The URL can be used to link to this page

18140 84TH AVE W.PDF111111111111 7818 18140 84TH AVE W ADDRESS: zk��l — eEIZ11-11, /M25 Al TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: X 5��o 010 /g/e72 10 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS: eV:Lz1q DETERMINATION.,><Conditional Waiver E] Study 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 $: SHORT PLAT FILE: ID61-11 SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SOILS REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: LID #:— 126 IT LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: /-1 c)- 1 —7 LATEMMST'sTormAStreet File Checklist.doc City of Edmonds STREET FILE critical Areas Determination Applicant: I Darrell Jacobson Determination CA-2002-224 Project Name: I Jacobson Rockery Permit Number: PC-02-55 Site Location: 1 1814084 1h Ave. W. Property Tax Acct M 5960-000-012-00 -1 Project Description: 3' cut rockery to the north and east of house The attached plans and photographs found in File # EE02-157 show a rockery that has been constructed at 18140 84 1h Ave. W. The site was issued a Critical Areas Determination of "study required" because of the possibility of a Steep Slope Hazard Area on the property. Staff has determined that due to the scale of the project, its location on. the site, and the fact that the rockeries appear to be constructed for the purpose of retaining minor cuts rather than supporting fill, it is appropriate to issue a Conditional Waiver for the project. Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study associated with this development permit is hereby Waived, as authorized by Chapter 20.15B.040 (A)(1) of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Star Campbell Name Signature 1/2/2003 Date RECEIVED CITY OF EDMMDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/WM&IEF-BII&IME� [> N (k P\ F_ L_ L_ 1� N COB-$ 0 Nk MAILING ADDRESS r�) li 4- 0 8.6,-" CITY ZI P ITELEPHONE EDMONID �._7 2-- 8 NAME PERMIT EXPIRES USE Zo PERMIT NE 13 NUMBER ZW� JOB SUITEIAPT# ADDRESS IS1140 3L47-(4 VF_. k1 PLAT NAME/SUSDIVISION NO. I LOT NO. L D NO. LID FEE S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP ft—se ft— .—I, EXISTING — PROPOSED— SUest Use Pernid Read -esceen W_ sid—sall—ir. REQUIRED DEDICATION— FT — undens— ei-o"o"". 13 METER SIZE LINE SIZE PRV REQUIRED I YES 13 E3 U REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTRO GE L/DRAINA CITY Zip __rLEPHONE NAME CIBIL I TENGINEERINGFIEVIEWEDBY IWI 510Z ADDRESS 0 -To PEOWIT' L�UAWF_ FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE CITY ZIP 0 U TELEPHONE STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION D7Tr� VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADS# INSPECTION RE OYES XNO B ONO POST D $ _ Q PROPERTY TAX C OUNT PARCEL NO. 11 0 0 5 cl) (0 0 C) (:)a 0 1 �z oo SEPA REVIEW COMPLETE EXEMPT EXP I )< SIGN AREA ALLOWED PROPOS HEIGHT ALL WED PROPOSED NEW RES11 NTIAL [3 PLUMBING / MECH LOT C VERAGE ALLOWED 0 PROPOSED REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) FRONT SIDE REAR PROPOSED SETBACKS Fr) FRONT UR SIDE REAR C COMPLIANCE OR ADDITION COMMERCIAL 13 CHANGE OF USE PARKING R LOT AREA It=ED BY DATE L: .,. " -)�a rk" REMODEL MULTIFAMILY 13 SIGN E] GRADING c FENCE E:] REPAIR CYDS X Fr) DEMOLISH TANK 13 OTHER c GARAGE, RETAINING WALL E3 FIRE SPRINKLER z CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM =t�� z. L� I _20 c) C, Z), \Wq<�e_ C) (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: S""" CHECKED BY Cj� OCCU GROUP PANT 6 NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF U WELLING NITS AREAS CRITICAL/,3��, N UMBER SPECLIALIDNSPECTION [AREA OCCUPANT REQUIRE [3 YES LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS z PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC I 08/FINAL INSPECTION REC-D PR TE-,utPCF_-0 Poc��?,Y WPiLL- -TW f 64 ( WALL-c; E:1K_1rE1ADlI1,�(, VA VALUATION $ F_ A-T H kq F_ W, -To E t\,=, -i I, P%LL- 'JE Description FEE Description FEE DIF b E t4 51E: Plan Check Pla State Surcharge HEAT SOURCE GLAIING LOT SLOPE % SLOPE % g —Per Buildin mit Bul CI ty Surcharge PLAN CHECK NO,:, VESTED DATE Plumbing Plu THIS PERMYT AUTHORIZES ONLYTHE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORKTO t: 8 E DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC D MAIN (CURDS. SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE 0 Mechanical Grading Iz SEPARATE PERMISSION. PERMIT APPLICATION: ISO DAYS Engr. Review PERMIT LIMM. I YEAR - PROW ED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN ISO DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Engr. Inspection in *A PLICA111, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HIRSPOUSE. EIRS. AS SIGNS AND SUCCESORS INPINTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF 2 EDMONDS. WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRE Ly CT Fire Review Fire Inspection Plan Chk. Deposit Receipt # X FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE a DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapeinsp. Total Amt. Due 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Recording Fee Receipt III I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER, I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC. TION: AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERS ON WILLi. BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLAT E LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHI NGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN�so;*�;TtHsATICW INSURANCE AND R.W 1.21. ITIGNAIIM�M�RA"GENT) DAT SIGNED 5- 02- ATTENTION IT -IS -UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL CALL U,,Tts appficinion—or a pennitunel signed by the ding Oflicial or his/her Depwy: and Fees us paid. and FOR INSPECTION receipt 11 e.knwitogeo—pa.. p,.id.d C IA i'GNA4 0 TE (425) 1 �z 7W 771-0220 'RELEASED BY 'DATE EXT 1333 )a&1_1 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL 08 A CERTiFl- CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 L'C�RIG;NAL - FILE /YELLOW INSPECTOR PINK.OWNER'- GOLD -ASSESSOR 04/02 GREEN, ACCOUNTING PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES APPLICATION for The City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERMIT EASEMENT No . .................. ....................... NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS 0 ............... .......... ................................. CONTRACTOR=-.= .. -,-PER1= No.,.. ADDI-IESS* ---------------------------- ------------ - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . ........................ ------------ ........ BLOCK No . ......... ...... ... ....................... ---- ------- NAME OF ADDITION .... .................................... 7 11 -SITUB — sT, 7� /A/ -4<2s --- RL ts�s.--rA \/V ,Q�VA /Aq, Approved: c> DATE ........... c�� ........... .......... ........ B Y ..... .. The',XVty of Edmonds APPLICATION for SIDE SEWER PERMIT NEW CONSTRUCTION kg� REPAIRS EASEMENT No'. .— ..................... .......... OV,rNER, ... .... ...... .......... ................... CONTRACTOR.. S ...... ...... PERMIT No...��- ADDRESS ...... 1� ......... ........... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BLOCK No . ............................................ .......................................... NAME OF ADDITION ..................................... i 1,7j W------ I-- 4,_ li,'M, I T- ON SIDE SEWER, E T OF, I iE Ic W XTA" SEWZP.;-DEj?ART.M-ENT' T -.11 PERMIT 12,17; I , G 'ti of: :th f ti Call� 7-76-iifi`,I�� i�r'tsidei'�sev�6r Inspectlo IPEFOItE,,.,,6veri:ng-.,�an�,,;p r o e, conp ri�p omN nspecffbn.�wifi be"pi6vid irg-ait6z�. cq e-stt N0,jSat_,Sum j.'jor 'holiday. Inspeotions.)' _�d4lthin',2,4 lior ADDRESS iLOG ATTON OF tGONSTRUXT-11014 ... t ....... ................................................ .......... .................................... .. . ........ i,.i,;. -C ou ...................... ........................................................................................... ......... ....................................... ........................ ....... % ..................... ...... ............. ....... ................. ............................... . ................. 7. ........... .............. f ....................................... ........... .............. OMMER ANWOR BUILDE& ........... ...................................... � ................... .................................. ................. N�TRAC-T-OR!S'-NAM,E-,&,/A!DDR�ESS ....... ........... ............................. ......................... ...................... ....................................................... . . kc, enYdsiion'r1's'-i'granted ........ 'o 9!'.'*:"- k�!and/or� connection'.of a side sewer,, to�...Ahei city'�sariltary trsewer,,.. ............ Ces ystemilln aecordan�e with Ziiy o moi4s 4�' .c?rdinan 'TENTION IS, CALLED TO, TiIE FbLI,,1O1*ING' 4 .�taj. Side 'Sewer Contracto� must bc,cmpI6Ycd,Ao, construct _jF-E No. 1:—The owners of the properLy may onstruW.sewer iiisld�lpropertylline� n - - . - -, , " _ : : _. % , '.' - - - -. . I t side,,sewer'l streetarea. 'boacit co,venany�-,portio`n' of -sewer before IL., has been,:inspected:, Vo.;.2—AM.work -performed. In city right-of-way,�.0auires',an4 1 -lUght-of-WELy�,Perqlit.