse sand. fiftte-fine-to coarse subrounded to Special Notes rounded ravel trace cobble trace boulder, moist becoming dry to dam 4' contains clasts of No cavina observed SILTbecomes compact -4' trace rootlets in upper— observed 13) 4'-12' Compact- light olww e brown. nonstratified, SILT, trace to little fine to coarse sand,little fine to coarse subrounded to rounded gravel. trace cobble trace boulder, damp to d ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS - - t olive brown. trace rootlets, strafified o -- 4 e A becomes moist increased FeOx. ADVANCE OUTWASH PROJECT NO.0131685-100 DRAWING NO. TPo1-12 DATE 12112101 DRAWN BY EL _ GOld(' es FIELD TEST PIT LOG ASsO ;e Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 5 ' Equipment Case 9010B Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —227' Datum MSL Job 0131685.100 S �— —► N 0 .5 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1227 Start NA 1 a 5' To soil: very loose and very so olive br wn nonstratified SILT to CLAYEY SILT little sand little to10, as above some suban ular to rounded ravel abundant 255 15' seepage from —14' on uphill organics in upper 0.3' wet. I side 2 Very loosev Special Notes light olive brown nonstrated mottled silly fine SAND AND SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY trace fine sand Sever caving on west sidewall with TP ZiTexwsinq steeply trace rootlets in upper 1.5' moist. LANDSLIDE dipping olishedplanar-curved, slickensided surfaces dipping DEBRIS) into (up) slope. iALMAII—Loose. light blue gray. onstratified. mottled silly fine SAND trace fine to coarse ou ded gravel. moistNote: Trackhoe duci TP from up slope. Unable to get downslope wet containing roots and rootlets. LANDSLIDE and set in stream. DEBRIS 4 ge- onstratified. mgItledI 'I N SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY moist to wet FeOx throughout, trace fine rounded gravel. LANDSLIDE rnwca.,� nv.vw ww �w Wr VVIM2 W. IFUI-12 UA1E 121121U1 DRAWN BY EL WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page I of 2 Golder Associates, Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 Redmond, Washington 98052 DATE STARTED: 12-10-2001 DATE COMPLETED: 12-10-2001 ' HOLE #: X _ CREW: M. Mengelt SURFACE ELEVATION: Top of Subgrade PROJECT: Shapiro/Monnahan Prop./WA WATER ON COMPLETION: None Sunset Drive HAMMER WEIGHT: 351bs. 'ADDRESS: LOCATION: Edmonds, Washington CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY DEPTH PER 10 cm K cm2 0 50 100 150 N' - 0 0.0 0 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 1 4.4 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - I ft 2 8.9 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 1 4.4 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 3 13.3 ••• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 2 ft 6 26.6 ......• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 31.1 ......••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 ft 30 133.2 ...................................... - DENSE HARD - 1 m 15 66.6 ......•......•••••• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 5 19.3 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 ft 4 15.4 •••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5 19.3 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 15.4 •••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 ft 6 23.2 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 23.2 .....• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 19.3 ....• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 ft 5 19.3 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 19.3 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 2 m 4 15.4 •••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 7 ft 5 17.1 ••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT 4 13.7 ••• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 6 20.5 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 8 ft 6 20.5 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF _ g 27.4 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF _ .......... - -10- L iFF - 9 ft 12 41.0 ..... ••••• i 1 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 44.5 ......•••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 11 37.6 .........• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 3 m 10 ft 11 37.6 ......•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ......••• 9 LOOSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ••....... 9 LOOSE STIFF - 12 36.7 •••••••••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - lift 11 . 33.7 ........ 9 LOOSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••.•••••• I 1 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ... 0..••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 ft 16 49.0 ............•• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 30 91.8 ............ •••........... - MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF 15 45.9 ............• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 4 m 13 ft 18 55.1 •••....... 0.••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF W ILLAA1I Q HOLE #: 1 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 nn�rnnm. QU- :. n„1,,.,.,.,1,D..... fW a PRn F.rT Nl TMRFR: 013-1685.000 r BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY 1DEPTH • PER 10 cm K cm2 0 50 100 150 N - 22 60.9 ............••••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 14ft 15ft - 16ft -5m - 17ft - 18ft - 19ft -6m - 20 ft 21ft - 22 ft - 7m 23ft - 24 ft - 25 ft - 26 ft -8m - 27 ft - 28 ft - 29 ft -9m wawa I .ALJ WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page I of 2 Golder Associates, Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 Redmond, Washington 98052 DATE STARTED: 12-10-2001 DATE COMPLETED: 12-10-2001 HOLE #: 2 CREW: M. Mengelt SURFACE ELEVATION: Top of Subgrade PROJECT: Shapiro/Monnahan Prop./WA WATER ON COMPLETION: None ADDRESS: Sunset Drive HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: Edmonds, Washington CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K cmz GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY - 0 0.0 0 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT 2 8.9. 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 1 ft 4 17.8 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 17.8 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 2 ft 4 17.8 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 26.6 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 ft 5 22.2 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 1 m 6 26.6 ••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 11.6 ••• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 4 ft 3 11.6 ••• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 3 11.6 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 2 7.7 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 ft 2 7.7 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 3 11.6 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 19.3 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 ft 6 23.2 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 15.4 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT -. 2 m 6 23.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 ft 5 17.1 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 7 23.9 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 17.1 •••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 8 ft 6 20.5 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 20.5 oo..o 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 19 -6 LOOSE - 9 ft 7 23.9 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 20.5 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF 6 20.5 ••••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 m 10 ft 15 51.3 ••••••••••••.. 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 49.0 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 49.0 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - lift 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF 13 39.8 .......... 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 ft 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 23 70.4 •••••••••••••••••••• 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 4 m 13 ft 17 52.0 ••••••••••••••• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF W ILDCAT.XLS HOLE #: 2 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 PI?OTP(-r- Rhanirn/Mnnnnhnn Prnn_/WA PRn7F.CTNTIMBER: 013-1685.000 BLOWS RESISTANCE GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY DEPTH PER 10 cm K /cmz 0 50 100 150 N' - 17 47.1 ............• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 44.3 ......•••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 14 ft 18 49.9 ............•• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 15ft - 16ft -5m - 17ft - 18ft - 19ft -6m - 20 ft - lift - 22 ft - 7 m 23 ft - 24 ft - 25 ft - 26 ft 8m - 27 ft - 28 ft - 29 ft -9m WILDCATALS- - - ' APPENDIX B ' CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR DEVELOPMENT ON STEEP SLOPES' 1 ' Golder Associates Document Page 1 of b Title 20 REVIEW CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES Chapter 20.15E CRITICAL AREAS 20.1513.110 Development standards - Geologically hazardous areas. 20.15B.110 Development standards - Geologically hazardous areas. A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be 50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native vegetation, and where appropriate, be placed within a critical areas tract. This 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet by the director or his/her designee upon review of critical areas study prepared pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140 (A) by a licensed geotechnical engineer or geologist which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. "Adverse impact" shall include but not be limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Such report, shall be certified in a form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as the geotechnical report requirements of Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer reductions shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4). B. Erosion Hazard Areas. Alterations within the identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18.30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located on slopes less than 40 percent shall only be approved to be altered if both of the following provisions are met: 1. Proposed development will not decrease slope stability on any adjacent property; and 2. The landslide hazard to the project and adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated such that the proposed development on the site is certified as stable by a licensed professional geologist or geotechnical engineer. Any landslide hazard area and its buffer which combined are greater than the one acre in size shall be placed in critical areas tract for any proposed master plan development, subdivision, short subdivision, or planned residential development, pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.160. Where alterations are authorized, city staff shall determine whether the remaining portion (s) of the landslide area shall be placed within critical areas tract. Landslide areas located on slopes greater than 40 percent shall be regulated pursuant to subsection D of this section. D. Steep Slope Hazard Areas. No development or alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the property is exempt under the provisions of this section or ECDC 20.15B.040, a reasonable use exception has been granted, or a variance has been granted pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170(A). 1. The development or alteration is one of the following exempt activities: a. Surface water conveyance designed to the best available technical standard, such as the Stormwater Management Manual, approved by the city. Installation shall utilize the best available technology to minimize disturbance to the slope, soils and vegetation; b. Trails construction designed to the best available technical standard approved by the city. Technical standards are. provided-in-the-U-.S-Forest-Service `-"trails-Management-Handbook"-(FSH 2309:18,-1987) -and-"Standard- for Construction of Trails" (EM-7720-102, 1984). In no case shall trails be constructed of impervious materials which would contribute to surface water runoff, unless such materials are necessary to provide for soil stabilization or erosion control, and trail design assures that surface water runoff will not increase or contribute to erosion and sedimentation; c. Utility construction by private or public proponents may be allowed; provided, that city staff determined upon review of a critical areas study that the proposed alteration shall not subject the steep slope to the risk of landslide or erosion; d. Trimming and limbing of vegetation on steep slopes may be allowed if a clearing plan is provided for review and approval by the city; and provided, that the soils within the steep slope area are not disturbed to subject the area to the risk of erosion. Clearing shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.45 ECDC. 2. The development or alteration may be exempted if it meets the following criteria: a. The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property, and the site following the permitted . activity will be stable within the meaning of Chapter 19.05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting requirements of the State Building Code as adopted by this code. b. The development will occur on steep slope areas that either: i. Are mapped as one of the following deposits on the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles", by James P. Minard (Department of the interior, United States Geological Survey, 1983, Map MF-1541): Till, Advance Outwash, and/or Olympia Gravel; or ... /om isapi.dll?clientID=21573873&hitsperheading=on&infobase=edmonddc.nfo&jump=20.15B.1/8/02 Document Page 2 of 8 ii. Are comprised of fill which was placed under engineered conditions on stable geologic deposits listed in subsection (D) ' (2)(b)(i) of this section; provided, that the fill meets the following conditions; all fill was placed under a legal grading permit, the grading and fill were designed by a licensed professional engineer, native soils beneath the fill were prepared ' in accordance with the engineering design, and compaction testing confirms that uniform compaction to the specified ' percentage is present throughout the entire fill. c. All excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 35-degree plane extended down from the property lines, unless the excavation is retained by structural shoring. The shoring must be designed by a registered professional engineer. d. All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building Code as adopted by this code; rockeries are not permitted greater than four feet in height. e. Steep slope areas cannot be altered if one or more of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope; impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils, springs or ' groundwater seepage, significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits. "On or adjacent to" includes those areas upslope and downslope of the steep slope, within a horizontal distance from the toe or top of the slope equal to two times the vertical height of the steep slope. f. Steep slope areas (greater than 40 percent) cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, collovial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the. Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope exceeds three feet. g. For Commercial Development. A buffer of 15 feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition, measured from ' property lines adjacent to residential properties. 3. Notice of Application for Exemption. Upon application for exemption of all or any portion of a site under the provisions of this section, which is equal to or greater than 20,000 square feet in area, posting and notice of such ' application and of staff decision shall be given in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.95.050(B). Notice shall be provided to all adjacent property owners for sites or portions of sites sought for exemption which are less then 20,000 square feet in area under the same procedures. E. Seismic Hazard Areas. Development proposals for sites containing a potential seismic hazard area shall only be ' authorized by staff to alter the seismic hazard area when the applicant documents that: 1. A technical evaluation of the site's specific subsurface conditions indicates that the site is not located within a seismic hazard area; or ' 2. Mitigation is implemented which renders the site of the proposed development as stable within the meaning of the State Building Code and this code. F. Peer Review and Independent Analysis. All applications for development proposals within geologically hazardous areas or seismic hazard areas shall be accompanied by a written site analysis by a geologist or geotechnical engineer ' licensed by the state of Washington. Peer review, or at the discretion of the staff, an independent review of the technical analysis of site conditions shall be conducted at the applicant's expense pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140(E). [Ord. 3329 § 1, 2000; Ord. 3087 § 2, 1996). 1 20.15B.110 Development standards - Geologically hazardous areas. A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be 50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native ' vegetation, and, where appropriate, be placed within the critical areas tract. This 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet by the director or his/her designee upon review of critical areas study prepared pursuant to. ECDC 20.15B.140 (A) by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. "Adverse impact" shall include but ' not be limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Such report shall be certified in a form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as the geotechnical report requirements of Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer reductions ' shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4). B. Erosion Hazard Areas. Alterations within identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18. 30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of ' the site. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located on slopes less than 40 percent shall only be approved to be altered if both of the following provisions are met: 1. Proposed development will not decrease slope stability on any adjacent property; and 2. The landslide hazard to the project and adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated such that the proposed development on the site is certified as stable by a licensed professional geologist or geotechnical engineer. I... /om—isapi.dll?clientDD=;21573873&hitsperheading--on&infobase=edmonddc.nfo&jump=20.15B edmonddc.nfo&jump=20.15B 1/8/02 vv. � � . va _ a� . va a'rua vao vvt a.a tf0 hU1..UC.!'