�obtELinable from -the -City. Engineer's ciffice. Isivasaign', of NOTE No,' 3—,Obtain,.fUll inforindt]Qn"Lreiii�ink�,Or'�ibane'e Af. 16.030��d'.R69ul�tions*.'gov�rr;ing ;1de �s6v�' it Fs when -you. gct Perin u 46chei coycragiio,0 1. 'bend ope r6hiii * -6 ''minimum NOTE :No: 4—Top,of side sewer-Qsi' hi�� .)64tt& �r 'r'ty.' fin6�and-'12`i inside" roperty line, ii� I n. -grade ;p grade.'df'L2 % shaxper than bgrmitte'01 N ee e �Io' al- tion. Conti�act6rs` shall be responsible 0 OTE',No. �!-�Trenches_ In strbet mak: be" water settled and --surface' 6f str Cre�itoi,d' origin- -'co'ndii due.,t , improper whlch�iiiay: diiV�Iop' within,.one year �df completion..].,, j, r r n Js nrbVlded -'f6� in. th��pekniitj'-`or it .,NOTE,.No. "It �Is \unlawful "fo' _a'Iter -,'or', do -any othe w.o, k:tha 0,do,,any.-�w, ork;.on the main sewer or.tts'appuhen�nces�,except 16 -in- "pipe. Info the wye.' se rtt;the VIL: .......... a e... DISAPPROVED,'lEy, D ti ........... .................................... BY-!,: ....... .. Date ....... 0:... ......... A -PROVEb*�!' ....... F .. ... . ....... ......... ....................................... % 'Relytirki ......................................... ............... . . ... ............ .... . .......... ........................................... .. ...... ..................................................... ............................... ......... ............................ ................................ . ................. ........... ............ ......... ........ ...... ..................................... - -------- 7 P 'rmi ,'OPies:' T, ('e-',Sign6d'.By,O�(i,ne-i;':of;-.Fiffri�,Perf6rminL--.C6niti-�ction..�PRIOR'T�6 -Requ6kF;or,1nspe�-tl6' �_-BOTH, e n tfiat7t 'initallation,(co'n t' iedunderAhispe mift YT .............. . ............ .............. ..��:,',:Ihereb 6rtifw he isidesewer s ruc Owner! C6ntractini -Per f6rm iri�_.Const r.Lkiun)' df-'tt. -Ed d Is nstalled:1maccordance w—i 1 gov&niTig,.qrdinances1 fii�!Cfty�,of: ,.M911, S..� .......... .. . .................... ....... 'aie&-.thjS._.;:61. Y_ (9 .................. h�,�r OFFICE COMW 'IC 'r Ns DATE April 20, 1972 I R FROM TO EET FILE William J. Nims Harry Whitcutt Building Official Assistant Engineer FORM 41 - LITTLE'S 7.3, SUBJECT: Building Permit Application forl ,A - The Engineering Department requests a plan showing contour, grading, building location and utilities. The building nite topography indicates a natural drainage swale in .0 existance, thorefore, we are requesting additional information. -Y CITY of UNONDS PUBLft MOM DEPARTMENT Routing bf Building Permit Applications !,ror-osed Property Address of Application: 8403 184th Street South West DEPARTMENT COMMENTS DATE W A T E R .04e 41 ,97- o�,OIWOY S r' Water meter is installeU within approximately two weeks of the order for game S k E t T 0 0, got- 1; L W E -F 302 QdA~-fAJ1% N J T E S Lee. "EPARTMENT COMMENTS 9/1/71 MA ERE; 7W 'lot, S to I - I lift 1 � J ~ �m� - ~ 91 PERMIT � � .~.~~ (oft _--~-~__'~.~ . .. ._— � .__' Tell [I no REPAIR PRE-UOvv IN4P. emu POOL BUILDING MUMMING PLOT PLAN Undicate Building satbocks. obutfing Strooft) HEAT & GAM 9,1141111 FENCE hECEIVED SIGN SWIMMING, POOL. DMMQLMON will ft employ" to "down of um I~ cast of Go Manor wommilown gm MOUNT TW appliftuaft Is not a p"Mut Mtn owl 1110 plated to AM ammum.) w:1-w �J— DMPAXTUMT _ 'i " " NOTICE* u r�a-cy- N�owar�anty-o- a -cc The information'shown on the attached map(s) was compiled for use by the City of Edmonds, its Employees and Consultants. The City of Edmonds does not . warrant the accuracy of anything set forth on these map(SI). Any person or entity -requesting a copy should conduct an independent inquiry regarding the information shown on ffi'�� -m a p (s), including, but not limited to, th-e location of any sewer stub shown. Such sewer stubs may or may"not exist and may or may not exist at the location shown. Neither the c-ity of Edmonds nor its empto-yee-s o-r offiCer-s sh-a-1.1 be I-Jalk-Dll-e for the in ormation given on this map(s), nor for ion provided based any one representat' upon said map(s). City of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant: JaWbOOVI Property Owner: JacA:> to a o vi Critical Area File CIF -A 1/0 D ?� 0 -?nk Permit Number: Site Location: I %I Lg) Parcel Number: Project Description: C to�W—' Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. 1. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. F� Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. 6Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordancew'ith ECDC 23.40.120, Mitig ation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. V/ Any alterations permitted to the critical area'are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. F-1 Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its.impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and the provisions of the City. of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The- proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. F� Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). A -/X&VWVV ReViewer' § fgnature Date LA Revised 12/07/2010 P 1-7 14- 01 ALA3 M �5t I 2oo EX ROCKERY EX S ROCKERY EX HOUSE S*S -S S "SS EX ASPKALT ORK ,DRLvM ALL SITE PLAN Zone 0 ComerhLFlag_LL_ latback A t I j -Front Sides 05 Rear ------- Other I leip ,ht M2 — 6 lil" G U 3,vq W A 5385 N ONA L 02126114 gp� JACOBSON RETAINING WALL "* DATE 02/28/14 SHEET PROJECT NO. 13184.10 /18140 84TH AVE W Vry OF Ef)M0!4wQ EDMONDS, WA 98026 6NGINGeRING SCALE I" = 40' 250 4TH AVE. S.. SUITE 200 TITLE DRAWN BY JCS SO.2 EDMONDS WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE (425) 778-8500 CHECKED BY DMT IAX (425) 778-5536 SITE PLAN APPROVED BY CAG rLul uAlt: If,-/ — HLt NAIAU bU.,l CITY OF EDMONDS 121 �TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT -to C. Planning - Building - Engineering September 24, 2002 Resident (Connie) 8403 184t' St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: CHANGE OF AbbRESS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR This letter is to inform you�of your address change. Per your- request and in order to better serve your lot (emergency services, postal deliveries etc ... )this change is effective immediately: 8403 184 th St Sw has been chonqe4to 18140 84t� Ave The City will notify all applicable departments of this adUFFEM-chnnge—rT i's your responsibility to notify all other interested parties, including the Post Office. Please call me at (425) 771-0220 with any questions.. Thank You. Permit Coordinator Cc'. Fire Police Public Works Utility Billing Address Files Street Files Engineering Building Official ADDRESS.DOUTENP/BLDG Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan I STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: -el 89 . Public Works 9 Planning Parks and Recreation Engineering " C�w 0 - 19 ,December 10, 1991 Antony Teras 8403 - 184th St. S.W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Dear Mr. Teras: PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR I am writing this letter in regards to your water/sewer account billing for 8403 - 184th St. S.W. On August 30, 1991, the City of Edmonds read your meter and it showed a consumption of 51 units. This was not out of range at this time and was considered to be okay. The next billing period we read your account and I noticed that the meter reader indicated a possible misread from the previous reading which would account for the low billing in August when you should have received a larger bill for the leak that occurred in this month. When the error was caught in billing the leak actually looked like it showed up on the billing period of 8-30-91 to 10-30-91. I hope this letter will assist in your efforts to obtain reimbursement form your insurance company for the leak on your private service line. Sincerely, 'e' x/ve-,S) Ron Holland Water/Sewer Supervisor RH/cc attached: account history TERAS/TXTWATER Incorporated August 11, 1890 9 ` ~ 12/10/91 8:41:31 AM CITY OF EDMONDS Inquire Customer History 60 UB2011 DETAIL Wstomer Key Wstomer No. 333625 TERAS ANTONY E ]ld No. 30812700 Tran Description/ Tran Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Seq Type Amount Balance 11/26/91 10/30/91 000991 2-1 0001 428 000 I 36.20 434.31 i1/26/91 10/30/91 000991 1-2 0001 428 000 l 21.65 398.11 W26/91 10/30/91 000991 1-1 0001 428 000 l 376.46 i0/08/91 P 91.44- 39/25/91 08/30/91 000563 2-1 0001 51 000 1 36.2D 91.44 59/25/91 08/30/91 000563 1-2 0001 51 000 l 3.00 55.24 19/25/91 08/30/91 000563 1-1 0001 51 000 I 52.24 52.2+ 19/03/91 P 91.44- W/25/91 07/02/91 000512 2-1 0001 51 000 I 3h.20 91.44 97/25/91 07/02/91 000512 1-2 0001 51 We I 3.00 55.24 )7/25/91 07/02/91 000512 1-1 0001 51 000 I 52.24 52.24 06/12/91 P 16.89- )ue Date Total Currert 1 2 3 0/20/91 434.31 .00 434.31 .00 .D0 W-Dtl/Sum End of History for this Customer Co.d6-Cst Re(::: W-Cst Sry Help 2 = CONTINUE 7 = END 2 Cmd5-Src Add CmK8Notw� 04-20 SA MW KS IM II S1 KB 2/10/91 8:41:31 AM CITY OF EDMOHDS Inquire Customer History UBIM11 DETAIL :ustomer Key ustomer No. 333625 TERAS ANTONY E ]ld No. 30812700 Tran Description/ Tran Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Eeq Type Amount Balance /5/28/91 05/08/91 000461 2-1 0001 24 000 I 36.20 66.89 )5/20/91 05/08/91 000461 1-2 0001 24 000 I 1.67 30.69 W/2G/91 05/08/91 000461 1-1 0001 24 000 I 29.02 29,02 )4/23/91 P 59.65- )3/28/91 03/07/91 000437 2-1 0001 20 000 I 32.60 59.65 M28/91 03/07/91 000437 1-2 0001 20 000 I 1.47 27.05 03/28/91 03/07/91 000437 1-1 0001 20 000 I 25.58 25.58 12/12/91 7 67.84- )1/28191 01/09/91 000417 2-1 0001 29 000 I 32.60 67.84 11/28/91 01/09/91 000417 1-2 0001 29 000 I 1.92 35.24 )1/28/91 01/09/91 000417 1-1 0001 29 000 I 33.32 33.32 11/02/91 P 77.84- )ue Date Total Current 1 2 3 2/20/91 434.31 .00 434.31 .00 '0� W-Dtl/Sum Fill in required information and press enter Cmd6-Cst Rec.:: W-Cst Sry Help 2 = CONTINUE 7 = END 2 Cmd5-Src Add Cmd8-Hotes 04-20 SA MW KS IM II S1 KB 12/10/91 CITY OF EDMONDS UB2011 8:41:31 AM Inquire Customer History DETAIL lustomer Key ;ustomer No. 333625 TERAS ANTONY E )Id No. 30812700 Tran Description/ Tran Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Seq Type Amount Ba)ance 11/26/90 ' 11/08/90 -- 000388 - 1 - -- 0001 - 40 --' 000 I - - 42.78 - 42.7B 10/10/90 omlk P 0"179.66- 09/24/90 09/14/90 000348 2-1 0001 42 000 I 32.60 71,.66 09/24/90 09/14/90 000348 1-2 0001 42 000 I 2.56 47.06 19/24/90 09/14/90 000348 1-1 0001 42 000 I 44.50 44.50 18/09/90 P 75.11- 57/23/90 07/11/90 000306 2-1 0001 37 000 I 32.60 75.11 07/23/90 07/11/90 000306 1-2 0001 37 000 I 2.31 42.51 07/23/90 07/11/90 000306 1-1 0001 37 000 I 40.20 4J.20 36/12/9('! P 66.02- Due Date Total Current 1 2 3 12/20/91 434.31 .00 434.31 .00 .00 nd2-Dtl/Sum Fill in required information and press enter Cmd6-Cst Rec nd4-Cst Sry Help 2 = CONTINUE 7 = END 2 Cmd5-Src Add Cmd8-Notes 04-20 SA MW KS IM II S1 KB 12/10/91 8:41:31 AM CITY OF EDMONDS Inquire Customer History UB2011 DETAIL Wstomer Wstomer Key No. 333625 TERAS ANTONY E ]ld No. 30812700 Tran Description/ Tran Date Sry Date Reading Type Rate Cons Seq Type Amount Balance 15/21/90 05/09/90 000269 2-1 0001 27 000 I 32.60 66.02 75/21/90 05/09/90 000269 1-2 0001 27 000 I 1.82 33.42 )5/21/90 05/09/90 000269 1-1 0001 27 000 I 31.60 31.6D J4/16/9('i P 65.97- D3/22/90 03/15/90 000242 2-1 0001 31 000 I 28.92 65.97 03/22/90 03/15/90 000242 1-2 0001 31 000 I 2.01 37.05 13/22/90 03/15/90 000242 1-1 0001 31 000 I 35.04 35.84 0/13/9@ P 76.88- 01/22/90 01/10/90 000211 2-1 0001 44 000 I 28.00 76.88 )1/22/90 01/10/90 000211 1-2 0001 44 000 I 2.66 48.88 )1/22190 01/10/90 000211 1-1 0001 44 000 I 46.2F 46.22 Me Date Total Current 1 2 3 12/20/91 434.31 .00 434.31 .D0 .00 nd2-Dtl/Sum End of History for this Customer CmM-Cst Rec od4-Cst Sry Help 2 = CONTINUE 7 = END 2 Cmd5-Src Add Cmd8-Notes 04-20 SA MW KS IM II S1 KB December2W -Palve- 6H-31 Figure 6H-13. Temporary Road Closure (TA-13) Note. See Tables SH-2 and Orl-3 for the meaning of Ove symbols and/or Wer codes used in tft figure. SwL 6HAI W"t'r City ..Of Edmonds Permit No: 61-745' RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date:' [5 /0 A. Address or Vicinity of B. 'Type of Work (be specific):' XW=�� 4� g&W W C7. Contractor: Mailing Address: 1_4F; VI _1_ k9 k-. 1 Phone: Ne�c_=— !944--t - (_Z��qq State License Liability Insurance: 1 Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable Side Sewer Permit # 'applicable E. Fl. Commercial El Subdivision El City Project F1 EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) F Multi-Fam Single Family ily Other INSPECTOR: F. PAVEMENT CUT: El YES 's No G. SIZE OF CUT x CONCRETE CUT: El YES NO INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by hislher signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmonds harmless ftom 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 attorneyfees by reason ofgranting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOW!NG THE FINA L INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WfLL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BYCITYFORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBITOR CREDIT WfLL BEPROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT. '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) 206-155-305 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 -DIP (1-800-424-.5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEPGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMITA VAILABLE ON SITE A TALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: kt-ontractor or Agent) OR. CITY USE ONLY Approved by:. R%nin Time Authorized: Void Afier -Z-71 02— Special Conditions: D" 1hen t7— Date: 21r,s_ ng%= I I C40L Right-of-way Fee: Disruption Fee/Fund 111: Restoration Fee: Total Fee: Receipt NO: 2.04-98? Issuedby:, SMZCM1M UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WOR.K,AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326). FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK. ow DATE: G7/101,1:3 Inspectori Signature L_ For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout.. NO WOIZK SlIALL Iff GIN I'MOIZ TO 1'l',11ZMlT ISSIJANCE D:%My Documents\Forms\Engnmg\ROWpermit_.doc City of Edmonds Permit No: (9,2 — RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT IssueDate: 111g102, � — Apo .A f�fi,_ ( " 4nAAk 4A-4%_ � , I I t. I '1� /' \11 16 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: B:. Type of Work (be specific): C. Contractor: (lei, Mailing Address: Lrbw- .2�pv *".0A1< State License #:—A Contact: Phone: 1pys' �p 9 Liability Insurance:!407 Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. n C6mmercial El Subdivision Fl. City Project F] EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) Multi -Family 1k, Single Family Other INSPECTOR: F. PAVEMENT CUT: El YES [8 NO G. SIZE OF CUT X CONCRETE CUT: El YES NO' INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application helshe 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 attorneyfees by reason ofgranting 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 PATCiI IS COMPLETED BYCITYFORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBITOR CREDIT WILL BEPROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT. * Traffic control and public safety shall be in iccordance 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 Cit� 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 (1-8004�24-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HA VE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THA T I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT A VAILABLE ON SITE A TALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: Date:.1-0 -4 (Contractor or Agent) 4 FOR� CITY USE ONLY Approved by: -cD. A I L"? 7— Time Authorized: Void After 61 OS' / 0 3 S4PM_ 6 L-Od AMP eta& Special Conditions: F, EU OF A4 L.Qakti) 60AV4MR- 9&KPaALSiAL-E Right-of-way Fee: -7 41 S- Disruption Fee/Fund III: Restoration Fee: Total Fee: Or) - Receipt No: c2OS76 Issued by: 10 / LA EX 7- -UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326) FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED woRk DATE- 15114 /0 3 rns�ector's Signature ForInsliection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. DAMy Documents\Forms\Engnmg\ROWpermit—.doc Geotechnical Report Proposed Retaining Wall 18140 84 th Ave W Edmonds, Washington Project 1714-01 August 1, 2013 Prepared for: Darrell Jacobson 18140 84 th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Prepared by: The Galli Group 5034 18'h Avenue NE Seattle, Washington 98105 206-525-5097 E� I R (7 � �' � V FE a, MAR - 6 2914 DEVELORAENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDIVIONDS STREET FILE Table of Contents SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 1 3.0 CRITICAL AREAS DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 2 3.1 CRITICAL AREAS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS ...................................... 2 3. 1.1 Erosion Hazard Areas .............................................................................. 2 3.1.2 Landslide Hazard Areas ........................................................................... 2 3.1.3 Seismic Hazard Area ............................................................................... 2 3.2 SLOPE MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................ 3 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 4 4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGY .................................................. 4 4.2 SITE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ...................................... 5 4.3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ................................................................. 6 4.4 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 6 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 8 5.1 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK ........................................................... 8 5. 1.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures ..................................................... 8 5.1.2 Temporary Excavations ........................................................................... 9 5.2 LATERAL EARTHPRESSURES FOR RETAINING WALLS .................. 9 5.2.1 Driven H-pile Wall with Timber Lagging ............................................... 10 5.2.2 Pile Supported Concrete Retaining Walls ............................................... 11 5.2.3 Pile -supported Segmental Retaining Walls ............................................. 12 5.3 BACKFILL AND COMPACTION ................................................................... 