( AJJUl;lA71rJ � UdZ "Ow AaocWes Inc. 18300 NE Ur ion M Rood. Suite 200 Redmond, WA 9M-3333 telephone (425) 683 0777 ��, tFox (425) 882-5498 ' June 27, 2002 Our ref: 013-1685200 ' Cityof Edmonds Planning Department g 250 5th Ave North ' Edmonds; Washington 98020 ATTENTION: Ms. Star Camvbe RE: SLOPE STABILITY MODELING RESULTS REVISED GRADING PLAN ' SUNSET WAY DRIVE RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Campbell: This letter presents the results of our slope stability analyses of the revised grading plan ' proposed for the construction of the single-family residence on Sunset Way in Edmonds, Washington. Our work was performed in accordance with our telephone conversation with Mr. Tony Shapiro on June 25, 20M Based on our discussions with Mr. Shapiro, a revised grading plan has been developed for the site. We understand that the revised grading plan was developed as a result of ' concerns raised by City of Edmonds plan review staff regarding the extent of the regrade proposed for the site. The regrade originally proposed for the site consisted of filling the existing ravine downslope of the planned construction and building a Mesa' block wall ' to provide overall slope stability for the proposed project Golder designed the MesaTM block WE wall; our design and construction recommendations for the wall are contained in our May 9, 2002 design report and plan set. ' It is our understanding that City of Edmonds recommendations require that existing slopes be left undisturbed, if possible, to avoid changing the original topography of the slope. Furthermore, we understand that no construction should be detrimental to the ' integrity of existing slopes. While the MSE wall construction was not detrimental to the stability of the slope, the changes it created in the topography of the hillside were considered unacceptable from the standpoint of the city planning division. The City ' code requires that proposed grading plans fit the natural topography. As such, we understand that the City has requested that the original grading plan including the MSE wall be changed to preserve the original slope. The currently proposed grading plan ' was developed in response to this request. ' OFFICES ACROSS ASIA. AUSTRALASIA, EUROK. NORTH AMERICA. SOUzi'I AMERICA uoiciiuz ta:ua rAA 42 anz b4VO WLVER ASSOCIATES IQ 003 June 27, 20M 2 013-1685.2M BACKGROUND The project site is located on a north to northwest -facing slope in Edmonds, Washington. Site access is from the south between existing residential structures located at 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way. Olympic view drive is located on the north side of the property and an open, undeveloped lot is located along the east property line. Topography on the site slopes generally down to the northeast ranging in elevation from about 260 feet above mean sea level (ANISE) to about 210 feet AMSL in the northeast corner of the site. Slopes range from about 15HAV in the southwest third of the site to about 41-:1V in the central third of the site, and about 1.5HAV in the eastern third of the site adjacent to the drainage ditch. Originally, a system consisting of two to three terraced rockeries was planned for the east end of the property. Additional rockeries were planned for the east and north sides of the house but were not planned during initial construction. The stability of these structures was evaluated during our initial geotechnical investigation; the results of our analyses are contained in our January 6, 2002 report to A.D. Shapiro Architects. Geological Characterization Golder visited the site and performed a geological characterization to assist in development of the site. Our exploration program consisted of six test pits to characterize the subsurface geological conditions, and two Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT"s) used to infer subsurface density and strength conditions. The results of our exploration program were detailed in our letter to A.D. Shapiro architects, dated January 9, 2002. in general, the site is underlain by fill of variabie thickness, consisting of very loose to compact silt to clayey silt with a trace of fine to coarse sand. The fill also contained minor _ components of gravel to boulder size particles and miscellaneous organics. The fill is underlain by landslide debris, ice contact deposits and advance outwash deposits. The landslide debris, which is closest to the surface in the area of the wall, consists of very soft to firm clayey silt to silty clay with traces of fine to medium sand and silt. Other components noted in this formation are very loose to compact fine to medium sand with silt and gravel- Minor organic components were noted. The formation was generally mixed and fractured with considerable evidence of previous disturbance, which is commensurate with a landslide formation. ANALYSIS OF REVISED GRADING PLAN Golder reviewed the current grading plan and perforned a geotechruca) enguieering evaluation of the proposed construction. The purpose of our review was threefold: Golder Assockstes V V!ii�Vi 4%.VV VnA Yin/ OOG UVOO WLUM Aabuc,lAlha 10004 June 27, 2002 3 013-1685.200 1. Determine the overall static and seismic stability of the proposed system to ensure adequate stability; and 2. Compare the stability of the currently proposed system to both the existing conditions at the site and to the originally proposed Mesa"' wall scheme presented in our May 9, 20M report. 3. Compare the contours of the proposed regraded fill slope to the existing, natural slope. The revised grading plan was analyzed using the computer slope stability program SLIDE, a proprietary code developed by RocScience, Inc. Stability of the Existing Slope ' The results of our original slope stability modeling are presented in our Geotechnical Investigation report dated January 9, 2002. The models were based on the site topographic maps provided to us by A.D. Shapiro architects and on our. interpreted ' geologic cross section presented in the report. The cross section analyzed for the slope stability modeling corresponds to Section AK in Figure 2 of our January 9, 2002 geotechnical investigation report Figure 2, from this report is shown in Appendix A. Our original analysis concluded that the factor of safety of the existing slope in this area was approximately 1.31. ' During preparation of our Mesa wall design report during April and May of 2002, we analyzed a second set of sections corresponding to the critical wall height of 14 feet The critical section for our design was oriented southwest to northeast; by contrast, the ' section analyzed for our January 2002 report was oriented roughly west to east. In the area of the critical wall section analyzed for our Mesa" design report, we found that while the slope was not steeper than the west -east section previously investigated, the ' vertical relief in this area was approximately 14 feet in comparison to approximately 8 feet as analyzed in our original report The increased height of the second section analyzed had significant implications on the stability of the native slope. When the existing slope was analyzed using SLIDE at the location of the critical wall cross section, an incipient failure condition is predicted. This condition for the 2H:1V existing slope is shown in Figure 1. The SLIDE analysis predicts that the factor of safety of the overall slope in this area is approximately 1.01. Furthermore, SLIDE predicts ongoing surficial (shallow translational, rill and gulley) erosion on the exposed Rice. These results are in accordance with a simple, infinite slope analysis. The factor of safety of an infinite slope can be determined using the following equation: RV = tan 1tana where FS is the factor of safety of the infinite slope, � is the friction angle of the soil, and a is the slope angle. For a 2H:1V slope, the average slope angle is approximately 26.5 Golder Associates vv. �i' vAI AV - WV rtaa 10005 June 27, 2002 4 013-1685.200 degrees. The landslide debris mapped during our site investigation has an estimated t angle of friction of approximately 29 degrees. Thus, in the absence of water the factor of safety of the infinite slope is approximately 1.1; presence of excess water ptessiuv in the slope due to elevated groundwater causes this value to decrease. Our field ' investigations during the winter of 2001 to 2002 revealed nearly saturated soil conditions and seeps in selected areas. As such, it is reasonable to assume that the factor of safety would be less than 1.1 for the infinite slope case. The slope stability model presented in ' the attached prints represents a more detailed analysis of the anticipated conditions and also considers the effect of groundwater. The more realistic model presented in the attached prints predicts that failure of the slope in this area is possible. It is our opinion that the original slope stability modeling performed did not indicate this possibility due ' to the fact that the slope section analyzed,was not as high as the more critical section currently analyzed. ' Stability of the Mesa MSE Structure The slope stability modeling of the proposed Mesa' wall construction is reproduced in ' the attached prints. For the originally proposed regrade, the ravine at the northeast and eastern sides of the site was to be filled to approximately 221 feet AMSL, and a MSE ' retaining structure built to facilitate eonstrudion of a backyard area adjacent to the proposed residence at elevation 234 feet AMSL. Good quality sandy fill was to be imported to facilitate filling at the site; this fill was considered instrumental to improving the strength characteristics of the slope and increasing the factor of safety. The presence ' of the reinforced fill zone added to the safety factor of the slope by driving the potential failure plane deep into the fill zone. Our models, indicated that the reinforced earth retaining structure would be stable under both static and design seismic conditions. The ' results of the slope stability -modeling program are presented in more detail in our May 9, 2002 design letter and are reproduced in Table 1. TABLE I. Slope Stability Analysis Of Mesa'O MSE Structure Condition Factor of Safety Static Global Stability 1.66 Design Seismic Event 1.31 Yield Acceleration ) 0.32 The results of our analysis on the reinforced earth wall configuration indicated that the . factor of safety of the reinforced slope would be up to 66 percent greater than that of the unreinforced existing slope currently analyzed. Furthermore, the reinforced earth ' structure was predicted to have a factor of safety of 121 during the design seismic event; industry standard of care mandates that such a structure have a factor of safety of greater than 1.0 during such an event. We concluded that the Mesa'' MSE structure could ' provide necessary levels of support for this project. i 60kier Assot ates V4 AY: V 1 rxn 440 ,00c 04100 (il)ld)tlt ASSU(;lATF:S 16006 1 1 1 11 I June 27, 2002 5 013-1685200 Stability of the Proposed ZH:1V Regrade Golder analyzed the factor of safety of the currently proposed regrade, a 214:1V fill . operation designed for two purposes: 1. Provide added support for the existing slope and protect the proposed structure, and 2. Match as closely as possible to the existing 2H:1V natural slopes at the site. The proposed fill operation will import similar fill to that specified for the MesaT' MSE structure, and' will fill the ravine at the east and north sides, of the project_ However, from the toe of the proposed slope, the new fill section will be graded at 2H:1V from 221 feet AMSL to 234 feet AMSL. The new grade will reduce the usable yard space relative to the originally. proposed reinforced earth structure, but will provide necessary support for the slope. The results of our analyses are shown in the attached prints. The results of our analysis are presented in Table 2. TABLE 2 Slope Stability Analysis of Currently Proposed Regrade Condition Factor of Safety Static Global Stabili 138 Design Seismic Event 1.0 Yield Acceleration 0.16 The results of our analysis on the reinforced earth wall configuration indicated that the factor of safety of the reinforced slope would be up to 38 percent greater than that of the unreinforced existing slope currently analyzed. Note that the design seismic event (]A the peak ground acceleration fora 50 year recurrence interval) and the yield acceleration are equivalent in this analysis.. Based on the results of our analysis, it is our opinion that the currently proposed regrade will not only provide sufficient support for the residence, but also will strengthen the existing slope and provide greater resistance to failure in the future. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our analyses, we recommend that a regrade of the existing slope be completed to facilitate construction. In our opinion, the incipient failure state of the slope in certain areas beneath the proposed structure could result in a condition that endangers the structure and adjacent properties and utilities. Our analyses indicate that the safety factor of the slope can be increased to approximately 1.38 with the addition of a 2HA V slope regrade, as currently proposed in the submitted plan set. In addition, examination of this grading plan appears to create a final grade on the slope which will Golder Aasooiates 4 007 June 27, 2002 013-1685.200 match as closely as possible to the existing 2H:1V natural slopes and will conserve as much as possible the aesthetic nature of the existing hillside while providing necessary support for the planned structure. , ' Golder Associates is leased to resent the results of our current slope stabili analyses.-, P P tY Yam•. Should you have any questions, or require additional consultation or information, please do not hesitate to call us at (425) 8834M. We look forward to our continued . ' involvement with you on this and other projects. ' Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. ' Michael Mengelt Staff Geotechnical Engineer ' David M. Cotton, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer ' MJM/DMCftg 0627dcl.doc `I Golder Associates c r i Vc lY . V ! r2La_440 oat asao . WLULK A,JUI lA'! S 10008 APPENDIX A. Golder Associates vvi L � i VG lY . V J l't!d YL.7 OOL D42lO 1 VULVEX ASSUCIATES IM009 r w n 0 CL y > �m 0 m v � C y�yN N Nay'! Q .na m0 65y 17:OLw �:.iQ CD CL Q O ui 0.0 65 m a m m 'a� o b� y m o Opp O J> v10 wE w � Uti mtn � 9 Vv� c! / vc lY : tlo rAe 440 OOZ agaa GUL kX ASSOCIATES Qolo W W N Q U � � H m oCD 1 d m 0 C g Q1 m ` t/1 dl �3 Q Q cv O 2N r �'�- am y� .� N �v QisN Nm CL o m y C c m ❑C� � kO CD 06 ' AN 06 am ov a mmoc C1L��"O 100 C:..131 ow m�t� �3m�`—°rp moo vQ m 'a o� m=oQ°'--z.0 .Lr cn .W.r cntll W W�U� U. W C p O. 25Uu ------------ SOl 1 r..r.�_T.i...� it • 1TT 09 ' 1 1 ' r-'r r i •y r i ' . I , N WLUM AbbUCINFES CL M 4) 2 -6 Z, 4) CD O < c iE C,D mo � 0 su in a —Z CL jD FS C,4 cn .0— 0 '0 LL. ED= LO 0) co C) 4).r- a 0 lj C3 tn CL C, 'Q & < .2 .2 c '00 ca .2 3 mC Zo 0 .2 r lm 00 0 0 r. 0 ;; 9 To c = Q U-:2 0 U LLIi LL co ��iy�:wF�'• •wa;l 7K I, , .- , i-,l -F I - r I ZL : Lj-- uoicrivx 45 :ua rAA 490 OOZ 04NO GOLDER ASSOCIATES 0 012 2-1 a o N � W N tl3 V1 C G1 m N 0 Q� m m m w 0 co o m c co c N _ v CO oO �Cy.'x 'r w a amp 4) om.�. Dr�%C I-2 aLa�CD ONZ m[QOca 2 0 GO W A V Qr c c a`c o ULL:2"o�� -L too w0 0�uu- I r l 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! r r l� r -r 1 1 1 �,iz es vsi n r zz T. I 11 1 1 1 I 1 1...,.. VULUM AJbUt;lKELS IQ001 t7.vv s-Z&A rL./ OOG 446vo Golder Associates Fax 4M1er To: Star Campbell, City of Edmonds FaitN umber. )-425-771-0221 dApssoclates Planning Department Tony Shapiro, A.D. Shapiro Architects Company: See Above From: Nina for David Cotton IA25-778-3032 Date: June 27, 2002 e-mail: @ golder.com Our ref. 013-1685.200 Voice Mail: (425) 885-7648 x RE: SLOPE STABTLITYMODELING RESULTS REVISED GRADING PLAN SUNSET WAY DRIVE RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON M. Total pages (including cover): 12 Hard copy to follow 18300 NE Union Hl Road, StAte 200 Redmond, WA 98052.3M3 U.SA Teleowne (425) 8BM777 Fax (425) 882-6498 Cvmprehe why ConaftV Services in Geotedmicai Remedlation and Waste Management EnvirrrenW Reuel MESSAGE Eta dos Fuh and Wiifa Also mailed to Star Campbell, City of Edmonds Planning Department and Tony ESA Respalsas Shapiro, A.D. Shapiro Architects 07/02. A Bbbgj, Waste Management WaterResoumes LarxW Sig & Do-Vn y� CW avbewing & Cons�n +9 & 9 08 and Gas Waste MxmgwwW Soli and Rack Mechem n► dw waste mnagernertt RiskAsseswnent Transpottet>nrl Offices in Aus0a6a. Canada, Finland. GenmV, Hong Kong, Hungary. Indonesia. may. Sweden, Untied Kngdom, United States — The doaxment(s) induded wdh this ftnwOssron am only for the redpient named above and contain prlvAeged/mrrf @ntW information. Unauthorized d►sciawre, dissenanabon, or copying of this transmission is --*Oy prohibited if received in error, please destroy. Questions or pn *l ms with this bwarr Isom shouW be mkw ed to the receptionist at the number provided above. / FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION FROM TO: DATE: o PRETREATMENT PLANT DATE PLGASf: SIGN PROJECT gLfl- � CCX ) _ Og'gg SITE ADDRESS PERMIT # RLD--aC 0a-ORJ"ADB# DATE INSPECTED DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED ` A field inspection was conducted to determine compliance with approved plans. Final approval denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of: ZGRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED ❑ Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector I. FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES ❑ Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inpector 1. 2. 3. RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL Date Signature LATEM P\BU ILDINGTORMS\PRETREATM ENTAPPRO VAL. DOC 1 /4/2005 Inc.18o�0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwxi.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering May 4, 2007 Mr. Tony Shapiro 624 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR RE: REQUIRED PLANTING OF TREES FOR PLAN CHECK # 2002-0848 18105 SUNSET WAY Dear Mr. Shapiro: This letter is a reminder that the additional required 12 trees associated with your building permit for 18105 Sunset Way (Plan Check #2002-0848) must be planted by May 31, 2007 per your letter dated January 5, 2007. Please note that if the 12 trees are not planted by May 31, 2007, it will be necessary to begin Code Enforcement on June 1, 2007. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Jen Machuga Planner Cc: Jeannine Graf, Building Official • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister City - Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ORDER TO CORRECT Site Address: 18105 Sunset Way (Reference Building Permit #BLD20020848) Issued To: Tony Shapiro Property Owner Address Of Person This Order Is Issued To: 624 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020 Description: Failing to plant 12 of the 38 total required trees (or tree equivalents) as required by the Tree Replacement Plan for City files V-2002-42 and BLD-2002-0848 Corrective Action Required: Plant 12 additional trees or tree equivalents, per your Tree Replacement Plan and Landscape Plan. Contact Jen Machuga Planner, at (425) 771-0220 when the trees have been planted in order for her to conduct the final Planning inspection. Correction is Required no later than: 12:00pm noon (time) Thursday, May 31, 2007 (date) If correction is not made by the date and time specified in the Order, a Notice of Civil Violation shall be issued. The Notice of Civil Violation shall assess fines of $100.00 per day, or portion of a day, during which the violation continues. Date Posted: N/A Date Mailed: January 22, 2007 Issuing Party Mike Thies Title Code Enforcement Signature�-- archtecta� 624 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA 98020-4641 January 5, 2007 Gina Coccia Planner Edmonds, City of 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject SEPA Compliance Project: Bldg Permit Review 2002-0848 Dear Gina: 425.778.5400 FAX-778.3032 RECEIVED JAN 0 5 2007 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES The attached report from our soils engineer, David Cotton, evaluates our site for stability and erosion control. From a practical standpoint, we have not had any erosion, drainage or other site problems from this most recent storm, or any of the other major storms we have had in the past three years. Please note that one of these storms was considered a 100 year storm. In regard to the landscaping, we will be adding (12) additional .trees this spring, when weather is better suited to installation, say by May 31'. Note that David's letter specificly targets the west side of the property as being stable, and not in need of additional planting. Lyle's concern of major tress being planted along this property line will be honored. I would also note that our neighbor to the west has planted significant evergreen trees over this easement in the last four years, and also has a retaining wall structure as well. We look forward to completing our landscaping this spring, but also note that the site is very stable, (as proven from these past few winters), in it's current state. Thank you for your revie"f-this matter. 