12 5.4 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 12 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS .................................................. 13 6.1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................... 13 6.2 LIMITATIONS .................................................................................................. 13 LIST OF FIGURES: Figure I Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site Features Figure 3 Geologic Map Figure 4 Slope Stability Analyses — Section A -A' Figure 5 Earth Pressure Diagram Figure 6 Retaining Wall Schematics APPENDIX Logs of Exploratory Borings Geotechnical Report Proposed Retaining Wall 18140 84 th Ave W Edmonds, Washington August 1, 2013 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Galli Group performed a geotechnical investigation of the property located at 18140 84h Avenue W, in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our investigation was to identify the subsurface soil conditions on the site and to provide retaining wall recommendations for maintaining slope stability and supporting walkways on the south side of the house. This geotechnical report summarizes observations from our research and subsurface exploration performed on the above referenced property. It also presents our recommendations for the geotechnical design elements of the project. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is located on the on the north end of a north -south trending ridge in north Edmonds (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map.) The existing residence is situated west of 84 1h Avenue West, on a slope that descends southerly toward an upland ravine that descends gradually toward the west. The slope is inclined at about 60 percent or 1.6H: IV. The proposed site development plan includes construction of a retaining wall along the top of the slope to help support the flatwork and prevent undermining of existing house foundations and settlement of the outboard edge of the existing driveway (see Figure 2, Site Features). The project will include regrading of the upper portion of the slope to construct the walls. Because the slope is inclined steeper than 40 percent and due to the underlying soil conditions the site meets the criteria for designation as an erosion hazard, and landslide hazard (ECDC 23.80.020). The site does not seem likely to meet the criteria for seismic hazard designation. This does not mean that the area is at risk of erosion or slope movement, but requires that these hazards be addressed and mitigated as necessary in order to construct the planned improvements. 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 3.0 CRITICAL AREAS DISCUSSION 3.1 CRITICAL AREAS AND CODE REQUIREMENTS A review of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) indicates that site might be governed by Critical Areas regulations. Below we have discussed the elements that apply to the project site with reference to ECDC code requirements. 3.1.1 Erosion Hazard Areas The ECDC defines Erosion Hazard Areas as areas possessing steep slopes in excess of 40 percent (see below.) Erosion hazard areas include: "areas of the city of Edmonds that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. This group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur on slopes of 15 percent or greater: a. Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes); b. Alderwood/Evereft series (25 to 70 percent slopes); c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes)." (ECDC 23.80.020 A(l) The slopes on the south side of the house are inclined at about 60 percent and are about 10 to 14 feet in height. The Soil Conservation Service maps the area as underlain by Alderwood gravelly sandy loam. Because of these topographic and mapping conditions the project site would be designated an Erosion Hazard Area. 3.1.2 Landslide Hazard Areas The inclination of the slope at the south side of the residence and steepest portion of the slope appears to be on the order of about 60 percent. The slope has a wide ravine at the toe that defines the lower limits of the slope. Section 23.80.020B defines "Landslide Hazard Areas" as follows: Landslide hazard areas are areas potentially subject to landslides based on a combination of geologic, topographic, and hydrologic factors. Within the city of Edmonds landslide hazard areas specifically include: "any area with a slope of 40 percent or steeper and with a vertical relief of 10 or more feet except areas composed of consolidated rock." (ECDC 23.80.02OB(2). The project site qualifies for designation as "Landslide Hazard Area" due to topographic features. 3.1.3 Seismic Hazard Area "Seismic hazard areas" are areas subject to severe risk of damage as a result of earthquake - induced ground shaking, slope failure, settlement, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface faulting." (ECDC 23.80.020C) The project site appears underlain by dense glacially consolidated soil, or glacial outwash at depth. This dense material does not present a risk of deep-seated slope movement, seismic liquefaction, lateral spreading, or surface rupture. Provided the new foundations are supported on native undisturbed soil, the risk of seismic -induced settlement is not significant. 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 2 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 Our slope stability analyses indicates that the risk of slope failure due to seismic ground shaking is limited to shallow slumps in the loose surficial soil rather than deep-seated slope failures or failures that would impact the residence or planned improvements. In our opinion the site does not represent a severe risk of damage due to seismic induced ground shaking. In the report sections that follow we have described the site soil conditions and the subsurface geologic conditions. The site appears underlain by dense glacially consolidated sediment. The project site contains steep slopes and presents risks of erosion. In our opinion it does not present a significant risk of seismic liquefaction, slope movement, or erosion if conventional Best Management Practices are followed during site improvements, and our recommendations are followed during project development. 3.2 SLOPE MITIGATION MEASURES The existing residence is located about 5 feet away from the top of the steep slope. The residence is within the recommended minimum buffer or building setbacks (ECDC 28/.80.070 A(l a and lb). The proposed improvements are confined to a previously developed area and include the following: • Construct a short (5 feet retained height) retaining wall at the top of the slope to prevent headward migration of the slope through erosion. • Construct a short wall to support the outboard edge of the existing driveway to allow repair of the settled portion of the driveway Alterations to areas within buffers or steep slope areas must meet the following requirements in order to be permitted: "The development will not increase the surface water discharge or sedimentation to the adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions." (ECDC 23.80.070 2a). Previous runoff occurred as sheet flow across the driveway and possible discharge from downspout at the southwest comer of the residence. No additional runoff will be generated from construction of the proposed wall. We recommend the following mitigation measures: • The downspout runoff must be directed via a tightline pipe to the toe of the existing slope but remain on the property. • All disturbed slope areas should be mulched and replanted prior to the wet season. 2. "The development will not decrease the slope stability on adjacent properties." (ECDC 23.80.070 2b) Our slope stability analyses indicate that the proposed retaining wall will improve the slope stability of the site and have no adverse impact on adjacent sites. We recommend the following measures to help maintain slope stability: 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 3 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 The downspout runoff must be directed via a tightline pipe to the toe of the existing slope but remain on the property. The discharge should be dispersed by means of a lateral spreader or a rock blanket. All disturbed areas must be mulched and/or blanketed with erosion control mats prior to the wet season. Permanent erosion control should consist of amending the disturbed soil and replanting the slope. 3. "Such alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas." (ECDC 23.80.070 2c) The project site is across from a steep slope separated by a broad swale that does not appear to channel surface water runoff. The proposed improvements will not impact other critical areas. No additional mitigation measures beyond those described above are needed to protect adjacent sites or critical areas. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS 4.