0 Enc. Shapiro, AIA, NCARB CITY COPY July 10, 2006 A.D. Shapiro Architects 624 Edmonds Way DECEIVED Edmonds, WA 98020 J A N - 8 2007 Attention: Tony Shapiro S1,11CIRG DEPT RE: GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF SLOPE STABILITY AND EROSION CONTROL BUILDING PERMIT REVISION 2002-0848 SHAPIRO RESIDENCE 18105 SUNSET WAY EDMONDS, WA Dear Tony, At your request we have prepared this letter response summarizing our site visits and evaluation of the overall slope stability and erosion control of the north -facing slope just below your house and adjacent to the north property line paralleling Olympic View Drive. During the last six months we have visited your property at four different times. Our site visits usually followed a period of heavy rainfall. During all four site visits we have observed a stable slope condition consistent with the anticipated overall slope stability outlined in the original geotechnical report and the final site grades and landscaping plan. Specifically, the Plan Review Corrections dated February 8, 2006, noted a concern for the steep slope on the Western side yard stability. In our opinion, leaving the area to the west of the deck unplanted will, not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions, and it will not decrease slope stability on the existing slope or adjacent properties. The site development in fact, has improved overall stability from the original condition, as well as the control and management of the surface water discharge and sediment control. In addition, it is our opinion, that the current landscaping and ground cover is providing erosion control consistent with or better than the original site conditions. 06001GA/SEA6L228.doc Page 1 of 2 July 10, 2006 Copyright 2006 Kleinfelder, Inc. f It has been a pleasure working with you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER, INC. f� David M. Cotton P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Seattle Area Manager 06001GA/SEA6L228.doc Page 2 of 2 July 10, 2006 Copyright 2006 Kleinfelder, Inc. CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering December 13, 2006 Tony Shapiro 624 Edmonds Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Shapiro, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR I have yet to hear a response on my plan review corrections that I sent to you on February 8, 2006, other than a discussion of slope measured in degrees versus percent. Because of the gravity of the situation, I need you to respond to the items in that letter before January 5, 2007. Unfortunately, this is not a particularly good time of the year for planting, so your response should include a timetable for the actual planting. Here are the items listed in the plan review corrections: I have been given this revision that Star Campbell was initially reviewing. I have reviewed the Landscape Plan by AMS Landscape Architecture that was revised June 22, 2005. I have also reviewed Star's Plan Review Corrections to you dated July 5, 2005, and your response to her dated January 30, 2006. To get some background, I looked at the Reasonable Use Exception file V-02-42 and in particular closely reviewed the Tree Evaluation, Impact Assessment, Retention and Replacement Plan dated December 12, 2001. Complying with this plan was a condition of the approval for file V-02-42. I also did a site visit today [February 8, 20061 to determine what was planted. Before I can sign off on the building revision I need the following: 1. The Tree Replacement Plan is specific that 38 trees were removed and they are to be replaced on a 1:1 basis. I counted the trees on the slope that were over three feet (the minimum height of trees to be planted according to the Landscape Plan) and counted 11 along Olympic View Drive, and 12 along the east property line for a total of 23 trees. Shrubs could also be counted as trees according to the ratios given in the plan. The site had 9 rhododendrons, which are to be counted as three rhodies per tree, for a tree replacement value of 3 trees. That gets us to 26 trees. I noted a large quantity of sword fern, rock rose, periwinkle, and some salal. None of these were mentioned in the Replacement Plan as qualifying as tree replacements, and are presumed to be groundcover. Therefore you are still short 12 trees. a. Please provide the additional 12 trees. A "tree" could include planting the recommended shrubs in the Tree Replacement Plan at the recommended replacement numbers to total 12 trees. Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Mr. Tony Shapiro December 13, 2006 Page 2 2. You state that the planting plan showed new landscaping in the north and west of the deck, which has been planted out as indicated, as well as additional trees, shrubs and ground cover above and beyond the landscaping plan submitted. The Landscape Plan does indeed show landscaping to the north of the deck, but it does not show any landscaping to the west of the deck in an area that is obviously steep. In the field I confirmed that this steep area had no landscaping planted on it, nor even grass. In an e-mail to Star dated June 21, 2005 at 5:02 p.m. you state that "The area on the west side of our property is in a stable condition. If you need a letter from our soils engineer regarding the western property line and a revised planting plan showing the new location of these trees these can be provided within [sic] by July 5." a. Based on the steep slope of that western side yard, I am requiring a letter from your geotechnical engineer stating that leaving the area to the west of the deck unplanted will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions, and that it will not decrease slope stability on this or adjacent properties. b. Alternatively you could propose a planting plan of shrubs and groundcover that would stabilize the slope. Mr. Chrisman has suggested that along the easement he would prefer to see small shrubs and not large shrubs or trees. 3. Star had requested that you accurately show the locations and varieties of plants on your Landscape Plan. In your January 30, 2006, response you state that the revised landscaping of the trees, shrubs and groundcovers have been installed accurately with all the plant varieties per the plan. You even state that you have provided additional trees shrubs and ground cover above and beyond the landscaping plan submitted. Here are the discrepancies that I have noted between the Landscape Plan revised June 22, 2005 and what was planted in the field: a. Lyle Chrisman with the Engineering Division had written on the earlier Landscape Plan that no shrubs or trees are to be in the right-of-way. I confirmed today that is still a requirement. Your Landscape Plan shows approximately 13 trees in the right-of-way. I noted in the field that you have complied with the Engineering requirement and no shrubs or trees were planted in the right-of-way. Trees and shrubs shown in the right-of-way should be removed from the Landscape Plan. b. The Landscape Plan shows 35 trees. Only 23 trees have been planted. c. The Landscape Plan shows shrubs, including seven red -twigged Dogwood, four Oceanspray, three Red Flowering Current, and six Beaked Hazelnuts, none of which were seen in the field. These would have provided greater diversity and improved habitat for birds and wildlife. More plant diversity should be introduced in meeting your requirement to provide 38 trees or tree equivalents. Note that there are nurseries that specialize in native plants that should have some of these plants. Mr. Tony Shapiro December 13, 2006 Page 3 d. The groundcovers shown on the Landscape Plan include evergreen bramble, salal, and sword fern. The sword fern and salal were noted on the north face. Along the east property line periwinkle has been planted as the exclusive groundcover. I have never heard of periwinkle being recommended for erosion control. Please provide either an expert statement that periwinkle is adequate for erosion control on steep slopes, or provide additional ground cover planted as described in the Landscape Plan. My major concern at this point is the stability of the slope and the replacement of the value of the vegetation lost. I would prefer you put your time and energy into planting the additional plantings and just redline the Landscape Plan as needed. Please make all submittals to the Development Services Permit Coordinator, and provide two copies of any revised plans or elevations. Your existing plans and elevations may also be red -lined. If we do not receive a response by January 5, 2007, we will be turning this matter over to code enforcement. Any submittals should be made to the building permit coordinators. Since I will not be in the office after today, please address any questions to Jen Machuga. She can be reached at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Thank you in advance for your prompt response. Sincerely, Meg uwell Senior Planner cc: Jen Machuga, Planner Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Jeannine Graf, Building Official 624 Edmonds Way;, ; t„ Edmonds; WA 98020-4641. January 30, 2006, . Ms. Marie Harrison Edmonds, City of 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject Landscape Final Project: Landscape Plating Permit No: 02-848 Dear Marie: t 425.778.5400' FAX.778.3032 RECEIVED JAN 3 1 2006 BUILDING DEPT. Sorry to take so long to get back to you, I thought this was handled in July. In response to the comments: 1. , The planting plan submitted showed new landscaping in the North and West of the deck, which has been planted out as indicated. Also we have planted additional trees, shrubs and ground cover above and beyond the landscaping plan submitted. 2. The revised landscaping of the,trees, shrubs and.groundcovers have bee'n`.installed accurately with all the plant varieties per the plan Sorry to take so long to get back to you on this. Thank you. 600 Main Street, Suite C February 23, 2005 Star Campbell Edmonds, City of 250 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Completion of Landscaping of site Project: Shapiro Residence Arch Proj No: 12282-03 Dear Star: 425.778.5400 FAX-778.3032 As you requested this is a follow up letter to our conversation on Tuesday of this week. We are final negotiations with Mann Landscaping for the completion of the bank landscaping as described on the landscaping plans from our SEPA submittal. While we have not finalized our contract with Mr. Mann, we anticipate having this bank landscaped by Mid March, (with the assumption that the plants are available). Sincerely, NCARB Principal CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT j� c 189Q Planning • Building • Engineering July 19, 2004 Tony Shapiro 18105 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA;, 98026 Subject: SLOPE REPLANTING AT 18105 SUNSET WAY Dear Mr. Shapiro: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR I am in receipt of your request to replant the slope on your property at 18105 Sunset Way this fall in accordance with the report by Arboricultural Consulting. It is understandable that you would want to follow this recommendation to ensure the ultimate success of the landscaping. Please understand though that it is imperative to have this important of your previously approved permits completed in a manner that is as timely as possible. Since fall begins near the end of September, it seems reasonable that the planting be completed by mid -October. I will schedule a site visit for landscaping inspection:on October 15, 2004. 1 did not mean to imply by my last letter that you did not intend to complete your requirements and it is very nice to hear that you are enjoying your new residence. I did appreciate your timely response. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Star Campbell, Planner Cc: Matthew and Elana Shippen SH"IROTREELETTER2 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • ';ktPr City - Hakinan Janan 1 . 1 1 AI L�{iW paS .i1 �, y✓� `+, I ' • ai � a. 600 Main.Street, Suite. C, Edmonds, WA 98020� 425 7.7.8:5400 . 'FAX.778.3032 ',June 27, 2004 a — c�wED / I Ms Star Campbell y - r, - j(f f / Edmonds; City of, r �. ' � 2 9 'ZQ,014 - \ - - : 250'5th Avenue North = r pLANN'N I - / Edmonds, WA 980?U ' G Suhiect: Tarring of Landscaping .Iy Project: - a Shapiro Residence J t , /Dear.Ms. Cam bell:. I We are quite surprised at 1.th'e tone of.your letter dated'June 21, 2004. You appear to be - -under the mistaken impression'that we do.not intend to.landscape.bur house as we have / had itdesi 'ned b our landscape p \ architect and arborist and a roved b the rea sonable eue g Y�. pp s_ , Y ' exception. Both°'these consultants -,were lured by, and paid for us, and we will, be executing- I. l the/design as we have commissioned them-, i If you read the-arborist:report in detail you -will note that the recommended timing of.the \ landscaping.to;tak'e place is in the fall;:�Last fall, we were under construction, and were : - unable'to execute the landscaping. We choose, not to landscape,inf the wintertime -due to the nature 'of *.the bank'. And we have chosen -to wait until this'fall' as directed by ' Arbbriciiltural,Corisuldnyg; to help�assure-.th'at planting will succeed when planted. We will` - be scheduling the landscaping�to be -placed in mid October to mid November to;maxiniize the chances of its success. c, \'in the future, we would `_welcome_ a phone call. to save'tilne and effort on everyone's Bart, ' W,e know; the city, staff is spread very thin, and the time used to compose a\letier must be -a =. distraction. _ . \ Thank`you for your, concern about,our residence, we are enjoying -it -very much., ,k _ Sincer i .D: apiro; ects S Anrho y D. Sha NCARB' / i; Principal. 1. Cc: Eland Shippen Date: June 15, 2004 Kr-CEIVE® SUN 16 2004 ENGINEERING DIVISION Mr. David K. Gebert, PE 121 5'" Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: TREE(S) ADJACENT TO OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Dear Mr. Gebert, -1 Thank you for sending us a copy of your letter to Mr. Shapiro, dated June 10, 2004. We are pleased that the city has informed Mr. Shapiro that our trees do not pose any safety hazard to his property or any utility lines. Mr. Shapiro has repeatedly asked us to cut these trees in order to improve his view. He has also contacted PUD in the past and received the same response as the one stated in your recent reply to him. The trees in question have been on our property since before we bought our house over 12 years ago. We have monitored this stand of trees because it protects a sensitive slope on our property. As we informed Mr. Shapiro before he bought his property, and long before he began construction of his home, both our own geo-technical engineering and arborist reports advised us not to alter the trees under any circumstances. Our most recent reports, in fact, advised us to plant additional trees to further stabilize the slope that was weakened when Mr. Shapiro removed trees on the slope adjacent to our property. When Mr. Shapiro originally applied for a building permit, the city's independent geo- technical engineer turned down his application, based on safety concerns related to building on such a steep slope and removing all the existing trees and vegetation. Mr. Shapiro then presented the city with his own arborist and geo-technical engineering reports, stating that he would plant new trees and vegetation to strengthen the slope (copy attached). This was the basis for the city granting him permission to build his house on 18105 Sunset Way. 1VIr. Shapiro moved in to his new house in January 2004. Ironically, he has not planted a single tree or any other vegetation in accordance with his submitted plan. Given the perilous nature of this slope, we request that your office pursues compliance with Mr. Shapiro's proposal to plant the trees and vegetation. r We are very concerned that any further delay in fulfilling the city's requirements by Mr. Shapiro will adversely affect our slope and therefore Olympic View Drive. Please advise us on what action the city is planning to take to ensure the safety of Mr. Shapiro's and our slope. Sincerely, Matthew & Elana Shippen 18101 Sunset Way Edmonds, WA 98026 (425) 778-6413 Cc: _Nbe1�Miller•;, Public�Works D.irec_tor Rob Chave, Planning Manager 2 FEB-09-2007 FRI 09:34 AM NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE b FAX NO. 206 902 2018 P. 01 February 7, 2007 ARTHUR M. SEIDEL 3288 Northeast Magnolia Street Issaquah, Washington 98029 Voice 425 837 3661 Cell 425 6816458 Arthur.seidel@ihmail.com Jen Machuga Planner City of Edmond Development Services Department — Planning Division 121 5"Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: Shapiro Residence 18105 Sunset Way Edmonds, Washington 98020 Plan Check # 2002-848 At the request of Tony Shapiro I am providing a statement that Periwinkle has been used for erosion control (City of Edmonds letter dated January 22, 2007). Vinca minor common name °Dwarf Periwinkle" groundcover is a widely used groundcover in a residential setting for slope and erosion control. Vinca is an evergreen groundcover having dark to light green foliage with blue flowers that can grow in all exposures with very little maintenance. It has a neat and maintained appearance with a trailing habit and stems rooting as the plant spreads. This plant is extremely hardy and easy to grow in the Puget Sound area. For additional information you can refer to Western Garden Book or Hotus. Vinca groundcover along with jute netting and good maintenance practice is usually adequate for erosion control. If I can be of any further assistance or need any additional information I can be reached at 425-681-6458. Sincerely, RECEIVED ARhur M. Seidel, ASS`" Landscape Architect, Lic No. 706 03-010 FEB - 9 2007 BUILDING DEPT. FEB-09-2007 FRI 09:34 AM NORTHSTAR NEUROSCIENCE FAX NO. 206 902 2018 P. 01 ARTHUR M. SEIDEL 3288 Northeast Magnolia Street Issaquah, Washington 98029 Voice 425 837 3661 Cell 425 6816458 Arthur.seidel@ihmail.com February 7, 2007 Jen Machuga Planner City of Edmond Development Services Department — Planning Division 121 501 Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: Shapiro Residence 18105 Sunset Way Edmonds, Washington 96020 Plan Check # 2002-848 At the request of Tony Shapiro I am providing a statement that Periwinkle has been used for erosion control (City of Edmonds letter dated January 22, 2007). Vinca minor common name "Dwarf Periwinkle" groundcover is a widely used groundcover in a residential setting for slope and erosion control_ Vinca is an evergreen groundcover having dark to light green foliage with blue flowers that can grow in all exposures with very little maintenance. It has a neat and maintained appearance with a trailing habit and stems rooting as the plant spreads. This plant is extremely hardy and easy to grow in the Puget Sound area. For additional information you can refer to Western Garden Book or Hotus. Vinca groundcover along with jute netting and good maintenance practice is usually adequate for erosion control. If I can be of any further assistance or need any additional information I can be reached at 425-681-6458. Sincerely, Afthur M. Seidel, ASS"` Landscape Architect, Lic No. 706 03.010 RZECEIVED FEB - 9 2007 BUILDING DEPT. KLE%NFELDER Bright People. Right Solutions. July 29, 2010 Ms. Gina Coccia CO: Linda Thornquist City of Edmonds Planning Dept 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, \/VA 98020 VIA email Subject: Steep Slope impact Project: BLD 20100507 Shapiro Ramp Dear Ms. Coccia: 14710 NE 871h Street, Suite 100 Redmond, Washington 98052 pl 425.636.7900 fl 425.636.7901 kleinfelder.com Thornguistl'aDci.edmonds.wa.us cocciaC@ci.edmonds.wa.us In response to your July 28 letter regarding the subject application: • Surface Water: The impact from the proposed improvement will not generate increased water discharge or sedimentation to this or adjacent properties. • Slope Stability: The impact from the proposed improvement will not decrease slope stability on this or adjacent properties. • Critical Areas: The impact from the proposed improvement will not impact other critical areas. There are no steep slopes on this site since the house was built in 2002. Thank you for your prompt assistance in this matter. Sincerely, KLEINFELDER WEST, INC. David M. Cotton, P.E., D.GE Principal Geotechnical Engineer APPROVED BY PLANNING S)TREET FILE JUL 2 9 2010 BUILDING DEPAR?MENT CITY OF EDMONDS 06001 /SEA1 OL076 Page 1 of 1 July 29, 2010 Copyright 2010 Kleinfelder . ' Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052-3333 ' Telephone (425) 883-0777 Fox (425) 882-5498 REPORT ON GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIOI` ' OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE PROPERT) EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Prepared for: A. D. Shapiro Architects Seattle, Washington Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. Redmond, Washington 45ez&z= Frank S. ocker Project Geologist David M. Cbtton P.E. Principal January 9, 2002 1RECE'VE® ' f - 3 2\2 2002 PERMIT COUNTER ada2ln Golder ASSOS Michael Mengelt Project Engineer ,•, x.y:�r I (02, lam, 'r-S Cn ' - 013-1685.100 i 1221mm1 ' OFFICES ACROSS ASIA, AUSTRALASIA, EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA, SOUTH AMERICA January 9, 2002 i 013-1685.100 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE I 2. SUMMARY 2 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 3 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 5. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 5 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 6.1 Geologic Setting 6 6.2 General Site Geology 6 6.3 Observed Soil Conditions 6 6.4 Observed Groundwater Conditions 8 7. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 9 7.1 General 9 7.2 Site Preparation/Grading 9 7.3 Temporary and Permanent Slopes 9 7.3.1 Slope Stability 9 7.4 Erosion Control 10 7.5 Foundation Recommendations 11 7.6 Slab Subgrade 11 7.7 Foundation Drainage 12 7.8 Retaining Walls 12 7.9 Rockeries 12 7.10 Utilities 13 7.11 Fill Materials and Placement 13 7.12 Use of On -site Soils 14 7.13 Pavements 14 7.14 Construction Monitoring 15 8. USE OF THIS REPORT 16 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Groundwater Seepage Table 2 Factor of Safety of the Monnahan Property LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Plan Golder Associates January 9, 2002 id 013-1685.100 Figure 3 Geologic Cross Section A-N Figure 4 Foundation Drainage Detail LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Test Pit Logs and Wildcat Dynamic Cone Tests Appendix B City of Edmonds Community Development Code for Development on Steep Slopes Golder Associates IJanuary 9, 2002 1 013-1685.100 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE ' This report presents the results of the Golder Associates Inc. (Golder) geotechnical investigation of the proposed single-family residence on the undeveloped lot located between 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 1). The work was ' performed in accordance with our proposal dated November 13, 2001. The purpose of this study was to investigate the existing site conditions and provide geotechnical recommendations for the following. ' • Site development/grading; • General construction issues; ' • Foundation design; • Surface and groundwater management; and ' • Roadway construction. ' This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. 1 Fri i' Golder Associates January 9, 2002 2 013-1685.100 2. SUMMARY ' The project site can be developed as planned, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. During this investigation we reviewed section 20.15B.110 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code regarding development or alteration of ' steep slopes and have addressed the listed criteria in this report. The site in the area of the proposed residential structure is underlain by a combination of ' competent glacial soils, fill, and landslide debris. The glacial soils will provide adequate bearing capacity for anticipated building loads. The site grading proposed for this project would include cuts into fill, landslide debris, and glacial soils to construct the lower level of the structure. Landslide debris soils will be encountered within the footprint of the lower level based on the design elevation shown on the site plan. Pin piles are recommended to support the proposed structure where it is underlain by landslide debris. If the recommendations presented herein are followed, we believe the resultant subgrade condition will support the anticipated loads, and the slope will increase in overall stability. This development as planned will result in a 307o increase in the factor of safety for slope stability on the property, which will result in a stable site. If the rockeries described below in Section 4 are not built, we anticipate stability of the overall slope will be more stable than the current slope configuration with a factor of safety between 1.4 and 1.7. The risk of continued soil creep and shallow debris flow on the resultant finished slopes should be virtually eliminated assuming proper surface water management devises are utilized and the slope is adequately landscaped and vegetated. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 3 013-1685.100 ' 3. SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located on a north to northwest -facing slope in Edmonds, Washington (Figure 2). Site access is from the south between existing residential structures located at 18101 and 18107 Sunset Way. Olympic View Drive is located on the north side of the ' property and an open, undeveloped lot is located along the east property line. The east half of the south property line is also bordered by undeveloped land. A drainage ditch directs surface water across the far -east edge of the site. The ditch enters the southeast ' corner of the site and directs surface water north to an existing storm drain located in the northeast corner of the site. The storm drain then directs the water off site under Olympic View Drive to the north. Topography on the site slopes generally down to the northeast ' ranging in elevation from about 260 feet MSL in the southwest corner of the property along Sunset Way, to about 210 feet MSL in the northeast corner of the site. Slopes range from about 15H:1V (horizontal to vertical) in the southwest third of the site, to about 4HAV in the central third of the site, and about 1.5H:1V in the eastern third of the site adjacent to the drainage ditch. Vegetative cover on the southwest third of the site consists of low grasses. The eastern two thirds of the site contain deciduous and evergreen trees of various stages of maturity, as described in a specific arborist report for the property, with an understory of Sword fern, Salal, Oregon grape, blackberry brambles, and other low shrubs. Several large tree stumps were also observed on the site. The topography rises about 10 feet in elevation ' directly east of the drainage ditch. The slope adjacent to the east edge of the ditch is about 2.3H:1V dropping to about 9H:1V further to the east. 1 1 1 Golder Associates IJanuary 9, 2002 4 013-1685.100 ' 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. The November 2001 report presents findings of a visual ' site reconnaissance of your parcel in support of your proposed single-family residence. Site plans showing the proposed site development were not available at that time. ' Based on the site plan provided electronically by A.D. Shapiro Architects and dated December 12, 2001, we understand the proposed development would consist of a single two story wood framed structure, including a daylight basement, with an attached garage. Access will be from Sunset Way to the south of the structure. We anticipate that the building loads will be light and no below grade structures are planned (other than the daylight basement and any underground utility installation). We understand that the elevation of the upper and lower levels of the structure will be about 250 feet and 241 feet, respectively. Based on those elevations we anticipate cuts of up to about ' 11 feet for the lower level. We understand a crawl space is planned under almost all of the lower level of the structure. ' In order to create usable yard to the east of the structure, we understand you are going through the City of Edmonds for approval to place fill in the drainage ditch on the east side of the property. We understand two to three terraced rockeries are planned for the east and ' north sides of the house but that they will not likely be built during the initial phase of construction. We understand that a culvert is planned at the base of the fill to direct surface water from off site south of the property, to the existing storm drain in the northeast corner of ' the site. We also understand you plan to build a deck off the north side of the structure. l 1 Golder Associates January 9, 2002 5 013-1685.100 5. SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION Our site field investigation work consisted of excavating six trackhoe test pits. The trackhoe test pits were excavated on December 4, 2001. The trackhoe test pits were excavated using a Case 9010B track excavator supplied and operated by NW Excavating under contract to you. Following the test pit program we performed DCPT (Dynamic Cone Penetration Test) testing using portable Wildcat equipment at two locations within the footprint of the proposed structure. We performed the DCPT testing in order to provide additional, quantitative measurement of the density/consistency of the shallow (< 15 feet) soil units. The test pit and DCPT test locations were established in the field by pacing or measuring relative to existing landmarks, property boundary markers, and/or features as shown on the site plan. The test pit locations were flagged and staked after they were backfilled. The approximate test locations are shown on Figure 2. A geologist from Golder examined and logged the soil conditions observed in each of the test explorations. Pertinent information including depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and groundwater occurrence were recorded. The stratigraphic, contacts indicated on the summary logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The soil and groundwater conditions were those recorded for the locations and dates indicated and may not necessarily represent those of other times and locations. The test pits were backfilled with the excavated soils tamped into place with the bucket of the trackhoe after the completion of the soil logging. Some settlement of the test pit backfill should be expected with time. ' The soils were classified in accordance with Golder Associates Inc. Technical Procedure for Field Identification of Soil, which is summarized in the Soil Description Index in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on Figure 2. The logs of the test pits are included in Appendix A. Golder Associates IJanuary 9, 2002 6 013-1685.100 ' 6. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ' 6.1 Geologic Setting The recent geologic history of the Puget Sound Lowland region has been dominated by several glacial episodes. The most recent, the Vashon stade of the Fraser glaciation is responsible for most of the present day geologic and topographic conditions. The Puget lobe of the Cordilleran ice sheet deposited a heterogeneous assemblage of proglacial lacustrine deposits, advance outwash, lodgment till, and recessional outwash upon either bedrock or older pre-Vashon sediments and bedrock. As the glacier retreated northward, it uncovered a sculpted landscape of elongate uplands and intervening valleys. Post glacial deposits found in the region generally include: alluvium deposited within active stream channels, modern lacustrine deposits, organic silt and local peat deposits within kettle depressions, drainages, outwash channels, volcanic mudflow and landslide deposits. 6.2 General Site Geology Geology of the site and surrounding area has been mapped by Smith,1975' and Minard, 1983'. In general, the existing geologic maps indicate that the site geology consists of fine- grained, Pre Fraser transitional beds overlain by younger Vashon age advance outwash deposits. The transitional beds typically consist of silt, clay, and fine-grained sand whereas the overlying, Vashon age advance outwash can vary from fine to medium sand with silt interbeds to sand with varying amounts of gravel. Till is mapped to the south of the property. Till generally consists of a dense mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. ' The site is also shown on unpublished geologic hazard maps prepared for Snohomish County in 1991. The map ranks landslide hazards areas based on geology and slope angle. The property is shown to be in an area with a moderate to high landslide hazard designation. This report follows our Phase I Landslide Hazards Assessment for the property performed under contract to Mr. Robert Monnahan. The findings are presented in our report to Mr. Monnahan dated November 6, 2001. 6.3 Observed Soil Conditions The geologic conditions observed on the property during our test pit investigation do not agree with the geology described by Smith (1976) and by Minard (1983). Based on soil conditions observed in the test pits, the majority of the site is mantled by landslide and older slide deposits. Fill and glacial soils were observed along the northwest portion and southwest third of the property. The soil units encountered in our explorations include topsoil, fill, landslide debris, older slide debris, ice contact deposits, and advance outwash deposits. The interpreted subsurface 'Smith, M.,1975. Preliminary Surficial Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources Geologic Map GM-14. a Minard, James P.,1983. Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington: USGS Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1541. Golder Associates IJanuary 9, 2002 7 013-1685.100 tdistribution of these units is shown on geologic cross section A -A' (Figure 3). The soil units are described as follows: ' Topsoil - Most of the site was covered with a relatively thin (< 6-inch) layer of topsoil consisting of very loose, dark brown organics with little to some sand and a trace to little fine to coarse gravel. The unit varies to silt and clayey silt with a little ' sand, little to some gravel, and abundant organics. Fill - Fill was encountered in test pits TP-4 and TP-6 to a maximum depth of 10 feet. The fill generally consisted of very loose to compact, light olive brown to dark olive brown, non stratified, silt ranging to clayey silt with a trace to some fine to coarse sand, a little fine to coarse gravel, cobbles, and boulders, and trace to little roots, rootlets and other organics. Cobbles and boulders to about 16 inches in diameter were observed in this unit. In test pit TP-6, an older buried topsoil horizon or burn pile up to 6-inches thick was observed. The buried topsoil is generally dark brown in color and contains roots and charcoal fragments. Landslide Debris - This unit was encountered in four of the six test pits excavated on the site. The interpreted limits of the landslide debris encountered on the site based on the test pits are shown on the site plan (Figure 2). The landslide debris varies widely in composition including: very soft to firm, light olive to light bluish gray, clayey silt ranging to silty clay, with a trace to some fine to medium sand; silt; and very loose to compact, fine to medium sand with a little to some silt, a trace fine to coarse gravel. The unit is commonly nonstratified, mottled, fractured, or jointed, and iron oxide stained. Roots, rootlets, and other organics were also observed throughout. A dense mat of rootlet development was commonly observed along many of the fractures or joints. Some of the joint surfaces were polished and contained large-scale slickensides. In test pit TP-3, located at the southeast comer of the proposed garage, this unit compact and stiff to very stiff and may be older slide debris that mobilized soon after the Puget Lobe of the Vashon glacier receded. ' • Ice Contact Deposits - This unit was observed in only one of the test pits (TP-4) excavated at the site located in the far north corner of the site adjacent to Olympic View Drive. These deposits were formed on or near the ice sheet and consist of ' compact, light olive brown, non stratified, silt with a trace to little fine to coarse, sand, a little subrounded to rounded, fine to coarse gravel, and a trace of cobble and boulder to 2 feet diameter. ' • Advance Outwash Deposits - This unit was encountered in test pits TP-1, TP-4, and TP-6 located in the northwest portion of the property. The unit consists of compact to ' dense, stratified to massive, interbedded, jointed, silt ranging to silty clay, and fine sand with a trace of silt ranging to fine to coarse sand with a trace of silt. A sheared clay layer was encountered in test pit TP-1 at the contact between the advance ' outwash and overlying landslide debris. 1 IGolder Associates January 9, 2002 8 013-1685.100 6.4 Observed Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed in four of the six test pits excavated as shown in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Groundwater Seepage Approximate Depth to Approximate Test Pit Ground Surface Groundwater Groundwater Designation Elevation (Feet MSL) (Feet BGS) Elevation (Feet MSL) TP-1 251 4 147 TP-3 234 7 227 TP-5 227 1.5 225.5 TP-5 227 14 216 TP-6 249 10 239 BUS = Below Ground Surface All the groundwater encountered in the test pits occurred within the landslide or older slide debris. The interpreted groundwater table is shown on the Geologic Cross Section A -A'. It is likely that the observed groundwater seeps represent a shallow seasonal perched condition that may not exist during drier periods of the year. We anticipate that groundwater levels will rise during extended periods of increased precipitation. Golder Associates ' January 9, 2002 9 013-1685.100 7. GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ' 7.1 General Based on the results of our study, the site is suitable for the proposed development ' provided the geotechnical engineering recommendations presented in this report are carefully followed. The native site soils or structural fill derived from the native soils will provide adequate bearing capacity for the proposed buildings and structures, in the upland ' portion of the site. However, on the sloped portion of the site, pin piles will be required to penetrate the recent slide debris and established in the lower more competent native soils. 