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS AND GEOLOGY The site is mapped as underlain by glacial till (see Figure 3, Geologic Map). Glacial till generally consists of unsorted mixtures of silt, clay, sand and gravel deposited over the existing landscape under and in front of the advancing glacier thousands of years ago. It is noted for its very dense consistency, stability, excellent foundation support, and ability to stand unsupported in near vertical relief. It is also relatively impermeable. Advance outwash consists of material deposited in fluvial environments in front of the glacier. Glacial outwash consists of material deposited as the glacier receded northward thousands of years ago. It can contain granular material deposited in fluvial environments and also clay and silt deposited in stream margins or topographic depressions. Based upon our subsurface exploration and site reconnaissance we found loose to medium dense sand mantling very dense soil at depth. We interpreted the site as underlain by glacial outwash mantling dense glacially consolidated soil which we interpreted as advance outwash. The surficial soils might be recessional deposits or they could also be advance outwash deposits reworked during original excavation and construction activities. The topography of the area tends to descend from northeast toward the southwest, and the site descends approximately 10 to 16 vertical feet from the main residence to the toe of the slope and the broad ravine. The existing residence is situated about 5 to 8 feet beyond the top of the slope and the deck appears supported at or near the top of the slope. The hillside was extensively covered with vegetation and a thick layer of woodland debris at the time of our site visit. Several 14 to 16 inch diameter Maples dot the slope. The proposed site improvements call for construction of a pile wall along the top of the slope. The proposed wall will prevent unraveling and slow headward erosion of the top of the slope that has migrated toward the existing residence. 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 4 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 4.2 SITE SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS On June 28, 2013, we drilled three exploratory borings on the lot and hillside. The purpose of the borings was to evaluate the subsurface soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed improvements. We drilled three borings to approximately 30 feet below grade near the top of the residence and near the existing driveway (see Figure 2, Site Features), sampling at periodic intervals, identifying the soil and detennining the density through Standard Penetration Testing. The detailed results of our drilling and sampling are provided in the Appendix. Generally the site appears underlain by three soil units. The uppermost soil unit consisted of fill material. Some of it appeared derived from the site material and some of it appeared imported (near the existing entry to the house and near the outboard edge of the driveway). The fill appeared as loose, sand with silt, and about 12 feet deep near the southwest comer of the deck. Near the entry to the house the fill appeared as medium dense, silty SAND with gravel, and was measured at about 6 feet deep. The fill underlying the outboard edge of the driveway appeared as loose silty SAND with gravel, and was measured at about 8 feet deep. We interpreted the material near the deck as undocumented fill. The material near the entry was interpreted as imported sand and gravel with moderate compaction. The material under the driveway was interpreted as imported sand and gravel with little to no compaction. The second unit we encountered in all three boring locations appeared as loose to medium dense, SAND with silt, and contained traces of organic matter in the upper portion. The material tended to become slightly denser with depth and displayed evidence of weathering. The unit tended to extend to about 19 or 20 feet below grade. We interpreted this second unit as native, weathered, glacial outwash. The deepest unit encountered in all three boring locations appeared as dense to very dense, SAND with silt, and contained lenses or layers of poorly graded medium sand within the unit. The near surface groundwater within the soil formation appeared to perch on top of this denser unit or to travel through it in the poorly sorted sand layers. We interpreted the lowermost unit as glacially consolidated advance outwash. The upper units appeared moist during our investigation. The sandy consistency would allow them to readily transmit water downward through the unit until it encountered a relatively less permeable layer or lens. Generally the soil appeared wet near the contact with the dense underlying glacial outwash at about 20 feet. We observed no indication of springs on the slope or wet conditions on the slope or at the toe of the slope. Generally the site appeared well drained. We did not see evidence of deep-seated slope movement or shallow colluvial slides during our site visit. The upper portion of the slope displayed evidence of settlement and possible gradual migration downslope due to human foot traffic and natural erosion processes. Cracks in the driveway appear to be a result.of settlement and gradual lateral displacement of the 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 5 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 surficial soil after water penetrated the cracked pavement surface. The soil movement seemed more representative of settlement than it did of sliding. The core of the hillside appears stable and the surficial soils appear stable but could be subject to erosion and gradual migration downslope if not protected by vegetation or possibly retaining walls in steeper areas. 4.3 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS The site appears underlain by dense glacially consolidated sand with silt and gravel. There does not appear to be a permanent water table near the surface. Based upon these site factors seismic liquefaction does not appear to be a significant concern. The risk of seismically induced slope movement does not represent a significant threat to the project site, although ground shaking would exacerbate the headward retreat of the top of the slope. Retaining walls would mitigate the headward retreat and loss of support for the house foundations. 4.4 SLOPE STABILITY ASSESSMENT The slope on the site appears comprised of medium dense SAND with silt mantled by loose SAND with silt on the outboard edges. It appears that the house might be founded on imported structural fill, while the deck at the west side and the driveway were constructed over undocumented fill or loosely placed imported fill respectively. Topography of the site indicates that the slope on the south side of the house might have been oversteepened during construction resulting in its current oversteepened condition. The core of the hillside does not evidence any slope movement and the settlement of the deck and the driveway appear to be a result of settlement within the uncompacted fill material combined with erosion. Some shallow sloughing of the surficial soils on the slope might also occur as a result of human foot traffic. We performed a simple slope stability analysis of the hillside using XSTABL in order to determine the theoretical factors of safety of the slope in its current condition and level of risk to the existing residence. We utilized the soil conditions observed in Boring B -I since they appear to represent the worst case conditions. We utilized soil parameters representative of the geologic unit, density, and consistency of the soil observed in our subsurface exploration. These are presented below: 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 6 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 TABLE 1 Slope Stability Design Parameters SaY Unit Internal 01)esion Lateral acceleration Type Might Ri�Ubn C, Psf due to sdsrdc Z, 29 _j, dl�rees eved Loose S*lD \Ad 120 32 100 0.25g Sit (RLL) Mod dense SAND md silt 120 34 200 0.25g GLACIAL OUTV\PSH Very cler� SAND v1d Silt 125 36 200 0.25g GLACIAL OLMAASH We modeled the slope for seismic conditions and for static conditions at the steepest portion of the slope presented as Section A -A' in Figure 4. We also modeled the slope assuming a gravity wall or modular block wall placed 8 feet from the existing house. The results of our analyses are provided in Table 3, below. The critical failures surfaces are also depicted on Figure 4, Slope Stability Analyses. TABLE 2 Slope Stability Analyses Results Critical Failure Surface Description Factor of Safety* (FOS) Reference File Static Seismic XSTABL Files Existing Slope Condition 1.86 1.20 1714001A; 1714001B Failure that impacts house 1.3 1714001 C Slope with Gravity Wall - 1.1 1714001 D Pile Wall Post Construction 2.0* 1.4* 1714002a:1714002b *Assumes added anchor capacity of 1000 lbs per linear foot of wall or from embedded H-Piles Based upon our analyses it appears that the hillside in its current condition is marginally stable under static and seismic conditions. The most likely type of slope failure would be shallow colluvial slumping due to extreme runoff events, broken irrigation or water supply lines, or uncontrolled discharge from a roof downspout. These risks can be mitigated by vegetation and drainage measures. However, gradual erosion would likely continue from human foot traffic due to the narrow access around the house. 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 7 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 Adding a gravity wall near the top of the slope (if it were not pile supported) would reduce the factor of safety (FOS) for seismic conditions to 1. 