7.2 Site Preparation/Grading Site preparation should include removal of the surficial fill and debris. The thin organic topsoil layers should be stripped from the building area and removed or stockpiled for later used in landscaped areas. Based on our test pit observations the organic topsoil thickness on the site is generally less than six inches. We understand that cuts and fills up to about 15 feet are proposed to establish grades at the ' site. These cuts would most likely be through recent and older landslide debris. The landslide deposits, particularly the silt and silty sand soils, can be moisture sensitive. Where this condition exists, we recommend that site grading be performed during an ' extended period of dry weather. We would anticipate added construction costs to handle unsuitable soil if work was performed during wet weather. ' 7.3 Temporary and Permanent Slopes Safe temporary excavations are the responsibility of the contractor and depend on the actual ' site conditions at the time of construction. Temporary cuts are the responsibility of the contractor and should comply with applicable OSHA and WISHA standards. Cut slopes exposed for any length of time, particularly during wet weather, should be covered with ' visqueen to maintain stability and minimize erosion. Long-term permanent cut slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter assuming proper drainage and ' erosion control. Long term permanent fill slopes should be 2H:1V or flatter assuming proper compaction, drainage, and erosion control. In general, 3HAV slopes or gentler are preferred for ease of maintenance and application of landscaping. 7.3.1 Slope Stability ' The stability of the existing and proposed slopes at the site was analyzed using the computer slope stability analysis program SLIDE, a proprietary software program produced ' by RocScience, Inc. The stability of the existing hillside, the hillside with the proposed cuts, and the final proposed geometry of the property were examined for the analysis. The stability of the hill was assessed using the simplified Bishop method. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 10 013-1685.100 The results of the slope stability -modeling program are outlined in Table 2, below. Representative cross section analyzed using SLIDE can be found in Appendix A. TABLE 2 Factor of Safety of the Monnahan Property Condition Analyzed Static Factor of Safe Yield Acceleration' Current Conditions 1.31 0.09 Proposed Cut 1.4 0.08 Proposed Final Grade 1.71 0.19 'Yield Acceleration is defined as the horizontal earthquake acceleration required to reduce the static factor of safety to 1.00. As shown in Table 2, the current conditions and proposed but have global stability safety factors ranging from 1.3 to 1.4; yield acceleration of the slope under these conditions is approximately 0.08g to 0.09g. After the proposed filling of the ravine to complete final grade, the location of the critical failure surface shifts to the upper portion of the hillside, creating a global factor of safety of 1.71 with a yield acceleration of 0.19g. The design earthquake for Edmonds, Washington with a 10% Probability of Exceedance (PE) in 50 years is approximately 0.3g. Because the yield acceleration of the proposed final grade is greater than 50% of the design earthquake acceleration, deformation of the slope in the event of the design earthquake is anticipated to be small. It should be noted that SLIDE predicts safety factor of approximately 1.0 for surface ravelling (shallow translational soil movement) on the existing slope, and on the downhill edge of the proposed cut just above the filled ravine. This indicates that the surficial soils on the slope are in a state of active erosion and will continue to ravel without landscaping ' and adequate ground cover. As such, we recommend that the existing grade below the proposed house be shallower than existing; a 3HJV slope is recommended. ' 7.4 Erosion Control We understand that Snohomish County is requiring submittal of an erosion control plan for ' the site prior to any grading or other associated construction activities. Erosion control for the site will include the BMP's incorporated in the civil design drawings ' and may incorporate the following recommendations: • Limit exposed cut slopes; ' • Route surface water through temporary drainage channels around and away from exposed slopes; ' • Use silt fences, straw, and temporary sedimentation ponds to collect and hold eroded material on the site; i Golder Associates ' January 9, 2002 11 013-1685.100 • Seeding or planting vegetation on exposed areas where work is completed and no buildings are proposed; and ' • Retaining existing vegetation to the greatest possible extent. 7.5 Foundation Recommendations Conventional, shallow isolated or continuous spread footings are not suitable for this site in ' the sloped area, as the structure will likely be founded on recent and older landslide deposits consisting of very loose to compact silty sand, sand and silt deposits. As such, we recommend that the perimeter strip footings be founded on 4-inch diameter steel pipe piles ' spaced four feet on center. Based on the allowable bearing pressure on the perimeter strip footing and spacing of four ' feet, the steel pipe piles shall have an allowable loading of 12,000 lb. On average, we anticipate that the piles will need to be 25 to 30 feet long to develop sufficient load bearing capacity. Based on driving conditions in the field, the piles may need to be lengthened ' during driving; if better than anticipated conditions are discovered, the piles may be shortened in accordance with observed conditions. A minimum length of 20 feet per pile is recommended in any case. ' The perimeter strip footing foundations in the upland portion of the site where dense soils were encountered, should be designed based on the following parameters: ' 0 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE BEARING PRESSURES: 2,000 psf These values may be increased by 1/3 for short-term wind and seismic loading. ' • MINIMUM EMBEDMENT: Perimeter footings 18 inches Interior footings 12 inches ' • MINIMUM WIDTH: Perimeter footings 18 inches Interior isolated footings 24 inches ' • LATERAL LOADS ON BASEMENT WALLS: Basement walls should be designed to resist a fluid with a density of 50 pcf assuming a level backslope. • RESIST LATERAL LOADS: Lateral loads can be resisted through an ultimate base friction value of 0.4 and an allowable passive earthpressure based on a fluid with a density of 250 pcf assuming level ground below the footing. ' • SETTLEMENT: Total Settlement less than 1 inch Differential Settlement less than 3/4 inch 7.6 Slab Subgrade ' Normal slab -on -grade floors can be used in cut sections, if properly compacted. Slab -on -grade floors should not be founded on existing fills or organic soils. The slabs should be underlain ' by a capillary break material, consisting of at least four inches of clean, free draining sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 3 percent fines passing the #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction). A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting ' Golder Associates ' January , 9 2002 12 013-1685.100 #200 sieve (based on the minus No. 4 sieve fraction). A vapor barrier consisting of reinforced heavy plastic sheeting should be included between the slab and the capillary ' break If desired, an additional two-inch thick layer of sand may be placed on the vapor barrier to aid in concrete curing. I Framed floors should also include a vapor barrier placed over any areas of bare soils and adequate crawl space ventilation should be provided. 7.7 Foundation Drainage We recommend that perimeter footing drains be included in all the building designs where adjacent slabs are below grade. Footing drains should consist of a four -inch diameter, perforated, rigid plastic pipe, embedded in a clean, free -draining sand and gravel ' consisting of the following gradation: 100% passing 1 %z' 40 —100% retained on the No. 4 sieve, less than 5% fines, meeting the requirements of Sections 9-03.12(2) and Section 9- 03.12(4), respectively of the 2002 Washington State Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge ' and Municipal Construction (Figure 4). The ground surface adjacent to the buildings should be graded to drain away from the building. To prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure against the wall, we recommend that a layer of free draining sand or gravel be placed against the back of the wall, connected to the footing drain. See figure 4 for details. ' Roof drains should be collected and conveyed in a tightlined system separate from the footing drain system. 7.8 Retaining Walls ' If needed for site grading, a variety of wall types are feasible including MSE walls, and conventional concrete walls. Once a specific wall type is determined, detailed design recommendations can be developed. All retaining walls should be constructed with a permanent drain system that conveys the water under gravity flow to the storm water collection system. The drains should consist of a properly sized perforated drainpipe bedded in a clean gravel backfill. 7.9 Rockeries We understand rockeries are planned on portions of the property. Rockeries 4 feet or less in height should be constructed using clean, granular, free draining fill compacted according to the specifications in Section 7.11. If terraced rockeries are planned and the terraces are located less than a distance of two times the height of one of the wall terraces, we recommend the lower terraces be constructed using reinforced fill as described below ' for walls greater than 4 feet in height. Rockeries between 4 and 8 feet in height should be constructed using reinforced clean, granular, free draining fill with the length of the reinforcing equivalent to the height of the wall. The reinforcing should consist of geogrid, ' geotextile fabric, or welded wire mesh spaced every 18 to 24 inches vertically. The 1 Golder Associates 9, 2002 13 013-1685.100 7.10 Utilities Maintaining safe utility excavations is the responsibility of the utility contractor. In our explorations, we did not observe much sidewall caving. However, when observed, it was typically found in the existing fill. The native outwash can be prone to unexpected caving and can exhibit rapid degradation if water seepage is present. We expect excavations in the outwash and fill will be difficult in places because it contains occasional boulders and cobbles. Conventional excavation equipment can be used to excavate the soils. Where the utility crosses pavement areas, the trench backfill should be placed in thin lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 and to 95 percent within three feet of final grade. 7.11 Fill Materials and Placement Structural fill material should consist of native outwash sand or imported granular soils, be free of organic and inorganic debris, be at or just below the optimum moisture content, and be capable of being compacted to the required specifications listed below. Maximum lift thickness: 12 inches loose. Minimum Compaction Requirements: • Beneath Building Foundations and Floors — The fill should be compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density value for the material. The structural fill beneath footings should at a minimum extend laterally at a 1H:1V slope projected down and away from the bottom footing edge. • Beneath Roadways and Pavements — The fill should generally be compacted to at least 90% of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except within three feet of subgrade elevation, where the fill should be compacted to at least 957o of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material. • Foundation Wall Backfill — We recommend that any fill placed against the foundation walls located on the uphill side of the house be compacted to between 90 and 92% of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557, with hand operated compactors within a 5-foot zone behind the walls. Over compaction near the wall should be avoided to reduce lateral pressures against the back of the wall. • Utility Trench Backfill — The fill should generally be compacted to at least 907o of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material, except in paved and structural areas where the material should be compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density value for the material. • Non-structural/Landscaped Areas — Firmly compacted. We recommend that a jumping jack or hoe-pac is suitable for compacting subgrade. Thin ' lifts or work in confined areas can also be compacted with a vibratory plate compactor. If density tests taken in the fill indicate that compaction is not being achieved, the fill should be scarified, moisture -conditioned, and recompacted. If the required densities cannot be met then the material can be excavated and replaced or a soil admixture used to dry the soil. Golder Associates January 9, 2002 14 013-1685.100 In the area of the garage where the existing fill is deepest, we recommend removing the existing fill to a couple feet below the proposed slab elevation, then placing compacted structural fill. Alternatively, you could densify the existing fill at the slab elevation provided any organic rich topsoil has been removed. Fill placed on slopes steeper than a 3H:1V (Horizontal to Vertical) shall be benched using a bulldozer or backhoe. Benches shall have a minimum width of three feet and a vertical spacing equal to the thickness of two compacted lifts. 7.12 Use of On -site Soils In general, the excavated native soils at the site would be suitable for use as structural fill provided they are placed at or below the optimum moisture content. During our investigation, we found that the site soils appeared to be typically moist to wet. We would anticipate that if the site development work were to proceed during the drier months of the year, the contractor would most likely have to moisture condition the soils prior to use as fill. However, if the site work were to proceed during the wetter periods of the year, drying of the site soils, the use of soil amendments, or selective use of the site soils may be necessary. The silty sand and sandy silt soils comprising the landslide debris would be more suitable for use during drier periods of work. 7.13 Pavements Pavement subgrade shall be maintained in a well -compacted state and protected from degradation prior to paving. Any areas disturbed prior to paving shall be remediated by a method determined suitable based on the observed field conditions. The options may include excavate and replacement of the disturbed soil, placement of a geotextile separation fabric, chemical stabilization and/or drainage improvements. Protection measures may include restricted traffic, perimeter drain ditches, or placement of a protective gravel layer on the subgrade. ' The pavement subgrade can consist of cuts into undisturbed native soil, or structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Structural fill section of this report. The pavement subgrade should be capable of supporting a fully loaded dump truck with minimum ' weaving and rutting. A typical pavement section of 2 inches of asphaltic concrete over 4 inches of clean, free draining, well -graded crushed rock sand base material is appropriate for the subgrade conditions described above and identified on site. We understand that flinch thick brick pavers may be used for the driveway. We assume the manufacturers specifications for preparation of the paver subgrade include a layer of clean, free draining sand over rock. The sub base for the pavers and subgrade can consist of ' firm and unyielding native soils free of topsoil and organics or structural fill placed and compacted as noted in the Structural fill section of this report. If the manufacturers ' specifications do not include free draining subgrade soils, we recommend a minimum of 8 inches thick layer of clean, free draining soil as the base material. Where the pavers are Golder Associates 9, 2002 15 013-1685.100 located over structural fill, we recommend installation of a trench drain to direct surface water away from the driveway. Additionally, we recommend installation of a French drain along the edge of the driveway to collect any water that may accumulate in the free draining subgrade soils. These two drains should be tight lined to direct the water off the site. 7.14 Construction Monitoring We recommend that critical site construction elements be observed and documented by a qualified geotechnical consultant. These include: confirming suitable subgrade soils for building foundations and slabs, retaining wall construction, compaction of structural fills, and utility trench backfill compaction under pavements. Golder Associates IJanuary 9, 2002 16 013-1685.100 8. USE OF THIS REPORT ' This design geotechnical study has been prepared exclusively for the use of A.D. Shapiro Architects and their consultants for specific application to this project. This report is. not meant to represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We ' recommend that Golder review the final site -grading plan and provide specific comments and criteria related groundwater, drainage, retaining walls, foundations, and grading. ' The explorations were performed in general accordance with locally accepted geotechnical engineering practice to provide information for the area explored. There are possible variations in the subsurface conditions between the exploration areas and in the groundwater ' conditions with time. Therefore we recommend that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in the construction schedule and budget. Further, we recommend that Golder Associates Inc. be retained to perform the construction monitoring and testing ' during construction to confirm the conditions indicated by the explorations and or provide corrective recommendations adapted to the conditions encountered during the work. 1 11 Golder Associates FIGURES Golder Associates 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 z: 9f•,'t'�~ -� •iii..- Y TM.�C `5.+:t Yt ��r a1 �- + rro �.r�•' t .t r Y'�' .f$9 :x� ' �t �:y��?'",^.�:�gbi�`?•°a •4C'�{C� � r,�' � `a��\�•q <<t } },Y ,,'i^.e.� T >•'S t l��r"-•r^x .. W Q PLSW P `eC},d`Y �a t v . ;ti 4 t °'.r ''¢ �Q: Y' h...s• ♦ i i ;) :t !'.'t ct'°.�' . °"i"'. d F t - E � 1 H S SW '? � �� ?,�t,c'!w �rti'� "• ,�v�- � aih��,. �:r+t � _4 `�,f. , �r�' »t e.� ��r{r �.ie{y�"'f +-}. • � k � �76� < .>_ _-�M,''�.a %. ..�1`M `i\ti�� C•:+��\ ^.`�.f. C li✓�iC �1.ts D� S 'fib •�-�,,.,y 2?}•\ ° y' �y� ti f:^y�i5A.,t >'6I/Y `r 1 TP W .tidy h+rG •�a: ar t e \: +{, t`tt .t •?� `✓st,, .ri<:5'T LSW ��.. PL v S 3,` \`i162 D '. .�r�s:�•-.'_ �`Cj N.; ,r �`� a.��i°3•°1a^ ,.tea • �e„�.ak'•c�.d�'�•y.•. ��'�t_ h� �r�,§'•��„s:�:"„i��,•'hh�.:'' ' PL ` �w' r� " sr'•.A="? ,'—b s sw 1 164TH ST SW OWUt-�1`•..;:'31 H ``,' `� c i xi5fi ,� tc r� P FIR D Z' v�? Fir a kribb'„A �'vtg\,^\`�. �•!I''t`"sL``�3'•�:'Pa a.tt rp 1 PL < dpwYoat 4 PL w W 1 7T PL T SW w r.,•ss'-, * d -i;;.` Sound >:L�� +'i's,•'3gt%i'b'"++ r -i.1T ��D 172NDST N1 Cil' '6✓' t^S-. ^.:!^' 4 R Ol ,Y+rr�•i(r,i�,y. �� ,,,,^ yX R. , L,15� D,f',•t' i'r"r�yR'"g'pJ'DWJIiiSl} .0 73 m v i e5++ ; S� i+ 1 a,. �. St1:'• DERICK 4T TSW D ¢ f � is s' >yI 1 ST Site :•S a 1 P S `179THP SW Q\G -4TC� ti�<,,�. 