1, making the slope marginally stable. The wall would also likely experience settlement if supported on conventional foundations within the loose surficial fill. Constructing a pile supported wall with tiebacks would reduce the risk of settlement, shallow slope failures, and undermining of the house to acceptable levels. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The slope south of the house appears underlain by loose undocumented fill and poorly compacted imported sand and gravel mantling a unit of medium dense to dense SAND with silt and gravel. The following geotechnical issues should be addressed in the proposed development of the site: The upper portion of the slope can be stabilized against downslope erosion and potential loss of support for the existing foundation by constructing retaining walls. The loose consistency of the surficial soil does not lend itself well to conventional concrete foundations or a concrete wall. The retaining wall should be pile supported transferring the loads to the dense underlying soil. All drainage from the impervious areas and, downspout collection system should be routed to the toe of the slope near the prope rty line and dispersed by means of a lateral spreader or rock blanket. The site soils present moderate risk of erosion and should be protected by conventional BMPs during construction and by means of mulching and planting after construction. The sections below address these geotechnical issues and other aspects of site development for the proposed project. Provided the recommendations in this report are followed during design and construction of the improvements, the proposed construction may proceed safely under appropriate geotechnical supervision. 5.1 SITE GRADING AND EARTHWORK 5.1.1 Temporary Erosion Control Measures Best Management Practices commonly observed should be employed during construction. We anticipate these will include the following: Maintain the street free of sediment during excavation and hauling and when mobilizing equipment to and from the site. Mud and silt tracked from the site should be removed or cleaned by the contractor. 2. The grading should take place during the drier months between May and October if at all possible. During heavy rain temporary excavations should be protected with 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 8 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 plastic sheeting. The grading activity should be completed in time to stabilize the slope prior to October 3 1. 3. Exposed soils on the slope should be protected with a 3" layer of mulch once grading is completed. Planting can occur after the mulch is placed. If grading ends too late in the season the geotechnical engineer might recommend additional measures to stabilize the slope through the wet season such as erosion control mats or wattle&. 4. Stockpiled soil should be protected during wet weather by use of plastic sheeting. Generally stockpiles should not remain uncovered for more than 2 days during the wet season or 5 days during the drier summer months. 5.1.2 Temporary Excavations All temporary cuts exceeding 4 feet should be shaped no steeper than I H: IV, unless otherwise approved by the geotechnical engineer. Surface water should be routed around the excavation by use of small berms or shallow swales. Maintenance of the stability of the temporary cuts shall be the ongoing responsibility of the contractor. Runoff collected in the swales should be directed to the toe of the slope by means of a temporary pipe and sump. We anticipate that the contractor will need to construct a temporary bench on the slope in order to construct the wall. The bench should be limited the minimum width necessary to create a safe working platform for men and equipment. The contractor should maintain a wire mesh reinforced silt fence on the downslope side of the bench for erosion control and to restrict sediment transport. At the direction of the geotechnical inspector and depending upon weather, the contractor shall protect the exposed bench with a layer of 2"-4" rock. Upon completion the slope should be restored to conditions existing prior to construction and mulched with at least 3 inches of fertile mulch prior to planting. 5.2 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR RETAINING WALLS In order to prevent undermining of the existing house foundation, and to reduce the rate of headward erosion at the top of the slope, we recommend constructing a short pile supported retaining wall along the south side of the residence and southwest side of the driveway as depicted in Figure 2, Site Features. The retaining wall will be about 5 feet in maximum height and will be located about 8 feet from the existing residence and as needed to protect existing trees on the south side of the driveway. We anticipate the total wall length as shown will be on the order of about 100 linear feet. In the sections below we have provided design recommendations for three alternatives. All walls must be pile supported and include additional lateral resistance from earth anchors in order to prevent future settlement or lateral movement. We anticipate that the pile wall will be the most affordable, but have provided general recommendations for other alternatives as well. The final design and project drawings should be provided by a structural engineer. Prior to preparing those drawings we recommend obtaining preliminary estimates to evaluate the costs of the three alternatives. 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 9 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 5.2.1 Driven H-pile Wall with Timber Lagging One approach for the retaining wall would be to construct a small element H-pile retaining wall. This is accomplished by driving small sized H-piles (W8x26) into the ground creating the vertical wall elements. The H-piles provide support for the wall to prevent settlement by penetrating the loose fill soil into the medium dense native soil. Additional lateral resistance can be provided by earth anchors such as Manta Ray anchors or helical anchors if needed. Between the H-piles the contractor places 4x8 pressure treated timbers to retain the soil. Drainage and backfill are required behind the wall. For the small element soldier pile wall we recommend the following: • Based upon the SPT values obtained during drilling, and the consistency of the underlying soil encountered, we have recommended earth pressures as shown in Figure 5 for design of the soldier pile retaining system. Forces above the base of the excavation should be considered to act on the spacing of the piles. Below the excavation, passive forces should be considered to act on 2 pile diameters. The bottom of the lagging shall be considered to be the base of the excavation although we recommend that the bottom row of lagging be buried. • Surcharge loads within 8 feet of the wall such as traffic loads, material stockpiles, equipment or structure loads should be included in the design of the wall. Consideration should be given to possible temporary loads on the soldier pile wall from construction activity. • A pressure equivalent to 80 percent of the design active pressure may be used to size the timber lagging, provided the pile spacing does not exceed 6 feet. Pressure treated timber lagging should be placed as excavation proceeds. Voids behind the lagging should be filled with free -draining material such as pea gravel or clean sand slurry. Maximum height of the exposed cut should not exceed 4 feet before placing lagging. Lagging should be completed to the base of the excavation at the end of every working day. • An active earth pressure of 35 pcf may be used for calculating the lateral earth pressure against the soldier pile walls. This assumes level backfill. The earth pressure should be assumed to act against the lagging for the spacing of the piles above the excavation. A passive earth pressure of 300 pcf may be used to calculate the lateral earth pressure below the bottom of the excavation for the driven H-sections. The upper 4 feet of the passive pressure below the bottom of the wall should be ignored. It should be assumed to act on 2 pile diameters. A factor of safety of 1.5 should be applied to the passive resistance from the embedded piles. Minimum pile embedment should be at least 14 feet below the bottom of the wall. 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 10 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 9 A backwall drainage system should be incorporated into the design of the wall to avoid additional hydrostatic pressures. The drains should be routed to the bottom of the hillside by means of a tightline pipe. The Galli Group should monitor the installation of the soldier pile retaining wall system. The above parameters are shown on the attached earth pressure diagrams in Figure 5. The design of the soldier pile retaining wall system shall be the responsibility of the structural engineer, utilizing the design parameters provided in this report. 5.2.2 Pile Supported Concrete Retaining Walls For the cantilevered concrete walls, we recommend the following: Excavation for the walls must be accomplished in accordance with the recommendations supplied in section 5.1 above. 