'q � f' v ^ vac •. �-s • tt� .'� 1 �. `( > 1 181S PL 1 ST SW 181 TPL PL ' -'T '�1P1--�JSa `+�5.;''� c ,s.ynN "it•.y s';i f�i 84 HST SW v 1 PL W P w J. .l\ S R,• PPP?:--'tc. r•. _."5�+. ci;:+;s•r+r t, �:s y:,r. .r<A '-'+`✓+j = 185T PL W 6TH r85 H TH S P 15 18 HPL 1 S -e rin ille 187 H P TH ST BTH S 188 90 H S > 9TH PL S 1 LSW 1 D ST SW TS < 2N ,--___• ,�, • K\r �j ,2, JF PL S ly to ARK Y 3RD P SW R 193 D P 93 DST ti ",a� • , to . S IOR TH SW a S ' 24 N 9614 5 ti t� 7 m 1 7T ST SW r < 98 H ST SW f T r t 2 ! N x HSTSW 20( HST SW 99 1ST ST Qr—,jC,7, . �' to CHA D LN D T S S S ! po 2 DST W • ?� LEN EH y D 203 1D S ST 203 < 20— ST SW V �sT':y .`F ° nA�-h stia droll a rn PL S dm d Com un C FJ E MONbS 20 H P W S Sw t61ST� W ry a N z p Ed n�N ds a ti o o ine iLL e 1Heigh�ts 20 sr sw 3 q _ eJl . `:.. w h W ¢ D D P D �E,e .: v r0T 5T 21 S O < m <Fn ry N Yd x ,FDA a m a 21 H ST ^ 99 < < 2�1 HST A m p~= m v, o w .O TH P 3TH S SW 213TH PL W P w H MLO URE . N a O iJy ' 21 TH ST SW 2 3TH S y UR MJrE 2 TH A j 215TH P Sw 214TH O SYT L D D 6TH 217TH 216TH S SW �Q ~' = 21 < < 2 W x '— FEIFm m 2 TI 21 H ST S ! D 21 HST SW du�� CT L D m a S TH T sw 21 HST H 2o rHST SW HST SW 9 fiCOA} y v, NOT TO SCALE ' N FIGURE SITE VICINITY MAP SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY/WA ' PROJECT NO. 0131685100 DRAWING NO. 96898 DATE 12/11/01 DRAWN BY EL Golder Associates A A A ✓ A V A. A 0 20 40 V1/ V A., FEET . ....... V A. V A. ic 51, A . ........ -4 TP . ... . .... .. A, A V A V af/Qvri/qva \+ '0/ lr '000 3, x -6 Lo, t Z 1< A 'If Al k -7 7 A A ek. / '0" ,11 TP x p x T-� 3 LEGEND T APPROXIMATE LOCATION GEOLOGIC TABLE AND DESIGNATION OF GOLDER TEST PIT of FILL DCPT-2 LOCATION Qal ALLUVIUM 0 -APPROXIMATE AND DESIGNATION OF Qls LANDSLIDE DEBRIS D&PTEST Qvrij ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS GEOLOGIC CONTACT -DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATELY LOCATED, Ova? ADVANCE OUTWASH? DOTTED WHERE CONCEALED LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION 2`8 __230 SPECIAL NOTE: 34 Data concerning the various strata have been obtained at --- exploration locations only. The interp�etation between these locations has been inferred from geological evidence and so may vary from that shown. SOURCE. A.D. SHAPIRO ARCHITECTS, 41 1 DRAWING DATED 21121,01 FIGURE SITE PLAN SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY/WA I Golder Associates A WEST 260 � 250 240 W W Z 230 0 w w 220 210 200 A' EAST r— 260 i TP-1 APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY V R \ DCPT-1 AND TP-2 _ \ QIS �� (PROJECTED) HARD AND \ DENSE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION Qva? OF ROCKERIES = \ r = (APPROXIMATELY LOCATED) TD 16.0 FL ? \ ? ? Qls `- I �_ DESIGN GRADE \ \ \ TP-5 ? \ PROPOSED \ \ CULVERT ? of � Native ? \ QIS i ? - I ? ? \ ? BASED ON 1993 PLAN BY QOIS (?) C. SHAWN O'BRIEN, P.E. FOR TD = 15.0 FL ADJACENT PROPERTY ? l i i i LEGEND TEST PIT DESIGNATION TP-5 GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE ENCOUNTERED IN TEST PIT GEOLOGIC UNIT QIS GEOLOGIC CONTACT - DASHED WHERE APPROXIMATE, TD = 15.0 FL QU'�RiED WERE UNCERTAIN TOTAL DEPTH OF TEST PIT af: FILL Qls: LANDSLIDE DEBRIS Qols: OLDER SLIDE DEBRIS Qva: ADVANCE OUTWASH DEPOSIT 6851100194869.dw91148.2 9:121x:--1i: SPECIAL NOTE: Data concerning the various strata have been obtained at exploration locations only. The interpretation between these locations has been inferred from geological evidence and so may vary from that shown. 0 10 20 I t FEET VERTICAL: 1" = 10' I - 250 - 240 J w W LL - 230 Z - 220 - 210 - 200 FIGURE 3 GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION A -A' SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY/WA O w w �. vav�a tag»Vtl(la�.v j (See Note 2) 2 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE LAYER (See Note 1) DRAINAGE GRAVEL (See Note 3) 4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE ( See Note 4) NOT TO SCALE NOTES: 1. DRAINAGE LAYER SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN SAND AND GRAVEL WITH LESS THAN 5 % FINES ACCORDING TO 2002 WSDOT SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(2). FULL FACE GEOCOMPOSITE DRAINAGE BOARD CONNECTED INTO THE FOOTING DRAINAGE GRAVEL MAY BE CONSIDERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DRAINAGE GRAVEL. 2. WALL BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT OF THE MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor). 3. DRAIN GRAVEL SHALL CONSIST OF PEA GRAVEL ACCORDING TO 2002 WSDOT SPECIFICATION 9-03.12(4). 4. 4-INCH DIAMETER, PERFORATED, SCHEDULE 40, PVC DRAIN PIPE WITH HOLES TURNED DOWN. 5. CAPILLARY BREAK SHOULD CONSIST OF CLEAN SAND OR GRAVEL AS RECOMMENDED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. I DCabe[K:\Prniectsk2oo1k01s1aaS1nn\A7n59 dw li-P-9 .531v •JF. SLAB ON GRADE CAPILLARY BREAK (See Note 5) FIGURE `T FOUNDATION DRAINAGE DETAIL SHAPIRO/OLYMPIC VIEW PROPERTY/WA lUolaer Associates APPENDIX A TEST PIT LOGS AND WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE TESTS Golder Associates Unified Soil Classification System Soil Classification Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Names Generalized Group Descriptions COARSE —GRAINED SOILS GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well—groded Grovels More than 50% «toined on More than 502 of coarse fraction Less than 5% fines GP Poorly —graded grovels No. 200 sieve retained on NO. 4 Sieve GRAVELS WITH FINES More than 12% tines GM rowel and in Mixtures GC rowel and Cloy Mixtures SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well —graded Sends 50% or more of Less than 52 fines SP Poorly—groded Sends coarse fraction posses No. 4 Sieve SANDS WITH FINES SM Sand and Silt Mixtures More than 12% fines Sc Send and Clay Mixtures nNE—GRAINED SOILS 50% or more posses the No. 200 sieve SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit less than 50 INORGANIC CL Low —plasticity Clays ML Non —pits is and LOw— Low — Plasticity Sifts Non—plostic and Low — ORGANIC OL Plasticity Organic Clays Non —plastic and Low — Plasticity Organic Silts SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit INORGANIC CH High —plasticity Clays MH _ High —plasticity Silts greater than 50 Wgh—plan icny ORGANIC OH Organic Clays High —plasticity Organic Silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat Relative Density or Consistency Utilizing Standard Penetration Test Values Cohesionless Soils (a) Cohesive Soils (b) (c) (c) Relative (c) Undrofned (d) Density N. blows/ft. DeJl�ity Consistency N. blows/ft. Shear P Strength l71 sf Very loose 0 to 4 0 — 15 Very soft 0 to 2 <250 Loose 4 to 10 15 — 35 Soft 2 to 4 250-500 Compact 10 to 30 35 — 65 Finn 4 to 6 500-1000 Dense 30 to 50 65 — Bb Stiff 6 to 15 1000-2D00 Very Dense over 50 >85 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000-4000 Hord over 30 >4000 (a) Soils consisting of gravel, send, and silt, either separately or in combination, possessing no characteristics ' of plasticity, and exhibiting drained behavior. (b) Soils possessing the characteristics of plasticity, and exhibiting undroined behowior. (c) Refer to tent of ASiM D 1586-84 for a definition of N; in normally consolidated coheslonless soils Relative Density terms are based on N values corrected for overburden pressures. ' (d) Undrained shear strength — 1/2 unconfined compression strength. ' Descriptive Terminology Denoting Component Proportions Descriptive Terms Range of Proportion Trace 0-52 Little (0) 5-122 Some or Adjective 12-302 And 30-50% Component Definitions by Gradation Component Size Range Boulders Above 12 in. Cobbles 3 in. to 12 in. Gravel 3 in. to No. 4 (4.76mm) Coarse gravel 3 in. to 3/4 in. Fine grove: 3/4 in. to No. 4 (4.76mm) Sand No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) Coarse send No. 4 (4.76mm) to No. 10 (2.Omm) Medium send No. 10 (2.Omm) to No. 40 (0.42mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42mm) to No. 200 (0.074mm) Silt and Cloy I Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) (a) Use Gravelly, Sandy or Silty as appropriate. ' Figure SOIL CLASSIFICATION/LEGEND Samples SS SPT Sampler (2.0' OD) HD Heavy Duty Split Spoon SH Shelby Tube P Pitcher Sampler 8 Bulk C Cored Unless otherwise noted, drive samples advanced with 140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop. Laboratory Tests Test Designation Moisture (1) Density D Grain Size G Hydrometer .. H Atlerberg Limits (1) Consolidation C Unconfined U UU Triox UU CU Triox CU CD Triox CD Permeability P (1) Moisture and Atterberg Limits plotted on log. Silt and Clay Descriptions Typical Unified Description Designation Silt ML (non —plastic) Clayey Silt CL—ML (low plasticity) Silty Cloy CL Cloy CH Plastic Sin MH Organic Soils OL. OH, Pt (a Golder Associates 773-1064/FORM 573 =� FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 1 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —251' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 N ---- IN S 0 5 10 15 20 t— 0 A 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Depth of Hole Depth to W/L Start NA 1 0-0.5' To soil: Ve loose dark brown ORGANICS little to g0825 some sand little ravel moist g, 2 0.5'-7' Loose light olive brown and light gray,nonstratified 12' mottled ine to medium SAND some cla a silt little 16' As above rounded fine coarse ravel trace cob les r i upper 3' varies to CLAYEY SILT some fine to medium Special Notes SAND moist to wet. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS 3 7'-12' Loose to compact and firm light olive brown and light Moderate caving above seepage zone with TP @ —9' blue gray. nonstratified, mass*ve- SILT rangeng to CLAYEY SILT, varies -to trace fine to coarse rounded ravel moist contains ioints with abundant rootlet development. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS? 4 e underlain dense and hard light r w nonstratified? 'ointed FeOx stained fine to medium SAND trace silt and SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY moisj JQ damp upper portion contains polished planar surfaces. ADVANCE OUTWASH rnvJet.I NV. UIJ ioc:�.iw UKAVVING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL FIELD TEST PIT LOG ._ ASSOClc'i�eS Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 2 Equipment Case 901013Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —242' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 N - — � S 0 5 10 15 20 r— 0 A 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0856 Start NF 1 0-0.5' Ve loose dark brown nonstratified ORGANICS some to little sand to gravel, moist. TOPSOIL 4' NF 2 0.5'-9' Loose to com act light brown nonstratified mottled SILT ranaina to CbREY SILT,some fine sand.little Special Notes rounded fine to coarse gravel, moist contains slight FeOx staining, rootlets above 4' b s contains hard Slight seepage < 1/4 m between 8'-9' b s. angular CLAYEY SILTY clasts. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS Slightcaving above s 3 T-14' Compact. light blue gray, nonstratifi . bedded? mottled fine to coarse SAND little fine rounded gravel, trace silt AND SILT to CLAYEY SILT little to some fine sand trace rounded fine to coarse wet - contains n ular CLAYEY SILT class. looks mottled at a lame scale wood up to —4" diameter, trace charcoal. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS? I-KUJtU I NU. U1J W DRAWING NO. TPOI-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL �_ GOI(ler FIELD TEST PIT LOG ASSOClc'�eS Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 3 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —234' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 E W 0 5 10 15 20 r--0 5 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 0950 Start NA 1 0-0.5' To soil: Dark brown ve loose ORGANICS little to some sand trace gravel, moist. 1000 8' —2 m 3'-4' on 1048 16' East end of TP 2 0.5'-7' Loose li ht olive brown nonstratified fine to coarse SAND so a silt Ittle to some rounded fine to coarse Special Notes ravel trace cobble and boulder, roots in upper 2' moist to wet trace rounded to suban ular hard Seepage corresponds with top of blueish gray unit --T. CLAYEY SILT clasts. LANDSLIDE DEBRIS Severe cavin above T with TP 12'. 3stratified, little to some silt little rounded gravel. contains rounded SILT clasts varies to SILT little to some fine sand moist to wet contains wood unit not continuous around — TR (LANDSLIDE DEBRIS) 4 10.T-16' Com act/stiff to very stiff, light olive gray and light reddish brown nonstratified mottled silty, fine SAND and SILT to CLAYEY SILT, FeOx stained.moist. varies to fine SAND, trace SILT. OLDER SLIDE DEBRIS? FKUJM, i Nu. u13 iWZ)�_iw uK MNG NO, TPOI-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL Golder FIELD TEST PIT LOG Associates Temp. Weather _ Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 4 Equipment Case 9010BTrackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —230' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 N S 0 5 10 15 20 ro 1✓ 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1126 Start NA 1 0-0.5' To soil: Dark brown ve loose ORGANICS some to little sand trace aravel, moist. 1150 16' NF 2 0.5'-4' Very loose to compact, dark olive brown to light olive 1203 1 18' NF brown d SILT to CLAYEY SILT trace to little fine o coarse sand little fine to coarse subrounded to Special Notes rounded ravel trace cobble trace boulder moist becoming dry to dam 4' contains clasts of No caving observed SILTbecomes compact —4' trace rootlets in upper 5'. (FILL?/ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS) No groundwater observed 3 -Compact. lightwnonstratified. SILT, trace, to little fine to coarse sand little fine to coarse subrounded to rounded gravel, trace cobble trace boulder, damp to d ICE CONTACT DEPOSITS ense. laaht olive brown. trace rootlets. stratified to 4 assive, FeOx stained fine SAND.race silt, 15' becomes moist increased FeOx. ADVANCE OUTWASH PROJECTNO. 013 1685_100 DRAWING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Uta FIELD TEST PIT LOG Temp. Weather Cloudy. coof Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 5 Equipment Case 90106 Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —227' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 S N 0 5 10 15 20 f 0 5 10 iE 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1227 Start NA 1 0-0.5' To soil: ve loose and vejy soft olive brown ~ nonstratified SILT to CLAYEY SILT little sand little to 1240 10, as above some suban ular to rounded gravel, abundant 1255 1 15' seepage from —14' on uphill organics in upper 0.3' wet. I side 2 0 5'-10' Very loose to loose ad vejy softo firm. lightolive Special Notes light olive brown nonstratified mottled silly fine SAND AND SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY trace fine sand Sever caving on west sidewall with TP —1 1'exposing steeply trace rootlets in upper 1.5' moist. LANDSLIDE dipping olishedplanar-curved, slickensided surfaces dipping uslope 3 ooe. light blue gray. nonstratified. mottled silty fine SAND trace fine to coarse rounded gravel. moist to Note: Trackhoe dug TP from up slope. Unable to get downslo e wet containinq roots and rootlets. LANDSLIDE and set in stream. DEBRIS 4 nst ati i d oft ld a SAND little o so a s'I AND SILT ranging to SILTY CLAY moist to wet FeOx throughout, trace fine rounded gravel. LANDSLIDE rKUJtc i NU. via lt=�_ Iw uKAWING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL FIELD TEST PIT LOG ASSOC1TfeS Temp. Weather Cloudy. cool Engineer F. Mocker Operator Kevin Test Pit TP 6 Equipment Case 9010E Trackhoe Contractor NW Excavating Date 12/04/01 Location Sunset Way Property Elevation —249' Datum MSL Job 013 1685.100 W ► E 0 5 10 15 20 r— 0 5 10 15 20 Sample Descriptions and Excavation Notes Time Depth of Hole Depth to W/L 1 0-0.4' To soil 1309 Start NA 1340 16' Seepage 10' from 2 0.4'-9.0' Loose light olive brown nonstartified mottled? sandy East side of Test Pit SILT little subrounded to rounded fine to coarse gravel, race cobbles to boulders, oo e s observed in upper Special Notes 3-4' moist. E uisetum fragment? FILL Sli ht caving from South sidewall above —10' CED 9.0' Abundant organics, wood debris —0.5' thick 3 4 9.5-12.0 Compact to dense li ht olive brown to blue ra faint) laminated to massive SILT trace fine sand slight FeOx moist. ADVANCE OUTWASH 5 1 12.0-16 0 Coma t d nse i olive ro n assiv fi coarse SAND trace sift moist trace fine subrounded ravel. ADVANCE OUTWASH YKVJtk, I NU. V14 lbUt�_1w DRAWING NO. TP01-12 DATE 12/12/01 DRAWN BY EL WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 2 Golder Associates, Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 Redmond, Washington 98052 DATE STARTED: 12-10-2001 DATE COMPLETED: 12-10-2001 HOLE #: I X CREW: M. Mengelt SURFACE ELEVATION: Top of Subgrade PROJECT: Shapiro/Monnahan Prop./WA WATER ON COMPLETION: None ADDRESS: Sunset Drive HAMMER WEIGHT: 351bs. LOCATION: Edmonds, Washington CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K cm2 GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY - 0 0.0 0 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 1 4.4 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 1 ft 2 8.9 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 1 4.4 1 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 3 13.3 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 2 ft 6 26.6 ......• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 31.1 ......••• 8 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 ft 30 133.2 •••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• - DENSE HARD - 1 m 15 66.6 ••••••••••••••••••• 19 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 5 19.3 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 ft 4 15.4 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 19.3 ....• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 15.4 ••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 ft 6 23.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 23.2 oeoeoo 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 19.3 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 ft 5 19.3 e000e 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 19.3 ooeoe 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 2 m 4 15.4 ••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 7 ft 5 17.1 0000 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 4 13.7 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 6 20.5 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 8 ft 6 20.5 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 8 27.4 .... • 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 11 37.6 ......•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 9 ft 12 41.0 ••••••••••• I 1 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 44.5 •••••••••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 11 37.6 •••••••••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 3 m 1011 11 37.6 ......•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ......••• 9 LOOSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF - 12 36.7 ....o.•••• 10 LOOSE STIFF - lift 11 33.7 ••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 ft 16 49.0 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 30 91.8 ........... o............. • - MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 15 45.9 ••.......... • 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 4 m 13 ft 18 55.1 ••••••••••••••• 15 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF W ILDCATALS ' HOLE #: 1 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 PROJECT: Shapiro/Monnahan ProD./WA PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE Kg/cm' GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY - 22 60.9 ............••••• 17 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 14 ft - 15ft - 16 ft -5m 17ft - 18ft - 19 ft -6m - 20 ft - 21ft - 22 ft - 7m 23ft - 24 ft - 25 ft - 26 ft -8m - 27 ft - 28 ft - 29 ft -9m W ILDCAT.XLS WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 1 of 2 Golder Associates, Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Rd. Suite 200 PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 Redmond, Washington 98052 DATE STARTED: 12-10-2001 DATE COMPLETED: 12-10-2001 HOLE #: 2 CREW: M. Mengelt SURFACE ELEVATION: Top of Subgrade PROJECT: Shapiro/Monnahan Prop./WA WATER ON COMPLETION: None ADDRESS: Sunset Drive HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 lbs. LOCATION: Edmonds, Washington CONE AREA: 10 sq. cm DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K cmz GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY - 0 0.0 0 VERY LOOSE VERY SOFT - 2 8.9 •• 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 1 ft 4 17.8 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 17.8 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 2 ft 4 17.8 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 22.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 26.6 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 ft 5 22.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 1 m 6 26.6 ••••••• 7 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 11.6 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT 4 ft 3 11.6 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 3 11.6 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 2 7.7 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT 5 ft 2 7.7 2 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 3 11.6 •• 3 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 5 19.3 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 ft 6 23.2 •••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 4 15.4 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 2 m 6 23.2 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 ft 5 17.1 •• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 7 23.9 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 5 17.1 ••• 4 VERY LOOSE SOFT - 8 ft 6 20.5 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 20.5 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 7 23.9 •••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 9 ft 7 23.9 ••••• 6 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 20.5 •••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 6 20.5 ••• 5 LOOSE MEDIUM STIFF - 3 m 10 ft 15 51.3 •••••••••••••• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 49.0 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 49.0 •••••••••••••• 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - lift 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 11 33.7 ••••••••• 9 LOOSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 12 ft 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 13 39.8 ••••••••••• 11 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 23 70.4 •••••••••••••••••••• 20 MEDIUM DENSE VERY STIFF - 4 m 13 ft 17 52.0 ••••••••••••••• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF W ILDCAT.XLS HOLE #: 2 WILDCAT DYNAMIC CONE LOG Page 2 of 2 PROJECT: Shaniro/Monnahan Prop./WA PROJECT NUMBER: 013-1685.000 DEPTH BLOWS PER 10 cm RESISTANCE K /cmz GRAPH OF CONE RESISTANCE 0 - 50 100 150 N' TESTED CONSISTENCY SAND & SILT CLAY - 17 47.1 ............. 13 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 16 44.3 ......•••••• 12 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 14 ft 18 49.9 ............•• 14 MEDIUM DENSE STIFF - 15 ft - 16 ft -5m - 17 ft - 18 ft - 19ft -6m - 20 ft - 21ft - 22 ft - 7m 23ft - 24 ft - 25 ft - 26 ft -8m - 27 ft - 28 ft - 29 ft -9m W ILDCATALS APPENDIX B CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR DEVELOPMENT ON STEEP SLOPES Golder Associates Document Page 1 of 8 1 � I Title 20 REVIEW CRITERIA AND. PROCEDURES Chapter.20.156 CRITICAL AREAS 20.1513.110 Development standards — Geologically hazardous areas. 20.1513.110 Development standards — Geologically hazardous areas. ' A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be 50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native vegetation, and where appropriate, be placed within a critical areas tract. This 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet by the director or his/her designee upon review of critical areas study prepared pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140 ' (A) by a licensed geotechnical engineer or geologist which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. "Adverse impact' shall include but not be limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Such report shall be certified in a form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as the geotechnical ' report requirements of Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer reductions shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4). B. Erosion Hazard Areas. Alterations within the identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an ' approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18.30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located on slopes less than 40 percent shall only be approved to be altered if both of the following provisions are met: 1. Proposed development will not decrease slope stability on any adjacent property; and 2. The landslide hazard to the project and adjacent property is eliminated or mitigated such that the proposed development on the site is certified as stable by a licensed professional geologist or geotechnical engineer. Any landslide hazard area and its buffer which combined are greater than the one acre in size shall be placed in critical areas tract for any proposed master plan development, subdivision, short subdivision, or planned residential development, pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.160. Where alterations are authorized, city staff shall determine whether the remaining portion (s) of the landslide area shall be placed within critical areas tract. Landslide areas located on slopes greater than 40 percent shall be regulated pursuant to subsection D of this section. D. Steep Slope Hazard Areas. No development or alteration shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the property is exempt under the provisions of this section or ECDC 20.15B.040, a reasonable use exception has been granted, or a variance has been granted pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.I70(A). 1. The development or alteration is one of the following exempt activities: a. Surface water conveyance designed to the best available technical standard, such as the Stormwater Management Manual, approved by the city. Installation shall utilize the best available technology to minimize disturbance to the slope, soils and vegetation; b. Trails construction designed to the best available technical standard approved by the city. Technical standards are provided in the U.S. Forest Service "Trails Management Handbook" (FSH 2309.18, 1987) and "Standard Specifications for Construction of Trails" (EM-7720-102, 1984). In no case shall trails be constructed of impervious materials which would contribute to surface water runoff, unless such materials are necessary to provide for soil stabilization or erosion control, and trail design assures that surface water runoff will not increase or contribute to erosion and sedimentation; c. Utility construction by private or public proponents may be allowed; provided, that city staff' determined upon review of a critical areas study that the proposed alteration shall not subject the steep slope to the risk of landslide or erosion; d. Trimming and limbing of vegetation on steep slopes may be allowed if a clearing plan is provided for review and approval by the city; and provided, that the soils within the steep slope area are not disturbed to subject the area to the risk of erosion. Clearing shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 18.45 ECDC. 2. The development or alteration may be exempted if it meets the following criteria: a. The proposed development will not decrease stability on any adjacent property, and the site following the permitted activity will be stable within the meaning of Chapter 19.05 ECDC, as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting requirements of the State Building Code as adopted by this code. b. The development will occur on steep slope areas that either: i. Are mapped as one of the following deposits on the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles", by James P. Minard (Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 1983, Map MF-1541): Till, Advance Outwash, and/or Olympia Gravel; or ... /om_isapi.dll?client[D=215 73 873&hitsperheading=on&infobase=edmonddc.nfo&jump=20.15B.1 /8/02 Document Page 2of8 ii. Are comprised of fill which was placed under engineered conditions on stable geologic deposits listed in subsection (D) (2)(b)(i) of this section; provided, that the fill meets the following conditions; all fill was placed under a legal grading permit, the grading and fill were designed by a licensed professional engineer, native soils beneath the fill were prepared in accordance with the engineering design, and compaction testing confirms that uniform compaction to the specified percentage is present throughout the entire fill. c. All excavations on steep slopes shall not extend below a 35-degree plane extended down from the property lines, unless the excavation is retained by structural shoring. The shoring must be designed by a registered professional engineer. d. All retaining structures on steep slopes shall be engineered structures conforming to the State Building Code as adopted by this code; rockeries are not permitted greater than four feet in height. e. Steep slope areas cannot be altered if one or more of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope; impermeable soils interbedded with granular soils, springs or groundwater seepage, significant visible evidence of groundwater seepage, previous landsliding or instability, or existing landslide deposits. "On or adjacent to" includes those areas upslope and downslope of the steep slope, within a horizontal distance from the toe or top of the slope equal to two times the vertical height of the steep slope. f. Steep slope areas (greater than 40 percent) cannot be altered if the thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, collovial soils or soils exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject property classified as a steep slope exceeds three feet. g. For Commercial Development. A buffer of 15 feet shall be retained in an undisturbed condition, measured from property lines adjacent to residential properties. 3. Notice of Application for Exemption. Upon application for exemption of all or any portion of a site under the provisions of this section, which is equal to or greater than 20,000 square feet in area, posting and notice of such application and of staff decision shall be given in accordance with the provisions of ECDC 20.95.050(B). Notice shall be provided to all adjacent property owners for sites or portions of sites sought for exemption which are less then 20,000 square feet in area under the same procedures. E. Seismic Hazard Areas. Development proposals for sites containing a potential seismic hazard area shall only be authorized by staff to alter the seismic hazard area when the applicant documents that: 1. A technical evaluation of the site's specific subsurface conditions indicates that the site is not located within a seismic hazard area; or 2. Mitigation is implemented which renders the site of the proposed development as stable within the meaning of the State Building Code and this code. F. Peer Review and Independent Analysis. All applications for development proposals within geologically hazardous areas or seismic hazard areas shall be accompanied by a written site analysis by a geologist or geotechnical engineer licensed by the state of Washington. Peer review, or at the discretion of the staff, an independent review of the technical analysis of site conditions shall be conducted at the applicant's expense pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140(E). [Ord. 3329 § 1, 2000; Ord. 3087 § 2, 1996). 20.15B.110 Development standards - Geologically hazardous areas. A. Buffers. Buffers for geologically hazardous areas shall be 50 feet in width, they shall be maintained with their native vegetation, and, where appropriate, be placed within the critical areas tract. This 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet by the director or his/her designee upon review of critical areas study prepared pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.140 (A) by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. "Adverse impact" shall include but not be limited to a decrease in site stability as defined in Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Such report shall be certified in a form suitable for filing with the Snohomish County recorder and generally comply with the provisions of this chapter as well as the geotechnical report requirements of Chapter 19.05 ECDC. Staff approval or disapproval of proposed buffer reductions shall be subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of ECDC 20.105.010(A)(4). B. Erosion Hazard Areas. Alterations within identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to Chapter 18. 30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. C. Landslide Hazard Areas. Landslide hazard areas located on slopes less than 40 percent shall only be approved to be altered if both of the following provisions are met: 1. Proposed development will not decrease slope stability on any adjacent property; and 2. The landslide hazard to the project and adjacent property is eliminated. or mitigated such that the proposed development on the site is certified as stable by a licensed professional geologist or geotechnical engineer. .../om_isapi.dll?clientID=21573873&hitsperheading=on&infobase=edmonddc.nfo&jump=20.15B 1/8/02 D=REF1 PERMIT EXPIRES CITY OF EDMONDS SE PERMIT ZONE y NUMBER JOADDBRESS It� � /t� 51,�lh CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION iI (��,$U17E/APT# O ER E/NAME OF USINE .�C NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO. / ppIAT 'J:i' %� LID FEE $ MAILING A13DRESS. t PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Pe dt Re ui RW Pormlt Requbed O Street Use Permit Req'd CITY ZI / TELEPHONE EXISTING PROPOSED DEDICATION FT � Oe "Uod Q SkewelkR=.dREQUIRED UndergrWear LP r, ed.-"��N E ( " ' .METER SIZE I � SI?E �' NO. OF FIXTURES PjtV REQUIRED YES G NO S rJ ADDRESS / I ,L j�,fq vl( •JlI REMARKS 1 "yl OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE Z �`r/ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NAME uST PI2 ,-Fri ENGINEERING REVIEW D/D E AD ` J� FIRE REVIEWED BY ' DATE W CITY. / ZIP ]_' TELEPH rL VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB/ INSPECTION REQ'D Q YES Q NO BOND POSTED TATE LICENSE N ER /C( ✓ ;'EXPIRA ION'DATE OC E V t� V C✓ i SEPA REVIEW COMPLETE XEMPT SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED HEIGHT'',,., ., ALLOWED PROPOSED PROPER T AC U P L N '•. EXR G NEW .RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH ❑ LO COVERAdE. ALLOWED PROPOSED REQUIRED SETBACKS (FL) FRONT SIDE REAR PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)- FRONT UR SIDE REAR . tltl ❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ CHANGIANCE OR E OF USE _ C ❑ REMODEL ❑ APARTMENT ❑ SIGN PARKING READ PROVIDED LOT AREA PLANN�ING REVIEWED BY DATE � ..W ❑ REPAIR G NG CYDS ❑ FENCE � C� _' r j �❑ ❑ DEMOLISH TANK ❑ OTHER ❑'GARAGE RETAINING WALL CARPORT ROCKERY 0' RENEWA4 _ O „t i; (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESAa PLAIN: ++ RE CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION C OCCUPANT I GROUP NUMBER OF "" NUMBER OF DWELLING CRITICAL AREAS r �GtA SPECIAL INSP TO AREA OCCUPANT O STORIES UNITS NUMBER REQUIRED YES ;4 LOAD DESCiiIBE T E DOME AR P OG ACTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL. INSPECTION READ. z.9 `1. VALUATION Description FEE ` y}• Description E I N:ifh AAO� Nor )W_Lmm. 4LdIL ickftar, Plan'Check.' - I HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE % Building. ,,Z_t; PLAN CHECK:NO: -VESTED DATE . '^ V Mechanical ^" THIS PERMIT AUTHORD3:S ONLY E,Wook NOTED. THIS MRFOVERS W RK TO I_ BE DONE ON PRIVATE PR PONLY ANY CONSTjIU ION,ON THE PU LIC 1.E 7 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEW D IVS11I►AYS; MARQUEES; ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading RBDordiri'gfee t SEPti TE PERMISSION. �y s Engr. Review �d. .. City Surcharge PERMIT APPLICATION: 160 DAYS CL PERMIT LIMB: 1 YEAR -PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 1110 DAYS :Engr. Inspection �.�® state SUr harge �`•:, SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION i 'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS; ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS `Tr$ttlC Mitigation Plan Chk Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND;AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND .ITS AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Review Receipt # 'j l ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ISSUANCE FROM THE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE Fire Inspection Total ArnOUnt DUe 9 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE = NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' 'Landscape Insp. Receipt # IHEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION;` THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. I AGREE TgcOl�ii PLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING T E WORK THORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building oficial or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION E--T LABOR C DE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON . RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged In space pJ Ided. WORKMEN'S C PE TION INS RANCE AND RCW 18.27. OFFI IA NA D E SIG 4ATU O R A DAIEJIBIGNED ; (425) 771 -0220 RELEAS D ATE ATTEN O `� Off 1333 �j 0 IT IS UN LA UL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL �_.. ll• 771-0221 A FINAL IN ECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A C RTIFI- RIGINAL -FILE YE OW - IN PECTOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEENrGRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 FAX PINK - OWNER • G LO -ASSESSOR 10/01 , . -- --- I4F'p_R__ O Al vT A -LC, S 1 I�N�C,-� !N rt-,4C E, r n. Inc; _ 0 TRAFFIC CONTROL CLAN architects. ps 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 425.778.5400 FAX 778.3032 r no r �� -TYPICAL WARNING SIGN LOCATION TRUCK ROUTE AND DIRECTION -SUBJECT SITE(S) Shapiro/Colwill Site Grading Traffic Control Flan Sign Chart Sign No. Sign Type i Construction Ahead 2 Flagger Ahead' 3 Trucks Entering Highway 4 IFIagger Location, with Radio Truck Route: I. North on SSth Ave West 2. Left onto OLYmV16 - V/67W D�`ZIvE 3. 0ID70 7ALSD I- 4. $t4CI4 aN7D v/1`F i 06F GOfW Gt1 # PY ENS AS NOTED _ Date: 7-30—o Z SHAP IRO / COLWILL SITE GRADING T� 4 :A -oy DISAPPROVED ,I ONL`ir Tr,_C,l%S !