2. Conventional concrete footings will likely settle creating problems for the wall in the future. We recommend supporting the concrete wall on a pile -supported grade beam. The piles should be driven to nominal refusal along the line of the wall. The structural engineer should design the grade beam/footing for the concrete wall. The piles should be 3-inch diameter galvanized schedule 40 steel pipe. Each pile driven to refusal may be considered to have an axial capacity of 12,000 lbs, or 24,000 lbs ultimate. q k 3. The cantilevered concrete walls should be designed to resist an active earth pressure equivalent to 35 pcf per foot of retained soil height. This assumes level granular backfill. Wall backslopes must not exceed 4H: IV. Walls with backslope or surcharges should be designed using additional recommendations supplied by the geotechnical engineer. 4. Passive resistance should be ignored for declining slopes below the wall. Lateral resistance for retaining walls constructed at the top of the slope must be supplied by earth anchors incorporated into the grade beam. We recommend use of helical anchors or Manta Ray earth anchors to supply the lateral resistance. The earth anchors must supply the lateral force needed to resist the earth pressures supplied by the retained soil plus an additional lateral resistance of 1000 lbs per linear foot of wall to stabilize the slope to the design conditions (see Table 2). 5. For seismic design an equivalent uniform pressure of 8H acting against the wall (where H = retained height of the soil) may be used to model the pseudostatic force exerted against the wall from a seismic event. The resultant of the seismic force may be considered to act at 0.6H above the grade beam. 6. A backwall drainage system must be supplied for all newly constructed walls. The drainage system shall include at a minimum, a 4-inch perforated, smooth -walled pipe, enveloped in3/4 " to 11/4" washed gravel, and wrapped in Mirafi 140N filter fabric for separation from adjacent soils. 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 7. Wall drains should be collected and routed to the toe of the slope by means of a smooth -walled HDPE pipe mounted to the slope surface. 8. Backfill placed behind the wall should be placed and compacted in thin enough lifts to achieve the compaction criteria listed in the report sections below. 9. The geotechnical engineer should verify that the drainage system, pile installation, and backfill compaction are in accordance with the report recommendations. 5.2.3 Pile -supported Segmental Retaining Walls A third alternative for the wall to consider would be a modular block wall constructed on a pile -supported grade beam. This might realize some savings over the concrete wall and also match the existing walls on the property. The facing blocks should be supported on the grade beam as described in the section above. Similar to the concrete wall alternative, lateral resistance for global stability of the wall must be supplied by earth anchors. 5.3 BACKFILL AND COMPACTION Imported fill soils used as backfill behind walls should be moisture conditioned to within 3 percent of optimum moisture content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in thickness, and compacted to at least 92 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor). The 92 percent compaction criteria should apply to any material intended to support flatwork or intended as backfill behind walls. If structures are planned to be supported on the structural fill the compaction criteria should be 95 percent of the Modified Proctor. In areas not constructed as fill slopes or not intended to support pavement or structures, fill material should be placed in loose lifts less than 12 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. 5.4 DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS Owners of houses built near steep slopes should always be vigilant about maintenance of the drainage systems. In no case should stormwater runoff be allowed to discharge over the face of the slope. We recommend that all downspout connections be collected in a tightline pipe and routed to the toe of the slope where they can discharge onto a rock blanket or in a level spreader. In addition, the wall drains behind each rockery or wall system should be directed to a separate tightline collection system and routed to the toe of the slope and discharged over a rock blanket or through a level spreader. We recommend that an asphalt curb be installed on outboard edge of the driveway that directs water toward the low end of the driveway where the slope is only a few feet high. The discharge area should be rocked with quarry spalls to protect the surface of the slope from erosion. We recommend that buried irrigation systems not be utilized on steep slopes. Leaks can go undetected and saturate the hillside resulting in slope failures. If an irrigation system is utilized we recommend that the system include a flow control or pressure activated shutoff 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 12 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 that stops flow to the system during a pipe break. The system must be depressurized and drained during the winter months. 6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS 6.1 ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services by the geotechnical engineer are important to help insure that report recommendations are correctly interpreted in final project design and to help verify compliance with project specifications during the construction process. For this project we anticipate additional services may include the following: 1. Coordinate with the structural engineer to clarify design specifics and alternatives. 2. Review final design and construction drawings for conformance with geotechnical recommendations, particularly the drainage and retaining elements. 3. Monitor compaction of backfill and verify drainage behind the retaining 'Walls. 4. Monitor drainage and erosion control measures. 5. Monitor installation of the retaining wall system. 6. Periodic construction field reports, as requested by.,the client and required by the building department. We would provide these additional services on a time -and -expense basis in accordance with our Standard Fee Schedule and General Conditions already in place for this project. 6.2 LIMITATIONS This geotechnical investigation was planned and conducted in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards practiced presently within this geographic area. Geotechnical investigations performed by these standards reveal with reasonable regularity soils that are representative of subsurface conditions throughout the site under consideration. Recommendations contained in this report are based upon the assumption that soil conditions encountered in explorations are representative of actual conditions throughout the building site. However, inconsistent conditions can occur between exploratory borings or test pits and not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during construction or subsequent exploration, subsurface or slope conditions are encountered which differ from those anticipated based upon results of this investigation, The Galli Group should be notified so that we can review and revise our recommendations where necessary. If conditions change prior to the proposed construction, we should be consulted so that we may alter our recommendations if necessary. I This report is prepared for the exclusive use of the owner or the owner's consultants for specific application on this project at this particular site. Copies of this report should be made available to the design team, and should be included with the contract drawings issued to the contractor. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions on the site and should not be applied to neighboring 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 13 The Galli Group 1814084 1h Ave W Geotechnical Investigation August 1, 2013 sites. No warranty, expressed or implied is made. We recommend that geotechnical observation and testing be provided during the construction phases to verify that the recommendations provided in this report are incorporated into the actual construction. Respectfully submitted, THE GALLI GROUP Paul L. Stoltenberg, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer 13 1714 Jacobson Geo Rpt Text 14 The Galli Group Ref: Thomas Guide, 2005 The Galli Group 5034 18th Ave NE Seaftle, WA 98105 18140 84th Ave W Edmonds, Washington 98026 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 240 1' m.r.-comm.. 0. oil ----------- - -- NE 114, NW 1/4, SEC 18, TWP 27N, RNG 4E. W.M. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY DARRELJACOSSON INO SM AVEWA W EDUCHM WA W= SSIte 4 212 Survey AL Mapping. In& IN. Scale: 1 10 feet B-1 Approx Location of Boring HOUSE DECK GARAGE B-20 --------------- > —"Y IN, Pos�* Ne�M L ation Top elefttion = 105 N Bftorn of�vall = 180 QCven�i-se6fions arid,17imberi" IN IN, IN", B-3. IN 0 IN FOUND RESAR & CAP(19031) Ne The Galli Group 18140 84th Ave W SITE FEATURES 5034 18thAve NE Seattle, WA 98105 Edmonds, Washington FIGURE 2 44 IT 4 .4 I a ce. 1�17 .3 7. J, I- Ilk" ,A V V ILP " 00i le IS The Galli Group GEOLOGIC MAP 5034 18th Ave NE 18140 84th Ave W Seattle, WA 98105 Edmonds, Washington FIGURE 3 170 r- 160 P 150 �- 140 ' 1.5 — Seismic Factor of Safety (FOS) 8 1.0 ------------------------------------------ 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 PGA in I/og 170 8' Existing Residence Final Grade H-Pile Wall w/ lagging B-1 is FO S=� Seismic FOS 1.44 Se n"c 71 Static Critical Failure Surface FOS 1.86 T Ld Temp. Cut em P. C Z/ st ng S rf Existing Slope Surface — E., pe ace 10 Su 160 Seisrnic Critical Failure Surface dr' cat Failure rface Su 4 loose, SAND Wth silt FOS 1.2 6 — — — — - F1— — — — — — — — — — — 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — — 8 150 n7ed dense, SAND Wth silt -------------- 32 veiy dense, SAND Wth silt 140 62 The Gialli Group Slope Stabililty Analyses 5034 18th Ave NE Section A -A' Seattle, VVA 98105 18140 84th Ave W 206-525-5097 Edmonds, WashinMon Figure 4 B.O.E. r---, d PASSIVE RESISTANCE 300 x D ACTIVE 00 lbs NOTES: 1. Active pressure acts on pile spacing for pile walls = 35 pcf equivalent fluid pressure x Height of wall 2. Passive resistance ignored for grade beam and upper 4 feet of piles on declining slope 3. Passive pressure applied to twice the pile width for driven H-Piles; ignore for pipe piles 4. Seismic pressure calculated as uniform load of 8H where H is height of retained soil 5. Assume ultimate anchor load of 6000 lbs for MR2 anchor; 12,000 lbs for Helical anchor with 678" helix The Galli Group 5034 18th Ave NE 18140 84th AVe W Earth Pressure Diagram Seattle, WA 98105 20&-525-5097 Edmonds, Washington Figure 5 170 160 1501 1401 8- Z5 Final Grade l-Wile Wall w/ lagging Temp. Cut f.111 Slope Surface — /Dose, SAND Mth &It — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — med dense SAND wth siff - — — — — — — — — — ---------- my d&m S4WD wth sill The Galli Group 5034 18th Ave NE Seattle, WA 98105 206-525-5097 �Driven FW�ilevft �Timber Lagging Wall 170 8- .2 Concrete Wall v Final Grade Grade SRW Blacks R W 'a k S B c s 'a suppo ad P Pile supported Grade Beam - P sup 0 ad Pile supported 'le p G re de Bea m Grade Beam geognd >— geogrid reinforcement rm1farcement Temp. Cut Temp. Cut ---------- Existing Slope Surface — 310 pe "'ace 20 degrees SU Existing Slope Surfacme — 160 Pile supported Grade Beam loose SAND Mth silt Earth Anchor or loose, SAND 4M Sift Earlh Anchor — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Pipe Piles driven Pipe Piles driven to refusal to refusal 150 mad. dense, SAND YWh sfft med. dense, SAND Mth sfit ------- ---- -- — — — — — — — — -1Y db..,1'r v4th siff — — — — — — — — — — — — ----------- — wryder4 :S4NDmthwit 140 �Pile Su�fted S�mntall �Retainin �Wall 18140 84th Ave W Edmonds, \Ahshington RETAINING WALL SCHEMATICS Section A -A: Figure 6 Appendix Logs of Exploratory Borings Unified Soil C3assification SysbM from American Society for Testing and Medals MAJOR IDIMSICINS GRCLP SYNBOL GRCLP M4A/E GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% OF a-EANGRAVEL, GN V\ELL-GRADEDGRAVEL, FINETO COARSE GRAVEL GIP IPOORLY-GRADEDGRAVB- COARSE FRACTION COARSE REM NED ON NO 4 GRAVEL V\jTH GM SILTYGRAVB- GRAI NED SCI LS MORE THAN 50% RUA NED ON NO 200 SI EVE SIEVE FINES GC CLAYEYGRAVB- SAND WRE TR4N 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NOA SI EVE CLEAN SAND Svv V\ELL-GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSESAND SID POORLY -GRADED SAND SAND VVTH R NESI SM SC SI LTY SAND CLAYEY SAND SILTANDCLAY UQUDUMTLESS INORGANIC IvL S1 LT CL a7y FINE GRAI NED SOILS MORE THAN 50% PASSES No 200 SIEVE TFIAN 50 ORGANIC CL ORGAN C SI LT, ORGAN c a7y SILTANDCLAY UQUDUMT50OR MORE INORGANIC IvH SI LT OF HGH R-ASTICITY, B-Asnc 9 LT CH CLAY OF 551 PLASTICITY, FAT aAy I ORGAN CH ORGAN C CLAY, ORGAN C S! LT �G�YOI:?GNICSOILS I PT PEAT 10" ZMAI N1 I DITIAM I FCRSILTS AND CLAYS M.11 MAI 011 07-Al * 911 2 0 1 0 A 01, CXMSTENCY STANDAM PENETRATION RESISTANM (SPT) E3LOA6(Fr. \A3:ZY SOFT* 0-2 SOFT` 2-4 NMLMSTIFF 4-8 STIFF 8-16 VERY STI FF 16-32 HARD > 32 The CM 0oW Figum A-1 Project 1714 - 01 Boring Log B-1 7-28-13 Mmunfinn = 4. 1AA fan+ Loa Soil Descrigon Depth Sample SP`r very loose to loose, brown, SAND with silt; trace gravel; contains organic fragments; moist. (Undocumented FILL) 7/ -brown, sand w/silt; trace gravel, organics IS1 1-1-1 \'\/7' -brown, sand w/silt; trace gravel; organic layer at 5' 6'b.g.s.; moist I S2 1-2-2 -brown,sand with silt; moist IS3 2-3-3 \_�7/\\ -brown, sand with silt; trace gravel; weathered —10, streaks; moist S4 1-1-1 Med. dense, brown, SAND with silt; trace gravel; moist (GLACIAL OUTWASH) -brown, SAND w/silt; trace gravel S4A 3-4-4 15' -brown, f-m SAND w silt; trace gravel; moist S5 4-5-3 -driller notes gravel during drilling at 19'b.g.s. 19' a.t.d. ---------------------------------------------- Dense to v. dense, brown,fine-med. SAND w silt; moist (GLACIAL OUTWASH) —20' S6 11-14-18 -20-20.5 f-m SAND; trace silt; saturated -20.5-21.5 bm, wthred, silty f-m sand, sand beds and silt seams -fine to med SAND with trace silt; wet 25' S7 12-39-33 Bottom of boring at 26.5 feet Perched groundwater at 19'during drilling 30' —35' 40' The Galli Group Geotechnical Consulting 18140 - 84th Ave W 5034 - 18th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98105 Edmonds, Washington Figure A-2 Project 1714 - 01 Boring Log B-2 M! fi - � -1 aK F- f- Loa Soil DescriCbon Depth Sample SPT 7/ 7/ Loose to m. dense, gray, well -graded sand and gravel; moist. (Compacted Imported FILL) -gray, well -graded sand and gravel; moist T \-\-7/ S1 8-7-8 -gray, well -graded sand and gravel; moist 5' wthred silty SAND in tip S2 4-3-3 Med. dense, brown, SAND with silt; trace gravel; moist (GLACIAL OUTWASH) -brown,Mhred silty SAND; moist IS3 4-7-6 _brown, Mhred silty f-m SAND (trace to some silt) —10' moist — S4 6-6-7 —15' -brown, med. SAND w trace silt; trace gravel; moist S5 4-5-4 -driller notes gravel during drilling at 18.5'b.g.s. -------------------------------------------- Dense to v. dense, brown, med. SAND w silt; moist (GLACIAL OUTWASH) —20' S6 -on cobble; 3" recovery; silty SANDin tip 30-50/6" -driller notes gravel from 18.5 to 22'b.g.s. 25' -v. dense, med SAND with trace silt (T); and f-m S7 sand with trace to some silt 10-17-19 —30' -v. dense, f-m sand with trace to some silt S8 17-23-30 Bottom of boring at 31.5 feet — No groundwater during drilling —35' 40' L45' 7-28-13 The Galli Group Geotechnical Consulting 18140 - 84th Ave W 5034 - 18th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98105 Edmonds, Washington Figure A-3 J I .' V Project 1714 - 01 Boring Log B-3 Flpv.qtinn = + 1AI fAAt Loa Soil DescriCton Depth Sample SPT Loose, gray, well -graded sand and gravel; \-\-71 7/ ZN\-\ moist. (imported FILL) -gray, well -graded sand; some gravel; moist S1 1-1-1 -gray, well -graded sand; some gravel; moist 5' S2 2-2-3 -gray, well -graded sand and gravel; moist \\/7/ wthred brn silty fine SANDat 8.5' IS3 Loose to m. dense, brown, SAND with silt; trace gravel; — 1-1-1 .7 moist (GLACIAL OUTWASH) -brown,f-m SAND Wth trace silt; trace gravel; —10, S4 3-3-4 organic layer at 10.5'b.g.s. -driller notes gravel during drilling at 14'- 15'b.g.s. -bm, f-m SAND w/ 5-8% silt; med to coarse SAND —15' S5 T 9-13-8 in tip -------------------------------------------- Dense to v. dense, brown, med. SAND w silt; moist r2o, S6 12-14-12 (GLACIAL OUTWASH) -med - coarse SANDw/ bands of silty SAND; wet 25' S7 -v. dense, med SAND with trace gravel 12-16-17 —30' S8 -v. dense,med sand (driven on rock in sampler) — 4-50/4" Bottom of boring at 31.5 feet No groundwater during drilling - —35' 40' L4.S' 7-28-13 The Galli Group Geotechnical Consulting 18140 - 84th Ave W 5034 - 18th Avenue NE Seattle, WA 98105 Edmonds, Washington Figure A-4 1814 uAm' 84TH AVE e% mt�:DMONDO, W AAk 980z6 OMER DARRELL JACOBSON 18140 84TH AVE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 425.275.8922 CONTACT. DARREL JACOBSON CONSULMIS CIVIL/ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CG ENGINEERING 250 4TH AVE S, SUITE 200 EDMONDS, WA 98020 425.778.8500 FAX 778.5536 CONTACT. DENNIS TITUS, PE, SE LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT A, TER MAR, V27, P87, SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WA. PARCEL NUMBER 00596000001200 N"1'452 SSMH?--- 2 4 RIM-140.79- z PROPERTY INFORMATION SS TOTAL LOT AREA = .43 ACRES EX. BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 1,680 SQFT PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT = NOT TO CHANGE TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE = NOT TO CHANGE ss_ SCOPE OF WORK -/Ss- EX HOUSE MrA AMM * " OD' T* STABILIZE SLOPE W/ SMALL SOLDIER PILE WALL & BLOCK WALL -ss- @ 160 TV —1841 too 0\ SCALE.- 11' - 40 lee, r lam m $v PROJECT SITE 18411 ST SW ENGINEERING 250 4TH AVE. S., SUITE 200 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 PHONE (425) 778-8500 FAX (425) 778-5536 GUJ�� Ce/-,0-j-LWA �Q, in 05/04/14 z 0 m w CL . w PE, V IDESIGN: DMT DRAWN: ics CHECK: DIVIT JOB NO: 13184.10 DATE: 03/04/141 —j Z z CO > 01 Zon�...ELLCL Comer-Emaja z Lokc—U dred Front Actual 3 q z 0 'q* CO - 0 Sides v/5 12 Z 4-3 Rear Other m 0 0 mt z 0 Lj I lei ght 00 :2 a V-- LLJ V) OVED SHEET-,,, .4% MAR — 6 2014 0EVEL0R,f1V-Kf SERVICE"�` 3' 1 �1- 01'[Y OF EL)MONDS soul ws 'i