„/,iW6Cf_7_ $- TVA4L-E�r S c-mac-LL G-6 i8-t_Cc.L✓64C) TREES ACER GIR5EUM / PAPERBARK MAPLE 3'-4' HT. 545, FULL, AND 9. _(? BUSHY 0 AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA / SASKATOON 3'-4' HT. 545, FULL, AND -I ro BUSHY CORNUS 'EDDIE'S WHITE WONDER' / 1 1/2' CAL. 545, MATCHED 9 EDDIES'S WHITE WONDER DOGWOOD FOIE, STREET �;j (),*1141 CUPRE550CYPARIS LEYLANDII / LEYLANDII CYM S3-4' HT. 15413, FULL TO 6 GROUND • THUJA PLICATA / WESTERN RED CEDAR 3'-4' HT. BtB, FULL TO 1 GROUND SHRUBS O CISTU5 HYBRIDUS / WHITE ROCKR05E I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 49 R CORNUS 5TOLONIFERA / RED -TWIG DOGWCIOD I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 8 B CORYLU5 CORNUTA / BEAKED HAZLENUT 18'-21' HT. FULL FOLIAGE (0 DISCOLOR / OCEANSPRAY 18'-21' HT. FULL FOLIAGE 4 TOHOLODISCUS OKERRIA JAPONICA / NO COMMON NAME I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 4 5 RISES 5ANGUINEUM / RED FLOWERING CURRANT I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 3 P RHODODENDRON MACROPHYLLUM / I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 10 PACIFIC RHODODENDRON GROUND COVER RUBUS CALYCINOIDES / EVERGREEN BRAMBLE 4' POT 24' ON CENTER AS REQUIRED GAULTHERIA SHALLON / SALAL I GAL. RANDOM PLACEMENT 15 NEPHROLEPIS CORDIFOLIA / SWORD FREN I GAL. RANDOM PLACEMENT 15 Zx THE KCX.) I F5ALL DIAMETER NOTES: PLANT SHRUB HIGH ENOUGH TO ALLOW POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ROOTBALL. ROUGHEN ALL SUi;T-ACES OF PIT. FREE/SHRUB 5LOPE PLANTING NITS ;0I r ;t r 2' BARK MULCH LAYER 3' HIGH WATER BASIN TREE/SHRUB - PRUNE AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 6' DIAMETER NO MULCH RING BAWILL PIT WITH 50% TOPSOIL AND 5M. NATIVE SOIL. ADD SPECIFIED AMMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZER TO MIX. CUT BENCH IN SLOPE FOR PLANT PIT SPECIFIED PLANT TABLETS SCARIFY ROOTBALL ON CONTAINER MATERIAL. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP ON BIB MATERIAL �— PREvALING WIND ROOTBALL TREE TRtJtiMC STAKE - TYPICAL PLAN VIEW � L 2x THE ROOTBALL DIAMETER NOTES: PLANT TREES HW ENOUGH TO ALLOW POSITIVE DRAR+IAGE AWAY FROM ROOTBALL. ROUGHEN ALL SUIWACES OF PIT. LOCATE ALL STAKES OUTSIDE OF ROOTBALL. TREE PLANTING AND.FAKING (LEVEL GRADE) 2 NT5 TREE - PRUNE AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 2' DIAMETER TREATED LODGEPOLE STAKE (2 TOTAL) TREE WRAP ATTACH TO TREE USING 'CHAINL.00K' GUYNG WRAP AND PROTECT TREE 12' DIAMETER NO MULCH RING REMOVE BURLAP AND/OR WIRE BASKETS. FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL. 2' SPECIFIED MULCH LAYER SPECIFIED PLANT TABLETS BACKFILL PIT WITH 50% TOPSOIL AND UM NATIVE SOIL. ADD SPECIFIED AMf tSTiDMENTS AND FERTILIZER TO MIX. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL APpR�v�/ t'e• .t n Ai e- She, htAM aer c �reets (Or ACer_ e "W"4tA4� anot -Vne, ea.ma covec- e, a� nv*ov-c\p( C-Ove-r. Nb�re. -1<vt 6 t es ur-d ex-O.A `0vbAi0 nS o-� PVb4l S, b MC.1 ATeeS r. b y 041-ger n e, 4oe.\ Alms V6^. No - c�te3 were. e`aAeo� in -�-qe t'�q�ct -°�' / -a's o•F ,Az e- c n a/ 001. 6' WOOD FENCE -- X MULCH LAYER + + �,—= EDGE OF BED + + + x C I X SPACING / -- ---- EDGE Of PAVING 4 GATE NOTE: SPACING TO BE TRIANGLE PER DISTANCE SHOWN ON PLANT SCHEDULE SPACING APPLIES TO ALL GROUNDCOVERS AND FORMAL SHRUB ROW PLACEMENT. TYPICAL GROUNDCOVER SPACING F 4s.a-/ NT5 --,( //7 3' WOOD FENCE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (EDMONDS—BEVERLY PARK ROAD) YARD = 234.0 ATION PLANTING PLAN I i u s e v� w r .�r . •• SCALE: 1" = 10' — 0" JUN 2210U5 BUFNNTCffYOEDMODS STATE OF WASHMON L� REUS EKED A M S UNDSCAPE ARCHITECT Landscape Architecture ARM M01AEL SEIDEl 1405 Northeast Kalsure Street CERTMIE NO. 706 Issaquah, Washington 98029 Voice 245-681-6458 Fax 42.5-837-3661 00 O W � it l(� CO Tf� uIpinup IlllimlliilllHl I�I�il��llllll ml�Iuuuudll Illpl nII . . pmuu I III"pl'Ip . in m ilIIIIIi IH IHIII IIII IIINIIIIIII Jill luauHo pl p �. I�IgnHHllh • � Iillliunnnl IllnlryHi1111 X Q LL 0 RT L0 dN' M N 000 Cn Q ti O v w 3 U U. O � am m } O O QA �lil»��III► II 'III REVISIONS: MARIC I)1.4CRIP1'I0N I)A•I'I? BN1 PILE REVISI 11/03/02 ADS MAST BAT 12/03/02 ADS GAR F REV 01/07/03 ADS ( LAND. 6/22/05 ADS GIs D I CT D. tiltMNl®0 A WASHINGT OF S1ffi r'1111E: BANK LANDSCAPE PLAN — 0 v'� STREET FILE SCALE: DRAWN BY: AS DATE: CHECK17.1) BY: 06/28/02 As PROJECT NO.: FILE NAb4E: 12282-03 S LANDS. SHEET NO.: d C13 :30 rn mm ZO -n Mm r-- M TREES ACER GIRSEUM / PAPERBARK MAPLE 3'-4' HT. 15413, FULL, AND 9 BUSHY AMELANCHIER ALNIFOLIA / SASKATOON Y-4' HT. 545, FULL, AND l BUSHY CORNU5 'EDDIE'S WHITE WONDER' / 1 1/2' CAL. 15415, MATCHED 9 j EDDIES'S WHITE WONDER DOGWOOD FORM, STREET TREE 0 CUPRESSOCYPAR15 LEYLANDII / LEYLANDII CYPRE e5-4' HT. 84B, FULL TO 6 0 THUJA PLICATA / WESTERN RED CEDAR 3'-4' HT. GROUND B45, FULL TO I GROUND 5HRUB5 0 C15TU5 HYBRIDU5 / WHITE ROCKROSE I -GAL. RILL FOLIAGE 49 R CORNU5 STOLONIFERA / RED -TWIG DOGWOOD I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 8 B CORYLUS CORNUTA / BEAKED HAZLENUT IS'-21' HT. FULL FOLIAGE 6 HOLOD15CU5 DISCOLOR / OCEANSPRAY 18'-21' HT. FULL FOLIAGE 4 K) �--' KERRIA JAPONICA / NO COMMON NAME I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 4 ( S) RIBES SANGUINEUM / RED FLOWERING CURRANT I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 3 P RHODODENDRON MACROPHYLLUM / I -GAL. FULL FOLIAGE 10 PACIFIC RHODODENDRON GROUND COVER RUBUS CALYCINOIDES / EVERGREEN BRAMBLE 4' POT 24' ON CENTER AS REQUIRED GAULTHERIA SHALLON / SALAL I GAL. RANDOM PLACEMENT 15 — - — NEPHROLEP15 CORDIFOLIA / 5WORD FREN I GAL. RANDOM PLACEMENT 15 was v-,,odWed Ire_--b.;% Ae- sane nw.r.b« knees &, Arree. c totl-,", d Ae. sable. IC.overy � a ,Gr� cover. sect es -nd ex -a.- A 4 V6,As -md- - cro.n Ajvt" s evo m . No 4reeS c�cra. �,\•an4d �R ll.e r�.�-�o�- 1 2' BARK MULCH LAYER 6' WOOD FENCE 3' HIGH WATER BASIN x MULCH LAYER TREE/511RUB - PRUNE A5 DIRECTED \d \`��lU�� BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT + + EDGE OF BED 6' DIAMETER NO MULCH RING �r BACKFILL PIT WITH 50% "\ TOPSOIL AND 509- NATIVE \, \ *Flu Stu � SOIL. ADD SPECIFIED �` + �' + ' + AMMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZER TO MIX. xr%i CUT BENCH IN SLOPE FOR PLANT PIT 1 X SPACING SPECIFIED PLANT TABLETS --------------=--------: ---- _----------__--_----�_.- ---- � - EDGE OF PAVING 4 GATE SCARIFY ROOTBALL ON / CONTAINER MATERIAL, NOTE: SPACING TO BE TRIANGLE PER D15TANCE REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF SHOWN ON PLANT SCHEDULE BURLAP ON B45 MATERIAL SPACING APPLIES TO ALL GROUNDCOVERS / AND FORMAL SHRUB ROW PLACEMENT. TYPICAL GROUNDCOVER SPACING F 45.E NT5 Zx THE RCXOTSALL DIAMETER NOTES: PLANT SHRUB HIGH ENOUGH TO ALLOW POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ROOTBALL. ROUGHEN ALL SURFACES OF PIT. TREE/SHRUB SLOPE PLANTING I NTH -11111— PREVALING WIND ROOT15ALL TREE TF&W STAKE - TYPICAL PLAN VIEW ;0I r �t N 2x THE ROOTBALL DIAMETER NOTES- PLANT TREES HIGH ENOUCsH TO ALLOW POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ROOTISALL- FZOUC44EN ALL SURFACES OF PIT. LOCATE ALL STAKES OUTSIDE OF ROOTBALL. " TREE PLANTING AND 5TAKING (LEVEL GRADE) NT5 TREE - PRLWE AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 2' DIAMETER TREATED LODGEPOLE STAKE (2 TOTAL) TREE WRAP ATTACH TO TREE USING 'C44AINL0CK' GsUYNG WRAP AND PROTECT TREE 12' DIAMETER NO MULCH RING REMOVE BURLAP AND/OR WIRE BASKETS. FROM THE TOP 1/3 OF ROOT BALL. 2' SPECIFIED MULCH LAYER SPECIFIED PLANT TABLETS BACKFILL PIT WITH 5M TOPSOIL AND 50% NATIVE SOIL. ADD SPECIFIED AM"'ANTS AND FERTILIZER TO MIX UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL 3' W90D FENCE OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE (cnmONDS—BEVERLY PARK ROAD) YAFRED = 234.0 > SSA LION PLANTING PLAN i —I NV— 217.40 n _ FA i i I � STRIERTre FILE I � N I / j v ra i JUN � 2 l Ub BUILDING DEP,AFTTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS STATE OF WASHiNGTON REGISTERED A M S LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Landscape Architecture AMUR MICHAEL SEIDEL 1405 Northeast Katsura Street CERTIFICATE NO. '706 ', Issaquah, Washington 98029 Voice 245-681-6458 Fax 425-837-3661 OQ O 3' 41•-> ® ry �n II pq I�Ittil � d I II �Iltlllll Itlltllllll� IIIIIII I�Itdlllllllll mllluulluuli I�Iut u llltam I. II�I,IIIIIIIiiI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uli uuuunillll I��IIIIIIIII111 IIIIII �III111U01 111III II 111111tiIlIl Illlulnull iq 11111 I 1�1u ��Ittl�h X U. 0 Ui 04 d' CO) f N 000 0) C 4 E w REVISIONS: MARK DI?SCRIP110N DATI I3Y - SUB. BLDG PERMIT06/28/02 ADS m PERMIT REV 09/03/02 ADS PILE REVISI 11/03/02 ADS MAST 15 12/03/02 ADS GAR F REV 01/07/03 D. 6/22/05 ADS ADS D.9Hfif•'118� I A OF WASHINGTdN SHEET TITLE: BANK LANDSCAPE PLAN (52- COPYCITY SCALE: DRAWN BY: 1"=10' -0" AS DATE: CHFCKFD BY: 06/28/02 AS PROJECT NO.: - FILE NAME: 12282-03 5 LANDS. SHEET NO.: „ -. ,. ... „r r V '„ , : „ ,,,,. .. ,�.: fi. :. r,v , .. ,t",. ,fit' . i,'i t r ,.:told : ., .:- ... ,,: F' cn CONTAINER MATERIAL. NOTE. $FACING TO BIB TRIANGLE PER DISTANCE 1 � :x_ fi r' - liiiirilillr 14YE TOP II3 OF5WOUN ON PLANT SCHEDULE . j @Ip11111fj1llUi 5URLAF ON 845 MATERIAL 07FACING APPLIES TO ALL GROUNDCOVERS LOWER FL� 23 . RMf. till AND PDAL SHRUB ROW FLAG! MENT. FG24- / v `�. / j ll1111tl1 ,i. 1 0 A � , "ONSTRUCT CG* -• E l 1. HOLD ,PRE,CONSTRUCTION MEETING ON SITE WITH CITY AND CONTRACTOR., PER CANNEL;" MARK CLEARING 1IMiT,C1i _ BOTH 1`FES: _ �, s 2. SET EROSIING" CONTOL AND CONSTRUCTION, ENTRANCE AT COLWILL_ lit ':A0 �iAF'IRt� SITE. . 3. CLEARING OF DITCH AND TREE. REMOVAL. �. 4.1 EXTEND MAN=,HOLES.Uf' , .4.2 BEGIN Film rimPORT.'OF OPEN C}CTCH. / 4.3 INSTALL PIPE. AND, C 'S AT" PROPERTY LINE .- 51 EXCAVATE FOR SHAFPIRO "& COLWILL FOUNDATION(S) t 5.1.. INSTALL DEN71TION' CONNECT, TO .CITY STORM AND STUB ':TQ' r t7t}NDTION AREA, 7.1 FORM ,4ND F'OUFt hIf7USE:.F©UNDATIUN(S). .-� 7.2 FINISH 1GHT.LINE ,AROUND FOUNDATION(S) AND CONNECT fQ §TROM DRAIN ,SY5TEM 7.3 INSTALL DRAIN ROCK. AND FOOTING DRAINS ;-' c8 TOP 21a3,4tt4 i INV = 2I5 62NiA"E dt w i 7.4` BACKFILL HOUSE FOUNDATION(S) AFTER HOUSE FRAMING PER STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS. i W W ( i 60 00 i00 i i L 0 T 3 i r-nar-iviciA 1 rcr L.C�W R ELR 22 fL> /`� i A.F. NO, — a 93t392DD825 ? . ( 2, $f C14 IN7 N 1 1 / 1 EDGE OF LANDSCAPING s �0 FROM ADJACENT LOT NOTE: ' CB 5 GCS. AT 33.3 S%NE l "' I EMO< 1 . 53 5.F.. r � � k CC;R. & 30,1 w/P.L, S H 0 R s u l d l 1's t o r, . '� t N' ;=i?n-qinhi J _0 � OF CITY OF EC�MONI�S SHORT SUBDIVISION NO. I TRUE NORTH .:.• Wit! � - � d 1.=0 u u u � - _ __ _ -_ ,, ,�.� : , I( 17 ly , 11 N HOWD Hardwood WG. Wood S 17 '91, ACCORDING TO SHORT SUBDIVISION RECORDED i NM Hollow Metal WP Waterproof S PTEM R , 19 3 UNt i R CORI�INC NO. 93 39200825, G� 1. HOLD PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING ON SITE WITH . HR Hour WS Weatherstr(p IN VOLUME 2792,. PACE 19ro3 IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, ,/� PROJECT NORTH CITY. AND CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL. HT Height W, I-11NCTON: �J MARK CLEARING LIMITS ON E30TH SITES. HVAC Plating -Ventilation TC G5THER .WITH ,AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN TRACT lix", AS 2. SET F-RO511NG CONTOL AND CONSTRUCTION and Air Conditioning ENTRANCE AT COLWILL SITE AND SHAPIRO SITE. SST FORTH -'ON THE FACE .©F SAID SHORT PLAT. 3. GLE;4RINCx OF DITCH AND TREE REMOVAL. 4.1 EXTF_ND SUBJECT TO, EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS j STRUCTURAL GRID MAN HOLES UP ... ..... . 1 '1 1"r r,I .^11" 1 Lot 1 section 18 "" T'e I rl hid. 27 North,: nge aL t,, W,M„ in :Smohoinish Count ;;,Wa> hin tonf de cell a d;a Follow$: Cctllttltcing at t Northwest, corner of Seotlon 18; �wnshi 27 Nerth,. mange proceadI1010' ate c :lit . the West limey or said Se e:tie n I8, South 1'0i' 7" We nt: distance:6f 656-5 . _- felt tea"thS Southerly mr:'oin off 1-4mema4 15+ verly: park; Roads _ 1 rng id Southerly mar in oM a curve to they left, having - an initial coursa: of North 54*00,13" F_a6t and a radius 6f 349.60' fee t, A d1stamce:©f Thcnce"North 33''28'S0,11 East a ciistance of 58.79 56s'57'50"E - BASIS OF BEARING t t to the 'Inte "otion Of the Southerly margin of 200.05 (MEASURED) 199.67 (DEED) thl"-1cmonds-�elvcrly Park Road and the Northerly margfm,of Sunset Way: FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE ► e. �G Th i66 continuing along gald'Southerly margin of the NAIL IN CONCRETE '�'% '!, Edtttorte ls- 3everly. Park Roa�al `5 "North 33'280" East a POSITION, HELD � rssM distance of 19735 feet- v 8^C ce_:along;thcarc cf a curve" to ,the right,having -- a: rad tus cif, - 98,90 feet, a tistanc of 132.15 Feet: CL R=359.2 Thence."aouth 69'57'5011 fast a,diatance of 199,67=266.69 Feets ^4 Tan=139.83 Thence°along the arc of a curve to the left, having - __ _-___ Delta=42'32'20" NIGI-4 ROCK�.RY a radius'r 369,20, feet, a distance to, 185.83 Feet to -- -_ the True Point of B+�grnning: thcnca contilnuing along the Southerly margin of the 1 drricnas- .3+ verly Park- Road and along the arc of a curve to" the left, having a radiuG of 3e9.20 feet, ., (EDMONDS- B 1 di to nco of 72 fect`s. _ EVE b SET G Tt nce� `3outh l°02'1611 We et a distance: of 136.70 feet: `~- EXISTING TREES TO EM 10671 Thw West -4 distance of 120 feet. �`` `-- AN[) REFLACED MR ' REE The�srlce South ,45'51'23" West a distance of 53.13 Fact �`--S-YALU$T©N, IMPACE A58E5MENT, tea -the Northerly margin of Sunset Wa�: R1-TI~NTION`li?PLACI✓iNi.-.-- Thcnce along said margin North 51*14101, West a PLAN, DATE 12/12/01 dfstancs of 20 feet; 10' SETBACK LINE Thence North 36"'05'35" East 17999 feet to the True APPROX. CONFIGURuAtIbN OF STAIR , point, of Beginnings FROM DECK, EXACT LOCATION WILL -� NOT ENCROACH ON SETF3ACK lrxce pt .arty portion lyinc, within Sunset Way as SANITARY SIDE SEWER LINK TO -- conveyed to the City of Ec monda by deed IEXISTING !_INE "� < recorded uncle" Auditor'$ file No. 1794�710. 6' WOOD FENCE\` •i i3LDG: HEIGHT BORDER�,, TYP EXIST CB TO REMAIN AT EXISTING 16 WEIGHT REFERENCES. S REID-MIDDLETON SUBDIVISION SKETCH FOR MRS, MARIE D. BRANDT, RMA 24" ROOF OVERHANGx TYP AL JOB NO, 2834 DATED'APRIL 1965. 4' GATE WEST FACE OF CARPORT \ PLAT OF DOBSON PARK AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 16 OF PLAT, PAGES 90 HOUSE LUMN, ROOF OVERHANGS 24" & 91, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. # 18101 QUM I" DIA WATER LINE INTO CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT SUBDIVISION S-17-91 AS RECORDED UNDER CRA ACE OF NEW HOUSE � 1 RECORDING NUMBER 9309200825, RECORD OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, 2 WASHINGTON. CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT SUBDIVISION S-27.87 AS RECORDED UNDER�� ; RECORDING NUMBER 8806300600, RECORD OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. c, NOTES LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON BASED ON o EVERGREEN TITLE COMPANY REPORT, ORDER NUMBER 200008609, 0 C EFFECTIVE DATE JULY 19; 2000.' BASIS OF BEARING: HELD SOUTH 69°57'6W EAST BETWEEN FOUND - 1 MONUMENTS ALONG CENTERLINE OF OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE {EDMONDS-BEVERLY PARK ROAD) AS SHOWN HEREON. 3' I�y90D FENCE' VERTICAL DATUM: HELD RIM ELEVATION OF 268.80 FOR SANITARY SEWER NEW GAS LINE,TaCRAWL MANHOLE LOCATED AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PROPERTY FOR HOUSE SPACE OF HOUSE NN 18101, SUNSET WAY, AS SHOWN ON CITY OF EDMONDS PLAN FOR 2000 \`��'�. \1 /2' M, WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROGRAM FOR SUNSET WAY (OLYMPIC VIEW DR TO 9100 SUNSET WAY) JOB NO. EOJA. BU ILD ING HF_ IGHT DATUM SET R C :oj" `D 1067'1\'� SHED SLOPE TWO-FOOT CONTOUR INTERVAL SHOWN: REFER TO SHEET 02 FOR STEEP ��, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES BASED ON VISIBLE SURFACE EVIDENCE, ti 25 UNDERGROUND UTILITY PAINTIUTARKS, AND UTILITY DRAWINGS OBTAINED / FROM THE CITY"OF EDMONDS, NORTHWEST GEOMATICS, INC. CANNOT ,� EBA HOUSE GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY.OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS. / 'Ap # 18107 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTACT 1.800-424-5555 FOR VERIFICATION \ o P LANTEDcf OF UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATIONS. ,�g6 REA y'9� \.\' --� —SET W . p WA METER LEGENIi SSMH RIM = 253.89'f ® FWNU WNUMENT . INV = 249.5 ikMER }dETER OESCRiBED) INV S) = 250.90' \ 2cy$ O N � VALVE WNOIE INV SE) = 251.10' NX SigRPd 01 NA4ttCOlE ❑ CATCH BASAL _ t =WOOD OW gal,_ Tm - DWOUMS PwWAL -y SITE TFU CONWMS i" = 20'-0° GAS LINE 5ANAARY $E1MER LINE wBURM 7EWWNE UNE A B 0 C D E WATER LINE SCALE IN FEET 20' Sunset Way Residence Height Calculations E18vatlon Sub Total Ave3rags A 223.0 B 2433 C 2512 D 231.5 Total 946.8 2372 Bldg Ht - 25.0 Max Bldg Ht.Elc 262.2. PROPO5I=D ROCKERY AT EAST PROP LINE. NEW DRIVEWAY CUT NOT TO — EXCEED 14% #18101 4" PERF, PIPE PAVER SUBDRAIN TO CB ^�s 3' 'VOOD FENCE, EX. GRADE AT PROPERTY LINE —\ .... A K 1 / % EL 100.60 EXISTING 0 " I- Ln o0 N Ll EXIST FOUNDATIONIS)TO REMAIN QUEST ELEVATION. 1''2�' ,�. J/DIM LINES FROM PLAN 9Y" , N ® CL OF COLUMN SIMP ABU44 COLUMN BASE CONT 1" CHAMFER AROUND PRIMETER OF FOUNDATION (2) 2" PIN PILES W/ (2) #5 BAR 7 ALT DIRECTION 101 uu 2X4 @ 16" OC X4 PL W/ POWER ACTUATED FASTNERS TO JC, 24' OC MAX GRADE VARIES IORZ #4 BAR !" PIN PILES W/ (2) #6 BAR ALT DIRECTION PT 4X4 COL SEE: 20/A101 PT DBL 2X8 HF2 x PT 4X8 HF2 PLAN rm COL FOUNDATION SECTION rd COL FOUNDATION FRAMING PLAN 6 1/2" - 1'-0" 7 1/2" - V-0" V 1/4" = V-0" ^" DIA PIN PILE ,TYPICAL TWO PER OTING HOT DIP GALV SIMP CC46 — 3/4" X T SLOTED BOLT )LE, TYP EA SIDE AAINTAIN 1" CLR BETWEEN— DNC AND BEAM BOTTOM S END c) zv TSIDE FACE OF JOIST AND (LING, TYP PLAN @ RAMP FOUNDATION 1 1 1/2" ®1'-0" TOP GUARD RAIL 4" CONC SLAB SET ON 4" GRAVEL BASE -(7) #4 BAR CONT (2) 2" PIN PILES W/ (2) #5 BAR ALT DIRECTION ;1 SECTION @COL FOUNDATION 1 L 1/2" V-0" WWF 2X4 FRAMING WITH PT 112" PLYWD SHEATHING EA SIDE — PT FASCIA W12X CAP AND FLASHING ' CS16 STRAPING, NAIL AT MIDPOINT BLKG & AT EA JOIST 2X4 TREXK DECKING PT 2X8 HF2 JOIST, 16' OC MAX PARTIAL, RAMP ELEVATION SECTION AT RAMP 1�1/2"f- 17 1/2" — 1,_o" y" I 9I V-W2" L E f I I I I 6 I 101 � f 4 N r ?—, ----- f 1 I ® ® I Cq I I I TROWEL FINISH WALKING SURFACE FOUNDATION PLAN 13 2X4 TREX DECKING THROUGHOUT RAMP PT 2X8 Q 16" OC EDGE OF EXISTING DECK SIMP CS16 STRAPPING ALIGN CROSSING WITH CONT BLKG CONT PT 2X8 BLKG OUTLINE OF EXISTING HOUSE OF EXISTING DECK OF EXISTING Z Zone Setback: Front Sides Rear Other Hei t // EL 100.60 100.60 / / / / / OUTLINE OF EXISTING HOUSE AND DECK, TO REMAIN UNCHANGED EXISTING / EXIST ASHPALT 45-10" EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVEWAY TO BE PAVED WITH CONC DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN 1 7 q' i DRIVEWAY GRADE PLAN R p e t—••j O 40 CU � Tad � �0 � +� �I IIIIII�IIIIII�I � I IllUllll II IIIIIIIII) IIIIIII • r-�( T^TC�3 w IIIIIIIIIIIIIII �'{V..! err/ � II�IIIIIWImill �� Illla ulll IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIII mlllauumill IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII Iillllllllllllllllll e PHQ IIIpIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIII il�lll��lull II �J I I II I�IIIIIIIII�I� ..�L Il�lll�ll�al a. ca cl � A C rA 0 o� A � SHEET TPI? E: PARTIAL SITE PLAN BRIDGE PLAN PARTIAL ELEVATIONS SCALE: DRAWN BY: NOTED ADS DATE: CHECKED BY: 07125AV ADS er PROJECT NO.: FILE NAME: 12282-03A 282-03 A0101 SHEET NO.: IJEVELc � OF [D"!OI�DS VICES Gl lt. 4 4 TRAFFIC CONTROL P NITS Rrchitects Ds 600 Main Street, Suite C Edmonds, WA 98020 425.778.5400 FAX 778.3032 i TYPICAL WARNING SIGN LOCATION JUL 2 9 2002 PERMIT COUNTER TRUCK ROUTE AND DIRECTION SUBJECT SITE(S) Shapiro/Colwill Site ,Grading Traffic Control Plan Sign Chart Sign No. Sign Type 1 Construction Ahead 2 Flagger Ahead; 3 Trucks Entering Highway 4 IFlagger Location, with Radio Truck Route: I. North on aath Ave West 2. Left onto Private Drive, (188th Pl) 3. Off Load at site 4. Exit onto Olympic View Drive 5. Trucks to head to 7ro.th Ave West f�A'4 Etter �-2-3257 4 SHAPIRO / GRADING ,PPROVED AS T D BY Date: �\- o - coZ r COLWILL SITE JULY 293,2002